►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – January 16, 2014
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee – January 16, 2014 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
B
Even
though
my
computer's
not
ready
I'm,
ready
and
I,
you
can
all
see
I'm
here
so
for
the
record.
I
am
in
the
room,
even
though
this
will
not
tell
you
that
I
have
been.
If
you
ever
choose
to
look
for
that
information,
but
it's
a
great
system.
We
love
it.
So
welcome
everybody
to
the
first
meeting
of
2014
of
the
built
heritage
subcommittee.
D
B
Great,
no,
it's
good
when
you
do
that,
because
actually
many
times
that
council
I
lean
over
to
rain
or
he
does
to
me
and
say
how's
that
yeah
anyway.
Thank
you,
sir
welcome
I'm
tell
you
you're
gonna
have
fun
and
you're
gonna
have
the
time
of
your
life
in
this
very
active
now
heritage,
City,
I'm
sure
that
they've
told
your
tales
already
now
we
have
confirmation
of
minutes
from
the
12th
of
December
2013
are
those
Kerry?
B
Thank
you
so
we're
going
to
look
at
the
agenda
and
if
there's
anything
that
can
be
a
consented,
consent
item
that
we
will
deal
with
that
now.
But
we
do
have
speakers
on
application
for
demolition
of
Bradley's
general
store,
so
we'll
hold
that,
and
we
have
councillor
Kadri
here
now:
who's
the
ward
councillor.
Thank
you
for
coming.
The
designation
of
26:59
Roger
Stevens
Drive,
an
apart
for
the
entero
Heritage
Act.
B
Do
we
have
anyone
to
speak
on
that
and
are
we
so,
as
that
item
carried
thank
you
and
on
that
this
should
be
of
interest
to
some
people
in
the
room.
Councillor,
Moffat
and
I
have
been
talking
about
and
and
leslie
and
sally
talking
about
having
a
forum
out
in
the
rural
area,
because
we,
our
heritage
planners,
were
saying
that
we
have
a
lot
of
potential
heritage
property.
B
That's
really
they
haven't
had
a
chance
to
look
at
yet
so
having
a
conversation
about
heritage
in
the
rural
area
and
elsewhere.
Moffitt's
going
to
take
the
lead
on
that.
Okay,
so
that's
carried
on
item
number
three.
We
have
speakers
on
the
application
for
new
construction
at
48
to
50
Queen
Victoria
Street
in
new
Edinboro,
okay.
So,
having
said
that,
we'll
go
back
to
the
first
item.
Have
a
brief
presentation
from
staff
on
the
application
for
demolition
of
Brava
general
store.
E
E
E
E
These
are
just
another
couple
of
photos
to
show
you
the
post
fire
condition,
so
the
roof
that
is
on
the
building
was
added
as
part
of
the
emergency
stabilization
measures
that
came
out
of
the
emergency
reservation
protocol
that
was
enacted
by
the
chief
building
official
after
the
fire
in
September
another
photo,
so
the
building
was
constructed
in
the
1870s
as
a
hotel.
It
was
later
used
as
a
general
store
and
more
recently
was
a
tea
room
and
various
different
restaurants.
E
It's
a
wood
frame
building
with
brick
cladding,
as
I
said
it
has
a
fire
in
September
of
2013.
At
the
time
of
the
fire
was
being
renovated
to
house
another
new
restaurant,
the
property
is
designated
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
It
was
designated
in
1986
by
Goulburn
Township
for
its
cultural
heritage
value.
Both
the
interior
and
the
exterior
of
the
building
were
designated
for
the
architectural
and
historical
reasons,
because
the
property
owner
wishes
to
demolish
the
building
as
a
result
of
the
fire.
E
E
So,
in
terms
of
consultation,
heritage,
Ottawa
was
notified
of
the
application.
It's
comments
are
included
in
the
staff
report,
but
and-
and
they
may
speak,
I'm
not
sure
if
they
registered
to
speak.
But
basically
the
comments
were
that
the
building
it
was
unfortunate
that
the
building
was
so
far
gone,
but
that
the
replacement
structure
should
be
complementary
to
the
character
of
Statesville
main
street.
E
Basically
there's
an
the
Golden
Circle
Society
would
like
to
see
the
building
retained
and
restored,
and
it
was
within.
30
meters
of
the
property
were
also
notified
and
I
know.
You've
received
some
correspondence
from
various
people
in
the
community.
The
staff
recommendation
is
to
approve
the
application
to
demolish
the
building,
given
its
condition
and
the
fact
that
the
city
has
received
an
application
to
demolish
it.
E
The
and
because
such
a
significant
amount
of
rebuilding
would
be
required.
Some
a
great
deal
of
the
original
historic
material
has
been
lost
and
then,
secondly,
if
the
application
to
demolish
is
approved,
staff
recommend
the
issuance
of
a
notice
of
intention
to
repeal
the
designating
bylaw,
because,
if
the,
but
if
the
building
is
demolished,
it
only
makes
sense
to
not
have
the
property
be
designated
anymore,
and
that
is
it
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
community
might
have.
B
F
Thank
you,
Thank
You
committee
members,
George
Neville
I'm,
introduced
myself
as
president
of
the
Historical
Society
waterwall
over
I,
wish
to
speak
to
this
issue
as
an
individual,
because
I
have
not
presented
this
to
the
our
Board
of
Directors,
so
we
don't
meet
until
next
Monday.
Our
last
board
meeting
was
in
November
and
we're
not
normally
known
to
take
advocacy
positions.
However,
I
do
have
a
personal
interest
in
this
area
living
in
the
West
End
of
Ottawa.
My
wife
comes
from
a
2000m
area.
We
know
the
area
somewhat.
F
The
property
was
obtained
back
in
the
70s
for
about
$70,000.
There
was
indication
by
much
of
the
community
against
this,
so
much
so
that
the
place
was
peppered
with
eggs.
For
the
couple
of
days
at
such
a
cheap
acquisition
of
the
the
property,
the
owner
seems
to
denigrate
the
the
property
from
the
standpoint
of
its
heritage,
value
and-
and
this
is
nevertheless
seen
fit
to
ensure
trait
to
sow
$800,000,
which
seems
to
be
I,
feel
a
valuation
for
the
property
of
this
sort.
F
So
there's
that
dichotomy
of
evaluations-
the
other
thing
I'm
concerned
about
here-
is
the
reports
with
regard
to
the
fire
here
and
what
was
just
given
by
the
briefing
of
the
committee.
Certain
inconsistencies
you
can
see.
The
structure
is
standing
quite
stable.
There
now
there's
a
reference
to
it
being
a
frame
building
surrounded
by
brick
veneer.
Well,
obviously,
that
internal
framing
hasn't
been
bad
badly
bollard.
Perhaps
there
has
been
some
reinforcement
inside,
but
not
enough.
That
requires
external
support.
F
Many
buildings
do
require
that
building
is
quite
stable,
standing
there
and
it's
in
the
heart
of
the
Heritage
Area
the
stitch,
both
central,
their
old
railway
tracks,
used
to
go
right
by
Abbott
Street
there.
It
was
formerly
a
post
office,
a
tea
room,
the
Bradley
store
and
then
twenties.
This
is
referred
to
there
this.
This
is
a
place
that
has
a
footprint
in
the
in
the
heritage,
heart
of
of
Statesville
and
I-
think
with
the
imaginative
renovation
of
it.
