The developer that owns the proposed location for a proposed large south end community park warned city council Monday night that the land could cost the city $37.4 million to acquire if it went ahead with its preferred location.
But that dollar figure, and hints of a possible appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, weren't enough from stopping council voting 10-3 in favour of putting the park, which is part of the long-term Clair-Maltby development plans, on what is currently Springfield Golf and Country Club on the east side of Gordon Street south of Clair Road.
(In favour: Cathy Downer, Leanne Caron Piper, Bob Bell, Mark MacKinnon, June Hofland, Rodrigo Goller, Mike Salisbury, Dominique O'Rourke, James Gordon, Phil Allt; Against: Cam Guthrie, Christine Billings, Dan Gibson)
Lawyer Trenton Johnson, who represents Thomasfield Homes, owners of the Springfield Golf and Country Club property delegated at a virtual meeting of city council Monday, telling them that if the city stuck to its plan to place a proposed 10-hectare community park on the Springfield property, the cost of that land could be as much as $37.4 million.
"Based on what?" asked coun. Phil Allt, adding that the number was "right out of the blue."
Johnson said the figure was given to him by his client based on the highest and best value of the land at full market value as designated residential.
He told council it should delay the decision until it had further consultation with various landowners in the area, a move supported by several other developers that own property in the area.
"We strongly object" to the location, Johnson said. "Put simply, we're looking for council to defer its decision."
Johnson also mentioned that a short delay in the decision could be much shorter than a long delay "if this should have to be adjudicated," apparently referring to possible legal appeal of council's decision.
In the end council backed an earlier decision made at Committee of the Whole in March, voting in support of placing the proposed park on the Springfield property.
It is a park that is likely years away from being created and the size and location may be impacted and revised based on a future financial impact assessment that is part of the overall Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan is finalized. That financial impact was formalized as a second recommendation by staff in approving the new location.
That the final parkland recommendations may be impacted and revised based on the Financial Impact Assessment to be completed for the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan in its entirety.
One of those landowners, a numbered company, wondered in correspondence on the matter whether a large community park was even necessary anywhere.
Several proponents of the park's proposed location, saying it was a more suitable location than several others looked at by city staff.
"This is a planning process, not a development application," said delegate Susan Watson in response to Johnson's request for further consultation with developers.
"Thank you for choosing great," delegate Stan Kozak said of the preferred location.
Hugh Whitely called the location of the park "a golden opportunity" for council to do what's best for the citizens of Guelph.
An amendment by coun. Christine Billings to look at two five-hectare parks as opposed to one 10-hectare park was ruled out of order.
