►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – June 13, 2013
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee – June 13, 2013 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
B
Well,
good
morning,
everyone
and
welcome
now
officially
LinkedIn,
so
for
future
posterity.
Anybody
wants
to
look
up
anything
that
was
sad
or
anybody
that
spoke,
we're
all
good
to
go
and
we're
very
tight
for
quorum.
So
we're
just
going
to
check
to
make
sure
where
the
rest
of
our
folks
are.
We
do
know
the
counselor
Hobbs
is
not
here,
because
we
have
the
briefing
right
now
on
the
Western
LRT.
B
A
Like
to
detail
just
on
two
items
and
I
read
this
out,
so
you
can
listen
really
carefully.
It's
fascinating,
I,
better
Podolski
declare
a
direct
pecuniary
interest
in
on
items
four
and
five
on
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
agenda
item
four,
which
is
an
application
to
remove
two
properties
to
73
and
to
75
to
79
Sussex
Drive
designated
under
part
five
of
the
entire
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
the
Lower
Town
West
Heritage,
Conservation,
District
and
item
five,
which
is
the
application
to
reconstruct
the
former
Ogilvie's
department
store
at
124
Rideau
Street
property
designated
under
part.
A
B
You
very
much
confirmation
two
minutes
of
May
9th
anyone
to
have
anything
to
change.
We're
good
carried
okay,
so
we're
going
to
go
through
the
consent
agenda.
We
do
have
a
number
of
speakers
today
and
we're
going
to
see
if
there's
some,
that
we
don't
have
speakers
and
that
we
can
just
carry
on
consent.
The
first
item
up
is
the
application
to
alter
of
6576
fourth
line
Road
a
property
designated
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
in
councilor.
Moffitt's,
read:
oh
good
one
more.
Do
we
have
any
speakers
for
that?
B
Anyone
the
audience
want
to
speak,
kills
her
moppet
yeah
you're
good.
That
carried
number
two.
We
do
have
some
speakers,
so
we
will
say
about
when
that
is
the
application
to
alter
132
Stanley
Avenue
number
three.
Do
we
have
any
speakers
for
a
cult
Hren?
We
don't
have
any
speakers
that
have
formally
designated
they
wanted
to
speak.
Is
anyone
the
audience
want
to
speak
to
the
addition
at
218
Coltrane
Road
in
Rita,
Rock
LeFort?
B
No,
we
did
get
some
comments
or
on
this
application.
So
thank
you
for
those
of
you
that
are
here
that
did
did
comment.
So
is
that
carried,
and
so
we
will
be
holding
number
four,
which
is
the
application
to
move
to
properties
at
273
and
275
to
279
Sussex,
which
vice-chair
Petoskey
has
already
declared
a
conflict
on,
and
we
have
a
actually
I
need
you
to
step
back
from
the
table
for
a
minute
just
go
over
in
the
corner.
I
know
it's
crazy.
B
D
B
So
that's
one
of
the
issues,
I
guess:
are
they
having
the
benefit
of
having
such
talent
on
this
on?
This
subcommittee
means
that
often
who
could
be
involved
in
some
of
the
work
going
on
behind
the
scenes.
So
in
that
case,
now
that
we
are
allowed
to
is
the
mr.
Brisbane.
You
don't
need
to
speak
if
we
are
ready
to
carry
this
okay
because
there
was
Richard
Brisbane
that
had
signed
up
to
speak
if
necessary,
so
for
the
rest
of
us.
Is
it
carried?
Thank
you
very
good.
Going.
B
A
B
E
Good
morning,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
as
you've
just
said,
this
is
an
application
to
alter
132,
Stanley,
Avenue
property,
designator
and
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
the
location
of
the
property.
It's
at
the
corner
of
Stanley
Avenue
and
Queen
Victoria
Street,
actually
just
down
the
street
from
the
application
that
we
looked
at
lat,
the
last
meeting
just
to
orient
whoops
just
to
orient
you.
This
is
61
Queen
Victoria
right
here,
and
this
is
the
property
that
we're
looking
at.
So
it's
quite
close.
E
E
It's
one
story:
bungalow,
clad
in
artificial
stone
with
a
low
sloped
hip
roof.
Just
to
give
you
some
some
of
the
current
conditions
along
the
street.
This
is
looking
west
along
the
Stanley.
The
subject
property
is
at
the
right
just
near
the
stop
sign
across
the
street
from
the
stop
sign.
Sorry,
thank
you.
E
This
is
looking
east
along
Stanley.
You
can't
see
the
building,
but
it
would
be
right
here-
and
this
is
looking
north
along
Queen
Victoria,
so
I'm
south
of
Stanley,
looking
north
towards
the
corner.
So
there's
this
building
here,
which
is
built
in
1967
and
directly
across
the
street,
there's
a
very
similar
building
built
in
the
same
time
period
on
the
other
corner
of
Stanley
and
Queen
Victoria
this
property,
even
though
it
has
been
determined
to
not
be
contributing
to
the
Heritage
character
of
the
district.
