►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee - April 12, 2018
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee - April 12, 2018 - Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
We
have
no
regrets
any
declarations
of
interest.
None
great
confirmation
of
minutes
from
our
meeting
of
March
8
2018
ellos
que
great.
So
we
have
two
substantive
items
today,
both
of
which
for
which
we
have
speakers
registered.
So
we
won't
go
through
a
consent
agenda.
Our
first
item
is
an
application
ultra
1/3
through
Lisgar
Road,
a
property
located
in
Rockland
Park,
Heritage,
Conservation
District,
so
we'll
ask
staff
to
provide
a
brief
presentation
and
then
we'll
go
to
our
public
delegations.
B
B
The
property
is
a
grade
one
within
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
It
includes
a
noteworthy
front,
lawn
a
two-story
house
with
a
side,
gable,
roof
and
horizontal
cladding.
The
house
is
simple
in
design
it
has
a
center
hall
plan
with
the
entrance
centered
between
bay
windows
and
flanked
by
side
lights
and
classical
moldings.
B
B
B
The
northern
edition
will
be
clad.
Mr.
Musa
mentions
horizontal
cladding
to
match
the
existing
house
and
will
be
chopped
in
the
side,
gibble
roof
with
cedar
shingles.
The
addition
will
slightly
overhang
the
lower
floor,
which
echoes
the
second
floor.
Cantilever
of
the
existing
house.
The
new
addition
to
the
south
is
a
two-car
garage
with
living
space.
Above
the
addition
will
have
a
flat
roof
and
will
be
clad
the
same
dimensions,
horizontal
cladding.
This
addition
we
set
back
considerably
from
the
street
in
front
of
the
house
and
we'll
be
talking
with
this
simple
cornice.
B
The
side
yard
set
back
of
the
garage
requires
a
variance
from
3.5
meters,
as
required
by
the
zoning
bylaw
to
1.5
meters.
A
key
attribute,
a
heritage
attribute
of
the
rock
will
Park
hedge
Conservation
District
plan
is
generous,
basing
and
setbacks
of
the
buildings
and
the
plans
guidelines
speaking
general
to
preserving
Alaska
the
facts
in
this
instance
heritage
that
can
support
the
variance
sought,
as
it
will
not
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
totality
of
the
landscape
character.
The
lot
which
is
defined
by
smudge,
my
yard
landscape
and
the
streetscape.
B
B
B
Here
are
some
perspective,
rendering
showing
the
new
additions
the
dishes
are
lower
than
the
existing
building.
The
South
additions
will
set
back
from
the
front
facade
in
order
to
allow
the
existing
building
to
attain
this
primacy
on
the
lot,
this
cladding
materials
that
reflect
the
character
of
the
original
house
and
a
typical
of
the
area.
Although
similar
in
expression,
the
additions
are
distinguishable
from
the
original
house,
as
they
are
set
back
from
the
facades
and
lower
than
the
roof.
B
Providing
visual
break
between
old
and
new,
the
setback
on
the
southern
side
of
the
property
will
be
reduced
and
will
further
I'm
a
provided
landscape
buffer
that
is
less
than
typically
desired
by
some
of
the
guidelines
that
speak
to
landscaping
for
new
buildings
and
additions,
in
particular.
Not
all
components
of
guideline
7.3.
So
seven
point
four
point:
three
number
one
and
seven
which
speak
to
gut
setbacks,
topography
and
existing
landscape
features
are
being
preserved,
being
preserved
will
not
fully
be
achieved
on
the
southern
side
of
the
property.
B
However,
staff
have
a
determined
that
this
impact
is
mitigated
by
the
character-defining
large
front
yard,
which
remain
in
its
entirety,
as
well
as
the
hedges
flowerbeds
pathways.
Landscaping
features
that
establish
the
character
of
the
lot
wall.
Additions
will
increase
lot
coverage.
The
lot
coverage
will
remain
low,
the
prevalence
of
soft
landscaping
rumor
an
established
character.
The
streetscape
will
be
respected,
the
existing
grades
of
the
property,
it
should
be
maintained
and
no
mature
trees
are
to
be
removed.
B
A
C
Thank
you.
So
my
name
is
Linda
de
kere
and
I'm,
chair
of
the
rock
with
Park
heritage
committee
and
I
have
about
35
years
in
experience
in
heritage
conservation,
we've
had
the
opportunity
to
discuss
this
application
in
depth
with
city
staff,
and,
while
most
of
the
proposed
changes
are
readily
supportable
in
one
very
important
respect,
this
application
does
not
meet
the
provisions,
as
mentioned
one
of
the
Rock
of
Park
heritage
plan
to
the
rock
lift
Park
secondary
plan
and
three,
a
recent
decision
of
the
committee
of
adjustment.
C
This
is
a
real
concern
to
us,
and
I
would
like
to
carefully
address
this
and
I
wish
to
emphasize
that
we
support
the
outcome.
Why
is
this
of
concern
to
us?
The
proposed
addition
of
a
two-car
garage
to
the
south
of
the
house
will
result
in
a
setback
from
the
side
yard
property
line
of
just
under
five
feet.
1.5
metres.
The
zoning
bylaw
requires
more
than
twice
this
distance.
Eleven
point
five
feet,
so
the
proposed
setback
is
a
fraction
of
what
is
required.
C
Setbacks
do
matter,
and
this
was
mentioned-
the
whole
park-like
character
of
rocof
Park
and
the
careful
siting
of
houses
within
it
are
the
cool
reasons
that
Rockland
Park
was
designated
a
Heritage
Conservation
District
over
20
years
ago,
so
this
character
can
only
be
maintained
if
the
generous
spacing
between
buildings
is
maintained.
So
let's
look
at
what
the
rock
with
Park
heritage
plan
says.
It
begins
with
the
statement
of
cultural
value.
That
statement
is
the
foundation
upon
which
the
rest
of
the
plan
is
built.
C
The
statement
identifies
the
generosity
of
space
around
the
houses
as
being
essential
to
the
whole
concept
of
rocof
park
from
its
origins.
Then,
the
heritage
plan
sets
out
the
heritage
attributes
of
rocof
Park
that
are
to
be
preserved
among
the
heritage.
Attributes
are
two
that
are
relevant
here:
first,
the
unobtrusive
siting
of
the
houses
on
streets
and
the
generous
spacing
relative
to
the
neighborhood
buildings
and
second,
the
generous,
spacing
and
setbacks
of
the
buildings.
So
the
plan
could
not
be
clearer
about
the
importance
of
generous,
spacing
and
setbacks.
C
This
looks
second
at
the
rock
with
the
secondary
plan,
which
was
also
mentioned.
As
you
know,
it's
part
of
the
official
plan,
the
secondary
plan,
starts
with
a
statement
of
community
vision
that
guides
everything
that
follows
right
up
there
in
this
statement
are
the
following:
it
is
the
desire
of
the
community,
as
expressed
in
this
plan,
to
protect
the
present
environment,
including
the
spatial
relationships
between
buildings.
C
Third
and
finally,
I
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
a
decision
by
the
committee
of
adjustment.
About
a
year
ago,
the
committee
of
adjustment
was
considering
an
application
that,
amongst
other
things,
proposed
a
garage
that
was
only
four
feet
from
the
property
line.
The
committee
of
adjustment
rejected
this.
It
said
that
this
is
not
in
conformity
with
the
generous
spacing
between
buildings,
that
is
part
and
parcel
of
the
Heritage
character
of
raqqa
Park.
That
was
a
significant
statement.
I
think
the
conclusion
to
be
drawn
from
all
of
this
could
not
be
clearer.
