Official Community Plan (OCP) Minor Update for Modernization

Proposed OCP Amendments #72 to #76 - Revelstoke Station Heritage Conservation Area The amendments proposed to Appendix 3: Revelstoke Station Heritage Conservation Area represent a major restructuring of the Heritage Conservation Area. The proposed amendments substantially change the objectives of the Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and there is wording that directly contravenes the Local Government Act. These are not ‘minor updates’ and therefore not consistent with the stated purpose of the Phase 1 OCP amendments. Additionally, these amendments are not mentioned in the staff report to Council nor the public summary. Instead they are hidden in lengthy background documents. There are 140 owners of Protected Heritage Property in the HCA who will be impacted, each with a Heritage Status Notification on title. Yet they have not been informed of the proposed amendments. The City is required to properly notify residents before proceeding to Public Hearing. Map of the Heritage Conservation Area: Section 9.0 Revelstoke Station Heritage Conservation Area Boundary is the correct legal map for the area and the only map that should be in the OCP. Appendix V, Map 7 (Heritage Conservation Area and Properties Map) was a preliminary planning tool showing properties built prior to World War II listed in the Heritage Inventory. The Heritage Inventory is not a list of Protected Heritage Properties, and Map 7 should not be used to identify Protected Heritage Properties. There is no reason to include this map in the OCP. 2.0 Designation - The proposed revisions to this section are incorrect and legally confounding. As noted above, the map reference is incorrect. Additionally, proposed Amendment #72 is not compliant with the Local Government Act. The Act stipulates that exemptions to Heritage Alteration Permit requirements must be listed in the OCP, not ‘subject to policies’. The assertion that Heritage Alteration Permits are not required for Protected Heritage Property outside the HCA is not compliant with the Act. Heritage Alteration Permits are required for development or alteration of all Protected Heritage Properties, unless specifically exempt. For clarity, there is only one Protected Heritage Property outside the Heritage Conservation Area. Mountain View School was protected by Municipal Heritage Designation Bylaw in April 2015. There are no Protected Heritage Properties in Development Permit Areas, although there are properties in these areas that are listed in the Heritage Inventory but have no formal heritage status. Proposed Amendment #72 should be revised or deleted. The bylaw establishing the Heritage Conservation Area was prepared with substantial legal advice. Subject to further advice, it may be acceptable to explicitly reference Section 615 of the Local Government Act that a Heritage Alteration Permit must be issued in order to subdivide land, start construction of a building or structure or an addition to an existing building or structure, alter a building or structure, or alter a feature that is Protected Heritage Property in the Heritage Conservation Area. 6.0 Exemptions from Permit Requirements - The proposal to exempt Accessory Buildings from Heritage Alteration Permit requirements (Amendment #73) is a major revision to the objectives of the Heritage Conservation Area. This proposal appears to be a reaction to the ongoing conflicts between the Zoning Bylaw and the guidelines for the Heritage Conservation Area. A primary objective of the HCA is to preserve the historic streetscapes of steep roofed buildings as described in the guidelines. Accessory buildings are referenced multiple times in 11.0 Guidelines for Alterations and Development in the Revelstoke Station Heritage Conservation Area. Section 11.3.2 states that guidelines for site layout and building massing ‘shall be’ considered in the construction of accessory buildings. Proposed Amendment #73 implies that accessory buildings make no contribution to the historic character of the streetscapes. This is not true. Accessory buildings, whether old garages or new carriage houses, are highly visible features of the area and contribute significantly to the pattern of the streetscapes. The proposal in Amendment #73 to exempt Accessory Buildings from Heritage Alteration Permit requirements should be deleted. The solution to the conflicting requirements of the Zoning Bylaw and the Heritage Conservation Area Guidelines is to create a Heritage Zone that reflects the actual subdivision and land use pattern of the area. These proposed amendments to Appendix 3 have not been reviewed by the Heritage Advisory Commission, or publicized to affected property owners. Nor does it appear they have been reviewed for accuracy by the Heritage Consultant on contract with the City. Why are these amendments proceeding at this time? There is a high degree of frustration with the City’s management of the Heritage Conservation Area and lack of engagement with property owners. Should the Heritage Conservation Area simply be dismantled?