To suggest I am completely incensed over the actions of town staff and our elected council regarding the application to rezone the property at 187 Queen St. would be an understatement.

The application is to rezone the property and allow for a severance of the lands into two lots. 

This came before councillors during the committee of the whole planning meeting held July 16 (see item 8.2 on its agenda).

Now, for those of us who don’t recognize the street number, we are talking about the property on the corner of Queen and Simcoe streets, which received a Part IV designation in 2002 as the Crysler-Burroughs House, but which has also been known as the Crysler-Rigg House and the Roslyn Cottage.

Back in the April 6, 2022, edition of this newspaper, I wrote about this property (“Arch-i-text: A reflection of change“) and concluded that piece with the following statement:

“The Crysler-Burroughs House is a heritage jewel for not only its age and prominent position on Queen, but because it is a living demonstration of how a dwelling evolved in response to the changes in society during the 19th century and continues to bear witness 100 years after that.”

It’s a heritage jewel that, as I mentioned, the town and province designated in 2002, which includes both the original deep lot and the buildings thereupon.

The application from July 16 was brought before the municipal heritage committee during its meeting on May 1 — albeit proposing to carve the lands up into three lots at that time — together with a staff recommendation largely supporting approval.

In an 8-1 vote, the committee rejected the application and all of staff’s recommendations, citing three reasons.

First, because the original lot was an intrinsic heritage asset to the property and any alteration to that asset would diminish the historic value preserved within the designation.

Second, the severance would force the creation of a new driveway onto Queen Street, drastically altering what is now the “front lawn” (let alone the impact such a change would make to the historic Queen streetscape).

And finally, the applicant proposed to build a garage addition on the heritage house, effectively destroying the historical façade.

The committee did suggest that, should the proponent rework their application to address the members’ issues, and return that revised application to the municipal heritage committee, it would be fairly considered under its own merits.

But that is not what happened.

Town staff did “work with the applicant” to revise the application, but that revision was not presented to the committee in its May 10 meeting for review.

Instead, six days later, it was presented to the council for approval of the rezoning — an anomaly voiced by Coun. Gary Burroughs, which was deflected by Kirsten McCauley, the town’s director of community and development, and subsequently ignored by the majority of the council.

When questioned about the process associated with allowing the severance of a portion of designated lands, McCauley replied that it would be necessary to “revise” the designation such that it did not include the proposed severed portion — intimating that to be a simple administrative action, which would later return to council for its approval.

What was not explained was that altering (repealing) a designation is not simple and the process is clearly defined in provincial legislation, which underwrites the Ontario Heritage Trust, the provincial oversight body.

So, let’s look at the legislation for a moment. In the Ontario Heritage Act, Section 31.1, the law speaks to this action in the following manner:

“Subject to subsection (2), where the council of a municipality intends to repeal a bylaw or part thereof designating property, it shall cause notice of intention to repeal the bylaw or part thereof to be given by the clerk of the municipality in accordance with subsection (3). R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, s. 31 (1).”

In Section 31.2, it goes further to specify:

“Where the council of a municipality has appointed a municipal heritage committee, the council shall, before repealing a bylaw or part thereof designating property, consult with its municipal heritage committee. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, s. 31 (2); 2002, c. 18, Sched. F, s. 2 (14).”

Furthermore, the act requires that any proposed alteration of an existing designated property be “published in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality” containing the following information:

• an adequate description of the property so that it may be readily ascertained;
• a statement of the reason for the proposed repealing bylaw; and
• a statement that notice of objection to the repealing bylaw may be served on the clerk within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of intention (to repeal).

Moreover, despite Premier Doug Ford’s gutting of heritage protection in this province, the More Homes, More Choice Act 2019 Schedule 11 still allows for objections to the action provided they are filed within 30 days.

So, one is forced to ask about the validity in legal terms of this council’s vote on rezoning to allow severance on a designated property, since the Ontario Heritage Act specifically forbids an action that might adversely affect the heritage assets contained within the designation.

I suppose a councillors’ endorsement of the rezoning application in principle may be within their authority, but certainly not approval of an application without compliance to the legal provisions and due process contained within provincial legislation.  

Thus, the council vote in the planning meeting — with the regular gang of five comprised of Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa and Couns. Erwin Wiens, Wendy Cheropita, Adriana Vizzari and Maria Mavridis voting in favour of the application and defeating the votes against placed by Sandra O’Connor, Burroughs and Tim Balasiuk — to move this application forward to a vote in the next full council meeting must be considered highly questionable.

It is also interesting to note that the five members of council who voted in favour in this case have also acted as a voting bloc, supporting all of the recent controversial development applications.

This list includes the Parliament Oak hotel, the new developments in St. Davids, the lifting of height restrictions on the proposed White Oaks development in Glendale, together with the applications — by the same proponent in this particular case — for a four-storey hotel addition on the property at Queen and Mississaugua and requesting a provincial minister’s zoning order to allow his development in Virgil.

That’s quite a record …

If you want to watch the recorded July 16 planning meeting, you can find it on the town’s website under “Meetings, Agendas & Minutes.” Scroll down to “Past Meetings” and look under the “Committee of the Whole — Planning” tab for the July 16 meeting video: notl.com/council-government/meetings-agendas-minutes.

Still, for the Crysler-Burroughs property and the clear-cutting of the trees in Virgil’s Konik Estates development, this is not yet a fait accompli since the final council votes on the applications are scheduled for its July 30 meeting.

Moreover, even if the gang of five maintains its record of voting solidarity in favour of developers during that meeting, the 187 Queen St. rezoning application will have no force in law until the heritage designation protections that apply to the property are successfully repealed in accordance with provincial legislation.  

So, dear readers, I call on each and every one of you to make your voice heard clearly and unequivocally.

Call, email and write your councillors to tell them that the continued assault on the heritage of Niagara-on-the-Lake is completely unacceptable and the citizens of this town expect them to vote against approving these applications.

And, in the case of the Crysler-Burroughs property, if council ignores your voices, you may still file objections to the repealing of the heritage designation. 

It is past time that we come together as one voice to save the cultural heritage landscapes of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Should we fail to stand up, should we fail to convince this council to call a halt to its approval of rapacious, insensitive and inappropriate development in our villages and countryside — now and over the next two years — Niagara-on-the-Lake, as we know it, will disappear and be transformed into just another slice of Greater Toronto Area suburbia.

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.