Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage Kitchener - 2001-02-06HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 2001CITY OF KITCHENER Heritage Kitchener met this date in special session, chaired by Councillor M. Galloway, commencing at 5:07 p.m., with the following members present: Ms. G. Engel, Ms. P. Wagner and Messrs. P. Bufe, R. Green, E. Lucy, W. Stauch and J. Clinckett. Others Present:Ms. L. Marshall, Ms. D. Gilchrist and Messrs. L. Masseo and L. Bensason. 1 .WYLDWOOD SUBDIVISION – UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT – ALTERATION APPLICATION FOR VISUAL EASEMENT The purpose of this special meeting was to allow the Committee adequate time to hear delegations and to review background material leading to the Alteration Application submitted by Monarch Construction concerning their proposal to alter the depth of the visual easement from that required in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan.The location of the proposed easement would not be at the boundary of the District but would be located inside the boundary of the District, at the rear of the lots proposed for Ayres Court and between the rear of the lots for Buerkle Court and the property municipally known as 37 Oregon Drive. The following appeared as delegations: Mr. Glen Scheels, Green Scheels Pidgeon, representing Monarch Construction; Mr. and Mrs. Paul Nequest, 37 Oregon Drive; Mr. David Jones, representing the Society for the Preservation of Upper Doon and Mr. Richard Haalboom, 1165 Doon Village Road. Mr. L. Bensason provided the Committee members with the following background information: 1) an extract from the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan; 2) an extract from the Wyldwoods Neighbourhood Heritage Impact Assessment, dated November 1966 and revised June 1997; 3) an extract from an addendum to the Wyldwood Neighbourhood Heritage Impact Assessment dated December 22, 1997; 4) an extract from the Heritage Kitchener minutes of July 4, 1997; 5) a letter, dated December 20, 2000, from Mr. G. Scheels, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to Mr. L. Bensason, attached to which was a copy of the Alteration Application of Monarch Construction requesting permission to vary the depth of the required 50 foot visual easement; 6) a letter, dated January 8, 2001, from Shirley and Paul Nequest to Mr. G. Scheels; 7) a letter, dated January 10, 2001, from Mr. G. Scheels to Shirley and Paul Nequest, in response to their letter dated January 8, 2001; 8) a written submission, dated January 11, 2001, from Mr. Richard Haalboom to Mr. L. Bensason; 9) a letter, dated January 26, 2001, from Mr. L. Bensason to Mr. R. Haalboom in response to his written submission dated January 11, 2001; 10) a copy of Business and Planning Services Department report BPS-01-016, (revised), dated January 29, 2001; 11) an extract from “Ontario’s Heritage Conservation District Guidelines”, dated 1992, produced by the Ministry of Culture and Communications. The Committee members were also provided with a further written submission from Mr. R. Haalboom, dated Monday, February 5, 2001. Referring to the background material noted above, Mr. Bensason displayed the diagram contained in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan, pointing out that the plan shows a “visual easement as 50 feet wide…” adjacent to Oregon Drive. He then referred to 1 .WYLDWOOD SUBDIVISION – UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT – HERITAGE KITCHENER FEBRUARY 6, 2001- 9 -CITY OF KITCHENER ALTERATION APPLICATION FOR VISUAL EASEMENT (CONT’D) Section 5.13.3 policies, specifically ii) of that Section which states that “Oregon Drive shall become a cul-de-sac” and that up to 10 residential lots may be provided on that cul-de-sac. Also displayed by Mr. Bensason was a map, being Page 62 of the Plan, showing Oregon Drive as a cul-de-sac. Mr. Bensason then explained that in approximately 1995 Monarch Construction submitted their original application for a Plan of Subdivision. As part of the review of the application, the Department of Business and Planning Services determined that a Heritage Impact Assessment would be a requirement of Draft Plan approval; the purpose of the assessment being to identify the interface between the subdivision and Oregon Drive. Mr. Bensason then referred to the extract from the Wyldwoods Neighbourhood Heritage Impact Assessment, distributed this date, and read Section 4.3 “Development Policies” and displayed a copy of Figure 4.2 from the assessment showing that 7 lots are proposed for the cul-de-sac rather than the maximum of 10 provided for in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Mr. Bensason also read the extract from the addendum to the Heritage Impact Assessment, specifically Section 5.5 “Oregon Drive”. Mr. Bensason reminded the Committee that the Heritage Impact Assessment and the Draft Plan of Subdivision were reviewed by this Committee, and in this regard referred the Committee to the extract of its July 4, 1997 minutes and its resolution to endorse the Wyldwood Heritage Impact Assessment. Next Mr. Bensason referred to Business and Planning Services Department report BPS-01-016, dated January 29, 2001, revising staff report PD 97/124, dated December 23, 1997, by rescinding any apparent approval to revise the boundary of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District. Staff report BPS-01-016 explained that the previous staff report had the effect of approving the revision to the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District boundary; however, it has recently been noted that a revision to the District boundary legally requires an amendment to the designating by- law and approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. Further, the report recommends the deletion of Section 4.2 “Heritage Conservation District Plan Boundaries” on page 21 of the Wyldwoods Neighbourhood Heritage Impact Assessment and Section 5.5.3 on page 4 of the Addendum Report, from the approval granted in PD 97/124. Mr. Bensason advised that staff are taking the position that the visual easement required in the District Plan is a structure; consequently, an application under the Ontario Heritage Act is required, and is before the Committee this date. He pointed out that Monarch Construction is proposing to vary the width of the easement from 35’ – 75’ rather than maintaining a consistent width of 50 feet required in the District Plan policies. The only place where a consistent 50’ width is proposed is adjacent to 37 Oregon Drive, and in this regard he referred to the two pieces of correspondence between Mr. G. Scheels and Shirley and Paul Nequest. Mr. Bensason noted that new development will be located on both sides of the visual easement, save for in the area of the Nequest’s property. Mr. Bensason continued by referring to the written submission of Mr. Richard Haalboom, dated January 11, 2001, which questions the change in the Heritage Conservation District boundary in the area of the visual easement and the City’s ability to consider an alteration to the width of the visual easement as identified in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan. In referring to his letter of response to Mr. R. Haalboom, Mr. Bensason noted for the Committee that a Heritage Conservation District does not represent a freeze on development. Further, in the same way that this Committee considers alteration applications regarding building materials for designated buildings, so too can it consider varying the width for this visual easement. Upon questioning by Mr. E. Lucy, Mr. Bensason advised that a change in the District boundary was approved by approving the Heritage Impact Assessment and its addendum; however, through Business and Planning Services Department report BPS-01-016, that approval has been rescinded. Mr. Bensason next referred to the alteration application thought to be required for those lots on proposed Buerkle Court, partially and/or fully located within the boundary of the Upper Doon 1 .WYLDWOOD SUBDIVISION – UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT – ALTERATION APPLICATION FOR VISUAL EASEMENT (CONT’D) HERITAGE KITCHENER FEBRUARY 6, 2001- 10 -CITY OF KITCHENER Heritage Conservation District. He referred to the extract from “Ontario’s Heritage Conservation District Guidelines”, advising that matters of land use cannot be regulated through the Ontario Heritage Act, but must be regulated through the Planning Act. Consequently, no alteration application under the Ontario Heritage Act is required for the lots on Buerkle Court, which are located in the District; although staff originally thought such an application was required. As noted in the “ Ontario’s Heritage Conservation District Guidelines” the municipality must enforce land use issues in the District by changing its land use documents. In the case of the lots on Buerkle Court a Draft Plan of Subdivision, under the Planning Act, has been submitted. Mr. Bensason noted that this Plan of Subdivision was presented to Heritage Kitchener and this Committee had no objections to the plan. The only application before this Committee today is the Alteration Application requesting a variation in the width of the visual easement required by the policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Councillor M. Galloway asked Mr. Bensason to briefly summarize Mr. Haalboom’s concerns and staff’s recommendation. Mr. Bensason first identified the concerns of Shirley and Paul Nequest, as explained in their letter of January 8, 2001 being: the portion of the visual easement adjacent to their property, servicing and any impact the subdivision may have on their well, and access to their property from Oregon Drive. Mr. Haalboom interjected that the City does not have the right to take away the Nequest’s property’s frontage on a public street. He stated that the Nequest’s property currently has frontage on a public street and as evidence, submitted an extract from a reference plan. He also advised that Monarch Construction has agreed to provide the Nequests with a driveway; however, the Nequest’s have concerns about the driveway in relation to existing trees in their front yard. Mr. Bensason emphasized that Monarch Construction is proposing to meet the intent of the Heritage Conservation District Plan policies, and provided the visual easement has a width of 50 feet where the new development meets the old development, then staff will be supportive of the Alteration Application. Ms. S. Nequest addressed the Committee advising that they always thought they had frontage on a public street. In response to a question from Councillor Galloway, Ms. Nequest advised that they are not entirely satisfied with Monarch Construction’s proposal for a driveway and wish to discuss the matter further. Mr. R. Haalboom spoke of a City widening on Oregon Drive adjacent to the Nequest property, and also advised that their deed states that they have a right-of-way up to their property which cannot be taken away. Mr. J. Clinckett questioned the location of the visual easement in relation to the Nequest’s property and was advised that it would be located on the subdivision lands and assured through a Conservation Easement Agreement. Councillor Galloway questioned whether Monarch is willing to keep the Nequest’s existing right-of- way and was advised by Mr. G. Scheels that they can continue to use it as long as it remains. With the aid of an overhead projector, Mr. Scheels displayed a map of the area of Oregon Drive and the Nequest property, and indicated the location of the proposed driveway to give them access to Oregon Drive. He advised that detailed plans for the driveway will be designed in the spring, and he believed that they could develop a design that will be acceptable to the Nequests. Coucillor Galloway questioned the Nequest’s concern about services and Mr. Scheels responded that the Public Works Department wants full municipal services in this area. He advised that Monarch Construction will bring municipal services from Buerkle Court to Ayres Court, and other properties in the area can connect to the sewer if they choose. He pointed out that the Nequests are on a private well, and Monarch Construction is obliged to monitor their well. If any problems arise with the well due to the new development, Monarch must pay the costs to connect their property to municipal water. Mr. D. Jones, 1150 Doon Village Road, pointed out that his property also has a private well. Mr. L. Masseo read from the Draft Subdivision Agreement concerning Monarch’s obligation to monitor wells in the area, which did not include Mr. Jones’ property as it is on the opposite side of Doon Village Road. 1 .WYLDWOOD SUBDIVISION – UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT – ALTERATION APPLICATION FOR VISUAL EASEMENT (CONT’D) HERITAGE KITCHENER FEBRUARY 6, 2001- 11 -CITY OF KITCHENER Mr. Jones then questioned the proposed location for the visual easement, which he thought was to be coincident with the District boundary. Councillor Galloway questioned what effect the location of the visual easement will have on Mr. Jones, who responded that the subdivision will bring additional traffic to the village and bring more development to the District which will affect the quality of life in the village. Councillor Galloway, staff and Mr. Scheels each advised of the construction of the Doon Village Road diversion as a means of keeping excess traffic off Doon Village Road. Mr. P. Bufe advised that he had never understood that the Heritage Impact Assessment would change the boundary of the District. He also advised of his concern that the visual easement should be coincident with the District boundary. Mr. Bensason responded that the District plan is not clear about the visual easement and the lots on Oregon Drive; however, the map in the District plan shows Oregon Drive as a cul-de-sac and also shows that the visual easement is not coincident with the District boundary. He stated that, in the Heritage Impact Assessment, the buffer is still being maintained. Ms. P. Wagner questioned the interpretation of trees as a structure and was advised by Mr. Bensason that it is looked upon as a living fence. Ms. Wagner then read from some sub-committee minutes from approximately 4 years ago questioning why Heritage Kitchener had not been informed of the process undertaken in regards to this subdivision before now. Mr. Scheels explained the process undertaken for this subdivision, and the fact that nothing in the way of detailed drawings had been done until recently. Councillor M. Galloway stated that the Committee should focus on the issues for which it is responsible. In this regard, Mr. Bensason clarified that the purpose of this meeting is to hear the delegations and clarify the information presented. He advised that at the meeting of February 9, 2001, this Committee will be asked to make a recommendation on the Alteration Application of Monarch Construction to vary the width of the visual easement. Councillor Galloway noted his concern for the issues that the Nequest’s had addressed but pointed out that they are not the responsibility of this Committee. He then offered to meet with the Nequest’s at another time to help them with their concerns. Mr. P. Bufe stated that Heritage Kitchener should also be concerned about the misinterpretation of the Heritage Conservation District Boundary and the new lots within the