It’s not just about heritage, it is about property owner rights as well.
On March 11, Centre Wellington council went against the recommendation of its heritage committee and gave its support to a proposal to alter the Noble/Kraft House on Smith Street in Elora.
Centre Wellington’s committee of the whole supported the permit to alter the home at 176 Smith Street – the same permit that failed to win the support of the Heritage Centre Wellington last month.
A report from Brett Salmon, managing director of planning and development, noted council could support the application, support it with conditions, or refuse the application, which included the addition of two dormer windows on the second floor of the house.
The application came with considerable documentation, including both the proposed work and heritage decisions made in the past.
Salmon said “council has the final say.” He added his report was based on the process involving the Heritage Act.
Heritage Centre Wellington minutes state the committee chose not to approve the proposal because “the façade of the building is most important and the addition of dormers will affect the current modest, simple beauty of the façade.”
At the heritage committee level and at the committee of the whole, councillor Kelly Linton, a member of the heritage committee, voted against the committee and supported the proposal.
Linton said he wanted to make a few comments since this was the first time he disagreed with a recommendation of the committee.
“I do not take lightly doing so,” he added.
However, he said, “I don’t believe these changes impact the heritage features.”
He said the dormers would not affect the overall form of the building, the rubblestone construction and foundation, the window openings or the centre door opening.
As for the pitch of the roof, Linton said he did not believe that would be impacted either. He noted the property has been in a state of disrepair for years.
Linton added the brick addition from the turn of the century meant the simple worker’s cottage style had already been altered.
“After my viewing of the owner’s drawings, adding dormers would improve the overall attractiveness of the property,” said Linton.
Overall, he said he did not believe the addition would detract from the recognized heritage features.
Linton also stated “there needs to be a balance of owner property rights with heritage protection.”
He agreed the heritage committee is passionate about protecting heritage buildings, “But the passion needs to be balanced with the property owners’ rights to make modifications to make the property suitable to their needs.”
Linton added, “my opinion is that refusing this heritage permit does not strike the right balance” and is “not setting the right precedent for future buyers of designated heritage properties.”
Councillor Walt Visser believed the proponent’s application was very well presented. He then compared it to council’s recent endorsement of a heritage permit for St. John’s Church renovations across the street.
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” Visser said.
He felt it unfortunate these individuals purchased the property without understanding the impact of the heritage designation.
“Here they are taking a virtually derelict property and trying to improve it with minor alterations,” he said.
Visser remained opposed to heritage designations which restrict owner rights.
“I warn all buyers of the (potential) impact of the heritage designation,” he said, adding he believes property owners should have the right to reasonably alter their properties – with or without a heritage designation.
He too supported the application.
Councillor Fred Morris asked the proponents if they were prepared to protect the heritage attributes.
“Absolutely,” was the response.
Proponent Rebecca Leslie said considerable work has been done.
“Part of the reason we were drawn to this house was the stone portion. It shouldn’t be modified in any way,” said Leslie. However, she too noted past modifications.
“It is no longer the simple façade of the worker’s cottage,” she said.
She noted that as homeowners, thought needs to be given to the entire home – and the repairs required on the stone portion.
“It has been left in a state of disrepair. The vines alone at the back of the property have done extreme damage to the stonework,” she said.
Leslie explained some of the vines had actually grown to the inside of the house causing a considerable amount of damage.
“We don’t want to take away from what is there. We want to enhance it, fix it, and make it liveable and attractive to the neighbourhood once again,” she said.
While Morris appreciated what the heritage committee does, he supported the application.
Council Kirk McElwain added there is already a dormer on the back of the building, so putting one on the front would not change the heritage aspect.
Councillor Mary Lloyd also supported the application.
Neighbours Brent and Dawn Dej wrote to council on behalf of applicants.
“The current owners, Mr. and Mrs. Leslie, purchased the house last fall, and since have spent considerable effort restoring what had become a run-down eyesore on Smith Street, sadly neglected for many years by the prior owners and tenants,” the Dejs wrote.
“We are the immediate neighbours across Smith Street. We have seen the proposed plans and feel the addition of the dormer windows would not compromise the heritage character of the home.
“We feel the benefit of restoring this house to its former glory far outweighs any impact the windows may have on the architectural design.”
The letter continued, “A recent heritage permit was a approved for a large addition to St. John’s Church … next door to our home … The church proposal calls for the addition of four dormer windows … yet this proposal was deemed sympathetic to the heritage attributes of the church.”
Linton put a motion on the floor that council support the heritage permit application and the motion carried.
