►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee - 30 November 2021
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee - 30 November 2021
A
So
once
again,
good
morning,
everybody
and
welcome
to
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
meeting
of
november
30th
2021
I'd
like
to
call
the
members
to
order.
Although
this
meeting
is
being
held
remotely
through
zoom,
I
would
like
to
acknowledge
that
the
land
on
which
ottawa
is
built
upon
is
unseated
algonquin
anishnabe
territory.
A
I
would
like
to
take
a
moment
to
acknowledge
that
the
peoples
of
the
algonquin
anishinaabe
nation
have
lived
on
this
territory
for
millennia,
their
culture
and
presence
have
nurtured
and
continued
to
nurture
this
land.
The
city
of
ottawa,
honors,
the
people
and
land
of
the
algonquin
anishinabe
nation
and
the
city
of
ottawa,
honors
all
first
nations
inuit
and
metis
peoples
and
their
valuable
contributions
to
this
land.
A
For
those
who
do
not
need
to
participate
in
the
meeting
you
can
watch
it
live
on
the
ottawa
city
council,
youtube
channel
a
reminder
to
participants
to
please
keep
your
microphones
muted.
Until
I
call
upon
you
to
speak,
I
will
provide
each
committee,
member
with
the
opportunity
to
ask
questions
or
comment
on
each
item
in
the
order
in
which
they
raise
their
hand
and
zoom
for
panelists
the
raise
hand
option
is
found
at
the
bottom
of
the
participants
list
for
those
calling
in
press
star
9.
A
Although
the
deadline
have
passed
for
residents
to
register
to
speak
and
provide
written
submissions
to
this
subcommittee,
residents
may
still
make
written
submissions
to
council.
If
you
have
technical
difficulties
signing
into
the
meeting,
you
can
contact
the
committee
coordinator
by
calling
613-580-2424.
A
I'd
also
like
to
note
that
we
will
be
piloting
a
new
system
this
morning
at
at
this
subcommittee
meeting
where
the
coordinator
will
provide
a
countdown
for
deputies,
so
there
will
be
a
time
clock
implemented
so
that
you
can
see
how
much
time
you
have
in
terms
of
your
deputation
in
terms
of
regrets.
I've
received
no
formal
regrets,
but
we
have
received
a
note
from
councillor
moffat
that
he
did
have
a
prior
commitment
from
10
to
11
a.m.
A
B
C
A
A
Confirmed.
Thank
you.
Our
first
item
regards
planning,
infrastructure
and
economic
development,
right-of-way
heritage
and
urban
design
services
number
one:
an
application
for
new
construction
at
480,
cloverdale
road,
a
property
designated
under
part,
five
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
and
located
in
the
rockcliff
park
heritage
conservation
district
can
staff.
Please
provide
an
overview
of
this
report.
F
Thank
you
through
youtube
good
morning
councillors
and
members
of
the
building
subcommittee.
This
item
concerns
the
application
for
new
construction
at
480
cloverdale
road,
a
property
designated
under
part
5
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
and
located
in
the
rockland
park
heritage
conservation
district
next
slide.
Please.
F
The
subject
property
is
located
on
the
east
side
of
cloverdale
road
between
hillsdale
and
lake
coast
roads.
It
is
bounded
to
the
north
by
484,
cloverdale
road
and
the
rear
of
560
hillsdale
road.
Both
grade
1
properties
in
the
hcd
and
by
the
rockland
park.
Tennis
club
to
the
east
south
of
the
property
is
a
vacant
double
lot
at
454,
cloverdale
road,
the
property
is
currently
vacant
and
is
characterized
by
a
mixture
of
mature
trees
and
shrubs.
F
There
is
a
substantial
grade
change
from
the
front
of
the
lot
at
cloverdale
road
to
the
rear
of
the
lighter
biting
the
tennis
courts.
Next
slide,
please,
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
new
single
detached
home
on
the
lot.
The
building
will
be
two
stories
in
height
with
a
walk-out
basement
opening
up
towards
the
rear
of
the
light.
F
F
F
The
application
is
accompanied
by
a
conceptual
landscape
plan.
Four
mature
trees
are
proposed
to
be
removed
to
accommodate
the
construction
of
the
building
and
36
new
trees
are
proposed
to
be
planted.
The
landscape
treatment
of
the
property
is
proposed
to
consist
of
a
combination
of
soft
landscaping,
permeable,
paving
formal
gardens,
planters
and
green
roofs
next
line.
Please.
F
Next
slide,
thanks.
Applications
for
new
construction
in
rockland
park
are
subject
to
the
guidelines
in
the
rocklift
park.
Hcd
plan
heritage
staff
have
reviewed
the
proposal
against
the
applicable
guidelines
of
the
plan
and
determined
that
the
application
is
generally
consistent
with
the
plan
next
line,
please,
the
proposed
new
house
generally
conforms
with
the
hcd
plan
as
it
relates
to
citing
landscape
and
materials.
F
The
proposed
irregular
massing
of
the
building
and
the
length
of
the
north
facade
are
not
consistent
with
guidelines.
Seven
point
four
point:
two
three
and
four
of
the
hcd
plan
here.
It
is
so
far
of
the
opinion
that
the
length
and
mass
of
the
new
building
on
the
north
elevation
are
not
consistent
with
the
neighboring
grade.
One
building
and
the
new
building
is
not
sympathetic
to
its
historic
neighbours
in
terms
of
massing,
particularly
along
the
north
elevation.
F
As
stated
earlier,
the
length
of
the
new
building
from
front
to
rio.
Excuse
me
along
the
north.
Elevation
is
approximately
48
meters
or
four
times
the
length
of
its
neighbor
at
484
cloverdale
road.
Due
to
the
changes
in
grade
on
the
lot,
the
two-story
building
will
also
appear
as
three
stories
from
the
perspective
of
its
neighbours.
F
Irrespective
of
property
lines.
There
is
consistency
in
the
interstitial
spaces
between
buildings
in
the
hcd.
The
proposed
length
of
the
building
thus
creates
a
hard
boundary
that
interrupts
this
flow
of
space
between
buildings.
On
the
block
next
slide.
Please,
heritage
staff
have
also
evaluated
the
proposal
against
parks,
canada's
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
historic
places
in
canada
and
determined
that
it
is
generally
consistent
with
standards,
1
and
11
of
that
document.
F
F
The
present
application
was
posted
on
the
city's
development
application
search
tool
and
staff
received
comments
from
several
neighbors.
The
rocklith
park
residents
association
was
notified
of
the
application
and
provided
comments
on
the
current
proposal.
Heritage
ottawa
was
notified
of
the
application,
as
were
neighbors
within
30
meters
of
the
subject,
property
and
finally,
chair.
King
is
also
aware
of
the
application
next
slide.
Please.
F
Heritage
staff
worked
with
the
applicant
on
refining
the
proposal
after
submission
of
a
complete
application
under
the
ontario
heritage
act.
It
was
strongly
recommended
to
the
applicant
that
the
legislated
90-day
timeline
be
extended
to
provide
an
opportunity
to
make
further
changes
to
the
proposal.
That
staff
would
be
in
a
better
position
to
support.
F
An
extension
of
the
90-day
timeline
was
not
agreed
to
by
the
applicant,
and
thus
heritage
staff
have
evaluated
the
current
proposal
on
its
merits.
Heritage
staff
are
therefore
recommending
conditional
approval
of
the
application
for
new
construction
at
480
cloverdale
road.
This
will
provide
the
applicant
with
an
opportunity
to
address
the
outstanding
concerns
staff
also
requesting
that
authority
be
delegated
for
minor
design
changes
and
that's
a
two-year
expiry
date
be
attached
to
the
heritage.
Permit
next
slide.
Please.
F
The
following
conditions
are
recommended
by
staff,
one
that
the
applicant
reconfigure
the
massing
and
reduce
the
length
of
the
north
elevation
of
the
building.
This
is
to
ensure
that
the
original
design
intentions
of
rocklev
park
be
maintained
and
that
the
height
and
mass
of
the
new
building
are
consistent
with
and
sympathetic
to
the
neighbouring
grade.
F
Two
that
revised
plans
be
submitted
prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
building
permit
and
three
that
the
applicant
provide
a
final
grading
plan,
final
landscape
plan
and
samples
of
final
exterior
building
materials
prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
building.
Permit
fulfilment
of
these
conditions
are
recommended
to
be
approved
by
the
general
manager
of
the
planning
infrastructure
and
economic
development
department
or
their
delegate
next
slide.
Please.
A
Thank
you
adrian
for
a
very
in-depth
presentation
on
this
application.
We
did
receive
a
correspondence
that
was
submitted
to
the
clerk's
office,
where
we
did
receive
comments
from
heritage
ottawa
as
well
as
comments
from
a
resident.
We
also
received
three
letters
in
opposition
to
the
application
by
residents,
as
well
as
from
the
rockcliff
park
heritage
committee.
We
do
have
eight
registered
speakers,
so
we
will
start
with
our
first
delegation,
which
is
kim
tushny.
G
G
We
have
serious
concerns
regarding
the
application.
It's
obvious,
multiple
residences,
its
massive
institutional
character
and
those
are
to
name
only
two.
I
won't
go
into
all
of
our
specific
concerns.
There
is
no
time
I
have
sent
you
two
letters
detailing
our
specific
concerns,
one
dated
november
16th
and
another
dated
november
24th.
G
G
G
G
The
applicant's
drawings-
and
here
they
are.
This-
is
what
we've
been
provided
with
are
incompatible
with
the
siding,
massing
height
and
setbacks
of
the
484
cloverdale
grade.
One
heritage,
property
major
changes
have
to
be
made
to
the
application
we
won't
know,
and
the
public
won't
know
what
those
changes
will
be
down
the
line
if
your
decision
is
to
grant
conditional
approval
now
before
the
necessary
changes
are
specifically
made
by
the
applicant
and
brought
forward
for
consideration
in
another
public
hearing.
G
The
applicant
has
known
since,
before
its
purchase
of
the
property
that
heritage
requirements
have
to
be
met,
and
the
applicant
has
consulted
extensively
with
city
and
rocklof
park
heritage
representatives,
why
should
the
applicant
be
given
approval
now?
The
fundamental
heritage
requirements
must
be
met
in
advance
in
order
to
obtain
heritage
approval?
A
G
G
G
Our
request
for
written
reasons,
at
page
two
of
the
november
24th
letter,
in
accordance
with
the
city
of
ottawa's
public
law,
duty
of
procedural
fairness,
given
the
importance
and
significant
impact
of
the
city
of
ottawa's
decision
making
on
this
application
to
our
property,
our
family
and
the
conservation
district,
as
well
as
our
legitimate
expectations
under
the
ontario
heritage
act.
We
request
that
this
committee
and
council
provide
us
with
their
written
reasons
if
the
city
of
ottawa's
ultimate
decision
is
to
approve
this
application,.
A
B
A
A
B
Good
morning,
what
we
wanted
to
make
sure
was
that
kim's
message
got
through
so
really.
I
have
nothing
further
to
add,
but
I
will
want
to
make
one
point
it
was
noted
in.
I
believe
it
was
the
consultant's
report
with
regard
to
kovit
and
the
observation
was
made
in
the
consultant's
report.
As
far
as
with
covet
there's,
a
real
tendency
on
on
within
our
society
now
is
to
be
inward.
B
A
I
don't
see
any,
but
I
just
had
a
quick
question
that
maybe
speaks
more
to
the
heritage
conservation
plan
in
and
of
itself,
and
maybe
speaking
to
specifics
since
you
raised
the
idea
of
green
space
and
we
know
that
in
the
rocklof
park
hcd
it's
unique
because
green
space
is
is
an
element
as
a
characteristic
of
the
plan.
So
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
speak
to
a
specific,
substantive,
green
space
impacts
of
this
application.
B
Well,
the
one
thing
that
I
I
think
during
the
the
report
with
what
adrian
mentioned,
he
talked
about
a
wall
and
a
wall
going
up
and
a
lot
of
the
emphasis
was
really
on
the
streetscape.
So
it's
almost
like
having
a
mouse
in
front
of
an
elephant
where
we're
just
looking
at
the
mouse
and
we're
neglecting
all
the
green
space
behind,
and
so
that's
one
thing
like
I
said
people
come
to
the
neighborhood
they
enjoy
the
green
space,
and
this
massing
of
a
public
of
a
massing
of
an
institution
would
take
away
from
that.
A
H
B
A
B
A
I
I
Hi
hi
I
introduce
myself,
is
andres
the
principal
architect
at
limebox
studio
and
the
architect
that
has
been
involved
with
this
application
day.
One
my
little
background
information
on
some
of
these
things.
It
says
light
both
on
the
client
and
also
on
the
development
itself.
It
is
a
single
family
residence.
It
is
not
a
multi-unit.
Zoning
doesn't
permit
any
of
those
uses.
So
currently
it's
a
single
family
dwelling
on
a
special
client,
special
site,
special
neighborhood,
and
we're
very
well
aware
of
of
those
elements.
I
That
was
part
of
the
challenge
of
the
client,
the
site,
as
described
as
quite
unique,
from
rockliffe,
both
the
size
and
the
length
and
ottawa's
not
known
for
very
many
sloping
sites.
But
this
is
one
of
them
and
then
obviously
the
specialness
of
the
neighborhood.
I'm
very
well
aware
of
the
history
and
and
the
background
of
rock
cliff.
I
currently
I
currently
live
in
the
neighborhood
and
do
products
in
that
neighborhood.
I
So
we
took
this
very
serious
day
one
and
we
made
sure
we
assembled
the
team
that
could
deliver
the
best
product
and
the
best
home
that
we
feel
could
serve
all
the
needs
and
respond
to
everything.
Not
just
one
thing.
