Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

December 02, 2021

PL210258

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

Peter Moroz

Subject:

Minor Variance

Variance from By-law No.:

2008 - 250

Property Address/Description:

57 Hutchison Avenue

Municipality:

City of Ottawa

Municipal File No.:

D08-02-20/A-00336

OLT Case No.:

PL210258

OLT File No.:

PL210258

OLT Case Name:

Moroz v. Ottawa (City)

Heard:

October 20, 2021 by video hearing

Parties

Counsel*/Representative

Peter Moroz

Gregory Meeds* and Lauren Benoit*

Civic Hospital Neighbourhood Association Corporation

Karen Wright

Muge Guher

self-represented

Mathieu Lemay

self-represented

1Peter Moroz (“Appellant”) applied to the City of Ottawa (“City”) Committee of Adjustment for a variance to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“Zoning By-law”) to facilitate the building of a front-facing garage attached to his existing dwelling located at 57 Hutchison Avenue (“subject property”).

2The Appellant seeks the following variance:

to permit a front-facing attached garage, whereas s. 139(3)(c) of the Zoning By-law does not permit a front-facing garage as it does not reflect the dominant character as determined by a Streetscape Character Analysis.

3The subject property is designated as General Urban Area under the City’s Official Plan. It is zoned R1QQ (Residential, First Density Zone, Subzone QQ) under the Zoning By-law.

4The Appellant’s application originally sought both the above-noted garage variance as well as a variance for a reduced rear yard setback.

5On April 16, 2021, the City’s Committee of Adjustment refused the requested variances.

6The Appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment’s decision to the Tribunal.

7Subsequent to the Committee of Adjustment hearing, the Appellant changed his development plans and abandoned his request for the rear yard variance. He decided to only pursue the above-noted variance to permit a front-facing attached garage. It is solely that variance that is before the Tribunal in this proceeding.

8On October 20, 2021, the Tribunal heard the appeal by video hearing.

REQUESTS FOR STATUS

9At the commencement of the hearing, several persons requested Party and Participant status in the proceeding.

10The Civic Hospital Neighbourhood Association Corporation (“CHNA”) requested Party status. It is an incorporated local community association, which has concerns regarding the implementation of the City’s guidelines on development in mature neighbourhoods. It supports the Committee of Adjustment’s decision. None of the Parties objected to the CHNA’s request for status and the Tribunal granted it Party status, as requested.

11Muge Guher also requested Party status. She lives on Kenilworth Street directly behind the subject property. She stated that she has concerns regarding privacy, grading, and other impacts of the proposed variance. She supports the Committee of Adjustment’s decision. The Appellant opposed Ms. Guher’s request for status on the basis that many of her concerns relate to the Appellant’s previously proposed rear-yard variance, which has been abandoned and is not before the Tribunal. Given the location of Ms. Guher’s property abutting the subject property and her concerns regarding impacts arising from the proposed front-facing garage variance, the Tribunal found that she has a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, she will be impacted by the Tribunal’s decision, and she will assist the Tribunal in making its decision. The Tribunal found that there are reasonable grounds to add Ms. Guher as a Party and the Tribunal granted her Party status, as requested.

12Mathieu Lemay, who lives in the dwelling next door to the Appellant, also requested Party status. He raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposed variance on the streetscape and his property. None of the Parties objected to his request and the Tribunal granted him Party status, as requested.

13Jennifer Walsh, who lives across the street from the subject property, and Peter van Wesenbeeck, who lives closeby, each requested Participant status. None of the Parties objected to their requests and the Tribunal granted them each Participant status, as requested.

ISSUE

14The issue in this appeal is whether or not the proposed variance meets the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. These tests are:

does the proposed variance maintain the general purpose and intent of the City’s Official Plan?
does it maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law?
is it desirable for the appropriate use of the subject property?
is it minor?

The proposed variance must also be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”). When making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and it must have regard to the decision of the Committee of Adjustment and the information considered by it, as required under s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act.

EVIDENCE, SUBMISSIONS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

15Murray Chown and Robert Sandercott each were qualified to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Mr. Chown is a land use planner retained by the Appellant and Mr. Sandercott is a land use planner employed by the City who was summoned by the Appellant to provide evidence.

16Karen Wright provided fact evidence on behalf of CHNA and Ms. Guher and Mr. Lemay each provided fact evidence on their own behalves.

Issue 1 Does the proposed variance maintain the general purpose and intent of the City’s Official Plan?

Evidence and Submissions

17Mr. Chown opined that the proposed variance maintains the general purpose and intent of the City’s Official Plan. He stated that the proposed variance facilitates the building of an accessory structure that is permitted under the City’s Official Plan. He stated the proposed garage would be slightly set back from the front of the existing dwelling and the proposed variance would facilitate a compatible development that enhances the community without causing undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

18Mr. Sandercott also opined that the proposed variance maintains the general purpose and intent of the City’s Official Plan and that the proposed variance would facilitate a development that is compatible with existing development in the area.

19Ms. Wright stated that the proposed variance does not maintain the general purpose and intent of the City’s Official Plan. She said that detached garages predominate on the street and the proposed variance would result in a development that is not compatible and would not enhance the existing development pattern in the area as required under policy 3.6.1 of the City’s Official Plan.

20Mr. Lemay also stated that the proposed variance does not maintain the general purpose and intent of the City’s Official Plan. He stated that the compatibility policies in policy 3.6.1 are important and that mature neighbourhoods must be protected.

Analysis and Findings

21Based on the evidence and submissions before it, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variance maintains the general purpose and intent of the City’s Official Plan. Policy 3.6.1 of the City’s Official Plan states, in part, that a full range and choice of housing types is permitted in the City’s General Urban Area to meet the needs of people of all ages, incomes, and life circumstances. It also supports development in a manner that enhances and complements and ensures the long-term vitality of existing communities. The Tribunal finds that based on the Appellant’s plans to have the proposed garage set back from the front of the existing dwelling, it will resemble detached garages on the street. The Tribunal finds that attached garages are permitted in the General Urban Area and the proposed variance will satisfy the objectives in policy 3.6.1 in that it will facilitate a development that is compatible with the existing development pattern in the area.

