Comment
Heritage matters
We value our built architectural heritage in Prince Edward County—the buildings, barns, streets and lanes that define the look and feel of our community. We know this to be true because when a church is destroyed, a main street convenience store is threatened or a 200-year-old barn is felled a furious outpouring of grief, anger and frustration follow. We know this too because on the rare occasions we ask residents what they want for their County, preserving built heritage is always a stated priority.
So it matters. But holding on to our architectural heritage is hard.
So we establish rules. We develop design guidelines. We move slowly. We take steps to protect the streetscape—the look and feel of Main Street, Prince Edward County. We do this over months and months of meetings and reviews.
Telling private property owners what they can and can’t do with their assets is always a fraught discussion. Yet a necessary one. It can’t be otherwise.
It is neither new nor rare that, in certain circumstances, collective rights supersede individual property rights. The entire property planning regime is about exerting collective expectations and values upon property owners. We might bristle at this notion, but it is not a concept unique to Shire Hall. It is how we protect the unique character and livability of our communities.
There are simply too many examples in Ontario where distracted local governments have neglected their downtown, bystanders as it devolves into a hollow canyon of dollar stores and e cigarette venues, bounded by strip plazas and box stores. We know what the absence of rules looks like. These are places we choose not to go. Or invest in.
One set of rules established to preserve our architectural heritage is contained within the Heritage Conservation District (HCD) plan adopted in 2013. It defines a set of design guidelines as well as a way to look at new development and renovations with a view to protecting and enhancing the cultural heritage value of Picton’s town centre. It covers Main Street from Talbot Street on the west to Bridge and Paul Streets heading east out of town.
It is a strong document, informed by history, tradition, local insight and a deep appreciation for the unique character of this community. It seeks to enhance the value of the properties contained within it. It is a modest and restrained document, sensitive to the evolving uses of Main Street storefronts and the needs of the small businesses and entrepreneurs that occupy them. It provides clear and helpful pointers for redevelopment and renovation. It strikes a good balance between the aspirations of the community and interests of property owners. (The HCD plan may be downloaded here.)
But council’s resolve on these principles is currently being tested. One main street business owner doesn’t want to comply with the rules. In the spring it was because of the cost of changing her sign. Now she contends that compliance with the Heritage Conservation District plan, and presumably the County’s sign laws, may turn on the outcome of a petition.
She is being poorly advised.
The catalyst for the Heritage Conservation District plan occurred on a Sunday morning in 2010. That was the day a rogue contractor began to smash a hole in the side of a 133-year-old brick church on Main Street in Picton. Six years later, a vacant lot still marks the scene of the crime. The entire community rose up demanding to know how this had happened and what could be done to ensure that it never happened again.
The HCD in Picton was one response. It is a reasonable set of rules and guidelines. Some argue it doesn’t go far enough. Some grumble it weakens property rights. That is probably a sign the HCD has it just about right.
In any event, these are the rules. They were discussed and debated in many venues over many months. There was plenty of opportunity to voice opposition or propose changes. Many took advantage of the opportunity.
It is far too late, and frankly too self-serving, to seek to dismantle the Heritage Conservation District plan simply because one store owner would rather not com-ply with the rules or bear the cost of their own mistake.
The business owner was presented a gift when the Prince Edward Heritage Advisory Committee agreed to her proposed revisions, even though the sign still fails to comply fully with the rules. She should take the gift, and say thank you.
Otherwise council and its heritage committee are encouraged to stiffen their resolve to stand behind the Heritage Conservation District plan. It has to mean something.
Either we have rules, or we don’t. We can choose to comply or face the consequences. Others will seek to cloud the issue—but it isn’t that complicated. Council can choose to protect the community’s interest in our shared architectural heritage, or not.
It is a simple as that.
Comments (0)