This matter was then brought back before Committee on November 16, 2020. Although we did not receive notice of the meeting as required given our attendance and registration as an interested party at the March 9, 2020 Committee Meeting, our clients did and so at their request we registered to speak to this matter as a delegate of November 16, 2020. We signed in for the meeting via Zoom just prior to 4:30 pm. After remaining on Zoom for almost 5 hours waiting for this matter to be called, we were dropped from the Zoom meeting. When we were able to re-connect to the Meeting (only about 10 minutes later), the Committee had already dealt with the matter without hearing from us. We immediately explained to the Committee what had happened and requested that we be permitted to make our submissions at that time. Unfortunately, the Committee refused to hear from us taking the position that it had already dealt with the matter and had moved on.

We are hopeful Council will understand our frustration with the decision of Committee not to hear from us and will, in the interests of procedural fairness, afford us the opportunity, on behalf of our clients, to make full submissions to the Committee and answer any questions its members may have. In the event Council is not prepared to refer this matter back to Committee, we would like the opportunity to make our submissions at the Council meeting. Below is a summary of why our clients ’ are opposed to the proposed closure of part of the alley as being recommended by administration and the Committee:

• The proposal is to deal with only part of the alley. The entire alley that runs along the rear of our clients ’ properties should be deals with at the same time as any decision in respect of part of the alley will certainly have an impact on the development of the vacant commercial land owned by our clients.

• The alley is “indispensable” and should not be closed.

  • The City ’ s Planning Division Analysis included in the Report to Council if flawed.

  • The Report states that alley does not serve commercial property. This is not true. The alley serves as a right away to our client ’ s commercial property from the rear.

  • The Report states that the alley does not serve properties fronting on heavily traveled streets i.e. major arterial routes. This is not true. The alley abuts the rear of my clients ’ commercial property. My clients ’ property front on Huron Church Road, a heavily traveled arterial route.

  • Additionally, this alley will serve as the only vehicular access to rear parking areas once the vacant parcel of my clients ’ is developed. There is not much lot depth and, therefore, this alley will be required as an access point.

• The decision to recommend the closure of part of the alley is simply because the Applicant encroaches the alley. Administration reports that the north and south alley do not appear to be used and is not accessible by vehicle. The reason why the alley cannot be used is due to the encroachment by the Applicant. Our clients ’ had asked the City to clear the encroachment but rather a decision has been made to close the alley instead convey to abutting property owners.

• The Alley Revitalization Report commission in part by the City of Windsor cautions against closing alleys that impact commercial properties. The Report found that the City of Windsor had an opportunity to “ unlock ” these areas (alleys) to support local businesses, attract customers and create civic spaces that drive economic activity.

• There also appears to be an issue with the purchase price alley is being offered for sale. The conveyance price that our clients would have to pay, according to the Report to Council, would be $14 per square foot (with no easements affecting the property). However, there are clearly easements that run through the alley (for Bell, Cogeco, MNSi, and Enwin). Additionally, one