Fragments of Our Heritage - Grand River Conservation Authority

4 th Canadian River Heritage Conference Winston Wong & Paul King 

Guelph, Ontario June 6-9, 200 

Fragments of Our Heritage: Approaches to Connecting and Conserving Cultural 

Proceedings 

Resources Along Ontario’s River Corridors 

Fragments of Our Heritage: Approaches 

to Connecting and Conserving Cultural 

Resources Along Ontario’s River 

Corridors 

Winston Wong and Paul King 

Ontario Ministry of Culture 

Monday June 7, 2004 10:45-11:45 a.m. 

Winston Wong is a 

registered professional 

planner and member of 

the Ontario Professional 

Planners Institute (OPPI) 

and Canadian Institute of 

Planners (MCIP). He 

graduated from the 

University of Guelph with 

a social sciences degree 

specializing in urban\rural geography and land 

planning. Previously, he worked as a Heritage Sites 

Researcher with the Province of Alberta examining 

provincially significant urban and industrial heritage 

sites. Currently, Winston is a practising Heritage 

Planner with the Ontario Ministry of Culture on 

various aspects of cultural resource site-specific 

planning, as well as advise on technical aspects of 

heritage policy development. 

Paul King is a member of 

Ontario Professional 

Planners Institute, 

Canadian Institute of 

Planners and a Registered 

Professional Planner. 

Paul studied architecture 

and urban planning in 

London, U.K. where he 

worked as a municipal 

urban planner specializing in urban design and 

heritage conservation projects. In 1988, Paul joined 

the Ministry of Culture, Cultural Programs Branch. 

As Heritage Education Advisor, he provides strategic 

advice and assistance with the designation of 

heritage conservation districts and implementation of 

the recently adopted provincial heritage property tax 

initiative. 

Abstract 

Cultural heritage resources are significant to the 

quality of life and the economic fabric of 

communities located along Ontario’s river corridors. 

These areas contribute not only to important social 

values such as a sense of place or sense of history, 

but also to economic values such as recreation and 

tourism. Ontario’s provincial heritage resource 

databases include many cultural sites and areas 

located within close proximity to shorelines of both 

primary and secondary rivers. Resources involve 

heritage buildings, ruins, heritage districts, bridges, 

archaeological sites, archaeological potential areas, 

trails, vistas, natural areas that are integrated within 

cultural heritage landscapes, all which coexist and 

have evolved over time. 

Maintaining the heritage ambiance and managing 

development pressures affecting cultural heritage 

resources along rivers are primary challenges. The 

paper will provide an overview of the significant 

cultural resource types located predominately within 

certain river networks throughout Ontario. The focus 

of the paper will be on providing practical guidance, 

planning tools and conservation approaches for 

maintaining heritage ambience and for the protection 

of resources from development impact. Current 

and/or proposed new heritage legislation and 

provincial policy frameworks like the Ontario 

Heritage Act and Planning Act Policies will be 

discussed. As well, recommended local level 

approaches will be explored, such as municipal 

official plan heritage policies, heritage zoning; 

heritage designation powers, application of planning 

& design guidelines for heritage districts and their 

effectiveness in conserving cultural resources in river 

communities. Illustrative examples will be provided 

from primary rivers such as the Grand, Humber, 

Trent –Severn, Rideau, and French Rivers, as well as 

secondary tributary rivers where resources exist and 

impacts occur. Copies of approved provincial 

heritage guidelines, relevant conservation notes 

and/or policy papers will be made available at the 

session. 

Introduction – Fragments of Our 

Heritage 

Along the shorelines of Ontario’s river and 

stream corridors, there are significant cultural 

heritage resources remaining from past 

human settlements and occupations. These 

resources include archaeological sites and 

features dating up to 11,000 years, historical 

ruins and structural remains, heritage 

buildings, cultural heritage landscapes e.g. 

gardens, designed parks and cemeteries all 

reflecting various forms of human habitation 

and industrial development. According to 

1 

Cultural Heritage




Proceedings 


current Ontario Provincial databases, there 

are approximately 17,000 registered 

archaeological sites, approximately 5,500 

individual properties designated under Part 

IV, and 70 Heritage Conservation Districts 

designated under Part V of the Ontario 

Heritage Act (Ministry of Culture Databases 

2004). There are also numerous other 

culturally significant heritage areas and sites 

recognized locally or regionally which are 

not part of the provincial database, as well as 

many properties where there is the likelihood 

of archaeological remains being identified or 

areas having archaeological potential. 

There are important challenges to the 

conservation and planning of cultural 

heritage resources located along Ontario’s 

network of rivers. Historical settlement 

patterns along river corridors have evolved 

over time, often overlapping, intersecting and 

leading to a fractured geography. With the 

passing of time, there is continuous 

fragmentation of heritage sites, due to natural 

erosion or intrusion of contemporary 

landuses and land developments. 

