►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – September 5, 2013
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee – September 5, 2013 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
B
B
B
The
first
one
is
time-sensitive:
it's
an
update
on
the
property
standards,
bylaw
amendment,
it's
a
stop
presentation.
Just
for
our
less
than
five
minutes.
We
have
Linda
Anderson's,
our
general
manager,
chief
bylaw
manager
for
the
city,
and
if
you
recall,
we
had
a
presentation,
the
bylaw
department
was
kind
enough
to
include
us
with
their
initial
presentation
prior
going
to
community
Protective
Services
about
the
derelict
buildings
etc.
So
this
is
an
update.
They
are
going
back
to
the
built
heritage,
I
sorry
to
the
community,
Protective
Services,
I
think
September
19th,
or
something
like
that.
B
Okay,
so
the
motion
would
be
to
put
to
provide
information
to
the
subcommittee
prior
to
the
report
presented
to
community
Protective
Services
on
September.
The
19th
is
that
Carrie.
Thank
you
and
then
the
other
item,
which
is
also
time-sensitive,
that
staff
have
brought
to
our
attention
which
isn't
on
the
agenda
is
the
demolition
of
173
Hunt,
Mar
Drive,
and
so
this
is
for
this
is
so
that
miss
Coutts
can
give
us
information
on
and
again
it's
time.
Does
the
committee
first
of
all
have
to
waive
the
rules.
B
Did
I
say
that
the
last
time,
because
you
have
to
waive
the
rules
for
both
of
them-
Carrie,
Carrie,
okay,
so
on
this
one,
the
demolition
of
173
Hunt
mark
drive
as
it
is
necessary
to
meet
deadlines
set
by
the
Building
Code
act
as
the
property
is
not
designated
or
protected,
so
agreed,
we'll
put
that
on.
So
that
will
become
the
new
nine
okay,
all
right
so
back
to
the
agenda
as
we
knew
it.
The
application
to
alter
106
116
s,
Park
Street,.
B
D
Yes
through
you,
madam
chair,
we
are
waiting
for
further
information
from
the
from
the
applicant,
confirming
the
the
the
we
are
I
asked
for
a
signed
copy
of
a
mandate
agreement,
allowing
a
new
approach
to
the
to
the
retention
or
to
the
front
facade,
and
until
we
have
a
copy
of
an
agreement
signed
between
the
NCC
and
the
developer,
we
will
not.
We
will
not
meet
that
will
not
be
in
front
of
committee.
D
B
For
that
information,
so
committee,
are
you
on
deferral?
Carrie.
Thank
you.
The
second
item
that
we
have.
We
have
a
speaker
who
is
here
to
speak
in
favor
and
so
we'll
be
holding
that,
and
that
is
the
application
to
demolish
23
and
a
half
Street
at
half
Saint
Andrew
Street.
It's
a
property
designated
under
part,
five
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
a
lower
tone.
B
B
B
B
D
B
A
B
I
carried
that
one,
actually,
that's
why
it's
got
to
check,
because,
okay,
so
back
on
application
to
alter
the
Hungarian
embassy,
we
have
two
people
who
are
speaking
in
favor
of
it.
We
had
carried
it
I
didn't
know
we
had
the
two
speakers,
so
what
I'm
saying
is
to
the
people,
mr.
sim
astir
and
mr.
Carson.
If
committee
carries
this
since
you're
in
support,
do
you
still
need
to
speak?
B
Okay,
both
of
you
agree
to
that.
Thank
you
very
much.
So
is
it
carried
again?
Thank
you
very
much.
Thanks
for
coming
all
right,
the
application
to
alter
4:29
McLaren
Street,
a
property
designated
under
part,
five
of
the
entero
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
the
center
town,
Heritage
Conservation
District.
We
have
some
comments
that
were
sent.
We
have
nobody
registered
to
speak.
B
B
B
Can
you
just
back
up
for
a
minute,
so
if
we
have
to
hold,
it
will
hold
it,
but
if
you
would
thank
you
remove
yourself
from
our
presence,
okay,
so
the
application
to
alter
the
Transportation
Building
at
ten
Rideau
Street,
a
property
designate
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
Is
that
therefore
carried
and
noting
that
our
Vice
Chair
left
due
to
his
conflict
of
interest?
Okay,
thank
you!
So
now
we
could
ask
Richard.
Yes,.
D
B
B
F
Good
morning,
we
want
to
thank
you
for
giving
us
this
opportunity
to
update
you
on
the
heritage
aspects
of
the
vacant
building
strategy.
You
may
recall
our
presentation
in
early
April,
wherein
we
provided
an
overview
of
the
strategy
as
it
related
to
heritage
properties.
The
vacant
building
strategy
was
approved
by
the
community
and
Protective
Services
Committee
and
then
counsel.
Thereafter,
we
had
made
a
commitment
to
update
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
on
any
relevant
proposals
that
emanated
from
this
strategy.
F
New
mechanisms
to
address
vacant
buildings
were
proposed
for
review
and
or
potential
considerations
included,
was
the
potential
to
develop
and
enforce
through
by
law
provisions
specific
standards
pursuant
to
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
for
maintenance
and
repair
of
heritage
buildings.
If
such
bylaw
provisions
are
enacted,
orders
issued
with
respect
to
heritage
buildings
could
include
these
specific
standards.
F
Staff
is
proposing
that
a
separate
section
or
part
related
specifically
to
heritage
properties,
to
outline
the
requirements
to
ensure
the
maintenance
of
heritage
features
be
incorporated
into
our
property
standards
by
law.
In
addition
to
incorporation
of
the
required
definitions
from
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
the
requirements
would
include
minimum
standards
such
as
to
maintain,
preserve
and
protect
the
heritage
attributes
so
as
to
maintain
the
Heritage
character,
visual
and
structural
heritage,
integrity
of
the
building
or
structure
it
would
it.
