MINUTES COMMUNITY PLANNING & HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY APRIL 2, 2015 AT 5:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL

Transcription

1 MINUTES COMMUNITY PLANNING & HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY APRIL 2, 2015 AT 5:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT/REGRETS: STAFF PRESENT: Councillor Scott Greig Councillor Jim McManaman Councillor Arlene Wright Stephanie Barber Richard MacDonald Meghan Lipka Don Knight George Mackowski Graham Jordan Pam Coulter, Director of Community Services Ann Balaban, Manager of Planning & Heritage Sandra Parks, Heritage Planning Coordinator Margaret Potter, Planning Assistant 1. CALL TO ORDER - 5:04 PM 2. ADDITIONAL ITEMS a) Letter from Timur Leckebush, Halton Place Horse & Country regarding Branningham Grove 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF FOR MATTERS ARISING OUT OF MINUTES OR LISTED ON THE AGENDA - None 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES March 5, 2015 Moved by Councillor McManaman; THAT the minutes of the Community Planning and Heritage Advisory Committee meeting held on March 5, 2015 be approved as printed. 5. DEPUTATION a) Christy Hempel regarding Branningham Grove The Chair welcomed Christy Hempel and noted deputations are to be no longer than 10 minutes. Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee Page 1 April 2, 2015

2 Ms. Hempel noted that she had made a presentation to Council on Monday March 30 and did not wish to repeat or waste time. As not all CPHAC members were in attendance at Council and upon suggestion from Committee Ms. Hempel went through the same PowerPoint presentation she had prepared for the March 30 Council meeting. In her presentation and in response to questions Ms. Hempel made a number of points including (in summary): - Identified other developments in the City that create positive change in the cultural or heritage landscape such as The Sydenham condominiums, Woodland Estates subdivision, Greenridge Subdivision, Corbet Place, Shoppers Drug Mart downtown. - Queens Hotel site, still seems to be bothersome and partly because we have to look at the parking lot we got instead, parking does not enhance character of downtown. Identified as another case where the building had been neglected. - Indicated that the owner of Branningham Grove seems to be displaying contempt for the plans and goals of the City by not cleaning up the site when trees were cut down, allowing the building to deteriorate. Believes developers do this on purpose so that the property will look bad and people will lose heart. - Brought up the concept of a genuine builder versus those that put ideas out that appear positive but are not real. Suggested the Russell Bros. site is an example of this. - Reminded the Committee that the City has policies to keep retail in check and she had appealed the rezoning of the property south of Branningham Grove challenging methods used in the retail impact assessments. - Indicated that there is no real reason to remove Branningham Grove for the purposes of big box development. Questioned what the City would get in return. Noted the Ontario Heritage Act encourages adaptive reuse. - In response to question confirmed that she would still wish to save Branningham Grove even separate from the retail market concerns. - The owners themselves completed a heritage study of Branningham Grove which found that the building had heritage merit. - Indicated that it is a bad message to give owners that they can do what they want without regard for City policies. Owners knew when they bought the property that it had an important building for the town and should respect the character of what they purchased. - Believes the owners let the building deteriorate in a strategic and manipulative decision. It is not Council s responsibility if the property owners do not make money. - The reason municipalities were given the ability to designate with an unwilling host is because of neglect. It is a statement of what matters to the community that the building is on the heritage register. The Committee discussed the presentation and also asked questions of staff. The following additional points arose: - Heritage features of the building are exterior. Plumbing and wiring are not heritage features so not concerned if interior of the building is gone. Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee Page 2 April 2, 2015

