Sundridge council has decided not to pursue a heritage designation for the oldest building in the community, but it's keeping the door open to possibly revisiting the issue in the future.
Council was unanimous in a vote not to proceed any further with a heritage designation for the former Steirerhut Restaurant on Highway 124.
In agreeing to drop the designation pursuit for now, council will save about $5,000 by not hiring a consultant who would have carried out a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report on the building, built in 1881.
However, council is keeping the issue alive by leaving the building on its Municipal Property Register.
This doesn't cost the municipality any money and leaves it in a position to revisit the heritage designation if the landlord announces plans to tear it down.
The building is owned by Non-Profit Organization for Almaguin Housing (NOAH) and by keeping it on the municipal register NOAH has to give the town hall 60 days notice if it intends to demolish the building.
When council first floated the idea of pursuing a heritage designation for the building near the end of 2021 there was majority support on council.
But little by little that support has waned during the intervening months.
Coun. Steve Hicks took the lead on hitting the brakes because he came to believe the building has been neglected over the years and didn't think this was something council should pursue.
About two weeks ago the municipality created an online survey to gauge public sentiment on the issue and at the Feb. 9 meeting, Hicks said the results did not overwhelmingly support a heritage designation.
Of the 144 people who took the survey, nearly 40 per cent said the building should be preserved and protected while almost 48 per cent were against this idea, and just under 13 per cent weren't sure what to do with the site.
Some respondents added comments covering both ends of the spectrum, with some saying the building was an eyesore, restoring it would cost more than it's worth and taxpayers could not afford to support the building.
Others said the building is priceless, it's a landmark that should be preserved and the municipality should buy the land and building.
“I'm against going through with this,” Hicks said.
“And the survey (results) didn't help reinforce anything for me. It didn't make me think the public cares enough about this to go through with it.”
Coun. Barbara Belrose, who was a strong supporter of the heritage designation, changed her mind after standing outside the building.
“I had a good long look at it and with what we're dealing with, I can't agree with keeping it,” Belrose said.
Deputy Mayor Shawn Jackson also saw the building up close both inside and out and was on the same page as Belrose and Hicks.
“Professionally, I believe we shouldn't do this and believe sometimes good things come to an end,” he said.
“I'm not emotionally attached to it the way other residents are who spent a lot of time there. People recognize it as a landmark. But is it a landmark worth saving? My opinion is it isn't and the survey results point in that direction.”
Coun. Fraser Williamson agreed with his council colleagues that heritage designation should not be pursued at this time.
But Williamson left the door open by suggesting the building be left on the Municipal Property Register as a strategic move.
Williamson said if NOAH decides it wants to demolish the building, it has to give the municipality 60 days notice.
Williamson speculated under this scenario the public might become more engaged in seeing the building preserved.
Council agreed with Williamson's strategy and voted to keep the building on the Municipal Property Register.
The municipality must now inform NOAH of its decision to keep the building on the list and must formally provide that notice within 90 days after making the decision.
NOAH is on record as objecting to the heritage designation and also objected to keeping the property on the Municipal Property Register.
It recently hired the firm Barriston Law of Huntsville to make the case for why the building should not receive heritage designation and that the municipality should end its pursuit of the heritage designation.
Council was also asked to remove the building from the Municipal Property Register.
Part of the Barriston Law letter to Sundridge said if council passed a bylaw to continue the heritage designation then NOAH would appeal the bylaw to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Barriston said it was confident the tribunal would rule in favour of NOAH.
But with council deciding against a bylaw on heritage designation, NOAH can't take the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Furthermore, it appears NOAH has run out of options when it comes to appeals.
In a staff report to council, staff says under the Ontario Heritage Act, if a municipal council votes to keep the building on its Municipal Property Listing, that becomes the final decision with no provision to appeal despite a Notice of Objection from the building owner.
Rocco Frangione is a Local Journalism Initiative reporter who works out of the North Bay Nugget. The Local Journalism Initiative is funded by the Government of Canada.
