
While Canada is a young country in comparison with many throughout the world, why is that we are not trying to preserve the short time-span of heritage and history that we have? Many countries prize and care for their historic buildings as a heritage legacy.
In Ontario, when it comes to the Heritage Act under Bill 23, there may be sweeping changes if it is passed as proposed.
Under the Act, the Heritage Registry includes buildings that have been chosen not only because of their architectural beauty but, also because the properties have contributed to the cultural, social and economic development of the community. Properties on the registry require a considerable amount of time by volunteers to research as they also contain information about the people who constructed the buildings and the design elements and are an historical accounting of properties.
In Saugeen Shores, the Town maintains a list of designated properties and a registry of properties identified as being of cultural heritage importance. There are currently 12 provincially designated properties which are a combination of both public and private buildings, such as Aunt Annie’s (oldest home in Southampton), Nodwell Park, Southampton Town Hall, Port Elgin Library and Southampton Art School.
The Town registry also has 122 properties consisting of churches, schools, former and current commercial properties, private homes, lighthouses and parks that are sprinkled through the municipality.
Southampton Examples
Port Elgin Examples
The Town’s Cultural Heritage Master Plan process is expected to commence in 2023, subject to budget approval. Proposed changes related to the Heritage Act will affect how municipalities identify and protect cultural heritage properties. The changes will, in fact, mean that heritage registries must be reviewed and properties designated and, if not designated within two years, must be removed from the registry and cannot be re-instituted for five years and who knows what will happen in those five years and what is the purpose?
Bill 23 also introduces new rules regarding the creation of a ‘heritage conservation’ district, which is a larger geographic area with multiple heritage properties or distinct heritage character. In order to establish such a District, a municipality must first undertake a study of the area to ascertain the heritage character it seeks to protect, and through by-law, establish the district, and adopt a district Plan setting out, among other things, the heritage attributes to be protected.
Under the new rules, subsequent to the adoption of such a Plan, councils may not carry out any municipal works or pass any by-laws affecting the geographic area of the district which are contrary to the objectives set out in the Plan and most development activities would require a ‘heritage permit’. What does this do? It effectively makes it very difficult for a municipality to establish a broader Heritage district.
The current Heritage Registry does not give the property legal protection however, should an owner want to demolish a building on the registry a 60-day notice must be presented to the Town. This provides a time span where a municipality could then designate the structure to the Heritage Registry, but it also provides a 60-day waiting period in the event that an interested party wants to ‘move’ the building and recycle it as future housing.
The Heritage Registry, unlike having a structure designated as ‘Historical’, is optional. An owner can easily opt out of having his/her structure on the Registry. Many in Saugeen Shores however, understand the intent of the policy is to celebrate heritage and history and have willingly had their homes become part of the Heritage Registry.
Celebrating and preserving heritage buildings in smaller communities helps to preserve the traditional character and charm of a town, often with the result that it attracts tourism, future homeowners and businesses. The result? Local economies benefit.
Bill 23 is also known as the ‘More Homes Build Faster’ Act, but it may also see the obliteration of Heritage Registries and does little to incentivize the concept. In Saugeen Shores for instance, the equivalent of one quarter of one percent (1%) of the TOTAL inventory of homes are part of the Heritage Registry and, therefore, removing the Registry within two years will not add to the housing supply.
On the other hand, when looking at larger urban centres, removing registries and preventing declaring ‘heritage districts’, paves the way for developers to quickly purchase heritage sites, demolish them and re-build, most likely with exhorbitent home ownership or rental prices.
With the proposed changes, to be listed, properties will now be evaluated under a set of ‘provincially’ prescribed standards that have not, as yet, been outlined or determined.
As Saugeen Shores potentially embarks on a Cultural Heritage Master Plan, detailed restrictive requirements for districts may prevent how the Town wishes to preserve its existing character. Rather than a broad-brush approach, it is important for local communities to have the flexibility to determine for themselves what is important in celebrating their cultural and (built) heritage, as with other aspects of planning. So, why is that being eroded?
The Town of Saugeen Shores at its recent Planning Meeting stated that it objects to the proposed Heritage Act changes. They are changes that chip away not only at heritage and history but also at the autonomy of communities.
To view local homes in Saugeen Shores on the Heritage Registry and their history,
CLICK HERE