[these comments have also…

[these comments have also been sent via email to Graham Chernoff and a hard copy is also in the mail]

Dear Mr. Chernoff:

Town of Oakville staff from multiple departments have reviewed the October 2017 Draft Guide to Cultural Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (the Guide). The following comments are provided for your review and consideration. We look forward to seeing a final Guide in the near future.

In general town staff supports the Guide and recognizes that the Province is making progressive steps in ensuring that heritage conservation is integrated into all facets of decision making. In particular, town staff supports the emphasis on cultural heritage landscape conservation within the land use planning process in Ontario.

However, town staff has some concerns with the Guide which are organized around two major themes:

•Integration of relevant provincial heritage laws, plans and policies and consistent meaning and use of key terms; and

•Specific concerns regarding conservation plans.

We set out these concerns below. As well, attached to this letter is a table of detailed comments that recommend other changes to the Guide.

Integration of relevant provincial heritage laws, plans and policies and consistent meaning and use of key terms

This Guide makes a significant attempt to provide an overview of how various provincial policies and plans work together to conserve cultural heritage resources. Implementation of the Ontario Heritage Act requires an understanding of the related cultural heritage policies contained with the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement and other plans. In addition to the relevant provincial documents listed within the Guide, town staff recommends that the Guide identify additional provincial laws, plans and policies, namely the Municipal Act, the Building Code Act and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

Also regarding the alignment of heritage conservation with other plans and policies, town staff believes that the Guide needs to ensure consistent meaning and use of two important terms - ‘conservation’ and ‘conserved.’

Specific concerns regarding conservation plans

The Guide defines conservation plans in relation to development applications and their perceived impacts. It also provides recommendations on how to mitigate impacts. Town staff suggests that the Guide broaden the scope of a conservation plan. We believe that there is need for conservation planning to guide appropriate actions for conserving the cultural heritage value of the property without addressing a specific development proposal or alteration. Given this planning need, town staff believes it appropriate to support the use of conservation plans for this broader purpose.

The Guide currently addresses conservation plans solely as a reaction to a proposal or alteration. In this circumstance, the outcome may not be conservation of the heritage value, as compromise (i.e. mitigation) is the primary focus. Town staff recommends that the Guide present conservation plans in a more proactive role, so that their recommended use does not require a project trigger or the active involvement of a development proponent and focuses on the conservation of the cultural heritage value of the property. Town staff encourages the Province to broaden its definition and contents of a conservation plan and to also provide that conservation plans can be either reactive or proactive, and recognize that these different roles may engage different requirements.

We trust that the Province will respond to the issues identified. We look forward to continuing the important dialogue on how to ensure that the town can advance municipal and provincial heritage interests and requirements in sustaining a Livable Oakville.

Sincerely,

Mark H. Simeoni, MCIP, RPP Director, Planning Services Town of Oakville

cc: Jane Clohecy, Commissioner, Community Development, Town of Oakville Curt Benson, Director, Planning Services, Halton Region Mary Lou Tanner, Director, Department of City Building – Planning, Building and Culture, City of Burlington Barb Koopmans, Commissioner, Planning and Development, Town of Milton John Linhardt, Commissioner, Planning and Sustainability

Page #Section/Statement Comment/Concern

8Section 1.6 The Role of Planning Authorities

“…the PPS 2014 definition of “conserved” means including measures in the planning approval process that ensure significant cultural heritage resources are identified, protected and managed…” In order to match the definition of “conserved” in the PPS 2014, the verb “used” should be added to “identified, protected and managed”. 8Section 1.6 The Role of Planning Authorities

“Typically, this is done by requiring proponents to undertake a cultural heritage evaluation report….” There may be times when a planning authority itself may need to initiate one or more of these documents related to a development proposal where the proponent is not prepared to do so or there is no proponent.

8Section 1.7 Other Provincial Policies or Laws Affecting Cultural Heritage and Archaeological ResourcesLegislation that should be added to the existing list include:

•Municipal Act 2001

•Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2017

•Building Code Act 1992

•City of Toronto Act 11Section 1.8 A Note on Terminology

Definition of ‘Cultural Heritage Landscapes’ Previous guidelines include a broader list of examples (e.g., ‘golf course’). Why is the Guide narrowing the range of examples?

26Sidebar: Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in CanadaClarification on how the federal S&G are different from provincial policies would be helpful.

