Architectural Conservancy…

Architectural Conservancy OntarioNovember 2017 Comments on New Guidance Document: A Guide to Cultural Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport web site tells us: “This new guide will replace an older ministry Info Sheet series that provided advice and best practices in managing heritage resources under the land use planning process.” – October 2017

General Comments Old Tool Kit guide was 25 pages while the new guide is 65 pages – the expanded guide is a welcome development It is useful having definitions given throughout the document Regarding the structure - the new guide is clearer and more logically and intuitively structured Addition of discussion on Sense of Place, Community Engagement and Roles is very helpful In a number of places such as page 4, Section 1.1. and page 6, second paragraph, reference is made to the “old” guidelines and to “new” elements If this document remains in use as long as its predecessor then references to new vs old will become increasingly odd Why not let the reader enjoy a fresh view about what this document is rather than what it is not The sidebars generally provide useful information and appear to be located in proximity to the points they are intended to illuminate N.B. The entire document could use an energetic edit to improve its style and keeping in mind that it will be in print for some time For example, on page 5, Section 1.3. – the first paragraph is redundant and can be left out while the second paragraph should actually be first

Specific Comments Section 1.0 Introduction Section 1.1 continued – perhaps a quick outline of the structure of the guide would be useful here Page 4, Section 1.2. – it is great to have this brief primer on the planning context (Planning Act) but the PPS is mentioned prematurely (without context). Better to leave the PPS to its own Section 1.3 and introduce it there The first line says land use on “privately owned or municipally owned property in Ontario” is subject to the Planning Act. What about land owned by school boards, hospitals, universities, etc.? Section 1.3 – it might be useful to add that the PPS is approximately a 20 page document that addresses many other planning issues besides heritage conservation such as aggregates, housing and agriculture, all of which have to be considered in land use decisions. Page 7, first paragraph under Section 1.6. Role of the Planning Authority This statement is at the heart of a very tricky question: if significant cultural heritage resources are to be conserved as per the PPS, then is it a requirement for municipalities to identify those resources and to put protection in place? Some municipalities have interpreted the PPS directive as requiring just that but some still appear to be working on the assumption that if they don’t designate a site then they don’t have to protect it - in other words the municipality is both poacher and game keeper So what is the answer and if municipalities are not doing a job they are required to do, who polices them? Section 2.0. Sense of Place The discussion of Sense of Place is very helpful since it gives a policy and economic context to issues not well understood by people outside the heritage conservation community Page 16/17 – hopefully the qualities and characteristics given will have visual examples Page 17 – last full paragraph says “Planners and communities can help define…” Given that the teeth for planning decisions lies in the law rather than in the aspiration, that is in by-laws and not in the PPS, perhaps the language here needs to be stronger as in “Planners and communities must define…” Page 17/18 the list given is quite comprehensive and is a good guide Sections 2.4 and 2.5 are vital and well laid out It is important for cultural mapping to be an ongoing rather than one off process Page 20, Section 2.5 – It is important to link cultural planning to municipal administration as well as municipal planning An example is building permits where there are examples of permits being issues for work in conservation districts where building inspectors claimed to be unaware that a heritage permit was required Section 3.0. Built Heritage Resources This section is very strong and with a few exceptions, clear Page 23, Fifth paragraph under 3.2. Identifying Built Heritage Resources – there is some confusion about the relationship between the document under review and the Tool Kit which should be clarified Page 23 under 3.2. Identifying Built Heritage Resources – it is surprising that Reg 9/06 is not invoked when discussing identification of resources since it is the defining document on the subject Section 4.0 Cultural Heritage Landscapes It is in respect to CHLs that much has evolved since the publication of the last guidelines, which makes this section so important In large part this section reflects the advances in theory, application of principles and practice since there now exist CHLs managed both by existing tools such as Heritage Conservation District designation and Official Plan recognition Page 29, Section 4.3 Second paragraph – this statement indicates that to be consistent with the PPS municipalities must have OP provisions for conserving significant CHLs – if this statement is correct it goes a long way toward clarifying municipal responsibilities Because CHLs are so diverse the Ministry might consider producing a selective inventory In 4.11 on intangible cultural heritage value, there is reference to “intangible cultural heritage attributes.” Care should be taken here as “heritage attributes” are a defined term in the PPS and the definition does not reference intangible elements, at least explicitly. It might be better to use a term other than “attributes” in this section.

Section 5.0 Archaeological Resources The archaeology provisions of the guidelines are outside the usual domain of ACO with perhaps one exception: Page 44 Criteria for Determining Archaeological Potential, language should be added that allows for the identification of potential historic archaeological sites such as former mills, mill races, proto industrial sites, and ruins Section 6.0. Adjacent Lands and Protected Heritage Property Page 48, Section 6.2. Defining Adjacent Lands – the clarification that adjacent means more than having a common boundary is welcome Page 50, Section 6.4. - this type of advice which presents options and in some cases provides checklists can be very useful in focusing discussion around land use decision making Section 7.0. Community Engagement Page 52 (starting on) - The advice on consultation with First Nations is welcome Section 8.0. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plans All of the clear outlining of what is expected from different types of review documents will help to standardize practice and raise the level of professional consultation

[Original Comment ID: 211341]