►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee - 8 February 2022
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee - 8 February 2022
Agenda and supporting documents available at www.ottawa.ca/agendas
B
Well,
good
morning,
everybody
and
noting
that
we
do
have
five
members
of
the
Committee
in
attendance
I'd
like
to
welcome
you
to
the
built
Heritage
subcommittee
meeting
of
February,
8
2022
and
I'd
like
to
call
the
members
to
order.
This
meeting
is
being
held
remotely
through
zoom
and
is
being
held
on
the
traditional
territory
of
the
Algonquin
anishinabe
Nation,
the
original
custodians
of
the
unseated
land,
in
which
the
city
of
Ottawa
is
located.
B
Those
who
do
not
need
to
participate
in
the
meeting
can
also
watch
it
live
on
the
Ottawa
city
council,
YouTube
channel.
A
reminder
to
participants
to
please
keep
your
microphones
muted
until
I
call
upon
you
to
speak.
I
will
provide
each
Committee
Member
with
the
opportunity
to
ask
questions
or
comments
on
each
item
in
the
order
in
which
they
raise
their
hand
in
Zoom.
For
panelists
that
raised
hand
option
is
found
at
the
bottom
of
the
participants
list
for
those
calling
in
press
star
nine.
B
To
raise
your
hand,
the
committee
coordinator
and
I
will
be
watching
for
those
cues.
Members
are
also
reminded
to
submit
any
motions,
visual
supports
or
Declaration
of
interest
in
writing
to
the
coordinator
at
their
earliest
opportunity.
Although
the
deadlines
have
passed
for
residents
to
register,
to
speak
and
to
provide
written
submissions
to
the
subcommittee,
residents
may
still
make
written
submissions
to
planning
committee
and
Council.
B
If
you
have
technical
difficulties
signing
into
the
meeting,
you
can
contact
the
committee
coordinator
by
calling
613-580-2424
extension
22953
a
reminder
that,
if
participants
have
are
having
technical
issues
with
their
Zoom
connection,
they
may
call
in
using
the
backup
telephone
number
provided
by
the
coordinator.
I've
received
no
regrets.
Could
the
committee
coordinator,
please
call
the
roll
a
reminder
to
members
to
unmute
themselves
when
they're
called.
E
G
B
B
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
Declarations
of
Interest,
seeing
none
are
the
minutes
of
Tuesday
November
30th
2021
confirmed
carried
performed,
given
the
current
state
of
emergency
I'd
suggest
to
the
subcommittee
that
we
make
expedient
use
of
meeting
time.
Given
the
number
of
items
we
will
proceed
with
a
consent
agenda
and
I
will
ask
for
a
motion
to
defer
the
Heritage
watchless
committee.
B
So
let's
go
through
the
consent
agenda.
The
first
item
is
application
for
new
construction
at
480,
Cloverdale
Road,
and
this
item
will
be
held,
as
we
have.
A
number
of
speakers
registered
item
number
two
Heritage
watch
list
update
and
I'll.
Ask
the
vice
chair
to
introduce
the
motion
to
defer
that
item.
I
B
Thank
you
is
the
deferral
carried
Harry
Harry.
Thank
you
item
number
three
designation
of
the
Robert
of
the
Dr
Robert
lawhouse
at
190
Laurie
Avenue
East,
is
the
report
carried
carried
carried
carried
item
for
application
to
alter
283
Elgin
Street.
B
The
there
are
applicants
who
are
in
attendance
for
this
item,
but
is
there
a
need
for
the
the
applicants
to
speak
if
the
items
are
carried
so
I'll
ask
that
question
to
both
q9
planning
and
design
and
and
also
Peter
McCallum
from
the
whales
bone
on
whether
they
need
to
comment
on
this?
If
the
item
will
just
simply
carry.
F
Good
morning,
Mr
chair
I
do
not
need
to
speak.
If
the
committee
is
prepared
to
carry
the
item.
B
Thank
you
appreciate
that
so
is
this
report
carried
very
very
item
number
five
application
to
alter
619
Manor
Avenue.
This
item
will
be
held,
as
we
have
speakers
registered
and
a
number
item.
Six
status
update,
built,
Heritage
subcommittee,
increase
emotions
is
this
report
received.
I
B
Now
we
do
have
the
applicants
also
for
this
item
in
attendance.
Is
there
a
need
to
speak?
If
this
item
carries
and
I
do
know
that
Michael
Palawan,
Jordan,
Ferrero
and
Carolina
Campos
have
been
registered,
so
is
there
any
need
for
a
statement
or
or
any
comments?
J
Sorry
Mr
chair
there
is
not,
and
if
I
can
just
take
this
moment
to
wish
the
members
of
counsel
well
in
dealing
with
the
things
that
they
have
had
to
deal
with
over
the
last
11
days.
B
I
appreciate
that
Mr
Poland
has
been
a
very
tough,
especially
for
two
of
our
colleagues
around
the
table.
Counselor
McKinney
and
and
counselor
Fleury
counselor
Fleury
has
raised
his
hand.
K
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
I
have
some
questions
to
staff
for
the
record
more
more,
so
I
just
want
to.
B
Are
the
questions?
Can
we
just
proceed
with
those
or
right
now
or
will
it
require
the
us
to
hold
I'm
in
your
hands?
Mr
chair,
you
know
what,
in
the
interest
of
expediency,
I
I'm
willing
for
you
to
to
quickly
ask
those
questions
and-
and
if
we
can
dispense
with
this
report
relatively
quickly,
I
know
will
be
to
your
benefits.
So
please
go
ahead
and
ask
some
questions
to
staff.
K
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
and
I
want
to
thank
I
want
to
thank
Jordan
I
want
to
thank
Michael
I
want
to
thank
City
staff.
I
know,
there's
been
ongoing
discussions
and
reviews
and
studies
and
I
know.
A
lot
of
this
was
was
being
done
at
the
staff
level,
so
I
think
it
is
important
for
for
committee
and
for
the
public
to
capture
all
the
work
and
the
considerations
here
and
and
understand
how
or
if
this
sets
a
precedent
going
forward.
K
So
those
those
are
the
the
discussion
areas
that
I'll
be
asking
here
for
for
Anne
and
team
so,
and
we
had
met
last
I
guess
last
week
now
that
time
flies,
but
just
to
understand
that
there
was
a
report
to
come
forward
at
that
point,
you
didn't
know
what
your
staff
recommendation
were
going
to
be.
Could
you
maybe
walk
us?
The
walk
committees
in
the
in
the
community
Through
the
the
work
that
led
to
the
report
today.
A
Yes,
thank
you
councilman
Fleury.
We
have
had
on
this
file
several
engineering
reports
and
studies,
assessments
that
have
been
submitted.
We've
worked
with
our
colleagues
in
building
code
services
to
understand
the
condition
of
the
building,
as
well
as
the
practicality
associated
with
possible
future
restoration
and
some
of
the
items
that
complicate
that
in
terms
of
safety,
of
the
building
the
extent
of
the
damage
practicality
in
terms
of
timing,
but
that
it's
winter
and
all
the
while
addressing
concerns
with
with
Public
Safety.
A
So
we
certainly
analyzed
the
building
I
think
at
this
point,
there's
between
three
and
five
different
engineering
reports
that
have
been
submitted
so
we've
been
we've
been
working
very
carefully
and
some
of
the
analysis
is
current
condition
and
future
possibility
for
stabilization
and
Restoration.
In
addition
to
the
condition
of
the
building.
K
Thank
you
for
that,
and
and
ultimately,
can
you
clarify
how
you've
landed
on
the
the
direction
in
front
of
us.
A
Yeah,
so
basically
what
it
came
down
to
was
we
assessed
the
the
well.
Our
first
thing
was
to
look
at
the
engineering
assessments
that
we
received,
which
was
basically
an
assessment
that
said
the
building
should
be
immediately
demolished.
We
had
that
Port
reviewed
by
John,
Cook
and
Associates,
which
indicated
that
there
was
a
stabilization
measure
available
to
us.
So
we
examined
the
practicality
of
undertaking
that
stabilization
measures
and
practicality,
including
cost
timeline
feasibility.
A
A
Some
of
the
masonry
is
in
good
condition,
although
that's
disputed
back
and
forth
in
the
in
the
report,
but
the
damage
is
extensive.
All
the
structure
of
the
building
from
this
at
least
the
second
floor
up
and
maybe
the
first
floor,
including
the
floorboards
load
bearing
walls
floors,
have
been
damaged.
The
roof
is
completely
damaged.
The
porch
has
localized
damage
barge
porch
has
been
destroyed,
bay
window
damaged,
all
the
windows
are,
are
damaged
removed.
A
K
Okay
and
then
sorry,
Mr
chair,
but
one
more
one
more
question
and
then
I'll
it
should
be.
It
should
should
cover
the
elements
for
record
here
so
and
I,
don't
know
if
it's
you
or
if
Leslie
or
if
someone
else
is
on
but
feel
free
to
answer,
if
it's
appropriate,
so
the
decisions
that
you're
bringing
in
front
of
us.
How
does
it
not
set
a
precedent,
because
I
think
committee
and
Council
and
and
even
residents
want
to
make
sure
that
the
properties
at
our
heritage
are
are
protected,
I
and
and
I?
K
Think
the
spirit
of
that
is
important,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
can
you,
maybe
for
the
record,
clarify
how
how
this
does
set
a
precedent
or
how
it
does
not
set
a
precedent
going
forward.
A
Sure
sure
counselor
Flory
so
in
terms
of
what
we
did
here
was
our
colleagues
in
building
code.
Services
worked
with
us
to
have
that
peer
review
of
the
first
engineering
report
that
indicated
that
the
building
should
be
demolished.
A
We
looked
back
on
other
fires
that
were
that
has
have
happened
to
Heritage
buildings
and
I.
I
can
tell
you
that
there's
no
two
that
are
like
there's
never
going
to
be
another
situation
like
this,
because
we
look
at
the
extent
of
the
damage
we
look
at
the
site,
and
you
know
some
of
the
challenges
to
the
site
into
terms
of
restoration
or
even
stabilization
here
had
to
do
with
winter,
its
proximity
to
the
neighbor
to
the
east.
How
much
of
the
building
has
been
damaged?
A
What
type
of
designation
it
is
in
this
case,
it's
a
part.
Five
building,
it's
in
the
district,
some
of
our
other
buildings
could
be
a
part
four
building,
there's
sort
of
one
of
a
kind
there's
so
many
factors
that
go
into
our
analysis
and
and
then,
of
course,
working
with
our
colleagues
and
building
codes
services
to
assess
the
safety
and
the
condition
of
the
building.
A
So
it's
not
precedent
setting
in
the
there's
no
situations
when
it
comes
to
buildings
that
that
will
be
the
same,
so
they
all
go
under
analysis
in
terms
of
hair
retention
of
cultural
heritage,
value
and
then
safety
with
our
colleagues
and
building
code
services.
So
we
have
no
concern
about
it
being
precedent
setting.
K
A
Thank
you,
counselor
Florissant.
The
report
doesn't
go
into
the
restoration
of
the
building,
because
we
we
don't
have
any
information
on
that.
We
have
information
on
a
stabilization
approach
and
we
have
information
on
the
condition
of
the
building.
So
the
condition
of
the
building
is
such
that
it
is
that
some
of
the
masonry
could
be
in
in
good
repair,
but
there's
engineering
reports
that
that
differ
on
that
opinion,
something
the
extent
is
more
serious
or
more
severe
than
than
others.
A
So
what
we've
done
is
proposed
in
part
of
the
as
part
of
the
condition
of
approval,
a
Savage
plan
to
retain
historic
material
where
possible
and
there's
two
components
that
will
be
associated
with
that.
A
what
can
be
safely
salvaged
like
how
can
it
be
accessed
and
safely
removed
is
any
is
any
sort
of
sensitive
demolition
possible,
given
the
current
condition
of
the
building
and
two
based
on
the
into
the
damage
of
the
fire.
What
material
can
be
reused,
or
has
it
been
too
severely
damaged?
B
Thank
you,
counselor
and
I
appreciate
everybody's
patience
as
well.
You
know
the
the
intent
was
for
this
to
be
quick,
but
I
appreciate
the
question
from
the
Ward
counselor.
So
we'll
just
continue
on
here.
I
see
that
member
podelski
has
raised
his
hand.
Yes,.
E
Thank
you.
Of
course,
fire
like
this
is
tragic
and
the
building
contributes
to
the
Heritage
Conservation,
District
and
councilor
Ferry's
questions
I
think
are
very
appropriate.
I
would
just
add
one
more
question
to
staff,
and
that
is
that
the
last
report,
the
engineering
report,
suggested
that
the
staff
were
had
adopted
a
recommendation
of
the
cook
report
to
embark
on
a
stabilization
process.
And
could
you
explain
why
you
reversed
on
that?
A
Well,
thank
you.
Member
Podolski
specifically
enter
the
the
comment
about
the
staff
have
adopted
the
the
approach
in
the
John
Cook
report
because
we
haven't
certainly
when
the
John
Cook
report
was
a
peer
review
of
that
first
engineering
report
that
was
submitted.
That
indicated
the
building
had
to
be
down
the
be
demolished
immediately.
The
John
Cook
report
provided
an
assessment
of
that
report
and
an
opinion
that
there
was
a
stabilized
stabilization
option
available
to
us
and
staff
assessed
that
option
that
was
presented.
A
So
we
haven't,
we
haven't
adopted
it
we're
not
recommending
that
that
be
undertaken,
but
I
think
it
was
just
con.
It
was
considered
in
in
our
assessment.
That
was
what
we,
what
we
sort
of
under
used
to
undertake
our
analysis
of
future
options
and
in
terms
of
documentation.
E
I'm
not
going
to
I'm
going
to
support
the
Motions,
but
I
would
also
recommend
that
the
reports
that
were
referred
to,
such
as
the
cook
report
and
any
other
ones,
be
shared
with
the
bill.
Heritage
subcommittee
for
the
record,
so
that
we
are
able
to
study
and
see
the
staff
decisions
so
that
we
will
know
for
future
purposes
how
the
recommendation
was
arrived.
Yet.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
F
Thank
you
chair
a
couple
of
quick
questions
for
City
staff,
particularly
involving
the
the
Salvage
initiative.
This
is
being
brought
up
in
a
couple
of
City
files
to
date,
and
I
was
just
wondering
when
we're
looking
at
a
demolition
like
this,
where
there
are
supposedly
intact
Heritage
elements
as
well
as
those
that
have
been
destroyed.
A
Thank
you.
Member
also
that
in
this
case,
I
think
the
general
answer
would
be
that
the
city
aims
to
salvage
as
much
historic
material
as
as
possible
and
I'll
just
use
that
term
generally,
in
terms
of
you,
know
important
Heritage
material
that
can
reasonably
be
reused.
That
concept
is
somewhat
complicated
here
because
of
the
condition
of
the
building
and
the
ability
to
enter
and
remove
material
safely
and
the
condition
of
any
of
that
build
any
of
that
material.
A
But
in
general
that
I
would
say
that's
our
overarching
goal
and
here
because
the
the
properties
in
the
daily
Avenue
hcd,
the
plan
actually
speaks
to
exploring
options
for
salvaging
historic
material
wherever
possible.
So
we
we
also
understood
that
to
meet
the
intent
of
the
daily
Avenue
hcd
plan,.
F
Okay,
thank
you,
I
guess
where
I'm
going
with
this
is
after
they've
salvaged
these
materials
they've
taken
the
stained
glass
windows
that
remain
intact,
they've
taken,
you
know,
whatever
elements
are
deemed
salvageable
are
those
then
the
proponent
of
the
owner
to
just
hang
on
to
definitely
does
the
city
collect
them?
Is
there
essentially?
Is
there
a
plan
for
once
these
materials
have
been
removed
from
site
that
they
are
in
some
way
going
to
be
repurposed,
or
are
they
just
diverted
from
landfill.
B
A
You,
member
halsell,
the
answer
is
it
it
depends
and
that's
why
we're
asking
for
a
plan
in
this
case,
because,
if
it
sort
of
depends
what
the
future
of
the
property
holds,
if
it's
going
to
be,
if
it's
a
situation
where
it's
going
to
be
the
same
owner
continuing
with
with
the
property
and
looking
to
do
a
restoration
project,
maybe
there's
an
opportunity
for
reuse
of
material
on
site.
A
In
this
case,
the
owner's
plan
is
as
I
understand.
It
is
to
sell
the
property.
A
So
what
we
would
need
to
do
in
this
plan,
the
Salvage
plan
is
identify
exact,
exactly
what
you
said:
what
what
happens
to
any
of
the
historic
materials
that
we
identify
as
being
possible
to
reuse,
so
that
will
be
part
of
what
what
we
need
to
consider
on
this
site,
but
we
we
wouldn't
be
requiring
any
future
owner
to
necessarily
use
this
material
just
because
we
aren't
able
to
do
that,
but
so
it
sort
of
that's
part
of
what
we
will
be
looking
for
in
the
contents
of
the
Salvage
plan.
B
On
this
item,
I
know
that
this
is
unorthodox,
but
obviously
we
have
just
brought
this
as
a
measure
and
was
not
on
the
agenda
and
we
do
have
David
Fleming
from
Heritage
Ottawa.
Who
wanted
to
provide
some
comment.
So
I
will
ask
the
committee
coordinator
to
bring
him
in
for
for
comment.
L
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I
I
did
not
see
this
report.
It
was
I
I,
looked
on
the
agenda
until
last
night
and
it
hadn't
been
posted
there.
I
just
have
a
question:
what
are
the
interim
plans
for
the
property
once
the
host
is
demolished?
A
Thank
you
chair,
so
staff
have
included
a
condition
in
this
report
just
that
the
site
we
maintained
in
in
good
condition
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
GM
of
planning,
real
estate
and
economic
development.
The
condition
States
the
owner
shall
prohibit
the
use
of
the
property
for
any
other
interim
uses
and
maintain
the
property
in
accordance
with
the
Property
Standards
bylaw.
A
So
that
that's
what
where
we
have
a
condition
to
sort
of
address
that
so
in
the
interim,
the
site
will
be
maintained
in
good
condition
and
then
any
future
development
on
this
site
will
be
subject
to
an
application
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
act
and
will
be
in
front
of
this
committee
for
consideration.
B
And
thank
you
for
staff
for
answering
those
questions
in
detail.
Is
this
report
carried
married.
F
B
With
thanks
to
the
committee,
we'll
now
proceed
to
the
held
item
so
that
felt
like
it
was
held,
but
obviously
for
the
interest
of
the
time
we
we
want
to
to
move
forward.
So
the
next
area
on
our
agenda
is
postponements
and
deferrals,
an
application
for
new
construction
at
480,
Cloverdale
Road,
a
property
designated
under
part,
five
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act
and
located
in
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
Heritage,
Conservation
District.
This
is
our
first
item.
This
item
was
originally
considered.
B
As
we
know
at
the
November
30th
2021
built
Heritage
subcommittee
meeting,
it
was
deferred
and
the
committee
is
now
considering
it
again.
Heritage
staff
received
the
revised
application
on
January
31st
and
a
replacement
report
was
distributed
to
committee
and
posted
to
ottawa.ca.
Yesterday,
February
7th,
following
staff's
review
of
the
recent
application
and
after
careful
analysis
staff,
have
prepared
shared
a
new
report
recommending
refusal
of
the
revised
application.
This
new
report
provides
the
context
and
history
on
this
matter
and
on
how
staff,
and
also
on
staff's
new
recommendation.
B
The
revised
report
also
includes
the
most
recent
plans,
which
were
confirmed
by
the
applicant
as
being
their
final
proposed
design.
Before
considering
this
item,
I
would
like
to
ask
the
vice
chair
to
move
a
motion
to
replace
the
Deferred
Report
with
the
new
report
put
forward
by
staff.
So
it
can
formally
be
before
this
committee.
I
I'm,
very
my
apologies
I'll
carry
on
without
repeating
the
the
report
number,
whereas
report
num
as
numbered
in
relation
to
480
Cloverdale
Road,
was
originally
considered
at
the
November
30th
2021
built
Heritage
subcommittee
meeting
was
deferred
and
included
on
the
agenda
for
the
February
8
2022
built
Heritage
subcommittee
meeting
published
on
January
28
2022,
whereas
Heritage
staff
received
the
revised
application
on
January
31st
and
a
replacement
report
on
the
revised
application
was
distributed
to
committee
and
posted
to
ottawa.ca
on
February
7.
I
2022,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
the
revised
report
in
relation
to
480
Cloverdale
Road
replace
the
original
report
submitted
to
the
Heritage
build
Heritage
subcommittee.
So
that
committee
may
consider
the
revised
report
at
its
meeting
of
February
8
2022
and
the
revised
report
number
is
ACS.
2022
p-I-e-r-h-u0007.
B
G
Chair,
thank
you
I'm.
Just
a
procedural
question.
G
Are
these
minor
revisions
that
have
been
made
or
am
I
getting
this
property
and
application
mixed
up
with
another
one
where
you
had
referenced
staffs
changing
their
recommendation
to
this
committee
and
I
asked
that,
because
if
the
changes
are
substantial-
and
it
was
only
publicly
posted
yesterday-
how
we
could
be
discussing
this
matter
now
and
not
give
the
public
sort
of
sufficient
notice
to
absorb
whatever
documents
were
posted
just
yesterday,
so
if
they're
minor
in
nature,
then
perhaps
we
can
proceed
today,
but
if
they're
more
substantial,
then
perhaps
this
should
be
deferred
a
month.
B
Well,
this
has
been
a
process.
We
know
that
this
came
before
us
at
our
previous
meeting
of
subcommittee
and
staff
had
been
working
in
conjunction
with
the
applicant
to
to
have
changes.
So
the
idea,
of
course,
seeking
a
a
better
application
before
us,
and
the
staff
has
made
some
recommendations
and
I
actually
will
ask
Leslie
to
discuss
the
the
changes
that
did
come
in
from
staff.
B
But
this
was
expected,
as
we
know
that
there
would
be
some
level
of
dialogue
with
the
the
potential
for
the
reports
to
change
based
on
what
was
incoming.
Can.
G
B
No
staff
has
changed
its
recommendation
on
on
the
480
Cloverdale
property
and
we
held
that
that
consideration
of
that
application
so
that
there
could
be
back
and
forth
the
applicant.
So
that's
that's
the
rationale
here.
Okay,
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
B
So,
based
on
that
clarification,
is
the
motion
carried
carry.
Thank
you
can
stop.
Please
provide
an
overview
of
this
report.
D
Thank
you
through
YouTube
good
morning.
This
item
concerns
the
application
for
new
construction
at
480,
Cloverdale
Road,
a
property
designated
under
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act
and
located
in
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District.
The
subcommittee
will
remember
this
item
from
its
meeting
on
November
30th
2021.
The
item
was
deferred
to
allow
staff
and
the
applicant
the
opportunity
to
work
together
on
revising
The
Proposal
next
slide.
Please
just
a
refresher.
The
property
at
480,
Cloverdale
Road,
is
located
on
the
east
side
of
Cloverdale
Road
between
Hillsdale
and
Lakehurst.
