There must be something in the water in Thorold South, because the developers in the area can’t stop fighting. The reason for the legal strife is the possible extension of Upper’s Lane.
As ThoroldToday reported, the District School Board of Niagara (DSBN) approached the developer behind Rolling Meadows, to build a school on Upper’s Lane. But one of the stipulations of the sale of land was that Upper’s Lane needed to be extended.
On October 1, council voted to let Rolling Meadows build the road, but when neighbouring developers Parkbridge and Rudanco found out, they put a stop to the project.
Ever since, the city has been trying to to draft up a memorandum of understanding between the developers — that lays out a cost-sharing agreement for the road — but negotiations have not been going smoothly. The situation has deteriorated so much so that Parkbridge has decided to sue the city.
Without a resolution in sight, Rolling Meadows has offered the DSBN a plot of land a little further away on Brighton Lane.
“The DSBN and the Rolling Meadows Corporation have reached an agreement of purchase and sale for the construction of a new school, which does not require the extension of Upper’s Lane,” confirms a representative of the school board to ThoroldToday.
During last week’s city council meeting, councillors discussed whether not it was still useful to keep entertaining conversations about the extension of Upper’s Lane.
“The city got involved because we were trying to get a school here,” said Councillor Henry D’Angela. “Now the school is going to a different location. It doesn’t require this road.”
But City Hall staff thinks it’s important to resolve the issue rather now than later.
“I’m just a little nervous and I think you should be too about leaving the construction of this road in the hands of the developers because it’s not likely they’re going to agree anytime soon,” said the city’s Director of Community Services, Geoff Holman. “If we come up with a framework under which they have to participate, then I think we’re halfway there.”
“I think we have to be realistic about it,” agreed Councillor Mike De Divitiis. “This is a city road. We got to maintain it in our best interest. It’s been a mess with these developers. I think we should stick to the plan, listen to staff and go ahead.”
Holman believes that the parties are close to signing off on the memorandum of understanding.
“Subject to the one condition and it is a significant one,” he added. “And that is that [Parkbridge] drop their litigation against the municipality."
Councillor Anthony Longo proposed putting a deadline on the negotiations between the different parties.
“I don’t want to spend months and months on this in staff time and lawyer’s fees,” he said. “If you think we’re close, my preference would be to draw a line in the sand.”
And with that council decided to give the parties until January 31, 2025 to come to an agreement on the extension of Upper’s Lane.
