Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-012-06 CWilJgtDn REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, February 6, 2006 Report #: PSD-012-06 File #: PLN 34.2.4.1 By-law #: 6PA 'D<'i(}. (J (') PROPOSED BOWMANVILLE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Subject: RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-012-06 be received; 2. THAT the draft Bowmanville Heritage Conservation District Plan be adopted as the Old Bowmanville (North Ward) Heritage Guidelines for use as a resource document by residents; 3. THAT a Beech Avenue Heritage Conservation District Plan be drafted to reflect the request of the Beech Avenue residents for designation of a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (Attachment 2); 4. THAT the Beech Avenue Heritage Conservation District By-law be adopted when the specific Beech Avenue Heritage Conservation District Plan has been drafted; 5. THAT the Beech Avenue Heritage Conservation District be reviewed approximately three years after it comes into force; and 6. THAT any interested parties or delegation be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: D v' . Crome, MCIP, R.P.P. Dire or of Planning Services Reviewed by: (J~ -S t. fl.-c.. Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer IL/FLlDJC/df 27 January 2006 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 REPORT NO.: PSD-012-06 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 In May of 2002 Report PSD-048-02 was presented to Council for information purposes explaining the steps and procedures involved in designating the area bounded by Concession, Wellington and Liberty as a Heritage Conservation District (HCD) under the Ontario Heritage Act. An open house was held in June 2002 to obtain the input of the affected property owners and a questionnaire was distributed as well as a request for volunteers to sit on a Heritage Conservation District Steering Committee. A newsletter summarizing the process was distributed to all of the property owners, it contained a notice that a report and study area by-law would be presented to Council in September. 1.2 On September 30th, 2002 Council approved initiation of a study pursuant to Section 40 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act for a heritage conservation district. A study area By-law 2002-150 was passed. The study was to proceed in two phases, the first being the preparation of a HDC Background Study, and the second being the preparation of a HCD Plan. The terms of reference for the Study included establishing a District Steering Committee, which was formed in December of 2002 and has assisted with the proposed district since that time. 1.3 In May of 2004 Council accepted the Phase 1 Study, which detailed the heritage character of the area on a street by street basis, and approved proceeding with Phase 2 of the study which has been the development of the HCD Plan and accompanying architectural guidelines. 1.4 The residents and community have been kept informed of the proposed district's progress. A total of three newsletters have been issued, a number of open houses have been held and the draft guidelines were distributed to all residents in September of 2005. A public meeting on the proposed HCD Plan was held on October 3rd, 2005. 2.0 HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PROPOSAL(S) 2.1 The District Steering Committee have been intimately involved in the preparation of this HCD Plan and guidelines. While there is not consensus among the committee on how implementation should occur, they generally agree that the recommended architectural guidelines are a good tool for the residents and should be adopted as a resource document. 2.2 Council held a public meeting regarding the alternatives, guidelines and to hear resident's comments on October 3, 2005. At the public meeting a proposal was brought forward by the District Steering Committee that recommended an educational programme based on the guidelines be undertaken by a number of interested groups and Municipal staff in lieu of designation (Attachment 1). REPORT NO.: PSD-012-06 PAGE 3 2.3 Following the October public meeting, staff met with a number of stakeholder groups to obtain their feedback on the educational programme proposal and received many comments from residents of the area. The concept of an educational program is expanded upon in Section 5 of this report. 2.4 Since the public meeting the residents of Beech Avenue have separately submitted a request that their block be designated as a Heritage Conservation District. This request is based on their understanding of the benefits of a HCD, the architectural guidelines and heritage permit process set out in the HCD Plan. Attachment 2 requests that the block be designated with a three year pilot timeframe. 