1. DESIGNATION OF THE CLEMOW ESTATE EAST HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT UNDER PART V OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

DÉSIGNATION DU DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE L'EST DU DOMAINE DE CLEMOW AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

Committee recommendations as amended

That Council :

1. approve the designation of the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District, as identified in Document 1, under Section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act; as amended to modify the boundaries in accordance with map “C” as attached;

2. approve the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District Plan as shown in Document 3, as amended to modify the boundaries in accordance with map “C” as attached;

3. re-confirmed that this process be followed by a public consultation process for Phase II, which would include Linden Terrace and Patterson Creek to the Canal, and by Phase III including Central Park and buildings adjacent to it to the West of Bank Street, as approved by City Council at its meeting of October 24, 2004.

Recommandation modifiÉes DU Comité

Que le Conseil:

1. approuve la désignation du District de conservation du patrimoine de l’est du domaine de Clemow, défini dans le document 1, aux termes de l’article 41 de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, dans sa version modifiée, afin de changer les limites conformément à la carte « C » ci-jointe;

2. approuve le plan du District de conservation du patrimoine de l’est du domaine de Clemow, illustré dans le document 4, dans sa version modifiée, afin de changer les limites et le rapport du personnel conformément à la carte « C » ci-jointe;

3. confirme de nouveau que le processus en question doit être suivi d’une consultation publique concernant la phase II, qui devrait comprendre de Linden Terrace et du ruisseau Patterson jusqu’au canal, et la phase III, qui comprend Central Park et les bâtiments adjacents à l’ouest de la rue Bank, tel qu’il a été approuvé par le Conseil municipal lors de la réunion du 24 octobre 2004.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 11 May 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0108).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes 8, Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee meeting of 16 June 2011

3. Extract of Planning Committee Minutes of 28 June 2011.

4. Revised Map “C” as referenced in the amended recommendation.

Report to/Rapport au :

Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee

Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti d’Ottawa

and / et

Planning Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme

and Council / et au Conseil

11 May 2011 / le 11 mai 2011

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Acting Manager/Gestionnaire intérimaire, Development Review-Urban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 22379 Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca

Capital (17)

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0108

SUBJECT:	Designation of the clemow estate east heritage conservation district under part v of the ontario heritage act
OBJET :	DÉSIGNATION DU DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE L'EST DU DOMAINE DE CLEMOW AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. Designation of the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District, as identified in Document 1, under Section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act; and

2. The Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District Plan as shown in Document 4.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti d’Ottawa recommande au Comité de l’urbanisme de recommander à son tour au Conseil d’approuver :

1. la désignation du District de conservation du patrimoine de l’est du domaine de Clemow, défini dans le document 1, aux termes de l’article 41 de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario.

2. le plan du District de conservation du patrimoine de l’est du domaine de Clemow, illustré dans le document 4.

BACKGROUND

In September 2003, the City received a letter from the Glebe Community Association requesting that an area east of Bank Street, centered on Central Park be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (Document 1). The neighbourhood around Central Park east of Bank Street features an eclectic mix of architectural styles, with many houses designed by Ottawa architect W.E. Noffke. The area was developed as an upper middle-class suburb in the early 20^th century.

City Council approval is required to designate a Heritage Conservation District (HCD) under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. If City Council passes a by-law designating the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District, there is a 30-day appeal period during which any member of the public can appeal the by-law. Appeals are forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing.

DISCUSSION

Recommendation 1:

Policy Framework:

Part V, Section 41.(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act states:

Where there is in effect in a municipality an official plan that contains provisions relating to the establishment of heritage conservation districts, the council of the municipality may by by-law designate the municipality or any defined area or areas thereof as a heritage conservation district.

The City of Ottawa Official Plan, Section 2.5.5 (2) states that:

…Groups of buildings, cultural landscapes, and areas of the city will be designated as Heritage Conservation Districts under Part V of the Heritage Act.

In the fall of 2004, City Council passed a by-law to study the Central Park Heritage Conservation District as shown in Document 2. The objective of the study was to examine the history and architectural character of the area and evaluate its significance.

