MEMORANDUM - OFFICE OF THE CAO

MEMO TO: Mayor Strauss & Members of Council DATE: November 9, 2009

FROM: Laurel Davies Snyder, MA, MCIP, RPP

SUBJECT: Victoria Glen: Information and Analysis Requested by Committee of the

Whole at the November 3, 2009 Meeting

FILE I.D.: D02-VE

INTRODUCTION

At the November 3, 2009 Committee of the Whole meeting, Staff was directed to analyze and report back on the feasibility and viability of proceeding with the development of Parcels 2 and 4 as per Map 1 of Report A6-2009 (attached) for residential uses.

In accordance with the direction approved by the majority of Council to further explore developing Parcels 2 and 4 only, Township Staff have determined four options for Council’s consideration, outlined in the following section.

PRESENTATION OF OPTIONS

Option 1: Residential Development of Parcels 2 and 4 (south side of the unopened road allowance only) managed by the Township of Woolwich

The resulting residential development could take a number of forms, outlined below:

1. approximately 13 single detached units (in conformity with current R2-A zoning);

2. approximately 15-22 units including: small lots for single detached units, semi-detached units, townhouses (not in conformity with current zoning); and,

3. Approximately 15-22 units fronting onto a private road (condominium ownership, not in conformity with current R2-A zoning).

For all options, discussion and confirmation of the lot and site design would occur after required services and studies were completed (e.g. Lot Grading and Drainage Plan, Survey of Floodline Elevation).

For the options not in conformity with the current zoning (1b) and 1 c)), additional staff time and resources would be required to manage the development application. In addition, the planning application would be presented for Council’s consideration, and Council’s decision could be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Both of these steps would add time to the process, and an appeal to the OMB could potentially reduce the forecasted surplus by a significant amount.

Pursuing this option would involve expenses to the Township of approximately $1.3 million. In addition, significant staff time would be required to manage this option, and these costs are not included in the expenses at this time.

Following a thorough review of the proposed budget, Staff has determined that the estimated surplus from implementing Option 1 could range from approximately $225,000 - $325,000 (if there is no appeal to the OMB).

Option 2: Residential Development of Parcel 2 only (south side of the unopened road allowance only) managed by the Township of Woolwich

The resulting residential development could take two forms, as outlined below:

1. development and sale of two single lots fronting onto Snyder Road, retaining the eastern portion of the parcel as a wooded area (in conformity with the current R2-A zoning); and,

2. development and sale of two large single lots, one fronting onto Snyder Road and one at the rear of Parcel 2 with a six-meter laneway to Snyder Avenue for frontage (not in conformity with the current R2-A zoning).

For both of these options, discussion and confirmation of the lot and site design would occur after required services and studies were completed (e.g. Lot Grading and Drainage Plan, Survey of Floodline Elevation).

Options 2 a) and 2 b) would involve moderate staff time and resources to complete technical studies and servicing. In addition, as Option 2 b) is not permitted under the current zoning, a Planning Application would be required. The application would be presented to Council for consideration and Council’s decision could be appealed to the OMB. This would add time to the process and possibly reduce the expected surplus.

Pursuing this option would involve moderate staff time, and these costs are not included in the expenses at this time.

Following a thorough review of the proposed budget, Staff has determined that implementation of Option 2 could result in a surplus of approximately $300,000 - $400,000 (if there is no appeal to the OMB).

Option 3: Selling Parcel 2 “as is” to a Private Developer

This option involves selling Parcel 2 “as is” to a private developer. The private developer would be responsible for facilitating all aspects of the development of the land, which would also include completing required studies. Pursuing this option would involve expenses to the Township for the cost of obtaining an Appraisal for Parcel 2. Based on the Region’s Appraisal of Parcel 4, Staff believe that the value of Parcel 2 is approximately $200,000; however this figure must be confirmed.

Option 4: Review Parcels 1, 2 and 3 as part of the Official Plan Review Process

This option involves four components:

• do not declare the Township-owned lands (Parcels 1, 2, and 3) surplus;

• do not proceed with residential development on Parcels 1, 2, and 3;

• review the land-use designation of the Subject Lands as part of the Official Plan Review Process; and,

• suspend negotiations for the Purchase of the Region-owned lands (Parcels 2 and 4).

STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Staff has concluded that although pursuing Options 1, 2, or 3 is technically feasible, none are advisable.

In terms of the financial bottom line, potential revenue from pursuing Options 1, 2, or 3 must be balanced with the amount of risk involved, staff time spent on managing the file and project, and resources required. In the original report, Staff clarified that developing all of the subject lands would result in a significant financial surplus. Development of Parcels 2 and 4, or only Parcel 2 would result in a considerable decrease in potential financial surplus due to the reduced scale of development, staff time required, resources required (e.g. studies) and increased risk of the development being appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. In addition, Staff had built in sufficient financial contingencies for the development of all of the subject lands, which has not been factored in to these scenarios.

In terms of risk, if a developer wishes to intensify the residential units on the site(s) to maximize potential profit, they would need to go through the Planning Application process and spend significant funds completing required studies without any guarantee on the outcome. Many of the options in this memorandum would require a Planning Application, which means that the proposal would be considered by Council, and Council’s decision could ultimately be appealed to the OMB. An appeal to the OMB would increase the risk of development in any form not proceeding, and potentially decrease expected surplus.

The consultation process for Victoria Glen clearly illustrated that the social, educational, spiritual, recreational, historical, ecological, and cultural value of the Township-owned parcels (Parcels 1, 2, and 3) cannot be outweighed by any funds that could be generated by the options described in this memorandum.

Therefore, Staff recommend that Council support Option 4, as follows:

• do not declare the Township-owned lands (Parcels 1, 2, and 3) surplus;

• do not proceed with residential development on Parcels 1, 2, and 3;

• review the land-use designation of the Subject Lands as part of the Official Plan Review Process; and,

• suspend negotiations for the Purchase of the Region-owned land (Parcels 2 and 4).

Staff would like Council to note that the existing sanitary sewer in the unopened road allowance shown on Map 1 will be upgraded in the next few years which will create some level of disturbance to the general area. Staff will communicate the timing of this project to Council and the public as soon as possible.

Through the 2010 budget process Staff will report back to Council with options for managing the funding implications of not proceeding with the deposition of the Victoria Glen lands.