woe GNC

FEB 2 4 1977

Mayor and Aldermen February 16th, 1977

R.A. Freeman
City Clerk

Proposed Road Closure - Wellington Street South of Coquitlam Avenue

The Council will recall that on November 10th, 1975, the following resolution
waS passed:

"That the abandonment of a small portion of Wellington Street between Coquitlam
Avenue and Suffolk Avenue be approved and that the parcel of land so created
_be dedicated as Park." ‘

In order to accomplish this road closure, three property owners were required
to consent thereto. On the West side, School District No. 43 has consented,
fut on the East side, we have been unable to obtain consents from either the
Property facing Coquitlam Avenue or the property facing Suffolk Avenue. With
respect to the Coquitlam Avenue property, we have simply been unable to receive
any Satisfactory response from the owner and with regard to the Suffolk Avenue
Property, the owner advises that he does not wish to consent to the closure

as he wishes to hold open the possibility of a future access through that

route even though we very carefully explained to him that it was unlikely

that it would happen for many, many years, if ever. However, he made the
point that if it was dedicated as a Park, there would never be an access through
there and he would prefer it to remain as a road right-of-way at the present

time.

Since we cannot obtain the consent of the owners, it appears that the road
closure project will have to be abandoned as there do notappear to be any
Special extenvating circumstances that would persuade the Department of Municipal
Affairs to process the road closure even without the owners' consent. The
owner of the Suffolk Avenue Property appears to have quite a reasonable excuse
for not wanting to give his consent and in the normal course of events this is
usually the end of the matter as far as the Department of Municipal Affairs

is concerned. In the two previous cases where a closure was permitted to ke
processed without the consent of the owner of an adjoining property, there were
Special extenuating circumstances. In one case, the owner simply did not reply
to our repeated attempts to contact him and in the other case, the persons who
received the benefit from the closure of one~half of the street refused to
consent to the closure of the other half for the benefit of the persons on the
other side of the street and the Department held that this was unreasonable.

As it appears to make little difference co the actual use of the property
whether or not the road is formally closed, might we respectfully suggest

that the matter not be further pursued as there does nct seem to be sufficient
grounds to ask the Department of Municipal Affairs for special consideration.

A section of City map showing the area involved appears on the reverse side of
this memorandum.

City Clerk