The city's planning committee unanimously approved an Official Plan amendment Monday to permit The Kingsway casino, setting up an expected court battle that will be a major a test for the province's new planning appeals body.
The vote came after a four-hour public hearing in which a group of residents gave councillors an earful with criticisms of casinos and the project itself.
They included local businessman Tom Fortin, one of the driving forces behind the CasinoFreeSudbury.com website, who released a report last week that concluded building the arena and casino on The Kingsway would significantly hurt downtown Sudbury.
Fortin said the Official Plan – the city's main planning document – requires an examination of the fiscal impacts of all major developments, something that hasn't happened with the casino.
He says a group of about 500 businesses in town want to stop the casino because they believe it will harm the city's economy. It will divert spending away from other businesses that do a much better job of providing quality of life. In return, all we'll get is social misery and economic harm.
“Casinos are very efficient at removing revenue from communities,” Fortin said.
In cities with larger population bases, he said casinos can draw from other areas and export the harm. But Sudbury will be competing with the casino in North Bay, and there's already a casino in Sault Ste. Marie.
“We are virtually surrounded by casinos,” he said.
Many speakers Monday focused on what they believed to be the immorality of gambling, in particular the social costs paid by problem gamblers and their families.
Downtown business owner Vicki Jacobs said casinos hamper economic growth, and the idea of twinning the casino with the arena was “despicable.”
“It will benefit Gateway (Casinos) and landowner (Dario Zulich), but it won't benefit us.”
Geoff McCausland, who moved here 10 years ago from New Brunswick, said government revenues will benefit, but everyone else will lose if the casino is built.
The slots facility is bad enough, he said; building a “morally suspect, financially harmful” casino would be a “betrayal.”
A handful of speakers spoke in favour. Doug Allen said he was from Peterborough, and liked what the casino there did.
“The casino has done nothing but help the community,” he said. “I'm in favour of your casino.”
Businessman Norm Eady, who had a decade-long fight with the city to get his Ramsey Lake-area subdivision approved, said he couldn't understand why an OP amendment was being passed so quickly, when he had to spend significant money to get the city to follow its own planning rules.
“It's a sham, this whole process,” Eady said, garnering admonishment from chair Deb McIntosh, who repeatedly warned the crowd against making disparaging comments.
When Steve May tried to insist that he could speak for as long as he liked and wouldn't be limited to the five minutes everyone else was getting, it prompted a tense exchange as McIntosh consulted with the city clerk to see if May was right.
That prompted an angry response from someone in the crowd, who was promptly ejected from the meeting. In the end, May agreed to McIntosh's offer of speaking for an extra two minutes.
“Please don't do this,” May pleaded with the committee, who wasn't able to delve completely into his prepared statement.
In addition to economic and moral arguments, much time was spent Monday on salt. The parking lot – which heads for a rezoning itself later this week – will be ploughed and salted during winter. And that area drains directly into Ramsey Lake, one of the city's major sources of drinking water.
The runoff will be filtered through a storm water management pond built in a low-lying area near the development. After a number of speakers raised the issue of salt getting into the drinking water, committee member René Lapierre asked staff for a report on how much salt goes on city roads in a year, compared to the amount that will go on the parking lot, to give perspective on the danger.
And Gateway has committed to using other methods and substances to minimize the salt usage, the committee was told.
Proponents for the casino, Dillon Consulting, also included updated information from Ron Bidulka of PricewaterhouseCoopers, who completed the site evaluation report that concluded both downtown and the Kingsway are viable locations, but scored downtown slightly higher.
Bidulka's report came under criticism by the urbanMetrics analysis commissioned by Fortin's group. In his updated analysis, Bidulka said now that it's certain that the hotel and casino are part of the arena plan, the proposal is even more viable.
“It's likely the Kingsway site would have scored higher,” Bidulka said in his new report.*
When it was their turn, city councillors who aren't on the planning committee gave their thoughts. Ward 3 Coun. Gerry Montpellier said he could never support moving the casino out of the Chelmsford area.
And Ward 1 Coun. Mark Signoretti said councillors have talked for years about the need for intensification to make the city's infrastructure more affordable. Calling it urban sprawl, he said they are now building on a greenfield site where new infrastructure will have to be built.
Casinos are such money makers, Signoretti said they don't have to pay for new infrastructure to help them.
“The casino will find a place.”
Ward 12 Coun. Joscelyne Landry-Atlmann, who is a member of the committee, wondered why the social impacts aren't part of the planning considerations.
Planning director Jason Ferrigan said those considerations were part of the process when councillors approved the motion supporting a casino a few years ago.
“The decision was made at that time to move forward,” Ferrigan said. “So they are considerations to be sure, but those considerations were discussed in the community years ago, and that decision was to move forward (with the casino.)”
Ward 7 Coun. Mike Jakubo praised the “unbiased” report from staff and said they were making a zoning decision only, and whether that decision conforms to city policies.
“We have to base our decision on land-use planning,” Jakubo said.
And McIntosh said she was sympathetic to the concerns of most of the speakers, but those issues weren't part of the considerations Monday.
“I do agree with most of what you said,” she said. “But we're not making a decision tonight on whether we should have a casino. It's a land-use decision.”
Privately, some councillors said they knew whatever they decided Monday, it was likely headed to the new local planning appeals tribunal (LPAT), which begins work April 3. The LPATS are aiming to make decisions on appeals within three to 10 months, depending on how complicated the appeal is.
In an interview before Monday's meeting, Fortin confirmed that not only the casino, but the arena and parking lot approvals will be heading to court.
"We will be appealing the whole thing,” he said. “You can't look at it as two separate things, as they're trying to do. So we're going to be appealing the casino, the (arena), everything.
“Our way to stop this is through the zoning. And it will be stopped."
Gateway spokesperson Rob Mitchell said after the meeting Monday they are prepared to head to court. When asked if Gateway would be willing to spend years fighting for the OP amendment, he said that's premature to consider.
“Let's just see how this process plays out first,” Mitchell said.
The zoning process for The Kingsway Entertainment District continues Wednesday, when the arena rezoning is up for discussion, as well as the parking lot. If they don't finish Wednesday, another meeting is planned for Thursday.
Councillors will meet April 10 to ratify – or reject – the committee's decision, after which the expected appeals will be filed.
*Note: Because of a transcription error, an earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Ron Bidulka of PWC was in support of the recommendations. In fact, Bidulka only stated that the Kingsway would have scored higher, not that he supported any particular decision. It was Dillon Consulting who was in support. Sudbury.com apologizes for the error.
