COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PANEL

M I N U T E S

2014 Report No. 9

Date of Meeting: Monday, October 20, 2014 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Committee Room 3, North York Civic Centre Present: Mary Ann Cross, Sam Ghose, Alex Grenzebach (Vice Chair), Geoff Kettel (Chair) Guest: Rosanna Iaboni Regrets: Councillor John Parker, Councillor James Pasternak Absent: Morteza Samareh Golestani, Louis Henry

2014-9-1 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: It was moved by M.A. Cross and seconded by A. Grenzebach that the proposed agenda be adopted, as amended. Carried.

There were no declarations of interest pursuant to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

2014-9-2 NYCPP Minutes (Report No. 8, September 15, 2014) It was moved by S. Ghose and seconded by M.A. Cross that the minutes of the North York Community Preservation Panel meeting held September 15, 2014 be approved, as amended. Carried.

2014-9-3 Delegations and Presentations There were no delegations or presentations.

2014-9-4 Panel Initiatives

9.4.1 (Wards 8,9) It was reported that the Lands Company has accepted the street names recommended by the Panel for the Stanley Greene neighbourhood. M.A. Cross was thanked for her thorough research.

9.4.2 (Ward 26) 9.4.2.1 Leaside Heritage Conservation District Nomination G. Kettel reported that the consultant hired to conduct historical research has submitted a draft report.

9.4.3 Connaught Labs Centennial (Sanofi Pasteur) G. Kettel reported that 250 flyers have been printed to publicize the public event to be held on November 13, 2014.

It was moved by A. Grenzebach and seconded by S. Ghose that the Panel be authorized to spend up to $1,000 to cover the expenses for the public event. Carried.

9.4.4 Status of NYCPP Heritage Nominations

North York Community Preservation Panel 1 2014 Meeting Number 9

There was no report.

2014-9-5 Site Specific Items

9.5.1 Ward 23 9.5.1.1 90 Burndale Avenue (Joseph Shepard House) G. Kettel reported that he had met with the owner and had taken photographs.

The Panel will continue to monitor the situation.

9.5.2 Ward 24 9.5.2.1 591 and 593 Sheppard Avenue East and 9 Barberry Place (Thomas Clark House) City Council has instructed staff to represent the City at the Municipal Board. A Heritage Impact Statement has been requested and the Panel will review it when available.

9.5.3 Ward 25 9.5.3.1 35 St. Edmund’s Drive G. Kettel reported that a letter (dated October 15) had been received from a lawyer representing the estate. G. Kettel will prepare a response with a copy to Heritage Preservation Services.

9.5.4 Ward 26 9.5.4.1 262 Bessborough Drive (Thomas G. Elgie House) G. Kettel reported that the mediated settlement as approved by the Ontario Municipal Board is now public. The terms of settlement are outlined in the November issue of Leaside Life (http://leasidelifenews.com/give-and-take-on- elgie-house/ )

9.5.4.2 42-46 Overlea Boulevard (Coca Cola Canada HQ) The Panel will continue to monitor the situation.

9.5.5 Lane/Street Naming

9.5.5.1 Proposed public street and public lane at 238-258 Finch Avenue East, just east of Maxome Avenue (Ward 24) Two other descendants, a great-great-grandchild and a great-great-great-grandchild of the pioneer, Jacob Munshaw, were located by M.A. Cross. They are proud to be descendants of pioneers and along with their families,

North York Community Preservation Panel 2 2014 Meeting Number 9

were pleased to give consent for a street or lane to be named “Munshaw”.

The Panel recommended two other alternatives for the street or lane: • Pahtahsega (Ojibwe name meaning "One Who Makes the World Brighter" or "He Who Comes Shining") or • Peter Jacobs (English name of Pahtahsega)

The name Pahtahsega or Peter Jacobs was suggested by Professor Donald Smith, author of Mississauga Portraits: Ojibwe Voices from Nineteenth-Century Canada. Pahtahsega/Peter Jacobs was an Anishinaabe/Ojibwe orphan who became one of the leading Methodist Ojibwe workers in the late 1830s and early 1840s. He translated Methodist missionary William Case's words into Ojibwe at a marathon revival meeting held at Cummer's Mills, not far from the development at 238-258 Finch Avenue East. His descendant will give consent to the naming of a street to commemorate him.

