|
1.
DESIGNATION OF THE Soeurs
de la vISITATION MONASTERY, 114 RICHMOND ROAD, UnDER PART IV OF THE oNTARIO hERITAGE aCT
DÉSIGNATION DU MONASTÈRE DES
SŒURS DE LA VISITATION - 114, CHEMIN RICHMOND, EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA
LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO
|
Committee recommendations as
amended
That Council approve the designation of the
Soeurs de la Visitation Monastery, 114 Richmond Road, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with
the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, attached as Document 6, and
as amended by the following:
1.
The staff-recommended amendments to the
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, issued as revised Document 6;
2.
An amendment to the Statement of Cultural
Heritage Value to include the totality of the property, delineated by Richmond
Road to the north, and the property line to the south.
Recommandations modifÉes DU Comité
Que
le Conseil approuve la désignation du monastère des Sœurs de la Visitation,
situé au 114, chemin Richmond, en vertu de la partie IV de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario,
conformément à la déclaration de valeur ou de caractère sur le plan du
patrimoine culturel, ci-jointe en tant que Document 6, et telle que modifiée par ce qui suit :
1.
Les
modifications recommandées par le personnel à la déclaration de valeur ou de
caractère sur le plan du patrimoine culturel, publiée en tant que Document 6
modifié;
2.
Une
modification à la déclaration de valeur ou de caractère sur le plan du
patrimoine culturel afin d’inclure toute la propriété, délimitée au nord par le
chemin Richmond et au sud par la ligne de propriété.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated
9 March 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0065).
2.
Extract
of Minutes, Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee, 18 March 2010.
3.
Extract
of Draft Minutes, Planning and Environment Committee, 23 March 2010.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee
Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti
d’Ottawa
and /
et
Planning
and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
09 March 2010/
09 mars 2010
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City
Manager, Directrice municipale adjointe,
Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability, Services
d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom,
Acting Manager/Gestionnaire intérimaire, Development Review-Urban
Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Planning
and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 22379 Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0065
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
DESIGNATION
OF THE Soeurs de la vISITATION MONASTERY, 114 RICHMOND ROAD, UnDER PART IV OF
THE oNTARIO hERITAGE aCT
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
DÉSIGNATION
DU MONASTÈRE DES SŒURS DE LA VISITATION - 114, CHEMIN RICHMOND, EN VERTU DE
LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE
DE L’ONTARIO
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the
designation of the Soeurs de la Visitation Monastery, 114 Richmond Road, under
Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in
accordance with the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, attached as Document
6.
RECOMMANDATION
DU RAPPORT
Que
le Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti d’Ottawa recommande au Comité de
l’urbanisme et de l’environnement de recommander à son tour au Conseil
d’approuver la désignation du monastère des Sœurs de la Visitation, situé au
114, chemin Richmond, en vertu de la partie IV de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, conformément à la déclaration
de valeur ou de caractère sur le plan du patrimoine culturel, ci-jointe en tant
que Document 6.
BACKGROUND
The Soeurs de la Visitation
monastery, 114 Richmond Road, is a large property, located on the south side of
Richmond Road in the Westboro neighbourhood.
It is surrounded by a tall fence (see Location Map, aerial photograph
and street view, Documents 1 to 3) The oldest part of the structure was
probably built in 1864-1865 as a private residence in the Gothic Revival style
for James Dyke, a hardware merchant. By
1865 the house had been sold to George Eaton.
Eaton lived there briefly; the house was later sold to James Skead, a
politician and then to Allison Hilson Holland, the wife of George Holland, a
publisher and editor, with interests in many areas, including early cinema.
In 1910, Holland and his wife
sold the property to the Soeurs de la Visitation, a cloistered order, founded
in 1610 in Annecy, France, who arrived in Canada in 1910. By 1913, a large addition to the house,
consisting of three wings was complete.
The Soeurs de la Visitation
recently sold the property and will be moving out. A developer has purchased the building and
its grounds and it is anticipated that planning applications, including site
plan and rezoning, will be processed in the near future. Any proposed new development on the
designated parcel will also require an application to alter under the Ontario Heritage Act if City Council
approves the staff recommendation to designate the building. The new owner of
the property and the development team working on plans for it are aware of the
heritage significance as the Richmond Wellington Community Design Plan (CDP)
identifies as being on the City of Ottawa Heritage Reference List. In addition,
the CDP identifies the adaptive reuse of the structure as an option.
DISCUSSION
The Soeurs de la Visitation monastery is included on
the former City of Ottawa Heritage Reference List. The home of the Visitandines
since their arrival in Canada, the property has been surrounded by a wall virtually
since its establishment, in keeping with its role as a monastery. Inside the wall, the sisters lived their
lives, rarely leaving the premises.
Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act gives
municipalities the authority to designate properties of cultural heritage
value. In order to be designated, the
Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) considers the designation and
makes a recommendation to Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) and City
Council. Council’s decision can be
appealed by any member of the public. If
there is an appeal, a Conservation Review Board hearing is held and its
decision is referred back to Council. At
that point, Council has the choice either to uphold or withdraw the
designation.
Official Plan
The Official Plan has heritage provisions in “Cultural
Heritage Resources,” Section 2.5.5.2 and 2.5.5.5. These policies provide for
the designation of individual buildings under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, stating that:
Individual buildings, structures and cultural heritage landscapes will be
designated as properties of cultural heritage value under Part IV of the Heritage Act,” and that
The City will give immediate consideration to the designation of any
cultural heritage resources under the Heritage Act if that resource is
threatened with demolition.
Provincial Policy
Statement
Section
2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005, PPS) contains policies
regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources: “Significant built heritage
resources and significant
cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.” Research
conducted by staff confirmed that the Sisters of the Visitation Convent has
cultural heritage value and is worthy of protection under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Designating the property will be consistent
with the PPS.
Regulation 09/06
Regulation 09/06 (Document 4) sets out criteria for
designation under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act. It states that, “A
property may be designated under Section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for
determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest …” These
criteria are organized into three groups; design or physical value, historical
or associative value and contextual value.
The Soeurs de la Visitation monastery meets the
design criteria in the regulation. The
structure was constructed in two phases; the house is a good representative
example of the Gothic Revival, demonstrating a high level of craftsmanship in
its detailing. The wings constructed
with its conversion to a monastery are typical of that building type and
feature the lay-out around a central courtyard, tall stone walls, dormer
windows and an attached chapel.
The Soeurs de la Visitation
monastery also meets the criteria for “historical or associative value” because
of its association with the early history of the area, early owners, long-time
owner George Holland, a prominent early Ottawa communications pioneer, and the
Soeurs de la Visitation order. It is
likely that George Eaton purchased the property from James Dyke after it was
built, as its assessment doubled between the time that Dyke bought the property
in 1861 and 1865 when he sold it, indicating that construction has taken place.
The property passed through a number of hands until 1887 when it was purchased
by Alison Hilson Holland, wife of George Holland, an Ottawa communications
pioneer. Holland’s contributions included the introduction of the typewriter
and an early dictaphone to Canada. He and his brother Andrew were also cinema
pioneers and were involved in some of the first North American movie
screenings. In 1894, the brothers used an Edison Kinetoscope to screen early
movies in New York City and downtown Ottawa. In 1896, they built “West End
Park” on Holland Avenue for screenings using the Kinetoscope’s successor, the
Vitascope. The events in Ottawa were
enormously popular and hundreds flocked to the “West End Park” park by
streetcar to see the movies (see Document 5, Historic photographs, Document 6,
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value and Document 7, Heritage Survey Form).
Conclusions
The Soeurs de la Visitation
Monastery is a site of considerable cultural heritage value and meets the
criteria under the Ontario Heritage Act. The original house around which the monastery
was constructed is an excellent example of a stone Gothic Revival structure and
the three 1913 wings are typical of monastery architecture not only in Quebec
but also in Europe. The owners of the house prior to its conversion were
members of Ottawa’s early elite, and George Holland, who owned it for many
years, was a communications pioneer, active in the early days of moving
pictures in Ottawa, the long-time publisher of the Senate Hansard, and, at
one-time, the owner of the Ottawa Citizen.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
CONSULTATION
The vendors of the property
marketed the property as a building of significance and the current owner is
aware of the City’s interest in its designation.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
The Ward Councillor, Christine
Leadman, is aware of the proposed designation of the Sisters of the Visitation
and supports it.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal/risk management implications
associated with this report
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
Objective E8: Operationalize the Ottawa 2020 Arts a Heritage
Plan
Section 2.1.2 Identify and protect archaeological and built
heritage resources.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
N/A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location
Map
Document 2 Aerial View
Document 3 Contemporary view, facing southeast
Document 4 Regulation 09/06
Document 5 Heritage Survey and Evaluation Form
Document 6 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
Document 7 Historic photographs
DISPOSITION
City
Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services Branch to notify the
property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street East, 3rd
Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of Council’s decision to designate the Soeurs
de la Visitation Monastery, 114 Richmond Road.
Planning and Growth Management Department to
advertise the Notice of Intention to Designate according to the Act and
subsequent Notice of the passage of the designation by-law.
Planning and Growth Management Department to include
the property on the municipal heritage register.
Surveys and Mapping to prepare an
accurate survey of the lands to be designated.
Legal Services to prepare the
designation by-law, submit it to City Council for enactment, serve the by-law
and register it on title following passage by Council.
ONTARIO REGULATION
9/06
CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST
Consolidation
Period: From January 25, 2006
to the e-Laws currency date.
This is the English
version of a bilingual regulation.
Criteria
1. (1) The criteria set out in subsection (2) are
prescribed for the purposes of clause 29 (1) (a) of the Act. O. Reg. 9/06,
s. 1 (1).
(2) A property may be designated under section 29
of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining
whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest:
1. The property has
design value or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique,
representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or
construction method,
ii. displays a high
degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
iii. demonstrates a
high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
2. The property has
historical value or associative value because it,
i. has direct
associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or
institution that is significant to a community,
ii. yields, or has the
potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a
community or culture, or
iii. demonstrates or
reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or
theorist who is significant to a community.
3. The property has
contextual value because it,
i. is important in
defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically,
functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark.
O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).
|
HERITAGE SURVEY AND
EVALUATION FORM
|
|
Address
|
114
Richmond Road
|
Building
name
|
Soeurs de la Visitation Monastery
|
|
Construction date
|
1864-5,
1913
|
Original
owner
|
James
Dyke
|
|
|
|
PHASE ONE
EVALUATION
|
|
|
Potential significance
|
Considerable
|
Some
|
Limited
|
None
|
|
|
Design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
History
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Context
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
Phase One Score
|
8/ 9
|
|
|
Design or Physical Value
|
prepared
by: Sally Coutts
|
|
|
month/year:
September/ December 2009
|
|
|
Architecture
(style, building type, expression, material, construction method)
|
|
|
The
Soeurs de la Visitation monastery is a large stone structure, consisting of
an 1860s house, “The Elms,” and three wings that were added in 1913 when the
building ceased to be a private residence and became a monastery.
House
The
house that forms the original part of the convent is a good example of a
Gothic Revival structure and was built in 1864-5. The Gothic Revival for
residential architecture became popular in Canada in the 1860s. Initially houses built in the style were
simple, classically proportioned dwellings with simple gothic details such as
bargeboard and pointed windows, but in Ontario they became more elaborate due
to an emerging group of wealthy landowners anxious to demonstrate their
position in society, the existence of a small group of British trained
architects familiar with the style and the increased publication and
distribution of architectural periodicals and pattern books devoted to
domestic architecture.
Features
of the original portion of the house that identify it with the Gothic Revival
as expressed in 1860s Canada include, an irregular plan, the steeply pitched
gable roof, the bay window on the front façade, the decorative verge boards in
the gable ends, large windows with Gothic design elements, and stone quoins
and voussoirs.
1913 Addition
In
1910 the Soeurs de la Visitation purchased “The Elms” from the Holland family
to become their Ottawa home.
Construction of the new building, three wings around a central
courtyard with the house forming the northwest angle of the square, began
immediately. It is similar in form and layout to other monasteries and
convents across Canada, built from the era of the French Regime to the 20th
century, which themselves were inspired by the great monastic buildings of
Europe, particularly those of the Cistercians. Other features shared by monasteries and
convents include steeply pitched roofs, thick walls, classical proportions,
dormer windows in the attic and a Chapel.
The
interior organization of the monastery is similar to monasteries worldwide
and follows the principles of monasticism that dictate life within
monasteries, specifically that they be “closed to the world, but open to the
sky.” Like all such institutions, the
building includes a Chapel, an infirmary, a Refectory, rooms for the sisters,
an office for the Mother Superior, and workrooms, all arranged around the
central courtyard. The entire property, not just the building, is encircled by
the “clôture papale.”
|
|
|
Craftsmanship/Artistic
merit
|
|
|
The
Soeurs de la Visitation is an extremely plain structure with few exterior or
interior embellishments. It was built by local Ottawa builders Nazaire and
Oscar Poirier.
|
|
|
Technical/Scientific
merit
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
The
Soeurs de la Visitation Monastery is a remarkable building, comprising two
excellent examples of two distinct
building types, the Gothic Revival house and the monastery. The original
house form portion is a exemplary example of the Gothic Revival style as
expressed in Canada in the 1860s and features decorative bargeboard trim in
the gable ends, a steeply pitched gable roof, quoins and voussoirs, a bay
window and an irregular plan associated with the style.
The
monastery wings, which enclose the central courtyard, are similar of
monasteries throughout Europe and North America. The inward facing plan, the stone walls,
hipped roof with gable dormers, and chapel are noteworthy features of
buildings associated with this building type.
|
|
Sources
|
|
See
below for sources.
|
|
Historical and Associative Value
|
prepared
by: Sally Coutts
|
|
month/year:
September 2009
|
|
Date
of construction (factual/estimated)
|
Early
1864-5, 1913
|
|
Themes/Events/Persons/Institutions
|
|
The
Soeurs de la Visitation monastery was built in two stages; the original
house, built in1864-65 and the monastery addition (1913). Each phase
represents a different theme, event, person etc.
“The
Elms”
The
house portion of the Soeurs de la Visitation monastery was probably built in
1864-65. James Dyke, a hardware
merchant, purchased the six-acre property in 1861, the first person to own
the smaller, recently surveyed, property. In 1863 and 1864, it was worth 100
pounds according to the assessment tolls. In 1865, the year the property was
purchased by George Eaton, the assessment had doubled to 225 pounds,
indicating that the house was probably built in that period. Most sources name Dyke as the builder, and
thus it probably can be assumed that Eaton purchased a recently-completed
house. By 1867, the assessment was recorded in dollars and the property was
valued at $6,000, the highest assessment for a lot of less than 10 acres in
the entire township of Nepean.
At
the time of Eaton’s purchase of the six-acre lot from Dyke, there were a
number of similarly sized lots along the Richmond Road, which were intended
to be the site of the estates of country gentlemen. Eaton owned the house until 1880, when it
was purchased by the Honourable James Skead, a local politician and
businessman. Skead was experiencing financial difficulties at this time and,
by 1887, had sold it to Alison Hilson Holland, wife of George Holland. The Hollands lived in the house until 1912
when it was sold to the Soeurs de la Visitation.
Deeds
and title documents refer to the house as “The Elms” for most of the 19th
century, although at least one deed, dated 1880, refers to it as “Linden
House.” It can be assumed that it became “The Elms” when the Holland Family,
as the City Directories list “”The Elms” as their address on Richmond Road.
George
Holland was a prominent member of the Ottawa community who, with his brother
Andrew undertook a number of enterprises in the late 19th century.
They owned the Ottawa Citizen from 1872-75, when they became the publishers
of the Senate Hansard. They also
brought the typewriter and advocated for the phonograph to Canada. Their most important contribution was the
introduction of Edison’s Kinetoscope, an early movie projector to the United
States and Canada in the summer of 1894 when the screened the first movies
seen in Ottawa. They also developed a park at the corner of present-day
Ruskin Street and Holland Avenue in 1896 where they showed movies and
featured other entertainments, such as circus acts.
Soeurs
de la Visitation
The
Soeurs de la Visitation bought the house from the Hollands in 1910 to become
their first convent in Canada. Founded in 1610 in Annecy, France, the
Visitandines are a contemplative order, expressly founded for those women
whose vocation was prayer, as opposed to more active vocations such as
teaching or nursing. The Order’s founders, St. Francis de Sales and Ste.
Jeanne Francois de Chantal, have both been
beatified. Spreading throughout
Europe during their first centuries of existence, they first arrived in North
America in 1808. The convent in Ottawa was the site of their last new
monastery in North America. Its construction was funded by the monastery in
Wilmington, Delaware and by 1920; the sisters had repaid the debt to them.
