My name is Emily McIvor. I am a voter and I live and work in downtown Ganges. I am here today to speak to the Development Permit application of Mr. Leon Aptekman regarding the tear-down and reconstruction of his buildings at 146-150 Fulford-Ganges Rd.. These historic buildings are right in the centre of downtown with some of the best pedestrian exposure in the village. The existing buildings need a lot of work and the landlord wants to tear them down and replace them with another building (phase 3) which would match the neighbouring Phase 1 and 2 in that block.
At this time, the buildings house four small local and independently owned shops. When the reconstruction is complete, the whole space, as well as the one next door (which currently houses Mark's Work Wearhouse) will be made into one single storefront and leased to Mark's. That means a long strip of street frontage, taken away from little unique shops and turned into one large chain store.
I understand that the current land-use bylaws do not govern who can use the land (that would be discriminatory). However the character and diversity of our village is threatened by this change, so I think it must be addressed.
In regard to the specific application of Leon Aptekman and his architect, Johnathan Yardley, I would like to speak to several sections of Bylaw No. 434. Section E.1: Development Permit Area One- Island Villages. Under heading E.1.2- Reasons for the Development Permit Area, the second paragraph states that the requirement for development permits in Island Villages, “will guide the community's most significant concentrated and visible new development so that it is compatible with existing building, with the natural environment and with community objectives for villages.” The proposed development, even if it falls within current regulatory standards, is not compatible with community objectives (as shown by the 669 signatures on a petition opposing it). The proposal and it's ultimate effect on the visual, social and economic environment of Ganges do not reflect community values of diversity, locality and craftsmanship.
In section E.1.3- Objectives of this Development Permit Area, section E.1.3.3 aims to “encourage creative designs that continue to reflect the diversity and richness of Salt Spring Island. To avoid design controls that would make island villages appear architecturally sterile or contrived.” I understand the planners imperative to match new buildings with existing ones however, some existing buildings are not worth matching. I find the current phase 2 to be both architecturally sterile and contrived and since the original plans were drawn up during the 1980s, I do not think there can be any defense of them as modern or progressive.
Section E.1.6.7 under the heading- Scale, Massing and Modulation, requires that “the existing 'rhythm' of buildings along street frontages be respected.” While the new building may match the adjacent Phase 2, the variety, interest and quaint facades of the current buildings will not be matched.
In section E.1.6.14 under the heading- Details, “the use of imaginative, handcrafted products of local craftspeople is encouraged.” No such handcrafted products are part of this proposal.
In section E.1.6.15 “a pleasant pedestrian environment” is advised. Variety and character are the spice of pedestrian experience. A proposal which detracts from the variety and character of the street frontage can only harm the pedestrian environment.
My point is that while I understand that the building may need to be replaced or repaired, I do not think that one big store with multiple door openings is the same thing as several smaller stores and while I understand the idea of matching one building to the next, I do not think that ugly buildings should be matched.
I believe that the character and diversity of not only our built environment but also our social and economic ones are threatened by changes like this and if the current bylaws do not allow the governing body to protect these things, changes should be made.
I would like to participate in the upcoming bylaw review and I request that, in the review, a bylaw be written which restricts the floor size of individual businesses in the core of lower Ganges ( Jackson Ave, to Rainbow Rd. and down to the waterfront). I would also like to see a preservation of heritage facades.
I request that this permit not be granted until it is clear that it fully meets community objectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment