Recommendation: That, notwithstanding the
recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, with
the advice of the Heritage Planner and the London Advisory Committee on
Heritage, the request by J. Regehr and Renee Kaplansky for the demolition of
the designated residential building at 591 Maitland Street BE DEFERRED
for up to 90 days to allow the applicant to work on a new design, in
consultation with the Civic Administration and the Woodfield Community
Association, that is more compatible to the neighbourood; it being noted that
the applicant agreed to the postponement of the application; it being noted
that the applicant will report back to the London Advisory Committee on
Heritage and the Planning and Environment Committee as quickly as possible
with a revised design;
it
being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received
the following communications with respect to this matter:
·
a communication, dated October 22, 2012, from W. Dickinson,
Planning Chair, The Woodfield Community Association;
·
a communication, dated October 19, 2012, from C. Hawkins,
by e-mail;
·
a communication, dated October 26, 2012, from A. Kaplansky;
·
a communication from R. & J. Regehr, applicants;
·
a communication, dated October 31, 2012, from J. House, 453
Princess Avenue;
·
a communication, dated October 13, 2012, from C. & B. Guy,
594 Maitland Street;
·
a communication, dated November 2, 2012, from K. Bardai, 593
Maitland Street;
·
a
communication, dated October 8, 2012, from B. Lansink, Lansink Appraisals;
·
a
communication, dated November 4, 2012, from A. & M. Harkins, 526 Princess
Avenue;
·
a
communication, dated November 4, 2012, from E. Ansari, by e-mail;
·
a
communication, dated November 4, 2012, from J. Elliott, 46 Palace Street;
·
a
communication, dated November 4, 2012, from A. McColl Lindsay, by e-mail;
·
a
communication, dated November 4, 2012, from J. Johnson, by e-mail;
·
a
communication, dated November 4, 2012, from R. & J. McDowell, 507
Princess Avenue;
·
a
communication, dated November 4, 2012, from L. Whitney & M. Apthorp, 487
Dufferin Avenue; and,
·
a
communication, dated November 5, 2012, from H. Moon, by e-mail;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals
made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
R.
Regehr, applicant – advising that the house is on a significant slant;
indicating that their structural engineer missed a rotten beam; advising that
the house is full of mould; indicating that she has the support of over 60
people in the immediate area; indicating that the West Woodfield Community
Association sent out a communication indicating that people are being forced
out of the area; advising that she and her husband searched for a long time
for a property that they can afford, that is not an apartment or does not
require a lot of money upfront to make livable; and advising that the City is
becoming a donut as citizens are moving to the suburbs.
·
A.
Kaplansky, 599 Maitland Street - expressing support for the demolition;
advising that he only demolishes old, dilapidated buildings; indicating that
the new building will increase the tax base; and advising that he has been in
this profession for 27 years.
·
L.
Lansink, 505 Colborne Street – expressing support for the application;
indicating that she moved downtown 25 years ago; indicating that she lived in
a dilapidated house as a child and swore she would never do so again; and
advising that she has renovated her house and you would never know it.
·
K.
Bardai, 593 Maitland Street – advising that he resides beside the applicant’s
property; indicating that the Woodfield Community Association does not speak
for him; advising that he has resided at his residence for 17 years;
indicating that, with the previous owners renting out the building, he has
had endless parties, cars parked out front and on his property and loud
music; indicating that he welcomes the new owners; advising that the building
is ready to fall over; expressing surprise that the building survived
Superstorm Sandy; indicating that the best way to look after this building is
to demolish it; suggesting that the Council Members should see the interior
of the building; and advising that he supports saving heritage structures,
but this one is not worth saving.
·
H.
Elmslie, 42 Palace Street – advising that she lives one block, as the crow
flies, away from the applicants property; advising that she finds comments
that the existing house is ugly offensive as her house is similar to this
one; indicating that a lack of care for a property does not mean that it has
to be demolished; indicating that the Woodfield Community Association members
are elected publicly and that the membership is open to anyone; noting that
the Woodfield Community Association Executive is open to hearing diverse
opinions; advising that the Community Association holds several events in the
community; indicating that, in 2012, Woodfield was voted the Best
Neighbourhood in Canada; indicating that the current property owners are new
to the area; noting that she has resided at her property since 1973;
indicating that the area is important to her and to the City’s Official Plan;
indicating that she has little sympathy for people who do not do their
homework before buying a house; advising that the West Woodfield neighourhood
is one of London’s oldest neighbourhoods; noting that the neighbourhood is
located prominently in the heart of the City; advising that there are a lot
of 1½ storey, gable fronted properties in the area; advising that, in her
personal opinion, the property located at 86 Cartwright Street does not fit into
the streetscape; reiterating sections of the Woodfield Heritage Conservation
District Guidelines; commending the London Advisory Committee on Heritage’s
unanimous decision on this matter; indicating that this is not the most
modest property on the street and it is not in the worst shape; advising that
Woodfield is in between two other Heritage Conservation Districts; indicating
that it is intrinsic to what makes a neighbourhood; indicating that all price
ranges sell in Woodfield; indicating that the area has architectural and
economic diversity; advising that the uniqueness of the area is
internationally known; indicating that Woodfield has been written up in
travel guides; and indicating that London was established in the 1830’s and
that there is very little of the original city left.
·
S.
O’Neil – (Secretary’s Note: Mr. O’Neil’s communication was read to the
audience as Mr. O’Neil was not in attendance at the time of this item);
advising that the
retention of the home is important; indicating that the people are missing
the point of belonging in the Woodfield Heritage Conservation District;
indicating that if you lose the building, you lose the role the building has;
advising that older homes are a statement of the past; advising that old
houses are robustly built; indicating that he studies old houses; indicating
that old buildings are constantly being upgraded; indicating that there is no
need to demolish this building; indicating that you can tell the last three
buildings that were installed in this area; and advising that the
neighbourhood invests in itself.
·
W.
Dickinson, 522 Princess Avenue, on behalf of several neighbours – realizing
that the decision the Committee has to make is a stark one; noting that the
problem is preservation versus gentrification; indicating that the
streetscape should remain intact; indicating that Heritage Conservation
Districts would lose 70% of their properties if all old, small buildings were
demolished; advising that if you could rely on Category A or B houses, you
would not need Heritage Conservation Districts; indicating that the Committee
needs to vote to preserve houses; noting that if you let this one be
demolished, how can you not let others be demolished; indicating that no one
objected when the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District was created;
advising that she is adamant to not see houses demolished; indicating that
the Pillar & Pine e-mail is sent to hundreds of people; and expressing
support for the London Advisory Committee on Heritage and Civic Administration’s
recommendations. (2012-D10-00)
|