District. Councillor Galloway pointed out that Heritage Kitchener previously agreed to the Heritage Impact Assessment and the Plan of Subdivision and that the Plan of Subdivision has already been draft approved by Council. Mr. Bensason again referred to the maps in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan noting that there will be no access through the District to the subdivision. He also clarified that Ayres Court is physically part of the District and Buerkle Court is not. Mr. E. Lucy commented that he thought previous negotiations had made gains for the village. He stated that the most important issue was whether Oregon Drive would be an access route to the new subdivision. He advised that creation of the new boundary gave the village a good form of protection, and there was some consciousness that the boundary was being protected. Mr. W. Stauch left the meeting at this time. Mr. R. Haalboom addressed the Committee advising that the District Plan is a by-law of the City, having a metes and bounds description, approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr. Haalboom then reviewed timing for planning documents for this area, including the Community Plan and subsequent Heritage Conservation District Plan. He stated that the Heritage Conservation District boundary line was never explained to Heritage Kitchener or to Council when the subdivision was approved and that the current Plan of Subdivision has 20 lots in the District. Mr. Haalboom maintained that the Ontario Heritage Act prevails over other Acts. Mr. Bensason advised that the Ontario Heritage Act only requires an application when altering or demolishing a building, not for land use which must be dealt with under the Planning Act. 1 .WYLDWOOD SUBDIVISION – UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT – ALTERATION APPLICATION FOR VISUAL EASEMENT (CONT’D) HERITAGE KITCHENER FEBRUARY 6, 2001- 12 -CITY OF KITCHENER Mr. Bufe stated that this Committee was never asked to comment on the Plan of Subdivision in relation to the policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Mr. Haalboom stated that at the time of creation of the additional lots, the City did not take into consideration the contents of the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Mr. Bensason pointed out an earlier comment made by Mr. E. Lucy that consideration of the Heritage Conservation policies had taken place. Mr. Haalboom advised that through the period 1978-1988 many meetings took place between the City and residents resulting in an agreement that Doon Village Road would not be used as a collector road, and the other result was the establishment of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District and Plan. He stated that the location of the visual easement had been established based on incorrect information. Councillor M. Galloway left the meeting at this time and Ms. P. Wagner assumed the Chair. Mr. G. Scheels advised that he had no further comments to make with respect to the boundary. He advised that there has been a lot of discussion concerning the tangible edges of the village and the location of the visual boundary. He pointed out that 7 new lots are proposed in the area of the village which meet the District requirements. With respect to the visual easement, Mr. Scheels stated that Monarch could provide a straight 50 foot wide easement; however, he thought an undulating design to be more natural and attractive. Such a design also provides a usable open area in the backyards of the 7 lots proposed for Ayres Court. Ms. L. Marshall advised that the by-law to designate a heritage conservation district is approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. This approval extends to the boundary of the district and does not take any other matters into consideration. Mr. Haalboom stated that the by-law approves all aspects of the plan. He asked the Committee not to minimize the legal effect of what is available to protect the District, as there is a plan which should be adhered to with a boundary that is fixed. When questioned by Ms. P. Wagner concerning the boundary, Ms. Marshall stated that the boundary is as designated in the by-law. Mr. L. Masseo advised the Committee that at the time Monarch Construction submitted their application for a Plan of Subdivision staff required them to deal with the heritage issues as they understood them. Accordingly, staff thought they were upholding the requirements of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan. Mr. Haalboom suggested that staff never, not through the whole process, properly considered the actual location of the boundary of the District. Mr. Bufe questioned Mr. Bensason as to whether staff assumed the boundary of the District had been changed to the location being proposed for the visual easement. Mr. Bensason advised that staff had considered the proper boundary for the District and that when he wrote the terms of reference for the Heritage Impact Assessment, he clearly identified the boundary of the District. 2. ADJOURNMENT On a motion, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Dianne H. Gilchrist Committee Administrator