Impasse over church

Miriam Ostermann
Times Associate Editor

 

Frustrations and outrage soared among a local parish and a developer who find themselves at a deadlock after town council imposed a 120-day freeze on actions surrounding the removal of the former St. Michael and All Angels Anglican Church – a move that hopes to preserve the historic significance for the Wheatland and District Historical Society (WDHS) despite the building having been sold to a third party.
Last year, after an unconditional offer was accepted for a developer, who asked to remain anonymous, to purchase six lots on Oct. 1, 2015 with a term of the purchase contract that the church building be removed, the society was offered to purchase the 106-year-old building for $1; money the parish said was never paid and with a written agreement never established.
The society then began scouting possible new locations and received $5,000 from a local event to cover part of the removal costs. Upon resistance from the community to move the church to Lambert Village and with information stating that the structure would lose its eligibility for certain grants if moved from its original location, the society sought council’s approval to designate the property a Municipal Historic Resource. Following a Statement on Significance presented to council on Jan. 13, the council initiated the first step in the process of designation by sending a letter to the registered property owner to notify them of their intent ensuring the property and building cannot be altered for 120 days – tying the hands of the developer and the parish from moving forward with their proposed plans. Furthermore, without payment of the $1, the church was sold to a third party prior, confirmed the legal representation for the diocese Peter Crisfield.
“It frustrates me, and I don’t understand how a society that had the opportunity to purchase the building and purchase the land beforehand chose not to… and instead they decided to circumvent the system and go directly to council,” said the developer.
“It’s inconceivable what’s happening at this point. I have had an opportunity to review the online council meetings and in the Nov. 18, 2015 meeting one of the council members (Denise Peterson) is quoted as saying that she and the mayor sit on the WDHS. I believe this is a severe conflict of interest as they should have removed themselves from all of the meetings and subsequent votes. During the last council meeting the WDHS and the town were the only groups that had representation. The parish was not even notified. A fairly significant vote was taken and two of the five voting members have a conflict with the WDHS and their affiliation to it.”
The Western and District Historical Society had requested to be put on the agenda for Jan. 13 and the presentation was not initiated by administration.
According to CAO Dwight Stanford and Deputy CAO Linda Nelson with the town, the two council members are only representing the board they sit on and without financial interests, stating that it’s not a conflict of interest therefore. Stanford also said administration had heard rumours about the sale of the church to a third party but had never seen any official paperwork.
“I am a member of the WDHS and I have openly supported their efforts to preserve the church and at no time have I relegated the needs of the Anglican Church to a position less than that of the town or of WDHS,” said Councillor Peterson in an E-mal to the Strathmore Times. “I can assert that from my perspective both the town and the WDHS have been very respectful and aware of the needs of the local Church as Rev. Beveridge made their needs very clear to both parties. I can further assure you that the WDHS has been completely open with the diocese and Rev. Beveridge. I inquired of administration whether I might be in conflict and was assured I was not. I am certainly willing to have an opinion in the matter examined by legal.”
The town had previously directed administration to contact the landowner and inquire about a figure appropriate for compensation. However, the developer isn’t interested in compensation and said after reaching out to the society via phone and E-mail, they had previously offered a land swap that would require the society to purchase the land located on the east side and then trade for the western parcel the church is currently situated on. While not ideal, the action would still keep six parcels intact for developmental purposes. According to the developer no correspondence was received regarding the proposal. Yet during the council meeting, Mike Marko the acting director of planning and development, who presented council with information on the Historical Designation Process, stated otherwise.
“We have tried to negotiate with the owner but have been refused,” Marko said. “They seem determined that they want the building moved from the site.”
Several years ago, the congregation of the St. Michael and All Angels Anglican Church agreed that the best form of action was to sell the land that the church is located on and use the money to build a church elsewhere in town. While Pastor Bryan Beveridge said the society was originally given the option of purchasing the land and the church, the offer was never accepted. With a 120-day freeze, the parish is unable to access funds that have not yet been exchanged for the sale of the land, and therefore are unable to purchase new land and construct a new church.
“We’ve tried to do something that was gracious that would give them the building they felt was appropriate and helpful,” said Pastor Beveridge, who said he was not made aware that the society was presenting at the regular council meeting.
“I’ve learned in this that apparently the town can do whatever the town wants to do. It doesn’t matter there’s a small congregation of older folk who are just desiring their own place of worship. We offered to the historical society this building which we see value in, which they see value in. But you have to move it so we can move forward. Their response ultimately is ‘No, we’ll take your building thank you and we’ll leave it where it is.'”
While the recent sale of the church to a third party wasn’t mentioned during the Jan. 13 meeting, council agreed to the 120-day freeze and to advertise the notice of intention, garner public input, and hold an open house to determine public support for a future bylaw. Councillor Bob Sobol spoke out about assurance that there will be serious and in-depth efforts for council to be involved in the consultation process.
Councillor Denise Peterson also said that it should be understood that at no time would the council advocate appropriation and always would make sure there was compensation.
However, for the developer it’s an open and shut case.
“The shocking part is that they’re clearly missing the fact that the land has been sold, and they’re putting in jeopardy land deals with the parish which is involved and are members of the community that have been completely forgotten in this, and a developer that wants to build in this community,” the developer said.
“It aggravates me that they didn’t want to pay the price for the land and deal with it at the time, but they’re making everybody else pay the price. They were more than willing to move that church to Lambert Village if it was an option for them. The residents of this community said not in my backyard, so now you’re going to force it into mine?”