STATEMENT REQUIRED UNDER THE
PLANNING ACT
Chair Peter Hume read a statement required under the Planning Act, which advises that anyone
who intends to appeal the proposed Zoning By-law amendment listed as item 2 on
today’s agenda 3must either voice their
objections at this public meeting or submit their comments in writing prior to
the amendment being adopted by City Council on 7 December 2007. Failure to do so may result in the Ontario
Municipal Board dismissing all or part of the appeals.
STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
SUBMITTED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007
Chair Peter Hume read a
statement relative to the Zoning By-law amendments listed as items 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 on the agenda. He
advised that only those who made oral submissions at today’s meeting or written
submissions before the amendments are adopted could appeal these matters to the
Ontario Municipal Board. In addition,
applicants may appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board if Council does
not adopt an amendment within 120 days of receipt of the application.
PUBLIC WORKS AND
SERVICES
TRAVAUX PUBLics
Utility Services
SERVICES PUBLICS
1. agreements with LaflÈche
Environmental inc and waste services inc for disposal of solid waste
ENTENTES AVEC LaflÈche Environmental inc. et waste
services inc. pour L’ÉLIMINATION DES DÉCHETS SOLIDES
ACS2007-PWS-UTL-0024
CITY-WIDE / À
l’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Written
correspondence dated November 23, 2007 from John MacMillan, Ottawa Landfill
Watch, was received and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Dixon Weir,
Director of Utility Services, accompanied by Anne-Marie Fowler, Manager of
Solid Waste Services, responded to questions from Councillor Qadri stating the
following:
·
The 2003 Integrated Waste Management Master Plan included a number of
landfill management options, one of which included investigating where
economically reasonable the transfer of waste to area landfills, including the
Laflèche site. This report is
consistent with the direction previously approved by Council.
·
The City is not opening its landfills to garbage from outside the
municipality. This is achieved through
the Settlement Agreement and its specific limitations on the import of
materials.
·
With respect to the length of the agreement with Laflèche Environmental
Inc. and the amount of tonnage, some flexibility exists in the later years of
the agreement to incorporate other solutions that may be in place. The agreement is intended in the first five
years to be fixed and allows the City to gain some economic advantages of a
longer term deal, while allowing in the later years the flexibility to
accommodate changing conditions.
·
This agreement and the 30,000 tons maximize the available capacity at
the Laflèche Landfill, which has a regulatory limit to both overall capacity
and annual acceptance levels.
·
The City will be looking into residual management in 2008 to provide
the City with a longer-term assessment of all technologies.
It was requested
that this matter be considered at Council on November 28, 2007.
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council delegate the authority to the
Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services to enter into negotiations and
finalize and execute agreements with:
1.
Laflèche Environmental Inc. regarding the provision
of landfilling services of residential solid waste at their Moose Creek
Landfill; and
2.
Waste Services Inc. regarding the transfer of City of
Ottawa residential solid waste through their Waste Transfer Station located in
Ottawa.
CARRIED
PLanning,
TranSIT and thE EnVIRONMENT
urbanisme, transport en commun et environNement
PLANNING
URBANISME
2. ZONING - 4100 INNES ROAD AND 2025 MER
BLEUE ROAD
ZONAGE - 4100, CHEMIN INNES ET 2025, CHEMIN MER
BLEUE
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0053 Cumberland (19)
(This application is not subject to Bill
51)
Written
correspondence dated November 22, 2007 was received from Pierrette Woods and
Sharon Lawrence, Innes Rezoning and Development Group, was received and is
held on file with the City Clerk.
Bill Holzman, on
behalf of the applicant, was present in support of the recommendation.
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City
of Cumberland Urban Area By-law to change the zoning of 4100 Innes Road and
2025 Mer Bleue Road from MS1, MS2 (Industrial Service) and MG (Industrial
General) to CC-X7(H) (Commercial Community – Exception) and MS2-X2(H)
(Industrial Service – Exception), as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in
Document 2.
CARRIED
3. ZONING
- 5985 RENAUD ROAD
ZONAGE - 5985, CHEMIN RENAUD
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0204 Innes (2)
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
Debbie Belfie, on behalf of
Valecraft Homes, was present in support of the recommendation.
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City
of Gloucester Zoning By-law to change the zoning of part of 5985 Renaud Road
from Residential Row Dwelling 1 Zone Exception 47 (Rr1(E47)) to Mixed
Residential Dwelling 2 Zone Exception 48 (Rc2(E48)) as shown in Document 1.
CARRIED
4. ZONING
- 3100 CONROY ROAD
ZONAGE - 3100, CHEMIN CONROY
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0205 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE
(10)
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former
City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 3100 Conroy Road from IP
F(1.0), Industrial Business Park Zoning to IG [685] F(1.0), General Industrial
Zoning, as shown in Document 1.
CARRIED
5. ZONING
- PARTs OF 333 BRADWELL WAY AND 500 WHITE ALDER DRIVE
ZONAGE – PARTIES DU 333, VOIE BRADWELL ET DU
500, PROMENADE WHITE ALDER
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0186 GLOUCESTER-SOUTH
NEPEAN (22)
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
Written correspondence dated November 26, 2007 was received from Peter
N. Savoy and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Pierre Dufresne,
Tartan Land Corp., was present in support of the recommendation.
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City
of Gloucester Zoning By-law to change the zoning of parts of 333 Bradwell Way
and 500 White Alder Drive as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Documents 2
and 3.
CARRIED
6. ZONING
– 3584 Jockvale Road – PHASE 9B
ZONAGE - 3584,
CHEMIN JOCKVALE
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0207 Barrhaven (3)
(This application is not subject to Bill
51)
Rob Pierce and Peter Vice, on
behalf of Monarch, were present in support of the recommendation.
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Nepean Zoning
By-law to change the zoning for lands known collectively as part of 3584
Jockvale Road (Phase 9B), from Future Growth (FG), Rural (Ru) and Residential
Mixed Use (RMU) Block 4 to Residential Fifth “B” Density Zone Block 10 (R5B
Block 10), Residential Mixed Use Block 4 (RMU Block 4), Future Growth (FG) and
Park and Recreation (Public) Block 1 (PRC Block 1) as shown on Document 1 and
as detailed on Document 2.
CARRIED
7. ZONING
- 3500 JOCKVALE ROAD
ZONAGE - 3500, CHEMIN JOCKVALE
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0213 Barrhaven (3)
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
Ted Phillips, on behalf of Taggart, was present in support of the recommendation.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve
an amendment to the former Nepean Zoning By-law to change the zoning at 3500
Jockvale Road from FG - Future Growth to RMU - Residential Mixed Unit, RMU (H)
Block 25 - Residential Mixed Unit (Holding)
(Exception -25) Zone and PRP - Parks and Recreation Zone (Public) as shown in
Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
8. ZONING
- 6371 HAZELDEAN ROAD
ZONAGE
- 6371, CHEMIN HAZELDEAN
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0208 Stittsville-Kanata West / Kanata Ouest (6)
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
Written correspondence dated
November 19, 2007 from Carlo and Rosa Iuliano was received and is held
on file with the City Clerk.
Ronald Denis, on behalf of
Farley Smith and Denis Surveying Ltd. was present in support of the
recommendation.
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former
Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 6371 Hazeldean Road
from Highway Commercial (CH) to Residential Type 4 Exception (R4-x) as shown in
Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
9. ZONING - 420 MAYFAIR AVENUE, 401 AND
415 PICCADILLY AVENUE
ZONAGE - 420, AVENUE MAYFAIR, 401 ET 415,
AVENUE PICCADILLY
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0201 Kitchissippi (15)
(This application is subject
to Bill 51)
Barry Hobin was present in support of the first
recommendation, but suggested the zoning amendment not be delayed and
recommended that the second recommendation be deleted or replaced to expedite
zoning approval by not having it tied to Site Plan Control.
Grant Lindsay, Manager of Development Approvals
Central/West indicated extensive consultation occurred with the community and
residents sought assurances the project would move forward according to the
conceptual plan presented. He noted
Site Plan Control requires detailed engineering and its own approval process,
which can take upwards to three to four months.
John Smit, Program Manager, Development Review,
presented a replacement motion for the second recommendation agreed to by the
applicant and City staff. Mr. Lindsay
undertook to follow up with the ward councillor.
Regarding the repeal of the by-law, Tim Marc,
Senior Legal Counsel, advised a public hearing would be required
after nine months should Site Plan Control approval is
not be received or finalised. Secondly, in the event of an appeal to the
Ontario Municipal Board, the City could request that a hearing not be
scheduled, which would enable Council to repeal the by-law at any time without
further notice.
Moved by P. Feltmate:
That the Zoning By-law Amendment be repealed should the
owner not obtain Site Plan Control approval in accordance with the concept plan
included as Document 5 within nine months from the date of enactment of the
implementing zoning by-law amendment.
CARRIED
1. That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment
to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 420 Mayfair
Avenue and 401 and 415 Piccadilly Avenues
from I1 and R3G to an I1 exception zone and two R3A exception zones as
shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
2. That the Zoning By-law Amendment be repealed should the
owner not obtain Site Plan Control approval in accordance with the concept plan
included as Document 5 within nine months from the date of enactment of the
implementing zoning by-law amendment.
CARRIED
10. ZONING - 1000 BROOKFIELD ROAD
ZONAGE - 1000, CHEMIN BROOKFIELD
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0196 Capital (17)
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former
City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 1000 Brookfield Road from
R3H [847] (Converted House / Townhouse Exception Zone) to R3H [***] Sch. 246,
as shown on Document 1, and as detailed in Document 3.
CARRIED
11. ZONING - 149 KING GEORGE STREET
ZONAGE - 149, rue king george
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0195 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
Written correspondence in opposition received
on November 22, 2007 from Shane John Frederick is held on file with the
City Clerk.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to
change the zoning of 149 King George Street from R3H [843] Sch. 244 (Converted
House / Townhouse Exception Zone) to R3H [***] Sch. 244, as shown on Document 1
and as detailed in Document 3.
CARRIED
LOCAL
ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
12. HERITAGE
PLAQUE PROGRAM 2007/2008
PROGRAMME DE PLAQUES DU PATRIMOINE 2007/2008
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0198 City-wide/À l’échelle de la ville
LACAC RECOMMENDATION
That the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend
that Planning and Environment Committee recommend to Council that heritage
plaques be installed in 2008 on five designated heritage buildings and in two
heritage conservation districts as listed in Document 1.
CARRIED
13. APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH 456 LANSDOWNE
AVENUE, APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
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)
Councillor Feltmate assumed the Chair for this
item.
