►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – October 3, 2016
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee meeting – October 3, 2016 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
B
Okay,
we're
gonna
get
right
into
the
agenda:
we're
not
going
to
do
a
consent
agenda
this
morning
because
we're
going
to
have
staff
presentations
on
each
of
the
items.
So,
even
though
we
don't
have
speakers
registered
on
most
of
them,
we
will
hear
from
staff
just
to
give
us
a
little
bit
of
context
for
each
of
the
items.
So
there
are
no
regrets
received
today.
Any
declarations
of
interest
I
see
none.
Can
we
confirm
the
minutes
from
our
8
September
meeting?
Okay,
great,
wonderful,
okay,
so
getting
right
into
the
agenda,
then.
C
C
Here's
an
aerial
view
of
the
property
there's
a
part
to
the
south
of
the
building,
a
two-story
red
brick
building
to
the
north.
On
the
east
side
of
the
street.
There
are
two
red
brick
apartment
buildings
and
a
two-story
residential
building.
Here
are
some
photos
of
the
surrounding
buildings.
The
building
at
the
top.
My
top
left
was
in
front
of
both
heritage
sub
community.
Last
year,
that's
231,
O'connor,
here's
the
building.
It's
a
two
and
one-half
story:
wood
frame
at
clad
structure
with
the
front
gable
roof.
C
C
Heritage
Act
expired
the
center
town
HDD,
which
was
designated
in
1997.
It
is
a
category
2
building
in
the
district
and
applications
to
demolish
designated
buildings
for
quiet,
City,
Council
approval.
The
details
of
the
application
is
to
demolish
the
existing
building
construct
and
construct
a
temporary
park.
A
demolition
control
application
was
also
submitted
for
the
time
for
opinions,
resolution
of
the
Heritage
Act
application.
This
is
a
site
plan
of
the
proposed
temporary
park.
It
features
soft
and
hardware
features.
You
can
see
that
outline
of
the
existing
about
a
lying
on
the
screen.
C
The
property
owner
has
indicated
that
development
is
envisioned
for
the
property
in
the
long
term,
but
most
specifically
uses
or
building
designs
are
proposed.
At
this
time,
staff
recommendation
is
to
refuse
the
application
to
demolish
the
building
and
refuse
the
application
to
construct
a
temporary
perk.
C
The
center
town
EGD
has
cultural
heritage
value
as
a
late
19th
and
early
20th
century
residential
community
within
walking
distance
of
Parliament
Hill,
the
HTV
features
a
variety
of
building
types
and
is
unified
by
the
dominance
of
red,
brick
and
wood.
There
are
some
screenshots
there
showing
that
permanence.
C
So
three
different
policies
were
used
to
assess
the
application,
the
center
town,
HCD
study
the
park
and
other
standards
and
guidelines
and
the
provincial
policy
statement.
The
center
town,
HGD
violence
has
policies
related
to
building
conservation
in
detail,
and
it
emphasizes
the
importance
of
maintaining
the
turn-of-the-century
character
and
encourages
each
other
vacant.
Lots
that
would
interrupt
the
streetscape.
The
demolition
of
this
building
would
result
in
the
loss
of
the
turn
of
the
century
building
and
disrupt
streetscape
continuity.
The
guidelines
have
a
policy
about
screaming
of
parking
lots
and
obviously
what
the
applicant
is
proposing.
C
C
The
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
Historic
Places
in
camera
that
were
adopted
by
council
in
2008
and
I
used
to
assess
applications
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
The
three
applicable
policies
are
up
on
the
screen
here.
The
demolition
of
the
building,
rather
than
the
restoration,
repair
or
stabilization,
is
not
in
keeping
with
these
standards
and
guidelines.
C
The
provincial
policy
statement
says
states
significant
built
heritage.
Resources
shall
be
conserved,
as
I
mentioned,
the
center
town
HTT
was
designated
in
1997
and
it
examines
the
cultural
heritage,
value
of
areas,
buildings
and
Street
scapes.
The
demolition
of
the
building
is
therefore
not
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement.
A
cultural
heritage
impact
was
submitted
by
the
applicant.
C
The
entire
statement
is
included
in
the
staff
report,
but
the
conclusion
is
that,
overall,
the
condition
of
the
existing
buildings
for
the
building
should
be
demolished
and
a
new
building
constructed
that
reflects
the
form
and
massing
of
the
original
front
portion
of
234
O'connor
Street,
as
specified
by
the
section
60
overlay.
A
structural
assessment
was
submitted
as
part
of
the
application
by
Claire
enjoy
being
engineering
limited.
C
The
department
retained,
John,
G
cook,
&
Associates
limited,
who
our
heritage
recently
specialists
to
provide
a
second
opinion
on
the
building
and
the
structural
assessment
that
was
provided
by
the
applicant.
The
two
reports
identify
similar
structural
concerns.
The
damage
to
the
building
was
caused
by
the
fire,
the
condition
the
poor
condition
of
the
Westbrook
wall
and
the
settlement
in
the
foundation,
but
the
reports
offer
differing
opinions
on
the
extent
of
the
damage
and
the
methods
through
which
they
should
be
repaired
rather
Jaycee.
The
John
Cooke
report
recommends
repair
and
restoration
of
every
mousseline
replacement.
C
C
The
conclusions
of
the
two
reports
are
on
the
screen
the
report
submitted
by
the
applicant
states.
Given
the
total
value
of
the
repairs,
it
does
not
cost
beneficial
to
salvage
her
property
deterioration
of
brick.
Farming
would
form
a
foundation.
Our
risk
to
public
safety
and
the
governor
should
be
done
should
be
demolished.
The
jong-kook
report
states
that
the
building
to
the
repair
the
damage
of
the
building
is
reasonably
repairable.
The
costs
of
repairs
should
be
weighed
with
the
building's
heritage
value
before
demolition
is
considered.
C
The
heritage
section
supports
the
findings
and
recommended
approach
to
repairs
identified
in
the
jong-kook
report
in
terms
of
consultation,
both
counsel
mckinney
and
the
central
town's
citizens.
Community
association
do
not
support
the
application.
Their
comments
are
included
in
the
staff
report
heritage
on
was--some
in
the
comments,
and
they
do
not
support
the
application.
I
think
their
comments
were
submitted
to
the
committee
neighbors
within
30
s
within
30
meters
of
the
property
were
notified
and
offered
the
opportunity
to
comment.
B
D
E
E
To
begin
the
presentation
I
just
want
to
make
one
clarification
based
on
the
presentation
that
was
done
by
staff.
