Demolition of heritage attributes discussed at Rand tribunal

An Ontario Land Tribunal hearing has moved on from witnesses called by the developer planning to build up to 196 homes on the historic Rand property in Niagara-on-the-Lake's Old Town.  

Testimony and cross-examination of experts participating on behalf of Solmar Development concluded last Thursday. Denise Horne, Niagara-on-the-Lake's former heritage planner, who left the municipality late last year and now works for a private planning company, took the stand Friday in the virtual hearing that began April 9.  

She appeared as a witness for both the town and Save Our Rand Estate (SORE), a grassroots organization fighting the proposed development for several years.  

She began delivering testimony last Friday and her cross-examination wrapped up Monday.  

Before questioning by Solmar lawyer Mark Flowers started late Friday, Horne went over specifics from a lengthy report she brought to council last April, containing several recommendations.  

The report recommended approval of eight alterations the Solmar group proposed, including the demolition of the Calvin Rand summer house and the main residence on Charlotte Street, a collection of former stables and barns.  

Horne’s report suggested 15 other proposals should be rejected, including demolition of the carriage house on John Street East and two smaller sheds on Charlotte Street. She was also opposed to the removal of heritage elements such as the Mound Garden and the Dunnington-Grubb-designed swimming pool garden, which Solmar wants to relocate and incorporate as part of the subdivision.   

The report was approved by the town’s municipal heritage committee, and at first by council, with some conditions. But then at a following council meeting, the majority voted against any demolition, removal or relocation of any buildings on the property.   

During last Friday’s land tribunal proceedings, Horne reiterated what was contained in her report.   

“The Rand estate, as I understand it, is a planned country estate,” Horne responded to a question about her conclusions, by town lawer Nancy Smith, adding it is connected to people who were prominent in the community and consists of a unique, designed landscape, referring to the work of the Dunnington-Grubbs.   

Preservation across the property was her “primary approach” in the report, she told the tribunal. It contains a "rare ensemble” of hobby farm buildings and their heritage value should be protected. Those buildings can be restored – but shouldn’t be demolished or relocated to another piece of the property, she said.   

“The character-defining elements should largely remain in situ,” said Horne. “There shouldn’t be unnecessary moving of structures, especially where location is important in understanding heritage.”  

She also claims a commemoration plan put forward by Solmar “falls short of achieving conservation.”   

The site’s pool garden needs to be protected, she believes. “Restoration is an approach that should be utilized here because we can realize this unique and rare landscape through these original plans,” said Horne, who was the town’s heritage planner from 2015 to 2023.    

The Calvin Rand summer home is one piece Horne said in her report that could be demolished, but council’s decision opposed that recommendation.   

There are “serious issues” with its condition, Horne said, which was also an opinion shared by Solmar experts earlier in the hearing.   

Cross-examination on Monday, kicking off the fifth week of the hearing, started with more questions to Horne by Flowers, representing Solmar, related to how the Ontario Heritage Act can be interpreted.   

Going over a timeline of submissions made by the developer, Flowers said that in October 2022, Solmar applied to demolish a number of pieces on the property under the Ontario Heritage Act. These related to 200 John St. and 588 Charotte St.   

The town deemed them incomplete in February 2023 but later said they were complete, adding that more information might be required as the process continues.   

Flowers asked Horne if that should be understood that the developer may have to submit further information “even though you’ve got a complete application.”  

Horne said, “no, that’s not correct,” elaborating that the paragraph Flowers was referring to was used “because there isn’t really a threshold for what constitutes completeness for a study or report,” and that this is a way of keeping it open that upon further review of the application, there could be more questions.   

“In our detailed analysis and review, we may in fact find we don’t have sufficient information – there are details that are missing for us to fully assess impacts,” said Horne, adding this allows the town to “provide the most informed recommendations.”   

Flowers then asked Horne why, in the executive summary of her report, there is nothing said about commemoration. She was asked if it should be “one method” by which heritage values can be conserved.   

“I think it can form part of an overall conservation plan for a property to conserve heritage value,” she responded.   

Flowers also pointed to the Ontario Heritage Act, noting that it does allow for the contemplation of demolition or removal or heritage attributes, to which Horne agreed the Act “does have a process to address demolition.”   

He then asked Horne if she was aware that through an ongoing appeal such as the one at hand, a municipality can be ordered to consent to a demolition or removal, possibly with terms and conditions.   

Horne said she is also aware of this.   

Later in the day Monday, Flowers pointed to a map that has one section labelled as a Dunnington-Grubb designed landscape. He then noted there are only two areas on the property that have known, documented design plans by the Dunnington-Grubbs – the sunken garden at 176 John St., and the pool garden at 200 John St.   

Flowers asked if this is “potentially misleading” that a larger area outside those two spots sits within the highlighted part of the map, considering there are no design plans indicating them to be part of the Dunnington-Grubb landscape.  Horne said a further heritage evaluation that was conducted provides “more fulsome” information about the Dunnington-Grubb landscape being more than those two garden areas.   

The site’s boundary wall, bath house, mound garden, and other heritage attributes and their historic relationships to the site were also discussed in Flowers’ cross-examination of Horne.   

Anne Mcllroy, an architect and witness for SORE, began delivering evidence late Monday and was expected to be the focal point of Tuesday’s proceedings as well.  

The hearing is scheduled to run until May 17 and more tentative dates have been set if needed for the week of July 29 to Aug. 2.