►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – June 26, 2014
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee – June 26, 2014 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
A
B
B
B
So
on
the
item
number
one
we're
going
to
hold
that,
but
the
applicant
is
here-
and
it
does
want
to
just
speak
to
us
briefly-
I
remember
to
application
to
ultra
429
McLaren
Street
I,
properly
designated
under
part
five
of
the
internal
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
the
center
town,
Heritage
Conservation
District,
this
one's
coming
back
to
us.
We
have
we
dealt
with
it
last
year
and
the
and
so
there's
some
changes.
B
Is
that
carried
okay
item
number
three:
we
have
a
presentation
so
we'll
hold
that
I
remember
for
the
application,
altar,
the
Brentwood
gates-
and
we
have
no
delegations
on
on
this
item
that
does
anyone
wanna
hold
it,
that
is
it
carry
the
declaration.
You
have
to
back
that
please
back
up
step
away
from
the
desk.
Thank
you.
D
B
Welcome
back
nice,
chair,
Podolski
and
item
in
the
five
we
have
delegations
and
we
have
a
presentation
so
we'll
hold
that
so
the
first
thing
I'd
like
to
recommend
is
that
we
deal
with
item
number
one.
But
then,
if
you
all
agree,
the
members
of
the
committee
I'd
like
to
go
number
five,
because
we
have
delegations
there
and
then
finish
up
with
the
horticultural
building,
great
okay.
B
E
You
mr.
speaker,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
miss
Collins
and
the
members
of
the
committee
for
taking
the
time
to
review
our
application,
based
on
the
report
that
we
received
and
based
on
the
comments
and
recommendations
from
heritage
and
the
Rockland
Park
committee,
as
well
as
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
prepared
by
architect,
Robert
Martin.
We
have
decided
to
with
all
the
application
and
go
back
to
redesign
the
project
in
a
manner
that
will
address
these
comments
and
remarks.
E
Our
target
is
to
submit
very
designed
by
July
10th
at,
during
which
time
we'll
be
working
very
closely
with
these
members
to
achieve
a
design
that
is
more
in
line
with
the
recommendations.
I
wanted
just
to
highlight
that
we
have
with
the
design
not
due
to
lack
of
effort
and
accepting
the
recommendations
that
were
put
through
in
our
discussions.
However,
we
tried
I,
guess
overly
hard
to
take
on
board
the
various
comments
and
subjective
opinions
of
to
me,
I
guess
parties
and
ended
up
with
a
an
overly
complex
design.
E
B
You
anyone
have
any
questions.
Well,
I
just
wanted
to
say
on
behalf
of
the
committee
and
they
have
a
staff
a
heritage
on
one
will
speak
for
you
and
and
the
community.
We
really
appreciate
that
is
you
know
the
best
the
best
freecell
resolve
can
always
be
when
the
applicant
says
we
listened.
We've
listened
to
you
in
this
case
the
planner,
the
community
heritage
Ottawa
and
we're
going
to
go
back
and
see
what
we
can
do
with
those
recommendations.
I.
B
Thank
you
very
much
for
that.
So
I,
thank
you
and
they
look
for
GC
in
the
application.
Come
back.
Thank
you
much.
Thank
you,
so
that
first
item
is
withdrawn.
So
now
we're
going
to
go
directly
to
Prospect
Road
and
we're
going
to
have
our
prospect.
We
have
some
speakers
as
I
said,
but
we
do
have
a
presentation
from
staff.
F
F
This
is
an
image
showing
the
existing
building.
It
does
not
face
either
onto
a
Prospect
Road
or
Lansdowne
Road.
In
fact,
it
has
its
own
sort
of
driveway
off
of
Prospect
Road
that
it
faces
on
to
so
it's
it's
a
sort
of
strange
situation.
However,
you
can
see
that
the
site
does
have
significant
mature
landscape
features,
including
a
large
hedge
and
a
number
of
mature
trees.
F
F
The
project
does
require
other
planning
applications
as
well.
In
order
to
in
order
to
have
a
building
issued,
it
is
somewhat
complex
because
the
severance
of
the
site
could
potentially
have
an
impact
on
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
So
I
have
addressed
that
in
my
report
as
well,
but
the
decision
on
the
severance
of
the
site
and
the
minor
variances
would
be
from
the
committee
of
adjustment.
F
This
is
the
site
plan
for
the
proposed
site.
I
understand
this
is
not
the
one
that
was
included
in
the
report.
That
was
an
error,
so
I
think
this
has
been
circulated
to
all
members
of
the
committee.
The
only
change
from
this
site
plan
to
the
one
that
was
in
the
report
is
the
removal
of
the
semicircular
driveway
on
old,
Prospect
Road,
which
was
located.
F
It
was
located
right
here
and
it
has
been
determined
that,
through,
though
it
did
not
comply
with
the
private
approach
by
law
and
would
not
have
been
permitted,
so
we
asked
for
it
to
be
removed
from
the
drawings.
As
you
can
see,
the
lot
is
severed
into
you
can
see.
This
dotted
line
here
is
the
outline
of
the
existing
building
on
the
lot.
So
the
existing
building
is
sort
of
right
in
the
middle
of
the
lot.
F
The
property
is
surrounded
by
a
mature
cedar
hedge,
which
you
will
have
seen
some
comments
about
from
the
community
and
a
number
of
mature
trees.
The
proposed
houses
on
the
lot
one
house
that
has
its
driveway
from
Lansdowne
Road
and
a
walkway
from
from
old,
Prospect
Road,
and
then
the
second
house,
which
has
its
driveway
from
old,
Prospect
Road
and
addresses
that
street
part
of
the
plan
includes
introducing
a
cedar
hedge
to
divide
the
properties
which
is
typical
in
in
Rockland
Park
and
is
consistent
with
the
character
of
the
landscape.
F
It
is
565
the
drawing
is
incorrect,
so
this
is
the
proposed
house
for
the
lot.
That's
not
at
the
corner.
It's
a
two
and
a
half
storey
house
with
a
hip
roof,
two
storey
projecting
there
at
the
front.
It
would
be
clad
in
wood,
shingles
and
buff
colored
brick,
and
it
has
a
flat
roof
garage
facing
the
street.
F
This
is
the
house
B,
which
is
significantly
more
contemporary
in
nature,
has
two
storeys
with
a
flat
roof
and
a
partial
third
storey,
which
also
has
a
flat
roof
and
leads
to
a
rooftop
terrace.
Its
garage,
which
you
will
see
in
the
next
slide,
is
located
below
grade
off
of
Lansdowne
Road.
So
this
is
the
garage
here.
The
building
is
proposed
to
required
in
stone
and
wood
and
have
significant
panels
of
glazing.
F
This
just
shows
you
a
streetscape
view
with
the
buildings
included
in
the
streetscape,
so
this
is
looking
at
our
Prospect
Road.
Obviously,
as
these
are
renderings,
they
are
meant
for
illustration
purposes
only
and
not
part
of
the
approval.
However,
this
is
the
house
at
575,
the
more
contemporary
building
that
I
was
referring
to,
and
then
this
is
the
house
at
565,
the
proposed
house,
and
then
here
you
see
the
elevation
along
Lansdowne
Road.
So
you
can
see
this
below
big
garage
that
is
proposed
on
Lansdowne
Road.
F
Again,
renderings
of
the
proposed
buildings,
as
you
can
see,
one
is
is
more
traditional
in
nature
and
the
other
is
is
more
contemporary
in
nature.
Both
both
buildings
reflect
the
eclectic
mix
of
styles
in
rock
lift
Park.
So
the
recommendation
before
the
committee
today
is
to
approve
the
application
to
demolish,
approve
the
applications
for
new
construction
issue.
The
head
of
department
was
a
two
year
expired
and
delegate
authority
for
minor
design.
Changes
to
the
planning
of
growth
management
department.
F
F
F
As
I
said,
the
committee
of
adjustment
would
have
jurisdiction
over
the
approval
of
the
severance,
as
that
is
under
the
Planning
Act.
However,
the
the
guidelines
within
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
study
that
referred
to
lot
division
and
the
patterns
of
lot
division,
so
we
have
assessed
the
proposal
against
those
guidelines.