F
Well,
if
it
were
in
the
hands
of
one
your
committee,
men,
Barry,
burkowski,
very
sensitive
heritage
issues
and
amazing
architectural
restorations,
this
could
be
again
restored
to
a
convenient
and
useful
pub
Tea
Room
dance
floor
up
above
auditorium
kind
of
thing
for
community
associations
that
has
great
potential.
Admittedly,
the
exterior
doesn't
have
much
charm,
but
it
is
it's
got
its
heritage,
history
and
value
and
I
think
it's
worthy
of
preservation
and
restoration,
particularly
because
it's
in
a
central,
important
area
of
the
of
the
of
the
town.
F
B
B
E
Yes,
I
mean
I,
think
obviously
I'm,
not
a
structural
engineer,
but
the
the
report
from
the
engineers
does
state
that
the
building
actually
isn't
very
stable.
So
there
has
been
some
stabilization
work
done
on
the
inside.
There
are
some
photos
in
the
of
the
interior
in
the
engineer's
report,
where
you
can
see
the
condition
of
the
interior
of
the
building.
E
The
only
other
comment
I
would
make
is
that
the
city's
opinion
on
on
the
application
is
based
on
the
merits
of
the
application
and
not
on
whether
or
not
the
building
could
be
restored
simply
because
we
have
received
an
application
to
demolish
and
we
can't
require
somebody
to
restore
their
building.
Unfortunately,
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
F
A
Chair
just
on
that
point
that
mr.
Neville
made
at
the
last
minute
I
have
a
question
with
staff
in
terms
of
the
engineer,
credibility
that
was
just
put
on
the
table
so
just
going
back
to
the
staff,
if
you
would
permit
me
in
terms
of
the
engineer's
report
that
was
submitted
to
the
city,
has
the
city
heard
of
this
engineer
before?
Is
it
a
qualified
engineer
or
did
we
know
that.
E
B
G
B
G
A
B
E
3
madam
chair
I,
can't
speak
obviously
on
behalf
of
the
engineer,
but
vice-chair
Podolski
is
correct.
There
are
two
options
presented
in
the
engineer's
report
and
they
are
also
mentioned
on
page
3
of
the
staff
report.
However,
the
city
has
received
an
application
to
demolish
the
building,
so
clearly
the
owner
of
the
property
has
decided
that
they
would
like
to
take
the
option
of
demolishing
the
building.
So
that's
what's
before
the
committee
today
is
whether
or
not
the
committee
is
willing
to
support
demolition
of
this
building.
E
G
Leslie
part
of
the
recommendation
of
staff
is
to
have
the
City
Council
approved
that
the
demolition,
but
it's
also
asking
the
subcommittee
to
recommend
to
council
to
lift
the
designation
and
if
the
owner
had
still
has
the
choice,
even
with
the
demolition
permit,
of
exercising
the
option
to
to
reconstruct
or
rehabilitate
which
they
don't
seem
to
want
to.
Is
it
not
just
encouraging
them
to
build
whatever
they
want
afterwards
by
lifting
the
designation?
If
the
designation
was
in
place,
then
they
would
have
to
come
back
to
the
committee
for
construction.
Would
they
not
through.
E
You,
madam
chair,
under
/
floor
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
The
city
has
no
ability
to
enforce
or
require
a
design
of
a
new
building
in
a
heritage
conservation
district
we
could.
But
since
this
is
designated
under
part,
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
per
its
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value,
which
is
in
the
staff
report
on
pages
2,
&
3.
Those
are
the
cultural
heritage
values
that
are
protected
if
the
building
is
demolished.
A
You,
madam
chair,
just
to
add
to
that
mr.
Podolski,
what
Leslie
mentioned
about
the
Main
Street
design
guidelines,
the
community
design
plan
for
mates,
that's
from
Main
Street
speaking
with
the
planners
and
stuff.
They
are
going
to
respect
this
a
and
not
only
because
of
this
building,
but
because
of
two
other
buildings
in
the
area
in
order
terms
of
what
is
coming
for
that
part
of
Main
Street
in
terms
of
zoning
and
so
on,
and
that's
how
we
can
regulate
as
to
what
happens
after
or
once
the
building
is
gone.
If
it's
okay.
Thank
you.
A
H
H
In
fact,
they
have
a
sign
up
there
saying
this
advertising,
how
the
insurance
company
worked
with
them
to
restore
this
architectural
gem
to
the
community.
That
can
be
done.
According
to
the
engineer's
report,
that
building
is
salvageable,
it
will
take
a
lot
of
money,
and
one
of
the
things
I
would
want
to
know
is
what
kind
of
insurance
settlement
goes
with
this
fire
devastation,
because
obviously,
that
will
make
a
difference
to
the
owner.
H
Buildings
can
also
be
reconstructed,
and
that
also
is
an
option
for
the
owner
of
this
building
and
I
cited
the
Arras
and
northern
France,
which
was
terribly
damaged
in
the
Second
World
War
and
I
brought
a
photo.
If
anybody
wants
to
see
it
of
what
they
did.
Those
buildings
were
all
these
are
all
reconstructed,
buildings
had
been
severely
bombed,
so
these
are
possibilities
and
also
I
have
an
email
from
buried
die
mark.
H
Who
was
the
Builder
who
was
working
on
the
Alexander
restaurant
at
the
time
of
the
fire,
and
he
says
we
had
discussed
a
scenario
about
with
the
owner
about
rebuilding.
Should
it
be
torn
down,
I
told
her
that
the
restaurant
owners
and
I
thought
it
could
be
rebuilt
to
the
original
look,
except
for
a
probable
setback
from
the
city,
as
the
theme
was
always
to
maintain
the
heritage
of
the
original
builder.
H
H
What
we
want
is
not
to
have
our
Main
Street
just
left
with
a
with
a
hole
and
maybe
an
office
building
or
townhouses
stuck
in
the
middle
of
it.
You
know
we
don't
have
a
whole
lot
of
a
heritage
area,
but
we
do
have
a
small
area
and
it's
highly
valued
by
the
people
who
live
there
and
I
think
that
when
you're
demolishing
a
heritage
building,
it
isn't
just
any
old
building.
As
you
are
very
well
aware,
so,
I
would
like
to
I
guess:
ask
that
the
seriousness
of
this
be
be
looked
at.
H
A
A
Although
it's
you
know,
created
some
challenges
over
the
years
when
the
team
to
widening
a
Main
Street,
but
it
is
important
piece
of
the
puzzle
on
Main
Street
it
you
mentioned
about
salvageable
buildings,
as
you
should,
and
one
of
the
photographs
who
do
you
think
should
be
taking
the
responsibility
for
that.
Should
it
be
the
city,
should
it
be
the
property
owner?
Should
it
be
the
community
I
mean?
Are
there
any
options
for
us?
Well,.
H
I
think
the
the
owners
it
is
their
building,
it's
up
to
them
to
do
something
with
it.
However,
I
would
like
to
know
if
there
are
any
grants
that
owners
can
apply
for
that
help
them
in
this
kind
of
situation,
where
you
are
trying
to
salvage
something
useful.
This
I
don't
know,
but
are
there
any
public
grants
that,
where
you.
D
B
I
I
know,
for
example,
of
a
someone
doing
some
work
in
Fallowfield
village
to
a
heritage
property
and
when
I
said
jr.
you
could
apply
for
that.
We
just
approved
another.
