The following letter was sent to Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa and members of town council. A copy was forwarded to The Lake Report for publication.

Dear Mayor Zalepa and members of council,

Thank you for your response and for sharing the Town of NOTL’s April 9 update regarding 176 Wellington St.

After reviewing the town’s communication, the 2024 survey results, and recent public commentary, I remain concerned that the current direction of study does not reflect the priorities clearly expressed by residents.

The 2024 engagement results were clear. A strong majority supported a community hub with multi-generational use, community space and amenities that serve residents.

There was also clear support for maintaining community use and green space. At the same time, a significant portion of respondents indicated that parking should not be the primary focus of the site.

Despite this, the town has confirmed that a concept including structured parking is being advanced as part of the feasibility work.

If only one primary concept is being studied in detail at this stage, then that concept should reflect what the community has already identified as its priority, yet council and staff have instead chosen to direct resources toward a parking inclusive model.

This concern is not limited to a single perspective. Residents have been vocal in expressing that this is the wrong direction for the site. Public comments, letters to the editor and community discussions have consistently raised concerns that focusing on parking does not reflect what people asked for.

Many have questioned why a site of this importance is being framed around vehicle storage rather than community use, and have pointed to the risk of increased traffic, underuse outside peak tourist periods and the loss of an opportunity to create something meaningful for residents.

Local media coverage has reflected these concerns as well, noting that council directed staff to focus on a parking based concept while broader community driven ideas were not advanced at the same level.

At the same time, a community-led vision, supported by input from more than 1,200 residents and numerous organizations, has already outlined a concept centered on arts, culture, education and shared public space, with parking treated as a secondary element.

Taken together, the survey results, citizen feedback and public commentary all point in the same direction. The community is not asking for this site to be defined by parking, and many have clearly stated that this approach is the wrong path.

The decision to begin detailed feasibility work with a parking-inclusive concept does more than explore an option. It sets the framework for how the site is evaluated and how future decisions are shaped.

Starting from that position risks narrowing the outcome before community aligned options are fully considered.

Council has stated that further work is needed to ensure alignment with community priorities. Respectfully, that alignment should be reflected in the starting point of the study itself.

I would ask council to clearly address:

1. Why the current feasibility work is centered on a parking inclusive concept rather than a community hub model;

2. Whether a full feasibility study will be conducted based on a community hub as the primary use of the sit;

3. How the town is ensuring that the 2024 survey results and ongoing public input are directly shaping the foundation of the analysis.

This site is one of the most important publicly owned assets in Niagara-on-the-Lake. The process used to evaluate its future should clearly reflect the direction already provided by the community.

Kirby Davis
NOTL