The following written documentation was
received and is held on file with the City Clerk:
·
LACAC
Extract of Minutes – November 9, 2007 and July 26, 2007
·
Revised
drawings and design plans from Roderick Lahey Architect Inc. and Richcraft
Group of Companies`
·
Presentation
dated November 27, 2007 from the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee
·
Presentation dated
November 27, 2007 from the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee
·
Submission
dated November 26, 2007 from Brian Dickson, Vice-President, Rockcliffe Park
Residents Association
·
Submission
dated November 26, 2007 from Professor Herb Stovel, Heritage Conservation programme,
Carleton University
·
Email
dated November 26, 2007 from Susan and Thomas d’Aquino
·
Emails
dated November 26, 2007 and September 27, 2007 from David Halton
·
Submission
dated November 26, 2007 from Julian Smith, Architect
·
Email
dated November 26, 2007 from Rina Dalibard containing a letter from the late
Jacques Dalibard dated August 20, 2007
·
Submission
dated November 25, 2007 from David B. Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa
·
Letters
dated November 15, 2007 and September 25, 2007 from G. B. Rogers, former owner
of the subject property
·
Submission
dated August 30, 2007 from Mark Brandt, Architect
Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner,
provided a Power Presentation, which held on file with the City Clerk. Grant Lindsay, Manager of Development
Approvals Central/West, accompanied Ms. Coutts.
Jay Baltz, Chair and Heather McArthur,
Vice-Chair, Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) read from a written submission
noting LACAC unanimously rejected the application for demolition and new
construction. Mr.
Baltz asked the Committee to keep in mind the significance of the buildings in
the district, not just the importance of the landscape. Ms. McArthur stated the tests for demolition
were not met and noted LACAC’s disagreement with regard to the conclusions of
the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement.
LACAC felt that the architect failed to give sufficient consideration to
a sensitive addition to the existing house or to other options for remediation
of its condition. Mr. Baltz asked the
Committee to keep in mind the significance of the buildings in he district, not
just the importance of the landscape. Ms. McArthur touched on the
removal of mortar in the fissure, which makes it difficult to assess whether
active settling is occurring. LACAC
rejected the application on the grounds of failure to respect, protect and
enhance the heritage character of the existing house and the district in which
it is located. A full copy of the
presentation, with the arguments contained therein, is held on file with the City
Clerk.
Martha Edmond, historian, who recently authored a book on the
history of Rockcliffe Park, touchtoucheded
on the important cultural heritage aspects of the existing building and its
relationship with the descendants of Philomen
Philemon Wright and 24 Sussex Drive. The home represents an early phase of
settlement within Rockcliffe Park, before it became a police village in 1908. It demonstrates the original pattern of
development established by Thomas KieferKeefer in the eighteen
sixties. The building is a local
landmark and retains its original lot size and survives
virtually intact down to the interior finishes and lay out. as the first home
built on MacKay Lake and the planning
influenced by Keifer. She noted it is the only existing Ontario
built structure linked to the Wright family.
Rina Dalibard, a nearby resident with training in the field
of architecture,
experience
in heritage conservation and past member of LACAC, noted
her opposition to the demolition. She spoke of the sequence of
events and the structural reports for the building.
She recalled that at the November meeting of LACAC, the structural
engineer stated that their first inspection of 456 Lansdowne occurred in August
2007, seven months after the property was purchased and subsequent to
LACAC’s initial rejection of the application in July. Ms. Dalibard suggested it was odd that no
structural assessment was carried out at the time of purchase at a price of $2.6
million for this 100-year-old, designated
home. Structural evaluation is essential if the
new owner intended to preserve the existing building and construct new
additions to it. She stated the
sequence of events suggests the new owner never intended to preserve the
existing house and treated 456 Lansdowne as a vacant lot.
Herb Stovel, Professor,head of Carleton University’s Heritage Conservation
programme and one of the most experienced professionals in the field in Canada,
read from his written statement. He,
focusseding
his comments on the incontestable heritage significance of the house , and
the regrettable inadequacy of the engineering reports submitted by
the owner counselling demolition, and the bizarre turn of events taking place
within this application process.
He touched on the flawed conclusions of the Cultural Heritage Impact
Statement and engineering reports, suggesting the owner has not employed qualified
engineering consultants in the heritage area.
. Mr.
Stovel also discussed LACAC’s review of the application and letters of the
previous owner with regard to the condition of the building.
Councillor Legendre noted the important nature of the Committee’s decision on this
matter and observed that a quorum of the
Committee was not listening to delegations, suggesting only the Acting
Chair was doing so. He noted a number of side
conversations were occurring at the table or nearby. He asked that the Committee pay respectful attention to the delegations.
On a point of order, Councillor Hunter
objected to the ward councillor’s suggestion that members were not listening. He noted they were multi-tasking and summarized elements raised by
the previous delegations. He asked that the ward councillor
be asked
to
withdraw his remarks, suggesting they were offensive.
Councillor Legendre objected to some of the
language used by Councillor Hunter. He stated
he did not cast personal aspersions.
Vice-Chair Feltmate stated Councillor Hunter’s
language
was unacceptable and asked Councillor Legendre if he wished to
withdraw his remarks. He refused. She called on both
councillors to cease their interventions, noting their objections were
noted.
Councillor Legendre
raised a point of order, asking
colleagues to carefully listen to the presenters.
