A Chatham woman says if you're considering getting heritage designation for your house, "think about it twice."
81-year-old Helen Campbell, who lives at 90 Park St. in Chatham, is making one final plea to the municipality to get the heritage designation taken off of her property.
A report is being presented at Monday night's council meeting, recommending that the bylaw to designate the house as a heritage property not be repealed.
She believes this will be the final vote for the repealing of the bylaw.
In September of 2010, Campbell requested that the property be considered for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act due to her home's heritage value and history. In June of 2012, that designation bylaw was passed.
A report going to municipal council Monday night states that the property was originally part of a larger portion of land owned by local grain and timber merchant George Witherspoon, who was the first leader of Chatham in 1851. The home was owned by Robert McLaren, who was a renowned Chatham pharmacist and Lieutenant-Colonel. Another former owner of the home was Clarence Bagnall, who was a police chief and the first president of the Association of Chiefs of Police from 1950 to the 1990s.
A few years later, in August of 2015, Campbell changed her mind about the designation and requested that the heritage designation bylaw be repealed from her home.
However, based on the recommendation of the Municipal Heritage Committee, Chatham-Kent Council refused the owner's application in October of 2015. The Conservation Review Board (CRB) also recommended that the property's designation not be repealed in January of last year.
Following that recommendation, though, in March 2017, council backed Campbell's application and directed administration to file a notice of intent to repeal the heritage designation bylaw for her property. Campbell says she was "tickled pink" after the motion passed, but it wasn't long before her application met more opposition.
Four members of the public applied for a hearing before the CRB in April 2017 and last month's proceeding once again concluded with a recommendation that the designation should not be repealed.
This time, the recommendation was based on the argument that the property was properly designated in 2012 and that “nothing has changed” since the CRB recommended in January of 2017 that the bylaw not be repealed.
Despite those recommendations, Campbell is holding firm. She claims she did not realize that the heritage designation meant losing some control over her property.
"I know a bylaw is the law and that's it, that's the end for you," she says.
The objectors, on the other hand, state that Campbell understood the nature of the designation and its impact, because the designation was filed at her request and she had no objections before that.
Campbell has another reason for her appeal: she is currently trying to sell her home, and believes that the heritage designation will make her property more difficult to sell.
The objectors disagree.
They believe that Campbell’s concern is “based on unsupported and unsubstantiated information,” adding that her concern is “speculative.”
Overall, the objectors feel that repealing the designation on the basis of financial hardship would also create a "dangerous precedent" for future requests presented to the municipality. The members argue that the prospect of property owners receiving a tax benefit and then requesting a repeal of designation when they wish to sell, alter, or demolish the property is "not consistent with the intent of these programs."
Municipal staff are taking a different stance, arguing that evidence as to whether a property no longer holds cultural heritage value is not the only consideration and that other evidence may also be relevant to the discussion.
In the report going to Chatham-Kent Council on Monday, municipal staff state that “heritage value is not a trump, it is one of the considerations for the council to consider in balancing competing interests.”
The municipality was also informed by Campbell's representative that Campbell did not understand several aspects of the legal process while applying for the designation.
"What they told me was nothing and what they didn't tell me was everything... it's the legal part of it," says Campbell.
However, in its recommendation, the CRB claims neither the municipality nor the owner brought forward evidence to show any confusion in the legal process. The report also says that the board does not consider Campbell's understanding of the legal process or her lack of consent to be relevant factors for repealing the designation.
Campbell says she wants residents to join her at Monday night's council meeting to see the final verdict.
"I know Monday is the end for me," says Campbell. "If I can help somebody else come out and learn something, I hope I can."
-With files from Matt Weverink