ELORA – Centre Wellington council has approved the demolition of a potential heritage house.
In a 5-2 vote on June 17 the committee of the whole defeated a staff and heritage committee recommendation to refuse the owner’s request to demolish a yellow brick farmhouse at 7535 Sixth Line in former Nichol Township.
Councillors also defeated a motion to start the process of designating the building under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Councillors Stephen Kitras and Bob Foster voted in favour of the recommendation, while Mayor Kelly Linton and councillors Neil Dunsmore, Ian MacRae, Steven VanLeeuwen and Kirk McElwain voted against the motion.
The committee of the whole subsequently approved the demolition request, with just Foster opposed.
The yellow brick house is listed on the municipal registry as a non-designated property, so the owner was required to give council 60 days notice to allow for a heritage assessment, township senior planner Mariana Iglesias said.
The farmhouse was built in 1897 and owned by the O’Sullivan family until 2005, when the 100-acre farm was sold in a divorce settlement, said family representative Irene Sullivan. She was a member of the fourth generation to grow up in the 10-room, 2.5-storey farmhouse.
“I’m the youngest of the six children and the most notable family memory of my arrival was that an indoor bathroom was finally installed in the house,” Sullivan said.
“My mother spent years refinishing the work in the house. No small feat as the kitchen alone had two windows, six doorways and waist-high wainscoting all around. She did the floors and the banisters too.”
In order for a house to be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act it must show design/physical value, historical associated value and contextual value, explained Iglesias.
The farmhouse met all three criteria.
Iglasias said the property is unique because it’s an intact farmstead that is “almost in its original state.” The Queen Anne style is also a significant architectural feature.
“The property is associated with five generations of the O’Sullivan family, Irish immigrants for whom the structures were built, many of whom were active in public service and prominent local community members, active on various boards and associations,” Iglesias said. “There’s a large wooden bank barn and lengthy spruce-lined driveway which contributes also to the contextual landscape value.”
Because of these factors the Heritage Committee recommended designating the building under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, which would protect it from imminent demolition.
Linton explained council’s responsibility is to look at the entirety of the project, rather than just the heritage attributes.
“This is a difficult one for sure,” he said.
Lawyer Eric Davis, who represented the property owners, argued there is nothing unique about the property.
“There are a number of other examples of houses similar in style to the one we’re discussing today but that are in a much better state of repair and, I would argue, have heritage attributes that are much better preserved than the house that we’re talking about today,” Davis said.
The laneway is surrounded by mature spruce trees that Sullivan said her grandfather planted.
“His strip of trees still provide a historical landmark in the community and are visible from the Elora Road (Wellington Road 7),” she said.
However, it is those trees, and the privacy they provide, that helped dissuade some councillors from designating the house.
Both VanLeeuwen and McElwain said the house is too far from the road and surrounded by trees, so it’s not even visible by the public.
VanLeeuwen asked why the township would save a house to which the public has no access.
“When we protect something, when we look at the downtown homes we’ve had to deal with, people enjoy it, they walk by it,” he said.
“When we look at the Belwood School House they see it, they enjoy it, and I think that is actually probably the deciding mark for me … I don’t see why we would do this, there is no future enjoyment in this house for the public, that’s the deciding factor.”
Kitras disgreed.
“I don’t think being able to see it from the road is really what the issue is about,” he said. “It’s about whether somebody will preserve this historical significance.”
Foster said it’s council’s duty to preserve heritage buildings.
“This is a very difficult decision because it’s a piece of private property, but all factors in, I think I would like to support designating that for that important reason, that we preserve our heritage for the future generations to enjoy,” he said.
However, even if the building were to be designated, that’s not a guarantee that it will remain in good repair.
“Unless they desire to sever it, a designation means nothing unless we can hold some teeth behind it,” VanLeeuwen said.
Iglesias pointed out that under the property standards bylaw the heritage attributes do require maintenance.
“There could be enforcement issues with that in terms of them maintaining those attributes,” she said.
MacRae asked about financial incentives for maintaining heritage buildings.
“You’re talking about first of all they have to maintain it to our property standards bylaw, secondly you need to follow certain heritage preservation techniques,” he said. “So what do we as a community offer to owners of these buildings?”
Iglesias explained the community improvement plan is the only incentives program, and not all heritage properties would qualify.
However, the heritage committee is looking at a heritage tax incentive program it will likely bring forward to council later this year, she said.
“That will be a policy decision for council because you’re saying taxpayers will be subsidizing people who own heritage properties, so that will be a policy decision that this council will have to make,” Linton said, adding he wants the issue brought to next year’s budget deliberations.
“We haven’t done that in the past and that is a change in our current policy. So when we talk about incentives for property owners make sure that you put your money where your mouth is during the next budget process and identify where tax dollars can be spent for incentives for heritage,” he said. “Because there’s no pot of money that just we control that isn’t put there by taxpayers.”
Following council’s decision, Sullivan said she is “devastated” with what she considers “a significant loss of rural heritage.”
More importantly, she added, the decision “contradicts direct advice from both the heritage committee and municipal staff that the house is in good condition and warrants designation.
“It says it’s okay to destroy inconvenient historical rural houses.”
