Sold

Partnership deal with developer still faces hurdles before it closes

Council took a step toward consummating its relationship with New View Holdings on Monday night. It agreed to sell the former Queen Elizabeth Elementary School to the developer in what is being described as a partnership with the municipality.

Under the terms of the deal, New View Holdings (the developer) is seeking to build 198 residential units (125 units in phase 1) featuring a mix of market and affordable housing. It has agreed to designate half the units as affordable, as defined by the municipality. It will also build a 22,000-squarefoot community hub facility.

For its part, the County will waive property taxes on the affordable housing units and the community hub facility. The County will manage the hub facility as the head tenant and manage sub-tenancies. No lease terms were revealed in the report.

The County is selling the property for $1.5 million, roughly what it paid last year, plus estimated carrying costs.

That’s the rough outline of the deal put before Council on Monday night.

STARK DIVIDE
Several dozen residents filled the council chambers to share their views.

The neighbours surrounding the former school property had a consistent message: Shire Hall had done a terrible job talking to them, explaining the plan, the process and the potential impact on their community.

Others complained that the plan was too dense and would draw too much traffic. Nearly all pointed to the loss of green space in their midst. Several also suggested that the plan contradicts the County’s Official Plan and sidesteps the municipal planning process.

Tim Johnson shared the results of a survey conducted by him and his neighbours. Perhaps the most surprising finding was that most respondents favoured the property being developed for housing (71 per cent hoping to see seniors living units, 60 per cent in favour of single homes, and 55 per cent supported semis and towns). However, most were opposed to the density proposed. Sixty-one per cent wanted fewer than 50 units.

There were also many voices insisting Council move forward—with urgency.

Sami Lester asked council members to imagine losing half their household income— how would they manage? She used examples of folks who had lost a job or become ill and suddenly thrust into financial peril because housing costs were so high.

Lester suggested Council had a binary choice: it could listen to the well-off neighbours or it could “make life slightly better and more hopeful for those getting squeezed out.”

Others pointed to their personal circumstances and community statistics to underline the dire need for affordable housing in this community.

Jillian Orton said the issue was about saving lives.

“To allow these talking points to delay this project is not only unethical, it’s irresponsible and selfish,” Orton advised Council.

PARTNERSHIP
Before Council weighed in on the debate, Director of Housing Adam Goheen sought to clarify some points. He explained that this project had taken the form of a public-private partnership, with each side bringing something to the table—and each side needing something in return. For this reason, the general terms had to be negotiated and hammered out behind closed doors.

Goheen was adamant, however, that the project would undergo the same rigorous planning and consultation processes as any other development project. He assured Council that the “full integrity” of the planning process would follow, including traffic, landscaping, and environmental studies. Furthermore, he emphasized that the developer was committed to public consultation.

He noted, however, that density was non-negotiable. If Council insisted upon a less dense development, it would have to do so without this partner.

Goheen reminded Council that a partnership arrangement was necessary because the municipality does not have the means to develop it on its own.

“We can’t afford to fund this project,” said Goheen. He added that the developer was making an investment in this project of approximately $100 million.

Several council members suggested the consultation should have come first.

“It’s disappointing it has come to this,” said Wellington councillor Corey Engelsdorfer. “It’s a project that has become so confrontational and divisive. Sometimes I feel we fail at public consultation, and then this is what happens: we fill council chambers because it is the only way people feel they can be heard.”

Goheen assured the council member that public consultation would happen “very soon.” Goheen noted, too, that if the project should fall apart during the planning process, the deal won’t close. The property will revert to the municipality under the prescribed terms of the sale agreement.

Councillor Phil Prinzen was not in favour of buying the property last year, but was satisfied on Monday night that the deal was conditional on the developer meeting the requirements of planning, traffic, greenspace and public consultation.

Councillor Brad Nieman attempted to delay signing the sale agreement until May to allow for public consultation before then.

“Once it is signed, the messages will fall on deaf ears,” worried Nieman.

But others saw no value in a delay. Picton council member Phil St-Jean described the motion as a “show of bad faith” to the developer.

The delay motion lost. Then came the vote.

The deal passed with John Hirsch, Kate MacNaughton, Janice Maynard, Sam Grosso, Phil Prinzen, Bill Roberts, Phil St-Jean, Corey Engelsdorfer, David Harrison and Sam Branderhorst in support. Councillors Brad Nieman, Chris Braney and Roy Pennell dissented.