As a cloistered order, the Soeurs de la
Visitation surrounded the property with a fence. Within its boundaries, the Sisters live a
life of prayer, receiving few visitors. In keeping with their
long-established traditions, a portion of the day has always been devoted to
outdoor recreation and the large grounds and spacious verandas provided
opportunities for this. The Chapel has also offered religious services to
community members for many years.
|
|
Community
History
|
|
“The
Elms,” as it was known for most of its history as a private house, was one of
a number of grand houses on large lots, five to six acres in size,
constructed by wealthy members of the community in the latter part of the 19th
century. These lots were laid out as early as the 1850s and were associated
with the paving or “macadamization” of Richmond Road in 1853 that made the
road passable. Among them, were Thomas Fuller, the architect of the original
Centre Block, Judge Armstrong, and James Skead, who also later owned it.
Fuller designed an Anglican church, All Saints Westboro (designated under Part IV ) to serve the needs of the community.
When
the use of the building changed to a convent from a single-family dwelling,
the west end of Ottawa was sparsely settled.
Within 30 years of its construction, the area had been extensively
developed with single-family houses.
The Sisters of Visitation, as a cloistered order, housed behind high
walls, were largely unaffected by the urbanization of the surrounding
neighbourhood.
|
|
Designer/Architect
|
|
Neither
the builder nor architect of the original house is known. Its design may have been inspired by one of
the pattern books of Gothic cottages popular in North America in the mid-19th
century, such as “The Architecture of Country Houses” by Andrew Jackson
Downing.
The
monastery wings were built by the Ottawa builders Nazaire and Oscar Poirier.
The Sisters have blueprints for the original structure, but there is no
signature on them. Although these plans are not identical to the building as
built, there are only minor differences between the drawings and the
building. The Sisters also had
drawings of other monasteries and it can perhaps be assumed that the plans
informed the final layout for the 1913 addition. Aspects of the plan are
shared by Christian monasteries and convents around the world and are
symbolic of monasticism. The Archbishop of Ottawa in 1913, Charles Hugues
Gauthier, approved the plans with his signature in 1913.
|
|
Summary
|
|
The
Soeurs de la Visitation illustrates the history of this part of Westboro, the
life and work of George Holland, communications entrepreneur, cinema pioneer,
newspaper publisher and one-time owner of the “Ottawa Citizen” and the
history of the Soeurs de la Visitation in Canada.
|
|
Sources
|
|
Elliott,
Bruce The City Beyond (Nepean,
City of Nepean, 1991) Professor Elliott also supplied primary source material
and provided invaluable advice about sources.
Drawings,
Soeurs de la Visitation
Assessment
Rolls, Nepean Township, Library and Archives Canada, MG9, D8-44, Vols. 11 and
12
Deeds
and Mortgages, Photocopies on file at City of Ottawa Archives, donated by the
Soeurs de la Visitation.
Ottawa
Citizen, newspaper articles, death notices,
“Cinquantenaire de l’arrivée des Vistandines au
Canada, 1910-1960 (Ottawa: M.J. Lemieux, 1960)
Tepperman,
Charles “The Perfect Order of a Canadian Crowd: Cinema in Ottawa, 1894-1896
Web-site, “Les Vistandines au Canada”
|
|
Contextual Value
|
prepared
by: Sally Coutts
|
|
month/year:
September 2009
|
|
|
|
Community
Character
|
|
The
Soeurs de la Visitation monastery occupies a very large lot fronting on
Richmond Road, however, as the home of an order of cloistered nuns since
1913, it is surrounded by a tall fence and has not played a role in the
community or contributed to its character to any great extent since then. It
is, however, a well-known institution, despite its secluded character.
|
|
Context/Links
to Surroundings
|
|
Religious
services for the local community are held in the Chapel at the northwest
corner of the building. Aside from these service, this site has few links to
the community as it is an enclosed compound, occupied by an order of nuns who
do not play a role in the community,
|
|
Landmark
|
|
The
Sisters of the Visitation is a well-known site because it occupies a large
tract of land, however, because walls surround it, the building is not a
visible landmark community landmark.
|
|
Summary
|
|
The
Soeurs de la Visitation is a well-known local landmark, despite its 100 years
as the home for a cloistered order of nuns.
|
Photographs,
Soeurs de la Visitation
Facing
southwest, showing bell tower, rear wall of Chapel.
Original
house, constructed 1864-65
Rear
view of building
Chapel
Description of Property – The
Soeurs de la Visitation d’Ottawa, 114 Richmond Road
The Soeurs de la Visitation
d’Ottawa Monastery is a large stone structure located on Richmond Road in
the Westboro neighbourhood of Ottawa.
Statement of Cultural Heritage
Value or Interest
The Soeurs de la Visitation
d’Ottawa Monastery consists of two parts, a Gothic Revival house built in
1864-1865 and four additional wings completed in 1913 to transform the
structure into a monastery. Its cultural heritage value lies in its being an
excellent example of both an 1860s Gothic Revival House and an early 20th
century monastery. The complex has
historical value for its association with James Skead (owner 1880 until his
death in 1884, whose widow lived there until 1887), a lumberman, senator,
Ottawa booster and founder of Skead’s Mills and George Holland, a
successful publisher and innovator (owner 1887-1910), and with the Soeurs de la
Visitation d’Ottawa.
The original house portion of the
monastery structure was built in 1864-1865.
James Dyke, a local hardware merchant, is thought to have built the
house prior to selling the property to George Eaton, a lumberman. It was one of
a number of properties built on larger lots laid out along Richmond Road for
members of Ottawa’s emerging elite class.
Features of the house associated with the Gothic Revival style include
the steeply pitched gable roof, the dormer and bay windows, gables with
bargeboard trim, and stone quoins and voussoirs. The longest owner of the building prior to
its purchase and conversion to a monastery in the early 20th century
was George Holland, a prominent local newspaperman and communications
entrepreneur.
In 1909 George and Alison
Holland sold the entire property to the Soeurs de la Visitation, a cloistered
order of nuns founded in Annecy, France in 1610. The order, whose members devote themselves to
prayer, established monasteries across Europe in the centuries following its
establishment. The Order’s founders, St.
Francis de Sales and Ste. Jeanne Francois de Chantal, have both been beatified. The nuns moved into the house in 1910 and, by 1913,
its conversion to a monastery was complete.
It consists of four wings, arranged around a central courtyard or
cloister, a plan followed by the monasteries of medieval Europe, and used for
Roman Catholic convents and monasteries around the world. The features of the 1913 wings that express
the building’s role as a cloistered convent include its inward-facing plan with
the wings arranged around a central courtyard or cloister, the tall, two storey
construction with regularly spaced rectangular windows, a high basement and an
attic lit by spaced dormer windows, the chapel and its associated pointed arch
windows, the steeple and the galleries and verandas.
Description of Heritage
Attributes
Key attributes that embody the
heritage value of The Soeurs de la Visitation d’Ottawa Monastery as an
excellent example of both a large Gothic Revival house and a monastery include:
House
·
steeply pitched roof with narrow gable-roofed
dormers
·
front
veranda
·
bay window
with wooden pointed arch details
·
decorative bargeboard
·
tall chimneys
·
stone quoins and voussoirs
1913 Monastery addition
·
tall stone walls with evenly spaced windows
·
high hipped metal-clad roof with gable and
triangle dormers
·
bellcote
·
veranda and galleries
·
Chapel and its interior volume
·
the plan, including central courtyard/ cloister
enclosed on four sides
·
the distinctive flower bed pattern in the
courtyard
·
picturesque setting
The post-1913 additions to the
building are not included in the designation.
The rear or southern-most portion of the property, from the base of the
small hill to the rear lot line, is not included in this designation.
Designation of the sisters of the visitation
monastery, 114 richmond road, under part iv of the ontario heritage act
DÉSIGNATION DU MONASTÈRE DES SOEURS DE LA
VISITATION – 114, CHEMIN RICHMOND, EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0065 Kitchissippi (15)
Stuart Lazear,
Coordinator, Heritage Services, spoke to the report prepared by Sally Coutts,
Heritage Planner, on the designation of the property located at 114 Richmond Road,
and the Gothic Revival house and 20th century monastery and chapel
on the site. Mr. Lazear spoke to the
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, identified as Document 6 in the staff
report, and provided a PowerPoint presentation, which showed multiple views of
the property, the parcel of land proposed for designation, and highlighted the
heritage attributes of the house and monastery as described in Document 6. Mr. Lazear pointed out that the additions
post-1913; the tall fence surrounding the property; the mechanized gate; and
the southern portion of the property from the base of the small hill to the
rear property line were not included in the designation. Mr. Lazear reminded members of the importance
of Document 6 because, should the designation be approved by Committee and
Council, any future applications to alter the property would be evaluated based
on the content of this Statement of Cultural Heritage Value.
