Heritage Conservation District will create a problem where none exists, say readers

To the Editor:

The following is an open letter to Kincardine council regarding the proposed Heritage Conservation designation.

Regarding the over-reaching, extremely overbearing proposal to mandate a designation of Heritage Conservation District, we support the many individuals who have identified their opposition to the implementation of such a proposed bylaw.

We do not own property in the affected area, but this bylaw appears to provide a solution to a problem that does not exist.

As others have already noted, there exists the opportunity for property owners to have their building(s) designated historical VOLUNTARILY. For those who want this designation, they are free to do so, with the full understanding that they are to comply with the requirements/restrictions that come part and parcel with this designation. For those who do not want their property designated as such, they have the freedom not to seek this designation.

If this proposed bylaw is signed into law, then a different problem will have been created. Property owners' freedom of choice will have been removed, and all affected property owners will be forced to comply with the extremely intrusive requirements/restrictions, whether they agree or not. This bylaw removes/restricts the decision-making rights of the property owners and ultimately hands them over to a group of individuals who have volunteered to join a committee but have no "skin in the game."

This over-reaching proposal goes beyond a bylaw for historical buildings/structures and could be seen as creeping into the level of dictating individual lifestyle. Some examples being, that property owners in the designated area would be encouraged to:
 

• Have front lawns, as they are in keeping with the historic nature of the area (nothing to do with the building/structure)
• Use only acceptable material for driveways and sidewalks (nothing to do with the building/structure)
• Use plants/flowers/trees commonly used during the era the structure was built (very concerning in that the ash tree is included in that listing)

In the proposed historic area, where vacant property presently exists, this proposal "encourages" that the design of any new building be sympathetic with the existing historic nature of the area. It also speaks to existing buildings, not historic in nature, and "encourages" that the owners retain the era of when they were built (e.g. if built in the 1950s, any maintenance, modifications should be sympathetic to the 1950s).

It identifies the requirement to obtain approval to remove an historical tree from your private property, in keeping with the existing tree bylaws. To our knowledge, we don't have a bylaw for trees on private property. Is this a back-door approach to have one quietly implemented for the municipality as a whole?

With future revisions to this bylaw, what's stopping any/all of these from becoming requirements? What's stopping future building permits in this area from requiring sympathetic design?

Before you vote, we would ask each member of council to consider whether you are prepared to freely hand over these decision-making powers for your property to a group of individuals whose only prerequisite is that they volunteered to join a committee? If the answer is no, then we employ you to NOT take away the freedoms of these property owners.

As stated earlier, presently, a problem does not exist but if this proposed bylaw is signed into law, then a new problem will have been created.

Respectfully,
Leona and Gil Graham
Municipality of Kincardine