C
As
Anderson
my
burger
balls
gave,
my
first
question
is
the
identification
of
the
properties
on
this
are
deemed
to
be
the
heritage
properties?
This
includes
properties
within
the
five
heritage,
districts
and
four
designations.
I
suggest
that
we'd
be
very
interested
to
have
the
properties
that
are
on
the
heritage.
Reference
list
added
to
the
list
of
properties
that
are
subject
to
this.
C
To
this
condition,
the
reason
for
that
is
that
properties
that
come
from
the
herd
is
reference
list
then
proceed
on
from
time
to
time
to
this
committee
and
council
for
designation,
but
it's
related
to
the
capability,
the
capacity
of
the
head
of
staff
to
bring
them
forward.
So
I
suggest
that
consideration
be
given
to
looking
at
the
Heritage
reference
list,
as
well
as
the
properties
that
are
doesn't
get
under
part.
4
part
5,
our
second
manager,
a
second
point,
and
it's
a
question
about
how
this
is
going
to
be
implemented.
F
So
I'll
answer
your
second
question.
First,
if
that's
all
right,
we've
already
begun
a
proactive
enforcement
of
particularly
vacant
buildings
in
the
city.
Generally,
we
have
over
a
hundred
on
the
list.
Now
we
will
continue
to
pursue
proactive
enforcement
of
AI
with
properties
in
the
city
they're
vacant
and
becoming
even
if
they're,
not
currently
derelict,
we'll
be
keeping
an
eye
on
them
as
to
any
heritage.
Properties
that
are
currently
inhabited
will
be
reliant
upon
people
such
as
Sally
to
to
advise
as
if
there's
something
that
needs
to
be
done,
or
they
perceive
it's
problematic.
C
Question
I
think
that
the
some
examples
will
illustrate
what
I
have
in
mind.
Even
though
you
may
not
be
able
to
enforce
the
maintenance
of
the
heritage
attributes,
you
certainly
can
maintain
the
structural
condition
of
the
building
and
I'll.
Give
you
two
examples.
One
is
the
booth
board
mill,
which
is
on
surety
or
Island.
It
has
been
known
for
decades
that
this
building
has
been
deteriorating,
and
would
you
proactively,
as
you're
a
part
of
your
program,
actually
go
up
and
inspect
that
building
now?
C
C
You
know
in
that
state
where
they're
not
designated,
but
our
candidates
for
designation
and
so
I
think
that
V,
so
the
buildings
that
and
maybe
more
of
them
that
need
to
be
aggressively
addressed
in
order
to
ensure
that
they
they
don't
suffer
neglect
through
demolition,
and
we
had
this
inspection
been
done
of
the
sparks
Street
property,
which
was
vacant.
That
is
now
before
us.
B
Yep
and
Sally
did
you
want
to
comment
on
that
too,
because
the
this
isn't
that
first
time
that,
in
particular,
the
building
on
shoddy
air
that
shoddy
air
has
been
brought
up?
I
think
Kathryn
board
member
committee
member
councillor
Hobbes
has
at
this
committee
and
I
think
at
Planning
Committee
as
well.
D
D
Just
a
point
of
clarification:
when
you
had
the
slide
up
talking
about
in
reference
to
vacant
buildings,
you
talked
a
lot
about
moving
forward
with
securing
them,
but
there
wasn't
unless
I
missed
it.
Any
specific
mention
to
made
some
level
of
maintenance
of
those
buildings
as
well
as,
apart
from
just
securing
them,
boarding
them
up,
etc,
did
I,
miss
it
or.
F
Good
point:
we
will
be
requiring
maintenance
of
the
exterior
of
the
building.
We
already
are
moving
forward
right
now
in
our
proactive
program,
and
we
will
be
creating
a
specific
section
entitled
vacant
buildings
and
then
we'll
have
a
section
for
heritage
for
all
of
the
buildings.
We
will
be
requiring
a
minimum
minimum
standard
on
the
exterior
of
the
building
which,
in
the
past,
we
have
not
enforced
on
vacant
buildings,
so
we're
playing
catch-up.
F
But
this
is
what
we're
requiring
and
our
hope
is
part
of
it,
whether
it's
twofold
number
one.
We
want
to
get
every
building
in
the
city
vacant
or
inhabited
up
to
a
minimum
standard.
That
means
the
roof
is
in
good
repair.
The
paint's
done.
The
steps
are
in
good
order,
all
of
those
kinds
of
issues
for
some
buildings
that
are
non
heritage
or
even
heritage
ones.
F
F
It
will
speed
up
the
process
by
the
owner
to
move
forward,
doing
something
with
the
property
up
until
the
present
time,
there
has
been
no
negative,
very
little
negative
impact
to
the
owner
to
just
let
the
building
sit
there
empty
now
there
will
be
a
requirement
to
maintain
it
for
all
buildings.
Okay,.
G
G
One
of
the
things
that
causes
an
awful
lot
of
damage
to
any
vacant
building
is
when
the
heating
system
is
turned
off
and
the
water
isn't
drained,
and
it's
a
hot
water
heating
system,
the
Reds
will
explode
and
the
water
pipes
will
explode
and
to
substantial
damage
to
the
inside
of
the
building.
So
I'm
wondering
whether
or
not
you
would
either
a
in
main
insist
that
a
level
of
heat
be
maintained
or
be
that
the
water
systems,
heating
and
plumbing
systems
be
drained
in
the
building
in
the
event
that
there
isn't
any
heat.
Thank
you.
F
I'm
going
to
defer
to
miss
Coutts
on
the
heating
issue,
because
we
originally
started
out
thinking
that
that
may
be
something
we
wanted
to
have
as
a
requirement
in
consultation
with
the
Heritage
coordinator.
We
since
have
come
to
a
different
understanding,
so
I,
if
possible,
I'd
like
Sally
to
answer
that
this.
D
Is
a
complicated
issue?
I'm
some
cities
do
require
the
heat
to
be
turned
on
and
we
analyzed
it
and
and
I
and
analyzed
causes
of
damage
to
two
abandoned
buildings
and
many
have
been
burnt
by
propane
furnace
by
furnaces,
for
example,
520,
the
driveway
and
I
think
there's
another
noteworthy
one
that
the
original
heating
was
stripped
out
and
then
the
building
was
heated
with
another
system
and
it
burnt
down.
So
we
feel
that
it
properly
and
I
think
your
point
is
very
well
taken.
D
It
is
water
damage,
but
a
properly
drain
system
and
an
unheated
building
is
is
viable
and
easier
to
enforce,
because
you
can't
how
the
question
of
enforcement
of
you'd
have
to
have
an
inspector
going
by
to
see
frost
on
the
window.
You
know
it
becomes
very
complicated,
so
we
in
the
end
decided
that's
our
that
that
that
it
was
unenforceable
to
try
to
heat,
but
there
were
ways
of
ensuring
that
we
hope
that
buildings
won't
be
damaged
by
water.
C
Like
to
just
continue
this
discussion
on
the
heating
of
the
firm
of
both,
and
so
the
temporary
heating
of
buildings,
I
think
that
there
are
some
cases
in
the
City
of
Ottawa
of
two
buildings
under
part
for
the
entire
Heritage
Act
that
suffered
demolition
by
or
suffered.
One
of
them
suffered.
Neglect
C
was
neglect,
and
the
other
one
also
suffered
serious
neglect
for
the
reason
that
the
heating
was
not
kept
on
and
I'm
familiar
with
and
Sandy
is
familiar
with
one
of
them
at
least
I.
C
C
That's
the
first
point:
this
is
the
two
buildings,
one,
the
Ecole
gig
gig
school
that
would
have
benefited
from
having
and
he
did
as
well
as
protected
from
rain
water
coming
in,
because
the
Foundation's
were
affected
and
we
were
the
architects
that
had
to
spend
a
lot
more
money
to
restore
that
building
because
of
the
of
the
neglect
by
the
Catholic
school
board.
The
second
one
is
when
that
sandy
knows
and
that's
the
band
a
house
and
house:
the
new
owners
did
not
heat
the
building.
C
They
do
not
drain
the
hot
water
system
or
the
sanitary
system
and
all
of
the
heating
system
froze
and
broke
and
destroyed.
Much
of
the
interior
of
the
building,
as
well
as
lack
of
heat
affected,
the
ornamental
plaster
in
the
building
that
then
had
to
be
replaced.
So
I
think
that
if
we're
going
to
go
this
route,
we
should
really
be
rigorous
about
it
and
consider
that
particular
procedure
and
add
it
to
the
process.
F
We
are
list
as
started
out
it
at
less
than
40.
We
are
now
at
at
least
a
hundred.
Sorry
excuse
me,
based
on
people
reporting
vacant
buildings,
if
we
don't
have
every
single
one,
we're
very
close,
and
that
includes
all
the
heritage
ones.
We've
actually
got
on
our
on
our
flowchart
that
we're
keeping
for
this
project
we've
actually
got
a
column
that
designates
heritage
or
not.
But
of
course,
as
you
know,
we
have
to
deal
with
the
heritage
ones
differently.
F
C
C
B
F
We've
been
advised
by
legal
that
we
should
not
be
distributing
the
list.
However,
any
member
that
wants
to
send
us
send
us
information
or
call
us
and
ask
something's
on
the
list
or
just
send
an
email
to
us
just
say:
can
you
put
this
on
the
list?
We'll
respond?
Yes
or
no.
It's
on
the
list.
That's
the
way
we've
been
handling
it.
It.
B
Just
seems
to
me
to
be
a
lot
more
onerous
that
way,
because
the
three
people
that
we
have
our
citizen
members
and
and
likely
councillor
Clark,
probably
from
the
area
he
represents
in
the
length
of
time,
he's
been
representing
it.
It
would
be
advantageous
to
the
city
were
they
to
perhaps
not
have
a
copy
but
be
privy
to
if
they
wanted
to
coming
into
your
office
and
having
a
look
at
it.
B
Just
because
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
and
clearly
you
know
you
think,
you're
very
close,
but
I
would
I
would
suggest
that
these
people
could
put
you
a
lot
closer
on
the
heritage
side
of
it
anyway.
So
and-
and
maybe
our
legal
could
make
a
comment,
sorry
to
catch
you
off
guard,
but
do
you
that.
A
That's
fine
I
think
that,
in
terms
of
the
reasons
why
the
committee
would
like
to
have
access
to
the
list
versus
the
reasons
why
it
would
not
be
advantageous
at
this
time
to
distribute
it
are
two
separate
issues,
and
so
I
think
that
if
the
committee
members
wish
to
have
a
discussion
with
bylaw
about
what
is
and
what
is
not
on
the
list,
I
I
don't
see
that.
There's
an
issue
with
that.
This
time
as
part
of
the
committee's
business
and.
B
So
we're
not
moving
in
motion
or
anything
like
that.
This
would
just
be
I
think
it
would
be
advantageous,
as
I
said,
to
use
the
skills
on
this
committee
to
make
sure
that
that
piece,
which
is
the
reason
you're
here
today
to
talk
to
us
the
heritage,
people
not
even
looking
for
a
copy
of
it
and
I,
don't
know
that
they'd
be
interested
in
doing
that,
but
I'm
I'm
thinking,
probably
that
they
would.
Maybe
we
can
take
that
away
and
just
make
sure
that
it
would
be.
Here's.
F
Here's
what
I
can
offer
for
sure
we
can.
