Heritage Properties of Ottawa & Gatineau

[J.OT13]

Pick you battles if you want people to take you seriously. This one's not worth it.

[rocketphish]

City halts building of 'egregious' addition on Lowertown heritage home

By Alex Robinson
Ottawa East News, Dec 01, 2015



Lowertown residents were outraged to see a fourth storey added to a new building they already thought was too big for its surroundings after the city had only approved three floors.

The city has since issued a stop-work order on the building, at 216 Cathcart St., which was being built as an addition onto the back of a small detached single-family heritage home.

The owners – listed as Shane Cappuccino and Grete, Enrique and Christine Jurado – applied to build a three-storey addition and were granted city council’s approval in 2012, as the plan would preserve the original building, which is in the Lowertown West Heritage District. But the builders deviated from the plans that were approved and built a fourth storey.

“The building was not constructed in accordance with the plans, specifications and other documentation on the basis of which the permit was issued, including heritage (committee) approval,” Matthew Graham, a manager with building inspection and enforcement, said in an emailed statement.

“Changes from the permit drawings were substantial and required the suspension of construction until amended plans have been submitted, reviewed and a revised building permit has been issued.”

Building inspectors placed the stop-work order on the addition after visiting the site 11 times, suspending all construction.

The developers will now have to submit amended plans in the hope of getting a revised building permit from the city. Alternatively, they can comply with what was already approved to get the stop-work order lifted.

City staff was unable to say how many revised building permits it granted last year after stop-work orders were issued, saying it does not maintain that type of data.

“The conditions resulting in the issuance of a stop-work order are site specific and do not necessarily lead to a revised building permit,” said Frank Bidin, the director of building code services.

Neighbours have criticized the addition, saying that it cuts off the light of some of the townhouses adjacent to it.

Alla Ouksousova, who lives in a building next door to the property, said the new addition looms over her windows, cutting off her light.

“It’s too high,” she said.

“If it was lower it wouldn’t be covering my windows. It’s very dark as is.”

Residents also said the addition is not in character with the neighbourhood.

Donna Kearns, a resident who lives down the street, said the design does not take cues from the surrounding area and that the building’s size is far too big for the site.

“It’s really egregious. The original house is overwhelmed,” she said.

“I’m in favour of intensity, but we need to manage it so that it’s appropriate to the community.”

When reached, Cappuccino refused comment, citing legal reasons. The Jurados did not respond to requests for comment.

http://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/n...heritage-home/

[MoreTrains]

Thats a heritage house?! My god!

[rocketphish]

Heritage Act says Stittsville barn must stay, argue planners

Joanne Laucius, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: December 8, 2015 | Last Updated: December 8, 2015 4:42 PM EST



Heritage planners say the city should reject a developer’s application to dismantle a heritage Stittsville barn.

The red 1873 dairy barn at 590 Hazeldean Road was part of the Bradley/Craig farmstead, sold to developer Richcraft in 2006. In 2010, heritage designation for the barn and the Gothic revival farmhouse was part of granting redevelopment zoning.

Richcraft has agreed to incorporate the farmhouse into the development, but wants the surrounding land for box stores. The developer wants to reassemble the barn at Saunders Farm, an agricultural attraction in Munster about 20 kilometres away.

But city planners cite the Ontario Heritage Act in arguing that the barn must stay where it is. A heritage building can only be moved if that’s the only way to preserve it — and in that case, it should be moved to another part of the property or to a site “appropriate to its heritage value.”

Planners say that when the barn was designated they researched reusing large dairy barns, found that it was realistic and provided the research to the developer. “There is no evidence that the applicant has seriously considered other options,” says the report.

Stittsville Coun. Shad Qadri has supported moving the barn to Saunders Farm. He suggests a plaque installed at the house. Saunders Farm is still in Goulbourn township, he said. “And I understand Saunders Farm would take good care of it.”

Gary Sealey supports keeping the barn where it is. The Bradley/Craig family were such successful farmers because of the unusual richness of the soil at that location, said Sealey, the former president of the Kanata-Beaverbrook Community Association.

“The barn is so big and the house so luxurious because of that. You wouldn’t find this a couple of kilometres away,” he said.

“A moved structure is degraded. It’s like a replica or an art print. People want the authentic. The Heritage Act protects authenticity. People aren’t satisfied with plaques.”

The built heritage committee is to decide on the matter on Thursday. Richcraft’s application will expire on Jan. 31.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...y-say-planners

[rocketphish]

Heritage plan offers more teeth to keep 'monster homes' out of Rockcliffe

Joanne Laucius, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: January 10, 2016 | Last Updated: January 10, 2016 5:34 PM EST

A new heritage conservation district plan for Rockcliffe Park may help prevent “monster homes” in Ottawa’s most prestigious neighbourhood.

The draft plan, which will be before the city’s built heritage subcommittee next Thursday, is an update to previous guidelines set out in 1997 under the Ontario Heritage Act, when the entire village was designated a heritage district. Rockcliffe, previously an independent municipality, amalgamated with the City of Ottawa in 2001.

Rockcliffe is not an architectural conservation district. Rather, its heritage value lies in the relationship of its buildings to the natural environment.

The village was laid out in 1864 according to the informal English “picturesque” tradition, featuring a combination of large and small lots, narrow curving roads with no curbs or sidewalks, mature trees and generous green space. But to the dismay of some residents, Rockcliffe’s leafy cachet has also attracted newcomers who wanted to build very large homes.

“We had a problem with what we call ‘monster homes,'” said Brian Dickson, president of the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association.

In 1995, for example, residents complained that high-tech titan Michael Cowpland’s 20,000-square-foot gold-windowed mansion looked out of place. However, the sprawling house with a 10-car underground garage met all zoning and bylaw requirements.

More recently, some homeowners and the residents’ association have opposed a proposal from architect Robin Fyfe to redevelop 575 Old Prospect Rd. The proposal would see two houses built next to a 1959 modernist house designed by architect Hart Massey. While the built heritage subcommittee turned down the proposal in 2014, planning committee and city council eventually approved it. The matter went before the Ontario Municipal Board in September. A decision has not yet been released.

Under the new plan, new construction has to be “compatible with, sympathetic to and (have) regard for the height, massing and setbacks of the established streetscape.”

All the properties in the district have been rated for their architectural, historic and landscape value, and each has been designated either “contributing” or “not contributing.” Those designated as contributing can only be demolished under extraordinary circumstances.

The new plan will enshrine heritage protection within the zoning bylaws, said Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Tobi Nussbaum.

“The guidelines have been useful, but they didn’t have enough teeth to for the satisfaction of most people,” he said.

If Rockcliffe’s new heritage conservation district plan is approved, questions remain, including whether the plan would cover proposals now underway.

Last month, Fyfe asked that his proposal be exempted if the plan is passed. The project has been in the system for two years. If the plan is approved, Fyfe said he would probably have to make some modifications.

He argues his proposal would actually prevent the construction of a “monster home.” The zoning bylaws currently permit a 6,600-square foot house to be built on the 18,000-square-foot lot. Fyfe’s proposal would see two relatively modest-sized houses, each about half that size. These would be more in keeping with the scale of home in Rockcliffe than a 6,600-square-foot house, he argues. The new plan doesn’t contradict that zoning, he points out.

Susan D’Aquino, who lives in the Hart Massey House, says she wants clear and precise wording in the new plan. For example, the old guidelines said the retention of large lots was to be encouraged. But there was no definition of “large lots.” And the term “encouraged” is also not specific.

“Every single word can be interpreted in every possible way,” said D’Aquino.

If it does what the residents’ association hopes it will do, the plan will put Rockcliffe in an enviable position compared to other neighbourhoods, where development has been a divisive issue. But Rockcliffe is in a position to do this because of its heritage conservation district designation, said Dickson.

The plan is a matter of managing change, not stopping it, he said. “We’re not opposed to change. Change is going to happen.”

The plan is a good thing for Rockcliffe, but it also benefits everyone who enjoys Ottawa, said Fyfe.

“I don’t think it’s a status thing. The benefit of the heritage conservation district plan is for everyone.”

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...-of-rockcliffe

[rocketphish]

Don't tear down Lowertown house, advises report

Joanne Laucius, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: January 11, 2016 | Last Updated: January 11, 2016 2:02 PM EST



The city should refuse Ottawa Community Housing’s application to demolish a Lowertown house because the city needs to set a good example, urges a report to the built heritage subcommittee.

The social housing agency had proposed demolishing the brick house at 171 Bruyère Street and using the land for a “parkette.”

The house has been empty for about two years. Correcting all of its problems would cost between $250,000 and $300,000, and even then, accessibility would be an issue, Ottawa Community Housing had argued. It costs about $125,000 to build a new single-family home for tenants.

