LETTER FROM LAKESHORE PLANNING COUNCIL TO MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ABOUT POLICY ISSUES IN DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION

LAKESHORE PLANNING COUNCIL

185 FIFTH STREET, TORONTO ON M8V 2Z5

www.lakeshoreforum.ca

Sent via fax: (416) 585-6470 &

Jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org

June 30, 2010

The Honourable Jim Bradley, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
17^th Floor
777 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5

The Honourable Jim Bradley,

Re: 51 Lake Shore Drive, Etobicoke – Official Plan and Rezoning Amendment and Site Plan Applications

I am writing to you on behalf of the Lakeshore Planning Council, a local community group in South Etobicoke. 

We are respectfully requesting recommendations as to how we would bring forward a policy change that will not allow a developer to submit changes to a development proposal, after the required deadlines for a City Council decision on the Zoning By-Law (120 days) and Official Plan Amendment (180 days) have passed. 

We have a situation where the applicant has submitted plans to permit the development of six-semi-detached dwelling units and one single detached dwelling unit on a waterfront property zoned R2 and G (open space). 

The developer submitted his proposal in August 2008 and then withdrew the proposal in December 2008. 

On April 17^th, 2009, the developer re-submitted a change to his proposal after the required deadline for a Council decision on the Zoning By-Law Amendment (January 1, 2009) and Official Plan Amendment (March 1, 2009). 

On April 29th, 2009 the developer submitted the application to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on the grounds that the city failed to make a decision on the Zoning By-Law Amendment within 120 days and on the Amendment to the Official Plan within the prescribed 180-day time limit.                    

                                                                                                                                               

...2

We feel that the developer is responsible for the delay and the application should not have been forwarded to the OMB.  How can we change this?

                                                                                                                                               

Moreover, a preliminary report was not made available to the Etobicoke-York Community Council for review and therefore there was no public meeting on this application to afford public comments. 

The application has been adjourned sine die at the OMB. 

The applicant is applying to the land registry office for absolute title of the property.  To date, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has claimed a portion of the shoreline. The community is claiming that the lands between the original 1909 survey and the lands claimed by the MNR belong to the municipality because they are zoned open space G (see map below for current zoning, and map on following page highlighting the lands in question).

Note: Proposed City of Toronto zoning by-law harmonization maintains this G zoning.

Detailed information pertaining to this proposal, which may help staff determine how policy can be changed to avoid this situation in the future, is attached.

Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you need clarification or have any questions. I can be reached at 416-571-8221.

We look forward to your response,

Paul Chomik, P. Eng.

Lakeshore Planning Council

cc         The Honourable Laurel Broten, MPP

            Mayor & Members of Toronto City Council

Gary Wright, City of Toronto, Chief Planner

            Mark Wilson, Chair, & Board of Directors, Waterfront Toronto

            D. Keith Laushway, Chair, & Board of Directors, Waterfront Regeneration Trust                               ...3

51 Lake Shore Drive –

Official Plan and Rezoning Amendment

and Site Plan Applications

Application for a single family dwelling unit (2007)

1.                  The site, Lot 103 Plan 1478 (1909 survey) was purchased on January 4, 2007. 

2.                   The new owner submitted an application to amend the Official Plan and the Etobicoke Zoning Code for a single-family dwelling on June 5, 2007.  The application is submitted for lands that are zoned G in the Official Plan and are not owned by the applicant.

3.                  A preliminary planning staff report dated September 18, 2009 recommending a community consultation meeting, among other directions, was adopted by the Etobicoke York Community Council is circulated: http://lakeshoreforum.ca/content/51-lake-shore-drive-preliminary-report

4.                  Please Note: Attachment 3 & 4 of the above-noted planning staff report indicates that the property is “subject to confirmation of property delineation”. 

5.                  On December 5, 2007 a community consultation meeting is held.

6.                  The applicant subsequently withdraws this application to permit a house on the site.

Application for 7 townhouses (2008)

7.                  On August 12, 2008, the applicant submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications and an application for Site Plan Approval to permit a four-storey townhouse block consisting of seven townhouse dwellings: Gross Floor Area: 19,134 sq ft Floor Space Index: 1.51 Lot Coverage: 61.42%.

8.                  The local Councillor holds an informal community meeting on November 27, 2008.  Approximately 140 residents attend the meeting and reject the applicant’s proposal.

9.                  In December 2008, the applicant advised planning staff that they would not be proceeding with the townhouse proposal and that he would be submitting a revised proposal for the applications.

10.               On this basis, city staff did not prepare a Preliminary Report but awaited the revised resubmission for reporting purposes.

11.               On January 1, 2009, the required deadline for a Council decision on a Zoning By-Law Amendment passes.

12.               On March 1, 2009, the deadline for a Council decision on an Official Plan Amendment also passes.

13.               On April 17th, 2009, the applicant submits a revised proposal to the planning department for three semi-detached homes and one single family house. Gross Floor Area: 20,542 Floor Space Index: 1.62 Lot Coverage: 61.05%

14.               April 29th, 2009, City of Toronto Clerk’s Department receives a notification that the applicant has submitted the application to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on the grounds that the city failed to make a decision on the Zoning By-Law Amendment within 120 days and on the Amendment to the Official Plan within the prescribed 180-day time limit.

Application headed to the OMB

15.              At the Etobicoke-York Community Council meeting of May 14^th, 2009, a motion is approved to direct the Director, Community Planning, Etobicoke York District, to report to its June 9, 2009 meeting on the revised plan for development at 51 Lake Shore Drive.

16.              May 22nd, 2009, Planning Staff report recommends that the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, to report directly to the City Council meeting on July 6, 2009, in order to establish the City’s position at the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing.http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-21375.pdf

17.               This decision effectively by-passed a discussion of this application at the Etobicoke-York Community Council where issues of landownership could have been raised.  Moreover, the public would not get an opportunity to comment on the staff report.

18.              City Council on August 5 and 6, 2009 deferred consideration of the 51 Lake Shore Drive application to its next regular meeting on September 30, 2009.  City Council did not meet on July 6^th, 2009 because of the labour dispute. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-22673.pdf

19.              On September 29, 2009, Planning Staff submit a report as a Supplementary Agenda item http://www.lakeshoreforum.ca/content/51-lake-shore-drive-%E2%80%93-request-direction-report for the September 30, 2009 City Council meeting recommending refusal of the application, instructions to direct the City Solicitor to oppose the application at the OMB and in the event the application is approved, to impose the necessary site plan approval as determined by staff.

Ontario Municipal Board hearing November 23, 2009

20.              The November 23^rd, 2009 hearing of the 51 Lake Shore Drive application is adjourned on the morning of November 25, 2009.  We believe that the applicant submitted to city staff a non-registered survey dated December 4, 2009 in support of their application. 

21.              The original 1909 survey for this property is considerably smaller. These lands were the subject of much landfill. The OMB Member indicates that he cannot make a decision for a property that is not owned by the applicant.

 

Land Registry Office – Obtaining Absolute Title of the Properties

22.              On December 9, 2009, the applicant submits an application to the land registry office for absolute title of the lands.

23.              The Ministry of Natural Resources claims 25 ft of the shorelines measured from the shoreline to the top of bank. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0J_RgXqN1wyLL-ysV8KddfI39I9oYJROgrZsnIoiIVFJOtrbCfATRUOY5BRfzOIgHP-bpDSlGixK3hwAZW44AtVPIE8iYOtbdMWGIz7oRC9QVf5yWgvEPaV3FaXiVihk8XENn9alkbPVo/s1600/survey0001.jpg

24.              On June 3, 2010, the applicant applies to the Land Registry Office for the remainder of the lands on the property.  The community and the municipality has until July 5, 2009 to demonstrate that the lands zoned G (open space) are landfill and public lands.  Maps provided as attachments to the following report:  http://www.lakeshoreforum.ca/content/51-lake-shore-drive-%E2%80%93-request-direction-report

25.              The original 1909 lot 103 registered plan 1478 for this property demonstrates that the applicant is claiming as part of the registered plan additional lands. We believe, that the lands between the 1909 survey and those claimed by the Ministry of Natural Resources are public lands (as shown on map, page 3).