The
current
owner
gemstone
has
only
owned
the
property
for
one
year
it
was
purchased
in
October
and
our
September
of
2015
I
should
say,
and
at
that
time
the
building
had
been
vacant
in
more
or
less
in
its
current
condition
from
the
fire
about
15
years
ago.
During
me
into
my
interim
time,.
E
In
the
preceding
winter,
or
the
subsequent
winter
that
we
just
had,
there
were
a
total
of
I
believe
12.
Freeze,
thaw
cycles
is
that
correct
now,
which
really
severely
deteriorated.
The
condition
of
the
building
gemstone
actually
purchased
the
building,
with
full
knowledge
that
had
heritage
like
a
degree
of
heritage
value,
but
also
with
the
intention
of
restoring
the
building
to
create
an
office
for
their
company.
E
Unfortunately,
after
doing
a
more
in-depth
analysis
of
the
condition
of
the
building,
it
became
very
clear
that
that
was
simply
not
financially
feasible
and
the
details
of
those
finances
are
detailed.
In
the
Commonwealth
report,
there
have
been
whispers,
of
course,
of
demolition
by
neglect
on
other
projects
in
center
town,
and
we
want
to
convey
the
message
that
this
is
not
demolition
by
neglect.
This
is
a
unique
circumstance
based
on
the
fire
that
have
fifteen
years
ago,
as
mentioned
it
was
sitting
vacant
for
the
15
years.
E
Due
to
this
unfortunate
circumstance,
it
was
an
uncontrollable
event
in
the
meantime,
in
in
the
time
with
owning,
the
building
gem
stone
has
complied
with
our
orders
from
building
services
and
and
has
even
up
until
this
week,
has
even
boarded
up
open
windows
and
painted
those
boards
to
reflect
the
color
of
the
building
these
kinds
of
things.
There
were
other
orders
that
were
given
by
building
services
this
past
Tuesday
just
two
days
ago,
so
gemstone
at
this
time
is
we're
just
waiting
to
see
the
results
of
these
applications
before
investing
too
much
money
in
it.
E
But
it
is
our
position
that
that
this
is
a
very
unique
circumstance.
The
the
second
report
that
was
created
by
John
Cook
for
the
planning
staff
is
effectively
misleading
because
it's
it's
incomplete
I
will
turn
it
over
to
John
Stewart
in
the
moment.
But
the
main
message
we
want
to
get
across
is
that
the
the
report
only
does
a
superficial
level
of
analysis.
E
F
Thank
You
Jamie
good
morning,
Commonwealth
prepared
the
CH
is
for
this
property,
and
this
mission
was
meted
to
the
city
at
meeting
with
me
with
the
city
officials,
we
were
asked
to
do
a
second
assessment
and
to
provide
cost
cost.
Estimates
are
clear.
The
cost
estimates
at
which
point
in
we
submitted
in
August
the
fourth
a
condition
report
and
cost
estimates,
so
we
have
completed
not
only
the
CH
is,
but
also
a
formal
condition
report
and
cost
estimate
at
the
request
of
the
city.
F
What
we
came
to
the
conclusion
condition
report
is
the
building
is
in
in
bad
condition.
A
lot
of
the
problem
stems
from
the
fact
that
it's
at
a
lick
for
15
years
after
a
fire,
the
interior,
is
completely
cleared
out.
It's
it's
right
down
to
the
studs
and
there's
been
a
problem
with
moisture.
Even
in
the
summer.
This
summer,
while
we
were
doing
our
inspection
of
the
the
basement
area
was
very
wet
in
this
year,
this
was
dry.
F
You
can
see
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
decay.
The
assessment
that
we
had
from
our
contractors
was
that
the
the
plate
supporting
the
building
the
the
wood
framing
of
the
building
around
the
whole
perimeter,
the
majority
of
that,
has
to
be
replaced
in
terms
of
the
Foundation's.
We
had
a
contractor
look
at
those
and,
in
fact
the
car
they
be.
His
assessment
is
not
that
they
can
be.
They
have
to
be
completely
rebuilt,
the
the
footings
and
thought
there's
there
are
no
footings.
F
F
The
the
framing
the
wood
framing
is
does
not
meet
code
it
in
mr.
crooks
report.
He
suggests
that
it,
because
it's
all
growth
wood,
that
it's
can
can
support
the
the
the
structure.
But
in
fact
we
all
know
that
the
building
code
doesn't
recognize
old
growth,
wood
and
you
have
to
bring
it
to
certain
standards.
F
So
there
is
a
fair
amount
of
work
required
in
terms
of
reframing,
the
building,
a
big
that
we
found
and
is
the
issue
of
the
brick
siding
and
the
fact
that
the
connection
between
the
brick
and
the
frame
has
has
deteriorated
to
the
point.
Mr.
cook
points
out
that
if
it's
quite
severe
on
East
facade,
but
he
doesn't
mention
the
buckling
on
the
east
or
the
west,
the
idea
of
the
two
sides-
the
north
and
the
south.
In
fact,
there
is
buckling
that
there
is
separation
and
the
requirement.
F
Based
on
the
fact
that
the
the
quality
of
the
construction,
the
severity
of
the
damage
to
the
brickwork
and
the
fact
that
it
has
to
be
replaced.
The
fact
that
the
interior,
the
framing
it's
a
blue
frame,
it's
it's
they're
using
sawdust
for
insa.
Are
they
use
sawdust
for
insulation,
the
it's
the
sawdust
is
wet
its
moist.
It's
holding
the
moisture,
there's
a
lot
of
decay
as
a
result
of
that.
F
F
The
other
aspect
that
we
we
took
into
consideration
is
the
fact
that
there
is
a
under
Section
60.
There
is
a
heritage
overlay
and
that
the
replacement
building,
whether
it's
the
replacement
of
this
one
as
the
city,
is
suggesting
in
terms
of
rebuilding
it
and
retaining
it
which
you
will
recoup
while
rebuilding
I.
Think
mr.
mr.
kuffs
report
is
very
misleading
in
the
extent
of
the
damaged
or
completely
rebuilt,
building
we'll
take
the
form
in
the
mass
that
is
existing
there.
F
So
it
was
our
sense
that
there
was
a
the
city,
would
would
have
a
structure
that
would
replicate
and
be
part
and
parcel
of
the
streetscape
similar
to
what
has
happened
across
the
street
with
the
the
building
that
was
we
rebuilt
on
is
quite
quite
an
interesting
piece:
it's
not
a
heritage
interpretation,
but
it
is
a
good
form
in
mass
and
fits
very
nicely
under
the
streetscape.
Make.
B
E
E
Okay,
just
a
couple
of
images.
The
committee
has
already
seen
this
image,
of
course,
of
the
current
condition.
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
that
gemstone
actually
has
a
well-documented
history
of
restorations
for
heritage
buildings.
Most
recently,
252
Argyle
Street
will
function
as
their
their
business
office.
This
is,
of
course,
located
also
in
centre
town
and
is
about
98%
complete
at
this
time.
This
is
a
rendering
of
what
it
will
look
like
another
example
being
three
Leonard.
E
And
that
this
is
an
actual
photograph,
not
a
rendering
and
the
third
being
187
Billings
Avenue,
this
being
the
Billings
house,
which
was
recently
restored
to
great
fanfare,
I,
understand
and
appreciation
from
the
community
a
couple
of
photographs
of
the
building
itself.
Of
course,
some
of
the
masonry
on
the
side,
the
condition
of
the
brickwork
again
and
then
the
foundation.
This
is
a
view
into
the
basement.
These
are
included
in
the
Commonwealth
report
as
well.
There
is
the
question
as
well
on
proportionality.
E
The
reality
is
this
is
a
small
building
and
you're
likely
only
I'll
just
pull
the
photo
up
given
the
size
of
the
building
and
there's
no
parking
space
on
the
property.
The
reality
is
that
there's
probably
only
about
a
thousand
square
feet
of
leasable
space,
so
the
question
arises
as
to
how
much
investment
would
be
required
for
what
kind
of
return
and
understanding
is
that
this
is
completely
disproportionate.
E
Based
on
the
financial
analysis,
the
speaking
shoe
the
landscaping
treatment
quickly,
the
the
idea
being
that
no,
this
is
not
an
ideal
situation
to
have
a
demolition
I
understand
that
there
is
always
concern
about
the
missing
children.
So
to
speak,
but
the
long-term
plans,
given
the
images
I
just
showed
you
know,
gem
stone
is
a
respected
developer
in
the
city.
The
long-term
plans,
as
gem
stone
also
owns
the
parking
lot
adjacent,
is
to
redevelop
this
property
as
a
all
three
properties,
I
should
say,
and
it
would
be.
E
Our
thought
was
that
it
would
be
disingenuous
to
provide
you
know
actual
plans.
There
seem
to
be
some
indication
that
if
there
were
plans
provided,
perhaps
the
situation
will
be
different,
but
we
didn't
want
to
mislead
the
committee.
We
didn't
want
to
mislead
the
community
into
thinking
there,
because
the
reality
is
that
the
market
is
simply
not
there
as
my
understanding
from
gemstone,
and
so
this
this
application
should
be
considered
on
its
own
merits
and
having
it
be
disproportionate.
E
B
G
You
hi
John
I've
known
John
for
many
many
many
years
so
I
guess
I
had
a
couple
of
concerns
about
some
of
the
comments
that
you
made
and
we
deal
with
old
buildings
here.
So
when
I
hear
comments
like
well
the
foundation,
it's
got
to
be
fixed
and
there's
a
lack
of
fittings
and
the
basement
is
wet.
This
is
every
old
building.
This
is
not
a
reason
to
look
to
consider
demolition.
G
It
was
a
small
building
when
you
bought
it,
it
didn't
have
any
parking
when
you
bought
it.
This
shouldn't
come
as
a
big
surprise
that
it's
a
small
building
with
no
parking,
so
I
just
want
to
make
it
clear.
From
my
perspective,
you
know,
75%
of
what
was
discussed
here
is
just
irrelevant.
Thank
you.
May
I.
F
B
A
D
Assessment
was
done
in
the
spring
when
we
noticed
considerable
increase
in
damage
from
the
first
assessment,
so
the
first
assessment
I
believe
was
late,
October
early
November
and
then,
when
we
went
back
in
in
June
the
crack
that
Jamie
showed
you
on.
One
of
those
pictures
was
not
there
in
the
spring
this
one
right
here.
This
was
not
there
when
we
bought
the
building,
but
it
was
there
in
a
story
in
the
fall.
That
was
not
there,
but
it
was
there.
A
D
A
The
assessment
that
you
had
done
in
the
spring
was
there
a
dollar
amount,
then
that
what
was
the
mm-hmm
I
know
that,
in
my
comments,
I
have
noted
that
you
know
it.
I
feel
it
is
demolition
by
neglect.
I,
understand
that
wasn't
your
neglect
for
15
years,
but
it
it's!
It
wouldn't
be
much
different
than
another
owner
of
another
building
in
Center
town
having
neglected
their
building
for
a
decade
and
selling
it,
and
that
person
coming
to
to
us
to
ask
for
some
relief
from
from
our
rules
from
our
heritage
rules.
I!
A
Think
that
you
know
for
me
it
so
I'm,
not!
You
know
when
I
talk
about
neglect,
I'm,
not
necessarily
talking
about
you
but
I,
do
think
that
the
signal
to
owners
of
heritage
buildings
has
to
be
that
you
know
you
need
to
keep
them
up.
You
can't
actually
sell
them.
If
you
don't
a
question
to
question
to
staff,
if
the
Heritage
overlay
does
kick
in,
there's
the
it's
it's
the
footprint
is
it
the?
Is
it
pretty
much
the
same
size
of
home?
The
same
number
of
stories
are
the
same.
A
C
The
demolition
of
the
building
would
require
no
variance
to
the
Heritage
overlay,
but
if
the
building
were
to
be
demolished
and
they
that
they
were
would
rebuild,
the
structure
would
have
to
have
the
exact
same
massing
or
they
would
need
a
variance
to
the
Heritage
overlay
and
that
would
go
through
the
committee
of
adjustment.
Okay,.
C
A
A
Okay,
I
do
go
back
to
the
fact
that
it
is
demolition
right
by
may
not
have
been
your
neglect,
but
it
was
a
decade
of
neglect
and
at
some
point
somebody
you
know
was
able
to
to
allow
this
to
happen,
to
sell
a
building
and-
and
today
you
know,
I'm
being
asked
to
ignore
that
fact,
and-
and
it's
very
difficult
for
me
to
do
to
do
so.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
H
Thank
you
have
two
questions,
one
to
my
colleague
John
Stewart
here,
and
it
has
to
do
with
your
observation
that
the
Cooke
report
was
incomplete
and
that
it
was
superficial.
I
have
a
high
regard
for,
but
also
have
a
high
regard
for
John
Cooke
and
I,
just
like
to
explain
a
little
bit
more
about
how
the
consultant
that
the
city
retained
to
do
a
kind
of
peer
review
was
incomplete.
