►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – January 13, 2015
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee meeting – January 13, 2015 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
B
I
thank
the
public
members.
I
think
you
did
Yeomans
work
and
everybody
appreciated
the
effort
and
I
think
the
results
of
the
committee
speak
volumes
in
terms
of
its
success.
So
for
that
I
think
the
returning
members
I
also
thank
Jan
harder
who,
who
chaired
the
committee
with
aplomb
and
I,
have
big
shoes
to
fill,
but
with
your
help,
look
look
forward
to
to
guiding
the
committee
over
the
course
of
the
coming
months
and
years.
B
So,
in
terms
of
the
meeting
today,
we
have
two
agenda
items
that
we're
going
to
deal
with
and
then
under
other
business.
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
governance
report,
which
was
approved
by
council
at
the
beginning
of
December,
and
there
were
some
specific
items
related
to
the
committee
that
I
want
to
address
with
you
and
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
way
forward.
So
we'll
do
that
under
other
business,
but
before
we
get
to
the
two
agenda
items
we
have
to
do
a
few
items
of
business.
One
is
declarations
of
interest.
B
C
B
Great
okay,
so
let's
turn
then
to
first
item
of
our
agenda,
which
is
an
application
to
alter
the
Charles
Billings
house
at
187,
Billings
Avenue,
I'm
gonna
ask
staff
to
come:
join
us
at
the
table.
I
think
Leslie
Collins
is
going
to
provide
just
a
short
presentation
for
us
to
help
situate
this
application.
And
after
that
we
have
two
speakers.
Who've
asked
to
speak
to
the
committee
and
then
we'll
have
an
opportunity
for
discussion
as
well
good
afternoon.
Leslie
good.
A
Good
afternoon,
mr.
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
for
those
of
you
don't
know
me,
I
am
my
name-
is
Leslie
Collins
and
I'm,
one
of
the
heritage
planners
with
the
Harwich
section
of
planning
and
growth
management.
You
will
get
to
know
me
better
and
hear
my
voice
a
lot
and
sitting
next
to
me
is
my
colleague,
Ann
Fitzpatrick,
who
is
also
one
of
our
heritage,
minors,
our
faithful
leader,
Sally
coots,
is
out
sick
today.
So,
if
you
haven't
met
her
you'll
meet
her
next
time.
A
So
the
application
before
the
committee
today
is
an
application
to
alter
the
Charles
Billings
house
at
187,
Billings
Avenue.
The
property
is
designated
under
part,
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
the
Alta
Vista
neighborhood.
It
was
designated
by
this
committee
in
2013
and
it's
by
law
designating.
The
property
was
passed
in
the
beginning
of
2014,
so
I'm
just
going
to
show
you
a
few
photos
to
situate
you
to
the
property
it.
A
This
is
an
older
photo,
but
it
was
an
l-shaped
building
on
a
large
lot
at
the
intersection
of
Billings
Avenue
and
Cavendish
Street,
the
portion
of
the
building
that
was
designated
was
this
portion
here
that
I'm
holding
the
mouse
over
this
portion
was
demolished.
This
portion
at
the
back
was
also
demolished.
They
were
more
recent
additions
to
the
building
in
2013
the
property
owner,
applied
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
to
sever
the
property.
A
So
now
the
property
is
actually
two
Lots,
so
this
portion
is
gone
and
is
a
separate
building
lot
that
will
be
sold
as
a
building
lot
for
a
single-family
building.
I'll
show
you
some
photos
of
the
building.
I'll
just
go
back
for
one
second,
one
interesting
thing
about
this:
building
is
its
orientation
and
if
you've
read
the
report,
you
may
have
noticed
that
it
is
oriented
away
from
Billings
Avenue.
So
this
is
Billings
Avenue,
but
its
front
door
is
actually
here
facing
this
way.
It's
because
of
the
age
of
the
building.
A
It
predates
the
street
pattern,
so
it
was
never
oriented
to
the
street
because
the
street
wasn't
there.
This
is
a
picture
of
the
building.
Looking
towards
Billings
Avenue,
so
this
is
the
front
door
here
that
I
just
pointed
out,
as
you
can
see,
it's
a
one
and
a
half
story
gable
ended
structure
with
a
central
gable.
The
windows
have
been
covered
up
because
the
building
is
vacant.
This
is
where
one
of
the
additions
was
that
has
been
removed
from
the
building,
just
showing
you
some
of
the
details.
A
This
is
the
entrance
vestibule
that
is
included
in
the
designation
as
well
as
this
small
diamond
window.
It
is
a
fairly
simple
building
predates,
as
I
said,
predates
the
road
pattern
it
was
constructed
prior
to
1857.
We
don't
know
the
exact
date,
but
records
indicate
that
it
there
was
an
addition
constructed
to
it
in
1857,
so
we
know
it
existed
before
them
by
the
building's
family
and
it
was
owned
by
the
Billings
family
all
the
way
up
until
the
1960s
when
it
was
sold
to
Z.
A
It's
only
had
three
owners,
so
the
current
owner,
the
previous
owner,
who
owned
it
from
the
60s
until
2013
and
the
Billings
family.
This
is
the
back
of
the
building.
Again,
it's
very
difficult
to
take
photographs
of
it
because
of
its
orientation
and
the
trees
and
and
all
of
that
sort
of
thing,
so
you
can
see
that
the
portion
of
the
building
has
been
removed
here.
A
This
is
the
large
garage
edition
that
formed
sort
of
the
L,
so
the
application
is
before
the
committee
today,
because
the
building
is
designated
under
part,
four
of
the
Heritage
Act
and
all
applications
to
alter
designated
heritage
buildings
require
approval
by
City
Council.
The
application
that's
before
the
committee
today
is
to
demolish
approximately
20%
of
the
designated
portion
of
the
building
and
construct
an
addition
at
what
I'm
calling
the
rear
of
the
building
in
terms
of
a
lot
and
how
it
is
Billings
Avenue.
A
So
this
is
the
site
plan,
I
flipped
it
just
so
I
could
make
it
larger.
Billings
Avenue
runs
here
along
the
right-hand
side
of
the
screen,
so
this
is
the
front
door
portion
that
I
was
talking
about
here
in
the
center.
The
hash
portion
here
is
the
portion
that
is
proposed
for
demolition,
whether
the
reason
for
that
was
to
protect
this
large
mature
tree
in
the
rear
yard.
A
A
So
this
is
the
North
elevation
of
the
building,
so
looking
at
it
from
the
back
of
the
house
on
the
top
here,
so
you
can
see
that
the
roofline
is
sort
of
irregular
but
mimics
the
existing
roofline
and
being
a
gable
roof
with
intersecting
Gables
great,
a
large
amount
of
glazing
proposed
to
be
wood,
clad
with
windows
that
are
different
than
the
existing
windows,
but
sympathetic
in
their
character
and
then
the
west
facade.
So
this
is
looking
at
the
ave,
the
rear
of
the
original
house.
A
So
on
the
other
side
of
this
gable,
where
I've
got
the
arrow
is
the
front
entrance.
So
this
is
the
portion
here
that
has
been
removed
at
the
end
here
and
then
what
you
see
here,
this
one-story
glass
link,
is
the
link
between
the
portion
of
the
building
and
the
new
portion.
So
it's
a
flat
roof
one-story
breezeway
that
links
the
two
and
then
this
is
so.
This
is
the
top
image
is
if
you're
standing
on
Billings
Avenue
looking
at
the
property.
A
So
you
see
the
end
of
the
historic
building
here
and
then
this
is
the
the
new
portion
of
the
house
here.
So
there's
the
little
gable
over
the
front
door,
the
existing
chimney
there's
a
proposal
to
add
two
windows,
one
on
either
side
of
the
in
the
historic
portion
of
the
building
and
then
there's
final
image
on
the
bottom
shows
looking
at
the
front
door
of
the
building
in
the
entrance.
The
entrance
vestibule
is
here-
and
this
is
the
other
side
of
that
one-story
glass
link
that
I
showed
you
in
the
previous
slide.
A
So
the
portion
of
the
building
to
be
demolished
is
here,
as
you
can
see,
the
addition
to
the
building
is
proposed
to
be
higher
than
the
original
building
to
the
roof.
Ridge,
it's
seven
point.
Eight
meters
in
the
existing
is
six
point.
Two
I
should
say
also
sorry
that
the
materials,
the
original
building
the
wood
siding
is
proposed
for
restoration.
Where
it
can't
be
restored,
it
will
be
replaced
in
kind
with
new
wood
siding
to
match.
A
A
These
are
just
a
couple
of
perspectives
to
show
you
again.
They,
as
as
some
previous
members
of
the
committee
may
remember,
these
renderings
can
sometimes
be
slightly
misleading,
but
they
are
meant
for
illustrative
purposes.
You
can
see
in
the
bottom
right
hand
corner
here.
The
original
building
is
outlined
in
red
dashed
line.
It's
a
bit
difficult
to
see
because
of
the
light,
but
so
it's
outlined
in
a
red
dashed
line,
and
then
the
addition
can
be
seen
here.
So
a
new
driveway
will
be
brought
in
off
of
Billings
Avenue.
A
So,
as
I
said,
the
building
is
designated
on
the
prep
for
the
Heritage
Act.
The
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value
is
included
as
document
3
of
the
staff
report.
It
was
designated
as
a
relevant
Acula
example
of
the
Ontario
cottage
style
and
associated
with
the
development
of
Billings
bridge,
and
it
has
contextual
value
for
its
orientation
away
from
the
street.
A
So
these
are
the
values
that
we're
looking
at
in
terms
of
how
the
proposal
impacts
the
identified
cultural
heritage,
value
of
the
property,
its
heritage
attributes,
so
that
it's
one
and
a
half
stories
in
height
has
a
side
gable,
roof
with
a
central
gable.
It's
what
in
siding
the
entrance
vestry,
which
I've
spoken
about
with
the
diamond-shaped
window,
the
other
window
openings
and
it's
orientation
away
from
the
street.
A
So
when
we're
evaluating
these
applications,
we
use
the
document
that
I
just
described
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value,
but
we
also
use
a
document
called
the
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
Historic
Places
in
Canada,
which
is
Parks
Canada
document
that
has
been
approved
by
City
Council
as
the
standard
for
folk
projects
for
assessing
these
applications.
So
I
have
picked
out
the
standards
that
are
applicable
to
this
project
standard
one
can
serve
the
Harwich
value
of
this
historic
place.
A
Senate
11
can
serve
the
Heritage
value
in
creating
any
new
additions
to
a
historic
place,
so
in
this
instance,
staff
have
determined
that
the
addition
is
compatible
through
its
maceió
materials.
The
historic
building
remains
the
dominant
presence
and
the
glazed
one-story
link
provides
a
clear
differentiation
between
the
new
and
the
old
standard,
12
and
again,
I've
removed
some
of
the
words
because
it's
very
long
but
create
any
new
additions
so
that
the
historic
place
will
not
be
prepared
if
the
new
work
is
removed.
A
In
this
instance,
demolition,
four
meters
of
the
existing
building
will
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
massing
and
will
impair
the
character
of
the
building
if
the
new
work
is
removed.
But
the
proposed
blaze
link
allows
the
historic
building
to
read
as
a
distinct
entity.
So
while
it
doesn't
completely
meet
that
standard,
it
is
deemed
to
be
appropriate
document.
Seven
of
the
staff
report
is
a
cultural
heritage,
an
impact
statement
prepared
by
Robertson
Martin
architects
for
the
applicant.
A
The
conclusion
of
the
chiz
is
that
demolition
of
approximately
30%
of
the
original
structure
is
a
negative
impact,
but
it
is
deemed
acceptable,
given
the
existing
conditions
and
the
rest
of
that
statement
goes
on
to
talk
about
the
condition
of
the
existing
building.
The
fact
that
it
has
been
neglected
for
many
many
years
with
deferred
maintenance,
etc
and
really
needs
a
lot
of
work.
A
So
this
this,
you
will
note,
says
20-30
percent
and
as
a
result
of
this
statement
and
working
with
the
applicant,
the
applicant
has
reduced
that
amount
of
demolition
to
20%
of
the
building
terms
of
consultation,
councillor
Cloutier's,
aware
of
the
application
and
is
here
today,
heritage
Ottawa
was
notified.
The
application
and
it's
comments
are
included
in
this
staff
report
and
I
believe
you
also
have
been
circulated
for
their
comments
from
a
heritage.
A
Ottawa
neighbors
within
30
metres
of
the
property
were
notified
and
I
believe
there
have
been
several
comments
submitted
and
the
Fair
crest,
Heights
and
Alta
Vista
community
associations
were
notified
of
the
application.
I
know
there
were
comments
from
the
Alta
Vista
Community
Association
submitted
to
rosemary,
so
the
staff
recommendation
is
to
approve
the
application
to
alter
issue.
The
Heritage
permit
was
a
two-year
expiry
date
and
delegated
authority
for
minor
design,
changes
to
planning
and
growth
management
and
just
for
the
benefit
of
the
new
members.
The
minor
design
changes
times
emerge
through
the
building
permit
process.
A
If
this
application
is
approved,
this
would
help
the
app
could
not
have
to
come
back
through
the
whole
approval
process
again
to
change
a
new
window
or
something
small.
It's.
If
the
proposed
change
changes
the
intent
of
the
approval,
then
they
would
have
to
come
back
through
the
process
again
and
that's
it
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
of
things
that
I
may
have
missed
and
assumed
that
you
knew,
but
maybe
don't
know.
Okay.
B
D
Thank
you
very
much.
Leslie
the
one
of
the
Heritage
attributes
of
the
property
is
listed
as
the
stone
foundation
and
very
familiar
stone
foundations.
Over
the
years
we've
restored,
many
of
them,
including
ones
from
the
1840s,
so
I'm
a
little
disappointed
in
the
wording
of
the
report
where
it
says
that
new
foundation
will
ensure
the
ongoing
stability
of
a
heritage
resource
which
implies
that
getting
rid
of
stone
foundations
somehow
is
a
positive
feature
in
all
buildings,
which
I
would
very
strenuously
object
to
many
buildings.
D
In
fact,
all
of
our
buildings
that
we've
restored
the
foundations
and
they
will
last
indefinitely
so
I'm
I-
would
have
thought
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
something
in
your
report
explaining
why
this
foundation
can't
be
restored,
and
that
may
well
be
the
case,
but
there's
no
photos
and
no
particular
verbiage
explaining
why
it
can't
be
restored.
Thanks.
A
Through
mr.
chair,
the
replacement
of
the
stone
foundation
was
a
concern
of
mine
when
the
application
came
in
originally,
however,
I
have
when
we
designated
this
property,
it
was
a
threat
of
demolition.
We
had
a
demolition
application
in
and
it
was
a
a
quick,
quick
designation
which
is
not
necessarily
always
the
most
thorough.
So
upon
revisiting
this
property
and
looking
again
at
its
foundation
as
I
said,
it's
a
very
early
building,
it's
also
a
very,
very
rough
building.
It
was
not
built.
A
You
know
it's
sort
of
a
pioneer
Seibel
style
building
that
does
not
mean
that
it
it's
stone
foundation
should
be
removed.
