A Queenston couple is fighting a proposed heritage designation for their property, saying it imposes unfair restrictions on them as homeowners despite decades of caring for and working to restore their home.
Some local heritage preservation advocates believe the couple should’ve received proper notice of the town’s plans, though some of them still support the benefits of heritage designation for a property’s future.
Frank Fraser, who owns the Trimble House at 4 Walnut St. with his wife, Donna Lynn Fraser, asked members of the municipal heritage committee not to go further with the designation at the committee’s Jan. 8 meeting.
The homeowners of the two-storey structure say they were inadequately notified about the designation, with not enough time and the necessary documents to prepare for the hearing.
“I practiced law for 37 years and I never encountered any proceeding that could be brought against an individual that would take away some of their property rights and impose obligations and controls over their property, unless they had been personally served with a notice of the proceeding and all of the material that was going to be presented at that hearing,” said Fraser.
A letter dated Oct. 29, notifying the Frasers of a Nov. 6 meeting, arrived while they were out of the country.
After returning on Nov. 18, they read the letter, which didn’t have the meeting time and did not include the heritage designation report or instructions on obtaining it. They eventually found it online after extensive searching.
“If this matter was brought in any other situation, it would not be adequate,” said Fraser.
They contend it’s unfair to impose a designation without their consent and that the designation would unfairly introduce restrictions on altering the property, reduce its value and disregard their extensive efforts and expenses over 51 years to maintain and restore the home.
According to a municipal report from planning and development services published last year, the property can be traced back to a sale between Joseph Hamilton and Benjamin Corwin in 1841.
Robert Hamilton owned the property before selling it to Dr. Robert J. Trimble in 1883, who then built the house. The Trimbles would own the house until 1944, selling it to Robert E. Hagan.
Because a heritage designation places limits and obligations on what can be done with a property, it reduces its value by limiting potential buyers, Fraser said.
“What is an inappropriate alteration? Inappropriate — that’s a loaded term. Who decides what’s inappropriate and appropriate? My architect? Or your architect? And why should your architect trump mine?” said Fraser.
Fraser pointed to the Cormos house on Queenston Street as an example.
It’s been on the market for months at a significantly reduced price, likely due to these restrictions, he said.
“The asking price, in my estimation, is considerably less than what you would expect to see for the size of the lot it sits on (and) the quality of the house,” he said. “The (Ontario) Heritage Trust gave (the owner) a very sizable tax receipt, which she would be able to use against her taxes.”
Ontario Heritage Trust recognizes the reduction in property value from heritage easements, said Fraser.
The trust appraises the property before and after an owner grants an easement, with the reduction treated as a donation to the Crown.
Owners receive a tax receipt equal to the lost value, which is fully deductible from taxes owed.
Coun. Gary Burroughs, who’s also a part of the municipal heritage committee, spoke during the meeting about his experience designating his former property at 187 Queen St., the Crysler-Burroughs house, in 2002.
“I don’t recall involving the Ontario Heritage assessment,” he said.
The Frasers also feel it is unjust to cite their improvements as reasons for the designation.
The Gothic Revival style of the house was commonly used for farmhouses built in the late 19th century.
While their house is an example of this style, it is largely a standard, “cookie-cutter” version, said Fraser. Although the heritage report highlights the fretwork, much of it is not original, he said.
Over time, the original fretwork was removed or covered up and they have since uncovered and restored parts of it.
“It’s 1988 fretwork, not 1883 fretwork,” he said.
While Dr. Robert J. Trimble, the home’s former owner, was a well-regarded country doctor, his contributions are comparable to many local physicians, raising questions about his designation as a historical figure, he said.
The property’s trees and foliage, aside from two, were planted by the Frasers over five decades of transforming this former medical office and apartment building into a comfortable single-family home.
A process which required immense effort, expense and dedication, they say.
“It involved a great deal of work on our part, enduring a lot of inconvenience as that work was being done,” he said.
The Frasers said they have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, guided by expert advice, to transform and maintain the property and continue to spend money each year on its upkeep.
“The heritage designation would only complicate our continuing to do that and add to the cost,” said Fraser.
He said the town’s push to designate 4 Walnut St. seems driven by a deadline that would otherwise require removing it from the list of heritage-value properties for five years.
The countdown began when the provincial government introduced changes to the Ontario Heritage Act in late 2022 as part of Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act.
One change requires towns to designate all properties on their registers within two years or have them forcibly removed.
The homeowners said they were never notified their property was on the list.
Burroughs highlighted the pride heritage designations bring, but also expressed concerns about the process, stressing the need for better communication with homeowners.
He said he appreciates 4 Walnut St. and recognizes the homeowners’ frustrations with the designation process.
“There was never any evaluation and certainly no tax relief on any reduction in the value of my own, so, I think it’s a great opportunity. I’m glad you’re here,” Burroughs said to Fraser during the meeting.
Committee member Brian Marshall said properties should not be designated against the owner’s will, especially when they’ve been good custodians.
He also clarified studies show heritage designation can increase the value of a property by five to eight per cent.
In 2023, Marshall wrote a column for The Lake Report that referenced a study from McMaster University, which found designated properties consistently sold for higher prices than similar non-designated ones, making designation a factor that boosts property value.
In response, Fraser disagreed, drawing from his experience with the Ontario Heritage Trust, which he stated clearly reduces a property’s value — otherwise, the trust wouldn’t offer tax receipts.
John Morley agreed with Burroughs and Marshall, criticizing the town’s flawed communication process and the need for improvement, particularly in verifying homeowners’ acceptance of designation.
Morley said he would vote against moving forward with the designation of the Frasers’ house.
Committee chair Drew Chapman praised the Frasers for being excellent property owners.
“I wish we had more people like you. We wouldn’t be needing to do things like this if everybody looked after the building the way you do,” said Chapman.
He explained designating a house is about protecting it for future generations, ensuring it’s appreciated long after current owners are gone.
Chapman encouraged the Frasers to consider the long-term benefits of designating their home.
Fraser said the restrictions imposed by heritage designation would prevent future generations from effectively protecting the property.
“You can try and convince me, I’ll meet with the heritage planners, (but) I can’t imagine it will happen,” said Fraser. “But at the end of the day, I suppose it’s possible.”
Any decision would be made in consultation with their children, the property’s next owners.