►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – June 9, 2016
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee meeting – June 9, 2016 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
Apologies
in
the
delay
in
getting
started,
so
we
have
a
number
of
items
on
our
agenda
today.
We're
just
going
to
go
through
the
consent
agenda
to
see
if
we
can
dispose
of
any
of
the
items
before
getting
into
them
in
greater
detail.
But
before
we
do
that,
I'll
note
that
councillor
Wilkinson
has
sent
her
regrets
for
this
meeting.
Any
declarations
of
interest
I
see
none
confirmation
of
minutes
from
our
meeting
of
April
14
2016,
great
okay,
okay,
so
on
item
1,
so
going
through
on
consent.
A
First
item
1,
which
is
an
application
for
new
construction
that
667
Bank
Street
they've,
been
a
number
of
discussions
underway
before
the
start
of
this
meeting
and
I.
Think
the
feeling
among
some
is
that,
in
light
of
the
fact
that
there
are
a
number
of
elements
of
this
application,
which
this
committee
is
not
yet
seized
with
site
plan,
some
additional
studies
that
impact
elements
relevant
to
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
that
there's
an
interest
in
deferring
this
item.
I've
had
a
chance
to
speak
to
the
applicant.
A
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So,
on
that
basis,
mr.
vice
chair,
yes,
I'd
like
to
ask
the
committee
to
defer
the
application
for
new
construction
at
667,
Bank
Street
to
the
September
built
heritage
subcommittee
meeting
in
order
to
allow
the
applicant
and
planners
to
deal
with
the
other
necessary
planning
applications
such
as
site
plan
control.
A
Is
that
keV?
Okay?
So
thank
you
to
all
who've
come
out
for
this
item.
Apologies
for
you
coming
without
having
the
opportunity
to
speak,
but
I
do
think
this
is
a
better
outcome
in
terms
of
the
ability
of
this
committee
to
really
deal
with
an
address,
a
number
of
the
issues
which
are
relevant
to
it.
So
I
thank
those
of
you
who
have
come
and
invites
you
to
come
back
when
this
item
is
on
the
agenda.
A
So
on
item
2,
we
have
delegations
registered
to
speak.
So
we'll
have
that
item
on
item
3.
We
also
have
members
of
the
public
registered
to
speak
so
that
item
the
same.
With
item
for
item
5
is
an
update
on
strategic
initiative,
42
the
Heritage
inventory,
for
which
the
staff
were
prepared
to
give
us
a
presentation.
I
think
this
is
a
very
important
item
and
in
light
of
the
heavy
agenda
this
morning,
what
I
would
suggest
is
that
we
defer
this
item
to
our
July
meeting
and
I.
A
A
Okay
to
July,
because
I
think
it
does
merit
a
good
discussion
and
I'm
concerned
with
all
of
our
other
business
this
morning
that
we
just
simply
won't
have
enough
time.
So,
let's,
let's
say
that
that
motion
is
carried
and
then
we
have
will
deal
with
the
other
items
of
information
previously
distributed
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
A
A
A
A
Satisfaction
of
that
condition
granting
the
severance
and
the
setbacks,
and
what
happened
in
the
meantime
is
that
the
original
heritage,
which
was
issued
by
Council,
is
due
to
expire
in
early
July.
I
should
say,
for
the
benefit
of
the
committee
members,
that,
when
this
situation
became
apparent
from
the
legal
department
as
to
counsels
ability
to
extend
the
Heritage
Department,
because
the
applicant
is
in
a
situation
apparently
where
the
necessary
building
permanent
cannot
be
sought
and
issued
before
weeks
of
the
existing
heritage.
A
Permit
and
legal
staff
informed
me
quite
to
my
surprise,
that
council
does
not
have
the
authority
to
extend
the
heritage
permit,
and
so
what
that
says
to
me
is
two
things.
One
of
them
is.
We
need
to
correct
this
situation,
because
this
probably
won't
be
the
last
time
that
we
are
in
such
a
situation.
There,
the
legal
proceedings.
A
Become
strained,
and
so
that's
something
we
need
to
fix
and
to
is
a
situation
where
we've
received
an
application
for
a
new
heritage
permit
because
of
this
anomalous
situation,
and
that
has
raised
certain
tension
points
of
its
own,
which
is
that,
of
course.
In
the
meantime,
there
is
a
new
heritage
conservation
district
plan,
and
so
that
raises
questions
about
you
know.
Under
what
plan
would
we,
as
a
committee,
evaluate
this
application.
A
A
Delegations,
if
it's
important
for
you,
mr.
vice
chair,
to
articulate
your
proposed
course
of
action
in
the
replacement
motion
and
then
public
delegations
and
then
we'll
have
time
for
comments
and
questions
and
then
we'll
vote
on
the
replacement
motion.
Mr.
vice
chair,
thank
you
want
to
say
at
the
outset
that
when
this
application
came
several
years
ago
to
the
Belton
subcommittee,
I
was
one
of
the
ones
that
voted
against
its
approval,
because
the
the
basic
guidelines
of
the
Rockland
Heritage
Conservation
District.
A
It
was
a
question
of
in
my
double
jeopardy,
where
we're
getting
something
to
be
tried
all
over
again
for
the
same
thing
that
they
applied
in
the
first
place.
So
with
that
I'm
going
to
introduce
a
fairly
long
motion
with
a
lot
of
warehouses,
and
so
if
you'd
be
kind
enough
to
bear
with
me
on
this,
I
will
read
them
as
the
justification
for
why
I
would
move
that.
