Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee EXTRACT OF Minutes 9 8 november 2007

Comité consultatif sur la conservation de l’architecture locale extrait du Procès-verbal 9 le 8 novembre 2007

UPDATE - APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH 456 LANSDOWNE ROAD NORTH, APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

MISE À JOUR - DEMANDE DE DÉMOLITION LE 456, CHEMIN LANSDOWNE ET DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK

ACS2007-PTE-APR-0140 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)

Chair Baltz stated that the Committee had previously received a presentation on the above-noted application at its meeting of 26 July 2007.  At the present meeting the Committee is to consider only the new information that has come to light since the July meeting; that is two engineering reports and a renewed request for demolition. Only if the request for demolition is granted will the Committee proceed to consider the application for new construction and the revised designs. 

Member Myslinski had declared a conflict of interest at previous meetings and was not present for the discussion on this item.

Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner provided an overview of the departmental report and the following additional new information provided by the applicant:

· Geotechnical Investigation and Review prepared by Paterson Group Consulting Engineers

· Structural Investigation, prepared by Daido Structural Engineers

· New drawings submitted by the Architect, which are held on file with the Committee Coordinator.

Rod Lahey, Architect was present to answer questions.

Written comments in opposition to the proposal were received from the following and held on file:

a) G. B. Rogers previous owner, dated 25 September 2007;

b) the late Jacques Dalibard, 133 Acacia Avenue, dated 20 August 2007;

c) David Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa;

d) Nathalie Bull, Executive Director, Heritage Canada Foundation;

e) Herb Stovel, resident, 36 Acacia Avenue, dated 7 November 2007;

f) Brian Dickson, Vice - President, Board of Directors of the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association(RPRA)

g) Martha Edmond, Historian and Author, dated 8 November 2007.

The Committee heard from the following delegations speaking in opposition to the demolition of 456 Lansdowne Road North:

Herb Stovel; Julian Smith, author, “Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Study “and conservation architect; David Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa; Rina Dalibard, resident and widow of Jacques Dalibard, and Brian Dickson,Vice - President, (RPRA):

· As one of the oldest buildings in the McKay Lake section of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District (RPHCD), 456 Lansdowne Road provides an important link with the initial settlement period of Rockcliffe Park and its early inhabitants;

· Approving the staff report would set a dangerous precedent and would jeopardize the City’s ability to preserve properties in Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD);

· The discussion of the proposed new house is not relevant if demolition is ruled out.  If enough new houses of similar character were to be built, the historic character of the village would gradually be submerged and lost;

· The house is an essential component in establishing and maintaining the heritage character of the village and is on the reference list of the most important houses in the village;

· Removal of this house would reduce the richness of building styles and eliminate a house of historic significance;

· Concern about what appears to be a highly unusual and disturbing sequence of events. A house that is 100 years old and has been continuously occupied until earlier this year suddenly proceeds to self destruct at an alarming rate, apparently immediately following LACAC’s meeting of 26 July 2007. From that date to 5 September 2007, the date of the structural engineer’s report is a period of just under six weeks;

· The previous owner, Mr. G.B. Rogers, has written to Iola Price, Vice President, RPRA and stated that the bricks on the southwest corner of the house had been on ”exactly the same crackline“ when he purchased the house some thirty years ago and this had been the case for at least twenty years before that. The suggestion that it (the crack/displacement) has occurred in the last few months is simply not true;

· Speakers expressed concern that the engineering reports before LACAC do not reflect well-established principles of heritage practice in the assessment of houses of heritage significance;

· The fact that its current size does not suit the new owner is no reason to approve its demolition. The owner should have been aware of the restrictions placed on buildings located in Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD) and the protection afforded them under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act;

· Disagree with the conclusions of the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement that this building has only ”moderate historical significance” and support the 26 July comments of Julian Smith on the intent of the Rockcliffe Heritage District Study in dealing with homes such as this;

· The extraordinary findings and recommendations of the engineering studies commissioned by the applicant;

· Members were urged not to accept at face value and to question both their findings and the circumstances under which they were carried out;

· A recent photograph of the southwest corner of the house reveals that the mortar has been freshly removed from the crack in the brick and stone foundation. This is supported by the correspondence from the previous owner. This is a very disturbing and deliberate action, which serves not only to exaggerate the apparent gravity of the crack, but also inhibits the ability to track movement, if indeed there is any, in the wall.  The presence of the mortar allows for an accurate tracking of movement. Its removal has effectively destroyed any evidence that may be used to prove or disprove that movement in the foundation wall is indeed active.

· Did Mr. Singhal the present owner, have an inspection of the building done prior to purchasing it and if so, did it reveal the structural problems outlined in the recent engineering studies?

· If the settlement caused by the lowering of the groundwater is so serious to recommend the demolition of this house, why has the City not ordered an immediate and comprehensive examination of all properties backing onto the northwest corner of McKay Lake?

· Is the applicant seriously considering the enormous expense of setting any new building on piles carried down to bedrock (nearly 80 feet)? Was this done when the two adjacent buildings were built?

· If "cracking of the foundation will allow water penetration which will contribute to mould growth in the building,” why not repair the cracks? This is the same type of argument proposed by the Architect who claimed that the only option to not being able to design a suitable addition to the house was to tear it down;

· Should the City issue a demolition approval on a building based on data collected over a 20 day period? Would they not need data provided by tell-tale crack monitors or gauges over a period of at least one year before making such a decision?. Who is to say that many of the cracks in the foundation and brick façade have not been there since the building was ten years old, the time it normally takes for a new house to settle under these conditions?

· If the strict criteria used by the applicant’s engineers to justify demolition of this building (the floors are not level and the door frames are not square) was used on other century old buildings throughout the City, we would lose much of our built heritage;

· Previous comments made by the Architect to the Rockcliffe Residents Association Development Review Sub-committee in early May 2007, included a statement that there were no structural problems with the house. 

· It is difficult to understand how a 100 year old house has gone from being in good condition to being in the critically dangerous condition described in these three recent reports in only three months;

· The three reports do not appear not to have been prepared by recognized experts in structural engineering and analysis for heritage buildings. It is well recognized by those in the conservation field and by public agencies charged with caring for important heritage that only professionals with sufficient experience and understanding of historic structures should carry out examinations of such historic structures.

Additional comments are contained in their submissions, copies of which are held on file with the Coordinator:

The Committee considered and approved the following motion:

Moved by J. Doutriaux

Whereas the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) is not satisfied that the reports recommending demolition were carried out with respect to established principles of Heritage Conservation practice;

Whereas the reports recommending demolition failed to offer or explore any alternatives to demolition;

Whereas the information presented does not constitute adequate grounds to support demolition;

Therefore be it resolved that LACAC recommends that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council reject the application to demolish 456 Lansdowne Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District and reject the application for new construction.

CARRIED