  |
Welcome to Save Our Seaport (Part 2)
ONLY ONTARIO GOVERNMENT CAN SAVE OUR HERITAGE NOW- YOU CAN HELP
A site dedicated to saving historic Port Dalhousie from the second tower proposal from developer Port Dalhousie Vitalization Corporation (PDVC), a proposal that we believe would forever change Port's unique 19th Century (and early 20th century) heritage and lakefront village streetscape that all St. Catharines and Niagara Region residents treasure. If this proposal is approved, Port Dalhousie as we know it will be gone forever!....Read detailed chronology THE ONGOING BATTLE TO SAVE PORT DALHOUSIE'S HERITAGE DISTRICT - OMB HEARING FINALLY OVER
FOUR AND A HALF YEARS PLUS 21 WEEKS OF COSTLY OMB HEARINGS....Read More Below |
|||||||||||
Port Dalhousie Debacle: OMB Presides Over Destruction of our Heritage, Ministry “Fiddles While Our Heritage Burns”
Ontario’s dismal record of failing to preserve our heritage is about to get worse –much worse. The February, 2009 landmark OMB decision to allow a 20-storey height condo tower in Port Dalhousie’s low-rise Heritage Conservation District (HCD) means every one of over 90 HCDs in the Province is now vulnerable to towers and inappropriate development. Volunteer community organization PROUD’s epic struggle in St. Catharines has included: City and Regional Council meetings, OMB Pre-Hearings, a failed OMB Mediation, and a 71-day marathon OMB Hearing. The City and PROUD put forward a very strong OMB case, supported by leading expert witnesses and provisions of Provincial Policy Statement and City’s Official Plan, Zoning By-Law (3-storey height limit) and Heritage Guidelines. Despite this herculean effort, OMB Vice-Chair Susan Campbell (OMB Decision) claimed to strike a balance between the Planning and Heritage Acts and approved the proposal in almost its entirety (the OMB had NEVER before approved a tower in a designated HCD). PROUD then requested a review of the decision arguing that, contrary to Campbell’s ruling, the HCD Plan had the elevated status of the 2005 Heritage Act and, accordingly, Council "shall not ...pass a by-law for any purpose that is contrary to the objectives set out in that plan". In an ironic twist, Chair Hubbard ruled (Hubbard's Rejection) that the Plan did have elevated status but she agreed with Campbell that the tower proposal did not contravene that Plan. This despite testimony from five leading heritage experts that the proposal did contravene the plan. The OMB supported the developer’s arguments that the Plan was not specific enough in stating that the height of new construction should not exceed that of existing buildings. In doing so, they ignored expert David Cuming who drafted the Heritage Guidelines and was very clear the intent was not to allow higher buildings (who can know more about the intent of the Guidelines than the author?). If the Board felt the Plan was not specific enough, should it not have erred on the side of caution? Is it possible to imagine that ANY heritage expert would have drafted a Plan that did allow towers in a 19th century village?? Campbell and Hubbard also supported the argument that the proposal would promote economic revitalization and this would therefore protect the heritage that survived. The developer was not required to provide any proof that this revitalization would actually work. A fascinating argument since planners and Campbell herself, always claim the Board considers only planning arguments –not economic justifications. The full process from beginning to end will have cost PROUD over half a million dollars and this does not include the thousands of hours donated by so many volunteers. Where was the Ministry of Culture during this 5-year battle? Nowhere to be found. The Ministry has failed to support its Heritage Act. They responded to the Region’s request for comments without making the effort to visit the site. They then did not offer to testify in support of their comments or otherwise try to advance the case that the City and the community were left alone to defend. In fact, at the recent heritage forum at Fort York, Ministry staff abdicated any responsibility and argued they only write the laws and it is up to the lawyers to interpret and test them. The implications for other HCDs are very scary indeed. It is cold comfort that all existing HCD plans can now claim to have the elevated status of the 2005 Heritage Act. Unless the plan is absolutely bullet-proof, and peer reviewer Michael McClelland, testifying for the developer under subpoena at the OMB stated Cuming’s Plan was already one of the best he had seen, developers will be able to argue their proposals do not contravene. The OMB can then accept the developers’ arguments as it “strikes a balance”. Throw in a claim of economic benefits and revitalization and the Port precedent and OMB approval is almost guaranteed. Two major changes are needed if our remaining heritage is to be saved: OMB reform and proactive intervention by the Ministry. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs needs to rein in the OMB and make it clear that in designated buildings and districts, the Heritage Act and plans take precedence. The Ministry of Culture needs to use its powers decisively including stopping demolitions and designating threatened buildings. Only then will we have appropriate development that truly revitalizes, increases heritage tourism and provides an adequate return to developers. Start writing both Ministries and your MPP TODAY or it will be too late. You can write about the Port Dalhousie Debacle to: The Honourable Jim Watson The Honourable Aileen Carroll
|
|||||||||||
Citizens of Niagara and friends of Heritage everywhere:
