518 Brant designated as a heritage property over the wishes of the property owner

By Pepper Parr

March 19^th, 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