C
The
proposal
to
add
a
garage
to
the
grade,
one
house
at
1:32
is
go.
That
brings
it
within
about
five
feet
of
the
property
line,
does
not
conform
with
a
rock
lift
Park
heritage
plan
and
its
secondary
plan
as
and
is
at
odds
with
a
reason.
The
recent
decision
of
the
committee
of
adjustment.
So
exceptionally,
we
do
support.
C
Nonetheless,
this
application-
and
we
do
so
for
one
reason
solely
because
the
house
at
132
Lister,
is
set
back
from
the
road
at
some
80
feet.
This
is
truly
exceptional.
It
will
not
create,
in
our
opinion,
a
precedent
if
you
identify
this
reason.
As
part
of
your
decision,
this
expensive
and
beautiful
front
yard
setback
provides
a
long
Vista
to
the
house
that
you
have
seen
in
photographs
significantly
mitigating
the
impact
of
the
much
reduced
side
yard.
We
also
note
that
the
neighbor
affected
by
this
much
reduced
side
yard
does
not
object
to
this.
C
This
is
the
first
time
that
our
Heritage
Committee
has
ever
supported
such
a
development.
That
does
not
accord
with
the
protections
that
the
city
has
put
in
place
to
preserve
the
heritage
character
of
rocof
Park.
So
we
reject
any
attempt
to
claim
that
the
seriously
inadequate
setback
in
question
is
in
accord
with
the
plan,
this
secondary
plan
or
the
decision
of
the
committee
adjustment,
and
we
don't
think
that
that
is
what
you've
heard
today.
So
we
have
demonstrated
that
that
it
is
a
an
exception
that
is
worthy
of
support.
C
A
B
Okay,
nowadays,
Thank
You
mr.
chairman
I'm,
here
I'm
no
longer
on
the
rock
with
Clark
Heritage
Committee,
but
I
am
a
member
of
the
on
the
board
of
the
Rock
Creek
Park
residents
association,
as
I
have
been
for
some
time
I
wanted
to.
Of
course,
we
endorse
everything
that
Linda
de
Kerr
has
just
put
in
front
of
you.
B
We
do
support
this
application
as
an
exception,
and
what
we
would
like
to
ask
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
is
in
recommending
to
council
that
this
application
be
approved
that,
in
your
decision,
you
acknowledge
for
the
record
that
the
side,
yard
setback
does
not
conform
with
provisions
of
our
heritage
plan
and
the
Rock
Creek
Park
secondary
plan,
but
is
supportable
for
exceptional
reasons.
We
think
this
is
important.
B
We
are
now
working
on
two
tracks.
After
what
we
found
the
the
decision
on
five
five
one
Fairview,
we
have
been
working
both
with
heritage
or
with
the
city
staff,
to
see
if
we
cannot
come
to
some
approach,
some
shared
understanding
of
what
our
heritage
plan
says
and
means,
and
we
have
had
meetings
with
six
other
heritage
conservation
districts
in
Ottawa
to
share
our
view.
It
share
views
and
concerns
about
how
heritage
plans
are
being
interpreted
and
put
in
place
by
City
Council.
B
So
in
order
to
make
it
clear
that
this
does
not
set
a
precedent,
we
would
like,
as
I
say
it
to
be
acknowledged,
that
it
is
not
that
this
side,
yard
setback
most
clearly
does
not
conform
with
our
heritage
plan
or
the
Rockland
Park
a
secondary
plan,
and,
as
you
could
give
us
that
comfort,
then
I
think
we
could
look
forward
to
some
fruitful,
perhaps
meeting
of
minds
with
the
city
staff
on
on
a
shared
interpretation
of
our
heritage
plan.
Thank
you.
A
D
We
do
feel
strongly
that
this
should
be
considered
as
a
case
on
its
own
special
merits
and
that
it
not
be
used
as
a
precedent.
There
is
a
risk
that
that
could
be
used
in
tribunal
hearings
going
forward
unless
you
take
some
action,
as
has
been
proposed
in
your
recommendation
to
Council.
Thank
you
very
much.
Any.
A
Questions
for
mr.
genes,
maybe
I
will
ask
one
so
I'm
curious
a
little
bit
about
the
point
about
precedent.
One
of
the
things
that
were
always
told
is
that
every
application
is
evaluated
on
its
own
merits.
Yes,
that
consideration
of
a
particular
application
is
made
on
the
specific
conditions
of
that
site.
I've
read
the
staff
report
and
there
is
specific
mention
of
many
of
the
important
points
that
were
made
by
representatives
of
the
wrong
Park
residents.
Association
and,
of
course
the
staff
report
becomes
part
of
the
public
record,
so
I'm
just
curious.
A
D
I
concern
is
not
so
much
what
city
staff
might
do
with
future
applications.
It's
just
that
having
a
loud
or
smaller
side
yard
setback
here.
Other
proponents
in
future
might
use
the
evidence
from
the
approval
of
this
application
as
reason
that
such
reduce
setbacks
might
be
allowed
in
other
cases
in
future,
but
we're
not.
We
certainly
haven't
gone
into
the
legal
aspects
here.
D
A
E
It
struck
me
that
the
sunroom
is
very
light
and
transparent,
and
the
addition,
over
top
of
it
seems
heavy,
and
it
looks
visually
to
me
like
one-
is
crushing
the
other
and
I
just
wondered
if
any
thought
had
been
given
to
possibly
beefing
up
the
support
structure
that
appears
to
hold
that
second
floor
up
just
because
it
does
seem
at
least
to
me
a
little
heavy
there.
Yeah.
D
Not
shown
on
that
rendering
so
we're
looking
at
doing
a
couple
things,
maybe
reinforcing
the
landscaping
around
the
base
of
that
addition,
and
also
you
know
maybe
looking
at
color
or
if
we
do
have
beefed
up
the
the
columns.
Then
we
would
look
at
doing
something
like
that
and
we'll
work
with
heritage,
one
to
fine-tune
that.
E
With
respect
to
the
M,
excuse
me,
with
respect
to
the
issue
of
precedent-setting
I,
just
wondered
if
we
often
see
situations
where
somebody
comes
forward
and
says
this
house
is
not,
we
can't
keep
it
anymore.
It's
got
mold
in
the
basement
or
there's
a
crack
in
the
wall
somewhere.
We
need
to
tear
it
down
and
in
the
case
of
this
particular
house,
if
they
were
to
come
forward
and
say
I'm
going
to
tear
the
old
part
of
the
house
down
but
keep
the
additions,
including
the
addition
which
encroaches
into
the
side
yard.
E
Would
they
be
then
able
to
build
the
new
house
further
forward
because
they
now
have
permission
to
build
this
into
the
side
yard,
build
it
further
forward
into
the
front
yard?
The
very
thing
that
reason
we're
giving
this
thing.
Would
they
then
be
able
to
do
that,
because
the
new
house
could
be
built
further
forward?
Thank
you.
F
F
So,
if
somebody,
if
this
house,
if
somebody
wanted
to
build
forward
on
the
lot,
I,
think
that
there
is
you
through
visual
analysis
and
individual
analysis
of
any
report
as
received
at
the
time
the
I'm
speculating,
but
I
think
that
the
answer
would
be
no,
that
that
there
are
other
guidelines
regarding
the
placement
of
new
houses
that
they
should
be
on
the
site
of
the
existing
house
or
or
back
not
forward.
So
I
think
that
one
could
rest
assured.
F
If
there
was
a
catastrophe
in
the
middle
part
of
this
house
collapsed
and
that
Yuen's
remained
there
would
be
no
that
would
they
would
be
very
strong.