D
Roads
is
bounded
to
the
north
by
484,
Cloverdale
Road,
a
grade
one
Cape
Cod
style
home
and
the
rear
of
560
Hillsdale
Road.
Just
to
the
right
of
that
which
can
be
seen
on
this
slide,
it
is
a
double
lot
consisting
of
two
parcels
and
to
the
south
of
that
is
a
vacant
double
lot
at
454,
Cloverdale
Road,
which
also
consists
of
two
Parcels
to
the
immediate
East,
is
The
Rock,
Cliff,
Park,
tennis
courts
next
slide,
please.
D
D
D
Next
slide,
please.
The
next
two
slides
show
elevations
of
the
proposed
building
on
the
left
is
the
front
elevation
and
on
the
right
is
the
rear.
The
subcommittee
will
notice
that
some
changes
have
been
proposed
with
respect
to
materiality
next
slide.
Please,
the
slide
shows
the
North
and
South
elevations
of
the
building
the
north
elevation
on
the
top
of
the
slide
abuts
the
adjacent
grade,
one
home
next
slide.
Please
on
the
slide,
is
the
revised
landscape
plan,
which
notably
shows
additional
tree
planting
along
the
north
and
south
lot
boundaries
next
slide.
D
Please,
four
renderings
of
the
building
are
shown
on
this
slide
with
trees
emitted,
as
can
be
seen,
the
building
has
less
variation
in
materials
and
articulation
than
before,
as
well
as
fewer
Windows
next
slide.
Please
Heritage
staff
have
evaluated
the
proposed
revisions
against
the
guidelines
in
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
hcd
plan.
The
subcommittee
will
remember
that
in
November
last
year,
staff
expressed
concern
about
the
length
and
mass
of
the
proposed
building,
especially
along
its
North
elevation,
while
the
length
of
the
building
has
been
reduced
by
approximately
six
meters.
D
Heritage
staff
would
consider
this
to
be
only
a
minor
reduction
in
length
and
our
concerns
remain.
In
addition,
further
changes
to
the
proposal
have
brought
it
further
out
of
Conformity
with
the
hcd
plan,
especially
as
it
relates
to
front
yards
height,
Mass
Landscaping
and
the
overall
objectives
of
the
plan
in
staff's
opinion.
The
cumulative
effects
of
these
changes,
together
with
staff's
original
concerns,
Merit
the
conclusion
that
the
proposal
does
not
conform
with
the
hcd
plan
next
slide.
D
next
slide,
please,
following
the
decision
of
the
subcommittee
to
defer
the
application,
Heritage
staff
was
invited
to
a
meeting
with
the
applicant
neighbors
and
councilor
King
to
discuss
our
Collective
concerns
and
the
applicant's
proposed
revisions.
The
revised
submission
package
was
also
recirculated
after
staff
received
a
complete
application
next
slide.
Please.
D
B
Thank
you
for
that
detailed
report.
We
did
receive
correspondence
from
numerous
residents
from
the
Heritage
Park
Heritage
committee,
as
well
as
Heritage
Ottawa,
and
a
correspondence
was
also
submitted
on
behalf
of
the
applicant.
We
have
a
number
of
registered
speakers
on
this
item
and
the
first
registered
speaker
is
Michael
Flynn
of
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
residence
Association.
M
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee
I'm
on
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
Heritage
committee,
and
have
been
working
with
the
applicant
and
other
members
of
our
committee
to
assess
this
application
for
a
Heritage
permit
and
following
the
November
30th
meeting,
it
was
agreed
that
this
matter
would
be
adjourned
so
that
the
applicant
could
make
revisions
to
the
plans
to
conform
with
our
concerns
under
the
Heritage
plan,
and
we
did
receive
these
revisions
and
I'm
sorry
to
say
that
well,
they
have
reduced
the
size
a
little
bit.
M
The
building
is
still
mammoth
under
the
Heritage
plan.
The
the
new
construction
has
to
be
of
the
same
mass
height
length
as
other
historic
houses
on
the
streetscape.
In
this
case,
it's
still
massive.
In
fact,
when
you
compare
the
plan
to
the
neighboring
grade,
one
house
at
484
Cloverdale,
the
new
proposed
house
is
at
least
four
times
the
mass.
M
But
what
really
strikes
me
and
I've
had
this
confirmed
by
the
city
Heritage
staff.
This
house
is
138
feet
long.
This
proposed
house-
well,
the
Standard
Building
Law
in
Radcliffe-
is
a
hundred
by
a
hundred
so
that
this
house
is
actually
longer
than
the
ordinary
length
of
a
standard
building
lot.
It's
actually
138
feet,
which
means
it's
38
percent,
bigger
than
a
standard
lot
and,
of
course,
on
a
standard
lot.
The
house
would
have
to
fit
with
all
the
setbacks,
so
it
wouldn't
be
a
hundred
feet.
M
So
this
house
is
way
too
long
and
it's
way
too
massive
and
it's
still
not
respecting
the
requirements
for
the
heights,
so
I'm
afraid
the
architect
or
the
applicant
has
prepared
the
plans
for
this
house
in
complete
disregard
or
respect
for
what
is
provided
for
in
the
Heritage
plan
and,
of
course
the
Heritage
plan
was
enacted
by
the
city
of
Ottawa
in
2016
and
has
the
force
of
a
bylaw.
It
was
enacted
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
act,
so
it
has
the
force
of
Law
and
it
has
to
be
respected.
M
M
And
we're
very
pleased
to
find
last
night
that
the
Heritage
staff,
which
originally
approved
the
application
for
a
Heritage
permit,
have
now
replaced
that
report
and
have
recommended
that
the
built
Heritage
subcommittee
not
approved
this
application
for
a
Heritage
plan.
M
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
are
there
any
questions
seeing
none?
Yes!
Oh
sorry,
okay,
Vice,
chair,
Quinn,
sorry.
I
My
you
slipped,
my
screen
slipped
and
I
couldn't
get
to
my
raise
and
feature
yes.
I
do
have
a
question.
I'm,
sorry
and
I
just
want
to
go
back
to
the
reference
to
the
size
of
the
design
in
terms
of
it
being
larger
than
a
traditional
Rock
Cliff
Park
lot,
and
my
question
is
just
pertains
to
the
fact
that
this
lot
is
not
an
average
sized
Rock
of
Park
lot.
I
It
is
maybe
double
the
size
of
an
average
Rock
Cliff
Park
lot,
so
I'm
wondering
if
they're,
when
considering
that
factor
are,
are
do
those
same
restriction
Supply
as
it
would
in
a
in
a
traditional
in
in
in
their
The
Rock
Cliff
Park
residence.
Association's
interpretation
of
the
plan.
Should
those
same
standards
be
imposed
here
when
clearly
we're
talking
about
quite
a
different
lot
size.
M
And
well,
thank
you.
That's
a
very
good
question
in
the
Cloverdale
area,
which
I
will
call
this
house
is
on
Cloverdale
and
the
Cloverdale
Cloverdale
area
is
bounded
by
another
street
called
Hillsdale
to
the
North
and
then
lands
down
North
to
the
East
and
then
Lakehurst
to
the
South.
That
block,
which
is
about
20
acres.
M
All
the
lots
are
the
same
size.
They're
all
look
this.
This
lot
is
220
feet
long
and
one
of
the
main
objectives
of
the
Rockford
Park
Heritage
plan,
and
it's
it's
written
right
at
the
beginning
of
the
plan
under
objectives,
is
to
maintain
the
Greenscape
and
the
park-like
qualities
of
Rock
Cliff
Park
and
in
the
Cloverdale
area.
M
That
attribute,
which
is
one
of
the
attributes
that
the
Rockford
Park
Heritage
plan,
is
designed
and
and
specifies
preserving.
What
this
house
is
going
to
do
is
going
to
build
right
into
that
park-like
quality
in
the
back
and
as
I
said,
it'll
be
138
feet,
and
it's
it's
going
to
take
away
that
Greenscape.
That
greens,
that
green
space
that
Greenscape
that
park-like
quality,
which
is
contrary
to
the
objectives
and
as
I
said
in
in
our
submission.
If
this
house
was
double
the
length
of
the
neighboring
grade,
one
Heritage
House.
M
That
is
understandable
because
it
has
such
a
big
lot.
But
in
this
case
it's
four
times
or
more
and
it
it
it.
It
basically
obliterates
the
green
space
so
that
all
the
Neighbors,
in
that
in
the
Cloverdale
area
and
all
those
four
streets
I
listed,
will
no
longer
be
enjoying
a
Greenscape
they'll,
be
looking
into
this
house
now.
The
Rockland
Heritage
plan
does
not
a
regulate
design
in
this
proposed
house,
as
you've.
Probably
seen
on
the
plans,
looks
like
a
concrete
bunker
and
there's
nothing
wrong
with
that.
M
A
person
can
build
whatever
to
whatever
tastes
they
have,
but
it
has
to
be
in
accordance
with
the
mass
and
the
scale
the
length
and
the
height
that
are
required
under
the
Heritage
plan,
and
this
large
concrete
bunker
is
going
to
be
spoiling
the
Greenscape
and
the
park-like
qualities
which
are
now
on
that
lot.
B
Thank
you
not
seeing
any
questions
any
other
additional
questions
from
Members.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
your
deputation.
The
next
speaker
registered
speakers,
Andrew
Reeves
from
winebox.
N
Thank
you
Mr,
chair
and
committee
today,
with
some
wacky
times
for
everybody
so
appreciate
your
time.
N
I'll
have
to
get
a
presentation
up
if,
if
I
may,
I
think
everyone's
pretty
well
aware
of
this
application
and
in
five
minutes
I'll
I'll
do
my
best
to
maybe
focus
more
on
what
has
been
done
since
the
last
submission
so
yeah.
Maybe
all
this
queue
on
slide,
so
we
can
go
next
slide
and
I'll
speak
to
as
we
go
and
we'll
see
how
coordinated
we
can
get
between
these
things
see
if
we
go
to
the
next
one,
which
is
more
the
first
slide,
which
is
the
site
plan.
N
Obviously
one
of
the
major
elements
that
has
been
done,
this
site
plan
shows
the
previous
application
with
the
Skybox
I
do
want
to
explain
further
about
the
Skybox
is
not
just
a
deletion
of
the
one
form.
The
original
application
had
a
screened
in
porch
and,
as
everyone
knows,
the
site
slopes
down
quite
dramatically,
so
the
Skybox
was
fully
exposed.
As
in
what
you
see.
So
it
was
a
three-story
structure
outside
the
ground,
with
a
rooftop
bump
up
and
a
rooftop
Terrace.
N
All
of
that
has
been
deleted,
not
moved
the
diamond
that
we
speak
of.
It
found
its
way
inside
the
home
to
the
inside,
where
no
one
can
see
to
help
reduce
the
massing
next
slide.
Please
I
think
some
of
the
presentations
were
great.
N
I
was
actually
I
want
to
thank,
at
this
moment
to
Tony
and
Mr
Wilson
for
allowing
an
additional
informal
meeting
after
the
last
application
before
this
one
to
further
out
the
discussions
as
well
as
City
staff
has
been
very,
very
helpful
and
obviously
it
has
their
very
strong
opinions,
and
so
do
we
so
I
think
it's
it's
proving
to
solve
some
good
moves.
I
do
want
to
speak
to
the
backyard.
N
The
backyard
is
in
fact
92
feet
long,
so
it
is
at
the
length
of
majority
of
properties
including
longer
than
adjacent
Total
Property
length.
So
we
do
almost
have
100
feet
of
backyard.
We
were
proposing.
The
site
itself
has
54
existing
trees.
We
were
only
removing
eight
of
these
trees.
