In short order, Peterborough city council decided to reject a recommendation from the city’s Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (PACAC) that several buildings at the General Electric factory complex be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act in addition to those council had approved for designation at its October 14 meeting.
At a special general committee meeting on Monday afternoon (November 3), council dispensed with the only item on the agenda in under 10 minutes with no debate.
Councillors were considering a city staff report from the city’s commissioner of infrastructure, planning and growth management Blair Nelson, which included a recommendation from the city’s citizen-led heritage committee that facades along Albert Street be retained for buildings 8, 34, 16A, 16, and 22 in their current location and be included in a heritage designation, along with building 13 (the power house).
The heritage designations recommended by PACAC would be in addition to heritage designations for buildings 2, 2A, 8A, 21, 24A, 26, 28, and 30, which council had approved on October 14 based on a 154-page heritage impact assessment (HIA) report prepared by ERA Architects Inc. on behalf of GEPR Energy Canada Inc., a subsidiary of GE Vernova, that owns the GE complex at 107 Park Street North in downtown Peterborough.
The HIA report accompanied GE Vernova’s notice of intention to the city to demolish and remove all buildings in the complex’s centre block that haven’t been used since 2018. The 26 buildings to be demolished represent around 84,500 square metres (910,000 square feet) of the 104,000 square metre (1.1 million square feet) site.
The only buildings that would be retained include two currently in use by GE Vernova, four currently in use by BWXT (an independent company that was originally part of GE Vernova’s nuclear energy division), and two unoccupied buildings with heritage value that will be retained and mothballed pending potential future uses.
In addition to receiving PACAC’s recommendation, the city staff report presented two options to council: accept PACAC’s recommendation, which would require council to reconsider its original October 14 decision, or retain its original decision.
At Monday afternoon’s meeting, which was chaired by councillor Matt Crowley (councillor Andrew Beamer, who is normally general committee chair, was absent), councillor Lesley Parnell moved that general committee accept the option to retain council’s original decision.
Chair Crowley asked city clerk John Kennedy for clarification on procedure, who advised council they could move the entire motion and then separate out the options and vote on them individually.
Kennedy noted that, if general committee voted to accept PACAC’s recommendation with a simple majority, it would then require a two-thirds vote from city council at a regular meeting since it would be a reconsideration of a motion that had already been approved by city council.
Councillor Alex Bierk raised a point of order, asking for an explanation of how the PACAC recommendation was actually a reconsideration.
Chair Crowley ruled that it was a reconsideration since council had given direction to PACAC to review its motion to designate the buildings approved by council on October 14, and PACAC was recommending additional designations.
Councillor Parnell then moved the entire motion, noting that the two options in the motion are contrary to each other and asking they be separated out for a vote.
Councillor Dave Haacke then moved to call the question, which is a procedural tactic to prevent debate, which was carried. While the votes of individual councillors were displayed in chambers, they were not displayed online to the public as is the usual process.
In quick succession, council then voted in favour of receiving the PACAC recommendation, voted against accepting the PACAC recommendation, and voted in favour of retaining council’s original October 14 decision. Again, the votes of individual councillors were not displayed online.
General committee’s decision will be confirmed at a city council meeting scheduled for 6 p.m. on Tuesday (November 4), where registered delegations will be heard. The decision is the only item on that meeting’s agenda.
Council’s decision on which buildings to designate will affect how the city serves its notice of intent to designate to GE Vernova by November 7 — the 60-day deadline under the Ontario Heritage Act given that GE Vernova sent its notice of intention for demolition to the city on September 8.
The proposed demolition is controversial because of known contamination of the industrial site with toxic hazardous substances over the past 125 years and the impact of a demolition on the safety of the surrounding residential neighbourhoods.