Just
you
know,
by
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
it's
old
and
rough,
but
the
proponent
had
determined
that
the
stone
foundation
was
beyond
repair
for
their
purposes
and
as
the
storm,
our
nation
is
not
actually
visible
from
the
exterior
of
the
building,
which
speaks
to
the
fact
that
this
demolition
or
this
designation
was
done
rather
quickly.
A
E
Thank
You
mr.
chair
on
the
whole
I
think
that
the
proposal
is
a
sensitive
expansion
to
this
designated
historic
building
and
I.
Think
that
it's
going
to
ensure
that
the
neighborhood
you
know
sees
the
continuance
of
the
the
legacy
of
the
Charles
Billings
house.
I.
Think
that
the
way
in
which
the
new
addition
is
connected
to
the
surviving
80%
of
the
historic
building
I
think
is
as
well
done
so
on
the
whole.
I
think
that
the
staff
report
is
something
that
I
could
support.
E
A
Would
just
say
three
mr.
chair
that
I
believe
that
is
the
intention
of
the
applicant
is
to
restore
the
wood,
siding
where
there
are
certain
sections
of
it
where
the
demolition
of
the
other
portions
of
the
building
has
occurred,
where
it
won't
be
able
to
be
restored.
But
it
will
be
replicated
in
kind
and
in
terms
of
windows,
the
window
openings
part
of
the
designation,
so
they
will
be
protected
and
the
new.
A
B
C
Martha,
thank
you
just
while
I
realize
that,
when
having
onto
heritage
bone
that
you
want
to
have
some
delineation
between
what's
new
and
what's
old,
I'm
just
curious
as
to
why
we
couldn't
have
done
more
to
maintain
the
symmetry
of
the
house
and
the
location
with
how
the
the
gable
entrance
was
was
essentially
located.
Now,
it's
kind
of
almost
tucked
away,
especially
when
you
look
at
it
from
the
front
stand
boys
just
kind
of
off
to
the
side
and
even
from
standing
in
lane
way.
It's
not!
C
A
Maybe
something
also
that
the
architects
can
speak
to
you.
They
are
here
today,
but
the
symmetry
is
definitely
something
that
we
considered.
It
wasn't
included
as
a
heritage
attribute
in
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value
because,
as
I
said,
the
building
was
expanded
in
1857,
so
the
original
building
actually
wasn't
symmetrical.
But
it's
pretty
close.
What
you
see
there
now
is
pretty
close
to
being
symmetrical.
It's
not
exactly
symmetrical,
but
it's
something
that
I
pushed
the
applicant
on
and
we
got
closer
to
it.
A
B
F
Thank
you
very
much
and
if
I
may
beg
your
indulgence
for
a
moment,
I
would
just
like
to
take
a
few
moments
to
wish
all
of
you
happy
new
year
and
to
thank
you
very
much
for
volunteering
to
return
to
this
committee,
the
citizen
members
and
councillor
Moffat
to
return,
and
also
to
thank
the
new
counselors
for
joining
this
committee.
This
committee
had
a
great
deal
of
success
in
it's
a
short
incarnation
and
I
expect.
F
The
next
four
years
will
also
be
successful
and
heritage
Ottawa
commits
to
supporting
this
committee
as
much
as
possible,
and
also
to
thank
staff
for
all
of
their
work.
So
thank
you
to
return
to
187
Billings
overall
I
heard
it
all
does
support
this
application.
I
think
they've
done
a
brilliant
job,
putting
an
addition
onto
a
site
that
is
very
difficult
to
deal
with
very
difficult
indeed,
and
I
want
to
thank
this.
F
Thank
you
for
raising
some
of
the
questions
that
we
raised
in
our
original
comments
on
the
drawings.
My
one,
my
last
comment
is
it's
amazing
like
nitpicking,
but
I.
Think,
for
the
sake
of
making
a
well-informed
recommendation,
I
it's
worth
noting
and
I.
Think
councilman
Moffitt
touched
on
it
when
he
questioned
the
loss
of
centrality
of
the
original
structure,
the
20%
that's
being
lost
that
20%
isn't
being
lost
to
say
the
significant
tree.
It's
nowhere
near
the
significant
tree,
it's
being
lost
to
accommodate
the
building
space.
F
If
that's
the
reason,
then
then
then,
let's
frankly
say
that
I
mean
we
may.
Council
may
has
the
right
to
partially
demolish
a
heritage
property,
but
let's
make
sure
that
the
reasoning
is
the
correct
reasoning
similar
to
account
such
as
a
members.
Small
words
comment
that
we're
not
removing
the
foundation
because
it's
structurally
flawed,
because
the
report
doesn't
say
that
we're
not
removing
this
20%
because
it's
structurally
flawed
we're
removing
it
because
it's
where
we
want
the
new
construction
to
go
right.
Okay,
that's
the
only
clarification,
I
I'm!
Looking
for
here!
Thank
you.
Okay,.
B
G
So
I'll
touch
briefly
on
the
question
that
was
raised,
particularly
regarding
the
the
mere
symmetry
of
the
existing
house
and
the
rationale
for
for
the
design
that
we
ultimately
proposed.
