Tannery Hearing - Day 19
Evidence of Mark Brandt
Proposed development with 30 m UNESCO buffer in green.
Mark Brandt, Trace Architectures inc., is a registered professional architect, who works in “architecture, urbanism, and conservation.” He was qualified to give expert evidence in heritage planning, architecture, and urban design.
Mr. Fleming asked Mr. Brandt to give a summary of his opinion. Mr. Brandt answered that the proposed development is incompatible with the highly significant Rideau Canal National Historic Site, the World Heritage UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] inscription, and the Canadian Heritage River designation.
He said that there are 1,000 UNESCO World Heritage sites globally, 22 of which are in Canada. Only 5 of those are also designated a national historic site and only 1 of those 5 is a Canadian heritage river. “That one site is this one.”
What are his reasons for his opinion?
There are 3 key overarching reasons.
“The proposed built form is too massive in volume, too tall, too big on its footprint.” “Each one of the buildings along the waterfront is approximately as long as a football field. They are 4 to 8 storeys. The buildings don’t respect the surrounding natural and cultural heritage context or its neighbours.”
There is a “wall effect” when viewed form the navigation channel.” “The wall is not appropriately sized for screening. It is a given that a development close to the canal needs to be properly screened along the natural shoreline.”
“The proposed concept is to clearcut the site, denude it of all vegetation, add a minimum of 600 mm of fill with added topsoil and put in new plantings. Even if they manage to grow mature trees, because of the 4 to 8 storey height, they wouldn’t screen the buildings.”
For the riparian shoreline, they have not demonstrated how it will actually work. Now there are berms for the trees. “There’s some contradictory information. There’s a lack of surety that this could happen.”
The proposed removal of almost all of the wetland by capping it will not conserve this character- defining element of the national historic site. The wetlands are cited as an important feature.
Can the site be developed? Yes, with a much smaller footprint, preserving the wetland and with better riparian screening.
What are the site features that are most relevant to your opinion? Mr. Brandt said that natural and cultural heritage features are interconnected when he references cultural heritage as defined by the designation documents.
“First and foremost, the site sits immediately upon the Rideau Canal, a historic place. The City’s Official Plan (OP) says that development adjacent to the Canal has to be consistent with the statement of significance, heritage value, and statement of universal values in the designation documents.
Views from the Canal have to be mitigated. The diversity of the landscape along the Canal is important. It is a designated place.
“There is no specific designation of the Rideau Canal as a “cultural landscape.” Experts would say it is. “It is the poster child of a cultural landscape.”
UNESCO has given Parks Canada the stewardship responsibility for the inscribed World Heritage site.
Parks Canada has published “10 Principles for Good Waterfront Development” for the Rideau Canal National Historic Site. Mr. Brandt discussed 7 of them:
Understand and respect the local landscape character. He noted that wetlands are mentioned as one of the varied landscapes.
Conserve historic buildings and cultural heritage features. He noted that cultural heritage features are the character-defining elements in the designation documentation.
Conserve, protect and enhance wetlands. The accompanying text says: “Wetlands are one of the most important and vulnerable natural resources on the Rideau Canal. Loss of wetlands results in the decline of wildlife and natural vegetation, water quality, recreation and education opportunities.” He pointed out that there is no “grey area. This is very clear.” And added that UNESCO has the ability to, the right to, remove world heritage status when character-defining elements are no longer present.
Maintain and retain natural shoreline. The accompanying text says: “Naturalized shorelines reduce visual impact of buildings, maintain the landscape’s natural character, control erosion, filter run‐off, reduce sediment transfer and provide habitat for wildlife, including species at risk. They can also provide privacy and reduce maintenance costs for property owners.” Mr. Brandt added that all of these things have been designated. “You have to have a natural shoreline. You have to get it into that state if it is not, and, if it is, you have to maintain it.”
