Sudbury may have to wait a while longer before it knows more about the fate of the Kingsway Entertainment District.

The city, Dario Zulich, Gateway Casinos and the appellants met Thursday via teleconference for the first of two scheduled days of hearings at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

Gordon Petch, the lawyer for Tom Fortin and the downtown BIA, told the adjudicator Fortin plans to appeal a recent decision by Superior Court (he also represented Fortin at Superior Court). He asked the LPAT not to return its decision until the appeal has been heard and addressed, and noted it should not take longer than six months for the court of appeals to render a decision.

Fortin sued the city for bias and fettering in Superior Court after the LPAT determined it did not have jurisdiction to hear such matters. The court announced in early September the challenge was not successful and the bylaws would not be quashed.

The Kingsway Entertainment District is proposed to consist of a $100-million arena paid for by city taxpayers, and a $60-million casino that Gateway Casinos would build.

Twelve appeals opposing the KED were filed with the LPAT in 2018 by Steve May, Fortin, Christopher Duncanson-Hales, the Minnow Lake Restoration Group and the downtown BIA. The appeals objected to various aspects of the project, including parking lot rezoning; casino rezoning; amendments made to the official plan concerning the casino; and arena rezoning.

The appeal by the Minnow Lake Restoration Group was previously dismissed.

In his Superior Court ruling, Justice Gregory Ellies said Petch failed to convince him the city acted in a biased manner in approving the KED. In fact, he said he believed city council voted on the Kingsway location “after a careful study of the potential effects of locating it there, as part of a robust democratic process in which members of city council were legally entitled to hold a view on behalf of their constituents.”

Following months of delay – the tribunal was originally scheduled for the month of May – it got underway Thursday. The format was modified to meet COVID-19 safety standards. There was no live questioning of witnesses; instead, the LPAT sent questions to witnesses who submitted their written responses prior to the hearing.

In his initial arguments, Petch argued a regional entertainment district is incompatible with industrial lands.

“Clearly, a regional entertainment district is not an industrial use or anything complementary to industrial uses,” he said. “This is far outside what is contemplated in the provincial policy statement.”

Petch also argued the city did not listen to its own consultants – PricewaterhouseCoopers – who indicated relocating the arena could have deleterious effects on the health of the core. He also said the city failed to take into account social impact.

“I ask that the socioeconomic impact be studied by an independent consultant,” he told the tribunal.

Finally, Petch argued the KED “contains all the anchors that were planned for the downtown,” including the events centre and a convention centre. By relocating them to The Kingsway, it would draw business, as well as cultural capital, from the historic core.

May, who objected to arena rezoning, argued to the tribunal Thursday the city did not follow the provincial policy statement and did not conduct sufficient public consultation. He also said the city did not follow the growth plan for Northern Ontario.

May said the uses of the arena go far beyond the Wolves or Five teams. It is a concert venue and a gathering space for community, as seen now with the COVID-19 pandemic. It serves a larger purpose and is a source of community pride, May argued.

Steve Watt, lawyer for the city, denied the allegations made against the KED. He said the doomsday scenario painted by appellants of an empty downtown and a gutted business district are simply not accurate. He also countered that despite what May and Petch alleged, the city did undertake public consultation processes.

Watt said none of the appellants have proven lack of consistency or conformity to planning principles or the official documents governing the growth and future of the city and region.

Noting the current barn on Elgin Street was built in 1951, Watt said a lot has changed since then. For one thing, the city has grown and spread outwards, and an expansive business district has sprung up in New Sudbury along The Kingsway and Barrydowne Road corridors. The KED fits in well, he contended.

“This project is significantly important to the future of Greater Sudbury,” Watt told the tribunal.

Daniel Artenosi, the lawyer for the numbered company owned by Zulich, said it has not yet been addressed that parking lots and private arenas are permitted on lands zoned industrial. He said there is nothing currently preventing Zulich from building a private arena on his property and whether public or private, “at the end of the day we are talking about an arena,” Artenosi said.

Artenosi offered many arguments to the panel. For one thing, he said nowhere in the downtown master plan does it indicate an arena must be downtown. He also emphasized the fact a private arena would be permitted on industrial lands. Artenosi also argued the city took steps to ensure it was conforming to the official plan.

“Based on enforced official plan policy and the most current official plan policy for the City of Greater Sudbury, the arena, casino and parking lot proposals are consistent with the provincial policy statement and conform to the growth plan for northern Ontario,” Artenosi argued.

He also said the current arena no longer meets expectations or needs. Artenosi argued council’s intention all along was to relocate the arena and he said May failed to take that perspective into account.

Whereas Fortin alleged the city did not consider the economic impact of moving the arena out of the downtown, Artenosi countered and said in fact, the impact was studied.

“The court has already determined there was economic analysis to consider and support these proposals,” he said.

Andrew Jeanrie, legal representative for Gateway Casinos, began by outlining the vision for the new casino. It will include more than 500 slots and 18 gaming tables, as well as more than 1,000 square feet of restaurant space. Jeanrie said the benefits would be significant, growing the workforce from about 190 people who are currently employed at Sudbury Downs, to more than 400.

Petch said Thursday’s hearing was the first time he actually heard what would constitute the gaming area of the casino; however, Jeanrie objected and said that was false.

Jeanrie made many of the same arguments as his colleagues for the city and the Zulich company. They all made regular reference to the city’s official plan, the provincial policy statement and the growth plan for Northern Ontario. All said the city complied with the documents in planning for an events centre and when council voted on The Kingsway location.

While two days had been set aside for the hearing, the parties successfully delivered their arguments Thursday. The adjudicator said he would issue directives within the next few days and if follow-up testimony is required, he will order it then. It will likely take a few months for a decision to be made public; however, the adjudicator said he would begin “crafting a decision” immediately.

mkkeown@postmedia.com

Twitter: @marykkeown

705 674 5271 ext. 505235