By Pepper Parr
March 19th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The issue before Council was to decide if 518 Brant should be designated as a heritage property.
The Staff reported recommended doing so; designate 518 Brant Street as a Heritage property.
518 Brant was one of a number of properties that were part of a study on heritage hone in the city.
That wasn’t what the property owner wants. He hired his own Heritage Consultant whose opinion differed with the Heritage Consultant the city had hired
Voting on the decision to designate was not unanimous; Councillors Paul Sharman and Angelo Bentivegna vote against. Bentivegna was looking for some way to find a solution.
Councillor Sharman has always been opposed to the designation of property against the wishes of the owner.
Sharman was dead set against doing something to a personal property without the consent of the owner.
The Gazette will be circling back to the issue with a multi-part feature on just what the city is trying to do with designations.
The last the public knew was that the property owner was going to appeal the city decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal – the cost to the property owner will be considerable. The city will pay for the lawyer they hire.
During the discussion it was mentioned that some “supplemental information provided to council on this item” but nothing about that information was made public.
Sharman said: “You know, with respect to dueling heritage consultants between the owner of a property and the cities, there seems to be some difference … I guess is a problem, but as is always the case. I’m always worried when a homeowner’s land is designated – and that has implications that they don’t want and they don’t want to do that, so I will not be supporting this.”
Councillor Bentivegna said: “This is a very touchy situation, and as I mentioned at the committee meeting, both the homeowner and staff and committee have done their homework and did their due diligence, and they did it all in good faith. In both situations both came up with different results. And that’s where my concern is. I think I said if this were a baseball game – where there’s a tie and a base the runner wins. I feel because the homeowner did their homework and spent thousands of dollars. His only option now is the OLT, which would be significantly more money for lawyers and consultants.
I am assuming we all received an email from someone who suggested that perhaps there’s another way to sit down and get this straightened away, which would be a third party of some sort. Maybe I should have asked that question earlier, but just throw it in somebody’s head. This is a, could be a life altering business decision here, depending which way it goes. I know I’m not going to support this.
I assume you would want to refer it back to staff with a direction to see if further discussions could bring parties closer together.
Mayor advises Bentivegna that “ if you want to refer this, you need a motion and a seconder to refer it back to staff. You could put that on the floor, that would take priority over this. We would have a vote on the referral, and I assume you would want to refer it back to staff with a direction to see if further discussions could bring parties closer together. But really the motion would be a referral to staff. So if you wish, I will cede the floor to you. If you wish to move that, and I would look to a seconder.
Councillor Sharman may want to second that I’d be glad to do that.
Does anyone wish to second that? No? So it is not on the floor so, so we will then deal with the main motion. We are still in comments. Are there any comments from anyone else on this item?
Councillor Kearns: “This has been a contentious file in relation to heritage. We often do have a divided Council on heritage. We’ve heard comments where certain councillors stand on the matter. I’m oftentimes the deciding vote in this case, I know I don’t have the votes to change the course of the staff recommendation.
Kearns: I am very empathetic to the owner.
“Recognizing this is kind of the first time we’ve come into a situation where a property owner has engaged their own consultancy to make a determination on their part of where their heritage planner identifies the heritage attributes, and then we hold that up against our very capable staff’s work that they do also through consultancy and through their designations and expertise. This this is a unique file, which will likely pass, which is why I wouldn’t support Councillor Bentivegna’s opportunity to refer it back to staff, because I don’t think we will uncover new information that will change, change the weight of the sway of the votes that are already identified through committee.
“I am very empathetic to the owner. I will also remind any third parties that if you’re positioning a commentary to a Councillor that is in fact lobbying, if it is going to have a financial implication on the decision of the vote. So anyone that chooses to do that make sure you’re using the lobbyist registry.
It comes down to the good of one versus the good of many, and I believe that this council has shown a balanced approach when it comes to choosing which properties we need to designate or would wish to designate and those that we’re willing to let go for valid reasons.
Councillor Stolte: I agree with majority of the comments; I just want to provide a tiny bit of perspective, just to make sure we, anyone who’s listening, understands that this council has a pretty balanced perspective, and that this council and staff do not seek to designate at all costs. There’s plenty of properties, including on Brant Street, on either side of this property, that the majority of council may have liked to have designated. I acknowledge there’s a difference of opinion. It comes down to the good of one versus the good of many, and I believe that this council has shown a balanced approach when it comes to choosing which properties we need to designate or would wish to designate and those that we’re willing to let go for valid reasons.
Mayor Meed Ward: I want to thank everyone who has spoken to this item, especially Councillor Sharman and Bentivegna for respectfully bringing forward their perspective. It is really important for that view to be heard in our chambers.
That being said, I do support the staff recommendation that is before us. I know that we have tried as a council and perhaps there are additional ways that we can try to incentivize and help people who have their properties designated. We did do that with our property tax rebate.
Is there a way for us to enhance that? That’s an open question, and I think, a good conversation to have, because, you know, we don’t want to unduly burden people who are in designated properties. We want to do what we can to help them, the same way with that we’ve recently done with our tree by law, by by providing grants to property owners who have large trees on their private property to help them with those costs.
Councillor Kearns: I think, recognizing the diversity of opinions. The issue is not so much in the carrying costs or the operational cost of the heritage, which is where the tax rebate comes in. The concern that I have heard from property owners, and I respect coming from the property owners, is around the investment that they’ve made in the real estate and not being able to sell it for their future profits. So that is really the challenge; helping people year to year. The challenge is people have invested not having a designation, and then they will divest with a designation. So I just want to recognize the people, the individual property owners, that may be experiencing that situation; we do not have tools to help you in that regard.
