Just when it appeared there was a resolution to a heritage controversy and a demolition request at 240 Provost Lane – the story takes a new turn.
Last week at a committee of the whole meeting, Centre Wellington council voted 4-3 to issue a demolition permit. That vote was to come to council on March 30 for ratification.
But council received a letter from Henrietta Gansekoele asking final ratification be deferred until April as she and her husband, the owners of the building, were unable to attend the March 30 meeting.
“We want to be part of the discussion as this is a major financial deal for us,” Gansekoele said.
Meanwhile, Ian Rankine is trying to drum up support to convince councillors to reverse the decision.
In an email sent to dozens of individuals and media outlets, Rankine stated, “Whether it is appealed to the OMB is a decision in the hands of councillors: approve demolition go to OMB versus designate and no OMB.”
Rankine contends that for council a heritage designation of this building would end a decades-old convention known as “unfriendly designations and listing” – despite the fact the property owner does not want the designation.
As Centre Wellington councillors reviewed the committee of the whole report from the previous week, councillor Steven VanLeeuwen noted the applicant’s request for deferral was unusual.
Yet councillors had no issue with deferral.
Councillor Kirk McElwain agreed with a delay but noted there was a delegation in the audience to speak on the matter. He asked if that person could speak to council that night.
Guelph resident Susan Ratcliffe is past president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario and previous president of the local chapter.
The organization has existed since 1933 to advocate and educate about Ontario’s heritage. She said that role is different than a municipal advisory committee.
“I have quite a bit of knowledge in heritage and heritage and conservation,” Ratcliffe said. She brought messages for councillors to think about over the next month.
Ratcliffe said Fergus and Elora are unique communities and should be proud of “the little village atmosphere.” She urged council to consider that before making its decision.
“We are not Mississauga here. If we wanted to live in Mississauga where everybody’s house looks the same … or as one author wrote ‘live in the geography of nowhere’ we could live in a place like that.”
She said the log cabin is unique in the community, the province and perhaps Canada.
“The Heritage Act allows council to save a unique building,” Ratcliffe said. “It is worthy of designation and it is your role as council to enact that designation.”
She added, “The Ontario Heritage Act does not require the owner’s consent.” Therefore she did not think that should be a consideration.
She said property rights are often discussed when talking about heritage.
“That is not a Canadian right,” she said, adding it is not included in Canada’s Bill of Rights. Instead, she said, the public good is the prime factor in any decision.
Ratcliffe downplayed property rights “as an American concept – not ours.”
She believes council should make its decision based on the good of the community – not individual property rights.
Ratcliffe also believed that tourism based on heritage outstrips all visits to Sports facilities in Ontario.
“I can assure you heritage is treasured. In Fergus and Elora you have your own unique treasures. Don’t make them disappear,” said Ratcliffe.
She asked council “to prevent the Mississauga-fication of our world.”