3.0 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED HERITAGE DISTRICT PLAN 3.1 The Bowmanville Heritage Conservation District Plan was prepared based on designation of the neighbourhood as a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. While the Ontario Heritage Act was amended in April of 2005, staff have had the guidelines reviewed by provincial staff and are confident that the draft HCD plan meets the requirements of the Act. 3.2 Based on the planning tools available under the laws of Ontario there are minimal alternatives to district designation for heritage conservation. None of the alternatives provide the same degree of heritage conservation as designation. An analysis of the different planning tools available and a critique of their applicability to accomplishing the goal of heritage conservation is included in the HCD plan as Appendix 8. Some residents of the Old Bowmanville area would prefer to take the chance that existing planning regulations in place will provide adequate protection for the neighbourhood. Staff disagree. 3.3 Three basic alternatives for implementation where presented to the neighbourhood and public during the meeting last fall. The different alternatives were: 1) Status quo and recommended architectural guidelines 2) Demolition control and recommended architectural guidelines 3) Heritage conservation designation. The response from the residents is mixed however it does favour either status quo (as noted in 3.2) or Heritage Conservation District designation. 3.4 The status quo alternative does not protect the area from demolition of any of the buildings. In addition, any planning applications, such as minor variances, consents (e.g. severances) and rezoning will not be required to conform to the HCD Plan and its guidelines. REPORT NO.: PSD-012-06 PAGE 4 3.5 Some residents prefer the Heritage Conservation District designation as do staff. It would provide the greatest certainty for managing change within the neighbourhood. 3.6 Through the adoption of the "Old Bowmanville Neighbourhood: Streetscape & Infrastructure Implementation Plan, 2001" the Municipality previously committed to redevelopment of the streets in character with the area; and this continues to be of great importance to the majority of residents. 3.7 Many of the comments received from the residents and public during the review process reflect the misinformation that circulated among the residents during the study process. Regardless of the investigation and information provided by staff and residents whom had carried out research on their own accord, some residents continue to oppose designation. Many residents voiced concern that some of the older residents need a tangible example of designation. 3.8 The LACAC at their meeting of December 14th, 2005 passed a resolution (Attachment 3) which endorsed the designation of a pilot area and identified a number of other matters, mostly operational aspects of a Heritage Conservation District area that will have to be addressed at the time of implementation. The views of the LACAC with respect to the Heritage Conservation District Plan were not reflective of the presentation by its Chair at the October 11 th, 2005 Council Meeting. 4.0 PILOT AREA PROPOSAL 4.1 Residents of the Beech Avenue block have come forward and offered to act as a pilot area, to show the benefits of a Heritage Conservation District. This would assist with the implementation of a heritage permit process, development of a review committee and other operational aspects of a Heritage Conservation District. 4.2 The Beech Avenue block (Attachment 4) has two homes designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, two homes that are primary examples of their architectural style in Clarington, six homes that are secondary examples of their architectural style and three homes of heritage merit. In addition it has the Clarington Beech Centre, historically known as Rathskamory, which was formerly the estate of Dr. George Humphrey Low. The diversity of housing stock on the block, from large estate homes to double houses is one of the specific characteristics and charm of the Old Bowmanville Neighbourhood. 4.3 The Beech Avenue block is a good example as it has a number of landscape features that are to be protected under the streetscape and infrastructure plan when the street is redeveloped (anticipated in the next few years) and it also commits the Municipality to following the guidelines for its own property (the REPORT NO.: PSD-012-06 PAGE 5 Clarington Beech Centre). These landscape features, street trees and streetscape elements are ideally suited to be protected as part of a HCD. 4.4 As a "pilot" for the Heritage Conservation District the Beech Avenue block is well- suited to test out how the implementation details will work. Heritage Permits are only required when a proposed alteration would be visible from the street. Any alteration to the interior of a building, unless it is individually designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, would not require a heritage permit. 4.5 The Ontario Heritage Act does not provide for temporary designation. As a result, Council would be required to designate the block shown on Attachment 4 as the Beech Avenue Heritage Conservation District. At the same time, Council would commit to reviewing the matter of designation in 3 years time with the understanding that the designating by-law could be repealed by majority request of the landowners on Beech Avenue. 5.0 EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME 5.1 The education programme concept presented at the October public meeting by the District Steering Committee received many favorable comments from residents and the media. 