Peterborough city council has voted against supporting a proposed new program that would set out a process for the City of Peterborough to expropriate land in the central area of the city on behalf of private developers for housing projects.
The proposal for the Strategic Land Acquisition and Conveyance (SLAC) program was discussed by council on Monday evening (January 27) at its general committee meeting, which also served as a public meeting on the proposal as per requirements of the Planning Act and was chaired by councillor Lesley Parnell.
The program was described in a report from Blair Nelson, the city’s commissioner of infrastructure, planning and growth management, that also proposed expanding the existing central area community improvement plan area to conform with the expanded central area in the city’s new official plan.
After a presentation on the SLAC program from city planner Christie Gilbertson, councillor Keith Riel was the first to speak.
“You’re going to have to do a better job of explaining to me why I would pass a piece of draconian legislation for us to expropriate people’s property in the downtown,” Riel said.
Although Gilberston said there was not a “specific scenario” where expropriation had been requested, she added that city staff have heard from developers during the early stages of consultations and discussions with the city that it is a “missing piece” of their development scheme.
“This is an attempt from a city staff perspective to look at the various tools that we have available to us, as an existing tool under the Municipal Act as well as the tools that we have available under Section 28 of the Planning Act, to come up with a possible remedy to a problem that we have heard about,” she said.
Under Section 6 of the Municipal Act, municipalities are allowed to expropriate private land for municipal purposes through the Expropriations Act. Section 28 of the Planning Act allows a municipality that has designated a “community improvement project area” in its official plan to acquire, hold, and sell land within that area.
Councillor Kevin Duguay, after confirming with Gilbertson that the city already has existing authority to expropriate land, asked legislative services commissioner David Potts whether a property owner could challenge a municipal expropriation.
“The municipal purpose can always be challenged,” Potts said. “Legal consulted with planning on this issue at the outset, and read or re-read all of the case law that has addressed circumstance where municipal purpose included expropriation of lands that ultimately, all or a part of which, were reconveyed to the private sector to achieve a municipal purpose.”
Potts referred to a case in the late 1990s, when the City of Toronto expropriated 10 properties at the intersection of Yonge and Dundas streets and sold the assembled land to a private developer, and to a case in the early 2000s, when the County of Oxford expropriated a parcel of commercial land so that Toyota Canada could build a manufacturing plant in Woodstock near London.
Potts added that the “incredible emphasis provincially on achieving housing targets and in the context of extraordinary events like strong mayor powers” provided a “lens” for reviewing case law when it comes to municipal expropriation of land for housing developments.
After confirming with Gilberston that there was no specific consultation with Indigenous communities on the SLAC program outside of regular consultation, councillor Joy Lachica expressed concerns that language like “last resort” and “a benefit to the community” is arbitrary and subjective. She also noted that the city has a deadline for designating heritage properties, which could potentially be expropriated under the SLAC program.
Councillor Alex Bierk said he was “trying to read between the lines,” asking Gilbertson “What has activated this to happen at this time?” He asked whether there were developers requesting this option and whether there were specific properties where there was a need for expropriation to proceed with development.
“We don’t have dozens of examples of this type of scenario — very few that I’m aware of — but it has come up specifically with one property, if not two, where it might be a possibility to explore something along these lines,” Gilbertson said.
“That’s the point I’m trying to emphasize where, reading between the lines, it feels like this is a broad scope policy that we’re being asked to approve, when in fact it feels like it’s about a very specific couple of things,” Bierk said, adding that he would rather deal with individual situations rather than implement a broad policy “that might have implications.”
Brad Appleby, the city’s director of planning, development and urban design, said that the SLAC program “is not about a particular property or particular project.”
“This is really about the city wanting to have the ability to harness all the tools that’s available to it to foster development in our central area,” Appleby said, adding it was about clarity and transparency.
After Bierk asked whether there were comparably sized municipalities that had a similar program, Appleby said he wasn’t aware of any, but noted all municipalities have the ability to expropriate land.
When Bierk then asked whether private developers would benefit from this program, Appleby acknowledged that was the case but said “It’s really about the broad development benefit to the community.”
“These are not to be any average project that might come in the door. These need to demonstrate a significant benefit for the community, and ulitmately council will be the decider of whether that benefit is sufficent enought to warrant using this program.”
After councillor Matt Crowley asked why city staff were bringing the SLAC program to council if “this weapon is already in our arsenal,” Gilberston said the program would enhance transparency and accountability, and also to let the developer community know the option exists.
Mayor Leal asked if the program would apply to a private developer who wanted to build a sports and entertainment complex in the downtown area and incorporate a number of housing units in the development.
“Effectively it could be applicable to any scenario within the central area, but we would need to see the details in terms of how such a request would align with eligibility requirements and what the overall benefit and exceptional case would be in terms of the outcome of such an acquisition,” Gilbertson said.
Councillor Lachica asked Appleby whether the SLAC program is “really endorsing as opposed to permitting under rare circumstances” municipal expropriation of land for private developers.
“I don’t know if I would characterize it quite as endorsing, I think I would just characterize it as clarifying that we have this tool available to us, and that it is one of a suite of tools that we may use in the central area,” Appleby said.
“It’s still a little bit unclear to me why we really need this, if it currently exists and if we look for it in writing it’s there,” Lachica said. “It feels like it’s granting broad permission for these things.”
Councillor Riel brought up the mayor’s example of a sports and entertainment centre, and said that was “the elephant in the room” with respect to the SLAC program. Appleby noted that the example would not apply if it was a municipally driven project.
Councillor Bierk said he was “confused” by the different explanations from staff about the rationale for the SLAC program, noting that it was initially presented as a solution to a problem identified by some developers and then that “we’re just doing it to get the word out there and to be transparent.”
“We have a community improvement plan that sets out the notion that this could happen, but what it doesn’t set out is how it’s going to happen,” Appleby said. “What we’re trying to do tonight is to update our community improvement plan to set out the how it’s going to happen, so that we’re not having to sit here and make up the process in a reactive kind of way when a developer comes to us.”
Councillor Bierk reiterated an earlier point made by councillor Riel, questioning why there was no consultation with business owners and residents in the downtown on the SLAC program.
After Gilberston’s presentation and councillor questions, council heard a virtual delegation from a resident of Ashburnham Ward, who noted the SLAC program is broader than the normal use of municipal expropriation for hospitals, highways, and schools.
She expressed concerns of the potential impact of municipal expropriation on the homeowners of single dwellings, where people have raised their families and made memories, and may not be able to move to another location if their property is expropriate.
Councillors then made some further comments, including councillor Bierk who noted the contradiction between municipal expropriation of private property and some councillors having previously objected to forcing a heritage designation on a property owner against their will.
After some further discussion, including councillor Duguay again reiterating his support for the SLAC program, council voted on the staff report after separating the proposed expansion of the existing central area community improvement plan area from the SLAC program.
Council voted 9-1 in favour of the former, with only councillor Riel voting against it, and 7-3 against the SLAC program, with only councillors Baldwin, Duguay, and Parnell voting in favour. Councillor Dave Haacke was absent from the meeting.
Decisions made by general committee will be endorsed by city council at its regular meeting on Monday (February 3).
