A connecting link

About 85 residents shared ideas about the future of Wellington’s main intersection.

Most meeting participants want historically consistent building expanding Wellington retail and residential options

More than 70 residents as well as council members and County development staff gathered on Wednesday to talk about the future of Wellington’s main intersection. Over three hours, they discussed the village’s heritage, economy, liveability and attractiveness—as well as opportunities to enhance these attributes.

The catalyst for the discussion was the future of the building at 282 Main Street in Wellington and, to a lesser extent, the smaller building next door. The municipality purchased the property earlier this year to enable repair and restoration work to be completed under the buildings. Lane Creek winds through the village core and under both of the subject buildings situated on the northwest corner of Wellington’s primary intersection. Earlier plans to divert the creek along Wharf Street were abandoned when the projected cost to do so crested $1.8 million—three times the original estimate.

By purchasing these buildings, the County’s works department avoided the tricky business of installing a culvert under a privately held building. But once it had acquired the buildings, the County signalled its intention to demolish the buildings and pave over, or sod over, the empty lot, once it had installed the culvert.

But those plans were met with loud public condemnation. Many worried about the loss of retail and residential space and the effect on the vitality of the village core. Others warned against the destruction of a building that had stood on this corner since the village was formed more than 110 years ago.

Council delegated its Community and Economic Development department to work with Wellington residents and others to consult the community and to develop alternatives.

The purpose of Wednesday’s meeting was not to assess all the variables of costs, structural integrity of the existing structure or the practicality of restoration. Rather, the aim was to understand what residents value about the property and itsrole in the village.

“We are here to listen,” said Mayor Robert Quaiff, on behalf of the six councillors attending the meeting. “We are going to build our future together.”

Meeting moderator Mike Harper asked the gathering to suspend their doubts for an evening—to consider what if, rather than why not.

Planning advisor John Uliana identified the village’s historic integrity, its tourism opportunities and access to a rich array of services ranging from food, health care, banking, hardware and restaurants and accommodation as its chief strengths.

“Your built heritage is the linkage that will help you retain Wellington’s unique character,” said Uliana.

Heritage architect Lindsay Reid prepared four general scenarios in advance of the meeting. They included the County’s proposal for a small parkette on the site; a parkette with a small building; a restoration of the existing buildings; and, the development of a replacement structure respectful to the scale and architectural features that define nearby structures in the village core.

The room was segmented into nine tables of about 8- 10 residents. Each table was led by a discussion facilitator who asked the group to respond to the four scenarios from a variety of perspective. Then each table facilitator shared the consensus view of their group.

The message was clear—and nearly unanimous.

The vast majority said they wanted to see the buildings restored or reconstructed in scale and designed consistent with the existing structures.

Most said it was essential that the historical value of the buildings be restored in some fashion.

Others said the corner must continue to serve as an intersection of social contact—a meeting place. That, if it loses its role as a lively centre of commercial and retail activity, Wellington will lose its rare and unique character.

Not everyone shared the view that the existing buildings were important heritage assets. One table preferred instead to start fresh with an empty lot after the culvert was replaced.

Almost everyone in attendance want to see a building remain on this key intersection—rejecting the notion of a parkette or parking lot.

The County’s Community and Economic Development officer, Neil Carbone, explained that with feedback gathered in this meeting, his department would prepare a report that will also assess costs, engineering and liability risks.