November 17, 2017…

November 17, 2017

Graham Chernoff
Culture Service Advisor
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Culture Division, Programs and Services Branch
401 Bay Street, Suite 1700
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 0A7

Re: A Guide to Cultural Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (Review Draft, October 2017, MTCS), EBR Registry Number 013-0914

Dear Mr. Chernoff:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Guide to Cultural Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, October 2017. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is a resource management agency and public commenting body in the land use planning process, delegated with representing the provincial interest in natural hazards, and implements a development regulation (Ontario 166/06) that affects planning matters. TRCA is also one of the largest landowners in the Toronto region, managing built and natural assets on these lands as a public service to communities, both human and natural. We appreciate the Ministry’s draft document and consultation process given that TRCA promotes the importance of cultural heritage to the planning and development of sustainable communities in its own delivery of a broad range of programs and services.

TRCA Cultural Heritage Programming The unique riverine association of TRCA lands provides an unlimited potential for holding archaeological resources. Recognizing the heritage value of these resources, TRCA worked with the Province to prepare an Archaeological Master Plan in the late 1980s that documented archaeological sites and made recommendations for the proper management of these resources. The Master Plan’s goal for resource management is to manage the archaeological resources found on TRCA-owned or managed land, consistent with legislative requirements and approved technical practices. In future, when we embark on a review of the Master Plan, TRCA would like to re-engage the Province on this update.

In the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, the Province recognizes the importance of consulting with Aboriginal communities on planning matters that may affect their rights and interests. TRCA leads a number of partnership initiatives or programs that identify, conserve, and promote Indigenous and Settlement Period cultural heritage landscapes and resources, including the Boyd Archaeological Field School and Black Creek Pioneer Village. TRCA's jurisdiction contains many overlapping traditional territories and Treaty areas relating to Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat and Métis nations, thus TRCA lands contain hundreds of known ancestral archaeological sites as well as high potential for many hundreds more. TRCA's in-house licensed archaeologists regularly communicate two-way information with the modern descendant communities of the people who occupied these past site locations, particularly when there is the need to investigate a site during an archaeological assessment. For the archaeological resources on TRCA-owned or managed lands, TRCA archaeologists follow the protocols for Indigenous engagement set out in Ontario’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011).

TRCA has also formulated its own directions for cultural heritage in The Living City Policies and developed its own Engagement Guidelines to obtain guidance on stewardship and management decisions within the archaeological assessment process and other land management processes. We enjoy a strong working relationship with our member municipalities and are pleased to assist them in implementing cultural heritage directions in the PPS. It is from these perspectives that we offer the following comments on the draft Guide.

Encouraging Engagement The PPS section 7.3 encouraging meaningful engagement uses “enabling or supporting” language as opposed to setting out a “positive directive” (see Part III of the PPS, “Consider Specific Policy Language”), which we assume is a reflection of municipalities not having the Duty to Consult as non-Crown agencies. However, the Guide would serve to assist in ensuring that this policy is implemented as part of best practice by being more explicit about approaches to engagement. Please review TRCA’s Engagement Guidelines which are specific to procedural aspects of engagement and the legislative mechanisms for facilitating and/or requiring engagement within and outside of the land use planning process. Although the Guide falls under the PPS and contains reference to some other legislation (section 1.7), it could elaborate more for municipalities and those involved in the land use planning process (the stated audience) on other mechanisms for engagement and their requirements, given that all land and resource use activities may not be captured under the Planning Act, e.g., the infrastructure master planning and environmental assessment processes, section 28 Conservation Authorities Act permitting process. In the latter’s case, the “conservation of land” is one of the five tests of the Regulation where natural heritage and cultural heritage landscape values overlap, e.g., valley lands.

Coordinating Processes Further to the above, activities on the land that do not require authorization under the Planning Act, (i.e., master plans, building permits and site alterations) may result in the deterioration of cultural heritage resources given that they do not have the benefit of the PPS and the draft Guide. This is more reason for the Guide to refer to and inform stakeholders about the leverage that may be available in other legislation, policy, technical procedural guidance, best practices and the need for these to be integrated into the municipal planning, site alteration and building permit processes. This would be an opportune addition given that through the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the recent Metrolinx draft Regional Transportation Plan, the Province has been recognizing and promoting the importance of better coordination between land use planning and infrastructure planning. Reinforcing the provincial interest in cultural heritage for on and off the Greenbelt, are Cultural Heritage Resources policies in section 4.2.7 of the Growth Plan and 4.4 of the Greenbelt Plan, neither of which are referenced in the draft Guide. Also, a note of interest is that the PPS refers to “significant cultural heritage resources” whereas the Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan speak only to “cultural heritage resources” with no use of the term “significant.”