The
first
is
that
the
existing
pattern
of
rock
division
should
be
protected
with
its
wide
range
of
sizes
and
shapes.
The
retention
of
existing
larger
Lots
should
be
encouraged,
especially
where
there
is
a
significant
building,
and
that
should
provide
generous
open
space
around
the
buildings.
F
So
obviously
this
is
this
is
proposing
that
not
the
retention
of
an
existing
larger
lot.
However,
there
is
no
significant
building
on
this
site
and
the
proposed
Lots,
in
our
opinion,
provide
enough
open
space
around
the
buildings
and
retain
the
significant
landscape
features
on
the
properties
to
to
be
compatible
with
the
character
of
the
Lots
in
Rockland
Park.
They
are
similar
in
size
to
other
Lots
in
the
heritage
district
and
and
do
not
result
in
the
loss
of
any
significant
landscape
features.
F
We
also
review
the
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
Historic
Places
in
Canada.
The
two
relevant
standards
here
are
conservative
value
of
the
historic
place.
So
in
this
instance
the
historic
place
is
the
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
of
rock
cliff
Park,
and
it
is
our
assessment
that
the
proposal
does
conserve
that
heritage
value
and
does
not
negatively
impact
the
character
of
this
landscape
or
streetscape.
F
And
when
creating
new
additions,
you
can
serve
the
heritage
value
of
the
historic
place
and,
in
this
instance,
the
use
of
materials,
the
height
massing
and
setback
of
both
new
buildings
make
them
visually
and
physically
compatible
with
the
architectural
character
of
Rothko's
Park.
A
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
was
for
as
part
of
this
application,
and
it
has
been
included
as
an
attachment
to
the
report,
but
in
summary,
it
evaluated
the
impacts
from
the
the
potential
impacts
resulting
from
the
demolition,
the
new
construction,
the
landscape
alterations
and
the
severance.
F
Its
conclusion
was
that
it
found
those
serious
negative
impacts
on
the
value
of
the
HCD
and
it
states
as
its
conclusion.
As
a
quote,
the
new
buildings
can
exist
comfortably
in
their
surroundings
without
negatively
impacting
the
character
of
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
terms
of
consultation,
neighbors
within
30
metres
of
the
property,
were
notified
of
the
operative
the
application
and
offered
the
opportunity
to
comment
and
I
understand.
The
committee
has
received
a
number
of
comments
and
I
believe
there
are
some
delegations
here
to
speak
today.
F
G
G
Clearly,
it
should
be
dealt
with
by
committee
of
adjustment
before
we
start
considering
design
issues,
lots
of
problems
with
the
design
as
well,
but
that's
another
day
and
hopefully,
and
no
I
cannot
support
this
and
I
believe
that
that
it
violates
the
HCD
agreement
and
also
because
they
started
out
with
quote
a
placeholder
no
design
and
all
of
a
sudden,
the
design
hasn't
been
through
the
development
design.
Review
subcommittee
of
the
region
of
the
rock
with
Park
RA,
and
you
know
somehow
or
other,
were
putting
the
cart
before
the
horse.
G
It
does
not
meet
the
Heritage
District
guidelines
or
the
Rockville
Park
associations,
interpretation
of
them
it
does.
You
know
the
lot
sizes
are
both
going
to
be
below
the
minimums
that
it
currently
exists
in
the
HCD
and
according
to
that,
we
should
should
reject
it.
Well,
as
the
city
committee
of
adjustment
says,
we
should
consider
it.
So,
just
from
my
point
of
view,
we've
jumped
out
ahead
of
this
thing
and
decided
to
consider
it
before
it's
even
looked
at
by
the
committee
of
adjustment.
Council.
B
B
E
A
B
H
Morning,
madam
chair
members
of
community
Brian
Casagrande
Senior
Planner
of
photon
consultants.
The
simple
answer
to
your
question
is
that
the
committee
of
adjustment
will
tie
us
to
the
plans
submitted
and
our
expectation
is
that
there's
a
high
chance,
or
at
least
a
reasonable
chance
that,
through
this
process,
changes
to
those
plans
might
be
stipulated.
So
to
avoid
a
situation
where
I
would
bring
my
client
to
a
committee
of
adjustment
hearing,
he
pays
those
fees
and
effectively
all
the
consulting
fees
to
go
along
with
it.
H
Only
to
have
to
return
to
the
committee
in
the
event
that
changes
are
dictated
out
of
this
process
will
just
simply
not
be
reasonable
in
terms
of
practical
practicalities.
I
should
also
say
that
consistently,
whenever
I've
had
applications
that
have
to
go
before
the
Heritage
Committee,
as
well
as
committee
of
adjustment,
such
as
this
application,
I've
been
directed
by
staff
to
do
it
in
that
order.
I
expect,
for
those
exact
reasons
and
which.
H
B
J
H
That
there
was
never
any
clarity
on
my
part
as
to
whether
we
were
to
go
to
committee
of
adjustment.
First,
there
was
an
acknowledgment
that
the
standard
practice
is
to
go
to
this
committee
first
and
committee.
Second,
my
sense
of
it
quite
honestly
is
given
the
level
of
public
interest
in
the
application.
H
B
So
for
everyone
in
the
room,
just
so
that
you
be
clear,
I
do
have
a
list
of
speakers,
but
this
is
important
and
in
most
of
the
many
of
the
correspondents
that
we
have
received,
and
probably
some
of
your
comments,
it
is
going
to
speak
to
the
size
of
the
lots
and
that
sort
of
thing.
So
that's
why
we're
going
this
way
first
to
to
get
that
cleared
up
and
hang
on,
because
most
chair
Podolski
would
like
to
speak
and.
C
I'd
like
to
ask
a
question
so
that
this
committee
can
understand
what
the
variances
would
be,
because
it
is
not
really
in
any
of
our
documents.
So
if
you
could
help
educate
the
committee
with
the
site
plan
to
inform
us
about
what
the
variances
are,
that
you
would
be
applying
when
you
go
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
just
so
that
we
can
understand
this
better.
So.
B
H
H
Six
two
meters
was
the
minimum
requirement,
is
twenty
seven
and
then
finally,
that
application
or
that
lot
has
a
requested
increase
to
the
maximum
density,
which
is
twelve
point,
eight
units
per
hectare
or
one
per
seven
hundred
and
eighty
one
point
two
five
square
meters,
whereas
the
bylaw
permits
a
maximum
of
ten
point,
eight
seven
units
per
hectare
or
one
per
nine
hundred
and
nineteen
point
nine
six
square
meters.
Part
two
also
has
so
this
is
the
corner.
H
Lot
has
three
variances:
they
seek
a
or
we
seek
a
lot
area
variance
of
to
allow
an
eight
hundred
and
eighty
nine
square
meter
lot,
whereas
the
barlow
requires
925,
we
seek
a
OC
I.
Think
I've
got
this
backwards
again,
so
the
previous
ones
I
was
referring
to
was
in
fact
the
corner
lot.
I,
don't
have
my
reference
plan
in
front
of
me,
I'm.
Sorry,
madam
chair
said
the
pre
I
didn't.
H
H
I
can
do
that
so
so
a
lot
a
which
is
the
interior
lot.
The
area
781
point
3
compared
to
the
requirement
of
925
the
width
of
twenty
four
point:
six
to
requirement
twenty
seven
and
the
density.
Twelve
point:
eight
units
per
hectare
versus
ten
point:
eight
seven
is
the
requirement
lot
be
at
the
corner
area:
eight,
eighty,
nine
versus
925
rear
yard,
which
is
seeking
four
point:
five
compared
to
a
12
meter
requirement
and
density.
Eleven
point:
two:
five
versus
ten
point:
eight
seven
per
hectare
so.
B
H
H
B
A
The
statement
is
in
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
study
is
that
the
existing
pattern
of
lot
division
should
be
protected,
and
it
would
seem
fairly
clear
in
this
case
that
what's
happening,
is
it's
not
being
protected?
The
the
variances,
if
granted,
would
lead
other
people
to
assume
that
any
lot
of
this
size
would
be
open
for
severance
and
subdivision,
which
would
then
inevitably
at
some
point
lead
to
the
reduction
of
the
the
larger
lots,
which
not
point
to
says
is
that
the
retention
of
existing
larger
lot
should
be
encouraged.
