Kamala Greenspace Coalition Latest update from their website. Sounds like they are not pleased with how the OLT hearings went, especially their perceptions of the efforts (or lack thereof) by the City's staff.
---------------
The OLT was not designed to foster community participation…
Some of you have been watching the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing (OLT) and sharing your thoughts with us. To be honest, those thoughts have been quite negative. It seems everyone is disappointed with what seems to be a superficial approach to determine the contentious and complex issues rooted behind this development proposal. Let’s remind you of the role OLT has defined for itself on its home page…
Delivering Fair, Effective and Efficient Dispute Resolution ServicesThe Ontario Land Tribunal adjudicates matters related to land use planning, environmental and natural features and heritage protection, land valuation, land compensation, municipal finance, and related matters.
Regrettably, its goal is not to establish a resolution of all issues central to the matter before the tribunal. Instead, its focus is restricted to the speedy delivery of pared down matters and decision(s) to resolve the problems impeding land development.
And so, we can confirm for you that attending the OLT was not the first choice for the Coalition – mediation to end up with ‘some’ development is not the protection we have ever had in mind for our greenspace. Since October 2019, the relevant elected officials (the Mayor, City Council and both Ward 4 – Kanata North Councillors and our MPP) have stated their opposition to this ClubLink/Minto/Richcraft development plan. Unfortunately, the City staff have not always demonstrated similar support. For example, on one hand saying that they supported the opposition by our community, the planning and legal staff repeatedly declined to share with the Coalition details of their intended actions whether that be prepping for a court of law or the OLT. It left us wondering from time to time whether we had an ally in the City. We concluded with each occurrence that there was no option but to push ahead for party status in all arenas in order to ensure that the critical information capable of protecting the community was in front of the appropriate decision takers.
From the outset, we did expect opposition from ClubLink/Minto/Richcraft. And, to be sure, we’ve gotten it at every turn. However, the City’s performance last week at the OLT left so many of you actively questioning its true commitment to our community and true opposition to the ClubLink/Minto/Richcraft plan that we feel we must address it. It is difficult for us to explain how the KGPC, a not-for-profit community organization dependent on your donations, can provide and fund more witnesses and opposition at OLT than the City itself, with a plethora of staff across any number of expert disciplines and, to some at times, seemingly endless funds. In the past we’ve been asked …does the City really oppose ClubLink or is it playing a game to end up with an acceptable amount of development through a mandate from some body? Given the City’s performance last week, we are hearing a great deal more of this and we are struggling to find an adequate response. We have raised it with the hard-working Councillor Cathy Curry for an explanation. To be fair, they are all dealing with a declared State of Emergency. We’ll stay on it.
Nonetheless, the OLT panel came to the end of the evidentiary portion of the hearing on Wednesday after 14 days of evidence, 5 fewer than the 19 agreed to on January 17 and 15 less than ClubLink’s original request in October 2020. Over the past week, the KGPC’s three expert witnesses provided organized, detailed and methodical evidence to the planning, environmental and stormwater management issues respectively. We could not be more pleased with the work and efforts of Dennis Jacobs, Momentum Planning, Steve Quigley, Blue Cay Consulting and Doug Nuttall from HDR. They delivered a full offence of our concerns. In some areas, they were able to backstop the City position and, in many others, they struck an independent course of evidence to deliver the community’s position. We are very grateful.
The hearing is almost over. The two person panel did announce that it will hear oral closing submissions from all three parties on Monday, February 14 and will await a 10 page written closing submission from each party due by Thursday, February 24. It will then deliberate and share its decision at some future point. Fingers crossed.