#1 - This places strict…

#1 - This places strict limits on Burlington’s ability to heritage designate properties that are not on the heritage register and are subject to a development application*. A municipality has only 30 days to deem an application for an OPA, ZBA or SPA “complete”, so for a property not yet on the Heritage Register, Burlington will only have a month to consult its heritage committee and deliver a recommendation to Council. This is not enough time to study a property and will result in some candidates for heritage designation being demolished.
*Official Plan policy 8.4.1(b) enables Burlington to ask for a heritage impact study for a property “worthy of designation”, if an HIS were required as condition of submission.
# 2 - Requiring municipalities to review and designate all non-designated properties on the Heritage Register within 2 years or else remove them from the Heritage Register on a long term basis presents a difficult binary choice to municipalities:
• City Council must choose to remove most or all non-designated heritage properties from their Heritage Registers and leave them unprotected for a significant period of time contrary to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and Official Plan requiring that significant built heritage resources be protected
• Incur major financial and staff resource costs to study all non-designated properties on their Heritage Register for possible designation, culminating in a large decision-making burden for Council. Further, if a City Council initiates a campaign of continuous heritage designations over two years or an omnibus heritage designation bylaw of multiple properties at the end of a two-year study, it will face numerous Ontario Land Tribunal appeals that could monopolize heritage staff time for months or years.

Although Burlington has a relatively small heritage register, it has 207 “grade A” non-designated heritage properties including eleven significant churches, seven pioneer or historic cemeteries, five schools and Burlington’s oldest home the Stewart-Spence house built in 1832. Studying all properties, or a subset, forces a potentially ugly confrontation between City Council and numerous property owners over the issue of “imposed” heritage designation. The City of Burlington has historically incentivized designation through negotiation and generous financial supports. This is the approach promoted in the new Official Plan, 2020, in which the City is supposed to encourage and support private stewardship of the City’s cultural heritage resources. Burlington has implemented this incentives-first approach with its heritage grant program and the popular heritage tax rebate program. The ability to list properties on the Heritage Register enables Burlington to negotiate with owners for voluntary conservation at an appropriate time- when the property is being redeveloped or a demolition is proposed. The brief timeline proposed under this legislation does not create any time for these negotiations, which will likely take place under high pressure at Council meetings. Multiple high-profile, landmark heritage sites are threatened by this legislative change.

#3 – This change will have minimal impact and is a positive change that will clarify the criteria an area must meet to qualify as a Heritage Conservation District.

#4 - This has minimal impact and is a positive change that will creates a pathway for a municipality to revise its heritage conservation district bylaws.

#5 This change introduces too much finality to Council’s decision not to pursue heritage designation, since a property will have to be automatically removed from the register and cannot be added back for 5 years. This impacts the municipality’s ability to monitor the property and pursue conservation if there is a new owner or council. For example, in 2012, a previous Council chose to repeal the heritage
designation of a property in the City, because the owner argued it created financial hardship
for them. The property was then removed from the register, but not demolished. It was sold to new owners who wish to redevelop. The development site may have enough land that the house could be integrated into a larger development and converted to a multi-unit building, however because the property is not on the heritage register, staff would have very limited negotiating power. The owner
could demolish the property with no notice to the City.

Approaches or alternatives for consideration:
• Allowing municipalities to require the submission of certain materials (i.e. heritage impact study) as part of a pre-consultation submission, would allow the municipality time to determine whether or not the property is worthy of protection, prior to a development application being submitted.
• The proposed legislation requires heritage registers to be reviewed within 2 years, which does not provide sufficient time for municipalities to complete the review of all properties. As an example, the City of Burlington would need to assess over 200 properties within the timeframe which would be very difficult. The provision of additional time beyond 2 years would be very beneficial and would allow municipalities time to complete this work in an orderly and thorough manner.
• Under the proposed legislation, once a property has been removed from the heritage register, it cannot be added back for a period of 5 years. Shortening this time frame to 2 years would maintain the intent of the legislation but provide for an increased level of protection, should circumstances evolve or change.
• Requiring municipalities to make a decision on whether listed properties are to be designated or removed from the register will have unintended consequences and potentially put cultural heritage resources at risk. An alternative approach could be to require municipalities to review their heritage register at defined intervals and assess each property using specific criteria to determine whether the property should remain on the register, be removed from the register or be designated. This process would also allow for public engagement to ensure that community voices have the opportunity to participate in this process.