We
hired
john
stewart
who's
present
today
he's
a
heritage,
architect,
casa
verde
construction
with
paul
gelbert
lives
in
the
neighborhood
builds
in
the
neighborhood
and
john
chipanic
will
be
our
landscape,
architect,
award-winning
landscape,
architect,
who
has
done
a
lot
of
work
in
rock
live.
I
So
we
want
to
make
sure
first
that
we
bring
together
a
team
that
could
pull
a
product
of
this
off
and
make
sure
that
we
do
as
much
as
we
can.
Over
the
last
six
months,
we've
met
with
rock
cliff
planner
committee,
the
heritage
committee.
I
do
want
to
give
a
bit
of
applaud
to
adrian,
with
the
evolution
of
the
design.
We've
made
multiple
changes,
including
reducing
height,
eliminating
rooftop
terrace
on
the
front,
alternating
the
one
in
the
back,
bleeding
fences,
adding
trees,
landscapes
and
drawings
are
are
scary.
I
At
times
when
you're
told
to
delete
trees
on
both
sides.
So
that's
not
exactly
truthful,
but
the
neighbors
will
see.
We
have
actually
engaged
one
of
the
neighbors
on
friday,
actually
about
relocating
some
of
the
trees,
so
that
these
view
lines
are
maintained.
Obviously
it's
our
goal
for
both
sides,
not
just
neighboring
properties,
but
our
client
as
well
also
want
to
create
these
environments.
We
are
not
here
seeking
any
minor
variances.
We
are
well
within
all
setbacks.
We
actually
have
more
green
space
on
this
property
than
most
properties
in
rocklift.
I
It's
been
a
very
positive
experience,
the
last
six
months,
responding
to
very
real
concerns,
and
I'm
very
much
appreciative
of
this
and
all
our
projects
were
your
invasive
species
into
a
neighborhood.
No
matter
what
the
design
is.
No
one
wants
construction.
I
don't
want
construction
next
to
my
house.
New
is
scary,
but
I
do
want
to
emphasize
that
this
is
a
single
family
house.
It's
not
zoned
for
any
institutional
or
commercial.
It's
not
multi-unit,
it's
not
even
zoned
for
that
either.
I
It's
a
single-family
house
with
a
real
family
who
chose
rockliffe
on
purpose
because
of
the
property
that
they
could
build,
a
house
that
would
house
their
family
while
living
together
and
raise
their
children
and
go
to
the
schools
that
we
all
know.
Rock
cliff
has
an
amazing
amazing
things,
not
just
physically,
but
their
school
process
their
neighborhood.
So
this
is
a
family
that
wants
to
be
a
part
of
it.
There
is
no
inside
deal
of
some
kind
of
embassy
happening.
I
It's
not
zoned
for
that
either
so
we're
before
you
presenting
a
single
family
homes
for
a
client
that
has
been
extremely
cooperative
in
this
process
and
when
we
presented
multiple
changes
to
the
building,
including
bending
it-
and
I
think
some
of
the
slides
have
shown
that
reducing
the
length
all
these
other
things.
They
were
very
much
open
to
supporting
all
the
different
design
decisions.
I
Obviously
we
could
take
that
building
and
make
it
three
stories
and
jam
on
the
front,
and
everybody
have
concerns
about
those
things
too.
So
our
goal
was
to
come
up
with
what
we
feel
is
the
best
result
for
everything
how
to
respond
to
the
sun,
the
landscape,
the
context,
our
clients,
the
neighborhood,
the
city.
J
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
thanks,
andrew
we're
being
asked
today
to
provide
conditional
approval,
which
is
always
you
know,
subjective
right.
We're
asked
being
asked
to
give
staff
delegated
authority
essentially
to
make
a
final
decision,
but
that
approval
is
is
subject
to
changes
with
respect
to
the
length
and
the
massing
on
the
the
north
elevation,
which
is
we
saw
and
heard
from
the
staff
presentation
is,
is
not
as
submitted
today
sympathetic
to
that
the
neighboring
neighboring
building.
J
I
Yes,
so
thank
you
for
that,
and
we
would
be
more
than
prepared
to
do
that.
We
have
been
doing
that
day,
one
I
I
would
like.
I
can't
speak
for
for
the
planning
committee,
but
we
have
made
serum
multiple,
multiple
alterations
to
design
and,
frankly,
for
the
better,
the
building
is
better
than
it
was
when
originally
submitted.
I
So
it's
been
a
tough
and
they've
been
hard,
and
I
understand
both
sides,
so
we'd
be
definitely
opening,
and
I
know
the
client
is
open
to
making
it
better
his
goal
and
our
goal
is
to
make
the
best
best
home
we
possibly
can
and
if
there's
more
further
revisions
to
do
so
that
are
fair
and
reasonable.
We
we
look
forward
to
doing
this
and
and
seeing
how
this
evolves
once
we
bring
in
the
landscape
architect
and
keep
evolving
this
project
and
make
it
that
much
better.
J
But
I
guess
I
guess
he
didn't
answer
my
question-
that
it
is
conditional
approval
that
you
will
go
away.
Make
changes
to
ensure
that
that
that
north
elevation
is
is
sympathetic.
So
I
I
get
that
that
you
have
made
changes
up
until
today,
but
I
have
a
difficult
time
agreeing
with
conditional
approval.
So
I'll
ask
mr
stewart
the
same
question
when
he
appears
in
front
of
us,
but
I
just
wonder:
if
there's
something
specific,
you
can
tell
us
like
what
are
you
looking
at
you?
J
I
Yes,
no,
we
we're
well
aware-
and
we
know
the
contentious
issue
is
well.
The
last
iteration
was
the
kind
of
glass
volume
at
the
back,
but
has
a
little
rooftop
terrace
and
that's
a
little
cube
towards
the
beer
as
well
as
we
fully
engage
landscape
architecture.
The
brain
has
input
it
will
how
to
further
screen
this
building
through
burming
and
trees
that
you
know
all
year
round
winter
and
summer,
so
there's
an
evolutionary
design
that
will
keep
refining
this
building
and
we
look
forward
to
that.
I
I
don't
and
why
we,
I
guess,
are
standing
in
front
of
everybody
confident
with
what's
there.
We
are
not
prepared
to
redesign
the
whole
project
that,
for
us
we
felt
we
went
through
all
the
necessary
discussions
and
the
building
we're
confident
with
the
building.
That's
in
front
of
you,
but
yes,
we're
very
well
aware
of
the
conditions
that
are
there
and
we're
prepared
to
keep
moving
forward
with
that.
B
K
My
question
was
similar
to
councillor
mckennie's
and,
but
I
just
just
to
to
to
go
over
planner
van
wyck
was
quite
specific
in
his
presentation
that
staff
are
going
to
be
looking
for
examples
of
massing
reconfiguration,
a
reduction
in
height
the
possible
reorganization
of
some
of
the
massing
to
the
south
in
the
design.
So
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
what
we're
hearing
from
mr
reeves
today
is
that
there
is
no
appetite
on
the
part
of
the
owner
to
revisit
those
kinds
of
changes
in
the
proposal.
I
I
would
I'd
say
our
position.
Our
position
is
very
confident
in
front
of
me
and
we
want
to
proceed
with
the
the
decision
versus
another
90
days.
