►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee - October 4, 2018
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee meeting - October 4, 2018 - Audio Stream
A
Okay,
good
morning,
everybody
I'm
welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
built
heritage
subcommittee.
So
we
have
one
regret
this
afternoon,
which
is
councillor.
Wilkinson
has
let
us
know
that
she
was
not
able
to
come
to
the
meeting
today.
Any
declarations
of
interest
I
see
none
they
so
confirmation
of
minutes.
Can
we
confirm
the
minutes
of
Thursday
September,
30,
2018,
okay,
okay,
okay,
we
have
two
substantive
items
and
then
one
item
under
other
business.
Today
our
speakers
signed
up
for
both
items,
so
we
won't
proceed
through
a
consent
agenda.
B
Good
afternoon
mr.
chair
members
of
the
committee,
as
noted
this
is
an
application
for
demolition
of
the
Miggy
house
at
11:19,
Wellington
Street
West,
the
property
is
designated
on
the
part
for
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
so
any
demolition
of
a
designated
building
requires
the
approval
of
Council
after
consultation
with
the
built
heritage
subcommittee.
That
is
the
reason
this
is
before
you
today.
B
Mcghee
house
is
located
in
Hintonburg.
It
was
designated
in
1996
for
its
architectural
and
historical
value.
It
was
constructed
circa
1881
and
is
a
rare
stone
building
in
hindenburg
and
is
a
landmark
woops.
Sorry,
just
to
give
you
a
brief
timeline
of
the
events
that
have
occurred
on
this
property.
I'm
sure
everyone
is
aware
of
the
July
24th
partial
collapse,
the
west
wall
of
the
building
on
July
25th,
the
city
Commission,
John,
kokum
Associates,
to
review
the
building
condition
on
July
26th.
B
A
report
was
submitted
to
the
city
with
recommendations
for
immediate
action
that
this
report
noted
that
there
was
serious
and
immediate
public
safety
risks
to
the
effect
that
there
were
little
little
or
no
more
remaining
in
the
wall
to
support
it.
The
recommendations
of
that
report
were
to
remove
the
oppor
area
of
the
southern
end
of
the
west
wall,
remove
the
west
section
of
the
flat
roof
and
remove
the
masonry
at
the
southwest
corner.
B
This
book
I'll
show
you
if
a
of
the
work
in
a
moment,
but
after
the
work
was
completed,
there
was
a
second
report
submitted
to
the
city
by
John
booking
associates
with
recommendations
for
future
action.
These
recommendations,
I,
will
discuss
in
a
moment
on
September
11th,
the
applicant,
the
property
owner,
submitted
an
application
to
demolish
the
Folies
on
the
screen.
Right
now,
I
show
on
the
left.
B
You
see
after
the
initial
collapse,
so
the
west
wall
of
the
building
partially
collapsed
and
on
the
right
you
see
after
the
partial
demolition
based
on
the
emergency
ordered
issued
by
the
chief
building
official,
the
photo
on
the
right
is
essentially
how
the
site
looks
today.
It
has
been
fenced
off
and
the
sidewalk
is
closed
on
the
outside
of
the
street.
B
So,
as
I
mentioned
on
July
31st,
a
follow-up
report
was
provided
by
John
Kirkland
associates
to
look
at
the
condition
of
the
remainder
of
the
building
and
the
report.
This.
This
is
an
excerpt
from
the
report,
rather
than
provide
that
points.
I
thought
this
was
appropriate
to
use.
Basically,
it
says
that,
in
order
to
restore
this
building,
the
wall
had
would
have
to
be
dismantled.
Stone
by
stone
cannot
be
restored
in
place
safely,
as
as
changing
one
stone
could
result
in
immediate
instability
of
the
wall
and
the
final
sorry.
B
So
the
final
piece
from
this
report
is
that
the
stability
of
the
structure,
while
it
wasn't
an
immediate
safety
risk,
the
immediate
safety
this
had
been
dealt
with
through
the
partial
demolition,
but
that
the
stability
was
in
the
short-term
and
that
the
building
should
be
demolished
no
later
than
late.
November
2018
Chris
walked
me
from
John
Cohen
associates
is
here
today.
B
If
the
committee
does
have
any
questions
regarding
these
reports
and
in
addition
to
this
in
order
to
sort
of
peer
review,
the
work
done
by
John,
Cook
and
associates,
the
city
has
recently
contracted
Odra
vich
engineering
out
of
Toronto
to
have
a
another
look
at
these
reports,
as
well
as
review.
The
building
and
the
I
visited
the
building
with
them
yesterday
and
their
preliminary
conclusions
and
provided
us
with
a
written
report.
B
Yet,
but
I
did
just
hear
from
them
this
morning
that
they
with
the
findings
of
the
cook
report
and
that
the
building
could
not
be
restored
in
situate,
what
have
to
be
dismantled,
stone
by
stone
and
completely
rebuilt,
and
that
there
is
an
upcoming
safety
risk
as
a
result
of
the
upcoming
season
change.
So
that
confirms
in
addition
to
what
we
already
knew.
B
The
recommendation
in
the
report
is
to
approve
the
application
for
demolition
subject
to
two
conditions.
One
is
that
the
applicant
enter
into
a
safe
plan
agreement
with
the
City
of
Ottawa,
and
this
is
required
by
the
Official
Plan
the
site
plan
would
it
would
address
landscaping,
retention
and
reincorporation
of
some
some
or
all
of
the
stone
from
the
building.
That
amount
is
to
be
determined
and
commemoration
of
the
history
of
Magee
house
through
an
interpretative
panel
or
a
plaque
on
the
site
and
other
possible
commemoration
ideas
when
a
new
development
occurs
on
this
site.
B
The
second
condition
is
that
demolition
must
be
completed
by
mid
November
to
ensure
that
the
building
is
demolished
prior
to
winter
because
of
the
public
safety
risk
and
then,
finally,
as
I
said,
the
application,
the
recommendations
are
to
approve
the
application
to
demolish
and
direct
staff
to
initiate
the
process,
to
repeal
the
designation
bylaw
and
that's
a
clean
up
issue.
In
terms
of
once
the
building
is
gone,
then
the
reasons
that
was
designated
are
also
gone.
So
there
is
no
reason
to
keep
a
bylaw
on
the
property.
Happy
dance,
any
questions
the
committee
might
have.
B
A
C
Thank
You,
chair
UN,
the
committee
have
before
you
are
a
written
submission
and
and
you'll
see
that
it's
with
great
regret
that
we
note
the
staff
recommendation,
which
you,
which
you've
just
heard.
We
certainly
cannot
and
aren't
contradicting
the
reports
that
you
have
from
the
two
engineers
that
demolition
is
necessary,
but
we
regret
it
because,
as
was
mentioned
earlier,
this
building
is
a
landmark.
C
We
do,
however,
understand
that
this
tragic
event
has
brought
about
important
improvements
to
the
city's
inspection
process,
and
it's
best
that
that
we
really
would
like
you
to
concentrate
on
as
much
as
possible,
for
example,
to
follow
councillor
leapers
recommendation
that
we
should
be
music
using
new
tools
to
better
inspect
the
condition
of
buildings.
I
know
that
this
building
was
occupied
both
ought
to
be
vacant,
but
certainly
the
the
problem
of
inadequate
inspection
of
grooves.
C
C
We
also
support
the
idea
that
the
city
should
introduce
financial
incentives,
such
as
other
cities
have
done
with
the
heritage
property
tax
relief
program
in
order
to
make
it
possible
for
owners
of
such
buildings
to
adequately
invest
in
their
maintenance.
So
we're
very
reluctantly
agreeing
with
the
staff
recommendation
that
the
house
has
to
be
demolished.
It
has
been
said
here
that
the
sum
of
the
stone
should
be
retained,
given
the
landmark
status
of
the
wynken
Street
frontage.
We
would
certainly
like
to
see
it
as
much
as
possible,
if
not
all,
of
that
frontage
retained.
C
The
engineers
have
said
that
it
can
be
taken
down
and
assuming
that
the
facing
stone
is
in
good
condition
that
could
be
incorporated
into
a
replacement
building
once
a
new
development
on
that
site
is
approved,
and
certainly
we
feel
that
there
should
be
an
interpretive
panel,
reminding
people
of
this
lost
landmark.
So
thank
you
very
much.
Okay,.
A
D
Afternoon,
thank
you,
I'm.
Sorry,
my
submission
was
a
bit
late
reaching
you
so
I
will
quickly
mention
what
I
consider
some
of
the
important
points
on
this
building
is
particularly
important
to
the
Hintonburg
Community
Association,
since
it
was
our
first
request
for
designation,
and
it
was
of
course
the
first
building
that
I
did
research
on
so
I
had
a
personal
attachment
to
it,
as
an
tal
recruits
can
attest
to
that,
because
I
would
quite
closely
with
her
in
presenting
my
research
proudly.
D
D
The
accept
reluctantly,
of
course,
that
the
building
will
have
to
be
demolished.
However,
we're
very
concerned
that
the
repair,
the
designation
by
law
will
eliminate
the
heritage
overlaid
on
this
property.
Obviously,
the
buyer
has
to
be
repealed,
but
the
Heritage
overlay,
as
you
know,
as
part
of
the
rezoning
that
protects
heritage
properties
and
unfortunately,
the
photos
are
referred
to
in
my
submission
I-
forgot
to
pick
them
up
and
VIN
them.
So
you
will
have
to
picture
I.
Don't
know
poppy,
can
you
put
your
picture
up
into
enemy?
D
D
Not
necessarily
the
mentor
agree
with
either
a
more
modern
interpretation.
We
did
that
something
that
isn't
going
straight
up:
six
storeys
with
a
two
metre
setback
at
the
third
or
fourth
storey.
Something
that's
a
little
more
in
tune
with
the
building
that
today,
oh
I,
don't
know
how
much
power
you
have
with
the
Planning
Committee,
but
on
your
ear
word
might
go
some
distance
to
ensure
that
they
do
this,
so
I
think
that's
really
that
Inc.
That
concludes
the
remarks.
I
have
it's
a
sad
day.
E
A
D
I,
don't
see
a
replica,
something
that
maybe
uses
the
stone
in
a
modern
design.
It's
more
the
instead
of
as
I
say
that
the
zoning
bylaw
allows
you
to
go
up
straight
up
from
the
sidewalk,
as
I
didn't
does
now,
but
six
stories,
with
the
exception
of
a
tiny
setback,
whereas
that
in
the
streetscape,
if
you
go
I,
say,
go
as
high
as
that
building
and
step
back
enough
more
than
two
meters
I,
don't
know
what
enough
is
I'm
thinking
120
feet.
D
How
many
meters
is
that
something
that
allows
the
adjoining
buildings
to
take
their
place
in
the
streetscape
and
not
be
totally
overpowered
by
whatever
replaces
it
is
I,
don't
think
that
we
would
want
to
constrain
the
design
in
terms
of
materials.
I
am
awed
and
alien
could
could
be,
could
fit
there,
possibly
using
some
of
the
stone
I.
Don't
know
you
are
committed,
seven
counts.
The
NCC's
proposal
there,
which
was
adapted
somewhat
and
has
used
a
combination,
I
think
the
original
storm
and
glass
and
seems
to
me
to
be
quite
successful.
D
A
I'll
ask
staff
about
that
at
the
end
of
delegations.
Thank
you,
I
see
no
other
questions,
so
thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out
this
afternoon.
So
there's
an
opportunity
for
questions
to
staff,
maybe
all
to
start
just
because
I'm
sure
a
lot
of
us
were
thinking
this
in
in
the
balla
right
now
is
there
is
this
property
desert
benefit
from
heritage
overlay,
I.
B
A
F
B
D
Get
more
information
about
the
site
plan?
Is
there
site
plan
is
required
and
that's
the
condition
it
is
impossible
more
in
the
city
to
have
one
between
in
mid-november.
It
takes
a
lot
longer
than
that
to
get
a
site
plan
approved
that
is
not
approved.
Is
it
have
to
have
one,
or
is
this
going
to
be
late,
because
the
condition
to
deny
OSHA
by
mid-november
is
just
a
month
away?
And
you
have
said
plan.
B
B
D
I
think,
usually
a
site
plan
is
distributed
to
there's
a
circulation
on.
It
was
time
to
respond,
and
all
these
other
kind
of
things
that
even
a
simple
one
has
that
so
as
long
as
appointment
committee
can
make
sure
that's
very
fair
thing,
I
didn't
want
to
have
it
delayed
to
get
the
demolition
down
into
some
of
the
state
that
are
soon
know.
D
Be
an
idea
in
the
next
during
the
official
plan,
to
make
it
very
clear
in
there
that
there
can
be
times
when
the
urgent
conditions
that
this
could
be
waived,
because,
if
it
gets,
the
city
has
attended
to
be
very
strict
diameter.
There
is
at
least
we
went
into
that
over
time
and,
as
common
sense
has
to
prevail,
I
think
in
this
case,
I've
addressed
a
doing
so
so
as
long
as
that
that
Senate
planning
committee
to
be
okay,
okay,.
E
The
engineer
noted
that
the
only
work
that
being
done
on
the
building
was
done
inappropriately
and
I
think
that
the
good
strong
incentive
program
would
it
be
helpful
in
ensuring
that
work
done
on
the
property
was
done
properly
and
more
teens.
So,
can
you
tell
me
whether
it
be
any
action
taken
as
a
result
of
this
with
the
owner?
Thank
you.
B
E
Yeah
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
as
the
events
of
the
collapse
of
the
McKee
house,
have
ruled
out
and
I
read
through
the
report
and
I
just
like
to
ask
that
about
the
the
conditions
that
are
to
be
applied
to
the
application
for
for
redevelopment.
I
noticed
there
is
the
absence
of
the
condition
that
recommends
that
the
development
include
recognition
of
the
formal,
mass
and
form
and
character
of
the
building
that
has
been
essentially
being
demolished
by
neglect.
E
It
is
not
costly
to
the
city
to
make
the
point
that
the
principles
that
are
involved
in
trying
to
determine
demolition
by
neglect
should
make
everybody
aware
that
you
have
an
obligation
to
recognize
what
has
been
lost
and
to
incorporate
that
in
the
future.
Building
and
so
I
assume
that
you
gave
some
thought
to
that
condition
and
can
I
ask
why
it
was
included,
because
I'm
going
to
probably
move
that
we
do
include
it
through.
B
Mr.
chair
I
did
we
did
give
some
consideration
to
that
and
didn't
include
it
specifically
for
two
reasons:
the
first
being
that
the
Heritage
overlay
does
regulate
that
as
well
through
the
zoning
bylaw
and
the
second
being
that
we
were
wary
of
attempting
to
design
a
building
in
advance
of
knowing
what
was
being
proposed
on
the
site
in
the
future.
We
are
not
sure,
what's
going
to
happen,
whether
it's
going
to
be
a
vacant
site,
whether
it'll
be
sold
and
developed.
E
Can
I
just
follow
up
on
that?
I?
Don't
think
that
we're
expecting
the
city
to
design
the
buildings
for
the
property
owner
or
whoever
purchases
next,
but
the
city
has
a
record
and
policies
for
putting
guidelines
on
properties
and
I
think
that
having
a
site
plan
condition
that
requires
the
future
development
to
incorporate
some
of
the
stonework,
which
is
a
recommendation
that
is
already
made
but
to
incorporate
the
as
Linda
hold,
was
suggesting
the
mass
form
and
something
of
the
character.
We're
not
talking
replication
here,
but
we're
talking
about
an
extraordinary
circumstance.
E
Work
through
neglect,
landmark
building,
has
collapsed
and
I
think
that
I
would
think
the
public
would
expect
the
city
to
assert
that
that
landmark
had
some
value
and
should
continue
to
have
some
value
in
the
future,
not
in
terms
of
the
heritage
loss
but
in
terms
of
the
massing
and
the
streetscape
and
I
draw
your
attention
to.
You
know
the
discussions
that
are
taking
place
at
UNESCO
right
now
about
the
whole
question
of
close
to
post-trauma
reconstruction,
and
this
is
a
worldwide
issue.
E
We
have
Wars,
where
you
have
intentional
destruction
of
monuments
and
I
would
suggest
that
we
put
a
condition
in
the
reclamation
planning
committee
that
has
the
future
developer,
include
the
principles
of
form
massing
without
designing
it
for
them,
but
they
need
to
take
that
into
account
and
I
will
work
up
some
routing
for
this.
As
we
progress
through
the
meeting
or
if
others
have
a
suggestion,
if
their
support
fad.
A
Well,
maybe
just
to
follow
up
on
that
point
and
a
question
staff
as
well.
So
if
we
look
at
page
six
of
the
report
under
site
plan,
we
have
a
requirement
for
site
plan
control
and
then
reading
the
last
sentence,
the
site,
the
site
plan
process
will
also
allow
the
department
the
ability
to
work
with
the
property
owner
regarding
retention
of
some
or
all
the
remaining
stone.
Once
the
building
is
demolished.
A
Commemoration
of
the
history
of
McGee
has,
through
an
interpretative
panel
on
the
site
and
incorporation
of
salvaged
stone
into
a
future
development
on
the
site,
and
so
that,
as
a
condition
in
the
report
is
not
necessarily
all
of
that
is
not
then
most
of
it
I
would
say,
is
probably
incorporated
in
paragraph
three
so
of
our
recommendations.
So
I
guess
the
question
for
you,
mr.
vice
chair,
is:
are
you
suggesting
that
additional
conditions
go
to
the
massing
of
the
replacement
development?
E
I'm.
Working
on
this
on
the
fly
here,
not
having
consulted
in
advance
about
the
woods.
But
if
there's
some
suggestion
that
staff
had
that
would
make
this
addition
to
sentence
be
a
little
simpler
and
not
so
esoteric.
That
has
to
do
with
the
form
and
massing
and
height.
Then
I'd
be
quite
content
with
that
as
well.
But
I
think
that
my
view
would
be.
E
I
would
really
support
an
amendment
that,
in
this
case,
it's
a
little
more
teeth
into
it
and
a
message
to
those
that
are
contemplating
demolition
by
neglect
on
other
properties
that
the
city
cares
about
the
landmark
that
has
been
there
and
that
will
continue
be
there
in
an
altered
form
in
the
future.
I
think
it's
one
reasonable.
A
A
A
B
E
A
Mr.
mr.
chair,
if
I
may
actually
have
the
paragraph
I
in
front
of
me,
we're
building
in
an
area
to
which
a
heritage
overlay
applies,
is
removed
or
destroyed.
It
must
be
rebuilt
with
the
same
character
and
at
the
same
scale,
massing
volume,
floor
area
and
in
the
same
location
as
it
existed
prior
to
its
removal
or
destruction,
and
this
is
a
component
of
the
zoning
bylaw
I.
E
Think
that
would
satisfy,
but
I
think
that
the
volume
and
height
of
the
development,
if
the
underlying
zoning
provides
more
capacity,
I,
wouldn't
have
probably
deleting
those
words
from
the
condition.
What
we're
looking
for
I
think
is
what
Linda
old
was
suggesting,
and
that
is
that
the
experience
of
the
streetscape
demonstrates
the
massing
form
and
somewhat
of
the
character
that
we
have
enjoyed
up
until
the
demolition,
so
might
be,
that
those
words
are
taken,
but
being
silent
on
volume
and
and
and
height.
Would
that
be
reasonable?
E
A
Wallace
leave
out
that
would
you
have
any
objection
to
that.
Mr.
chair
I
appreciate
the
intent
I'm
just
concerned
that
we
have
a
bylaw
provision
that
is
strong
and
in
place
that
imposes
very
strict
requirements
of
a
replacing
like
with--like
to
the
extent
allowed
under
the
Planning
Act
of
Ontario
I
believe
that
by
law
pushes
the
exact
edge
of
what
we
are
allowed
to
do
and
ask
for
going
beyond
that
may
not
be
compliant
with
the
Planning
Act
of
Ontario,
and
we
do
believe
that
in
Prior
instances
we
have
successfully
used
this
provision.
E
Just
the
point,
and
that
is
that
I
think
that
the
by
law
under
the
Planning
Act
is
very
valuable
and
that's
why
we
heard
was
introduced.
But
I
think
that
it
would
be
important
to
have
this
committee
with
its
recognition
to
plan
and
chameleon
council,
actually
speak
of
the
principles
that
are
in
the
Herron
or
overlay,
so
that
we're
not
silent
on
it
as
both
head
and
subcommittee.
That
are.
E
E
A
E
Just
wanted
to
clarify
something
in
the
report:
it
talks
about
the
retention
of
the
stone
and
then
later
on,
under
the
recommendation
number
three,
it
says:
conditions
related
to
attention
and
start
to
solve.
It's
shown
the
building,
and
then
it
talks
about
some
or
all
of
the
solid
stone
be
incorporated
and
I'm
that
confused
because
of
the
the
first
section,
it
seems
to
indicate
that
all
of
the
stone
will
be.
E
B
A
May
be
with
and
and
David
that
the
applicability
of
the
Heritage
overlay
provisions
satisfies
the
concern
that
you
brought
up
earlier
in
your
presentation
and
yep,
so
we're
on
in
good
shape
there.
My
question
might
be
a
little
more
pedestrian.
When
will
this
building
come
down?
We've
heard
from
the
BIA
we've
heard
from
neighbors
about
the
business
loss.
That's
been
asserted
the
fact
that
the
sidewalk
is
closed
and
there
is
some
keenness
on
the
part
of
the
communities
see
the
building
down
sooner
rather
than
later.
B
Through
this
Harwich
permit,
the
owner
has
until
until
November
15th
to
demolish
the
building.
As
you
see
in
the
report,
there
are
concerns
about
when
winter
comes
what
that
means,
if
winter
does
come
and
the
building
not
been
demolished,
that
would
be
up
to
our
Building
Code
Services
colleagues
to
step
in
and
consider
what
emergency
orders
are
acquired
to
demolish
the
building.
How.
D
Mr.
cherrywood
sure,
with
Building
Code
Services
I
think
those
would
be
further
investigations
that
we
would
have
the
engineer's
report
on
as
to
whether
or
not
the
building
was
affected
at
that
time.
But
we
would
be
going
through
the
professionals
to
understand
that
the
building
was
a.
If
we
were
going
to
issue
an
emergency
order,
then
we
would
have
to
have
that
security
that
the
building
was
in
fact
an
imminent
state
of
failure.
Okay,
I
think.
A
D
A
Provide
us
with
a
lot
of
certainty
or
comfort,
but
I
understand
the
position
you're
in.
Thank
you
very
much
it's.
It
is
sad
to
see
that
it's
gotten
to
this
point.
I
have
to
urge
you
know
the
next
City
Council
as
heritage
becomes
more
active
discussion,
I
hope
in
the
next
term
to
take
a
look
at
how
we
hell
property
owners
maintain
their
buildings.
Berg
is.
A
A
A
Okay,
we'll
turn
to
our
second
substantive
item,
which
is
an
application
with
regard
to
2:00
to
7:00
McHale
Street,
our
property
located
in
the
new
Edinburgh
Heritage
Conservation
District,
before
the
staff
offer
a
brief
update
on
this
item.
I'm
gonna
ask
the
vice
chair
to
introduce
the
motion
which
was
circulated.
I
believe
yesterday
on
this
item.
Thank.
E
A
E
Then
I
will
get
to
the
following
changes
in
the
to
be
made
to
the
staff
report.
Number
one
would
be
to
revise
the
English
subject
to
be
application
to
construct
a
new
building
at
2:27
Mackay
Street,
a
property
located
in
a
new
Edinburgh
Heritage
Conservation
District
designated
under
part
by
the
with
Harry
Heritage
Act.
