Back to the Rockwood Academy, continued

Rear of the gymnasium wing, Rockwood Academy

The fact you give something to someone, or die leaving it to them, doesn’t mean they have to take it.  Especially when it comes with strings.

Josef Drenters willed the Rockwood Academy to the Ontario Heritage Foundation (now the Ontario Heritage Trust), but with a life interest for his brother Andy Drenters.  That was one complicating factor in seeing Josef’s wishes fulfilled.  But the Foundation had accepted property with life interests before — this was the case with the property known as Inge-Va, now a historic house museum in Perth (although in that case the donor was alive and retained the life interest rather than devising it to a third party). 

The real obstacle to the Foundation accepting the Academy was financial.

Property ownership is of course a big responsibility, doubly so if you are a public body with a mandate to own, preserve and maintain heritage buildings.  Since its creation in 1967 the OHF/OHT has learned from experience how demanding, in all respects, heritage properties can be and the risks of the (less discretionary) budget for capital work on its sites eating into and cramping the (more discretionary) budget for its other programs.  Over the years the Foundation became understandably wary of accepting heritage property from donors without an endowment or some dedicated funding source to help sustain the property long-term.

The experience with the Rockwood Academy probably contributed to the evolution (read: tightening up) of the Foundation’s acquisitions policies.  There were no monies in Josef’s estate to endow his gift of the Academy.  Quite the opposite… there were two mortgages!  (I don’t recall the amount involved — not huge, but not inconsiderable either.)

It was soon apparent that the Foundation would not accept an indebted Academy.  And so, in 1984, the Friends of the Rockwood Academy was born.

Friends invitation 1984

The core Friends group consisted of Andy Drenters, his wife Heather, Murray Haigh, and me.  We began raising money to pay off the outstanding mortgage debt.  We solicited donations and pledges from friends of Josef’s, people who owned his work and others who were concerned for his legacy and wanted to see the Academy preserved.  (I remember my colleague Herb Stovel making a generous multi-year pledge.)

I’m pretty sure we would not have reached our fundraising goals, at least in time — the Foundation’s Board was not going to wait forever.  But out of the blue came… Agnes of God.

A movie by Canadian director Norman Jewison, Agnes of God takes place in a Quebec convent where strange things are going on, including what may or may not be a miracle.  But for the Friends it certainly seemed like a miracle that Jewison wanted to shoot the film at the Rockwood Academy, over a several month period, and of course pay for the privilege.

The Academy, with its imposing stone edifice and monastic ambience, was perfect for the part.  Some temporary alterations to the property were naturally required, to make it less "Anglo" and more "Franco", including the addition of faux dormers on the roof… and the construction of a mock bell tower at the rear!

Andy Drenters at work on Agnes of God film set
(note framework for bell tower behind)

Starring Jane Fonda, Anne Bancroft and Meg Tilley (yes, they were all there in Rockwood), Agnes of God was released in 1985.  Location fees combined with the funds raised by the Friends more than paid off the Academy’s mortgages.  The way had been cleared for the Ontario Heritage Foundation to accept the property.

✧ ✧ ✧ ✧ ✧

Now for something completely different.  About this time the simmering threat we looked at last time — the encroachment on the rural setting of the Academy by housing development — seemed suddenly to ignite.  Distracted by Josef’s illness, death and the uncertain aftermath, the Friends and the Foundation had somehow failed to notice that the lands at the rear of the Academy, which had been zoned agricultural, had been acquired by a developer… and were now zoned residential… and a subdivision had been approved.  Yikes!

And here’s where the stop orders come in.

Rookwood Academy from the hill

Development of the subdivision called for extensive clearing and grading of the field immediately behind the Academy, including the levelling of a large hill.  Frantic to secure a buffer zone including the hill, we turned to the Ontario Heritage Act.