Staff told OBHAC
the Department supported the designation based on the strong historical,
cultural and architectural values of the property.
Members asked
staff to clarify the phrase in Document 6 that highlighted the property’s
“picturesque setting”. Staff responded
that the “picturesque setting” referred to the landscaped open space to the
north and east of the monastery building up to Richmond Road. Mr. Lazear stated that no specific
plantings/vegetation were identified in the report, nor were the views from the
southern side of the property (from Byron Ave.).
Christine
Leadman, Ward Councillor, spoke to the committee in support of the
designation. Councillor Leadman
reiterated the property’s strong historical value, its meaning within the
community, and felt this was a great opportunity to preserve a heritage
treasure in the neighbourhood of Westboro.
Councillor Leadman requested that OBHAC consider the comments submitted
by David Jeanes, Heritage Ottawa, which provided additional information on the
site’s history.
David Jeanes,
Heritage Ottawa, spoke to the committee in support of the designation. Mr. Jeanes told members that Heritage Ottawa
had been in close collaboration with City staff in determining the historical
and associative value of this property, and spoke to the comments he submitted
to the Ward Councillor regarding one of the property’s previous owners, James
Skead. Mr. Jeanes briefly highlighted
Mr. Skead’s accomplishments and importance in the community. Mr. Jeanes felt this property is extremely
valuable, and its attributes far exceed the criteria outlined in the Ontario Heritage Act for heritage
designation. Finally, Mr. Jeanes
requested that OBHAC give greater weight to the property’s inner courtyard and
its geometric landscaped design, which he believed were not adequately captured
in the staff report.
Member Sahni
inquired whether the report’s mention of “picturesque setting” encompassed the
design of the courtyard, as well as the views of all sides of the
building. Mr. Jeanes responded that
while the central courtyard was included in the Statement of Cultural Heritage
Value, the crescent and polygonal planting beds were not specifically
identified.
Gary
Ludington, Westboro Community Association, spoke to the committee in
support of the designation. Mr.
Ludington was relieved to hear staff’s presentation, which answered questions
regarding how the property would be protected and preserved in the course of
any future development proposal, in particular that a significant portion of
the land was included in the designation.
Mr. Ludington felt that while the designation of the building was
appropriate, he also wished to see the views of all sides of the building, as
well as all landscaping, designated as well.
Rod Lahey,
Roderick Lahey Architect Inc., spoke on behalf of the owner of the
property. Mr. Lahey told members that
the owner recognized the heritage significance of the property, and will work
with consultants who will draft a Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS) for
the property. Mr. Lahey relayed the
owner’s wishes to adaptively reuse the building in a meaningful way. To this, Mr. Lahey introduced the next public
delegate;
Deb Westman,
+VG Architects, spoke to members in support of the designation. Ms. Westman told OBHAC that +VG was retained
by the owner to draft the CHIS. Ms.
Westman spoke to +VG’s experience with heritage buildings, specifically the
adaptive reuse of convents. After input
from Mr. Lahey, she stated concerns with designating the parcel of land between
the front of the building and Richmond
Road, as this may hinder the developer’s ability
to meet City guidelines for urban corridor and setback requirements. Ms. Westman requested that OBHAC amend the
staff recommendation to remove the yard at the front of the building from the
parcel of land recommended for designation.
Staff made clear
to members of OBHAC that heritage designation of the property would not
preclude construction, alteration, or intervention on the property. It would, however, require that the
applications to alter go before OBHAC, PEC and Council for approval.
Chair Baltz asked
Ms. Westman if she could clarify +VG’s role, whether they would be writing the
CHIS, which is a document created by an organization objectively, or would be
providing advice to the owner as a heritage consultant and advocate for the project,
or both.
Mr. Lahey
responded on behalf of Ms. Westman, and informed the committee that while he
understood the perceived conflict of retaining the same company for both
activities, he had previously asked staff if this was an actual conflict, and
was informed that it was not under current regulations. Mr. Lahey assured OBHAC that the owner of the
property retained +VG primarily to draft the CHIS, and was merely taking
advantage of that company’s expertise in developing heritage properties and
adaptive reuses. He offered to have the
CHIS independently reviewed.
Lorne Cutler,
Hampton Iona Community Group, spoke to the committee in support of the
designation, with amendments. He pointed
out that the property is actually located within the boundaries of
Hampton-Iona. Mr. Cutler was pleased
with the general support for designation, but voiced concerns with the
delineation of the parcel of land that is being recommended for designation. Mr. Cutler urged members to consider the
important historical value of the views of all sides of the building, which he
felt was not adequately examined in the report, and requested OBHAC move to
designate the entire property.
The following correspondence was received and
is held on file in the City Clerk’s office pursuant to the City of Ottawa’s Records
Retention and Disposition Bylaw:
·
Memo
dated 18 March, 2010 from David Jeanes, Heritage Ottawa, supporting the
designation.
·
Email
dated 18 March 2010 from Jennie Riddick, supporting the designation, with
amendments to include the gardens.
·
Email
dated 18 March 2010 from Deborah Chapman, supporting the designation, with
amendments to include the gardens.
Members asked
whether staff considered designating the entire property, and asked for the
dimensions of the parcel recommended for designation. Mr. Lazear responded that no dimensions were
stated in the report, though the point at which the grade drops is
approximately 10-15 feet from the rear of the building. Mr. Lazear told members that staff did not
consider designation for the property in its entirety due to the changes to the
southern portion of the property that occurred in the past as evidenced, in
part, by the 1907 historic photo on page 24 of the report.
Members asked
staff if the 100-year old Willow tree mentioned in the staff report was located
on the parcel recommended for designation.
Staff showed an aerial view of the property, noting that the tree was in
fact outside of the parcel, though the tree would be subject to the Tree
Protection Bylaw.
Moved by V. Sahni,
That the comments by
David Jeanes in the reference document no. 1 be appended as Document 8 in the
staff report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0065 to form part of the overall report to
Planning and Environment Committee and Council.
CARRIED
The committee
considered amending the staff recommendation to include the entirety of the
property in the designation, as some members felt that the contextual value of
the property went beyond the building and courtyard to include the entire
property. Some members also agreed that
designating the entire property would give due importance to the domestic
character of the southern portion of the property, and would control the scale
of any future developments proposed for the site. Some members had concerns with the defensibility
of such an amendment, as the staff report does not give emphasis to the
contextual value of the site as a whole.
Finally, some members answered that the heritage value of the southern
portion of the property should be further explored by staff, and the property
should be given consideration as a single cohesive space.
Members
unanimously agreed that the “picturesque setting” referred to in the Statement
of Cultural Heritage Value should be taken to mean giving heritage designation
and protection to the views of the building from Richmond Road that existed
prior to the construction of the fence that surrounds the property.
Moved
by È. Wertheimer,
That the heritage designation of the
Soeurs de la Visitation Monastery, 114 Richmond Road, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act described in the
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value (Document 6 of the staff report) be
amended to include the totality of the property, delimited by Richmond Road to
the north, and the property line to the south.
CARRIED
(Chair
Baltz and Member Eagen dissenting)
Moved by
R. Dalibard,
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory
Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that
Council approve the designation, of the Soeurs de la Visitation Monastery, 114
Richmond Road, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance
with the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, attached as Document 6, as
amended by OBHAC.
CARRIED
DESIGNATION OF THE
SOEURS DE LA VISITATION MONASTERY, 114 RICHMOND ROAD, UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0065 KITCHISSIPPI
(15)
The following written submissions
were received in relation to this item and are held on file with the City
Clerk:
· Memorandum dated 19 March 2010 from the Ottawa
Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) outlining their recommendations.
· Memorandum dated 22 March 2010 from Rick
O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor, re: 114 Richmond Road – Court Application
· Letter dated 22 March 2010 from Paul Webber,
Bell Baker LLP
· E-mail dated 22 March 2010 from Carl Bertoia
· E-mail dated 22 March 2010 from Jennifer and
Bill Riddick
· E-mail dated 22 March 2010 from Deborah Chapman
· E-mail dated 24 March 2010 from Nancy Gallagher
Chair Hume
began by advising that this item would not rise to City Council the following day,
as indicated in the agenda; rather, it would rise to the subsequent Council
meeting of April 14th.
Sally Coutts,
Planner II, provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the heritage
attributes of the property, and the rationale behind staff’s recommendation for
designation under the Ontario Heritage
Act.