Two
would
be
to
advise
the
French
subject
to
and
I'm
going
to
pass
on
that,
because
I
will
mangle
the
language.
E
Sorry
about
that
number
three
to
delete
recommendation
number
one
and
we
many
recommendations
accordingly
and
for
to
delete
the
following
statement
in
paragraph
two
on
page
four
to
delete
the
statement
in
the
statement
to
be
deleted
is,
as
there
was
neither
a
heritage
permit
under
the
entire
Heritage
Act,
nor
a
demolition
permit
under
the
Building
Code
Act
to
permit
the
demolition.
This
report
has
been
prepared
because
demolition
and
new
construction
in
the
Heritage
Conservation
districts
designated
under
part
for
the
interrogators
Act
require
approval
of
City
Council
and
five
delete
in
its
entirety.
E
A
F
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
chair
again,
this
report
is
in
front
of
you
today
as
an
application
under
the
Heritage
Act.
You've
just
received
information
regarding
a
motion
to
alter
the
original
port
dropping
the
original
recommendation.
1,
you
may
choose
to
support
that
motion,
but
I
will
add
clarity
that
this
this
decision
was
made
after
the
initial
completion
of
the
report
after
discussion
with
our
legal
armed
services,
and
it
was
determined
that
removing
a
recommendation
1
would
provide
a
player
report
for
the
consideration
of
bill
territory
subcommittee
today.
F
The
subject
property
two
to
seven
Makai
Street,
is
located
in
the
new
Edinburgh
heritage
conservation
districts
facing
the
governor-general's
grounds
between
Keefer
and
Dufferin
Terrace.
You
may
recall
that
in
October
2017
this
committee
even
considered
a
report
regarding
the
property
and,
at
the
time
built
heritage
subcommittee,
made
a
recommendation
on
supporting
staff
to
our
support
of
staff's
recommendation
to.
F
You
know
just
go
to
the
next
page
is
clear,
so
the
report
which,
which
was
supported
by
Bill
Territory
subcommittee
and
then
on
to
receive
the
support
of
the
City
Council,
was
to
retain
the
smallest
illustrated
here,
which
was
built
in
the
1890s.
The
approval
was
to
allow
the
demolition
of
the
real
wing
of
the
building,
then
have
it
moved
on
to
critic
living
in
the
backyard
while
a
new
foundation
was
dug
and
then
place
it
back
upon
the
foundation
and
construct
an
addition
to
the
rear
and
a
new
front
veranda.
F
The
Heritage
permit
was
signed
by
the
mayor
on
October,
the
12th
2017
and
the
applicant
and
owners
were
sent
copies
of
the
permit
subsequent
to
the
heritage
permit
being
issued.
The
project
received
variances
from
the
committee
adjustment,
which
were
not
appealed.
Heritage
Ottawa
supported
the
original
application
in
the
webinar
community
associations,
supported
the
building
the
new
foundation
and
the
front
facade,
but
had
concerns
which
were
added.
This
committee
regarding
the
real
additions
to
the
property.
F
Because
a
building
permit
for
a
project
is
always
required
in
addition
to
a
heritage
permit
the
owner
made
that
application
and
it
was
issued
on
June
27th
2018.
The
permit
was
to
and
I
quote,
construct
an
addition
and
interior
alterations
to
a
two-story
detached
dwelling
by
the
end
of
the
July.
The
building
was
sitting
on
cribbing
one
of
a
picture
of
this
in
the
rear
yard.
According
to
the
Heritage
permits
on
August
23rd
by
August
23rd,
the
building
had
been
demolished
with
their
permission
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
F
In
addition
to
the
demolition,
construction
of
a
new
building
was
proceeding
again.
This
was
in
controversial
contravention
of
the
heritage
permit,
which
had
been
issued
for
an
addition
and
the
reinstatement
of
the
original
house.
It
is
the
intent
of
the
city
to
preserve
to
pursue
charges
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
related
to
the
demolition
of
the
building,
with
a
permit
without
a
heritage.
F
F
In
the
meantime,
the
property
owner
was
permitted
to
ensure
that
the
building
would
not
be
damaged
to
by
the
weather.
Well,
the
orders
were
being
complied
with.
My
colleague
from
Building
Code
services
richer,
can
answer
questions
directly
related
to
the
order
to
comply
which
was
issued
on
September
the
13th.
So
the
application
in
front
of
you
today
is
to
build
a
structure
identical
in
appearance
to
the
one.
That's
built
heritage
subcommittee,
planning
committee
and
student
council
supported
in
2017,
for
which
a
permit
was
issued.
F
Building
with
the
front
veranda,
the
form
an
original
bill
way
of
the
heritage
building
will
be
reflected
in
the
larger
window
on
the
front,
facade
and
the
principal
are
entering
to
the
new
property
will
be
will
be
to
the
side
in
the
new
addition
in
the
there
will
be
a
cost
gable
roof
with
a
shed
dormer
built
to
on
create
additional
space
upstairs,
which
is
located
in
where
the
former
the
former
additions
were
to
the
rear.
This
is
facing
well
Edinborough,
safe
and
adjacent
in
user.
F
That
was
near
the
Lutheran
Church,
so
the
rear
of
the
building
which
faces
Avon
Lane
is
much
more
contemporary
in
expression.
That
involves
a
a
one-story
addition
with
a
small
deck
to
the
rear.
Again
there
are,
there
were
variances
that
were
required
to
the
king
to
the
Heritage
overlay,
and
these
were
again
approved
by
the
Masters,
who
everybody
cleaned
adjustments
and
were
not
appealed.
F
So
again,
I
briefly
alluded
to
what
we
look
for
when
we're
looking
at
guidelines
for
new
buildings
and
Heritage
Conservation
districts.
These
guidelines
were
in
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan,
which
was
approved
in
2016,
and
so
we
support
the
application
for
new
construction
in
heritage
district,
because
the
proposed
building
complies
with
the
guidelines.
F
The
building
will
be
of
its
own
time
identifiable
as
a
building
constructed
in
2018
and
it's
Gable,
but
is
give
it
lift
form
its
fenestration
pattern
in
this
front
for
lambda
access
by
four
steps,
and
it's
siding
are
consistent
with
other
small
frame
houses
in
the
area
and
and
also
consistent
with
the
guidelines
that
were
approved
by
City
Council
in
the
new
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan
was
approved
again.
Further
guidelines
speak
to
your
cladding
materials,
on
height,
mass
and
materials
of
the
building
windows
that
made
with
Windows
natural
materials,
etc.
F
So
for
the
week
because
it
does
respect
these
guidelines
city,
the
city
were
recommending
the
approval
of
the
building.
So
the
recommendations
are
to
approve
the
application
for
new
construction
to
delegate
authority
for
minor
design
changes
to
the
general
manager
to
issue
the
heritage
permit,
with
a
two-year
expiry
date
from
your
date
of
issuance
census,
somewhat
moot
since
it's
under
construction
and
to
suspend
the
notice
required.
So
that
it
can
proceed
from
Planning
Committee
on
Tuesday,
the
9th
to
City
Council
on
the
the
10th
of
October.
Thank
you
very
much.
Ok,.
A
A
A
C
Thank
You
chair,
we
submitted
a
short
paper
on
this,
though
we're
very
concerned
about
it,
and
we
are
opposed
to
this
application.
We
said
originally
to
demolish
and
construct
now.
Obviously,
the
motion
is
being
changed.
The
application
is
being
changed
to
only
construction,
but
a
couple
of
things
are
still
not
quite
clear
to
us.
Miss
Coutts
stated
that
the
building
was
apparently
successfully
moved
onto
the
cribbing
in
the
back
yard.
So
the
question
that
we
have
relative
to
the
laying
of
charges
for
demolition
is
was
the
demolition
deliberate?
C
We
certainly
feel
that
there's
an
important
violation
here,
which
is
an
offence
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
as
well
as
under
the
Building
Code
Act
we've
seen
cases
before
where
staff
have
actually
said.
