1) Clearing up the…

1) Clearing up the legislation – The reordering/renumbering of the sections and the rewording of sections attempts to clarify the legislation. This is the best selling point. This includes items like Section 9:

Deemed withdrawal (9) If the council of the municipality has not passed a by-law under subsection (8) within the time set out in paragraph 1 of that subsection, the notice of intention to designate the property is deemed to be withdrawn and the municipality shall cause a notice of withdrawal, (a) to be served on the owner of the property, on any person who objected under subsection (5) and on the Trust; and (b) to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality.

This clarifies that if the municipality does nothing, it doesn’t leave issues unresolved; If a NOID is issued, then the municipalities has to approve it or withdraw it. Before the NOID could be issued and sit there indefinitely. Presumably, if a NOID had been issued and nothing is done with it, it may affect the resale value of the property if it were not removed.

2) Prescribed Event – This language is ambiguous. It does not describe what a prescribed event is and it is difficult to comment on how it would affect the Act. It could be interpreted in various ways that will likely favour the developer. I.e. could I not issue a NOID if a demo permit was applied for? Could I not issue a NOID if a development application is received? Clarification on this point would be helpful to the public, planners, and heritage committees alike.

3) LPAT and the removal of the Conservation Review Board (CRB) – I’m unsure how LPAT has the expertise to make rulings on Heritage issues. From my experience, the general public does not understand the Heritage Lens when you look at properties. I have seen reports from a licenced archaeologist, planners, developers, and the general public and been able to provide primary source material to counter claims in their reports.

Example 1 (Archaeologists) – Heritage Impact Assessment says a house was constructed after the addition was built(1925). Through proper research I was able to prove the property existed in 1851 as a wood structure, was bricked later and the addition was added.

Example 2 (Planners) – Received a demolition permit for a property. The planning report said it existed on the 1875 map, but nobody of interest ever lived there. I produced land registry records to prove it was a home built by John Agnew when he was starting up his shoe empire known to many as Agnew-Surpass, signifying that the property had some historical significance.

Example 3 (Developers) – A property on Market Street South, which use to be an island in the middle of the River. The developer is from Mississauga and it is their first project in the City. I asked if they are planning on doing archaeology. They said the property was developed on in the 1950s and they assumed archaeology was done then. I told him this was a bad assumption and they should conduct archaeology because they are likely to find something.

Example 4 (General Public/Property Owners) - Owner wanted to demolish a home and said its a 1950s house, it has no heritage value. The house was proven to be designed and constructed by a local home building company in Brantford, giving it unique architectural features. After that meeting, there is a mysterious fire and the building is condemned to be demolished.

Example 5 (Property owner) - Property owner of a designated property has a development application to put a sunroom and a wheelchair ramp for a person with accessibility concerns. We grant the application. A year later, the same property only the porch is enclosed, there is stairs instead of a ramp, and the work has already been done. The options were to approve it or order them to demolish it. How would the heritage committee's actions be perceived if it were to order them to demolish it? So it was begrudgingly approved.

All of these examples show significant losses of Cultural Heritage Assets, which would have built and strengthened our Rich and Diverse History in Brant County.

How can the government prove that members of LPAT have their heritage lens? It is a high threshold to prove to me.

Additionally, the CRB would make a recommendation to the municipality who still had the ultimate decision. In this situation, the Province gets to make the decision for the municipality. I could see how this would help Heritage Committees, but at the same time annoy municipal governments that you are interfering with their right to determine the outcome.

4) This will probably be the longest component explain, especially its implication for Brantford, and a proposed solution. This has to do Section 27 ( Subsection 13):

In 2001, Brantford led the way in creating the Brantford Heritage Inventory – An online database of 9,000 properties and their heritage value was launched. New York City came to Brantford to learn how we did this feat. We were ahead of the curve.

In 2005, amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act allowed municipalities to create a Heritage Register of Properties that are of interest only if they were to be demolished. They do not have specific Heritage attributes (I.e. – Slate Roof or style and size of a window), like properties designated under Section 4 of the Act.

