►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – October 16, 2017
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee meeting – October 16, 2017 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
B
And
I
know
there's
interest
in
discussing
both
so
I'm,
going
to
ask
the
vice-chair
to
put
forward
a
motion
to
lift
those
items,
and
is
that
Carrie?
Okay?
Great?
Thank
you
so
we'll
come
to
those
later
moving
to
item
1
in
our
agenda.
We
have
an
application
to
alter
61
Park
Road
property
located
in
Rockville
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
designated
under
part
5
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
B
C
The
house
was
designed
by
renowned
architect
Vernon
off
key
in
the
English
cottage
style,
the
building
features
stucco
with
half
tempering
details
on
the
upper
storey
and
stone.
On
the
first
floor,
this
area
of
rock
Oak
Park
is
characterized
by
two-story
houses
inspired
by
the
English
arts
and
crafts
constructed
in
the
early
20th
century.
Over
the
past
several
years,
the
house
has
been
left
vacant
and
in
a
state
of
disrepair.
C
The
large
lot
is
heavily
treed.
The
photo
on
the
Left
shows
existing
garage
access
from
Elmwood
Avenue.
The
photo
on
the
right
shows
a
location
of
the
proposed
driveway,
which
would
be
accessed
from
Park
Road.
This
driveway
would
be
located
between
existing
trees
without
requiring
the
removal.
The
top
image
shows
existing
house,
while
the
lower
one
shows
the
house
with
the
proposed
new
additions.
C
The
proposal
includes
masonry
repairs
to
additions,
one
to
the
northeast
of
the
house
and
one
to
the
west,
a
new
relocated
garage,
a
new
roof
and
the
addition
of
one
new
window
opening
over
the
entrance.
The
additions
are
distinguishable
from
the
original
house,
as
they
have
stepped
back
from
the
facades
and
below
the
roofline,
providing
a
visual
break
between
old
and
new.
C
The
additions
will
take
inspiration
from
the
existing
form
of
the
house
in
terms
of
materials
and
configurations.
Stucco,
half
timbering
and
stone
will
be
used
throughout
the
north
part
of
the
addition
will
also
have
a
gable
roof
and
continue
the
use
of
stone,
stucco
and
half
timbering.
The
garage
roof
will
be
flat.
C
The
height
of
all
additions
will
be
lower
than
the
original
house
in
order
to
create
more
useable
space.
On
the
third
floor,
the
roof
is
proposed
to
be
rebuilt,
with
a
sleeper
pitch
wrap
details
synonymous
with
the
style
of
house
will
be
reinstated
under
the
ease
of
the
new
roof.
A
new
garage
is
to
be
added
to
the
side
and
rear
of
the
eastern
Edition,
zip
back
considerably
from
Park.
Road
access
will
be
helped
through
a
heavily
treed
buffer,
which
will
provide
a
visual
barrier
between
the
proposed
garage
and
the
public
street.
C
This
image
shows
the
REO
additions
to
the
building,
although
the
increase
in
living
space
area
is
significant.
The
majority
of
the
addition
is
below
the
main
roofline
of
the
house
and
not
visible
from
the
street.
The
tree
buffer,
long
elm,
wood
screens,
the
rear
additions
from
the
street
11
mature
as
our
living
trees
on
the
property
are
proposed
for
removal,
7
them
allocated
with
behind
the
existing
building
with
one
being
a
mature
tree.
The
landscape
plan
includes
a
retention
of
existing
narrow
walkway
to
the
front
door
and
a
newly
proposed
Terrace
in
the
rear
yard.
C
The
resulting
footprint
is
similar
to
its
neighbors
and
other
grade
one
buildings
in
the
vicinity.
For
example,
when
looking
at
the
lock
coverage
on
the
surrounding
grade,
one
properties,
the
average
is
25
percent.
The
proposal
for
61
Park
Road
is
to
increase
the
lock
coverage
to
twenty
four
point:
six
percent,
which
is
well
under
the
permitted
30
percent.
C
C
B
A
Thank
You,
chair
and
members
of
committee
this
this
particular
building,
is
not
in
very
good
shape.
It
was
so
failed
in
ownership
by
a
previous
owner
for
many
decades,
and
so
it's
a
kind
of
accumulated
deterioration,
but,
as
Ashley
had
mentioned,
the
the
approach
on
the
existing
building
is
one
of
restoration,
so
reinstatement
of
damaged,
porch,
canopy
features
and
maintaining
the
existing
fenestration
and
and
typical
details.
The
the
discussion
about
replacing
the
roof
was
was
one
that
was
carefully
taken
simply
put.
The
existing
roof
is
not
well
detailed.
A
It
doesn't
allow
any
insulation
in
the
roof
and
curtails
the
height
on
the
second
floor,
so
we
don't
get
it
a
sufficient
ventilation
and
insulation
and
and
furthermore,
in
terms
of
like
a
visual
continuity
with
adjacent
buildings
on
360
degrees
around
this
property,
there
are
roof
pitches
in
the
1212
slope,
so
we
feel
we're
being
very
consistent
with
the
neighboring
buildings.
Some
of
help
have
similar
kind
of
design
characteristics,
others
others
different,
but
we
feel
this
is
a
necessary
and
beneficial
change
to
the
to
the
structure
and
we're
still
under
the
height
limits.
A
The
strategy
is
to
locate
the
additions
away
from
the
primary
facades
and
the
roadways
in
this
case
by
taking
away
the
existing
driveway
of
Elmwood
and
tucking
it
behind
the
house,
we're
maintaining
with
a
roadway
entrance
between
existing
mature
trees,
and
so
this
I
think
improves
the
streetscape.
Any
of
the
vegetation
that's
being
removed
is
diseased
or
dead.
There's
only
one
one
tree
in
the
center
that
might
be
viable
and
our
plan
is
to
reinstate
at
least
twice
as
many
trees
as
are
removed.
A
So
the
the
net
result
we
feel
will
be,
you
know
compatible
with
the
existing
house
and
the
surrounding
streetscape,
and
the
predominance
of
soft
vegetation
or
landscape
elements.
Roughly
3/4,
the
site
will
remain
as
a
landscape
space,
and
we
feel
this
is
very
consistent
with
the
primary
heritage
character
for
Ratliffe
Park.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
I
know
I
had
one
question,
but
I
just
want
to
see.
If
others
do
so,
member
Smallwood
you
go
first.
Thank.
D
You
hi
Robert
I
couple
of
questions
just
about
the
materials
I
noticed
in
the
report
that
it
said
stone,
stucco
and
half
timbering
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
that
by
Stone
you
mean
natural
stone.
Sometimes
people
use
the
term
stone
when
they
mean
things
that
are
manufactured,
so
our.
A
A
D
D
Be
fascinated
to
see
that
I've
never
seen
it
occur
with
with
that
new
system
that
it
would
match
the
ruggedness
and
the
depth
of
the
old
stucco
and
the
one
last
thing
you
mentioned
that
the
height
of
the
proposed
roof
pitch
is
cim.
Yux
explained
the
reasons
why
and
you
said
that
it
is
compatible
with
the
the
pitch
of
some
of
the
other
houses
in
the
neighborhood.
D
E
A
Terms
of
their
lot
coverage
I
mean
both
building
area,
a
lot
coverage
and
roof
pitches,
because
this
was
this
was
a
concern
raised
by
city
staff
and
even
the
residents
association.
So
we
felt
we
needed
to
answer
to
this
point
so
to
come
to
your
question,
we
actually
worked
on
the
adjacent
building
a
park
which
is
also
an
off
key
building,
so
it
has
a
mixture
of
roof
pitches,
but
primarily
it's
a
1212
pitch.
So
in
that
sense
it
will
be
compatible
with
its
adjacent
neighbor,
but.
D
A
D
A
Think
so
this
this
section
of
park
is
actually
quite
flat
and
the
two
houses
were
so
you
know
built
it
roughly
the
same
time,
if
anything
I
think
the
the
house
at
97
Park
will
be
slightly
higher
because
it's
it's
actually
built
on
a
slight
hillock,
so
the
net
effect
I
think
will
be
I,
don't
have
the
exact
data,
I'm
gonna,
say
very
similar
in
night.
