Re: 73 Vaughan

[Martha M........]

He'll Michael
Thanks for your email.
There was a meeting on Tuesday, November 27 with about 18 residents present to voice their opposition to the proposed laneway. Mr. Alain Miguluez, city planner, was also there to hear and explain what is being planned, which has been done without any notification or consultation with the residents who would be directly impacted by this laneway.
David Mennier and Kathryn Verey have been working diligently on this matter and have been investigating and communicating with the city and all the residents, in our attempt to stop the laneway.
As you stated, things are moving very quickly and, therefore, i am forwarding your email to both David and Kathryn, along with the residents, so that they may advise you directly what has transpired to date.
Thanks again.

Martha

On 2012-11-28, at 10:06 PM, "Michael J. Histed" <mhi...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> Martha
> Sorry for the delay in getting back to you
>
> My wife told me you rang re the lane reinstatement issue at 73 Vaughan.
>
> I have been reading a number of email exchanges from different neighbours on the Mums Listserv. I have also contacted the city planner to determine what the normal steps are for this type of issue, since NECA was not involved or contacted which is usual for development and zoning issues in new Edinburgh.
>
> I would be pleased to discuss ( it would appear things are moving very fast). You can contact me at 613 741-1660
>
> Michael
>
> Sent from Michael Histed's iPhone

[David Mennier]

Martha, thanks for connecting Michael and NECA with the situation on the proposed opening of the laneway on the north block of Ivy & Vaughan.
 
Michael, yes, the situation came up suddenly and has been moving quite quickly. There have been many emails between the residents of Vaughan & Ivy, and the City and our instantly formed ad hoc group of affected residents. At this point, would NECA reps like to sit with me and/or affected residents and go over the file we are building?
 
This particular case involves a new home development at 169 Ivy, and the immediately abutting 3 owners beside and behind this lot. However, the issue of opening this laneway (now inactive for 40 and some say up to 50 years) is a real concern for all residents on the block. Of course, in a general sense, it is an issue of interest for all New Edinburghers and urban community residents throughout the city.
 
It all started when the new owner of 169 Ivy applied for and was granted a building permit, part of which included a parking structure at the rear, meaning access through the (untravelled) laneway.
 
It is my opinion that the City may have erred in approving this building permit so quickly, which grant the new owner rear lane access, without recognizing that this would cause reasonable concern to abutting owners -- and the entire block. At that point, I believe, the City should have handed the file to planning so that a proper assessment of the situation, with public consultation, could take place.
 
At this point, the City has heard our intitial concerns, has agreed to meet again, and has asked the new owner to do a second survey, this time, of the laneway, so we can all see the exact dimensions and locates of the laneway. This buys us all at least a couple of weeks. There are many encroaching items on the laneway, including sheds, a garage, fences, mature trees, etc. The City has just agreed in the last day or so to not authorize any removal of any greenery until the new survey is complete. They then want us to sit down with the architect and owner of the new home to discuss what could be affected. At that point, they wish to focus the talks with preferably only the 4 property owners involved, as the request is to open the laneway only partially, so the new owner, whose lot is only one in from the corner, can have access.
 
Many residents have expressed opposition to the opening of the laneway, but also a few have indicated they would not be opposed.
 
I would like to gather more feedback from all residents of the block, and review literature, before next meeting with the City, the date and venue of which is not yet set, but has been suggested that should take place within a months' time. I would like it to be at CCCC or the Stanley Park Fieldhouse, so that all local residents have convenient access to the meeting.
 
Anyhoo, let's talk! Let me know when/where we should meet.
 
Cheers,
 
David Mennier
87 Vaughan
613-741-1736  home
613-255-8385  cell
 


 
_________________________
David P. Mennier
Ottawa
 

> Subject: [laneway] Re: 73 Vaughan
> From: martham...@hotmail.com
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 04:43:19 -0500
> To: mhi...@uottawa.ca
> CC: kathry...@gmail.com; men...@hotmail.com; lan...@googlegroups.com

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ivy/Vaughan Laneway" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to laneway+u...@googlegroups.com.
>
>

[dco...@sympatico.ca]

Hi everyone,

In my opinion, having a lane would be great place for kids to play road hockey. If it gets paved. Ivy crescent is short cut for a lot of people. There is not stop sign at Bertrand and Ivy. So I am no opposed to having the lane opened, and think that opening beyond the 4 properties would be good.

I do understand that people are opposed, do to loss of back yard space, security, snow removal, lost of parking space, etc. I do understand, just like to express some possible positive aspects of having a lane.

Steve Grabner
165 Ivy

---

From: men...@hotmail.com
To: martham...@hotmail.com; mhi...@uottawa.ca
CC: kathry...@gmail.com; lan...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [laneway] Re: proposed laneway opening, north block of Ivy & Vaughan
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:32:38 +0000

[Kathryn Verey]

Thanks for this, Steve.  Even though the majority of initial members may be anti-laneway, my intention in creating the mailing list was to provide a forum for discussion of the issue from whatever side, so I'm glad that's now clear.

I fully understand your and Debra's point of view, and if I lived at 165 Ivy I might feel the same way.  I might even see advantages for us - heck we haven't renovated our house yet, so we could do away with our front parking, build a wider house, and do exactly what the 169 Ivy people are doing.  And ride our bikes down the lane directly into a shed/garage instead of schlepping them across the yard.  

I say might because really so much hinges on whether the city plans to plough and otherwise maintain the laneway, which at this point they say they won't (and if the next block is anything to go by, that's true).  It won't be paved or in any way maintained by the city (go ask Brent on the next block how much the city does for that laneway - if you don't know him I'll find the house number and let you know).  Gravel is not a great road hockey surface.  That the entire laneway will sooner or later be opened if this goes through is a given, and at that point the amount of traffic will be surprising - at precisely the time of day that Sam is out there playing - with constant interruption to the hockey games, albeit at a slower pace.

