HERITAGE OSHAWA IS ACTING LIKE THE ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL BY GOING AGAINST THEIR OWN MANDATE

HERITAGE OSHAWA IS ACTING LIKE THE ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL BY GOING AGAINST THEIR OWN MANDATE WHILE UNDERTAKING RESEARCH on local issues concerning City Hall and its various committees, I have found some enjoyment in watching the online videos you’ll see posted on the City of Oshawa website. I went into the latest such recording of the Heritage Oshawa committee with an abundance of energy, because before the meeting even began, I knew much more than usual about items on their agenda. Which brings our attention to the property known municipally as 853 Simcoe Street South, being a one-and-a-half storey century home built in or around the year 1900. The home was included in a list formulated by Heritage Oshawa volunteers in 1998 as part of their effort to identify properties within the city that show built-heritage value – meaning they have architectural and overall design features that make them unique. The house in question is almost one of a kind, with no less than two ground floor walk-in bay windows, and a unique front porch assembly which includes a main entry door placed 90 degrees from the road. Upstairs, there is a large dormer immediately above one of the bay windows – the rest of the roof area sloping at a somewhat sharp angle, typical of Victorian architecture. This dormer may have been an add-on, or may have originally included a door to a small balcony – a common feature among homes built at the turn of the 20th century. I like to think my knowledge of Oshawa, and the many older homes that fill the neighbourhoods around the centre and southern portions of the city, as being extensive. The remaining inventory of brick-clad Victorian-style homes, already reduced in number, is under constant threat of demolition, and we can include 853 Simcoe Street South as being among them. The property owner appeared before the Heritage committee to request the house be removed from the 1998 list of ‘Class B’ structures – his primary concern being the affect it may have on his current attempt to sell the home on the open market. It is currently listed for sale as a “rental income generating property” and may be viewed on the Realtor.ca website. According to the owner, the inclusion of this house on the list of properties considered to be of heritage interest has spooked potential purchasers for fear it will receive an official Heritage designation – which may impede its ultimate demolition. This, in spite of the assertion on Realtor.ca that the house and property generate a total monthly income of $7000 or more. During his presentation to committee members (Robert Bell and John O’Boyle having both declared a conflict on the item), the property owner offered the following assessment, “To me it’s very clear that if anybody was to look on Google…that home today on Google…there’s nothing at all that resembles anything Heritage at all about that property.” As it happens, a majority of those on the committee were prepared to side with him, and below are a few of their comments made to justify their position. Ward 2 City Councillor Jim Lee offered these assurances to the property owner, “I totally support the removal of your property from Class ‘B’…and I think you spoke very well with regard to, there’s no heritage value there.” Committee member Sarah Smale had some very singular observations on the matter. “So I drove past the property on my way here because that’s my route, and looking at it as I was driving past, I don’t understand why it’s currently on the list… There’s no heritage look to it… I would say no heritage attributes to the outside, so I would definitely be in favour of letting it off the list.” Not to be outdone by his colleagues, committee member James Bountrogiannis had these seemingly intelligent thoughts on the issue, “Why do we call it (Class) ‘B’ if it is undesignated? Oh, it’s something to do. So, let’s get rid of it.” Do you see a pattern developing in these comments from committee members? The only person to even remotely come to the defence of, not only the future of an unquestionably unique home of built-heritage value, but also the realities surrounding the Class ‘B’ list, was the committee Vice-Chair Diane Stephen. With no-one to support her, she appeared to do her best to add an element of reason to the debate, and in doing so she offered these comments directly to the property owner, “Our information comes from research done over the years. We have an inventory of ‘heritage Oshawa’ and your house is listed in here, along with quite a number of other ones, and it’s listed as being built in the 1900’s which makes your house 125 years old. “ These comments apparently did not sit well with Councillor Jim Lee, who took the Vice-Chair to task when he asked, “Being relatively new to the Heritage committee, are we basing ‘designation’ of heritage (sic) buildings based on when they’re built?” The Vice-Chair was quick to remind the councillor that the property at 853 Simcoe St. S. was not being considered for Heritage designation, and that there is “no stepping stone to designation… There’s no ‘B’ then you’re elevated to ‘A’ and then you end up being designated… That’s not how it works.” She would go on to tell her colleagues prior to calling a vote on the issue, “I just want to clarify, it’s not designated…this property is not designated.” As it happened, those remarks would prove ultimately ineffective, as the committee voted to remove the property from the list of structures deemed worthy of heritage interest. At this stage, I would like to offer my readers a few key takeaways from what transpired during the meeting. First and foremost is the flippant manner in which committee member Sarah Smale apparently came to her decision. To suggest, as she did, that a mere drive-by glance is either in whole, or in part, a suitable method of deciding the fate of a historically unique structure, is tantamount to a betrayal of her role to work at preserving Oshawa’s built heritage. One would hope Ms Smale may learn from her mistake, otherwise her resignation from the committee would seem a reasonable expectation. Secondly, the remarks by Ward 2 City Councillor Jim Lee were nothing less than adversarial towards the committee itself, or at least the mandate under which it operates. He showed himself to be no friend or advocate of heritage preservation, and unless his views change, residents of Oshawa may well see many more unique properties threatened by the wrecker’s ball. I will be watching this committee very closely in the weeks and months to come.