Changes affecting the…

Changes affecting the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties

I am opposed to the concept of Ministerial review powers and strongly recommend no further action.
Only a qualified heritage professional can make the determination of cultural heritage value or interest by a ministry or prescribed public body respecting a provincial heritage property.
This is the hallmark of our accepted best practices and legislative processes globally including the World Heritage Committee which has been functioning for 50 years.
Each Ministry and Prescribed Public Body has an Advisory Panel in their Identification and Evaluation Process to review and advise government should a circumstance arise around the determination of cultural heritage value
This peer preview is objective and professional versus a political decision. If the Minister wishes to decide NOT to list a provincial heritage property, then this is a matter for the government to consider and vote similar to a municipal council does for designation under Part IV and V.

New requirements for municipal registers and the inclusion of non-designated properties on the municipal register

I support clear and transparent standards and goals for municipal practices around the inclusion of non-designated properties on a municipal register, however this should only be done once there is consultation with municipalities.
I oppose all the proposed legislative changes except for requiring municipalities to make an up-to-date version of the information on their municipal register available on a publicly-accessible municipal website.
This amendment should be delayed by 1 year to allow municipalities time to make the necessary changes to their website. Municipalities may seek approval to extend this transition deadline, if needed.
I note that the Ministry has yet to have the list of provincial heritage properties publically accessible after 12 years of the Standards and Guidelines came into effect.

Increasing the standard for including a non-designated property on a municipal register by requiring that the property meet prescribed criteria is contrary to the principle of Listing which is to be timely decisions by Municipal Council.
While generally there is a practice for some municipalities (with staff) to apply the criteria included in O. Reg. 9/06 (Criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest) this regulation has yet to be examined in 17 years.
For example, the identification of sites of spiritual and Indigenous Heritage may not qualify under this colonial construct which is feasible without criteria.

Removal from the register
If council moves to designate a listed property but a designation bylaw is not passed or is repealed on appeal, the property would have to be removed from the municipal register.
I oppose this entire concept of a temporary record and request to follow the City of Toronto practice to keep demolished properties and the by-law repealed as a public record and a tool for comparative analysis and research. The Register notes the date of demolition.

I strongly oppose the proposal to remove non-designate properties from a municipal register if council does not issue a notice of intention to designate (NOID) within two years of the amendments coming into force.

The confusion and unintended consequences of making the Register a transitory or temporary record are numerous and are as follows.

• Lack of understanding of the fundamental principles purpose to list non-designated properties including recognition and celebration, flag to demolition applications. Keep planning related matters to the Planning Act and PPS.
• Administrative burden and red tape on tracking the two years and the five year "penalty box" of not being able to relist
• Chaos on what is listed or not listed as it will lead to unofficial heritage inventories
• Most municipalities average 1 or even less NOIDs a year and do not have the capacity to designate properties in 2 years resulting in the potential loss of over 30,000 heritage properties (see attached document).
• Since Bill 108 amendments came into force in July 1 2021, the appeals of NOID has dramatically increase and anticipate the increase of appeals will unnecessarily overload the OLT capacity
• Provincial properties are often included on municipal register and are not allowed to be designated. The properties and landmark sites will not be identified in planning matters
• Municipalities typically list "contributing properties" of a Heritage Conservation District study to ensure that these properties (many of which are commercial properties) have a flag for demolition. To designate hundreds or thousands of properties under Part IV while awaiting the outcome of a HCD study or when a HCD Plan is under appeal defeats the purpose of the Part V designation. There should be no expiration of listed properties and especially while the matter is under appeal at the OLT.
• Currently the Historic Yonge HCD appeal has been ongoing since January 2016 and may not be resolved until 2023 or 2024.
• Since 2021, the City of Toronto has 60 Prescribed Events and these time limits have greatly stressed the municipal capacity. With the exception of two Prescribed Events, owners have signed waivers to the 90 days limit and want to have the flexibility for the timing of the designation and to reach a mutual understanding.
• Forcing designation on active places of worship or institutional landowner e.g., universities and colleges
• Municipal and civic sites will be a low priority as they are not subject for rezoning of housing leading to confusion on their cultural heritage value

Listing is not nor should be a requirement of a NOID and the two should not be coupled. There are many benefits to listing, but it should not limit the ability of a municipality to designate a property subject to a Planning Act application.
The 90-day time limit already addresses and provides the opportunity for transparency and early engagement on what properties have cultural heritage value.

Despite numerous requests for clarification, the Ministry would not explain the proposal

increasing the threshold by requiring that a property meet two or more of the criteria prescribed in regulation

The question for clarification - these two of nine criteria or two of three categories.

Whatever the answer, it is not one that should be changed until there is great research on the regulation and consultation with municipalities.

Heritage Conservation District studies

I have spent the last 8 years leading the development of 18 HCD studies. There is more
rigour in the process of identifying and protecting heritage conservation districts (HCD) and does not require applying prescribed criteria to determine a HCD’s cultural heritage value or interest.

This would include a requirement for HCD plans to explain how the HCD meets the prescribed criteria. MCM proposal to have the criteria currently included in O. Reg. 9/06 apply to HCDs is absolutely the wrong approach as this criteria is for an individaul property and does not apply to a district or collection of properties. The lack of understanding of the criteria and HCD evaluation is discouraging after offering numerous examples of HCDs. The current HCD study of Baby Point in the City of Toronto is one to understand before even considering criteria due to the Indigenous heritage and archaeological sensitivity of the site.

The Ministry has promised for several years to issue new guidance on HCDs and should focus their attention to this effort and work with CAHP and training professionals and interns.

I do support and welcome the proposal to introduce a regulatory authority to prescribe processes for municipalities to amend or repeal existing HCD designation and HCD plan bylaws.

In general, I am disheartened and discouraged by the lack of research to inform this public policy and MCM's lack of effort to offer meaningful consultation with municipalities and heritage professionals during the introduction and the Government's hearings of Bill 23. The Ontario Heritage Act will be gutted and have limited benefit to advancing and resolving the housing crisis in our communities.

Thank you