Posted By NICK GARDINER , Recorder & Times Staff Writer
A heritage designation will remain in place -- for the time being at least -- on an Edward Street landmark tar-g eted for demolition by the Catholic Church.
Town council rejected the latest request from the Kingston Archdiocese to remove the designation on Crane House, a his-t oric home built in 1830 by prominent businessman Samuel Crane and later converted into a convent for the Sisters of Providence.
Council voted 5-2 against a request similar to one made last year from the archdiocese to remove the heritage tag on the building adjacent to St. Mark Parish, which the church claims would be too costly to restore.
Councillors Brett Todd and Neil Dufour argued in favour of allowing the request because of the deteriorating condition of the building and the likelihood it will continue to fall apart without intervention from the church.
Todd said he favours heritage development but feels council is courting "a long, drawn-out fight with the diocese" that won't prevent further deterioration to an aging building that sustained extensive water damage when water pipes burst in 2009.
"To what end" is council rejecting the request, said Todd.
Councillor Chuck Street said he also favours owner's property rights, but feels this is a different situation.
He said the archdiocese accepted the decision to designate the property as a heritage site and with it a measure of responsibility for maintaining the property.
"You become less of an owner and more of a steward of the property," he said.
Moreover, Street said there is some evidence the church received a $27,000 grant when the designation was approved in 1985 and he questions the sincerity of the church's attempts to sell the property.
"With that in mind, this is not a personal property rights issue," he said.
Councillor Dufour noted the church has found no record of a grant. More importantly, he questioned the wisdom of rejecting the request, only to see Crane House crumble into further disrepair.
Todd acknowledged Street's argument the church is the steward of the property, but suggested the building may no longer be worth the effort.
"I agree with Street about stewardship, but stewardship over a shell of a building that sustained major damage?"
Mayor Suzanne Dodge wondered about the extent of the damage from an incident that took place only one year ago and suggested it could be preserved to accommodate a service more amenable to church elders concerned about a non-compatible use at the site.
"I strongly feel we need to preserve heritage buildings," said Dodge.
"If we let them go one by one, how can we call ourselves a heritage town?"
In response to a question from councillor Mike Dimopoulos about the next step after a no vote, CAO Robert Haller said the archdiocese may appeal to the province's Conservation Review Board for an assessment of the property.
If the board allows the heritage designation to be removed, the town could appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, said Haller.
Dimopoulos said the conservation board assessment will help guide council's future decisions.
"It's critical for the conservation board to determine the value of the property and then take it back to council," he said.