Members of Huntsville’s Heritage Committee struggled with the idea of looking the other way and approving changes made to Hart House after the fact and without proper municipal approvals.
The house has been designated as a heritage home by the Town of Huntsville and requires a special permit when certain modifications are made to the home.
Committee heard at its December 1, 2016 meeting that while the owner did get a heritage permit in 2015 to add an addition to the house and remove the home’s Muskoka room, a later addition to the home, and a garage that had burned down as a result of a fire, she did not get approval to add a stone veneer to the building’s façade or to replace the home’s windows, which included antique coloured glass.
This photo of Hart House was taken from across the Muskoka River in October.
In her report, Teri Souter, Manager of Arts, Culture and Heritage, showed committee a series of photos of Hart House through the years showing changes to the house, but none of the photos depicted more recent changes made to the home. She did show a black and white drawing submitted to the Town by the Hart House contractor when a heritage permit was sought to make modifications to the home in 2015. The plans clearly show the stone veneer in question, but Souter told committee it was missed by staff during the approval process.
This plan was submitted by the Hart House contractor in 2015 showing a stone veneer, which staff says it missed as they were not looking for it.
“I will certainly take responsibility for that with my vast knowledge of reading the plans and documents, and I’m being facetious I hope you know. I’ve learned something about that,” she told committee.
She also said that in meetings with the owner of Hart House, the contractor doing the work, and area neighbours, it would be acceptable to all parties to hang the old coloured, paned windows, as well as those from the turret, behind the interior of the new windows. She also noted that despite what she had read in different platforms and heard from residents, the windows used to replace the old ones were in fact wooden heritage-style windows.
“The windows that were replaced are heritage series wooden windows by a qualified supplier, very high grade windows, the exterior of which has a paint finish on, which is low maintenance. It is a different colour, it’s not white, it’s black, but again easily changeable.” Souter also told committee the owner does not generally require permission to change the colour on any part of the home as the colour can be easily changed back by a new owner.
She told committee that the contractor was still working on the home’s turret and suggested that a reasonable time to have the window situation remedied would be in the spring, with committee’s approval. Souter also recommended that the original building permit acquired by the owner in 2015 be amended to include permission for the home’s stone veneer.
Arts, Culture and Heritage Manager Teri Souter and Chief Building Official Chris Nagy address the Town’s Heritage Committee on December 1, 2016 regarding modifications made to Hart House.
“So that’s what we’re asking for today is to have the heritage permit extended to those two deficiencies and to help us move forward and educate our property owner to create peace in the valley,” said Souter who also recommended in an earlier report, along with Chief Building Official Chris Nagy, to improve the heritage permit approval process so that none of the items being included for approval could be missed in future.
Councillor Jonathan Wiebe asked Souter to describe the history of the interaction the Town has had with the owner of the Hart House and her contractor.
Souter said to the best of her recollection, the current owner of the Hart House, her designer and a realtor from Aurora met with her in 2012.
“They wanted to buy this home, knew it had a designation on it and what did that mean and I walked them through it. At that point we were just starting to pick up our built heritage portfolio under myself,” Souter told committee, adding that at that time she had received the training that Heritage Committee Chair Jason Fitzgerald and Deputy Chair Jonathan Wiebe had since received on the role of the Town’s Heritage Committee from the Town’s heritage outreach consultant.
“I told them that we had a Unity Plan, that we had a very good planning committee and that the building staff would work with them under the parameters of the Heritage Act, that no promises could be made but there was a very engaging, encouraging community and welcomed them to come here. I mean I knew that the Alexanders were looking forward to sell their house and I was trying to help them out any way I could without getting involved. It’s not my business to get involved, just to do my job,” she said, adding that she also suggested to the prospective owner that she employ a designer with awareness of the Heritage Act.
“They have been extremely forthcoming with their time, which is extremely valuable. They have been responsive, open, honest and accommodating to us in our needs. That’s been my take, that’s both her and her contractor and her family,” noted Souter of the new owners of Hart House.
“The part that’s missing for me is a picture of what we’re actually being asked to approve,” said Councillor Nancy Alcock. She said the photos that Souter had shown “were lovely to look at but what’s before us today we didn’t actually see a picture of… especially because we have a letter on file as of yesterday that’s suggesting it’s an issue and it wasn’t resolved at the meetings you refer to. So I just feel like I’m being asked to approve something that I don’t have all the information I need.”
The letter Alcock alluded to was not included in the committee’s package, attainable to the public through the Town’s website.
In terms of the photos or lack thereof, Souter responded that she could not take a photo of something that hasn’t yet happened. Her response seemed to cause a bit of an uproar with Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano responding: “It has happened, that’s why we’re here.”
Souter told committee “we provide information to you, we don’t advise you, we provide information to you, that’s all we can do. And if I didn’t provide enough information… [I] should’ve gone and taken some pictures I guess.”
