Mr. Harding summarized Report COA2021-012, the application proposes to sever off the yard between the dwelling addressed as 170 William Street North and 174 William Street North to create and additional lot.
Mr. Harding noted that due to the nature of the application he will be combining the analysis of both Consent and Minor Variance applications, even though the Committee will be dealing with them separately.
Mr. Harding noted that the Heritage Officer did comment on the application which is included in the report and the officer has no concerns to the proposal which has been presented today. In light of Cameron Clark and Grant Walcot comments, which was received as a result of the circulation of the consent application. The comments were forwarded to the Municipal Heritage Committee. The Committee did review this proposal and voted to receive the proposal for information and provide no further comment. By providing no further comment, the Heritage Committee is letting the Heritage Officer’s comments stand. Mr. Harding has invited the Heritage Officer to the meeting to comment on additional aspects should there be questions.
Since the writing of this report additional comments were received from the owners of 155 William Street North which is included in the amended agenda package. Staff would like to reiterate that the Municipal Heritage Committee and Heritage Officer have considered the matter and there is no objection to the proposal.
In the submissions there are questions referring to the apparent frontage of the smaller lots in the neighbourhood and how they compare with what is being proposed now. Mr. Harding reiterated that the submissions note the built form spans the width of some of the lots, and what is being proposed will also span the width of the lot. This is possible as site parking will be on a pad at the front.
Mr. Harding noted that he had additional conversations with the owners, and they were agreeable to adding a condition to the variance to better tie the proposed built form to the property. He stated that the amendment to the recommendation will be presented when Committee deals with the variance application.
The submissions of the owners of 155 William Street North also contained concern over Enbridge’s presence at the site. Mr. Harding stated he had a conversation with the owners of 170 William Street North and they clarified that Enbridge were upgrading the HVAC system for the existing dwelling.
Staff respectfully recommended that the application be granted approval subject to the conditions identified in Appendix G of the report.
The Committee stated that normally they do not take into consideration the width of the lots in the neighbourhood when dealing with consents. Staff replied that it is very rare for Committee to have a consent application brought before them. Whilst the Committee has not seen it before, it is commonly analyzed for many residential infill applications that are not dealt with by the Committee.
The Committee noted the plan submitted to build on that lot and suggested that it be a condition to guarantee that it would be built. Staff suggested the best guarantee is to not attach a condition to the consent but to attach a condition to the minor variance should the consent be granted.
The Committee asked staff if the Heritage Officer normally reviews severances and variances. Staff responded by saying that they are circulated when in close proximity to a heritage resource.
The Committee referred to Condition 1. The Committee sought clarification whether the mutual side lot line would need to jog to the south if the City decides to take a road widening for William Street North. Staff replied the owner has been proactive and has had a surveyor look at the road allowance and determine the road width is insufficient, so a widening is needed. Therefore, the property will in fact have a jog. The exact depth of land to be dedicated is something the owner will have to work with Development Engineering.
The Committee asked if the Heritage Officer would make comment on the application. Ms. Turner spoke to the Committee and explained the process when applications for variance are received that directly impact a designated heritage property or adjacent to a designated property. This property is adjacent to a designated property. She reviewed the application when it came to the City’s Pre-consultation Committee. She mentioned to the owners that the design would have to conform in general to the heritage and character of the area, for example the porch on the front, the single detached built form, and two storey general massing. Ms. Turner provided comments to planning staff which were generally in support of the application. Ms. Turner stated that infill housing in mature neighbourhood is usually supported from a heritage perspective as a good way of increasing density and generally keeps with the character of the existing neighbourhood and maintains our heritage properties. In terms of the heritage property across the road, there is little to no impact on the heritage attributes of that property. She explained that the application was also taken to the Heritage Committee under the cover of a staff report with elevations and site plans. The Heritage Committee discussed the application at its meeting and decided not to provide comment on it as in general they are supportive of this infill application.
The Committee noted on the north east side of William Street North and Elgin Street (16 Regent Street) is a new bungalow, and asked when that was built. Staff replied they recalled a consent process for that parcel was granted around 6 years ago.
The owners, Patricia Jarvie and Lee Beamish, were present and requested that Mr. Carroll, their Planning Consultant, speak on their behalf. Mr. Carroll spoke to the application. He agreed with Mr. Harding's analysis of the Growth Plan, Lindsay Official Plan and heritage conservation.
The owners, Wylita Clark and Cameron Clark of 155 William Street North, also known as the Carew House, were present and spoke in opposition to the application. Before addressing the Committee with submissions Ms. Clark stated that the procedural process was not followed and that she was not provided with the addendum by the planner in advance of the meeting. She received the initial report and based her submissions on that and that from the presentation today. She stated that there was more information in the report than was provided to her. Staff replied there was no additional information provided to Committee and that the only additional comments were from the Clarks, which was in the amended agenda packages provided to members.
Ms. Clark stated she was referring to the photos presented in the PowerPoint presentation. One photo in particular was inaccurate and did not match with the photos she has filed. She stated that if they were submitted to her in advance she could have corrected it in advance. Ms. Clark asked for confirmation from the Committee if they have a copy of the seven page comments she had submitted. Committee confirmed they did. Ms. Clark said she disputed the statement staff made that there were no comments from the Heritage Committee. She cited an email from Councillor Ashmore, March 15, 2021 quoting "the matter was discussed briefly at the February meeting". He was under the understanding that it had gone back to Planning and said he is not on that Committee and not sure when it will be returning for further consideration. Ms. Clark stated there is some misunderstanding on staff’s behalf that no comments were received from the Heritage Committee. The Heritage Committee member said they made no decision at that meeting. The process was not followed.