Hidden away in Part VI of the Act (“Conservation of Resources of Archaeological Value”) was a power that had never been used.  Subsection 62 (1) said:

Where the Minister after consultation with the Foundation is of the opinion that property is of archaeological or historical significance and is likely to be altered, damaged, or destroyed by reason of commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential or other development, the Minister may issue a stop order directed to the person responsible for such commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential or other development prohibiting any work on the property for a period of no longer than 180 days, and within that period the Minister or any person authorized by the Minister in writing may examine the property and remove or salvage artifacts from the property.  (emphasis added; the provision is the same today, except that “Trust” has replaced “Foundation”)

Okay, some of you are thinking that this stop order power was intended for archaeological sites, not artifact-free hills behind built heritage sites.  And I’d agree.  This is a good example of how legislation can sometimes be interpreted and used (read: stretched) in ways beyond those intended — and therefore why interpretation based on “what the drafters intended” is not definitive.  But back to the story.

Because the hill property was an original part of the 1850s Academy farm — and because bulldozers had in fact begun to level it — then Minister of Culture and Recreation Lily Munro, consulting with the OHF, formed "the opinion" that the property was of historical significance and was likely to be damaged or destroyed.  In September 1985 she issued a 180-day stop order under section 62 affecting an approximately three acre parcel including the hill; after it ran out, she issued a second stop order in May 1986. [Note 1]

One reason why the section 62 power had not been used (and has never been used since) has to so with subsection 62 (2).  This requires payment of compensation for “personal or business damages resulting from the stop order.”  The amount of the compensation is reached by agreement; failing that, by a proceeding under the Expropriations Act.

In any case stop orders were obviously not a long-term solution to the buffer zone issue.  The Ontario Heritage Foundation in the end reached agreement with the subdivision owner for the purchase of one acre, including most of the hill, for $50,000.

✧ ✧ ✧ ✧ ✧

Andy Drenters behind the Academy today

Thirty years ago, in 1986, the OHF acquired the Rockwood Academy.  For more than 55 years it has been the home, studio and gallery of two remarkable brothers — Josef Drenters, who restored and enhanced it, and then Andy Drenters, who has been its faithful custodian.  The Academy is a magnificent place with a fascinating story… with many chapters left to come.

Rookwood Academy refectory today, with Andy's sculptures

Note 1: Lily Munro, just a few months on the job after the swearing in of David Peterson’s minority Liberal government in June 1985, deserves great credit for taking this bold action. The only other use of a stop order under the OHA was by Culture Minister Aileen Carroll in 2009, who issued a 60-day order under section 35.2, which was added to Part IV of the OHA in 2005.  That order was issued at the request of the City of Toronto to stop demolition of the Maclean House near Casa Loma: 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/razing-of-maclean-home-stopped/article4296718/.

Back to the Rockwood Academy

I hadn’t been there for decades.  Yet, when greeting Andy Drenters at the door of the Rockwood Academy, I said: “This is one of my favourite places in the world.”  On a beautiful day in May it was delightful to see how little things had changed.

Rarely if ever in my life has there been a place like the Rockwood Academy that has brought together the personal and the professional.

Rockwood Academy front facade

The Academy — a property of the Ontario Heritage Trust in the village of Rockwood, just east of Guelph — has a close connection with stop order powers under the Ontario Heritage Act, but we’ll get to that… 

The tale I have to tell begins in 1980, but the Rockwood Academy story goes back to the 1850s.

Fast forward to 1960 when the near derelict property was acquired by Josef (Yosef) Drenters, a sculptor of Belgian origin, who painstakingly began its restoration and renewal.

The Academy is immense, rambling and oozes atmosphere — a building that looks and feels very old and timeless, as much on the inside as out.  I guess you would say it has great spirit.  Much of that intangible something is owing to the two men most closely associated with, and devoted to, it — William Wetherald and Josef Drenters.  And there was an uncanny physical resemblance between them…

Academy founder William Wetherald

Josef Drenters with one of his sculptures

Josef, who had spent seven years in a seminary before leaving Europe with the rest of his family to come to Canada, was 29 when he bought the Academy property, seeking a home and studio. He devoted the following two decades not just to his sculpture but also increasingly to the building.  The Academy was more than a labour of love; it became an obsession that sometimes seemed to interfere with his art.  Or perhaps it is truer to say, as he did, that the Academy was his greatest and most demanding work.

Josef laboured for many years on the property with the help of family, especially his brother Andy (Andreas), and friends, including the landscape architect Murray Haigh, who was for a time his partner.  Then in 1978 he discovered… the Ontario Heritage Foundation, today’s Ontario Heritage Trust.  The Foundation provided a grant of $65,000 — those were the days! — to help with the stabilization of the walls of the old gymnasium (the rear wing of the building) and other structural work.

Rookwood Academy rear facade with gymnasium wing on right

As a condition of the grant Josef signed a heritage easement agreement protecting in perpetuity the exterior and many interiors of the 25-room building, as well as other structures on the property including a small stone chapel Josef had built himself.   This easement was one of the first for the OHF since it had gained the power to acquire heritage easements with the passage of the Ontario Heritage Act a few years before.

Now get this — Josef was so conscientious and had such high standards for the work to be undertaken that he ended up doing much of it himself and making the unprecedented gesture of returning $11,000 of the grant.

Josef at work on gymnasium wing

Just about this time, in 1980, I come on the scene as the new staff member responsible for the OHF’s easements program.  Pretty quickly I got out to visit the enchanting Rockwood Academy and meet its intriguing owner.

Gymnasium interior today with Andy Drenter's sculptures

From early on I recall Josef’s concern, with the building itself secured, for preserving Academy’s surroundings and landscape.  On the edge of the village and backing on to a farmer’s field, the property retained its original rural setting.  But little Rockwood was growing….  Josef had already been able to purchase a small parcel of land at the rear and to the south of the Academy, including the old Academy bank-barn (I suspect the OHF had put up some of the money for this).  He approached his neighbours with a proposal that they go in together to buy more of the field behind, but to no avail.

Alas, there were soon much bigger worries.  Some 12 years before Josef had had a bout with cancer and in 1983 the cancer returned.  Facing a terminal diagnosis he agonized over the future of his beloved Academy.  While the heritage easement offered some assurance should the property remain in private hands, Josef seems always to have felt that he was a kind of trustee for future generations and he had come to see the OHF as a committed partner in the Academy's preservation.  As for his family, Josef’s brother Andy, also a sculptor, had a close connection with the property too.  

Josef decided he would leave the property to the Ontario Heritage Foundation subject to a life interest for Andy.

I had become a friend and Josef’s death in November 1983, at the age of 53, was a huge blow.  With my colleagues Larry Ryan and Herb Stovel I attended his funeral at the towering Church of Our Lady in Guelph.

Chapel built by Josef Drenters in corner of Academy courtyard

In her book Heritage in Stone: Yosef Drenters and the Rockwood Academy, Barbara Smiley tells this story from Josef’s final days:

[Josef’s close friend] Murray Haigh lit a candle in the Academy chapel on All Saints’ Day and made a beautiful wreath of all the last autumnal plants and berries from the garden. This he placed in front of the alter where Josef had spent many hours. When Murray received the sad news that Yosef had died early in the morning of November 8, he went straight to the chapel. The candle, which still had plenty of wax left to burn, had gone out. A small flame extinguished but the symbol of a wonderful man with a great heart, full of compassion, talented, kind — yet a perfectionist and stern taskmaster who never settled for second best.

Josef’s intention of leaving the Rockwood Academy to the OHF was soon confirmed.  But what was not at all clear was whether the Foundation would accept it.

Next time.

Engraving of entrance by Gerard Brender à Brandis

Guest post: Michael McClelland on the OHA and the "New Heritage"

I'm very excited to welcome the first guest on OHA+M: Michael McClelland.

Michael will be familiar to most of you. Prior to founding ERA Architects Michael worked in the heritage departments for the cities of Vancouver and Toronto. He is a founding member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals, a member of the Stewardship Council for the Cultural Landscape Foundation and current vice-president of ICOMOS Canada. Michael is the coordinating heritage architect for the Distillery District, has worked on numerous national historic sites and is the author of many heritage conservation district plans in Toronto.  He is also the co-editor for Concrete Toronto – a Guide to Concrete Architecture from the Fifties to the Seventies and The Ward – The Life and Loss of Toronto's First Immigrant Neighbourhood.

Without further ado, here's Michael.  And he (and I) would love your comments...