Interpretation of the relationships and 

connections among heritage sites and features 

also represent several challenges. 

These linkages with archaeological site, 

individual buildings or structures, and 

landscapes are at times dis-continuous and 

dis-connected, especially along the extensive 

networks of river corridors. It is therefore 

important to understand some of the 

relationships among archaeological remains 

and individual heritage buildings or 

structures, and how these may collectively 

form a significant cultural heritage river 

landscape worthy of careful conservation 

(Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Understanding the Relationships: Significant Cultural Heritage Resources Along River Corridors 

Source: MCL 

Archaeological Sites and Resources: 

The remains and artifacts of any building, structure, activity, place, cultural feature which because of the 

passage of time are on or below the surface of the land or water. These can be both prehistoric and 

historic. 

Individual Buildings, Built Heritage Properties, Features, Visible Ruins: 

There may be strong relationships with archaeological remains being located on properties with significant 

buildings, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, 

economic, or military history, and identified as being important to a community. 

Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Heritage River Corridors, Connections of 

Human Settlement Patterns 

Both archaeological remains and individual heritage properties or structures can collectively form a 

significant cultural heritage landscape, especially along linear corridors like rivers. These are defined 

geographical areas of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued 

by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, 

archaeological sites, and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, 

distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts 

MCL 2004 

2 





Proceedings 


Such heritage river landscapes can be 

geographically and spatially defined as 

physical entities on the ground, within the 

legislative frameworks, policies and plans 

developed for landscape resource protection. 

Realistic yet practical methodologies, 

techniques and management plans can be 

created to identify cultural heritage landscape 

elements for conservation purposes; further 

interpreted within an urban planning context. 

The three types of cultural resources are all 

reflected in various provincial databases. Such 

databases include comprehensive and updated 

information on archaeological site locations, 

archaeological site and artifact descriptions, 

searchable databases which include built 

heritage properties designated under Part IV 

and Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (A 

database is available on the Ministry of Culture 

internet web page-Figure 2). The databases do 

not however include comprehensive 

archaeological potential mapping coverage for 

Ontario. Rather, provincial technical advice is 

provided to various regions and municipalities 

for development of archaeological master 

plans such as a plan for the City of Ottawa 

(Figure 3). This archaeological potential 

mapping developed covers the entire city 

region, and serves as an effective tool for 

municipal landuse planners when requiring 

appropriate archaeological assessments or 

studies. 

Figure 2: Ministry of Culture Webpage Heritage Properties Database 

source: MCL 2004 

3 





Proceedings 


Figure 3: Archaeological potential areas identifed along the Rideau River in Ottawa 

source: City of Ottawa archaeological master plan 

Ontario 

Ontario 

Change Affecting Heritag 

New development proposals can embrace 

and enhance the site’s heritage attributes as 

well as cause irreversible impact if 

significant elements are not identified and 

managed. Impacts from development 

pressures can include new urban expansion, 

infill redevelopment, shoreline stabilization 

along river shorelines, repair or replacement 

of deteriorating heritage bridges, or simply 

due to natural erosion and deterioration of 

heritage ruins or structures located on river 

systems. 

Within the Ontario planning legislative and 

policy frameworks, both at the provincial 

and municipal levels, there are many 

challenges to the identification and 

conservation of cultural heritage resources 

as urban areas continue to be subject to 

constant pressures of intensive and dramatic 

change (plates 1-4). While change is often 

perceived to be destructive of an area’s 

significant cultural features, there are 

occasions where change can be of benefit by 

making these areas more accessible and 

public. The agents of change as these apply 

to heritage river corridors, adverse or 

beneficial, include: 

• alteration, demolition, construction 

and/or reconstruction of individual and 

collective structures; 

• subdivision development; 

• urban infilling in a downtown or 

waterfront area; 

• infill within historical complexes or 

identified heritage landscapes; 

• infrastructure works such as new roads, 

landfills and railways; 

• engineering improvements to water 

courses and shorelines such as 

channelization, dams and bank 

stabilization; 

• resource extractive practices including 

harvesting of timber, creation of field 

systems and woodlots, planting of crops, 

rearing livestock, land clearance, tree 

planting and harvesting, aggregate 

removal and the creation of open pits; 

• creation of trails and open spaces for 

recreational purposes, including cultural 

heritage tourism. 

4 





Proceedings 


plate 1 plate 2 


Examples of impacts to cultural heritage resources along river systems: plate 1- historic bridge being dismantled and replaced 

along Magnatewan River; plate 2 – development along the Ganaraska River adjacent a heritage conservation district in Port Hope; 

plates 3,4 – urban development close to archaeological potential areas and hidden heritage sites along the Humber River in 

Etobicoke Photos: C. Andersen & W.Wong MCL 

Ontario Legislative and Policy 

Framework for Cultural Heritage 

Resources Conservation 

There are a number of provincial statutes 

and policies that support the protection and 

conservation of cultural heritage resources 

and cultural heritage landscapes encountered 

within Ontario’s river and stream corridors. 

At the broadest level, the Government of 

Ontario adopted a Vision for Heritage Policy 

Statement, in 1990 which states: 

”…Heritage is more than a record of the 

past. It is integral to our identity now and 

for the future. Heritage encompasses such 

intangible elements and the traditions, 

values, and beliefs of Ontario's diverse 

population and such tangible elements as 

works of art, photographs, fossils, and the 

places in which we work and live - our 

buildings, towns and landscapes” 

(Government of Ontario Heritage Policy 

Statement, 1990). 

In the past decade, cultural heritage 

conservation concepts have become fully 

integrated as part of established public 

interest in Ontario’s land planning statues, 

and recognized at various levels of 

provincial legislation: the Ontario Heritage 

Act, Planning Act, Environmental 

Assessment Act, Aggregate Resources Act, 

and Niagara Escarpment Planning and 

Development Act all refer to the need to 

5 





Proceedings 


conserve cultural heritage resources. 

The Ontario Heritage Act governs the 

municipal designation and protection of 

heritage property, heritage conservation 

districts and related landscapes under Part IV 

and V, and designation of archaeological 

sites by the province under VI of the 

legislation. The Act contains provisions for 

the appointment of municipal heritage 

committees to advise on cultural heritage 

matters. The role of these voluntary advisory 

bodies may include preparation of inventories 

of significant heritage buildings, properties 

and landscapes of local or regional 

significance; provide technical advice on 

heritage designations and alterations; and 

participation in heritage educational 

programs. Recent Heritage Act amendments 

provide opportunities for municipal heritage 

committees to have a broader mandate and be 

more involved in landuse planning. For 

example, the committees can be involved in 

developing comprehensive master plans and 

design guidelines for cultural heritage 

landscapes including significant river areas. 

They can be key in defining, assessing, and 

monitoring heritage resources within their 

communities. 

Other relevant statutes include the 

Environmental Assessment Act, which 

provides for the protection, conservation and 

wise management of the environment in 

Ontario, "environment" being defined 

broadly to include cultural heritage 

landscapes. The Act enforces sound 

environmental planning by requiring the 

proponent of a project to prepare an 

environmental assessment evaluation of an 

undertaking. The Aggregates Resources Act 

also recognizes the potential impact that 

quarrying activities can have on cultural 

heritage features by requiring a proponent to 

submit details of mitigating measures to 

limit the impact of the activity on the area’s 

heritage landscape resources. 

One of the more progressive Ontario statutes 

for cultural heritage resources conservation in 

land-use planning and urban development is 

the Planning Act. This statute specifically 

refers to cultural heritage resources 

conservation as a matter of public interest both 

through policy statement as well as through 

broad provincial definition. The provincial 

planning policy statements refer to a wide 

range of provincial interests ranging from 

natural and cultural heritage resources to 

environmental concerns to managing urban 

growth and settlement. Key policies relating to 

cultural heritage resources are found in 

Section 2.5 “Cultural Heritage and 

Archaeological Resources” which state: 

2.5.1 Significant built heritage 

resources and cultural heritage 

landscapes will be conserved. 

2.5.2 Development and site alteration 

may be permitted on lands 

containing archaeological 

resources or areas of 

archaeological potential if 

significant archaeological 

resources have been conserved 

by removal and documentation, 

or preservation on site. Where 

significant archaeological 

resources must be preserved on 

site, only development and site 

alteration which maintain the 

heritage integrity of the site will 

be permitted. (Ontario 

Government Provincial Policy 

Statements 1997:9) 

The term ‘significance’ is also defined as a 

resource being important in terms of “amount, 

content, representation or effect”. (Ontario 

Provincial Policy Statements Definitions 

1997: 18). 

The above policy statements and heritage 

definitions, among other public interests, 

apply to all local municipal jurisdictions, 

planning bodies, government agencies, and 

planning practitioners involved in making 

6 





Proceedings 


key land-use planning decisions. The 

statements can serve as a framework for all 

municipal official plan policy development, 

but more detailed local perspectives are often 

applied to formulate local policies for 

heritage preservation. The key is to balance 

the wide spectrum of competing public 

interests, and consider social, environmental 

and economic perspectives appropriately in 

land development planning. The cultural 

heritage policy statements further interpret this 

particular provincial interest under the 

Planning Act -Section 2, which states that: 

“the Minister, the council of a municipality, a 

local board, a planning board and the 

Municipal Board, in carrying out their 

responsibilities under this Act, shall have 

regard to, among other matters, matters of 

provincial interest such as the conservation of 

features of significant architectural, cultural, 

historical, archaeological or scientific interest” 

(Ontario Planning Act: Section 2(d)). 