The
both
heavy
subcommittee
recommends
to
planning
committee
counsel
that
this
application
would
be
approved
with
the
other
conditions
that
are
there.
A
Broadcast
journalist,
please
be
be
patient
where
the
City
Council
approved
the
application
for,
and
new
construction
at
565
and
557.
The
far
3500
Prospect
Road
property
designated
under
part,
five
of
interior
Heritage
Act
on
July,
9th
2014
and
issued
at
Heritage
permit
with
the
two-year
validity
period
and
whereas
the
committee
of
adjustment
approved
a
subsequent
application
for
severance
and
minor
variances
on
November
19th
2014
in
relation
to
the
subject.
Properties
and
well,
as
the
decision
of
the
committee
of
adjustment,
was
appealed
to
the
interior
misma
board
by
a
third
party
and
there's.
A
The
Italian
Miss
report
heard
the
appeal
in
September
of
2015
and
issued
a
decision.
On
January
28th
2016,
given
provisional
consent
for
the
severance
and
authorizing
the
request,
advances
subject
to
the
conditions
enumerated
by
the
committee
of
adjustment
and
one
additional
condition.
Whereas
the
decision
of
the
interior,
miss
board
was
then
subject
to
requests
to
for
review
under
Section
43
of
the
entire
municipal
Board
act
and
subsequently
dismissed.
A
Whereas
the
city's
legal
staff
has
advised
that
council
does
not
have
the
authority
to
extend
the
validity
period
of
the
existing
council
issued
heritage
from
but
providing
approved
for
demolition
and
new
construction
at
65,
65
and
575
old
prospect
code
in
the
rock
lift
park,
Heritage
Conservation
District
and
take
a
deep
breath
and
there's
a
new
application
for
heritage
permit
for
the
relevant
properties
has
been
submitted.
In
light
of
the
pending
expiry
of
the
previously
Council
authorized,
houses
permit
and
was
subjecting
the
application
to
a
de
novo
review
would
be
procedurally
and
legally
problematic.
A
In
light
of
the
fact
that
the
application
is
the
same
as
the
one
previously
authorized
by
City,
Council
and
community
judgment
and
as
decided
by
the
interior
miss
award.
Therefore,
we
resolved
that
that
the
built
area
subcommittee,
you
recommend
that
planning
committee
recommend
that
City
Council
one
approved
the
application
for
demolition
of
the
existing
house
at
575,
Wars
Prospect
Road,
to
approve
the
application
for
new
construction
at
575
old,
Prospect
Road.
A
According
to
the
plans
prepared
by
Belichick
Open
Associates
Architects
submitted
on
May,
the
9th
2016
and
attached
as
documented
three
and
four
three
approved
the
application
for
new
construction
at
565
old
prospect.
According
to
the
plan,
is
prepared
by
open
associates
submitted
by
made
the
knives
and
attached
documents
to
and
for
recognition
for
issue
the
heritage
permit
with
an
expiry
date
of
either
two
years
from
the
date
of
issuance
two
years
from
the
date
that
decisions
and
the
Planning,
Act
and
other
applicable
adverse
Asian
are
final
unbinding.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
for
reading
that
out.
Mr.
vice
chair,
what
I
propose
that
we
do
now
is
we'll
go
to
the
public
delegations
and
then
we'll
have
an
opportunity
for
members
of
the
committee
to
comment
in
whatever
way
they
they
wish.
So
the
three
members
of
the
public
signed
up.
The
first
is
Martha
Edmund
from
the
Rockville
Park
residents,
Association
heritage
committee.
A
A
A
A
So
you
can
proceed
to.
She
would
like
to
speak
now
or
you
can
use
one
minute
of
your
5
minutes
that
you
have
now.
You
know,
can
I
just
just
protest
again.
We
have
been
working
on
this
day
and
night
and
day
and
night
for
two
days
now
we're
prepared
to
go
ahead.
If
I
a
motion
did
not
succeed.
We
and
despite
the
extraordinary
pressure
we've
been
on
start
with
Arthur
Martha
Edmond.
She
gets
her
five
minutes.
It
goes
to
me.
I
get
my
allowed
to
speak
twice,
I'm,
not
speaking
to
the
substance
of
it.
A
A
Well,
thank
you.
Mr.
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
I
have
been
asked
to
read
a
submission
by
Brian
Dixon
to
read
it
into
the
record
dated
June
2016
Boeing
Dixon
is
a
vice
president
of
the
rock
cliff
residents
Association
and
unfortunately,
he's
already
not
able
to
attend
today
in
the
interest
of
brevity,
I
won't
read
his
page
submission
I'll
just
highlight
some
of
the
more
salient
points
from
it.
A
A
Expected
a
bylaw
giving
effect
to
the
new
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
or
václav
Park
was
passed
on
March
27
2016,
the
bylaw
was
appealed
by
two
individuals.
The
residents
Association
was
assured
by
City
Planning
staff
that,
despite
the
appeals,
all
new
development
applications
would
be
assessed
under
provisions
of
the
new
district.
As
a
matter
of
policy.
The
staff
report
says
the
contrary
that,
because
the
plan
has
been
appealed,
the
application
has
been
assessed
under
the
former
heritage
guidelines
that
applied
to
rock
the
park
and
I.
Think
the
chair
alluded
to
that.
A
The
residents
association
strongly
opposed
the
farmer
application
to
redevelop
7500
prospect
enjoying
with
neighbors
in
appealing
it
to
the
OMB.
As
you've
heard,
the
appeal
was
allowed
in
part.
Specifically,
they
requested
severance
and
the
variances
were
authorized,
but
the
severance
is
subject
to
a
demanding,
a
condition.
The
condition
requires.
A
The
residents
Association
in
most
directly
affected
neighbors
do
not
want
to
see
rackleff
parks
and
Heritage
character
eroded
by
the
division
of
Lots
in
to
substitute
size.
We
do
not
want
a
compromise
by
insensitive
infill
that
offends
the
streetscape.
We
do
not
want
to
see
the
nervous
destruction
of
trees
and
green
escape
in
order
to
squeeze
or
I
prefer
the
red
shoe
home
to
houses
onto
our
property,
where
there
is
no
one.
A
So
again,
as
we
discussed,
something
of
significance
has
occurred
since
for
application,
the
OMB
has
rendered
a
decision
that
focuses
in
large
part
on
heritage
matters.
The
decision
probably
could
decide
criticized
both
city
planning
staff
and
the
applicant
for
failing
to
address
the
particular
Heritage
character
of
rock
of
park
as
set
out
in
discovering
documents.
The
staff
report
in
support
of
the
present
application
shows
no
evidence
of
having
adequately
considered
and
addressed
the
Army's,
clear
judgment,
homeless,
murder.
A
A
So
viewed
from
Lansdowne
is
a
four
story.
House
standing
forty
feet
above
the
road
level,
approximately
twice
as
high
as
the
adjacent
house.
In
summary,
there
are
a
number
of
aspects
of
this
proposed
redevelopment
that
squarely
diminish
the
heritage
character,
wealth
of
park.
The
BH
SC
rejected
the
former
application
for
this
redevelopment,
and
has
we
contend
good
reason
to
do
so
again,
respectfully
submitted
Brian
Dixon.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
and
I
do
have
a
question
for
the
chair.
A
Mr.
chairman,
this
is
an
Alice
in
Wonderland
situation
and
I
would
request
a
sense
of
fairness
from
this
group
who
were
careful
to
support
the
initial
rejection
when
we
came
before
the
committee
and
I
hope
in
this
time,
they
can
find
some
way
to
support
a
real
examination
of
the
issue,
because
the
situation
has
changed
completely
since
there
have
be
approved
subject
to
conditions,
they
did
not
approve
it
without
those
conditions.
A
The
term
is
based
on
how
many
trees,
the
large
plants
and
the
hedges,
however,
retained
or
relocated
or
replaced,
and
it
shall
address
the
opportunity
for
further
buffering
with
trees
and
shrubs
as
a
counterpart
to
lettuce
being
built
and
to
have
to
enhance
this
park
like
Heritage
character,
particularly
on
the
eastern
and
northern
size.
The
green
buffer,
it
said,
was
to
be
mature,
trees
or
sufficient.
How
to
conceal
or
obscure,
set
the
screen
or
mitigate
the
visual
impact
on
the
streetscape
and
also
the
iconic
views
of
the
heart
Massey
house.
A
The
true
conservation
reports
submitted
to
the
city
by
the
applicant
to
fulfil
this
conditions
says
that
of
the
14
trees
on
the
applicants,
property
because
other
trees
are
on
the
city's
property.
Those
fourteen
tennard
be
removed,
including
two
that
are
the
size
to
qualify
as
protected
or
distinctive
trees.
So
are
those
10
choose
to
remove?
They
were
case
with
miniature
trees
of
a
height
that
could
act
as
a
visual
buffer
as
required.
Is
there
to
be
further
buffering
to
enhance
this
park-like
setting?
No,
the
proposal
is
as
remote
to
do.
Rohmer
then
cat3
Crabtree's.
A
That
can
never
be
high
enough
to
act
as
any
kind
of
visual
buffer.
The
landscape
plan
would
in
no
way
meet
the
intent
or
objective
of
the
OMB
condition
over
the
applicants
landscape
plan,
so
that
no
more
than
those
three
trees
can
be
fitted
on
the
property.
The
only
conclusion
can
be
with
which
you
proposed
houses
on
the
property,
where
there
is
no
wrong.
There
is
simply
no
room
to
a
place
that
will
enhance
the
planting
of
trees
in
the
park
like
setting
we
own.
A
These
condition
cannot
be
met,
so
the
segment's
is
not
approved,
but
here
is
the
astonishing
conclusion
that
the
city
staff
have
conveyed
to
us.
We
are,
and
these
conditions
they
allege
has
been
met
because
the
only
decision
says
that
the
landscaping
plan
should
merely
address
those
opportunities
for
further
buffering.
The
staff
says
with
the
OMB
decision
does
not
mean
that
it
must
include
further
buffering,
so
they
have
to
sit
and
think
about
it,
but
they
don't
have
to
recommend
anything
so
having
determined
that
there
are
no
opportunities
for
a
further
buffer.
A
The
staff
bizarrely
conclude
that
that's
just
fine
everything
will
proceed
just
as
the
applicant
routes.
That's
why
I
say
this
is
Alice.
In
Wonderland
we
submit
the
very
reasonable
fair-minded
person.
This
makes
a
mockery
of
the
only
decision
Immokalee
at
the
time
and
expense
and
efforts
and
those
who
oppose
this
application
to
protect
the
heritage
of
Walker
Park.
A
A
A
I'm
I've
been
a
resident
of
raqqa
Park
for
about
40
years
and
during
that
time
have
enjoyed
living
there
with
thee
was
a
wonderful
landscaping
park
like
setting
and
that's
the
reason
we
moved
there
in
the
first
place
I'm
when
they
bought
our
house,
which
was
virtually
new.
When
we
at
the
bottom
of
Maple
Lane,
there
were
hardly
any
native
trees
around
it.
A
We
planted
a
lot
of
pine
trees,
small
ones
which
have
now
grown
in
large
trees,
so
we're
virtually
surrounded
by
forests
and
which
is
love
for
that
sake,
and
the
same
applies
to
many
of
the
other
houses
in
Roger
Park.
That's
why
we're
there?
We
love
the
landscape.
We
love
the
the
feeling
of
being
out
in
the
country
we're
in
the
middle
of
the
city,
the.
A
By
the
way,
I
also
have
served
as
a
director
and
past
president
of
Proctor
Park
was
Association,
so
I've
been
very
much
involved
with
with
the
village
for
many
many
years
and
and
the
reason
for
that
is
we
love
it
so
much.
We
don't
want
to
see
it
turn
into
just
a
place
with
with
houses
with
with
no
covering
yeah
I.
Think
you've
received
a
copy
of
the
submissions
that
have
been
prepared
by
my
colleague
and
I
will
refer
to
them.
A
I
support
them
and,
in
my
view,
this
application
to
to
allow
the
destruction
of
the
trees
to
build
two
houses
is
completely
wrong.
This
has
been
before
the
overview
or
be
I
believe
it
is,
and-
and
they
have
agreed
that
the
the
the
the
tree
cover
should
should
remain
to
protect
itself
and
the
adjoining
houses.
From
from
from
this
development,
the
the
rocket
of
itself
is
prized
for
its
tree
cover
and-
and
we
have
all
worked
very
hard
as
members
of
lots
of
council
and
etc.
A
A
A
It
should
stay
as
it
is
to
support
this
wonderful
area
is
one
of
only
three
in
North
America
that
is
so
taken
with
the
Queen
space
trees
and
the
beauty
and
there's
a
reason
why
so
many
embassies
have
allocated
themselves
in
raqqa
Park
because
they
love
the
area,
is
closeness
to
the
downtown.
And
yet,
when
you
go
there,
it's
as
though
you're
in
the
country
in
a
forest.
A
The
rest
of
us
Europe's,
as
in
the
submissions
that
have
been
added
to
you
and
I,
don't
know,
there's
any
need
for
me
to
go
into
a
lot
of
detail
about
that.
I'd
say
that
we
oppose
this
application
and
that
this
should
that
property
should
stay
as
it
is,
and
and
and
in
conformity
with
the
decision
of
the
board,
and
thank
you
thank
you.
Mr.
Macklin,
that's
about
all
I
have
to
say
yeah
appreciate
that.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
A
A
A
The
staff
report
says
that
the
application
will
be
considered
against
the
existing
heritage
guidelines
or
at
least
the
former
heritage
guidelines
heritage
plan.
Fine.
So
my
comments
are
based.
The
governing
documents,
including
the
staff
report,
points
to
requirement
visit
that
the
building
should
be
recommended.
It's
citing
and
formless
sympathetic
to
the
surrounding
environment.
This
is
page
six.
The
staff
report
claims
that
the
project
conserves
the
value
of
the
Heritage
Conservation
District,
as
it
does
not
mega.
A
We
impact
the
character
of
the
streetscape
and
of
the
massing,
heightened
setback
of
both
buildings,
make
them
visually
and
physically
compatible
with
the
existing
streetscape.
This
was
dealt
with
over
five
days
at
the
OMB
and
it
came
to
the
opposite
conclusion.
The
fact
is
that
the
new
corner
house
would
be
sited,
so
that
is
entirely
in
front
of
the
adjacent
houses
on
Lansdowne
Road,
which
are
nicely
aligned
with
one
another.
A
As
the
OMB
noted,
the
front
setback
of
the
new
house,
B
would
be
a
fraction
of
a
setback
of
its
immediate
neighbors.
It
noted
that
there
is
no
known
president
precedent
for
this.
The
staff
report
fails
to
consider
these
facts.
The
OMB
points
out
that
the
current
visited
looking
to
be.
Let's
leave
that
okay,
because
I
have
to
move
on
here.
The
only
decision
noted
that
the
applicants
planner
was
a
question
about
any
visual
incongruity
with
some
precedented
sighting
of
the
new
house
with
cars.
A
His
response
was
that
any
such
visual
on,
because
the
new
house
was
too
far,
but
the
existing
house
is
too
far
back
so
I
spent
the
OMB
soffit
to
include
this
exchange
in
its
decision,
because
it
was
astonished
by
the
statement.
The
applicants
planner
was
saying
that
it
is
the
existing
houses
that
are
badly
sided.
Just
move
them
forward
in
the
streetscape
will
be
okay.
This
is
just
plain
city
is
silly.
A
The
legally
binding
walk
through
the
park
secondary
plan,
which
the
staff
report
never
mentions,
explicitly
states
that
New
Delhi
shall
be
compared
with
the
adjacent
developments
in
terms
of
setback.
The
staff
report
does
not
consider
the
secondary
plan.
The
same
thing
can
be
said:
the
height
of
the
new
house,
40-story.
A
The
houses
next
to
it
are
about
half
its
height,
and
the
one
across
the
street
is
less
than
1/4
its
height.
The
excessive
height
of
the
proposed
house
makes
it
visually
and
physically
incompatible
in
the
streetscape
and
when
unquestionably
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
streets,
they
can
control.
Contrary
to
what
the
stock
court
reports
report
claims
and,
contrary
to
what
to
what
the
legal
bind
requires,
we've
talked
about.
A
A
A
Acknowledges
that
it
is
a
primary
concern
for
the
development
of
the
site,
the
impact
on
the
heart
mercy
house.