The
retention
of
the
tree
in
the
rear
yard
is
one
of
the
factors
that
was
raised
through
the
through
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
that
was
produced
by
Robertson
Martin
architects.
G
C
G
We,
when
we
took
on
the
latest
iteration
of
the
design,
with
the
view
to
retain
as
much
of
the
of
the
existing
structure
as
possible,
while
also
retaining
the
the
integrity
of
our
design
intention
to
to
keep
the
Heritage
House
at
the
prominent
location
on
the
site.
If
you
look
at
the
site
plan,
you'll
see
we,
we
took
the
new
addition
and
pushed
it
as
far
back
on
the
site
as
the
zoning
for
a
while.
G
So
the
rear
of
the
proposed
addition
goes
right
to
the
wheel
off
reset
back
and
what
we
we
found
is
that
there's
80%
that
allows
us
80%
allowed
with
that
strategy,
and
we
thought
it
was
important
to
retain
the
the
glass
link
between
the
new
structure
and
the
old
to
create
a
distinct,
a
distinction
between
the
two
again.
This
this
aspect
pushed
the
was
freaky
back
on
the
site
so
to
fit
within
the
existing
zoning
envelope
we've
found.
We
believe
this
is
the
balance
between
retention
of
existing
building
and
the
proposal
of
the
new
CEO.
C
G
Looked
at
two
essential
strategies:
looking
at
the
site,
there's
two
ways
that
we
view
to
to
cite
an
addition
on
this
building.
One
was
to
build
next
to
the
building
to
build
west
of
it,
which
would
allow
for
a
hundred
percent
retention.
The
other
was
to
build
behind
which
doesn't
allow
for
a
hundred
percent
retention.
G
So
those
two
strategies
looking
at
where
the
real
amount
of
site
was
to
either
build
behind
or
build
beside.
We
felt
a
preferable
to
build
behind
when
looking
at
all
of
the
heritage,
but
the
stated
Heritage
attributes
together
and
and
one
of
the
most
significant
being
its
orientation
away
from
the
street
is
one
of
the
cultural.
C
I'm
fairly,
certain
you
could
have
designed
something
like
that
and
retain
an
option.
The
building
I
mean
I've,
seen
all
the
things
that
that
big
architects
does,
with
all
the
applications,
come
forward
and
I'm
fairly
certain
that
you
couldn't
come
up
with
something
that
stayed
within
your
setbacks
and
kept
one
percent
of
the
building
and
built
on
the
rear
and
have
the
garage
I
so
anyways.
You
know
what
the
answer
that,
because
I
mean
you've
already
stated,
but
just
what's
my
paid.
G
B
H
H
You
I
live
in
a
neighborhood
I
submitted
comments,
but
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
moment
to
address
a
committee.
This
is
a
really
historic
house,
one
of
the
few
remaining
in
the
neighborhood
and
I
really
appreciated
it
so
as
designated
a
heritage
house,
and
it
is
nice
to
see
that
people
wanted
to
bring
it
back
up
to
status
again.
However,
I
want
to
point
out
and
even
further
the
point
of
miss
Leslie
mate,
we're
not
reducing
the
house
by
20%
to
save
a
tree
but
doing
it
to
build
new
addition.
H
But
I
think
counsel
should
know
that
the
lot
was
on
a
double
lot.
There
was
there
is
one
of
the
biggest
lots
on
the
street,
but
the
developer
and
purchased
the
property
chose
to
separate
there
by
limiting
his
own
expansion
room
because
he
wanted
to
put
two
buildings
on
it.
It
could
easily
have
had
a
building
to
decide
connecting
the
two
as
sue
said.
H
Building
to
the
west
excuse
me,
so
it
appears
to
us
as
people
who
neighborhood
that
the
developer
is
just
attempting
to
maximize
his
profits
by
building
two
houses
on
the
property
and
thereby
and
taking
part
of
the
heritage
property
that
was
just
created.
Heritage
service.
I.
Just
don't
understand
why
they're
allowed
to
moreish
any
of
the
property.
The
expansion
room
was
known
beforehand.
Developer
chose
to
sever,
but
then
he
has
to
do
within
the
limitations
to
retain
100%
of
the
heritage.
Building.
H
B
D
D
B
I
Thank
You
mr.
chair
and
congratulations
on
your
chairmanship
and
want
to
thank
staff
for
being
the
counselors
so
well,
and
I
just
want
to
bring
to
the
attention
of
the
committee.
If
I
may
that
this
this
development
is
compliant
in
in
all
way,
shape
and
form
of
setbacks
and
and
other
requirements
of
the
Planning
Act.
It's
simply
that
the
heritage
designation,
I've
consulted
with
the
community
there's
members
of
the
Alta
Vista
Community
Association
here
that
could
speak
if
required
to
this
to
this
application.
I
I
think
the
the
developer
the
owner
has
has
made
an
effort
to
in
dialogue
with
with
our
staff,
to
to
alter
the
design
from
a
30%
removal
rate
to
a
20%
removal
rate
and
and
the
effort
to
to
assist,
to
repair
and
restore
with,
with
respect
to
mr.
Smallwood's
comments
to
restore
the
heritage
portion
of
the
property
to
with
with
like
material
and
and
on
that
basis,
I
would
I
would
if
I
may
I
don't
know
if
I
can
recommend
but
recommend
to
ask
that
the
that
the
application
be
given.
