The following article appeared in the June 5 edition of the Guelph Mercury:
The battle over an old farmhouse in the city’s north end became somewhat more official Monday, with the start of a hearing to determine whether a heritage designation for the Wilson farmhouse should be overturned.
Mike Lackowicz, a resident who lives across the street from the house on Simmonds Drive, filed an appeal of the designation with the province’s Conservation Review Board.
At the beginning of the hearing Monday, Lackowicz alleged the city’s rationale for making the designation was “weak and flawed” and suggested there have been major changes to the original farmhouse over the years which make it not worthy of the designation.
Stephen Robinson, a senior heritage planner with the city, said the house and two black walnut trees on the property are the only remaining elements of the farm established by the pioneering Wilson family.
Robinson said the home is a “representative sample” of a style known as vernacular Ontario gothic, and also a good example of late-19th century farmhouse architecture.
He testified the farmhouse has “historical or associative value” given its connection to the Wilson family and that is remains in its original spot. Robinson told the board members the home, which once had a Victoria Road address, would provide people with a good understanding of the size of farms of the day.
The city is arguing most of the exterior of the building – including the roof, walls, wood elements and door and window openings – should be retained. Robinson said the covered porch, while not original, should also be designated as it demonstrates the orientation of the front door and that a porch was part of the home’s design.
Opponents argue the house has fallen into disrepair since the city acquired it as part of the approval process for the surrounding subdivision in 2006 and that the city has neglected it by leaving it empty and unused for six years.
Robinson conceded the home shows signs resulting from neglect, but said the condition “does not impact the built heritage elements in a way that diminishes their cultural heritage value.”
Under cross-examination, the planner conceded that contextually the house does not fit with the surrounding neighbourhood.
“It doesn’t relate to (Victoria) road any more,” Robinson said. “It doesn’t relate to the subdivision.”
Rob Reynen, the city’s manager of inspection services, said he has inspected the house four times, including twice this year.
“I believe it is generally sound from a structural standpoint,” Reynen testified. “I believe structurally it’s in good shape still.”
Reynen told the board the home needs some “cosmetic” work and the foundation needs repair “but it’s not in terrible, terrible shape.”
Derrick Higdon, a neighbourhood resident and stonemason with more than 25 years’ experience, said he has witnessed deterioration in the condition of the house since moving into the neighbourhood three years ago.
“There seems to be quite a bit of foundation movement” resulting in cracks to exterior walls, said Higdon, who was Lackowicz’ first witness.
He told the board repairing the foundation is likely not feasible given the level of deterioration. He noted his investigation suggests the basement joists are “punky” and there is evidence of mould in the walls of the home.
Outside the hearing, Lackowicz said he filed the appeal in an effort to cut off a proposal by city staff to sever the house property and sell it. Councillors voted last summer to revisit the “sever and sell” idea, but refused by a 7-6 margin to also revisit pursuing the heritage designation.
Lackowicz is concerned council could still opt to sell the house, arguing that will be less likely if the heritage designation is overturned.
The Conservation Review Board’s decision is not, however, binding on council.
The hearing, at city hall, was expected to continue Tuesday morning.