Ms. Coutts
also circulated a revised version of Document 6 (Statement of Cultural Heritage
Value) which contained revisions recommended by staff to address some questions
raised at the Advisory Committee and changes requested by les Soeurs de la
Visitation. She requested Committee approve
the revised version of the document, as it would form the official basis of the
designation. Ms. Coutts noted that there
had also been clarifications requested with regards to the Heritage Survey and
Evaluation Form (Document5.) She
suggested that, because that document was a background document and would not
be formally approved, staff could work with Heritage Ottawa, the Councillor and
OBHAC to incorporate changes going forward.
It was noted that the
recommendation of OBHAC differed from those of staff in that OBHAC was
recommending the entire site be included in the heritage designation. In response to questions from the Chair, Ms.
Coutts raised the following points in support of staff’s recommendation to
designate only part of the lands:
·
Staff gave much consideration to whether to designate the south
portion of the site, recognizing that the land was an important part of the life
of the Sisters, and recognizing that those lands would ultimately be developed.
·
Staff was aware that if the southern portion was designated under
the Ontario Heritage Act, an
application to alter under that Act would
be required for new construction.
·
Legal staff was also consulted in the preparation of the
recommendations.
·
The Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement have
policies governing development adjacent to designated properties, and these
adjacency policies would govern and new construction once the north parcel was
designated. Therefore, staff was not worried that adjacent development would
affect the cultural heritage value of the convent.
·
Staff is recommending designation of the northern part of the
property facing Richmond Road because they did not want to designate just a
footprint of a building, thought the building in its setting to the north was
meaningful and felt any future development along Richmond Road should be
regulated through the Heritage Act.
·
Comparatively, staff felt the building’s setting to the north and
the way that the Sisters had used the veranda contributed more to the cultural
heritage value of the building than the southern rear portion of the lands,
even though that portion is also tied to the history of the building.
Councillor Leadman wished to
raise some additional information with respect to the heritage elements of the building,
with particular reference to James Skead, who resided at this property. She referenced a document from the National
Capital Commission, the Lebreton Flats Archaeological Assessments, noting the
document indicates Mr. Skead was an important figure in the first decades of
the establishment of Bytown and was very active in the business community,
politics and Bytown social circles. She
added that the establishment of Westboro was based on Skead’s Mill. The Councillor suggested the fact that Mr. Skead
resided at this property was very important to the property’s heritage evaluation.
Suggesting further relevance, she,
commented that the Sisters were supportive of the establishment of St. George’s
Parish, with chapel of the monastery
used as the place of worship for that sizeable congregation until their parish
was built. The Councillor indicated she
would provide the referenced documentation to Ms. Coutts.
Chair
Hume noted that the Committee had received correspondence from the solicitor
for the property owner indicating they had commenced an application to the
Ontario Superior Court to quash the recommendation of OBHAC, and seeking an
adjournment of the matter until such time as the application had been heard by
the Court. The Chair asked Rick O’Connor,
City Clerk and Solicitor, to provide his advice on how to proceed in light of
this request.
Mr.
O’Connor recommended that Committee continue to hear the application process
that had begun under the legislation, hear all delegations, and then move In-camera to receive a more detailed
legal opinion with regard to the application, and in particular the injunction
relief being sought by the solicitor on behalf of the land owner. Chair Hume commented that it had been the
practice to the greatest extent possible for Committee to hear its advice in
public. He asked whether, after hearing
delegations, Mr. O’Connor could give consideration to what legal advice could
be provided in open session, recognizing that Committee would not wish to
jeopardize its ability to defend Committee and Council’s decision on this
matter. Mr. O’Connor agreed to this approach.
Paul Webber, Q.C.,
Bell Baker LLP, solicitor on behalf of the property
owner, spoke primarily with regards to his request for adjournment or deferral
of the matter. While he did not wish to
speak to the litigation itself, he remarked that the essence of his client’s
complaint was that the provisions of the Heritage
Act were being misused when applied to vacant land.
With regards to deferral, Mr. Webber explained that
the Municipal Act specifically
provides that, where there is an application to quash, the Court may stay the
municipality until the Court has decided whether the issue should be quashed. He advised that his firm was asking the Court
for such a stay, retroactive to March 22; however, the earliest available court
date was April 30. He suggested there would
be no harm in delaying the matter because the land owner had given an
undertaking to the City and the Court that they would not to seek demolition
the monastery.
Further, Mr. Webber expressed his opinion that the matter of the designation
had been brought before OBHAC and Planning and Environment
Committee (PEC) hurriedly,
with a minimum of notice. He further noted that Committee had received a revised Statement of Cultural Heritage Value from staff,
while his firm had not. He suggested
these actions were typical of the process.
He remarked that if the matter had been dealt with in the normal course
and gone to the regularly scheduled meeting of OBHAC, instead of the special
meeting that was called, it would have risen to PEC on April 27 and to Council
on May 12. He adding that there was enough
time to have the Court rule, and still have the matter considered by PEC on
April 11 and Council on April 12. In
conclusion, he asked that the City preserve the status quo, let the matter be
dealt with in the normal course, respect the rights of the Court to adjudicate,
and do so in a situation where there can be no prejudice to the City.
In response to
questions from Councillor Bellemare, Mr. Webber noted that the there had been
no dialogue about designating the lands to the south until OBHAC brought it up
at their meeting. He confirmed his
client’s opposition to the designation of those lands, and suggested the land
to the north were equally contentious, and equally lacking in heritage
value. He pointed out that the front
porch does not face Richmond Road; rather, it faces Leighton Terrace, on the
east façade. He maintained his client was
in favour of designating the convent buildings along with the eastern portion
of the land that constituted the true front of the building. He suggested nobody had put forward a
specific argument as to why vacant land had heritage value, particularly land
that had not been seen for 97 years.
The Chair
noted Mr. Webber had sought in his letter to Committee to adjourn he matter
until after the Court had heard the application to quash. He asked Committee members if there was
anyone prepared to propose deferral. As
there were not, Committee proceeded with its consideration of the matter.
Jay Baltz,
Chair of the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) provided an overview of the
Advisory Committee’s recommendations. A copy of Mr. Baltz’s detailed comments is held
on file with the City Clerk
Mr. Baltz noted that OBHAC
had considered the designation of this site at a special meeting held on 18
March, 2010, a meeting that was called after a request from the Chair of PEC. He noted OBHAC agreed with staff’s rationale for
designation of the convent buildings, and agreed with the portions of the staff
report that recommended designation apply to the original house and the circa
1913 portions of the convent, specifically excluding the more modern additions.
It was noted that OBHAC
considered a report submitted by David Jeanes for Heritage Ottawa, in which
some additional historical information about the property was provided,
augmenting the Staff report, and passed a motion to forward this information to
PEC. Mr. Baltz emphasized that this additional
information did not affect the decision to designate.
With regards to OBHAC’s recommendation to
designate the entire site, Mr. Baltz explained that a majority of OBHAC members
considered that it was warranted in order that any future development on the
site to be considered as a whole. The following were raised in support of that
recommendation:
·
Designation
of land under the Ontario Heritage Act
does not prevent development. Substantial
development takes place routinely in heritage districts, and on lots containing
structures individually designated under Part IV of the Act.
·
The Act allows completely vacant land to be
designated if it has heritage value.
·
Designation
of a property under the Act gives Council
a valuable tool to guide development so that it respects heritage
resources.
·
Under the
staff recommendations, there is the prospect of having proposed buildings on
the site bisected by the designation line, so that half of the building is
subject to the approval process under the Act,
while the other half is not.
·
OBHAC
believes that designation of the entire lot would allow any future development
on the convent site to be considered as a whole for approval under the Act.
·
With
regards to sightlines and views, the Act clearly
states that heritage resources are conserved for the public good. It is OBHAC’s position that a significant
heritage building in an urban context such as this must be visible to the
public from public land. Therefore, the
ability to view the buildings across some part of landscaping should be
retained, and mention of this in the designation attributes will ensure that it
can be addressed as part of a future development application.
In conclusion, Mr. Baltz
reiterated that OBHAC strongly recommends designation of the convent and the
entire site so that future development could be considered under both the Ontario Heritage Act and the Planning Act.
Councillor Doucet commented
that the building would be a wonderful addition to Richmond Road once the wall
came down, and questioned the ability to preserve sightlines and sense of
setting while still having development. Mr. Baltz suggested that without a
specific proposal to alter under the Heritage
Act, it would be difficult to know for sure how the sight lines would be
preserved. He suggested, however, that
there were many examples of developments on sites containing historic
structures in which sight lines are preserved by various means.
