Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario

Transcription

1 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario ISSUE DATE: May 25, 2016 CASE NO(S).: PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Dill Farms Subject: Minor Variance Variance from By-law No.: Property Address/Description: 265 St. David Street Municipality: City of Stratford Municipal File No.: A OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: OMB Case Name: Dill Farms v. City (Stratford) PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Property Address/Description: Municipality: Municipal File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Dill Farms Consent 265 St. David Street City of Stratford B PL PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Property Address/Description: Municipality: Municipal File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Dill Farms Consent 265 St. David Street City of Stratford B PL150915

2 2 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Property Address/Description: Municipality: Municipal File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Dill Farms Consent 265 St. David Street City of Stratford B PL Heard: May 12, 2016 in Stratford, Ontario APPEARANCES: Parties ( Parties ) Dalmar Inc. ( Proponent ) Keith and Chris Masterman Counsel Kevin Thompson Martha Cook DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN STEFANKO AND ORDER OF THE BOARD Introduction [1] The Proponent is the owner of property ( Subject Parcel or Subject Property ) at 265 St. David Street ( St. David ) which is commonly referred to as the Whitehouse or Stratford Whitehouse because of the white stately two-story building located on its expansive landscaped setting. At the front of the building is a large covered porch as well as an extensive circular driveway which provides for vehicular access to and from the site. [2] The original structure was built by John Holmes in the 1860 s with significant renovations being made to it by the previous owner approximately 15 years ago. As evidenced by the photos in Exhibit 2 and the Assessment Map in Exhibit 3 filed in this matter, it is one of a number of substantial nineteenth and early twentieth century

3 3 heritage residences along the south side of St. David between St. Vincent and Birmingham Streets. [3] The property has frontage of metres ( m ) along St. David and the site is flanked by Shrewsbury Street ( Shrewsbury ) to the west and Birmingham Street ( Birmingham ) to the east. The depth is irregular and ranges from m along Shrewsbury to m along Birmingham. [4] The Subject Parcel is currently used as a banquet hall along with three rental apartment units on the second floor. These permissions were granted in an Ontario Municipal Board ( Board ) decision ( 2007 Board Decision ) of Mr. Beccarea, a former Board Member, in [5] The Proponent wishes to sever ( Severances ) the Subject Property so as to create four lots in total. These four lots are shown on the severance sketch found at Tab 6 of Exhibit 3 filed in this proceeding and are detailed as follows: (i) Area A ( Area A ) is at the north-west corner of the Subject Property. It will have frontage along Shrewsbury of m and a depth of 27 m. (ii) Area B ( Area B ) is immediately south of and adjacent to Area A and will also front along Shrewsbury. The frontage is shown as 17 m with a depth of 27 m. (iii) Area C ( Area C ) is located in the south-east corner of the site and will front on Birmingham. The frontage is m with depths of m and m respectively. (iv) Area D is the retained parcel ( Retained Parcel ) on which is located the stately building. The Retained Parcel is essentially located between Area A and Area B to the west and Area C to the south-east. The evidence in this

4 4 case concerning the continued existence of the building however was contradictory; on the one hand, it was suggested that the existing structure would continue to exist but on the other, the evidence disclosed that the Proponent has applied for a demolition permit. According to the severance sketch, the size of the Retained Parcel will be reduced to m of frontage and m of depth. [6] In addition to the Severances, the Proponent is also seeking variances ( Requested Variances ) as follows: (i) To allow for a rear yard setback of 4.5 m for the Retained Parcel rather than the required minimum setback of 7.5 m. (ii) To allow for a minimum depth of 27 m for the Area A and Area B lands rather than the required minimum lot depth of 30 m. [7] The Severances and Requested Variances were denied by the Committee of Adjustment ( Committee ) and those decisions were appealed ( Appeals ) to the Board. Positions of the Parties [8] Brandon Flewwelling and Jeff Bannon provided expert land use testimony in support of the Appeals. Mr. Flewwelling is an associate with GSP Group Inc. and Mr. Bannon is the planner with the City of Stratford ( City ) who recommended approval of the Severances and Requested Variances to the Committee. [9] They are of the view that the relief sought conforms to the City s Official Plan ( City OP ), is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 ( PPS ), satisfies the provisions of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act ( Act ) and meets the four tests prescribed by s. 45(1) of the Act.

5 5 [10] David Cuming, a professional planner, who specializes in cultural heritage resource conservation was called to provide expert land use and heritage planning evidence in opposition to the Appeals. In his view, inter alia, the Severances do not comply with s. 51(24) of the Act, the Requested Variances do not satisfy the provisions of s. 45(1) of the Act, the proposal is not consistent with the PPS and the relief sought does not represent sound land use or community planning. Analysis and Discussion [11] In order to succeed in this matter, the Proponent must establish, among other things, conformity with the in-force City OP. Subsection 51(24)(c) of the Act requires conformity with the City OP and one of the tests in s. 45(1) of the Act is that the variances sought, maintain the intent and purpose of the official plan. [12] Although a new Official Plan has been adopted by City Council, it has not as yet been approved, as required, by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As a result, I will confine my remarks to the in-force document. [13] There are, in my view, a number of provisions of the City OP which have a bearing on the matters before me, including s. 1.5 (g), s. 4.2 (iv), s and s [14] As Mr. Cuming pointed out during his evidence, the use of the word heritage in relation to a home and/or property, means that the property is older than 40 years, has unique architectural attributes, is associated with a person or theme that is significant to a community and defines or supports the character of an area. [15] When I consider the Subject Parcel in the context of Mr. Cuming s testimony and the provisions of Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Heritage Act which refers to Cultural Heritage Value criteria, I am satisfied that the Whitehouse can indeed be appropriately referred to as a heritage site. In fact, as Mr. Thompson candidly acknowledged, the streetscape is historic and this property is historically significant.

6 6 [16] In the 2007 Board Decision, the elegance and significance of the Whitehouse was also addressed. In that case, Mr. Beccarea referred to the Subject Property as the Stratford Whitehouse and commented that the site in question contains a prominent building at a prominent location that all the parties consider a heritage resource, although not designated as such. [17] The City OP in s. 1.5, establishes the guiding principles for City decision making. One of such principles is heritage preservation. Subsection 1.5 (g) states that areas, landmarks and features which provide a physical link to the early development of Stratford and which contribute to its distinct character and sense of place are to be protected. [18] Although not as direct as s. 1.5 (g), s. 4.2(iv) and s are instructive when dealing with the issue of natural and cultural preservation. Subsection 4.2(iv) sets out the City s intent To protect and enhance the natural and cultural elements of Stratford which are an integral and vital part of the City s tourism image. And, in s under the heading of Tourism and Heritage, it states that Stratford s built heritage, as evidenced by its remaining fine examples of Victorian architecture and other historic landmarks are considered critical to fostering tourism activity. The City will, therefore, take the appropriate measures to protect and enhance these buildings and landmarks for future generations. (Board emphasis in italics) [19] Section provides that infilling proposals (i.e. the type of proposal before me) are to be evaluated based on the guidelines adopted by the City in its Residential Intensification Study (October 1991) (the RIS ) to ensure that new development is compatible with and sensitive to existing development in the area. [20] In its Summary and Conclusions, paragraph 11 of the RIS may very well be, in part, the genesis of s Paragraph 11 states that New dwellings constructed in older residential areas, however, are frequently unsympathetic and out of character with the predominant architectural style and historical character of the neighbourhood. A

7 7 greater effort is required by the City to ensure residential infilling projects are sensitive to the existing character and scale of the neighbourhood. [21] And in s , under the heading Infilling in Heritage Areas, the City is obligated to ensure that where infilling is proposed the inherent heritage qualities of an area or corridor will be retained, restored and ideally enhanced. [22] It is clear therefore, that there is a decided emphasis, in the City OP, on heritage values and heritage preservation. It is equally clear to me that the proposal, with the creation of three additional, yet much smaller lots, having potential dwelling heights of 10 m and on a street characterized by grand stately homes on large landscaped lots is not compatible with or sensitive to the area. [23] In its Official Plan, the City has painstakingly stipulated that its cultural heritage is to be preserved and protected. In my opinion, it simply cannot be said that the relief sought preserves or protects the heritage features of the Subject Property or the area. [24] It is arguable that the proposal is a form of intensification contemplated by the City OP; however, that intensification, even if permitted, does not in my view, outweigh or override the very clear and compelling language of the City OP relating to heritage preservation and protection. The Requested Variances, as Mr. Flewwelling pointed out, are an attempt to mitigate the negative impact of the proposal. Neither the Severances nor the Requested Variances retain, restore or enhance the heritage character of the site in my estimation. [25] Having commented on the proposal s lack of conformity with the City OP, it is technically unnecessary for me to deal with the PPS. However, in the interest of completeness I will do so, albeit briefly. [26] The Proponent argues that since the proposed lots provide for modest infilling and intensification that has municipal services, and public transportation access is

8 8 within walking distance to community and employment uses, consistency with the PPS is established. I am not persuaded. [27] Section of the PPS states, very decisively, that Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. [28] The word significant, for purposes of cultural heritage, is defined in the PPS as resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or people. The definition then goes on to say that although the criteria for determining significance in relation to cultural heritage are recommended by the Province, municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may be used. [29] In this case, in relation to the matter of significance, from a municipal approach perspective, I would note the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) The Subject Parcel is uniquely identified and is commonly known as the Whitehouse. The site is recognized within a Heritage Area in the City OP. The property in question was subject to listing in the City s inventory of heritage properties in In 2005, the property was subject to a preliminary draft designation by-law under Part IV of the Heritage Act. Based on the evidence in this matter, that designation was not finalized as the City s practice is to require the permission of the property owner prior to designation. Needless to say, that permission was not given. In the 2007 Board Decision, Mr. Beccarea stated that all of the parties considered 265 St. David Street as a heritage resource. The numerous heritage provisions and references in the City OP.

9 9 [30] In my view, the property, including the existing building and landscape setting constitutes, at the very least, a significant built heritage resource which is to be conserved. The proposal however, has, in my estimation, a somewhat awkward and disproportional lot configuration in an area with a preponderance of stately homes and large landscaped properties. As a result the Subject Parcel s cultural, historical and heritage character is undermined. In my opinion, consistency with s of the PPS is not achieved. Disposition [31] For all of the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied the proposal before me should go forward. Accordingly, it is ordered that provisional consent is not given to the Severances, the Requested Variances are not authorized and the Appeals, therefore, are dismissed. Steven Stefanko STEVEN STEFANKO VICE CHAIR If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit to view the attachment in PDF format. Ontario Municipal Board A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: Telephone: Toll Free: