Kingston’s motto is "where history and innovation thrive."

The two concepts clashed at City Hall this week as heritage advocates turned out to block a staff proposal that would see the role of the heritage committee watered down considerably.

Some are accusing the city of caving in to pro-development forces and putting heritage properties at risk.

A former city planner, Shirley Bailey, told councillors that Kingston was about to become a "heritage outlier" if the committee is no longer allowed to review and make recommendations on applications concerning exterior changes to buildings within the three heritage districts.

"My theory is senior staff want to minimize the role of the heritage committee," said Bailey, president of the Frontenac Heritage Foundation and formerly Kingston’s manager of heritage and urban design.

"Heritage has such importance in Kingston," Bailey told the Whig-Standard. "It’s mind-boggling saying we don’t have to go to the committee. We’re losing the opportunity for community involvement. We’re going to lose the expertise on the committee now."

This isn’t the first time the heritage committee’s workings have been the subject of scrutiny — and criticism.

Developers and some owners of heritage properties have complained over the years about drawn-out meetings in which committee members — often residents selected for their expertise in the restoration and maintenance of heritage properties — analyze and critique their applications down to the most minute details.

Time is money and heritage committee meetings can chew up both.

Those concerns were echoed in a staff report to council this week, which noted that committee consultations "would be adding to the application process for the property owner in terms of cost and time, and this, in our opinion, could be the subject of an appeal by a property owner."

The committee will still be consulted for demolitions and the removal of structures in Kingston’s three heritage districts, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act.

Bailey fears the policy change is undoing a practice that’s worked in Kingston’s favour since 1975.

"They are taking this narrow interpretation of the heritage act — only for demolitions and removal of structures — but there’s another section that allows the city to choose to use the committee," Bailey said.

She said staff also told them that Kingston was the only city of its size in Ontario that granted its heritage committee the ability to make recommendations to council.

But Bailey told council this week she found at least 14 cities that defer to their heritage committees, including Toronto and Ottawa.

"I spoke to them myself," she said. "In both cases, they consult with their own heritage committees on alterations, contrary to what legal told us. That tells me the [Kingston] legal department is under pressure to take a certain stance. [Those cities] do not take that narrow interpretation that legal has in Kingston."

Christine Sypnowich, president of the Barriefield Village Association, said the committee’s power to review alteration plans is a positive service provided to property owners.

"If people buy a house in a heritage district, they want to do the right thing," Sypnowich said. "The committee can help people understand the heritage issues at stake. They play a role of vigilant steward to make sure bad things don’t happen."

City council, she pointed out, always has the final say on applications.

"We are reversing 30 years of good heritage practice in this city," Sypnowich said. "I don’t understand why the city would disarm the committee in this way. There will be less robust protection of heritage interests."

She is concerned that future development projects, which might include Kingston Collegiate in Sydenham heritage district and J.E. Horton school in Barriefield, would not be subject to committee scrutiny.

"Maybe the thought is development projects will have an easier time of it," Sypnowich said. "They’d much rather deal directly with staff."

The first major changes took place this spring when the heritage committee was remade by combining the building review function with archives and museum collections.

Then staff told the combined committee that they had received in-house legal opinion concerning how the committee should be dealing with applications involving alterations to properties as it pertained to the Ontario Heritage Act.

The opinion was that the committee should only be consulted for recommendations if the matter concerned the demolition or removal of structures.

As well, city planning staff only were to deal with applications regarding such alterations as window replacements or building materials to be used in exterior work.

The new policy direction created an existential crisis among committee members.

"The committee is spinning its wheels right now," said Coun. Peter Stroud, who is also its chair. "Some applications are not coming before us right now. We’re not allowed to say you can do this or can’t do that. What’s the purpose of a heritage committee any more? If you’re at the heritage committee meetings right now, you see us going in circles."

Stroud said he’s had to convince members of the committee not to resign.

"It’s got low morale," he said.

Stroud moved a motion on Tuesday to defer the staff recommendation.

"I’m having council wrap their heads around this issue," he said. "I need my colleagues to get what’s going on."

Council support would have formalized the committee’s new, diminished role.

Instead, staff were directed to essentially duplicate Bailey’s research and contact other municipalities to determine their heritage practices.

In council chambers on Tuesday night was Mac Gervan, a builder and designer who has overseen numerous heritage restorations in downtown Kingston.

He’s sat on the heritage committee for more than 15 years and said he’s never witnessed such turmoil.

"It’s a mess. The senior administration has been trying to silence the heritage committee," Gervan said.

Gervan sat on the transition committee that was created to meld the heritage functions into what would become the new Heritage Kingston, but he said their suggestions were ignored.

"It was an absolute total waste of time. Nothing came out it," he recalled.

Then they were told about the legal opinion that would diminish their powers.

"Suddenly we had no control," Gervan said. "No interraction with the owners themselves."

Stroud said that when staff presented the legal decision, the committee asked for a second opinion.

He was disappointed when staff sought it from a Kingston lawyer who regularly does work for the city.

Stroud believes it was intentional.

"There’s directions at upper levels of city management to make it more user friendly for the applicants," Stroud said.

He defends the way the committee functioned in its former role.

"I’d actually like it to move quicker and with clear guidelines," he said. "But it’s not unfriendly. I’m a very friendly chair. If the committee turns down some aspect, I get them to explain the reason why. There is no other way of getting expert advice without that committee. That’s good advice. That’s free advice."

Liz Schell, the second councillor who sits on Heritage Kingston, agreed the situation has gotten "really, really confused."

She is hopeful the staff review of heritage committees in other municipalities will provide an opportunity to create a more streamlined process.

"We do need to find a way to have meetings that don’t spend an hour [discussing] a window," Schell said. "We need an innovative and smart way. It’s how do we get through the workload and still protect heritage?"

Gervan said other changes imposed by city staff have rendered the heritage committee even more ineffective.

They were told, for instance, to discuss museums and cultural issues at the beginning of their meetings and save the applications for alterations until the end.

The result is that sessions run four to five hours, leaving heritage consultants and architects to sit idly waiting for their applications to be heard.

"It’s nuts. Nobody comes for the culture and museums," Gervan said. "It’s a really sad situation. And, yes, the committee can be frustratingly slow at time. But adding culture and museums just made the process longer."

Gervan considers himself "pro-development," though not at any cost.

He, too, believes there is pressure being exerted by developers but that there aren’t enough heritage planning staff to take on the critical role once performed by the committee.

"If it doesn’t change, I’m going to resign. It’s a serious weakening of heritage examinations," he said.

"People moan and groan about it taking longer. That’s the process. What makes Kingston so wonderful is the heritage here. Kingston started this whole heritage process. The heritage act was based on what we’d done in Kingston."

pschliesmann@postmedia.com