In a point of
privilege, Councillor Hunter noted he was insulted by the
assertions made by the ward councillor.
In turn, the language used by Councillor Hunter offended Councillor
Legendre.
Vice-Chair Feltmate
asked members to refrain from using offensive language or calling into question
their colleagues.
Brian Dickson, Vice-Chair of the Rockcliffe
Park Residents Association read from his written submission and agreed with the comments
from previous presenters. Mr. Dickson touched
on noted
buildings are also extremely important in a heritage district, not just landscapes. He stated that although this
may be a common housing type in Ontario or even the Glebe, it is not
common in the Village of Rockcliffe Park, much less on Mackay Lake. Demolition in this district should be recommended
for approval only when the existing building is of little significance.
Mr. Dickson argued the applicant has’s
failureed to properly meet the criteria for
demolition. He, the
questioned the assertions related to the building’s condition, referring to the
views opinion of
the previous owner in this regard,.
and the
potential negative precedent of
this application.The Rockcliffe Park
Residents Association offered previously to fund engineering assessment by a qualified heritage expert but the
owner’s
representative did not accept. Mr. Dickson suggested a
potential negative precedent could be created should this application be
approved, which would justify the flawed logic both in the Cultural Heritage
Impact Statement and the departmental report. He called for the onus to be on the owner to
show that an addition or a demolition benefits the heritage district. Mr. Dickson asked the Committee to consider
LACAC’s recommendation and the views of the residents association,
Heritage Ottawa, Heritage Canada, village historian, as well as highly
respected and qualified heritage experts.
Anthony Keith read a statement on behalf of Julian Smith,
which focussed on four points:
·
The
building is on the Heritage Resources List and the design guidelines did not
even discuss the replacement of those homes on the list.
·
The
house is an essential component in establishing and maintaining the heritage
character of the village. It
contributes to the architectural variety of the village, has important
historical association with the Philomen
Philemon Wright family and is one of the
earlier homes of the village.
·
The
challenge for the owner and the architect, if expansion is required, is to
design an addition that protects and enhances the existing house.
·
Someone
involved in the structural analysis raked out the joint along the diagonal
crack, which makes it look more serious and removes the one key piece of
evidence about whether there is any significant movement at all.
Iola Price, Chair, Ottawa Forests and
Greenspace Advisory Committee addressed her comment s on the
potential impact of the proposal on the magnificent tall and mature
city trees
fronting the existing house, specifically as it relates to the critical root
zone. She noted staff recommended
approval of the demolition on the basis that an addition would be harmful to
the heritage landscape, but Ms. Price noted the possible impacts of the new
construction. She stated the municipal tree protection
by-law passed in 2006 requires a
permit from the Director of Surface Operations before carrying out any work
within the critical root zone, whether the work is on private or public
property, if there is a potential for damage to a municipal tree. The proponent has not yet applied to the
director by providing a site plan for review for this new proposal. She stated the proposed new house is three times
larger in foot print than the current house and, if constructed, will intrude into
the root zone of the mature trees, which form a vital part of the landscape. The largest tree, which is 117 centimetres in diameter at
breast height, would have its feeder roots removed by the
excavation.
In response to a question from Councillor
Hunter with respect to tree planting along on road
allowances, Ms. Price indicated trees were planted her … Trees do best
and can adjust when they are planted and grow at the same time as the
house/street is constructednoted the difference is whether or not the critical
root zone is impacted during construction. She indicated the trees in question were
probably planted 100 or so years ago, as called for by the KieferKeefer lot sales.
The best situation is when the tree, the road and
the house “grow
up” together, as opposed to digging out the critical roots, which are in the
top 10 to 12 inches of the soil, during new construction.
David B. Flemming, President of Heritage
Ottawa, also spoke
in opposition to the proposed demolition touching on the client’s aspirations
versus heritage conservation. He
referred to his written submission, which asked six questionsdoes not support
the departmental report or the findings of the engineering plans. Over the past 5 years, he noted Heritage Ottawa has
made numerous presentations to LACAC and this Committee where developers
sought demolition of buildings, which in many instances were allowed to
deteriorate to the point where the Minister of Labour or Fire Marshal get involved and a demolition
order is issued. He noted
the soil study indicates the area is unstable and questioned the
impact on nearby buildings, including the Massey House built in 1959. Mr. Flemming suggested this is not a case of
a house that is ready to fall down. He stated
if the strict criteria used by the applicant’s
engineers to justify demolition (floors are not level, door frames are
not square) were used broadly much of Ottawa’s century old buildings would be
lost.
Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright, spoke on behalf of the applicant,
calling into question comments made by the previous
delegations, characterising them as regrettablegratuitous
attacks on staff and consultants retained by his client. He also called for the disbandment of the
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, suggesting the
tone of the debate on this issue.
He talked about his involvement with Rockcliffe Park as a young boy and later as solicitor
for the village prior to amalgamation. He suggested the
test for demolition is whether the building’s heritage significance should override the owner’s right
to replace it. Mr. Cohen was
accompanied by Julie Harris, Rod Lahey and other consultants on behalf of the
applicant.
