Council votes to accept Heritage status for Brant Street property

Burlington council unanimously voted this week to designate a Georgian-style home at 795 Brant Street for heritage status against the objections of the property owner.

Council made the decision on Tuesday (Jan. 24) after hearing from a representative for the owner, Camarro Development Inc., which is hoping to erect a mixed-use high-rise building on the property.

Ryan Lee of ATA Architects spoke for the developer as a delegate before council to explain their objections to saving the 168-year-old home.

Lee said, from the developer's perspective, the property is not of sufficient heritage value to save or include within the overall design of the proposed 31-storey building.

Lee said the current building has undergone numerous alterations over the years and was only loosely associated with the historical figures — builders the Bent brothers and William Ghent — who gave it heritage significance.

Council heard about the history of the home extensively last month in committee and indicated an intent to designate in order to save it.

It was built in 1854 and, according to a report undertaken by Aecon cultural heritage specialist Tara Jenkins, is considered the earliest example of a brick-built, Georgian-style home in Burlington.

Brothers Jabez and James Cushie Bent — a brickmaker and master builder, respectively — built the home, which Jabez then lived in. The original 53-acre property also housed his brickyard.

In 1859, Bent sold the property to Frederick Bray, a small fruit farmer. Ghent purchased it as working fruit farm — then called a market garden — in 1896.

Recommending the house for designation, Jenkins told council last month that its brickwork was notable.

"The brick is laid on the front façade in Flemish bond, which took a skilled bricklayer, such as Jabez Bent, to execute," Jenkins said. "Ultimately, the house at 795 Brant St. reflects the architectural ideas of the Bent brothers, who brought from England a deep knowledge of their respective trades, which they used to assist in building up the local community during a pivotal time of development."

However, speaking on behalf of Camarro, Lee told council this week that the condition of the brick was of concern as it had been painted over and removing the paint could cause further damage.

"In our opinion, the historical association with the previous home owners is overstated," Lee said, adding that the area around the home has transitioned from agrarian to mixed-use urban.

"The brick has been painted numerous times, which affects the ability of the brick to release moisture," Lee said. "This can cause damage to the brick and the brick structure. We have identified some issues with the brick and recommended further scientific investigations as well. Removal of the paint over the brick may result in the loss of the brick. And, if the brick cannot be saved due to its deteriorated state, this further compromises the heritage integrity of the building."

In December, council heard from planning staff that they would prefer that the developer incorporate the heritage building into the plans, but Camarro wants to demolish it. "It cannot be said that the building can be saved in a way that the building can incorporate it," Lee said. "Replacing the brick, finding similar materials of the time, at this point will be replicating a building, which in this case, does not make sense."

Council's decision means the only remaining option for the developer is to preserve the existing house and include it in the high-rise plans or take their objection before the Ontario Land Tribunal.