CONSERVATION REVIEW BOARD RE THE CORPORATION OF THE

conservation review board ------------------------- re: the corporation of the city of toronto, ontario; intention to designate the

CONSERVATION REVIEW BOARD
-------------------------
RE: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO, ONTARIO; INTENTION
TO DESIGNATE THE LANDS AND PREMISES KNOWN MUNICIPALLY AND DESCRIBED AS
183 DOVERCOURT ROAD IN THE CITY OF TORONTO, CONTAINING THE FORMER
IDEAL BREAD COMPANY BUILDING.
Thomas McIlwraith, Chair January 31, 2003
Andrew Mathers, Member
Peter Zakarow, Member
This hearing was convened under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, for the purpose of reporting to the Council
of the City of Toronto whether, in the opinion of this Board, on the
basis of the evidence it heard, the property described as 183
Dovercourt Road (the former Ideal Bread Company building), should be
designated by by-law under the Act.
Notice of this hearing was given under the Act and published in The
Toronto Sun on Friday, January 17, 2003, by the Board. An affidavit by
a member of the Board’s staff with respect to this notice was tabled
as Exhibit #1.
The Board, in accordance with its customary practice, had the
opportunity to inspect the site and view the surrounding area prior to
the Hearing.
The Board met in Committee Room 2, City Hall, City of Toronto, on
Friday, January 31, 2003.
Participants: Rob Billingsley, Solicitor, City of Toronto
Kathryn Anderson, Heritage Officer, City of Toronto
Donald Desrochers, Toronto, Ontario, Contractor
Jason Pearson, Toronto, Ontario, Objector
In this report the structure in question is identified as the “former
Ideal Bread Company factory.” It fills a site of approximately 10,000
square feet (See Exhibit #7).
The hearing commenced at 9:35a.m.
Procedural Matter
The Board inquired if there were any procedural matters that should be
addressed prior to the start of the hearing.
Mr. Pearson presented a motion to adjourn the Conservation Review
Board (“the Board”) hearing indefinitely (Exhibit #3a). It was
accompanied by a list of eleven reasons, a statement titled
“Attention” regarding “the battle against the developer’s plans ...”,
and some 50 petitions from neighbours. Mr. Pearson claimed that proper
procedures were violated by the City of Toronto, that the Board did
not act with proper diligence in assuring that the objectors would
have access to all relevant materials, and that City Council was
insufficiently informed before voting to recommend designation.
Mr. Billingsley stated his opposition to the motion, noting that
indefinite adjournment served no one. He tabled documents relevant to
the decision of City of Toronto Council to recommend designation of
183 Dovercourt Road (Exhibit #4). This recommendation was adopted by
City Council at its meeting of May 21-23, 2002. Mr. Billingsley stated
that Council was fully aware of its actions, and was under no
obligation to accept staff recommendations, nor to accept
recommendations of the Board.
The Board recessed to discuss its response. The Board then denied the
motion, stating that it concerned matters of procedure within the
jurisdiction of the City of Toronto and beyond the authority of the
Board.
The substantive part of the hearing began at 10:40a.m.
Case for the City of Toronto
Mr. Billingsley introduced the case by entering as an exhibit the
property title deed and entry in the assessment roll (Exhibit #5).
Mr. Billingsley stated that the Council of the City of Toronto is
proposing that the building at 183 Dovercourt Road be designated under
the Ontario Heritage Act for architectural reasons. He described it as
a five-storey structure standing in a residential district of detached
and semi-detached houses; a church stands across the street to the
west, and a school and another church are visible to the southeast.
Mr. Billingsley stated that the City’s formal interest in the building
at 183 Dovercourt Road commenced in February, 2002, when the Planning
Department alerted the City heritage officer that the building was for
sale and of interest to a developer. The Planning Department
recommended that the building be entered on Toronto’s official list,
the Inventory of Heritage Properties. This list has existed since
1973, and includes some 5,000 properties, of which about 500 have been
designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Mr. Billingsley explained
that the City of Toronto requires that each listed property be
accompanied by a short statement regarding
the reason(s) for listing. Ms. Kathryn Anderson prepared the summary
statement regarding 183 Dovercourt Road and passed this information to
the Toronto Preservation Board (the LACAC) for its use at its
discretion. The Toronto Preservation Board recommended to City Council
that 183 Dovercourt Road be designated under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act. At its meeting of May 21-23, 2002, City Council voted in
favour of this recommendation.
Witness  Kathryn H. Anderson, Preservation Officer, City of Toronto
Mr. Billingsley introduced Ms. Anderson, and presented her resume
(Exhibit #6). She has written the background reports for about 200
designations. The Board qualified her as an expert witness in the area
of heritage policy and planning. Her testimony was under affirmation.
Ms. Anderson gave a power-point presentation of the 183 Dovercourt
Road site and circulated a detailed statement of the reasons for
designation (Exhibits #7 and #8). She described the floor-by-floor
sequence of space use at the time when bread was being manufactured
here (1919 to 1957): a large meeting hall on the top (fifth) floor,
preparation of the dough on the fourth floor, baking on the third
floor, packaging on the second floor, and loading the baked goods into
wagons on the main floor. An elevator carried the flour and other
materials up to the top to start the process.
Ms. Anderson drew attention to the west and south faces, highly
decorated and with distinct architectural variations from floor to
floor. It is in recognition of these two fine exposures that the
designation is proposed for architectural reasons. She stated that no
interior features are included in the designation.
In response to questioning by Mr. Pearson, Ms. Anderson stated that
the procedure for handling this designation proposal (described by Mr.
Billingsley) followed normal City practice. Ms. Anderson agreed that
the north and east walls are relatively plain. She explained that all
parts of all four faces of the building would be subject to the
designation, although the noteworthy architectural features are on the
south and west walls. Neither the architect (Comber) nor the
contractor (Kirby) are being recognized in this designation, which is
for architectural reasons only. Ms. Anderson did not know whether
there were other Edwardian Classic buildings in the vicinity.
Mr. Desrochers had no questions for Ms. Anderson. He agrees with her
description of the building as a fine work of architecture.
The Board questioned Ms. Anderson. Regarding what had been on the site
before this building went up in 1919, she stated that there had been
several houses, and that they were similar to many in the
neighbourhood today. The house at the corner of Argyle and Dovercourt
was where the bakery business had started, and grown. Ms. Anderson
stated that the Roman Catholic (formerly Baptist) church at the
northwest corner of Argyle and Dovercourt was not designated, nor was
it listed on the Inventory of Heritage Properties.
Witness  Donald Desrochers, citizen, Toronto
Mr. Desrochers spoke, unrepresented. He described himself as an
in-fill builder who liked rejuvenating old and tired buildings. His
testimony was sworn.
Mr. Desrochers explained that the current owner (Lescar Holdings Corp.
Ltd.; see Exhibit #5) was in the process of selling the building, and
therefore had no interest in the proceedings of this hearing. Mr.
Michael Vaughan, solicitor for the prospective owner (1367235 Ontario
Limited, Mr. Desrochers’ company) was not present. Mr. Desrochers
explained that the transfer of ownership was scheduled to take effect
February 28, 2003, at which time he would become officially involved
in planning the future of the building.
Mr. Desrochers stated that he was in support of designation of 183
Dovercourt Road. He noted that one tenant lives on the ground floor,
at the southwest corner of the building, and has made an office for
himself there.
Mr. Billingsley declined to question Mr. Desrochers.
On questioning by Mr. Pearson, Mr. Desrochers stated that the
prospective owner has no intention of demolishing the building. Mr.
Desrochers said that he agreed with the City process that brought
about the recommendation for designation.
On questioning by the Board, Mr. Desrochers stated that there is no
machinery, line-shafting or other items of industrial archeological
interest inside the building. Mr. Desrochers agreed that the proposed
renovation of the building could proceed with or without designation.
Case for the objectors
Mr. Pearson introduced the case for the objectors. He was not
represented by legal counsel. His testimony was sworn.
Mr. Pearson stated that he represented the interests of the Committee
of Concerned Citizens, an advocacy group of more than 500 persons
formed to address local concerns regarding the proposed designation of
183 Dovercourt Road. The objection to the designation was formally
registered on June 6, 2002. Mr. Pearson drew attention to some fifty
or more signed petitions regarding the proposed designation (Exhibit
#3b).
Mr. Pearson explained that the building has architectural
significance, and is an integral part of the neighbourhood. He
believed that it was not under threat: “no one in their right mind”
would demolish the building, because of the valuable opportunities
that would be lost under building code restrictions were a replacement
building to be erected.
Mr. Pearson stated that he favours preservation of the building at 183
Dovercourt Road, and that it merits being listed on the City of
Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. He stated that 183
Dovercourt Road should not be designated.
Mr. Pearson tabled a Board report, dated May 14, 1991, regarding the
intention of the City of Toronto to designate a property known as 4
Old George Place (Exhibit #9). The house in question was designed by
architect Ron Thom and built in 1966. The Board recommended listing
only, and not designation, and that listed properties be prioritized
for consideration for designation. Mr. Pearson considered this
decision to set a precedent, and that the current Board should adhere
to such precedent.
On questioning by Mr. Billingsley, Mr. Pearson reiterated that the
building should not be designated. Mr. Pearson agreed that the
provision of parking space is at the root of his concern. Mr. Pearson
stated that there was better protection for the building by listing it
on the Inventory of Heritage Properties than by designating it.
On questioning by Mr. Desrochers, Mr. Pearson stated that the Ontario
Municipal Board could not deal with parking on the site. Mr.
Desrochers disagreed with this observation.
The Board questioned Mr. Pearson regarding the process of distributing
the petitions. Mr. Pearson stated that he and other citizens delivered
them by hand to the several hundred dwellings in an area bounded by
Ossington Avenue, Queen Street, Gladstone Avenue, and Dundas Street.
He expressed surprise that three types of forms were returned, and
concluded that someone made up their own version for distribution to
unspecified persons. Among those households receiving petitions, Mr.
Pearson stated that he and his supporters made no effort to
distinguish between households of Concerned Committee members and
others.
Statements from the Public
No members of the public presented themselves to be heard.
Findings of the Board
The Board heard that there was overall agreement among those parties
present that the former Ideal Bread Company Factory building is worthy
of recognition as a structure of architectural significance.
The Board understands (Exhibit 3a, “Attention”) that the objectors are
concerned that a condominium development would result in parking
problems in the neighbourhood. The objectors believe that designation
is an attempt to circumvent existing bylaws and allow for fewer
parking spaces than the number of units a building of the dimensions
of 183 Dovercourt Road normally would be required to provide on its
own site and at its expense. The objectors are concerned, further,
that two storeys might be built atop the five existing storeys,
exacerbating the parking problem.
The Board is persuaded that the objectors perceive unfairness in the
process by which sites are proposed for heritage designation in the
City of Toronto. The Board recognizes that this is a legitimate
concern, and must be assuaged, but reminds all parties that such
matters are beyond its jurisdiction.
The Board applauds the effort of the objectors to bring local
residents into an important civic debate. The Board is concerned,
however, that the nuances of the Ontario Heritage Act, on which the
petition was based, were quite possibly beyond the understanding of
many of the recipients.
The Board felt compelled to remind the objectors, on several
occasions, that the Board’s role is to sort through the facts
regarding the heritage attributes of the site in question and to
advise City Council on whether or not to designate. The Board repeated
also that City Council would decide whether or not to act on the
Board’s decision, and that citizens could also make comments at that
time.
The Board was struck by the great size of the heritage program in the
City of Toronto, and the issues experienced by a limited City staff in
managing some 5,000 listed properties.
Recommendations of the Board
The Board recommends that 183 Dovercourt Road be designated by By-Law
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. It is a worthy building,
and fully in the spirit of heritage conservation to give it
recognition in this way.
The Board is particularly conscious of how the west and south facades
of the building are stylistically coherent from floor to floor.
Horizontal banding and vertical pilasters help tie the walls together
visually; the five storeys function aesthetically as a whole, topped
off by a striking cornice. The total volume (or “massing”) of the
building - that is, its height, breadth, and depth  contributes
substantially to its architectural significance, and warrants respect.
The Board suggests that the designation statement prepared by the City
of Toronto be revised and expanded to include, in addition to
architectural reasons, reference to the history and context of the
Ideal Bread Company factory. Generations of residents of the
neighbourhood surely were employed at this labour-intensive industrial
site; countless more must have been constantly reminded of its
presence by the pleasant aromas wafting from the building. The house
that stood on this site prior to 1918 was itself once a bakery - a
noteworthy statement of small beginnings that lead onward to big
business successes. There is history and context to be celebrated
here.
The Board considered carefully the 1991 case brought forward by the
objectors (Exhibit #9). The Board concludes that precedent can only be
set in the area of its own jurisdiction; that is, establishing whether
or not, in its opinion, proposed architectural or historic or
contextual reasons are of significance. The Board believes that it
cannot be seen as setting precedent when it chooses to offer
informative comments (as it is entitled to do) in areas where it has
no formal jurisdiction: for instance, in the provision of lists of
buildings for possible future consideration for designation, the
prioritization of those lists, or the subsequent alteration of a
structure proposed for designation. In the Ideal Bread Company factory
case, the Board respectfully suggests that the Municipality and the
objector confer informally, and seek to come to an understanding of
the proper forum in which to discuss their respective positions. The
Board
believes that the concerns expressed by the objector in this case are
worthy of attention, but that they cannot be addressed to the
objector’s satisfaction by the Board.
The Board wishes to compliment all the participants for their
commitment, articulation, research effort, expertise, mutual respect,
and strong sense of civic responsibility for their local heritage.
(original signed by):
__________________________________
Thomas McIlwraith, Chair
(original signed by):
__________________________________
Peter A.P. Zakarow, Member
9