Culture and Recreation
400 University AvenueToronto ON M7A 2R9 / Ministère du Tourisme,
de la Culture et des Loisirs
400, avenue University
Toronto ON M7A 2R9 /
42-054C
Conservation Review BoardTel 416-314-7137
Fax 416-314-7175 / Commission des
Biens culturels
Tl 416-314-7137
Tlc 416-314-7175
CONSERVATION REVIEW BOARD
RE: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ST. CATHARINES – INTENTION
TO DE-DESIGNATE 9 MAIN STREET (CAROUSEL); 50 LAKEPORT ROAD (DALHOUSIE HOUSE); 69A LAKEPORT ROAD (LOCKTENDER'S SHANTY); AND 11 MAIN STREET (FORMER JAIL), ALL OF PORT DALHOUSIE, ONTARIO
Stuart W. Henderson, Chair
Jill D. Taylor, Vice-ChairFebruary 27, 2002
This hearing was convened under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c.O.18 (as amended) for the purpose of reporting to the Council of the City of St. Catharines whether the properties known as 9 Main Street (Carousel); 50 Lakeport Road (Dalhousie House); 69a Lakeport Road (Locktender's Shanty); and 11 Main Street (former Jail),
all of Port Dalhousie, Ontario, should be de-designated by By-Law under the Act, an
objection having been raised by Mr. Alan Holder.
A Notice of the Hearing was given under the Act in the St. Catharines Standard on
February 15, 2002, the relevant affidavit by the Board being Exhibit 1.
The Board, in accordance with its customary practice, had the opportunity to view the sites and the surrounding area prior to the hearing.
Present: Ms. Annette Poulin, Solicitor for the City of St. Catharines
Mr. Kevin Blozowski, Planner for the City of St. Catharines
Mr. Alan Holder, Objector
The Corporation of the City of St. Catharines was represented by Ms. Annette Poulin, Solicitor, who called one witness: Mr. Kevin Blozowski, Planner for the City of St. Catharines. The Objector was Mr. Alan Holder of 53 Bayview Drive, St. Catharines.
1
THE CASE FOR THE CITY OF ST. CATHARINES
The City of St. Catharines called as its witness Mr. Blozowski. Mr. Blozowski was recognized by the Board as being able to provide expert testimony in the area of heritage planning, and was sworn in as a witness.
Ms. Poulin provided an exhibit book containing eight exhibits, which was entered as Exhibit 2.
Mr. Blozowski summarized the events leading up to the proposal to designate the subject area of Port Dalhousie as a Heritage Conservation District. He referred to a map of Port Dalhousie and outlined the boundaries of the proposed district. Mr. Blozowski reported the results of a study prepared by heritage consultants Archaeological Services Inc., and told the Board that, although the consultants had recommended the district designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, they had also recommended that the previously designated properties remain under the protection of Part IV of the Act.
City Council, St. Catharines Heritage Committee (LACAC) and the residents of the privately owned designated properties had all recommended that property designations within the area be repealed so that those buildings would be subject to the same guidelines as all other properties within the Heritage Conservation District. In the opinion of Mr. Blozowski, the de-designation of the buildings would provide for more efficient management of the Heritage Conservation District.
Ms. Poulin asked if a designated building could be part of a Heritage Conservation District. Mr. Blozowski replied that under the Ontario Heritage Act the subject properties would have to be excluded from the overall District if they remained individually designated.
Mr. Blozowski noted the following:
The Carousel (9 Main Street)
-that the Carousel was owned by the City but that its land was owned by the Federal Government and leased to the City. The City was in the process of trying to purchase the land from the Federal Government;
-that the Carousel is maintained by the City at an approximate cost of $60,000 per year;
-that the 'Friends of the Carousel' is an organization that supports the preservation of the Carousel and that they are also committed to raising money for the Carousel.
2
Dalhousie House (52 Lakeport Road)
-that 52 Lakeport Road (re-numbered from the original 50 Lakeport) is now vacant, but that $112,779.74 was spent by the City on its maintenance and repair between 1992-2001;
-that an engineering report recommended further repairs, including the stabilization of the landscape bank to the rear of the building, and that such repairs had been recommended to Council.