9.5.5.2 Unassumed Street between Rean Drive and Barberry Place just south of Sheppard Avenue East (Ward 24) The Panel has recommended the name of early settler “Thomas Clark” for this street. M.A. Cross is presently searching for a descendant to give consent for the use of the name in naming this street, in order to meet the current Honourific and Street Naming Policy.

9.5.5.3 Proposed Public Streets in the Stanley Greene Neighbourhood, Downsview Park (Ward 9) The following names have been agreed upon by the Panel, Engineering Services, Canada Lands Company and Councillor Augimeri: John Perkins Bull Drive, Locust Lodge Gardens, William Duncan Road, Thomas Mulholland Drive, Caroline Carpenter Grove and Sarah Jackson Crescent, Downsview Park Boulevard, Stanley Greene Boulevard, Frederick Tisdale Drive and George Butchart Drive.

9.5.5.4 Proposed Public Street for a Draft Plan of a Subdivision at 50 Kenton Drive (Ward 23) M.A. Cross was able to find the great-great-great-great- great-great-grandson of Captain Daniel Cozens, who lives in Kansas, and another descendant from New Jersey, which is where Daniel Cozens lived before he emigrated to Canada. Both descendants gave consent for the name “Captain Daniel Cozens” to be used to name this street. Captain Daniel Cozens was granted land on the site of the development from the Crown in 1798.

9.5.5.5 Proposed Street Names for Development at 1201 Wilson Avenue (Ward 9)

North York Community Preservation Panel 3 2014 Meeting Number 9

The Panel recommended either “Robert Carruthers” or “Petherhill Farm” for one of the streets. Robert Carruthers was the son of James and Ruth Carruthers, who emigrated from England with their family in 1822 and settled on land that is now part of the development site. The family home built by James Carruthers was named Petherhill Farm, after their home in England. The great-great-great-grandchild of Robert Carruthers was located and was pleased to give his consent for the use of the names for a street in this development.

The Panel recommended the name of “Peter Wardlaw”, who owned land across Wilson Avenue from the site in 1844. M.A. Cross found two great-great-grandchildren of Peter Wardlaw and four other descendants who gave consent for the name to be used of the name for a street in this location .

2014-9-6 City-Wide Items 9.6.1 State of Heritage Report (Heritage /Toronto Historical Association) The Panel’s draft submission should be reviewed as soon as possible by Panel members and comments should be forwarded to G. Kettel.

2014-9-7 Administrative Items 9.7.1 Panel Financial Report Receipts should be forwarded to G. Kettel for submission to the City. The position of Treasurer remains unfilled.

9.7.2 Future Panel Meeting Dates Monday, November 17, 2014 Monday, December 15, 2014

9.7.3 Correspondence 9.7.3.1 Letter from Mathew Di Vona, Davies Howe Partners LLP, re. 35 St. Edmund’s Drive, dated October 15, 2014

9.7.4 Panel Membership An email has been received from Barbara Holt of Heritage Preservation Services advising that October 31 is the deadline for Preservation Panel and Preservation Board applications.

2014-9-8 Committee Reports 9.8.1 Lawrence Park Heritage Committee A. Grenzebach reported a Century Home evening will be held on October 23, 2014. Andrew Pruss, ERA, will speak on heritage-sensitive restoration with particular reference to 79 Dawlish Avenue, the “Forsey Page House”. Kaitlin Wainwright, from Heritage Toronto, will describe the new Century Home plaques.

2014-9-9 Other Business

North York Community Preservation Panel 4 2014 Meeting Number 9

9.9.1 Sept. 23 – New Perspectives on Community Building and Cultural Exchange This event, which was co-hosted by the Ontario Historical Society, the North York Historical Society and the Canadiana Department of the North York Central Library, was held at the North York Central Library and featured Don Smith (University of Calgary), Victoria Freeman (York University) and Carolyn King (Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation). G. Kettel will write Heritage Toronto to suggest that they consider having significant involvement with the “Moccasin Project” which aims to highlight historic First Nation presence in the area.

9.9.2 YIMBYFEST The Panel co-operated with the Toronto and Panel to staff an information table at the “Yes In My Back Yard” event held on September 27.

9.9.3 2014 North York Mirror Urban Hero Awards The Panel’s nomination of M.A. Cross for the 2014 North York Mirror Urban Hero Awards (Arts and Culture category) for her work on street naming was successful. She will receive the award on November 4, 2014 at a special ceremony hosted by the Mirror. Congratulations to Mary Ann!

2014-9-10 Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

North York Community Preservation Panel 5 2014 Meeting Number 9

State of Heritage Report 2015

North York Community Preservation Panel Submission to Heritage Toronto

October, 2014

2

Introduction

The North York Community Preservation Panel (NYCPP) is one of four City– appointed committees, one for each community council area, with the mandate to identify and work to protect the cultural and built heritage in the area, as well as to promote neighbourhood heritage and history 1.

1. The importance of heritage across the whole city

The preservation of Toronto’s heritage is vitally important to Toronto’s economy, culture and spirit. Proper attention to Heritage could contribute much more to a growing economy. Thousands of tourists flock to Chicago - specifically to see the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, not only the skyscrapers, but also homes in middle class neighbourhoods –where there is a strong interest and ability to preserve their built environment. People want to live in a city and a neighbourhood that respects and protects its past 2 – you only have to look at the property values in neighbourhoods like Cabbagetown, Rosedale and , where there are heritage conservation districts, to see this.

But heritage tends to be thought of as a “downtown” concept. The outrage over the loss of downtown landmarks like the Empress Hotel and the George Street mansions tends not to be matched when North York landmarks such as the Inn on the Park, the Bata Building and the Oxford University Press (71 Wynford Drive) are lost, or threatened, as is the case with the Coca-Cola Canada Headquarters building at 42 Overlea Boulevard.

We need to think of heritage across the whole city. Ideally, heritage should employ a “systems planning” approach with the identification of representative architectural periods and their styles in Toronto, such as Early Settler Victorian, Urban Victorian, Edwardian, Georgian/Tudor Revival (1930’s), Beaux Arts, Modernist and their relationship with specific areas to inform the creation of Heritage Conservation Districts.

Looked at in this context, it is apparent that there has been far greater attention paid to earlier architecture (i.e. Victorian and Edwardian) than later styles. The Georgian and Tudor Revival styles that are found in 1930-40’s suburbs such as Leaside, Lawrence Park, Teddington Park, and are just beginning to be recognized as worthy of protection 3. Given their accessibility and adjacency to good transit and quality public services these areas are facing tremendous development pressure for “massification”, if not

1 Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 103, Heritage 2 Protecting Heritage Assets ranked fifth out of twenty (actually out of hundreds submitted) on the Toronto Star’s ranking of Big Issues for the City of Toronto.

3 Leaside’s nomination for consideration as an HCD was accepted by North York Community Council in April 2014

2 3 intensification. Single family houses in these areas are being demolished at a rapid rate and frequently replaced with houses with a quite different character.

There is continuous erosion of the cultural heritage resources of these neighbourhoods as a result of developer-compliant Committees of Adjustment, lax demolition laws and variable OMB chairs. Even when communities attempt to develop a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, due to the extended time frame involved, there is the real concern that in the meantime, the ongoing losses of individual properties will make the eventual result moot.

Modernist Architecture, from the 1960s to 1980s period, is foremost in the former City of North York, reflecting the period in which Toronto grew from a mid-sized city into Canada's largest metropolis. The NYCPP has organised two Forums to put special focus on the architecture associated with this period.

Not only are Modernist buildings in North York (and Toronto) unique and experimental, they are artifacts from that period of remarkable growth, and therefore should receive the same respect and treatment as 1920s skyscrapers in New York and Chicago. However Modernist architecture presents a special challenge to the heritage community. “The average person does not recognize this style and age as being “vintage” architecture – primarily it is not considered old enough, neither is it sufficiently distinct from today’s structures in terms of massing, scale and building material”4.

