CONTENTS
Wednesday 10 June 1998
City of Kitchener Act, 1998, Bill Pr15, Mr Wettlaufer
Ms Debra Arnold
Mr Leon Bensason
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair / Président
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale L)
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Viktor Kaczkowski
Staff / Personnel
Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1004 in committee room 1.
CITY OF KITCHENER ACT, 1998
Consideration of Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the Corporation of the City of Kitchener.
The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning, all. Welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills for Wednesday, June 10, 1998.
We all have an agenda before us with a number of attachments. I wish to first mention a change with respect to the agenda. We wish to begin with the second order of business, Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the Corporation of the City of Kitchener. The applicants are here. I would ask the applicants to approach the witness table.
Private bill 15 is sponsored by MPP Wayne Wettlaufer. I would ask Mr Wettlaufer for some introductory remarks and then we would have the introduction of the applicants.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Yes, I do have some introductory remarks.
Being an historian, I am particularly concerned about the loss of historical properties, or heritage properties, that we have experienced not only in my community of Kitchener but throughout Ontario over the past 20 or 30 years. I think we all have been in various parts of the world and have marvelled at the old structures and how the governments took care to preserve them, whether it be Georgia, where we have seen the antebellum homes preserved in the cities of Macon or Marietta, or whether we went to Savannah, Georgia, for instance, and saw how they preserved the old industrial properties and in some cases transformed them to today's uses while still maintaining the character of the properties. Or we could go to Europe and see the not just century-old but thousand-year-old buildings and again how they have in some cases transformed them to today's uses while preserving the character.
I think it's very important that we preserve our buildings for not just today's youth, not just tomorrow's youth, but the youth of generations to come. A civilization without history or without heritage is a civilization without a future.
This bill is substantially similar to other bills in other municipalities, such as the city of Toronto, the city of London, the town of Markham, the town of Milton, the town of Oakville, the town of Vaughan, the city of Burlington, the city of Hamilton, the city of Scarborough and the city of Brantford. I would urge the members of the committee to strongly consider accepting this.
The Chair: I would ask the applicants to please introduce themselves.
Ms Debra Arnold: My name is Debra Arnold. I'm a lawyer with the city of Kitchener and I prepared the compendium and the application for consideration by the committee and the Legislature. This is an application for private legislation with respect to demolition control of buildings and structures.
I think Mr Shea has --
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Excuse me. I just want to be put on the order for a question. Normal routine is just to watch to see who wants them. I want to go up first. Sorry.
Ms Arnold: This is an application with respect to the demolition control for properties that are architecturally or historically significant and really is intended to augment the current legislation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Perhaps briefly, by way of background, I'd just ask my colleague Leon Bensason, who is a heritage planner with the city of Kitchener, to give a very brief overview of the city's heritage program before I talk a bit about the provisions of the bill itself.
Mr Leon Bensason: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I'd like to take this opportunity to quickly explain to you why the city of Kitchener has made this application to seek greater control over the demolition of its designated heritage resources.
The city of Kitchener is committed to the preservation of its most significant heritage resources. Heritage policies have been in place in the official plan since 1977, and today the city has some of the most comprehensive heritage policies of any municipality in the province. Its local architectural conservation advisory committee, also known as LACAC, was established in 1979. Presently there are some 70 individual properties which have been designated under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and there are two heritage conservation districts in the city designating some 450 properties under part V of the Heritage Act.
1010
In 1992, the city formally established a heritage planning function within the planning department, and the city has had a heritage planner on its staff since 1993.
However, even with these measures, some of the city's most significant heritage resources continue to be threatened with demolition.
Like many other cities in Ontario, and especially southern Ontario, Kitchener was shaped by industry, and many of the industrial factories which helped define Kitchener still stand as reminders of Kitchener's great industrial past. However, newer, high-growth industries and the shift in the global economy have had an impact on the city. Several plant closures and the demise of certain types of manufacturing have led to the vulnerability of some of Kitchener's architecturally and historically significant industrial properties. It seems that problem has expanded and accelerated to impact not only industrial properties but institutional and commercial properties as well.
