Battle over fate of Crescentwood mansion goes to court

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/10/2019 (1847 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The owners of a Wellington Crescent mansion at the centre of a community tug of war are taking court action against the City of Winnipeg and its decision to nominate Crescentwood as a heritage conservation district.

That decision effectively blocked the owners of the residence at 514 Wellington Cres. from demolishing it and constructing a 3,500-square-foot, two-storey, single-family dwelling in its place.

In documents filed earlier this month, the building’s owner — a numbered company, with Winnipeg businessman Jeff Thompson as its president — is seeking a court order quashing the June decision of the city’s planning, property and development department and an accompanying stop-work order that prevented the owner from continuing development of the property.

A hearing before a judge has been set for Nov. 1. The owner’s motion includes a request all city orders with respect to the project be provided to the court with reasons, evidence, and exhibits.

The owners of 514 Wellington Cres. had obtained a demolition permit and had decommissioned the 110-year-old house, cutting off power, gas and water services. Work was halted at the last moment in early June, following a standoff between demolition crews and area residents opposed to the house’s demolition.

The heritage nomination and stop-work order “were targeted actions to interfere with and effectively extinguish the applicant’s rights to demolish and redevelop 514 Wellington Cres.,” the building owner alleges in court documents.

The move to stop development of the property ran contrary to prior demolition and building permits granted and was made “in response to the objections of a small number of community members and the city councillor for River Heights/Fort Garry (John Orlikow),” say court documents.

An appeal by the building owner to the standing policy committee was denied. The building owner argues in denying the appeal, the city acted “in bad faith, arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and/or on the basis of irrelevant factors.”