Typically one would consider making a church more accessible to be a good thing.
That is not the case here as Ian Rankine and Bob Jackson opposed changes to a church based on the impact to heritage.
Brent Dej had his own concerns, primarily because the church extension would lie several feet from his bedroom window.
The report to council via CBO Bob Foster recommended the township approve the heritage permit to allow a one-storey addition to St. John’s Anglican Church on Henderson Street in Elora.
The proposal creates an accessible entry and foyer space for the church in addition to accessible washrooms in the basement level to be reached by an elevator lift.
In June, Heritage Centre Wellington reviewed the heritage permit application submitted on behalf of the church.
Under the church’s designation under the Heritage Act, the owners are required to obtain council approval before undertaking renovations or additions which may affect the heritage aspects of the property.
In the case of St. John’s Anglican Church, its identified heritage aspects include the original exterior masonry walls, the interior of the nave and chancel, the stained glass windows and the artwork and memorial plaques including the Nightingale artifacts and related photographs.
At the time (June), Heritage Centre Wellington heard from Walter Langford, chair of the building committee and Doris M’Timkulu, co-chair of the building extension committee, along with other church representatives regarding the need for an addition to create an accessible entrance to the church.
The committee reviewed conceptual architectural drawings by Edward Thomas of SRM Architects.
Church representatives noted the proposal has been discussed over a number of years with several options reviewed.
The report suggested church members considered the current proposal as best, meeting the need to preserve historical features such as the extensive pipe organs, while also meeting current provincial accessibility standards.
The adjacent owner, Brent Dej raised concern over the proposal, in part due to the proximity of the new addition from his bedroom window – roughly six feet.
“Upon consideration, the committee agreed that the proposed addition and changes are sensitive to the original architectural design and protect the designated heritage features of this individual heritage property.”
The committee then unanimously recommended the approval of the heritage permit to council.
Councillor Kirk McElwain commented that the heritage designation covers the original exterior masonry walls, whereas he believed it referred to the exterior of the original building.
He was also concerned about a mention that there was consultation with the adjacent property owner, but it seems since the property owner was one of the delegations, there was not an agreement by the end of that discussion.
Councillor Walt Visser asked whether there were objections at the heritage committee level.
Councillor Kelly Linton said there was considerable discussion.
“At the end of the day, two components came out. One was related to heritage, the other related to planning and zoning.”
He stressed Heritage Centre Wellington deals specifically with heritage issues.
“We unanimously decided that this was a sensitive expansion and all the attributes were recognized as much as possible.”
Mayor Joanne Ross-Zuj said that since there were three delegations on the issue, council would need to be very careful with the time allocated.
Opposing the move were Ian Rankine, Bob Jackson and Brent Dej.
Rankine clarified his opposition to the permit is “at this time.”
He asked that council defer the permit until the church finalized its plans, require the church to undergo a proper heritage impact assessment, and further that committee of the whole request a report from the director of planning before any heritage permit is issued.
He contended that if the church plans are not final, it would be premature to issue a permit at this time.
He wanted to also see more public input into the process.
Elora resident Bob Jackson also opposed granting permission for the extension at this time.
He offered a five-page written submission that day for council’s review.
Councillor Visser voiced his objection to delegations presenting detailed five-page reports the day of the meeting.
Visser said that since he’d only received the document that afternoon, he had no chance to confirm whether the information was “factual or fictional.”
“It is an insult to the council to throw this sort of stuff at us two hours before the meeting.”
Jackson spoke of the committee’s duties within legislative frameworks.
He spoke of the various provincial acts and regulations and the need to be open and transparent.
He said that as soon as a property is designated as heritage, it is also designated as such under the Planning Act which mandates conservation.
At the very least, Jackson wants to see a heritage impact study created before a decision is made.
Dej, the neighbour to the north of the church, has been involved in the process for some time.
He spoke of the impact to his own home.
The church addition roof would extend over his bedroom window by two to three feet.
But suggested changes did not appear to be listened to.
“My real question is whether the plans presented were what would be voted upon.”
He said council is being asked to vote on a proposal which has changed and is still changing.
As such he believed it was premature to grant a permit for something which is still changing.
Councillor Linton said “this was a difficult process to go through.”
He said any renovation to a heritage structure is difficult.
Linton said various options were looked at as to how to make the church accessible and still protect the heritage features.
“It is unfortunate it is so close to the adjacent house.”
But, that was not in the scope of the heritage committee decision.
Because the heritage features were being protected, the committee felt it was prudent to allow them to move forward.
“I think the plan, as it sits, is a really good plan.”
Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen asked if this was the final design.
Doris M’Timkulu, one of the church wardens said “the church does want to go ahead with this work. We owe it to our members and to the community to make it accessible and barrier free.”
At present, the building does not have a truly accessible washroom.
“One of the problems is that our lot is very, very limited.”
Heritage chair Kathy Baranski suggested “part of our mandate is to protect and preserve our heritage.”
“In order to do that, we have to recognize we have to make some changes to them.”
She said provincial regulations require the buildings be accessible.
“We considered a number of aspects aside from the heritage aspect. Our main object is to save the building.”
She said the preference was to work with everyone “to make the building function for today. Otherwise we end up having to demolish heritage buildings, in order to meet the standards we have today.”
Baranski said the goal is to preserve the heritage structures in Centre Wellington that make the community that has a sense of history in hopes of drawing more people and business into the community.
“Keeping our buildings usable is how you keep them preserved.”
Visser agreed “it is more important to have a building accessible than to have it abandoned.”
A motion to defer a decision was defeated.
Council then supported the one-storey addition to the St. John Anglican Church.