It
was
in
total
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars
for
the
entire
city
for
the
entire
year
and
there's
maximum
amounts
that
can
five
thousand
dollars
is
the
most
but
the
rules
and
that
they
have
to
abide
by
in
order
to
get
the
five
thousand
dollars
cost
them
way
more
than
the
five
thousand
and
they
said
they're
not
interested
in
applying.
B
H
B
B
We're
talking,
that's
it's
more
than
collecting.
You
know
enough
money
to
put
on
a
parade
or
it's
velour,
one
can
of
the
day
instead
spell
or
bar
even
or
we're
talking
it's
a
lot
of
money.
It
is,
and
money
can't
be
the
only
consideration
that
we
have
here
at
the
table
for
sure
we've
got
a
couple
of
choices
before
us
and
we've
got
recommendations
from
staff
we're
listening
to
you.
B
G
G
We
can
assume,
but
it
is
a
tragedy
and
I,
just
personally
have
had
the
reluctant
Commission
to
help
to
restore
the
fresh
at
House
Inn
on
Mekhi
Street,
Mackay
Street
in
new
Edinburgh,
and
there
is
a
commitment
of
the
owners
and
the
insurance
company
to
perfectly
restore
the
this
heritage.
Building
that
has
been
devastated
by
a
terrible,
terrible
fire.
So
I
have
experience
in
knowing
where
it
is,
and
it's
not
pretty.
G
I've
also
involved
in
the
reconstruction
of
v30
Somerset
Street,
which
was
pretty
well
burned
to
the,
but
we
did
reconstruct
it
in
the
Heritage
District
to
be
in
very
close
replica
of
what
was
there
before.
So
these
things
can
be
done.
I'm
going
to
reluctantly
support
the
staff
recommendation
to
demolish,
but
I.
Think
I
personally
would
like
to
be
on
record
if
that,
through
the
Community
Design
Plan
process
and
participation
by
the
community,
that
effort
should
be
made
to.
G
G
I
I
It's
always
a
conundrum
and
I
agree
through
us
reluctant
to
see
this
tragedy
happen,
reluctant
to
vote
in
favor
of
the
engineer's
report
and
the
staff
report,
but
I
I
think
that
that's
the
reality
were
faced
with
and
and
while
I
would
like
to
see
some
vestiges
of
the
appearance
of
it.
Whatever
is
built,
that'll
come
up
with
site
plan
approval
by
cosplay
Quadra,
so
he
is
certainly
going
to
be
in
charge
of
the
site
plan.
J
Personally
think
we
do
have
an
option
here.
I
mean
the
application
before
us
is
approval
to
demo
or
for
demolition.
We
cannot
approve
the
demolition
that
keeps
the
facade
that
keeps
the
building
as
it
is
right
now.
It
forces
the
owner
to
have
to
go
back
and
do
something
else.
We
keep
on
saying.
We
can't
force
the
owner
to
restore
what
we
can't
you're
right,
but
we
also
can
make
sure
they
can't
demolish
it,
because
if
we
don't
approve
the
application
to
demolish,
then
they
can't
demolish
the
building.
This
isn't.
J
This
is
an
important
building
on
that
corner.
I
think
that
facade
is
is
something
that's
the
biggest
part
of
the
building
and
it's
a
large
property.
It
does
stretch
back
quite
a
bit.
There
is
room
for
for
improvement
in
the
future
with
the
kernel
of
a
new
owner,
whoever
it
would
be
to
come
for
with
a
development
application,
but
once
you
let
them
once
we
let
them
demolish
the
building.
There's
no
chance
to
save
the
facade
is
the
facade
gone
they've
demolish
it.
You
can't
just
bring
it
back.
J
I
mean
we've
seen
what
we
can
do
and
different
places
that
the
old,
the
old
church
at
the
corner
of
Gladstone
and
Bank
reincorporating
a
facade
into
a
new
building,
a
new
modern
building
and
we've
seen
it
happen.
We
can,
it
can
be
done
it's
just.
You
need
someone
with
the
wherewithal
to
do
it.
J
If
the
current
owner
is
planning
to
sell
the
property
that
new
owner
can
go
forward
with
something
some
sort
of
plan
that
can
work
with
the
community
work
with
the
council
for
the
area
work
with
this
committee
to
develop
a
property
develop
a
building
that
that
incorporates
the
history
that
also
gives
the
owners
something
to
do.
That's
a
little
bit
different,
a
little
bit
more
moderate.
It
respects
both
sides
as
opposed
to
just
tearing
down.
J
What's
there
now,
we
have
no
idea
what
can
come
forward
in
the
future,
which
is
a
very
rare
thing
for
heritage
to
deal
with
a
heritage
file.
Normally,
if
someone's
coming
in
to
demolish,
they
come
with
a
plan
right
now,
it's
just
demolished,
and
you
know
maybe
something
in
the
future
will
come
come
forward.
I'd
like
to
see
us
reject
the
demolition
and
and
go
back
and
see
what
we
can
achieve
in
the
future,
with
with
protecting
at
least
the
facade
of
the
building
and
incorporate
it
into
a
new,
a
new
construction.
B
J
B
B
Are
you
interested
in
that?
Are
you
just
going
to
flat-out
recommend
that
we
reject
the
entire
thing,
because
we
did
we
did
hear
from
councillor
Clark
that,
having
the
wherewithal
to
do
it,
the
insurance
company
is
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
is
not
going
to
give
the
owner
the
money
to
do
what
everybody
hopes
could
happen.
Well,.
B
And
then
the
other
thing
is
for
the
community
of
Statesville
where's,
the
greatest
value
for
them,
we're
hearing
about
the
heritage
property,
and
you
know
what
like
I
can
tell
you
that
when
we
many
of
us
that
are
familiar
with
the
area
yourself
I
think
we
were
at
Council
when
the
fire
was
was
on
and
councilor
Kadri.
We
were
and
councillor
al
Shan
Terry
we're
talking
about
the
boy.
B
We
hope
there
wasn't
too
much
damage
and
that
we
were
successful
in
putting
it,
but
that's
kind
of
like
one
of
those
when,
if
beggars,
you
know
what
is
it
the
force
is
whatever
beggars.
Would
ride
kind
of
thing?
It's
it's
it's
one
of
those
dreams,
not
everybody's,
going
to
have
the
money
to
do
what
the
people
on
the
KY
did
and
so
I
think
we
need
to
have.
If
it's
important
to
keep
the
entire
building,
then
it's
important
to
keep
the
entire
building.
B
A
You
very
much
madam
chair
and
before
the
committee
decides
on
a
motion
or
the
direction
for
this
item.
We
would
see
you
do
roughly
in
my
office
about
25
different
emails
from
both
sides
of
the
equation:
people
in
opposition
to
maintaining
in
people
in
favor
of
maintaining
it
maintaining
the
building.
The
concern
I
have
and
even
through
a
CDP
process,
is
how.
A
The
purpose
of
whatever
that
developments
happening
and
I'll
give
an
example
of
that
is
the
Presbyterian
Church
in
Canada.
It
was
destroyed
by
fire.
They
took
off
all
the
old
stones
and
stuff
much
like
the
Cheshire
cat,
and
we
built
the
building.
The
facade
still
looks
like
the
old
building,
but
the
bad
part
of
it
is
entirely
deaf
from
the
old
church
and
that's
the
same
thing
that
could
happen
here
and,
as
miss
Bertrille
mentioned
this
to
me.
