TOWN OF WHITCHURCH - STOUFFVILLE HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA Tuesday October 13, 2020 7:00 PM VIRTUAL MEETING Council Chambers - 111 Sandiford Drive
As the Municipal Offices (111 Sandiford Drive) are now closed to the public, residents may listen to the meeting live online at townofws.ca/cmlivestream. The audio link will be available 5 minutes before the meeting is expected to start.
Please contact the Committee Coordinator at 905-640-1910 x 2236, or [email protected] to: submit written comments, register to provide verbal comments by attending the meeting electronically, or obtain further information regarding the agenda items or the meeting process. Anyone wishing to submit comments during the meeting may call in at 905- 640-1910 x 2222 or email [email protected], and the comments will form part of the public record.
Chair: Councillor Kroon Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM ITEMS
3. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
4. DECLARATIONS
5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
3 - 7 1. Minutes
6. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS
8 - 22 1. Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format
23 - 30 2. Heritage Conservation District: Discussion Item
3. Official Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee: Update by Dean Horner
31 - 33 4. Heritage Advisory Committee Site Visits
7. CORRESPONDENCE
Heritage Advisory Committee Agenda October 13, 2020
34 - 38 1. Ontario Barn Preservation
8. MOTION TO ADJOURN
Page 2 of 38 TOWN OF WHITCHURCH - STOUFFVILLE HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES Monday, September 14, 2020 7:00 pm
Virtual Meeting (Council Chambers, 111 Sandiford Drive)
Chair: Councillor Kroon
The meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee was held on the above date and time.
Members Present: Gleyn Beatty, Charlie Dahl, Dean Horner, Carol Hughes, Councillor Kroon, Michael Rankin and Melissa Vella. Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Susan Altschul, Gillian Angus-Traill, Kitty Bavington, Ashley Chappell, Joan Crosbie and Jeremy Parsons.
The Chair announced that as the Municipal Offices are now closed to the public, the public have been advised that they may listen to the meeting live online at townofws.ca/cmlivestream. This meeting is being live-streamed but is not audio- recorded. The public were advised that if they wished to submit written or verbal comments, which will form part of the public record, they may contact the Committee Coordinator at [email protected].
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM ITEMS
None
3. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
Moved by Dean Horner Seconded by Michael Rankin
That the Committee confirm the agenda, as circulated.
Carried
Minutes Page 3 of 38 Heritage Advisory Committee September 14, 2020
4. DECLARATIONS
None
5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Moved by Carol Hughes Seconded by Michael Rankin
That the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee for July 13, 2020 be adopted as circulated.
Carried
6. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS
1. Brillinger Cemetery Staff Report
Jeremy Parsons gave a presentation on the Brillinger Cemetery at 12412 Warden Avenue, explaining the background and family history, and displaying photos. Council has approved the Town taking over responsibility for the cemetery, and staff will be working with the Brillinger family to determine the work to be done. Repairs to headstones will be considered within the budget.
The Committee indicated support for this initiative.
Moved by Melissa Vella Seconded by Carol Hughes
That the Heritage Advisory Committee receive the Brillinger Cemetery Staff Report.
Carried
2. Inactive and Abandoned Cemeteries in Whitchurch-Stouffville
Jeremy Parsons reviewed legislation requiring cemetery owners to repair or restore neglected cemeteries. Existing cemeteries in Whitchurch- Stouffville were identified, and a few were highlighted.
2
Minutes Page 4 of 38 Heritage Advisory Committee September 14, 2020
The Committee recommended that public information plaques may be appropriate for some locations. Staff suggested that it could be considered for closed cemeteries, using funds from the heritage plaque program. The Town could also coordinate with churches, families, and other owners for plaques for active cemeteries.
The Committee endorsed being proactive for plaques on cemeteries the Town is currently maintaining. Staff will prepare a draft resolution for Council, to encourage support for this program, for the next Heritage meeting.
Moved by Carol Hughes Seconded by Melissa Vella
That the Heritage Advisory Committee receive the update regarding inactive and abandoned cemeteries.
Carried
3. 100 Rose Avenue
Staff advised that the applicant had not been able to prepare in time for this Heritage meeting, and has requested deferral.
4. 17360 Warden Ave., Request to Remove from BHI and CHIA
Jeremy Parsons introduced this matter, providing a brief background for the 66-acre property at Warden Avenue and Davis Drive, displaying photographs, and referring to a letter from the applicant dated September 3, 2020. With respect to CHIA standards, the structure is considered "fair to poor" condition and only meets 2 of 9 criteria.
Matthew Marchese and his father, applicants, were in virtual attendance. Mr. Marchese explained that the house has not been used for many years and they would like to replace it with a new single family dwelling. Much of the original structure has been replaced over the years and very little that is left is original. Some features will be preserved, where possible. The barn and some outbuildings have already been removed.
3
Minutes Page 5 of 38 Heritage Advisory Committee September 14, 2020
The Committee suggested that some Committee members conduct a site visit; however, there may be some legal and insurance issues involved. Staff will follow up on this option, and any legal or insurance concerns.
The Committee noted that the doors and windows of the building need to be boarded up and secured as soon as possible for safety reasons and the applicants agreed to do so.
The Secretary-Treasurer and Moderator confirmed that no corespondence or verbal submissions had been received before, or during the meeting.
Moved by Dean Horner Seconded by Gleyn Beatty
That the request for removal from BHI and CHIA for 17360 Warden Avenue be deferred pending an update from staff on Committee members conducting site inspections.
Carried
5. Update on the Grain Elevator Plaque
Joan Crosbie reviewed the revised wording for the plaque that had been approved by Council, and the Committee supported the revisions.
The plaque should be prepared within four to five weeks, and perhaps Staff and some Committee members could meet on site to determine the best location for installation, with a small ceremony. Staff will coordinate a time for the meeting.
Moved by Michael Rankin Seconded by Carol Hughes
That the update on the Grain Elevator Plaque be received for information.
Carried
7. CORRESPONDENCE
There was no correspondence.
4
Minutes Page 6 of 38 Heritage Advisory Committee September 14, 2020
8. NEW BUSINESS
Application Update
Jeremy Parsons provided updates on various developments, including Stouffville Junction, the Mansion Hotel, 77 Mill Street, and Topfar Townhouses.
The Committee recommended recognizing the efforts of developers for heritage preservation and perhaps create an awards program. Staff will report back on this initiative.
Moved by Dean Horner Seconded by Melissa Vella
That the update on development applications be received for information.
Carried
9. MOTION TO ADJOURN
Moved by Den Horner Seconded by Melissa Vella
That there being no further business, the Committee adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Carried
5
Minutes Page 7 of 38
Heritage Advisory Committee Memorandum
To: Chair & Members, Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Advisory Committee
From: Jeremy Parsons, Heritage Planner, Development Services
Date: October 13, 2020
Subject: Heritage Advisory Committee Awards
In response to the Heritage Advisory Committee’s motion on September 14, 2020, staff have prepared suggestions for the proposed awards format, categories, and criteria for the purposes of Committee consideration and discussion.
The Committee may wish to consider a local program of community awards or a practice of local nominations to provincial and national awards. Details on both options have been provided below.
Local Community Awards
Possible Format: • Recurrence: annual • Names: “Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards”, “Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Advisory Committee Awards”, or “Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Conservation Awards”. • Hosts: HAC Chair, Mayor, or designated Councillors • Nominations: primarily made from HAC. Nominations may also come from staff, Council, and members of the public. • Adjudication: made by HAC members at public meeting(s).
Possible Award Categories: • Award for the conservation of a heritage property • Award for the adaptive reuse or restoration of a heritage property • Award for the upkeep or restoration of landscape or private property, to the benefit of the streetscape or public realm. • Award recognizing a local volunteer, heritage group, professional or advocacy group • Award recognizing efforts made toward community education on heritage value • HAC may wish to name award(s) for significant community members
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 8 of 38 Possible Criteria/Eligibility: • Projects must be generally consistent with the Town’s policies, including the Official Plan and Urban Design Guidelines. • Projects must have successfully completed the heritage approval process (Heritage Site Plan for additions/new construction and consultation with HAC, where appropriate). • Projects on which properties are designated: property owners must have successfully obtained a Heritage Permit from the Town. • Additional consideration may be given to property owners who have sought designation. • Projects must demonstrate consideration for best practices in heritage conservation and be sensitive to neighbourhood character. • Active HAC members, Councillors, or staff should not be eligible for nomination.
Further, attached to this memorandum are a few examples of heritage awards programs from the following municipalities: • City of Markham: Heritage Markham Excellence Awards • City of Niagara Falls: Heritage Recognition Awards Program • Town of Cobourg: Cobourg Heritage Awards Recognition Program • Heritage London Foundation: London Heritage Awards • Heritage Toronto: Heritage Toronto Awards • City of Hamilton: Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee Heritage Property Recognition Awards • Heritage Ottawa: Heritage Ottawa Awards
Provincial and National Award Nominations
As per a Committee member suggestion, the Committee may wish to simply nominate select properties, property owners, and residents for existing provincial and national heritage awards. Below is a list of existing heritage awards available for nomination, for the consideration of the Committee.
Ontario Heritage Trust: Lieutenant Governor’s Ontario Heritage Awards • Youth Achievement • Lifetime Achievement • Community Leadership • Excellence in Conservation • Thomas Symons Award for Commitment to Conservation
Ontario Historical Society: OHS Awards • Awards for Authors • Awards for Outstanding Achievement • Heritage Conservation Award
Architectural Conservancy of Ontario: ACO Heritage Awards • Eric Arthur Lifetime Achievement Award • James D. Strachan Award for Craftsmanship • A.K. Sculthorpe Award for Advocacy • Peter Stokes Restoration Award (small scale & corporate)
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 9 of 38 • Margaret and Nicholas Hill Cultural Heritage Landscape Award • Post-1945 Design Award • Paul Oberman Award for Adaptive Reuse (small scale & corporate) • ACO News Media Award • ACO NextGen Award • Mary Millard Award for Special Contributions • ACO Public Education and Engagement Award • Stephen A. Otto Award for Scholarship
National Trust for Canada: National Trust Awards • Prince of Wales Prize • Ecclesiastical Insurance Cornerstone Awards (Resilient Historic Places) • Governor’s Award
Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals: CAHP Annual Awards • Lifetime Achievement Award • Student Achievement Award • Emerging Heritage Professional Award • Heritage Education, Awareness, and Scholarship Award • Documentation and Planning Award • Conservation Award – Small and Lovely • Conservation Award – Materials Conservation, Craftsmanship, and Construction • Conservation Award – Landscape • Conservation Award – Engineering • Conservation Award – Architecture • Archaeology Award
(JP 10-06-2020)
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 10 of 38 HERITAGE MARKHAM AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
Created to celebrate Heritage Markham’s 25th anniversary in 2000, this awards program recognizes excellence in the area of heritage preservation, restoration and enhancement of heritage buildings and areas in the City of Markham. The program is sponsored by Heritage Markham and administered by Heritage Section staff. Annual awards are considered in the following categories: 1. Heritage Planning - (preservation of heritage features in new developments); 2. Restoration - Corporate 3. Restoration - Private Residential 4. Infill (New Construction) 5. Additions 6. Education 7. Individual efforts in the field of conservation 8. Outstanding Achievement Award - Not necessarily an annual award, given in exceptional circumstances to those individuals or projects which have made an exceptional and long lasting contribution to the conservation of heritage in Markham. Contact Heritage Section staff if you want to nominate a worthy project.
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 11 of 38 Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 12 of 38 Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 13 of 38 COBOURG HERITAGE AWARDS RECOGNITION PROGRAM
The Cobourg Heritage Awards Recognition Program acknowledges the outstanding achievement of individuals, groups and organizations in heritage conservation and honours efforts to preserve and enhance the character of a historic structure having local, regional or provincial significance.
PURPOSE The purpose of the Cobourg Heritage Awards Recognition Program is to acknowledge a property owner, tenant, occupant (or contractor) for undertaking a building restoration project in accordance with applicable heritage guidelines and regulations.
ELIGIBILITY 1. Properties may be older or heritage homes, individually designated or located within a Heritage District. 2. Projects must have been completed through the heritage approval process 3. The project must involve the rehabilitation for commercial or residential use of an historic property owned/leased by an eligible recipient. 4. Projects eligible for this award must be consistent with the Town’s Heritage Conservation District Plans.
FORMAT The award will be a framed and signed certificate given to the recipient during Council by the Mayor.
AWARDS COMMITTEE Recipients of the Awards of Excellence will be decided by the Cobourg Heritage Promotions Sub- Committee. Completed projects will be reviewed by the subcommittee and this information will then be provided to the Cobourg Heritage Committee.
OTHER RECOGNITION The awards will be presented by the Mayor during Council. Reporters and the local media present will have the opportunity to highlight recipients of the Awards of Excellence, thus giving both Council and the public a positive impression of heritage conservation in the Town of Cobourg. Press releases can be sent out to the local media as well.
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: SuggestedPage Format 20 of 33 Page 14 of 38
London Heritage Awards Programme Founded by ACO & HLF
List of awards
Awards may be given within the following categories
Category 1.
Contributions to Heritage Education/Awareness/Advocacy
Individual or group: Long-term contribution award/s
Individual: one-time contribution - Heritage Hero award
Group: one-time contribution - Heritage Heroes award
Local History Award
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 15 of 38 Category 2.
Conservation of Heritage
Adaptive re-use Project Award
Major Restoration Project Award
Small-Scale Restoration Project Award
Archaeological/ Cultural Landscape Conservation Award
Category 3.
Heritage Professional Award
A nominator whose application is selected for an award will be notified along with the intended recipient. The honourees will be announced at a media event and presented with their award at the Gala ceremony in March 2021.
Nominators for submissions that do not succeed will be notified privately.
All nominations must be made by a third party.
Please note: The number and type of awards are given at the discretion of the Nominations Committee.
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 16 of 38 NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOMINEES ANNOUNCED FOR 2019 HERITAGE TORONTO AWARDS
September 3, 2019 (Toronto, Ont.) – Heritage Toronto is pleased to announce the 40 nominees for the 2019 Heritage Toronto Awards, the longest-running heritage awards in Canada. Nominees are being recognised for their extraordinary contributions to Toronto's heritage in four categories: Community Heritage, Public History, Book, and William Greer Built Heritage.
THE NOMINEES
Four volunteer-based organizations are nominated for the Community Heritage Award which includes a $1,000 cash prize. We congratulate the Hellenic Heritage Foundation for its public education on Greek-Canadian history; Friends of Guild Park and Gardens for promoting appreciation of the park’s history; Heritage York for maintaining the 1847 Lambton House and its events sharing the area's heritage, and Toronto Ward Museum for its programs and exhibits connecting the personal stories of Toronto’s past and present migrants.
The 14 nominees in the Public History category range from If, But, What if?, a collaborative project by The Bentway that challenges participants to re-imagine the area underneath the Gardiner Expressway through art installations, talks and tours; to Friars Music Museum, for its large collection and display of archival images, videos, rare artifacts that showcase a treasured time in Toronto’s music history; to City Builders - History of Immigrant Construction Workers in Postwar Toronto, a multi-component project that sheds light on the construction industry and its workforce in the 1950s-1970s.
This year's 11 Book Award nominees include The Ward Uncovered: The Archaeology of Everyday Life, a moving account of the buried history of an immigrant neighbourhood that surfaces well- preserved artifacts to tell little-known stories; Queering Urban Justice: Queer of Colour Formations in Toronto, a critical discussion of the displacement and erasure of marginalized populations in Toronto which also offers visions of urban justice; and The Fruitful City: The Enduring Power of the Urban Food Forest, an examination of our relationship with food through the various fruit trees that dot our city streets and yards, and their evolution from dietary staples, to raccoon fodder, to urban harvest resource.
Highlighted among the 11 exemplary projects nominated in the William Greer Built Heritage category are the adaptive reuse of the Symes Road Destructor, a former city-run garbage incinerator whose Art Deco design and industrial features are highlighted in its new use as a
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 17 of 38 contemporary event space and brewery; the conversion of an 1874 Gothic Revival building, a Presbyterian theological school, into the new home for the John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design; and the transformation of the Tower Automotive Building, a 1920 warehouse for the Northern Aluminum Company, into a multi-storey cultural hub anchored by the Museum of Contemporary Art.
A full nominee list, by category and with descriptions, is available at the 2019 Awards Website. As part of the Awards Ceremony, the Heritage Toronto Board is pleased to also present a Special Achievement Award and a Heritage Toronto Volunteer Service Award. Recipients will be announced to the media on September 19.
Images available for publication (with credit & on Dropbox)
Anti-Greek Riots tour, If, But, What If? - The The Fruitful City: The Exterior of 150 Symes 2019. Image by Herman Bentway's Fall 2018 Enduring Power of the building, 2017. Image by Custodio. Public Art Exhibition. Urban Food Forest, PGA. Photo: Nicola Betts Helena Moncrieff, ECW Press
EVENT DETAILS
Tickets to the event are $110 ($80 for Heritage Toronto members), and can be purchased online at heritagetoronto.org or by phoning 416-338-1338. This event is Heritage Toronto's major fundraiser of the year, raising monies in support of its public programming.
VENUE The Carlu (444 Yonge Street West, Toronto) MAYOR'S RECEPTION 5:30 PM AWARDS CEREMONY 7:00 PM
- 30 -
Heritage Toronto is a charity and agency of the City of Toronto that celebrates and commemorates the city's rich heritage and the diverse stories of its people, places, and events.
For more information, please contact: Lucy Di Pietro, Manager, Marketing & Communications 416-338-1339 | [email protected]
@HERITAGETORONTO | HERITAGETORONTO.ORG
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 18 of 38 Appendix A to Item 5 of Planning Committee Report 15-009
Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee Summary of Nominations
HMHC Heritage Property Recognition Awards Presented to property owners demonstrating an outstanding contribution to the conservation, restoration and preservation of Hamilton’s built heritage.
1. 2869 Upper James St., Mount Hope, Ontario - St. Paul’s (Glanford) Anglican Church, 2. 3146 Cemetery Road, Binbrook, Ontario 3. 6475 Sinclairville Road, Binbrook, Ontario 4. 1640 Glancaster Road, Mount Hope, Ontario - The Smuck Homestead 5. 541 Barton St. East, Hamilton, Ontario - 541 Eatery and Exchange 6. 325 Dundas St. E, Waterdown, Ontario - Pickwick Book Store 7. 185 Delaware Ave., Hamilton, Ontario - The Cooper House 8. Unique Restaurant Group of properties a. The Pheasant Plucker, 20 Augusta St., Hamilton, Ontario b. The Augusta House, 17 Augusta St., Hamilton, Ontario c. The Power House, 1 jones St., Stoney Creek, Ontario d. The Vicars Vice, 2251 Rymal Road East, Stoney Creek, On 9. 25 Cross St., Dundas, Ontario - The Maples 10. 35 Cross St., Dundas, Ontario - Wood-Dale 11. 55 Caylee St., Dundas, Ontario - Robada Cottage
HMHC Developer of the Year Award Presented to a heritage property developer demonstrating an outstanding contribution to the conservation, restoration and preservation of Hamilton’s built heritage.
1. Stinson Developments (Owner: Harry Stinson) For the Stinson School Lofts, 200 Stinson St., Hamilton, Ontario The adaptive reuse of the 1894 Stinson Public School building into unique residential condominiums.
2. Valvasori Properties (Owners: Michael and David Valvasori) For the Dundas District Lofts, 397 King Street West, Dundas, On L9H 1W8 The adaptive reuse of the 1929 Dundas District High School building into unique residential condominiums.
Please find attached, photos and reference information for each nomination.
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 19 of 38 OTTAWA HERITAGE AWARDS RECOGNIZE OUTSTANDING PRESERVATION EFFORTS
Photos: City of Ottawa / D. Jones / Parsons Corp. (Minto Bridges) Saturday, February 23, 2019 HERITAGE OTTAWA Excellence in preservation of Ottawa's architectural heritage was recognized at last week's 2019 Ottawa Heritage Awards, held at the University of Ottawa's Alex Trebek Alumni Hall. The biennial awards ceremony, formerly known as the Architectural Conservation Awards, is hosted by the City of Ottawa and includes categories for Restoration, Adaptive Re-use, and Additions to heritage buildings. Winners are chosen by an independant jury of heritage experts which this year included Julie Dompierre, Danielle Jones and Mary MacDonald. “The beautifully preserved properties honoured by the Ottawa Heritage Awards encourage us to further invest in the preservation of our city’s architectural heritage" said Mayor Jim Watson. "By recognizing these incredible achievements in restoration and conservation, we celebrate our history and acknowledge its impact on how we build our future.” This year's winning projects are: AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1. The Senate of Canada Building, 2 Rideau Street (Adaptive Re-use, Government) This stunning transformation of the Government Conference Centre returns key heritage features of the former Union Station building to their original Beaux-Arts splendour, while introducing contemporary
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 20 of 38 and reversible updates appropriate to the building’s new use. Revelation and restoration of the original vaulted ceiling and multi-paned windows creates a dramatic counterpoint to the enclosed committee rooms and Senate Chamber. Design of the newly completed east facade respects the historic structure while evidencing that with sensitive consideration, heritage buildings can be successfully updated with modern elements. 2. Flora Hall Brewing, 37 Flora Street (Adaptive Re-use, Non-Government) The transformation of this derelict industrial heritage building to a vibrant gathering place is an excellent example of adaptive reuse. Retention of the building’s original massing and fenestration, combined with restoration of original architectural elements including the roof truss structure, glass block windows and wood plank floors, blends cohesively with new interior elements custom-fabricated with respect for the original structure’s industrial roots. The building retains its original character, demonstrating that with vision, heritage buildings can be successfully restored and repurposed for imaginative new uses. 3. Centre Block Ventilation Towers (Restoration, Government) This well-considered restoration involved considerable technical analysis in its successful determination of how best to resolve significant structural stability issues in a heritage sensitive manner. Engineering solutions and extensive masonry work were balanced by retention of original materials and minimal intervention wherever possible. Traditional cleaning methods were carefully controlled to retain an appropriate degree of exterior patina, resulting in a nearly imperceptible restoration of these important architectural elements with heritage character intact. 4. National Arts Centre, 1 Elgin Street (Addition, Government) The glass curtain wall additions create inviting new public spaces and improve connectivity between the National Arts Centre and its urban environment, while maintaining a respect for the building’s original Brutalist facade. Contemporary elements including perforated bronze fins, wood-coffered ceilings and marble floor tiles express triangular geometries characteristic of the original heritage structure, enhancing cohesion between old and new. Dramatic new views of Parliament Hill and Confederation Square from new spaces on the second level further enhance the NAC’s connection to its dramatic site. 5. Minto Bridges, Rideau River south of Sussex Drive (Restoration, Other, Government) The outstanding restoration of the Minto Bridges combined engineering and other technical considerations with sensitive attention to detail, preserving this beloved historic landmark with heritage character intact. AWARDS OF MERIT
1. Dairy Building at Rideau Hall (Adaptive Re-use, Government) Preservation, restoration, and reuse of original materials to the maximum extent possible, selective replication of elements based on historic evidence, and sensitive attention to detail— along with a return to historic colours based on original evidence—all demonstrate respect for the continued integrity of this building’s original 1895 design as a Dairy Building for the Rideau Hall estate. Thanks to this well- considered project, a distinctive heritage structure lives on to serve a delightful new purpose while becoming accessible to the public as a winter pavilion, sited next to the Rideau Hall skating rink. 2. The Innovation Centre at Bayview Yards, 7 Bayview Road (Adaptive Re-use, Government) The transformation of this 1940s “industrial modern” building to a technology hub for 21st century entrepreneurs celebrates Ottawa’s legacy of innovation. Preservation of the original structure and key
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 21 of 38 heritage elements including the “City of Ottawa Workshops” name on the front facade, select multi-paned windows, and wooden service bay doors evidence the building’s industrial roots while integrating with contemporary elements of the rejuvenated interior. 3. Canada's Four Corners Building, 93 Sparks Street at Metcalfe (Restoration, Government) Considerable challenges resulting from delayed maintenance were addressed in the restoration of this historic facade. Preservation and restoration of original elements of the building, completed in 1871 in the Second Empire style, combined with replacements in kind, preserves a valuable element of the streetscape’s history and heritage character, providing a tangible reminder of its historic origins of Sparks Street as a commercial district. 4. Churchill Seniors Centre, 342 Richmond Road (Restoration, Government) Meticulous attention to detail was demonstrated in the restoration of this 1986 stone structure, originally the Nepean Town Hall. Repointing of exterior stone walls with appropriate lime-based mortar, replacement of 21 hand-carved stone window sills, and extensive replacement of damaged or deteriorated stone showcase heritage masonry at its finest. This project preserves a local heritage structure which continues to make a valued contribution to the community. 5. National War Memorial, Confederation Square, Wellington and Elgin Streets (Other, Rehabilitation) Since its unveiling in 1939, the National War Memorial has come to symbolize the sacrifice of all Canadians who have served Canada in times of war. This project included restoration of granite stone work of the monument's Cenotaph, cleaning and rehabilitation of all bronze elements including the sculpted figures atop the monument, and structural reinforcement of the podium. Detailed heritage preservation and restoration work, performed in balance with structural and accessibility upgrades, restores this highly significant memorial to its original splendour, securing the future use of its site for all. COMMUNITY HERITAGE AWARD
The Community Heritage Award recognizes an individual or group which has demonstrated a positive impact on heritage conservation in Ottawa. This year's award was presented to the Lowertown Community Association Heritage Committee. Longtime heritage activists and former co-chairs Liz MacKenzie and Nancy Miller-Chenier accepted the award, along with new incoming chair Andrew Waldron. The awards ceremony also recognized recently designated properties and two new Heritage Conservation Districts:
• Macdonald Gardens Park, 99 Cobourg Street • Ottawa Rowing Club, 8-10 Lady Grey Drive • Cobble Cottage, 420 Kenwood Avenue • Russell Avenue-Range Road Heritage Conservation District • Besserer-Wurtemburg Heritage Conservation District
Councillor Glen Gower, Chair of the Built Heritage Sub-Committee, commented that "These awards underline the need to actively and continuously protect and enhance Ottawa’s historic buildings and structures." Congratulations to all the winners and participants!
Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Awards: Suggested Format Page 22 of 38 Heritage Conservation Districts
OVERVIEW OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION District Designation 1
What is a Heritage with features or land patterns that Conservation District? contribute to a cohesive sense of time or place. Subsection 41. (1) in Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act enables the council of a munic- Heritage Conservation Districts form an ipality to designate the entire municipality or integral part of our cultural heritage. They any defined area or areas of the municipality contribute to an understanding and appreci- as a Heritage Conservation District (HCD). ation of the cultural identity of the local community, region, province or nation. District designation enables the council of a municipality to manage and guide future The significance of a HCD often extends change in the district, through adoption of a beyond its built heritage, structures, streets, district plan with policies and guidelines for landscape and other physical and spatial conservation, protection and enhancement elements, to include important vistas and of the area’s special character. views between and towards buildings and spaces within the district. The quality and A HCD may comprise an area with a group interest of a district may also depend on or complex of buildings, or a larger area the diversity of the lifestyle and the traditions with many buildings and properties. It may of the people who live and work there. also comprise an entire municipality with As the users and the ultimate guardians, the a concentration of heritage resources with community forms a vital part of a district. special character or historical association that distinguishes it from its surroundings. Following recent legislative changes, there is growing interest in the designation of heritage Potential districts can be found in urban conservation districts in industrial, rural, and rural environments. They may include waterfront, mining and other cultural heritage residential, commercial and industrial areas, landscape settings that have not been fully rural landscapes or entire villages or hamlets considered before.
5 Heritage Conservation District: Discussion Item Page 23 of 38 Apart from a small number of districts • The Square in Goderich, a 19th century where the main use is institutional, the urban square with a unique layout based majority of Ontario’s designated HCDs on classical design principles; comprise residential or commercial “main streets” districts.
The following examples help to illustrate the range and diversity of Ontario’s HCDs: • Galt downtown, a late 19th century com- mercial block in the City of Cambridge;
“The Square” Heritage Conservation District, located at the heart of the Town of Goderich’s downtown is renowned for the uniqueness and integrity of its design and layout. (Graphic: The Square Heritage Conservation District Plan (1976), prepared by Nicholas Hill)
• The former Village of Rockcliffe Park, now part of the City of Ottawa, where The Galt Downtown Heritage Conservation District – the whole municipality was designated, now part of the City of Cambridge, comprises a prominent in large part, because of its character as commercial block of stone clad buildings that subtly vary in detail and style. (Photo: Ministry of Culture) a cultural heritage landscape;
• Fort York in Toronto which includes over 40 acres, original earthen fortifications, blockhouses, a cemetery, magazines and garrison buildings;
Established in 1793 with the founding of York (Toronto), Fort York Heritage Conservation District is a cultural heritage landscape of historic significance and importance. (Photo courtesy of David Spittal (photographer) from the “Fort York Collection, 2005”)
6 Heritage Conservation District: Discussion Item Page 24 of 38 Heritage Conservation Districts • Overview of Heritage Conservation District Designation • Kleinburg-Nashville in the City of • The HCDs in Cabbagetown and North Vaughan, a discontinuous district which and South Rosedale in the City of Toronto, links two scattered former mill villages Ontario’s largest residential districts, with within their natural setting; over two thousand properties in total;
Kleinburg-Nashville HCD comprises two discontinuous historic mill villages which were founded in the 1840’s, their connecting road link and valley lands. (Plan prepared by Philip Carter & Associates)
Kleinburg-Nashville HCD – The “Victorian” character of the Cabbagetown Metcalfe The district includes many HCD is visible in the relatively unchanged streetscapes, buildings that retain their many surviving examples of row housing and single original vernacular design family residences displaying late nineteenth century and detailing as well as architectural styles and an integrity of form. (Photo more recent infill building courtesy of Unterman McPhail Associates) of sympathetic design. (Photo: Ministry of Culture) • Waverley Park in Thunder Bay, which includes a mix of residential, institutional and park uses.
• St. Mary’s in the City of Kitchener, a post World War II veteran housing project comprising small scale homes of relatively simple design in a landscape setting; The Waverly Park Heritage Conservation District in Thunder Bay includes the historic park which retains many original features including its walkways, cenotaph, fountain and bandshell which is the focal point for the surrounding area. The park provides a rich setting for a number of schools, churches and prominent residential and commercial buildings that are an integral part of the district and provides a strong edge to the district. (Photo courtesy of City of Thunder Bay)
The St. Mary’s Heritage Conservation District comprises The list of Ontario’s HCDs can be viewed unique architecture and suburban landscapes characteristic at: www.culture.gov.on.ca of post-Second World War veteran housing. (Photo courtesy of Kitchener-Waterloo Record Photo Collection, The Library, University of Waterloo)
7 Heritage Conservation District: Discussion Item Page 25 of 38 Heritage Conservation Districts • Overview of Heritage Conservation District Designation What are the benefits memory, and imagination and physical pat- of district designation? terns of buildings, structures, streetscapes, land forms and natural features. Heritage district designation allows these resources and A unique planning framework relationships to be identified and protected. The immediate benefit of HCD designation is a planning process that respects a community’s Cultural and economic vitality history and identity. District designation is one of the best ways to ensure that this Home owners, entrepreneurs, local govern- identity is conserved. The adoption of a HCD ment and property developers all appreciate plan as part of the designation process ensures the benefits of culturally vibrant and estab- that the community’s heritage conservation lished urban and rural communities. objectives and stewardship will be respected during the decision-making process. District designation contributes towards the development of a rich physical and cultural environment and the promise of continuity Enhanced quality of life and stability into the future. Such places are and sense of place able to embrace a wide variety of lifestyle options and economic activities while still Designation allows a community to recognize maintaining physical continuity and social and commemorate what it values within an cohesion. These are often attractive areas area, that contributes to its sense of place. for commercial, residential and mixed-use It provides a process for sustaining these investment. elements into the future. In areas where there are heritage incentive During the study and research phase there is programs, district designation offers specific opportunity for the community to develop economic benefits to property owners by an understanding and appreciation of the making them eligible to apply for a grant, community’s heritage resources and the strong loan or tax relief to carry out restoration relationship between patterns of activity, or conservation work.
Situated near the north shore of Lake Ontario, a few minutes drive from the busy Highway 401, the Walton Street HCD in Port Hope is one of the best preserved of Ontario’s mid-19th century main streets. (Photo: Ministry of Culture)
8 Heritage Conservation District: Discussion Item Page 26 of 38 Heritage Conservation Districts • Overview of Heritage Conservation District Designation Healthy cultural tourism Characteristics of heritage There is a strong relationship between HCD districts designation and cultural tourism. Designation Although each district is unique, many share can be used both to encourage and manage a common set of characteristics. These may tourism activity in rural and urban areas. include: • A concentration of heritage buildings, sites, structures; designed landscapes, natural landscapes that are linked by aesthetic, historical and socio-cultural contexts or use.
(Photo courtesy of Town of Niagra-on-the-Lake)
The distinctive • A framework of structured elements gable front design including major natural features such as and uniform building height topography, land form, landscapes, water of this group The long-term conservation and preservation of the historic courses and built form such as pathways of residential business section of Niagara-on-the-Lake has been secured and street patterns, landmarks, nodes or properties provides a strong sense of through its designation as a Heritage Conservation District. intersections, approaches and edges. (Photo courtesy of the Niagara-on-the-Lake Historical visual cohesion Society Museum, Francis Petrie Collection) to this tree-lined street in Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Conservation Heritage district designation based on careful District in London historical research and evaluation, promotes (Photo: Ministry understanding and appreciation of an area’s of Culture) heritage values and attributes. Blair, a village The development and adoption of a district located just outside Galt on the Grand plan provides the community with an River, was desig- important tool for ensuring the integrity and nated as a Heritage Conservation sustainability of the area’s unique cultural District to protect resources and for managing the impacts its distinctive of cultural tourism on the environment. rural character. (Graphic: Blair Heritage Conservation District Plan prepared by Nicholas Hill) 9 Heritage Conservation District: Discussion Item Page 27 of 38 Heritage Conservation Districts • Overview of Heritage Conservation District Designation • A sense of visual coherence through the broadly as natural, historic, aesthetic, use of such elements as building scale, architectural, scenic, scientific, cultural, mass, height, material, proportion, social or spiritual values. colour, etc. that convey a distinct sense How the varying and changing combinations of time or place. of values come together and the contexts • A distinctiveness which enables districts they create give heritage districts their depth, to be recognised and distinguishable from richness and sense of time and or place. their surroundings or from neighbouring In the identification of these values and areas. attributes that contribute to the district’s overall character, it is important to understand Identification of cultural that the value of the district as a whole is always greater than the sum of its parts. heritage value in districts Municipalities and communities choose to Heritage districts can also be evaluated designate HCDs to conserve their heritage as places that have been designed, have character. The cultural heritage value of evolved or have associative cultural value. individual sites can be expressed in terms This is especially useful when undertaking of their design or physical, historical or a study of a large or more complex district associative or contextual values. The values and can assist in developing objectives for that contribute to the character of heritage designation and a clear vision for its future conservation districts may be expressed more management.
Blair, a village located just outside Galt on the Grand River, was designated as a Heritage Conservation District to protect its distinctive rural character. (Photo: Ministry of Culture)
10 Heritage Conservation District: Discussion Item Page 28 of 38 Heritage Conservation Districts • Overview of Heritage Conservation District Designation Following this approach, heritage districts • Associative districts, which comprise can be classified as: areas of mainly natural landscape that have a strong association with an historic • Designed districts that are purposely event or person, where remaining cultural planned and laid out by a single person heritage features may be insignificant or or a group and whose original or early even absent. messages remain discernible. These districts are valued for the integrity and intactness of their original design;
Aerial view of “The Square” in Goderich which forms the centrepiece of a “designed” Heritage Conservation District renowned for the uniqueness and integrity of its design and Aerial view of layout. (Photo courtesy of Gord Strathdee, Town of St. Marys) These classifications recognize that heritage a rural church districts are all different. They may have and cemetery • Evolved districts that have grown over similar physical properties but dramatically in Southwestern Ontario. Example a period of time and their elements different social and functional linkages. of potential (component features) document the The development of effective policies and heritage district process of its evolution, which can be guidelines for the conservation, protection that incorporates both designed and further classified as follows: and evolution of individual heritage districts, associative values – Static (relict) districts where the requires a sensitive approach based on a (Photo Copyright 2006 Ontario evolutionary process has ended and thorough understanding of evaluated or Tourism) its significant component features still assigned values. reveal its mature material form. They The determination of the evaluated or are appreciated for their aesthetic value, assigned values of a potential HCD, may or for their significance in commemo- be assisted through the preparation of a rating persons and events important in “Statement of Significance”, as is used when the history of the community, province/ listing a site on the Canadian Register of territory or the nation. Historic Places, developed under the Historic – Dynamic (continuing to evolve) Places Initiative. The resulting statement can districts, which include those that help municipalities clearly identify the area’s have evolved over a long period of heritage values and the character-defining time and where the process of evolution elements or heritage attributes that contribute is ongoing. The physical form and to these values and also serve as a basis for attributes of such districts exhibit future decision making, if it is decided that the process of past development and the area is worthy of designation as a HCD. maintain a continuum with the past (See Section 2.3 for further information on to meet the needs of the present (and the Canadian Register). future) community.
11 Heritage Conservation District: Discussion Item Page 29 of 38 Heritage Conservation Districts • Overview of Heritage Conservation District Designation HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGNATION PROCESS
Request or Proposal to Designate District
Council Decision: Study Area? NO Study does not proceed
YES
Municipal Heritage Committee consulted
Public notification/Adoption Study Commences of Study bylaw/Interim controls (optional)
Study Findings & Recommendations Council NO Area not designated Decision: Proceed with Designation?
YES
Prepare HCD Plan & Guidelines. NO Official Plan Provisions are Are there provisions in OP for HCD designation? developed and adopted
Public Notification & Meeting to consider HCD Plan and Designation bylaw
NO Council Decision: Designate Area? HCD Plan & bylaw shelved
YES
Notice of By-law passage: 1. Served on district property owners 2. Served on Ontario Heritage Trust 3. Made public
Appeal allowed YES Ontario Municipal Objections? in whole Board hearing or in part * NO
District Designated: Appeal dismissed 1. Bylaw in effect* 2. HCD plan & guidelines adopted
*NB. Bylaw may need to be amended for an appeal allowed “in part”
17 Heritage Conservation District: Discussion Item Page 30 of 38 Heritage Conservation Districts • Designating a District
Heritage Advisory Committee Memorandum
To: Chair & Members, Whitchurch-Stouffville Heritage Advisory Committee
From: Jeremy Parsons, Heritage Planner, Development Services
Date: October 13, 2020
Subject: Heritage Advisory Committee Volunteer Site Visits
In response to the Heritage Advisory Committee’s request on September 14, 2020, staff have investigated existing policies and procedures related to site visits by volunteers on Council-appointed advisory committees.