It
is
designated
under
part.
E
The
application
before
the
committee
today
involves
the
removal
of
the
roof
of
the
existing
one
storey
bungalow
and
the
construction
of
a
second-story
addition.
The
carport
portion
of
the
building
will
remain
unchanged
and
the
house
is
to
be
converted
from
a
single-family
house
to
a
semi-detached
through
consent
for
severance
at
the
committee
of
adjustment.
So
that's
not
part
of
this
application,
but
it's
relevant
information
for
the
committee.
E
This
is
the
proposed
front
facade
with
the
second-story
addition
to
be
clad
in
stucco.
It
was
determined
that
it
would
be
very
difficult
to
match
the
stone
veneer,
that
is
on
the
lower
storey,
and
it
would
be
advisable
to
have
the
building
to
have
the
new
addition
be
distinguishable
from
the
old
portion
of
the
building.
It's
got
a
812
pitch
hipped
roof.
E
This
shows
you
the
rear
view,
so
the
lower
portion
here
is
the
existing
portion,
which
is
not
having
an
addition
added
to
it,
and
then
the
front
portion
will
have
a
second-story.
This
is
the
side
elevation.
So
this
is
the
long
Stanley
this.
So
this
would
be
between
this
house
and
its
neighbor
on
Stanley,
and
then
this
is
the
side
elevation
on
Queen
Victoria
just
provides
you
with
a
rendering.
So
you
can
see
the
the
final
proposal
in
3d
and
just
this
is
from
Queen
Victoria.
E
E
The
new
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
has
guidelines
for
additions
to
existing
buildings.
However,
they
are
more
aimed
at
managing
category
1
through
3
buildings,
but
in
the
absence
of
anything
else,
we've
used.
The
guidelines
below
additions
should
be
located
in
the
rear
yard
and
should
be
distinguishable
from
the
original
building,
so
obviously
the
existing
sorry.
E
The
Java
was
notified
of
the
application
and
supports
the
alterations
and
their
comments
are
included
in
the
report.
Neighbors
within
30
metres
of
the
property
were
notified
of
the
application
offered.
The
opportunity
to
comment
received.
One
comment
and
I
think
the
committee
has
that
and
the
new
Edinburgh
Community
Alliance
was
notified
of
the
application
and
submitted
comments
in
opposition
to
the
proposal
and
I.
Believe
the
committee
has
those
comments
as
well.
They
were
not
included
in
the
report
because
they
did
not
come
directly
to
me.
E
So,
in
conclusion,
the
department
supports
the
application,
because
it's
appropriate
in
scale
materials
and
detailing
it's
distinguishable
from
the
original
material
from
the
original
building
story
and
the
height
is
compatible
with
other
buildings
along
Stanley,
and
we
will
have
little
impact
on
the
new
Edinburgh
Heritage
Conservation
District
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have.
I.
F
Just
had
one
question,
and
that
was
with
respect
to
the
height
of
it.
You
say
that
it's
compatible
with
the
other
dwellings
that
there's
no
is
that
the
same
height
as
yet
it
was
slightly
lower
or
slightly
higher.
It
does
appear
as
quite
large
with
that
large
roof
on
it
and
I
just
wondered
if
that
was
taken
into
account
and
that
comment.
Thanks
I.
G
So
to
begin,
when
asked
I
appeared
before
this
committee
regarding
a
controversial
project
involving
spots
only
on
this
story,
claims
of
the
Edinburgh
Heritage
Conservation
District
I,
expressed
concern
over
the
piecemeal
approach
to
planning
currently
being
taken
by
developers
and
city
staff.
A
limited
case-by-case
approach
to
review
and
approval
is
frustrating
for
the
community
and
the
Senate
was
leaving
for
this
committee.
Today,
the
staff
report
does
mention
a
previous
proposal
in
2008
to
redevelop
the
site.
G
It
does
not
mention
that
the
proposal
was
vigorously
opposed
by
the
community
and
was
refused
by
committee
of
adjustment.
Then,
last
year
an
application
was
submitted
to
subdivide
the
original
plot.
What
into
three
separate
parcels
of
land?
One
person
to
continue
the
existing
detached
dwelling,
132,
Stanley
and
construction
of
a
semi
detached
dwelling
on
the
other
two
parcels
detailed
plans.
G
Of
the
request
to
sever,
mecca
and
accepted
the
application
in
good
faith
and
did
not
oppose
it
now
we
find
the
existing
detached
dwelling
is
to
be
converted
into
a
semi
detached
dwelling.
Meanwhile,
we
still
do
not
know
anything
about
the
appeals
of
the
proposed
sending
two
charts
drawing
that
is
supposed
to
be
built
on
the
adjacent,
separate
Lots.
G
So
here
we
are
Dee
being
asked
to
approve
one
piece
of
a
puzzle
with
incomplete
information,
the
overall
project
to
redevelop
the
original
wat,
nor
how
this
piece
will
fit
in
yet
the
proposal
for
132
Stanley
is
here
before
you
for
approval
staff
are
recommending
it.