Souter also reminded committee that as a committee they provide advice to council and the ultimate decision rests with council. “So you still have a chance to change your mind,” she added.
Terziano said she understands that staff is sometimes in a position to work with people who have done things that they didn’t have permits for “and it’s not an easy task to do and I appreciate that you’ve tried to do it the best you can. That said, these people were asking you before they purchased the house in 2012 about heritage issues, they were before this committee in July 2014 and got a permit for some work. They were back [2015] and got a permit for some work, so I have a hard time buying into the fact that they didn’t know what they needed,” said Terziano. “They’ve had the same contractor for a couple of years and they’ve applied for and received two permits already.”
She said she suspects they went ahead and did the work and are now coming back to the municipality looking for approval. “And the thing is at the end of the day, I suspect that’s exactly what we’ll give them because we’re not the kind of committee or municipality that’s going to say tear all your windows out and change it. But by the same token, we don’t want to send the message that that’s the way we do business… do whatever you want and come beg forgiveness.”
There’s no easy way out of this, except that I don’t think that we should pretend that this was all a big accident Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano, referring to changes made to Hart House without proper municipal approvals.
Further discussions ensued about clear cutting the lot. Nagy said if the owner has in fact removed vegetation that was not part of the site plan approval, that is something that could be addressed through the Town’s planning department.
Committee further discussed whether to table the recommendation from staff and wait for more information. Some were in favour of that option while others were against it, citing that the outcome would ultimately be the same as the owner would not likely be made to redo the work she had already embarked on. In the end, committee asked staff to add more information to the report and defer it to council for a decision at its December 20, 2016 meeting.
Committee members were also asked not to do a site visit of the property on their own. Executive Director of Community Services and Economic Development Kari Lambe asked that committee members set up a time to visit the property through Souter as the owner has expressed concerns with trespassing on her property. Committee also heard that the property owner is considering erecting a fence. Souter said there is nothing stopping her from doing so, nor is there a bylaw telling her what type of fence to erect. She said to the property owner’s credit, she has indicated that she is considering a wrought iron fence.
You can find Doppler’s initial story on changes to the Hart House here.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.
I read so many opinions and there is much talk of this and that and what was or wasn’t and then the next conversation disputes all of that. It even appears council is at odds with facts, money and fantasy. I think we can all see on a day to day basis whether in our jobs or in day to day life that there seems to be nothing anymore in the old analogy rules are rules it’s all, about rules are made to be broken now. The contractor as well has been in business for many, many years and we all know that contractors are quite aware also of rules and permits etc. it’s all a case of as usual, let’s just do it and then it’s done and they probably won’t do much anyway because no one wants a bad taste in their mouth about a lovely town and unfortunately in some cases money talks big time, especially in the tourist areas and building. Not pointing fingers folks it’s a fact everywhere. No one wants to upset the apple cart and have anyone upset. It’s bad for business isn’t it. It is sadly always a big farce on all sides. One interesting little detail we seem to forget is this is what we teach and preach to our young people also. Not just that a heritage house can be changed with permission, we teach that rules are meant to be broken, nothing is what it seems, if you have enough money you can more easily slip those rule aside, break those rules or promises because as you get older there will definitely not be as many consequences, as an adult you will have far more opportunities to muddy the waters and fight and argue and accomplish absolutely nothing! Really? We wonder why our young people don’t seem to have the same respect and regard for things? Seriously we actually act the way we do and then we ask THAT question?
The trees were all dead, including the neighbour’s.
Doppler, Your posts are very biased. You should really look into the other side of it.
It would seem to me that our council has been put into a very difficult position – by whom? – the owner or by staff? I agree that staff can only make recommendations but why do they wait until it is too late?
Does this mean that building permits are important only for construction to take place and it doesn’t matter what the plans say when they are submitted?
Seems I have a lot of questions? Who will answer them?
Come on folks, everyone knows that a permit and approval system is useless unless it is enforced. As soon as we let anyone get away with this type of behaviour, we are opening the doors to everyone to get away with this behaviour.
As much as I think people should be able to do what they want with their property; if we are going to have rules, we have to enforce them. Take your pick.
I am more concerned with the destruction of trees on that property, and I am amazed that it isn’t more of a concern – especially since many (or all) of those trees were on the shoreline of the river.
This is a head-shaking story; sad times. The building is spoiled, the buyer bullied, the Town spends time (and money) bantering about worthless agreements. What’s next? And who cares?
It’s just sad to see our past slipping away, especially when we have the resources.
It seems that Council and the Municipality have been outmaneuvered because, it seems, proper attention wasn’t paid to this important heritage site. What’s the lesson here? When do we decide what is really important to our town or have we unwittingly already decided? It is possible to put the lid back on Pandora’s box if the Town has the courage. Time will tell.