Locate development back from the shoreline. The accompanying text says: “Generally, new development must be set back a minimum of 30 metres from the shoreline. This aligns with the 30 metre buffer zone extending from the boundary of the Rideau Canal World Heritage Site. Development setbacks help to maintain landscape character, protect water quality, maintain ecological functions along shorelines and wetlands and help prevent property damage.” Mr. Brandt said that the 30 m setback is not arbitrary and has been carefully considered at the world and national level. The riparian area, the ribbon of life, maintains ecological functions. “If you get all that in the 30 m, it is an appropriate setback. If you don’t, then 30 m isn’t enough.”
Work with the landscape, not against it. Mr., Brandt notes that the text says that “Buildings should blend into their natural surroundings.” With respect to the proposal before the Tribunal, he said, “we may or may not get there. There’s not enough from the proponents to know that we could get there.”
Design buildings to complement the site. The accompanying text says: “New buildings should be designed to complement the landscape character and architectural style of the surrounding area. Buildings should be in proportion to the size and frontage of the property and fit in with the surrounding built environment. Throughout most of the waterway, buildings should be low profile and not exceed the height of the tree canopy. Taller buildings may be appropriate in more urbanized areas.” Mr. Brandt said that this is one of the cruxes of the debate. “The proposed development doesn’t provide for the transition from urban to extremely naturalized,” referencing Belle Park which he said, “has been naturalized for decades.”
Mr. Brandt said that the Great Cataraqui Marsh is a character-defining element of the designation documentation, and that the boundary of the Canal continues into the inlet at the north part of the property. “Any attempt to modify a character-defining element of a historic place is outside the cultural heritage requirement.”
“Not to say that one shouldn’t decontaminate. The approach must adhere to the conservation requirements.”
Mr. Brandt talked about Belle Island, saying that it is an Indigenous burial ground, and “a very significant landscape feature” with a “direct interplay with the subject site.” “Belle Island has intangible significance from a First Nations’ point of view.”
“This is not just another building site. It is a potential development at the side of the Rideau Canal, a site of great significance.”
Mr. Fleming asked Mr. Brandt for his opinions on the built form of the development proposal. He said that the 3-storey Woolen Mill is an industrial building with high ceilings so that it is equivalent to about 3 ½ to 4 storeys of a residential building. The proposed buildings along the shoreline will rise to about the height of the Woolen Mill chimney. “This does not protect the landmark quality of the chimney.”
“Even a large industrial building like the Woolen Mill is dwarfed in comparison to the proposed buildings.”
Talking about the potential of trees to screen the 4 to 8 storey proposed development from the navigation channel, Mr. Brandt said there will be “as much building above the trees as below.” “If you’re really lucky, 100-year-old mature trees might reach 3 storeys.” “That’s a concern.”
Mr. Brandt is worried about what he calls the “wall effect” of the proposed buildings because of their scale, form, height, size, and mass.
In this image, looking at the buildings from Belle Park, he said you get a sense of the scale and massing. He explained that for their modelling they did not include setbacks or stepbacks. “It’s only a concept so we didn’t look at the details.” He noted that the Heritage Impact Assessment by the proponent’s witness did not include people. [If you expand the image, the black line at ground level represents a person.] By including them, he is illustrating the scale that he is worried about.
Mr. Brandt said that the capping method proposed for the wetland that abuts these buildings [Phase 2 and 4] “essentially removes this character-defining element” and that there will be a road for emergency vehicle access and access to the parking garage of one of the buildings. The new proposal for the Phase 4 building is not a big change, and “construction impacts are still problematic.” “95% of the wetland is to be removed. To completely wipe out a character-defining element is completely unacceptable.”
“There is very high impact” from the two very large, massive wall, buildings, 6 storeys high, that provide no transition from the buildings to the natural area. “There is no stepping down.” “You’re not hiding that thing.” They’ve indicated that will replant along the waterfront. Along the northern edge, they’re not proposing trees for this side. There’s “no way we could support this proposal.”
