Centre Wellington council in its committee of the whole was nearly unanimous that a couple who want to tear down a decrepit building can do so – even if it has heritage value.
In doing that, council overrode a recommendation by Heritage Centre Wellington to defer the granting of a demolition permit to give council time to consider Heritage Centre Wellington’s recommendation to designate the old home under the Heritage Act.
Building inspector Bob Foster stated in a report that the home is a 1.5-storey building with 3,000 square feet, made of stone, and located at 6953 2nd Line, on Concession 3, Part Lot 20 in old West Garafraxa.
Foster said the demolition was requested in order to build a new home on the property. He explained the owner wanted to rebuild because it was simply too expensive to repair the old house. Council was provided with colour photos showing how the walls were pushed out, window wells were sinking as the walls moved, and cracks appeared in the stone walls.
Foster also noted that the owners intended to have a local stone mason salvage the stone masonry walls and lintels for reuse on another project within the township.
Heritage Centre Wellington viewed the front of the building and recommended heritage designation.
Foster explained that if council accepted that recommendation, no demotion permit could be issued until after council had passed a bylaw. The demolition could also be delayed by appeals.
Heritage Centre Wellington stated in its report the building was constructed by William Beattie in 1905, using square cut field stone; the walls consequently have many geological categories of stone including granite, basalt, sandstone, and limestone. “The use of field stone is rather rare in this area where rubble limestone masonry is the norm for buildings of this period,” its report stated.
“Although some repairs are necessary, the building has been preserved in its original form, except for the loss of the first storey balcony over the front door.”
The heritage committee also noted there were two Beatty clans in this part of Ontario. “The famous clan included manufacturers of farm machinery in Fergus and spelled its name Beatty. The other clan spelled its name Beattie, and were descended from William Beattie, who came to Canada in 1837. It was apparently his son who built the house.
The committee recommended protecting all front stone features of the exterior, including the original window and door openings, lintels, quoins, and sills and existing mass, including roofline and shape.
Gary and Pam Nijenhuis own the home.
Gary Nijenhuis said their son has asthma, and there is mold in the basement, and the home also has residue from urea formaldehyde foam insulation. That insulation was used in the 1980s under a government program and later found to cause severe illnesses in a home’s residents. It was so harmful that the government insisted any home with it placed on the market had to announce that UFFI was present.
Still, Nijenhuis said, they considered trying to rebuild the home by keeping the front wall. But, he said, the foundation is not reliable, either.
Councillor Kirk McElwain suggested the stone from the building could be used in the new building. Nijenhuis said they have considered that, and their new home would have a similar look. Other stone would be sold.
Councillor Bob Foster asked the couple to state the difference in building a new home and repairing the current one.
Nijenhuis said to repair the house would cost $260,000, and that would not include a new roof, eaves, and the lumber behind them, which also needs replacing. Further, it would cost $10 per square foot to repoint the stone. Even after all that, the cost would still not address the work needed on the foundation.
He estimated repairs would cost “probably $60,000 or $70,000 more than rebuilding.”
Nijenhuis said the price of a new house, even including a geothermal system, would be about $281,000 and include GST and a septic upgrade.
Gary Nijenhuis said, “We love heritage. If it was square and beautiful … it wouldn’t be an issue. We wouldn’t be here.”
Councillor Walt Visser asked Building Inspector Bob Foster if it is possible to remove mold from a house such as this one.
Foster said it would be “difficult.”
Councillor Foster concluded it would cost up to “half a million to upgrade – and not be cost effective.”
Raoul Robinson, of Heritage Centre Wellington, said he has been on the heritage committee for 21 years and this was its most difficult decision. He said he remembers when Fergus lost a heritage building a year for many years, and said he would not like to see a return to those days.
But, he said, while the committee recommended designation, he personally would not object if the building was demolished.
He pointed out that without the owners’ consent it would be an unfriendly designation, something the committee has avoided to date.
He made it clear that only the stone at the front of the building was the main issue for preservation.
Mayor Joanne Ross-Zuj suggested deferring the motion to designate the building and hoped the owners and the committee could meet to consider ways to find a compromise. She asked Nijenhuis if he would be willing to attend such a meeting.
But he replied he was not invited to the committee’s deliberations in the first place. He said, “I guess so,” when Ross-Zuj asked him again if he would agree to a meeting.
But councillor Walt Visser pointed out a member of Heritage Centre Wellington had personally agreed with the demolition.
“And I agree,” Visser said. “I think the facts are there. You can’t build a new house from rubble. It’s a health matter over a heritage matter.”
McElwain would like to see the stone reused, but added he could not see holding up the couple’s life “to go through another series of compromises.” Councillor Foster agreed, and said, “Heritage should not trump health.”
He moved the demolition permit be granted, and Visser seconded that motion. Only councillor Shawn Watters was opposed. Councillors Fred Morris and Ron Hallman were absent.
