Heritage proponents in Southampton are upset that Bruce County intends to sell the 124-year-old former St. Paul’s Anglican rectory intact or for salvage to make room for expansion of the adjacent Bruce County Museum Cultural Centre — and maybe something else.
The Southampton Residents’ Association issued a statement Thursday that calls on the county to instead incorporate and repurpose the old rectory at 254 High St. into “a more imaginative design” for the expansion of the museum.
“We believe that a core mission of a museum is to preserve our history and interpret it for future generations,” said the statement from Bill Bowden, president of the residents’ association.
Bruce County issued a request for proposals to purchase and relocate the old rectory on Jan. 8. Proposals are due Jan. 29 and the building is to be moved between April 1 and April 15.
Saugeen Shores Mayor Luke Charbonneau in an interview maintained he couldn’t say what the property was needed for exactly. But he said that it will require “the removal” of that house.
Charbonneau said he couldn’t say what options are being considered.
Charbonneau also is chair of the Bruce County Museum Committee. He noted more than $1 million in the county’s draft budget is for “designs for the community-wing expansion at the museum,” which is to cost more than an $11 million dollars.
“My view is the broader community supports the extended institutional use of that use in an institutional neighbourhood,” he said, referring to the churches on the three other corners at that location as institutional land uses in the area.
A group of citizens, separate from the Southampton Residents’ Association, has hired a lawyer to stop the sale and possible demolition of the old rectory.
It alleges money from a $500,000 Bruce and Howard Krug endowment fund, dedicated for the storage and display of archives of the county, was used to buy the rectory property. The archives are part of the county museum.
“Absolutely improper,” Laura Robinson, one of about 10 local residents who she said are pursing this legal route, said in an interview.
“The Krug reserve fund was only for the archives build. And then they pretended they had to buy and demolish the rectory, when they don’t have to at all,” she said.
“Everyone is so up-in-arms about this, I can’t tell you,” Robinson said.
Two 2017 consultants’ studies for the county, of the financial feasibility of the expansion and the feasibility of expansion, never required removal of the house, Robinson said. They suggested a First Nations post-secondary academy could use the house though, she said.
Another objection to the plans to remove the home comes from Jill Taylor.
She’s a heritage conservation expert, Toronto architect, a former chair of the Conservation Review Board of Ontario and a former president of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals.
“It’s totally contrary to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation policy that a museum would demolish or be part of a scheme to demolish a heritage resource . . . that has an importance to the community and the townscape since the 19th century,” she said by phone Thursday.
She said the plan to remove the building runs contrary to preservation of cultural heritage principles in both the county and municipal official plans as well.
She noted the old rectory has no heritage designation but its importance to the community was made clear during the public protests voiced last fall over a proposal to use the site for a nuclear innovation institute. Bruce Power withdrew its support for the property, citing the controversy the plan for using the location stirred up.
Regarding the group alleging the property was purchased contrary to restrictions on the Krug endowment for the archives, Charbonneau said he didn’t have information about where the money came from to buy the old rectory property.
He wasn’t on county council at that time and “I wasn’t part of those negotiations and wasn’t on council at the time.” When told about the existence of a group pursuing legal action, he declined to comment on the matter.
The residents’ association supports the need to expand the museum and archives to accommodate growth, its statement said.
The group said it has told Charbonneau its concerns.
The residents’ association said it told Charbonneau the building project does not require removal of the rectory at this time. Originally the county was only interested in buying the north end of the rectory lot, roughly extending to an old garage, it said.
Charbonneau was told the timetable for removal is too tight “making it difficult, if not impossible for potential bidders to respond.” And the lack of publicity means not everyone who might consider relocating the house would learn of the opportunity in time.