The purpose of this letter…

The purpose of this letter is to provide comments to the proposed updates to the Ontario Heritage Toolkit, which is currently available on the Environmental Registry of Ontario for public commentary.

Due to COVID priorities at this time, Heritage staff have been unable to complete a review of the Draft Heritage Toolkit and is in agreement with other reports as prepared by other municipalities that the proposed deadline to provide comments should be extended to allow more time for input from municipalities, organizations, residents and other interested parties and stakeholders.

The Heritage Toolkit are a series of valuable guides that are used by many municipalities, organizations, professionals, residents and other interested parties and stakeholders in understanding the heritage conservation process in Ontario as regulated by the Ontario Heritage Act. As our understanding and interpretation of heritage conservation evolves and grows, the guides should be updated to provide clarification on ambiguities surrounding the policies and regulations as made by the Ontario Heritage Act. Specifically, as part of our review, we were able to identify the following:

• The inclusion of new case studies and previous cases and decisions as made by the former Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and Conservation Review Board.

• “Page 10” – End of 90 Day Limitation – the first paragraph notes the scenarios where the 90 day limitation to issue a notice of intent to designate would not apply if an Official Plan, Zoning By-law are approved or plan of subdivision registered and where refusals or an order by the Ontario Land Tribunal have taken place. If these scenarios have occurred, it is noted that the 90 day limitation would no longer apply. Does this mean that the municipality would have the ability to issue a notice of intent to designate beyond the 90 day time window and at any point afterwards?

• Clarity should be provided where there are concurrent applications submitted (Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Subdivision) and where only one of the events have taken place, (i.e. approval of an Official Plan, but not the Zoning By-law or the Subdivision) and if the above noted 90 day time window would no longer apply or if all need to be approved before the 90 day time line can be removed.

• Guidance on best practices for ensuring that farm buildings and structures which are identified on the Heritage Register, can be conserved. Often these buildings are demolished given that there is no building permit required.

• Clarity provided on where penalties and consequences as outlined in Section 39 of the Act can also apply to “Non-designated” properties (i.e. Listed properties).

• Guidance regarding change in use of a former place of worship and where cemeteries were present on or adjacent to the property would be appreciated (i.e. a former church was converted to residential, but it is an documented cemetery, but inactive cemetery; some of the plots were moved, but it is possible not all were moved).

• Content and discussion regarding common myths and misconceptions about designation and non-designated “Listed” properties would be helpful (i.e. surges in insurance rates due to status of “Heritage”, affects Home values, etc.) and further expanded upon. This would aid in dispelling points that the “heritage status” of a building would not be the sole factor in bringing up costs that may be related to other variables working in the background.

• Clarification should be provided on whether an owner’s consent is required before Council decides to pass a resolution to state that new and relevant information has been discovered and that it will have 180 days from the date of the resolution to pass the by-law. Is this 180 days in addition to the 90 days or is it 180 days in total?

As a result of the short timeline to provide comments on the Draft Heritage Toolkit, staff were unable to provide a fulsome review at this time as staff’s resources continue to be towards the COVID Pandemic. The preparation and development of the document should provide greater consultant to ensure a comprehensive document can be developed. As such, it is recommended that the proposed deadline to provide comments should be extended to allow more time for input from municipalities, organizations, residents and other interested parties and stakeholders.
Sincerely,

Colin Pang, MCIP, RPP

Township Planner, Heritage Coordinator and Acting Secretary Treasurer to the Committee of Adjustment

Township of King