The
outcome
seems
inevitable
and
our
intervention
is
performed
inconsequential
for
the
record.
G
Our
submission
to
this
committee
identifies
our
concerns
about
this
proposal
regarding
over
building
that
results
in
an
absence
of
green
space,
the
failure
to
comply
with
the
zoning
bylaw,
including
the
Heritage
overlay,
the
question
mark
raised
by
inclusion
of
four
kitchens,
which
implies
for
dwellings
not
to
the
roof
design.
That
seems
inconsistent
with
the
historic
neighborhood
and
the
absence
of
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement.
G
Despite
these
concerns,
we
are
realistic
and
jaded
in
our
expectations
regarding
the
inexorable
transformation
and
loss
of
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
So,
although
our
preference
would
be
to
retain
the
1967
era
Bangalow,
as
is,
we
have
proposed
a
compromise
that
would
allow
the
new
construction,
but
with
a
flat
roof
without
any
roof
terrace
stuff.
We
believe
this
might
minimize
the
negative
impact
of
the
new
construction.
G
At
the
same
time,
we
would
suggest
the
committee
might
wish
to
seek
reassurances
from
the
developer
on
two
items:
a
creditable
rationale
for
including
four
kitchens
in
the
proposed
semi
and
current
plans
for
the
two
neighboring
Lots
on
mr.
Rosen's
property,
upon
which
a
semi
was
supposed
to
be
built.
Finally,
and
then
generally,
it
is
our
experience
increasingly
that
we
are
engaged
in
a
fundamentally
flawed
review
process
for
heritage
conservation
in
Ottawa.
If
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
shares
this
concern,
perhaps
something
can
still
be
done.
Thank
you.
Thank.
G
G
G
B
And
whether
any
of
us
like
it
or
not,
that's
not
up
for
us
to
discuss
today
at
the
number
of
kitchens
where
we
we
have
limited
powers
and
they're
all
about
the
Heritage
and
about
the
conservation
district
and
about
what
we
can
do
with
with
the
application
as
it
is
as
it
relates
to
us
here.
I
do
know
and
I'm
going
to
ask
vice-chair
Podolski
to
read
a
motion
that
he
has,
which
I
think
speaks
to
some
of
what
your
suggestions
were:
they're,
not
specific
to,
for
example,
the
the
flat
roof.
A
Have
to
say
that
a
new
Umbra
Heritage
Conservation
District
is
an
exemplary
district
for
Ottawa,
but
for
overseas
and
I
think
that
the
mission
that
has
been
undertaken-
you
know
by
NECA
and
others
to
conserve
it
and
enhance
it-
is
sterling
yeah.
This
is
really
important
that
the
particular
house
you
know
at
this
address
a
built
ironically
in
centennial
year,
which
reflected
those
national
heritage
and
pride
in
the
future
is
I
think
to
be
terrible
modest.
A
I
think
that
the
architects
need
some
help,
and
so
my
my
amendment
is
to
amendment
number
two
yeah
delegate
authority
for
minor
changes
to
staff
and
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
the
following
words
are
added,
including
refinements
to
the
exterior
design
of
the
second-floor
addition
that
more
sensitively
reflect
the
design
guidelines
in
the
new
Edinburgh
Heritage
Conservation,
District,
being
the
delegation
authority
to
the
general
manager
planning
a
growth
management
department.
So
that's
my
amendment,
I
have
to
say
I'm
sure
that
the
idea
of
a
flat
roof
could
be
one
of
the
solutions,
but
I
would.
A
H
B
H
F
I
Thank
You
Madame
chair
members
of
the
committee.
For
those
who
don't
know
me,
my
name
is
Marie
chow
I'm,
a
Senior
Planner
and
project
manager
with
Nova
tech
engineering,
and
we
filed
the
applications
on
behalf
of
the
owner.
Applicant
I.
Don't
want
to
waste
too
much
of
the
committee's
time
repeating
the
submissions
you've
had
heard
from
planning
staff,
but
I
do
think
that
there's
a
few
points
that
need
to
be
emphasized.
I
So
the
proposal
is
before
you
actually
I
think
will
result
in
a
structure
that
actually
is
more
consistent
and
more
compatible
with
the
neighborhood.
There
are
a
few
of
any
other
examples
of
single-story
structures
in
this
neighborhood.
The
vast
majority
of
the
buildings
are
one
and
a
half
or
two
story.
Buildings
and
I
think
it's
important
to
note,
particularly
in
consideration
of
mr.
Podolski's
motion,
that
he
be
immediately
adjacent
building
and
his
one.
I
I
The
architecture
or
the
style
is
being
proposed
here
is
just
as
consistent
with
the
neighborhood
with
a
pitched
roof
and
certainly
more
consistent
with
the
built
form
immediately
adjacent
to
the
property.