A
Now,
in
this
case,
there
isn't
an
existing
house,
but
it
doesn't
say,
should
only
be
encouraged
whether
it's
an
existing
house
on
the
inventory
it
says
the
existing
larger
Lots
should
be
encouraged.
By
doing
this,
it
would
seem
to
do
the
exact
opposite,
so
I
guess
my
question
to
you
is:
is
that
how
do
you
reconcile
what
seems
to
be
a
contradiction
and
the
goals
and
the
objectives
of
the
HCD
and
what
you're
proposing?
Thank
you.
F
Through
you,
madam
chair,
yes,
I,
recognize
that
the
guideline
that
says
it
should
be
encouraged,
particularly
whether
it's
an
existing
house
does
not
mean
that
if
there
is
no
existing
house,
it
shouldn't
be
encouraged.
However,
when
these
proposals
come
forward,
we
we
do
react
to
them.
You're
a
comment
about
you
know.
This
could
set
a
dangerous
precedent
that
this
is
going
to
start
happening
all
over
the
village.
F
F
You
know
long
lots
where
you
you,
you
have
an
interior
lot
and
they
have
to
have
a
corner
lot
basically
or
a
very
wide
lot,
and
we
found
there
were
less
than
10
in
the
in
the
village
of
Rockland
Park,
where
this
could
potentially
happen,
and
there
are
approximately
750
Lots
in
Rockland
Park.
So
it
was
not
felt
that
this
was
going
to
open
the
door
to
to
changing
the
overall
cultural
landscape
or
václav
Park.
In
terms
of
saying
the
existing
pattern
of
law
protection,
lots
of
it
should
be
protected.
A
G
F
B
E
You
go
good
morning,
everybody
and
thank
you
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
together
before
this
committee.
I
live
across
the
street
from
this
lot
that
is
before
us
today.
I
am
very
upset,
but
this
by
this
whole
process
and
I
have
I
guess
my
points
or
my
low
compared
to
the
ones
on
my
neighbor's
are
going
to
bring
up.
But
the
first
thing
I
would
like
to
repeat
the
point
that
mr.
Clark
brought
up.
I
don't
understand
how
can
we
be
looking
at
two
houses?
E
Well,
we
have
only
one
lot
as
my
understanding
that
only
one
house
can
be
built
in
one
lot
and
I
haven't
seen
a
project
for
one
single
house
to
be
built
all
this
lot.
If
the
current
house
is
demolished,
so
don't
understand
the
logics
of
this,
so
I
guess
a
it's
a
question
or
an
a
comment:
I
don't
know,
but
they
still
I,
don't
understand
that
and
how
it
can
happen.
E
This
trees
are
at
least
20
to
30
years
old,
maybe
even
over
50,
some
of
them
they're,
probably
going
to
be
destroyed.
If
this
project
goes
ahead,
I
don't
think
we
will
see
them
back,
even
if
attempt
is
made
to
replant
them.
At
least
I
won't
see
them
in
my
lifetime.
The
sealer
cages.
Ok,
see,
there's
grow
fast,
yes,
but
I
don't
mean
I,
don't
see
that
serious
have
such
a
heritage
value
as
a
tree.
That's
over
50
years
old.
B
E
One
point:
yes:
ok,
so
because
I
don't
see,
I
don't
know
if
the
surveillance
is
not
approved
and
I
hope
it
will
not
be
I
will
very
mentally
oppose
it.
For
the
reasons
that
have
been
already
presented
here,
the
lots
will
be
smaller,
definitely
and
I
do
think
that
it.
It
will
set
a
precedent
for
the
village.
B
But
did
you
hear
the
investigation
that
Miss
Collins
dead
and
with
some
of
the
other
staff
they
looked
at
the
entire
inventory,
so
I'm
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
speak
to
the
tree
presently
there
when
the
church
was
over
there
and
what
will
happen
with
them
and
also
again
to
the
the
last
comment
that
miss
Farhad?
Thank
you.
F
So
we
through
you,
madam
chair,
in
reference
to
the
landscape
plan
on
the
site
plan
it's
difficult
to
see
on
the
screen.
There
are
one
two
three
trees
proposed
for
removal.
One
very
faint
I
will
show
you
with
the
mouse
there's
one
here
in
the
front
where
this
walkway
is.
There
is
one
here
at
the
back
where
the
house
is-
and
there
is
one
over
here
where
the
driveway
is
the
rest
of
the
trees
on
the
lot
at
this
point
are
proposed
for
retention.
F
It
is
something
that,
as
this
committee
knows,
when
you
see
you
see
so
many
applications
in
Rock,
Creek
Park.
It's
one
of
the
things
that
we
really
try
to
push
is
the
retention
of
mature
trees
and
other
mature
landscape
features
like
hedges
in
the
village,
as
it
is
one
of
the
most
important
heritage
attributes
of
the
of
the
village
of
Rothko's
Park.
E
They
can
cover,
don't
think
the
three
trees
that
you
mention,
that
I'm
marked
for
renewal
are
the
most
mature
ones
and
think
it's
the
sugar
maple,
a
big
pile
I,
think
one
of
them
is
a
white
pine
and
the
other
one
is
another
kind
of
pine
they're
the
most
much
wrong
a
lot.
They
cannot
stay
there
based
on
this
plan,.
C
Leslie
I
think
that
the
question
of
the
cutting
of
mature
trees
for
this
proposal
has
come
up.
I
see
the
site
plan
here
but,
as
you
rightly
say,
you
can't
tell
visually
from
the
plan
the
nature
of
the
location
of
the
mature
trees
that
would
be
cut.
I.
Think
that
disappointed
in
that,
because
we
have
a
plan
which
shows
being
cut
and
sometimes
an
arborist
report
describing
the
nature
of
those
trees.
You
had
pointed
out
trust
with
the
little
cursor
of
the
trees.
F
My
apologies,
I
did
say
for,
and
there
are
four
the
fourth
is
over
here
on
the
other
property.
So
it's
right
here
on
the
printed
version
of
the
site
plan.
You
should
be
able
to
see
it
if
they
are
grayed
out,
which
is
typical
of
of
trees.
That
two
are
to
be
removed
on
a
site
plan.
It's
just
it's
not
showing
up
on
on
the
screen
very
well.
So
there
are,
there
are
four
trees:
I
do
not
have
the
the
type
or
species
in
front
of
me.
B
Okay,
I'm
just
looking
for
that
page,
it
would
have
the
the
trees,
maybe
just
on
the
comment
I
get
on
the
topic
of
trees,
though
maybe
you
could
speak
to
what
is
being
retained
so
on
trees
shown
there
I
mean
some
of
them.
Others
say
are
gonna
be
new,
but
of
the
ones
that
are
there
that
miss
some
class
spoke
about.
F
So
I've
just
brought
up
an
image
on
the
screen
again:
I
guess
it's
because
it's
a
bit
bright
in
here
it's
difficult
to
see,
but
what
you
see
on
the
planar
mainly
retained
trees.
There
are
some
new
hedges
and
other
landscaping
proposed
at
the
front
of
the
of
the
new
house.
Both
new
houses,
but
the
mature
trees
that
you
see
along
here
are
proposed
for
retention
and
then
also
the
whoops.
F
The
cedar
hedge
that
you
see
here
on
the
right-hand
side
of
the
screen
is
proposed
for
retention
as
well.
So
most
of
what
you
see
on
the
existing
plant
on
the
plan
is
existing.
There
is
some
new
planting
proposed
at
the
front
of
the
house,
but
the
the
existing
co-heads
that
goes
all
the
way
around
the
property,
as
well
as
the
four
or
five
there's
five
mature
trees
in
the
front
yard
of
575
old
Prospect,
and
there
are
two
in
the
front
yard
of
565
old
prospect
that
are
being
retained.
F
B
L
L
L
Let's
you're
cutting
off
one
sixth
of
this
entire
desk,
okay,
and
that
by
itself
is
a
serious
issue,
really
yard
setback.
Sixty-Three
percent
below
what
the
zoning
bylaw
would
would
envisage
driveways.
Now,
here's
where
we
get
into
a
big
difference
between
what
we
saw
and
what's
on
the
table
here,
my
calculation
was
that
the
driveways
well,
the
lot
sizes
were
going
to
be
smaller.