I
was
worried
about
that.
F
Sorry,
basically,
it's
it's
areas,
for
example,
the
reference
is
that
to
the
plate,
and
the
fact
is
that
mr.
cook
indicates
that
to
put
the
plate,
there
may
be
some
deterioration
to
the
the
plate
and
in
fact,
from
our
investigation,
the
plate
is
is
mostly
deteriorated.
The
second
aspect
is
is
dealing
with
the
requirement.
F
The
shading,
the
wood
planking
is
nailed
at
right
angles
to
the
framing
modern
codes
does
not
permit
that
type
of
shading
installation
due
to
the
low
in
plane
rigidity.
The
implication
from
our
interpretation
of
that
would
be
to
install
a
plywood
diaphragm
to
the
exterior
of
the
building
to
improve
the
structural
and
environmental
performance
to
in
order
to
do
that,
you
have
to
remove
the
prick.
Another
aspect
of
it
is
brick
veneer.
Mr.
cook
identifies
the
west
wall.
F
He
describes
a
method
by
which
the
brick
is
held
in
place,
and
we
don't
disagree
with
that.
What
we
disagree
was
the
fact
that
there
has
been
so
much
moisture
and
that
reference
is
the
fact
that
that
that
the
nail
has
has
rusted
completely
rusted.
You
can
identify
that
the
locations
under
each
of
the
openings
you
can
see
the
buckling
and
the
damage
is
complete
to
the
point
that
virtually
two-thirds
of
the
of
the
building's
veneer
brick
veneer
has
dislocated
from
the
building
all
right.
Thank.
H
You
I
have
a
second
question.
This
one
is
to
staff
I
really
understand.
You
know,
as
has
been
part
of
the
presentations
that
Jeff
stone
recently
bought
the
building
and
at
the
for
at
least
14
years.
The
property
was
owned
by
the
previous
owner.
Who
did
nothing
about
stabilizing
it
or
protecting
it?
It
seems
I,
guess
my
question
to
staff
is:
why
were
there
no
reports
or
by
property
standards
like
what
happened
during
this?
Is
that
nobody
paid
attention
to
this
city
and
nobody
visited?
No
reports
were
produced.
C
Since,
as
far
as
I
know
that
that
is
correct,
since
August
there
has
been
orders
and
notices
issued
by
Building
Code
services
and
bylaw
services,
but
with
respect
to
why
there
hasn't
been
before
possibly
I
could
direct
that
question
to
I
know.
There's
Roger
Chapman
is
here
in
Matt
Graham
from
by
law
are
here,
so
maybe
they
would
be
better
suited
to
answer
that
question
it
because
you,
your
question
specifically
about
orders
and
yeah.
C
B
I
D
So
we
addressed
earlier
that
we
didn't
think
it
was
genuine
to
come
here
and
present
a
plan
that
we
weren't
going
to
deliver.
That's
not
our
style.
We
have
not
investigated
the
overall
development
plan,
short
of
a
couple
of
conversations
with
an
architect
who
felt
quite
comfortable
that
he
could
incorporate
what
we
would
be
forced
to
incorporate
into
an
overall
development.
We've
had
that
verbal.
We
have
not
put
renderings
together,
but
we
believe
that
that
mass
could
be
rebuilt
and
incorporated
into
an
overall
development
and.
I
I
Because
if
you're
going
to
incorporate
some
of
it
or
aspects
of
it
into
the
no
future
plan,
which
may
be
a
few
years
off,
I
agree
with
that.
But
this
has
been
waiting
15
years
now,
then
I'd
like
to
see
what
you're
planning
to
do
and
walk
it
in
at
least
to
a
degree
that
enough
degree
that
we
know
that
we'll
actually
do
that
before
we
allow
you
to
do
tomorrow's
the
building
of.
I
B
The
discussion
there
are
there
any
other
questions
for
the
speakers.
I
have
just
one
one
brief
question:
I
believe
it
was
mr.
Stewart
mentioned
the
freeze
and
thaws
that
occurred
over
the
course
of
the
winter
of
2016.
In
your
mind,
had
it
not
been
for
that
freestyle
cycle,
would
we
be
in
a
different
situation
today,
then
we
would
otherwise
have
been.
F
No
I
think
the
building
is
15
years
of
neglect.
It's
been
left,
it's
it's
open
to
the
weather.
Up
until
a
few
years
ago,
the
windows
were
still
open.
The
roof
there
is
moisture
continues
to
be
moisture.
The
the
problem
really
is
the
building
itself.
You
can
we
we've
costed
it.
We
know
we
can
restore
it.
D
B
That
I
thank
the
public
delegations
for
coming
forward.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
this
morning.
We're
gonna
go
back
now
to
the
question
that
vice-chair
Podolski
asked
Building
Code
as
to
whether
there
was
any
involvement
in
the
previous
time.
I
see
mr.
Chapman
at
the
desk.
So
is
that
a
question
you
can
answer?
Please.
D
D
B
B
B
D
C
I
think
the
comment
that
staff
has
on
the
reports
is
that
we,
we
reviewed
both
reports
and
there
is
a
difference
of
opinion
on
the
extent
of
the
damage
in
the
way
that
it
should
be
repaired,
but
I
don't
think
that
there's
I've
I,
don't
think
that
mr.
cooks
report
is
incomplete.
They
just
have
different
findings
about
the
approaches
to
be
taken
so,
okay.
Thank
you.
A.
D
C
H
That
is
not
gemstones
in
any
way
and
that's
why
I'm
reluctant
about
this,
but
I
do
support
the
staff
recommendation.
The
second
reason
that
I
support
the
staff
recommendation
is
that
empty
cultural
Harry's.
In
that
statement,
and
in
the
remarks
of
John
Cook,
it
is
clear
that
the
building
actually
can
be
rehabilitated
and
restored.
B
Ok,
thank
you
very
much
for
that
comment.
I
too
will
be
supporting
the
staff
recommendation
on
the
basis
of
two
rationales
that
the
first
is
the
applicant
acknowledged,
or
the
applicant
consultant
mayor,
acknowledged
that
the
state
of
the
building
in
the
fall
of
2015
was
in
the
opinion
of
the
applicant
and
the
consultants
already
in
a
state
where
they
felt
that
they
were
not
prepared
to
invest
the
required
resources
to
restore
it
and
that
the
winter
of
2016
wasn't
ultimately
a
meaningful
period
of
time
for
them.
B
So
I
think
for
me,
one
of
the
reasons
why
I'm
supporting
the
staff
is.
There
is
a
principle
here
of
buyer.
Beware
with
the
sale
occurring
just
a
month
before
the
the
more
extensive
engineering
report
happened
and
surely
one
would
expect
that
there
had
been
some
preliminary
investigation
before
the
sale
took
took
place.
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that
the
owner
was
aware
of
the
condition
of
the
building.
B
It
was
acknowledged
that
the
owner
was
aware
that
this
building
was
sitting
in
a
heritage,
conservation,
district
and
so
clearly
there
were
no
surprises
on
either
of
those
fronts
for
the
new
owner
when
they
purchased
the
building,
which,
admittedly
had
declined
to
a
great
extent
during
the
period
of
a
different
owner.
But
I
think
that's
the
first
point
and
I
think.
B
So
I
think,
for
both
those
reasons,
I'm
going
to
be
supporting
the
staff
report,
so
I
see
no
other
requests
for
intervention
so
on
the
staff
recommendation
to
refuse
the
application
to
demolish
2
3
4
o'connor
street.
Is
that
recommendation
code?
Okay,
thank
you
and
thank
you
for
the
public
delegations
for
coming
this
morning.
Okay,
let's
turn
to
item
2,
which
is
an
application
for
demolition
and
new
construction
at
580
Mariposa
Avenue
a
properly
designated
under
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
the
Rockville
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District.
C
Okay,
the
application
this
application
is
for
demolition
and
new
construction
at
580
Mariposa,
a
property
designated
under
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
the
market
for
Heritage
Conservation
District
staff
are
recommending
approval
of
the
demolition
and
new
construction.
The
existing
house
is
on
the
screen
here.
It
was
built
in
1952,
it's
a
two-story
stucco
building
with
a
double
garage.
It's
located
on
the
south
side
of
Mariposa
at
the
corner
of
Roxboro
Avenue,
here's
a
view
of
the
Mariposa
streetscape,
the
HCD
guidelines
state.
C
The
demolition
should
be
recommended
for
approval
only
where
the
existing
building
is
of
little
significance.
This
property
was
not
identified
as
having
any
architectural
or
historical
significance,
so
the
department
had
no
concerns
with
the
application
to
demolish
the
structure.
The
African
proposes
to
replace
the
structure
with
a
contemporary
two-story
structure
with
a
shallow
hipped
roof,
the
building
will
face
Mariposa
Avenue
and
will
have
an
integrated
garage.
C
Here's
a
safe
plan
of
the
new
building
it
would
be
located
further
back
from
aunt
pose
Avenue
than
the
existing
building
was
and
will
occupy
roughly
the
same
footprint.
The
proposed
landscape
will
maintain
all
the
two
of
the
properties
existing
mature
trees,
which
were
identified
by
an
arborist
as
being
in
poor
condition.
C
The
Department
recommends
approval
of
the
demolition
of
the
existing
building
and
construction
of
the
new
building,
the
orientation
height
and
massing
of
the
building
are
compatible
with
the
character
of
Mariposa
Mariposa
Avenue.
It
is
constructed
of
natural
materials
and
has
a
contemporary
design,
which
uses
varied
forms
and
glass
to
break
up
the
massing.
The
significant
landscape
features
and
existing
grades
will
be
maintained.
The
proposal
meets
the
guidelines
of
the
1997
rock
cliffs
Park
HCV
study,
and
it
says,
and
is
consistent
with
the
direction
of
the
new
rock
coast
park.
Hcd
plants.
B
B
G
I'm
just
say:
I'm
generally
in
support
of
the
plan.
Your
plan,
I
just
had
a
question.
If
you
look
at
the
previous
dwelling,
that
was
there,
it's
sitting
at
grade
has
gosh
and
it's
sitting
at
grade.
Your
proposed
well
amy
has
a
series
of
stairs
going
up
to
it
and
I
believe
that
in
discussion
with
community,
when
they
asked
you
about
the
possibility
of
not
having
the
building
up
as
high,
you
said
that
it
was
a
cold
related
issue
that
caused
you
to
do
it.
So
it's
just
wondering
what
part
of
the
code
would.
J
The
the
existing
home
sits
almost
directly
alright
great,
so
there
is,
there
are
requirements
in
the
code
where
you
do
need
to
have
a
certain
height
where
the
wood
framing
starts
above
great.
Currently,
the
house
doesn't
doesn't,
doesn't
really
have
that
I
mean
that's
to
protect
the
wood
from
moisture.
J
That's
not
the
reason
why
we're
high
in
the
air,
because
currently
we
have
fairly
minimal
with
the
width,
but
the
foundation
coming
out
of
the
ground
I
believe
it's
only
point
three
of
a
meter
over
the
foundation
that
comes
out
of
ground
the
series
of
steps.
Really
it's
it's
an
existing
site,
condition.
What
you
don't
see
there
is
the
what's
difficult
to
see
there
in
those
photographs
you
can
see
it
in
our
elevation.
J
J
J
G
J
It's
in
the
existing
floor,
joist
sit
in
the
foundation
wall
and
that's
not
how
we
would
build
this
today.
We
would
have
the
foundation
wall
that
the
wood
plate
would
sit
on
top
of
the
foundation
wall.
The
wood
floor
sits
on
top
of
that
plate
that
anchors
it
to
the
foundation.
The
foundation
wall
comes
out
of
the
ground,
a
minimally
six
inches.
That's
that's
a
building
code
requirement.
J
G
J
Something
from
the
driveway
D,
the
existing
house
comes
from
the
the
driveway
as
well.
They,
those
steps,
are
more
sort
of
integrated
into
the
landscape.
There's
the
odd
step
here,
there's
a
bit
of
a
slope
there.
It's
it's
it's
a
bit
ad
hoc
ours
is-
is
sort
of
consolidated
into
the
porch
expression
that
we
have
at
the
front.
So.
J
Are
the
other
than
possibly
another
six
inches
which
we
don't,
which
we
feel
doesn't
really
make
a
difference
in
terms
of
the
height?
We
did
have
it
a
bit
higher,
because
the
decline
did
want
larger
windows
in
the
basement.
However,
we
did
reduce
the
the
height
of
the
foundation
coming
out
of
grate
and
and
to
its
to
its
current
height.
Okay,.
B
B
Okay,
we're
moving
on
to
item
three,
which
is
an
application,
alter
the
Bethany
Hope
Center
at
11:40,
Wellington,
Street
West,
a
property
designated
under
part,
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
and
again
we're
going
to
call
on
staff.
This
is
very
helpful
by
the
way
just
to
give
to
help
give
us
a
brief
overview,
and
the
images
are
often
very
very
useful
since
they
are
in
black
and
white
in
our
reports.
