Downtown Hamilton Heritage Property Grant Program

[SteelTown]

The City is creating a new program for preserving heritage buildings in the downtown area. More details is located under the lastest Economic development section.

Downtown Hamilton Heritage Property Grant Program

The Downtown Hamilton Heritage Property Grant Program (DHHPGP) is intended to provide financial assistance in the form of a grant based on 25% of total cost of regeneration of the property, to a maximum grant of $150,000. The program is offered to owners and authorized tenants for: structural/stability work required to conserve and restore heritage features of properties; and, the conservation and restoration of heritage features of properties that are designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Eligible properties must be located within the Downtown Hamilton Community Improvement Project Area.

The objective of the DHHPGP is to assist in developing and re-using heritage properties in recognition that heritage properties are important to the urban revitalization and regeneration of our Downtown Core.

City Council committed funding for the Downtown Hamilton Heritage Property Grant Program in the amount of $1,150,000. Council also committed $200,000 for the cost of technical and historical studies for heritage properties, including consultant fees for heritage impact assessments, condition assessments, conservation plans and engineering reports.

Highlights of the proposed program:
• provides financial assistance for owners and authorized tenants of properties within the Downtown Hamilton Community Improvement Project Area designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act or are eligible for designation pursuant to Ontario Regulation 9/06.
• a condition of the grant is that properties must be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act prior to grant monies flowing to the applicant.
• eligible work comprises structural/stability work required to conserve and restore heritage features of properties and, the conservation and restoration of heritage features.
• grants will not be available for any form of abrasive cleaning (e.g. sandblasting or sodablasting) or high-pressure water cleaning.
• grants will be based on 25% of the total cost of regeneration of the property to a maximum of $150,000.

[raisethehammer]

not really anything to do with this program, but rather a new bylaw to deal with demolition by neglect.
Council killed the idea once before, but after LIUNA's latest shenanagins have decided to look at it again.
Thanks goodness!


CATCH News – January 15, 2008
Bylaw revived against ‘demolition by neglect’
In the wake of the latest news on the Lister Block, Brian McHattie has convinced city council to allow another look at a bylaw to penalize property owners who fail to maintain heritage buildings. The public will be invited to comment on the proposed rules against ‘demolition be neglect’ before reconsideration by councillors.
City staff had recommended <http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/61396A33-12DB-4E27-BEFC-404CC63DF23E/0/Sep04PED07239.pdf> setting “minimum property standards for the maintenance of heritage attributes” last September, but the proposal was turned down by the economic development and planning committee.
Taking advantage of concern about the way the Lister building has been allowed to deteriorate since its 1999 purchase by LIUNA, McHattie moved a motion <http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/C6698AA0-DF92-4236-8E47-660A5F496E87/0/Jan09MOTION72PropStdsHeritageBylawmatter.pdf> at Wednesday night’s council meeting <http://www.hamiltoncatch.org/view_article.php?id=228> to revive the staff recommendations but require consultation with the public before a new committee debate.
Both McHattie’s procedural move and the proposed changes to property standards enforcement were strongly opposed by Lloyd Ferguson and Maria Pearson. Ferguson called it heavy handed “to force an owner to spend money he didn’t want to spend” noting that some might not have the ability to do so.
“It’s his own property, he owns it and it’s his responsibility to do the right thing with it,” argued the councillor. “If we force owners to fix up properties, that they either don’t have the ability to do, or the desire to do, is that the right thing to do?”
Pearson said she hadn’t supported the bylaw when it was first proposed last September and that she continued to be opposed. She was also outraged that the matter had been revived after an 8-2 defeat at the planning committee.
“This is a very sneaky way of bringing this back this evening,” she declared.
The procedural move dominated the discussion with Terry Whitehead also expressing concerns, and the city clerk having to clarify three separate times that the revival was appropriate because city council itself had never voted on the question.
“It was defeated at committee; it never made it to council,” explained Kevin Christenson. “It would have been here in the information section but you would not have taken a position on it in receiving the information section from the committee.”
Sam Merulla suggested that the challenges to the clerk’s ruling were “laughable” and threatened to “bring forward a formal motion that the procedural bylaw be distributed among councillors” so they understood their own process.
Chad Collins asked what the fuss was about, and reminded his colleagues that public consultation “happens several times every week of every month of the year”.
McHattie’s motion was approved 12-2 with Ferguson and Pearson opposed.

[the dude]

i love lloyd. i don't know that other troll but i'm sure she's swell, too.