There are also some substantial amendments 

proposed for the Heritage Act launched in 

April of 2004 and the Planning Act launched 

in June of 2004. If approved, the Heritage Act 

amendments proposed (Bill 60 - Ministry of 

Culture) will provide for stronger demolition 

control of heritage property, new provincial 

powers to designate built heritage, more 

detailed conservation standards and 

guidelines, and other provisions to strengthen 

archaeological resources protection such as 

increasing fines for illegally disturbing a 

known archaeological site. Under the Planning 

Act (Bill 26 and Planning Reforms- Ministry 

of Municipal Affairs and Housing), the 

proposals include a new provincial planning 

policy for development adjacent to designated 

heritage properties, where there may be a need 

to conserve the heritage attributes of that 

property. More clarity with cultural heritage 

definitions, and the development of more 

support materials for interpreting local 

policies and site specific guidelines are also 

recommended as part of Planning Act 

reforms. These proposed amendments may 

provide more effective tools and stronger 

provisions for recognizing and conserving 

cultural resources along Ontario river systems. 

Key Conservation Planning Tools For 

Cultural Heritage Along Rivers 

Within Ontario’s policy and 

legislative framework, there are many 

opportunities for local planners and heritage 

groups to develop detailed municipal and 

community-driven policies or management 

plans specifically for heritage resources 

along rivers, in response to rapidly changing 

urban landuses. When developing local 

policies and plans for heritage conservation, 

a continuum can be considered for 

understanding how resources can be 

conserved locally within a larger conceptual 

policy or legislative framework (Figure 4). 

Detailed conservation planning tools can be 

developed at the appropriate levels, 

specifically with regards to the conservation 

of cultural heritage resources along rivers. 

Some of the primary tools for consideration 

are outlined as follows: 

Heritage Resource Studies and Inventories 

Detailed cultural heritage resource studies by 

specialized heritage practitioners may 

combine elements of reconnaissance and 

intensive surveys, as well as application of 

significance evaluation criteria. Such studies 

may be required under specific 

circumstances, such as: 

• when there is a need to identify the 

impacts and mitigative strategies of a 

potential significant resources, after a 

preliminary river landscape survey; 

• when there is no data for a prospective 

planning or development matter, and a 

defined heritage river landscape or 

district is affected; 

7 





Proceedings 


Figure 4: Towards the conservation of cultural heritage resources along rivers 

Conceptual: Cultural heritage resource broad definitions, concepts, legislation and policies recognized by municipal, provincial 

and federal governments – Regional/Local Identity, maintaining heritage character and integrity for heritage resources along rivers, 

conservation principles for river corridor conservation. 

Geographical and Spatial: Geographical associations linking the concepts- Local identification and inventories of Heritage 

Conservation Districts, Historic Gardens and Parkettes, Heritage Roads, Mainstreets, Corridors, Cemetery Sites, Battlefield Areas, 

Historical Ruins, Features and Attributes within a heritage area. These can be professionally surveyed by qualified heritage 

practitioners. 

Protection for Significant Cultural Heritage Resources and Areas Along Rivers 

Specific conservation strategies and plans developed for recognizing, interpreting and protecting significant heritage places and 

landscape elements along the river. Heritage conservation district plans and management plans would be the ideal i.e. Port Hope, 

Kleinberg, Blair, Rideau Canal and Trent -Severn River Management Plans. To be managed by municipal, provincial and federal 

planning departments and agencies. 

(MCL 2004) 

• when conservation management actions 

are necessary for identifying and 

evaluating significant river corridors, as 

an integral part of a larger heritage 

master plan, secondary plan, or a landuse 

mapping designation a municipal 

approval authority is proposing; 

• when an applicant is seeking planning 

approval where the significance of the 

cultural 

heritage river landscape is particularly 

sensitive to change and the method of 

management or care may be disputed. 

• when heritage resources along a river are 

considered to be significant, well 

preserved and probably worthy of 

designation as a heritage conservation 

district under the Part V of the Ontario 

Heritage Act or recognized at a national 

level, such as designation of heritage 

river systems as being nationally 

significant. 

