Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Lord,,,Give me strength":
The Agenda for this evening's Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting is in front of me.
HAC14-015 is a request to remove a Property from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Value or Interest - 83 George Street.
You state: "The request is for a demolition permit.
The recommendation is to be denied.
Council approval is apparently required.
I am familiar with the property. From an assessment perspective, the business of the municipality, the
property is underutilized.
If revenue can be increased from town investment in urban services we should be doing that."
Beyond the above mentioned Agenda I know nothing about a demolition permit. Possibly one has been applied for by the owner and if this is the case I can understand the reference in the third paragraph "to sever the property into two lots in the future." I do not know what the specific zoning is for this particular property and the planning designation within which it is located. I would imagine
there will be objections from neighbourhood residents if a severance application goes before the Committee of Adjustment.
I really don't see what business it is of the town to attempt to maximize property tax revenue in this particular instance while being completely ignorant in the case of several planning applications during the past few years concerning condominium development and building height from the standpoint of number of floors. The present Kaitlin construction on Yonge Street was delayed foe
several years over this point.
If the town is interested in maximizing revenue it should also be interested in maximizing building height, or does the nasty nose of aesthetics enter the picture?
George Street homes have for the most part existed for quite some time and even with the differences in style and size there is a general atmosphere of an acceptable, comfortable neighbourhood.
Go over to Hillview and you have some of the remaining original homes overpowered by some of the ugliest monstrosities I have seen in many years. In order to build a 5,000 - 7,000 square foot house on a 50 - 55 foot lot all of these buildings have two-car garages under the house so when you look at them from the front you see an inclined driveway and planted above and beside it an Italianate or Franco-Prussian or God knows what bizarre style of architecture the builder has selected for his latest tasteless You should be happy with this crap as it is generating a much higher revenue for the town than the little old bungalow that used to occupy this lot.
You should really drive over there and see for yourself what could possibly be built beside your home. You might just throw up
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 9 June 2014
**************************
O.K. Item 1 was a request for 83 George Street to be removed from the sacrosanct list.
Item 3 was the request for a demolition permit of 81 Catherine Ave. It's in the N.E. Heritage Designated District.
Approval was recommended.
But the owner has to arrange a site visit with the Advisory committee in order to determine availability of amy architectural elements which may be incorporated into the Architectural Salvage program providing they meet the program guideline.and
The owner apply to donate materials to the Architectural Salvage Program should appropriate materials be identified by the Heritage Advisory Committee.and
that the mature tree located against the sidewalk in front of the existing building on the subject property remain on the subject property because it supports the character of the district, and
That the owner of the subject property submit a heritage permit to the Heritage Advisory committee
in the future for the construction of any new buildings on the property lot.
I wasn't going to re-hash Item 3. The above commenter made me do it.
It was the remark about it not being the town's business to maximize revenue .
I don't know how many staff attend the Heritage Advisory Committee.
One of the other Advisory Committee have a public health nurse from the Board of Health
attend their meetings. Never a word contributed but you can be certain ,we are paying for her to be there, With four or five other employees.
Councillors of course have nothing to say about that either.
That would be micro-managing.
Monday, 9 June 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
If the town spent a mere fraction of the time & money it spends on trying to legislate the uses of residents' homes & trees in dealing with town-owned property sitting idle, the books might be a better shape.
Enjoy the day - it promises to be a scorcher for those who like that stuff.
But, Evelyn, how could that committee ever get along without the nurse in attendance ? I think that one is under the auspices of Cllrs Gallo & Ballard - they surely need the help.
It is bureaucracy run amok. We have a friend who recently applied for a simple minor variance. He was petrified by the well-known reputation of those he had to please. His request was sent to 5 different organizations, each able to take a swing at his proposal. If even one cancelled or missed a meeting or thought there 'might' be a problem, he would hit a brick wall.
It took weeks just for a bit of paperwork that a clerk would have handled in earlier years. And that did not help the already abysmal reputations of those bullies under the town's umbrella.
Any municipality, any level of government, must make it its business to plan and provide for a growing population: roads and highways, public transportation, schools and hospitals and libraries, recreational facilities, parks and arenas, etc.
It is generally the municipalities that provide housing accommodation, usually through the planning process. Official Plans must receive Regional and Provincial approval to ensure that the province is developing in a specific way to meet targeted growth.
Aurora presumably has only so much land that has not been developed, and I shall deal only with housing. A lot of undeveloped land is owned by large companies whose business it is to build housing accommodation and their ownership is based on the town's plan as to what type and number of units can be built on a specific parcel.
It is my opinion that based on projected growth for Aurora, to some 75,000+ people within the next approximately 30 years, that single family detached homes are going to have to come to an end as an option. Row townhouses and even multi-story
condominiums will be the only way to handle a significantly higher population.
This denser form of housing will ensure that the town's development charge revenue continues to grow, possibly at an even faster rate than at present. This revenue will be required to provide a level of amenities that presently exists, or is even better than that which now exists.
Can you advise what the town's Official Plan contains with specific reference to housing, or direct us to where we might find this information.
Thank you.
I see Cllr Gaertner is going after the costs for the town birthday party. This despite the fact that council approved every expense all along the process. What a hypocrite ! She refused to allow the release of the expenses incurred by that Code of Conduct fiasco.
If I was on the committee, I would need a nurse to medicate me.
10:18
Here it is. And we paid for this "plan".
http://www.aurora.ca/TownHall/Documents/Corporate%20Reports/Town%20of%20Aurora%20Official%20Plan%202010.pdf
A question please
Why would that committee require an owner give them the right to do architectural salvage ? We have nowhere to store such treasures[?]. There is a good charity group that I think works out of Newmarket who collect usable bits of wood & hardware for re-use throughout the Region. I would be more inclined to use their services.
At the HAC meetings I have attended staff includes the secretary and Heritage Planning manager. Off and on the Director of Planning who was in attendance last night most likely given the number of delegations. Absent last night was Clr. Humfreys.
Item 1 was to deny the removal of 83 George St. from the list of registered properties, the motion was aproved.
Item 3 was also approved as written.
It is interesting that the Architectural Salvage Program keeps getting referred to yet nothing has been salvaged from any demolition that has happened in the past 8 years. Also storage for salvage items at the new Joint Ops Centre was denied, so where such items would go hasn't been decided.
12:38
If only we had the hydro building, we could store things there.
12:38
Believe me...if it can get them a demolition permit...The home owner would gift wrap it for them as well.
Maybe we can sublease part of the Hydro building to store all special architectural pieces. Let's have a meeting with the Rangers and see what they can do for us. How about we throw in a study as well?
Why are you in attendance at HAC meetings, Mr Watts?
17:03- Ahhhh…..Because he can!
17:03
You could always go too.
Post a Comment