SCHC Submission on Bill 23 “More Homes Built Faster Act” 2022, sent to the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy

 SCHC_

        Southampton Cultural Heritage Conservancy

            P.O. Box 3036, Southampton, ON   N0H 2L0   www.southamptonheritage.org

November 11, 2022

The Hon. Laurie Scott, Chair; The Hon. Laura Mae Lindo, Vice Chair; Members

Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy

Whitney Block, Room 1405
99 Wellesley Street W
Toronto, ON M7A 1A2

 Dear Chair Scott, Co-Chair Lindo, and Members of the Standing Committee,

          RE:  Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022:

                  Ontario Heritage Act -- Proposed Amendments        

We are writing on behalf of the Southampton Cultural Heritage Conservancy, a not-for-profit heritage organization based in the town of Southampton (pop. 4000), part of the Municipality of Saugeen Shores on Lake Huron. Our organization has 260 paid members and over 1,800 subscribers (via Facebook).   

SCHC Mission Statement:

The Southampton Cultural Heritage Conservancy seeks to promote, protect, and advocate on behalf of the history, cultural heritage, cultural landscape, civil society and built environment of the Town of Southampton and the surrounding area. We recognize and respect that all of this existed pre-contact, and continues to exist through the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, and the Metis who later settled in this territory. (https://www.southamptonheritage.org/)

 Summary

In our opinion, the proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act under Bill 23 are unnecessary for the stated purpose of “more homes built faster” in Saugeen Shores, and across the County of Bruce which is forecasting a surplus of 8550 housing units by the year 2046. Bill 23 also works against our community’s program of economic development through its tourism industry. By requiring the removal of buildings listed on the Heritage Register after two years (if there is no “intent to designate” issued), Bill 23 removes an important tool for identifying and protecting valuable cultural assets. The proposed time constraints and prescribed evaluation criteria for designating properties would impose an impractical and virtually impossible workload on the town’s Deputy Clerk and on the few volunteers who handle heritage matters. We urge you to please consider the following list of objections:

 1. Saugeen Shores could lose heritage protection for 105 significant buildings.

The Municipal Heritage Register lists 105[1] historic buildings that would disappear from the Heritage Register within two years of the enactment of Bill 23 if it is not possible to designate the property within a limited time-frame.  

 2. Listing (without designation) has been an effective tool for the town and for developers.

The majority of listed properties in Saugeen Shores have been listed indefinitely, without a foreseeable plan to designate. The “listed” status has served an important function to alert developers to properties to be avoided in a town that has a surplus of sites for building new homes. By requiring the unnecessary removal of listed properties after two years, 105 heritage houses will lose the slight protection that listing provides (a mere 60-day pause for study prior to Council’s decision to designate--or not).  

 3. Amending the Heritage Act will not build more homes faster in Saugeen Shores nor in similar smaller communities across the province.

The amendments would result not in more homes, but in an equal number of modern, less affordable homes. The negative impacts would include a substantial loss of heritage character, loss of unique identity, and damage to the tourism economy of Southampton, which markets itself as “the oldest port on the Bruce.” 

4. Saugeen Shores has less than 2.3 percent[2] of properties “listed” (Why place them in jeopardy?)

a) Considering that the 105 properties listed on the Saugeen Shores Heritage Register represent less than 2.3% of the 4,430 residential properties in Saugeen Shores, to allow developers free rein to demolish them would surely not result in “more homes built faster.”  With Saugeen Shores’ projected surplus of 1,330 residential units over the next 25 years (see slide illustration below), it is obvious that Bill 23’s removal of protection for heritage properties to gain “more homes built faster” is completely unnecessary. Developers have a wealth of other sites on which to build.  

b) The surplus of housing in Saugeen Shores is typical within Bruce County, according to a recent analysis that was prepared for the Bruce County Growth Amendment to the Official Plan (https://www.planthebruce.ca/official-plan). Table I, below, shows Bruce County’s projected residential housing needs to 2046, with a net surplus of 8550 homes. Only the Municipality of Brockton is expected to have a shortfall in residential units (of 630).

A reduction in Southampton’s built heritage (which has 43 listed properties) would damage Southampton’s economic development through its tourism industry, and as a retirement community.  It would remove the tangible assets that are necessary for marketing the town’s heritage character as the “Oldest Port on the Bruce.” The loss of heritage character would not only diminish the town’s desirability as a destination for tourists, but also as a destination for lakeside-retirement living.

6. Proposed “prescribed criteria” would make listing properties labour-intensive and too costly (Section 27.3.B).

a) The proposed addition of “prescribed criteria for evaluation” would make listing a property impractical, labour-intensive, and costly. Saugeen Shores does not have staff dedicated to heritage preservation work, and Bill 23 does not provide new funding.

Currently, buildings may be added to the Register that are “of cultural heritage value or interest,” with our Deputy Clerk handling paperwork and volunteers conducting research and evaluation.

b) Requiring more than one criteria would exclude many buildings with important cultural or associative significance. For example, it is unlikely that the previously designated humble home of Saugeen Metis herbalist Angelique Longe (“Aunt Annie”) would satisfy more than one prescribed evaluation criteria. Yet the iconic “Aunt Annie” remains among the best-known historic figures of Southampton.    

