A few weeks ago, I received an email from an erudite individual who reads the Arch-i-text and wished to suggest a number of related items he felt would be worthwhile to expand upon in this column.
Now, normally at this point, I would write a few paragraphs outlining this reader’s position and concerns, however, in this case, allow me to let his own eloquent words speak for themselves.
He wrote:
“The average citizen doesn’t know the options available to municipal authorities for protecting heritage properties, nor are they aware of the vast disparities across jurisdictions in the penalties levied for not complying with these heritage bylaws. The result is a context where heritage properties are allowed to deteriorate and undergo ‘demolition by neglect,’ and complicit councillors are not penalized in any way for enabling these destructive behaviours. Developers routinely abuse the responsibilities associated with heritage properties (and significant landscapes). Complicit elected officials conspire against introducing or enforcing meaningful legislation, so the abuses are perpetuated and are perceived as an acceptable way of doing business in the development community.”
And continued, “Citizens feel helpless — which, effectively, we are, when the system gives so much discretionary power to uninformed, ethically compromised or willfully ignorant elected officials who can freely indulge their personal agendas, service their vested interests and await their patronage rewards and opportunities after their political terms are over, with no meaningful repercussions.”
Going on he suggested, “All of this plays out against a backdrop of increasing cynicism amongst the electorate, who lack an authoritative and factual account of how the system works and of the options that actually exist. Instead, they are fed smug tropes about ‘the inevitability of progress’ or ‘the foolishness’ of investing in neglected or degraded buildings (regardless of their heritage significance). Worst of all are the pious bleatings about ‘fiscal irresponsibility’ by elected officials, whenever spending is required for acquisition, legal defense, or protection of significant properties, or costs related to restoration.”
Concluding with, “At the same time, hugely expensive public infrastructure expenses which have significant cost implications at the local level (like unnecessary roundabouts in heritage communities, and overly complicated diverging diamond intersections that actually slow down traffic) are shooed through with no serious opposition, richly rewarding the construction companies and developers who fund the campaigns of the current government.”
His statements are ones I have heard echoed many times by hundreds — if not thousands — of NOTL residents who are fundamentally concerned and dismayed over the erosion of the town’s cultural heritage landscapes and unique community character.
Over the next few weeks, this columnist will attempt to provide some insights into the options and issues related to addressing these concerns, beginning with the town’s bylaw #5192-19 – “The Standards for the Maintenance and Occupancy of Property.”
This thorough piece of legislation provides the criteria for maintenance of all properties located within the municipal boundaries of Niagara-on-the-Lake.
These properties include normal residential, heritage properties (including those vacant or damaged), vacant lands and buildings and non-residential properties.
Bluntly, everything from “soup to nuts” is defined within this bylaw — roof, foundation, exterior walls, windows, doors, stairs, porches, plumbing, electrical service, etc. — together with the basic criteria necessary to allow municipal bylaw enforcement personnel to ensure property owner compliance.
And, in cases where an owner is found not to be in compliance, a property standards order is issued — an official notice requiring specific work to be performed on the property within a prescribed period of time.
These orders may be appealed, in accordance with provisions contained in Section 45 of the Planning Act, to the town’s committee of adjustment and that committee’s decision may also be appealed, to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Once an order is final and binding, should the property owner still fail to comply, they are guilty of an offence under the Ontario Building Code Act and the fines are as follows:
For an individual, up to $50,000 for a first offence and $100,000 for a subsequent offence.
For a corporation, the fine is up to $100,000 for a first offence and $200,000 for a subsequent offence.
For a “person” — private or corporate — who fails to comply with an order made by a chief building official, in addition to the aforementioned penalties, is liable to a fine of up to $10,000 per day for every day the offence continues after the time given for complying with the order has expired.
There’s the process and clearly, there is teeth in it — provided it is enforced … a topic for next week.
Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.