►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – March 9, 2021
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee – March 9, 2021 – video stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
Well,
seeing
that
we
have
a
quorum
good
morning,
everybody
and
welcome
to
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
meeting
of
march
9th
2021
I'd
like
to
call
the
members
to
order.
This
meeting
is
being
held
remotely
through
zoom.
Those
who
do
not
need
to
participate
in
the
meeting
can
also
watch
it
live
on
the
ottawa
city
council
youtube
channel.
While
this
meeting
is
being
facilitated
by
technology,
we
are
still
gathered
together
on
indigenous
land
and
in
the
spirit
of
reconciliation.
A
A
The
city
of
ottawa,
honors,
the
people
and
land
of
the
algonquin
and
anishinaabe
nation
and
the
city
of
ottawa
also
honors,
all
first
nation
people
inuit
nmit
peoples
or
their
valuable
past
and
present
contributions
to
this
land.
Just
a
reminder
to
participants
to
please
keep
your
microphones
muted.
A
Until
I
call
upon
you
on
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
please
press
star
9.
To
raise
your
hand,
the
committee
coordinator
and
I
will
be
watching
for
those
cues
members
are
also
reminded
to
submit
any
motions,
visual
supports
or
declarations
of
interest
in
writing
to
the
coordinator
at
their
earliest
opportunity.
A
Although
the
deadlines
have
passed
for
residents
to
register
to
speak
and
provide
written,
submissions
to
the
subcommittee,
residents
can
still
make
written
submissions
to
council
if
you
have
technical
difficulties
signing
into
the
meeting,
but
you
can
contact
a
committee
coordinator
by
calling
613-580-2424
extension
22953
a
reminder
that,
if
participants
are
having
technical
issues
with
their
zoom
connection,
they
may
call
in
using
the
backup
telephone
number
provided
by
the
coordinator
and
before
we
begin.
I'd
really
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
welcome
our
newest
member
returning
member
and
and
past
chair.
A
A
C
B
D
Hi
chair,
I
don't
have
any
declarations
for
this
meeting
but
have
been
advised
to
just
reiterate
my
declaration
for
the
previous
meeting,
as
I
wasn't
present
after
consultation
with
the
ethics
commissioner
or
integrity.
Commissioner.
A
Thank
you.
We
do
appreciate
that
member
hassle,
so
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
confirmation
of
minutes.
The
following
draft
minutes
are
submitted
to
built
heritage
subcommittee
for
confirmation
minutes
19
for
the
regular
meeting
of
january
20th
minutes,
one
for
the
special
joint
meeting
of
planning
committee
and
the
subcommittee
of
february
5th
and
minutes
20
for
the
special
meeting
of
the
subcommittee
of
february
5th.
Are
these
meeting
minutes
confirmed
sorry.
E
A
A
Our
first
item
concerning
planning
infrastructure
and
economic
development,
right-of-way
heritage
and
urban
design
services
is
an
application
to
alter
the
shuttle
is
building
on
205
scholastic
drive,
formerly
175
main
street,
a
property
designated
under
part
4
of
the
ontario
heritage
act.
Can
staff.
Please
provide
an
overview
of
this
report.
F
Oh,
so
I
just
remove
it
with
me
for
a
second.
While
I
get
my
present
in
my
notes
up
here,
we
go
all
right
so
good
morning,
everyone
members
of
the
built
heritage
subcommittee.
This
application
is
for
the
de
chad
led
building,
which
is
now
located
at
205
scholastic
drive
note.
This
address
has
recently
changed
from
175
main
street
next
slide.
Please.
F
Committee
members
will
remember
this
file
as
a
heritage.
Permit
was
issued
last
fall
for
this
building
the
alter
alterations
included
the
demolition
of
the
rear,
chapel
wing
the
permit
was
approved,
conditioned
upon
the
following
items:
approval
of
a
zoning.
This
was
granted
in
the
fall
of
2020
documentation
of
the
chapel
wing.
This
has
been
captured
and
submitted
to
the
city
of
ottawa
archives
retention
of
some
of
the
stained
glass
windows.
These
will
be
reviewed
at
the
time
of
demolition
and
the
submission
of
a
second
heritage
permit.
This
is
what
is
before
the
committee
today.
F
Here
the
plans
are
approved
in
2020,
showing
the
rear,
chapel
wing
that
will
be
demolished.
The
current
application
includes
filling
in
the
board
that
will
be
left
by
the
chapel
moving
altering
the
front
entrance.
Replacing
the
windows
as
well
as
a
few
other
minor
changes
to
the
building
next
slide.
F
This
is
the
rear
view
of
the
building
the
portion
outlined
in
red
shows
the
removed
chapel
wing
and
the
new
new
permanent
infill
wall.
The
new
wall
will
be
glass
on
the
first
floor,
with
metal
panels
above
and
metal
shingles.
On
the
fifth
floor
above
the
cornice
line
next
slide,
this
cornice
line
will
respect
the
primary
corners
on
the
building
continuing
the
established
datum
line.
F
The
proposal
also
includes
an
intervention
to
the
front
entrance
in
order
in
order
to
meet
accessibility
requirements,
the
front
steps
will
be
removed
and
existing
engines
will
be
lowered
below
grade.
This
allows
for
two
ramps
to
flank
the
door.
The
fronties
piece
will
not
be
altered
as
part
of
this
modification.
Instead,
new
mason
repairs
will
be
installed
to
support
the
existing
blasters.
F
F
The
front
door
is
pediment,
architrave
and
flanking
piers
are
identified
as
cultural
heritage
attributes
and
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value
of
these
elements,
only
the
front
door
will
be
replaced
with
a
modern
double
door.
In
this
particular
situation,
the
benefits
of
providing
universal
accessibility
outweigh
the
negative
impacts
caused
by
this
loss.
F
F
F
Other
minor
alterations
contained
in
this
application
include
spot
repointing,
the
construction
of
a
glass
link
to
connect
to
a
friction
gymnasium.
This
is
outlined
in
a
red
box
on
the
left
hand
of
the
image
on
the
screen,
replacing
existing
mechanical
pentile
structures
and
modifying
some
secondary
entrances.
F
Next
slide,
standards
and
garlands
are
what
we
use
to
review
alterations,
heritage
buildings,
the
heritage
value
of
the
de
chatelet
building
is
related
to
its
design,
value
of
the
bozar
style.
Building,
its
association
with
the
old
blades
of
mary
immaculate,
roman
catholic
institutions
and
its
various
designers
and
its
contextual
value
is
a
local
landmark.
F
The
proposed
interventions
protects
the
heritage
value
of
the
de
chatelet
building
and
its
heritage
attributes.
Generally,
the
attributes
include
the
stone
construction,
the
classically
inspired
design
elements
and
the
tree
lined
la
from
main
street
to
the
open
forecourt.
The
proposal
conserves
these
elements.
Any
stone
restoration
will
be
completed
in
a
manner
that
respects
the
material
and
the
building
and
will
be
done
in
areas
only
as
needed.
F
F
F
As
far
as
consultation
goes,
the
ottawa
east,
a
lot
of
east
community
association,
was
notified
of
this
application
heritage.
Ottawa
was
also
notified
and,
I
believe,
they've
just
sent
in
some
comments.
The
word
counselors
was
notified,
as
were
neighbors
within
30
meters
of
the
subject.
Property
next
slide.
F
Staff
recommend
to
approve
the
alterations
to
the
heritage,
building
and
delegate
authority
for
my
design,
changes
to
city
staff
and
issue
a
heritage
permit
with
it
to
your
expiry
date.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
ashley
for
that
detailed
presentation.
I
also
note
that
we
did
see
correspondence
circulated
from
heritage
ottawa
and
also
from
two
other
residents.
I
think
that
the
correspondence
from
heritage
ottawa
was
a
qualified
approval
and
I
think
that
the
correspondents
from
the
the
residents
were
in
opposition
to
the
report
recommendations.
A
We
do
have
three
speakers
on
the
list:
luke
polan
doug
van
der
haam
and
john
stewart,
who
are
on
the
registered
speakers
list
for.
G
G
The
ccc
has
submitted
this
project
to
the
ministry
of
education
since
2015.,
so
okada
tawa
in
the
new
school
within
that
war
being
currently
hosted
at
the
88
main
street.
We
are
operating
there,
so
this
will
be.
This
is
actually
our
top
priority
for
a
new
school
within
that
ward,
which
is
a
much
needed
french
catholic
institutional
school
within.
That's
that
area,
the
need
for
new
testament.
G
French
school
has
been
present
for
many
many
years
and
we
are
glad
that
to
be
a
part
of
this
community,
the
the
ccc
has
become
a
owner
since
february
5th,
and
we
may
enter
into
an
agreement
with
the
the
city
and
eventually
to
build
a
community
center
in
a
much
needed,
also
gymnasium
area.
G
There
is
also
a
as
mrs
ashley
brought
out
to
the
community
there's
also
an
urgent
need
to
bring
this
building
to
code
and
to
address
accessibility
in
mechanical
and
electrical
needs
to
service
as
a
school.
G
So
we,
I
think
myself
and
mr
doug,
the
architect,
will
be
able
to
respond
to
any
questions
that
you
might
have,
and
we
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
consideration
into
approval
of
this
project.
A
E
Please
go
ahead.
Thank
you,
chair
king
question
has
to
do
with
the
future
uses
of
the
upper
floors
for
for
housing,
which
I
welcome,
and
I
guess
the
question
to
the
presenter
is
just
to
discover
whether
or
not
there
will
be
any
major
interventions
required
to
the
exterior
of
the
building
because
of
the
housing
future
housing
use.
H
Thank
you
I'd
be
happy
to
take
that
question
right
now
the
plans
we're
putting
forward.
We
do
not
see
any
requirement
for
interventions
to
the
exterior
of
those
top
two
floors.
The
plan
is
to
replace
the
windows
as
with
the
lower
levels,
and
certainly
I
saw
or
heard
some
questions
from
the
community
regarding
mechanical
equipment
required
for
the
residential.
A
Thank
you,
member
podelsky.
I
don't
see
other
raised
hands
so,
but
I
do
see
that
mr
stewart
is
also
around
the
table,
so
I
just
wanted
to
take
the
opportunity
to
to
just
ensure
that
he
wanted
to
make
comments
today.
I
Mr
chair,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity.
No,
I
I
preferred
the
chis
and.
A
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
think
my
questions
for
doug
vandenham,
just
speaking
to
the
mechanical
penthouses,
what
what's
the
cladding
proposed
cladding
for
those
elements.
H
Thank
you
for
the
question
currently
we're
proposing
a
metal
siding
cladding
for
those
penthouses
we're
trying
to
select
a
material
that
is
going
to
pick
up
some
of
the
kind
of
the
surrounding
colors
of
the
sky
and
change
with
that,
as
opposed
to
something
that's
going
to
stand
out.
So
we're
looking
at
a
lighter
color
with
a
bit
of
reflectivity
to
it
final
products
not
selected
yet.
A
A
J
Yeah,
thank
you,
I'm
not
sure,
actually,
that
the
question
is
for
staff
or
not
might
be
for
luke
nope
or
for
the
hoban
team.
The
main
entrance
is
this
front.
Entrance
is
obviously
one
of
the
key
heritage
character.
Defining
elements
of
the
building
listed
as
such.
F
B
L
Second,
they're
coming
back.
G
So
I
I
want
to
confirm
that
the
the
proposed
entrance
is
gonna,
be
the
principal
entrance
for
the
school
itself
and
there's
still
some
discussion
to
be
had
with
the
city,
parks
and
rec's
staff
and
just
to
how
to
address
the
need
for
the
community
center,
which
in
turn
should
have
been
met.
Mostly
from
the
back
of
the
building
itself.
J
Yes,
I
wouldn't
think
the
two
would
be
shared
as
entrances.
