Time has taken its toll on part of the heritage of Fergus.
The last of the original log homes in Fergus is going to be demolished.
A 4-3 vote on March 23 came after considerable discussion by delegations advocating the property at 240 Provost Lane be given a heritage designation and a council discussion on the pros and cons of the demolition.
The issue for councillors was not if the log cabin is part of the community heritage – but whether it could be saved, salvaged or restored.
Earlier this year, council hired a structural engineer to report on the status of the building.
That report said it was not practical to attempt to restore the building.
In his report to council on March 23, chief building official Randy Bossence summarized the chronology of the issue.
Last September the owners applied to demolish the existing one and a half storey, 1,185 square foot single detached dwelling which is listed on the municipal register of cultural heritage properties as a non-designated property.
Bossence said the heritage committee was given the demolition request and discussed the matter at its November 2014 meeting.
The committee recommended the township designate the property under the Ontario Heritage Act.
A planning report came to council in January recommending council refuse the demolition request and designate it under the Heritage Act.
After a lengthy discussion and additional questions to staff, council deferred the matter to allow staff an opportunity to discuss with the applicants and other stakeholders feasible alternatives to the demolition of the building, as well as additional information on the structural integrity of the structure.
Later that month, council retained a structural engineer to inspect the building and deferred a decision on demolition or designation pending the engineer’s report.
Tacoma Engineers’ review was to provide an opinion on the structural adequacy of the building and the viability of restoration.
The report stated the existing residence at 240 Provost Lane “is in very poor condition and significant remediation would be required to return the building to a structurally sound condition.”
However, to do so, in the structural engineer’s opinion, “The extent of restoration is not practical and the resulting loss of heritage fabric leads to the conclusion that this structure is not a candidate for preservation or relocation.”
Bossence shared that opinion.
The engineer’s report outlines “significant deterioration of the logs from rot, insects, etc. and missing logs as well as an abundance of serious structural issues there is no practical or reasonable approach to restoring the home.”
The report stated,
“Unfortunately, there is just not enough undamaged log structure to attempt restoration. The home, as it stands, has significant safety issues and these will only worsen over time.”
His recommendation was for the township to approve the demolition request.
“While the structure is a good example of the vernacular log construction of the early/mid 1800s, the extent of previous interventions/alterations and the extent of current deficiencies does not lead to practical retention.”
The report stated that restoration would require replacement of most of the logs, the roof, foundation and roof – effectively creating a replica structure – not a restoration.
Will Teron, director of heritage and investigation for Tacoma Engineers Inc., stated, “As you are aware, we are strong proponents of preserving our built heritage but there are situations where a structure has undergone sufficient intervention and deterioration where preservation no longer is feasible.”
Council Kirk McElwain asked if there was any change to Heritage Centre Wellington’s opinion following the structural report.
Heritage Centre Wellington’s original recommendation to designate the building remained unchanged.
Councillor Don Fisher asked for clarity on the report regarding the “heritage fabric” of the building.
Bossence said the majority of logs have deteriorated and many are missing.
Fisher said, “It sounds like there is nothing there to restore … it would be a replacement.”
He asked if this would essentially be a new building which just happened to look like the original.
Bossence believed a replica building would cost more than a regular home, but less than attempting to restore what was there.
He said, “The only thing holding that building together is the exterior planks, which were applied.”
Regardless of the approach, Bossence said that essentially the result would be a new log cabin on the site.
Mayor Kelly Linton asked if there is a way to allow the demolition to take place and then have the owners work with the heritage committee to save as many of the heritage features as possible.
Bossence said, “I think we are at the point where we either have to allow them to demolish it or designate it.”
He suggested if this issue had arisen 30 to 40 years ago “We’d be having a much different discussion on the possibility of restoration versus replacement. It’s just been left too long.”
Responding to council, Heritage Centre Wellington committee member Dave Benyon stated, “When you get right down to it, the structure is irrelevant. The property has enough value culturally and historically to warrant designation regardless of the structure.”
Committee member Graeme Chalmers added the context is important, as it is one of the first buildings in Fergus.
He believes that even if a building of similar shape was built, it would still carry a lot of memories of the past.
