By Pepper Parr
October 28th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington has a Heritage Advisory Committee that has a colourful checkered past.
There was a time when it was a disaster.
Anyone who felt there was a chance their house would be designated had been led to believe by some in the real estate sector that the resale potential for their house was going to plummet.
There was a lot of ignorance and some pretty stupid people who did all kinds of dumb things to ensure that their house was not designated historically significant.
Jim Clemens: the Chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee who put it on a sound footing after years of dysfunction.
That began to change in 2013 when the membership of the Advisory committee was changed and a new chair working with an informed and realistic board took over.
When the bulk of their work was done city council, they came as close as they could to giving standing ovations.
Heritage now had a sound footing and was in a position to approve and recommend grants to people who wanted to improve their homes to make them worth designating and keeping them up to standard once they were designated.
The Advisory Committee could recommend that property owners be given grants of up to 25% of the total eligible restoration project costs to a maximum of $15,000.
It was city council that made the grant award based on the Advisory Committee recommendation.
A recent award to a resident was placed in the Consent section of the Standing Committee Agenda.
Consent items get little in the way of attention unless a member of Council asks to have it pulled so it can be discussed in open session.
The Gazette has a practice of going through everything on the consent agenda, if only to keep an eye on what Council is up to.
The item that caught our eye was detailed in the Staff report of September 7th, 2021 which was set out as a report responding to an application for a grant from the Community Heritage Fund.
By any standard this is a very handsome house.
The Staff report said:
The subject property known as 2411 Lakeshore Road is located on the north side of Lakeshore Road, between Market Street and St. Paul Street. It currently supports a three-storey residence in the Queen Anne style, as demonstrated by the characteristic architectural features including the irregular façade, multiple surfaces with intricate decorative wooden elements, multiple rooflines and gables, verandah, tall windows, bay windows, and tall chimneys. The subject property also contributes to the character of Lakeshore Road through its setbacks, historic architecture, mature trees, and massing.
The property at 2411 Lakeshore Road was designated under Part IV, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1995 through By-law 8-1995. The by-law also designates four other properties in the immediate area.
In 2019, as a condition of approval of the current property owner’s application for consent to sever the westerly portion of 2411 Lakeshore Road, the designation by-law was updated to come into conformity with a 2005 amendment to the Ontario Heritage Act.
Background on the Community Heritage Fund and Grant Application
The Burlington Community Heritage Fund (CHF) was established by Council in 1985 to encourage the preservation of structures designated under the Ontario Heritage Act by providing financial assistance to property owners in the form of loans and grants. It was also an objective of the CHF to encourage the designation of properties of cultural heritage value or significance under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The CHF was amended in 1993 and 2014 and now provides grants of up to 25% of the total eligible restoration project costs to a maximum of $15,000, subject to specific guidelines. Loans may be provided for up to 50% of total eligible restoration project costs to a maximum of $15,000.
The requested grant on the agenda at the September 7th meeting represents 25% of the total project cost of $3,616.00. The property owner originally obtained quotes from two tradespersons to complete the work and elected to retain the more economical option.
Staff support the applicant’s request for a grant from the CHF in the amount of $904.00 as it aligns with the CHF eligibility criteria by constituting “work which conserves or enhances elements specified in the by-law”.
There was a sentence in the Staff report that made mention of previous grants made for improvements to the same property.
Funds were provided to replace some of the decking on the western side of the house.
The Gazette decided dig a little deeper and learned that the recommendation was made for a grant to an individual who was a member of the Heritage Advisory and that this grant was not the first but the fourth grant made. Technically this item was not a grant but it was a decision that we believe was necessary for the Committee of Adjustment to proceed.
The very first was recommended on July 10th, 2019
From the Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes:
David Barker declared an interest in Item 7.1 b. – consent and minor variance application for 2411 Lakeshore Road – as he is the owner of the property. He refrained from discussion and voting on this item.