B
K
Good
morning,
mr.
chair
members
of
the
committee,
the
application
before
you
today
is
for
building
some
or
all
of
you
may
remember.
The
designation
of
it
is
the
former
Bethany
Hope
Center
at
11:40
Wellington
Street
West,
which
is
designated
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
The
property
is
located
on
the
south
side
of
Wellington
Street,
just
west
of
Rosemont.
So
if
you're
familiar
with
the
Rosemont
library,
it
is
right
here
and
the
grace
Manor
hospital
or
I.
Guess
it's
not
a
hospital
anymore
long
term
care
center
is
here.
K
K
It
was
designated
under
par
for
the
act
as
a
good
example
of
an
early
20th
century
institutional
building.
It's
got
a
very
symmetrical
facade,
flat,
roof
evenly
spaced
windows
and
an
interesting
porch.
Just
to
show
you
some
photos.
This
is
the
front
facade.
This
picture
is
of
a
portion
of
the
rear
facade.
You
can
see
there's
some
construction
going
on
on
the
site
already,
but
the
building
itself
hasn't
been
altered.
Yet
this
is
the
East
facade
of
the
building,
and
this
is
the
West
facade.
So
there
is
currently
a
driveway
parking
area
here.
K
K
As
a
little
bit
of
background,
the
zoning
for
this
property
was
put
in
place
as
part
of
the
Wellington
West
community
design
plan.
There
was
an
appeal
to
the
proposed
zoning
by
the
Salvation
Army,
the
previous
owners
of
the
site
and
through
a
negotiated
settlement
with
the
City
of
Ottawa,
it
was
agreed
that
a
13-story
apartment
building
could
be
built
at
the
rear
of
the
Bethany
Hope
Center,
with
a
preservation
of
the
existing
building
and
the
front
lawn,
which
was
an
at
which
is
a
heritage
attribute
of
the
building.
K
So
that's
where
the
height
and
that
sort
of
thing
comes
from
just
has
some
background.
So
the
application
includes
the
construction
of
a
13
story,
apartment
building,
link
to
the
historic
building,
building
restoration
and
maintenance.
There
is
a
requirement
for
the
construction
of
a
firewall
to
link
the
new
between
the
link
of
the
new
and
old
and
those
that's
for
code
reasons,
alterations
to
the
front
facade
and
a
construction
of
a
new
entrance
along
the
West
facade
of
the
building.
So
just
to
show
you
the
site
plan,
the
like,
lighter
gray,
is
the
existing
building.
K
K
K
There
has
been
attention
given
to
the
idea
that
it
is
a
symmetrical
facade
and
trying
to
echo
some
of
those
details
in
the
proposed
new
building.
This
little
one-story
portion
over
here
is
a
new
entrance.
Vestibule,
which
you'll
see
in
the
renderings
later
is
a
glazed
entrance
that
will
allow
you
to
access
the
new
building
from
the
west
side
of
the
old
building.
Oh,
the
other
thing,
I
should
say
sorry
about
the
front.
K
K
This
is
the
rear,
so
you,
you
can't
see
the
historic
building
in
this
one,
and
then
this
is
the
West
facade,
so
the
glazed
entrance
vestibule
that
I
was
talking
about
earlier,
is
located
here.
So
we
just
setback
from
the
front
facade
of
the
building
and
will
provide
access
through
here
and
into
the
new
building.
So
you
don't
always
have
to
go
through
the
historic
building
to
access
the
new
and
again
you
can
see
the
link
here
and
on
top
of
this
link,
there
is
an
exterior,
an
outdoor
terrace.
K
These
are
perspectives
provided
for
illustration.
Only,
of
course,
the
plans
to
be
approved
are
based
on
the
elevations,
but
here
you
can
see
how
the
basement
has
been
dubbed
out.
There
are
stairs
flanking
either
side
here
to
provide
access
to
these
new
units.
The
front
lawn
has
been
retained
generally
in
its
excuse
me
in
its
entirety
as
an
open
space,
with
the
exception
of
some
new
walkways
and
required
emergency
access
that
had
to
be
paved
for
fire
access.
K
K
Heritage
attributes
of
the
Bethany
Hope
Center
meets
the
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
Historic
Places
in
Canada
and
to
issue
the
heritage
permit,
with
a
two-year
expiry
date
and
to
delegate
authority
for
minor
design,
changes
to
planning
and
growth
management,
I
believe
the
architect,
as
well
as
their
two
consultants
who
prepared
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
for
this
project
are
here
today
as
well,
so
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
The
committee
might
have.
G
You
it's
delightful
to
see
that
this
building
is
going
to
be
preserved
and
the
preservation
of
the
building
I.
Think
one
of
the
to
me,
one
of
the
main
characteristics
of
a
building
such
as
I
said
the
windows,
and
it's
had
two
tall
looking
at
the
existing
building
photos
that
I
see,
but
they
appeared
that
they
might
be
the
original
windows
stolen
front
facade
of
the
building
is
that
the
case
I.
G
Difference
is
that
the
ones
that
are
there
now
are
actual
divided
lights
or
true,
divided
lights,
and
the
proposal
is
for
simulated,
divided
lights
and
I
would
say
and
I
feel
it's
very
important
that
we
understand
the
difference.
If
you
look
at
a
building
like
that
for
some
people,
they
wouldn't
necessarily
notice
that.
G
But
anybody
who
knows
old
buildings
can
tell
right
away
you've
taken
the
character
of
the
building
away
when
you
put
simulated
or
fake,
divided
lights
in
and
they
are
a
fake
and
they
will
look
fake
and
I
think
that
they
really
detract
from
the
building.
So
my
question,
I
guess
is-
was
any
consideration.
G
It
is
very
simple
to
repair
historic
windows:
I
have
700
of
them
in
my
buildings,
I
have
all
original
windows
there's
no
reason
why
we
can't
get
thermal
performance
from
old
windows,
and
it's
also
labor
intensive,
as
opposed
to
buying
new
stuff
that
that
creates
employment.
So
was
any
consideration
given
to
preserving
and
restoring
the
existing
windows
in
the
building.
Thank
you,
I
think.
B
L
L
L
There's
a
couple
of
simple
ships
that
that
we've
taken
one
is
to
pull
the
entrance
to
the
side.
So
it's
glass
and
transparent.
You
can
actually
see
the
original
building
as
you
walk
around
it.
The
reality
is
leslie
mentioned.
There
were,
has
to
be
a
new
firewall
erected
so
that
the
existing
building
can
be
treated
as
part
9
and
we
can
allow
combustible
elements
to
be
included
into
it.