Mr. Fleming asked Mr. Brandt to comment on a few PPS policies.
Section 2.6.1 – “Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.”
Mr. Brandt said there is “no grey area. It’s black and white.” The wetland is to be removed and that is removing a character defining element.” With respect to the view from the canal to the site, they are making a “valid attempt to propose some screening” without “solid documentation to show that that can happen.”
Section 2.6.3 – “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.”
Mr. Brandt said there is a difference of opinion with the authors of the Heritage Impact Assessment on the interpretation of this section. “The fact remains that the proposal is to remove a character-defining element and won’t conserve views from the canal.” “They have not demonstrated that this will be conserved. They have not even come close.”
Mr. Fleming asked Mr. Brandt to comment on the a few OP policies.
Section 3.3.C.4 – “Proposals for new high density residential use must be justified by a site specific urban design study that demonstrates compatibility in accordance with the policies of Section 2.7, and conformity to the urban design policies of Section 8. The Study must consider, amongst other matters, architectural compatibility in terms of scale, style, massing and colour.”
Mr. Brandt said that he is not referring to architectural style as it’s a concept plan. The scale and massing are not compatible with the neighbourhood. The policy test is not met.
Section 3.3.C.6 – “New high density residential development must be designed to ensure a transition in density and built form, particularly along the periphery of Centres and Corridors, and areas for which a Secondary Plan or Specific Policy Area Plan has been established.”
Mr. Brandt said there is no Specific Policy Area for this site and no document that sets out a Secondary Plan. The site is not in a Centre or Corridor.
Section 3.9.2 – “The protection of a 30 metre naturalized buffer along a waterbody, also referred to as a “ribbon of life”, can help to enhance water quality, minimize soil erosion, provide plant and animal habitat, establish connectivity and wildlife corridors, and contribute to the overall health of shoreline ecosystems, particularly fish habitat. The buffer may also be used to screen views of development from the water, and to create natural spaces for passive recreation.”
Mr. Brandt said that the proposal is going completely against what this section intends. They’re planning to take away all the vegetation, cap the ribbon of life, add topsoil, and re-naturalize. “I have not been convinced that this is a workable solution.” They say “it’s a concept at this stage. We’ll work it out later.” “For a national and international historic place like this one, there is no way that you would leave it to a later stage. Parliament Hill is on an equal footing as a heritage place.
Mr. Fleming asked, “how is the wetland integrated into your heritage opinion?” In the Rideau Canal Management Plan, wetlands are specifically recognized as integral to the heritage values.
Section 1.11, Regional Context: “The landscape of the Canal corridor is a mosaic of productive, marginal and abandoned agricultural land, wood lots and extensive forests, wetlands, lakes and rivers, scenic shore-lands and a wide range of settlements ranging in size from the city of Ottawa to small historic villages. This diversity of landscape and its historic resources are associated with the national historic significance of the Canal.”
Section 2.6, The Natural Environment of the Rideau Canal Corridor: “The waterway’s ecosystem features form an integral part of the history and natural landscape of the Rideau and are considered a vital heritage resource of the Canal system that must be respected and safeguarded.”
Section 3.2, Guiding Principles: “Development of the shore-land and on lands adjoining Canal lands should respect the historic and scenic character of the Canal landscape, and be environmentally sustainable and not conflict with navigation.”
The Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy’s purpose is to implement what the World Heritage Committee recognized with the UNESCO inscription. It’s not just about a 30 m buffer on either side of the Canal. It is a “corridor”; though the word is not defined, the idea is to look at the setting and make sure it is protected. “It’s not just a river, it’s a landscape.”
“There is massive clarity to the fact the ecosystems are integral to the Cana and must be preserved.”
Mr. Brandt pointed out that the Parks Canada 2018 letter signed by planner Susan Millar set out the core values to protect and preserve, “the ground rules.” “When Parks Canada says that they don’t object, they’re relying super heavily on future plans that the Canal will be respected and preserved.”
