Headline News

Mono committee quits in protest to council denying heritage designation

October 16, 2025   ·   0 Comments

By James Matthews, Local

Mono’s heritage advisory committee members resigned as a whole in protest of town council’s decision regarding a local historical farmstead property.

The town’s eight-member heritage committee has called for the property to be registered as being of historical heritage significance. Town council reaffirmed during its Oct. 14 meeting that it will not give the nod for such a designation. The entire committee resigned from their positions in protest after the meeting.

Council voted in July to cancel the farm’s heritage status, which quashed a November 2023 bylaw that designated it as being of historical importance.

According to a letter to town council before the meeting, it is the committee’s position that the decision to rescind was made in haste, without public input, without serious examination of alternative solutions, and without careful consideration of the irreversible consequences.

There’s also concern that the about-face sends a negative message about the town’s commitment to heritage preservation.

The fracas concerns a property at 934322 Airport Road, known as the Anderson Farm. The 170-year-old farm complex includes an occupied stone house in good condition and a stone cottage with a caved in roof. There’s also a stone milk house and three barns.

It had been occupied by five generations of Andersons starting in about 1850.

Town council heard during a meeting in July 2023 that the pioneer homestead is a surviving example of fieldstone construction. It’s said that they make up a rare historical complex of farm buildings typical of the industrious Irish pioneers who came to Mono in the mid-1800s.

The family that owns the old farmstead made it known to town council in 2023 that they wanted nothing to do with having the property saddled with heritage designation. The family hired Oakville law firm O’Connor MacLeod Hanna to fight the municipality’s effort.

An official objection was also filed with the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) in August 2023.

The family bought the land in late 2020 with a view to making it their future home. The lawyer said the family realized there were some older structures on the property, but those structures were in an “advanced state of degradation.”

Heritage designation means no alterations or removal can be made to the exteriors of structures. The owner can still do those things, but not without council permission.

Barbara Jafelice, the heritage committee’s chairperson, said much of the Anderson property’s merit is in it being a harmonious complex of buildings that epitomizes the agricultural and social history of Mono on a serene and highly visible hilltop location.

“Arguably more than any other property in Mono, the Anderson farm fulfils a majority of the criteria for designation as laid out in the Heritage Act,” she wrote in an email to The Citizen.

Specifically, she said, it honours Shelley Anderson, a man who made significant contributions to the Mono community and the environment.

The farm’s buildings are fine examples of the architectural vernacular of early homesteads, Jafelice said.

“The Anderson property is an important landmark in our community,” said Kirsten Ball, the committee’s past-chair. “In the opinion of the heritage committee, the proposal put forth is not a satisfactory compromise.”

Removal of the designation will allow the property’s owners to demolish the structures on their land, she said. Then they can build “a new, possibly very large house.”

“The heritage committee feels that their arguments are extremely weak because, as we know, the condition of a building has nothing to do with its viability as a designated property,” Ball said. “In contrast, the town has a very strong argument for the designation.”

Provincial heritage legislation outlines nine criteria that can be used to determine a property’s historical importance for designation. A subject property has to meet only two of those conditions.

“In the case of the Anderson Farm, fully six of the nine criteria have been met,” Ball said. “This is far more than any other designation in Mono. It is arguably the most important heritage building in Mono.”

She believes the town arguing in favour of the heritage designation would win its case at the OLT.

“The onus is on the town to protect these buildings for the benefit of the community,” Ball said.

Councillor Elaine Capes, a committee member, tabled a motion for council to reopen discussion about the Anderson Farm’s heritage status. Initial council support was unanimous in favour of the designation. The subsequent decision to revoke that designation was by a tight 3-2 vote in July.

“There is a suggestion that we acted hastily and we weren’t informed and made a bad decision,” Mayor John Creelman said. “And I point out just for the record that this matter has been discussed many times.”

Coun. Melinda Davie acknowledged the many discussions about the property and its status. But she said the about-face decision to revoke that heritage designation was made in haste.

An offer was made by owners of another Mono property to have the Anderson Farm’s main structure relocated stone by stone at no cost to taxpayers.

Davie said the larger picture of the property’s heritage importance is the original location and all the buildings there.

“The value of heritage is a broader thing than just rocks put together in a certain way,” Davie said.

Creelman said some property owners oppose the heritage designation because they don’t want to be bound by the legislation when it comes to decisions about their own properties.

“But that is why the Heritage Act is in place,” Ball said.

“We’re aware of that,” Creelman said. “And we’re also aware that the Heritage Act doesn’t force a property owner to fix a property up.”

“But if we remove the designation, all those buildings could be gone within a year,” Ball said.

“You are making an assumption which I think is very unfair to the property owner,” Creelman said.

“Have they told you they’re not going to knock it down?” Ball said.

“They haven’t said either way what they are going to do,” Creelman said.

“So how do we know?” Ball said.

“I believe that due process has been manipulated by this idea to take this stone cottage and move it somewhere else,” Capes said. “We are not following due process.”

That would be to allow the matter to go before the OLT, Capes said.

“I feel uncomfortable being told, Councillor Capes, that I’ve been manipulated,” Deputy Mayor Fred Nix said. “I really feel uncomfortable with that accusation.”

Further, Nix said the advisory committee’s role is to make recommendations to council. Then council has the right to either accept or deny those recommendations “as we choose fit.”

Davie asked if it was too late for council to reconsider its opposition to the property having heritage status.

Fred Simpson, the town’s clerk, said a settlement was offered to the Anderson Farm owners, and it was accepted. But the town hasn’t yet signed those minutes of settlement, and the OLT hasn’t been informed about those minutes.

Coun. Ralph Manktelow said the idea that a property that is not being maintained is of significant value is disagreeable.

“I can’t accept the fact that a deteriorating property is as valuable as the committee feels that it is,” he said.

Capes compared the Anderson Farm property to Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England, and European castles. They are piles of rocks considered to be culturally and historically valuable, she said.

“They don’t say it’s a pile of rubble,” she said. “They value it.”

Capes’ motion to have council reconsider their denial of heritage designation failed by a 3-2 vote.

Readers Comments (0)