Julie Harris, s,
Content Works , touched on her professional experience and
qualifications. She addressed her
conclusions concerning the heritage value of this property within the
district. She stated she does not enjoy taking a
position that many of her esteemed professional colleagues have described as
dangerous, jumbled and illogical; however, she suggested some old things are
heritage and others are not and do not require heritage strategies, engineers
and approaches. She iterated that Rockcliffe Park’s cultural heritage
landscapes include many
components, including roads, landscaping elements, natural topography,
trees,
buildings, and tennis courts. The district study
states every development and house is a product of its time and place.
Ms. Harris noted the district study indicates demolition
should be approved only where the existing building is of little architectural
significance, does not make a major contribution to the streetscape and the proposed
development is sympathetic to the surrounding environment. She stated that in her opinion the proposed house is
sympathetic to the district, as well as a thoughtful, elegant, and an appropriate contemporary response to the
requirements for new construction. The existing home was
constructed in the 1900 to 1925 village era and numerous other examples from
this period exist. It is an
early example of a lakeside house, but this theme,
development around the lake, was rightly in her opinion not identified in the
district study as significant.
Ms. Harris opined the building is of little to
medium cultural heritage value. In the words of
Humphrey Carver, the influential and talented architect, urban planner and
author of the Cultural Landscape of Rockcliffe Park Village in 1985,
this house is a “Plain Jane Ontario red brick house.” She concurred by noting changes to the
exterior are
almost identical to changes that were used as justification for approving the
demolition of another old Rockcliffe House.
With
respect to the streetscape, the curve in the street, the topography of this part
of the village and the way in which adjacent houses have been placed on their
lots has diminished the potential for the house to make a major contribution to
the streetscape. While the house is
old and contributes to the chronology of the district, it is not of sufficient
cultural heritage value or interest. Ms. Harris explained Rockcliffe Park’s
heritage value and the quality of its landscape rests on the long and standing
tradition of replacing houses rather than using additions to service a primary
space for core functions in homes.
Rod Lahey, Roderick Lahey Architect Inc. addressed comments by earlier delegations on the
integrity of the consultants, including structural engineers. He indicated Planning staff early on advised
that building
condition
should
not be dwelled on in the report as it is not a means to justify the
demolition. Subsequent to the first
LACAC hearing, the client asked that the condition be investigated to provide
additional information. He pointed to
photographs that illustrate the original mortar, which shows additional shift
has occurred since the spring of 2007.
Mr. Lahey discussed the new plans for the
replacement building, suggesting the owner never intended to tear down the home, but began by
looking at
how to
work with the existing building and incorporating new personal requirements. He noted that study
and analysis showed that the best option would be to demolish the existing
house,
as an addition would be too overpowering. He presented a drawing of the streetscape with the
proposed new construction, noting Lansdowne Avenue has large separation between the
buildings and a wide range of styles.
With respect to the new plans, the driveway is no longer circular, reduced in width, and moved to the north side of the house to minimise tree
disruption. The new design was
presented to the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association Heritage Sub-Committee
and the size of the front patio area will be reduced significantly to increase
the amount of greenspace in the front yard.
With respect to the new design, Mr. Lahey
explained it is a flat roof building with all parking underground. The building mass was broken down and natural,
high-end materials will be employed, including sandstone, bronze window
framing, and rich cedar detailing.
Councillor Holmes requested that the
LACAC Extract of MinutesMinutes be
included in the Agenda and the departmental report. She touched on LACAC’s legislative role in advising Committee and
Council on Heritage Act matters.
The Committee Coordinator was directed to pursue this matterrequest.
Councillor Holmes spoke in support of LACAC’s
recommendations,
as the existing building is an important part of the district. She stated heritage districts contain a variety of
buildings that contribute differently both individually and as a whole to the
heritage significance of the area. .
Councillor Legendre suggested the applicant has
not met the test
for demolition, which is noted in the departmental report:
“Demolition
should be recommended for approval only where the existing building of little
significance and the proposed is sympathetic.”
He noted even the heritage consultant retained by
the proponent stated the building is of moderate to little heritage
value. He expressed support for LACAC’s conclusions and
recommendations. Councillor Legendre
indicated he visited the site on two occasions and complimented Mr. Lahey on the
design of the new building, but stated the existing building should be
preserved.
Councillor Hunter spoke in support of the
departmental recommendation, stating a significant reason to prohibit demolition has not
been made. He refuted the
importance placed to the links to the Wright family and noted the architectural style is prevalent in many parts of
the City. He suggested the new proposal with its striking
design would
add to the character of the district by contributing positively to the eclectic architecture.
Councillor Bellemare also supported the
demolition noting the existing building is an old wood-frame house of little
significance and extraordinary engineering work would be required to preserve
it. He characterised some of the arguments in favour of
preserving the existing building as wishful thinking, second guessing of
professional engineering reports, and personal opinions that come down to a matter
of taste. He stated the existing
building is far from unique and urged the Committee to rely on professional
advice, which says this building is
unsafe and should be demolished.
Councillor Monette said heritage is not limited to
expensive grand homes and opposed the demolition of the existing home. He noted the home is not fancy, but is a part of
the heritage of Rockcliffe Park.
Councillor Feltmate supported the
LACAC recommendation, noting the existing home is an important part of the
district. She stated the district concept must be
respected.
That the Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that Council:
1. Reject the application to
demolish 456 Lansdowne Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District;
2. Reject the application for new
construction in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District according to
final plans received on July 6, 2007.
CARRIED
YEAS (5): D.
Holmes, B. Monette, S. Qadri, P. Hume, P. Feltmate
NAYS (2): M.
Bellemare, G. Hunter
14. ApplIcation
to demolish a portion of 330 Gilmour street, and application for new
construction at 330 gilmour street, a property designated under part v of
the ontario herItage act aS part of the centretown heritage conservation
district
DEMANDE DE
DÉMOLITION D'UNE PARTIE DU 330, RUE GILMOUR, ET DEMANDE DE CONSTRUCTION D'UNE
NOUVELLE INSTALLATION AU 330, RUE GILMOUR, DONT LA PROPRIÉTÉ FAIT L'OBJET DE
L'ARTICLE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE
DE L'ONTARIO, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DU
CENTRE-VILLE
ACXS2007-PTE-APR-0191 Somerset
(14)
Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright, was
present in opposition to the recommendations and asked that the matter be
deferred in order for both the Heritage Act and zoning applications to
be dealt with simultaneously. A letter
from Mr. Cohen to this effect dated November 21, 2007 was received and held on
file with the City Clerk.
Moved by D. Holmes:
That this matter be deferred
to the December 18, 2007 meeting.
CARRIED
That the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that
Council:
1.
Refuse the
application to demolish a portion of 330 Gilmour Street and,
2.
Refuse the application for new construction in a
heritage conservation district at 330 Gilmour Street received by the
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department on October 2, 2007.
3.
That the Centretown Heritage District Study
Guidelines, including the Heritage overlay provisions, be respected in any
rezoning application for this site.
DEFERRED
to December 18
PLanning,
TranSIT and thE EnVIRONMENT
urbanisme, transport en commun et environNement
BUILDING SERVICES
services du bÂtiment
15. SIGN MINOR VARIANCE - 1110 ST LAURENT
BOULEVARD
DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES
ENSEIGNES - 1110, boulevard st-laurent
ACS2007-PTE-BLD-0015 Rideau
-Rockcliffe (13)
Peter Vice, Vice Hunter Labrosse,
was present in support of the recommendation.
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend Council approve the application to permit a roof sign and
animation of a roof sign as detailed in Documents 2 and 3 at 1110 St. Laurent Boulevardlvd.
CARRIED
16. SUMMARY
OF INSPECTIONS 352 SOMERSET STREET WEST
RÉSUMÉ DES INSPECTIONS EFFECTUÉES AU 352, RUE
SOMERSET OUEST
ACS2007-PTE-BLD-0022 somerset (14)
Arlene Gregoire,
Director of Building Code Services and Chief Building Official, provided an update
on the situation involving the building at 352 Somerset Street West, situated
in the Centretown Heritage Conservation District. Ms. Gregoire submitted
copies of recent photographs of the site and noted the following elements:
· On Sunday, November
18, 2007, voids were discovered under the foundation walls and footings, which
necessitated the building to be evacuated immediately as it was deemed to be
unsafe. The Ministry of Labour confirmed the engineer's assessment and issued
an Order closing down the site.
· Building Code Services supported the retention of the building at
the time, in the hope that it could be stabilized.
· On Tuesday, November
20, 2007, the owner's engineer did develop a solution to address the voids with
the use of a crane to provide access to the building without entering it with a
boom guided by a spotter to fill the voids with grout; however due to
circumstances and the first winter snow storm, the work could not be
undertaken.
· Issues with the building
escalated and Building Code Services could no longer wait for work to
eventually proceed to secure and stabilize the building; therefore,
consideration proceeded for the issuance of an Emergency Order to demolish,
which was issued on the afternoon of Friday, November 23, 2007.
· As of that date,
notice was given to the property owner that the City will assume direction of
the demolition, should it not occur by November 30, 2007.
In response to questions from Chair Hume, Stuart
Huxley, Legal Counsel, confirmed that the Chief Building Official issued the
Emergency Order under powers granted under Section 15.10 of the Building
Code Act. The order is to demolish the building on an immediate basis
given the imminent danger Mr. Huxley indicated there is a procedure set
out in that Section that requires the Chief Building Official to make an
application to the Superior Court of Justice, after the demolition has taken
place, to confirm, modify or rescind the Emergency Order and any costs
associated with same. The decision with regard to cost is final and
binding. Responding to a further question from the Chair, Mr. Huxley noted that the decision of
the Chief Building Official cannot be overridden by Committee.
Tim Marc, Senior
Legal Counsel, added that there is a provision within the Act dealing
with appeals of an order, which theoretically might be open to City
Council. In his view, within the current circumstance, it would be most
difficult to succeed on any challenge of the Chief Building Official's Order;
furthermore, City Council cannot direct the Chief Building Official.
David B.
Flemming, President of Heritage Ottawa stated it
was unfortunate that the building will be demolished, as both the owner and
City wanted to pursue its preservation. He suggested the City review its
procedures with respect to this type of situation to ensure heritage buildings
are not lost. He recalled an incident in 2002 on Waller Street where two
buildings unexpectedly collapsed in the middle of the night.
Heather McArthur asked Committee and Council to act to save this
building. She touched on the regrettable nature of the situation
and that earlier orders were not complied with, leading to the unsafe
situation.
In response to
questions from Councillor Holmes with regard to the City's ability to enter the
site to stabilize the building, Ms. Gregoire reiterated that earlier orders
were not complied with. The City could
have entered the building to stabilize it, but such action was impossible due
to the Ministry of Labour Order, which deemed the site unsafe for workers. She stated a number of options were
investigated, including the demolition of the rear portion of the building, but
progressive collapse was a concern as was toppling onto the adjacent building
at 299 Bank Street. Preliminary quotes
were also received for a number of options including securing exterior walls,
which would cost $500,000, as compared to $100,000 for demolition.