In response to solicitation from the Ontario Heritage Planners Network, staff have received the following responses:
Municipality Heritage Committee Site Visit Procedures Oshawa One committee member is delegated to conduct site visits for properties facing demolition and a series of members are tasked with conducting site visits for the purposes of inventorying properties. Markham Although Markham does not contain specific policies for volunteer site visit, if a committee member wishes to conduct a site visit on their own, they are expected to stay within the public right-of-way. If a formal site visit has been arranged for the committee, a visit is pre-arranged, and members will attend along with a staff member. Committee members are expected to conform to their advisory committees Code of Conduct. Kawartha The heritage planner often conducts site visits alone and presents Lakes photographs to the committee. The planner will present a call for members to accompany her for site visits as needed. Unaccompanied site visits can only be carried out from the public right-of-way. Kingston Similar practices to Markham. Unless staff are present, and the visit is pre-arranged with the owner, committee members are instructed not to enter private property. Bradford-West Similar practices to Markham. Gwillimbury
Heritage Advisory Committee Site Visits Page 31 of 38 In preparation of this memo, contact was made with Legal staff from the Town’s Corporate Services Department, who in turn reached out to the Town’s insurance provider. It was confirmed that the Town’s existing policy extends coverage to volunteers for injuries and liabilities arising out of the acts of volunteering while they are volunteering on the Town’s behalf. The Town’s policy does not cover cases where negligence on behalf of the policy holder can be demonstrated.
Staff are of the opinion that a framework similar to Markham and Kingston may be implemented, such that site visits with Committee members may take place when pre- arranged by staff. Should additional liabilities be required to be covered, as per above, staff can inquire about the purchase of additional coverage (brochure attached).
(JP 2020-10-06)
Heritage Advisory Committee Site Visits Page 32 of 38 Heritage Advisory Committee SiteVisits Municipal Volunteer Coverage BENEFITS Maximum Policy Limits • Accidental Death $50,000 In every Municipality, Volunteers are • Accidental Dismemberment $50,000 a key component in providing • Paralysis $100,000 community services. It is too often • Seat Belt $5,000 that when citizens volunteer their • Day Care Benefit $20,000 time for the municipality, insurance • Dependent Child Education Benefit $20,000 coverage is not available to protect • Spousal Education Benefit $15,000 these individuals when they get • Funeral Expense $5,000 injured while Volunteering. VFIS • has recognized this situation and Repatriation $15,000 • has put together a comprehensive Total Weekly Disability-Employed $250/wk • plan to protect those Volunteers Total Weekly Disability-Unemployed $50/wk • when acting on behalf of the Accident Para-Medical Expense $5,000 Municipality. Isn’t it time to protect • Accidental Dental $5,000 those who Volunteer for your • Family Transportation $15,000 Municipality? • Rehabilitation $15,000 • In Hospital Benefit $2,500/mth Ask your local broker for more • Home Alteration & Vehicle Modification $15,000 details on how your municipality can • Identification Benefit $5,000 purchase this inexpensive coverage. • Workplace Modification & Accommodation $5,000
Note: This plan is for those volunteers under the age of 90. Total Disability is payable for 52 weeks for employed and for the unemployed it is payable for 13 weeks. There is a 15 day waiting period, disability is paid on the 16 th day due to an accident. Page 33 of38
Underwritten by AIG Insurance Company of Canada 120 Bremner Blvd, Suite 2100 ● Toronto, ON M5J 0A8 1-800-461-8347 ● Fax: 416-596-4067 02/11
PR ESERVING ON TARIO’ S H ISTORY, O NE B ARN A T A T IME [email protected]
May 28, 2020
Addressed to: Planning Department
To whom it may concern
Our not-for-profit organization was formed in 2019 with the goal of conserving barns of cultural heritage significance in Ontario. In order to fulfill this goal, we have been conducting research and analysis on a variety of topics, including Planning Policy frameworks which either help or hinder the conservation of barns.
It has come to our attention that many municipalities are demolishing heritage barns during the process of severance of surplus farm dwellings. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a brief summary of our findings regarding how existing Planning Policies at the Municipal and Provincial levels impact these cultural heritage resources. We hope that this will help to provide insight on how these policies may be managed in the future so that the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources can work in cooperation with planning for new development.
Barns have potential to be identified as significant cultural heritage resources and may be worthy of long-term conservation. According to PPS, significant cultural heritage resources shall be conserved:
2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.
Under O ntario Regulation 9/06, cultural heritage resources demonstrate significance related to legislated criteria including design/physical value, historical/associative value and contextual value
Although they may not have the same functionality they once did, we believe our heritage barns are an important part of Ontario’s cultural history and rural landscape.
● They serve as landmarks in the countryside ● They have the potential to be reused and repurposed, sometimes into agriculture-related uses as municipalities search for value-added opportunities for farmers ● They have historic value for research of vernacular architecture and cultural history of areas and communities in Ontario ● They are a testament to the early farmers and pioneers in our province ● They convey an important sentiment and image to our urban counterparts about the hardworking farm community ● They contribute to agritourism in both a functional and an aesthetic way. Some European countries fund maintenance of rural landscape features such as buildings, hedge rows and fences for the very purpose of world-wide tourism and cultural heritage protection ● They are useful for small livestock or other small farm operations
We have recognized a growing trend in Ontario, where barns are seen as good candidates for conservation and adaptive re-use. Barns can be made new again and communicate their history while serving a new purposes. Barns can be made into single detached residences, Craft breweries, agro-tourism related destinations, and more.
Ontario Barn Preservation Page 34 of 38
In an effort to recognize the significance, historic and cultural value of these buildings, Ontario Barn Preservation was formed March 30, 2019. This not-for-profit organization is reaching out to barn owners, local and county historical societies, authorities, and the general public, to recognize the value of these amazing buildings. Often these barns are close to their original condition when they were built between the early 1800s and the early 1900s.
We understand the planning and building code regulations that municipalities enforce.There are often conflicting priorities, resources required for enforcement, and provincial goals and protection to uphold. The following provides a review of key policies of Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2014), OMAFRA and Ontario Building Code regulations which creates difficulties in the conservation of barns. We hope these solutions from other municipalities have implemented might be considered in your municipality.
