Jesse Hamilton says he feels a mix of emotions following the conclusion of a dispute between his family and the Town of Collingwood.
The 12 Fourth St. W. homeowner has been embroiled in an Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) fight with the town since Dec. 2021, when he and his wife filed an appeal over town council’s decision on Nov. 15, 2021 to deny retroactive permits for some renovations the couple had already made to their home since purchasing in the Spring of 2021. Changes included painting the exterior white, replacement of the front door and removal of the front entrance eyebrow roof.
In May, the Hamiltons reached a settlement with the town at the tribunal, after it was determined by experts that the removal of the paint would do more damage to the building than leaving it in place.
“It’s cost our family thousands of dollars in legal fees. Our family spent somewhere between $7,000 and $9,000 in expenses. It doesn’t make any sense given the outcome. We tried to work with the town, and it feels like they just wanted to push us into this OLT process,” said Hamilton.
According to the minutes of settlement obtained by CollingwoodToday.ca, the Hamiltons were required to provide the town with a $500 donation, to be used toward town heritage matters.
The settlement also notes that the town’s bylaw enforcement staff issued a charge against the Hamiltons for a violation of the Ontario Heritage Act. According to the settlement, the Hamiltons were required to enter a guilty plea to that charge, however the sentence would be suspended and no fine or other penalty would be imposed by the court.
Both the Hamiltons and the Town of Collingwood are required to bear their own costs pertaining to the appeal. When reached for comment on the matter, Director of Planning, Building and Economic Development Summer Valentine noted that the town’s legal costs for the appeal to date are $2,300, however additional invoices are expected.
“The total cost is not anticipated to exceed $5,000,” said Valentine.
The Hamiltons have since paid the $500 donation to the town.
“It’s problematic for us. Last August, when we realized we had made a mistake, we said we would make a donation. We realized we both played a role in this,” said Hamilton. “We feel pretty terrible.”
However, from a negative situation for the Hamiltons did come some positivity.
“We experienced a great deal of support from local residents, and that feels wonderful. There was an outpouring of support through our petition, but we also had letters dropped off and people knocking on our door,” he said. “We felt hugely supported by residents of the town including other people who live in the heritage district.”
As the Hamiltons’ home is located in Collingwood’s Heritage District, according to the Ontario Heritage District Act, no owner of a property situated in a heritage conservation district can alter any part of the property, other than the interior. For any exterior work, homeowners must first apply for a permit through the municipality.
On July 22, 2021, town staff received a complaint about exterior masonry being painted at the property without a permit. Bylaw enforcement attended the site and provided the owner with planning staff contact information, however issuing stop-work orders was not within the town’s bylaw enforcement powers at that time, so the painting continued. Staff spoke with the owner on July 23, 2021 and confirmed that a permit is required before starting work including for the painting that was underway.
In November when council voted in favour of denying the retroactive permit for the work, the couple faced enforcement proceedings which could have resulted in a possible $30,000 bill to remove paint they applied to their exterior, and the possibility of a lien being placed on their home until they completed the removal, which is why they filed an appeal.
The 12 Fourth St. W. home was originally built in 1930.
Three documents were submitted as evidence by the Hamiltons as part of their OLT appeal: letters from Hawk’s Eye Masonry in Springwater and Hobbs Home Solutions Inc. in Collingwood both refusing to do any paint-removal work on the home, and a masonry condition report which concluded that there was no long-term detriment to the durability of the masonry by leaving the paint in place and that attempting to remove the paint was likely to cause more damage to the building.
“This information was not available to the town when the original decision to refuse the permit was made,” noted Valentine in a statement to CollingwoodToday.ca.
As part of the OLT proceedings, the town had the evidence peer-reviewed and the minutes of settlement note that the town accepted the evidence. Valentine confirmed that the peer-review cost to the town was $300.
“Due to the physical properties of the brick, the abrasive method of removing the paint would irreparably damage the brick as it removes the paint and applied texture/colour of the brick,” wrote Dylan Sedore, Red Seal-certified mason and owner of Hawks Eve Masonry, in his letter to the Hamiltons refusing the work.
“Furthermore this Full Range Rugg brick does not fall into the industry standard to be classified as a heritage or historical brick,” he noted.
Valentine said once this information was provided during the OLT hearing, it was also presented to town council in-camera, and council endorsed the settlement.
“To be clear, the town’s position was based upon the desire not to worsen an existing condition and to recognize the realities of the current situation,” said Valentine.
While the process at the Ontario Land Tribunal may have come to an end, Hamilton says he can’t shake the way his family was treated by town staff and town council along the way.
“Throughout this process, we feel mistreated by town staff and town council. We felt not listened to. We still think the process of the heritage committee is very much broken,” he said.
Late last year during council discussion on the matter, Coun. Yvonne Hamlin said the situation pointed to “flaws in the system.”
Out of those discussions, Coun. Deb Doherty put forward a motion to give bylaw officers powers to issue stop-work orders, which was passed at the April 25 meeting.
Also as part of those discussions, staff said that moving forward, welcome packages for those who purchase a heritage home would be created and distributed to outline rules and responsibilities of owning a heritage home, or a home that is located within the heritage district.
“Council has approved the stop-work orders and has asked the heritage committee to focus more on education, and those two things are hugely important and we’re glad those things are happening,” said Hamilton.
“But, I think it’s important to point out that if those two things had to happen, and those two things would have avoided our issue, why did they take us through this process after admitting it was broken in the first place?”
Hamilton also thinks that moving forward, there should be a requirement that a certain number of members sitting on the heritage committee also own a home in the heritage district, and there should be clear guidelines on how decisions are made there.
“There has to be more consistency baked into the processes and procedures followed by the heritage committee,” he said.
The experience overall has left Hamilton with a bad taste in his mouth, and he places blame at the feet of the current town council.
“Council had numerous opportunities to involve themselves on behalf of their residents and make sure staff weren’t wasting money,” said Hamilton. “There were a small number of councillors who treated us fairly and were on our side, but the bulk of our town council didn’t consider how this would impact our family and we hold them responsible for that.”
When contacted for comment on the matter, Acting Deputy Mayor Mariane McLeod said as the minutes of settlement aren’t officially public, she can’t yet speak to specifics.
“I know every member of council did their best to balance what the interests were of the town and our long-standing heritage district with the concerns of the Hamilton family,” said McLeod.
