AVENUE PLACE NOT TO BE MADE RESIDENTAL ST.

Town Planner Advises Against Step and Council Adopts Recommendation

[The Welland Tribune and Telegraph, 23 June 1921]

The question long in debate as whether or not Avenue Place should be made a residential street was formally disposed of at the meeting of the council on Tuesday evening, when a resolution was passed adopting a report made by Thomas Adams, Town Planning Adviser, recommending that matters stand as they are. Mr. Adam’s report, which had previously been adopted by the Town Planning Commission, was as follows:

The two streets regarding which the council want a report are Avenue Place and Randolph Street. I enclose a tracing showing these two streets and their relation to the business centre and the city. The sites colored yellow are the existing business premises on these streets.

The general situations of the two streets are quite different. Avenue Place directly connects with the business part of Main Street, whereas Randolph Street is cut off from through connection by the Public School.

Avenue Place is shown on the maps to be 40 feet wide, but past of it is only 36 feet wide on the opposite sides. This may mean that some steps project on to the street area, or that the street is actually only 36 feet in width. This is an important matter that should be settled as the narrow width will affect the height and character with any proposal to restrict the use of buildings on this street. It should be borne in mind that business development has begun and will continue on Division Street. Some business has entered this street between Main Street South and Burgar Street. This distance between Division Street and Avenue Place varies from 100 to a little over 0 feet. This will mean that in time business premises on Division Street will have rear access from Avenue Place and it will be difficult to prevent this.

At present there are six good dwellings on the south side of Avenue Place, and two on the north side. There is one business structure on the south side and two on the north side. The pavement is only 18 feet wide and there is little room for greater width. From the point of view of width it should be residential, but from the point of view of location, I fear it cannot long be retained for residential purposes because the value of the land occupied by the eight dwellings will increase for business purposes and it will pay the owners to sell out and acquire homes elsewhere. For the present however I can fully appreciate the desire to have their surroundings protected. I fear however there is no practical way in which this can be done except that of expropriating the land and buildings already acquired or used for business.

I enclose a memorandum setting out the powers of the council to pass by-laws for the purpose of prohibiting the erection of business structures in residence streets. You will see from this that the by-laws cannot be made retro-active. That means that if Brennan’s wholesale warehouse and H. Theyer’s premises cannot be affected by a by-law, you could only stop these buildings being used for business, if you expropriate them. It follows that if you cannot stop these two buildings being used for business you could not in equity prevent adjacent vacant lots being similarly used especially if these lots were acquired for business purposes before the houses were erected. The Welland Tribune and Telegraph office does not front on Avenue Place and therefore does not affect the question. Had all the rest of the place been residential it could have been declared retitled notwithstanding the T & T building which fronts of Main Street.

My conclusions therefore with regard to Avenue Place is that the existence of Brennan’s and Theyer’s premises prevent it being declared as a residential street, except by purchase of these buildings and the adjacent lots. This means that it is not practicable for the council to restrict both sides of the streets. It would be possible, however, to make a residential area of the six houses on the south side of the street by merging them with Young Street. I would not advise that this be done as it would not be in the interest of the owners of the dwellings, who would have the use of their own buildings restricted, without having any protection in regard to the restriction of use on the opposite side. On the whole, having regard to the law on the subject, the expense of expropriation of the north side and the general interests of the city, as well as the ultimate interest of the owners of the dwellings. I do not think Avenue Place can be restricted for residence. This is not an expression of opinion, but a statement based on the facts as they are. At the same time I recommend that no buildings be permitted to be erected on Avenue Place of a greater height than 30 feet or nearer to the street than 5 feet. This will help to prevent the street being seriously injured.

Randolph Street

The position in Randolph Street is different. This street is remote enough from the business centre to be restricted for residence. At present there are no business buildings facing on the street. The junk yard and building attached to it at the eastern end face on Burgar Street. If Randolph Street is made a residence street it will probably be necessary to require the owner of the lot now used as a junk yard to close up the business entrance to his lot from Randolph Street and use the Burgar Street frontage. This will be an advantage to all parties. A by-law should be drawn up by the city solicitor to restrict Randolph Street to residence leaving the question of the corner lots on Burgar Street to be settled by arrangement in due course.

Finally I recommend that the Town Planning Commission advise the council to place a restriction on Randolph Street, but that they accept the conditions in Avenue Place as preventing any restriction being imposed,, except as to height and set back of new buildings.