Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 28, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001887 (Formerly) PL210243
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Dawn Mitchell Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. D09-21-01 Municipality: City of Kenora OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001887 Legacy Case No.: PL210243 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001887 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210243 OLT Case Name: Mitchell v. Kenora (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Dawn Mitchell Subject: By-law No. D14-21-01 Municipality: City of Kenora OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001895 Legacy Case No.: PL210244 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001887 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210243
Heard: April 27 to 29, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Dawn Mitchell | Chantelle Bryson |
| City of Kenora | Ursula Melinz and Krista Libman |
DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND D. ARNOLD AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1On March 29, 2021, Dawn Mitchell (“Appellant”) appealed the passage by the City of Kenora (“City”) of official plan and zoning by-law amendments in relation to the western half of Central Park located at 700 First Street South.
2Central Park is owned by the City. The western half of the Park, which is the subject of the official plan and zoning by-law amendments, is 0.73 hectares in size. It is bounded by Park Street to the north, First Street to the south, and Seventh Avenue South to the west. The purpose of the proposed instruments is to prepare the western half of the Park for sale and future residential development.
3Central Park is designated under the City’s Official Plan as “Open Space” and zoned under the City’s Zoning By-law No. 101-2005 (“Zoning By-law”) as “Open Space Zone”. The proposed Official Plan Amendment would re-designate the western half of the Park to “Established Area”. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would re-zone it to “Residential – Third Density Zone”. The designation and zoning of the eastern half of the Park would remain unchanged and it would continue to function for recreational uses.
4Prior to the hearing, Diane Debbo filed a written request for Participant status. None of the Parties objected to her request and the Tribunal granted her Participant status as requested.
5On April 27 to 29, 2022, the Tribunal held a hearing on the merits of the appeal by video hearing.
ISSUES
6The requirements that the Tribunal must consider when making a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals under s. 17(36) and s. 34(19) of the Planning Act include whether the proposed instruments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), conform with applicable provincial plans (in this case, the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario), and represent good planning. The Tribunal also must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and it must have regard to the City Council’s decision approving the proposed instruments (as required under s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act). For the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal, the Tribunal also must determine whether the proposed amendment conforms with applicable official plans as required under s. 24(1) of the Planning Act. In the present case, the applicable official plan is the City’s Official Plan.
7The specific issues raised at the hearing in regard to the above-mentioned laws and policies focused on:
parkland issues;
compatibility with nearby railyard uses; and
wetlands protection.
Each will be addressed separately below.
EVIDENCE, SUBMISSIONS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8The Appellant provided fact evidence herself and also called Jeffrey Port to provide planning evidence. Mr. Port is a land use planner. The Tribunal qualified him to give opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
9The City called one witness: Kevan Sumner. He is employed as a planner at the City. The Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
1. Parkland Issues
Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions
10Mr. Port stated that PPS policy 1.5.1 on healthy, active communities aims to promote the creation of spaces that foster social interaction and community connectivity. He said policy 1.5.1 requires the provision of a full range and equitable distribution of publicly accessible built and natural settings for recreation, including greenspace. He stated that Central Park is situated in the urban core of the City close to the downtown commercial area and is “of significant impact to the urban fabric”. He said that it is in an older residential neighbourhood consisting mainly of single family dwellings, as well as two seniors apartment buildings, which all rely on the Park. He emphasized that there is a lack of parkland and greenspace in the urban core with, apart from Central Park, only two small pocket parks in the area. With reference to the City’s Parks and Open Space Map, Mr. Port observed that it is good land use planning to provide for parks and open space that are located within a reasonable walking distance of residents. He said there is no other open space in the area that is comparable to the Central Park western lands in facilitating passive recreation activities. He stated that the proposed instruments would result in little parkland or greenspace in the area and that he is unaware of any specific study undertaken by the City that has determined that the Central Park western lands are surplus to the open space and recreational needs of the community. He said the future of Central Park should be addressed in the City’s parks and greenspace Master Plan process, a comprehensive planning review, and public consultations. He stated that there is no shortage of housing developments in the City and there is little public support for the proposed sale of a portion of the Park.
