![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.aconwr.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/North-Waterloo-Region-Official-Logo-2.jpg\"){kind=logo}
<\/a><\/p>\nSUBMISSION to the City of Kitchener Planning Division regarding<\/strong><\/p>\n PROPOSED SECONDARY PLANS & their effect on<\/strong><\/p>\n Heritage Conservation Districts, Established Neighbourhoods<\/strong><\/p>\n & Individually Designated (Part IV) Properties<\/strong><\/p>\n by ACO North Waterloo Region branch (ACO NWR)<\/p>\n The City\u2019s cultural heritage resources provide a link to the past and are an expression of the City\u2019s culture and history<\/strong>. They contribute in a very significant<\/strong> way to the City\u2019s identity and unique character. While Kitchener\u2019s cultural heritage resources are important from a historical and cultural<\/strong> perspective, they are also of social, economic, environmental and educational value<\/strong>. They help to instill civic pride, foster a sense of community, contribute to tourism and stimulate the building renovation industry.<\/em><\/p>\n Preamble, Section 12: Cultural Heritage Resources, City of Kitchener Official Plan<\/p>\n INTRODUCTION<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Through advocacy and direct action, the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) has been a leader in preserving Ontario\u2019s architectural and environmental heritage since 1933, with 20 branches currently operating in the province. The local ACO<\/strong> North Waterloo Region branch<\/strong>, formed in 1980, encourages the conservation and re-use of structures, districts and landscapes of architectural, historical and cultural significance <\/strong>through education and advocacy<\/strong>. We speak on behalf of about 100 local members in the communities of Kitchener, Waterloo, Wellesley, Wilmot and Woolwich.<\/p>\n Our purpose in making this submission is twofold. First, residents of three of the four City of Kitchener Heritage Conservation Districts (HCDs)[1]<\/a> and several of the established, predominantly central, neighbourhoods[2]<\/a> have asked our branch to make recommendations<\/strong> to the Planning Division regarding the effect proposed Secondary Plans (SP) may have on their neighbourhoods<\/strong>, including commenting on their submissions to the City. Second, while we may be commenting on specific neighbourhoods, these same observations apply more widely<\/strong> to all properties of cultural heritage value in Kitchener, including individually designated Part IV properties, Listed properties, and properties located within Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL), whether they have recognized heritage status (protection) or not.<\/p>\n VALUE OF OUR BUILT HERITAGE<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n One of the most significant changes in society ACO NWR branch has seen since its inception has been a vast increase in the number of people who care deeply about our built heritage and shared history<\/strong>. Even if they live in a newer neighbourhood, many people now see our community\u2019s heritage buildings as reinforcing their sense of place, belonging and well-being<\/strong>; providing quality, variety and meaning to their lives.<\/p>\n The story of Kitchener\u2019s post-war development has shown that, where our built heritage has been valued and cared for, social and economic benefits have been generated<\/strong> for everyone, creating desirable, distinctive and economically successful places. Where its potential has not been recognized<\/strong>, where it has been degraded or destroyed, the quality of people\u2019s lives has been impoverished and opportunities stifled<\/strong>.<\/p>\n One measure of how the City of Kitchener values our built heritage<\/strong> are the quantity and scope of heritage programs undertaken by staff and volunteers, including:<\/p>\n This can also be seen in the research undertaken in the Secondary Plan process<\/strong>:<\/p>\n Thank you to staff for all the work you do!<\/strong><\/p>\n SCOPE OF SUBMISSION<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n We will begin our submission with a few general comments about the value of HCDs and CHLs<\/strong>, the requirement for SPs to complement HCD Plans <\/strong>and recognize CHLs in the Official Plan<\/strong> (OP), how the Ontario Heritage Act<\/em><\/strong> affects the implementation of municipal bylaws, and about protecting other heritage properties, such as established neighbourhoods <\/strong>and individually designated properties<\/strong>, then ACO NWR branch will comment<\/strong> on several proposed Secondary Plans and the submissions<\/strong> neighbourhood groups made to City Council on December 9, 2019.<\/p>\n VALUE OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Ontario Heritage Act<\/em> gives municipalities the responsibility <\/strong>to identify, evaluate and conserve resources that have lasting cultural heritage value or interest in their community. HCDs offer a way to protect, over the long term<\/strong>, areas that have important and\/or identifiable historic and architectural resources. The ability to designate HCDs is provided under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act<\/em>. Further guidance<\/strong> regarding HCD evaluation and designation is provided by the City of Kitchener Official Plan (12.C.1.13 to 12.C.1.16).<\/p>\n HCDs are created after much consultation<\/strong> with area residents and with expertise from City planning staff and paid consultants. The boundaries are carefully and thoughtfully delineated<\/strong> in order to preserve our built heritage and provide stability for an area deemed worth protecting and conserving, often one thought to be under threat in future.<\/p>\n When proposals come forward that could destroy the very thing that Districts were meant to protect, area residents have good reason to wonder about the future<\/strong> of their neighbourhood. It has the result of introducing instability into an area<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The City of Kitchener\u2019s HCDs (Civic Centre Neighbourhood, St. Mary\u2019s, Upper Doon, Victoria Park Area) have proven successful<\/strong> in preserving the integrity of areas that have important and identifiable cultural heritage significance. Our new proposed SPs must support this process of preservation<\/strong>, not provide ways to undermine it.<\/p>\n SECONDARY PLANS MUST COMPLEMENT HCD PLANS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n When zoning regulations complement the heritage requirements<\/strong> of a District Plan, property owners and developers can feel confident in the predictability of future decision-making<\/strong> regarding land-use matters.<\/p>\n When the opposite is true, when zoning increases the intensification of a property with heritage protections beyond the existing (e.g., building height), this compromises District Plans, often resulting in demolition of heritage properties by neglect<\/strong>, preservation of only fa\u00e7ades of heritage properties, or erosion of the context of heritage properties. This then negatively affects neighbouring properties, creating a domino effect<\/strong>, reaching well beyond the boundaries of the redeveloped property.<\/p>\n For example, a developer may argue for increased density from the existing on a property based on zoning (proposing the demolition of existing heritage buildings), while neighbours and heritage advocates counter-argue based on the District Plan provisions. This tension would be decreased<\/strong> if the zoning was better aligned with the District Plan. The heritage district would be less at risk, the community would be afforded more harmony, Planners and Council would be freed of the need to address such difficult decisions, and developers would know where they stand.<\/p>\n ACTION<\/u><\/strong>: ensure SPs and zoning regulations complement HCD Plans and their heritage requirements<\/strong><\/p>\n The City of Kitchener OP provides guidance on additional conservation measures<\/strong> the municipality may use to conserve our built resources. Such as:<\/p>\n Conservation Measures<\/strong><\/p>\n 12.C.1.19.\u00a0 In addition to listing and designating properties under the Ontario Heritage Act<\/em>, the City may use and adopt further measures to encourage the protection, maintenance and conservation<\/strong> of the City\u2019s cultural heritage resources including built heritage<\/strong> and significant cultural heritage landscapes<\/strong> . . . These may include, but are not limited to . . . by-laws and agreements pursuant to the Planning Act (Zoning By-law<\/em><\/strong> . . .)<\/p>\n In this way, the Official Plan provides the rationale for zoning regulations to complement the heritage requirements<\/strong> of a District Plan.<\/p>\n ACTION<\/u><\/strong>: use the Zoning By-law to ensure regulations complement Heritage Conservation District Plans and their heritage requirements<\/strong><\/p>\n Another idea would be to use the Holding Provisions<\/strong> section of the OP (17.E.13.1.e) as an additional measure to satisfy the policies of the District Plan related to cultural heritage conservation.<\/p>\n ACTION<\/u><\/strong>: use Holding Provisions to ensure to Council\u2019s satisfaction that cultural heritage conservation policies are followed<\/strong><\/p>\n The Zoning By-law, REINS, PARTS and the proposed SPs all suggest that possible future uses<\/strong> of some heritage properties could be more intensive than what\u2019s there now. But District Plans are clear in saying: \u201cThere may be rare occasions<\/strong> where infill development<\/strong> or limited integrated redevelopment<\/strong> is possible in the future or where redevelopment is required due to loss of buildings through fire, severe structural<\/strong> decay<\/strong>, . . . or other catastrophic events<\/strong>.\u201d[3]<\/a> All of these Planning documents have been designed<\/strong> in case<\/strong> these \u201ccatastrophic events\u201d occur, to give flexibility<\/strong> so that appropriate rebuilding can take place, not the other way around, not specifically to allow redevelopment.<\/strong><\/p>\n But developers don\u2019t see it that way. They see a potential redevelopment site and consider its heritage protections last. This is the appropriate time and method to send the message that our built heritage must be protected<\/strong>.<\/p>\n ACTION<\/u><\/strong>: make clear statements to the effect that intensification of Zoning designations of heritage properties give flexibility so that appropriate rebuilding can take place in case of catastrophic events, not the other way around, not specifically to allow redevelopment<\/strong><\/p>\n ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT<\/u><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The purpose of creating a HCD is to protect and manage the heritage character<\/strong> of the neighbourhood as the community evolves. The District Plans provide clear guidance regarding appropriate alteration activities.<\/p>\n The Ontario Heritage Act<\/em> states:<\/p>\n Consistency with heritage conservation district plan<\/strong><\/p>\n 41.2 <\/strong>(1) Despite any other general or special Act<\/em>, if a heritage conservation district plan is in effect in a municipality, the council of the municipality shall not,<\/strong><\/p>\n (a) carry out any public work in the district that is contrary to the objectives set out in the plan; or<\/p>\n (b) pass a by-law for any purpose that is contrary to the objectives set out in the plan.<\/strong><\/p>\n Conflict<\/strong><\/p>\n (2) In the event of a conflict between a heritage conservation district plan and a municipal by-law that affects the designated district, the plan prevails to the extent of the conflict<\/strong>, but in all other respects the by-law remains in full force.<\/p>\n Though proposed Secondary Plans, and through them the Zoning Bylaw, may designate certain properties with higher intensification, if this contravenes the District Plan provisions<\/strong>, the Ontario Heritage Act<\/em> says, \u201cthe plan prevails to the extent of the conflict\u201d.