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,.
B
I
just
had
a
question
or
two
related
to
the
landscape
plan,
which
is
on
page
7
of
29
of
the
package
of
drawings
that
I
have
in
front
of
me
and
I
guess.
My
first
question
was:
there
are
a
number
of
trees
slated
for
removal
by
their
front
steps
on
the
Park
Road
entrance
and
I'm
just
curious,
whether
that
was
an
aesthetic
decision
or
why
it
was
felt
that
those
trees
should
be
removed.
I.
B
There
is
a
looks
like
a
large
tree
canopy
on
the
northwest
corner
of
the
property
which
is
showing
in
the
landscape
plan,
I.
Think
as
retention
there's
a
couple
of
codes
there
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
number
of
trees
that
form
a
canopy,
but
it
sounds
like
those
are
going
to
be
retained.
Is
that
correct
and.
A
Yeah
so
I
think
that
one
there's
a
game
not
in
a
lot
of
particularly
good
conditions.
These
trees
have
certain
lifespans
too,
so
this
one's
getting
on,
but
really
the
the
main
intention
here
long
Elmwood
and
park
is
to
retain
the
existing
vegetation
for
screening
and
to
add
to
it
with
new
plantings.
B
B
To
make
way
for
the
terrace
is
that
right,
correct,
and
that
was
felt
important,
I'm,
just
thinking
that
in
terms
of
covered,
if
part
of
the
secret
of
this
application,
or
one
of
the
benefits
of
it,
is
to
screen
the
massing
from
public
views.
I
just
would
have
thought
that
a
mature
tree
of
this
size
might
benefit
in
terms
of
its
ability
to
screen,
particularly
from
that
sort
of
Elmwood.
Vantage
point
mm.
F
So
that
series
of
that
large
canopy
that
you
see
there
is
a
series
of
lilac
trees,
so
all
bunched
together,
they're
not
learn,
don't
mature,
they're
small
in
size
and
some
of
them
are
the
seasonings
and
some
of
them
dead
and
some
of
them
are
alive,
but
I
don't
think
it
will
add
on
anything
to
the
landscape.
We
will
plant
more
trees
that
way
to
give
coverage
to
the
terrace.
Okay.
B
B
G
Morning,
my
name
is
Marion
fever
and
my
family
has
lived
across
the
street
in
one
house
over
from
61
park
for
since
1949,
the
owners
of
the
property
in
question
have
lived
for
many
years,
just
across
the
street,
from
this
property
and
they're.
Actually
friends
of
ours,
and
we
have,
in
the
past,
appeared
together
at
the
committee
of
adjustment
to
oppose
the
doubling
of
in
size
of
the
building
between
us.
G
We
didn't
get,
we
didn't
succeed
in
opposing
it
error
in
and
so
that
building
was
doubled
in
size,
as
was
the
Navajos
beside
it
or,
and
that
was
also
doubled
in
size.
But
all
of
this
was
before
the
City
of
Ottawa
enacted
unanimously
the
heritage
plan,
which
is
now
in
effect
since
2016
I'm.
Also
a
member
of
this
rocof
Park
heritage
committee
and
I'm
very
familiar
with
this
heritage
plan,
which
I
doubt
most
residents
are
despite
many
efforts
to
make
the
plan
known
to
all.
G
As
a
matter
of
fact,
I
passed
that
kit
in
casual
that's
Mrs,
E
in
casual
conversation,
whether
she
knew
of
the
heritage,
and
she
said
not
really
so
it's
just
not.
Oh
not
well
enough
known,
but
what
I
feel
with
this
application
and
what
hasn't
been
mentioned
today,
tis
a
total
disregard
for
this
plan,
particularly
with
in
regards
to
mass
and
lot
coverage.
The
heritage
plan
states
that
all
additions
to
grade
one
buildings
shall
be
complementary
to
the
existing
building
subordinate
to
the
original
and
compatible
in
terms
of
massing,
facade
proportion
and
roof
lines.
