It should have been a simple matter of a barn demolition – but wasn’t.
George Simhoni notified the building department of the intent to demolish a bank barn on his property. That kickstarted a process involving Erin’s heritage committee because that barn is on a list of heritage buildings.
In early June, council received a report from Chief Building Official Andrew Hartholt, who noted a bylaw states “no person shall demolish or otherwise remove the whole or any part of any residential property in the Town of Erin unless that person is the holder of demolition permit issued for that residential property by the council … under Section 33 of the Planning Act, 1990.”
The demolition application was received June 2.
Under the Building Code, a demolition permit is not required for that size and type of building to be demolished, Hartholt said. But, the heritage committee requires the owner to tell council of intentions to remove a building on the heritage list. The committee was told and intended to forward comments once it had an opportunity to meet.
On June 7, there was considerable discussion initiated by Mayor Lou Maieron regarding the process – including a questioning of why the heritage committee needs to be involved, if a demolition permit is not required.
At that time he moved to accept the demolition application in the report.
That motion was defeated, and council later voted to defer that part of the report until a meeting of the heritage committee was held.
On June 21, Maieron expressed concern the minutes of the June 3 meeting “did not reflect what we wanted to achieve.”
They stated “The demolition of farm buildings does not require a demolition permit but they are required to provide 60 days prior notice. The item was deferred to the next meeting to provide the Heritage Committee an opportunity to provide their comments.”
Maieron asked that the minutes of that meeting be deferred until the return of Clerk Kathryn Ironmonger, because he does not believe the minutes accurately reflect what happened at the meeting.
His request was denied as council voted to pass the minutes as they were.
On June 22, Maieron telephoned the Wellington Advertiser asking why comments from the original meeting had not appeared in the publication.
He said that while there was a motion at council to approve the minutes of the June 7 meeting, he had concerns with the minutes as they stood.
“I have a concern with the minutes because as I read through them, they didn’t actually reflect what happened at the last council meeting.”
He said there was a vote, that was then rescinded for reconsideration, then a new motion was passed.
“None of that is in there, so I suggest we defer it to come back when the clerk is here.”
Councillor Barb Tocher said
“I suggest the minutes are fine as they are.”
She added the inclusion of the whole business of passing the motion, rescinding it, and then passing another “probably wasn’t necessary.”
Maieron argued, “Once you pass a motion …”
Tocher said she did not want to go through the issue again.
Maieron said, “It reflects what we wanted to achieve, but it doesn’t reflect what actually happened.”
His contention is the minutes should accurately reflect what happened during the meeting – without bias.
He again said there was a motion to pass, then reconsideration, and a new resolution passed.
“None of that is in [the minutes.”
He again asked for council to consider deferring approval of the June 7.
The minutes of that meeting were subsequently approved as circulated.
Maieron remained opposed.
When the issue later came up in the building report, Tocher said she was the one who asked the bank barn demolition be deferred until the heritage committee had a chance to discuss it.
Maieron again brought up the process of the matter.
“Since a demolition permit is not required for a barn, and in this case the heritage committee had no concerns … what would happen if it did have concerns?”
Tocher said the committee would have spoken to the owner at the meeting if there was any portion they felt worthy of preservation – not as an objection to the overall demolition.
She said it would be more to the effect that “There is a special hay rake and would you be willing to donate to the Wellington County Museum? That’s the only kind of thing that would have happened.”
