Report to/Rapport au:
Comité de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
26 August 2011 / le 26 août 2011
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, Inner Core/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services
urbains, Unité du Centre intérieur
Planning and Growth
Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 22379
Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
Rideau-Rockliffe (Ward
13) Ref N°:
ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0173
|
|
|||
|
SUBJECT: |
|||
|
|
|
||
|
OBJET : |
|||
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning
By‑law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 55 MacKay Street from R4S[900] to
R4S[XXXX] as shown on Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
RECOMMANDATION
DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil d’approuver une
modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250, afin de faire passer le zonage du
55, rue MacKay de R4S[900] à R4S[XXXX], comme le montre le document 1 et l’explique en détail
le document 2.
The subject property is
located on the south side of MacKay Street between Thomas Street and Charles
Street in the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District.
This corner lot is one of
the larger properties in the neighbourhood, measuring 1258 square metres with
approximately 41.3 metres of frontage on MacKay Street and 30.48 metres on
Charles Street.
The property
faces the grounds of the Governor General’s Residence (1 Sussex Drive) and is
located two blocks from the Prime Minister’s Residence on Sussex Drive. The area
is predominately a residential neighbourhood with residential homes surrounding
the property to the east, west and south.
The property contains a single detached home with a detached coach house
which fronts onto Charles Street. The grounds of the property are well
landscaped and surrounded by an existing wrought iron fence.
Existing Zoning
The existing zoning for the
subject property is Residential Fourth Density Subzone ‘S’ Exception 900 (R4S[900]), with a Heritage Overlay. The Residential Fourth
Density Zone permits a wide range of residential uses ranging from detached to
low-rise apartments. The current exception includes a provision detailing that
any use that has its only access from an existing lane is the only use
permitted on that parcel. The property is currently residential, and is not
serviced by a rear lane.
Purpose of Zoning By-law Amendment
The
Applicant is proposing to use the existing house as a chancellery for an
embassy. A diplomatic mission, which is currently permitted, is defined in the
By-law as the
residence of the accredited head or member of the diplomatic mission of a
recognized foreign or Commonwealth state having diplomatic or official status
in Canada, and allows for an office
as an accessory use, but not as the main use.
Therefore, in order to convert the existing
dwelling into a chancellery, the subject site must be re-zoned to add office as
a permitted use.
There
are no exterior changes proposed to the existing dwelling. No building
additions, security huts or new fencing are proposed.
The purpose of this zoning amendment application is to add an
exception to the existing R4S[900] zone to permit an “office limited to a
chancellery for an embassy” with the provision “An office limited to a
chancellery for an embassy is limited to being located in a building existing
as of September 28, 2011.” This provision would restrict the ability to expand
the office use beyond the space in the existing building, either by addition or
demolition. The provisions of the
heritage overlay are to remain in place.
Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement
Section 2 of the Planning Act outlines those land use matters that are of provincial interest, to which all City planning decisions shall have regard. The provincial interests that apply to this site include the appropriate location of growth and development and the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians. In addition, the Planning Act requires that all City planning decisions be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), a document that provides further policies on matters of provincial interest related to land use development. PPS policies indicate that there should be an appropriate mix of uses and densities which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of alternative transportation modes and public transit.
The proposed zoning allows
for a mix of uses, which will efficiently use land and contribute to a balanced
community. Staff conclude that the proposal is
consistent with the matters of provincial interest as outlined in the Planning Act and PPS.
Official
Plan
Introduction (Section 1)
Section 1 of the Official Plan sets broad guiding principles that must be taken into consideration when making decisions. One of the guiding principles is to foster a creative city rich in heritage and unique in identity. The Official Plan recognises Ottawa as a Capital City, which gives the City a national cultural perspective and a window to the world. The Plan also recognises that the qualities that make neighbourhoods special and contribute to their identity are valued in any consideration of a land-use change. There are many embassies, diplomatic missions and diplomatic residences in this part of the city (as shown in Document 3). The proximity of Rideau Hall, 24 Sussex Drive, and the Department of Foreign Affairs contributes to the prestige and symbolic importance of the neighbourhood for diplomatic missions and embassies. These diplomatic missions and embassies contribute to the character of New Edinburgh.
Land Use Designation
(Section 3.6.1)
The subject property is designated “General Urban Area” on
Schedule B of the Official Plan. The General Urban Area designation
permits the development of a wide range and choice of housing types to meet the
needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances, in combination with
conveniently located employment, service, cultural, leisure, entertainment and
institutional uses. The non-residential uses that are permitted in areas under
this designation are aimed at satisfying the local, everyday needs of the
residents, and direct those uses that also serve wider parts of the city to the
edges of neighbourhoods on higher-order roads, where the needs of these land
uses can be more easily met, and impacts controlled.
Compatibility (Section 4.11)
At the city-wide scale,
issues of compatibility are addressed in the Official Plan through the
appropriate designation of land and associated policies that direct where and
how certain categories of land use should be permitted to develop. At the scale
of neighbourhoods or individual properties, issues such as noise, spillover of
light, accommodation of parking and access, shadowing, and micro-climatic
conditions are prominent considerations when assessing the relationships
between new and existing development.
When considering applications for
a Zoning By-law amendment to permit non-residential uses, other than land
extensive uses, City Council will require that potential conflicts with
adjacent residential development are minimized through the application of the
Official Plan policies relating to Compatibility of Development. Such uses will
be directed to locations where anticipated impacts can be adequately mitigated
or otherwise addressed, including locations on the perimeter of established
residential neighbourhoods. In this
regard, existing or proposed building orientation, massing and design may be
taken into account.
The proposed development is consistent with the General Urban
Area policies. The property is located on MacKay Street, which is on the
perimeter of the community. It is across
the street from Rideau Hall and is immediately adjacent to residential, with
other embassies to the east, south and west. The existing building will be
retained and renovated to permit its conversion to a chancellery for an
embassy. This process will retain the building orientation, and staff are proposing that as part of the exception, a restriction
be placed on the zone to limit the office use to a house converted for the
purpose. This provision will not permit the buildings to be enlarged, or
demolished and rebuilt, without a further Zoning By-law amendment application.