It's
been
six
months
of
revising,
like
I
said
before
positively,
and
I
think
the
building
as
a
direct
result
has
gotten
better
on
multiple
counts.
What
has
been
written
in
the
condition?
I
find
fair
and
reasonable,
and
we
definitely
will
look
at
those
things
reduction
in
height
we're
under
these
we're
under
every
step.
I
Back
and
but,
as
most
architects
know
how
you
distribute
your
massing,
can
get
better
and
less
more
screening
of
those
things,
so
we're
prepared
to
keep
refining.
But
I
want
to
also
be
clear:
we're
we're
not
here
in
front
of
you
not
confident
with
the
design
itself,
as
in
doing
major
moves
and
reducing
height,
we're
below
height,
we're
well
within
side
yard,
setbacks
well
with
insider
fat,
actually
not
even
to
the
back
rear
yard
setback
and
well
under
the
overall
landscape
coverage.
L
I
Sorry,
zoom
time
no
you're,
correct,
barry.
The
client
has
been
very
cooperative
and
open
to
changes
along
the
way
and
there's
been
significant
changes
along
the
way.
We've
gotten
input
from
a
rockcliff
group
neighbors,
including
on
on
friday,
as
well
as
a
committee.
So
we
we're
prepared
to
support
the
design
in
front
of
you
and
the
client
is
also
feels
confident
with
the
design
in
front,
so
he's
not
prepared
or
they
are
not
prepared
to
go
90
more
days.
A
H
H
I
I'm
a
landscape
architect,
and
I
was
quite
intrigued
when
began
this
commission,
in
that
the
design
for
the
building
place
the
landscape
in
the
forefront
so
rather
than
building
a
a
structure
and
clearing
trees,
the
design
was
this
sort
of
a
series
of
linked
pavilions
which
capitalize
on
the
landscape
and
sort
of
the
total
trees.
The
territories
on
the
site.
H
H
Part
of
the
mitigation
was
actually
to
take
a
look
at
the
initial
design
is
in
fact,
this
100
foot
expression
that
adrian
talked
about.
I
want
to
point
out,
though,
that
the
building,
above
just
at
the
top
here,
in
fact
what
you're
looking
at,
is
not
just
that
building
the
footprint
of
that
building
is
almost
twice
that
size
with
a
two-story
addition
to
the
rear
of
the
property
which
actually
pretty
well
fills
the
the
rear
portion
of
the
property.
H
So,
in
fact
it's
what
the
design
attempted
to
do
is
actually
recognizing
that
that
building
was
is
twice
that
size.
They
wrapped
the
the
portion
of
the
building
to
the
interior
and,
in
fact,
have
created
a
almost
a
reflection
of
the
elevation.
Above
with
that
size
in
terms
of
the
depth
from
the
rear
of
the
property,
the
it's,
it
was
increased
from
the
required
30
39
feet,
50
feet
at
the
closest
location,
the
average
setback
for
each
face
are
significantly
more
than
required
by
city,
bylaw
and
long
long.
H
North
elevation
is
reduced
in
length
next
slide
eric,
please,
the
actual
the
the
view
below
sort
of
illustrates.
What,
in
fact,
is
the
the
quality
of
the
landscape
and
with
the
trees?
It
is
in
the
soap
and
landscape
as
as
adrian's
drawings
indicated,
it
is
quite
concealed
and
the
existing
building
actually
notches
into
the
property
line.
So
you
don't
have
a
straight
property
line
between
the
two
properties
and
in
fact,
the
front
of
the
building
is
angled
off
to
to
actually
give
the
the
distance
required.
H
H
H
H
H
J
J
So
do
you
also
feel
that
the
mitigation
that
you've
already
gone
through
on
the
the
north
side,
the
north,
is,
is
adequate,
or
can
you
give
us
some
examples
of
what
you
would
do
to
to
bring
that
in
line
with
the
the
approval?
That's
you
know
subjected
to
the
the
changes
that
are
being
requested
by
by
staff
here.
H
I
think
the
mitigation
has
has
addressed
a
lot
of
the
issues
that
that
I
was
concerned
with
in
terms
of
impact.
I
I
certain
certain
aspects
have
been
said
that
I'm
not
really
sure
I
mean
the
height
is
the
height
is,
I
think,
it's
at
a
foot
and
a
half
higher
than
the
building
next
door,
so
it
visually.
It's
not
a
it's,
not
an
impact.
J
J
H
Do
in
fact,
adrian
used
that
references
four
times.
In
fact,
I
don't
think
it
is
four
times.
I
think
that
the
actual
building
above
is
twice
the
size
of
what
is
being
shown
on
the
plan
and
that,
if
you
see
where
the
the
break
has
been
made
in
as
part
of
the
mitigation
and
the
building
turns
inside,
in
fact,
that
length
is
is
reflective
of
what's
happening
on
the
north
to
the
north
and
the
property
next
door.
H
So
if
I
mean
the
the
the
the
analysis,
I
I
I'm
not
sure
I
I
I
hadn't
seen
that
until
today,
so
the
analysis,
I'm
not
sure
how
it
that
it
came
about
that
particular
component,
there's
a
reference
to
a
skybox,
it's
kind
of
a
unique
little
feature.
In
fact,
I
I
was
quite
taken
with
it
as
part
of
the
sort
of
english
landscape
or
the
picturesque
landscape,
where
you
would
have
these
follies
or
you'd.
H
A
K
Thank
you
chair
last
minute.
Thank
you
for
your
presentation,
john.
Just
a
quick
question
in
terms
just
following
up
on
on
barry's
question
to
the
architect
about
the
possibility
of
extending
the
90
days.
Is
this
something
you
you
think
what
I'm
seeing?
What
I'm
hearing
here
is
that
you
know,
I
think,
we're
getting
there.
H
The
the
the
whole
deferral
thing
I
I
wasn't
aware
of
it
until
just
this
morning,
so
the
answer
to
your
question
is,
I
don't
know
I
mean
the
the
owner.
I
don't
know
if
you
know
him,
he
has
a
he's
a
development
firm.
He
has
coven
developments,
he's
quite
active
in
the
city,
he's
a
so
and
he's
very
cooperative
he's
very
interested
in
in
he
wants
to
be
part
of
the
community.
H
I
don't
think
the
the
direction
or
the
the
earlier
discussion
of
this
being
a
sort
of
a
political
maneuvering
is,
is
I
I
would.
I
was
never
aware
of
any
any
of
that
kind
of
a
situation,
so
I
think,
as
a
citizen
as
a
an
active
member
of
ottawa's
business
community,
I'm
quite
sure
he's
prepared
to
to
negotiate
and
work
with,
but
I'm
speaking
sort
of
just
from
what
I
know
of
him.
I,
I
honestly
don't
I
don't
have
that
mandate
to
say
yes
or
no.
I.
H
Yes,
I
will
I,
I
think
that
he
was
aware
that
the
suggestion
was
that
the
the
approval
be
given
conditional
on
and
he
was
prepared
to
address
the
conditional
on
issues.