The
surrounding
currently
surrounding
the
main
doors
it
appears
to
be
a
metal
is
that
is
that
the
case,
a
metal
contour,
surround
the
two
front
doors.
B
F
It's
glass
and
it
has
some
metal
between
the
glass.
J
Okay,
it's
really
hard
to
see,
I
have
to
say
I'll,
have
to
go
back
and
have
another
walk
around
there.
It's
been
a
while.
I
just
I
I
I
don't
know
I
personally.
If
I
can
make
a
comment,
I
find
that
the
the
design
of
the
entrance
is
really
you
know
it's
it's
it's
not
terribly
appropriate.
It's
not
very
satisfying.
I
I.
I
would
have
thought
that
the
hoban
team,
with
their
reputation
and
wonderful
designs
and
as
an
architectural
firm,
could
have
come
up
with
something
a
little
more
pleasing.
J
I'm
just
wondering
what
the
limitations
were
around
the
coding
on
this
around
building
code.
Are
they
forced
to
have
the
glass
doors
the
main
entrance.
H
But
what
our
approach
here
was
was
to
try
to
create
an
entrance
that
provided
a
little
bit
of
transparency
into
the
inside
space
of
the
building
right
now,
the
existing
entrance
a
solid
door
panel
with
some
side
lights
around
it
and
it's
it's
in
some
sense,
a
little
bit
imposing
for
what
we
would
expect
to
find
for
a
school
which
is
public
institution,
and
so
our
intent
in
in
this
case
is
to
redesign
the
entrance
while
respecting
the
major
elements
of
the
portico
and
the
kind
of
the
horizontal
line
of
the
existing
of
that
existing
floor
plane
with
the
new
canopy.
H
J
And
I
can
see
it
definitely
poses
a
challenge
for
what
you're
trying
to
achieve,
and
I
respect
that
I
just
was
wondering
if
they,
some
of
the
design
choices
were
based
around
meeting
code
requirements
and
you've
answered
that
question,
and
thank
you
for
that.
A
N
Thank
you
chair.
I
I
also
had
a
comment
on
the
entrance
as
well.
Similarly
to
carolyn,
I'm
not
not
super
happy
with
the
aesthetic,
but
my
question
was
more
for
the
advice
that
was
given
to
the
architectural
firm
in
so
far
as
are
you
know,
were
they
encouraged
to
keep
the
existing
doors
and
try
to
make
those
work,
modify
them
and
did
they
find
that
they
couldn't
do
that?
N
So
that's
why
they're
now
being
replaced,
and
if
that's
the
case,
what's
going
to
happen
to
the
original
doors,
are
they
you
know,
instructed
to
keep
them
somewhere
else
in
the
design
so
yeah?
I
just
wanted
to
know
that
was
my
first
question
was
what
what
were
the
discussions
around
that
and
what
were
the,
I
guess,
recommendations
from
staff
in
regards
to
the
redesign
of
that
front
entrance.
F
Hi
this
was
the
proposal.
Essentially,
what
we
see
today
is
what
was
presented
to
city
staff
as
an
option.
We
didn't
discuss
the
salvage
of
the
doors
or
any
other
options.
We
sort
of
made
some
recommendations
as
to
the
canopy
that
was
being
introduced
over
the
door
of
the
new
door,
but
other
than
that.
There
weren't
a
whole
lot
of
discussions
about
different
options
for
this,
for
the
entrance.
N
Okay,
so
chair,
I
I
guess
to
rephrase
my
question
then
was:
was
there
any
study
in
modifying
the
existing
norse
to
be
universally
universally
accessible,
or
was
that
never
even
on
the
table
and
what
were
the
limitations
similar
to
carolyn's
questions?
What
were
the
limitations
around
that.
N
G
N
That
looked
at.
G
If
I
may,
mr
chair
just
inform,
there
was
no
clear
instruction
given
to
the
architect
in
terms
of
removing
the
the
existing
doors.
Our
concerns
of
the
for
the
school
board
is
to
have
to
introduce
at
least
a
functional
entrance
to
the
to
the
children.
So
the
weight
of
the
doors
accessibility
was
the
main
concern
and
the
use
of
the
doors
in
in
terms
of
the
aspect
itself.
G
If
we
could
have
introduced
those
and
at
least
keep
them,
that
would
have
been
for
sure
one
of
the
things
that
we
would
have
looked
at,
but
also
again
speaking
to
the
fact
that
what
mr
doug
just
voiced
is
that
we
wanted
to
clear,
create
also
some
kind
of
a
see-through
through
the
building.
Just
that
was
one
of
the
aspect
that
was
proposed
originally
originally
by
regional,
to
have
that
see-through
to
the
the
building
itself
and
create
something
and
more
luminance
in
inside
the
building
itself.
N
Right:
okay,
yeah,
I
guess
okay,
I
guess
I'm
not
fully
convinced
that
there
was
enough
study
into
could.
Could
we
keep
the
doors
but
again,
like
you
said
there
was
an
instruction
to
do
that,
but
maybe
that's
the
concern.
I
have
this.
That
should
have
been
the
first
approach
and
then,
if
that
couldn't
work,
then
you
sort
of
you
know:
that's
that's
how
usually
that's
how
conservation
goes
like
you,
you
try
to
modify,
and
if
you
can't,
then
you
replace-
I-
I
guess
it's
really
hard.
N
N
So
I
understand
there
was
a
heritage
application
that
was
approved
for
the
demolition
of
the
chapel
wing,
which
at
the
time
was
very
difficult
to
approve
and-
and
I
remember
not
voting
against
it,
because
I
I
didn't-
I
wasn't
again
convinced
that
it
needed
to
be
demolished,
but
so
that
was
the
first
heritage
application.
This
one
is
for
alterations
on
the
building
itself.
N
Will
we
be
seeing
a
heritage
permit
for
the
future
development
surrounding
the
building,
based
on
the
impact
it
will
have
on
the
the
heritage
asset
like
what
is
the
next
step
in
this
process
in
terms
of
what
we
will
see
at
this
committee.
F
N
A
separate
heritage
permit
okay,
so
I
guess
I
understand
from
previous
questions
that
that
this
front
entrance
will
be
the
main
entrance,
but
it's
you
know
it
is
that
where
the
school
buses
will
be
dropping
off,
will
the
school
buses
be
dropping
off
the
back?
Will
the
schoolyard
be
in
the
back?
Well,
the
children
actually
be
entering
mostly
from
the
back
like
it's
it's
very
hard
to
without
the
full
picture.
It's
hard
it's
hard
for
us
to
know.
If,
if
the
impact
on
that
front
entrance
is
really
warranted
is
what
is
the
question?
N
I
guess
so
or
comment?
It's
not
really
a
question.
A
M
Chair,
I
don't
know
if
somebody
could
answer.
Remember
conforty's
question,
though
around
the
the
the
lane
and
the
back
versus
the
front,
and
I
think
there
was
a
question
there,
if
not
I'll,
come
back
to
it.
In
my
comments.
A
Okay,
yeah,
maybe
we'll
just
come
back
and
I'll.
Let
a
member
hassell
ask
her
a
question.
D
Thank
you
chair.
My
question
also
had
to
do
with
the
retention
of
various
building
elements.
I
know
from
the
chapel
wing
there
is
an
effort
under
the
chis
to
retain
as
many
of
those
stained
glass
windows
as
possible.
I'm
wondering
how
they're
intended
to
be
incorporated,
because
right
now,
that's
that's
quite
loose
and
while
we're
on
the
topic
of
conserving
these
elements,
I
was
wondering
if
there's
been
more
discussion
as
to
where
those
will
be
going
as
part
of
this
adaptive.
F
H
Currently,
there
is
no
specified
location
for
those
chapel
windows
to
be
reused:
they're
quite
large
they're
about
a
little
over
eight
feet
high
and
about
a
bit
over
12
feet
long
and
as
part
of
the
demolition
process
of
the
chapel.
We're
exploring
the
whether
they're
going
to
be
able
to
come
out
in
a
single
piece
or
they're
going
to
be
have
to
be
dismantled
to
a
certain
degree.
H
The
intent
for
reuse
is
to
find
a
location
likely
in
the
community
center
gym.
That
is
a
suitable
scale
to
actually
incorporate
those.
But
first
we're
going
to
have
to
see
what
the
condition
of
the
windows
are
when
they
come
out
of
the
the
chapel
space.
So
there's
nothing
on
the
plans
right
now
that
says
you
know,
reused
windows
go
here.
H
Can
I
actually
address
the
can.
I
also
address
the
front
end
entrance
accessibility,
questions
that
came
from
two
of
the
panel
members.
H
In
this
case,
the
original
front
entry
for
the
building
was
actually
almost
a
full
level
above
grade
and
had
a
significant
number
of
stairs
you
had
to
go
up
to
get
to
when
the
building
was
re-clad.
H
That
entrance
was
lowered
to
kind
of
halfway
between
the
first
level
and
the
second
level,
which
meant
that
first
of
all
to
get
to
the
door,
someone
would
have
to
go
up
a
set
of
stairs
and
then
once
inside
the
building,
there
was
a
second
set
of
stairs
and,
from
a
point
of
view
of
accessibility
and
really
meeting
the
intents
of
providing
a
universally
accessible
building,
particularly
for
the
use
of
a
school.
H
It
was
very,
very
difficult
to
work
with
that.
Half
a
level
up
outside
half
a
level
up
inside
split
and
so
that
constraint
of
accessibility
was
one
of
the
primary
things
that
drove
us
to
to
the
design
solution.
H
G
Area
and
if
I
may
just
add
on
to
the
retaining
of
the
stained
glass
for
sure,
as
mr
doug
just
mentioned
so
regional
is
actually
in
within
the
works
of
trying
to
remove
those
stained
glass
and
the
ccc
has
agreed
temporarily
to
store
them
within
the
building
digital
building
in
the
meantime,
just
to
try
to
see
how
they
will
be
incorporated
within
either
this
building
or
another
building,
which
is
the
gym
adjacent
to
it.
As
soon
as
we
enter
finalize
the
agreement
with
the
city.
D
No,
it
was
really
seeing
how
the
the
retention
of
the
windows
was
carried
through
from
the
demolition
application
to
this
current
one
for
modifying
the
new
building.
But
if
that's
still
to
be
fleshed
out,
then
I
gather
city
staff
will
be
following
up
and
reviewing
how
those
are
incorporated
more.
A
Thank
you
for
the
questions
and
the
the
next
person
with
his
hand
raised
is
councillor
menard.
M
Thanks
very
much
chair
and
thanks
to
the
members
for
for
asking
very,
very
good
questions.
You
know
I'm
supportive
of
the
overall
approach
here.
I
think
a
lot
of
it
makes
sense,
but
I-
but
I
also
have
similar
similar
questions
and
comments
that
we've
been
we've
been
talking
with
the
applicants
about
and
we
did
hold
a
meeting
with
them
in
the
community
and
generally
I'd
say
the
community
is,
is
overall
on
board,
but
again
they
also
have
some
questions
about
the
front
entrance
and
other
pieces.
M
So
I'll
start
in
the
the
the
fire
lane
in
front.
This
is
actually
going
in
city
city
space.
It's
it's
a
park.
Space
portion
of
it
is,
and
it's
actually
changing
some
of
the
the
potential
outcomes
for
for
the
park
right
in
front,
which
is
that
which
is
also
a
heritage,
feature
heritage
attributes.
So
I'm
just
I'm
just
wondering
in
the
depictions
you
you've
actually
put
buses
in
the
lane
in
the
pictures,
but
there's
no
agreement
right
now
to
have
any
vehicles
in
that
lane.
G
Yes,
I
I
do
want
to
confirm
that
it.
It
always
has
been
somewhat
of
a
r
intent
just
to
try
to
take
off
buses
from
the
municipal
roads
and
just
to
not
create
chaos
within
the
community.