G
This
proposed
addition
takes
the
footprint
from
158
square
meters
to
358
square
meters.
Is
this
120
percent
increase
somebody's
definition
of
subordinate
to
in
no
way
is
this
addition
compatible
in
terms
of
massive
I
was
shocked
when
I
was
at
when
I
saw
the
extent
of
this
lot.
Coverage
to
the
proposal
takes
the
lot
coverage
from
ten
point.
Nine
to
twenty
four
point.
Six,
the
objective
of
the
heritage
plan
is
also
to
preserve
green
space
and
States.
The
existing
landscape
character
of
a
lot
will
be
preserved
when
additions
are
constructed.
G
Lot
coverage
is
that
that
is
as
extensive
assist,
has
no
regard
for
this
probation.
The
applicant
tries
to
justify
this
by
saying
that
it's
within
the
zoning
bylaw,
but
my
understanding
is
that
the
heritage
plan
takes
precedent
over
the
zoning
bylaw
when
the
two
are
in
conflict
as
they
are
in
this
case.
G
G
B
Great
thank
you
for
coming
out
this
morning.
Are
there
any
questions
from
his
fever?
Oh
I
see
none.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out
this
morning.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
to
staff
arising
from
your
questions
but
which
I'll
get
to
now
so
again.
Thank
you.
Very
much
for
coming
in
I
saw
I,
see
no
other
speakers
registered
on
the
list,
so
we
can
turn
now
to
questions
and
comments
all
that
time.
Member
Smallwood
go
for.
D
I
am
sensitive
to
the
concerns
that
was
fever
raised,
but
I
noticed
that
on
ninety-seven
Park
Road
there's
the
house
of
the
original
house
is
probably
somewhere
in
size,
291,
Park
and
then
over
a
period
of
years,
there's
been
a
series
of
additions
added
onto
it
and
I
think
fairly.
The
most
feature,
one
fairly
successfully
tying
them
together
and
I.
Just
I
wondered
every
time.
D
I
mean
in
this
particular
case,
what's
happening
and
I
think
what's
so
jarring
is,
there's
been
no
changes
to
the
house
in
over
100
years
and
now,
all
of
a
sudden
there's
a
whole
bunch
being
done
to
it
at
once.
If,
if
some
and
the
concern
raised
is,
is
that
we're
going
from
you
know
the
the
relatively
speaking
smaller
existing
has
and
putting
off
all
these
additions
around
it
at
once?
D
You
look
at
the
house
with
the
additions
on
it,
I'm
assuming
so
in
this
particular
case,
I
guess
part
of
what
we're
seeing
is
just
the
the
impact
of
no
additions
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
several
additions,
perhaps
being
done
all
at
once
with
the
new
guideline
in
terms
of
the
neighborhood.
How
much
impact
is
it?
Do
you
look
at
the
original
house
versus
the
series
of
additions
when
you're
deciding
I
mean
you
I?
Guess
you
look
at
whatever
the
most
recent
edition
was
and
that's
considered
the
existing
house?
C
B
So
in
the
question
of
subordinate
to
I
presume,
based
on
your
positive
recommendation
that
you're
not
defining
subordinate
to
simply
in
terms
of
the
mass
of
the
addition
versus
mass
of
the
original
house,
can
you
explain
a
little
bit
to
the
committee?
What
the
subordinate
sort
of
rationale
was
and
why
why
you
feel
in
this
case
that
the
addition
would
satisfy
that
particular
guideline.
C
Mr.
chair,
the
term
subordinate
and
the
plan
does
not
mean
smaller.
As
far
as
mass
goes
in
this
particular
instance,
you
can
see
on
the
screen
behind
you.
The
the
additions
are
lower
and
also
setback
from
the
original
house.
Therefore,
keeping
the
original
not
ki
at
1908
design,
the
prominence
and
the
new
addition
will
be
a
distinguishable
from
because
of
this
setback
and
laurel
roofline.
C
C
You
can
see
just
here
behind
you,
but
I
was
behind,
as
as
I
said,
13
meters
of
green
space
still
in
the
rear,
as
well
as
the
side
yard.