5.2 As noted in 2.3 staff met with the groups identified in the educational programme proposal and received input on the concept from these groups. While the concept has merit, the practicality of its implementation and its effectiveness are more questionable. Staff are concerned that it will not meet the expectations of residents. 5.3 Municipal staff already provide heritage advise to residents should they inquire. In addition, a brochure on how to research your home was drafted as part of this process and another brochure on how to designate your home is already available. The preparation and documentation carried out during this study is available at the museum, library and on the municipal website. 5.4 The museum provides walking tours, upon request and at specific events, of the Old Bowmanville Neighbourhood. Archival research on individual homes can be carried out by residents or as a fee for service basis. Additional seminars and educational programmes are a future possibility providing that they could be operated on a cost recovery basis. 5.5 The LACAC is a volunteer advisory committee of Council with a specific mandate. While they agree with heritage promotion and education their volunteer base is not large and is stretched in achieving their mandate. They have offered to assist with an educational programme. REPORT NO.: PSD-012-06 PAGE 6 5.6 The OBNA is a volunteer organization with their own mandate. They may become involved depending on the resources that are provided to them to carry out the educational programme. 5.7 There are individual residents that have expressed an interest in helping promote an education programme once it has been written and training provided to them. 5.8 The development of an educational programme could be drafted jointly by the interested groups and individuals; however, it would require a leadership role by the Municipality to pull together the different aspects and recruitment of a volunteer base to implement. Staff do not recommend that a proactive education program as proposed be pursued. Instead, staff will continue to provide advice on an as-requested basis and will ensure that the Old Bowmanville (North Ward) Heritage Guidelines be available for purchase or on-line viewing. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 As recommended by the District Steering Committee the draft Bowmanville HCD plan should be adopted as the Old Bowmanville (North Ward) Heritage Guidelines for use as a resource document by residents, municipal staff, LACAC and others. 6.2 The request of the Beech Avenue residents would require that a set of guidelines drawn from the HCD Plan and heritage character statement for the Beech Avenue block from the Phase One document be formulated into a Beech Avenue HCD Plan prior to an approving by-law being advertised. 6.3 In keeping with the guidelines, as circulated to the residents, it is recommended that approval for all minor alteration heritage permits be delegated to the Director of Planning Services and that a committee with representation from LACAC and others be established to review major alterations for the Beech Avenue HCD Plan. Attachments: Attachment 1 - District Steering Committee educational programme proposal Attachment 2 - Beech Avenue Residents Request Attachment 3 - LACAC resolution Attachment 4 - Map of study area and Beech Avenue pilot area Interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Members of the District Steering Committee Members of the LACAC OBNA Neighbourhood Property Owners ATTACHMENT 1 TO REPORT PSD-012-06 District Steering Committee Proposal for Education Programme (Rick James and Bill Humber presentation) We ask that Council adopt the guidelines as a resource document to be offered to and promoted within the neighbourhood. They will form the basis of a public education strategy in concert with the Municipality to encourage homeowners to use the document when considering renovations of any kind. With the help of the various municipal departments, the museum, OBNA and LACAC, homeowners would be invited to bring their ideas forward and, with the cooperation of the various groups mentioned above, they would receive support from the resource document in its application to their plans. We hope that by giving homeowners the right information, they will make good decisions. Volunteers from the neighbourhood might even provide additional support and expertise in realizing the objectives of the resource document. OBNA will playa key role in promoting this to the neighbourhood and could report on success stories through its newsletter and web site. We hope the municipality and local media could also find room in their pages to promote what the neighbourhood is doing. Included in the public education strategy would be promotion of LACAC, stressing the benefits and importance of designating individual properties under Part IV of the Heritage Act. Owners of properties, considered to be at risk, would be encouraged to designate their house/property to protect them from demolition. We encourage the municipality, as well, to accept the guidelines as policy for public projects. This issue started over concerns about tree trimming and street reconstruction. This could be a key part of the heritage retention process that can be used without the need for new legislation. The intent is to create a cooperative