Making Decisions: Looking at the Ontario Heritage Act, Planning Policy and the New Heritage

When the Ontario Heritage Act was first introduced in 1975, it was a remarkable step forward for heritage conservation. It demonstrated that heritage was highly valued both by the province and the public at large. It provided strong powers to municipalities and it tackled directly the thorny issues of property rights versus the public interest in heritage.

Under the Act the designation of a heritage property could occur without the consent of the owner and without consideration of compensation, even though heritage acts in other provinces contained such compensation clauses. Its only weakness appeared to be limited demolition control – and this was changed in the revisions in 2005.

In the original act municipal councils could refuse alterations to a heritage property but demolition itself could only be delayed by 180 days. This delay was presumably to give the municipality some time to negotiate with a disgruntled property owner. The 2005 revisions removed the delay period and gave councils the authority for outright refusal of demolition permits. While this refusal is appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board and while negotiation is still a valid consideration in much of the heritage designation process, the 2005 revisions created a significantly stronger Act.

We are now ten years after the 2005 revisions and forty years after the act itself and it is appropriate to ask ourselves how well the heritage act is performing. Does it have strengths and weaknesses? Might there be room for improvement?

To evaluate the Act, it is necessary to step back and look from a larger frame of reference. The questions really are — what do we think heritage is, why are we conserving it, and does the heritage act serve our current needs?

In 1877, roughly one hundred years before the Ontario Heritage Act, William Morris and others founded the Society for the Protection of Ancient Monuments, and it is from this society that many of our standard approaches to conservation derive – we perceive heritage as an artifact, an artifact worthy of conservation, and we think of conserving heritage as intergenerational – we conserve as much for our children as for ourselves.

But there is a difference. Morris’s society had an interest only in very ancient monuments and preferably ruins. It took until much later, with the founding of the Georgian and Victorian Societies in England in the early twentieth century, for attention to be brought to more recent buildings.

These newer Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian buildings were buildings that Morris himself would certainly not have considered as having heritage value. With each heritage society there was clearly a sense that the building had to be from the past, but interestingly, with the founding of the each of these societies the distance between the valued past and the present become exponentially closer.

The Austrian art historian, Alois Riegl, writing in the 1890s, added complexity to this discussion of what he called age-value. He argued that historical artifacts do not have value in themselves. The values attributed to them are applied by an engaged contemporary community. Heritage value is created in the present day.

Julian Smith, a prominent heritage architect in Ontario, has provided an outline of how community-based values have been applied here. Corresponding to William Morris’s interest, Smith says that the initial interests in conservation in the province were ‘antiquarian’, implying looking at the oldest and possibly most archaeologically significant sites.

In the later part of the nineteenth century there was a shift towards the ‘commemorative’ heritage site. These sites tended to be military – battle sites and forts – and here it was acceptable, unlike under the earlier antiquarian approach, to rebuild things, including complete forts, if it allowed a greater appreciation of the historic significance of the site. Few ‘antiquarian’ sites were left untouched by this ‘commemorative’ approach.

This was followed by the ‘recreation and tourism’ response to heritage, something possibly connected to Canada’s 1967 centennial and still akin to much of the tourism we see today. Here the interest is not in isolated sites but a larger context of communities and environments that one could visit and experience. The argument is that the authenticity of the heritage resource was a touristic experience – and this in fact remains a global driver for tourism.

But the interest in heritage has moved further. What is good for the tourist is good for the resident, and the last of Julian’s four stages in the evolving interests of heritage conservation is the ‘ecological or environmental’ stage. Heritage conservation can be seen as a fundamental component of place-making, creating a healthy and sustainable environment.

And this is much more about the community that lives there than the tourist who visits. It is also not about specific buildings or sites but about the creation and stewardship of a sense of place. Ideally every place is based on specific history that can be explored, appreciated and managed. And this is how a discussion about heritage starts to get complicated.

We can see that the identification of what is heritage and even the reasons to pursue heritage conservation have evolved over time. In 1964 when Eric Arthur wrote his definitive architectural history of Toronto, No Mean City, he stopped around the year 1900. Presumably for Arthur little built after 1900 merited recognition as significant heritage.