It
must
demonstrate
sensitivity
to
it.
Now
the
let
us
examine
that.
The
facts
as
I
said
40
feet
versus
the
hot
nasty
who
post
at
nine
feet.
The
new
house
will
do
not
be
twice
as
high
or
even
three
times
as
high.
It
would
be
falling
at
half
times
as
high
is
the
hot
part
Massey
house,
the
excess.
A
Good
morning
and
welcome
to
the
subcommittee,
you
have
five
five
minutes:
Thank
You
mr.
chair
good
morning,
members
of
committee,
my
name
is
buying
casa
grande
I'm,
a
planner
actually
Director
of
Planning
and
Development,
with
four
ten
consultants.
I've
been
involved
with
this
file
since
its
inception,
I've
had
the
pleasure
of
the
ride
from
the
beginning
to
the
middle,
to
the
end,
which
we
thought
we
had
passed,
but
we're
here
before
you
again,
I
think
what
is
really
important.
That
I
think
mr.
A
chary
touched
upon
at
the
very
beginning
in
your
opening
remarks
is
that
the
committee
needs
to
separate
the
issues.
There
was
an
Ontario
Municipal
Board
hearing
that
relates
to
a
committee
of
adjustment
application,
and
that
hearing
was
extensive
with
extensive
delegations
and
plenty
of
witnesses,
and
that
was
ultimately,
the
ruling
of
the
committee
of
adjustment.
There
was
unanimous
was
ultimately
upheld
by
the
entire
municipal
board.
There
was
a
condition
added,
which
relates
to
the
filing
of
a
plan
that
relates
to
an
interest
in
improving
some
of
the
buffering
elements.
That
plan
has
been
submitted.
A
The
authority
to
approve
that
plan
was
given
by
the
board
and
I
believe,
in
my
opinion,
intentionally
to
the
Heritage
Planning
Department,
with
consultation
to
their
forestry
counterparts,
and
that
plans
been
given
the
approval
and
that
condition
has
effectively
been
waived.
So
my
client
is
in
the
process
of
clearing
all
remaining
conditions,
and
once
that
happens,
he
will
effectively
have
to
lots
with
variances
to
build
two
houses.
A
He
is
simply
asking
committee
to
allow
him
to
build
the
house
that
was
effectively
before
this
committee,
Planning
Committee
and
ultimately
approved
by
council
when
this
application
started,
and
he
would
have
been
through
all
of
this
process,
had
it
not
been
for
external
elements
and
circumstances
that
delayed
him
that
were
beyond
his
control,
so
I'd
submit
to
this
committee
that
you
consider
mr.
Podolski's
motion
that,
certainly
one
that
my
client
supports
and
that
will
allow
him
to
proceed
with
the
approvals
that
he's
obtained.
Every
step
of
the
way
in
this
process.
A
A
Okay,
I'd,
like
to
move
now
to
the
discussion
portion
comments,
questions
to
staff.
They
were
small
one
thing
that
was
brought
up
repeatedly
by
all
the
people
that
spoke
was
the
OMB
decision
and
from
what
I
can
gather
during
the
delegated
the
responsibility
for
meeting
that
condition
to
the
heritage
staff,
so
I
guess
I'm
just
wondering
is-
is
that
something
that
has
any
reason
to
come
before
us
once
it's
been
delegated
to
heritage
staff,
it
doesn't
involve
us
anymore.
Is
that
correct,
I
think
it's
best
to
put
that
question
to
mr.
mark
mr.
A
chair
I
had
the
decision
in
front
of
me.
It
has
particular
sections
been
read
out,
but
I
think
it's
worthwhile
to
read
that
once
more.
So
it's
all
in
terms
of
so
I
mr.
chair
I,
have
the
decision
in
front
of
me
cause
in
question
and
portions
are
all
of
it
have
been
better
before,
but
all
good,
you
know
once
more.
It
needs
in
terms
of
timing.
A
The
said
pine,
the
landscape
plan
must
be
submitted
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
heritage
section
of
the
city's
planning
and
growth
management
department
in
consultation
with
the
city
service
devoted
to
our
burst
landscaping
matters
before
the
logs
are
severed,
so
it
was
directly
given
to
the
heritage
section.
The
board
is
well
familiar
with
who
that
is
a
directed
that
they
consult
with
the
forestry
staff
which
I
am
aware,
has
occurred
so
that
has
taken
place.
It
is
not
a
matter
for
the
heritage
review.
Mr.
chair.
B
C
Of
such
it
was
mentioned
earlier,
but
I
would
like
to
certainly
state
that
I
think
unanimously.
We
were
not
in
favor
of
the
original
application.
My
personal
feeling
was
is
that
you
can't
preserve
a
varied
collection
of
large
and
small
Lots,
my
long
larger
ones
to
be
severed.
So
in
no
tall
that
I
see
supporting
this
motion
changed.
A
That
opinion
that
I
had
that
the
it
would
be
improper
to
approve
the
severance
of
large
lots
into
smaller
Lots.
Having
said
that,
I
think
we
lost
that
by
we
discussed
that
we
dealt
with
it
at
length
and
the
issue
has
to
be
taken
up
somewhere
else
other
than
here,
because
we
made
it
very
clear.
Our
opposition
and
I
am
still
of
the
exact
same
mind
that
I
was
before
nothing
has
changed,
but
I
can
I
think
because
of
the
nature
of
this
I
can
support
the.
