|
New Edinburgh News
APRIL 2008
Transparent Assessment of Interprovincial
Crossings
During the recent round of consultations a question of the
weighting system arose. The question was reasonable. The answer
was very surprising. It appears that assigning weights will be
done only after all of the data has been collected. Only then is
the spread amongst all of the corridors, for a given criterion,
known. The experts believe that a small spread ought to be given
a small weighting because that criterion could contribute little
to distinguishing amongst the various corridor options.
If nothing changes, that is what will happen. This may be the
technically correct way of assigning weighting factors. The
major problem is that the ‘winning candidate corridor’ will be
the result of a rating system not known in advance. The eventual
recommendation will be exposed to the suggestion that it was the
result of manipulation through the weighting factors applied to
obtain a desired choice.
There is another facet of the rating system which should be
examined by the public. This is our ‘modern’ habit of reducing
criteria which are inherently descriptive in nature (e.g. impact
on communities, or the environment) to a number. Once all
criteria can be rendered numerical, ‘weighting factors’ can be
applied across the board and a mathematical crank turned. This
appears to make the evaluation process objective. Certain
criteria are ‘measurable’ in the sense that a number results -
capital costs or time (distance, fuel) saved for instance. I do
not believe that the other impacts mentioned above are
adequately dealt with by estimating the number of fish or
salamanders or even the number of residential units affected.
The consultations have so far not focussed on the corridor
rating system. The study should yield a recommendation that is
as objective as it is humanly possible to make it. More
important is that the process be transparent. It is already
known that the eventual recommendation will not please everyone.
The choice cannot be determined by warring petitions. Only
through a choice-making process that is fully transparent,
within a thorough EA study, will the largest public acceptance
be garnered.
Princess Avenue Reconstruction
This long-awaited project will finally proceed this year. On
March 19th Transportation Committee dealt with the last elements
of the reconstruction for which agreement between staff and the
community could not be reached. Resolution proved difficult
because of the narrowness of the corridor, the desire to provide
protection for the heritage fencing surrounding the grounds of
Government House and the wish to preserve the essential
character of the Heritage Conservation District. The NCC and
NECA both wanted to provide a pedestrian facility which would
complete the circuit of the Governor General’s residence and
offer greater security to the walkers in the area.
It has been decided to provide a stone-dust path along Princess
Avenue, curbing on both sides of the road will be of the
mountable (or inclined) variety, one of the legs of the
Princess-Lisgar ‘triangle’ will be closed to vehicles allowing
for more green space and the lighting standards will be those
appropriate to the Heritage Conservation District. I believe
that these dispositions mean that Princess will retain the look
and feel of ‘a country road’ that it has historically presented.
132 Stanley
On Tuesday March 25th, Planning and Environment Committee (PEC)
of City Council considered an application to demolish the
building currently on the site and approve the construction of
two groups of three townhouses. The site lies within the part of
New Edinburgh that is a Heritage Conservation District (HDC).
HDCs have special constraints put in place precisely in an
attempt to preserve the aspects of the district which are worthy
of protection.
In this case, the existing building had no heritage merit and I
did not recommend that demolition be opposed. In these
circumstances, if a building is to be demolished, there are
nonetheless guidelines constraining the nature of replacement
buildings within the HDC. I decided to recommend to my
colleagues on the PEC to disallow the proposed plans for the new
structure and I did so for the following reasons:
I referred to the Guidelines (in italics below) for new
construction within the Heritage Conservation District in New
Edinburgh,
1. Replacement buildings constructed in the part of New
Edinburgh to which the Heritage Overlay (Sections 14-19, General
Provisions) of the City of Ottawa Zoning Bylaw, 1998 applies,
must be rebuilt "to the same height, bulk, size, floor area,
spacing and in the same location as existed prior to its removal
or destruction."
Comment: This guideline is not met – not nearly so! The
Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (Padolsky et al) provided by
the applicant indicates that “the heights are within the
permitted height of the underlying zoning.” With respect, the
underlying zoning is not the controlling factor within a
Heritage Conservation District, the Guidelines are. The examples
that are given in the report of multi-unit housing elsewhere in
New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District are all two stories
(dormer windows in attics aside). Rebuilding "to the same …
size, floor area, spacing and in the same location as existed
prior to its removal or destruction" is clearly not possible
since the previous building is a single family bungalow. The
height and bulk of the proposed structure are another matter. It
is possible to respect the Guidelines in those respects. This
has not been done in this case and is a major point of
contention in finding acceptance within the community. The
incorporation of two garages for each unit contributes to the
massing. It is but one contributing (and un-necessary) factor.
2. According to the provisions of the City of Ottawa Zoning
Bylaw, the Heritage Overlay does not apply to lots vacant before
1978
Comment: This guideline is not relevant.
3. As the heritage character of adjacent properties
throughout the District varies, the character of adjacent
properties should be acknowledged so that new construction
respects and reinforces the character of the streetscape.
Comment: Respect and reinforcing the character of the
streetscape is important. The proposal fails principally because
of its height and bulk. Some of the other properties cited as
examples in the report (Lansdowne Terrace, 157-167 MacKay
Street– Document 6, for instance):
- a) have dormer windows in the upper story which reduces the
overall height of the structure (this application proposes 3
stories plus the pitched roofs), and,
- b) have greater front (and rear-yard) setbacks.
Moreover, the example cited above faces the grounds of
Government House. These factors considerably reduce the actual
and perceived massing of the houses presented as examples in
Document 6.
4. The existing small lot development pattern should be
maintained. Development over a number of lots is discouraged. If
development of this type occurs, the building should be
articulated so that it reads as a series of smaller elements.
Comment: Articulation is achieved quite successfully.
5. New buildings with garage doors that dominate the street
will not be approved. Other less unsightly provisions for
parking should be developed such as recessed garages.
Comment: This guideline is met. However, note the strong
language in this condition – “New buildings with garage doors
that dominate the street will not be approved.” The statement is
clear and staff rightly requested that the applicant redesign
the project and they have done so. The language in guideline no.
1 is equally clear – “Replacement buildings … must be rebuilt to
the same height, bulk, size ... etc”. I fail to understand why
staff recommended that a minor variance will fix this aspect of
the proposal when they were so correct about asking for a
redesign which offended guideline no. 5.
The introduction to the Guidelines states, in part, that the
general goal of the plan regarding new development is to:
They [the Guidelines] will promote the enhancement of New
Edinburgh's streetscape … in a way that celebrates the area's
"village character" and contributes to its sense of space.
The current proposal will completely overwhelm Queen Victoria
Street. This circumstance is acerbated by the potential for a
similar proposal across the street and elsewhere within the
Heritage Conservation District should this application be
granted, as a clear precedent will have been established. It
would make a mockery of the guidelines and, in particular,
guidelines 1 and 3.
The decision of the PEC was not known at the time of writing.
Jacques Legendre
Councillor, Rideau-Rockcliffe
You can communicate with me at (please include a telephone
number):
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa ON K1P 1J1
Tel: 580-2483, Fax: 580-2523
E-mail:
jacques.legendre@ottawa.ca
Web Site:
www.rideau-rockcliffe.com
back
to index
|