3 - Adaptive reuse doesn t mean building has to be restored to what it was in 1880, can change the inside. - There is no program under OHA that staff are aware of that gives the City funds to maintain heritage buildings. - There may be funds available should private property owners make application to maintain heritage buildings. - Confirmed that Villarboit does not own the property. At the conclusion of the discussion the Chair thanked Ms. Hempel for her passion and report. 6. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR WHICH DIRECTION OF COMMITTEE IS REQUIRED - None 7. REPORTS AND MATTERS TABLED I) HERITAGE a) Report CS from the Heritage Planning Coordinator regarding Branningham Grove, th Street East Owner s Notice of Intention to Demolish The Heritage Planning Coordinator provided an overview of the report and changes since the last CPHAC meeting. She reminded the Committee that the day of the last meeting a demolition application had been submitted on behalf of the owner (Halton Place Horse & Country Inc.) and Committee requested a new report and for staff to meet with the owner to discuss possible ways to conserve the building. The Heritage Planning Coordinator advised that a meeting took place with staff and the owner on March 18 following which staff sent a letter to the owner outlining the options such as: Mindful salvage, gatehouse feature option Interpretive plaques or panels for future development Careful salvage perhaps for Grey Roots museum The Heritage Planning Coordinator then drew Committee s attention to the letter received from Timur Leckebusch which is listed as an additional item and provides an idea of the owners thoughts. She also noted that Louis Gavaris was in attendance and is working with Mr. Leckebusch. She then reminded the Committee that the listing of the property on the heritage register doesn t give the City any formal way to require the owner to do any of the things noted in his letter. The Heritage Planning Coordinator advised the Committee has three (3) options to consider in their recommendation to Council: 1) Request further info. As requested, staff did meet with the agent for the owner and a letter was received from Timur Leckebusch. 2) Receive notice and do nothing else. Following the 60 days notice period the owner may carry on with the demolition permit application process and there would be no further requirement to consider the Ontario Heritage Act. 3) Recommend intention to designate process be started. Then any demolition applications would be taken off the table, become null and void. Under this process staff would: Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee Page 3 April 2, 2015

4 a. serve a notice of intention to designate on the owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, plus publish it in the local newspaper; b. objection to the designation may be filed with the Clerk within 30 days after the date of publication of the newspaper notice; c. if objections to designation are received, the matter is referred to the Conservation Review Board who conducts a hearing and advises Council of its findings. Council makes the final determination; and d. Council may then enact a by-law to designate the property and the bylaw is registered against title. Notice is again given to the owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper. The Heritage Planning Co-ordinator cautioned, once designated, the City can t force the owner to take care of or fix the building, other than through the property standards bylaw under which officers have already gone out and boarded up the building. Once designated, any proposed alteration to the exterior would have to come through the City and either staff can approve or it would have to go to Council and they could decide. If demolition application were submitted after designation and Council denied it, owner could appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board and request approval of demolition permit. The decision of the Ontario Municipal Board would be binding. The Committee discussed the report and asked questions of staff and Mr. Gavaris. The following points were made: - Mr. Gavaris confirmed that he was not involved in the process to list the property on the heritage register. He advised that when he sold the property originally to Halton Place Horse and Country there was nothing indicating heritage register or designation, he sold it in good faith with no strings attached. Now he is acting as an agent and minority shareholder. - Staff indicated that the Gavaris family owns other designated properties and takes very good care of them and is will aware of what owning a designated property means. The Branningham Grove property was placed on the heritage register after Mr. Gavaris sold the property. - There are no development proposals that staff are aware of for the lands at this time. - It was reported that the Chief Building Official has indicated no concerns with the structural integrity of the building at this time. - Right before the Queen s Hotel was demolished the owner of that building had assured the City that they would do certain things that they did not do and the City had no teeth to require them to. - If Committee chooses to do nothing, it will be incumbent on the Chief Building Official to issue the demolition permit, once he receives the information still required. - The only way to stop the clock is to issue an intention to designate and that could allow staff time to negotiate further with the owner. - Staff can look into any authority under the Municipal Act to enter into an agreement with the owner. Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee Page 4 April 2, 2015