Demolishing the house and building the parkette would cost between $125,000 and $150,000. An engineer’s report found that both demolition and rehabilitation were possibilities for the building.

But in a report to the sub-committee, city staff said the character of the Lowertown West conservation district is based on architectural variety, and it’s important to protect that diversity.

The report added that the city is the sole shareholder of Ottawa Community Housing, which operates at arm’s length — and the city should set an example of leadership.

“The proposed demolition would not respect the heritage policies of the Official Plan that stipulates that the City lead by example in the management of its heritage resources, and the demolition of a city-owned building does not set a good example for the development community.”

However, the report also warns that if the demolition proposal is rejected, Ottawa Community Housing has the right to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.

In December, the built heritage sub-committee gave Ottawa Community Housing two months to come up with an alternative to demolishing the building — including selling it. The agency said it would look into severing the lot and selling the house, but it could be a complicated manoeuvre because the house’s mortgage was tied to a bundle of 30-year mortgages.

The matter will be before the built heritage subcommittee on Thursday, but it is expected to be deferred until the Feb. 11 meeting of the subcommittee.

jlaucius@postmedia.ca

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...advises-report

[acottawa]

Between $250,000 and $300,000 to correct the problems on a house that appears to be upright?

I can't imagine what combination of problems would require that kind of renovation budget.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

The plan is a good thing for Rockcliffe, but it also benefits everyone who enjoys Ottawa, said Fyfe.

“I don’t think it’s a status thing. The benefit of the heritage conservation district plan is for everyone.”

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...-of-rockcliffe

In that case, I hope Rockcliffians will become less paranoid whenever a nonRockcliffian dares to walk through their precious heritage enclave. It's not quite as bad as it used to be, but there are still too many times to be coincidence that I've been walking in the neighbourhood when a cop car slowly rolls past.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Don't tear down Lowertown house, advises report

Joanne Laucius, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: January 11, 2016 | Last Updated: January 11, 2016 2:02 PM EST



The city should refuse Ottawa Community Housing’s application to demolish a Lowertown house because the city needs to set a good example, urges a report to the built heritage subcommittee.

The social housing agency had proposed demolishing the brick house at 171 Bruyère Street and using the land for a “parkette.”

The house has been empty for about two years. Correcting all of its problems would cost between $250,000 and $300,000, and even then, accessibility would be an issue, Ottawa Community Housing had argued. It costs about $125,000 to build a new single-family home for tenants.

Demolishing the house and building the parkette would cost between $125,000 and $150,000. An engineer’s report found that both demolition and rehabilitation were possibilities for the building.

But in a report to the sub-committee, city staff said the character of the Lowertown West conservation district is based on architectural variety, and it’s important to protect that diversity.

The report added that the city is the sole shareholder of Ottawa Community Housing, which operates at arm’s length — and the city should set an example of leadership.

“The proposed demolition would not respect the heritage policies of the Official Plan that stipulates that the City lead by example in the management of its heritage resources, and the demolition of a city-owned building does not set a good example for the development community.”

However, the report also warns that if the demolition proposal is rejected, Ottawa Community Housing has the right to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.

In December, the built heritage sub-committee gave Ottawa Community Housing two months to come up with an alternative to demolishing the building — including selling it. The agency said it would look into severing the lot and selling the house, but it could be a complicated manoeuvre because the house’s mortgage was tied to a bundle of 30-year mortgages.

The matter will be before the built heritage subcommittee on Thursday, but it is expected to be deferred until the Feb. 11 meeting of the subcommittee.

jlaucius@postmedia.ca

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...advises-report

I have coocoobananas idea.

Ready?

If it costs $125k to build a house vs. $125-150k for a parkette, and the landowners' mandate is to build...housing. What if...
...hang on...
What if... [hyperventilating]
...they built a house there, adding "architectural variety" to the neighbourhood and actually fulfilling their mandate instead of building a useless "parkette" 30 metres from an actual (underused) park.

(Or instead, build an apartment building, per zoning, adjacent to their other apartment building, adding more than one housing unit!)

[McC]

Unreal banahnah peel.

[rocketphish]

Planning committee OK with moving heritage barn to Munster

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: January 26, 2016 | Last Updated: January 26, 2016 6:43 PM EST

Ottawa’s planning committee on Tuesday overruled its built-heritage subcommittee, siding with a developer who plans to tear down and move a barn built in the 19th century.