O
G
Nevertheless,
I
think
the
the
fact
remains
that
we
still
need
to
enter
into
somewhat
of
an
agreement
with
the
city,
as
the
the
request
has
been
forwarded
to
to
staff
city
staff
to
consider
putting
buses
within
that
that
lane
just
a
reminder
that
fire
lane
is
gonna,
be
deemed
a
request
or
not
really
a
request.
But
a
code
requirement.
B
M
Okay,
remember
conforti
had
mentioned
whether
the
fire
lane
could
be
at
the
back
or
or
the
intent
there,
and
was
there
any
thought
of
putting
it
in
a
different
location,
or
must
it
be
right
in
the.
G
Front
the
ccc
wasn't
able
to
acquire
additional
space
in
the
back
and
that
would
have
because
of
difficulties
in
terms
of
I
think,
sloping
and
also
accessibility
to
the
school
and
into
the
building
and
the
different
application.
G
But
in
that
terms
there
was
no
conclusion
to
relocate
that
fire
lane
it
was
always
deemed
and
submitted
as
through
the
cdp
through
the
city
that
deferring
would
be
in
front
of
the
school.
M
Yeah-
and
I
think
the
concern
is
we
don't
want
to
have
vehicles
going
through
it.
M
It's
going
to
be
a
public
park,
it's
going
to
be
a
beautiful
public
park
and
you
don't
want
to
have
vehicles
driving
through
a
public
park
where
you
can
avoid
it,
and
in
this
case
we
can
avoid
it
and-
and
I
think
we
need
to
make
sure
there's
no
agreement
for
for
buses
or
I've
even
heard
some
people
mention
having
cars
go
through
that
lane
as
well
be
driving
through
there
in
front
of
the
in
front
of
the
park,
and
so
that's
a
that's
a
concern
of
my
office.
M
I
know
kevin's
on
on
here
as
well,
but
that
I
just
want
to
raise
that
concern
chair
and
make
sure
that
there's
no
agreement
reached.
We
are
giving
some
delegated
authority
today
in
the
second
clause
of
the
motion-
and
I
and
I,
but
I
want
to
reiterate
that
there
is
no
agreement
with
our
office
or
anyone
else
at
this
point
to
have
vehicles
use
that
fire
lane
in
in
front
going
through
some
some
park.
M
Space
there's
also
a
comment
in
the
chis
that
goes
through
the
the
connectivity
with
the
with
the
park
and
the
front
entrance
of
the
building
and
there's
a
comment
in
there.
That
says
there
would
be
nice
if
there
was
if
there
has
to
be
a
fire
lane
in
front.
If
there's
some
connectivity
with
the
actual
front
entrance,
because
right
now,
it's
just
a
lane
going
through
there's
no
connectivity,
there's
no
flow.
It
really
cuts
that
space
off
the
three
paths
end
there
and
it
would
be
nice.
M
So
so
if
staff
or
or
the
applicant
can
comment
on
the
connectivity
of
that
lane
leading
into
the
front
entrance
as
a
feature
that
might
be
desirable
in
the
future,
be
helpful.
A
I'll
definitely
welcome
input
from
mr
wary.
I
know
that
the
that
he's
on
the
line,
of
course,
this
is
straying
a
little
bit
away
from
the
heritage
permit.
It
might
be
more
in
the
realm
of
site
plan
control,
but
I
definitely
want
to
hear
the
the
input
from
stuff.
B
Thank
you
chair
and
to
respond
to
council
menard's
concerns.
The
four
court
park
is
the
official
name
of
the
park,
that's
in
front
of
205
scholastic.
It
is
a
city-owned
park
and
it
is
subject.
Actually
all
our
plans
are
yet
to
go
through
a
public
consultation
process
and
the
design
of
the
forecourt
is
also
subject
to
build
heritage
subcommittee
approval
as
well,
because
the
park
itself
has
heritage
elements
to
the
overall
area.
B
So
for
the
purposes
of
a
school
opening,
a
temporary
fire
lane
is
being
permitted
at
the
front,
because
that
is
definitely
required
in
order
to
operate
a
school
safely.
However,
the
final
design
of
these
plans
will
be
subject
to
further
negotiation
with
the
school,
with
design
consultations
with
the
community
and
further
approvals
through
this
committee
as
well.
Our
subcommittee
as
well.
M
That's
great
thanks
so
much,
mr,
where
I
appreciate
that
and
our
conversations
on
this
I
think
the
the
there
it
is
in
with
chair
just
so.
You
know
it
like
it's
in
the
chis,
so
it
was
there
discussed
in
the
era
that
that
lane
and
obviously
relates
to
the
building
in
a
heritage
context,
and
so
I
hope
you
permit
me
just
one
more
quick
question
about
that.
Far
laner
comment
about
it.
Absolutely!
Okay!
Thank
you!
M
So
the
if
we
can
work
on
that
together
to
reduce
its
impact
on
the
heritage
attributes
of
this
building
to
make
it
flow
a
little
bit
better,
and
I
know
it
needs
to
be
six
meters
wide
and
the
the
minimum
requirements
are
a
gravel,
gravel
road,
but
the
more
we
can
connect
it
and
have
connectivity
going
through
that
that
the
the
four
court
park
right
into
the
front.
M
I
think
the
better
we'll
all
end
up
so
looking
forward
to
those
discussions
and
and
and
consultations
that
come
up
with
regard
to
the
the
front
entrance.
There
was
members
of
my
community
that
did
comment
on
the
the
need
for
a
more
grand
front
entrance
into
the
building,
and
that
was
a
desired
feature.
I
understand
why
why
the
application
has
been
submitted
as
it
has
and
I'll
be.
M
You
know
I
support
it
as
it
is,
but
I
know
there
was
some
desire
there
for
that
piece
as
well
as
some
concerns
about
the
mechanical
on
the
top
of
the
roof,
and
there
was
a
suggestion
to
put
that
in
the
in
the
top
floor,
and
I'm
just
wondering
I
think
there
was
some
talk
about
discussion
about
cost
related
to
that.
If
mr
vandenham
can
can
just
comment
on
the
difference
between
the
two
and
having
it
on
the
roof
and
the
the
relationship
with
the
with
the
heritage
building.
H
Certainly,
I'd
be
happy
to
comment
on
that.
I
guess
one
of
the
premises
that
we
started
with
on
this
project
was
to
try
to
best
accommodate
the
range
of
uses
that
are
being
proposed
here,
so
the
community
center,
the
school
and
the
residential
components,
and
I
think
for
the
residential
component
to
be
to
be
successful
in
terms
of
a
project.
H
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
allotting
at
appropriate
amounts
of
space
and
I'm
hesitant
to
just
from
that
point
of
view
to
say
you
know
we
should
take
away
a
fairly
significant
amount
of
floor
space
from
that
residential
use
to
accommodate
mechanical
equipment.
Second
aspect
of
why,
from
our
point
of
view,
we
believe
mechanical
equipment
on
the
roof
is
a
better
solution.
H
Is
that
the
incorporation
of
mechanical
equipment
into
a
floor
space
in
this
building
would
require
a
fairly
significant
amount
of
louvering
and
mechanical
air
like
make
up
air
entrance,
and
that
would
require
replacing
say
if
we
took
the
approach
of
mechanical
equipment
on
the
two
wings.
Essentially,
all
the
top
floor
windows
on
those
wings
would
have
to
be
replaced
with
ventilation
louvers.
That
would
have
a
fairly
significant
impact
on
the
heritage,
aesthetic
of
the
building
at
those
top
levels.
H
H
We
think
that
we
can
manage
or
we've
mitigated
the
the
sight
line,
impacts
for
someone
who's
standing
in
the
forecourt
or
standing
kind
of
within
the
you
know
the
viewing
proximity
of
the
the
building,
just
caution
that
the
elevation
images
which
do
show
the
mechanical
equipment
looking
fairly
prominent.
I
guess
and
that's
raising
the
concern
of
people
in
the
community.
Those
are
views
that
are
impossible
views.
H
You
can't
ever
see
a
building
from
a
purely
elevational
view,
that's
a
viewpoint
taken
from
an
infinite
distance
away,
and
so
it
does
not
actually
reflect
the
experience
of
someone
standing
in
the
forecourt.
And
if
you
look
at
the
four
court,
shots
you'll
notice
that
the
impact
of
the
mechanical
equipment
on
the
rooftop,
as
seen
from
the
shots.
Looking
from
the
the
west
side
of
the
forecourt,
where
the
future
residential
back-to-backs
will
be
mechanical
equipment,
it
has
a
very
small
impact
on
the
roof
line
in
those
locations.
H
So
between
all
of
those
points,
we
think
that
the
best
solution
here
from
accommodating
the
the
three
uses
of
the
building,
also
from
a
heritage
impact
point
of
view
and
from
a
cost
point
of
view,
are
to
put
the
equipment
in
those
three
groups
on
the
rooftop.
M
Very
helpful
comments,
especially
that
first
comment
around.
You
know
housing
on
the
on
the
top,
even
more
incentive
for
us
to
get
that
affordable
housing
you
through
och
or
others
in
that
top
floor
of
that
top
two
floors
of
that
building,
seniors,
affordable
housing
and
others.
So
really
appreciate
that,
and
thank
you
for
presentation.
Thanks
chair.
A
E
Yes,
thank
you
chuck
king.
I
think
that
I'm
very
pleased
overall
that
we
have
found
uses
for
this
for
this
building
and
the
combination
of
of
the
school
and
future
affordable
rental
housing,
I
think,
is
actually
wonderful.
I
think
that
the
overall
approach
to
the
interventions
of
the
exterior,
I
think,
are
very
sound.
E
E
That
you
know
the
the
entrance
previously
had
down
to
what
is
essentially
ground
level.
I
think
that
the
difficulty
and
like
this
is
for
you
is
that
the
character
of
the
interventions
at
the
front
entrance
our
disappointment
visually.
E
I
think
that
in
particular,
because
if
this
is
the
focal
point
at
the
end
of
a
long
avenue
leading
from
main
street
and
to
come
up
this
wonderful
boulevard
and
the
entrance
as
the
focal
point
as
an
area
where
we
have
raised
expectations,
so
I
think
that
I
would
suggest
that
you
work
with
with
ashley
and
the
community,
I'm
not
going
to
introduce
any
particular
motion
on
this,
but
I
think
you
should
work
with
ashley
and
the
community
to
come
up
with
something
that
is
really
quite
elegant.
E
You
know
in
its
language
that
satisfies
the
you
know
the
position
that
this
entrance
takes,
and
so
just
make
a
note
to
revisit
this.
You
know
get
rid
of
those
clumsy
things
on
each
side
of
the
door,
whether
they're,
stone
or
whatever,
but
that's
just
a
little
bit
of
informal
advice
which
constitute
my
comments
on
overall.
You
know
a
wonderful
use
for
this
building
and
I
can't
wait
to
see
it
all
occupied.
Thank
you.
A
A
I
don't
see
other
hands
raised,
but
I
also
want
to
follow
in
the
footsteps
of
member
podelsky
to
say
that
I'm
also
supportive
of
the
staff
recommendation
concerning
this
application
to
alter
the
building
really
in
order
to
facilitate
the
adaptive,
reuse
and
preservation
of
the
building
for
wonderful
uses.
In
my
estimation,
both
the
school
and
affordable
housing.
A
I
wish
we
could
see
more
of
these
types
of
projects
across
the
city
where
we,
you
know
utilize
historic,
landmark
buildings
for
for
contemporary
use
and,
obviously
in
order
to
achieve
this,
the
construction
of
a
permanent
infill
wall
to
to
fill
in
the
void
that
will
be
left
when
the
chapel
wing
has
been
demolished
as
necessary,
as
well
as
the
replacement
of
the
windows.
A
But
I
do
share
a
concern
around
the
table
here
that
there
are
aesthetic
challenges
concerning
modification
to
the
front
entrance.