Security - we witnessed drug deals on numerous occasions when we backed onto the open part of the lane on the next block.  We rarely leave our car unlocked out front on Vaughan, but every single time we do, it is ransacked before morning.  Which means that every single night there are people walking down our street trying our car doors, and who knows maybe our house doors too.  Would those same people not have a field day having access to the rear of our homes in an unlit area, and would the knowledge that they are less likely to be witnessed not make the temptation to actually break into cars and homes all the greater?

Trees - the character of the rear of our block would be dramatically altered - take a look up and down and see how many of the big trees are growing in the laneway - it's most of them.

Snow clearance - for the entire lane that's going to be a sizeable cheque.  Are you going to write that big cheque and then go asking all the neighbours for their share?  And then fight with the ones that tell you they park in front, or only have bikes and don't use the lane in winter?  I'm not.  On the next block there was a woman who argued just that, so the ploughing stopped behind her property because she didn't contribute.  Then she complained that the flooding in her basement 50 feet away was due to the pile of snow in the laneway.  Blocked the plough one day and trapped him in the lane.  Dumped her kitchen garbage and dog poop in the neighbours' yard (the nice ones who organised and paid for the ploughing up front).  There are nutters everywhere, but now you have to cooperate with them to clear your lane...

A laneway could be a great thing if the city took care of it.  Otherwise, a nightmare.

I suggested to David that this might be something to put on the survey, but I'd love to get a feel from people on the list: the city has a system for selling off small parcels of land to abutting owners - is this something that people would consider if the city were open to it?  Buying at market value the 5 or 6 feet of city property that abuts their property?  Just curious.  

Kathryn

[Joyce Dubuc]

Good points Kathryn .....

Another consideration is 99 Vaughan.  Many people are probably not aware of its existence ..

It is over 100 years old and is BEHIND 95/97 Vaughan...

It is unusual to say the least.. 

 I specifically asked Alain about this property at the meeting, as I had always understood that it was actually IN the "lane"...apparently it is just beside the lane.

Opening up the lane would take away almost all of their yard, plus their front stairs...and dramatically impact their life..

Joyce at 93 Vaughan

[Jerry Turchyn]

I would like to discuss the original cause of all this discussion. Why
was the application to open the laneway approved in the first place?
This should not have happened. Something went wrong with the process at
that point. We should not be having this discussion.

The laneway has been closed for many years and obviously it outlived
its usefulness to the city many years ago (40-50 years at least) The
easement, sorry, lane has only been used for access to cable and
telephone utilities. That is it. The owners of these properties have
for many years taken on the task of maintaining this unused and
abandoned lane.. By fencing off and maintaining their share they have
effectively assumed responsibility for it. They have saved the city
from a financial and bothersome burden. Drainage problems do not exist.
They have reduced potential crime. They have brought focus to the front
street where you can park your vehicle and say "Hi!" to your neighbour
at the same time. The city does a great job of plowing and maintaining
the front streets. All services come to the front street. This is good
for everyone.

Both Vaughan Street and Lower Ivy Street (from Bertrand to Putnam) and
have this closed lane situation. Every lot has a front drive and
parking available either on your property or through an on-street
parking permit. Easy, simple, cheap.

Why was this permit approved and who was responsible for it?!!

They must have thought about the potential problems it would arouse and
pushed it through anyway. The city tried to do this in Overbrook a few
years ago. They were also looking at the Glebe and a few other
neighbourhoods. This is not a done deal. We need to go back to the
origin of the problem and fix it there. All this talk about who wants a
laneway and who doesn't is throwing us off and will lead the city to
believe that we are ok with what they have done. I think this will
cause many financial and community harmony problems for many people.
All for a parking space? Tsk tsk.

Jerry Turchyn

>> CC: kathry...@gmail.com; men...@hotmail.com; laneway@googlegroups.
>> com

[David Mennier]

Jerry,
 
I think you hit it on the head. I also believe that the City may have erred in approving a building permit without recognizing (and what seems obvious to all of us) that this particular building permit required rear parking, and as such, was not only a building permit issue but also a planning issue. That is when Planning should have taken over this file, and any permit approval should have been delayed, and public notices, consultation, etc., would have been the normal approach. Likely it would have become a matter before the Committee of Adjustment.
 
The problem now, is that the building permit has been issued.
 
The vital aspect now is to make sure there is a real meeting, set up quickly, with residents and the City, held before any changes to the lane occur. At that point, the City will be able to see (and hear!) the informed and prepared concerns of residents, and bring up valid arguments, such as yours.
 
I have finalized the survey and do wish to distribute this weekend, as I think it will be a useful tool in gauging local opinion on the matter, and allow us to see a clearer picture of the who is in favour, against, and indifferent, and why.
 
Cheers,

 
_________________________
David P. Mennier
Ottawa
 

> CC: lan...@googlegroups.com; kathry...@gmail.com; dco...@sympatico.ca; mhi...@uottawa.ca
> From: er...@ncf.ca
> Subject: Re: [laneway] Re: proposed laneway opening, north block of Ivy & Vaughan
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:24:24 -0500
> To: dubu...@sympatico.ca

[Jerry Turchyn]

Ok, I went by the building site this morning. So the footings are in
and foundation forms are in but they have not been poured. There is
space put aside for parking in the front. Do I recall that the proposed
separate building in the back was labelled a shed? I think they are set
up for a front parking space, just in case, but would rather have it at
the back. Just because a permit has been issued (we know not what for)
does not mean it should have been. We cannot look at this as a fait
accompli. This tactic is used all the time in the construction
industry.

Jerry