A zoning decision and voices in a local newspaper: a case study in municipal politics
In a rural town, appraisal of a controversial ruling evolves as residents write letters to the editor
This is a story about a recent decision by a municipal government in a small town. But more than that, this is a story about the constructive debate that is possible thanks to the existence of an independent local newspaper. It’s about democracy at its most basic level.
I choose to share this account because it could be a case study for any municipality in North America. It's reflective of similar issues everywhere. At its core, the topic is residential development. But it's also about people; specifically about how fiercely some residents tie their identity to the town they grew up in, how hard it can be to accept change; and also about the way people sometimes judge their elected representatives. It's also a tale about the public forum provided by the "Letters to the Editor" pages of a local paper, something that maybe we took for granted years ago and is now becoming a rarity due to the decline of the independent press.
I hope you will find this story as interesting as I did.
The place: Centre Wellington
The issue
Recently, the township of Centre Wellington in midwestern Ontario received a building proposal from a developer. The developer wanted to erect a residential apartment building that would require an exemption to an existing zoning by-law. The developer approached city hall with a plan to build a five-storey building that would hold 17 rental apartments. The existing zoning by-law states that no building can be taller than four storeys, so the developer applied for an exemption to build an additional floor.
Area characteristics
Centre Wellington is primarily an agricultural township, with some manufacturing activity, and two primary communities: Fergus and Elora. About 33,000 people live there. Fergus is well-known as the home of a large annual Scottish festival and Elora is known for its scenic Grand River gorge and arts festivals.
Many of the heritage buildings were built with limestone, the local building material of choice during the 19th century and early 20th century when the towns were originally developed. People who live here are proud of the way these buildings have been preserved.
The design and the decision
The proposed apartment complex would be erected not far from a main intersection in downtown Fergus. After a number of presentations to city council and various reviews, including a redesign of the project, the building - with its five storeys - was approved.
Here is an image prepared by the planning firm MHBC showing what the building will look like. The proponents of the development set back the top floor to reduce the visual impact of the perceived height.
This was the original design.
The newspaper
When the decision was announced, some people were unhappy. The story was reported in the local newspaper, The Wellington Advertiser, one of the remaining small town independent newspapers in Canada still publishing a paper edition as well as a digital one.
Letters
Two days after the February 12th council meeting, some folks started writing letters to the editor. Sonia Day of Fergus, for example, questioned the planning staff at the municipality:
It’s coming, folks, whether we like it or not. Apparently Centre Wellington council has approved a controversial new building for downtown Fergus sometime soon.
And if local residents don’t like the idea, well, it’s just too bad. The message is: don’t bother raising any more concerns, because “it is staff’s opinion that the proposed development is consistent with relevant planning policy.”
Huh? What about our opinion?
At a public meeting some months ago, many of us voiced objections to the design of this building, proposed for the corner of St. Andrew Street East and Gowrie.
At five storeys, it will be alarmingly big (towering over every other building in the area – taller in fact that anything in downtown Fergus). It will require a change in zoning bylaws. And as for the problem that locals never stop talking about -(parking), only 13 spaces will be allocated for 17 apartment units, in an area of downtown where it’s already a nightmare to find anywhere to leave your car.
But were our concerns heard? Was there any scaling down of this proposal? No. The developer apparently submitted a new proposal to council (which they didn’t bother to inform us about.)
And this immensely long document certainly gussies up the original proposal with a few niceties like the addition of “sandy coloured stone to match surrounding buildings.” But it’s still basically still the same: five storeys on a too-small lot, a citified-looking building that will be totally out of character in our historic town – and not enough parking. The arrogance of our council in rubber-stamping this proposal beggars belief.
-Wellington Advertiser, February 15, 2024.
A number of other readers supported this view. Here's one:
I recall leaving the meeting thinking to myself, “Wow what a landslide. There is no way our council will approve the developer’s plan without concessions made on the height and parking spaces.” I felt empathy for the developer with the massive amount of time and expense they incurred with zero chance of approval.
This brings me to “shocking”. How can the council experience the community outrage and simply ignore their voices? Are we missing something here? Does the council have stronger relationships with the developers than the citizens who elected them?
-Chris McLean, March 14, 2024.
This reminds me of similar controversial decisions in other jurisdictions where public opposition expressed in council chambers seems to have been insufficient to halt approval of a development project. In other places, the opposite happens: city councils nix proposals after homeowners pack meetings to forcefully complain about local impacts. In those cases, NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) has won the day. One hopes that each proposal is judged fairly on its own merits. Whatever the outcome, factions are quick to criticize elected representatives who are seen to be letting people down in some way.
More letters
A week after the first opinions were published in the Advertiser, different voices began to be heard, again in letters to the editor. Fergus resident Jean-Paul Soucy, for example, raised the issue of the persistent shortage of housing, a problem in many towns all over North America. He suggested that this particular development should be viewed through that lens:
I understand that these comments come from the heart – people want to preserve our idyllic little town, the one that I grew up in. But that town was a place where young adults could expect to own a home one day. That place no longer exists.
