Comments by the Frontenac…

Comments by the Frontenac Heritage Foundation, Kingston, ON,
on Provincial Policy Statement, Env. Registry of Ontario No. 019-0279

This year the Frontenac Heritage Foundation (the Foundation) celebrates its 47th year of protecting built heritage in the Kingston region. We are an independent non-profit charity run by a volunteer board, and we have about 120 members, most of whom live in Kingston. The Foundation owns an early commercial building in the city’s historic core, and it is the rental income from this building that allows the Foundation to fund much of the advocacy work that we do. The Foundation undertakes many forms of advocacy work across the region, including publishing books, holding monthly educational events, organizing a dry-stone wall festival (2017), and most recently, assisting in organizing a day-long workshop looking at adaptive re-use of churches across the region.
In the last year, the Foundation has been party to two major OMB/LPAT hearings fighting high-rise condos in the historic core of Kingston. These appeals were done at great expense, totalling about $150K and counting, as further appeals are being made to these decisions under S. 35 and 37 of the LPAT Act. The Foundation is of the view that provincial legislation and the provincial policy statement should work together to give clearer direction to the city on its role in planning and development so that the responsibility of protecting built heritage does not fall on community volunteers. We provide the following specific comments on the proposed Provincial Policy Statement (PPS):
1. In the recent consultation on Bill 108, the Foundation provided input, and as with other commenters, concern was expressed about the proposal to establish principles to be considered when making decisions under Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). While it has been indicated that such regulations will be released for public review, this appears to the Foundation to be an issue of sufficient importance that those principles should be established and referenced in the PPS.

2. Previously, the Foundation objected to changing the definition of ‘alter’ to remove any reference to demolitions. If the amendments were intended to include the removal or demolition of a heritage attribute as well as a building or structure, then a problem has been created in the new definition of the term ‘heritage attribute’ which now stipulates that it ‘must be retained’. The Foundation notes that the legislation traditionally requires retention of heritage attributes, but clearly allows under Sections 33 and 42.1 of the heritage legislation a process whereby the attributes may be altered. In Kingston, the Foundation would be opposed to ANY hint that demolitions would be permitted in heritage districts, because of the City's distorted interpretation that the city is not to consult with its Municipal Heritage Committee on alterations in heritage districts. If, indeed, transition provisions are intended to help clarify, these too, should be subject to public consultation.

3. Under S. 2.6 of the PPS, s. 2.6.1 to 2.6.4 remain unchanged, and s. 2.6.5 has been updated to show more appropriate references to the Indigenous communities, and to require engagement and consideration of their input when managing cultural heritage and architectural resources. This is commendable. The message sent, however, is that the rest of s. 2.6 is satisfactory, when it is not. In Kingston, there are continuing problems with the interpretation of s. 2.6.3 with its reference to the term ‘adjacent’, and its definition of ‘contiguous’. In the Kingston Official Plan, the term is defined as being separated by a narrow right of way, and we have seen in discussions about major developments, that major developments can have immense impacts on a larger area that has historical significance, and organizations like the Foundation look to the legislation and the provincial policy to give clearer direction in this regard.

In conclusion, the Foundation is of the view that the PPS is an important document which should reflect the intersection between the Planning Act and the Ontario Heritage Act. Landowners, staff, councillors and volunteers like the Foundation struggle with the complexities of a process that does not require any public notice of what can be major alterations, and we see the approval of major redevelopments delegated to staff, when the city has a knowledgeable municipal heritage committee which it does not rely on for input. We have now seen the development of a monster home in one of the most significant heritage districts in the entire province, and this is entirely because of the distorted view that the city has taken of how the legislation does not require direct discussion and consultation with its municipal heritage committee. Changes to the definitions of the PPS simply confuse the issue.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

S. Bailey, President, Frontenac Heritage Foundation