The Chair asked Ms. Turner, Heritage Officer, if the circulation to the Heritage Committee was still in process. Ms. Turner responded by saying the application is not in process. She stated that she was not sure what Councillor Ashmore’s understanding of the matter was. The Heritage Committee received the application and reviewed it at the February 4th meeting. After review, they decided not to make comments and that was communicated back to the planners.
Ms. Clark confirmed that she had read the minutes of that meeting and noted another proposal was put forward on a different property that was voted on by the Committee and voted to approve it. She stated that there is a difference between an approval and receiving for information, and that the application must be still in process because the Heritage Committee had not made a decision. Ms. Clark went on to say that it’s not up to Ms. Turner to make the decision. There is a Heritage Committee with specific mandates and they have not been permitted to follow the mandate. She stated that the Committee has confirmed her receipt of her submissions, which are evidence and she will give that evidence now. She reiterated again that she was under the belief that this matter would be returning to the Heritage Committee. The statement that there were no comments from the Heritage Committee is inaccurate and misleading and that it is not appropriate to proceed without their input. Ms. Clark continued by saying she was not notified that the application was being circulated to the Heritage Committee thus denying her the opportunity to make submissions. Not only did the Heritage Committee not get to do their job, she did not get the opportunity to present her position to the Heritage Committee. Ms. Clark continued by saying she would give evidence that she heard from the Heritage Committee and that her position would have been considered, and they were very interested in the extensive submission she had on historical relevance of the property and the block.
The Chair asked Ms. Turner if she would like to further comment. Ms. Turner addressed the Committee and made them aware that the Heritage Committee when it comments on planning applications essentially comments as a third party commenting agency. When there are objections to a planning matter those objections come forward to the Committee of Adjustment. The Municipal Heritage Committee does not address third party objections, they simply provide comments on the review of the application as well as the heritage policy framework at the City. Ms. Turner wished to follow up on Ms. Clark’s comments on approval versus providing comments. The other application that was reviewed at the February 4th meeting was actually a heritage permit application, which is why the Heritage Committee made a decision on that file. It was not related to a planning application, it was related to an alteration application to a heritage property.
The Chair requested that Ms. Clark move on from the heritage position.
Ms. Clark continued to point out the procedural fairness and natural justice should be the primary concern of the Committee of Adjustment. Ms. Clark also noted that she was unaware that the applicant has their own planning consultant, Mr. Carroll and that Mr. Harding had written the report in the perspective of the applicant and had not provided an unbiased opinion or protected heritage, as is his personal responsibility to the municipality.
The Chair noted that the Committee does not get into personal attacks or the operations of the Heritage Committee and requested Ms. Clark move on with other points she may have and afforded her five more minutes.
Ms. Clark replied she is not criticizing Mr. Harding personally and that she is just pointing out the legal duty that exists. Ms. Clark questioned the planner’s use of comparable properties and that they are as far away as can be from the subject property. Ms. Clark noted that the photos she has provided are showing dwellings in the immediate area in excess of 100 years old with red brick from local Fox Brick works in Lindsay. The proposed dwelling is not in keeping with the neighbourhood, either lot size and design. It is of a modern construction with vinyl siding, in spite of the porch in front it doesn't meet the historical character of this section of William Street North. There should be red brick on the building. The owners are not residents of this property and will not be impacted by the development. The owners’ desire for financial gain and not on any personal need they may have.
Mr. Walcot, of 174 William Street north spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he purchased the property 2 years ago and was under impression that 170 William Street North could not be severed, which was a feature for him and his wife. Mr. Walcot stated that if a dwelling is built it would enclose his side garden, and would literally be able to touch the neighbour’s wall. He was looking for space on either side of his house.
The Committee asked staff what radius was the application circulated. Staff replied 60 metres is required by the Planning Act.
The Chair asked Mr. Carroll, Planning Consultant, for the owners of 170 William Street, if he had further comment with respect to the comments made by the previous deputant. Mr. Carroll indicated that he agreed with the evaluation provided by Ms. Turner, Heritage Officer and the action taken by the Heritage Committee both appropriate and comply with the policies and procedures put in place by Council. It is appropriate to identify and make the distinction as Ms. Turner identified, with the Heritage Committee decision-making process. The Heritage Committee was dealing with two types of applications under the Heritage Act under their role and responsibility assigned by Council. There is no indication that discharge of that duty has been flagrant or inaccurate. He noted that the Committee attempts to not give weight to comments about where persons live, as this is not relevant to a planning matter. Whether someone presumes a motive for an application is for financial or otherwise is also not appropriate or relevant to the planning evaluation. Finally, the proposed side yard setback, noted on the survey sketch abutting the residential lot to the north is 1.25 metres, which complies with the side yard setback in the established Lindsay zoning By-Law.
The Committee commended the Clarks for preserving their property. However, there was nothing brought forward that applies to this consent application. The Committee stated they are here to look at the facts and the facts are they can sever and build a dwelling.
The Committee asked staff to clarify the motion on the floor in respect to amending the conditions. Staff replied there is no proposed changes for the consent conditions but should the consent be approved there will be an amendment to add a condition to the minor variance.
The Chair thanked staff for the detailed report and respect the fact that the Clarks and Mr. Walcot took the time to speak to this issue.
There were no further questions of the Committee or other persons.