The former City of North York recognized its Modernist Architecture legacy and identified 200 Modernist properties including 20 “significant Modernist projects”5. However by 2010, 46 (24 per cent) of the original 200 properties had been demolished or heavily modified, including two of the twenty most significant properties (Bata International headquarters and Inn on the Park). If one accepts the popular notion that “heritage begins at 40 years old”, Toronto’s Modernist suburbs are now potential heritage districts, but, the most widely recognized “planned” community of that period, , has still not been protected as a Heritage Conservation District.

Very few properties are added to the Inventory of Heritage Properties annually, and of those that are, few are located in the suburbs, and until the present, they tended to be settlers’ farmhouses. HPS has a reported backlog of over 100 properties nominated but not evaluated due to lack of staffing.

4 Geoff Kettel, Foreword in “North York’s Modernist Architecture Revisited”, ERA Architects, 2010

5 “North York’s Modernist Architecture Revisited”, ERA Architects, 2010

3 4

The NYCPP has submitted 24 properties in the past five years 6 but of these, to date, only one (in Lawrence Park) has been listed and designated.

It is recommended: 1. that the heritage inventory process be revitalized and accelerated to give attention to the identification and protection of all architectural styles and periods, including later architecture, which is more prevalent in the suburbs.

2. that the City investigate and report on the most expedient means to implement protection for cultural heritage areas in neighbourhoods, main streets and streetscapes using the tools available under applicable legislation including the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act and the Building Code.

2. Heritage and land use planning policies

Heritage is part of city-building and place-making. In addition to the particular land use, the historical journey or story of an area, defines the character of an area. Heritage cannot be considered in isolation of the planning and development context. The threat to heritage is greatest where development pressures are highest. In Toronto, much development is concentrated on the axis up into North York. The pressure for demolition and replacement is highest on the avenues and the adjacent neighbourhoods in , Bedford Park, Lawrence Park and Leaside.

Michael Vaughan 7 notes that as long as there is a disparity between the size of the historic building and what the zoning bylaw permits (or what the developer thinks they can push through at the Ontario Municipal Board) then there is going to be a real disincentive to preserve and an incentive for “heritage lightning”.

Some ideas suggested by Michael Vaughan 8 are:

• Remove the incentive by capping the zoning and official plan at what exists or existed .

6 The NYCPP nominated: • 5 office properties in the Wynford Drive/ area; • 8 residences in Lawrence Park • 10 residential quadraplexes at Bayview and Eglinton (Leaside) • A heritage tree in the Lawrence/Don Mills area These were all endorsed by the Toronto Preservation Board and referred to staff for evaluation. 7 Michael Vaughan, Q.C. “Commentary on the OMB and Marchese Bill”, Built Heritage News , June 2010

8 Ibid .

4 5

When the historic farmhouse in the path of a subdivision, or the hotel in the way of a condo burns, someone gets a significant financial gain. Put an automatic freeze for some time period on the zoning to what exists: the farm remains agricultural, the three storey hotel site is capped at three stories. This will provide a significant incentive to protect the structures, and remove the incentive to burn them.

• Bring Back Density Transfers Quite a few historic buildings were saved in the seventies by selling the density rights. The owner of the historic building was able to get the value out of his unused density, removing the development pressure on the historic site; the purchaser of the density got to build a bigger building somewhere else. Density transfers fell out of favour because some thought that the new buildings were getting too big and that it was out of control, but the fact is, by today's standards, it was modest. It might help justify some of the ridiculous heights and densities that are being built today 9

This means that land use policies in the Official Plan need to be supportive of heritage protection and complementary to heritage policies: • Land use policies that allow big box stores to encroach into industrial areas, like the Leaside Business Park threaten the long term economic viability of main streets like Bayview and Mount Pleasant, which may lead to a change in character of these streets • “Neighbourhoods” is the only land use designation where things are meant to be “stable”, and heritage is a key aspect of residential area “character”. The “Neighbourhoods” land use designation should be strengthened by the inclusion of more considerations such as maintenance of streetscapes. Such elements would provide a clearer template against which Committees of Adjustment would be required to assess “minor” variances to zoning bylaws. • The “Neighbourhoods” designation should also include consideration of landmarks and views at a local level.

