On Thursday evening,
Heritage Milton met to decide whether to recommend the designation the St. Paul's Church sanctuary as a heritage building, or to allow the Church to move forward with its request for demolition. Either recommendation would toss the ball back into Town Council's court and force a final decision at the next council meeting on July 19th.
There was quite the crowd crammed into the Milton Room, which was to be expected given the high emotions surrounding the fate of St. Paul's and now the publicity about the fire. The various groups wishing to save the sanctuary all wore stickers saying who they were with, but it was hard to tell how many were there on the side of demolishing it and redeveloping the property.
There were six delegations, representing the Church Council, the United Church Presbytery, and members of the Milton Historical Society, Save the Sanctuary, and Neighbours of St. Paul's. They all presented very convincing arguments that left me as anguished as ever on the issue. I certainly didn't envy the committee members their job.
In the end, they
decided not to decide. Instead, they requested more documentation, thus putting off the deadline for a council decision until 60 days after that documentation is received.
This is the text of the resolution:
"Heritage Milton requests a heritage assessment for St. Paul’s Church, a post-fire structural engineers report and a copy of the St. Paul’s Church’s binder, that contains the inventory of heritage artefacts that are proposed to be retained, is submitted as soon as possible, so that they can be reviewed by Heritage Milton in context with the demolition application."
Unfortunately there was no time frame attached to this resolution, so in theory the Church Council could delay submitting these documents for... well, forever. Or until the next council takes office. Or until the church falls down of its own accord. But even if the documents are supplied properly, the appeals process in the Heritage Act pretty much guarantees that the final, final decision is going to be made by the next Town Council.
Aside from the conflicting expert opinions about the true condition of the building and the ongoing mystery of the fire (which should be resolved in about 6 weeks by the Fire Marshall) there are other unresolved questions here that, as someone who will hopefully be on that council, I would like to have answered.
First is the question of the proposed redevelopment. By all accounts they are looking at least 7-9 storeys of life-lease condos, with everything except possibly the bell tower of the current sanctuary demolished. A preliminary concept drawing of a 9-storey condo and a re-built church was shown at last night's meeting, and the reaction from the crowd was ugly.
The height of the proposed building is at the insistence of the developers, who have assured the Church Council that anything less than 100 units would not be "economically viable". This, despite the fact that Holy Rosary's Marion Courtyard - an almost identical type of life-lease condo building - seems to do quite nicely with four storeys, 50 units, and a footprint that would tuck nicely alongside the St. Paul's sanctuary.
I can only assume that there is a distinction being drawn here between 'viable' and 'profitable'.
Despite all this, the Church Council is adamant that nothing has been finalized, and that nothing
will be finalized until they are given the go ahead to demolish the sanctuary. But given that the whole area is zoned with a limit of 4 storeys, and that pretty much every single person in the neighbourhood would vehemently object to exceeding that by a single foot, I frankly can't see any way of getting their plan approved short of shredding both the zoning by-laws and the Official Plan.
So, what happens if they tear down the sanctuary and council then refuses to allow the construction of the number of condo units they insist they need to make the scheme viable? And how much pressure would that place on council to somehow accommodate the now homeless church?
This relates to my other concern, which is somewhat broader: the question of
interest and
responsibility.
If Council places a Heritage designation on St. Paul's - or any building for that matter - against the owner's wishes, one would hope that such an action would only be taken if there was an overriding public interest in that building's preservation. But if there is such a public interest (and in this case, I believe there is), does that not imply a public responsibility as well? And does that extend to a financial responsibility to contribute to its maintenance?
If anything good can come out of all this, it may well be the recognition that it isn't just the congregations of the many historic churches in Milton who have an interest in their continued existence. From the social services they offer, to the tourists nd new residents they attract, to the history and continuity they represent - we all have a stake in this. And I have no doubt that if a decision is made to designate and preserve the sanctuary, the people of St. Paul's would not find themselves alone in their efforts to fund the repair and renewal of their church.
On a personal note, I want to say that although I am not a church member, my family has deep roots in the United and Methodist Churches, so I have a particular appreciation for that uniquely Canadian spirit of pragmatism, cooperation and compromise which lead to the creation of the United Church of Canada eight and a half decades ago.
Here's hoping that spirit will prevail here.