DETAILS OF PROPOSED ZONING
The Zoning By-law amendment
amends the existing Residential Fourth Density Subzone S Exception 900 (R4S[900]) to Residential Fourth Density Subzone S Exception
XXXX (R4S[XXXX]) zone, which would permit the proposed office limited to a
chancellery for an embassy. The details of the zoning amendment are contained
in Document 2.
Heritage Considerations
The residential home on the
property is an excellent example of Queen Anne Revival style with an estimated
date of construction in the late 19th century. In 1997, the City of
Ottawa’s Heritage Survey and Evaluation Form classified the property as ‘Group
1’, the highest classification. The classification indicated that the property was
of significance and is said to reinforce the heritage residential character of
the New Edinburgh community. The property is designated under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act as part of the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District.
Any significant alterations to the exterior of the building or the landscape
will require the approval of City Council under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The City recognizes that
this property is a valuable asset to the New Edinburgh neighbourhood. The applicant
is not proposing any external renovations to the building, thereby fully
retaining the heritage value of the building and property. As mentioned, if in
the future the owner wishes to make alterations to the property including
fencing or parking, the changes would be subject to an application process
submitted to City Council under the Ontario
Heritage Act.
Traffic Issues
In September of 2006, City Council
adopted the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines as its policy for
transportation impact assessment with the intent to ensure its goals and
objectives, as present in the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan, are
realized. Section 4 of the Guidelines identifies the benchmarks to determine if
a report is required and if so what type of report is required to support a
development application. Table 4 of the
TIA guidelines addresses the various triggers and conditions that would require
a report. In regard to the proposed Zoning By-law amendment for 55 MacKay
Street, there are no new units being added, building expansions, safety and/or operations
concerns on the road, roadway modifications proposed, or additional traffic
volumes generated from this site, therefore a transportation assessment report
is not required.
Servicing Issues
There are no proposed alterations
to the physical state of the grounds of the property. As such there is no
impact on the current stormwater servicing of the property and the
post-development condition will remain the same as the pre-development
condition. The existing storm service to MacKay Street will continue to be used
as-is.
There are no proposed
alterations to the existing water service connection to the dwelling. Demands
for the building are anticipated to be consistent (or less) than the existing
demands as per the wastewater evaluation. Adequate fire protection exists with
the presence of an existing fire hydrant located on MacKay Street directly
across from 55 MacKay Street.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of the Zoning By-law
amendment is to add an exception to permit offices limited to a chancellery for
an embassy in a R4S zone. The proposed development supports Ottawa’s function as
a capital city, by supporting the ability of embassies and diplomatic offices
to locate in areas of symbolic importance. The applicant is not proposing any
alterations to the state of the property that would negatively influence its
heritage characteristics. The proposed Zoning By‑law amendment conforms with the general intent of the Official Plan and the existing
zoning in the area, and as such, staff recommend approval of the proposed
zoning.
Notice of this application was carried out in
accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Numerous public
comments were received and are detailed in Document 4.
Comments received July 19, 2011
“Peter Clark has visited
this site and while the property in question is not designated heritage, it is
in heritage designated area and certainly falls under the criteria. Any
rezoning has to take into account the heritage building and we have to make
sure that this is respected and no major changes occur.”
There
are no legal implications associated with this report.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
N/A
There are no
direct financial implications associated with this report.
The southwest corner of the
property is within the 15 metre buffer of the floodplain limit and is subject
to O. Reg 174-06. A permit is required from the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
for any construction, grading or shoreline works within the regulated area.
This application was processed by the "On Time
Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendment
applications.
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 “Offices Limited to a Diplomatic Mission” Locations
Map
Document 4 Consultation Details
City Clerk and Solicitor
Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene Canada Signs, 1565 Chatelain Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1Z 8B5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment,
Financial Services Branch (Mail Code:
26-76) of City Council’s decision.
Planning
and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and
undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services to forward the implementing
by-law to City Council.
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT
2
Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning
By-law
Further Permitted Uses
·
office
limited to a chancellery for an embassy
·
An
office limited to a chancellery for an embassy is limited to being located in a
building existing as of September 28, 2011
“OFFICES LIMITED TO A DIPLOMATICMISSION” LOCATIONS
MAP DOCUMENT 3
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT
4
NOTIFICATION AND
CONSULTATION PROCESS
Notification and public
consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and
Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law amendments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1.
I am writing regarding the notification
of a Zoning By-law amendment Proposal being considered by the Planning and
Growth Management Department for 55 MacKay Street. I do not support this
proposal in any way or form.
The property in
question, 55 MacKay Street, is a beautiful Victorian house. It is
situated one block from the Prime Minister's residence and one block from
Rideau Hall, the Governor General's residence. It should remain as it is
designated, a residential property. There should be no amendment
proposal. The subject property, 55 MacKay Street, is zoned R45 [900] for
residential use and should remain that way for obvious reasons. My neighbours
are writing to you as well, and all are in agreement that this proposal is
totally unacceptable.
The application
proposes to add an expectation to the existing zoning to permit
"offices limited to a diplomatic mission". This is totally
inappropriate. Residential living does not include possible/potential security
around the grounds, high fencing around the perimeter, surveillance lighting,
extra parking spots, extra people as it is an office, and so many others
possibilities that go with "offices limited to a diplomatic
mission for potential embassy offices". This is a residential
community in a historic part of the City of Ottawa. This proposal is
totally unacceptable.
2.
We have very strong concerns with the
proposed sale and rezoning of the above said property which until now
represents a great historical/conservation attribute to the New Edinburgh
neighbourhood. Our concerns are as follows:
(1)
Paving for increase parking facilities:
We fear that the beautiful garden facing MacKay Street will be paved in order
to create more parking space. In winter, we have a
wonderful view of the garden and the Governor General’s estate from our living
room window. If this part of the garden were to be paved, we would be looking
at a parking lot which would certainly detract and possibly decrease the value
of our house.
(2)
Possible construction of a wall for
security reasons: we fear that the new owner could build a wall in order to
enhance security. This would be totally unacceptable to use and would certainly
diminish the value and enjoyment of our property.
(3)
Lighting for security purposes: Sodium
lights around the back of the garden and therefore near our backyard would
flood our bedroom window at night. Again an unacceptable situation as it would
create a great unpleasantness to us and our neighbours. Such lighting would
inconvenience all the neighbours on the block.