5 - In the St. Mary s High School example, the City did issue intent to designate and that was appealed to the Conservation Review Board and through a number of conference call meetings came to an agreement and that became part of the site plan approval process, and the site plan agreement was registered under the authority of the Planning Act. - If the building were designated, the Property Standards By-law remains the only tool to request the owner to keep the building in a safe condition. The City has been out to the property around 13 times just to board up the building and check on everything, a least every 3 months. - Mr. Gavaris indicated the current listing price for the property is less than he paid for it in 1977, as the listing agent he has received no firm offer. The holding is about 7.8 acres in 4 parcels. - Even when a property is designated the option to demolish still exists. - There is a strong argument and agreement that Branningham Grove has significant heritage value as indicated in the reports and since they were written nothing has changed except that didn t designate then because had a commitment from the owner to take care of the building. - The By-law Enforcement Division has not withdrawn their application to demolish the building, it is still incomplete. The demotion permit application was motivated by an Order to repair or demolish. - If Committee recommended intention to designate there would still be another debate at Council before a final decision. - In a business sense, little value to repair due to extreme cost, the scenery has changed, the building is a shadow of itself. It is somewhat a victim of its location. - The submission by Aly Boltman was quoted: We are not meeting goals that have been identified by experts around the globe as crucial for healthy civic identities, for successful tourism, for a sense of pride and for overall prosperity. We are losing our essential uniqueness, our sense of place and our history. - Last thing desired is to see a plaque with information about what was once there. - If Council considers an intention to demolish on April 13 th, then the earliest staff could send notice in the mail to the owner is April 14 th and then, 30 days would be May 14 th. If the owner appeals to the Conservation Review Board usually they attempt conference call first to negotiate before going to a full hearing. That would be opportunity to possibly negotiate, if some authority found, to enter into an agreement with the owner. Moved by Richard MacDonald; THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS respecting Branningham Grove, th Street East Owner s Notice of Intent to Demolish, the Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee recommends that Council issue a Notice of Intention to Designate Branningham Grove under the Ontario Heritage Act. Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee Page 5 April 2, 2015

6 As representatives of the Casero application were in attendance, the Committee agreed to hear item IIc at this time. b) Report CS from the Heritage Planning Coordinator regarding Heritage Property Tax Relief Program Tax Refund Applications The Heritage Planning Coordinator summarized the report. The heritage properties qualify for more refund than the dollar amount of the budget so the refunds will be prorated. In future, Council could consider increasing the budget for heritage property tax relief so that next year the full qualifying amount could be paid out. Something the City can do to help owners take care of their buildings, recognizing heritage buildings can cost a little more to maintain. Moved by Councillor Wright; II) That in consideration of Staff Report CS respecting Heritage Property Tax Relief Program - Tax Refund Applications, the Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee recommends Financial Services Department Staff process the refunds in accordance with the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program of the Community Improvement Plan. GENERAL PLANNING a) Report CS from the Director of Community Services regarding First Friday/Saturday Initiative Request Regarding Outdoor Patio and Street Furniture The Director of Community Services advised the Committee that the First Friday s event leading up to Christmas was so successful that the Mayor s office asked if it would be possible to extend that from May through October. The Director of Community Services outlined the regulatory framework of: Streets By-law Sidewalk and Patio Design Guidelines (intended to work with zoning) Zoning By-law The Director of Community Services drew the Committee s attention to the second attachment to her report identifying some areas of the DIA where patios would not be permitted due to proximity to residential areas. She added that if alcohol is to be served that the AGCO would require a fence and that would be a separate process of approval. The Director of Community Services noted that the idea is supported by the Strategic Plan, the Official Plan, the Downtown and Harbour Master Plan, as it will make the downtown vibrant. To make the process easy, a checklist application has been prepared, if an applicant can check yes to all of the questions, then it can proceed. It is anticipated that the event would be re-evaluated after Thanksgiving. The Director of Community Services indicated that to educate DIA members of the idea and process there is an idea to hold a breakfast workshop. Moved by Meghan Lipka; THAT in consideration of Staff Report CS , Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee recommend Council: Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee Page 6 April 2, 2015

