Implications Unclear: Aurora HCD not proceeding

NRU
June 3, 2014
By Edward LaRusic

The process to set up its second heritage conservation district will not proceed in Aurora, following an about-face from residents over concerns about property rights, property values, and - most notably - home insurance.

May 27 Aurora council unanimously voted not to proceed to phase two of the Southeast Old Aurora heritage conservation district process.

Heritage advisory committee chair Councillor John Abel, said that residents had come forward in 2007 with a desire to set up a heritage conservation district in the area. While there was some opposition back then, it really came into force in 2014, with the formation of the Southeast Quadrant Ratepayers Association, a group which was against the designation.

Abel said they got as far as phase one with the heritage conservation district study.

“All we had done is reviewed all the homes of the area, put together the significance and [whether it] would meet the criteria to progress to an application. That’s when the opposition came forward and said ‘we outnumber those for [the designation], we don’t want it to go forward’ and we as council decided that we’d go with the majority in this case.”

Aurora planning and development services director Marco Ramunno said that the area is a stable neighbourhood, with many properties individually designated under the Heritage Act.

“[Residents] raised some concerns to that added layer of restriction and a number of concerns over property insurance.”

Ramunno said that residents were worried about paying higher premiums, or being unable to get insurance at all. Staff looked into the insurance issue, but a clear answer was not reached.

“[Insurance is] a private industry, there’s no guarantees over whether there’s going to be an impact over property insurance. We’ve heard from both sides, from the insurance companies themselves, and they came to council, some stating that there is impact on property insurance, and others saying no, there shouldn’t be.”

The Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee endorsed the initiation of the Southeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District in 2011 and in August 2012 Aurora council awarded a $67,425 contract to Bray Heritage to initiate the phase one process. Under the Ontario Heritage Act this means determining whether the area is suitable to be designated a heritage conservation district.

Bray Heritage principal Carl Bray said that aspects such as significant tree groups, the historic use of the town park for community activities, remnant industrial uses and vistas along streets terminating at key heritage buildings were among the reasons he recommended the area be designated as a heritage conservation district.

“It’s not an area that knocks your socks off architecturally - there are some key buildings - but it’s right in the town core, it’s one of the early subdivisions and it has evolved slowly, and there’s evidence of that,” Bray said.

While Bray’s professional pride is hurt, there isn’t much he can do if Aurora council refuses to move forward with phase two of the study. On the insurance concern, Bray said that it’s not a “black or white” issue. However, there are plenty of agencies that will insure a home designated as part of a heritage conservation district.

“[Aurora is] a rapidly changing municipality and it’s an election year. In other [heritage conservation districts] that I’m dealing with, the election issue makes councillors a little gun shy. And what I’m finding generally is that people are just fed up with government,” Bray said.

It’s unfortunate that people don’t want to designate the area.

“Take the word heritage out of it: [and it is really about] change management and local control. Who wouldn’t want that? But that’s not how it’s construed by some of the objectors.”

Abel said he can see the merits of a heritage conservation district, but despite assurances from the province and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, he said his job is to go along with what the majority of residents want.

“People will believe what they want, and in the end, it’s their property and their rights. We perhaps should have made sure, before we went ahead with the study, that there was a majority of people in favour of it. But I think that’s what this study was for.”