7. Removal of time limits for objections would thwart and destabilize the process of heritage listing, wasting valuable staff/volunteer time and effort (Section 7.7.13).   

Whereas currently there is a deadline for submitting objections to a property listing, the proposed amendment would permit objections to be filed at any time, even years later. The impact would destabilize the heritage listing and approval process. Valuable staff time handling the evaluation, conducting historical research, and dealing with the approval process would be wasted.    

8. New rules would place a time constraint of 120 days for the completion of an “intent to designate”: Section 7 (14).

A municipality would be required to remove a property from the register if the Council does not pass the designating by-law within 120 days of publishing its notice of intent to designate. Managing the designation process within such a strict timeline would present significant challenges for a small municipality lacking staff dedicated for heritage evaluation and processing.  

9. Removal of non-designated property will be done without consultation (Section 27. 15-17).

Listed properties must be removed from the Heritage Register if Council does not give notice of intention to designate the property on or before the second anniversary of the day the property was included in the register. This would apply to all of the 105 properties currently listed on the town’s Heritage Register.  For properties currently on the Register, the two-year period begins on the date Bill 23 becomes an Act.  

The task at hand is virtually impossible, given staffing considerations and the need for public education. Bill 23 sets municipalities up for certain failure to comply.

10. A proposed five-year ban on relisting is punitive (Section 27.18.)

Properties removed from the Register under Section 28. 14-16 may not be listed again for a period of 5 years. This is a punitive action that will work against our community’s economic development through heritage preservation, heritage marketing, and the showcasing of our distinctive cultural heritage as “the oldest port on the Bruce.”

11. Exclusion of “exterior design” plans from site plan control regulations would negatively impact heritage streetscapes (Section 41(4).

a) The type of plans and drawings that can be reviewed through the site plan control process are set out in subsection 41(4). Previously, drawings showing the exterior design of a new building, including its character, scale, appearance, and design features, were required to be submitted for approval. Bill 23 proposes to delete paragraph 2.(d) of subsection 41(4) and remove the requirements to provide drawings showing matters of exterior design. The new legislation goes further by adding exterior design to the list of matters expressly excluded from site plan control under subsection 41(4.1).  (However, matters relating to exterior access to a building that contains affordable housing units can still be reviewed.)

b) The proposed Act also expands the list of exclusions by adding new subsection 41(4.1.1), which states that the appearance of the elements, facilities, and works on municipality owned lands or highways adjacent to the development site are not subject to site plan control unless their appearance impacts matters of health, safety, accessibility, or the protection of adjoining lands.

 We thank you, in advance, for your kind consideration of the above concerns.

 Yours truly,

 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Jill Taylor, OAA, FRAIC, CAHP

Chair, Southampton Cultural Heritage Conservancy

 and

 Sheila Latham, MLS, PhD

Past Chair, Southampton Cultural Heritage Conservancy

NOTES:

[1]Municipality of Saugeen Shores, By-law 3-2014, By-law 31-2016 and By-law 55-2018. Excluding three federally-designated lighthouses and the Saugeen Rail Trail, the Municipal Heritage Register lists 105 properties.    

[2] Bruce County. County of Bruce Amendment to the Official Plan Statutory Public Open House Thursday, September 29th, 2022, 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM.    Slide 26 of the Power Point presentation shows an analysis of housing units and projections to 2046 for Saugeen Shores, based on 4,540 residential units in 2021.  The percentage of 105 listed residential units would be precisely 2.3%, and since there have been no new listings since 2018, the percentage will decline for 2022. 

Cc:

The Hon. Michael Ford, Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (Michael.Ford@pc.ola.org)

The Hon. Douglas Ford, Premier of Ontario (doug.fordco@pc.ola.org)

The Hon. Lisa M. Thompson -- Huron-Bruce ( Lisa.Thompson@pc.ola.org)

Mayor Luke Charbonneau, Municipality of Saugeen Shores

Deputy Mayor, Diane Huber, Municipality of Saugeen Shores

Councillor Cheryl Grace, Municipality of Saugeen Shores

Councillor John Divinski, Municipality of Saugeen Shores

Kara Van Myall, Chief Administrative Office, Municipality of Saugeen Shores

Jay Pausner, Supervisor, Development Services, Municipality of Saugeen Shores

Chair, Saugeen Shores Municipal Heritage Committee

Diane Chin, Chair, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (president@acontario.ca) 

Ruth Ann Fischer, Architectural Conservancy of Ont., Bruce County Branch (vjh@wightman.ca)

Dorne Fitzsimmons, President, Bruce County Historical Society (dcf@bmts.com)

Kristin Ives, President, Ontario Historical Society (ohs@ontariohistoricalsociety.ca)

Deb Roth, Interim Clerk, Municipality of Saugeen Shores

Isaiah Thorning, Clerk, Standing Committee on Heritage Infrastructure and Cultural Policy                                                                                                                         (schicp@ola.org)