While the city has passed demolition control legislation under the Ontario Planning Act, that legislation is really limited to residential properties only. Many of our more significant non-residential resources have already been lost due to speculative redevelopment plans, and several more are threatened today. We have some images of some of the non-residential heritage resources in the city which are presently threatened with demolition, and I understand copies are being made for distribution.
What this proposed bill will do is provide city council with the ability to prevent the establishment of a vacant lot at the expense of a designated heritage resource. Like several other municipalities in the province which have already been granted similar legislation, we've recognized that this special demolition control power is key to meeting greater public expectations regarding the conservation of the city's heritage resources.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee, and I believe Ms Arnold would like to make some more comments.
Ms Arnold: Just briefly, to talk a bit about the bill itself, under the current legislation, the Ontario Heritage Act, there is provision for a city council, where it's appropriate, to refuse a demolition permit under that act and temporarily suspend the demolition for a period of 180 days. It's hoped that during that period of time some solutions come to the fore so that the building is preserved.
This private legislation -- as Mr Wettlaufer mentioned, there are 10 other Ontario municipalities that have virtually identical legislation -- would augment that so that not only is there the 180-day waiting period, but additionally, if there aren't immediate redevelopment plans so that the property owner doesn't have a building permit issued to redevelop the site, then the permit under the private legislation need not be granted.
It's simply a tool for city council. It's not something that would apply in every case, I'm sure. It's just where it's appropriate, and certainly there is provision in the private bill for recourse back to city council where the time frames are onerous. Appeal to the OMB is also provided for in the private bill.
As Mr Bensason mentioned, it's basically the mirror image of the demolition control provisions under the Ontario Planning Act, which have been in effect for many, many years. It's something that was needed in the area of non-residential properties that are of a historical or architecturally significant nature.
Those are my submissions. I thank the committee for its consideration of this private bill and I'd be pleased to address any questions or comments that the committee may have.
The Chair: Before we get to questions from the committee, are there any interested parties who also wish to speak to this bill?
Seeing none, I would now ask the parliamentary assistant, municipal affairs, MPP Ernie Hardeman, for comments on behalf of the government.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Good morning, Mr Wettlaufer and guests. I just want to point out, as the applicants have pointed out, that this is not a precedent-setting bill. In fact, the city of Toronto has an act similar to that, a private bill that was moved in 1987. The towns of Markham and Oakville obtained their legislation in 1991, the city of Vaughan and the city of Hamilton in 1992, Burlington in 1994. Scarborough, Brantford and Milton's bills were heard on March 27, 1996, which of course would have been during the term of this committee, so it would not be precedent-setting for the committee to approve this bill today.
As is done with bills of this nature or other natures that come before this committee, the bill has been circulated to government ministries for comments from ministries that may have some comments to make on the bill to assist the committee in their decision. Of course, the most prevalent ministry in this case was the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, which indicated that they have no objection to the bill, that they support this bill as a mirror image, I suppose, of the previous bill that had been passed.
It also is a similar bill to what the ministry is presently looking at in putting amendments in the Ontario Heritage Act to deal with the protection of our historical resources. So the ministry sees this as a stopgap approach to deal with the situation in Kitchener in anticipation of a province-wide piece of legislation that would deal with it across the province.
Having said that, they register no objections and leave the committee to make its own decisions.
There were no other replies from any other ministries that would assist the committee in its decision-making, as to whether it should or should not support the bill.
With that, we turn it over to the committee members, Mr Chair.
The Chair: I have several questions from committee members, and questions are directed either to the applicants or to the parliamentary assistant. Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: Let me first ask the parliamentary assistant -- since he referred to the city of Toronto, let me start with that, and the applicant may want to listen to the question.
In Pr15, to your knowledge, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, are there any differences than what would be in the legislation applicable to the city of Toronto?
Mr Hardeman: My understanding is no, that they would be limited to zero differences between the two --
Mr Shea: I want to be very clear about that, because you did in your comments say this was not precedent-setting, and indeed I think your comments were, "This is a mirror reflection."
Mr Hardeman: I guess I do want to clarify it, Mr Shea, that I'm not personally aware of putting the documents side by side and knowing whether they are written in exactly the same way, but the intent of both pieces of legislation is identical.