A
lot
of
the
architectural
moves
are
directly
respond
to
that
and
we're
posing
39
new
trees.
The
39
new
trees
are
shown
in
green
while
we're
speaking
more
of
landscape.
N
One
other
change
that
we
made
to
to
multiple
changes
of
this
design
is
deleting
all
windows
to
the
basements
and
in
doing
so
that
means
to
complete
all
the
required
light
wells
and
in
doing
so
allows
us
to
keep
the
grade
100
as
it
is
and
reinstate
the
grade
to
be
100
as
it
is.
The
goal
of
this
product
is
to
be
a
force
and
a
force.
The
goal
of
this
project
is
to
be
fully
contained
by
Forest
and
by
Nature.
That's
a
major
driving
factor
of
our
design.
N
Next
slide.
Please.
N
N
I
guess,
if
you
keep
going
until
the
other
side
by
side
images,
what
we
did
here
is
we're
starting
to
show
images
of
the
existing
building
with
the
trees.
These
trees
aren't
artistic
interpretations.
The
trees
are
in
the
accurate
locations
of
where
they
are
so
you
want
to
be
very
clear.
I
know
it's
mandated.
They
need
to
submit
drawings
that
show
elevations
that
you'll
never
see
in
real
life.
So
we
want
to
really
recreate
what
is
there
physically?
N
This
is
more
coming
into
the
area.
Obviously
we
have
our
front
in
our
front
porch
and
our
child
condition.
It
isn't
concrete.
This
is
Stone
Natural,
Stone,
natural
cedar,
natural
copper
or
the
three
materials
that
are
scattered
through
the
entire
building,
no
stucco,
no
fake
and
all
those
kind
of
things.
We
feel
that
it's
an
appropriate
material
for
this
neighborhood.
We
picked
up
on
Windows
and
window
sizes
and
proportions
that
you
can
see
that
have
changed
from
the
previous
application.
N
We
picked
up
some
of
those
proportions
from
the
neighboring
houses
in
the
neighborhood.
This
one
shows
our
little
rooftop
Terrace
over
the
garage,
which
is
exactly
identical
to
the
neighboring
Heritage
one
house
that
has
a
rooftop
patio
on
top
of
their
garage,
so
we're
trying
to
pick
on
certain
little
elements,
major
in
small
next
slides,
please,
if
you're
going
to
keep
going
down
to
the
side-by-side
images,
might
help
explain
the
before
and
afters.
N
So
these
slides
explain
our
previous
application
versus
what
we're
submitting
today
left
and
right.
So
our
left
is
always
the
previous
right
is
where
we
are
now.
As
you
can
see,
on
the
left-hand
side,
we
have
played
with
a
bentario
palette
to
be
more
in
keeping
with
the
I
would
call
more
monochromatic
nature
of
neighboring
homes.
We
deleted
the
overhang
on
top
of
the
garage,
as
you
can
see,
to
help
reduce
the
massing
this
height
is
within.
This
building
is
in
width
height,
we're
not
asking
for
one
inch
of
additional
height
I.
N
Do
want
to
make
that
clear
on
record
that
there's
not
an
increase
the
height
required
and
not
increase.
The
setback
required,
not
increase.
The
block
coverage
required
zoning
wise
outside
Heritage
concerns.
There
is
no
minor
variance
or
requests
next
slide.
Please
again
we're
trying
to
see
how
we
can
subtly
pick
up
Windows
and
textures.
You
can
see
on
the
left
how
it
was
versus
the
right.
The
windows
on
our
on
our
building
are
the
same
size
and
proportion
as
the
Heritage
home.
N
We're
adding
some
more
grading
and
good
work
to
the
windows,
help
break
it
up,
including
the
different
material
pallets
next
slide.
Please.
N
The
side
elevations
you
can
see
the
before
and
afters
and,
in
fact,
I
seriously
debate
that
we've
deleted
a
lot
of
Windows
we've
broken
up
the
massing
as
best
we
could,
knowing
that
we
have
privacy
issues
between
both
neighbors.
Even
what
will
be
a
future
home
next
to
us,
which
also
will
go
through
its
own
design
iterations.
So
we
try
to
make
sure
that
we
locate
windows
that
on
break
up
the
massing,
allow
light
and
Sun
into
our
space,
but
also
don't
create
awkward
views
to
each
other.
Next
slide.
N
Please-
and
this
is
the
rear,
which
shows
you
what
I
consider
a
very
major
change
on
massing
height
massing
length:
it's
not
just
a
reduction
of
a
Sky
Box.
You
can
see
the
rooftop
Terrace
that
was
there,
the
rooftop
access
that
was
there,
the
vasting
itself
that
was
there
and
then
intrusion
to
the
backyard.
N
We're
actually
now
showing
the
landscape
as
it
is
100
we're
not
altering
the
Contours
and
one
one
bit
the
trees
above
show
you
what
you
actually
see
from
Tony's
and
other
lots
to
be
surprised
next
slide
and
have
we
done
and
I
know
them
ran
out
of
time.
So
this
one
shows
that
what
happens
when
we
delete
the
Skybox
again
showing
artistic
renderings
with
no
trees,
which
is
a
bit
unfair,
but
we're
sticking
with
what
how
we
need
to
present
these
things.
N
This
is
how
you
never
see
this
building
in
real
life
it'll
be
fully
treated
and
you're
still
physically
on
our
property,
but
I
do
want
to
show.
This
is
how
the
masting
has
been
affected,
both
amassing
the
height
and
the
length
and
I
think
I
ran
out
of
time.
I
won't
take
up
any
more
time
with
yourselves.
Maybe
some
questions.
B
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation
just
asking
the
members.
If
there
are
any
questions
and
I
don't
see
Hands
raised,
so
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
The
next
registered
speaker
is
John
Stewart
from
Commonwealth
historic
resource
management,.
J
Morning
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
I'm
with
Commonwealth
and
Commonwealth,
we've
prepared
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement.
J
J
The
plan
submitted
has
been
reviewed
and
has
been
Guided
by
the
guidelines
within
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
District
plan,
as
well
as
Parts
Canada's
standards
and
guidelines.
I
realize
these
are
in
contradiction
to
the
staff
comments
that
they
do
not
follow
the
guidelines.
But,
in
my
estimation,
there's
a
valid
analysis
and
rational
for
for
them
to
to
meet
the
standards
and
guidelines.
J
A
series
of
pre-consult
consultation
meetings
with
the
Heritage
planning
section
and
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
Community
Association,
were
held
at
each
of
these
sessions.
Alternatives
and
suggestions
include
the
replacement
of
the
board
fence
with
a
live
hedge,
introducing
larger
Windows
along
the
north
and
south
facades,
introducing
smaller
Windows
along
the
north
and
south
facade,
the
use
of
a
lighter
colored
Limestone
as
an
exterior
cladding,
a
system
of
green
roofs
and
permeable
pavers
reduction
of
the
building's
height
and
and
length
on
the
Northern
elevation
and
a
careful
interpretation
of
the
city's
definition
of
basement.
J
J
One
of
the
features
of
the
site
has
been
the
the
vegetations
of
the
plant
material
and
an
attempt
by
the
architect
to
incorporate
a
design
which
is
not
a
traditional
estate
type
of
architecture
in
the
area,
but
a
design
that
conforms
with
the
landscape
that
allows
for
the
preservation
of
as
many
trees
as
possible
as
a
landscape.
Architect,
I
found
this
an
intriguing
approach
where
landscape
became
the
priority
and
the
building
took
on
a
secondary
role.
J
It
is
the
author's
opinion
that
the
plan
for
480
is
in
keeping
with
the
character
defining
attributes
of
the
district
by
maintaining
the
estate
qualities
and
park,
setting
envisioned
by
Kiefer.
It
acknowledges
and
respects
the
grade,
one
building
next
door,
with
the
generosity
of
space
around
the
proposed
house
and
the
flow
of
the
space
from
one
property
to
the
next
by
continuous
planting
picturesque
used
both
into
and
out
of
the
property.
J
So
new
construction
follows
the
management
guidelines
for
the
district,
in
that
it's
citing
form,
materials
and
detailing
are
sympathetic
to
the
surrounding
natural
and
cultural
environment.
The
proposed
development
retains
the
existing
lot
size
and
density.
The
existing
grades
are
maintained.
The
sighting
of
the
build
form
is
strategically
organized
to
retain
existing
trees.
This
strategic
approach,
two
masking,
also
addresses
a
relationship
to
the
side
by
side
to
the
side
and
backyard
exceeding
Zone
bylaw
requirements.
J
The
comment
regarding
the
the
lack
of
green
space
at
the
rear
is
based
on
the
the
drawings
and
the
details
is,
in
fact
the
park-like
quality
of
this
property.
It
has
been
maintained.
J
The
height
and
the
mass
of
the
new
building
have
been
adjusted
and
broken
up
to
more
could
be
more
consistent
with
the
grade
one
building
next
door
and
the
sighting
the
materials
of
new
buildings.
The
new
building
are
compatible
with
grade
one
buildings
and
the
associate
streetscape,
as
recommended
in
the
district
study.
The
design
of
the
new
house
is
of
its
own
time,
but
harmonizes
with
its
setting
and
use
of
limestone,
copper
and
wood.
J
This
is
an
unusually
large
lot.
It's
over
twice
the
size
of
the
John.
B
J
Close
up,
yes,
the
Hiatus
is
much
lower
than
neighboring
buildings
and
is
consistent
with
the
grade
one
property
next
door.
The
building
has
been
cited,
such
that
the
volume
at
the
front
does
not
overwhelm
the
neighboring
grade.
One
building
and
most
of
the
building's
mass
is
organized
in
in
the
middle
of
the
lot
and
screened
by
not
by
mature
mixed
deciduous
and
coniferous
trees.
B
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
Are
there
any
questions
and
I
don't
see
any
questions
from
committee?
So
thank
you.
Our
next
registered
speaker
is
Tony
Bruns.
O
Good
morning
to
all
at
City
Hall
and
to
the
applicant
and
the
development
team,
my
wife
and
I
have
read
the
submission
by
Solway
Wright
regarding
the
comments
by
Mrs
ratushny
at
484,
Cloverdale
and
just
wish
to
say
that
we
had
no
prior
knowledge
of
that
comment
before
it
was
made
and
that
we
believe
it
is
of
course
inappropriate
and
unfortunate.
O
Having
said
that,
I
wanted
to
get
down
to
business,
to
say
that
we
appreciate
the
efforts
that
Andrew,
Reeves
and
his
team
have
have
made,
and
there
has
been
some
dialogue.
Yes,
they've
moved
the
sky
box
and
yes,
as
Adrian
Van
Wyck
pointed
out,
they
also
moved
that
north
side
of
the
building,
which
affects
us
at
560,
Hillsdale,
closer
to
the
property
line
and,
and
so
the
other
thing,
the
backyard
has
been
increased.
A
little
bit.
O
I
I,
don't
know
where
Andrew
Reeves
got
the
idea
that
it
was
92
feet
long,
perhaps
it's
from
the
south
side
of
their
property,
but
certainly
not
from
what
I
can
tell
on
the
north
side.
So
the
comments
we
have
is
would
like
to
bring
to
your
attention.
Is
our
entire
backyard
lot
line
borders
on
the
north
side
of
this
480
Cloverdale?
O
The
proposed
north
side
of
the
480
Cloverdale
building
will
exceed
considerably
more
than
half
of
our
backyard
lot
line.
O
Now
the
problem
is,
is
that
the
proposed
building
will
be
at
a
height,
I
I,
don't
know,
it
looks
to
me
that
it's
even
more
than
33
feet
at
at
Cloverdale,
the
the
height
of
the
building,
is
very
modest
at
the
level
that
we
are
at
560
Hilldale
and
we
have
a
flat
lot.