There
are
very
strong
guidelines
to
prevent
a
new
house
from
creeping
closer
to
lisker
and,
of
course,
as
accounts
as
chairs.
From
pointed
out,
every
application
is
judged
at
the
time
of
its
receipt.
A
Okay,
any
other
questions,
maybe
I'll,
ask
legal
a
question,
because
I'm
I'm
just
deliberating
over
this
issue
of
whether
or
not
an
acknowledgement.
If
the
committee
chose
to
believe
and
acknowledge
that
the
application
violated
the
Rockland
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan.
Could
you
just
perhaps
the
center
just
comment
on
that
on
that
hypothetical.
C
A
I
guess
I'm
asking
is,
if
you've
seen
that
what
would
be
the
legality
I
mean
I
had
understood
that
it
was
our
role.
Although
this
plan
is
under
appeal,
it
is
our
job
to
upload
the
plan,
certainly
as
a
statement
of
policy
by
council
until
such
time
as
the
appeal
process
is
finished,
but
I
guess
I'm
curious
as
to
whether
there
is
any
precedent
for
this
of
what
is
being
asked
to
essentially
accept
the
staff
recommendation,
but
amended
to
say
that
we
believe
that
this
is
a
violation
of
the
Rockville
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan.
C
Chair
I,
I
have
not,
and
I
would
be
reluctant
to
approve
and
disprove
the
staff
recommendation
in
the
in
the
same
context,
I
don't
know
if
that
answers
your
question
chair.
However,
if
you
are
accepting
the
staff
recommendation
as
your
recommendation
to
pass
along
to
planning
committee
and
council
under
the
heritage
elements
to
then
say
that
despite
this
acceptance,
this
we
are.
This
is
not
appropriate.
I
would
think
that
those
statements
are
contradictory
and
could
cause
problems
in
the
future.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
I
think
in
considering
this
item
that
I
had
underlined.
In
my
version,
the
staff
report,
the
following
paragraph,
which
I'm
just
going
to
read
out
the
setback
on
the
southern
side
of
the
property,
will
be
reduced
and
will
provide
a
landscape
buffer
that
is
less
than
typically
desired
by
the
guidelines.
Staff
have
determined
that
this
impact
is
mitigated
by
the
character-defining
large
front
lawn,
which
will
remain
in
its
entirety
as
well
as
the
hedges,
flowerbeds
and
pathways
landscaping,
features
that
establish
the
character
of
the
lawn
well,
the
additions
will
increase
law
coverage.
A
The
law
coverage
will
remain
low,
etc,
etc.
So
I
guess
my
inclination
is
to
see
that
paragraph
as
being
very
critical
in
establishing
that
staff
are
acknowledging
that
in
normal
cases
they
would
have,
or
they
would
like
to
see
and
will
continue
to
want
to
see
more
buffer
as
the
guidelines
established.
So
that
gives
me
some
comfort
and
the
fact
that
there
is
an
acknowledgement
that
there
is
less
than
as
they
say,
is
typically
desired.
A
So
my
hope,
and
given
that
this
staff
report
will
remain
on
on
the
public
record,
that
this
will
satisfy
any
attempt
by
a
future
applicant
to
use
this
as
a
precedent,
because
the
staff
have
considered
this
in
a
specific
case.
So
in
light
of
the
response
from
legal
and
the
inclusion
of
this
language
in
the
staff
report,
I'm
comfortable
with
the
staff
report,
but
I'm
open
to
other
comments
on
it
before
we,
we
move
to
carry
it,
there's
a
comfort
level
there.
Great
so
is
the
recommendation:
carry
okay,
okay!
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you
to
those
members
of
the
public
that
came
out
this
morning.
So,
let's
move
to
the
next
item,
which
is
relates
to
an
application
to
permit
the
demolition
of
Ugandan
High
Commission
at
231,
Cobra,
Street
and
as
members
will
recall,
this
came
before
us
a
couple
of
months
ago,
and
we
decided
at
that
stage
to
to
refer
this
back
back
to
staff.
A
G
A
F
It
is
the
edge
of
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
in
to
its
north
is
a
1950's
bungalow
and,
and
then
this
area
is
the
Heritage
Conservation
District,
and
this
is
the
site
of
a
building
that
faces
that
faces
world
broad
again,
this
is
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
You
can
see
that
the
subject
property
is
located
here
at
the
corner
of
Kohlberg
and
we'll
broad
and
the
boundary
of
the
district
runs
through
its
backyard.
F
The
district
is
distinguished
by
a
number
of
large
embassies,
mostly
housed
in
nineteenth-century
houses.
These
include
Brazil
Australia,
Brunei
and
France,
but
there
were
others
there
too.
There
is
an
addition,
a
a
an
earlier
house
that
was
owned
by
Lester
Pearson
on
Augusta
and
other
single
houses
that
have
been
converted
to
a
converted,
dwellings
and
single
family
dwellings
and
some
also
built
later.
So
it
is
a
mixed
district.
F
F
And
we're
going
to
have
to
skip
around,
because
this
is
in
ok,
the
follow
me
mom.
Oh
yes,
I
am
sorry.
Yes,
so
the
Roberto
Laurier
Heritage
Conservation
districts
as
I
said
I,
just
collection
of
houses,
primarily
residential.
F
It
is
characterized
by
large,
covered
open
front,
porches
and
verandahs
generous
front
lawns
with
shrubs
and
trees
and
some
low
front
yard
fences.
There
was
consistent
side
row
setbacks
and
that
the
historic
streets
and
lauding
pattern
remain,
and
one
of
his
other
elements
is
the
deciduous
tree,
trees
and
boulevards.
Again.
The
current
conditions.
Excuse
me,
so
this
is
the
building.
It
was
constructed
in
1941.
F
Replacing
a
larger
house
and
the
two
buildings
to
its
east
were
also
built
after
the
removal
of
this
large
nineteenth-century
house,
the
building
built
as
a
flat
roof
to
unit
building
it
with
a
shared
front
entrance.
So
it
was
it
a
semi-detached
with
a
common
entrance.
It
does
not
the
it's
very
simply
in
design
and
execution
with
few
external
decorations
and
the
decoration
that
exists
is
expressed
in
the
same
brick
as
the
building
is
constructed.
F
So
we
have
very
subtle,
coining,
a
secondary
cornice
here
and
this
octagonal
window
other
than
that
it
is
a
you
know,
devoid
of
other,
a
decoration,
unlike
the
richly
embellished
Queen
Anne
revival,
houses
that
are
found
elsewhere
in
the
district,
there's
no
backyard
from
1955
to
1958,
Lester
Pearson
and
his
wife
on
one
of
the
units
in
the
building.
At
the
time
he
was
the
minister
of
External
Affairs
and
had
offices
in
the
East
block
it
19:57.
F
He
was
awarded
the
Nobel
Peace
Prize
for
his
work,
establishing
the
peacekeeping
force
in
Egypt
during
the
1956
Suez
Crisis,
prompted
by
Nasser's
removal,
nationalization
of
the
Suez
Canal.
Although
Pearson
lived
at
2:31
Coburg
when
he
received
the
prize
of
the
prize,
the
building
is
not
explicitly
or
meaningfully
associated
or
identified
with
his
work
at
the
time
which
took
place
at
the
UN
and
within
Offices
of
the
Canadian
government.
So
here
is
the
again
that
that's
the
building
and
its
associations
again
and
you
can
see
the
at
them.
F
This
is
outside
of
the
districts
in
the
district.
Continues
that
way.
The
Ontario
Heritage
Act
governs
buildings
that
are
designated
under
part
5
of
the
Ontario
and
under
part
5,
and
it's
all.
