A proposal by J.D. Irving, Ltd. (JDI) to demolish a heritage building in uptown Saint John and replace it with a playground is getting pushback from residents.
JDI has asked city council to remove three properties at 111-119 King Street East from the local heritage conservation area.
Two of the properties are vacant while the third is home to the Paikowsky Residence, also known as the Brown House.
The move would pave the way for the company to demolish the dilapidated 81-year-old building at the corner of King Street East and Carmarthen Street.
More than a dozen people opposed the application during a public hearing Monday night, including the vice-chair of the Heritage Development Board.
During a special meeting in June, the board sided with a staff recommendation not to remove the properties from the heritage conservation area.
Michael Cummings told council the board is worried about the message a decision of this nature would send to other heritage property owners.
“We cannot encourage or incentivize property owners to use demolition by neglect or the threat of it to evade the heritage bylaw,” said Cummings during Monday’s hearing.
Cummings noted there is no need to remove a property from the heritage conservation area in order for a building to be demolished.
However, an applicant must first list the building for sale “at a reasonable price” for at least one year and accept “reasonable offers” within 10 per cent before the board will issue a demolition permit.
Because JDI has no plans to sell the properties, the only way they can demolish the building is to have the heritage designation removed.
Jason Fillmore, the regional director of Canada Homes For Rent, said he opposes the demolition based on the current housing crisis.
Fillmore said there are “hundreds if not thousands” of people without a home, adding the Brown House could be fixed up to easily house five families.
“I have a list of investors, probably 10 or 12, that would buy this building tomorrow if it went for sale. I’ve also talked to several non-profits who have expressed interest in buying the buliding and making it into a non-profit house,” said Fillmore.
Dr. Greg Paterson, a local heritage advocate, said people in the community would like to see JDI restore the building and build a small park next to it.
Paterson, who presented a petition to council, said he knocked on 127 doors early last week. Fifty-three of 63 people who were home signed the petition, he said, noting some did not sign as they were employed by the city or JDI.
“We’re looking at a 98 per cent support rate from my community, which is your community, to not make this decision happen,” said Paterson
“I know you will regret the decision if you vote tonight to remove this property from the bylaw. If you don’t regret it, your children’s children will regret it.”
Officials from JDI also presented at Monday’s hearing and noted that a condition assessment conducted by Dillon Consulting found the building is “beyond feasible repair.”
Doug Dean, director of project engineering, said the building has been vacant since 2016 due to poor living conditions and safety concerns.
“The roof requires complete replacement and the exterior is in an advanced state of disrepair,” said Dean. “On the inside of the house, there is evidence of moisture damage, evidence of mould. Many rooms are in a state of total disrepair.”
The final conclusion from Dillon Consulting, said Dean, was that the building is “unsightly and a hazard to the safety of the public.”
Chris MacDonald, vice president of government relations for JDI, said the company does not have a Plan B for the site if council rejects their application.
MacDonald said if the building does not come down now, it will likely sit there for several more years until it is torn down as part of the city’s vacant buildings program.
“It is likely the building will continue to deteriorate,” he said. “It’s clearly beyond feasible repair, so it is going to come down one way or the other.”
MacDonald said they also have no plans to sell the property given its close proximity to the company’s head office.
“It’s important, from our perspective, to maintain that property because then we have control over that property. Once it’s sold, you never know what’s going to happen with it,” he said.
As part of the proposed agreement, JDI would be required to build and maintain the park, at their expense, for at least 20 years. Staff estimate the project would cost in the range of $500,000 to $1 million.
The proposed park would include a children’s playpark, benches, interpretive boards, seating options, and some barrier-free parking spots for visitors.
A conceptual drawing of the parking being proposed for the site of the Brown House in Saint John. Image: submitted
While staff requested that the Heritage Development Board vote against JDI’s proposal, they recommend that Common Council approve it.
A staff report to council said the board was looking at it through a heritage lens, while council is considering a “more fulsome evaluation of all public benefits.”
“While there are many factors that Council should consider in rendering its decision on the request from the applicant, staff believe a central objective is to identify a balance between various public benefits, including the preservation of the City’s heritage program and the new park proposed by the applicant,” said the report.
Following a lengthy public hearing and discussion that lasted more than three hours, council voted 5-4 in favour of the first and second reading of the application.
Councillors David Hickey, Joanna Killen, Greg Norton and Paula Radwan voted against the application, while Brent Harris recused himself due to perceived bias.
Hickey said JDI has let the community down when it comes to this particular property.
“It does not stand as what it should be. That should be a five-unit building that houses families and houses 15 odd people,” said Hickey.
“Now we’re left with a no-win situation. I think we’re left with a situation where we let it sit and we let it rot and we let it fall apart and it doesn’t help the neighbourhood at all, or I think we’re left in a situation where we lose a beautiful heritage asset in way of some public benefit.”
Radwan said she feels “a bit handcuffed” by the fact that if the building is not torn down now, it will have to be demolished down the road.
Among those councillors who voted in favour was Gary Sullivan, who said the city has no power to compel JDI to do anything to the building other than what they are doing now.
“It’s currently a horrible eyesore in a prominent location uptown. Do I as a councillor want to have it sitting there as a dilapidated eyesore for the next X number of years? I don’t,” said Sullivan.
While council passed first and second reading of JDI’s application, they referred the proposed contractual agreement surrounding the park to city staff to address concerns relating to the final design and the language surrounding the company’s commitment to maintaining the site.
No date was set for when the matter will return to council.