However,
we
have
to
acknowledge
that
these
modifications
are
required
to
meet
necessary
accessibility
requirements.
I
would
agree
with
member
podolsky.
That
would
be
good
if
the
applicant
and
the
developers
could
really
work
with
staff
to
to
have
something
that
is
more
desirable
in
terms
of
the
front
entrance.
However,
overall,
I
think
that
this
is
a
is
a
good
report.
A
That's
in
front
of
us
and
as
a
consequence,
I
I
will
be
supportive
of
the
report,
so
the
report
is
in
front
of
us.
Is
the
report
carried
sorry?
Yes,
this
report
is
scheduled
to
be
presented
to
council
on
april
14
2021..
A
The
next
item
in
the
agenda
is
an
application
to
alter
reagan,
house
66
stewart
street,
a
property
designated
under
part
4
of
the
ontario
heritage
act.
Can
I
please
ask
staff
to
provide
an
overview
of
this
report.
P
Okay,
before
I
begin,
I
would
like
to
introduce
myself
to
those
on
the
committee.
I've
not
had
the
opportunity
to
meet.
I
am
jack
mallon
and
I
am
a
junior
heritage
planner
that
has
been
working
with
the
heritage
planning
team
since
october
of
last
year.
P
P
The
house
is
located
on
the
south
side
of
stuart
street
between
king
edward
avenue
and
cumberland
street.
Please
note
that
in
page
3
of
the
report,
it
mistakenly
states
that
this
property
is
surrounded
by
the
stuart
wilbrod
hcd,
but
it
is
in
fact
surrounded
by
the
sandy
hill
west
hcd
next
slide,
please
known
as
reagan
house
66.
Stewart
street
is
a
large
two-story
red
brick
veneer,
picturesque,
victorian
residential
building
the
building
features
matching
dormers
flanking
a
central
gable,
a
two-story
painted
wood
entrance,
porch
and
decorative
barge
board.
P
The
house
is
an
architecturally
sophisticated
example
of
middle-class
housing.
First
appearing
in
the
ottawa
city
directory
of
1864.,
the
building
was
constructed
during
the
first
phase
of
development.
In
sandy
hill,
by
bricklayer
john
reagan
as
his
own
residence
today,
the
house
is
very
intact.
As
you
can
see,
the
porch
and
brickwork
is
in
very
fine
condition.
P
Next
slide.
Please
some
alterations
have
been
made
at
the
rear
of
the
property,
including
the
vinyl,
clad
shed
dormer.
That
can
be
seen
in
the
picture
on
the
left
next
slide.
Please,
the
application
proposes
the
construction
of
a
two-story
addition
to
the
rear
of
the
building,
seen
in
the
center
of
the
site
plan
here
and
the
construction
of
new
window
openings
on
the
east
and
west
facades
of
the
existing
structure.
P
Next
slide,
please,
the
addition
will
feature
a
flat
roof
wood
cladding
and
will
have
side
yard
setbacks
that
are
an
additional
0.6
meters
from
the
existing
house.
The
new
windows
on
the
edition
and
the
existing
house
will
be
constructed
with
aluminum
quad
wood
to
match
the
original
wood
windows
next
slide.
Please,
four
windows
will
be
added
to
the
existing
house.
The
windows
proposed
on
the
west
facade
and
the
window
proposed
on
the
east
facade's.
Second
second
story
are
in
keeping
with
the
historic
style
of
the
original
windows.
P
Next
slide,
please,
since,
since
this
is
a
part,
4
designation
parks,
canada's
standards
and
guidelines
are
used
to
evaluate
this
project.
The
proposed
addition
and
new
window
openings
align
with
the
standards,
because
the
alterations
will
not
compromise
any
of
the
character
defining
elements,
as
laid
out
in
the
statement
of
reason
for
designation.
P
The
proposed
addition
is
located
at
the
rear
of
the
building
and
will
not
negatively
impact
the
massing
or
form
of
the
original
structure
or
symmetry
of
its
front.
Facade
proposed
addition
is
compatible
with
the
original
structure,
because
its
wood
cladding
aligns
with
construction
materials
that
were
commonly
used
in
the
19th
century.
P
P
P
We've
provided
ash
with
the
contact
information
for
the
planner
responsible
for
the
variance
application
heritage
ottawa
is
notified
of
the
application
and
supports
the
addition
if
it
conforms
to
the
setback
provisions.
We've
discussed
this
proposal
with
the
ward,
counselor
and
neighbors
within
30
meters
were
sent
notification.
Letters
next
slide.
A
Thank
you
jack
for
that
excellent,
in-depth
presentation,
very
informative
both
to
the
subcommittee
and
to
the
general
public
on
this
report.
We
did
receive
correspondence
from
heritage
ottawa
and
we
do
have
one
speaker
registered
to
speak
and
that
is
scott
irwin.
B
B
Hi
everybody,
my
name
is
scott
irwin.
I'm
the
presentation
was
covered
off
everything
that
I
was
I
was
going
to
talk
about.
I
can
answer
any
questions.
A
Excellent,
thank
you
and
does
sub
committee
have
any
questions
for
scott.
A
I'm
not
seeing
any
hands
raised
so
does
the
subcommittee
have
any
questions
for
staff
on
this
file
and
I
see
that
member
hassle
has
her
hand.
D
E
E
Yeah
yeah
there
we
are
maybe
it's
one
of
the
disadvantages
of
my
being
an
architect,
but
I
noticed
on
this
one
that
the
major
gable
at
the
front
and
the
dormers
have
been
neglected
in
the
drawing,
or
certainly
it
doesn't
mean
that
they're
going
to
be
demolished.
But
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
should
be
done
is
that
if
an
elevation
is
drawn,
it
should
be
the
full
elevation
which
also
records
the
heritage
character.
Defining
elements
such
as
the
major
gable
entrance,
the
front
entrance
and
the
the
dormers.
A
A
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
I'll
I'll
be
supportive
of
the
staff
recommendation
concerning
this
application,
as
it
does
meet
standard
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
historic
places,
with
the
condition
that
the
proposed
force
first
story
window
and
opening
on
the
east
facade
be
modified
to
match
the
style
and
and
profile
of
the
other
windows
on
the
historic
building,
and
that
the
proposed
addition
and
alterations
are
also
in
keeping
with
the
standards
and
guidelines
in
that
the
addition
is
located
in
the
rare
yard
setback
lower
than
the
original
house
and
clad
in
complementary
material.
A
Additionally,
the
new
window
openings
will
not
affect
the
menstruation
pattern
of
the
original
house.
So,
as
a
consequence,
I
I'm
supportive
of
this
report.
Is
the
report
carried
all
right?
A
F
F
F
The
applicant
has
received
a
heritage
permit
in
2017
to
alter
this
property.
This
included
an
addition
to
the
side
and
rear
and
increase
the
roof
pitch.
Some
restoration
elements
of
the
existing
house
and
the
relocation
of
the
garage
and
driveway
the
applicant
did
not
build
their
house
according
to
the
approved
heritage,
permit
plans
and
are
therefore
requesting
permission
for
their
as
built
condition.
F
Here
are
some
images
of
the
existing
house,
the
blue
block.
Sorry
blue
box
on
the
left
image
shows
the
addition
to
the
side.
The
red
arrows
indicate
areas
of
the
building
that
differ
from
the
approved
plans.
I
will
address
these
in
more
details
in
the
upcoming
slides
the
right
hand,
image
shows
the
west
elevation
as
seen
from
elmwood
avenue.
This
is
a
corner
property
and
a
side.
Elevation
is
also
important.
F
F
These
are
perspective,
views
from
the
side
and
rear
of
the
side
and
front
of
the
house
next
slide.
The
heritage
permit
was
approved
in
2017..
A
left-hand
image
shows
those
approved
drawings.
Here,
the
red
arrows
identify
the
elements
that
are,
staff
are
recommending
the
applicant
be
made
to
comply
with
from
the
previous
approval.
This
includes
removing
the
aluminum
soffits
and
replacing
them
with
wood,
as
per
the
guidelines
in
the
rockland
park.
F
Heritage
conservation,
district
plan,
aluminum
soffits,
are
not
permitted,
also
suggesting
that
that
the
applicant
reinstate
the
wooden
rafter
tails
wooden
rafter
tails
are
original
to
the
house
and
should
have
been
reinstated
after
the
alterations
to
the
roof.
The
plan
states
that
character
defining
attributes,
including,
but
not
limited
to
shutters
brackets
window
details,
shingling
barge
board
and
finials,
shall
be
retained
and
conserved.
F
This
should
be
the
sorry
recommendations,
also
to
paint
the
exposed
wood
trim
around
the
front
door,
remove
the
wooden
post
and
reinstate
the
open
wooden
canopy
over
the
door.
As
stated
in
the
plan,
the
conservation
of
small
canopies
found
on
many
houses
and
the
district
is
encouraged.
The
house
historically
had
a
wooden
canopy
and
the
2017
permit
included
plans
to
reconstruct
the
original
canopy,
which
was
in
poor
condition.
This
is
an
important
attribute
that
typifies
english
cottage
style
and
should
be
retained.
F
The
plan
states
that
screened
in
porches
were
popular
in
the
mid
20th
century
in
the
district,
and
the
retention
of
these
porches
is
encouraged
as
part
of
the
design
for
the
2017
permit.
Heritage
staff
supported
the
relocation
of
the
screened
in
porch
from
the
east
facade
to
the
west
facade
in
order
to
accommodate
the
new
addition
in
reconstructing
this
porch,
some
of
the
detailing
making
it
appear
subordinate
was
altered.
F
F
This
is
the
side
elevation
from
elmwood
avenue.
Note
that
the
wooden
rafter
tails
are
not
present
and
the
soffits
are
aluminum,
not
wood.
In
the
rear
edition,
it
was
planned
to
have
halftime
a
half
timbering
motif.
However,
the
applicant
did
not
install
this
staff
have
no
concerns
over
this
alteration,
as
as
it
does
not
impact
the
heritage
attributes
of
the
house
next
slide.
F
Here's
the
landscape
plan
that
was
submitted
as
part
of
this
application,
the
host
and
its
edition
is
colored
in
blue
the
driveway.
In
dark
gray
and
the
lighter
gray
items
are
the
newly
proposed
paving
areas
the
applicant
constructed
two
walkways
in
the
front
yard,
one
of
which
was
not
approved
in
the
last.
The
former
landscape
plan
and
the
other
which
was
constructed
water,
then
approved
both
are
concrete,
a
material
that
is
not
widely
used
in
rockland
park.
F
F
Next
slide
staff
have
regard
for
the
parks
for
parks,
canada,
standards
and
gardens
for
the
conservation
of
historic
places
when
reviewing
applications
to
alter
staff
feel
that
the
current
as-built
condition
of
the
house
does
not
conserve
the
heritage
value
of
the
historic
place.
Neither
the
house
nor
the
heritage
conservation
district,
many
of
the
attributes
have
been
removed
and
replaced
with
aluminum
or
concrete,
including
the
soffits
railings
steps
and
walkways
next
slide
consultation.
F
The
rockler
park
community
association
and
the
residences
association
was
notified
of
this
application.
They
have
some
comments
in
the
report
and
also,
I
believe
they
submitted
comments
to
the
committee
coordinator,
which
have
been
circulated.
Heritage
ottawa
has
also
submitted
some
comments.
The
award
counselor
is
aware
of
this
application
and
neighbors
with
more
than
30
meters,
were
notified
of
the
submission
next
slide.
A
Thank
you
ashley
for
that
report.
As
you
had
noted
in
your
presentation,
there
was
a
a
a
a
large
amount
of
correspondence
that
that
came
in.
We
did
receive
correspondence
from
seven
parties,
including
heritage
ottawa,
and
we
do
have
a
number
of
registered
speakers,
including
the
owner,
charles
e,
who
is
first
in
in
line
to
speak.
