06 30 2014 Heritage Committee Agenda
The Township of Oro-Medonte
Heritage Committee Agenda
Council Chambers
Monday, June 30, 2014
6:00 p.m.
Page
1.Adoption of Agenda:
a) Motion to Adopt the Agenda.
2.Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest:
3.Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting:
3 - 8a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monday, April 28, 2014.
9 - 10b) Minutes of the Special Heritage Committee meeting held on Thursday, May
15, 2014.
4.Deputations:
11 a) Joanna McEwen and Paul Marshall, re: Update on Recognition of the
Penetanguishene Road and Connected Town Sites.
5.Communications:
12 - 14 a) Update from the African Church sub-committee.
Draft Conceptual Site Plan \[to be distributed at meeting\].
Fundraising Strategy.
15 - 28 b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.
Draft Policy to be Reviewed \[to be distributed at meeting\].
29 c) Update from the Policy and Procedures for Artifacts and Archives sub-
committee.
Items with no Heritage Value.
Update on Simcoe County Archives Review.
30 - 91 d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for Oro-Medonte
\[Deferred from the April 28, 2014 Heritage Committee meeting\].
92 - 93 e) Building Department Demolition Permits Issued - April and May 2014.
94 - 95 f) Correspondence dated April 8, 2014 from Wayne Morgan, Community
Heritage Ontario, re: Community Heritage Ontario Community Heritage
Ontario.
Page 1 of 100
96 - 100 g) Report No. CS2014-13, Marie Brissette, Coordinator, Corporate Services re:
2014 Fall Meeting Cancellations.
6.Next Meeting Date:
Monday, July 28, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.
7.Adjournment:
a) Motion to Adjourn.
Page 2 of 100
3.a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monda...
The Township of Oro-Medonte
Heritage Committee
Meeting Minutes
Council Chambers
Monday, April 28, 2014Time: 6:02 p.m.
Present:
Councillor John Crawford, Chair Councillor Mel Coutanche, Vice Chair
Mayor H.S. Hughes
Suzanne Busby Murray Cayley, arrived @ 6:17 p.m.
Tim Crawford Ruth Fountain
Wayne Lintack, left @ 7:38 p.m. Dorothy Moore
Kayla Thibeault
Regrets:
Leah Burton Bruce Malcom
Staff:
Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services; Justin
Hodgkinson, Community Recreation Coordinator; Marie Brissette,
Committee Coordinator
1.Adoption of Agenda:
a) Motion to Adopt the Agenda.
Motion No. HC140428-1
Moved by Thibeault, Seconded by Lintack
It is recommended that the agenda for the Heritage Committee meeting of Monday, April 28,
2014 be received and adopted.
Carried.
2.Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest:
None declared.
16
Page of
Page 3 of 100
3.a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monda...
Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes April 28, 2014
3.Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting:
a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monday, March 24, 2014.
Motion No. HC140428-2
Moved by Fountain, Seconded by Moore
It is recommended that the draft minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monday,
March 24, 2014 be adopted as printed and circulated.
Carried.
4.Deputations:
None.
5.Communications:
a) Update from the African Church sub-committee.
Motion No. HC140428-3
Moved by Thibeault, Seconded by Lintack
It is recommended that the correspondence dated April 14, 2014 from Genevieve Charrois,
Parks Canada, re: Parks Canada's National Historic Sites Cost-Sharing Program be received.
Carried.
b) Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services, re: Update on Oro
African Church Stakeholders' Meeting held on Wednesday, April 16, 2014.
Motion No. HC140428-4
Moved by Busby, Seconded by Fountain
It is recommended that the verbal information provided by Councillor Crawford, re: Update on
Oro African Church Stakeholders' Meeting held on Wednesday, April 16, 2014 be received.
Carried.
26
Page of
Page 4 of 100
3.a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monda...
Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes April 28, 2014
c) Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services, re: Procurement of
Restoration Services for the Oro African Church.
Motion No. HC140428-5
Moved by Thibeault, Seconded by Lintack
It is recommended
1. That the verbal update provided by Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community
Services, re: Procurement of Restoration Services for the Oro African Church be received.
2. And That the Heritage Committee recommends to Council that the Director of Recreation
and Community Services be authorized to sole source Victor R. Snow,
Heritage Restoration Project Management & Consulting for the Restoration Services for
the Oro African Church.
Carried.
d) Correspondence dated March 25, 2014 from Brenda Clark, County of Simcoe, re:
Resolution Regarding Restoration of the Oro African Methodist Episcopal Church - Parks
Canada Grant Application.
Motion No. HC140428-6
Moved by Busby, Seconded by Fountain
It is recommended that the correspondence dated March 25, 2014 from Brenda Clark, County
of Simcoe, re: Resolution Regarding Restoration of the Oro African Methodist Episcopal
Church - Parks Canada Grant Application be received.
Carried.
e) Correspondence dated April 4, 2014 from The Honourable Dr. Don Meredith, Senate, re:
Funding through the Parks Canada National Historic Sites Cost Sharing Program - Oro
African Church.
Motion No. HC140428-7
Moved by Thibeault, Seconded by Lintack
It is recommended that the correspondence dated April 4, 2014 from The Honourable Dr. Don
Meredith, Senate, re: Funding through the Parks Canada National Historic Sites Cost Sharing
Program - Oro African Church be received.
Carried.
36
Page of
Page 5 of 100
3.a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monda...
Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes April 28, 2014
f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.
Motion No. HC140428-8
Moved by Lintack, Seconded by Moore
It is recommended
1. That the verbal update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee be received.
2. And that a draft Municipal Listing Policy be brought forward to the next regular Heritage
Committee meeting.
Carried.
g) Building Department Demolition Permits Issued - March 2014.
Motion No. HC140428-9
Moved by Busby, Seconded by Caeley
It is recommended the Building Department Demolition Permits Issued - March 2014 be
received.
Carried.
h) Update from the Policy and Procedures for Artifacts and Archives sub-committee.
Motion No. HC140428-10
Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Lintack
It is recommended that the verbal update provided by Justin Hodgkinson, Community
Recreation Coordinator, on behalf of the Policy and Procedures for Artifacts and Archives
sub-committee be received.
Carried.
i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for Oro-Medonte.
Motion No. HC140428-11
Moved by Busby, Seconded by Fountain
It is recommended that the information presented by Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological
Management Plan for Oro-Medonte be deferred to the next regular Heritage Committee
meeting.
Carried.
46
Page of
Page 6 of 100
3.a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monda...
Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes April 28, 2014
j) Donna Hewitt, Director of Corporate and Strategic Initiatives, re: International Plowing
Match.
Motion No. HC140428-12
Moved by Busby, Seconded by Moore
It is recommended that the information presented by Donna Hewitt, Director of Corporate and
Strategic Initiatives, re: International Plowing Match be received.
Carried.
k) Justin Hodgkinson, Recreation Coordinator, re: Reprint of the Story of Oro.
Motion No. HC140428-13
Moved by Busby, Seconded by Moore
It is recommended
1. That the verbal information presented by Justin Hodgkinson, Recreation Coordinator, re:
Reprint of the Story of Oro be received.
2. And That the Heritage Committee recommends to Council that the Story of Oro be
reprinted.
Carried.
l) Correspondence dated April 8, 2014 from the Simcoe County Historical Association, re: A
Commemoration - 70th Anniversary of D-Day (June 6, 1944) and Annual General
Meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 29, 2014 - Midhurst United Church.
Motion No. HC140428-14
Moved by Fountain, Seconded by Thibeault
It is recommended that the correspondence dated April 8, 2014 from the Simcoe County
Historical Association, re: A Commemoration - 70th Anniversary of D-Day (June 6, 1944) and
Annual General Meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 29, 2014 - Midhurst United Church be
received.
Carried.
56
Page of
Page 7 of 100
3.a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monda...
Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes April 28, 2014
6.Next Meeting Date:
Special Meeting to be held on Thursday, May 15, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.
7.Adjournment:
a) Motion to Adjourn.
Motion No. HC140428-15
Moved by Thibeault, Seconded by Crawford
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 7:43 p.m.
Carried.
Councillor Crawford, Chair Marie Brissette, Committee Coordinator
66
Page of
Page 8 of 100
3.b) Minutes of the Special Heritage Committee meeting held ...
The Township of Oro-Medonte
Special Heritage Committee
Meeting Minutes
Council Chambers
Thursday, May 15, 2014Time: 6:03 p.m.
Present:
Councillor John Crawford, Chair Mayor H.S. Hughes
Suzanne Busby, arrived @ 6:40 p.m. Murray Cayley
Tim Crawford Ruth Fountain
Wayne Lintack, left @ 7:38 p.m. Dorothy Moore
Kayla Thibeault
Regrets:
Councillor Mel Coutanche, Vice Chair
Leah Burton Bruce Malcom
Staff:
Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services;
Justin Hodgkinson, Community Recreation Coordinator;
Marie Brissette, Committee Coordinator
Also present:
Janie Cooper Wilson, Shirley Thompson-Kort, Abel Kort
1.Adoption of Agenda:
a) Motion to Adopt the Agenda.
Motion No. SHC140515-1
Moved by Fountain, Seconded by Cayley
It is recommended that the agenda for the Special Heritage Committee meeting of
Thursday, May 15, 2014 be received and adopted.
Carried.
2.Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest:
None declared.
12
Page of
Page 9 of 100
3.b) Minutes of the Special Heritage Committee meeting held ...
Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 15, 2014
3.Communications:
a) Su Murdoch, Historical Consulting and Victor R. Snow, Heritage Restoration, Project
Management & Consulting, re: Cultural Heritage Assessment: Oro African Methodist
Episcopal Church and Cemetery National Historic Site.
Motion No. SHC140515-2
Moved by Lintack, Seconded by Cayley
It is recommended
1. That the information presented by Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community
Services, re: Su Murdoch, Historical Consulting and Victor R. Snow, Heritage Restoration,
Project Management & Consulting, Cultural Heritage Assessment: Oro African Methodist
Episcopal Church and Cemetery National Historic Site be received.
2. And that the Heritage Committee recommends to Council that Council supports the
recommendations contained within the Cultural Heritage Assessment: Oro African
Methodist Episcopal Church and Cemetery National Historic Site, as presented by Su
Murdoch, Historical Consulting and Victor R. Snow, Heritage Restoration, Project
Management & Consulting.
Carried.
4.Next Meeting Date:
Monday, June 30, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.
5.Adjournment:
a) Motion to Adjourn.
Motion No. SHC140515-3
Moved by Lintack, Seconded by Busby
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 7:21 p.m.
Carried.
Councillor Crawford, Chair Marie Brissette, Committee Coordinator
22
Page of
Page 10 of 100
4.a) Joanna McEwen and Paul Marshall, re: Update on Recognit...
Verbal Matters
(Section 12.3 of Townships
Procedural By-Law No. 2013-054)
Name: Joanna McEwen and Paul Marshall
Item Number/Name: 4a) Update on Recognition of the Penetanguishene Road and
Connected Town Sites.
Meeting Date: 06 30 2014
Motion No.: HC140630-4
Type of Meeting: Council Special Council
Committee of Adjustment Accessibility Advisory Committee
Recreational Technical Support Group
X Heritage Committee
Speaking Notes:
Paul Marshall provided the Heritage Committee with an update on what had been approved by
Council, the County of Simcoe and the next steps for the project.
7/4/14
Page 11 of 100
5.a) Update from the African Church sub-committee.Draft Conc...
Page 12 of 100
5.a) Update from the African Church sub-committee.Draft Conc...
Page 13 of 100
5.a) Update from the African Church sub-committee.Draft Conc...
Verbal Matters
(Section 12.3 of Townships
Procedural By-Law No. 2013-054)
Name: Update from the African Church sub-committee.
Item Number/Name: 5a) Fundraising Strategy.
Meeting Date: 06 30 2014
Motion No.: HC140630-5
Type of Meeting: Council Special Council
Committee of Adjustment Accessibility Advisory Committee
Recreational Technical Support Group
X Heritage Committee
Speaking Notes:
The Heritage Committee identified the need for a volunteer working group to make fundraising
recommendations for the Oro African Church.
7/4/14
Page 14 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
MunicipalRegister
ProcessGuidelines
MunicipalRegisterofCulturalHeritagePropertiesͻbƚƓķĻƭźŭƓğƷĻķͼProperties
BACKGROUNDANDPURPOSEOFTHEMUNICIPALREGISTER
TheMunicipalRegisteristheofficiallistofMunicipallySignificant,CulturalHeritagePropertiesthathasbeen
identifiedasbeingimportanttothecommunity.Itisanimportanttooltohelpamunicipalitymonitoritscultural
heritageresourcesandplanfortheirconservation.
EverymunicipalityinOntario,underSection27ofthe OntarioHeritageAct,isrequiredtomaintainaMunicipal
Registerthatlistsallformallydesignatedheritageproperties.AMunicipalCouncilmayexpandtheRegisterto
alsoincludeͻƓƚƓķĻƭźŭƓğƷĻķͼpropertiesthatitbelievestobeofculturalheritagevalueorinterest.Regulation
9/06ofthe OntarioHeritageAct setsoutthecriteriafordeterminingculturalheritagevalueorinterest.Under
thelegislation,apropertyisrequiredtomeetthecriteriaoutlinedinAppendixA,tobeconsideredacultural
heritageresource.ThedecisiontoincludeaͻƓƚƓķĻƭźŭƓğƷĻķͼpropertyrestswithMunicipalCouncilupon
consultationwithitsMunicipalHeritageCommittee,i.e.HeritageCommittee.
NONDESIGNATEDANDDESIGNATEDLISTINGPROCESS
TheTownshipRegistrywillconsistofͻbƚƓ5ĻƭźŭƓğƷĻķͼandͻ5ĻƭźŭƓğƷĻķͼproperties.
1.TheMunicipalRegisterofCulturalHeritagePropertiesΑNonDesignatedProperties
ThislistincludesͻƓƚƓķĻƭźŭƓğƷĻķͼpropertiesthathaveculturalheritagevalueorinterest.Thelistingof
nondesignatedpropertiesprovidesinterimprotectionforsitesundergoingchangebyrequiringownersto
providetheTownshipwith60ķğǤƭnoticeoftheirintentiontodemolishorremoveabuildingorstructure
ontheproperty.ThisnoticeperiodallowstheTownshiptomakeawellinformeddecisionaboutwhether
longtermprotectionofthepropertyshouldbesoughtthroughtheformaldesignationprocess.
TheprocessforaddingapropertyasͻbƚƓ5ĻƭźŭƓğƷĻķͼisasfollows:
i.Selflisting,shouldthepropertyownerwishtolistapropertyvoluntarily,theycansubmitan
applicationforconsiderationbytheHeritageCommittee(AppendixA).
ii.RecommendationfromtheHeritageCommitteethroughtheascreeningprocessutilizingtheCultural
HeritageResourceEvaluationForm(AppendixB)
2.TheMunicipalRegisterofCulturalHeritagePropertiesΑDesignatedProperties
Thislistincludeskeyinformation(AppendixA&B)onallthebuildings,structures,landscapesanddistricts
thathavebeendesignatedunderthe OntarioHeritageAct.Theprocessforͻ5ĻƭźŭƓğƷźƓŭͼapropertyand
addingittotheMunicipalRegisteristhesameasͻbƚƓ5ĻƭźŭƓğƷĻķͼwiththeadditionalprocesses:
StructuresdesignatedundertheOntarioHeritageActmustmeetspecificcriteriatobeconsideredof
architecturalorculturalinterest.
TheOntarioHeritageActallowsforthedesignationofanyrealproperty,notjustbuildings.Thedesignation
processcanbeinitiatedbyarequestfromthepropertyownertotheHeritageCommitteeorbya
Page 15 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
recommendationdirectlyfromtheHeritageCommittee,similartoͻbƚƓ5ĻƭźŭƓğƷźƚƓͼ͵Thepropertyisthen
researchedandevaluatedagainsttheDesignationCriteria(AppendixB),andifthepropertyisdeemed
eligible,areportisdrawnupcontainingthereasonsfordesignationandforwardedtoTownshipCouncil.
IfCouncilrecommendsdesignation,itmustinformthepropertyownerandpublishaͻƓƚƷźĭĻofintentionto
ķĻƭźŭƓğƷĻͼinthelocalnewspaper.AnyoneobjectingtotheproposeddesignationmustnotifytheCouncilin
writingwithinthirtydaysoftheinitialappearanceoftheadvertisement,settingoutthereasonsforthe
objection.Ifthereisnoobjection,Councilisabletoenactabylawdesignatingthepropertywhichisthen
registeredatthelocalregistryofficeandforwardedtothepropertyownerandtheOntarioHeritage
Foundation.Intheeventofanobjection,theTownshipcanwithdrawitsintentiontodesignateor,should
TownshipCouncilchoose,theymayreferthemattertotheConservationReviewBoard,aprovincial
advisorybody,whichholdsapublichearinginthemunicipalitytoreviewthecaseandreportsitsfindingsto
thepartiesinvolved.Basedonthe.ƚğƩķƭadvice,TownshipCouncileitherdesignatesthepropertyor
withdrawsitsintentiontodesignate.
PropertydesignationundertheOntarioHeritageActrecognizesandreinforcesthecommunityvalueof
heritageproperties,providesprotectionagainstinappropriatechangestoheritagepropertiesandhinders
theirdemolition,andalsogivesheritagepropertyownersaccesstogovernmentprogramsoffinancial
assistance.
CORRECTIONANDDELISTINGPROCESS
Areviewprocessandapplicationformhasbeendevelopedtoprovideaprocesstoreviewrequeststoeither
considercorrectionstolistedinformationand/orremovalofpropertieslistedonthe aǒƓźĭźƦğƌwĻŭźƭƷĻƩƚŅ
/ǒƌƷǒƩğƌIĻƩźƷğŭĻtƩƚƦĻƩƷźĻƭΑbƚƓ5ĻƭźŭƓğƷĻķtƩƚƦĻƩƷźĻƭ.
IfapropertyislistedasaͻƓƚƓķĻƭźŭƓğƷĻķͼpropertyandthepropertyownerdisagreeswiththeinformation
includedontheMunicipalRegistertheycanusethisapplicationformto:
1)RequestconsiderationforacorrectiontotheinformationincludedontheMunicipal
Registerforaproperty;or
2)RequestconsiderationforremovalofapropertyontheMunicipalRegister(SeeAttachedAppendix
A).
Application
Townshipstaffwillreviewtheapplicationtoensurethattheinformationiscomplete.
Applicationswillnotbeprocesseduntilallrequiredinformationandmaterialissubmitted
withtheapplicationform.
Onceacompleteapplicationisreceived,Townshipstaffwilldatetheapplication,
acknowledgereceiptandidentifyiftheapplicationiscompleteorincomplete.
CompleteapplicationswillbepresentedtotheHeritageCommitteewhowillbegintheirreview.Ifthe
HeritageCommitteeissatisfiedwiththeapplicationanditmeetsthecriteria,TheHeritageCommittee
willmakearecommendationtoCounciltoaddittothelist.
Page 16 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
Ifanapplicationisincomplete,Townshipstaffwillidentifythemissinginformationand/or
documentationneededtosupporttheapplication.
A.RequestforCorrectionoftheHeritageRegister
ΘTownshipstaffwillberesponsibleforthereviewofapplicationsrequestingcorrectionstolisted
information,includingsupportingdocumentation.Basedontheinformationsubmitted,Townshipstaff
may:
a)CorrectinformationrecordedforthepropertyontheRegister;or
b)Keepinformationaslistedandadvisetheapplicantofthereason(s)fornotmakingthe
requestedchange.
TheHeritageCommitteemaybeconsultedifdeemednecessarybystafforattherequestofan
applicant.
Townshipstaffand/ortheHeritageCommitteewillmakethefinaldecisionregarding
correctionrequests.
Whereapplicable,theinformationontheRegisterwillbecorrected.
B.RequestforRemovalfromtheHeritageRegister
ΘTheHeritageCommitteewillreviewallapplicationsrequestingremovalfromtheMunicipal
Register,includingsupportingdocumentation.Basedontheinformationsubmitted,TheHeritage
Committeemay:
a)
RecommendtoTownshipCouncilthatthepropertyremainlistedontheRegister;or
b)
RecommendtoTownshipCouncilthatthepropertyberemovedfromtheRegister.
ΘTheHeritageCommitteemeetingsareopentothepublicandapplicantsareencouragedto
attendthemeetingandpresenttherationalefortheirrequest.
ΘTownshipCouncilwillmakethefinaldecisionregardingthelistingofpropertieson The
MunicipalRegisterofCulturalHeritagePropertiesΑNonDesignatedProperties.
ΘWhereapplicable,thepropertywillberemovedfromtheRegister.
Page 17 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
STEPSFORAPPLICANTS
1.Consult TheMunicipalRegisterofCulturalHeritagePropertiesNondesignatedProperties at
www.oromedonte.ca.Scrollthroughthealphabeticallistofstreetstofindtheentryforthe
property.AhardcopyoftheMunicipalRegisterisalsoavailableattheTownshipOffice.
2.ChecktheresourcesbelowforinformationaboutheritagearchitecturaltermsusedintheRegister,
designationcriteriafordeterminingtheculturalvalueofaproperty,researchingaproperty,and
professionalheritageconsultants.
3.CompletetheApplicationForm(Correction/Removal)withspecificdetailstosupporttherequestto
correctinformationand/orrequesttheremovalofthepropertyfromtheRegister.
4.Submitthecompletedformto:
TownshipofOroMedonteHeritageCommittee
148Line7South
OroMedonte,ONL0L2E0
Phone:7054872171
Fax:7054870133
5.Townshipstaffwilldatetheapplication,acknowledgereceiptandidentifyiftheapplicationiscomplete
ornot.
6.IfanapplicationisincompleteTownshipstaffwillidentifythemissinginformationand/ordocumentation
neededtosupporttheapplication.Theapplicantwillneedtosubmitthemissinginformationand/or
documentationbeforeTownshipstaffwillcontinueprocessingtherequest.
7.Wheretherequestisforacorrection,Townshipstaffwilladvisetheapplicantofitsdecisionandthe
Registerwillbemodifiedasappropriate.
8.Wheretherequestisforremoval,TownshipstaffwilladvisetheapplicantwhentheHeritageCommittee
willreviewtherequest.TheapplicantisencouragedtoattendtheHeritageCommitteemeetingand
presenttherationalefortherequest.
9.TownshipstaffwilladvisetheapplicantoftheHeritage/ƚƒƒźƷƷĻĻƭrecommendationandwhenthe
matterwillbeforwardedtoTownshipCouncilforafinaldecision.
Page 18 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
RESOURCES
DefinitionofTermsUsedinͻ{źŭƓźŅźĭğƓƷCĻğƷǒƩĻƭͼDescriptionoftheProperty
GlossaryofArchitecturalTerms(www.OntarioArchitecture.com)
StandardsandGuidelinesforHistoricPlacesinCanada(www.historicplaces.ca/nor
sta/request.aspx?req=sec6/page6a)
DesignationCriteria
CriteriaforDeterminingCulturalHeritageValueorInterestOntarioRegulation9/06madeunderthe
OntarioHeritageAct(SeeAttachedAppendixA)
ResearchingAProperty
SimcoeCountyArchives
SimcoeCountyMuseum
LandRegistryOffice
ProfessionalHeritageConsultants
Forcomplexapplications,propertyownersmayengagetheservicesofaheritageprofessionaltoprovidethe
rationaleandsupportdocumentationfortheapplication.
CanadianAssociationofHeritageProfessionals(www.caphc.ca)
SPECIALNOTES
Applicationforremovaldoesnotnecessarilymeanremovalwillbegranted.
PropertieswillremainlistedontheMunicipalRegisteruntilCouncilapprovestheirremoval.
HeritageAssessmentreportspreparedbyaheritageprofessionalmaybeincludedwiththeapplication
forreviewbutarenotrequiredforacompleteapplicationifappropriatesupportingdocumentationis
providedtodemonstratethatthecriteriaunderAppendixAisnotapplicable.
c)WhereheritageassessmentreportsaresubmittedtotheTownship,theymustbesignedandsealed
byaqualifiedprofessionalinthefieldofculturalheritageresourceassessmentandacceptabletothe
TownshipinconsultationwiththeHeritageCommittee.
ΘCostsofaheritageassessmentconductedbyanindependentthirdpartywillnotbereimbursed.
ΘApplicantswillnotbechargedforassessmentsconductedbytheHeritageCommittee.
ΘDesignatedpropertiesarenoteligibleforremovalfromtheMunicipalRegister.
Page 19 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
APPENDIXA
CRITERIAFORDETERMININGCULTURALHERITAGEVALUEORINTEREST
ONTARIOREGULATION9/06MADEUNDERTHEONTARIOHERITAGEACT
Criteria
1.(1)Thecriteriasetoutinsubsection(2)areprescribedforthepurposesofclause29
(1)(a)oftheAct.
(2)Apropertymaybedesignatedundersection29oftheActifitmeetsoneormoreofthefollowing
criteriafordeterminingwhetheritisofculturalheritagevalueorinterest:
1.Thepropertyhasdesignvalueorphysicalvaluebecauseit,
i.isarare,unique,representativeorearlyexampleofastyle,type,
expression,materialorconstructionmethod,
ii.displaysahighdegreeofcraftsmanshiporartisticmerit,or
iii.demonstratesahighdegreeoftechnicalorscientificachievement.
2.Thepropertyhashistoricalvalueorassociativevaluebecauseit,
i.hasdirectassociationswithatheme,event,belief,person,activity,
organizationorinstitutionthatissignificanttoacommunity,
ii.yields,orhasthepotentialtoyield,informationthatcontributestoan
understandingofacommunityorculture,or
iii.demonstratesorreflectstheworkorideasofanarchitect,artist,
builder,designerortheoristwhoissignificanttoacommunity.
3.Thepropertyhascontextualvaluebecauseit,
i.isimportantindefining,maintainingorsupportingthecharacterofanarea,
ii.isphysically,functionally,visuallyorhistoricallylinkedtoitssurroundings,or
iii.isalandmark.
Transition
2.ThisRegulationdoesnotapplyinrespectofapropertyifnoticeofintentiontodesignateitwasgiven
undersubsection29(1.1)oftheActonorbeforeJanuary24,2006.
Page 20 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form
Address Period Recorder Name
Description
Photographs: Front Façade Left Facade Right Facade Rear Facade Details Setting Date
Design or Physical Value
RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes
particular architectural style or type?
Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes
material or method of construction?
Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown Unknown Unknown No Yes
N/A N/A
merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or details?
Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or N/A Unknown No YesN/A N/A N/A Unknown Unknown No Yes
scientific achievement?
Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship N/A Unknown No YesN/A N/A N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown No No Yes
YesYes
and/or detail noteworthy?
Notes
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
Contextual Value
RECORDER RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Continuity Does this structure contribute to the continuity or character N/A Does this structure contribute to the continuity or character N/A Does this structure contribute
to the continuity or character N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown No No No YesYesN/A Unknown No Yes
of the street,neighbourhood or area?
Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping N/A Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping N/A Is the setting or orientation
of the structure or landscaping N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown No No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes
Yes Yes
noteworthy?
Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual N/A Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual N/A Does it provide a physical, historical, functional
or visual N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown No No YesN/A Unknown No Yes
link to its surroundings?
Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within Is this a particularly important visual landmark within Is this a particularly important visual landmark within
R N/A R N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes
the region, city or neighbourhood? the region, city or neighbourhood? the region, city or neighbourhood? C C
C
(indicate degree of importance)indicate degree of importance)indicate degree of importance) N N N
Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes
Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N/A Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N/A
notable landscaping or notable landscaping orexternal features that complete the site? external features that complete the site? external features that complete the site?
notable landscaping or
Notes
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
Integrity
RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Site Does the structure occupy its original site? N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes
Note: if relocated, i.e. relocated on its
original site, moved from another site, etc.
Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes
and design features?
Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes
taken place over time?
Condition Is this building in good condition? N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes
Notes
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 21 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form
Historical or Associative Value & Significance
RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or Unknown No YesUnknown No Yes
contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization
or institution that is significant or unique within the City?
Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No YesUnknown No Yes
Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage No Yes Unknown No Yes Unknown
resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the
Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act?
A property or structure valued for the important contribution it
makes to our understanding of the history of a place, an event,
or a people?
Notes
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
Further Action/Follow Up
Recorder Evaluation Sub-Committee Evaluation Sub-Committee Evaluation Sub-Committee
Add toHeritage Register Add to Heritage Register *
High Priority for Designation High Priority for Designation
Heritage District Potential Heritage District Potential
Additional Research Required Additional Research Required
Additional Photographs Required Setting Setting Setting All Façades All Façades All Façades Details Details Details Additional Photographs Required
Request Permission to Access Property Request Permission to Access Property Request Permission to Access Property Request Permission to Access Property
Other__________________________________________ Other__________________________________________ Other__________________________________________ Other________________________________________________
General Comments
General Comments
General Comments
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________
*Date of Property Owner Notification*Date of Property Owner Notification*Date of Property Owner Notification
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Property Owner Name and Address ___________________________________________________________________________________
Recommendation
Heritage Committee Recommendation Council Decision
Add to Heritage Register Add to Heritage Register
No Action - Keep on FileNo Action - Keep on File
Date________________________________________ Date________________________________________
2
Page 22 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
Municipal Register
Application Form (Correction/Removal)
Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties
-
Heritage Committee, Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South
Oro-Medonte, ON L0L 2E0
P (705) 487-2171 Date Application Filed: ________________
F (705) 487-0133
File Number: ________________________
GENERAL APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
You may consult members of the Heritage Committee concerning any questions/concerns you encounter in
completing and/or submitting this application.
If you require more space than is provided on this form, please attach additional pages and/or documents.
Supporting documentation should be included with the application.
PART A: Applicant Information
Name of Registered Property Owner: _________________________________________________
Address of Registered Property Owner: _______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Phone Number: __________________________ Fax Number: __________________________
Email Address: __________________________________________________________________
\[Please note: Authorization is required if the applicant is not the owner. See Part F.\]
Agent Information (If another party is filling out this application on behalf of the owner.
All correspondence will be sent to the agent and copied to the owner.)
Name of Agent: _________________________________________________________________
Address of Agent: ________________________________________________________________
Phone Number: __________________________ Fax Number: __________________________
Email Address: __________________________________________________________________
Page 23 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
PART B: Property Information
Address of Subject Property: _______________________________________________________
Legal Description (e.g. Lot and Plan No.): _____________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Date of Acquisition of Subject Property: ______________________________________________
Current Use(s): _________________________________________________________________
Existing Structures: Structure 1: ________________________________
Yes (please specify use) Structure 2: ________________________________
No Structure 3: ________________________________
Current Photograph of property attached. Yes No
PART C: Request Details
When filling out this section please consult the current Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Resources
Non-Designated Properties (see www.oro-medonte.ca search municipal register), a Glossary of Architectural
Terms (www.OntarioArchitecture.com; www.historicplaces.ca/nor-sta/request.aspx?req=sec6/page6a) and
d in Ontario Regulation 9/06 to the
Ontario Heritage Act (See Attached Appendix A).
1) Correction to Municipal Register
Are you requesting a correction to Municipal Register information? Yes No
If Yes, please identify what information is incorrect and provide details explaining what change you are
requesting and include documentation/data sources in support of your application.
Property Address:
_______________________________________________________
Legal Address:
_______________________________________________________
Build Date:
_______________________________________________________
Significant Features:
_______________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Page 24 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
2) Removal from the Municipal Register
Are you requesting removal from the Municipal Register? Yes No
If Yes,
a) Please provide your rationale for the property not displaying any design or physical value under the
Criteria attached as Appendix A to the Review Process Guidelines.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
b) Please provide your rationale for the property not displaying any historic or associative value under
the Criteria attached as Appendix A to the Review Process Guidelines.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
c) Please provide your rationale for the property not displaying any contextual value under the Criteria
attached as Appendix A to the Review Process Guidelines.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Has a Heritage Assessment been conducted? Yes No
( the appropriate Report to this
application)
Page 25 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
Heritage Consultant Information
Name of Heritage Consultant: __________________________________________________
Address of Heritage Consultant: ________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Email Address: __________________________________________________________________
Phone Number: __________________________ Fax Number: ___________________________
PART D: Project Information
Is this property currently or previously the subject of a development application (e.g. Re-zoning, site plan
control, building permit, demolition, etc)?
Yes No
If Yes, please provide:
Date: _________________________________________________________________
File Number: _________________________________________________________________
Purpose: _________________________________________________________________
Details/Outcome:
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Page 26 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
PART E: Sworn Declaration
I/WE HEREBY CERTIFY that the information contained in this application is true, correct and complete in every
respect and may be verified by the Township of Oro-Medonte, including Heritage Committee members, by such
inquiry as it deems appropriate, including inspection of the property for which this application is being made.
I/WE HEREBY GRANT PERMISSION to the Township, or its agents, including Heritage Committee members, to
inspect my/our property as part of the review/heritage assessment process.
_____________________________________ _______________________________________
Name of Property Owner Title
_____________________________________ _______________________________________
Signature of Property Owner Date
(Owner must sign this application. Please see
Part F: Authorization for Agent to Act for Owner)
_____________________________________ _______________________________________
Signature of Agent (where applicable) Date
_____________________________________ _______________________________________
Name of Qualified Person (where applicable) Title
(Heritage Consultant)
_____________________________________ _______________________________________
Signature of Qualified Person (where applicable) Date
(Heritage Consultant)
** Personal information in this application (name, address, phone number, e-mail address) is part of the public
record and by signing such application form the applicant acknowledges that such information can be disclosed
to the public.
Page 27 of 100
5.b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.Draft...
PART F: Authorization for Agent to Act for Owner
must be
completed and submitted with the application.)
I/WE __________________________________________________________________________
Of the _________________________ of _____________________________________________
In the County/Region of ___________________________________________________________
Do hereby authorize ______________________________________________________________
To act as my/our agent in this application.
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
Signature of Owner (s) Date
____________________________________
Print Name of Owner (s)
** Personal information in this application (name, address, phone number, e-mail address) is part of the public
record and by signing such application form the applicant acknowledges that such information can be disclosed
to the public.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
OFFICE USE:
Date Received: ______________ Application Complete:
60 Day Review Period Ends: ______________ Support Materials Provided:
Correction Request
Result ____________________________________________________
Removal Request
Date of Heritage Sub-committee ______________
Date of Heritage Committee Meeting ______________
Invite Applicant ______________
Council Date ______________
Result _____________________________________________________
Register and copies Updated
Comments: ______________________________________________________________________
Page 28 of 100
5.c) Update from the Policy and Procedures for Artifacts and...
Verbal Matters
(Section 12.3 of Townships
Procedural By-Law No. 2013-054)
Name: Update from the Policy and Procedures for Artifacts and Archives
sub-committee.
Item Number/Name: 5c) Items with no Heritage Value; Update on Simcoe County Archives
Review.
Meeting Date: 06 30 2014
Motion No.: HC140630-8
Type of Meeting: Council Special Council
Committee of Adjustment Accessibility Advisory Committee
Recreational Technical Support Group
X Heritage Committee
Speaking Notes:
Justin Hodgkinson, Coordinator, Community Recreation, informed the Heritage Committee that
all items at the Township Office had been reviewed by Township and Simcoe County Archives
staff and that any items of interest had been catalogued.
The Heritage Committee agreed that any items not deemed to have a Heritage significance
could be discarded.
7/4/14
Page 29 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
PLANNING FOR THE CONSERVATION OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IN THE CITY OF KINGSTON
Submitted to:
Planning and Development Department
City of Kingston
26 Ontario Street
Kingston, Ontario K7L 2Z3
Prepared by:
Archaeological Services Inc.
528 Bathurst Street
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2P9
Tel.: (416) 966-1069
Fax: (416) 966-9723
Email: info@iasi.to
Website: www.iasi.to
March 2010
Page 30 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An Archaeological Master Plan with a comprehensive potential model is the latest response to an old problem
how to deal with evidence of the past that is, for the most part, not visible because it is buried underground
(or under water). The City of Kingston has a long cultural history that begins approximately 10,000 years ago
and continues to the present. The archaeological sites that are the physical remains of this lengthy settlement
history represent a fragile and non-renewable cultural heritage resource.
