The Real Facts About 325 King Street -Parliament Oak

There has been a lot said about 325 King Street and the former Parliament Oak School property, particularly during this election.

Unfortunately, when pieces of a long history are taken out of context, it can leave residents with a very different impression of how we actually got to where we are today.

So, here is the history.

2015 Parliament Oak School Closes

First and foremost, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake did not close Parliament Oak School.

The decision was made by the District School Board of Niagara.

In 2014, DSBN trustees approved consolidating Parliament Oak students into Crossroads Public School beginning in September 2015.

That distinction matters because I continue to see the closure of the school discussed as though it was somehow a decision made by the Town or Town Council.

It wasn’t.

2017 The Town Tries to Buy Parliament Oak

After the school closed, the Town attempted to purchase the property from the DSBN with the intention of creating a community hub.

According to reports from the time, the Town made three offers during negotiations with the School Board, including an unconditional full-price offer.

The Town was ultimately unsuccessful in purchasing the property, and the DSBN moved forward with a public sale process.

Again, this is an important part of the history.

The Town didn’t simply stand by while Parliament Oak was sold. The Town tried to buy it.

2018 Liberty Purchases the Property

In 2018, the DSBN announced that it had agreed to sell the approximately four-acre property at 325 King Street to Liberty Sites (3) Ltd. for $4.925 million.

At that point, the former public school property was now in private ownership.

And with private ownership came a planning application for redevelopment.

2021 Liberty Proposes Residential Development

Liberty brought forward a residential development proposal for the property.

And I want to be very clear about what was being proposed, because this part of the history is important:

A THREE-STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING INCORPORATED INTO THE OLD SCHOOL BUILDING AND 12 SEMI-DETACHED HOMES.

The proposal generated significant opposition from residents, particularly regarding density, scale and what the redevelopment would mean for the surrounding neighbourhood.

Residents had every right to raise those concerns and participate in the planning process.

But there is another important part of this story that needs to be understood.

The Previous Council Did Not Make a Decision Within the Provincial Timeframe

The previous Council did not make a decision on Liberty’s planning application within the timeframe prescribed under provincial planning legislation.

That is significant.

When a municipality does not make a decision within the prescribed statutory timeframe, the applicant can appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).

That is what happened with the Liberty application.

Instead of Council making a final local decision on the application within the required timeframe, the matter was left unresolved and Liberty exercised its right to appeal.

That put the planning application before the Ontario Land Tribunal.

So when people talk about what Council should or should not have done with the Liberty proposal, this part of the history cannot simply be skipped over.

The previous Council did not approve the residential proposal.

But it also did not make a decision on it within the provincially prescribed timeframe.

As a result, Liberty was able to appeal the application to the OLT.

There Was Also a Demolition Application

Liberty also submitted an application to demolish the former Parliament Oak School building.

At the time the property changed ownership, that demolition application remained incomplete because a required heritage impact report had not been submitted.

Again, this occurred before the current Council took office.

2022 The Property Is Sold Again

Liberty ultimately sold the Parliament Oak property.

The approximately four-acre site was sold for roughly $8 million to Two Sisters Resorts, associated with Benny Marotta and Solmar Development.

That meant the residential proposal from the previous owner was no longer the only question surrounding the future of Parliament Oak.

A new owner eventually brought forward a new proposal for the property a hotel.

The New Proposal

This is another part of the discussion where I believe the actual details matter.

The new proposal is fundamentally different from the previous residential concept.

The proposed building generally maintains the footprint of the former Parliament Oak School rather than spreading development across the entire property.

Parking is proposed primarily underground rather than as large areas of surface parking.

And importantly, approximately 68% of the property is proposed as landscaped/green space above ground.

That means roughly one-third of the site is occupied by the building footprint, while approximately two-thirds remains open or landscaped space.

Those are important facts when discussing the scale of the development.

It does not mean everyone has to like the proposal.

It does not mean residents cannot have concerns about height, traffic, heritage, servicing or any other aspect of the application.

But those discussions should be based on what is actually being proposed.

Why This History Matters

Planning decisions don’t happen in a vacuum.

Every Council inherits decisions, applications, appeals and circumstances from the Councils that came before it.

325 King Street is a perfect example.

Here is the actual sequence:

The School Board closed Parliament Oak.

The Town tried to purchase it.

The Town was unsuccessful.

The School Board sold the property to Liberty.

Liberty proposed a three-storey apartment building incorporated into the old school building and 12 semi-detached homes.

Residents raised significant concerns about that proposal.

The previous Council did not make a decision within the provincially prescribed timeframe.

Liberty appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Liberty also applied for permission to demolish the former school building.

The property was subsequently sold to a new owner.

A new hotel proposal came forward that generally maintains the former school’s building footprint, places parking primarily underground and provides approximately 68% landscaped/green space above ground.

That is how we got here.

People are entitled to have different opinions about the current hotel proposal.

They are entitled to disagree with my vote.

They are entitled to believe another use would have been better.

That is democracy, and those conversations are important.

But what I don’t believe is helpful is rewriting the history of this property or leaving out the pieces that don’t fit a particular narrative.

There is a long history behind 325 King Street.

And if we’re going to debate its future particularly during an election then residents deserve to have the complete history and the actual facts.