Dan Smith is not against preserving heritage, but he is against having his own home given heritage status.
Smith owns a brick house on 8th Avenue NE across from McGuire Lake, one of a handful of Salmon Arm homes constructed of brick made in Enderby. He and his spouse purchased the house in 1990 and he says he is still working hard to pay for it.
“The reason I purchased it was for future investment for development,” he explained, noting it has a view of both Shuswap and McGuire lakes.
His plan has been to either sell it one day at a profit or, depending on the city’s official community plan, develop it because there is an apartment building nearby.
He was alarmed when he learned his home was one of 15 being considered for phase two of the city’s heritage register.
In February 2010, 15 properties were put registered in phase one.
“I agree with the direction they’re taking, but they have to have the owners onboard,” Smith said.
He said the house next to his is older, so asked why it wasn’t chosen. He finds the heritage commission biased.
“It should be equal on both sides, business as well as heritage.”
Coun. Alan Harrison is council’s representative on the city’s heritage commission. He told the Observer the commission makes recommendations to council and the final decisions are up to council.
“So at this stage his house isn’t on the register. Council hasn’t endorsed the second stage.”
Harrison said recommendations from the commission for phase two will likely come forward in September, complete with statements of significance that detail the heritage value of each choice.
“The heritage commission doesn’t consider political reasons to put a place on or not...,” he said. “When the recommendations come before council, there will be an opportunity to address council.”
The commission’s purpose is to retain heritage buildings.
“The purpose is not to cause a hardship for someone trying to develop their land… I certainly understand his point of view and its value and certainly council will consider it when the time comes.”
Heritage commission member Mary Landers says the commission believes the house has heritage value, but council makes the final decisions.
“I’m not a rant-raving extremist. I’m very upset he feels so upset. I don’t necessarily think all is lost for him. We really, really sweated over this decision. We talked about it over several meetings, researched, asked questions, researched some more. This is not taken lightly and if the city feels strongly about it, they’re the boss.”
Up until this week the heritage register had no teeth, but council gave final reading March 28 to a bylaw that adds a delay if the owner of a building on the heritage register wishes to move or demolish it.
When such a permit is applied for, the request will go to the next scheduled council meeting. Council then could take no action, issue an order for temporary protection up to 60 days, or order a heritage inspection.
If council opts to issue a temporary protection order, four further steps could be taken: 1)a heritage inspection; 2) long-term protection via a heritage designation bylaw, meaning the owner need not agree but the city would have to compensate for any loss in market value; 3) a heritage revitalization agreement where the city and property owner could negotiate an agreement; or 4) issuance of the demolition or moving permit.
Smith says he’s not pleased either about the potential 60-day delay.
“Sixty days on a development, if it’s moving forward, can be a lot… I told the commission this, if I decided to develop, the house would be offered for free to move off because it’s not worth anything to develop it. It should be my choice to do.”