The buyer may
not have announced at present their intention concerning parking, lighting and
other security measures; However, unless the above stated issues are addresses
and put in writing, there are no guarantees to the all of us neighbours that
high fences/walls, paving and sodium light will not occur after the sale of the
house.
Ideally, we
would like to see in the rezoning permission clauses that specify:
a)
No drive way and paving should be built
on the part of the garden facing MacKay Street. The drive way of 55 MacKay
Street is off Charles Street.
b)
No wall be built around the property and
fencing will be kept at an acceptable height to immediate neighbours.
c)
No Sodium lighting or high power
floodlights for security purposes should be installed. Other, more
neighbour-friendly, security devices should be considered.
We urge the City
of Ottawa to be fully open to our concerns, which are certainly shared by all
our neighbours owning properties on the block (MacKay/Charles/Alexander/Thomas
Streets). We hope that the rezoning will contain clauses which will address the
potential problems outlined above. All the backyards on our block are
connected, thus the potential for serious problems requires that binding
assurances be addressed explicitly.
3.
We feel this to be a matter of most
serious concern for the preservation of the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation
District, its history, current profile and future development. The area
is already affected in a variety of ways by its proximity to Foreign Affairs,
diplomatic quarters, 24 Sussex Drive and Rideau Hall. Abuse of parking
and cross-neighbourhood shortcutting for traffic to and from the Ottawa
bridges, on a daily work-week basis, is one of the prevailing disruptions, with
negative impact on visitors of all ages to events at Rideau Hall and
Stanley Park.
The following comments are respectfully drawn
to your attention:
a.
The site
location at 55 MacKay Street is in the New Edinburgh Conservation District and
remains one of the most significant buildings and sites therein.
b.
A zoning
by-law is grounded in principle and should not, once established in law, be
subjected, within reason, to amendment of any kind.
c.
It follows
from the above, we believe, that there must be a fundamental and clear
distinction in law, between the categories of by-law and variance.
d.
It is
our understanding that earlier precedents, exemplified by the French
(outside the district but nearby), South African and Spanish Embassies,
preceded the New Edinburgh by-law zoning and heritage designation and are
consequently 'grand-fathered.' Similarly, one or two modest commercial
enterprises in the district have taken their place in the community prior to
designation.
e.
The
application under consideration requests a Zoning By-law amendment to
"permit 'offices limited to a diplomatic mission.'" The term
'offices' in the plural obviously implies consular usage. The impact on
the surviving architectural character and site outlay of 55 MacKay Street in
the New Edinburgh Conservation District can be anticipated. The R4S[900] zoning is presumably in place, in an area and
neighbourhood of international, national and municipal significance, to
preserve such buildings and sites for "a range of residential
uses," and residential uses only.
4.
As a neighbour, I have strong concerns
about certain possible outcomes of this proposed rezoning and sale.
At this stage, my concerns relate to two
possible/probable aspects of an embassy-type building: 1) interior paving for
parking and 2) fencing and lighting. I hope that you and your City colleagues
might be able to get these concerns onto the table now, in talks with the
intending buyers, with the goal of extracting from the buyers some
clarification and even some formal, written, binding commitment, before the
rezoning is approved. Furthermore, I believe that other neighbours share
exactly these concerns.
(1) Paving for parking. Behind the Spanish
Embassy building on Stanley Avenue, the asphalt parking lot was created for the
embassy after the building was converted from residence buildings. My concern
is that something similar will happen here—that the beautiful lawns and gardens
at 55 MacKay Street (to the right of the house as viewed from MacKay Street)
will be paved over to create parking space.
I well understand that the buyer has not
announced any such intent, but I take no assurance from that silence. Also I
take no assurance from what the buyer’s lawyer reportedly told a neighbour,
that “they have no plans at this time to create new parking.” I fear that
unless we can get the paving-for-parking question onto the table now, as
something to be addressed explicitly, then the paving will happen, eventually,
after the sale.
Ideally, I would like to hear the buyer
promise not to pave, and I would like this to become a precondition of the
rezoning permission: that the buyer may not pave. I would urge staff and
council not to be content with vague, nonbinding assurances of “no such plans
at this time”.
The house’s grounds are a glory to MacKay
Street and a complement to the Governor-General’s grounds, across the street.
It would be a crime for anyone to put down a parking lot there.
So can you tell me, please, is this paving-for-parking
question one that might be taken up by you and your colleagues, prior to your
decision on the rezoning and your recommendation to council?
(2) Fencing and lighting. Embassy-type
buildings are normally unpleasant to live next to, due to the embassy’s
necessary security concerns. The Spanish Embassy on Stanley, for example, has
high fencing and sodium lights around its back—which suggests similar apparatus
destined to go near my backyard behind 55 MacKay Street.
So, again, can you tell me if this
fencing/lighting issue is something that you could take up with the buyer? Are
there any regulations or limits that your office can impose—along with
corresponding, formal, binding assurances from the buyer—prior to your
recommendation being made?
5.
It is indeed unfortunate and, perhaps
not coincidental, that we were only informed about the Zoning By-law amendment
Proposal on June 30, 2011 with a deadline of July 28, 2011 to file our
comments. This is a traditional holiday period when many of the residents
in the neighbourhood are away. We would like to request an extension to
this time period to enable those residents who are on holiday to file their
comments when they return.
Like our neighbours, we are totally opposed
to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. We feel this to be a matter of most
serious concern for the preservation of the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation
District, its history, current profile and future development. The
site location at 55 MacKay Street is in the New Edinburgh Conservation District
and remains one of the most significant buildings and sites therein. 55 MacKay
Street is one of the original four residences built on the block bordered by
MacKay, Charles, Alexander and Thomas Streets. The attachment to the listing on the City website claims
that the residence is on the periphery of the neighbourhood, which implies that
it's separated from it in some way, which it isn't, surrounded by houses as it
is.