City’s Evidence and Submissions
11Mr. Sumner opined that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments are consistent with the PPS. He stated that the proposed instruments would facilitate development that assists in meeting current and future needs in an appropriate area of the City for intensification. He said the proposed instruments would promote the efficient use of land on an under-utilized property, use existing infrastructure and public services, support active transportation and public transit, and help address the need for housing in the community. He said PPS policy 1.5.1 would be satisfied through the redevelopment of the eastern side of Central Park. He said the redevelopment would provide a range of active recreational activities, including skating and bocce ball, a community centre, and a parking lot to meet the needs of the community. Mr. Sumner was unaware of any study of the needs of the residents in the immediate area for passive recreation open space.
12Mr. Sumner opined that the proposed instruments conform generally with the City’s Official Plan. He stated that the City is discontinuing recreational uses on the western half of the Park, making it surplus and available for residential development. He said the proposed designation of the western half of the Park as “Established Area” is consistent with the designation of most of the surrounding lands. He stated that this designation would allow for residential infill development that is in keeping with the character of area. He said the subject property is appropriate for infill development, as it is close to existing infrastructure and services and public transit and would maintain the area’s character. He said the Official Plan states that open space and natural environment areas are to be planned to provide opportunities for public access and recreation throughout the City, which would be provided through the redevelopment of the eastern side of the Park. He opined that as the City grows, new parks will be created and older ones may be converted to priority uses, such as housing.
13Mr. Sumner referred to several housing policy documents and reports. He stated that the City’s 2015 Strategic Plan prioritizes the need for affordable housing. In this regard, he said the City’s 2018 State of Housing Progress Report found that there is a lack of multi-residential housing stock in the City to facilitate the improvement of living standards for people with low to moderate incomes, single parent households, and the elderly. He said the Report also found that high rental and housing prices and a lack of subsidized housing in the City have created a risk of homelessness for low income residents. He said the City’s 2020 Vacant Lands and Growth Strategy Final Report found that Central Park would be appropriate for conversion to residential uses. He also referred to the Kenora District Services Board’s 2020 “A Place for Everyone: 10 Year Housing and Homelessness Updated Plan”, which found that rental housing rates in the City are significantly higher than in neighbouring communities. He said the Plan found there is a growing waiting list for social housing in the area and recommended that community housing stock be increased. Mr. Sumner stated that the Smart Prosperity Institute estimates that the City’s population will increase dramatically by 2031, which, he opined, will create a shortage of developable lands due to the City’s rugged topography. In this context, he opined that infill development, such as in the Park, will be essential.
14Mr. Sumner opined that Central Park is not required to meet the City’s recreation priorities and the need for housing is of greater importance than the retention of the Park. He opined that the proposed instruments are reasonable tools for helping address the City’s housing needs and Central Park is suitable for development because of its flat topography with no rocky outcroppings, location on existing streets, pedestrian orientation, size, and access to municipal services, amenities, services, and transit. In these circumstances, he opined that the provision of housing is a more pressing community need than the need for greenspace. He said any need for recreation amenities would be addressed through the redevelopment of the eastern side of the Park. Although he acknowledged that the precise nature of future development on the site is not known, he said it is anticipated that future development would meet the needs of the community. He said the City would intend to use the site plan approval process to ensure that future development is integrated into the neighbourhood.
15The Parties agreed that the proposed instruments do not conflict with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario.
Participant’s Submissions
16Ms. Debbo submits that the proposed instruments would result in the loss of parkland and greenspace, which is needed for recreation and relaxation purposes, defines the neighbourhood, and exists in the public realm for all residents in the area. She submits that more studies and public consultations are needed regarding the Park’s future.