7 1) approve the First Friday/Saturday initiative within the DI Area as a trial in 2015 from May 1 to October 15, to allow sidewalk patios and street furniture in accordance with the Streets Bylaw, Street Furniture & Sidewalk patio Design Guidelines and the City's Zoning Bylaw; 2) approve no fee for this trial initiative; 3) require an insurance certificate naming the City as an additional insured, and further THAT the initiative be reviewed following the first trial year. b) Report CS from the Planning Technician regarding Facade and Structural Improvement Program Application th St W - Former Atkins The Manager of Planning & Heritage provided a brief PowerPoint presentation describing the request for a double facade application to repair and repoint brickwork indicating as the property is on the heritage register it should be given highest priority as to maintain the safety and integrity of the building and staff recommend approval. The Committee discussed the application and it was confirmed that the previous facade grant for the property was to repair the front porch and gable and curtain wall at the back in This application is to make minor repairs to brick and 2 chimneys and are really structural. The total project estimate would result in a grant of around $2, Moved by Councillor McManaman; That in consideration of Staff Report CS respecting a Facade and Structural Improvement Program Application for a double facade grant (50% of eligible project costs, up to $7,500) by Khrys Timmerman for work to be completed at th St W, staff recommend the Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee approve the application subject to the following conditions: a) Execution of a commitment agreement with the City; b) That approval is contingent upon budget allocation to the Facade and Structural Improvement Program and is not guaranteed; c) That work must be completed on or before April 30, 2016; d) That the project will be carried out under a Building Permit and/or Heritage Permit and sign permit, if required, prior to the commencement of any work, and any other required permits, with regular inspection from the City s Building Inspector and/or the Heritage Planning Co-ordinator; e) That a Street Occupation Permit may be required; f) That upon completion of the project and prior to the grant being given, the Planning Division will ensure that there are no outstanding taxes on the property. g) That building permit/heritage permit/sign permit fees be waived. Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee Page 7 April 2, 2015

8 c) Report CS from the Planning Technician regarding Facade and Structural Improvement Program Application rd Ave E - Casero This item was dealt with directly after the report on Branningham Grove. The Manager of Planning & Heritage provided a brief PowerPoint presentation describing the request and showing historic photographs and proposed illustrations. She described the application to install overhead doors, new lighting, new fascia and pylon signage. She indicated that stucco not supportable as an all over treatment, but noted they are not placing it over original brick. The garage door is in keeping with what is shown in the historic photo of Dandy Bread, reminiscent of years gone by and the stucco is for Mexican theme. The Manager of Planning & Heritage recommended approval. The Committee discussed the proposal and it was indicated by the owner that they are in negotiations with the businesses on either side of the lane to share signage. Moved by Councillor Wright; That in consideration of Staff Report CS respecting a Facade and Structural Improvement Program Application for a single facade grant (33% of eligible project costs, up to $5,000) by Casero Kitchen Table (Beth Milne) for work to be completed at 946 3rd Ave East, staff recommend the Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee approve the application subject to the following conditions: a) Execution of a commitment agreement with the City; b) That approval is contingent upon budget allocation to the Facade and Structural Improvement Program and is not guaranteed; c) That work must be completed on or before January 31, 2016; d) That the project will be carried out under a Building Permit and/or Heritage Permit and sign permit, if required, prior to the commencement of any work, and any other required permits, with regular inspection from the City s Building Inspector and/or the Heritage Planning Coordinator; e) That a Street Occupation Permit may be required; f) That a Business License is required; g) That upon completion of the project and prior to the grant being given, the Planning Division will ensure that there are no outstanding taxes on the property. h) That building permit/heritage permit/sign permit fees be waived. 8. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION ONLY Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee Page 8 April 2, 2015

9 The Committee agreed to add the additional item to the list of correspondence and deal with all items together. a) Report from Christy Hempel (2010) b) Presentation by Christy Hempel regarding Branningham Grove c) 2009 Deputation by Aly Boltman regarding Branningham Grove d) 2015 Deputation by Aly Boltman regarding Branningham Grove e) Correspondence from Melissa Monk regarding Branningham Grove f) March 2015 Building Statistics g) Letter from Timur Leckebush, Halton Place Horse & Country regarding Branningham Grove Moved by Councillor Wright; THAT the Community Planning and Heritage Advisory Committee receive items 8a) 8g) for information. 9. OTHER BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT 6:40 Committee discussed the future joint meeting with Operations Advisory Committee and requested it be moved to May. The Committee requested that the May meeting be held on May 6th at 5:00 PM as the Warden s Forum is on May 7th. Community Planning & Heritage Advisory Committee Page 9 April 2, 2015