A local realtor has provided Belleville council with some points to ponder before deciding on what’s become a controversial
decision on a property transfer near the city’s bay shore.
Doug Peterson has emailed an extensive list of considerations to council members and local media about the transfer of an
almost 1 acre piece of vacant land to the abutting property owner at the end of South John Street at Harbour Drive across from
Jane Forrester Park.
Peterson believes the land should be left as open space.
The land used to be the site of fuel storage tanks and is considered by the city as non-viable property (needs remediation) and it’s been recommended
that it be transferred for zero dollars.
However, many people in the area want it left as open space.
The abutting property owners, Gerald and Suzanne Dirocco, said yesterday they planned on creating something for community use
on the property and had no intentions of building a residence.
Their position was made clear in an email to council and media recently. It can be seen here.
Council will discuss the matter Monday (May 11). The staff report is available here.
Below are Peterson’s 10 points of consideration.
10-Point Decision Path: Why Council Should Vote No to Bylaw 2026-046
1. Start with the public-interest test (versus the proponent’s profit interests).
The first question is not whether the private proposal is well-intentioned. The first and most important question is:
Is it in the long-term public interest to remove publicly owned waterfront open space from public ownership?
The City’s own Parkland and Recreation Master Plan says parks and recreation are a core municipal service, part of Belleville’s quality of life, and tied to health, environmental sustainability, social vibrancy, community pride, and business/resident attraction.
Decision point: If public parkland has ongoing civic, recreational, environmental, or strategic value, Council should not treat it as disposable surplus land.
2. Confirm the land is not ordinary “leftover” land
The staff report describes the parcel as a 0.85-acre vacant parcel at South John Street and Harbour Drive, currently maintained as open space.
But the surrounding documents and maps show it is also part of a broader waterfront open-space context near Jane Forrester Park, the Waterfront Trail, Myers Pier, and South George Street. The City’s Zoning Map also identifies the parcel as OS — Open Space.
Decision point: If the land functions as waterfront open space, it should not be evaluated as though it were not merely a useless, remnant, lot beside a private parcel. It should be evaluated as a component of the City’s future landscape.
3. Apply the City’s own “surplus” definition strictly
The City policy defines “Surplus” as property the City “no longer requires to meet its current or future needs.”
That is a high bar. Council must be satisfied that the City has no current or future municipal need for the parcel. Even the distant future.
Even several generations into the future.
This is the decision you are making.
As Joni Mitchell sang it…”You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone!”
The Parkland and Recreation Master Plan speaks directly to future needs: it is a 20-year framework for sustaining and growing Belleville’s parks and recreation system.
Decision point: If there is a reasonable future municipal need — parkland, waterfront connectivity, passive recreation, trail enhancement, environmental buffering, or public open space — the land should not be declared surplus.
4. Give weight to the waterfront strategy
The Master Plan specifically identifies the waterfront as a strategic public asset. It includes objectives to encourage a vibrant waterfront based on recreation and entertainment, and later identifies waterfront planning, a connected waterfront, and flooding/erosion issues as part of proactive parkland, open-space, and trail planning.
The waterfront map also visually identifies gaps and possible trail/parkland connections along the waterfront, including areas near the South John /Jane Forrester Park context.
Decision point: If the parcel can contribute to waterfront continuity, public access, trail connection, open-space protection or the environment Council should retain it.
5. Test the classification as “Class Three non-viable land”
By-law 2022-133 defines Class Three as real property that, in the opinion of the Manager of Realty and Property Services, has “no market value except as a lot addition to one or more abutting properties.”
That classification may make sense for a narrow strip, a landlocked remnant, or a truly unusable lot. It is much harder to reconcile with a 0.85-acre waterfront-adjacent open-space parcel that is zoned Open Space and located in a public parkland/trail context.
Decision point: If the land has public amenity value, strategic parkland value, waterfront value, environmental value, or potential market value beyond the abutting owner, Council should not accept the Class Three framing without further independent review.
6. Do not rely on unresolved contamination assumptions
The staff report says the property once supported fuel storage tanks and that no remediation has taken place during City ownership. It also frames transfer as a way to shift environmental liability and avoid future remediation costs.
The potential environmental liability is repeatedly held up as a primary justification for this transfer. Yet, no clear data has been shown to quantify and categorize the contamination.
This is a fear tactic based on minimal evidence or full consideration of public benefit.
But the community correspondence raises a core unanswered question: is the property currently contaminated, to what extent, and has the City obtained or reviewed all environmental reports, including any borehole or testing results commissioned by the applicant?
Decision point: Council should not dispose of waterfront parkland for $0 based on this environmental uncertainty. The responsible path is to verify the environmental status before any decision is made.
7. Require full valuation before approving a $0 transfer
By-law 2026-046 proposes a sale price of $0.00 for the transfer.