I
I'll
try
again
good
morning,
mr
chair
morning,
members
of
the
panel
we've
owned
this
property
61
park
road
since
19
since
2016
and
we've
been
trying
to
make
a
home.
I
We
went
through
a
very
lengthy
process
and
at
the
end
of
it
just
before
we
got
the
building
permit,
we
were
told
that
the
screen
porch
could
not
be
screened,
it
had
to
be
open,
and
so
that
made
it
necessary
to
eliminate
some
some
parts,
such
as
the
screen
door.
That
was
part
of
the
original
design.
I
I
Had
a
lot
of
consultation,
we
had
a
lot
of
input
from
the
heritage
staff
and
the
final
package
that
was
approved.
The
design
package
had
two
different
designs
on
it.
If
I
could
ask
for
a
slide
to
be
brought
up
on
the
screen,
that
would
be
great.
I
I
I
will
only
skip
this,
do
this
skipping
once
so.
This
is
the
cover
page
of
the
approved
design
package.
It
shows
a
very
clean
eve
line
and
gable
and
there's
no
rafter
tails
visible
on
that,
and
that
was
the
design
that
the
architect
submitted
and
later
on
during
the
process.
I
think
the
heritage
staff
committed
convinced
the
architect
to
put
rafter
tails
on
and
the
reason
for
that
was
because
of
some
misunderstanding
by
heritage
staff.
I
I
Up
next
sorry,
this
it's
a
bit
out
of
order,
but
this
shows
this.
I
I
did
this
on
the
weekend.
I
I
circled
put
circle
around
houses
in
the
rockliff
area,
with
aluminum
soffits,
the
red,
the
red
circles
represent
houses
where
there's
aluminum
soffits
present,
and
I
also
made
a
an
area
just
a
large
circle
around
an
area
or
you
know,
drew
a
line
around
an
area
on
the
right
of
the
screen.
I
The
new
rock
cliff
area
has
higher
than
80
percent.
You
know
higher
than
80
percent
of
houses
had
aluminum
suffix
the
area
in
the
middle
where
the
lake
is
and
around
there
I
didn't
do
a
survey,
but
I
I
would
think
that
it
would
be
between
the
two
you
know,
or
the
percentage
would
be
between
between
the
first
and
the
second
part
would
be
somewhere
in
the
high
50s
to
you
know
60s.
I
I
I
I
Pardon
yes,
those
are
new.
Those
are
new
construction.
Those
are
finished
around
the
same
time.
We
we
we
put
the
soffits
in
or
are
being
built
right
now
so
right
now,
this
is
happening
now.
If
we
could
go
to
page
seven,
please,
mr
pilot.
I
I
The
drawing
that
is
on
the
cover
of
the
approved
package,
had
no
rafter
tails
below
on
the
lower
left.
There's
a
picture
of
the
part
of
the
gable
with
with
fascia
boards
falling
off
there's
a
part
of
it.
That
is
still
stuck
on.
That
shows
that
you
know,
there's
no
rafter
tail,
so
those
areas
where
there's
rafter
tail
or
what
looks
like
rafter
tail,
showing
they're
showing
because
the
house
was
falling
apart
and
we
see
these
these
rafters.
I
A
Where
your
your
time
is
expiring,
so
I
just
wonder
if
you
could
wrap
up
your
your
presentation.
I
A
We
typically
afford
delegates
five
minutes,
but
I
I
usually
allow
some
latitude
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
wrap
up.
So
can
you
just.
A
I
Understood
so
that's
that's
rather
tails
and
we
have
other
things
as
well.
The
site
plan
was
approved
that
showed
a
wide
front
step
and
with
a
very
narrow,
walkway
up
to
the
front
that
didn't
line
up
properly.
So
in
summary,
the
the
plants
that
were
drawn
was
enough
to
get
heritage
approval,
but
not
enough
to
make
it
workable
for
us.
I
So
as
a
result,
we
had
to
go
back
and
and
and
fine-tune
some
of
these
designs
so
that
the
house,
you
know
the
house
that's
built,
is,
is
complete
and
it
can
be,
it
can
function
as
a
house
properly.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
and
we
do
have
questions
for
you
from
members
of
this
subcommittee.
The
first
person
with
their
hand
raised
is
councillor
brockington,
councilor
brocking,
to
go.
Q
Q
You
touched
upon
this
in
your
presentation,
but
I
I
really
want
you
to
get
into
some
specifics
with
me
with
us
and
let
me
just
read
to
you
a
short
paragraph
in
the
staff
report
and
then
ask
for
your
comment.
So
in
2017,
a
heritage
permit
was
issued
to
alter
your
property.
This
included
an
addition,
removal
of
the
garage
and
driveway
creation
of
a
new
three-car
garage,
increasing
the
height
of
the
roof
over
the
course
the
past
few
years
that
work
has
been
going
on.
Q
However,
it
has
not
been
built
according
to
the
approved
plans,
so
I
guess
the
question
is
why
you
alluded
to
the
fact
that
perhaps
you
got
direction
from
a
heritage
staff
that
may
that,
maybe
you
perceived
allowed
you
to
do
this,
but
I
want
you
to
elaborate.
Why
has
that
not
been
followed?
As
far
as
the
heritage
goes.
I
In
terms
of
the
original
design,
the
on
the
exterior,
the
the
the
plans
were
not.
First
of
all,
the
house
is
still
still
hasn't
had
a
final
inspection,
we're
still
doing
construction.
It's
it's
slowed
down.
I
Other
aspects.
So
I
mean
you
know
the
things
that
come
up
during
construction
measurements
on
an
old
house
don't
line
up
properly.
We
had
to
move
the
porch
slightly
forward
because
the
the
wood
column
would
have
blocked
the
window,
so
those
things
came
up
and
we
had
to
adjust
on
the
ground
as
as
it
happened,.
L
Yeah,
I
think
my
question
was
the
same
as
councillor
brockington.
It's
just
the
whole.
Why
thing
I
mean
you
show
up
at
committee
october
2017,
you
got
a
big
petition
of
people
supporting
your
application
and
then
you
go
and
find
a
guy
down
the
road
to
put
your
soffits
on.
I
don't
know
strange
thing
to
do,
but
either
that's
my
question
is
sam
is
brockton's
and
I
guess
he
kind
of
answered
it.
Thanks.
A
Thank
you,
councillor
moffat.
I
don't
see
any
other
questions,
so
thank
you,
charlesy
for
it
for
your
delegation.
The
next
person
on
the
list
is
linda
carrier.
A
J
Thank
you,
I'm
speaking
to
you
today
on
behalf
of
the
rockcliff
park
residents
association
heritage
committee,
and
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
it
was
the
rock
of
heart
residents
association
heritage
committee
that
was
notified
by
excuse
me
this
kindly
notified
by
city
staff.
J
Their
removal
does
not.
Secondly,
in
addition,
we've
received
the
following
from
an
immediate
neighbor
that
a
fence,
a
budding
property
was
built
over
property
lines
and
was
subsequently
removed
by
the
owner
of
61
park.
Upon
request
of
the
neighbor,
it
is
unclear
as
a
result
of
safety
standards
regarding
fencing
around
a
pool
or
now
being
adequately
addressed.
J
The
neighbor
also
believed
several
trees
were
removed
by
the
owner
during
construction
and
is
unsure
if
this
impacted
the
approved
landscape
plan.
Finally,
when
constructing
the
driveway,
the
owner
and
or
workers
cut
the
roots
of
the
neighbor's
large
mature
norway
spruce
and
an
arborist
recommended
immediate
removal
of
the
tree.
Even
given
the
tremendous
damage
and
potential
danger
of
the
huge
tree
falling
over
the
city
of
ottawa,
forestry
inspector
was
equally
very
concerned
and
recommended
the
tree
be
taken
down
as
soon
as
possible.
J
The
neighbor
is
unsure
if
the
finished
driveway
is
in
line
with
original
approved
plans
and
or
if
the
final
driveway
is
at
the
appropriate
distance
from
the
neighbor's
property.
But
it
appears
to
cover
a
very
large
surface
and
is
relatively
close
to
the
property
line.
That
statement
was
a
quote
from
the
neighbor.
J
Several
different
designs
could
have
been
submitted
which
might
have
met
the
rp
agency
minute
left
sorry,
one
minute
left,
okay
and
the
sng
and
city
approval
several
would
have
not.
The
key
point
is
that
these
are
the
designs
that
the
owner
presented
and
that
the
community
city
staff
and
bhsc
analyze
reviewed,
recommended
for
approval
and
that
city
council
approved
none
other.
J
The
process
carries
a
cost
in
time
and
resources
from
the
community
from
the
city
to
support
an
application,
an
applicant's
discretionary
decision,
without
any
consultation
with
city
staff,
to
not
implement
the
designs
that
the
applicants
submitted
in
order
to
obtain
a
permit
and
which
are
then
subject
to
a
city
of
ottawa
heritage.
Permit
suggests
that
city
processes
are
perhaps
being
considered
foregone
conclusions.
J
A
Thank
you
for
your
delegation
and
I
we'll
ask
whether
some
any
members
of
subcommittee
have
questions
for
you.
A
O
Favor
good
morning,
mr
chair
and
committee
members,
I'm
marianne
fever
and
I
look
at
90
park
voters
immediately
across
the
street
from
the
the
application
61..
I
I
fully
support
city
staff
and
the
rpra
heritage
committee
stand
on
this
application.
O
I
feel
that
the
permit
should
not
be
accorded
until
such
time
as
conditions
that
they
list
have
been
met.
I
would
like
to
add
a
few
remarks
about
the
landscaping
which,
amongst
others
I
mean.
We
know
that
the
landscape
I
mean
the
the
heritage
plan
says
you
can
only
make
a
three
meter
entrance
at
the
street
level
to
into
the
driveway
what
what
they
had
originally
planned
to
do
looked
amazing.
It
was
weaving
its
way
through
a
bank
of
trees
that
were
between
between
that
and
the
garage.
O
I
said,
bravo
good
for
you,
you're
conserving
the
trees.
Well,
what
an
actual
fact
happened
was
everything
all
quite
to
the
contrary.
They
just
plowed
down
every
tree,
except
for
one
large
maple
that,
but
then
they
made
a
very
large
dry
way
much
wider
than
I
believe
was
permitted
and
they
also
summarily
took
down
a
whole
bunch
of
trees
in
the
backyard
and
and
they
they're
applying
for
now
for
a
deck
of
this
kind
of
thing.
O
What,
if
you
look
at
the
final
plants,
the
there's
there's
really
not
much
greenscape
left
at
all,
and
so
I
just
feel
that
this
applicant
has
shown
a
complete
lack
of
appreciation
or
knowledge
of
the
heritage
plan
and
it's
aimed
to
retain
greenscape.
O
The
plan
is
so
clear
that
softscape
must
dominate
the
property
and
which-
and
here
that
the
applicant
has
covered
the
property
with
an
addition
to
the
house-
that
is,
first
of
all,
more
than
twice
the
size
of
the
original
house
and
with
excessive
landscape
he's
installed
a
pool
and
and
built
a
framework
for
the
terrace
and
the
deck
in
this
huge
white
driveway
and
wide
walkways,
and
I
just
feel
that
that
he
should
have.
O
He
should
be
calling
this
and-
and
I
feel
he
should
restore
some
of
the
green
space
if
at
all
possible
I
and
just
finally,
I
just
think
what
does
it
mean
when
a
property
owner
can
build
a
house
implementing
multiple
design
decisions
other
than
those
proposed
and
accepted
by
city
and
upon
which
the
permit
was
granted
and
then
to
expect
the
city
to
rubber
stamp
it
in,
as
is
condition?
O
A
Thank
you
for
your
delegation.
Do
any
members
of
the
subcommittee
have
any
questions
I
don't
see
any
hands
raised.