heritage retention policy. It can be tried at minimal cost and risk. If in the coming years, development pressures overwhelm this initiative, designation remains a possibility. But for now, this an approach that we are confident most people in the neighbourhood would accept. ATTACHMENT 2 TO REPORT PSD-012-06 January 20, 2006 Ms. Faye Langmaid Clarington Planning Services Department 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario LI C 3A6 GLAiiINGT()N Dear Faye: RE: Trial HeD for Beech Avenue As discussed, please accept this as a fomlal request to create a trial Heritage Conservation District on Bccch Avenue. There is tremendous passion for maintaining the feel and appearance of Beech Avenue-a historical highlight in Bowmanville. An HCD would be an essential tool in assuring its future as a Town asset. A trial period will allow residents to become comf0l1able with the process and create an example for other areas of the neighbourhood. I have recently met with each of the residents on Beech Avenue and all support this initiative. As confirmation of their approval, each resident signed a letter (please see attached copies) outlining basic tenns as follows: . District would be concentrated on Beech A venue . Trial period of three years . Adoption of all guidelines outlined in the Bowrnanville Heritage Conservation District Plan modified for Beech Avenue block . Success of the District and guidelines will be detem1ined by resident feedback to the Clarington Planning Services Department Only two homes on the street are not represented: #36 is currently for sale imd thus in ownership transition, and Mrs. Dunn (#40) is away recovering from recent injuries. I look fOr\vard to discussing next steps with you. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. ATTACHMENT 3 TO REPORT PSD-012-06 LACAC Resolution WHEREAS, Council approved in September of 2002 a multi-phase process to study the area in the northerly older section of Bowmanville, roughly a triangle bounded by Concession, Liberty and Wellington to determine the merits of its historical, socio- economic and architectural significance as a candidate for designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; WHEREAS, the Ontario Heritage Act has recently been revised and the new requirements for HCD studies and guidelines have been revised and strengthened; WHEREAS, this is the first attempt that Clarington has made at studying, preparing guidelines and designating an area as a Heritage Conservation District; WHEREAS, the residents of the neighbourhood have to date maintained the properties and heritage character in an exemplary manner, such that the consultants cited it as one of the most intact examples of a turn of the century neighbourhood in Ontario, and complimented the residents on their care and stewardship of the area; WHEREAS, LACAC believes a block-by-block set of guidelines should be prepared; WHEREAS LACAC recommends Council recommit to the Old Bowmanville Neighbourhood Streetscape and Infrastructure Implementation Plan, 2001; WHEREAS, LACAC believes that an educational and promotion package should be developed and promoted for the neighbourhood and distributed to the residents and stakeholders; WHEREAS, LACAC is concerned with the implementation details of the guidelines, and that they be applied fairly and consistently across the neighbourhood and would be willing to be involved in a review committee as suggested under the guidelines; WHEREAS, there are members of LACAC that do not support the concept of any Heritage Conservation District; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT LACAC recommends to Council that an appropriate "pilot area" of the neighbourhood be identified and designated in co- operation with the residents to demonstrate the principles of a Heritage Conservation District while the guidelines are refined, an educational program implemented and the implementation details worked out. ~ ~ :::>f-- I L51--- 0 a::: 0 <( ~I--- ::!: I- I--- I--- I--- ~ - I-- ~I-- ~ I-- If I 31'v'~ ^~ON3H DI -z "--:::> '-- - ~ I--- L5 ~ g ----"--' 0 ~"-- a::: ~=8~~ -I- a::: :::> L-8 I - ~~ ~ H- o 1.1 l- I iD='~ I--- ffi-a.. ~ '--0- _w f--Z-~ Z ~= ffi -::s _~_CD <( ....J I- ~ I I ~~ L - ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ Sh--( m ~ 133~lS 3~lN38 #' ~ U CJJTlZ~ o r'\~~~ ~ ~'\ ~. ~~ r'\. '- '\.3nN:3^V,-'H833e'" tn (j ~~~~~ ~ ~~~)~~~ g ~"P~'~0. '\ "d'~,~'\. '\. tn ~ ~- I- (I) WI--- ~ I--- -0 -Z ~ , J ~ 00 >i~n8 "-- '" :<j~<:y ~S ~ & ~ '-I ~ l\~ 1\ g \ ~',\. :~ . \. ViA~ I--- tn ~ ~ j? I--- I- of) ....J Z ,~ I---~I-\ 8 I--- 0 I- I I--- "V \~ r ~<<"" A/,~~lS ooonos; 1 ItJ W t~~':Y t;-Q2- ~~~~v 0" o v <<\5 ~'J SV 'WDG ~~s ~ ~ UJ ~ ~ ---' ~ T ~ ::t: Y1 t..J ~ ;:j ~ ~ L;:: ~OJ ~ In _ WI-- -:::>1-- _z~ WI-- >1----- -<(~I-- I--- I----- ~ I----- _ I----- - I----- _w~ -yjl----- _ _I----- _i2f-- _(Sf-- f-- - I- -'- t ~ ':> -o~ s B ~ ':> 'v- 6- g ~ tlto~ ;s',t., "'/0 ~01t, ~ ()>Qf1- ~ ~fo... {() <:Y~ ~ ~/.ts ~ ~ t} c, ~~ ~ L......, -\~~ Attachment 4 To Report PSD-012-06 I I ~ m Hl~ON ... U .i: ... .! c c:: o ;; res ~ CD ~~ ~ 0 c::O ::::J CI) o aJ mJ! ~ .i: "C CD ::::J:J: ... CD en ::::J c:: c:: o CD ;; > me( ~ ..r: CI) u U) CI) c:: CD " 0 m O"C CI) CD aJrn res 0 =:: c. i e :J:a.. 1 ~~<:y ~~<:Y ~s I( ~D<:x o~D ~ ~<i) 0: 1m ~ )... ct ~~ ~~ /y ~-