��ݮ��Ƶ

Picking up from last time… if we can — and do — have automatic protection for archaeological sites in Ontario, why not for other kinds of cultural heritage?

Let’s get back to the concept of automatic protection for cultural heritage resources — the idea that they get “instant” protection without going through some form of decision process.

I say “back” because perceptive readers may have noticed that the three shipwrecks we looked at last time are not automatically protected. Or rather, they get the same automatic protection in Ontario as archaeological sites on land, but the added protection they enjoy — the no-access zone surrounding them — is not automatic. Far from it!  As we saw it takes a regulation passed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council (aka Cabinet) to confer this special status.

Still with archaeology and how it is protected in Ontario, what about our marine heritage?

What if cultural heritage resources were automatically protected?  No painstaking selection, no long designation process, no council decisions and political shenanigans, no drawn-out, unpredictable reviews or appeals. The law just decrees that all heritage resources are protected, end of story.

Pure preservationist fantasy, right?

Sure, but one that may not be as far-fetched as we think.

Last I checked Ontario was the only province to have a legislated listing mechanism — that is, a way of giving official recognition to heritage property separate from heritage designation.

How did this develop?  And how did what started out as one kind of animal — a formal identification tool — mutate over time into something rather different.

The depths of February may make us yearn for summer. So let’s celebrate Heritage Week with an escape from the day-to-day — and the serious policy talk — to an historic summer resort in winter, its beauty tinged with the wistfulness of the snowy off season.

2015 ended with an important OMB decision on the question of adjacency — the impact of proposed development on adjacent heritage property.

But first, some background. Ten years previous, a new cultural heritage policy was introduced in the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. Policy 2.6.3, known as the “adjacent lands policy”, now reads:

I feel like this should come with an advisory: 

***The following post is intended for mature, if geeky and/or masochistic, audiences. May contain passages that are pedantic, exasperating, or numbingly dull. Reader discretion is advised.***

Don’t say you weren’t warned!

Today we delve into definitions, their fortes and foibles, with the spotlight on “cultural heritage.”

Happy 2016!

Another year, another heritage policy anniversary. It was 10 years ago (already!) that Ontario got two new regulations on cultural heritage significance: Ontario Regulation 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06, usually known as O. Reg. 9/06 and O. Reg. 10/06.

Today’s case, another from the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), is from 2010. In ADMS Kelvingrove Investment Corporation v. City of Toronto we see an important evolution in the Board’s understanding and enunciation of its role when confronted on appeal with the all too common face-off between heritage and development/intensification.