From the minutes:
Consent and minor variance application for 2411 Lakeshore Road
Danika advised that 2411 Lakeshore Road is designated by By-law 8-1995 which protects heritage attributes on the front (south) and side (west) elevations of the building. The owner proposes to sever the westerly portion of the property to create an additional lot, allow variances to support the severance and demolish the existing detached garage located on the proposed severed parcel. Danika provided an overview of the variances for the retained and severed parcel and asked the Committee to consider whether they would have an impact on the heritage value of the property.
Members discussed and feel there are no issues from a heritage perspective. Motion – Heritage Burlington supports the requested consent and minor variances for 2411 Lakeshore Road under the assumption that any new development on the proposed severed lot is sited behind the existing heritage home.
– CARRIED
Danika is the Staff planner assigned to the Heritage Advisory Committee
The second application made by David Barker was on October 9, 2019. From the Heritage Advisory Committee minutes:
A garage was demolished and a severance of the western section applied for – granted by the Committee of Adjustment.
Declarations of Interest:
Consent and minor variance application for 2411 Lakeshore Road
Danika advised that 2411 Lakeshore Road is designated by By- law 8-1995 which protects heritage attributes on the front (south) and side (west) elevations of the building. The owner proposes to sever the westerly portion of the property to create an additional lot, allow variances to support the severance and demolish the existing detached garage located on the proposed severed parcel. Danika provided an overview of the variances for the retained and severed parcel and asked the Committee to consider whether they would have an impact on the heritage value of the property.
Members discussed and feel there are no issues from a heritage perspective. Motion – Heritage Burlington supports the requested consent and minor variances for 2411 Lakeshore Road under the assumption that any new development on the proposed severed lot is sited behind the existing heritage home.
The third application made by David Barker was on September 16th, 2020.
Regrets:
David Barker, Trisha Murray, Alan Harrington and Rick Wilson did not attend the meeting.
From the Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting
Grant from Community Heritage Fund for 2411 Lakeshore Road
Danika provided an overview of the original application, received in September 2019, for a grant from the Community Heritage Fund to financially assist the owner of 2411 Lakeshore Road in replacing rotten deck boards on their porch verandah in the amount of $375. Since that time, the applicant has advised that the scope of work increased to include the replacement of additional deck boards.
Based on final cost receipts, the applicant has now applied for an additional grant in the amount of $673.15.
Committee discussed and supported the application. Motion – Approve the grant application for 2411 Lakeshore Road for an additional amount of $673.15. – CARRIED
The house has kept much of its rural roots with the deck on the side probably leading into the kitchen. This house should be on the next Heritage Tour
On September 7th, 2021 a fourth application was made in the amount of $904.00
The minutes of the meeting note that:
David Barker declared an interest in Item 7.1 b. – Heritage permit and Community Heritage Fund applications for 2411 Lakeshore Road – as he is the owner of the subject property. He refrained from discussion and voting on this item.
The minutes of the Standing Committee reported that:
Grant from Community Heritage Fund for 2411 Lakeshore Road (PL-45-21)
Moved by Councillor Stolte
Approve the grant application for restoration work to front verandah, including sanding, filling and painting to the support columns and sun motif, at 2411 Lakeshore Road in the amount of $904.00 to be funded by the Burlington Community Heritage Fund.
CARRIED
Mayor Meed Ward lives in a house that she had designated long before she became Mayor.
On the vote Mayor Meed Ward commented that “it was great to see residents of designated homes investing in the upkeep of their property” adding she wanted to see more of this – we do have a grant program that will help so keep those applications coming.”
The item that was voted on was in the Consent section of the Standing Committee agenda. These items, as noted earlier, seldom get any attention.
Our issue is not with the grant – it is with the way council chose to handle the matter.
To be fair, the work done with the funds that were awarded was sterling. The house on the north side of Lakeshore Road between Market and St. Paul is a handsome addition to the inventory of historically significant houses.
Mr. Barker is known by every member of Council. He is an active participant in civic matters. He has contributed opinion pieces to the Gazette.
Where we have an issue is with a member of an Advisory Committee benefiting financially as the result of a decision made by the committee. Recusing oneself from the discussion and not voting isn’t enough.
