Lost Vote: historical designation issue put to bed

Miriam Ostermann
Times Associate Editor

 

After months of deliberate discussions, community input, and a 60-day stalemate, town council found themselves divided over a much-anticipated decision, resulting in a split vote, and thus defeating the motion to prepare a bylaw to designate the St. Michaels and All Angels Church and its property a historic site.
Strathmore’s local politicians met on March 23 for a special council meeting to vote on the matter, over 60 days since a 120-day freeze was placed on the church and property – preventing any alterations to the area – on Jan. 13.
Mayor Michael Ell, Councillor Denise Peterson, and Councillor Brad Walls spoke in favour of the designation; however, with Councillor Bob Sobol, Councillor Pat Fule, and Councillor Steve Grajczyk voting in opposition of the recommendation, the vote was lost.
“After much wrestling and emotion in my mind and talking to many people, not only my fellow councillors, but many people amongst the community, I come to the conclusion that there are too many unknowns in this whole issue and I know some of us will get shot no matter which way we make a decision,” said Councillor Steve Grajczyk.
“I just couldn’t support it for the simple reason that not only is there a great cost, and thank you to the historical society for doing such great work, but after everything is purchased, nobody is giving me any facts on how much repairs are going to be to the church.”
The Western District Historical Society had approached council in early January with a Statement of Significance, which was passed by council along with the 120-day freeze to ensure enough time to advertise a notice of intention, garner public input, and hold an open house on March 1, to determine the public support for the possible bylaw to designate the property a Municipal Historic Site. The intention by the historical society was to preserve the 106-year-old St. Michaels and All Angels Anglican Church, which requires extensive repairs, yet the actions received opposition from the parishioners of the Anglican church, and a developer who had an accepted offer on the six lots who were left at an impasse throughout the minimum required 60-day freeze. As a result the Anglican parish was unable to access the funds needed for a new church building.
The historical society had been offered to purchase the church building in the past for $1 with terms that it would be moved off the land, yet hoped to present an offer to purchase the land. However, the society was unable to provide a written offer or outbid the developer with a hasty timeframe.
Therefore, the society approached council as moving the building would no longer qualify the building to be eligible for provincial government funding. During the special council meeting, council heard from the town’s legal representation Susan Trylinski, and listened to nine letters in opposition and five letter in favour of the designation. A total of 119 signatures were also collected on a petition against the designation, while 104 residents took a survey by the Western Historical Society on the preservation of Strathmore’s History.
Trylinski informed council that according to the Municipal Development Plan, council’s obligation only pertains to public interest, and stated council has conducted itself properly.
However, she added that in the case of a designation, the title would not change hands and would remain with the Anglican church, but council would be responsible for compensation for the decrease of economic value, which could result in an over $500,000 price tag.
“The Alberta Historical Resources Act clearly states that the decision to designate a historic resource within a municipality must be done to public interest,” said Councillor Sobol.
“My task, therefore, was to first define what public interest means. It’s not defined in the act and the most legal definition I could find was that public interest refers to the common wellbeing or the general welfare. If a bylaw under the [Alberta] Historical Resources Act was enacted, Section 28 of the act would be activated. This requires council to pass a bylaw, provide the owners of the building, structure, and land with compensation for decrease of economic value.
“I’ll not begin to discuss what that number would be but it could be substantial. Although I support the goal of the Western District Historical Society I’m extremely confident based on the feedback, comments, and opinions I’ve received over the last 63 days, that this financial commitment is not in the public interest.”
Councillor Sobol and Councillor Fule also spoke about their dismay on how the public reacted to how council dealt with the situation. Sobol mentioned that council was not above the laws of the town, province, and country and supported the right for anyone to put forth their legally entitled opinions and positions.
While council was divided on their decision due to legal ramifications, possible extensive costs, and absence of information according to some, other councilors were disheartened by the verdict.
“It is no secret that I certainly support this motion, and in saying that, I have always said that the Anglican Church must have the total amount of money that is assessed on the purchase price that is a critical factor in all of this … at this point in time I don’t believe that there is any risk to the town,” said Councillor Denise Peterson.
“It shocks me that this council would vote against this designation based on supposition, because we do know that it would be an enhancement and I think what it really comes down to is a belief in human nature or not. I think it’s a cautionary tale into the future for all of us to think about.”
Councillor Peterson also made a statement that council was effectively destroying the last historic building within the community where council could’ve had an impact for change.
The comment was challenged by Councillor Sobol, who remarked it was quite a ‘guilt trip’ and not a reflection on the purpose of the vote.
“I want to be very clear on the fact that that’s not what we’re voting for today,” said Councillor Sobol. “I think that’s a pretty big leap to make and I hope that does not happen. I support the preservation of the building and I hope that the parties involved can see to it that this building is preserved. I have no issue with that.”
Although it had been announced that a demolition permit had been applied for in the past, legal representation had clarified previously that the purpose of the permit was to move the building, as no permit currently exists to just move the building off the land.
As Councillor Rocky Blokland was out of town, and had stated earlier he would be unable to vote as he had publicly declared opposition to the issue previously, council voted 3-3, defeating the motion and directing administration to prepare a letter to withdraw the original Letter of Intent.
The Anglican parish breathed a sigh of relief after the March 23 decision, while the Western District Historical Society remained optimistic about other options regarding the acquisition of the church building.