The
overall
driveway
requirement
was
going
to
be
thirty
one
percent
larger
than
what
the
zoning
bylaws
would
would
allow
for.
L
We've
also
got
now
this
notion
of
increased
density
beyond
zoning
bylaw
allowances,
which
wasn't
part
of
the
original
variances.
That
I
did
that
I'd
looked
at
lot
with
also
from
the
perspective
of
density
and
city
staff
said
that
this
probably
wouldn't
have
a
big
impact
on
the
village
in
terms
of
setting
a
precedent.
Well,
I
live
across
the
across
the
road,
my
Lots
about
close
to
twenty-six
thousand
square
feet.
So
if
this
was
allowed
to
go
ahead,
presumably-
and
it's
very
wide,
I
could
put
three
houses
on
my
property.
L
So
in
this
little
corner
of
the
village,
where
once
there
were
two
homes
now
there's
the
potential
for
at
least
five,
and
that
doesn't
even
account
for
some
of
the
other
properties
that
are
over
20,000
square
feet
in
the
immediate
vicinity.
Okay,
I'd
also
like
to
touch
upon
the
fact
that
this
is
a
significantly
dangerous
corner.
The
images
don't
really
show
the
full
story
here.
L
This
corner
is
a
90-degree
corner.
Removing
the
hedge
is
only
a
small
solution
to
a
big
problem,
because
this
corner
is
an
approach
to
a
significant
Hill
which,
in
the
wintertime,
is
always
very
icy.
So,
as
a
result,
people
approaching
from
Lansdowne
going
up
Prospect
usually
have
to
accelerate
fairly
hard
just
to
be
able
to
get
up
the
hill.
Okay.
L
The
roads
originally
were
laid
out
sometime
in
the
late
1800s
and
were
never
designed
for
car
traffic,
let
alone
substantial
car
traffic
and
as
such,
I
walk.
My
dog
at
least
twice
a
day
around
this
corner
and
I
am
constantly
having
to
veer
off
into
the
verge
just
to
avoid
the
cars
that
can't
even
see
me
coming
around
from
Lansdowne,
basically,
okay,
not
to
mention
cyclists
that
zip
down
the
road
at
you
know
for
at
least
60
kilometers,
an
hour
skateboarders
and
whatever
else.
This
is
a
disaster
waiting
to
happen.
L
Ok,
so
that's
something
that
will
you
know
again
we'll
be
dealing
with
less
pavement,
not
more
pavement,
so
in
summary
and
I
just
like
to
say
that
number
one.
This
does
definitely
open
the
door
to
you
know
quite
significant,
increased
densification
in
the
area
and,
while
I
know
that
the
city
so
looks
forward
to
that.
As
far
as
you
know,
densification
in
transit
areas.
This
is
about
as
far
as
you
can
get
from
from
any
kind
of
public
transit
within
the
city,
so
there's
no
benefit
to
that.
L
L
B
Well,
thank
you
very
much.
I,
don't
know
if
anyone
has
any
questions,
but
I
say
that
the
existing
conditions
that
you
were
speaking
about
are
ones
that
you
should
address
through
your
association
with
the
support
of
councillor
Clark,
because
certainly
the
ones
you're
talking
about
with
the
road
safety
and
about
the
visual
impediment,
some
that
those
are
things
that
have
like
no
matter.
If
nothing
happens,
that
stuff
that's
already
happening.
So
you
should
have
a
conversation
and
I.
B
Think
part
of
the
issues
that
we
didn't
have
people
are
going
to
say,
save
the
hedge
and
other
people
would
say
pare
it
back
a
little
bit,
so
we
have,
and
and
that's
a
that
is
very
much
a
local
decision
that
no
matter
what
happens
with
this
application,
whether
the
lots
are
severed.
Whether
this
is
approved,
that's
conversation
that
that
you
should
have
to.
L
B
J
J
B
B
K
K
Good
idea
as
to
what
the
community
thinks
of
this
particular
proposal
by
the
comments
that
you've
already
heard
and
the
comments
that
you
will
hear,
the
IPRA
has
submitted
comments
throughout
this
process
and
I,
don't
plan
to
repeat
those
now
and
I
have
prepared
remarks
which
I
don't
propose
to
read
I
just
like
to
make
in
two
or
three
basic
points.
The
first
point
is
on
procedure.
K
Discuss
proposed
houses,
so
they
were
already
on
to
several
blogs.
We
found
that
difficult
to
follow
if
the
lots
are
not
separate.
Obviously,
the
design
issues
become
moot.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
the
committee
of
adjustment
should
have
reviewed
this
prior
to
this
application
coming
to
this
committee.
K
I've
been
in
this
position
for
under
six
years,
that
can't
recall
a
single
application
which
has
been
more
divisive
than
this
particular
one.
Sometimes
a
proposal
can
be
divisive
within
the
community.
This
is
a
proposal
which
has
been
divisive
between
the
community
or
between
the
applicant
and
the
community.
I
have
heard
no
member
of
our
community
apart
from
the
applicant
who
supports
this
proposal,
our
pra
has
a
severance
policy.
This
particular
severance
does
not
comply
with
that
policy.
K
We
also
if
this
way
to
be
approved
at
the
committee
of
adjustment
as
the
severance
that
it
would
create
a
very
bad
press.
The
dentist
was
described
by
mr.
Nunes
a
few
minutes
ago
on
the
design
issues.
The
development
review
subcommittee
has
expressed
preliminary
points
on
the
the
application
for
a
575
prospect,
but
has
provided
no
implant
on
the
proposal
for
565.
B
E
We
moved
into
this
neighborhood
six
years
ago
with
my
two
young
children
and
we
enjoyed
the
green,
the
space
of
the
of
the
society,
so
I'm
here
to
think
to
object
the
proposed
plan
to
build
tall
houses
on
this
corner
lot.
It
doesn't
harmonize
to
the
character
of
the
Heritage
Village,
so
I'm
here
to
ask
you:
please
protect
the
Canadian
Heritage
Village
and
to
protect
the
Canadian
history.
Okay,
thank
you.
B
B
B
H
I
think
really
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
just
try
and
respond
to
some
of
the
comments
that
were
received,
staffs
presentation
to
me
sufficiently
covered
the
key
issues
that
I
would
expect
are
most
relevant
to
this
committee
and
I.
Think
it's
important
that
the
committee
as
much
as
I
understand
the
sensitivity
around
the
consent
and
the
minor
variance
applications
keeps
the
the
matter
at
stake
at
the
forefront,
because
a
lot
of
those
things
are
definitely
things
that
we're
going
to
have
to
deal
with
committee
of
adjustment.
H
I
expect
as
I
did
when
the
application
started,
that
that
would
be
a
contentious
application
and
I
suspect
that
that's
part
of
the
reason
why
you're?
The
last
comment
about
this
being
I
guess
the
most
divisive
application
of
this
nature
with
this
community
is
seen
I,
don't
a
lot
of
work
in
rock
lift,
Park
and
I.
Don't
expect
it's
subject
to
a
lot
of
these
types
of
applications.
So
to
me
that
will
be
natural.
H
But
having
said
that,
when
this
application
came
forward
to
410
as
we
do
with
any
application,
we
step
back,
we
evaluate
it.
We
see
whether
we
think
it's
a
defensible
position
with
respect
to
the
considerations
that
we're
dealing
with
under
the
Planning
Act
and
the
Heritage
Act
and
so
on,
and
this
is
certainly
one
that
we
felt
had
a
lot
of
Merit
for
consideration.
The
image
that's
before
you
on
the
screen
is
part
of
our
planning,
rational
report
that'll,
be
before
the
committee
of
adjustment
and
I
brought
it
forward
today.
H
It's
the
only
image
I
brought
forward
today,
because
I
expected
most
of
this
bylaw
would
relate
to
Robert
Martin's
area
of
expertise,
which
is
more
the
heritage,
conservation
considerations.
But
this
being
one
of
them
I
mean
you
can
see
it
we're
not
proposing
to
lots
in
this
community
that
are
profoundly
different
than
the
surrounding
context,
and
if
you
scroll
down
a
little
bit
further
on
this
image,
you'll
see
that
we've
documented
how
these
in
areas
relate
to
the
ones
that
are
highlighted.