CITY REFUSES TO OBJECT TO PARKLAND GRAB

The City Solicitor informed the community on July 5th, 2010, just hours before the deadline for submitting objections to Dunpar's application for absolute title, that the City "has no legal grounds to object".


In spite of the City having put parkland zoning on the southern portion of the property and the evidence from many City planning maps that shows that there is a continuous swath of parkland running from Prince of Wales Park along the shore, the City is saying that they can't find the paperwork!!!


Not only that, but the Mayor's own Community Liaison Officer has refused an invitation to come out to the community and explain just why the City shows waterfront land on this and adjacent properties as parkland yet seems willing to hand it over to this developer without a fight.  The City recently paid $4 million to expropriate a similar size shoreline piece to complete the linear park in Mimico.  The people already have a claim on this piece.  Go figure!

WE ONLY GET ONE CHANCE TO GET THE WATERFRONT RIGHT AND THE CITY SEEMS TO BLOW IT ALMOST EVERY TIME!
 

RESIDENTS OBJECT TO DEVELOPER'S REQUEST TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC PARKLAND

TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, AT LEAST EIGHT RESIDENTS SUBMITTED NOTARIZED OBJECTIONS TO DUNPAR'S APPLICATION FOR ABSOLUTE TITLE TO THE LAND ON 51 LAKE SHORE DRIVE (MINUS THE SMALL SHORELINE STRIP CLAIMED BY THE PROVINCE).  THE OBJECTIONS WERE HAND DELIVERED TO THE DEVELOPER'S LAWYER ON JULY 5TH , THE DEADLINE DATE. 

FYI, HERE IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS..... (The documents referenced with letters of the alphabet can be viewed by double-clicking on the thumbnails below)

July 3, 2010

Re:         Application by John Zanini registered as Instrument No. AT2251251 amended by Instrument No. AT2398356 to be registered as owner with an absolute title of Lot 103, Plan 1478, City of Toronto Lot 103, PLAN 1478, City of Toronto (PIN 07612 – 0131 LT) under Subsection 46(2) of the Land Titles Act

My name is **********

I live in the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario.

I make oath and swear as follows:

I am a 29 year resident of the neighbourhood surrounding this property and live at ** ******* Street, Toronto, Ontario .

I have knowledge of this property known as 51 Lake Shore Drive with regard to Dunpar’s various applications since 2007 to develop the site and I have a particular interest in this matter.

I believe that if title for the whole site down to the water (minus the Province’s claim of approximately 25 feet extending up from the water’s edge shown in the applicant’s survey) were to be granted to John Zanini, public land set aside by the municipality for much-needed parkland in our community, would be lost.  Here are my arguments to support my objection to the application…….

1.    When John Zanini bought the property in April 2007, the survey referenced as “property description” on his title (07612-0131 LT) is the 1909 plan of subdivision survey (Lot 103, PLAN 1478).  That survey clearly shows the property that he bought does not extend to the shoreline and the dimensions fall far short of the survey he is submitting with this title application. (According to the 1909 survey, the west boundary is 66.14 m (217 feet) in depth and the east boundary is 51.2 m (168 feet) in depth)

·        SEE “PROPERTY TITLE” – DOCUMENT A

·        SEE “1909 PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 1478, LOT 103” – DOCUMENT B

2.    The 1926 New Toronto Fire Insurance map (PLAN 83) approximates the property boundaries of the 1909 survey and reinforces the fact that this property does not extend anywhere near the shoreline.  The web reference for that map is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/NewTorontoFireInsuranceMap1926.jpg

·        SEE “1926 GAGE FIRE INSURANCE MAP, PLATE 83” – DOCUMENT C

3.    The enclosed Property Detail Report for 51 Lake Shore Drive from “Geowarehouse”, which has access to Ontario land registry and property tax assessment information, shows the property as “not on water” and perimeter and area calculations that, in my opinion, are based on the boundaries of the aforementioned 1909 survey.

·        SEE “GEOWAREHOUSE REPORT” – DOCUMENT D

4.    When proportions are scaled to known adjacent property boundaries, the dimensions of this property as per the 1909 survey are exactly the same as the R2 portion of the site shown on the City’s most recent zoning map and currently on their website. The web reference for that map is http://map.toronto.ca/imapit/iMapIt.jsp?app=ZONING

·        SEE “CURRENT CITY PROPERTY ZONING MAP, 51 LAKE SHORE DRIVE” – DOCUMENT E

5.    The City’s zoning map shows the rest of the site as G zoned – open space – an unbroken extension of Prince of Wales Park along the shore.

·        SEE ABOVE

6.    According to Citizens Concerned for the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront’s “Towards an Ecological Restoration of Etobicoke’s Waterfront”, Prince of Wales Park is a lakefill public park constructed from excavated material in 1968 when the municipality built the R.L. Clark water filtration plant.  The web reference for this is http://www.ccfew.org/TERSE300.PDF

·        SEE ”TOWARDS THE ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF SOUTH ETOBICOKE, PAGE 25 – DOCUMENT F

7.    I believe that, when the Town of New Toronto was merged in to the Borough of Etobicoke, illegal lakefill that had been done by New Toronto waterfront owners over the years to extend their property and lakefill work done by the municipality after storm damage and to expand public space as with Prince of Wales Park was all claimed by the Borough of Etobicoke, zoned G and set aside for future waterfront parkland in a Borough that, by necessity, could only make waterfront parks by filling in the lake.

8.    To my knowledge, G zoning is never applied to private property.  (What landowner would willingly consent to having part of his property zoned “open space”?)

9.    I believe that the only land that John Zanini should have title to is the land shown in the 1909 survey and referenced on his property title, that he was fully aware of those property boundaries when he bought the property and that he should be given title to only that portion of the site.  The lands between the 1909 survey and those claimed by the Ministry of Natural Resources on behalf of the Province are, I believe, public lands reserved for parkland and should not be granted to a developer to build private residences.

·        SEE “MAP SHOWING G-ZONED PORTION OF 51 LAKE SHORE DRIVE” – DOCUMENT G

LETTER TO MAYOR MILLER DEMANDING ACTION ON WATERFRONT LAND GRAB OF PUBLIC SPACE

Attention Mayor Miller - PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Ref:  51 lake Shore Drive 

Here is the essential question that the Lakeshore community would like answered fully.

 

• Given that a significant portion of this waterfront site is zoned G (as are other sites adjacent and close by),
• Given that, when the developer bought the property, the survey attached to the title showed that he was buying only a portion of the land that is actually there and not the land that is designated, for some good but yet unexplained reason, as G zone or the Crown shoreline strip
• Given that the City’s G designation means “open space” and, generally, indicates parkland,
• Given that planning staff and the City Solicitor said they could not find the by-law that created the G zone on this site and then they admitted that there were no by-laws for all the other major land fill parks in South Etobicoke like Humber Bay Park West and East 
• Given that our Official Plan calls for a continuous waterfront trail with connected parks
• Given that a developer has claimed it to build private houses on,
• Given that the City and any interested party has only until July 5^th to object to that claim,

Do you think it is reasonable that City residents should be happy with the explanation from the City Solicitor that this G zoning on City maps, including the current one on the City’s website, is merely a slip of the pen” and will not be defended by our City either by objection to the Land Registry Office or at the recommencement of the OMB hearing?

A suggestion for the City .... object to the title application or, at least, request an extension to the July 5th deadline to fully investigate the probability that the City of Etobicoke zoned all this waterfront land G because it was either illegal lakefill by shoreline owners or was filled by the City after storm damage or to create public land and has been set aside for future waterfront parkland.

See www.fiftyonelakeshoredrive.blogspot for background

NOTICE OF OMB DECISION JUNE 14, 2010 TO ADJOURN "SINE DIE" UNTIL LAND TITLE SETTLED - Double click on thumbnails to read

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ADJOURNS HEARING FOR THE SECOND TIME OVER THE QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP

At noon today, Mr. Aker, the Ontario Municipal Board Adjudicator adjourned the hearing for the second time over the question of title.  At this time, there is no clear fact of ownership of the property by Dunpar because the deadline for objections to the granting of title has not yet been reached.  Any interested party has until July 5^th, 2010 to file an objection.  This was clearly stated in the notice placed in the Etobicoke Guardian last week.  In fact, that notice could be viewed as a public admission from the developer’s lawyer that they were going in to the OMB hearing yet again without being able to clearly show the OMB that they actually own the property. 

  

The Adjudicator made it clear to all the parties that he had no choice but to adjourn the hearing of the appeal “sine die” until clear title has been established and the title process completed (“sine die” means that no particular day has been set for it to start again).  This in all likelihood won't be until the Fall of this year.  Given that Mr. Aker will be leaving the Board in August, this means that the hearing will have to start from the beginning before a new OMB member.  It is imperative that all interested residents once again attend on that new hearing date.

There was one other matter that influenced his decision.  Dunpar has asked the Crown (the Ministry of Natural Resources) for permission to build a seawall on the Crown’s property at the shoreline but the MNR has refused to even consider this until the OMB has made a decision on the building application.  Dunpar wants to build this seawall against the City’s and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority’s objections in order to try and get around regulations that say there must be an open, unbuilt “hazards buffer” zone of 32 meters from the shore to protect structures from one-in-a-hundred-years storm events.

After the OMB hearing was adjourned, a dozen residents went to the Mayor's office at City Hall and spoke at length with a Constituency Liaison staffer from his office.  The residents outlined the community's concerns, were given a full hearing and were promised an immediate, investigative follow up by the Mayor's office.

LETTER FROM LAKESHORE PLANNING COUNCIL TO MAYOR MILLER AND CITY COUNCIL

DOUBLE CLICK ON THUMBNAILS FOR ENLARGED VIEW
Lakeshore Planning Council

OMB HEARING RECOMMENCES ON MONDAY

Please come on down to the hearing.  It starts at 10 a.m and the location is Ontario Municipal Board Offices, 655 Bay Street, 2 blocks north of Dundas at Elm Street.  It is scheduled for two weeks and a decision should follow 4 - 6 weeks after. 
The City Solicitor, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority lawyer and Ken Tilden, a local resident, will be there as parties to this appeal by Dunpar.
On Monday, residents who are registered as participants should find out what day will be set aside for us to make our statements.  It will probably be towards the end of the hearing.  If you are a participant and are not able to come on Monday, you will be contacted by phone.  The information will also be posted here.

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP ISSUE

There are lots of side issues to this application by the developer to overbuild on this site, contrary to City zoning regulations, the City's Official Plan and TRCA shoreline regulations.  
One of them is the question of ownership.  
At this point in time, Dunpar does not own the shoreline or have a permit to build shoreworks on it (the Province owns it); the developer does not yet have official ownership of the rest of the site (July 5th is the deadline for objections to their title application - see previous post); the G zoning on a large part of the site is one that is commonly found on publicly owned parkland (e.g. Prince of Wales park, Sam Smith park etc.) and the City has not yet offered any sort of explanation as to why municipal planners put this specific designation on the site. The Councillor's office has already stated that city parkland would not be surrendered for private residential development.
After last Thursday's Lakeshore Planning Council public meeting, it was decided that the Council should immediately write to CityCouncil with the community's concerns about this.

NEW APPLICATION FOR LAND TITLE BY DUNPAR

The OMB hearing was adjourned until next week, June 14th, so that Dunpar could verify with the Land Registry Office that it actually owns the property it wants to build on.  There was an investigation by the province, which is an adjacent landowner, and it indicated that a shoreline strip is actually crown land and belongs to the public.  The crown's claim is for a 25 feet strip measured from the bottom of the shoreline slope.  (The community has long argued that the public section of this property is substantially larger than this investigation could apparently prove.)  Dunpar has agreed to that finding and has produced a new survey to reflect that (survey on left - MNR shoreline strip marked "FILL")

On  June 3rd, 2010, the developer applied to the Land Registry Office for absolute title to the remainder of the property that does not include the public land.  Dunpar has not asked the province to sell them the publicly owned shoreline to this date.