2. The area is already affected in a variety
of ways by its proximity to Foreign Affairs, diplomatic quarters, 24 Sussex Drive
and Rideau Hall. Abuse of parking and cross-neighbourhood shortcutting
for traffic to and from the Ottawa bridges, on a daily work-week basis, is one
of the prevailing disruptions. The application
under consideration requests a Zoning By-law amendment to permit
"diplomatic offices including an Embassy use." The term
'offices' in the plural obviously implies consular usage. The prospective
buyer represents a foreign government that requires visas for all Canadian
visitors, which would inevitably lead to increased traffic, not to mention the
traffic that would result from the other day-to-day meetings and events that an
embassy needs to host and parking requirements of staff. An Environmental
Assessment by EXP Services assumes occupancy of TEN staff. This
is inconsistent with the traffic-calming strategies recently implemented
in the neighbourhood.
3. The prospect
of protest demonstrations is a reality.
4. A zoning by-law is grounded in principle
and should not, once established in law, be subjected, within reason, to
amendment of any kind. It follows, we
believe, that there must be a fundamental and clear distinction in law, between
the categories of by-law and variance.
5. It is our understanding that earlier
precedents, exemplified by the French (outside the district but nearby),
South African and Spanish Embassies, preceded the New Edinburgh by-law
zoning and heritage designation and are consequently 'grand-fathered.' Similarly,
one or two modest commercial enterprises in the district have taken their place
in the community prior to designation.
6. The impact on the surviving architectural
character and site outlay of 55 MacKay Street in the New Edinburgh Conservation
District can be anticipated. The R4S[900] zoning
is presumably in place, in an area and neighbourhood of international, national
and municipal significance, to preserve such buildings and sites
for "a range of residential uses," and
residential uses only.
7. The application
proposes to add an expectation to the existing zoning to permit
"offices limited to a diplomatic mission". This is totally
inappropriate. Residential living does not include possible/potential security
around the grounds, high fencing around the perimeter, surveillance lighting,
extra parking spots, extra people as it is an office,
and so many other possibilities that go with "offices limited to a
diplomatic mission for potential embassy offices". This is a
residential community in a historic part of the City of Ottawa. This
proposal is totally unacceptable.
6.
I have lived in New Edinburgh for over
60 years and actually lived in 55 MacKay Street from 1958-2000. I have the
following concerns with the application before you:
I.
Maintaining
the grounds and gardens
I understand the applicant Embassy is not
making application for increased parking on the property. Perhaps the Applicant
thinks there will be sufficient on street parking for its employees and
visitors. I can tell you from personal observation that there will be no on
street parking for the Embassy.
I know from personal observation that this is
not going to be the case. When I leave, prior to 9:00 a.m. and return at 9:35
a.m. there are nine cars parking on MacKay Street between Thomas and Charles Streets,
eight more on Charles Street, both sides, between MacKay and Crichton Streets and
another eight on Alexander Street. As the City of Ottawa By-law Enforcement
Office can document for you these cars are parked there routinely day after day
by employees of External Affairs. Notwithstanding that there is a three hour
limit on parking those same employees juggle these spaces among themselves
mid-day.
I see a real possibility that if the
Applicant is permitted to proceed there will be nothing to stop it paving over
the property surrounding the building to provide parking similar to what the
Spanish Embassy did on Stanley Avenue many years ago and before New Edinburgh
was designated as a Heritage Conservation District. I also point out that the
Spanish Embassy built a stand-alone consulate; it did not attempt to adapt an
existing residence. This cannot be a precedent.
Therefore, if your committee is considering
approving the application I would strongly urge you to incorporate a
prohibition against allowing vehicles to be parked on the grounds, (other than
the existing driveway) with a positive commitment to maintain the grounds as
nearly as possible in the manner in which they now exist.
II. The existing wrought iron fencing
I do not know what concerns the Applicant has
for security. I think it would be inappropriate to permit the Applicant to
replace the existing wrought iron fence with any solid kind of barrier such as
a stone or concrete wall. With the exception of the South African Consulate, I
do not believe there are any such solid barriers in the neighbourhood; not the
French Embassy, not 24 Sussex Drive, not Rideau Hall.
III.
Security
lighting
Any high intensity halogen or sodium lights
would be a major distraction, irritation and annoyance to the occupants of all
the houses that abut 55 MacKay Street to say nothing of the negative impact
such a nuisance would have on the value of those houses.
There are very few “businesses” in New
Edinburgh; those that exist were there before the neighbourhood was designated
a Heritage District. It is essentially a residential neighbourhood. I strongly
suggest to you that there is no valid reason to depart from the provisions of
the prevailing by-laws and I urge you to reject the application for rezoning.
7.
I am getting in touch to register my
concern with the proposed by law amendment and to ask to participate in the
review process.
Our concerns, in brief, relate
to:
·
Increased
traffic volumes;
·
Parking
issues (already an issue with MacKay Street being used as back up parking for
External Affairs plus the understandable demand from visitors to the GGs);
·
Heritage
issues. The house is in an area designated as heritage and this is one of
the key reasons we choose to buy in the area. We are keen to see the
character of the area retained.
8.
My husband and I purchased our property
in 1998, approximately two years before the current owners purchased 55 MacKay
Street. We had two very small children,
and were delighted to find a home in a family-friendly, centrally-located,
well-established neighbourhood with a cohesive community.
We are deeply concerned about any plan to
amend the existing zoning to permit “offices limited to a diplomatic mission”
as a permitted use of 55 MacKay Street.
1.
Office space is currently available in existing
business districts. There are many existing business districts in Ottawa where this diplomatic
office could be located. In our view,
there would be absolutely no need to re-zone a residential property to allow
diplomatic office use. The foreign government
interested in purchasing 55 MacKay Street could certainly find adequate office
space in a district already zoned for business use.
As there is no shortage of available
commercial space for lease or purchase in Ottawa, why should a residential
neighbourhood be asked to accommodate a diplomatic
business usage? We did not seek to live
in a mixed use neighbourhood, and don’t see why we should be asked to live in
one now. If this zoning amendment is
permitted, it may begin a trend that would have a negative effect on the
cohesiveness of a neighbourhood comprised of people who actually live there,
and so have a major stake in its continued health and well-being.
2.
Increased daily vehicular traffic to the offices.
Diplomatic offices can result in
a significant traffic increase which would be inconsistent with traffic-calming efforts in this area.
If the prospective owner, or a future owner,
is the government of a country
requiring a visitor visa for all Canadians, there could be greatly
increased traffic. Even if the country
has a means to allow on-line visa applications as many do, many people would still need to visit the
diplomatic office to provide documents or for proof of identity. Additionally, the office would presumably host a number of meetings and other events
on a regular basis in order for the country to represent fully its interests.
There would be absolutely no way to guarantee
that the prospective owner, and any future foreign government which could
subsequently purchase the property, would not use the property to process visa
applications. As there are existing
business districts that could accommodate this diplomatic office, we see no
need to disrupt, or potentially disrupt, our neighbourhood. The impact of increased vehicular traffic on
nearby occupants in a business district would be less disruptive than the
impact on a tightly packed residential block.
It would not be correct to claim that this
property is on the periphery of the neighbourhood. Rather, it is immediately surrounded by other
residences and the increased traffic created by visa applicants and other
visitors would have an impact on adjoining residents. Efforts have been made to calm the vehicular
traffic on MacKay Street, so it would not make sense to approve a by-law amendment
that would result in increased traffic.
3.
On-street
parking is already a problem in this part of New Edinburgh due to visitors to Rideau Hall and the
proximity of the National Research Council and the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade. Because
the Rideau Hall Visitor Centre is located directly across from 55 MacKay Street
on Rideau Gate Street, the closest parking is on MacKay Street. Many tourists park along MacKay Street
(on-street parking on Rideau Gate
street is not allowed) and the neighbourhood nearby, as directed
by the Rideau Hall website (http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=164). On-street parking along Charles
Street on most of the block between Alexander Street and MacKay Street is
permitted on both sides of street. Even
in summer, two cars cannot pass along this block when cars are parked on both
sides of Charles Street because that part of Charles Street is narrow. In winter, snowbanks compound this problem.
The diplomatic
office staff and visitors to the proposed office would require parking. If staff are
expected to use on-street parking, they will have trouble finding spaces unless
they come in quite early. They would
also find it impractical to have to move their cars during the day to avoid
receiving parking tickets. Visitors
arriving later in the day would have difficulty finding a spot and so would
have to drive around looking for one, which would add to the traffic volume on
these streets and undermine traffic-calming measures.
4.
Security arrangements. Why should we and our neighbours have to worry about the possibility
that we might someday be living in a place that has the potential to cause concerns about security? Diplomatic business offices should not be
located in such close proximity to homes.
The security situation of any country can
change extremely quickly. For example,
you may recall that there were large demonstrations in May of this year in
front of the Libyan embassy on Metcalfe Street in downtown Ottawa. These demonstrations required police
intervention and there were injuries; see CBC report (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/05/13/ottawa-libya-protest-embassy.html). As you may know, the revolutionary events in
Libya and neighbouring countries this spring were not foreseen, even by
experts. No one could have predicted the
revolution in Libya, and no one could have predicted the knock-on effect in
downtown Ottawa. The presence of a
diplomatic office would introduce a large element of uncertainty into the lives
of the neighbours of 55 MacKay Street.
There is no justification to do so, since appropriate office space is
available in existing business districts in Ottawa.
5.
Aesthetic value. We are very grateful for the
care taken by the current owners of 55 MacKay Street. Our estimation is that a foreign government,
whose representatives do not even live there, may have much less invested in the
continued, sensitive maintenance of this property and surely the heritage
designation that it deserves could be undermined. Rarely would anyone feel as responsible for
mere office space, as they would for the home they live in. Even if the prospective buyer were to provide
assurances on lighting, fencing or any other issue, there is no guarantee that future representatives of
that government would be able to honour such an agreement. Additionally, for its own reasons, a country
might determine that its foreign missions require enhanced security due to
increased threat levels, and require all its diplomatic offices to enhance
physical barriers and other security features.
And, the prospective buyer may subsequently sell the re-zoned property to another foreign
government, which would certainly not feel beholden to any previous assurances.
6.
Role of the seller. The current owners of 55
MacKay Street have been exemplary members of the community. We are grateful for the energy and time they
have given to many community activities.
However, it is simply not fair if the immediate problem of
one neighbourhood resident is solved by creating possible long-term problems
for many other neighbours. While
the current owners would be advantaged by this sale, those of us left behind
would be disadvantaged.
We trust that the City of Ottawa will place
more priority on the rights of multiple neighbours, and well-being of Ottawans
and established neighbourhoods, rather than cater to the wholly unnecessary
request of a foreign government and the interests of an individual seller.
While I am not enthusiastic about the
proposed change I would consider it an acceptable evil if (and only if) there
was an absolute commitment by the City to ensure that the property was protected:
·
that the
current buildings be retained with modifications only as per the HCD Guidelines
and approved by New Edinburgh Community Alliance (NECA);
·
and that the
garden/yard not be turned into parking lots (not now not ever).
If the above conditions cannot be guaranteed
(built into the by-law amendment) than I request that the amendment proposal be
denied.
7.
Any
change in New Edinburgh from a residential use is a matter of great concern to
us.
We do not agree with the change from
residential use for the following reasons.
Approving this proposal is poor planning.
We sincerely hope that New Edinburgh
citizens' objection to this zoning amendment proposal change is not an exercise
in futility and that the granting of the right to object is not a mere
formality. As tax-paying citizens in a neighbourhood in which we choose
to live and about which we feel passionate – for ourselves and future
generations – it would be distressing and alarming to discover that the
granting of this zoning change is, in fact, a foregone conclusion!
8.
You've
heard from many of our neighbours in the area surrounding 55 MacKay Street
regarding the proposed zoning amendment.
This letter is to formally add our objection
to theirs to any such proposal. To re-zone the lot to allow for such
business premises can only open the door to other similar applications, and
what was once a residential neighbourhood will all too soon become something
entirely different. It will hardly be to Ottawa's credit to interfere
with the heritage character of the neighbourhood to its obvious detriment.
The question of security is particularly
troubling, and given that both 24 Sussex Drive and the Governor General's
residence are in close proximity to 55 MacKay Street, we're more than a little
anxious about the ramifications that a potential embassy office space might
impose on the area.
9.
I
strongly oppose the proposed Zoning By-law amendment Proposal for 55 MacKay
Street.
