Town moving ahead in heritage designation process for GAHS site

Town council has voted to go down the heritage designation route for the former General Amherst High School.

Town council has voted to go down the heritage designation route for the former General Amherst High School.

The building, located at 130 Sandwich St. S., is proposed to be transformed by the Valente Development Corporation into a residential and commercial site, including eight and 11-storey towers. Despite a vow from owner Peter Valente to recreate the southern facade of the 1922 building when the company develops the site, town council voted 4-3 to proceed with a notice of intent to designate the property. 

Council members, particularly those in favour of the motion, as well as administration were quick to state this doesn’t mean the building will be designated, but that discussions will be held with Valente and his team to save certain elements of the structure, such as the facade and the majority of the murals along Laird Ave.

The vote to proceed with a notice to intent passed 4-3 with Mayor Michael Prue, Councillor Don McArthur, Councillor Diane Pouget and Councillor Molly Allaire in favour. Opposed were Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb, Councillor Peter Courtney and Councillor Linden Crain. A previous motion to not go down the designation road failed 4-3, with the elected officials voting in similar fashion.

The vote came after extensive debate, which included strong opposition by Valente.

“Let’s stop pretending this is a neutral or symbolic decision. It is not. This is a decision that will directly determine if this property becomes a productive, tax-generating community enhancing asset or a restricted, stagnant taxpayer burden. Council needs to be honest about that,” said Valente. “What we’re really debating is not about history. We’re debating whether this town is serious about growth. We’re in the middle of a housing crisis, we need investment, we need development. We need to attract capital, not scaring it away.”

Valente said the town is considering slapping a restrictive designation on the property that is positioned for redevelopment. Heritage designations are being used as “a protective shield,” he added, while ignoring consequences for the future. He said it would drive up costs, discourage investors, delay housing projects and reduce the project’s economic output.

“This is not a landmark of national significance. It’s not architecturally rare. It’s not irreplaceable,” he said.

Valente said the easy decision is to designation, with the tougher decision being to say no. The latter would show leadership, he said. General Amherst can be honoured in other ways, he said, and a heritage designation would send a message that Amherstburg is difficult to invest in.

“Choose growth, choose housing, choose a future that works,” he said.

Three murals have to be torn down to give access to Laird Ave., he stated, adding he would recreate the facade to the exact design as it was built in 1922.

The main General Amherst High School building built in 1922.

Prue wondered why Valente was opposed, stating council wants the facade and six of the nine murals. Valente said if the murals are designated, he would have to get permission from a future council to do his project.

CAO Valerie Critchley said the town was not designating it heritage Monday night, but taking the first step via a notice of intent. She said the town had to move in that direction due to changes to the Ontario Heritage Act. The town now has until the end of the year to designate all properties on the “properties of interest” list.

“There is no way to protect those heritage elements or to control or have any say in the design, materials used, the massing, the look and feel of the building without the designation,” said Critchley, noting town council no longer has a right to have any say over site plan control.

“We have always said we are more than willing to work with Mr. Valente,” she said.

A report from heritage planner Adam Coates noted the heritage committee recommended town council “take the necessary action” to pursue heritage designation for the building. His recommendation to town council was that the intention to designate the property “be stated and approved” and that the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intent to designate the property.

“Within the broader context of designating 130 Sandwich Street, it must be noted that the property’s conceptual design was previously reviewed and endorsed by the Heritage Committee. However, absent formal heritage designation, this endorsement carries no legal weight, and the property owner is under no obligation to execute the endorsed design,” Coates stated in his written report to town council. “Specifically, the conceptual design acknowledged that three murals on the north elevation of the gymnasium require removal to facilitate access to the broader development. The endorsed concept proposed potentially relocating and integrating these murals elsewhere within the new development. It is critical to understand that even if the property is designated, failing to explicitly list these murals as heritage attributes leaves the Town with no mechanism to prevent their permanent removal.”

Coates also stated “recent legislative amendments have significantly restricted the Site Plan Control process. Municipalities can no longer utilize Site Plan Control Agreements to regulate exterior design elements, including materials, fenestration, and architectural details. Without heritage designation, the exterior of this development could be designed with zero regard for the site’s context or the Town’s surrounding cultural heritage. A failure to designate eliminates the Town’s ability to mandate holistic design standards for the development. While existing zoning dictates spatial parameters such as step-back provisions, the actual construction and architectural character could still fundamentally clash with the Town’s vision for this prominent location. In light of the restricted Site Plan Control legislation, heritage designation remains the Town’s sole regulatory tool to govern exterior design elements on this site.”

The former high school was listed on the Amherstburg Heritage Register March 14, 2022, Coates stated.

According to the report: “Designation signifies to an owner and the broader community that the property contains a significant resource that is important to the community. Designation does not restrict the use of the property or ability to restore, alter or build additions to the property. However, it does require an owner to seek approval for property alterations that are likely to affect the heritage attributes described in the designation bylaw.”

Valente reiterated he was willing to reconstruct the southern facade facing Bill Wigle Park and would attempt to incorporate limestone and artifacts in the wall as part of the original 1921-22 design. He noted it would be $1 million to $1.5 million just for demolition. Trying to prop up and save the current facade would add over $1 million to the project, he estimated.

Councillor Linden Crain said he is excited about the proposal, as it is a nice building for the “start of town.” Crain made the motion to not issue a notice of intent, noting while the former high school is near and dear to him, there is “minimal” heritage value. He added he is on the heritage committee and voted in favour of asking council for an intent to designate, but spoke with the developer who is “very passionate about the look and feel of it.”

Crain said “it’s a tax-generating asset at the gateway to the town” and moving forward with an intent to designate would be a waste of resources. 

“I would like to see this asset built and not sit for years and years,” said Crain. “We need to do what we can to see this core asset move ahead in a timely fashion.”

Councillor Don McArthur believed both sides ultimately want the same thing, stating theoretically if there was no heritage designation, Valente could sell the site to someone who could build an 11-storey “concrete tower.” He asked whether an agreement could be hammered out binding Valente to building what he proposed, something Valente said he would commit to but was told it wasn’t possible.

McArthur later said “it sounds like there’s a middle road,” and that is to issue a notice to designate. He added he understands concerns with that approach, noting the importance of the development to the town. A notice of intent prompts a meeting between the town and the developer. He said he trusts Valente, but the town is in a precarious position going ahead without agreements between the parties.

Should an agreement not be reached, McArthur indicated he would back Valente but that the town should pursue a notice to intent right now to come up with a deal suitable to both parties.

“We want to sit down with developers and craft a plan that works for them – that makes them money – and works for the town, that expands our tax base, creates jobs and assuages fears of residents that this town is growing too fast and too quickly,” said McArthur. “I’m very supportive of this project. It’s not a vote against this project. It’s not a vote against the developer. It’s a vote for keeping power in the hands of council and the people who elected councillors to represent their interests.”

Deputy CAO/director of development services Melissa Osborne said no agreement could be properly agreed to by the town, since the municipality would have no legal authority to enforce it. She said a notice to intent gives the town its “only voice” to guide the municipality through the process and ensure the design is sympathetic to the community.

“I appreciate that everyone is concerned about the word designation, it is an intent to designate tonight,” said Osborne.

A bylaw will come back to town council, she added, and verbiage can be in it to address matters of interest. 

Councillor Peter Courtney recalled a matter several years ago when owners of a home on Park St. were not allowed to demolish their home that had problems with it due to a heritage designation. He didn’t want to “handcuff” the Valente development, and asked why the heritage district didn’t include the former school or other older Laird Ave. homes. Coates said the heritage district includes where the town was founded and first expanded, and Laird Ave. could be included in a future district.

Courtney questioned why the town would not put the trust in Valente and his company for redeveloping the site.

“It’s his property. If he can’t salvage to that wall or do his renovation to the inside, what’s going to happen? Nothing’s going to happen. Then it’s going to be demolition by neglect,” he said.

Pouget said she didn’t want to “tie this man’s hands,” and said Valente “has bent over backwards to appease us.” She originally asked for a legal opinion to pursue an agreement rather than going down the intent to designate route. She would ultimately vote in favour of a notice of intent because “we have to protect the town. We have to protect Mr. Valente.”

Having administration and Valente work out an agreement was the best solution, she believed. “We’re almost there. I fully trust Mr. Valente. I believe Mr. Valente,” said Pouget. “I have a lot of emotions and feelings for that school but I also respect Mr. Valente and believe they can come up with a middle ground and it will be a win-win for all parties.”

Prue said the two parties can meet and discuss heritage elements and what each party wants to save, and questioned the need for lawyers. He later called it “a sad night,” and that one of the oldest buildings in town could be saved. A total of 160 homes are being designated and “this is 161.” He told Valente everything he wants can be achieved by going through the process.

“If I went to school there, I would be doing things to save it,” said Prue. “It needs to be saved because the people have an obligation to look to the future and look to the past and say ‘this is what makes Amherstburg great.’”

Older buildings can draw tourists and business, and the mayor said he wanted that to happen in Amherstburg.

Gibb said he can see both sides of the issue, stating the province has “time and time again” taken powers away from the town to direct development. He said the town could have gone down the designation route before Valente bought it. Gibb also alluded to the Park St. issue and said the home sits vacant to this day “with no advancement to the property.”

Gibb said he’s against pursuing a heritage development, wondering what could happen with the next council.

“I have to believe when someone owns a property, they have the right to do what they want with it,” he said.

Allaire said the proposed design is “fantastic” but this is “a step in the process.” She wanted administration to work with the developer “to make something great.” 

“I’m saying this will be a great, successful development but this is another step in the process,” she said.

Courtney said there’s been a month for the Valente team to meet with staff as the issue came up in March. He said the building “doesn’t scream history to me” and the additions along Sandwich St. S. have more appeal to him.

“We have to be smart here. Houses are not being built very quickly right now,” said Courtney.

Courtney added Valente specializes in such developments and believed Valente’s vision would come to life. 

“He’s a proud man. He’s not going to risk his own identity and mess this up,” said Courtney. “I don’t trust the system, anything with heritage.”

After the successful vote to pursue an intent to designate, McArthur said “this doesn’t close the door on anything. It opens the door.”

Town moving ahead in heritage designation process for GAHS site

By Ron Giofu