Plan to be drawn up for Kettleby heritage designation
By Bill Rea

There's plenty of community support for applying a heritage designation to Kettleby, but

number of local property owners don't want their lots included.

Several of them made that very point last Monday night as Township council authorized the exercise to continue.

The possibility of such a designation has been discussed for the last year, with considerable support being expressed in the community. There was a public meeting on the issue last summer and another earlier this year.

Architect and planner Phillip Carter told councillors the heritage designation does not necessarily refer to a collection of buildings, but to an area that's deemed unique from its surroundings. He added people sometimes get the idea they are creating a museum, but that isn't the case. The designation, he explained, represents a plan with a theme, and that theme is heritage.

Carter also said these designations are growing in popularity in Ontario. There were none in 1975, but there are now 74, and five of those were established last year.

Input was sought from the residents of the hamlet, and Carter said they considered factors like the small scale, variety of house styles and the beauty to be most important. Concerns deal with such things as traffic, visual clutter from overhead wires, recent developments and fears that protection offered by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act might lose force over time.

Carter also said there has been extensive study of the area, adding they are just finishing an inventory of each property in the hamlet. "It's going to be quite a nice document in itself," he remarked.

The area under study consists of Lots 27, 28 and 29, between Jane and Keele Streets. Carter said those were the recommended boundaries, but they're not final. Those lands include the main core of the hamlet, including the river valley, and the surrounding lands above, and he said they have been considered the Kettleby Planning Area since 1983.

Kettleby was a mill town, so Carter said the river valley was a big part of its reason for being. The valley is the dominant land form, he said, with the surrounding hills providing vistas.

Proposed objectives and policies have been developed, which Carter said are unique to this plan. They call for such things as preventing the demolition of historic buildings, preserving mature trees, a public awareness program, etc.

Questionnaires have been circulated to residents around the hamlet, and there were more than 50 responses, which Carter said was a lot. He added all the comments received will be responded to.

Carter stressed nothing is final until the designation plan is adopted by council, adding there is still a long way to go before that happens. He said they still need to develop a plan with policies and statements on what they want it to achieve, along with guidelines and a permit process. The guidelines, he stressed, will be based on Kettleby's own heritage. They will address such issues as how to put additions onto buildings, and how not to. They will also deal with new constructions, making sure they fit in with the community as much as possible and reflect earlier styles. As well, there will be suggestions for maintenance.

"The best way to maintain a district is to maintain it," he declared.

"I'm very excited about this," Councillor Jane Underhill announced, although she wondered about including both the core and surrounding areas in the plan.

Carter told her the whole area is considered part of Kettleby, although he said there will be different guidelines for the core as opposed to rural lands. "It's not uniform," he commented.

That didn't satisfy several people at the meeting.

Chuck Loopstra was among those who said they support the designation, but had problems with the boundaries. They take in his Jane Street property, and he thought that was inconsistent, especially when there are several small lots on Lloydtown - Aurora Road west of Jane that aren't included. He also argued that just properties in the core, fronting on Kettleby Road, should be included.

The boundaries, he argued, are arbitrary and are not supported by heritage information.

Cameron Loopstra, who owns 12 acres on Lorne Avenue, said he wanted his land excluded too. There is forest on the site blocking views from the road, so anything he does with his home should have no impact on the rest of the hamlet.

"Kettleby is like a historic gem, and like a gem,

is small and it is beautiful and it is rare," commented local resident Rick Sikorski.

He pointed out a lot of buildings in Kettleby stand the way they did 150 years ago, and together they tell a story. He said conserving that story is a major community service gesture.

Brian Feddema of Round the Bend Farm, called the valley a "slice of heaven," but argued that's different from his Jane Street farm.

He told councillors he's live there 20 years, adding he depends on public good will and a lot of hard work to make his living. He said the value of his farm has been cut in half over the last couple of years due to legislation governing the Moraine and the Provincial Greenbelt. Now there are efforts to make his property part of a historical conservation district, which he said will mean he'll need permission to paint his front door.

"It's just another set of bureaucratic hoops I will have to jump through," he remarked.

He also pointed out he hosts tours of Toronto school children on his farm. "That has put Kettleby on the map in these people's minds," he said.

Feddema added he could understand applying a historic designation in the core, "but I can't run a business with another layer of bureaucracy over my shoulders."

Local resident Elaine Robertson said people live in Kettleby because of the beauty and heritage it represents.

"We are first and foremost stewards, not just owners," she declared.

Councillor Jack Rupke was also enthused abut having the core designated, and he insisted it be defined more clearly.

Planning Director Stephen Kitchen told Councillor Cleve Mortelliti the aim of the plan is not to control growth, but to indicate what the growth may look like. Whether or not it will dictate if people can paint their front doors will depend on what council puts into it. Kitchen added staff 'suggestion was to let the process carry on to the next phase so people will be able to see a draft document. He added the boundaries don't have to be mapped out yet. Policies can be developed, and then it can be determined what boundaries are appropriate.

He also told Underhill the plan would likely contain at least two sets of guidelines; one for the core and others for other areas.