C
C
Has
resulted
in
the
retention
of
one
Daltry
on
the
site
from
the
original
plan,
the
opportunities
for
further
buffering
were
explored,
explored
by
the
applicants
Forster
and
also
reviewed
by
our
professional
Forester
in
the
planning
growth
management
department,
and
it
was
determined
that
there
were
no
real
opportunities
for
further
buffering.
That
would
not
result
in
competing
with
the
existing
vegetation.
E
C
The
site,
so
it
was
seen
that
the
large
cedar
hedge,
that
surrounds
the
property,
is
a
primary
buffer
and
an
important
buffer
to
the
neighboring
properties
and
that
by
planting
new
trees
on
the
site,
there
would
be
Jeff.
It
would
potentially
put
the
hedge
in
jeopardy
in
the
future.
It's
noted
in
the
report
from
the
arborist
that
the
hedge
cedar
hedges,
as
they
age,
less
tolerant
to
shade
and
new
trees,
would
potentially
shade
the
site.
F
C
C
And
I
should
note
that
the
July
13th
dates
also
provides
any
opportunity
should
be
separate
from
Council
but
related
to
the
OMB
be
exercised.
Clearly,
counsel
would
be
seized
with
the
direction
that
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
were
to
give
in
relation
to
the
severance
and
the
condition
applied
by
it.
So
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
this
issue
won't
be
dealt
with
in
its
finality
until
July
13th
to
defer
would
change
that?
The
second
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
one
of
the
delegations.
C
Recommendations
in
such
a
way
as
to
allow
for
these
types
of
circumstances
and
ensure
that
council
has
the
ability
to
extend
a
being
the
right
thing
to
have
done.
It
would
have
saved
distress
and
unnecessary
use
of
the
public
of
council,
etc,
and
I
can
say
that
we
are
addressing
that.
In
fact,
I
note
that
the
vice-chairs
replacement
motion
ensures
and
is
the
beginning
of
ensuring
that
we
never
have
to
face
this
situation
again.
The
closest
analogy
which
isn't
perfect
but
I
think
we
have
to
consider
is
a
judicial
analogy
in
scenario.
C
C
C
C
C
F
Good
morning,
sorry
for
the
shuffling
there
excuse
me
the
this
report
before
the
committee.
Excuse
me
is
for
the
designation
of
the
formal
overbooked
school
at
149,
King
George
Street
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
The
property
is
located
at
the
corner
of
King
George
and
Grille
streets
in
the
overbook
neighborhood.
You
can
see
it
here
in
this
location
map.
It's
a
lodge
site
was
a
school
and
then
a
large
school
yard
on
it.
So
the
school
building
is
set
in
a
little
bit
from
the
corner.
F
It's
also
located
across
the
street
from
the
overbook
Community
Centre.
So
this
area
of
the
neighbourhood
is
a
bit
of
a
community
hub.
The
building
was
designed
and
constructed
in
phases
began
in
1916.
The
image
that
you
see
on
the
right
shows
the
phases
of
development.
The
red
portion
is
the
original
1916
Berlin,
the
blue
is
from
1947,
and
the
yellow
at
the
rear
is
a
1955
edition.
We
received
a
designation
request
from
the
overbill
Community
Association
requesting
designation
of
this
building.
F
It
is
currently
operated
as
a
private
school,
and
the
proposed
designation
only
includes
the
yellow
and
sorry
the
red
and
the
blue
sections
on
the
image,
so
the
1916
and
the
1947
sections
of
the
building.
Just
to
give
you
an
idea.
This
is
an
aerial
photo
from
1928.
That
shows
you.
The
original
building
on
the
lot,
as
you
can
see
over
booked
developing.
So
this
building
built
originally
in
1916,
is
one
of
the
oldest
buildings
in
the
overbook
community.
F
When
you
look
forward
through
the
through
the
arrow
photos
over
time,
you
see
a
big
big
jump
in
the
development
of
overbook
after
the
Second
World
War.
This
is
a
historic
photo
from
the
Ottawa
Carleton
District
School
Board
Archives,
showing
the
original
buildings
circa
1930
as
you'll
see
in
the
photos
coming
up.
The
building
is
designed
to
be
added
tune.
You
can
sort
of
see
it
here
in
that
the
entrance
is
offset
and
in
generally,
in
a
building
like
this,
we
would
see
a
symmetrical
facade
with
the
entrance
in
the
center.
F
The
committee
may
remember
Broadview
public
school,
which
had
a
similar,
similar
facade,
another
historic
photo.
So
this
we
don't
have
the
exact
date
of
this.
It
was
provided
by
a
member
of
the
community,
but
it
is
before
the
1947
edition
so
shows
the
original
building,
the
provincial
policy
statement
states
as
significant
built
heritage
resources
and
cultural
heritage
landscapes
shall
be
conserved.
F
The
city's
official
plan
talks
about
individual
buildings
structures
and
sites
being
designated
under
part.
Four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
section
29
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
gives
municipalities
the
ability
to
designate
properties
as
long
as
they
meet
Ontario
regulation,
Oh,
906,
regulation,
Oh
906
requires
that,
in
order
to
be
designated,
the
property
must
meet
one
of
the
following
criteria:
design,
physical
value,
associative,
historical
or
contextual
value.
F
So,
as
you
can
see
here,
the
image
on
the
right
is
the
original
architectural
plan.
So,
as
I
said,
it
was
designed
to
be
added
to
overtime.
It
is
an
example
of
the
collegiate
Gothic
style
characterized
by
its
use
of
red
brick
and
limestone
symmetrical
facades,
evenly
spaced
windows
and
curved
stone
panels,
historic
associative
value.