A
This
building,
even
though
it's
you
know
not
to
its
original
standards
and
so
on,
it
still
defines
Main
Street
in
steps
row
this
and
the
other
building,
which
is
on
the
north
side
of
this,
are
the
two
buildings
remaining
on
that
Main
Street.
That
are
what
you
would
call
a
heritage
building
and
people
respect
those
two
buildings
very
much
in
the
community,
including
this
one.
Now
I
heard
the
other
side.
Well,
you
know
if
this
building
is
gone,
they'll
give
us
chance
to
widen
Main,
Street
and
so
on.
A
But,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
let's
be
fair
with
each
other.
This
building
will
not
allow
anything
to
happen
on
Main
Street
in
terms
of
widening
or
anything
because
of
the
other
building,
which
is
right
next
to
it,
and
that
building
is
well
established.
It
is
well
constructed
still
standing
and
you
know
will
probably
stand
for
centuries
to
come
so
under
the
illusion
that,
amid
this
mayor
will
help
widen
Main
Street,
if
you
demolish
it,
I
think
we're
thinking
in
the
wrong
path.
A
To
me,
the
important
part
of
this
building
is
exactly
what
you
see
in
that
photograph,
not
the
boarded
up,
but
the
previous
building
that
the
facade
on
Main
Street
will
remain
the
same.
What
happens
behind
it
because,
as
somebody
mentioned,
this
property
is
quite
a
bit
bit
of
death
on
it
and
it
could
be
developed
based
on
the
structural
community
design
plan
and
at
least
maintain
the
looks
of
the
building.
So
that
would
be
my
recommendation
going
forward.
Well,
as
a
council
representative
of
the
area,
well,.
B
E
Through
you,
madam
chair,
those
are
slightly
different
situations,
I
think
generally,
that's
well,
I!
Guess
the
Cumberland
Murray
one
is
a
bit
different,
but
in
other
instances
like
the
Metropolitan,
Bible,
Church
or
other
places,
Somerset
House
at
the
corner
of
Somerset
and
Bank,
yes,
a
facade
has
been
saved.
The
concern
would
be,
of
course,
that
you
end
up
with
the
situation
like
you
do
have
it
Somerset
and
Bank,
which
is
a
propped
up
facade
for
X
number
of
years,
but
now.
B
But
now
that's
changed.
We
have
a
remarkable
design
that
actually
for
the
old
Somerset
House,
and
it
was
worth
fighting
for
at
the
time
because
of
the
historical
value
of
that
property
at
the
corner
of
Somerset,
Bank
and
and
really
the
design
that
we
have
now
is
wonderful
and
it
really
shows
you
what
can
be
done
in
a
bad
circumstance.
B
B
We
still
have
safe
facades
and
I
think
that
the
community,
because
I
am
instance,
feel
quite
often
and
I
value,
the
Main,
Street
and
yet
I
know
how
much
better
that
it
could
be,
but
there's
only
a
few
remaining
historical
buildings
that
tell
part
of
the
history
of
Goulburn,
and
this
is
one
of
them.
So
it's
really
sad
for
the
for
the
owner,
I'm
sure
and
certainly
for
the
business
that
was
going
to
go
in
there.
D
B
E
B
B
B
But
from
a
different
perspective
other
than
just
a
purely
heritage,
what
is
that
getting
us
that
is
not
getting
you
a
fixed
up
property?
That
is
not.
That
is
getting
you,
maybe
what
we
saw
it
Bank
and
Somerset
for
six
to
eight
years
or
a
lot
longer.
If
people
don't
have
the
wherewithal
to
do
it,
it's
not
like
there's
support
there
to
help
them.
There's
going
to
be
X
amount
of
money,
that's
going
to
come
from
whatever
to
do
whatever
and
they
can
sell
it.
B
C
Quit
thank
you,
madam
chair.
Just
in
response
to
that
comment
that
you
made
regarding
an
out
no
rejection.
I,
don't
think
we
should
immediately
assume
that
it
would
sit
idle,
I
think
it
would
are.
Perhaps
it
provides
an
opportunity
for
the
owner
to
rethink
and
a
possibility
of
coming
back
with
a
proposal
that
would
include
the
retention
of
the
facade
or
some
features
of
the
building
in
in
a
design,
which
is
what
we
were
sort
of
going
to
go
with,
considering
if
the
planning
and
council
meetings
hadn't
sort
of
interfered
with
that.
C
So
personally,
I
I
support
the
the
counselor
office
recommendation
that
we
we
deny
demolition.
I.
Think
also
I'd
like
to
take
the
opportunity
to
say
when
an
engineering
report
comes
before
us
as
being
really
grounds
that
we
are
being
asked
to
use
to
consider
a
demolition.
I
really
think
it
is
important
that
a
representative
be
present
so
that
we
can
ask
questions
I
understand
that
concentric
engineers
are
they're
reputable
engineering
firm,
but
my
first
question
to
them
would
be
how
much
experience
they
have
with
evaluating
historic
properties.
B
G
You
know
endorsing
what
Carolyn
Quinn
has
just
said
in
reading
the
engineering
report.
The
engineering
work
does
not
say
that
there
is
no
choice
but
that
the
building
has
to
be
demolished.
They
do
say
that
there
is
the
option
to
rehabilitate.
So
the
engineering
report
has
some
credibility
in
that
perspective,
that
they
are
not
been
company
driven
or
owner,
driven
to
write
to
that
the
demolition
is
absolutely
necessary.
B
D
Madam
chair,
with
respect
to
the
options
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
a
designation
by
law,
does
not
give
the
city,
as
planning
staff
have
stated,
does
not
give
the
city
the
authority
to
demand
restoration
of
historical
property
as
well.
From
an
insurance
perspective,
many
insurance
companies
may
not
actually
insure
a
home.
That's
over
a
certain
age.
We
don't
have
any
of
that
information
before
us
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
your
options.
Today
you
can
consent
to
the
application
to
demolish.
D
B
Thank
you
and
yet
we're
faced
with
the
dilemma
of
the
February
20th,
and
you
know
what
I'm
personally
sick
and
tired
of
this
happening
as
much
as
we
try
and
we've
tried.
We
really
have
tried
to
fit
in
time
schedules.
I
mean
we
meet
more
often
than
many
of
the
larger
standing
committees,
for
heaven's
sakes
we're
doing
our
best
to
to
work
within
the
system,
and
yet
we've
got
a
situation
here.
We'll
be
really
helpful.
B
If
we
had
the
the
engineering
firm
come
where
we
had
ability
to
understand
really
so
that
councillor
Katherine
could
have
a
conversation
with
the
community.
Knowing
that
the
committee
is
quite
perplexed
by
the
decision,
we're
making,
which
is
likely
going
from
the
sounds
of
it,
likely
going
to
force
the
hand
of
everyone
to
discern
most
people
to
decide
against
the
demolition
which
may
or
may
not
be
in
the
best
interest
of
that
place
or
the
community,
and
so
this
enter
the
the
ninety
days
that
we
have
that
it's
february
20th.
B
Is
there
anything
that
speaks
to
a
goodwill
between
the
owner
and
or
whatever
that
we
could
have
some
kind
of
a
delay
to
give
us?
An
extra
number
of
you
know
the
amount
of
time
that
we
need,
so
obviously
it
would
be
then,
to
the
when
our
March
meeting
I
guess
we
would
deal
with
it
in
February,
but
it
would
actually
go
to
planning
after
that
and
then
to
counsel
there.