Analysis and Findings
17In a settlement area, such as the City, there is a need for parkland and open space to provide for healthy, active communities. As cities grow, so do the need for parkland and open space. PPS policy 1.5.1(b) encourages the provision of a full range and equitable distribution of accessible parks and open spaces for recreation to help promote healthy, active communities. It states:
1.5.1. Healthy, active communities should be promoted by
b) planning and providing for a full range and equitable distribution of publicly accessible built and natural settings for recreation, including facilities, parklands, public spaces, open space areas, trails and linkages, and, where practical, waterbased resources; …
“Recreation” is defined in the PPS to mean “leisure time activity undertaken in built or natural settings for purposes of physical activity, health benefits, sport participation and skill development, personal enjoyment, positive social interaction and the achievement of human potential.”
18PPS policy 1.1.1(b) refers to the importance of parkland and open space for fostering healthy, liveable and safe communities. It states that such communities are sustained by accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types and employment, institutional, recreation, park and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs. As noted in PPS policy 1.1.1(e), healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained through, among other things, cost-effective development patterns and the minimization of land consumption and servicing costs. This does not entail the conversion of parks into infill development.
19PPS policy 1.1.3.2 states that land use patterns must be based on a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment, generally in line with the criteria in policy 1.1.3.3. Policy 1.1.3.3 requires development to be located in areas where, among other things, there is the availability of public service facilities to accommodate projected needs. Public service facilities include lands for the provision of services, such as recreation and cultural services. These include parkland and open space.
20As emphasized by the City, and reflected in the various reports to which it referred, there is a need for housing, and, in particular, affordable housing in the City. PPS policy 1.4.3 states that planning authorities are to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents. They are to provide targets for affordable housing and a variety of housing options and types of residential intensification. Importantly, policy 1.4.3(c) directs the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs. Again, this includes parkland and open space.
21PPS policy 1.8.1 seeks to improve energy conservation, energy efficiency, and air quality and to address climate change through compact development, active transportation and transit. It promotes design and orientation that considers the mitigating effects of vegetation and green infrastructure on climate change and it promotes the maximization of vegetation within settlement areas, where feasible. This is facilitated through the provision of parkland and open space.
22Regarding the City’s Official Plan, its policy 4.6 states that open space and natural environment areas are to provide opportunities for public access and recreation throughout the City. These spaces include parks under policy 4.6.1. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, with the development of the western half of the Park and redevelopment of its eastern side, there would be considerably less greenspace left in the area. There are no other greenspaces in the immediate vicinity of Central Park apart from small parkettes. The redevelopment of the eastern side of the Park promises to bring additional recreational facilities to the area, but this redevelopment will largely consist of built structures, including a community centre, skating rinks, and parking. It will have little greenspace that would provide for the broader range of recreation (as defined and contemplated by the PPS), such as passive recreation uses referred to in the evidence of Mr. Port.
23The City’s Official Plan policy 4.1.2 on Established Areas emphasizes that existing uses shall be preserved and it promotes development that is in keeping with the character of the community. Parkland and open space are important elements of making up and maintaining the character of established neighbourhoods. The removal of parkland and open space can have the effect of changing the character of such areas. Policy 4.1.2 encourages the creation of linkages to recreation and open spaces, which would be diminished through the approval of the proposed instruments.
24The need for additional housing is a real and pressing priority; however, parkland and open space is needed to help to provide the public amenities and services required to support such housing. As reflected in both the PPS and the City’s Official Plan, access to parkland and open space is needed to accommodate residential development and to maintain a community that is complete with services and amenities. The PPS and the City’s Official Plan emphasize the need for efficient development and housing, but require parkland and open space to foster a healthy, active community. The City did not produce any studies on the current and projected needs for parkland and open space in the area and produced no evidence or, in particular, studies to demonstrate that the PPS and Official Plan objectives can be properly achieved by reducing the parkland and open space in the area.
