A bit of history<\/strong><\/p>\n Hart House is located on King Street and was given a heritage designation by the Town in 1984. It has had a long history in this community. It was built for Dr. Jacob Hart in 1894, Huntsville\u2019s second doctor and first mayor. He later had a wing added to the house, which contained offices as well as 36 rooms that served as a hospital in the community. Dr. Hart eventually closed the wing down in 1909. After his death his family turned it into a \u201ctourist home,” which then became known as the Hart House, according to the bylaw used by the Town to officially designate Hart House as a heritage home. The addition was later torn down, but many of the home’s historical attributes like its hexagonal turret, elaborate gingerbread trim, a coloured glass heart shape over the front door and old Victorian windows with coloured glass remained \u2013 at least until recently.<\/p>\n Concerns about changes to a historical building<\/strong><\/p>\n Since the new owner purchased the home three years ago from the Alexanders, many changes have taken place and the house is slowly being transformed, according to Wright, an adjoining property owner. Most recently, the Town approved changes to the northwest side of the house to construct an attached garage, rebuild an existing sun room with a full new basement and foundation, a breezeway attaching the garage to the house, a new deck and access to the roof of the sunroom through the master bedroom. The new construction was supposed to match the existing style and finishes of the house, but Wright maintains that is not the case. \u201cIt\u2019s just the other way around. The main house is being refinished to match the new construction,\u201d he lamented. \u201cThey took three or four feet of siding off all around the house and they stone faced it because the new garage is stone faced and the breezeway is stone faced. If you walked by and had a photograph of the old Hart House and looked at it, you really wouldn\u2019t recognize the place now.\u201d<\/p>\n Residents say they are concerned about the transformation of Hart House, which is slowly losing its heritage features.<\/p><\/div>\n Wright said shortly after the new owner purchased the house in 2013, she tried to get approval to build an office building on site, which would have accommodated about 11 employees and an underground parking. The owner would have required a zoning change to allow for the commercial use. Wright hired a planner to oppose the application and opposition from area neighbours was so vehement that the application was withdrawn.<\/p>\n Wright maintains that if additions are made or features removed, they should be replaced with like materials and styles. He noted that when the front wooden veranda was replaced due to what the owner claimed was rot, it was replaced with a manufactured stone product, instead of wood, which would have been in keeping with the character and era of when the house was built. \u201cIf this is a heritage house from 1890, they never had stone verandas, they were wood. So that was the start of the decline of the heritage features of the house,\u201d he argued. He also questioned the validity of replacing the whole veranda. He noted that three photographs were submitted as part of the application but said, \u201cIf you look at those three photographs they are all of the same spot of rot in the wood deck. So there was really only one rotten spot.\u201d<\/p>\n Former owner also says the home’s heritage designation is being lost Roberta Alexander, who owned the house for 20 years before she sold it to the new owner in 2013, said she\u2019s also alarmed by some of the changes. The most recent change, the windows, including the coloured glass mentioned in the heritage designation of the house, have been completely replaced.<\/p>\n I spent 20 years looking after those windows, they are a ton of work, but that\u2019s what you get when you buy a heritage home.Former owner of Hart House, Roberta Alexander<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n She said she replaced the side and back windows with custom-made wood windows to match the profile of the house. The front windows would\u2019ve been an expensive enterprise to replace so she said she worked hard to maintain them. That included taking them off every year, scraping loose paint off, repainting them, and reputtying them. \u201cAs long as you do that on a yearly basis those windows will last forever.\u201d She said they are an intrinsic part of the heritage designation of the home and noted that the Hart House and its windows were used as an example of a heritage home in a Ministry of Culture article about heritage preservation. She said nothing would have been easier than simply replacing them with vinyl or some aluminum clad windows, but that would not have been in keeping with the heritage value of the home. \u201cI tried to always live under the guidelines of a designated house and the windows were protected,\u201d she said. \u201cI\u2019m not asking for double standards here. I\u2019m asking that you just do what you\u2019re supposed to do.\u201d<\/p>\n To those who would argue that older windows are not as energy efficient, Alexander said she is armed with a ton of research that she did while she owned the house. \u201cA properly maintained storm window on top of an original wood window is as energy efficient as the new double-paned modern windows\u2026 but what it requires is that you have to maintain them.\u201d<\/p>\n What happens next?<\/strong><\/p>\n Alexander said she is saddened by the changes simply because it sets a precedent for all heritage-designated properties in the municipality and says she\u2019s still not clear on whether the property owner contravened the approvals given, or whether Town Hall simply dropped the ball. \u201cThings just seem to keep flying under the radar,\u201d she said of the changes. She said her family lived in that house for 20 years and bought it with the understanding that it is a heritage home.