Last
year
there
was
another
property,
83
plus
cell,
where
the
staff
report
actually
recommended
against
retro
actively
granting
permission,
because
it
would
set
a
bad
precedent
for
designated
properties
or
properties
and
heritage
conservation
districts.
C
It
appears
that
you
know
we
may
have
a
pattern
here
that
some
building
owners
are
discovering
that
the
financial
benefit
of
illegally
bowling,
maybe
maybe
significant.
You
know
the
fact
that
they
don't
have
to
do
the
the
restoration
of
the
original
building.
It's
cheaper
to
build
new
David,
Clemen
and
I
have
both
been
in
the
last
couple
of
days
to
view
this
building,
and
certainly
it
would
appear
that
plans
were
underway
well
before
the
middle
of
August
or
two
to
put
a
brand
new
building
on
that
foundation.
C
Laurier
was
agreement
to
relocate
a
number
of
heritage
buildings,
one
of
them
collapsed
and
another
was
then
subsequently
demolished
without
a
permit,
a
fine
was
applied,
but
even
there,
it's
not
clear
that
the
penalty
was
sufficient
to
outweigh
of
the
financial
advantage
of
of
just
going
forward
and
disregarding
the
heritage
rules
here.
So
we
think
that
that
you're
clearly
now
moving
with
a
motion
to
permit
new
construction,
which
is
different
from
what
we
we
only
came
prepared
to
talk
to,
but
certainly
the
owners
should
not
be
rewarded
for
the
action
that
was
taken
here.
A
D
F
Street
property,
so,
in
addition
to
the
input
that
has
already
been
received
from
four
of
those
six
members,
we
have
the
following
questions
and
input
to
make.
So
so
was
the
original
construction.
Why
was
the
original
construction
at
270
demolished
without
the
required
permit
of
the
city,
and
why
is
the
city
granting
approval
for
a
reconstruction
of
identical?
How
of
an
identical
house
retro
actively
and
I?
Think
that's
been
clear
queried
already?
Is
it
not
true
that
there
was
a
building
permit
for
renovations
to
the
old
construct,
but
not
for
a
completely
new
house?
F
Are
there
building
inspectors
engineers,
toxicology
reports
on
the
contents
of
the
demolished
discarded
materials
for
the
old
for
the
old
house,
and
we
wish
to
receive
copies
of
those
as
the
first
approval
for
the
project,
but
the
Heritage
Committee
was
done
prior
to
a
public
meeting.
The
same
thing
seems
to
be
happening
again
in
its
October
first
revised
letter
heritage
planning
says
that
the
new
house
is
a
complete
replica
of
the
original
building
with
additions.
An
email
of
October
2nd
describes.
F
Destroyed
that
is
a
major
question
that
we
have
and
the
project
is
no
longer
a
renovation
of
the
historic
building.
It
is
a
completely
new
construct.
Does
this
change?
How
the
variance
is
that
we
were
given
remain
or
have
there
been
or
will
be,
other
changes,
and
what
about
the
heights
of
the
ceilings
within
the
new
construct?
We
in
the
households
adjacent
to
2
to
7
project
believe
that
the
frame
of
the
newly
constructed
building
is
not
a
complete
replica
of
the
historic
house.
It
is
much
higher.
F
The
peak
is
more
pronounced
the
side
eaves
draw
our
drawings,
abutting
units
of
to15
mckay
is
not
continuous
and
our
members
and
residents
are
asking
for
the
exact
of
dimensions
and
for
the
side
inferences.
We
request
a
copy
of
the
engineer's
report
on
the
state
of
the
historic
home.
We
request
a
copy
of
the
building
inspectors
report,
one
that
was
reported
to
have
been
done
in
the
past
few
days.
We
were
their
architectural
plans
that
include
the
new
construction.
F
We
would
ask
that
at
least
$100,000
compensation
be
paid
to
the
new
Edinburgh
Conservation
District
for
removal
of
such
a
historic
element
of
our
community.
We
believe
that
the
new
structure
will
definitely
alter
the
heritage,
historic
element
and
nature
of
a
neighborhood
in
the
streetscapes
of
Mackay
Street
and
Yvonne
Lane.
F
Are
there
architectural
plans
for
a
garage
to
be
in
the
site
and
and
bordering
on
Avon
Lane?
What
are
the
dimensions
of
these?
Are
there
variances
to
be
considered
height,
further,
coming
off
of
lights,
of
light
to
units
5
&
6
at
150
K,
and
encroaching
on
a
very
small
space
between
the
two
properties?
This
too
would
change
the
streetscape
of
Avon
Lane
I'm.
A
Great,
let
me
just
explain
that
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
new
lays
are
going
to
come
up
in
the
discussion
delegates.
Don't
don't
ask
formal
questions
of
staff,
but
I
suspect
a
lot
of
the
issues
you
raised
will
be
discussed
and
the
more
after
the
meeting,
I'm
sure
staff
will
be
happy
to
speak
to
you
about
the
availability,
many
of
the
documents
you
raise
so
I.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out
this
afternoon.
A
lot
of
the
items
you
raise
will
be
discussed
and
a
lot
of
stuff.
F
A
E
You,
mr.
chairman
and
I
want
to
refer
to
some
of
the
comments
for
the
first
speaker
opposing
the
motion.
The
application
for
a
new
building
permit
for
a
completely
new
building,
which
is
being
made
retroactive
to
the
demolition
of
the
old
building
in
July
and
I.
Just
want
to
note
that
the
lot
that
we're
talking
about
at
227
Makai
is
30
feet
wide.
E
One
foot,
seven
inches
based
on
where
the
foundation
of
the
original
building
was
compared
to
the
replacement
of
it,
and
it
was
on
that
basis
that
the
variance
was
granted
a
new
building
does
not
qualify
for
the
minor
variances,
but
that
seems
to
be
something
which,
since
the
report,
the
concrete
was
poured
in
June.
The
building
with
old
building
was
demolished
in
July.
E
Nobody
at
City
Planning
was
told
about
it
until
who
knows
when
maybe
August
late
August,
it
seems,
but
this
very
common
here,
a
Dilbert
fragrant
foundation
and
specifically
the
new
building
one
can
measure
it
has
9
foot
high
ceilings.
On
the
first
floor,
the
original
building
certainly
had
no
more
than
8-foot
ceilings
and
perhaps
less
so
they
went
ahead,
got
all
the
materials
went
ahead
and
did
a
build
without
making
any
notification
to
the
city.
E
Now,
on
the
same
site
plan
in
October
2017,
there
is
a
new
garage
being
proposed,
24
feet,
wide
23
feet
deep,
24
feet
high
and
this
on
a
30
foot,
lot
fronting
on
Avon
Lane
and
the
old
garage
is
a
single-story
single
car
wouldn't
graph.
So
there's
no
justification
for
any
heritage.
For
this
very
large
garage.
It
is
complete
new
structure.
Now.
E
My
question
is:
have
any
application
been
made
to
the
heritage
planning
committee
or
the
planning
committee
for
a
minor
variance
for
this
building,
because
it's
being
as
being
about
23
inches
from
the
west
side
of
the
227
lot,
which
is
the
east
side
of
the
of
the
a
band
mark
property?
And
it's
a,
and
so
it
would
appear,
may
be
that
they
are
asking
expecting
to
have
some
other
minor
variants
for
a
new
garage
or
Nathan.
E
E
So,
given
the
very
lack
of
trust,
the
flagrant
attempt
to
violate
the
original
heritage
building
and
demolish
it?
It
seems
to
me
that
one
needs
to
look
very
curtly
at
what
has
been
now
being
proposed
on
the
rest,
the
site
for
a
monster
garage
with
only
less
than
two
foot
allowance
being
made
on
the
west
side.
E
E
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out
this
afternoon.
Seeing
no
questions
again.
Some
of
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
well
come
on,
sir,
in
the
discussion.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
coming
out
this
afternoon.
Okay.
So
this
is
an
opportunity
for
questions
to
staff
or
comments.
Member
Quinn
did
you
want
to
start.