Figure 5 includes sample processes which 

may be considered for cultural resource 

identification and mapping along river 

corridors. An initial reconnaissance survey 

may lead to more detailed assessment studies, 

which in turn can further identify, research 

and evaluate the significance of sites, 

properties, landscapes and its boundaries. A 

detailed study for cultural heritage river 

landscapes can include the following key 

elements: 

• Results of any reconnaissance or 

intensive surveys, including a desktop 

review of historical and archival 

materials and a windshield survey of the 

landscape; 

• Consultation strategies with the local 

community, including meetings with 

municipal heritage committees, heritage 

organizations; public and focus group 

meetings; 

• Details about land occupancy, ownership 

and use of the site, settlement and 

building patterns; 

8 





Proceedings 


• Further onsite investigation with 

photographical documentation, sketches 

or drawings of all significant built 

heritage features and any significant 

natural vegetation within the landscape 

unit; 

• Recommendations regarding the 

boundaries of the cultural heritage 

landscape, and existence of heritage 

features within the boundary; 

• Mapping at 1:50000; 1:10000; and\or 

sketches at an appropriate scale 

containing cultural heritage landscape 

features and precise boundaries 

accompanied by photographs. 

• Significance evaluation of the landscape 

based on comprehensive criteria 

• Detailed recommendations regarding 

development of landuse planning 

controls (i.e. secondary plan, official 

plan amendments), heritage district 

designation, management plan 

development, design guidelines, 

heritage recognition and interpretation 

strategies. 

Heritage Conservation Districts 

There are a number of detailed heritage 

district studies which have sought to define, 

identify, categorize, manage, conserve and 

plan for cultural heritage landscapes and 

their attributes. Heritage district and 

landscape heritage studies have been 

conducted for both commercial and 

residential areas throughout Ontario, prior to 

an area's formal designation as a Part V 

Heritage District. (See updated list on the 

Ministry of Culture website at: 

www.culture.gov.on.ca). 

While the concept of heritage district 

designation is still relatively new - there are 

only 70 designated HCDs (with another 

eight or more studies underway) compared 

to over 5500 individual properties 

designated since 1975, there is increasing 

interest in the designation of a heritage 

conservation district as a tool for area wide 

protection of community heritage resources, 

and their potential, through adoption of 

design guidelines, to ensure a higher quality 

of design and compatibility for infill and 

new development. 

Figure 5: Table outlining heritage landscape 

identification stages 

Sample Step 1: Survey Stages 

• (a) Reconnaissance Survey for Cultural Heritage 

Landscape 

• (b) Intensive Survey for Cultural Heritage 

Landscape 

Sample Step 2 Survey Methodologies 

• Photo-documentation 

• Landscape Record Forms 

• Public Consultation 

• Significance Evaluation Using Criteria 

Sample Step 3 Significance Evaluation Criteria 

• Scenic Amenity and Sense of Place 

• Serial Vision 

• Material Content & Integrity 

• Historical Themes 

• Event 

• Person & Group 

• Public Perception 

• Landscape Design 

• Ecosystem Values 

• Boundaries Identification 

Sample Step 4 Planning Provisions for Conserving 

Cultural Resources (along River Corridors) 

• Official Plan and Secondary Plan Policies 

• Special Heritage Zoning for River Corridors 

• Landuse Designations 

• Heritage Act District Designation & District 

Conservation Plan 

• Heritage Corridor or Area Management Plans 

• Cultural Heritage Resource Design Guidelines 

(ORC Guideline / MCL Draft Manual) 

Until recently, most designated heritage 

districts were located in urban areas and 

comprise mainly of historic downtowns or 

older residential areas, with protection 

9 





Proceedings 


focused mainly on the architectural details 

other external features of buildings. In the 

past five years, there have been a noticeable 

increase in the number of HCD studies 

carried out. The districts have also become 

more complex and new challenges are 

starting to emerge due to the large size and 

wider range of uses involved. Several 

recently designated districts have comprised 

of more than six or seven hundred properties 

and have included large areas of park space, 

as well as areas of “natural” landscape, river 

and valley lands, despite the fact that the 

Ontario Heritage Act currently does not 

provide municipalities with any specific 

power to regulate or protect “natural” or 

“cultural heritage” landscapes but rather 

only “built” heritage. While there have been 

several earlier HCDs where river landscape 

and other natural features have been 

included within the designated district, the 

policies and guidelines have focused only on 

built heritage features. 

Increasingly, municipalities are recognizing 

the need to adopt a more holistic approach to 

area designation and protection, by 

including the landscape and natural features 

within the scope of a heritage conservation 

district study and plan and to ensure that 

guidelines and standards of protection 

(though only advisory) have been identified 

for these “non-building” features of a 

heritage district. The recently proposed 

amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act 

(Bill 60) – if approved, will provide 

municipalities with stronger demolition 

control powers as well as broaden the scope 

of heritage district protection to include 

cultural landscape or other “property” 

features within a designated district, rather 

than just the “external features of buildings 

and structures” of the area. Heritage 

conservation district plans will also be 

required to include a description of the 

heritage attributes of the district and 

properties within the district, which may 

include river landscape features and 

characteristics. 