Mr Shea: To your knowledge, is legislative counsel or anyone in the western world able to answer that question? I want to be assured that what we're looking at is in fact the mirror --
Mr Hardeman: It may very well be appropriate to ask the applicant, because I would not be surprised if in fact this document was prepared with the other documents made available to prepare it from.
Mr Shea: I'm going there next. Then let me turn my question to the applicant and ask the applicant to indicate where in their opinion this bill may include additional or less provision than would apply to, say, that for the city of Toronto or the other precedents that you had cited.
Ms Arnold: The city of Toronto bill, as I recall, may have had different transitional provisions and what not. I did not use their act as the basis for the city of Kitchener bill. I used some of the later bills: the city of Hamilton, Scarborough, Milton, Brantford. I know that when I reviewed their acts, one of the things that I changed, which in my view is a minor modification, was to deal with the fact that there could be a partial demolition of a designated property.
For example, on a historically significant designated property in the city of Kitchener I believe one of the designated aspects is the porch. We felt that the existing private acts of other municipalities don't address a situation where the owner wants to just partially demolish; for example, just wants to demolish the porch.
I revised that aspect of the previous bill to provide in our proposed bill that it could be demolition of part of the designated property or in its entirety.
1020
Mr Shea: Who makes that decision? City council?
Ms Arnold: When a property is designated, there are reasons for designation --
Mr Shea: I do understand that; I'm just trying to get to the point of who, in your opinion, has the authority to decide whether or not a partial demolition will be granted. Is that city council?
Ms Arnold: That's right, with a recommendation from its LACAC, its committee.
Mr Shea: So anything to do with that site, partial or complete, requires the council's approval within the specified time frame.
Ms Arnold: That's correct.
Mr Shea: All right. Now let me be very clear about this. The 180-day time frame is not just unique to this bill but is in common with all the bills, the 180-day time frame. Would you agree?
Ms Arnold: That's the time period that runs after council has made its decision.
Mr Shea: After council has made its decision.
Ms Arnold: And council has 90 days to make its decision.
Mr Shea: There is also a provision which requires a building permit to be issued.
Ms Arnold: There's no requirement that a building permit be issued.
Mr Shea: But if there is no building permit issued and one assumes either it has not been approved or plans have not been submitted for approval, then in what stage is the owner left? This is an area of some contention, for example, in the city of Toronto where council may want to try to find ways to effectively extend the 180 days well beyond that horizon. Do you follow the question? Let me put it into a scenario for you.
Ms Arnold: There is provision in our private bill at section 4 to provide relief from time restrictions, so that if council makes an initial refusal of the demolition permit under the private act --
Mr Shea: And it has up to 90 days to do so.
Ms Arnold: That's correct. The 180 days have elapsed and council has, by effect, imposed then the requirement that if the owner is not going to build a new building on that site after demolition and complete it within two years, he can't proceed with the demolition. There is provision, under section 4, for the property owner to apply to city council for relief from those restrictions, that the construction of the new building has become not feasible on economic or other grounds or it's not possible to complete the new building within the two-year period. Further, beyond that, if the property owner is not satisfied with the decision of council, under that section he or she has recourse to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr Shea: That process in some cases could take forever. We understand how municipal councils can take advantage of time frames, to the advantage of their community as well as in some cases to the disadvantage of applicants. That may, from time to time, occur. We're talking 90 days, we're talking 180 days and we're talking about appeal processes that may or may not click in either at the end of 180 days or what then effectively could be 270 days.
Ms Arnold: Correct. Well, 269.
Mr Shea: On the 270th day, either at midnight --
Ms Arnold: Yes.
Mr Shea: It's like the millennium debate: When does it occur?
Ms Arnold: If council meetings coincide, then you're right, it could be a maximum of 270 days.
Mr Shea: At that point, even if council refuses to grant a permit and the applicant is still of the opinion that negotiations have not been fairly undertaken with council -- it doesn't happen very often, but obviously one has to assume there could be some opportunities in the future where that may be the case -- then the applicant has to go to the courts or OMB for relief.
Ms Arnold: Yes. Anyone can go to the courts. Whether or not they're going to have jurisdiction or be successful --
Mr Shea: But the courts are not going to hear much before the 270.
