Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-079-17Clarington Planning Services Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: October 23, 2017 Report Number: File Number: Report Subject: PSD -079-17 PLN 34.5.4.54 Resolution: By-law Number: Recommendation to add 282 Liberty Street, Bowmanville to the Municioal Reaister Recommendations: 1. That Report PSD -079-17 be received; 2. That 282 Liberty Street North be added to the Municipal Register with the description provided in Attachment 1 to Report PSD -079-17; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -079-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -079-17 Report Overview Page 2 At the June 12, 2017 Council meeting, the addition of 282 Liberty Street North to the Municipal Register was recommended. Council referred the matter back to staff and the Clarington Heritage Committee to meet with the property owner and report back. On September 12, 2017 the Clarington Heritage Committee and staff met with the property owner on site to discuss the addition of the property to the Register. After meeting with the property owner, the Clarington Heritage Committee and staff are recommending that Council add 282 Liberty Street North to the Municipal Register. 1. Background At the May 15, 2017 Planning and Development Committee meeting, staff and the Clarington Heritage Committee recommended adding three properties to the Municipal Register, Report PSD -034-17. Written correspondence was received from the son of the property owner at 282 Liberty Street North in objection (Attachment 2). The letter was referred to staff to address the concerns. At the June 12, 2017 Planning and Development Committee meeting, staff provided an addendum report PSD -034-17 to Council addressing the concerns raised in the objection and recommending the addition of 282 Liberty Street North to the Municipal Register. The property owners appeared before Council. Council referred the matter of adding 282 Liberty Street North to the Municipal Register back to staff with the request that representatives of the Clarington Heritage Committee meet with the property owner. 2. Meeting with Property Owners On September 12, 2017 members of the Heritage Committee and staff met with the property owners at 282 Liberty Street North for a site visit. The property owners provided a tour of the property and provided their insight on the heritage value of the property. The property owners indicated that they were not opposed to the property being added to the Municipal Register. However, the property owners had some concern that non heritage value elements or buildings on the property would be included. The concern was that some outbuildings with no heritage value may not be issued demolition permits if the property was added to the Municipal Register. There was also concern that future development could be hindered if the description of the heritage elements was not clearly stated. The owners requested specifically that the east and south elevations of the dwelling be mentioned as the main areas of the dwelling having heritage value or interest. This could allow for future additions or alterations to the building in the future. Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -079-17 Page 3 3. Discussion The Committee and staff try not to place undue hardship on property owners when adding properties to the Municipal Register and thus try to identify the heritage value as clearly as possible. However, the description needs to provide adequate protection for the heritage value of the building should a demolition permit be applied for. In the case of 282 Liberty Street North the house and one out building can be clearly identified in the Municipal Register description of the property (Attachment 1). Staff would caution against specifically mentioning only the east and south elevations of the dwelling within the Municipal Register description. The Clarington Heritage Committee also shared concern in that approach. The existing dwelling does have an addition, constructed by the current owners, that does not add heritage value to the dwelling. However, that addition does form part of the existing building and any significant alteration to the building, even the removal of the addition, would need to be reviewed to ensure the integrity of the remaining portions which have heritage value are not negatively impacted. These forms of alteration could be classified as a demolition and should be thoroughly reviewed under the 60 days provided for in the Ontario Heritage Act for buildings on the Municipal Register and approved by Council. Staff provided a copy, via e-mail, of the proposed Municipal Register description to the property owners on October 3, 2017, in advance of the Council meeting to receive their feedback. As of writing this report staff have not received any comments from the property owner. 4. Concurrence Not Applicable. 5. Conclusion Staff and the Clarington Heritage Committee are respectfully recommending that 282 Liberty Street North be added to the Municipal Register with the description provided in Attachment 1 of this report. 6. Strategic Plan Application The recommendations contained in this report conform to the Strategic Plan. Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -079-17 Page 4 Submitted by: David Crome, Director of Planning Services Reviewed by: Andrew C. Allison, B.Comm LL.B Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Brandon Weiler, Planner, (905) 623-3379 ext. 2424 or Bweiler@clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1 - Description of 282 Liberty Street Attachment 2 — Letter dated May 23, 2017 from Peter AP Zakarow (son of the Owner). List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision is on file in the Planning Services Department. I:\ADepartment\LDO NEW FILING SYSTEM\PLN Planning Files\PLN 34 Heritage (All Files)\PLN 34.5.4.54 282 Liberty St. N\Staff Reports\PSD-079-17 Staff Report.Docx Municipality of Clarington 282 Liberty Street North (Norwood) Attachment 1 to Report PSD -079-17 At-- u1j" The dwelling at 282 Liberty Street North, known as Norwood Place, was constructed between 1897 and 1903 by John (father) and Fred (son) Foster. The house is constructed predominantly in the Queen Anne style using artificial stone. Of specific note are the east and south elevations of the dwelling. The round tower, prominent gable, dormer, steeply pitched roof and large verandah framed with decorative columns are prominent features of the Queen Anne style. The addition of an artificial stone balustrade and a portico are uncommon elements and unique features to this property. There was an addition to the west side of the house that was completed in the 1970's. Artificial stone is a unique building material, especially in the Queen Anne style in Clarington, as it was only popular for a very short time around the turn of the century. In addition to the dwelling, there is an octagonal out building that dates back to the 1800's. The building has been repaired over time but contains a brick oven that is believed to have been used by fur traders. Municipality of Clarington Attachment 2 to Report PSD -079-17 May 23, 2017 Statement for Clarington Council on Decision to Include 282 Liberty St North, Bowmanville, on the local Heritage Register Dear Members of Council, Thank you for the opportunity to provide some perspective on your agenda item this evening to add our 282 Liberty St North, Bowmanville, property to your Clarington Heritage Register. While this property is owned by our family, I am also providing a statement to you today as the former Chair of the Conservation Review Board and Associate Chair of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario (ELTO). Over eleven years I oversaw the adjudicative -bodies that were the final decision bodies for disputes concerning heritage designation (Conservation Review Board), development and land -use planning issues (Ontario Municipal Board), property assessment (Assessment Review Board), environmental issues (Environmental Review Tribunal), and provincial land appropriation issues (Board of Negotiation) of properties across all of Ontario. Over this time I became one of the leaders in Ontario dealing with issues surrounding the balance between protecting our built heritage with the socio-economic realities of owning a property with potential heritage value. While we are supportive of efforts to protect our built heritage in Clarington, we are not supportive of flawed process, a lack of transparency and a failure to communicate with property owners. In this way, the Zakarow family is NOT supportive of our property at 282 Liberty St North being included on the Register at this time. Many at the municipal level feel that adding a property to the local Register is "no big deal" as it is not the same as actually protecting a property under municipal by-law given the powers of the Ontario Heritage Act. The local Register is meant to identify properties with "potential significant heritage value" so a municipality can then move forward with possible designation at some point in the future. However, years ago I helped lead reform at the Provincial level to add protection for Register properties from specific situations like demolition, where by adding a property to the Register creates an immediate 60 day delay period for a municipality to then decide whether they want to proceed with designation or not. Of course, this policy change was predicated on local municipalities adopting a new cultural significance evaluation criteria protocol we adopted from leading municipalities like Markham and made a best practice for all municipalities to use. Part of this program was also better educating local heritage committees on heritage issues (how to apply the criteria) and most importantly for this process.to be fully transparent and collaborative with the property owner. In fact, the new rules effectively provide full protection of a Register property as if it was designated by by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act for at least 60 days, so this is a significant socio-economic burden for property owners who in fact do NOT possess properties of significant heritage value or interest. While I am generally happy with how the new criteria process has been adopted by many municipalities across Ontario, unfortunately we have not had a good experience with our own home property here in Bowmanville. Not only were we never informed that our property was under assessment by the local heritage committee, but we were never asked to participate and be part of the process (that is a major part of our provincial policy direction). In fact, we only learned of this process after getting a letter from the municipality a few weeks ago noting that our property would be included on the Register. I personally contacted the planning department and sought to delay having our property go forward so quickly as I wanted to see the implementation of the heritage criteria (their scoring) and any staff heritage assessment report used to justify putting such handcuffs on our home. I was told that we would be provided the report on a Friday afternoon and could speak to the P&D committee the next Monday (one business day later), but also that none of the heritage committee members would be present given vacation etc. I asked to push this item to the next P&D meeting but this was denied. Given our personal interest in heritage, we had commissioned a heritage report years ago and were disappointed that many of the "stories" we had heard over the years around the historical and architectural significance of our home turned out to be wrong. I was equally disappointed when provided the municipal report on our property which did not include the evaluation criteria scoring (something that is part of the transparent approach of our Provincial policy), and also effectively no justification or fact -based case for putting immediate controls on our property under the Register. instead, there is a short paragraph that mis-states the architectural style of our home, erroneously makes reference to a former "garage" (there were no "garages" in the 1800s) as an out -building, and references to original occupants (the Foster family) who played no role in the building of Bowmanville or its community fabric. Also, there is no mention of what are the significant "elements" of the property, which in fact are protected by by-law in the case of formal designation and in the case of 60 days after a demolition permit is requested (even for an out -building not contemplated by the heritage committee) while the property is listed on the Register. My parents are in their mid 80s and are looking to sell their home as my mother can no longer navigate the stairs to get to their bedroom. Given their age and living on limited retirement funds, their home has fallen into a "tired" state and requires much repair, as a recent home inspection noted. Placing their home on the Register without transparency behind the evaluation criteria used, the heritage elements that are deemed to be "significant",and a dialogue with the property owners severely affects their ability to sell their property, given the lack of knowledge in the community about heritage issues. For example, my parents have a large piece of land associated with property, and numerous outbuildings, in various states of repair. There is an octagonal shaped building that used to possess immense heritage value, in that it was an original smoke -house from the mid 1800s for fur traders. However, overthe years this building has been completely replaced given rotting wood and unsafe structural conditions. There is an uninsulated garage that was built in the 1960s and other structures from the 1980s surrounding a pond. By listing their property on the Register, it both adds a stigma to potential home owners who are required to renovate their crumbling home (given misinformation about requirements for renovating heritage properties) and also punishes my parents by encumbering any work required on the property (say to these outbuildings) that needs a permit. While these are usually acceptable aspects of protecting built -heritage, I would argue that they are not in this case given the lack of information, transparency or perspective regarding this property. One of the most misunderstood aspects of the Ontario Heritage Act is how it potentially affects renovations or demolition of structures with elements that demonstrate "significant cultural heritage value or interest". It is unfair and completely at odds with the spirit of the Ontario Heritage Act to propose inclusion of a property on the local Register without clearly identifying the significant elements (is it a particular fagade, window styles, massing, etc??). How do we as property owners seeking to sell clearly communicate these issues to potential buyers? One of the biggest problems we have in Ontario, that we have tried to address with policy changes around transparency and working with property owners, is the issue of demolition by neglect. Without being transparent and pragmatic in protecting our built cultural heritage, while reflecting the realities of property owners, we end up destroying our cultural heritage. We used to see this a lot when heritage committees were overly restrictive on renovations or demolishing other structures on an affected property, where nothing would be done and the significant structure would become dilapidated and ultimately either fall down or require demolition for safety reasons. Our main house looks nice from the outside, but without a clear direction on identifying heritage elements to be protected, and a collaborative discussion with the property owner, the municipality of Clarington fails the spirit of implementing our Ontario Heritage Act. For these reasons we are very much against the current move to list our property on the local Register of heritage properties. If we take our time and work collaboratively and transparently on this issue we can actually fulfill the mandate of the Ontario Heritage Act together. Peter AP Zakarow