Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 01, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000706
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended
Appellants: Michael and Gita Sobhi
Subject: Objection to Designation By-law 32-2023
Property Address: 488 Locust Street
Municipality/Upper Tier: City of Burlington/Halton
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000706
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000706
OLT Case Name: Sobhi v. Burlington (City)
Heard: March 19, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Michael and Gita Sobhi | Self-represented* |
| City of Burlington | B. Maione, H. Ruby |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON MARCH 19, 2025 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1These proceedings pertain to an appeal filed by Gita Sobhi and Michael Sobhi pursuant to subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, (the “Act”) of the City of Burlington’s By-law 32-2023 (the “By-law”) passed under that Act designating the property municipally known as 488 Locust Street in the City of Burlington (the “Subject Property”) as being of cultural heritage value or interest (the “Appeal”).
2A hearing on the merits of the Appeal was previously scheduled to commence on March 5, 2025; however, this hearing was converted to a Case Management Conference on March 6, 2025 at which time the Parties informed the Tribunal that a settlement of the Appeal had been reached between the Parties such that Minutes of Settlement were signed by both Parties. The Parties requested that a hearing be scheduled in order to present the proposed amendments to the By-law contemplated by the Minutes of Settlement (the “Proposed Amending By-law”) for the Tribunal’s consideration. The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing on March 19, 2025.
3At the conclusion of the hearing on March 19, 2025, the Tribunal rendered an oral decision allowing the Appeal in part and amending the By-law in accordance with the Proposed Amending By-law and this is the written Memorandum of that Oral Decision and Order of the Tribunal.
EVIDENCE
4At the hearing, the City called one witness, Chloe Richer, who was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion heritage planning evidence. Ms. Richer’s Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty and Curriculum Vitae are found at Exhibit “A” of Ms. Richer’s Affidavit affirmed March 12, 2025. This Affidavit was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1 (the “Richer Affidavit”).
5The Tribunal heard Ms. Richer’s oral testimony and also considered the evidence contained in the Richer Affidavit.
6Ms. Richer provided expert professional heritage planning opinion evidence at the Hearing as set out below.
7The Subject Property is located on the west side of Locust Street, one property north of the Ontario Street intersection. There is a one-and-a-half storey Gothic Revival house built in 1885 located on the Subject Property.
8Pursuant to the Act and Regulation 9/06 as amended by Regulation 569/22 under that Act (the “Heritage Regulation”), a municipality may pass a by-law designating a property as being of cultural heritage value or interest if at least two of the criteria prescribed by the Heritage Regulation are met. With reference to the evaluation report completed by Archeological Research Associates Ltd. dated February 6, 2023 (the “ARA Report”) found at Exhibit “C” to the Richer Affidavit, Ms. Richer opined that she agreed with and adopted the opinion in the ARA Report that the Subject Property meets two of the criteria for designation set out in the Heritage Regulation.
9Specifically, Ms. Richer opined that the Subject Property meets the following two criteria prescribed under the Heritage Regulation for designation under the Act:
(a) The Subject Property has “design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style type, expression, material or construction method” as set out in Subsection 1(2) Paragraph 1 of the Heritage Regulation. In this regard, Ms. Richer opined that she agreed with and adopted the opinion in the ARA Report that the Subject Property is “a representative example of the Gothic Revival style” as it is a “one-and-a-half L-shaped plan house that has a cross gable roof, large front gable end and central gable peaks which is typical of Gothic Revival structures. The bay windows, and arched window openings within the central gable peaks are also typical of Gothic Revival structures. The bay windows, and arched window openings within the central gable peaks are also typical of the Gothic Revival style. Furthermore, the massing, roofline and fenestration of the structure strongly indicate Gothic Revival origins.” (at Paragraph 23 of the Richer Affidavit) Ms. Richer concluded that in her professional expert opinion the Subject Property is a representative example of the Gothic Revival style. (at Paragraph 35 of the Richer Affidavit); and
(b) The Subject Property has “contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area” as set out in Subsection 1(2) Paragraph 7 of the Heritage Regulation. In this regard, Ms. Richer opined that the Subject Property is located in a section of Locust Street “consisting of historic residential properties surrounding the intersection of Locust Street and Ontario Street” and the Subject Property “contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: One-and-a-half storey Gothic Revival residence and [h]eight, massing and setback.” (at Paragraph 36 of the Richer Affidavit) Ms. Richer provided evidence that there is a two-storey late 19th century red brick residential building and a one-and-a-half storey early 20th century stucco residential building adjacent to the Subject Property on the north and south sides respectively. Each of the four corners of the Locust Street and Ontario Street intersection contains a late 19th century building. Further to the south of this intersection there are additional late 19th century and early 20th century residential buildings. Ms. Richer opined that she agreed with and adopted the opinion set out in the ARA Report including that “[the Subject Property] supports the character of Locust Street, which is described as a late 19th-early 20th century residential streetscape with one- to two-and-a-half storey residential buildings of primarily brick construction and with modest setbacks along the street [and] exhibits setback and massing consistent with the Locust streetscape and is one of a row of heritage properties on the west side of Locust Street.” (at Paragraph 23 of the Richer Affidavit)
10With regard to the Description and Reasons for Designation of the Subject Property set out at Schedule “A” to the By-law, Ms. Richer provided evidence in support of the revisions contemplated in the Proposed Amending By-law. Specifically, Ms. Richer opined that the reference in the second last paragraph of this Schedule “A” to a “two-storey” Gothic Revival residence was erroneous and should be revised to refer to a “one-and-a-half storey” Gothic Revival residence. Moreover, Ms. Richer provided evidence that subsequent information provided to Ms. Richer has led her to conclude that the main floor bay window is not “original to the home” and accordingly the By-law should be amended to delete this window as a heritage attribute. Finally, Ms. Richer provided opinion evidence that the description of the “asymmetrical façade with symmetrical elements” in the By-law should be clarified by being further described as “placement of central gable peak with arched window opening on the second storey and rectangular window opening and door opening on the first storey; front gable with symmetrical placement of rectangular window openings on the second storey and front elevation bay window on the first storey.” (at Paragraph 35 of the Richer Affidavit)
11Ms. Richer opined that the By-law and the Proposed Amending By-law conform to the City’s Official Plan and in this regard opined that the Official Plan recognizes the character of Locust Street including preserving the low-rise residential appearance and character of the area as described in Section 5.5.8.1(h) of the City’s Official Plan. (at Paragraph 24 of the Richer Affidavit and Section 3.4 of the ARA Report).
FINDINGS
12Upon consideration of the evidence set forth in the Richer Affidavit and the oral evidence of Ms. Richer at the Hearing, all of which was uncontroverted, the Tribunal finds that the prescribed criteria of Paragraphs 1 and 7 of Subsection 1(2) the Heritage Regulation have been satisfied such that the Subject Property is of cultural heritage value or interest within the meaning of the Act. Further, the Tribunal finds that the revisions set out in the Proposed Amending By-law are supported by the evidence and consistent with the requirements of the Act. As such, the Tribunal finds that the By-law as amended by the Proposed Amending By-law meets the requirements of the Act including in particular Section 29 of the Act.
ORDER
13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal against By-law 32-2023 of the City of Burlington is allowed, in part, and the said By-law is amended such that Schedule “A” to By-law 32-3023 is deleted and replaced with Schedule “A - Amended” attached to this Order. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that the Appeal is dismissed.
“D. Arnold”
D. ARNOLD 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.
Schedule “A - Amended” to Ontario Land Tribunal Decision Dated April 1, 2025
Description and Reasons for Designation: 488 Locust Street
488 Locust Street is recommended for designation pursuant to Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value, and meets Ontario Regulation 9/06 (as amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22), the provincial criteria prescribed for municipal designation under the criteria of design and physical, historical and associative and contextual values as described in the following Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.
Legal Description:
488 Locust Street (PLAN 74 PT LOT 50); City of Burlington, Regional Municipality of Halton.
Description of Property:
488 Locust Street is located near its intersection with Ontario Street. The property is in the core of the City of Burlington, the historic village of Burlington. It consists of a one-and-a half storey frame Gothic Revival residence, with a cross gable roof, constructed in 1885. The rear elevation has been modified.
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest:
The property at 488 Locust Street has design/physical value and contextual value and is considered to meet prescribed criteria #1 and #7 under Ontario Regulation 9/06.
Physical/Design Value
488 Locust Street is a representative example of the Gothic Revival style. The one-and a-half storey house has a cross gable roof, large front gable end and central gable peaks which is typical of Gothic Revival structures. The first floor bay window, and arched window openings within the central gable peaks are also typical of the Gothic Revival style. Furthermore, the massing, roofline and fenestration of the structure strongly indicate Gothic Revival origins.
Contextual Value
488 Locust Street is important in supporting the character of a section of Locust Street consisting of a cluster of historic residential properties surrounding the intersection of Locust Street and Ontario Street. Most were built in the 19th century and collectively they have the character of a late 19th century residential streetscape with one- to two- and-a-half storey residential buildings of primarily brick construction and with modest setbacks along the street. The subject property contributes to the heritage fabric of the streetscape and exhibits setback and massing consistent with the Locust streetscape.
Cultural Heritage Attributes
488 Locust Street is a representative example of the Gothic Revival style. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflects these values:
- one-and-a-half storey Gothic Revival residence
- large front gable end and central gable peak
- asymmetrical façade with symmetrical elements further described as:
- placement of central gable peak with arched window opening on the second storey and rectangular window opening and door opening on the first storey;
- front gable with symmetrical placement of rectangular window openings on the second storey and front elevation bay window on the first storey;
- arched window openings
488 Locust Street is important in supporting the character of a section of Locust Street surrounding the intersection of Locust Street and Ontario Street, which features a cluster of historic properties, most of which were built in the 19th century. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect these values:
- One-and-a-half storey Gothic Revival residence
- Height, massing, and setback of the front and side elevations of the building, which contributes to the 19th century streetscape of the Locust Street north and south of Ontario Street*
*Note: The rear additions and elevation are excluded from the list of heritage attributes