The common response of “out of sight, out of mind,” however, is no longer possible in today’s political and
legal climate. Recent court cases involving Aboriginal land claims, not to mention stop-work orders issued
when human remains are uncovered on a development site, are but two examples of the ways in which
archaeological resources affect property owners and the municipalities in which they are located. Policy
initiatives, such as those found in the report of the Ipperwash inquiry, recommending that every municipality
in Ontario adopt a master plan for archaeological resources so as to identify their flashpoints and put in place
a way of dealing with them before they happen, coupled with more stringent heritage resource conservation
policies in the Provincial Policy Statement (Planning Act), the Ontario Cemeteries Act, and the Ontario
Heritage Act, require municipalities to more wisely plan for the conservation of archaeological resources. In
other words, cities such as Kingston have no choice but to address archaeology, preferably by preparing
archaeological master plans.
The good news is that such plans are an excellent tool for municipalities. First, they tell you what has been
found by providing an inventory and evaluation of known archaeological resources. Second, they tell you
where undiscovered archaeological resources are most likely to be found by identifying areas of
archaeological resource potential. Both of these inventories are mapped onto the City’s GIS database, making
them very accessible to staff and the public alike. Third, they tell you what to do with both the known and
probable places in which archaeological resources are likely to be encountered, by providing the step by step
process for managing such resources. Fourth, they structure this advice within a clear, logical framework
based on an historical analysis of the city and using international best practices for preparing cultural resource
management plans. In this way, they are effective and robust, able to withstand challenges and suited to
updating as new information emerges.
Once an Archaeological Master Plan is in place, the risk of unfortunate surprises occurring (such as disturbing
a burial site) is significantly reduced, and public awareness of archaeological resources considerably
increased. Property owners, developers, and prospective buyers know beforehand whether they will have to
conduct archaeological investigations if they want to develop or redevelop a site. Citizens will know their
community’s history better and, it is hoped, appreciate its heritage more fully. And with more cultural
heritage resources identified and interpreted within Kingston, tourists will have a greater selection of places to
visit. Indeed, careful planning for the conservation and interpretation of cultural heritage resources will
promote economic growth and offer opportunities for improving local quality of life.
The preparation of such a plan is particularly crucial for the City of Kingston, which underwent amalgamation
eleven years ago. It is anticipated that the population of the municipality will increase by approximately 12%
over the next 20 years.
In recognition of these facts, the City of Kingston retained Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), in association
with Carl Bray and Associates Ltd., to prepare the master plan.
The Archaeological Master Plan of the City of Kingston has three major goals:
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 31 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
1)the compilation of inventories of registered and unregistered archaeological sites within the City
and the preparation of an overview of the area's settlement history as it may be expected to
pertain to archaeological resources;
2)the development of an archaeological site potential model, based on known site locations, past
and present land uses, and environmental and cultural-historical data; and
3)a review of the current federal, provincial, and municipal planning and management guidelines
for archaeological resources, as well as the identification of a new recommended management
strategy for known and potential archaeological resources within the City.
To date, more than 90 archaeological sites have been registered within the City, which date from the earliest
period of human occupation in the region 10,000 years ago through to the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.
In order to understand the manner in which additional, as yet undocumented archaeological sites may be
distributed within the City, an archaeological potential model was developed using the City’s Geographic
Information System (GIS) to map various sets of information as separate, but complementary, layers of spatial
data on 1:2,000 scale digital base maps. The zones of pre-contact archaeological potential were determined
only after a detailed consideration of the past natural and cultural environments in the City. The zones were
then based on distance to various forms of potable water, soil drainage characteristics and slope attributes.
Examination of the early historic mapping of the City, together with consideration of the basic historical
themes that have been most influential in the development of the historic core of the City and the former
townships of the City, led to the identification of areas of early settlement, commercial, industrial and
transportation development and the mapping of these zones as areas of historic archaeological potential.
The final task in the analysis was to eliminate areas where previous development has resulted in extensive
landscape disturbance. The remaining lands falling within the zones of pre-contact and historic potential
encompass approximately 66% of the total landmass of the City. The tool that the City currently uses to
require assessments, provided by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, currently captures about 88% of the
City.
The role of the municipality in the conservation of these resources is crucial. Planning and land use control
are predominantly municipal responsibilities and the impact of municipal land use decisions on archaeological
resources is significant, especially since municipally-approved developments constitute the majority of land
disturbing activities in the Province. The primary means by which these resources may be protected is through
the planning application process. Furthermore, review of development applications for archaeological
resource concerns are made directly by the City. In recognition of these facts, the final task of the Master Plan
research was the identification of a series of policies for incorporation in the Official Plan and of practices
within the development applications process that will ensure the conservation of these valuable cultural
heritage resources within the overall process of change and growth in the City.
The results of this work were compiled in two reports entitled Master Plan of Archaeological Resources
City of Kingston, Technical Report and Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the
City of Kingston, both dated February 2010.
The major recommendations resulting from this study include:
That the policies attached as Appendix A be incorporated into the Official Plan.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 32 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
It is recommended that the archaeological potential and Archaeologically Sensitive Area (ASA)
mapping be used in determining requirements for archaeological assessments.
It is recommended that the Planning and Development Department work with City departments to
establish protocols that ensure that in all appropriate circumstances, construction projects undertaken
by developers, ratepayers and the City of Kingston that may impact archaeological resources on
public lands (e.g., trail, playground, playing field, public washroom, parking lot construction, road
widening/extension, trunk sewer and watermain construction, stormwater management facility
construction, municipal building and structure construction, etc.) and which are located in areas of
archaeological potential or areas identified as being archaeologically sensitive, are subject to
archaeological assessment prior to any land disturbing activity.
It is recommended that when there are any new designations of heritage properties (which include
constructions dating before 1920) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, that the property
footprint be added to the final potential mapping (Appendix B). If the newly designated property is
surrounded by greenfields, the newly designated property should be buffered by 100 metres for
archaeological potential.
No Stage 4 archaeological investigations on Aboriginal sites should be undertaken within the City of
Kingston without first filing a First Nations consultation report with the Planning and Development
Department.
Archaeological assessment reports should contain advisories on the steps to be taken should
unanticipated deeply buried archaeological remains or human remains be found on a property during
construction activities.
In order to ensure the long term viability of the Archaeological Master Plan, it should be subject to
comprehensive review on a five year basis and should be carried out by a licensed archaeologist in
co-ordination with the five year review of the City’s Official Plan
Procedures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Tourism and
Culture and the City of Kingston should be followed regarding the sharing of information concerning
archaeological site locations.
It is recommended that the City develop and adopt, in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism and
Culture, relevant Aboriginal communities, other agencies, landowners, and the public, a
“Contingency Plan for the Protection of Archaeological Resources in Urgent Situations.”
The City of Kingston should implement a public awareness initiative by which the general public
might be made more knowledgeable of the wide range of archaeological resources present within the
City.
The City of Kingston should consider preparing both an accurate and comprehensive inventory of the
archaeological collections currently held by museums and consulting archaeologists and a guideline
encouraging the curation of material from archaeological sites within Kingston at local museums.
In summary, cities can no longer avoid dealing with archaeological resources especially since provincial
planning policy has been strengthened in this regard. More importantly, there are clear precedents in law that
demonstrate the severe financial and political costs of avoiding this responsibility. Kingston is making a wise
choice in building on their past commitment and joining with other major municipalities in Ontario (e.g.,
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 33 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Windsor, London, Region of Waterloo, Toronto, Ottawa) in adopting progressive policies for the wise use
and conservation of their archaeological records.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 34 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 6
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Project Director:Dr. Ronald F. Williamson
Heritage Consultant:Dr. Carl Bray
Project Historians:Ms. Mary L. MacDonald
Mr. Brian Narhi
Environmental Archaeologist:Dr. Robert I. MacDonald
Archaeological Site Research:Ms. Sarina Finlay
Project Archaeologist:Dr. Robert I. MacDonald
GIS Technician and Graphics:Ms. Sarina Finlay
Report Preparation:Ms. Mary L. MacDonald
Dr. Robert I. MacDonald
Mr. Brian Narhi
Dr. Ronald F. Williamson
Ms. Annie Veilleux
Acknowledgments
The project team would like to thank Marcus Letourneau for sharing his expertise and knowledge with the
heritage record of the City and for his advice in steering the course of the study. We are also grateful for the
helpful comments on early drafts of the plan by Nick Adams, Chris Junker-Andersen, Winston Wong, Sue
Bazely, Robert Cardwell, Henry Cary, Hugh Daeschel, John Duerkop, John Grenville, Nick Grimhoff, and
Joe Last.
The technical working group for the study included: Chris Andersen, Shirley Bailey, Cynthia Beach, Jamie
Brash, Hugh Daechsel, John Duerkop, Eartha (Katarokwi Native Friendship Centre), Robin Etherington,
Mark Fluhrer, Dan Franco, Hugh Gale, Therese Greenwood, John Grenville, Phil Healey, Kristine Hebert,
Speros Kanellos, Vicki Kimmett, Kingston Construction Association, Lindsay Lambert, Marcus Letourneau,
Alan Mcleod, Jim Miller, Cherie Mills, Neal Ritchie, Mark Segsworth, Lance Thurston, Mark VanBuren,
Marnie Venditti, George Wallace, Damon Wells, Terry Willing, and Winston Wong.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 35 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................2
PROJECT PERSONNEL...........................................................................................................................................6
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................................7
1INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................9
Defining Archaeological Resources...................................................................................................................10
2AN OVERVIEW OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL MODEL..............................................11
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................11
Pre-contact Aboriginal Site Potential Layer......................................................................................................11
Historic Archaeological Site Potential Layer....................................................................................................12
Known Archaeological Site Layer......................................................................................................................13
Defining Archaeologically Sensitive Areas........................................................................................................13
Integrity Layer....................................................................................................................................................14
Composite Archaeological Potential Layer.......................................................................................................14
3ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AS CULTURAL HERITAGE: DEFINITIONS...........................16
Introduction: Conservation, Change and Planning - Some Key Concepts.........................................................16
Defining Cultural Heritage................................................................................................................................17
The Ontario Archaeological Site Database.......................................................................................................18
The Threats to ArchaeologicalResources..........................................................................................................19
4JURISDICTION OVER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.................................................................20
Provincial Legislation........................................................................................................................................20
The Ontario Planning Act (2005) and the Provincial Policy Statement (2005)
..............................................................20
The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (1997)
.......................................................................................................23
The Ontario Heritage Act
...............................................................................................................................................23
Other Provincial Legislation
..........................................................................................................................................24
Federal Legislation............................................................................................................................................24
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
.......................................................................................................................25
Cultural Property Export and Import Act
.......................................................................................................................26
Parks Canada
.................................................................................................................................................................26
Parks Canada Guidelines for the Management of Archaeological Resources (2005)................................................26
Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2003)...............................................26
Guide to the Preparation of Commemorative Integrity Statements (2002)................................................................27
Other Federal Legislation
...............................................................................................................................................27
International Treaties and Charters...................................................................................................................27
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of
Cultural Property
............................................................................................................................................................27
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention)
.....28
Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage
..............................................................................28
City of Kingston Official Plan Policies..............................................................................................................28
City of Kingston Township (former)
................................................................................................................................28
Pittsburgh Township (former)
.........................................................................................................................................29
Kingston Township (former)
...........................................................................................................................................29
Summary............................................................................................................................................................30
5OWNERSHIP...................................................................................................................................................31
6IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................................................................................33
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 36 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 8
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................33
Recommended Archaeological Resource Management Procedures..................................................................33
Defining Archaeologically Sensitive Areas........................................................................................................34
The Planning Review Process: A Summary.......................................................................................................36
The Municipal Project Review Process..............................................................................................................38
Assessing Resource Impacts and Identifying Mitigation Strategies...................................................................38
7PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................41
8REFERENCES CITED...................................................................................................................................45
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
APPENDIX B: THE COMPOSITE ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL LAYER FOR THE CITY
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Site Potential Modelling Criteria...............................................................................................15
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of Archaeologically SensitiveAreas.............................................................................................35
List of Appendix Figures
Appendix B - Figure 1: The Composite Archaeological Potential Layer for the City...................................................2
Appendix B - Figure 2: The Composite Archaeological Potential Layer for the City...................................................3
Appendix B - Figure 3: The Composite Archaeological Potential Layer for the City...................................................4
Appendix B - Figure 4: The Composite Archaeological Potential Layer for the City...................................................5
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 37 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 9
1 INTRODUCTION
The role of the municipality in the conservation of archaeological resources is crucial. Planning and land use
control are predominantly municipal responsibilities and the impact of municipal land use decisions on
archaeological resources is significant, especially since municipally-approved developments constitute the
majority of land disturbing activities in the Province. The primary means by which these resources may be
protected is through the planning application process. Moreover, the review of development applications for
archaeological resource concerns is now made directly by the City. In recognition of these facts, the City of
Kingston retained Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), in association with Carl Bray and Associates Ltd., to
prepare an archaeological master plan for the City. The ultimate objective of the project was the preparation
of a planning study which identifies, analyses, and establishes priorities concerning archaeological sites
located within the boundaries of the City.
While a previous Archaeological Master Plan was developed for the City in the late 1980s by Cataraqui
Archaeological Research Foundation (CARF), it only addressed the former City of Kingston and not the
former Townships of Kingston and Pittsburgh. The plan was never formally adopted by the City and is now
out-of-date. The City has no comprehensive mapping for the amalgamated City or database for identifying
areas of archaeological potential and for rationalizing requirements for archaeological assessments in advance
of development. Indeed, it now relies on the application of generic Ministry of Tourism and Culture criteria
which covers approximately 88% of the City’s lands.
It is anticipated that the population of the City of Kingston will increase by approximately 12% over the next
20 years.Change and growth within the City must be guided by sound planning and management policies, all
of which must be consistent with recent changes to provincial archaeological resource conservation legislation
and policy. In the case of pre-contact archaeological sites, any efforts undertaken by the City to identify and
protect such sites will be viewed very positively by First Nations. Any attempt to avoid this responsibility
would be viewed very dimly by First Nations.
While the City of Kingston Archaeological Master Plan is an important document in-and-of itself, information
gathered through the Archaeological Master Plan will also serve as an important contribution to the Cultural
Plan for the City of Kingston. The development of a Cultural Plan was identified as one of the priorities for
the Cultural Services Department. An Archaeological Master Plan is also a means to address related issues
within the Focus Kingston: Community Strategies Plan 2000-2010 report concerning the need for a heritage
strategy and the need for protecting and identifying important cultural resources.
The study was designed within a framework that comprised three phases of research, the results of each of
which are presented in two separate reports. Phases 1 and 2 entailed the collection, assessment and synthesis
of information from various public and private sources. The major goals of this research were:
1)the compilation of inventories of registered and unregistered archaeological sites and of lands
that no longer have archaeological integrity due to previous development activity;
2)the preparation of an overview of the settlement history of various sectors of the City, as it may
be expected to pertain to archaeological resources; and
3)the development of an archaeological site potential model based on known site locations, past
and present land uses, and environmental and cultural-historical data.
The final task of the Master Plan research was the identification of a series of policies for incorporation in the
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 38 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 10
Official Plan, and of practices within the development applications process that will ensure the conservation
of these valuable cultural heritage resources within the overall process of change and growth in the City.
The results of the technical research and modelling are fully presented in the companion volume to this
document, which is entitled Master Plan of Archaeological Resources, City of Kingston, Technical Report.
This document presents a discussion of the implications of the archaeological potential modelling exercise
and a review of the current planning and management guidelines for archaeological resources that have been
developed by various jurisdictions. It further identifies a recommended management strategy for known and
potential archaeological resources within the City.
Defining Archaeological Resources
The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement defines archaeological resources (Section 6, Definitions) as including
“artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites.” Individual archaeological sites (that
collectively form the archaeological resource-base) are distributed in a variety of locational settings across the
landscape, being locations or places that are associated with past human activities, endeavours, or events.
These sites may occur on or below the modern land surface, or may be submerged under water. The physical
forms that these archaeological sites may take include: surface scatters of artifacts; subsurface strata which are
of human origin, or incorporate cultural deposits; the remains of structural features; or a combination of these
attributes. As such, archaeological sites are both highly fragile and non-renewable.
TheOntario Heritage Act (Ontario Regulation 170/04) defines "archaeological site" as “any property that
contains an artifact or any other physical evidence of past human use or activity that is of cultural heritage
value or interest’; "artifact" as “any object, material or substance that is made, modified, used, deposited or
affected by human action and is of cultural heritage value or interest”; and "marine archaeological site" as “an
archeological site that is fully or partially submerged or that lies below or partially below the high-water mark
of any body of water”. Archaeological fieldwork is defined as “any activity carried out on, above or under
land or water for the purpose of obtaining and documenting data, recovering artifacts and remains or altering
an archaeological site and includes monitoring, assessing, exploring, surveying, recovering, and excavating.”
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 39 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 11
2 AN OVERVIEW OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL MODEL
Introduction
Archaeological sites in the City of Kingston represent an important heritage resource for which only limited
locational data exist. While access to such distributional information is imperative to land-use planners and
heritage resource managers, the undertaking of a comprehensive archaeological survey of the city in order to
compile a complete inventory was clearly not feasible. As an alternative, therefore, planners and managers
must depend on a model which predicts how sites are likely to be distributed throughout the municipality.
Such a model can take many forms depending on such factors as its desired function, the nature and
availability of data used in its development, the geographic scope of the project, and the financial resources
available. Ideally these constraints are balanced in order to produce a model of maximum validity and utility.
The following sections provide an overview of the layers that together form the model of archaeological site
potential. Details for each of these layers including all of the supporting research are presented in the
companion volume to this document entitled, Master Plan of Archaeological Resources, City of Kingston,
Technical Report.
Pre-contact Aboriginal Site Potential Layer
Throughout most of pre-contact history, the inhabitants of the City of Kingston were hunter-gatherers who
practiced an annual subsistence round to exploit a broad range of natural resources for food and raw materials
for such needs as shelter construction and tool fabrication. Later Aboriginal populations who practiced
agriculture appear to have used the region for hunting and fishing, choosing to establish their villages in
neighbouring areas. Assuming, therefore, that access to natural resources influenced and constrained the
movement and settlement of Aboriginal peoples, our goal was to understand what these resources were, how
they may have been distributed, how their use and distribution may have changed over time, and how the
landscape itself may have constrained movement and access to resources as well as settlement location.
The proximity of major waterways is considered to have always been a significant factor influencing land-use
patterns in the City of Kingston. Transformations of the Lake Ontario shoreline notwithstanding, the
fundamental layout of the major drainage systems in Kingston has remained the same since the late
Pleistocene, and the waterways have likely acted as travel and settlement corridors ever since. The middle
reaches of the inland drainage systems may have comprised late fall and winter microband hunting and
fishing territories analogous to those recorded historically throughout the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region.