We
can
certainly
take
off
of
this
list,
which
has
many
other
in
much
other
information
on.
We
can
make
a
list
of
all
the
properties
all
the
addresses
and
through
the
committee
coordinator,
we
can
send
it
and
it
can
be
distributed.
So
we'll
get
you
a
list
of
every
address,
that's
on
the
list
and
that
can
be
distributed.
It's
the
other
information
that
was
problematic,
so
the
actual
address,
not
a
problem,
we'll
get
that
out
to
you
that
there.
B
A
B
That
would
be
the
the
only
purpose
and
I'm
not
asking
for
it
to
be
to
come
to
committee
I'm
just
asking
that
it
for
those
that
are
interested
in
perhaps
what
you
could
do
a
show
of
hands
for
those
people
that
would
like
to
see
parts
of
it.
The
people
that
I
thought
plus
counts
to
Clark
correct
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
So
we
do
have
miss
Linda
Hoda
wants
to
speak
to
vacant
buildings.
So
just
stay
there
for
a
sec.
A
A
B
A
May
not
be
aware
that
the
as
a
result
of
a
Hintonburg
or
the
west
mountain
community
design
clan,
a
number
of
buildings
that
are
not
designated
but
were
on
the
reference
list,
were
transferred
to
the
Heritage
Register.
So
my
I
would
be
interested
to
know
whether,
in
fact,
these
buildings
and
I
believe
this
has
happened
in
some
other
cases
as
well
will
be
included
and
protected
under
the
new
proposed
bylaw
and
I.
Guess
I'll,
just
throw
you
a
tell
you
my
second
issue.
A
Recently
we
become
aware
of
a
developer,
who
is
proposing
a
development
in
Hintonburg
and
with
their
course.
There
are
several
proposal
in
Parkdale
Avenue
in
Mechanicsville,
where
the
buildings
have
been
vacated
of
tenants
and
and
I.
What
I'm
suggesting
is
that
this
may
become
a
greater
problem,
because
we
have
so
much
intensification
going
on
in
neighborhoods,
I
think,
particularly
of
dalhousie
and
Hintonburg
downtown
center
town
developments
so
far
or
intensification
has
been
happening
on
parking
lots,
which
means
we
aren't
losing
buildings.
A
However,
in
Hintonburg
there
are
two
I
believe
one
was
added
to
the
list
to
5252
Parkdale,
but
the
building
immediately
south
of
it,
which
would
be
thinking
the
260s
is,
has
since
also
been
vacated
and
the
only
owns
half
a
block
and
we're
very
concerned
about
this.
So
I
guess
I'm,
suggesting
to
you
that
your
list
of
buildings
could
easily
expand
quite
rapidly
as
developments
are
proposed
and
unless
they,
the
building
permit.
Of
course,
they
cannot
demolish
these
buildings
and
they
won't
be
getting
their
building.
A
Permit
I
suspect
for
some
time,
because
they
don't
think
they're
going
to
build
the
buildings,
given
the
number
that
have
been
approved
so
I
went
for
see
in
Hintonburg
in
that
something
we've
been
discussing
an
increase
in
the
number
of
vacant
buildings
and,
of
course
we
will
be
referring
them
to
by
law
as
they
arise,
but
I
just
thought.
You
should
be
aware
of
that.
B
That's
a
good
point,
even
though
those
two
that
you
mention
are
not
heritage
designated
but
I
think
that's
a
different
aspect
to
that.
Certainly
I
hadn't
thought
about
and
and
in
your
neck
of
the
woods,
certainly
I'm
sure
councillor
Hobbs
will
would
be
yeah
but
as
far
as
them
becoming
on
the
list
that's
vacant
to
watch.
B
Not
appropriate
absolutely
thanks.
Very
much
I
think
that
that
is
all
good,
so
that's
received,
thank
you
very
much
for
coming,
okay
and
so
we're
going
on
to
the
application
to
demolish
23
and
a
half
st.
Andrew
Street,
a
property
designated
under
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
the
lower
toe
West,
Heritage,
Conservation
District.
So
I
don't
know.
B
If
the
committee
wants
a
presentation
on
this,
as
I
did
mention
at
the
beginning,
there
is
a
piece
of
information,
that's
missing
for
us
really
to
make
this
decision,
and
that
would
be
an
engineering
report
that
says
that
it
must
be
demolished,
and
so
I
would
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
defer.
But
I
am
going
to
ask
our
speaker
our
delegation,
who
has
signed
up
to
speak
to
come
today
to
us.
So
your
thoughts
on
that
and
just.
B
G
B
And
so
that's
exactly
why
we're
taking
the
time,
because
what
was
coming
forward
to
us
was
this
very
motion
without
that
information,
and
so
this
committee
has
certainly
taken
a
stand
on
and
very
I
would
spoke
and
stand.
I
might
say
on
a
couple
of
recent
applications
that
we've
had
so
we're
doing
our
due
diligence,
but
I
would
I
would
ask,
do
you
want
to
have
a
presentation
or
you
or
are
we
going
what?
But
deferral
is
going
to
be
moved?
B
So
the
reason
to
have
a
presentation
today
really
in
my
mind,
doesn't
make
sense
if
we
do
agree
to
defer
it,
because
we're
going
to
have
at
a
presentation
at
the
next
meeting
with
added
information,
but
I
still
would
like
to
ask
mr.
will
to
come
and
speak
to
us,
and
so
let's
have
and
then
we'll
decide
after
that.
Okay,
is
that
good?
All
right
now
we
are
going
to
have
all
of
us.
Have
we've
got
a
translator
and
B
Avenue
I.
H
H
H
We
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
be
heard
in
support
of
the
demolish
Minh
of
the
building
there.
You
can
see
it.