It
looks
like
it's,
it's
it's
more
than
33
feet
and,
and
it's
definitely
three
very
large
stories-
and
it
looks
like
from
some
of
the
pictures.
O
There's
been
some
mounding
around
it
as
well,
and
so
the
next
thing
is
it.
It
appears,
then,
from
our
lot
will
appear
as
a
very
long,
solid,
very
high
wall
with
few
Windows,
which
is
is
not
very
attractive.
O
If,
if
you
would
give
us
the
opportunity,
perhaps
Adrian
or
or
Andrew
could
find
picture
number
12,
which
shows
the
image
on
the
North
side
facing
our
property,
it's
it's,
unfortunately,
very
dark
and,
and
it's
got
a
lot
of
snow
on
it-
it's
it's
this
picture
here,
I
mean
it
it
it.
Our
our
land
is
completely
level
it's
actually
lower
than
what's
shown
here
and
it's
not
very
attractive.
O
If,
when
we
go
to
the
next
picture,
which
is
this
one
here,
this
is
the
height
looking
from
the
tennis
court
side
of
the
building.
Now
this
is
we're
going
to
be
facing
for
half
of
our
backyard,
something
this
high
was
sort
of
kind
of
no
windows
on
I
mean
this
would
be
fine
if
it
was
downtown
Ottawa,
you
know,
or
or
or
even
a
sidewall,
but
but
in
fact,
for
us
it's
our
backyard,
so
I
know
in
some
areas.
There
are
rules.
O
If
you're
going
on
facing
with
your
side
yard
a
backyard,
you
actually
have
to
give
more
space
on
the
side,
yard,
I,
I
guess
the
the
the
the
last
thing
I'd
like
to
say
is
that,
of
course,
this
is
going
to
certainly
reduce
our
enjoyment
of
our
property
and,
at
the
same
time,
it's
going
to
significantly
reduce
the
the
real
estate
value,
which
should
concern
City
Hall
a
little
bit,
because
in
fact
you
collect
property
taxes
from
us
and
if
the
value
goes
down,
you'll
get
less
property
taxes.
O
This
this
I
acknowledge,
is
obviously
the
dream
home
of
the
applicant
and
there's
many
very,
very
nice
aspects
of
it.
That
I
mean
aside
from
the
comments
that
have
been
made
about
the
lengths
and
the
massing.
Having
said
that,
I
I
asked
the
applicant
and
consider
if
they
they've
thought
about
in
a
way
ruining
the
dream
home
that
we
have
now
with
this
massing
and
so
I'll
leave
that
thought
with
you
and
the
applicant.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
for
all
the
organization
work.
You've
done.
Thank.
B
You
for
your
comments,
are
there
any
questions
and
I
see
that
Vice
chair
Quinn
has
raised
her
hand.
I
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you.
Mr
munst
for
your
presentation.
I
just
have
a
quick
question,
because
this
is
a
complicated
Enclave
in
terms
of
the
various
properties
and
property
sizes
of
lots
and
I.
Just
want
to
be
clear.
Your
property
is
on
Hillsdale,
your
backyard
aligns
with
your
neighbors
and
then
there
is
an
additional
lot
behind
you
that
is
technically
behind
484
Cloverdale
am
I
interpreting
that
correctly.
O
Yes,
that's
that's
correct
I,
I,
I,
I,
believe
on
on
our
right.
We
have
Bill
Malhotra
on
our
left.
We
have
the
cohens
a
kogan's
rather
and
yes,
their
property
lines,
sort
of
come
more
or
less
halfway
from
our
first
lot
and
then
the
second
lot
begins
more
or
less
at
that
property
line
is
all
the
back
of
the
retouchni
home
at
484,
Cloverdale
and
also
then,
the
the
home
that
is
next
to
the
the
the
the
side
of
the
rockle
of
Tennis
Club.
B
You're
welcome.
Thank
you
and
I
see
no
more
questions.
So
thank
you
for
your
deputation
and
our
next
registered
speaker
is
Kent
Manderville.
P
King
I
would
like
Kim
ratushny
to
speak.
First,
please.
B
Okay,
I'll
permit
that,
since
your
your
both
together.
Q
Good
morning
my
name
is
Kim.
Martushini
I
am
a
lawyer
in
the
Ottawa
area,
and
I
am
here
with
my
husband,
Kent
Manderville.
We
are
the
registered
owners
of
and
reside
at
484
Cloverdale
Road.
Thank
you
for
recognizing
my
standing
as
the
grade.
One
homeowner
directly
adjacent
to
the
proposed
construction.
Our
property
484
Cloverdale
Road,
is
immediately
adjacent
to
the
applicant's
property
480
Cloverdale.
Q
This
bylaw
and
the
Ontario
Heritage
act
prevent
this
committee
from
granting
the
permit
sought
by
the
applicant
bylaw
2016-89
incorporates
The
Rock
Cliff
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
as
a
bylaw
in
the
city
of
Ottawa,
the
bylaw
States
and
I
quote
a
bylaw
of
the
city
of
Ottawa
to
adopt
The
Rock
Cliff
Park
Conservation
District
plan
enacted
by
city
council
at
the
meeting
of
March
23
2016..
This
plan,
enacted
by
bylaw
2016-89
directly
limits.
Q
This
committee's
jurisdiction
to
Grant
a
Heritage
permit
to
this
application
in
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District,
specifically
section
7.4.2
sub
3.
At
page
29
of
this
plan,
enacted
by
bylaw
2016-89
states
that
and
I
quote,
construction
of
new
buildings
will
only
be
permitted
when
the
new
building
does
not
detract
from
the
historic
landscape
characteristics
of
the
associated
streetscape.
The
height
and
mass
of
the
new
buildings
are
consistent
with
the
grade.
One
buildings
in
the
associated
streetscape
and
the
sighting
and
materials
of
the
new
building
are
compatible
with
the
grade.
Q
One
building
in
the
associated
streetscape
in
adopting
bylaw
number
2016-89,
the
city
of
Ottawa,
sought
to
expressly
limit
this
committee's
jurisdiction
to
Grant
Heritage
permits
when
these
requirements
are
not
met.
This
committee
therefore,
does
not
have
the
jurisdiction
to
issue
Heritage
permits
when
these
requirements
are
not
met.
Our
house
at
44,
Cloverdale
Road,
is
a
grade
one
building.
It
is
the
grade.
One
building
against
which
the
subject
proposed
construction
is
to
be
compared
as
we
are
a
grade
one
building
in
the
streetscape
and
directly
adjacent
to
the
proposed
construction
respectfully.
Q
This
honorable
committee
does
not
have
the
jurisdiction
pursuant
to
bylaw
2016-89,
to
permit
this
permit
sought,
because
the
proposed
construction
does
not
Accord
with
the
historic
landscape
of
the
associated
streetscape.
The
proposed
Building
height
and
mass
are
not
consistent
with
our
grade.
One
building
in
the
streetscape
and
directly
adjacent
to
the
proposed
construction
and
the
sighting
materials
of
the
proposed
building
are
not
compatible
with
our
grade.
One
building
in
the
streetscape
and
directly
adjacent
to
the
proposed
construction,
specifically,
the
citing
of
the
proposed
building,
is
not
compatible
with
a
pattern
of
established.
Q
Heritage
setbacks,
the
applicant's
proposed
front
yard
setback
is
not
compliant
with
the
guideline
7.4.2
sub
7A
and
the
applicant's
proposed
front
yard
is
dominated
by
incompatible
Hardscape
driveway
any
applicant
for
a
Heritage
per
it
under
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
enacted
by
bylaw
2016-89
Bears.
The
evidentiary
onus
of
establishing
that
the
building
mass
and
height
of
the
proposed
construction
are
consistent
with
the
applicable
grade.
One
building
the
applicant
has
not
fulfilled
this
burden.
Q
Furthermore,
a
simple
review
of
the
proposed
revised
plans
clearly
demonstrate
that
the
height
and
mass
of
the
proposed
new
construction
are
not
consistent
with
our
grade.
One
house,
the
mass
and
height
of
the
proposed
building,
are
drastically
larger
than
the
mass
and
height
of
our
grade.
One
house
in
these
circumstances,
respectfully,
this
committee
does
not
have
the
jurisdiction
or
discretion
to
Grant
the
requested
Heritage
permit.
This
jurisdiction
is
removed
by
virtue
of
section
7.4.2
sub
3
and
7.4.2
sub
7A
of
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
enacted
by
bylaw
2016-89.
Q
These
provisions
of
this
plant
are
not
inconsistent
with
and,
in
fact,
fulfill
the
legislative
intent
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
act
respectfully.
Should
this
come
committee
Grant
the
requested
Heritage
permit,
it
will
be
acting
ultravirus,
its
legislative
Authority,
which,
by
necessity,
renders
the
decision,
unreasonable
and
without
jurisdiction.
Such
a
decision
would
be
vulnerable
on
judicial
review,
as
the
committee
would
have
acted
without
jurisdiction
as
the
owner
of
the
grade.
One
property
expressly
referred
to
in
the
rockle
of
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
enacted
pursuant
to
bylaw
2016-89.
Q
We
are
a
party
withstanding
to
this
proceeding
and
rely
on
the
following.
My
submissions
made
here
and
today
my
submissions
made
on
January
7
2022
at
the
meeting
hosted
by
counselor
King,
my
letter
of
February
7
2022,
with
enclosures
to
the
chairman
and
committee
coordinator
of
the
bill,
Heritage
subcommittee,
my
letter
of
December
29
2021
to
same
with
enclosures,
my
letter
of
November
24
2021
to
same
with
enclosures,
my
letter
of
November
16
2021
to
same
with
enclosures
and
my
submissions
made
to
this
committee
on
November
30th
2021.
respectfully.
Q
G
Thank
you,
I
actually
have
nothing
to
add.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you.
The
next
registered
speaker
is
Susan
Peters
Peterson.
C
Hello,
I'm,
Susan,
Peterson
I,
live
about
a
block
away
from
this
proposed
development.
I
spoke
to
you
at
the
Earl
at
the
earlier
meeting.
I
would
like
to
reiterate
that
The
Rock
Cliff
Park
Heritage
plan
states
that
Rock
Cliff
Park
is
a
rare
and
significant
approach
to
a
state
lawyer
in
landscape.
As
you
know,
I
think
it
dates
from
1864
and
it
still
survives
it
has
evolved
to
be
sure,
but
it
has
by
and
large
managed
to
be
faithful
to
its
original
inspiration.
C
This
is
the
idea
of
houses
in
a
park
where
the
park-like
setting
dominates
the
houses
and
in
that
it's
Unique
in
Canada,
now
I
I
realize
the
plans
for
this
house
have
been
revised
and
we've
we've
heard
from
two
speakers
on
that.
But
do
the
changes
go
far
enough
to
meet
the
requirements
of
our
heritage
plan?
The
new
staff
report
says:
definitely
they
do
not
in
a
number
of
ways
and
I
I
certainly
endorse
that
with
the
resounding
no.
The
the
revised
plans
do
not
meet
our
heritage.
C
The
requirements
of
our
heritage
plan,
The
Proposal,
does
not
conserve
and
enhanced
rock
cliff
Park's
unique
character,
as
required
by
a
Heritage
plan.
It
does
not
maintain
the
park-like
attributes
and
qualities
of
Rock
Cliff
Park
was
characterized
by
houses
in
a
visually
continuous
Rich
landscape.
Setting
the
staff
report
agrees
with
all
this.
It
is
not
compatible
with
or
sympathetic
to,
or
has
regard
for,
the
height
massing
and
setbacks
of
the
established
Heritage
character
of
the
streetscape.
C
This
staff
report
says
that
the
height
and
mass
of
the
new
building
is
not
consistent
with
the
height
and
mass
of
the
grade.
One
building
next
to
it,
as
the
last
speaker
has
just
said,
even
with
minor
revisions
that
have
been
made,
it
is
not
not
in
height
and
not
in
Mass,
and
I
want
to
speak
to
to
the
height
issue,
because
that
has
not
been
I.
Think
adequately
addressed.
C
The
applicant
says
that
they
measured
to
the
top
of
the
top
of
the
roof
line
of
that
grade,
one
house
and
they
compare
the
new
house
to
it-
the
proposed
house
and
say
it's
equal
to
that,
and
that
was
certainly
shown
in
the
illustrations
that
Mr
Reeves
just
showed
us
a
few
minutes
ago.
But
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
the
height
of
the
slope
of
sloped.
Roof
houses
is
not
measured
to
the
top
of
the
roof,
but
to
the
midpoint
of
the
sloped
roof,
which
the
staff
report
now
acknowledges.
C
So
that
is
the
way
you
measure
it
and
if
the
height
of
the
proposed
house
exceeds
and
is
not
consistent
with
the
grade
one
house
next
to
it,
it
conflicts
with
our
heritage
plan
and
the
height
of
the
house
conflicts
with
our
heritage
plan.
So
there
is
no
argument
that
can
be
made
that
meeting
the
height
of
the
sloped
roof
means
that
it's
okay
with
our
heritage
plan,
it's
not
okay
with
our
heritage
plant
and
the
the
applicant
has
has
mismeasured.
If
you
wish
the
height
of
the.
C
What
he's
supposed
to
be
consistent
with
now
that's
with
height,
so
mass
and
massing
I
admit
that
Crepes
I
looked
at
all
this
stuff
and
it's
very
confusing
exactly
what
you're
looking
at,
but
it's
a
huge
house.
It's
8
400
square
feet
it
the
mass.
The
excuse
me.
The
footprint
is
way
more
than
twice
the
size
of
the
footprint
of
its
neighbor
next
to
it.
So
it
gives
you
a
sense
of
the
comparative
Mass.
C
The
footprint
has
only
been
decreased
by
the
revisions
by
four
square
meters,
but
it
is
464
square
meters,
so
that's
not
very
much
of
a
decrease,
so
the
mass
is
still
huge
compared
to
the
grade
one
house
next
to
it
and
huge
compared
to
most
of
the
houses
around
it.
So
I
do
not
think
this
should
be
approved.
This
would
be
a
major
step,
a
major
step
in
the
erosion
of
the
Heritage
character
of
our
community.
It
would
be
a
very
sad
step
and
I
ask
you
to
reject
it.
Thank
you.
B
Seeing
none?
Thank
you
and
ask
for
the
next
registered
speaker,
Marianne
favor.
R
Good
morning
I,
my
intention
was
to
reiterate
sections
of
our
plan
that
were
not
respected
by
the
applicant,
despite
many
changes
and
and
many
new
designs,
but
I'm
very
grateful
to
the
counselor
and
to
the
city
staff
who've
done
just
that,
and
you've
also
heard
from
both
my
colleague
Michael
Kellen
and
the
neighbors,
as
well
as
as
as
Susan
Aquino,
so
I
just
wish.
I
I
just
want
to
to
support
the
opposition
so
ably
stated
by
these
people
and
to
thank
the
city
staff
for
their
excellent
work.
B
Thank
you,
and
are
there
any
questions
for
this
delegation
seeing
none
thank
you
and
I
just
wanted
to
check
with
David
Fleming
as
to
whether
he
would
like
to
comment
on
this
item.
Noting
the
the
the
change
in
in
this
motion.
L
A
L
Your
remarks-
I'm
sorry
Heritage
Ottawa,
has
been
pleased
to
have
had
an
opportunity
to
review
the
application
for,
in
addition
to
the
Rockledge
plan,
rockcliffe
Park
Heritage,
Conservation
District,
which
has
continued
to
evolve
and
change
over
the
past
few
months
and
five
iterations.
It
comes
one
short
of
the
Chateau
Laurier
which
had
six.
L
We
feel
that
the
changes
reflected
in
the
application
before
you
today
and
efforts
to
mitigate
any
perceived
shortcomings
come
closer
to
meeting
the
Rock
Cliff
Park
Heritage
conservation
plan
guidelines,
as
applicable
to
this
property
below
the
design,
an
Asian
expression
with
modernist
lines,
make
it
less
sympathetic
to
the
existing
homes
within
the
hcd
with
their
more
conventional
designs.
We
do
not
feel
that
this
alone
is
a
reason
to
reject
this
application.
L
L
In
response
to
concerns
raised
at
the
November
subcommittee
meeting,
the
proponent
has
reconfigured
the
height
in
Massey
to
make
it
more
consistent
with
the
guidelines
for
the
the
plan
and
more
sympathetic
to
the
neighboring
grade.
One
building
we
agreed
with
the
previous
staff
report
recommendation
that
you
posted
on
the
agenda
until
the
recent
changes
that
any
recommendation
be
conditional
on
further
reconfiguration
of
the
building
to
ensure
that
it
is
more
sympathetic
and
compatible
to
its
neighbor
to
the
north.
L
B
Thank
you.
So
much.
Are
there
any
comments
for
for
David
seeing
none
does
the
committee
have
any
questions
for
staff.
I
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
do
have
some
questions
for
staff
and
I.
Think
I'd
like
to
start
with
pulling
up
if
it's
possible
Eric
to
to
pull
up
some
of
the
images
of
the
design
that
I'd
like
to
see
again
the
image
that
shows
the
two,
the
the
property
next
to
484
from
the
Cloverdale
perspective
and
I'd
also
like
to
see
a
design
that
shows
the
Landscaping
plan
of
the
property.
I
K
D
I
believe
our
Strickland's
talking
about
the
second
slide
on
the
staff
presentation.
I
It
well
no,
but
this
is
a
good.
It's
like
a
good
slide.
Nonetheless,
to
it
actually
shows
very
well
the
complication
that
you
know
the
Oddity
of
this
lot
within
this
end
play
and
that
the
the
law
that
there
is
they're
surrounded
by
vacant
Lots,
which
you
know
are
obviously
likely
to
be
developed
in
time.
I
I
and
I'm,
just
wondering
from
the
rear.
When
you
look
at
that
property
from
the
rear.
How
many
stories
is
it
foreign.
I
Thank
you,
and
but
what
I'd
like
to
look
at
is
the
slide
that
shows
the
rendering
of
480
Cloverdale
From
perspective
from
Cloverdale
itself.
I
There's
that
that
that's
pretty
good,
but
what
that
shows
484
and
then
I'd
like
you
to
speak
to
this
question
of
the
the
roofline
issue.
D
Thanks
for
your
question,
so
the
Rockler
Park
hcd
plan
provides
that
the
height
of
new
construction
must
be
consistent
with
the
high
height
of
adjacent
grade,
one
buildings
and,
as
a
speaker
previously
mentioned.
D
D
So
the
elevations
or
the
elevation
calculations
that
the
applicant
provided
show
that
the
roof
peak
of
480
Cloverdale
is
lower
than
the
roof
peak
of
484
Cloverdale,
but
it
is
higher
than
its
midpoint
and
the
the
fact
that
the
building
has
been
set,
one
meter
closer
to
the
streets
and
then
it
does
not
align
with
484
Cloverdale
exacerbates
the
perceived
height
of
the
building.
So
not
only
is
it
higher
than
the
midpoint
of
the
building
next
door,
but
because
it's
closer
to
the
street.
It
also
appears
larger.
For
that
reason,
and.
D
That
would
be
1.66
meters
higher
than
the
midpoint.
Thank.
I
You
and
then
the
other
slide
I
would,
if
I
could
probably
back
to
linebox,
showing
the
Landscaping
it
had
the
tree,
the
new
trees
around
the
perimeter
of
the
property,
the
proposed
new
trees.
I
There,
yes,
there
we
are,
is
there
any
way
you
could
speak
to
especially
the
north
North
Side
property?
How
many
of
these
proposed
trees
are
are
evergreens
and.
I
Are
there
plans
to
plant
evergreen
trees
that
are
have
a
certain
mature,
a
mature,
closer
to
mature
size
than
just
small
shrub-like
size
to
start
with?
If
you
know
what
I
mean
I'm
just
trying
to
consider
Mr
Brent's
concerns
about
that
that
end
of
the
property.
D
Through
YouTube
I'm,
Eric
I
think
this
is
the
previous
iteration
I
think.
Maybe
the
yes
there's
the
new
one,
so
the
applicant
does
show
I
believe
you're
on
this
plan.
The
mixture
of
Evergreen
and
coniferous
trees,
I
a
staff
are
not
aware
of
the
exact
number
I.
Think
of
the
applicant
would
need
to
confirm
that.
I
A
few
times
now
it
it
there
are
and
that
there
is
quite
a
bit
of
of
growth
along
that
that
side
of
the
property
is,
is
that
and
I
understand?
Only
eight
trees
are
going
to
be
coming
down.
D
Yes,
that
is
correct.
Okay,.
B
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
questions
for
members.
B
And
I
see
that
Vice
chair
Quinn
raised
her
hand
first.
I
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
I,
I
I,
just
want
to
excuse
me.
I
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
I
want
to
I
really
appreciate
the
effort
that
has
gone
into
this.
This
project
from
on
all
sides
agree
that
you
know
how
many
iterations
I
think
somebody
said
it
was
the
fifth
iteration
and
every
effort
seems
to
be
made
to
address
concerns.
I
think
that
what
we
have
here
is
a
very
challenging
site,
because
it
is
the
only
lot
within
this
Enclave
that
actually
extends
twice
the
length
of
everybody
else's.
I
The
house
that
existed
on
that
lot
in
the
past
also
extended
past
the
rear
of
484
Cloverdale,
with
a
swimming
pool,
Etc
and
I.
Guess
from
my
perspective
and
my
sense
of
interpreting
green
skates,
Green,
Space
and
park-like
setting,
which
is
so
essential
to
the
Heritage
character
of
Rock.
I
Cliff
Park
is
really
about
the
experience
from
the
public
realm
perspective
of
that
neighborhood,
and
what
we
are
talking
about
here
is
a
very
internal
landlocked
property
that
is
not
seen
from
the
public
realm
from
any
perspective
other
than
Cloverdale,
and
from
that
perspective
it
would
seem
to
me
that
the
owner
and
the
architect
have
gone
to
Great
Lengths
to
present
a
very
indeed
large
house,
as
that
it
has
a
size
that
is
compatible
with
the
streetscape,
as
the
bulk
of
the
house
is
to
the
rear
of
that
property,
and
it
does
indeed
have
a
very
steep
slope
and,
and
so
that
is,
is
really
not
visible
from
from
the
street.
I
I
So
I
am
a
little
disappointed
to
see
that
it
has
moved
forward
by
a
meter
closer
to
Cloverdale,
but
without
belaboring.
The
point
I
I
will
say
that
I
will
not
be
supporting
the
staff
recommendation
today.
I
do
not
have
a
problem
with
this
I
think
a
lot
of
effort
has
been
made.
The
materials
are
a
stone,
Cedar,
copper
and
that
that
very
natural
tones
and
effort
has
been
made
to
change
the
coloration
Etc.
So
I
I
think
that
is
my
I
just
want
to.
E
Just
thank
you,
chair
I,
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
visited
the
property
and
I
was
fortunate
to
be
a
a
spectator
or
an
attendant
of
the
meeting
that
was
held
that
was
chaired
by
you.
Chair
King,
with
the
residents
and
blind
box.
E
So
I
had
an
insight
into
the
dialogue
that
went
on
to
try
to
come
up
with
a
revised
design
that
satisfied
the
Rockville
Heritage
committee
and
the
immediate
neighbors
like,
like
Carol
I
struggle
with
this
one
as
well,
because
I
think
that,
from
the
perspective
of
the
public
Realm,
what
one
experiences
on
Cloverdale
and
the
streets
of
Rockledge
there's
a
very
modest
intervention
into
the
the
public
realm
perception
screened
by
trees,
and
it
would
be
quite
a
routine
approval.
E
I
think
that
if
this
was
the
only
issue,
what
appears
to
be
at
stake
here
are
two
things.
One
is
the
interpretation
of
the
park-like
setting
of
The
Rock
Cliff
Heritage
conservation
plan,
which
really
sets
guidelines
and
a
vision
for
the
private
lands
that
neighbors
share
on
their
side
and
rear
property
lines
in
the
rock
of
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District.
This
is,
as
has
been
said,
a
unique.
E
E
What
I
see
here
is
that
there
is
not
been
that
much
effort
other
than
some
proposed
screening
to
the
racing
properties
to
the
north
and
to
the
South
and
I
think
that
what
I
also
have
to
bear
in
mind
as
I
guess
we
all
do-
is
the
future
of
the
development
on
454
Cloverdale,
which
is
an
equal
sized
lot
to
the
South.
That
could
certainly
serve
another
home
of
the
same
footprint
and
size.
B
Thank
you,
member
podelski
member
Brockington,.
G
Thank
you,
chair,
I
I
would
like
to
know.
If
I
can
ask
staff
just
go
back
and
ask
one
question,
and
that
is
in
reading
the
staff
report
staff
detail
that
they
basically
worked
in
concert
with
the
applicant
or
the
applicant's
Reps
in
the
architect
to
refine
a
number
of
of
characteristics
of
of
the
plan.
G
But
despite
pick
the
right
word
warnings
or
you
know,
an
inability
to
communicate
that
staff
would
be
recommending
this.
The
The
Proposal
is
still
before
us,
with
staff
very
clear
to
the
applicant
in
advance
that
there
would
not
be
a
recommendation
based
on
the
drawings
or
the
concept
that
they
had
seen,
because
we
seem
to
be
again
investing
a
lot
of
time
in
an
application
that
is
likely
not
going
to
be
recommended
today
and
I
want
to
know
how
close
I
agree
with
Mary's
comment.
G
F
Through
you,
Mr
chair
staff
advised
the
applicant
earlier
this
week
that
we
had
continued
concerns
with
the
proposal
and
asked
them
to
once
again
extend
the
90-day
statutory
timeline
to
continue
the
dialogue
and
see
if
we
could
come
to
a
solution
that
everybody
was
happy
with.
They
declined
to
extend
that
statutory
timeline.
F
So
we
are
before
the
committee
today
with
a
recommendation
because
we
have
to
make
Council
has
to
make
a
decision
on
this
application
by
February
the
28th
and
if,
if
they
do
not,
it
would
be
deemed
to
be
approved
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
act.
F
So
part
of
the
reason
for
the
switch
and
the
staff
recommendation
was
that
we
did
not
think
that,
based
on
our
discussions
with
the
applicant
that
we
were
going
to
get
to
a
place
whereby
the
fundamental
changes
that
we
believe
are
needed
to
this
proposal
in
order
to
make
it
appropriate,
we
did
not
believe
those
were
going
to
happen,
and
so,
in
order
to
fulfill
the
requirements
of
the
Heritage
act,
we
are
recommending
that
committee
recommend
that
Council
refuse
this
application.
Okay,.
B
You're
welcome
the
next
I
guess,
member
with
their
hand
raised
is
member
Conforti.
H
Thank
you,
chair,
yeah,
I
I
have
similar
concerns,
as
the
other
members
have
described.
I
again
like
like
Carolyn,
said
I,
do
really
appreciate
the
effort
and
it
does
sound
like
you
know
that
dialogue
is
happening
which
I
think
is
really
important
at
the
same
time.
H
You
know,
as
counselor
Brockington
mentioned,
I
think
the
directive
to
the
owner
and
and
the
Arctic
need
to
be
very
clear
from
staff
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
definitely
closer
I
think
you
know,
I
would
say
the
concerns
from
the
neighbors
and
from
the
community
and
the
community.
Here
Heritage
committee
need
to
really
be
sort
of
fine-tuned
and
really
you
know
bring
a
laser
focus
to
that,
because
I
agree
that
you
know
from
the
street
from
the
public
Realm,
it
will
be
screened
to
some
degree.
H
So
if
the
issue
is
the
style
of
the
building,
we
really
need
to
separate
that
and
really
look
at
the
guidelines
and
really
look
at
what
the
issue
is
because,
like
Carolyn
said,
five
iterations
of
of
a
design
I
just
want
to
recognize.
You
know:
that's
that
that's
the
proponent
is
really
trying
and
is
really
trying
to
meet
halfway,
but
I
also
would
support.
H
Refusing
this
application
to
allow
like
Leslie,
said
that
that
extra
time
but
I
do
think
I
do
think
we're
close
and
I
think
you
know
both
sides
sort
of
are
probably
getting
closer,
but
we
do
I
think
have
to
be
respectful
of
of
of
the
work.
That's
gone
in
so.
P
Yeah,
thank
you,
I'm
I'm,
listening
to
all
of
the
comments,
and
it's
a
good
discussion
and
a
good
debate.
If
I
remember
from
last
fall,
this
committee
said
we're
not
satisfied
with
the
design
that
was
in
front
of
us
last
fall
and
it's
come
back
and
and
to
my
eye,
the
updated
rendering
shows
something
that's
even
more
blockier
and
less
compatible
than
what
was
here
before.
So
we're
not
headed
in
the
right
direction.
P
I'm
supporting
I'm,
supportive
of
staff's
recommendation
to
refuse
this
I
mean
it's
kind
of
a
ridiculously
large
blocky
home
I,
don't
like
to
to
be
a
judge
in
architecture,
but
this
is
further
away
from
what
I
think
the
neighborhood
would
be
accepting
than
it
was
before.
Thank
you,
chair.
B
Thank
you
and
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
raised.
So
I
would
also
say
that,
while
new
construction
is
welcome-
and
obviously
we've
been
very
gratified
that
the
applicant
has
been
going
back
and
forth
with
residents
with
my
office
with
the
residents
Association,
it
is
still
the
expectation
under
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
that
we
seek
Conformity
to
its
specifications,
which
were
specifically
created
to
actively
protect
the
heritage
of
rockliff
Park,
which
is
the
only
Park
neighborhood
in
in
Canada.
B
As
we
heard
a
residents
talk
about
today,
the
plan
explicitly
notes
that
new
buildings
shall
contribute
to
and
not
detract
from,
the
Heritage
character
of
The
Heritage,
Conservation
District
and
its
attributes,
and
the
plan
also
dictates
that
construction
of
new
buildings
will
only
be
permitted
when
the
new
building
does
not
detract
from
the
historic
landscape.
Characteristics
of
associated
streetscape.
The
height
and
mass
of
the
new
building
are
consistent
with
grade
one
buildings
and
Associated
streetscapes,
and
the
sighting
and
materials
of
new
building
of
the
new
building
are
compatible
with
those
streetscapes.
B
Considering
the
circumstances
surrounding
480
Cloverdale,
the
new
submission
in,
in
my
estimation,
is
not
compatible
with
the
built
forms
and
the
surrounding
context
and
does
not
respect
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
Despite
efforts
by
the
applicant
to
make
design
changes
in
response
to
neighbor
concerns
in
the
new
submission,
the
overall
height
has
not
been
reduced.
B
The
height
is
not
comparable
to
Area
Properties
in
the
manner
by
which
it's
supposed
to
be
measured
and
particularly,
does
not
conform
to
the
height
of
the
grade,
one
property
next
door
to
the
north
at
484,
Cloverdale
and
finally,
the
building
footprint
is
even
larger
than
first
proposed.
B
Consequently,
in
my
comments
on
this
file,
I
I
noted
that
I
believe
the
new
submitted
design
in
its
current
form
does
not
conform
with
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
and
I
believe
that
the
design
as
proposed
will
create
an
unacceptable
adverse
impact
on
a
budding
and
adjoining
properties
and
will
negatively
impact
the
neighborhood
character
in
general.
So
as
a
result,
as
Ward
counselor
I
I
concur
with
the
city
staff's
recommendation
to
refuse
the
application.
B
I
do
know
that
during
comments
Vice
chair,
Quinn
did
Express
intent
to
dissent
I'm,
just
wondering
if
there's
any
other
members
who
are
going
to
dissent,
whether
we
should
go
to
yays
or
Nays
or
whether
we
should
carry
with
some
of
the
sense
and
I
see
that
a
member
of
Moffitt
has
raised
his
hand.
G
Just
simply
confirming
I'll
be
supporting
member
Quinn's
comments
and.
B
Dissenting
okay,
so
is
the
replacement
report
carried
with
The
Descent
of
Vice,
chair
Quinn
and
member
Moffat?
B
Can
I
read
yes,
Gary?
Thank
you
so
much
and
we
will
just
move
to
item
number
five.
B
D
D
D
The
property
is
classified
as
a
grade:
one
property
in
the
Rockland
Park
hcd
plan.
The
main
house
on
this
property
was
constructed,
Circa
1922
in
the
English
cottage
and
arts
and
crafts
Styles.
It
is
one
and
a
half
stories
in
height
and
has
an
asymmetrical
L-shaped
plan.
The
building
features
a
gabled
frontus
piece,
multi-paint
Windows,
a
variety
of
exterior
materials,
half
timbering
and
a
steeply
pitched
roof.
D
The
landscape
features
of
the
property
are
typical
of
Manor
Avenue
and
include
a
substantial
front
yard
dotted
with
mature
trees,
Cedar
Hedges
and
shrubs,
and
a
stepped
walkway
next
slide.
Please,
the
applications
are
all
the
619
Manor
Avenue
is
to
permit
the
construction
of
two
single-story
side
additions
to
the
existing
building.
The
application
also
includes
permission
to
remove
an
existing
sunroom
and
convert
it
to
Interior
Living
Spaces,
the
addition
of
a
flat
canopy
over
the
front
entrance
door
and
Landscaping
changes.
D
The
application
is
accompanied
by
a
landscape
plan
that
proposes
changes
in
the
front
and
rear
yards
additional
plant
materials.
Sloping
plant
beds,
a
new
driveway
stone,
retaining
walls,
a
flagstone
path,
patios
pool
shed
and
new
pool
are
proposed
to
be
added
to
large
Norway
maple
trees
are
proposed
to
be
removed
and
replaced
with
a
new
Cedar
Hedge
next
slide.
Please.
D
The
South
Edition,
which
is
shown
on
the
left
of
this
slide,
will
include
a
separate
principal
bedroom
accessed
through
the
ground
floor
living
room
via
a
transparent
glass
link.
It
will
contain
a
full
basement.
The
north
Edition
shown
on
the
right
of
this
slide
is
proposed
to
replace
the
former
non-conforming
detached
garage
which
was
demolished
in
2021
due
to
disrepair.
D
D
The
next
two
slides
show
renderings
of
The
Proposal,
as
seen
from
Manor
Avenue
on
this
Slide.
The
South
Edition
is
shown
to
the
left
next
slide.
Please
and
shown
from
a
different
angle.
The
north
Edition,
which
is
the
reconstructed
side
garage,
can
be
seen
here
with
its
attachment
to
the
existing
home
next
slide.
