To the roar of applause from an audience that numbered between 400 and 500 onlookers, Niagara-on-the-Lake’s town council voted 4-3 and 7-0 to reject heritage permit applications related to the Rand Estate at a special council meeting Monday night.
The vote effectively put a halt on any plans Benny Marotta’s Solmar and Two Sisters Resorts have for demolition or relocation of any of the structures on the properties at 200 John Street East and 588 Charlotte Street. That includes the Calvin Rand summer house, the main stables and barn and the carriage house, some of which Denise Horne, the town’s heritage planner, recommended that council approve for demolition with conditions.
By 4:30 p.m., at least 60 people had already gathered inside the Anderson Lane community centre, hoping to secure a good seat for the 5 p.m. start time. When auditorium doors opened at 4:40 p.m., it was clear town staff seriously underestimated the expected attendance. The portable wall had been pulled almost fully closed to divide the auditorium in half, and fewer than 100 chairs had been set up.
As residents continued to roll in, staff opened the portable wall and distributed more than 200 more chairs, but still it was standing room only by the time the meeting began.
To the surprise of those in attendance, Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa opened the proceedings by declaring a non-pecuniary conflict of interest as defined by the town’s code of conduct.
“It’s due to the proximity of my primary residences to the subject properties,” he told council. “So, in an abundance of caution, after consultation with the town’s integrity commissioner and my own independent legal counsel, I am declaring this conflict of interest.”
Before walking out of the meeting, Zalepa handed the chair to Deputy Lord Mayor Erwin Wiens.
Wiens’ first order of business was to remind those attending that according to the town’s bylaws, as chair, he had the right to expel or exclude anyone who displayed improper conduct.
“This is a large room with a lot of people,” said Wiens. “This isn’t a sporting event, where somebody can cheer for the side they want to win or lose. The chamber is supposed to be a solemn place where order and democracy takes place. If the meeting gets out of hand we will take a break and move out to an anteroom until our bylaw officers bring the room back to order.”
Wiens would end up making good on his warning later during the four-hour session.
Horne was first to speak, outlining the estate’s historical significance as well as the importance of the Dunnington-Grubb-designed gardens located at 176 and 200 John Street East, both parts of the estate.
“These are rare and unique designed landscapes by pioneering landscape architects Howard and Lorrie Dunnington-Grubb,” said Horne. “They were known to design landscapes as a series of outdoor rooms and nodes, each distinct with its own character.”
Horne added that the Rand Estate represents a cultural heritage landscape with a high level of integrity, a measure of how well a property’s heritage attributes continue to represent its heritage value. Horne recommended preservation of the landscape and most of the built heritage on site as the overall approach.
At the same time, Horne recommended that council approve demolition of the summer house and the main residence, including the stable and barn, as a last resort due to the substantial alterations of the buildings over time, which have diminished their relationship to their earliest state.
Of the 28 items in the Solmar application, Horne’s heritage report recommended that council refuse 15 of them. Those refusals included a number of applications for the removal of trees and shrubs as well as for the removal of the boundary wall and brick pillars at the 200 John Street East entrance, and a proposal to construct a roadway through what is known as the panhandle into the planned 171-home subdivision.
There were eight items in the application that Horne’s report recommended for approval under some conditions, including the demolition of the summer house and the main residence, the stable and barn.
Sarah Premi, a lawyer from St. Catharines firm Sullivan Mahoney representing Solmar, was next to the podium.
Referencing the citizen organization Save Our Rand Estate (SORE), Premi claimed that despite the animosity between the two groups since 2018, there actually is a lot of common ground.
It was clear from her presentation, as well as from her colleague David Reilly’s, that one of the major differences between Solmar and SORE is Solmar’s insistence on adapting the existing panhandle as the entrance into the subdivision. To complete the work would require removing a number of trees and destroying much of the
Dunnington-Grubb pool garden, which Reilly said would be commemorated, though didn’t fully explain how.
Reilly stressed often how many of the original features of the estate would be reconstructed, including an axial walkway which would be built in a different area than it originally sat. He also pointed out the developer’s intention to make these features open to public access in a way that would honour the site’s heritage.
Premi concluded by saying that the Solmar group supports all of the recommendations made by Horne in her staff report, with the road into the subdivision the only point of contention.
Wiens questioned Reilly about who would be responsible for the upkeep of some of the structures that would stay on site, and expressed some concern that a condo corporation could remove some of those features some time in the distant future if they saw fit.
Kate Lyons, a representative from Goodmans LLP, then began the SORE presentation, during which she refuted Premi’s assertion that the two sides were closer than they thought.
“In the SORE concept,” Lyons pointed out, “access is proposed not by obliterating all of the designed heritage landscape and the panhandle, but between 144 and 176 John Street East where it can be consolidated with access to the hotel, which we assume Mr. Marotta will one day be returning to.”
“Solmar’s representatives say the access road proposed by SORE is not feasible because it’s on a property owned by a different owner,” she continued. “We know that it’s proposed by them to use 144 and 176 John for a wetland relocation and stormwater management pond. When it’s convenient for Mr. Marotta’s purposes, all four properties on the Rand Estate are available for his use.”
That assertion drew loud cheers from the audience, and a warning and reprimand from Wiens to the crowd.
Heritage architect Michael McClelland spoke on SORE’s behalf about the importance of the Rand Estate to the town’s history, and former owner Calvin Rand’s involvement in the development of the Shaw Festival.
“It’s not just bricks and mortar,” said McClelland, “it’s the whole cultural importance of this estate to your town and to the province generally. Calvin Rand founded the Niagara Institute for International Studies there, and he intended to give these buildings over.”
Landscape architect Brendan Stewart then spoke with more detail on the pool gardens, before turning the mic back to Lyons to wrap up the SORE presentation.
“They’re asking for permits today, but you will find out later what the mitigation looks like and which trees will be saved,” said Lyons. “The only way those two things can be heard together is if you deny the heritage permits sought by the company. Your decision will then be appealed to the OLT (Ontario Land Tribunal) and joined with the planning act applications. They will have all the expert testimony.”
She suggested that if council accepted Horne’s recommendations item by item, Marotta would appeal the town’s refusals related to his heritage application. And she warned that if they accepted Horne’s recommendations in full, Solmar would “probably demolish the Rand house, the barn and stable complex and the pool garden tomorrow.”
That again drew more applause from the spectators, again prompting an admonishment from Wiens to the crowd.
Wiens and other councillors had questions about the added cost that would be involved for the heritage applications to be heard at next year’s OLT hearings. Lyons insisted that the costs would be minimal.
The meeting moved on to the public delegation portion, with former NOTL resident Alan Wojcik as the first speaker, focusing on the property’s uniqueness in the country. After a short break, he was followed by Nancy Macri, who didn’t have a presentation, but used her podium time to question Wiens about the heavy-handedness of his warnings.
Macri’s challenge to the deputy lord mayor once again drew applause, and Wiens again admonished the crowd, pointing to one person in particular and asking town staff to remove him. NOTL Fire Chief Jay Plato and a colleague then walked down the aisle to speak to the resident while council took another short break. When they returned, a good portion of the crowd had left, but the gentleman who had been asked to leave was still there.
Next up was Ted Baker of Ricardo Street, Lyle Hall representing the Niagara Foundation, Bruce Gitelman and conservation activist Gracia Jane, via video conferencing, all spoke out against the Solmar application.
Coun. Sandra O’Connor put forth a motion that council consider all 25 points of part one and all five points of part two of Solmar’s heritage permit applications as two separate votes.
On the first vote, refusing each part of the application related to 588 Charlotte Street, including demolition of some of the buildings, Couns. Tim Balasiuk, Gary Burroughs, Maria Mavridis and O’Connor overruled Wiens, Wendy Cheropita and Nick Ruller 4-3 (Coun. Adriana Vizzari was absent from the meeting).
The second motion to deny the removal and widening of the boundary wall opening and the pillars at 588 Charlotte Street and to remove healthy trees along the boundary wall was passed unanimously.
Both decisions were met with applause from the crowd.
Following adjournment, Lyons expressed her satisfaction about the outcome to The Local.
“This matter was going to go to OLT anyway,” said Lyons. “Without some kind of access, they can’t really develop a site. They would have appealed that anyway.”