H
And
you
know,
although
the
five
six
five
is
this,
you
know
smaller
in
context
to
perhaps
the
bottom
ones,
a
nine
ten
and
eleven.
You
know
where
five
seven
five
is
and
and
five
six
five
is
very
much
in
line
with
the
first
three,
so
just
on
the
whole,
this
is
not
a
situation
where
you're
creating
a
pattern
that
is
vastly
different
than
the
surrounding
context,
which
of
course,
is
a
primary
consideration
for
the
consent
application,
along
with
respect
to
the
policies
that
were
mentioned,
and
there
was
reference
to
the
secondary
plan
and
policy.
H
Three
and
you
know,
as
you've,
heard
that
then
I'll
read
the
policy.
So
the
committee
is
aware
the
first
law
says
the
broader
heading
on
this
section
says
where
new
developments
proposed
as
in
filling
which
this
is
council,
when
applicable,
the
land
division
committee
or
the
committee
of
adjustment
shall
consider
the
following
matters
and
it
goes
on.
H
And
when
you
read
number
three,
it
says
the
construction
of
a
detached
single-family
dwelling
in
areas
designated
as
residential
may
be
permitted
on
a
law
which
has
either
insufficient
frontage
or
area,
but
not
both
and
only
on
Lots
existing
as
of
December
5th
1988.
In
such
cases,
the
deficiency
of
one
of
either
law,
frontage
or
area
shall
not
exceed
25
percent
of
the
minimum
frontage
or
a
lot
area
required
by
the
zoning
bylaw.
H
So
staff
have
declared
that
this
this
policy
is
not
applicable
to
the
subject
application,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
the
committee
that,
even
if
it
were
the
very
nature
of
the
consent,
that's
before
you
I,
take
you
back
to
the
screen
on
the
right,
because
it
shows
the
proposal.
If
we
simply
angled
the
interior
rot
line
to
follow
Lansdowne.
Instead
of
running
it
perpendicular
to
old
prospect,
we
would
eliminate
the
lot
area
variants
on
both
Lots.
We
only
have
one
lot,
that's
deficient
in
lot,
so
a
lot
with
variants
on
both
Lots.
H
We
only
have
one
that's
deficient,
a
lot
with
now
so
as
to
completely
meet
this
policy.
So
again
it's
a
policy
we
have
to
consider.
It
is
the
words
and
the
application
before
the
committee
of
adjustments
for
minor
variants.
Dealing
with
this.
The
test
under
the
Planning
Act
is
that
we
have
to
be
in
general
and
in
general,
conformity
with
the
Official
Plan,
which
in
this
case
is
the
second
a
plan
general
conformity.
H
So
it
requires
one
to
step
back
and
look
at
what
what
the
overall
objective
here
is,
and
so
yes,
we
could
change
the
lot
line
to
meet
this
exact
requirement.
But
to
me
it
wouldn't
be
the
right
way
to
lay
out
the
lot
so
we're
looking
at
it
this
way
and,
generally
speaking
with
staff,
they
agree
that
that's
the
right
approach.
So,
even
though
the
policy
doesn't
apply,
we
could
comply
with
the
policy.
H
Is
the
point
I'd
like
the
committee
to
be
aware
of
moving
from
that
consideration,
I
think
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
565,
the
interior
lot
being
just
a
placeholder
and
I.
Think
there's
some
confusion
with
that
terminology.
It
may
have
been
presented
in
certain
meetings,
but
it
is
before
this
committee,
because
it
is
seeking
approval
for
that
design
and
so
effectively.
If
somebody
buys
that
lot
and
doesn't
like
the
design
we'll
have
to
go
back
through
this
process,
but
it's
been
designed
by
and
by
very
urban
architect.
H
It's
certainly
high-quality
design,
and
the
expectation
is
that
it's
going
to
be
marketed
to
somebody
who's
going
to
go
forward
and
build
that
building.
So
I
don't
think
it's
appropriate
to
minimize
the
significance
of
the
expense
and
efforts
than
were
put
into
that
design
earlier,
as
I
understand
that
the
our
PRA
actually
did
comment
on
that
design
and
it
translated
into
the
building
setback
being
modified.
So
it
hasn't
been
a
void
of
discussion
and
consideration.
H
M
So
you
know
the
the
very
intent
of
the
district
is
is
allowing
a
degree
of
flexibility
and
continuity,
and
it
it
actually
recognized
that
continuity
of
the
evolution
and
make
specific
reference
to
previous
estates
and
parcels
of
land
being
divided
over
time.
So
this
is
not
a
concept
that
is
foreign
to
the
district.
In
fact,
it's
the
very
essence
of
the
way
the
district
is
has
developed
over
time.
M
I
think
you
know,
Leslie
Collins
made
a
very
good
summation
of
the
of
the
three
areas
of
the
district
study
where
we
need
to
evaluate
the
proposal
under
building
a
lot
division
and
landscape
and
our
heritage
impact
assessment.
Simile
follows
those
same
considerations,
so
the
I
guess
I'd
like
to
respond
to
some
of
the
points
about
our
retention
of
lots.
It
doesn't
say
a
must.
It
says
it
should
and
that,
in
its
very
wording,
recognizes
a
degree
of
flexibility
that
the
proposal
or
any
proposal
can
be
evaluated
on
many
factors.
M
M
So
the
first
one
has
to
do
with
the
dominance
of
soft
landscape
over
hard
landscape,
and
in
this
case
we
are
absolutely
maintaining
that
dominance
of
soft
over
hard.
In
fact,
the
the
retention
of
the
high
hedges
will
make
at
least
one
of
the
parcels
of
land
virtually
indistinguishable
from
the
way
it
is
currently.
M
M
The
third
one
also
again
talks
to
a
retention
of
existing
mature
trees
and,
again
our
experience
on
other
properties
in
the
village.
This
doesn't
mean
that
all
trees
are
sacrosanct.
It
means
that
they
should
be
removed
as
a
last
resort
and,
where
possible,
additional
plantings
should
be
provided
as
compensation
and
in
such
a
way
that
the
district
characters
retained.
M
Most
of
all,
when
we've
assessed
to
proposal
one
of
the
various
aspects
of
the
district
study,
we
are
very
comfortable
that
we
are
maintaining
the
high
level
of
our
visual
continuity,
minimal
disruption
of
the
picturesque
landscape.
In
terms
of
hard
surfaces.
Some
statements
have
been
made
that
we
are
actually
increasingly
hard
surface,
whereas
the
reality
actually
is
that
we
are
improving
the
percentage
of
hard
landscape
on
the
site
and
changing
what
is
an
outlier
or
anomaly.
Building
into
one
there's
more,
in
conformance
with
the
general
character
of
the
district.
E
G
B
G
G
M
C
C
H
H
Secondly,
in
every
community
that
work
within
there's
always
a
dominance
of
a
variety
of
lot
sizes
and
they
don't
all
necessarily
translate
into
redevelopment
for
many
reasons.
Firstly,
sometimes
the
housing
stock
on
the
property
is
so
valuable,
I'm,
so
significant
that
it's
not
conducive
to
be
removed.
Second
of
all,
somebody
has
to
actually
want
to
remove
it
and,
most
importantly,
this
is
in
a
heritage,
conservation
district.
H
So
there's
a
whole
layer
of
analysis
and
approvals
that
has
to
be
put
forward
and
and
rationales,
like
we've
had
to
put
forward
to
even
consider
whether
a
severance
application,
a
removal
or
building
and
so
on
is,
is
acceptable
and
appropriate.
So
I
think
walk
live
park
more
so
than
any
other
community
in
the
city
of
Ottawa
is
unlikely
to
see
the
impacts
of
such
precedent.
B
Saying
we
have
any
other
questions
of
the
applicant.
Well,
just
say
that
because
I
have
questions
of
staff
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
you.
So
how
does
the
90
days
work
here?
Because
if
you
listen
to
the
questions
that
we've
had
from
the
committee
questions
are
the
comments
that
we've
had
from
the
community
comments
that
we
have
received
communications.
B
Application
and
he
strictly
personally
I,
don't
like
and
I
think
I'm
speaking
from
those
to
the
committee,
but
I'm
speaking
for
myself,
comfortable
with
it,
because
even
the
people
that
come
out
today,
we
haven't
had
a
discussion
about
these
two
builders.