It
is
a
building
that
is
located
between
a
private
residence,
a
convent
for
nuns
and
the
original
or
the
it's
a
sub
building
between
two
buildings
kind
of
see.
The
area
of
view
we
see
here
is
from
the
mother
house
Andreea.
H
This
building
is
almost
at
the
edge
of
Sussex,
so
it's
a
conservation
area.
Buildings
like
this
don't
have
I,
think
their
place.
They've
been
abandoned
for
years
at
one
time
they
were.
Apparently
there
were
rentals
there
and
it's
just
abandoned,
not
heated
and
you'll,
see
in
other
pictures
and
what
kind
of
state
that
building
is
really
for
the
past
168
years
the
sisters
have
been
a
proud
corporate
and
Unitec
humanitarian
citizen
in
helping
the
needy
and
undergoing
preventive
maintenance
of
their
own
buildings
in
land.
They
are
fortunate
to
own.
H
H
The
abandoned
building
has
I'm
a
shelter
for
rodents
of
all
sorts.
We
have
counted
up
to
twelve
or
fourteen
raccoons
early
this
season,
and
now
it's
a
nest
for
squirrels
as
well,
and
you'll
see
that
in
some
pictures
it's
the
sisters
can't
even
sit
in
their
yard
or
do
any
gardening.
So
much
these
raccoons
and
squirrels
are
invasive.
H
They
don't
even
want
to
walk
to
their
car
without
turning
their
head
back,
because,
as
you
see,
the
building
is
just
tearing
apart.
Even
the
structure
of
the
building
in
the
middle
is
almost
due
to
collapse,
so
I
don't
think
we
need
an
engineering.
The
report
as
rebuilding
or
upgrading
this
building
is
just
not
possible.
H
We
would
support
the
city's
efforts
to
destroy
the
building
on.
We
fear
for
the
integrity
of
our
own
buildings.
If
there
was
any
work,
so
I
don't
know
if
in
the
bylaws
you
do
expect
to
address
compensation
or
some
sort
of
a
warranty,
not
a
warranty,
but
a
guarantee
to
neighbors
that
their
property
would
not
be
destroyed
or
damaged.
H
H
H
You
know
our
own
enjoyment
were
afraid
of
even
walking
beside
the
building
on
a
windy
day,
as
you
see
debris
or
over
the
roofs
all
about
and
flying
everywhere
as
soon
and
and
now
it's
fall.
So
we
were
in
our
third
year
of
pressuring
our
counselor
to
do
something
about
this,
because
it
is
a
safety
hazard
and
we're
so
afraid
for
fire.
H
B
H
B
Have
we
now
have
a
couple
of
other
speakers
as
well,
but
I
wanted
to
say
that
we're
going
to
deal
with
this
as
quickly
as
we
can,
but
we
are
doing
our
best
to
have
all
the
information
possible
before
us.
What
you've
brought
today
is
certainly
something
that
adds
to
that
information.
So
how
what's
the
estimated
time
for
the
information
to
come
back
on
the
Leslie.
I
Through
you,
madam
chair,
the
we
have
requests
through
an
engineering
study
from
the
property
owner,
as
is
typical
when
we
have
a
proposed
demolition
in
a
heritage
conservation
district
where
there
is
no
replacement
building.
I
am
Not
sure
that
the
property
owner
is
willing
to
provide
that
document.
So
we
are
trying
to
work
with
them
to
do
so.
I
That
being
said,
Sally
and
I
just
realized
that,
since
our
agenda
clearing
meeting
where
it
was
discussed
that
this
should
maybe
be
deferred
in
in
light
of
the
lack
of
an
engineering
study,
the
October
22nd
planning
committee
meeting
is
now
only
for
the
official
plan.
So
that
means
that
our
ninety
days
will
run
out
if
this
gets
deferred
to
the
October
meeting
of
of
the
built
heritage
subcommittee,
because
it
won't
be
able
to
go
to
planning
committee
until
November
and
the
90
days
runs
out
on
October
the
30th.
B
I
J
B
To
it,
I'll
tell
you
that
I
didn't
realize
that
we
didn't
we
weren't
in
a
position
to
make
sure
that
we
did
have
that
rapport.
So
really
what
I
think
you
said
is
that
we
can
pressure.
We
can
ask.
We
can
say
that
you
must
give
us
this
report,
but
that
that
person
doesn't
the
owner
doesn't
have
to
do
that.
I
Well,
my
understanding
is
that
if
you
wish
to
demolish
your
building
and
you're
permitted
to
do
so,
then
you
can
do
it
even
if
it
was
built
last
year.
If
you
built
a
house
last
year
and
you
decided
this
year,
you
wanted
to
tear
it
down
and
build
a
new
one.
You
know,
provided
you
comply
with
all
the
zoning,
bylaws,
etc.
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
reason
that
you
wouldn't
get
a
demolition
permit.
Isn't
it
a
good.
B
I
Through
you,
madam
chair,
there
have
been
a
number
of
orders
issued
on
the
property
through
property
standards.
My
understanding
is
that
they
have
not
been
complied
with,
so
presumably
they
have
done
a
number
of
inspections
over
time,
but
that
could
be
an
option.
I
guess.
But
the
issue
we're
dealing
with
here
is
that
if
this
is
deferred
today
and
unless,
unless
it
can
go
to
the
October
22nd
Planning
Committee,
which
I
understand
it,
cannot
because
the
item
on
the
agenda
is
the
Official
Plan,
it
will
be
deemed
to
be
approved
if
the
90
days
expires.
I
A
My
point
was
just
that
there
are
indications
that
this
there
were
a
number
of
buildings
like
this
on
the
fire
insurance
plans
between
1902
1912,
about
14
backyard
residences
like
this
that
were
identified,
and
it
would
be
interesting
to
have
a
more
complete
study,
perhaps
of
this
particular
type
of
apparently
working-class,
infill
housing.