<\/p>\n ACTION<\/u><\/strong>: ensure SPs and zoning regulations complement Heritage Conservation District Plans and their heritage requirements in order to be in compliance with the Ontario Heritage Act<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n VALUE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Province of Ontario, through the Provincial Policy Statement, requires that significant CHLs be conserved<\/strong>. The Regional Official Plan\u00a0directs area municipalities to designate significant CHLs in their OPs<\/strong> and establish policies addressing their conservation and undertake proper planning.\u00a0 And the City of Kitchener OP states that these CHLs be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register<\/strong> and conserved<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Kitchener\u2019s award-winning report<\/strong>, Cultural Heritage Landscapes<\/em>, identified 12 established residential neighbourhhods as CHLs, including the four existing HCDs. \u201cEach of these neighbourhoods expresses a high degree of heritage integrity<\/strong> and are representative of planning concepts and housing styles of the period in which they were developed,\u201d explained the report. \u201cWithin these neighbourhoods, there is an enormous variety of housing designs. . . None of these neighbourhoods are likely to be constructed again, so any loss or deprecia<\/strong>ti<\/strong>on of these neighbourhoods would be a significant loss to Kitchener\u2019s por<\/strong>tf<\/strong>olio of heritage resources<\/strong>.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n SECONDARY PLANS MUST RECOGNIZE CHLS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The other eight neighbourhoods which include identified CHLs deserve some heritage status and protection, sooner rather than later<\/strong>, by recognizing them in the OP and developing strong guidelines in the SPs to ensure these established neighbourhhods thrive.<\/p>\n ACO NWR is concerned that reference to the full Mount Hope\/Breithaupt\/Gildner\/ Gruhn Neighbourhood<\/strong> CHL was removed from the KW Hospital\/Midtown SP. Similarly, the Central Frederick <\/strong>Neighbourhood<\/strong> CHL was removed from the King Street East SP. Another example is the Rockway Neighbourhood, Gardens & Golf Course <\/strong>CHL, with only the tiny sliver of Floral Crescent<\/strong> included on Map 9a, but not mentioned in the Section 16 document. We understand that only parts of a CHL may be within a SP boundary, but waiting until the perfect time to introduce these protections means more time for built heritage resources to be lost or irreparably altered<\/strong>.<\/p>\n ACTION<\/u><\/strong>: ensure SPs include protection of CHLs, even if this means a fractured approach to their implementation<\/strong><\/p>\n The proposed SP policies outline some existing protection tools<\/strong> such as Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA), required for development applications having the potential to impact property of Specific Cultural Heritage Landscape Interest.<\/em> Whether a CHL is identified in a SP or not, Part IV, Part V and Listed properties within those CHLs already had this protection under the Ontario Heritage Act<\/em> and the Official Plan.<\/p>\n What is troubling to ACO NWR are the limitations<\/strong> the proposed SP policies suggest for properties located within a CHL which do not already possess heritage status. For these properties, proposed SP policies say the HIA \u201cmay be scoped and limited in review to assess visual and contextual impact.\u201d The OP states CHLs must be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register<\/strong>. Our interpretation is that this means every property within a CHL identified in the OP should be considered a Listed property, with the same protections as other Listed properties.<\/p>\n ACTION<\/u><\/strong>: ensure <\/strong>CHLs are listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, with every property within the CHL, at minimum, a Listed property<\/strong><\/p>\n Every property has some cultural heritage value<\/strong>, but not every one is given heritage status, which offers some protection under provincial, regional and municipal rules. Those rules provide a framework, a process where we can identify, evaluate and choose to protect, or not, properties in our municipality.<\/p>\n In its introduction, the City of Kitchener\u2019s Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments states, \u201cA Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential<\/strong> cultural heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future development.\u201d<\/p>\n If the terms of reference of a HIA are scoped, this limits its ability to examine the impact of development on potential<\/strong> cultural heritage properties.<\/p>\n The OP states (12.C.1.4. and 12.C.1.5.): \u201cThe City acknowledges that not all of the city\u2019s cultural heritage resources have been identified. Accordingly, a property does not have to be listed or designated<\/strong> to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. Through the processing of applications submitted under the Planning Act resources of potential<\/strong> cultural heritage value or interest will be<\/strong> identified<\/strong>, evaluated<\/strong> and considered for listing or designation.\u201d<\/p>\n Why limit the power of the HIA by omitting key sections on some projects? This is an opportunity that shouldn\u2019t be passed up to truly evaluate the cultural heritage potential <\/strong>of properties that are located within a CHL. Chances are good that the potential is there simply by its proximity to other heritage properties.<\/p>\n ACTION<\/u><\/strong>: ensure all HIA Terms of Reference require the full scope to identify, evaluate and protect resources of potential cultural heritage value or interest within CHLs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n