I work at Archaeological…

I work at Archaeological Research Associates (Ltd.) our company has 30 full time workers and 65 seasonal staff. Our company has concerns about the proposed changes to the Ontario Heritage Act. We have put together a list the concerns organized by theme (as presented in MTCS guidance) which I agree with as they represent my concerns as well. My concerns are outlined below and follow each proposed change.

1. Principles for Parts IV or V of the OHA
• Require the council of a municipality to consider any principles that may be prescribed when exercising decision making under prescribed provisions of Parts IV or V of the OHA
• These principles are not defined in the proposed changes and are said to be defined at a later date/in a separate document/guidelines and/or a separate regulation. Without details on the “principles,” it is difficult to comment; however, we are concerned that these principles may override the current criteria for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 and 10/06. It is also unclear if these principles will change with every government or shift of government priorities, making them a moving target. We hope extensive consultation with the heritage community and local municipalities is planned in order to inform these principles.
• We are concerned that this change has the potential reduce the importance of a local community’s ability to determine the “community value” of their cultural heritage resources.
• It appears that there are many new steps in the designation process, resulting in a more onerous process. The amount of work to prepare a designation report and/or costs to retain a consultant to complete the designation report will be higher. This additional work may not be feasible for municipalities and may act as a deterrent to designation. Overall, such changes would appear to increase “red tape” for anyone desiring to protect heritage.

2. Changes to “Listing” a Property on a Municipal Register
• Require the municipality to provide a “statement explaining why the council...believes the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest,” which would require more work, time and money than the original subsection 27 (1.2).
• The scope of what is required in the statement is not defined in the proposed changes.
• There appears to be no time limit as to when a property owner is to serve the clerk of the municipality a notice of objection of a property being included on the register. We are concerned that time restrictions are placed on the municipality in this process but not on property owners and that property owners may object any time after “listing.”
• All of the above adds complexity to the process by which properties are “listed” on a municipal register. This appears to be contrary to the rationale that these changes are intended to “streamline” the process.
• To support these changes, MTCS indicates that there is to be improved guidance to municipalities on “listing” best practices to support implementation. We hope this guidance is to be provided shortly after the passing of this Act and that it will actively include the heritage community in the process.

3. Criteria for designation
• Subsection 29 (1) (a) is to be repealed and the substitution of (a) “where criteria for determining whether property is of cultural heritage value or interest have been prescribed, the property meets the prescribed criteria” is troubling. These changes remove the strength of having regulation(s) for prescribed criteria as per the current wording 29 (1) (a).
• Again, these requirements/prescribed criteria are not defined in the proposed changes and are said to be defined at a later date/in a separate document/ guidelines/regulations. Without details it is difficult to comment, however, we are concerned that these undefined prescribed criteria/requirements override the criteria for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest outlined in Ontario Regulations 9/06 and 10/06.
• We are concerned as to how these new requirements will impact older designation by-laws that municipalities have in place.
4. Timelines for Designation under Part IV
• New 90-day time limit for a municipality to issue a Notice of Intention (NOI) to designate, where certain events have occurred on the property (which is suggested by MTCS to be by regulation and that these are anticipated to include certain applications under the Planning Act), subject to limited exceptions of a “prescribed event” (new Subsection 29 (1.2)).
• A “prescribed event,” which anchors the timeline, is not defined in the proposed changes and is said to be defined at a later date/in another document/regulation. This adds complexity to the heritage system that appears to be contrary to the notion that these changes are intended to “streamline” the process.
• This is a fast timeline that seems to favour the development industry and not the municipality or community. These timelines provide very little time for municipalities and the public to determine the community value of a cultural heritage resource, and limits opportunities for municipalities and developers to discuss options for integrating heritage into developments or requiring the completion of a Heritage Impact Assessment. Rather, the proposed approach forces the municipality’s hand. It follows that a municipality must designate all cultural heritage resources if they want them to be considered as part of a development application.

5. Streamlined Appeals
• New right of appeal to the local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) when there are objections related to designation by-laws passed by a municipality, as well as from final municipal decisions on applications for alteration under Part IV (as per new Subsection 33 (9)). For designation by-law related decisions - Conservation Review Board (CRB) preliminary objection process are to be replaced with a 30-day period to object to the municipality before a final decision is made (i.e., 30 days after a NOI is issued).
• We are concerned that by placing the right to appeal within the realm of the LPAT and not the CRB, Ontario is losing the specialized knowledge held at the CRB. In addition, it is concerning that the decisions of the LPAT are binding whereas the CBR provides advice to municipalities. This change appears to remove the ability of a municipality to determine the “community value” of its own cultural heritage resources.
6. Complete applications
• To support an application for alteration or demolition, municipalities are able to establish information to be provided (new Subsection 33 (3) and Subsection 34 (3)) and material to be included in an application. An application must be accompanied by prescribed information and material which may be set out by the province (new Subsection 33(2) and 34 (2)).
• Again, if the province is to set out “prescribed information” without clarifying requirements and defining them in a separate document/regulation, it adds complexity to the heritage system where changes are intended to be “streamlined.”

7. Provide enhanced ministry guidance on cultural heritage landscapes
• There is to be a clearer process to identify and choose appropriate tools to protect cultural heritage landscapes, while allowing for sustainable and compatible development. There is to be more uniformity and consistency in how cultural heritage landscapes are addressed under the Planning Act and the Ontario Heritage Act.
• It is particularly disappointing that no consultation has taken place on this matter with the heritage community and municipalities as local municipalities are increasingly dedicating resources toward the inventory, protection and management of cultural heritage landscapes.
• We are concerned how these new requirements will impact the management tools that municipalities already have in place.

Thank you for your consideration on these important issues.