Allow me to begin with a short factual commentary on the July 30 citizen’s rally held on the lawns of Niagara-on-the-Lake’s town hall and municipal offices.

This protest was attended by about 200 residents who gathered to express their profound disagreement with a series of development decisions the town’s council has made made during its first 19 months in office.

These decisions, which have and will affect virtually every village and the agricultural lands in NOTL, were represented by people who put boots-on-the-ground in the rally.

As I walked through the gathering, which was dominated by grey-haired folks from the villages and rural sections of NOTL, I was gratified to see strong representation of the town’s younger resident demographic.

Several of them brought their children to witness one of the fundamental rights in democracy: the option to come together and express their opinions relative to the actions of their elected representatives.

It was my observation, particularly given the universal opinion expressed to me by those gathered on the lawns, that many of this council’s decisions are the antithesis of their campaign promises.

This rally was incredibly civilized — no surprise in light of the predominance of polite and conservative “grey-haired” attendees. 

Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa and Coun. Erwin Wiens walked the pathways past the gathered citizens to enter the town hall through the front doors: props to them both for their brave, but perhaps ill-advised, walk, since that action underwrote and reinforced their commitment to a voting record that the residents in attendance generally viewed as catering to developers at the expense of the town’s character.

As they walked, a small component of the crowd expressed their position more vocally, using terms like “shame” and “resign.”

I am forced to observe that these calls, expressed by residents tired of being ignored by their elected “representatives,” were neither “abhorrent” — as characterized by Erwin Wiens in his comments to The Lake Report’s article by Julia Sacco (Aug. 1, “Protesting residents want council to understand the ‘vocal majority'”) nor “appalling” as he suggested in Kevin Werner’s article in the Niagara-on-the-Lake Advance (July 31, “‘It was appalling’: Mob angry about development approvals swarms NOTL councillors”).

To suggest that this gathering was anything more than a peaceful demonstration of residents’ intent and desire to preserve the unique community of Niagara-on-the-Lake — in all its parts — is the grossest type of mischaracterization.

In fact, as Coun. Sandra O’Connor made her way through the gathering to the town hall doors, she was awarded with a universal round of thunderous applause as a result of her performance in council and consistently voting in accordance with her 2022 election campaign promises.   

A record that might serve as an example to others on council as was simply pointed out by the Niagara Foundation’s July 25 advertisement in The Lake Report, titled “Promises Made.”

It seems the old saying that a person receives the accolades and respect they earn through their actions still remains true.

Oh, and by the way, citizen rallies of this type do work. 

In the July 30 council meeting, two contentious issues on their agenda — the severance of the heritage designated property at 187 Queen St. in Old Town and the clear-cutting of more than 800 mature trees in Virgil on the Konik Estate property — were defeated.

Although, it must be said the latter has been “referred back to staff” and remains an issue that must be watched. 

Still, it does make one wish for the form of democracy that has been practised in Switzerland since the 19th century.

You see, the Swiss have their elected bodies at various levels and these bodies operate generally in accordance with a typical representational democracy model.

However, alongside the usual voting rights accorded in democracies, the Swiss people also have the right to vote on specific issues.

For example, certain types of legislation may only be enacted into law after a mandatory referendum is conducted which is open to all citizens.

Further, all citizens possess the right to challenge any law approved by the parliament by collecting 50,000 signatures and thereby forcing an “optional referendum” held nationwide — the result of which is the final ruling authority on the law.

They may also, at any time, propose a modification of the federal constitution, requiring a higher threshold of 100,000 signatures within 18 months to underwrite a referendum (“federal popular initiative”) and again, the citizen vote on the matter is final authority. 

So, to put this in perspective, the population of Switzerland was, in 2022, 8.78 million with 5.5 million voters. Therefore, 50,000 signatures represents 0.9 per cent of voters.

In that same year, Niagara-on-the-Lake had 15,996 voters and, if we had a similar system, an “optional referendum” could be forced with a mere 143 signature threshold. 

This is well below the 1,157 voter signatures registered in just a week by the two petitions currently on change.org (“Reverse town council actions that threaten Niagara-on-the-Lake & its national legacy” and “Urge Niagara-on-the-Lake councilors to uphold town’s official plan and respect voters’ choice”), not to mention the number of on-paper signatures associated with these petitions.

And, by the way, both petitions are still open, active and ask you to weigh in on this matter. 

If you have reasons to agree with recent council decisions on development, I can respect that. However, if you are opposed, the authors of these petitions are still calling for your voices to be heard.

Now, let’s turn the page to a recent email I received from a Virgil resident, who stated “I am reaching out to you for some help on a proposed four-storey building plus rooftop patio next door to my house” and concluded with a plea that read, “Please help us.”

While off the top, I am not yet prepared to weigh in on this application, it must be stated that I detest any application that subsumes the total height of a building into the number of storeys.

This is a red herring deliberately introduced in a developer’s application to ameliorate and deflect any questions associated with “total height.”

Normal and universally accepted convention associated with the design of a multi-storey residential development calculates a “storey” at 10 feet, while a commercial “storey” might vary between a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 15 feet.

So, four residential “storeys” equal 40 feet, while in a commercial overture, the same four-storey building might — in the most extreme and very unlikely case — reach a total height of 60 feet. 

In a typical hotel design, the first storey may use the full 15 feet (or more) but “room” floors would not typically exceed 12 feet, therefore, any building suggested to be “four storeys” would, at a normal maximum, not exceed a finished height of 56 feet. 

So, both the Virgil overture at 52 feet exceeds and thereby fails this standardized criteria. Moreover, the Parliament Oak overture, at 62 feet (not including any rooftop mechanical enclosures) exceeds the “extreme case” commercial criterion cited above.

It also needs to be noted that both of these applications are well above the maximum height allowance in the town’s official plan (bylaws) which establishes the acceptable height in these jurisdictions at no more than plus-or-minus 36 feet.

As a matter of note, the reports produced for Hummel Properties vis-à-vis the Virgil development are significantly superior to those prepared for Two Sisters Resorts (Parliament Oak) since none of the reports to the former absolve the consultancy firm of liability.

That said, in the studies submitted with both of these applications and in various others drawn from the town website as reviewed by this columnist to date, there is a very curious omission.

In no case have the reports I’ve read to date addressed quantifying their additional sewage/waste water against NOTL’s treatment plant capacity.

In straight-forward terms, if our treatment facility is operating at 60 per cent of capacity and the calculated addition equals 20 per cent, we are all good.

But, what happens if the current processing capacity is at 90 per cent and the additional 20 per cent is added?

That puts the NOTL taxpayers on the hook for expanding the treatment plant infrastructure.

As Richard Connelly — with nearly four decades of professional expertise in this field — pointed out, this would normally be a standard and required inclusion in any infrastructure report in all North American jurisdictions. 

So, why isn’t it here?

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.