So
I
think
it's
six
and
one
or
half
dozen
of
the
other
right
at
this
point,
the
the
staff
recommendation
was
to
approve
it
and
to
negotiate
some
of
the
changes
required.
A
A
I
suppose,
if
you
could
contact
the
applicant
to
see
noting
that
the
applicant's
permission
is
required
for
the
subcommittee
to
move
forward
with
deferral,
so
we
would
at
least
like
you
to
explore
that
possibility,
but
in
the
meantime
we
do
have
the
application
before
us
and
we
will
continue
listening
to
delegations.
So
thank
you
so
much
john
for
for
your
deputation
today
and
the
next
delegate
that
we
will
hear
from
is
tony
brunst.
M
We
only
found
out
about
this
well,
it's
probably
two
weeks
ago
or
so,
and
we
live
at
560
hillsdale,
which
is
on
the
north
side,
the
bottom
part
of
that
backlog
and
we've
been
living
there.
Well,
I've
been
living
there
for
28
years,
we've
actually
missed,
not
having
neighbors
for
the
last
15
and
we'd
like
to
welcome
new
neighbors
into
the
neighborhood.
M
But
I
must
say
in
in
this
case
I
I
I
find
that
what
is
being
proposed
is
really
more
like
a
industrial
commercial
configuration,
and
I
I
find
that
on
unfortunate
and
the
issues
raised
by
the
heritage
committee
of
of
massing
depths
in
the
lot,
I
think,
are
very
valid.
I
mean
I
have
a
question
which
perhaps
somebody
could
answer
on
the
development
side
is
what
is
actually
the
height
of
the
back
part
of
that
building
from
the
ground.
M
I
know
it's
three
stories
I
wanted
also
to
just
say
thank
you
for
all
the
help
I've
received
from
adrian
van
wyk
and
it's
a
pleasure
to
meet
you
for
the
first
time,
ralston
king,
so
going
from
there.
It
was
interesting
to
hear
john
stewart
talk
about
the
eye
catcher
skybox,
and
I
noticed
that
in
the
presentation
they
were
talking
about
the
massey
house
and
how
that
was
on
stilts
too,
and
the
massey
house.
M
The
genius
of
it
is
that
they
used
these
sort
of
stilts
to
actually
build
something
which
could
overlook
the
lake,
which
was
really
not
possible
to
build
without
and
it
didn't.
Actually
it
was
looking
on
the
lake.
It
wasn't
looking
into
anyone's
backyard
or
front
yard
or
the
streetscape
or
anything
like
this.
This
is
something
absolutely
different.
M
M
And
I
I
sent
you
a
little
note
asking
you
if
you
could
go
ahead
with
that
which
you
said
you
could,
but
I
noticed
that
you
never
replied
with
any
signatures
on
it.
I
was
a
bit
disappointed
to
see
that
also,
having
listened
to
the
people
who
have
spoken
today,
I
I
found
that
there
really
are
a
number
of
things
that
are
troubling.
M
One
of
the
things
that
came
out
in
john
stewart's
presentation
was
showing
the
elevation
on
the
back
part
of
our
property,
which
sort
of
shows
a
little
mound
somewhere
near
near
the
borderline
which
absolutely
doesn't
exist.
So
it's
sort
of
whimsical.
I
mean
it's,
it's
it's
nonsense
actually,
and
it
makes
the
the
height
of
the
building
on
the
development
side
seem
lower.
Finally,
I
I
guess
I
would
say
I
I
hope
you
can
come
to
some
conclusion.
A
N
Good
morning,
okay,
so
we
too
are
very
alarmed
to
see
that
this
application
is
proposed
for
conditional
approval.
We
all
know
what
that
means,
and
you
know
the
horses
let
out
a
barn
and
our
heritage
plan
will
be
disrespected
and
certainly
not.
We
don't
expect
it
to
be
followed
once
once
you
get
conditional
approval.
N
N
And
the
committee
art
committee
suggested
that
an
appropriate
rear
yard
on
this,
particularly
long
property,
would
be
80
80
feet,
which
would
be
more
proportionate
to
the
other
properties
in
the
area.
Present
rear
yard
is
50
feet,
we'd
like
to
see
the
retention
of
more
greenscape
and
because,
once
again,
you're
just
faced
with
too
much
paving
of
paradise
here,
okay,
so
to
address
the
the.
N
In
addition
to
concerns
over
the
length
of
the
building
the
narrow
side,
yard
setback
provides
a
very
narrow
corridor
for
the
planting
mature
trees.
The
proposed
building
will
present
an
extremely
long,
extremely
high,
continuous
wall
to
the
neighbors
on
both
the
south
and
the
north
side,
and
I
would
say
particularly
egregious
on
the
north
side,
because
I
one
would
be
hard-pressed
to
find
any
kind
of
mature
trees
that
would
grow
and
thrive
in
the
perpetual
shade
of
the
north
of
a
north
wall.
N
That's
30
and
40
feet
high
in
places,
and
while
the
massing
of
the
building
is
a
great
concern,
just
one
second,
the
property
is
an
unusually
large
property,
one
could
say
it's
at
least
twice
the
size
of
the
average
property
on
the
streetscape,
and
yet
the
massing
of
the
building
is
such
that
it
has
an
fsi
of
0.358
and
questionably
more.
If
should
the
basement
and
all
the
open
stairwells
be
included
in
this
calculation.
N
This
lot
is
on
a
hill,
so
the
ordinary
definition
of
average
grade
under
the
bylaws
doesn't
apply
it
to
a
house.
That's
over
100
feet
long
and
goes
down
a
hill
when
a
building's
on
a
hill.
The
grade
cannot
be
the
average
elevation
of
the
lot
from
top
to
bottom
of
the
hill,
because
it
leads
to
an
absurd
result.
N
The
grade
should
mean
the
average
elevation
of
the
adjoining
ground
in
different
segments
of
the
hill
as
it
is
to
be
built
upon
the
committee
contends.
The
design
of
this
would-be
basement
is
not
such
that
more
than
half
of
its
floor
to
ceiling
height
is
below
average
grade.
It's
plain
and
obvious
that
many
of
the
rooms
are
above
ground
and
cannot
be
classified
as
basement
and
for
this
reason
should
be
counted
in
the
fsi
which
would
blow
the
fsi
way
over.
What
is
what
is
now
reported.
N
N
The
proponent
has
measured
the
height
of
484
cloverdale
to
the
peak
of
the
gable,
where
it
should
be
measured
to
the
midpoint
of
the
sloped
group
as
specified
by
ottawa
bylaws
for
these,
and
these
many
reasons
committee
feels
strongly
that
this
proposal
runs
contrary
to
the
provisions
of
the
hcd
plan
and
requires
far
too
many
major
changes
to
receive
approval.
At
this
stage.
N
I've
actually
been
part
of
this
whole
process,
and
I
acknowledge
that.
Yes,
there
have
been
changes
made,
but
but
we
have
been
saying
about
this
massing
for
for
since
the
very
beginning
and
and
then
the
height
and
so
on,
and
and
we
see
very
minimal
changes
and
it's
anyway,
we're
not
against
the
design
of
the
building.