But now in the local context there are grass-root campaigns to save graffiti, neon signs, old trees and 1950s retail strip malls under the name of heritage, and this broadening of the concerns for heritage has perplexed many of the more traditional conservationists.

Along with societies to recognize and conserve Art Deco or Art Moderne, there are also societies to conserve all forms of architecture - the vernacular, the modern, the post-modern, and the commercial. Other societies address the related designed landscapes and open spaces. And this is a condition that is happening not just here but everywhere across the globe as more and more people are seeing heritage as a significant part of the environment in which they live.

Internationally, ICOMOS and other organizations have started to redefine heritage. Gustavo Araoz, the current president of ICOMOS, has said that a paradigm shift has occurred in our understanding of heritage and how it contributes to modern society. And his position is reinforced by other international charters, such as the Faro Convention that links heritage most specifically to human rights. Heritage is not just about an historic site. In this international light, heritage is now seen as a complex matrix involving the environment and people’s patterns of use within that environment.

Locally you could consider Kensington Market in Toronto. Is it the buildings, the produce, the ethnicity or even the sounds and smells that make Kensington Market a nationally recognized historic site?

Potentially everything may have some heritage value to someone and to understand these new relative values requires us to look carefully not only at our artifacts but also our audience.

This complexity is also seen in the world of art conservation, where again it would seem that almost anything could now be considered as art. Salvador Muñoz Viñas’s excellent book Contemporary Theory of Conservation discusses this dilemma for the fine art conservator – aside from the iconic masterpieces, how does the conservator decide, as a professional, what art works warrant conservation? And given the cost of conservation, how is the level of conservation determined?

This may over-simplify Muñoz Viñas’s thoughtful arguments, but he argues first that while all objects may be art, they have different levels of importance – they may be important to a single person or family or they may be important at a broad international scale, with many steps in between.

Secondly, the determination of what the fine art conservator is to conserve needs to be determined through an iterative discussion between the conservator, the expert, and the affected people, the public who value the art. The approach is inclusive, in that it recognizes the pervasiveness of the art object, and relativist, in that the expert cannot alone determine the outcome.

This is a distinct departure from the traditional approach to art conservation which argued that art was a limited field and the conservator as expert, had the only valid opinion.

There may be parallels here between fine art conservation theory and the current workings of heritage conservation in Ontario. The heritage act unfortunately appears to have a very strong binary component – heritage or not-heritage, without gradation, and this is similar to the more traditional approach to art conservation. This binary works very well for key heritage landmarks, and it is important that it continue to do so, but it works less well for what is Muñoz Viñas calls modest heritage and for the newer interests in the broad scope of heritage that threatens to flood the already over-worked system.

The Ontario Heritage Act appears unprepared to deal with this larger cultural shift.

The Act does include a regulation regarding criteria for designation but here again there is little help. The criteria are very permissive so that almost anything tested under the criteria could warrant designation. Is the building a ‘representative’ or ‘rare’ example of an architectural style? Surely most buildings are one or the other. Is the building a ‘landmark’? Is not every hospital, public school or local shopping centre a locally recognized landmark? So almost everything considered under the criteria tends to slide into the heritage bin, without gradation.

The most effective definitions regarding heritage in Ontario are found, not in the Ontario Heritage Act, but in the province’s guide to the Planning Act, called the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The PPS was updated in 2014 and in that revision it again proposed some clear guidance for heritage. The PPS outlines why we do planning and states directly what is of provincial importance in the planning process. It provides definitions to explain what it means to ‘conserve’, and that ‘significant built heritage resources’ and ‘significant cultural heritage landscapes’ ‘shall be conserved’.

This direction is relevant to the Planning Act because planners tend to see heritage as one of the many things they need to consider when making decisions regarding planning applications. In fact, the PPS makes it imperative that heritage gets due consideration.

But overall the two acts, the planning and the heritage acts, appear disconnected. Why is it that the heritage act contains no mention of ‘cultural heritage landscapes’, or landscapes of any kind? Why does the PPS say that heritage resources can be significant or potentially less significant when the heritage act’s criteria for designation gives no hint that a tiered system might be permissible?

Why do neither of the two acts provide an overall outline illustrating how they are intended to work together, for environmental, cultural or civic reasons?