Ms Arnold: No. Because there is the built-in appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, I would think that the courts would decline jurisdiction because there is appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr Shea: That's my point, that then the OMB process clicks in. What is the time frame for the OMB hearing?
Ms Arnold: That's up to --
Mr Shea: Up to the OMB.
Ms Arnold: That's right.
Mr Shea: One then takes the 270-day horizon and adds on to that a horizon, whatever it may be, that is within the purview of the OMB?
Ms Arnold: It's up to the applicant. If during the council's 90-day time period to consider the application they render their decision, which is to refuse the demolition permit, then I'm not sure why the applicant would wait the 180 days to go the OMB. If he has his refusal from city council, I imagine that it would be reasonable that he would immediately appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board and not wait the six months.
Mr Shea: That's a very reasonable response to my question. There have been cases where councils have not been quite as reasonable, that have waited until the 180th day to make a comment.
Ms Arnold: I imagine that's also a matter for the Ontario Municipal Board, when they issue their procedural order for that particular appeal and issue deadlines for the municipality to respond and proceed with the appeal. That's again a matter for the Ontario Municipal Board, to move the appeal along. It's not something that the municipality has control over because they --
Mr Shea: Let me make sure I'm very clear because we're both at cross purposes here. The fact is the 90 days is very clearly set as a time frame within the control of council; 180 days is something that has been legislated with agreement across the province. That's a 180-day horizon period. That is very clear and fixed. Council doesn't have to do anything until the 180th day. Would you agree?
Ms Arnold: No, I'm sorry.
Mr Shea: Would you disagree?
Ms Arnold: Let me go back to the process. Council has 90 days to render a decision. If on the 90th day council refuses the demolition permit, the owner has a number of options at that point.
Mr Shea: Within the 180-day frame?
Ms Arnold: On the 90th day, when he has his decision in hand, the owner can decide to wait the 180 days and then he is entitled to a demolition permit.
Mr Shea: That's the point I was waiting to hear. I want to make sure we're very clear that at that point, in your mind as well as everybody else's, it is clear that it would automatically be granted at the end of 180 days.
Ms Arnold: Under the current legislation, under the Ontario Heritage Act, that is the law as I understand it.
Mr Shea: And Pr15 is not doing anything to mitigate that?
Ms Arnold: The proposed bill would add to the 180-day period and further say to the property owner, "If we think it's not appropriate to demolish this building, if we want to try to find a way to save this building, then there is going to be a 180-day waiting period and we are not going to grant the demolition permit unless you also have redevelopment plans as evidenced by issuance of a building permit and, further, that the building is essentially completed within two years of the demolition of the designated building."
It builds on the current --
Mr Shea: The owner can then go for relief if he says, "Look, this is not reasonable," or go to the OMB.
Ms Arnold: That's right. He can go to council and say, "It's not economically or otherwise reasonable or appropriate for you to say that I can't just demolish this building and walk away and leave a vacant lot." Council may at that time agree and say, "You're right."
Mr Shea: Or disagree.
Ms Arnold: Or disagree.
Mr Shea: What happens when they disagree?
Ms Arnold: If council disagrees, then the property owner can live with that decision or appeal that to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr Shea: This is still the point under which I am -- what we're doing is extending the 180 days into another process which can go on for what period of time we're not sure. That's in the purview of the OMB.
Ms Arnold: Of the OMB and the appellant, the property owner.
Mr Shea: Is there some reason why your clients need to go beyond the 180 days? If we're not talking 270 days in total and if the council and the owner at that point simply can't arrive at any kind of an understanding, is there any reason to ask for authority to protract that debate even further? And the cost, I might add.
Ms Arnold: We certainly recognize in the proposed bill that we don't want to hold up redevelopment plans. Redevelopment plans are generally good for a municipality in terms of property tax revenue and employment and other good things. However, we do want to provide for the preservation of a designated property where the proposal is simply to demolish the building and leave a vacant lot, possibly for speculative purposes, possibly for other reasons. We see that there's no immediate need to demolish a building that is a treasure, a part of our heritage resources, to leave a vacant lot.