Issue 2 Does the proposed variance maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law?

Evidence and Submissions

22Mr. Chown opined that the proposed variance maintains the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law. He stated that based on the requirements in s. 140 of the Zoning By-law, the Appellant was required to have a Streetscape Character Analysis conducted to determine whether the proposed front-facing attached garage is permissible. A Streetscape Character Analysis documents the dominant pattern of a streetscape regarding the location and type of driveways, location and size of parking spaces, garages and carports, and orientation of principal entranceways. Under s. 140, the Analysis must examine 21 lots located on the street, including the nearest ten lots on the same side of the street (in the same block), the lot across the street from the property, and the ten lots nearest that lot (again in the same block). Mr. Chown stated that the Appellant had a Streetscape Character Analysis conducted, which determined that less than 50% of the lots assessed in the Analysis have front-facing attached garages. He said that based on this, the subject property lies within “Character Area A” as defined in s. 140 of the Zoning By-law, which does not permit front-facing attached garages. Due to this finding, he stated that the proposed variance was required.

23Mr. Chown noted that several of the lots in the study area have front-facing attached garages. He said the proposed variance would facilitate a garage that is slightly set back from the front of the existing dwelling making it secondary in nature and ensuring that it does not interfere with the dominant character of the streetscape. He said that based on the proposed height, size, and location of the garage, it would be similar in appearance to several other garages on the street and would not result in a vehicle dominated frontage to the subject property or cause a break in the character of the street. He said the subject property is not a narrow lot and it can accommodate the proposed garage without dominating the frontage of the subject property. He stated that the proposed development conforms with all other standards in the Zoning By-law, including the applicable parking and setback standards.

24Mr. Sandercott opined that the proposed variance maintains the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law. He opined that the proposed variance would not change the dominant character of the street and, given the frontage of the subject property, the proposed garage would not dominate the street view of the subject property or detract from the front entrance of the dwelling. He stated that the proposed design of the garage is appropriate and the proposed development would appear from the street as being secondary in nature to the existing dwelling.

25Ms. Wright stated that the proposed variance does not maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law. She said that it would build upon a minor development pattern of attached garages and result in an increase in that type of garage. She said it sets a poor precedent and defeats the intent of the Zoning By-law.

26Ms. Guher stated that the proposed variance would result in over-development on the subject property and agreed with Ms. Wright that it would set a poor precedent for the area.

27Mr. Lemay also stated that the proposed variance does not maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law. He stated that the Zoning By-law removes subjectivity when zoning decisions are made and that this methodical process should be respected. He further stated that front-facing attached garages are prohibited in the immediate area surrounding the subject property and that this requirement must be enforced.

28In her Participant statement, Ms. Walsh submitted that, based on the Appellant’s Streetscape Character Analysis, the proposed variance would facilitate the development of a garage that is prohibited under the Zoning By-law. She submitted that the Zoning By-law ensures compatible development in mature neighbourhoods and the proposed attached garage would alter the streetscape character of the area.

Analysis and Findings

29The Tribunal finds that the proposed variance maintains the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law. Based on the development plans proposed by the Appellant, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variance would not change the dominant character of the street and the proposed garage would not unduly alter the streetscape. The Tribunal finds that the proposed garage would be secondary in nature to the existing dwelling and would be similar in appearance to other garages on the street. It finds that although the proposed development would not be exactly the same as the prevalent detached form of garage in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, given the frontage of the subject property, and the proposed height, size, and location of the proposed garage, the proposed garage would be very similar to others in the area and it would be in keeping with the character of the area. It finds that the proposed variance will not facilitate a development resulting in a vehicle-dominated frontage, impact the principal entranceway to the dwelling, or impact the view of it from the street.

Issue 3 Is the proposed variance desirable for the appropriate use of the subject property?

Evidence and Submissions

30Mr. Chown opined that the proposed variance is desirable for the appropriate use of the subject property. He stated that the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling is permitted on the subject property as of right, which would be similar in form and size to the proposed garage, but closer to the street. He opined that the proposed variance represents good planning.

31Mr. Sandercott supported Mr. Chown’s opinion that the proposed variance is desirable for the appropriate use of the subject property. He said it represents good planning based on the proposed height, size, and position of the proposed garage and because the proposed garage would be secondary in nature. He opined that the proposed variance is in the public interest based on the proposed design of the garage.

32Ms. Wright stated that the proposed variance does not have the support of neighbours and is not desirable for the appropriate use of the subject property. She stated that no clear information has been provided regarding why an attached garage is necessary on the subject property. She said there is undue pressure on the community for re-development and a need to protect mature neighbourhoods.

33Ms. Guher stated that the Appellant’s proposed developments on the subject property, including the construction of an approved coach house (which is not the subject matter of this proceeding), would result in the loss of trees and privacy and cause drainage problems that will impact her property. She stated that this is not an appropriate use of the subject property.

34Mr. Lemay stated that the proposed variance is not desirable for the appropriate use of the subject property as it would facilitate a development that is out of character for the area.

Analysis and Findings

35The Tribunal finds that the proposed variance is desirable for the appropriate use of the subject property. The Tribunal finds that based on the proposed height, size, and position of the proposed garage as set out in the Appellant’s proposed development plans and, based on its secondary nature, the proposed variance represents good planning and is in the public interest.

Issue 4 Is the proposed variance minor?

36Mr. Chown opined that the proposed variance is minor. He stated that the proposed variance would not result in any undue adverse impacts on neighbouring properties or the streetscape and the proposed development would not dominant the streetscape or the frontage of the subject property.

37Mr. Sandercott also opined that the proposed variance is minor. He agreed with Mr. Chown that it would not result in undue adverse impacts on the streetscape or abutting properties.

