A Niagara-on-the-Lake subdivision proposal council had already rejected is back — and now approved — in a reversal that’s raising questions about cost, control and heritage protections.
Council voted to approve a previously defeated recommendation tied to the development at 46 Paxton Ln. Tuesday night, after a lengthy debate that exposed divisions over how the project has changed since its original Ontario Land Tribunal approval more than a decade ago.
At the centre of the dispute is block 18, a piece of land flagged for its archeological significance.
At the meeting, a planning consultant for the applicant — a Toronto-based numbered company — and a lawyer involved in the original provincial decision told council the town could be on the hook for more than $2 million in archeological costs if the proposal wasn’t approved.
The proposal is also tied to a plan to restore the deteriorating David Secord House on the site. Rainer Hummel of Hummel Properties Inc. has agreed to take on the restoration, but only if the subdivision changes move ahead — a link that was confirmed and debated during the meeting.
But resident Nicholas Colaneri urged council not to move ahead, arguing it replaces permanent protections with a temporary measure that could be undone.
Who owns the land has been a point of confusion throughout the debate, but it has remained in private ownership the entire time. Under the original plan, block 18 was to be transferred to the town after the required archeological work was completed.
The new proposal instead keeps it in private hands under a holding provision — a shift Colaneri warned weakens long-term protection.
“This is a temporary zoning tool,” he said, arguing the change could allow future councils to open the land to development.
“When it is removed, every protection disappears with it.”
Colaneri said council should not reconsider or weaken a decision that was already defeated, arguing the report inappropriately pushed approval without clear planning rationale.
Council also heard that Indigenous groups had been invited to participate in earlier stages of the archeological process and that engagement would continue.
But Colaneri raised concerns about Indigenous cultural material on the site and said that consultation “should be before council.”
“Which ones, when?” asked Colaneri, about the Indigenous groups consulted. “What did they say?”
Jennifer Vida, a planning consultant for the applicant, defended the change and said it maintains protection while avoiding major costs for the town.
Keeping the land public, she said, would leave the municipality responsible for a site that “would not be accessible or beneficial to the public.”
“The town would be required to take out liability insurance on the property and the town would need to provide constant maintenance to cut grass.”
Vida said a required stage four archeological assessment — involving intensive hand digging — has an estimated price tag of $2 million.
“The town would be taking on significant liability, with no benefit to the community,” she said.
The link between the subdivision and the restoration of the deteriorating David Secord House became a key flashpoint.
“If the house cannot be removed from the draft application, the lands cannot be conveyed to Mr. Hummel and the restoration cannot proceed,” Vida said. “The two applications must move ahead together.”
Some councillors questioned the way the applications were tied together. Coun. Sandra O’Connor was unaware the proposals were dependent on each other, she said.
“’I’m still a little bit pondering as to how we got to this stage,” said O’Connor. “If we want the Secord house to be restored, it’s contingent on us approving the changes to this subdivision — so I’m a little concerned with that.”
Coun. Gary Burroughs questioned how the proposal had changed over time.
“My confusion is: when did it change?” he said. “Just now that the owner would prefer to own it rather than the town on it?”
The applicant’s solicitor, Tom Richardson, said the 2013 decision was “a settlement” and argued the revisions stay within that framework.
Richardson read a quote from the conclusion of the Ontario Land Tribunal (which, in 2013, was called the Ontario Municipal Board) decision: “The parties have clearly undertaken significant and comprehensive negotiations and worked to arrive at a settlement that is respectful of the area, preserves important components of the town’s heritage and limits impacts on surrounding and adjacent lands.”
He told council his submission is that “the revisions recommended in the staff report do not detract from that conclusion, but in fact, strengthen the outcome by seeing the restoration of the Secord-Paxton house and the possible restoration of block 18 at some future date.”
If approved, the revised plan would allow the house to be separated onto its own lot, transferred to Hummel for restoration and allow the developer to move ahead with the rest of the project, Richardson added.
Coun. Adriana Vizzari said she was uneasy with relying on planning decisions made more than a decade ago and called for more information on access and connectivity.
“As the community continues to grow, it’s critical that the infrastructure keeps pace,” she said, especially when it comes to walkability.
“This site is directly connected to key community amenities in St. Davids,” she said, noting she appreciates improvements made so far to the application but believes “more can be done” about walkability.
Coun. Wendy Cheropita said new details helped address some questions, while Coun. Erwin Wiens supported the plan, arguing it doesn’t make sense for the town to take on costly land.
“We’re talking about trying to take on an acre of land and invest millions of dollars,” Wiens said. “It does not make any sense whatsoever.”