So
thank
you
for
your
delegation
and
the
next
registered
speaker
is
beatrice
hansen.
C
Thank
you
councillor,
king
and
chair.
Can
you
hear
me.
C
Oh
thank
you
and,
and
members
of
the
bhc
bhsc
committee
and
the
hard-working
heritage
of
ottawa
staff.
Many
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
again.
C
I
fully
support
recommendations
submitted
by
the
rpra
and
our
chair,
linda
decare,
and
my
my
purpose
in
speaking
today
is-
is
to
persuade
members
of
the
bh
sc
that,
if
possible,
they
urge
encourage,
provide
incentives
to
the
applicants
of
61
park
to
remove
as
much
as
possible
the
hardscaping,
particularly
the
pavement,
which
can
accommodate
multiple
cars
and
any
superfluous
hardscaping
from
the
east
and
the
rear
yard
and
and
the
west
rear
yard
as
much
as
possible,
and
that
they'd
be
encouraged
to
replant
mature
trees
and
shrubs
to
create
a
natural,
canopy
and
boundary
that
existed
between
our
properties.
C
I
believe
there
are
some
slides
that
eric
has,
and
I
we
can
refer
to
them
in
in
a
minute.
I
hope,
if
you
can
put
them
up
eric,
we,
my
husband
and
I
are
the
occupants
and
owners
of
338
elmwood
and
we
would
be
willing
to
cooperate
and
negotiate
within
reason
eric.
If
you
can
just.
Let
me
just
finish
this
and
then
we
can
go
to
the
slides,
so
we,
the
occupants
and
owners
of
338
elmwood,
would
be
willing
to
cooperate
and
negotiate
within
reason.
C
Some
support
for
the
restoration
of
a
green
curtain
on
our
respective
property
lines.
We
as
neighbors,
would
need
to
work
together
and
agreed
to
ask
a
conservation
landscape
professional
to
facilitate
the
process
which
would
be
of
mutual
benefit
to
both
our
properties
and
is
in
keeping
with
the
conservation
and
green
soft
scaping
of
our
heritage,
neighborhood
as
protected
by
the
ontario
heritage
act.
C
And
so
let
us
just
go
down
eric
if
you
can
pull
up
the
the
original
canopy.
Are
you
just
go
scroll
right
to
the
bottom
so
that
that
slide?
If
you
look
at
the
bottom,
the
bird
side
slide
was
a
2010
picture
of
mrs
little
john's
house
prior.
Can
you
that
one
there
we
go
prior
to
the
ease,
purchase
and
bulldozing
and,
as
you
can
see,
it
is
very,
very
green.
P
Hi
beatrice
I'm
not
sure
what
you're
asking
for.
C
Oh
okay,
I
submitted
pictures
of
the
fence
line
at
the
rear
of
our
house
for
the
committee.
Sorry,
I'm
meant
to
put
on
this
timer.
P
Chair
I'm
in
your
hands,
I
can
try
to
pull
them
up.
It
will
take
time.
There
were
a
number
of
submissions
from
the
speaker.
A
If
you
can
speak
to
it
without
the
slides
just
for
the
interest
of
time,
okay,.
C
C
Okay-
okay,
that's
great,
that's
great!
So
what
I'm
asking
for
is
that
a
replacement
of
the
green
boundaries,
the
green
canopy
in
in
consultation
with
a
conservation
landscape,
professional-
and
there
is
a
plastic
fence
which
is
the
the
fence.
Posts
were
actually
drilled
and
I
think
the
the
fence
posts
or
the
holes
for
the
fence
post
probably
are
on
our
property
they're,
certainly
on
a
ancient
retaining
wall
that
is
more
than
a
hundred
years
old.
C
It
was
a
boundary
wall
that
shows
up
in
a
1928
photo.
It
also
shows
up
in
the
surveys
that
I
submitted
to
the
committee
and
if
there
is
further
damage
to
those
remaining
trees
that
are
30
centimeters,
plus
to
50
centimeters
in
circumference,
which
there
will
be
because
there's.
M
C
Okay,
their
root
beds
were
damaged
that
that,
mr
that
the
applicant,
the
applicants,
mr
and
mrs
e,
be
encouraged
to
replace
those
trees
of
a
deciduous
coniferous
variety,
and
I
will
I
know
that
eric
has
this
introduction
to
other
materials
that
I
submitted
to
you
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
thank
you
eric
and
all
the
hard-working
staff-
and
I
think
mr
podolski
knows
the
west
edition
on
our
house,
because
I
believe
he
may
have
designed
it
in
1970..
A
And
thank
you
for
yours
and
thank
you
for
your
delegation.
It's
much
appreciated.
Do
any
members
of
the
subcommittee
have
any
questions
I
don't
see.
Oh
I
see.
Counselor
moffat
has
has
a
question
for
you.
I'm
just
going.
L
To
say,
on
behalf
of
of
barry,
there
should
have
been
a
point
of
privilege
that
someone
let
out
his
age.
A
Well,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
For
that
moment
of
levity.
Counselor
office,
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
raised.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
your
for
your
delegation.
Does
the
committee
have
any
questions
for
staff?
I
see
that
counselor
gower
raised
his
virtual
hand.
First.
B
Thank
you,
chair
yeah,
so
what
we're
seeing
here
is
we,
the
city,
issued
a
heritage
permit
previously,
and
the
work
was
not
done
according
to
the
permit-
and
I
guess
at
the
committee
today,
the
property
owner
is
asking
for
forgiveness.
What
I'm
curious
about
is
a
bit
of
the
process.
How
does
staff
usually
ensure
that
the
conditions
of
a
heritage
permit
are
actually
adhered
to
by
by
property
owners.
B
So
heritage
staff
are
not
directly
involved.
I'm
I'm
curious.
What
kind
of
do
the
building
inspectors
typically
have
the
expertise
and
the
ability
to
to
gauge
whether
or
not
a
heritage
permit
would
be
adhered
to
would
seem
to
me
it
be
a
specialized
area
of
expertise
that
would
go
above
and
beyond
a
typical
building
inspector
training
or
ability.
F
I
think
this
this
project
sort
of
brought
to
light
that
there
was
a
bit
of
a
gap
there
and
we're
working
on
improving
our
process
going
forward
so
that
we
can
work
together
more
closely
with
our
colleagues
and
building
code
services
to
identify
any
any
projects
that
may
not
be
built
according
to
plans
earlier
on.
B
So
can
you
explain
again,
how
is
this
flagged?
How
did
staff
determine
that
this
was
not
in
accordance
with
the
heritage
permit,
in
this
case,.
F
This
is
when
I
just
happened
to
be
going
by
doing
a
site
visit
in
the
neighborhood
when
I
noticed,
since
this
was
also
my
file
in
2017.
So
I
was
very
familiar
with
all
the
details
of
this
project
and
I
happened
to
see
it
firsthand
then
contacted
the
the
building
inspector
and
then
also
the
owner
to
discuss
the
the
inconsistencies
with
the
approved
plans.
B
I
guess
I'm
glad
I'm
glad
you
happened
to
notice
it,
but
it's
a
really
concerning
gap
in
our
process
here
like
is
there
any
spot
checks
or
other
than
heritage
staff
going
out
and
observing
and
having
a
look
like
I'll
put
it,
something
like
the
shadow
laurier
that
we
just
issued
a
heritage
permit
on?
Is
there
additional
scrutiny
on
on
certain
large
files?
Is
there
a
random
spot
check
of
of
buildings
that
we
do
like?
How
are
we?
What
is
the?
F
R
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
question
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
the
first.
The
key
piece
here
is
that
the
committee
will
know
that
this
is
one
of
the
first
files
of
this
type
that
you
would
have
seen.
So
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
recognize
that
this
is
not
a
common
occurrence.
R
You
know.
Normally,
as
you
see
in
every
single
one
of
our
reports,
we
have
a
recommendation
that
says
minor
design
changes
are
delegated
to
staff
normally,
when
an
applicant
wishes
to
make
changes
to
their
plans
that
emerge
through
the
building
permit
process
or
through
the
construction
process,
they're
able
to
contact
us
and
we
work
with
them
through
those
changes,
and
it
may
be
slightly
different
than
the
plans
that
were
approved
by
council,
but
we
have
the
delegated
authority
to
do
that.
R
So
in
this
instance,
none
of
that
happened,
one
of
the
checks
and
balances
that
we
do
have
where
we
rely
on
our
building
called
colleagues.
Is
that
when
we
issue
a
building
permit
for
a
property
that
has
a
heritage
permit
issued
for
it,
every
page
of
the
plans
is
stamped
by
heritage
staff
with
a
stamp
that
says
heritage
permit
issued
no
changes
to
be
made
to
these
drawings.
R
Unless
you
contact
us
basically-
and
it
includes
the
signature
of
the
heritage,
planner
who's
responsible
for
the
file-
so
that's
one
of
our
checks
and
then
that
frequently
will
reveal
things
if
the
building
inspector's
on
site-
and
they
see
our
name
on
the
on
the
plans.
They'll
phone
us.
So
so
I
think
that's
the
first
piece.
R
The
second
piece
is,
I
think,
at
this
point:
we
don't
have
the
capacity
to
be
out
inspecting
every
single
property
on
a
regular
basis,
just
we're
issuing
upwards
of
150
permits
a
year
when
you
factor
in
our
heritage
grant
program,
and
that's
a
that's
a
lot
of
resources
that
we
just
don't
have.
So,
I
think,
on
on
higher
profile
files
like,
for
instance,
the
chateau
laurier
or
180
metcalf,
the
medical
arts
building,
which
was
a
file
that
I
worked
on
several
years
ago.
R
We
do
staff
undertake
their
own
inspections
on
a
regular
basis,
so
I've
been
to
visit
that
site
several
times
or
sites
where
we
know
there's
potential
issues
or
that
sort
of
thing.
So
we
don't
have
a
formal
process,
but
I
think,
as
ashley
mentioned,
this
is
something
that
has
been
revealed
to
us
through
this
file
that
perhaps
we
need
to
figure
out
a
way
that
we
can
work
more
closely
with
our
building
code.
R
Colleagues
to
maybe
even
if
we
can
do
kind
of
one
inspection
before
the
end
of
the
building
permit
process.
So
I
hope
that
answers
your
question
counselor.
It's
not.
We
don't
have
a
full
answer
today.
B
Yes,
and
and
yes,
I
do
realize
it's
a
question
of
resources,
which
you
know
perhaps
as
a
future
future
part
of
a
work
plan
or
future
part
of
resource
allocation.
So
we
can
look
at,
and
I
do
know
that
you
are
out
inspecting.
We
have
the
bradley
craig
farm
on
hazel
dean,
road
in
stittsville,
and
I
do
know,
there's
been
some
work
done
and
that's
something
that
you're
monitoring
and
it
is
a
higher
risk
building.
So
I
appreciate
that.
B
L
L
Through
mr
chair,
I'm
happy
to
speak
to
the
the
legal
enforcement
options
that
might
exist,
should
the
work
not
be
done
now.
L
We're
obviously
we're
hopeful
that
the
property
owner
by
applying
is
signaling
their
intent
to
to
comply
with
whatever
is
approved
by
committee
today
and
what
they
should
do
if,
if
they
are
complying,
is
upon
the
if
the
council,
if
the
recommendations
of
staff
are
approved,
they
should
revise
their
building
permits
and
go
ahead
and
remove
those
aspects
of
the
construction
which
are
not
complying
with
the
revised
heritage
permit
and
and
otherwise
bring
the
building
into
conformity.
L
So
if
they
don't
do
that,
there
are
enforcement
options
to
exist,
we
obviously
want
to
leave
all
of
those
on
the
table.
So
if
I
don't
happen
to
mention
one
of
them
today,
the
property
owner
shouldn't
assume
that
we're
keeping
those
off
the
table,
but
the
two,
the
two
primary
enforcement
mechanisms
would
be
prosecution
either
under
the
building
code
act
or
the
heritage
act.