38Ms. Wright stated that the proposed variance would have the impact of diminishing the effectiveness of the Zoning By-law.

39Ms. Guher stated that the Appellant’s proposed development would result in the loss of trees and cause drainage problems that would impact her property and result in the loss of shade and privacy.

40Mr. Lemay stated that the proposed variance is not minor as it would impact the planning context of the area and erode the streetscape character of the area. He also raised drainage concerns and the need for a fence between his property and the subject property.

41In his Participant statement, Mr. van Wesenbeeck stated that the proposed variance is not minor and would result in the loss of trees and privacy.

Analysis and Findings

42The Tribunal finds that the proposed variance is minor. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the proposed variance will facilitate a front-facing attached garage that does not have any identifiable undue adverse impacts on the streetscape, neighbourhood, or neighbouring properties. Ms. Guher and Mr. Lemay expressed concerns regarding drainage, the loss of trees, privacy, and shadowing, but failed to demonstrate how the proposed variance for an attached garage would result in development that would cause any of these impacts.

The PPS and s. 2 of the Planning Act

43Mr. Chown opined that the proposed variance is consistent with the PPS. He also stated that he has had regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. Mr. Sandercott supported Mr. Chown’s opinions regarding consistency with the PPS and in regard to matters of provincial interest.

Analysis and Findings

44Based on the opinions of Mr. Chown and Mr. Sandercott, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variance is consistent with the PPS. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and, as required under s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act, it has had regard to the decision of the City’s Committee of Adjustment and the information considered by it.

Conclusions

45Based on the Appellant’s proposed development plans, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variance satisfies the four tests in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, and constitutes good planning. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding this matter and the information that the Committee had before it.

ORDER

46The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law No. 2008-250 is authorized subject to the location, height, and size of the proposed development being in accordance with the site plan drawings attached to this Order and Decision as Schedule 1.

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

LOT 133

LOT 134

ZONING - R1QQ

PRINCIPAL D.U. COACH HOUSE

GENERAL NOTES (2) - PART 9

0 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

LOT 132

MIN. LOT WIDTH - MIN. LOT AREA-

REQUIRED 12.0m

360m²

REQUIRED

PROVIDED 14.035m

416.73m²

0.1 - DRAWINGS NOT TO BE USED FOR PERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SEAL IS SIGNED BY ARCHITECT.

OHU 0.1E

FENCE

0.2m HIGH TIMBER RETAINING WALL PER CITY OF OTTAWA STANDARD DWG L8

TOP OF WALL=72.10

FENCE

BUILDING AREA

N/A

50m²

111.96m² (PRINCIPAL D.U. & GARAGE)

35.61m² (COACH HOUSE )

1 - STRUCTURAL:

OHU 0.3E

±TO LINE

0.09S

0.06N, 0.14N

0.06E/W TO LINE N/S

MAX. LOT COVERAGE-

60%

26.86% (PRINCIPAL D.U. & REC. RM.)

1.1 -

1.2 -

1.3 -

1.4 -

STEEL, TIMBER AND BUILT-UP TIMBER COLUMNS FROM ALL LEVELS SHALL BE CARRIED DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION OR TO SUPPORTING BEAMS, PROVIDE BLOCKING WHERE REQUIRED. STEEL COLUMN PLATES TO BE ANCHORED TO FOOTINGS AND BEAM FLANGES.

ALL LOAD BEARING WALLS, COLUMNS, ARCHES, IN THE STOREY IMMEDIATELY BELOW A FLOOR ASSEMBLY SHALL HAVE A FIRE RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED FOR THE SUPPORTED FLOOR ASSEMBLY.

PRE-ENGINEERED TIMBER TRUSSES TO BE DESIGNED BY TRUSS MANUFACTURER, RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DESIGN RESTS WITH THE CONTRACTOR, SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW.

FLOOR FRAMING SYSTEM TO BE AS PER MANFACTURE STANDARD DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

PROPOSED

1 STOREY COACH HOUSE 35.61m²

w/ CRAWL SPACE

7.25

BOARD FENCE

N 66°31'40" E

14.03

EXISTING SUMP PUMP DISCHARGE

(1.5m MIN. FROM PROPERTY LINE)

WOOD STEP

LOT 141

P.T. WOOD DECK 10' x 6'

5.79

1.00

OVERHEAD HYDRO/TELE CABLE

PROPOSED

1 STOREY COACH HOUSE

MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - MIN. FRONT YARD -

MAX. EXTERIOR SIDE YARD - MIN. REAR YARD -

REAR YARD AREA -

11.0m

3.0m

8.91m

25% LOT AREA

3.6m

4.0m

N/A

8.54% (COACH HOUSE )

7.831m (PRINCIPAL D.U.)

3.58m (COACH HOUSE )

6.13m

N/A

10.56m (PRINCIPAL D.U.)

4.0m (COACH HOUSE )

147.95m² (35.50%)

M. David Blakely Architect Inc.

2200 Prince of Wales Dr. - Suite 101 Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6Z9

Phone (613) 226-8811 Fax (613) 226-7942

GENERAL NOTES:

1 - THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING

2 - SITEWORK:

72.30

ROOF OVERHANG

72.30

35.61m²

w/ CRAWL SPACE

MAX. AREA OF COACH HOUSE

AND VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS, ANY DISCREPANCY

MUST BE REPORTED TO M. DAVID BLAKELY ARCHITECT Inc.

2.1 -

DRAINAGE: MAINTAIN EXISTING OVERALL SITE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM PERIMETER OF NEW FOUNDATIONS. WATERPROOFING TO BE 3mm RUBBERIZED ASPHALT APPLIED TO EXTERIOR FACE OF FOUNDATION WALLS, INCLUDING WALLS BETWEEN HOUSE AND GARAGE TO EXTEND FROM GRADE TO TOP OF FOOTING ( 2 COATS).

