Pickering tourism hub - Casino rivalry

NRU
July 12, 2017
By Dominik Matusik

fter years of disputes, Pickering is now moving forward with a major tourist and entertainment complex. At the centre of the dispute is a disagreement with neighbouring Ajax about which municipality would be allocated the licence by OLG to host a casino.

Being in the same allocation zone as defined by OLG, only one of the two could be granted the licence. While Ajax already hosted a slots facility, Pickering didn’t have a similar venue. In 2015 it approved a proposal by Pickering Developments- called Durham Live-to develop an entertainment and tourism hub on a 9.6-hasite south of Highway 401, abutting the city’s border with Ajax. Subsequently, Ajax took Pickering to the OMB over the traffic impacts of the proposed development. Friday the board ruled in favour of the Pickering tourism hub proceeding.

Loopstra Nixon partner Quinto Annibale, who represented the City of Pickering, speculates that Ajax’s appeal was less about the bylaw’s planning merits and more about protecting the financial interests of the Ajax Downs Racetrack, owned by Picov Holdings, which the town had been eyeing for an OLG licence.

“We [made] submissions at the hearing that this wasn’t really a case about planning but it was a case about protecting the private competitive interests of [Ajax] Downs... We took the position that what was really going on here was Ajax’s attempt to try and give Picov the competitive advantage in the [OLG] bidding process.”

The Durham Live includes three hotels and a casino, at the intersection of Bayly Street and Church Street, just south of Highway 401 in Pickering. It also includes a convention centre, performing arts centre, cinema, amphitheatre, waterpark, film studio, and office space.

In its appeal, the Town of Ajax contended that the development would result in negative traffic impacts, that Pickering did not undertake adequate studies to prove the appropriateness of the development, and the zoning by-law amendment was not in conformity with provincial policy or the Durham and Pickering official plans.

In her decision, OMB member Helen Jackson made it clear that the board does not deal with commercial matters and had evaluated this case purely on the basis of its planning merits and conformity to planning documents.

“Both the city and the town have taken measures to provide land use permissions in their respective municipalities to allow for a casino,” Jackson wrote in the decision.

“However, the board has no jurisdiction with respect to the specifics of a casino approval. ... The matter for the board to decide in this hearing is whether the by-law passed by the city to allow for major tourist destination employment uses on the subject lands is consistent with and conforms to the requisite planning documents, and whether it represents good planning.”

She concluded that Pickering Developments’ proposal does not run counter to municipal, regional, or provincial policy and does, in fact, represent good planning. Annibale says that he is glad the board decided to dismiss the appeal.

“We thought the by-law was properly enacted in the first place and in compliance with all of the policy documents and we think that position has been vindicated on all counts,” he said.

Pickering principal planner Ross Pym agreed, telling NRU that the development will be an important contributor to the city’s employment and tax base.

The Town of Ajax says that it is considering its next course of action.

“The town is currently reviewing the Ontario Municipal Board’s decision regarding the Durham Live proposal. The decision will be reviewed in a timely manner in order for the town to determine next steps,” Ajax senior communications officer Rachael Wraith wrote in an email to NRU.

Pym says that city planners will be meeting with representatives from Pickering Developments in the coming week to discuss moving forward with the entertainment and tourism development.