So
he
comes
right
down
to
the
issue
this.
The
question
that
mr.
L
Smallwood
raised
about
the
windows
and
they
are
proposed
to
be
simulated
by
the
light
and
while
I
share
his
enthusiasm
for
the
retention
of
the
wood
windows.
I,
don't
exactly
agree
with
his
assertion
that
it
cannot
be
looked
to
be,
took
to
be
credible
and
similar
to
the
true
divided
light.
So
that's
my
particular
opinion.
L
Mr.
castle
retained
the
windows,
there's
an
issue,
you
know
it's
it's
more
complicated
and
when
I
say
I
didn't
agree
with
mr.
Smallwood's
comments.
It's
not
like
siccing,
a
plastic
grille
in
the
front
of
the
window.
It's
in
fact
separations
that
are
neither
side
of
the
glass
the
glass
happens
to
go
through,
but
in
fact
it
can
look
credible,
one
else
and
in
terms
of
long-term
durability
and
maintenance.
G
It
does
I
guess
I
just
realized.
You
didn't
answer
the
question
that
I
asked
in
first
place,
which
was
was
consideration
given
to
restoring
them,
given
that
it
is
a
preservation
project,
so
was
consideration
given
I
I
realize
and
and
I
certainly
understand
being
the
owner
of
many
many
many
old
windows,
what's
involved
with
them
was
consideration
given.
I
L
I
I
know
in
our
church,
when
they
live,
a
fish
was
built
in
1839,
it's
a
very
old
building.
They
had
put
plywood
when
the
elements
are
there
over
the
door.
We
took
it
off.
We
found
the
original
19th
century
glass
there,
but
the
wood
had
deteriorated
and
they
actually
took
and
replaced
the
wooden
replace
the
glass
I
said
it
is
a
very
labor-intensive
thing
to
do,
but
I
certainly
know
what
can
be
done
and
it
it
reflects
a
lot
of
the
heritage
on
it.
L
L
However,
in
the
context
of
this
building,
which
is
a
modest
example
of
institutional
architecture
and
I,
say
me
modest,
I
believe
in
fact,
its
designation
has
more
to
do
with
its
social
stature
in
terms
of
what
it
did
in
terms
of
community
down
the
action
building
fabric
itself,
we
felt
that
they
replacement
with
a
simulated
divided
light
would
be
in
keeping
with
the
building.
Okay.
Thank
you.
D
B
G
G
I
know
people
believe
that
that
old
wood
windows
don't
last
very
long,
but
we
have
buildings
dating
to
the
1840s
that
have
the
original
wood
windows
under
there's,
no
maintenance
issues
other
than
regular
every
20
years,
painting
them
the
advantage
of
old
windows.
Is
they
can
be
maintained?
If
you
put
new
replacement
windows
in
there
will
have
to
be
thrown
out
when
the
seals
fell
on
them
was
historic.
G
Windows
can
be
maintained
indefinitely,
so
we
have
lots
and
lots
and
lots
of
examples,
and
it
does
make
a
big
difference
when
you
look
at
a
building
to
see
that
the
depth
and
the
character
of
the
original,
true
divided
lights.
So
I
would
like
to
know
that
when,
when
an
applicant
comes
forward,
we
make
every
possible
effort
to
the
retention
of
the
existing
historic
windows.
K
K
However,
when
replacement
is
proposed,
it
is
something
that
we
look
at
and
in
this
in
the
windows
that
were
being
proposed
for
wood
windows
with
simulated,
divided
lights.
The
windows
in
this
building
on
the
front
facade
are
generally
I
would
say
historic
windows
on
the
remaining
facades.
They
are
a
bit
of
a
mix
and
match
in
terms
of
the
types
of
windows
that
are
there
if
the
committee
so
wishes.
That
is
a
condition
that
could
be
added
to
the
approval
of
the
Heritage
permit.
G
B
Okay,
so
there
is
a
motion
that
legal
is
going
to
help
us
right
to
amend
the
staff
recommendation
to
include
a
condition
that
the
I
guess
North
facing
windows
or
the
front
windows
of
the
original
building
be
retained.
Could
we
just
get
a
sort
of
a
comment
from
staff?
A
reaction
to
that
proposed,
amended
motion,
I.
K
Haven't
seen
a
full
sort
of
window
by
window
evaluation
of
these
windows,
so
I
can't
speak
specifically
to
whether
or
not
it's
possible.
It
sounds
like
from
the
applicants
perspective
it
was
considered
and,
and
it
could
be
possible,
but
I
can't
speak
from
a
you
know,
an
expert
opinion
in
terms
of
the
possibility
of
that.
I
I
think
the
case
that
when
I
say
restained
I
think
that
can
also
be
repaired,
I
think
retain
with
just
being
repaired.
We're
required,
because
if
you
do
that,
then
any
window
can
be
repaired.
Frankly,
it's
it's
and
it's
just
a
front
facade,
because
that's
what
you
see
as
an
audience
do
it
on
the
side
of
the
back,
whichever
could
have
the
other
windows
on
it,
so
it's
sort
of
a
compromise
as
I
mean
yeah
I,
just
I
mean
I
was
put
in
there
in
1839,
making
sure
do
these
ones
yeah.
K
I
mean
staff
staff
recommended
approval
of
this
application
because
we
feel
that
the
proposed
windows
are
acceptable,
and
that
being
said,
they
are
historic
windows.
If,
if
the
committee
wishes
to
go
a
different
direction,
I
mean
presumably
it
could
be
possible
whether
or
not
it's
reasonable,
I'm,
not
sure
we're.
I
Not
always
reasonable,
thank
you,
so
I
think
mystic,
but
as
a
chair
I
would
I
would
support
having
just
the
front
facade
down
that
way,
because
I
think
that's
what
people
are
going
to
be
seeing
on
this
building
in
this
building,
because
it
has
a
big
front
lawn.
It
does
make
a
big
difference
visually
then,
what
more
so
than
other
buildings.
B
I'm
gonna
use
my
position
as
chair
to
try
and
come
up
with
a
potential
way
out
of
this.
So
what
if
we
did
the
following?
What
if
we
as
staff
direction
a
staff
to
look
into
providing
some
advice
to
us
on
the
issue?
The
retention
of
the
windows
I
feel
not
well
equipped
at
this
moment
to
vote
on
members
of
all
widths
suggested
emmmmm,
simply
because
I
don't
have
enough
information
on
the
condition
of
those
windows.
The
homogeneity
of
I,
just
don't
have
enough
information.
I.