We
spent
a
great
deal
of
discussions
with
staff
about
first
design
approaches
in
terms
of
materials
and
window
treatments
before
making
the
submission
to
the
city.
I
So
in
conclusion,
and
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
I,
would
encourage
you
to
support
the
staff
recommendation.
I
think
it's
worth
noting
that
and
I'm
certainly
pleased
to
see
that
the
comments
from
heritage
are
very
supportive
of
the
project
as
it's
being
presented
to
you
today.
If
you
want
to
talk
about
kitchens,
I'll
talk
about
kitchens.
Thank
you
very
much.
H
I
I
That's
on
the
building
and
a
very
substantial
front
steps
and
front
entrance
to
the
existing
house
and
the
double
doors
that
are
on
the
house
today
will
be
maintained,
so
the
ground
floor
of
the
building
is
remaining
intact
and
then
the
second
storey
is
easily
distinguished
from
the
existing
ground
floor,
which
once
again
as
Miss
Collins
indicated,
her
presentation
is
consistent
with
the
guidelines
for
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
So
no,
the
existing
house
is
not
being
demolished.
The
roof
is
being
taken
off
in
a
second
floor
is
being
built.
This.
H
B
B
B
Good
so
we'll
bring
it
back
to
committee
then,
and
we
have
the
motion
that
I
asked
vice
chair
Podolski
to
put
on
the
floor
so
that
we're
aware
and
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
it's
including
refinements,
it's
not
it
doesn't
say
including
major
overhaul,
including
refinements
to
the
exterior
design
of
the
second
floor.
And
so
does
anyone
have
any
comments
to
make?
B
No,
so
we
will,
on
the
on
the
amendment
Gary,
okay,
on
the
motion
as
amended
Carrie,
thank
you,
and
do
we
have
my
date
firmed
up
here
Joan,
we
do
I
forget
what
date
I
suggested,
but
it
was
in
June
right,
yeah,
next
Tuesday,
all
right,
that's
not
for
everybody!
Joan
and
I
are
getting
together,
just
letting
you
know
anyway.
I'll
see
you,
then
so
thanks
very
much
for
those
who
came
up
for
132
Stanley.
Now
we're
going
to
our
item
in
the
last
mr.
H
B
D
B
You
will
recall
that
City
Council
approved
did
not
approve
demolishing
them,
as
was
the
request,
and
so
at
that,
when
that
decision
was
made,
a
process
was
put
into
place
that
specifically
to
these
two
buildings,
how
they
could
be
repositioned
in
order
to
accommodate
the
changes
to
a
modified
Sussex
if
you
will,
but
what
it's
important,
obviously
to
notice
from
the
Heritage
perspective
is
that
city
council
did
value
these
two
properties
and
want
them
to
be
sustained.
So
we'll
have
a
brief,
our
presentation
and
then
speakers.
B
If
anyone
else
who
hasn't
signed
up
in
the
interim
would
like
to
speak
to
it.
Please
do
right
now:
I
have
Nancy
Miller,
Genuine,
hi,
Nancy
I,
see
you
there
I
ready
get
new
glasses,
so
I
can
actually
see
farther.
Otherwise,
it's
like
guessing
it's
good
I'm
getting
to
know
some
of
you
know.
This
makes
it
a
bit
easier
and
Lesley
Maitland.
So
welcome
counselor
for
you.
So
let's
go
ahead.
Please
Sally.
J
J
Well,
that
wasn't
me
so,
and
what
we
are
looking
at
is
the
recommendation
is
to
to
support
the
concept
of
moving
the
two
buildings
and
delegate
authority
for
the
actual
details
to
planning
and
growth
management,
so
as
they
are
located
at
the
north
end
of
Sussex,
just
between
Bolton
Cathcart,
just
as
the
Sussex
curves
here
they
are
in
in
an
aerial
view.
So
this
is
the
it's
it's.
These
two
buildings
are
the
subject:
properties
and
Sussex
it,
and
this
is
Sussex.
J
There
are
other
NCC
owned
buildings
on
the
site,
but
they
are
not
affected
by
this
particular
application.
So
this
is
the
more
northerly
building
a
273,
Sussex
Drive,
and
then
the
the
row
house
which
to
its
south,
so
the
buildings
are
designated
under
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
in
all
applications
to
alter
move
etc,
require
City,
Council
approval,
because
every
single
building
in
a
heritage,
Conservation
District,
is
protected
by
the
heritage
by
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
J
So
the
application
is
to
relocate,
as
we
said,
the
two
buildings
to
accommodate
the
proposed
Sussex
Drive
reconstruction
project
that
will
realign
the
road
allowing
cycling
lanes
to
be
constructed.
So
here
is
the
proposed
realignment.
This
is
this.
This
is
for
to
illustrate
the
concept
of
the
road,
so
it
will
be.
It
will
include
four
traffic
lanes
of
around
three
meters,
each
a
bicycle
lane
of
1.5
meters
and
a
sidewalk
about
three
meters.