Mr Shea: While I understand and approve that philosophy, even though others may not -- I approve what you've just said. But having said that, also having had my own experience with municipal government, one has to say, surely, if you have not been able to arrive at some kind of an understanding within 270 days, you've got trouble in River City. Is there a way to bring that to a speedy resolution, or are we simply saying it is a war of attrition, it's to enrich the lawyers, and let's get on to the OMB and carry on and see if we can expedite this as much as possible?
Ms Arnold: It's in the hands of the property owner. The property owner may think, "I'm going to just wait now, not appeal to the OMB, wait until I do have a redevelopment plan and then again apply under the bill for a demolition permit."
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I wasn't sure whether the honourable member has a vested interest in any of these properties or other properties in the city of Kitchener. I was a little concerned there for a moment where he was going.
I'd like to, first of all, welcome not only my good colleague Wayne but Debra and Leon, people I worked with when I was on council in the city of Kitchener. I'm quite familiar with these properties. I envision the private member's bill as an act that's applicable to the city of Kitchener. It may or may not be to the city of Toronto or another municipality, but it's a compilation, I'm sure, of other acts and input from the community, particularly the historical community and the legal community. But bear in mind that it's applicable to the city of Kitchener. It's their needs. It's a tool to assist them in the preservation of historic properties.
I compliment them and I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the late Mike Wagner, a councillor I served with, who through his stewardship of preservation and historical committees, both in the city and the region, I'm sure is shining down on us this morning and complimenting Debra and Leon for bringing this forward. Thank you very much.
Mr Hardeman: I guess when I put my hand up to the question I had a different train of thought than I have now, with the comments from Mr Wettlaufer. I do want to put out to the committee -- and this is not necessarily the gospel; it's just my opinion -- but I think it's very important that we recognize that this act does apply only to the city of Kitchener and the ability of Kitchener to protect their historical designation. But as it relates to what this committee is going to be asked to vote on, it is giving authority to a level of government to deal with private property within their municipality.
As a citizen of Kitchener or a citizen of any municipality which has the ability to create these types of bylaws, I am going to be governed differently and I'm going to be told I can do different things with my property than I could if I lived on the other side of the line. As an individual, I buy a property on one side of the line. Technically, I suppose, I could buy a property that is on the border between Kitchener and Waterloo and that could be a historically significant building. I could get a building permit and do with that piece of property on the Waterloo side as I saw fit, but because of what the provincial government has done in giving the city of Kitchener authority to regulate the other half of the building I no longer can do that. I'm not sure that the people in the city of Kitchener own that building or should control that building. I suppose, as an individual, I have some concerns with that.
I do want to ask a question to the applicant. It was referred that this bylaw or the authority for this goes a little further and it deals with partial demolitions as opposed to all the others dealing with only the demolition of a building. How do you deal with a request for a demolition to take part off a building that you have absolutely no intentions of replacing? I may have a building with a veranda or an overhang on the front that is no longer of value to the property owner. In fact, they're not going to replace it, it's going to be totally removed, so we just want a demolition permit. Can the city, through their bylaw, say, "No, you can't change that building unless you build a new veranda on it in exactly the same way that the old one is there"? Can we put the property owner through the same hoops to replace a veranda as to replace the 100,000-square-foot building?
Mr Bensason: I'll try to answer your question. The city has in the past dealt with partial demolitions of properties that have been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. When a property is designated, it's the real property that in fact has the bylaw that's registered against the title of the property. Then, as Debra Arnold had mentioned before, it's the reasons for designation that identify what are the specific features that make that particular property significant.
In some cases, it's features that aren't included in the reasons for designation that might apply to a demolition application, in which case it's granted. In other cases in the past, we've had experiences where a particular feature that is significant has been requested for demolition and it has been granted as well. Council appreciates that these designations have to recognize that buildings evolve, need change, and that certain portions of buildings may have to be demolished to make them more functional and useful.
Mr Hardeman: I may not have got to the point. I think the ability to restrict demolition exists presently in the Ontario Heritage Act and it doesn't go to the point that, beyond that time, you have to allow or not allow a demolition. You want to include in the act now that to get a demolition permit will require the issue of a building permit, so you are going to replace what is there. You're not just tearing it down to get rid of it. You are actually removing it for further development.