It
is
associated
with
the
early
development
of
public
schools
in
former
Gloucester
Township
and
in
the
neighborhood
of
Overbrook.
F
It
is
the
it
was
the
first
school
in
Overbrook
and
prior
to
that
children
from
the
neighborhood
would
have
to
walk
to
Van
age
for
school.
It
was
designed
by
two
significant
architects
in
Ottawa.
The
1916
portion
was
designed
by
Milson
and
Burgess,
and
the
1947
Burge
Edition
was
designed
by
Walter
Sylvester,
who
was
also
a
long-term
resident
of
the
Overbrook
neighborhood,
and
there
was
a
street
named
after
his
family
in
the
neighborhood
in
terms
of
contextual
evaluative.
F
It
is
a
landmark
and
overlook
it's
one
of
the
earliest
buildings
in
the
neighborhood
and
provides
a
visual
reminder
of
the
history
of
the
neighborhood
in
terms
of
consultation.
The
property
owner
is
aware
of
the
proposed
designation
does
not
support
it.
I
believe
they
may
be
here
today
to
speak.
The
community
association
requested
the
designation
and
does
support
it.
Heritage
thought
it
was
aware
of
the
proposed
designation,
I
understand
we
received
this
morning.
That
indicates
that
they
are
now
in
support.
In
conclusion,
the
Department.
C
Recommends
issuance
of
a
notice
of
intention
to
designate
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
according
to
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value
attached
as
document
six
to
the
staff
report
and
I've
realized
that
for
some
reason
some
of
the
pictures
are
missing
from
my
presentation,
so
they
are
included
in
the
staff
report
on
pages
9,
sorry,
8,
9,
10,
11
and
12.
So
if
there's
any
questions
about
the
architectural
styles
of
the
building,
I
can
answer
those
in
reference
to
those
photographs
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
The
committee
might
have.
C
G
G
On
the
other
hand,
there's
increasing
awareness
concerning
the
rarity
and
the
weakness
of
the
school
building
itself.
The
schoolhouse
itself
is
the
embodiment
of
the
community
spirit
that
endures
today.
The
school
itself
is
built
in
conjunction
and
at
the
junction
of
two
family
farms
that
donated
the
land.
One
of
the
architects
who
worked
on
the
we
lived
in
a
neighborhood
for
decades.
The
property
has
important
historical
and
associated
value
because,
as
a
schoolhouse,
it
has
been
an
important
central,
overbrook's
identity
and
social
history.
G
As
we
know,
this
year
marks
the
100th
anniversary
of
the
building
and
on
the
eve
of
Ottawa
celebration
of
150
years
of
Confederation,
we
would
like
to
ask
you
to
recommend
to
your
colleagues
at
both
planning
committee
and
council
that
this
building
be
assigned
heritage
designation.
Other
community
members
will
speak
in
support
of
this
motion
and
the
Association
hardly
supports
their
statements
on
table
the
statement
for
your
efforts.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
hopefully
for
your
support
very
much
for
you
statement.
Any
questions
for
mr.
camp.
G
Good
morning
and
welcome
to
the
subcommittee
good
morning,
I'm
coming
to
you
today
to
hopefully
get
you
support
in
having
our
school
overbook
designated
as
heritage.
My
husband
and
myself
are
long-term
residents.
My
husband
moved
into
the
neighborhood
when
city
living
was
first
built,
they
moved
in
in
1955
I
believe
he
was.
He
attended
the
school
our
children
attended
the
school
and
also
his
brothers
grandkids,
so
those
three
generations
there
have
been
many
many
generations
that
have
have
attended
the
school
I
have
been
involved
with
the
community
since
the
early
80s.
C
G
G
C
H
G
Missing
some
pictures,
that's
from
the
very
very
early
times
which
I
believe
that
was
probably
around
like
when
the
school
open.
We
have
the
principal
when
she
retired
from
overbook
school,
the
second.
We
have
the
overbooked,
Chiefs
1949
that
were
from
overbook
and
mr.
I'm
not
familiar.
If
here
the
wrestling.
C
I
I
I
We've
always
had
a
very
active
school
Advisory
in
1978,
the
parents
decided
that
they
needed
a
walk
crosswalk
at
sharpened
on
ma
right
across
from
that
is
now
255,
Donald
Street,
which
is
quite
terrain,
I'm,
sorry
to
interrupt,
because
these
photos
are
actually
really
interesting,
but
I
have
to
be
fair,
sorry
and
I,
don't
oh,
my
goodness.
Okay
anyway,
sorry
I,
wear
my
heart.
In
my
hat
on
my
sleeve
and
I
I
think
that
it's
very
important,
it
means
a
lot
to
everyone.
That's
lived
there
and
it
is
still
today
considered
the
go-to
place.
I
I
I
I
I
J
J
Those
dis
an
offensive
learning,
which
today
is
astounding
to
all
who
went
to
the
stores,
deserves
to
be
designated
a
heritage
site
to
be
removed
by
future
generations,
not
only
for
his
contributions
to
Kerala
through
its
dudes,
but
for
the
many
veterans
who
pass
through
doors
and
gave
us
the
life
we
now
enjoy.
Thank
you
very
much,
Thank
You,
mr.
Burton.
Thank
you
for
sharing
those
personal
memories
with
us.
It
helps
us
it
brings
this
designation
application
to
life.
So
I
appreciate
you
sharing
those
with
us.
Are
there
any
questions
for
mr.
Burton?
Thank
you.
