Please find attached…

Please find attached comments from the Town of Grimsby’s Heritage Staff regarding the draft versions of the new Ontario Heritage Toolkit that were posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario on June 1, 2021.

Please be advised that given the extremely limited timeline for completing the Toolkit assessment, a full analysis of the Heritage Toolkits was not possible. We are requesting an extension to the deadline for submitting to the Environmental Registry of Ontario ERO so that our staff and heritage committee can thoroughly review the new Ontario Heritage Toolkit.

Town of Grimsby – Ontario Heritage Toolkit Comments

General Comments;

• It would be extremely beneficial if the new legislative amendments could be emphasized in order to provide a more thorough analysis.

• Further engagement on the contents and guidance of the Ontario Heritage Toolkit is essential as there appears to be many questions and unclear direction within the guides.

• A comprehensive discussion among heritage professionals would be desirable, as such talks are likely to reveal inadequacies within the Toolkit.

• Hard copy format of the Ontario Heritage Toolkit should be made available to industry professionals.

• The salvage of architectural materials should be more prevalent in all the booklets within the toolkit. The amount of construction waste that ends up in landfills is unsustainable and should have greater emphasis.

• Inconsistent language was identified between the guides

• Ensure that “should” and “shall” language in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit reflects the requirements of the legislation and its regulations.

• This guide could include more information on easements as a tool to safeguard heritage properties, as defined by section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Designating Heritage Properties Guide;

• Section 3.1 states that “many listed properties are eventually recommended for designation”. This isn't always the case; many properties are listed to give the municipality time to assess their heritage significance; however, it does not guarantee designation.

• The myths and misconceptions surrounding designation are discussed in Section 3.2 (page 8). Will the Ministry be taking the lead on debunking those myths and misunderstandings?

• Section 3.3 states that “publish a notice of intention to designate in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality”. Would digital format posted online be sufficient for meeting this requirement?

• Section 3.6 states “An appeal must be made within 30 days of the publication of the notice in the newspaper. The appeal must set out the reason for the objection to the bylaw and all relevant facts”. Please specify within the Toolkit the “relevant facts” so that it can help with the decision making process.

• Section 4.2 identifies that under the Ontario Heritage Act, designation of a heritage property applies to real property — the land itself and the buildings and structures on it. In some cases, only a portion of a property may be considered to have cultural heritage value or interest, not the entire property. It is recommended that the term “structures” be replaced with “significant features of value” to not exclude non-structure attributes (i.e., natural features).

• Section 5.1 states “Designation under section 29 of the act does not guarantee the continuing existence or preservation of all elements of a property”. This comment is of concern as best practice encourages heritage properties to replace a material with an in-kind material so as not to affect the integrity of the structure by introducing something that is not compatible. The use of best practices should be encouraged within this section.

• Section 5.1.4 states that “certain materials must be forwarded to Council in the case of an appeal”. It would be helpful if the specific materials were outlined so that both parties are aware of what they should be looking for.

• Additional insurance support for heritage-designated properties is needed (see sidebar on page 37). According to heritage property owners, insurers are increasingly refusing to cover heritage classified properties. What is the Ministry doing to guarantee that owners of historic properties continue to receive affordable insurance?

• Section 5.2 states “Often, their ongoing stability, viability, and historic integrity are the result of innovative alteration, development, and use”. Would encourage the use of strong examples and case studies to reflect best practices that encourage compatible interventions.

• Section 6.4 states “Council must ensure that the tribunal receives certain records within 15 days after receiving the notice of appeal”. This time frame is extremely tight and for municipalities without dedicated Heritage staff could mean the loss of valuable resources due to unattainable timeframes.

• Section 7.5 States “the property owner cannot reapply for a repeal until 12 months have passed since the decision”. The period of repeal should be longer than 12 months as this could cause undue strain on a municipality with many designated properties. The decision for designation should not be called into question every 12 months, as all information within the designation is still relevant.

Heritage Conservation Districts Guide

• A section on amending heritage conservation district plans, including information on how to do so and the process a municipality must follow, should be added.

• Given that there are limited changes to Part V of the Act, it would be beneficial if the Ministry could identify and detail any significant modifications to the HCD guidance.

• As amendments to section.42 (4.1) of the Ontario Heritage Act have not yet been proclaimed, related language should not be included in the guide (Section 4.1, page 44).

• Provide details and examples of when a municipality (or the Province) has expropriated a property for heritage preservation (referenced on p.47 of Designating Heritage Properties).

Heritage Places of Worship

• Rural places of worship should be included in section 2.

• In parts that discuss unique circumstances, such as an easement arrangement with a property, more case studies should be presented.

• Adaptive reuse of places of worship is an ever-growing industry, providing examples of projects and how municipalities have handled them would be a welcome addition.

• Section 2.3 states “If a heritage place of worship is being considered for individual municipal property designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, it will undergo a more rigorous evaluation” Please define what is meant by “more rigorous” within the Toolkit.

• Section 3.3 states “Listing on a municipal register”. This is a great resource. Why does the same paragraph not appear within the “Designating Heritage Properties Guide”?

• Section 4.2. needs to be consistent with the amended Ontario Heritage Act language regarding determining whether a feature/ structure is being altered or demolished.

• Section 4.6: Additional guidance should be provided regarding development adjacent to Places of Worship.

Your Community, Your Heritage, Your Committee Guide

• Section 2.2 states “many heritage committee members serve 3-year terms.” Should Heritage Committees be in line with Council terms?

• Examples of terms of reference for municipal Heritage Committees would be appreciated, and would encourage consistency across the heritage field.

Heritage Property Evaluation Guide

• When discussing the use of oral evidence in evaluations, the toolkit should include instructions on how to appropriately document it.

• A modification to this guide would benefit from guidance from the Ministry on how to approach evaluations of properties with sensitive or disputed histories that may be of cultural heritage value or interest.

• The toolkit should provide advice from the Ministry on how to recognize and appreciate more diverse cultural heritage value.

• This guide should be more specifically directed to the evaluation of individual properties, with guidance on when an individual property designation (under s.29 of the Ontario Heritage Act) is appropriate and when a Heritage Conservation District designation (under s.41 of the Ontario Heritage Act) should be considered. A case study, demonstrating comparisons, would be a useful.

• Explain what would constitute “new or relevant information”.

• Section 1.1 states “properties should be screened using preliminary criteria”. What is the preliminary criteria?

• Physical condition is not a criteria for designation, hence Section 5.4, Physical Condition, should be removed. On page 9, remove the condition reference from the sidebar. The potential of heritage traits to represent or sustain the cultural heritage value of a property is considered in Section 5.3, Integrity.

• Section 5.6.2 should include clarification on how a property would “‘exemplify’ an association with a theme, event, belief, person, organization or institution” and whether this would need to be physically exemplified or be an intangible attribute of the property.

• Criterion 2.iii: The explanation as written indicates that an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist would need to be significant to a community because they made a strong, noticeable, or influential contribution. This should be amended to clarify that the architect etc. may have only have built one property that is not well-known within the community but is extremely influential or well-known within the province or outside of the community and because of this there is still heritage value that would be of significance.

Please let me know if you have any questions. We will be following up with an email to Samuel Wesley with a formal letter and comment on behalf of the Municipality.

Thank you,

Bianca Verrecchia, CAHP
Heritage Planner
Planning Department
Town of Grimsby | 905-945-9634