►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – August 14, 2014
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee – August 14, 2014 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
B
C
C
Then
we
have
confirmation
of
minutes
from
the
16th
meeting
of
June
26.
Anybody
have
anything
to
change
there
or
is
that
carried
carried?
Thank
you
communications.
We
have
communications
from
the
Ottawa
architectural
conservation
Awards
and
also
the
Heritage
Ottawa
newsletter
from
July
2014,
and
they
merely
for
those
of
you
in
the
audience
the
Ottawa
architectural
conservation
awards.
C
We
really
hope
that
you'll
help
us
in
getting
the
word
out
everywhere
to
all
the
every
ones
that
you
are
connected
to
it's
scheduled
for
February
and
we're
hopeful
of
having
it
in
a
very
exciting
location
that
we've
talked
about.
Is
that
confirmed
yet
to
be
determined?
That
would
be
really
cool
if
it
is
okay.
C
So
the
first
item
is
application
for
demolition
and
new
construction
at
160,
men
or
Avenue.
We
don't
have
anyone
to
speak
against
that,
but
we
do
have
the
we
do.
Have
the
architect
mr.
Hoban,
in
the
audience
and
we
were
going
and
you
want
to
speak
so,
hang
on
because
I
don't
really
want.
Okay,
just
speaking
briefly
speak
now,
then.
A
C
D
Think
our
main
comment
would
be.
We
normally
include
the
two-year
expiry
date
to
ensure
the
projects
are
completed
in
a
timely
fashion
and
according
to
the
approved
plans,
but
also
within
the
sort
of
policy
framework
that
is
in
place
at
the
time.
As
you
know,
we
are
working
on
an
update
to
the
Rockland
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
that
we
would
anticipate
will
be
coming
forward
early
in
2015,
so
pushing
it
five
years
down.
D
The
road
I
think
is
is
somewhat
concerning
for
us,
but
I,
don't
think
you
know
I
mean
I
think
if
a
committee
wanted
to
go
three
years
that
might
be
okay,
but
generally
we
for
residential
projects
like
this,
we
use
a
two
year
expiry
date.
It's
only
for
bigger
projects
that
we,
like
you
know,
high-rise
type,
things
that
we
would
put
a
longer
expiry
date.
So.
C
Maybe
what
we
could
do
is
we
do
this
with
non-conforming
uses
in
other
areas,
I'm
thinking
about
the
so
if
we
have
two
years
right
now,
is
there
anything
that
would
prohibit
us
mr.
mark
from
coming
back
in
the
two
years
and
what
would
be
involved
with
doing
that
to
ask
for
an
extension
if
they
needed
it.
A
B
A
C
A
C
A
A
C
B
D
I'm
not
sure
that
it
compromises
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
I,
wouldn't
want
to
suppose
whether
or
not
we
would
recommend
to
recommend
approval
of
this
application
under
a
different
framework
which
will
be
in
place.
You
know
in
before
this
three
years
is
up,
but
there
is
no
requirement
in
the
area
Jack
to
have
an
expiry
date.
It
is
a
practice
of
the
Heritage
section
to
include
expired
to
ensure
the
projects
are
completed
in
a
timely
fashion.
D
We've
had
some
issues
in
the
past
with
project
set
of
the
policy
has
really
changed,
and
we
would
have
liked
to
have
another
stab
at
it
sort
of
thing
where
they
had
an
approval
from
15
years
ago
and
and
come
ahead
and
build
it
at
that
time.
So
we
I
don't
think
it
would
compromise
the
new
heritage
district
plan
that's
coming
forward,
but
I
do
think
that
there
is,
you
know
a
reasonable
amount
of
time
and
the
project
doesn't
have
to
be
completed
in
two
years.
They
have
to
obtain
a
building
permit
within
two
years.
D
C
A
C
C
C
Okay,
so
that
was
not
the
way
that
we
usually
do
our
our
way
out
of
our
plan.
So
let's
go
back
to
the
normal
plan.
Application
is
in
the
machiya
petition
for
demolition,
new
construction
of
50
Willingdon
Road.
We
have
no
speakers.
We
have
no
speakers
for
this
one.
Does
anyone
committee
have
anything
to
that?
They
want
to
say
or
a
question?
No.
Is
it
carried?
Thank
you.
C
C
C
D
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
I,
don't
think
the
committee
wants
a
full
full
presentation.
I
was
thinking.
I
would
just
go
through
and
give
a
bit
of
a
highlight
as
to
what
has
changed
since
the
previous
round
and
then,
if
there's
questions,
I
can
answer
them.
That's
exactly
what
the
committee
is
looking.
D
As
you've
seen,
this
is
an
application
altar
for
three
to
five
Green
Avenue
property
located
in
the
rock
lift
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District.
So,
as
you
may
remember,
there
was
an
earlier
application
for
this
property.
It
was
supposed
to
be
on
the
agenda
of
the
June
26th
military
subcommittee
meeting.
It
was
withdrawn
by
the
applicant
at
that
meeting.