Throughout these waterways, stream confluences may have been routinely used as stop-over spots, leaving
traces in the archaeological record. While wintertime land use would not have been constrained by access to
well-drained campsites or the limits of navigable waterways, such routes would have still provided familiar,
vegetation-free corridors for travel.
In light of these considerations, four criteria were combined to create the pre-contact archaeological potential
layer. First, all river and major stream segments—defined as those represented by two lines (i.e., banks) on
the hydrographic layer—were buffered at 250 metres. For the Lake Ontario shore, the buffer actually
extended 100m offshore in some areas in order to capture known and suspected underwater archaeological
sites. Second, valleyland edges of the Napanee Limestone Plain were buffered by 200 metres. Third, all
subordinate streams—defined as those watercourses represented by a single line on the hydrographic layer—
were buffered by 200 metres, but only where the buffers crossed well- or imperfectly drained soils. Fourth, all
wetlands greater than 0.5 hectares in extent were buffered within 250 metres where the buffers crossed well-
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 40 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 12
or imperfectly drained soils. The major exception to the wetland buffering was the area of the Central
Pittsburgh Drain. Windshield survey of this area confirmed that, prior to artificial draining, this would have
been a vast morass that would have been both difficult to navigate through and unappealing for settlement.
Accordingly, the entire area was excluded from the zone of pre-contact Aboriginal archaeological potential.
Using the digital elevation model, areas of slope exceeding 10 degrees were similarly excluded from this
potential zone.
Historic Archaeological Site Potential Layer
The GIS layer of historical features is based largely on primary source documents including eighteen map
sets, which range in date from the early French regime to 1878. It is recognized that these maps did not
always illustrate historic features that may be of interest, therefore, it can in no way be considered definitive
and all of the mapped locations should be considered to be approximate.
The boundaries of all of the early settlement centres were plotted using the same map series. It is recognized
that some of the more massive features associated with many historic archaeological sites are likely to have
survived as deeply buried deposits in areas that have been developed. This is reflected in the earliest occupied
cores of settlements where historic archaeological potential overrides the integrity layer. Within the historic
core of the City of Kingston, the boundaries conform to the political boundary of the city at the time of its
incorporation in 1846. The boundaries of other settlements, as plotted, serve to indicate those areas where
most of the building activity was concentrated at the time the source maps were produced. Indeed, the
settlement centre overlay is indicative of those areas that exhibit potential for the presence of meeting halls,
school houses, blacksmith shops, stores, grain warehouses, hotels, taverns, and other commercial service
buildings.
All schools, places of worship and commercial buildings, such as inns, that occur outside of the major
settlement centres were mapped individually, if their locations were shown on the Illustrated Historical Atlas
maps. These features represent the earliest structures of social and economic significance in the region and
should be considered heritage features demonstrating significant archaeological potential. All features were
mapped as points buffered by a radius of 100 metres to capture ancillary features.
All mill locations, manufacturers, lime kilns, quarries and mines were mapped based on the nineteenth
century surveys and the Illustrated Historical Atlas maps. All features were mapped as points buffered by a
radius of 100 metres to capture ancillary features.
Isolated rural homesteads were also incorporated within this layer. While nineteenth century maps do not
necessarily provide comprehensive locational data for rural homesteads, it is anticipated that those represented
on the Illustrated Historical Atlas and Township histories will represent the majority of these resources. Each
of these isolated rural homesteads/farmsteads will need to be evaluated in association with the Ministry of
Tourism and Culture to determine their worthiness for systematic archaeological investigation given their
quantity and ubiquity.
All features already designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, situated inside settlement centres, had their
property footprints added to the final archaeological potential mapping. They are not subject to exclusion
through the integrity layer. Those designated properties outside of settlement centres were also plotted and
buffered by a radius of 100 metres for archaeological potential.
Transportation routes such as early settlement roads, established by the 1870s (buffered by zones of 200
metres either side), and early railways (buffered by zones of 50 metres either side) have been mapped to draw
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 41 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 13
attention to potential heritage features adjacent to their rights-of-way. Eighty-six percent (86%) of all
currently mapped historic buildings (n=1149) are situated within the early transportation and water buffers,
clear evidence of the efficacy of the historic model and of the fact that the vast majority of unmapped features
will be caught by the model’s buffers.
Cemeteries and family burial grounds have been included in the historic theme layer due to their particularly
sensitive nature and the fact that these sites may become invisible in the modern landscape. Information
concerning pioneer cemeteries was obtained from microfilm records deposited at the Archives of Ontario by
the Kingston \[Region VIII\] Branch of the Ontario Genealogical Society, and in some instances from Land
Registry records. Their locations were plotted based on an examination of the Historical Atlas of 1878, OGS
transcriptions and 1:50 000 topographic mapping. These locations were not field verified. The active
municipal and private cemeteries that were in the City GIS layer have also been plotted.
Known Archaeological Site Layer
There are 88 documented archaeological sites within and immediately adjacent to the City boundaries of
which 81 were mapped and entered into the project GIS as a discrete layer. Of these, 80 are registered by the
provincial site database (as of December, 2007) and eight are not (e.g., Shoal Tower, Dry Dock Museum). Of
the 88 sites, only 16 date to the pre-contact period. In that the model is inductive in nature and is not
constructed on the basis of the location attributes of known sites, the fact that any newly discovered sites have
not been plotted will have no impact on the potential model. For site potential modeling purposes, each
registered site plotted as a point was buffered by 100 metres.
Defining Archaeologically Sensitive Areas
In recognition of the demonstrated unique and heightened archaeological sensitivity of the historic core of the
City of Kingston (see Appendix A in Master Plan of Archaeological Resources, City of Kingston, Technical
Report), which is defined as the area bounded by North, Bagot, and West Streets and which encompasses the
Kingston Market Square Heritage Conservation District and the eastern sector of the area identified as the
potential Old Sydenham Heritage Area Heritage Conservation District (as identified in the Old Sydenham
Heritage Area HCD Study Report), the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District, various settlement centre
cores, as well as two very significant archaeological sites for which boundaries have been documented and
deposits have survived (i.e., Kingston Outer Station, Belle Island), they have been designated as
Archaeologically Sensitive Areas (ASAs). It is also acknowledged that other particularly significant
archaeological sites, including ones of national and international prominence, are captured within the historic
core of the City (e.g., Market Square, Fort Frontenac).
Where there is potential for very significant archaeological resources, numerous case studies both in Kingston
and elsewhere (e.g., Fort Frontenac – Stewart 1983, 1985; CARF 2006a, b, c; Market Square – CARF 2004;
Upper Canada’s First Parliament Buildings – Dieterman and Williamson 2001) have documented that
twentieth century development does not erase all significant archaeological deposits related to earlier periods
of settlement. Rather, it means that the archaeology of such areas is more complex. In the case of the historic
core of the City, for example, removal of industry, the demolition of some of the commercial and institutional
buildings, and the infilling of rear yards and courtyards, often in fairly passive ways (i.e., the creation of
parking lots) have left a fragmented, but often well-preserved archaeological record. The archaeological
remains may range from built features that have survived one or more redevelopment events by virtue of the
massive scale at which they were constructed (in terms of the areas they covered, or the depths to which they
extended) to comparatively small scale domestic deposits that have been sealed by later grade alterations,
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 42 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 14
such as the filling that often takes place in areas given over to parking lots.
The precise identification of areas of archaeological potential within the urban core requires a cautious
approach, ideally one undertaken on a property-by-property approach, whereby detailed reconstructions of the
development history of a given parcel leads to a clear understanding of the types of activities that took place
there and the likelihood that any significant archaeological deposits have survived. Definition of the historic
core, the Barriefield HCD, and other settlement centres as Archaeologically Sensitive Areas will permit such
an approach as applications for the redevelopment of specific properties are submitted to the City.
The legislative support for the concept of the ASA is provided by the 2005 changes to the Ontario Heritage
Act, whereby in Subsection 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, it became illegal for any person or agency to
knowingly alter an archaeological site without a license (see Section 1 for definition of archaeological site).
“Alteration” of an archaeological site is deemed to include any form of unsanctioned disturbance or
destruction of an archaeological resource brought about by any means (i.e., either archaeological excavation,
site looting, or development). Under Sections 69(1-3), an individual or a director of a corporation found in
violation of the Act or the regulations is liable to a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for up to one year or
both. A corporation found in violation of the Act or the regulations is liable to a fine of up to $250,000, and
more specifically, if a person or director or officer of a corporation is convicted of knowingly contravening
Subsection 48(1), the maximum fine that may be imposed is $1,000,000.00.
This change to the Ontario Heritage Act, in effect, offers automatic protection to all archaeological sites and
the designation of an ASA for lands that exhibit significant potential on the basis of the available data will
permit the City to exercise due diligence in all planning contexts to ensure that any adverse impacts to
potential archaeological resources are suitably mitigated.
Integrity Layer
An integrity layer was compiled based on a review of present land uses within the City. The objective of this
task was to distinguish between those lands upon which modern development activities have likely destroyed
any archaeological resources, and those lands, such as parking lots, schoolyards, parks and golf courses,
where resources potentially remain wholly or primarily undisturbed.
This layer was compiled using the built-up layer from the National Topographic Data Base together with
high-resolution ortho-imagery provided by the City.
Areas deemed to have no remaining archaeological integrity were subsequently excluded from the zone of
archaeological potential. The only exceptions to this were the ASAs and all registered archaeological sites and
designated heritage features. This layer is best viewed on the City’s GIS platform.
Alterations to the evaluation of integrity may result from a detailed Stage 1 report which demonstrates clearly
that a study area has been severely disturbed thereby negating archaeological potential.
Composite Archaeological Potential Layer
The final GIS layer, which is the map of the composite zone of archaeological potential within the City of
Kingston, was compiled by merging the zones of pre-contact archaeological potential and zones of historic
archaeological potential, as defined through application of the various modeling criteria (Table 1). All areas
lacking landscape integrity were then excluded from this layer. The resultant potential mapping presents an
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 43 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 15
approximation of the overall distribution of archaeological resources in the City of Kingston. On the basis of
this mapping, it may be suggested that 31,015.06 hectares or 65.5% of the area within the City of Kingston
Municipal boundary, exhibits potential for the presence of hitherto undocumented archaeological sites. For
purposes of comparison, it was determined that the Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s generic proximity to
water model (Ministry of Culture 1997) captures about 88% of the city.
Table 1: Summary of Site Potential Modelling Criteria
Environmental or Cultural Feature Buffer Distance (metres) Buffer Qualifier
Pre-contact Aboriginal Site Potential
lakes 250 none
two-line rivers 250none
wetlands200>0.5 ha.; well and imperfectly drained soils
only
valley lands (top of bank) 200none
single-line watercourses 200well and imperfectly drained soils only
Central Pittsburgh Drain 0removed from potential zone
slopes 10 degrees 0removed from potential zone
pre-contact ASAs polygon as mappedno buffer, override integrity
Historic Euro-Canadian Site Potential
Historic ASAs - historic settlement polygon as mapped no buffer, override integrity
centres (including Historic Core and
Barriefield HCD)
designated sites 100override integrity
Potential inundated sites 100 from Lake Ontario and from existing shore
Cataraqui River
domestic sites 100none
breweries and distilleries 100none
hotels/taverns 100 none
historic schools and churches 100none
historic mills, forges, extraction 100 none
industries
early settlement roads 200both sides
early railways 50both sides
train stations 100none
cemeteries100 around polygon (closed or none
abandoned cemeteries only)
military batteries 100none
battlefieldsPolygon as mapped none
General Criterion
all registered archaeological sites 100 override integrity
Appendix B, Figures 1-4 illustrate the composite potential layer for the City.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 44 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 16
3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AS CULTURAL HERITAGE: DEFINITIONS
Introduction: Conservation, Change and Planning - Some Key Concepts
The Province’s natural resources, water, agricultural lands, mineral resources, and
cultural heritage and archaeological resources provide important environmental,
economic, and social benefits. The wise use and management of these resources
over the long term is a key provincial interest. The Province must ensure that its
resources are managed in a sustainable way to protect essential ecological processes
and public health and safety, minimize environmental and social impacts, and meet
its long-term needs (Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System, Provincial
Policy Statement, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2005, pp. 2-3).
In Ontario, cultural heritage conservation is accepted as a legitimate objective of planning activity, as it is in
many other provinces and countries. Conservation planning provides an important mechanism for ensuring
that future development (e.g., residential, industrial and infrastructure construction) respects the cultural
heritage of the City.
Conservation planning and management is generally concerned with ensuring that valued cultural heritage
resources are conserved and protected, in a sound and prudent manner, in the continuing and unavoidable
process of change in the environment. A key issue is that the role of the custodian and steward of these
resources generally falls to the private property owner. It is neither possible nor desirable that all resources be
brought into public ownership. Therefore, conservation management is undertaken by a variety of actors, and
it is necessary, through legislation and education, to bring all of these actors together in pursuit of a common
goal. In many instances, it is traditional planning mechanisms that now seek to ensure that cultural heritage
resources are conserved and/or maintained within the process of change.
In the process of change, cultural heritage resources may be affected in several ways. Change may be some
action that is purposefully induced in the environment, such as development activities (e.g., road building,
residential construction). This may result in both adverse and beneficial impacts, depending on the degree to
which the change is sensitively managed. Change may also be a gradual and natural process of aging and
degeneration, independent of human action, which affects artifacts, building materials, human memories or
landscapes. Thus cultural resource management must ensure that change, when it does occur, is controlled. Its
negative impacts upon cultural heritage resources must be either averted or minimized, through either
ensuring that change has no adverse impacts whatsoever, or that intervention in the process will result in the
promotion of beneficial effects.
In the protection of archaeological sites from land use disturbances or infrastructure facilities, the major
characteristics of both archaeological sites and “planning” have a bearing on success. Archaeological
resources have many distinct attributes that make their protection a challenging task. Not only are they fragile
and non-renewable, but from a planning perspective one of their most important characteristics is that they are
frequently located on private property. Thus, any policy must attempt to satisfy the dual and sometimes
conflicting objectives of respecting certain private property rights while at the same time, protecting a
resource valued by society. “Planning” is generally undertaken in an effort to seek a common or public good
that market forces and private interests do not seek. Within the context of planning and development
approval, archaeological sites are similar to ecological features in that they may not have a tangible market
value. Moreover, traditional benefit-cost valuation techniques are unable to price the resource accurately in
market terms, since there is no legitimate market for archaeological artifacts. Consequently, individuals
responsible for the disruption of archaeological sites may not comprehend the value of preservation to society,
a factor which has an obvious impact on protection policies.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 45 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 17
On the other hand, the nature of the decision-making process constitutes one of the major and unique
characteristics of planning in Ontario. Indeed, properly documented heritage criteria are often considered in
the determination of the form, spatial extent and character of land disturbances. Also, the involvement of
public and interest groups is encouraged or mandatory, such that decisions are sensitive to community
concerns and are discussed openly. Moreover, the review and approvals process permits administrative
hearings on matters at issue, with an independent decision. Thus, there is the opportunity to protect or
conserve heritage features by selecting least damaging alternatives, through participation in planning
decisions and in the review and approvals process.
Defining Cultural Heritage
The utility of this study as a guide that will assist to incorporate archaeological resources within the overall
planning and development process, fundamentally rests upon a clear understanding of the physical nature of
cultural heritage resources in general, the variety of forms they may assume, and their overall significance and
value to society.
In common usage, the word heritage tends to be vaguely equated with “things of the past.” While it may be
arguable that such an interpretation of the term is true, it is so only in the very narrowest sense. An interest in
heritage does indeed indicate an awareness of, and concern for, “things of the past,” yet at the same time it
recognizes that these “relics” are worthy of such interest primarily because they provide insights into the
processes that have helped to shape the contemporary world in which we live, and that will continue to exert
an influence into the future. Examination of our heritage, therefore, not only allows us to learn about our
origins and our history, but it also provides a means of understanding who we are now, and a means of
glimpsing who we may become.
In recognition of the essentially timeless quality of these “things of the past,” Ontario’s heritage has been
defined as:
all that our society values and that survives as the living context — both natural and
human — from which we derive sustenance, coherence and meaning in our
individual and collective lives (Ontario Heritage Policy Review \[OHPR\] 1990:18-
19).
Such an all-encompassing definition has the additional advantage of recognizing that our heritage consists of
both natural and cultural elements. As human beings, we do not exist in isolation from our natural
environment. On the contrary, there has always been a complex interrelationship between people and their
environment and each has shaped the other, although the nature and direction of these mutual influences has
never been constant. This definition further recognizes that heritage not only includes that which is tangible,
but also that which is intangible.
All of those elements that make up this heritage are increasingly being viewed in the same manner as are
“natural resources,” in that they are scarce, fragile, and non-renewable. These cultural heritage resources,
therefore, must be managed in a prudent manner if they are to be conserved for the sustenance, coherence and
meaning of future generations, even if their interpretations of the significance and meaning of these resources
in contributing to society may be different from our own.
The development of the means by which to manage these cultural resources depends, in turn, on the
recognition that on a practical level it is necessary to categorize them by type, yet at the same time these basic
types also form a continuum. Both the distinctiveness of the individual categories of cultural resources and the
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 46 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 18
overlap between these categories has been recognized by the Ontario Heritage Policy Review. This work
(OHPR 1990:23) defined three broad classes of cultural resources:
IMMOVABLE HERITAGE
– land or land-based resources, such as buildings or natural areas that are
“fixed” in specific locations; for example:
structures
– buildings, ruins, and engineering works, such as bridges;
sites
– archaeological sites, battlegrounds, quarries, earth science sites such as rock formations, and life
science sites such as rare species habitats;
areas
– streetscapes, neighbourhoods, gardens, lakes, rivers and other natural, scenic, and cultural
landscapes;
MOVABLE HERITAGE
– resources, such as artifacts and documents, that are easily “detachable” and can
be transported from place to place; for example:
objects
– artifacts such as artworks, utensils and adornments, and earth and life science specimens,
such as fossils and crystals;
documents
– including newspapers, letters, films, and recordings;
INTANGIBLE HERITAGE
– such as traditional skills and beliefs; for example:
values
– attitudes, beliefs and tastes;
behaviours
– including skills, games, dances and ceremonies;
speech
– stories and narratives, songs, sayings, and names.