But
we
certainly
are
against
the
massing
height
and
length
and
that's
what
it
for
now.
O
All
right,
thank
you.
I
live
a
block
away
from
the
proposed
house,
new
house
on
cloverdale,
in
fact,
in
the
heart
massey
house
that
has
been
mentioned
by
tony
brunst.
I'm
opposed
to
conditional
approval
of
this
application
for
the,
for,
I
think
the
the
extraordinarily
valid
reasons
that
have
been
been
expressed
when
the
new
rocklife
park
heritage
plan
was
being
developed,
and
I
was
part
of
that
process.
O
So
the
grade
one
house
that's
relevant,
is
the
one
right
next
door,
which
kim
rituany
spoke
to
at
the
beginning.
It's
their
house
that
it
has
to
be
consistent
with
in
mass
and
height.
It
is
not
consistent
with
that.
The
staff
report
clearly
acknowledges
that
time
and
again
that
it's
not
consistent
with
the
mass
of
the
of
the
of
the
house
next
door,
nor
with
the
height
of
it,
and
they
go
on
to
say
it's
not
consistent
with
the
main.
O
Now
I
don't
know
what
reconfiguring
and
reconsidering
would
look
like,
and
the
staff
would
be
in
the
position
of
solely
judging
whatever
that
means
and
whether
those
conditions
have
been
met,
and
I
don't
think
that's
fair.
It
is
not
transparent
and
therefore
I
think
that,
given
that
it
looks
like
the
applicant
may
not
be
prepared
to
extend
the
the
period
allowed
for
consideration
that
that
would
have
to
be
rejected.
O
Now
the
I
just
to
make
the
point.
The
staff
report
says
on
page
five
page,
six
page,
seven
and
page
eight
and
in
the
end
at
document
eleven,
it
sets
out
time
and
again
how
the
mass
and
length
of
this
building
it
just
is
not
consistent
with
with
the
grade
one's
house
in
the
streetscape,
nor
with
the
the
the
heritage
plan
of
rockcliff
park.
O
As
for
height,
the
previous
speaker
noted
that
the
height
of
grade
one
of
of
sloped
roof
buildings
like
the
grade
one
building
next
door.
It's
measured
to
the
midpoint
of
the
slope
not
to
the
top
of
the
slope,
not
to
the
top
of
the
house.
Yet
that
is
what
is
suggested
is
relevant,
the
top
of
the
house.
It's
not
it's,
the
midpoint
of
the
house,
that's
in
the
ottawa
zoning
bylaw
and
it's
that's
the
agreed
interpretation
between
the
we
who
are
concerned
with
heritage
and
rock
cliff
and
the
heritage
staff.
O
It
says
that,
for
a
new
building
to
be
consistent
with
a
grade
one
house
with
a
sloped
roof,
it
has
to
match
the
midpoint
of
the
roof
slope,
the
midpoint
of
the
roof
slope.
The
house,
the
proposed
house
is
where
is
above
the
midpoint
it's
even
above
the
the
height
of
the
top
of
the
roof.
It
is
one
and
a
half
feet,
half
a
meter
higher
than
the
top
let
along
the
midpoint.
So
let
me
conclude:
this
proposal
does
not
conform
with
the
rock
cliff
heritage
plan
in
very
significant
ways.
A
A
C
C
A
more
concern
is
the
staff
recommendation
to
make
approval
of
this
application
subject
to
the
changes
requested
and
to
delegate
staff
to
decide
if
and
when
such
changes
are
in
accordance
with
guidelines.
Seven
point
four
point:
two:
three
and
four
of
the
rocklift
park:
heritage
conservation
district
plan.
C
Rather
than
give
qualified
approval
of
the
current
application.
Would
it
not
be
preferable
to
delay
a
subcommittee
recommendation
until
staff
feel
they
can
either
wholeheartedly
recommend
the
project
or
in
turn
reject
it?
Delaying
consideration
would
likely
require
the
city
to
seek
approval
from
the
applicant
to
extend
the
90-day
statutory
timeline
under
the
ontario
heritage
act.
C
C
A
B
Thanks
chair
good
morning,
david,
so
that
the
condition
that
would
be
attached
to
this
that
staff
is
recommending
is
reconfiguring
the
massing
and
reducing
the
length
in
your
review
of
what's
in
front
of
us
currently,
can
you
characterize
for
characterize
for
us?
Do
you
think
this
is
a
a
major
reconfiguration,
a
minor
configuration?
Is
this
a
bit
of
a
tweak,
or
is
this
significant
work
that
would
be
required
to
bring
it,
in
conformance
with
the
hcd
guidelines,.
C
I
see
I
think
it
could
be
brought
into
the
the
realm
of
the
guidelines.
There
might
be
some
of
the
residents.
That
would
disagree
with
me
on
that,
but
I
think
you
know
the
architect
has
indicated
that
they're
willing
to
try
to
make
some
more
changes,
and
I
think
it's
it's
worthwhile
trying
to
go
this
extra
mile,
rather
than
have
it
rejected
and
possibly
ended
up
in
an
appeal
to
committee
of
adjustment
or
to
some
arbitration
tribunal.
C
A
B
Yeah,
thank
you
chair,
so
so
it's
obviously
on
that
condition.
I
think
that
a
lot
of
us
are
are
considering
here.
We're
being
asked
to
approve
this,
with
the
condition
that
the
applicant
go
back
and
reconfigure
the
mass
and
reduce
the
length
of
the
north
elevation
of
the
building
and
we'd
be
delegating
authority
to
staff
to
make
a
determination
if
they've
properly
achieved
what
what
staff
and
the
committee's
looking
for
I'm
trying
to
understand
from
staff's
perspective,
because
I
think
we've
heard
it
from
the
applicant.
B
Why
did
you
take
this
approach
because
it
seems
to
me
we
often
delegate
can
well
sorry.
We
often
approve
conditions
at
this
committee
that
have
you
know,
there's
conditions
for
minor
changes.
This
seems
to
be
a
more
significant
design
change.
That's
required!
I'm
working
a
considerable
design
update-
it's
not
minor
in
my
mind,
so
why
did
staff
feel
that
this
was
an
appropriate
approach
rather
than
wait
for
the
applicant
to
submit
the
the
design,
have
staff's
approval
and
then
bring
it
to
committee?
Why
have
you
chosen
this
approach.
P
Through
you,
mr
chair,
I
think
the
reason
that
the
application
is
before
the
committee
today
is
because
we
were
unable
to
secure
an
extension
of
the
90-day
statutory
timeline
from
the
applicant.
That
would
have
been
our
preference
to
continue
to
work
with
the
applicant
to
address
the
remaining
staff
concerns
around
that
north
elevation.
P
That
being
said,
as
mr
venvik
outlined
in
his
presentation,
staff
do
feel
that
the
proposal
does
meet
some
of
the
guidelines
and
the
objectives
of
the
rockland
park
heritage
conservation
district
plan.