The
sidewalk
will
vary
a
little
bit
as
it
goes
around
the
corner.
J
This
is
the
last
piece
of
Confederation
Boulevard
that
needs
to
be
completed
between
between
Cathcart
and
Foreign
Affairs,
so
it
will
can
bring
the
the
furniture
and
etc
for
that
Confederation
Boulevard
into
that
stretch
of
Sussex,
so
the
issuance
of
the
heritage
permit
I'd
say
it
is
that
is
to
relocate
the
buildings
conditional
upon
the
approval
right
now
at
this
particular
point
in
time.
The
final
details
of
how
a
move
was
to
be
accomplished
and
the
site
plan
of
where
the
buildings
are
going
to
go
is
not
completed.
J
It's
under
study
by
vice-chair
Podolski
and
his
firm
so
but
the
NCC
would
like
to
be
able
to
report
to
its
Board
meeting
at
the
end
of
June
what
is
happening
with
these
buildings.
So
that
is
why
we
are
here
in
front
of
you
today.
Without
the
final
plans.
Our
commitment
is
to
as
staff
and
we'll
review
the
plans
for
it
for
them
before
they
were
moving
the
buildings
and
that
will
include
how
they
will
be
moved
safely
and
where
they
will
end
up
and
how
they
build,
how
the
site
will
be
landscaped,
etc.
J
The
city
has
been
involved
with
moving
buildings
through
the
March
house
and
the
horticultural
building,
so
we
there
is
expertise
for
us
to
judge
whether
the
whether
the
conservation
plan
is
sound
and
whether
the
ideas
within
it
are
possible,
and
then
we
also
will
bring
that
conservation
plan
for
information
back
to
the
committee.
So
the
committee
is
fully
aware
of
what
is
being
planned
for
for
the
buildings,
so
that
is.
J
That
is
what
we
are
asking
you
today
and
why
why
it
has
this
large
delegated
authority
when
looking
at
this
particular
application,
we
did
look
at
ties.
We
always
do
there,
policies
that
are
related
to
heritage
within
the
Official
Plan
and
the
official
plan
says
the
relocation
can
be
considered
if
it
is
the
only
way
to
conserve
a
designated
heritage
resource
in
terms
of
the
aspirations
for
the
road
work.
It
has
been
determined
that
moving
these
buildings
eastwards
on
their
lot
lots
are.
J
J
Consultation
heritage,
Ottawa
was
notified
of
the
application
in
its
comments,
are
included
in
the
staff
report
and
neighbors
within
30
metres
of
the
property
were
notified,
and
you
have
received
some
comments
and
plus
the
Lowertown
community
association
was
notified
of
the
application,
and
you
have
received
his
comments
yesterday.
I
think,
and
the
counselor
also
has
been
involved
and
correct
me
if
I'm,
wrong,
counselor
but
I
think
supports
the
the
concept
of
moving
the
buildings
back
on
the
lot
it's
in
the
report.
J
F
Thank
You
manager,
yes,
I,
I,
guess
I-
want
to
congratulate
staff
because
I
know
this
has
been
a
very
challenging
file
and
with
the
original
proposal
to
demolish
some
time
ago,
this
seems
like
a
move
in
the
right
direction.
I
guess
my
concern
is
I.
I
know
this
area
well,
I've
been
driving
it
and
bicycling
it
for
the
last
30
years,
so
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
with
the
layout
and
I
the
first
press
items
I
heard
on
it
and
it's
reinforced
by
the
report.
F
That
having
been
said
that
and
knowing
it
well,
what
was
interesting
to
me
was
is
that
the
the
tightest
spot
along
that
road
is
in
the
block
between
Cathcart
and
Briere?
Not
were
these
buildings
that
were
considering
today
are
that
further
south,
and
that
is
in
the
plans.
They
show
a
bicycle
lane
being
out
of
there.
So
the
question
of
the
raised,
in
my
mind,
was,
is,
if
we
can
add
it
in
the
title
area,
why
does
the
statement
keep
being
made
that
we
have
to
move
these
houses
to
allow
cycling
lanes
to
be
constructed?
B
And
so
just
to
interrupt
and
I
am
interrupting,
because
this
really
is
is
not
that
that
horse
is
left
the
stable.
The
fact
is:
is
that
I
give
you
a
question
whether
your
question
about
the
cycling
and
and
the
width
of
that
or
where
it,
where
it's
tighter
and
all
that
kind
of
thing
it
really
has
to
do
with
what
was
approved
at
the
Transportation
Committee
in
bike
so
and
and
and
that
really
I,
don't
know
what
I
guess
my
question:
what
are
you
hoping
to
accomplish
with.
F
Respect
my
concern
is,
and
the
official
plan
section
4.6.1
subsection
4
says
when
the
location
is
the
only
option,
it's
been
stated
as
being
the
only
option
to
allow
as
I
understand
the
construction
of
a
bicycle
lane
so
I'm,
specifically
referring
to
the
heritage
aspect
of
relocating
the
buildings.