25Given these considerations, the Tribunal finds that the proposed changes to the Open Space designation and zoning of the western half of Central Park are not consistent with the PPS and do not conform with the City’s Official Plan.
2. Compatibility with Nearby Railyard Uses
Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions
26Mr. Port stated that a Canadian Pacific Railway (“CPR”) railyard is within 100 metres (“m”) of the Park. He said that PPS policy 1.6.9.1 on land uses in the vicinity of rail facilities requires that the long-term operation and economic role of such facilities must be protected. Proposed nearby sensitive land uses, such as residential, must be appropriately designed, buffered, or separated from them. He said that PPS policy 1.2.6.1 on land use compatibility requires that major facilities (which includes rail facilities) and sensitive land uses must be planned and developed to avoid or minimize and mitigate any potential adverse effects, minimize public health and safety risks, and ensure the facilities’ long-term operational and economic viability. He said the development of sensitive land uses near major facilities is only permitted if, pursuant to PPS policy 1.2.6.2, there is an identified need for the proposed uses, there are no reasonable alternative locations, adverse effects are minimized and mitigated, and potential impacts on the facility are minimized and mitigated. He stated that PPS policy 1.3.1 requires that economic development and competitiveness are to be promoted. He opined that residential development should not be located close to existing industrial uses.
27Mr. Port opined that the proposed instruments do not conform with the City’s Official Plan. He said the City’s Official Plan policy 3.6 does not permit sensitive land uses, such as residential, within 300 m of a railyard. He said the CPR objected to the proposed instruments in its public comments to City Council, but it did not file an appeal. He also stated that Official Plan policy 3.6 requires that a noise study must be completed regarding development in proximity to a railyard, but that no such study was completed in the present case.
City’s Evidence and Submissions
28Mr. Sumner stated that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments are consistent with the PPS. He stated that the local neighbourhood has co-existed with the railyard for over a century. He said the City would require a noise study to be completed at a later date prior to future development on the site and the City would intend to work with any prospective developer to ensure that proper mitigation measures are completed. He said he does not anticipate that development in the Park would impact the railyard’s operations. He stated that Central Park is in an existing neighbourhood and that the anticipated density of future development likely would be less than the density of existing nearby apartment buildings. He said the proposed development would constitute “infilling”, which, under s. 4.10 of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks’ D-6 Guidelines on Compatibility between Industrial Facilities (“D-6 Guidelines”), is exempted from the minimum separation distance provisions in the Guidelines’ s. 4.3. The City submits that the factors in PPS policy 1.2.6.2 have been addressed in that there is a need for housing, other locations are not as attractive for development, and residential uses are already in the area. It submits that the requirements in PPS policy 1.2.6.2 may be further addressed in the site plan approval process, or, alternatively, a Holding Symbol can be placed in the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment requiring the fulfilment of those requirements before final approval.
29Mr. Sumner opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment addresses the City’s Official Plan and its policy 3.6. He said the relationship of the railyard to the community is addressed in the Official Plan’s policies and that although Central Park is within the Official Plan’s 300 m buffer zone from railyards, these uses have always co-existed. He noted that the area was surveyed in the 19th Century to reflect residential lots rather than parkland.
Analysis and Findings
30Central Park is located roughly 100 m from the railyard. PPS policy 1.6.9.1 states:
1.6.9.1 Planning for land uses in the vicinity of airports, rail facilities and marine facilities shall be undertaken so that:
a) their long-term operation and economic role is protected; and
b) airports, rail facilities and marine facilities and sensitive land uses are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other, in accordance with policy 1.2.6.
31In this regard, PPS policy 1.2.6 on land use compatibility states:
1.2.6.1 Major facilities and sensitive land uses shall be planned and developed to avoid, or if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate any potential adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize risk to public health and safety, and to ensure the long-term operational and economic viability of major facilities in accordance with provincial guidelines, standards and procedures.
