Innisfil council wants to move forward with the designation of a property near Big Bay Point over the objections of the current owners.
Council affirmed its decision to designate 3523 25 Sideroad, pursuant to Section 29, Part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) at its Nov. 13 meeting.
Evan Sugden, of the Biglieri Group, delegated to council on behalf of the property owners before the decision was made without further debate.
“My position is not to tear apart the staff research,” he told council. “It is my belief that we should be conserving Ontario’s best examples of our history, Innisfil’s best examples, and not diluting with subpar resources. This is not a property worth considering for designation.”
The designation recommendation report came before council at its Aug. 14 meeting, after which a Notice to Intention to Designate was served on the property Sept. 11. A formal objection to that notice was received by the town Oct. 13, just before the deadline to do so.
Once the objection was received, the town then had 90 days to determine whether it planned to move forward with the designation; if it decided to keep course, the heritage designation bylaw would have to be passed within 120 days of the Notice of Intention to Designate was published.
The deadline in both instances would be Jan. 12, 2025, but council made up its mind faster.
The property was first listed on the town’s municipal heritage register in May 2012. The town’s heritage advisory committee found the structure, known as the Guest House, met two of the three required criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06. The committee determined the Guest House’s heritage value is found in its design, physical value and historical association.
“It is one of a few remaining stone houses in the Town of Innisfil, displaying a high degree of artisanship and unique building techniques, including the cut stone façade with tuckpointing, the side and rear exterior of random granite stone, soldier course above each window opening, the return eaves and brackets under the eaves,” the staff report noted. “The Guest family farmed the property for 35 years, and the descendants of James and Susanna were influential in developing the culture of Innisfil today.”
The report to council indicated that staff support the findings of the Heritage Advisory Committee, which highlighted the “colonial gothic” structure with a “cut stone and random granite exterior,” that remains in particularly good condition. The committee also said that being built into a hill, with a walk-out basement, made it “extremely unusual.”
Meeting the criteria isn’t good enough for designation, Sugden offered.
“Meeting two of them does not automatically constitute a designation,” he said. “It allows you to consider a designation and we don’t believe the requisite criteria have been met.”
Sugden stated his professional opinion was that to call the Guest House “colonial gothic” was “objectively just inaccurate.”
“The stone house on site does not exhibit the typical attributes of gothic revival or colonial gothic architecture,” Sugden wrote in his explanation of the objection, included as part of the meeting agenda. “This house’s low-pitched roof, rectangular windows without decorative surrounds or arches, plain stonework, lack of steeply peaked dormers, lack of pointed arched windows, and symmetrical form diverge significantly from the typical features of gothic revival and colonial gothic architecture, resulting in a structure that does not reflect either of these styles.”
Rather, he argued the home was “simply fieldstone” and plenty of similar houses remain in Ontario.
He also couldn’t be certain that James Guest ever lived in the home.
“When James Guest came into care of this house is unclear,” Sugden told council. “The house may not actually be associated with the Guest family.”
The formal objection provided more detail about Sugden’s concern with the town’s Heritage Evaluation Report.
“(It) leans heavily on a reference from the Township of Innisfil Historical Review (1967, p. 94) to claim that the stone house was built between 1868 and 1870,” Sugden wrote. “However, critical evidence from other sources — the historical mapping, chain of title, and the (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation) property report — does not support or even align with this construction timeframe. Instead, these sources suggest significant inconsistencies and raise doubts about the veracity of this claim.”
That report, Sugden said, suggested the property was constructed circa 1900, some 30 years later than the heritage committee believes. While neither can be considered definitive, an 1881 map of Innisfil which did show structures did not include the house, Sugden told council.
Deputy Mayor Kenneth Fowler, who chairs the heritage committee, said he was grateful other members were not in attendance to hear their work questioned in such a manner, suggesting they would be vocal in their offence. He also defended defining the stone house as colonial gothic.
He wanted his colleagues to keep the process moving.
“I’m appealing to the council to go forward with this motion tonight because once we do, there is the ability to appeal for rights,” Fowler said. “The heritage designation and description of the heritage features could be scoped so that during the conversation we could have a situation where the heritage value of the property is saved, and the rest of the property can be demolished as required.”