Through the study, staff have determined that the area identified in Document 3 meets the criteria for designation as a HCD under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Clemow Estate East is an area of the Glebe developed as an upper-middle class suburb in the early 20^th century. The core of Clemow Estate East is Central Park, an early 20^th century park designed as a space for passive recreation and represents not only trends in North American park design but also of the beautification of the national capital by the Ottawa Improvement Commission. Central Park was one of the first large parks created in Ottawa and is significant for its association with early Canadian landscape architect, Frederick Todd’s 1903 plan for Ottawa’s parks and driveways.

Clemow Estate East is a good example of an early 20^th century upper middle class suburb in Ottawa with an eclectic mix of houses in a variety of architectural styles. The arrival of the streetcar on Bank Street in 1891 allowed the growing upper middle class to move out of the core of the city and into an area of impressive houses and a population within the same social class.

Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act will give the City the authority to review and approve the design of new buildings and alterations to existing buildings within the HCD. Under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, City Council can also deny an application to demolish a building in the heritage conservation district. The owner has the right to appeal such a decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.

District Name

The proposed Heritage Conservation District was originally known as the Central Park East Heritage Conservation District; however, during the study of the area, staff discovered that when it was initially developed it was known as Clemow Estate. The Clemow Estate extended beyond this area, to the area west of Bank Street, and therefore the proposed district was renamed to the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District.

Boundary

The proposed boundary for the HCD has changed since the study area was approved by City Council in 2004. The proposed boundary is smaller and strongly reflects the reasons for designation of this area (Document 3). The cultural heritage value of Clemow Estate East lies in its development as an early upper middle class suburb in Ottawa centred on a park, and featuring a number of architect-designed houses. This is the rationale for the boundary as it has been drawn. The HCD includes Central Park, houses that back or face directly onto the park, houses designed by Werner Noffke, houses that are adjacent to Noffke designed houses and other houses from the development period that are in keeping with the character of the district. After the study was completed, the boundary was redrawn to remove 13 properties that did not fall into these categories and thus did not contribute to the heritage value of the district.

Recommendation 2:

The Ontario Heritage Act requires that a Heritage Conservation District Plan (HCD Plan) be adopted by by-law at the time of designation. Section 41.1 (5) of the Ontario Heritage Act. This section notes that a HCD Plan must include:

(a) A statement of objectives to be achieved in designing the area as a heritage conservation district;

(b) A statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the heritage conservation district;

(c) A description of the heritage attributes of the heritage conservation district and of properties in the district;

(d) Policy statements, guidelines, and procedures for achieving the stated objectives and managing change in the heritage conservation district; and

(e) A description of the alterations or classes of alterations that are minor in nature and that the owner of property in the heritage conservation district may carry out or permit to be carried out on any part of the property, other than the interior of any structure or building on the property without obtaining a permit under section 42.

The Clemow Estate East HCD Plan meets the requirements outlined above. The objective of the HCD Plan included as Document 4 is to identify the heritage attributes that define the character of the District and to determine a framework to protect its cultural heritage value. The Plan is intended to provide guidelines for the management of the area to help planners, homeowners, architects, policy makers and developers to enhance and conserve the area’s resources.

The guidelines are broken into sections including restoration guidelines, guidelines for the park and streetscape, landscaping guidelines, guidelines for additions and alterations and guidelines for new buildings within the HCD.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

CONSULTATION

Section 41.1 (6) of the Ontario Heritage Act requires public consultation prior to City Council passing a bylaw adopting a HCD Plan. Section 414.1 (6) says that, the municipality must ensure that:

(a) Information relating to the proposed heritage conservation district plan, including a copy of the plan is made available to the public;

(b) At least one public meeting is held with respect to the proposed heritage conservation district plan; and

(c) If the council of the municipality has established a municipal heritage committee under section 28, the committee is consulted with respect to the proposed heritage conservation district plan.

A public meeting was held on December 1, 2004 to introduce the project and solicit volunteers to assist with the evaluation of the buildings in the proposed district. All property owners in the proposed district were invited, by letter to the meeting. The meeting was also advertised in the “Glebe Report” on November 12, 2004. Sixteen people signed the attendance sheet at that meeting; of those, seven people volunteered to assist with the evaluation. Ultimately, six members of the community assisted.

A second public meeting was held in the community on March 24, 2010 to review the findings of the project and to provide residents with an opportunity to comment on the heritage conservation district plan. This meeting was advertised in the “Glebe Report” on March 12, 2010. Forty-one people signed the attendance sheet at that meeting. This meeting was the first meeting in five years about the project and many residents were unaware of the project and requested more time to consider the impacts of the proposal. City staff agreed to delay their report to allow for more consultation. At this meeting, residents were invited to sign up for an email information list to keep up-to-date on changes within the study area.

In May of 2010, the Glebe Community Association held a public meeting to discuss the district with the residents. Approximately 20 to 25 people were in attendance. City staff also attended this meeting to answer questions.

At the end of June 2010, a petition was submitted to City staff on behalf of 22 property owners in the district. The petition was accompanied by a letter objecting to the proposed heritage conservation district designation. City staff acknowledged the receipt of the petition by letter to each of the signatories. Throughout the summer and fall of 2010, City staff met and corresponded with individual property owners regarding the implications of a heritage conservation district designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

During the 2010 consultation process, a number of residents asked the City to survey the property owners in the district individually. In February 2011, the City sent a letter and a questionnaire to each property owner soliciting their opinion regarding the proposed district. Responses were received from 23 of the 55 properties in the district. This is approximately a 42 per cent response rate. Eleven (48 per cent) of the respondents supported designation and 12 (52 per cent) of the respondents did not support designation.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

Councillor Chernushenko is aware of the proposed heritage conservation district and supports its designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

The adoption of a by-law to designate a Heritage Conservation District is subject to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Should one or more appeals be received with respect to the proposed Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District, it is anticipated that the necessary legal counsel and opinion evidence could be provided from within staff resources.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

There are no risk management implications associated with this report

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications.

TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS:

There are no technology implications associated with this report

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

Objective E8: Operationalize the Ottawa 2020 Arts and Heritage Plan

Section 2.1.2 Identify and protect archaeological and built heritage resources.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Glebe Community Association Request to Designate

Document 2 Original Study Area

Document 3 Proposed District Boundaries

Document 4 Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District Plan (Issued separately and held on file with the City Clerk)

DISPOSITION

1. City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the property owners and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street East, 3^rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of Council’s decision to pass a by-law designating the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District and District Plan.

2. Planning and Growth Management to cause notice of the passage of the designation by-law to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the city of Ottawa.

3. Legal Services to prepare a by-law to designate Clemow Estate East as identified in Document 3 as a heritage conservation district under Section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act and also adopt by by-law the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District Plan.

REQUEST TO DESIGNATE DOCUMENT 1

STUDY AREA DOCUMENT 2

PROPOSED DISTRICT BOUNDARIES DOCUMENT 3

Ottawa Built heritage Advisory Committee extract of draft minutes 8 16 jUNE 2011

Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti d’ottawa extraite de l’Ébauche du procÈs-verbal 8 le 16 JUIN 2011

Designation of the clemow estate east heritage conservation district under part v of the ontario heritage act

DÉSIGNATION DU DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE L'EST DU DOMAINE DE CLEMOW AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0108 CAPITAL (17)

report recommendation:

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. Designation of the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District, as identified in Document 1, under Section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act; and

2. The Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District Plan as shown in Document 4.

The committee received the following correspondence on this matter:

Ø In support of the proposal:

1. Comment sheet from John Leaning dated May 31, 2011

2. Email from Ellen & John McLeod dated June 13, 2011

Ø In opposition to the proposal:

1. Letter of opposition signed by various residents dated June 3, 2011, accompanied by comment sheets from the following individuals (submitted to the Coordinator via Lara Wait):

1. Lara and David Wait dated June 10, 2011

2. Sandy and Rod Bryden dated June 12, 2011

3. Paul Lavoie dated July 10, 2011

4. K. MacKenzie dated June 12, 2011

5. Theresa Ladouceur and Gregory Kostyrsky dated June 7, 2011

6. Shawn McGann dated June 12, 2011

7. Bente McAlister dated June 9, 2011

8. Paul Boldizar dated June 10, 2011

9. Melissa Vienalass and Michael Smith dated June 11, 2011

10. George Windsor dated June 9, 2011

11. Pietro Milito dated June 8, 2011

12. Amanda Milito dated June 10, 2011

13. Sheila Hubbard and Romain Saha dated June 7, 2011

14. Jennifer Hein-Islam dated June 8, 2011

15. H.F. Bajramovic dated June 10, 2011

16. Ann Hyland dated June 10, 2011

17. Richard Eyre date June 10, 2011

18. D. Halton-Weiss dated June 8, 2011

19. Terry Guilbault dated June 12, 2011

20. Ian Burney dated June 11, 2011

21. Andre Bigras dated June 12, 2011

Chair Mulholland read a statement advising that the committee’s consideration of this report constituted a public hearing and only those who made oral submissions at the meeting or written submissions before the matter is decided could appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. He noted that there were comment sheets available for anyone wishing to submit written comments on these applications.

Lesley Collins, Heritage Planner, provided an overview of report.

John McLeod supported the designation and suggested time is of the essence as Noffke's own house is up for sale, noting there have been many recent property demolitions in the Glebe. He commended heritage planning staff for their work on the proposal and for their fulsome consultation efforts with residents. Written comments to this effect were submitted by him and Ellen McLeod on 13 June 2011, a copy of which is held on file pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and Disposition By-law.

Bill Price, Secretary, Heritage Ottawa expressed the group’s strong support for the creation of Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District (HCD), suggesting that designation is an essential means to protecting this near perfect example of built heritage in the form of century-old dwellings and landscapes. He noted the approval process provides opportunity for public and owner input leading to possible changes to aspects of the current proposal and that Heritage Ottawa may seek to comment further in future on any such changes to the extent that they may materially diminish the protection of the principal heritage elements of this special area.

Speaking personally, as an owner of a home within the proposed HCD, he stated he understood many of the concerns of other owners and was sympathetic with some of them. He said he would support those constraints necessary to prevent material damage to the heritage streetscape of the proposed district. He suggested the proposed boundary for the HCD could be amended so that it include only Central Park East, the Noffke homes and those other properties that front onto the park or have a material sightline to and from the park, so as to create a more meaningful and consistent set of criteria for drawing the boundary of this unique area and eliminate some of the owner criticism of the HCD over boundary issues. He felt that the creation of a “buffer” zone around the backyards of Noffke houses and other houses with park sight lines does not seem necessary or reasonable. He also expressed concern that HCD status will mean the adoption of the Heritage Overlay zoning for this district which would result in constraints on gross floor space increases for additions. He felt that as long as additions are constrained to the backyard and follow the current rules regarding, height, setbacks, etc., the heritage streetscape would not be affected. A copy of Mr. Price’s more detailed submission is held on file pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and Disposition By-law.

Joan Bard Miller, Chair of the Glebe Community Association’s (GCA) Heritage Committee noted it was the GCA that first requested a Heritage Conservation Study for Central Park East in the Glebe in 2003.

The request for this study stemmed from a desire to protect the unique heritage character and attributes of an area which is representative of the history of the development of the Glebe. She stated she has received feedback from several residents since staff carried out recent consultations with the community, some in favour, some in opposition and some who are unsure, but she said the one sentiment that is consistent is a desire to protect the area’s heritage. She noted there are concerns from residents with respect to the proposed boundary for the HCD – some suggesting it should be narrowed and others suggesting it should be expanded. Some residents feel that their rights as property owners are being infringed upon and have expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on their homes’ values or ability to make changes to their properties. Others have stated that they do not feel the process has included enough input from the residents. Ms. Bard Miller thanked staff for their efforts and said the GCA hopes that consensus for some form of heritage protection can be achieved with the input of affected homeowners. A copy of Ms. Bard Miller’s more detailed submission is held on file pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and Disposition By-law.

Terry Guilbault, a property owner within the affected area, did not support the proposed boundaries of the HCD and suggested there are adequate zoning by-laws currently in place in the Glebe to protect undesirable development in this area. He felt the Noffke house itself is worthy of designation and wished for Mr. Price’s earlier suggestion of a revised HCD boundary to be explored. He asked that his property be removed from the proposed HCD and that further consultation take place with all residents in the area. Mr. Guilbault submitted a comment sheet dated June 12, 2011 stating his objection and also signed a letter of objection with various other residents, which was submitted to the Committee Coordinator prior to the meeting. Copies of both documents are held on file pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and Disposition By-law.