J
Want
to
go
back
to
one
thing:
if
it's
been
sort
of
barred
me
if
I
went
on
that,
they've
had
to
do
with
the
stone
foundation.
The
question
was
asked,
but
you
never
told
us
completely
why
you
said
it
was
okay
to
move
it.
I
go
to
a
church
that
was
thought
in
1839.
Our
stone
foundation
has
been
standing
up
since
then,
and
it's
fine
how
they
can
be
fine.
A
Through
you,
mr.
chair,
the
reason
that
we
determined
that
it
was
appropriate
for
the
stone
foundation
to
be
replaced
was
one
the
applicant
requested
that
they
be
able
to
do
so.
So
we
evaluated
that
request
and
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
because
this
designation
was
done
hastily
the
stone
foundation
was
included.
But
in
fact,
if
I
was
to
do
and
I
and
I
wrote
it
so
I'm
owning
up
to
it.
A
But
if
I
was
to
do
that
designation
over
again
today,
I
likely
would
not
have
included
the
stone
foundation
because
the
interior
of
the
building
is
excluded
and
the
stone
foundation
is
not
visible
from
the
outside.
So
that
was
sort
of
our
rationale
for,
for
deeming
it
to
be
appropriate.
I
think
the
architect
could
speak
to
whether
or
not
they
would
be
willing
to
retain
it
and
I
mean
the
committee
has
the
ability
to
incorporate
conditions
into
its
approval.
A
J
It's
kind
of
tricky
to
replace
a
foundation,
you
have
to
lift
the
house
up
and
things
and
the
sandwich
can
happen
when
that
happens,
and
so
I
don't
I,
don't
want
to
impose
something.
That's
going
to
be
difficult.
On
the
other
hand,
if
it's,
if
the
existing
house
can
be
left
as
much
as
it
is,
a
new
part,
obviously
will
have
a
new
foundation.
Is
it
because
then,
when
a
higher
head
rheumatism,
is
there
a
room
because
those
old
foundations
tend
to
be
I
used
to
live
in
the
street?
J
I've
seen
some
places
to
where
you
have
two
different
levels
of
basements.
Two
mr.
chair
was
wonder
if
he
could
get
an
answer
to
that,
because
the
question
was
raised
earlier
and
I
didn't
think
we
got
the
full
answer
to
it
before
I
make
the
decision
I'd
rather
like
to
know,
if
there's
a
have
really
solid
reason
for
doing
that,
in
which
case
I'll
be
okay
with
that
or
so.
B
G
Long
term,
stability
and
weather
performance
of
the
stone
foundation
itself
and
the
the
reason
to
follow
up
I'm,
not
Lesley,
said
the
reason
it
was
deemed
an
acceptable
replacement
was
the
stone
foundation
is
in
perceivable
from
the
outside.
It's
not
visible
at
all,
and
so,
when
that
became
apparent,
when
we
both
did
our
site
visits
to
to
see
if
the
stone
foundation
was
in
fact
visible,
when
it
became
apparent
that
it
wasn't,
it
was
no
longer
who
considered
a
heritage
issue.
J
J
G
So
there's
a
certain
amount
of
repairs
that
we
need
to
take
place
to
to
strengthen
the
structure
regardless
and
I'm
certain
that
the
the
procedure
for
lifting
the
house,
replacing
the
foundation
and
putting
it
back
to
its
current
elevation
will
be
done
carefully
and
methodically
so
that
the
the
existing
structure
is
is
retained.
Okay,.
D
Just
I
wanted
to
make
a
comment:
I
wanted
there's
others
and
they
disagree.
That
I
would
be
my
position
that
your
advice
to
a
client
should
be
that
a
stone
foundation
can
last
indefinitely
and
be
made
and
that
there
is
no
reason
for
stability
of
the
property
to
change
the
foundation.
I
understand
and
appreciate,
Leslie's
comment
that
it's
not
a
visible
issue
and
my
concern
raised
by
councillor
Wilkinson
was
that
the
attempts
to
change
the
foundation
may
indeed
do
some
damage
to
the
property,
and
that
was
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
raised
it.
D
B
Thank
you
very
much
mr.
Duckworth,
for
judges.
Mr.
chair,
okay,
if
there
are
no
other
comments
or
questions,
I
think
we're
going
to
move
to
the
motion
at
hand,
which
is
that
the
build
house
subcommittee
recommend
that
planning
committee
recommend
that
council
approved
the
application
to
alter
187
buildings
Avenue
according
to
the
drawings
submitted
on
October
23rd
2014,
to
issue
the
heritage
permanent
with
a
two-year
expiry
date
from
the
date
of
issuance
and
three
to
delegate
authority
for
minor
design
changes
to
the
general
manager
planning
in
growth
management
department.
So
all
in
favor.
E
On
the
motion,
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
support
the
motion,
but
I
wanted
to
ask
the
question
of
staff.
If
I
could
about
whether
or
not
the
other
half
of
the
designated
property
will
be
when
a
proposal
is
made
for
that,
will
that
be
coming
to
both
heritage
subcommittee
and
will
there
be
guidelines
on
it?