Flip toward the real estate ads in the back of this newspaper. Look for the ones described as “starter homes” or “bungalows.” Does the typical young adult in our community have anywhere near the income they would need to qualify for a mortgage on one of these homes? Do you, if you were buying for the first time?
We live in a society oriented around home ownership as a major milestone in life, and yet we have chosen to underbuild housing for decades. The result is a massive shortage in the supply of homes that has put the milestone of home ownership out of reach, perhaps permanently, for many young Canadians.
Communities are for people. They aren’t museums, frozen in time. If a community isn’t growing to meet the needs of the next generation, if it isn’t making room for young people to start families and businesses, then it’s dying. Decline is a choice, but we can choose otherwise.
If you believe young people should have the opportunity to live in the communities that they grew up in, then support building more homes and a variety of homes, including detached houses, apartments, condos, and row houses. We can build upward and we can build outward. We should do both. If not, young people will leave, and you will know why."
- Wellington Advertiser, March 21st
Soucy’s letter took the conversation in a different direction, one focused on broader urban planning. Another resident, John Scott, chimed in with comments that advanced the discussion even further.
Scott wrote:
Unless we have evidence, passing aspersions on our council and suggesting they are in the pockets of developers is very detrimental to our democratic process.
I dream that we, as a community, can have conversations without defamation. This is the key to a healthy democracy and I would also add we need investigative journalism.
It would be naive of me to think that people in power don’t do wrong, so we need a mechanism to catch them. But it would also be naive of us to think that because you are in a position of power, such as the council, you are naturally corrupt and or corruptible.
Council and township staff have to be open to challenging questions and have to be honest and clear about their reasoning. Governments and citizens have to be humble, admit mistakes and realize that we come at various issues from different perspectives. We have to work hard on our thinking skills: observing closely, gathering evidence, developing empathy, etc.
In regards to this case, a five-storey building on St. Andrew Street East, there is plenty of evidence and reason as to why the height of this development is reasonable in a downtown. There is also evidence that a majority of the council made it clear when they got elected that they are in favour of density over sprawl. So, I am not surprised they have accepted this proposal.
Because we continue to focus on just height or just parking in these discussions we don’t ask our government the tough questions that will make a difference in the future. If we have fewer parking spaces, what is our plan to allow for other mobility options? Why are we not seeing more three to four-storey apartment buildings in our new subdivisions? It is a model used in Europe to deal with population density issues.
Why is our government not pressuring developers to a higher level of design, especially at the street level, where it makes a huge difference in how a place feels? The one proposed for the five-story development should be the focus of our discontent. The design is weak and appears from the drawing to be distant and cold. I would call it a bare minimum design.
I commend anyone who writes Letters to the Editor and attends council meetings, but I encourage us all to do so with grace.
- Wellington Advertiser, March 21st
Summing up
It’s interesting how the discussion of the development grew from disappointment and criticism to a more sophisticated consideration of housing in general and how to address the needs of the community not only now, but also in the future. As people considered the issue, they also thought more carefully about the role of developers, elected representatives and residents in decision-making.
To me these letters are good signs that healthy debate and civility still exists. Concerned citizens took the time to write their opinions and share them in public.
As a former journalist I have a lot of admiration and gratitude for the service provided by independent local newspapers out there like the Advertiser; papers that somehow continue to survive, despite the economic challenges that are decimating local journalism everywhere. Not long ago, these papers were the main connecting thread for communities. Centre Wellington is lucky to have the Advertiser. One wonders what happens in communities that no longer have a local newspaper and where factionalism and rumours fly unchecked; or, worse, where city hall does what it wants without any public scrutiny. It’s not a pretty picture.
We all have a part to play. When residents participate in these debates, and push local government to a higher standard, then the system works better. Urban planning improves. More factors are considered. Outcomes are likely better.
I especially liked John Scott reminding readers that grace is important. In this age of divisiveness, we can still get our points across and aspire to behave with grace in all we do.
What a wonderful sentiment for any era.
~~~
Do you have thoughts on this topic?
~~~
Source material:
Centre Wellington City Council meeting and presentation by MHBC: https://centrewellington.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=812
Why Japanese cities are people-friendly
If you are interested in urban affairs, Noah Smith, who writes about economics, offers a fascinating look at the zoning realities of Tokyo. The city is famous for its bustling small businesses sharing space with quiet neighbourhoods. In his post, Secrets of Japanese Urbanism, Smith highlights how the people of Tokyo have adopted a NIMBYism stance against big commercialism. It is the polar opposite of the residential NIMBYism that we often see in North America. I found his essay illuminating.
~~~
Thanks for reading Zanepost. In keeping with the housing theme, my sketch this week is residential in nature.
Until next time,
-Renato
~~~
If you appreciate this blog, consider buying me a coffee. It’s easy. The QR link takes you there.
Thank you for this well thought out post, Renato. The local focus reads well as the issues expand out into so many communities.