The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake is considering changes to how special events are regulated within its borders after consultants told councillors the town’s existing definition is “overly broad” and creates “a high degree of confusion” among council.
Consultants on Tuesday presented a report recommending a new special events policy, a new bylaw with enforcement powers and a revised permit fee structure — changes that could reshape how events are approved, monitored and penalized in the town, with a focus on events that draw a large crowd and impact the community in other ways.
Council did not approve the items. Instead, it voted to receive the report and direct staff to finalize the documents and bring them back for approval at a future council meeting, expected later this month.
If adopted, staff said the town would implement the new rules in phases through the first half of the year.
Under the new framework, a special event is defined as “something that would normally not be allowed,” said Olivia Lahaie of StrategyCorp. “For example, going and blocking a road for no apparent reason.”
The town’s current, activity-based policy includes wide range of gatherings, from parades and festivals to events involving food, tents or alcohol. Staff and consultants said this has swept too many events into the special events process, blurs the line between low and high-impact gatherings and leaves uncertainty about what qualifies as a “special event.”
Stacy Hushion of StrategyCorp asked councillors, “If everything’s special, then we ask, well, what is truly special?”
The proposed framework would narrow the definition of a special event, shifting the focus away from specific activities, such as weddings or concerts, and toward factors like crowd size, road closures and use of public space.
Under the draft definition, a special event would generally require a permit if it is expected to draw more than 200 people, takes place on public property or happens on private property where zoning or site-plan exemptions are required.
The permit would be aimed at higher-impact events, not gatherings that are already permitted and regulated under existing rules. This way, staff resources are used better, consultants said.
The consultants also highlighted that the town’s current policy has no enforceable bylaw tied to it and said this has left the municipality unable to properly enforce conditions or address events with problems.
“You have a policy but have no teeth within it,” Hushion said.
Hushion said the policy has not been updated “in some time” to reflect changes in the community, new challenges stemming from hosting events and Niagara-on-the-Lake “being that premier destination.”
According to the town’s special events webpage, the special events policy currently in effect dates back to 2013 and is now under review.
“What we’re presenting is a starting point,” Hushion said. “We would recommend periodic review.”
The proposed policy raised some concerns among councillors.
“We’ve dumped all the stuff that creates the problems off of that list,” said Coun. Gary Burroughs.
He pressed consultants on whether shifting issues like noise and lighting to other bylaws would actually solve ongoing problems when enforcement resources are limited.
“Our bylaw enforcement have challenges going out on the weekend and not having police,” he said. “Enforcement is almost impossible for them, so why are we not trying to deal with that, even for the big groups?”
Consultants responded that those challenges are not something a policy can fix.
“I’ve heard about what you’re talking about — I would say that that is an enforcement issue that would exist regardless of what this policy says,” Lahaie said.
Other councillors spoke in favour of the proposed approach.
Coun. Wendy Cheropita said she welcomes stronger enforcement tools, including administrative monetary penalties.
“There’s only a few violators,” she said, adding the town should “come down hard on the violators.” She also pointed to the potential for “revenue coming from enforcement” raised by staff, noting most events operate without issue.
Coun. Sandra O’Connor, meanwhile, said she saw “a few weaknesses” in the draft policy that she would like to address.
She questioned how council would ensure impacts on neighbours, agriculture and sustainability are balanced as the town continues to promote itself as an events destination.
“In the guiding principles, I would have liked to have seen something about balance and sustainability,” said O’Connor.
She also asked what events, specifically, would no longer be part of the new framework and how those activities would be regulated instead, saying clearer examples would help improve transparency.
“I want a list of which ones are not covered — and what are we going to do about it?” she said.
She pressed for clarity on what events would “fall off the table.”
Consultants and chief administrative officer Nick Ruller said events no longer in the new framework would be governed through other rules like zoning and licensing — and that listing them in advance would not be practical, since each event would be assessed based on its impact.
“By nature of being a wedding doesn’t necessarily mean something will be high-impact,” Lahaie said. “That’s why we tried to scope the definition around impact.”
Burroughs asked how many special events the town might expect in a year under the new framework. Consultants said they did not estimate that number, but said the current figure is around 140, which could change under the new definition.
