Council to revisit disputed vote that blocked powersport dealership's expansion plans

City Council is expected to revisit a perplexing vote last week that effectively blocked the sale of 69 Old Garden River Rd. to a neighbouring firm that wanted to expand its business there with a new warehouse, distribution centre and commercial plaza.

The lot, located next to Northshore Sports and Auto Inc., is owned by the city.

Northshore's Ryan Rocchetta had pressed the city for two years to declare the property surplus so his Rocchetta Holdings Inc. could acquire it for a major business expansion.

On June 28, the City Council declared 69 Old Garden River Road as surplus to its needs and authorized a sale.

Rocchetta Holdings Inc. offered to pay $359,000 for it.

There were two other offers, but city staff recommended accepting Rocchetta's proposal, which promised "expansion and addition of a number of local well-paying jobs" as well as "hundreds of thousands in tax dollar revenue each year."

That's when things got weird.

As the matter came to a vote last week at City Council:

• Ward 4 Coun. Rick Niro seemed to vote opposite to intentions expressed just moments before
• Mayor Christian Provenzano thought the sale to Rocchetta had been approved
• City clerk Rachel Tyczinski disagreed, declaring a tied vote 5-5, meaning the sale was not approved

"I believe there was a mistake made," Rocchetta told SooToday.

"There's a long story behind this and a lot of internal workings."

"I think there's more to the story than you're looking at."

"If it doesn't get rectified and it isn't done right within the next little bit, then we're going to be pursuing it," Rocchetta said.

Who was right about the count – the mayor or the city clerk?

To decide for yourself, click on the City Council video above and advance to 154:09 to see your councillors voting.

To view the entire exchange about 69 Old Garden River Road, start at 138:10.

Malcolm White, the city's chief administrative officer, tells SooToday he's siding with Clerk Tyczinski's count.

The eSCRIBE electronic vote is the official, determining vote, White said.

But he added that two councillors have informed him they will introduce a motion to reconsider the Northshore decision at the next City Council meeting on Oct. 12.

The city's procedural bylaw states that such a motion must be moved and seconded by councillors who originally voted with the prevailing side.

Both the councillors who intend to introduce a motion to reconsider meet that requirement, White said.

Normally, a reconsideration motion would be voted on at a meeting two weeks after its introduction, but White tells us council will be asked to set aside its usual rules of procedure to allow the final decision on Northshore to be made Oct. 12.

The following are details of the two rejected offers received for the property, as presented to City Council by Melanie Borowicz-Sibenik, assistant city solicitor.

Offer 1 – Walter and Roberta Pozniak

$50,000 offered, conditional on the property's light industrial zoning being changed to rural area zone.

Proposed immediate uses:

• conservation/ green space
• horticultural society
• bird watching, studying bird habitat
• Entomica insectarium
• Sault College (access to teachers/students from the forestry program and any other related program)
• support Algoma Forest and Nature School

Proposed future uses: (working with city to develop and maintain)

• park and playground
• basketball court/ baseball field
• outdoor skating rink
• vegetable garden (4 Food Program)
• Entomica Insectarium could build a pollinator garden and set up activities and programs for families and children
• tennis court/ pickle ball or any other non-motorized sport or activity

If possible, the Pozniaks propose to help the city expand the John Rowswell Hub Trail through the property.

"The ultimate goal for the purchase of this property is to protect the investments of the surrounding residential family homes and support the city's growth toward the areas that matter most from a family and educational perspective," they say.

Offer 2 – DiTommaso Investments Inc.

$351,500 with no conditions.

This offer didn't set out an intended use for the the property, however in a separate letter to the city, Fausto DiTommaso wrote:

"As you are no doubt aware, the property my company owns located at 145 Old Garden River Rd. has recently been selected as the location for the Sault Area Hospital [SAH]''s new withdrawal management centre and that property abuts 69 Old Garden River Rd."

"You will no doubt agree this 20-bed facility is long overdue and according to SAH, it is very likely there will be an expansion of the 20 beds soon."

"Therefore, the reason for my letter concerns this possible future expansion from 145 Old Garden River Rd. onto the 69 Old Garden River Road property."

"Would it not be advisable at this time for the municipality to reconsider whether 69 Old Garden River Rd. is surplus and keep all options available for future expansion?"

"Also, consider that this property is currently zoned M1 and if sold with that zoning in place, it would permit any number of industrial uses that would be less than complementary to the healing process trying to be accomplished at the new withdrawal management centre immediately to the north."

"The city has held this property for decades and I am sure this property was deemed surplus long before the decision was made to locate the withdrawal management centre to 145 Old Garden River Road. So, would it not be reasonable to take just a little more time to allow the mayor and council to critically review this matter and the impact the sale of this property will have on the withdrawal management centre?"

Councillors indicating they preferred to hold onto 69 Old Garden River Rd. instead of selling it now included Ward 1's Sandra Hollingsworth, Ward 2's Lisa Vezeau-Allen, Ward 3's Donna Hilsinger and Ward 4's Rick Niro.

Curiously, the City Council video shows Coun. Niro raising his hand as the mayor called for votes supporting the sale to Rocchetta.

"Sorry, Mr. Mayor," Niro interjected after the vote.

"I wasn't able to get in on time but just before we voted on that bylaw – I guess it's too late now because we voted on it – it just seems that the bylaw, the way it was written, that we turned down selling the property to Rocchetta Holdings, where the intent was really not to sell the property," the councillor said.

Forty-eight residents of Sharon Crescent and Tadcaster Place signed a petition asking that 69 Old Garden River Rd. remain vacant and city-owned.

Ward 2 Coun. Luke Dufour asked whether there was any local precedent for City Council declaring a property surplus and then declining to sell it but it bringing back to surplus later on.

CAO White was unable to say whether there had had ever been such a precedent.

"It's certainly within council's purview to take any action on the matter as you've described," White said.