Think
it's
fair
for
remember,
Smallwood,
to
ask
that
question.
B
I
see
that
the
deadline
for
this
heritage
application
doesn't
expire
until
December
the
7th,
which
would
give
us
the
potential
to
essentially
move
this
item
to
our
next
meeting
and
ask
that
staff
speak
to
the
applicant
and
come
back
to
the
committee
with
a
recommendation
on
the
treatment
of
the
windows.
I
would
feel
more
comfortable
doing
that,
simply
because
I
don't
feel
I'm
well-equipped
right
now
to
vote
on.
The
motion.
Remember
smoking!
Would
that
be
acceptable
to
you.
K
Yes,
I
do
understand,
I.
Think
that's
a
good
idea.
I
do
understand
that
the
applicant
is
hoping
for
to
get
going
on
construction,
so
I
would
suggest
that
an
option
for
the
committee
might
be
if
the
committee
is
accepting
of
all
of
the
other
aspects
of
this
proposal,
that
the
proposal
could
be
improved
with
the
exception
of
that
portion
and
that
we
could
come
back
with
respect
simply
to
the
windows
so
that
they
could
get
started
on
doing
building
permits
and
all
that
sort
of
thing,
since
winter
is
coming.
That.
B
Sounds
reasonable
to
me
so
I
guess
we
will
have
to
ask
I
mean
I,
guess
what
we're
doing
is.
We
are
approving
this
item,
with
the
condition
that
the
treatment
of
the
windows
will
come
back
to
the
November
7th
meeting,
I
believe
just
on
the
front
facade
okay.
So
when
we
do
this,
why
don't
we
prove,
although
I
think
there
was
a
before
we
get
there?
I
know
the
best
chair
had
a
comment
on
the
recommendation.
Trailer.
H
And
I
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I,
think
that,
in
the
background,
Leslie
Collins
talked
about
the
process
that
led
up
to
the
the
designation
and
the
rise
to
any
design.
Fine
I
would
just
like
to
underline
and
enhance
the
background
to
this
application.
This
is
exemplary.
Example.
That's
redundant
that
our
use
it
just
to
emphasize
is
because
sometimes
that
petition
is
good
city
expressed
its
intention
to
designate
this
building
based
on
its
own
evaluation
and
the
advocacy
of
the
Wagner
West
community.
H
Heritage
and
planning
staff
jointly
came
up
with
a
package
which
involved
the
realization
of
the
development
potential
and
the
density
of
the
property
that
was
embedded
in
the
existing
zoning,
but
which
ignored
the
existence
of
a
potential
heritage,
designation
and
the
space
in
front
of
it,
which
was
deemed
to
be
important
for
the
the
character
normally
long
history
but
the
the
building
itself,
namely
a
building
setback
in
the
street.
And
before
the
building
was
designated.
H
There
was
a
development
concept
and
a
conservation
strategy
for
the
whole
of
the
site,
including
a
parcel
of
land
further
to
the
west
past
the
little
hospital-
and
this
was
a
combined
effort
of
the
planning
department,
the
heritage
staff
and
the
Salvation
Army
to
come
up
with
a
package
world.
The
density
on
the
site
and
the
height.
H
The
building
that
we're
seeing
in
this
application
or
shall
we
say
pretty
approved,
and
what
you
have
here
as
outcome
of
a
wrong
process,
is
something
that
the
city
has
been
trying
to
do
for
many
years
and
has
now
achieved
on
a
number
of
properties
and
I.
Think
that
it's
important
to
underline
this.
That
heritage-
you
know,
designations,
don't
exist
in
isolation.
They
relate
to
the
land,
usin
and
planning,
and
urban
design
guidelines
that
are
in
place
to
make
our
heritage
part
of
the
city
planning
process.
H
So
I
consider
this
to
be
the
outcome
of
an
exemplary
process
and
the
owners
of
the
property
and
the
Arctic's
should
be
congratulated
on
this,
and
the
city's
heritage
staff
and
planning
staff
should
be
congratulated
as
well.
I
full
disclosure
here
I
played
a
small
part
of
this,
and
that
I
was
what
was
the
hardest
consultant
for
the
Salvation
Army
that
helped
put
this
package
together
and
I
think
that
it's
an
important
one
to
remember
as
we
move
forward
once
these
applications
come
in.
B
That's
correct,
I,
don't
know
if
I'm
gonna
be
able
to
find
language
to
capture
that
I
think
what
what
we're
hearing
is.
The
issue
of
the
windows
is
not
going
to
be
immediate
one
for
action
on
the
part
of
the
applicant
and
thus
a
decision
by
the
Committee
on
this
matter
a
month
from
now
will
not
impose
hardship.
Is
that
can
you
not?
If
that's
a
thank
you?
B
With
some
advice.
Having
spoken
to
the
applicant
on
the
matter,
and
of
course
the
committee
is
at
that
stage-
welcome
to
vote
in
whatever
way
it
wishes
about
I,
for
one
would
certainly
benefit
from
having
that
additional
intelligence.
So
can
we
now
vote
on
the
amendment
motion
with
that
new
paragraph?
Four?
Is
that
code?
Okay?
Great,
thank
you,
okay,
so
moving
on,
then.
Our
next
item
is
the
designation
of
307
Richmond
Road
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
G
B
Certainly
in
the
hands
of
if
committee
members
feel
that
they
have
enough
information
and
don't
need
to
hear
the
staff
presentation
in
the
interests
of
efficiency,
I'm
happy
to
go
straight
to
revoked
I
see
so
so
is
that
okay?
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
to
staff
for
preparing
the
presentation
that
some
future
part
okay.
So
our
last
item
is
updates
to
delegated
authority
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
So
these
are
some
modifications
that
staff
have
prepared
to
provide
greater
clarity
on
how
delegated
authority
works
again.
H
H
B
Districts
me,
this
is
a
technical
amendment
to
the
Richmond
Road
recommendation.
There
was
a
document
which
was
referred
to
incorrectly,
so
we
are
now
just
fixing
that
report
and
through
this
motion
that
the
vice-chair
is
put
forward.
That
is
Carrie
great.
Thank
you.
Okay,
so
any
notices,
a
motion,
nope
no
increase,
no
other
business.
We
are
adjourned.
B
Now,
our
next
meeting
is
Thursday,
the
10th
of
November.
There
are
no
items
currently
scheduled
for
that
meeting,
we'll
see
based
on
our
referral,
whether
we
need
to
have
that
that
meeting
or
and
I
will
keep
members
apprised
of
scheduling
for
that
in
the
December
meeting.
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
coming
out
this
morning.