“The development proposals flies in the face of the requirements at an international, national, and local level. The entire capping approach needs to be reviewed. It would have to be on the table before a decision is made.”
Mr. Fleming asked, “Can the site be developed?” “Yes. Portions of the site can be developed. It’s an over-developed site. It needs to go on a diet. A mass, height, scale diet.”
“There’s unsuredness of where the concept might be going. It’s absolutely wrong to allow this to go to the next step.”
Mr. Brandt took exception to criticisms of his opinion by witnesses for the applicant and said that Mr. Shipley’s plans “are words on a page.” “There’s no evidence that heritage attributes will be conserved.” “There’s not enough supporting information to give a comfort level that this is actually going to happen.”
Mr. Brandt questioned how the raised grade level on the site is going to be graded to reach the shoreline. “You’re going to have to feather the soil, otherwise you have to build a retaining wall along the shoreline. That’s not naturalization.”
Mr. Fleming asked, what is you overall recommendation to the Tribunal? Mr. Brandt replied, “national and cultural heritage features are significant and will be negatively impacted.” The proponent needs to “come back with a more sympathetic design for housing on this site.”
Mr. Aburto began his cross-examination by asking, is it fair to say there are voluminous records for this application? Yes.
This process is typical for an Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendment? “This is more nuanced. What is the level of detail in the document that is acceptable? It’s about how much one needs to understand that the concept is feasible, and the work would play out.
Mr. Aburto asked which witnesses Mr. Brandt had heard give their evidence and which documents he had read. Mr. Brandt reported on whose testimony he had heard. As for the 95 documents provided by the applicant, “You can only go through so much.”
Did you look at and consider the debris on the site? This is a “cosmetic thing.”
You didn’t mention human disturbances on the site? They are a less relevant topic in terms of the long-term site development.
The term “wall effect” is not a technical term in the OP? No.
Do you agree there are tools available to mitigate concerns re: massing? When you use architectonic devices, they only go so far.
They include: separate building blocks, stepbacks, setbacks, patterns of fenestration of windows and doors, balconies. They can take a large blocky mass and make it into something less blocky.
Materiality? This is a trick of the eye. The eye sees multiple surface treatments at the same time.
“There’s only so much you can do. Everything helps a little.”
Mr. Aburto showed the models that Mr. Brandt had included in his witness statement and queried the dark foreground, the not white sky, the lack of vegetation, and absence of any visual tools to mitigate the massing. Mr. Brandt answered that the model focused on mass and the tools were purposefully not included as the purpose of the model was not to test the tools.
Mr. Brandt said that they used City of Kingston maps and then added in their to-scale model.
Mr. Aburto asked about a North Block, Kingston, planning application and showed some of the models Mr. Brandt had prepared for that hearing. Those models have some articulation and are against a white sky? Mr. Brandt said they were prepared with SketchUp software and for this hearing they used Lumion software that allows for more options for interesting skies.
Mr. Brandt added that for the North Block hearing, the City and developer were working together and there were opportunities to adjust the building design in the future. The building envelope was set and there was a legal agreement to adjust the building later. “There’s nothing comparable in this hearing.”
The wetlands on the site are only a small port of the much larger Great Cataraqui Marsh? “When you’re on the 401, you’re looking at the Great Cataraqui Marsh. That’s part of the Canal.”
Schedule 9, OP does not include the Orchard Street Marsh as the Canal boundary? “Simply agreeing would be misleading. Shoreline is at a certain water height level. Really the Canal includes Canal shorelines and wetlands are integral components of what’s designated.”
You have not delineated which part of the wetland is part of the Canal in your witness statement? No, I did it in my evidence today – the inlet and the open water. The boundary line is less important. All the wetlands and the shorelines are character-defining elements of the Canal. Mr. Snetsinger and Mr. West mapped out the wetland boundary.