5.79

0.39

T.O. FND= 72.70 USF= 71.08

T.O. F.F. =72.70

IN REAR YARD

MIN. INTERIOR SIDE YARD -

1.2m

50%

24.07% (42.76m²)

0.8m (EXISTING HOUSE)

1.33m ( REC. RM. ADDITION)

2 - ALL WORK AND MATERIALS TO BE IN COMPLAINCE WITH ALL CODES, REGULATIONS, & BY-LAWS

3 - ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS MAY BE ISSUED FOR CLARIFICATION TO ASSIST THE PROPER EXECUTION OF WORK. SUCH DRAWINGS WILL

WATER & SANITARY, AND HYDRO/BELL SERVICE TO CONNECT TO THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING.

WATER AND SANITARY SERVICES TO BE INSULATED PER CITY OF OTTAWA SPECIFICATION W22.

WATER SUPPLY (HEATING/POTABLE) TO BE INSTALLED IN THE ECOFLEX PRE-INSULATED THERMAL PIPE SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS.

SANITARY SERVICE TO BE 75mm DIA. ABS PIPE @ 1% MIN. SLOPE.

WATER SERVICE TO BE 19mm PEX PIPE.

SAN SERVICE INV. @ BUILD = 71.07

SAN SERVICE INV. @ COACH HOUSE = 71.11 WATER SERVICE TOP @ BUILDING = 71.10 WATER SERVICE TOP @ COACH HOUSE = 71.10

3 - CONCRETE:

CONNECT FOUNDATION DRAIN FROM THE COACH HOUSE TO THE

1.0m

1.0m (COACH HOUSE)

HAVE THE SAME MEANING AND INTENT AS IF THEY WERE INCLUDED WITH THE PLANS IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

3.1 -

CONCRETE TO BE 20 MPa @ 28 DAYS FOR FOOTINGS AND WALLS, CONCRETE FOR PORCH SLAB TO 32 MPa(MIN.) @ 28 DAYS 6 % (+/- 1 %) AIR ENTRAINMENT 0.45 WATER / CEMENT RATIO, BROOM FINISH. BASEMENT CONCRETE SLAB 25 MPa @ 28 DAYS.

EXISTING FOUNDATION DRAIN AT

THE ADDITION.

DIA=0.25

SHALLOW DRAINAGE SWALE (0.15m)

PARKING REQUIRED PER UNIT

1 SPACES

2 SPACES

4 - DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

5 - THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE ARCHITECT

6 - THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR PERMIT

3.2 -

3.3 -

3.4 -

FOUNDATION WALL DRAINAGE AS PER O.B.C. 9.14.

MINIMUM BEARING CAPACITY USED IN FOOTING DESIGN IS 75 Kpa. BEARING SURFACE TO BE INSPECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE.

TYPICAL FOUNDATION WALL TO HAVE 2-10m BARS 4" FROM TOP & BOTTOM OF FOUNDATION

0.14(Bldg) EAVE ±TO LINE

1.00

R=4.0 T.B.R.

5.18

MIN. PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS - 2.5m x 5.2m

PROPOSED AREA OF HARD LANDSCAPING- TOTAL SITE = 105.46m² REAR YARD = 48.92m²

OR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THE DRAWING BEARS THE ARCHITECT'S SEAL AND SIGNATURE

7 - THIS REPRODUCTION SHALL NOT BE ALTERED.

72.55

4 - MASONRY:

EXISTING

2 STOREY BRICK

PROPOSED

GARAGE ADDITION

EXIST. SUMP PIT LOCATION

1.20

72.50

1.00

LIMITING DISTANCE LINE

FRONT YARD = 33.55m²

4.1 -

4.2 -

BRICK QUOINS, SOLDIER COURSES AND WINDOW SURROUNDS TO PROJECT 1/2" BEYOND REGULAR BRICK FACE, EXCEPT AS NOTED.

72.55

PROVIDE BRICK TIES AS PER O.B.C. 9.20.9. PROVIDE THRU BRICK FLASHINGS w/ WEEP HOLES ON FOUNDATION WALL, OVER ROOFS AND ON LINTELS.

DWELLING No. 57

19.40m²

PROPOSED

COURT YARD

72.52

EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE 72.51+72.78+72.45+72.46= 290.22

4.3 - WEEPHOLES TO BE PLACED AT 610mm (2'-0") o/c IN BOTTOM COURSES OF BRICK, AND OVER WINDOW AND DOOR HEADS.

COACH HOUSE SERVICE LOCATIONS

SCALE - N.T.S.

STEPS &

LANDING

VINYL

72.55

GARAGE T.B.R.

290.22/4= 72.55

72.55

EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE = 72.55m

5 - METALS:

LOT 142

5.1 - REINFORCING STEEL YIELD STRENGTH TO BE 60 K.S.I.

5.2 - PRIME AND PAINT EXPOSED STEEL LINTELS.

LOT 140

0.18(Bldg) EAVE ±TO LINE

1.20

0.46

0.92

3.94

3.58

4.90

1.33

GRADES AND SLOPES DERIVED FROM TOPOGRAPHIC DETAIL OF

LOT 141 REGISTERED PLAN No. 222921

6 - WOOD (FRAMING) AND PLASTICS:

EXISTING

CITY OF OTTAWA

PREPARED BY J.D. BARNES LIMITED

6.1 -

6.2 -

6.3 -

6.4 -

6.5 -

6.6 -

6.7 -

6.8 -

6.9 -

6.10 -

6.11 -

6.12 -

6.13 -

6.14 -

LUMBER TO BE SPF #2 OR BETTER, EXCEPT PORCH POST TO BE PRESSURE TREATED PINE. ALL BEAMS TO BE FLUSH EXCEPT AS NOTED.