F
A
Clarification
is
is
that
the
original
motion,
the
original
staff
report,
contained
an
element
of
a
retroactive
demolition
permission
which,
upon
review,
what
is
the
legal
department
deed
and
it's
not
dissimilar
to
how
this
committee
addressed
the
address
on
plus
L,
if
you
will
call
a
better
year
and
a
half
ago
or
so,
essentially,
our
focus
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
is
the
application
for
new
construction
of
this
building.
So
we
are
not
retro
actively
providing
permission
for
the
demolition
that
took
took
place.
A
F
D
So
I
can
answer
that
now.
Mr.
chair,
there
is
a
permit
for
the
construction,
but
when
we
became
aware
of
the
fact
that
they
were
deviating
from
the
documents
that
form
part
of
the
permit,
that's
when
in
the
order
to
comply,
was
written
in
September
and
getting
them
to
revise
their
permit
to
be
in
compliance.
And
that's
why
we're
here
today,
but.
D
F
F
That
is
correct,
and
so
you
are
being
asked
to
approve
a
recommendation
under
the
Heritage
Act
for
for
new
construction.
Thank
you.
In
the
past,
an
example
came
up
today
about
the
incident
that
occurred
on.
What
we
we
know
is
the
nicolas
wall
or
triangle
in
that
instance,
did
did
the
equivalent
to
this
or
to
this
subcommittee,
which
existed
at
the
time.
Lock
act
was
a
a
recommendation
to
approve
the
demolition
after
the
fact
brought
forward
to
attack
mr.
chair.
F
That
is
somewhat
apples
to
oranges,
not
apples
to
apples,
because
those
buildings
weren't
designated
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
plus
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
at
the
times
the
pre
2005
battery
and,
in
addition,
I,
cannot
remember
all
the
details
because
it
was
well
over
15
years
ago.
So
but
of
course,
mr.
chair,
if
there
is
an
interest
in
getting
that
information,
I
would
be
happy
to
supply
it
to
whomever
I'm
just
wondering
about
just
over
time
and
elsewhere
in
Ontario
is,
is.
Is
this
a
common
practice
when
something
like
this
happens?
What
is
the
what's?
F
B
These
situations
have
to
be
addressed
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
and
that
is
what
has
been
done
in
this
situation.
The
motion
as
I
understand
it
reflects
the
the
present
situation
on
the
site,
which
is
that
the
the
heritage
or
the
building
that
was
within
the
Heritage
Conservation
District,
is
now
gone,
and
so
what
this
he's
being
asked
to
do
is
to
approve
the
new
construction
on
the
site
in
accordance
with
the
recommendations.
F
E
Think
it
would
help
the
both
hurdle
subcommittee
to
provide
its
recommendation
on
this
report
if
we
did
have
a
kind
of
public
explanation
by
staff
planning
staff
here
to
staff
on
the
events,
actually
that
led
to
the
demolition
of
the
building
that
was
stored
in
the
rear
yard.
Some
may
have
heard
the
background
to
briefings,
but
I
think
that
it's
important
to
know
what
the
facts
are
about,
whether
or
not
this
was
an
accident
or
was
there
evidence
for
willfulness
I.
F
Mr.
chair,
to
the
best
of
our
knowledge,
the
permit
was
I
mean
to
the
better.
The
permit
was
issued
at
the
end
of
June,
and
it's
there's
a
photograph
on
July,
the
30th
of
the
subject,
property
sitting
upon
the
cribbing,
as
was
a
proved
by
this
committee
in
October,
recommended
by
the
screen,
October
2017
by
the
N
by
the
third
week
of
August.
That
building
was
no
longer
there.
There
was
no
attempt
to
contact
heritage
staff
or
to
discuss
that
the
demolition
of
of
the
building
it
was
without
our
knowledge.
F
E
E
F
Mr.
chair,
it
was
demolished
by
the
owner
we
own,
who
determined,
who
hired
an
engineer
on
their
own.
We
have
the
report
and
the
engineer
would
talk
to
address
some
aspects
of
the
building
and
Court
was
on
July.
The
17th
I.
Have
it
here
or
just
double
check
the
gauge
again
and
then
and
then
it
was
and
then
the
building
was
gone.
So
we
will
not
informed
that
the
owner,
what
was
wrong
with
it?
We
were
supplied
with
the
engineer's
report,
called
a
field
review
report
after
the
removal
of
the
property.
F
So
it
was
retroactive
we
supplied
to
us
and
it
explained
some
of
the
problems
inherent
to
the
building
the
spacing
of
the
studs
etc,
which
made
them
think
that
they
ought
to
remove
it
because
it
was
not
possible
to
incorporate
it
into
their
plans
and
may
they
lent
a
hand
to
build
to
construct
a
building
that
looked
the
same
about
this
at
its
core.
But
I
cannot
speak
for
the
exact
motives
and
the
day-to-day
working
of
the
applicant
at
the
property
owner
at
the
time.
F
E
E
B
Mr.
Chadha,
a
couple
of
things
in
that
first,
this
committee
is
being
asked
to
approve
the
application,
that's
in
front
of
it
on
the
grounds
of
the
information
that's
contained
in
the
application
separate
and
apart
from
any
alleged
or
potential
allegation
of
breaching
of
the
Heritage
Act,
which
is
being
investigated
and
any
approval
by
this
committee,
Planning,
Committee
and
ultimately,
counsel
of
a
permit
on
this
application
is
not
to
be
deemed
to
be
a
retroactive
approval.
B
It's
also
not
deemed
to
be
able
to
contradict
any
legal
action
that
the
city
may
take
in
the
future
against
this
owner
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
Those
penalties
are
laid
out
within
the
act,
but
this
should
be
viewed
separately
in
respect
of
your
question
about
what
happens
if
the
application
is
refused,
then
owner
of
the
property
has
the
right
to
go
to
the
tribunal,
the
Yelp
at
an
appeal
such
decision.
A
Okay,
if
no
the
questions
remember
as
I
may,
just
pick
up
on
a
couple
of
the
questions
that
members
of
the
public
had
to
staff.
Have
any
information
with
regard
to
whether
the
building
in
its
state
now
is
consistent
in
terms
of
setbacks
and
the
variance
is
provided
by
the
committee
of
adjustment.
So
in
other
words,
is
the
structure
as
exists
now
consistent
as
far
as
staff
understand,
with
the
plans,
as
approved
by
you,
recommended
by
you
by
Council
and
whatever
variances
were
entered
by
the
committee
of
adjustment.
F
The
the
building
rests
upon
a
foundation
which
was
built
according
to
plan
in
the
location
of
the
foundation,
was
part
of
the
variances
that
were
that
were
approved
by
by
committee
of
adjustment.
But,
of
course,
through
class
examination,
there
could
always
be
variances,
but
it
is
our
understanding
now
that
the
building
in
its
current
location
is
consistent
with
the
variances
that
were
granted
because
they
were
by
the
committee
of
adjustment.
F
Again,
perhaps
legal
can
help
me
edge
if
it
turns
out
that
they're
not,
but
it
is
my
understanding
that
the
building
permit
was
issued
for
the
building
and
it
is
again
in
the
same
spot,
etc,
etc,
and
also
mr.
chair,
there
have
been
questions
over
whether
it
is
higher
or
whatever
they
have
been
the
plans,
and
we
did
send
out
a
building
inspector
to
to
to
measure
it,
and
it
is
it
is.
It
is
good.
It
reflects
the
plans
of
the
plans
as
improved
under
the
building
code.
Act,
okay,.
D
I'm,
having
a
hard
time
coming
to
grips
with,
they
got
a
building
permit
to
do
something
and
they're
doing
something.
Different
I
think
that
building
permits
should,
in
fact
invalid
I
know,
had
seen
court
cases
written
when
people
went
ahead
and
did
something
that
was
not
quite
correct
and
they
actually
rebend
it.
The
permit
cancelled
with
the
Jeep
I'm
done,
but
can
go
to
court
and
in
some
cases
the
courts
have
made
them,
took
it
down
again.
D
So
I
understand
team
that
has
the
penitent
amended
to
be
the
different
one,
and
how
can
it
still
be
going
forward?