Mr Bensason: Right.
Mr Hardeman: A partial demolition is not predicated on replacement. It may be to remove it. I may want to take the side off this historic building to create a parking lot. I don't need a permit for a parking lot. Can the municipality refuse the demolition because I do not have a permit to replace something?
Ms Arnold: Maybe I could just respond. As Mr Bensason mentioned, a designation doesn't mean a bylaw is registered against the real property. Within that property there may even be a farmhouse, a barn and an outbuilding, for example. I felt that the other municipalities' bills that I looked at didn't address where it was just the demolition of the outbuilding and not the farmhouse. It was just demolition of the entire site that would require the building permit and not demolition of part of the site, so I suppose in that example, if they just wanted to demolish the barn, I felt that the bill should address that type of a partial demolition of the designated property as a whole.
Mr Hardeman: To get very specific, in my own municipality a number of years ago there was a church that had a steeple that was getting in bad shape. They looked at designating it in order to get some assistance through, at that time, the Ministry of Culture to repair the steeple. When the parishioners realized that, even after the grant process, to follow the rules under the heritage designation it was going to be more costly than they could afford to put up, they decided to just remove the steeple. If this authority was granted to my municipality, could they have said, "You can't get a demolition permit to remove that steeple unless you show us that you're getting a building permit to put something back," if the building was designated?
Mr Bensason: In a case such as that, we wouldn't consider that to be a demolition. It would be an alteration application under the heritage act and not under the private bill. This private bill wouldn't kick in because it's considered to be an alteration. You're essentially keeping the church structure. It's just the steeple that you're altering by removing it. There wouldn't be any added obligation in terms of getting a building permit in order to make that alteration.
Mr Hardeman: The significance is that a demolition permit is the removal of a total building?
Mr Bensason: A total building or a portion thereof, but we're not talking about an alteration; there's a difference between an alteration and a demolition.
Mr Hardeman: I was reasonably happy if a demolition is to remove the whole building. But if you're talking about the municipality getting to decide what is an alteration and what is a demolition, that they can decide that I no longer can get a permit to take the lean-to off the side of the building because it's historically significant, and I have to apply at the same time to put another lean-to on it, I think that may be giving authority to local government that is well beyond the property rights this government doesn't have that belong to the people who own the property.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Mr Shea and Mr Hardeman have expressed most of my concerns. I think you're going beyond what is reasonable. I think the provincial heritage act covers the interests, as well it might. You might strengthen your bill if you were to put some alternatives in place for the landowner, the property owner; ie, if he does not have development rights but you think it's worthwhile, then there should be a tax abatement on his property. Further, if you want to move it -- and I didn't see it there --
Ms Arnold: There is under the Assessment Act.
Mr Sheehan: Right down to zero?
Ms Arnold: If it's vacant commercial, it's assessed at --
Mr Sheehan: Down to zero?
Ms Arnold: That's provincial jurisdiction.
Mr Sheehan: Okay, I stand to be corrected. I'm not an expert on it. The other thing is, if you are going to push beyond the 270 days that Mr Shea was talking about, then I suggest you put a provision in to buy the property. If you want it, you should buy it. You should not impose your will on the citizen. That's my comment. I can't support the bill.
Mr Shea: I don't want to keep chewing at this because I want to make a comment as well. There is one fundamental question I have to ask the deputants: Has Pr15 received city council approval? Two, has Pr15 been circulated to the municipality for public deputations?
Ms Arnold: Just to review the process for an application for a private bill. Maybe if the committee members are provided with a copy of the compendium, they will see that the minutes of council's meetings are attached. A copy of the resolution of council and the confirmatory bylaw authorizing the application for the private bill are attached. A requirement that the province imposes on making an application is that there has to be advertisement, I believe, four times in the local newspaper and there has to be advertisement, I believe, four times in the Ontario Gazette as well.
Mr Shea: Your answer is helpful, not quite complete. Did city council hold a particular hearing or set aside a time for deputation?
Ms Arnold: This application came before the city's Heritage Kitchener committee, or LACAC as it's known under the Ontario Heritage Act. This appeared as an item on its agenda. Any member of the public could appear and speak to the committee members about the proposed bill. Then subsequently, in February --
Mr Shea: Let me just interrupt for a minute. That committee is a committee of council?