C
C
Yeah
section
32
3
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
but-
and
the
other
point
is-
is
that
for
all
that
the
committee
and
the
public
may
wish
to
hear
from
the
engineer
on
this.
We
cannot
compel
anyone
to
speak
to
the
committee.
So
if
you
were
deferring
with
the
hopes
that
the
engineer
would
speak
and
the
engineer
does
not
want
to
speak,
we
cannot
make
him
do
so
and.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
guess
a
small
question.
Sorry
and
one
other
thing
again,
that
is
committees
well
how
they
vote.
But
you
know
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
speculation
involved
and
I
mean
it
could
be
if
demolition
was
refused.
You
know
it
could
be
restored,
but
it
could
also
sit
for
the
next
ten
years
boarded
up,
because
although
we
do
have
yeah
and
we
do
have
our
new
property
standards,
it
secures
the
building
again.
It
does
not
require
a
building
to
be
reused.
B
Miss
Gough,
is
it
mrs.
Scott
welcome
I
just
want
to
ask
you
a
question.
You've
probably
been
sitting
up
there
wondering
what
are
they?
What
are
they
talking
about,
or
what
do
they
want
to
do
with
my
place?
That's
in
sad
shape
pretty
much
so
one
of
the
discussions
that
we've
had,
because
there
are
rules
under
the
Heritage
Act
in
Ontario
that
tell
us
what
we
can
and
cannot
do
and
under
the
Planning
Act
as
well.
They
speak
to
demolition
itself.
You
have.
B
We
have
a
consultant's
report,
an
engineering
report
and
they're
not
here
that
actually
raises
some
questions,
but
it
also
provides
two
options.
You
can
fix
it
or
you
can
tear
it
down
choose,
and
so
that's
the
decision
before
us
today,
but
if
you've
been
listening,
you've
heard
that
there
is
real
consideration
from
members
of
the
committee
as
to
and
from
the
community.
We've
had
a
lot
of
submissions
on
this
about
the
value
to
Stateville
Main
Street
of
your
property
I
understand
that
it's
not
your
intention
to
fix
it
up
yourself,
that's
right!
B
Okay,
and
that's
why
you've
asked
for
demolition,
but
can
I
just
ask
you?
We
have
to
deal
with
a
90-day
rule
that
says
from
the
time
you
make
the
application
that
we
have
to
make
a
decision.
I
think
that
we
would
do
all
of
us
good
if
you
were
willing
to
allow
an
extension,
not
not
for
like
another
90
days,
but
we
would
define
that
amount
of
time.
It
probably
would
be
three
weeks,
maybe
something
like
that,
it's
just
so
that
this
committee
can
undertake
a
bit
more
get
more
and
more
information
I.
B
B
And
then
what?
Because
everything
that
we
are,
because
we
are
a
built
heritage,
subcommittee,
we're
a
subcommittee
of
the
city's
planning
committee.
We
have
to
have
the
time
to
go
to
the
planning
committee
now
the
money
committees
second
one
in
is
the
25th
and
then
in
do
we
have
counsel
the
26th.
So
really,
what
we're
talking
about
is
two
weeks
difference.
Would.
K
K
B
Okay,
what
okay,
so
I'm
gonna
ask
miss
enter.
Is
everybody
interested
in
doing
that?
First
of
all,
okay,
so
I'm
gonna
ask
Miss
anta
to
draw
up
a
legal
document
that
you
know
at
no
cost
to
yourself
that
you
would
be
signing
just
to
say
that
you're
willing
to
give
us
the
time
to
do
a
bit
more
due
diligence?
Okay,
that's
fine!
That's
wonderful!
Thank
you
for
coming
today!
Thank
you.
I
B
A
You
that's
exactly
my
intent.
I
want
to
thank
the
committee
at
least
give
us
some
more
time
in
terms
of
dealing
with
this
issue
going
forward,
rather
than
just
taking
red
out
the
face
of
Main
Street.
Having
said
that,
my
other
concern
would
be,
as
you
said,
the
fact
that
whatever
the
committee
decides
on
the
13th
of
February
that
we're
not
hundred
as
a
community
of
building
that
it's
going
to
sit
in
this
condition
the
boarded-up
condition
by
the
next
six
seven
eight
ten
years.
So
that's
an
important
piece
for
the
community
also
exactly.
B
Because
we
know
that
we
have
no
right-
and
we
too
forced
miss
Gough
to
do
that
or-
and
we
certainly
know
those
members
around
the
table
that
are
councillors
know
that
there
is
no
financial
ability
or
well
at
the
City
of
Ottawa
to
do
that
either
so
I'm.
Looking
for
a
motion
that
would
say
basically
I
think
that
what
we'll
do
is
just
defer
this
to
the
Heritage
meeting
on
February,
the
13th
I
think.
B
B
E
E
E
As
you
can
see,
this
is
the
fire
insurance
plan
from
1956
that
shows
that
there
was
a
semi-detached
two-and-a-half
story,
dwelling
on
the
site,
along
with
some
outbuildings.
It
appears
a
garage
etc
as
well
as
two
2-story
semi-detached
dwelling
at
the
corner
at
132
Stanley
as
well.
This
site
has
been
vacant
since
the
1960s.
E
The
building
was
demolished
sometime
in
the
60s,
because
it's
been
vacant
since
before
1978,
the
Heritage
overlay
does
not
apply
the
through
the
zoning
bylaws.
So
the
underlying
zone
is
what
we
would
be
looking
at
from
a
zoning
perspective
in
this
property.
However,
it
is
located
within
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
E
So
here's
that
okay,
sorry,
here's
the
current
conditions,
Google
Street
View,
took
all
of
its
pictures
in
new
and
we're
on
garage
sale
day.
So
that's
why
you
see
many
people
selling
things,
but
so
this
is
the
property
at
1:32
Stanley
that
the
committee
approved
in
addition
of
a
second
story
on
this
is
the
property
in
question
at
the
corner
of
Queen
Victoria
and
River
Lane.
E
The
application
for
new
construction
requires
the
approval
of
the
city,
so
the
application
is
to
construct
a
two
and
a
half
story,
semi-detached
house,
with
parking
at
the
rear
off
of
River
Lane.
The
proposal
does
comply
with
all
other
planning
documents,
including
the
zoning
bylaw,
the
Official
Plan,
the
infill
bylaw,
etc.
So
this
is
the
only
application
that
is
required
as
part
of
this
process,
because
the
severance
was
completed
in
2011
and
was
not
appealed
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
E
Hence
the
site
plan.
As
I
said,
it's
two
units
unit,
one
which
is
closer
to
Stanley
Avenue,
is
slightly
larger
than
Unit.
Two.
The
building
is
setback
approximately
1.8
metres
from
the
street,
from
the
property
line
SOI,
which
is
approximately
the
average
of
the
neighbors.
The
parking
is
accessed
at
the
rear
off
of
River
Lane.
E
This
is
permitted
under
the
zoning
bylaw,
so
just
to
clarify,
because
I
know
we
had
a
long
conversation
about
the
property
at
sixty
one
Queen
Victoria
Street
that
had
a
had
it's
only
frontage
on
the
lane
and
that's
why
that
one
required
a
zoning
amendment.
This
one
has
a
frontage
on
Queen
Victoria
with
the
parking
at
the
rear.
