Council votes to buy 90-hectare property for $2M, with a catch

City council has finally put a contentious debate over 90 hectares of rural land to rest, voting to buy it for about $2 million.

The land is located at 5689 Ferry Rd. near Fitzroy Harbour. With 800 metres of untouched shoreline, mature forests and pastures suitable for tree planting, city staff called it ecologically significant and wanted to preserve it using a land acquisition program.

But rural councillors have questioned whether it was a good use of taxpayer dollars, and the matter was pushed back without a decision when it came to council in January.

On Wednesday, West Carleton-March Coun. Clarke Kelly spearheaded a compromise. The city would buy the land, but sever two small parcels that it would put up for sale for potential housing development.

"We have made a better deal for taxpayers and we're still supporting the acquisition and the spirit of the program," he said.

City staff estimated that the compromise could raise a few hundred thousand dollars, though part of the sum would go to affordable housing in accordance with longstanding city policy. The rest would go to fund future conservation efforts.

The compromise passed with a strong 19-to-five majority, though some urban councillors questioned why the city couldn't conserve all of the land.

Capital ward Coun. Shawn Menard argued that little money from selling the severed parcels would be left over after the city paid closing costs and marketing expenses.

He noted that opponents of the sale had previously argued that the lands would be protected without city action, since there appeared to be little developer interest.

"Now we're saying, yeah, buy them but just sever off and develop a portion of them? It's not making sense to me," he said.

Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper agreed, saying the original staff proposal — to buy all the land — was the right one.

"I don't understand what the advantage is of taking some of the naturalization potential on what staff have identified as a high-valued ecological land to put in place a couple of lots that might ultimately be bought to put in a couple of very large homes in the rural area," he said.

City staff explained that they would select the areas of the lowest ecological significance when deciding what parts of the land to sever for housing. That would safeguard wetlands and mature forests, they assured councillors.

The exact size of the parcels to be severed remains uncertain, though city staff said the minimum size would be about 0.8 hectares for each parcel, or four acres in total.

Mayor Mark Sutcliffe welcomed the compromise, saying that council probably would have remained sharply divided without it.

"It took some time, but I'm glad that we took the time to find a solution where there was consensus around the table, where we were able to move forward with the purchase of this land and protect it for environmental reasons," he said.