I
think
if
they
agree
with
it.
Mr.
chair,
yes,
so
the
building
permit,
like
I,
said
when
we
aware
that
the
they
were
deviating
from
the
documents,
an
order
was
written,
that
order
states
that
they
are
to
make
the
necessary
changes
to
come
into
compliance
now.
How,
in
what
form
that
takes,
that
will
be
the
will
of
this.
D
B
D
A
D
There
is
not
a
stop-work
order
on
the
construction.
There
is
a
to
comply,
which
is
a
consistent
sort
of
progressive
approach.
We
looked
to
put
that
first
order
to
comply
on
and
in
the
process
the
owner
is
in
the
process
of
complying
with
that
order,
so
that
we
would
not
see
any
need
at
this
point
to
take
further
progressive
action.
Obviously,
if
they
look
to
not
fall
through
with
you
know
what
the
outcome
today
and
going
forward,
then
we
could
look
to
progressive
action
with
regards
to
a
stop-work
order.
D
The
owner
at
the
time
was
given
a
score
and
we
looked
at
the
situation
and
we
felt
that
they
needed
to
protect
the
investment
that
they
have
currently
in
the
ground
because
framing
had
begun.
When
we
came
aware
of
the
situation,
so
they've
been
given
the
latitude
to
weather-tight
their
building
at
their
risk,
and
that's
pending
the
outcome
of
of
today,
how
can
they
make
it
meet
the
building
permit,
since
the
building
the
space?
Being
there
is
gone,
I
mean
it's
not
possible.
D
Yet
we
realize
that
the
building
permit
is
going
to
have
to
change
the
the
word.
The
scope
of
the
building
permit
is
going
to
have
to
change,
but
again
how
that
changes
will
be
based
on
the
outcome
of
today
and
a
council.
Well,
there
I'll
come
out
the
investigation,
because
I
think
the
investigation
is
finished
before
they
as
any
adjustments
made
to
it
and
they
have
it
in
the
end,
but
I
think
otherwise.
We
might
as
well
not
bother
doing
an
investigation.
B
A
Okay,
so,
just
to
summarize
what
mr.
all
they
said
is
that
there
is
in
order
to
comply
and
from
what
I
understand
is,
although
there's
weather
proofing
taking
place
since
they
can't
comply
right
now,
because
the
building
they
have
no
approval.
There
is
no
further
construction
work,
except
for
weather
proofing
taking
place.
Is
that
correct,
not.
A
I
think
that's
helpful.
Thank
you.
So
any
other
comments
or
questions
I
mean
I.
Think.
What's,
if
not,
what
I
think
is
important
here?
Legal
counsel
has
advised
us
on
this
and
it's
very
similar
to
what
we
did
on
Purcell.
If,
if
members
recall
that
we
have
before
us,
we
are
asked
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
to
decide
whether
the
application
before
us
is
consistent
with
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
staff
had
evaluated
and
have
said
yes,
the
proposed
plans
are
consistent
with
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
separately.
A
I
would
remind
members
that
in
the
pizzelle
case,
charges
were
laid
and
a
conviction
was
found
and
a
monetary
fine
was
assigned
if
members
separately
would
like
to
have
a
discussion
or
would
like
to
encourage
a
letter
to
the
province,
suggesting
that
such
fines
be
increased,
that
the
range
of
those
fines
be
increased.
That's
an
important
policy
discussion
and
I'm
certainly
open
to
having
that,
but
that's
not
what's
before
us
now.
A
So,
although
it's
difficult
and
I
can
understand
the
frustration
of
members
in
terms
of
the
events
that
took
place,
we
really
do
have
to
limit
our
decision
considerations
right
now
to
whether
the
proposed
new
plans
are
consistent
with
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
the
new
and
the
new
Edinburgh
Heritage
Conservation
District
plan.
So
again,
it's
very
similar
to
the
basalt
case.
It's
difficult,
but
I
would
encourage
members
to
try
those
two
issues
separate
in
their
minds.
This
is
not
a
reward
for
bad
behavior.
A
This
is
a
consideration
of
an
application
which
was
done
subject
to
to
the
act
as
political
representatives.
We
have
no
say
in
the
legal
investigation
which
has
taken
place
through
the
officers
of
our
legal
counsel
and
by
law
and
property
and
Building
Code
services,
etc
so
again,
very
similar
Pucelle.
In
that
case,
we
were
dealing
with
very
similar
circumstances.
I
hope
that's
a
helpful
comment,
because
I
can
sense.
Some
frustration
on
this
issue
from
members,
so
any
other
questions
or
comments.
Mr.
vice
chair.
E
You've
framed
it
very
well
and
I
think
that
one
of
the
dilemmas
of
the
way
in
which
you
have
defined
built
heritage
committees
task
is
really
narrower
than
I.
Think
what
the
Heritage
Program
in
Ottawa
is
trying
to
achieve
by
many
different
needs
and
I
think
that
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
in
today's
agenda
is,
of
course,
the
Magee
House,
which
is
an
example
of
demolition
by
neglect
and
now
227
Mackay,
and
we
also
have
had
maybe
had
in
the
briefing
on
Somerset
House
shortly.
E
I
understand
that
we
have
another
number
of
other
cases
that
have
been
referred
to,
such
as
one
61-62
lawyer
were
Lapine
the
developer,
inadvertently
sort
of
demolished
a
couple
of
houses
and
was
punished
by
that.
We
have
the
NCC
that
allow
seven
clients
to
deteriorate
until
it
had
to
be
demolished,
as
well
as
a
portion
of
their
facades
on
SPARC
Street,
which
is
now
the
Ashcroft
development.
E
We
have
I
think
an
obligation
to
really
demonstrate
to
the
public
that
the
city's
heritage
initiative,
its
policies
and
actions
under
the
Heritage
Act
really
make
every
effort
to
not
just
reward
people
that
conserve
buildings
that
are
designated
under
part.
4
part
5
the
Act,
but
to
do
everything
we
can
to
deter
others
from
contemplating
that
demolition
by
either
neglect
or
accident
or
willfulness
is
something
that
they
can
pay
the
price
for,
but
benefit
from
as
well
and
I.
E
Look
towards
other
files
that
we're
going
to
have
in
front
of
us,
such
as
the
Medical
Arts
Building,
which
is
going
to
attempt
to
conserve
its
facades
in
situa.
You
building
is
being
built.
There
is
also
the
possibility
that
the
sisters
of
visitation
convent,
which
council
approved
demolishing
a
portion
of
it.
We
still
don't
know
whether
or
not
that
will
be
facing.
E
You
know
this
committee
again
with
a
proposal
that
it
can't
be
maintained
because
it
has
been
damaged
through
weather
or
whatever,
and
also
we've
had
examples
of
the
Ugandan
High
Commission
were
City
Council
approved
the
demolition
of
the
building
in
the
heritage
district,
which
had
been
neglected
by
the
ganden
High
Commission.
Then,
of
course,
we
now
have
the
Egyptian
embassy
that
has
just
vacated
its
presence
in
the
last
week
and
have
two
buildings
on
Laurier
Avenue
that
are
vacant.
So
I
think
that
there's
a
you
know
a
couple.
E
The
Heritage,
Act
and
I'll
just
like
to
say
that
I'm
going
to
be
somewhat
during
here
and
I'm,
going
to
refuse
this
application,
because
I
think
that
this
important
message
that
has
to
be
sent
to
the
public
apart
from
the
prosecution
under
the
Heritage
Act
I,
understand
the
difference
between
the
two
but
I
think
that
it's
important
to
convey
the
message
that
you
just
can't
benefit
through
willful
acts
and
consequently,
I
feel
obliged
to
vote
to
refuse
this
application.
Mr.
chair.
A
F
Just
to
say
on
record
that
I
support
what
my
fellow
citizen,
member
on
on
this
committee
just
said,
and
to
make
the
point
that
by
removing
the
staff
recommendation
to
approve
demolition
through,
the
motion
has
effectively
removed
from
this
committee.
