The filed record
Report of the Working Group to Consider Options to Improve the Advisory Role of the Toronto Preservation Board
The Public Gallery wrote no story on this item. What follows is the city’s own record of what happened to it, as filed: nothing on this page is summarised or scored by us.
The decision
2020-10-30 · Toronto Preservation Board · amended
As filed
The Toronto Preservation Board directed that the recommendations contained in the Letter (September 26, 2020) from Elizabeth Sisam, Working Group Member be forwarded to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning for consideration and further discussion, and for a report back to the Toronto Preservation Board.
On the agenda
As the city filed it
In her presentation of December 2, 2019, the Senior Manager Heritage Planning invited the Toronto Preservation Board to make recommendations about improvements to the advisory capacity and more timely input of Board members. The presentation also included discussion about the significant impact of Bill 108 as it affects heritage decision making. Since that meeting, board members have written to the Chair of the Board with thoughts and suggestions.
Show the rest of As the city filed it, 1,426 more characters as filed
At the January 27, 2020 meeting of the Board, a working group comprising five members of the Toronto Preservation Board and one staff member from Heritage Planning was struck to discuss the issues and suggestions and make recommendations that would address these concerns. The working group met several times over a seven month period, consulted with heritage consultants and other professionals and discussed the thoughts and suggestions outlined in the letter from the Chair of the Toronto Preservation Board dated January 20, 2020. (attached) Four critical concerns are detailed in the report which must be addressed to ensure preservation of the city's cultural heritage landscape: Minimal participation by heritage professionals during early project discussions and peer project reviews Narrow focus on project review limiting discussion of heritage and the cultural landscape Incomplete and graphically poor project information provided to the Toronto Preservation Board Lack of opportunity for public comments and deputations Immediate changes are necessary to strengthen heritage oversight of development proposals. Ideally these can occur within the current framework of the planning process and implemented within the statutory mandate of the Board not requiring Council approval. Inaction or lengthy delays in procedural approvals will result in a loss of heritage attributes and the cultural landscape in our city.
Staff recommended
The working group proposes the following recommendations for consideration by the Toronto Preservation Board: 1. Allow for early participation in pre-application consultations by Heritage Planning with discussion including broader contextual concerns. For some projects, members of the Toronto Preservation Board, independent heritage professionals or other professionals with a track record in conservation and planning of cultural heritage resources might also be asked to participate.
Show the rest of Staff recommended, 2,683 more characters as filed
This will provide an overview of important heritage concerns at an early stage in the project. 2. Identify issues in the pre-application discussion and include discussion of them in the heritage impact assessment and in the staff report to the Toronto Preservation Board when the project is considered for approval. 3. Increase opportunities for local community participation by expanding the role of the Community Preservation Panels to include the review of redevelopment proposals. 4. Establish a Heritage Review Panel of heritage professionals made up of a roster of heritage preservation professionals and other professionals with a track record in conservation and planning of cultural heritage resources. Members of the Panel would be called on to: a. provide expertise at Community Preservation Panels, b. participate as members of the Design Review Panel to increase heritage presence, and c. review projects that are not scheduled for review by the Design Review Panel. 5. Expand the membership of the Design Review Committee to include additional heritage professionals to ensure that all projects with potential heritage impacts will have the benefit of this expertise. Heritage Planning should collaborate with other Planning and Urban Design staff in the preparation and presentation to the Design Review Panel. Minutes of the meeting should be given to the Preservation Board at the time of their issuance. 6. Expand opportunities for early and frequent public participation. This should occur with the preparation of heritage impact assessment, discussion of the project at the Community Preservation Panels, and public consultation meetings. 7. The working group further recommends that a pilot Heritage Preservation Panel should be established for a two year period to: participate in early project discussions at Community Preservation Panels when heritage resources are being considered, participate in early pre-application Planning discussions, and review projects that are not scheduled for the Design Review Panel. The two year "pilot" project not requiring major committee or inter-departmental staff reorganization would be introduced to test recommendations. An evaluation of the pilot initiative could provide some helpful insights for a more robust and longer-term re-structuring of the heritage review process that the current Toronto Preservation Board considers is necessary. 8. Complete the city-wide survey of heritage resources. Heritage preservation requires a comprehensive up to date heritage inventory of listed and designated properties. Acceleration of this initiative will provide Heritage Planning with the necessary tools to do their work.
On the record
More from this meeting
- Proposed New Ontario Heritage Act RegulationsFiled record
- Alterations to a Property Designated Under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act - 1067 Yonge StreetFiled record
- Intention to Designate under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and Authority to Enter Into a Heritage Easement Agreement - 165 Stanley AvenueFiled record
- Intention to Designate under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act - 41 and 47 Fraser Avenue and 135 Liberty StreetFiled record
- Demolition of a Property Designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act - 33 Avenue RoadFiled record
- Inclusion on the City of Toronto's Heritage Register, Intention to Designate under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Alterations to a Heritage Property and Authority to Enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement - 60 Queen Street East and 131, 133 and 135 Church StreetFiled record