Councillor Cullen spoke to
the issue of the designation of the lands to the north of the building. He referenced the former Grant school site in
his ward as an example of a site where a vacant parcel of land had been
designated. He noted the front lawn of
that property had been designated and development of an underground parking was
seen to be consistent with that designation.
Mr. Baltz suggested that type of development would be the minimum level
on this site, emphasizing the heritage designation would not preclude
above-ground buildings on either the south or north portions of the site.
Ms. Coutts cited the
property at 774 Echo Drive, formerly home to another order of cloistered nuns,
and now home to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, as another example of a
designated parcel of land that has been developed. She noted that the land to the front of that
building was included in the designation, pre-2005, and since then there has
been development on that land, including a parking lot on the Rideau Canal-side
portion of the site, preserving the view.
Ms. Coutts also noted that
an important element of this building’s gothic revival style was the
“picturesque” nature of the setting, which is not a wide open classical
view. She noted the original building
was not built to be looked at directly from Richmond Road, and was always built
to have oblique views. She suggested development on Richmond Road would be
completely consistent with the design ethic of the gothic revival
building.
In response to questions
from the Chair, Mr. Baltz acknowledged that the designation of the south
portion was a difficult question before OBHAC, and most of that committee’s
debate was on the proper extent of the designation. He suggested one argument in favour of
designating the whole lot was the fact that the designation limit recommended
by staff was so close to the back of the building, meaning there could be a
substantial structure built close to the convent that could detract from its
heritage aspects. OBHAC felt that
designating the parcel, while not precluding development, allows Committee and
Council to consider the entirety of any development proposal at the same time
under the Planning Act and the Ontario Heritage Act.
He suggested that, in the
hierarchy of importance, preserving the buildings and the ability of the public
to appreciate those buildings was the most important, the setting at the front
was never challenged by OBHAC, and most discussion was over how to ensure the
use of the entire lot continues to complement and protect the buildings and the
ability of the public to view them. He
suggested without a proposal, he could not further elaborate, as there are many
possible design solutions available to accomplish this, but they could include
very large buildings if allowed under the Zoning.
Councillor Leadman inquired
as to the historical use of the southern portion of the lands, and whether that
is taken into consideration in evaluations for heritage designation. Mr. Baltz suggested that historical use is a
key factor taken into account. Though
artifacts owned by the Sisters have since been removed from the rear portion of
the land, there is evidence that this portion of the property was used for
various things. He emphasized that OBHAC
had no intent to prevent development on that portion; rather, the intent was to
provide a tool to ensure development proceeds in a manner that protects and
complements the heritage value of the building.
Councillor Leadman confirmed that OBHAC had been clear at their meeting
that they were not trying to prevent development by designating the whole site.
Ève Wertheimer spoke in favor of designating the entire
property. She noted that, in addition to being a member of OBHAC, she was an
architect specializing in heritage conservation and had written her master’s
thesis on convent properties in Quebec. She provided a brief review of the nature and
value of convent properties in Quebec and Eastern Ontario, emphasizing that
they were building blocks at the heart of many communities. She explained that there had been many
developments on such properties, some respectful and others not.
With regards to this
monastery, she provided historical photos of the evolution of the site by means
of a PowerPoint presentation that was circulated and is held on file with the
City Clerk. She highlighted that the
site had always been a single unit, and suggested the site must be planned and
managed as such. She
emphasized that the notion of heritage had greatly expanded; whereas
recognition was previously given to only the most remarkable architectural or
artistic monuments, today their context is also seen as worthy of protection
and careful management. In conclusion, she reiterated that a heritage
designation would not preclude development, but would be used as a tool to ensure
protection of character and a respectful development complementing the historic
convent.
In response to questions
from Councillor Doucet, Ms. Coutts noted the property abutting the site to the west
was Hilson Avenue Public School. With regards to whether the heritage
importance of the lands was diminished by the fact that nobody had seen the
property and the gardens, Ms. Wertheimer noted that the nuns had seen and
appreciated the lands suggested there was now an opportunity to share the space
with the community.
In response to questions
from Councillor Leadman, Ms. Wertheimer explained that the issue of designating
the whole property had been raised at OBHAC because it was obviously part of
the enclosure. She suggested OBHAC
acknowledged the need for development on the site, and reinforced the
statements made by the previous delegation that the parcel of land should be
treated as a single unit, in a holistic way in order to best preserve the
heritage character in future development.
In response to questions
from Councillor Doucet with reference to the aforementioned property on Echo
Drive in his ward, Ms. Coutts confirmed that there had been development on the
site in addition to the parking lot on the canal side, including a secondary
building between the building and Bank Street, and townhomes on the portion of
the original site that extended south to Sunnyside. She noted the views to the public had
remained the same, notwithstanding the development on the site, suggesting good
design can lead to the retention of the character of an important building and
accommodate development.
Gary Ludington, Westboro
Community Association, spoke in
favour of the OBHAC’s recommendations. A
copy of Mr. Ludington’s detailed written submission is held on file with the
City Clerk. He drew Committee’s
attention to a document prepared by City staff in August 2009 entitled “Basic
Site Plan and Design Principles for Redevelopment of 114 Richmond Road,” a
document that was provided to prospective buyers of the property. He noted that the document outlined certain
conservation and adaptation principles including protection of the convent
building, protection of other valuable historic landscape features, protection
of distinctive trees, protection of views, and incorporation of these features
into site plan and design. The document
also outlined specific site plan and design guidelines pertaining to the
Richmond Road frontage, and provided an extract from the Richmond Road/Westboro
Community Design Plan (CDP) that specifically addresses the redevelopment of
the subject property. He emphasized
that the historic convent should be viewable and accessible by pedestrians on
Richmond Road, noting portions of the building were previously viewable before
mature trees obscured the view.
Mr.
Ludington referenced public meetings held by the developer with regards to
their proposals for the site and spoke briefly to those proposals. He suggested that hat he had seen from the
developer did not seem to comply with the CDP.
The Chair noted that no planning application had been made to the City
with regards to the site, and only the designation was before Committee.
Therefore, he proposed it was out of order to speak to those issues.
Mr.
Ludington concluded by asking PEC to support OBHAC’s recommendation to
designate the entire site, as it gives Committee and Council the greatest
flexibility and control to deal with upcoming development.
In
response to questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Ludington suggested designation
of the entire parcel would provide a challenge for any architect to create an
addition to the site that everyone could enjoy.
He indicated the Community Association wants to ensure Committee and
Council has every tool at their disposal to protect the monastery from all
sides.
Councillor Leadman referred to
the Site Plan and Design Principles document cited by the delegation. She noted that when it was know that the
property was going to be sold, City staff from the heritage department were
invited to review perform a heritage review of the site. She explained that the heritage status was
recognized as part of the sales document and wanted to emphasize it had not
been a rushed process. She noted that the
designation report was expected in September 2009, and was only being
considered now.
In response to questions from Councillor
Cullen, John Smit, Manger of Development Review, Urban Services, explained
staff prepared the aforementioned document when they became aware that the
property was being put on market and that there was development interests in
acquiring the property. Staff often
receives inquiries from the development industry about what the opportunities
and the possibilities might be for a piece of property when it comes up for
sale. In this case, they felt consistent
messaging should be provided in terms of the framework and the considerations
that would be important in determining the merits of any development
application. Mr. Smit indicated the
document did not have any official status and emphasized it is up to the proponent
to decide what they believe might be able to be achieved on a given property. In response to further questions from
Councillor Leadman, Mr. Smit confirmed that the OP and CDP are official
documents that were cited in staff’s document.
He agreed that it gave potential bidders a general guideline in order to
formulate their bids.
It was suggested that it would be
valuable to circulate the Site Plan and Design
Principles documents to Council prior to their consideration of the matter, and
staff agreed to do so.
Bill Mitchell, resident, indicated that he had
lived south of the property for 20 years. He spoke in favour of designation of
the entire site. He felt that without
preservation extending to the borders of the site, the opportunity to further
preserve and enhance the site could be lost. He felt it was an architectural challenge to
design the site in a way that allows people to come to the site and appreciate
the existing building’s heritage value.
He suggested the building’s context and the landscape on which it sits
in defines the property. He felt they
should remove the fence, as it was a later addition and does not reflect the
true border of the property. He noted
that he was not against development; however, he felt it must be done with
sensitivity to where new development is built, what it is built out of, the
views it allows, and the connection it has at the rear of the property.