In 2007, Brantford was responsible for the demolition of the longest stretch of pre-Confederation buildings in the country (https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-city-seeks-to-demolish-his…) despite significant and repeated attempts from the Heritage Committee and attempted interventions from the Province and the Feds. Members resigned from the Committee leaving the committee ineffective and without a voice. I still mention to people who would be assets to the Brantford Heritage Committee. There response – “No thanks. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, Council does not listen to us". These are the systemic issues that I have had to overcome.

In November 2015, I join the Heritage Committee for my first meeting with a demolition permit. Staff told us that we have the Heritage Inventory, but it is not a legal Heritage Register and we have no way of protecting properties that aren’t designated. A member of the heritage committee complained to me after the meeting that we don't do anything.

In January 2017, I was elected Chair and introduced a Notice of Motion to create a Heritage Register and place Balfour United Church, which had just closed, on the Heritage Register, which passed. Staff told me that motion was not specific enough as to “who” was supposed to create the Heritage Register and "what" information was supposed to go on it. So they weren’t going to follow the direction of the motion.

In July 2017, I was approached by the City as asked to be part of the RFP process to award the Contract for the Heritage Register. The project officially started in October of 2017 with an anticipated end date of the first quarter of 2020. The Consultant had told us that they will notify property owners, which is not currently required in the Act, so we were attempting to go above and beyond. This means that we will not have a legal heritage Register in Place before the Act become law and 27(13) will apply as follows:

(13) Subsections (5) to (8) do not apply in respect of properties that were included in the register under subsection (3) before section 6 of the Schedule 11 to the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 comes into force.

We are currently assessing all properties in the City of Brantford, the transfer from the County, as well as the Heritage Inventory. A Noted local historian estimated that there should be at least 3,000 properties on the Register, which is consistent with municipalities of our size. Imagine the administrative burden of sending 3,000 individualized notices to property owners. Staff estimated 10% would object (which I think would be closer to 50%), which would mean 300 individual cases that would have to be heard and a decision made within 90 days. City Council would have to hold special meetings every spare day in order to meet this administrative burden.

I started on this initiative to get Brantford a legal Heritage Register for over 2 years, long before this government was elected and long before this bill was introduced. Now the government is attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game. This seriously puts into jeopardy the entire Heritage Register Project an actually closing that gap on an issue that should have been solved a decade before I started closing that gap. If nothing changes, this will ensure that we will continue to lose Heritage structures in the City of Brantford.

My only option, I feel, is to plead with you to amend 27 (13) with the following:

(13) Subsections (5) to (8) do not apply in respect of properties that were included in the register under subsection (3) or the municipality has commenced a Heritage Register Project before section 6 of the Schedule 11 to the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 comes into force.

5) I was not informed about these changes by our Ministry rep, which concerns me that voice of Heritage Committees across the province are not being consulted. We are stakeholders in the process and concerns of the Heritage Community should be taken into consideration before the passage of the Bill.

6) I continually tried to take a new approach to heritage preservation where it looks to achieve a balance between development and heritage. As quoted in the local paper:

"Chair of the city’s heritage committee told councillors that the past strategy of trying to save everything hasn’t worked.

"Why should we propose the same solution, knowing the probable result?" [Name removed] said. "Can we come up with a solution that works for everyone?’

"What other alternatives could be considered that strike a balance between development and heritage?"

He said that the heritage committee is looking for a new approach that works.

Moving [Address removed] to a location where it could be used as a Habitat for Humanity home is a possibility, [Name removed] told councillors."

7) I called my Ministry Rep in June 2018 concerning a development issue. He mentioned that is was well known that there have been issues in Brantford between the Heritage Committee and City Council. I asked if he would elaborate because if I was doing something wrong, I wanted an opportunity to correct it.

He told me that the Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Sport tracks the number of complaints each year. The majority of the complaints stem from Brantford City Council not following the recommendations from the Brantford Heritage Committee. Something unprecedented happened in 2017 when I became the Chair. For the first time in a number of years, the number of complaints saw a significant decrease.

This means that my approach is proper, my approach is working, and leadership is being demonstrated. I hope that the legislators will understand my concerns and be willing to seek compromise.