BEAMS NOTED AS 'LVL' ARE LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER. SIZES ARE BASED ON THE USE OF TRUSS, JOIST PRODUCTS AND ALTERNATES ARE ACCEPTABLE IF CAPACITY MEETS THOSE SPECIFIED ON THESE DRAWINGS NOTCHING AND DRILLING SHALL COMPLY TO 9.23.5 O.B.C..

PROVIDE 38mm x 38mm (1 1/2" x 1 1/2") CROSS BRIDGING AT FLOOR JOIST @ 2,085mm (6'-10") MAX. o/c. FLOOR JOISTS OR BLOCKING UNDER ALL PARALLEL PARTITIONS.

SUB- FLOOR TO BE 15.9mm (5/8") T&G PLYWOOD GLUED AND SCREWED. CUSHION FLOORING TO HAVE 6.5mm (1/4") POPLAR UNDERLAY.

PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR FUTURE GRAB BARS IN MAIN BATHROOM AT TOILET AND TUB IN LOCATIONS REQUIRED BY O.B.C. 3.8.3.8 (1)(d) AND 3.8.3.13 (1)(f).

EXTERIOR WINDOW AND DOOR LINTEL TO BE 3-2x10, EXCEPT AS NOTED.

ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS TO BE 12.8mm (1/2") GYPSUM BOARD ON BOTH SIDES OF 38mm x 98mm(2"x4") OR 38mm x 150mm (2"x6") STUDS @ 410mm (16") O.C.

FINISHED WITH TAPE AND PLASTERED JOINTS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

STAIRS: MAX. 200mm (7 7/8") RISE (PRIVATE), MAX. 180mm (7 3/32") RISE (PUBLIC) MIN. 210mm (8 1/4") RUN (PRIVATE), MIN. 280mm (11") RUN (PUBLIC)

MIN. 235mm (9 1/4") TREAD (PRIVATE), MIN. 280mm (11") TREAD( PUBLIC) HANDRAILS TO BE 865mm (2'-10") TO 965mm (3'-2") HIGH

PROVIDE MIN. 1,950mm (6'-5") HEADROOM CLEARANCE ON STAIRS SERVING 1 DWELLING UNIT, 2,050mm (6'-9") FOR OTHER.

0.44

0.64

0.89

DOWNSPOUT

EXISTING

2 STOREY BRICK DWELLING

No. 57

EXISTING DOWNSPOUT

PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT

EXISTING DOWNSPOUT TO BE RELOCATED

TOW ELEV=73.55

8.24

PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION 19.79m²

T.O. FND= 72.75 USF= 71.39

T.O. FLR. SLAB =72.60

3.58

DS ELEV=73.06

72.60

ROOF OVERHANG

1.20

1.33

DATED:

SITE BOUNRDIES DERIVED FROM SURVEYOR'S REAL PROPERTY REPORT

PART 1 - PLAN SHOWING LOT 141 REGISTERED PLAN No. 222921 CITY OF OTTAWA

PREPARED BY J.D. BARNES LIMITED DATED:

SURVEYOR TO VERIFY SETBACKS, ZONING REQUIREMENTS & EASEMENTS BEFORE SETTING-OUT FOR CONSTRUCTION.

LIST OF DRAWINGS

A0 INDEX & OBC/ SB12 / SITE & GRADING PLAN

7 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION:

4.91

FLOOR PLANS:

7.1 -

7.2 -

7.3 -

7.4 -

7.5 -

MOISTURE BARRIER SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL AREAS WHERE WOOD IS IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE OR UNIT MASONRY.

ALL POLY VAPOUR / AIR BARRIER TO CONFORM TO CGSB-51.34 CAULK AND SEAL ALL JOINTS w/ 100mm (4") min. LAP JOINTS.

CAULK PERIMETERS, INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS. SERVICES PENETRATING A FIRE SEPARATION (RATED ASSEMBLY) SHALL CONFORM TO

9.10.9.6 AND 9.10.9.7. O.B.C

FLASHING TO BE PRE-FINISHED METAL. APPLY AT EXPOSED DOOR / WINDOW HEADS AND SILLS,

14.035

ROOF VALLEYS, CHIMNEY / ROOF CONNECTIONS, HIGH WALL / ROOF CONNECTIONS, CHIMNEY CAPS, SKYLIGHT PERIMETERS, U/S OF BRICK AND AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS.

INTERLOCK PATHWAY

1.20

A1 BASEMENT & GROUND FLOOR PLANS

ELEVATIONS:

A2 SOUTH & EAST ELEVATIONS A3 NORTH & WEST ELEVATIONS

07/09/21 REVISED FOR PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION JB

7.6 -

7.7 -

FIRE BLOCKING SHALL CONFORM TO SECTIONS 9.10.16. O.B.C..

EIFS - DUROCK PUCCS SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MANUFACTURERS

EXISTING TREE

SECTIONS:

09/08/21 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS JB
05/07/21 FOR PERMIT JB

SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS

8 - DOORS AND WINDOWS:

A4 SECTIONS & DETAILS

18/05/21 FOR CLIENT & STRUCTURAL REVIEW JB
26/04/21 REVISED COACH HOUSE JB
26/04/21 REVISED COACH HOUSE OPTION JB

8.1

14.035

N 66°28'30" E

14.035

   APPLIED WINDOW MUNTIN BARS TO BE WHERE SHOWN ON ELEVATIONS.

8.2 - GARAGE MAN-DOOR SHALL BE EXTERIOR - TYPE, SELF CLOSING AND WEATHERSTRIPPED.

ELECTRICAL:

23/03/21 FOR COACH HOUSE OPTION JB
22/03/21 REAR YARD SETBACK REVISED JB

9 - FINISHES:

CONCRETE SIDEWWALK

E1 ELECTRICAL LAYOUT

15/03/21 GARAGE REMOVED JB
20/01/21 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS JB

9.1 -

9.2 -

9.3 -

9.4 -

OAK HANDRAIL AND SPINDLES FOR ALL STAIRS, EXCEPT BASEMENT STAIR (U/N OTHERWISE). COMPLY TO 9.8. O.B.C.