So
there
are
no
no
zoning
issues
with
this
one.
E
Excuse
me:
it's
approximately
nine
metres
in
height
with
a
hip
roof
with
Gables
at
the
front
two
covered
porches
one
one
set
you
larger
than
the
other,
with
paired
columns,
I've
brought
along
the
materials,
very
heavy
stone
veneer
for
the
for
the
foundation,
as
well
as
a
red
brick
for
the
cladding.
If
anybody
on
the
committee
is
interested
in
looking
more
closely
at
the
materials.
E
E
This
is
the
interior
side
elevation
so
facing
the
building
at
Stan
on
Stanley,
Avenue,
again,
the
same
same
sort
of
elevation
and
the
rear
elevation
of
the
building.
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
parking
will
be
accessed
via
a
depressed
driveway
off
of
River
Lane,
putting
the
garages
at
the
back
of
the
building
The
Breakers
continued
the
whole
way
around
the
building.
This
was
in
response
to
comments
from
heritage
Ottawa.
E
So
the
staff
recommendation
is
to
issue
the
health
department
with
a
two-year
expiry
date
and
to
delegate
authority
for
minor
design
changes
to
the
planning
growth
management
department.
Now
there
are
huge
guidelines
for
the
new
Heritage
Conservation
District
I've
gone
through
each
of
the
guidelines
on
the
slides,
so
new
construction.
This
is
in
instances
where
the
Heritage
overlay
doesn't
apply.
This
guideline
applies
that
the
front
side
yard
setbacks
should
be
maintained
and
should
be
complimentary
to
the
adjacent
heritage
buildings.
E
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
setback
of
the
new
building
is
approximately
1.8
meters,
which
is
the
average
of
the
neighbors.
The
character
of
adjacent
property
should
be
acknowledged.
Staff
feel
that
the
use
of
materials
and
the
architectural
details,
such
as
the
porches
and
the
gable
roof,
are
reflective
of
the
character
of
the
new
Edinborough
Heritage
Conservation
District.
E
The
existing
small
lot
development
pattern
should
be
maintained.
A
semi-detached
house
constructed
on
two
Lots
is
typical
of
the
law
pattern
in
the
HCD,
and
in
fact
this
lot
did.
These
two
Lots
did
exist
in
this
manner
up
until
the
1960s,
and
so
this
is
reinstating
the
historic
lot
pattern
that
was
in
fact
in
place
in
the
district
and
then
finally,
new
Gras
new
buildings
with
garage
doors
that
dominate
the
street
will
not
be
approved
and
though
I
know
many
concerns
have
been
raised
about
the
lanes.
E
The
garage
access
has
been
located
at
the
rear
of
the
property
off
the
lane
in
order
to
minimize
its
impact
on
the
streetscape
in
terms
of
consultation,
Harwich
ottawa
was
notified
of
the
application
and
is
supportive.
Their
comments
are
included
in
the
staff
report.
Their
main
concern
was,
as
I
mentioned,
that
the
rear
facade
have
the
same
cladding
as
the
rest
of
the
building,
and
the
applicant
has
made
that
change.
I
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
actually
have
a
question.
I
noticed
that
in
this
between
me
Lane
and
Stanley,
there
are
just
the
two
there
will
be.
Should
this
proceed
be
just
the
building
that
exists
there?
The
house
that
exists
now
that
we
can
see
in
that
angle
photo
that
you
included
and
the
new
construction.
C
E
Like
a
bungalow,
so
this
one
here,
so
this
is
the
property
that
the
committee
approved
a
second
story
for
in
the
summer,
all
right,
so
the
setback
for
this
building
is
approximately
average
of
this
neighbor
on
the
other
side
of
river
Lane
and
this
neighbor.
So
it
will
be
slightly
farther
forward
than
this
building
and
I
think
slightly
farther
back
than
this
building.
Okay,
thank
you.
C
A
I
I
got
a
memo
from
you,
January
14th
most
long
time
ago,
so
you
probably
won't
remember
it
cultural
heritage
impact
statement.
Now
we
usually
ask
for
those,
because
we
want
a
second
opinion
or
an
external
opinion.
It
says
here:
heritage,
section
determined
that
doesn't
have
the
potential
to
adversely
impact
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
That's
the
CHS
was
not
required.
L
E
Through
you,
madam
chair,
the
official
plan
states
that
section
4.6
the
Official
Plan
states
that
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
may
be
required
when
there
is
an
application
for
new
construction
in
the
Heritage
Conservation
District,
where
the
application
has
the
potential
to
adversely
impact
the
district
heritage
staff
determined
that
this
application
did
not
have
that
potential
to
adversely
impact
the
district
as
it
was
being
created
on
to
it,
was
a
semi-detached
house
being
created
on
to
Lots.
That
was
a
semi-detached
house
in
the
past,
so
we
determined
that
it
would
not
have
did.
E
You,
madam
chair,
the
lots
did
exist
in
the
1950s
and
they
were
they
were
turned
into.
I
can
show
you
as
a
according
to
this
map,
which
you
see
on
the
right
hand,
screen.
This
is
the
fire
insurance
plan
of
1956.
So
you
can
see
here
in
the
red
box.
There
is
a
semi-detached
house
on
this
property.
When
the
house,
at
the
corner
of
132
at
the
corner
of
Stanley
in
Queen
Victoria,
was
built.
This
whole
property
was
combined.
That's
my
understanding.
E
I
I
E
I
E
I
E
C
E
That's
the
neighboring
property
on
the
other
side
of
the
lane,
so
the
so
the
chair
had
asked
what
the
setback
of
this
property
here
this
property
here
the
chair
had
asked
what
the
setback
of
this
property
was.
This
property
is
right
on
the
lane.
This
property
over
here
will
be,
if
approved,
2
meters
from
the
property
line,
the
building
I
mean
will
be
terrible.
Yeah.
D
E
Is
correct
and
that's
what
was
proposed
by
the
applicant
and
Heritage
Ottawa's
comments,
if
you
read
in
the
staff
report
specifically
related
to
this
siding,
not
to
the
brick
or
and
out
to
the
stone?
Sorry,
but
if
it
was
the
committee's
wish,
obviously
they
could
make
a
motion
to
have
the
stone
continued
around
the
back
as
well.
I
B
So
remember
that
hold
that
thought.
Okay
can
we
go
to
delegations,
though
everyone,
okay,
good?
So
first
up
we
have
Julia
and
I'm
sorry
Julia
I
can't
read
your
writing
and
I
asked
him
Sir
Clark.
Is
it
wayand
or
is
it
oh?
He
was.
He
was
right,
not
that
I'm
surprised,
I
didn't
mean
to
sound
like
I'm
surprised.
K
B
Bit
it's
yeah
Thank
You,
Christine,.
K
Okay,
we
live
at
128
Stanley
Avenue,
which
is
immediately
adjacent
to
the
proposed
development
at
4850,
Queen,
Victoria
Street
and
as
such,
we,
along
with
their
neighbors
at
54,
Queen
Victoria,
will
experience
the
greatest
negative
impact
to
this
development
proceed
as
planned.
K
So
the
proposed
dwellings
will
eliminate
all
green
space
on
the
lot
and
will
negatively
impact
on
our
heritage
property
because
it
will
sharply
reduce
our
views,
light
and
privacy
since
balconies
and
windows
will
directly
overlook
the
garden.