Locktender’s Shanty
-that 69A Lakeport Road was owned by the City of St. Catharines, and that the City allocates $5,000 per year for its maintenance.
Mr. Blozowski reviewed a number of Planning Department documents from Exhibit 2 including: Official Plan Amendment No. 130; cultural planning considerations within the Official Plan; heritage considerations, including the identification of buildings for designation; considerations related to the development of Heritage Conservation Districts; and, general principles for sensitive development within Heritage Conservation Districts. It was noted by Mr. Blozowski that he was the planner in charge of taking the Heritage Conservation District proposal to the Ontario Municipal Board, which must approve district designation by-laws.
Mr. Blozowski stated that a specific local advisory committee would likely be formed. This committee might include members of the current Heritage Committee, and would review matters related to the new district. He closed by saying that he had no hesitation in recommending
de-designation, and that, in his opinion, the subject buildings would be adequately protected under the new district designation.
In cross-examination, Mr. Holder asked Mr. Blozowski a number of questions regarding the old Jail building at 11 Main Street: Mr. Holder wished to know if the current owner had adequately protected that building after it had been sold by the City. He also asked Mr. Blozowski if the City had plans to demolish Dalhousie House, to which Mr. Blozowski responded that he did not know of any such plans.
Ms. Poulin asked Mr. Blozowski to review a number of other City owned heritage buildings that had been protected and maintained, as well as two other districts that had been designated under Part V of the Act.
3
THE CASE FOR MR. ALAN HOLDER
Mr. Holder presented Exhibit 3, and described his objection to the de-designation of the subject buildings. Mr. Holder stated that his house was within the area of the proposed Heritage Conservation District. He stated that he had objected to the district designation from the beginning, and that his opinions had not been listened to by the City. Reading from Exhibit 3, he stated his concern that, under district designation, these heritage properties wouldnot be maintained, and would perhaps be sold by the City, as the jail building was.
In cross-examination Ms. Poulin noted that it was not the purpose of the hearing to object to designation of the district at this time. She stated that the City would commit to the Board that a good measure of protection for the subject buildings could be included in the wording of the
by-law to designate the Heritage Conservation District, and that the City would be proposing that the repeal of designation of the subject buildings would only occur if the district designation was passed. Mr. Blozowski confirmed to the Board that he felt that the City would leave no lapses in the heritage designation of the properties.
FINDINGS
As noted by Mr. Blozowski and the City Solicitor, there is evidence that the City of
St. Catharines is committed to heritage preservation goals within the new district and within
St. Catharines as a whole. This resolve should not falter as the individual buildings in the
Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District lose specific status under Part IV of the Act.
The City has restated its original intention to protect, maintain and put to good use these fragile resources. The City now has a responsibility to provide an example of the highest standard of care of their own heritage buildings to the residents of this new Heritage Conservation District.
The Board respects Mr. Holder’s concern that the City may not maintain the subject buildings once the district has been put into effect. However, the City’s commitment to protect these buildings has been stated to the Board, and the City Solicitor’s suggestions regarding the wording of the by-law to prevent a lapse in designation must be assumed to serve the purpose of adequately protecting these buildings during the next stage of the planning process.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As long as the provisions stated by the City to prevent any lapse in individual buildings' designation are applied, it is the recommendation of the Board that the above noted properties in the City of St. Catharines be de-designated by by-law under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. This de-designation is recommended only in order for designation under Part V of the Act to proceed in the manner advocated by the City.
4
These properties are highly significant to the heritage of Port Dalhousie, and their preservation is critical to the historical integrity of the proposed district. It is the Board’s sincere hope that the proposed Heritage Conservation District plan will be implemented in a manner that will ensure the preservation goals established during the original act of designation.
The Board strongly recommends that the City explore ways of establishing appropriate measures for long-term conservation and use of the buildings.
The Board supports the City’s proposal to form a committee that will review the needs of the heritage district and its specific buildings. We must state in the strongest way that the City should support that committee once it has been initiated. There should be effective representation in number and in authority on that committee to be able to garner the attention and support of the municipality in the preservation of this new and important district.
The Board supports the use of heritage district designation and strongly urges all parties to work toward the preservation and restoration of these sites within historic Port Dalhousie.
(original signed) by:
______
Jill D. Taylor, Vice-Chair
5
42-054C