Your evidence is that Parks Canada is the appointed steward of the Rideau Canal. You have read in their letters that they have no objections to this development proposal? There are conditions with their “no objection.” There are a number of things they still want to see and expect to come out in future phases of the design.
Transport Canada owns some of the land adjacent to the river? I am a proponent of all stakeholders collaborating. It is non-sensical that there’s a major clean up with dredging and capping contiguous to the site and there is no agreement with Transport Canada.
Ms. Minegla, Parks Canada, said that the river clean-up is a separate issue. “That’s part of what’s missing. Your client doesn’t have a plan for the Transport Canada property. What is the efficacy of this approach?”
Mr. Aburto noted that Mr. Brandt had not brought this up in his evidence-in-chief and that Parks Canada, the Conservation Authority, City staff and others had been working on the proposal for five years.
Mr. Aburto noted that Mr. Brandt had written in his witness statement “As it stands, it is an eyesore (but with many regenerating plants and trees).” What would be consistent with the neighbourhood is 1 to 3 storey buildings.
The Woolen Mill is as long as a football field? I never measured it.
You have suggested a 9-storey building at the southwest corner of the site? In my opinion, if you did a podium building with a 5-storey building on top with a smaller floor plate, it would offer a varied built form. And it would be like the smokestake. This building option would not be compatible at the Canal or the wetland.
Mr. Shipley says that capping will not raise the heights of the buildings? There’s grading of the site. How Mr. Shipley caps the site will affect the foundations. It’s very conceptual now. He said it would be no less than 0.65 m plus soil.
You said in your testimony that there would be a retaining wall along the shoreline? What I said was one of the areas of information that is lacking is about capping at the shoreline. Mr. Pruss has said that with capping you’ll have to deal with the shoreline edge. You have to feather the edge to avoid erosion, and you may not be able to grow anything if the soil is too thin. “The site calls for a nature-based solution.”
Mr. Aburto pointed out that principle 9 of the10 Principles for Good Waterfront Development is “Protect water quality,” which had not been mentioned by Mr. Brandt.
Mr. Shipley, Mr. MacLatchy, and Mr. Dakin all say that there is a risk of migration of sediment with high water events. Do you have reason to dispute this? They’re saying that clear cutting and capping is the only way. “I rely on Dr. Rooney. Good conservation practices are to go through all the options that don’t wipe out the wetland and do your due diligence. There’s an impact on a historic place.”
Mr. Brandt provided a process to follow – look at all the options, say why you rejected an option, explain why you have selected an option that is better and does not conserve a cultural heritage feature. Sometimes you have to be lenient.
Dr. Rooney is bringing to light that there are other options. She’s done a great service for what we are all dealing with.
Mr. Aburto said, “She did not look at remediation.” Mr. Brandt answered, “It’s Shipley’s mandate if he is going to do his job property.”
Mr. Aburto pointed out the part of Mr. Shipley’s work that looked at options. Mr. Brandt said, “Yes, but he didn’t look deeply enough into it.”
Mr. Aburto’s final question concerned Mr. Brandt’s legal action against Mr. Patry [the owner of the applicant company] for work done in Barriefield. He questioned how Mr. Brandt could have signed the Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty which says “I acknowledge that it is my duty to provide evidence in relation to this proceeding as follows: a.to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan” without mentioning this. While Mr. Brandt was saying that it was about a small outstanding invoice, the Chair asked Mr. Aburto why he was raising this now and not at the beginning when Mr. Brandt was qualified to give his expert evidence. Mr. Aburto replied that it goes to the weight of evidence.
The matter ended there as Mr. Aburto had no further questions and Mr. Fleming had no question in re-direct.
The hearing resumes on Monday at 10, with the last City witness, Jennifer Luong, Novatech, on traffic, and possibly the first of the No Clearcuts Kingston witnesses, Grant Kaufman, on ecology.
Here’s the link to watch on YouTube.