So, as you may or may not know, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake has published a request for proposal relative to a study of, and the subsequent development of guidelines for, an expanded historic district in Old Town.
Now, the expansion of the Old Town historic district has been a contentious issue since the early 1990s, with no sitting council in the last 34 years willing to step out and protect the community heritage and character — something our tourist sector is largely dependent on.
This is reflected in a serendipitous communication with a former bed and breakfast operator in Old Town who, during a Sept. 16 telephone conversation, stated, “I would always suggest to our guests that they get off Queen Street and walk, or drive, all of NOTL’s streets. They always came back to thank me because, as they said, the character of the town is reflected more on the residential streets than on Queen Street’s commercial corridor.”
But, aside from the benefits that devolve onto tourism, there are a bevy of other important reasons to expand the historic district in Old Town — two of which include the preservation of irreplaceable built heritage and protection of the settlement area’s character that, to a large degree, is reflected in many facets of the community.
In order to facilitate the work of the consultancy firm selected at the conclusion of the request for proposal process, over the past four weeks, the town’s heritage planners organized a series of 12 volunteer-based — individuals drawn from the municipal heritage committee, museum and Niagara Foundation — fieldwork sessions, which generated a wealth of data on individual buildings, the varied settlement periods and architectural styles that define Old Town’s built landscape.
Further, the relationships between buildings and the spaces in between were considered in an attempt to define the character of individual streetscapes and landscapes.
On multiple occasions, town residents, curious about just what we were doing, engaged with the heritage planners and volunteers — in many cases, adding invaluable information about the buildings and the people who had owned them.
Allow me to provide just one example of such an exchange which occurred during a recent fieldwork session.
We were standing in front of the house located at 233 Gate St. and debating the accuracy of the build date (1970) that the town’s senior heritage planner, Candice Bogdanski, had pulled from the town’s records (note that there are many inaccuracies in those records).
Some of the group felt this dwelling could well be an early 19th-century build, but I wasn’t convinced it wasn’t a superb New Traditional reproduction from an architect such as McKie Wing Roth.
Just as I was stating that only 30 seconds in the basement of the house would determine its actual age, I caught sight of a lady waving to us from the front window.
Not being a backward sort, I motioned a request to speak with her and, a minute or two later, she opened the front door.
After Candice had explained what we were doing, the lady asked us to wait and went back into the house, returning a short time thereafter with magazine and book in-hand, then settled herself on the front steps.
She explained that the house had been constructed by her parents in 1970. As lovers of historic Williamsburg in Virginia, they had commissioned a reproduction of one of the 18th-century dwellings, carefully selected to be in complete sympathy with NOTL’s historic streetscapes and its Gate Street location specifically (for those interested, google the Ayscough House in Williamsburg VA to see the original 18th-century inspiration).
An objective that, in this writer’s opinion, was achieved admirably.
Opening the copy of a 1989 Chatelaine magazine held in her hand, she turned to an in-depth article which featured the house we stood in front of and described the interior augmented by the article’s multiple photos.
At several points during the description, she expressed the responsibility that she felt to protect and preserve her parents’ legacy and, further, alluded to the battles she has waged on behalf of NOTL’s heritage.
There was a time in this town when nearly everyone was committed to its preservation, she explained.
It was a time when women in their dresses and men in their suits would gather on Friday and Saturday evenings at the Oban Inn to socialize and build community.
It was a kinder, gentler time, in which respect for your neighbours and your neighbourhoods formed an important central criteria to be considered in an individual’s decision-making and subsequent actions.
Through her eloquent words, I could see in my mind’s eye those gatherings at the Oban.
Moreover, the town’s built architecture from that period (1970s and 1980s) and the resultant streetscapes underwrite and display the “respect” of neighbours, neighbourhoods and historic built heritage that she spoke of.
Unfortunately, it is an ethos that is frequently forgotten or deliberately ignored in the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake in 2024.
Infill developments are shoe-horned into lots — with minor variances on lot coverage and setbacks — without regard for existing streetscapes.
The height, massing and architecture of the infill often completely disrupting the rhythm of that streetscape, dwarfing the neighbours and robbing them of their privacy.
Neighbours, neighbourhoods and cultural heritage landscapes be-damned if we can gain one more house, one more condo or one more hotel, it seems to be worth it – at least according to the voting record of the majority serving on our current council.
Consider, if you will, the proposed condominium at 223-227 Mary St. which came before council’s committee of the whole planning meeting last week.
As I described in this column published on Sept. 11, the developer proposes a building height of 14 metres (45.93 feet), not including the parapets and, I assume, rooftop mechanical enclosures on a town block currently devoted to single family dwellings that vary in height from one to two storeys (less than half the height of the proposed condo).
Lines of sight from the condo balconies and windows will remove any hint of privacy from the neighbouring backyards. The shadow studies clearly show that every single neighbour will, at various dates and times of day throughout the year, suffer from the shadows cast by the proposed building. And, the list goes on.
During the initial 2023 application, neighbours and other town residents filed approximately 53 objections with only two letters of support.
And, although according to a comment made by a senior staff member during the council’s planning meeting, staff consider the extent of the revisions to be so substantial as to make this essentially a “new application,” the developer was allowed to bring it forward as a revised application #0151, I assume to avoid the requirement for an open house and public meeting had a new application been filed.
Despite these points, irregularities and other items, the majority of council (Gary Zalepa, Erwin Wiens, Adriana Vizzari, Maria Mavridis and Wendy Cheropita) voted in favour, while Gary Burroughs, Sandra O’Connor and Tim Balasiuk voted against — pretty much the standard council voting pattern on development applications.
This application will be coming forward for the final council vote in the Sept. 23 council meeting.
If nothing changes, it will be approved — while the neighbours and the character of Old Town’s central residential district will be the poorer for it.
I am also informed that the town clerk is stonewalling delegations on this matter, suggesting that the existing list of delegations, presentations and requests to appear before council and other matters over the next few meetings is so lengthy that it is unlikely a new delegation on this application would be accepted.
That leaves each of us to contact our councillors, preferably in writing, to voice an opinion, either for or against, on the matter.
If we won’t be heard one way, we need to be heard in another.
Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.