Early Identification The draft Guide includes some very helpful information on cultural planning and planning for “sense of place.” There may also be benefit in emphasizing the importance of the timing of cultural planning and studies within the planning process, i.e., cultural planning to identify valuable cultural heritage resources should be done at the early stages, e.g., official plan, secondary plan, infrastructure master plan, block plan, etc. and not left to the draft approval and detailed design levels. This “upfront planning” is needed so developers are aware of heritage constraints and opportunities before they purchase a property and/or submit an application, at which point, the options for effectively conserving these resources in situ are likely reduced or eliminated. As well, other stakeholders such as residents’ and ratepayers’ associations can appreciate knowing the heritage resources that they value are being recognized by their local government.

Cultural Heritage Landscapes TRCA supports the guidance that is in the Guide on the importance of cultural heritage landscapes, which overlap significantly with natural heritage landscapes. TRCA has over the years acquired many properties for their combined built heritage, archaeological and natural heritage values - farmsteads, mill buildings, mill ponds and river sites, working industrial sites, and Indigenous villages and campsites. These properties all require a greater need for investment to protect their importance as key reminders of an age passed, and funding to tell the stories that they hold about the past. In the context of continuing growth patterns in the Toronto region, the value of these heritage landscapes has become increasingly significant. Public agencies and heritage interest groups need to be encouraged to form funding partnerships to not only preserve built assets through creative, adaptive re-purposing, but also to invest in the management of important landscapes where preservation and restoration needs are priorities.

Conservation In situ There should also be more guidance and exploration on how to implement conservation “in situ” of all types of cultural heritage resources within the Guide, (other than just for archaeological resources, as described on page 46) through the planning process, particularly in redevelopment scenarios. We found that much of the Guide is geared to greenfield development, whereas in large urban centres such as in TRCA’s jurisdiction, planning proposals for redevelopment and intensification are the norm. How lands with cultural heritage resources are to be retained or restored and what they can be used for, who is to take them into their ownership or for their management, and how they are to be maintained going forward, are just a few examples of what could be addressed. This could perhaps be explored topically by what is located on the site using a scale of significance and provide more certainty for stakeholders like public agencies and the development industry, for both greenfield and redevelopment/intensification scenarios.

Integrated Design and Implementation Support Moreover, cultural heritage resources that do become protected in some way will benefit from being recognized as a key design element for the planning area in which they are located - integrated into urban design by becoming part of the amenities for a community or the larger urban centre. For example, where a heritage home (as a built heritage resource) is protected as a key element in the urban design for a new or redeveloping neighbourhood, it can inform architectural and use compatibility of the surrounding built form. In this way, the heritage building and its lot are more likely to be truly integrated and valued by the community, as opposed to where a structure’s preservation is only planned for in isolation of the larger design process. Necessary for this integration, are flexibility in municipal zoning to encourage adaptive re-use and funding incentives for investment needed to restore, convert and maintain such structures while retaining their heritage attributes.

Our only caution relates to potential conflict with the natural hazard policies of the PPS, in that where these structures are located within valleylands or other hazardous lands, careful consideration must be taken to any contemplation of expansion or intensified use that has the potential to increase risk. As a regulator and resource management agency, but also as an advocate for both natural and cultural heritage conservation, TRCA would be pleased to act as a partner with the province and municipalities to help inform these considerations. It may be helpful for the Guide to reference advisory agencies like conservation authorities as a further support to implementing the cultural heritage policies of the PPS.

Overall, we found the draft Guide to be comprehensive and clearly written and we look forward to being provided notice on its finalization. Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide comments. Should you have any questions, or if you would like to discuss any of the above, please contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Woodland, OALA, FCSLA, MCIP, RPP
Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace & Communications Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

(Also sent via email to graham.chernoff@ontario.ca)

[Original Comment ID: 211339]