J
Morning
good
morning
good
morning,
and
thank
you
so
much
for
giving
us
time
for
this,
as
you
can
see,
there's
some
very
interesting
perspectives
and
my
name
is
Sheila
Perry
and
I'm
past
president
of
the
overbook
Community,
Association
and
I.
Think
this
morning
we've
heard
so
many
things
about
the
village
of
overbook,
the
community
history
and
the
human
factors
and
I
don't
know
if
this
can
be
showing
up
here,
but
that's
okay
anyway.
J
I
did
send
in
some
notes
and
I'd
like
to
just
touch
on
a
few
of
the
things
so
much
of
what
has
already
been
said,
but
as
a
longtime
resident
in
Overbrook
and
past
present,
and
the
illiberal
community
association
I'm.
Also
a
member
of
the
College
of
Teachers
of
Ontario
and
a
heritage
member
I,
followed
with
interests.
J
We
have
lost
the
world
farmhouse
to
a
condo
development
on
Margaret
Street
and
the
giraffe
farmhouse
and
which
was
built
in
1898
on
North
River
Road.
It
was
lost
to
a
developer.
Both
structures
were
built
in
the
1800s
and
weren't
of
interests,
but
had
no
protection
nor
designation
by
the
City
of
Ottawa.
We
don't
have
that
luxury
of
a
heritage
district
as
president
of
the
overbook
Community
Association
I,
totally
supported
the
work
indicated
in
she,
aided
by
an
Prost,
and
she
truly
is
to
be
lauded
for
seeking
the
designation
of
Overbrook
public
school.
J
Our
application
was
filed
in
January
night
and
2014,
and
today
really
marks
an
important
milestone
for
us
all
and
by
the
way,
the
report
by
Leslie
Collins
certainly
cites
excellent
reporting
of
the
site
for
criteria
of
design,
historical
value
and
textual
value
under
the
Heritage
Act.
As
a
professional
and
one
who
has
devoted
many
years
in
public
education
here
in
Ottawa
and
beyond,
I,
believe
that
it
is
really
important
to
recognize
the
educational
and
community
value
of
Overbrook
public
school.
J
As
we
know,
many
schools
and
churches
are
under
pressure
of
downsizing
and
potentially
losing
their
and
closing
their
doors.
It
is
vital
that
these
sites
are
closely
monitored
for
potential
community
hubs
and
often
a
school
closing
is
like
a
desk
to
the
community.
We
have
some
very
successful
examples
of
heritage
schools
across
genres,
such
as
First
Avenue,
public
school
1898,
much
more
1895,
Hopewell,
1910,
Cal,
Frank,
Ocean
s,
1897,
formerly
Osgood
school,
fortunately,
over
both
public
schools,
the
home
now
of
Vincey
private
school
macaques,
Hague,
Aboriginal
headstart.
J
J
A
Former
over
the
public
school
under
part,
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
as
you
covered
in
the
staff
report,
this
structure
meets
the
criteria
for
heritage
designation.
It
has
historical
value
as
a
key
element
in
the
development
of
the
Overbrook
community.
Its
status
is
one
of
the
oldest
two
remaining
buildings
in
overbook
alone
for
designation
and
protection.
It's
clearly
a
landmark
and
it's
in
its
site
in
the
communities
situated
in
a
highly
visible
location
and
considered
an
important
structure.
That's
key
to
community
identity
in
that
neighborhood.
A
A
That
show
how
the
1947
Edition
complemented
the
original
design
by
the
important
architects,
Nelson
and
Burgess
there's
considerable
precedent
for
designation
of
school
buildings
under
part
for
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
in
particular
the
1910
Devon
Shore
community
public
school.
Another
fine
example
of
the
collegiate
Gothic
style
was
designated
in
2008
was
involved
with
the
designation
of
the
1927
private
public
school,
which
was
approved
in
2015,
and
over
public
school
is
similarly
deserving
of
protection
as
a
landmark
in
its
community.
A
Emerging
community
in
Gloucester
Township,
which
saved
churches
as
a
community
center
for
the
school
exactly
a
school
like
this,
can
be
it
to
a
community
that
has
no
other
facilities
or
have
no
other
facilities
in
its
early
years.
So,
in
conclusion,
heritage
auto
asks
that
you
support
the
heritage
designation
of
a
big
school
and
approve
the
staff
recommendation.
Thank
you.
A
A
So
this
is
a
question
that
I
noticed
in
the
staff
report
that
there's
a
single
line
that
says
the
property
owner
is
not
in
support
of
the
designation
and,
of
course,
going
to
support
the
demotion
to
designated
staff
motion.
But
could
you
give
the
Heritage
Committee
a
little
that
of
background
about
the
reasons
that
the
brothel
owner
is
not
and
support?
What
the
current
uses
of
the
building
and
as
the
property
owner
submitted
any
kind
of
proposals
for
the
redevelopment
of
the
site?
A
Has
there
been
pre
consultation,
I
think
that
we
should
have
a
heads
up
about
when
this
comes
back
to
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
in
the
future,
for
either
adaptive
reuse
or
for
editions
and
and
redevelopment.
So
if
you
could
give
us
a
little
bit
of
a
background
on
that,
that
will
help
us
the
Sicilia
on
the
motion.
K
A
For
us
and
the
public
might
be
happening
in
the
future.
Thank
you.
I
was
expecting
that
the
owner
was
going
to
be
here
today
because
they
had
mentioned
that
they
would
be
attending,
but
clearly
they're
not
or
they
haven't
registered,
speak
the
being.
The
school
is
currently
operated
as
a
private
school
and
is
owned
by
the
people
who
operate
the
private
school.