Measures to stabilize the building with the use of a crane are difficult due to
the climatic conditions.
Chair Hume
reiterated that the Order has been issued and the Chief Building Official must
move forward.
Tony Kue
Shahrasebi, T.K.S. Holdings Inc., the owner of the
building, spoke of his love for the building and his efforts to preserve
it. He noted he has worked on the building over the last three years.
Derek Crain,
Crain Architects Inc., who is also Chair of the
Somerset Village Business Improvement Association, submitted elevations for the
planned renovation and restoration of the building. He stated all options
should be investigated prior to demolition. He noted the building was built in 1897 and is the finest old
Victorian block in the City today, anchoring the westerly corner of a
streetscape recently reinvested and renewed.
He touched on Mr. Kue’s strong commitment to the building, acknowledging
some mistakes were made. The assistance
of a new engineer has now been enlisted.
With regard to
stabilization, Mr. Crain noted a 13-foot section and three-foot return were
discovered where over-excavation had occurred; however, he contended the
building has stood for 110 years, bearing many snow loads over its long
history. He submitted two engineering
submissions stating possible options for moving forward with stabilizing and
preserving the building (Keller Engineering Associates Inc., dated November 26,
2007 and Lampkin Structural Services Ltd., dated November 27, 2007). He
confirmed these reports were forwarded to the Ministry of Labour earlier this
day. The documents tabled by Mr. Crain
are held on file with the City Clerk.
In closing, Mr.
Crain urged Council and staff to do all that is possible to save this important
heritage property for the community.
Responding to
questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Crain outlined one of the proposed engineering
options to stabilize the building that involves dealing with the south wall by
tunnel or a reinforced steel cage. He
confirmed that efforts are underway to convince the Ministry of Labour to allow
workers to access the site to pursue these new engineering options.
In reply, Ms.
Gregoire indicated she had not seen the documents recently submitted and would
investigate them within the delay provided to cut services prior to
demolition. She explained that the Emergency Order was arrived at after expert
review within the Office of the Chief Building Official, as well as third party
consultants.
Councillor Harder
voiced her objection to the holdup in dealing with the building and urged that
no further delays occur. She noted the impact to area businesses and the
costs associated with re-routing OC Transpo routes and street closures.
Ms. Gregoire
reiterated that she would review the new information but act expeditiously to
resolve this issue.
That the Planning and Environment
Committee receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
PLANNING
URBANISME
17. DEMOLITION
CONTROL - 999 MERIVALE ROAD
RÉGLEMENTATION DES DÉMOLITIONS – 999, CHEMIN
MERIVALE
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0169 River (16)
That Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve the demolition of a two-storey, six unit, rental
apartment building that has taken place at 999 Merivale Road and impose the
following conditions:
1. The Owner shall be required to submit
to the Director of Planning and the Director of Building Services, a Record of
Site Condition (RSC) completed in accordance with the O.Reg. 153/04 and
acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment, confirming that all or part of
the site will be suitable for the proposed use in accordance with O.Reg.
153/04, as detailed in Document 1.
2. That a replacement building for 999
Merivale Road be substantially completed within five years from the date of
this approval and in default thereof, the City Clerk shall enter on the
collectors roll the sum of $10 000.00 for each dwelling unit contained in the
residential property demolished.
3. That until the time of construction of
the replacement building, the Owner shall seed/sod and maintain the property as
open space, not use the property for other interim uses, and maintain the property
in accordance with the Property Standards By-law.
4. That the Owner enter into an agreement
with the City including the forgoing conditions and pay all the costs
associated with the registration of the said agreement. At such time as a building permit is issued
to redevelop the site and the replacement building is in place, the agreement
will become null and void and will be released upon request by the Owner. The Owner shall pay all costs associated
with the registration of the release from this agreement.
5. That the approval be considered null
and void if the provisions of Condition 4 above have not been fulfilled within
six months of the date of approval.
CARRIED
18. CLOSING
OF PORTION OF ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSIONS 6 AND 7 (OTTAWA FRONT),
LEITRIM ROAD
FERMETURE
D’UNE PARTIE DE LA RÉSERVE ROUTIÈRE ENTRE LES CONCESSIONS 6 ET 7 (FAÇADE
RIVIÈRE DES OUTAOUAIS), CHEMIN LEITRIM
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0192 Cumberland
(19)
That the Planning
and Environment Committee consider the objection received to the Road Closing
Application for a portion of the road
allowance within Lots 1 and 2, between Concessions 6 and 7 (Ottawa Front) in
the Geographic Township of Gloucester, as shown in Document 1, and
redelegate approval authority to staff subject to the conditions included in
Document 2.
CARRIED
19. WATER WELLS IN PUBLIC WATER SERVICE AREAS
PUITS DANS LES ZONES DOTÉES DE SERVICES D'EAU PUBLICS
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0069 CITY-WIDE / À l’ÉCHELLE
DE LA VILLE
Councillor
Holmes sought and received assurances that this report did not specifically
relate to the provision of drinking water to unserviced areas.