28Section 4.1 The Policy Context

“Cultural heritage landscapes may be protected under the OHA.”The PPS 2014 definition of ‘conserved’ requires protection under the OHA. The PPS 2014 also states that significant CHLs shall be conserved. The Growth Plan 2017 provides similar guidance.

Thus, the use of “may” is a concern. Is the purpose of this statement to advise that CHLs can be conserved under legislation other than the OHA? While the town agrees that it is possible to protect CHLs under legislation other than the OHA, is that the purpose of this statement?

28Section 4.2 Understanding Cultural Heritage Landscapes

Definition of designed landscape A golf course would be an excellent example to include as a designed landscape.

29Section 4.3 Identifying Cultural Heritage LandscapesAdd ‘Conservation Plans’ to the list of planning tools.

31Section 4.6 Formal Recognition and Protection

“In some cases, designation under the OHA may not be appropriate…” The PPS 2014 definition of ‘conserved’ requires protection under the OHA and the PPS 2014 also states that significant CHLs shall be conserved. The Growth Plan 2017 provides similar guidance.

Thus, as above (comment re: page 28), this language is a concern. It is not obvious how this sentence can be reconciled with the PPS and Growth Plan. Can the Guide provide some reconciliation of this statement and provincial policy?

31Section 4.7 Conserving Cultural Heritage Landscapes

“The local planning process must incorporate measures to protect cultural heritage landscapes that are identified by Indigenous communities or are recognized by federal or international designation authorities.” The use of ‘must’ is problematic as that word implies a regulation, not a guideline.

Also, town staff would appreciate guidance on how CHLs are to be identified by Indigenous communities and to whom these communities consult – municipalities? The Minister? Does this include all CHLs or only ‘significant’ CHLs?

31-33Section 4.7 Conserving Cultural Heritage Landscapes, 4.8 View Protection and 4.9 StreetscapesSections 4.8 and 4.9 should be subsections under Section 4.7.

Additional subsections would be helpful regarding rural and parkland landscapes.

50Section 6.4 Recommendations for Official PlansThe reference to Section 4.4 for additional details on defining geographical areas is incorrect. This should refer to Section 4.5.

52-53Section 7.0 Community EngagementWhy are the requirements to consult under the OHA and PPS 2014 not discussed?

Town staff recommends that the topic of “engagement” be expanded beyond Aboriginal/Indigenous communities.

53Section 7.3 The Duty to Consult Aboriginal CommunitiesFor this duty to apply to municipalities, town staff believes that the Crown must formally delegate the constitutional duty to consult to municipalities.

55Section 8.0 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans There should be recognition within this section that any of these three documents could require peer review. 55Section 8.1 The Policy Context

“They can be used as part of the required studies and reports for development and site alteration applications.”This implies that only proponents may complete CHERs, HIAs and CPs as part of development applications. Town staff recommends that the Guide recognize that municipalities may complete these plans as part of a proactive planning and conservation regime.

56Section 8.1 The Policy Context

“3. A CP will set standards for managing a cultural heritage resource over an extended period.” A conservation plan should be consistent with the PPS 2014 definition of conservation as “identification, protection, management and use”.

58Section 8.5 Heritage Impact Assessments

“A heritage impact assessment: …uses appropriate terminology consistent with terms in the Planning Act, OHA, the PPS 2014 and Official Plans”. Consider adding “… and other applicable provincial plans and policy” to allow for definitions in the Growth Plan 2017 to be included. 62Section 8.11 Conservation Plans

“Conservation plans expand on the information provided in the heritage impact assessment…”Conservation plans should not have to rely on information within a heritage impact assessment. This ties a conservation plan to a development application, rather than a proactive conservation management approach.

62Section 8.11 Conservation Plans

“…the conservation plan will provide guidance that is applicable to any potential development or site alteration, as well as ongoing conservation activity (e.g. routine maintenance of heritage attributes).”A conservation plan should not have to respond to ‘any’ potential development. A conservation plan should have the ability to focus on conservation issues, not specific development plans.

Additionally, routine maintenance may not need to be included in a conservation plan.

62-63Section 8.12 Content of a Conservation PlanThe guidelines as proposed are very specific to a conservation plan that is reacting to a development application.

Suggestions for improving this section:

1.Broaden the content to specifically address the role of a conservation plan in protection and use. 2.Alternatively, create two categories of conservation plans – reactive and proactive – to allow municipalities to proactively conserve cultural heritage resources in addition to reacting to specific development applications.

[Original Comment ID: 211346]