POLICY ITEM 1: “New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.” –Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2.3.3.3
POLICY ANALYSIS
Barns that remain with a dwelling on a smaller severed residential lot are already in compliance with MDS setbacks since there would be no new odour conflict. If this landowner wants to house animals a Nutrient Management Plan/Strategy is required for anything over 5 Nutrient Units (NU, this is equivalent to 15+ beef feeders, OR 5+ medium-framed horses, 40+ meat goats, or 5+ beef cows), and are required to have a plan for manure removal either on their own property or in agreement with another land owner as per the OMAFRA Nutrient Management Plan/Strategy Guidelines. Any livestock count under 5NU does not require a Nutrient Management Plan. Although the capacity of these heritage barns is generally above 5 NU, in practice it is unlikely an owner would exceed this number because heritage barns are not usually that large and owners of this type of property are likely to only have a hobby-size operation.
On the other hand, barns that do not remain with a dwelling on a smaller severed residential lot, but remain on the larger retained agriculture lot often immediately become a violation of the MDS setbacks should that barn house livestock, or potentially house livestock. However unlikely this may be due to the nature and condition of the barn for livestock housing, it is a possibility. Many barns could house up to 30 Nutrient Units, or more, depending on the size of the barn. This capacity would require a separation distance from the house on the new severed lot much larger than existing to allow the barn to remain standing. Thus barns on the larger retained agriculture lot have limited options to avoid demolition.
POSSIBLE RESOLUTION:
The MDS guidelines state that a building must be “reasonable capable of housing animals” in order for MDS to be triggered. Therefore, a barn that is in a decrepit state is automatically exempted from MDS as it cannot house livestock. Thus the barn can be severed off from the dwelling without MDS implications.
However, some barns are not in a decrepit state and are the ones that are worth saving. If the barn is to remain on the retained agriculture lot, it needs to be prevented from being used as a livestock facility to be exempt from MDS. This can be done by removing water, stalls, electricity to the barn and make it “incapable of housing animals”.
Ontario Barn Preservation Page 35 of 38
Some municipalities have had the livestock restriction written into the special conditions of the zoning amendment exception. Two examples are
1. that the barn not be permitted to hold livestock. For example “ A livestock use shall be prohibited in any farm buildings existing on the date of passage of this by-law.” 2. The amendment can also be used to only restrict the quantity of livestock in the barn as such as 1.2NU (animal nutrient units) per hectare “ Notwithstanding their General Rural (RU1) or Restricted Rural (RU2) zoning, those lots 4.0 hectares (9.9 ac.) in size or less shall be limited to no more than 1.25 nutrient units per hectare (0.5 nutrient units per acre). Minimum Distance Separation Guidelines shall apply.“
The Ontario Building Code does not differentiate between agricultural buildings for livestock vs. implements storage, therefore a change of use of this type is not clearly defined as a possibility through the building code. A change of use permit could also be undertaken to change the occupancy of the building from agriculture to part 9. However, this solution is costly and prohibitive for most Owners.
We feel that the best case of survival for the barn is to include it with the severed residential lot If the barn is to be severed with the residential lot we feel that the barn best use is for animals within compliance with the MDS requirements. Some municipalities use a minimum lot size required for livestock (but you have to be willing to sever that lot size where appropriate). We recommend that these smaller lots be permitted to house animals. These lots are ideal for starting farmers, CSA’s, and value-added farm operations. The owners of these smaller lots are often in a position to invest in restoration of our heritage barns.
POLICY ITEM 2: A residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation, provided that:
“1. the new lot will be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services;” - PPS 2.3.4.1c
POLICY ANALYSIS
Provincial policy has limited the lot creation size to only accommodate the water and sewage to maintain large lots and maximum land remaining for agriculture uses.
POSSIBLE RESOLUTION
Many municipalities use a minimum and maximum lot size rather than the above strict guideline to determine the lot line and review each severance on a case by case basis.
The Ministry of Environment provides “reasonable use guidelines” on lot size for sewages systems. These guidelines recommend that a lot should have a “Reasonable Use Assessment” be done to ensure that the lot is adequately sized for septic systems. A rule of thumb that has been used is clay soil lots should be a minimum of 2 acres, and a lot with sandy soil be 1 acre.
However, we would recommend that this statement be reviewed at a provincial level and we would encourage you to contact the provincial policy department to review this statement.
Ontario Barn Preservation Page 36 of 38
POLICY ITEM 3: Designation of severed lot to be zoned “non-farm” and permitted uses as “non-farm” dwelling
POLICY ANALYSIS
Provincial policy does not dictate the residential lot be “non-farm”. In fact, the PPS states that
"Proposed agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations."
We would argue that the “non-farm” designation does create an incompatible use, encouraging non-farming residents, but it also limits the possible use of the small land for small scale farm operations within Prime Agriculture Zones.
POSSIBLE RESOLUTION:
Provide a zoning category for small lots that are sized to permit limited livestock, alternative and value-added agriculture operations. These can also be separate provisions within your existing rural or agricultural designations. For example Provisions for lots larger than 10 acres, and lots less than 10acres.
POLICY ITEM 4: Change of Use for the building to not permit livestock.
POLICY ANALYSIS
A change of use to non-livestock building is a challenging proposition. The building code does not differentiate between livestock agriculture building and implement agriculture building. This change of use permit is quite simple and would not require any investment or structural upgrade by the owner.
If a change of use to a non-agriculture building is required, it would fall into part 9 of the building code (unless other uses are proposed). This upgrade would often require significant structural reinforcement and investment by the owner. Most owners would not be willing or in a position to invest this type of capital on a building that does not have function in a farm operation, nor for a residential property owner, also without a major purpose for the building other than storage, garage, or workshop.
This Change of Use requirement will most likely end with the demolition of the barn when required.
POSSIBLE RESOLUTION:
Change of use is only required to limit the use of the barn for livestock. This can be achieved by removing water and stalls from the building. The barn remains an existing agriculture building but unable to “reasonably house animals” (see issue 1 above for further details or options).
CONCLUSION
We hope that you will consider our review of Provincial and Municipal Planning Policy as it relates to any future Reviews of Official Plans, Comprehensive Zoning By-laws, and approaches to the conservation of built heritage resources related to agricultural use.
Ontario Barn Preservation Page 37 of 38
Too often we see these community raised historic structures in poor condition with loose boards flapping in the wind, roofs caved in, or just a mass of timbers and roofing decaying into the ground. On behalf of Ontario Barn Preservation, we encourage you to help find ways to prevent the further unnecessary demolition of our heritage barns especially in relation to surplus farm dwelling severances. It is our hope that barns of significant cultural heritage value are conserved for future generations.
Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions, and we hope to hear from you in the future.
Regards,
Krista Hulshof, Vice President, architect,
Questions can be directed to Krista at 519-301-8408 or k [email protected]
Ontario Barn Preservation Page 38 of 38