Two items of interest at the Committee of the Whole meeting on May 13–14. One deals with the owner of a property on Brant Street opposing the Heritage Burlington Advisory Committee’s request to designate his property as heritage. The other deals with development charges — always, or at least almost always, a contentious topic in our city.
Under the Community Planning, Regulation, and Mobility Regular (CPRMR) items, chaired by Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte, was a recommendation to designate 518 Brant Street, currently a commercial building, as having cultural heritage value or interest with a description of heritage attributes under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Notice of Designation is the first step towards proclaiming a property as a heritage site, to be protected and preserved because of its architectural and/or cultural attributes.
In 2023, the province asked municipalities to hurry in designating heritage properties under a tight deadline. The City of Burlington, and specifically its citizen-driven Heritage Burlington Advisory Committee, came up with a list of more than a dozen properties that it wanted to be placed under heritage protection. A vigorous battle between council and many property owners ensued.
The discussion on the property at 518 Brant, which is located between Birch Avenue and Caroline Street and was built in 1900 in the “Edwardian Classical style,” was deferred by council at that time until further data could be collected.
Staff have now came back with a recommendation to designate the property after having a consultant examine 518 Brant.
As stated in the staff report, “If the property meets at least two criteria (out of 9 criteria), a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and Description of Heritage Attributes are prepared. A municipality’s municipal heritage committee must be consulted before Council can issue a Notice of
Intention to Designate (NOID), which is served on the property owner.”
Property owner Barry O’Brien, a 35-year resident of Burlington, delegated in person to committee and said, “I appreciate history, I maintain my property, but I think I’m being treated unfairly.” He noted that a similar property two doors away was omitted from the designation.
O’Brien had hired heritage consultant Kathy Stacey to examine the property. Stacey concluded that the property fell far short of qualifying for a heritage designation due to the number of architectural changes to the structure.
O’Brien also hired Doug Vickers of Vickers Restoration. In a letter to the city, Vickers stated, “The exterior facade has been completely changed over the years, stripping the house of its original historic attributes. The original single-pane windows with decorative grills have been replaced with double-pane modern glass openings. The original single front door has been reconstructed to accommodate a contemporary double door also with modern glass openings with a contemporary awning installed above. There is an outline on the front exterior brick of where the original front porch once sat, but it has since been torn off and replaced by a smaller modern porch. The roof and siding shingles have been replaced over time as well, with modern materials. The vinyl siding addition on the back is not sympathetic to the design of the house, taking away the historic form of the house. It also leads to the conclusion that anything that once originally was built back there has been removed and replaced.”
Councillor Sharman said at one point in the CPRMR session, “I will never, never support a forced designation without the support of the owner.”
The vote on the staff recommendation was made with Councillors Sharman and Bentivegna opposed. Councillors Kearns, Nisan, Galbraith, and Stolte voted in favour. The mayor was absent from the vote.
The next step for property owner O’Brien seems to be an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal at his cost.
In the Statutory Public Meeting part of the committee meeting, another item of interest was less contentious, involving development charges that could represent a 26% increase in fees. The good news for developers is that the 26% increase was based on several capital infrastructure projects scheduled far into the future.
The staff report stated, “The city retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. to work with staff to prepare a background study as required by the Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA). At the time of writing this report, the province proposed changes to the DCA under Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, and to Ontario Regulation 82/98 under the DCA on April 10th, 2024, however, legislation has not yet been passed. The City of Burlington’s current DC by-law 29-2019, amended by by-law 26-2022 will expire June 1, 2024; consequently, a new by-law must be enacted by this date.”
Development charges on new construction are to be put against capital projects and services the city plans to undertake over the next number of years, such as stormwater drainage; fire protection; transit; parks and recreation; library; and services related to a highway (road).
“Services related to a highway” refer to 198 planned projects in the city. It’s an interesting wish list of projects that are somewhere on the city’s radar that represent a whopping 76% of that 26% increase in development charges.
Services related to a highway include roads, bridges and culverts, traffic signals, streetlights, domes, and depots.
Most of the $604,647,558 list of projects are repairs and upgrades to existing roads in the city. The list also includes capital projects that are in the early stages of development, need input from higher levels of government, and are not expected to be realized until 2050 or beyond.
The list of long-term projects includes a Cumberland Ave. extension from Mainway to Fairview St.; an overpass/underpass of QEW (at Maple Park) from Greenwood Dr. to Maple Ave.; an overpass/underpass of QEW/403 (east of Brant Street) from Truman St. to Industrial St.; and an overpass/underpass of QEW/403 (east of Appleby Line) from Century Dr. to Sutton Dr.
The report from Watson and Associates noted that the above list and others are not expected to begin within the next ten years, the period that normally is covered by development charges. As a result, staff have taken the position that post-June 1, 2024, development charges should not reflect these long-term projects, valued at $186 million, decreasing the development charge rate per unit accordingly.
This news was welcomed by delegates in person and through written letters from the development community to council for holding development charges to a more modest increase.
All Committee of the Whole agenda items will be again discussed (briefly) at the regular council meeting on May 21. If you wish to delegate on any of the items, contact clerks@burlington.ca to register to delegate.