D
However,
the
report
was
publicized
and
was
on
the
agenda
and
you
may
remember,
the
staff
were
recommending
refusal
of
the
earlier
application
was
today
we
are
recommending
approval,
so
there
were
three
main
reasons
that
we
were
recommending
refusal.
The
first
was
that
the
landscape
plan
didn't
reflect
the
character
of
the
district.
The
second
was
that
the
proposed
alterations
sort
of
were
neither
here
nor
there.
D
So
the
application
before
you
today,
just
as
a
reminder,
it's
located
at
the
corner
of
green
and
Beachwood
right
at
the
edge
of
the
heritage
district
Beachwood,
is
the
boundary
of
the
Rockland
Park
heritage,
district
green
avenues,
a
short
street,
with
a
somewhat
different
character
to
the
rest
of
the
district.
A
couple
of
photos
just
to
remind
you
of
what
the
building
looks
like
constructed
in
1950,
assigned
very
little
through
the
recent
evaluation
of
the
buildings
within
the
district,
very
green,
but
somewhat
overgrown.
This
is
looking
north
on
on
green
from
beechwood.
D
The
property
is
on
the
right-hand
side
of
the
photo.
You
can't
see
it
because
it's
very
treat
same
thing.
This
is
looking
across
the
street
towards
the
property
across
beechwood.
Again,
you
can
see
the
big
fence
and
the
retaining
wall
and
all
the
green,
so
I'm
just
going
to
skip
forward
to
the
new
plans.
So
this
is
the
site
plan.
D
This
is
similar
to
the
previous
site
plan
in
terms
of
the
footprint
of
the
building,
so
the
footprint
of
the
building
is
still
increasing
by
a
significant
amount.
However,
the
the
structure
of
the
building
and
the
massing
and
the
materials
have
changed
so
I'll
quickly
go
through
the
elevations.
This
is
the
east
elevation
facing
beechwood
Avenue.
So,
as
you
can
see,
it's
got
a
hipped
roof
with
sort
of
a
partial
third
story,
its
clad
in
stucco
and
brick,
and
some
wood
siding
so
all
natural
materials.
D
This
is
the
West
elevation,
so
this
is
facing
up
the
street
on
green.
Again,
it's
got
still
has
four
parking
spaces.
We
requested
that
the
applicant
reduce
the
parking
spaces
to
the
minimum
amount
that
they
could
in
order
to
minimize
the
impact
on
the
neighborhood
the,
and
we
asked
them
to
remove
the
garage
doors
which
is
sort
of
contrary
to
what
the.
D
If
you
read
the
comments
of
the
Rockland
Park
residents
association,
contrary
to
what
they've
said,
but
staff
felt
that
the
removal
of
the
garage
doors
sort
of
reduced
the
weight
of
the
building
a
little
bit
and
and
created
a
bit
more
open
space
as
you'll
see
in
the
upcoming
landscape
plan.
The
CEO
hedge
along
the
west
property
line
has
also
been
retained,
so
that
will
help
to
buffer
the
property.
D
So
this
was
the
length
we
plan
was
truly
the
main
issue
and
I'm.
Sorry
that
my
side
looks
like
that.
It
doesn't
look
like
that
on
my
screen,
but
anyway,
the
the
main
changes
to
the
landscape
plan
that
the
help
the
real
property
line
is
being
retained.
This
is
a
fairly
mature
hedge.
It
does
need
some
maintenance,
obviously
from
the
photos.
I
showed
you
at
the
beginning,
but
it
does
provide
a
very
good
buffer
buffer
to
the
neighbor
on
this
side
of
the
property.
D
D
The
existing
symmetry
at
this
corner
of
the
property
will
be
retained.
As
it
was
originally
proposed
for
removal
along
the
front
of
the
property
is
proposed
for
removal,
but
it
is
proposed
to
be
replanted
with
new
white
Cedars,
as
you
saw
from
the
photos,
it
is
quite
overgrown
and
not
in
great
shape.
D
The
applicant
has
hired
a
landscape
architect,
James
Lennox,
so
this
landscape
plan
has
been
prepared
with
that
in
mind,
and
then
a
new
proposed
deciduous
tree
here
on
the
front
lawn
to
mitigate
the
impact
of
the
loss
of
these
two
trees.
The
existing
hedge
along
this
side
of
the
property
will
also
be
retained,
along
with
the
several
mature
trees
that
are
along
the
property.
D
The
plan
showed
a
sort
of
very
hard
surface,
semicircular
walk
where
run
to
the
building.
This
has
been
replaced
with
a
more
fieldstone
sort
of
stepping
stone
kind
of
walkway,
which
is
one
keeping
with
the
informal
character
of
the
rock
lift,
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
and
then
in
addition,
the
existing
wooden
retaining
wall,
the
railway
toei
retaining
wall
that
is
currently
a
long
beach,
road
and
green
is
proposed
for
removal.
It's
not
necessary
and
the
existing
fence
is
proposed
for
removal,
and
the
proposed
Cedars
will
will
help
to
buffer
the
property
from
Beachwood.
D
Just
show
you
a
couple
of
how
the
property
might
look,
so
you
can
see
here.
This
is
the
hedge
that
is
in
existence
right
now,
along
with
the
mature
trees.
Two
of
the
trees
that
are
being
removed
are
located
in
this
area
here,
and
this
is
a
rendering
along
beechwood,
so
showing
you
on
the
row
of
the
fence.
The
property
doesn't
make
a
better
contribution
to
beech
woods
in
this
state
than
it
currently
does,
which
is
a
big
fence
in
a
and
a
lot
of
overgrown
hedges.
D
So
the
recommendation
of
staff
in
this
instance
now
that
the
applicant
has
refined
the
landscape
plan
and
simplified
the
design
of
the
building,
is
to
approve
the
application
altar
and
to
approve
the
proposed
landscape
plan
I'll
just
quickly
flip.
Through
this,
the
proviso
came
in
a
transition
zone.
The
denser
development
is
compatible
with
the
character
of
beechwood
and
provides
an
appropriate
edge.
The
use
of
the
simplified
palette
of
natural
materials
is
compatible
with
the
materials
found
throughout
the
district
and
then
in
terms
of
landscape.
D
As
I
said
earlier,
the
existing
landscape
is
in
need
of
maintenance,
but
it's
informal
characters
in
keeping
with
the
character
of
the
district.
The
landscape
plan
preserves
most
of
the
mature
vegetation
and
maintains
the
informal
character
and
the
turf
block
will
mitigate
the
some
of
the
loss
of
green
space,
which
is
states
that
well
not
an
exact
conformity
with
the
guidelines
for
the
lock
with
marques
district
that
it
is
appropriate
to
the
to
the
character
and
doesn't
threaten
the
character
of
the
district
heritage.
D
Ottawa
was
notified
of
the
application
and
there
are
comments
I
believe
have
been
submitted
to
you
as
part
of
a
letter
on
all
the
applications.
Today
they
are
still
in
opposition
to
the
application,
given
the
the
increased
footprint
of
the
building
and
have
stated
that
until
the
footprint
is
reduced
in
size
that
they
they
are
not
in
support,
neighbors
within
30
metres
of
the
property
were
notified,
as
is
our
standard
practice.
We
did
not
receive
any
comments.
I,
don't
believe
that
the
committee
coordinator
received
anything
either.
D
The
applicant
has
submitted
I
believe
some
comments
resulting
from
their
consultation
with
the
neighbors
to
the
committee
and
then
finally,
the
walk
live.
Park
residents
Association
was
notified
of
the
application
and
has
submitted
comments
that
they
are
still
not
in
support
of
the
project.
So
that's
it
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
If
the
committee
has
them
that's.
D
Three,
madam
chair,
no,
the
building
has
been
evaluated.
Our
general
practice
has
been,
and
this
can
change.
Obviously,
if
the
committee
wants
to
see
that
information
is
to
include
the
survey
form
when
the
building
is
of
some
significance,
this
building
received
a
very,
very
low
score,
something
like
15
out
of
100,
so
I
likely
have
a
copy
of
it
here
in
my
file.
If
the
committee
is
interested
in
seeing
it
or
and
in
the
future,
if
the
committee
wishes
to
have
that
inclusion
in
all,
we
can't
include
it.
B
D
Would
just
make
one
comment
about,
and
that
is
that
in
bachlin
Park
there
are
no
categories
at
this
point
in
time
and
to
be
honest,
moving
forward,
we
are
looking
at
ways
of
moving
away
from
this
category,
one
through
four
as
it
is
and
moving
more
towards
they
contributing
not
contributing
approach.
So
a
building
contributes
to
the
district
or
it
doesn't,
rather
than
its
level
of
contribution
being
one
two
and
three
and
the
other
issue.
D
You
know
pretty
much
the
same,
so
it
does
differ
based
on
the
district,
but
we
can
endeavor
to
provide
additional
information
as
to
the
rationale
for
the
evaluation
of
the
buildings.
But
as
you
can
imagine,
many
of
these
were
done
a
very
long
time
ago
and
sometimes
that
that
rationale
of
how
the
categories
were
arrived
at
is
not
readily
available.
But
we
will
try.
C
Anything
else
anyone
else
so
as
I
told
you
the
owner,
mr.
Bhushan
you're.
Here
again,
thank
you
and
you
say
that
unless
we
have
questions
for
you,
you
don't
need
to
speak.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
for
mr.
Abu
char
I
wanted
to
I?
See
none
I
wanted
to
thank
you
for
listening
and
for
coming
back
to
our
staff
with
a
better
plan
that
allowed
them
to
support
it.
So
on
the
application.
Is
that
approach
Kerry?
Thank
you
very
much.
C
Are
there
any
notices
of
motion
any
employees,
no
another
business?
Our
next
meeting
is
when
we're
not
meeting
in
September
we're
hopping
over.
We
only
have
a
couple
of
items
that
can
be
that
can
wait
till
the
October
meeting,
so
we're
going
to
meet
next
on
October,
the
9th
and
so
we're
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Everybody.