Each of these categories, however, often overlaps with others. Archaeological sites, for example, are
“immovable” resources, yet in most cases these sites are formed by concentrations of man-made or man-
modified objects that are “movable” resources. Similarly, “movable” or “immovable” resources, such as
buildings or documents often derive their significance through their intangible cultural associations, as they
may reflect or typify specific skills or beliefs.
Despite the fact that all cultural heritage resources should be viewed as components of a single continuum,
there remains a need to distinguish between the three basic categories outlined above. This is because the
approaches to the examination of resources within the different categories must be specifically tailored to
their characteristics and needs. Not only does the study of the different types of resources require different
and often highly specialized techniques, but the threats that these resources face are often different as well.
Thus planning decisions related to the conservation of different types of resources are informed by different
sets of considerations. Likewise, the means by which such planning decisions are implemented will also vary.
The Ontario Archaeological Site Database
Since 1974 all archaeological sites for the Province of Ontario have been registered with the Ontario
Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) maintained by the Heritage Branch and Libraries Branch of the
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 47 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 19
Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto. This data base is the official, central repository of all site
information for the province collected under the Ontario Heritage Act (1974, 1980). An associated
Geographic Information System has been developed by Ministry of Tourism and Culture.
Within the OASD registered archaeological sites are organized within the “Borden” system, which is based on
blocks of latitude and longitude, each measuring approximately 13 kilometres east-west by 18.5 kilometres
north-south. Each block is assigned a unique four letter designator and sites within each block are numbered
sequentially as they are found.
The inventory of registered archaeological sites that formed the initial basis for the present study was
compiled by the Data Co-ordinator of the Archaeology Unit, Heritage Branch and Libraries Branch, Ministry
of Tourism and Culture, and by the City of Kingston’s Planning and Development Department.
The Threats to Archaeological Resources
Protecting archaeological sites has become especially important in southern Ontario, where landscape change
has been occurring at an ever increasing rate since 1950, resulting in substantial losses to the non-renewable
archaeological record.
The scale of the threats facing the archaeological record of southern Ontario were considered in a study in
which rates of demographic and agricultural change were examined over the last century, and estimates
generated of the number of archaeological sites that have been destroyed (Coleman and Williamson 1994).
While the period of initial disturbance to sites was from 1826 to 1921, when large tracts of land were
deforested and cultivated for the first time, that disturbance typically resulted in only partial destruction of
archaeological data as most subsurface deposits remained intact. However, extraordinary population growth in
the post-World War I period, resulted in a more disturbing trend as large amounts of cultivated land were
consumed by urban growth.
The nature and potential magnitude of the threat that continued landscape change posed to a finite and non-
renewable archaeological feature base between 1951 and 1991 is staggering; it is possible that more than
10,000 sites were destroyed during that period of which 25% represented significant archaeological features
that merited some degree of archaeological investigation, since they could have contributed meaningfully to
our understanding of the past (Coleman and Williamson 1994: Tables 2 and 3). It can be assumed that the
reduction of the archaeological feature base of the City of Kingston also took place at a serious rate.
Archaeological sites also face a less direct, but equally serious form of threat, in which man-made changes to
the landscape inadvertently alter or intensify destructive natural processes in adjoining regions. Increased run-
off of surface water in the wake of forest clearance, for example, or hydrological fluctuations associated with
industrial and transportation development may result in intensified rates of erosion on certain sites due to
processes such as inundation. The amount of land (and hence the potential number of archaeological sites)
which has been subjected to these destructive forces is impossible to quantify, but is likely to be considerable.
While there has recently been a marked reduction in the rate of archaeological site destruction throughout
much of the province, since certain municipalities adopted progressive planning policies concerning
archaeological site conservation, the potential for the loss of archaeological resources in the future remains
great, due to continuing growth and development.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 48 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 20
4 JURISDICTION OVER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In terms of direct conservation and protection, the lead provincial government role has been filled by the
Minister of Tourism and Culture. The Minister is responsible for encouraging the sharing of cultural heritage
and for determining policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of the
heritage of Ontario (Cuming 1985). Under the Ontario Heritage Act, a process is defined that ensures that
“once a property is designated of archaeological or historical significance and is likely to be adversely
affected by commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential, or other development,” the appropriate measures
are taken. In order to maintain a professional standard of archaeological research and consultation, the
Minister is responsible for issuing licenses to qualified individuals, without which archaeological activities
involving exploration, survey or field work are illegal. All reports submitted to the Ministry, as a condition of
an archaeological license are reviewed by Ministry staff to ensure that the activities conducted under a license
meet current technical guidelines, resource conservation standards, and the regulations of the Ontario
Heritage Act. The regulation of archaeological activities carried out within the development context requires
that all approval authorities must integrate the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act within their land use
planning process.
The rationale for a greater sharing of responsibilities between provincial and local governments for all types
of heritage including archaeological resources was explained most effectively in a document entitled A
Strategy for Conserving Ontario’s Heritage (Ontario Heritage Policy Review 1990). This document
suggested a re-allocation of roles, in which the provincial government would maintain an advisory function
and the municipal governments would assume the day-to-day responsibility for monitoring those
archaeological features in their jurisdiction.
Provincial Legislation
The specific provincial legislation governing planning decisions is complex, but provides for a number of
opportunities for the integration of archaeological conservation. The two principal pieces of legislation are the
Planning Act (2005) and the Environmental Assessment Act (1997). Despite the on-going provincial transfer
of review responsibilities, well over 1000 formal development applications throughout the province, under
both Environmental Assessment and Planning Act processes, are reviewed annually by the Ministry of
Tourism and Culture. Consequently, approximately 500 to 800 archaeological sites have been documented
annually in southern Ontario since 1990 as a result of planning mechanisms.
The Ontario Planning Act (2005) and the Provincial Policy Statement (2005)
With respect to archaeological resources, the most recent Provincial Policy Statement, which came into effect
March 1, 2005, states that:
Development and site alteration shall only be permitted on lands containing
archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential if the significant
1
archaeological resources have been conserved by removal and documentation, or
by 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 (Section 2.6, Cultural Heritage and
Archaeology).
1
“Removal” of an archaeological resource is accomplished through mitigative documentation and/or excavation.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 49 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 21
For the above policy statement, significant archaeological resources are defined as those “that are valued for
the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people.”
The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in
accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act”.
Provincial interests in land use planning are also detailed in the Provincial Policy Statement provided in
Section 3(1) of the Planning Act, as amended by the Strong Communities Act (2004), whereby:
a decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a
minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the
government, including the Municipal Board, in respect of the exercise of any
shall be consistent
authority that affects a planning matter, “” with this policy
statement.
Thus all decisions made during the development process, regardless of the identity of the development
proponent or the relevant approval agency, must address potential heritage resource impacts. Given the
provincial interest, any planning activity referred to in the Planning Act, including the preparation of Official
Plans or any planning application, should have regard for matters of provincial interest. The statements in the
Act are sufficient for a municipality to require that an archaeological assessment be completed prior to the
approval of a planning application.
It should be noted that an archaeological assessment must now be completed and submitted with an
application for approval of a plan of subdivision. Section 51 (17) of the Planning Act, Part VI Subdivision of
Land, now delineates under Schedule 1 the information and material to be provided by an applicant for
approval of a plan of subdivision (O. Reg. 544/06, s. 2). This section states the applicant shall provide the
approval authority with the following prescribed information and material:
23. Whether the subject land contains any areas of archaeological potential.
24. If the plan would permit development on land that contains known archaeological resources or
areas of archaeological potential,
a)an archaeological assessment prepared by a person who holds a license that is effective with
respect to the subject land, issued under Part VI (Conservation of Resources of
Archaeological Value) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and
b)a conservation plan for any archaeological resources identified in the assessment.
Note that the PPS defines "archaeological resources" as "includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine
archaeological sites" (see Section 1.1 above).
In the case of a zoning by-law, the Planning Act allows a municipality to use the option of attaching a holding
“H” symbol to a zoning by-law and require that as a condition of removing the holding symbol, and before
development can proceed, an archaeological assessment or other matter be completed. Archaeological zoning
by-laws may also be developed by a municipality under Section 34 of the Planning Act to protect significant
archaeological resources and sites. The municipality must have due regard to matters of provincial interest,
which means that archaeological assessments must be undertaken in support of development applications
where identified as necessary.
In regard to municipal projects, the Planning Act states that where there is an Official Plan in effect, no public
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 50 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 22
work shall be undertaken that does not conform to the Plan.
The Act also permits municipalities to pass zoning by-laws: “for prohibiting any use of land and the erecting,
locating or using of any class or classes of buildings or structures on land that is the site of a significant
archaeological resource”.
In summary, a municipality is obligated, within the existing legislative framework, to require archaeological
concerns be addressed in connection with any planning application and is able to pass zoning by-law(s)
regulating the use of land that is the site of a significant archaeological resource. Moreover, a municipality is
prevented from undertaking any public work that does not comply with its Official Plan. Heritage protection
policies are appropriate in Official Plans, if developed and incorporated properly. If a municipality has a
sound basis in its policies (Official Plan), it is possible to ensure that applications conform to heritage
requirements.
The Programs and Services Branch of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture has the primary responsibility
under the OntarioPlanning Act and Ontario Heritage Act for matters relating to cultural heritage including
archaeological resources. This branch has developed an “Ontario Heritage Tool Kit” that includes guides for
interpreting the Ontario Heritage Act as well as InfoSheets on applying the cultural heritage and archaeology
provincial policies. One of their primary responsibilities is to oversee the Municipal Plans Review process.
The first component of this process is the determination of the potential for a development application to
impact archaeological resources, based on a range of environmental and historic criteria. Should it be
determined that there is potential for impacts to archaeological resources resulting from the approval of the
development application, then the second component is the requirement that the development proponent
undertake an archaeological assessment, the results of which are subject to Ministry of Tourism and Culture
review and acceptance. Such assessments may be required for official plan amendments or plans of
subdivision, and may also be required for smaller-scale developments reviewed under consent and zoning by-
law amendment applications. In all of those cases where potential is identified on all or a portion of a subject
property, a standard archaeological condition is attached to the development application.
The current condition recommended by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture reads:
The proponent shall carry out an archaeological assessment of the subject property
and mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse
impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. No grading or other soil
disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the City of Kingston
and the Ministry of Tourism and Culture confirming that all archaeological resource
concerns have met licensing and resource conservation requirements.
While a generic primer has been developed by the Ministry of Culture (1997) for informing municipal
planners about evaluating archaeological potential, those municipalities that have undertaken detailed
archaeological potential studies or master plans have access to much more detailed information, that provides
more effective and accurate means of determining archaeological potential and whether or not an assessment
will be required. The review of site specific development applications, for the purpose of determining if
archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential are present within any particular subject plan,
may now be made directly by the City of Kingston through the use of this archaeological master plan,
consisting of potential mapping, explanatory text, and suggested procedures for implementation of the study’s
conclusions. Review of the resulting archaeological investigations, in order to determine that Ontario
Heritage Act requirements have been satisfied, remains the responsibility of the Ministry of Tourism and
Culture, which provides notification to the consulting archaeologist of the results of their review. The
Ministry of Tourism and Culture may notify the approval authority and development proponent of their
review. That Ministry also administers all matters related to the management of the resources documented,
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 51 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 23
mitigation strategies proposed, and any disputes arising from the conservation of archaeological resources
under the land use planning process.
The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (1997)
TheEnvironmental Assessment Act (1997) applies to public sector projects and designated private sector
projects. Private sector projects that are designated by the Province as subject to the Act are usually major
projects such as landfills. The purpose of the Act is “the betterment of the people ... by providing for the
protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment” (Section 2). Environment is
very broadly defined to include “the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of man or
a community” \[Section 1(c) (iii)\] and “any building, structure ... made by man” \[Section 1(c) (iv)\]. Thus,
environment is broadly interpreted to include heritage artifacts, structures or events.
TheEnvironmental Assessment Act requires the preparation of an environmental assessment document,
containing inventories, alternatives, evaluations and mitigation. It is subject to formal government review and
public scrutiny and, potentially, to a tribunal hearing. Heritage studies of these major undertakings are a
common component. There are also Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class environmental
assessments for municipal projects that require similar considerations, but entail a simplified review and
approval process.
Various provincial ministries are establishing protocols related to activities subject to the environmental
assessment process, in order to ensure that heritage concerns in their respective jurisdictions are addressed.
The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (2004), for example, ensures that archaeological surveys are
undertaken in advance of all new road construction in order to ensure that no archaeological sites will be
unknowingly damaged or destroyed, and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources prepared a set of
guidelines on the conservation of heritage features as part of the Timber Management Planning Process
(1991).
The Ontario Heritage Act
2
is charged under Section 2 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the
The Ministry of Tourism and Culture
responsibility to “determine policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation
of the heritage of Ontario” and so fills the lead provincial government role in terms of direct conservation and
protection of cultural resources. The Minister is responsible for encouraging the sharing of cultural heritage
and for determining policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of the
heritage of Ontario (Cuming 1985). These goals are generally accomplished through other legislated
processes, such as those required by the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act, rather than directly
through the Ontario Heritage Act itself.
TheOntario Heritage Act does, however, govern the general practice of archaeology in the province. In order
to maintain a professional standard of archaeological research and consultation, the Minister is responsible for
issuing licenses to qualified individuals. In 2005, changes to the Ontario Heritage Act in Subsection 48(1),
made it illegal for any person or agency to knowingly alter an archaeological site without a license (see
Section 1.1 for definition of archaeological site). “Alteration” of an archaeological site is deemed to include
any form of unsanctioned disturbance or destruction of an archaeological resource brought about by any
2
Provincial management of cultural resources has been carried out by operations units attached variously to the
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (1993-1998), the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation
(1998-2002), the Ministry of Culture (2002-2010) and now the Ministry of Tourism and Culture.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 52 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 24
means (i.e., either archaeological excavation, site looting, or development). This in effect offers automatic
protection to all archaeological sites and the City should exercise due diligence in all planning contexts to
ensure that archaeological features are protected from disturbance of any nature. Under Subsections 69(1-3)
of the Ontario Heritage Act, an individual or a director of a corporation found in violation of the Act or the
regulations is liable to a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for up to one year or both. A corporation
found in violation of the Act or the regulations is liable to a fine of up to $250,000, and more specifically, if a
person or director or officer of a corporation is convicted of knowingly contravening Subsection 48(1), the
maximum fine that may be imposed is $1,000,000.00.
All reports submitted to the Ministry, as a condition of an archaeological license are reviewed by Ministry
staff to ensure that the activities conducted under a license meet current technical guidelines, resource
conservation standards, and the regulations of the Ontario Heritage Act. The regulation of archaeological
activities carried out within the development context requires that all approval authorities must integrate the
requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act within their land use planning process.
Other Provincial Legislation
Other land use legislation in the province provides opportunities for archaeological resource protection. The
Aggregate Resources Act, governing approval of pits and quarries and administered by the Ministry of
Natural Resources, recognizes the potential impact quarrying activities may have on cultural features such as
archaeological resources. Furthermore, the development of a pit or quarry will often require an official plan
amendment or zoning by-law amendment, and thus would require involvement by the municipality at either
the upper or lower tier level. The process for addressing archaeological concerns is similar to that outlined for
Planning Act related projects. A background study, field survey and detailed archaeological investigations are
all identified as required Technical Reports under Part 2.2 of the Provincial Standards for Bill 53 under the
Aggregate Resources Act.
TheCemeteries Act also addresses the need to protect human burials, both marked and unmarked, which is
yet another valuable link to the past. Burial locations uncovered on archaeological sites constitute
“unregistered cemeteries” that are, in essence, in violation of the Cemeteries Act. The discovery of such
burials will require further investigation in order to define the extent and number of interments, and either the
registration of the burial location as a cemetery, or the removal of the remains for re-interment in an
established cemetery. The actual workings of this process are complex and vary depending upon whether the
burial(s) are an isolated occurrence, or part of a more formal cemetery, and whether the remains in question
are Aboriginal or Euro-Canadian. In all cases, the success of the process is dependent upon the co-operation
of the landowner, the next of kin (whether biological or prescribed), and the Cemeteries Registrar (Ministry of
Consumer and Business Services). The Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s role in the process is to assist in co-
ordinating contact and negotiation between the various parties, and ensuring that archaeological investigations
of such burial sites meet provincial standards.
With this legislative planning context, success in protecting heritage features depends on sufficient resource
information, sound policies, the capability to implement requirements, and participation by both local and
provincial heritage planners in the process.
Federal Legislation
The major federal statutes applicable to archaeology include the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and
theCultural Property Export and Import Act. There is no federal legislation which specifically governs
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 53 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 25
archaeological research and planning. In cases where archaeological issues on federal lands do not fall into
the category of exports or the confines of an environmental impact assessment, federal land managers are
expected to rely on federal policies applicable to all departments or to the specific directives of their own
departments.
In terms of the protection of archaeological resources, the federal government’s role would be confined
primarily to land that it owns, such as national historic sites and parks, lands belonging to federal
departments, such as National Defence or Agriculture, lands where there is a federally regulated undertaking,
such as railways or airports, and lands where a federally regulated development project is proposed.
The federal government’s Archaeological Heritage Policy Framework (Department of Canadian Heritage
1990) states that:
As heritage protection is an essential element of our Canadian identity, and as our
archaeological heritage is a source of inspiration and knowledge, it is the policy of
the Government of Canada to protect and manage archaeological resources.
In order to realize these objectives on all lands and waters under federal jurisdiction, the Parks Canada
Agency has an advisory role for the protection and management of all archaeological resources on all lands
and waters under federal jurisdiction.
Several federal departments have specific rules to protect archaeological heritage, such as the Department of
National Defence and the Parks Canada Agency.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
The Federal Archaeology Office is also recognized as an “expert department” for matters involving
implementation of specific legislation in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), where it is
outlined that the Government of Canada seeks to conserve and enhance environmental quality and to ensure
that the environmental effects of projects receive careful consideration before responsible authorities take
actions in connection with them. An “environmental effect”, in respect of a project, is defined to include:
Any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any effect of any such change on
health and socio-economic conditions, on physical and cultural heritage, on the current use of lands
and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons, or any structure site or thing that is of
historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance (Section 2(1)).