Our
right
to
address
the
violation
that
took
place
and
I
deeply
regret
that,
because
I
think
it
undermines
what
the
City
of
Ottawa
is
trying
to
achieve
with
Heritage
Conservation
through
this
committee
and
other
due
processes
to
benefit
our
communities
in
the
city,
it
doesn't
sit
well
at
all
and
I'm
very
disappointed.
F
A
So
we've
already
voted.
The
dissent
has
been
registered.
We're
happy
to
register
to
dissent
on
the
technical
motion.
I
do
with
respect
have
to
make
sure
that
unclear.
Would
you
that
the
reason
why
the
amended
motion
was
tabled
was
actually
the
exact
opposite
of
the
suggestion
that
you
made
member
Quinn.
It
was
to
ensure
that
legal
counsel
is
unfettered
in
its
investigation,
and
the
fear
was
that
the
original
staff
report
could
have
provided
or
could
have
been
interpreted,
to
have
been
interpreted
as
a
retroactive
council
approval
of
the
demolition.
A
So
we
can
have
that
discussion
offline,
but
I
want
to
on
the
public
record,
say
they
had
the
exact
opposite
intention.
So
with
that
and
apologies
for
missing
your
signal
earlier
on,
the
web
has
been
registered
and
now
we
will
move
on
to
our
final
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
a
staff
update
under
other
business
on
Somerset
House,
and
that
we're
going
to
ask
the
vice
chair
just
to
introduce
a
motion
on
this
item.
Thank.
E
You
just
like
to
move
that
the
bill
towards
a
subcommittee
suspend
the
rules
of
procedure
to
receive
an
all
update
from
staff
with
respect
to
the
Somerset
House
and
to
dispense
with
requirement
for
staff
to
provide
a
separate
written
report
on
this
update.
So
they
may
receive
a
prompt
update
on
the
status
of
Somerset,
House
redevelopment
and
I'm.
Assuming
this
is
now
good
news
for
today.
C
Thank
you
mr.
vice
chair,
Thank
You
chair,
so
I
can
advise
that
yesterday
two
orders
were
issued
by
our
colleagues
in
bylaw
services.
This
took
a
little
bit
longer
than
we
anticipated
with
the
event
say.
Unfortunate
events
in
the
last
week
obviously
are
building
toward
resources
and
by
our
resources
were
focused
elsewhere,
so
the
two
orders
have
been
grouped
into
two
areas.
The
first
is
with
respect
to
the
securing
the
building
and
weather
proofing
the
existing
structure,
and
that
has
the
completion
correction
deadline
of
this
December.
C
So
you
want
to
make
sure
that
what
is
left
of
Somerset
House
is
is
in
is
perfectly
intact
before
the
onset
of
the
winter
months.
The
second
order
is,
with
respect
to
the
air,
to
Jack
tributes,
so
ensuring
that
the
heritage
attributes
on
the
existing
structure
repaired
restored
to
two
City
staffs
satisfaction,
so
in
this
case
we're
going
to
be
ensuring
that
that's
done
by
April
2019.
C
That
may
sound
like
a
very
long
time
from
now,
but
as
you
can
appreciate,
a
lot
of
those
heritage
attributes
require
fine
grain
of
craftsmanship
in
terms
of
the
restorations.
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
this
is
done
properly,
so
this
will
be
done
under
the
supervision
of
city
staff
and
a
heritage
conservation
architect,
and
so
that
has
an
extension
into
the
spring.
Some
of
that
work
may
have
to
be
taken
done
in
the
in
the
good
weather.
C
So
again,
that's
why
there's
a
little
bit
more
time
on
that
on
that
order,
so
those
two
orders
have
been
issued.
There's
of
course
the
right
of
appeal
by
the
owner
to
these
two
orders.
Should
they
do
that,
then
it
would
be
before
the
tribunal,
and
my
understanding
is-
that
is
a
fairly
expedient
process.
C
Should
the
work
should
they
not
appeal,
then
we
would
expect
the
work
to
be
completed
by
those
two
deadlines.
I
spoke
of,
should
the
work
not
be
done
by
the
by
two
timelines?
They
spoke
of
them.
The
city
would
undertake
to
do
the
work
ourselves
and
and
appropriately
bill
back
the
cost
of
doing
this
work
to
the
property
owner.
So
that
was
my
update
today,
chair
I'm,
al
Qaeda
attorney
questions
that
your
communities
may
have.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
You
chair
just
a
couple
of
questions,
so
my
understanding
here
is
that
these
two
orders
overlap
somewhat
because
we've
got
weatherproofing
are
one
where
secured
the
building
weatherproofing,
but
we've
got
Harwich
attributes
also
that
I
have
to
make
it
through
the
winter.
And
so
what
does
that
mean
for
anything
not
started
until
spring
I
mean
they?
They
have
to
be
completed
by
8
for
2019,
but
if
it's
not,
if
the
Heritage
attributes
are
not
remove,
some
I
assume
could
be
at
repair
Institue,
but
some
will
have
to
be
removed.
C
So
we'll
be
looking
at
each
of
the
attributes
that
we've
identified
and
with
the
filter
of
will
deteriorate
further
through
the
winter
counselor
and
and
making
that
determination
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
based
on
the
attribute
whether
it
needs
to
be
removed
or
how
urgent
it
is
to
repair
to
ensure
that
it
doesn't
deteriorate
any
further
to
the
winter.
So.
D
C
Well,
we're
hopeful
that
that
the
owner
won't
appeal
undertake
these
works.
Of
course,
within
those
timelines,
should
they
not?
Should
they
appeal?
My
understanding
is
that,
typically,
that
is
a
60-day
process
in
terms
of
the
tribunal
process
when
an
appeal
is
undertaken,
so
knowing
that
that
the
winter
is
coming
and
shortly
we'll
have
to
take
that
into
consideration
and
look
to
ensure
that
that
work
is
done
by
the
winter.
I
also
want
to
remind
committee
that
we
have
the
ongoing
requirement
to
have
monthly
Building
Code
reports
filed
on
that
on
the
condition
of
the
building.
C
D
D
I
guess
what
I'm
worried
about
it,
Oh
be
am
a
bit
more.
Blunt
is
a
lot
of
foot-dragging,
so
you
had
one
little
thing
done:
seven,
don't
worry
already
something
else.
You
know
this
is
what's
been
happening
at
Somerset
House
and
that
the
city
is
haunted
in
it.
I
know
I
am
so
I
want
to
know.
You
know
what
happens
at
at
what
point
do
we
step
in
and
do
the
work
if
it's
not
complete,
April
30th,
no
matter?
What
do
we
step
in
and
do
the
work
counselor.
C
Through
the
chair,
I
believe
we
should
first
see
what
the
owner
does
or
does
not
do
the
next
enduring
EPO
period.
I
think
that
will
dictate
how
they're
going
to
proceed
with
with
this,
but
rest
assured,
we
will
ensure
that
this
work
is
done
by
April
30
2019,
whether
it's
done
by
them
or
by
the
City
of
Ottawa.
Do.
D
F
F
D
I
think
that
you
know
we'll
see
what
happens
here,
the
appeal
and
timeframe,
but
if,
if
it
looks
like
we
are
going
into
the
winter
and
we
are
going
to
see
for
the
deterioration
which
we
have
I,
think
that
I
would
like
to
have
that
back
to
the
Heritage
event
at
the
next
council.
I
think
that
we
need
to
be
quite
clear
about
what
exactly
needs
to
be
done,
how
long
it
will
take
and
how
we're
going
to
ensure
that
the
deadline
is
Matt
so
well.
C
A
Would
it
be
useful
culture
McKenney
just
to
follow
up
on
your
suggestion
to
staff
to
provide
another
mobile
update
at
the
next
meeting,
which
will
be
after
the
expiry
of
the
appeal
period,
so
that
might
be
useful
both
to
get
an
update
on
what
happened
with
the
appeal
and
in
answer
to
some
of
your
questions
about
the
Heritage
attributes?
Is
that
does
that
work?
Is
it
as
chair?
Okay,
great,
so
any
other
questions
of
staff
on
this
item?