There's
only
going
to
be
about
10
feet
of
driveway
that
separate
our
properties.
K
Access
to
the
dwellings
from
the
narrow,
River
Lane
is
going
to
be
problematic.
It's
going
to
these
to
noise
issues
and
snow
issues
that
will
affect
us
as
well
and
I
should
add.
It
took
me
45
minutes
to
get
my
car
out
of
the
garage
this
morning
with
snow
removal.
I
can't
I
can't
imagine
how
snow
removal
is
going
to
work
on
their
very
narrow
beam.
K
Neighborhood,
its
intros
of
neighboring
properties
I,
would
suggest
that
this
kind
of
development
is
more
suited
to
suburban
suburbia.
With
a
larger
larger.
Over
the
past
century
you
had
been
sort
of
revolved
on
a
more
modest,
environmentally
friendly
scale.
Houses
have
gardens
and
green
space
there's
trees,
and
yes,
there
were
two
doubles
originally
built
on.
You
know
what
was
now
132
Stanley
and
Queen
Victoria
sites,
but
there's
one
a
completely
different
scale
than
what's
being
proposed
now.
K
Finally,
what
I
really
want
to
emphasize
is
that
there's
more
to
heritage
than
hiding
garages,
facades,
front,
porches
and
window
shape
heritage
is
more
than
what
can
be
seen
from
the
street.
It's
about
livability
and
this
would
affect
or
impact
the
durability
of
my
property
and
of
the
other
properties
around.
K
So
the
heritage
planners
didn't
find
it
necessary
to
have
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
prepared
because
they
deemed
that
this
development
doesn't
have
the
potential
to
adversely
affect
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
Well,
I
and
others
like
to
differ
on
this
and
in
the
absence
of
such
a
statement,
I'd
make
the
suggestion
that
perhaps
the
subcommittee
members
would
like
to
visit
the
site
before
rendering
a
decision.
Thank
you,
I.
B
I
B
J
Hello
counselor'
harder
councillor,
Clark
members
of
the
committee
on
David
Sachs
I'm,
a
past
president
of
Mecca
and
I'm,
currently
on
Necas
heritage
and
Development
Committee
and
I'm
just
here
to
officially
convey
Mako's
objections
to
the
proposal
which
focused
mainly
on
the
proposals
massing,
the
lack
of
green
space
that
will
be
available
and
the
absence
here
of
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
by
my
very
good
fortune.
Much
of
what
I
have
to
say
has
been
covered
already
by
the
able
comments
of
councillor
Clark
and
my
neighbor
Julia,
Weyand
and
I
can
keep
it
brief.
J
J
As
a
result
of
the
massed
massive
build
heavy
construction,
there'll
be
no
outdoor
amenities
other
than
the
balconies,
which
are
feared
to
encroach
on
the
neighbors
privacy
and
the
absence
of
outdoor
amenities.
A
green
space
in
a
news
post
construction
clearly
contradicts
the
guidelines
in
the
city's
official
plan,
as
well
as
in
the
new
Edinburgh
conservation
plan.
Also,
I
have
to
comment,
as
other
people
have
on
the
absence
here,
of
a
cultural
heritage.
J
Impact
statement
as
councillor
Clark,
as
are
covered
I
mean
the
decision
to
omit
that
is
based
on
a
technicality
of
dates,
arguable
between
I,
don't
know
in
1956
versus
2011,
and
it
seems
foolish
to
err
on
the
side
of
convenience
and
an
abridgment
here
when
the
whole
purpose
of
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
was
to
give
some
kind
of
oversight
and
second
opinion
in
regarding
construction
in
heritage
sensitive
areas
anyway.
Those
are
the
points
I
had
wished
to
make
them
put
under
and
I.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
thanks.
B
B
C
I
have
to
admit
to
feeling
foolish
addressing
this
community.
The
only
reason
I'm
here
is
because
I'm,
an
HDD
and
basically
people
for
us
continued
existence.
Fine
I
reminded
of
the
same
I,
never
say
no
to
you.
The
city
has
never
said
no
to
any
development
in
the
HCD.
This
past
year
has
been
astonishing,
as
all
the
protective
mechanisms
have
been
avoided
or
breached.
This
community
is
a
very
broad
mandate.
C
B
B
L
Madam
chair
committee
I'll
make
a
few
comments.
We've
heard
from
a
few
people
at
this
point
and
I
think
there
was
some
a
lot
of
discussion.
They
may
be
able
to
contribute
to
one
of
the
matters
that
have
been
discussed.
A
lot
was
this
setback
of
the
proposed
building
along
River,
Lane
and
so
I've
Leslie
pointed
out.
L
The
there
is
sorry
the
setback
that
is
show
I
was
a
pilot
is
being
proposed,
is
just
over
two
meters
from
the
property
line,
so
there
is
no
encroachment
on
the
lane
at
all
and
in
fact,
that
setback
that's
being
provided
is
in
excess
of
what
is
required
in
the
zoning
bylaw
because
they
want
to
be
able
to
provide
green
space
along
River
Lane
and
to
maintain
some
of
the
the
trees
that
are
there
today.
Hey
Wes
Wesley
was
correct.
Sorry,
who
is
he
my
voice?
L
Less
is
correct
in
saying
that
the
house
on
the
other
side
of
river
Lane
at
54,
Queen
Victoria,
it
is
on
the
property
line,
because
the
survey
for
the
property
does
capture
fact
dimensions,
so
so,
just
to
clarify
that
there
is
green
space
that
will
be
maintained
in
terms
of
comments
made
from
some
of
the
neighbors
about
the
veracity
of
the
proposed
building.
What
is
being
proposed
here
is
some
detached
showing.
So,
of
course,
it
is
larger
than
a
state
audit,
a
shilling.
However,
it
is
being
proposed.
L
It
does
meet
all
of
the
bylaw
requirements
for
setbacks.
It
is
below
the
permitted
height
for
this
area,
so
it
really
is
not
building
to
a
maximum
and
also
with
the
the
setback
along
River
Lane
being
provided.
It's
over
point,
eight
meters
in
excess
of
what
is
required,
and
also
this
design
that
is
before
you
today.
L
It
is
not
the
first
I
guess
rendition
of
the
design
for
the
proposed
time
a
we
have
been
working
for
over
four
months
with
city
staff,
so
Harwich
staff
also
staff
and
development
review
and
building
services
to
ensure
that
the
design
respects
the
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
So
drawing
the
materials
that
were
used.
The
porch
features
that
overload
the
street
the
the
double
gabled
roof,
the
the
style
of
windows.
L
So
all
of
that
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
with
city
staff
about
that
and
the
design
evolved
over
time
and
also
I
read
with
discussion
with
Development
Review
staff
to
make
sure
that
what
is
being
proposed
does
comply
merrily
with
the
underlying
zoning
bylaw
2000
to
50,
but
also
with
the
AVO
bylaw.
A
comment
was
made
about
parking
being
accessed
on
further
lane.
That
actually
is
a
requirement
under
the
rule
infos
only
by
our
first
site,
that
that
has
the
opportunity
to
provide
access
of
the
lane.
L
L
L
In
this
it
is
evident
that
the
setbacks
that
the
side
yard
setbacks
that
are
being
provided
are
more
generous
than
what
exists
for
some
of
the
other
properties,
and
there
is
a
larger
setback
overlaid
and
also
that
the
height
and
bulk
of
the
building
isn't
necessarily
overwhelming
for
the
street
and
keeping
in
mind
that
this
is
a
semi
detached
dwelling.
