In a 4-3 vote Monday night, council elected to move forward with the process to re-zone and sell off property at the northwest corner of Nelson Street and Williams Avenue to be developed into five housing lots.
The recommendation came forward from the Planing and Development executive committee after a series of meetings regarding the property, including two with Nelson Street Park-area residents present.
As a member of the Planning and Development executive committee, Coun. Rick Wiedenhoeft said Monday he supported the idea of going forward with the residential development as soon as possible, especially since he’s aware of people who are very interested in building homes there.
“We’ve jerked these people around since 2004,” Coun. Wiedenhoeft remarked.
“If there is a real need—and I believe there is, I’ve been contacted by four people who want to develop this property this year if they can get their hands on it—then let’s not jerk these people around any longer.
“Let’s go ahead with the development of this property. It’s going to be good for the town, it’s going to increase the tax base,” Coun. Wiedenhoeft argued.
“It will be capital we can get our hands on that we definitely need,” he stressed. “We’re in tough financial times right now. That property sitting there is generating no revenue for the town.
“I know there’s people around this room that want to draw and quarter me for my position, but I believe we have to go ahead with this—because of the need and because I believe we are going to go forward with a long-term [plan] that will identify other properties for develop in the future,” Coun. Wiedenhoeft said.
“We’re looking at other avenues, but those avenues aren’t going to be open right now. I want to proceed with the development of this property as soon as possible.”
“I’m very sympathetic to the residents’ concerns and I think they’ve presented them in a thoughtful manner,” said Coun. Andrew Hallikas.
“But having said that, we do need building lots in town and these are probably number-one on the list in terms of being ready to be developed,” he added.
“I see this as step one. We’re going to need other developments, as well,” Coun. Hallikas noted. “I don’t see any sense in waiting. I think we need to go ahead.”
But other councillors disagreed.
“I feel strongly we should protect the ‘green space’ areas in the Town of Fort Frances,” countered Coun. John Albanese. “Once we take it away, and this was said many times during the two meetings we had, you never get it back.
“I feel sometimes we should listen more to the people we represent—their views, why they live there. Why would we want to destroy the way they live?” he wondered.
“I’m in support of keeping the ‘green space.’”
“I’m not in favour of this moving on with this at this point in time,” echoed Coun. Paul Ryan prior to the vote. “We’ve discussed other means and other things we can do in town which would probably free up housing and possibly even promote new development.
“I think we should do this one step at a time, and go with other things we have in front of us and see how that works out first,” he added.
“I do believe, though, that sometime in the future this property will become residential. The property value will only increase over time.”
While he appreciated the public’s input on the property at a March 5 meeting, Coun. Ryan admitted that although he’s made an effort over the past year to take a look at the property whenever he drives by it, he’s never seen a single person use the park.
“I think some of the usage may been marginally or even grossly overstated at that public meeting,” he remarked.
Mayor Roy Avis, along with Couns. Sharon Tibbs, Hallikas, and Wiedenhoeft voted in favour of moving forward; Couns. Ken Perry, Ryan, and Albanese voted against it.
Municipal planner Faye Flatt said the next step will be to begin the process of a zoning amendment—to change the property from “open space” to “residential.”
This bylaw will come before council at a future meeting.
The re-zoning can be appealed by any member of the public, however, in which case it will be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board, which, in turn, will set a date for an appeal hearing.
Setting a date could take six months, noted Flatt.
If the OMB decides in the town’s favour, the property would have to be surveyed, the lots laid out, the land appraised, and the town would issue a notice of intent to dispose of land.
The lots then would be sold.
While it’s been on the town’s radar for a while, the property matter most recently was the topic of a public meeting on March 5, and also discussed at length at the Planning and Development executive committee’s meeting on March 13.
At that time, area residents offered many opinions, including:
•there are better lots available for development (although the town responded these may be not as ready to use as the Nelson Street Park property is);
•this is a short-term fix to a long-term problem;
•the town should pursue re-zoning property that will allow for more available lots;
•Nelson Park is frequently used and packed with foot traffic in comparison to other parks in a one-km radius;
•the park is of more value to local residents than building lots would be to the town, and the park is a prime reason for some residents to buy a home in that neighbourhood;
•the park is an open space where kids can fly kites and play soccer;
•if “green space” isn’t preserved, it can never be recovered;
•let contractors know the town is “open for business” and build more condominiums to give seniors a place to live, freeing up homes for others to buy and move into;
•the town should do a compete analysis of all the land available in town and compile the pros and cons;
•getting rid of the open space will have a little impact on the housing shortage and a big impact on local children that use it; and
•whether or not the lot could be proclaimed “open space” once and for all (the town is not aware of any regulation that allow the designation to remain in perpetuity).
The property has been owned by the town since 1938 and has been vacant since then.
In 1990, an official plan amendment saw the land re-designated from “residential” to “open space,” but holds the designation of “living area” in the current official plan.
Residential use is permitted in area with this designation, Flatt had noted in an Oct. 27, 2007 report to council.
The town is empowered—under the Municipal Act and the Planning Act—to manage and regulate its own property as it sees fit, provided all applicable legislative requirements are adhered to, she had added.