Could
you
just
explain
that,
so
we
understand
it.
A
Sure
three,
mr.
chair,
it
will
not
come
to
this
committee
because
it
is
not
part
of
the
designated
property,
so
the
portion
of
the
property
that
is
designated
is
this
half
of
the
lot.
The
severed
portion
is
not
part
of
the
designated
property
so
the
by
attached
to
this
half
of
the
lot,
depending
on
what
is
proposed
there
in
the
future.
A
It
might
require
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement,
because
it's
adjacent
to
a
designated
property,
but
likely,
if
it's
a
single-family
house,
you
know
that
meets
all
the
zoning
there
wouldn't
be
any
other
requirement
other
than
a
building
permit.
So
the
short
answer
is
no.
It
will
not
come
here.
I
would.
B
C
C
B
F
B
K
F
A
B
So
it
looks
like
the
motion
carries
for
the
303,
so
I
guess
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
agenda.
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you
very
much
to
the
members
of
the
the
public
for
your
attendance
and
participation
on
this
item.
So
we're
moving
to
item
2
of
the
agenda,
which
is
an
application
to
demolish
140
Howick
Street
property
designated
under
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
the
Rockland
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District.
B
This
was
this.
Application
is
before
us
as
a
result
of
a
fire
that
took
place
in
mid-december
I.
Don't
remember
the
actual
date,
but
I
can
attest
that
it
did
take
place
because
I
went
and
visited
the
property
while
the
fire
was
taking
place
and
it
was
very
much
in
flames.
So
we
know
that
this
is
indeed
the
case,
so
there
is,
as
a
result
of
a
fire,
an
application
to
demolish
the
property
that
demolition
permit
requires
the
approval
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
of
Council.
B
So
Rize
subcommittee
are
faced
with
the
question
before
us
as
to
whether
we're
going
to
recommend
that
this
demolition
permit
be
granted.
We
have
heard
one
member
of
the
public,
honest
sorry,
we've
heard
from
heritage
Ottawa
and
the
Rockville
Park
residents.
Association
opposes
the
demolition
so
I.
Don't
there
are
there
any
questions
or
comments?
And
this
question
please,
which
was
moved
I
just.
D
Had
a
comment
I
want
to
make
because
I
thought
it
was
important
to
make
it
is
that
the
owners
of
this
property?
It's
a
really
sad
story.
They
they
were
really
dedicated
towards,
preserving
it,
in
fact,
to
the
extent
that
when
they
originally
came
forward-
and
we
had
some
concerns
about
the
proposal-
they
actually
changed
architects
to
try
to
make
sure
that
they
would
be
sympathetic
and
do
a
synthetic
restoration
to
the
house.
E
A
B
So
the
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
other
business
and
what
I
thought
I
would
mention
here.
We
did
have
the
relevant
excerpts
of
the
governance
report
circulated
to
members
so
that
everybody
had
a
chance
to
review
what
some
of
the
proposed
ideas
and
suggestions
were
for
this
committee
moving
forward.
So
within
that
excerpt,
there
were
a
series
of
ideas,
including
whether
this
committee
would
want
to
take,
take
an
opportunity
to
discuss
those
various
ideas
and
suggestions
in
order
to
be
ready
by
April
1st
to
embark
on.
B
Perhaps
if
we
choose
to
agree
a
more
robust
mandate
for
this
group
now
within
the
report,
what
I
did
is
I
articulated
six
sort
of
main
themes
that
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
address,
and
the
proposal
that
I'm
going
to
put
before
you
now
is
that
we
take
some
time
during
our
February
meeting
to
discuss
them
amongst
ourselves
and
the
reason
why
we
would
do
that
is.
We
are
up
against
a
little
bit
of
a
tight
deadline.
So
if
we
have
a
discussion
at
a
February
meeting,
the
idea
would
be.
B
We
would
turn
that
into
relevant
motions,
which
we
would
then
approve
at
our
March
meeting,
and
that
would
have
to
be
early
enough,
that
that
could
be
approved
by
council
before
April
1st,
which
is
the
date
by
which
we've
been
asked
to
do
this
work.
So
again,
with
your
agreement,
what
I
would
propose
to
do
is
circulate
a
very
short
discussion
paper
before
our
February
meeting,
which
would
just
outline
how
we
could
structure
such
a
discussion,
and
we
would
make
sure
that
public
delegations
are
invited
to
speak
on
on
each
and
I'll.
B
Just
go
go
through
now.
What
I
sort
of
gleaned
from
the
governance
report
that
I
think
the
elements
that
I
think
are
relevant
and
there
are
six.
So
the
first
is
the
idea
of
looking
back
at
the
lac
act
terms
of
reference
and
seeing
if
there
are
elements
contained
therein
which
we
should
consider,
including
eventually,
in
our
terms
of
reference
and
one
example
given
in
the
governance
report,
was
identifying
properties
in
areas
in
the
city
that
may
merit
protection.
B
That
was
one
example
given
so
again,
looking
at
previous
incarnations
of
this
group
and
seeing
if
there
are
best
best
practices
or
examples
of
where
we
should
consider
undertaking
some
additional
work
in
terms
of
our
terms
of
reference.