TheReference Guide on Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources (1996:2) for the CEAA goes on to
describe a cultural heritage resource as:
…a human work or a place that gives evidence of human activity or has spiritual or cultural meaning,
and that has historic value… This interpretation of cultural resources can be applied to a wide range of
resources, including cultural landscapes and landscapes features, archaeological sites, structures,
engineering works, artifacts and associated records.
Legally, a project that would prompt an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act also triggers a requirement to research archaeology.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 54 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 26
Cultural Property Export and Import Act
The regulations under the federal Cultural Property Export and Import Act offer a specific list of objects or
artifacts that are protected under the Canadian Cultural Property Export Control List. The list incorporates:
archaeological object\[s\] of any value recovered from the soil of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada
or the inland or other international waters of Canada not less than 75 years after its burial, concealment
or abandonment if the object is an artifact or organic remains, including human remains, associated
with or representative of historic cultures.
The document then goes on to list specific artifacts relating to the “Aboriginal peoples of Canada” (2a), to the
“progressive exploration, occupation, defense and development of the territory that is now Canada by non-
aboriginal peoples” (2b) and “organic remains associated with or representative of historic or prehistoric
cultures” (2c).
Parks Canada
Part of the mandate of Parks Canada, as per the Parks Canada Charter, is to “protect and present nationally
significant natural and cultural heritage…” Not only is the Archaeological Services Branch of the Parks
Canada Agency responsible for all issues pertaining to archaeology on Parks Canada lands, it also has an
advisory role, upon request, to other federal departments. The Agency has developed a number of policies and
guidelines, as well as directives, bulletins and manuals, concerning the preservation of cultural heritage. Here
are some examples:
Parks Canada Guidelines for the Management of Archaeological Resources (2005)
Using the principles and practices of the Cultural Resource Management Policy (1994), this document
presents Parks Canada’s approach to archaeological resource management as a component of cultural resource
management. It provides guidelines on the undertaking of projects and activities that may affect terrestrial or
underwater archaeological resources in heritage areas under the jurisdiction of the Parks Canada Agency.
These include National Parks of Canada, National Historic Sites of Canada, National Marine Conservation
Areas of Canada, National Park Reserves of Canada, and National Marine Conservation Area Reserves. These
guidelines can also be used by other federal land managers seeking advice on the management of
archaeological resources.
Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2003)
This document serves to guide heritage conservation projects, including projects on archaeological sites that
have an impact on archaeological resources. Section 3 deals with the Guidelines for Archaeological Sites,
Landscapes, Buildings, and Engineering Works. It is intended that the separate guidelines for these four
subjects be used in conjunction with one another to ensure that all heritage values of a historic place be
protected.
Recently, Parks Canada has released the latest draft Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of
Archaeological Sites. It resulted from extensive consultation with government, academic, and consulting
archaeologists and benefited from their application in a number of pilot projects across Canada. It is suggested
that archaeologists consider this document as a guide to best practice when designing and undertaking their
archaeological work within the City of Kingston.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 55 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 27
Guide to the Preparation of Commemorative Integrity Statements (2002)
The Parks Canada Management Plan requires that Commemorative Integrity Statements (CIS) be prepared for
all heritage sites owned and managed by Parks Canada. This policy includes a component of all CIS policies
addressing both terrestrial and marine archaeological heritage sites.
In Kingston, there is a rich archaeological record, and Parks Canada is working with a variety of federal
agencies to prepare policies for their identification, evaluation, conservation and interpretation. This is
th
especially true for the marine archaeological sites associated with the early 19 century naval dockyard.
According to the regional supervisor, Parks Canada is working with the Department of National Defense to
determine the extent and ownership of water lots along the Kingston waterfront, as a precursor to more
specific investigation of, and policy for, underwater archaeological resources. Currently, Parks Canada is
preparing a submission to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board (HSMB) for designation of several known
marine archaeological heritage resources, including the War of 1812 warship “St. Lawrence”, as National
Historic Sites, in order to ensure their protection.
As for terrestrial archaeological heritage resources, Parks Canada has prepared a CIS for a number of the key
National Historic Sites within the municipality. The archaeological policies in each case are governed by the
Parks Canada Management Plan, as applied to each site within the CIS. Usually, any intervention is preceded
by archaeological investigation in accordance with recognized professional standards, a basic archaeological
survey is undertaken, and the values of archaeological resources are effectively communicated to the public.
Archaeological research has been undertaken in recent years at a number of these sites (e.g., Bellevue House,
Fort Henry, Royal Military College and Fort Frederick).
Other Federal Legislation
Under the Canada Shipping Act(CSA, 1985), all material recovered from a wreck (ships and aircraft) during
any activity, such as fishing, diving or during an archaeological excavation, must be reported to the district
Receiver of Wreck, an officer of Transport Canada. The Canada Shipping Act (2001) provides for the
regulation of wrecks that, on the recommendation of Parks Canada, have heritage value.
International Treaties and Charters
Canada supports and/or adheres to a number of treaties which impose a duty on the governments of Canada,
its provinces and territories, to take action for archaeological management.
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of
Ownership of Cultural Property
Promoted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1970 and
formally acceded by Canada in 1978, this Convention declares that “cultural property acquired by
archaeological, ethnological or national science missions” is recognized as belonging “to the cultural heritage
of each State” (article 4). To ensure the protection of their cultural property, under article 5, participating
countries are obliged to (among other obligations):
contribute to the formation of draft laws and regulations designed to secure the protection of the
cultural heritage…
establish and keep up to date, on the basis of a national inventory of protected property, a list of
important public and private cultural property…
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 56 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 28
promote the development or the establishment of scientific and technical institutions (museums,
libraries, archives, laboratories, workshops…)…
organize the supervision of archaeological excavations, ensuring the preservation “in situ” of certain
cultural property, and protecting certain areas reserved for future archaeological research…
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage
Convention)
Under article 1 of this Convention, which Canada formally adhered to in 1976, “cultural heritage” may
consists of “sites – works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including
archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or
anthropological point of view.” To ensure the protection of their cultural property, under article 5
participating countries are obliged to (among other obligations):
adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the
community and integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programs…
develop scientific and technical studies and research to work out such operating methods as will
make the State capable of counteracting the dangers that threaten its cultural or natural heritage
to take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for
the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of this heritage…
Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage
This convention, which was adopted by UNESCO in 2001, requires participating countries to adopt necessary
measures to preserve their underwater cultural heritage. Canada has not yet made a decision concerning
ratification.
Professionals in Canada are also guided by principles set by international organizations such as the
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Four Charters in particular provide guidance on
archaeological resources management:
Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter), describes
the principles of appropriate conservation;
Charter on the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter), outlines the
principles and practices of conservation based on the cultural significance of historic places;
Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (Lausanne Charter),
reflects basic principles and guidelines relating to the management of archaeological resources and is
a reference for policies and practice;
Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage outlines the
principles for the appropriate protection and management of cultural sites underwater.
City of Kingston Official Plan Policies
The following summaries were taken from the Official Plan of the former City of Kingston as well as the
former Townships of Pittsburgh and Kingston. These will be replaced in the new Official Plan by the policies
generated during this study.
City of Kingston Township (former)
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 57 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 29
The former City of Kingston recognized the conservation of resources of archaeological value as an integral
part of an effective and comprehensive heritage conservation program and that there was value in
investigating and conserving heritage resources with respect to their contribution to the interpretation of the
origins of the community. The City's particular archaeological heritage is founded on pre-contact occupancy
by native peoples of lands which are now included within the corporation boundaries, and the age of historic
settlement which began with the establishment of Fort Frontenac in the seventeenth century. It is the intent of
this Plan to provide for the recognition, investigation and preservation of the City's archaeological resources.
To this end, the City undertook an Archaeological Master Plan Study in the late 1980s which was intended to
form the basis for detailed archaeological conservation policies and result in the development of policies,
guidelines, and a plan of action for the development and protection of archaeological resources and facilities
in the City. The policies of this Plan were to be amended appropriately on adoption of an overall
archaeological conservation strategy by Council. While this overall archaeological conservation strategy was
not adopted by Council, the City nevertheless supported the principles of archaeological conservation in
accordance with the following policies:
a)the City will continue to enforce existing municipal legislation regarding the discovery of
items of archaeological or historic interest;
b)the City will continue to notify recognized archaeological conservation agencies of relevant
requests for planning approvals with respect to such matters as Official Plan and zoning
amendments, subdivision and condominium applications, and applications for site plan
approval;
c)the City intends to allow recognized archaeological conservation agencies an opportunity to
comment on the archaeological potential of development and redevelopment sites;
d)the City intends to facilitate dialogue among the agencies, private interests, and the City with
respect to the discovery and identification of archaeological resources.
Pittsburgh Township (former)
The Township recognized that “there may be archaeological remains of prehistoric or historic habitation, or
areas of significant archaeological potential within the Pittsburgh Planning Area. The Township may require
archaeological assessments as a condition of any development proposals containing a known archaeological
site or considered to have archaeological potential. Archaeological assessments are to be carried out by an
archaeologist licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act, and reports produced are to be in keeping with
guidelines set out by the Province. In order to preserve significant archaeological resources, Council may
employ the powers provided in the Planning Act to prohibit in the Zoning By-law the use or erection of
structures on lands which contain these archaeological resources.”
Also, the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan recognized the fragile and non-renewable nature of
archaeological resources and the potential for their presence within the plan area. It also articulates the
requirement for archaeological assessment in advance of any land-disturbing activities.
Kingston Township (former)
Kingston Township adopted a Heritage Strategy for the Township as a separate document from the Official
Plan. While the Official Plan was intended to be supportive of the Heritage Strategy, it was recognized that
not all elements of the Strategy could be, or were appropriately addressed in the Plan. The Official Plan
encouraged “the preservation and enhancement of heritage resources. It is intended that heritage resources be
identified and conserved, wherever practical. For the purpose of this Plan heritage resources means both
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 58 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 30
physical and intangible heritage resources including structures, landscapes, natural areas, archaeological and
paleontological sites, cemeteries and burial places, documents, place names, artifacts, traditions and values,
skills, songs and stories. Heritage is viewed as the total environment inherited from the past, contributed to in
the present and handed on to the future. It contributes significantly to the identity and unique character of the
community, and contributes to the attractiveness of the greater Kingston area for tourism.”
With reference to the Heritage Strategy, as may be amended from time to time, Council intended to:
a)identify, recognize and conserve the Township's heritage resources;
b)promote the maintenance and development of historically appropriate landscaping around
heritage properties;
c)encourage, in cooperation with the County and the Province, the maintenance of the
character of the rural areas of the Township;
d)promote the preservation of the Kingston Mills Lock Station and development which
respects the heritage value of the site and surrounding area;
e)respect the integrity of archaeological remains on site and require sufficient investigation
and mitigation to ensure their preservation;
f)encourage the maintenance of existing heritage resources as part of new development
proposals, where practical;
g)integrate heritage preservation considerations into the planning and development process,
especially in the areas of land use and environmental planning; and,
h)promote, in consultation with the residents and the Loyalist Parkway Group of Advisors,
the development of Highway 33 in a manner that is compatible with its designation as the
Loyalist Parkway.
Official Plan Policies
The City of Kingston has recently adopted a new Official Plan which consolidates the policies of the former
municipalities. Appendix A presents the policies pertaining to archaeological heritage.
Summary
With all of these planning requirements, success in protecting heritage features depends on sufficient resource
information, sound policies, the capability to implement requirements, and participation by all City staff in the
process. These objectives are also being realized, in the case of archaeological resources, through the
preparation and updating of master plans and the inclusion of policies in the Official Plan of the City of
Kingston. Heritage protection policies are appropriate in Official Plans, if developed and incorporated
properly, if only to draw attention to the fragility of archaeological sites. Moreover, as the Official Plan is
implemented, it is possible to reinforce provincial, federal and local interests by requiring certain information
to be supplied, conditions to be satisfied or actions to be taken.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 59 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 31
5 OWNERSHIP
The question of ownership of archaeological resources, whether they be sites or individual artifacts has never
been adequately resolved in Ontario. Consequently, issues of ownership have often complicated the protection
or conservation of the resource.
This situation led the Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Advisory Committee on New Heritage Legislation to
the suggestion that:
Ontario should follow the lead of many provincial governments in asserting Crown
ownership of archaeological objects. This cuts out all claims but those of true
owners. In the case of material of Aboriginal origin, however, such an approach
may be inconsistent with current steps toward First Nations’ self-government and
jurisdiction over certain matters. Resolution of this matter should be negotiated with
First Nations (Minister’s Advisory Committee 1992:42).
If the Crown is to become the custodian of such materials, however, it will first be necessary to make better
provision for their storage, curation and access to interested individuals or groups, than currently exists
(OHPR 1990:59). Furthermore, it will be essential to resolve the equally legitimate, but frequently conflicting,
interests of First Nations, the scientific community and of society in general, regarding the ultimate
disposition of precontact archaeological remains. Such an objective will only be met through a long process of
negotiation and consultation among these groups.
The first steps, however, have been taken in this regard. In the late 1980s, the Assembly of First Nations and
the Canadian Museums Association together sponsored a Task Force on Museums, the purpose of which was
to develop an ethical framework and strategies by which Aboriginal peoples and cultural institutions can work
together to represent Aboriginal history and culture. The results of extensive consultations carried out by the
Task Force are available in the Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples. Also, the Canadian
Archaeological Association together with the Federal Department of Communications sponsored an extensive
program of consultation with Aboriginal communities across Canada resulting in a Statement of Principles for
Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples, which should serve to guide the actions of Canadian
archaeologists (Nicholson et al. 1996). While neither of these documents asserts singular ownership of
artifacts, they both provide guidelines regarding their interpretation and presentation to the public.
TheOntario Heritage Act also governs matters related to the care and curation of artifacts. Under Section 66
(1), this legislation stipulates that “The Minister may direct that any object taken under the authority of a
license or a permit be deposited in such public institution as he may determine to be held in trust for the
people of Ontario” (1974, c.122, s.66). Moreover, under Regulation 881 (6a), pertaining to licensing under
theOntario Heritage Act, “It is a term and condition of a license that the licensee keep in safekeeping all
objects of archaeological significance that are found under the authority of the license and all field records
that are made in the course of the work authorized by the license, except where the objects and records are
donated to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario or are directed to be deposited in a public institution
under subsection 66 (1) of the Act.”
The application of this section of the Act and this regulation typically involves the curation of recovered
artifacts by the archaeologist until such time that the analyses are complete and that a place for ultimate
disposition can be arranged, usually a fully accredited public repository. It is also generally assumed that
archaeologists will consult with the landowner to decide upon the location for the ultimate disposition of
artifacts. In general, it is desirable that material from a particular archaeological site is ultimately deposited in
a public institution located in the same community (either a local museum or a First Nation cultural centre),
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 60 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 32
provided that adequate storage, curatorial facilities for both artifacts and field records are available, that the
institution’s collections are accessible to researchers, and that the material is not transferred or disposed of
without provincial approval.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 61 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 33
6 IMPLEMENTATION
Introduction
As discussed above, the role of municipalities in the conservation of heritage features is crucial. Planning and
land use control are predominantly municipal government responsibilities and the impact of municipal land
use decisions on archaeological resources is significant, especially since municipally-approved developments
constitute the majority of land disturbing activities in the Province (Hansen 1984). Without adequate
screening at a municipal level, the provincial government is unable to ensure protection for valued
archaeological resources. Viewed from this perspective, archaeological protection cannot be implemented
without municipal involvement.
The primary means by which cultural heritage resources are best protected is through the planning process.
This requires the development of appropriate policies for the City of Kingston and incorporation into the
review process. The municipality also plays a crucial role in ensuring that the archaeological site protection
measures of the Ontario Heritage Act are recognized and valued. The mapping prepared for this study is
designed to be used by City of Kingston staff to make decisions regarding requirements for archaeological
resource assessments and/or monitoring in advance of development and/or site alteration.
Education is an important part of this process. While the public is generally supportive of environmental
causes, we must also educate our community that the record of our cultural environment is slowly vanishing.
As a science, archaeology often suffers from the attitudes and actions which result from public
misconceptions about its motives, aims and methods. It is encouraging to note that when members of the
public are made aware of archaeological sites, there exists a genuine interest not only in the pre-contact
history and history of a City, but also in archaeology itself as an academic discipline. The City should support
programs and endeavours related to involving the public in the investigation of the City’s archaeological
record.
Archaeological Resource Management Procedures
The archaeological review procedure, as it relates to development, requires close co-operation between the
Planning and Development Department and other City of Kingston Departments, the staff of the Programs
and Services Branch (Culture Programs Unit) of Ministry of Tourism and Culture, as well as both the
development and the archaeological/historical research communities. In the case of all land-use alterations,
the determination of whether or not there is a need for archaeological assessment will form part of the pre-
consultation process between the development proponent and the City prior to the submission of an
application.
An archaeological condition should be applied for any consent application that creates a new building lot (on
land that is presently vacant) if:
the application (or any part of it) is situated within the zone of archaeological potential, or
the application contains or will directly affect a federal, provincial, or municipal historic landmark,
monument, site or designated property or conservation district, battlefield cemetery, and industrial
complexes of cultural heritage value.
Establishing these procedures will address the policies of the Ontario Planning Act and the related
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 62 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 34
components of both the Ontarioand CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Acts.
The new archaeological procedures will also apply to municipal development and/or infrastructure projects
that involve construction, erection or placing of a building or structure. In addition, other activities such as
site grading, excavation, removal of topsoil, or peat and the placing and dumping of fill; drainage works,
except for the maintenance of existing municipal and agricultural drains, should be subject to the same
procedures (see also By-law No. 2006-134, A By-law to Regulate the Discovery of Items of Archaeological
or Historical Interest on City of Kingston Property and Site Alteration By-law).
In order to apply the new archaeological procedures on all public lands managed by the City, the Planning
and Development Department should hold internal discussions with staff from other departments to establish
protocols that ensure that in all appropriate circumstances, construction projects undertaken by those
departments that are located in areas of archaeological potential or areas identified as being archaeologically
sensitive, are subject to archaeological assessment prior to any land disturbing activity. Through such
discussions, the Planning and Development Department will be better able to establish some guidelines on the
kind of work that needs to be reviewed for possible archaeological concerns and work which would not
require review.
Defining Archaeologically Sensitive Areas
In recognition of the demonstrated archaeological sensitivity of the historic core of the City, other settlement
centre cores, the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District as well as a number of significant still at least
partially intact archaeological sites for which boundaries have been documented (i.e., Kingston Outer Station,
.