The proposed amendment to 55 MacKay Street
will turn this property from a residential property to a commercial one - given
that the use stated will be for 10 offices for a diplomatic mission. This
would establish a precedent for allowing other residential buildings to be used
for commercial purposes in what is a strong residential community.
There are additional concerns with respect to
parking - 10 offices requiring parking, and the increased traffic that a
diplomatic mission would generate in a residential community.
55 MacKay Street is located in the New
Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District and the home itself has a heritage
designation. To turn this into a commercial venue would defeat the
purpose of having established this area as a residential conservation area.
I have lived in the community since 1980 -
for 31 years - when I bought what was a former school house. I have
supported many changes in the neighbourhood and opposed others where I believed
that they were detrimental to the design and character of New Edinburgh.
I sincerely hope that the proposed amendment is not approved as this would
allow for additional changes in the future and irrevocably alter the
residential character of the neighbourhood.
10.
I
strongly object the proposal to amend the zoning by-law; RE 55 MacKay Street Reasons:
Said property is located in a residential heritage area and turning it to a
commercial building would set a precedent, and potentially change the character
of this area, negatively, with something this community doesn’t approve of.
Parking would definitely be a different and disturbing issue.
11.
Our
objections are as follows:
a. The neighbourhood context of 55 MacKay Street is that the property "serves as a prominent historical gateway" to one of the most significant areas in the City of Ottawa. To allow "offices", whether diplomatic or other, will destroy the residential harmony of the area.
b. Diplomatic offices will result in increased vehicular traffic in an area already congested during the business day by street parking. In addition, with the increased need for street parking, the City of Ottawa will be tempted to install parking meters, thus forever destroying the neighbourhood.
c. Diplomatic offices will result in increased usage of the two closest OCTranspo bus stops (corner of Charles Street and Creighton, and corner of Charles and Alexander Streets). These two bus stops are currently littered by food products, soft drink containers and discarded newspapers. My neighbours and I do not wish to increase our cleaning-up duties, which will certainly as a result of an increased usage of these two bus stops.
Furthermore, the security of our homes and property
is paramount. Allowing diplomatic offices into our neighbourhood challenges our
sense of peace and security. The recent events in Norway are a reminder that a
peaceful neighbourhood can easily become a target for demonstrations (and,
unfortunately, more).
12.
Without
some significant assurances, I do not support the proposed amendment. I
have two concerns:
I. The impact of the amendment proposal on the
local residents.
II. The impact of the proposal on the 55 MacKay Street
properties and the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District.
Impact on Local Residents
New Edinburgh (other than the Governor
General grounds and stretches along Springfield and Beechwood) has evolved into an almost entirely residential
neighbourhood. There may be many home-based businesses but these businesses do
not impact significantly on the related houses, streets, neighbours. The
proposed change of the zoning at 55 MacKay Street would bring problematic
changes in the form of significant traffic, parking requirements, security fencing
and lighting. Parking is already a problem as many New Edinburgh streets
are essentially parking lots for Foreign Affairs workers. However my
concerns regarding parking and nuisance lighting pale compared to my concern
for the beautiful 55 MacKay Street property and the New Edinburgh Heritage
Conservation District. (See discussion below).
Impact on an
Important Property and on the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District
55 MacKay Street (both the building and the
property) are exceptional. They are important in their own right and are
outstanding components of the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District. The
property was nurtured by generations of the Edwards/Bogue
family and by the current owners Joe Cull and Ian Engelberg.
The proposed zoning change for the property is almost certain to lead to
alterations to the building (exterior as well as interior) and to paving of the
wonderful property to provide parking. The changes to the property would be
unfortunate and the harm to the NE Heritage Conservation District (HCD) would
be serious. The NE HCD is not just of value to its residents. It is a
resource to be enjoyed by Ottawa residents and visitors more generally. Many NE
residents consider themselves as stewards of this heritage resource.
My Conclusions
New Edinburgh is a residential area which
includes some long standing "businesses". There is no compelling
reason to alter zoning by-laws to allow other non-residential property uses.
This is particularly the case for 55 MacKay Street as the problems caused by
the proposed change in zoning will exacerbate existing traffic and parking
problems; and because the property is exceptionally wonderful and important to
the NE Heritage Conservation District.
While I am not enthusiastic about the proposed change I would consider it an
acceptable evil if (and only if) there was an absolute commitment by the City
to ensure that the property was protected:
If
the above conditions cannot be guaranteed (built into the by-law amendment)
than I request that the amendment proposal be denied.
9.
My wife and I are completely opposed to
the granting of any change to the existing zoning designation for Number 55
MacKay Street, New Edinburgh, Ottawa. Our reasons are
several. Some of the more significant follow: 1) Charles/MacKay Streets are
premier streets in the Heritage Designated area of New Edinburgh. This is the
main reason we bought our residence on this street in the first instance. To
allow offices (diplomatic or otherwise) as is proposed would be a complete
violation of the existing Heritage zoning and a travesty to people, such as
ourselves, who retired here because the street is in the city but not a in a
commercial area. 2) To site the proposed offices at the corner of MacKay and
Charles Streets presents major problems, particularly regarding parking. At
present the number of cars parked on Charles Street is exorbitant. Cars park on both sides of the road and it is often impossible to
turn safely onto Charles Street from MacKay Street. During the week, employees
of External Affairs and The Governor Generals Office
park here. On weekends, the area is swamped (to overflowing) with casual
visitors to the Governor Generals residence with their cars as well as with
tourists buses. Given this situation it is courting disaster (i.e. accidental
deaths and injuries) to cram more cars and people into such a limited space. 3)
The streets here in New Edinburgh are designated Heritage: this is for a
reason. Mainly to maintain an area which exhibits something of Ottawa’s and
Canada’s past. To allow changes to this designation would provide a precedent
for other developers to try to follow suit. This would represent a complete
lack of concern for existing residents and a great imposition on their time and
energy. 4) The potential diplomatic occupants of the proposed offices
themselves could present problems. The potential for future political
demonstrations could be high. Crowd control, noise problem and riot policing
activities, could be necessary and thus expensive and disruptive to the
residents. 5) Finally, the notice of intention regarding this zoning change was
given in the middle of the summer when many residents are on vacation. The time
period allotted for comment was short not enabling sufficient discussion of
these proposals.
10.