The City’s policy principles include fiscal accountability and disposing of real property on the basis of fair market value unless otherwise approved by Council. The policy also defines fair market value by reference to reasonable exposure in a competitive market, with buyer and seller acting prudently and knowledgeably.
Decision point: If contamination, zoning, public amenity value, or development restrictions are not fully resolved, Council cannot confidently know that $0 reflects fair public value.
8. Protect transparency and public trust
The policy statement says Belleville will acquire and dispose of real property rights through a transparent, fair, reasonable, competitive, and consistent process to ensure the best interests of the City are met.
The staff report itself acknowledges feedback about the process and suggests Council could amend the policy to enhance public notice, including posting signage on subject properties before transfer.
Decision point: If even staff acknowledge the public notice process may need improvement, Council should not finalize this transfer before public notice and consultation occur.
9. Separate the private community park concept from the ownership transfer
The proponent’s recently stated intention to create a Cancer Memory Park may be meaningful and worthy of respectful consideration. However, Council should not confuse a late-stage concept with a formal development proposal.
It is important that:
-
the proponent’s stated intention for the property appears to have changed in recent days;
-
no formal park proposal, site plan, operating model, maintenance agreement, public-access agreement, cost estimate, environmental plan, or implementation agreement has been presented to Council;
-
the proposed by-law before Council is not a park approval — it is a permanent transfer of public land into private ownership;
-
Once the land is transferred, Council and the public lose direct control over the future use of the parcel, except through ordinary planning and regulatory processes.
-
Does the City have precedent for a privately owned “Park”?
The May 6 letter describes a possible Cancer Memory Park with walking paths, seating, water features, engraved stones, benches, and landscaping. But that concept is not embedded in By-law 2026-046, which simply authorizes the transfer of the lands to the abutting private owners for $0.00.
The proponent’s later correspondence also states that “the next step would simply have been completion of the land transaction,” and that any future proposal would still require environmental review, engineering, permits, site plan approval, Quinte Conservation review, and Ministry of the Environment compliance.
That confirms the key issue: Council is being asked to approve the land transfer before any formal, reviewable public-benefit proposal is actually before it. It also has ignored the intent and goals of the Waterfront Masterplan.
Council will also recall that the proponent’s original intent for gaining ownership of the land was to remove surface soil from this open space onto his adjacent property at 41 South John. Theoretically this would raise his property above the floodplain restricted area as defined by Quinte Conservation. Even if this increase in elevation was permitted the proponent’s property will still lie within the required 15M setback from a floodplain. This would restrict a building permit to the existing footprint and the square footage of the existing building.
If these hurdles with Quinte Conservation and Ministry of Environment were overcome the proponents stated intention is to build a home(s) on the property that is larger than currently permitted by the floodplain restrictions.
This has always been the clear and driving motivation for this proposal. The concept of a “private park” was added to sweeten the pot and distract from the primary goal of development for profit.
Private profit versus public good?
The public benefit of a park as proposed could potentially be explored without transferring ownership, through:
-
a licence agreement
-
a lease
-
a memorandum of understanding
-
a City-owned memorial park model
-
a donor-funded park enhancement
-
a public-private partnership (Rotary?)
-
a public consultation and design process
Decision point: Council should not permanently transfer public waterfront open space based on a recently changed intention that has not been formalized, tested, costed, approved, or secured by binding public-interest conditions. If the concept has merit, it should be brought forward as a formal proposal while the land remains in public ownership.
10. Choose the lowest-risk Council decision: vote no and direct a better process that aligns with the City’s parkland master plan.
The staff report gives Council other options if it does not complete the transfer, including retaining ownership, or budgeting to determine remediation costs. Is remediaiton even necessary to retain the property in its current condition. Does undisturbed land require remediation? It has been sitting this way since 1973.
The most defensible Council decision is not necessarily to permanently reject every future option. It is to reject the current transfer because it does not align with the City’s future and the record is incomplete.
Decision point: Council should vote against Bylaw 2026-046 and the transfer to private ownership and direct staff to reassess and formalize the value of this property to the City’s future waterfront parkland by:
-
confirming zoning and Official Plan designation
-
full environmental status and any existing reports
-
independent valuation under multiple scenarios
-
review of waterfront trail/open-space implications
-
consultation with Quinte Conservation, Ministry of Environment and relevant agencies
-
public notice and neighbourhood consultation
-
alternatives to sale, including licence, lease, easement, or City-owned memorial park model, private/public partnerships.
Recommended Council Position
Council should vote against proceeding with By-law 2026-046 because the proposed transfer would permanently remove waterfront open space from public ownership before Council has resolved the land’s parkland function, Open Space zoning implications, environmental condition, fair value, public-notice concerns, and alternatives that could achieve the proposed community benefit while keeping the land public.
