Council has voted to refer the Drake Devonshire’s Heritage Permit application for 20 and 24 Wharf Street back to staff, “to continue working with the Drake in an effort to balance local business investment with the requirements of the Wellington Heritage Conservation District Plan.”

The motion, brought by Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer at the July 21 meeting, passed 7-5.

Mayor Steve Ferguson and Councillors Harrison, Branderhorst, Engelsdorfer, Maynard, Pennell and St-Jean supported the referral. Councillors Grosso, Hirsch, MacNaughton, Braney and Nieman were opposed. Councillors Prinzen and Roberts were absent.

The move overturns the Heritage Committee’s call for a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the three-storey addition, which promises new guest accommodations and amenities at the Drake’s waterfront property in Wellington.

The Heritage committee had called for a scoped, independent HIA to evaluate the development’s impact on both the current home of the Drake, the W.P. Niles House, and Wellington’s Heritage Conservation District.

“It’s not clear what this motion will achieve,” said Heritage Committee vice-chair John Hirsch. “There’s no heritage expert on the planning staff.”

“In the absence of a dedicated heritage planner, the committee should be regarded as the expert source.”

“This isn’t a choice between supporting the Drake or supporting heritage,” Mr. Engelsdorfer said. “I believe we can, and should, do both.”

David Bronskill, legal counsel with Goodmans LLP and representing the Drake, argued the Wellington HCD  does not require an HIA. He pointed to the work already completed by ERA Architects, the heritage consultants advising the applicant.

Mr. Bronskill also warned Council it was facing a September 15 deadline to decide the permit, after which the application would automatically be approved. Refusing it, he said, would mean the applicant could appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Mr. Bronskill maintained the Heritage Assessment could not be completed before that deadline. When Mr. Hirsch asked whether the Drake would agree to a 30-day extension, Mr. Bronskill said he did not have instructions to agree to an extension, and underscored that a month would not be enough time to complete the work.

Heritage Committee records show members first raised concerns about the Drake extension proposal in April 2025, more than a year ago. Its Heritage Permit Task Team made formal recommendations to to the Drake’s team last May, to be taken into account in its Heritage Permit application. 

By the time the permit was considered this month, the Drake argued there was insufficient time to complete an HIA. 

Whether the existing heritage work was sufficient was another point of contention, with heritage professionals offering differing opinions.

But Mr. Hirsch noted the committee’s concerns extended beyond the Drake proposal itself. As the first major heritage permit application under Wellington’s Heritage Conservation District Plan, the decision establishes precedent for future applications.

“Whether it’s right or whether it’s wrong, it sets a precedent,” he said. “That’s why we wanted an independent view.”

The divide over the proposal was also apparent among residents.

Neighbours Richard Elliott and Lourdes DaCosta stressed they do not oppose the Drake’s expansion, but that its design does not comply with Wellington’s heritage protections.

 “Pick a lane. Either apply the plan or get rid of it,” said Mr. Elliott.

Dr. Diane Riley, a member of the Wellington Community Association’s (WCA)steering committee, noted, “consultation with neighbours has been non-existent.” 

The WCA itself, however, had a different position.

In a letter dated July 20, WCA chair Tim Good confirmed the association’s support for the heritage permit, noting it had reviewed the application materials and met with the Drake’s owners and consultants.

“After careful consideration, I am pleased to write to confirm the support of the Wellington Community Association for the requested heritage permit,” he wrote.

Another WCA steering committee member, John Caliendo, noted, “all 11 members of the steering committee were invited [to the meeting with the Drake], including Diane Riley,” he said. “I’m surprised by her comment about ‘no consultation.’”

Mr. Caliendo said 9 members attended the meeting, including two who had initially opposed the application. “Coming out of that board meeting, nine of us decided to support this application.” 

The WCA’s support was not without caveats. The association called for a Construction Management Plan to ensure traffic and pedestrian circulation remain unimpeded during construction.

Similar concerns were raised by Wellington Foodland over potential disruptions to deliveries and operations on Wharf Street.

Around the Council table last week, debate centred on whether another heritage assessment would amount to one hurdle too many after years of planning and professional consultation, or whether the County still lacked the information needed to approve the permit.

Councillor Phil St-Jean described endless requirements as a “bureaucratic nightmare that drives business away.”

Mr. Hirsch saw the stakes differently.

“This is our first major case in the Wellington HCD, and we need to do it right,” he said to the Gazette. “The committee is pretty unhappy about this, very disappointed in Council.”

Staff will return to Council with a recommendation on Aug. 25.