Belle Island), they should be designated as Archaeologically Sensitive Areas (ASAs) (Figure 1) Within such
an ASA, even small-scale soil disturbance activities, such as private swimming pool construction, house
additions, and activities such as parks and recreation facilities upgrades that will result in subsurface
disturbance to previously undisturbed, or potentially undisturbed, lands, should be preceded by archaeological
3
The decision of which level of assessment will be required will be made by the appropriate
assessment.
Planning and Development Department staff on the basis of the submitted plans regarding the proposed
activities. Proposed activities that will not result in new subsurface disturbance will not be subject to
assessment.
The legislative support for the concept of the ASA is provided by recent changes to the Ontario Heritage Act,
as outlined in Section 4.1. This provision offers automatic protection to all archaeological sites, but the
designation of an ASA around a site that exhibits significant potential on the basis of the available data will
permit the City to exercise due diligence in all planning contexts. If a property is located in an ASA,
archaeological review will be required prior to any soil disturbance.
3
The ASA is not intended to serve as a basis for directing urban growth, it is only intended to ensure that the
heritage values associated with archaeological resources are recognized and enhanced during such growth.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 63 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
4A
44
444
4
44
44
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4444A
44444
4
44A
44
44
4
4A
4
44
4
4
44
A
444
44
444
44
A
4444444
4444
A
44
4
44
4
A
444
444
444
44
A
44
444
4
4
A
44
44
44
4
44
Page 64 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 36
The Planning Review Process: A Summary
Recommended guidelines for the approach used in the review process for all land disturbance applications
within the City have been developed and are summarized below.
As part of the pre-consultation process, City staff will determine if an archaeological assessment is required
for a proposed application by means of review of the archaeological potential mapping. Should any portion of
the property fall within a zone of archaeological potential or should the property contain a previously
registered archaeological site, the City will require that the applicant undertake an archaeological assessment
as a supportive document for planning application.
The development applicant will then retain a licensed archaeologist to conduct a Stage 1 or Stage 1-2
archaeological assessment of the entire subject property, not simply the portion(s) that falls within the zone of
archaeological potential. All work conducted by the licensed archaeologist must conform to the standards set
forth in the most current (draft or approved) Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines authorized by
the Ministry of Tourism and Culture.
In the case of rural severances, only the land disturbance footprint need be assessed unless that footprint
exceeds 50% of the area of the created lot. In the case that the footprint of land disturbance exceeds 50% of
the lot area, the entire lot upon which construction is proposed will be assessed.
Once the archaeological assessment, consisting of background research and field survey (if required), has
been completed, the archaeological consultant must submit a report to the Programs and Services Branch of
the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and to the Planning and Development Department as prescribed in the
City’s Legal Deposit By-law.
The Ministry of Tourism and Culture has agreed to copy the City on any compliance letter issued to an
archaeological consultant. This letter will serve to notify both parties that all provincial concerns with respect
to archaeological resource conservation and archaeological licensing have been met. Upon receipt of this
letter and supporting documentation (e.g., copies of archaeological site registration forms and reports) from
the archaeological consultant, the City may then clear the planning application of any further archaeological
concern.
The following wording for a standard archaeological condition should be used in planning agreements,
building permits, site alteration permits, engineering agreements, OHA approvals or any other document
where the need for an archaeological assessment has been identified. This wording shall be amended from
time to time to reflect necessary changes.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 65 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 37
SUGGESTED WORDING FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONDITION
The proponent shall carry out an archaeological assessment of the entire development property and
mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant
archaeological resources found. No demolition, grading or other soil disturbances shall take place on the
subject property prior to the approval authority confirming that all archaeological resource concerns have
met resource conservation requirements.
The property will be assessed by a consultant archaeologist, licensed by the Ministry of Tourism and
Culture under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990); and any significant sites found
will be properly mitigated (avoided or excavated), prior to the initiation of construction, servicing,
landscaping or other land disturbances.
The consultant archaeologist will submit 1) 1:10,000 scale mapping that clearly outlines the limits of the
property subject to assessment and the locations of any new archaeological site locations; and 3) a copy
of the relevant assessment report(s) all to the Planning and Development Department.
The following standard clauses (amended from time to time) must be included in all assessment reports,
as required by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture:
(a) In the event that deeply buried or previously undiscovered archaeological deposits are
discovered in the course of development or site alteration, all work must immediately
cease and the site must be secured. The Cultural Program Branch of the Ministry of
Tourism and Culture (416-314-7123) and the City of Kingston Heritage Planner (613-
546-4291 ext 1386) must be immediately contacted.
(b) In the event that human remains are encountered, all work must immediately cease and
the site must be secured. The Kingston Police (613-549-4660), the Registrar of
Cemeteries Regulation Section of the Ontario Ministry of Consumer Business Services
(416-326-8494), the Cultural Program Branch of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture
(416-314-7123), and the City of Kingston Heritage Planner (613-546-4291 ext 1386)
must be immediately contacted.
The following information should also be provided to applicants concerning the archaeological assessment
process.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 66 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 38
THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Stage 1
A assessment consists of background research concerning registered sites on the subject lands or
within close proximity, as well as the environmental character of the property and its land use history. A
Stage 2
assessment consists of field survey to document any sites that may be present on a property. It should
be noted that completion of an archaeological field assessment of a particular development property, no
matter how rigorous, does not fully guarantee that all significant archaeological resources on that property
will be identified prior to land disturbance. This is particularly the case in areas where processes such as
filling, flooding or erosion have resulted in the burial of original ground surfaces, or with respect to isolated
Stage 3
human burials that are typically small features that can escape detection. investigations are designed
to secure a detailed understanding of the nature and extent of a site and may involve complete or partial
Stage 4
systematic surface collection and test excavation. undertakings comprise extensive excavation;
comparative analysis and interpretation of content and contextual information.
If one or more significant archaeological sites that will require further mitigation are documented during the
course of an assessment, it is generally possible to secure partial clearance for the property, in that the
archaeological requirement may be removed from the balance of the subject lands not encompassed by the
archaeological site(s) and suitable protective buffer zones. Although the final report of comprehensive
archaeological mitigation work may take many months to complete, final clearance for the property may be
available upon the archaeological consultant completing the fieldwork, submitting a brief executive summary
to Ministry of Tourism and Culture staff and the proponent providing information regarding any outstanding
concerns (e.g., commitment to production of the final report).
Should a proponent choose not to proceed with all necessary assessment and/or site mitigations prior to, and
in support of the application, the completion of these activities to the satisfaction of Ministry of Tourism and
Culture and the Planning and Development Department must be made a condition of draft approval.
The Municipal Project Review Process
In order to ensure consistency of approach with that of the development industry and to follow best practice,
municipal projects, whether or not they fall under the Environmental Assessment Act, will be subject to the
same process. Should the project impact areas of archaeological potential, the completion of an assessment
and any necessary mitigation, subject to the approval of Ministry of Tourism and Culture, will be required.
Assessing Resource Impacts and Identifying Mitigation Strategies
If no adverse impacts to an archaeological resource will occur, then development may proceed as planned.
Should a significant archaeological resource be discovered during the course of an assessment, the
development proponent, the archaeological consultant, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, and the City of
Kingston as the approval authority must assess the potential impact to an archaeological resource and arrive at
rational decisions regarding integration of that resource into the site or development plan or the
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 67 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 39
implementation of mitigative options.
The review process at this stage requires the input of the proponent in order to make the decisions regarding
potential adverse effects to a site. Should a site be threatened, the two available options are to immediately
integrate the site into the development plan such as through re-allocation of open space/community park space
or provide for mitigative procedures. The decision-making process with respect to mitigative procedures may
be subject to a cost benefit analysis where the mitigative option involves input from all of the stakeholders
(i.e., the City, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, the heritage community and the development proponent -
either public sector or private sector).
The Aboriginal community must also be consulted throughout the site mitigation process. This is particularly
true in the case of Late Woodland sites, which regardless of their size have the potential to contain human
burials. It is often assumed that the First Nation that is geographically closest to the project is the most
suitable group with whom to consult, particularly when the issues at stake are those of archaeological
resources and human remains. However, the complex histories of the First Nations of southern Ontario, both
before and after European contact and settlement, means that such assumptions can be simplistic and
detrimental to the success of the entire consultation process. Under all circumstances there should be an effort
to identify the group or more likely groups that are the most appropriate (on cultural-historical grounds) to act
as the designated descendants of those who occupied the project area in the past, and who are willing to
participate and ensure that cultural heritage remains are treated in an appropriate and seemly manner. This
identification process is best achieved through negotiation with a variety of communities in order that they
may themselves arrive at the final decision. It should also be noted that the Ministry of Tourism and Culture
has issued new draft Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Assessment, which includes a requirement
for engagement with Aboriginal Communities between Stages 3 and 4 archaeological investigations on
Aboriginal sites and recommended engagement before Stage 2 and 3. While these guidelines have not yet
been finalized, such consultation is now expected by most First Nations.
In any situation, there are a number of mitigative options, including avoidance, modifications to construction
techniques, and various degrees of documentation and/or excavation, as discussed below. Similarly, in all
cases, thought should be given to the interpretive and educational potential of the site.
Detailed information regarding a site is frequently required in order to make a more accurate assessment of
significance and to determine the potential for adverse effects. This may involve different levels of on-site
investigations.
Many of the sites routinely encountered will prove to be of little or no significance and will not require further
investigation, beyond the mapping, measuring and photographing of the surface attributes of the
archaeological site that has already occurred during the course of the initial archaeological assessment.
Where more extensive archaeological mitigation is required, recommended mitigative options may take
numerous forms, including:
Preservation: the preferred mitigative option. Preservation may involve long-term protective
measures such as project design changes (site avoidance) that integrate the resource within the
overall development plan. To further avoid both accidental impact and intentional vandalism and
looting, additional protective measures may include fencing, screening, or capping (only in special
circumstances). The City must determine whether preservation is to occur on the landscape scale
(i.e., areas of high cultural landscape heritage integrity combined with high archaeological potential
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 68 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 40
are to be preserved as a whole), or at the scale of individual sites that are deemed to be particularly
significant or sensitive (e.g., Late Woodland settlements that may contain human burials).
Stabilization: may be required in the case of eroding archaeological deposits. This may involve the
salvage excavation of the eroding area and/or the construction of retaining walls or barriers.
Systematic Data Recovery: involves the recovery of data from significant archaeological sites,
when other mitigative options are not feasible. It includes a complete or partial systematic surface
collection, excavation, or both; a comparative analysis and interpretation of content and contextual
information; and production of an investigative report. This mitigation strategy ultimately results in
the destruction of the archaeological site.
Monitoring: monitoring may be undertaken (only in specific circumstances) to ensure that adverse
impacts on archaeological sites which could not be predicted or evaluated prior to construction are
addressed. Monitoring requires the presence of a licensed archaeologist during the construction
phase of a project. This takes the form of scheduled site visits and on-call availability during a long
term project.
All decisions regarding mitigative options or preservation strategies are subject to Ministry of Tourism and
Culture review and approval.
The site preservation/avoidance option has both short- and long-term components. The short-term component
involves both the redesign of the development plan (e.g., lot layouts, parkland, road, and service alignments)
and ensuring that the resource(s) in question are physically protected during construction by means of fencing
or other visible barriers. The long-term protective measures can include the use of zoning by-laws or other
conditions or orders for development that prohibit any future land use activities that might result in soil
disturbance. For information regarding the preparation of a Conservation Plan, which is a document that
details how an archaeological site can be conserved, the proponent and their consultant might consult with
InfoSheet #5,Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, 2005.
Such a plan could only be prepared after a detailed Stage 3 investigation of the site that is necessary to define
the nature and extent of the site.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 69 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 41
7 PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the preceding considerations, the following recommendations are made:
That the policies attached as Appendix A be incorporated into the Official Plan
1).
It is recommended that the archaeological potential and Archaeologically Sensitive Area (ASA)
2)
mapping be used in determining requirements for archaeological assessments.
It is recommended that the Planning and Development Department work with City
3)
departments to establish protocols that ensure that in all appropriate circumstances,
construction projects undertaken by developers, ratepayers and the City of Kingston that may
impact archaeological resources on public lands (e.g., trail, playground, playing field, public
washroom, parking lot construction, road widening/extension, trunk sewer and watermain
construction, stormwater management facility construction, municipal building and structure
construction, etc.) and which are located in areas of archaeological potential or areas identified
as being archaeologically sensitive, are subject to archaeological assessment prior to any land
disturbing activity.
It is recommended that when there are any new designations of heritage properties (which
4)
include constructions dating before 1920) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, that the
property footprint be added to the final potential mapping (Appendix B). If the newly
designated property is surrounded by greenfields, the newly designated property should be
buffered by 100 metres for archaeological potential
.
No Stage 4 archaeological investigations on Aboriginal sites should be undertaken within the
5)
City of Kingston without first filing a First Nations consultation report with the Planning and
Development Department
.
Such a report should contain a description of the engagement with the appropriate Aboriginal
community(s) and copies of any documentation arising from the process. The report must include a
rationale for identifying which communities were engaged, a description of the engagement
procedures were, dates of when the engagement occurred, documentations of the strategies
undertaken to incorporate the input of the Aboriginal community(s) in to the fieldwork (e.g.,
monitoring) and a description of the process for reporting results to the community(s).
Archaeological assessment reports should contain advisories on the steps to be taken should
6)
unanticipated deeply buried archaeological remains or human remains be found on a property
during construction activities.
The advisory should note that Ministry of Tourism and Culture should be notified immediately. It
should further specify that if human remains are encountered during construction, the development
proponent should immediately cease work, and contact the police, Ministry of Tourism and Culture,
and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Consumer
and Business Services. The City’s Planning and Development Department must also be contacted.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 70 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 42
If the burials are determined to be of Aboriginal origin, the relevant Aboriginal communities must
also be notified and their assistance sought. In any case in which deeply buried archaeological
remains (including burials) are encountered, all construction activity in the vicinity of the discovery
must be postponed until an appropriate mitigation strategy is identified and executed.
In order to ensure the long term viability of the Archaeological Master Plan, it should be
7)
subject to comprehensive review on a five year basis by a licensed archaeologist and should be
carried out in co-ordination with the five year review of the City’s Official Plan.
Such a review should consider any changes in Ministry of Tourism and Culture criteria for site
significance, any data gaps in the site inventory, changes required to the archaeological potential
modeling, and all procedures and guidelines related to the implementation of the Plan. Any review
regarding site significance should involve a synthesis of archaeological knowledge resulting from the
implementation of this plan to define what kind of sites require excavation to further our knowledge
of the pre-contact and post-contact past of the City.
Procedures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Tourism
8)
and Culture and the City of Kingston should be followed regarding the sharing of information
concerning archaeological site locations.
As defined in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and
the City of Kingston, information concerning site locations can be freely used for internal purposes.
Such information can only be provided externally for a given property to a party or agent of the party
holding title to that property. Any other external requests to the City for information about site
locations must be referred to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. This Memorandum of
Understanding should be updated regularly.
It is recommended that the City develop and adopt, in consultation with the Ministry of
9)
Tourism and Culture, relevant Aboriginal communities, other agencies, landowners, and the
public, a “Contingency Plan for the Protection of Archaeological Resources in Urgent
Situations.”
The Contingency Plan should specify that if deeply buried archaeological remains are found on a
property during construction activities, work should cease, and then the Ministry of Tourism and
Culture and the Planning and Development Department must be notified immediately. It should
further specify that if human remains should be encountered during construction, the proponent
should immediately cease work, and contact the City of Kingston Police, the City of Kingston
Planning and Development Department, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the Registrar of the
Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As noted
above, it is illegal for any person or agency to alter an archaeological site without a license. This in
effect offers automatic protection to all archaeological sites and the City must exercise due diligence
in all contexts, including emergency situations, to ensure that archaeological features are protected
from disturbance of any nature.
Such a Contingency Plan should address:
a notification process, involving the City of Kingston, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and
any other communities or agencies identified during the consultation process;
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 71 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 43
an investigation and reporting process undertaken by a licensed archaeologist;
financial responsibility, structured according to the ability to pay of public sector, private sector,
and individual land owners. In the case of individual land owners, it may be necessary to
establish a contingency fund;
the need to establish greater latitude and flexibility in civic financial and other assistance for
private conservation activities. Inducements of various types, extended to the private
owner/developer in the community interest, are often seen as the quid pro quo for regulatory
restrictions (Minister's Advisory Committee 1992:44). While recognizing that the City may be
concerned about the potential effects of property tax inducements (e.g., rebates, temporary
assessment freezes, etc.) on existing property assessments and tax revenues, it is suggested that
the feasibility of such measures merits further consideration during consultation for the
Contingency Plan.
The City of Kingston should implement a public awareness initiative by which the general
10)
public might be made more knowledgeable of the wide range of archaeological resources
present within the City.
A heightened public awareness of the importance and fragility of archaeological resources can
serve as an additional and effective means of protecting those resources. The City should support
any programs and endeavours related to involving the public in the investigation of the City’s
archaeological record.
The City of Kingston should consider preparing both an accurate and comprehensive inventory
11)
of the archaeological collections currently held by museums and consulting archaeologists and
a guideline encouraging the curation of material from archaeological sites within Kingston at
local museums.
There is an identified need to co-ordinate the disposition of artifacts recovered from
archaeological sites within the City. It is generally preferable that material from a particular
archaeological site is ultimately deposited in a public institution located in the same community,
provided that adequate storage and curatorial facilities for both artifacts and field records are
available, that the institution's collections are accessible to researchers, and that the material is
not transferred or disposed of without provincial approval.
While many of the existing museum facilities and other agencies such as CARF within the City
already have collections of material, or may be willing to accept additional material, a large
amount of material from sites in the City is currently curated elsewhere. Collections derived from
the activities of private archaeological consulting firms, for the most part, remain in the care of
those firms. It is recommended that the City consider preparing an accurate and comprehensive
inventory of the collections currently held by museums and consulting archaeologists.
Should the City deem it desirable to establish a guideline encouraging the curation of material
from archaeological sites within Kingston at local museums (existing or proposed), researchers
active in the City could be made aware of this City interest.
