Belleville City Council voted unanimously to remove the surplus designation of a greenspace on South John Street and for the by-law itself, which would have transferred the property to the owners of a neighbouring land, be defeated.
The decision was made at council’s meeting on Monday.
As part of the amended motion, city staff will determine the costing of the development of the property and bring it back to council for a future meeting.
The original bylaw had called for the 0.85 hectares of land at the end of South John Street at Harbour Drive across from Jane Forrester Park be transferred to the abutting land owners, Gerald and Suzanne Dirocco, with no compensation being sought.
In a report to council, it is stated that the abutting landowner contacted the City of Belleville in 2023, advising they intended to build a house on the abutting lot located at 41 South John Street and inquired about acquiring the property from the City.
Municipalities are allowed the direct sale of land designated as “non-viable” as a remnant parcel or contamination to an abutting landowner without public notice.
Media and councillors received a letter from local realtor Doug Peterson, saying that the land should be left as open space.
However, a letter to media and councillors from Josh Supryka of Rentx Group says the property was meant to be developed for a community-based project involving a park, not a residence.
The land has been in the possession of the city since November 28, 1973, and has been deemed non-viable. It was noted in the city’s report that the site at one point supported fuel storage tanks on the vacant land.
When the by-law was first introduced back in April, Councillor Kathryn Brown had pulled the by-law, seeking to have staff evaluate the process used for that property and consider whether there is a way to address neighbourhood-wide benefits.
At council’s meeting on Monday, Brown spoke on the motion, saying that council should look at having the by-law be defeated.
“This 0.85 parcel is the last remaining property immediately adjacent to Meyers Pier, and once it’s gone, it’s gone,” Councillor Brown told council.
“I believe it’s premature to release this property before we have fully assessed what will serve the city and our waterfront continuity.”
Councillor Garnet Thompson had initially told council that he was in support of the plans for a potential park from the potential owners, but would go along with what council decided.
Following the dialogue, Thomspon said he was in favour of the city keeping the land and having the city maintain a park.
“I still stand behind what I spoke at first, but I’m willing to listen and say, okay, let’s look at this further, and let’s bring some costs to put a park down there,” Thompson explained to council.
“We’ve got the beautiful Christmas display down there that I’m very proud of, that we get tons of people at, and if we can contain that down there, then I’m certainly willing to look at that.”
Councillor Paul Carr took aim at a notion of a “backroom deal” being worked out on the property.
“I want to speak directly to that, because I take exception to that thought, and I think we all should,” Carr told council.
“The process here has been a little clumsy. I’m not blaming staff, individually or collectively. It’s just the context is lost, and then unfortunately, it grows legs.”
The motion passed on a 8-0 recorded vote.