Really
we
really
haven't,
we
haven't,
we
haven't
other
than
mr.
man's
talking
about
the
traffic.
You
know,
but
I
mean
the
traffic
is
there
anyway.
B
Does
a
decision
today
influence
the
committee
of
adjustment
or
does
a
committee
adjustment
assistant
influence
the
built
heritage?
I'd
say
the
two
of
them
a
marriage,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
going
to
go
to
planning
anyways
and
while
I
respect
the
out
there,
all
the
work
that
you've
done.
Miss
Collins
I
must
file
with
the
applicant
and
the
community
has
engaged
in
and
certainly
been
compelled
to
respond
to.
B
B
So
we
have
had
situations
in
the
past
where,
on
this
committee
we
actually
live
in
our
short
lifespan.
If
you
will,
where
we
have
asked
the
applicant,
if
they
would
be
willing
to
forsake
the
90-day
window,
if
you
will
expand
it
a
little
bit
to
allow
the
application
to
habits
to
be
here
that
the
committee
of
adjustment,
because
because
if
there's
no
two
Lots,
then
we're
not
having
it.
B
We
don't
need
to
have
a
discussion
about
this,
and
when
we
do
have
a
discussion
about
it,
I
would
really
prefer
that
it's
based
on
the
the
Heritage
District
and
what
these
two
possible
two
units
will
the
role
that
they
will
play
in
the
integrity
of
that.
It's
really
am
I
am
I.
Reading
everybody
right
that
we
are
in
a
difficult
position,
because
we
don't
have
that
so
first
of
all
in
the
90
days
and
then
I
would
ask
you
to
comment.
F
Through
you,
madam
chair,
as
it
currently
stands,
the
90
days
does
expire
on
August
the
13th,
so
that
is
before
the
next
built
heritage
subcommittee
meeting.
So
at
this
point,
unless
the
applicant
does
agree
to
extend
that
90
day
time
line,
the
committee
could
not
defer
this
item
without
it
being
deemed
approved
under
the
Heritage
Act.
F
I
would
agree
that
it
is
a
difficult
situation
and
it's
a
bit
of
a
chicken
and
an
egg
in
terms
of
which
should
come
first
and
I
do
think
that
there
would
be
locally
more
clarity
around
whether
or
not
there's
two
Lots,
and
we
can
talk
about
design
and
impact
and
landscaping,
and
that
sort
of
thing
as
it
relates
to
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
if
it
has
already
been
to
the
committee
of
adjustment.
But
at
this
point
the
applicant
would
have
to
agree
to
extend
the
90
days
in
order
for
us
to
do
that,
and.
B
E
B
M
B
F
Who
you
met
I'm
sure?
Yes,
the
the
application,
the
the
recommendation
for
approval
does
say,
subject
to
the
approval
are
relevant
planning
applications.
So
my
recommendation
for
approval
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
it
has
been
approved
by
the
committee
of
adjustment,
because
it's
difficult
to
do
it.
Otherwise,
the.
H
H
It's
going
to
be
through
a
rezoning
process,
and
so
we're
simply
asking
them
look
at
the
design
that,
before
you
make
the
assumption
that
that
process
is
going
to
be
able
to
be
followed
and
that
the
recommendations
going
to
come
forward
if
it
doesn't
we'll
be
back
before
you
so
I
took
the
same.
The
same
question
back
to
this
panel
I
mean
you're
concerned
that
there
was
a
lot
of
dialogue
about
the
design
and
the
Heritage
considerations.
H
I'd
suggest
either
we
try
and
have
that
dialogue,
or
maybe
there
isn't
a
lot
of
concern
about
those
considerations
and
the
whole
concern
of
this
application
is
the
consent.
So,
given
that
it's,
this
recommendation
and
planning
committee's
approval
is
going
to
be
conditional
on
that
approval,
I,
don't
see
what
what
the
harm
and
the
concern
is.
B
B
B
A
Madam
chair
might
help
our
department
provides
written
correspondence
or
a
letter
of
comment
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
on
almost
every
single
application.
It
goes
before
I
couldn't
see
why,
in
this
particular
case,
if
it
went
to
the
committee
of
adjustment,
we
couldn't
craft
a
statement
in
our
letter
that
should
the
committee
of
adjustment
grant
the
severance
that
it
be
conditional
on
minor
design,
changes
left
to
the
discretion
of
the
general
manager
of
the
department
or
something
along
those
lines
so
that
the
applicant
isn't
100%.
B
No
more
than
you
are
here,
because
you
don't
have
a
decision
that
just
to
us,
so
there
that's
the
same
thing.
What
you
would
be
going
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
is
saying
we
would
like
to
have
these
exceptions
so
that
we
have
the
two
lots
and
these
are
plans
and
we
we
have
presented
to
the
built
heritage
subcommittee.
B
They
have
chosen
to
and
I'll
go
to
the
center,
whether
we
could
perhaps
recess
it
or
what
would
we
have
to
do
so
that
we're
you
know,
we've
had
we've
spent
in
having
that
before
us
and
and
and
asking
questions
and
having
the
public
speak
and
having
the
applicant
speak.
How
would
you
recommend
that,
if
we
desired
to,
we
could
proceed
in
a
way,
including
mr.
Lindsay's
comments.
E
Madam
chair,
it's
my
recommendation
that
under
the
Heritage
Act,
the
applicant
can
enter
into
an
agreement
to
have
an
extension
of
time,
and
so
I
would
recommend
that
we
enter
into
that
extension
of
time.
Additionally,
with
respect
to
mr.
Missy's
comments,
certainly
that's
our
experience.
We
deal
with
implementing
development
agreements
arising
out
of
conditions
of
the
committee
of
adjustment
on
a
regular
basis,
and
certainly
conditions
relating
to
heritage
driven
design
changes
as
a
result
of
having
to
come
back
to
committee
would
be
something
I
would
recommend.
Having
explained
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
when
mr.
B
July
17th
is
the
date
that
you
currently
are
going
to
go
back
to.
That
can
be
an
adjustment
August.
The
14th
is
our
next
meeting
planning
committee.
Is
this
Wynn's
planning
community
and
August
21st
and
councils,
our
22nd
27th?
That's
not
that
big,
a
stretch
that
would
be
two
weeks
actually
because
that
would
get
an
extension
of
two
weeks.
B
M
Wanted
to
again
comment
on
these
these
buildings,
seen
as
placeholders
or
hypothetical
for
us
they're,
not
hypothetical.
In
fact,
for
us
to
do
or
to
perform
our
chests,
we
actually
require
building
proposals,
because
it's
the
only
way
that
we
can
evaluate
ratios
of
building
two
latte
areas
of
hard
services.
You
know
rhythm
and
proportion,
which
is
those
are
all
characteristics
described
under
the
district
study,
so
we
actually
require
these
buildings
to
be
developed
and
shown
so
that
we
can
actually
make
a
fair
and
proper
assessment,
and
you
know
it
also.
M
Know
and
I
would
also
comment.
The
counterpart
of
smaller
lot
size
has
also
been
a
recent
spate
of
individuals,
agglomerating
lots
like
combining
two
or
three
Lots
for
larger
ones,
so
this
is
part
of
the
Evan
flow
and
the
recognition
that
we
have
a
living
organism
here
in
this
district.
It's
not
it's
not
static
and.
B
H
So
I've
consulted
with
my
client
and
he's
prepared
to
agree
to
do
that
and
put
that
into
writing.
He's
asked
me
for
one
consideration
and
the
stems
from
the
fact
that
this
is
a
relatively
small
project
and
there's
been,
you
know
a
lot
of
an
unanticipated
costs.
I
mean
one
example
is
that
when
you
originally
prepared
the
application,
he
was
advised
that
it
kiss
was
not
required.
Staff
never
required
it,
but
eventually
they
strongly
recommended
it.
So
that's
an
expense.
That's
come
forward.
H
Of
adjustment,
so
my
clients
is
not
asking
for
relief
under
those
considerations.
It
just
sets
the
framework
for
one
request,
and
that
is
if
the
committee,
this
committee
was
willing
to
give
him
any
indication
of
what
their
thoughts
are
on
the
president's
staff
report
as
presented,
because
you
know
his
reality
now
is:
go
through
a
committee
of
adjustment
process
get
that
approval
returned
to
this
committee
again
paid
myself
and
Robert
Martin
to
return
here
again,
all
without
knowing.
Basically
any
discussion
today
on
the
Heritage
merits
of
the
application.
D
So
you
know
I
really
actually
have
to
divide
ourselves
from
the
committee
of
adjustment
or
from
whoever
else
will
be
talking
about
this,
because
all
we're
talking
about
is:
is
this
applicable
within
the
heritage
district?
Would
this
be
an
applicable
development
and
I
think
that
that
you're
right
mr.?
Consequently,
in
saying
that
we
should
be
making
some
kind
of
a
statement
on
that,
because
if
what
we're
saying
today
is
we're
happy
if
this
goes
back
to
committee
of
adjustment,
then
it
will
come
back
here.
D
That's
a
carte
blanche
stamp
that
we're
going
to
get
this,
then
I
guess,
or
are
we
just
going
to
have
the
Heritage
discussion
after
that?
So
if
the
committee
of
adjustment
comes
back
and
says
yes,
you
can
serve
it
a
lot.
So
we
can
do
these
minor
variances,
whatever
we
can.
Let's
say,
then,
you
know:
is
there
something
different,
that's
going
to
come
forward
into
sort
of
the
Heritage
aspects
or
not,
and
then
who
changes
the
dialogue
as
collies?
D
F
Recommendation
from
staff
would
not
change
resulting
from
the
committee
of
adjustment
decision
simply
because
we're
looking
at
two
different
pieces
of
legislation
here,
we're
looking
we're
we're
examining
the
semi
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
the
Rockland
Park
Heritage,
Conservation
District,
and
the
committee
of
adjustment
is
looking
at
a
member,
the
Planning
Act
and
the
requirements
of
that
piece
of
legislation
and
the
Official
Plan
and
was
on
about
on
all
those
sort
of
things.
So
the
decision,
I
guess
before
this
committee
today
is-
is
this
proposal
appropriate
to
the
character
of
the
Rockland
Heritage
Conservation
District?
F
D
What
impact
our
committee
should
be
making
on
the
purity
of
adjustment
in
terms
of
you
know
they
do.
What
is
what
a
council
decision?
How
does
that
impact?
Your
sorry,
a
committee
decision?
How
does
that
impact
the
committee
of
adjustment
I?
Don't
think
it
should
be
just
as
we
shouldn't
be
impacting
their
decision,
but
you
know
we're
people,
so
there
are
their
thoughts
that
we
all
have
that
maybe
don't
conform
to
to
what
the
bylaws
are,
but
I
just
have
a
real
concern
here
that
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
something
that
was.
D
Is
the
result
of
that?
If
we
come
back-
and
we
still
all
have
a
bunch
of
knows
here
so
because
we're
going
to
be
saying
no
on
the
same
thing,
theoretically-
that
we
would
be
saying
no
or
yes
to
today
and
so
I,
just
I
have
a
concern
and
I
and
I.
Yet
I
want
to
be
considered
of
how
this
might
impact
the
applicant.
D
If,
if
we
went
forward
with
a
vote
here
today
and
and
I
do
feel
for
certainly
for
the
residents
have
spoken
here
today,
I
just
feel
that
we
really
need
to
adhere
to
what
our
responsibilities
are
on
this
committee
and
and-
and
we
are
so
often
met
with
this.
The
gray
area
of
you
know
how
we
we
impact
everybody
else
in
how
we
relate
to
everybody
else
and
I
think
we
should
be
just
addressing
the
question
of
the
of
the
heritage
it
does
this
fit
within
the
district
or
know
our
heritage.
D
B
Out
that
if
everyone
counts,
so
nobody
deals
with
committee
adjustment
more
than
councillor
Hobbs
does
she
has
more
applications
than
anybody
else?
So
she
has
that
experience.
Certainly,
and
so
we
appreciate
how
to
bring
that
back
to
what
we're
supposed
to
be
doing.
That's
the
problem,
that's
not
what
the
part
discussion
has
been
and
if
it
goes
to
the
winner
goes
to
the
committee
of
adjustment,
and
it
comes
back
here
we're
going
to
be
having
a
discussion
just
about
one
thing,
just
about
the
heritage.
B
You
know
and
then
I
tell
I'll
tell
all
of
you
in
the
audience
that
have
already
spoken,
you're
not
going
to
be
talking
about
the
traffic
and
things
like
that.
It's
going
to
be
purely
on
the
heritage
and
our
heritage
staff
have
done
their
due
diligence
and
they
believe
that
it
does
fit.
So
that
is
I
think
the
reason
why
I
made
the
recommendation,
because,
based
on
heritage
and
in
that
process
in
that
piece,
because
we're
not
in
a
position
today
from
listening
to
everybody
to
have
that.
A
Memory
small
word
thinking,
I'm
sure
to
your
point
about
discussion
of
heritage.
I
believe
that
the
issue
with
respect
to
heritage
refers
is
referred
to
in
their
heritage
conservation
district
items
number
one
and
two:
the
existing
patterns
without
division
should
be
protected
and
item
number
two:
the
retention
of
existing
larger
arts
based
on
this
application,
whether
those
points
it
doesn't
conform
with
either
of
those
points
so
based
on
that
I
would
move
rejection
of
this
proposal
now.
A
If
it
goes
to
committee
of
adjustment-
and
they
approve
it
is
not,
objection
disappears,
so
I
think
if
there.
If
the
question
is,
how
would
we
vote
today?
I
would
say,
based
on
these
two
points,
I
would
move
that
we
reject
the
proposal,
so
that
is
a
heritage
discussion
and
it's
directly
related
to
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
This
I
cannot
see
how
this
is
encouraging.
The
retention
of
larger
lots,
it's
doing
the
offset,
and
it's
also
not
respecting
the
existing
pattern,
because
it's
changing
it.
A
I
You,
madam
chair
I,
just
like
to
support
what
members
man
wood
has
just
said.
I
do
feel
we
have
had
a
heritage
discussion
today
for
the
those
points,
exactly
that
are
part
of
the
definition
of
what
is
important
within
this
rock
with
park.
Heritage
Conservation
District,
and
it
does
indeed
discuss
lot,
size,
etc.
So,
and
the
recommendation
from
staff
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
that
approval
has
taken
place
and
I.
Think
that's
the
key
issue
here.
So
I
do
support
what
you
are
recommending.
C
The
conservation
district
study
and
in
guidelines
it's
not
divorced
from
it.
We
generally
deal
with
generally
something
called
context:
the
architecture
and
the
landscape.
So
the
question
of
rock
division
is
very
central
to
the
heritage
character
of
the
Heritage
Conservation
District,
and
the
points
that
sandy
Smallwood
made
very
central
to
the
application
and
the
contestant
will
have
to
address,
but
not
necessarily
relating
to
her
dis,
Conservation
District
guidelines.
So
as
a
row
of
short
cutting
and
giving
you
some
sense
of
what
my
views
on
this
I
would
be.
C
Supporting
sandy
Smallwood
indicated
that
he
would
forward
if
we
had
to
right
now,
namely
to
reject
the
application
that
would
be
on
the
grounds
of
the
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
guidelines
on
lock,
division,
which
are
very
clear
and
also
on
the
question
of
soft
and
hard
landscaping.
I
think
that
the
presentations
were
not
really
forthcoming
on
the
cutting
of
mature
trees
and
I
think
that
by
downplaying
that
I
think
that
didn't
help
that
committee
to
really
come
to
grips
with
that,
so
I
would
not
be
supporting
the
staff
recommendation.
A
F
G
Contrary
to
some
of
this
I
do
believe
we
have
had
a
heritage
discussion
fact
we
started
out
with
the
heritage
discussion.
This
is
within
the
Heritage
Conservation
District,
and
if
you
read
the
guidelines
in
the
Heritage
Conservation
District,
it
does
not
meet
them.
If
you
read
Heritage
Ottawa's
views,
it
is
not
within
the
definition.
G
Personally,
I
think
we
should
reject
this
application
or
space,
as
had
not
me
made
CD
requirements,
tabeling
it
and
going
through
another
British
nanny,
as
is
probably
not
going
to
change
my
view
very
much
and
I
am
not
in
favor
of
tabling
it.