Adding an expectation to the existing
zoning to permit "offices limited to a diplomatic mission" is totally
inappropriate. A zoning by-law is grounded in principle and should not be
subjected to amendment. Specific and practically, the proposed zoning amendment
would severely and negatively impact an area and neighbourhood
of international, national and municipal significance. This is a residential
community in a historic part of the City of Ottawa and the proposal is totally
unacceptable.
11.
I wish to submit my objection to the proposed Zoning
By-Law amendment Proposal for 55 MacKay Street.
This area
of New Edinburgh has a long residential history which I believe would be
adversely affected by the addition of offices for diplomatic or any other
commercial use.
12.
We wish to register our objection to the
proposed zoning change to 55 MacKay Street.
In the past 15 years it has become impossible
to park in front of our house, for even a short time to unload groceries,
as all parking spots on the street are filled from 8:30-9 am until 4:30-5pm
especially during spring, fall and winter months by employees (we assume)
of DFAT. We do not object to short term parking by visitors to Government
House. To zone the above property for office use resulting in the
need for more parking is unreasonable and on these grounds we object.
13.
I regret to inform you that I am
inextricably opposed to a change in zoning which would permit an embassy office
on the adjoining property.
I am afraid that
I cannot agree to an embassy office with its parking and security needs in our
small residential neighbourhood.
The request for
re-zoning must be turned down.
14.
My partner and I are opposed to the
granting of a Zoning By-Law amendment, your file No. D02-02-11-0047. The
property in question is one of the finest residential properties in New Edinburgh,
and has been designated by the New Edinburgh Heritage District as a Group 1
property. This is the highest category, and such properties are deemed “of
considerable significance”. The rational for our opposition is summarized
below.
1. To rezone or amend the by-laws as proposed
would severely impact the very special characteristics of New Edinburgh that
are supported and protected by: the current zoning by-laws; the New Edinburgh
Heritage Conservation District Plan; the Planning
Act, R.S.O.1990,C.P.13 as amended; the Provincial
Policy Statement, 2005; and the City of Ottawa Official Plan.
2. The existing “Embassies” located in the
New Edinburgh area, as stated in the Gibson Project Planning Inc “Planning
Rational. dated June 2nd, 2011” have been
in existence before any of the current relevant legislation was in place.
Embassy of France since 1932, India High Commission since 1974, Embassy of
Spain since 1993, and the Embassy of South Africa prior to 1990 (date
uncertain). They have not been
granted a special amendment under the current relevant legislation or zoning
by-laws.
3. The Planning Rationale and personal
opinion stated in Gibson Project Planning Inc. is basically a personal opinion
to support the agent. The logic put forward that the City has approved several
exceptions to the zoning by-law in New Edinburgh is incorrect, as all of the existing Embassies presence predates the
current zoning by-laws. A possible exception may be the temporary location of
the Ghana High Commission in an existing commercial office building at 29 Beechwood Avenue. In fact, they moved there offices in
March of 2011 to Clemow Avenue. Further, the City of
Ottawa should note the relationship between the Agent, and the principal of the
Gibson Project Planning Inc. This makes the “Opinion” stated very subjective.
4. The creation of an Embassy Office will
create additional traffic and parking problems in an area already stressed by
the presence of visitors, tourists, and employees of DFAIT. The presence of the
proposed Embassy will also add the possibility of demonstrations and other
activities that will severely impact congestion in this residential area.
5. The opinion stated by Trow/EXP
will, I suspect, be thoroughly reviewed by City staff, as it seems very
simplistic in its assumptions and conclusions. Water and sewage estimates seem
very, very conservative.
6. The proponents state that the Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has granted conditional permission
to purchase the subject property, PROVIDED THAT it does not contravene any
applicable local laws, by-laws, etc. As the current zoning by-laws do not
support the proposed use, the permission is in abeyance. I doubt that the
objective of DFAIT is to have local laws changed to suit each application it
receives. This would not be very desirable precedent.
In conclusion we are very much opposed to the
proposed Zoning By-Law amendment. Changing the use of this property as
requested by the purchaser/agent is NOT in keeping with the intent and
integrity of existing relevant legislation. Changing or amending existing
relevant legislation/by-laws would set a very serious and damaging precedent
that future applicants would use to gain similar “amendments”. It would
facilitate any of the existing Embassy Residences in Rockcliffe,
New Edinburgh, and other parts of Ottawa to seek similar zoning by-law
amendments. This possibility is very real as countries around the world are in
difficult financial times, and consolidating their physical properties would
significantly reduce their operating costs and investment
New Edinburgh is one of the most significant
historical and heritage districts in Ottawa, and possibly in all of Canada.
This rich history must be preserved. Creating office buildings in such a fine,
historic neighbourhood is not acceptable.
15.
We would like to let you know that we
are opposed to the requested zoning by-law amendment proposal for 55 MacKay
Street.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
The public comments that
were received as part of the public consultation can be summarized into three
main categories:
1.
Traffic
The proposed change to 55
MacKay Street will not generate a significant increase in traffic. The City
uses Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) guidelines to determine whether a
traffic impact study is required. City of Ottawa Transportation staff
determined that a traffic impact study was not required due to the nature of
the proposal.
2.
Parking
The Heritage Overlay
provides a parking exemption for all Category 1 and 2 buildings in the New Edinburgh
Heritage Conservation District. The prospective buyers have not indicated any
need or desire for increased parking on site. Currently, there is a generous
paved area at the entrance off Charles Street and the applicant has indicated
that the Coach House can accommodate up to five vehicles. Any changes to the
property that involve alterations to the property, including the addition of
parking on the property would be subject to an application under the Ontario Heritage Act.
3. Heritage/Landscaping/Site Design
The property is designated
under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
A property designation under the Ontario
Heritage Act does not regulate the use of the property. Alterations to the
property including grounds, parking and fencing would be subject to an
application which would be reviewed by the City’s Heritage Staff. The Heritage
Staff at the City of Ottawa have confirmed and informed the applicant that a
proposal to replace the existing wrought iron fencing with new and/or higher
fencing would not be supported.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
COMMENTS
New Edinburgh Community
Alliance (NECA)
These comments are submitted on behalf of the
New Edinburgh Community Alliance, an incorporated non-profit organization with
a mandate to make representations on matters affecting this community and its
residents.
The subject property is an
impressive late Victorian mansion located in the New Edinburgh Heritage
Conservation District, across from the grounds of Rideau Hall. This area is subject to the Heritage Overlay
(Section 60) of the Ottawa Zoning By-law.
The proposed zoning
amendment has been examined by NECA’s New Edinburgh Heritage & Development
Committee. Our objective is to ensure
that change is managed sensitively and avoids adverse impacts on the character
of the neighbourhood and the quality of life of residents. In the course of our review we identified
several potential concerns associated with the proposed change in permitted
use. We have raised these concerns with
City staff and the agent for the applicant, who have in turn provided
additional information, clarifications, and assurances. We wish to document here our concerns and our
understanding of how these are being addressed.
This provides us with the basis for determining whether or not to support
the proposed zoning amendment.
1. Heritage Character of the
House and Grounds
The property at
55 MacKay Street is classified as Category 1 in the Ottawa Heritage Reference
List, i.e., the highest level. The
residence, built at the end of the 19th century is a fine example of
the Queen Anne Revival style, and is accompanied by a restored coach house and
large, landscaped grounds. This heritage
property, in a conspicuous location near Rideau Hall and 24 Sussex Drive, is a
valuable asset for Ottawa. NECA could
not support any zoning amendment that would result in changes being made to the
physical appearance of the house and its grounds.
However, we note
the present application does not propose any changes other than adding the new
permitted use. Indeed, the report by
“exp” specifically states, “There are no proposed
alterations to the physical state of the grounds of the property”. Furthermore, City heritage staff has confirmed
that any subsequent alteration of the building or property would require
approval under the Ontario Heritage Act. NECA would vigorously oppose any such approval.
2. Perimeter Fence
There is concern
that approval of the proposed zoning amendment could lead to the creation of an
alienating “fortress” at this location caused by increased security measures
for the diplomatic offices. At present,
the property is pleasantly but effectively protected by a modest metal railing
fence. NECA would oppose this being
replaced by higher fencing, resulting in the residence being screened and cut
off from the sidewalk. However, City
heritage staff inform us the applicant has been
advised that a new, higher fence would not be supported; NECA believes this
clarification should be indicated in the approval document.
3. Light Encroachment
Another
potential “fortress” concern relates to possible changes to the illumination of
the property. Some, though not all,
diplomatic missions employ offensive and intrusive security lighting. Clearly, 55 MacKay Street is located within a
residential setting, where such lighting is inappropriate and potentially
problematic for neighbours. NECA would
oppose such an intrusion. However, City staff
has confirmed the applicant must comply with municipal by-laws regarding light
trespass. NECA believes this should be
indicated in the approval document.
4. Parking
Currently there
is on-site parking for three or four vehicles.
There are two concerns re parking.
(i)
The possibility that the landscaped garden
would be paved over in whole or in part in order to provide additional on-site
parking.
This concern is related to heritage
preservation. The landscaped grounds are
an integral component of the heritage character of the property. Introduction of additional parking would
significantly detract from this and would be opposed by NECA. However, City staff note that no new parking
is being requested and, as noted above, the “exp” report states, “There are no proposed alterations to the physical state of
the grounds of the property”. Furthermore, City heritage staff has
confirmed that the Heritage Overlay provides a parking exemption for all
Category 1 and 2 buildings in the Heritage Conservation District, so that the
owner is not obliged to increase the parking beyond that which is currently
available on site. Also, any proposed
alteration to the grounds would require approval under the Ontario Heritage Act. NECA
would oppose any such approval.
(ii)
The possibility that the new permitted use
would increase demand for on-street parking in an area where parking is already
under pressure.
This concern is prompted by
the proposed change of use from private residence to diplomatic offices. The assumption is that parking will be
required by the increased number of occupants, and by visitors to the office. The application does not provide information
on what this parking requirement will be, or whether it is significant. However, we do take note that, even without
the proposed zoning amendment, the present zoning would permit the use of 55 MacKay
Street as an apartment building, retirement home, bed & breakfast and other
more parking-intensive uses than its present use as a private residence.
5. Traffic
Similarly,
there is concern that the proposed change in use to diplomatic offices would
introduce additional traffic into an already congested part of the Heritage
Conservation District. Again, the present application does not provide
information on the anticipated impact on local traffic. However, City staff believes the proposed new
use will not generate a significant increase in local traffic. The City’s planning department uses the
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines to determine whether a special
traffic report is warranted; we are advised that the proposed change of use
does not trigger such a report. Also, the applicant has
described to NECA the Embassy’s own modest use of private vehicles and the
limited number of on-site visitors, further suggesting that the change of use
is unlikely to result in local traffic and parking problems.
Position of NECA
NECA recognizes that change
is part of a lively neighbourhood.
Change should be managed sensitively.
Each proposal affecting zoning must be carefully examined for its
potential negative impacts. Existing
safeguards must be confirmed, and effective mitigation measures identified and
implemented. This is particularly the
case in the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District, where there is also
the extra responsibility for protecting Ottawa’s heritage resources.
NECA is aware that the
current zoning already permits more intensive use of the property than as a
private residence, perhaps generating a similar list of concerns. Nevertheless, our task is to focus on the particular
application before us.
Evidently, the zoning
amendment proposed in this application gives rise to several substantive
concerns. NECA is also aware of similar
concerns being raised by many of the immediate neighbours. The President of NECA has met with representatives
of the applicant to explain these concerns and to obtain additional information.
In this submission, NECA has
identified the main issues and has reviewed these in light of applicable
regulations, guidelines, and assurances from City staff. It is the view of NECA that the existing
legal safeguards, staff directives, and working assumptions of staff go a long
way towards eliminating or reducing our concerns. We also believe it is important these legal
constraints and staff positions are understood and accepted by the applicant. Given the sensitivity of the proposed
amendment and the particular location of the subject property, this would
provide a further measure of reassurance to concerned residents and to NECA,
and reduce the risk of future misunderstandings. Consequently, we recommend that these be
documented in a formal letter that accompanies approval of the zoning
amendment. This may not be the typical
procedure, but we believe it would be a useful initiative in this instance.
Under these circumstances,
NECA would not object to the present application.