It is recommended: 3. that the City of Toronto Official Plan include land use designation policies that support heritage protection e.g. the “Neighbourhoods” designation should be strengthened

9 Ibid.

5 6

3. Improving heritage conservation/preservation through the planning review and approvals process

As a result of the slow process of listing or designating buildings, there is a dire need for heritage considerations to be incorporated in the ongoing process of planning review and approvals.

In 1997, the former City of North York identified over 200 Modernist Architecture projects (including the Don Mills planning area) as having heritage value and being worthy of protection. However, the NYCPP found that only 40 were included in the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties (“listed”) 10 . It has been reported that the “parking lot” of properties waiting to be assessed by HPS amounts to well over 100 properties.

The question arises as to whether properties that are not on the Inventory can nevertheless be considered in the planning process and receive a form of heritage review. In a recent staff report on a major development that came before North York Community Council, there was no mention of heritage at all, despite the property being included in the City of North York’s North York’s Modernist Architecture (and the 2010 update) 11 .

The NYCPP believes that heritage should be one of the first considerations in the review of ALL planning applications by district planning staff. As it stands, the NYCPP is not advised of applications that have heritage implications, so the NYCPP is unable to participate in the process unless one of the NYCPP members is aware of the issue due to their place of residence.

It is recommended: 4. that the heritage context be explicitly considered in the review of ALL planning (OP, ZBA) applications by planning staff

5. that the Community Preservation Panels be advised of relevant applications and have their input requested in the review of all

10 The North York Community Preservation Panel has included a focus on Modernist Architecture and organized Forums on Modernist Architecture in North York in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Reports were published by ERA Architects 10 in conjunction with the 2009 and 2010 Forums: North York’s Modernist Architecture (2009), a re-printing of the original 1997 City of North York Inventory and North York’s Modernist Architecture Re-Visited (2010), an updating of the 1997 Inventory, where additional properties were identified.

11 Ibid.

6 7 planning and development applications that involve heritage and/or have potential heritage implications

4. Demolition as contributor to the loss of heritage properties

Demolition by neglect received much attention in light of the Empress Hotel fire, but the reality is that demolition of potential heritage properties as the end result of planning and building department processes is a regular occurrence.

In Toronto the four Committee of Adjustment (CofA) panels process over 3000 applications annually; • the North York CofA Panel handles over 800 minor variance applications per year, of which an unknown number involve demolitions • the Buildings Department issues approximately 12 demolition permits every two weeks in North York.

Without an effective inventory process and consideration of heritage values as part of the demolition permit approval process, there is no way of knowing the extent of loss of heritage properties. In one notable case 12 , the NYCPP in conjunction with the local Residents’ Association was able to intervene; demolition was prevented, the property was listed under the Ontario Heritage Act, demolition was prevented, and the property was sympathetically renovated.

While demolition of residential buildings requires a building permit for the replacement building, a demolition permit can be issued for a commercial or institutional building without a building permit having been issued for a replacement building. 13

This appears to be a systemic issue that needs to be addressed by the Building Department and City Planning working together.

It is recommended 6. that the City of Toronto develop strategies to discourage demolitions and encourage renovations in order to protect potential heritage properties

12 79 Dawlish Avenue, Forsey Page House, Lawrence Park, in 2010 13 A notable recent case involved the former Briar Hill School. In this case the property was demolished without any re-zoning approval for the property. The loss of 70 Wynford Drive, former Oxford University Press in 2010 was very similar.