That the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agricultural and
Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council:
1. Receive this report for
information; and
RECEIVED
2. Direct
staff to consult with stakeholders to explore the benefits of a Management Plan
for Wells in Public Water Service Areas and to report back to Committee on the
recommendations.
CARRIED
Economic and
Environmental Sustainability
viabilité économique et de la
durabilité de l’environnement
20. INVENTORY OF AIR
CONTAMINANTS AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INVENTAIRE
DES POLLUANTS ATMOSPHÉRIQUES ET DES ÉMISSIONS DE GAZ À EFFET DE SERRE
ACS2007-PTE-ECO-0015 CITY-WIDE / À l’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Carol Christensen,
Manager of Environmental Sustainability provided an overview of the
departmental report and mapping exercise in a PowerPoint presentation, which is
held on file with the City Clerk. Birgit
Isernhagen, Planner II, accompanied her.
Ms. Christensen
noted new
corporate targets willwould be brought forward
as the
City has met its 2007 target. She
touched on a number of corporate initiatives that are underway: a
corporate
idling
policy;, testing of smart car and other vehicles that are
more efficient;, green roofs;, replacement with water efficient fixtures;, a
building
energy retrofit program;, and a
corporate
green
procurement policy. At the community
level, a building retrofit program is needed and a detailed report will be
coming forward in the new year with recommendations. Staff will return to Committee and Council
with further recommendations on air quality once the mapping pilot is
completed, which will provide data to inform policy direction and guide air
quality initiatives.
Councillor
Bellemare noted pollution has no borders but a real impact locally. He referred to the report, which explained that half of the
pollution in Ottawa is generated outside the region, from the Ohio Valley and
Southern Ontario. The transportation
sector is a great source of that pollution with an increase in the
usage of larger vehicles than consume more gasoline and emit more emissions. He suggested this information must be
communicated to members of the public, as many of the
solutions are consumer based.
In response to
Councillor Bellemare’s intervention, Ms. Isernhagen explained that
transportation is the main source of PM10 pollutant. With respect to the air quality mapping
project, she advised a one kilometre by one kilometre grid will be generated, which will allow detailed
analysis.
The Committee congratulated
staff on this work and the Internal Anti-Idling Campaign.
That Planning and Environment Committee
and Council receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
MOTION OF WHICH
NOTICE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GIVEN
MOTIONS AYANT FAIT L’OBJET D’UN AVIS PRÉCÉDENT
COUNCILLOR /
CONSEILLER MONETTE
21. Orleans Community Garden – GREEN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM EXCEPTION
JARDIN COMMUNAUTAIRE D'OrlÉans - EXCEPTION au PROGRAMME DE PARTENARIAT ÉCOLOGIQUE
ACS2007-CCS-PEC-0017 ORLÉANS (1)
Written
correspondence dated November 25, 2007 from Joanne Monette, Orléans
Community Garden, was received and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Claude Bertrand was also in
attendance in support of the motion.
WHEREAS the
Jardin Communautaire D’Orléans Community Garden (JCOCG) officially opened on
May 25th, 2007 with contributions from the community and the hard
work of many volunteers;
AND WHEREAS the
JCOCG received approval for a grant from the Green Partnership Pilot Program
(GPPP) for $8333.00;
AND WHEREAS part
of the initial grant was allocated for a sustainable water supply to the site;
AND WHEREAS the
water source from the Grace Presbyterian Church was deemed unfeasible once the
snow had melted and proper study could be made of the site. The first plan was
unworkable due to unforeseen grading issues and the distance from garden site,;
AND WHEREAS the
site is surrounded on all side by 10th line road and St. Joseph and
the escapement from the south side with no city water infrastructure under or
in close proximity to the site;
AND WHEREAS the
Council approved Green Partnership Pilot Program’s Terms and Conditions exclude
funding for capital costs such as assets and equipment, which would include a
well;
AND WHEREAS the
only option for the continued viability and sustainability of the community
garden is a well;
THEREFORE BE IT
BE RESOLVED that due to the unique circumstances and location of the site, that
a one-time only exception to the Green Partnership Pilot Program be approved to
allow funding to build a well, providing that all Terms and Conditions of the
Green Partnership Program are satisfied;
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that, in advance receiving further GPPP grant monies, the JCOCG committee
collect funds for the purpose of paying to decommission the well should the
garden ever be closed;
AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that the well be properly tested for water quality and that access to
the water supply be controlled.
CARRIEd
INFORMATION
PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A. INTERNAL ANTI-IDLING
CAMPAIGN
Deuxième campagne interne pour réduire la marche au
ralenti des véhicules
ACS2007-PTE-ECO-0016 CITY-WIDE
Received
INQUIRIES
DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS
Councillor
Holmes submitted the following written inquiry:
The City
of Ottawa has issued an Order to demolish the building at 352 Somerset Street
West. This Order will include a
condition to provide barriers at the site perimeters in order to prevent
illegal surface
parking from occurring. These
properties are located at a high profile intersection that is at the heart of
the Bank Street shopping area and the Centretown Heritage Conservation
District, and where a vacant lot would be a visual blight in this historic streetscape.
Can staff
ensure that should the demolition occur, the City of Ottawa investigate the
possibility of creating interim site landscaping, such as
benches and planters at t he
Bank and Somerset Street frontages?
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE
DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting
adjourned at 1 p.m.
Original signed
by Original
signed by
Robert
Tremblay Councillor
P. Hume
Committee Coordinator Chair