Over to the clerk for the recorded vote: five in favour and two opposed.
The property owner can, if he chooses, take the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal
David
I’m so happy that you are happy with your Heritage home. Baby, there is a better word than “designated”. I don’t think “encourage” does the job. How about “recognized heritage”?
Howard
The advisory committee consisting of residents of Burlington is there to represent the residents of Burlington. That’s why he exists.
The Ford government passed legislation that requires a municipality to take action now if it wishes a property noted on its heritage registry to be protected by being designated. I believe that if a property listed on the municipality’s heritage registry does not receive a designated status by January 1st 2027 the property must be removed from the registry and cannot be put back on it for a period of 5 years.
Here is my beef. The heritage committee can easily target every home in less than a week for potential designation and have this included in a registry maintained at the city. Formal designation of the associated can take place in coming months to a short term few years. Why is this group allowed to exist is beyond my comprehension.
These old homes, along with living history itself, serve as reminders of a time we may not have fully experienced. They are like that book you started but never finished; they reveal that, no matter how progressive our thinking becomes, we must understand and appreciate what once was—a simpler life with attainable and achievable goals. (I’m not sure who originally expressed these thoughts, but I’ve saved them for a reason.)
These homes encapsulate what living in an old house does for the soul and one’s sanity. Even the ground beneath them conceals secrets of the past, dating back to before European settlement. There is a profound connection to the builders and original occupants from over a hundred years ago, as well as their relationships with the community. While I’m not obsessive about it, I know the name of the original lady of the house. I often wonder what she would think of the world I occupy.
During the waning months of the lockdowns, I noticed young women sitting alone on wave breaker rocks during my morning walks, gazing out across the lake, perhaps searching for answers. They weren’t on their phones, so it must have been important for them to take that time for reflection.
After the lockdowns, it’s also young women who have commented on how much they love my house. I always reply with a smile, “They are a lot of work.” I wonder how long it takes before they stop feeling that something is missing in their lives. “Designate” is such an ugly word—how about “encourage” instead.
Mr. Leigh I respect your opinion on the City wanting to preserve Heritage Buildings.
However, I live in a condo on Lakeshore/Pearl Street and I have seen how the City protected what was once the Pearl Street Cafe. First they demolished the addition that was on the back of the building and temporarily moved the facade of the property forward to allow for the Carriage Gate 29 storey building to be constructed.
The end result – this Heritage Building has been pushed back to its original place and is sandwiched in between the Live and Work Units and the delivery entrance of the new condo building. Keeping this Heritage building in the same location allowed the developer to get more height and units. The Heritage Building looks ridiculous.
This in my opinion it would have been much better to make the developer move this building to a more appropriate location if the City felt it wanted the building preserved.
Ms Hersh. I respect you too. I totally agree with your comment here.
You like me commented on the Gazette article concerning the proposal for the heritage property on Walker’s line.
https://burlingtongazette.ca/a-less-than-fitting-end-to-a-heritage-structure/
Your will note my comments there suggesting property be moved to another location. You will also note that I like you agree that what has happened to the Pearl Street Cafe building is an abomination that in my opinion cannot in any way be construed as preserving heritage.
A great deal of BS is spoken and paranoia shown by some members of council, by some property owners, and by others. Why is that? In my opinion because they are ill-informed!
There is little to no negative affect on a property or its owner due to it being designated heritage.
As the owner of a designated heritage property, if you wish to demolish it you must give the City 90 days notice of your intent to apply for a demolition permit. That compares to a 60-day notice requirement for a property which is on the City’s heritage registry but is not a designated heritage property.
The heritage designation is there to ensure the preservation of the exterior heritage attributes of the property, as described in the bylaw passed by the City giving heritage designation status to the property. The interior of the building is unaffected and not included in the designation.
Many heritage designated properties in Burlington have had substantial changes made to them post designation. Changes such as both vertical and horizontal additions being added. These changes are done so as to blend and be sympathetic with the original structure.
Owners will find both the planning department at the City and the Heritage Burlington Advisory Committee to be empathetic and work well with property owners to find practical solutions so the property owner’s needs can be met.
There are financial incentives too that recognize owning a heritage designated property requires more upkeep and maintenance than does say a property in a brand new subdivision. As the Mayor mentioned at Council the City has a program which provides a 40% rebate of the property taxes paid by the owner of a heritage designated property.
The city also has a grant program to help mitigate the cost of major non-routine maintenance. The owner of a heritage property can apply for a grant which can be up to 25% of the project cost.
It is said that obtaining insurance for a heritage designated property is difficult and is more expensive than for a “regular” property. That is utter crap!
It have heard it often said that having a heritage designated status on a property reduces the property’s value. That also is total BS.
It is certainly true the market for a heritage property (with or without designation status) is very narrow.
Why is that? There are a few reasons.
Generally, the cost to maintain is higher than for other newer properties. That can be off putting to potential buyers.
Those wanting to live in an older property probably represent about 5% of the total marketplace – whether designated, or on the registry
I believe a person looking for a property in an existing or new subdivision is very unlikely to be attracted towards a heritage type property. The reverse is also true.
DRich asks why did the City “seize control” of the private property (518 Brant Street). That is the type of BS to which I refer. The City has not taken control of the property.
We mortals are temporary custodians of this magnificent planet and the wonderful edifices constructed by our forebears. As an owner of a heritage designated property one has a duty and responsibility to maintain it for the enjoyment of future generations.
Why did the city seize control of the private property via the Ontario Heritage Act?