Adjacent landowners, the 7 community members and groups who "have shown interest" and already objected to Dunpar's application for absolute title to the whole property and, according to the Etobicoke Guardian notice on Friday, any other "person/corporation having an interest", has until July 5th to file any objections.  The Guardian notice makes no mention of any requirement for an affidavit to accompany any objection

The Guardian notice is shown here (Double click for larger view)

YET ANOTHER "REVISED" SITE PLAN

After receiving a revised site plan on May 21st which showed a reduction in the number of units (6 instead of 7) and more of a setback from the lake (see previous post), the three parties at the OMB hearing which recommences next week on June 14th (the City, TRCA and Ken Tilden) received on June 2nd yet another "revised" site plan.

This latest plan is shown in this thumbnail (double-click to enlarge) .
We are now back to the 7 unit configuration with no obvious difference from the previously "revised" plan that replaced the "original" 7 townhouse plan that replaced the first monster-home-right-on-the-water plan!

If Dunpar had applied to build what is allowable on this property in the first place, we would all, by now, have new neighbours living in our community instead of this never-ending, convoluted mess.

NEW SITE PLAN BASED ON MNR'S LAKEFILL INVESTIGATIONS

As reported earlier, Dunpar has a accepted a revised property line along the lakeshore edge of the site based on the Province’s investigations. They will use this agreement with the Province to support ownership through the land Titles process.

Here is the developer’s updated site plan with measurements and other statistics that was sent last Friday to the other parties represented at the OMB hearing.

The plans show some differences from the one presently before the OMB.  There is one less unit (note a block of 3 townhouses instead of 2 semis with 4 units) and what looks approximately like an additional 25 feet setback from the top of the slope.

The plans do not show elevations (side views).  The height remains the same.

The Province has not yet received a request from Dunpar to buy the lakefill strip at the water's edge and the Ministry says it has not yet made a decision to sell it. See Deputy Minister's letter.

DOUBLE CLICK ON DRAWINGS FOR BETTER VIEW

MNR RESPONDS TO RESIDENTS' LETTERS

Many residents have recently written to Virginia West, Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, demanding that public land on the site not be sold to the developer.  Here is the response coming from her office ....

May 20^th 2010

Thank you for your email regarding a proposed residential development at 51 Lakeshore Drive in Etobicoke adjacent to Lake Ontario. 

This is a municipal planning matter under the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto, and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has no role in this process. 

This planning matter is currently subject to a hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), and at the hearing, concerns were raised regarding the ownership of the land being considered for development. 

As the property in question is adjacent to Lake Ontario, of which the bed is considered Crown land, MNR as the adjacent landowner, became involved in determining the correct property boundary.   Ministry staff determined there is a small piece of filled Crown land situated in front of the proposed development property adjacent to the Lake Ontario shoreline, and have recommended a revised Crown/private land boundary for this property.

The landowner has accepted this revised property line along the lakeshore, and will use this boundary to confirm title of their property through the Land Titles Act process.

Once the landowner has confirmed land ownership, the OMB hearing can resume to address the planning matter regarding the residential development proposal of this property.  The Ministry of Natural Resources has no role in this process.

Should the landowner wish to purchase this filled Crown land in the future, they have the option of applying to my ministry to acquire it at fair market value.  The Ministry is not prepared to entertain an application for purchase of the filled Crown land at this time until all legal matters have been resolved.

Any potential disposition of Crown land would be subject to the Ministry’s Class Environmental Assessment for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects, policies and procedures.  Through this process Ministry staff  would  consider the, social, ecological, and economic impacts prior to proceeding with  any potential sale of Crown Land.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. 

 Virginia M. West 

Deputy Minister, Ministry of Natural Resources

The community understands that there is a process to all of this.  However, with the three year battle that the community has fought to protect larger public issues here, it should be a no-brainer to not sell the public portion on this site because of its "social" impact.  2011 is an election year and the Lakeshore community has a long memory.  It will directly impact their vote if the government has not protected our public access to the lakefront.