In a quest to increase its level of transparency to the public, the town has made detailed reports on the ongoing Parliament Oak hotel development available on the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake website.

During last week’s committee of the whole planning meeting, Coun. Sandra O’Connor proposed making the reports, previously unavailable online, easy to access via the town’s website. 

After a long discussion surrounding how necessary making the information available online would be, councillors passed the amendment. 

Kirsten McCauley, the town’s director of planning, recognized 325 King St. as a development that will “generate a lot of interest.”

“It’s not the normal process, but it is something that we would be willing to do if directed by council,” McCauley said during the meeting. 

The development has already drawn a fair amount of attention this year: It was the inspiration behind a large demonstration held outside town hall in late July, attended by about 200 people, some touting signs and calling for municipal resignations.

Currently, demolition of the former Parliament Oak School — which the hotel will replace — is wrapping up, with the building just about levelled by crews.

Coun. Adriana Vizzari said she is in complete support of full transparency, but questioned whether or not this is something that planners would be willing to do for other developments. 

Vizzari also asked McCauley if she had received any calls from residents regarding the site plan.

“I haven’t personally received any calls,” McCauley said, but she did have a resident come in and meet to speak about it. 

Aimee Alderman, the manager of planning, also has not received any calls.

Coun. Tim Balasiuk noted he is certain people will reach out eventually concerning the development. 

“We all know how contentious this one development is, regardless of how many people have reached out,” he said. 

Balasiuk said he knows it isn’t the usual mode of action, but posting these reports gives council an opportunity to be completely transparent, he said. 

“I don’t see any reason we shouldn’t be able to provide that information.”

Coun. Erwin Wiens, on the other hand, said that these documents are delegated for good reason.

The documents are technical and hard to understand for the average resident and putting them online could lead to the spread of misinformation, he said. 

“People are so concerned, but they can’t take an hour out of their day to come see staff and have staff explain it,” Wiens said. 

The Lake Report reached out to Wiens for additional comment.

Wiens said that he thinks the average resident would not be informed enough to decipher the documents.

“When you are dealing with architectural drawings, it takes an education to understand that. It’s not that people are dumb. Equate it to putting brain surgery online and expecting people to understand,” he said in an interview.

The documents were already public, now all that happens is you do not have to go to town hall to get them, Wiens said.

When it comes to misinformation, there is little the town can do to prevent it, Wiens said.

“The town has an obligation to put out the correct information, but we can’t control it if people choose not to — if people misread it,” he said.

Balasiuk said a note could be added to the bottom of the webpage informing residents that they can reach out to staff with questions regarding details.

O’Connor said that people not understanding is not a good enough reason to not post the information. 

She argued having the documents online will allow residents to properly absorb the information before drafting their questions to staff. 

Vizzari noted the process is already “completely transparent,” regardless if the documents are posted or not. 

Putting documents online only for this development, Wiens said, is singling out a specific developer unfairly. 

“This is meant to target someone unfairly for political purposes,” he said. 

In response, O’Connor again clarified that staff suggested putting the documents online after she approached planners to see them herself. 

Coun. Wendy Cheropita said she did perhaps feel that council was targeting one development and suggested inviting residents to meet with staff one-on-one instead. 

“It makes sure we don’t have an incorrect narrative out in the community that may harm the development itself,” she said. 

Coun. Andrew Niven commented that he supports putting the documents online. 

“I don’t really see a downside to providing more information to our residents,” he said. 

Vizzari requested the website leave a disclaimer at the bottom of the web page informing residents that they can see other site plans by request. 

“We can certainly look at the wording on the website to provide information on how to contact staff,” McCauley said. 

In a town statement, staff said all other planning application documents are available during the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment stages, but as projects progress into the site plan approval stage, those documents will only be available for review at town hall.

The King Street documents are available to view at notl.com/search/site?s=325+king, on notl.com.