John Leaning expressed frustration and disappointment that this issue has still not been decided eight years after the initial request for action was submitted. He could not understand why property owners would object to the designation and urged committee to approve it. A copy of the written comments to this effect submitted by Mr. Leaning on May 31, 2011 is held on file pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and Disposition By-law.

Jane Bower, an owner of two properties within the proposed HCD boundary, expressed support for Mr. Price’s suggestion to narrow the boundary. She expressed concerns about being able to obtain home insurance for properties with a Heritage Overlay or about having to pay a higher premium for that insurance. She also questioned the efficacy of heritage designations and protections, noting recent examples of disregard for such measures in the city. She did not support the HCD as proposed, suggesting there are adequate zoning provisions in place in the Glebe.

Sandy Bryden did not support the HCD as proposed. She expressed concerns about the approach to this project and about insufficient consultation. She requested that the boundary be narrowed and that a phased in generational approach occur for category 3 and 4 homes over the next 25 years or as they change ownership. Ms. Bryden, along with her husband Rod Bryden, submitted a comment sheet dated June 12, 2011 stating their objection and also signed the previously mentioned residents’ letter of objection. Copies of both documents are held on file pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and Disposition By-law.

Lara Wait did not support the HCD boundary as proposed and requested that her property be removed from it, suggesting that although it is behind the Noffke house there are no longer sightlines to or from it in relation to Central Park and thus it does not contribute to the HCD. Prior to the meeting, Ms. Wait submitted both a comment sheet dated June 10, 2011 stating her and her husband, David Wait’s, objection along with the letter of objection signed by them and various other residents. Copies of both documents are held on file pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and Disposition By-law.

Andrew Jeanes supported the proposed HCD. He hoped to dispel some of the objecting homeowners’ concerns by referencing several studies that have been undertaken which have indicated that: properties within HCDs generally perform at or above the market value rate; the Guidelines are not onerous for property owners and permits for alteration / modification are not difficult to obtain; the majority of insurance companies do not take issue with heritage or designated homes; and there is generally a high degree of satisfaction amongst owners within HCDs.

Doug Casey was supportive of the proposed HCD but agreed with previous speakers that the boundary could be narrowed.

Moved by Virendra Sahni:

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee approve the report recommendation with the amendment that the proposed boundaries of the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District be modified to exclude 38 Monkland Avenue, 37 Linden Terrace, and all properties on the north side of Glebe Avenue except 85 and 89 Glebe Avenue.

LOST

YEAS (1): V. Sahni

NAYS (4): E. Eagen, A. Fyfe, C. Mulholland, E. Zdansky

The report recommendation was moved by Elizabeth Zdansky and CARRIED as presented on the following division:

YEAS (4): E. Eagen, A. Fyfe, C. Mulholland, E. Zdansky

NAYS (1): V. Sahni

DESIGNATION OF THE CLEMOW ESTATE EAST HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT UNDER PART V OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

DÉSIGNATION DU DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE L'EST DU DOMAINE DE CLEMOW AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0108 CAPITAL (17)

OTTAWA BUILT HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommends that Planning Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. Designation of the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District, as identified in Document 1, under Section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act; and

2. The Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District Plan as shown in Document 4.

Committee received the following written submissions, copies of which are held on file with the City Clerk.

· Petition dated June 03 2011,from property owners objecting to the proposed Heritage District Designation and the Heritage Classification of their individual properties, submitted by Heinz Burgsthaler

· E-mail dated 19 June 2011 from Heinz Burgsthaler

· E-mail dated 21 June 2011 from Richard Lamothe

· E-mail dated 24 June 2011 from Sandy Bryden

· E-mail dated 24 June 2011 from Ellen and John McLeod

· E-mail dated 24 June 2011 from Frank Oakes

· E-mail dated 24 June 2011 from Patricia Lemay

· Letter dated 25 June 2011 from Thomas Tanner

· E-mail dated 25 June 2011 from Glen and Vicki Robinson

· E-mail dated 26 June 2011 from Clyde Sanger

· E-mail dated 26 June 2011 from Virginia Lindsay

· E-mail dated 26 June 2011 from Ian McKercher

· E-mail dated 26 June 2011 from Doug and Cheryl Casey

· E-mail dated 27 June 2011 from Kathleen Pettit

· E-mail dated 28 June 2011 from Andrew Elliott

Additional submissions received by the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) is listed in OBHAC minutes 8 of their meeting of 16 June 2011.