Ms Arnold: It's a committee made up of city councillors. It's a committee of council in that there are city councillors on that as well as interested members --
Mr Shea: It's an agency, board, commission thing; it's not a standing committee of council in the formal sense. I understand what you're saying. It heard deputations and then it reported out to council?
Ms Arnold: That's correct, with a recommendation that the application be proceeded with. Then in February 1997, this matter came before city council again as an agenda item. Any member of the public was welcome to appear and make submissions. Subsequently, in the fall of 1997, the prepared application compendium was presented to Heritage Kitchener for its consideration and report to city council, which followed at the end of October 1997, at which time council approved the application and compendium by way of resolution and confirmatory bylaw.
The advertisements that I previously mentioned are designed, of course, to bring it to everyone's attention in addition to it being on the agendas of Heritage Kitchener and council twice each, for a total of four times. I believe the net result of all those efforts was two submissions by members of the public, the first of which was a planning consultant with whom we met and, I believe, alleviated his concerns on behalf of his client so that they had no concerns and, as you see, are not here today. The second person who wrote to express his concern I don't believe is present today. I had no contact with him. That was the net result: two parties who expressed a concern and one of whom appears to be completely satisfied with the content of this bill.
I just want to emphasize that not only have 10 other municipalities had this legislation in place, but I was unable to find, in a search of the law database, any appeals on any of this legislation to the Ontario Municipal Board. I may stand to be corrected, because this is just my research, but I was unable to find any appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. As I believe was mentioned, the Toronto legislation has been in place in excess of 10 years.
I also want to emphasize that this legislation is of the same theme as the demolition control under the Planning Act. I don't know if the members are familiar with that. The demolition provisions of the Planning Act have been in place in excess of 20 years; I stand to be corrected, but I know at least 20 years. They provide that you cannot demolish a residential property -- and it doesn't matter if it is historically or architecturally significant at all. My house, your house, if you want to demolish that house, council can refuse to issue the demolition permit under the demolition control bylaw of the Planning Act unless you have a building permit issued for that same site and intend to immediately build another building on that site within a stated time frame; it can't be less than two years.
Mr Sheehan: Then why do you need the bill?
Ms Arnold: Because that, as Mr Bensason mentioned, only applies to residential properties, heritage or non-heritage properties. It doesn't apply in the case of non-residential properties. There is circulating a colour photocopy of four examples of non-residential heritage properties in the city of Kitchener that the city is interested in preserving; not standing in the way of redevelopment, but saying, "Let's not rush to demolish a building and leave a vacant lot if it's possible to redevelop the site using the facade or other features of the existing building, or without building another building on that site."
I just want to emphasize this is not by any stretch a revolutionary concept that I'd otherwise love to claim credit for; it's a theme that's been in the Planning Act demolition control provisions for over 20 years. As I said, 10 other municipalities have this legislation.
The Chair: Mr Martin.
Mr Shea: No, I'm not finished yet.
Mr Wettlaufer: I wonder if I can add something to that.
The Chair: Okay, Mr Wettlaufer and then, Mr Shea, you had a supplementary question.
Mr Shea: No, I hadn't completed my questioning, but thank you.
Mr Wettlaufer: In the photocopy of the photos that has been circulated, the top left-hand corner is one of the finest examples in our region of Georgian architecture. That is a prime example of a building which could be modified on the interior to provide tenant housing, for instance. It's the old St Jerome's high school building. It's 100 years old, give or take. It is an example of a building that the residents of the city of Kitchener would like to preserve.
1050
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I'm satisfied with the work that the applicants have done on this piece. I think it's in keeping with the efforts of a lot of communities to try and retain our history, our heritage. I think in this day when we are so often caught up, it seems, in who we are, it's important that we remember who we are by way of some of these buildings and symbols, what they mean and the stories they encase and preserve for the communities in which we all live. So I'll be supporting the application.
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): The motion from city council was that this bill is to be substantially similar to the ones passed for the city of Milton and the city of Brantford. You've cited another dozens examples or so of legislation, which is actually quite recent, drafted in this regard. If that's the case, this is really nothing new for this committee. We've done this for these other locations and communities across Ontario, and if the dictate of the council is to follow a similar kind of pattern, I have no problem at all supporting this application.