But
that's
an
academic
issue
when
you're
faced
with
the
very
serious
safety
problems
that
have
been
outlined
so
I.
C
D
I
Not
actually
quite
sure,
I
mean,
the
only
point
I
would
make
is
that
this
was
an
infill
as
this
predates
the
house.
That's
at
the
front.
So
this
it's
more
that
the
house
at
the
front
is
representative
of
the
additive
nature,
of
the
way
that
Lowertown
developed,
I
I
think
there
are
some
others,
but
I
wouldn't
want
to
be
quoted
on
it.
D
B
Just
to
hang
on
a
second
mr.
Flemming
I
did
so
for
the
committee,
since
there
may
be
a
change
in
the
direction
we're
going
I
want
you
to
think
about
what
we're
listening
to
mr.
Fleming,
about
having
a
whether
you
want
a
presentation
and
at
the
after
he
speaks
the
presentation
the
staff
is
prepared
to
give
or
if
you
don't
need
that,
that's
why?
But
just
think
about
it.
Mr.
Fleming
floor
is
yours.
Thank.
E
The
heritage
planners
just
mentioned
the
fact
that
there
are
in
fact
other
buildings
like
this
I
think
there's
a
one
further
west
on
standard
Street
and
a
number
of
others
I
walk
along
around
that
area.
From
time
to
time
you
can
see
other
buildings
in
math
that
look
like
they
used
to
be
houses
and
I.
Guess
that's
the
point
that
that
we
would
like
to
make
that
this
is
really
quite
an
important
and
interesting
aspect
of
the
built
heritage
in
Lower
Town.
E
The
fact
that
there
were
multiple
houses
on
the
lots
and
they
occurred
as
David
Jean
said,
they're
shown
on
the
insurance
maps,
and
it
was
an
integral
part
of
how
communities
like
this
developed,
sometimes
looking
at
a
building
like
this,
the
goddess's
either
half
empty,
and
we
had
examples
like
this
inaudible
with
four
five
six
nodes
down:
North,
Somerset,
House,
structural
engineer
and
say
that'll
be
demolished,
but
somebody
who
has
experience
at
heritage
restoration
say
well.
It
has
some
potential.
E
Development
occurs
in
Halifax,
please
call
Schmitt
Ville
of
Nova
Scotia
and
people
ready
to
raise
that
entire
community,
which
had
which
have
a
lot
of
houses,
backyards
of
these
instances
and
the
developer
of
that
particular
area
which
took
15
years
for
them
to
develop.
It
just
want
a
heritage
award
from
the
Heritage
Trust
of
Nova
Scotia,
and
he
in
fact
lives
in
one
of
these
houses
that
is
in
the
backyard
of
one.
That
is,
that
fronts
on
the
street.
So
you
know
it's
not
impossible
to
integrate.
E
Buildings
like
this
and
I
certainly
share
the
the
concerns
of
the
first
speaker
about
the
animals
getting
in
there
and
the
fact
that
the
building
has
been
neglected,
and
it's
unfortunate
that,
even
though
the
city
property
standards
people
need
to
issue
orders
against
us
that
they
nothing
seems
to
have
happened
to
it.
Look
at
this
place
and
I
look
at
one
of
the
buildings
and
schmitt
fell.
That
I
remember
looking
at
about
30
years
ago,
and
this
is
in
pretty
good
shape.
So
so
it
is
possible.
E
B
B
They
do
prefer
to
to
keep
the
property
and
in
actually
invest
in
in
its
in
the
fact,
it's
so
neglected
to
invest
in
the
building,
but
unless
the
building
is
unsafe,
we
strongly
encouraged
it
not
to
be
demolished
so
really
glad
that
the
three
of
you
came
out
today
because
you've
put
a
different
picture.
I
think
a
different
face
on
on
the
on
this
on
the
subject
matter
for
sure,
does
anybody
have
any
anything
to
say?
Do
you
want
to
have
a
presentation.
G
G
We've
then
just
pulled
the
rug
out
from
under
ourselves,
I
mean
even
if
they
come
back
and
say
yes,
this
building
has
to
be
demolished,
the
owner
has
won
and
we've
lost
in
terms
of
any
hope
we
have
of
telling
people
that
they
have
to
maintain
these
buildings.
The
first
thing
that
is
blatantly
obvious
about
this
building
is
it's
missing
a
roof
so
that
roof
has
been
in
that
state
for
I
would
say.
20
years,
or
so
at
least,
and
had
the
roof
been
put
on
it,
all
of
these
other
problems
probably
wouldn't
exist
there.
G
B
That's
what's
changing
within
that
and
the
Miss
Andersen
and
the
work
she's
doing
now.
That
goes
to
the
on
September
19th
to
community
Protective
Services.
Then
that's
going
to
go
to
Council,
okay
and
that's
why
I
mean,
if
you
remember
back
several
months
ago,
possibly
April
May,
when
the
mayor
took
a
very
strong
stance
on
derelict
buildings
and
was
vocal
about
it
and
very
forth
right
about
where
we
were
going
to
go
as
a
city,
then
we
were
not
going
to
tolerate
that.
That's
exactly
what
we're
talking
about
now.
B
So,
with
regard
to
property
standards,
any
of
the
councillors
around
here
will
tell
you
that,
in
our
warrants,
property
standards
is
a
very
busy
department,
but
that
it
does
have
teeth,
for
example,
not
a
heritage
building,
and
not
that
I
don't
have
a
heritage.
Building
a
bar
put
this
one:
isn't
we
we
do
have.
B
We
do
have
people
that
hoard,
for
example,
okay,
every
twice
a
year,
hair
the
property
standards
people
go
in,
they
say
you
have
to
clean
it
up.