Please.
D
D
The
proposal
has
also
been
evaluated
against
the
standards
and
guidelines
for
conservation
of
historic
places
in
Canada.
The
proposal
is
consistent
with
standards
1
and
11.
next
slide.
Please,
the
application
was
subject
to
pre-consultation
with
The
Rock
Cliff
Park
residence
Association
Heritage
committee.
The
proposed
plans
were
posted
on
dev
apps
and
circulated
to
the
rpra
Heritage
Ottawa
and
neighbors
within
30
meters.
Counselor
King
is
also
aware
of
the
application
next
slide.
Please.
B
R
Good
morning
again,
yeah,
we
have
two
questions
about
this
about
this
application.
One
is
the
the
actual
legality
of
of
the
garage
which
will
be
the
there
was
a
garage
there
and
as
as
Adrian
acknowledged,
it
was
demolished
in
a
few
years
ago,
but
that
was
a
detached
garage.
They
now
wish
to
build
an
attached
garage
that
will
then
be
five
feet
from
the
neighboring
property
and
the
the
setback
requirement
for
an
attached
garage
is,
is
15
feet,
so
I
wonder
how
that
can
possibly
receive
approval.
R
That
is
my
first
question
and
the
second
the
second
one
where
we
is
basically
that
we
object
to
well
once
again
the
RP,
rpra
and
Heritage
plan
is
our
objective
is
to
maintain
the
park-like
attributes,
as
we've
also
mentioned
on
the
480,
and
to
encourage
the
retention
of
existing
trees.
Shrubs
Hedges
and
Landscape
features
on
public
property.
I
think
we're
just
basically
alarmed
that
the
proposed
pool
and
will
will
basically
with
pool
the
concrete
deck
the
pool
shed.
R
The
sauna
will
occupy
more
I
mean
basically
most
of
the
the
entire
Greenscape
of
the
backyard.
And
those
are
our
two
concerns.
That's
I
guess
the
one
would
be
a
bylaw
concern
and
the
other
is
is
a
retention
of
Green
Space.
That's
basically,
it.
B
I
appreciate
those
questions
and
I'm
willing
to
relay
that
to
staff
when
members
have
a
time
to
ask
questions.
So
thank
you.
So
much
are
there
any
questions
from
the
committee
seeing
none
thank
you
for
your
deputation
and
the
next
registered
speaker
is
David
Fleming
from
Heritage
Ottawa.
L
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
Heritage
Ottawa
supports
the
staff
recommendation
for
this
property.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
and
the
last
registered
speaker
is
William
ritzy.
K
Morning,
if.
F
Mr
ritzy
could
accept
the
prompt
to
be
promoted
to
panelists.
Oh,
you
should
be
coming
online
now.
B
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning,
Mr
ritzy.
You
can
proceed
with
your
comments.
B
P
Can
proceed?
Sorry
about
that?
Yes,
I,
guess
just
to
address
the
a
couple
of
concerns
one
had
to
do
with
the
legalities
of
going
from
a
detached
garage
to
an
attached
garage.
P
P
It's
of
interest
that
the
bylaw
The
Grudge,
although
it
occupies
roughly
the
same
footprint,
is
a
bit
larger,
but
majority
of
the
increased
garage
is
set
at
the
rear
yard,
and
it's
interesting
that
we
probably
all
know
that
once
the
garage
is
in
the
rear
yard,
you
only
require
the
1.5
meters,
so
it
kind
of
straddles
the
bylaw
requirement
between
4.5
and
1.5.
Anyway.
That's
that's
that
that
change
in
the
bylaw
is
has
been
addressed
through
that
application.
P
Adrian
had
mentioned
that
there
are
a
couple
of
trees
that
are
to
be
removed,
they're
at
the
rear
property
line,
and
we
have
addressed
that
with
the
neighbor,
budding
their
rear
yard
and
will
be
replaced
with
with
new
planting
the
I
I.
Think.
The
big
issue
on
Landscaping
is
what
you
see
from
Manor
and
right
now,
except
for
the
large
oak
tree,
there's
very
little
planting
on
that
south
side,
where
the
addition,
the
other
Edition,
will
be
occurring.
B
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
Are
there
any
questions
from
members
of
the
subcommittee
seeing
none?
Thank
you
for
your
participation
this
morning
now.
Does
the
committee
have
any
questions
for
staff
and
I
see
that
Vice
chair
Quinn
has
raised
her
hand.
I
Thank
you
chair,
yes,
I
do
have
a
question
about
the
presentation.
They
images
that
that
were
shared
of
the
design
does
not
in
any
way
indicate
what's
going
on
in
the
backyard.
I
D
I
Okay,
because
we've
just
gone
through
a
process
with
480
Cloverdale,
where
what's
going
on
beyond
what
is
visible
from
the
street,
was
deemed
to
be
critically
important
and,
in
fact,
resulted
in
well.
We
just
saw
what
what
happened,
and
yet
our
very
next
item
in
rock
life
does
not
include.
What's
going
to
be
happening
back
there
and
I
do
know.
I
Having
read
some
submission,
a
submission
that
if
this
is
a
big
concern
for
Rock
Cliff,
Park
residence
Association
as
well
as
neighbor,
just
the
extent
of
Hardscape
and
additional
structures
and
I
I'm,
just
wondering
how
that
is
reconciled
with
the
arguments
that
we
heard
just
a
few
minutes
ago
about
the
other
property.
F
F
F
Coordinator
has
done
it
so
so
I
think
you
can
see
here.
You
know
the
frontier
Landscaping,
the
rear
yard,
landscaping
that
looks
like
a
long,
narrow
pool
at
the
back.
F
I
think
one
of
the
things
I
would
comment
and
then
I
might
turn
it
back
to
Adrian
in
terms
of
the
details
is
that
if
you
read
the
Heritage
survey
form
for
this
property
and
its
comments
on
landscape
Ben
and
the
contribution
to
the
environment,
it
speaks
a
lot
about
the
front
yard
and
a
lot
about
the
side
yard,
and
so
it
speaks
to
sort
of
the
sloping
front
yard.
F
You
know
how
that
contributes
to
the
street.
That
sort
of
thing.
This
is
not
one
of
those
properties
where
we
have
a
really
large
rear
yard.
Currently,
so
you
know,
I
mean
I.
Think
there
was
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
appropriate
location
for
an
addition
here
and
a
garage
and
where
to
put
the
landscaping
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
Adrian
can
speak
more
to
the
details.
F
But
my
knowledge
of
the
file
is
that
a
lot
of
work
has
gone
into
kind
of
minimizing
the
amount
of
hard
Landscaping
as
much
as
we
can
and
minimizing
tree
loss
and
and
incorporation
of
new
trees
into
the
into
the
development.
So
that
I
hope
is.
We
don't
generally
require
renderings
as
part
of
a
for
for
a
landscape
plan
when
there's
no
addition
at
the
rear.
F
So
we
usually
just
go
on
the
landscape
plan.
That's
been
submitted
as
part
of
the
application.
D
Through
your
chair
just
to
to
add
to
to
Leslie's
response,
we
did
identify
during
pre-consultation
with
the
rpra
that,
because
there
is
such
an
expansive
front
yard-
and
it
is
identified
as
an
attribute
in
the
survey
form,
that
a
lot
of
focus
should
be
placed
on
retaining
as
much
front
yard
in
an
informal
manner
as
possible.
Noting
that
there
might
be
some
changes
to
the
rear
yard.
D
F
D
Yes,
the
the
pool
that
was
existing
in
the
railroad
was
removed
last
year,
along
with
the
detached
garage
it's
since
been
filled
in
and
according
to
the
new
landscape
plan,
there
will
be
a
new
pool
that
replaces
it
and
and
based
on
the
plan.
It
appears
that
it'll
be
smaller
or
at
least
longer
and
narrower
than
what
was
there
before.
B
I
was
going
to
follow
up,
seeing
no
other
questions
from
Members
I
was
going
to
follow
up
on
that,
but
I
think
that
you've
answered
my
questions
concerning
the
soft
escaping
and
the
provisions
basically
meeting
the
provisions
of
the
plan
at
the
back
and
I
appreciated
member
hassell's
question
about
the
previous
use
of
the
site
and
in
in
conjunction
with
how
the
site
will
go
forward.
There
was
a
question
from
Rock
Cliff,
Park,
residence,
Association
and
I.
B
Think
the
other
residents
about
the
actual
legality
of
the
garage
from
detached
versus
attached
and
I
was
wondering
if
staff
could
at
least
speak
to
that
that
point
in
terms
of
the
staff
report
in
its
recommendation.
D
Thank
you
chair,
so
Heritage
staff
have
consulted
with
the
applicant
since
the
beginning
of
last
year
on
on
this
proposal,
and
there
have
been
a
number
of
of
options
presented
that
would
conform
with
both
the
provisions
of
the
hcd
plan,
as
well
as
the
zoning
by
law.
The
option
that
was
presented
here
to
to
reinstate
the
garage
that
was
demolished
and
built
an
addition
on
the
other
side
was
was
found
to
be
the
most
appropriate
solution.
D
According
to
the
hcd
plan,
because
there
is
a
a
smaller
side,
yard
setback
and
and
the
garage
will
be
increased
in
size,
the
applicant
will
need
to
seek
a
minor
variants
following
decision
of
council,
so
so
the
legality
with
respect
to
that
and
Zoning
Conformity
will
will
be
decided.
Then,
but
staff
have
no
no
concerns
or
on
our
objections
to
to
that
forthcoming
application.
B
And,
of
course,
that's
the
purview
of
the
planning
act
and
I'm,
assuming
Committee
of
adjustment
versus
The
Heritage
considerations
that
we
are
you're
looking
at
here,
so
those
would
be
dealt
with
there.
Thank
you,
I
think
that
that
does
answer
my
own
questions
as
well
as
the
questions
of
residents.
B
So
are
there
any
more
questions
to
staff?
Seeing
none
do
any
of
the
members
have
any
comments
on
this
item?
Foreign.
F
Yeah
so
I'll
keep
a
brief
on
this
one.
I
I
think
it
is
less
of
an
intervention
in
the
previous
application
that
we've
we've
been
looking
at,
but
I.
Think
Carolyn
has
raised
a
very
valid
point
here
about
the
consistency
of
of
how
we
apply
the
rock
cliff
prior
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan.
F
We
are
looking
at
another
application
that
sees
additions.
We
are
looking
at
more
of
a
street
impact
on
this
one
than
on
the
previous
one.
In
terms
of
the
available
screening.
F
B
Well,
thank
you
for
that,
and
that
is
a
conversation
that
we're
going
to
continue
to
have
with
Heritage
staff
and
also
residents
about
consistency
of
application
and
interpretation
of
of
the
application
of
the
Heritage
conservation
District
plan
in
in
rockle
of
park.
I
think
we're
hearing
that
very
clearly
and
obviously
we
want
to
work
towards
some
consensus
in
terms
of
its
interpretation
both
around
this
table
and
in
the
community.
So
I
also
appreciate
you
pointing
that
out.
So
is
the
report
in
front
of
us
carried.
B
And
so
we
are
now
at
the
and
near
the
end
of
our
of
our
meeting.
So
there
are
no
in
camera
items.
There
are
no
notices
of
motions
before
us
for
consideration
at
a
subsequent
meeting.
Are
there
any
inquiries?
B
There
are
no
increase
under
other
business.
There
are
two
planning
circulation
on
the
agenda
which
were
distributed
to
members
prior
to
the
meeting.
Members
of
the
public
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
through
devops
on
ottawa.ca
Ottawa
Heritage
act.
Applications
would
be
considered
at
a
later
date.
Is
there
any
other
business?