Mr. Mitchell emphasized the need
for a balance between the needs of the property owner and the community. He felt good design could not be relied upon,
and although builders are bound by building codes and zoning by-laws, he
suggested in this case that would not be sufficient. He felt a heritage designation for the entire
site was needed to bring in an additional level of thought, sensitivity and
scrutiny for the potential development in the future.
Sarah Heath, resident, commenced by noting
that there were few buildings like this in Ottawa to preserve. She indicated she had seen the effects of
preserving heritage buildings in various major cities around the world, and the
effects of not preserving them. Ms. Heath suggested other properties in Ottawa,
such as Rideau Hall and the Parliament Buildings, would not be designated without
including the grounds that surround the buildings, indicating this should be
the case for the property at 114 Richmond Road.
She concluded that designation under the Ontario Heritage Act was intended to ensure the proper care goes into
preserving one of Ottawa’s few undiscovered jewels.
Alan Cohen, on behalf of Ashcroft
Homes, commenced
by stating his client’s intention to work toward the building’s conservation
and adaptive reuse in accordance with the City’s policies. He felt his client
should be commended for his intention to celebrate the building. He argued that there was no need to designate
the southern portion of the property under the Heritage Act, indicating there is nothing in staff’s report to
support it. He asked committee to
designate neither the southern portion of the property, nor the northern portion.
Mr. Cohen indicated that there would
be a development application forthcoming, and the City would be asked to look
at re-zoning and site plan approval for this site. He suggested that sufficient tools existed
under the Planning Act’s site plan
and zoning provisions to ensure that there is a form of development that meets
all the wider policies and goals for the City and also meet the heritage objectives.
He surmised that the designation
of both the front and back lawns was being raised in order to control
development, suggesting this was a regrettable and unnecessary use of the Heritage Act. He asked Committee to celebrate the building,
acknowledge the efforts of his client, and designate the building and the small
portion of property to the east of it.
Chair Hume noted that if Council chose
to designate the entire site, the developer could come back with a request to
alter, which would allow for a building program to occur. Mr. Cohen suggested the purpose of the
designation appeared to be to control development, which is not the proper function
of the Heritage Act. Upon a request for further clarification, Mr.
Cohen remarked that through the Planning
Act, Council is provided with a vast array of tools to treat a future
development application. In response to
further questions from the Chair, Mr. Cohen explained that one of the
challenges facing the architect would be to determine how to treat the
historical view, given it had not been seen for many years.. He felt the Planning Act provided all the necessary
tools to create views such as they may be defined, without the heritage
designation.
In response to questions from Councillor
Cullen, Mr. Cohen indicated that his client did not fear designation; rather,
they felt it was inappropriate. He
reiterated that his client is prepared to preserve and conserve the existing
building, at a substantial expense, and make every effort to put appropriate
community uses into it. He further explained
that there is currently nothing in the staff report to suggest the
appropriateness of designating the land to the south of the building. He also argued there was not sufficient
justification in the report for the designation of the land in front of the
building. He reiterated his view that
the designation of the lands was recommended in anticipation of development,
and not in respect of heritage, which makes it inappropriate.
Councillor Leadman remarked that
in preparing bidders for this site, there was an attempt by City staff to
demonstrate what the City felt it was necessary as part of the development
moving forward via the aforementioned Site
Plan and Design Principles document. She felt this was a
proactive approach from the planning department to come forward with these
guidelines, which set the parameters for bidders on this property. Mr. Cohen replied that his client was aware of
the document prepared by staff, and their understanding was it contained
development guidelines, not policy or zoning. He felt that his client
justifiably believed that a recommendation would be made by staff that the
building itself would be designated, and every effort would be made to ensure
that it would be preserved. In response
to further questions from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Cohen voiced his hope that
City staff would develop recommendations for zoning and site plan that all
parties consider appropriate and that allow the building to be enshrined in the
community.
In response to a further request
for clarification from the Chair Mr. Cohen reiterated his opinion that it was
inappropriate to designate the south half of the property, absent a proper
recommendation from staff and a regulatory framework within in which to do it.
David Jeanes, Heritage Ottawa, spoke in support of staff and
OBHAC’s recommendations. A copy of Mr.
Jeanes’ detailed written submission is held on file with the City Clerk. The following is a summary the points raised:
·
Heritage Ottawa supports the list of attributes in the Statement
of Cultural Heritage Value
·
There has been good dialogue supported by the developer at
multiple community meetings
·
There has been useful correspondence on historic and heritage
aspects between Heritage Ottawa and City staff
·
Heritage Ottawa supports adaptive re-use, which they will
contribute ideas for the convents adaptive re-use.
In summary he stated Heritage
Ottawa’s belief that designation is necessary to identify attributes that
should be conserved as much as possible in the plans for development.
Lorne Cutler, Hampton Iona
Community Group,
spoke in support of OBHAC’s recommendation. He began by stating that the community group
has been in discussion with the land owner with regards to the adaptive use of
the convent, and these discussions have been progressing well, with the
landowner being very cooperative in looking for uses.
Mr. Cutler expressed the position
of the community group that the back
half of the site should be designated because of its contextual value. He noted that, as this was a cloistered site,
the back half of the site was an integral part of the convent and the life of
the nuns. Regarding the view along Richmond Road, he
noted that even with the wall, much of the convent is visible from across the
street when the leaves on the trees are not in full bloom; therefore, it was
incorrect to suggest the convent was not visible from Richmond Road. He added that the developer had used the view
of the convent in some of the marketing materials for their properties on the
north side of Richmond Road. Referring to the south side of the
property, he drew attention a very large willow tree, suggesting it to be of
particular significance. He expressed
uncertainty that the City’s tree by-law would be sufficient to protect it.
Speaking to the heritage
designation, Mr. Cutler he suggested it was important that it not go to the
OMB, as developers are often very successful when they challenge the City or
community groups before that board. He
noted that the staff Site Plan and Design
Principles document provided to potential bidders on the site did not make any distinction
between the north and south halves of the site, or indicate that one half was
more important than the other. He
expressed concern that the City then went on to only give one half of the site
historic designation, suggesting this could lead other bidders to believe the
ground rules were changed after the fact. In response to questions of
clarification from Councillor Doucet with respect to this last point, Mr.
Cutler suggested the document might have given developers the impression that
the entire landscape was to be protected equally, which did not prove to be the
case.
In
response to questions from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Cutler explained that when
staff brought forward their document to the Community, he had noted that it
mirrored what was in the CDP, and he was hopeful at the time that the City
would stand behind it. The Community
were satisfied that it protected the convent and the site to the extent that
was envisioned in the CDP. Mr. Cutler
remarked that he felt the OP could be very fluid when potential development arises,
and felt a heritage designation gives an added level of protection to the site on
top of what the planning and zoning tools provide.
Rick
O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor, indicated that he had reviewed the letter
from Mr. Webber asking Committee and Council to defer their consideration of
OBHACs recommendation pending the decision of the Court. Mr. O’Connor stated that he had been unable to
find any reason why Committee should defer the matter. Providing a brief sketch of the legal argument,
he related that the application made by the applicant was under Section 273 of
the Municipal Act, which states that
the Superior Court justice may quash a municipal by-law for illegality, which
includes the allegations of bad faith in this instance. In this section of the Act “by-law” is defined to include an order or resolution. He suggested it was possible that the court
may direct that nothing shall be done under the by-law until the application is
disposed of.
Mr.
O’Connor surmised the City could argue that an Advisory Committee’s
recommendation to PEC with regards to a notice of intent to designate, and
PEC’s recommendation to Council on same, does not yet constitute a by-law or resolution
as defined by the Act. He suggested it was arguable that the
application itself was premature and therefore does not bode well for any sort
of deferral of this particular matter.
Further,
Mr. O’Connor explained that if Committee and Council were to approve the notice
of intent to designate, there would still be several months of procedures
undertaken before a by-law is officially passed. Once the intent to designate is approved,
notice would be provided, and those who object could appeal to the Conservation
Review Board, who would consider the matter, hold a hearing, and issue a report
back to Council. Council then makes a final
decision, and it is at that point any by-law would be passed. When asked if there was a need to go in camera to further discussion this
matter, Mr. O’Connor stated that if there is no motion to defer the item, he
would send to all members of Council his legal opinion with regards to the
application.
Committee
recessed at 12:30 a.m. and resumed at 1:45 p.m. to entertain questions to staff
and debate on the matter.
