On September 15 council agenda there is a report addressing an application to approve demolition of a structure at 342 Kettleby Rd. As reviewed in the report that while the property exhibits construction contextual and design/physical cultural heritage significance to a degree, the structure is in a state of immense disrepair with no regular maintenance having taken place over 20 years. In other words it is a clear example of “demolition by neglect” which is very unfortunate but it is the reality which staff is dealing with. It is noteworthy that the proponent has submitted a petition with signatures from 30 persons in the local community who support the demolition. As evident from several incidents in the last 15 years the Kettleby community is very sensitive to built heritage.
Having been on the Heritage Advisory Committee for several terms, although not currently, I know that we have a vulnerability to demolition by neglect as we do not have property standards and the bylaw to address it and to prevent it from occurring. I think this is something that we should make it a priority if we really are intent on protecting our built heritage.
As always deputations can be made. To do so please register at clerks@king.ca by noon on Sept. 15 or If you prefer you can e-mail your comments to clerks@king.ca and they will be distributed to Council members and appropriate staff. To see all the appendices of the report go to Council agenda and scroll to 9.3.
I agree with you that Council needs to address this demolition by neglect so that it cannot happen. This should happen sooner rather than later. Too many wonderful structures are being absolutely wrecked. The heritage house (formerly owned by the Fors family) at the SE corner of Hwy 27 and the 15th Sideroad is a case in point. It was a beautiful heritage house. Someone allowed the structure to be raised up and in so doing all the windows are gone and now a large portion of the front and sides are totally gone. The roof is now a wreck. It is a total disaster. So sad that we lost such a lovely stately home. Modern homes are not nearly so lovely.
My thoughts: buildings with significant historical and architectural value deserve protection from loopholes in law. Lack of funds or will are often the cause for edifices to become derelict and beyond redemption and restoration. Many such that exist were built cheaply and not designed to endure centuries. Here we are again in economic straights combined with high demand for housing, much of which will and must be built quickly and cheaply. A more visionary view of building environmentally friendly century homes of the future calls for creative input and, yes, a lot of dedicated money.
Under the Ontario Heritage Act
Building standards by-law
35.3 (1) If a by-law passed under section 15.1 of the Building Code Act, 1992 setting out standards for the maintenance of property in the municipality is in effect in a municipality, the council of the municipality may, by by-law,
(a) prescribe minimum standards for the maintenance of the heritage attributes of property in the municipality that has been designated by the municipality under section 29 or by the Minister under section 34.5; and
(b) require property that has been designated under section 29 or 34.5 and that does not comply with the standards to be repaired and maintained to conform with the standards.
In brief, a municipal council can enact a heritage property standards bylaw under its existing property standards bylaw and a municipal council can exercise its authority under the Ontario Heritage Act to designate a property for its cultural heritage value. This authorizes the municipality to require a property owner to maintain the heritage attributes of the property that may not necessarily be subject to the regular property standards bylaw. Both actions require political will to enact and enforce, neither applied in the matter of this property.
As a Kettleby resident, I was not aware of, nor given the opportunity to sign or refute, this petition. It would be interesting to have a petition tilted “NEIGHBOURHOOD OPPOSITION PETITION” in addition to this “NEIGHBOURHOOD SUPPORT PETITION”.
Hello Bert, I agree totally with your point that there is the legislative means to ensure that designated properties are maintained but it requires municipal political will and to date the latter has been missing. As for the petition I want to say that I don’t believe that it was a factor in the decision to demolish. I believe it simply reflects community interest…or at least per your comment the interest of some of the community.