Councillor Bob Stone brought a motion forward at Huntsville Council’s November 23 meeting which would have directed staff to enter into a memorandum of understanding with Mike Peters, owner of the parking lot at 6 John Street. The agreement would enable the municipality to rent Peters’ parking lot in 2021 for an amount not to exceed $17,000 in order to secure parking for downtown patrons during the reconstruction of Huntsville’s Main Street.
The motion also directed staff to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Downtown Huntsville Business Improvement Area (BIA) to share the cost of renting the parking lot with 60 per cent of the cost to be borne by the municipality and 40 per cent by the BIA. The motion also called for $10,200 to be added to the draft 2021 Municipal Accommodation Tax operational budget for the rental, estimated to amount to about 200 parking spaces.
“Of all the things that the Town can do to help the businesses downtown survive the streetscape, I think this is the single most important thing that we can do,” Stone told his fellow councillors. “We can have a great communication plan, offer 50 per cent grant funding for façade improvement, hire consultants to make websites for the businesses but if the people of Huntsville and the visitors can’t easily, without planning ahead or checking a website, simply drive to the downtown and shop they will go somewhere else. This parking lot is literally a stone’s throw from downtown. We can rent these 200 spots and we’ll never hear ‘I couldn’t find a spot because of the construction’ and they can always get to the businesses.”
Councillor Thompson said 200 parking spots would be great but questioned whether the owner would be willing to provide marked parking spots “so that people will have an idea where they can park without just a big hodgepodge of cars jammed into that space down there. So I’m hoping that we’re looking at lined spaces…”
Terziano said the memorandum could ask that the parking stalls be marked as part of the agreement.
Snow removal was also a concern. Councillor Jason FitzGerald questioned who would be responsible for snow removal. “Whose responsibility would that be in this $17,000 agreement?” FitzGerald also wondered how many parking spots would be eliminated due to snow storage.
Terziano said she thought the primary use of the lot would be May to October, “so I’m not sure whether we’d get into snow removal.” She asked Steve Hernen, director of operations and protective services for the Town to chime in, but he said he had not been privy to discussions with Peters.”I haven’t been party to these discussions. I don’t know what the concept is but Main Street will be reopened in November so I don’t really know if you really require winter parking. You know when you look at Main Street as a whole, and I don’t have the numbers in front of me, I think it’s like 60 spots. I know we’re losing some with the turn lanes but by November Main Street will be reopened. It will shut down for a few days in the spring the following year for the final pavement going down but, like I say, I wasn’t party to the discussions.”
Councillor Dan Armour asked what would happen to the existing vendors who use the lot. “Would they be displaced by us renting this and would they have to find new locations because I think they make a pretty good living sitting in that area.”
Terziano said she did not think the vendors would be displaced but that other areas of the lot could be used for parking. She said the details had not yet been worked out but all those issues could be addressed through a memorandum of understanding if council agrees to move in that direction.
“I guess fundamentally I have an issue with this whole thing coming to us now,” said Councillor Tim Withey. “We have no idea who negotiated the $17,000. According to Director Hernen he hasn’t been party to any of this stuff… and we’re still in budget deliberations so I’m not happy with just approving $17,000 for something we don’t know a lot of details for, so I will not be supporting this, this motion.”
Stone clarified that the Town would not be paying $17,000 but $10,200 and that the funds “would come from the [Municipal] Accommodation Tax Fund.”
Deputy Mayor Nancy Alcock said understanding how it would impact the food vendors [and the brewery], which also use the lot is important “but I also echo what councillor Withey is saying. The recommendation to go forward with this wasn’t in the staff report so I think there are a number of questions around things like the [parking lines]… but also the condition of the parking lot. There are other parts, as I recall, that are not in great shape, but maybe I’m wrong. I haven’t been there I guess in a while.” She also asked Stone whether he had been given any indication from the BIA that they would be willing to pitch in funds to rent the lot.
Stone said he brought the issue up at a BIA board meeting. “They were all very excited about the prospect of getting it. We did not talk about how it was going to be funded. I did speak to Rachel Hunt who is the chair of the board and she is very much in support and thinks it’s one of the important boxes to check off for saving downtown.”
Councillor Brian Thompson had this to say: “I think we should really put our best foot forward and get all these answers and come back with an idea exactly of what we can expect of the $17,000 because as Councillor Stone says it’s critical, and I couldn’t agree with him more. This is going to do a lot for downtown… If we can make it work I think we have to.”
In the end, the motion was deferred to council’s December meeting and staff was directed to negotiate terms with Peters for the possible rental of his parking lot.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
THANKS, BUT NO THANKS!:
I have to say that I was quite amused listening to Steve Hernen last March, during his presentation of Streetscape, attempting to do his very best to try to convince the public that the downtown has plenty of parking. If, as Nancy Alcock puts it, it is just “a parking perception problem, compounded by confusion and the lack of signage about the parking that is available”, why was Andrew Stillar sent knocking on my door in 2017 and Scott Ovell, too, only a few weeks ago? Maybe I should be walking around with a parachute, just in case they tell us the world is flat, too? Meanwhile, I can’t help but pointing out that,“Scapegoat” would be the best way to describe this nonsense, at least where I fit in.
Sorry for the novel; but I have a few things I would like to get off my chest, starting first with just a friendly reminder that the Town contaminated this property when they used it as their public dump for the many decades prior to the day that Sam Peters bought it from the bank almost fifty years ago; complete with it’s cattails and the lovely rusty steel girders that sat stagnant for years before (the real “eyesore”) as glaring testament to the failure of those who ventured before him. The efforts that “Sammy” made to transform the last vestiges of that mosquito infested dump into a vibrant retail centre proved to be a success for Huntsville’s growing tourist economy for close to 25 years thereafter; only to be hamstrung by the community’s former use of the property as a waste landfill; the principal and true reason for which it has now been labelled “contaminated” pursuant to today’s government standards, making any remedial steps to improve its current condition a very steep uphill battle without the 100% financial support of ALL stakeholders.
Making matters even very much worse, just after Sam’s son, Michael (not to be confused with “Samson”, “the Son of Sam”, “Mr. Splitfoot” or “Alan Peters”), finished laying new asphalt in 92′, the Town wreaked havoc with their full-on assault on the shiny new black (and actually smooth) surface, conveniently using the very centre of it as a four way intersection connecting Main Street to Cann Street to John Street to Chaffey. The lot, which was last professionally re-built by Bob Hutchinson/Maurice Huntington’s crew at this time, not quite near enough to the grade specifications detailed by Deardon & Stanton Ltd., was predictably unable to withstand the unreasonable pressures placed upon it when frost got driven into the water table located just 1.5′ below the unwelcome roadway traffic. Not less than two (2) years after this last re-pave, dozens of alligator cracked potholes noticeably appeared amazingly out of nowhere, revealing like a map, that this private property was being used as two (2) public roads that intersected at the corner of the former Beer Store lot, probably also exactly where Huntsville’s lowest paved elevation above any water table is located. Imagine how difficult and expensive it is to engineer and build a paved parking lot directly on top of 100′ of loon shit, only to see it destroyed less than two years later by the same people who are now bitching about the resulting eyesore and the fact that they no longer have the self-entitled right to park there for free?! This is the true reason why the asphalt is in poor condition. The only reason why it has not gotten replaced and maintained to the same impeccable standards as the owner’s other properties is precisely because all the beneficial users, in order of “usury” (there’s an oxymoron!); namely:
1. the community,
2. the B.I.A.,
3. and the adjacent owners and businesses;
will continue to refuse to pay their fair and proportionate share of all the costs required to replace and/or maintain this (formerly) very well used community asset. To top it off, back around 2005, the Town knowingly facilitated the relocation of the plaza’s principal anchor, the L.C.B.O., by providing the special resolution it needed to move to its current location. This was the final nail in the coffin and both Hugh McKenzie and Brian Thompson accurately predicted the results when in his office, at that time, Hugh stated that they did not want an ensuing “ghost town”, even though, to the best of my knowledge and belief, they both voted for the move, obviously without much further thought to the predictable consequences they foretold of.
I would be remiss in not mentioning that until only recent, the Town also re-routed public traffic through this private property for decades, subsequent to replacing the left hand turn access both to and from John Street at the bridge with brightly painted directional street arrows pointing the way into this property from Main Street, thereby creating a new, defacto, public roadway. During all those years, the community used this private lot, ipso facto, as a “free” public street and intersection, concurrently taxing the owner, quarterly, through his nose for it, to boot. The creation of this “post apocalyptic nightmare” (no exaggerating, Juan?), was in good part facilitated by the passive indifference of the Town towards their improper and unauthorized use of the lot in order to obtain “free” parking and any short cut they could that would allow people to get from “A” to “Z” faster; the outcome being kind of like a spoiled thirty something year old with a serious case of self-entitlement who has just been told that he has to move out of his parents’ basement because he’s destroying the carpets with his cigarette butts.