Now
that
the
driveway
and
garage
will
be
relocated
to
Park
Road
there'll
be
more
green
buffering
to
the
side
lobby
to
the
west.
So
we
feel
at
the
addition,
although,
as
his
large
still
maintains
the
best
green
space
and
park
like
setting
of
the
Rockland
park,
hares
Conservation
District.
B
Okay,
thank
you
for
those
answers.
Any
other
questions
to
staff.
No,
so
well,
I'll
just
offer
my
own
thoughts
as
a
summary.
I
think
this
particular
application
from
an
architectural
point
of
view,
offers
a
sympathetic
addition
to
the
original
building,
as
we
know,
created
by
a
famous
Ottawa
architect,
but
I
do
think
what
is
beginning
to
emerge,
particularly
in
some
of
these
applications
in
in
Rockland.
B
Park
is
some
question
of
different
ways
of
interpreting
the
plan
and
I'm
I
think
it
would
be
wise
for
there
to
be
a
continued
conversation
about
some
of
the
disagreements
between
the
community
through
the
Rockland
Park
residents
association
and
the
staff
on
how
some
of
these
terms
are
interpreted
and
I
just
wondering
out
loud
whether
some
kind
of
interpretive
guide
line
or
a
glossary
or
something
needs
needs
to
be
explored
moving
forward.
Just
because
it
seems
like
we're
in
a
situation
where
there
are
these
different
ways
or
different
lenses
of
interpretation.
B
So
I'm
hopeful
of
that
kind
could
be
fruitful
and
and
sort
of
help
us
through
what
I
think
are
some
differing
views
on
the
plan.
That
said
in
this
case,
in
light
of
the
fact
that
the
addition,
although
large,
is
respecting
the
zoning
bylaw
and
there
were
efforts
made
through
the
landscape
plan
to
provide
additional
soft
landscaping
and
additional
trees.
Notwithstanding
the
removal,
hey
myself,
plan
to
vote
in
favor
of
the
staff
recommendation,
with
the
proviso
that
I
think
we
probably
need
to
have
a
larger
discussion
about
the
heritage
plan
interpretation.
H
So
I
think
we
have
work
to
do
there
in
the
report
and,
for
instance,
subordinate
to
does
this
mean
subordinate
to
from
all
views,
or
is
it
just
from
the
public
realm
I
think
these
are
things
that
need
some
work
in
order
to
help
us
to
maintain
and
reinforce
the
credibility
of
the
heritage,
conservation
plan
and
the
way
its
interpreted.
So
that's
just
the
comment
but
I
support
this
application.
E
Just
think,
thank
you
very
much
mr.
chair,
mr.
vice
chair.
That
is
certainly
something
that
that
the
heritage
section
has
been
examining
ways
of
of
clarifying
and
helping.
Everyone
understand,
understand
applications,
so
we'll
be
looking
at
that
in
the
next
few
months.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
B
Thank
you
for
that
answer.
So
on
the
application
is
it
carried
carried?
Okay,
thank
you
and
thank
you
to
members
of
the
public
for
for
coming
out
this
morning,
so
we
are
moving
next
to
our
other
items.
Are
there
any
notices
of
motion?
No
I
see
none,
no
inquiries,
so
I
guess
under
other
business
we
will
raise
the
two
inquiries
which
we
successfully
did
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
So
comes
from
McKenney.
Why
don't
you
go
first
on
the
Somerset
inquiry.
I
Thank
You
mr.
chair
so
350
to
Somerset,
better
known
as
Somerset
House.
The
last
meeting
I
asked
about
the
status
of
the
development
here
and
been
asking
about.
This
is
I
was
elected,
but
residents
have
been
asking
about
this
for
just
over
10
years
now,
and
more
and
more
anxiously
really
failed
to
understand
how
the
owner
of
this
property
is
allowed
to
let
a
building
like
Somerset
house,
essentially
disintegrate
in
front
of
our
eyes
and
roon,
probably
that
one
of
the
most
important
corners
in
in
the
downtown.