FOR CERAMIC TILE FLOORING PROVIDE CERAMIC TILE ADHESIVE AS PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS ON 15.9mm (5/8") PLYWOOD UNLAY.

FINISH FLOORING IN BATHROOMS, KITCHENS, LAUNDRY ROOMS AND ENTRANCES SHALL BE WATER RESISTANT.

FINISHES, FIXTURES, MILLWORK AND WOOD STAIRS TO CLIENTS REQUIREMENTS.

MH_STM

SITE BENCHMARK

TOP OF STORM MANHOLE LID ELEV=74.17

3.10 +/- (EXISTING)

H U T C H I S O N A V E .

16/12/20 GARAGE/ IN-LAW SUITE FOR PERMIT JB
27/03/19 PER CITY COMMENTS JB
26/03/19 PER CITY COMMENTS JB
12/03/19 FOR PERMIT JB
13/02/19 REVISED PER COMMENTS JB
06/02/19 FOR REVIEW JB

9.5 -

9.6 -

9.7 -

9.8 -

ALL WALL CABINETS IN KITCHEN/LAUNDRY TO HAVE DROPPED BULKHEADS ABOVE UNLESS NOTED. INTERIOR TRIM, BASEBOARDS, CASING AND ALL SWING DOORS TO BE COLONIAL.

GYPSUM BOARD AT BATHTUB AND SHOWER WALLS TO BE WATER RESISTANT.

ALL BATH TUB AND SHOWER ENCLOSURES TO HAVE 250mm (10") DROPPED CEILING AND CERAMIC TILE FINISH UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

SITE & GRADING PLAN

SCALE - 1:150

SCALE:

0 10

5 15

DATE:

DESCRIPTION

R E V I S I O N S

A - DETAIL NUMBER B - SHEET NUMBER

Int.

10 - SPECIALTIES:

(DETAIL REQUIRED)

10.1 -

10.2 -

10.3 -

PROVIDE BATHROOM ACCESSORIES, SHOWER ROD, SOAP HOLDER, TOILET PAPER HOLDER, TOWEL BAR, RECESSED MEDICINE CABINET AND GRAB BARS WHERE SHOWN.

ALL ENSUITE AND BATHROOMS TO HAVE RECESSED MEDICINE CABINET IN INTERIOR WALLS AND SURFACE MOUNTED ON EXTERIOR WALLS.

VANITY MIRRORS FULL WIDTH OF VANITY BY 765mm (30") HIGH.

COACH HOUSE

B C

SEAL:

C - SHEET NUMBER (DETAIL LOCATION)

11 - MECHANICAL/ ELECTRICAL:

Firm Name: M. DAVID BLAKELY ARCHITECT INC.

ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN

Firm Name: M. DAVID BLAKELY ARCHITECT INC.

11.1 - PROVIDE VENTILATION AS PER O.B.C. 9.32..

11.2 - DEDICATED HRV (WITH TIMERS) CONNECTED TO ALL BATHROOMS.

Certificate of Practice Number:

3644

SB-12 - 2.1.1.2.A

PACKAGE - A1

Certificate of Practice Number:

3644

11.3 -

11.4 -

11.5 -

11.6 -

11.7 -

11.8 -

11.9 -

11.10 -

11.12 -

INSTALL SMOKE ALARMS AS PER O.B.C. 9.10.19., SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE SHOWN, IN ALL BEDROOMS AND TO BE INTERCONNECTED.

CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR, INSTALLED ON CEILING, WIRED DIRECT TO ELECTRICAL PANEL, ALSO WIRED TO SMOKE ALARMS.

PROVIDE ROUGH-IN FOR SECURITY AND CENTRAL VAC SYSTEM.

HEATING AND VENTILATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGNED BY BUILDERS DESIGN - BUILD CONTRACTOR. DESIGN LAYOUT TO BE PROVIDED FOR REVIEW.

DRYER EXHAUST VENT DUCT SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH PART 6. OUTDOOR INTAKE/EXHAUST VENTS SHALL CONFORM O.B.C. 9.32.3.12.

PROVIDE ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING CONNECTIONS FOR DISH-WASHER, CLOTHES WASHER AND DRYER. APPLIANCES N.I.C., HOT WATER TANKS ARE RENTALS.

GAS FURNACES TO BE HIGH EFFICIENCY, GAS FIRED C/W DIRECT VENT. AS PER O.B.C. TABLE 2.1.1.2.A. IF APPLICABLE, MATERIALS USED IN PLENUM SHALL HAVE MAX. FLAME SPREAD OF 25, AND A SMOKE

2200 PRINCE OF WALES DRIVE , SUITE 101

Ottawa, Ontario, K2E 6Z9

Name of Project: 57 HUTCHISON AVE.

PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION

Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PERIPHERAL WALL AREA = 779.17 sq.ft. (72.39m² ) AREA OF WINDOWS, SIDELITES, GLASS IN

DOORS AND PATIO DOORS = 91.90 ft² (8.53m² )

% WINDOWS = 11.78 % ( 17 % Max. )

CEILING WITH ATTIC - R-60

WALLS ABOVE GRADE - R-22 ( R-22+ 5ci PROVIDED) BASEMENT WALLS - 20ci (R-12 + R-10ci PROVIDED)

WINDOWS & SLIDING GLASS DOORS - U = 0.28 Max FURNACE - Min AFUE = 96 %

2200 PRINCE OF WALES DRIVE , SUITE 101

Ottawa, Ontario, K2E 6Z9

Name of Project: 57 HUTCHISON AVE.

PROPOSED COACH HOUSE

Location: Ottawa, Ontario

11.13 -

DEVELOPMENT OF 50.