If
you
don't
clean
up
within
this
time
frame,
we're
going
to
do
it
and
we'll
send
you
the
bill
and
and
and
this
this
person's
has
spends
and
spends
about
20,000
dollars
a
year,
because
it's
so
bad
that
after
the
property
settings
go
in
and
they
say
here's
your
opportunity,
you
can
fix
it
yourself.
B
B
We
are
going
to
have
to
depend
on
on
units
like
this,
for
the
people
that
live
right
around
it,
for
example
the
sisters
who
are
looking
down
on
this
also
because,
if
you're
driving
by
on
the
street,
you
may
not
you're
not
going
to
notice
or
you're
flying
over
top,
you
might
be
in
a
hot
air
balloon
or
something
you
say,
wow
look
at
that
place.
The
fact
is,
the
average
person
in
enforcement
is
not
going
to
be
driving
by
and
is
going
to
be,
alerted
to
that
kind
of
condition.
B
B
Oh
can
I
just
add,
so
let
me
just
say
we
don't
have
a
motion
for
deferral
on
the
floor
and
so
therefore
we're
actively
speaking
to
this
item
trustee
and
trustee
I'm,
a
chair
way
too
many
things
you
can
tell
I
got
it
started.
Thinking
about
is
the
trustees
and
a
member
of
the
councilor
vice-chair
pronounce
key
based.
C
On
what
we
have
heard
in
the
last
25
minutes,
I
would
think
it
would
be
appropriate
to
have
a
presentation
by
staff
on
this
so
that
we
get
their
full
input
into
this
discussion.
What
has
become
evident
is
that,
because
of
the
90-day
period
that
is
assigned
by
the
entire
Heritage
Act,
all
this
discussion
by
the
committee
may
be
just
academic
and
the
application
will
be
deemed
to
be
approved
because
there's
no
planning
committee
to
to
go
to.
C
Consequently,
I,
don't
think
we
have
any
choice
but
to
discuss
it
and
to
deal
with
the
information
that
we
have
today
and
more
may
be
added
by
the
by
the
heritage
staff,
on
the
condition
of
the
building
or
the
reasons
for
why
demolition
is
being
recommended.
So
I
think
that
I
would
like
to
proceed
with
that.
If
we
can
yes.
I
I
This
is
an
application
to
demolish
23
and
a
half
st.
Andrew
Street,
which
is
located
in
the
Lower
Town
West
Heritage
Conservation
District,
as
you've
seen
from
the
photos
already,
it
is
located
on
the
north
side
of
st.
Andrew
Street.
It
is
located
in
the
rear
yard
of
the
property
and
you
in
front
of
it
that
faces
onto
st.
Andrew
Street.
This
is
a
photo
of
the
house.
We
think
it
was
built
in
the
1880s
it
appears
on.
I
There
is
a
house
that
appears
on
the
fire
insurance
plans
of
1886
in
the
rear
yard
of
this
property.
It
is
the
only
house
on
the
property
at
that
time.
It's
a
wood
frame.
Building
two
and
a
half
stories,
as
you
can
see,
it's
been
extensively
altered
over
its
time,
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
its
heritage.
Attributes
left,
it
does
have,
as
you
saw
on
some
of
the
aerial
photos,
which
were
quite
helpful,
I
hadn't,
seen
before
it
does
have
a
number
of
sort
of
one-story
rambling
additions
at
the
side.
I
So
this
gives
you
an
idea
of
what
you
see
from
the
street
when
this
application
came
in
staff
were
unaware
that
the
building
was
there
to
a
certain
extent,
the
property
owner
also
owns
this
building,
as
you
can
see,
and
and
I
mean
I
think
this
is
something
to
consider
is
that
the
building
at
the
front
of
the
property
is
in
good
condition.
My
understanding
is
that
it
is
inhabited
by
the
property
owner
the
building
at
there,
so
this
building
was
built
later.
I
I
Basically,
it
says
that
in
general,
demolition
of
properties
within
the
district
will
not
be
recommended
for
approval
and
partial
demolitions
required
for
renovations
may
be
acceptable.
They
do
not
remove
original
fabric
of
the
building
and
then
finally,
structures
deem
should
not
have
heritage.
Significance
may
be
proposed
for
demolition
or
may
be
consider
for
demolition.
I
I
While
the
age
of
the
building
is
significant,
and
you
know
it
does
speak
to
the
development
of
land
in
lower
town
in
that
in
the
early
period,
the
building
itself
has
very
few
of
its
heritage,
attributes
remaining
and
is
in
very
poor
condition.
We
have
not
received
the
engineering
report,
but
I
think
it's
quite
obvious
to
to
the
layperson,
even
that
the
building
has
some
serious
issues,
I'm
not
saying
it
could
not
be
saved,
but
I
think
it
would
require
a
significant
amount
of
effort.
I
In
addition,
as
the
building
is
located
in
the
rear
yard
of
the
property,
it
is
not
a
landmark
within
the
district.
It
you
know
it.
Doesn't
it
doesn't
necessarily
contribute
to
the
streetscape
of
st.
Andrew
Street,
and
so
it
is
being
recommended
that
it
be
approved
for
demolition
just
a
couple
of
more
photos.
I
So
as
I
as
I
mentioned,
we
have
requested
a
an
engineering
study
from
the
property
owner.
I
am
NOT,
confident
that
we
will
receive
that
study,
and
so
it
would
be
up
to
the
committee
how
they
wish
to
proceed
on
the
recommendation.
Without
the
engineering
study
happy
to
answer
any
further
questions
you
might
have.
I
Sorry
I'd
like
to
just
add
one
more
thing:
the
Lowertown
community,
low
Town,
West
Community
Association,
has
provided
comments,
they're
included
in
the
report.
They
don't
support
the
demolition
of
the
structure
as
they
feel
that
it
is
an
example
of
demolition
by
neglect
and
that
the
character
of
the
property
is
significant
to
the
history
of
development
in
Lower.