Applications
for
new
construction
in
anti
militias
in
heritage
districts
require
approval
of
council
after
consultation
with
the
built
heritage
subcommittee.
F
That
the
following
slide
shows
some
onion.
They
were
shown
to
you
in
February
some
of
the
effects
of
the
cracking
in
in
the
property.
The
engineering
study
of
2013
attributed
this
cracking
to
the
desiccation
of
the
sort
of
the
clay
soils
in
the
area
as
a
result
of
the
hot
dry
summers
in
the
late
1990s
and
again
in
2011
and
12,
there
was
also
localized
desiccation
as
a
result
of
adjacent
trees,
the
largest
of
which
has
been
removed.
F
The
settling
and
cracking
of
the
High
Commission
prompted
the
inhabitants,
the
Ugandan
staff,
to
leave
their
offices
there
in
2014
during
their
tenure,
which
they
had
owned
the
building
for
20
years
prior
to
the
to
their
departure.
There
had
been
attempts
to
crack
the
building
to
repair
the
building.
Excuse
me
in
the
20,
the
2015
engineering
report
commissioned
by
the
High
Commission
described
the
building
as
a
wood
frame
structure
supported
with
wood
bearing
stud
walls
and
masonry
blocks.
That
themselves
were
supported
by
reinforced
concrete
footings.
The
basement
floor
is
a
four
inch
concrete
slab.
F
F
So
here's
a
further
evidence
of
the
clacking
and
at
your
meeting
of
February
8th
the
belt,
there
was
a
recommendation
pass
which
is
included
in
your
report
and
synopsized
here.
But
the
motion
requested
that
the
city
engage
in
an
engineer
with
heritage
expertise
to
review
previous
engineering
studies
and
to
examine
the
building
to
confirm
the
damage
and
its
causes.
So
that
is
the
part
of
the
motion
associated
with
the
engineering
reports.
F
The
engineer
who
wrote
that
report
is
here
today
in
his
register
to
speak
and
also
that
report
was
circulated
with
this
with
your
with
your
package.
So
you
had
an
opportunity
to
have
a
look
at
that,
but
the
conclusion
of
that
report
and
one
of
the
other
things
that
so
in
addition
to
looking
at
the
building
the
the
engineer,
was
asked
to
look
at
the
previous
reports
that
had
been
undertaken,
which
it
was
a
number
of
geotechnical
and
and
and
engineering
reports.
F
So
their
conclusion
and
again
I
will
not
being
an
engineer
and
having
liberal
expertise
in
engineering
I
will.
But
the
engineer
speak.
But
the
conclusion
this
is
the
conclusion
here
of
the
cook
report
that-
and
the
report
concluded,
that
the
observed
and
previously
reported
settlement
issues
and
the
damage
that
is
caused
to
the
building
structure
is
significant,
while
structurally
feasible.
The
cost
to
undertake
work
to
establish
and
to
stabilize
the
building
is
similarly
significant.
F
The
heritage
value
of
typo
the
asset
must
be
weighed
with
the
cost
of
rehabilitation,
and
this
is
well
discussed
in
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
based
on
this
and
significant
effort
to
undertake
stabilization.
We
support
recommendations
for
demolition,
so
that
is
the
findings
of
the
report
that
was
independently
kin
undertaken
and
paid
for
by
the
city
of
Ottawa.
At
the
request
of
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
on
February,
the
8th
and
again-
and
these
are
the
studies-
this
is
also
in
your
the
staff
report.
F
F
In
addition,
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
instructed
staff
to
study
the
possible
inclusion,
we'll
go
back
to
sorry.
The
possible
inclusion
of
elements
of
the
building
into
the
new
design
or
to
further
refine
the
design
to
reflect
the
recommendations
of
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
in
analyzing.
F
The
building
staff
determined
that
the
retention
of
elements
was
not
the
best
approach
because
of
it
could
pose
a
risk
of
creating
a
pastiche
which
was
neither
new
or
old,
so
there'd
be
difficulty
determining
whether
it
was
an
old
building,
a
new
building
which
is
not
consistent
with
the
standards
and
guidelines
that
again
a
frequently
when
there
are
request
to
retain
elements.
The
building
has
more
clearly
defined
elements
that
could
be
repeated,
such
as
a
terracotta
panel
or
barge
board,
etc,
or
a
a
frontispiece
or
window
surrounds
again
stated.
This
is
a
very
simple
building.
F
It
would
be
hard
to
find
elements
to
reincorporate.
And,
finally,
the
idea
of
we
also
looked
at
and
thought
about.
The
idea
of
brick
retention,
but
pretension
is
a
notoriously
difficult
thing
to
do.
The
many
bricks
are
lost
in
deconstruction
with
the
removal
of
removal
of
mortar,
so
there
the
risk
is
that
there
wouldn't
be
enough
building
bricks
to
rebuild
a
building.
F
It's
very
difficult
to
mix
built
bricks
of
different
types
because
of
different
levels
of
porosity,
so
that,
having
done
that
analysis
that
we
determined
that
the
better
route
would
be
to
work
with
the
architect
on
further
changing
the
the
designs.
That
more
closely
reflected.
Some
of
the
elements
that
were
executed
in
brick
on
the
original
building,
but
in
new
construction.
F
So,
as
the
presentation
I
made
in
February
pointed
out,
we
have
worked
extensively
with
the
with
the
architect
and
colleagues
in
urban
design
and
LAN.
He
was
planning
to
to
bring
this
building
into
closer
conformity
or
into
conformity
with
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
guidelines
for
infill
construction.
Initially,
there
was
a
wheelchair
ramp,
a
taller.
F
This
was
not
set
back,
so
this
ended
up
with
this
version
of
the
of
the
building
that
you
saw
in
February
and
again,
the
motion
was
to
look
at
bringing
it
closer
into
conformity
with
the
recommendations
also
of
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement.
So
this
is
the
property
that
the
building
that
is
in
front
of
you
today,
changes
that
were
undertaken
to
to
reflect
the
recommendations
of
the
cultural
heritage.
F
The
other
plans.
So
there's
the
first
two.
This
is
the
current
the
current
proposal
in
front
of
you
today
again
we
can
see
it
in
the
elevation,
but
there
is
this
secondary
cornice
line
that
is
carried
across
all
all
levels
and
then
it
does
go
down
to
imitate
the
coining
of
the
original
building,
and
here
are
befores
and
afters
again.
F
And
then
the
elevations,
oh
and
then
I
think
some
people.
What
props
weren't
aware
that
this
is
a
free-standing
wall
and
there's
a
window
there,
so
it
is
again
and
the
the
octagonal
window
draws
attention
to
the
to
the
original
octagonal
window,
which
is
the
major
decorative
element
on
the
front
facade
of
the
building,
and
that
motif
is
repeated
here
again.
This
shows
some
of
the
the
elevation
so
more
clearly,
some
of
the
elements
that
were
introduced
to
echo
the
two
to
the
recommendations
of
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement.
F
F
So
this
building
a
replaces
of
1941
building
with
a
new
one,
similar
in
form
in
mass,
its
of
its
own
time,
does
not
replicate
an
historic
style,
is
sympathetic
to
that
Heritage
Conservation
District
and
has
been
made
more
sympathetic
through
the
recent
interventions
on
the
part
of
the
architect
and
again,
it's
it's
design
is
inspired
by
the
facade
proportions
of
the
fenestration
pattern
and
the
flat
roof
of
the
original.
Further
further
guidelines
address
cladding,
and
this
is
red
brick.
F
So
in
conclusion,
staff
believes
that
supports
the
application
as
a
mid
20th
century
replacement.