1.2.6.2 Where avoidance is not possible in accordance with policy 1.2.6.1, planning authorities shall protect the long-term viability of existing or planned industrial, manufacturing or other uses that are vulnerable to encroachment by ensuring that the planning and development of proposed adjacent sensitive land uses are only permitted if the following are demonstrated in accordance with provincial guidelines, standards and procedures:
a) there is an identified need for the proposed use;
b) alternative locations for the proposed use have been evaluated and there are no reasonable alternative locations;
c) adverse effects to the proposed sensitive land use are minimized and mitigated; and
d) potential impacts to industrial, manufacturing or other uses are minimized and mitigated.
32In the present case, there is no dispute that the proposed instruments would facilitate a sensitive land use in the vicinity of a major facility, namely the railyard. The City submits that the factors in PPS policy 1.2.6.2 have been addressed in that there is a need for housing, other locations are not as attractive for development, and residential uses are already in the area. Alternatively, it argues that the nature of future development on the site is not known and, therefore, the fulfillment of the requirements in policy 1.2.6.2 should be postponed and addressed in the site plan approval process. In this regard, the City was unable to identify legislative provision in s. 41 of the Planning Act that provides for imposition of requirements such as a noise study or implementation or construction of any required noise mitigation measures. The City also alternatively suggests that a Holding Symbol could be placed in the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment that could be lifted after the fulfilment of the PPS policy 1.2.6.2 requirements.
33The Tribunal finds that the City has failed to provide substantive evidence or demonstrate the fulfillment of all of the factors in PPS policy 1.2.6.2 in accordance with provincial guidelines, standards and procedures. There was no evidence of any studies, including feasibility studies with respect to the minimization and mitigation of adverse effects and potential impacts as between the proposed sensitive land use and the rail facility, which demonstrate that the requirements of PPS Policy 1.2.6.2 would be, or even could be, addressed satisfactorily. Even assuming, without accepting, the City’s position that the proposed sensitive land use is “infilling” within the meaning of s. 4.10 of the D-6 Guidelines, it is noted that s. 4.10.3 of those Guidelines requires a detailed and comprehensive feasibility analysis, and no such analysis was provided in evidence before the Tribunal in this matter. Accordingly, the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are not consistent with the PPS. The City’s proposed deferral of these issues to the site plan approval process or the placement of a Holding Symbol in the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment does not remedy this inconsistency. It is the Tribunal’s role to fully adjudicate the matters before it and apply the relevant legislation and policies, including the PPS (as required under s. 3(5) of the Planning Act), not to defer these matters to another process or body.
34In regard to the City’s Official Plan, its policies 3.6 and 4.7.1(b) require the completion of a noise study for planning approvals within 300 m of a railway corridor. Policy 3.6 states, in relevant part:
Except for limited infilling on existing lots of record, new residential development … shall not be permitted within 300 m of a railyard. Notwithstanding the above, where a planning approval is required (except for a comprehensive Zoning By-law update or consolidation, or a minor variance) limited residential development of a restrictive infill nature may be permitted. In these cases, completion of a site-specific study to the satisfaction of Council is required in consultation with CP Rail to identify potential negative impacts on the long-term function of the rail yard and prevent or mitigate adverse effects and minimize risk to public health. […]
35The Tribunal finds that the exception for “limited infilling on existing lots of record” in Policy 3.6 does not apply in the present instance. As a “planning approval” is required in the matter before the Tribunal (the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments), the second sentence of Policy 3.6 applies. This interpretation is supported by a reading of Policy 3.6 in its entirety, which indicates an intention that appropriate studies will be required in instances in which planning approvals are required. Even assuming, without accepting, the City’s position that the subject planning approvals relate to “limited residential development of a restrictive infill nature”, there was no site-specific study, as required by policy 3.6, provided in evidence before the Tribunal.
36In regard to the City’s Official Plan policy 4.7.1(b), it states:
4.7.1 Railyard Policies
c) Applications for planning approvals to allow for residential or other sensitive land uses between 300 and 1,000 m of a rail yard, or within 300 m of a railway corridor shall be accompanied by a noise study, to the satisfaction of Council in consultation with CP Rail, demonstrating that applicable provincial policies and guidelines with respect to noise and land use compatibility have been addressed. Such applications shall be permitted only where Council is satisfied that appropriate noise mitigation measures will be implemented at the time of development. Mitigation measures shall be identified in the study and shall be implemented at the applicant's expense as part of development approval agreement.
37In the present case, a noise study has not been completed. Although similar sensitive uses already exist in the area, the matter before the Tribunal is a new land use proposal for which approval is being sought regarding the Park. Policy 4.7.1 requires that a study be completed which demonstrates that applicable provincial policies and guidelines have been addressed regarding that proposal. Similar to its findings with regard to the PPS policies on sensitive uses near major facilities, the Tribunal finds that the consideration of a noise study is not an appropriate matter to be deferred to the site plan approval process or for the placement of a Holding Symbol. It is the responsibility of the Tribunal to determine the adequacy of such of a study, not to defer that responsibility to one of the Parties (the City).
38Given the failure of the City to apply policies 3.6 and 4.7.1(b), the Tribunal finds that the proposed instruments do not conform with the City’s Official Plan.
3. Wetlands Protection
Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions
39Mr. Port stated that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments do not satisfy the PPS’ wetlands policies. He also opined that the proposed instruments do not conform with the City’s Official Plan policies concerning wetlands, including policy 5.1.3 regarding Laurenson Creek. He said Central Park is close to the Laurenson Creek Provincially Significant Wetland and an environmental impact statement is needed to assess any impacts.
City’s Evidence and Submissions
40Mr. Sumner stated that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments are consistent with the PPS and conform with the wetlands policies in the City’s Official Plan. He opined that Official Plan policies 4.10 and 5.1.3 do not apply, given that Central Park is located more than 120 m away from the Laurenson Creek wetlands and is separated by a ridge preventing drainage from the Park. Mr. Sumner testified in cross-examination that the City considered and determined that there were no concerns that would warrant the City undertaking an environmental impact statement although he acknowledged that no hydrogeology, fish biology or other screening evaluation was undertaken. Mr. Sumner indicated that an environmental impact statement might be undertaken by the City at some future point in time if an issue arose.
Analysis and Findings
41Central Park is located roughly 200 m from the Laurenson Creek Provincially Significant Wetlands. The City’s Official Plan policy 4.10.1(c) states that development proposals further than 120 m from significant portions of those wetlands may require an environmental impact statement, if warranted by site and species-specific factors. The City’s Official Plan policy 4.10.2(d) states that development proposals on or near a wetland shall be required to submit an environmental impact statement. Also, the City’s Official Plan policy 5.1.3 states that land to be protected for the protection of groundwater or for other environmental reasons is to be zoned as Environmental Protection.
42In the present case, the Tribunal was not presented with evidence of any site or species-specific factors that would warrant the completion of an environmental impact statement under policy 4.10.1(c) or with evidence that policy 4.10.2(d) applies to the Park. The Tribunal also was not presented with evidence that there is a need for protection of groundwater or other environmental reasons for policy 5.1.3 to apply. The Tribunal finds that it has not been demonstrated that an environmental impact statement is required at this time or that Environmental Protection zoning is required. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds there are no issues of consistency with the PPS or conformity with the City’s Official Plan in these regards.
CONCLUSIONS
43Based on its analysis set out above, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are not consistent with the PPS and do not conform with the City’s Official Plan. In making these findings, the Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and to City Council’s decision relating to this matter.
ORDER
44The Tribunal orders that the appeals are allowed, the requested amendment to the Official Plan for the City of Kenora is refused, and By-law No. 34-2021 is repealed.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
Hugh s. wilkins
MEMBER
“D. Arnold”
D. ARNOLD
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.