Town.
Remember.
G
I
guess,
as
I
mentioned
for
my
real
concern,
is,
is
that
this
clearly
is
the
case
of
somebody
not
maintaining
a
building.
Will
there
be
I
understand
the
there
were
issues
issued
against
the
owner?
In
the
event,
he
demolishes
that
what
and
invent
he's
allowed
to
demolish
it?
What
would
happen?
Will
he
be
fined
for
failing
to
follow
up
on
the
orders
that
were
issued
before,
or
will
he
be
let
off
without
any
further
action?
Thank
you
that.
B
But
for
our
information
for
the
future
and
also
on
this
file,
if
you
could
find
out
after
the
fact
he
has
been
issued,
orders
I'm
sure
that
property
standards
has
gone
back
to
check
because
they've
been
there.
If
they've
issued
orders
more
than
once
they've
gone
back,
what
has
happened,
has
anything
happened?
Has
anything
been
enforced?
Have
the
the
the
the
current
rules
as
we
have
them?
Have
they
has
this
place
benefited
from
any
of
those
actions?
Has
he
ever
received
a
fine?
Has
he
ever
been
charged?
B
I
I
You
know
there
are
some
elements
of
the
porch
that
that
may
be
older.
There
are
obviously
some
elements
of
the
porch
that
have
been
replaced.
You
know
this
railing
is
likely
not
original.
You
know
there
are
some
historic
windows.
This
looks
like
it
may
be
a
historic
window,
but
I'd
say
there
was
probably
another
window
here,
for
instance,
so
it's
it's
hard
to
say
exactly
what's
lost,
because
we
don't
have
that
documentary
evidence.
So
by
saying
that
some
of
the
Heritage
attributes
are
gone
is
based
on
my
knowledge
of
other
buildings
of
this
type.
Okay,.
I
I
mean
there
may
not
have
been
two
windows
in
the
front,
but
there
are
examples
where
there
were
I
mean
this.
Is
it
this
windows
not
centered?
For
instance,
you
know
it
may
have
been
saying
you
know
there
made
the
window
opening
may
have
changed
so
I'm,
basing
it
on
other
buildings
around
the
city.
It's
a
fairly
common
building
type
in
all
the
way
you
see
a
lot
of
them
in
new
Edinburgh,
the
one
we
looked
at
a
couple
of
months
back
61,
Queen
Victoria
is
quite
similar,
it's
not
the
same,
but
it's.
A
I
think,
from
my
perspective,
you
know
if
I
owned
this
property
I
would
have
gone
out
of
my
way
to
to
maintain
this,
because
this
is
quite
a
and
nice
unique
feature
in
the
market,
and
you
know
it's
just
it's
just
a
shame
that
it
has
been
allowed
to
to
get
into
this
state.
So
I,
just
wonder.
I
bet
I
would
be
supportive
of
their
deferral
to
wait
for
the
engineering
report,
because
I
would
be
fighting
to
keep
this
and
and
not
and
not
be
approving
a
demolition.
J
Yeah,
so
what
exactly
are
we
preserving?
If
that
building
isn't
demolished?
I
mean
nice
thing
about
heritage,
buildings
and
architectural
design?
Is
that
you
can
see
it
that
it's
apparent
the
only
you
can
see
from
the
building
neighboring.
It
is
the
back
of
that
one
story:
structure
and
the
roof.
That's
half
falling
apart
from
the
street.
It's
nothing
so
I
get.
J
I
Three,
madam
chair
I,
think
you
know:
staff
are
recommending
approval
of
the
demolition,
but
just
for
sort
of
the
education
of
the
committee
designation
of
heritage
buildings
is
not
simply
about
what
it
looks
like
on
the
outside
and
whether
or
not
it's
visible
to
the
public.
We
generally
look
at
you
know
the
architecture,
the
history
and
the
context.
I
So
in
this
instance
the
context
is
the
interesting
part
and
not
it
because
it's
located
in
the
rear
yard
it's
it
represents
and
tells
the
story
of
the
way
that
the
pattern
of
land
use
developed
in
Lower
Town.
So,
while
it's
not
visible
from
the
street,
that
would
be
there
was
sort
of
the
heritage
value
of
the
property.
G
Are
they
regularly
updating
you
and
in
the
case
of
a
property
like
this,
in
a
heritage
district?
Would
they
be
telling
you
there
is
a
problem?
We've
contacted
the
owner,
the
owners
refusing
to
take
action,
and
is
that
something
that
could
be
part
of
reports
coming
forward
to
us.
So
we
have
some
understanding
of
the
background
of
what's
been
going
on
here.
Thank
you.
We.
D
Are
regularly
updated
on
the
buildings
on
the
list
that
we've
been
discussed,
we
have
been
discussing
today
and
consulted
on
that
other
than
that
when
property
standards
or
orders
are
issued
on
a
property
they
show
on
our
GIS
system.
So
we
check
our
we
can
check
but
there,
but
aside
from
the
the
identified
buildings,
we
are
not
regularly
informed
of
property
standards,
orders
being
issued
throughout
the
city
on
heritage
buildings.
So
we
didn't
know
about
this.
One.
I
C
The
West
Heritage
Conservation
District
has
actually
taken
on
a
symbolic
value
in
the
community
at
large,
given
the
effort
that
is
now
being
made
to
prevent
demolition
by
neglect,
and
so
it
has
emerged.
Curiously,
at
a
moment,
this
committee
has
been
put
into
a
dilemma
because
of
the
staff
report
to
permit
or
the
recommend
demolition
and
the
presentation
which
we
had
just
earlier
from
the
Sanderson,
which
talked
about
the
effort
that
the
provost
and
his
department
is
going
to
make
in
the
future
once
they
get
the
new
two
protocols
heavily.