To begin this week’s column, I’d like to sound a warning that a call to action may be required by our community.

The heritage-designated Crysler-Burroughs property at 187 Queen St. — a unique piece of Niagara-on-the-Lake’s history — is currently being threatened by the developer who owns it.

This columnist has written about the property several times in the past couple of years and its importance within our cultural heritage landscape (see: “Architext: A reflection of change,” April 6, 2022, “Architext: Assault on heritage continues, but it’s not too late,” July 24 and “Architext: 187 Queen St. severance diminishes NOTL’s cultural landscape,” Aug. 14).

Both the municipal heritage committee and the committee of adjustment rejected town staff’s recommendations to approve the owner’s application to subdivide this historic lot and expressed fundamental opposition to the applicant’s proposed vision of adding a front-facing garage attached to the facade of the house — which would both completely compromise the heritage asset and fundamentally degrade the Queen Street cultural heritage streetscape.

Despite Coun. Tim Balasuik’s plea, expressed during the municipal heritage committee meeting when the application was presented, “Please Rainer, not this one,” the developer, Mr. Rainer Hummel, refused to accept the opinions and rulings of the committees, ignored the general will expressed by town residents and lodged an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Now, it would be normal and typical — particularly given the positions taken by the two aforementioned committees — that the town would engage legal counsel to argue against the appeal.

However, sources within town hall have recently informed me that there is a move afoot by certain elected councillors not to do so. In other words, to capitulate to this developer without a fight.

Should this information be true, it would be the most egregious assault on the built heritage of Niagara-on-the-Lake in recent memory.

Moreover, any councillor who would vote in favour of such a total surrender could never again suggest or claim that they care about preserving the unique historical character of this town.

That said, it is vital that each and every one of you, dear readers, reach out to our councillors on this issue. Let them know that the history and heritage of our town are worth fighting for.

Consider this a rubicon … if allowed, where does the erosion of our heritage end?

Moving on, in the most recent council of the whole planning meeting (Dec. 3), there was a somewhat fractious debate associated with a motion to place the Parliament Oak site plan information on the town platform for open access by town residents.

Town staff commented that site plans were extremely technical and could not be understood by the average resident.

Coun. Erwin Wiens position was that it was patently unfair to make a special exception to normal procedure vis-à-vis publication due to the profile and history of the owner/developer.

I completely agree with councillor Wiens.

It is unfair to need to undertake a town council vote in order to provide the public with complete information regarding development applications.

Given that typical combined administrative time commitments and upload times should be well less than five minutes, why is it not a part of standard operating procedures to move the complete set of documents, as received by the town, to online public access? 

Thus, a fair, even and transparent playing field for all applications — developers, small builders and homeowners alike — and as a standard operating procedure town residents would have the option to review such documents at their leisure.

In addition, under the current process, when a resident requests to view the documents associated with a given application, it requires a meeting with staff — a commitment of staff time in both preparation, attendance and possible follow-up communications to answer any questions that cannot be immediately responded to.

It seems to me this process is inefficient and wasteful of staff’s time.

As to the assertion that these documents are extremely technical and most average residents lack the expertise to correctly interpret them, I believe this suggestion to be predicated on the word “average.”

I observe that staff reviews of application documents typically involve a number of employees from various departments and disciplines since no one individual member of staff possesses the expertise to address all aspects of the application.

Personally, I count amongst my circle of local acquaintances professional engineers of various specialties: Residential, commercial, industrial, conservation, landscape, urban design and sustainable design architects, urban planners and so on.

When expertise is required in areas beyond my own, they have never failed to respond to a request for a professional opinion or interpretation.

And, based on communications with many NOTL residents, I suggest most of these individuals reach out in exactly the same fashion to their circle of connections — one of the great advantages of living in a town with a wealth of professionals willing to share their knowledge.

Wow, a fair system that introduces true transparency and saves staff time — sounds like a win-win-win.

Shifting gears, allow me to introduce a concept that is gaining a lot of traction amongst urban designers, urban planners and environmental agencies around the world — that is, the replacement of grey infrastructure with green infrastructure.

So, what are grey and green infrastructure?

Grey infrastructure refers to human-engineered infrastructure for water resources, such as water and wastewater treatment plants, pipelines, pumps and dams.

In other words, all the engineered and installed components of a centralized mechanical approach to water management.   

Green infrastructure, on the other hand, as William Allen writes in his 2012 report for Cambridge University Press, is the “strategic use of networks of natural lands, working landscapes, and other open spaces to conserve ecosystem values and functions and provide associated benefits to human populations,” augmented by designed natural installations such as rain gardens or reed beds that treat wastewater. 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency states that there are environmental, social and economic benefits that result from green infrastructure.

On the environmental front, these benefits include improving climate resiliency, increasing water quality, reducing localized flooding, reducing the demand on the potable water supply by capturing stormwater for reuse, improving air quality, reducing the heat island effect in urban settings and achieving the habitat connectivity required by many natural species.           

Supported by multiple academic studies, the social benefits cited include improved health and well-being of human populations, an enhanced sense of community and an increase in public engagement leading to greater community cohesion. 

From an economic perspective, green infrastructure decreases grey infrastructure investment and operating costs, has a salutary impact on neighbourhood property values, generates new, generally better-paying “green” jobs and career opportunities for people with all levels of education and work experience and reduces the costs associated with flood damage.

Examples of green infrastructure projects proliferate around the world.

Consider the High Line in New York City, a 2.34-kilometer-long biodiverse urban park supporting more than 500 species that was built on an abandoned raised railroad thoroughfare in the heart of Manhattan. 

In Calgary, the constructed 385-acre Shepard Wetland functions as both a stormwater storage facility and a treatment wetland that naturally filters stormwater, improving its quality before it is discharged into the Bow River.

Interestingly, its capacity is such that it can successfully manage a one in 100-year flood.

And, here’s the real kicker: Green infrastructure is actually cheaper to construct, maintain and operate than grey infrastructure.

In a presentation given to the American Public Works Association in October 2017, the authors of “Green vs. Grey Infrastructure Cost”, Rosa A. Fernández and Ryan Dupont made the following statement regarding green infrastructure’s life cycle analysis cost:

“Green infrastructure is 24 per cent more cost-effective than gray infrastructure over a 30-year period.”

Allow me to add that this is the most conservative cost-saving calculation I could find in my research. Others have suggested that number is in the 30 per cent range.

While I have run out of real estate in this column, please stay tuned next week to explore a fascinating overture currently being conducted here in Niagara. There are things that Niagara-on-the-Lake can learn.  

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