It was a good plan while it lasted.

Council-approved plans for a Heritage Conservation District in the Village of Wellington, plans that would define 240 properties as “contributing” to the essential character of the historic village, are on hold. A local developer has appealed the plan to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Former Wellington resident Anthony Lemke and his two partners at Wharf Lane Developments have another, rival vision for heritage in the core, one that they believe to be supported by the County’s secondary plan.

Mr. Lemke, a noted actor who also trained as a lawyer, argued throughout the consultation process that “there is not enough room to breathe for the development objective and other objectives of the Secondary Plan under the HCD.”

“What you are doing is constraining yourselves, for those 240 properties, to put heritage objectives over and above any of those in the Secondary Plan,” he told Council in a September deputation.

The County’s Secondary Plan, which was produced in 2015, distilled five years of consultation and development policy objectives. It is one of the County’s key planning documents.

“It proposes a vision for the development of Wellington that we fully supported, one that heartened and encouraged us to invest,” said Mr. Lemke.

Mr. Lemke and his partners bought their first property in Wellington around 2015. Since then, they have acquired a portfolio of properties throughout town, including a parcel east of the village core near Belleville Street, which they plan to develop into a mixed-use commercial-residential complex.

“We want to preserve Wellington as much as anyone else here, we share the vision of the HCD to a certain extent. Our worry is that if that HCD does not allow for more density on the Main Street, for commercial development in the core of the village, they will eventually lose the pedestrian traffic and sense of vibrant, walkable village life that is so prized by everyone who lives there,” he explained.

“The people who love this plan use the Main Street residentially,” said Mr. Lemke. “Those with commercial properties want to press pause.”

A Heritage Conservation Study for Wellington, undertaken by consultants Bray Heritage, began in October 2019 and was approved by Council in May 2021. After public consultation last spring, a Heritage Conservation District proposal was approved by County Council in September 2022. 11 of the 12 councillors present voted in favour.

Bray Heritage studied the key features of Wellington’s historic village and suggested 240 properties could be designated as “contributing” to its character. Such a designation would make them very difficult to change or re-develop. Detailed design guidelines describe minimum setbacks, the ideal range of lot coverage relative to green space and set maximum building heights at 1 and ½ to two storeys. Investors and developers objected.

Last summer, a group of Wellington property owners, residents, and business owners approached another architectural and planning firm, MTBA, for a second opinion, presented to Council as “a partial peer review” of the Bray Heritage plan. The firm suggested detailed revisions to the language of the HCD to bring it into closer alignment with the policy objectives of the County’s Secondary Plan.

Key is the lack of distinction between different defined areas of the HCD. While six distinct zones are identified, all are treated alike in terms of development restrictions. The group argues that the Village Core (zoned Commercial/Industrial) and the Lower Village (a mixed-use area of the Main Street) require different HCD policies and guidelines, ones that will allow more density.

The worry is that Heritage Conservation Districts tend to preserve a perfect replica of a historic town over a few blocks, but those blocks begin to cater primarily to tourists — while the real shopping goes on at big box stores outside town. Picton, whose heritage conservation district was approved in 2011, has not entirely escaped this fate.

Nonetheless, Michael Michaud, the County’s Director of Planning, stressed that his department saw the Wellington HCD and the Secondary Plan as working “hand in hand.”

As he explained to Councillors in September, the HCD plans underwent three rounds of changes in response to criticism and consultation. As a result there was greater flexibility for landowners who wished to develop.

“If an owner of a contributing property proposes to demolish or relocate or redevelop that property, they would need a heritage permit, approval from the Heritage Committee, and approval from Council,” he said.

“The goal is to allow for properties to evolve and new buildings to fit into the character of the area,” said Mr. Michaud. “A heritage impact assessment would be required to ensure new works are in keeping with heritage character of the community. Redevelopment scenarios could be entertained provided the approvals are in place.”

Mr. Michaud expects the date for the first case management conference to be posted within a week. That first conference lays out a schedule for the hearings that will lead to a decision. Until the case is settled, all development in the affected area of the village is on hold.