One year

Buildings on Wellington’s main intersection get a reprieve

Pamela Carter and Bill Hurst came to a committee of council meeting last week hoping to rally support among council members for salvaging and restoring all or part of buildings at the central intersection of Main and Wharf Streets in Wellington. If that proved unworkable, they hoped council would agree to allow new buildings of similar scale and architectural design to be constructed in their place.

Carter and Hurst, residents of Wellington, are worried about the prospect of a hole may punched into the village’s historic streetscape. Carter is an artist who has found inspiration for many of her paintings on Wellington’s main street. Hurst in an architect who has been active in community projects in Wellington.

Carter appealed to council for time— time for the community to propose alternatives to the demolition of these buildings.

“This happens when hearts and minds come together,” said Carter.

She urged council members to consider the potential to salvage and restore the 117-year-old building before it is demolished.

Hurst provided a rough idea about how council might proceed— that remediation of Lane Creek was necessary, but that this work could accommodate the retention of all or part of the existing building.

He proposed a joint working group comprised of engineering staff, councillor Jim Dunlop, a business association representative, himself, Carter, Mike Harper and perhaps others.

In response, they heard a variety of mixed messages from council members. Councillor Bill Roberts suggested the protection Carter and Hurst were looking for was already contained in a letter penned by Mayor Robert Quaiff in July stating that no demolition would occur until the public was consulted.

Councillor Roy Pennell, however, reminded Carter and Hurst that the reason council agreed to buy the properties in the first place was to tear them down.

“There should be no reasonable expectation that these buildings can be salvaged,” said Pennell. “I have spent a lot of time looking at them from every angle including under them. I am thoroughly convinced they must come down.”

Other councillors suggested they might consider salvaging the historic buildings, as long as it wasn’t taxpayer’s money on the hook.

“Heritage costs money,” said Councillor Gord Fox. “Somebody has to pony up.”

Councillor David Harrison shared that view. He wanted to know if either Carter or Hurst had the money to invest in the restoration or rebuild and, if not, did they know of others who might.

“That will have a big impact on my decision,” said Harrison.

The County’s engineering chief, Robert McAuley, assured Carter, Hurst and council that he was prepared to postpone demolition for a year. He noted that a project of this nature and complexity requires approvals and permits from an assortment of regulatory agencies— all of which are currently in place. But each has a time limit. McAuley said he could stretch this window until next summer, but no later.

“I am prepared to accept the risk of a delay for one year,” said McAuley. “But I have to put closure on this by July.”

Now it is up to the County’s community development department to consider proposals and assess various options and concepts for the property. The department will conduct a public consultation sessionto gather ideas and feedback. It will then present its findings to council.