The following article appeared in the Aug 2 edition of the Guelph Tribune:
The city plans to take another look at the future of an old farmhouse in a north end subdivision, but it hasn’t altered its plans to preserve the farmhouse by designating it under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Some nearby residents want to halt the designation process so that the farmhouse can be torn down and the land on which it sits at 80 Simmonds Dr. can become part of a future park.
The farmhouse has “very little” heritage value, Ward 2 councillor Andy Van Hellemond asserted at a council meeting last week.
Councillors unanimously supported two of the three parts of Van Hellemond’s resolution to reconsider what city hall has done up to now. They agreed to reconsider an April 2010 council motion approving severance and sale of the farmhouse and its property. They also agreed to reconsider a September 2010 motion approving the development of a master plan for the park that doesn’t include the farmhouse property.
However, council voted 7-6 last week against reconsidering a February 2011 motion regarding the intention to designate the farmhouse, which is known both as the Ingram farmhouse and the Wilson farmhouse after former owners. That council motion has been appealed to the Conservation Review Board, an agency of the provincial Ministry of Culture that reviews protection issues concerning heritage properties and buildings. The board hasn’t yet ruled in the case.
Van Hellemond said 100 people signed a petition in a two-day period objecting to city hall’s plan to sever and sell the property, after the city had no luck finding a community use for the farmhouse. He said people bought their homes near the proposed park on Simmonds Drive before city hall started talking about selling the farmhouse property, which it acquired from the subdivision developer as part of a parkland dedication.
“This one-third of an acre is the best part of the park,” containing many mature trees, Van Hellemond said.
City CAO Hans Loewig said staff’s priority now will be to re-examine selling the property and take a report on the matter to the city’s finance committee. That report will include financial implications of not selling it, he said.
Coun. Ian Findlay said the master plan done for the park doesn’t include the farmhouse property. The city had planned to proceed “very soon” with developing the park, but council’s reconsideration of the matter “may change things” in terms of the time line for developing the park, he said.
Findlay said he largely supported Van Hellemond’s effort. “The neighbourhood was not engaged, but I can assure you they are engaged now,” he said.
However, Findlay ended up being the deciding vote against reconsideration of the February 2011 motion regarding the intention to designate. He voted no to this part of Van Hellemond’s resolution along with councillors Lise Burcher, Todd Dennis, June Hofland, Maggie Laidlaw, Leanne Piper and Karl Wettstein.
Mayor Karen Farbridge voted with Van Hellemond on the losing side of this vote. But she later clarified that she doesn’t support revoking the farmhouse’s heritage designation.
“I simply felt the entire matter should be reconsidered because the three decisions are related to each other,” she said in an email sent in response to a Tribune query.
“There is also a lot of misinformation in the neighbourhood about many aspects of these decisions, and I felt a referral to committee would allow for an opportunity to more constructively engage the neighbourhood and at least establish the facts,” she said.
She said she has told Van Hellemond that if the matter were to be reconsidered by council, she wouldn’t support any recommendation that revoked the heritage designation. “Moreover, as a result of the appeal (to the Conservation Review Board), the designation decision will be back before council in any event,” Farbridge said. “I felt I would have significant opportunity to demonstrate my support for designation of a heritage asset.
“While I was comfortable having all three decisions revisited, I am personally satisfied with the decision to not reconsider the designation at this time,” she concluded.