Picton Harbour Lofts

Heritage committee disputes design and size

More than two hours was not enough time for the Prince Edward Heritage Advisory Committee (PEHAC) meeting on March 24 to discuss the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development of Picton Harbour Lofts located at 10 Mortimer Street, Picton. A second special PEHAC meeting on March 31 followed focusing on the heritage permit. It was another lengthy discussion at two-and-a-half hours, where the protracted, repetitive, and at times confrontational and argumentative discussion included raised voices as insinuations and accusations were exchanged. The two virtual meetings included a deputation from the applicant (David Walcott), a presentation from consultant (Carla Parslow), two audience comments (Jennifer Wood of Fotenn Planning and Design, and Carla Parslow), as well as considerable discussion and disagreement resulting in two failed motions by PEHAC member Liz Driver

What was finally agreed upon and approved by the committee was an amended motion by PEHAC member Chris Braney in which Liz Driver abstained from voting. Coming before Council at last night’s council meeting (the result of Council’s vote came too late to meet publication deadline) saw PEHAC recommend Council approve the proposed development with a number of conditions to be strongly considered as they pertained to reducing height, mass and scale, to animate the street level, and to conserve the heritage attributes of the Bridge Street Character Area.

The conditions included a step-down of the building at the mid-point (which may require moving the entrance, elevators and stairwell to the west/uphill end of the building) and create a loading bay at the back of the building, and included adding unit entrances at street level. The conditions also included extending the balconies slightly beyond a small return of the brick wall to moderate the horizontal emphasis, as well as the removal of the rooftop terrace from the design (if a stepdown of the building is not possible).

Carla Parslow, President of Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc. focused her presentation of March 24 on the Heritage Conservation District (HCD) and how the proposed development fits within. While Parslow indicated the proposed development exceeds the average height of the existing buildings within the district, she noted the HIA shows no impacts to heritage values or attributes of the district. “The two-storey guideline is mainly for the downtown core as it states to preserve the continuous street wall and sense of enclosure in the downtown core,” she said. She also noted all properties surrounding the area of interest were 1950s builds. “What we notice is there is no historic pattern to maintain this portion of the Bridge Street Character Area.” She noted only one adjacent contributing building, a house on 16 Bridge Street. “The house has undergone so many changes that the compatibility issues are not really a problem.”

Parslow said the proposed development is compatible with the heritage value and attributes particularly for Bridge Street, but noting it also fits with the downtown core and the HCD as a whole. While she noted some issues with the height, she said the stepped-down design and the materials that are used and the consideration for the local environment makes the proposed development something that could be approved as part of the HCD. Parslow underwent significant questioning and confrontation by Driver, where Parslow pointed out she had less than 24 hours to put together her presentation.

It was noted, however, that Parslow presented her findings without ever visiting the site. In the second meeting, Parslow acknowledged editing and administrative errors in the prepared HIA, but said she stood by the assessment of impact. “My comments and my recommendations remain the same within the HIA,” said Parslow.

In his deputation, David Walcott representing the Ownership Group recognized the presentation by Parslow the week before was not well presented and not well received by PEHAC. What ensued was a meeting discussing and disputing aspects of the presentation especially as it related to the HCD and HIA. “We do stand by the conclusions of both HIAs; we never intended to insinuate that a major heritage permit was not required for the project,” he added.

Walcott provided some background on the project, the ownership and the vision for the site, which has been in the planning process since 2018. It was noted the original project was terminated when a presale threshold was not met. “The project was refocused and reevaluated with the three target demographics and value-engineered with the intent of maintaining quality, but simplifying the design,” he said. He noted the heavily articulated bays were removed and the balconies straightened to allow for a more efficient precast method. “Importantly, in this re-design, our major consideration was that the building be simplified, but not very significantly from the initial design that was supported by this committee.”

“While we recognize that this committee has a mandate to analyze the project solely through the lens of the HCD, as the owners, we have to consider every decision holistically,” said Walcott. He noted three sets of written comments concerning the loss of the water view were evaluated. Also currently a minimal water view exists and does so only as a result of the demolition of a dilapidated building on the site, along with the removal of trees. “The reality is that any development, even one storey, will eliminate any water view.” It was noted by Walcott that the perceived height of the building has been reduced by adding stonework on the rear at the Mortimer Street side of the building, and by eliminating a portion of the brick railing along the rooftop terrace. Also, the entire fourth floor was stepped back along Bridge Street. “Most significantly, we chose not to step the building down at Mortimer Street; this seems to be the most contentious aspect of the project as it applied to the HCD.”

While Driver noted the design has evolved, Walcott said the current design does not deviate significantly from the first. “It’s fair to state that the design has evolved: generally, the height, mass and scale, use of materials, parking location in relation to the street, restoring the street wall, the landmark building and the landscape setback are very similar,” he said. “There has been several comments insinuating that this is a six-storey building and the highest in the HCD.” Walcott emphasised the building is a three-storey street face with a stepped back fourth floor, and an exposed basement at the corner of Bridge and Mortimer Streets as a result of grade.

“Importantly, we are not requesting a variance for height as the project is compliant with height regulations. Moreover, there are buildings in the character area that have a height of three-and-a-half storeys and a perceived height of four storeys, including the directly abutting property. It does not stick out like a sore thumb as previously suggested, but creates the desired street wall.”

PEHAC member Denise Gendron said, “I find it to be a slab building, I do not find it complies with the guidelines that were presented in the HCD,” she said. “I don’t support this as it’s designed, it’s not very creative, the design is not very interesting and I don’t think it enhances the HCD.” PEHAC member Don Payne was concerned approval of the project would set a precedent and said a heritage permit should be rejected. “The building is not consistent with the character of Bridge Street and would further cut the community off to access from a connection to the harbour,” said Payne. “The assertions in the proposal and the HIA, which was written by someone who didn’t even bother to visit the site, tried to convince us the building is consistent with the HCD plan,” Payne said.

“The team behind Picton Harbour Lofts have a vested interest in this community and specifically Picton and the Bridge Street area,” expressed Walcott. “We have no intent of undertaking a project that negatively impacts the community in any way. We submitted a major heritage permit application October 29, 2021; today we are formally requesting a decision.”