That
is
noted
to
have
a
high
wide
range
of
building
types.
This
is
an
appropriate
intervention,
but
the
building
is
not
explicitly
or
meaningfully
identified
with
the
work
of
Lester
Pearson
during
his
tenure
there
and
again,
the
the
structural
damage
to
the
building
as
the
result
of
unstable
soil
conditions
have
made
it
unsafe
and
for
all
these
reasons,
heritage
staff
supports
the
application.
Thank
you.
A
G
You
mr.
chair,
my
my
biggest
concern:
I
did
meet
with
staff
prior
to
today's
meeting
on
it
and
I
share
that
action.
Sandhya
and
I
share
the
same
concerns,
which
is
that
the
intent
of
the
motion
that
was
passed
at
the
last
built
Heritage
Committee
seemed
to
indicate
to
staff
to
hire
an
engineer
or
consultant
or
an
expert
that
was
able
to
take
an
extended
look
at
the
existing
building
and
see
truly
what
could
be
retained
that
that
is
my
understanding
of
you
know:
cities
sitting
here
last
time
and
seeing
the
motion
brought
forward.
G
That
was
the
intent
or
my
understanding
of
the
intent
of
that
motion.
Now
the
Cooke
report
is
an
extensive
report
as
to
you
know
some
of
some
of
the
challenges
with
the
existing
building.
But
to
me
it
neglect
to
identify
the
reality
of
what
I
think
to
be
demolition
by
neglect
or
what
what
tends
towards
it
and
I
was
expecting
out
of
the
Cooke
report.
Some
clarity
as
to
which
elements,
if
not
most
of
the
building
could
be
retained.
G
A
A
H
You
I
am
Chris
bhopping
from
John
Koch,
an
associate
structural
engineer
in
town.
We
were
retained
by
the
City
of
Ottawa
to
provide
a
review
of
the
existing
reports
and
a
visual
survey
of
the
property.
We
reviewed,
2013,
geotechnical
and
building
investigation
reports,
the
2017,
geotechnical
and
building
investigation
reports,
and
also
the
2017
proposed
redevelopment
plan
and
the
cultural
heritage.
H
We
see
that
settlement
has
continued
since
then,
as
the
concrete
block
and
the
interface
between
the
concrete
block
and
the
comp
cast-in-place
concrete,
is,
has
separated
and
we
see
cracks
set,
and
we
also
see
at
the
interior
block
walls
which
are
both
load-bearing
and
non
load-bearing,
that
there
has
been
major
settlement
with
large
cracking
through
the
joints
and
the
units
themselves.
We
saw
past
repairs
that
have
been
carried
out
in
several
campaigns
and
all
of
which
have
again
failed,
indicating
continued
settlement.
H
The
slab
on
grade,
as
we
saw
in
some
of
the
photos,
had
large
cracking-
and
this
is
probably
primarily
along
the
perimeter
of
the
wall
where
settlement
would
have
occurred
in
order
to
retain
the
building.
They
found
that
this,
the
majority
of
the
work
would
be
at
the
foundation
level,
and
this
is
where
what
we
read
and
bit
in
a
previous
geotechnical
reports.
H
So
this
would
entail
support
of
the
ground
floor
and
all
the
walls
above,
and
we
felt
that
this
would
be
complicated
and
difficult
and,
as
a
result,
expensive
because
of
the
tight
site
and
the
proximity
to
the
roads
and
the
sidewalks.
The
exterior
masonry
of
the
building
appears
to
be
multi,
wife,
composite
brick
and
concrete
block.
H
We've
noted
this
that
there
are
headers
brick
headers
at
every
seven
courses
in
the
brick,
which
would
act
as
a
tie
between
the
the
concrete
block
and
the
prick
enhance
issues
with
this
type
of
construction
are
that
the
two
materials
have
different
properties
and
results
in
differential
movements
from
or
different
our
reactions
to
movements
from
any
thermal
movement,
and
this
often
leads
to
snapping
of
the
brick
header.
So
we'd
have
disconnection
between
the
veneer
and
the
backup.
H
This
creates
a
laterally
unstable
veneer,
and
this
is
a
particularly
spilling
as
the
loads
would
be
redistributed
and
there's
potential
for
loading
to
be
or
poor
quality
instability
to
be
obvious.
So
this
is
something
that
we
would
recommend
be
validated
before
any
temporary
support
or
redistributing
the
loads
is
to
occur
on
the
exterior.
We
also
see
significant
cracking
through
the
joints
in
the
units
and
again,
as
with
the
interior,
we've
seen
several
past
repair
campaigns
which
have
again
have
re
opened
up,
so
all
those
repaired
cracks
of
again
cracked.
H
H
We
feel
that
the
slope
is
too
extensive
for
liftings,
as
we
would
see
that
shimming
or
concrete
toppings
would
be
a
way
to
level
the
floors,
and
this
would
lead
to
or
this
we
require
the
assessment
of
the
framing
and
likely
reinforcement
due
to
the
increased
dead
loads
and
so
based
on
the
significant
effort
to
stabilize.
We
concur
with
the
past
reports,
including
the
Heritage
impact
statement
that
support
the
demolition.
Thank
you.
F
E
E
Thank
you,
I
guess,
to
the
councillors
point.
What
what
certainly
was
in
my
mind
when
the
report,
when
the
previous
report
came
forward,
was
when
I
looked
at
some
of
the
issues
that
were
put
forward
as
the
rationale
for
demolition.
They
were
things
like
the
trees
taking
the
moisture
out
of
the
soil,
the
presence
of
Leda
clay
and
the
subsidence
which
had
occurred
and
I
guess.
What
troubled
me
was
is
that
the
tree
throats
and
here
almost
every
property
has
trees
on
it
and
there
is
Leda
clay
from
my
experience.
E
Properties
I
have
in
blocks
in
either
direction
have
Leda
clay,
so
these
particular
things
are
found
throughout
sandy
hill
and
would
affect
every
single
property
in
Sandy
Hill
and
they
noticed
in
the
original
report.
I
read
and
I
see
a
difference
in
your
report
of
the
original
Stevenson
report
on
number
2
on
page
2
under
background
it.
It
identifies
the
supports,
as
the
foundations
is
being
supported
by
reinforced
concrete
footings
and
I
noticed
on
your
report.
E
You
don't
mention
that
there
are
reinforced
concrete
footings,
I'm,
not
sure
how
the
Stevenson
engineering
people
determined
that
but
I
did
notice
it
and
the
reason
that's
relevant
I
think
is
because
when
there
is
Leda
clay
and
subsidence,
the
presence
of
reinforced
footings
will
often
stop
that
the
damage
that
we
see
from
happening.
So
if
there
is
we
invert,
there
are
reinforced
weddings
and
the
trees,
and
these
things
were
found
throughout
Sandy,
Hill,
I,
guess
and
I
know.
E
In
my
experience
of
their
building
the
corner
of
King
Edward
and
Marley,
the
pantyhose
that
building
had
localized
subsidence
of
about
10
inches
on
this
one,
there's
only
about
two
inches,
so
I'm
wondering
what
is
it
that
that
affects
this
building
that
doesn't
affect
every
other
building
in
Sandy
Hill
and
that
we
wouldn't
look
at
every
building
is
being
potentially
demolished
if
it.
If
somebody
didn't
maintain
the
foundation
on
an
ongoing
basis,.
H
Speaking
to
the
presence
of
the
reinforcing
it's
something
that
it's
it's
likely,
that
there
is
reinforcing
there
and
whether
it
was
well,
it's
unlikely
that
it
was
designed
for
any
differential
movement,
that's
something
that
can
be
accommodated
so
in
order
to
retain
the
building
the
structure
and
there
would
be
reinforcing
or
replacement
of
some
of
the
footings
to
to
be
able
to
the
new
to
the
known
situation.
That's
occurring
there.
H
G
Do
Thank
You
mr.
chair
would
just
like
to
follow
up
with
you
as
to
it's
a
substantial
report.
You
know
you're
a
very
professional
organization,
I
want
to
ensure
that
that
is
not
put
in
question
here
and
but
I
don't
see
in
the
report
any
elements.
Obviously
it
speaks
to
cost
of
the
overall
a
keeper
the
over.
You
know
if
measures
were
going
to
to
be
taken,
but
there's
not
no
specific
areas,
maybe
I
I
missed
it
as
to
which
elements
could
be
kept
as
part
of
retaining.
Could
you
maybe
speak
to
that?
H
So
when
considering
this
like,
if
we
isolate
and
consider
the
structure,
which
is
what
we
reviewed
and
we
feel
that
most
of
the
structure
could
be
retained
with
significant
intervention
at
the
footings,
so
we
there
would
be
opportunities
to
repair
the
masonry
and
rend
and
to
re-level
the
floors
using
a
secondary
means
of
the
of
shimming
or
or
leveling.
And
and
but
in
terms
of
the
structure
above
the
foundation
level.
G
A
D
D
C
A
Could
make
a
suggestion
which
is
as
you're
shorting
out
the
technical
issues?
I
could
call
another
speaker
to
sit
in
that
chair
and,
while
the
while,
the
other
speakers
speaking,
if
there's
a
way
of
resolving
the
technical
issues?
Oh
then,
so
why
don't
I
call
David
jeans
up
to
this
microphone
here
and
mr.
Mullaly?
Well,
mr.
jeans
is
speaking:
you
can
work
the.
D
D
No
the
you
have
their
report
was
submitted
early
this
morning
and
hours
short
one
was
submitted
somewhat
later
and
for
that
I
apologize,
but
heritage
Ottawa
still
opposes
the
recommendation
to
approve
demolition
of
the
building,
for
reasons
similar
to
our
previous
presentation
to
build
Heritage
Subcommittee
on
February
7th,
and
we
feel
that
it
should
still
be
possible
to
repair
the
foundation
and
retain
at
least
the
shell
of
the
existing
building
for
incorporation
into
into
the
new
design.
We
have
gone
through
the
cook
report.
D
We
certainly
respect
the
the
the
competence
and
experience
of
the
cook
organization
in
this
report
and
we're
more
concerned
today
with
the
that
report
than
with
the
design
we're
not
commenting
on
on
this
proposed
replacement
design.
That's
in
front
of
you,
as
you
have
seen,
and
I've
heard
just
now.
The
retention
of
the
building
is
structurally
feasible
at
a
cost.
We
are
concerned
that
the
reason
that
we
have
got
to
the
present
situation
was
essentially
because
of
a
demolition
by
neglect
situation.
D
The
the
well-known
subsidence
problems
that
have
been
discussed
in
some
detail
already
this
morning
were
not
properly
addressed
in
dealing
with
the
foundation,
but
merely
with
temporary
repairs
to
the
walls
and
that
the
the
building
need
not
have
got
to
the
point
that
it
is
right
now,
but
even
at
the
point
that
it
is
right
now,
as
you've
just
heard
from
the
consultant
it
it
could
be
repaired
and
and
stabilized
we've.
As
part
of
our
review
of
the
report,
we've
put
forward
some
suggestions.
D
These
are
obviously
not
an
engineering
recommendation,
but
they're
just
some
bullet
points
as
to
in
our
experience
of
expect
of
people
with
considerable
expertise
within
our
heritage,
Ottawa
organization
that
there
could
be
a
process
to
repair
the
foundation,
certainly
got
the
building
and
not
attempt
to
preserve
the
interior,
but
to
restore
the
building
to
a
state
where
it
could
be
incorporated
with
its
exterior
features
into
a
new
design.
And
finally,
we
do
continue
to
support
the
historical
association
with
Lester
Pearson,
as
outlined
by
action,
Sandy
Hill
and
in
the
previous
presentations
to
you.
D
The
association
of
residences
of
various
prime
ministers
with
the
HC
D
is
one
of
the
defining
characteristics
so
going
back
to
the
recommendation.
We
we
opposed
the
recommendation
for
demolition
and
would
prefer
to
see
a
design
which
incorporates
at
least
the
shell
of
the
existing
building
in
in
the
development
of
a
new
Chancery.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
D
D
D
D
So
essentially,
you
know
to
reiterate:
miss
Coutts
point:
there
wasn't
really
much
in
terms
of
you
know
a
character,
defining
attributes
of
existing
building
that
could
be
retained,
but
still
you
know
with
that
second
cornice
line
that
we
dealt
with
dollars
mentioned
and
doctrinal
window.
We
try
to
integrate
as
much
of
what
could
be.
You
know
integrated
and
it
happended
in
it
in
a
contemporary.
You
know
modern
style
and
also
the
materiality
revisions
and
attention
to.
D
A
E
Morning,
mr.
chairman
members
of
the
committee
I'm
also
a
guy
I
live
in
Sandy
Hill.
You
have
received
earlier
today.
The
submission
by
Action,
Sandy,
Hill,
I,
will
not
repeat
what's
in
it,
but
I
do
endorse
the
views
that
were
expressed
there,
as
well
as
those
of
David
genes
for
heritage
Ottawa.
What
I
would
like
to
do
is
to
raise
two
contextual
matters
which
I
feel
are
relevant
to
this
application.
The
first
one
concerns
the
the
vexing
question
of
demolition
by
neglect.
A.
E
Development
that
we
certainly
oppose-
and
this
is
not
just
a
theoretical
problem
in
Sandy-
Hill-
there's
another
property
at
30,
blackburn
Avenue-
that
belongs
to
a
foreign
government
that
has
sat
empty
for
close
to
a
year.
Recently,
the
electricity
to
that
property
has
been
cut
off
and
I'm
concerned
that
any
decision
that
this
committee
make
not
send
and
an
unintended
signal
to
the
owner
of
30
blackburn,
that
demolition
by
neglect
is
a
possible
way
of
managing
a
building
in
in
Sandy
Hill.
E
The
second
contextual
matter
that
I
want
to
raise
is
there
is
a
historical
one
that
mr.
Gene's
has
already
referred
to.
10
Prime
Minister's
lived
in
Sandy
Hill
at
different
times
of
their
lives.
This
represents
an
unequaled
concentration
of
leaders
in
any
neighborhood
in
Canada,
and
a
walk
through
sandy
hills
in
fact
offers
an
opportunity
for
a
civics
lesson
that
can't
be
offered
anywhere
else
in
the
country.
So
history
matters
and
for
those
reasons
I
oppose
the
application.
Thank
You.
Mr.
chairman.
A
C
C
It
just
a
quick,
a
short
bullet
referencing.
The
engineering
reports
in
general,
including
the
John
cook
report,
concluding
that
the
initial
structure
damage
to
the
building
was
a
result
of
unstable
soil
conditions
that
caused
differential,
settling
and
rendered
the
building
unsafe
and
was
not
the
result
of
devolution
by
neglect
and
I.
Think
it's.
This
is
a
concern.
That's
been
raised.
C
Also,
the
the
note
again
that
the
the
mention
of
the
building
being
deemed
unsafe,
which
harkens
back
to
member
Podolski's
query
at
our
last
meeting
in
February
about
the
evidence
that
at
addressing
the
safety
of
the
building
and
I,
certainly
didn't
see
it
in
the
cook
report
or
in
the
previous
one,
which
I
neglected
to
bring
with
me
this
morning.
So
I'm.
Just
a
couple
of
questions
there
looking
for
clarity,
that's
a
pretty
broad
statement
and
pretty
loaded
in
some
respects,
so
some
clarity
on
that.
F
If
you
feel
you're
not
safe
in
there,
there's
no
obligation
to
continue
to
work
there,
and
that
was
the
conclusion
that
was
reached
at
the
time.
In
terms
of
yes,
there
is,
you
know,
as
I'm
often
fond
of
saying.
Sandy
Hill
is
a
Sandy
Hill
and
building
shift
this
building
again
it
did
shift.
There
were
attempts
to
repair
it
and
it
continued
to
shift
again
the
many
of
the
buildings
in
Sandy
Hill
that
shift
in
crack
or
balloon
frame
buildings.
They
are
rubble
foundations.
You
know
they
might
be
more
flexible
structure.
F
Every
building
is
different
and
we
judge
every
different
building
and
its
engineering
challenges
on
that
building
and
that's
the
Cooke
report.
I
found
that
the
and
the
other
reports
that
there
was
differential
settlement.
You
know
whether
or
not
it
could
be
it
could
be
repaired
again.
There
were
attempts
and
they
weren't
successful.
C
The
wording
is
important,
and
so
I
am
really
concerned
about
the
wording
of
this
bullet
that
it
implies
that
in
my
reading
of
it
that
any
building
in
Sandy
Hill
that
is
not
repaired,
it
can
be
justified
based
on
these
conditions
and
I.
Think,
mr.
Smallwood,
you
also
addressed
this
some
extent
and
I
think
probably
action,
Sandy
Hill
as
well;
I,
don't
own
any
property
in
Sandy
Hill,
but
I
certainly
know
from
historical
research
over
time
that
this
is
not
new
condition.
A
Thank
you,
I
guess.
I
have
a
question
staff
that
I'll
put
now
so
reading
from
page
12
of
the
staff
report
under
additional
changes.
Staff
right
after
quoting
the
motion
from
February,
8th
city
staff,
reviewed
the
retention
or
incorporation
of
a
significant
portion
of
the
existing
building
into
the
new
building,
as
directed
in
the
vhs-c
motion,
but
did
not
encourage
the
applicant
to
do
so
as
the
building
scored
low
in
the
architecture
in
context.
A
The
only
additional
information
that
this
committee
asked
off
to
consider
was
the
additional
information
in
the
in
in
the
independent
review
and
a
plain
reading
of
that
paragraph
suggests
that
staff
had
their
own
opinions
notwithstanding
the
direction
from
the
committee
that
the
applicant
be
encouraged
to
provide
a
revised
application
that
retains
or
incorporates
a
significant
portion
of
the
existing
building.
So
I'm
wonder
if
staff
can
explain
that
sense.
F
The
resolution
again,
it
was
looked
into
the
they
did.
The
applicant
did
examined
the
possibility
of
retention,
but
the
this
bullet
is
an
old
bullet.
It
is
that,
based
on
the
additional
in
that
the
applicant
be
encouraged
to
prepare
a
revised
application
that
retains
or
incorporates
a
new
design
that
better
reflects,
and
so
staff
took
the
or
and
encourage
the
applicant
to
to
to
prepare
a
new
design.
That
better
reflects
the
recommendations.
F
The
or
is
very
it
is,
was
very
clear
to
us,
and
that
was
we
did
look
at
retention
and
again
what
could
be
retained,
bricks
or
whatever,
and
then
we
defaulted.
We
went
to
the
or
because
it
wasn't,
and
it
was
three
things
hire
an
engineer
to
look
at
it
and
based
on
mean
but
yeah,
and
as
the
result
of
that,
we
had
two
choices:
either
to
encourage
the
applicant
or
to
retain
or
to
develop
a
new
design.
F
A
G
G
Don't
feel
that
that
those
efforts
were
presented
to
you
today,
so
I
would
ask
on
those
three
fundamentals:
to
overturn
the
staff
position
and
and
really
go
get
the
applicant
to
go
back
and
and
see
what
can
be
done
in
this
property
to
retain
and
at
the
if
they
can't
retain
the
full
sort
of
the
building
and
come
back
and
and
and
present
the
case
for
portions
to
be
retained.
But
for
me,
demolition
would
would
be
a
mistake
for
allowing
demolition
today
would
certainly
be
a
mistake.
E
E
The
findings
of
that
report
and
the
earlier
structural
reports,
which
I
read
very
diligently,
do
attribute
the
settlement
to
a
likely
cost,
which
is
the
dewatering
of
the
Leda
clay
below
the
glow
of
the
foundations
and,
as
has
been
made
abundantly
clear
around
this
room
and
in
the
reports.
This
is
not
an
unusual
circumstance.
E
So
I
think
that
it's
important
to
know
that
this
happens
periodically
and
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
is
evident
from
the
peer
review
by
cooking
associates
is
that
the
building
can
be
stabilized
and
reused.
I
think
that
what
was
also
evident
is
that
in
the
earliest
report
by
the
geotechnical
engineers,
the
Patterson,
that
one
of
the
things
that
could
contribute
to
settlement
is
frost
action
and
it
seems
to
me
without
having
a
special
study
done
of
it
by
leaving
the
building
vacant
for
a
number
of
years
unheated
as
the
Indian
High
Commission.
E
Did
this
allowed
frost
to
get
into
the
building
into
the
the
puddings
and
could
contribute
to
the
continued
settlement
of
it.
So
there
is
human
action
here
that
helped
to
exacerbate
the
conditions.
In
my
view,
and
I
think
that
this
is
important
to
note
that
there,
in
my
view,
not
withstanding
the
staff
conclusion,
there
is
a
contribution
of
demolition
by
neglect
to
the
condition
of
the
building,
including
the
mold
in
it.
From
the
you
know,
the
water
leaks
I
came
through
so
I.
E
E
The
second
reason
for
voting
against
the
staff
recommendation
is
that
the
argument
that,
because
of
Prime
Minister
Pearson
lived
here
for
such
a
short
time
that
there's
no
historic
value
relating
to
that
I
think
that
if
we
look
at
the
Norman
Bethune
house,
he
only
who's
born
that
he
lived
there
only
three
years,
but
that
was
not
a
reason
by
the
historic
monument
Borden
Canada
and
foreign
affairs
didn't
create
a
National
Historic
Site.
There
doesn't
matter
how
long
you've
lived
there
and
I
think
dismissing
the
Pearson
error
there
I
think
is
not
really
credible.
E
And
thirdly,
the
third
reason
for
voting
against
the
staff
recommendation
is
that
the
proposed
new
building
is
unsympathetic
to
the
heritage
character
of
the
the
heritage
district
does
not
meet
the
guidelines.
There's
been
a
struggle
with
the
architects
and
the
applicant
to
get
them
to
modify
an
earlier
design,
but
it
really
they
know
it
has
not
resulted
in
an
and
I
hope
that
if
the
girl
creditors
committee,
rejection
of
this
application
is
endorsed
by
City
Council.
E
There
will
be
a
message
to
the
Ugandan
High
Commission
to
really
be
more
cognizant
of
their
role
as
diplomats
to
this
country
and
to
look
at
community
values
and
do
their
best
to
make
a
significant
contribution,
such
as
some
of
the
other
embassies
and
high
commissions
have
done
in
the
Sandy
Hill
area
and
other
parts
of
the
city.
So
mr.
chair,
having
declared
that
our
vote
against
motion
I'm
interested
in
the
comments
of
the
other
members
of
the
committee.
E
You
I
share
your
concerns
and
I
would
oppose
it
just
because
I
I
haven't
seen
anything
here.
That
tells
me
why
this
particular
building
should
be
demolished.
All
the
buildings
in
Sandy
Hill
face
the
same
issue
and
most
owners
take
the
required
action.
In
this
case
they
abandoned
the
building
and
didn't
take
their
quite
action.
So
I
think
if
we
accept
this,
we're
just
encouraging
that,
as
being
a
note
for
someone
who
doesn't
wish
to
take
care
of
the
property.
A
Okay,
I'm
going
to
provide
a
few
comments
of
my
own
at
the
stage.
So
this
is
a
very
difficult
issue
before
us
and
the
reason
it's
difficult
is
that
when
this
came
to
us
in
February,
we
adjudicated
the
matter
on
the
basis
of
a
substantive
referral
to
staff,
which
I
think
in
hindsight
was
flawed
in
its
language
and
I.
Take
responsibility
for
that
I.
Think.
In
hindsight,
we
should
have
drafted
a
different
referral
to
staff,
which
made
more
clear
in
the
letter
of
the
language.
A
What
was
clearly
the
spirit
of
this
committee,
which
others
have
noted.
It
was
very
clear
from
the
vocal
discussion
we
had
that
our
preference
was
to
see
an
opportunity
for
some
retention
of
this
building
and
I.
Think
I
thought
that,
on
the
basis
of
that
clear
verbal
intention,
that
would
be
how
staff
would
interpret
the
motion.
However,
on
the
strict
reading
of
the
motion,
there's
no
question
that
we
put
an
order
in
there
and
we
put
an
order
that
wasn't
conditioned
if
I
could
go
back
in
time.
A
I
would
have
said
or,
if
deemed
structurally
infeasible
a
new
design.
But
we
didn't
do
that
and
I'm
now
in
a
awkward
situation
of
having
to
go
back
to
the
initial
referral
and
strictly
on
the
letter
of
the
law
staff
have
come
back
to
us.
We
have
a
conclusion
from
the
independent
study
that
we
requested,
which
says
based
on
this
and
a
significant
effort
to
undertake
stabilization.
We
support
recommendations
for
demolition.
So
what
happened?
We
gave
this
back
to
staff.
A
A
There
were
some,
admittedly
modest
changes
to
the
new
design,
but
modest
changes
that
did
better
reflect
the
recommendations
so
on
the
strict
reading
of
the
motion,
I
think
what's
before
us
now
has
satisfied
what
our
initial
referral
was.
That
said,
I'm
not
happy
with
the
state
of
affairs
were
in
for
two
reasons.
One
of
them
is
I
think,
although
it
perhaps
was
the
right
conclusion,
I
think
it
was
made
on
the
wrong
basis.
A
I
think
that
sentence
that
I
read
out
earlier
city
staff
reviewed
the
retention
or
incorporation
of
a
significant
portion
of
the
existing
building
into
the
new
building,
as
directed
in
the
BHS
emotions,
but
did
not
encourage
applicant
to
do
so.
I
really
don't
understand
on
what
basis
staff
felt
that
it
was
within
their
purview
to
not
encourage
the
applicant
to
do
so.
A
Having
heard
the
discussion
at
BHS
C
and
having
read
a
referral
motion
that
said
that
the
applicant
should
be
encouraged
to
prepare
a
revised
application
that
retains
or
incorporates
a
significant
portion
of
the
existing
building.
You
know,
and
that
gets
at
some
fundamental
principles
of
our
democratic
system,
which
is
the
public
service,
provides
courageous
advice.
We
listen
to
that
courageous
advice.
A
That
being
said,
there's
no
question
that
when
we
first
saw
this
in
February,
we
recognized
that
this
was
demolition
by
neglect
and
on
that
one
I
think
as
a
city,
we
too
need
to
take
responsibility
for
the
fact
that
this
building
sat
vacant
for
19
years
and
during
no
period
in
that
were
there
any
the
city
for
two
yelling
and
four.
During
that
period
there
was
no
property
inspection.
A
There
were
no
violations
issued
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you
know
I'm
happy
that
the
mayor
has
struck
a
task
force
which
has
as
one
of
its
objectives,
making
sure
that
demolition
by
neglect
does
not
occur
in
vacant
buildings
and
I.
Think
the
good
news
is,
we
shouldn't
be
seeing
this
anymore,
but
I
acknowledge
in
this
case,
and
this
is
why
I
think
we
struggled
in
in
February.
A
So
I
provide
that
context
to
say
that
I
feel
compelled,
on
the
basis
of
perhaps
in
hindsight,
a
flawed
motion
to
support
the
staff
recommendation
only
because,
strictly
speaking,
they
followed
the
instruction
but
I'm
discouraged
by
the
fact
that
there
was
not
more
effort
made
both
by
city
staff
and
the
applicant
to
follow
what
was
very
clearly
the
spirit
in
the
hope
of
this
committee
to
have
an
outcome
where
a
portion
of
the
existing
building
was
retained.
So
I
think
we'll
do
Rene's.
E
Is
a
technical
motion
which
has
to
do
with
the
updating
of
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement,
and
it's
this
that
to
where's
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement?
Reference
in
the
report,
as
document
15,
which
was
distributed
with
the
agenda
for
the
Belarus
subcommittee
meeting
of
April
12th,
was
not
the
most
current
version
of
the
CH
is
be
resolved,
that
the
CH
is
be
replaced
with
the
most
current
version
dated
November
22nd
2017,
prepared
by
Robertson
Martin.
Architects
is.
E
A
A
E
Ready
with
the
refusal
motion,
where's
report,
ACS,
2018,
p,
IE,
r,
hu
zero,
zero
nine
recommends
approval
of
the
application
and,
whereas
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
wish
to
recommend
refusal,
the
application
for
the
mission
that
demolition
therefore
be
resolved.
That
recommendations,
one
and
two
of
the
staff
report
be
amended
as
follows:
one
delete
the
word,
approve
and
replace
it
with
refused
and
that
recommendations
three
and
four
be
deleted.
A
A
A
C
F
A
heritage
permit
was
issued
for
the
windows
of
the
Duncannon
apartment
in
December
2017,
the
the
as
a
result
of
the
ongoing
communications
and
discussion
between
the
city
and
the
owner
of
the
building
and
his
heritage
consultant.
Who
is
Robert
Martin?
Who
was
here
today
who
I
asked
to
stay
on
in
case?
There
were
further
technical
questions,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
the
in
the
end,
the
permit
was
issued
for
the
to
restore
the
windows
on
the
Cooper
and
Metcalf
facades
and
to
replace
the
windows
on
the
other.
F
F
Agreed
with
the
with
the
intervention
had
no
objection
to
the
intervention
and
because
it
is
I
because
windows
are
done
through
delegated
authority
that
that
was
approved
in
Harrison.
There
are
also
no
building
permits
required
for
window
replacement,
so
the
the
way
we
keep
track
of
these
is
through
the
delegated
authority
process.
F
F
So
this
this
facade
was
also
agree,
also
agreed
that
the
newer
the
newer
units
could
be
placed
there
and
in
in
terms
of
the
question
of
retention,
and
they
any
of
the
windows
that
are
being
removed
from
these
units
can
be,
can
be
used
to
replace
ones
that
have
weathered
poorly
on
the
facades
where
they're
being
retained,
they
will
be
substituted
in
other
than
that.
It's
the
the
individual
property
owner
will
determine
what
to
do
with
the
others.