Examples of Heritage Conservation 

District “Best Practices” 

A review of several recently designated 

heritage districts provides examples of “best 

practices” that river communities may wish 

to adopt when considering HCD designation 

for ensuring long-term protection of cultural 

heritage resources within their communities. 

While it is too early to evaluate the success 

of adopted policies and guidelines, the 

districts referred to have much in common 

including a clear statement of long-term 

vision, a broad-based approach that 

integrates heritage conservation and 

environmental goals and objectives; as well 

as responsive policies and guidelines 

developed in partnership with the 

community. 

10 





Proceedings 


Kleinburg-Nashville Heritage Conservation District (HCD): 

Plate 4: Kleinburg Heritage Conservation District Structure. Source: Kleinburg HCD study 

The undertaking of a study and 

designation of the Kleinburg-Nashville 

area as a Heritage Conservation District 

under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act 

was in direct response to policies 

contained in the City of Vaughan’s 

Kleinburg-Nashville Community Plan 

(OPA 601). The Plan included the 

following explicit goal statements of 

direct relevance to the conference 

theme: 

• “to preserve and protect the rich 

cultural heritage and natural 

resources of the Kleinburg-Nashville 

Community through the application 

of the Ontario Heritage Act and other 

legislation”. 

• “To recognize the importance of and 

protect natural heritage features 

including the Humber River Valley 

lands for their distinct topography 

and scenic views” and preserve the 

existing heritage features including 

buildings”. 

The Plan’s heritage character statement 

reflects a clear appreciation of the river’s 

important role and contribution to the 

special character of the district, and is not 

just focused on the architectural details of 

the buildings of the district – which has 

often been the trend with many early HCDs. 

The design guidelines also respect and 

respond to the diversity of building styles 

and periods rather than on a particular 

period or style. 

Blair Heritage Conservation District 

(HCD): 

The designation of Blair, a village of 

distinctive rural character located just 

outside Galt on the Grand River and 

tributaries, as a Heritage Conservation 

District was also in response to a local 

community planning study, the City of 

Cambridge’s Blair Area Special Study 

(BASS) completed in 1997 which includes 

the following vision statements: 

• “The community will remain a 

village in character, form and 

function, protected from suburban 

11 





Proceedings 


development with strong policies to 

protect and enhance the natural 

environment and heritage features, 

and promote village design. 

• New development must be 

assimilated into the village – not an 

entity unto itself nor engulf the 

village”. 

The HCD Plan includes the “core” village 

area, surrounding primary area as well as 

areas of secondary importance, including a 

new business park. The inclusion of the 

primary and secondary areas within the 

designated district, will allow design 

guidelines to be applied to ensure that there 

will be extensive landscape screening, 

buffering and careful attention paid to the 

overall design, details and choice of 

materials of new development - to ensure 

compatibility and integration with the rural 

character of the Village. 

The inclusion of large areas of natural 

landscape and water features such as mill 

ponds and creeks as well as conservation 

guidelines for these important character 

defining elements of the district, presents a 

strong case their protection. While these 

guidelines are only of an advisory nature, 

their inclusion provides the community and 

with sound “ready-made” tools for ensuring 

their future maintenance. 

Plate 5: Blair historic landscapes. 

Plate 6: Historic Inn. Photo: P.King 

MCL 

Source: Blair HCD study 

12 





Proceedings 


Plate 7, 8 & 9: Examples of heritage character 

defining elements in Blair. Photos: P.King MCL 

There are other potential heritage 

conservation districts where the opportunity 

exists for inclusion of the river corridor, as 

well as significant cultural landscape, vistas 

and viewsheds as part of a comprehensive 

strategy for their protection as important 

components of the existing cultural heritage 

resources within those communities. 

Examples include the Pioneer Tower Area 

(Kitchener), Galt (Cambridge), Elora, and 

Gow’s Bridge area (Guelph), which are 

referred to in the presentation. Many of 

these already play an important part in the 

development of local and regional heritage 

tourism strategies. 

Heritage Incentives Programs 

Both the province and federal government 

have recently launched tax and funding 

incentives to encourage long-term protection 

and conservation of local heritage resources. 

These include the Ontario Heritage Property 

Tax Rebate initiative and the federal 

government’s Commercial Heritage 

Property Incentive Fund Program. To date, 

nine Ontario municipalities have passed a 

by-law to implement a local property tax 

rebate program. These incentive programs 

provide additional encouragement to local 

property owners and municipalities to 

consider the designation of heritage 

conservation districts and individual heritage 

property and sites, together with other 

incentive tools such as heritage easements 

and stewardship programs to ensure their 

future survival and long-term conservation 

of important elements of the community’s 

identity. 

Wider enjoyment of the community’s 

heritage landscape resources can be 

facilitated through introduction of well 

designed and sensitively positioned 

interpretive signs and displays (plates 10- 

12). 

13 





Proceedings 


plate 10 


Plate 10, 11, 12: Various creative signs all in attempts to interpret and connect cultural heritage resource 

elements of rivers, and which can be products of heritage incentives programs. Photos: W.Wong MCL and 

MNR 

Municipal or Regional Plans, Policies and 

Management Plans 

Appropriate plans, policies and strategies 

can be applied for the conservation of 

heritage resources along river landscapes. 

These range from broad local vision 

statements to more detailed statements 

applied in local municipal official plans, to 

very detailed site-specific development 

control parameters with the use of design 

guidelines. Effective heritage policies within 

municipal official plans would be key to 

ensure appropriate heritage preservation 

measures exist at the local or regional levels. 

For regional level policies, statements can 

refer to heritage conservation on river 

systems which often cross many municipal 

jurisdictions. A full range of planning 

measures can therefore be considered when 

conserving river heritage resources: 

• municipal conservation visions, goals, 

objectives for heritage rivers 

• Ontario Heritage Act designation 

provisions 

14 





Proceedings 


• role of Municipal Heritage Advisory 

Committees 

• recognition of existing heritage features 

identified 

• built and landscape heritage inventories 

• heritage zoning and other special zoning 

by-laws 

• reference to heritage impact assessments 

• reference to urban design guidelines for 

heritage 

• map of identified features as part of the 

landuse schedule such as shorelines, 

river valleys, 

and their banks containing a variety of 

cultural heritage attributes 

• role of upper tier municipality in 

regional-level heritage mapping and 

inventories 

A secondary plan and\or management plan 

is considered to be an area-specific landuse 

policy document which can be a very useful 

tool for protecting specific features in river 

corridors. Further more detailed policies can 

be included such as landuse type, density, 

economic development and specific natural 

and cultural heritage sites located in a 

defined geographical river area. 

Specific policies in secondary plans or 

management plans can include: 

• established heritage districts and 

individual built heritage properties 

adjacent to river systems 

• descriptions of features which make up a 

significant cultural heritage river 

landscape or corridor 

• specific views and sightlines to all 

heritage features from the river or along 

the shorelines 

• recognition of associated archaeological 

potential areas which are frequently 

identified along 200 to 300 meters from 

the river’s edge 

• buffer zones which can assist in 

protecting these features. Specific areas 

with management plans include 

nationally designated or recognized 

heritage river systems in Ontario, such 

as the Grand River Watershed Corridor; 

heritage sites along historic 

transportation routes and industrial 

corridors such as the Trent-Severn 

Waterway managed by Parks Canada 

(Plates 13, 14), the Welland Canal, and 

the Rideau Canal corridor. 


Plates 13, 14: Trent-Severn Waterway national heritage site and river corridor managed by Parks Canada, where 

there is a management plan referencing conservation strategies for key industrial heritage elements. Linkages to 

individual muncipal/community plans and policies along the corridor are essential. Photos: W.Wong MCL 

15 





Proceedings 


Effective Design Guidelines 

In addition to standard evaluative 

criteria, there is a need to also create 

workable design guidelines and\or urban 

development scenarios which are to be 

sympathetic to heritage landscape 

conservation. This may allow more 

sympathetic development, where form, 

pattern, design, massing etc. are fully 

considered in a cultural heritage river 

setting. The Rideau Canal System 

stretching from Ottawa to Kingston in 

Eastern Ontario is one example where 

there has been some effective 

identification and management of 

cultural heritage resources. This 202 

kilometre canal corridor system which 

includes 21 lock stations and 47 locks 

was built in the period of 1826-1832 and 

is considered to be a regional, provincial 

and national significant cultural heritage 

landscape. A detailed management plan 

containing design scenerios was 

developed by Parks Canada. known as 

Vision for the Future: Land Use 

Development Scenarios for the Rideau 

Canal Shoreline (Ecologistics Ltd., 

1992). The document is intended to 

guide new development by presenting 

development scenarios, as ways of 

protecting both natural and cultural 

heritage resources along the nationally, 

provincially and regionally significant 

Rideau Canal corridor. 

Such guidelines outlining various design 

scenarios, can be a model for other 

similar rivers crossing multiple 

municipalities or regions. The use of 

design guidelines can therefore be 

effective when tied to a particular river 

management plan or heritage 

conservation district containing a river. 

New landuse development can be more 

sympathetic to significant cultural 

resources such as dams, bridges, 

buildings, ruins, archaeological sites, 

cemeteries which often exist within the 

boundaries of a river shoreline corridor. 

Conclusion & Summary - 

Connections Along the River 

In Ontario and other jurisdictions throughout 

Canada, there are many challenges when 

conserving cultural resources along rivers. 