So
we
were
uncomfortable
with
the
idea
of
an
outright
refusal
because
we
felt
that
with
some
additional
work
it
could
get
there,
and
so
because
of
the
90-day
statutory
timeline.
We
had
to
recommend
something,
and
this
condition
was
in
our
mind
the
best
approach
to
to
a
complicated
problem.
B
So
so
rejecting
it
outright
wouldn't
have
been
appropriate.
In
your
mind,
this
is
a
kind
of
a
compromise
or
a
solution
because
they're
getting
close,
but
how
would
you
characterize
it?
I've
said
it
seems
like
a
major
reconfiguration
or
redesign
to
change
massing
in
the
length.
Is
it
major?
Is
it
minor?
How
would
you
characterize
the
changes
required
in
order
for
it
to
meet
what
you're
looking
for
to
satisfy
the
the
requirement.
P
I
think,
as
mr
padalski
perhaps
noted,
it
is
a
sort
of
middle
of
the
road
change.
I
wouldn't
call
it
minor
and
I
wouldn't
call
it
major.
I
think
you
know
we're
grappling
with
the
idea
that
this
is
a
very
irregular
footprint
and
sort
of
how
we
fit
that
within
the
box
of
what
we
normally
see
in
rockleft
park.
So
I
think
it's
somewhere
in
the
middle
in
terms
of
the
extent
of
the
changes
required
in
order
to
ensure
compatibility
and
that
that
visual
continuity
across
property
lines.
B
D
L
Yes,
this
is
a
question
to
staff
and
they
may
seem
like
minor
and
unrelated
questions,
but
we've
had
the
architect
declare
that
the
project
as
submitted
meets
the
zoning
bylaw.
Absolutely
that
there's
no
variances
required
question
has
this
been
actually
independently
agreed
to
by
the
planning
land
use
planners
and
the
zoning
bylaw
people
the
whole
question
of
using
the
the
gross
area
of
the
basement
not
being
counted
so.
My
question
is:
has
this
been
independently
evaluated
by
the
by
the
land
use
planners,
and
I
have
a
second
question
after
that.
L
F
I
I
believe
the
reason
it
might
have
been
shown
in
this
way
is
because
that
is
a
double
lot,
so
the
way
that
the
building
is
shown
is
just
on
the
first
half
of
the
lot.
It
is
our
understanding
that
it
is
under
the
same
ownership.
The
owner
owns
the
front
and
the
back
portion
of
that
lot,
but
I,
I
suspect,
that's
the
way.
That's
the
reason
the
building
was
shown
in
that
way.
L
L
L
A
Q
Thank
you
chair
a
couple
of
quick
questions
for
city
staff.
The
recommendations,
as
we
all
know,
are
calling
for
an
adjustment
to
the
the
height
form
and
massing
of
the
building.
I
wanted
to
know
in
your
discussions
with
the
applicant,
have
city
staff
put
forward
any
preferred
path
or
recommended
options
for
how
this
could
be
achieved.
F
Thank
you
through
youtube
city
staff
have
made
some
suggestions
to
the
applicant
on
possible
solutions.
We
we
aren't
able
to
to
dictate
the
direction
of
the
design
to
the
applicant,
so
it
it
is
up
to
the
applicant
how
they
want
to
respond
to
the
concerns.
But
a
number
of
suggestions
have
been
made
by
staff
and
by
the
community
as
well.
F
F
Q
Q
Okay,
so
having
heard
from
the
the
proponents
architect
that
they're
confident
in
their
design,
how
is
the
city
planning
to,
I
guess,
identify
and
ensure
that
the
mitigations
that
come
forward
if
conditional
approval
is
granted,
do
comply
with
the
heritage,
conservation
district
plans
and
the
city's
own
criteria?
The
conditional
approval.
P
P
So
despite
the
fact
that
it
may
meet
the
zoning
bylaw
in
terms
of
lock
coverage,
etc,
that
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it
meets
the
provisions
of
the
heritage
conservation
district
plan.
So
we
will
basically
be
making
some
of
the
same
suggestions
again,
but
with
the
endorsement
of
council
to
give
us
this
direction
to
to
move.
You
know
that
it's
a
conditional
approval
that
they
can't
go
further
unless
they
do
this,
unless
they
make
some
changes
to
better
reflect
the
cultural
heritage
landscape
of
the
rocklin
park.
P
Q
Thank
you,
and
I
know,
there's
only
so
much
you
can
say
with
with
the
generalities
and
the
state
that
the
design
is
in
right
now,
a
final
question
for
you,
leslie
or
adrian
or
or
someone
in
your
group.
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
spell
out
for
us.
We've
already
heard
the
path
forward
if
conditional
approval
is
granted,
but
could
you
just
at
a
high
level,
summarize
the
path
if
it's
not
if,
if
the
build
heritage
subcommittee
does
not
endorse
this
application,.
P
D
Can
you
hear
I'm
having
some
technical
difficulties
so
please
I
apologize
if
if
this
application
is
refused
today,
there
will
be
a
motion
to
change
the
recommendation
to
a
refusal.
It
will
rise
to
planning
committee
at
that
point
and
then
rise
to
to
council
depending
on
on
what
that
outcome
is
the
applicant
then,
of
course,
has
the
right
of
appeal
to
the
tribunal
within
a
period
of
time.
I
believe
it's
30
days
from
council's
decision
and
notification
of
that
decision.
Does
that
answer
the
question
mr
chair.
L
L
The
proponent
has
shown
the
partial
footprint
of
a
new
building
at
450
for
cloverdale,
that's
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen
and
from
the
response
of
adrian
our
heritage
planner.
This
does
not
reflect
any
application
that
has
been
made
by
the
owner
of
that
property
for
a
new
building,
and
so
therefore,
the
showing
of
this
footprint
is,
I
guess,
arbitrary
and
conjectural,
and
doesn't
really
reflect
any
proposal
for
development
of
this
property.
So
that's
really
my
understanding
of
it
and
thank
you
for
showing
this
on
the
screen.
Thank
you.
Chad,.
E
Thank
you
sharon
good
morning
to
you,
ms
etna,
I'm
glad
you're
here
today.
I
want
to
pose
a
set
of
questions
to
you
as
well.
Just
so
it's
100
clear
in
my
mind
the
ramifications
of
such
a
decision
so
item
two
of
the
recommendation.
The
staff
recommendation
talks
about
this
subcommittee
delegating
the
authority
to
staff
to
oversee
the
minor
design
changes
of
this
proposal.
D
So,
mr
chair,
as
you
are
aware,
there
is
a
timeline
under
the
ontario
heritage
act,
the
90-day
timeline,
whereby,
if
council
does
not
make
a
decision
on
an
application,
it
is
deemed
approved,
and
so
that
is
why
our
legislative
agenda
moves
at
the
pace
that
it
does
for
these
matters.
And
so
if
the
applicant
refuses
to
sign
a
letter
of
extension,
which
is
also
permitted
under
the
act
to
stop
the
90-day
timeline
issue,
then
then,
yes,
we
we
do
need
to
consider
that
90
days
to
avoid
the
the
deemed
approval
so.
