Lawyers representing a Winnipeg land developer involved in a lengthy battle with city hall over plans for a multi-million-dollar mixed-use development on a tract of land off Taylor Avenue say the city can avoid another trip to court by holding a public hearing on the proposal.
Andrew Marquess’ Gem Equities has owned the Parker Lands, a 47-acre tract near a section of the recently-completed southwest rapid transit line, since a land swap with the city in 2009.
In the 11 years since, the city has approved none of the plans, despite multiple applications by Marquess’s company, and a successful lawsuit against the city that saw a Court of Queen’s Bench justice find the city in contempt and order city council to consider his development.
The development, called Fulton Grove, would see multi-family housing, including 12-storey rental complexes on land between the second-phase of the southwest transit corridor and the CN tracks to the north of the Parker lands near the Winnipeg Humane Society on Hurst Way.
Last week, two committees of council again looked at the plan and ultimately voted against it following a recommendation by city staff who said, among other things, the proposal doesn’t meet the zoning regulations set out for developments built near rapid-transit stations.
‘That’s why it’s called a public hearing’
But this week — just days before the proposal comes before council as a whole Friday — lawyers for Gem Equities sent a letter to the city’s legal department, warning the votes don’t meet the requirements of a public hearing as ordered by the judge.
The letter, sent Tuesday, warns of further legal action unless council asks the public service to prepare updated administrative reports for the proposal’s applications and that the matter be sent back to the property and development committee for a public hearing.
“A zoning application and a public meeting requires, I think, a 14 days notice and obviously representation is going to be made by the proponent for the zoning request, by other members of the public — that’s why it’s called a public hearing,” said Marquess’ lawyer, Dave Hill.
“We’re saying it’s time to go back, city council will ultimately hear this, but for now the proper step is to go back to (the property, planning and development committee).”
Get daily National news
City says it’s following the order
A city spokesperson said the city feels it’s met the judge’s orders by bringing the plan back to council.
“The City continues to consider both the subdivisions and secondary plan applications in a manner that is consistent with policies and procedures as well as directions set out in the order issued by the Court of Queen’s Bench,” David Driedger, manager of corporate communications said in an email.
Driedger said the city is still considering appealing the contempt order, which also ordered the city to pay Marquess’ legal fees.
Last week, Winnipeg Mayor Brian Bowman said he would not comment directly when asked about Hill’s legal threats.
“I’m not able, for the record, to consider new information that isn’t being provided… to all members of council, so I’m not going to directly respond,” Bowman said.
“All I’ll say is that we believe the court’s direction was clear, that this matter does need to proceed to council for consideration and that’s what the city is doing right now.”
Following last week’s votes Marquess said he has no plans on giving up his fight to build the development, which he say could ultimately be worth more than $500 million.
“I’m not going anywhere. This development will get built and we will continue on with this approvals process, whatever shape or form it may take,” he said.
Councillors will consider the matter at their 9:30 a.m. meeting Friday.
— With files from Richard Cloutier and Erik Pindera
This is a timeline of key dates in the dispute, according to the most recent city staff report:
- July 2009: City council approves a land exchange with Gem Equities for the Parker Lands, with Gem Equities on the hook for a plan and public consultations.
- 2013: Gem Equities begins working on a plan with supporting engineering studies for the Parker Lands, in consultation with the city’s public service.
- 2013-2017: Gem Equities makes a number of draft versions of the plan with feedback from the city’s public service. Refinements include clarification as to which portion of the remaining forest was to be protected.
- 2016: Gem Equities hosts two public open house events.
- December 2017: Gem Equities changes the plan to allow for higher residential densities and they plan to raze a portion of the forest. This was not mentioned in the open houses or applications to the city.
- January 2018: Gem Equities submits an application to have the Parker Lands plan adopted by city council. They tell the city public service they will conduct online public engagement.
- February 2018: Gem Equities submits an application to rezone 47 acres of land in the Parker Lands. The last piece of documentation required is received in August 2018, the city staff wrote in their report.
- June 2018: The developer goes to the Court of Queen’s Bench to compel the city to hear the applicant’s development applications.
- September 2018: The city’s property and development committee decides to simply put forward the matter to the mayor’s executive policy committee and city council. EPC passes it on to council. Meanwhile, the courts issue a decision compelling the city to hear the applications. The next day, council lays the matter over indefinitely.
- October 2018: Gem Equities clears the remainder of the forest on their property. Meanwhile, the courts order the city centre community committee to hold a public hearing on the proposed development plan and rezoning.
- November 2018: The committee holds a public meeting and hearing. They recommend the plans be adopted so long as it fits in the city’s charter. It also allows Gem Equities to resubmit their plans without having to reapply.
- December 2018: Gem Equities goes back to court, alleging the city is in contempt of the court’s previous order, saying the city failed to adhere to the order. They said the city should have used a non-statutory approach to the plan, instead of a by-law approach.
- August 2019: The court finds the city in contempt for failing to process the applicants’ plan as a non-statutory (policy) plan, but did not find the city in contempt on other grounds raised by the developer. The court tells the city’s property and development committee to hold a meeting considering the secondary plan and rezoning application. The city appeals.
- March 2020: The court does not reconsider the finding of contempt but also does not impose a penalty on the city. The court orders that the secondary plan and rezoning application be referred directly to the standing policy committee on property and development for consideration, and that the secondary be considered as policy, but not as a by-law.
- May 2020: The city’s property and development committee holds the meeting asked for in August and once again rejects the plan, saying there are numerous flaws. The city says it has not yet exhausted all of its avenues of appeal in court.
Comments