Chatham-Kent council is split right down the middle when it comes to whether a local house should keep its heritage designation.
Helen Campbell, who owns 90 Park St. in Chatham, was approved for the heritage designation bylaw in June of 2012, but years later came to regret her decision. After requesting the designation be repealed from her home in 2015, Chatham-Kent council refused her application based on a recommendation by the Municipal Heritage Committee.
The Conservation Review Board (CRB) also recommended that the property’s designation not be repealed in January of last year. Following that recommendation, council decided to back Campbell’s application in March of 2017 and directed administration to file a notice of intent to repeal the heritage designation bylaw for her property.
After yet another recommendation from the CRB to not repeal the designation, council brought forward another motion to not repeal the heritage designation.
This motion Monday night's council meeting ended with a tied vote.
When the question was flipped around and councillors were asked to vote on whether the property's heritage designation should be removed, that motion also tied.
"It's been a while since we've had a tiebreaker and the tiebreaker went twice," says Hope. "I didn't have an automatic answer so I wanted to take time with legal services as to the rules around this."
Hope says council has experienced tie votes before and the motions failed, but there has never been this scenario before where the direction is unclear.
He says councillors are really tied up with this issue.
"It's a very touchy situation. I don't think any councillor wants to see the erosion of heritage in our community," explains Hope. "That's why I wish people wouldn't start pointing fingers at council. I think everybody wants to grow both new and old into a community, because that's what makes a healthy community. It's stuff like this that gets a little questionable at times.
The property owner's main arguments are that she did not realize that the heritage designation meant losing some control over her property. She also feels that the heritage designation will make her property more difficult to sell.
Hope says he is in support of not repealing the designation.
"I think the evidence has laid itself in front of not only ourselves, but in front of the tribunal system," he explains. "I have to respect those opinions that were there, based on the fact that somebody came to council asking for the designation. It was voluntary-based, it wasn't influence-based."
Hope says if someone was on the registry, but didn't want their home designated, he would support them. He says in this situation, you have to look at all the circumstances and make a decision based on that.
Similar to Mayor Hope, Councillor Derek Robertson says he thinks supporting the motion to keep the designation on the home is the right thing to do. He says there are always going to be rules that govern properties and there needs to be consistency with the legislation.
Councillor Michael Bondy also noted that he owns a designated heritage home and has never experienced any issues. He feels the designation is not a burden.
On the other hand, the idea of going against the homeowner's wishes unsettled many councillors.
Councillor Jeff Wesley says from a heritage perspective, the municipality should be working with willing participants. He says he would never buy a heritage home based on all the restrictions and thinks council should consider who really owns the property.
Likewise, Councillor Trevor Thompson is concerned with the precedent that may be set if council refuses to repeal the designation. He compares the situation to a case of "buyer's remorse."
According to Mayor Hope, the motion will be revisited at the next council meeting.