A Galt property of historic significance could gain heritage protection if the municipal heritage committee can make a case with the owner.
A decision around the request for additions to the 1830s cottage was deferred after discussions came up around 16 Byng Ave., the property in question, at the municipal heritage advisory committee (MHAC) meeting Thursday. Members directed staff to approach the current owners to consult about a heritage designation, outlining the details of a full or partial designation and any funding opportunities available through local heritage organizations.
During the meeting, a Cambridge representative of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) presented a cultural heritage impact assessment report.
The immediate and future protection of the Karmichael, as the property associated with William Dickson is also known, can be secured through the request of a Part IV designation under the Ontario Heritage Act, said Karen Scott Booth, adding that a similar attempt was shot down by council in 2018.
"It's an excellent example of the regency style," she said, adding some additions over the years have taken away a few of the building's features that should otherwise have been preserved. "It was designed with a stunning verandah, rectangular floor plans, large French windows with in-swing casements and a remarkable front entrance. The intentional symmetry of the regency design, with a full wraparound verandah is an important character-defining element of its architectural style. This alone meets the criteria as a candidate for designation for its architectural significance."
Experts in heritage and cultural architecture recommend that additions to the property should be avoided if possible, said Scott Booth.
However, she added, if an addition is necessary, it must be similar to and smaller than the original structure.
Then Scott Booth talked about the proposed addition plans that were included in the impact assessment report.
"We have great concern in what we see in this proposed plan: new vinyl windows in the historical cottage," she said. "There should be no vinyl windows in this cottage. If an addition is necessary, it should not be visible from Byng Avenue. The intended symmetry of the regency design should be restored. Proposed addition is too large, scale and massing is not compatible or subordinate. The roof lines are of concern. It needs a separation, yes, but other ways of achieving this rather than a different tone of shingles are preferred."
Scott Booth asked the committee to defer its decision until the current owners Matthew Benoit and Colleen Bracken have been approached with the pros and cons of a heritage designation.
In addition, she said, the ACO would appreciate more consultation with heritage architects in the design.
Coun. Pam Wolf asked staff if the current owners have been approached about a heritage designation for their property.
Laura Waldie, senior planner, said they have been asked by the committee of adjustment and their answer has been 'no'.
Member John Oldfield was leaning toward letting the owners go ahead with their plans but he was also in support of a heritage designation.
"The new owners bought this house in good faith as a listed property," he said, any homeowner that buys the Kirkmichael has to be more than aware of the historic nature of this property and its cultural and architectural significance to the community. "They've demolished unsympathetic additions to it. They've come up with a plan to make it an improvement over the livability of this property in the future.
"I'm fine with letting them go ahead with their plans; perhaps we can ask council to designate it when they're through with renovations to this historic property," said Oldfield offering an alternative.
But his peer Michelle Goodridge disagreed.
"I respectfully disagree that this building is not under threat," she said. "I agree with pushing forward to ask council if they would consider to designate the structure."
Wolf suggested a middle ground with staff approaching the owners with options for partial designation.
"Sometimes when we designate, we don't designate the whole building," she said. "I know that would be the number one preference here. Would that be an option the owner might approve, for instance? If we designated the windows that are unique and the wraparound porch or the roof line, so he's still able to do an addition but with a little less restriction."
Waldie said that's always a way to go about the designation.
"But if you're restrictive in terms of what is being designated on the building, it would not preclude them from putting up vinyl siding to cover the stone work because they don't want to go through the expense," she added. "They would be able to be altered because they wouldn't be mentioned as cultural heritage attributes in the designation statement."
At the end of the discussion, everyone around the table was convinced about a deferral until the MHAC and staff have had a discussion with the owner about the advantages of a full or partial designation.
In a conversation with CambridgeToday after the meeting, Scott Booth outlined some of the advantages and disadvantages.
"It allows for them to understand the significance of it better," she said. "It's a privilege and a responsibility because we've entrusted with these properties and they will live beyond our times. When you have a designated property, (repairs and maintenance) would may be cost more but there are funds available for that."
Scott Booth said that beside the programs available through the Waterloo Regional Heritage Foundation, the city could consider a tax base attachment that some other municipalities already have in place. Through that, she explained, a percentage of the property's tax is put into a trust attached with the property, giving any current or future homeowner access to money for conservation and maintenance.
"A downside may be that the homeowner is restricted in some ways of doing unsympathetic changes, changes that would be considered not appropriate," said Scott Booth, adding they have to apply for a heritage permit to make any changes.
But to her, there really isn't a downside to a heritage designation.
"Because you get to keep the original heritage of the property," said Scott Booth, who currently lives in a property designated as heritage under the Ontario Heritage Act. "As far as I know, it doesn't affect insurance, we've never had trouble getting insurance and this is our third designated property."
In addition to city staff and the MHAC, Scott Booth said, she will try and reach out to the property owners herself.
"We're hoping that the new owners will get a good understanding of the benefits of designation," she added. "We would support the homeowner in their applications for funding from the heritage foundation."
