Make sure you call the Clerks office tomrrow at City Hall and ask for a deferral so that you can read the report and form an opinion.
Let’s get this deferred, and then, next Monday, please register as a delagates to speak to this issue before council.
We can’t roll over on this.
Seagrave fiasco slips quietly onto tomorrows agenda
By Chris | April 20, 2008 |Well folks, it seems like our illustrious city council and/or administration is hoping that we had forgot about Francis’ promise during the last council meeting that the Seagrave Demolition would be on tomorrows agenda.
A quick telephone call will tell you that it is, in fact, going to be debated tomorrow, but instead of doing it publicly, the item is on the Consent Agenda – which isn’t itemized online along with the regular council agenda. This alone is a practice that must stop. Remember Hatfield raising the question at the last meeting about something being slipped onto the Consent Agenda? Even the councilors don’t know what’s going on half the time!
So, not only do we have to deal with the fact that someone’s incompetence cause this historic structure to be demolished in the first place, but we get a City Council who is circling the wagons around the incompetant fool and trying to slip our ability to question it past us.
So, bright and early tomorrow morning, be sure to call the City Cerks office and demand that this issue be deferred so that we can see this administrative report and we can form our own opinions as to whether we believe their “fix†will indeed stop this from ever happening again.
Council Services Department
350 City Hall Square West, Room 203
Windsor, Ontario Canada N9A 6S1
Phone: For general inquiries, call 311.
For detailed inquiries, call (519) 255-6432
Fax: (519) 255-6868
E-mail: clerks@city.windsor.on.caJust to remind everyone, our friend Andrew Foot from International Metropolis received the following letter when the EXACT SAME THING Happened to the Walker Farm House building further south on Walker Road;
Please note that the Ontario Heritage Act has been amended so that properties that are considered for heritage designation must give Council 60 days notice of the intention to designate. After intention is given, Council must make a decision whether to designate the building or allow demolition. Here is the relevant portion of the Ontario Heritage Act – See Section 27(3) – for the 60 day delay part. Restriction on demolition, etc. If property included in the register under subsection (1.2) has not been designated under section 29, the owner of the property shall not demolish or remove a building or structure on the property or permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure unless the owner gives the council of the municipality at least 60 days notice in writing of the owner’s intention to demolish or remove the building or structure or to permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure. 2006, c. 11, Sched. B, s. 11 (2).
*We have unfortunately issued a demolition permit without following this procedure. In the future, please ensure that if a building is considered for heritage designation, that (the heritage planner) be notified and, under no circumstances, issue the permit unless Council approves the demolition.
“Under No Circumstancesâ€, huh? Wouldn’t the Seagrave situation be considered a “Circumstanceâ€? Oh yeah – there hasn’t been a Heritage Planner at the Planning Department since the summer of ‘07. So, if you’re confident that this kind of thing will never happen again all you have to do is wait and see. Me? I have no confidence whatsoever and will be calling the City Clerks department tomorrow morning and demand a deferral.
FYI – This is just a notice for council as a “note and file”. In other words no debate will be taking place this is just info for council to mull over when this issue does come up for council debate.
more on the seagraves story
Seagrave building’s loss a grave ‘mistake’
Sarah Sacheli, The Windsor Star
Published: Thursday, May 08, 2008
WINDSOR — For being reduced to a pile of rubble, Windsor’s Seagrave building will be remembered as one of the worst heritage losses in the country, according to a recent list published by the Heritage Canada Foundation.
The foundation, a national heritage preservation group created 35 years ago by the federal government, listed the demolished Walker Road building fourth on its annual list of Top 10 heritage losses. The Seagrave building, demolished April 9, was razed just in time to make it onto the April 30 list and earn the dubious distinction.
“It was an interesting building with what could have been an interesting future,” said Carolyn Quinn, spokeswoman for the Heritage Canada Foundation.
View Larger Image
Former W.E. Seagrave Fire Engine Company on Walker Road. The building was reduced to a pile of rubble April 9.
Handout, The Windsor Star
Email to a friend
Printer friendly
Font:****The red-brick building at 933 Walker Rd. was built in 1905 by the Seagrave Fire Apparatus Company of Ohio. It produced the first motorized fire engine in Canada. While not designated by the city under the Ontario Heritage Act, the building was on the city’s inventory of heritage buildings. Being on the inventory does not automatically prevent demolition — it just gives the city a 60-day grace period in which it can further research the building and consider designating it under provincial statute.
An official in the city’s building department issued a demolition permit, disregarding the inventory.
“It was a mistake that should not have happened. I hope it never happens again,” said Pat Malicki, a local heritage activist and president of the Windsor Region Architectural Conservancy of Ontario.
“Maybe it wouldn’t have been designated, but we’ll never know.”
While Malicki said she was pleased the foundation “recognized” the Seagrave building, she is saddened by the notoriety.
“These buildings aren’t like trees,” she said. “We can plant another tree, but we can’t build another one of these buildings.”
Quinn said the foundation publishes its list annually to raise awareness about heritage preservation. “We hope it’s a valuable tool for preservationists on the ground.”
According to a copy of the demolition permit for the property obtained by The Star, Bill Drouillard, an official in the building department, issued the document April 9. Demolition by the applicant, Amherstburg’s Jones Group, took place that same day.
The permit erroneously refers to the two-storey building as one storey. And while it lists it as an abandoned commercial building at 961 Walker Rd., it lists the location of the demolition as 933 Walker Rd.
The city’s building department tried to prevent The Star from seeing the demolition permit this week, saying the newspaper would have to file a formal request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The city’s freedom of information officer then ordered its release the same day.
Mario Sonego, the city’s chief building official, did not return repeated calls Wednesday and Thursday.
Greg Heil, chairman of the city’s heritage advisory committee, said he believes if the city still had a heritage planner, the Seagrave building would still be standing. The position was abandoned and its responsibilities rolled into the manager of cultural services job with the retirement of Nancy Morand.
“Nancy used to police the other departments,” said Heil. “We don’t have that anymore.”
Heil said building and planning department officials are to attend the next heritage committee meeting on Wednesday. “I’m sure they’re going to assure us this will never happen again,” he said.
But that assurance isn’t enough, Heil said. He plans to ask for a review of heritage management practices at city hall that outlines the responsibilities of officials.
Can someone elaborate on ths article a little more? So, the demolition permit lists a one-storey building at 961 Walker Rd. and the Seagrave building was located at 933 Walker Rd? Or did they have two addresses on the same permit? If Jones’ group demolished the wrong building listed on the permit, wouldn’t that make them liable for a hefty fine from the city/province?