More identification, evaluation, and 

assessment of heritage within river systems 

can take place, with the use of more 

strategic land planning tools such as special 

policy areas and management plans. There 

can be more effective recognition of cultural 

features and\or ruins which are at times 

hidden from public view. These features can 

be made more accessible for interpretive, 

educational, recreational, tourism or 

economic development reasons (Plates 15- 

18). 

Heritage and community groups in Ontario 

can also take a more proactive role towards 

identifying and conserving both natural and 

cultural heritage elements on river 

shorelines as urban development intensifies. 

Efforts from all sectors however are required 

for more effective conservation of river 

heritage. From local heritage committees and 

preservation specialists to professional 

resource planners at all government levels, 

some basic conservation concepts should be 

considered when addressing river heritage 

resources: 

- Understanding, evaluating, identifying, 

and inventorying the cultural resources 

along a particular river landscape 

corridor; 

- Establishing local policy frameworks 

through a municipal official plans, 

management plans, Heritage Act 

designations, urban design guidelines, 

and other similar site plan tools; 

16 





Proceedings 


- Managing regeneration, interpretation 

through signage, and promotion in 

attempts to connect cultural resources as 

an integral part of the linear river 

landscape. 

we may be able to meet the challenges 

facing cultural resources within watershed 

corridors. We can then realistically begin to 

connect the heritage fragments as these exist 

along Ontario diverse network of rivers. 

With application of the wide range of 

techniques, methodologies, and approaches, 



Plates 15,16: An attempt to connect dam ruins in a community park zone along the Credit River in Mississauga. 

Plates 17,18: there are many opportunities to further recognize significant cultural elements along rivers such as 

conservation district concepts for the Elora gorge bridge and Guelph’s Speed River. Photos: W.Wong and P.King MCL 

17 





Proceedings 


References 

Commonwealth Historic Resource Management Ltd. 1993. Manual of Guidelines for the 

Management Board Secretariat Toronto, ON: Government of Ontario. 

Ecologistics Ltd. 1992. Visions of the Future: Landuse Development Scenarios for the Rideau 

Canal Shoreline. Cornwall, ON: Environment Canada, Canadian Parks Service. 

Karl Stevens and Associates Ltd. 1998. Compliance with ORC's Heritage Significance Study 

Intervention Guidelines for the Old Whitby Psychiatric Hospital Heritage Site. Toronto, ON: 

Kevin Doble Properties Ltd. 

Ontario Ministry of the Environment \ Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. 1992. 

Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental 

Assessments. Toronto, ON: Government of Ontario. 

Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. 1999. Draft Document - Planning for 

Cultural Heritage Conservation: An Educational Manual for Assessing Built Heritage and 

Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Government of Ontario. 

Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. 1998. Conserving a Future for our 

Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning & Development In Ontario. An Educational Primer and 

Comprehensive Guide for Non-Specialists. Toronto, ON: Government of Ontario. 

Ontario Ministry of Culture 1975 R.S.O. 1990. R.S.O. 2002, Proposed new R.S.O 2004\ The 

Ontario Heritage Act. Toronto, ON: Government of Ontario. 

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing S.O. 1997. Provincial Policy Statements. 

Toronto, ON: Government of Ontario. 

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. S.O. 1996. The Ontario Planning Act. 

Toronto, ON: Government of Ontario. 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources / Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. 1991. 

Timber Management Guidelines for the Protection of Cultural Heritage Resources. Toronto, 

ON: Government of Ontario. 

Ontario Heritage Foundation, Mark Fram. 1988. OHF Manual of Principles and Practice for 

Architectural Conservation. Erin, ON: The Boston Mills Press. 

Pollock-Ellwand, N. 1998. Blair Cultural Landscape Inventory Project: Final Assessment for 

the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Guelph, ON: The Copper Trust. 

Phillip Carter, Architect and Planner, in association with Paul Oberst, Nicholas Holman, 

Harrington and Hoyle Landscape Architects, 2003. Kleinburg-Nashville Heritage Conservation 

District, Vol 1: Study and Plan. Vaughan ON: City of Vaughan. 

Nicholas Hill, Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants Ltd., 1999. Blair Village Heritage 

Conservation District Plan, Final Report, February 1999. Cambridge, ON: City of Cambridge. 

Cecelia Paine and Associates Inc. Landscape Analysis Study of the Pioneer Memorial Tower 

Site and Surrounding Landscape, 1996. Prepared for Parks Canada, Department of Canadian 

Heritage - Ontario Region, ON: Govt. of Canada 

18 





Proceedings 


City of Kitchener Heritage Planner and Director of Planning, 2003. Historic Pioneer Tower West 

Community Heritage Design Guidelines.Report to Development & Technical Services 

Committee, August 11, 2003. Kitchener, ON: City of Kitchener. 

19

Fragments of Our Heritage - Grand River Conservation Authority

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?