PARLIAMENT OAK 325 king Street “PRESERVING THE PAST, WHILE PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE.”

Four years ago, when I first ran for Council, I made a promise that has guided many of my decisions:

“Preserving the past, while planning for the future.”

Parliament Oak is one example of what that means to me.

And the history of this property didn’t begin with Parliament Oak School.

Before the school, this property was home to the historic Josiah Burr Plumb residence, a substantial 19th-century home associated with Senator Josiah Burr Plumb.

In the 1940s, the Town acquired the property following unpaid taxes. The historic residence was ultimately demolished as the property transitioned to a new purpose — a school. The property was transferred to the local Board of Education, and Parliament Oak School was constructed in 1948.

The land use changed too. What had been a residential property became an institutional school property.

Think about that for a moment.

A significant historic residence once stood on this property. It was removed, and the use of the land changed, as the community planned for what it needed at that time … a school.

More than 75 years later, this privately owned property is evolving again.

Some residents have said that Council could simply have refused to change the zoning, which would have prevented a hotel from being built there.

I understand why that may sound straightforward, but that is not how municipal planning and zoning decisions work.

Council cannot simply prevent a property from changing by refusing to consider any zoning amendment.

A property owner is entitled to submit an application, and that application must be reviewed under the applicable planning legislation, policies and procedures.

Council must consider the proposal on its merits, assess whether it is consistent with the Town’s Official Plan (including amendments) and broader planning objectives, and make a decision based on the evidence before it.

In other words, Council does not have an unlimited ability to say “no” simply because some residents would prefer that a property never change.

The decision must be grounded in planning considerations, and it must be defensible under the law.

That does not mean Council has no role.

It means Council’s role is to evaluate the proposal, negotiate improvements where possible, consider heritage, traffic, design, landscaping, community impacts and compatibility, and determine whether the application represents appropriate development for the site.

We understood that some form of development was going to happen on the property by a private owner, so the question for me was: how do we preserve as much as reasonably possible from the 1940s school and recognize the much longer history of this important site, while also planning for its future?

That meant identifying tangible pieces of the former school and property to be retained, salvaged, reused or commemorated as part of the redevelopment.

Many of these were presented by the Niagara Foundation.

Those include:

• The bas-relief panels from the 1948 school façade 

identified to be salvaged and incorporated into the new development for interpretation.

• The 1947 cornerstone

identified for reuse within the new development.

• The Parliament Oak stone tree marker retained on the property, marking the location of the historic Parliament Oak that burned in 1913.

• The Castellani/Underground Railroad commemorative sculpture 

retained on the property.

• The historic Town boundary/Ordnance stone retained in place.

• Materials from the former school, including slate chalkboards, brick and hardware, identified for potential salvage, reuse and commemoration.

• The original “PARLIAMENT OAK SCHOOL” lettering was specifically identified as a heritage element.

• Mature trees and landscaping, including the significant red oak and established King Street streetscape, are also important components of the site.

There is another interesting connection to the site’s earlier history.

The architectural approach to the new building draws inspiration from the former Plumb residence as well as established heritage architecture throughout Old Town.

So while the 1940s school building itself will not remain, we worked to preserve as much as reasonably possible from that building and the history of the property so those pieces can continue to tell the story of Parliament Oak for future generations.

I understand that some residents would have preferred that the property never change, and I respect that position.

I too have memories from the school property.

But preserving our past does not always mean freezing a property at one particular moment in its history.

This very site demonstrates that.

It was once a residential property with a grand private residence.

The residence was demolished, the property transitioned to institutional use, and a school was constructed because that was what the community needed at the time.

And now, generations later, the property is entering another chapter.

For me, good planning means recognizing all of those chapters and respecting what came before us, preserving the pieces of our history that we can, and thoughtfully planning for what comes next.

That was my promise four years ago.

Preserving the past, while planning for the future.

And it continues to guide how I approach decisions today.