Lesley Collins, Heritage Planner, provided an overview of the staff report by means of a PowerPoint presentation. A copy of her presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

Committee heard from the following delegations:

Ann Hyland, owner of 10 Allan Place, spoke in opposition to the Heritage Conservation District (HCD) as proposed. While she was not opposed to the HCD, she requested revised boundaries for the proposed district, including removal of her property from the proposed HCD. She argued that her small house, designated “non-contributing,” was not a potential threat to the neighbouring Noffke house if not designated.

Bill Price* spoke in support of the proposed HCD on behalf of Heritage Ottawa. Mr. Price also spoke as the owner of 54 Glebe Avenue, in support, but supporting a reduced boundary. His detailed comments are included in his written submission, which is held on file.

John McLeod,* resident of the Glebe, spoke in support of the proposed HCD, for the reasons outlined in his written submission held on file. He indicated that he would support a compromise if agreed to immediately, but emphasized that there should be no delay.

Melissa Viinalaas, 12 Cobalt Avenue, spoke in opposition to the (HCD) as proposed. She requested revised boundaries for the proposed district, including removal of her property from the proposed HCD. She noted that her home did not have a sightline to Central Park, and argued it would not impact the adjacent Noffke-designed house. She did not anticipate changing the character of the house, nor did she anticipate any future owner would do so.

Lara Wait,* 93 Glebe Avenue, spoke in opposition to the (HCD) as proposed. She referenced the petition that had been submitted in opposition to the current boundaries, noting that owners of 28 affected properties had signed. She expressed frustration with the process to date, and requested revised boundaries for the proposed district, including removal of her property from the proposed HCD. She suggested that although her home is behind a Noffke-designed, house there are no sightlines to Central Park and thus it does not contribute to the HCD. She argued that the designation of the homes in the “buffer zone” was unfair, and would negatively impact the affected homeowners.

Joan Bard Miller, Glebe Community Association* supported the proposed HCD, as outlined in the written presentation held on file. She acknowledged that there was a variety of opinions in the community and concerns about the proposed boundaries. In the interests of finding a consensus solution, she requested on behalf of the association that Committee give further consideration for reduced HCD boundaries based on consistent, heritage-based criteria.

John Leaning* spoke in support of the proposed HCD. He gave an overview of some of the history of how the HCD had come to be, and his own involvement in that process. He emphasized the importance of protecting heritage in the Glebe as a whole and this area in particular. He noted the issue had not been resolved eight years after the initial request for action was submitted. With respect to the boundaries, he suggested the line had to be drawn somewhere, and urged the Committee to support the proposal.

* Presentation and/or written comments held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Hobbs moved the following motion on behalf of Councillor Chernushenko, which exempted the following properties from the proposed HCD: 38 Monkland Avenue; 37 Linden Terrace; 93,95,97,99,101,103, 105 and 117 Glebe Avenue; 683,685,697 Bank Street; 550 O’Connor Street; 10 Allan Place and 12 Cobalt Place.

MOTION N^O PLC 16/1

Moved by Councillor K. Hobbs:

WHEREAS the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District is an important step towards ensuring the retention and conservation of the area’s heritage resources;

AND WHEREAS based on feedback from residents, the Glebe Community Association and Heritage Ottawa;

AND WHEREAS feedback has included requests to either expand or reduce the proposed boundaries of the District.

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the boundaries and staff report be modified in accordance with map “C” as attached;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED and re-confirmed that this process be followed by a public consultation process for Phase II, which would include Linden Terrace and Patterson Creek to the Canal, and by Phase III including Central Park and buildings adjacent to it to the West of Bank Street, as approved by City Council at its meeting of October 24, 2004.

CARRIED

A copy of the revised boundary map is held on file with the City Clerk.

The report recommendations were put to Committee and CARRIED, as amended by Motion PLC 16/1.