Then there is former mayor Scoot (Pipeman) Achoison, who acted as the purchasing agent for John Cochin on the Canvas building (the names of these individuals have been altered to protect their true identities). Scoot, wearing either his mayor’s hat or his realtor’s (I still don’t know which), conveniently overlooked something called “depreciation” and (dare I say it?) “profit” when he attempted to loosely negotiate an unrealistic and low annual rental price for my lot on John’s behalf prior to their purchase, predicated solely on their belief that John’s proportionate contribution to only the hard annual operating costs would be ever sufficient enough because, I suppose, they just thought so. The amount currently being paid does not even cover their proportionate share of the actual annual hard operating costs, required to maintain it, let alone resurface it, let alone (dare I say again?) make a profit. I sincerely hope that they do sell a lot of beer because they are going to need it. (Please don’t shoot the messenger.) Afterwards, rather than inviting the largest and longest standing stakeholder to the party (who also probably happened to have the most to offer both in terms of factual knowledge and background reports), his Worship appears to have steered the student geniuses from Ryerson in my opposite direction, seeking practically everyone’s input BUT mine in preparation of their final report. To this day I am completely dumbfounded and have been left endlessly pondering whether or not it was something I said, or something they were afraid I was going to say that made them avoid me like the plague (L.O.L!). Then, not that long thereafter, they actually had the gall to look a $7,000/year gift horse in the mouth subsequent to asking Andrew Stillar, from the Town, to pose the rental question to me for the first time. I did not hear back from anyone until only until a few weeks ago, when Scott Ovell posed the same question, again; only by this time I was beginning to feel so bitter and angry over having to battle so many stupid and belligerent locals that I resolved that I should at least be charging what the lot’s largest patron/neighbour will be paying next year in 2021, namely “$17K” (my annual realty taxes are higher); even though if I was charging based upon actual estimated use relative to the parking traffic of the folks that I am already currently now charging, the Town’s parking requirements, conservatively estimated to be at least four (4) times that of the next largest patron user, meaning remuneration would be closer to four (4) times that number, technically meaning that the Town would have been paying $68K, as opposed to $17K for the year.
Almost about as effective was former mayor Terry Clark when he was quoted in the Huntsville Forester in the late 80’s actually telling me to “put up or shut up” in response to my predictable refusal to sell the Town our lot for their gratuitous offer of “$1.00″ together with their promise to further reward by installing metred parking in our now still free parking lot, exclusively reserved, now, for our patrons and customers ONLY. “No thanks”; I paved the lot afterwards to the satisfaction of my own tenants, anyway, without having to throw out the baby with the bathwater! The thing that Terry and others who “would like to help” fail to understand is that “help” actually and only means copious amounts of money, which won’t be coming out of my pocket any time soon if it doesn’t come out of someone elses. “Sorry”, but all the good will in the world is about as effective towards solving the TOWN’s problem as $1.00 was back then. I don’t blame Clark; at least he understands the strategically significance of my property to the future growth and vitality of the community when so many shit for brains, afterwards, have not.
No one seems to care, appreciate or understand that “cash in lieu for parking” is a wise and prudent tool that has been used by most Ontario municipalities to make builders responsible for providing parking upon their own property or in the alternative, to compensate municipalities for providing physical parking, elsewhere; however this practice seems to have recently been thrown out the window, at least immediately prior to the Canvas application and elsewhere up Town. In Canvas’s case, they were allowed to expand their floor area with a new rooftop patio without having to provide the additional extra parking that this added floor area would reasonably and practically be expected to generate, not that they had any real parking, anyway, to begin with, even though the Town, under Scoot Achingson, freely provided its valuable road allowance along John Street where maybe they should have, at least, required the Canvas to provide some of the parking that it so obviously requires; but, opting once again (and again, and again), to rely principally upon “good old faithful”, yours truly, instead. Please don’t misinterpret anything here. I’d be the first to stand up in support of any reasonable initiative aimed at revitalising the “bookends” of the downtown core, so long as it no longer come solely at my expense.
“Listen up”; I realize and understand that everyone is just trying to do what is best for the community, but the community also needs to realize that the buck does not just stop with me, nor should it. Apparently, there appears to be far too many people still out there who are in need of a very much needed “reality check”; but that’s o.k.; I don’t mind foregoing $17K to prove my point. What’s a few thousand more considering I am already out of pocket over $2,200,000 in lost revenue over the last 13 years alone, anyway, not to mention what has happed to my property value. Besides, the last time I tried to facilitate the needs of the community in exchange for cash, I ended up with two massive water filled craters in my lot were John Bravakis was told, specifically, not to store his aggregate, which he did anyway with 40′ high mountains of gravel. I know that won’t generate much sympathy with the self-entitled crowd here, but all they have to do is contact the B.I.A. for directions to all that public parking when they need it, and if that doesn’t work, I will be handing out some “free” rose coloured glasses after I run out of apples and road maps… Just hold your breath and enjoy the scenery till then.
I hope everyone has received as much entertainment reading this as I have had in writing it.
What happens in the spring when the river can literally come up over night if its a bad flood year . Seems to me the owner was complaining about the town and drainage a while ago. The town shouldn’t be on the hook for repairs of a private poorly maintained parking lot.
I wouldn’t pay this guy a nickel until he cleans up this eyesore. This place has been a blight on our town for years.
Would like to help
This could be a real gamechanger…for the long term. This lot is an eyesore, its dangerous to walk through let alone try to park there.
Should there be an agreement between the Town/BIA and the owner it needs to include an approved site plan showing the agreed locations for the current vendors as well as planning approved parking spaces and aisle widths to scale and delineated….as well as the recommended accessible spaces included. All of this would need to be done AFTER the lot has been patched and/or repaved and a review of lot lighting to ensure its acceptable by staff for insurance and liability issues due to health and safety concerns.
This would create an acceptable starting point for a meaningful discussion. I support Councillor Thompson and Withey that this has merit but needs more thought.