7 8

5. City of Toronto Honourific and Street Naming Policy

Street naming is an important way to recognize the heritage of an area, including early settlers, the pioneers of our communities. Giving streets heritage names is an important part of bringing heritage to the people of the community. The NYCPP is concerned that a change made to the City of Toronto Honourific and Street Naming Policy (2011) and maintained in the Honourific and Street Naming Policy adopted on December 13, 2013, has made it difficult or nearly impossible for heritage names to be considered.

One of the longstanding Honourific and Street Naming Policy criteria for naming is that the proposed name commemorates local history. For many years, the City adopted the names of early settlers as names for new public streets, lanes or parks, often based on Community Preservation Panel recommendations. However, the revised policy adopted by City Council on November 29 and 30, 2011, included for the first time, Section 5.2.1. “The City shall not grant a naming without the informed written consent of the named party (i.e. individual, group or organization) or the named party’s representative (e.g. estate or next-of-kin)”. In the case of heritage names belonging to early settlers or other notable residents who were integral in forming our communities, but who have been deceased for some time, it is extremely time-consuming, difficult or impossible to meet this requirement.

Consequently, there have been many instances in North York where the names of early settlers could not be commemorated with street names because no descendant was found 14 . We presume that a similar situation exists in other community council areas.

In North York, many existing streets recognize the early settlers of the area, but if brought forward for consideration today, they would not meet the Honourific and Street Naming Policy requirement for obtaining consent from a descendant. The Toronto Star has a regular feature, “Street Names”, which every week describes the historical significance behind a different Toronto street name. Without a change in policy, a historical story behind new names may be almost eliminated. For some people, the name of their street may be their only exposure to the history of the area, and not having historical names commemorating the early settlers who forged the beginning of our communities lessens us.

There are many more pioneers, early settlers whose names should be commemorated in street names, but it is time-consuming, difficult or

14 Through lucky happenstance, a descendant of an early settler was located and the name of Ann O’Reilly Road was approved at the North York Community Council meeting of August 12, 2014. The previous street naming after an early settler in the North York Community Council area, Johnson Farm Lane, occurred on May 25, 2011, over three years earlier,

8 9 impossible to locate a descendant of someone who lived over a hundred years ago. It should be noted that in all cases where a descendant has been located, the descendant has been pleased that an ancestor is going to be commemorated by a street naming and consent is willingly given, so in those cases, the only result of the consent requirement is the many hours of research and detective work required to find the descendant.

It is recommended: 7. that the City of Toronto Honourific and Street Naming Policy be revised such that heritage names belonging to early settlers or persons who were integral to the early life of our communities 15 , should be exempt from the requirement to provide written consent from next-of-kin.

6. Aboriginal People and Places

A recent talk in North York organized by the Ontario Historical Society on Aboriginal history and its interplay with European settlement in the early to mid 19 th century, served to remind the Panel of the gap in our appreciation, remembrance, and celebration of the stories of Aboriginal life and their connection to places in our city.

A fascinating example given by Don Smith was the site in the East Don Parkland (the Yonge/Cummer area) of a June 1828 “marathon” Methodist campground meeting. Several hundred Anishinaabeg (Ojibwe) travelled from across southern Ontario to hear future Chief of the Mississaugas of the New Credit, Peter Jones, or Kahkewaquonaby (1802-1956) speak, joined by several hundred non-Aboriginal settlers.

Former Chief of the Mississaugas of the New Credit, Carolyn King has proposed “Moccasin Identifiers” to mark and remember important people and places in the Aboriginal history of Ontario.

We support the creation of initiatives that expand and enrich the understanding and remembrance of the Aboriginal history and geography of Toronto and Ontario.

It is recommended: 8. that Heritage Toronto take the lead in forming a partnership with First Nations with local roots, and with interested organizations (such as First Story, and the Ontario Historical Society), to plan and implement a program that identifies and recognizes people and places of importance to the Aboriginal history of the City .

15 such as those in the 1860 George Tremaine map, the 1878 Historical Illustrated Atlas of the County of York, or in other early documents

9 10

Respectfully submitted

Geoff Kettel Chair, NYCPP Alex Grenzebach, Vice Chair Mary Ann Cross, Member Sam Ghose, Member

October 27, 2014

10