<\/p>\n When anyone buys that house you have to sign an acknowledgement that you have seen the fact that the house is designated and is protected in order for the deed to transfer. So nobody goes into that house purchase not already knowing that it’s a designated house and that there are features that are protected. Former owner of Hart House Roberta Alexander<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Alexander said the biggest modification she did to the house was change the colour and she had to go through great lengths to do so. She had to hire a heritage expert from Toronto and had to choose an appropriate heritage colour that would\u2019ve been used at the time the house was built. She also maintains that any repairs that would\u2019ve been required would\u2019ve been minor in nature. She said if the house had been falling apart, and required major renovation, there is no way it would have sold for $950,000.<\/p>\n Alexander is hopeful that the municipality will start paying closer attention.<\/p>\n I think it is important to protect what is unique and special about that particular house. I watched tourists come up on a daily basis in the summers to take pictures of that house\u2026 anybody who has travelled Europe or abroad goes there because they love to see historic buildings and we have one in our town and we\u2019re just letting it piece by piece turn into just another nice house. Roberta Alexander<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Public interests versus private property rights Teri Souter, the Town’s Manager of Arts, Culture and Heritage, said Hart House is a privately owned property. She said the house has undergone many changes through the years and the Town has to try and work with the private property owner. \u201cYou know heritage does change and the point of having designation bylaws is not to not have anything ever change, it\u2019s to manage the change.\u201d Souter said she appreciates that change is difficult but the house is privately owned and the municipality has to tread carefully.<\/p>\n In terms of the latest concerns by area residents, Souter said the property owner met with staff who made the determination that the owner could upgrade the windows to increase efficiency and sustainability of the same using like-materials such as triple-glazed wooden windows. Souter also noted that staff recommended that the property owner retain the coloured glass and that it be \u201cincorporated as a unique decorative characteristic.\u201d Souter said meetings with staff were consultative in nature as any final approvals rest with council.<\/p>\n Councillor Bob Stone, who represents the area, said he\u2019s heard from area residents on the issue. He said he\u2019s particularly concerned with the tree removal that has taken place on the property. \u201cThe owner of the property said \u2018well, there were some diseased trees.\u2019 Well, there probably were but you didn\u2019t need to strip the bank bare and cut all the trees that you did down,\u201d said Stone. At the same time, he also said finding a balance is difficult. \u201cIt\u2019s a heritage structure which is privately owned so it is a very difficult relationship. We want to keep the character of the house, but obviously we have to let the homeowner spend the money where they feel it is best spent.\u201d He said the problem began when significant additions were made to the building that were not historical in nature, which did not sit well with area residents. \u201cWhen someone buys a house like the Hart House we hope they love it so much that they want to maintain the character,\u201d he said, while reiterating that balancing private and public interests is difficult.<\/p>\n Councillor Jonathan Wiebe forms part of the new Heritage Committee, which is now a committee of council rather than a committee made up of community members. He said he\u2019s looking into the issue. \u201cHow much is too much government and how much is not enough?\u201d he questioned. He also said that if there are in fact violations related to the approvals granted, they should be addressed, but he said that is yet to be determined.<\/p>\n Alexander said she hopes addressing any inconsistencies between what\u2019s been done versus what\u2019s been approved does not simply involve a fine because that would be akin to a simple slap on the wrist. She said she hopes any changes that have contravened approvals are required to be undone. She\u2019s also hopeful that council will be more mindful about enforcing heritage designations or stop making such designations altogether if it is not prepared to enforce them.<\/p>\n “If you’re not going to protect it then call a spade a spade and take the designation off. Be courageous here, say ‘you know what, we just think what’s the point of having this designation. Let’s let the private property owner do whatever she wants with her house.’ That’s what you’re doing in effect, you’re just not doing it publicly, you’re pretending there’s a designation to protect it but then you are not actually enforcing the designation,” she argued.<\/p>\n Repeated attempts to reach the owner of Hart House for comment went unanswered.<\/p>\n To see the designation bylaw for Hart House turn to page 11 here<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n![\"Residents](\"https:\/\/media-doppleronline-ca.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com\/2016\/11\/harthousefront.jpg\")
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
![\"This](\"https:\/\/media-doppleronline-ca.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com\/2016\/11\/1970.1010-Hart-house-and-hospital.jpg\")