The
second
was
the
issue
of
seeing
whether
this
committee
could
have
the
mandate
to
look
at
planning
applications
that
involve
a
heritage
overlay.
This
is
a
role
and
responsibility
that
this
subcommittee
currently
does
not
undertake
and
I.
B
The
third
issue
is
a
mechanism
that
would
allow
the
subcommittee
and
relevant
staff
to
be
available
to
the
staff
and
members
of
other
standing
committees
and
Council
for
issues
related
to
heritage
and
so
again
that
that
isn't
a
specific
mandate
item
currently
within
our
terms
of
reference
and
the
governance
report
based
I,
think
largely
on
interviews
with
members
of
the
subcommittee
at
the
time.
Staff
and
others
suggest
that
that
might
be
an
item
that
will
want
to
have
a
discussion
about.
B
The
fourth
was
definitely
was
definitional
issues,
whether
we
need
to
have
a
discussion
of
when
we
talk
about
heritage,
what
that
encompasses,
and
similarly
with
the
term
built
heritage.
So
that
was
the
fourth
issue
raised
in
the
governance
report.
The
fifth
related
to
transparency
and
staff.
Reports
related
to
the
approval
or
denial
of
requests
for
heritage.
B
Designation
and
clearly,
some
who
were
interviewed
in
the
government's
report
felt
that
it
would
behoove
us
to
have
a
better
and
a
more
transparent
rationale
from
staff
in
terms
of
how
those
decisions
were
arrived
at
and
perhaps
a
pendous
and
perhaps
appendix
to
reports
as
they
came
forward.
And
the
last
item
was
the
issue
of
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statements.
Whether
they
too
should
always
be
appended
whether
or
not
they
could
do
more
I
guess.
B
D
I
raised
some
of
those
issues
when,
when
I
was
in
interview,
I
absolutely
do
have
comment.
My
hope
was
that
we
would,
through
staff,
engage
somebody
who
would
help
us
come
to
grips
with
these
things,
because
I
think
there
are
things
that
we
don't
want
to
be
trying
to
reinvent
the
wheel
and
I
think
there
are
people
with
the
expertise
out
there
that
could
help
us
with
it.
D
So
I
would
feel
more
comfortable
if
we
were
able
to
get
someone
who
would
be
able
to
facilitate
this
for
us
and
somebody
who
is
experienced,
and
somebody
hopefully,
who
has
some
background
with
these
issues
in
Ottawa.
So
that
would
be
my
hope
is,
is
that
we
would
be
able
to
staff
for
some
for
their
input
in
terms
of
what
who
could
who
could
help
us
without,
because
my
concern
otherwise
is
we
might
be
coming
forward
and
not
covering
some
of
the
things
that
we
I
believe
we
absolutely
need
to
cover.
Okay,
thanks.
E
I
think
that
it's
very
appropriate
for
the
next
meeting,
because
I
think
that
this
new
committee
of
planning
committee
needs
to
get
a
more
synoptic
view
based
on
our
experience
of
the
the
gaps
that
were
discovered
in
the
last
two
years
and
to
be
able
to
cope
with
them
and
get
ahead
of
the
curve.
So
I
agree
with
this.
E
This
review
at
the
next
meeting
and
I
think
that
input
from
the
public
at
that
time
would
be
very
helpful
to
be
able
to
see
whether
there
are
issues
that
they
think
should
be
addressed.
I'm
sure
I
heard
as
Ottawa
has
some
views
on
that
as
well,
and
if
we
could
add
to
that
agenda,
the
report
from
staff
on
the
upcoming
work
program
for
the
next
year,
so
that
at
the
same
meeting
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
can
get
a
forecast
of
what
is
expected
to
come
to
the
committee
over
the
course
of
the
year.
E
B
No
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you
for
the
clarification.
I
think
what
I
would
anticipate
is
that
there
needs
to
be
some
discussion
of
process
and
how
these
things
are
imbued
within
the
work
of
the
actual
subcommittee
and
I.
Think
that
kind
of
discussion
would
be
useful.
I
would
also
know
that
our
next
meeting,
which
is
scheduled
for
February
12
I,
anticipate,
is
going
to
be
probably
not
a
short
one.
B
We
expect
to
have
a
heritage
designation
application
before
us,
which
I
suspect
will
merit
significant
public
interest,
so
you
may
in
I
mean
I
think
our
options
are
we
prepare
for
a
long
ish
meeting.
We
would
deal
with
a
regular
agenda
first
and
then
have
a
facilitated
discussion.
Second
or
if
members
prefer
I
could
look
into
the
possibility
of
finding
a
date
for
an
additional
meeting.
J
B
That
does
that
make
sense,
okay,
so
yeah,
so
you
may
just
again
on
February
12th
anticipate
that
you
may
be
spending
a
good
portion
of
your
day
here
in
this
room
and
again
in
turn.
In
terms
of
the
agenda
preparation,
we
will
specify
how
that
portion
of
the
meeting
is
going
to
be
run
and
facilitated
and
characterized
and
I'll
probably
have
individual
conversations
with
you
between
now
and
then
just
to
make
sure
that
that
meets
with
your
approval
and
ideas.