Councillor
Leadman raised some questions with regards to her previous communications with
staff over the designation of the property and a potential Heritage Zoning
Overlay. She noted that she had
submitted questions to staff in February with regards to the site being
considered for designation, to which she had received no response. She stated that, upon following up with staff
after the OBHAC meeting, staff had commented that, since the applicant was
going to apply for a zoning by-law amendment, a Heritage Zoning Overlay was not
considered necessary. Staff also
indicated that if the Councillor wished to have an overlay placed on the designated
parcel following Council’s approval of the designation, she could request that
this be added to the recommendations at Council. Councillor Leadman inquired as to how
separate the planning and heritage processes were, and questioned why staff
felt it was the Councillor’s job to bring forth the matter of the heritage
overlay.
In
response to Councillor Leadman’s questions, Richard Kilstrom, Manager of Policy
Development and Urban Design, explained that having a Heritage Zoning Overlay
is something done for most heritage properties. He indicated that heritage and
planning relate, which why there is such a thing as a Heritage Zoning Overlay
in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Ms.
Coutts remarked that the Heritage Overlay is not heritage designation; it is a
tool of the Zoning By-law.
Ms. Coutts
commented on nature of the research process undertaken by staff and the
conclusions that were drawn. She
explained that that during the research, the entire site was considered. However, it became clear during the process that
that, while the rear portion was certainly an integral part of the lot, the
evidence for its character has largely disappeared. As one cannot designate
something that no longer exists, the decision was made to exclude this portion
from the designation. She apologized if
the statement of significance was not clear enough for Committee to understand
how the decision was made not to include the southern portion, but reassured
Committee that entire site was considered and the discussion was made based on the
results of her analysis in relation to the Heritage
Act. Ms. Coutts also pointed out
that Council is free to make recommendations or changes to anything that staff
has written, which OBHAC has done.
Councillor
Leadman indicated that she has some concerns that when a heritage designation
is being requested, there seems to be a lack of clarity in terms of whether
lands are considered or why they are not considered. In response to further
questions from Councillor Leadman, Ms. Coutts expressed that every property
being considered for designation is looked at with equal rigor and the analysis
is made by a member of the heritage staff as to whether or not it fits the
criteria. He indicated that if someone
requests a designation for a building that the City has not yet identified, the
City asks for evidence as to why they believe it merits heritage designation.
Councillor
Leadman challenged the belief that the site had been completely cloistered,
noting the many activities that had occurred there and the special historical
relationship between the property and the community. In looking at this site as a whole in
relation to the monastery, its life and activities, she felt the Heritage Act speaks to how to
incorporate those elements as part of the conservation and appreciation for the
heritage value that exists. She
reiterated that heritage designation does not prevent development. She
challenged the notion that zoning and other elements of the Planning Act were sufficient and
suggested heritage conservation and heritage designation was there to benefit
the City and make important heritage assets viable places to be. In closing, Councillor Leadman noted she did
not want Committee to diminish the value she felt OBHAC rightfully saw, and the
important role of the heritage designation for the property.
Councillor
Holmes suggested that when a piece of land comes up for development,
developers, councillors and staff feel compelled to put as many units on a
piece of property because we need to intensify.
She suggested this situation was an example of how the City is
unsustainable, with insufficient green space and other resources to support the
population. She lamented that the City did
not have the resources to do proactive heritage work, suggesting that the only
time staff can turn their attention to heritage matters is when immediate
action is needed due to an impending development. She suggested it was
unfortunate that the City has insufficient staff to look at heritage issues
without immediate development pressure.
With
regards to this site, Councillor Holmes noted it was a major piece of heritage,
and indicated she was not in favour of separating it. She noted that applications to alter within a
heritage-designated area were frequent, citing three such items on the agenda
for that meeting. She suggested heritage
designation would be no hindrance to significant redevelopment of the south
portion of the site; rather, would enhance the ability to protect the building
while allowing development. She did not
support development of the north side of the property, and suggested protecting
it was legitimate. She cited the example
of a redevelopment project on Sparks Street in her ward, where the developer is
meeting the zoning requirements and protecting a heritage façade.
Councillor
Doucet concurred with Councillor Holmes that this situation was a further
example of the city’s sustainability problem.
He referenced an example of a property in his ward, abutting Main
Street, owned by the Oblates. He noted
that the extensive green space, located behind the Oblates’ principal building,
is used by the community. He suggested
the Community fears development on the site once the Oblates leave, a similar
situation as on the Richmond Road site.
He suggested there was nothing he could do to protect the land, because
the City does not have the resources to protect the space. He suggested the City was growing in an
unsustainable way, emphasizing the high cost of building additional road
kilometres at an unsustainable rate. He
noted a quarter of the City’s budget goes towards servicing roads. He suggested
the 114 Richmond property provided greenspace, oxygen and tranquility to the
Community, even when it was behind walls.
He suggested the argument at this point was over the scale of development
on the site; however, he felt any development on the site would diminish the
quality of life in the community.
Councillor
Bellemare suggested the designation offered a measure of supplementary
protection to ensure a development sensitive to the monastery. He noted they had heard the Advisory
Committee, delegations, and experts who indicated the site needs to be
designated to ensure sensitive development. He noted there were few sites
like this in the City of Ottawa, and they need to be protected as much as
possible. He proposed there was an
opportunity to redevelop the site in a way that opens it up to the Community
and make it a landmark. He suggested the
views of the building needed to be considered, and designation of the entire
site would provide that extra level of protection, scrutiny, and would
influence the design proposal at the beginning of the process. He noted he would like to see different
option of the types of buildings and designs that would be put on the site to
be compatible with the monastery and provide views. He suggested Committee and Council would not
have the same opportunity to see those options without the designation. He reiterated that the intention of
designation was not to prevent development; rather it was to ensure all the
tools are available to ensure the most sensitive development possible.
Councillor
Monette indicated his support for heritage designation. He suggested it would not make any sense to
have high rises on the site. He noted it
was a unique site in the City of Ottawa and maintained any development must be
done as sensitively as possible, to best showcase the site.
Chair
Hume referenced a recent Globe and Mail
article by Christie Blatchford, which spoke to how development in urban
communities is often difficult. He
suggested both sides of this issue want sensitive development that is in
accordance with the City’s zoning by-lawn, OP and other policies; however, he
suggested some of the tools in place to ensure this are rather “blunt”
instruments. He expressed his understanding that there was no right of appeal
on a designation under the Ontario
Heritage Act. He suggested it was a
reasonable argument that Committee needed to use the right tools for the right
reasons, and use them judiciously. He
noted that Committee and Council’s decision would be tested in a Court of Law
to assure the City is using the tools judiciously.
With
regards to the differences between the staff recommendation to designate the
Richmond Road portion of the property compared with the OBHAC recommendation to
designate the entire property, Chair Hume suggested staff’s position was the
most judicious and defensible. He
suggested staff made a clear case of the north portion, but did not see the
extension to the back property was a reasonable use of the designation, and
suggested the use of that land would be governed by various other planning
tools. While he understood the concerns
of Communities with regards to intensification, he suggested it was incumbent
on the City to use the tools they have in a reasonable manner to balance the
needs of the Community and the landowner.
The
Chair also wished to speak to how the application had come to be before
Planning and Environment Committee at the time it did. He challenged the allegation that the process
had been inappropriately accelerated. He
explained that there had been a desire to have the discussion on designation
before an application was made under the Panning
Act, to ensure the rules of the game were unambiguous and so the requirements
of designation would triumph and so the developer would be clear on what could
be done. He suggested that he had
believed this approach to be in the best interests of all parties, and thus he
had asked the Chair of OBHAC to convene a special meeting to make
recommendations on this matter.
Moved
by D. Holmes:
BE
IT RESOLVED THAT Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve
the following recommendations of the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee,
as approved at their meeting of 18 March 2010:
That
the heritage designation of the Soeurs de la Visitation Monastery, 114 Richmond
Road, under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act described in the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
(Document 6 of the staff report) be amended to include the totality of the
property, delineated by Richmond Road to the north, and the property line to
the south.
CARRIED
Moved by C. Doucet:
BE
IT RESOLVED THAT Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve
the staff-recommended amendments to the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
(Document 6)
CARRIED
That
the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the designation of the
Soeurs de la Visitation Monastery, 114 Richmond Road, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with
the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, attached as Document 6, and as
amended by the following:
1. The
staff-recommended amendments to the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value,
issued as revised Document 6;
2. An
amendment to the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value to include the totality of
the property, delineated by Richmond Road to the north, and the property line
to the south.
carried