L
So
we
could
use
those
tools
to
require
the
owner
to
comply
with
an
order,
and
if
and
again,
hopefully
this
isn't
the
case
if
the
owner
didn't
comply
with
an
order,
they
could
be
prosecuted
for
construction,
contrary
to
the
permits,
and
also
contrary
to
the
order
that
was
issued,
the
the
possible
fines
that
can
result
under
both
the
building
code
act
and
the
ontario
heritage
act
are
capped
at
fifty
thousand
dollars
per
offense.
L
Realistically
speaking,
fifty
thousand
dollars
is
a
very
high
end
for
those
types
of
fines.
So
we
wouldn't
expect
to
see
a
fine
that
high
on
our
first
offense,
but
it
is,
it
is
the
maximum
that
could
be
issued.
This
isn't
a
an
offense
that
has
a
fixed
fine
like
a
parking
ticket
or
something
like
that.
It
would
be
up
to
the
discretion
of
the
court.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
So
I'm
supportive
of
what
staff
have
recommended,
I
think,
you've
been
very
generous
to
this
property
owner.
Given
the
issues
with
adherence
to
the
original
heritage,
permit
we've
identified
a
gap
in
in
review
and
and
checks
against
heritage.
A
You
councilor
gower
and
councillor
brockington
is
next
and
somehow
chateau
laurier
did
re-enter
the
conversation.
Q
It's
a
boomerang
boomerang,
mr
chair.
Thank
you
councillor,
gower
some
excellent
questions.
I
I
just
want
to
state
what
I
think
the
chain
of
events
are
and
I'd
like
staff
to
tell
me
if
I'm
correct
so
in
2017
the
heritage
permit
was
authorized,
the
owner
did
work
and
many
deviations
from
expectations
occurred.
Q
A
re-application
of
a
permit
is
coming
before
us
today,
because
there
are
some
things
that
were
done,
that
actually
staff
like
and
want
to
reissue
the
permit
to
cover
those
off
and
the
other
elements
that
staff,
don't
like.
You
have
a
condition
on
your
permit
that
you're
gonna
get
the
permit,
but
you
have
to
fix
these
things.
Is
that
basically
correct.
Q
F
That's
right,
I
would
say,
maybe
not
better,
but
they
they
meet
the
plan
so
whether
they
applied
for
that
back
in
2017,
the
window
changes
some
changes
to
the
half
timbering
we
likely
would
have
said
that
was
fine
and
we're
saying
fine.
Today
again.
Q
It
also
will
correct
some
things.
We
don't
like
okay,
so
that's
where
my
mind
is
I'm
not
happy
with
how
things
have
happened,
but
if
we
approve
this
today
with
the
conditions
there's
a
better
outcome
than
where
we
are
today.
So
that's
why
I'm
going
to
support
this
today,
based
on
some
statements
that
local
neighbors
made,
I
have
some
questions
and
one
is
trees
that
really
bothered
me.
F
Through
their
old
permit,
they
received
permission
to
to
remove
a
few
trees
in
the
rear
yard
in
order
to
accommodate
the
addition,
the
plan,
as
stated
in
the
original
landscape
plan
of
2017,
was
to
replant
some
trees
on
the
property,
as
I'm
learning
the
past
few
days
through
this
committee
and
through
correspondence
that
more
trees
have
been
removed
to
date,
that
staff
were
unaware
of.
Q
A
A
I
I
would
imagine
that
they're
they're
we
might-
and
I
I'm
I'm
wondering,
if
it's
possible,
to
have
direction
that
ensures
that
staff
speaks
with
other
relevant
departments
on
this
and
in
coordinates.
If,
if
staff
is
amenable
to
that,.
Q
Yeah,
I
think
some
staff
maybe
wanted
to
chime
in.
I
will
take
your
direction
chair,
but
if
staff
have
anything
else
to
add,
I'm
all
yours.
O
And
trees
are
an
element
of
the.
D
O
That
may
involve
consultation
with
the
city's
forestry
department,
as
well
as
with
bylaws
services
in
terms
of
a
full
investigation.
Q
Okay,
so
if
a
committee
coordinator
wants
me
to
provide
written
direction,
I
will
I
don't
know
if
he
captured
it,
but
that
is
certainly
my
intent
chair.
My
last
question
is
just
regarding
another
comment
that
was
made
about
hardscaping
the
amount
of
sort
of
non-natural
hardscaping
that
exists.
Can
staff
just
comment
on
that?
I
did
not
see
that
as
a
list
of
the
remediation
work
that
is
required.
So
could
staff
just
comment.
Please.
F
Yes,
the
second
recommendation
in
the
report
recommended
approval
of
a
landscape
plan
as
proposed.
However,
referring
back
to
the
2017
approval
for
the
front
yard,
which
included
a
narrower
walkway
to
the
road
and
no
walkway
that
the
the
applicant
created
from
the
walkway.
This
is
sort
of
the
existing
walkway
to
the
driveway.
So
reverting
back
to
that
landscape
plan
would
then
thus
reduce
the
hard
surfacing
on
the
property.
Q
But
staff
is
okay
with
modifications
that
have
been
made
on
the
side
and
rear
of
the
residence.
F
Yes,
I
think
in
balance
they
had
a
larger,
a
larger
deck
that
was
initially
proposed
and
they've
reduced
the
size
of
that
and
missed
or
placed
that
hardscaping
as
a
terrorist.
Instead.
Q
A
Thank
you,
councilor
brockington.
The
next
person
with
their
hand
raised,
is
member
conforti.
N
Thank
you,
chair
yeah.
I
don't
know
if
I
have
much
to
add,
because
a
lot
of
what
I
wanted
to
make
a
point
of
leslie
actually
stated
like
this
is
not
as
far
as
I'm
aware
of
something
that
happens
very
often.
So
it's
disappointing
to
see
because
you
know
as
a
licensed
architect.
You
know
when
someone
makes
changes
to
your
plans.
N
You
know
you
can't
just
take
liberties,
because
there
are
certain
reasons.
Things
were
designed
a
certain
way,
especially
in
the
context
of
a
of
a
heritage
permit.
So
you
know
to
say
that
small
liberties
were
taken.
It
seemed
like
the
the
thought
there
was.
Oh,
we
didn't
have
another
choice
and
we
weren't
aware,
but
I
think,
after
having
gone
through
a
heritage,
permit
application,
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
that
you
need
to
get
these
small
changes
approved.
N
So
it's
it
is
concerning,
but
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure
what
else
to
to
suggest
or
comment
on
as
far
as
as
far
as
staff
they
are
sort
of
that
is
that
isn't
their
role
to
go
in
and
follow
up
on
these
permits,
and
usually
there's
no
need
for
that,
but
yeah
certainly
glad
that
ashley
drove
by
and
saw
that
so
I
will
also
be
supporting
this
today.
So
thank
you.
E
Yes,
I've
been
following
the
events
very
closely
and
I
will
support
the
staff
recommendation
for
the
amendments
and
I
think
it's
also
clear
that
staff
oversight,
whether
it's
the
building
permit
staff
that
will
be
on
site,
will
be
alerted
to
the
issues
and
keep
an
eagle
eye
out
for
the
remediation
that
it
satisfies
the
the
conditions
of
the
permit
the
revised
permit.
E
If
we
do
that,
one
thing
I
would
just
like
to
say
to
your
king
and
and
colleagues,
and
that
is
that
the
rocket
park
residents
association
heritage
committee
has
very
clearly
articulated
what
the
heritage
values
are
of
the
belizard
apocalypse
park,
and
it
certainly
is
its
park-like
setting
and
without
question.
That's
why
people
move
to
rockwood
park
if
they
can
they
can
afford
to?
E
The
original
architect
for
this
building.
The
renovations
have
not
really
shown
respect
for
norfolk's,
wonderful
sense
of
proportion
and
design,
which
I
find
regrettable,
and
hopefully
you
know
there
is
no
life
after
death
and
bernardi
is
not
aware
of
this
application.
A
Thank
you,
member
podolski.
I
was
just
curious
if
any
members
have
any
other
questions
to
staff,
I
know
that
there
has
been
a
bit
of
wrap
up
listening
to
some
of
the
comments
here.
So
do
any
of
the
other
members.
Have
any
comments
general
comments
on
this
on
this
item
and
I
don't
see
hands
raised.
I
just
do
want
to
acknowledge
that
I'm
also
supportive
of
the
staff
recommendation
concerning
this
report.
A
I've
listened
to
my
colleagues
and
I
absolutely
concur.
This
situation
does
demonstrate
the
need
for
applicants
to
follow
the
proper
process
and
rules.
A
There
should
be
an
understanding
by
owners
that
specific
process
and
rules
are
associated
concerning
development
applications
and
heritage
conservation
districts.
A
It's
really
frustrating
that
the
owner
of
this
property
chose
to
ignore
the
designs
approved
for
the
redevelopment
of
this
property,
and
ultimately,
I
would
agree
with
member
produlsky
does
not
respect
the
heritage
values
of
the
neighborhood,
no
discussion
with
staff
or
with
heritage.
The
heritage
committee
of
the
rockloft
park
residents
association
concerning
alteration
of
a
grade,
one
property
which
requires
the
highest
conservation
practice.
This
is
ultimately
unacceptable.
A
I
agree
where
councilor
moffatt
was
going
in
the
heritage
conservation
district.
You
can't
simply
see
a
truck
going
down
the
street
wrap
on
the
window
of
that
of
the
of
the
of
the
truck
and
say
you
know,
let's
what
can
you
do
for
me
in
terms
of
my
property?
That's
not
how
heritage
conservation
districts
operate,
and
I'm
I'm
very
pleased
that
in
this
instance,
that
the
city
reserves
the
right
to
pursue
legal
action
on
the
non-compliance
at
issue.
A
The
approval
of
the
application
before
us
as
presented,
does
not
constitute
approval
or
acceptance
of
the
past
contra
contravention
or
any
contravention
of
which
may
occur
in
the
future
by
the
owner.
So
ultimately
I'll
be
supportive
of
this
report
and
I'm
also
supportive
of
a
direction
as
as
requested
by
councillor
brockington
to
heritage
staff,
to
review
the
impact
to
the
tree
canopy
in
coordination
with
forestry
with
that
is
this
report
carried.
A
The
report
is
scheduled
to
be
presented
to
council
on
april
14
2021..
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
a
status
update
for
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
inquiries,
emotions
for
the
period
ending
february
24th
2021..
A
I
see
that
there
is
no
presentation
scheduled
for
this
update
and
it
it's
pretty
routine.
Does
the
committee
have
any
questions
for
staff
on
on
this
item
and
I
see
no
hands
raised
and
I
suppose
that
members
also
do
not
have
any
general
comments
on
this
item
since
it
seems
to
be
performa,
I
don't
see
any
hands
raised,
so
is
this
report
received
received
received?
Thank
you.
The
next
item
is
a
counselor's
item.
A
Counselor
mckenny
on
behalf
of
councillor
menard,
is
moving
an
item
in
concerning
the
addition
of
15
to
oblates
avenue
to
the
city
of
ottawa
heritage
registrar.
I
understand
that
there
is
a
motion
to
replace
the
second
recommendation.
Can
the
mover
please
introduce
that.
A
I
know
that
we're
going
to
ask
councillor
bernard
for
comments
immediately
after
you,
you
move
the
amending
motion.
S
Okay,
now
I'll
go
ahead,
then
I
will
read
it
out,
whereas
report
acs,
2021,
occ
gen008,
recommends
that
staff
review
the
property
at
15
at
this.
What
avenue
for
designation
under
part
4
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
where,
since
the
january,
20
2021
meeting
of
the
bill
heritage
subcommittee,
the
property
owner
has
submitted
a
cultural
heritage.
Opinion
letter
prepared
by
robertson,
martin,
architects
and
whereas
staff
have
reviewed
the
reporting
concur
with
the
overall
finding
that
the
sisters
of
the
sacred
heart
and
pieces
convent
at
15
days.
S
Therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
built
heritage
subcommittee,
replaced
recommendation
to
report
acs
2021
occ
gen008,
with
the
following
a
direct
staff
to
explore
meaningful
commemoration
of
the
role
and
contribution
of
the
sisters
of
the
sacred
heart
of
jesus
through
a
future
sight
plan
control
process
where
commemoration
of
these
women
and
their
work
in
education,
health
and
social
services
should
reflect,
but
not
be
limited
to
the
direction
contained
in
the
old
or
sorry
in
the
ottawa
east.
A
M
Just
very
briefly
chair,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
mr
smith,
city
staff
and
ariela
in
my
office
for
working
so
diligently
on
this.
I
think
we've
come
to
a
good
conclusion
and,
of
course,
the
last
meeting
we
talked
about
this.
We
were
concerned
about
some
of
the
timelines,
the
building's
still
there,
so
we
made
it
and
I
think
it
this
makes
a
lot
of
sense
in
terms
of
rectifying
an
error
that
was
previously
made
in
terms
of
not
getting
this
on
the
registry.
M
So
we'll
we'll
we'll
move
forward
with
this,
and
I
just
appreciate
everyone's
discussions
and
coming
to
a
conclusion
on
this.
Thank
you.
A
I
appreciate
that
council
menard
so
on
this
item.
We've
had
no
correspondence
to
date,
but
we
do
have
a
number
of
registered
speakers.
The
first
registered
speaker
is
peter
fruit,
so
I
would
invite
peter
to
speak
to
this
matter
before
us.
T
Hello,
two
committee
members.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
time
the
time
here
when
I
first
moved
into
old
ottawa
east
several
years
ago.
It
struck
me
that
there
was
some
sort
of
a
relationship
between
the
de
chatelet
building
and
the
continent
at
15
o'blats
avenue.
T
T
Okay,
I
appreciated
the
support
from
from
sean
menard
and
his
office,
and
and
also
the
work
of
of
the
staff
in
sort
of
advancing
this
request.
T
I
I
I
think
it's
appropriate
that
the
the
the
the
sisters
and
the
convent
be
included
on
the
register
and
I
think
also
the
way
in
which
the
emotion
now
now
reads
is
clear
that
it
emphasizes
the
the
or
the
contributions
of
the
order
of
of
of
the
order
by
by
conserving
the
contributions
to
the
to
really
to
the
to
the
the
neighborhood
and
the
city
by
conserving
the
the
virgin
mary
park
virgin
mary
park
along
with.
T
Ideally,
possibly,
you
know
at
some
point
sort
of
a
public.
You
know
additional
public
access,
perhaps
connecting
to
old
lats
avenue,
but
that's
probably
for
another
discussion,
the
the
convent,
I
think
and
has
been
noted.
It
is
a
an
institution
that
was
directed
and
developed
by
in
by
women,
and
the
order
has
played
an
important
role
in
women's
history
of
the
city
of
ottawa,
which
has
not
been
fully
recognized.
T
I
must
say
that
during
the
process
and
looking
at
the
report,
the
report
paired
by
a
prayer
prepared
by
mr
mr
martin,
that
I
was
really
disappointed
and
actually
sort
of
ashamed
of
it
as
a
man
to
to
see
a
report
that
was
was
using
sexist
and
misogynist
language
to
consider
the
orders,
the
order's
contribution
to
the
community.
T
If
there's
a
way,
I
would
hope
that
this
this
this
report
could
be
be
removed
and
revised
and
represented
in
neutral
new
in
sort
of
a
neutral
language,
and
you
could
say,
have
the
same
messages.
I
think
it
reflects
poorly
on
on
mr
martin
and
domicile
and
and
it's
it's
it's
really.
It's
really
a
shame.
But
aside
from
that,
the
general
direction
of
the
motion
I'm
quite
comfortable
with-
and
it's
probably
appropriate
for
this
appropriate
thing
to
do.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
for
your
delegation.
Are
there
any
questions
for
mr
fruit.
A
A
A
And
I'm
seeing
the
application
that
john
is
still
being
connected
by
by
audio
so
looks
like
he's
connected.
A
So
if
we
are
continuing
to
have
some
technical
difficulties,
we
might
go
to
rick
morris
next
and
then
revisit
john,
as
as
he
works
out,
some
of
the
technical
difficulties.
B
B
B
Okay,
yeah
just
basically,
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
since
the
january
subcommittee
meeting
we
have
worked,
you
know
closely
with
leslie
collins,
specifically
at
the
city
heritage
department
and
then
and
then
ariela
summit,
who
is
councilor
bernard's
assistant,
and
we
we
think,
we've
come
up
with
a
a
good
resolution.
B
The
draft
motion
that
was
created
by
probably
a
combination
of
city
staff
and
the
counselor's
office.
We
reviewed
it
yesterday
afternoon.
B
We
had
sufficient
time
to
then
respond
to
the
counselor's
office,
saying
that
we
concur
with
the
with
the
draft
motion
as
as
written
so
again,
just
wanted
to
thank
the
counselor's
office
and
city
staff.
A
K
Okay,
thank
you.
So
my
apologies.
I
was
having
some
technical
difficulties
getting
into
the
audio
here,
so
I'm
actually
on
the
phone,
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
sort
of
bypassing
it
didn't
hear
everything
that
rick
said.
K
But
I
think
I'm
probably
reiterating
some
of
his
comments
that
we
very
much
appreciate
sort
of
the
committee
having
deferred
this
item
from
the
january
20th
build
heritage
committee
to
allow
us
the
opportunity
for
us
to
actually
undertake
our
own
investigation
of
the
property
as
to
whether
or
not
a
warrant
at
a
part,
4
designation
and
really
appreciate
the
time
from
council
menard's
office
and
with
staff
to
work
with
us
and
look
at
options
and
again
really
looking
at
whether
or
not
given
the
results
that
came
from
our
heritage
consultant,
which
staff
agrees
with
that
a
part
four
designation
isn't
entirely
warranted,
but
clearly
there's
an
opportunity
for
some
commemoration
and
the
modified
recommendation.
K
That
is
now
before
the
build
heritage
committee.
We're
entirely
supportive
of
that
on
behalf
of
domicile
and
again,
we
wish
to
thank
all
those
involved
in
helping
us
get
to
this
point
and
would
definitely
be
supportive
of
the
build
heritage
committee.
Recommending
approval
of
the
modified
motion
brought
forward
by
the
council.
A
B
Martin
chair,
I
I
don't
have
any
any
further
comments.
I
think
that
rick
and
john
have
presented
the
case.
So
unless
there's
particular
questions,
I
don't
have
anything
further
today.
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
and
I
don't
see
hands
raised
so
does
the
committee
does
any
committee
member
wants
to
make
some
comments
on
this
item
and
I
see
that
vice
chairs
quinn's
hand
is
raised.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
This
question
is
for
staff.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
with
the
new
motion.
This
means
that
staff
is
stepping
away
from
recommending
the
building
be
added
to
the
register.
Can
you
clarify
that
please.
R
A
Thank
you
and
member
padelski.
E
Yes,
I
think
leslie
if
you
could
just
clarify
that
staff
has
looked
at
the
criteria,
the
provincial
criteria
and
have
you
also
concluded
that
the
property
is
not
really
a
candidate
for
designation
under
part
4
of
the
heritage
act?
The
reason
why
I
asked
that
is
that
by
implication,
that's
the
message
that
is
conveyed,
but
I
think
for
the
public
and
the
community.
It
would
be
useful
to
actually
hear
explicitly
staff's
position
on
the
review
and
potential
designation.
So
if
you
wouldn't
mind
just
making
that
clear,
that
would
be
helpful.
R
Happy
too
so
further
to
the
memo
that
was
distributed
to
members
yesterday,
basically,
staff
reviewed
the
report
submitted
by
the
applicant,
as
well
as
our
own
information
on
this
property,
and
we
have
concluded
that
we
do
not
believe
that
this
building
is
a
strong
candidate
for
designation.
So
we
we
concur
with
the
overall
finding
of
the
cultural
heritage
opinion
letter
that
was
submitted
by
the
applicant
or
by
the
owner.
Sorry,
however,
I
think
further
to
mr
freud's
comments.
R
We
do
not
agree
with
the
assessment
of
the
role
of
the
sisters
of
the
sacred
heart
of
jesus
as
part
of
that
cultural
heritage
opinion
letter.
We
believe
that
the
sisters
were
an
important
order
in
their
own
right
and
I
think
the
evolution
of
this
building
exemplifies
that.
R
So,
while
we
believe
there
is
historic
value,
associative
value
for
its
direct
association
with
the
sisters
of
the
sacred
heart,
we
think
that
that
value
can
be
commemorated
on
the
site
through
the
retention
of
the
statute
of
the
blessed
virgin
and
and
potentially
other
commemorative
opportunities.
Should
a
redevelopment
of
this
site
be
proposed
in
the
future.
So
I
hope
that
answers
the
question.
I
can
go
through
the
other
criteria
if
you
wish,
but,
but
generally,
we
concur
with
the
findings
of
of
the
letter
that
was
submitted.
A
M
Just
just
wanted
to
thank
the
community
for
bringing
this
forward
and
for
the
debates
that
we've
had
about
it
under
this
process,
and
mr
bidalski's
comments
previously
about
this,
I
think
we
got
to
the
right
conclusion
here.
So
thank
you
very
much
to
mr
fruit
and
to
others
as
well.
A
And
thank
you
so
much
councillor
menard
for
your
comments
for
your
work
on
this.
I,
I
am
definitely
supportive
of
this
direction.
I
think
any
other
additional
ways
that
we
can
explore
meaningful
commemoration
of
historic
sites
if,
if
we
can't
just
do
it
through
designation,
is,
is
worthy
of
exploration.
So
I
thank
you
for
also
bringing
this
forward.
Is
the
amending
motion
carried.
B
A
Thank
you.
This
report
is
scheduled
to
be
presented
to
council
on
april
14
2021.
the
last
items
on
our
agenda.
There
are
no
in-camera
items
to
date.
There
are
no
notices
of
motion,
there
are
no
inquiries
and
is
there
any
other
business?
Ultimately,
I
suppose
there
is
with
the
direction
that
is
before
us
with
councillor
brockington.
A
Q
Yes,
chair
so
just
to
confirm
for
our
colleagues
the
formal
direction
now
and
thank
you
to
the
coordinator
that
heritage
staff
be
directed
to
consult
with
forestry,
forestry
staff
and
bylaw
staff,
if
necessary,
to
pro
prior
to
consideration
at
council
to
review
whether
permits
were
obtained
for
all
the
trees
removed
to
date
and
whether
there's
an
impact
to
the
heritage
elements
relating
to
landscaping.
A
R
Hi,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
think
the
timeline
of
it
being
before
council,
I
think,
might
be
a
challenge.
This
goes
to
council,
it
might
be
okay,
I
think
it's
okay,
sorry!
I
was
just
scrambling
to
see
when
this
was
going
to
council,
because
I
wasn't
sure
what
the
direction
was
going
to
say.
R
A
Excellent,
we
appreciate
that
and
we
appreciate
the
hard
work
that
you
you
do.
We
keep
heritage
staff
jumping,
but
it's
it's
part
and
parcel
of
the
process,
so
we
do
appreciate
the
work
that
you're
doing
on
an
ongoing
basis.
The
next
item
is
one
of
my
favorites
adjournment.
A
We
are
adjourned,
so
thank
you,
everyone
and
the
next
regular
meeting
is
scheduled
for
tuesday
april
13
2021..
Thank
you,
everybody.
Thank
you.