So,
of
course
it
will
be
larger
in
scale
than
a
single,
but
there
are
examples
of
semi-detached
in
the
district
and
around
Queen
Victoria
Street.
L
There's
one
that's
visible
in
this
streetscape
all
the
way
on
the
right.
So
if
I'm
not
sure,
if
there's
any
questions
but
I'm
I'm
happy
to
to
respond
to
anything
good
and
so
the.
But
there
was
a
moment
about
the
sloped
driveway,
just
sloped
driveway
after
we're
I
think
one
of
the
neighbors
had
made
a
comment
that
it
was
going,
be
a
very
steep
slope
coming
out.
L
But
actually
the
private
approached
by
our
requires
that
there
be
a
rather
surface
for
the
length
of
one
vehicle
to
be
able
to
stop
and
the
street,
or
in
this
case
the
rain
to
ensure
that
they
can
exit
safely.
So
we
have
worked
with
city
staff
to
ensure
that
the
the
driveway
that's
been
proposed
at
the
rear
does
conform
with
the
requirements
of
the
private
approached
by
law.
So
they
are
not
going
to
be
coming
up
at
a
ridiculous
angle
and
not
being
able
to
see.
D
With
respect
to
materials
you
mentioned,
the
effort
should
put
to
make
sure
the
materials
were
historic
in
nature
and
carried
on
matching
others
in
the
road
and
I
just
wondered
about
the
failure
to
continue
the
stone
foundation
around
the
corner
at
the
bark
at
it's
not
traditional
to
do
that,
and
it
I
think
takes
me
as
being
a
little
odd
to
have
brick
sitting
on
top
of
stucco.
The
normal
relationship
would
be
brick
sitting
on
top
of
stone,
so
I
just
wondered
if
consideration
had
been
given
to
continue
that
stone
around
for
the
rear,
facade.
L
B
G
I
have
a
question
for
you:
I'm
assuming
you're
a
consultant
to
the
owners
on
this
project
and
I'm
glad
that
you
asked
to
refer
to
the
street
elevation
which
you've
kindly
passed
around
and
which
we
have
in
our
package.
One
of
the
elements
of
character,
defining
elements
of
the
Heritage
character,
district
heritage
district
is
the
landscaping
and
greenery
and
I
know
that
we
have
previously
discussed
on
other
files
the
character
of
the
lanes,
which
are
noted
before
the
greenery.
G
G
L
To
clarify
you're
speaking
about
a
long
river
way
correct.
The
intention
is
to
maintain
the
green
that
is
so
today.
So
you
could
see
in
the
street
view
here
that
there
are
shrubs.
There
are
trees,
and
so
the
the
setback
that
is
provided
is
intended
to
maintain
green
along
the
way
to
maintain
that
green
character
of
the
lane.
So.
G
L
So
the
wreath
of
the
driveway
is
is
not
excessive.
It's
it
is
what's
required,
so
obviously
where
the
driver
will
be
have
to
be
able
to
provide
the
driveway,
but
otherwise
the
intention
is
to
maintain
all
of
the
trees.
So
I
am
Not
sure
right
now,
I
can't
say
if
there
was
a
tree
existing
right
at
at
that
point,
where
we'll
have
to
clear
for
a
driveway
I,
don't
know
right
at
this
moment.
G
Each
and
every
that
you'd
have
a
landscape,
architect
or
horticulturist.
Look
at
the
trees
come
up
with
the
tree
protection
plan
for
each
of
the
ones
that
are
there
and
agree
to
maintain
those,
because
I
think
that,
in
the
perspective
and
in
the
elevation
you're
showing
a
a
condition
that
is
not
really
reflected
in
your
plants.
G
B
So
I'm
not
looking
for
you
to
answer
I'm
looking
to
Leslie
for
you
to
comment
on
what
we're
at
what
point:
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
the
landscape,
the
preservation
of
trees,
the
possibilities
of
that,
because
if
you
look
at
the
age
of
the
the
trees
that
are
shown
in
the
picture-
and
it's
not
it's
not
a
you
know,
unless
they're
at
October,
Norway
maples
or
something
like
that
and
very
very
fast
growers,
they
they
do.
They
are
significant.
E
The
there
isn't
a
true
protection
plan
as
part
of
this
application.
That
is
something
that
the
committee
could
make
an
approval
conditional
upon.
If
that
was
the
desire,
I
don't
know
off
the
top
of
my
head,
which
of
the
trees
that
are
shown
in
this
photo
are
actually
on
the
property
and
which
are
on
neighboring
properties.
Obviously,
the
one
that's
right
at
the
frontier
is
on
the
property
and
appears
to
be
one
of
the
larger
ones,
but,
along
that
laneway
along
the
property.
B
Because,
as
as
vice-chair
Podolski
said,
the
interpretation
of
the
built
form
is
deceptive
in
relationship
we
know,
I
mean
councillor
Clark
and
I
made
me
two
metres
what
we're
doing
them
our
map
and
it's
like
six
feet
right
and
visually.
You
know
how
far
what
that
is.
I
mean
that
that
obviously
is
a
lot
larger
than
that.
But
I
don't
want
to
get
bogged
down
on
that,
but
it's
very
important
and
we
have
to
find
a
way
to
make
sure
that
that
that
consideration
is
given
and
I
yes,
I'm
talking
in
an
old
culture.
B
B
D
B
I
You
know,
for
four
months,
you've
been
working
with
staff
and
staff
been
work
with
the
community
for
four
days
or
maybe
four
weeks.
If
we
extend
it,
so
I
think
that
that
clearly
there's
a
gap
between
the
community
finding
out
and
getting
involved
in
a
discussion
and
the
developer.
Slash
discussions
with
staff
and
I
think
that
a
narrow
that
gap.
I
B
I
B
I
B
D
B
Know
so
miss
enter
we
just
we
didn't
have
the
motion
for
mr.
Smallwood
for
members.
Mom
would
be
haunt
these
before
us
and,
if
you
recall,
during
the
when
he
was
speaking,
he
said
that
he
wanted
to
add
the
he
has
the
question
about
the
foundation
and
continuing
the
treatment
from
the
front
and
the
sides
around
to
the
back
to
be
consistent.
We
now
have
carried
this.
How
do
we
add
what
mr.
Smallwood
had
intention
of
having
before
us.
B
This
motion
right
here
right
in
front
of
me,
the
staff
recommendation.
Yes,
the
application
that
the
belt
Heritage
subcommittee
recommend
the
planning
committee
recommend.
The
council
approve
the
application
for
new
construction
according
to
plans
by
delegate
authority
for
minor
design
changes.
That's
that's
how
we
can
do
it
right
there
I
do
that
in
the
delegate,
the
authority
to
mark
for
minor
design
changes.
I
D
B
B
Know
any
inquiries,
no
other
business
except
I'm,
going
to
ask
you
to
follow
up
with
councillor
flurry
on
the
conversation
we
have
with
Laura
town
community
and
and
will
be
further
work
on
that
and
adjournment
with
German
and
are
carried
and
with
our
next
meeting
being
Thursday
February
13th,
where
we
will
have
item
number
one
on
the
agenda
again
and
we'll
be
doing
some
follow-up
between
now
and
then
so
thanks.
Everyone
for
coming.