Staff oversight on heritage property puts Cambridge council in a pickle

Cambridge council approved heritage designation for 44-46 Park Hill Rd. E. Tuesday in a 6-3 vote, after staff initially failed to recognize its heritage value.

Some councillors said they were torn over what to do — there was a demolition application pending and a development plan for the site, both of which were submitted after the developer consulted with staff, who said there were no heritage concerns.

It was only after the demolition permit was submitted in November that the city’s Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee and staff realized the brick work on the onestorey building has heritage value.

When the city issued its notice to designate the building, the owner filed an official objection.

Planner Scott Patterson, representing the developer, said the developer met with city staff in a pre-consultation meeting after purchasing the building and no heritage concerns were expressed.

The property owner went ahead and spent the money to prepare a development plan and submitted the demolition application because of ongoing vandalism to the vacant building on-site. On Tuesday there was a fire at the building, which caused an estimated $20,000 in damage.

Had the developer known of the heritage aspect of the building, Patterson said “he simply wouldn’t have bought this property and advanced the way he did.”

Patterson signalled that the developer would appeal the heritage designation at the Ontario Land Tribunal, which decides land planning disputes, if it was approved.

Coun. Ross Earnshaw moved a motion Tuesday, seconded by Coun. Mike Devine, that designation not be pursued, that the developer agree to withdraw their demolition application and that staff and the developer work together to salvage the brick work in question and reuse it in the new development’s design.

“I’m concerned about the fact that the owner has in good faith gone forward and expended a great deal of money but I’m trying to balance the heritage aspects of this property ... against the fact that it’s in bad shape,” he said.

Earnshaw said he was reminded of the Preston Springs fiasco which saw the historic building deteriorate and eventually be ordered demolished by the city’s chief building official.

But deputy city manager Hardy Bromberg warned that not designating would be “relying on the good will of the property owner” to preserve the heritage aspects.

He said if council didn’t designate the property within the next month, it could not consider designation for another five years unless the property owner asked for the designation.

Coun. Sheri Roberts said relying on the developer’s good will is what concerned her.

“I’m really torn on this one as well as we need housing of this type but we all know heritage is truly a nonrenewable resource,” she said.

Earnshaw’s motion failed and council instead voted in favour of designation with councillors Devine, Helen Shwery and Scott Hamilton opposed.

Coun. Corey Kimpson said she was shocked by staff’s initial oversight.

“I can not help but express my concern that this property was not recognized during the process by our staff,” she said.

Mayor Jan Liggett agreed. “I’m also concerned about the lack of this being flagged,” she said. “I think we have to start doing better with these properties.”

The developer’s proposal for the site is a three-storey, mixed use building with ground floor commercial and retail space.

The property dates back to 1850 and was owned by Robert Dickson, son of Galt founder William Dickson. The land was sold in 1869 to George Dando, a bricklayer who built the first home on the property between 1867 and 1875.

Dando was known as one of the town builders who erected a number of blocks in different parts of Galt, the report said. The most prominent building he worked on was 17-35 Ainslie St. N.

‘‘ I’m really torn on this one as well as we need housing of this type but we all know heritage is truly a non-renewable resource.

SHERI ROBERTS CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCILLOR