Massive development could face long road
GR (Can) chairwoman says ecology will be protected
Developers behind the massive Riverfront Community tourist and residential proposal say they’ll start work immediately once final approvals are granted.
“The moment you give me the building permit is the moment I will begin construction,” said Helen Chang, chairwoman and CEO of GR (Can) Investment Ltd., through an interpreter in an interview last week.
Riverfront — the controversial 484-acre residential, tourist and commercial development known informally as Thundering Waters — is planned for land south of Oldfield Road between Dorchester Road and an area west of Stanley Avenue in Niagara Falls.
It is expected to open in stages and take eight years to complete, and will cost at least $100 million more than the $1.5 billion initially projected, Chang said in the interview at GR’s downtown office.
But first, it must still gain approval from the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
And even that might be just one hurdle among several still to be cleared for the biggest development proposal the city has seen.
After Niagara Falls city council approved the project earlier this year, John Bacher, a Niagara environmentalist, appealed the decision to LPAT.
The latest step in the process happened Monday, when Bacher filed his official submission. Now it’s up to the city planning department to reply with the municipality’s position and at some point, LPAT will set a hearing date.
“It could be a very long process,” Bacher said this week.
“I expect it could take three years. Even if LPAT agrees with what I have to say, it will go back to city council. And if they don’t accept it, there will be a second hearing.
“And then later on there could be a third hearing, where the studies I am talking about that are not being done would have to be completed.”
The proposal is immense — according to GR (Can), 3,000 direct jobs and 10,000 more indirect ones would be created with plans for seniors and family housing for nearly 3,000 residents, a hotel, nature preserves, large-scale commercial and cultural areas and medical facilities.
But it’s the impact it would have on the environment that will determine if plans proceed.
Of the 484 acres GR (Can) purchased in 2015, 282 acres of wetland and buffer zones are protected and cannot be developed.
Of the remainder, GR’s proposal to build on 120 acres is what LPAT will consider, and “what’s beyond the land they made their application on needs further study,” said John Barnsley, manager of planning policy for Niagara Falls.
“I believe it’s undevelopable,” said Bacher, an author, researcher and environmental consultant.
But Marilyn Tian, director of administration for GR (Can), says of Chang: “She will not disappoint anyone to harm the environment.”
Riverfront Community was at the centre of an investigation of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority by provincial auditor general Bonnie Lysyk, who earlier this year blasted the NPCA board for its handling of the proposal.
In particular, she criticized the board for pushing the concept of biodiversity offsetting — essentially, creating new wetlands so existing ones can be built over — without having studies to show it wouldn’t harm the environment.
If approval is granted, Chang said, “we will go by the regulations. By the book.”
“We always have heard the critics, and they are criticizing everything because of their concern it will jeopardize the environment,” said Tian, who interpreted for Chang.
“She herself is an environmentalist and for her, it’s not just business. For her, every product we are doing and every design is very friendly to the environment.
“What she wants to say, for protecting wetlands — it has to be an action, it has to be in capitals. It’s not just a word.”
In an interview earlier this year, Niagara Falls planning director Alex Herlovitch said there will be no development on the wetlands. “Those have all been protected by the amendment that council adopted in May.”
Bacher doesn’t question GR’s commitment. Rather, he says, it’s the way provincial environmental regulations have been interpreted in granting approvals to this point.
“The critical thing is the natural heritage policies of the provincial policy statement,” he said. “Pretty well the entire site is either provincially significant forest or provincial significant wildlife habitat.
“To have any development or site alteration, that should be dealt with at the Official Plan stage and not for later studies — all these studies should be completed before you make changes to the Official Plan.”
He admits the science behind objections to the GR plan can be confusing for many people. Still, he believes approvals were granted before necessary studies were done.
Bacher said, “the part that isn’t wetlands has other constraints, such as a provincially significant woodland and wildlife habitats.”
In 2008, when a previous owner of the land applied to change the zoning from industrial to residential, Bacher appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board to stop it.
He dropped his appeal on the basis there would be a wetlands evaluation completed.
Now, he said, “in their proposal they propose a road through two wetlands, so they’re not doing that (avoiding wetlands). They could have done that … but that’s not what the proposal is.”
Chang said GR Investments, the parent company of GR (Can), has built a development similar to the Riverfront proposal in China. In that instance, she said, she acted as the environmental consultant and they were able to safely develop while protecting 100 kilometres of wetlands.
“It is understandable that people have misunderstandings, because they haven’t seen any successful cases (like this)”in North America, she said.
Now it’s in LPAT’s hands.
“It may be a written hearing (involving written testimony), that’s what LPAT rules want to encourage,” said Bacher.
“And that, in my view, is an improvement, to have the views of experts. I’m convinced if the experts’ views are listened to, that’s to my advantage because no one has really refuted what the experts have to say.”