In order to implement such a process, it would first be necessary to ensure that such institutions
possess adequate storage and curatorial facilities, and management policies. Should the City, in
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 72 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 44
consultation with the local museums, wish to adopt a comprehensive policy concerning the
curation of artifacts from archaeological sites within the City, and incorporate any such policy
within the overall implementation of the archaeological master plan, it is recommended that any
such curatorial facilities (existing or proposed) and their practices meet current professional
standards with respect to such issues as climate control, security, and researcher access.
As the curation of archaeological materials on Provincial lands falls entirely within the regulatory
framework of the Province, the City should request financial assistance from the Province for the
study and implementation of the public curation of materials found within its jurisdiction.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 73 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 45
8 REFERENCES CITED
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
1992Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Cataraqui Archaeological Research Foundation (CARF)
1987-90 Kingston Archaeological Master Plan Study. 4 Volumes. Unpublished report prepared by the
Cataraqui Archaeological Research Foundation for the City of Kingston.
2004 Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, Market Square BbGc-88, Kingston, Ontario, 2002 and 2003
Investigations. Report on file with the City of Kingston.
2006a Stage 2 Archaeological Excavations, North Block, BbGc-8 and BbGc-78, Part One, Kingston,
Ontario. Report on file with the City of Kingston.
2006b Stage 2 Archaeological Excavations, North Block, BbGc-8 and BbGc-78, Part Two – LVEC
Footprint, Kingston, Ontario. Report on file with the City of Kingston
2006c Stage 2 Archaeological Excavations, North Block, BbGc-78, Part Three – King Street, Part Four
– Barrack Street, Kingston, Ontario. Report on file with the City of Kingston
Coleman, Derek J. and Ronald F. Williamson
1994 Landscapes Past to Landscapes Future: Planning for Archaeological Resources. In Great Lakes
Archaeology and Paleoecology: Exploring Interdisciplinary Initiatives for the Nineties, edited by
Robert I. MacDonald, pp.61-80. Proceedings of a symposium presented by the Quaternary
Science Institute, University of Waterloo, Ontario, September 21-22, 1991.
Cuming, D.J.
1985 Advisory Notes on Heritage Conservation and Municipal Planning. On File at Heritage Branch,
Ministry of Culture and Communications (now Ministry of Tourism and Culture), Toronto.
Department of Canadian Heritage
1977Cultural Property Import and Export Act.
1990Archaeological Heritage Policy Framework.
Dieterman, F. and R.F. Williamson
2001Government on Fire: The History and Archaeology of Upper Canada’s First Parliament
Buildings. Toronto: eastendbooks.
Hansen, G.
1984 Built-on Lands: Definition and Canadian Area Estimates. Plans Canada 17/4.
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)
1965Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter)
1990 Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (Lausanne Charter)
1999Charter on the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter)
1999 Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage
Minister’s Advisory Committee
1992 Minister’s Advisory Committee on New Heritage Legislation. Ministry of Culture and
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 74 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 46
Communications (now Ministry of Tourism and Culture), Toronto.
Ministry of Consumer and Business Services, Ontario
1990Cemeteries Act.
Ministry of Culture, Ontario
1997Conserving A Future For Our Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning & Development in
Ontario. Toronto: Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology & Heritage Planning Unit.
2005Ontario Heritage Act
2006Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (final draft, August 2006). Cultural
Programs Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture, Toronto.
Ministry of Environment, Ontario
2006Environmental Assessment Act
Ministry of Government Services, Ontario
2002Government Efficiency Act
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario
2004The Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act (Bill 26).
2005Ontario Planning Act
2005 Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System. Provincial Policy Statement Part IV, pp. 2-3.
Toronto.
Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario
1990Aggregate Resources Act.
1991Timber Management Guidelines for the Protection of Cultural Heritage Resources.
Ministry of Transportation, Ontario
2004Environmental Protection Requirements for Transportation Planning, and Highway Design,
Construction, Operation and Maintenance.
Nicholson, Bev, David Pokotylo and Ron Williamson (editors)
1996Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples. Report from the
Aboriginal Heritage Committee, Canadian Archaeological Association. Canadian Archaeological
Association and Department of Communications, Ottawa.
Ontario Heritage Policy Review \[OHPR\]
1990A Strategy for Conserving Ontario’s Heritage. Ministry of Culture and Communications (now
Ministry of Tourism and Culture), Toronto.
Parks Canada
1994Cultural Resource Management Policy
2002The Parks Canada Charter.
2002 Guide to the Preparation of Commemorative Integrity Statements.
2003 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
2005Parks Canada Guidelines for the Management of Archaeological Resources.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 75 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Page 47
1996 Reference Guide on Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources. Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Stewart, W. Bruce
1983 The Kingston Harbourfront Archaeological Project Phase II—Fort Frontenac: Results of the 1982
Test Excavations. Unpublished report on file with the Cataraqui Archaeological Research
Foundation, Kingston.
1985 The Structural Evolution of Fort Frontenac. Northeast Historical Archaeology 14: 38-49.
Task Force on Museums and First Peoples
1992Turning the Page: Forging New Partnerships Between Museums and First Peoples (2nd edition).
Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples. Assembly of First Nations and Canadian
Museums Association, Ottawa.
Transport Canada
2001Canada Shipping Act.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of
Ownership of Cultural Property.
1976 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World
Heritage Convention)
2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 76 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Appendix A: Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
Goal
:
To recognize, protect, and conserve archaeological sites within the City.
Policies
:
Archaeological Master Plan
7.4.1 An Archaeological Master Plan is being undertaken for the City of Kingston and will result in
further policy provisions. Until such time as the Archaeological Master Plan is complete, the
provincial criteria/checklist for determining an area of archaeological potential will be applied.
Conservation of Heritage Resources
7.4.2 The City will permit developmentand site alteration on lands containing archaeological
resources or areas of archaeological potential if the significant archaeological resources have been
conserved by removal and documentation, or by conservation on site. Where significantarchaeological
resources must be preserved on site, only development and site alteration that maintains the heritage
integrity of the site is permitted.
Designation of Sites
7.4.3.The City intends to cooperate with the Provincial Government to designate archaeological
sites in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act.
Register of Cultural Heritage Sites
7.4.4.The City’s register of cultural heritage resources may include available archaeological site
data and locations, and relevant mapping from the provincial archaeological database of the
Ministry of Tourism and Culture, under the provisions of a municipal-provincial data sharing
agreement. These site data and locations will be maintained for the purpose of heritage conservation
planning and development review. The mapping database will be updated regularly when
appropriate, as new archaeological sites are identified.
Locations Confidential
7.4.5.It is the policy of the City to keep confidential the existence and location of archaeological
sites to protect against vandalism, disturbance, and the inappropriate removal of resources, as per
the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the City of Kingston data sharing agreement.
Provincial Approval
7.4.6.All archaeological assessment reports must be reviewed and a compliance letter issued by the
province and a copy of the assessment report will be provided and held by the City for information
purposes.
Emergency Protection of Resources
7.4.7.A contingency plan must be prepared, with the advice of a licensed archaeologist and/or the
Ministry of Tourism and Culture and adopted by by-law, for emergency situations to protect
archaeological resources on accidental discoveries or under imminent threat(s).
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 77 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Appendix A: Page 2 of 2
Burial Sites
7.4.8.Where burial sites are encountered during any excavation or other action, the provisions of
the Cemeteries Act and its regulations will apply. Where there are First Nations burials, they will be
addressed by consultation with all relevant First Nations communities.
Required Studies
.Upon receiving information that lands proposed for developmentmay include
7.4.3
archaeological resources or constitute an area of archaeological potential, Council will
not take any action to approve the development,and the owner of such land will be
requested to have studies carried out at the owner’s expense by qualified persons to:
a)survey andassess the property;
b)assess the impact of the proposed development;
c)indicate methods to mitigate any adverse impact of the proposed developmenton any
archaeological resources, including methods of recovery and preservation;
d)comply with current Ministry of Tourism and Culture standards and guidelines for consulting
archaeologists; and,
e)provide a compliance letter issued by the Province for any completed archaeological study.
Conservation of Archaeological Resources
7.4.10.The City will encourage the conservation of archaeological resources as may be identified
by the City, the Province or other group or agency, and will continue to enforce municipal and
provincial legislation with respect to the discovery of items of archaeological or historic interest on
a property.
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 78 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston
Appendix B: Page 1 of 5
APPENDIX B: THE COMPOSITE ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL LAYER FOR THE CITY
Archaeological Services Inc.
Page 79 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
MASTER PLAN
KEY MAP
City of Kingston
Kingston West
Study Area
Appendix B - Figure 1:
Composite Archaeological
Potential Layer
A
44
44
4
44
A
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Composite Potential
Roadway
Railway
4444A
444444
4
Historic Water
Stream or Drainage Ditch
Rivers, Lakes and Ponds
Marshes
A
4444
444
Kingston West Study Boundary
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
A
4
4
A
4
4
4A
4
44
44
44
4
44
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
444444A
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
A4
4
A
444
4
44
4
44
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
A
4
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
44
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4A
4
4
4
4
4
A
A
44
4
4
4
44
4444
4444444A
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SERVICES
INC.
DATE: MARCH 25, 2008
Kilometers
DRAWN BY: S.F.
0123450.5
Page 80 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
¯
MASTER PLAN
KEY MAP
City of Kingston
Kingston West
Study Area
Appendix B - Figure 2:
Composite Archaeological
Potential Layer
44A
44
4
44
44
44
44
4
4
Final Potential
A
4
44
4
4
4
44
4
A
444
44
44
44
Roadway
4
4
4
4
Railway
4
4
4
A
Historic Water
Stream or Drainage Ditch
444A
4444
Rivers, Lakes and Ponds
4
4
Marshes
4
4
4A
4
4
4
Kingston West Study Boundary
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
44444444
4444A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
44
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
4
A
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
A
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
444444
4444444
444444
44
44
4444
A
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4A
4
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4A
4
4A4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
A
44
44
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
A
A
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
A
4
44
44
4
4
4A
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4A
44
44
44
4
A
44
44
4
4
4
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SERVICES
INC.
DATE: OCT 20, 2009
Kilometers
DRAWN BY: S.F.
0123450.5
Page 81 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
MASTER PLAN
KEY MAP
City of Kingston
Kingston East
Study Area
Appendix B - Figure 3:
Composite Archaeological
Potential Layer
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Composite Potential
Roadway
Railway
4
4
4
4
Historic Water
4
A
4444
44
4
44
444
4
44
4
4
4
Stream or Drainage Ditch
4
4
4
4
4
A
Marshes
4
4
4
4
4
Rivers, Lakes and Ponds
4
4
A
Kingston East Study Boundary
4A
44
44
44
4
4
4
4
4A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
A
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
A
44
4
4
4
4
444
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
4
44
44
4
A
4
4
A
4
4
44
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
44
4
4
A
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
DATE: MARCH 28, 2008 Kilometers
DRAWN BY: S.F.
0123450.5
Page 82 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
MASTER PLAN
KEY MAP
City of Kingston
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
44A
4
4
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
Kingston East
Study Area
A
4
4A
44
44
4
44
44
44
4
4
Appendix B - Figure 4:
4
4
4
4
4
4 Composite Archaeological
Potential Layer
Composite Potential
Roadway
Railway
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 Historic Water
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Stream or Drainage Ditch
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
Marshes
4
4
4
4
Rivers, Lakes and Ponds
4
4
4
4
4
Kingston East Study Boundary
4
4
4
A
4
A
4
44
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
4
44
4
4
4
A
A
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
A
44
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
A
44
4
44
44
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
A
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
A
4
4
4
4
DATE: MARCH 28, 2008 Kilometers
DRAWN BY: S.F.
0123450.5
Page 83 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Did You Know?
An Archaeological Management Plan
Page 84 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Page 85 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Typical
AMP Process
Compile
Inventory
Historical Research
& Data Collection
Aboriginal and Local
Community
Consultation
Analysis of Data and
Model Site Potential
Develop
Archaeological
Potential Map/
Policies/Procedures
Implement
Plan
Page 86 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Basic steps in constructing an
archaeological site potential
model:
a) Model pre-contact site
potential
b) Model historical site potential
c) Compile an integrity layer
related to more recent site
disturbances
d) Compile a composite
archaeological potential layer
Page 87 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Areas of municipal
responsibility
that could be subject to an
archaeological review:
Plans of subdivision and
condominium
Site specific official plan
amendments
Site plans involving large
parcels of undisturbed land
such as recreational,
commercial and industrial
projects (e.g., golf courses,
trailer parks, industrial parks,
shopping malls)
Small-scale applications
(e.g., consent to sever)
Municipal infrastructure
projects involving the
construction, erection or
placing of a building or
structure, road
developments and
widenings, sewage and
water projects, wind turbine
proposals, etc.
Site alteration activities (e.g.,
site grading, excavation,
removal of topsoil/peat,
placing and dumping of fill,
drainage works)
Demolition permits and
building relocation activities
(e.g., residential and
commercial heritage
buildings)
Page 88 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Page 89 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Page 90 of 100
5.d) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O...
Page 91 of 100
5.e) Building Department Demolition Permits Issued - April a...
Page 92 of 100
5.e) Building Department Demolition Permits Issued - April a...
Page 93 of 100
5.f) Correspondence dated April 8, 2014 from Wayne Morgan, C...
From:wayne.morgan@sympatico.ca
To:mbrissette@oromedonte.ca
Subject:OroMedonteHeritageCommitteeRequesttojoinCommunityHeritageOntario
Date:Tue,8Apr201418:40:58+0000
CouncillorJohnCrawford
Chair,OroMedonteHeritageCommittee
c/oMarieBrissette,CommitteeCoordinator
IamwritingtoencourageyourheritagecommitteetojoinCommunityHeritageOntario.
CommunityHeritageOntario(CHO)istheassociationofOntariomunicipalheritagecommittees.Weare
volunteerswhoassistmunicipalheritagecommitteesindevelopingtheircapabiltiesandrepresentingthemat
theprovinciallevel.Tothatend,CHO:
publishesaquarterlynewsletter(CHO/PCONews)inwhichheritagecommitteemembersandothersinthe
heritagecommunitydiscusstheirsuccessesandchallengesandnewsaffectingmunicipalheritagecommittees
isprovided;
holdsworkshops,oftenattherequestofmunicipalheritagecommittees.Thesehaveincludedorientation
fornewmunicipalheritagecommitteemembersandspecifictopicssuchasheritageconservationdistricts,
challengesinconservingchurches;guidanceinpreparingdesignationbylawsandmunicipalheritageregisters;
insuranceandheritageproperties;andresearchingheritageproperties;
holdstheannual ONTARIOHERITAGECONFERENCE inconjunctionwiththeARchitecturalConservancyof
OntarioandtheOntarioAssociationofHeritage\\ProfessionalswithinputfromtheMinistryofTourism,
CultureandSportandtheOntarhioHeritageTrust.ThisyeartheconferenceisinCornwallMay2325.More
informationabouttheconferencecanbefoundonthewebsite γƚƓƷğƩźƚŷĻƩźƷğŭĻĭƚƓŅĻƩĻƓĭĻ͵ĭğγ.;
makesrepresentationstotheProvincialgovernmentonimprovementstolegislationandproceduresthat
affectheritageconservationinOntario;and
isdevelopmingawebsitetoassistmunicipalheritagecommittees'communityheritageontario.ca'.
Ihaveattacheda2014CHOmembershipapplicationform.MembershipinCHOis$75peryearformunicipal
heritagecommittees.
Shouldyouorthecommitteehaveanyquestions,pleasedonothesitatetocontactme.
1
Page 94 of 100
5.f) Correspondence dated April 8, 2014 from Wayne Morgan, C...
WayneMorgan
DirectorandVicePresident
CommunityHeritageOntario
POBox1203
21Land'sEnd
SuttonWest,OntarioL0E1R0
ĻƌĻƦŷƚƓĻʹВЉЎАЋЋЎЌВБ
Ļƒğźƌʹwayne.morgan@sympatico.ca
2
Page 95 of 100
5.g) Report No. CS2014-13, Marie Brissette, Coordinator, Cor...
Page 96 of 100
5.g) Report No. CS2014-13, Marie Brissette, Coordinator, Cor...
Page 97 of 100
5.g) Report No. CS2014-13, Marie Brissette, Coordinator, Cor...
Page 98 of 100
5.g) Report No. CS2014-13, Marie Brissette, Coordinator, Cor...
Page 99 of 100
5.g) Report No. CS2014-13, Marie Brissette, Coordinator, Cor...
Council Meeting Minutes May 7, 2014.
e)Report No. DS2014-23, Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services re: Zoning By-
Law Amendment 2014-ZBA-02 (Peter Vasey 2101 Horseshoe Valley Road, Concession
1, Part Lot 40 (Vespra), Township of Oro-Medonte \[Refer to Item 15d)\].
Motion No. C140507-19
Moved by Meyer, Seconded by Coutanche
Be it resolved
1. That Report No. DS2014-23, Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services re:
Zoning By-Law Amendment 2014-ZBA-02 (Peter Vasey 2101 Horseshoe Valley
Road, Concession 1, Part Lot 40 (Vespra), Township of Oro-Medonte be received
and adopted.
2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application 2014-ZBA-03, being on Schedule A 14
to Zoning Bylaw 97-95 be approved and that Zoning By-Law 97-95, as amended, is
hereby further amended by changing the zone symbol applying to lands located at,
2101 Horseshoe Valley Road Concession 1 Part Lot 40 (Vespra) in the Township of
Oro-Medonte, from Institutional (I) Zone to a Local Commercial Exception 245 (LC*
245) Zone as noted in draft By-law No. 2014-065.
3. That the appropriate by-law be brought forward for Councils consideration.
4. And That the applicant be advised of Council's decision under the Director of
Development Services' signature.
Carried.
f) Report No. CS2014-13, Doug Irwin, Director of Corporate Services/Clerk re: 2014 Fall
Meeting Cancellations.
Motion No. C140507-20
Moved by Coutanche, Seconded by Meyer
Be it resolved
1. That Report No. CS2014-13, Doug Irwin, Director of Corporate Services/Clerk
re: 2014 Fall Meeting Cancellations be received and adopted.
2. That the regularly scheduled Council meetings of October 22 and November 5, 2014
be cancelled.
3. That Councils advisory bodies be advised that due to the Municipal Election, no
advisory body meetings, with the exception of the Human Resources Committee, will
be scheduled for the months of September, October and November 2014.
4. And That Councils advisory bodies, public and staff be advised of the meeting
cancellations.
Carried.
1017
Page of
Page 100 of 100