The red dairy barn at 590 Hazeldean Rd. was part of the Bradley-Craig farmstead, sold to Richcraft in 2006. In 2010, heritage designation for the barn and the Gothic revival farmhouse was part of granting redevelopment zoning.

Richcraft has agreed to incorporate the farmhouse into the development, but wants the surrounding land for box stores. The developer wants to reassemble the barn at Saunders Farm, an agricultural attraction in about 20 kilometres away in Munster.

But city planners cited the Ontario Heritage Act in arguing that the barn must stay where it is. A heritage building can only be moved if that’s the only way to preserve it — and in that case, it should be moved to another part of the property or to a site “appropriate to its heritage value.”

“This barn is an unparalleled example of its kind,” said Coun. Tobi Nussbaum, who chairs the subcommittee and supported the staff recommendation, which urged the committee to refuse Richcraft’s application.

More than a dozen public speakers failed to sway committee members who, after several hours of discussion, voted 7-2 to overturn the earlier decision.

If council endorses the committee’s decision on Wednesday, Richcraft would have two years to dismantle and move the barn.


<snip>


mpearson@postmedia.com
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...arn-to-munster

[J.OT13]

Why? Why is it so hard to say "no; you bought the site, you knew the barn has a heritage designation, too bad". Might as well just tear it down at this point.

[rocketphish]

In split-vote decision, Heritage committee OKs Lowertown demo

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: February 11, 2016 | Last Updated: February 11, 2016 12:27 PM EST



Ottawa Community Housing should be allowed to tear down a heritage house it owns in Lowertown and replace it with a small park and community garden, the built-heritage subcommittee ruled Thursday.

The split-vote decision — four city councillors outweighed three heritage experts appointed to the committee — came several months after the public-housing provider was given more time to explore alternatives to demolition.

The house at 171 Bruyère Street, which has sat empty for two years, was probably constructed between 1910 and 1930 on partial foundations from the 1880s, according to a report completed by an engineer with expertise in heritage buildings.

Correcting all of its shortcomings would cost between $250,000 and $300,000, and, even then, accessibility would still be an issue, claimed OCH. Severing the lot and selling the house would cost even more.

But tearing it down and replacing it with a park and community garden — which members spoke in favour of at a public meeting last fall — will cost an estimated $70,000, OCH says.

City staff urged the committee to reject the proposed demolition because it does not respect the heritage policies of the official plan, which say the city, including OCH, should lead by example in the management of its heritage resources.

Some members of the committee, including architect Barry Padolsky, agreed the demolition of a city-owned building does not set a good example for the development community.

But committee chairman Tobi Nussbaum said tearing the house down does not contribute to private gain, but rather public good.

He added he was satisfied “best efforts were made to explore some of the alternatives.”

If council upholds the committee’s decision, OCH said the house will be torn down in a few months.

mpearson@postmedia.com
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...lowertown-demo

[rocketphish]

Mayor Watson rejects call for Lowertown demolition moratorium

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: February 16, 2016 | Last Updated: February 16, 2016 9:09 PM EST

Against the backdrop of annual Heritage Day celebrations at city hall, Mayor Jim Watson rejected a community group’s call for a moratorium on further demolitions of heritage buildings in Ottawa’s oldest neighbourhood.

The Lowertown Community Association accused the city of “dismantling our historic district” by granting a pair of recent applications and approving an infill building that, in the group’s opinion, meets none of the city’s heritage policies.

Council last month approved the demolition of 281-283 Cumberland Street to make room for a four-storey apartment building. The new building at the corner of Murray and Cumberland streets would replace the former Our Lady’s School, where Lowertown’s anglophone Catholic girls were educated. The proposal would leave two walls of the 1904 school standing as a facade for the new building.

And last week, the city’s built-heritage subcommittee gave Ottawa Community Housing permission to tear down a heritage house it owns on Bruyère Street and replace it with a small park and community garden (council has yet to weigh in).

“The city is not going to be able to save every single old or heritage building. It’s just not possible and people who suggest that are not being truthful,” Watson said.

“Every once in a while you have to compromise to get something done for the greater good,” he said.

Instead of an outright moratorium on further demolitions, Watson said, the city will continue to deal with applications on a case-by-case basis. There might still be cases where it makes sense to tear down a heritage building, but the mayor rejected what the community association called “rampant demolition.”

“If you look at our track record in terms of the preservation of heritage, we’re head and shoulders above any other municipality in Ontario,” Watson said.

There are about 3,500 properties in Ottawa designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Since 2000, there have been fewer than 10 demolitions or applications to demolish in Lowertown, according to Sally Coutts, the city’s heritage planner. One of those was for a building that needed to be torn down because it proved impossible to retain while construction was going on, while another demolition was illegal and resulted in charges to the owner.

When heritage buildings are assessed, they are classified in four categories, with one representing properties with the strongest heritage status and four representing the least. Both buildings recently approved for demolition were category-three buildings.

Coutts said Lowertown still has 200 category-three buildings, as well as 48 category-two and 11 category-one buildings.

Tobi Nussbaum, who chairs the heritage committee, said both demolition applications were subject to extensive debate and each applicant was sent away to consider potential ways of saving the respective heritage buildings before the requests were ultimately approved.

“This is not a case of people playing fast and loose with the heritage rules,” he said.

mpearson@postmedia.com
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ion-moratorium

[J.OT13]

There is no rhyme or reason with the City's heritage rules.

"Tear down this mid-1800s building if you wish, move this old barn, demolish our grandest department store, just as long as you replicate a quarter of the façade. Yes, its OK if the medallion isn't in the right spot, and of course you can have a floor through the window. Oh, but that shitty gas station, don't even think about touching it!!"

[rocketphish]

Heritage committee denies request to demolish O'Connor Street home

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: October 13, 2016 | Last Updated: October 13, 2016 3:49 PM EDT



The city’s built-heritage committee on Thursday denied a developer’s request to tear down a vacant house in the Centretown heritage conservation district.

Gemstone Developments wanted permission to demolish the red-brick building at 234 O’Connor St. and replace it with a temporary park. Built between 1879 and 1901, the house has been vacant since a fire damaged the upper levels 10 years ago.

Committee members considered two separate structural assessments — one submitted by the owners and one conducted on the city’s behalf.

The reports identified similar issues but offered differing opinions on the extent of the damage. The owner’s report ultimately called for demolition, but the city’s report, prepared by John G. Cooke and Associates, concluded the building is “reasonably repairable.”

That’s the same position the heritage department and Somerset Coun. Catherine McKenney took.

Gemstone only purchased the building about a year ago, but McKenney said the building had not been properly maintained long before that. “It may not be your neglect, but it is demolition by neglect,” she said.

The committee’s vice-chair Barry Padolsky said he supported the staff recommendation reluctantly because the city has done very little to address the building’s deteriorating condition over the years.

Up until August, there had been no orders from the building code department to force current or past owners to take steps to stabilize or secure the building.


Former Salvation Army home to be incorporated into apartment building

Meanwhile, the committee approved a plan to incorporate the former Bethany Hope Centre into a new 13-storey apartment building.

The two-storey red brick building at 1140 Wellington St. W., constructed in 1924 by the Salvation Army as a home for unwed mothers, was given heritage designation two years ago because it is considered a good example of an early 20th-century institutional building, with features that include a symmetrical facade and front porch.

Proposed alterations to the heritage building would include the replacement of all existing windows and the addition of windows on the east and west sides, as well as landscaping changes to incorporate walkways, a gazebo and emergency access.

The committee asked staff to explore with the developer, Taggart Homes, the possibility of retaining and restoring north-facing windows on the building’s front facade.

Planning committee will discuss both items on Oct. 25.

mpearson@postmedia.com
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...or-street-home

[kwoldtimer]

I'm not sure I understand what heritage value that O'Connor St house has. It doesn't seem to be on the City's list of designated heritage buildings.

[m0nkyman]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I'm not sure I understand what heritage value that O'Connor St house has. It doesn't seem to be on the City's list of designated heritage buildings.

It's part of an effort to slow the demolition by neglect of a lot of properties in the core.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

It's part of an effort to slow the demolition by neglect of a lot of properties in the core.

But if the developer could just tear it down, there'd be no need for neglect .....

I'm kidding, but I don't understand why this particular building would not be demolished - its heritage value escapes me.

[mykl]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

But if the developer could just tear it down, there'd be no need for neglect .....

I'm kidding, but I don't understand why this particular building would not be demolished - its heritage value escapes me.

The importance is on maintaining a heritage neighbourhood, not the specific house. If you suddenly tear down half the houses, you haven't preserved the neighbourhood.