Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 17, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-002058
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER sections 42(6) and (7) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18
Appellant: Jesse Hamilton
Subject: Heritage Permit 2021-00928
Property Address: 12 Fourth Street West
Municipality: Town of Collingwood
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-002058
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-002058
OLT Case Name: Hamilton v. Collingwood (Town)
Heard: May 31, 2022, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel*/Representative |
|---|---|
| Jesse and Val Hamilton (“Applicant/Appellant”) | Self-represented |
| Town of Collingwood | Steven O’Melia* |
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal pursuant to s. 42(6) and (7) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18 (the “Heritage Act”) with respect to the Town of Collingwood’s (the “Town’”) decision on November 15, 2021, in relation to Heritage Permit 2021-00928 for the Subject Property which is municipally known as 12 Fourth Street West.
2The single detached home and attached garage were built sometime after 1930. The Subject Property is located within the Town’s Heritage Conservation District and is designated under Part V of the Heritage Act.
3The Applicant began exterior work on the house which included: the removal of a damaged, non-functional chimney; the painting of window frames, soffit, and fascia; the painting of the masonry on the house; the replacement of the rotted/damaged front door and the removal of the decorative front entrance eyebrow roof, which was to be replaced following a second heritage permit application.
4On July 23, 2021, the Town received a complaint regarding the painting of the masonry on the house. Town staff informed the Applicant that a heritage permit would be required to retroactively approve the work. Accordingly, on August 4, 2021, the Applicant prepared and submitted a Heritage Permit Application to seek retroactive approval of the work, which had been completed at the time of the application.
5The Town’s Heritage Committee considered the Application at its August 9, 2021, meeting. At that meeting, the Heritage Committee carried motion to recommend that the Town Council (“Council’) partially approve the Application to allow the removal of the chimney and painting the window frames, soffit and fascia; but to refuse the painting of the masonry white, replacement of the front door, and removal of the front entrance eyebrow roof.
6The issues relating to the front door and eyebrow roof were ultimately addressed but the property owners filed the appeal on the painting of the masonry.
The Hearing
7In support of a settlement to this matter, the Tribunal heard from Justin Teakle, MCIP, RPP, a planner with the Town, who was qualified as a land use planner with significant heritage experience. He provided evidence in relation to the application for a Heritage Permit and provided background information on the planning process.
8Mr. Teakle confirmed that the Town received a report from the Applicant who hired a consultant to determine the repercussions of the removal of the paint on the integrity of the brickwork. The Town subsequently had the Appellants’ evidence peer-reviewed by an external consultant and is satisfied that the opinions are correct, that should the paint be removed, the damage to the masonry would be extensive. On that basis, Town Council further considered the matter and has instructed a settlement as a resolution that will allow the paint to remain in place.
FINDINGS
9The Tribunal finds that based on the reality of the current situation, and on the evidence proffered, the settlement between the Parties has merit as it ensures the integrity of the structure that is located within the Heritage District on a building designated under Part V of the Heritage Act.
10The Tribunal reiterates the sentiments of the Town that by sending the message to the general public through this decision, that such alterations to heritage structures will not be approved in a general manner and that any alterations to a structure designated under Part V of the Heritage Act must be approved through the appropriate permit process.
ORDER
11The Tribunal Orders that the appeal is allowed and directs the Town of Collingwood to issue a permit pursuant to s. 42(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act authorizing the painting of the masonry at the property located at 12 Fourth Street West.
“D. Chipman”
D. chipman
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.