I
am
in
favor
of
deal
with
it
as
not
meeting
HCD
requirements
right
here
right
now,
so.
B
If
there
was
a
deferral
motion
that
takes
precedent
over
so
I
would
presume
the
table
and
takes
precedent
over
the
the
recommendation.
Yes,
madam
chair,
that's
Koko's,
so
the
other
thing
is:
if
the
table
doesn't
pass
and
then
we
have
the
recommendation
is
defeated.
Then
we
would
have
a
motion
necessary.
That
would
say
that
we
reject
the
the
the
recommendation
and
that
would
go
forward.
B
B
B
So
what
that
means
just
in
case
we
don't
we're
not
clear
after
all
the
conversation
that
the
applicants
going
to
agree
to
extend
the
90-day
period
to
the
end
of
August.
That
this
item
will
come
back.
The
first
item
on
the
agenda
for
the
August,
the
14th
and
then
presumably
we'll
have
a
decision
from
the
kanae
of
adjustment.
It
will
going
to
planning
on
the
21st
of
August
and
robery
Council
on
the
27th
of
August.
That's
the
tail
point.
So
here's
the
raised
on
on
member
Quinn's
motion
to
table.
B
C
H
G
E
A
A
G
J
B
B
E
B
A
B
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
we
already
okay,
this
applicator.
This
is
the
designation
of
the
read
estimation
of
the
horticultural
building
at
Lansdowne
Park,
it's
in
front
of
you
today,
because
during
the
negotiations
for
a
land
stop
park,
the
property
was
designated
under
the
arm
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
and
a
recommendation
was
passed
by
Council
that
when
it
when
it
was
moved,
which
it
has
now
that
it
be
considered
for
designation
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
I
This
is
the
horticultural
building.
It
was
constructed
in
1914
on
the
grounds
of
the
central
Canada
Exhibition,
as
a
horticultural
building
for
displays.
Also
at
the
time
it
was
designed
to
serve
as
a
curling
rink
with
rinks
in
the
back
natural
lakes
in
the
back.
So
it
was
a
dual-purpose
building
from
its
construction.
I
Architect
park
also,
he
was
that
she
assisted
chief
architect
and
designer
Ashbury
college,
the
ladies
college,
which
is
a
designated
building
and
worked
on
the
building
of
the
central
block
after
the
fire
in
into
the
1920s.
The
building
itself
is
is
an
example
of
the
Prairie
style
of
architecture,
and
we
actually
have
Kieffer's
original
drawings
here.
I
These
are
held
by
the
City
of
Ottawa,
so
it
is
sample
of
a
prairie
style
of
architecture
which
was
popularized
by
Frank
Lloyd
Wright
in
the
early
20th
century,
primarily
in
the
Chicago
area,
and
it's
influenced
design
throughout
North,
America
and
many
architects
also
embraced
the
style.
For
many
years.
This
building
was
attributed
to
Francis
Sullivan,
who
was
authorized
pro-style
architects,
but
the
recent
documentation
has
shown
that
he
did
not
design
that
to
Kieffer's
name
is
on
the
drawings
and
in
contract
records.
I
I
I
Development,
so
there's
some
of
its
history
there
and
when
it
was
constructed
there
were
number
of
permanent
structures
on
Lansdowne
park
and
there's
only
it
says,
one
I
meant
it's
one
of
the
two
remaining
prairie
style
again.
The
features
that
are
associated
with
that
so
now
for
policy
background
for
designations.
The
Official
Plan
section,
two
point:
five
point:
five
gives
Council
direction
to
designate
significant
properties
under
part.
Four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
has
section
29,
which
is
what
they
used
to
designate
those
regulations
associated
with
us.
I
906
is
the
regulation
that
says
that
a
building
to
in
order
to
be
designated
a
building
should
have
associative
an
historical
value,
design,
a
physical
value
or
contextual
value.
This
building
as
an
excellent
example
of
the
Prairie
style,
meets
the
criteria
for
design
value
and
for
design
by
prominent
architect
that
also
meets
the
design
value
criteria.
Historical
value
as
it
was
designed
for
horticultural
displays
and
a
curling
club,
and
it
was
significant
as
a
permanent
building
and
is
a.
I
I
I
Heritage
attributes
associated
with
the
interior
of
the
building-
and
these
are
in
front
of
you
today
so
I
would
ask
that
that
these
be
substituted
for
what
was
originally
circulated
and
I
can
speak
to
those
if
anybody
wants
me
to
plus
I
want
to
add
that
the
building
is
also
protected
by
a
heritage
easement,
the
house,
by
the
Ontario,
Heritage,
Trust
and,
and
that
was
signed
between
between
the
city
and
the
Heritage
Trust.
So
everything
that
was
mentioned
in
a
lot
of
what
is
captured
in
the
attributes
is
also
captured
in
the
heritage
easement.
B
We're
very
happy
to
have
this
come
back
into
our
inventory
and,
if
you
remember
the
the
Saget
with
the
the
mayor
actually
Mara
Watson
was
a
very
strong
proponent
of
saving.
This
building
and
I
remember
the
angst
about
it
at
the
time
and
and
the
condition
of
it
at
the
time,
and
now
it's
got
centuries
left
serving
our
derelict
property
anymore.
That's
for
sure
and
I
think
that
it
will
have
far
more
attention
and
presence
for
sure
that
our
rejuvenated
land
stone
Park.
So
thank
you
very
much.
H
C
It's
simply
that
in
all
agree
that
whereas
heritage
ottawa
responded
late
to
have
their
comments
incorporated
into
the
report,
resignation
of
the
horticultural
building
last
on
park
under
part
four
of
interject
and
whereas
hedges
auto
would
like
to
have
some
interior
elements
of
the
building
incorporated
into
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value
documents.
Safe,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
the
subcommittee
approved
acceptance
of
the
revised
document.
Six
to
the
aforementioned
report.
B
It's
great,
we
get
another
kick
at
the
can
of
green
at
green
ones.
That
coming
as
I
come
to
the
next
meeting.
Yep.
Okay!
Is
that
for
sure-
and
we
don't
know
for
sure
exactly
okay,
so
we
may
or
may
not
see
that
in
August.
So
any
notices
of
motion
but
I
said
carried
already
on
this
on
the
work
already
Connery
plays
a
minute.
Carry
okay
notices,
a
motion
for
consideration.
None
any
inquiries.
B
I
thought
we
did
this
already.
This
is
your
formulas
draw
of
a
motion
that
was
previously
given
and
they
must
have
skipped
a
beat
it's
a
longer
time
in
between
the
last
meeting
in
this
one
did
you
want
to?
It's
therefore,
be
resolved.
The
built
heritage
subcommittee
directs
that
staff
review
the
protocols
and
procedures
in
place
for
non
designated
properties
listed
on
cities
at
Heritage
Register,
in
order
to
determine
a
policy
going
for
with
respect
situations
arising,
so
we're
going
to
a
throughout
that
7
comments
and
that.
C
B
Although
I'll
tell
you
that,
procedurally
in
the
past
in
since
Malcolm
nation,
there
was
a
time
that
somebody
tried
to
withdraw
and
the
rest
of
Council
didn't
agree,
and
they
put
they
put
the
motion
forward
and
a
the
person,
then
the
person
would
actually
had
put
forward.
The
motion
didn't
wasn't
allowed
to
withdraw
it.
This
wasn't
on
a
heritage
thing,
but
I.
Remember
it.
So
it's
not
like
impossible.
So
any
inquiries,
no
and
any
other
business
except
I'll,
just
remind
you
of
September
9
limits
and
those
what's
our
date,
September
21st
is
it.
B
You
know
our
tour
22nd
September
22nd
we're
having
a
tour
and
we're
asking
the
and
they
have
another
one
next
year,
but
we're
the
districts
are
going
to
we're,
asking
the
districts
actually
to
be
on
the
bus
and
tell
us
about
they're
part
of
our
heritage
in
the
City
of
Ottawa.
So
we're
looking
forward
to
that
and
we're
adjourned.
Okay
next
meeting
is
Thursday.
Our
14th
of
August
I'll,
see
you
then
thank
you.