To be fair the ministry that produced the heritage act did subsequently issue the ‘Ontario Heritage Tool Kit’ as a way to make an explanatory guide for working with the Act and the City of Toronto recently adopted a series of heritage policies for their official plan, but neither of these address the fundamental weakness of the Ontario Heritage Act that it is binary and provides a limited and rigid set of legislative tools.

No matter what can be said, increased usage of the Ontario Heritage Act won’t address Araoz’s description of the exponential growth of heritage and its paradigm shift in meaning.

Imagine a Margaret Atwood novel where sometime in the near future everything has been designated. In this dystopia, the immutable heritage designation bylaws, however arbitrary or out-of-date, would control all civic processes and gradually bring civic life to a halt.

What can be done? Working with the heritage act and the current planning policy may provide an efficient and flexible approach for addressing these concerns. Ideally, modeling a provincial policy statement for heritage on the PPS might be very helpful.

The policy statement could provide a definition for heritage, a statement of its importance to the province and how it relates to other provincial policy – thinking immediately of connections to planning, culture, economic growth, sustainability, natural resources and aboriginal and immigration policies.

The Provincial Heritage Policy (PHP), a name just proposed in this article, could outline different avenues for conservation of heritage resources, from the traditional designation under the heritage act for significant iconic heritage buildings, to the incorporation of heritage policies into all ranges of government policy.

This could be a vital change, for heritage is in fact not the stale thing of designation descriptions, it is about how people define themselves within the context of a place, it is about how people determine what they value about that place, and fundamentally it is about how decisions for change, to improve and enhance the environments we live in, are made.

Michael McClelland June 2016

MichaelM@eraarch.ca

Stratford White House — OMB says no to insensitive infill

To recap from last time: the Stratford White House is an 1860s Italianate mansion dressed up with a much later oversized portico (with 18 columns!) and boasts a landscaped front and semi-circular drive.  Prominently located on St. David Street, one of the “best” streets in town, the house currently has three residential units and an events facility.  The property is the subject of an intensification/infilling proposal that would keep the house but cram in three new building lots on the back and west side (Areas 'A', 'B' and 'C' on the plan below).

The White House property is neither designated nor officially listed under the Ontario Heritage Act, but it does appear on a limited inventory of heritage properties prepared by the Stratford Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee in 1999.  It is also located in a “Heritage Area” comprising much of the city in Stratford’s official plan. [Note 1]

When the Committee of Adjustment refused the applications for the required severances and minor variances, the owner appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.  The city’s own planner, who had recommended approval of the proposal (without a single mention of heritage!), was summoned to help the owner make its case.  The city declined to take part in the hearing, leaving the neighbourhood group, Friends of the Stratford White House, as the opponents to the appeal.  The hearing took place on May 12, 2016 and — remarkably — the decision came down not quite two weeks later on May 25.

In a refreshingly short (nine-page) decision, OMB Vice-Chair Steven Stefanko dismissed the appeal. [Note 2]

The Board had no problem finding that the White House is a heritage resource, citing the following:

• while neither listed nor designated, the property is on the 1999 inventory and is in the city’s “Heritage Area”
• a previous (2007) OMB decision concerning the rezoning of the property stated that all of the then-parties considered the property a heritage resource
• in 2005 a “preliminary draft” designation by-law for the property had been prepared (although it went nowhere: “Based on the evidence in this matter, that designation was not finalized as the City’s practice is to require the permission of the property owner prior to designation. Needless to say, that permission was not given.”) [Note 3]

Perhaps most importantly, the Board accepted the opponents’ argument that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest in Ontario Regulation 9/06 under the OHA.

In terms of the applicable planning policies: probably because the legislative tests for severances and minor variances both include deference to the municipality’s Official Plan, the Board starts, not with the provincial policy context provided by the Provincial Policy Statement, but with the relevant OP policies.  [Note 4]

The Board cites the general heritage conservation policies in the OP, typical of those in municipal OPs in Ontario.  For example, one of the guiding principles for decision-making is: “heritage preservation to protect areas, landmarks and features which provide a physical link to the early development of Stratford and which contribute to its distinct character and sense of place.”  And, under the heading Tourism and Heritage: “Stratford’s built heritage, as evidenced by its remaining fine examples of Victorian architecture and other historic landmarks are [sic] considered critical to fostering tourism activity.”