The
the
statement
has
been
made
that
this
is
the
only
option.
F
K
K
No,
madam
sure
that
this
is
a
Heritage
Act
application,
I
think
to
to
mr.
Smallwood's
point,
there
was
a
there
is
a
a
tie-in
with
respect
to
the
Official
Plan,
but
I
think
the
important
thing
to
understand
it
was
very
thoroughly
vetted.
At
the
last
time,
the
application
or
the
application
for
demolition
was
before
the
previous
iteration
of
this
committee.
K
There
were
many
options
that
were
considered
that
were
looked
at.
They
ranged
from
reducing
the
number
of
lanes
to
accommodate
the
cyclists.
They
include
a
cantilever
in
the
the
roadway
over
top
of
the
bluff
on
the
Lady
Grey
side
and,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
think.
One
of
the
key
elements
that
was
associated
with
the
assessments
are
undertaken
was
the
cultural
heritage
impact
assessment
and,
as
miss
Coutts
identified,
the
first
recommendation
that
was
brought
forward
through
that
process
being
involved
in
the
review
of
what
was
being
initiated.
K
The
conclusion
the
recommendation
was
that
we
should
be
looking
at
relocating
the
buildings.
The
initial
proposal
was
to
demolish
that
Kluwer
was
not
accepted
by
council,
so
it's
been
looked
at
again
in
a
very
fair
way
and
again,
the
conclusion
that's
been
arrived
at
and
which
is
reflected
in
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
is
the
relocation
of
the
buildings
is
the
only
effective
way
that
you
can
actually
achieve
the
ultimate
objectives.
With
respect
to
the
improvements
that
have
been
identified,
as
required
for
this
section
of
Sussex
Drive
for
many
many
years.
B
B
F
Just
had
one
question:
I
understand
the
the
the
issue
with
trucks
diverting
into
the
lane
and
I
think
the
issue
is:
is
that
what
this
this
Bend
and
the
road
does?
Is
it
forces
everyone
to
slow
down,
which
may
not
be
necessarily
a
bad
thing,
but
I
wondered
with
respect
to
devotion
and
Alain's
the
the
solution
on
lawyer
Avenue
has
been
a
divided
lane
that
allows
that
stop
co-equals
from
straying
into
bicycle
lanes,
and
that
certainly
would
seem
to
be
a
lot
cheaper
than
relocating
houses.
Was
that
looked
up?
Thank
you.
I'm
sure,
I
think.
K
We're
gonna
get
into
that
level
of
detail.
I
would
prefer
that
doors.
Are
there
more
involved
in
looking
at
the
options,
come
forward
and
respond
to
those
questions,
but
my
understanding
very
quickly
would
be
if
you're
introducing
a
separation.
It's
not
so
much
that
that
would
prevent
that
from
happening.
You
now
have
a
situation
where
they
would
write
overtop
of
that
separation.
So
it's
really
the
functionality
of
the
ability
for
vehicles
to
safely
maneuver
on
one
percent
right.
It
is
a
curvature.
There
is
a
signage
there
right
now
that
will
be
retained.
B
D
Good
morning,
good
morning
welcome,
thank
you
very
much.
I'm
Nancy
Miller
Shanae
I'm,
a
co-chair
of
the
Lowertown
Community
Association
Heritage
Committee.
As
a
committee,
we
are
opposed
to
the
relocation
of
these
valued
heritage
buildings
on
Sussex
Drive
in
the
communities
view.
This
is
not
a
case
where
moving
the
buildings
is
the
only
option
or
the
best
option.
The
Lord
10
Heritage
Committee
believes
that
moving
the
building
sets
a
precedent
for
shifting
the
boundary
of
a
designated
heritage
conservation
district.
D
It
diminishes
the
social
history
of
the
area
and
the
contextual
value
of
the
buildings
to
criteria
under
federal
Heritage
Review
and
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
Such
an
action
is
not
an
accepted
good
heritage
practice.
It
is
clear
that
the
primary
motivation
is
to
facilitate
traffic
flow,
in
other
words,
traffic
speed
to
express
it
over
pedestrians
and
residents.
D
Cars,
trucks
and
buses
are
seen
as
having
more
importance
than
history,
and
this
is
the
history
of
the
oldest
residential
part
of
Ottawa.
Transportation
is
a
higher
priority
than
the
families
that
currently
live
in
these
buildings.
As
residents
of
Watertown,
we
see
many
good
reasons
to
what
these
buildings
individually
designated
and
restored.
As
a
tribute
to
the
remarkable
people
from
our
community's
past,
these
houses
provide
a
symbolic
corner
of
history,
representative
of
Canada's,
rich
cultural
diversity.
D
D
We
observed
in
the
earlier
discussions
about
demolition
that
saving
the
only
single-family
dwellings
remaining
along
Confederation
Boulevard
was
a
positive
statement.
We
support
the
NCC
goals
for
a
Confederation
Boulevard
and
we
believe
that
the
people
of
Canada
and
international
visitors
will
be
pleased
to
see
these
modest
homes
of
royal
canadians
preserved
along
the
ceremonial
route.
That's
dominated
by
institutional
buildings.
D
As
a
community,
we
want
documented
evidence
that
pedestrians
and
cyclists
will
benefit
from
the
straightening
of
the
road
and
the
subsequent
increased
speed
of
vehicle
traffic.
We
are
unclear
about
the
actual
new
location
of
the
structures
and
what
it
might
mean
in
terms
of
loss
of
green
space
and
established
trees.
D
We
are
fearful
about
the
complete
or
partial
collapse
of
the
buildings
during
relocation,
in
summary,
were
convinced
that
the
redesign
of
Confederation
Boulevard
and
the
inclusion
of
cycling
lanes
can
be
accomplished
without
taking
the
negative
action
of
moving
the
buildings.
We
want
to
ensure
the
continued
heritage
value
of
these
buildings
over
the
Need
for
Speed.
B
You
very
much
and
we
can
consider
the
parts
that
you
talked
about
with
regard
to
the
move,
we've
heard
from
our
staff
that
we
have
the
expertise,
because
we
have
moved
significant
buildings
of
heritage
value
in
the
recent
past,
in
fact,
but
we're
not
here
today
to
discover
to
discuss
the
road
alignment
or
where
the
cycling
lanes
are,
or
that's
that's
a
whole
other
committee,
and
that
is
behind
us.
I.
Think.
B
The
important
thing
for
us
here
on
the
Heritage
Committee
is
now
that
that
state
is
that
one
we
did
save
the
buildings
for
sure
and
we
will
do
our
utmost
and
then
heard
from
Miss
Koontz.
We
will.
We
will
ensure
that
they
are
transported
to
their
new
location,
well,
that
they
managed
that
move
well
anyway,
before
you
leave,
does
anyone
have
any
questions?
Do
you
have
anything?
Okay
strikes.
D
That
as
a
question,
it
changes
the
whole
memory
of
Adrienne
Clarkson
and
how
she
interacted
with
that
particular
house.
She
talks
a
lot
about
things
that
happen
in
the
back
of
the
house
as
is
currently
located.
She
talks
about
her
orientation
to
the
street
as
it
is
currently
aligned.
This
would
be
a
question
for
heritage
experts.
J
They
will
be
moved
back,
but
the
edge
condition
the
way
they
look
and
address
the
streets
will
be
the
same
there.
Their
relation
to
one
another
will
be
the
same
and
I
think
that
we've
also
discussed-
and
it
was
mentioned
in
lower
tones
submission
whether
or
not
there
could
be
some
kind
of
interpretation,
some
plaques
or
whatever,
to
to
discuss
the
history
of
the
buildings
in
their
former
site
and
maybe
even
a
little
bit
about
moving
them,
and
we
are
perfectly
willing
to
do
that
and
explore
that
option.
J
Discovered
by
Lowertown
of
Adrienne
Clarkson
playing
in
her
backyard,
it
won't
be
I'm
not
going
to
say
it
won't
be
the
same
backyard,
but
they
still
will
be
green
space
around
the
building's.
The
buildings
will
still
be
there.
They'll
still
relate
to
one
another.
I
think
that
you
know,
given
the
you
know,
that's,
that
is
what
the
situation
will
be
and
I
don't
think
that
the
memories
will
be
obliterated.
I
think
there
still
will
play
an
important
role
on
Sussex
Drive.
B
L
That's
right:
I
just
wanted
to
we've
already
submitted
comments
which
have
been
integrated
into
the
staff
report
and
I
just
wanted
to
elaborate
them
on
a
bit
and
also
to
ask
a
question
for
clarification.
A
heritage
Ottawa
has
approached
the
National
Capital
Commission
to
request
that
the
buildings
be
re-evaluated
by
the
federal
heritage
building
Review
office
once
they're
relocated,
I.
Think
that
there's
general
agreement
that
there's
been
more
research
done.
L
We
know
more
about
these
properties
and
very
likely
a
reevaluation
will
result
in
a
federal
heritage,
building,
Review
office
classification,
possibly
classified
or
recognized
at
federal
heritage
property,
which
would
be
good,
and
we
don't
comment
on
traffic
matters.
It's
not
in
our
mandate,
although
I
realize
there
are
certainly
overlapping
concerns,
but
what
I
would
like
to
suggest
that
this
is
really.
This
is
really
an
opportunity
for
a
good-news
heritage
story
and
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
embrace
the
good
news
when
it
does
those
times
that
it
does
appear.
L
These
buildings
really
tell
the
story
of
the
immigrant
experience,
not
just
in
Canada
but
in
Ottawa
as
well,
and
the
way
that
Ottawa,
in
particular
as
a
community
and
as
the
national
capital
embrace
new
Canadians.
This
is
the
city
that
took
in
4,000
boat
people.
