TAMRMS#: B06
13.2
title
Expropriation of Remaining Pineview II/Kingswood ASP Lands
Notice given by: Councillor Joly
label
PROPOSED MOTION(S):
recommendation
That the Chief Administrative Officer take the required internal and external steps to commence and continue a process to expropriate the remaining deferred municipal reserve lands (approximately 4.95 hectares) contained within the Pineview II/Kingswood Area Structure Plan.
body
ADMINISTRATION’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTENT OF THE MOTION
To direct Administration to initiate the process of expropriation of the 4.95 hectares of deferred municipal reserve land owing from the Pineview II/Kingswood Area Structure Plan (“ASP”).
ADMINISTRATION’S RECOMMENDATION
Administration recommends that Council not pass the proposed motion, and instead refers Council to consider Alternative 1.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information which may be helpful in supporting a Council decision on the proposed motion for which Councillor Joly gave notice on July 22, 2025.
ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL DIRECTION OR MANDATORY STATUTORY PROVISION
N/A
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Pineview II/Kingswood History
The Pineview II/Kingswood ASP was first adopted by Council in August 1981 assigning basic land use, circulation patterns, servicing, and staging. Over the past 44 years, there have been a series of amendments to the ASP, with the most recent being in July 2002. These amendments may have repercussions on how land use and municipal reserves are dedicated today, especially for future school sites.
When land in the Kingswood area was subdivided for residential development in 1985, and then again in 2001, the developer was not required by the subdivision authorities of the day to dedicate all the statutorily mandated reserve acreage (or pay cash in lieu). Instead, the City invoked a provision of the Municipal Government Act to allow the developer to defer the requirement to provide a significant portion of the reserve land, to the remainder lands. The City filed deferred reserve caveats on title with respect to the remainder lands (in 1985 and updated in 2001) so that the future obligation to provide reserve land would attach as an encumbrance on the land and therefore bind any subsequent owner. The effect of that action was to allow the developer (or any subsequent owner) to wait until an application was made for a further subdivision of the remainder lands, before the “deferred” reserve lands would have to be dedicated to the City. The idea was to wait to identify strategic locations for municipal reserve dedication in an emerging neighbourhood to best serve the interests of the neighbourhood. However, the neighbourhood development stalled. No further subdivisions have been submitted since 2001, and the deferred reserve lands remain undedicated.
Municipal Reserve Site Assessment
It is unknown at this time whether the deferred municipal reserve lands are appropriate for a school site. If the site is not suitable for a future school, it is unclear what purpose the City would use the lands for.
Administration completed a preliminary evaluation of the viability of the proposed school site as identified in the ASP. Although the proposed school site has been identified for several decades, it is unclear if this location is an appropriate site for a new school based on the following:
• The existing ASP does not comply with the current MDP, nor does it contain the detailed information needed to support Council or Administration led decision-making. An update to the ASP may be necessary.
• Significant time has passed since the original proposal for the school site was identified. Changes to planning principles and best practices in relation to school sites may mean this location is no longer suitable.
• It is unknown if the needs of the school boards have evolved since the original proposal was identified. While one board has expressed interest in the area, consultation with the school boards (and possibly other relevant stakeholders) may help guide decision-making on this project.
• Parcel configuration has not been determined. Additional Administrative work would be required to determine acceptable parcel configuration for the municipal reserve.
• Kingsmead Park has been developed along Kingswood Boulevard, reducing the street frontage available to a future school site and resulting in an irregular shaped parcel with less street access and more challenging site planning than the original configuration might have allowed.
• The Municipal Government Act requires that municipal reserves are free of all encumbrances, including rights of way. A pipeline right of way exists near the proposed municipal reserve which will need to be considered when determining the final parcel configuration. Further investigation into the impact of the pipeline right of way is required.
• Further analysis could reveal a better location for a future school / municipal reserve within the Pineview II/Kingswood ASP.
Administrative work required to advance this project could include updating the existing ASP, completing a risk assessment, and/or completing a school needs assessment in coordination with the school boards. If the proposed motion is passed, it is recommended that budget be set aside in the future to conduct this additional work.
Information on Expropriation Process
If expropriation proceeds, the standard expropriation process generally takes 6–9 months and is summarized as follows:
• Notice of Intention to Expropriate (NOITE): Prepared by the City, signed by the CAO, registered at Land Titles, and served on all registered interest holders.