With respect to infilling, the Board refers to the OP’s direction that projects be evaluated based on the guidelines adopted by the city in a 1991 Residential Intensification Study “to ensure that new development is compatible with and sensitive to existing development in the area.”  And, under the heading Infilling in Heritage Areas: “[W]here infilling is proposed … the inherent heritage qualities of the area or corridor will be retained, restored and ideally enhanced….”

Faced with the ultimate, inevitable argument that the benefits of intensification trump those of heritage, the Board is clear.

It is arguable that the proposal is a form of intensification contemplated by the City OP; however, that intensification, even if permitted, does not in my view, outweigh or override the very clear and compelling language of the City OP relating to heritage preservation and protection. … Neither the Severances nor the Requested Variances retain, restore or enhance the heritage character of the site in my estimation.

The Board concludes that the proposal does not conform with the city’s Official Plan.  And that would be that… except that the decision goes on to briefly consider the application of the Provincial Policy Statement even if this is “technically unnecessary.”

In something of a replay, intensification fares no better against heritage at the provincial policy level:

The Proponent argues that since the proposed lots provide for modest infilling and intensification… consistency with the PPS is established. I am not persuaded.

Section 2.6.1 of the PPS states, very decisively, that “Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved”. …

In my view, the property, including the existing building and landscape setting constitutes, at the very least, a significant built heritage resource which is to be conserved. The proposal however, has, in my estimation, a somewhat awkward and disproportional lot configuration in an area with a preponderance of stately homes and large landscaped properties. As a result the Subject Parcel’s cultural, historical and heritage character is undermined. In my opinion, consistency with s. 2.6.1 of the PPS is not achieved.

So, yet another case of the Ontario Municipal Board siding with the heritage argument.  Just how many more examples of this do we need to finally persuade those out there (you know who you are) that the OMB is not an ogre when it comes to heritage concerns?

Some takeaways:

• While they often seem like motherhood statements — nice to have but not counting for much — general heritage policies in OPs are important and potentially critical in preservation disputes.
  
  
• Although it certainly makes the preservation argument stronger, a cultural heritage property does not have to be designated or even listed under the OHA to receive the benefit of OP heritage policies and section 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement; but you will have to demonstrate its cultural heritage value, using the criteria in the regulations.

• Intensification as an argument for undermining or overwhelming heritage may be even less compelling in places like Stratford outside of the Greater Golden Horseshoe and other areas subject to provincial growth plans.

Two other (more esoteric) observations.  First, I think we see from this case yet more evidence that the Provincial Policy Statement’s definition of the term “significant” as applied to cultural heritage has become so broad as to be effectively redundant.  I defy you to coherently explain the difference between, say, a “built heritage resource” and a “significant built heritage resource.”

Second, in intensification versus heritage face-offs (and, granted, it is often not helpful to set them up as such), this and other recent decisions suggest an Achilles’ heel to intensification: the specific usually takes precedence over the general.  Meaning that the particular, site-specific (and irreplaceable) heritage resource should not be sacrificed to the general, less localized push for intensification, which can be satisfied in other ways — and other places.

Meanwhile, the fate of the White House is looking brighter.  Just days after the OMB decision was issued, the owner has withdrawn an application for a demolition permit (!) for the building, and apparently is moving ahead with a revised development plan for the property.

Note 1: The Official Plan, from 1993, has since been revised, although the new plan is awaiting provincial approval.  The "Heritage Area" covers almost all of the older part of the city.

Note 2: Go to http://elto.gov.on.ca/omb/e-decisions-omb/pl150859-may-25-2016.pdf

Note 3: This is a little off our topic today, but I have to once again point out that this type of policy — not to designate without the okay of the owner — has been ruled illegal. See OHA+M from Nov. 6, 2015: http://danschneiderheritage.blogspot.ca/2015/11/the-oha-what-courts-have-to-say-part.html

Note 4: See subsections 51(24) and 45(1) of the Planning Act.