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: [email protected]

Just 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 Circumstances”, huh? Wouldn’t the Seagrave situation be considered a “Circumstance”? 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.

UPDATE;

The following is an email sent to me today by Ward 1 councillot Dave Brister. It is reprinted here with his permission…

The report on this evening’s agenda is a “communications” item.

In speaking with Lee Anne Doyle, she indicated that the item was included as part of tonight’s communication agenda because it was considered to be important to provide information to the public as soon as possible as it relates to the Seagrave demolition.  I agree with Lee Anne’s assessment.

Inclusion on this evening’s “communication’s” agenda in no way restricts the ability of the public to speak to the issue when it comes to Council as a part of the regular agenda at a later date (confirmed with Steve Vlachodimos this morning). Inclusion on this evening’s agenda is an important first step.

If you go to page 5 of the report you will see that a “revised business process will be brought forward to the Windsor Heritage Committee for their input and subsequently to Council for approval”. LeeAnne also indicated that both she and Bill Jean have already requested to be listed as delegations at the next Windsor Heritage Committee meeting both to provide information and to seek comments from the Committee and offer the Committee an “opportunity for input” with respect to the “revised business process”.

In light of the above information, I will be requesting a deferral of item #13 this evening and I will further ask that the deferral period be such that it comes back to Council at the same time as the report on the “revised business process” noted in this evening’s communication item #13. This will be at a date after the May WHC meeting. Again, this is so that the Heritage Committee has an “opportunity for input” prior to the public Council meeting at which the public will have an opportunity to appear as delegations. In this way, the specifics of the Seagrave demolition and the proposed revisions in process will be discussed at the same public
meeting.

I trust this addresses your concerns and also confirms the “opportunity for input” as noted in prior correspondence.

Thanks,

Dave