Also, where was Council on this? The Staff report made mention that Barker had been given grants in the past.
However, Council members didn’t apparently read the report.
Someone (Who?) put the item on the consent agenda aware that the item would not have been given any attention.
While the sums involved are small there is a large matter of principal.
David Barker delegating before Council
The Gazette believes there are some gaps in the Governance protocols and will be asking Integrity Principles, the council advisors on matters of protocol and governance, to look into this matter with the suggestion that changes be made to ensure that an individual does not personally benefit financially from an Advisory Committee they serve on.
A reasonable question to ask is: Should Mr. Barker resign from the Heritage Advisory Committee or at a minimum should the rules be changed to prevent this from happening in the future ?
I’m surprised David Barker has not spoken up here. He has been a very loud voice here on many past occasions. Sometimes a bit too loud, maybe. Did the Gazette seek his comment prior to publishing its report? I wonder what he has to say.
Editor’s note: We did indeed seek comment from Mr. Barker and invited him to put how own views forward. They will be published.
I’ve owned one of these 100+ unique ‘Money Pits’ for years, you need deep pockets to own one.
And If it wasn’t for me it would have been demolished years ago.
I definitely think the tax payer should not be subsidizing the repairs to my home. And I also can guarantee if I was on this Advisory Committee I would never take a dime for myself.
That’s just me though.
As for advisory committees in general, they somehow seem elitist to me, and I definitely don’t want to receive any communication from this one (directly) regarding my home.
Yes, I believe heritage homes are money pits. Well so I have been told. Owners of designated heritage properties are entitled to a rebate of 25% of the City’s property tax levy. Do you receive the 25% rebate. Not that we are distrustful, perhaps you can tell us your address so we can corroborate.
Hi David
Governments national or local, large or small business, committees etc receive funds which some of them give in grants to help groups or individuals achieve something that hopefully will improve lives. In this case seeing a well kept home rather than a dilapidated house.
It’s great that the Heritage Advisory Committee assist homeowners to improve properties.
Grants are a way of giving to help others. It would be a very dark world to live in if people stopped giving help.
David it’s your right to apply for a grant or not, likewise for Mr. David Barker, he used his prerogative to apply for a grant. When he did so he abided by the Committee’s regulations, as illustrated in the above article.
I also doubt that any committee would want to contact you, as you have clearly made your negative view known.
Editor’s Note: We want to be clear here. David Barker did recuse himself from both the discussion and the vote that took place regarding the “recommendation” the Advisory Committee sent to Council.
The Gazette does not believe any individual should benefit financially in anyway from a committee on which they serve as a volunteer. We believe doing so is very poor governance.
Dismayed, Disappointed, but realistically not surprised. Variety Store clerks and their families are not allowed to purchase lottery tickets!!!!
Kudos to David Barker for taking action to preserve his beautiful heritage property AND serving on the Heritage Committee.
The Community Heritage Fund is designed to preserve homes like 2411 Lakeshore Road. It’s accomplishing what it is intended to do I am satisfied that Mr. Barker avoided a conflict of interest by recusing himself from voting.
Seems obvious to me that the people with the most interest in protecting Burlington’s heritage, are the few who own a heritage home. Seeing an overlap on who is on the Heritage Committee and who receives a grant seems inevitable – and far from unethical.
I would be interested to know if the person who investigated this may be able to inform the readers if any other members on the Heritage Advisory Committee have been given grants for their residential homes? If so, how many have had one or more grants since the committee was established.
I think that the Heritage Advisory Committee is a good idea, and as Cathy has pointed out that those on this Committee would have an interest in their own heritage homes. People on committees usually have an interest on the subject they try to represent.
I am unsure why a ‘reasonable question to ask is: Should Mr. Barker resign from the Heritage Advisory Committee?’ As the article illustrates quite clearly that for each grant application Mr. Barker’s actions were entirely above board, so why should he resign?
Furthermore, this Committee demonstrated that the grants, that were awarded, were in accordance with their current regulations. Perhaps the Heritage Advisory Committee could return to the rules to ascertain whether changes are needed.