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have no problem with that either. I think this government is encouraging local decisions, local control. There are a lot of provisions in this bill that before any decision is made there will be city-wide public consultation and the public has the right to appear at city council and indicate their support or lack of support. I'm not worried about that. I move acceptance of Bill Pr15, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: I have some further questions. Mr Hardeman.
Mr Hardeman: I share most of the comments that were just made as they relate to this committee having dealt with a number of pieces of legislation that are the same as this. My only concern is not where we are the same but where we are different, I guess maybe to the detriment of the applicant being very thorough in their presentation, suggesting that the only place we are different is that we have extended this authority on partial as opposed to full demolitions. This would give more authority in Kitchener than anywhere else in the province, if this is the only one that has that.
I have a question as to how much the applicants believe this will change the scheme of things in Kitchener. I know you put it there because you realized that may come up. Do you envision that as a major issue in Kitchener? You mentioned the issue of a farmstead with a house and a barn and driveshed and the fact that you want to be able to demolish one. In the city of Kitchener how many historical farmsteads do you have and how often will that come forward?
The other one, if I could just quickly, is that I have a copy of a note that was sent through the public notice. I'm not sure you can answer it, but the individual says he is opposed to the application the city is making: "As a victim of this confiscatory act, I protest this action. Actions of this and similar kind should be treated like expropriation and fall under the coverage of the Ontario Expropriation Act...." Could you give me a bit of an explanation of why you believe that's not so?
Mr Bensason: Let me try to answer your first question. Number one, there are a number of heritage farmsteads in Kitchener. The city hasn't grown to its capacity. There are undeveloped areas in the southwest part of the city that are considered to be rural, and a number of these farmsteads depict Mennonite-style settlements where you have a number of outbuildings and structures that are considered to be historically significant. That is something to be taken into consideration.
The other point I'd make is that, for example, I draw your attention to the upper-right-hand photograph. I don't know if you have colour photographs or just photocopies, but this is the Governor's House and Old Waterloo County Gaol. An example of a partial demolition might include the retaining of the wall itself but the jailhouse and the Governor's House might be demolished. Those are two structures that are extremely significant. They all work together. They're all attached. That might be an example of something we'd want to try to prevent until such time as they're ready to redevelop the entire site.
As for your second question, the property of the individual who made those comments is not designated, so this bill would not apply to them at all. They are only on what's called a heritage inventory, which means that the committee has identified the property to be of architectural historical interest and that we invite that property owner to use the city as a resource of information if they are contemplating making any exterior alterations. But there are no restrictions. They are not considered to be formally designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, so I believe that individual misinterpreted whether this bill applied to them or not. They are not designated and it wouldn't apply.
Mr Leadston: Very briefly, I think this bill sets a balance between those in the municipality who have the right to do as they wish with their property and also those who are the leaders in the community who are also interested in the preservation not only of the future but of our past. I think this bill sets a balance. Obviously I emphasize again that it's applicable primarily and only for the city of Kitchener. I would ask that the Chair call the question.
The Chair: I have another question from Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: No, he's put the question.
The Chair: I beg your pardon?
Mr Shea: No, he's put the question. We can't debate it. We've got to vote on whether to put the question or not.
The Chair: I see no further questions or comments from the committee. Is that correct?
Mr Shea: No, Chair. On a point of order: Mr Leadston has called the question. Under the rules of proceeding you must now ask the committee, will they go for the vote or not? He's moved closure.
The Chair: Are the members ready to vote? Okay. Motion carried.
We are voting on Bill Pr15, An Act respecting The Corporation of the City of Kitchener, sponsored by MPP Wettlaufer.
Keeping with tradition, there are 10 sections. I wish to collapse those sections.
Mr Caplan: Who's moving this?
Mr Hardeman: Boushy and Leadston.
The Chair: Are there any motions for amendments to any of these sections? Seeing none, I wish to collapse sections 1 through 10. Shall sections 1 through 10 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
I declare this order of business closed.
Our second agenda item as listed is not occurring today and this committee is adjourned at the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1058.