Adam Bramburger
Beaver Staff
Hearing objections from property owners in Bath, Loyalist Township councillors added some flexibility for the owners of 57 properties poised to be added to a registry of cultural significance.
By a 6-1 vote, councillors decided to only list properties whose owners did not object to their inclusion on the list.
Ernestown councillor Jim Hegadorn equated the decision with upholding owners’ rights.
“I do believe that when people buy properties, they’re the owners. They pay taxes and they have the right to use their property the way they want,” he said. “
The municipality’s heritage committee recognized in 2015 that Loyalist did not have such a registry as permitted by the Ontario Heritage Act. Properties eligible for inclusion must have met one or more of three criteria — having design or physical value, historical or associative value, or contextual value — to the community.
Essentially, inclusion on the registry would mean the owner would have to give the municipality 60 days written notice of intention to demolish or remove a building on the property.
The committee endorsed 57 properties for consideration earlier this year. Notification was sent to property owners Feb. 15 of the inclusion of their properties.
At the committee’s next meeting, there were 18 delegates present to ask questions, according to a report filed by the township’s heritage assistant Darragh Degroot. The committee decided in March to delay bringing the list to council for approval until Monday and to stage an open house.
Some 20 property owners petitioned council May 14 to have their properties kept off the registry. Some also wrote letters expressing their concerns.
On Monday, three residents appeared before council asking that it exclude their properties. Longtime Bath business owner Joy Silver said one of her main concerns was communication with property owners.
“Many of us in the community of Bath are not happy with this process and how it was done. The transparency level was next to nil. This project, they’ve been working on for a year and none of us were informed on Main Street in Bath.”
Silver said some of her neighbours did not receive their letters and did not know about the registry until she told them. She said owners should be consulted on such matters.
“I think we should all have the opportunity to be on the list or not be on the list,” she said. “To be told your property has this happening to it with no communication with the heritage committee and the township is disappointing to me as a business owner and to new business owners in Bath, that they are being railroaded into something they don’t know is happening.”
Silver said she was concerned that having the listing on her property could impact her insurance as she felt she’d have to inform an insurer that she was on the list.
Judy Hineman has been a resident in Bath for 25 years and she owns two properties on the list. She was concerned that with many properties in Bath as part of the list and the original list in 2015, there might be a larger plan at foot.
“What I believe we’re looking at is a long-term plan, whether it’s by council or whether it’s by the heritage committee to have us designated as a heritage district.”
Hineman said a move for a heritage conservation district could mean that every house in an area in Bath could be designated heritage and it would be up to homeowners to appeal.
She was also concerned about property values.
“I have a lot of money invested in these properties and a lot of blood and sweat and I don’t care what anybody tells me, the values of these properties is going to drop.”
Deputy-mayor Ric Bresee asked Hineman whether the letter distributed in February offered much explanation about the process. Hineman said she “didn’t think it explained an awful lot” and noted it was one page in length.
Bresee also asked Degroot whether there was any potential for a heritage district in Bath. He responded that in the six months he’d worked with the heritage committee, he had not heard the issue discussed at all.
Degroot told council there’s a difference between designating a heritage property and adding one to the registry. The stronger move, to designate a property does allow for appeal. He also said the township has looked at studies related to property values and insurance rates tied to registry listing and found no concerns.
Bath councillor Ed Daniliunas attempted to adopt the recommendation to list the 57 properties, but found no support.
Subsequently, Hegadorn found favour with a motion calling for listing of any property from the 57 that had not objected to listing. He said he could understand people not wishing to be listed and did not wish to interfere. with their rights.
“ It does not mean people who don’t want to be on the registry want to do anything to their property, they just don’t want the added administration.”
Councillor Duncan Ashley agreed, stating the listing had an “involuntary aspect to it.” He was concerned, however, that even those owners who haven’t yet objected would have opportunity to do so.
Hegadorn indicated that was his intent and noted if council could add to the listing, he believed those inadvertently added could make a request to be removed. He said his motion shouldn’t be seen as a slight to the committee or the work it did.
Daniliunas was the lone dissenting voice in a 6-1 decision to allow those objecting to be left off the registry. He felt people were confusing listing with designation.
“The listing on this registry has nothing to do with designation,” he said. “It doesn’t prevent the owners from doing anything with their properties — modifying it in any way, or changing it in any way — other than when it comes to applying for a permit for demolition, they have to wait an extra 60 days. There’s a lot of confusion out there and misunderstanding.”