• Publication: NOITE published twice in a local newspaper, two weeks apart (if weekly).
• Objection & Inquiry: Service of NOITE allows landowners to object, triggering an Inquiry before a Minister-appointed Inquiry Officer to assess if the expropriation is “fair, sound, and reasonably necessary”. The decision is non-binding but must be considered by Council; the City pays all legal costs for all parties, including the Inquiry Officer.
• Certificate of Approval (COA): Once publication is complete and objection timelines pass (or Inquiry concludes), Council passes a motion approving the COA, which is then registered at Land Titles to transfer ownership.
• Notices to Owner: After COA registration, the City serves the Notice of Expropriation (ownership confirmation) and Notice of Possession (sets possession date, at least 90 days later but may be extended).
• Proposed Payment: At least 30 days before possession, the City provides a unilateral payment (market value backed by appraisal), triggering a one-year period for the owner to file a compensation claim with the Land and Property Rights Tribunal.
An alternative process to the above would be for the City and landowner to enter into a “Section 30 Agreement” which allows for a consensual transfer of land while preserving the rights of an owner to advance further claims before the Land and Property Rights Tribunal. At any time before the Certificate of Approval is registered, the expropriation can be abandoned in favour of a Section 30 Agreement.
The City would be responsible for all costs associated with the proposed expropriation. If the proposed motion is passed, it is recommended that budget be set aside for these costs.
If Council would like additional information regarding estimated land costs, positions of impacted parties, or projected timelines, Administration recommends that Council move in camera to have the discussion. The following in-camera motion could be used:
That Council move in camera to discuss a confidential land matter pursuant to sections 29(1)(a), 30(1)(e), and 32(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act.
IMPACTS OF MOTION
Financial:
The City would be responsible for all costs associated with the expropriation of the municipal reserve lands. While the City would most likely receive compensation back for the cost of the land on disposition, there are additional costs that are not recoverable. These unrecoverable costs include legal expenses, administrative resources, additional administrative work to determine acceptable parcel configuration for the school site, surveying, and land titles registration fees.
Compliance & Legal:
None at this time.
Program or Service:
Other priority project timelines or operational activities would likely be delayed if the expropriation were to be approved by Council.
Organizational:
The motion, as proposed, would take significant staff effort (within the Legal Services and Planning and Development Team) and time to complete.
Direction from Council on project priorities would assist Administration in fulfilling objectives.
Risks
Administration has identified the following potential risks:
• That the currently identified land may not be suitable for a school site based on parcel configuration and additional rights of way encumbrances.
• A new school at the existing school site may not be desirable. The position of interested parties is currently unknown but may assist Council and Administration decision-making.
• Costs are estimated and may exceed expectations.
• Key milestones and timing targets are currently unclear.
ALIGNMENT TO PRIORITIES IN COUNCIL’S STRATEGIC PLAN
N/A
ALIGNMENT TO LEVELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY
N/A
ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL DIRECTION OR MANDATORY STATUTORY PROVISION
N/A
ALTERNATIVES
If Council does not wish to support the proposed motion, Administration presents the following alternative for Council’s consideration.
Alternative 1: That Administration develops a project charter for Council’s consideration as part of the 2028 budget process, to include:
a. an in-depth exploration of various development scenarios,
b. assessment of project alignment with the current Municipal Development Plan,
c. identification of development constraints,
d. evaluation of alternative site locations for school and municipal reserve allocations, and
e. consideration of potential update to the existing Pineview II/Kingswood ASP.
Financial:
Budget and staff time will have to be dedicated to develop the project charter.
Compliance & Legal:
None at this time.
Program or Service:
Determining the best location for a future school within the ASP area would allow for the City to revisit its development goals for the area and density for this historical ASP. This work could include but not limited to an update to the existing ASP, conducting a risk assessment, or completing a school needs assessment in coordination with the school boards.
Organizational:
Additional staff time and budget would be required to complete this project and may impact timelines of existing City projects.
Risks
The positions of interested parties and the fair market value of the lands may change if the project is delayed.
Additional analysis may reveal there is no suitable site for a school site within the ASP area.
body
Report Date: September 2, 2025
Author: Christina Kortmeyer, Kristina Peter, Alex Polselli
Department: Planning & Development; Legal, Legislative & Records Services
Department Director: Kristina Peter
Managing Director: Adryan Slaght
Chief Administrative Officer: Bill Fletcher