By: Sylene Argent, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Essex Free Press
What is known as the “Old Mill,” located at 44 Sinasac Street West in Harrow, will not be added as a listed property to the Town of Essex Heritage Register at this time, which was contrary to Town staff recommendation. In addition, the listed property at 687 County Road 50 East – known as the “Huffman Cemetery in Colchester – will be removed, as Town staff suggested.
Council made the decisions at the December 15 meeting, after hearing a presentation about both lots from Town staff, and hearing from the Old Mill property owners.
The Ontario Heritage Act permits Council to include reference to a property on the Heritage Register, if it has not been designated, if the Council believes the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest and where it meets the prescribed criteria, and also requires the removal of reference to a property if it does not intend to give notice of its intention to designate, Rita Jabbour, Manager of Planning, explained to Council.
The Old Mill lot includes the former Harrow Mill/Farmers’ Co-op building. It needs, and meets, at least one criteria to be listed on the Heritage Register. In this case, it has contextual value because it is a landmark for residents and visitors, due to its size and longstanding history, she outlined.
This commercial property includes a collection of different uses, including a gas station, retail store, storage facilities, silo, bus depot, and includes the three-storey cement building known as the “Old Mill,” what the property is mainly known for, Jabbour relayed to Council.
Jabbour noted the property retains its cultural heritage value and interest from the “Old Mill” structure, which is a three-storey cement building constructed in the 1940s to replace the original Mill that was previously destroyed by fire.
The Old Mill was recommended to be listed on the Heritage Register because it is a landmark in the Harrow community.
“It is a waypoint within Harrow and it serves as a defining feature of the community’s agricultural history and character,” Jabbour noted in her report. “The Old Mill may also retain design and physical value and historical and associative value as a rare, unique representative or early example of a Mill/Farmers’ Co-op structure, and its reflection of the importance of the agricultural industry to the local economy.”
More research would be required to confirm if the Old Mill’s design and physical value and historical and associative value would reach Heritage Designation criteria.
Following consultations with the landowner, the Essex Municipal Heritage Committee recommended Essex Council consider listing this property, she said.
If Council did list the property, and it is not designated within two-years, it will have to remove it from the Heritage Register. It would not be able to be re-added for another five-years.
She added Council can initiate the Designation process at any time, if there is a risk of losing the building, which would null and void any demolition permit. The property owner would be notified, and could object. Council could remove it at that time. If no objections are made, the owner cannot demolish or remove the structure, unless Council is given 60-days notice. After which time, Council can decide to pursue designation or not.
Owners of the Old Mill property, Jessie and Jeff Schwab, voiced some concern about moving towards designation.
Jessie said her husband’s family has owned the property for 20-years, and they have put in quite a bit of time, energy, and money into the building, including a new fence and windows.
There are things they need to do to the building in order to get a Change of Use Permit. They’d like to get it to where it needs to be for use as an event space, spa, perhaps loft apartments.
“We definitely have some big plans that we want to invest [into] and keep that building,” she said, adding nobody wants to demolish it at this time.
Their heart and soul are in this building, Jessie said. Her concern was with heading down the heritage designation path are the limitations they may encounter with what they want to do with the building in the future.
Deputy Mayor Rob Shepley asked if the Schwab’s had looked into insurance costs if they were to designate. They noted they have not at this point. Shepley would support not putting it on the registry. If it is, provided the timeline, there will be a new Council around the table, who may not have a sympathetic ear if it comes up for Designation.
In answering Councillor Katie McGuire-Blais’s question on limitations with designation, Jabbour answered Heritage Designation or Listing does not affect the use of property, the Zoning By-Law does. Listing the property puts no restrictions on alterations. What it does do is require the owner to inform Council of the intent to demolish, so Council can decide to save the building or not with 60 days notice.
Even with a fill designation, the building can be altered, but it has to be managed with the Town’s Planning Department. If the alternation will affect the building substantially, it would be brought to the Municipal Heritage Committee to recommend staff to either allow the alteration or not, Jabbour added. Sometimes that will be to allow the alteration, but with conditions. The Heritage Alteration Permit has no cost. In the case the alteration has to be done immediately, staff can grant it.
The Town also has Heritage Grants available for designated buildings, she added.
Before considering adding it to the Heritage Register as listed, McGuire-Blais wanted to give the owners the opportunity to look into the insurance first.
Councillor Kim Verbeek also wanted to hold back on listing the property for the owners. She values the work done on the file by staff and the committee. Councillor Brad Allard also did not want to list it at this time, after hearing from the owners.
Councillor Joe Garon noted the Heritage Committee made the recommendation to list, after doing the work on the file. He had concerns that if every time they make a recommendation for listing, and the property owners don’t want it, they would be back to doing the same thing they did that night.
In answering Garon’s question about insurance, Jabbour noted it is a common concern heard. She, however, noted the buildings are old with older wiring and believed it was unfair to say designation in itself was the lone factor for higher insurance.
Mayor Sherry Bondy worried about potential future owners and future loss of the heritage value of the site.
Councillor Rodney Hammond was comfortable passing on the listing at this point. It was a tough decision as a member of the Heritage Committee.
In terms of the Huffman Cemetery, Jabbour recommended it be removed from the Heritage Register. It fails to meet criteria, as prescribed under the Ontario Heritage Act. While it has associative value, due to its link to the Huffman family – which includes some of the area’s earliest settlers – it does not meet the two or more criteria necessary under the Regulation.
Jabbour explained the property was originally added to the Town of Essex Heritage Register via Council resolution on February 16, 2021, before there were changes to the Ontario Heritage Act, respecting timelines for listed properties as a result of Bill 23. It was listed because of its association with Rudolph Huffman, a United Empire Loyalist (UEL), who settled in the area after the American Revolution, Jabbor explained.
It is located on private property, and lies on part of the original Huffman family farm.
“Many of the descendants still live in the Colchester area,” Jabbour said. “The cemetery itself includes many unmarked burial sites.”
The Huffman Cemetery was also used to bury victims of shipwrecks that washed up to the shore.
Alongside a stone in honour of the family lineage, the cemetery includes a stone marker that memorializes the burial place of the unknown sailors, her Report to Council notes.
“Although the Huffman Cemetery has associative value because it has direct associations with the Huffman family, [Town] staff was not able to find another criteria that the property met under the prescribed Ontario regulation,” Jabbour noted.
The Essex Municipal Heritage Committee agreed that it should be removed from the Heritage Registry.
Once it is removed from the Heritage Register, Council may not include reference to the property on the registry for five-years.