Chalmers believes it needed to be commemorated, “In a way that goes further than just a plaque on the street.”
He suggested too much emphasis was being placed on the condition of the building.
Benyon and Chalmers focused on the importance of maintaining the image at the front of the property.
“It is the oldest known building in Fergus. It has value in being one of the original buildings.”
Benyon remained concerned over an engineering report taking precedence over a heritage consultant report.
Salmon explained it was the township – not the owner – that commissioned the engineering report.
“The difficult job before council is to weigh those two pieces of information … and make the difficult decision.”
Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen said council is being asked to designate the land even though it is not the original building site.
“Are we being asked to designate a replica building?”
Council is being asked if it should be a designated property and whether council can demand something be built to replicate the previous building, he said.
Morris said, “In my opinion a replica structure can be placed anywhere … it does not have to go somewhere which is not even the original site.”
Impassioned speeches were also given by Elora residents Ian Rankine and by Beverley Cairns, on behalf of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario.
Both tried to speak past their allotted 10-minute time limits.
Rankine attempted to provide council with historical context of the building by citing a year-by-year history from its original construction in the 1830s.
Rankine stated he believes the matter should be a test case on a provincial level and suggested council will be making an error by allowing a demolition to occur without first obtaining expert advice.
He called the cabin an heirloom of the community which could be restored under different ownership.
Cairns said that as a citizen of Centre Wellington, “It is not just people from Fergus who are concerned about this.”
She said all Centre Wellington residents are concerned about the preservation of this building.
She commented that ongoing maintenance of log buildings often requires replacement of parts of the structure – such as individual logs and chinking.
Cairns said the Heritage Act is intended to allow property owners to not only restore – but augment properties.
“Council members have a responsibility to the community as compared to the individual owners,” she said.
Linton explained that the heritage committee has a different mandate than council.
He applauded the heritage committee’s work – but that role is not to assess the condition of the structure but to determine if the property has heritage value.
“Council’s mandate is broader than that,” he said.
He said council fully recognizes the building’s association to the significant stories of the history of Fergus.
“Our question is whether we are putting undue responsibility on the [current] owner based on the condition of the property.”
Councillor Mary Lloyd was against demolition.
“I recognize it will cost significant money to restore the property,” she said.
However, she did not believe the owners bought the property uninformed.
In the history of the community, “We only have a beginning once,” she said.
“If we lose this property from 1832, we no longer have an 1832 building.”
She worried about the loss of iconic buildings within the community.
Lloyd referred to what can happen when efforts are made to restore historic buildings.
Councillor Kirk McElwain questioned how effectively heritage is preserved with a replica building.
Fisher said he had heard from numerous people that the building itself does not matter that much, but that the site is what is important.
Others believe the building is important.
However, based on the architectural assessment “at best there would be a new building with some parts of the previous included.
“But ironically, to build that, you would have to demolish what is there anyway.”
Councillor Fred Morris had concern that a decision might be made based on emotion “to recapture what once was.”
Morris countered, “Up until recently, I had no idea that this was anything other than a little bungalow covered in siding.”
Morris said that looking around downtown Fergus he has seen all kinds of structures that remind residents of the beginnings of the community.
“Here is a property that time has devastated. It cannot be brought back to its original form because the wood is destroyed,” he said.
While he agreed that the building can be replicated, “I’m just wondering how many people in our community really think this matters.”
Morris suggested there are those in the community who have never noticed the building and others who never traverse Provost Lane.
He stated the stories associated with the site will transcend time.
“The stories will live on whether there is a structure at 240 Provost Lane that replicates what used to be there or whether there is a structure people can comfortably live in.”
He contended a council decision based on emotion is simply wrong.
VanLeeuwen said, “Time has made the decision for us,” regarding the building.
“Let’s keep the story, but not get caught up in it,” he said.
VanLeeuwen said he believes there are still ways to tell the story without wasting more time on the structure.
In a recorded 4-3 vote council decided to allow a demolition permit to be issued.
Voting in favour were councillors VanLeeuwen, Morris, Steve Kitras and Mayor Kelly Linton.
Opposed to demolition were councillors Lloyd, McElwain and Fisher.
Because of the vote, the matter of the heritage designation on the property appears to have been dropped.