I
So
I
read
your
response
with
some
optimism
and
in
that
mr.
Chimel,
who
is
Jimmy.
Oh
I,
sorry,
who
is
the
architect,
is
moving
forward
with
the
project
and
that
there's
been
a
pre
permit
meeting.
You
just
tell
me
what
that
means
and
historically
like
have
we
have
we
been
at
this
point
before
with
the
owner.
I
mean
it's
one
thing
for
the
architect
to
tell
us
he
is
moving
forward,
but
another
thing
to
wonder
what
really
is
happening
with
the
owner
and
I.
Guess
all
I
want
to
know.
E
E
So
I
do
share
that
that
optimism
again
as
a
result
of
the
work
last
year,
the
the
the
site
is
secured
and
and
protected
and
I
think
that
some
of
the
work
being
undertaken
now
is
just
because
it's
highly
technical
to
tie
a
new
building
into
an
old
building
and
that's
that's
what's
being
undertaken
so
I
think
we
should
all
continue
to
feel
feel
optimistic
and.
I
E
Yeah
their
heritage,
permit
expires
and
mr.
chair
in
2019,
but
it's
not
that
the
building
has
to
be
built
by
then,
as
the
the
permit
has
to
be
applied
for
by
then
and
I
certainly
think
that,
with
the
with
the
the
dedication
of
the
current
architect
and
his
interest
in
in
reviving
the
corner
that
I,
you
know,
I
I,
don't
think
well
again,
I
can't
speculate,
but
as
of
today,
I
don't
think
we're
at
risk
of
the
the
two-year
time
frame
running
out.
As
far
as
the
architect
is
concerned,
he
is
committed.
I
E
B
You,
okay,
great
and
I
myself
just
had
a
question
on
287
Cumberland
Street,
two
related
questions.
One
is
this
committee
and
council
ultimately
approved
an
application
for
demolition
of
a
house
that
I
believe
was
also
addressed
on
Cumberland,
which
was
applied
for
in
anticipation
of
a
development
application
which
which
council
approved
and
now
with
the
pending
sale
of
the
property.
I'm
just
wondering
was
that
house
demolished
at
the
once
council
approval
was
granted.
E
Mr.
chair,
that
house
still
remains
so
the
existing
permit
on
the
on
the
site.
Well,
207
209
Murray
was
demolished
from
an
earlier
permit,
but
the
one
on
Cumberland
still
remains
and
the
existing
heritage
permit
expires
at
the
end
of
January
2018.
And
so
then
all
permission
related
to
the
site
goes
away.
So.
B
Is
there
any
way
not
know
if
our
legal
counsel
can
advise
us,
but
I,
don't
know
how
closely
we
tied
the
approval
of
demolition
of
that
property
to
approval
of
the
application
which
we
anticipated
at
that
time
would
be
built
so
I
guess
what
I'm
wondering
is.
Is
there
a
mechanism
to
say,
given
that
this
development
application
doesn't
appear
to
be
moving
forward
in
light
of
the
fact
that
the
property
is
for
sale?
Is
there
a
way
to
put
a
pause
on
the
demolition
permit.
E
Mr.
chair,
the
devil
the
permit
under
the
Act
will
expire
on,
not
in
January
2018
and
the
that
print
it
is
tied
to
to
to
the
approval
of
a
development
plus.
There
are
planning
applications
out
of
the
Planning
Act
that
are
required
for
this
property
and
they
also
haven't
been
those
applications
haven't
been
filed
or
approved.
So
that
is
also
a
way
of
ensuring
the
retention
of
that
house
until
there's
more
knowledge
of
what's
happening.
B
So,
in
the
case
where
nothing
happens
on
the
property-
and
it
continues
to
be
for
sale
well
past
the
January
2018
expiration
date-
presumably
property
standards
in
by
law
hour
by
law
staff
will
be
monitoring
this
property
and
if
it
stays
on
the
market
for
many
years
to
come,
there
is
little
we
can
do.
I
guess
and
except
for
have
bylaw
staff
ensure
that
the
city's
property
standards
bylaws
are
being
complied
with.
Is
that
correct?
That's.