Statement of Position on Central Park Bylaw Amendment Appeal

The City of Kenora passed By-law 33-2021, to adopt Amendment 21-01 to the Official Plan and By-law 34-2021, to amend the Zoning By-law, on March 16, 2021. The purpose of the amendments is to re-designate and rezone City-owned lands that are currently parkland, to permit residential development in the Central park area. That rezoning was appealed by a member of the public in April 2021.

The public appeal focused on three main issues of concern:

1. The removal of parkland;
2. The requirement for a noise study in advance of the applications to demonstrate the feasibility of a residential development at this location; and
3. The requirement to undertake an Environmental Impact Statement to demonstrate whether or not there was a negative impact on Laurenson Creek.

For clarification, on the three main issues of concern, the City wishes to highlight the Ontario Land Tribunal’s decision to the City.

1. The Tribunal found that the need to preserve parkland prevailed over the need to provide additional housing in the community. A parkland study examining the City’s future parks needs was not presented as it is not a requirement of the City’s internal policies; the Tribunal argued that despite this fact, the City should have completed a study. The City strongly believes that its significant investment to the east portion of Central Park area with the existing upgrades underway will add tremendous value to the Central Park neighbourhood and repurposing the western portion for housing is the best path forward for our community. It is also noteworthy that the City is making investments into adding parkland amenities throughout the downtown area with the work taking place at McLeod Park, the Rotary Peace Park near Safeway, as well as the expansion of amenities at the easterly portion of Central Park itself.
2. The Appellant asserted that a noise feasibility study, indicating that the lands could be developed with a residential use, was required before the applications. The City treated this site in the same manner that it has treated similar sites (i.e. the Evergreen site on the north side of the railyard), and its decision to not prepare a feasibility study in advance of the applications was consistent with past practice. To clarify, an engineer tasked with preparing a noise study will need to know the specific use, the type of building, location on the site and the construction materials that are proposed. The noise impact of an existing industrial use (i.e. a railyard) can be very different on a brick mid-rise building versus a bungalow clad with siding. Given the existence of a mix of residential uses between the property and the railyard, and because of the unknown nature of the proposed development, the City’s position remains consistent that a noise study would be much more useful and instructive if it were completed at a later stage of the development process. The City has always intended to undertake the completion of a noise study as a condition of Site Plan Control approval, which would be prepared by the proponent when the specific development proposal details are brought forward.
3. The requirement to undertake an Environmental Impact statement to demonstrate whether or not there would be a negative impact on Laurenson Creek was dismissed as no evidence of any site or species-specific factors that would warrant the completion of an environmental impact statement nor evidence that there is a need for protection of groundwater or other environmental reasons. Therefore, the City’s position was affirmed.

For historical purposes, this property has seen a variety of recreational uses over the years since it was first set aside as a public park by the community of Rat Portage in the mid-1890s. Over the years, many recreational activities have shifted to new recreational facilities such as the Recreation Centre and the ball fields south Fifth Street South, across from the A&W, both of which are within walking distance of the park. Remaining activity on the western half of the park is often very limited due to poor drainage of the ball field and is primarily only used as a ball diamond.

The City’s amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw was designed to provide an opportunity to develop housing to meet current and future needs of a growing community, in a location that creates the opportunity for intensification of an established neighbourhood, with direct access to existing transit system and municipal services. The proposed redevelopment will enable medium-density residential development that will make efficient use of a currently underutilized property that is an ideal location for such development due to the presence of existing infrastructure and public services, and proximity to the City’s Harbourtown Centre commercial district. The City continues to hear from the community about the need for housing in our community; this decision to amend the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw was made based on many public consultations on this issue.

The baseball field proposed to be removed on the western portion of the property to accommodate the anticipated residential development would be being balanced by improvements to ball fields at the City’s Recreation Centre, located approximately 600m southwest, or an approximately 900m walk via municipal streets and sidewalks.

Despite the result of this hearing, the City respects the decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal. That said, the Tribunal’s ruling does not preclude the City from further attempts to develop the western portion of Central Park. The Tribunal has set out a list of clear steps for the City to follow in order to pursue development at Central Park. The City intends to honour the Tribunal’s feedback and work towards preparing the site for future development. Ultimately, the next Council will determine how it wishes to move forward with the western Central Park site.

The City is committed to working with any future developer, through the Site Plan Control process, to ensure that any future development in Central Park is consistent with the character of the area. Moreover, the City of Kenora does not believe that the current pace of residential development in the municipality, which has totaled 139 dwelling units over the past five years, is sufficient to address the need identified in multiple reports, or even to replace the existing, aging supply of residential units.

It is understandable that the removal of public open space is of concern to neighbourhood residents and the community at large. In this instance, where there are two conflicting public interests of housing and green space, and it is the City’s opinion that the provision of housing addresses a more pressing community need. The removal of a small portion of open space is being balanced with improvements that will allow the remaining park area to serve a great range of neighbourhood needs. The former users of the ball park are being accommodated at other playing fields in the municipality that are being upgraded and have existing capacity.

Next steps

Tuesday, August 9, Council repealed zoning bylaw amendment #34-2021 following the Ontario Land Tribunal’s decision.

The City intends to complete the two studies identified as being required by the Tribunal to address any possible concerns regarding consistency with the Provincial Policy Statements, Guidelines, and conformity with the City’s Official Plan policies.

Our Parks and Recreation Master Plan that is in the final completion stage will be presented to Council no later than October 2022. This study identifies the successes of green space in the community along with future needs and pathways to reach those recommendations.

The City will be reaching out to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the Draft Official Plan which has been with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for review for nearly ten (10) months.

In summary, the City remains steadfast that housing in our community is a significant need and adding housing in our community remains as an important priority for Council. This decision, once again, delays the progress on adding housing development to our community.

Council unequivocally supports green space in our community as well as investment in parks and recreation. This is clearly demonstrated with the significant investment Council has made to the easterly portion of Central Park which will add significant improvements to the area and increase opportunities for families to use this park moving forward as well as numerous other ongoing and planned projects across the City.

With regards to Central Park specifically, the City intends to address the concerns outlined in the decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal and proceed with their recommended next steps to ensure that much needed housing in our community can be added to this ideal location.