This
is
a
wonderful
opportunity
to
celebrate
that
Ottawa's,
wonderful
track
record
in
that
regard,
2017
is
coming
up.
J
B
Sorry
thanks
very
much
for
coming
out
and
for
your
comments,
because
I
think
that
that
it,
the
bigger
picture
here,
is
that
we
did
decide
to
save
this
and
it's
at
no
small
cost
either
that
we
or
make
it
that
we
made
this
decision
with
our
eyes
wide,
open
and
understanding
the
value.
As
some
as
you
have.
You
know,
you
have
just
stated
I'm
sure
that
miss
Kearns
is
coming
up.
Next
is
going
to
say
the
same
thing
and
definitely
Nancy
Miller
show
me
every
chance.
You
get
you're
defending
the
Heritage
in
your
community.
B
C
That
many
of
us
feel
is
slowly
being
whittled
away.
This
is
another
change
on
the
perimeter
of
the
community,
and
you
know
the
the
transportation
issues
that
have
been
talked
about.
One
of
the
things
this
gentleman
said
it
was
about
of
being
a
very
thorough
study.
Well,
that
may
very
well
be,
but
there
are
questions
fundamental
questions
about
the
way
that
roadway
is
going
to
be
constructed
with,
with
sidewalks
with
bicycle
lanes
and
for
several
of
us
in
the
community.
C
We
want
to
preserve
as
much
as
we
can
of
a
community,
that's
been
attacked
relentlessly
and
so
has
seen
so
much
of
our
history
removed
and
that's
why
these
particular
houses,
like
like
any
of
the
properties
that
are
left
in
lower
town,
are
really
important
and
I
understand
that
there
is
an
effort
being
made
and
a
great
deal
of
expense
to
move
them.
But
you
don't
move
heritage
properties
unless
you
absolutely
have
to,
and
we
question
whether
that's
necessary.
That's
all
thank.
B
You
very
much
for
coming
out
and
is
there
anyone
have
any
questions,
miss
currents,
no
that's
okay,
I
would
have
called
you
back
if
they
did
so
I
think
that
we
don't
have
any
more
I,
see
no
more
speakers
on
on
this
subject,
we'll
bring
it
back
to
committee
now
for
final
questions
or
comments.
Councillor
Clark
well,.
H
We
are
limited
to
the
Heritage
aspects,
not
the
road
aspects.
We
successfully
argued
against
demolition
at
Transportation
Committee
in
council.
We
believe
this
compromise
will
preserve
those
houses
and
it
will
solve
some
problems
for
some
members,
the
community
on
the
roadway,
but
that's
when
I
get
the
transportation
committee,
but
this
is
a
significant
step
forward
in
the
city's
investment
in
heritage.
H
B
K
K
H
B
We
seem
to
be
I
mean,
and-
and
this
is
still
a
very
young
committee-
you
know
the
built
heritage.
I
mean
we
know
that
the
process
before
was
totally
citizen
driven
and
quite
obscure,
as
opposed
to
the
investment
that
we're
making
as
a
city
now
in
the
heritage
and
the
preservation
of
heritage
in
our
city
and
the
understanding
of
what's
important
and
they're
working
with
the
communities
and
with
heritage
Ottawa,
all
the
districts
etc,
and
the
revisiting
of
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
the
right
things
that
it
was
significant.
But
we
are.
B
This
is
not
the
first
time
we're
in
a
position
like
this,
where
either
something
has
been
made,
a
decision
that
committee
of
adjustment,
or
with
regard
to
transportation
or
with
regard
to
any
number
of
things,
and
but
it
is
what
it
is.
And
so,
unless
you
have
more
questions
on
that,
we
are
here
today
to
to
give
the
delegated
authority
to
the
move
of
these
buildings
and
trust
in
our
staff,
the
greater
staff
to
to
work
with
our
heritage
planners.
And
do
it
well.
B
Anyway,
on
the
time
the
subject,
anyone
else
councillor
Hobbs,
can
anybody
nope?
Okay.
Thank
you
very
much
thanks
mr.
stout
for
coming
up
nice
to
see
you
again.
Thank
you
everyone.
So,
on
the
only
motion
that
we
have
before
us
on
the
on
the
application
for
the
properties
on
Sussex
Drive.
Is
that
carried
you
are
dissenting,
then
yeah,
that's
carried
with
one
dissent
being
mr.
Smallwood.
Remember:
Smallwood!
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,
don't
go
anywhere
yet
we're
not
done!
B
J
B
That's
the
ones
we
missed
it
for
sure
absolutely,
but
I
really
think
that
there's
value
in
us
looking
at
attending
wherever
possible
and
getting
that
increased
level
of
interest
I.
Also,
as
a
chair
intend
to
meet
with,
we
are
going
by
the
way
our
our
trip
is
that,
what's
going
to
be
in
June,
where
we're
going
to
be
going
around
to
the
districts
and
with
a
well-organized
tour
we're
doing
that
in
September.