E
Thank
you
for
that.
So
I'll
tell
you
what
what
I'm
prepared
to
do.
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
the
subcommittee,
I'm
prepared
to
approve
items
one
and
three
today,
and
I
would
hope
that
the
subcommittee
would
agree
with
me
that,
as
a
condition
or
sorry
not
as
a
condition.
So
let
me
start
over.
We
approve
one
and
three
today
we
don't
approve
number
two
and
what
we
say
to
staff
is
once
you've
come
to
an
agreement
on
minor
design
changes
which
some
people
believe
are
a
lot
more
than
minor.
E
You
come
back
to
the
subcommittee
recognizing
we
could
be
past
those
90
days
and
you
allow
the
committee
one
last
chance
to
see
what
the
final
outcome
will
be
so
or
maybe
from
a
legal
point
of
view.
We
have
to
make
that
as
a
condition,
because
we've
already
approved
one
and
three
and
there
may
not
be
any
recourse
if
we
disagree
with
the
design
at
that
point,
but
I
think
that
that
is
a
fair
outcome
for
members
of
the
public
who
have
concerns.
E
E
B
E
My
colleagues,
if
I'm
the
only
one
that
that
thinks
this
way,
then
perhaps
we're
spending
a
lot
of
time
on
something
that
the
subcommittee
doesn't
think
is
required.
But
what
I
heard
from
the
public
was
concern
concern
that
we
would
give
the
green
light
to
everything
today
and
a
desire
to
at
least
see
changes
to
this
proposal.
One
last
time
and
I'm
struggling
with
whether
we
make
that
a
condition
or
simply
have
staff.
Come
back
to
this
subcommittee
say
here's
the
outcome
of
our
discussions.
Here's
what
the
final
development
will
look
like.
E
E
A
K
K
Whereas
the
applicant
has
advised
bilter's
subcommittee
of
their
desire
to
defer
the
matter
to
the
first
bill,
heritage
subcommittee,
meeting
of
2022
and
whereas
staff
have
no
objections
to
the
request
for
deferral
and
whereas
the
90-day
statutory
timeline
under
section
42-4
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
expires
on
january
20th,
2022
and
the
first
council
meeting
of
2022
is
anticipated
to
be
january.
26,
2022
and
whereas
the
applicant
has
indicated
agreement
to
the
proposed
extension
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
timeline
and
whereas
absent
such
consent
for
extension
being
provided
in
writing.
K
The
application
will
be
deemed
to
be
approved
if
council
does
not
make
a
decision
by
january.
20Th
2022,
therefore
be
it
resolved
that
the
build
heritage
subcommittee
defer
the
report
until
its
next
regular
meeting
anticipated
to
be
held
in
january
2022
and
be
it
further
resolved
that
if
the
applicant
does
not
provide
written
consent
to
extend
the
90-day
timeline
under
the
ontario
heritage
act
by
december,
2nd
2021,
the
build
heritage.
Subcommittee's
report
on
this
item
will
be
submitted
to
council
for
consideration.
A
Deferral.
However,
as
we
note
can
only
really
take
place
with
the
agreement
of
the
applicant
and
section
42
4
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
requires
that
council,
after
consultation
with
our
committee,
make
a
decision
on
applications
within
90
days.
The
statutory
timeline
for
this
application,
as
we
heard,
is
set
to
expire
on
january
20th,
2022
and
also,
as
we
heard
from
staff.
E
A
L
One
thing
I'm
not
clear
of-
and
I
would
like
to
be
very
cautious
about
this,
and
that
is
that
if
there
is
no
response
from
the
applicant
to
defer,
then
is
the
recommendation
to
council
going
to
be
to
refuse
the
application,
or
is
it
all
the
way
in
which
the
staff
recommendations
are
listed?
I
think
this
is
quite
important
for
both
the
public
and
the
committee
to
to
understand.
So
could
that
be
clarified?
Please.
D
K
K
And
I
I
personally
think
that
I
know
that
we've
heard
from
representatives
from
the
community
who
who
are
perhaps
would
probably
disagree
with
me
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
alterations
that
could
be
made
to
get
this
design
ready.
But
I
I
really
think
that
there's
a
an
opportunity
for
us
to
get
it
there,
so
I
really
do
strongly
urge
the
owner
to
to
take
this
into
the
end
of
january.
A
L
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
We
have
led
ourselves
down
into
a
fairly
complicated
route
on
this
application,
in
that
it
is
unclear
if
we
pass
if
we
approve
this
motion
to
defer
that
the
applicant
will
actually
agree
by
december
the
second,
but
I
think
that
I
would,
with
all
due
respect,
I
think
I
will
vote
against
this
motion,
because
what
it
appears
is
that
the
the
applicant
was
given
the
opportunity
you
know
by
the
heritage
planners
to
to
extend
the
date
of
the
heritage
act
and
they
refused.
L
I
also
you
know.
I've
heard
the
the
architect
suggests
that
they
have
gone
as
far
as
they
can
go
or
willing
to
go
with
the
design.
So
I
detect
a
kind
of
confrontation
here,
I'm
being
fairly
blunt
about
it,
and
I
think
that
it
might
be
better
to
be
able
to
clear
the
error
if
we
would
refuse
the
application
recommend.
L
The
council
refuses
the
application,
then
it's
quite
clear
that
the
applicant
either
has
to
if
council
agrees
and
refuses
the
application
to
go
to
the
tribunal
or
to
revisit
and
have
some
sufficient
time
to
meet
with
the
heritage
staff
to
meet
with
the
neighbors
and
to
come
up
with
something
that
is
truly
a
a
compromise
that
reflects
the
values
and
attributes
of
the
rock
apart
here.
This
concert
conservation
plan.
L
So
I
just
wanted
to
put
on
notice
that
I'm
very
concerned
about
a
kind
of
short-term
hybrid
process
that
may
not
end
up
with
any
positive
results
and
consequently,
with
all
due
respect,
I
think
that
I
would
vote
against
this,
this
deferral
and,
if
there's
an
opportunity
to
vote
for
refusal,
that's
the
route
that
I'm
going
to
take.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
B
K
E
A
A
And
ultimately,
this
this
report
will
be
scheduled
to
come
ultimately
to
council.
After
the
process
has
been
undertaken.
We
have
no
in-camera
items,
we
do
have
information
previously
distributed
concerning
lowertown
west
and
by
word
market
heritage
conservation
district
update.
But
there
is
no
presentation
on
that
item.
We
have
no
notices
of
motions
to
date
and
I'm,
supposing
we
don't
have
anybody
introducing
those
notices
of
motion
and
we
also
have
no
inquiries
filed
to
date
under
other
business.
A
A
A
We're
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Everyone.
The
next
regular
meeting,
has
not
been
been
scheduled
yet,
but
we
do
anticipate
that
it
most
likely
will
be
held
in
that
in
latter
january,
potentially
january
25th,
and
we
just
did
not
want
to
confirm
because
we
typically
go
through
votes
to
confirm
our
our
account.