FIREPLACES TO BE HIGH EFFICIENCY GAS , DIRECT VENT, TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MANUFACTURERS

Index Ontario's 2012 Building Code Data Matrix Parts 3 & 9

OBC Reference

HRV - Min EFFICIENCY = 75 %

Index Ontario's 2012 Building Code Data Matrix Parts 3 & 9

OBC Reference

PROJECT:

11.14 -

11.15 -

RECOMMENDATIONS, FIREPLACE HEARTHS TO BE CERAMIC TILE.

DRAIN WATER HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM DWHR - MINIMUM EFFICIENCY 42%.

PROVIDE ROUGH-IN FOR ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING STATION AS PER O.B.C. 9.34.4.1.

Project Description:

1 Storey Garage Addition to 2 Storey Detached Dwelling

New Addition Alteration

Part 11

11.1 to 11.4

Part 3

1.1.2. [A]

Part 9

1.1.2. [A] 9.10.1.3

HOT WATER HEATER - Min EFFICIENCY = 0.80 DWHR - Min EFFICIENCY = 42%

Project Description:

2 Storey

Detached Dwelling

New Addition Alteration

Part 11

11.1 to 11.4

Part 3

1.1.2. [A]

Part 9

1.1.2. [A] 9.10.1.3

MOROZ RESIDENCE 57 HUTCHISON AVE. OTTAWA, ONTARIO

GARAGE ADDITION & COACH HOUSE

CLIENT:

PETER MOROZ

DRAWING TITLE:

57 HUTCHISON AVE.

SITE & GRADING PLAN GENERAL NOTES, MATRIX & LIST OF DWG'S

DATE:

MAY, 2021

SCALE:

AS NOTED

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED:

MDB

1'-0"

M. David Blakely Architect Inc.

2200 Prince of Wales Dr. - Suite 101 Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6Z9

Phone (613) 226-8811 Fax (613) 226-7942

12 12

10 10

T.O. ATTIC JOISTS

EXIS

70" x

50"

U/S CEILING

EXIST. 45" x 27"

T.O. SECOND FLOOR

ASPHALT SHINGLES

12 ALUMINUM FASCIA

& SOFFIT(VENTED)

T.O. PLATE

VALLEY FLASHING

ASPHALT SHINGLES 12

ALUMINUM FASCIA

& SOFFIT(VENTED) 5

T.O. PLATE

12 5

3'-31"

[1.0m]

ROOF VENTS

ASPHALT SHINGLES ALUMINUM FASCIA & SOFFIT(VENTED)

1'-31"

96"

T.O. GROUND FLOOR

T.O. FND. WALL @ FRONT

EXIST. 45" x 39"

1'-0"

FLASHING

CORNER TRIM

VINYL SIDING 4" SUUROUND

ALUMINUM TRIM

CORNER TRIM VINYL SIDING

PRECAST SILL BRICK VENEER

2'-0"

EXIS

70" x

50"

34" x

2'-0"

[ 0.390 m ]

ALUMINUM TRIM

CORNER TRIM VINYL SIDING

PRECAST SILL BRICK VENEER

T.O. BASEMENT FLOOR

72.78

EXISTING HOUSE

NEW PORCH, STEPS & RAILING

72.60

PROPOSED ADDITION (11'-81")

PARGING

2'-0"

T.O. NEW FND . WALL

T.O. FLOOR SLAB

71 .39 U/S FOOTING

2" HI. RIGID INSULATION

AS REQ'D BY GEOTECH ENG.

72.55

EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE

T.O. N EW FND. WALL 72.70

72.50

71.08

72.55

BRICK AREA= 31 ft² BRICK AREA= 7 ft²

AREA OF EXPOSED BUILDING FACE= 182 ft² AREA OF U.P.O. = 5.6 ft²

% U.P.O. = 3.0%

SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATION - COACH HOUSE

SCALE- 3/16" = 1'-0"

72.50

PARGING

SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATION

SCALE- 3/16" = 1'-0"

T.O. ATTIC JOISTS

U/S CEILING

1'-0"

FLASHING SET INTO REGLET

30" x 54" EXIST.

2'-0"

EXISTING 2 STOREY ADDITION BEYOND NEW P.T. WOOD DECK

07/09/21

REVISED FOR PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION

05/07/21

PER STRUCTURAL / FOR PERMIT

18/05/21

FOR CLIENT & STRUCTURAL REVIEW

DATE:

DESCRIPTION

Int.

R E V I S I O N S

36" HIGH P.T. WOOD GUARD

P.T. 2x4 CAP

P.T. 2x6

P.T. 1 1/2 x 1 1/2 PICKETS @ 5" o/c

P.T. 2x6 DECKING

P.T. 2x8 @ 16" o/c

P.T. 2-2x8

P.T. 6x6 POST

T.O. SECOND FLOOR

EXIST. 47" x 20"

T.O. PLATE

1'-0"

EXIST. 45" x 37"

FILL IN WINDOW @ EXISTING HOUSE

1'-0"

EXIST. 60" X 84"

ALUMINUM FASCIA & SOFFIT(VENTED)

2'-0"

5 12

2'-0"

ROOF VENTS

SEAL:

ASPHALT SHINGLES ALUMINUM FASCIA & SOFFIT(VENTED)

T.O. PLATE

T.O. GROUND FLOOR

T.O. FND. WA LL @ FRONT 73.35

72.78

T.O. BASEMENT FLOOR

73.55

T.O. NEW FND. WALL

T.O. FLOOR SLAB 72.60

71.39

EXISTING DOOR

73.06

FILL IN WINDOW

@ EXISTING HOUSE

VINYL SIDING PARGING

CORNER TRIM 18'-51" [5.63m]

72.55

72.60

30" x 66" EXIST.

72.55

72.50

PARGING

2" HI. RIGID INSULATION

AS REQ'D BY GEOTECH ENG.

ALUMINUM TRIM VINYL SIDING

CORNER TRIM

72.30

71.08

P.T. 2x6 DECKING

P.T. 2x8 @ 16" o/c

P.T. 2-2x8

P.T. 6x6 POST

72.70 T.O. NEW FND . WALL

72.55

CLIENT:

PETER MOROZ

EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE

EAST (SIDE) ELEVATION

CHECKED:

MDB

DRAWN BY:

SCALE- 3/16" = 1'-0"

2" HI. RIGID INSULATION

AS REQ'D BY GEOTECH ENG.

12'-5" [3.8m]

FOOTINGS TO BE ON UNDISTURBED SOIL & INSULATED AS PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS

FLASHING

ROOF VENTS

M. David Blakely Architect Inc.

2200 Prince of Wales Dr. - Suite 101 Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6Z9

Phone (613) 226-8811 Fax (613) 226-7942

ASPHALT SHINGLES

VALLEY FLASHING ALUMINUM FASCIA & SOFFIT(VENTED)

T.O . ATTIC JOISTS U/S CEILING

EXIST. 45" x 51"

2'-0"

24"

EXIST.

66" x 54"

EXI

ST.

24" x 54"

2'-0"

ASPHALT SHINGLES 12

FLASHING

4" SURROUND

CORNER TRIM VINYL SIDING

T.O. SECOND FLOOR

12 12

5 5

2'-0"

24" x 24"

ROOF VENTS

5 ASPHALT SHINGLES

ALUMINUM FASCIA

& SOFFIT(VENTED)

T.O. PLATE

ALUMINUM FASCIA & SOFFIT(VENTED)

VINYL SIDING

CORNER TRIM 4" SURROUND

1'-0"

FLASHING

73.55

EXIST. 45" x 39"

73.55

NEW P.T. WOOD DECK

T.O. FENCE

74.53

EXIST. 24" x 66"

FLASHING

4" SURROUND

VINYL SIDING CORNER TRIM

T.O. GROUND FLOOR

73.35 T.O. FND. WALL @ FRONT

T.O. PLATE

1'-31"

[ 0.390 m ]

R.S.O. 25" X 25"

60" X 96" PATIO DR.

2'-0"

ALUMINUM TRIM VINYL SIDING

CORNER TRIM

72.75

T.O. NEW FND. WALL

PARGING

T.O. FLOOR SLAB

71.39

72.75

INSULATE FOOTING AS REQ'D BY GEOTECH ENG.

72.60

72.55

INSULATE FOOTING

AS REQ'D BY GEOTECH ENG.

36" HIGH P.T. WOOD GUARD

P.T. 2x4 CAP

P.T. 2x6

P.T. 1 1/2 x 1 1/2 PICKETS @ 5" o/c

P.T. 2x6 DECKING

P.T. 2x8 @ 16" o/c

P.T. 2-2x8

P.T. 6x6 POST

72.55

PARGING

T.O. BASEM ENT FLOOR

72.55

EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE

T.O. NEW FND. WALL

72.50

72.70

71.08

P.T. 2x6 DECKING

P.T. 2x8 @ 16" o/c

P.T. 2-2x8

P.T. 6x6 POST

72.30

PROPOSED ADDITION (11'-9")

NORTH (REAR) ELEVATION - REC ROOM ADDITION

EXISTING HOUSE

2" HI. RIGID INSULATION

AS REQ'D BY GEOTECH ENG.

NORTH (REAR) ELEVATION - COACH HOUSE

SCALE- 3/16" = 1'-0"

FOOTINGS TO BE ON UNDISTURBED SOIL & INSULATED AS PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS

SCALE- 3/16" = 1'-0"

FOOTINGS TO BE ON UNDISTURBED SOIL & INSULATED AS PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS

30" x 54" EXIST.

2'-0"

ROOF VENTS

ASPHALT SHINGLES

VALLEY FLASHING ALUMINUM FASCIA & SOFFIT(VENTED)

T.O. PLATE

FLASHING

5 12

1'-6"

R.S.O. 21" x 61"

24" x 60"

R.S.O. 25" x 61"

2'-0"

ROOF VENTS

07/09/21

REVISED FOR PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION

05/07/21

PER STRUCTURAL / FOR PERMIT

18/05/21

FOR CLIENT & STRUCTURAL REVIEW

DATE:

DESCRIPTION

Int.

R E V I S I O N S

ASPHALT SHINGLES ALUMINUM FASCIA & SOFFIT(VENTED)

ALUMINUM TRIM

CORNER TRIM VINYL SIDING

EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL

EXIST. 60" X 84"

30" x 66" EXIST.

VINYL SIDING 4" SURROUND

CORNER TRIM

T.O . SECOND FLOOR

FLASHING

4" SURROUND

VINYL SIDING

72.55

EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE

T.O. NEW FN D . WALL

72.70

72.30

71.08

PARGING

2" HI. RIGID INSULATION

AS REQ'D BY GEOTECH ENG.

72.55

BRICK AREA= 28 ft²

72.50

PRECAST SILL BRICK VENEER

SEAL:

A JOIST HANGER

A1 2x8 P.T. LEDGER BOARD

BOLTED TO FND. WALL

72.60

2-2x8 P.T.

CORNER TRIM

T.O. G RO UND FLOOR

T.O. NEW FND . WALL

PARGING

72.55

WEST (SIDE) ELEVATION - COACH HOUSE

SCALE- 3/16" = 1'-0"

INSULATE FOOTING AS REQ'D BY GEOTECH ENG.

PROJECT:

MOROZ RESIDENCE

DECK - SECTION

U/S NEW FOOTING

FOOTINGS TO BE ON UNDISTURBED SOIL OR AS PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS

A1 A3

CLIENT:

57 HUTCHISON AVE. OTTAWA, ONTARIO

PETER MOROZ

DRAWING TITLE:

NORTH & WEST ELEVATIONS

DATE:

MAY, 2021

SCALE:

3/16" = 1'-0"

CHECKED:

MDB

Moroz v. Ottawa (City), 2021 CanLII 125770

Case Summary

DATE: