Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2023 AGENDA City Council Meeting 1:00 PM - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Council Chambers/Zoom App. All Council Meetings are now open to the public in person, in Council Chambers or watched virtually. All electronic meetings can be viewed on this page, the City of Niagara Falls YouTube channel, the City of Niagara Falls Facebook page, along with YourTV Niagara. Page 1. CALL TO ORDER O Canada: Reina Woo (Flautist) Land Acknowledgement and Traditional Indigenous Meeting Opening 2. IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL 2.1. Resolution to go In-Camera (Updated) July 11th, 2023 - UPDATED Resolution to go In-Camera 12 2.2. Resolution to go In-Camera (August 15, 2023) (Added) July 11th, 2023 - (August 15, 2023) Resolution to go In-Camera 13 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 3.1. Council Minutes of June 20, 2023 DRAFT - City Council - 20 Jun 2023 - Minutes - Pdf 14 - 32 4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Disclosures of pecuniary interest and a brief explanation thereof will be made for the current Council Meeting at this time. 5. MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS All speakers are reminded that they have a maximum of 5 minutes to make their presentation. Page 1 of 847 6.1. Civic Recognition - Saint Paul Catholic High School - Senior Boys Soccer Team The Saint Paul Catholic High School Senior Mens Soccer Team won the gold medal at the Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations (OFSAA) Double A Boys Soccer Championship. The team will be recognized for their achievement. 6.2. Former Committee of Adjustment member, Joe Mrozek - Appointment request - Relief from City's policy on mileage reimbursement Joe Mrozek is requesting to appear as a delegation to obtain some relief from the City's policy on mileage reimbursement. 07-11-2023 Memo - Joe Mrozek Mileage Request 2016-2021 07-11-2023 Attachment 1 - City of Niagara Falls, Travel and Expense Claim Form 07-11-2023 Attachment 2 - Joe Mrozek Mileage Claims C of A - 2016-2021 33 - 42 6.3. Building Permit Fee Review (Presentation added) Sean-Michael Stephen, Managing Partner of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., will be making a presentation for Council for information purposes. City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report Public Meeting Presentation - UPDATED 07-07-2023 43 - 86 6.4. CIBC Presentation - Economic Update to Council - City of Niagara Falls Nick Poulias, Investment Advisor, CIBC Private Wealth Management, will deliver a presentation to Council. F-2023-20 2024 Budget Timetable and Preliminary Budget Projection F-2023-20 - - Pdf Econ Update (CIBC) - July 11, 2023 87 - 117 7. PLANNING MATTERS Page 2 of 847 7.1. PBD-2023-40 (Agent's presentation added; additional petition and comments added; further resident comments added from July 10th) AM-2022-001, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 6259-6293 Dorchester Road Applicant: Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. (Angelo Butera) Agent: A. J. Clarke & Associates Ltd. (Franz Kloibhofer) 5 storey apartment building with 74 units Alexa Cooper, Planner II, will provide an overview of Report PBD- 2023-40. The following residents have registered to speak to this matter: • Mary Anne Seppala • Helen Henderson • Rob Ainslie • Dan Armenti • Carrie Lewis • Cheryl Slater • Angel Anderson • Alicia/Ryan Racine • Mal Formisano • Mark Kaine • Richard Serada • Anita Traub • Chris Antaya Franz Kloibhofer (acting as agent), will be present via zoom to make a presentation to Council. PBD-2023-40 - Pdf Presentation (Staff) - AM-2022-001 Presentation (Agent) - Public Info Meeting Presentation_July 11, 2023 FK Final Resident Petition Letters - Within the 120 m mailing radius - May 2022 (46) Resident Petition Letters - Within the 120 m mailing radius - November 2020 (109) Petitions from Niagara Falls Residents with addresses listed - outside mailing radius , May 2022 (78) 118 - 454 Page 3 of 847 Petitions from Niagara Falls Residents with addresses listed - outside mailing radius, November 2020 (3) Comments from residents - In opposition of development (Redacted) Comments from resident - in support - AM-2022-001 - (Redacted) #7.1 - Comment from Resident Additional comment Letter from resident (Redacted) - AM-2021- 001 (Recv'd July 6, 2023) Additional Petition fr.resident - AM-2021-001 (Recv'd July 6, 2023) Late Submission Comment Letters Combined PDF - 7 letters (July 10, 2023) (Redacted) Late Submission Comment Letters Combined PDF - 2 remaining letters as of 4pm (July 10, 2023) (Redacted) Comments to be attached to the 07 11 2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item 7.2. PBD-2023-41 (Additional comments added) AM-2022-017, Zoning By-law Amendment Montrose Road, Parts 7 & 8 Proposal: To permit the construction of a detached dwelling. Applicant: Kevin Dilts Agent: Mike Sullivan (LandPro Planning Solutions Inc.) Scott Turnbull, Planner 1, will provide an overview of Report PBD-2023-41. The following residents are requesting to address Council: • Dianna Kit Mete • Lois Kit Mike Sullivan, Planner from LandPro Planning Solutions, and acting as agent, will provide a presentation. PBD-2023-41 - Pdf Presentation (Staff) - Public Meeting - AM-2022-017 Presentation (Applicant) - DILTS Council Meeting Montrose Road 2023-07-05 455 - 497 Page 4 of 847 Comments from resident - AM-2022-017 - in opposition of development (Redacted) #7.2 - Comment from Resident Additional Comments Item #7.2 Additional Comments from Jay Mason - zoning amendment application AM-2022-017 7.3. PBD-2023-39 (Additional comments added) AM-2023-004 Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application 5014 Wilmott Street Applicant: Omar Tyndale Agent: Rhea Davis (NPG Planning Solutions Inc.) Nick DeBenedetti, Planner II, will provide an overview of Report PBD-2023-39. Rhea Davis (via Zoom) and Aaron Butler (in person), of NPG Planning Solutions, and acting as agents, are present to share a presentation to Council. PBD-2023-39 - Pdf Presentation (Staff) - AM-2023-004 (5014 Wilmott Street ) Presentation (Applicant) - 5014 Willmott St PM Slides Comments from residents (Redacted) #7.3 - Comment from Resident Additional comments received (July 10th) - (Redacted) Regional Comments 5014 Willmott St NF (in support of application) 498 - 533 8. REPORTS 8.1. CS-2023-01 Cooperative Procurement – Kinetic GPO CS-2023-01 - - Pdf 534 - 536 8.2. F-2023-07 South Niagara Hospital Contribution 537 - 545 Page 5 of 847 F-2023-07 - Pdf 8.3. F-2023-19 Low Income Seniors and People with Disabilities Water and Property Tax Rebate Programs F-2023-19 - Pdf 546 - 547 8.4. F-2023-21 Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario – Trust Funds Financial Statements December 31, 2022 F-2023-21 - Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario – Trust Funds Financial Statements December 31, 2022 - Pdf 548 - 566 8.5. MW-2023-20 W.L. Houck Park Practice Facilities Legacy Project MW-2023-20 - Pdf 567 - 583 8.6. MW-2023-23 Additions to the 2023 (Road Resurfacing Mill & Pave Program) MW-2023-23 - Pdf 584 - 589 8.7. PBD-2023-42 Northwest and Garner West Secondary Plans – Background Initiation Report PBD-2023-42 - Pdf 590 - 595 8.8. PBD-2023-44 Tree and Woodland Preservation and Enhancement PBD-2023-44 - Pdf 596 - 611 8.9. PBD-2023-45 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Facility 8800 McLeod Road Applicant: Forbes Bros Ltd., on behalf of Rogers Communications Inc. 612 - 642 Page 6 of 847 PBD-2023-45 - Pdf 9. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda is a set of reports that could be approved in one motion of council. The approval endorses all of the recommendations contained in each of the reports within the set. The single motion will save time. Prior to the motion being taken, a councillor may request that one or more of the reports be moved out of the consent agenda to be considered separately. 9.1. L-2023-15 Permanently Close and Declare Surplus of Lands Portions of Redundant Road Allowance - Weinbrenner Road Land Swap - The Niagara Parks Commission Our File No.: 2022-60 L-2023-15 - Pdf 643 - 647 9.2. MW-2023-21 Petition for Drainage Works - 5981 Willow Road MW-2023-21 - Pdf 648 - 656 9.3. MW-2023-22 Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) Updates MW-2023-22 - Pdf 657 - 664 9.4. PBD-2023-43 Matters Arising from the Municipal Heritage Committee 2023 Designated Property Grant - Spence Sherriff House 5993 Barker Street PBD-2023-43 - Pdf 665 - 668 9.5. MW-2023-19 (Report added) Residential Drainage Assistance Program MW-2023-19 - Pdf 669 - 700 10. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK Page 7 of 847 The Communications section of the agenda is a set of items listed as correspondence to Council that could be approved in one motion of Council. If Staff feel that more than one recommendation is required, the listed communications items will be grouped accordingly. The single motion per recommendation, if required, will save time. Prior to any motion being taken, a Councillor may request that one or more of the items be lifted for discussion and considered separately. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approve/support Item #10.1 through to and including Item #10.3. 10.1. Proclamation Request - Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD) The PKD Foundation of Canada is requesting the City of Niagara Falls to proclaim Monday, September 4, 2023 as "Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD Awareness Day." Proclamation Request Letter - NF - Polycystic Kidney Disease 701 10.2. Memo from Planning Regarding: PLC-2023-005, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Lot 20, Registered Plan 59M-491, Lyon's Creek, Phase 5 9348 and 9350 White Oak Avenue Memo to Council - PLC-2023-005 702 10.3. Flag-Raising Request - Ukraine's Independence Day The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Niagara Branch is requesting Council to approve a flag-raising ceremony on Thursday, August 24, 2023 to commemorate and celebrate Ukraine's Independence Day. Flag-Raising Request - Ukraine's Independence Day 703 - 704 11. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council receive and file for information Item #11.1 through to and including Item #11.4. 11.1. Resolution - Request for Support - Leglislative Amendments to Improve Municipal Codes of Conduct and Enforcement Attached is correspondence submitted by a grassroots advocacy group named, "The Women of Ontario Say No." 705 - 711 Page 8 of 847 Request for Support - Legislative Amendments to Improve Municipal Codes of Conduct and Enforcement Background information - AMO Policy Update - Action on Municipal Codes of Conduct AMO Sample Text Resolution Resolution - City of Quinte West - Legislative Amendments to Improve Municipal Codes of Conduct and Enforcement 11.2. Resolution - Municipality of Shuniah - re: Bill 3 The attached resolution was passed at the Council Meeting for the Municipality of Shuniah on June 20, 2023 re: Bill 3. Resolution - Municipality of Shuniah - Cou Res 06 June 2023 - 223-23 (Bill 3) 712 11.3. Highway 405/QEW Interchange - Response from MTO Attached is a letter from the Honourable Caroline Mulroney, Minister of Transportation in response to a motion sent from our Council regarding the Highway 405/QEW interchange request. MTOResponse-867 713 - 714 11.4. Comments from resident Comments from Resident 1 comments concerning 15000 students updat 2 comments concerning Development Downtown 3 Affordable Housing updated Report 715 - 822 12. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 12.1. Fallsview BIA - 2023 Budget (Correspondence from Fallsview BIA added) The Fallsview BIA 2023 budget has been submitted from the board in the amount of $123,600.00. Recommendation: THAT Council approve the 2023 budget for the Fallsview BIA. Correspondence from Fallsview BIA 823 - 825 Page 9 of 847 13. RATIFICATION OF IN-CAMERA 14. NOTICE OF MOTION/NEW BUSINESS Except as otherwise provided in the Procedural By-law, all Notices of Motion shall be presented, in writing, at a Meeting of Council, but shall not be debated until the next regular Meeting of Council. A Motion may be introduced without notice, if Council, without debate, dispenses with the requirement for notice on the affirmative vote of two- thirds of the Members present. 14.1. Notice of Motion - Basic Income Councillor Lococo has asked Council to support the concept of a basic income. Niagara Falls Basic Income Notice of Motion July 11 2023 Notice of Motion - Link for reference 826 - 828 15. BY-LAWS The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to the by-law listed for Council consideration. 2023- 067. A by-law to designate Lot 20, Registered Plan 59M-491, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2023-005). By-law -2023-067 - PLC-2023-005 - Lyons Creek Phase 5, Lot 20 829 2023- 068. A by-law to authorize the execution of a Development Agreement pursuant to the approved Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the lands municipally known as 4078 Victoria Avenue, in the City of Niagara Falls, to a site specific Tourist Commercial (TC) zone to permit ten (10) stacked townhouse dwelling units that may be used as vacation rental units, with Build Up Victoria Inc. By-law 2023-068 - AM-2023-003 -4078 Victoria Avenue - Development Agreement Authorization 830 2023- 069. A by-law to amend By-law No. 2002-081, being a by-law to appoint City employees, agents and third parties for the enforcement of provincial or municipal by-laws. 831 - 832 Page 10 of 847 By-law 2023-069 - 2023 JULY 30 By-law Enforcement Officers 2023- 070. A by-law to declare part of Weinbrenner Road and part of Edgeworth Road, as surplus. By-law 2023-070 - By-Law to Declare Parts of Weinbrenner Rd and Edgeworth Rd as Surplus 833 2023- 071. A by-law to permanently close part of a highway. By-law 2023-071 - By-law to Permanently Close Parts of Weinbrenner Rd and Edgeworth Rd 834 2023- 072. A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No. 158 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (AM-2022-012). By-law 2023-072 - OPA 158 835 - 840 2023- 073. A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200 to permit the use of the lands for a 77 storey building with 962 dwelling units and at least 516 square metres of commercial floor area at grade subject to the removal of a Holding (H) symbol (AM-2022-012). By-law 2023-073 841 - 846 2023- 074. A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 11th day of July, 2023. By-law 2023-074 - 07 11 23 Confirming By-law 847 16. ADJOURNMENT Page 11 of 847 The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution July 11, 2023 Moved by: Seconded by: WHEREAS all meetings of Council are to be open to the public; and WHEREAS the only time a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public is if the subject matter falls under one of the exceptions under s. 239(2) of the Municipal Act. WHEREAS on July 11, 2023, Niagara Falls City Council will be holding a Closed Meeting as permitted under s. 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, namely; (a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board; and (c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that on July 11, 2023 Niagara Falls City Council will go into a closed meeting to consider matters that fall under section 239 (2) (a) to discuss the security of the property of the municipality with regards to some possible road closures and to also discuss the possible acquisition of land by the municip ality. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. WILLIAM G. MATSON JAMES M. DIODATI CITY CLERK MAYOR Page 12 of 847 The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution July 11, 2023 Moved by: Seconded by: WHEREAS all meetings of Council are to be open to the public; and WHEREAS the only time a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public is if the subject matter falls under one of the exceptions under s. 239 of the Municipal Act. WHEREAS on August 15, 2023, Niagara Falls City Council will be holding Closed Meetings as permitted under s. 239 (3.1) of the Municipal Act, namely; (3.1) A meeting of a council or local board or of a committee of either of them may be closed to the public if the following conditions are both satisfied: 1. The meeting is held for the purpose of educating or training the members. 2. At the meeting, no member discusses or otherwise deals with any matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making of the council, local board or committee. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that on August 15, 2023, Niagara Falls City Council will go into a closed meeting to consider matters that fall under section 239 (3.1) for the purpose of educating and training the members as part of Council’s Strategic planning. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. WILLIAM G. MATSON JAMES M. DIODATI CITY CLERK MAYOR Page 13 of 847 MINUTES City Council Meeting 4:00 PM - Tuesday, June 20, 2023 Council Chambers/Zoom App. The City Council Meeting of the City of Niagara Falls was called to order on Tuesday, June 20, 2023, at 4:04 PM, in the Council Chambers, with the following members present: PRESENT: Mayor Jim Diodati, Councillor Tony Baldinelli, Councillor Wayne Campbell, Councillor Lori Lococo, Councillor Mona Patel, Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg, Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Councillor Mike Strange, Councillor Wayne Thomson STAFF PRESENT: Jason Burgess, Bill Matson, Heather Ruzylo, Nidhi Punyarthi, Margaret Corbett, Shelley Darlington, Kathy Moldenhauer, Erik Nickel, Tiffany Clark, Chief Jo Zambito, Kira Dolch, Dale Morton, Trent Dark 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:04 PM. 2. IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL 2.1. Resolution to go In-Camera Moved by Councillor Tony Baldinelli Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson THAT Council enter into an In-Camera session. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Campbell was absent from the vote). 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 3.1. Council Minutes of May 30, 2023 Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Mona Patel THAT Council approve the minutes of the May 30, 2023 meeting as presented. Carried Unanimously 4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST None reported. 5. MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS Page 1 of 19 Page 14 of 847 a) Mayor Diodati extended condolences to the following: • Gwen Donofrio - retired City employee, from our Planning Department. • Lorenzo Anania - grandfather of Chris Daniele from our Finance Department. b) Mayor Diodati mentioned the following city events: Strong Mayor Powers •Province announced Friday, June 16th •Housing crisis/ unaffordable home ownership •Province sees too much talk and not enough action •Nice to have all tools in your toolbox •Just like a first-aid kit, don’t anticipate using it •In fact, can’t think of any times in my tenure when I would’ve used it •In NF we’re lucky to have a very aligned Council •Prefer power of persuasion, debate, democracy and consensus Daily Community Clean-Up—new program [ 2 photos shown] •Recognize the Non-Profit Organization DANDP Foundation oOriginated in Revdanda Maharashtra, India oTo promote selfless tasks of social reform •Participated in Environmental Action Committee’s new program •18 bags of litter near Coronation Park •Attended by Councillor Nieuwesteeg Cardinal Kia Ground Breaking Event •Oakwood Drive/ Thursday, June 15th Jaida Lee Recognition [photo shown] •Also attended by Councillors Baldinelli, Pietrangelo, Patel and Strange Millenium Trail- Rotary Storywalk Pathway Opening [photo shown] •Also attended by Councillors Baldinelli, Pietrangelo, Patel and Strange Councillor Representation Councillor Pietrangelo•Attended the Niagara Institute of Music and Arts School 20 year anniversary. Grand Openings & Business Happenings [photo shown] •Havana Niagara oAttended by Councillor Strange, Councillor Baldinelli, Councillor Nieuwesteeg & Councillor Patel. Flag Raisings Senior’s Month [photo shown] •Also attended by Councillor Nieuwesteeg Page 2 of 19 Page 15 of 847 13th Annual Italian Heritage Month [photo shown] •Also attended by Councillors Patel & Nieuwesteeg Filipino Independence Day [photo shown] •Also attended by Councillors Nieuwesteeg and Patel c) The next Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 11, 2023. 6. DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 6.1. Mayor's Youth Advisory Committee (MYAC) Year-End Deputation The Mayor's Youth Advisory Committtee (MYAC) provided Council with a presentation to include the following: • Scholarship presentation - Nathan Smith, Community Development Coordinator, recognized the 3 scholarship recipients: •Monica Lica, Jim Mitchinson Scholarship - $1000.00 •Stefan Candeloro, Jim Mitchinson Scholarship - $1000.00 (Stefan was not in attendance). •Tiya Patel, NPEI Scholarship - $1000.00 • Annual Deputation - MYAC Co-Chairs, Maddox Libera and Katie Hutchings, reviewed MYAC's 2022-2023 school year by making a presentation to Council. 6.2. Accessibility Advisory Committee - Honouring Mr. and Mrs. Jill and Gary Taylor The Accessibility Advisory Committee at its May 29th, 2023, meeting nominated Mr. & Mrs. Jill and Gary Taylor for the 2023 Patrick Cummings Award. The Taylor Family owned and operated For The Needy Not The Greedy (a non for profit), company which assisted many disabled persons with getting access to a wide variety of mobility devices. Mayor Diodati presented Jill and Gary Taylor with this award. They collected, repaired, and distributed used mobility aids and assistive devices from their Kinsmen Court location for over 25 years. 6.3. Resident, Amelia Upper - regarding Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act Resident Amelia Upper addressed Council regarding Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act and its effectiveness and discussed alternative ways to address the housing crisis. Moved by Councillor Tony Baldinelli Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson THAT Council receive the presentation by Amelia Upper. Carried Unanimously 7. PLANNING MATTERS 7.1. PBD-2023-34 Page 3 of 19 Page 16 of 847 26T-11-2023-002 & AM-2023-007 Draft Plan of Subdivision-McLeod Meadows 9304 McLeod Road Parts 1 and 2 59R-16846 Lot 181 Twp of Stamford Applicant: 800460 Ontario Ltd (Fred Costabile) Agent: Upper Canada Consultants (Matt Kernahan) The public meeting commenced at 5:49 PM. Julie Hannah, Senior Manager of Current Planning, provided an overview of Report PBD-2023-34. Brad Campbell, Site Director of Solvay Welland Site, presented his concerns about the proposal citing that Cytec has pressing and significant concerns. Cytec requests that the City deny these applications, especially within the 2 km City arc. Glenn Willings, from Wellings Planning, addressed Councillor Pietrangelo's question, in trying to understand the Ministry's guidelines. Councillor Pietrangelo seeked clarification regarding the 2 km City arc. As per Kira Dolch, General Manager of Planning, Building & Development, the Ministry has confirmed that they were not involved in any discussions regarding the 2 km arc. Resident, Mike Cushman, of 6246 Arad Street, spoke to Council addressing his concerns and supported Cytec's model. Rocky Vacca, of Sullivan-Mahoney, addressed Cytec's concerns citing that Cytec, alone, is stating the 2 km arc. There is no 2 km requirement. The legal requirement is the D6 guidelines. The agent accepts the recommendations in the report as presented and supports the staff's proposal. Matt Kernahan, of Upper Canada Consultants, presented to Council supporting the staff recommendations as outlined in the Report PBD-2023-34. The public meeting closed at 7:10 PM. Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange 1. THAT the application to amend the Zoning By-law be approved, subject to the regulations outlined in this report; 2. THAT the amending zoning by-law include a Holding (H) provision to require to the satisfaction of the City and Niagara Region: • The "Compatibility/Mitigation Study-Air Quality, Noise and Vibration" prepared by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. (dated March 23, 2022), as Page 4 of 19 Page 17 of 847 well as any subsequent revisions thereto, be approved by Niagara Region and City; • The approval of City Official Plan Amendment 147 by the Regional Municipality of Niagara and the Amendment going into force and effect; • Any development on the subject lands shall conform to the policies of Official Plan Amendment 147, including any resulting modifications; and, • The implementation of any mitigation measures as required by the approved Land Compatibility- Air Quality, Noise and Vibration Study, all to the satisfaction of the City and Niagara Region; 3. THAT the Plan of Subdivision be draft approved subject to the conditions in the attached Appendix A; 4. THAT the notice of decision include a statement that public input has been received, considered, and has informed the decision of Council; 5. THAT the Mayor or designate be authorized to sign the draft plan as "approved" 20 days after notice of Council’s decision has been given as required by the Planning Act, provided no appeals of the decision have been lodged; 6. THAT draft approval be given for three years, after which approval will lapse unless an extension is requested by the developer and granted by Council; and, 7. THAT the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Subdivision Agreement and any required documents to allow for the future registration of the Subdivision when all matters are addressed to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. 8. Items deemed minor by staff as follows: Notwithstanding any of the regulations contained in Section 5.13 SE COND UNITS WITHIN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, one second unit is permitted within an accessory building, notwithstanding the definition "accessory building," on any lot zoned R3 subject to the following provisions: • The floor area of the second unit shall not exceed 40% of the floor area of the primary dwelling; • One parking space shall be provided for the occupant of the second unit within an accessory building in addition to the parking space required for the primary dwelling. Parking spaces may be provided in t andem; • The height of an accessory building containing a second unit shall not exceed 9 metres; • The accessory building containing a second unit shall be a minimum of 1.2 metres from the side and rear lot lines, save and except for unsupported canopies, eaves or gutters which may project a distance of not more than 0.45 metres into this setback. • Common detached accessory structures containing a second unit may be centred on the mutual lot line if erected simultaneously on two abutting lots. • No roofed-over porch or deck shall be closer than 1.2 metre from the rear lot line. Carried (Councillor Lococo was opposed to the vote). 7.2. Councillor Pietrangelo left meeting at 7:10 PM and returned to Chambers at 7:16 PM. PBD-2023-36 Page 5 of 19 Page 18 of 847 AM-2023-005 Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application 7081 McLeod Road Applicant: LivWell Development Group Inc. (Adam Peaker) Agent: NPG Planning Solutions Inc. (Aaron Butler) The Public meeting commenced at 7:11 PM. Mayor Jim Diodati left the meeting at 7:14 PM and Councillor Strange chaired meeting. Mayor Jim Diodati returned to meeting at 7:19 PM and resumed his role as Chair. Alexa Cooper, Planner 2, provided an overview of Report PBD-2023-36. Lise Grieve, of 7150 Ann Street, spoke in opposition of the proposal citing concerns of the large development. Felt that it is unjustified to have a large building in that area. Cited concerns about traffic and infrastructure in the area not able to accommodate this development. Aaron Butler, of NPG Planning, addressed Council in support of the application. The Public meeting closed at 7:32 PM. Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli That Council approve a Special Policy Area Official Plan Amendment for a maximum density of 147 units per hectare and site specific Zoning By-law amendment as detailed in this report for a 5 storey apartment building with 50 dwelling units. Carried (Councillors Patel, Nieuwesteeg and Strange were opposed and Councillor Campbell was absent). 7.3. PBD-2023-37 AM-2021-005 Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application 7449 Montrose Road Applicant: 2683421 Ontario Limited Agent: Zelinka Priamo Ltd. (Rob McFarlane) The Public meeting commenced at 7:35 PM. Alexa Cooper, Planner 2, provided an overview of Report PBD -2023-37. Rob McFarlane, acting as agent form Zelinka Priamo Ltd, addressed Council supporting the application. Page 6 of 19 Page 19 of 847 The public meeting was closed at 7:57 PM. Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell 1. THAT Council approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment to permit an 8 storey apartment building, a 13 storey apartment building, and ten 3 storey block townhouses with a density of 150 units per hectare on the subject lands. 2. THAT the amending zoning by-law include a Holding (H) provision to require the submission of an updated Wind Study (with wind tunnel modelling), tree compensation agreement at a ratio of 2 trees for every 1 tree removed, an updated Traffic Impact Study, an updated Phase 1 and a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment and Record of Site Condition, if required, and an updated Noise Study to the satisfaction of the Niagara Region and the City. 3. AND FURTHER THAT staff deem the requested requirement of a maximum of 52 surface parking spaces excluding the required parking spaces for townhouse dwellings in addition to the required 1.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit to be minor and that no further public notice is required under the Planning Act. Carried Unanimously 8. MOTIONS 8.1 . Motion - Niagara Falls Electoral System Councillor Lococo brought forth the following Motion from the May 30, 2023 Council Meeting: THAT the City of Niagara Falls: -initiate a timeline of a process to review the electoral systems - ward and at large, etc. -review the current population of Niagara Falls and the expected growth and in what areas of the city. -have numerous public consultations - in-person and through surveys. -promote consultation and surveys through in-person, social media channels, website, newspapers, etc... -create an Ad-Hoc Committee and appoint Councillor Lori Lococo as Chair. Councillor Lococo's motion (above) was presented and Councillor Baldinelli seconded the motion. Discussion then took place which included Councillor Strange's motion to defer. Page 7 of 19 Page 20 of 847 Moved by Councillor Mike Strange Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell THAT Council make a motion to defer any electoral review until the province concludes their current governance process with our municipality. Ayes: Mayor Jim Diodati, Councillor Wayne Campbell, Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Councillor Mike Strange, Councillor Wayne Thomson, Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg, and Councillor Mona Patel Nays: Councillor Lori Lococo and Councillor Tony Baldinelli CARRIED (Councillors Baldinelli and Lococo were opposed). 7-2 on a recorded vote 9. REPORTS 9.1. CLK-2023-05 Fee Waiver Applications - June 2023 Submissions Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell THAT Council consider approving, approving in part or denying the Fee Waiver Applications received for the June 20, 2023 submission date, listed as follows: 1. Chippawa Volunteer Firefighter's Association - SPN Slo-Pitch Championships - in the amount of $4,112.10 for the waiving of the costs associated with the floor rental at the Chippawa Willoughby Arena. 2. Chippawa Volunteer Firefighter's Association - Chippawa Volunteer Firefighters Slo- Pitch Tournament - in the amount of $665.44 for the waiving of the costs associated with the baseball diamond rental at Chippawa Lion's Park and Patrick Cummings Park. 3. Niagara Children's Centre - Plasma Car Race - in the amount of $342.68 for the waiving of the costs associated with the arena floor rental. Carried Unanimously 9.2. F-2023-18 Cancellation, Reduction or Refund of Taxes Under Section 357 and 358 of The Municipal Act, 2001 Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange THAT Council approve the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes on the various roll numbers per the attached summary and granted to the property owners listed. Carried Unanimously 9.3. L-2023-11 Insurance Renewal Report Page 8 of 19 Page 21 of 847 Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg THAT Council approve the 2023-2024 Comprehensive Insurance Program from Intact Public Entities Inc. (IPE). Carried Unanimously 9.4. MW-2023-18 Budget Amendment for John N Allan Park - Parking Lot and Lighting Improvements Moved by Councillor Mike Strange Seconded by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo THAT - Council authorize staff to proceed with the design and construction of 48 paved spaces including lighting and drainage improvements to the south parking lot at John N Allan Park at budgeted cost of $320,000.00; and further. THAT - Council approve a 2023 Capital Budget Amendment to create Project P140-23 for John N Allan Park Parking Lot Improvements with total budget of $320,000 (inclusive of non-recoverable HST) funded from the OLG Reserve. Carried (Councillor Lococo was opposed). 9.5. L-2023-13 Permanently Close and Declare Surplus of Lands Road Allowance between Lots 2 & 3, Concession 3, Willoughby being Morningstar Road; Niagara Falls Our File No.2023-79 Resident, Leigh Ann Sauer (speaking on behalf of husband, Nathan Sauer), of Willoughby Road, spoke in opposition of the report. Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo THAT Council defer the motion as presented. Motion defeated (Not put). Moved by Councillor Mona Patel Seconded by Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg THAT Council enter into an In-Camera session at 8:32 PM to seek legal advice. Carried Unanimously Council returned to open Council at 8:49 PM. Page 9 of 19 Page 22 of 847 Moved by Councillor Wayne Campbell Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli 1. In the event that Council determines that it is in the public interest to do so, that part of Morningstar Road Allowance, between Sodom Road and Ort Road, north of Baker Road (the "Subject Lands"), as shown in blue on the map attached as Schedule "A", be permanently closed and declared surplus to the City's needs. 2. That any sale of the Subject Lands be conditional upon the lands being merged in title with the abutting lands. 3. That the City Solicitor and Chief Administrative Officer, or their designate, be authorized to execute all other documentation and take whatever steps necessary to carry out Recommendations 1 and 2. Carried (Councillor Lococo was opposed). 9.6. PBD-2023-38 26CD-11-2017-003 Extension of 7736-7746 Beaverdams Road Draft Plan of Condominium 7736-7746 Beaverdams Road Applicant: Kamlesh Patel Agent: Quartek Group (Susan Smyth) Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell THAT Council grant a 1-year extension to draft plan approval of condominium (vacant land) with a new lapsing date of July 11th, 2024. Carried Unanimously 9.7. CLK-2023-06 Updates to Council's Code of Conduct Council last updated the current Code of Conduct in May of 2022. Since then, staff identified updates based on changes to provincial legislation and recommendations suggested by a recent Ombudsman report to Council. Council also met with the City’s Integrity Commissioner as part of their orientation at the start of the current term of Council, who provided some feedback on the current Code. The updates were included in a copy of the Code of Conduct as presented to Council and approved, with several amendments made at the meeting and are listed as follows: Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange THAT the Code of Conduct be updated to reflect a mediation process. Carried Unanimously Page 10 of 19 Page 23 of 847 Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Mona Patel THAT the Code of Conduct be updated to reflect the authority for the Integrity Commissioner to investigate members of local boards and to offer applicable training to the board members. Carried Unanimously Moved by Councillor Mike Strange Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell THAT the Code of Conduct be updated to reflect that complaints may only be received by residents of Niagara Falls. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Lococo was opposed). Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg THAT the Code of Conduct be updated to reflect a mechanism for Integrity Commissioner to be able to reach out to complainants to clarify or ask for additional information. Carried Unanimously Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange THAT the Code of Conduct be updated to reflect the $500.00 fee to continue as part of the City's Code of Conduct. Carried (Councillor Lococo was opposed). Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell THAT the Code of Conduct be updated to reflect that Council also has the authority to remove any member from any appointed boards, committees and commissions and to adopt the suggested changes to the City's Code of Conduct as proposed by staff. Carried (Councillor Lococo was opposed). DIRECTION TO STAFF: Councillor Lococo is looking for an update on the City's whistle-blower policy. 9.8. CAO-2023-05 Park Street Development Council took another step towards growing the number of affordable and attainable residential units in the City. At Tuesday’s meeting, they approved a Page 11 of 19 Page 24 of 847 Request for Proposal (RFP) to facilitate the construction of an affordable housing project at 4500 Park Street under a joint venture arrangement with a development partner. Staff are recommending that the City-owned land located at 4500 Park Street be contributed into a newly formed joint venture and that a proponent be selected through an RFP process to an RFP process to build and maintain the property. A joint venture arrangement with a developer will allow greater control over the development partner, development plan, and long -term operational plans as opposed to gifting the property to a developer or sel ling the property outright. Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell 1. THAT staff be DIRECTED to develop a public process to solicit competitive bids for a joint venture partner to provide a housing development with affordable and attainable units at 4500 Park Street. 2. THAT Council SUPPORT in principal the contribution of land located at 4500 Park Street to a joint venture arrangement subject to Council approval of terms in the joint venture agreement with the successful RFP proponent. Carried Unanimously 10. CONSENT AGENDA 10.1. HR-2023-01 Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee The Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee has a new name! The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisory Committee name was approved by Council, based on the committee’s strong recommendation that their name reflects their work in diversity, equity, and inclusion. The committee defines equity as the rights of the individual to an equitable share of the goods and services in society. Moved by Councillor Wayne Campbell Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange THAT Council consider revising the current committee name (Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee), to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Advisory Committee. Carried Unanimously Page 12 of 19 Page 25 of 847 10.2. PBD-2023-35 Development and Housing Monitoring Report and Provincial Reporting Moved by Councillor Wayne Campbell Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange 1. THAT Council receive the Quarter 1 Development and Housing Monitoring Report that reviews the status of current development and housing activity in the City for the first quarter of 2023. 2. THAT Council direct staff to forward the housing information to the Province as requested. Carried Unanimously 11. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 11.1. Resolution - Town of Fort Erie - Maintenance of Fort Erie Urgent Care Centre Hours of Operation The Municipal Council of the Town of Fort Erie at its Special meeting of June 5, 2023, passed the attached resolution. Recommendation: For Council's Consideration and Support. 11.2. Memo from Planning Regarding: PLC-2023-003, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control 11.3. Memo from Planning Regarding: PLC-2023-004, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control 11.4. Proclamation Request - World Hepatitis Day - 2023 Niagara Health, on behalf of the Hepatitis C Care Clinic Team, is requesting the City of Niagara Falls to proclaim Friday, July 28, 2023 as World Hepatitis Day in Niagara Falls. Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell THAT Council approve/support Item #10.1 through to and including Item #11.4. Carried Unanimously 12. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 12.1. Niagara Region Correspondence Attached is correspondence sent from the Niagara Region regarding the following matters: Page 13 of 19 Page 26 of 847 1. Niagara Region Report PDS14-2023 - Niagara Region Highlights from the 2021 Census of Population. 2. Niagara Region Report PDS 12-2023 - Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control and Wet Weather Management (WWM) Program - 2023 Funding Recommendations 3. Niagara Region Report PDS 17-2023 - Climate Change Update 4. Niagara Region Report PDS 13-2023 - 2022 Reserve Water and Wastewater Treatment Capabilities 5. Niagara Region Motion - Enhancing Canada's National Adaption Strategy Through a Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin Coastal Resiliency Study 12.2. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) Attached is a letter outlining CFIB's request for municipalities across Ontario to implement a construction mitigation program for lengthy projects that cause major disruptions. DIRECTION TO STAFF: to have staff report back on what kind of cost or program there is to support small businesses that experience service disruptions. 12.3. Comments from resident Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange THAT Council receive and file for information Item #12.1 through to and including Item #12.3. Carried Unanimously 13. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 13.1. Noise By-law Exemption - Wedding - Saturday, October 12, 2024 A Niagara Falls resident is requesting a noise by-law exemption on Saturday, October 12, 2024 to allow for outdoor music from 2:00 PM to 1:00 AM at 5041 River Road in Niagara Falls, for an outdoor wedding (approximate number of guests: 70). Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson THAT Council approve the extension of the noise by-law exemption on Saturday, October 12, 2024 to allow for outdoor music from 2:00 PM to 1:00 AM at 5041 River Road in Niagara Falls, for an outdoor wedding. Page 14 of 19 Page 27 of 847 Carried (Councillor Campbell was opposed). 13.2. Memo - Drainage Petition The attached Petition for Drainage Works by Owners - Form 1 - was received in the Clerk's Office on June 6, 2023, by Mr. David White of 5981 Willow Road. Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell THAT Council refer this petition to Staff for review in accordance with the Drainage Act, AND THAT Staff report back at the next Council meeting. Carried Unanimously 13.3. Noise By-law Exemption - Taps Brewhouse Taps Brewing Company is seeking Council’s exemption to the Noise By-law for the playing of amplified music during 3 events taking place this year, namely: -Super Heros of Autism Talent Showcase on June 25, 11am to 11pm. -One Big Day Music Festival with Innvitico (supported by Niagara Falls Cultural Grant) on July 22, Noon to midnight. -Rise Against Bullying fundraiser with Just Preston (who was just at the City's Pride flag event) on July 29, 11am to 9pm Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson THAT Council approve the noise by-law exemptions for Taps Brewing Company for the following events: -Super Heros of Autism Talent Showcase on June 25, 2023 from 11 AM to 11 PM. -One Big Day Music Festival with Innvitico (supported by Niagara Falls Cultural Grant) on July 22, 2023 from noon to midnight. -Rise Against Bullying fundraiser with Just Preston (who was just at the City's Pride flag event) on July 29, 2023 from 11 AM to 9 PM. Carried Unanimously 13.4. Lundy's Lane BIA - 2023 Budget for Council Approval Attached is a copy of the Lundy's Lane BIA 2023 Budget. The budget was approved unanimously by the LLBIA Board at our May 30, 2023 board meeting. Page 15 of 19 Page 28 of 847 Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson THAT Council approve the 2023 budget for the Lundy's Lane BIA. Carried Unanimously 13.5. Clifton Hill BIA - 2023 Budget Attached is the 2023 budget for the Clifton Hill BIA. Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson THAT Council approve the 2023 budget for the Clifton Hill BIA. Carried Unanimously 14. RESOLUTIONS 14.1. Resolution No. 7 - AM-2023-007 - Minor Changes, No additional notice That subject to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O Council deems the change in the zoning by-law minor and exempts the requirement for further written notice. Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell THAT Council approve the motion that subject to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O Council deems the change in the zoning by-law minor and exempts the requirement for further written notice as outlined in Resolution No. 7 - AM-2023-007. Carried Unanimously 15. RATIFICATION OF IN-CAMERA a) Ratification of In-Camera Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg THAT Council pass a resolution to hold a closed meeting on Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:00 AM to deal with a personal matter as per Section 239 (2) (b) of the Municipal Act regarding the CAO, AND THAT the Director of Human Resources be appointed as Acting City Clerk for the purpose of this meeting. Carried Unanimously 16. NOTICE OF MOTION/NEW BUSINESS Page 16 of 19 Page 29 of 847 a) Property Tax Relief Moved by Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell THAT staff present the Senior Tax Relief program to the Senior’s Advisory Committee and to undertake a public input session by September 2023 and to report back recommendations to Council on October 3, 2023. Carried Unanimously b) Niagara Transit Commission Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell THAT the City of Niagara Falls Council request a review of the transit operations from the Region after one (1) year, and further to provide an explanation including rural residents in the regional transit charges. Carried Unanimously c) Property Tax Statements Direction to Staff: Councillor Lococo requested that staff come back with some tax relief options and to change the property tax bills in the future to have a sample tax bill as part of the budget presentation outlining each line item on the tax bill and where the expenses come from. d) Ontario Senior Homeowners' Property Tax Grant (OSHPTG) Moved by Councillor Mona Patel Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli THAT Council direct staff to send a resolution to the Province asking for an increase on the Ontario Senior Homeowners' Property Tax Grant (OSHPTG) to reflect the current cost of living. Carried Unanimously e) Traffic Flows in City Direction to Staff: Councillor Baldinelli requested that Staff investigate traffic flows at intersections with smarter light signalling. f) Sight Line Reviews - Regional Transportation Department Moved by Councillor Tony Baldinelli Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell Page 17 of 19 Page 30 of 847 THAT the City of Niagara Falls Council ask the Regional Transportation Department to review intersection sight lines in the city, pertaining to advertisements on bus stops. Carried Unanimously g) City Dog Parks Direction to Staff: Councillor Patel requested staff to look at alternative sites for the addition of a dog park in the south end of the urban area of the City of Niagara Falls. h) Vacant City Parking Lots Direction to Staff: Councillor Patel requested staff to consider utilizing empty/vacant city parking lots to host events as a way to generate revenue. Moved by Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell THAT Council extend the curfew of 10:00 PM to continue with the op en Council meeting. Carried Unanimously i) Dead Trees along Millenium Trail Direction to Staff: Councillor Pietrangelo requested that Staff arrange a meeting with OPG to discuss the issue of the dead trees along the Millenium Trail and to make accommodation to replace the dead trees accordingly. j) Welcoming New Residents to City Direction to Staff: Councillor Nieuwesteeg requested staff to follow up with the introduction of a welcoming package for new residents to the city and to possibly reinstate the publication of the "My City Guide/Leisure Guide." 17. BY-LAWS 2023- 058. A by-law to designate Block 103, Registered Plan 59M-498, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2023-004). 2023- 059. A by-law to designate Blocks104, 115, 118 & 119, Registered Plan 59M-498, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2023-003). 2023- 060. A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No. 156 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (AM-2022-031). 2023- 061. A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to permit the use of the lands for commercial purposes and to permit the construction of a 9 unit commercial building (AM-2022-031). Page 18 of 19 Page 31 of 847 2023- 062. A by-law to repeal By-law 2002-156 and to amend By-law No. 79-200, to permit the use of the lands for an 8 storey mixed-use building with 3 ground floor commercial units and 77 dwelling units subject to the removal of a holding (H) symbol (AM-2022-018). 2023- 063. A by-law to declare PIN 64251-0036 (LT), Road Allowance between Lots 2 & 3, Concession 3, Willoughby, being Morningstar Road, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, as surplus. 2023- 064. A by-law to permanently close part of a highway. 2023- 065. A by-law to amend By-law No. 2002-081, being a by-law to appoint City employees, agents and third parties for the enforcement of provincial or municipal by-laws. 2023- 066. A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 20th day of June, 2023. Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange THAT the by-laws be read a first, second and third time and passed. Carried (Councillor Lococo opposed to by-law 2023-063 and by-law 2023-064. 18. ADJOURNMENT a) Adjournment Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson Seconded by Councillor Mona Patel THAT Council adjourn the meeting at 10:25 PM. Carried Unanimously Mayor City Clerk Page 19 of 19 Page 32 of 847 Page 1 of 2 Memo To: Mayor James Diodati, Members of Niagara Falls City Council From: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Date: July 11, 2023 Re: Joe Mrozek Seven (7) Year Mileage Request 2016-2022 RECOMMENDATION THAT Council deny the request from Joe Mrozek for back pay of mileage for the six (6) years 2016-2021. BACKGROUND In March 2023, Joe Mrozek, a former Committee of Adjustment member and retired planner with previous municipal experience, submitted seven (7) years worth of mileage requests for 2016-2022 as follows (Attachment 2): 1. 2016 – 212km @ $0.54 = $114.48 2. 2017 – 405km @ $0.54 = $218.70 3. 2018 – 304km @ $0.55 = $167.20 4. 2019 – 304km @ $0.58 = $176.32 5. 2020 – 259km @ $0.59 = $152.81 6. 2021 – 317km @ $0.59 = $187.03 7. 2022 – 275km @ $0.61 = $167.75 Staff spoke with Mr. Mrozek and reminded him that the Travel and Expense Claim form (Attachment 1) indicates that mileage shall be submitted monthly. Mr. Mrozek was further informed that staff have been flexible in regard to paying mileage out for the year (as opposed to monthly) but not prior year submissions. Staff indicated that we would process all of 2022 for Mr. Mrozek. The City processed the 2022 mileage claims in the amount of $167.75 with cheque number 455919, dated March 22, 2023. To this date it remains uncashed. The City denied the request for 2016-2021 mileage totaling $1,016.54 on the grounds that it was too late to submit mileage per the City’s guidelines clearly identified on the attached Travel and Expense Claims form and that no one can verify the accuracy of the request from 7 years ago. Page 33 of 847 Page 2 of 2 Mr. Mrozek indicated to staff that he was never informed of the requirement to submit mileage monthly or annually however, in December 2015 Mr. Mrozek submitted mileage for March to December 2015 which was paid in February 2016. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. City of Niagara Falls, Travel and Expense Claim Form 2. Joe Mrozek Mileage Claims C of A – 2016-2021 Page 34 of 847 TRAVEL AND EXPENSE CLAIMTRAVEL AND EXPENSE CLAIM General PurposeGeneral Purpose Name:Department: Date:Account Number: Date Purpose Travel To Km Meals Parking Other Totals Claims Summary Claimant Km @ Meals Department Head Parking Other Treasurer Total Page 35 of 847 *Effective July 1, 2001 TRAVEL & EXPENSE CLAIM - General Purpose Use 1.GENERAL a.The purpose of expenditure and destination of travel must be shown. b.Prior approval of the claimant’s supervisor shall be obtained for travel exceeding 400 km (round-trip). c.Suggested daily meal expenditures are $10.00 breakfast, $20.00 lunch and $30.00 dinner. d.Economical accommodations are to be selected. 2.VOUCHERS a.Receipts are required for all: i.meals; ii.accommodation; iii.parking; iv.transportation for which receipts or stubs are normally available; and v.in all cases, especially unusual items, where it is reasonable to expect a receipt to be produced. b.Receipts should be dated and made out by the payee on his own billhead, when possible, and should show the address and locality of the payee. c.Complete details and date of services rendered or materials purchased should appear on the receipt. d.The absence of a receipt places the onus on the claimant to produce other evidence of payment which may be recognized. 3.MODE OF TRAVEL Full explanation shall be given when the means of transportation used is not the most economical available, ie. use of personally-owned motor vehicles instead of city-owned vehicle. 4.KILOMETRES Actual kilometres shall be clearly recorded. The kilometre rate is deemed to cover all expenses in respect to personally-owned motor vehicles used in the service of the City of Niagara Falls. 5.GRATUITIES a.Claims for gratuities (up to 15% maximum) may be allowed where the changes are for reasonable amounts actually disbursed. b.Gratuities must be classified, ie. meals, train porters, attendants, etc. 6.UNUSUAL ITEMS Full explanation shall be submitted to avoid delay in processing the expense claims. 7.ITEMS NOT ALLOWED Travelling expenses cover only transportation and living expenses. Charges for laundry, newspapers, room service, personal phone calls, alcohol, etc., will not be reimbursed. 8.AUTHORITY & APPROVAL OF CLAIMS All travel and expense claims shall be submitted monthly to the Treasurer and must be: a.Approved by the department head in charge; b.Authorized for payment by the Treasurer. S:\FORMS\Travel Expense Claim Effective July 2001.wpd Page 36 of 847 /A TRAVEL AND EXPENSE CLAIM Niagara]3,¢;u,s‘General Purpose ~ b S /I/[p019/é Department: 2016 Account Number:11-3-113015-0300000 Committee of Adjustment Planning 2% /I Claims Summary ADepartme Head$0.54/km for the first 5,000 km,$0.48/km after 5,000 km annuallyPage 37 of 847 W TRAVEL AND EXPENSE CLAIM General Purpose Committee of Adjustment Planning Date:$39-1-6-Z0/7AccountNumber:11-3-113o15-o3000oo Date Purpose ‘ Travel To Km Meals Parkin -Other a.'&Ia'*2R9.-$§*x‘:\V N N”‘~\Q."1\ [Claims Summary Departme HeadTreasurer$0.54/km for the first 5,000 km,$0.48/km after 5,000 km annuallyPage 38 of 847 Z/1.TRAVEL AND EXPENSE CLAIM Niagara}7qy,s\General Purpose Name:)09/V02 1'/£Department:Committee of Adjustment Planning 291152052;Account Number:11-3—113o15—o3000o0 Dat Purpsev Travel 0 Km Meals Parkin -Other,afrm 1 /Claims Summary Km@ $0.54 $0.00 _Department Head 'Treasurer $0.54/km for the first 5,000 km,$0.48/km after 5,000 km annuallyPage 39 of 847 Z.TRAVEL AND EXPENSE CLAIM Niagara]9'gNlA‘I.§General Purpose Name:0 Co25,Department: Date:233'-P6Z0/2 Account Number: Date Purpose Travel To Km Committee of Adjustment Planning 11-3-113015—0300000 Meals |5arkin- . K\ l | 3 i I NKQLuO.-E‘.EIHeadTreasurer$0.54/km for the first 5,000 km,$0.48/km after 5,000 km annuallyPage 40 of 847 m TRAVEL AND EXPENSE CLAIM N iagara]7g!%l,s‘General Purpose Name:Joe Mrozek Date: Department?Planning,Building &Development 11-3-811000-030018January21315209.0 Account Number: Purpose Travel To Km Meals Parkin - Totals /1 Claimant Department Head$0.54/km for the first 5,000 km,$0.48/km after 5,000 km annuallyPage 41 of 847 TRAVEL AND EXPENSE CLAIM n .~J ;¢=».( NI1angg&un"&a]*gg[l_}l_;§General Purpose Name:‘Department:Committee of Adjustment Planning Account Number:11-3413015-0300000 3$0.54/km for the first 5,000 km,$0.48/km after 5,000 km annuallyPage 42 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 905-272-3600 May 31, 2023 info@watsonecon.ca 2023 Building Permit Fees Review City of Niagara Falls ________________________ Final Report Page 43 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background Information .......................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Legislative Context – Building Code Act, 1992 ....................................... 1-1 2. Activity Based Costing Methodology ............................................................ 2-1 2.1 Activity Based Costing Methodology ....................................................... 2-1 2.2 Building Permit Fee Costing Category Definition .................................... 2-2 2.3 Processing Effort Cost Allocations .......................................................... 2-4 2.4 Direct Costs ............................................................................................ 2-5 2.5 Indirect Costs .......................................................................................... 2-6 2.6 Capital Costs .......................................................................................... 2-7 2.7 Building Code Act Reserve Fund Policy ................................................. 2-7 3. Building Permit Fees Review .......................................................................... 3-2 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 3-2 3.2 Full Cost of Building Permit Fees Review ............................................... 3-2 3.3 Building Permit Fee Recommendations .................................................. 3-3 3.4 Building Permit Fee Impacts ................................................................. 3-10 4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 4-1 Page 44 of 847 Report Page 45 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Chapter 1 Introduction Page 46 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-1 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Information The City of Niagara Falls (City) retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson) to conduct a review and update of its building permit fees. The first objective of the building permit fee review is to develop an activity-based costing (A.B.C.) model to substantiate the full costs of service (i.e. administering and enforcing the Building Code. The full cost assessment (i.e., direct, indirect, and capital costs) will be used to inform recommended fees to recover the full cost of service, provide for the sustainable delivery of service, and mitigate the potential funding burden on property taxes. Moreover, the fee recommendations were developed with regard for the statutory requirements, the City’s market competitiveness, and fiscal position. The Ontario Building Code Act governs fees related to the administration and enforcement activities under the authority of the Building Code. This report summarizes the findings and recommendations related to the building permit fee services within the scope of the review. The following chapters of this report summarize the legislative context for building permit fees, the building permit fee review methodology developed, the full cost findings and fee recommendations of the building permit fee review. 1.2 Legislative Context – Building Code Act, 1992 The City’s s tatutory authority for imposing building permit fees is provided under the provisions of Section 7 under the Ontario Building Code Act. Section 7 of the Building Code Act provides municipalities with general powers to impose fees through passage of a by-law. The Act provides that: “The council of a municipality…may pass by-laws (c) Requiring the payment of fees on applications for and issuance of permits and prescribing the amounts thereof; (d) Providing for refunds of fees under such circumstances as are prescribed;” Page 47 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-2 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx The Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act imposed additional requirements on municipalities in establishing fees under the Act, in that: “The total amount of the fees authorized under clause (1)(c) must not exceed the anticipated reasonable cost of the principal authority to administer and enforce this Act in its area of jurisdiction.” In addition, the amendments also require municipalities to: • Reduce fees to reflect the portion of service performed by a Registered Code Agency; • Prepare and make available to the public annual reports with respect to the fees imposed under the Act and associated costs; and • Undertake a public process, including notice and public meeting requirements, when a change in the fee is proposed. O. Reg. 305/03 is the associated regulation arising from the Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002. The regulation provides further details on the contents of the annual report and the public process requirements for the imposition or change in fees. With respect to the annual report, it must contain the total amount of fees collected, the direct and indirect costs of delivering the services related to administration and enforcement of the Act, and the amount of any reserve fund established for the purposes of administration and enforcement of the Act. The regulation also requires that notice of the preparation of the annual report be given to any person or organization that has requested such notice. Relating to the public process requirements for the imposition or change in fees, the regulations require municipalities to hold at least one public meeting and that at least 21-days notice be provided via regular mail to all interested parties. Moreover, the regulations require that such notice include, or be made available upon request to the public, an estimate of the costs of administering and enforcing the Act, the amount of the fee or change in existing fee and the rationale for imposing or changing the fee. The Act specifically requires that fees “must not exceed the anticipated reasonable costs” of providing the service and establishes the cost justification test based on the total administration and enforcement costs at global Building Code Act level. With the Act requiring municipalities to report annual direct and indirect costs related to fees, this would suggest that Building Code Act fees can include general corporate overhead indirect costs related to the provision of service. Moreover, the recognition of Page 48 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-3 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx anticipated costs also suggests that municipalities could include costs related to future compliance requirements or fee stabilization reserve fund contributions. As a result, Building Code Act fees modeled in this exercise include direct costs, capital related costs, indirect support function costs directly consumed by the service provided, and corporate management costs related to the service provided, as well as provisions for future anticipated costs. Page 49 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Chapter 2 Activity Based Costing Methodology Page 50 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-1 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx 2. Activity Based Costing Methodology 2.1 Activity Based Costing Methodology An A.B.C. methodology, as it pertains to municipal governments, assigns an organization's resource costs through activities to the services provided to the public. Conventional municipal accounting structures are typically not well-suited to the costing challenges associated with application processing activities as these accounting structures are business unit focused and thereby inadequate for fully costing services with involvement from multiple business units. An A.B.C. approach better identifies the costs associated with the processing activities for specific application types and thus is an ideal method for determining the full cost of processing applications and other user fee activities. As illustrated in Figure 2-1, an A.B.C. methodology attributes processing effort and associated costs from all participating municipal business units to the appropriate service categories (building permit fee costing categories). The resource costs attributed to processing activities and building permit fee costing categories include direct operating costs, indirect support costs, and capital costs. Indirect support function and corporate overhead costs are allocated to direct business units according to operational cost drivers (e.g., information technology costs allocated based on the relative share of departmental personal computers supported or full time equivalent (FTE) staff positions). Once support costs have been allocated amongst direct business units, the accumulated costs (i.e., indirect, direct, and capital costs) are then distributed across the various building permit fee costing categories, based on the business unit’s direct involvement in the processing activities. The assessment of each business unit’s direct involvement in the building permit fee review processes is accomplished by tracking the relative shares of staff processing efforts across the sequence of mapped process steps for each building permit fee category. The results of employing this costing methodology provides municipalities with a better recognition of the costs utilized in delivering building permit fee review processes, as it acknowledges not only the direct costs of resources deployed but also the operating and capital support costs required by those resources to provide services. Page 51 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-2 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Figure 2-1 Activity-Based Costing Conceptual Flow Diagram 2.2 Building Permit Fee Costing Category Definition The City imposes a variety of fees related to the administration and enforcement of the Building Code. These fees are captured in various cost objects or building permit fee costing categories. A critical component of the full cost building permit fee review is the selection of the costing categories. This is an important first step as the process design, effort estimation and subsequent costing is based on these categorization decisions. Moreover, it important in costing building permit fees to understand the cost/revenue relationships by individual type of permit or costing category, to understand how costs and revenues may change in the future. This level of costing goes beyond the statutory cost justification for fees established at the level of administration and enforcement under the authority of the Building Code. The City’s A.B.C. user fee model allocates the direct and indirect costs presented in the following sections across these defined building permit fee categories. Categorization of building permit fees occurred during the project initiation stage of the study and through subsequent discussions with City staff to understand the difference in permit processing complexity and costs. Page 52 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-3 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx The building permit fee costing categories included in the A.B.C. model and later used to rationalize changes to the City’s fee structure are presented in Tables 2-1. While many of these costing categories reflect the City’s current fee schedule, a number of minor and miscellaneous fees were grouped together for costing purposes where the level of effort was deemed to be similar or minor in nature. categories were also considered Table 2-1 Building Permit Fee Costing Categories No. Costing Category Name 1 Group A - New/Addition (Finished) 2 Group A - New/Addition (Shell) 3 Group A - New/Addition (Interior Finish) 4 Group B - New/Addition (Finished) 5 Group C - Single, Detached & Duplex 6 Group C - Multiple Dwellings 7 Group C - Apartments, Motels, Boarding & Lodging 8 Group C - Accessory Dwelling Units, Finish Basement & Additions to House 9 Group C - Accessory Building, Garage, Deck/Porch, Mobile Homes 10 Group D - New/Addition (Finished) 11 Group D - New/Addition (Shell) 12 Group D - New/Addition (Interior Finish) 13 Group E - New/Addition (Finished) 14 Group E - New/Addition (Shell) 15 Group E - New/Addition (Interior Finish) 16 Group F - New/Addition (Finished) 17 Group F - New/Addition (Shell) 18 Group F - New/Addition (Interior Finish) 19 Group F - Other 20 Site Services Construction 21 Building Improvements - Residential 22 Building Improvements - Non-Residential 23 Building Improvements - Other 24 Plumbing - Indoor 25 Plumbing - Outdoor 26 Plumbing - Water Meter 27 Fire Protection System - Other 28 Fire Protection System - Alarm, Sprinkler & Standpipe Systems 29 Mechanical System - Exhaust & Duct Work Page 53 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-4 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx No. Costing Category Name 30 Mechanical Systems - HVAC Units 31 Miscellaneous Works 32 Designated Structures 33 Conditional Permits 34 Demolition - Residential & Accessory Structures 35 Demolition - Other 36 Occupancy of an Unfinished Building 37 Limiting Distance Agreement 38 Alternative Solution 39 Change of Use Permit with no construction 40 Compliance Letters 41 Permit Transfer, Suspension, Cancellation etc. 42 Pre-Application Review 2.3 Processing Effort Cost Allocations To capture each participating City staff member’s relative level of effort in processing activities related to building permit fees, effort estimates were obtained for each of the above-referenced costing categories. The effort estimates received were applied against historical average annual volumes for 2018 to 2022 to assess the average annual processing time per position spent on each building permit fee category and in aggregate. Annual processing efforts per staff position were measured against available processing capacity to determine overall service levels. The capacity utilization results were refined with the City staff to reflect staff utilization levels reflective of current staffing patterns. Table 2-2 summarizes the utilization by department involved in the building permit review process and by major costing category grouping. The utilization is presented as a percentage of available time. Page 54 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-5 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Table 2-2 Departmental Staff Capacity Utilization In aggregate there are 26.2 full time equivalent (FTE) staff positions utilized annually with respect to the administration and enforcement of the Building Code. Of that involvement, 96% or 25.2 FTEs are contributed by the Building and Municipal Enforcement department, with the remaining 4% of involvement from Fire Prevention (i.e., 2.2%), the Planning department (i.e. 1.5%), and the Legal department (i.e., 0.3%). When assessing the types of building permits staff are involved in reviewing: permits for new residential dwellings represent 42% of annual efforts; new non-residential buildings comprise 30% of staff time, and minor residential and non-residential permits (e.g. alterations and improvements) represent 18% of the annual efforts. In Table 2-2 the Building and Municipal Enforcement department is 72.1% utilized on permit review as the department includes eight municipal enforcement positions that spend minimal time on non-Building Code related activities. 2.4 Direct Costs Based on the results of the staff capacity utilization analysis summarized above, the proportionate share of each individual’s direct costs is allocated to the respective costing categories. The direct costs included in the City’s costing model are taken from the City’s 2023 budget and includes cost components such as: • Labour costs, e.g., salary, wages, and benefits; • Materials and services; and • Other Direct Costs, e.g., professional fees, contracted services, etc. Permit Type Building and Municipal Enforcement Fire Prevention Legal Clerk Zoning Officer FTE Positions Utilized Compliment 35 4 1 1 Group A/B New Construction 11.2%5.1%0.1%12.2%4.3 Group D/E New Construction 5.8%2.8%0.1%10.1%2.2 Group F New Construction 3.3%1.6%0.1%5.7%1.3 Non-Residential Interior Alterations/Improvements 8.2%4.5%0.1%10.2%3.1 Residential New Construction 31.7%0.6%1.2%0.0%11.1 Minor Residential Permits 4.2%0.0%0.2%0.0%1.5 Plumbing 2.3%0.0%0.1%0.0%0.8 Other 5.4%0.0%0.2%0.1%1.9 TOTAL 72.1%14.5%2.0%38.3%26.2 Page 55 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-6 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx 2.5 Indirect Costs An A.B.C. review includes not only the direct cost of providing service activities but also the indirect support costs that allow direct service business units to perform these functions. The method of allocation employed in this analysis is referred to as a step costing approach. Under this approach, support functions and general corporate overhead functions are classified separate from direct service delivery departments. These indirect cost functions are then allocated to direct service delivery departments based on a set of cost drivers, which subsequently flow to the building permit fee categories according to staff effort estimates. Cost drivers are a unit of service that best represent the consumption patterns of indirect support and corporate overhead services by direct service delivery departments or business units. As such, the relative share of a cost driver (units of service consumed) for a direct department determines the relative share of support/corporate overhead costs attributed to that direct service department. An example of a cost driver commonly used to allocate information technology support costs would be a department or business unit’s share of supported personal computers. Cost drivers are used for allocation purposes acknowledging that these business units do not typically participate directly in the delivery of services, but that their efforts facilitate services being provided by the City’s direct business units. Indirect costs have been allocated to the full costs of building permit review from the following City departments: • Risk Management Services; • Auditing Services; • Corporate Management and Support; • Revenues and Receivables; • Accounting and Reporting; • Procurement Services; • Human Resource Services; • Information Services; • Legal Services; • City Council, Grants, and Committees; • Chief Administrator's Office; • Clerks Services; and Page 56 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-7 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx • Communications. 2.6 Capital Costs The inclusion of capital costs within the full cost review follows a methodology similar to indirect costs. Capital costs for the utilization of facility space were included based on benchmark facility replacement costs and occupies space per employee needs per employee. These costs have been allocated across the various costing categories based on the underlying effort estimates of direct department staff (as presented in section 2.3). 2.7 Building Code Act Reserve Fund Policy The Building Code Act recognizes the legitimacy of creating a municipal reserve fund to provide for service stability and mitigate the financial and operational risk associated with a temporary downturn in building permit activity. Specifically, a reserve fund should be maintained to reduce the staffing and budgetary challenges associated with a cyclical economic downturn and the requirement for ongoing legislative turnaround time compliance. Without such a reserve fund, reduced permit volumes during a downturn could result in severe budgetary pressures and the loss of certified City building staff, which would be difficult to replace during the subsequent recovery when mandatory permit processing turnaround times apply. Although the Building Code Act does not prescribe a specific methodology for determining an appropriate reserve fund, municipalities have developed building permit reserve funds with the aim of providing service stabilization. The City’s reserve fund policy was established in 2008 with a target of accumulating 1.28 times the annual costs of service in the building permit reserve fund. In the development of the policy, recognition was also given to the requirement of the City to manage some of their direct and indirect costs of service during an economic downturn. In reviewing historical building permit activity within the City over the past 30 years in comparison to the average annual building permit activity and the established policy, it is recommended that the City target between 1.0 to 1.25 times annual direct costs for reserve fund accumulation Page 57 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-8 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx The impact of anticipated building permit activity on costs, revenues (based on current and recommended fees), and reserve fund positions over the 2023 to 2028 period have been assessed in Section 3.3. Page 58 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Chapter 3 Building Permit Fees Review Page 59 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-2 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx 3. Building Permit Fees Review 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents the full costs, cost recovery levels of current fees, and recommended fee structure and rates for building permit fees. Furthermore, the City’s ranking in comparison to other neighbouring municipalities has been assessed for common permit types under the current and proposed fee schedule. Additionally, the impact of the proposed fees on municipal development costs for a sample development is presented in Section 3.4. A municipal fee survey for all building permit fees was undertaken for market comparison purposes. The survey results were considered in conjunction with the fee impacts summarized in Section 3.4 and discussions with City staff in determining recommended building permit fees. 3.2 Full Cost of Building Permit Fees Review Table 3-1 presents the City’s annual costs and revenues associated with providing building permit review services. The costs and estimated revenues are presented in for the same major costing categories as shown in Table 2-2 and in aggregate. The annual costs (denoted in 2023$ values) reflect the organizational direct, indirect, and capital costs associated with processing activities at average historical volumes levels for the period 2018-2022. Costs are based on 2023 budget estimates and are compared with revenues modeled from current building permit fees applied to average permit volumes and charging parameters. The charging parameters for these permits (e.g., gross floor area) were based on the average historical permit characteristics. The costs of administration and enforcement of the Building Code account for $3.8 million. Direct costs represent 82% ($3.1 million) and indirect and capital costs represent 18% ($703,000) of the total annual costs. Based on the modelled volumes, the City’s current fees recover approximately 80% ($3.0) of total costs annually. In review of the cost recovery by permit type, only permit fees for new residential construction are recovering the full cost of service while other permits fees are under Page 60 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-3 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx recovering their costs. New residential construction permit fees are generating an annual surplus of $545,900, while other permit fees are generating an annual deficit of $1.3 million. A detailed analysis of forecast building permit activity, revenues, and Building Code Act reserve fund levels is contained in Section 3.3, which has been used to inform potential fee structure revisions. Further details on the cost recovery assessment, recommendations, and modelled impact on revenues is provided in the following sections. Table 3-1 Cost Recovery Assessment of Current Building Permit Fees (2023$) 3.3 Building Permit Fee Recommendations As noted in Section 2.7 above, the recommendation is that the City adopt a policy to for their Building Code Act Reserve Fund for service stabilization at multiple of 1.0 to 1.25 times annual direct costs. Based on annual costs of $3.8 million, the 2023 reserve fund target balance would be between $3.8 million and $5.7 million. The ability of current and proposed fees to recover the full cost of service and contribute to reserve fund sustainability was assessed over the 2023- 2028 forecast period based on forecast costs and revenues. Current and recommended fees have been assessed within fee category recommendations provided by City staff. Overall, permit volumes are expected to increase over the forecast period. The building permit volume forecast by major permit category is presented in Table 3-2 and was developed in discussion with staff based on average historical permit volumes, forecast development activity within the City’s Community Benefits Charge Strategy (2022) growth forecast. Adjustments to the distribution of new residential dwelling units from low to medium density dwelling SWB Non-SWB Group A/B New Construction - Subtotal 486,799 54,028 107,703 6,058 654,586 259,834 40% (394,753) Group D/E New Construction - Subtotal 253,071 28,417 56,746 3,135 341,370 264,037 77% (77,332) Group F New Construction - Subtotal 143,793 16,143 32,232 1,782 193,950 82,937 43% (111,013) Non-Residential Interior Alterations/Improvements - Subtotal 355,258 39,911 79,236 4,401 478,806 196,667 41% (282,139) Residential New Construction - Subtotal 1,134,512 140,023 282,398 17,042 1,573,975 2,119,831 135% 545,855 Minor Residential Permits - Subtotal 145,520 18,380 37,076 2,242 203,218 67,273 33% (135,945) Plumbing - Subtotal 81,755 10,326 20,830 1,259 114,170 44,832 39% (69,338) Other - Subtotal 196,064 23,832 48,148 2,910 270,953 14,857 5% (256,096) TOTAL 2,796,771 331,061 664,369 38,829 3,831,029 3,050,268 80% (780,761) Permit Type Surplus/ (Deficit) Cost Recovery % Annual Revenue (Current Annual Costs Direct Costs Indirect Costs Capital Costs Total Annual Costs Page 61 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-4 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx units was made to reflect the distribution of recent residential construction vs. the distributions contained within the Community Benefits Strategy. Table 3-2 Building Permit Volume Forecast (2023-2028) Description 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Group A/B New Construction 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2 Group D/E New Construction 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 Group F New Construction 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Non-Residential Interior Alterations/Improvements 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 Residential New Construction 309.6 309.6 309.6 309.6 322.4 322.4 Minor Residential Permits 195.7 195.7 195.7 195.7 195.8 195.8 Plumbing 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 Other 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 Total 808.8 808.8 808.8 808.8 821.7 821.7 Based on the forecast development activity and costs of service, the City’s current fees would be insufficient to make contributions to the reserve fund for service sustainability or fund the full cost of service. Table 3-3 shows the reserve fund continuity over the forecast period considering the forecast costs, revenues, contributions/draws from the reserve fund, and target reserve fund balance. At current fees, average annual reserve fund draws of $1.1 million would be required over the forecast period. Table 3-3 Reserve Fund Continuity Current Fees As such, fee increases have been recommended. Except where implemented on a flat fee basis, the City’s fees are imposed on a per square metre of gross floor area fee with minimum fees imposed in some cases. As shown in Table 3-4, building permit fee revenue based on the anticipated development activity and imposing fees at the Description 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Opening Balance 3,082,857 2,229,270 1,251,641 145,264 (1,094,715) (2,412,366) Revenue 2,951,013 2,951,013 2,951,013 2,951,013 3,011,654 3,011,654 Expense 3,831,029 3,945,960 4,064,339 4,186,269 4,311,857 4,441,213 Contribution/(Draw)(880,016) (994,947) (1,113,326) (1,235,256) (1,300,203) (1,429,559) Interest 26,428 17,318 6,950 (4,724) (17,448) (31,271) Closing Balance 2,229,270 1,251,641 145,264 (1,094,715) (2,412,366) (3,873,197) Full Costs 3,831,029 3,945,960 4,064,339 4,186,269 4,311,857 4,441,213 Reserve Fund/Expense Ratio 0.58 0.32 0.04 (0.26) (0.56) (0.87) Page 62 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-5 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx proposed rates (with 3% annual indexing beginning in 2024), would result in the City achieving a reserve fund balance equal to 1.1 times annual costs of service. Table 3-4 Reserve Fund Continuity Recommended Fees (with annual inflationary increases) Figure 3-1 illustrates graphically the difference in reserve positions between current and recommended fees and the relationship to the target reserve fund balance at 1.25 times annual costs of service. Figure 3-1 Target and Forecast Reserve Fund Balances Description 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Opening Balance 3,082,857 2,826,265 3,173,389 3,533,551 3,907,167 4,392,964 Revenue 3,545,038 4,263,235 4,391,132 4,522,866 4,756,360 4,899,051 Expense 3,831,029 3,945,960 4,064,339 4,186,269 4,311,857 4,441,213 Contribution/(Draw)(285,991) 317,275 326,794 336,597 444,503 457,838 Interest 29,399 29,849 33,368 37,018 41,294 46,219 Closing Balance 2,826,265 3,173,389 3,533,551 3,907,167 4,392,964 4,897,021 Full Costs 3,831,029 3,945,960 4,064,339 4,186,269 4,311,857 4,441,213 Reserve Fund/Expense Ratio 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.93 1.02 1.10 $4,600,000 $5,600,000 -0.9 x 0.8 x 1.1 x -$6,000,000 -$4,000,000 -$2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Target Reserve Fund Balance (1.25x Annual Costs) Year-End Reserve Fund (Current Fees) Year-End Reserve Fund (Recommended Fees) Page 63 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-6 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Current and recommended building permit fees are presented in Table 3-5. It is anticipated that recommended building permit fees would be implemented in mid-2023. Page 64 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-7 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Table 3-5 Recommended Building Permit Fees Description Charging Parameter Current Fees Recommended Fees NEW BUILDINGS Group A - Assemblies Occupancies 1 All Recreation Facilities, Schools, Daycare Facilities, Libraries, Places of Worship restaurants (finished), Theatres, Arenas, Gymnasiums, Transit Stations, Bus terminals Indoor Pools, and all other Group A Buildings Per sq. m $18.59 $27.89 2 Open Public Swimming Pool Flat Fee $475.00 $2,000.00 3 Portable Classroom Flat Fee $475.00 $915.00 4 Assemby Building Shell Per sq. m $14.87 $22.31 5 Assemby Building Interior Finish Per sq. m $11.15 $11.88 Group B - Institutional Occupancies 6 Institutional, Hospital, Medical Care Facilities, Nursing Homes, Care Homes, and All other Group B Buildings Per sq. m $18.59 $27.89 7 Institutional Building Interior Finish Per sq. m $11.15 $11.88 Group C - Residential Occupancies 8 Single, Semi-Detached, Duplex Dwellings, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Per sq. m $12.09 $17.00 9 Townhouses, Row Housing, Per sq. m $11.48 $17.00 10 Stacked Townhouses, Multiple Dwellings up to fourplex Per sq. m $11.48 $17.00 11 Apartment and Hotel 12 Hotel, Apartement buildings 6 storeys or Less Per sq. m $14.92 $18.59 13 Hotel, Apartement buildings 7 storeys or More Per sq. m $14.92 $17.00 14 Motels, Boarding, Lodging or rooming house Per sq. m $18.59 $18.59 15 Interior Renovation, Finished Basement, Interior Accessory Dwelling Units Per sq. m $6.65 $10.00 16 Heated Additions to a House Per sq. m $12.09 $17.00 17 Unheated Additions to a House Per sq. m $12.09 $12.09 18 Accessory Building (Garage, or Shed)Per sq. m $3.89 $7.00 19 Attached Garage/Carport to an existing House Per sq. m $9.45 $16.15 20 Cover Deck/Porch Per sq. m $3.44 $7.00 21 Uncover Deck/Porch Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 22 Mobile Homes Flat Fee plus $250.00 $320.00 23 Uncertified Mobile Home (foundation included)Per sq. m $6.43 24 Mobile Home Foundation Per sq. m $1.84 Group D - Business and Personal Services 25 Office, Medical Building, Financial Institution, and all other Group D Buildings Complete Per sq. m $18.59 $27.89 26 Office, Medical Building, Financial Institution, and all other Group D Buildings Shell Per sq. m $14.87 $22.31 27 Office, Medical Building, Financial Institution, and all other Group D Buildings Interior Finish Per sq. m $11.15 $11.88 Group E - Mercantile Occupancies 28 Retail Building Complete Per sq. m $15.13 $27.89 29 Retail Building Shell Per sq. m $12.11 $22.31 30 Retail Building Interior finish Per sq. m $9.07 $11.88 31 Restaurants Interior Finish (not greater than 30 persons)Per sq. m $9.07 $11.88 Group F - Industrial Occupancies 32 Industrial Buildings Complete Per sq. m $7.36 $14.72 33 Industrial Building Shell Per sq. m $5.89 $11.78 34 Industrial Building Interior Finish Per sq. m $4.42 $8.84 35 Gas Bar Canopies Per sq. m $12.62 $12.62 36 Car Washes Per sq. m $12.62 $12.62 37 Parking Garage (underground, open air)Per sq. m $5.29 $7.94 38 Farm Buildings Per sq. m $3.72 $5.58 39 Green Houses non-residential Per sq. m $3.72 $5.58 Site Services Plumbing Construction Outside of Building Sanitary and Storm Piping 40 First 15m First 15m $100.00 $225.00 41 Per additional 15m Per additional 15m $35.00 $35.00 42 Manholes, Catch basin Flat Fee $200.00 $225.00 Domestic Water Supply 43 First 15m First 15m $100.00 $100.00 44 Per additional 15m Per additional 15m $35.00 $35.00 Fire Services Main 45 First 15m First 15m $100.00 $100.00 46 Per additional 15m Per additional 15m $35.00 $35.00 47 Geothermal for houses Flat Fee $250.00 $250.00 48 Geothermal Single for all Other Flat Fee $250.00 $250.00 Page 65 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-8 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Table 3-5 (Cont’d) Recommended Building Permit Fees Description Charging Parameter Current Fees Recommended Fees BUILDING STAND ALONE PERMITS FOR ALTERATIONS, RENOVATIONS AND REPAIR Building Improvement 49 Demising Wall Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 50 Building Envelope Replacement (Roofing, cladding, windows, waterproofing etc.)Flat Fee $375.00 $375.00 51 Foundation Replacement Per Sq. m $3.03 $3.03 52 Roof Structure Replacement Flat Fee $375.00 $375.00 53 Concrete Restoration Flat Fee $375.00 $375.00 Plumbing Building Construction 54 Plumbing Systems Alterations Flat Fee $100.00 $225.00 55 Grease, Oil Interceptor Flat Fee $200.00 $225.00 56 Backflow Valve, Backflow Preventer, Sump pumps Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 57 Replacement of Domestic Water Lines and Risers Flat Fee $200.00 $225.00 58 Weeping Tile Replacement Flat Fee $200.00 $225.00 59 Plumbing Fixtures Flat Fee $100.00 $225.00 Fire Protection System and Life Safety Systems 60 Electromagnetic Lock/Electric Strikes Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 61 Fire Alarm System Flat Fee $275.00 $275.00 62 Fire Alarm Annunciator Panel Flat Fee $275.00 $275.00 63 Life Safety Devices Flat Fee $275.00 $275.00 64 Sprinkler System Flat Fee $275.00 $275.00 65 Standpipe System Flat Fee $275.00 $275.00 Mechanical System 66 Commercial Cooking Exhaust System Flat Fee $275.00 $275.00 67 Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning Roof Top Units (per unit)Flat Fee $275.00 $275.00 68 Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning Duct Work (per Area) Per Sq. m $7.90 $7.90 69 Furnace or Hot Water Tank Replacement Unit (per Unit)Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 70 Boiler Replacement unit Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 71 Spray Booth Flat Fee $275.00 $275.00 Miscellaneous Works 72 Stages Flat Fee $275.00 $300.00 73 Fire Place or Wood Stove Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 74 For categories not listed $15 per $1,000 of valuated construction cost or portion thereof 75 Shoring (per linear metre)Per linear metre $29.00 $29.00 76 Under Pinning (per linear metre)Per linear metre $29.00 $29.00 77 Storage Rack as per 3.16 Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 78 Roof Anchors Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 79 Re-Roofing of Buildings Other than houses Flat Fee $375.00 $375.00 80 Tiny Homes Per Sq. m $12.09 $12.09 81 Site Grading for Residenial developments that are 10 units or less Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 82 Certifed Model Homes Service Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 DESIGNATED STRUCTURES 83 Communication Tower Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 84 Retaining Wall Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 85 Silo Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 86 Pedestrian Bridge/Walkway Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 87 Outdoor Public Spa Flat Fee $475.00 $475.00 88 Outdoor Public Swimming Pool Flat Fee $475.00 $475.00 89 Satellite Dish Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 90 Air Supported Structure, Tent, Temporary Fabric Structure Flat Fee $150.00 $300.00 91 Pylon Sign Structure Flat Fee $250.00 n/a 92 Roof Sign with Face over 10 m2 Flat Fee $300.00 $300.00 93 Pylon Sign over 7.5 m in height Flat Fee $300.00 $300.00 94 Projection Sign over 115 kg in weight Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 95 Solar Panels Flat Fee $350.00 $350.00 96 Crane Runway Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 97 Exterior Storage Tank Flat Fee $250.00 $300.00 98 Wind Turbine Generator having a rated output more than 3kW Flat Fee $350.00 $350.00 CONDITIONAL PERMITS 99 Conditional Permit Agreement Flat Fee $500.00 $500.00 100 Conditional permit Security Deposit (10% of construction cost of phase being built) % of Construction Cost of Phase Being Built 10%10% Condition Permit Stages: 101 Site Servicing (100 % Permit fee)100%100% 102 Substructure Structure and Servicing (15%)15%15% 103 Superstructure (55%)55%55% 104 Building Envelope (80%)80%80% 105 Building Interior (100%)100%100% Page 66 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-9 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Table 3-5 (Cont’d) Recommended Building Permit Fees The fee recommendations have been made to remain with the range of fees imposed by comparator municipalities with the Region of Niagara with regard for the affordability and competitiveness of the fees. The key changes to the recommended fees are summarized as follows: • Uniform fees to be imposed for Group A, B, D, E permit fees for complete construction, shell permits, and interior finishes and alterations. o $27.89 per sq.m. for complete buildings (50% to 84% increases) o $22.32 per sq.m for shell permits (50% to 84% increases) o $11.88 per sq.m for interior finish/alterations (7% to 31% increases) • Fees for Group F industrial permits to increase by 100% • Fees for low and medium density residential housing, and heated additions to be charged $17.00 per sq.m. (41% to 48% increase). • Apartment and hotel permit fees to be charged $18.59 per sq.m. for buildings of 6 storeys or less and $17.00 per sq.m. for buildings of 7 storeys or more. • Accessory building fees and covered deck/porch to increase from $3.89 and $3.44 per sq.m., respectively, to $7.00 per sq.m. Description Charging Parameter Current Fees Recommended Fees DEMOLITION 106 Residential - Single, Semi-Detached, Duplex Dwellings Townhouses, Row Housing Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 107 Accessory Structure Flat Fee $150.00 $150.00 All Other Buildings 108 •with gross floor area equal to or less than 600m2 Per Sq. m $0.30 $0.38 109 •with gross floor area greater than 600m2 Per Sq. m $0.30 $0.38 ADMINISTRATION FEE 110 Occupancy of an Unfinished Building (High-rise Residential)Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 111 Occupancy of an Unfinished Building for all other Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 112 Limiting Distance Agreement Flat Fee $1,000.00 $1,000.00 113 Alternative Solution Per Hour (Minimum 4 hours)$125.00 $125.00 114 Premature Inspection Flat Fee $75.00 n/a 115 Suspended or Cancel Permit Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 116 Change of Use Permit with no construction Flat Fee $75.00 $225.00 117 Compliance Letters Flat Fee $215.00 $225.00 118 Transfer of Permit Ownership Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 119 Additional Plan Review Per Hour $75.00 $125.00 120 Liquour Licence Clearance Letter Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00 121 Not-Ready Inspection Flat Fee $75.00 $125.00 122 Construction without a permit 2x Permit Fee 2x Permit Fee 123 Fast Tracking Permit Review $600 in addition to permit fee 124 After Hour Inspection Per Hour $150.00 $150.00 125 Permission to defer Permit Revocation Flat Fee $100.00 $225.00 126 Amendment to Permit Administration Per Hour $100.00 $125.00 127 Pre-Application Review Per Hour $75.00 $125.00 128 Conditional Permit Administration Fee 129 Amendment to a Conditional Permit Agreement Per Hour $100.00 $125.00 130 Partial Permit 131 Permit Application Extension Flat Fee $100.00 $225.00 Page 67 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-10 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx • Attached garage/carport fees to increase by 71% to $16.15 per sq.m. • Pre-application review fees to be increased from $75 per hour to $125 per hour • Introduction of $225 minimum permit fee 3.4 Building Permit Fee Impacts To understand the impacts of the proposed full cost recovery building permit fees, the current and proposed fee for a sample of common building permits has been compared with the fees in Niagara Region municipalities. Figures 3-2 to 3-7 summarize the building permit fees for the following permit types: • 275 sq.m. single detached home permit: • 200 sq.m. Townhouse permit; • 15 sq.m. residential accessory building permit; • 5,000 sq.m. high density residential building; • 1,000 sq.m. commercial building permit; and • 5,000 sq.m. industrial building permit The comparisons demonstrate that under the current fees, the City’s fees are the lowest in the Region, while for the proposed fees the City’s position relative to the comparator municipalities will increase but will remain within the range of fees imposed. For example, the proposed fees for a 275 sq.m. single detached home would increase by $1,350 (+ 41%) but would still be less than the fees imposed in St. Catharines, Port Colborne, Welland, and Pelham. Page 68 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-11 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Figure 3-2 Municipal Comparison Figure 3-3 Municipal Comparison - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Permit Fee ($)Single Detached Home (275 sq.m.) +$1,350 (+41%) - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Permit Fee ($)Townhouse (200 sq.m.) +$1,104 (+48%) Page 69 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-12 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Figure 3-4 Municipal Comparison Figure 3-5 Municipal Comparison - 50 100 150 200 250 300 Permit Fee ($)Residential Accessory Buidling (15 sq.m.) / Minimum Fee +$167 (+286%) - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Permit Fee ($)High Density Residential (5,000 sq.m.) +$25,300 (+51%) Page 70 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-13 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Figure 3-6 Municipal Comparison Figure 3-7 Municipal Comparison An impact analysis has also been prepared to assess the total planning application fees, building permit fees, and development charges for a low-density residential development. The comparison illustrates the impacts of the recommended building permit fees in the context of the total development fees payable to provide a broader - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Permit Fee ($)Commerical Retail (1,000 sq.m.) +$12,760 (+84%) - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Permit Fee ($)Industrial (5,000 sq.m) +$32,384 (+100%) Page 71 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-14 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx context for the fee considerations. In addition to providing the fee impacts for the City, the development impact analysis provides the comparisons for the same municipalities, within the Region as above. The City’s current development fees imposed on a 100-unit single detached residential subdivision that have been considered include zoning by-law amendment fees and subdivision application fees, building permit fees, and development charges. On a per unit basis, these fees currently total $45,600. Building permit fees account for 5.1% of the total per unit fees imposed. The recommended fees would increase the total fees payable by $982 per unit or an increase of 2.1% in total development costs. With the proposed increases, the City’s overall ranking would be unchanged at 5th in place relative to the nine other municipalities included in the survey and shown in Figure 3-8 below. Figure 3-8 Survey of fees Related to a Low-Density Residential Development (100-Unit Single Detached Units, 200 m2 GFA each) $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 Survey of Fees Related to a Residential Subdivision Development (100 Single Dwelling Units, 200 m² GFA each) Plan of Subdivision Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Development Charges Page 72 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx Chapter 4 Conclusion Page 73 of 847 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-1 H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx 4. Conclusion Summarized in this technical report is the legislative context for the building permit fee review, the methodology undertaken, A.B.C. results and full cost of service, and fee structure recommendations. In developing the recommended fee structure, careful consideration was given to affordability, market competitiveness, and to the recent trends pertaining to building permit fees. The full cost of administration and enforcement of the Building Code has been analyzed as well as current cost recovery levels and cost recovery levels based on the recommended fees. Furthermore, the impacts of the recommended fees would have on the City’s building permit reserve fund have also been assessed. The fee recommendations have been made while having regard for applicant affordability, market competitiveness and compliance with the governing legislation. Overall, based on these fee recommendations, average annual building permit fee revenue would increase by $1.2 million or 37%, thereby reducing the burden on municipal taxes to fund these services and contributing to reserve funds to ensure future service stability and mitigate the financial and operational risk associated with a temporary downturn in building permit activity. The intent of the fees review is to provide the City with a recommended fee structure for Council’s consideration to appropriately recover the service costs and contributions to reserve funds from benefiting parties. The City will ultimately determine the level of cost recovery and implementation strategy that is suitable for their objectives. Page 74 of 847 Public Meeting July 11, 2023 City of Niagara Falls Building Permit Fee Review 0Page 75 of 847 Introduction •The City of Niagara Falls (City) has retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson) to undertake a review of their building permit fees that: •Conforms with legislation and is defensible; •Balances the City’s need to maximize cost recovery and ensure building permit reserve fund sustainability with stakeholder interests, affordability, and competitiveness; •Methodology employed is an activity-based costing approach to fully recover the costs of administration and enforcement of the Building Code 1Page 76 of 847 Legislative Context and Trends •Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act amended the Building Code Act fee provisions: •allows municipalities to pass a by-law requiring the payment of fees for application and issuance of building permits •the fees must not exceed the anticipated reasonable costs of administration and enforcement (including direct and indirect costs) •allows for the creation of Building Code Act reserve funds •Building permit fee reviews continue to evolve beyond initial legislative changes in 2005 (i.e., building permit types and strategic pricing considerations) 2Page 77 of 847 Annual Building Permit Review Costs 3 Direct Labour Costs, $2,797,000, 73% Other Direct Costs, $331,000, 9% Indirect and Capital Costs, $703,000, 18% Annual Costs $3.8 million Page 78 of 847 Annual Building Permit Review Costs/Revenues By Major Permit Type 4 New Non- Residential Construction, $1,190,000, 31% New Residential Construction, $1,574,000, 41% Interior Alterations and Accessory Structures, $682,000, 18% Other, $385,000, 10% Annual Costs $3.8 million New Non- Residential Construction, $607,000, 16% New Residential Construction, $2,120,000, 55% Interior Alterations and Accessory Structures, $264,000, 7% Other, $60,000, 2% Transfers from Reserves, $780,000, 20% Annual Revenue $3.8 million Page 79 of 847 Fee Recommendations & Reserve Fund Strategy •Fee recommendations made to: •Fund the reasonable cost of administering and enforcing the Building Code; •Maintain market competitiveness with neighboring municipalities and stakeholder affordability; and •Provide reserve fund contributions for sustainable service delivery during economic downturns •City’s policy established in 2008 was to accumulate 1.28 x annual costs of service recognizing a responsibility to manage 25% of costs during downturns •Recommendation to move towards 1 to 1.25 times annual costs of service by 2028, considering forecast building permit activity 5Page 80 of 847 Reserve Fund Continuity Forecast 6 $4,600,000 $5,600,000 -0.9 x 0.8 x 1.1 x -$6,000,000 -$4,000,000 -$2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Target Reserve Fund Balance (1.25x Annual Costs) Year-End Reserve Fund (Current Fees) Year-End Reserve Fund (Recommended Fees)Page 81 of 847 Fee Recommendations •Fees increases made within City proposed fee categories •Fees proposed to increase to within range of fees imposed in Niagara Region comparators plus 3% annual inflation •Introduction of minimum fee of $225 •Fees to come into force January 1st 2024 •Proposed fees would increase revenue by 37% on average •Detailed Survey and Fees provided in separate excel file 7Page 82 of 847 Residential Building Permit Fee Comparisons (2023$) - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Permit Fee ($)Single Detached Home (275 sq.m.) +$1,350 (+41%) 8 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Permit Fee ($)Townhouse (200 sq.m.) +$1,104 (+48%) - 50 100 150 200 250 300 Permit Fee ($)Residential Accessory Buidling (15 sq.m.) / Minimum Fee +$167 (+286%) - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Permit Fee ($)High Density Residential (5,000 sq.m.) +$25,300 (+51%)Page 83 of 847 Non-Residential Building Permit Fee Comparisons (2023$) 9 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Permit Fee ($)Commerical Retail (1,000 sq.m.) +$12,760 (+84%) - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Permit Fee ($)Industrial (5,000 sq.m) +$32,384 (+100%)Page 84 of 847 Low Density Development Impacts (2023$) 10 •Current building permit fees represent 5.3% of total fees •41% increase in residential permit fee equates to a 2.1% increase in total fees $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 Survey of Fees Related to a Residential Subdivision Development (100 Single Dwelling Units, 200 m² GFA each) Plan of Subdivision Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Development Charges Page 85 of 847 Next Steps •Receive input from the public on the proposed building permit fees •Council to consider by-law for adoption and implementation 11Page 86 of 847 F-2023-20 - Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: 2024 Budget Timetable and Preliminary Budget Projection Recommendation(s) 1. That Report F2023-20 - 2024 Budget Timetable and Preliminary Budget Projection be RECEIVED for information 2. That staff be given guidance for year 2024 for an operating levy not to exceed 3.5%. 3. That staff prepare for Council, budget options ranging from a 2.5% to 3.5% increase during the 2024 budget process. 4. That staff be given budget guidance for year 2024 for a capital levy increase of 1.5% (as requested in report F-2023-07). 5. That the Mayor call a Special Meeting on Tuesday, November 28, 2023 for the 2024 Capital and 2024 Parking Budget presentations. Executive Summary Staff are seeking direction from Council on budgetary guidance in order to establish the financial framework to be used by staff while preparing the proposed 2024 budgets. This will guide staff to ensure that the proposed budgets are aligned with the budgetary goals of Council. A number of factors should be considered when creating budgetary guidance to balance affordability and fiscal responsibility while maintaining/enhancing the City’s services and assets. Some factors include: • Prior year tax increases from a historical and planning perspective • Inflationary increases for material, supplies, contracted services and utilities • Contractual wage increases (CUPE) and discretionary wage increases (Non- Union) • Contract negotiations not finalized (Fire) • Asset Management Provincial legislation Page 1 of 14 Page 87 of 847 Based on our high level analysis it is anticipated that the City’s costs will rise 3.9%, this is without any new initiatives. City staff are requesting budget guidance for year 2024 for an operating levy increase of 2.5-3.5% and a capital levy increase of 1.5% (as requested in F-2023-07). This will mean that staff will prepare various budget options including reducing services or increasing fees to present to Council to achieve this target increase. A 2.5% increase to the operating levy plus a 1.5% increase to the capital has the following impacts to the residential taxpayer: 1. $279,854 residential assessed home (average household) increases City taxes by $5.30 per month of $63.60 per year. 2. $500,000 residential assessed increases City taxes by approximately $9.50 per month or $114.00 per year. A 3.5% increase to the operating levy plus a 1.5% increase to the capital levy has the following impacts to the residential taxpayer: 1. $279,854 residential assessed home (average houehold) increases City taxes by $6.65 per month or $79.80 per year. 2. $500,000 residential assessed increases City taxes by approximately $11.90 per month or $142.80 per year Analysis 2024 Budget Timetable Section 290(1) of the Municipal Act requires all municipalities to prepare and adopt an annual operating budget. Annually, the City of Niagara Falls prepares four budgets that are approved by Niagara Falls City Council: 1. Capital Budget 2. Parking Budget 3. Water/Wastewater Rate Budget 4. Tax Levy Supported Operating Budget This report outlines the proposed presentation timelines for the 2024 budgets as well as factors to be considered during the budgetary preparation, specifically in regards to the tax levy supported operating budget. Page 2 of 14 Page 88 of 847 Budget Council Deliberation Date Capital Budget November 28, 2023 (Special Meeting) Parking Budget November 28, 2023 (Special Meeting) Water/Wastewater Rate Budget December 12, 2023 (Special Meeting) Tax Levy Supported Operating Budget January 23, 2024 (Special Meeting) 2024 Public Budget Consultation Consistent with prior years, City of Niagara Falls staff will undertake annual budget engagement survey with the results provided to Council to help guide budget decisions. Staff will undertake the survey in late August through to October 2023. Staff have included sample survey questions in Attachment 1. 2024 Budget Outlook City staff are requesting budget guidance for year 2024 for an operating levy increase of 2.5-3.5% and a capital levy increase of 1.5% (as requested in F-2023-07). A number of factors should be considered when creating budgetary guidance to balance affordability and fiscal responsibility while maintaining/enhancing the City’s services and assets. Some factors include: • Prior year tax increases from a historical planning perspective • Inflationary increase for materials, supplies, contracted services and ut ilities • Contractual wage increases (CUPE) and discretionary wage increases (Non- Union) • Contract negotiations not finalized (Fire) • Asset Management Provincial legislation Prior Year Budget Increases Despite the large increase in 2023, the 7 year average of City of Niagara Falls tax increase (38% of total tax bill) equates to only 2.8%: 2023* 2022** 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 Average City of NF tax rate increase 7.9% 3.9% 1.7% 3.5% 0.0% 1.6% 1.0% 2.8% *Includes a 0.5% increase to the Capital Levy - operating increase was 7.4% **Includes a new Capital Levy of 1% - operating increase was 2.9% Page 3 of 14 Page 89 of 847 Inflationary Increases for Materials, Contracted Services and Utilities Per Statisitics Canada website (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/subjects- start/prices_and_price_indexes/consumer_price_indexes), the Consumer Price Index (CPI) represents changes in prices as experienced by Canadian consumers. It measures price change by comparing, through time, the cost of a fixed basket of goods and services. The goods and services in the CPI basket are divided into 8 major components, Food; Shelter; Household operations, furnishings and equipment; Clothing and footwear; Transportation; Health and personal care; Recreation, educ ation and reading, and Alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and recreational cannabis. Some issues with using CPI as the guidance for the City's budget include: • CPI is designed to represent the average consumer in Canada, however, these costs are not reflective of the goods and services of the City of Niagara Falls. • CPI is a measure across Canada and not specific to the local Nagara market. As an alternative to CPI as an indicator, staff are proposing the use of the following indicators: Key Inflation Indicators: 1. Compensation Growth for Employees (as per 2023 Ontario Budget) 2. Total CPI Inflation - TD Bank used by Bank of Canada that combines all three core measures of inflation (http://economics.td.com/ca-forecast-tables) 3. Non-Residential Building Construction Index - five-year average (2019-2023) - Statistics Canada Building Construction price indexes, by type of building and division (https://economics.td.com/ca-forecast-tables) 4. TD Bank - Total CPI less the eight most volatile components (https://economics.td.com/ca-forecast-tables) Page 4 of 14 Page 90 of 847 Staff have prepared some analysis in the tables below surrounding our 2023 budget using the key inflation indicators noted above. 2023 Approved Budget 2023 Budget Requiring Indexing % of Total Index to Use Labour, Benefits and Overtime 66,826,088 66,826,088 52.2% Compensation Growth Materials 12,677,033 12,677,033 9.9% Total CPI Utilities 3,486,820 3,486,820 2.7% Total CPI Contracted Services 29,139,899 29,139,899 22.8% Total CPI Rents & Financial Services 1,487,071 1,487,071 1.2% Total CPI Debt Charges 6,392,801 0 0.0% N/A External Transfers 4,952,848 0 0.0% N/A Internal Transfers: Transfer to Fleet Replacement 2,676,049 2,676,049 2.1% Total CPI Transfer to Capital (levy + OLG) 10,761,070 10,761,070 8.4% Non- Residential Building Construction Index Debt Charge Placeholders 912,992 912,992 0.7% Bank Total CPIX Other Internal Transfers 10,834,744 0 0.0% N/A Total Approved Budget 150,147,415 127,967,022 100.00% Key Inflation Indicator 2024 Percent of City Budget Weighted Average Compensation Growth for Employees (as per 2023 Ontario Budget) 4.3% 52.2% 2.2% Total CPI Inflation 2.3% 38.7% 0.9% Non-Residential Building Construction Index - 5 year average (Q2 2018 to Q1 2023) 9.3% 8.4% 0.8% TD Bank Total CPIX forecast 2.4% 0.7% 0.0% Average of all inflation indicators 4.6% 100.0% 3.9% Page 5 of 14 Page 91 of 847 Based on these inflation indicators the average is 4.6% however tailored to the City’s budget and the percentage of each expenditure category, the weighted average is 3.9%. Contractual wage increases (CUPE)/ Discretionary wage increases (Non-Union) The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) contract was ratified during 2023 for the four years 2023-2026 and contains an annual wage increases of 2.3% for 2024. Non- Union wage increase typically follow what CUPE receives. The City like other employers has witnessed significant wage pressure due to the tight labour market and there is a risk to this assumption. Contract negotiations not finalized (Fire) The existing Niagara Falls Firefighters Professional Association (NFFPA) contract ends December 31, 2023. Negotiations are scheduled to begin in early 2024 however it is not anticipated they will be finalized prior to the 2024 budget being passed. This adds a layer of uncertainty to the financial outlook of one of the largest components of the City’s labour budget and means staff and Council will need to agree on an estimated increase to budget for Fire Union staff. Fire Union salaries, benefits and overtime make up 33.8% of the City’s total 2023 labour, benefits and overtime budget as illustrated: Total 2023 Budget Portion Relating to Fire Union $ $ % Labour 50,952,136 16,971,292 33.3% Benefits 13,760,852 4,022,502 29.2% Overtime 2,113,100 1,590,500 75.3% Total 66,826,088 22,584,294 33.8% Asset Management Provincial Legislation Staff cannot stress the importance of continuing to increase the capital levy in order to work towards closing the infrastructure gap. The City does not want to be in a position where a large catch up is needed again. Staff would prefer to smooth increases annually and as such a minimum 1-2% Capital Levy increase will be recommended annually by staff. The City's 2022 Council approved Core Asset Management Plan indicated a funding deficit of $7,800,000 which if included in the 2024 budget would equate to a 9.2% increase to the levy. In addition, the City's 2014 Council approved Non -Core Asset Management Plan indicated a funding deficit of $11,300,000 which if included in the 2024 budget would equate to a 13.3% increase to the levy. The updated Non-Core Page 6 of 14 Page 92 of 847 Asset Management Plan is currently underway and will be brought before Council in early 2024 for approval. Council is reminded that the Asset Management Planning Regulation O. Reg. 588/17 requires the City to establish proposed levels of service and a lifecycle management and financial strategy for all assets starting July 1, 2025. What this means is we must ha ve a strategy in place by July 1, 2025 of how we will close the funding gaps identified above. Staff will continue to focus on investments in the "state of good repair" of existing assets in preparation for the requirements under this regulation. Financial Implications/Budget Impact A 2.5% increase to the operating levy plus a 1.5% increase to the capital levy results in the following impacts to the residential taxpayer: 1. $279,854 residential assessed home (average household) increases City taxes by $5.30 per month or $63.60 per year. 2. $500,000 residential assessed increases City taxes by approximately $9.50 per month or $114.00 per year. A 3.5% increase to the operating levy plus a 1.5% increase to the capital levy results in the following impacts to the residential taxpayer: 1. $279,854 residential assessed home (average household) increases City taxes by $6.65 per month or $79.80 per year. 2. $500,000 residential assessed increases City taxes by approximately $11.90 per month or $142.80 per year. Strategic/Departmental Alignment This report is consistent with the following Council strategic commitments: To be financially responsible to the residents of Niagara Falls by practicing prudent fiscal management of existing resources and by making sound long-term choices that allow core City programs and services to be sustainable now and into the future. To be efficient and effective in our delivery of municipal services and use of resources and accountable to our citizens and stakeholders List of Attachments F-2023-20 Attachment 1 - 2024 Budget Engagement Proposed Survey Questions Written by: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Page 7 of 14 Page 93 of 847 Submitted by: Status: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Shelley Darlington, General Manger of Corporate Services Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Page 8 of 14 Page 94 of 847 Attachment 1 F-2023-20 July 11, 2023 City of Niagara Falls | Let’s Talk: 2024 Budget Engagement Survey – Proposed Questions Let’s Talk: 2024 Budget Engagement Survey – Proposed Questions Balancing Priorities and the Budget 1) Balancing competing priorities can require decisions about service levels. Service levels are defined as the scope or measurement of the service being delivered. The level of service can be increased or decreased by changes, such as reducing operating hours or frequency of service. Service level changes drive changes in your property taxes. As a result, increasing services would likely increase taxes, maintaining service would result in inflationary increases, and decreasing a service level could reduce taxes or offset increases in other areas. For the items below, consider the importance of the services and programs provided to you and the community. Please tell us if the City should increase, decrease or maintain its budget investment in the following programs and services: • Cultural programs and facilities (for example, having cultural events undertaken such as concerts, art exhibits or other activities at the Niagara Falls History Museum and The Exchange) • Economic development (for example, attracting new business to the area or assisting to expand existing business, strategic opportunities such as new sector development, and business support services) • Facility maintenance (for example, rehabilitation and repairs to community centres, arenas, and other facilities) • Libraries • Parks and trails (for example, new park and trail development, playground rehabilitation) • Pools and splash pads • Recreation programming (for example, Older Adults programming and recreation activities offered at MacBain Community Centre) • Road maintenance and replacement (for example, pothole repair, resurfacing) Page 9 of 14 Page 95 of 847 Attachment 1 F-2023-20 July 11, 2023 City of Niagara Falls | Let’s Talk: 2024 Budget Engagement Survey – Proposed Questions • Sports facilities and fields (for example, Oakes Park, soccer pitches, and baseball diamonds) Infrastructure/Other Priorities 2) From the list below, please rank your infrastructure/other priorities for the next five years: • Arenas • Athletic fields (soccer, baseball, cricket) • Affordable Housing • Funding to assist with homelessness and drug addition • Roads and Bridges • Climate change mitigation and protection • Energy efficiency • Park and trail development • Water, sewer, and storm infrastructure Setting Tax Rates 3) Municipal property taxes are the primary way to pay for assets and services provided by the City. How should Niagara Falls set its taxes? Select the statement you most agree with from the list below: • Set the tax rate to ensure our assets and services are maintained. • Keep tax increases as close to zero as possible, even if this means reducing services. • Keep taxes around the rate of inflation. • Set the tax rate to ensure that Niagara Falls can maintain our assets and services and invest in new services. Page 10 of 14 Page 96 of 847 Attachment 1 F-2023-20 July 11, 2023 City of Niagara Falls | Let’s Talk: 2024 Budget Engagement Survey – Proposed Questions Impact of No Tax Increase on Service Levels 4) If the City wanted to undertake service level reductions there are only a few areas where it is realistic to undertake these reductions. In 2023 the City portion of taxes for the median residential property assessed at $279,854 is $1,576.00. Of this amount it is difficult to cut the following areas: 1) Fire – 427.36 (27.1% of the City levy) 2) Roads and Bridges - $328.77 (20.9% of the City levy) These two areas make up 48% of the budget. To try to bring the budget close to zero the City would have to make more significant cuts in other areas: In which areas are you comfortable reducing service levels: • Recreation and Cultural programs (for example, pools, arenas, gyms, arts programs). In 2023 this cost is $166.59 or 10.5% of the City levy. • Economic development (for example, strategic opportunities such as new sector development, enhancement and growth of existing sectors, and business support services). In 2023 this cost is $16.82 or 1.1% of the City levy. • Libraries. In 2023, this cost is $84.29 or 5.3% of the City levy. • Parks and athletic fields (for example, new development, playground rehabilitation) In 2023 this cost is $48.20 or 3.1% of the City levy. Social Service Decision Making 5) As an upper-tier municipality, Niagara Region is responsible for social services in our two-tier government structure. Although not a designated role for lower-tier municipalities, homelessness, affordable housing, mental health, and poverty are issues that the City of Niagara Falls has spent tax dollars on annually. In 2023, Council agreed to initiate a panel to consider where $500,000 in social service funds should be invested. When considering funding the City can choose to fund items that address current needs or longer term solutions. Please rank where you think these social services funds should be invested: • Longer term solutions to break the cycle of poverty (the benefits of this the City may not see for years but could reduce long term costs). This would include items such as increased support and education for at risk youth or permanent housing solutions t o name a few. Page 11 of 14 Page 97 of 847 Attachment 1 F-2023-20 July 11, 2023 City of Niagara Falls | Let’s Talk: 2024 Budget Engagement Survey – Proposed Questions • Shorter Term Solutions, such as supporting foodbanks and shelters. This funding address es a current need but may not stop long term issues that create homelessness, mental health issues or drug addiction. Please rank the following issues for investment: • Affordable housing • Homelessness reduction • Mental health services • Addiction services • Poverty reduction Environmental Sustainability 6) The City is looking to reduce its carbon footprint and for approaches to pilot more environmentally sustainable practices (i.e., electric vehicles, etc.)? Please rank the following potential projects: • Greening more fleet vehicles with hybrid or electric vehicles • Look to provide incentives to homeowners and builders to build more sus tainably • ?? • ?? • ?? Paying for the Hospital 7) The City of Niagara Falls will be home to a state of the art hospital that will be a key contributor to the quality of life for Niagara Falls residents as well as residents from across the Niagara Region. The construction of the hospital is funded substantially by the Province, but the equipment and some other items are funded by “local share”, this is a standard practice that has been undertaken for decades. The City of Niagara Falls has been asked to commit $30 million for its local share, the Niagara Region has committed $44.5 million and Fort Erie has committed $3 million. The City of Niagara Falls proposed 3 options for the payment, rank from highest to lowest your preference: 1) Take money from City reserves to avoid interest costs and slowly pay back our reserves with a 1.5% levy over 25 years. The cost to a $500,000 residential assessed home is $42 per year. Page 12 of 14 Page 98 of 847 Attachment 1 F-2023-20 July 11, 2023 City of Niagara Falls | Let’s Talk: 2024 Budget Engagement Survey – Proposed Questions 2) Save our reserves for other items and tax an amount to the taxpayer for the cost of the local contribution plus interest. 3) Take the money from City reserves and figure out how to pay for other infrastructure in the future with higher tax increases. User Fees 8) The City of Niagara Falls charges fees for a variety of services. This situation occurs in every municipality, as these services add to the resident's quality of life and the city's overall attractiveness to residents and prospective residents. For example, there are fees for using an ice rink, baseball diamond, or soccer field, attending swimming lessons and other recreation programs, licencing (business and wedding licence) and cemetery fees. In most cases, the cost associated with providing the service is significantly higher than the user fee. Due to this, the difference between the cost of providing the service and the user fee charged to the user is borne by all taxpayers through their property taxes. Based on the above, what level of support should be provided by the user/general property taxpayer for these types of services (Select the one that you most agree with): • There should be no user fees. These are all valuable services and should be free of charge, with the general taxpayer absorbing the entire cost. • The user of the service should pay 25% of the cost of the service, and the general property taxpayer the majority. • The user of the service should pay 50% of the cost of the service, and the general property taxpayer should pay 50%. • The user of the service should pay the majority of the cost of the service that they are using. • The user should pay all the cost to provide the service they are using. 9) Do you live or own a business in Niagara Falls? • Yes • No Page 13 of 14 Page 99 of 847 Attachment 1 F-2023-20 July 11, 2023 City of Niagara Falls | Let’s Talk: 2024 Budget Engagement Survey – Proposed Questions 10) What is your age range? • Under 18 years • 19-25 • 26-34 • 35-44 • 45-54 • 55-64 • 65-74 • 75 years or older Thank You! Page 14 of 14 Page 100 of 847 Economic Update to Council: City of Niagara Falls Prepared by: Nick Poulias, MBA, Investment Advisor Hobson Chahal Advisory Group July 11, 2023 Page 101 of 847 We are in the midst of a historic rates surge… 1 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 5.00% CAD 2 YR CAD 5 YR CAD 10 YR Source: BoC Page 102 of 847 Rate hikes aren’t working… 2 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE 95 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111 113 Q4-21 Q1-22 Q2-22 Q3-22 Q4-22 Q1-23 Q2-23 Q3-23 Real consumer spending (Q4 2021 = 100) Most interest rate sensitive Prior hiking cycle Source: BoC, Statistics Canada, CIBC. Interest rate sensitive areas include auto sales, travel services, furniture, food & accommodation Page 103 of 847 …or are they? 3 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 Q4-19 Q1-20 Q2-20 Q3-20 Q4-20 Q1-21 Q2-21 Q3-21 Q4-21 Q1-22 Q2-22 Q3-22 Q4-22 Q1-23 Real consumer spending (Index Q4 2019 = 100) Most interest rate sensitive Prior hiking cycle First rate hike Source: BoC, Statistics Canada, CIBC. Interest rate sensitive areas include auto sales, travel services, furniture, food & accommodation Page 104 of 847 Cushioning the blow: households running down savings and using credit cards again 4 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 Jan-18Jun-18Nov-18Apr-19Sep-19Feb-20Jul-20Dec-20May-21Oct-21Mar-22Aug-22Jan-23Credit balances (Index Dec 2019 = 100) Canada (credit card) US (Revolving consumer credit) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 Jan-19May-19Sep-19Jan-20May-20Sep-20Jan-21May-21Sep-21Jan-22May-22Sep-22Jan-23Excess personal deposits (checking and accessible savings accounts, $bn) Excess savings Personal deposits Pre-pandemic trend Source: Statistics Canada, CIBC Page 105 of 847 Government hiring has contributed to a tighter labour market 5 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 Jan-19 Aug-19 Mar-20 Oct-20 May-21 Dec-21 Jul-22 Feb-23 Employment (Index Jan 2020 = 100) Private Public Source: Statistics Canada, CIBC Page 106 of 847 Canadian labour market is normalising, even if unemployment rate remains low 6 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pre-pandemic Pandemic era Unemployment rate (%)Job vacancy rate (%)Latest Source: Statistics Canada, CIBC Page 107 of 847 Population growth has gone way beyond immigration targets 7 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 PRs NPRs Ukraine International arrivals 50 55 60 65 70 75 Mar-06Jul-07Nov-08Mar-10Jul-11Nov-12Mar-14Jul-15Nov-16Mar-18Jul-19Nov-20Mar-22Employment-to-population ratio - Canada (%) Landed immigrants and NPR's Born in Canada Source: CIBC Page 108 of 847 Immigration is likely creating more demand per person as well due to improved average earnings 8 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE 60 70 80 90 100 Average earnings of employed immigrants landed 5 years or less as a % of total economy average (12mma) Source: Statistics Canada, CIBC Page 109 of 847 Want to know where the Bank of Canada thinks the economy’s non-inflationary potential is? Follow the Governor’s hand… 9 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE Page 110 of 847 …he’s been aiming for a lower level of demand. 10 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE 85 90 95 100 105 110 Canadian real GDP (Index Q4 2019 = 100) Jan'22 MPR Apr'23 MPR Pre-Covid potential trends Source: Bank of Canada, CIBC Page 111 of 847 Core inflation has fallen more in Canada than in the US 11 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23US PCE ex food/energy (3-month seasonally-adjusted annualized rate) -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Canada CPI ex food/energy/mortgage costs (3-month seasonally-adjusted annualized rate) Source: Statistics Canada, CIBC Page 112 of 847 Short rates to stay elevated in 2023… 12 Canadian Interest Rates (end of period) 2023 2023 2023 2023 2024 2024 2024 29-Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Overnight Target Rate 4.75% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 4.50% 3.75% 3.50% 2-Year Government Bond 4.53% 4.80% 4.60% 4.25% 3.65% 3.20% 2.80% 10-Year Government Bond 3.22% 3.50% 3.45% 3.20% 3.00% 2.90% 2.75% 30-Year Government Bond 3.10% 3.40% 3.30% 3.25% 3.00% 2.90% 2.85% Canada Yield Curve (10yr - 2yr) -1.31% -1.30% -1.15% -1.05% -0.65% -0.30% -0.05% US Interest Rates (end of period) 2023 2023 2023 2023 2024 2024 2024 29-Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Federal Funds Rate (Midpoint) 5.125% 5.625% 5.625% 5.625% 5.125% 4.375% 4.125% 2-Year Government Bond 4.71% 4.90% 4.70% 4.30% 3.60% 3.00% 2.80% 10-Year Government Bond 3.71% 3.90% 3.80% 3.50% 3.25% 2.90% 2.75% 30-Year Government Bond 3.81% 4.00% 3.80% 3.75% 3.45% 3.30% 3.20% US Yield Curve (10yr - 2yr) -1.00% -1.00% -0.90% -0.80% -0.35% -0.10% -0.05% Exchange Rates (end of period) 2023 2023 2023 2023 2024 2024 2024 29-Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec CAD - USD 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.78 USD - CAD 1.33 1.32 1.31 1.31 1.30 1.29 1.28 Variable Variable Exchange Rate Source: CIBC Page 113 of 847 … to suppress growth in 2023/24 13 Canadian Forecast Detail (real % change, SAAR, unless otherwise noted) Variable 23Q1A 23Q2F 23Q3F 23Q4F 24Q1F 24Q2F 24Q3F 24Q4F 2022A 2023F 2024F Real GDP Growth (AR) 3.1% 1.2% 0.3% -0.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.6% 2.1% 3.4% 1.5% 0.8% Real Final Domestic Demand (AR) 2.6% 0.1% 0.2% -0.1% 1.1% 1.4% 1.8% 2.5% 2.7% 0.7% 0.9% Household Consumption (AR) 5.7% -0.7% -0.4% -0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 2.7% 4.8% 2.0% 0.4% All items CPI Inflation (Y/Y) 5.1% 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.9% 2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 6.8% 3.7% 2.1% Unemployment Rate (%) 5.0% 5.1% 5.4% 5.7% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 5.3% 5.3% 5.8% US Forecast Detail (real % change, SAAR, unless otherwise noted) Variable 23Q1A 23Q2F 23Q3F 23Q4F 24Q1F 24Q2F 24Q3F 24Q4F 2022A 2023F 2024F Real GDP Growth (AR) 1.3% 1.9% -0.8% 0.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.9% 1.7% 2.1% 1.4% 0.6% Real Final Sales (AR) 3.4% 1.7% -0.7% 0.3% 0.4% 0.7% 1.0% 1.8% 1.3% 1.9% 0.5% All items CPI Inflation (Y/Y) 5.8% 4.0% 3.1% 2.5% 2.3% 2.0% 2.1% 2.2% 8.0% 3.8% 2.2% Core CPI Inflation (Y/Y) 5.6% 5.2% 4.1% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% 6.2% 4.5% 2.0% Unemployment Rate (%) 3.5% 3.6% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 3.6% 3.8% 4.3% Source: CIBC Page 114 of 847 Defying gravity. But for how long? 14 • Characteristics of post-pandemic world mean that there is a longer lag between rate hikes and a slowdown. Bank of Canada may now be overshooting what is necessary to tame inflation • Little growth expected for the next 4 quarters, with a mild recession very possible. Inflation back to 2% by the second half of 2024 • Immigration is supporting labour supply, which helps to ease inflation and fill job vacancies, but it is also boosting demand • Interest rate cuts to start before mid-2024. However, rates will stay higher than pre-pandemic levels due to lingering supply constraints Page 115 of 847 CIBC World Markets Inc., CIBC World Markets Corp., CIBC World Markets Plc., CIBC Australia Limited and certain other corporate banking and capital markets activities of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce operate under the brand name CIBC Capital Markets. This report is issued and approved for distribution by (a) in Canada, CIBC World Markets Inc., a member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, the Toronto Stock Exchange, the TSX Venture Exchange and a Member of the Canadian Investor Protection Fund, (b) in the United Kingdom, CIBC World Markets plc, which is regulated by the Financial Services Authority, and (c) in Australia, CIBC Australia Limited, a member of the Australian Stock Exchange and regulated by the ASIC (collectively, “CIBC”) and (d) in the United States either by (i) CIBC World Markets Inc. for distribution only to U.S. Major Institutional Investors (“MII”) (as such term is defined in SEC Rule 15a-6) or (ii) CIBC World Markets Corp., a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. U.S. MIIs receiving this report from CIBC World Markets Inc. (the Canadian broker- dealer) are required to effect transactions (other than negotiating their terms) in securities discussed in the report through CIBC World Markets Corp. (the U.S. broker-dealer). This report is provided, for informational purposes only, to institutional investor and retail clients of CIBC World Markets Inc. in Canada and does not constitute an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities discussed herein in any jurisdiction where such offer or solicitation would be prohibited. This document and any of the products and information contained herein are not intended for the use of private investors in the United Kingdom. Such investors will not be able to enter into agreements or purchase products mentioned herein from CIBC World Markets plc. The comments and views expressed in this document are meant for the general interests of wholesale clients of CIBC Australia Limited. This report does not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation or specific needs of any particular client of CIBC. Before making an investment decision on the basis of any information contained in this report, the recipient should consider whether such information is appropriate given the recipient’s particular investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances. CIBC suggests that, prior to acting on any information contained herein, you contact one of our client advisers in your jurisdiction to discuss your particular circumstances. Since the levels and bases of taxation can change, any reference in this report to the impact of taxation should not be construed as offering tax advice; as with any transaction having potential tax implications, clients should consult with their own tax advisors. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. The information and any statistical data contained herein were obtained from sources that we believe to be reliable, but we do not represent that they are accurate or complete, and they should not be relied upon as such. All estimates and opinions expressed herein constitute judgments as of the date of this report and are subject to change without notice. This report may provide addresses of, or contain hyperlinks to, Internet web sites. CIBC has not reviewed the linked Internet web site of any third party and takes no responsibility for the contents thereof. Each such address or hyperlink is provided solely for the recipient’s convenience and information, and the content of linked third-party web sites is not in any way incorporated into this document. Recipients who choose to access such third-party web sites or follow such hyperlinks do so at their own risk. © 2023 CIBC World Markets Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use, distribution, duplication or disclosure without the prior written permission of CIBC World Markets Inc. is prohibited by law and may result in prosecution. Disclaimer 15 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE Page 116 of 847 Questions? 16 CONFIDENTIAL – ACCREDITED INVESTORS ONLY - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE Page 117 of 847 PBD-2023-40 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: PBD-2023-40 AM-2022-001, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 6259-6293 Dorchester Road Applicant: Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. (Angelo Butera) Agent: A. J. Clarke & Associates Ltd. (Franz Kloibhofer) 5 storey apartment building with 74 units Recommendation(s) 1. That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment as detailed in this report for a 5 storey apartment building with 74 dwelling units. 2. That the amending zoning by-law include a Holding (H) provision to require an addendum of the Species at Risk Screening to identify what features and tree types were observed for Species at Risk bats for roosting and to conduct acoustic surveys, if required as discussed in this report. Executive Summary Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Road. The applicant requests the land be rezoned to a site specific Residential Apartment 5C Density (R5C) zone to permit the construction of a 5 storey apartment building with 74 dwelling units. The amendment is recommended for the following reasons: • The proposed development conforms to Provincial, Regional and City policies as it will assist the City in meeting its intensification targets, will provide more mid- rise apartment buildings to diversify the City’s housing supply, is on a transit route, is within walking distance to commercial uses, and provides setbacks beyond the minimum requirements for the proposed height; • The Holding (H) provision will identify if features and tree types were observed for SAR bats for roosting and if acoustical surveys are required; and, • Public concerns included Species at Risk (SAR), loss of privacy/compatibility, property value, parking, density, and traffic. The SAR Screening observed no SAR habitat or species. There are no concerns regarding parking, density, and traffic. Planning Staff do not have evidence to demonstrates a decrease in property values resulting from redevelopment. Page 1 of 12 Page 118 of 847 Background Proposal Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Road totalling 0.76 hectares (1.88 acres). Refer to Schedule 1 to locate the land. The Zoning By-law amendment is requested to permit the development of a 5 storey apartment building with 74 units. Schedules 2 and 3 show details of the proposed development. The lands are designated Residential under the City’s Official Plan and are zoned Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings (R4-839), in part, and Residential 1C Density (R1C), in part, under Zoning By-law No. 79-200. The applicant is requesting the subject lands be rezoned to a site specific Residential Apartment 5C Density (R5C) zone to facilitate the development. Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The subject lands contain two detached dwellings and two accessory buildings that will be demolished. 37 trees were reported on-site with 19 proposed to be removed to facilitate the development. To the north and east are single detached dwellings and low-rise apartment buildings (1-3 storeys); and to the south and west are detached dwellings and the hydro corridor. Circulation Comments Information about the requested Zoning By-law amendment was circulated to City divisions, agencies, and the public for comments. The Region was not required to be circulated. The following summarizes the comments received to date: • Municipal Works o No objection. • Transportation Services o No objection. o A 2.94m road widening is required along 6259 & 6269 Dorchester Road. o At site plan stage, traffic modelling will need to be completed to confirm there will be no turning conflicts between the site and Stokes Street as the proposed driveway is not aligned with Stokes Street. o A parking rate of 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit (88 spaces) is requested. Transportation Services will support a rate of 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit (92 spaces). The number of parking spaces provided meets this rate. • Landscape Services o No objection. Page 2 of 12 Page 119 of 847 o A landscape plan and a tree inventory plan will be requested at the site plan stage. o Parkland will be taken as Cash-in-lieu. Neighbourhood Comments A virtual neighbourhood open house was held on May 9, 2022 and was attended by the applicant’s agent and 31 members of the public. To date, written comments have been received from 29members of the public and 266 similar letters have been submitted in opposition of the proposal. The concerns raised included loss of trees, loss of privacy/compatibility, density, property value, parking, Species at Risk, and traffic. Staff's response is as follows: • The proposed development of a 5 storey building with a de nsity of 97 units per hectare is permitted under the City’s Official Plan. • The trees on the property are not part of a regulated feature and the applicant is not required to obtain permission to remove any trees on site. There are 18 trees to be protected on site. Staff recommend an additional 38 trees (a 2:1 ratio) be compensated on site or through a collected fee for any trees unable to be contemplated on site. • Adequate rear and side yard setbacks in excess of zoning requirements are provided for the proposal. Staff are recommending that the proposed setbacks be included in the amending by-law to ensure the proposed distances are maintained. Staff are also recommending that the proposed landscaped buffers be included in the amending by-law to ensure suitable separation and landscaping to neighbouring properties. • The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) is responsible for determining property value and providing the City with those values. Planning Staff do not have evidence to demonstrates a decrease in property values resulting from redevelopment. • Transportation Services will support a rate of 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit. The number of spaces provided meets this rate. • A scoped Species at Risk (SAR) Screening was submitted to review if suitable habitat was present for 9 species. The Screening did not observe any SAR habitats or species. Comments from the MECP asked for clarification if there were any features or trees identified on site with potential for SAR bat roosting. Depending on the number of potential roost trees, acoustic surveys may be required. A Holding (H) provision has been recommended to address this. If the application is approved and MECP indicates no further study is required prior to the amending by-law being brought before Council, staff will not include the Holding provision in the amending by-law. • Transportation Services reviewed the submitted Traffic Impact Study and had no concerns with traffic volumes or the number of parking spaces provided. Page 3 of 12 Page 120 of 847 Revised Proposal The revised proposal contains an increased rear yard setback of 26.5m from 25.5m to provide a larger setback to the detached dwellings to the west; a reduced southern interior yard setback of 11.3m to the building face and 9m to the balconies from 12.5m and 10.0m, respectively, to better align the entrance of the proposal with Stokes Street; the minimum landscaped open space has increased to 36.5% from 33%; and a shift in the parking layout to accommodate the shifted entrance on to Dorchester Road. Submitted Reports The applicant submitted the following studies in support of the development: • Functional Servicing & Stormwater Management Report – The proposed development can be serviced in accordance with City and Regional requirements. • Planning Justification Report – The report details and concludes the proposal is consistent and conforms with Provincial, Regional, and Local policies and represents good planning. • Species At Risk Screening – The Screening concluded that no habitat or species at risk were observed during the site visits. Comments from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks asked for clarification regarding features and trees identified for potential roosting by SAR bats. A Holding (H) provision has been included to provide an addendum for clarity and acoustic surveys, if required. If the application is approved and this issue has been addressed as discussed previously, the Holding (H) provision will not be included in the amending by-law. • Traffic Impact Study and Addendum – Traffic control signals at the intersection will not be required and the intersection is expected to operate acceptably with a 1.9 metre off-set. The provided parking supply of 93 spaces is expected to meet the parking demand for the subject site. Analysis Provincial Policies The Planning Act requires City planning decisions to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Provincial “A Place to Grow” Plan. The proposed development is consistent and conforms as follows: • The proposed development satisfies matters of provincial interest as outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act, • The proposed development is transit supportive, minimizes land consumption, and reduces servicing costs through infill development, • The proposed development will add to the diversity of housing options for residents, will assist the City in meeting its intensification target within the Built - up Area, and contribute to the creation of a complete community; and, Page 4 of 12 Page 121 of 847 • The recommended Holding (H) provision will ensure Species at Risk matters are addressed. Regional Official Plan The subject land is designated as Urban Area (Built-up Area) in the Regional Official Plan. The proposed development conforms as follows: • The proposed development is compact, provides apartment dwellings in an area that is predominantly detached dwellings, is transit supportive, and will result in intensification of the Built-up Area. City’s Official Plan The subject lands are designated Residential according to the City’s Official Plan. The Residential designation may permit apartment buildings up to 6 storeys in height with a maximum density of 100 units per hectare on an arterial road that is in proximity to a commercial area. Apartment buildings are to have rear yard setbacks equal to the building height, interior side yard setbacks appropriate to abutting land uses, landscaping that engages the streetscape, and surface parking should be provided in the rear or interior side yard. The proposal complies with the intent of the Official Plan as follows: • The proposal is for a 5 storey building with a density of 97 units per hectare that is approximately 520 metres (within walking distance) from commercial uses on Lundy’s Lane and is on a transit route; • The scale and massing of the proposed building, and its setbacks, respects the surrounding built form. The proposal provides a rear yard setback greater than the height of the proposed building, interior side yard setbacks greater than half the height of the proposed building, an articulated built form and changes in exterior cladding with vertical elements to break up the massing that provide architectural interest, and landscaping to engage street frontage; • The majority of parking is provided within the interior side and rear yards with adequate landscape buffers ranging 1.5 metres abutting a maneuvering aisle to approximately 6 metres. There are 6 parking stalls closer to the street than the proposed building. A landscape buffer along the front lot line will provide adequate screening; and, • The proposed development will provide residents a greater choice of housing with 1 (18) and 2 (56) bedroom unit options that will be sold for individual ownership. The pricing of the units are unknown at this time. The City’s Housing Needs and Supply report identified the need to provide more mid-rise apartment buildings to diversify the City’s housing supply and provide more 1-bedroom units Page 5 of 12 Page 122 of 847 that cater to single-income households. This application was submitted prior to the housing strategy report approval. Zoning By-law The property is currently zoned Residential Low Density Grouped Multiple Dwelling (R4 - 839) in part, and Residential 1C Density Zone (R1C), in part, in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79-200. The applicant is requesting a site specific Residential Apart ment (R5C) zone be placed on the property to permit the proposed development. The departures from the standard R5C regulations are summarized in the following table: ZONE REGULATION STANDARD REGULATION REQUESTED REGULATION Staff Recommendation (Details to Follow) Minimum Front Yard Depth 7.5 m + 13 m from centreline of the original road allowance 6.0 metres Support Minimum Landscaped Open Space Area 40% 32% Support as modified 36% Parking Requirements 1.4 parking spaces per dwelling unit (103 spaces) 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit (88 spaces) Support as Modified 1.25 spaces/unit Parking Stall Length for a: Perpendicular Space Parallel Space 6 metres 6.7 metres 5.8 metres 6.3 metres Support Support as Modified (Detailed below) Parking Stall Width for a: Perpendicular Space 2.75 metres 2.6 metres Support Minimum maneuvering aisle width for a: Perpendicular Space 6.3 metres 6.0 metres Support Page 6 of 12 Page 123 of 847 The requested regulations can be supported for the following reasons: • The reduction to the minimum front yard depth can be supported as adequate landscaping is provided to buffer the street and a suitable setback is provided to the street to minimize shadowing; and; • The reduced dimensions for parallel and perpendicular parking spaces as well as the minimum maneuvering aisle width for perpendicular spaces is supported by Transportation Services. Staff support the requested regulations as modified: • The submitted conceptual site plan details a minimum landscaped open space of 36.5%. Staff recommend that a minimum landscaped space of 36% be provided to secure the indicated percentage. The 4% decrease in the minimum landscaped open space is supported as there is ample outdoor amenity space and adequate landscape buffering along lot lines; • A parking rate of 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit is supported by Transportation Services. This parking rate is met in the proposed plan; and, • A 6.3 metre parallel parking stall length can be supported where a parallel parking stall abuts a crosswalk as there will be additional room to maneuver into the stall. This is supported by Transportation Services. In all other cases, a 6.7m parallel parking stall length would apply. In addition, Staff recommend the following regulations be included in the amending b y- law: • The maximum height be 5 storeys or 16.6 metres, whichever is less, to ensure the proposed building height is maintained as the R5C zone permits a building height of 19 metres; • A rear yard setback of 26 metres; a northern interior side yard width of 30 metres; and a southern interior side yard width of 9 metres to secure the location of the building; and, • A 5.5 metre landscape buffer be provided from the rear lot line and an interior side lot line landscape buffer of 3 metres be provided, except 1.5 metres may be provided where it abuts a maneuvering aisle along the northern property line, to secure suitable landscaped buffers to neighbouring properties. Site Plan Staff recommend tree compensation at a 2:1 ratio to replace the 19 trees proposed to be removed from the property. For any trees that cannot be accommodated on site, the City will require a dollar amount to plant the remaining trees elsewhere on City property. A 6 foot high fence is proposed on top of the retaining walls shown on the conceptual site plan. The site plan stage will detail the location of the proposed fences. Page 7 of 12 Page 124 of 847 Operational Implications and Risk Analysis There are no operational or risk implications. Financial Implications/Budget Impact The proposed development will provide Cash-in-lieu for Parkland Dedication, Development Charges and a new tax assessment to the City. Strategic/Departmental Alignment This proposal contributes to developing a strong and diverse housing market that includes accessible housing choices for all residents. List of Attachments Schedule 1 - Location Map Schedule 2 - Updated Site Plan Schedule 3 - Elevations Schedule 4 - Original Site Plan Written by: Alexa Cooper, Planner 2 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Director of Planning Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Page 8 of 12 Page 125 of 847 8 SCHEDULE 1 (Location Map) Page 9 of 12 Page 126 of 847 9 SCHEDULE 2 (Updated Site Plan) Page 10 of 12 Page 127 of 847 10 SCHEDULE 3 (Elevations) Front Elevation Facing Parking Side Elevation Facing Street Side Elevation Facing Parking Rear Elevation Facing South Page 11 of 12 Page 128 of 847 11 SCHEDULE 4 (Original Site Plan) Page 12 of 12 Page 129 of 847 Address: 6259-6293 Dorchester Road Applicant: Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. Agent: A. J. Clarke and Associated Ltd. Proposal: To rezone the land to a site specific R5C zone to permit a 5 storey apartment building Zoning By-law Amendment Application AM-2022-001 Page 130 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Location PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HYDRO CORRIDOR Detached Dwellings Low-Rise Apartments 1-storey ApartmentBrookfield AvenueClare CrescentDetached Dwellings Page 131 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Background •Applicant has requested approval for a Zoning By-law amendment to rezone the land a site specific R5C zone to permit a 5 storey, 74 unit apartment building. •The land is designated Residential in the City’s Official Plan, which permits 6 storey apartment buildings at a rate of 75-100 units per hectare. •The land is currently zoned Residential 1C Density Zone (R1C), in part, and Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings (R4-839) zone, in part.Page 132 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Concept Plan Page 133 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Elevations Front Elevation (Facing Parking Lot) Rear Elevation (Facing South)Page 134 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Requested Zoning – R5C-XX 1.24 parking ratio (1.4 req’d) staff recommend 1.25 Min. landscaped open space 32% (40% req’d) staff recommend 36% 6m front yard setback (7.5m req’d) Perpendicular parking space 5.8mx2.6m (6mx2.75m req’d) Parallel parking space length 6.3m (6.7m req’d) staff recommend 6.3m abutting a crosswalk Min. maneuvering aisle width (for a perpendicular space) 6m (6.3m req’d) Page 135 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Requested Zoning – R5C-XX South interior side yard width of 9m Min. rear yard setback of 26m North interior side yard width of 30m Interior side yard width landscape buffer of 3m, except 1.5m where it abuts a maneuvering aisle along the north property line Rear yard landscape buffer of 5.5m Maximum height of 5 storeys or 16.6m, whichever is less Page 136 of 847 Concern Staff Response Loss of Trees The trees on the property are not regulated. No permission is required to remove them. Staff recommend tree compensation at the rate of 2 trees planted for every tree removed. Compatibility/ Privacy Rear and side yard setbacks in excess of zoning regulations are provided. Staff recommend the proposed setbacks and height be incorporated in the amending zoning by-law. Density The Official Plan permits up to 100 units per hectare; 97 units per hectare is proposed. Species at Risk Email correspondence received from the MECP on July 10, 2023 stated their concerns have been addressed. There were no potential roosting trees identified on site for SARs bats. Therefore, staff are satisfied that a Holding provision is no longer required. Property Values Planning Staff do not have evidence to demonstrate a decrease in property values resulting from redevelopment. Traffic Transportation Services has no concerns with traffic volumes or number of parking spaces provided. A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Neighbourhood Comments Page 137 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Recommendation •That Council approve the proposed Zoning By-law amendment application subject to the recommendations contained in Staff report PBD-2023-40, and that the Holding (H) provision no longer be applied.Page 138 of 847 6259-6293 DORCHESTER ROAD Zoning By-Law Amendment Public Meeting July 11, 2023 Franz Kloibhofer, MCIP, RPP A.J. Clarke & Associates Ltd. Page 139 of 847 Subject Site 2Page 140 of 847 3 Area Context Page 141 of 847 Proposed Development 4Page 142 of 847 Proposed Development 5Page 143 of 847 Proposed Development 6Page 144 of 847 Niagara Falls Official Plan 7Page 145 of 847 Conclusions ✓Consistent with the policy direction outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). ✓Niagara Falls Official Plan supports apartment dwellings on the subject lands. ✓Proposed development represents an efficient use of land, and will diversify available housing options in the neighbourhood. ✓Supports the creation of complete communities through compact development and contributing to greater availability of housing. 8Page 146 of 847 QUESTIONS & COMMENTS 9Page 147 of 847 Zoning By-law 79-200 •R1C Zone •Single-detached dwellings •Max Height = 10 metres •R4 Zone •Townhouse Dwellings •Apartment Dwellings •Max Height = 10 metres 10Page 148 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my oppositlen t0 the proposed developmentof a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land lmewrl as 6259-6293 Dorehester Rd,NiagaraFalls.lsupportthe Bi-law 20084.31 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one sterey,upscale townheuses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name Email addressPage 149 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature \_Zl/’/‘JLW/ILCIL”AK] PrintName \ i . .('./Q“ Address / "775?; Email address ."x«‘ll2,?hgd?g/-(pl?\((j(l’l’l ,4-.)Page 150 of 847 May 2022 Thisletter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name Address « ’ Email addressPage 151 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartmenr dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature /<5:r"rrrre Address 6‘7344 5 men 5 so 7‘A 2 <5 8 rri W ho (3%‘/£63/1/‘?/~<£:.::ior 3 H»:email‘’Email addressPage 152 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature "%%@44‘C%fgé—:{é¢Z,Zc/jg0 Print Name 132415’((3;}6)g§AL§zrz\_1 Address ézé :2 ii‘£3:75 S77: ’ ,.J——ft_//Email addressPage 153 of 847 ' May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhoodresidents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. EmailaddressPage 154 of 847 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land ‘known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the V Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood‘residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name V9 gl 0% Address (9V77 ‘ I Email address (Q ?y.C5Page 155 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Eh’}j:U\/l(\V"[Cl'F'R0x[C€rn&U(‘ Print Name gf < Address (0X HQ-S ' Clog‘ Email addressPage 156 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land knownas 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the Bi«l_aw 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature 42¢./LC 4/W4 4/.1 Printhlame 579”?C0g_\_,{§E__)_L, Address [Q(9*gglx/§fg'g":”Q 7'53’/Q Emailaddress Q?f?f g C43»/ggzz gigf?/1;;,(&/WPage 157 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Since rely, Email addressPage 158 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name 07 /7 ’{l/l6C (/40 Address ?‘ I 0 TC:/7 £61’ q Emailaddress V6Page 159 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my oppositionto the propesed development of a 5 sterey apartment dwelling,on the land knownas 62S9~6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the Bi—l_aw 20084.31 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbeurhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses.i Sincerely, Signature Print Name Address Email addressPage 160 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhoodresidents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Since rely, -Signature V C)C ' Print Name HQ‘OK ET;9 0 C ‘Page 161 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature _/_:,é a \</ I PrintName GNi:EENE Address 10‘'Page 162 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature 41“ Print Name A5/6*lI"‘éQ;g1Thai Address {/;3"§"7 EttaZ425‘/l//6,4570%:[£2//,3,0’/V’L.Jt€~2/7’L2 I’Email address qm}-yla‘l£l”élU}»>é:;i‘1_,%6:r{/,4/‘J/£7Page 163 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 stovey apartment dwelling,on the land known ‘as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Faiis.I support the Bé—~Lew2008—~131dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincereiy, Signature »~\v»~i1-——» Print Name’F §i"L\J Ql’\\... Address 3%‘!‘{;(;~,«Jr,N“</cu/V“e (,, Emaii addressMPage 164 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Address é éf Cf Q Q Q43,“<§. Email //?y/Q(Qpe,\Page 165 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi»-Law 2OD8~131dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature 4 it ~ Print Name Address Email address u./laoci3 gig ,3 mile «Q atwe L « CgwvxL.Page 166 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature [$454M44’4 $71;44¢ H I (F “ Print Name 1'~ Addres<O?[Z Z S 22 £3[7 5 5-752 Phone "' ~’ —~ Email address522242 202222;.22/Page 167 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses; Sincerely, Signature Print Name Address Email addressPage 168 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I supportthe Bi-Law2008-131 dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, '§/‘ Signature t c—9~N‘~/ Q3%"I csrC‘./\(\Q‘3£V€\~..(RA Address “ Email address lloll°~:§0~<‘0“C(“‘5 0»M“"\‘C0\M“Page 169 of 847 May 2022 This?letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l supportthe Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature PrintName 4 Qg?:/_gPM.4g’_/£43,?!),1 Address Qgéfé g"/5-25¢C/ggccm/4 Email address {Q1/_3§,'C?;4g<)ggyjg<;’é>-C23Page 170 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature ®1.g<‘c<,%.§g-s,x... Print Name ex-n €\—~.C\€X’$o<*\ Address [Q19 ',§--9?-e~,\A£g\le, - Email address \?e:;\et\..'\‘?c-zruc-).e;.<“§<:x\8/CG.Page 171 of 847 (/(/ May 2023 ‘ This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature 4 , Print Name -C’g"_‘££/>4CO./“‘gé?[>1 Address Q2‘Z20 d 4254 (2y;_é., g3 Email address 1@3LA%¢¢_3r[<_g,gc95maz/,comPage 172 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature PrintName ~z§zl_(E4:;§O2;i Address ¢ Email address [0/XPage 173 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature J)./C4/?/and/“ Print Name p/4’/9 ’/‘//4 /3 W“/¢” Address IQ‘?5/C I /4/CF u C /C ‘ l C ‘,r’,K’".9 6*75/7/"7g/5 ) Email address /V“//4Page 174 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, //,.,,,r g Signature ,;/5/5” Print Name /*7/065:‘3 ?/“Wt”/7<7W115 Address Q73“/“CZ”(,7/l<‘<’:‘C~ (Tr,2 vii (‘T7 2 K 5.’-, 2 ‘” Email addressPage 175 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name .Q{N3 lgW\Eg1d’3 Address ggg/I 007/£63141/ ’ ” Email addressPage 176 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed % development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 DorchesterRd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law2008-131dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name /W52 4:{:'/0§_'?_7/Q?%(5 A Address 4;:'3;[[Zgég 5/512“715/?/02 « 1 4 Email address '/’r4‘L%7r‘/LQ (‘/4424 L ..(01/Page 177 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development ofa 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Print Name Address N g/ Email address -Page 178 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storeyapartment dwelling,on the land known as”6259—y6293Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Email addressPage 179 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—~Law20084.31 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Printhlame ’‘l.M t(::;,/\0 Address (7C75W‘”3L““’572; Email addressPage 180 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Since rely, I Print Name ’fag;N?sgjl ‘ Address E(?§g (SQ Q?e pgl???g Email address '‘ 7!’Page 181 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259,-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature ‘PrintName 1/ix‘),213/<3/C Address Email addressPage 182 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature / ‘/ print Name V//9211,:/‘Q/Z‘/00/L/Ed Address Z/;.,_2(75 )//'47/9/:7“<jf'/€58‘. u 57’F / Email address 6}!“/‘(:9M/6?/6 r‘/6’(31)/7’¢/K7?/6fw/05;/WKPage 183 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the Bi~Law 2008-13].dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature ‘ri?’§’f"f . -. Print Name Address M-_WV____H/V A ,,,,W,9M»«—~ww ».»ww~—~»~~»-Mm»--~.,.,,M,,V,‘MM __MW‘_N____,_,M»'Email addressPage 184 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Since rely, Addressélqé Ql/€~ 7520 Email address /’/(3/icmgl/’Q*/Zzséllz 7 Z{§géO7L__/ZZQ60/1”)iPage 185 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I supportthe Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature E5 Aggy;Q/l2L.Al)"7 Print Name ,£3 ’3é~W /QC /‘$4/7 WV 9 P0/{(1%Es?oézm /M22AddressPage 186 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents myopposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhoodresidents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature ‘Y Print Name ~"_l‘\3\J'l_-:9 N C-’CJl<l\'\K3 Address 525 "1 \3c>i2<\Ae‘$l—€‘-‘QOAD l\3l\~\«" Email address STEUF,Iv ‘i\‘»C*C\N P:0 MG (-iCi‘Tl‘*lH iLa ComPage 187 of 847 May 2022 T This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester.Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build onestorey,upscale ’townhouses. Since rely, ). Signature ' PrintName Ca.rv\e/gr»Agzm V ' Address I D10 V”; _ ‘(I "’ Email addressPage 188 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. ~Sincerely, Address Signature I . 2 2 Print Name Email addressPage 189 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed uponby the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signatu Print Name 2%(§2 Address égi 5-;§Z-«;‘4[g1-;T Email addressPage 190 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi»-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,td build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature ifjfz?i?w I gag,/l(,1‘““‘ Print Name ‘M/4 km‘‘ Address {Q833];%'‘w‘'’’‘7<"*2 ‘ , L263 Zql/l2. Email addressPage 191 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Print Name l.g3X,’()E'Z2()L(L lfamdlv 0’) Address I -' Ema“Page 192 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5.storey apartment dwelling,onthe land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely,Page 193 of 847 May 2022 This Eetter represents my oppogition to the propcsed develapmenr of a 5 storey apartment dwemng,an the land known as 625945293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Fails.I support the Bi—Law2008~131 dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to buiid one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name Address ,_____~Email addressPage 194 of 847 'November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public information me°ting. Sincerely, Signature.0C”/MM Print Name’:-/'(f6l’V\(E \3 Address:3 ?lag .' Phone 7",w5uFF‘\ciEzQT \fQCta/MariamO9?’aL;D6\O\/Eiesiz?b FERl\\aG,lt8ot)i2.llz5‘D15/rfgtouaoos?s A %E'<‘<‘E>€éll,T&€:t)AT>UE.Page 195 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259;-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By~law2008431,dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, '/in -¢’z/‘“/Ie Signature:"K/l5l’«[/2"? Print Name:M ggyk gg M534,‘\C4 5 Phone Number:QQS “’PlPage 196 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008—131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature:D"\g7V\§‘2_\?{__‘fzjQ_‘ Print Name:WW VQQL‘/. 0(oS/:§"lL(~/C)/3 SQ)Phone Number:Page 197 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259—6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By~law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:i\.C«j§\_1LQKEZ/‘\’?C3VSO\’\l Phone Numberzjbg ”'/6 E}Page 198 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a S—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259~6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, 0 /‘j Signature: Print Name;John(Jack)Newport Address;6022 Brookfield Ave.Niagara Falls,Ont Phone Number:905~357-8252**—”~“*‘Page 199 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By«law 2008431,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signatureze Q_/_l1vw__‘ 5 1 l ' Print Name:Aujgg:_<_;g3gM _,C~’77"‘E"Q‘NE WEBB ER I ‘ Phone Number:905 (3 57 ’S513Page 200 of 847 November2020 > This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By~law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. ofa This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature: 0%“‘Kg/4-/x1/‘/‘?e’ ' Print Name:AA\L»P35/3,‘A’/LD «_ Phone Number:”kf3 "”‘"«9~7§ZPage 201 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 62596293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, 5i8n3fUFe1 ,___.__ Print Name:Cg4[;¥,_E_g gag 4:1 g 4:3 ‘/4" 70.5”353’65”65"’Phone Number:Page 202 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19*“, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:Page 203 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public informationmeeting. Sincerely, Signature:?gbig 'V\<v«\'5law H w\13rlnnolPrintName:C—,;\\\M Address:Q§Q.7 C\a«r‘ti.Crag PhoneNumber:305 350 5é(3é§Page 204 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 , Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name: Add ress: Phone Number:Page 205 of 847 ‘November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signatu re:? Print Name: 9 ac ‘ ?g 6::/>- Phone Number:“""'”""““"“"Page 206 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my oppositiontothe proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, "J \ -'7.:" , Signature:‘/-‘*5’/Z/J’“‘ PrintName:\/0”"‘/V2‘Cf”;/0< '17 X r r.»,..‘ca/>7 Address:545‘;C‘'”7’Z‘''542 4/”‘}'~””*’7”'7/’¢LL1I Phone Number:393‘"Page 207 of 847 ’November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:[225Dfévlg,-L (z?ri /5 Phone Number:(lg '’7O(7$\Page 208 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By-law 2008431,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature:\t’4MSw~« Print Name:/xdguwx Y lélrx Address:g0 DY Phone Number:Page 209 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18“,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. Thisletter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November19”‘, virtual public information meting. ’ /Sincerel/_. Signatu re: Print Name: Phone Number:%77&'-XPage 210 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my oppositionto the proposed development of a 5-‘storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 DorchesterRd,Niagara Falls.l support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting.‘ Sincerely, W Iv‘/W/‘""" Signature: Print Name:NI {/1 ULQ”KI N 8‘ \/7 Phone Number:Page 211 of 847 November 2020 This letter representsmyopposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information méting. L Sincerely, Signature:KM/cf Print Name://H '4 ‘E2’/7 4/n/c§37 (5/0 19/4?L /4 Address:(5 '0 6 (:0 taco //Kl t/E,‘ Phone Number:7 0 S"/3 ‘TE “"3 SL5‘;Page 212 of 847 'November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19*“, virtual public information méting. 'Sincerely, Signature: Print Name: Add ress:Page 213 of 847 ’November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed developmentofa 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259~6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November19*“, virtual public informationméting. 0 Sincerely, Signature: Print Namezjz?L//«/0-K‘ Address:5'5;CK?/<1//\VV’rVlC? Phone Number:”’5/703/]Page 214 of 847 This letter represents my oppositionto the proposed development of a -5—storey apartmentdwelling,on the lands knows as 6259—6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter alsoindicates,I am unable to attend the November19”‘, virtual publicinformation meting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:--Page 215 of 847 ‘November2020 This letter represents myoppositiontothe proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259~6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Print Name:Cf7‘f5lEC:l_§~’r:~\t,k,\<;l/x Phone Number:57"?-ePage 216 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 DorchesterRd,Niagara Falls.I support-the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public informationméting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name: Address: 2 PhoneNumber:«\«.20Page 217 of 847 . 7 November 2020 Thislet.ter represents my opposition tothe proposed development of a S~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,’agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:Cf/J/;E¢~;£=Se‘g3_g‘ Address:gig/5 ?éfci’/’lQ§-é(g2/”‘jgéi l')£7,/K7‘;/(3%/’ ...—»~’W’)Phone Number:"'“>33Page 218 of 847 .Signature: November 2020 This letter represents my oppositiontothe proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259'-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I supportthe By—law2008-131,dated ‘August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicatesfl‘amunable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Address:A D67/(£4 PhonePage 219 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to ‘-v-A -4m"'~».~'\'v~4--~--~'Ar\n,|r~r~(4-,a:ra":v'ar~r(_‘'.""'r .—-':r.v-I --w ._,,..,,,,, Dull!)one Slluley,u|J::u..cm:‘L3v'Vimuu:><‘::uwt:mn5.3. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature:Q Print Name::2 5 g:Qv_g gg3\, Address:I W\Ag59 ®3]j\/?' Phone Number:vPage 220 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November19*“, virtual public information me‘ting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:Z Z?; Address:I féd K 2 '_/(//E“7’32,0]; Number:Page 221 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By~|aw 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:443'gQ(4 6:”/?x W 4» Phone Number:40'?3‘?/~/(I7 5’Page 222 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November19”‘, virtual public information méting. Sincerely, Signaturei/‘W’ _ 2 / 2 / ./ -../- V Print Name:(0/U‘;55‘C.at /£4 SC /V Address:<9 ~ Phone Number:Page 223 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 law.2008-131,dated August 1 ,, build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unableto attend the November19”‘, virtual public informationmeeting. Sincerely, Signature:“ Print Name:,;;.'/:X.»-g ?t/cn_«r= Phone Number:707*9‘/'4 '*(£>‘l"-/'3 IPage 224 of 847 November2020 o the proposeddevelopment ora ds knows as 6259-6293 law 2008-131,dated ding neighborhood,to This letter represents my opposition t 5—st0rey apartment dwelling,on the lan Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By~ August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surroun build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,i am unableto attend the November19*“, virtual publicinformationmeeting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name: Phone Number:Page 225 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a S~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: ‘/V) ‘LLJSLI’ PrintName:OLAlV\l l A0 ‘f Phone Number:2:8 ‘;l 113$f2£{ESPage 226 of 847 'November2020 This letter representsmyoppositionto the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letteralsoindicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information méting. Sincerely, Signature:“EM&Q(>\ PrintName:1 ?gyg EQAKX A Address:§?4\COC\»\\~\CW§g:_(,<3\~ PhoneNumber:9Page 227 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public informationmeting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name: Phone Number:Page 228 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a S—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: ///7035/?//to//"”’”Page 229 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—st0rey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature:f Print Name:$755 g 7 1% Phone Number:Page 230 of 847 'November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as16259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter alsoindicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information méting. Sincerely-, Signature: V Print Name: sjllc ‘’~ Address:é 8 L?>c&l"‘<€((€C‘f—’ PhoneNumber:Page 231 of 847 i November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storeyapartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By~law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signatureg .> Print Name:é Q34;5 ?él/'1~‘55“2 Phone Number:6(;5’~5r*'‘“5§‘*3 ‘F0 DPage 232 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5«-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008431,dated August 18"“,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: ;3(=3 5 Eg_DgB\._.,~___) PrintName:DIQNE Lgx)i4_..£;r\_) <:._,l’/:A):1 Phone Number:C)!/5 '“"we 3Page 233 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, PrmtName:N15/(I 77/»!Page 234 of 847 'November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature: Phone Number:0 3 ‘Eq éPage 235 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19*“, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:glwz?lrg/g 2/11¢,;_;(_/_—g',5: 2 Address:r ‘‘(an 7 "?/V Phone Number:905’ *3533 “ 4252,S[Page 236 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storeyapartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:,<?iZlzl 3 LLQgl l Address:V CL €(W + Number:“’/Page 237 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 625945293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By—law2008431,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtualpublic information meting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:QXISYLi 'grwk/Q Phone Number:Page 238 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a S—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 62596293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008~131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, 9 ‘lm</ég Signature: PrintName::70 E /7 Q 70mg’?/Q!‘/1: Phone Number:Page 239 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By~law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,i am unable to attend‘the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, 5ig?:3;’§lJ«l’€‘?"'M Print Name:Z”/5‘/4 C0 V Phone Number:£0Page 240 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information méting. Sincerely, Signature: if PrintName:[E Cfg?léé , Address:(N (JKE5 ' Phone Number:£05/‘&—3 .Page 241 of 847 ‘November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19*“, virtual public information méting.‘ Sincerely, Signature:?j EALJ ‘PrintName:/\/CUM”Ll)lfS0f\ Address:C4"€S Phone Number:8 Q ‘3+4‘043l 3Page 242 of 847 'November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name: 'E‘\SL\~7g2 .______ Z! Phone Number:13‘<:1é@3 'Page 243 of 847 'November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 A Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008*-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings.- This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information méting. Sincerely, Signature:Q2 Print?alne:Q4 Address:6 0 7/K 7’€l\—9§’Ze’Z PhoneNumber:Page 244 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely,I /;/I/74271/I Signature:, M 4/ PrintName:/X 2[9 tag Phone Number:.’Page 245 of 847 November2020 on the lands knows as 6259-6293 law 2008-131,dated ding neighborhood,to 5-storey apartment dwelling, Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By- August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the surroun build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature:%@ 3 1 (K§(\\_ Print Name:Jr . Phone Number;Page 246 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259—6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008431,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public information me“ting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name: Address: Phone Number:[2 f /Page 247 of 847 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18"“,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November19”‘, virtual public informationmeting.‘ ‘ Sincerely, Signatu re:*3’?/"’t[”"l 2 V :'P0 1 /ES Print Name: #f 1‘L M 3 L 5*"’QC*’3”@-/V=‘K- Phone Number:Page 248 of 847 ,buildogrtegystolreykugpsgaletownhouseydwellings. November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to ~-.,..——«._.....w>.¢..,»...——~«N..-._.....y,.._.. This letter also indicates,i am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, (M Signature: Print Name:V3I '34’) » Addm (om cum mmr Phone Number:'3§O .-...r \._.......———~~...,................’-........——....l»..»—.Page 249 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents myopposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. Thisletter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature:_ A PrintName:‘33c::mQ£c_:._\;a"(:Q:_, »~€C)\34~\§\ Phone Number:Page 250 of 847 November2020 the proposeddevelopment of a ds knows as 6259-6293 aw 2008-131,dated ding neighborhood,to This letter represents my opposition to 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lan DorchesterRd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-I August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surroun build one storey,upscale townhousedwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November19“, virtualpublic informationmeeting. Sincerely, :7 QSignature:/4 1 Print Name: MOQE [jail/5 77¢Phone Number:Page 251 of 847 November2020 proposed development of a knows as 6259-6293 law 2008-131,dated ding neighborhood,to This letter represents my opposition to the 5-«storey apartment dwelling,on the lands Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By- August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surroun build one storey,upscaletownhouse dwellings. November19”‘, This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the virtual public informationmeeting. Sincerely, Signature: 0 0 PrintName:Cigm PM333410 Phone Number:/Page 252 of 847 November 2020 This letter representsmy opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 625945293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, ‘virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, \ \ Signature: Print Nams= A Phone Number:‘Q 'Page 253 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by thesurrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings.. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtualpublic information me"ting. Sincerely, Signature::42!(Q '‘,j!m4[g5.: Print Name:C .M_{ Address:cokau at - PhonePage 254 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a S~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By~law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, /'‘3 Signature:ii C/[771/4 T6 ‘oakPrintName:V V y( 3/7 l>honeNumber:,(74/~”’3x31?"5/7\ VPage 255 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed developmentof a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings.' ' This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature:N 1 Print Name:K54 G"'€"“"’7"\D€’4/(Z: . V ‘ Address:0171”5 Crz?gt (/6155 . Phone Number:05‘5?'Page 256 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my oppesition to the proposed development cf 22 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259~6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.i support the Bwaw2GCi8—~131,dated Augugi:18”‘,2008,agreed upern by the surrounding neighborhoed,to build one storey,uescaletownheuse dwellings. This letter also indicates,i am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public inferrrietirsn meeting. Sincerely, PlmriePage 257 of 847 ‘November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November19"‘, virtual public information méting. Sincerely, Signature: /V Print Name:C 7‘/\ Address:(0 é 861$(ZQF 54 PhoneNumber:Page 258 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—s1:oreyapartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259~6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, /*7 , * »?g mmw/mm/xSignature..:>.\. Print Name:2”"/W‘/L6)!‘V\/KLVWI Q7(:& Phone Number:?C7@..> ‘Page 259 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5»-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Print Name:K V «Q _______ 1?/8&5/‘(K/C/6:4/) PhoneNumber:257 st Z%oa~5'/W//pmwe)Page 260 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008431,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature:j it s s . £7n Phone Number:0 5 S A Print Name:N 57Page 261 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By~law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:l 1/)<./ Address:C Q/Y/€ Phone Number:"'”Page 262 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By-law 2008~131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19*“, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, ”]2Q--/\H/lé/742%?FT-7z.(;_Y Phone Number:905/31 l "'4 WPage 263 of 847 November 2020 This letter representslmyopposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public information méting. Sincerely, Signature: 66+H0umI‘? Print Name: 2 if 7./5/) Address: Phone Number:0{Page 264 of 847 This letter represents my opposition to the proposeddevelopment of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November19”‘, virtual public information melting. Sincerely, Address:(295?tzgiz??5 E é , PhoneNumber:Page 265 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 V Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—-law2008-131,dated August 18?‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information méting. Sincerely, Address:05 PhoneNumber:Page 266 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attendthe November 19"‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, /3 Signature:If/37”/b473,;/L/9’Cé&¢«/fez/cZ5‘Z'rvV Print Name:~;77lrr»&.’L r/J .«21—/,9«L/‘Z Address;S’l>(d/V/QC TEA? Phone Number:9673*3 7“/V’4Page 267 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a S~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By—law2008431,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,i am unable to attend the November 19”, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: L/il??l\/?rtREn/Print Name: 905‘227%8733/Phone Number:Page 268 of 847 V November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 DorchesterRd,Niagara Falls.I supportthe By—law2008-131,dated August 18"",2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name: Address: Phone Number:-Page 269 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law20084.31,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:?e:/M [Z/‘/’5”c:c»4 4 -4'4’0 PhoneNumber:5//?'”U«77:7i"‘¢5):Q('«?7€*Page 270 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008~131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature: -\ M X . Print Name:L=—3(/“/0‘ : }\/(QKCU}"?¢(/16 Address:C’/@3(‘57’-)7L ' Phone Number:Page 271 of 847 ’November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposeddevelopment of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. I This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19*“, virtual public informationméting. Sincerely, b?lkk &L‘\»J\\.O\{\-833% Address:Page 272 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008431,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, la " ‘ PrintName:\/"5‘~»Sli'/=”\5V“‘C \/‘‘?r ' C:‘'2 ’,Phone Number:lv 5 >C)L’>S C ‘Page 273 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature. Print Name:’U€«l_/bfflL4 Address:(Q!2 2/ Phone Number:0Page 274 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a S—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 20084.31,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,i am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature:Page 275 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of as 5—storeyapartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By~law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature:2 Z M Print Name:g7/Q/7[‘7€”/I Address:5/o?éf 201J 41/5’ /2Page 276 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 1.8”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:»47‘J\/2:’5//2'E-f? Address:Z /49¢?5;za'0»‘<r~’/«§z~<>?r -1/>-3:’ Phone Number:_"’3;>’é/’Page 277 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 62596293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008431,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature:Page 278 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By~law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely,56,/lgmi ?atly Llamm, Signature: \ print Name;l“/€‘l~lI/l2*0t/"if/«?ll»?F/€)<.lI/reef Address;(9 ['2 8 fO0k‘-al??AUQ - Phone Number:Cl03’3 3 252/Page 279 of 847 ‘November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008431,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature:®/PLJK PrintName:ELF}/NE fpggc:1:;FIELD Pu/E, Phone Number:305Page 280 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5»-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259—6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: A.I I I »(.1 ..1‘'1,‘1 X 3 1.1;: Print Name:‘V’,“‘~/L/K/K‘A’\*~ g ; PM ,/if [;[S/3 r ,//7 “..’”z Phone Number:Page 281 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings.‘ This letter also indicates,i am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, —. Signature: V M ‘Q 2/ Print Name:’CL }2L\O& Address:C/QVK?/‘(I/”l‘(J Phone Number:" 35?“OPage 282 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings.‘ This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature:£¢g_-gggg,27§g4 4 \Print Name:Cl: Add ress:’E 3 PhoneNumber:‘()6‘—.3.»Page 283 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 62S9—6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information rneting. Sincerely, PrintName:MARK i’Al-2G?M‘HalZ50l\/ Address:[aq *{'5 C0*‘~\C'i“l DR N-l‘f0~ Phone Number:0l¢75~i’>6‘7-*'7S~:'>‘f ’Page 284 of 847 November 2020 p This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a S~storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By-law 2008431,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. Thisletter also indicates,I amunable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: PrintName:7 EQ ’\““OFG'4‘4#4 O/Q7’, Phone Number:680g " 3 Z 5/Page 285 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19“, virtual public information méting. Sincerely, Signaturez‘Q2/LL/#7:’;4 Print Name:4 :{2 :__‘-:_“1 Address: .0 ¢.'~‘~ Phone Number: I ‘‘Page 286 of 847 ‘November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a S—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19*“, virtual public information metting. Sincerely, \ Signature:(’.(2a.x»M? Print Name:Combl A H’) Address:(m’7<31«L g§£u_)ivv‘F/{7";§. Phone Number:(7 Z‘? ”9*K“‘“(33Page 287 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public information méting. A Sincerely, @ . Signature: Print Name:S QC‘/‘Lg;E . Address: \C x Phone Number:)g “ 9.} ‘ S@ l ___________Page 288 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. November 19”‘, This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Phone Number:‘24 6 N‘I‘?432»-Page 289 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information méting. Sincerely, Signature:?’‘’'“‘’/“‘’r7f26M /(0 7>o“ré‘€/J -P 7?Ob@’N/’[/3‘95‘ZZ'/0 Print Name: Address:‘C0’/5U/‘[2 /4'09 2 'Page 290 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my oppositionto the proposed development of a S-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtualpublic information méting. Sincerely, Signature: PrintName:/3-mlsmzaI 'SHI°rNF)/~)fH\/ 2' Address:03222 §;aew»/0 ?ve?. Phone i(7§Z5‘/’-I55‘-I" 2Page 291 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, /\ Signature:x.,,/pix; Print Name: Address:'w':“:‘?£”)2 f;U; />—~C“?Phone Number:‘#1 ,~/C?)%JPage 292 of 847 ’November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartmentdwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 20089131,dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:5 /3 NUS On/£5 .Address:Q//8 /_>_O4Cg.aS7'£( Phone Number:g ‘7 312 “7/50Page 293 of 847 ‘November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey -apartmentdwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscaletownhousedwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public information méting.. ‘ Sincerely, Signature: .PrintName:gggg I Address:\C) Phone ~Page 294 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Print Name: Address:all ??mxas J’~> /.Phone Number: H 35 /'Page 295 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,NiagaraFalls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. Thisletter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19*“, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, l 1 I A‘~. _ Signature:'J"5‘WV “H.4 L Pi’\ ’ (P ,A ~-\‘<“/)s 'T Print Name:5””MA Lu‘), A $7 [é/’>\/£4/\ Add e(’I//I /V/Z”‘,.”’J’J"/2 3 ‘V/‘j ” TESS:‘ \ '' "' K 32:» » 2, »aPhoneNumber:Page 296 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter alsoindicates,I am unable to attend the November19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:E/\Y/‘/YW ''DU;HQ Phone Number:é>L77 r-9 0 Li — Ll 3 ‘Page 297 of 847 ‘DorchesterRd,Niagara Falls.I support the By- November2020 y opposition to the proposeddevelopment of a ows as 6259-6293 law 2008-131,dated ghborhood,to This letter represents m 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands kn st 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding nei Augu wnhouse dwellings. build one storey,upscaleto to attend the November19"‘, This letter also indicates,I am unable virtualpublicinformationmeeting. _ Sincerely, Print Name: 8""7‘3;2<5a&Phone Number:.&Page 298 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed"development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, Signature:. Address:Phone Number:903 3 $4 ZS 60Page 299 of 847 November2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposeddevelopment of a .5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I supportthe By-law 2008-131,dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This Ietteralso indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public information méting. Sincerely, Signature:W Print Name:Kl-:>0Ll/~K H OfQE Number:Page 300 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my oppositionto the proposed development of a 5—~storey apartment dwelling,onthe lands knows as 62596293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. e to attend the November 19"‘, This letter also indicates,i am unabl virtual public information meting. Sincerely, g Page 301 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008431,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attendthe November 19”‘, virtual public information meting. Sincerely, ./ './'7 /g7 ' ' Signature:/V???/’”“ Print Name:§‘/’Z»’¢g_/5“/75¢_/_;¢,=Zl’, Phone Number:35‘/7 V” 322/A/éPage 302 of 847 November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,l am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information meeting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name: Phone Number:“Page 303 of 847 May 2922 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a five—storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as: 6259-6293 Dorchester Road,Niagara Falls. I support by-law 2668-131 dated August 18th 2068,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one—storey upscale townhouses. Sincerely, SIGNATURE PRINT NAME }1ou,~.=, ADDRESS:’le>m[E Stated’ PHONE:Ljj?539 EMAIL:qmgn ‘F3%’/e,,zC]_)1 @/8,m;[mm OTHER COMMENTS:Page 304 of 847 May 2922 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a five—storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as: 6259-6293 Dorchester Road,Niagara Falls. I support by—law 2668-131 dated August 18th 2608,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one—storey upscale townhouses. Sincerely, SIGNATURE PRINT NAME it JHAMAHof;J (MIVJ ADDRESS:/83“PM W550710L PMWB V79’g?(«~??507 EMAIL: OTHER COMMENTS: /W ca,o?déaery <3’1c\€x:re<'§onj?x?wa°\\”>‘,My Z5 (<jg(itCv§.;;@;9.(jc:r23u/S‘ya (,n4,Lcc\"(W/?'~Vp$«“«,Nl rw/Iii’Page 305 of 847 May 2622 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a five—storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as: 6259—6293 Dorchester Road,Niagara Falls. I support by—1aw 20@8~131 dated August 18th 2998,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one—storey upscale townhouses. Sincerely, SIGNATURE mm NAME §aéf%v;_zjéqilan 9994M E d %§353 ML/5” EMAIL:MhogEn’,S<>?TlWC»lf‘(‘Z’»ct/on». OTHER COMMENTS:Page 306 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name /\/‘ilk :l;<«csL5 v\ Address Cl.5"»(/:3)”$5:-. 89/77 Email address 0 l‘Q¢QC{C/~’@3'°(I6»U°6a/‘£2C’;/“Cu./.F0/I/\Page 307 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature 2 ' Print Name <9 “AK/\.§1 ‘<3 « '$’3O 9 Address Cé2\~* '/2 "8 Email address ~-—Page 308 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, /\ \T©*’rtvQ Qlb®x3‘ Signature Print Name Address 730/(KO C”‘A/(J%U\3\°‘QD Q13?' Phone Number of Q:—‘F23 Email addressPage 309 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name A7/€‘r‘\7L{Z€/W//\§E Address 570‘)/V7o€DC/‘J /7/C 2 90;g SQ”76?7 Email address (56 /73 (I -C?/3Page 310 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I supportthe Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature PrintName OM/"O‘lL-€a"<e' Address m ’),6‘l"l olden otoe, Clo‘:/1730 “l9 L0 Email address Olivia l~?/0kV’C@ 0c/\TlOc>W ' CONNPage 311 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name I Z )1 2 Address PhoneNumber ’ Email address @ 60¢Page 312 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature %// / Print Name 0%6? Address 0 get ’:/‘ Phone Number 9 » \lxlio Email address '0 CL Cit‘‘‘go.Page 313 of 847 May 2022 This letterrepresents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I supportthe Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, / Signature Print Name 0 OV\ Address K/\lIll0\l‘¥)’lb>[D?“/Q Phone Number Emailaddress ‘Oi/lCOl’\(‘ll ’ .(0Vl/lPage 314 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name A A / Address M Cfw Phone Number /5 Email address l ‘ Y ©Page 315 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature %2 774gig a/~\»J Print Name Q)a;’mlcZgyhgaxio“ Address (Mob 3 F-WW Phone Number 3&9’/79;’ Email address 00 ??Q Zbt {kl CCV1/lPage 316 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name L®+I€?)$E_‘>_Q’\§§E Address t?égQ MAQQ Phone Number \;Q3L” O C GmEmailaddressPage 317 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature,-J 2 5 /2 ~ PrmtName 5/“Di/LSDK OLCUVL/3‘ Address3Cl§§fvv?éa 5252?A _ Email address 63 0x /¥0v\}5’‘D €72fl/lPage 318 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259~6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Z Print Name ./4 L9 ‘576°’C Address 95 Cl/_‘E_3_,_[t/e>/,3"/”@' Email address S]z (0 7/WPage 319 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature 3. Z Print Name Address (I /6 N (.4 F4!-L5 Email address ''Page 320 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name CO.//,L>[£/'«Wm up Address I Q ’<9 'g ‘ Email address ‘/0 3</MACQ)/9 ’(0“/\“‘<"~ LPage 321 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Email addressPage 322 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, /y ,r../ /g . Signature 4‘ Print Name Address Phone Number *Z(([7'gD/ Email addressPage 323 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Email l r [M ZPage 324 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259—6293Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. T Sincerely, Signature ."/Al way Print Name ’\/\5 Address 8225 ‘PQODOC/C (T/(Z!/'3r’(»—~ Email address holder‘loo:Gill QC)r‘/WPage 325 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed developmentof a 5 storey apartmentdwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature « I Print Name Address llgge,».i5. Email address ?xes;l cm,_:>;c,nO,@r(;;_{oggn/x<x\\-("cs/_‘?Page 326 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. 2 Sincerely, /iv,/'1 Signature 22.1,/g 2k» \\ Print Name V Address 790 O («J 6?fl)/5/.*’\/C‘§( Email addressPage 327 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature "~‘;)~‘®~«‘rlS“ N Q \ Print Name W (:L\,KK\15'\ Address \_Q,_1’€O6l\C l?f\, (7c,t3Y@4clrizr\,a/1., Email addressPage 328 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,‘agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature V‘ '1* Print Name Q52\\K C)Qrw/low 6’0\ (M ) Email addressPage 329 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name g ,.<:>igm TL/l/Q‘ii / ‘ Address (/2 L‘/v‘ ’” Email address Cam£2747;§iC‘@ \("QPage 330 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature i Print Name .»/*' Email address /llPage 331 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature: /1. Emailaddress Otlcl :5 <2.\(_)}:—»K./«K,,(c:m_K5Page 332 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259—6293Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature‘35<?W”5Z6‘/ Aim/an/1)’/Q/f)7LS///@D?~j& Print Name Address CST5» W Email address QR/Or)IPage 333 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name Address 1»4 '2,.2."W’ Email addressPage 334 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name l<U\\/?u“*3/‘"“‘1MWv’<~\‘*N Address “8<o"?c>wcslgwt Dr- Email address 757~p\»w~3w-~l<«~vw~<33)-mm’<2 comPage 335 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, R \ Signature /id § Print Name V ‘K \9\ Address /AR)3 I “ Email addressPage 336 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signatu re 1 <1;/« / Print Name 34{,3 Address §§?)?f(“ Email addressPage 337 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build onestorey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, \ Signature Print Name Address _j 0 {.5‘f>€§__LU1‘//oclé _/L/9c;l_ Email addressPage 338 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the A neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Emailaddress ,QC/mm?g,»/gzrvc/52)(.2 gzcéco.~C&(2__/Page 339 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 DorchesterRd,Niagara Falls.I supportthe Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name Address A 0 .210 Email address g’\§’%‘{a,-“L73-"5ma((3/A/2Page 340 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, .2Signature , Print Name Cg ml Ago 2 g 2 ‘ Address " Email addressPage 341 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature fl Print Name Address " Email addressPage 342 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature 1,}/7,.¢,¢.,(f7.(:)Q/a/L' /1' Print Name :'3u:sm 7,50/3/a/,2, Address Email address g§:,L,.Page 343 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi~Law2008-131 dated August 18”“,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name Address WW;{*’ Email addressPage 344 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—i_aw2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, (/’/ Signature /4’/'w4U~/4»;/V ’PrintName ///,7 1/E /’/»/5/V 99/,Address 7/<5/'7’/7 ?a?i?4 » 2 K Ema”address V/19¢/57”~505 (.7/0Page 345 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Email addressPage 346 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259~6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, iv] $;/€‘:’,:"'A//Signature PrintName ll‘/\\<>A\“‘~€«\€?\\ml€‘l Address P°‘0\A°('k”/ll/l"’”“\®(l\/L ;N“A“%'“'“ \ bgjl Email address ‘Dr/»‘V‘*/l‘\€/(llelmC©l’VlPage 347 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature / /“A Print Name »€~«/~‘>7tf’/4'’”1"‘1/W/ Address é??37°(‘<I /’/*1‘/ . Email addreS5 6”"?/ic;/c»67 l/’r»~>v\7o'*’-5 mxPage 348 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259—6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name Address 1 Email addressPage 349 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, ’” ' ,,/7 I ‘/4 Signature Vy??‘”""("/’°’C’<'l 77)?//J/:tci/C.Print Name '7 / Address /«.75’0 33 /5520 ,Ce:”<;~;’7'} Email address ”2’Page 350 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6Z59~6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi~Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature 9,2 _,, PrintName <‘”_/2» Address ”‘ Email addressPage 351 of 847 iv‘lay2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the , Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature /K»(:7/:4 to ¢,.c...£/é, Print Name 2"?/«<1‘\//vi’/iiI‘f>A./,/C Address .5 ‘Zam /*9’/>,<?'0‘;V-KC.22;,/i 0 /4\0 Email address ¢2g1ti,e(;’L,~z»*4,~,»tc>tt./2 ,,, _KJPage 352 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Since rely,Page 353 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signatu .///Q \ ‘ ’ Print Name C7‘‘/71 /l l ' Address /, Cs ’ Email addressPage 354 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature ©%*U3 A Print Name C\l’\<:L'g,/DCW\"3l Address in W17at T l‘CfC\LUH3UKl» ‘8 Email addressPage 355 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.l supportthe Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, /E L V’ N l Signature Print Name rm/1'//Q N / Address “ ”" Email addressPage 356 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008—131dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Address ‘5? Email addressPage 357 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature -2 /i *[22 Print Name /74/4/</E S'7'o¢<e’3 Address 63/1;/-8 DUru/x/$7’ I Email address (;ll?>V~l5x,l’V(CU”~(C5’‘"3/W0-=‘OwlPage 358 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature /”’/A,’//""’\ Print Name +ab l7)W4/VKSOAQ Address Q3 3%. Email address P6/é?/?=5,/??c/‘Page 359 of 847 t . May 2022 Thisletter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name //?tfél.30 W Address B Email address j_‘[’j’;g1l/M/_rc4o(:6;/(Va,(tam 'Page 360 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, ail Signature *~~ Print Name /49?;l Q;‘T“‘K,é©g/7/7ZCE74?'2\\D Address é.fr Email addressPage 361 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I supportthe Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, ,//,?3\@“2)70) Email address l\"I’L«¢ll’(J.‘-)“gZ7LC"./l~»7~?/1-‘C-M -’Page 362 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature PrintName \“’lcx‘r*lwP>ee.lm«-.~u\ r,l~.7 l A-8 1(5Dl’C><‘C°’75'“1 Email address \/M10»+.¥/L\e“/\0€é'(.‘L\iMc1'\,\3(9 gPage 363 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, u Signature Print Name ‘T20/6(:"‘/é"/“*6?69/KFZ 4 C6 >3 (*4 £1/9 C><’%<3 3 Address '74 CU,Tf’4LO@'C:'>f'i’-'3-$7Qr UNIV 2%! /555 A Email address £oba20cM<:/av/éa,(:0-rm.Page 364 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature WWM PrintName HQl\5,\N‘pS\~\VlV\{Cl’C Address &\C)"'(Q_lC'\&Cl,~\L_LL_%’(L».‘f- ljrzi EmailaddresslUVUWH.MQLE lS i»LmL.oM ,Page 365 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name uS‘in (Q/'\ Address V ‘/M l C (Y 0 Email address r\5gQ_lg,»2/<[\($__f4/'\gZ(1/j:co/tPage 366 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, signature e"”'VZllZ""V‘/C:'/,2W‘!/kW Print Name 1/!{M AddressPage 367 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I supportthe Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signat ~ I V Print Name 5/Igg?A4/24 5 ?e-Mgag Address ,3 2&7 3 5-3 tA4oAJ7'?ue’ as‘<9 ~70o?- Email address Qt,5j\r\§l23[)l€§l[Egg 2 l/.(7grVI'Page 368 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature g,_LggZ PrintName ?nolrcg Mfriggjd Address gl 7-}Beaver_C3l€f7DTIVQ, Emailaddress anclrea_woooluuarclfl03 Hol'mcu‘l.(pomPage 369 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature é é L Print Name ‘(CO Address 6(\5r0\F?0QVQ ‘/V /K “W /J /C22»'(’2'\’Z/ Email address -f\\§«erv3%}/"L‘Q Lx?:Page 370 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name Ce (H5 Address [2 Q \V\d 6 FJLIH1( Email address [A°"/fl “W”C/APage 371 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the y Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, ., g / Signature / Print Name 7'10/(d’L/ms? Address 3/</-6!/{/}’lc_LK°?'gum A///9/CM/If_/Hbf Phone Number 0?X7’.2 ‘M —34 é 0 /.\/C,/CJ'.L?7E?CFo{'@ (Z/ng/L/._ Email addressPage 372 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18"‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature ( 0y Print Name UM/?g '?0’t7(/I/V4 U Address £2/{-3 Z/0/\f Number #003 Email addressPage 373 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law,2008—131dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name K30(N /<0R5 EL: Address (cl l L ClQ\”?55l\l DR- Phone Number OM35‘$57.’7%5 0" Email address l"<>rV\O@Co%—V_\Q0«C4 .Page 374 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi-Law 2008-131 dated August 18*“,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Since rely, Signature PrintName 6ll\H"lf’\§\MW Q Address l/\‘\‘(\b‘(h Q Phone Number )UrOl Email address l‘t\\§gjX)‘_[V§XV5YXgg?yy x COW}Page 375 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signatur Print Name W Address Email address Hp C/M/\/\_Page 376 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name S?ggc 3 34'.1.(M i g Address 1 l.L~( Email address Qlggg,M H 253.555§l:I:\;@ Dgml,C-1Page 377 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature / Print Name 'lgjgglb,F 5;3,,;~,:,'s?-K -“’~’~ Email addressPage 378 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature 1%F440 Print Name El/L2,(51533 Address (QQCNL/%ZkU/\)U ST Emailaddress [Ox/(grQ5niuSlc@jQ[o(;d.comPage 379 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name "/3/Q %://7/‘/f/ Address 6 7 73‘,£.(/50”/’//[gt/_§ ” Email address "”_§_C,élr_Lz/(a_@519%War‘COMPage 380 of 847 May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5 storey apartment dwelling,on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the Bi—Law2008-131 dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents,to build one storey,upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature Print Name ©9443/x)l:H lJVE:}/ Address_[y?73 L5’:/1:/4/7’/1/~5557' Email address SC [/1I‘l 1 WQ /L0‘f W/Ice i'/ «Q2?/4"?Page 381 of 847 'November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a . 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19”‘, virtual public information méting. Sincerely,/\ Signature:Alli E Print Name:/Al‘/ll‘0/0 Address:é £3 &(2ZZ2&L4€QdO7' Phone Number:H’~‘Page 382 of 847 ‘November 2020 This letter represents my oppositionto the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By-law 2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surroundingneighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend theNovember 19”‘, virtual public information me'ting. Sincerely, Signature: PrintName:/I?/[lg/1:/VA//?lf Addresszl Phone Number:Page 383 of 847 ’November 2020 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5—storey apartment dwelling,on the lands knows as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd,Niagara Falls.I support the By—law2008-131,dated August 18”‘,2008,agreed upon by the surrounding neighborhood,to build one storey,upscale townhouse dwellings. This letter also indicates,I am unable to attend the November 19"‘, virtual public information mefting. Sincerely, Signature: Print Name:5/7/92‘C0/I//V//69 Address:é 772 //0/7//:’5754%(W 4 2 6x2/4/Q’ Phone Number:Page 384 of 847 From: JUANITA PEARSON < Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 9:15 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Zoning By-law Amendment Application / City File AM-2022-001. 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd. Niagara Falls Ms. A. Cooper Planning, Building and Development Dept. City Of Niagara Falls, Ontario Saturday 23 April 2022 Dear Ms. Cooper I am sending this email to be incorporated into the meeting planned to debate the application for zoning bylaw amendment as mentioned above Re: 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd. My wife and I own the home located at and enjoy the atmosphere of a quiet single family residential neighbourhood. That is the prime reason we purchased our home in this area. I cannot understand or accept the concept of a developer buying a parcel of land to develop into something that has already been debated, discussed and agreed too. The parcel we are speaking of has already been cleared for the purposes of single family one store town homes. These home it seems were acceptable to current adjacent property owners. Current property owners in the area and homes bordering the property would not be significantly impacted and the developer would be able to complete his project. So a new developer then purchases the land and wants to once again have the by- law changed to allow a much bigger intrusive project at the expense of current adjacent property owners on Brookfield Ave. and Dorchester Rd. Why? one would wonder would a seasoned developer purchase a parcel of land to develop knowing the property is already zoned for development as town homes....unless they were confident that a by-law amendment would go in their favour, thus allowing a major deviation from the original intent and spirit of the proposed and accepted development. Simple answer PROFITS made at the expense of the adjacent landowners, whose tranquil backyards, privacy, and independence would be taken by a five storey building full of prying eyes, not to disregard the intrusion of parking lot illuminating lights, cars coming and going at all hours, large trucks usually in the early hours coming to empty dumpsters and thus a major decrease in the valuation of the homes that they have purchased specifically for that quiet single family home way of life. Perhaps a solution could be reached by the developer offering to compensate adjacent home owners for the loss of valuation on their homes, but I doubt any developer would dare go down that slippery slope as it would cut into PROFITS and set an unacceptable precedence. As a person that is not directly impacted by this project, I would tell you that since other projects have been developed (Diamond Jubilee school) now apartment complex and the apartment at the top of Brookfield Ave. at Lundys lane. I have noted a major increase in traffic on our street (Clare Cres.) mostly going south way over acceptable residential speeds in a rush to miss the intersection of Lundys Lane and Dorchester. The short cut coming south on Brookfield to Clare, to McMillan and to southbound Dorchester Rd. If this proposed development is allowed to proceed I would expect even more traffic Page 385 of 847 coming down our quiet street to gain access to Coach Dr. and onto Dorchester to go to the apartments. The intersection of Lundys Lane and Dorchester is already a major disaster at the best of times with numerous accidents reported, poor sight lines, and too much congestion, to add another apartment complex on Dorchester Rd. near this intersection would be compounding the problem that has not fully been realized as all the apartments at Diamond Jubilee have yet to be rented. As a concerned taxpayer, that will be impacted by this zoning by law amendment, I would like it known that I STRONGLY DISAGREE with any change to the existing bylaw to allow an apartment complex of any kind to be built on the mentioned lots. These lots were historically single family lots and had single family homes on them. A compromise by adjacent landowners has already been made to allow for the development of one story town homes and I'm sure the current developer was well aware of the zoning when he purchased the land. Rules should not be changed after an agreement has been made, to accommodate larger profits especially at the expense of other residents living in the area. Respectfully submitted, John J. Clark Page 386 of 847 From: Terry Buckland <> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 11:28 AM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Re. Panoramic Properties (Dorchester Property Holding Inc.) We are residents on Coach Drive off Dorchester near the proposed building site of a 5 storey, 74 unit, apartment complex at 6259-6293 Dorchester Road, Niagara Falls. We want you to know that we strongly oppose the bi-law amendment for building this apartment. The current bi-law as it stands, is for single storey townhouses and should remain that way. We join all our friends and neighbours who want to save the character of our well established neighbourhood. Kindly acknowledger our request. Mr. & Mrs. T. J. Buckland Niagara Falls , Ontario Page 387 of 847 From: Mark < Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 10:32 AM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-6259-6293 Dorchester Road I object to any multi-story development on the property in question. The intersection at Dorchester And Lundy’s Lane is already congested. This would be the third large apartment complex within 1 km of the intersection. The added noise to the area is also of concern. This property has tried multiple times for a large development. I urge you to Deny the zoning change and stick with the 1 story concept. Thank You Mark and Terri Hinsperger Niagara Falls Ont Page 388 of 847 From: m.dwyer m.dwyer < Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 7:18 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-6259-6293 Dorchester Road Zoning By-law Application I am registering to attend the May 9th Remote Electronic Open House at 6 pm. I am opposed to changing the zoning by-law to permit a 5 story apartment building on the above noted property. Thank you. M. Dwyer NFO Page 389 of 847 From: Trish Dwyer < Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 2:15 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-6259-6293 Dorchester Road Zoning By-law Application I am registering to attend the May 9th Remote Electronic Open House at 6 pm. I am opposed to changing the zoning by-law to permit a 5 story apartment building on the above noted property. Thank you. P. Dwyer NFO Page 390 of 847 From: Joanne Vasic < Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 10:40 AM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Bylaw zoning amendment for 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd. Mr and Mrs V Vasic, Niagara Falls On Dear Mr Cooper, My husband and I oppose the zoning bylaw change for the above address. Our property abuts this lot . Our backyard will be totally exposed to this proposed building. Previously our neighbours and ourselves have agreed to townhouses being built. Did the developer buy the land knowing that he would be able to change the zoning bylaw. He is not known for building townhouses. Three large scale apartment buildings in three years have been built in our neighbourhood. How many are we expected to absorb? Surely there are other areas of the city that could accommodate infill of this kind. The negative effects of these developments will be discussed by various neighbours. If the two apartments on 5971 Dorchester Rd are any indication of the working relationship between Mr. Butera and the city, a lot is to be desired. They are out of scale for the area, eyesores and obtrusive. City hall allowed him to raise his property several feet above the adjoining neighbours. Water does not run uphill. If provincial powers have the last say for smaller communities like ours when applying their infill housing policy, then what is the point of electing local municipal representatives and going through this process if we have no power over these developers and provincial bodies. I find this whole process cynical and disheartening. Yours truly, Joanne Vasic Page 391 of 847 From: Melissa Bourne < Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 11:00 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Regarding Proposed Amendent of 6259-6293 Dorchester Road Attn: Department of Planning, Building & Development, City Hall, Niagara Falls To All it May Concern, We strongly oppose the proposed amendments to the zoning by-law that would allow a 5 storey building to be built in a residential/residential low density, grouped multiple dwellings zone. We live a couple of doors down from this property and implore you to not rezone this property. Here are some of our concerns: 1. Traffic. Traffic is way, way up in the area. Pulling out of our driveway has gotten more and more difficult. You will need to put traffic lights at Dorchester and Stokes Avenue and even widen the road for a turning lane. I am concerned about this in the off-season and can't imagine how much busier it will be this summer and going forward. 2. Environmental. This has been an area with many mature trees. The "minimum landscaped open space" requested should not be acceptable for our community. We would ask instead that they plant at least as many adolescent trees as were unceremoniously ripped out of our neighbourhood. Trees and green spaces should not be minimized for aesthetics, air quality and even our mental health. Check out this... weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/city-trees-reduce-stress-and-anxiety/ 3. 5 stories will totally destroy and overwhelm our community. I'm shocked that the city would even consider a 5 story building without underground parking. I am shocked that 5 stories would be considered around 2.5 story or less buildings. 4. Please do not let this re-zoning happen. We all deserve better. Thank you for your consideration, Melissa and Bobby Bourne Page 392 of 847 From: Shelagh & Robert Lalonde < Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 7:56 AM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: POSSIBLE SPAM [EXTERNAL]-6259-6293 Dorchester Road-Zoning by-law City File AM-2022-001 We would like to express our concern about the height of the proposed building. 5 storey's infringes on people's privacy, not just in the nearest residences, but for many adjacent properties. At 5 storey's tall, peoples yards will be in direct view of the building residents impacting privacy and enjoyment of properties. It is one thing when you buy a home near an apartment building, but all of the affected homeowners did not buy a home near a 5 storey apartment building and paid for a home without people being able to view their yards. We understand the need for affordable housing but 5 storey's is too tall-3 would be more suitable to this area. As well, the density of housing in this area is becoming a concern with traffic. There has been another 2 buildings recently constructed on Dorchester at Lundy's Lane. Add this new proposed 74 units, and traffic patterns will definitely change. Thank you for listening to our concerns....Shelagh and Robert Lalonde Page 393 of 847 From: Niagara family foot care < Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 4:24 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Proposed bi law amendment AM-2022-001 Dear Whom this may concern, I am writing this email to voice my support with our neighbours on and around 6259-6293 Dorchester road where Panoramic properties have proposed a bi law amendment. 1) We do not support the proposal of a bi law amendment to allow a 74 unit residential building at 6259-6293 Dorchester Road by Panoramic Properties. 2) We live off of Barker street/ Dorchester and although not directly affected by the construction. It will increase traffic in and around our area making it even more dangerous for our children who attend school on Dorchester Road. 3) The property owners close to the proposed building should not have to put up with construction of a new apartment building. No one would like to have that size of an apartment building in the back yard. Their privacy will be invaded. The quiet home and back yard will no longer be the same. 4) This area is for residential properties and it should stay that way 5) There was currently construction of an apartment building at the end of Dorchester/Lundy’s. Therefore there does not need another 74 unit built within a few hundred meters from that. We hope you listen to the people and do not pass this bi law. Regards Emma Hopkins Home Owner Niagara Falls Page 394 of 847 From: Mike Watson < Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 9:16 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Panoramic properties 6259-6293 Dorchester Road NF Hi Alexa, Having moved to this neighbourhood just over a year ago, I am very disheartened by the news of a massive five storey unit building being proposed in this area of Niagara Falls. Everyone deserves a place to call home especially with the chaotic nature of our current housing market. However, the proposed planned originally presented for this parcel of land is nowhere near the sheer magnitude of what is trying to be built. It feels as though this was the plan all along which is morally wrong and extremely unfair to residents in this area, many of whom are older and possibly less able to voice their opinions. This developer is looking to cash in on as many properties as possible, disregarding privacy concerns, traffic congestion and property value in the area. I am fully aware that in our current world any available property will surely be bought, sold and developed into housing. However, a five store 76 unit “eyesore” of building in the heart of a residential neighbourhood feels criminal. You should not be allowed to sneakily change zoning of a property to suit your pocket book. Kind regards, Mike. Page 395 of 847 From: Lisa < Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:53 AM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Apartment Project on Dorchester Road Like that other neighbour who lives on Clare Cres, I am not directly impacted by this project, since I live further down on Dorchester Road. However I agree with all his concerns. The amount of traffic on Dorchester Road has already made it a very busy street to live on. I can imagine how worried I'd feel if I lived on a quiet street like Brookfield. I would not want my very beautiful and peaceful neighbourhood to be destroyed by an intrusive apartment complex. That is why I am lending my support to all the people who are in opposition to this proposed project. Yours Truly, Lisa Lomax Page 396 of 847 From: Lydia DiCiocco < Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 2:01 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Bylawamendment With regards to request of by law amendment by Dorchester Property Holdings. Inc. In my opinion proposed building should blend in with existing buildings,hence a Residential Low Density would be more appropriate.Thankyou. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 397 of 847 From: Mary Anne Seppala < Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:03 AM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Zoning By-Law Amendment Application-City File AM-2022-001 Re meeting Monday, May 9, 2022 We are in opposition to Panoramic Properties zoning bi-law amendment to build a 5 storey apartment building on Dorchester Road. The population density in the area bordering McLeod, Dorchester, Drummond and Lundy’s Lane has already cause great congestion and this increased density will only cause gridlock. The infrastructure cannot sustain this amount development. This unbridled development must stop. Developers buy land and expect the City to do their bidding to change By-Laws so they can do what they want! We are losing valuable land that all of us need for quality of life. This infill is rampant all over Niagara and future generations will suffer. We encourage the committee not to pass this amendment for the present citizens and those to come. Respectfully Mary Anne and Eric Seppala Page 398 of 847 From: Mitch Slater < Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 12:59 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Opposition to Proposed Development To whom it may concern, Please find the attached. This is my formal notice of opposition to the proposed development on Dorchester rd. Sincerely, Mitch Slater Sent from my iPhone Page 399 of 847 Please feel free to use this as an example for a written remittance in opposition for the upcoming meeting May 9, 2022 –send to acooper@niagarafalls.ca May 2022 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development ofa 5 storey apartment dwelling, on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd, Niagara Falls. I support the Bi-Law 2008 -131 dated August 18th, 2008, agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents, to build one storey, upscale townhouses. Sincerely, Signature _________________________________________________________________________ Print Name _________________________________________________ Address __________________________ Phone Number ___________________________________ Email address _________________________________ Mitchell Slater Page 400 of 847 Attn: Alexa Cooper, Planner 2 Department of Planning, Building and Development This email is sent to lodge my objections of allowing Panoramic Properties (Dorchester Property Holding) to build on 6259-6293 Dorchester Road (Assessment Roll No:272507001611400 & 272507001600105) City File : AM2022-001. With the newly built apartments at 5971 Dorchester Road, the expanded on the Toronto Dominion Bank (TD Bank) at the corner of Dorchester Road and Lundy’s Lane this intersection has become a nightmare for cars and pedestrians alike. Getting out of the side streets between Lundy’s Lane and McMillan Drive is very difficult, even more so when the two schools get out. This intersection will get even busier since the Covid restrictions are being relaxed thus allowing the restaurants on or near the corner to open up to full capacity and causing more traffic. Another concern is the infrastructure. With three newly built apartments at 5971 Dorchester Rod and the planned 16 units at 6259-6293 Dorchester Road will the sewers and water mains take the extra load. Another thing to take into consideration is the condition of Dorchester Road itself. The road between Lundy’s Lane and Dunn Street is horrendous. It will need to be repaved now. If the construction is allowed it definitely need to be widened and Page 401 of 847 repaved. You will need to install turning lanes such as was done on Drummond Road for some of the major side streets. In summing up I feel that allowing a major development like the application is asking for will be a major mistake and a detriment to the community of the area. Darrell Bedford Niagara Falls Ont Page 402 of 847 From: jamie clarke < Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 9:38 PM To: CouncilMembers <councilmembers@niagarafalls.ca>; Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Dorchester road zoning by-law development Hello, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed by-law amendment by Dorchester Property Holding Inc; Roll no 272507001611400 and 272507001600105 for the property located at Dorchester Rd. and Stokes St. I live very close to this proposed development on I have noticed with the addition of the new apartment buildings at the former Diamond Jubilee property a large increase in car traffic. This is especially concerning when the building is not yet fully rented. To add another large complex will make the already congested area significantly worse! Not to mention the lights at Lundy's Lane and Dorchester Rd. are already a high traffic area with many accidents. Have any traffic studies been completed to analyze the effect of the increased traffic? If not, why not? There are many times (particularly in the summer) that people cannot turn onto Dorchester Road from Barker street as traffic is backed up from the lights at Lundy's Lane. This new development will only make things worse. Moreover, the homes in this neighborhood are for the most part well established character single-family dwellings. That is why the bi-law is currently for a single-story townhouse and should stay as is. The addition of these large complexes does not fit the neighborhood make- up. Not to mention the loss of privacy as they peer over into other people's backyards. I highly doubt anyone on council would like their new neighbor to be a large 5 story complex. Especially considering something similar was just built up the street! Why then is it ok to be my neighbor? Has anyone gone to see the homes in the surrounding area? If so, I think you will find that these complexes stick out like a sore thumb. This is an old neighborhood and this proposal is wrong for this area! Do not allow the proposed change to the by-law! Voter and concerned citizen: Jamie Clarke Niagara Falls, Ontario Page 403 of 847 From: Rob Ainslie <> Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 3:44 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca>; Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-6259-6293 Dorchester Road To: Alexa Cooper and Mayor Jim Diodati Re: 6259-6293 Dorchester Road Back in 1967 my father Dr. Robert Ainslie and his twin brother Dr. William Ainslie submitted their plans to developed the subdivision of McMillan Drive that attached to the Brookfield & Coach neighbourhood. They attended many a council meeting and were actively involved with the community to maintain the character of the existing neighbourhood. I have been fortunate enough to live on for 36 of my 56 years in Niagara. I currently occupy the home my parents built with my mother still living in the apartment with us. It has been a great neighbourhood to grow up in and raise my own family since a lot of the original character has been maintained. I am all for development and the building of new homes to accommodate the influx of people that want to make Niagara their home. That accommodation has its limits when developers want to cram in more people than an area can reasonably handle and destroy the character of a neighbourhood. Mr. Butera has already added 185 units where my old school DJ used to be and we have another 18 units added at the end of Brookfield. The building at the end of Brookfield is much nicer that the Broadway Motel it replaced, it is only 3 stories high and doesn’t stand out like a sore thumb but it adds to the significant number of apartment buildings already in our area. Concerns: It is already extremely difficult to exit Brookfield, Barker, Coach or McMillan on the best of days and all the units are not fully occupied so adding another 85 units will not help traffic. I see frustrated people trying to pull out onto Dorchester and the Lane taking greater risk which will only increase the number of accidents. It takes me a minimum of two traffic lights to get through the Dorchester Lundys Lane intersection and that is without tourist or the city bus stopping at the corner. There are no plans to widen Dorchester to 4 lanes to accommodate the additional traffic from Costco to Canadian Tire we have too much volume already, just try turning left onto Morrison from Dorchester. I am noticing a huge increase in the amount of traffic on Brookfield and McMillian from people cutting through to avoid the main intersection and their speed is of concern with all the young children living in the neighbourhood. I can’t imagine anyone on council wanting a five story building next to their property that is zoned for single family homes. You are destroying neighbourhood house values to add more money to Mr. Butera’s pockets. The city already approved the development of townhomes for that property with buy-in from the neighbourhood but the goalposts keep moving. We had a meeting in November of 2020 but none of the concerns expressed have been addressed. We will be participating in the May 9th meeting where I hope to have a number of our concerns addressed and hope to see a council stand up for reasonable density and development. Sincerely, Page 404 of 847 Robert & Sheri Ainslie Page 405 of 847 From: Kusum Parakh < Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 5:09 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Fw: Opposition to bi-law amendment (assessment roll no : 272507001611400 & 272507001600105) Hello Sir/ Madam, We live on This is a quite neighborhood. 5 story 76 unit apartment at this site will create noise, congestion and danger to our grandchildren. We are opposed to this development and amendment. Shantilal and Kusum Parakh Page 406 of 847 From: Angel Anderson < Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 12:02 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Letter Ms Cooper, A concerned neighbor asked me to submit this letter on their behalf. Please review attached letter. Thank you Angel Page 407 of 847 From: Bernice Malier < Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 5:32 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-May 9 meeting Dear Ms. Cooper: This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling, on the land known as 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd, Niagara Falls. I support the By-Law 2008-131 dated August 18th, 2008, agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents, to build one-storey, upscale townhouses. Thank you Sincerely, Bernice Malier Niagara Falls, ON Page 408 of 847 From: ashton mascarenas < Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2022 3:06 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Re. 6259 - 6293 Dorchester Road zoning amendment Hi, I'd like to express my opposition to Panoramic Properties' zoning bi-law amendment proposal. I wont be able to attend the scheduled zoom conference Monday the 9th. So I'm writing this instead. I live at I have the misfortune of seeing a Panoramic Properties' two- storey rental development across the street. Street trash (plastic bags, tissue paper, fast food containers) .. there's something on my lawn everyday now. This is aside from the construction materials over the past year and a half, when they were building. Their construction trucks damaged the road curb in front of my house, and that has yet to be replaced. Their choice of building coloring (orange and slate grey!) would have you surmise they built a state-run mental institution there. Traffic volume is UP on Dorchester which is a one lane street, and they want another 74 units?? Is Panoramic going to broaden Dorchester to two-lanes between Lundy's to Mcleod? Nope. So, no zoning amendment for Panaromic on Dorchester. Please and thank you. Regards, Ashton Mascarenas Page 409 of 847 From: Janice Vaiana < Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2022 7:12 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-6259-6293 Dorchester Rd, Zoning by-law amendment application Please accept this e-mail as our strong opposition to the zoning by-law amendment application, city file AM-2022-001 (6259-6293 Dorchester Road). The proposed 16 metre apartment complex would negatively affect the comfort and privacy of adjacent property owners. Additionally, the infrastructure of Dorchester Road, Brookfield Avenue and surrounding areas is already compromised, given the growing congestion and road conditions. We live in the Brookfield neighbourhood, however, our property does not back on to the proposed development. From what we understand, there is little to no opposition to the original property designation of a single-story townhouse development. We are hoping you will do the right thing. Allow residents of adjacent properties (Brookfield/Clare) to continue living in the comfort of their existing homes. Ensure the safety of residents by not adding to the already congested and weakened infrastructure in the area. Please do not allow profits for some to diminish the lifestyle of those living in one of the most well-established neighbourhoods in Niagara Falls. Sincerely, Janice and Anthony Vaiana Page 410 of 847 From: Phil P. Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:28 AM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Proposed zoning bi-law amendment for 74 unit residential apartment building at 6259-6293 Dorchester Road, Niagara Falls Department of Planning, Building & Development City Hall, 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 I am writing to oppose the proposed by-law amendment for the 6259-6293 Dorchester Road development. Let me explain why. I live on my property backs unto the former Diamond Jubilee property, now under development by Panoramic Properties to a four and five story apartment complex. Although the neighbourhood, and City Council, disapproved the proposal, the Ontario Municipal Board did approve it. After surviving a summer of shaking and rattling from the heavy equipment in the early stages of construction, we now find we must live with the following: 1) What was once a cheerful playground in a park like setting has been transformed to a fish-bowl like setting. The privacy enjoyed for many years is completely gone with multiple windows and balconies overlooking our every move. 2) Parking lot lights illuminate our back yards. 3) Lights from cars parking shine directly into some of the surrounding homes. 4) As the project is not yet complete, we have still to see how much extra traffic will be generated near the already busy Lundy's Lane/Dorchester Rd. intersection. When purchasing a home in a residential area, do we not have the right to expect it to remain residential? Please vote against this project! Sincerely, Philomena Prest Page 411 of 847 From: Georgia Linney < Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022 4:24 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-new apt 74 unit 6259-6293 Barker st Dear A.Cooper I am writing this letter to tell you what the ontario municiple boards decision to allow a four story and five story apt. complex on Dorchester Rd on the old Diamond Jubilee school property our back yard faces the four story apt complex has meant for us. That decision completely changed our future. We have lived here for 39 years and had just put in two new bathrooms when the construction started My husband and I are both retired. I do not have a work pension. Our home which we own is debt free and is our retirement investment. We have zero privacy in our backyard where we spend our time. We have a large lot and have gardens down both sides of total home. Our address is 6947 Barker St. which is near Brookfield Ave., We purchased this home as it is in a beautiful sub division and has a large lot. We now live in a fishbowl and whenever we are in our yard we have a Huge wall of windows and patios that we can see into from our home with people looking down into our yard. We have had many people to see this and every single person finds this offensive. The value of our property has gone down so much that I do not know if we could even sell it! I would invite all of city hall to see this from our backyard and see if anyone would even want buy it. My disgust and sadness at this financial harm to us has probably made this letter sound angry, disappointed and cynical. I hope so. I am enclosing before and after pics and i am sure this will give you a better idea! If we were purchasing a home now we would not buy our own house. The new development for the 74 unit apt bldg at 6259- 6293 will further erode our once lovely neighborhood with more traffic and a true eyesore for the residences on the surrounding properties We are totally against this. I just don't have any more words for this horrendous invasion of apt. buildings in a RESIDENTIONAL ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD! BARRY AND GEORGIA LINNEY Page 412 of 847 From: cheryl slater < Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022 8:53 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Written Submission Zoning By-law Amendment Application -City File AM-2022-001 Open House May 9,2022 Hello, I have attached the speech that I will present at the above meeting. I am submitting with anticipation of receiving replies to my questions. Thank you, Sincerely, Cheryl Slater Page 413 of 847 Monday, May 9, 2022 Hello my name is Cheryl Slater. Thank you for this opportunity to speak and raise concerns regarding this application for a Zoning By-law amendment for lands listed as 6259-6293 Dorchester Road. My husband, Richard, and I live at occupied by a single family dwelling. Let me begin with a little background. Over the years beginning in 2004 there has been debate over the use of the land known as 6269 & 6293 Dorchester for apartment (yes apartment), townhouses, condominiums and single family dwellings. Site specific By-law 2008-131 was passed by City Council on August 18, 2008 to allow the building of two 4 unit townhouse dwellings, two semi-detached dwellings along with accessory buildings and structures with height restriction of 7.5 metres and minimum landscaped open space equal to 30% of the lot area. The property north of 6269 known as 6259 Dorchester is zoned as single family residential as well as the house still in existence on the severed lot of 6293 Dorchester. In summary you have an L-shaped lot zoned with a site specific by-law (By-law 2008-131) bookended with property zoned for single family homes as is the case for the surrounding homes in the neighbourhood. We understand that a vacant property of this size is a prime target for infilling. We have come to terms and agreement with this. Hence the agreement and passing of By-law 2008-131. We are not objecting to the development of the said site. We are adamant that the city stand by/uphold their decision made with the agreement of neighbours, reputable developer and city council in the passing of By-law 2008-131. In November 2020 we were given the opportunity to discuss the idea presented about the intention to submit an application for rezoning of all three lots known as 6293, 6269 and additional 6259 Dorchester. It is very disappointing that after our Zoom meeting held November 19, 2020 along with the submission of 100+ letters and 40+ voices of opposition that we are in receipt of this Notice of Application for a Zoning By-law amendment with very little changes. It’s as if we weren’t even heard. The two stand-out changes are the number of units and a “flip” of location to the south side from the north. Can I ask the question, “Why were the number of units decreased?” I can assume that it might have something to do with the number of parking spaces available? I would like to point out that the application refers to 76 units whereas the diagram submitted clearly states 74. If application and diagram are not in agreement just what is the guarantee of what would be built? Another question is why the “flip” from the north side to the south? Again, the concern what guarantee do we have for the trueness of what is submitted to what would actually be built. Page 414 of 847 During our previous meeting, that brought forward many individual concerns to the attention of the developers representatives, the intent was not to repeat ourselves. However, I will repeat anything that has been previously mentioned because it appears there is a need to voice over and over again our concerns. As represented with this “comeback” application with little to no changes following our concerns brought forward. Please be mindful of the 53+(I personally collected) letters submitted via mail in opposition as well as the number of callers tonight who are in opposition to this proposal. I will now apprise you of my concerns of which I hope City Planning will make note of and address. First off Safety – school crossings from the West side of Dorchester to all the schools on the East side. This includes public, catholic, secondary and elementary. Road congestion and access for fire and rescue, ambulance and city busing. Road access from Stokes to Dorchester - even Dorchester to Dorchester for the houses on my street The ongoing short cutting through the side streets to avoid heavy traffic and backlog on Dorchester. This is an issue at present – only to worsen. Privacy and noise – the balconies over- looking our yards. You can’t build a fence high enough to combat and deter this element. What does a fence do to the shading on my property? Dwelling and building lights not to mention vehicle lights that will be shining onto my property when parking. There is mention of a retaining wall. What is the need for that? Are there plans to bring in earth (as with Diamond Jubilee) to raise the ground level even before building a 5-storey apartment? Now how high will this building really be? Is there a formula to determine the density of population for an area of land? How many people can occupy so much land? Can the sewer system, etc. handle this added immense volume? Affordable housing – is an apartment rental of over $2,000.00 really affordable? It has come to my attention that the apartments being rented at the Diamond Jubilee site by the same applicant are being offered monetary assistance for the monthly rental fee? Let me paint a picture of what our neighbourhood has to offer as far as wildlife. Falcons, owls, pileated woodpecker, wild turkeys, coyote (not always welcome), fox, skunk (another uninvited guest), opossum, squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, ground hog, chipmunks and a multitude of other birds. Hummingbirds, cardinals, blue jays, catbird, wrens, flickers, cowbird, hawks, juncos, chickadees, doves and the list goes on. How is this going to affect their presence in our yards with a 5-storey apartment building looming over us? Shade space into our yards with a building of this height could also affect our vegetation. I Page 415 of 847 would invite the City Planning personnel to come and walk through our neighbourhood. I am sure you would agree this is not the place for an apartment building. It doesn’t fit the characteristics of our unique neighbourhood. Please listen and act on our concerns and objections. Once again, we are not objecting to the development of this site. We want the City to uphold their decision and rezone the two additional lots to coincide with By-law 2008-131. I have submitted my speech from tonight to the City Planning Department by way of email to A.Cooper . I do not expect answers tonight but look forward to having my concerns addressed with return correspondence. Thank you. Page 416 of 847 From: Sam Kitson < Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 12:53 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-6259-6293 Dorchester Rd. I would like to make my objection to the proposed multi-storey development at the above noted location. To begin, we have already accepted and approved a proposal several years earlier. This recent proposal consists of a 5 storied building with a far denser population. This would be the third large apartment complex within 1 km of the intersection. The added noise to the area as well as the traffic congestion, and the visual aesthetics of the 5 storey building is a concern. The impact on the vehicle traffic on Dorchester will be greatly increased. The true impact of the recently built apartments at the old Diamond Jubilee school property has not been studied as the buildings are not yet fully occupied. The traffic studies done are not a true reflection of the actual traffic for several reasons . The studies were done during covid and not analyzed for an average over a period of time. In addition the study was done prior to "Diamond Jubilee Apartments" having full occupancy. Currently the traffic is very congested between Dorchester Rd. between Stokes St. and Lundy's Lane. The north bound traffic is backed-up up along Dorchester well past Barker St. This new project will only worsen the already congested roadway. The proposed 5 storey high building is not acceptable nor does it conform to the surrounding neighbourhood. Currently the highest buildings ( south of Barker St.) are 2 1/2 stories the rest are single or 2 storied single dwellings. I strongly urge the council to reject the new proposal. Council already approved a plan that the neighbourhood has accepted. I believe the Council should stick with the already approved plan. Thank you. Sam and Marisa Kitson Niagara Falls, Ont. Page 417 of 847 Original Message----- From: Sandy Toth < Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:29 AM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-6259-6293 Dorchester Road Good morning, I am providing input to the above proposed property: First,, I am opposed to a 5 storey build, 3 is more conducive to the neighbourhood. I would like confirmation on what will be done to the potential of rodents, specifically rats, that are likely dwelling in the vacant white house on the property right now. We had a rat problem a few years back and I don’t want that repeated. What are the proposed colours of the building? The colours on the complex at the corner of Dorchester and Lundys Lane are not ones that would fit Ito this neighbourhood. How wide are the parking spaces? How many visitor parking spaces are there… the drawing shows 74 units and 92 parking spots, doesn’t identify how many are visitor, as far as I can see from the drawing. Is the proposed 74 units considered high density?, if so, again, not conducive to this neighbourhood. Thank you for raising my concerns. Sandy Toth Page 418 of 847 Sam Carrera Max height fence Cross walk at stokes Page 419 of 847 From: Vladi Vasic < Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 2:59 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Re: Open House - 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd (AM-2022-001) NO apt., building in this area..... Many people will sue you......if you put building here.... Page 420 of 847 From: Michael Sinton < Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 9:10 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Input for Application re.6259-6293 Dorchester Road, Niagara Falls As a resident of I wish to begin by saying that we elect politicians hence their appointees and staff to establish a City plan and to provide the resources to maintain it and if necessary, have the spine to defend it at the Municipal Board. I realize that there is a push to increase the number of residential units in Ontario but we should not read that as carte blanche to developers, who would, if given the chance, surround all our neighbourhoods with Stalinesque monstrosities. My objections to the subject plan are; 1. It will compromise the nature and enjoyment of many properties of the residents who have chosen to live in one of the nicer areas of the city especially compromising those properties beside and behind the property in question due to the proposed height. 2. It would set a precedent. If one is permitted what possible justification can be used to refuse another similar neighbourhood-damaging plan? 3. The developers are essentially transferring part of their cost to the neighbourhood by depreciating other properties in order to increase their net income. 4. The proposed plan may actually improve some other residential neighbourhoods if the developers would chose another location. That would be beneficial to the city. 5. Why not a compromise to be worked out that would substantially increase residential units but in a less dense development? That way everybody wins. Including the City’s tax base. 6. Visuals are especially important in a tourist economy. My subjective opinion is that this development would be an ugly blot on the landscape. Yours sincerely, Michael Sinton Sent from Mail for Windows Page 421 of 847 From: Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 4:19 PM To: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: POSSIBLE SPAM [EXTERNAL]-Support Zoning By-law Amendment Application - City File: AM- 2022-001 I will not be attending the remote electronic Open House on this matter, but wanted to express my support for the By-law Amendment. I am in favour of higher density housing and think locations along Dorchester Road are ideally suited for these types of projects. Regards, Robert Reed Niagara Falls, ON Page 422 of 847 The Niagara Falls Shadow Council A registered Independent Social Counseling organization "Holding Governments Accountable" Lady Justice Do not redact the contents of this document This document can be freely distributed Petition #07-11-2023-05 Tuesday,Jubr11,2023 This is a petition concerning the 07/11/2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item#7.1. PBD-2023-40 AM-2022-001,Zoning By-law Amendment Application 6259-6293 Dorchester Road Applicant:Dorchester Property Holdings Inc.(Angelo Butera) Agent:A.J.Clarke 85 Associates Ltd.(Franz Kloibhofer) 5 storey apartment building with 74 units CIBC Presentation —Economic Update to Council —Citytof Niagara Falls Counc?, Alexa Cooper,Planner II,will provide an overview of Report PBD—2023;40. Council is petitioned, 1)To approve the Zoning By—lawamendment as detailed in the report for a 5 storey apartment building with 74 dwelling units and the amending zoning by—law include a Holding (H)provision to require an addendum of the Species at Risk Screening to identify what features and tree types were observed for Species at Risk bats for roosting and to conduct acoustic surveys,if required as discussed in this report. 2)Direct staff to amend the statement below read before each planning application to indicate that written comments and petitions qualify as "notice to the clerk". “anyone who wants notice of the passing of the official plan and zoning bylaw on the sign—insheets outside the council chamber."3)To acknowledge that the petitioners give notice of wanting notice of the passingoftheofficialplanandorzoningbylawamendmentandpreservetheiropportunitytoappealtotheOntarioLandTribunalandrequestfullparticipationonallsiteplanmatters.Page 423 of 847 Petition commenced this day July 6,2023. Signed by, >Joedy Burdett Petition Organizer ~4480 Bridge St.,Niagara falls,ON,CA >William Burdett —Unit 473 23 Four Mile Creek Rd,Niagara—on—the—Lake,ON,CA O/)-l«»»lQ 7/i Page 424 of 847 Joedy Burdett President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City Council election. Qualified Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837) Building Services,Plumbing—All Buildings,Small Buildings Owner Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge Street,Niagara Falls,ON,CA,L2E 2R7 (905)353 8468 Niagara Falls Shadow Council.ca (TNFSC.ca) The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is a registered Independent Social Counseling organization (BIN 1000515774).4 The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is not associated with The City of Niagara Falls Altering or Redacting this document will be viewed as a violation of Section 2(b)ofThe Canadian Charter of Rights Page 425 of 847 Petitions addressed to City Council l. U3U1 l0. A petition is a legibly written request signed by more than one member of the public in support of a shared cause or concern.A petition may be presented in paper format, electronically,or through the use of an on—linesystem.Council will be the only body that can receive a petition,via the City Clerk. A petition may be delivered in person or sent by mail,fax or email to the City Clerk. A petition must contain the following: 1.The date of when the petition commenced; 2.The name and local civic address,telephone number or email address of the organizer who started the petition for contact purposes; 3.The name and address of each person who signed or electronically submitted their name to the petition,and; 4.A clear,legible statement,which communicates the purpose of the petition.All petitions MUST be related to matters within the direct jurisdiction of the City. A petition shall not contain any obscene or improper matter or language. All information on the petition,including names,addresses and telephone numbers shall become part of the public record of the meeting at which it is received. Petitions must be received by noon on the Friday before a scheduled Council meeting in order to appear on the Council agenda.No petition shall be presented or accepted by Council without first appearing on a Council agenda.A A Petitions that relate to a matter listed on the Council agenda will appear as additional correspondence listed under the related agenda item.At that time any petitions may be read into the record by stating the purpose of the petition and indicating how many ‘relevant’individuals have signed.“Relevant’meaning;those who have listed both their name and local address to the petition. Unless otherwise directed by Council by way of a motion,petitions pertaining to a matter on the agenda,will be received and filed for information. A petition not relating to an item on the agenda may be listed as under ‘Communications of the City Clerk’and will also be received and filed for information unless otherwise directed by Council by way of a motion. The City Clerk shall refuse to list a petition on the council agenda where the subject matter involves; 1.current or pending litigation; insurance claims; labour relations,union negotiations or employee relations; advertisements for products or services; election campaign related; matters not within Council’s jurisdiction matters which have been decided by Council during the current term; matters which have been referred to staff for a report,until the matter is before 9.matters which are the subject of an Education and Training Session of Council.9°.\‘.O‘.U‘.4>*$*’NPage 426 of 847 In Response to: Proposal for Future Development of 6293 to 6269 Dorchester Road, Niagara Falls, Ontario. To: Alexa Cooper From: Sandra Damore, , Niagara Falls, Ontario I am perplexed over the decision to once again, introduce a proposal to infill the above-mentioned property with a 5 storey (74 Unit) apartment building, 16 metres in height. Many of us who reside in the adjacent, and surrounding area, have repeatedly expressed our concerns, and dismay, (by participating in multiple meetings over the past few years) on having such a project come to fruition. It is unclear to me, why our voices and opinions have not been acknowledged. This is an area of well kept, older homes, many, dating back to the 1950s. It is a quiet, safe, and cohesive neighbourhood. We are blessed to be surrounded by beautiful mature trees. Once again, the majority of those who live in the Brookfield, Stokes, Dorchester Rd area, have said “no”, to your earlier proposals of a high-rise apartment/condo complex. Repeated meetings, with repeated proposals of high-rise buildings being introduced into our neighbourhood, will continue to receive a resounding “no”. WE SAID NO TO THIS IN THE PAST, AND WERE RESPECTFULLY HEARD: PD- 2003, the application for a 29 unit, three-storey apartment building was recommended for denial – Conclusion – application was recommended for denial. Reasons: “the proposed development does not comply with the intent and purpose of the Official Plan with respect for residential redevelopment and infilling; the proposed development has not been designed to achieve proper integration with the surrounding residential land uses”. Setbacks; Residents of this established neighbourhood, expressed “concerns over loss of privacy, building encroachment into open space, and amenity areas and preservation of the natural environment”. In making reference to previous proposals regarding development of this property. On February 17, 2003, as per, “PD-2003-19, Zoning By-law Amendment Application, AM-46/2002, 6269 and 6293 Dorchester Road, Page 427 of 847 Applicant: Falls City Design/Build, Agent: Richard Brady, Planner, Proposed 29 Unit, Three Storey Apartment”. “The proposed redevelopment of a single- family lot located at 6269 Dorchester Road, together with a portion of another lot located at 6293 Dorchester Road, for a 29-unit apartment building, would not be in keeping with the City’s Official Plan policies”. “Height Gradation – The proposed apartment building is three storeys with a pitched roof. While a pitched roof design is more aesthetically pleasing than a flat roof, the applicant wishes to construct the building an additional two metres above the standard 10 metre height requirement”. Other options for a more compatible development (as per this report) – Reduce the height of the building: “This can be achieved either by elimination of the third storey, or placing half of the ground floor underground, similar to a raised bungalow. Each will significantly mitigate the impacts of building height”. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully yours, Sandra Damore Page 428 of 847 July 2023 This letter represents my opposition to the proposed development of a 5-storey apartment dwelling, on the land known as 6259- 6293 Dorchester Road, Niagara Falls. I support the By-Law 2008-131 dated August 18th, 2008, agreed upon by the neighbourhood residents, to build one-story, upscale townhouses. I grew up adjacent to the properties and my parents still live there. I can assure you this proposed project does not reflect character of the neighbourhood. Sincerely, Signature: ___________________________________ Print Name:__________________________________ Address:____________________________________ Phone Number:______________________________ Email Address:_______________________________ Mitch Slater 4984 Kingston Ave. Niagara Falls (905) 704-9892 m_slater4@live.ca Page 429 of 847 In Response to: Proposal for Future Development of 6293 to 6269 Dorchester Road, Niagara Falls, Ontario. To: Alexa Cooper From: Sandra Damore, , Niagara Falls, Ontario I am perplexed over the decision to once again, introduce a proposal to infill the above-mentioned property with a 5 storey (74 Unit) apartment building, 16 metres in height. Many of us who reside in the adjacent, and surrounding area, have repeatedly expressed our concerns, and dismay, (by participating in multiple meetings over the past few years) on having such a project come to fruition. It is unclear to me, why our voices and opinions have not been acknowledged. This is an area of well kept, older homes, many, dating back to the 1950s. It is a quiet, safe, and cohesive neighbourhood. We are blessed to be surrounded by beautiful mature trees. Once again, the majority of those who live in the Brookfield, Stokes, Dorchester Rd area, have said “no”, to your earlier proposals of a high-rise apartment/condo complex. Repeated meetings, with repeated proposals of high-rise buildings being introduced into our neighbourhood, will continue to receive a resounding “no”. WE SAID NO TO THIS IN THE PAST, AND WERE RESPECTFULLY HEARD: PD- 2003, the application for a 29 unit, three-storey apartment building was recommended for denial – Conclusion – application was recommended for denial. Reasons: “the proposed development does not comply with the intent and purpose of the Official Plan with respect for residential redevelopment and infilling; the proposed development has not been designed to achieve proper integration with the surrounding residential land uses”. Setbacks; Residents of this established neighbourhood, expressed “concerns over loss of privacy, building encroachment into open space, and amenity areas and preservation of the natural environment”. In making reference to previous proposals regarding development of this property. On February 17, 2003, as per, “PD-2003-19, Zoning By-law Amendment Application, AM-46/2002, 6269 and 6293 Dorchester Road, Page 430 of 847 Applicant: Falls City Design/Build, Agent: Richard Brady, Planner, Proposed 29 Unit, Three Storey Apartment”. “The proposed redevelopment of a single- family lot located at 6269 Dorchester Road, together with a portion of another lot located at 6293 Dorchester Road, for a 29-unit apartment building, would not be in keeping with the City’s Official Plan policies”. “Height Gradation – The proposed apartment building is three storeys with a pitched roof. While a pitched roof design is more aesthetically pleasing than a flat roof, the applicant wishes to construct the building an additional two metres above the standard 10 metre height requirement”. Other options for a more compatible development (as per this report) – Reduce the height of the building: “This can be achieved either by elimination of the third storey, or placing half of the ground floor underground, similar to a raised bungalow. Each will significantly mitigate the impacts of building height”. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully yours, Sandra Damore Page 431 of 847 City of Niagara Falls Department of Planning, Building & Development, RE: AM-222-001 and PBD-2023-40 Report To: Niagara Falls City Council Members: As home owners and residents of for the last 27 years, we feel our comments regarding the development of 6259-6293 Dorchester Road need to be filed. The current approval, accepted by the city and local residents for a townhouse development is more than what is needed on this part of Dorchester Road. The addition of the TD Canada Trust plaza created the first traffic hazard in this area of Dorchester Road. Allowing for the development of the old Dorchester Manor into condo/apartments added more traffic to the area. Then followed the development of Oldfield Road subdivision at the end of Dorchester Road, followed by the addition of 2 multi-story apartment buildings on the site of the old Diamond Jubilee, all of which now has created an extremely busy traffic area, with increased traffic already coming and going from the Diamond Jubilee development. Adding to the traffic moving along Dorchester Road is not a solution as Dorchester Road/Lundy’s Lane has already seen too many accidents. We walk Dorchester Road regularly and speed limits are not followed. Trying to access Dorchester Road from Coach Drive, MacMillan Drive, Barker Street, Crescent Road, Stokes Avenue and Spence Street is a test of patience as wait times lengthen to get your automobile safely into or out of the stream of traffic. To decrease the risk of turning left onto Dorchester Road from our street, Coach Drive, we now wend our way through our neighbourhood streets up Brookfield to turn right onto Lundy’s Lane and take our chances turning left at the traffic light. There are days when traffic heading up Dorchester Road is backed up to between Stokes and Barker, making for very frustrated drivers. Turning left (south) off of Stokes onto Dorchester Road is already not an easy task and putting an access for potentially 75 plus cars on the other side, creating almost an intersection, is making another area ripe for accidents, especially with a bus stop right there. There is also a northbound road grade increase as you head north on Dorchester Road from Stokes. This elevation can make it difficult to see traffic coming southbound for those who would need to head north from this development and cross that lane of traffic. Page 432 of 847 APPROXIMATE PROPOSED DORCHESTER ENTRANCE LOCATION LOOKING NORTHBOUND FROM WEST SIDE OF THE STREET. After reading the PBD-2023-40 report, page 2 of the Report, Circulation Comments under Transportation Services say there are no objections. That can’t be correct. It states that there would be a 2.9m road widening requirement in front of this area. It doesn’t say what it is for but we suspect it would be for a turning lane in some direction. That may very well help those trying to turn into the development northbound but not to get out as it only states between 6259 and 6269 Dorchester Road. Page 433 of 847 APPROXIMATE PROPOSED DORCHESTER ENTRANCE LOCATION LOOKING SOUTHBOUND FROM WEST SIDE OF THE STREET. Further, since there are hydro poles running the west side of Dorchester Road, it would appear the path of least resistance would be to widen the east side. This is very unclear. Will trees be displaced on the East side and are they accommodated for? This North/South artery needs to be widened to four lanes from McLeod Road up to Hwy 420 now, even without this development. It is difficult to understand how Transportation Services doesn’t see these issues. The next point in Transportation services is that at the site plan stage, traffic modelling will needed to be completed to confirm no conflicts between Stokes Street and the proposed driveway due to the misalignment. Is that all that you are doing the review for? What happens if there is an issue? Is it too late to revisit this proposal? This study is potentially misleading in that on the following Page 3 of the Report, Staff’s responses to the neig hbourhood comments from Transportation Services was that they reviewed the submitted Traffic Impact Study and had no concerns with traffic volumes or the number of parking spaces provided. Has the study been done or hasn’t it? Page 4 of the Report has already ruled out the need for Traffic control signals at this intersection. Page 434 of 847 APPROXIMATE PROPOSED DORCHESTER ENTRANCE LOCATION LOOKING EASTBOUND FROM WEST SIDE OF THE STREET ONTO STOKES STREET. Page 6 of the Report lists the departures from the standard R5C regulations. The six listed items speak to landscaping and parking lot implications. The landscaping affects the current residences in the area. Page 3 makes reference to the ‘fix’ for the lack of parkland and that the city will be given cash-in-lieu of providing the adequate parkland. That is nice but it doesn’t help the local residences who need to live with this long after the city spends the dollars elsewhere! Lastly, Page 7 of the Report indicates that a 6ft high fence is proposed on top of the retaining walls. Who maintains the fences after they begin to deteriorate? If you notice that in some of these developments, stone/masonry walls are erected at the entrance to the development. Imperial Court just a bit further north is a good example. The brick masonry has deteriorated over the last 10 years and is in a poor state. Who is supposed to bear the responsibility to fix it? The homeowner as the developer may not even be in business anymore. Is that fair? Does everything in this city have to be a nightmare to get around? We already had our traffic strategies for “tourist” season, but that seems to be all the time in the last few years. Please consider the current residents in this area and leave the development of 6259 -6293 Dorchester Road as approved as a townhouse development in the approved R1C rating, not the Page 435 of 847 R5C which is poised with issues that can’t be undone. We understand this is the same developer who put in the Diamond Jubilee 5 high and 4 high towers near Lundy’s Lane, also on Dorchester Road. Enough already. At this point, the City doesn’t even know what these developments will do to property values. Well, the residents surely do. The city should look to develop the old Acres property where there already is a traffic light, access to commercial spaces, high rises in the area already and no neighbours that can be negatively impacted. The development areas need to make sense and take into account the existing tax payers. Respectfully submitted, Dan D’Amico, P.Eng. Monica D’Amico Page 436 of 847 1 From: Sent:Sunday, July 9, 2023 8:49 PM To:Alexa Cooper Cc:doc.favell Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Oppose of five storey building on Dorchester Road Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Daryl & Ann-Marie Favell Niagara Falls Reasons for opposing: - Increased traffic flow traffic has been worse since the Diamond Jubilee School property two Apartment Buildings were built. - Fire trucks are now using Stokes and Corwin Ave to avoid traffic on Dorchester road. - Last week on July 6th there was a hit and run at 5:15 pm on Stokes and Corwin Ave - Pedestrian was injured police responded. - Increase vehicle traffic in the neighborhood with the vehicles avoiding Dorchester Road - Our quiet Neighborhood now has speeders and are going through stop signs without stopping like they don’t exist. - Now with the new basket ball courts and tennis courts people are not using the park parking lot they are parking on both sides of Corwin Ave and Stokes due to parking on both sides of the street. How are the fire trucks to get down the street when they can`t even make it down Dorchester Road to Lundy`s lane because of the volume of traffic? - With a 74 unit apartment building where do you think all of the flow of traffic is going to end up. - We know in our quite residential neighbourhoods - The City has already approved 37 town houses on Carlton Street where Rainbow Gardens used to be. Why has that not been developed? Page 437 of 847 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 438 of 847 1 From:Willy Rempel < Sent:Sunday, July 9, 2023 9:33 PM To:CouncilMembers; Alexa Cooper Subject:[EXTERNAL]-My resident statement to 6259-6293 Dorchester Road #AM2022-001 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hello Ms. Cooper and all Council Members, I am writing to include my opposition to the proposed development project, along with the overwhelming majority of neighbours in the area: 6259-6293 Dorchester Road zoning by-law amendment application #AM2022-001 Applicant: A. Butera Agent: A.J. Clarke & Associates Ltd. (Franz Kloibhofer) There is a long list of reasons why this development is a bad idea for the location, but let me start by saying that 'nimbyism' is a poor criticism for our position. You do not open a daycare center in the middle of an industrial zone, nor a funeral home amongst nightclubs. If you, along with the Ontario government, want Niagara Falls to become a dense urban area integrated into the GTA, it still matters to do it right. This development is doing it wrong in so many ways which the other neighbours have already and will continue to voice. Both sides of Dorchester have well established neighbourhoods with their own character: quiet, bountiful mature trees, ample lot sizes. In short, beautiful. It is wrong to think it is just old retirees who will soon be replaced with a younger cohort in favour of hip, high-rise lifestyles. This has already happened - at least two transplants from the GTA already chose our area for this reason. Future urban residents from around the world, not just the GTA, will want a city of neighbourhoods with diverse character. Good design matters for whole cities, not just individual properties. This is Niagara Falls, potentially a world-class city with natural wonders found nowhere else in the world. We are a city that has been and should be outstanding. You are the stewards. This development will permanently ruin the natural and built beauty of our area; as well as permanently ruin the quality of life for all living in the area far around; present and future. It will also cause significant financial damage via our property values. We have seen the results of Mr. Butera and Mr. Kloibhofers plan on the former Diamond Jubilee property. It is an ugly blight that is wholly out of character for the area. N ot just the outrageous size, the facade does not fit with anything and frankly is unpleasant on its own. Lastly, I have come to understand that this development violates multiple regulations that require exemptions, that our infrastructure is already overloaded, and that this is not required to fulfill any mandates. Developers have had 14 years to profit from an already long argued and agreed upon plan. You, council and city staff, have put in great efforts to beautify the city: ornate street lights, downtown revitalization, etc. You renovated our AG Bridge park tennis courts and it looks great. I and others are very grateful for what you have done and I personally thank you for it. Please keep up this good work, please do not allow this mistake to happen -- again. There are other areas in the city more suitable to Mr. Buteras oversized ambitions, areas which no doubt you will not have this amount of opposition. We live here, some of us for our whole lives; we know what we are talking about. Regards, Willy Rempel Page 439 of 847 2 Niagara Falls CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 440 of 847 Monday July 10, 2023 Good Day Your Honourable Mayor & Councillors I would like to express my opinion on the Proposed 5 Storey Apartment Building for 6259 – 6293 Dorchester Road. Although it will affect my wife and I minimally, I have concerns for my Friends and Neighbours that are directly adjacent to and have adjoining Properties. These folks have been established and living their normal lives here for many years past. A project of this magnitude with the number of Units and Height will have a negative impact on their quality of life, in particular their Privacy within their own backyards. As a retired Municipal Building Official for over 21 yrs. I understand the importance of Urban Growth and the need for Development. A Municipality’s Population growth and to be self sufficient is crucial and critical in sustaining prime services to our citizens. I can go on and on for the importance for projects like this, but since we have limited time I am sure you are understanding and sympathetic to my concerns here. I am therefore requesting that you, our governing body give serious consideration in Reducing the number and Height of this project where it results in a minimal impact to the adjacent properties and that would be acceptable to both the adjacent property owners and to the Developer. Thankyou for your time. Sam B. Carrera M.A.A.T.O. CRBO CBCO Page 441 of 847 1 From:Lydia DiCiocco < Sent:Sunday, July 9, 2023 12:01 PM To:Alexa Cooper Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Proposed building Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged With regards to the developer’s request to build five storey apartment buildings on Dorchester road, the design is more for a commercial area and has no green space facing the road. The City already approved single storey townhouses which would be more geared to the residenƟal area. Hopefully you will consider my opinion. thank you. ladiciocco@icloud.com CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 442 of 847 1 From:Planning Emails Sent:Monday, July 10, 2023 8:17 AM To:Alexa Cooper Subject:FW: Public Meeting Notice for 6259-6293 Dorchester Road Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: jamie clarke < Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 11:15 PM To: Planning Emails <planningemails@niagarafalls.ca>; CouncilMembers <councilmembers@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Re: Public Meeting Notice for 6259-6293 Dorchester Road Hello, our names are Jamie and Kelly Clarke. We live at , just around the corner from yet another proposed large (5-storey apartment complex) for Dorchester Rd. across from Stokes St. ( development 6259-6293) I like many of the surrounding homes in the neighboured oppose such a large development in a character neighbourhood with many mature trees. Unfortunately, we both work and won't be able to attend the meeting at 2:30 on a Tuesday. Just an aside, why have a meeting at a time when the majority of people are at work? We would really like to have our voices heard, but should not have to choose between work and a public meeting. Since the recent build at the former Diamond Jubilee site, we have noticed an increase in traffic cutting through our once-quiet streets to bypass Lundy's Lane. Not to mention there has been a significant increase in traffic when trying to turn onto Dorchester Rd. from Barker or Stokes St. So much so, that I feel we require a "Do not block intersection sign" at Dorchester and Barker similar to the one at Dorchester and Spence. The traffic that once only backed up to Spence from the light at Dorchester and Lundy's Lane is now backing up to Barker Street and beyond. I request that you please drive up and down Dorchester Road and try to access Dorchester Rd. from Barker Street on a weekday around 4:00 pm. The traffic concerns are exasperated during the school year as there is also a school crossing located at this intersection! Has there been any traffic studies to monitor flows before and after these builds? Is this even considered? If not it needs to be. Not to mention there are often accidents at the lights located at Dorchester and Lundy's Lane, these will only increase with more cars concentrated in this area. This increase in traffic congestion is already going to get worse as yet another large development is going up just a few hundred meters down Dorchester Road beside the church. What considerations has the city undertaken to alleviate this increase in traffic congestion? What consideration is given to the concerns of residents, many of whom have lived in this area for decades? Furthermore, this proposed new build will not fit with the neighbourhood! This is a well-established neighbourhood with many older character homes. Although our home will not be directly impacted, I certainly Page 443 of 847 2 would not want people peering out their balconies into my backyard. That is totally unfair to those surrounding single-family homes. Mayor and Councillors would you like to have a 5-storey complex built beside your home? Would you like a significant amount of people watching over your backyard while you have a family bbq? This is already happening with those who live beside the former Diamond Jubilee site and it is not right! Not to mention the style and outward aesthetic of the building at Diamond Jubilee and the proposed new build do not suit an area with historic homes (Judy LaMarsh, Roseburg, Egerton Morden heritage house - built in 1875 etc.,). There is plenty of land in the city not surrounded by single-family homes where a large complex like this would be suitable if that is the builder's desire. I am not opposed to the appropriate development of the site, but another large apartment complex is nowhere near appropriate. I believe at one time 1 or 1.5-storey "luxury condos" were proposed. That seems like a much more logical and appropriate use of the proposed space. However, transforming what was once 1 or 2 single-family dwellings into a 5-storey complex is nowhere near appropriate. Sincerely, Jamie / Kelly Clarke Niagara Falls, Ont From: Planning Emails <planningemails@niagarafalls.ca> Sent: June 9, 2023 12:55 PM Cc: Alexa Cooper <acooper@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Public Meeting Notice for 6259-6293 Dorchester Road Good day, You have previously indicated that you wished to receive notification of any public notice on the development of 6259- 6293 Dorchester Road, Niagara Falls, ON. Please see the attached notice for the upcoming Public meeting on the proposed development. If you have any questions contact Alexa Cooper at 905-356-7521 extension 4246 or acooper@niagarafalls.ca. Should you no longer wish to receive future notifications, please send us an email indicating this information and you will be removed from the mailing list for this development. Sincerely, Planning Department City of Niagara Falls Page 444 of 847 Short Summary of the Proposals This is my summary of the proposed 5 story apartment building on Dorchester Road. All reports and studies are outdated. Some were done over a short duration or during Covid. They were also completed before the 154-unit apartment building just north of this proposal had been completed. The traffic study used the city report from 1986 as a guideline. The traffic, in all fairness to the residents that live and travel these roads should be studied for a period of 24/7 for 2 weeks to get a realistic count on the traffic. Calculations for the infrastructure for the sewer and watermains does not take into account the other 155-unit buildings. There have been three different owners of these properties with 2 other times the city has re-zoned them. How many times can we keep on doing this? In 2008 (AM-2008-017) permitted to develop 8 townhouse dwelling units 2 semi-detached dwellings on the West side of Dorchester Rd., opposite Stokes St. (total of 12 and approved by the city and the neighbours). The next owner added 4 more units to make it a total of 16 units. Now, here we are again to try to come to an agreement that will satisfy everyone. If we must compromise, I suggest rezoning the property to a R5B density which will reduce the height to 10 metres and number of units to 56. This will allow for the required set-back, the correct amount of parking spaces would be 78 with 3 handicaps, the proper amount of landscaping at 35% and the proper parking stall dimensions 2.75-3.0 metres with a drive aisle width of 6.3 metres. Page 445 of 847 Concerns for Proposed Apartment Complex on Dorchester Road The original request was for 85 units on .76 hectares works out to be 115 units per hectare, Niagara Falls (100/hectare max.) A 5-story building works out to be 16.6-metres (54.5 feet) high. Another rezoning by-law amendment application PBD-2020-72 requested a 4-story apartment building. The city council came back with a recommendation of 3 stories with a 10-metre (33 feet) limit in height. In the very tiny print on page 3 of the proposal the required landscape is 40% of the property, the provided section states there is 19%. There are also only allowances for 1.24 parking spots per unit and only 2 guest spots in all of the parking area. The sketch on page 2 does not appear to have enough room to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles, example: firetrucks. You will also notice the location of the waste bin. It is located approximately 10 metres from 6292 Brookfield Ave. (Mark Kaine’s) swimming pool. (since been moved). I also have concerns about the infrastructure. Are the existing sanitary and storm sewers large enough to handle added load of all the new infilling structures built on Dorchester Rd. and the top of Brookfield Ave? I can only find information for a 450mm sanitary sewer from 1950 and sparse segments of a 450mm storm sewer. What about the extra traffic on an already busy Dorchester Rd. and Lundy’s Lane? Certain times of the day the traffic is backed up to Stokes St. trying to access Lundy’s Lane from Dorchester. The city council approved a R5A for the property known as 6259 Dorchester Rd. with a combination of 12 multi-plex units. The 2 adjacent properties are zoned R1C (single family dwellings). The original owner was seeking a 3 story 39-unit complex which was turned down. There were more than 30 council meetings that I attended to reduce the original proposal to the approved 12 multi-plex units. They consisted of 2 townhouses containing 4 units each and 2 semi-detached units. Unknown to some of the neighbours, council changed the zoning from R5A to R4-839 in 2008.This gave the developer 16 multi-plex units. Page 446 of 847 According to Traffic Impact Study and Level of Service Delay & Parking Study • The city traffic study used for this impact study is from 2012 (10 years old) and does not include the newly finished apartment building with 154 units. • 4.3 of the study has restrictive times and accounts for only one day in the middle of the week still during Covid. • 5.4 the sustainable transportation master plan is from 2011 (11 years old) • 6.1 site trip calculation I find this number extremely low unless the number is per hour. • Please explain table #4 • 8 signal warrant analysis Wednesday August 4/21 is for only one day and limited hours. • Table 8 states - 1.4 parking spaces per unit which would put the required number at 106 spaces. This would require 4 handicap spaces for under 100 spaces at 4%. What number is required for over 100 spaces. • 6515 McLeod Rd. was used for the parking space calculation to be applied at this location. (nothing there) • Table 11 mentions this application is 2 short for handicap parking. (should be 4 places) • 11.1 estimate is low and does not take in to account the 2 new apartment buildings nearby. • Average Northbound and Southbound traffic on Dorchester Rd. on an 8-hour watch on Aug. 4/21 was approximately 2000 The level of service delay on Dorchester Rd. is classed as “E” – long traffic delays, heavy congestion. Wait times to clear the intersection in excess of 10 minutes during peak times, which is pretty much most of the day. This according to 1985 report. City page 21, Region pages 10 & 11. • The remaining parking area and green space does not allow enough room for snow removal. I would like to see an up to date study done over 24 hours for 7-14 days. Some of these surveys were completed during inclement weather and during Covid. I feel they are not accurate. Many times, I have sat through 3 or more light changes trying to cross Lundy’s Lane going North or South. The same for going East and West at the same traffic signal. Page 447 of 847 1 From:Anita Traub < Sent:Monday, July 10, 2023 2:23 PM To:Alexa Cooper Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Proposed rezoning amendment for July 11 meeting Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged To The Honourable Members of The City Council of Niagara Falls, in regard to: 6259-6293 Dorchester Road Zoning By-law Amendment application -City File AM-2022-001 Applicant: Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. (Angelo Butera) Agent: A.J. Clarke & Associates Ltd. (Franz Kloibhofer) A building development has been proposed and the members of City Council are being put to the test. The developer, by his proposal, is boldly testing the willingness of Council members to fulfill their trust to their constituents to protect their interests. Council is being asked to cater to the desires of a community outsider who contributed nothing to establishing the representation of the residents of Niagara Falls - City Council - by voting for them, but who wishes to use their authority as a means to his own ends, disregarding the detriment that his development will be to Council’s supporters. Implicitly put before Council are questions of the merits or demerits of this development that the developer has not raised, judging by his proposed design. It would seem that he expects Council members to do likewise. We, as tax-paying citizens of Niagara Falls, who added our voices to the election of Council membership in its present form, are grateful to be able to bring the issues and the questions they raise to your attention, confident that wise judgement will prevail over an obviously imprudent request for approval by Council members. The issues and the attending question raised for Council is: Will the proposed development bring advantage or disadvantage to Council’s constituents? The immediate answer is that no advantages to residents near the development site have been offered; it is very simple to infer that none exist. Disadvantages, however, are numerous. The proposed development overlooks the general principal, “Do no harm;” harm abounds in every aspect of the proposal. A select few are offered for Council’s consideration. The proposed site is in the midst of a tax-payer supported, single-family-chosen residential community spanning three generations. The existing order and purpose of such a neighbourhood setting seems to have been completely ignored by the developer; the structure stands five stories in height and the developer expects this glaring incongruity to be overlooked. The disregarded disruptions this proposal brings to the area include the following: 1. A tower of this height will severely compromise the privacy of nearby residents as a matter of common sense. Council has the opportunity to protect its constituent’s privacy. Can I count on City Council to disregard this precious quality of residential neighbourhood life, the developer seems to be asking. 2. The development is incompatible with the proposed location, being aesthetically and practically at odds with the purposes of a residential context. This inherent conflict of designs and purposes will inevitably reveal themselves in such further intrusions upon constituents lives. These are elaborated upon below. 3. Property values will decrease as their desirability decreases due to their proximity to an obvious aesthetic insult and privacy threat. Resident’s properties are, in most cases, their greatest financial asset. 4. Our property taxes have increased approximately 25% in this year alone while subsidies have been granted to developers, such as this one. The developer has apparently set his hopes to the effect that Council will not intervene to end this reversal of constituent priorities, sending the message to constituents that Council will take no stand to defend them against an ever-increasing financial burden. We are looking to City Council to prove him wrong. Page 448 of 847 2 5. The proposal’s insufficient parking forces parking onto nearby Stokes St., which is a street, not an overflow parking lot. Local resident’s freedoms to access their own street and properties, as well as accommodating visitor parking will be severely compromised. This conflict of purposes is already on display at the parking lot for A. G. Bridge Park, where relatively new Culp Street residents park for overflow purposes. Parents picking up their children from Princess Margaret school find this a hazard. The fact that such an overflow strategy is being taken for granted is to admit that the execution of this proposal cannot go forward without forfeiting an orderly arrangement for a chaotic one. It is astonishing that the developer expects Council to grant approval for a design that admits such failure at the outset. We are confident that Council will act to protect constituent’s rights by forbidding such a misuse of purposes for an established street. 6. Traffic on Dorchester Rd., which the proposed development will access will intensify even further, as will traffic on residential streets such as Barker and Stokes St. But Council has the authority to act to protect existing residents from the danger of the increased traffic and potential neighbourhood speeding of numerous apartment tenants. 7. Traffic risks are further increased as a bus route exists immediately adjacent to the proposed development. 8. Dorchester traffic has already generally increased to the point that entering businesses at the Dorchester/Lundy’s Lane intersection is often impossible as drivers (commonly) fail to keep entry ways open. Further, left-hand turns from such businesses as far down as Morrison Street have become so challenging that right turn detours - prolonging the return home - are now often used as an escape from the increased risk. The same is true only to a somewhat lesser extent of left-hand turns onto Dorchester from residential streets. Human skill and nature in the form of patience will not increase to meet the still greater increased demand on drivers that this development will require. The problem will be exacerbated in the Summer when millions of tourists will pass through the city, as well as in Winter driving conditions. Council has the opportunity to act against this proposal to protect its constituents from the inevitable increase in risk of accidental injury. Incredibly, the developer has demonstrated confidence that it will not. The proposed development is thus detrimental to the local neighbourhood, one which has already been subjected to excessive infilling and is also not required by the city, having already exceeded its obligation to build new housing as mandated by the province of Ontario. We, the residents of 6837 Stokes St. hereby respectfully request that the proposed zoning amendments to accommodate this deleterious development be denied. We thank you for your kind consideration of this letter. Anita Traub Norbert Traub , Niagara Falls, Ont. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 449 of 847 1 The Niagara Falls Shadow Council A registered Independent Social Counseling organization "Holding Governments Accountable" Lady Justice Do not redact the contents of this document This document can be freely distributed Comment #07-11-2023-05A Tuesday, July 11, 2023 This is a comment concerning the 07/11/2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item #7.1. PBD-2023-40 AM-2022-001, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 6259-6293 Dorchester Road Applicant: Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. (Angelo Butera) Agent: A. J. Clarke & Associates Ltd. (Franz Kloibhofer) 5 storey apartment building with 74 units CIBC Presentation - Economic Update to Council - City of Niagara Falls Council, Alexa Cooper, Planner II, will provide an overview of Report PBD-2023-40. Council, I was not aware of the opposition to this proposal when I filed my document. I would not have requested approval of an issue with so much residential concerns. I change my recommendation to NOT APPROVE in light of the concerns of the residents. Council is requested, 1) To NOT APPROVE the Zoning By-law amendment as detailed in the report for a 5 storey apartment building with 74 dwelling units and the amending zoning by- law include a Holding (H) provision to require an addendum of the Species at Risk Screening to identify what features and tree types were observed for Species at Risk bats for roosting and to conduct acoustic surveys, if required as discussed in this report. 2) NOT Direct staff to amend the statement below read before each planning application to indicate that written comments and petitions qualify as "notice to the clerk". "anyone who wants notice of the passing of the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment or preserve their opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal shall give notice to the city clerk immediately after today's public meeting or leave their name on the sign-in sheets outside the council chamber." Page 450 of 847 2 3) To acknowledge that the persons below give notice of wanting notice of the passing of the official plan and or zoning bylaw amendment and preserve their opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal and request full participation on all site plan matters. Page 451 of 847 3 Petition commenced this day July 6, 2023. Signed by,  Joedy Burdett Petition Organizer - 4480 Bridge St., Niagara falls, ON, CA  William Burdett - Unit 473 23 Four Mile Creek Rd, Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON, CA Page 452 of 847 4 Joedy Burdett President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City Council election. Qualified Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837) Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small Buildings Owner Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, ON, CA, L2E 2R7 (905) 353 8468 Niagara Falls Shadow Council.ca (TNFSC.ca) The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is a registered Independent Social Counseling organization (BIN 1000515774). The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is not associated with The City of Niagara Falls Altering or Redacting this document will be viewed as a violation of Section 2(b) of The Canadian Charter of Rights Page 453 of 847 5 Petitions addressed to City Council 1. A petition is a legibly written request signed by more than one member of the public in support of a shared cause or concern. A petition may be presented in paper format, electronically, or through the use of an on-line system. Council will be the only body that can receive a petition, via the City Clerk. 2. A petition may be delivered in person or sent by mail, fax or email to the City Clerk. 3. A petition must contain the following: 1. The date of when the petition commenced; 2. The name and local civic address, telephone number or email address of the organizer who started the petition for contact purposes; 3. The name and address of each person who signed or electronically submitted their name to the petition, and; 4. A clear, legible statement, which communicates the purpose of the petition. All petitions MUST be related to matters within the direct jurisdiction of the City. 4. A petition shall not contain any obscene or improper matter or language. 5. All information on the petition, including names, addresses and telephone numbers shall become part of the public record of the meeting at which it is received. 6. Petitions must be received by noon on the Friday before a scheduled Council meeting in order to appear on the Council agenda. No petition shall be presented or accepted by Council without first appearing on a Council agenda. 7. Petitions that relate to a matter listed on the Council agenda will appear as additional correspondence listed under the related agenda item. At that time any petitions may be read into the record by stating the purpose of the petition and indicating how many ‘relevant’ individuals have signed. “Relevant’ meaning; those who have listed both their name and local address to the petition. 8. Unless otherwise directed by Council by way of a motion, petitions pertaining to a matter on the agenda, will be received and filed for information. 9. A petition not relating to an item on the agenda may be listed as under ‘Communications of the City Clerk’ and will also be received and filed for information unless otherwise directed by Council by way of a motion. 10. The City Clerk shall refuse to list a petition on the council agenda where the subject matter involves; 1. current or pending litigation; 2. insurance claims; 3. labour relations, union negotiations or employee relations; 4. advertisements for products or services; 5. election campaign related; 6. matters not within Council’s jurisdiction 7. matters which have been decided by Council during the current term; 8. matters which have been referred to staff for a report, until the matter is before Council for consideration; and 9. matters which are the subject of an Education and Training Session of Council. Page 454 of 847 PBD-2023-41 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: AM-2022-017, Zoning By-law Amendment Montrose Road, Parts 7 & 8 Proposal: To permit the construction of a detached dwelling. Applicant: Kevin Dilts Agent: Mike Sullivan (LandPro Planning Solutions Inc.) Recommendation(s) 1. That Council not approve the requested Zoning By-law amendment application, as detailed in this report, to rezone the property to a site-specific Rural Agricultural zone to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. Executive Summary Kevin Dilts has applied for a Zoning By-law amendment to rezone a portion of the property from Public & Private Open Space District (O2) to Rural Agricultural (RA) zone, to permit the construction of a detached dwelling on the west side of Montrose Road, south of Koabel Road. Planning staff do not recommend approval of the application for the following reasons: • The subject land is mapped as part of the Growth Plan’s (2020) Provincial Natural Heritage System (“NHS”) and natural features on the site are considered Key Natural Heritage Features (“KNHF”) and Key Hydrologic Features (“KHF”). As such, Provincial, Regional, and City natural heritage policies apply; • The submitted Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and Addendum were reviewed by Niagara Regional Environmental Planning Staff, who comment on behalf of the City and Region, and conclude that they do not demonstrat e that the proposed development will avoid negative impact to the natural heritage system; • Due to the natural heritage features, the proposed Zoning By-law amendment is not consistent with, nor does it conform to Provincial, Regional, and City Policies. Background Kevin Dilts has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a parcel of land totalling approximately 1.01ha, as shown on Schedule 1. Schedule 2 shows details of the proposed development. Page 1 of 10 Page 455 of 847 The subject land is zoned Public & Private Open Space District (O2) zo ne under Zoning By-law 1538, 1958. The applicant is requesting to place a portion of the lands under a site specific Rural Agricultural (RA) zone to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is a vacant parcel containing natural heritage features including the Tee Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) in the northern portion of the property and a Regionally Significant Woodland that covers the entirety of the lands. Circulation Comments Information about the requested Zoning By-law amendment was circulated to City divisions, agencies, and the public for comments. The following summarizes the comments received to date: • Regional Municipality of Niagara o Based on the scope, nature and location of the proposed development, as well as the characterization of the natural features provided in both the EIS and EIS Addendum, the proposal has potential to significantly alter the ecological and hydrological functions of the wetland, woodland, and fish habitat located on the subject lands. As such, the test of no negative impact to the natural heritage system has not been achieved, meaning the proposal does not conform to the Regional Official Plan. Therefore, the proposed Amendment is not consistent with nor conforms to Provincial and Regional policies and cannot be supported by Regional Planning and Development Services Staff; and o Regional staff determined the lands did not appear to offer any developable area due to the extensive presence of natural heritage features. o Regional staff have reviewed the submitted Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment and do no require further assessment. Regional staff have not been provided with a Letter of Acknowledgement from the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Cultural Industries (“MHSTCI”). The Letter of Acknowledgement will need to be submitted prior to approval, as a requirement through a Holding (H) provision, should Council decide to approve the application. • NPCA o The revised boundary of the Provincially Significant Wetland was approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Page 2 of 10 Page 456 of 847 o The NPCA does not support and cannot permit development and site alteration within the Floodplain of Tee Creek. Septic systems cannot to be located within a flood hazard. o The NPCA requires confirmation that the flood plain limit on the submitted Survey Plan was established using the 100-year regulatory flood elevation of 176.52 metres to satisfy conformity with NPCA Policy. • Building Services o Building Permit fees and development charges will be assessed during Building Permit application review. o The applicant must obtain approvals from applicable agencies including the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA), and Niagara Region. • Fire Services, GIS Services, Legal Services, Business Development o No objection to the application. • Municipal Works o No objection to the application. o At the time of building permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan illustrating no adverse impacts to the adjacent properties. • Landscape Services o No objections to the application. • Transportation Services o No objections to the application. Neighbourhood Comments A neighbourhood open house was held on September 26th, 2022, and wa s attended by the applicant and the applicant’s planners. One written comment was received expressing concerns with the placement of the dwelling and whether it would impact the creek that traverses the property and neighbouring properties. The resident also noted that they do not support redesignation or severance of the lands – neither of which are proposed. Page 3 of 10 Page 457 of 847 Submitted Reports Environmental Impact Study (2022) and Addendum (2023) The EIS confirmed that the Tee Creek regulated water course traverses the property and has been identified as part of the Tee Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex and as a Type 2 Important Fish Habitat. The southern boundary of the PSW was verified in the field in accordance with the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) for Southern Ontario. Assessment of the boundary confirmed minor changes to the southern PSW boundary which was submitted to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry for review. The Ministry accepted the revisions to the boundary and have updated the provincial mapping to reflect these changes. There is also an NPCA Regulated Floodplain located on the subject lands that is associated with the Tee Creek tributary. The EIS confirms that the full extent of the wooded area meets Regional criteria to be designated Significant Woodland due to the presence of confirmed Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) and overlap with the Tee Creek Provincially Significant Wetland. Significant Wildlife Habitat for Special Concern and Rare wildlife species was identified in the study area due to the presence of Wood Thrush and Eastern Wood-pewee, which are both designated as Species of Special Concern in Ontario. However, the EIS and Addendum argues that the Regional Significant Woodland was not intended to be included as part of Provincial Natural Heritage System (NHS) and thus should not be considered a Key Natural Heritage Feature (KNHF) with a minimum 30m Vegetation Protection Zone (VPZ). The submitted EIS argues that the submitted proposal reduces the potential for negative impact to the natural heritage features and as such conforms with the Regional Official Plan. Regional staff disagree with this assessment for the following reasons: • The Provincial mapping of the NHS for the Growth Plan includes the subject lands and overlaps with the woodland. Woodlands are considered to be a KNHF as per Growth Plan policy and development and/or site alteration is not permitted within a KNHF or the associated 30m VPZ. • In addition, the Natural Environmental Polices of the Regional Official Plan also apply to the lands as the woodland has been confirmed to be a Regionally Significant Woodland. Consistent with Regional Policy, any proposed development must demonstrate how the test of no negative impact has been addressed. Based on the scope, nature, and location of the proposed development, as well as the characterization of the features provided in both the initial EIS and EIS Addendum, the proposal has the potential to significantly alter Page 4 of 10 Page 458 of 847 the ecological and hydrological functions of the wetland, woodlan d, and fish habitat located on the subject lands. Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment A Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment was prepared by Irvin Heritage Inc. (May 4, 2022). The Stage 1 Assessment concluded that the property retained archeological potential due to the environmental setting of the Study Area in relation to historic transportation routes and settlement, and proximity to a watercourse. As such a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed involving an on -site 5m Transect Test Pit survey and an on-site 5m Transect Judgement Test Pit Survey. The investigation did not result in the identification of any archaeological resources on the site and concludes that the Study Area has been sufficiently assessed and is free of further archaeological concern. Analysis 1. Provincial Policies The Planning Act requires City planning decisions to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform to the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”). The property is designated “Prime Agricultural Area” under both the PPS and Growth Plan and mapped as part of the Growth Plan’s Provincial Natural Heritage System (“NHS”). The natural features on the property are considered Key Natural Heritage Features (“KNHF”) and Key Hydrologic Features (“KHF”) to which the natural heritage policies of the Growth Plan apply. The proposed development is not consistent and does not conform for the following reasons: • The proposed development does not satisfy matters of provincial interest as outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act as the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features, and functions have not been demonstrated; • The woodland and adjacent lands provide Significant Wildlife Habitat for species of special concern, the Eastern-wood pewee and Wood Thrush. As a result, the full extent of the Significant Woodland is a Key Natural Heritage Feature and a 30m Vegetation Protection Zone is required from its extent. • Development and/or site alteration is not permitted within a KNHF/KHF or its Vegetation Protection Zone (VPZ). As such, the proposed development is not consistent with Provincial Policy. Page 5 of 10 Page 459 of 847 2. Regional Official Plan (2014) The subject land is located outside of the Urban Area and is designated “Good General Agricultural Area” under the Regional Of ficial Plan (ROP). The entirety of the subject lands are impacted by the Region’s Core Natural Heritage System (“CNHS”) consisting of Significant (“PSW”), Wetland Significant Complex Creek Tee the Provincially Woodland, and Important (Type 2) Fish Habitat. These Core Natural Areas are classified as Environmental Protection Areas (EPA) and Environmental Conservation Areas (ECA) under the Regional Official Plan (2014). The proposed development does not conform with the Regional Official Plan as follows: • Development within an ECA or adjacent to ECA and EPA areas requires the completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that is to demonstrate that there will be no significant negative impact on the Core Natural Heritage System; and, • The submitted EIS and Addendum were reviewed by Regional Staff and it was concluded that the proposal has not demonstrated that there will be no significant negative impact on the Core Natural Heritage System as required under policy 7.B.1.11, and as such does not conform to the Regional Official Plan. 3. City’s Official Plan The City’s Official Plan designates the subject land Environmental Protection Area (EPA) in part, Environmental Conservation Area (ECA) in part, and within Special Policy Area 37 (SPA #37). The Environmental Protection Area and Environmental Conservation Area designations are intended to protect, maintain, and enhance important ecological and environmental features within the City. Special Policy Area No. 37 manages the development of testamentary d evise lots located within the policy area. SPA #37 was put in place in part due to concerns that the land division through testamentary devise occurred without the benefit of supporting studies to assess impacts on natural features including woodlots, cree ks, and wetlands. The proposal does not comply with the intent of the Official Plan as follows: • Within an Environmental Conservation Area (ECA) limited development or site alteration may occur if supported by an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Additionally, Special Policy Area No. 37 requires the completion of an EIS for any parcel located within 120m of a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) complex, or significant woodlot boundary, to ensure the development will not impact natural features and ecological functions. • Official Plan Policy 11.1.18 stipulates that an EIS required under the Official Plan for areas outside of the Urban Area Boundary, shall be to the satisfaction of Page 6 of 10 Page 460 of 847 Niagara Region, in consultation with the City and Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). As noted above, the submitted Environmental Impact Study and Addendum were not approved by the Niagara Region as there has not been the demonstration of no negative impact on the natural heritage features, and as such the proposed development does not conform with the City’s Official Plan. 4. Zoning By-law 1538, 1958 The applicant has requested a site-specific Rural Agricultural (RA) zone be applied to the site to permit the proposed detached dwelling and associated servicing. The departures requested from the standard RA regulations are summarized in the following table: ZONE REGULATION EXISTING REGULATION PROPOSED REGULATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION (DETAILS TO FOLLOW) Permitted Uses The uses permitted in the RA zone The uses permitted in the RA zone CANNOT SUPPORT Minimum front yard depth 18m 10m CANNOT SUPPORT Minimum interior side yard 4.5m 1.6m CANNOT SUPPORT Minimum lot area 1.2ha 1.01ha CANNOT SUPPORT As it has not been demonstrated that the requested use and regulations will avoid impact to natural heritage features and their ecological function, the requested site - specific zone and amendments cannot be supported. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis None Financial Implications/Budget Impact None Strategic/Departmental Alignment None List of Attachments Page 7 of 10 Page 461 of 847 Schedule 1 - Location Map Schedule 2 - Conceptual Site Plan Written by: Scott Turnbull, Planner 1 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Director of Planning Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Page 8 of 10 Page 462 of 847 Schedule 1 Page 9 of 10 Page 463 of 847 SCALE BAR 1:250 0 20 m 25 m KEY MAP (NTS) LEGEND DATE: FEB 21, 2023 SCALE: 1:250 PROPERTY LINE SEPTIC MIN. LOT FRONTAGE MIN. FRONT YARD MIN. REAR YARD MIN. SIDE YARD REQUIRED PROPOSED 30m 18m 12m 4.5m 81.3m 1.6m 10m 93.6m ZONING PROVISION: N SUBJECT LANDS Septic 30m PSW Offset 42.5REZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED DWELLING CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN PARCEL 272514000108434 MONTROSE ROAD NIAGARA FALLS REGION OF NIAGARA CON 6 PT LOT 1 RP59R7401; PART 8 REQUIRED AMENDMENTS MIN. LOT AREA 1.2 ha.1.01 ha. Change of zoning from O2 to RA Reduce minimum lot area from 1.2 to 1.01 ha. Reduce minimum front yard from 18 to 10m Reduce minimum side yard from 4.5 to 1.6m PSW Proposed RA Zone 124.5 38.742.5Open Space Open Space 81.3124.0 Proposed 2-Storey Dwelling 8.728.2 20.56.464.1 1.610.0 1.1 93.6 LANDPRO PLANNING SOLUTIONS INC. 110 James Street, Suite 204 St. Catharines, ON 289-687-3730 info@landproplan.ca Schedule 2 Page 10 of 10 Page 464 of 847 Address: Montrose Road, Parts 7 and 8 59R-7401 Applicant: Kevin Dilts Proposal: To rezone a portion of the lands to a site specific Rural-Agricultural (RA) zone to permit a detached dwelling Zoning By-law Amendment Application AM-2022-017 To be added Page 465 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Location & Site Condition PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Detached dwelling Agricultural use Page 466 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Background •Approximately 1.01ha of land. •Official Plan –Designated ‘Environmental Protection Area’ in part, ‘Environmental Conservation Area’, in part and within Special Policy Area No. 37. –Limited Development and/or site alteration may occur if supported by an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). •Zoning By-law –Currently zoned Public & Private Open Space District (O2) under Zoning By-law 1538, 1958.Page 467 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Natural Heritage Page 468 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Natural Heritage Page 469 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Site Plan Page 470 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Proposed Zoning Relief-RA-XX Min. side yard width Proposed: 5.25 ft (1.6m) Required: 15 ft (4.57m) Min. lot area Proposed: 2.49 ac (1.01 ha) Required: 3 ac (1.2 ha) Min. front yard depth Proposed: 32.81ft (10m) Required: 60 ft (18.29 m)Page 471 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Public Comments •A neighbourhood Open House was held on September 26th, 2022. •One written comment was received: •The resident expressed concern with the placement of the dwelling and potential impact to Tee Creek and the neighbouring properties. •The resident did not support redesignation or subdivision of the lands. Page 472 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Planning Analysis Provincial Policy –Subject land is mapped as part of the Growth Plan’s (2020) Provincial Natural Heritage System (NHS) and the natural features on the lands are considered Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHF) and Key Hydrologic Features (KHF). –Development and/or site alteration is not permitted within a KNHF/KHF or the associated 30m Vegetation Protection Zone (VPZ). –As such the proposal does not conform to the Provincial Growth Plan.Page 473 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Planning Analysis Regional Official Plan –The entirety of the subject lands are impacted by the Region’s Core Natural Heritage System (CNHS) and the natural features on site are considered Environmental Conservation Areas (ECA) and Environmental Protection Areas (EPA) under the Regional Official Plan. –Development within an ECA or adjacent to an ECA and EPA requires the submission of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) which demonstrates there will be no significant negative impact to the Core Natural Heritage System. –Niagara Regional Environmental Planning Staff reviewed the submitted EIS and concluded that the proposal has potential to significantly alter the ecological and hydrological functions of the wetland, woodland, and fish habitat located on the subject lands. –As such, the proposal does not conform with the Regional Official Plan.Page 474 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Planning Analysis City of Niagara Falls Official Plan –Development on lands designated Environmental Conservation Area (ECA) and within Special Policy Area No. 37 requires the completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). –As per Official Plan Policy 11.1.18 the EIS shall be to the satisfaction of Niagara Region. –Regional Environmental Planning staff reviewed the submitted EIS and Addendum and concluded that the proposal has potential to significantly alter the ecological and hydrological functions of the wetland, woodland, and fish habitat located on the subject lands. –As such, the proposal does not conform to the City’s Official Plan and cannot be supported by City Planning Staff. Page 475 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Recommendation That Council not approve the Zoning By- law Amendment application AM-2022-017 as detailed in Staff report PBD-2023-41.Page 476 of 847 Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Montrose Road, Niagara Falls Council Meeting July 11th, 2022 1Page 477 of 847 2 What’s Proposed Montrose Road, Niagara Falls Initial Submission Amended Submission Page 478 of 847 It’s Quite Simple ►WHAT: ►The applicant wants to build a house ►The lot is existing and vacant ►WHY: ►They need a portion re-zoned to allow the house to be built ►ALL necessary studies (EIS) were completed ►WHO: ►Regional Planning has decided that provincial policies sterilize this lot, which we find challenging to accept This application was made under the OLD Regional Official Plan (ROP), BECAUSE the new ROP would have made it impossible. The Region has presented a complicated policy framework to block this application, which we view as unnecessary. 3Page 479 of 847 The Application 4 Private & Public Open Space (O2) AND Rural Agricultural with Exceptions (RA -XXX) Built portion from O2 zone to RA zone Private & Public Open Space (O2) AND Rural Agricultural (RA) CURRENT PROPOSED Zoning By-Law Amendment (Re-zoning) Montrose Road, Niagara FallsPage 480 of 847 5 The Issues Montrose Road, Niagara Falls Regional Staff Comments Response “Significant Woodland” is being considered KNHF/KNF under the Growth Plan •Regional mapping includes the Tea Creek PSW •Woodlands are per policy criteria No development or site alteration permitted within the KNHF/KNF •Regional mapping differs from Growth Plan mapping, leading to inconsistency •The woodlands which extends onto the southern property, is not mapped as a feature so should not be considered a KNHF per the Growth Plan, yet it is Requires a 30m setback from the outside boundary of the woodland •The 30m setback should not apply as the woodlands are not a KNHF •The building envelope maintains a 30m setback from the outside boundary of the wetland. No developable area or building envelope •We disagree •The building footprint has been minimized to address Regional Comments.Page 481 of 847 6 Our Ask Montrose Road, Niagara Falls ►We have worked with staff, unsuccessfully towards finding a viable solution ►We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of planning policy ►This application is JUST to build a house. It is that simple ►The lot is: 1.Existing, 2.Has some inherent development rights; 3.Has had all necessary studies complete ►A house is being built immediately south of this property, which was approved despite same policies applying. ►The policy argument is counter-productive. ►Common sense needs to prevail!Page 482 of 847 1 From: Sent:Saturday, September 24, 2022 9:51 PM To:Julie Hannah Subject:POSSIBLE SPAM [EXTERNAL]-Open House Response: Zoning By-Law Amendment for Montrose Rd. We are writing in response to the zoning by-law Amendment Application for Montrose Road, Parts 7 & 8 59R-7401 (Parcel ID 4881 and 4882). We are the owners of the rural property, located on Montrose Road, directly across the street from the planned development. We would like to have it confirmed that the plans are indeed for a single dwelling and that there are no next steps to develop the area or sever lots into multiple dwelling units. We would like to be on record as opposing the development of multiple dwellings and any change to the designation of the Environmental Protection Area and Environmental Conservation Area. We have no objection to the development of a single home, but are concerned that its planned placement could bring unnecessary changes to the natural creek that runs through the property, and how that could impact neighbouring properties. As we are unable to attend the Open House due to an appointment, we would like to receive an update or access to the minutes from the Open House. Receiving more information from the Open House would help guide our decision and response to the upcoming formal public meeting with City Council. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Sincerely, Gennaro Tavano Teresa Tavano Adelina Tavano & Maria Ligotti To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of thispicture fromthe Internet. width= Virus-free.www.avast.com Page 483 of 847 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 484 of 847 The Niagara Falls Shadow Council A registered Independent Social Counseling organization "Holding Governments Accountable" Lady Justice Do not redact the contents of this document This document can be freely distributed Petition #07-11-2023-06 Tuesday,July 11,2023 I This is a petition concerning the 07/1l/2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item #72. PBD—2023-41 AM-2022-017,Zoning By—law Amendment Montrose Road,Parts 7 85 8 Proposal:To permit the construction of a detached dwelling.Applicant:Kevin Dilts Agent:Mike Sullivan (LandPro Planning Solutions Inc.) Council, Scott Turnbull,Planner l,will provide an overview of Report PBD—2023~4l. A of Mike Sullivan,Planner from LandPro Planning Solutions,and acting as agent,will provide a presentation. It is in the opinion of the petitioners that the development is minor in nature and would result in on—sitestewardship of the surroundings lands.The principal of "owner occupied"has been promoted by the city as a beneficial asset when addressing housing issues,that forward thinking should apply here as the presence of land owners residing on the their land would most likely result in heighten care and sustainability of the surrounding natural heritage features.Owners care for they surroundings. A human presence would facilitate a reduced chance of possible ecological damages, such as fire spread or vandalism,a residential presence at that location would also provide eyes and ears should any emergency situations arise in the area.We are beginning to live in an environment where climate factors are changing the way we need monitor our surroundings. developed on the land,so the application is not requesting the permission to build on theland,that is already permitted,the application is merely requesting permission to add,asingleresidentialdevelopmenttopermitteduses.A use which would appear much less impactful to the environment then those alreadypermitted.The development is still subject to all other applicable approvals.Page 485 of 847 The petitioners feel that the development of a single residence would,on a balance of probabilities,be an asset to the area and out ways any minor liabilities. Council is petitioned, l)To approve the Zoning By-law amendment. 2)Direct staff to amend the statement below read before each planning application to indicate that written comments and petitions qualify as "notice to the clerk". "anyone who wants notice of the passing of the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment or preserve their opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal shall give notice to the city clerk immediately after today's public meeting or leave their name on the sign—insheets outside the council chamber." 3)To acknowledge that the petitioners give notice of wanting notice of the passing of the official plan and or zoning bylaw amendment and preserve their opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal and request full participation on all site plan matters.Page 486 of 847 Petition cornrnenced this day July 6,2023. Signed by, >Joedy Burdett Petition Organizer ~4480 Bridge St.,Niagara falls,ON,CA >William Burdett —Unit 473 23 Four Mile Creek Rd,Niagara—on—the—Lake,ON,CA ,Mil Vii’Page 487 of 847 Joedy Burdett President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City Council election. Qualified Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837) Building Services,Plumbing-All Buildings,Small Buildings Owner Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge Street,Niagara Falls,ON,CA,L2E 2R7 (905)353 8468 Niagara Falls Shadow Council.ca (TNFSC.ca) The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is a registered Independent Social Counseling organization (BIN 1000515774).. The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is not associated with The City of Niagara Falls Altering or Redacting this document will be viewed as a violation of Section 2(b)of The Canadian Charter of Rights Page 488 of 847 Petitions addressed to City Council DJU1 10. A petition is a legibly written request signed by more than one member of the public in support of a shared cause or concern.A petition may be presented in paper format, electronically,or through the use of an on—linesystem.Council will be the only body that can receive a petition,via the City Clerk. A petition may be delivered in person or sent by mail,fax or email to the City Clerk. A petition must contain the following: 1.The date of when the petition commenced; 2.The name and local civic address,telephone number or email address of the organizer who started the petition for contact purposes; 3.The name and address of each person who signed or electronically submitted their name to the petition,and; 4.A clear,legible statement,which communicates the purpose of the petition.All petitions MUST be related to matters within the direct jurisdiction of the City. A petition shall not contain any obscene or improper matter or language. All information on the petition,including names,addresses and telephone numbers shall become part of the public record of the meeting at which it is received. Petitions must be received by noon on the Friday before a scheduled Council meeting in order to appear on the Council agenda.No petition shall be presented or accepted by Council without first appearing on a Council agenda.A ‘ Petitions that relate to a matter listed on the Council agenda will appear as additional correspondence listed under the related agenda item.At that time any petitions may be read into the record by stating the purpose of the petition and indicating how many ‘relevant’individuals have signed.“Relevant’meaning;those who have listed both their name and local address to the petition. Unless otherwise directed by Council by way of a motion,petitions pertaining to a matter on the agenda,will be received and filed for information. A petition not relating to an item on the agenda may be listed as under ‘Communications of the City Clerk’and will also be received and filed for information unless otherwise directed by Council by way of a motion. The City Clerk shall refuse to list a petition on the council agenda where the subject matter involves; 1.current or pending litigation; insurance claims; labour relations,union negotiations or employee relations;A advertisements for products or services; election campaign related; matters not within Council’s jurisdiction matters which have been decided by Council during the current term; matters which are the subject of an Education and Training Session of Council.59 9°.\‘.0‘.U‘:‘>S*’!"Page 489 of 847 1 The Niagara Falls Shadow Council A registered Independent Social Counseling organization "Holding Governments Accountable" Lady Justice Do not redact the contents of this document This document can be freely distributed Comment #07-11-2023-06A Tuesday, July 11, 2023 This is a comment concerning the 07/11/2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item #7.2. PBD-2023-41 AM-2022-017, Zoning By-law Amendment Montrose Road, Parts 7 & 8 Proposal: To permit the construction of a detached dwelling. Applicant: Kevin Dilts Agent: Mike Sullivan (LandPro Planning Solutions Inc.) Council, The following information was not included in petition submission 07-11-2023-06 as detailed below. Scott Turnbull, Planner 1, will provide an overview of Report PBD-2023-41. Mike Sullivan, Planner from LandPro Planning Solutions, and acting as agent, will provide a presentation. Page 490 of 847 2 It is in the opinion of the petitioners that the development is minor in nature and would result in on-site stewardship of the surroundings lands. The principal of "owner occupied" has been promoted by the city as a beneficial asset when addressing housing issues, that forward thinking should apply here as the presence of land owners residing on the their land would most likely result in heighten care and sustainability of the surrounding natural heritage features. Owners care for they surroundings. A human presence would facilitate a reduced chance of possible ecological damages, such as fire spread or vandalism, a residential presence at that location would also provide eyes and ears should any emergency situations arise in the area. We are beginning to live in an environment where climate factors are changing the way we need monitor our surroundings. It should be noted that (OS Zone) permits the following buildings or structures to be developed on the land, so the application is not requesting the permission to build on the land, that is already permitted, the application is merely requesting permission to add, a single residential development to permitted uses. A use which would appear much less impactful to the environment then those already permitted. The development is still subject to all other applicable approvals. The petitioners feel that the development of a single residence would, on a balance of probabilities, be an asset to the area and out ways any minor liabilities. Council is petitioned, 1) To approve the Zoning By-law amendment. 2) Direct staff to amend the statement below read before each planning application to indicate that written comments and petitions qualify as "notice to the clerk". "anyone who wants notice of the passing of the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment or preserve their opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal shall give notice to the city clerk immediately after today's public meeting or leave their name on the sign-in sheets outside the council chamber." 3) To acknowledge that the petitioners give notice of wanting notice of the passing of the official plan and or zoning bylaw amendment and preserve their opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal and request full participation on all site plan matters. Page 491 of 847 3 Petition commenced this day July 6, 2023. Signed by,  Joedy Burdett Petition Organizer - 4480 Bridge St., Niagara falls, ON, CA  William Burdett - Unit 473 23 Four Mile Creek Rd, Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON, CA Page 492 of 847 4 Joedy Burdett President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City Council election. Qualified Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837) Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small Buildings Owner Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, ON, CA, L2E 2R7 (905) 353 8468 Niagara Falls Shadow Council.ca (TNFSC.ca) The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is a registered Independent Social Counseling organization (BIN 1000515774). The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is not associated with The City of Niagara Falls Altering or Redacting this document will be viewed as a violation of Section 2(b) of The Canadian Charter of Rights Page 493 of 847 5 Petitions addressed to City Council 1. A petition is a legibly written request signed by more than one member of the public in support of a shared cause or concern. A petition may be presented in paper format, electronically, or through the use of an on-line system. Council will be the only body that can receive a petition, via the City Clerk. 2. A petition may be delivered in person or sent by mail, fax or email to the City Clerk. 3. A petition must contain the following: 1. The date of when the petition commenced; 2. The name and local civic address, telephone number or email address of the organizer who started the petition for contact purposes; 3. The name and address of each person who signed or electronically submitted their name to the petition, and; 4. A clear, legible statement, which communicates the purpose of the petition. All petitions MUST be related to matters within the direct jurisdiction of the City. 4. A petition shall not contain any obscene or improper matter or language. 5. All information on the petition, including names, addresses and telephone numbers shall become part of the public record of the meeting at which it is received. 6. Petitions must be received by noon on the Friday before a scheduled Council meeting in order to appear on the Council agenda. No petition shall be presented or accepted by Council without first appearing on a Council agenda. 7. Petitions that relate to a matter listed on the Council agenda will appear as additional correspondence listed under the related agenda item. At that time any petitions may be read into the record by stating the purpose of the petition and indicating how many ‘relevant’ individuals have signed. “Relevant’ meaning; those who have listed both their name and local address to the petition. 8. Unless otherwise directed by Council by way of a motion, petitions pertaining to a matter on the agenda, will be received and filed for information. 9. A petition not relating to an item on the agenda may be listed as under ‘Communications of the City Clerk’ and will also be received and filed for information unless otherwise directed by Council by way of a motion. 10. The City Clerk shall refuse to list a petition on the council agenda where the subject matter involves; 1. current or pending litigation; 2. insurance claims; 3. labour relations, union negotiations or employee relations; 4. advertisements for products or services; 5. election campaign related; 6. matters not within Council’s jurisdiction 7. matters which have been decided by Council during the current term; 8. matters which have been referred to staff for a report, until the matter is before Council for consideration; and 9. matters which are the subject of an Education and Training Session of Council. Page 494 of 847 RE; Montrose Rd, Parts 7 and 8 59R-7401 (Parcel ID 347533)Zoning By-Law Amendment Application – City File:AM-2022-017 My name is Jay Mason and I am the Authorized Agent for Nelson Mason and Dana Batchelor of 13791 Montrose Rd., Niagara Falls, Ontario, L3B 5N7 the abutting property to the application locally Montrose Rd. Parts 9 & 10 59R-6480. Notes; We oppose the application siting the following reasons and legislation surrounding the testamentary devise lots contained within the Crowland By-Law and the Special Policy Area 37 created under OPA #42-By-Law 2002-20 particularly 13-37 I. which contains the application properties. 13.37.1.2.(1) (c) “Under no circumstances will lot sizes or lot frontages be reduced from the minimum requirements.” The application requests changes to the framework of the intent of the by-law in the manner of size, setback, minimum front yard and minimum side yard. 13.37.1.2 (2) (b) “Development is to occur outside the floodplain”. The application occurs within the floodplain. 13.37.1.2 (2) (g) (iii) The sewage envelope shall depict primary and secondary tile beds and mantle areas setback a minimum of 30 feet from a property line. The application depicts the septic design borders the property line. 13.37.1.2 (2) (k) Road widening. The potential for Montrose Rd. to be widened in the future is quite high given the access issues to the new hospital for the southern towns in the Niagara Region. The application asked for minimum frontage setback to be reduced from 18m to 10m. All other homes along the testamentary devise are setback to the required distance or greater. 13.37.1.2 (8) The Environmental Protection Area policies of the Official Plan will continue to be adhered to. “Development will not be permitted within floodplains and identified boundaries of Provincially Significant Wetlands.” Section 10 of the Ontario Forestry Act Neighbours consent/ boundary trees - In Ontario, boundary trees are considered common property (i.e., co-owned property) and fall under the legal provisions of the Ontario Forestry Act Section 10. The Forestry Act indicates that it is a prosecutable offense for one co-owner to injure or cut down a boundary tree without the other co- owner's permission. Nelson Mason and Dana Batchelor the owners of the abutting forest will not be giving their approval for the removal of the ‘boundary trees’ required for this proposal. Niagara Region Woodland Conservation By-law No. 2020-79 The application is clearly part of a contiguous forest over 1 hectare and the Regional Conservation By-Law applies. Page 495 of 847 Side Yard Setback The proposed setback would negatively impact the forest property of the neighbour as the applicant would need to elevate the home dramatically to meet/exceed required elevation. This concern exists with the other setbacks and set -offs proposed as the home would need to be elevated several feet above the neighbour’s forest and the PSW which borders the proposal. The resulting construction so close to the neighbour ’s property line would result in further destruction to this important forest which required a tree saving plan and significant setbacks in construction of the 13791 Montrose. No trees were allowed to be disturbed during construction at 13791 Montrose. The proposed build would require the removal of old growth forest including shagbark hickory and without doubt, destruction of the our forest property. The applicant proposes to cut down hundred year old shagback hickory and other old growth forest to create a building lot and septic bed within/abutting a PSW, one that feeds across the road into a protected wetland. This is one of the last remaining stands of shagbark hickory in Ontario – Shagbark is an old growth heritage tree that feeds animals and birds with their edible nuts that are not produced until the tree is 100 years old. Some shag bark live to 300 years and their nuts would have been ingested by native tribes that likely planted them. Area of elevation – Any grade plan submitted would require the significant elevation of the building and septic areas relative to the surrounding areas. This is a locally important recharge area and is deemed as such by NPCA. The elevation required for the building and septic would form a barrier to the free movement of locally important water, plants and animals and negatively impact the neighbouring forest and PSW/ESW, as well as transfer those negatives to the protected area on the east side of Montrose. New road and bridge in front of site - The site as proposed is virtually inaccessible without significant changes to the local area from the road in. The region has recently improved the road, culvert and bridging mechanism to allow the free flow of water from the PSW abutting the property to the immediate north of the proposal to the protected areas to the east. The proposed building would sit firmly within, and provide a boundary to, the free flow of water from the west side of Montrose to the east side and create flow issues not anticipated when the road and culvert were constructed. Septic abutting neighbours property/forest – The land for septic would need to be elevated by design and would significantly and negatively impact the neighbours forested property. Zoning Amendment The proposed zoning amendment allows the complete removal of the forest under certain conditions and respectfully suggests that a home building would be allowed if the property was zoned Rural Agricultural. This is simply a planning workaround to allow Page 496 of 847 cutting in a contiguous forest over 1 hectare. This area will not be farmed. Allowing the proposal will set into motion the same type of forest destruction on lots throughout the Region, using abutting RA zones as reference to expand that zoning where an ap plicant wants to build a house with no intention of farming. The testamentary devise lot, of which this is one, were not a beacon in managed planning from the outset. From a strictly economic impact prospectus, there is little need locally to try to fit this particular square peg in the round hole. The owners of the ‘buildable’ testamentary devise lots have done so following the guidelines set out in the Crowland By-Law. Allowing the applicant’s proposal flies in the face of that and will begin a process that will lead to the ultimate destruction of this forest, unnecessary harm to the local environment and possibly others as precedents are set that don’t protect them. Page 497 of 847 PBD-2023-39 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: AM-2023-004 Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application 5014 Wilmott Street Applicant: Omar Tyndale Agent: Rhea Davis (NPG Planning Solutions Inc.) Recommendation(s) That Council approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment as detailed in this report, to permit the use of a detached dwelling as a Vacation Rental Unit. Executive Summary Omar Tyndale has requested an Official Pan and Zoning By-law amendment for the land known as 5014 Wilmott Street. The application requests to have a Special Policy Designation applied and the lands rezoned to a site specific R2 zone to permit a Vacation Rental Unit as a permitted use to use an existing detached dwelling as a Vacation Rental Unit. the amendments are recommended for the following reasons: • the proposed development conforms to Provincial, Regional, and City policies as the subject property is located within the settlement area, contributing to diversification of economic activity, and supporting the achievement of complete communities; • the proposed addition of the Vacation Rental Unit (VRU) as a permitted use conforms to the criteria for considering a VRU in residential areas and will not prevent the City from providing housing options to meet projected needs of current and future residents; and • The proposed VRU will promote economic development and prosperity by an alternative accommodation-type for the vacationing and travelling public, in an area suitable for the use close to amenities and attractions, and in close proximity to tourist area. Background Proposal Omar Tyndale has requested an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment for land known as 5014 Wilmott Street to have a Special Policy Designation applied and the Page 1 of 9 Page 498 of 847 land to be rezoned to a site specific R2 zone to permit a Vacation Rental Unit (VRU). Schedule 1 shows the site location. Schedule 2 shows the site sketch and details of the proposal. The land is zoned Residential Two (R2) in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79-200 as amended. The applicant is asking relief from the by-law to permit a VRU and to recognize the existing minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, minimum exterior side yard for the dwelling and to recognize the existing exterior side yard for the detached garage. VRUs are not permitted as of right in Residentially designated lands. In 2018, Council passed Official Plan Amendment No. 127, which added policies to the Official Plan (Part 2, Section 1.10) that state VRUs may be considered within residential areas of the City. Such requests are to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, through Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments, The proposal has been submitted to the City under the policy threshold established in 2018. At its May 30, 2023 meeting, Council directed staff to consider and report back on by- law and licensing changes to the bed and breakfast by-law regulations to permit short- term rental units within owner occupied dwellings within residential areas of the City. Staff are reviewing possible zoning and licensing by-law changes that would accommodate this approach and will be presenting these proposed changes to the public in an open house, before presenting a final recommended approach to Council at a future public meeting. Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The subject land is located on a corner lot that has a detached dwelling with an existing detached single car garage adjacent to the rear property line. A wooden privacy fence is at the rear of the dwelling unit. The subject land is bounded by Wilmott Street on the north, and by detached dwellings on the west, south, and east sides. Circulation Comments Information about the requested OPA and ZBA was circulated to City divisions, agencies, and the public for comments. The Following summaries the comments received to date: Building and Fire Services • No objections or concerns. GIS and Legal Services Page 2 of 9 Page 499 of 847 • No objections or concerns. Municipal Works, Landscape and Transportation Services • No objections or concerns. Neighbourhood Comments The neighbourhood open house was held on May 17, 2023, attended by the applicant’s agents and a friend of the owner. Concerns include: the neighbourhood should be preserved as a residential neighbourhood. Other vacation rental homes being operated illegally in the neighbourhood and there are issues with excessive noise, garbage, litter, excessive illegal street parking and neglected properties due to absent landlords or groundskeepers. In addition, that the applicant should consider the property for a long - term rental use. Staff’s response is as follows: • The proposed VRU will be within an existing detached dwelling, containing no more than 3 bedrooms. • Parking is proposed to be in the rear yard as an extensions of the existing driveway. The proposed parking meets the Zoning By-law requirement for VRUs. • Aspects such as lot size, landscaping and proximity to tourist areas were considered. The nature of this application is to utilize the existing dwelling and lot. The lot size is not anticipated to have effects on the operation of the VRU, or the use of neighbouring properties. There is ample private amenity space or the residents/guests. The lands have good proximity to tourist areas. • The proposal would not result in an undue concentration of Vacation Rental Units. • Presently, there are no licensed VRUs operating in the vicinity of the subject property. The Owner will be required to obtain the license to operate a VRU. • The licensing by-law is a mechanism to regulate the operational aspects of a VRU to control excessive noise, garbage disposal, property standards and that the owner has adequate insurance coverage. Violations of the By-law are subject to a penalty, including suspension or revocation of the license to operate a VRU. • The proposal will not impact the City's ability to provide necessary housing. The proposed VRU does not prevent the dwelling from being used as a long-term rental in the future. The built form and and design of the dwelling is similar to the adjacent properties and is not out of character within the neighbourhood. Analysis Page 3 of 9 Page 500 of 847 1. Provincial Policies The Planning Act requires City planning decisions to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Provincial “A Place to Grow” Plan. The proposed development is consistent and conforms as follows: • The proposed development satisfies matters of provincial interest as outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act; • The proposed development is located within a settlement area and contributes to the creation of a complete community; • The proposed VRU use is intended to utilize an existing detached dwelling that is fully serviced. It contributes to the financial well-being of the City by utilizing existing infrastructure and minimizing land consumption; • The proposal is situated in proximity to nearby transit and active transportation routes; and, • The proposed VRU promotes economic development and prosperity by permitting an alternative accommodation-type for the vacationing and travelling public, in an area that is close to amenities and attractions. 2. Regional Official Plan The subject land is designated as Urban Area (Built-up Area) in the Regional Official Plan. The proposed Vacation Rental Unit’s proximity to commercial and tourist uses enhances the vitality of the neighbourhood and supports the achievement of complete communities that utilizes the existing built form. The proposal is in an area that supports a mix of land uses. 3. City’s Official Plan The Official Plan designates the subject land as Residential. The Official Plan Amendment can be supported for the following reasons: Vacation Rental Units (VRUs) are not permitted as of right in Residentially designated areas. In 2018 Council passed Official Plan Amendment No. 127, which added policies to the Official Plan (Part 2 Section 1.10) that states VRUs may be considered in residential areas in the City on a case-by-case basis, through Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments. Such VRUs are to be located within a detached dwelling with a maximum of 3 bedrooms, 2 parking spaces are provided, the size of the lot provides adequate landscape amenity space, location in proximity to tourist areas are to be considered, there is not an undue concentration of VRUs located in an area, vacancy rates are to be considered and the VRU will be subject to a City license. The proposed VRU complies with these policies as follows: Page 4 of 9 Page 501 of 847 • The Vacation Rental Unit use is proposed within an existing single detached dwelling. The single-detached dwelling in which the VRU is to be located contains only three (3) bedrooms and is providing the 2 required parking spaces; • The subject property is located within the settlement area, contributing to diversification of economic activity, and supporting the achievement of complete communities; • The proposed addition of a VRU as a permitted use will not prevent the City from providing housing options to meet projected needs of current and future residents; • The subject property is in close proximity to tourism areas.The subject lands are less than one (1) km from historic Downtown Niagara Falls, River Road, and the Clifton Hill Tourist Districts; • The total vacancy rate for the City has increased from 1.9% in 2021 to 2.8% in 2022. The 3 bedrooms or more has increased from 4.0% to 4.2% over the same period. These vacancy rates are acceptable to consider the conversion of a single unit to a VRU; • Presently, there are no licensed VRUs operating in the vicinity of the subject property. The proposal would therefore not result in an undue concentration of VRUs. The nearest VRU is located 1.1 km away on Ontario Avenue; • The Owner will be required to obtain a license to operate the dwelling as a VRU. The VRU must operate in accordance with the City’s licensing by -law and all other by-laws. This assists with ensuring the VRU will operate in a lawful manner; and, • This application meets the policy tests as established in for a VRU in a Residential designation in the Official Plan. 4. Zoning By-law The applicant has requested a site specific R2 zone to allow for the use of a Vacation Rental unit and to recognize the existing departures of the R2 zone regulations on the subject property. The departures requested from the standard R2 use and regulations are summarized in the following table: R2 ZONE USE EXISITING REGULATION REQUESTED REGULATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION (Details to Follow) Vacation Rental Unit Not permitted Permit-VRU Support R2 ZONE REGULATION EXISTING REGULATION REQUESTED REGULATION Minimum lot area for a corner lot 370 square metres 345 square metres - existing Support Page 5 of 9 Page 502 of 847 Minimum lot frontage for a detached dwelling on a corner lot 15 square metres 9.45 metres - existing Support Minimum exterior side yard width 4.5 metres 1.14 metres - existing Not support Accessory Building - exterior side yard 4.5 metres 2.41 metres - existing Not support The requested use, lot area and lot frontage regulations are appropriate as follows: • The proposed VRU use is supported as it will be in a detached dwelling on a corner lot measuring 345 square metres in area. The lot size is not anticipated to have effects on the operation of the VRU, or impact on neighbouring properties as 50% of the lot coverage is landscaped area, which exceeds the zoning requirements. The proposed VRU will have a fenced-in backyard, containing a wooden deck, providing ample private amenity space to the residents/guests. Parking for the VRU is proposed to be in the rear yard as an extension of the existing driveway. Existing fencing and landscaping will be modified slightly to accommodate the new parking space. Both parking and landscaping will be consistent with the residential environment. • Staff support recognizing the existing minimum lot area and lot frontage in the amending by-law. While the applicant has requested the City recognize the existing zoning deficiencies. Staff are unable to support the requested minimum exterior side yard width and accessory building – exterior side yard width regulations as it would allow for the construction of additions/new structures that would not maintain a suitable exterior yard setback. Staff recommend the VRU be limited to the existing dwelling and be restricted to 3 bedrooms. Alternative Staff are in support of the applicant's request to permit the use of the entire detached dwelling as a VRU. However, should Council decide instead to align the approval with the proposed changes to permit short term rental units in owner occupied dwelling s, Council may decide to limit the approval to a single unit within the existing dwelling and require the owner to occupy the other unit full time. It is noted that this decision may be subject to appeal by the applicant. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis No operational implications and risk analysis. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Page 6 of 9 Page 503 of 847 The proposal requires a license from the Clerk’s department but does not require any permits from the Building Department. As such, there will be no development charges collected nor a change in the tax assessment. Strategic/Departmental Alignment This proposal contributes to a vibrant and diverse economy. List of Attachments SCHEDULE 1 (Location Map) updated June 22, 2023 LH SCHEDULE 2 (Site Plan) updated June 22, 2023 LH Written by: Nick DeBenedetti, Planner 2 Andrew Bryce, Director of Planning Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Director of Planning Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Page 7 of 9 Page 504 of 847 SCHEDULE 1 (Location Map) Page 8 of 9 Page 505 of 847 SCHEDULE 2 (Site Plan) Page 9 of 9 Page 506 of 847 Page 507 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Detached dwellings SUBJECT LANDS Deached dwetllings Location Page 508 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Background •The applicant is requesting a Special Policy Area and rezone the property to a site specific R2 zone to permit a Vacation Rental Unit in the existing detach dwelling. •Land is designated Residential in the Official Plan and located in the Built-up Area.A Special Policy Area will be required to add the Vacation Rental Unit.The proposal meets the general objectives of the Official Plan.Located close to the tourist districts compatible with the Residential use and there is not a concentration of the VRU’s located in this area. •The Vacation Rental will be required to obtain a license to operate the VRU from the City. •The subject property is zoned Residential Two Zone (R2)in accordance with Zoning By-law No.79-200,as amended.The VRU use will be added,and existing regulations will be recognized as part of the zoning amendment.Page 509 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Proposed Zoning Relief Page 510 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Open House –May 17 Comment/Concern Staff Response •Neighbourhood should be preserved as a residential neighbourhood •The proposed VRU will be within an existing detached dwelling,containing no more than 3 bedrooms.The built form and design of the dwelling is similar to the adjacent properties and is not out of character within the neighbourhood. •Other vacation rental homes operating illegally in the neighbourhood •Presently,there are no licensed VRUs operating in the vicinity of the subject property.The Owner will be required to obtain the license to operate a VRU. •Applicant should consider the property for long-term rental use •The proposal will not impact the City's ability to provide necessary housing.The proposed VRU does not prevent the dwelling from being used as a long-term rental in the future.Page 511 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Planning Analysis •The proposed development conforms to Provincial,Regional and City policies as the subject property is located within the settlement are, contributing to diversification of economic activity,and supporting the achievement of complete communities; •The proposed addition of the Vacation Rental Unit as a permitted use will not prevent the City from providing housing options to meet projected needs of current and future residents; •The proposed Vacation Rental Unit will promote economic development and prosperity by alternate accommodation-type for the vacationing and travelling public,in an area suitable for the use close to amenities and attractions,and close proximity to tourist area; •The application meets the policy tests as established for a VRU in a Residential designation in the Official Plan;and •The Owner will be required to obtain a license form the City to operate a VRU.Page 512 of 847 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Recommendation •That Council approve the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment as modified and recommended in report PBD-2023-002 Page 513 of 847 5014 Willmott St City of Niagara Falls Application for an Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendment For Omar Tyndale Prepared by: July 11, 2023 Page 514 of 847 Aerial Context & Surrounding Uses Lot Area: 345 sqm (0.034 ha) Frontage: 9.45 m on Willmott St Access: Willmott St and Third Avenue City Official Plan Designation: Residential City Zoning By-law: Residential Two Zone Page 515 of 847 Proposed Development •Permit a Vacation Rental Unit (VRU) through a Zoning By-law Amendment •Maintains existing dwelling and parking space (in the Garage) •Provides an additional parking spaces to meet the VRU requirement.Page 516 of 847 Proposed Development •Permit a Vacation Rental Unit (VRU) through a Zoning By-law Amendment •Maintains existing dwelling and parking space (in the Garage) •Provides an additional parking spaces to meet the VRU requirement.Page 517 of 847 Neighbourhood Context •Downtown Niagara Falls is within 500 m from Subject Lands. •River Road and Clifton Hill tourism districts are approximately 1km to the east and south of the Subject Lands. •Neighbourhood contains mainly single-detached dwellings. •In proximity to local attractions such as the Niagara Falls, Clifton Hill and Casino Niagara. DOWNTOWN NIAGARA FALLS Page 518 of 847 Proposed Official Plan Amendment Existing Designation: •Residential Proposed Amendment: •Residential, Special Policy Area “XX” •Permit a Vacation Rental Unit Meets OPA 127 •Utilizes the existing dwelling •Meets City’s parking requirements •Compatible with residential use •Close to tourist districts •Undue concentration not being created •Does not impact City’s rental stock •A VRU license will need to be obtainedPage 519 of 847 Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment ZONING:R2 to R2-XX REGULATION REQUIRED PROPOSED Permitted Use Detached dwelling VRU Min Lot Area 370 sqm * 345 sqm Min Lot Frontage 15 m * 9.45 m Min Exterior Side Yard Width 4.5 m * 1.14 m (west lot line) Min Exterior Side Yard Width from an Accessory Structure 4.5 m * 2.41 m * As existing Page 520 of 847 VRU Licensing By-law •Licensing regulations to control VRU use related to noise, partying, parking and garbage. •Require guests be notified of the City’s Noise By-law regulations. •Require a code of conduct to be signed by renters of a VRU. •City can revoke the license if it receives three or more complaints regarding noise or other such nuisance.Page 521 of 847 Is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the Growth Plan, NOP and the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan. Supports diversification of economic activity and achievement of complete communities. No changes to the built form of the dwelling unit proposed. Makes efficient use of existing services. Meets OPA 127 policy test for VRUs in a Residential designation. Subject to the City’s VRU licensing by-law.Page 522 of 847 Original Message----- From: Jeni < Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 12:44 PM To: Nick DeBenedetti <ndebenedetti@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Say No to Rezoning 5014 Willmott to become a vacation home. Good Morning Nick and Councillors, Let me introduce myself: My name is Jenifer Bonilla i am 37 years old mother of 2 kids and I work at your local ER DEPT I am one of your Frontline worker now and during covid. I work 12 hours shift 7am to 7pm 5-6 days a week pending how short staff we are. It is VERY important for me to get a good night sleep because peoples life depend on me acting fast following doctors orders in those critical moments where one decision can save your life. Up to this day our neighbourhood is very quiet at night and i am able to achieve a good night sleep so i can help doctors save peoples life. We deal with life and death situations on a daily base. For your frontline worker to be able to achieve saving your life or a loved ones life we need proper sleep eating habits etc. so yes I do need to sleep at night and not have to deal without of controlling parties or fights. We used to live in Hamilton where there was an AIRBNB in-front of house and we had many stressful sleepless nights. Police EMS at the unit 2-3 times a week. Loud music parties till 6am. People coming and going all hours of the day or night. Property damages car damages from them drinking and driving slamming into our car. We would call cops daily but there wasn’t much they could do once the cops left the music and people returned to continue partying. Talking to the homeowner who lived in toronto was impossible. So we decide to sell and looked for area where vacation homes were prohibited. Thats how we decided on our location now no vacation homes allowed. We have been here 7 years and we have so much peace and quiet family oriented area. everyone know everyone and we all watch out for each other. Our kids all play together outside enjoying the neighbourhood. We are zoned that no AIRBNB allowed so lets keep it that way say NO to the motion. I am writing to you and begging you that the motion to allow an airbnb in our area be denied. We already have so many hotels and airbnb in designated area where AIRBNB is ALLOWED we don’t need or want one here. Say no to the motion and keep our neighbourhoods kids safe!!! There is nothing special or unique about 5014 Willmott St that it needs to become a vacation home Thank you for your time Jenifer Bonilla Page 523 of 847 To whom it may concern: My wife and i have lived on this street for over 20 years. We have seen a lot of changes in terms of how this neighbourhood has evolved into a somewhat picture perfect "family" neighborhood. Believe us, we have lived through some doozies....In this block 3 houses have been bought up from Landlords and turned into family homes. When those houses were tenanted, it was nothing but trouble for the neighbourhood. As neighbours we are all pretty happy as it is right now. We own 2 homes on this block as well as another family member owns 2 adjacent houses to this 5014 Willmott St home. Having spoken with most neighbours here, they are all in the same agreement that we would rather welcome short term rental than long term tenants in this property. No one, that we all know of, has spoken with the new owner nor has he had any contact with anyone here in the neighborhood about his plans. Our understanding is this is a 1 home application to convert to a legal short term rental, "Commercial Tourist Accommodation Allowance" So as it stands, we as neighbors do not have any objection to this application. Sincerely; Ron Wiens Page 524 of 847 EXTERNAL]-AM-2023-004 R Myers Nick DeBenedetti <ndebenedetti@niagarafalls.ca> Thu 5/ 4/2023 7:42 PM I oppose to allowing this building (5014 Wilmot street) getting a permit to be an air bnb. This is a residential 2 in Accordance with zoning by-law No. 79-200 and should stay this way From: l m < Sent: Monday, July 3, 2023 9:03 AM To: Nick DeBenedetti <ndebenedetti@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-vacation home We are wondering why this application if STILL being considered if it has been heard once already. We will once again submit our letter of disapproval. In regards to the applicant requesting the site at 5014 Willmott St. (assessment Roll no. 272502000812700) to be permitted to be used as a vacation rental, we as owners and property tax payers at are firmly AGAINST allowing the residence to be permitted to be licensed to operate a vacation rental. This is a residential neighbourhood and it should be preserved as a residential neighbourhood. We have issues with other vacation homes being operated illegally in this neighbourhood. We have suffered with excessive noise, garbage, litter, excessive illegal street parking and neglected properties due to absent landlords or groundskeepers. Niagara Falls is not in any shortage of short term rentals, in fact, we need more long term rentals. During a time of housing shortages, we feel this would prove to be an egregious move on the Cit y’s part to allow this home to be operated as a short term rental, rather it would be more prudent for Tyndale Omar to consider it for a long term rental. Regards, Brad and Lee-Ann Myers Sent from Mail for Windows Page 525 of 847 The Niagara Falls Shadow Council A registered Independent Social Counseling organization “Holding Governments Accountable" Lady Justice Do not redact the contents of this document This document can be freely distributed Petition #07-11-2023-07 Tuesday,July 11,2023 C This is a petition concerning the 07/11/2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item#73. PBD-2023~39 AM-2023-O04 Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments Application 5104 Wilmott Street Applicant:Omar Tyndale Agent:Rhea Davis (NPG Planning Solutions Inc.) Council, Nick DeBenedetti,Planner II,will provide an overview of Report PBD—2023—39. Council is petitioned, 1)To approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment as detailed in the report,to permit the use of a detached dwelling as a Vacation Rental Unit. 2)Direct staff to amend the statement below read before each planning application to indicate that written comments and petitions qualify as "notice to the clerk". "anyone who wants notice of the passing of the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment or preserve their opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal shall give notice to the city clerk immediately after today's public meeting or leave their name on the sign—insheets outside the council chamber." 3)To acknowledge that the petitioners give notice of wanting notice of the passing of the official plan and or zoning bylaw amendment and preserve their opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal and request full participationPage 526 of 847 Petition commenced this day July 6,2023. Signed by, >Joedy Burdett Petition Organizer —4480 Bridge St.,Niagara falls,ON,CA >William Burdett —Unit 473 23 Four Mile Creek Rd,Niagara-on—the—Lake,ON,CA lair Page 527 of 847 Joedy Burdett President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City Council election. Qualified Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837) Building Services,Plumbing-All Buildings,Small Buildings Owner Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge Street,Niagara Falls,ON,CA,LZE2R7 (905)353 8468 Niagara Falls Shadow Council.ca (TNFSC.ca) The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is a registered Independent Social Counseling organization (BIN 1000515774).; The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is not associated with The City of Niagara Falls Altering or Redacting this document will be viewed as a violation of Section 2(b)of The Canadian Charter of Rights Page 528 of 847 Petitions addressed to City Council 1. 9’L1} 10. A petition is a legibly written request signed by more than one member of the public in support of a shared cause or concern.A petition may be presented in paper format, electronically,or through the use of an on—linesystem.Council will be the only body that can receive a petition,via the City Clerk. A petition may be delivered in person or sent by mail,fax or email to the City Clerk. A petition must contain the following: 1.The date of when the petition commenced; 2.The name and local civic address,telephone number or email address of the organizer who started the petition for contact purposes; 3.The name and address of each person who signed or electronically submitted their name to the petition,and;A 4.A clear,legible statement,which communicates the purpose of thepetition.All petitions MUST be related to matters within the direct jurisdiction of the City. A petition shall not contain any obscene or improper matter or language. All information on the petition,including names,addresses and telephone numbers shall become part of the public record of the meeting at which it is received. Petitions must be received by noon on the Friday before a scheduled Council meeting in order to appear on the Council agenda.No petition shall be presented or accepted by Council without first appearing on a Council agenda.A Petitions that relate to a matter listed on the Council agenda will appear as additional correspondence listed under the related agenda item.At that time any petitions may be read into the record by stating the purpose of the petition and indicatinghow many ‘relevant’individuals have signed.“Relevant’meaning;those who have listed both their name and local address to the petition. Unless otherwise directed by Council by way of a motion,petitions pertaining to a matter on the agenda,will be received and filed for information. A petition not relating to an item on the agenda may be listed as under ‘Communications of the City Clerk’and will also be received and ?led for information unless otherwise directed by Council by way of a motion. The City Clerk shall refuse to list a petition on the council agenda where the subject matter involves; 1.current or pending litigation; insurance claims; labour relations,union negotiations or employee relations; advertisements for products or services; election campaign related; matters not within Council’s jurisdiction matters which have been decided by Council during the current term; matters which are the subject of an Education and Training Session of Council.E0 .°°.\‘.O‘.U‘.4>‘P°!"Page 529 of 847 1 To:Nick DeBenedetti Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]-5014 Willmott Street, Zoning By-Law Amendment From: Debbie Barnier < > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 2:15 PM To: Nick DeBenedetti <ndebenedetti@niagarafalls.ca> Cc: llocco@niagarafalls.ca; Wayne Thomson <wthomson@niagarafalls.ca>; Wayne Campbell <wcampbell@niagarafalls.ca>; Mona Patel <mpatel@niagarafalls.ca>; Tony Baldinelli <tbaldinelli@niagarafalls.ca>; Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg <rnieuwesteeg@niagarafalls.ca>; Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca>; Mike Strange <mstrange@niagarafalls.ca>; Victor Pietrangelo <vpietrangelo@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-5014 Willmott Street, Zoning By-Law Amendment I am writing to you today in regards to the application for the proposed zoning bylaw amendment on 5014 Willmott Street in Niagara Falls, Ontario. I live on the and am highly opposed to this application to rezone this property to a commercial/vacation rental property. In the past there have been a few other properties that have been operating on our street and surrounding street and at those times there have been a large amount of vehicles that will stop right in the middle of street (again we live on the corner), sit there not moving even when other vehicles are coming, back up in the middle of street and number of other traffic violations in search of the properties. Living in Niagara Falls, I am sure that you have all experienced tourists doing this downtown and throughout the commercial community and I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy it happening in your neighborhood. I understand that the owner of this property is not living on the premises and lives out of town. This leaves the window of opportunity wide open for loud all night parties (don't get me wrong, I love a good party myself but not where there is no control), not to mention,drugs and guns which we have all seen have happened at other unmanaged rentals. This is a quiet residential area which has lots of children and elderly people and we do not want this area rezoned for any type of commercial properties as I am sure that you would not like to see it happen in your own residential area. We are voting NO, for this proposal. Kind regards Debbie and Kevin Barnier Niagara Falls, Ontario CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 530 of 847 Growth Strategy and Economic Development 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 905-980-6000 Toll-free:1-800-263-7215 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 Via Email Only July 10, 2023 Region File: D.10.04.OPA-23-0007 Nick DeBenedetti Planner 2 City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON, L2E 6X5 Dear Mr. DeBenedetti: Re: Regional and Provincial Comments Local Official Plan Amendment City File: AM-2023-004 Applicant: Omar Tyndale Agent: Rhea Davis (NPG Planning Solutions Inc.) 5014 Willmott Street City of Niagara Falls Staff of the Regional Growth Strategy and Economic Development Department has reviewed the above-mentioned Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) for the property municipally known as 5014 Willmott Street in the City of Niagara Falls. Regional staff received circulation of the application on June 9, 2023, and the associated fees on January 25, 2023. The OPA proposes to add a Special Policy Area to be applied to the existing ‘Residential’ designation under the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan in order to permit a vacation rental unit as a permitted use. The application also involves a concurrent Zoning By-law Amendment application in order to permit the vacation rental unit under the City of Niagara Falls Zoning By-law No. 79-200, as amended. A pre-consultation meeting was held to discuss the proposal with City and Regional staff on July 21, 2022. The following comments are provided from a Provincial and Regional perspective to assist Council with their consideration of the application. Page 531 of 847 D.10.04.OPA-23-0007 July 10, 2023 Page 2 of 3 Provincial and Regional Policies The property is located within the ‘Settlement Area’ under the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), within the ‘Delineated Built-Up Area’ in A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 Consolidation (“Growth Plan”), and designated ‘Built-Up Area’ in the Niagara Official Plan, 2022 (“NOP”). The PPS directs growth to Settlement Areas, and encourages the efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities that are planned or available. The Growth Plan contains policies that encourage accommodating forecasted growth in complete communities that are well designed to meet people’s needs for daily living by providing convenient access to an appropriate mix of jobs, local services, public service facilities, and a full range of housing to accommodate a range of incomes and household sizes. To support the concept of complete communities, the Growth Plan sets minimum intensification targets within the Delineated Built-Up Area. The NOP builds on the direction of both the PPS and Growth Plan, setting the minimum intensification target for the Built-Up Area of Niagara Falls to 50%, as set out within Table 2-2 of the NOP. The NOP encourages opportunities for the integration of gentle density, and a mix and range of housing options that considers the character of established residential neighbourhoods. The proposal to add a Special Policy Area to allow for a vacation rental unit on the subject property is generally permitted within the urban area from a Provincial and Regional perspective and will contribute to the growth of the area. City staff should be satisfied that the proposed change in use is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding local context. Archaeological Potential The PPS and the NOP provide direction for the conservation of significant cultural heritage and archaeological resources. Specifically, PPS policy 2.6.2 and NOP policy 6.4.2.1 state that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved or the land has been investigated and cleared or mitigated following clearance from the Province. The property is mapped within Schedule K of the NOP as an area of archaeological potential. NOP Policy 6.4.2.6 states that where a site proposed for development is located within an area of archaeological potential, a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment by a licensed archaeologist is required. Through the pre-consultation agreement, no archaeological assessment was recommended as there were no registered archaeological sites or natural watercourse features within 300 m and the application does not involve any new development or ground disturbance. As such, staff offer no archaeological assessment requirements in for the application. Page 532 of 847 D.10.04.OPA-23-0007 July 10, 2023 Page 3 of 3 Waste Collection Niagara Region provides curbside waste and recycling collection for developments that meet the requirements of Niagara Region’s Corporate Waste Collection Policy. The proposed development is eligible to receive Regional curbside waste and recycling collection provided that the owner bring the waste and recycling to the curbside on the designated pick up day, and that the following curbside limits are met: • Recycling: No limit blue/grey carts collected weekly; • Organics: No limit green carts collected weekly; and, • Garbage: 2 Garbage bags/cans collected every-other-week. • Curbside Collection Only. Conclusion Staff of the Regional Growth Strategy and Economic Development Department are satisfied that the proposed Official Plan Amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with Provincial and Regional plans. Regional staff note that in accordance with NOP Policies 7.4.1.6 and 7.4.1.7 and the Memorandum of Understanding, the Local Official Plan Amendment as reviewed is exempt from Regional Council Approval given the site-specific nature of the proposal. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact the undersigned at Katie.Young@niagararegion.ca. Kind regards, Katie Young, MCIP, RPP Senior Development Planner cc: Pat Busnello, Manager of Development Planning Stephen Bureau, Development Approvals Technician Page 533 of 847 CS-2023-01 - Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Cooperative Procurement – Kinetic GPO Recommendation(s) THAT Staff Report CS-2023-01 Cooperative Procurement – Kinetic GPO be received as information; AND THAT Council authorize the General Manager of Corporate Services to execute a membership agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, with Kinetic GPO for group purchasing opportunities as applicable. Executive Summary The City of Niagara Falls participates in a number of cooperative/group purchasing initiatives. Cooperative/group purchasing reduces procurement process costs, obtains access to greater resources and expertise, leverages combined buying power often resulting in lower pricing and provides economies of scale. As part of continuous improvement, it is becoming standard practice to investigate cooperative/group purchasing opportunities as part of procurement planning and to leverage cooperative opportunities when there is a benefit to the City to do so. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval to execute a membership agreement at no cost with Kinetic GPO for additional cooperative/group procurement opportunities. Background Cooperative/group purchasing organizations offer the benefits of being able to join in on new purchasing opportunities or previously established contacts that are fully compliant with broader public sector purchasing guidelines and the relevant trade agreements between both provinces within Canada and with other countries. The benefit of group purchasing organizations is that they go to market on behalf of their members to establish pricing and contract terms for a defined period of time, covering a wide array of products, supplies and services. It is completely up to the member municipality whether they wish to take advantage of a contract and are not obligated to do so as a member. For many commodities, this is an efficient and effective process resulting in obtaining the right commodity at a competitive price. Page 1 of 3 Page 534 of 847 Section 4 (b) (xii) of the City of Niagara Falls Procurement Policy (By-Law #2021-04) provides authorization to the Procurement Department to develop cooperative purchasing plans with other units of government or their agencies or public authorities, where deemed beneficial to the Corporation. Further Section 22 permits arrangements with any government body, ministry, agency, board, corporation or authority on a cooperative or joint basis for the purchases of goods and/or services where there are economic advantages in so doing. The City of Niagara Falls participates in a variety of cooperative purchasing groups including the Niagara Public Purchasing Committee (NPPC), Local Authority Services (LAS), Ontario Education Collaborative Marketplace (OECM), Ministry of Government Services (MGS), Supply Chain Ontario (SCO) and Canoe Procurement Group of Canada. Analysis Kinetic GPO is another cooperative purchasing organization established for the Broader Public Sector across Canada and their purpose is to establish competitive, easy to use, contracts across a broad range of categories designed to save procurement costs by leveraging the purchasing power of group buying, expediting processes and simplifying steps to procure. All Kinetic GPO contracts are awarded using a competitive solicitation process compliant with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) and other international trade agreements including the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) as well as the Broader Public Sector (BPS) Procurement Directive. There are several benefits of using Kinetic GPO including: • No membership fees and no exclusive arrangement • No user fees or spend or volume commitments • Voluntary access to contracts • Continuously expanding commodity offerings • Open to any Broader Public Sector entity Operational Implications and Risk Analysis A membership agreement with Kinetic GPO provides additional cooperative procurement opportunities for all City Divisions/Departments to explore and/or utilize to assist with expediting procurement processes with no fees to participate and no volume commitments. Financial Implications/Budget Impact There are no direct costs associated with executing a membership agreement with Kinetic GPO. Page 2 of 3 Page 535 of 847 Membership provides cooperative procurement opportunities which maintains an open, competitive bidding process that is fair, impartial and transparent. In accordance with Section 4 (e) (i) of the City of Niagara Falls Procurement Policy (By- Law #2021-04) departments are responsible to ensure budget availability prior to soliciting Goods and/or Services in accordance with Council approved budget. Strategic/Departmental Alignment This report aligns with the proposed strategic pillar of Financial Sustainability by managing financial resources to effectively deliver the right services, at the right time and at the right cost. The membership agreement supports the strategic pillar as it allows for additional cooperative/group procurement opportunities which contributes to fiscal responsibility for the organization in alignment with the goals of the Procurement Policy. Contributor(s) The CAO, Treasurer/Director of Finance, Senior Manager of Procurement and the City Solicitor were consulted in the writing of this report. Written by: Shelley Darlington, General Manger of Corporate Services Jason Burgess, CAO Submitted by: Status: Shelley Darlington, General Manger of Corporate Services Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Page 3 of 3 Page 536 of 847 F-2023-07 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: South Niagara Hospital Contribution Recommendation(s) 1. That Council APPROVE a contribution of $30,000,000 to Niagara Health representing the City of Niagara Falls local share commitment with terms and payment timelines to be negotiated by the CAO and Treasurer. 2. That Council DEFER to the 2024 Tax Supported Operating Budget a decision with regards to the approved option for the funding of the payment. Executive Summary The new South Niagara Hospital will be located at the corner of Biggar Road and Montrose Road in Niagara Falls on 50 acres of land with a 10-12 storey building of approximately 1.2 million square feet is estimated to be a $1.13 billion project of which Niagara Health is requesting the City of Niagara Falls agree to a local share commitment of $30-32 million, in addition to the $11 million contribution of land th e City purchased and donated to Niagara Health. The City has been prudent in saving money in a South Niagara Hospital Reserve Fund to be used for the City's Local Share Contribution with a reserve balance of over $24 million to date. City staff have invested these funds in accordance with the City's Investment Policy with the funds guaranteed to mature at a value of $30 million total, with approximately $14 million maturing during 2027 and an additional $16 million maturing during Q1 2028. As a result of these investment decisions the City no longer requires any contributions to the South Niagara Hospital Reserve Fund, including the 2% dedication of Ontario Lottery and Gaming funds, which can be rededicated to an alternative purpose. Should Council approve a contribution less than $30 million dollars any excess funding can be dedicated to an alternative purpose and should Council approve a contribution more than $30 million, staff will look to recommend additional strategies to fund the difference. This is a good news story for the City as Niagara Health charges interest of 6.02% on any unpaid funds at the date of substantial completion. For example, if the City only had $15 million available to pay Niagara Health at the date of substantial completion and had to borrow another $15 million for 10 years at a rate of 6% per year (current rate Page 1 of 9 Page 537 of 847 Niagara Health charges), per Attachment 1, using the Infrastructure Ontario Loan Calculator, the interest charges would equate to $5.1 million. While having the cash upfront allows the City and taxpayers to avoid expensive interest charges there are some downfalls to consider. Specifically, there is an intergenerational equity impact to be considered. The South Niagara Hospital will benefit not only current taxpayers but future taxpayers over the next 50 years. There is an argument that the cost for the Local Share Contribution should not be borne solely by the current taxpayer (by expending $30-32 million in cash upfront) but rather the cost should be spread out over a longer term (for example 25 years) so that multiple generations of taxpayers benefitting from the Hospital will have also invested in the South Niagara Hospital. Staff have developed some options for Council to consider during the 2024 budget debate. As part of staff’s analysis the following factors were considered: 1. The significant one time nature of this ask, 2. The fact that the Hospital will provide a benefit fo r several decades, 3. Other financial pressures on current taxpayers (asset management), 4. The interest cost associated with a structured payment to the hospital, and 5. Taxpayer affordability Option 1 With the above arguments in mind, staff are proposing that the City of Niagara Falls commit to paying Niagara Health $30,000,000 by the date of substantial completion in order to avoid any interest charges from Niagara Health. Staff are further proposing that a special Capital (Hospital) Levy of 1.5% be approved to be levied for 25 years taking effect in the 2024 Tax Supported Operating Budget through to the 2048 Tax Supported Operating Budget, to be removed in the 2049 Tax Supported Operating Budget. The intent of the 25 year "Special Capital Levy (Hospital)" is to spread the cost of the Local Share Contribution over 25 years so that multiple generations of taxpayers contribute to the cost of an asset (the South Niagara Hospital) they will benefit from. The idea is that the temporary 25 year "Special Capital Levy (Hospital)" will replace the roughly $41 million in funds expended by the current taxpayer and can be used annually for capital needs of the City, such as road and infrastructure improvements. This ensures that the current taxpayer is not at a disadvantage by expending the upfront cash solely for the South Niagara Hospital, at the expense of being able to use all or some of the funds for other pressing needs of the City such as Provincially mandated Asset Management spending. Staff feel this is a fair and reasonable approach that keeps the best interest of both the current and future taxpayer in mind. A 1.5% increase to the capital levy results in the following impacts to the residential taxpayer: Page 2 of 9 Page 538 of 847 1. $279,854 residential assessed home (average household) increases City taxes by approximately $2.00 per month or $24.00 per year. 2. $500,000 residential assessed increases City taxes by approximately $3.50 per month or $42.00 per year. The concept of a hospital levy is not new and has been used by many municipalities including St. Catharines and recently Brampton. Option 2 Under this option no hospital levy is utilized and the City uses its built up reserve for this purpose. The benefit of this option is there would not be a tax increase specifically for the hospital. An additional benefit of this option is like option 1, no interest charges for the funding commitment is assumed by the City. The downside part to this option would be the significant depletion in our reserves and asset management pressures that will also require a tax increase to fill the hole. Option 3 Under this option we would not use the reserve or only use a portion o f the reserve and put on a hospital levy to fund the commitment and the interest costs. This is not a preferred option due to the additional cost to the taxpayer from the interest charges. Option 4 Council can choose a hybrid option of the first option and set a hospital levy that is less than the full recovery of the cost. Background The South Niagara Hospital will be located at the corner of Biggar Road and Montrose Road in Niagara Falls on 50 acres of land with a 10 -12 storey building of approximately 1.2 million square feet. Niagara Health presented to Council on December 13, 2022 with an overall update on the South Niagara Hospital including an update on the Local Share being requested. The Local Share is the portion of funding for which a Hospital is responsible. According to the Niagara Health presentation, Hospitals are responsible for: • 10% of the eligible construction costs and associated ancillary costs and; • 100% of the costs associated with the purpose of new and replacement furni ture, fixtures and equipment. Page 3 of 9 Page 539 of 847 The South Niagara Hospital is estimated to be a $1.13 billion project of which the Province will contribute $900 million. The remaining $200 - $230 million is considered the Local Share which Niagara Health broke out in their presentation as follows: • Regional Commitment - $44.5 million • Niagara Health Foundation/Donations - $35-45 million • Municipal Contributions Requested (Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Welland, Pelham) - $40-50 million • Hospital Own Funds (Parking & Retail) - $80-90 million Based on initial estimates of costing and the Local Share, many years ago the City of Niagara Falls initially discussed committing $22 million to Niagara Health in addition to purchasing land for $11 million that was subsequently donated to Niagara Health. In the December 13, 2022 presentation to Council, Niagara Health requested the City of Niagara Falls consider increasing their initial Local Share Commitment by an additional $8-$10 million for a total Local Share Commitment request of $30 -32 million in addition to the $11 million of land the City purchased and donated to Niagara Health. Analysis The City of Niagara Falls has known about the Hospital Funding commitment for many years now and as such has specifically set aside over $24 million in a reserve fund designated for the South Niagara Hospital. As indicated above, previous estimates of the Local Share Contribution were approximately $22 million. This amount has grown now to a request of $30-32 million to be paid by the date of substantial completion which is estimated to be March 2028. The ultimate amount the City of Niagara Falls wishes to contribute is a decision of Council and Council has not formally committed to any amount to date. The City has been prudent in accumulating a healthy reserve fund balance of over $24 million to be used for the City's Local Share Contribution. City staff have invested these funds in accordance with the City's Investment Policy and they are guaranteed to mature at a value of $30 million total, with approximately $14 million maturing during 2027 and an additional $16 million maturing during Q1 2028. As a result of these investment decisions the City no longer requires any contributions to the South Niagara Hospital Reserve Fund, including the 2% dedication of Ontario Lottery and Gaming funds, which can be rededicated to an alternative purpose. This is a good news story for the City's taxpayers as Niagara Health currently charges interest of 6.02% on any unpaid funds at the date of substantial completion. Many municipalities have adopted strategies of levying their taxpayers a special hospital levy, forwarding these funds annually to Hospitals while being charged interest annually for Page 4 of 9 Page 540 of 847 funds still owing. Think of it as a long term loan from Niagara Health, similar to a mortgage. This is not the case for Niagara Falls and the interest savings achieved by having the cash available upfront is something to be celebrated. For example, if the City only had $15 million available to pay Niagara Health at the date of substantial completion and had to borrow another $15 million for 10 years at a rate of 6% per year (current rate Niagara Health charges), using the Infrastructure Ontario Loan Calculator, the interest charges would equate to $5.1 million (Attachment 1). However, dedicating and contributing $30-32 million in cash solely to Niagara Health removes the Municipality's ability to use any of that funding towards the City's capital needs, including the City's: • Provincially mandated Asset Management Planning which identifies needed contributions to the Asset Management backlog of work that needs to be completed. o In the City's 2022 Council Approved Asset Management Plan for Core Assets, the backlog for tax based assets, (roads and related, bridges and culverts and stormwater management system) is listed as $6.5 million. • Asset Management funding deficits (annual funding deficit of $7.8 million for core assets (2022 AMP) and $11.3 million for non-core assets (2014 AMP)) There is also an intergenerational equity impact to be considered. The South Niagara Hospital will benefit not only current taxpayers but future taxpayers over the next 50 years. There is an argument that the cost for the Local Share Contribution should not be borne solely by the current taxpayer (by expending $30-32 million in cash upfront) but rather the cost should be spread out over a longer term (for example 25 years) so that multiple generations of taxpayers benefitting from the Hospital will have also invested in the South Niagara Hospital. With this in mind, staff are proposing that the City of Niagara Falls commit to paying Niagara Health $30,000,000 by the date of substantial completion in order to avoid any interest charges from Niagara Health. Staff are further proposing that a "Special Capital Levy (Hospital)"l of 1.5% be approved to be levied for 25 years taking effect in the 2024 Tax Supported Operating Budget through to the 2048 Tax Supported Operating Budget, to be removed in the 2049 Tax Supported Operating Budget. The intent of the 25 year "Special Capital Levy (Hospital)" is to spread the cost of the Local Share Contribution over 25 years so that multiple generations of taxpayers contribute to the cost of an asset (the South Niagara Hospital) they will benefit from. The idea is that the temporary 25 year "Special Capital Levy (Hospital)" will replace the roughly $41 million in funds expended by the current taxpayer and can be used for capital needs of the City, so that the current taxpayer is not at a disadvantage by expending the upfront cash solely for the South Niagara Hospital. Staff feel this is a fair Page 5 of 9 Page 541 of 847 and reasonable approach that keeps the best interest of both the current and future taxpayer in mind. Overall – this is a cost by the taxpayer to provide a critical piece of infrastructure in our community that will have significant benefits to the City. No matter how one chooses to pay for this a cost will be borne by the taxpayer. Staff currently favour Option one (1), but that will be decided during the budget debate Financial Implications/Budget Impact Staff have conservatively estimated that a "Special Capital Levy (Hospital)" of 1.5% for 25 years will result in a minimum of $40.8 million being collected over the 25 year period (Attachment 2), which would be spent annually on pressing capital needs such as roads and infrastructure. Within this analysis staff have conservatively estimated a 1% increase in Growth annually for 25 years and a 1% increase in the Levy annually for 25 years. Growth and Levy increases will fluctuate over the next 25 years, however staff felt this is a conservative method to determine the minimum amount of funds a Special 1.5%, 25 year Capital Levy to replace hospital funds spent would raise. Strategic/Departmental Alignment This report is consistent with the following Council strategic commitments: • To be financially responsible to the residents of Niagara Falls by practicing prudent fiscal management of existing resources and by making sound long-term choices that allow core City programs and services to be sustainable now and into the future. • To be efficient and effective in our delivery of municipal services and use of resources and accountable to our citizens and stakeholders Contributor(s) James Dowling, Senior Manager of Capital Accounting Jennifer Yarnell, Senior Financial Analyst List of Attachments F-2023-07 Attachment 1 - South Niagara Hospital Contribution Borrowing Scenario F-2023-07 Attachment 2 - Special 25 Year Capital Levy Estimate Written by: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Submitted by: Status: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Page 6 of 9 Page 542 of 847 Shelley Darlington, General Manger of Corporate Services Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 06 Jul 2023 Page 7 of 9 Page 543 of 847 >> Amortizing Debenture Schedule Organization Name City of Niagara Falls - Hospital Contribution Borrowing Scenario Principal Amount $15,000,000.00 Annual Interest Rate 6.00 % Loan Term (Year)10 Debenture Date (mm/dd/yyyy)01/01/2023 Maturity Date (mm/dd/yyyy)01/01/2033 Payment Frequency SemiAnnual Loan Type Amortizing Payment Date Total Payment Principal Amount Interest Amount Principal Balance 07/01/2023 $1,008,235.61 $558,235.61 $450,000.00 $14,441,764.39 01/01/2024 $1,008,235.61 $574,982.68 $433,252.93 $13,866,781.71 07/01/2024 $1,008,235.61 $592,232.16 $416,003.45 $13,274,549.55 01/01/2025 $1,008,235.61 $609,999.12 $398,236.49 $12,664,550.43 07/01/2025 $1,008,235.61 $628,299.10 $379,936.51 $12,036,251.33 01/01/2026 $1,008,235.61 $647,148.07 $361,087.54 $11,389,103.26 07/01/2026 $1,008,235.61 $666,562.51 $341,673.10 $10,722,540.75 01/01/2027 $1,008,235.61 $686,559.39 $321,676.22 $10,035,981.36 07/01/2027 $1,008,235.61 $707,156.17 $301,079.44 $9,328,825.19 01/01/2028 $1,008,235.61 $728,370.85 $279,864.76 $8,600,454.34 07/01/2028 $1,008,235.61 $750,221.98 $258,013.63 $7,850,232.36 01/01/2029 $1,008,235.61 $772,728.64 $235,506.97 $7,077,503.72 07/01/2029 $1,008,235.61 $795,910.50 $212,325.11 $6,281,593.22 01/01/2030 $1,008,235.61 $819,787.81 $188,447.80 $5,461,805.41 07/01/2030 $1,008,235.61 $844,381.45 $163,854.16 $4,617,423.96 01/01/2031 $1,008,235.61 $869,712.89 $138,522.72 $3,747,711.07 07/01/2031 $1,008,235.61 $895,804.28 $112,431.33 $2,851,906.79 01/01/2032 $1,008,235.61 $922,678.41 $85,557.20 $1,929,228.38 07/01/2032 $1,008,235.61 $950,358.76 $57,876.85 $978,869.62 01/01/2033 $1,008,235.71 $978,869.62 $29,366.09 $0.00 $20,164,712.30 $15,000,000.00 $5,164,712.30 DISCLAIMER: Infrastructure Ontario does not warrant or make any representations regarding the use or the results of the use of the calculator found herein in terms of their correctness, accuracy, timeliness, reliability, or otherwise. Under no circumstances shall Infrastructure Ontario be held liable for any damages, whether direct, incidental, indirect, special, or consequential, and including, without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, arising from or in connection with your use or reliance on the calculator found herein. This calculator is provided for general illustrative purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. To take into account your specific circumstances, you should obtain professional investment, legal and/or tax advice, as appropriate. Printed on: 01/15/2023 01:40:28 pm Page 1 of 1   Page 8 of 9 Page 544 of 847 Attachment 2 F-2023-07 July 11, 2023 Tax levy base January 1, 2024 (pre-growth)84,973,020 1.5% of tax base 1,274,595 Estimated Growth per year 1% Estimated Levy Increase per year 1% Total estimated levy increase per year 2% Year 1.5% Levy Estimated 1 2024 1,274,595 2 2025 1,300,087 3 2026 1,326,089 4 2027 1,352,611 5 2028 1,379,663 6 2029 1,407,256 7 2030 1,435,401 8 2031 1,464,109 9 2032 1,493,392 10 2033 1,523,259 11 2034 1,553,725 12 2035 1,584,799 13 2036 1,616,495 14 2037 1,648,825 15 2038 1,681,801 16 2039 1,715,437 17 2040 1,749,746 18 2041 1,784,741 19 2042 1,820,436 20 2043 1,856,845 21 2044 1,893,982 22 2045 1,931,861 23 2046 1,970,498 24 2047 2,009,908 25 2048 2,050,107 40,825,669 Special 25 Year Capital Levy Estimate Conservative estimate of total collected after 25 years Page 9 of 9 Page 545 of 847 F-2023-19 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Low Income Seniors and People with Disabilities Water and Property Tax Rebate Programs Recommendation(s) For the information of Council. Executive Summary This report provides information on the City's rebate programs, specifically the Low- income Seniors' Property Tax and Water Rebate programs and the People with Disabilities Property Tax and Water rebate programs. This report provides unaudited 2022 results of the City's rebate programs as well as budget information for the programs for the 2023 year. 2023 applications for all rebate programs will be available August 1, 2023 and similar to last year, the application period will end October 31, 2023. Applications for both rebates are available at City Hall, MacBain Centre or online. Background The purpose of both the property tax and water rebate programs are to provide financial assistance to low income seniors and people with disabilities. The 2023 Utility Budget, includes a budget amount of $102,000 for the Low Income Seniors' water rebate program and $10,200 for the People with Disabilities water rebate program. This rebate provides qualifying applicants a rebate of $102. To qualify for the low income Seniors' rebate, a senior must have a municipal water account with the City of Niagara Falls and be a recipient of the Federal Guaranteed Income Supplement. To qualify for the People with Disabilities water rebate, a person must have a municipal water account and be a recipient of the Ontario Disability Support Program. The rebate is equal to $102. Similarly, the 2023 Tax Levy Supported Operating budget includes a budget amount of $70,500 for the seniors' property tax rebate and $9,500 for the People wit h Disabilities program. This rebate provides qualifying applicants a rebate of $80. To qualify for the Property Tax Rebate the applicant must be a property owner who receives the Federal Guaranteed Income Supplement, owns a primary residence in Niagara Falls and is a senior 65 or older. Qualified applicants for the People with Disabilities property tax rebate would be a property owner in the City of Niagara Falls who is a recipient of the Ontario Disability Support Program. This rebate is equal to $80. Page 1 of 2 Page 546 of 847 City staff will take applications from residents that may qualify for either programs starting August 1, 2023. Applicants may not stack rebates. Applications are available at City Hall, MacBain Centre or online. The City will be notifying the general publ ic through the upcoming water and sewer bills, as well as through newspaper advertising. Financial Implications/Budget Impact The 2023 budget impact of each program is different. As of 2022, both water rebate programs are included in the utility budget as both rebates are related to water and wastewater fees that are directly used to fund water and wastewater services. Both rebate programs increase fees for all other users as the rebate program increases service expenses. The 2022 Low Income Seniors' Water Rebate program experienced an unfavorable budget variance of $17,329 as budget was $76,500 and actuals were $93,829. The 2022 People with Disabilities water rebate program experienced a favorable budget variance of $12,752 as the budget was $20,400 and the actual was $7,648. Alternatively, both property tax rebate programs are included in the Tax Levy Supported Operating Budget as most services in this budget are funded in full or partially through property tax revenue. The existence of both rebate programs increases property tax rates for all taxpayers as the existence of the rebate programs increases service expenses. The budgeted expenditure included in the 2022 Tax Levy Supported Operating budget for the Low income Seniors' property tax rebate is $60,000 and the actual cost was $71,656. This represents an unfavorable budget variance of $11,656. Conversely, the People with Disabilities property tax rebate program budget experienced a favorable variance of $3,760 as $8,000 was budgeted and $4,240 was the actual. Written by: Stephanie Young, Water Tax Administrator Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Submitted by: Status: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Shelley Darlington, General Manger of Corporate Services Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Page 2 of 2 Page 547 of 847 F-2023-21 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario – Trust Funds Financial Statements December 31, 2022 Recommendation(s) That Council approve the draft trust funds financial statements for the year ended, December 31, 2022, the 2022 draft post-audit letter and the 2022 draft management letter. Executive Summary The City’s auditors, Crawford, Smith & Swallow, have completed the audit of the trust funds financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2022. This report is the presentation of those statements for Council’s review and endorsement. The statements are presented in draft form so that Council can approve them. The statements will then be finalized and published. Background The City of Niagara Falls is required to have an annual audit conducted by a qualified accounting firm to meet its obligations legislatively and for the banking covenants. The City has engaged Crawford, Smith & Swallow to perform the audit and they have issued an opinion on the financial statements. List of Attachments Attachment 1 - Draft Financial Statements - City of Niagara Falls Trust Funds - 2022 Attachment 2 - Trusts Draft Management Letter - 2022 Attachment 3 - Trusts Draft Post Audit Letter - 2022 Written by: James Dowling, Manager of Capital Accounting Submitted by: Status: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Page 1 of 19 Page 548 of 847 Shelley Darlington, General Manger of Corporate Services Approved - 06 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 06 Jul 2023 Page 2 of 19 Page 549 of 847 CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO - TRUST FUNDS Financial Statements December 31, 2022 Page 3 of 19 Page 550 of 847 CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO - TRUST FUNDS Financial Statements December 31, 2022 Table of Contents Page Management Report 1 Independent Auditor's Report 2-4 Statement of Financial Position 5 Statement of Financial Activities and Changes in Fund Balances 6 Notes to Financial Statements 7 Page 4 of 19 Page 551 of 847 CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO - TRUST FUNDS MANAGEMENT REPORT December 31, 2022 The financial statements of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario - Trust Funds (the "Trusts") are the responsibility of the Trusts' management and have been prepared in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards established by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, as described in Note 1 to the financial statements. The preparation of financial statements necessarily involves the use of estimates based on management's judgement, particularly when transactions affecting the current accounting period cannot be finalized with certainty until future periods. Trusts management maintains a system of internal controls designed to provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded, transactions are properly authorized and recorded in compliance with legislative and regulatory requirements and reliable financial information is available on a timely basis for preparation of the financial statements. These systems are monitored and evaluated by management. Council meets with management and the external auditors to review the financial statements and discuss any significant financial reporting or internal control matters prior to their approval of the financial statements. The financial statements have been audited by Crawford Smith & Swallow Chartered Professional Accountants LLP, independent external auditors appointed by the Trusts. The accompanying Independent Auditor's Report outlines their responsibilities, the scope of their examination and their opinion on the Trusts' financial statements. ____________________________ ____________________________ Jim Diodati Jason Burgess Mayor Chief Administrative Officer REPORT DATE REPORT DATE 1 Page 5 of 19 Page 552 of 847 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT To the Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario - Trust Funds Opinion We have audited the financial statements of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario - Trust Funds (the "Trusts"), which comprise the statement of financial position as at December 31, 2022, and the statement of financial activities and changes in fund balances for the year then ended, and notes to the financial statements, including a summary of significant accounting policies. In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario - Trust Funds as at December 31, 2022, and the results of its operations and changes in fund balances for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. Basis for Opinion We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are independent of the Trusts in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the financial statements in Canada, and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. Responsibilities of Management and Those Charged with Governance for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. 2 Page 6 of 19 Page 553 of 847 In preparing the financial statements, management is responsible for assessing the Muncipality's ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless management either intends to liquidate the organization or to cease operations, or has no realistic alternative but to do so. Those charged with governance are responsible for overseeing the organization's financial reporting process. Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements. As part of an audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards, we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. We also: a)Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and obtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. b)Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trusts' internal control. c)Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates and related disclosures made by management. d)Conclude on the appropriateness of management's use of the going concern basis of accounting and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty exists related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the Trusts' ability to continue as a going concern. If we conclude that a material uncertainty exists, we are required to draw attention in our auditor's report to the related disclosures in the financial statements or, if such disclosures are inadequate, to modify our opinion. Our conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to the date of our auditor's report. However, future events or conditions may cause the Trusts to cease to continue as a going concern. e)Evaluate the overall presentation, structure and content of the financial statements, including the disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves fair presentation. We communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in internal control that we identify during our audit. 3 Page 7 of 19 Page 554 of 847 We also provide those charged with governance with a statement that we have complied with relevant ethical requirements regarding independence, and to communicate with them all relationships and other matters that may reasonably be thought to bear on our independence, and where applicable, related safeguards. Niagara Falls, Ontario REPORT DATE CRAWFORD SMITH & SWALLOW CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS LLP LICENSED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 4 Page 8 of 19 Page 555 of 847 CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO - TRUST FUNDS STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION December 31, 2022 (In thousands of dollars) Cemetery Perpetual Total Care Other $$$ Assets Cash 1,064 1,024 40 Investments - note 2 Federal 1,815 1,815 Provincial 1,044 1,044 Corporate 876 875 1 3,735 3,734 1 Due from City of Niagara Falls - note 3 481 281 200 5,280 5,039 241 Liabilities and Fund Balances Fund balances 5,280 5,039 241 5,280 5,039 241 . Signed on behalf of the Trusts: _____________________________ Mayor _____________________________ Chief Administrative Officer See accompanying notes 5 Page 9 of 19 Page 556 of 847 CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO - TRUST FUNDS STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES for the year ended December 31, 2022 (In thousands of dollars) Cemetery Perpetual Total Care Other $$$ Balance, Beginning of Year 4,814 4,755 59 Receipts Cemetery lot receipts 284 284 Interest 82 79 3 Land sale deposits 245 245 611 363 248 Expenditures Cemetery care 82 79 3 Transfer to operating fund 63 63 145 79 66 Excess of Receipts over Expenditures 466 284 182 Balance, End of Year 5,280 5,039 241 See accompanying notes 6 Page 10 of 19 Page 557 of 847 CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO - TRUST FUNDS NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2022 1. Significant Accounting Policies The financial statements of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls (the "City") trust funds (the "Trusts") are the representations of management prepared in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards established by the Public Sector Accounting Board ("PSAB") of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. Basis of accounting Revenues and expenses are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are normally recognized in the year in which they are earned and measurable. Expenses are recognized as they are incurred and measurable as the result of receipt of goods or services and/or the creation of a legal obligatio to pay. Interest income Interest income is reported as revenue in the period earned. Investments Investments consist of bonds and guarenteed investment certificants and are recorded at cost. 2. Investments Trust fund investments of $3,735,442 ($3,682,168 - 2021) have a market value as at December 31, 2022 of $3,520,546 ($3,762,133 - 2021) and an original cost of $3,735,442 ($3,682,168 - 2021). Investments consist of Government of Canada treasury bills and crown corporation bonds, provincial government bonds, Canadian corporate bonds and Canadian bank shares. 3. Due to/from Operating Fund The amounts owing to/from the operating fund are held with the City and are non-interest bearing with no fixed terms of repayment. 7 Page 11 of 19 Page 558 of 847 CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO - TRUST FUNDS NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended December 31, 2022 4. Other Trust Funds 2022 2021 $ $ Trust for land sales 227,950 45,803 Rigg Estate 500 500 W. L. Doran Estate 1,000 1,000 Moore Estate 1,200 1,200 McNiven Estate 500 500 McDonald Estate 400 400 Woodruff Estate 8,295 8,295 Coulsen Estate 300 300 Wilson Estate 500 500 C. J. Doran Estate 500 500 241,145 58,998 8 Page 12 of 19 Page 559 of 847 REPORT DATE Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Trust Funds 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 2L1 Attention: Mayor Jim Diodati and Members of Council Dear Sirs: We have now completed our examination of the financial statements of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario – Trust Funds (the “Trust Funds”) for the period of January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022. As stated in our report dated REPORT DATE addressed to the Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario, the objective of our audit was to express an opinion on the financial statements and our audit included considerations of internal controls relevant to our audit to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements were free of material misstatements. Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal controls or for identifying all significant deficiencies that may exist. Accordingly, our audit would not usually identify all such matters that may be of interest to you and it is inappropriate to conclude that no such matters exist. In accordance with CAS 265 of the CPA Canada Handbook, Assurance, the auditor is required to communicate to those charged with governance and management deficiencies in internal control that the auditor has identified during the audit and that, in the auditor's professional judgment, are of sufficient importance to merit their respective attentions. Contracts for Cemetery Services CSS noted one instance in which the contract for Cemetery services kept on file was not signed by a City of Niagara Falls representative. It is import to ensure that all contracts have been signed by both the customer as well as the appropriate City representative. The following item has been resolved satisfactorily: Employee Payment Plan Program – December 31, 2020 DRAFTPage 13 of 19 Page 560 of 847 Contracts for Cemetery Services – December 31, 2019 This communication is prepared solely for the information of the Trust Funds and is not intended for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility to a third party that relies on this communication. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff for all their assistance and co-operation during our audit. Should you wish to discuss the above matters further, please contact our office at your convenience. Yours very truly, CRAWFORD SMITH & SWALLOW CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS LLP Owais Tabish, CPA, CA Engagement Partner DRAFTPage 14 of 19 Page 561 of 847 REPORT DATE Members of Council Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario - Trust Funds 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Dear Members of Council: The following is the communication of matters arising from the audit of Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario - Trust Funds (the "Trust Funds") for the year ended December 31, 2022 required under Canadian Auditing Standards 260 and 265 of the CPA Canada Handbook. This list is not meant to be all-inclusive, nor in any way to restrict the communication of other matters. Completion of External Audit The responsibilities of the auditors in relation to the financial statements is to form and express an opinion on the financial statements which have been prepared by management with the oversight of those charged with governance. The audit of the financial statements does not relieve management or those charged with governance of their responsibilities. We have expressed an unqualified opinion as to whether the financial statements present fairly in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards the financial position and statement of financial activities and changes in fund balances of the Trust Funds. The audit was conducted from March 6, 2023 to June 27, 2023. Fraud Auditors' Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements, CPA Canada Handbook CAS 240, defines fraud as "an intentional act by one or more individuals among management, employees, those charged with governance, or third parties, involving the use of deception to obtain an unjust or illegal advantage". Although fraud is a broad legal concept, the auditor is concerned with fraudulent acts that cause a material misstatement in the financial statements. Misstatement of the financial statements may not be the objective of some frauds, and misappropriation of assets may not necessarily result in a misstatement of the financial statements. Auditors do not make legal determinations of whether fraud has actually occurred. Fraud involving one or more members of management or those charged with governance is referred to as "management fraud"; fraud involving only employees of the entity is referred to as "employee fraud". In either case, there may be collusion with third parties outside the entity. We confirm that there were no findings of fraud to communicate to the Members of Council.DRAFTPage 15 of 19 Page 562 of 847 Consideration of Laws and Regulations Consideration of Laws and Regulations in an Audit of Financial Statements, CPA Canada Handbook CAS 250 states that the term "non-compliance" means "acts of omission or commission by the entity, either intentional or unintentional, which are contrary to the prevailing laws or regulations. Such acts include transactions entered into by, or in the name of, the entity, or on its behalf, by those charged with governance, management or employees. Non-compliance does not include personal misconduct (unrelated to the business activities of the entity) by those charged with governance, management or employees of the entity." As explained in CPA Canada CAS 250, auditors conducting an audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards must obtain a general understanding of the legal and regulatory framework applicable to the entity and the industry of sector in which the entity operates and how the entity is complying with that framework. To do this the auditors inquire of management, and where appropriate those charged with governance, as to whether the entity is in compliance with such laws and regulations and inspecting correspondence, if any, with the relevant licensing or regulatory authorities. Although the auditors are required to remain alert to the possibility that other audit procedures applied may bring instances of non-compliance or suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations to the auditor's attention, in the absence of identified or suspected non-compliance the auditors are not required to perform audit procedures regarding the entity's compliance with laws and regulations. We confirm that no evidence which indicates non-compliance with laws and regulations was found. Weaknesses in Internal Control Internal Control in the Context of an Audit, CPA Canada Handbook CAS 265, provides the following guidance concerning the communication of significant weaknesses in internal control: CPA Canada Handbook CAS 265.11 In conducting the audit, the auditors would consider only those "internal controls relevant to the preparation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control". An audit is not designed to consider whether internal control is adequate for management's purposes. Consequently, the auditors would only identify weaknesses in internal control that come to the auditors' attention during the financial statement audit. The auditors may not identify all the weaknesses that exist. A weakness in internal control is a deficiency in the design or effective operation of internal control. The identification of weaknesses in internal control is influenced by matters such as the auditors' assessment of materiality, the auditors' preliminary assessment of the components of audit risk and the audit approach used by the auditors. For example, if the auditors use a substantive audit approach for a particular financial statement assertion, they will not perform tests of controls in this area. Therefore the auditors' knowledge of controls in this area will generally be limited. Accordingly, the auditors will not have a detailed knowledge of the control systems that enhance the reliability of data and information and therefore may not identify weaknesses in these control systems. A deficiency exists when, a control is designed, implemented or operated in such a way that it is unable to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements in the financial statements on a timely basis or a control necessary to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements in the financial statements on a timely basis is missing. A significant deficiency exists when a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies in internal control, is of sufficient importance to merit the attention of those charged with governance in the auditor's professional judgment. The matters being reported are limited to those deficiencies of sufficient merit to be reported to those charged with governance.DRAFTPage 16 of 19 Page 563 of 847 Please refer to the management letter issued for further details about any deficiencies identified during the audit. Related Party Transactions As explained in Related Parties, CPA Canada Handbook CAS 550, auditors conducting an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards may identify related party transactions which are not in the normal course of operations and which, in the auditors' professional judgement, involve significant judgements by management concerning measurement or disclosure. We confirm that no such transactions requiring the Members of Council to be informed were identified during the audit. We also confirm that the Municipality has adequate controls in place to identify related party transactions. Significant Accounting Principles and Policies The auditors should determine that the Members of Council are informed about: (a)the initial selection of and changes in significant accounting policies, including the adoption of new accounting pronouncements, which encompass the specific principles and their method of application; (b) the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas, or those unique to an industry; (c)the existence of acceptable alternative policies and methods, and the acceptability of the particular policy or method used by management; (d)the extent to which the financial statements are affected by unusual transactions (including non-recurring amounts recognized during the period) and the extent to which such transactions are separately disclosed in the financial statements; and (e)the effect of the timing of transactions in relation to the period in which they are recorded. We confirm that there were no changes to significant accounting policies during the year that should be communicated to the Members of Council. Management Judgements and Accounting Estimates The auditors should determine that the Members of Council are informed about: (a)the issues involved, and related judgements made by management, in formulating particularly sensitive accounting estimates and disclosures (for example, disclosures related to going concern, subsequent events and contingency issues); (b)the basis for the auditors' conclusions regarding the reasonableness of the estimates made by management in the context of the financial statements taken as a whole; (c)the risks of material misstatement from estimates; (d)indicators of possible management bias; (e) the factors affecting asset and liability carrying values, including the entity's basis for determining useful lives assigned to tangible and intangible assets; (f) the timing of transactions that affect the recognition of revenues or avoid recognition of expenses; and (g)disclosure of estimation uncertainty in the financial statements.DRAFTPage 17 of 19 Page 564 of 847 We confirm that all management judgements and accounting estimates observed during the course of the audit were reasonable and supported by appropriate documentation. Financial Statement Disclosures The auditors should determine that the Members of Council are informed about: (a)the issues involved, and related judgements made, in formulating particularly sensitive financial statement disclosures; (b)the overall neutrality, consistency, and clarity of the disclosures in the financial statements; (c)the potential effect on the financial statements of significant risks, exposures and uncertainties (such as pending litigation); and (d)the selective correction of misstatements. We confirm that there are no other issues as described above to be communicated to the Members of Council. Other Matters Arising From the Audit In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters. When the auditors are aware that such consultation has occurred, the auditors would communicate with the Members of Council as appropriate. If the auditors find that the consultation has not occurred in accordance with Reports on the Application of Accounting Principles, Auditing Standards or Review Standards, CPA Canada Handbook 7600, this would be communicated with the Members of Council. We confirm that we are not aware of consultations with other accountants. The auditors communicate with the Members of Council any major issues discussed with management in connection with the initial or recurring appointment of the auditors, including, among other matters, discussions regarding the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, and fees. We confirm that there are no major issues in connection with the recurring appointment of the auditor. The auditors inform the Members of Council of any significant difficulties encountered while performing the audit, including significant delays in management providing information required for the audit, an unnecessarily brief timetable in which to complete the audit, extensive unexpected effort required to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, the unavailability of expected information, restrictions imposed on the auditor by management, and management's unwillingness to make or extend its assessment of the entity's ability to continue as a going concern when requested. We confirm that no significant difficulties were encountered in the performance of the audit. The auditors inform the Members of Council of any significant matters discussed, or subject to correspondence with management, while performing the audit including business conditions affecting the entity and business plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement and written representations requested.DRAFTPage 18 of 19 Page 565 of 847 Please refer to the management letter issued for further details about any significant matters that were discussed or communicated with management during the course of the audit. Please see management's representation letter for written representations requested. The auditors inform the Members of Council of any other significant matters relevant to the financial reporting process including material misstatements of fact or material inconsistencies in information accompanying the audited financial statements that have been corrected. We confirm that no significant matters relevant to the financial reporting process were identified during the audit. We look forward to discussing with yo u the matters outlined in this letter as well as other matters that may be of interest to you. Yours very truly, CRAWFORD SMITH & SWALLOW CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS LLP DRAFTPage 19 of 19 Page 566 of 847 MW-2023-20 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: W.L. Houck Park Practice Facilities Legacy Project Recommendation(s) 1. THAT Council authorize Staff to enter into a cost-sharing agreement consisting of $100,000 from Sport Niagara representing the Canada Summer Games Host Society, $100,000 from the Greater Niagara Baseball Association, and $250,000 from the City of Niagara Falls towards the development of baseball practice facilities at W.L. Houck Park; and further, 2. THAT Council approve a 2023 capital budget amendment of $450,000 for the W.L. Houck Park Practice Facilities Legacy Project with the City's contribution of $250,000 be funded from the OLG reserve and the remaining $200,000 to be funded from Sport Niagara ($100,000) and the Greater Niagara Baseball Association ($100,000); and further, 3. THAT any operating impacts associated with seasonal maintenance, scheduling, and user fees be referred to the 2024 operating budget process. Executive Summary As a contribution to community and legacy to commemorate the Canada Summer Games held in Niagara in 2022, the Host Society has agreed to partial funding of a new hitting tunnel practice facility for the City of Niagara Falls. The agreement is the culmination of several years of collaboration amongst the host society representatives, local sport organizations, and City Staff. The host society, now represented by Sport Niagara, and the Greater Niagara Baseball Association (GNBA) have both agreed in principle to maximum contribution of $100,000 each for a state -of- the-art four cell facility at W.L. Houck Park consisting of two hitting tunnels, one bullpen pitching area, and one plyometric warm up area that has an estimated gross project budget of $450,000. Staff recommend Council provide the authority to Staff to execute the cost-sharing agreement with the aforementioned parties in order to advance to detailed design this year and tendering in the winter season for construction starting in spring. Background At the onset of the Canada Summer Games planning stages, the City of Niagara Falls entered into communications with the Host Society in regards to the following two major Page 1 of 17 Page 567 of 847 initiatives: 1) enabling works / facility upgrade requirements at Oakes Park, and 2) a community sport-legacy project. 1) Enabling Works Based upon the original facility reviews conducted by the Bid Committee, Niagara Region, and the City, improvements to the dugouts and bullpens at Oakes Park were required as a pre-requisite to hosting national-level sport meeting Baseball Canada specifications. The City received a total of $45,000 for these enabling works contributions in accordance with the signed Venue Use Agreement. Actual expenses incurred by the City far exceeded the original estimates, and shown below included works directly related to Baseball Canada specifications for the dugouts and bullpens, plus significant additional indirect upgrades to improve field conditions, playability, and amenities. The table below does not include running track and lighting improvements for Oakes Park that occurred within the same timeframe. Table 1: List of Improvements for Baseball Facilities and Oakes Park Amenities Item Total Cost Grandstand Improvements and Accessible Washroom $ 500,000 Diamond #1 Improvements (dugouts, bullpen, infield replacement, outfield replacement, underdrainage, outfield screening, pitching mound) $ 800,000 Plaza Improvements and Playground Replacement $ 650,000 Parking Lot Improvements $ 500,000 Additional Washroom Upgrades $ 80,000 Engineering and Admin (Incl. running track upgrade) $ 200,000 2) Sport Legacy Project Various options were discussed over the last few years since the initial announcement of the games. At one time larger initiatives were under consideration, including a complete artificial turf field at W.L. Houck Park. However, it is Staff's understanding that through the course of financial planning for the Summer Games, and for cost- containment reasons, the Host Society limited the legacy contributions to dollars that remained upon conclusion of major capital expenditures (e.g. Summer Games Park in Thorold). Consequently, a legacy contribution of $100,000 was negotiated with the Host Society in addition to the original $45,000 enabling works contribution. Analysis In consultation with the GNBA and the Summer Games baseball sport lead, a concept for a hitting tunnel practice facility was developed for W.L. Houck Park. This concept is illustrated in the attachment to this report. These hitting tunnels will replace the end-of-life batting tunnels presently located at W.L. Houck Park, and will also re-purpose the end-of-life tennis courts at the same location. Relocating the new hitting tunnels to the existing tennis court footprint will take Page 2 of 17 Page 568 of 847 advantage of a solid base foundation and will reduce ongoing operational and asset management capital needs for future replacement of the existing tennis courts. The new practice facilities will occupy a large portion of the existing tennis court space and not allow for replacement of the tennis courts on the same site. Therefore, Staff are recommending to consider a future capital project for the construction of a dedicated pickleball space and asphalt sport court (as shown in the appendix to this report). For reference, the 2017 Tennis and Basketball Service Delivery Review report recommended a reduction from 38 to 25 tennis courts across the City and to repurpose the remaining court space with basketball and multi-purpose courts where appropriate. Conversion to pickleball with a multi-use court at a later date will provide community amenities and offer increased accessible options for casual sport opportunities for people of all ages and abilities - especially for sibling, parents and grandparents who might wish to stay active while attending to youth who are utilizing the practice facilities. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis Construction of a new hitting facility will require seasonal maintenance for the setup and teardown of hitting tunnel netting. However, this effort is similar to the current responsibilities associated with seasons setup and teardown of tennis nets at the existing tennis courts. Ongoing collaboration with the GNBA will be required to ensure proper care, maintenance and security of the facilities is practiced on an ongoing basis. The City will be expected to be responsible for overall scheduling of facility use including the potential for user fees associated with its use. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Staff have estimated the total project cost for the practice facilities to be $450,000. The City will be required to fund a total of $250,000 (55%) of the project. $100,000 individual contributions are expected from Sport Niagara and the GNBA. Detailed design work is required between Q3 and Q4 2023 in order to meet spring construction timelines. This effort can be funded by existing operating budgets. However, given that construction is anticipated in Q1 2024, staff is recommending a 2023 capital budget amendment to fund the city’s contribution of $250,000 from the OLG Reserve to enable the procurement process to begin in 2023. Strategic/Departmental Alignment This project is being recommended in collaboration with the Recreation, Culture and Facilities Division. The Recreation Committee has also been given the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. The committee is in favour of the initiative. Page 3 of 17 Page 569 of 847 Contributor(s) Kathy Moldenhauer, General Manager of Recreation, Culture and Facilities List of Attachments GNBA Support Letter D Hamilton Response NF Legacy Project Request 2023_06_02 Written by: Erik Nickel, Director of Municipal Works Submitted by: Status: Erik Nickel, Director of Municipal Works Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Page 4 of 17 Page 570 of 847 i;AsEBi\rL G.N.B.A.P.0.Box641,NIARAFALLS,ONTARIOL2E6V5 June 30,2023 To whom it may concern: The Greater Niagara Baseball Association (GNBA)is excited about the practice facility planned for WL Houck Park.We were included in the design process and our association looks forward to its completion.The GNBA agrees to contribute $100,000 over a period of 10 years towards the practice facility.The contribution is based on the following: 0 Payment of $10,000 when the project is complete. 0 $10,000 annually thereafter until contribution is fulfilled. 0 User fees not charged to the GNBA for the use of the facility based on the contribution. Again,we appreciate the opportunity to partner with the City on this state of the art facility.Page 5 of 17Page 571 of 847 1 Erik Nickel From:dhamilton@2022canadagames.ca Sent:Wednesday, June 7, 2023 10:01 AM To:Erik Nickel Cc:'Geoff Allen'; 'Mario D'Uva'; 'Stayzer, Wade'; 'Dan Kennedy'; Kathy Moldenhauer; Rob McDonald Subject:RE: Niagara Falls Legacy Contribution Request Hi Erik. Thank you for your leƩer. We are excited about the opportunity to partner with the City and the GNBA on this wonderful legacy project, and would be pleased to move forward with a financial contribuƟon agreement on the basis outlined in your leƩer. We are also encouraged by the Ɵmeline outlined in your leƩer, as we would like to see this project completed as soon as possible. At some point, we would also like to talk to the City and the GNBA about the opportuni Ɵes for our Games legacy organizaƟon (Sport Niagara) to help support the aƩracƟon and hosƟng of more naƟonal/internaƟonal baseball events in NF. Talk soon, Doug. Doug Hamilton Chair Président Cell | 289 228 3958 Email | dhamilton@2022canadagames.ca 25 Corporate Park Drive; Suite 302; Box 10 St. Catharines, ON | L2S 3W2 https://niagara2022games.ca From: Erik Nickel <enickel@niagarafalls.ca> Sent: June 2, 2023 10:37 AM To: 'Doug Hamilton (dhamilton@2022canadagames.ca)' <dhamilton@2022canadagames.ca> Cc: Harrison, Todd <Todd.Harrison@niagararegion.ca>; Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca>; Jason Burgess <jburgess@niagarafalls.ca>; Kathy Moldenhauer <kmoldenhauer@niagarafalls.ca>; Rob McDonald <rmcdonald@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Niagara Falls Legacy Contribution Request Good Morning Doug, Please refer to the aƩached leƩer in regards to finalizing the Niagara Falls Legacy Project. Page 6 of 17 Page 572 of 847 2 Kindly acknowledge receipt. Looking forward to hearing back from you. Sincerely, Erik Nickel, P.Eng. | General Manager of Municipal Works / City Engineer | Municipal Works | City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | (905) 356-7521 ext. 4219 | Fax 289-296-0048 | enickel@niagarafalls.ca niagarafalls.ca The City of Niagara Falls Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, disclosure or copying of this communication, or any of its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy from your computer system. Thank you Page 7 of 17 Page 573 of 847 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 (905) 356-7521 ext. 4219 Office of the Director of Municipal Works / City Engineer enickel@niagarafalls.ca www.niagarafalls.ca A Great City … For Generations To Come June 1, 2023 Doug Hamilton sent via email: dhamilton@2022canadagames.ca Chair of the Board 2022 Canada Games Host Society Re: Niagara Falls Legacy Project Contribution Request Houck Park Batting Tunnel Dear Doug, On behalf of my colleagues, kudos once again for the excellent Summer Games delivered here in Niagara last year. Even with the passage of time, the excitement and energy from the Games still lingers in our community. This letter is meant to be a follow-up to your presentation to Regional Council on March 23, 2023 and to our previous communications regarding the Niagara Falls Legacy Project. Please also consider this letter to be our formal request to initiate a financial contribution agreement. As you might be aware, City Staff have been hard at work collaborating with the Greater Niagara Baseball Association (GNBA), your baseball lead Geoff Allen, and our sports consultant RK & Associates on the plans and details of new state-of-the four-cell facility consisting of two batting tunnels, one bullpen pitching area, and one plyometric warm-up area at Houck Park. Renderings, details and cost estimates are attached for your information. As shown, the gross project budget for the batting tunnels is estimated to be $450,000. This budget excludes community elements such as the pickleball court and asphalt sport court (as shown) since these are not relevant to the legacy project but are still important elements to illustrate in the overall neighbourhood park plan here. It is our understanding from previous representations that Niagara Falls was allotted $100,000 for its legacy project. Although the scope of legacy project and the corresponding contribution is considerably less than the originally anticipated turf field discussed at conception of the games, your contribution would represent a good contribution toward the revised legacy project of a hitting tunnel. We have already confirmed the GNBA’s contribution of $100,000. If we can formally confirm the legacy contribution we can approach Council to request the additional $250,000 for this project. Page 8 of 17 Page 574 of 847 2 City staff are prepared to bring this matter to City of Niagara Falls Council on July 11, 2023 in order to request authority to enter into financial contribution agreements, and to request approval for a budget amendment in the amount of $450,000 consisting of $250,000 in City funding, $100,000 from the GNBA, and $100,000 from the Host Society. We are hoping to have your commitment to this approach no later than June 23, 2023 in order to meet our Council reporting deadline. Copied on this letter is Todd Harrison. Understanding that accounting responsibilities reside with Niagara Region at this time, we are certainly happy to work directly with Todd on the specifics of the financial contribution agreement upon your approval. Subject to Council approval, and subject to successful execution of financial contribution agreements, the City is prepared to lead this project through all stages until completion – starting with the finalization of designs immediately, and then moving to procurement in the winter months for spring 2024 construction. Should you or your team have any technical questions or comments, please feel free to follow up directly with the undersigned via email at enickel@niagarafalls.ca or by phone at 905-359-7521 x.4219. Thank you in advance for your consideration and I look forward eagerly to your response. Sincerely, Erik Nickel, P. Eng., Director of Municipal Works / City Engineer Cc: Todd Harrison, Niagara Region Commissioner of Corporate Services Mayor Jim Diodati Jason Burgess, CAO Kathy Moldenhauer, General Manager Recreation, Culture and Facilities Rob McDonald, Manager of Arenas and Athletic Fields Encl. Page 9 of 17 Page 575 of 847 Page 10 of 17 Page 576 of 847 Page 11 of 17Page 577 of 847 Page 12 of 17Page 578 of 847 Page 13 of 17Page 579 of 847 Page 14 of 17Page 580 of 847 Page 15 of 17Page 581 of 847 Page 16 of 17Page 582 of 847 Page 17 of 17Page 583 of 847 MW-2023-23 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Additions to the 2023 (Road Resurfacing Mill & Pave Program Recommendation(s) 1. That the scope of work for Contract 2023-13 for the 2023 Road Resurfacing program be revised to include the repair and resurfacing of Sarah Street from Rapelje Street to the East limit including the adjacent Sarah Street parking for Riverview Park. 2. The revised scope of work be added to the contract for Brennan Paving - Niagara through Change Work Order utilizing unit prices included in the awarded contract. The estimated amount for the CWO will be approximately $315,000. There is currently additional approved funding for construction work under this program of approximately $415,720 based on the awarded contract amount. Executive Summary The current approved capital budget for the 2023 Road Resurfacing program is $1,585,000 of which $1,505,000 is allocated for Road Resurfacing construction works. The tender for the construction works was awarded to the lowest compliant bidder, Brennan Paving - Niagara, in the amount of $1,089,730. Based on the competitive pricing received, there is approximately $415,720 of additional approved funding available in this program for 2023. The approved budget and subsequent tender were based on four priority street segments as noted on the attached approved budget sheet. Four additional road segments were also included that could be potentially added to the scope of work under the program. It is recommended that one of these segments, namely Sarah Street between Rapelje Street and the east limit, be added to the scope of the awarded contract. It is further recommended that this addition be included through a Change Work Order to Brennan Paving - Niagara utilizing the unit prices included in the awarded contract. It is estimated that this additional scope of work will be approximately $315,000. The remaining additional street segments will be included in the proposed 2024 Road Resurfacing program as priority items for consideration during 2024 Capital budget deliberations. Background During the process of creating the Urban Road Resurfacing program for the City of Niagara Falls, a long list of road needs is assembled and then prioritized based largely Page 1 of 6 Page 584 of 847 on risk and the highest ranking road segments included in the Capital budget request for the program. Since the list of road needs is quite extensive, a subsequent list of additional secondary priority streets is included on the capital budget sheet for potential inclusion in the program if competitive pricing is received and the available approved funding can accommodate some or all of them. As part of the 2023 capital budgeting process for the Road Resurfacing program, four road segments were included in the budget request: • Portage Rd - Thorold Stone Rd to O'Neil St • O'Neil - Portage Rd to Dorchester Rd • Church's Lane - St Paul Ave to Portage Rd • Stamford Green - St Paul Ave to St George Ave Four potential additional road segments were added to the sheet but not including in the budgetary calculation: • Dunn St - Ailanthus to Orchard • Caledonia St - Dunn St to Dorchester Rd • Sarah St - Main to Harleyford, and Ivy to East Limit The requested budget amount of $1,585,000 was approved by Council as part of the 2023 Capital budget deliberations to resurface the top four streets noted above. The tender for this program was let out and closed on May 3rd, 2023. The contract was awarded to Brennan Paving - Niagara, being the lowest compliant bid of $1,089,730. The construction work has not yet begun on this project, but is scheduled to commence sometime during the month of July. Analysis The current approved capital budget for the 2023 Road Resurfacing program is $1,585,000 of which $1,505,000 is allocated for Road Resurfacing construction works. Based on the awarded contract value, there is approximately $415,720 of a dditional approved funding available in this program for 2023. Complaints have been previously received regarding the road condition along Sarah Street in Chippawa. An inspection of the roadway revealed several areas of poor road condition, prompting two segments to be included in the potential addition list noted above. Completing an estimate of the potential costs to completed the repairs and resurfacing concluded that only the worst segment, that being from Rapelje Street to the east limit of Sarah, could be accommodated with the available additional funding in the currently approved budget. The estimate was completed utilizing unit prices in the current 2023 Road Resurfacing contract with Brennan Paving - Niagara, which should be commencing construction in the next few weeks. It is recommended that this additional work be added to the contract through a Change Work Order if approved by Council. Due to its poor condition and the fact it is directly adjacent to Sarah Street, it was also decided to include a repair and resurfacing of the existing north parking lot for Riverview Park. The total estimate to complete this segment of Sarah and the parking area is Page 2 of 6 Page 585 of 847 $315,000 including taxes and a contingency allowance. The other segment of Sarah Street will likely form part of the recommended list of streets for the 2024 Road Resurfacing Program. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis The additional four street segments for potential inclusion in the 2023 Road Resurfacing program, as shown on the attached approved budget sheet, are part of the long list of Urban Road resurfacing needs that will form part of the forthcoming 10 year Capital Plan. These segments would have likely formed part of the future 2024 Capital budget request for the Road Resurfacing program. By utilizing the available additional funding in the approved 2023 budget for this program to address one of the identified potential additional segments, the risk is being reduced with respect to potential hazards materializing along the subject road segment due to its current poor condition. This could also reduce the likelihood of any Operational repairs of interventions required due to either complaints or minimum maintenance standards mandated works. Financial Implications/Budget Impact The current approved budget for the 2023 Road Resurfacing program is $1,585,000, of which $1,505,000 is allocated for construction activities associated with the four recommended road segments. The value of the contract awarded to Brennan Paving - Niagara for the proposed program works is $1,089,730. This results in additional funding in the program being available in the amount of approximately $415,720. The estimated value of the potential Change Work Order to include the recommended section of Sarah Street to the contract, based on unit prices bid, is approximately $315,000 including taxes and a contingency allowance. There appears to be adequate approved additional funding to support the increase in the scope of work as proposed. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Implementation of this Capital Works project meets the intent of Council’s Strategic Priority to establish infrastructure sustainability within the City. List of Attachments 02 2023 Capital Budget Worksheet - 2023 Mill & Pave Program Written by: Kent Schachowskoj, Manager of Engineering Submitted by: Status: Erik Nickel, Director of Municipal Works Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Page 3 of 6 Page 586 of 847 Requesting Department:2023 Budget Request: Division:Pre-2023 Approved: Project Name:Forecast 2024+: Total Project Cost: Project Contact:Project Start Date: Project Type:Estimated End Date: Project Priority/Need:Project ID#: Project Description: Business Case: Growth Related:No In DC Background Study?Year % DC External Funding:No Is The Funding Confirmed?Funding Source Support For Request:Please attach supporting documentation Explanation of Impact on Operating Budget: (Financials on Page 2) -$ -$ 2023 Mill & Pave Program High (Urgent/High Risk/Shovel Ready) 1,585,000$ Capital Budget Worksheet 2023 Potential reduction in maintenance costs. Joe D'Agostino 1-Dec-23State of Good Repair (Asset Management) NEW Mill & Pave existing surface course asphalt. Mill & Pave surface course asphalt due to current road conditions on the following streets: 1) Portage Rd - Thorold Stone Rd to O'Neil St 2) O'Neil - Portage Rd to Dorchester Rd 3) Church's Lane - St Paul Ave to Portage Rd 4) Stamford Green - St Paul Ave to St George Ave Additional Road Segments that could be added: Dunn St - Ailanthus to Orchard Caledonia St - Dunn St to Dorchester Rd Sarah St - Main to Harleyford and Ivy to East Limit Budgetary Estimate 1-Mar-23 Municipal Works MW - Engineering 1,585,000$ Estimated Project Timeline (DD-MMM-YY): Construction End or DeliveryConstruction StartContract Award or OrderDesign/Planning Planned Procurement Date 1-Nov-22 1-Apr-23 1-May-23 1-Jun-23 1-Oct-23 Page 4 of 6 Page 587 of 847 Requesting Department:2023 Request Total Cost Division:1,585,000$ 1,585,000$ Project Name:Pre-2023 Forecast -$ -$ Project Description: Pre-2023 2023 2024 2025 2026 OPENING BALANCE (Surplus)/Deficit - - - - - EXPENDITURES Consulting (Design, Admin, PM)30,000 Facilities and Land Vehicles and Equipment 50,000 Parks/Trails/Cemeteries Fixtures and Furniture Roads, Bridges and Culverts 1,505,000 Stormwater Management Water and Wastewater Systems Contingency Other TOTAL EXPENDITURES - 1,585,000 - - - FUNDING SOURCES Transfer from Operating Capital Levy (Asset Management) Transfer from Water/Sewer Capital SPRs/Reserve Funds OLG Reserve Fund Development Charges Debentures Canada Community Benefit Fund (1,585,000) Federal/Provincial Grants External Contributions Other TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - (1,585,000) - - - CLOSING BALANCE (Surplus)/Deficit - - - - - ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACTS Estimated Labour Costs Estimated Debt Servicing Costs Operating Costs TOTAL OPERATING IMPACTS - - - - - Capital Budget Worksheet 2023 Municipal Works MW - Engineering Forecasted Future Expenditures 2023 Mill & Pave Program Mill & Pave existing surface course asphalt. Page 5 of 6 Page 588 of 847 Project Name: Project ID#:NEW ITEM DESCRIPTION PRESENTATION CATEGORY Pre-2023 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 EXPENDITURES Consulting (Design, Admin, PM)30,000 Roads, Bridges and Culverts 1,505,000 Vehicles and Equipment 50,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES - 1,585,000 - - - - - - - - - - FUNDING SOURCES Canada Community Benefit Fund (1,585,000) TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES - (1,585,000) - - - - - - - - - - BALANCE TO FUND - - - - - - - - - - - - ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACTS TOTAL OPERATING IMPACTS - - - - - - - - - - - - Forecasted Future Expenditures DETAILS FOR 2023 CAPITAL BUDGET 2023 Mill & Pave Program Capital Budget Worksheet Page 6 of 6Page 589 of 847 PBD-2023-42 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Northwest and Garner West Secondary Plans – Background Initiation Report Recommendation(s) Council receive this report regarding initiation of background work for the secondary plan processes for the Northwest Secondary Plan Area and the Garner West Secondary Plan Area; and Council authorize staff to advertise a Request for Expression of Interest to seek out interested persons to participate on separate Community Focus Groups to provide regular input over the course of the Secondary Planning exercises. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to initiate two urban expansion area secondary plans. Staff resources are now in place to lead secondary planning for the Northwest Secondary Plan (NWSP) and the Garner West Secondary Plan (GWSP), both would ultimately be implemented through Official Plan Amendments. Council has budgeted for these Secondary Plans and the supporting studies. With Council’s approval of this report, staff will proceed with the Request for Proposals process to have the appropriate consultants retained to complete the required technical studies. The secondary plans aim to meet with municipal growth objectives in conjunction with a vision statement, goals, and objectives, distilled with input from the respective Community Focus Groups (CFG). The location of the NWSP and GWSP are illustrated on Schedule “1” to this report. The secondary plans will set out policy/direction for each Plan Area to ensure successful implementation and the development of contextually appropriate complete community plans. Additionally, staff are seeking Council’s authorization to solicit interest from community members to sit on separate CFGs, participating and providing input at various stages the secondary plan process. This component starts at the outset of each Plan exercise (the visioning exercise). The CFG role is discussed later in this report. Page 1 of 6 Page 590 of 847 Background In July 2022 Niagara Region adopted a new Official Plan (OP) that had included several urban expansion areas being added for community planning in Niagara Falls as a result of the Region’s Land Needs Assessment completed in support of their new OP. In November of 2022, the Province approved the Region’s new OP, setting in motion the need for local municipalities to update local OPs for conformity purposes. For Council’s general awareness, Niagara Region’s new OP requires secondary planning for any new Greenfield settlement expansion area more than 20 ha. The NWSP represents a gross area of approximately 101 ha. while the GWSP is approximately 183 ha. Net developable land will be determined and refined through the secondary planning process. The overall objective of secondary planning is to create or contribute to the complete community concept; one that considers future neighbourhood structure that is well designed and developed to be vibrant, walkable, transit supportive and respectful of the natural environment, while contributing to helping achieve the City’s 2051 housing and employment targets. A secondary plan will also ensure growth occurs in a coordinated and efficient manner (phased as appropriate) and prepared in an open, publicly inclusive, and transparent planning process. The process will identify opportunities and constraints for development of the respective secondary plan areas and their relationship with surrounding lands, including but not limited to, the extent and sensitivity of existing environments (natural and built), transportation networks including active transportation, municipal servicing networks, and any recreational or socio-economic opportunities where they may exist or be introduced. Staff, in consultation with the approval authority, shall determine which studies will be required to support the respective secondary plans. Presently, staff anticipate the following studies being required to support both secondary plan areas: • Subwatershed (or equivalent) • Functional Servicing Study • Transportation Impact Study • Environmental Impact Study • Archaeological Phase 1 • Agricultural Impact (scoped to interface) Confirmation on the required studies and/or scoping potential will be finalized with the approval authorities in the near term with an expected RFP release expected in late July or early August of this year. Page 2 of 6 Page 591 of 847 Analysis North-West Plan Area The NWSP area is located west of the QEW, south and west of the Mountain Road interchange. The westerly limit is bounded by Kalar Road and the southerly extent is represented by the existing settlement area boundary along the hydro corridor. Total gross area of the GWSP is approximately 101 ha. (250 ac.). The existing use of lands are described as: • Environmental / Natural Features • Cash crop (majority of lands) • Place of Worship (and ancillary uses) • Club Italia (hospitality and event centre) • Restaurant and short-term accommodation (Regency Athletic Resort) • Mobile Home Park (Shady Oaks) • Limited rural residential Garner West Secondary Plan Area The GWSP area is centrally located along the westerly boundary of the existing serviced settlement area limits and defined almost in its entirety by boundary roads including, Lundy’s Lane (Regional Road 20) to the north, Kalar Road to the east, McLeod Road along the south and Beechwood Road at west. The southerly limit of the Canadian National Railway corridor represents and clips the northwest corner of the Plan Area. The gross total GWSP Plan Area is composed of 183.5 ha. (453 ac.). The existing use of lands are described as: • Environmental / Natural Features • Cash crop (majority of lands) • Place of Worship (and ancillary uses) • Niagara Falls Golf Club • Kingsway Motel (in existing serviced urban area boundary) • Limited rural residential These secondary plan areas are identified for “community” growth purposes. This consists primarily of residential neighbourhoods composed of a mix of housing types and densities and population related employment opportunities (a mix of commercial, office, community services, institutional uses such as schools and libraries) and will carry a minimum density target to be confirmed during the planning process, but in no instances should it be planned below the minimum of 53 persons/jobs per hectare for Greenfield lands as contained in the Niagara Falls OP. The secondary planning exercises will be City led and undertaken with regard for regional and provincial policy direction as contained in the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, Provincial Growth Plan (2020), as well as the recently approved Niagara Region Official Plan. Page 3 of 6 Page 592 of 847 Public Engagement The secondary planning process established for the City is one that is consultation focused. Public engagement is a cornerstone to the process and will see several key points of engagement over the course of the Plans development. The Let’s Talk Niagara Falls will be used to establish websites for both secondary plans, offering access to all published reports, background studies, upcoming key dates for meetings and document release. The platform will serve as a single location where public can maintain contact with responsible individuals and track progress of the Plan development to its conclusion. In addition, each secondary plan will enlist a “Community Focus Group” (CFG) for each of the Plan Areas. The CFGs are involved at the outset, playing a role in formulating a vision statement for the future community, as well as establishing goals and objectives the process will aim to achieve, while gaining an understanding of what constraints may exist for each of the respective Plan areas. The CFG will be engaged at several key points of the process to offer comments and serve as a barometer on whether the Plans are heading in the envisioned direction. Each CFG would typically consist of a cross section from the immediate community with 10-12 members representing new and long-term residents, youth, seniors, business owners and developers. An invitation for interested persons to submit their names for participation on the Community Focus Group via “Request for Expression of Interest” will be advertised. To ensure a good cross section of the community and a balanced representation on the CFG, criteria and a terms of reference will be developed to help identify persons meeting with a preferred composition profile, and to set parameters/expectations for selected members. Staff will be looking to ensure a variety of perspectives are represented based on self-described interests of each individual expressing interest in participation. Regardless of structuring a CFG, any member of the public may provide comments at any time during the process for Staff’s consideration. All comments received directly or through scheduled public engagement activities will be available to Council through administrative reporting during the secondary plan process. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will be established that will supply critical insight and information on the community building blocks and parameters associated wit h cross-jurisdictional matters, core service timing and environmental protections. TAC engagement and guidance will assist in identifying efficient and phased development progress, while setting out realistic expectations on capital commitments to facilita te growth. The TAC will be comprised of City, Regional and Conservation Authority representatives and will engage active consultants working on background studies and consult other key agencies where required (such as Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of the Environment). Page 4 of 6 Page 593 of 847 Next Steps Planning staff are working to finalize the Terms of Reference with other departmental staff and will subsequently be consulting with Niagara Region (the approval authority) and the Conservation Authority for any input or scoping ability for the required background work. Once complete, the City will issue an open Request for Proposal for qualified consulting firms to undertake and complete the required background study work. City planning staff will maintain the planning function through the process. Planning staff anticipate release of the RFP during Q3 of this year. While the RFP process is being undertaken, staff can concurrently issue the Request for Expressions of Interest for the respective Community Focus Groups to begin their mandate outlined earlier in this report. Financial Implications/Budget Impact There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. The NWSP and GWSP each have an approved budget allocation of $350,000 for background study work while staff activity is already a part of Planning’s operational budget. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The development of the NWSP and GWSP are consistent with the Vibrant and Diverse Economy, Healthy Safe and Livable Community, and Diverse and Affordable Housing priorities. List of Attachments Schedule 1: Location Map Written by: Chris Millar, Senior Project Manager - Secondary Plans Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Director of Planning Approved - 30 Jun 2023 Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development Approved - 02 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Page 5 of 6 Page 594 of 847 Schedule 1 (Location Map) Page 6 of 6 Page 595 of 847 PBD-2023-44 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Tree and Woodland Preservation and Enhancement Recommendation(s) 1. That Council receive PBD-2023-44 for information regarding the protection and enhancement of trees, wooded areas and tree canopy in the City of Niagara Falls; 2. That the future Urban Forest Management Plan include GIS tools to assist in the identification of the City’s tree canopy and that this be funded through the approved capital budget for this project; 3. That the future Urban Forest Management Plan and corresponding policy be prepared in consultation with the Environmental Action Committee; and 4. That staff prepare a formal tree compensation and tree planting/saving policy and procedural guideline for developments as detailed in report PBD -2023-44 and that it be presented back to Council in early fall. 5. That Council authorize staff to bring back modification s to the City's Zoning By- law to set a standard for trees in parking lots, revised landscape strip provisions and other tree planting requirements. Executive Summary The protection and enhancement of trees, woodlots and canopy coverage in the City is important for the health of the City, our environment and our residents. Council has approved in the 2023 Capital Budget the first phase of an Urban Forest Management Plan which is intended to be the consolidated document and resulting policy that sets out the goals and means of protecting existing trees and enhancing our tree canopy that is consistent and supported in documents and programs. Development of the Urban Forest Management Plan is recommended to be completed in consultation with the Environmental Action Committee over the next two (2) years. Background A healthy tree canopy is important not only from an aesthetic perspective but also necessary to address the current and anticipated effects of climate change. Trees can provide natural cooling for people and structures with increased episodes of hot days thus relieving some stress on our energy resources during extreme weather; they can Page 1 of 16 Page 596 of 847 keep our creeks and waterway temperatures down to protect aquatic species and provide slope stability and aid in flood protection of homes in times of future heavy rainfall event. The purpose of this report to respond to Council’s interest in protecting the City’s trees and woodlands and in improving the City’s tree canopy into the future. City Council has directed that ‘staff bring back a report regarding the City of Niagara Falls considering a local tree by-law that would include: other Niagara local area municipalities' by-laws; the Niagara Regional by-law; zoning definitions for different environmental protection areas, a tree inventory and to request a presentation to Council from the City's forestry staff’. The direction arose with the discussion of the Niagara Falls Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Most recently, Council directed Staff to report back with some different options to allow for the addition of trees to development plans (ie. requiring two (2) trees to be planted in every new build, one on the boulevard and one on the property or some designated off - site location). As part of the 2023 Capital Budget, Council approved $100,000 for the first phase of the development of an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The overall intent of this initiative (which is presently being scoped) will provide a guiding document for the long- term sustainability of the City's forest canopy with the goal of maximizing environm ental, social, and economic and health benefits to residents. The UFMP will provide a clear view of the existing conditions, improve urban forestry policies, and provide strategic direction on capital investment and operational activities. The creation of an UFMP is also a recommendation of the approved Niagara Falls Recreation, Culture and Parks Master Plan. Analysis Current Tree By-laws On City owned lands The protection of trees or woodlots from injury/destruction is regulated on publicly owned lands (e.g. boulevards, etc.) through the City’s By-law #2004-173, administered by the City’s Forestry Supervisor. Injury or damage to a tree without a City permit may incur fines. A tree removed through an approved permit application must replace the tree at a ratio of 2 to 1, either in the form of a tree or cash -in-lieu. The City has a general inventory of 27,000 trees spread across parks, cemeteries and street trees within the urban area (but excluding recent urban boundary expansions). On Private property The City’s Property Standards By-law 2015-101 requires the removal of dead, decayed or damaged trees from private yards (2.1.3) and removed or maintained in a condition Page 2 of 16 Page 597 of 847 which is not hazardous to persons expected to be on or about the property. This by-law is enforced by the City's Property Standards Officers. The City has delegated the authority to regulate woodlands greater than 0.2 ha (0.5 acres) to the Niagara Region under their Woodland Conservation By-law 2020-79. The City has also delegated authority to the Region for two individual trees deemed to be of community significance and worthy of protection through By-laws 2007-93 (250-300 year old red oak tree at 6187 Clare Crescent and 6149 Cuviello Court) and 2013 -33 (red oak tree at 6181 Corwin Avenue). Convictions for injuring or destruction of trees without a permit under the Region’s By-law vary between $1,000/tree up to $10,000 for an individual or $5,000/tree up to $50,000 for a corporation. Orders may be issued for the rehabilitation or replacing of trees. This by-law is enforced by Regional Staff. Woodlots or treed areas on private lands that are less than 0.2ha (0.5 acres) in size are currently not protected through any by-laws. Tree Inventory The City has an initial inventory of park and street trees, but does not have an inventory of trees in forested areas or a figure of canopy cover city-wide including privately owned lands. However, work is presently underway by Municipal Works to update and expand the current City tree inventory utilizing the Urban Forest Management Plan capital budget allocation. The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) has previously assessed their entire watershed to determine canopy cover of 18.86% watershed-wide, and have published high-level canopy coverage on their open data portal. Additionally, the Niagara Region has initiated a Tree Canopy Assessment Project which could provide information to the local municipalities. As a next step and part of the Urban Forest Management Plan, the City will need to consider GIS tools or purchase software that will assist in the identification of the City’s tree canopy. This portion of the project will need to be funded from the first phase of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Establishing a baseline canopy cover is an important first step in developing a Council supported canopy goal and the corresponding programs and budgets necessary to achieve this goal. Tree protection through Planning documents and Process City of Niagara Falls Official Plan The City’s Official Plan contains two designations: Environmental Protection Area (EPA) for Provincially Significant Wetlands and Regulated floodplains and Environmental Conservation Area (ECA) which applies to other natural heritage features including Page 3 of 16 Page 598 of 847 Significant Woodlands as mapped by the Niagara Region. Development within both of these designations are prohibited or restricted to passive uses. The Official Plan recognizes the value and benefits of tree, hedgerows and woodlands. Forest cover and vegetative buffer targets are not specified in the Official Plan but rather identified through watershed studies and environmental impact studies. The policies state that development should be designed to retain and protect existing tree cover to the greatest extent possible. The Official Plan policies also allow for the consideration of natural areas within and beyond the EPA and ECA designations through such means as: • Bonusing • Land purchase • Transfer of development rights or land exchanges. • Tree Savings Plan as a condition of development through Planning Act applications Official Plan Policy 11.1.45 provides the option for Council to consider the preparation of Policy and Procedural Guidelines for ‘a formal compensation program that would outline the level of compensation required for the removal of a tree either in terms of replanting of trees on site or elsewhere in the community, or the monetary equivalent of the tree(s) lost to be applied towards the planting of trees on public lands elsewhere in the City. At this time there is no specific policy in the Official Plan dealing with the removal of woodlands or trees that are not protected elsewhere (by designation or by-law) prior to decisions on redevelopment proposals. It should be noted that the Niagara Region Official Plan does contain a policy that states that where a woodland has been identified at the time of the Plan's approval, and where either natural or human disturbance has affected it to the point of no longer meeting the definition of a woodland, that feature will retain its status as a woodland and the natural heritage policies related to that feature will continue to apply. In effect, this would mean that removal of a woodland would not be an argument for redesignation under the Plan. Zoning The City’s Zoning By-law utilizes a Hazard Lands Zone to prohibit uses within areas of flood/slope stability concerns and Environmental Protection Areas Zone, however there is no specific provision for the retention or the planting of trees. Plans of Subdivision, Condominium and Site Plan Control Complete Applications for subdivision, condominium and site plan control submissions can require a Tree Savings Plan. The requirements for landscaping and tree protection can be implemented through these processes. As a condition of Plan of Subdivision, developers are normally required to provide one (1) tree on the boulevard per lot. This condition is accomplished through the acceptance of a cash contribution as prescribed in the City's Schedule of Fees (presently $450 each). Page 4 of 16 Page 599 of 847 Niagara Falls Woodland Management Plan The City’s Woodland Management Plan is a comprehensive management plan for woodlands under the ownership and/or control of the City of Niagara Falls to eliminate and/or mitigate negative impacts. The Plan provides a n in-depth examination of the quality and health of existing woodlots, primarily in the City’s parks. The maintenance of these Woodlands are done by Municipal Works Staff. One of the recommendations within the Woodland Management Plan is that City Staf f identify opportunities to enhance ecological linkages between City and non -City woodlands through the development process and outside of the development process where linked to current woodlands owned by the City. Municipal Works Staff provide recommendations in support of the Woodland Management Plan through the City’s development review process. The valuable information compiled through the Woodland Management Plan can be utilized to direct any future tree compensation programs to locations that would have the most positive impact on woodland cover and natural area functions. Appendix 1 illustrates the locations of the woodland management inventory areas under this Plan and their relation to the mapped woodland areas of the Official Plan as well as t he City’s Park and Trail lands. Options Staff have reviewed the practices of other municipalities and other sources of information as a means of presenting different options for the protection and/or enhancement of the City’s Tree Canopy. A chart comparing the measures of tree protection taken by other Municipalities is attached as Appendix 1. A 2020 study issued by the University of Waterloo entitled “Guiding Urban Forestry Policy into the Next Decade: A Private Tree Protection & Management Practice Guide” is a valuable source of information. The Study examined the practices of 12 municipalities in Ontario in protecting trees on privately owned lands. (The City of Niagara Falls contributed to this review with information input). Eleven out of the 17 municipalities involved in the review had instituted a level of protection through adoption of a by-law. The study provides a good base of information regarding the success and challenges to Municipalities to protect trees on private land and listed recommendations, summarized below: Private tree by-laws Private tree by-laws have been found to be successful in protecting and preserving existing trees on private property. However, it is very important to note that significant Staff resources will be required to create, maintain, issue permits and enforce the by-law on a continuous basis. Efforts by other Municipalities have Page 5 of 16 Page 600 of 847 encountered public resistance to public control of trees on private residential lands which have led to the implementation of other ways to increase their urban tree canopy. Considering the above, a private tree by-law approach may not be the most effective or cost-efficient approach for the City. Comprehensive public consultation would be the first step in this approach. Where private tree by-laws are not viable due to lack of interest or support from residents and Council, one or more of the following options may be considered. Property Standards By-laws Property Standards By-laws may be expanded to include a standard replacement formula and a cash-in-lieu calculation for the removal of a hazardous tree. Stronger protection through the development application process Clear requirements outlining the complete application requirements for tree protection plans where trees will be damaged by construction. An Official Plan policy that supports the creation of regulations for fines where vegetation is removed prior to submitting a development application. Adopt a tree replacement ratio (number of trees to be planted to replace each removed or a cash-in-lieu payment). This could be a caliper-for-caliper replacement or a standardized format, ie. the tree is similar in size to those removed; or a ratio of new trees to provide for the same canopy cover as the tree(s) that were removed. Setting a zoning standard for trees in parking lots. For example, Oakville and other municipalities have set a 1 tree per 5 parking spaces requirements for parking lots and 2 trees for each parking lot island within 5m of a surface parking area; increased landscaping requirements. Detailed landscaping strip provisions and tree planting for medium or high density residential development through zoning provisions may be considered. The application of permeable surfaces to accommodate the planting of smaller trees (i.e. non-shade trees). Where canopy targets exist - policies that offer a bonus of 1.5 times the target where existing trees are retained on site. In this situation, the retention of trees, which may be larger and thus provide more canopy cover, are given more credit towards the City's canopy cover target than new plantings would - thus encouraging developers to retain those trees rather than planting a larger number of new trees elsewhere. Page 6 of 16 Page 601 of 847 Leverage perimeter tree in urban design and development regulations to en courage more compact development. Preserving existing trees on a site results in a better retention of tree canopy as opposed to smaller trees, even with a planting ratio in place. This option would need to ensure that grading plans are designed such that tree features are not negatively affected. The creation of a planting standard through plans of subdivision or ground based condominium developments at a ratio of 2 trees per new lot, that can be split between the public boulevard and the privately owned lot. Servicing Plans within boulevards overlaid on tree planting plans in development applications so that the landscape architect can confirm the appropriate tree species and planting location that will contribute to long term health and retention of the tree. Designate trees as heritage features under the Ontario Heritage Act Trees that have been deemed to be of cultural heritage significance, either through size, age or associative value, through a by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act can be protected from removal or damage. The City has designated the Copper Beech Tree in Drummond Hill Cemetery and several mature trees in association with 6320 Pine Grove Avenue as trees of cultural heritage significance by by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act. A 250 year old oak tree, also of heritage significance, is located in the cemetery on Schisler Road and is protected through City maintenance of the cemetery. Education Utilize resident education to stress the benefit of trees including partnerships with local organizations and schools through educational programs and the City’s social media. Tree Planting Programs Tree-related programs such as resident tree stewardship and planting programs, programs that accept monetary donations from residents and business to help fund community tree-planting initiatives and events. The City has participated in the Niagara Peninsula Tree Planting Partnership (NPTPP) under the Canada 2 Billion Trees Program which partners with governments and organizations to plant trees across Canada. The NPTPP aims to deliver a long-term tree planting plan to increase woodlot and forest cover in the NCPA watershed, including municipally owned lands. Page 7 of 16 Page 602 of 847 Efforts such as the City’s Free Tree Giveway, held on Mother Earth Day, which offers trees to property owners for planting on their lands within the Cit y result in an increase to the number of trees on private property. The giveway links community sponsorship with the tree offer and in 2023, 500 trees were given away to City residents. Incentives that offer a set amount of money towards the purchase of a tree that is to be planted on a private property where that tree would be larger than the tree that could be accommodated on the City owned boulevard. In this way the canopy coverage is increased simply by the type of tree planted. This incentive would need to ensure that the planted tree is to be retained by the property owner over the long term and possibly considered as part of the City’s tree inventory. Tree Management Adopt adaptive management techniques to pro-actively plan for climate resilience such as targeting alternative tree species, planting schedules and locations. Also utilizing existing resources, such as the City’s Woodland Management Plan to identify locations for linking ecosystem services to specific land use to guide tree species selection. Create a canopy cover monitoring metric. Establishing an existing base canopy cover to monitor and measure canopy growth/loss over time will require City investment in software and staffing to gather and maintain data should data not be available through the Region's Tree Canopy initiative. Ultimately, the study concluded that the best approach to protect an urban tree canopy is to adopt both policies and programs targeted at enhancing the tree canopy that is best suited to the community. Adopting a consistent ‘Tree Vision’ can lead to greater success in maintaining and increasing tree canopy coverage. Tree related goals should be consistent across all documents, policies, programs and activities carried out by the City. Climate Change Adaptation Plan The City is currently developing its Climate Change Adaptation Plan which will contribute to the City’s knowledge of how best utilize our natural areas to adapt and hopefully mitigate future climate events. The information and knowledge gathered through this process will offer great value to the preparation of a Urban Forest Management Plan and Policy. Staff Recommendations: After review of the background documentation, staff are of the opinion that the best approach is to start with the most effective and efficient tools. Staff recommend that Council consider the creation of a formal tree compensation and tree planting/saving policy and procedural guideline for developments, an amendment to the City's Zoning By-law relative to tree planting and landscaping as well as embarking on the Urban Tree Management Plan and Policy to provide baseline canopy information and data and Page 8 of 16 Page 603 of 847 other policy recommendations. Below is more information on the three recommended approaches and estimated timing. Formal Tree Compensation and Tree Planting/Saving Policy and Procedural Guideline (for developments) The procedural guideline will includes such items as clear requirements for tree protection plans, the establishment of a tree replacement ratio, encouragement of permeable surfaces to accommodate smaller trees, protection of perimeter trees and standards for grading and protection, planting standards for lots in plans of subdivision on both the boulevard and private lands, requirements for landscaping and servicing plans as part of draft plans of condominium and subdivisions and other standards to enhance the tree canopy in the City. A draft of this document will be presented to Council early this fall. Amendments to the City's Zoning By-law The amendments to the City's Zoning By-law will include zoning standards for trees in parking lots, landscape strip provisions for medium and high density developments, requirements for other tree planting requirements. The draft amendments for public consultation will be presented to the public through an open house in early/late fall with the public meeting, recommendation report, and the by-laws will be provided for Council's approval in winter of 2023. Urban Tree Management Plan and Policy The preparation of Urban Forest Management Plan and Policy will: • Identify a Municipal target • Establish any further methods of protection for the existing, mature tree canopy through all available means • Where targets exists set policies that offer a bonuses for achievement • Identify the most appropriate recipient locations both on public and private lands that can support and improve the health of woodlots and ecosystem connections in both existing areas and through greenfield redevelopment • Provide educational materials, planting details, species information to ensure the long term sustainability of the canopy into the future to help manage and mitigate climate changes and infestations • Support and encourage voluntary stewardship programs • Monitor the progress of the tree canopy coverage efforts and share that progress over the City’s social media platforms • Adaptive management techniques such as alternative tree species, planting schedules etc. • Other consultant recommended approaches to protect and enhance the existing canopy. The first phase of the Urban Tree Management Plan and Policy will be kicked off by Municipal Works in 2023. In order to maintain consistency with Council and public expectations, and to guide the decision making processes for the plans and policies Page 9 of 16 Page 604 of 847 required in the Urban Forest Management Plan, Staff are recommending that the Environmental Action Committee engage in its advisory role throughout the duration of the plan preparation. Summary The City has initiated efforts to increase the City’s tree canopy already through participation in tree planting programs both on City and privately owned lands as well as recent Council decisions on development applications that have required a 2:1 planting ratios. The creation of a formal tree compensation and tree planting/saving policy and procedural guideline for developments, the addition of new tree related provisions in the City's Zoning By-law and the City's Urban Forest Management Plan and Policy would provide an integrated City approach for tree canopy protection and enhancement. Financial Implications/Budget Impact There are no immediate financial implications associated with this report. The formal tree compensation and tree planting/saving policy and procedural guideline and amendments to the City's Zoning By-law will be done in house by planning staff. Future direction by Council to proceed with UFMP phases and to acquire software or other means to identify and measure tree canopy for the purposes of an urban forest management plan will require some additional financial investment. Any changes to the recommendations of staff such as the preparation an inventory of trees on private lands or a City-wide tree protection program and by-law will require greater financial consideration with respect to the administration of the by-law and existing staff resources. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The preservation and enhancement of the Urban tree canopy supports the City's proposed Strategic Pillar of Environmental Sustainability List of Attachments Appendix 1, PBD-2023-44, Tree and Woodland Preservation Appendix 2, PBD -2023-44, Tree and Woodland Preservation Written by: Francesca Berardi, Planner 2 Erik Nickel, Director of Municipal Works Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Director of Planning Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Page 10 of 16 Page 605 of 847 Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 05 Jul 2023 Page 11 of 16 Page 606 of 847 Appendix 1 Illustration of Woodland Management Inventory Areas (red); Official Plan Woodland Areas (green) and City Parks and Trails (dashed lines) Page 12 of 16 Page 607 of 847 Appendix 2 Tree Protection in other Municipalities Municipality Regulated Through Programs Replacement Policy Cash-in-lieu Town of Lincoln Site Alteration By-law Tree and Rain Barrell Giveaway Based on DBH of Tree to be removed or destroyed: varies from 1:1 up to 4:1 for trees greater than 75cm (lots for single, semi or townhomes, or within the agricultural area exempted) May be applied where more replacement trees are required than can be accommodated on site: may be on streetscapes, parks and natural areas in need of tree planting (2023 rate $486/ tree plus 1 year performance bond) City of Port Colborne Tree By-law 6175/01/15 (For City owned trees) Port Colborne Residential Tree Planting Rebate Program, Tree giveaways Private property owners can request the removal of a city tree adjacent to their property, all fees shall be payable by the person requesting the removal prior to the removal except if a tree is severely damaged or decayed. No private property owner shall remove a tree on their on property if it directly abuts/impacts city property without written notice to and the approval of the Director of Engineering and Operations. None City of St. Catharines Urban Forestry Management Plan, Tree and Stump Removals Planting Spring Tree Giveaways (for private property), Street Tree Planting Program (for city-owned road allowance) Education Many resources on the St. Catharines website “Any trees identified as dead, in poor health or in need of removal are identified by qualified arborists.” These trees will be removed by the city and new/replacement trees can be requested. Additionally, “property owners are not permitted to cut or trim trees on City property, in front of or behind their homes.” As of corporate report MW- 142-2019 it was highly opposed to implement “cash- in-lieu payments to replant tree(s) in alternate locations throughout the City.”Page 13 of 16Page 608 of 847 Appendix 2 Tree Protection in other Municipalities Municipality Regulated Through Programs Replacement Policy Cash-in-lieu City of Thorold Tree Preservation Plan (as part of Site Plan Guidelines) There is a commemorative tree program but no tree giveaways (however one was suggested by a councilor on June 1st 2023). Tree replacements may be required as part of Approved Landscape and Tree Preservation Plans, with the owner being responsible for all replacement costs for a two-year warranty period. None (only for parkland dedication) City of Welland Policy SER-011-0003 (public property), a tree by-law is currently in the works, Municipal Standards Commemorative tree program, no tree giveaways Municipal Standards state that trees may be ordered to be placed in parkland areas, and trees must be replaced in the next season if they failed to survive. It also states that subdivisions may require a Tree Preservation Plan to protect or retain existing trees as much as possible, however specifics such as targets and replacements are not mentioned. None (only for parkland dedication) Town of Fort Erie By-law 60-04, Subdivision Control Guidelines [boulevard tree planting, one (1) tree per lot and two (2) trees per sideyard flankage] A tree giveaway occurred on May 6th 2023 Under the by-law woodland and heritage trees are protected, require permits to remove/harvest, and “specified trees shall be replanted in accordance with replanting plans approved by the Director. A Tree Saving and/or Replanting Plan is required. The Subdivision Control Guidelines requires the developer to prepare a Tree Preservation Plan but makes no specific reference to replacements. Site Plan applications require landscape plans that identify trees to be preserved. None (only for parkland dedication)Page 14 of 16Page 609 of 847 Appendix 2 Tree Protection in other Municipalities Municipality Regulated Through Programs Replacement Policy Cash-in-lieu Town of Grimsby Site Plan Applications Commemorative tree program, no tree giveaways Site Plan Applications require landscape plans that identify trees to be preserved, transplanted, and removed, and a preservation plan, but there are no specific references to a replacement policy. None (only for parkland dedication) Town of Niagara-on- the-Lake By-law No. 5139-19 Planting Niagara-on-the-Lake Tree Fund, Witness Tree Program Education Witness Tree Program information and education site Trees in urban areas must have a permit to be removed, which may include a landscaping, Replanting, and Replacement Plan if three or more trees are proposed for destruction or injuring. Cash in lieu may be acceptable if replacement planting is not achievable on the subject land. Town of Pelham Town of Pelham Official Plan Planting Community Tree Plant A Tree Preservation Plan is required where major development is approved, however there are no specific references to replacement. None (only for parkland dedication) Township of Wainfleet Wainfleet Official Plan None A Tree Preservation Plan may be required for planning applications, however there are no specific references to replacement. For new mineral aggregate operations an EIS shall be prepared which includes how ecological functions will be replaced on or offsite. None (only for parkland dedication)Page 15 of 16Page 610 of 847 Appendix 2 Tree Protection in other Municipalities Municipality Regulated Through Programs Replacement Policy Cash-in-lieu Township of West Lincoln West Lincoln Official Plan Planting Tree Replacement Program A Tree Preservation Plan is required for “any development or site alteration that may have adverse effects on a significant tree or group of trees, including woodland as defined by the Region’s Tree and Forest Conservation By-law.” In addition under the Northwest Smithville Secondary plan “In cases where it is necessary to remove vegetation for construction purposes, such plant material will be replaced with indigenous species, where appropriate.” None (only for parkland dedication) City of Toronto By-law No. 248-2013 Planting Urban Forestry Grants and Incentives, Neighborhood Tree Giveaway Program, Guildwood Village Community Association Tree Giveaway, various grants and incentives Under By-law No. 248-2013 the General Manager can require replacement planting for every tree removed. If not physically possible on a site, they can require replacement planting in another suitable location -on a development site or on private property lots If replacement on a site is not possible, they can also require “cash in lieu in payment in an amount equal to 120 percent of the cost of planting and maintaining a tree for a period of two years.” City of Hamilton Hamilton Tree Protection Guidelines, Planting Free Tree Giveaway, Street Tree Planting program Education Various community events (https://www.hamilton.ca/people- programs/outreach- education/forestry-outreach- education) To ensure existing tree cover is maintained, the City requires 1 for 1 compensation for any trees to be removed through development. If it is not possible to replant trees on site (i.e. no space), Cash-in-lieu will be provided to the City to plant trees elsewhere. Where compensation planting is required, credit will be given for street trees planted, as required under a Subdivision Agreement. S:\ENVIRO\TREES AND WOODLOTS\City Tree Info\comparison chart.docxPage 16 of 16Page 611 of 847 PBD-2023-45 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Facility 8800 McLeod Road Applicant: Forbes Bros Ltd., on behalf of Rogers Communications Inc. Recommendation(s) It is recommended that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada be advised that the City of Niagara Falls does not concur with the construction of a 40m (~147’) tall, monopole style telecommunication tower with a fenced in compound on the lands known as 8800 McLeod Road. Executive Summary The City has received a submission from Forbes Bros Ltd Inc. on behalf of Rogers Communications Inc., to install a new telecommunication tower at 8800 McLeod Road (Boys and Girls Club of Niagara). The purpose of the tower is to provide the infrastructure for service providers to improve wireless communications within this area. Staff are cognizant of the increased need for wireless network coverage in this increasingly populated area, and the efforts put forth by Forbes Bros Ltd to address public concerns. However, the proposed radio communication tower location would not be consistent with the City’s location and siting policies for telecommunication towers with regards to the distance between built residential structures/areas, or areas zoned or designated for future residential use. Staff have suggested that the proponent provide further consideration for an alternative location that better addresses the distance to residential areas from the tower. The proponent has noted that the alternative site noted by staff is not optimal from a coverage perspective, while staff appreciate this it does appear to provide improved service from the current state while respecting the City's siting policies. Background Fontur International Ltd., on behalf of Roger’s Communications Inc. (Rogers), have identified a need to improve wireless network coverage for the existing and future residential areas on the north and south sides of McLeod Road, between Beechwood and Kalar Roads. The site would provide wireless voice and data serves for Page 1 of 31 Page 612 of 847 subscribers to the Rogers Network and accommodate colocation with other licensed carriers. The proposed tower site is approximately 350m (1,148’) southeast of the intersection of Garner Road and McLeod Road, on the lands of the Girls and Boys Club of Niagara. The proposed location is adjacent to the parking area in the southeast corner of the property (see Appendix 1 - Location Map). The northerly portion of the property, along McLeod Road, is designated “Residential” and the portion of the lands to the south of the Boys and Girls Club building, is designated “Environmental Protection Area” in the City's Official Plan. The Environmental Protection Area designation follows the boundary of a Provincially Significant Wetland area. Similarly, the property is zoned “Institutional” along McLeod Road through By-law No. 79-200 as amended and “Environmental Protection Area” to the rear of the existing building. Consultation Innovation, Science, and Economic Development (ISED) Canada is responsible for the licensing and approval of communication equipment and facilities. Council has no approval authority for telecommunication towers. As part of the application process, proponents of new towers are required to consult with local municipalities and the public in accordance with local protocols and to obtain comments. The decision of Council serves as a written response to ISED on behalf of the City for the proposal. The City's Consultation Process for Radio Telecommunication Facilities requires the proponent of a facility to hold a public information meeting and to forward any written or oral concerns / issues received from the public to the City to form part of their deliberation of the proposal. If concerns have been raised, the method by which the proponent has dealt with it must also be forwarded to the City. Public Consultation Summary (Forbes Bros Ltd.) Notification regarding the proposed tower was first sent out in July, 2019 (by mail and newspaper publication) with a public information session held on July 30, 2019. Objections to the proposal were submitted citing health concerns (especially children at the Boys and Girls Club) and impacts on property values for those living nearby. The applicants responded to these concerns at the public information session and via email with reference to Health Canada’s radio-frequency exposure guidelines, the safety of towers and the lack of evidence linking towers to lower property values. Members of the community requested that alternative locations for the tower be considered. In response to the comments received, Forbes Bros Ltd. conducted a review of alternative locations away from the residential neighbourhoods and nearby schools (Appendix 2 - Alternative Location Analysis) in 2021 (with further analysis provided in Page 2 of 31 Page 613 of 847 2022). This review concluded that an alternative location significantly further from the target area (McLeod Road @ Garner Road) would result in ‘a tower that either does not provide the required coverage or provides a degree of coverage and ends up as close or close to other residential developments'. Due to the lapse in time from the original circulation, a second round of publ ic consultation was held in 2021 with a mail notice on August 24th, a newspaper notification on October 23rd and a comment closing date of November 22nd. The second circulation informed the public of the alternative location analysis and the intent to pursue the location as originally proposed. A request to reactivate the concurrence request was submitted to the City in April 2023, with a summary of the public comments received through circulation and the responses provided by Forbes Bros Ltd. as required by ISED’s tower application process (Appendix 3, Forbes Bros Ltd Summary of Comments). Individual requests for notification of the date of Council’s consideration of this proposal were received by the City. Staff have notified all those individuals who submitted written comments on the tower proposal of the Council date for this report (via email). Analysis In March of 2018, the applicant submitted a proposal to locate a telecommunication tower on the southwest corner of the property at 8800 Mcleod Road (see Appendix 1). This location, however, was within, and would have affected, a Provincially Significant Wetland. The City’s policies on Telecommunication towers states that facilities should be located outside of and at the maximum distance away from significant natural heritage areas. A revised submission and a Planning Justification was received by the City in late 2018 which proposed a new location for the tower on the southeast corner of the property. A 40m tall shrouded monopole style support structure, with transmitting and receiving antennas and radio equipment within a fenced compound is proposed to improve service for the areas surrounding McLeod Road, Garner Road, Kalar Road and the QEW. As noted in the Consultation section above, Innovation, Science and Innovation Canada (ISED) is the approval authority for telecommunication towers. Public consultation forms part of the application submitted to ISED, as is Municipal consultation and concurrence with regards to the siting and design of the tower. The original round of public consultation conducted by Forbes Bros Ltd in 2019 resulted in the receipt of a petition (attached as Appendix 3-1 - Petition) that cited the potential impact on human health, property devaluation and lack of consultation to stakeholders of the facilities (ie. Users of the Boys and Girls Club of Niagara). Page 3 of 31 Page 614 of 847 ISED requires that antenna systems must comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 as part of their application process and therefore opposition based on health conc erns are not considered relevant. Similarly, ISED does not consider concerns related to the potential effects that a proposed antenna system will have on property values or municipal taxes as relevant opposition. However, Forbes Bros advised the City that the public consultation would remain open until formal responses regarding the Safety Code 6 report are sent to the resident(s) expressing concern. The extended consultation process, as outlined previously in this report, resulted the delayed request for City concurrence until early 2023. Also in response to public concerns, Forbes Bros Ltd. conducted a review of alternative locations away from the residential neighbourhoods and nearby schools (Appendix 2, Alternatives Analysis). It is the applicant's conclusion through this review conclud ed that an alternative location significantly further from the target area (McLeod Road @ Garner Road) would result in ‘a tower that either does not provide the required coverage or provides a degree of coverage and ends up as close or close to other residential developments'. Planning Staff do not have the expertise to provide a thorough analysis of target coverage, however it would appear that at least one of the alternative sites (Brown at Garner Rd, within the Industrial Designation of the Official Plan) would provide coverage within the top three levels of Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) across the target coverage area. The applicant has noted that this particular location was disqualified as a feasible candidate as it would cover unnecessary areas and leave a large gap in the centre of the target area. Tower Design The 40m height and shrouded monopole design of the proposed telecommunication facility is consistent with the City’s design criteria in its Policy and Procedure Guidelines for Radio Telecommunication Facilities. Also, as noted by the applicant, the tower would also be able to accommodate co-location with other service providers which helps reduce the number of towers needed in a geographic area. The photographic simulation of how the tower would look from McLeod Road as submitted by the applicant is shown below. Tower Site The location of the proposed telecommunication facility is not consistent with the City’s siting policies, specifically – it is not located 'at a maximum distance away from built residential structures/areas, areas zoned or designated for future residentia l use’. The lands directly east, adjacent to the tower facility location, is designated for residential use in the Official Plan and is zoned “Development Holding (DH) in the City’s Zoning By-law. In conformity with the Official Plan the adjacent property owner to the east has stated intentions to develop his lands as residential and has expressed concern with the tower siting so close to his property line. It is on the basis of this siting criteria that Staff cannot to support the proposed telecommunication facility and do not recommend City concurrence with the submission Page 4 of 31 Page 615 of 847 on these lands. Unfortunately, siting criteria related to a maximum setback from significant natural areas (in this case the Provincially Significant Wetland) makes it difficult to locate the tower elsewhere on this property. Financial Implications/Budget Impact There are no financial, staffing or legal implications with the City as a result of the request for a new radio communication facility. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Telecommunication facilities are supported by the current Intelligent and Innovative City Strategic Priority as it provides radio communication services to a utility with an identified need. List of Attachments Appendix 1 - Location Map Appendix 2 - Alternative Location Analysis, Forbes Bros Ltd Appendix 3 - Summary of Comments Appendix 3-1 - Petition, 8800 Mcleod Rd Written by: Francesca Berardi, Planner 2 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Director of Planning Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Page 5 of 31 Page 616 of 847 Appendix 1 Location Map – 8800 McLeod Road Page 6 of 31 Page 617 of 847 July 15, 2022 Mr. Andrew Chase 7217 St. Michael Avenue Niagara Falls ON, L2H 3N5 RE: Proposed Rogers Communications tower site C6238 8800 McLeod Road Niagara Falls, ON Dear Mr. Chase, Per your inquiries and our previous discussions, I am writing to you to confirm Rogers Communications Inc., (“Rogers”) has completed additional analysis of the proposed telecommunications site C6238 at 8800 McLeod Road and the potential for moving the site to an alternative location. Rogers analysis involved calculating the Reference Signal Received Power (“RSRP”- a measure of cellular signal strength in decibels [dBm]) for the current proposed location as well as alternative locations to the west, east, north, and south further described below. Rogers has concluded that they are unable to relocate the site away from the Garner Road and McLeod Road intersection as the alternative locations do not adequately achieve the target coverage for this site. Alternate locations will result in the need for additional infill telecommunications sites and may not provide any additional benefit from a land-use perspective. With this letter we are considering the subject of alternative locations sufficiently addressed. We will continue to respond to public inquiries but will be seeking to conclude this consultation process with the City of Niagara Falls. Your comments throughout this process will be included in our report to the City and they will be considered prior to any recommendation from Council. We will provide the details including date, time, and participation process of any Council meeting where this item will be addressed. Thank you for your participation and continued patience as we work through this process. As always please feel free to contact me with further questions or comments. Sincerely, Sean Ogilvie, Real Estate & Government Affairs Forbes Bros Ltd. 482 South Service Road E Oakville, ON L6J 2X6 Tel: 647-224-4399 sogilvie@forbesbrosltd.ca APPENDIX 2 - ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ANALYSIS Page 7 of 31 Page 618 of 847 Background: Like many areas of the province, your community is experiencing a growing demand for wireless services. We depend on these wireless networks to facilitate our digital interactions with family, friends, businesses, and the public sector. The increased number of connected devices, changing technologies, transforming workplaces and work- from-home places, strain existing wireless networks. To combat this strain wireless carriers deploy network infrastructure to ensure reliable services everywhere you live, work, and play. Wireless networks are strained and deficient in areas of Niagara Falls. In this case specifically, Rogers has proposed new wireless infrastructure (“cell tower”) to address these coverage deficiencies along McLeod Road from Beechwood Road east to Montrose Road, and from Browns Road north to approximately the Niagara Falls Golf Club (figure 1). This proposed facility will allow more users to connect, increase data transfer speeds, and reduce service interruptions. Figure 1: Existing coverage at McLeod Rd & Garner Rd Page 8 of 31 Page 619 of 847 Location: A new mobile base station or cell tower must be located centrally to the coverage area to effectively utilize limited radio signals. Based on existing network coverage, number of users, network capacity, area topography and other factors, Rogers calculated the optimal location to achieve the target coverage objective to be the intersection of McLeod Road and Garner Road. Because a base station cannot be erected in the middle of an intersection, ground investigations were undertaken to determine a practical location. Ground investigations included considerations of existing infrastructure, available property/space, and land-owner interest. Ultimately a new location was secured in the existing parking lot area of the Boys and Girls Club of Niagara Falls at 8800 McLeod Road (figure 2). Figure 2: Planned coverage with the new Rogers site C6238 operational at 8800 McLeod Rd. Page 9 of 31 Page 620 of 847 Alternatives Analysis: Based on input received at the public information session and further correspondence with area residents, Rogers was asked to consider alternate tower locations further away from the existing residential neighbourhood and school. Locations were compared by calculating the Reference Signal Received Power (“RSRP”) a measure of signal strength in decibels (“dBm”) from strongest 0dBm to weakest/no signal -140dBm. Alternative locations were considered based on signal strength reaching the target coverage area. Alternate Location: “C6238A” Beechwood @ McLeod This alternative is approximately 1.5km west of Rogers current proposed location and is outside Rogers prescribed search area and target coverage area. Cell towers are sectorized to provide 360° coverage around their location, because this site is west of the target coverage area approximately 180° or “half” of the signal would be distributed needlessly west of the target. The remaining signal hitting the target area is strong (-78dBm to -88dBm RSRP) along McLeod Road but loses strength toward Garner Road (-88dBm to -98dBm). This location would leave a large portion of the residential area along McLeod between Garner and Kalar Road with weak to fringe signal strength (-98dBm to -116dBm). Because this location would cover unnecessary areas and leaves a large gap in the centre of the target coverage area it has been disqualified as a feasible candidate. Figure 3 below illustrates the RSRP levels in the target coverage area from this location. Figure 3: Signal strength at target coverage area “Alternate C6238A – Beechwood @ McLeod” C6238A Page 10 of 31 Page 621 of 847 Alternate Location “C6238D” Kalar @ McLeod This alternative is approximately 820m northeast of Rogers current proposed location and is outside Rogers prescribed search area but within the target coverage area. This site would provide strong coverage (-78dBm to -88dBm RSRP) along Kalar Rd mostly to the north of McLeod Road and east of Garner Road (figure 4). This location leaves Garner Road with light indoor (- 98dBm RSRP) to outdoor and fringe (-98dBm to -116dBm RSRP) south of McLeod Road. Although this alternate area would partially achieve the target coverage objectives it does not address the issue of having a tower near residential dwellings, schools, & parks. This area would be as close or closer to existing residential development. This location has been disqualified as it provides less optimal coverage than the current proposed candidate and offers no land-use benefit in terms of interested land-owners, setbacks to residential or other sensitive uses, and offers no specialized screening or preferential zoning characteristics. Figure 4: Signal strength at target coverage area “Alternate C6238D – Beechwood @ McLeod” Page 11 of 31 Page 622 of 847 Alternate Location “C6238E” Forestview @ Garner This alternative location is approximately 1.6km north of Rogers current proposed location and is outside Rogers prescribed search area but partially within the target coverage area. Cell towers are sectorized to provide 360° coverage around their location, because this site is north of the target coverage area approximately 180° or “half” of the signal would be distributed needlessly north of the target. The remaining signal hitting the target area is strong (-78dBm to -88dBm RSRP) east and west of Garner Road north of the hydro-corridor but loses strength toward McLeod Road. This location would leave a large area around the target centre with weak/fringe strength coverage (-98dBm to -116dBm RSRP). Because this location would cover unnecessary areas and leaves a large gap in the centre of the target coverage area it has been disqualified as a feasible candidate. Figure 5 below illustrates the RSRP levels in the target coverage area from this location. Figure 5: Signal strength at target coverage area “Alternate C6238E – Forestview @ Garner” Page 12 of 31 Page 623 of 847 Alternate Location “C6238S” Brown @ Garner This alternative location is approximately 1.2km southwest of Rogers current proposed location and is outside Rogers prescribed search area but partially within the target coverage area. Cell towers are sectorized to provide 360° coverage around their location, because this site is south of the target coverage area approximately 180° or “half” of the signal would be distributed needlessly south of the target. The remaining signal hitting the target area is strong (-78dBm to -88dBm RSRP) between Beechwood Road and Garner Road north of Brown Road but loses strength toward McLeod Road. This location would leave a large area around the target centre with weak/fringe strength coverage (-98dBm to -116dBm RSRP). Because this location would cover unnecessary areas and leaves a large gap in the centre of the target coverage area it has been disqualified as a feasible candidate. Figure 6 below illustrates the RSRP levels in the target coverage area from this location. Figure 6: Signal strength at target coverage area “Alternate C6238S – Brown @ Garner” Page 13 of 31 Page 624 of 847 Conclusion: This analysis of alternative tower locations was prompted by comments/objections that the current proposed tower location is too close to sensitive land-uses (residences, school) and therefore poses a potential health risk. The analysis demonstrates relocating the proposed tower site outside of the search area will not achieve the target coverage. The locations furthest from sensitive land-uses do not achieve the achieve the target coverage and those locations that partially achieve the target coverage are equally close to sensitive land-uses and do not provide any benefit over the current proposed location. This analysis is being provided as a part of the public consultation process as demonstration why alternative locations are not technically feasible. Despite Rogers consideration of alternative locations it should be noted that based on the available scientific evidence, there are no health risks from exposure to the low levels of radiofrequency which people are exposed to from cell phones, cell phone towers, antennas and 5G devices. In Canada, Health Canada has established guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, called Safety Code 6. These limits are set well below the levels of all known potential adverse health effects and provide protection for all age groups, including children, on a continuous basis (24 hours a day, seven days a week). This means that if anyone, including a small child, was exposed to RF energy from multiple sources within the Safety Code 6 limits for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, there would be no adverse health effects. Rogers has completed a power density analysis for the installation at 8800 McLeod Road based on the proposed antenna configurations. The calculations were performed for the cumulative power density using EMF Visual, the radio-frequency power density calculation tool also used by Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada (ISED). The calculated power density of proposed site C6238 is described as a percent (%) of the allowable Safety Code 6 guideline and as a fractional value indicating how many times this value is below the allowable Safety Code 6 limits. Rogers proposed site C6238 power density as a percent (%) of Safety Code 6: I. 2.56% = ~39.06 times below the allowable Safety Code 6 limit at ground level II. 4.84% = ~20.66 times below the allowable Safety Code 6 limit above the roof of a nearby building This site meets and exceeds the requirements of Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 by a significant margin, therefore there is no scientific reason to consider this proposal dangerous to the public. Page 14 of 31 Page 625 of 847 August 24, 2021 Dear Current Resident / Owner, Re: INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR A ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PROPOSAL at 8800 MCLEOD ROAD NIAGARA FALLS, ON Legal: PART OF STAMFORD TOWNSHIP LOT 180, CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Coordinates: Latitude: (NAD 83) N 43° 04’ 07.9” & Longitude: (NAD 83) W 79° 08’ 38.7”. Site Code: C6238 Forbes Bros Ltd. is sending this mail notification on behalf of Rogers Communications Inc. as a reminder of the proposed 40m tall, shrouded monopole type telecommunications tower site at 8800 McLeod Road, Niagara Falls, ON. Notice was originally provided July 2, 2019, and a public information session held on July 30 of 2019. Notice of this proposed structure is being re-circulated to provide additional time for written questions or comments. This notice also serves to provide an update on additional locations that were suggested through the public consultation process. This notice includes a deadline of Friday September 25, 2021, for the submission of comments. We ask that you please submit comments, questions and/or requests for further information in writing to Forbes Bros Ltd. and/or the City of Niagara Falls. Contact information is included at the end of this notice. At the end of the public consultation process, if the Proponent is satisfied that it has addressed all relevant questions and would like to move forward with the installation, a request for a letter of concurrence will be submitted to the City of Niagara Falls along with copies of all correspondence from the public consultation process. Sincerely, Sean Ogilvie Real Estate & Municipal Affairs Forbes Bros Ltd. SOgilvie Page 15 of 31 Page 626 of 847 Proposed Site and Background Information Roger’s installation is proposed to be built at 8800 McLeod Road, Niagara Falls, ON. The facility is proposed on the subject property 350m southeast of the Garner Road and McLeod Road intersection. The tower is proposed to be located toward the southeast corner of the subject property 76m south from the access point at McLeod Road. Location Map Coverage Requirement The proposed installation is required to provide Rogers customers with improved wireless network coverage for Niagara Falls, specifically this site will provide improved coverage for the existing and future residential areas on the north and south sides of McLeod Road approximately between Beechwood Road to the west and Kalar Road to the east. The site as proposed will provide wireless voice and data services for subscribers to the Rogers network. Existing Infrastructure and Alternate Locations Prior to proposing a new freestanding mobile base station facility the area is investigated for existing tower infrastructure and/or tall structures suitable for antenna deployment. Our investigations showed there are no existing tower facilities within 1.0km of Rogers proposed location. No other tall buildings or structures exist in the immediate vicinity to support broadcasting equipment deployment. Through the initial public consultation process suggestions were received to consider locations further from the residential neighbourhoods near McLeod Road and Garner Road. The locations suggested are all approximately 1km outside of Rogers prescribed search area and are listed in the chart and map below: Location Address Distance from search area Analysis Volkswagon lot Beechwood Rd@ McLeod 1.1km southwest Outside coverage target area – will require multiple tower sites Proposed Site C6238 Page 16 of 31 Page 627 of 847 Faith Factor Church 9527 Mcleod Rd 900m west Outside coverage target area – will require multiple tower sites Norjohn Paving 9101 Brown Rd 1.1km south Outside coverage target area – will require multiple tower sites Pinewood Dental Care 8302 McLeod Rd 990m east Too close to existing Rogers sites Coach Canada 7302 McLeod Rd 1km east Too close to existing Rogers sites Easy Street Cafe 8420 McLeod Rd 1km east Too close to existing Rogers sites Alternate locations map: These alternate locations would provide a degree of coverage for the area but are not able to achieve the target coverage objective with a single base station. To provide reliable coverage to the residential areas along McLeod Road from one of the alternative locations, a secondary site would be required within the residential area. It is Rogers contention that a singular tower site at 8800 McLeod Road is the preferable deployment option opposed to multiple tower sites along this stretch of McLeod Road. The proposed Rogers installation provides an opportunity to accommodate colocation with other licensed carriers, thus limiting the number of new tower structures required in the area. The Proposed Installation The proposed installation is a shrouded monopole style communications structure. The monopole installation is a single steel tube structure of approximately 1.5m in diameter and 40m in height. Transmitting and receiving antenna equipment is mounted internally to the upper portion of the tower structure. Page 17 of 31 Page 628 of 847 Rogers proposes to install as part of this installation transmitting and receiving antenna equipment and provisions for future technology services. At this location a ground compound area of 6.0 metres by 6.0 metres, will house the tower base and radio equipment cabinet on a cast in place reinforced concrete slab. A wood board security fence will be installed around the base of the installation and will include a locked gate access point. Above: simulated monopole as it would appear from McLeod Rd facing southeast. Please note that although considered to be accurate, this is an artist’s rendering only Federal Requirements In addition to the requirements for consultation with municipal authorities and the public, Rogers must also fulfill other important obligations including the following: Impact Assessment Act (IAA) Formerly Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (“ISED” formerly Industry Canada) requires that the installation and modification of antenna systems be done in a manner that complies with appropriate environmental legislation. This includes the Impact Assessment Act, 2019 (IAA), where the antenna system is incidental to a physical activity or project designated under IAA or is located on federal lands. Rogers attests that the radio antenna system as proposed for this site is not located within federal lands or forms part of or incidental to projects that are designated by the Regulations Designating Physical Activities or otherwise designated by the Minister of the Environment as requiring an environmental assessment. In accordance with the Impact Assessment Act, this installation is excluded from assessment. For additional detailed information, please consult the Impact Assessment Act at: https://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.75/ Engineering Practices Rogers Communications attests that the radio antenna system as proposed for this site will be constructed in compliance with the National Building Code and The Canadian Standard Association and respect good engineering practices including structural adequacy. Page 18 of 31 Page 629 of 847 Transport Canada’s Aeronautical Obstruction Marking Requirements Rogers Communications attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will be installed and operated on an ongoing basis so as to comply with Transport Canada and NAV Canada aeronautical safety requirements. Rogers anticipates that the proposed installation will not require markings or lighting and has submitted the necessary applications to the appropriate parties to obtain required approvals. For additional detailed information, please consult Transport Canada at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part6-standards-standard621-3808.htm Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Compliance Rogers Communications attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will be installed and operated on an ongoing basis so as to comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, as may be amended from time to time, for the protection of the general public including any combined operation of additional carrier co-locations and nearby installations within the local radio environment. More information in the area of RF exposure and health is available at the following web site: Safety Code 6: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/radiation/consumer- radiation/radiofrequency-fields.html and https://www.canada.ca/en/health- canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/radiation/safety-code-6-health- canada-radiofrequency-exposure-guidelines-environmental-workplace-health-health-canada.html Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) Spectrum Management Please be advised that the licensing of this site and its design is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of Canada through CRTC and ISED. Information relating to ISED’s public consultation guidelines CPC-2-0-03 – Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems is available at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08777.html or you may contact the local ISED office at: Spectrum Management – Western and Central Ontario District 4475 North Service Road, Suite 100, Burlington, Ontario L7L 4X7, Phone: 1-855-465-6307, Fax: 905- 639-6551, Email: ic.spectrumcwod-spectredcoo.ic@canada.ca Municipal and Public Consultation In accordance with the City of Niagara Falls policies and ISED consultation guidelines Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (CPC-2-0-03), this information package has been mailed to all property owners within 120m of the limits of the subject property as well as provided to any individual who has previously contacted the proponent regarding this facility. Forbes Bros Ltd, on behalf of Rogers Communications is committed to effective municipal and public consultation. This notice serves as invitation to submit comments in writing to the proponent or City of Niagara Falls by September 25, 2021. Contact Information: Forbes Bros Ltd. City of Niagara Falls Sean Ogilvie, Real Estate & Gov. Affairs Francesca Berardi 482 South Service Road E, Unit 130 4310 Queen Street Oakville, Ontario L6J 2X6 Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Phone: (647) 224-4399 Phone: (905) 356-7521 Email: sogilvie@forbesbrosltd.ca Email: fberardi@niagarafalls.ca Page 19 of 31 Page 630 of 847 Comment Date Name Comment Response Date Response Information 7/16/19 William Andrew Chase w_andrew_chase@hotmail.com - Health concerns based on recent studies pointing to links between radiofrequency from cell phone towers and increased cancer risk - Requesting Rogers err on the side of caution and relocate the proposed tower site further (west) along McLeod to vacant lands away from residential development 7/29/19 - Additional information provided regarding the selection of the location (coverage target, fitting with existing sites, willing landowner) this particular location is limited as it is largely developed residential area. Alternatives are too far outside coverage area (1.5 – 2km away) - Information provided on Health Canada’s radiofrequency exposure guidelines (Safety Code 6) and Rogers requirement to adhere or exceed these guidelines on an ongoing basis 8/8/19 Scott Whitwell Scott.whitwell@ncdsb.com - Main priority is the health and safety of staff, students, visitors and all people who may be at any of our board sites for a variety of reasons - Please advise whether there are any risks both potential and real as a result of prolonged exposure to mobile base station tower facilities - Because of the proximity of the proposed facility to two of the school board sites it would be preferable to construct the proposed facility at an alternate location 8/21/19 - Background information provided on radio-frequency energy (RF) and Health Canada’s exposure limits for RF energy (Safety Code 6). Towers are considered safe provided these limits are respected - Confirmed Rogers attestation to operate within the required Safety Code 6 levels - Links provided to additional Safety Code 6 information - Information on coverage target and site selection provided 8/8/19 William Andrew Chase w_andrew_chase@hotmail.com - Opposed to the current proposed site - Attached petition from area residents - Have other sites been investigated - What is the range of the tower? Has not experienced any service issues in the target area - Is there a plan to notify school/parents/daycare - Proposed site will devalue properties (existing and future development) 8/26/19 - Response provided confirming receipt of comments/questions and that additional follow up will be provided once we have Safety Code 6 calculations back from Rogers - Confirmed we had corresponded with the School Board - Confirmed nothing is being built until we are able to respond to all questions/concerns 9/9/19 Scott Whitwell Scott.whitwell@ncdsb.com - Request confirmation if the site is planned for 5G services 9/11/19 - Confirmed the current services proposed are 850 MHz UMTS/HSPA services as well as 700, 850, 1900, 2100 & 2600 MHz LTE services - Confirmed equipment can be swapped/added/upgraded to 5G in future as required Appendix 3 - Forbes Bros Ltd. Summary of Public Consultation Page 20 of 31Page 631 of 847 9/28/19 Paul Forsyth PForsyth@niagarathisweek.com - Niagara This Week contacted to discuss the proposed tower and objections from residents - Preparing an article about residents requesting the tower be moved 10/2/19 - Phone discussion with Paul about the process and where we are at - Email follow up confirming consultation is ongoing - Information provided on Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 and links to Health Canada website William Andrew Chase w_andrew_chase@hotmail.com - 5/7/20 - Follow up call / email to earlier concerns. - Additional background information provided on the location selection, alternative location analysis, Safety Code 6 calculations and confirmation of compliance - Confirmed public consultation is ongoing and Forbes is available to answer questions/comments 6/18/20 William Andrew Chase w_andrew_chase@hotmail.com - Continued concern with the location proposed. Alternative preferred - Request data confirming other suggested locations are “unacceptable” - List of alternate candidates provided - William Andrew Chase w_andrew_chase@hotmail.com - Aug 27, 2021 - Email sent to Mr. Chase as an update to the process and to provide an electronic copy of the revised notice being sent to area residents. Email included an explanation of the purpose of the revised notice including extended public comment timeline and details on why an alternative location is not possible. Email also included the power density calculations for this site demonstrating it exceeds the requirements of Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 by a significant margin. Sept-5 (Via email) William Andrew Chase w_andrew_chase@hotmail.com - Additional consultation should be required (notification distributed at Saint Michael High School, B & G Club daycare) - Additional quantification requested for alternative sites expressed as a % coverage/capacity loss compared to proposed location Oct-20 (Via email) - Information provided that the School Board was notified of the proposal (twice) and they did contact us with questions about health effects from towers. Any additional notices to parents or within the school would have to come from the relevant school board. Forbes would participate if this request came direct from the school board. - Additional analyses from Rogers has been requested to quantify alternative locations in % of coverage loss. In general Rogers objection to the use of an alternate site is that it will require multiple new towers to cover the same target area – one of these sites will still end up close to residences and schools. Page 21 of 31Page 632 of 847 Sept-24 (Via email) Jilian Nero jilianneronf@gmail.com - Object to the location due to health concerns from EMF exposure, decline in property value - Requested information on alternate locations, RF exposure levels, construction timeline, information about the lease agreement, whether it is a 5G site Oct-20 (Via email) - Additional information provided on Safety Code 6 and regulations (validity of Safety Code 6 is not considered relevant to individual base station consultation) - Safety Code 6 power density levels provided - Information on why alternate locations are not feasible (multiple sites would be required) - Confirmed construction timeline not set until Rogers has a Council recommendation - Site is currently not planned for 5G but further consultation is generally not required to add/swap equipment as long as the tower design is unchanged Sept-27 (Via email) Alexander Freytag (Forwarded by Francesca Berardi) afreytag@nosm.ca - Object to the location due to health concerns from EMF exposure Oct-20 (Via email) - Information provided about applicable Health Canada radiofrequency exposure guideline “Safety Code 6”. RF exposure from mobile base station towers are considered safe 24 hrs / 7 days a week 365 days a year as long as guidelines are adhered to. It is a condition of Rogers license that they comply with Safety Code 6. - Safety Code 6 power density calculations were provided indicating the site will comply with Safety Code 6 and levels will actually be 20 – 40 times lower than the SC6 requirements at ground level and roof level of the surrounding area Nov 15, 2021 Daniel J. McDonald danielmcdonald@bellnet.ca - Solicitor for Badger Farms Ltd., owner of 14 acres of vacant land adjacent the proposed tower location - Badger Farms object to the proposed tower location and prefer it be relocated to the south west side parking lot as they believe the current location will negatively impact the value of its lands and reduce the acreage available for development Dec 7, 2021 - Confirmation provided that the tower cannot be relocated within the property. Current location is preferred and most out of the way for existing operations and does not impact any environmental designations on the property - Confirmation that the proposed tower development does not impact neighbouring property development (e.g. a new tower does not impact the zoning class or requirements of a neighboring property – there are no additional setback or other requirements for neighbours of a new cell tower) William Andrew Chase w_andrew_chase@hotmail.com - 12/13/21 - Email confirmation that Forbes is continuing to work with Rogers in analyzing alternate locations and adding quantifying information on coverage lost by deploying at an alternate location William Andrew Chase w_andrew_chase@hotmail.com - 7/20/22 - Additional coverage analysis of alternate locations provided. Detailed coverage information provided for the proposed location vs. alternatives suggested Page 22 of 31Page 633 of 847 - Conclusion is relocating outside the target coverage area is not feasible and will require a multiple tower deployment in/near residential areas - Objections were based on health concerns which have been repeatedly addressed through Rogers confirmation of Safety Code 6 compliance Page 23 of 31Page 634 of 847 1 Francesca Berardi From:Francesca Berardi Sent:Thursday, August 8, 2019 2:30 PM To:'Carrie McRae' Cc:sogilvie@forbesbrosltd.ca Subject:RE: Proposed Cell Phone Tower Hello Carrie, Thankyou for taking the time to provide your comments and concerns on this proposed telecommunication tower. As part of the public consultation process directed by Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) Canada, Forbes Bros Ltd. is required to respond to your concerns. I've included Sean Ogilvie with Forbes Bros Ltd. in this email so he can do that. Your concerns, along with the response you receive, will form part of Staff’s report to Council. Council will consider public input in their decision to support or not support this tower location. The position of Council, along with other agency comments, will form part of Forbes Bros Ltd. submission to (ISED) who will make the ultimate decision regarding approval. Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions, Francesca Francesca Berardi | Planner 2 | Planning, Building & Development | City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | (905) 356-7521 ext 4238 | Fax 905-356-2354 | fberardi@niagarafalls.ca -----Original Message----- From: Carrie McRae <caremcrae@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 1:45 PM To: Francesca Berardi <fberardi@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Re: Proposed Cell Phone Tower Hi again, I apologize. I was trying to send this quickly before my daughter wakes from her nap. I did want to add however; we have a 2 year old daughter and the close proximity to us as well as other children at the club is concerning to us as they will be exposed to the radiation 24/7. Current guidelines for radiation are 5 years old and don't include any of the new studies that have come out recently. There is no need to put it so close to all these children when there is so much rural land Thank you again! Carrie Santo Carrie Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 8, 2019, at 1:36 PM, Carrie McRae <caremcrae@gmail.com> wrote: > > Good Afternoon, > Page 24 of 31 Page 635 of 847 2 > I am writing in regards to the proposed site of the Rogers telecommunications facility at 8800 McLeod Road, Niagara Falls. I attended the information session on July 30th at the MacBain Centre. I reside at 7197 St. Michael Ave and have had numerous conversations about this with my neighbours. > Unfortunately, I have not had the appropriate amount of time to sit and write you a proper response. I understand any feedback should be directed to you by tomorrow, August 9th. > So please accept this email from myself and husband that we have the same thoughts and definite concerns as our neighbours Andrew and Hayla Chase (whom have been sending me the emails). > > Thank you, > Carrie and Dave Santo > > > Sent from my iPhone Page 25 of 31 Page 636 of 847 1 Francesca Berardi From:Francesca Berardi Sent:Thursday, August 8, 2019 10:02 AM To:'Chris Athanasas' Cc:sogilvie@forbesbrosltd.ca Subject:RE: Rogers Communications Proposal Hello Chris, Thankyou for taking the time to provide us with your comments and concerns on this proposed telecommunication tower. As part of the public consultation process directed by Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) Canada, Forbes Bros Ltd. is required to respond to your concerns. Your concerns, along with the response you receive, will form part of Staff’s report to Council. Council will consider public input in their decision to support or not support this tower location. The position of Council, along with other agency comments, will form part of Forbes Bros Ltd. submission to (ISED) who will make the ultimate decision regarding approval. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions, Francesca Francesca Berardi | Planner 2 | Planning, Building & Development | City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | (905) 356-7521 ext 4238 | Fax 905-356-2354 | fberardi@niagarafalls.ca -----Original Message----- From: Chris Athanasas <chrisathanasas@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 3:43 PM To: sogilvie@forbesbrosltd.ca; Francesca Berardi <fberardi@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Rogers Communications Proposal Good afternoon, I am writing to you in regards to my households concerns with the proposed tower C6238, located at the Boys & Girls Club on McLeod Rd. We were unable to attend the meeting however have grave concerns with living directly across the Club and proposed site. Our concerns are for many reasons the biggest being a health concern and living so close to a tower but also with property depreciation. Our family has resided here for 12 years since the street was new and the development was only a fraction of what it is today. We have encountered a shelter being built, the Club itself and increased traffic flow. Each time even with the market highs and lows our chance of ever needing to list the property has become more difficult for potential buyers. While we see certain benefits this proposed tower is not one. And we live here and should be able to have some say to voice all of our concerns, as I’m sure if a tower was proposed in your backyard you’d have some quarrels with it as well. We are asking that a new site be proposed further from the community and neighbourhood. And more over we are very disappointed that the Club took the monetary and not the well being of the children into consideration as my nephews are active there and the parents of the Club were not made aware. I am happy to further discuss our concerns at 289-929-9158. Page 26 of 31 Page 637 of 847 2 Chris Athanasas Page 27 of 31 Page 638 of 847 Petition To Stop The Construction of a Rogers Cell Phone Tower On the Boys'& Girls Club of Niagara Falls propertyWe the undersigned would like Rogers to find an alternate site for their cell phone tower that is further away from the Boys' & Girls,Club of Niagara Falls, Saint Michael Catholic High School and current and future residential areas, Their proposed site at 8800Mcleod Rd. (site C6238) is not acceptable to local residents and stakeholders for reasons including, but not limited to, the potentialimpacts on human health, especially children, property devaluation and lack of proper public consultation due to stakeholders of thepu blic faci lities not receivi ng notification,SignaturenNameAddressPhone fr andlor email addressl7/ "---*fxr,f frncA"17q/ J/'rr',t''t)?87-A76-6A71U^.i l4{?nr*,6b"rhhx I tr1la*-l cr-(?aS- 22?' o3sJ{N,ti r^ur. V' r}1, I io,,^-7 ilg5+ rh,u,.r"yL Air{L/03 715 /5\o.}*, S*,\hFtn )*r)'a,{4r{txlttii 5J rh,tuJ htu7os =>s1-t )32-l | "./'t$rc^z l'rr\-^))t 0, I 5,' v'L1i\f1,p:tt-1 c i' 4 ,l t"'S-; >A;L\\.(( Lr CA=7to+ sr htcv&et'1 "t- trol LZg')And Y l.r, Sa\\c,rc1[;-(nltrFAno*, \r\eum-r\'] lT;,:i, ir('ttr,hr:o \ ltur'ip;- 3,i - lfrc,',IrfuvIIil,1IilHU.,T){ t_ ,r{Jai//"/l---7lT?rS|.ffrrafu' t l[qltT- A? - l,rot;5.1 t,li L< 5 c hoc,i S tcifi-qoc-Ltct -ititlAPPENDIX 3-1Page 28 of 31Page 639 of 847 NarneFrc,,nL []eCi( ( (,{r1},W5il-\llddressSignaturel-rt*JSr;trrtt P1i(\rcrrnS - t l.hfis{.J$u( ,Fhone # and/or email addressq#q"q/{&*r*jM-"o^.Xth\*\nnkrq{rc\ $**trYm"tYLt\t rnq\c cocr5-?\oti St {h,ohool &*,utafi*flut p(oldbeI'l2o $ <;t ${,.iL.-c/;4WgoeTW5653r\rr- {r'.-:.:)btspil\rS icr{T *,,{L,ro- 52 I -'X*'t1-ffi:p-YF':t1?0ttlI;1IIi.,&v't* t':r:l "i!\u\m iti,1ii-Jlv"/'l i*ri) :i"1 i -f Y5Ci5-^1"-*\!NQS-AYLrccfs{/J,fu1*/:.&d*traq-1[t*tsttJiILiII,t-iITIt!iiIIfI+IIjII,.i'iIlji:lI+IIIt7b1-7s7- b ?tb:."*iPage 29 of 31Page 640 of 847 Cell Phone Tower On theWe the undersigned would like Rogers to find an alternate site for their cell phone tower that is further away from the Boys' & Girls'Club of Niagara Falls, Saint Michael Catholic High School and current and future residential areas. Their proposed site at 8800McLeod Rd. (site C6238) is not acceptable to local residents and stakeholders for reasons including, but not limited to, the potentialimpacts on human health, especially children, property devaluation and lack of proper public consultation due to stakeholders of thepublic facilities not receiving notification',T1/ ,2,,-AddressPhone # and/or email addressSignaturei"Name-" ;1l- |)t rt rc{^.r e ( lvo),"t(rur) xst - rrt.lLL)- dlnb{e@ - (h.tj(G l''ct"-i f ' cj lr\',fi. i. . ir..J(TZtl' =/- tf/;cltndJ ft,(al ?? 0rt,"/,,tF"/Clwsa-lad4*"4*uQ' ?06 f3l *;sl'qa.1tq+ g, rvl,clrrn I?oe Jtr )2f 9I'1 tB? ? tn,*..(h*{Y'u"0."?k,^,-.,nAVUtas -37fi tca?-*.-\ -N----l )(t =,\r\.,\.,1Cf i\:; . )aC - 1-12f,(,^Su\,JLI I ro& 'i N\ichr,e( A*.-Qob - 'tcrr - qq b+M oirei\,e.-1\t'$ --1t. Nrrc\*"\ N.u.c'iQi b:)0. tzO\G t a ..r''... v\\rr\,,(:nKob'..-\^l1,,?l?g sr'^lrCriltl'rvt-;rf-)5lh-iT'>zItq: PaC nr iA C.itrx^,/]r/(rM4)d*<-,R,,iq)nPage 30 of 31Page 641 of 847 Fhone # xndl*r ervrail addressJ\1"$igrr*ture,/)&**drass[\lan're'!\I :; *Tpi,r:,4na7t;&l.4are,/...)?q5' i;+ " :rt"5Lircs-6.sX- )g*/\-._ i. -'l t 61 i) qt g"t i r Liae tfrw?ct 37 t /Ft rO{vrkt, 5t , fI;,tn,r,( A-*3 or aof \;Q*i--l*'))octur^-t- "l "f,*47) j# sl t-tt i{,"*-d ,4w1 lf "s to- S-?rT:i./i,///// /'?(41q >.c:ltt{rE+-g+tvr1J{Itu,ob'lL{frn'l: U $',\\uo ;,44,p ili -qf Q-1 ,rl/iistMII1II{-riL({or -bb t-''t*3?nuJ\t)t\ //ftUY,*,d ',"a ^ C-' -l*/ /21f*f-", b*X":"vr., i A Ift', (ul( Pr'"r/,t(?-r,rrd'.:;?"*]iiP"'llIr- C-. iu)\"./a L lL i1- - *-. - -.. * _,. . , .. _ . * - **Page 31 of 31Page 642 of 847 L-2023-15 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Permanently Close and Declare Surplus of Lands Portions of Redundant Road Allowance - Weinbrenner Road Land Swap - The Niagara Parks Commission Our File No.: 2022-60 Recommendation(s) 1. In the event that Council determines that it is in the public interest to do so, that portions of Weinbrenner Road and Edgeworth Road, hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Lands", as shown outlined in red on the plan attached as Schedule "A", be permanently closed and declared surplus to the City's needs and that the Subject Lands be transferred to The Niagara Parks Commission as outlined in this report. 2. That the City Solicitor and Chief Administrative Officer, or their designate, are authorized to execute all documentation and take whatever steps necessary to carry out Recommendation 1. Executive Summary As part of the 2019 Development Charges Background Study, improvement to Weinbrenner Road east of Willoughby Drive was identified as a Development Charge initiated project. Following the undertaking of detailed design and discussions with adjacent land owners and development stakeholders, it was determined that improvement to Weinbrenner Road past the existing 350m limit, was unnecessary, leaving the remaining 130m of Weinbrenner Road redundant to the City's needs. As such, in addition to the exchange of lands between the City and The Niagara Parks Commission (hereinafter "NPC") approved by Council in August 2020, Staff is recommending that the remaining 130m of Weinbrenner Road be transferred to NPC as set forth in this report. In order for the Subject Lands to be transferred to The Niagara Parks Commission they must first be permanently closed and declared surplus. Background Page 1 of 5 Page 643 of 847 Improvement to Weinbrenner Road east of Willoughby Drive was identified in the 2019 Development Charges Background Study as a Development Charge initiated project. As part of the 2020 Capital Budget, Council approved the cost sharing for i mprovement to Weinbrenner Road in conjunction with the Legends Phase 3 Vacant Land Condominium development. Through detailed design and discussions with adjacent land owners and development stakeholders Staff recognized that improvement to Weinbrenner Road past 350m east of the intersection at Willoughby Drive was unnecessary as no further access to properties beyond that point was required. Staff also had discussions with NPC, who were in favour of a land swap of the City owned turnaround identified at the end of Weinbrenner Road abutting the NPC's Legends Golf Course lands in exchange for NPC owned lands lo cated at the 350m limit for the construction of a new turnaround to meet both City and Regional requirements. On August 11, 2020, Council approved the recommendations set out in Report MW - 2020-018 and authorized Staff to execute a temporary access agreement in order to facilitate completion of the road allowance improvement and also to enter into land transfer swap agreement with The Niagara Parks Commission for the proposed turnaround on Weinbrenner Road. Following this approval, Staff determined that the remaining 130m of Weinbrenner Road east of the 350m limit would become redundant to the City's needs (as it contains only golf cart paths and open fields) and as such, it should also be transferred to NPC and merge with their abutting Legends Golf Course lands. In this regard, Staff had further discussions with NPC and NPC has agreed to take ownership of the remaining 130m of the road allowance, along with ownership of the municipal infrastructure located therein, being a watermain which services only the NPC's lands. In exchange for these additional lands, NPC has agreed to provide payment of all costs that will be incurred by the City in order to facilitate the land exchange transfers, including the costs of required Archeological Studies, registr ation of a Reference Plan and all legal costs and disbursements. Analysis Council approved a land swap with NPC in August 2020 wherein the City's turnaround located at the eastly 480m limit of Weinbrenner Road would be transferred to NPC in exchange for NPC lands at the new 350m limit for the creation of a new turnaround. Following that approval, Staff had further discussions with NPC in relation to the transfer of the redundant remaining 130m of the road allowance. NPC has agreed to take ownership of same, along with ownership of the municipal infrastructure located therein, being a watermain, which only services the NPC's lands, in exchange for the payment Page 2 of 5 Page 644 of 847 of all of the City's costs to be incurred in order to facilitate the land exchange transfers, including Archeological Studies, registration of a Reference Plan, Legal costs, etc. The Subject Lands have been identified by Staff as redundant to the City's needs and should be transferred to NPC in exchange for lands as shown outlined in blue on Schedule "A" attached. Additionally, to make up the difference in lands being exchanged, NPC will pay for all costs associated with required Archeological Studies (approximately $2,800.00), registration of a Reference Plan (approximately $5,000.00), appraisal costs (approximately $3,500.00), legal fees and disbursements and all other costs incurred by the City to facilitate the land exchange. The City will require as a condition of the land exchange, that the Subject Lands merge in title with the NPC's abutting lands. In order for the land exchange to proceed, the City must permanently close and declare the Subject Lands surplus to the City's needs. Public notice will be provided in accordance with the City's By-law No. 2003-02. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis With the transfer of the Subject Lands to NPC, maintenance and liability of the redundant portions of the road allowance and infrastructure contained therein will transfer to NPC as well. Financial Implications/Budget Impact As the NPC has agreed to provide payment for all costs associated with the transfer of the Subject Lands to NPC, there are no known negative financial impacts. The transfer of the Subject Lands to NPC frees the City from the costs of maintenance of the Subject Lands and the infrastructure contained therein as well as the burden of liability. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The proposed transaction is in keeping with Council's commitment to financial sustainability and an engaging and accountable government. List of Attachments L-2023-15 - Schedule A Written by: Nidhi Punyarthi, City Solicitor Submitted by: Status: Page 3 of 5 Page 645 of 847 Nidhi Punyarthi, City Solicitor Approved - 29 Jun 2023 Shelley Darlington, General Manger of Corporate Services Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Page 4 of 5 Page 646 of 847 L-2023-1 -SCHEDULE"A"-"\lr\‘I *- §5:‘\'’/-*V H?' / x‘_,( l l y’. ‘. l pr. l l l l Page 5 of 5Page 647 of 847 MW-2023-21 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Petition for Drainage Works - 5981 Willow Road Recommendation(s) 1. THAT Council accept the Petition for Drainage Works by Owners – Form 1, received from Mr. David White of 5981 Willow Road on June 6, 2023. 2. THAT the Drainage Superintendent notify the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs of the Petition for Drainage Works by Owners – Form 1, received from Mr. David White of 5981 Willow Road on June 6, 2023 and the City’s intention to accept it. 3. THAT the Drainage Superintendent report back to Council at a future meeting to recommend next steps. Executive Summary The Drainage Act provides a legal procedure through which an “area requiring drainage” can be addressed through the construction of a drain to a sufficient outlet. The process is initiated by the individual(s) requiring drainage, and the cost of all work to construct, maintain and repair the drain is borne by the benefitting property owners. A petition for Drainage Works by Owners – Form 1 pursuant to the Drainage Act, RSO 1990 was received by the Clerk’s Office on June 6, 2023. It is recommended that Council accept this petition, and provide notification of such to the petitioner, the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, as required by the Drainage Act. Subsequent to acceptance of the petition and notification of the requisite parties, it is anticipated that the Drainage Superintendent will recommend the appointment of a Drainage Engineer to prepare a preliminary report pursuant to the Drainage Act. Background A petition for Drainage Works by Owners – Form 1 pursuant to the Drainage Act, RSO 1990 was received by the Clerk’s Office on June 6, 2023. The Drainage Act provides a legal procedure through which an “area requiring drainage” can be addressed through the construction of a drain to a sufficient outlet. The process is initiated by the individual(s), in this case one single property owner, who would derive benefit from construction of the drain. It is important to note that the costs Page 1 of 9 Page 648 of 847 associated with detailed design, construction and ongoing maintenance and repairs of the drain are to be born by the benefitting property owners. Analysis The full process defined by the Drainage Act is presented in Attachment 1, key steps in the process to be addressed by Council in the short term are as follows: 1. Step 1 - Council is to determine if the petition should be accepted, and to notify the petitioner of its decision within thirty days of filing of the petition. Note that this is not a decision to proceed directly to design and construction but is a decision to proceed under the process defined by the Drainage Act. Based on review by the Drainage Superintendent the subject petition was filed in accordance with the Drainage Act and the City has no grounds to not accept the petition. It is therefore recommended that Council accept the subject petition. 2. Step 2 - Notify the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) of the City’s intent to proceed with the Drainage Act process. If NPCA requires an environmental appraisal or if OMAFRA requires a benefit cost statement, they are required to notify the City within thirty days. It is therefore recommended that the Drainage Superintendent provide the requisite notice to NPCA and OMAFRA. 3. Step 3 – Appoint a Drainage Engineer (Consultant). Following the thirty day notification period for NPCA and OMAFRA, the third step is for Council to appoint a Drainage Engineer to conduct an on-site meeting with potentially affected landowners, to determine the validity of the petition, and to produce a preliminary report on the size and configuration of the drainage works and a preliminary estimate of construction costs to be borne by the landowners. It is anticipated that Drainage Superintendent will recommend the appointment of a Drainage Engineer at a subsequent Council meeting. 4. Step 4 - Review and acceptance of the preliminary report by Council and the petitioners. Following review of the preliminary report, petitioners have the opportunity to remove their names from the petition. If after review of the preliminary report, the number of remaining petitioners is less than what is required for a “valid” petition, the original petitioners are responsible for the costs to prepare the preliminary report. In the case of the subject petition, there is only one petitioner therefore they will be responsible for all costs associated with the preliminary report. It is anticipated that the work to prepare the preliminary report will take at minimum several months, following which it will be presented during a City Council meeting for review and input. The above represent the preliminary steps to be completed by the City in the short term to initiate the process of establishing a drain under the Drainage Act. The subsequent detailed design, approvals, and construction work will follow the procedures d efined by the Drainage Act and related legislation, and will be documented in a detailed Engineer’s Report. These procedures dictate include numerous mandatory points of Page 2 of 9 Page 649 of 847 contact with City Council and affected landowners, including presentation of the Engineer’s Report during a City Council meeting and ample opportunities for review and comment by City Council and affected landowners. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis There are currently no operational or risk implications associated with the pet ition. Financial Implications/Budget Impact The costs associated with constructing, maintaining and repairing a drain under the Drainage Act are borne by the benefitting property owners, and so the financial impact to the City is expected to be minimal. At present, it is premature to estimate the costs that will be incurred, however the Drainage Act includes numerous opportunities for the petitioner(s) and affected landowners to review and provide input. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The recommendations of this report align with the following Strategic Pillars: • Financial Sustainability - Financial sustainability refers to the ability of the City of Niagara Falls to effectively manage its financial resources to meet its current and future obligations, without relying on external sources of funding, and without sacrificing its ability to deliver essential services to its residents. Under the Drainage Act, the costs associated with establishing, maintaining and repairing drains are to be assessed against and paid for by the benefiting land owners. • Environmental Sustainability - Environmental sustainability refers to the practices and policies that the City of Niagara Falls implements to ensure the health and well-being of the environment for current and future generations. This involves improving existing or implementing new policies and practices that ensure that the City’s drainage infrastructure is designed and maintained in a manner that meets or exceeds legislated environmental requirements and mitigates the impacts of climate change to preserve and improve the quality of life for residents in the community. The Drainage Act prescribes a process through which a land owner can address an area requiring drainage; it is the responsibility of the City to assist in that process as prescribed by the Drainage Act. • Customer Service - The City of Niagara Falls prides itself on fostering a culture that prioritizes customer service. The recommendations of this report intend to serve the City’s customers through the prescribed process of the Drainage Act. Contributor(s) Tara Gudgeon, Senior Manager Asset Management List of Attachments Clerks Memo - Drainage Petition Form 1 - Attachment 1_Pub 859 A Guide for Drainage Superintendents Attachment 2_5981 Willow Road Page 3 of 9 Page 650 of 847 Written by: Sue Noble, Infrastructure Services Program Supervisor Tara Gudgeon, Infrastructure Asset Manager Submitted by: Status: Erik Nickel, Director of Municipal Works Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Page 4 of 9 Page 651 of 847 Ontarlo ®ygg'g*;y,g;f,§;{°,;*;;;,;:-Petition for Drainage Works by Owners Form 1 Drainage Act,R.S.O.1990,c.D.17,clause 4(1)(a)or (b) This form is to be used to petition municipal council for a new drainage works under the Drainage Act.it is not to be used to request the improvement or modification of an existing drainage works under the Drainage Act. T0:The Council of the Corporation of the '\?QXs*\1 of \Q1c\C>3C.\(‘C\¥:—\\\3 The area of land described below requires drainage (provide a description of the properties or the portions of properties that require drainage improvements) -A??(-Q,7("(rnC\>‘C/\>mcn\y-vhrcg C\crt3 o’?Lend Ox)\\nc odresis 0‘? ‘S‘\8\\\\\\ow Qtcd,6\€:\ie<\3\J\\\:,O“1-05 V90 in accordance with section 9(2)of the Drainage Act,the description of the area requiring drainage will be confirmed or modi?ed by an engineer at the on-site meeting. As owners of land within the above described area requiring drainage,we hereby petition council under subsection 4(1)of the Drainage Act for a drainage works.in accordance with sections 10(4),43 and 59(1)of the Drainage Act,if names are withdrawn from the petition to the point that it is no longer a valid petition,we acknowledge responsibility for costs. Purpose of the Petition (To be completed by one of the petitioners.Please type/print) Contact Person (Last Name),(FirstName)Telephone Number Add \4‘n'\\;Bcwkcl 05-as l’\Clzgxc. Road/Street Number Road/Street Name 5<le\xtmmecm ?"’c 3°’/”7Z”p’ Location of Project Lot Concession Municipality Yd}0?\_g>r\l w\C1(§C,\tC\EMS What work do you require?(Check all appropriate boxes Construction of new open channel Construction of new tile drain ZrDeepeningorwidening of existing watercourse (not currently a municipal drain) fnclosureofexistingwatercourse (not currently a municipal drain) Former Municipality (if applicable) Other (provide description V) ?ttd C\d?itn *0 C§l‘C\\r\Wu’gctrm Name of watercourse (if known) ‘WeCtccsn?tammgllacagglhfC)rl1r°r\[a.‘l:[_Qr»lctlcrl(‘_Q'rmt:dt:d to B‘r.Elmn‘r Estimated length of project CDFCLin k?iititiil?f3'3 VC<t.&_z.1r€d,Q(2(1I;;amm‘{:\Acmc\c\'S General description of soils in the area Wh is the purpose of the proposed ork?(Check appropriate box)Tile drainage only water drainage only BothH1~Petition?led this 6 day of \)Utr\€,2o 13NameofClerk(Last,?rst name)SignatureM47\J5/\//A//LL04’/Vt ?§,,..__»0173E (2022106)©Queen's Printer for Ontario,2022 Disponlbleen francals Page 1Page 5 of 9Page 652 of 847 Property Owners Signing The Petition Page 2.9?1 -Your municipal property tax billwill provide the property description and parcel roll number. -in rural areas,the property description should be in the form of (part)lot and concession and civic address. -in urban areas,the property description should be in the form of street address and lot and plan number if available. -if you have more than two properties,please take copy(ies)of this page and continue to list them all. Number Property Description Ward or Geographic Township Parcel Roll Number \”t\\\t5‘be ’Yowyt.s)q'.Q 7.12.5 no oouuooooooo I hereby p lonf drainage for the land described and acknowledge my ?nancial obligations. Ownership Q/SoleOwnership Owner Name (Last,First Name)(Type/Print)Signature ‘Date (yyyy/mm/dd) \«~\‘n'.\n=_C),,&a..//eézé.2023 /o¢L/06 3 Partnership (Each partner in the ownership of the property must sign the petition form) Owner Name (Last,First Name)(Type/Print)Signature Date (yyyy/mm/dd) Eforporation(The individualwith authority to bind the corporation must sign the petition) Name of Signing Of?cer (Last,First Name)(Type/Print)Signature /vc»<i~<r»°or~44./7/cf/6-4-a~\_ Name of Corporation /K Cl‘!7 5/5"/t/c/4£¢?/4-/-446)I have the authority to bind the Corporation. Position Title Date (yyyylmm/dd C;7‘?646%/C Number Property Description Ward or Geographic Township Parcel Roll Number I hereby petition for drainage for the land described and acknowledge my financial obligations. Ownership E Sole Ownership Owner Name (Last,First Name)(Type/Print)Signature Date (yyyy/mm/dd) Partnership (Each partner in the ownership of the property must sign the petition form) Owner Name (Last,First Name)(Type/Print)Signature Date (yyyy/mm/dd) Corporation (The individual with authority to bind the corporation must sign the petition) Name of Signing Of?cer (Last,First Name)(Type/Print)Signature Name of Corporation I have the authority to bind the Corporation. Position Title Date (yyyy/mm/dd) Check here if additional sheets are attached Clerk initial -Once the petition is accepted by council,an engineer is appointed to respond to the petition.Drainage Act,R.S.O.1990,c.D.17 subs.8(1).-After the meeting to consider the preliminaryreport,ifthe petition does not comply with section 4,the project is terminated and the originalpetitionersareresponsibleinequalsharesforthecosts.Drainage Act,R.S.O.1990,c.D.17 subs.10(4)._-After the meeting to consider the ?nal report.if the petition does not comply with section 4,the project is terminated and the originalpetitionersareresponsibleforthecostsinsharesproportionaltotheirassessmentintheengineer's report.Drainage Act,R.S.O.1990,cD.17 s.43.-if the project proceeds to completion,a share of the cost of the project will be assessed to the involved properties in relation to theassessmentscheduleintheengineer's report,as amended on appeal.Drainage Act,R.S.O.1990,c.D.17 s.61.Notice of Collection of Personal informationAnypersonalinformationcollectedonthisform is collected under the authority of the Drainage Act,R.S.O.1990,c.D.17 and will be used forthepurposesofadministeringtheAct.Questions concerning the collection of personal information should be directed to:where the form is addressed to a municipality(municipality to complete)and where the form is addressed to a territory without municipal organization,the Drainage Coordinator,Ministryof Agriculture,Food and RuralAffairs,1 Stone Rd W,Guelph ON N1G 4Y2,519 826-3552.01735 (2022/oa)Page 6 of 9Page 653 of 847 Section4 E E E E E E E E Shouldpeonbeaccepted? E localmunicipalies: Isenvironmentalappraisal desired?6(1) localmunicipalies:Isa benetcoststatement desired?7(1) Hasanenvironmentalappraisalor benetcoststatementbeenrequested? Shouldanengineer beappointed?8(1) Isanenvironmentalappraisalor benetcoststatementdesired? 6(2)and7(2) Shouldapreliminary reportbeprepared? Isthepeonsll valid?10(5) Shouldtheproject proceed?10(5) Isthepeonvalid? Peoners Canavalidpeonbe resubmiedwithin 60days?(95) Meengtoconsiderpreliminaryreport10 PeonledwithCouncil4(1) Peonersnoedofdecision5(1)a PeonershaverightofappealtoTribunal5(2) Nocesent5(1)(b) Councilinstructsengineer toproducenalreport9(5)or10(5) Engineerpreparesandlespreliminaryreport10(1) Clerksendsnocesofmeengtoconsiderpreliminary reporttoaectedpares10(2) Engineerpresentspreliminaryreport Councilgivesownersopportunitytoaddor withdrawnamesfromthepeon10(3) Engineerholds on-sitemeeng9(1) Councilreceivesfeedback Requestsenttocouncilwithin30daysRequestsenttocouncilwithin30days PeonershaverightofappealtoTribunal8(3) Peonershaverightofappeal toTribunal10(6) Engineerreportstocouncilhowthe peonisdecient9(4) Proceedings stop9(4) Noacon required Noacon required Original peoners paycostsand theproject stops10(4) Connued E E Engineerpreparesnalreportandles withmunicipalitywithin1year39(1) FigureA2-1.Peondrainprocedures(Secon4). 16 PartA–ApplicaonoftheDrainageActRequirements Page 7 of 9 Page 654 of 847 E Shouldtheproject proceed?41(1)PeonershaverightofappealtoTribunal45(2) Connued E E Meengtoconsider nalreport41-44 Clerk(s)sendsnoceofmeengtoconsidernal report41(1)and41(2) Engineerpresentsnalreport Peonershaverightofappealto Tribunal45(2) Original peoners paycostsand theproject stops10(4) Isthepeonsll valid?43 Shouldtheproject proceed? 44 Councilgivesownersopportunitytoaddor withdrawnamesfromthepeon42 AppealofC.O.Rdecision ledwithin21days Reportreferredback toengineer57 10days AppealtoTribunalandrefereeledwithin40daysaersending Tribunalhearsappealsfrom decisionofC.O.R.on assessments54 Theseappealstepsonlyoccurifappealsareled Tribunalhearsappealon technicalaspectsofthework 48,49,50 Refereehearsappealsonlegal aspectsofthework47(1) Councilprovisionallyadoptsthereportbyby-law 45(1) Clerkssendoutprovisionalby-lawandnoceofthe courtofrevision(C.O.R.)46(1)and(2) ChangesorderedbytheCoRorTribunal,ifany,are putintoeectbytheclerk56 20-30daysaersending,C.O.R.hearsappealon assessments52(1) Aerallappealshavebeenheardormefor appealinghasexpired(min40days),by-lawmaybe passed58(1) E Aretenderprices33%higher thanesmate? EAppealsledwithin1yearofprojectcompleon Meengtoconsidertenderprice59 Tenderingoccurs Accepttenderandproceedtoconstrucon Clerk(s)sendsnoceofmeengto considertenderprice(59(1) Tenderpricesare presented Councilgivesowners opportunitytoaddorwithdraw namesfromthepeon42 Projectconstructed Post-construconadministravework: –by-lawamendedtoreectactualcosts62(1) –assessmentslevied62(1) –grantsappliedfor88 –by-lawregistered68 Projectcomplete PeonershaverightofappealtoTribunal64 Original peoners paycostsand theproject stops43 Isthequalityofworksasfactory? 64 E Isthepeonsllvalid? 42 L ProceedingStop DecisionPoint GeneralAcons MovetoAnother Process Projectscope meeng SS Peoners/Owners Engineer MunicipalSta CouncilofIniang Municipality Conservaonauthority (CA),provincialorlocal government Appeal 1Projectscopingmeengsarenotrequiredbythe DrainageAct.Theyareasuggestedaddiontotheprocess asapotenalmeanstoresolveissues 17 GeneralGuidanceonKeySecons,DrainageAct,1990 Page 8 of 9 Page 655 of 847 Overview of 5981 Willow Road TOWN OF NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE ma.- \ \ u u \x‘ ‘ ELLl ‘},59;§1"j”’1‘WILLOWRD N V VT/TLLow_p__D}M = — TOWN OF FORT ERIE Qty 07 Nxagara FaHs "1u 1 i IF EsL.__:___;::; CITY OF PORT CDLBORNE H YOWN or FORT ERIE city of Niagara FaHs 0 05 1 2 Z:j Kilometers Created:7/alzuzz Page 9 of 9 Page 656 of 847 MW-2023-22 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) Updates Recommendation(s) 1. That the Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) be updated to clarify eligibility requirements, streamline the application process, meet the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, and reduce risk to the City. Executive Summary The Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) is a grant that was established by the City over 20 years ago to assist eligible homeowners reduce their risk of basement flooding through disconnection of weeping tiles from the sanitary sewer and installation of backwater valves on their sanitary sewer laterals. In recent years, the annual program budget has been set at $500,000, and has provided grants of up to $5,200 for an average of 50 to 60 homes each year. While the City is in no way required to provide any funding for this type of work, it can provide benefit to the sanitary sewer system, its users and the environment through the reduction of wet weather flow induced sewer surcharging, sewer overflows and basement flooding. Many municipalities across Ontario offer similar grant programs. Based on a detailed review, several updates to the program are recommended in order to clarify eligibility requirements, streamline the application process, meet the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, and redu ce risk to the City. Background The Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program (WRAP) is a grant to assist eligible homeowners reduce their risk of basement flooding through disconnection of weeping tiles from the sanitary sewer and installation of backwater valves on their sanitary sewer laterals. In the event of heavy rainfall, weeping tiles that are directly connected to the sanitary sewer system can overload the system and may increase the risk of sewer back up and basement flooding, furthermore homes that do not have a backwater valve are at a greater risk of sewer back up and basement flooding. A weeping tile, also called a foundation drain, is a small pipe that runs around the outside of a house at the bottom of the foundation walls to drain ground w ater and rain Page 1 of 8 Page 657 of 847 water away from the foundation. Depending on how the house was constructed, the weeping tile may be connected directly to a sewer, or it may be connected to a sump pump that pumps the water either into a sewer or to the ground surface outsid e the house. Until the mid-1980’s it was acceptable practice to connect weeping tiles to sanitary sewers. It is no longer acceptable, to connect weeping tiles to sanitary sewers, and it is not considered good practice to connect them to storm sewers. During heavy rainfall events water from weeping tiles can very quickly overwhelm the sewer and cause the sewer to back up into basements, or overflow to the environment. Disconnecting weeping tiles from the sewer may help to reduce the risk of basement flooding and the chances of sewer overflows to the environment. Backwater valves are designed to prevent sewage from backing up into homes during heavy rainfall events. During normal use, the backwater valve remains open. This allows wastewater from toilets, shower, sinks, etc. to flow freely to the sewer. If flow reverses because the mainline sewer is overloaded with rain water, the backwater valve will automatically close, thereby protecting your basement from a backup. Once the rain event is over, the backwater valve will re-open to allow wastewater to flow normally to the sewer. The City’s WRAP program was established 20 plus years ago. On average, the program sees approximately 100 applicants annually, with approximately 50 -60 grants awarded to eligible applicants each year. The financial support currently offered by the program is as follows: • For Weeping Tile disconnection, the grant will cover 100% of eligible costs to a maximum of $4,000 including taxes. • For Backwater Valve installation, the grant will cover 100% of eligible costs to a maximum of $1,200 including taxes. Analysis Municipal Works Staff have completed a detailed review of the WRAP program and are recommending some updates that will: • make the program more accessible to residents, • make the application approval process for simpler for staff and residents alike, and • reduce potential consequences and risk to the City A summary of key elements of the program and the recommended changes follows. Eligibility: Program eligibility is not clearly stated in the existing program materials; however the program is intended to serve residential properties that are connected to the municipal sanitary sewer system. With respect to eligibility for funding of backwater valve installation, existing program materials state that properties with a history of basement flooding, or that are located “within a flood prone area as designated by the City” are Page 2 of 8 Page 658 of 847 considered eligible. The City does not maintain detailed records, nor is this a recommended practice from a liability perspective. It is recommended that program eligibility be updated to remove the current WRAP program requirement of a history of basement flooding and located within a flood prone area as follows: • Single Family Detached or Semi-Detached homes located within the City of Niagara Falls Urban Area and connected to the municipal sanitary sewer system are eligible for the grant. Technical Specifications: The program has historically specified the size and capacity of the sump pump and required the installation of a backup power source for the sump pump. The requirement for backup power is beyond the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, it provides no additional benefit to the City, and it represents additional costs. The City should n ot specify the capacity or size of any equipment, this should be determined by the plumber based on the specific characteristics of the subject property. It is recommended that the requirement for a backup power source be eliminated and that the technical specifications be updated as follows: • Weeping Tile Disconnection and Installation of Sump Pump work and materials shall meet the requirements of the Ontario Building Code. • Backwater Valve Installation work and materials shall meet the requirements of the Ontario Building Code. This change reduces the required work and costs of the program, making it more affordable for residents, yet still meets the requirements of the Ontario Building Code. Pre- and Post-Installation Inspections: All work under the WRAP program is subject to inspection by a City Building Inspector as mandated by the Ontario Building Code. This requirement will not change. The purpose of the building inspection is to confirm that the requirements of the Ontario Building Code have been met; it is not a guarantee of the equipment or workmanship. In addition to the inspection by Building Department staff, the existing program process also involves two inspections by Municipal Works WRAP program technical staff. The first inspection is completed to confirm the presence of a weeping tile connection to the sanitary sewer before any work is completed, and the second is to confirm that all equipment beyond the requirements of the Ontario Building Code (i.e. the backup power system) has been installed. Review of the program has concluded that these inspections are unnecessary and may represent risk to the City. City staff responsible for these inspections have no training or qualifications related to plumbing or the building code. The pre-installation inspection by City staff is unnecessary; any effort to determine the work required is the responsibility of the property owner and their plumber, and the City should have no involvement in this process. Although not intended as such, homeowners often interpret any inspection by the City as some Page 3 of 8 Page 659 of 847 measure of warranty of the completed work; elimination of the post-installation inspection will eliminate this potential risk. Building Permits: It is the responsibility of the homeowner to obtain a building permit in order to complete the work and this Building Code requirement will not change. The fee for a building permit is approximately $200 for WRAP work. Building permit fees are collected by the City to cover the costs associated with staff performing inspections as mandated by the Ontario Building Code. Historically, the requirement for WRAP applicants to pay the building permit fee has been waived, and the fees have been charged to the Municipal Works operating account. In order to promote financial sustainability, and transparency, it is recommended that building permit fees no longer be “waived”, and that applicants be required to pay the fee, but also allow the fee to be an eligible cost for reimbursement within the funding limits. Payment: Historically, plumbers have submitted their invoices to the City and the City has paid the plumbers directly. This arrangement may appear to imply a contract between the City and the plumber and invites risk to the City. It is recommended that the program be changed to a rebate approach, whereby the homeowners retain and enter into a contract with the plumbing company and pay for all work, then apply to the City for the grant. Following review of all required documentation, the grant will be released to the homeowner. This change promotes transparency of program financing and eliminates the potential for any implied or perceived contract between the City and contractors, or any responsibility of the City related to the ownership, operation, maintenance or repair of the installed work. Program Process The recommended program changes will reduce and simplify the steps required by homeowners to complete the application process, resulting in a faster and less complex process. The recommended changes also reduce City Staff inv olvement in what is otherwise a private property home improvement project, thus reducing potential risk to the City. The figure below compares the existing program process to the recommended process. Figure 1 - WRAP Program Process Page 4 of 8 Page 660 of 847 Operational Implications and Risk Analysis The recommended changes to the program are intended to simplify and streamline the program process for Staff and residents alike and reduce the risk of potential consequences and liability to the City associated with the subsidy of private property improvements. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Page 5 of 8 Page 661 of 847 The recommended changes to the program promote transparency and sustainability of program financing. While no changes to the funding amount are recommended, recovery of building permit fees will have a positive impact on the program budget. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The recommendations of this report align with the following Strategic Pillars: • Financial Sustainability - Financial sustainability refers to the ability of the City of Niagara Falls to effectively manage its financial resources to meet its current and future obligations, without relying on external sources of funding, and without sacrificing its ability to deliver essential services to its residents. While the City is under no obligation to provide any funding to property owners for wee ping tile disconnection or backwater valve installation, the program does provide some measure of benefit to the City’s sewer system, and similar programs are fairly common in other municipalities across Ontario. • Environmental Sustainability - Environmental sustainability refers to the practices and policies that the City of Niagara Falls implements to ensure the health and well-being of the environment for current and future generations. This involves improving existing or implementing new policies and practices that ensure that the City’s drainage infrastructure is designed and maintained in a manner that meets or exceeds legislated environmental requirements and mitigates the impacts of climate change to preserve and improve the quality of life for residents in the community. • Customer Service - The City of Niagara Falls prides itself on fostering a culture that prioritizes customer service. The recommendations of this report intend to clarify program eligibility, terms and conditions, and simplify the process for homeowners and staff alike – all to promote improved customer service to the City’s residents. Contributor(s) Tara Gudgeon, Senior Manager Asset Management List of Attachments weeping tile sketch Written by: Sue Noble, Infrastructure Services Program Supervisor Tara Gudgeon, Infrastructure Asset Manager Submitted by: Status: Erik Nickel, Director of Municipal Works Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 04 Jul 2023 Page 6 of 8 Page 662 of 847 Page 7 of 8 Page 663 of 847 WASTEVIITIISEWII VIASVWIAYIISW3 uwmpmnsaugasnnnmunmnm ' muponnulkuhmwnphgukh.dlsaunnemdmdxumppumplovnswatevrally Page 8 of 8Page 664 of 847 PBD-2023-43 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Matters Arising from the Municipal Heritage Committee 2023 Designated Property Grant - Spence Sherriff House 5993 Barker Street Recommendation(s) That Council approve the proposed alteration and a grant in the amount of $1,412.00 to assist with the cost of the restoration of two columns supporting the verandah on the Spence-Sherriff house at 5993 Barker Street as it will not alter the reasons for designation and will assist in maintaining the appearance of the house that has been achieved overtime. Executive Summary The Designated Property Grant program was developed to assist Designated Heritage Property owners with the cost of restoration, rehabilitation, conservation and repair of significant architectural features on the exterior of the properties. The program funds 50% of the cost of the restoration, rehabilitation, repair or conservation projects to a maximum of $5,000 per property per year. There have been two previous grants awarded this year that have used the budgeted amount of the grant program, but there are funds available that have accumulated over the previous years when the grant program was not fully subscribed. The Municipal Heritage Committee is in support of the application for the Spence-Sherriff House for the restoration of two pillars on the front verandah. Although not original to the house, this verandah has been in existence for a considerable amount of time and was in place at the time of designation. The total project cost of $2,825.00 will mean that the maximum amount of a grant will be $1,412.00. Background Spence Sherriff House – 5993 Barker Street c. 1885 An application has been submitted by the owner to assist with the cost of restoring two of the three pillars supporting the verandah on the front elevation of the house. Page 1 of 4 Page 665 of 847 The Spence Sherriff house was built by noted brick layer and mason, Henry Spence. It is built in the Italianate style featuring eave brackets, low pitched roof, symmetrical window and door openings and a verandah across the entire front of the house. Some of the more notable heritage attributes of the property include • Two storey, red brick house with Italianate features; • Slightly rounded transom window over the front door; • Bay window on the east side of house; • Side entrance; • Single storey post and beam garage at rear of property; • Location just south of the Battleground of the Battle of Lundy’s Lane and on the eastern flank of the U.S. position. Analysis The Grant Guidelines outline that Designated Property grants may be applied to the restoration, repair, conservation or reconstruction of significant architectural features if the historical evidence of these features can be documented. The verandah appears in photos seen at the time of designation. The grant application is for the restoration of two of three pillars that support the roof of the verandah. It is likely that the two pillars needing restoring have been subjected to the effects of weather more than the centre pillar. The restoration of the pillars is part of an ongoing effort to conserve the house. After reviewing the application, the Municipal Heritage Committee made the following motion: “That the Committee supports the restoration of two of three pillars that supp ort the verandah roof as it will not alter the reasons for designation of the property and will assist in maintaining the appearance of the Spence-Sherriff House” The Designated Property Grant program assists with funding of 50% for eligible projects to a maximum of $5,000. The approximate cost of the project will be $2,825 so 50% of this cost is $1,412.00. Financial Implications/Budget Impact The total annual budget amount for the Designated Property Grant program is $10,000 which has been allocated to two previous grants. The funds for this grant application will come from funds that were not allocated from previous years. List of Attachments Schedule 1 Written by: Peggy Boyle, Assistant Planner Page 2 of 4 Page 666 of 847 Submitted by: Status: Andrew Bryce, Director of Planning Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 03 Jul 2023 Page 3 of 4 Page 667 of 847 SCHEDULE 1 Page 4 of 4 Page 668 of 847 MW-2023-19 Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: July 11, 2023 Title: Residential Drainage Assistance Program Recommendation(s) 1. THAT the Residential Urban Drainage Assistance Pilot Program be discontinued, and the associated Policy be repealed, and 2. THAT operating budget contributions for the Residential Urban Drainage Assistance Pilot Program be reallocated toward the implementation of stormwater infrastructure, municipal drain and roadside ditch capital planning and rehabilitation programs, and 3. THAT the City’s existing Private Property Grading and Drainage Policy be revised and simplified so that it is clear, easy to understand and implement, and 4. THAT a program to educate the Public on drainage responsibilities, and to educate City Staff and Council on drainage responsibilities and appropriate responses to public enquiries about drainage matters be developed and implemented by staff, and 5. THAT the City will not provide technical advice, conduct work on private property, or otherwise intervene in private property grading and drainage matters. Executive Summary Municipal Works staff respond to hundreds of calls each year from residents with complaints of poor drainage of their property. In response to this, in 2020 Council approved the Residential Urban Drainage Assistance Policy and Pilot Program directing staff to investigate, provide advice on, and potentially remediate private property drainage problems. To fund the program an annual operating budget of $50,000 has been allocated to the program, which is supported by two full time staff and program supervision. Maintenance of private property drainage is the responsibility of the property owner. As with all municipal services, the City’s responsibility ends at the property line, and the City is under no obligation to maintain or improve drainage on private property. The drainage program was created with good intentions to assist private property owners. A detailed technical and legal review of the program has, however, revealed that the program was not implemented in accordance with the associated policy as approved by council, nor was it implemented in accordance with any design standard or best practice. Page 1 of 32 Page 669 of 847 By providing technical advice on, or undertaking work to improve drainage on private property, the City risks potential financial, reputational, technical, and environmental consequences and liabilities. The City’s role in private property drainage matters should be limited to applying and enforcing the regulatory regime that has been established through its existing by-laws. Background Since 2017, Municipal Works staff have responded to an average of 100+ calls each year from residents with complaints of poor drainage of their property. As illustrated by Figure 1, drainage complaints are widespread throughout the urban area. While some complaints stem from a general lack of adequate grade to promote runoff and absorption into the ground, typically in older neighbourhoods, the vast majority of complaints relate to changes in grade by neighbouring property owners. In rare cases, these complaints relate to runoff from the City’s right of way or from City owned property. A review of complaint records provides the following breakdown of causes: • 1% - Runoff from City right-of-way or City owned property • 2% - Grade changes on neighbouring properties due to development • 15% - Grade changes by neighbour due to construction of pools, sheds, etc. • 20% - Poor grading in general (typically older neighbourhoods) • 62% - Placement of fill in rear yard swales or elsewhere by neighbour related to gardening, landscaping, etc. In many cases, residents incorrectly believe that drainage of their property is a City responsibility. Some residents call simply to seek advice on solving drainage problems, while others want, or in some cases expect the City to intervene in what should be considered a civil matter between neighbours. Figure 1 – Locations of Drainage Complaints Page 2 of 32 Page 670 of 847 In 2020 Council approved the Residential Urban Drainage Assistance Policy and Pilot Program directing staff to investigate, provide advice on, and potentially remediate private property drainage problems. The policy defines eligibility criteria and provides a framework for prioritizing work on private properties based on the severity and extent of drainage problems. An annual operating budget of $50,000 has been allocated to the program in recent years and two full time staff dedicate approximately 50% of their time to the program. The staff dedicated to the drainage program are also responsible for the City’s Weeping Tile Removal Assistance Program(WRAP), fulfilling the duties of the Drainage Superintendent, completing condition assessments of all core assets, and other initiatives related to the City’s Asset Management and Capital Planning functions. Drainage program staff also receive invaluable support from many other staff including Clerks, Operations, By-law Enforcement, Legal Services. The program was initiated as a Pilot, with the intention of it being reviewed after one year. As a result of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the review was not completed; some program activities were paused during lockdowns, but otherwise staff continued to run the program. With the end of the Pandemic, and changes in staff responsible for the program, it is now an opportune time to review the program in its entirety. In preparing this report, Staff have completed a detailed internal review of the Drainage Program and engaged the services of consulting engineers and third party legal to advise on the legal, technical and financial aspects of the program. Analysis Page 3 of 32 Page 671 of 847 Roles and Responsibilities Maintenance of private property drainage management is the responsibility of the property owner and not the City and or Municipality. Drainage generally falls within the realm of common law unless specific legislation applies. Under common law, uncollected surface water may flow from one property to another, and the owner of the receiving property has no grounds for legal action. The owner of the receiving property, however, does not have to accept that surface water, and may block it from flowing onto their property. Conversely, damage to a receiving property caused by collected surface water, such as discharge from a downspout, or flow from a sewer, could be grounds for legal action. Note that in the case of road drainage, the Road Authority (i.e., the City of Niagara Falls or the Region of Niagara) is the property owner and subject to the same common law principles. Private property drainage is the responsibility of the property owner and any conflict between neighbours is inherently a civil matter. The City is under no obligation to provide any assistance to property owners with private drainage problems and should not intervene in civil disputes related to drainage. Outside of the urban area, drainage is provided by roadside ditches and municipal drains with outlets to natural watercourses. Within the urban area, drainage service is primarily provided by the City’s storm sewers. In addition to providing drainage of th e road allowance (the road authority’s property), the storm sewers also provide surface drainage to portions of private property as front yards typically slope to drain toward the street. As with all other core services, the City’s responsibility ends at the property line and property owners are responsible for any work on their property to “connect” to the service. Table 1 summarizes which parties are responsible for addressing various drainage issues within the City’s right of way and on private property. Table 1 - Drainage Responsibilities Issue Responsibility Ponding due to plugged roadside or rear yard catchbasins Municipal Works - Operations Ponding due to overflowing ditches Applicable Road Authority Ponding due to downspouts or sump pump discharges from neighbouring property By-Law Enforcement Ponding due to un-assumed subdivisions Municipal Works - Engineering Ponding related to construction under current building permits (buildings, sheds, pools, etc.) on neighbouring property Property Owner with Third-Party Verification (Contact Building Department for questions regarding building permits) Page 4 of 32 Page 672 of 847 Ponding on private property related to construction not under a current building permit (buildings, sheds, pools, patios, gardens, etc.) or grade changes on neighbouring property. Property Owner Any works pursuant to the Drainage Act Drainage Superintendent Program Issues Despite the Policy’s eligibility and evaluation requirements, the pilot program provides no direct benefit to the City or its storm drainage system, or the public, only to private property owners. Additionally, while property owners are expected to be nefit from improved drainage, there is no documented monitoring or follow-up to quantify improvements as they may not be measurable. Drainage issues are widespread across the city, as illustrated by Figure 1. While the City’s storm sewer network was designed to accommodate some portions of private property runoff through connections at specific locations, they were not designed to accommodate the addition of drainage connections to resolve widespread private property drainage issues, nor is this considered an engineering best practice. It could be argued that the addition of such connections will actually reduce the structural and operational capacity of system relative to its intended design. This Program has created a public perception that City Staff will become involved in civil disputes through enforcement of by-laws or Building/Engineering standards. City staff should not be involved in civil disputes. Where work is conducted on private property, there exists the issue of optics from the perspective of neighbours who may wonder why the City is working to improve one property versus another. It could be argued that the property value may be increased by improving its drainage characteristics at the public’s expense. Staff resources should be applied to drainage improvement activities which benefit all taxpayers such as condition assessment, rehabilitation, and maintenance of storm sewers, ditches, and municipal drains. While the City currently requires property owners to sign a waiver before any work is completed on private property, depending on the circumstances, these waivers may or may not completely absolve the City of responsibility in any given case should flooding issues continue or occur. For the same reason, staff should not be providing residents with any advice regarding drainage options on private property. The City’s role in private property drainage matters should be limited to applying and enforcing the regulatory regime that has been established through its existing by-laws. Drainage Related Legislative Considerations Common Law Page 5 of 32 Page 673 of 847 Drainage generally falls within the realm of common law unless specific legislation applies. At common law, uncollected surface water may flow from one property to another, and the owner of the receiving property has no grounds for legal action. The owner of the receiving property, however, does not have to accept that surface water, and may block it from flowing onto their property. Conversely, damage to a receiving property caused by collected surface water, such as discharge from a downspout, or flow from a sewer, could be grounds for legal action. Note that in the case of road drainage, the Road Authority (i.e., the City of Niagara Falls or the Region of Niagara) is the property owner and subject to the same common law principles. Private property drainage is the responsibility of the property owner and any conflict between neighbours is inherently a civil mat ter. The City is under no obligation to provide any assistance to property owners with private drainage problems and should not intervene in civil disputes related to drainage. The Drainage Act The Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17 sets out the procedure to establish and maintain Municipal Drains where the need for improved drainage has been identified by private property owners (or the road authority) and includes the requisite responsibilities of landowners and municipalities. A drainage plan is developed through a communal, democratic process and project costs and future maintenance costs are shared by those landowners who contribute runoff to the drain and benefit from it. There are three key elements of a Municipal Drain: • Community Project – Property owners in need of a solution to drainage problems must work together and petition the municipality to initiate the establishment of a drain. • Legal Existence – Details pertaining to the drain are registered on the title of the land and are enacted under a by-law. As property ownership changes over time, the responsibilities associated with the drain remain tied to the benefitting properties which eliminates the potential need for Permanent Drainage Easements. • Municipal Infrastructure – Once a drain has been established under the authority of a by-law, it becomes part of the municipality’s infrastructure. The municipality is then responsible for repairing and maintaining the drain, while all costs associated with construction, repair and maintenance are assessed to the benefitting property owners. The Drainage Act is typically applied to satisfy rural drainage needs but could provide a suitable framework for urban drainage issues that affect numerous adjacent properties (case examples exist), however this is not being recommended at this time. The Planning Act The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c P.13 is provincial legislation which establishes a framework for the regulation of land use and development in Ontario. This legislation allows municipalities to address storm water management though Page 6 of 32 Page 674 of 847 various approval processes including lot creation, subdivision, and site planning. This authority is reflected in the City's Lot Grading and Drainage Policy for Subdivisions (included as Attachment 1), which states: "2.4 b) The date on the Grading Conformance Certificate shall mark the end of the City's and Subdivider's/Developer's/Builder's responsibility to establish the lot grading and the beginning of the owner's responsibility to maintain the grading and drainage scheme.” Further to the above, the City’s current engineering design standards specify minimum requirements for the design and construction of grading and drainage features on private property and within the right-of-way. In combination with the design standards, the City’s subdivision development agreements include provisions that require developers to manage drainage within their land and to not negatively impact neighbouring properties. The Municipal Act The Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 provides a comprehensive framework for governance by and of Ontario municipalities. The Act sets out the powers and duties of municipalities and allows them to pass by-laws and govern within their jurisdiction. These include the power to enact by-laws relating to the management of stormwater. While not legally obliged to provide stormwater management services, municipalities can have a significant role in identifying needs and prioritizing areas where stormwater management improvements would be beneficial. Like any municipal action, the provision of stormwater services exposes the municipality to potential liability if persons or property suffer harm from flooding. Part XV of the Act provides immunity to municipalities and employees for liability in nuisance in connection with escape of water from a sewage system, but not from liability resulting from negligence or failure to follow policies and by-laws. Various flooding-related case studies have found municipalities negligent for these operational decisions. O.Reg 586/06 Local Improvement Charges Alternatively, in urban areas, property owners who wish for the Municipality to provide an increased level of service through the construction of new storm sewers to service their property can use the Local Improvement Charges Regulation (O. Reg 586/06: Local Improvement Charges – Priority Lien Status, amended by O. Reg. 322/12), under the Municipal Act, 2001 which uses a similar process to the Drainage Act. with both prescribed methods for extending services to private properties, the costs of design, construction, and ongoing maintenance are distributed amongst the benefitting property owners. Industry Comparators Page 7 of 32 Page 675 of 847 City staff completed a review of local municipal Best Practices related to private property drainage through internet research, and through consultation with each of the 11 other municipalities in the Niagara Region. Except for the City of Welland, none of the other local municipalities in the Niagara Region provide any assistance or advice to private property owners with drainage problems; all maintain that the issue of private property drainage is the responsibility of the property owner, and any dispute is a civil matter. Table 2, below, lists each of the local Niagara municipalities and provides links to their drainage websites where they exist. In the City of Welland, while it is recognized that a private property drainage conflict is a civil matter, property owners are provided some support in mitigating drainage disputes through the City’s Site Alteration By-law. When a property owner initiates a complaint of drainage problems caused by site alteration by a neighbour, City staff visit the subject properties to investigate. Where staff determine that unauthorized site alteration has occurred, evidenced by obviously and recently disturbed soil, staff may order the offending property owner to reinstate grading to its original condition. This approach cannot be used consistently, however, as it is challenging to establish original design conditions and determine how they may have been altered by resident activities. The City does not retain historical as-constructed swale and/or grading plans for subdivisions and they are not provided to residents upon home purchase. The City should promote its Lot Grading and Drainage Policy that maintenance of a private property’s grading and drainage scheme is the owner’s responsibility. Table 2 – Drainage Websites in Niagara Municipalities Municipality Link to Drainage Website or Materials Fort Erie https://www.forterie.ca/pages/DrainageMunicipalDrains Grimsby https://www.grimsby.ca/en/living-in/water- leakage.aspx#Drainage-issues-on-private-property Lincoln None available Niagara-on-the-Lake None available Pelham https://www.pelham.ca/en/living-here/lot-grading-and- drainage.aspx Port Colborne None available St. Catharines None available Thorold None available Wainfleet None available Welland None available West Lincoln None available Recommendations In order mitigate potential risk to the City associated with private property drainage matters, the following is recommended: Page 8 of 32 Page 676 of 847 1. That the Residential Urban Drainage Assistance Pilot Program be discontinued, and the associated Policy be repealed. Staff currently responsible for operation of the program, working under the direction of the Drainage Superintendent will continue to be available to respond to general drainage enquiries, however this recommendation will free up valuable staff time to be redirected to the City’s drainage obligations. 2. That operating budget contributions for the Residential Urban Drainage Assistance Pilot Program be reallocated toward the implementation of stormwater infrastructure, municipal drain and roadside ditch capital planning and rehabilitation programs. Similar to the above, this recommendation will free up valuable resources to address the City’s drainage obligations. 3. That the City’s existing Private Property Grading and Drainage Policy be revised and simplified so that it is clear, easy to understand and implement. Draft wording of the policy is included in Attachment 2 along with other draft material for posting on the City’s website. 4. That a program to educate the Public on drainage responsibilities, and to educate City Staff and Council on drainage responsibilities and appropriate responses to public enquiries about drainage matters be developed and implemented by staff. This will ensure clear and consistent responses from staff and Council to residents. Draft website material, including “Who to Call” for drainage issues, is included in Attachment 2. 5. That the City will not provide technical advice, conduct work on private property, or otherwise intervene in private property grading and drainage matters. As stated, it is neither a best practice, nor a requirement for the City to intervene in these matters, and doing so puts the City at risk. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis Detailed review of the Drainage Program has revealed that the pilot program was not implemented in accordance with the associated policy as approved by Council, nor was it implemented in accordance with any design standards or best practice. Further, the Drainage Policy does not delineate and clarify the City’s role with respect to drainage problems on private property as originally intended, but rather has complicated the City’s role by overstepping original good intentions. All of this has created potential consequences and liabilities for the City. Financial Implications/Budget Impact An annual operating budget of $50,000 has been allocated to the drainage program in recent years and two full time staff dedicate approximately 50% of their time to the program. These resources can and should be reallocated to initiatives for which the City has legislated obligations, such as condition assessment, maintenance and rehabilitation of the City’s storm sewers, stormwater management ponds, roadside ditches and municipal drains. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The recommendations of this report align with the following Strategic Pillars: Page 9 of 32 Page 677 of 847 • Financial Sustainability - Financial sustainability refers to the ability of the City of Niagara Falls to effectively manage its financial resources to meet its current and future obligations. The City has an obligation to maintain its drainage infrastructure (storm sewers, stormwater management ponds, roadside ditches and municipal drains) in a state of good repair. Resources expended on private property drainage improvements lowers the City’s ability to meet its obligations with respect to drainage. • Environmental Sustainability - Environmental sustainability refers to the practices and policies that the City of Niagara Falls implements to ensure the health and well-being of the environment for current and future generations. This involves improving existing or implementing new policies and practices that ensure that the City’s drainage infrastructure is designed and maintained in a manner that meets or exceeds legislated environmental requirements and mitigates the impacts of climate change to preserve and improve the quality of life for residents in the community. • Customer Service - The City of Niagara Falls prides itself on fostering a culture that prioritizes customer service. The development of this report has revealed that much confusion and lack of information exists around responsibilities respecting drainage and this represents a shortcoming in customer service. The recommendations of this report intend to clarify responsibilities respecting drainage and represent Staff and Council’s commitment to continuous improvement in Customer Service. Contributor(s) Sue Noble, Infrastructure Services Program Supervisor/Drainage Superintendent Tara Gudgeon, Senior Manager Asset Management List of Attachments Attachment 1_City of Niagara Falls Lot Grading Drainage Policy for Subdivisions (June 1989) Attachment 2_Draft Drainage Website Material Written by: Sue Noble, Infrastructure Services Program Supervisor Tara Gudgeon, Infrastructure Asset Manager Submitted by: Status: Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 07 Jul 2023 Page 10 of 32 Page 678 of 847 GdONi WEBm.Weama, 9ePF34! mm»0.REM. wMwrwmm9...n Um. «nuV uMSH .L.8 mmL mm @865, mns M; ?agged a?eugem *9 Emma m .\\$>Em(my $%.§@§$EA! Z:x/auxw\\\»»s§\§$\%\\»:Page 11 of 32Page 679 of 847 g 01 1 sauna—~xypuaddv 8 """""""""""""DNIGVHD J.O’I NOISIAKIHOS H03 SEINYIEICIIHDNDISEIG '8 L """"""""""'“SNV'I<IDNIGVEID.LO'I }!O:I SLNHWEHIHZDEIX’IV/DINHOELL‘L 9 """"""""""""""""""""""""“SNV'IrI "IOELLNOQHGVHD NOISIAIGHHS }IO:I SLNHINHXIHCHH’IVC)INHOHJ.'9 S """"""""""""""""""""""''EI.I.VZ)I:IIJ..HE{C)EIONVI/\IHO:INOODNICIVHD :10 EIDNVIISSIHEUHV DNICIVHD0.1.SNOISIAEIH 'S S """"""""''NOISIAIC(HI1S :10 EIC)NV.I.dE{C)3V HELIAVNOI.L'.)1’1}I.LSNOC)MEN ‘17 S """""""""""""""""""'‘.l1SOcIEI(I DNICIVHDS.2lEICUAI(1$I{1S :10 EISVE["I3}{‘E v .....................................................gmamuso Qoueuuquoo gamma Vz V............................,....“Em gulpmo 10,1 pgwnusuoawsv €.z V .........................................smawmgnbag uopomslloo Z.Z E .........................................................nusuemguwma10,1 pgsodwd I.Z E ......................................................... .‘SLNHWHHIHOHHDNIGVHD Lon .Z "sxmuag ?ugpnna 0:101.15sluawsxgnbag §u_rp1e.I{)91 g ~--''''''''''''''''''"mamgonuog)9131310uogswpqng 01 suogsg/mg g‘; Z ............................................................Mmq;Su0ds9H ampwgpqns VI Z .......................................................tV1!s0dQGguwmos?pmpqns E.1 Z .............................................................. ............... ..99?u3!s9(I Z.I 1 """"""""""""""""""''mam1oI1uo;)apeig uogsg/xypqng go uogllamdoxd (‘I I """"""""""""""""""""""""SJ.NEIWE1HIflOEI}I DNIGVHD NOISIAICIEHIS ’I {........................................................A3I,IOd EHL HHGNH SLNEWEHIHDHX '”.»\C)I’I0d 'EII~I.L:IO SHAILDEIISIO S.LN3.LNOOPage 12 of 32Page 680 of 847 'spu12{s;q;o uxamzds?vugmppmz ?uypm?aqz mu;pomodxooug ?u;/xtzq;o snoqsap 3;sq s1s1112u.1/Cuego ‘?upum u;‘Aug sq:as;/xpe {reqs Jzappxgpqns sq]‘uogswpqns 9 .10;u?gsop soopuas ?upaeug?ua aqx fiupsanbox uaq/A (q 's99;13mde?eugmppoof!qum cxnmapzoooeu;suo;u2Aa{:;soegms aA;1e1:>1 J0 1u91uqsqqe1sa sql q?noxqxu.r:>m:ds?eugmp mamxoaqz€uq[o11uoo go asodmd sq:10;um‘;|o.x1uo3 epmg uo;s;/qpqns 12 ‘uogsyxgpqnssq;Jo;s?ugmmp ?ugmaug?ua :>q1}o mzd se ‘91ed:>1<Ineqs uxeflv.51;10 £113 sq;(12 UB|d IOAXUOQ899.13 uogsyupqns $0 U0!3B.l9d9JdL'L SLNEWEEIHDEH E)N!GV&E)NOISIMGEHS '5, qonuoa meldeqs xepun am qagqm sxooyq;o uondaoxq sq]qqm uogswpqns smug exp 01 Axddes1uo1u:;.qnb91asoql,‘musumxgnbzuEu;/mono;aqx aprqou;uvqs snag em?emgo Aug)sq:ug suogsyqpqns go auouxdolamap.10}s1u:)uIaa1§e uogsyxgpqnsmy AOl'lOci .-']H_LHEICINDSLNEIWEHIHDEJH 'sems29ux IomxooIuauqpas pm:uogsora eprqau;mzqs sauxaqos a?eunaxppun ?ugpeag) ‘cqqgssodse qanuu se ugeuax[mmeu sq:9/uassxd snqzpm:emnzuqumxegua?uooaq mnoqs Aoqod sgqz JQDUI1pado1e/mp spun]uo s?zxxyexppma Suypex?sq; waus/{s IQMQS K.re11uessq:I1)1UG}01I saop JQJBM uuozspswdppueun uzqxqons aq pynoqs u0I_:1:)n.11suo0?ugpunq pue s?eugmp‘?ugpm?sq; 'p91:>93;e £195.19/xpe mu .10 pazepouxuxocmzs;spuey xuaaefpe uo 10 mm;siivugmp saaynsemsu;01 pm;pado1:;AapSugeq spmq sq:ugqum pauunuoo-;{9s sg o?euuexpaoegms sxnsu;0; ('91:; ‘suomppa s?ugpnnq ‘slood?ugumqms ‘seffexe?'31)uo;uaAIzoxa oxgnbax qogqm sxmmsmug .10}suonnoqdde uuusd ?uypung sq;q?nmql KoqodS!L[1Japun p<;do1aAapspum uo p9qS11q’81S9suxaqasa?eump pm;?ugpm?sq1 ‘o1 suogspxex 91qexd:>ooe10 ‘go eomzusxugeuxomsuy 0;, '/(amqgsuodsax s_mu/no sq;sauxooaq a?eugmp pue ?ugpm?sq;;o aouzuazugeux out qogqm 19132pmzauxaqosSugpm?sq:30 Juauxqsnqmsa oqx Jog,sxqgsuodsax me lépun?/.l3dO[9A9q/l9p§A pill!K113Ql?l.[C)!X{M01 d1}GLUE)Ug 1(I!O(IE _;0 1U9lLll{S'§]q1?1S3 sq}QIQBUQ01‘ 'saa{1:>e1ds?euyexppooii qum aouepxoooe uy suop1zA:>x:>punox?9/xgwpx go sueaux Aq spue;xu'.>uxdo[aA:p 10;auxaqos ?ugpm?9A[]Z)9}_}9-1803 we30 uopeoi?lxeo pm;auaulqsnqeqsa mu amsu;01, 'L vi '1 ‘p/aseq sg ugsmq pauymuooKoqod sq:qoyqmuodn asgumd sq;Se pasn am suogs;A_rpqng 10}l{3H0&QEEUIEJGPH?EIXEDEIQ10V'[9111J0 S0/x§1(YJ4{q0J0 SIUSILIGIEJS3Ll[lx\O]]O_;QLLL AO!'lOd EIHJ.:!O S-'.:l/\LLO3F8OPage 13 of 32Page 681 of 847 '5“°!5WE1q"S 105 /{sued a?eugmq 29 Sugpmf)101 s,/(113 sq:0:913149201 smumo zuonbssqns 50 Amgqysuodsexsq;Bugumno JIIGHIQJBISe Qpnpug uojsyxgpqns :>q1 ugqlgm s3o1:)SBq0.ll\(I01 S.I9_)}0112mg:amsua mzqsJspyxypqns sq:‘pm?éu sgq]u1 'u21d[o.uuo;)apmg uogsyxgpqng sgql go uogspxsx1s:m210141Lmmaouzapmomau;s;uogswpqns 9111umum5101go ?ugpm? aq11m{19.1nsuo oz 1C1;[;q§suods:n sgappxfpqns 921:;sq neqs 11'1<3;)1A;pqng sq;oz a1q12m2/uz apraxuaq ueqs ‘UO’§S§A’J1ssamS3;.10 umd Ionuog apexg uogsyxgpqngam30 mos V (12 Amwxssucdsaasaepsnspqns in '19?!/\¥Pq“S 911310/C3!!!<1!S"0d59-I“I1 9q NW5 1!S°d9(I Bugpmugs,.r9p;/qpqng am30 xunoumsq:go sssaxg U;s){10m mpauxm asaql 30 5150:)Auv‘Kmssaoaupewaop sxmm(gypsum;/{me go S1503 am.taAo:)01 usodaq Buypmg sgepgagpqng mp asn mm/(xx)sq:‘smqqoxd aql /§;;.1o9.1o11ap1Agpqng 011130 zunmzgLK)d[]_‘suxoyqold sq;3031103 oJ,a:>y1ou s?ep 71 xepyxgpqngsq:9A!.?mmmg mp ‘Aogod sungo s1u:;1.u;;.qnbeuam01eoueyduxozruougounscu2seam\{D].l{/Assgxe sLuo[qo1d o?vugelp mnoqs 'mo{:;q (q apwv xapunpougmoxsmnoure/Cue01 Jaafqns ‘g uopryagug mo ass se .xgp;Appqngamo1p9uJm91squeqsusodaq?ugpsq)sgapgngpqng sgq;':(1;;)911101zqqmgnsuuo; 12u;Jypom go .I91J,é)[1210 ‘qseo Jaqua sq maqs usodap atu‘'9stzq(I1o uovgswpqnsamussq)Jo; ()0{)‘og$}o1gsodep uxnmpmux2 qum ‘:01‘xad0Q~g00*;g;_;o1unoun>.am 1:21,;Ionuog apexg uogsyqpqns sq;30 suogsyxozd sq;mo iluyiueo 10;Kmxns512 Aug):>q;1Imm Jysodop mags mp;/qpqns exp ‘;o:uaq.1 sseqd J0 1ueuxo:;1?vuogswpqng amgo uopnoaxa 30 sumup JV (9 (12 usodaa ?ummo suemrupqns cw ‘9'a}11auomppe masxynbex/{aw Aug 9111‘meld 1onuo;)27pEJ{) uogswpqng sq:o1u;pswmd.xo:>ugsq ox ssutmeeg {weeds xsanbax.1:-apyqpqns empmoqg 'p:>;ssnbo1axe sac;/uos ?xtusamxy?usuaqm Japyxypqns sq;/(q mg)up 01 medsqmzqspun‘1uaw:):u?V uoyspxgpqnssq:30 Mg"ampoqag uo pnnemp S12sxsog ?upaoug?ug sq;u;papnpu;aq ueqs uekg 1o.uuo;)opwg)uoyspxgpqng sq:Elumzdsxd10;:22);sq; (Q (‘E 93,;u?gseq 3'; ‘sxxom pzdyagunyqgo xomsxgq sq:Aq on;no paugmuneuzsq up-A suogs;/Q1 pa/xoxdde/Cuegum ?uopz ue1dp9AOJdd\Zaq_L 's)11oAMnd;o;uny/q30 .1o1:x;.r;(1 oq:Kqpzmoxddeuam pug J9p;AfpqHS Gl?/((1D9/A0]/\9.I Qq “E118‘UB[<[IORIIOQQDUJDuogsg/qpqng ‘[J31$)]dUI03SILL ,_sue;gyo:1u0;)apexg uogswpqngg.10;szuoumxgnbsg 1e:);uqo’.>_L“‘/(aged SN}_xo911124L11;/Aaouwuoguoo ug pzmzdoxd0:s1 ueld 1o.nuo;)apmg uogs;/qpqng aq_L '(sooumsLuncug003 ilugpmooraAm/x/(em Lppgm mp)mp;/n 13;sonaux 9 go umuxgugux2 sq mmpure mm301up no p;ua1u:>o sq Kuwyd?x mmsxueuxsseoasoql ‘sway pue sugseqqzneopm/£129.! me103 snxauxssm‘zououog A133am02 Axomtagsgwsuuo;2 u;put;ssuodxa sgq 122‘A333 mp 03 /(9/moi:maqs lap}/qpqng 91;;‘JUQLU£}9.I3X/uogsg/xypqng 0111go uopnoaxa 30 mug;sq)3V (5 (9 (PPage 14 of 32Page 682 of 847 'UOISI/K)! posodoxd sq;01 uog1:>:;[qoou smzq ‘D3215iiuypnnq :;q1 U}9112 .xo p:sdo{9A:)pam qogqm spu1>.1xuaotzfpxzgo sxsumo aqnmql aoumnsse ua11_um Aqpaguzaduxoooesq ueqs mam1o1xuo3 epmg)uogsyxgpqngexp o1uo;s;A9x 1o_?au1e10;zszmboxsq;'/(aged Sm:30 91 spyuv lmm eauepxoooe ug Japmpqns sq:q8no.1q1uogsyxax12.10;Jsenbm amuuxqns zsnuxmpygnq sq: ‘ueyd Ionuog)apmg uogsyxgpqns sq)01 uuoguoo you 5901)qogqm ue1d?ugpmfa‘pssodoxd 2 alepomuxooou 01 Kmssaaou sy uemIonuog)ape»;uogswpqns sq;01 uogs;/\2.1 12 sxsqm (3 ‘..SWId31129210W1 IQ;szuaumynbou xeoguqosgm‘Keyed sup }0 L mad qum aoueuuoguoo ugpmedsxd 01 S;Lrem?ugpmg 101 an (p ‘(I W?d 993),_edA1?uypm?101aI_.};o:3ds,,9111sumsnmzsnuxpun >{:>o{qJO 1012 uo pssodoxd 8u_rpnnq go adz?usq":50 Aamqvuns aux‘S101:)\2§Jatuo Buowe ‘uopempgsuoo ow;9:121JSIILU mag mu,(:3 '.m.€aA.mg pueq o;.uz1u()Km 10 Jeaug?ua leuoyssogosd 2 /(q psmdsxd sq ueqs ueyg ?ugpexg 101 sq;(q ‘uemIonuog spmg uogspxgpqng 911101 U.u0;uoo ueqs qogqm uexd ?ugpwg)30*;pasodoad 9 30 ssgdoo om A113 sq:01 uuxqns meqs Japung 9111‘J01uses10;u_Lu19,1Sugpung 12go souenssg am01 Jopd (12 SU9]d Eugpms)30']p9SOd0Jd L'Z SLNEWSHIUUEIH QNIGVHED LO’! ‘(suompuoo xoqmsm01 wafqns)/Cmssaosupauxaap s9oy\9p1o.t1u0a uogsom Jotpo pun sanamss?eugexp 11230 ?ugppos pureuoganxxsuoa -u1e1,11o.nuo;) epezg uogsmpqng am01 uuoguoo /iumsue?01 s>1oo{q pue sun11:go Sugpm?q?nox ;; 's.x<;/ms ugeuxsq’:03 suopoauuoo ?ugprqougsugsxzqupuaopxe?max112;o ‘apex?01 ‘uopeumsug 1 :s1m.u9d?ugpxmqAnn souenssg sq:01 mudpcsxqduxoosq neqs s>pom Sugpw??ugmonogsq; suuued Bugpuna O1 .l0|Jd sguauaeagnbeu 6u|pe.!5)9'I, 'suo;s;/xax paxgnbzusq:go 1u<>1x::amuodn quapusdapoq mzqs99;sq:;o1unoum 9111tpm?zu sup u;paqnbox suogsg/x9.x K1112:0;mpg/xgpqng 911101 pa?mqa aq megs 99;V (3 's>{.Io/y‘pedgogunwgo .l0'13'3.II_([amKqpenoxdde uaqzpue 19,11;/xgpqns amAq pamaym sq mzqs 1;put;91qBu0S\291 pauxsap gypoxuex?sq AmemmuogspxozV (q '3“!!!-‘MU!WEDW3 01 ‘I99!/\!PQ“S9111/‘QWW 941NW5‘WeldGill W015 suoyzzyxappasonnsuoo se 10 pesodozd extzpouwuooou on um}[onuog speng)uogsyupqng sq:01 suogsyxoxmg s1s:mba1?ue ‘A1139141Kq uogsyxgpqnssq:go aoumdaooe0;Joya (9 UB|d JOHUOQ 3539.15)uegsmpqns 01 SUO§S!M-3);!9'LPage 15 of 32Page 683 of 847 ‘amaqosa?uugmp pun ?ugpm?oql uuzzguycux01 Kmgqgsuodsax s,J9uAAo sq:30 ?uguug?oq 9111pue Euypel?101amqsnqexsa 01 Kzgygqgsuocisms_.t:;p1;ng/s,xado[a/ma/s,Jap;Agpqngpuns,A3g;)sq:go pus sq]xpeux ueqs ezvoggusg aaumuoguoq)Sugpmg mp uo snap sq 1,(q ‘3W3!J!119:)eaueuuoguog ?uypwg sq:se ‘mg sq;Kq ‘pswp pun paguxao sq mzqs urqd Eiugpmg 101 am mam1o.uuo3 apmg uogswpqng sq:go xxogsyxcu1521121sq][mm :;3u2uuo}uoo u;sq 01 Aug sq:/iq psxdsooe uaoq seq 30;22 go ?ugpm?__pa1:>n.!1suo:)SP,”aq1 aouo (9 @;EOg§§3J6Q 99U2l.Ual0}UO3 51.139913V3 ‘/ivnod9141309'1 exomv‘NM sonrepmoovurwvwpqns amu?nonu‘?ummu;‘uogs;/x9112 J0;xsanbcuau;Jguxqns Isnux Jap?nq 9u_1‘uek;vpxuxogapaxg ur.v;sgA;pqn.g pun urqd Sugpmg 10']pcnsodold 91111mm aouwuoguoo ug mu ?ugpm?p:3]9[dLL103 ompomuxoaoe01 Amssooausg (IE[([](>11LI03 opmg uogs;/qpqng sq:oz uogsgzm 2 alaqm (p '1oA:;Amspueq oymuuo we 10 Jeaug?us reuoyssagoxd e Kq pagpma pue pamdmd oq mugs ueggq ?ugpmg 301 peqanusuoa sxz Sm;(0 ‘(qdumxa up SB 2:9321.1ass)u2[,-1 ?nqpmg 101pasodoxdaqxuoumoqsseszugod[omxoo apm?9141go uogxemp paqsgug aqs amaogpugueqs qogqmu-2214?ugpexg)101 sq;go Adooouo /(113am03 uuxqnsas paxmbzusq ueqs xopunq sq; ‘?upuag J0 Eugdeosputq 01 Iopd ‘z~zspyuv u;pamu se Sugpm?9111go uoymduxoo uodn (q umd ?uypmg 3,01 pexonusuoo-sv srz 'sq1uoLu muym sq:ug9021:!mm/{ouvdnooo pmoqs /{ouednooo Sugmono;351aunf uxau mp liq 10 ‘$‘u}p1gnq9141go Kouednooo 19.59 sqxuoux 01'““SWIM9"°P 9%IIW3 3u!PP0S‘PQPPOSD“?13913913N94“!9/MI SP“?!941 DUBP919919uaaqseqSuypunq2111uaqmp:>1a1dLuo:>sq 01 pzuspgsuos sq nzqs 10112 50 Suypmfi sq;(9 -Koqodsq:30 9'1opyuvmy/A oouepxorxmu;Jappxgpqng 9111q?nolqx ‘?uppxmu;‘uo;s1_tA:;x:2 Jo;zsanbax 2 xguxqns;snuz xepunq sq:uaq;‘mus sq:1091503 oneyqgssod rC[q*au0s€:;11ous;3;5;(z 10 ‘pqzoamoa sq 01 s;101.19 am (1 :uopon.nsuooqsgmflugpasooxdmogaq ump e?mssgqx12 puno; s;10:19 ma 3;'uo;naA9[a 1991109 sq)112 s;uonnpunog 31;;go do;sq:mmamsua ospe ueqs Jo?cmmsputzq ogmuo .10 maug?ua nzuogssagmdsq:‘fiuguxmg?ugouauxuxoo01 mpg (q ':o»C:;A.tn3puvq owmg ue 10 maug?us Ieuogsszgoxd ta Aq pp};sq:u 193 sq c1 s1 s?uuoog gn uoywzma aq;(2 S;U3|.U9;l§H baa U0 |l0i’U3SUO;)2'2 -guxzoqddu3q1019’«)lLln1¢)I cyqmmKdoo 12‘Koqod 5111301 suuoguoo uvqd Sugpmg 101 pgsodoxd aql uzqx/(113sq:/iq QOUBICIQOUYIuodn (qPage 16 of 32Page 684 of 847 zs?eupuppsqsqqmss sq:1tr.>;;'e mmqoyqm?uyperé sq;0:pssodmd are ss?ueqo 31 (q ‘(Am5)ss?ueqs ?u_rp12.1€pssodcud sq:ssmsgpuyqogqmlm[,;{Bugpmg 10*;pssodoxd 12 A113sq:0:muqns mzqs Ispunq .10 Jsumo sq:‘('o:s ‘suomppv ?ugpunq ‘syood Eugwwgms ‘ss3emf§)uogenesxs snzzgsssosuqogqm smomKm :0;:;u.usd §?u;p[gnq 2 30 souenss:sq:o:xoprd (2 zslusmsxgnbea?ugmoqq; sq:0:wsfqns sq mmKsqod sgq:Jspun psdo1sAsp spmq sq:no psqsqqmss suxsqos sihzugwp pup. §>'u:p12.L%sq:oxsuo;s:As.:?ue ‘sxo_:;s.1sq_L‘JOUMO sq:go /?qgqgsuodsaxsq:S!91P3g}ll<§Q soueuuoguog)Buypmg sq:go souenss:19:39?uypm?sq:go soueus:u;2uI sq:‘Ksqod sgq:go 373 uouosg u;pmms SV 3J.VOl:lL|.h!3Q 3ONV!I\!HOdNOQ EJNIGVHB V :90 BONVOSSI Id3.?..-M1 EDNICWHEJOJL SNO?S§f\3&:3 ‘9 ‘sxvaggusg ::ou1zuuo;uo3 ?uypmg sq::0 Aug sq:/Cqssuunss;uodn p9um:s.x aq mmusodsq ?ugpexg):01 sq;'u<>_mz:>qdd1aquusd Bugpnnqgo sun: =11:12 usodea ?umtr-I5)W1 00o‘I$12 K12391:1lmm usodap 0:psxmbox sq mm101mu30 mannasq:‘1sAsmoH'/(sqod sgq:go s:usu1s1;nbsxsq:ma0:wsfqns sq qeqs ‘A333sq:r§q uogsymgpqns sq::0 asuxndasse .re:_xeuogsyngpqns sq:ugqzgm:01 2 uo ssnoq msu 2 go uog:om:suos sq; NOlS!l\lCl8?S ':'.:!H.!.:10 3ONV.LdEOOV HEJAV NOILODHLSNOO MEN '17 ‘S101psr:s[duxo:>unuo ?uypex?pssodoxd sq:.10 Sun psqsyug uo Sugpm? pswtmsuoo se sq:s:epou:Luo:>oe 0:ulna 1o1:uo3 spmg uogsyxgpqns sq:oz suogsyxsx (m -s1o1ps:s1du:osunsssq: Jzmos on usodsq ?uqmg sxspmpqug sq:go uogxod ausysgpxs 12ugms:mmAug sq:‘:u:;As sgqxux‘s:o1 sssq:go sums .10;ponssg usnq :ou smzq ss:231_;g:.xs3 soueuuoguog Sugpmg J!'p31UE.!3I-)q KEUIUO[S}A[pqI1S 91!]J0 QOUBICIQDOV'pQHSS§ussq €)AEl[SS!lLLIQd?ugpunq QOIQM :0;uogsmgpqnssq:ugqum s10:[(12:0;ssnesggusg ssumuxoguog iiugpexg :0 ssuenssg sq:(1; ':usu1ss:.‘3vuogsmpqngsq:u:ps:e1nd;:s sqxom ma:0 u0ps[dIu0:)sq:(1 zqum psqduxos ussq smzq sxsneux?u;/noun;sq:munuogsyqpqns 'e :dss:>12:01:mm&:;3 sq;‘K113sq:Aq uogsyxypqnssq:;o soumdssse uodn DGSBQIQJsq mm g'[sp;::V Jspun psu_re:sJ suxnoumAue sss{usodsq Suypwg smpyqpqng sq:30 ssuewq sq;(3 ‘QAOQP,psqpossp 5:2 Jsuueux sums sq:u:usodsq flu:-pug sxspyxgpqngsq:go suoguod xsqun;ssespx mm/{:13 sq:‘.Is:;e:usq1 /(uenuuv (q ‘€‘I 919?!-‘Vqumssuvpxoomzu;s:o1 psggusoun ?ugupzuxsxsq;10;A:s.msSR ps.qnbs.I:unoum nzqxugvm mm/{:13 sq_L ':§sodsq ?ugpmg)sqxspyqpqnssq:J0 uo1_:.tod9sses1:nu;m K113sq:‘uogsyupqns sq: u;q:1_m s:o1 sq::0 %()g 131291:v 10}psnss;ussq smzqsmuoygylxsg)soueuuoguog ?ugpmg usqm (12 J;ESOd3G1 BNMVEEJ 8.k9.EC!ll\lCl8nS :10 ESVEHEHPage 17 of 32Page 685 of 847 ':>;9 ‘uognzxa?a/\‘sden ms‘sxapmq punos ‘smzmSugugmzax‘swmq sxzqons uopormsqo a?eugexp/Cue ‘(sxduxexsuv se 1 snag cos)a?eunzxpcnegms;o uogxoargpmp amogpug01 smoue qnm ){oo[q 10 301qotaa go odzhBugpex?:01 sq:x ‘a?tzugtzxp spams go uouamgp sq:?ugmoqs smone a?zzumxpput;suouenop ugsnqqoleo pm?moz qxgm131419301SQIEMSgo no/xu;am112sadoys pzugpnu?uoypun ‘uo1u2A91a‘uogneaox '9sn0q 9111112suoylemra punox?pssodoxd pun Suusgxa ‘paxgnbsxse suogmAa{:>axeypaunasuycqqmgns qum 3po{q .10 101 qmza ;o muxoa mp 112Su0§.‘1EA9[4)punm?pasodoxd pun ?uyxspca 'SU01j2A9[9 ossqz uaamseq ssdoys pulz ssoumsgp Buy/noqsE1299A1_J1a1s.xpuzzpee:paqsgug sq:go any anucyn 911132suom2A9p pasodoxd 'su1seqqo11ao p.!E1{J1?9.'Ipue ‘sugseqqouao ‘sane/nopgs ‘slump/{q ‘samquxzux mmas go u0)1e:)o[A mans suamfpe cm0;33:22;3:10 s?augarp 332:;50 11110:}q?gq 9:1101 psupmqo sq uaqs u0§1BuJ.Io_;u;Zugsgxa sq;‘uogsg/xgpqns pasodoxd sq:spmmoz S;spum assqz uxox;o?uugexp 9111;;pma uogsyqpqns mp 01 zuaoufpe SpuB[uxoygefieugesp pun snout;/«J19 ?upsgxa ‘suopv/ma pug smmuoopasodoxd pue Eupsgxs m 'suo5muBgsap10 szaqumu >[:)0{q pun 101pug sapmpunoq Ausdoxd 'uuun1oo uo;s;A9.1 sq:ug pagpuepg 51.113210suogsym Jusnbasqns /(me pun ue1dgo uopexedsxd 30 amp ‘(s)>1.mu1qouaq opapos?‘uogs;/xgpqns go oureu ‘u0§199.1;p quou ‘pu:>39{; W‘ [A :=:g :2u1/mono;sq;amnsnm/(112910pun ‘woqs avzgs(uxux [pg x mm 955) IV pmpums B uo aq ‘()0§:{JO 912359 12 pamdsxrl aq {pzqs lmfd (o.uuo3 apmg uogspxgpqngaql ?onod91;;;o 3 aged 11;mo ms souupgng)u?gssq 911101pm?zu mmpus ‘madsgqzqnm 9OURUJ.!0}uO9u;pamdold sq mzqs sutzm xonuog apmg uogsmgpqng SN\?'"EdiWOHLNOO EGVME)NO§S!l\§G8?S 30:5 SLNEWEBEWTEEH'W53iNH€)3.L ‘mu/no sq:;o Klmqgsuodssx sq;sq mzqs nsxgsodaq ?ugpmg 30';911,1go wnouue amgo ssaoxa ug S)[.!0/A mpeuxzu osaql go S1500 Any 111;)sq:Aq Amssoaau psuxaop sxpom uaypaxuax/Cuego moo sq:mixer: 03 usodaq Bugpexg 10'}2111casnmmmg mp ‘?nnedsgqz30 sxuzvtuaxgnbmmp 01 ammnduxoo —u0u go 11ns:)1 2 s12 om qogqm stuzuqoxd a?eugmp /(June;01 JOUMO mm}o o1n1g1a_;uodn zxaumo9111Us pomnm sq utaqs usodaq iiuppvxg 1471ampure‘o1e:>u_;;u:>Qsourzuuxoguog Sugpmg pas;/x:;1 sq;sn Aug sq:Kq p9;,)g2,zo3 sq uaqs uem8u;p1a.xs_')10"11[;nqsn sq:‘uuyd {onus spmg uc;s;.*._zpqr'.3 sq:03 sunoguos Sugpaz?aqi wqi K313sq‘;Aqaotresd-939:2izodn '51 uopoeg L11;/Aaouepmooe u}samzx?paqsguy emSuneogpuynew;?ugpexg301 pmonnsuoa se me/(ax)sq:01 Iynuqns meqs mumo231.11(?uypcos ;o uo;1e.n3d;ud.1oiiugppos)uo;u2.m1s9.1 3u;pn131u?Lxgpte.v.‘3puesspom 9111;o um_J:)1du1oouodn 30 JIIHOEURSq)U11[S0d9({ Buypmg 107 1%qum pogunduxoooesq megs umd ‘3u;p1:.tQ1o'1pasodoxd sq:go uogssgtuqns (II (I '9Page 18 of 32Page 686 of 847 V9199-‘!Ps;101sq:um;M013qogqm 0:(s)u;s1aqqonzasays110 JO pm/Cree;/{ue }o um;o uopmxaye 'suo;1e/mp 1001;mm;Jusxsygp 3;suogarmsp oouenue pm;1001;232193 paqsgug Jo;uopemp "mag punoxfi pue ‘mamuoguapuno}91.}:go do)‘fiuuoo;go do1go suope/mp ‘splrey zosfqnssq;?upmqe qoxypJO do]xo xremspys ‘pram go :>ug1191u:>o emgo uogwmya pesodmd 10 ?uusgxa 's11:>~u1e1sapysmo 01 saouznus 19 puta ‘asnoq sq;go SJQUIOD sq:112‘smooomuggouoposxgpsq;ug a?uvqa 2 maqm ‘punox?50 odoys uy ss?ueqo ua ‘sxugodmo}pun q?yq 12 ‘:019111go IQUJOO qoee 12 suo_rmA:){:xDUIIOJ3o_nap<><;flpcsodozd .10 ?ugsgxa ‘sqems go may ;o uogoexgppumau0u1z:>0[ ‘MOI;e?tzunzxpaatagms jo uogxozugpanzoypug01 smoma o?eupup tmm fiugpm?101oygoads W‘ IA A! H: I uopeunoguyBuypmgpue $J3?lI[;31Q(q -sapmzn 19111010 spt2s1pue sugseqqawopm/{maxmg s1uaux:>sea go uopeooy ‘suammopuym pun su:mu_m1s apgsmo ‘saouenua pasodoxd ;o uoywom ‘panes sq 01 sass:?upspca me ‘s1oocI?ugumuyms‘(ma ‘sduxnd wsq ‘s1auo;1;puoo~.ma)suun1onuoo [e1uaLuuo.r;Aua ‘s?ouuxgqo‘saqaxod ‘s>p<>p‘sowed‘s?emmernpesodoxd "sane/vxowepm:yedgogunuxsq:ugqum (s)uope:)o[.{'em9A;.Ip‘SI|UE.IpKL[‘1m21dKumn‘smvmapgs ‘sugseqqomo ‘sqmo pasodold J0 ?upsgxa '(s)91m2umans ?upznqe "(ad/(1)adtzqspun uop1aoo1:;snoq '10}go suoysuauzyppmz advqs H!" §gA V‘ A A1 1: I uopwuuogul Iexs?ag(9 :(:;ydumx9U?SE Z 91E[a 99$)511!/YXOIIO}Sq]O1?/J'.lSl'![?KIIBOID[[El[S mag OILL 'z 911214uo umoqs uogeunoguguogzeogpxaopureuopeoggxuapgamspnpug maqs ue[d mu 'p{-).l'[[1b’9.l}}]9Ql{S 3113IV PJBPUEIS12J0 ‘IQOQS3'Z§S~11>?3€[\?U0 Qq [[9118 U914§U}p9J{)10"[SILL JO QKBOSP13 9Q[[1?l{SU'E[<-IQILL '7 ‘E Z '1 ‘?ouodsup ;c 3 Lnadu}mo ms ssugpgng u?gseq 91;:01 pm?cu qum pmz ‘mad sgqz qum aauwuuoguoo ug paxtzdsad sq uwzqs$101 {enpyqpug 10}51121,]?ugpmg 101 SNV"ld EJNIOVHE)L01 H023 SLNEWEHIHOEH 'IVOlNH03.L ‘I. 'u1z[dsq:uo paltaogpug A1m:;[:xsq pmoqs sup ‘ummzdo?euyexp pue ?uypm?sq;go esmzosq (‘$13 ‘SIUQUIQSBQ1no)uam ‘s19A91~1;[ds9'1)ssxnneag.10 s?ugpygnq50 s9dA1uwueoJ0 uopormsuoo 9111Jo;ayqlmns Iou am s)p01q 10 S101/Cue}g ‘pa/res 2q 0)am qogqmpue saumqos ugseqqomo pue a?xzugexppesodoxd wage Amp se uogm;>BaApue 39911 ?uusgxa xxuauxpuoduuy[vzmwu .10 moggue Agx mx E"Page 19 of 32Page 687 of 847 (9 91214993)uo1s1A111q11s9111113911111111111119.11;5101i§111u1o_fp1z;19u111o111z919111U0 p9191u9Q (1; :p91129019c1111211sSC-){B/1\Sp11z&m9)1 ''(§9191439$)1>9Ao.1dd12931/11191110ss91un s99.189p5171121119.1oLu 9iiu‘e11:>10111112115s9112msgo 1u9111uS11e9111‘ 73 Q $91214 01 S UBl{3.IQd¢JQ1SQq IOU {[3113S9['E/Y\S30 QCIOISGPESGILL ‘(V93911199$)111111OOZ9‘?{W15 ‘W9?GIVMS 91q12.11s9p v 'u1u1 009 119991191ou 1112115111112u1u1 ()g1 u12111ss91 9q mu 1112113111d9p911211159111 ‘(V 91914993)%9 10 9pe.1?111nu11xL>u1 1a pue ‘%g'1 go u1nu11u1u191111051112me‘am JO 9111113u1nu11u1u191q1211s9p 12 9/11:111111113s91e/1113 ‘91q1ssodse s11un3111119/np 91.11u1o.1;.191s12 1191129019q 11e11s119111/11s91ems p9ug9p 01 pzxuguoo9q 1112115smog 921211112.1q ‘(E 91911199$)3”“101 911111291101599111191911110 do:91111111M10119111019111no 1>91129o19:111e11sS101u99/111911599121191 ‘(1731111.1995)p9.11nb919q 1112115s9m19n.ns 3u1u1e191.1osd91s91121.1do1ddu‘9s1m.19111Q '1 01 5 9q 11211s91111£1.19do.1d911159111111112111111131111191111119111u99m19q 9do1sLunu11x12u191111 (1.;9112114199s) 9.m1911ns 31111111219112911nb91111211311131911u191191.119uo ?u1p999x9s93ue11auo1112A919‘9Aoq1z9111i3u1pu1a1s1111/11110111'1unou19 91q1e1d9:>o12u'e o11e11u9191;11)911121291119911119101 91m9n.r1s f}u1111e19.1 12 9.11nb9.1£2111 s>11oM1ed191u111/1110.101:1911c19111‘%()1 p999x9 9do1s951119/1129111111110113 *(1719g s911z1,;1993)119o1q/101911119 129.1 9111112911015101 g 121111/119do1s1.11n1u1x1zu1 0/091;?uguyqmoo Aq p9/1911192 9q um %()1 pm;%9 1199/«\19q s9do1s931219Av'%9 10 9do1s 111n1x11x1au112pue %_<;‘1 10 9d01sL1mu11111u.129/121.11121151019111‘p91e1nd11S93;/M91110 SS911111 ‘sfi111p1111q9.111411110?u11s1x91u991a_f1>12§u1p111:1u1‘(s)3u1p11nq 91111110.1;/(emu 199199111)9q 112115‘9.€1e119s1pmodsumop Su1p1119111‘:181au11>,1p9:>121.111s111; "II '01 ‘I 'x1pu9<Ide9111u1 s§111mv1p 91du1us9111111p911z11s111119112 mo 19s s9u119p1n? 9111go /{u121/11‘S101uo Bugpmi?9111Su1u?1s9pu911mp9.19131s11o9911191110113s9u119p1n.‘3?u;/110110;9111 SNECEVHQ LOW NOISMIHHS H02!SENHEGIHE)NEJISEG '(1Juno1‘81u9o12[p12 911191101112111111()g1 10 11m1,111u1u1129:101)S119/m11a1S9113131111)go (1913 do110 u<)111z/1919 -3912.-.1s 10 s9do1s911133111pn19u112911.19/19110 01 11a1uoz1.1o1199,1111sp999x9 119111/A9do1s?ue 1x ‘Sm?/1\?ugugmaxpun 39912119110 uo1_111z9o1x ('/(1.19do1d11199e[p12199112K91s.19Ap1as12os p919911p Qq [[8L[S S1K10dSU/“OpON ZE[_L()N)'€1g.l\2lJ1I)SE[)J0 UOEXQQJQ’)QUE S1l'l0dSU/‘(\0[)JO KIOEWOOIX! 'spu1z1 959111uo 191111019111010 u1s2q119112913 01 51911121939111s-30.19 01 S1a?euymp11spum 1u991a_fp1>.110 3111111112/1919p11no.1? ED‘ 3!?/‘ '8Page 20 of 32Page 688 of 847 ‘xuadoxdluaoafpe spmmon Jou pue s?emezxpp.10 sanemowo sou ‘?ugpgnq sq:uxox;Aemu mo};amwcuypJsnm sanodsumoq ‘?ugpunq sq:uxoy Kennaanew 1 1sea1re oauezsgp2 pueqxa mzqs sped qsqds aseq_L ‘saavpnsssm?oz (fegmem :;1qm;ns mqso J0 onamuoo)spud qseyds EM o?mqosgpxsnuxsxnodsumoq 'puno.x3zuzxyefpu sq:ueqx JG1{§}l[sq ueqs [[9/mmopugm sq:}o s?pe :;q_L ‘S119/vx952111mus Iou ueqs smodsumop se qrms saomos 1aq1o mm;pue meg puvpono mos;muem aoeyns nequcunsug 0;ummsqneqsareamoeds‘poxgnbaxare £aq1 moqm mq popyomesq /(1q121:>;91dpmoqs snsm-mopugm 's1nodsu/mp 10 sapzms ugew 01 luaoefpe paneooy sq Jou mzqs su:;m1;e1s pun saoutmus xoeq pma spgg '1u9uxao.1f!Vuogsyxgpqngupu;paggoads su suogmopgsuoa u?gsop 10/ms uums pue pmoxdde mrxzadscmnbsxpun‘pr.)?1z.1noosypKumaua?are suun?uyuemp ompm/mm Bugdoyss/(‘ems/qxppossmdeq "(:7911215395)01,01 go apex?umuxgxvuxaxmosqrzu-e qum 04,3 sq (reqs s/iemmyxp uo spm?umuugxeux9{q\3.I;sep aq _1_'%g"{sq [regs s/(emmyzpuo spm?umuxgugwsq}, -Apsdoxdpampowuxoooeaq pmoo sonmsuonsgo uoponnsuoo aq:3;sxxomwdgogunwgoxolyaxgqgo1vAo:ddequm pa11guuz>daq A1110ueqs sammspne?apgg ‘seumqos a?eugmp 101x2919/mq mzqs $101 pozys umuxguywzpm»,poqaelapquuas ma‘?upneads Ammuag 'sa[ems pmzireaxKqp<;w9.I;p sq a?eug-exp musaxgnbsxAnuxsspom wdgogunwgo lowaxgq sq;‘cms92121Amansnunme 50 am spmzbpeq 31 'sp.reK>1meqom;1110.1;mqa sq neqs syvms pm/(:zp;s 9 ug psmomz may umulpazux aqJ_ ‘(g 91121.1993)29112 a?eunnp pue ‘Kl{dE130d03‘szgs 101uo féuppuadep sqxom nzdgagunw50 1o1::e.qq sq;30 uopsuasypam112popen sq /(mu spams go qz?uoxumwpmuxsuu 'p’.)A()Jdd‘egsgmgeqzossmunsomm OLsq ntaqs (aapno ayqmgnsxoqxo.10 ugsrzqqamop.n2/ixeax)Iauno sq:10 yugodq?gq sq:uxox}awmsp.m:<.u2o.xe}0 x[1Eu<;[uxnuxgxelu aql ‘(g 9121,;993)uogsyxgpqnssq:apgsmo sgpuma]3v.x;v.1;o[pxaam3;1011:>:s_fqns'.)q1 uo ;([:.u;xug{(q "OZ ‘()1 '8! '[.I '91 '51 ‘VI '91 'ZIPage 21 of 32Page 689 of 847 Page 22 of 32Page 690 of 847 //mm\ «<9....\ A» xgmsgm?wPage 23 of 32Page 691 of 847 Page 24 of 32Page 692 of 847 €..x.a§§mn&§Fa§m&I®@§?§a_,KM% jinprc?zrm om>vmnozawor Page 25 of 32Page 693 of 847 "”(UrV)Y?UG[S M0 M1 paldeaov amleu?gs OUJEN11015:/xgpqns Sj|.[)J0) uekq gonuog spas)uogsg/qpqns em)0 uogsg/xw )S0)E|am:01 *uoxsx/upqns Stuuogsuuapuoo/Cnmeue?:0]sguu50 sugpmfi aL11)BLurJur2 ‘umous uamgouuoo apms uogsgngpqnsam )0 uogs_Isaxexem0)sapws psqsgug;em uaxe;e/mu I 12:41KnueaAqeaoq |suJ1o;uonuMous Gugp-2:5pasodmd out xeu:/(wen Aqa1aL|1 uo|;eo1;[ue3 ?uypuxg)pammssuog syn}uonrzomuaofiumms pesodmd ouo'\1A1n my 9;‘cm m1 HRH» {mil :arm: "‘—"“"J w-m m Q11‘!.Du 7 KISVVI want) my‘(.17.-J sww-n bmumnu\no “'U1§’1lJ9;”9...W1 A:an/, ‘An!'11 ADXVVM Vrnm ——...mm .0 >~,3 t~!~=5*"”;';<3)>;;:*;mm ».mm.mum..xnanmnzt §5 ,omawa uausuxu ammm r ADN sv '°N i07 av ‘ON LO’) ..mm mm mm _,.,__x 1'm~taI14«v u__,>nm)av;axon Hi! ‘vntw/«Iunuu‘uno4'Lnvun» mm.‘mm...W"°*W'H .'wv3m4m n uauammn1)A1rn q;v.,,3C———--m A0 uu um 1 4.mm man no 4».ummusm mu-muum _u Auumulu qvm:3 zwvn mm ¢m:M mu mm H! M .,__.w_M.mm.., 3 uoglwnagapunolg)pnusgulj "'"—****“—*(‘Aesa*au.oo:)>1ww:<oues uogmala punoig)pasmm '‘owuemzonuooapexs u.r>qns unne/my punolg)Guusgxg , «’)5)=‘L4?S_\(]10UGQOGJJGS2'»"L‘<4'$UMU(]...(._ —--wa1U:aJnseaw>(ar2qlas-———».‘UN‘M60113 U<7!\5JIx(Js5€U!W(]<&——'oN ue[d p?eu —*‘}‘'oN1o‘] muss anasan I urud Bugpmg)101 -snag Lma?em;Q Aug§_V....*_—-————-———-->-v——«~-—"-'—* 3 ‘ON ELL‘c’7d mumo ""wminePage 26 of 32Page 694 of 847 PL A T E NO.3 LOT GRADDIG GUIDELINE SPage 27 of 32Page 695 of 847 3,ixi \ Swab Degt-h 1 ssom.Min.‘Max» <zoom.(Desirzd) L Page 28 of 32Page 696 of 847 .3wzammax..357... .3.<5».453 «Sam20>m voanwwuwznmSa?zwomnawumwunmm Page 29 of 32Page 697 of 847 Page 30 of 32Page 698 of 847 Appendix 2 – Draft Drainage Website Material Drainage generally falls within the realm of common law and is the responsibility of the property owner. At common law, uncollected surface water may flow from one property to another, and the owner of the receiving property has no grounds for legal action. The owner of the receiving property, however, does not have to accept that surface water, and may block it from flowing onto their property. Conversely, damage to a receiving property caused by collected surface water, such as discharge from a downspout, or flow from a sewer, could be grounds for legal action. Note that in the case of road drainage, the Road Authority (i.e., the City of Niagara Falls, the Region of Niagara or the Niagara Parks Commission) is the property owner and subject to the same common law principles. The City of Niagara Falls’ policy with respect to private property drainage is based on the above principles of common law and is as follows:  Private property drainage is the responsibility of the Property Owner.  The date on the Grading Conformance Certificate for a property shall mark the end of the City’s / Subdivider’s / Developer’s / Builder’s responsibility to establish the grading and drainage scheme, and the beginning of the Property Owner’s responsibility to maintain it.  The City shall ensure enforcement of by-laws prohibit the discharge of collected surface water (e.g., from downspouts or sump pumps) to neighbouring properties.  The City will not intervene in private property grading or drainage disputes.  The City will not provide technical advice to solve grading or drainage issues. Outside of the urban area, drainage is provided by roadside ditches and municipal drains with outlets to natural watercourses. Within the urban area, drainage service is primarily provided by the City’s storm sewers. In addition to providing drainage of the road allowance, the storm sewers also provide surface drainage to portions of private property as front yards typically slope to drain toward the street. As with all other core services, the City’s responsibility ends at the property line. As a homeowner, it is your responsibility to make sure that water continues to flow away from your foundation and does not impact neighbouring properties. Regular lot maintenance will help to ensure lot drainage works as designed. The table below provides information on who to call for more information related to common drainage issues. Issue Responsibility Ponding due to plugged roadside or rear yard catchbasins Water/Wastewater Operations Ponding due to overflowing ditches Road Operations Ponding on sidewalks, boulevards, or roads Road Operations Ponding on private property due to runoff from the right of way or City Property Road Operations Page 31 of 32 Page 699 of 847 Ponding due to downspouts or sump pump discharges By-law Enforcement Ponding related to unassumed subdivisions Engineering (Development) Ponding related to construction under current building permits (buildings, sheds, pools, etc.). Building Ponding on private property related to construction not under a current building permit (buildings, sheds, pools, patios, gardens, etc.) or grade changes on neighbouring properties. Property Owner Ponding on private property due to lack of grade or soil conditions. Property Owner Any works pursuant to the Drainage Act Drainage Superintendent Page 32 of 32 Page 700 of 847 PKD Foundation of Canada 3 – 1750 The Queensway, Suite 158 Etobicoke ON, M9C 5H5 www.endpkd.ca | 877 410 1 741 | endpkd@endpkd.ca June 19, 2023 Dear Mayor Jim Diodati, My name is Sandy and I am the Fundraising and Event Coordinator for the PKD Foundation of Canada. As you may recall, last year you recognized September 4th as Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD) Awareness Day, which the community was tremendously grateful for. I wanted to reach out in hopes that you will recognize this important issue again on September 4, 2023. Polycystic kidney disease (PKD) is one of the most common, life-threatening genetic diseases. PKD causes abnormal cysts to develop and grow in the kidneys and the enlargement of cysts causes kidney function to decline. While this is a very serious and irreversible disease affecting approximately 1 in 400 to 1 in 1000 Canadians, many people outside of the PKD community have never heard of it. This makes it more challenging to get the attention of important decision makers when it comes to funding and research. The PKD Foundation of Canada aims to promote programs of research, advocacy, education, support and awareness to discover treatments and a cure for polycystic kidney disease, improving the lives of all it affects. Since 2014, Health Canada has officially recognized September 4th as National Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD) Awareness Day, bringing much-needed attention to this disease. Being able to leverage this national recognition has had a positive impact on the community and our efforts. Last year, in addition to your support, we had more than 40 cities and towns across Canada officially support this important day and we would greatly appreciate if you could once again proclaim September 4, 2023 as Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD) Awareness Day in the City of Corner Brook. In addition to the proclamation, I kindly ask that you also help to spread awareness within your community by raising our PKD flag on September 4th. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or require more information. Sincerely, Sandy Kenney Fundraising and Event Coordinator PKD Foundation of Canada skenney@endpkd.ca Page 701 of 847 A Great City … For Generations To Come PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT Inter-Departmental Memo To: Mayor James M. Diodati & Members of Council From: Planning, Building and Development Date: July 11th, 2023 Re: PLC-2023-005, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Lot 20, Registered Plan 59M-491, Lyon’s Creek, Phase 5 9348 and 9350 White Oak Avenue. Mountainview Homes (Niagara) Ltd. has requested Council pass a by-law to exempt Part Lot Control from Lot 20 on Registered Plan 59M-491 to transfer the ownership of semi-detached dwelling units that are under construction. Lot 20 is proposed to be divided into 2 parts for 1 semi-detached dwelling unit on each lot, totaling 2 semi-detached dwelling units. A previous Part Lot Control application (PLC-2022-008) that included the subject land (Lot 20) was adopted by Council on May 10th, 2022 for the purpose of adjusting the lot boundary but not dividing the lot. As such, in order to facilitate this new proposal to divide Lot 20 the applicant has requested that the existing by-law be repealed and replaced. The request can be supported based on the following: • The zoning permits semi-detached dwellings at the proposed parcel sizes; • The by-law will permit a deed to be created for each parcel containing a dwelling unit and permit each property to be sold separately; and, • The applicant has confirmed that the purposes of the previous by-law have been completed and can be repealed. ST Attach. S:\PART LOT CONTROL\2023\PLC-2023-005 - Lyons Creek Phase 5, Lot 20\Memo to Council-PLC-2023-005 Page 702 of 847 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]-Fwd: Request and invitation From: Carey Campbell <ccampbell@niagarafalls.ca> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 10:32 AM To: Irene Newton < Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca>; Heather Phillips <hphillips@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]-Fwd: Request and invitation Goodmorning, Irene. Thank you for your email to Mayor Diodati and for your invitation for him to join you at Ukraine’s Independence Day flag raising. Heather Phillips in our office will be in touch with the mayor’s availability and to confirm details. carey Carey Campbell | Manager | Office of the Mayor and CAO | City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | 905.356.7521 X 4206 | ccampbell@niagarafalls.ca From: Irene Newton < > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 8:49 PM To: Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Fwd: Request and invitation Good day Mayor Diodati, This is Irene Newton, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Niagara Branch. As we do annually, the Ukrainian community will be commemorating and celebrating Ukraine's Independence Day on August 24th and Ukrainian Flag Day on August 23rd. We were hoping to have the ceremonial raising of the Ukrainian flag at City Hall on Thursday August 24th, around 11 a.m., however, if that date is not convenient for you to attend, then perhaps Wednesday August 23rd in the afternoon would work. We are hoping to gather the Ukrainian community to attend, and we would invite our local MP, MPP, as well. We were also hoping that the flag would fly until at least Sept. 7th which is Ukrainian Heritage Day in Canada. If the Ukrainian flag is already flying, then we could possibly just hold an Independence Day assembly. I look forward to hearing from you, with hopes you would join us on this occasion. Regards, Irene Newton UCC Niagara Page 703 of 847 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 704 of 847 1 Heather Ruzylo To:Clerk Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]-Request for Support - Legislative Amendments to Improve Municipal Codes of Conduct and Enforcement: From: diane noble < Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 11:33 PM To: Clerk <clerk@niagarafalls.ca>; CouncilMembers <councilmembers@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Request for Support - Legislative Amendments to Improve Municipal Codes of Conduct and Enforcement: Importance: High Hello Municipal Clerk – City of Niagara Falls: I am respectfully requesting this email and attachment are added as action correspondence to your next council meeting agenda as a matter of urgency. Please email the outcome to thewomenofontariosayno.team@gmail.com Thank you! Dear Mayor Diodati, Councillor Baldinelli, Councillor Campbell, Councillor Lococo, Councillor Patel, Councillor Nieuwesteeg, Councillor Pietrangelo, Councillor Strange, and Councillor Thomson: Legislative Amendments to Improve Municipal Codes of Conduct and Enforcement: This request is from The Women of Ontario Say NO. A grassroots advocacy effort comprised of individuals, organizations, and community groups. We are committed to ensuring that locally elected officials are held accountable for violence and harassment in municipal workplaces. This advocacy stems from a number of egregious cases throughout the province including Ottawa, Barrie, and Mississauga. You can learn more on our website: https://www.thewomenofontariosayno.com/ Thank you for previously passing a resolution in support of Bill 5 Stopping Harassment and Abuse by Local Leaders Act. Many councillors will know that on May 31st, 2023, the government voted down Bill 5 – The Stopping Harassment and Abuse by Local Leaders Act. At that time 160 municipalities had endorsed their support for Bill 5. In 2021, the Association of Municipalities Ontario recommended changes to strengthen municipal codes of conduct for elected officials. Again in 2023, after meetings with our group, the AMO issued a statement again calling on government to implement legislation change on this matter. AMO also provided sample resolution text for councils that wish to lend their support to this call: Codes of Conduct, Changes to Visible Fees, and Fees Charged to Beverage Producers | AMO These recommendations have still not been implemented. As Bill 5 died on the floor, we now have a further request to ask of you. We are calling on your municipality to continue to be an active and engaged voice in your own workplace safety and that of the municipal staff in holding municipally elected representatives accountable for violence and harassment. 1. We are therefore now asking council to pass the attache d motion of March 27, 2023, issued by AMO, calling for government legislation on this issue. Page 705 of 847 2 2. We are requesting the motion include the communication that this legislation be prioritized for the fall of 2023 given the urgency of this issue. 3. We are asking that a letter expressing support for the motion be sent to: The Premier, Local MPPs, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity, AMO and local municipalities. We are counting on you as leaders to ensure your municipal workplace is safe and that there is basic human rights protection for all persons. This cannot wait any longer. This legislation needs to move ahead without any further delay. Thank you in advance for continuing to being open to advocating for legislative change that will help ensure workplaces and community spaces are safe for everyone! If you have any questions, please reach out to me. Sincerely, Diane Noble On Behalf of The Women of Ontario Say NO Sent from Mail for Windows CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 706 of 847 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]-AMO Policy Update - Action on Municipal Codes of Conduct, Summary of Ending Homelessness Symposium, Bill 97 Passes From: AMO Communications <Communicate@amo.on.ca> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 5:58 PM To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-AMO Policy Update - Action on Municipal Codes of Conduct, Summary of Ending Homelessness Symposium, Bill 97 Passes AMO Policy Update not displaying correctly? View the online version Add Communicate@amo.on.ca to your safe list June 20, 2023 AMO Policy Update - Action on Municipal Codes of Conduct AMO Encourages Member Action on Municipal Codes of Conduct and Enforcement AMO’s Board and members have been very clear: a safe and respectful workplace is a basic expectation. All council members agree to follow a Code of Conduct when they are sworn into office. However, sometimes there have been incidents when a council member’s behaviour clearly crosses the line and councils have limited ability to enforce the Codes. AMO, other municipal organizations such as ROMA and OBCM and 84 municipalities have lent their support to making changes to improve enforcement of Codes of Conduct. However, with the defeat of Bill 5, more direct action from municipal councils is required. That is why AMO is asking our members to meet with your local MPPs before the AMO Conference in August to request that the Government of Ontario introduce legislation to enact our recommended changes . Page 707 of 847 2 Key messages are linked to help guide your conversations with your local provincial representatives. Municipal governments working together make positive change happen. *Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned. Please consider the environment before printing this. Association of Municipalities of Ontario 200 University Ave. Suite 801,Toronto ON Canada M5H 3C6 To unsubscribe, please click here CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 708 of 847 AMO Sample Resolution Text Legislative Amendments to Improve Municipal Codes of Conduct and Enforcement Whereas, all Ontarians deserve and expect a safe and respectful workplace; Whereas, municipal governments, as the democratic institutions most directly engaged with Ontarians need respectful discourse; Whereas, several incidents in recent years of disrespectful behaviour and workplace harassment have occurred amongst members of municipal councils; Whereas, these incidents seriously and negatively affect the people involved and lower public perceptions of local governments; Whereas, municipal Codes of Conduct are helpful tools to set expectations of council member behaviour; Whereas, municipal governments do not have the necessary tools to adequately enforce compliance with municipal Codes of Conduct; Now, therefore be it resolved that (MUNICIPLITY NAME) supports the call of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for the Government of Ontario to introduce legislation to strengthen municipal Codes of Conduct and compliance with them in consultation with municipal governments; Also be it resolved that the legislation encompass the Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s recommendations for: • Updating municipal Codes of Conduct to account for workplace safety and harassment • Creating a flexible administrative penalty regime, adapted to the local economic and financial circumstances of municipalities across Ontario • Increasing training of municipal Integrity Commissioners to enhance consistency of investigations and recommendations across the province • Allowing municipalities to apply to a member of the judiciary to remove a sitting member if recommended through the report of a municipal Integrity Commissioner • Prohibit a member so removed from sitting for election in the term of removal and the subsequent term of office Page 709 of 847 P.O.Box 490 7 Creswell Drive Tel:6|3-392-284l Trenton,Ontario K8V SR6 _Toll Free:l-866-485-284l wvvw.quintewest.ca A Natural Attractlon josh.machesney@quintewest.ca JoshMachesney,City Clerk June 19,2023 The Honourable Doug Ford Premier of Ontario Premier’s Office,Room 281 Legislative Building Queen’s Park,Toronto,ON M7A 1A1 RE:Legislative Amendments to Improve Municipal Codes of Conduct and Enforcement Dear Premier Ford: This letter will serve to advise that at a meeting of City of Quinte West Council held on June 14,2023 Council passed the following resolution: Motion No 23-266 —Notice of Motion —Councillor Sharpe -Legislative Amendments to Improve Municipal Codes of Conduct and Enforcement Moved by Councillor Stedall Seconded by Councillor Card Whereas,all Ontarians deserve and expect a safe and respectful workplace; And whereas,municipal governments,as the democratic institutions most directly engaged with Ontarians need respectful discourse; And whereas,several incidents in recent years of disrespectful behaviour and workplace harassment have occurred amongst members of municipal councils; And whereas,municipal Codes of Conduct are helpful tools to set expectations ofcouncilmemberbehaviour;And whereas,municipal governments do not have the necessary tools to adequatelyenforcecompliancewithmunicipalCodesofConduct;Page 710 of 847 And whereas the Councillors Freeman,Reid,Sharpe and Stedall support the “Women of Ontario Say No”and their effort to get this legislation passed; Now,therefore be it resolved that the City of Quinte West supports the call of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for the Government of Ontario to introduce legislation to strengthen municipal Codes of Conduct and compliance with them in consultation with municipal governments; Also be it resolved that the legislation encompass the Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s recommendations for: -Updating municipal Codes of Conduct to account for workplace safety and harassment -Creating a flexible administrative penalty regime,adapted to the local economic and financial circumstances of municipalities across Ontario -increasing training of municipal Integrity Commissioners to enhance consistency of investigations and recommendations across the province -Allowing municipalities to apply to a member of the judiciary to remove a sitting member if recommended through the report of a municipal Integrity Commissioner -Prohibit a member so removed from sitting for election in the term of removal and the subsequent term of office.Carried We trust that you will give favourable consideration to this request. Yours truly, CITY OF QU|l§4,l/TEWEST ./",Z /T*':,’— ‘/ M;/ A/JoshMachesney,v City Clerk cc:Hon.Steve Clark,Minister of Municipal Affairs and HousingHon.Charmaine Williams,Associate Minister of Women's Social and Economic OpportunityHon.Todd Smith,MPP,Bay of QuinteColinBest,President,Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)All Municipalities in OntarioPage 711 of 847 Seconded By: Moved By: WHEREAS the Government of Ontario,through the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing,has introduced Bill3 which is described as "An Act to amend various statutes with respect to special powers and duties of heads of council"; AND WHEREAS this Bill,if enacted,will give Mayors additional authority and powers,and correspondingly take away authority and powers from Councils and professional staff,and will include giving the Mayor the authority to propose and adopt the Municipal budget and to veto some decisions of Council; AND WHEREAS this Bill,if enacted,will give authority over professional staff to the Mayor,including that of the Chief Administrative Of?cer; AND WHEREAS these changes will result in a reduction of independence for professional staff including the CA0,who currently provide objective information to the Council and public and will now take direction from the Mayor alone when the Mayor so directs; AND WHEREAS the Government of Ontario is proposing to expand the list of municipalities where the Head of Council has strong mayor powers and duties; THEREFORE,this Municipality of Shuniah,passes this resolution to petition the Government of Ontario that: 1.These changes to the Municipal Act,2001,are unnecessary and will negatively affect the Municipality of Shuniah; 2.That if the Ontario Government deems these changes necessary in large single-tier municipalities such as Toronto and Ottawa,that such changes should not be implemented in smaller municipalities;2 3.That the Ontario Government should listen to concerns raised by Associations such as AMO and AMCTO; 4.That if the stated goal of this legislation is to construct more housing in Ontario that this can be accomplished through other means including amendment of the Planning Act and funding of more affordable housing. Council further directs the Clerk to ensure that a copy of this resolution be provided to the Premier of Ontario,the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing,Thunder Bay MPP's,the Association of Municipalities of Ontario,and other Municipalities in Ontario.” Carried Cl Deferred|:l Defeated ClAmended Municipalityof Shuniah,420Leslie Avenue,ThunderBay,Ontario,P]%){8 W Page 24 of 27 Page 712 of 847 June 27, 2023Page 713 of 847 Page 714 of 847 Page 715 of 847 Page 716 of 847 Page 717 of 847 Page 718 of 847 Page 719 of 847 Page 720 of 847 Page 721 of 847 Page 722 of 847 Page 723 of 847 Page 724 of 847 Page 725 of 847 Page 726 of 847 Page 727 of 847 Page 728 of 847 Page 729 of 847 Page 730 of 847 Page 731 of 847 Page 732 of 847 Page 733 of 847 Page 734 of 847 Page 735 of 847 Page 736 of 847 Page 737 of 847 Page 738 of 847 Page 739 of 847 Page 740 of 847 Page 741 of 847 Page 742 of 847 Page 743 of 847 Page 744 of 847 Page 745 of 847 Page 746 of 847 Page 747 of 847 Page 748 of 847 Page 749 of 847 Page 750 of 847 Page 751 of 847 Page 752 of 847 Page 753 of 847 Page 754 of 847 Page 755 of 847 Page 756 of 847 Page 757 of 847 Page 758 of 847 Page 759 of 847 Page 760 of 847 Page 761 of 847 Page 762 of 847 Page 763 of 847 Page 764 of 847 Page 765 of 847 Page 766 of 847 Page 767 of 847 Page 768 of 847 Page 769 of 847 Page 770 of 847 Page 771 of 847 Page 772 of 847 Page 773 of 847 Page 774 of 847 Page 775 of 847 Page 776 of 847 Page 777 of 847 Page 778 of 847 Page 779 of 847 Page 780 of 847 Page 781 of 847 Page 782 of 847 Page 783 of 847 Page 784 of 847 Page 785 of 847 Page 786 of 847 Page 787 of 847 Page 788 of 847 Page 789 of 847 Page 790 of 847 Page 791 of 847 Page 792 of 847 Page 793 of 847 Page 794 of 847 Page 795 of 847 Page 796 of 847 Page 797 of 847 Page 798 of 847 Page 799 of 847 Page 800 of 847 Page 801 of 847 Page 802 of 847 Page 803 of 847 Page 804 of 847 Page 805 of 847 Page 806 of 847 Page 807 of 847 Page 808 of 847 Page 809 of 847 Page 810 of 847 Page 811 of 847 Page 812 of 847 Page 813 of 847 Page 814 of 847 The Niagara Falls Shadow Council A registered Independent Social Counseling organization "Holding Governments Accountable" Lady Justice Do not redact the contents of this document This document can be freely distributed #07-11-2023-44 Tuesday, July 11, 2023 These are comments to be attached to the 07/11/2023 Council Meeting Agenda. Mayor Diodati and Councilor Strange comments concerning 15,000 students updated Report Council, During the December 13, 2022 meeting, Mayor Diodati and Councilor Strange collectively stated that 15,000 students and faculty were going to be living and working in the downtown. It is important that this council, as respected officials and representatives of the City of Niagara Falls, refrain from making speculative statements that may mislead residents (Elon Musk's Twitter statements are a good example of the repercussions that can occur). As only time can verify if these statements were true or false, a report will be made to council at each meeting to update the progress of the claim. It has been 208 days since Mayor Diodati and Councilor Strange claimed 15,000 students and faculty were going to be living and working in the downtown. The claim remains false. The current occupancy, as researched, is 0. Page 815 of 847 Page 816 of 847 Thank you. Joedy Burdett President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City Council election. Qualified Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837) Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small Buildings Owner Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, L2E 2R7 (905) 353 8468 Niagara Falls Shadow Council.ca (TNFSC.ca) The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is a registered Independent Social Counseling organization (BIN 1000515774). The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is not associated with The City of Niagara Falls Altering or Redacting this document will be viewed as a violation of Section 2(b) of The Canadian Charter of Rights Page 817 of 847 The Niagara Falls Shadow Council A registered Independent Social Counseling organization "Holding Governments Accountable" Lady Justice Do not redact the contents of this document This document can be freely distributed Comment#07-11-2023-43 Tuesday, July 11, 2023 These are comments to be attached to the 07/11/2023 Council Meeting Agenda. Mayor Diodati comments concerning Development Downtown updated Report Council, On December 31, 2021, a Niagara Falls Review news article was published, with Mayor Jim Diodati stating: "You’re going to start to see high-rises, residential apartments, and condos being built in our downtown." "You're going to start to see cranes in downtown." "That’s what’s missing downtown." "You need people to live there, then you’ll need a grocery store for people to buy their food there." It is important that the mayor chooses his words carefully. As a respected official and representative of the City of Niagara Falls, making speculative statements may mislead residents (Elon Musk's Twitter statements are a good example of the repercussions that can occur). As only time can verify if these statements were true or false, a report will be made to council at each meeting to update the progress of the claim. It has been 555 days since Mayor Diodati made that claim, and it remains false. There are currently no high-rises, residential apartments, condos, cranes, or grocery stores being built in our downtown. News article link (https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/news/council/2021/12/31/announcement -for-falls- downtown-university-could-come-this-spring-diodati.html) Page 818 of 847 Page 819 of 847 Thank you. Joedy Burdett President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City Council election. Qualified Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837) Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small Buildings Owner Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, L2E 2R7 (905) 353 8468 Niagara Falls Shadow Council.ca (TNFSC.ca) The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is a registered Independent Social Counseling organization (BIN 1000515774). The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is not associated with The City of Niagara Falls Altering or Redacting this document will be viewed as a violation of Section 2(b) of The Canadian Charter of Rights Page 820 of 847 The Niagara Falls Shadow Council A registered Independent Social Counseling organization "Holding Governments Accountable" Lady Justice Do not redact the contents of this document This document can be freely distributed #07-11-2023-45 Tuesday, July 11, 2023 These are comments to be attached to the 07/11/2023 Council Meeting Agenda. City of Niagara Falls Affordable Housing updated Report Council, Every day, Council Members (as of the beginning of your term, November 15, 2022) Every day that brings us closer to October 26, 2026 (the end of your term in office), Every day that no affordable housing is created by this Council is one more failure, 236 days Council Members, 236 failures ... Page 821 of 847 Thank you. Joedy Burdett President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City Council election. Qualified Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837) Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small Buildings Owner Niagara Tinting 4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, L2E 2R7 (905) 353 8468 Niagara Falls Shadow Council.ca (TNFSC.ca) The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is a registered Independent Social Counseling organization (BIN 1000515774). The Niagara Falls Shadow Council is not associated with The City of Niagara Falls Altering or Redacting this document will be viewed as a violation of Section 2(b) of The Canadian Charter of Rights Page 822 of 847 FALLSVIEW §5"i’i ii I.V,5.it DV.I _....< December 3,2021 Mayor Diodati and City Council 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON Dear MayorJim and Members of CityCouncil: As you are aware tourism businesses have been devastated by the effects of Covid -19 as have the city and its residents.Tourism,which the city depends on is the slowest industry to recover and all indications show that we will be at least another year before we can begin to see light at the end of the tunnel. Staff availability is at a critical low,making it difficult&in many cases impossible to take care of guests in the manner they deserve. FallsviewBIAhas always prided itself on our significant contributions to the city,the tourism industry,the community.Our members are dedicated employers,residents and business owners,that are in a dire situation and we need your support and assistance to stay on the path to recovery and return to that place of strength for our Community. It is in this spirit that we ask for your help. The Fallsview BIAare the shareholders of the Niagara Civic &Convention Centre,Inc.operating as the Scotiabank Convention Centre.After many internal meetings,examinations of various levels of documentation and information,the FallsviewBIA,has come to the following conclusion.The Niagara Civic &Convention Centre due to its exemplary management has accumulated a large reserve of unencumbered funds which do not impede or put at risk the AMEC recommendations on the long-term life cycle costs of the building.Therefore,we are instructing the Convention Centre to draw from its reserves for our final commitment,what it needs to balance its books up to $700,000,and we are requesting the city to amend the Fallsview BIAagreement accordingly. We are ready to meet with the city at your convenience to work on these Thanking you inSueMingleand the FallsviewBIABoardTHEENTERTAINMENTDISTRICTFallsviewBIA-6815StanleyAvenue,NiagaraFalls,Ontario,CanadaL2G3Y9-Tel:905~357-7000,ext:7210 -www.faIlsviewboulei/ard.c0mPage 823 of 847 l"II%i'I l|”|l-.=2 INiagaraFallsConventionCentre I6815StanleyAvenue .1.I I37'} Niagara Falls,Canada,L2G 3Y9 ‘I 1‘ 905.357.6222 1fa|lsconventions.com £‘yN%gl‘%§f*Fé‘h‘TLR% Notes to Financial Statements —April 30,2023 Revenues: 0 Year to date Actual Net Revenues —$2,185,969 Operating Expenditures: 0 Year-to~date Overall Actual Expenditures —$1,803,118 Fiscal year Surplus /(Deficit): 0 Year to date —Actual Operating Surplus -$382,851 (before amortization) 0 Amortization -$52,514 0 Year to date —Actual Operating Surplus —$330,337 (after amortization) Balance Sheet: 0 Cash and GIC investments —$8,335,045 0 Accounts Receivable -$311,704 0 Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities-$964,068 my ~,. $5,011,906 unrestricted $1,910,344 restricted,capital (AMEC)fund $393,646 —joint fund with CentreP|ate Other financial notes: 0 Current Investments —Total Value —$7,386,090 -Cashable G|C’s (4.35%)~$3,286,092 (**) I Long Term —Non-Redeemable (1.7%,matures May 2023)-$101,909 0 Reinvested in lyr Non—redeemab|e GIC —5.35%matures May 2024 I Long Term —1yr Non-Redeemable (5.5%,matures March 2024)—$3,797,486 I Long Term —Non-Redeemable (2.5%,matures Sept 2024)—$200,603 April's Financia/splantobeimpressed.Page 824 of 847 Meeting Room Additions room 221-225 approximately $1,000,000 2018 New theatre seating replacement for retractable seating section 2022 $1,100,000 Page 825 of 847 NOTICE OF MOTION Municipal Resolution in Support of Basic Income for the City of Niagara Falls WHEREAS, The City of Niagara Falls recognizes the social and economic challenges faced by its residents that have a detrimental impact on the determinants of health including income inequality, poverty, inadequate housing and precarious employment; WHEREAS, the City of Niagara Falls declared a State of Emergency on mental health, homelessness and addiction on June 21, 2022; WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the City of Niagara Falls to strive for the well-being and prosperity of all its residents, which includes ensuring access to basic needs and opportunities to improve health; WHEREAS, through addressing poverty and improving access to healthcare, a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income can potentially reduce healthcare costs enabling people to afford preventive care and timely treatments while preventing more costly healthcare interventions, leading to better overall population health, WHEREAS, a Basic Income program was tested in Hamilton during the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project between 2017 and 2019 and more than 1,000 local residents reported positive outcomes including the alleviation of food and housing insecurity, improved physical and mental health, financial stability, social equity and greater connection to the labour market; WHEREAS, the Federal Budget Office upon reviewing the concept of a national Guaranteed Basic Income program determined it could, if properly set out, be a major economic driver to the Canadian economy; and WHEREAS, a Basic Income program can complement and enhance existing social support systems, ensuring a comprehensive and inclusive approach to addressing the needs of Niagara Falls residents including persons with disabilities, homelessness, mental health and addiction. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: (a) That the City of Niagara Falls supports the concept of a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income to combat poverty, income inequality, and economic insecurity within our community; and supports the continuing advocacy of the Basic Income Hamilton Working Group (under the auspices of the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction) to share research and unique experiences of local residents who participated in the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project; Page 826 of 847 (b)That the City of Niagara Falls calls upon the provincial and federal governments to collaborate to implement a national Guaranteed Livable Basic Income program; (c)That Niagara Falls City Council directs the Office of the Mayor to write a letter to the Prime Minister, local Members of Parliament and the Senate, the Premier of Ontario, local Members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, calling on these orders of government to work collaboratively towards implementing a National Guaranteed Livable Basic Income to eradicate poverty and homelessness, and ensure everyone has sufficient income to meet their basic needs; and (d)That the City of Niagara Falls encourages other municipalities across the province and the country to join in advocating for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income as a key policy tool in the fight against poverty and inequality and to this end, Hamilton City Council will advocate through its representatives at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Canadian Federation of Municipalities for Guaranteed Livable Basic Income resolutions at meetings of those organizations. Page 827 of 847 The link below relates to the Notice of Motion on the Council Agenda of July 11, 2023 (Item #14.1). This is a reference for Councillor Lococo’s resolution regarding the request to support basic income for the City of Niagara Falls. https://www.google.com/search?q=hamilton+basic+income+resolution&rlz=1C1AKJH_enCA887CA887& oq=hamilton+basic+income+resolution&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l3.8143j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie= UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:e24780f5,vid:bH9nRkmczSI Page 828 of 847 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2023-067 A by-law to designate Lot 20, Registered Plan 59M-491, not to be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2023-005). WHEREAS subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, provides, in part, that the council of a local municipality may by by-law designate lands that would otherwise be subject to part-lot control, not be subject to such part-lot control; AND WHEREAS such by-laws are required under subsection 50(7.1) of the Planning Act to be approved by the appropriate approval authority, that being the Regional Municipality of Niagara as per subsection 51(5) of the Planning Act, subsequently delegated to the City of Niagara Falls by Regional Municipality of Niagara By-law No. 8819-97; AND WHEREAS the said lands are zoned by By-law No. 79-200, as amended by By-law No. 2020-014 and 2006-205, to permit semi-detached dwellings; AND WHEREAS the owner of the said lands proposes to divide Lot 20 into 2 parcels for 2 semi-detached units to be sold separately; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls deems it expedient to designate that the said lands not be subject to part-lot control. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, not apply to Lot 20, Registered Plan 59M-491, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. 2. This by-law shall remain in full force and effect for two years from the date of passage of this by-law, after which time this by-law shall expire and be deemed to be repealed and of no effect. 3. By-law No. 2022-054 is hereby repealed. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 11th day of July, 2023. ........................................................... ............................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR S:\PART LOT CONTROL\2023\PLC-2023-005 - Lyons Creek Phase 5, Lot 20\5 By-law\By-law-PLC-2023-005 Page 829 of 847 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2023-068 A by-law to authorize the execution of a Development Agreement pursuant to the approved Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the lands municipally known as 4078 Victoria Avenue, in the City of Niagara Falls, to a site specific Tourist Commercial (TC) zone to permit ten (10) stacked townhouse dwelling units that may be used as vacation rental units, with Build Up Victoria Inc. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. A Development Agreement made between The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, as the City, and Build Up Victoria Inc., as the Owner, to secure clauses on title to 4078 Victoria Avenue, in the City of Niagara Falls, to ensure the construction and maintenance of noise mitigation measures, archaeological discovery, and the dedication of a road widening and daylight triangle to the City , is hereby approved and authorized. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the said Development Agreement. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal thereto and to deliver the said Development Agreement. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 11th day of July, 2023. ........................................................... ............................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 830 of 847 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2023 - 069 A by-law to amend By-law No. 2002-081, being a by-law to appoint City employees, agents and third parties for the enforcement of provincial or municipal by-laws. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1 . By-law No. 2002-081 is amended by deleting Schedule “B” and that Schedule “B” attached hereto shall be inserted in lieu thereof. Read a first, second, third time and passed. Signed and sealed in open Council on this 11TH day of July, 2023. ............................................................... ........................................................... WILLIAM MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 831 of 847 SCHEDULE “B” 1. Municipal By-law Enforcement Officers: Salman Alihbhai Paul Brown Hope Ciszek Jonathan Cook Doug Evans Mike Formica John Grubich Eric Marr Jana Mills Philip Rudachuk Bart Skiba Brian Sparks Gerald Spencer Heather Stones Patrick Vernon Deryck Burke Page 832 of 847 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2023 - 070 A by-law to declare part of Weinbrenner Road and part of Edgeworth Road, as surplus. WHEREAS City of Niagara Falls By-law No. 2003-16, as amended by 2005-123, governing the sale of land by the City of Niagara Falls provides that prior to selling any land, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls shall by by-law or resolution declare the land to be surplus; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, at its meeting of July 11, 2023, adopted the Recommendations of Council Report L-2023-15, to declare Parcel 20-6, Section 59-Willoughby Broken Front Niagara River; Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Willoughby, Part 1, 59R10262; Being Edgeworth Road; Niagara Falls, being all of PIN 64386-0138 (LT) and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Willoughby, being Part 1 on 59R17554; Niagara Falls, being part of PIN 64386 -0137 (LT), as surplus. AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls now deems it expedient to pass this by-law; THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Parcel 20-6, Section 59-Willoughby Broken Front Niagara River; Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Willoughby, Part 1, 59R10262; Being Edgeworth Road; Niagara Falls, being all of PIN 64386-0138 (LT) and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Willoughby, being Part 1 on 59R17554; Niagara Falls, being part of PIN 64386 - 0137 (LT), in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, are hereby declared surplus. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk and City Solicitor are hereby authorized to execute all documents that may be required for the purpose of carrying out the intent of this by-law and the City Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal thereto and to deliver such documents. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 11h day of July, 2023. ................................................................ ................................................................ WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 833 of 847 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2023 - 071 A by-law to permanently close part of a highway. WHEREAS Section 34 of the Municipal Act, provides, in part, that the Council of every municipality may pass by-laws to permanently close any highway; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls now deems it expedient to pass this by-law; THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Parcel 20-6, Section 59-Willoughby Broken Front Niagara River; Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Willoughby, Part 1, 59R10262; Being Edgeworth Road; Niagara Falls, being all of PIN 64386-0138 (LT) and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Willoughby, being Part 1 on 59R17554; Niagara Falls, being part of PIN 64386- 0137 (LT), in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, are hereby permanently closed. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk and City Solicitor are hereby authorized to execute all documents that may be required for the purpose of carrying out the intent of this by-law and the City Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal thereto and to deliver such documents. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed, and sealed in open Council this 11th day of July, 2023. ................................................................ ................................................................ WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 834 of 847 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2023-072 A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No. 158 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (AM-2022-012). THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING ACT, 1990, AND THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA ACT, HEREBY ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amendment No. 158 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan, constituting the attached text and map, is hereby adopted. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 11th day of July, 2023. ........................................................ ...................................................... BILL MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 835 of 847 OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 158 PART 1 – PREAMBLE (i) Purpose of the Amendment The purpose of the amendment is to allow for the proposed mixed use development which shall not exceed 77 storeys and a height of 245 metres and a maximum podium height of 20 metres. (ii) Location of the Amendment The subject lands are approximately 0.31 hectares (0.76 acres) in size and are located on the south side of Robinson Street east of Allendale Avenue. (iii) Details of the Amendment Map Change Schedule A is amended to apply a “Subject to Policy 4.6.11(i)” label on the subject lands. Text Change The amendment adds a new Subsection 4.6.11 to PART 2, SECTION 4- TOURIST COMMERCIAL. (iv) Basis of the Amendment The applicant (Fudzi International Group) propose to utilize an area of 0.31 hectares for a 77 storey building that does not exceed a height of 245 metres with a maximum podium height of 20 metres on the south side of Robinson Street east of Allendale Avenue. The subject lands are designated Tourist Commercial as shown on Schedule A – Future Land Use of the City’s Official Plan. The amendment meets the intent of the Official Plan as it is an area where higher densities are directed to and is within an area that is suitable for intensification. The Amendment establishes building parameters (i.e. height and setbacks) and requires the implementation of wind mitigation measures, the limitation of shadowing impacts, and the application of the City’s design policies. In addition, parking requirements are to be addressed in a development agreement. Finally, the requirements to lift the Holding (H) provision to be applied to the amending by -law are provided. Studies are to demonstrate that there will be no extensive shadowing on residential areas, minimal encroachments on the views of the Falls or other landowners, and no Page 836 of 847 excessive and unsafe wind impacts at the street level. Building heights are to be reduced at the periphery of the District to respect the scale and character of surrounding land uses. Page 837 of 847 PART 2 - BODY OF THE AMENDMENT All of this part of the document entitled PART 2 - BODY OF THE AMENDMENT, consisting of the following text and attached map, constitute Amendment No. 158 to the Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT The Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls is hereby amended as follows: 1. MAP CHANGE The "Area Affected by this Amendment", shown on the map attached hereto, entitled "Map 1 to Amendment No. 158", shall be identified as “Subject to Policy 4.6.11(i),” on Figure 4 of PART 2, SECTION 4- TOURIST COMMERCIAL of the Official Plan. 2. TEXT CHANGE a. PART 2, SECTION 4- TOURIST COMMERCIAL, is hereby amended by adding the following subsection: 4.6.11 (i) Notwithstanding the policies of Part 2, section 4.4.3, Council may pass a zoning by-law to permit the development of one tower for residential and tourist commercial uses abutting Robinson Street and Allendale Avenue. The development shall have a maximum height of 245 metres or 77 storeys, whichever is the lesser, with a maximum podium height of 20 metres. The amending zoning by-law shall specifically regulate the development in terms of permitted uses, building heights and storeys, setbacks, minimum commercial floor area and parking. To ensure wind speeds meet acceptable safety criterion on abutting sidewalks and streets, the amending by-law shall contain a holding (H) regulation requiring the submission of a microclimate study to the satisfaction of the City and Regional Municipality of Niagara. Building step-backs are to be considered through the site plan process above the 30th floor. The location of step-backs, if feasible, are to be determined through the refinement of the building architecture to incorporate necessary wind mitigation measures and conform to the City’s Tourism Policy Review Implementation Handbook and Official Plan design policies to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Planning, Building, and Development. A holding (H) regulation in the amending by-law will address these items. Page 838 of 847 The exterior side yard width and front yard depth width of the tower shall be a minimum of 10 metres, or greater, if required to implement the recommendations of the revised Pedestrian Wind Assessment, as approved by the Niagara Region and City. That the amending zoning by-law require a Holding (H) regulation to require a development agreement shall be entered into with the Owner to include: • The Owner entering into a long-term lease for 300 off- site parking spaces; • The distribution of 10-ride transit passes to the occupants of each unit; • The Owner to provide 20 moderately affordable units; • The Owner to provide cash in lieu for 50 trees; and, • The Owner to implement green building initiatives and finishes such as green storm-water management, high efficiency HVAC, plumbing, electric systems, green building materials and finishes into the development. That the amending zoning by-law require a Holding (H) regulation to be applied for: • A Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, Record of Site Condition; • An updated Pedestrian Wind Assessment to the satisfaction of the Niagara Region and City; • An updated Shadow Study to the satisfaction of the City limiting shadow impacts for residential designated properties within two blocks of the proposed development to an (1) hour or less; • An updated Traffic Impact Study to the satisfaction of the City; • That step-backs be considered through the site plan process above the 30th floor. The location of step- backs, if feasible, are to be determined through the refinement of building architecture to incorporate necessary wind mitigation measures and a revised roof feature that provides a distinct terminus to the building and conformity to the City’s Tourism Policy Review Implementation Handbook and Official Plan design policies to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Planning, Building, and Development; and, • The inclusion of archaeological, noise, and traffic volume (regarding operational constraints at Ferry Street and Allendale Avenue/Stanley Avenue) and, parking restriction warning clauses in site plan and condominium agreements. Page 839 of 847 Page 840 of 847 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2023-073 A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200 to permit the use of the lands for a 77 storey building with 962 dwelling units and at least 516 square metres of commercial floor area at grade subject to the removal of a Holding (H) symbol (AM-2022-012). THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Lands that are the subject of and affected by the provisions of this by-law are described in Schedules 1 and 2 of this by-law and shall be referred to in this by- law as the “Lands”. Schedules 1 and 2 are a part of this by-law. 2. The purpose of this by-law is to amend the provisions of By-law No. 79-200, to permit the use of the Lands in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by that by-law. In the case of any conflict between a specific provision of this by -law and any existing provision of By-law No. 79-200, the provisions of this by-law are to prevail. 3. Notwithstanding any provision of By-law No. 79-200 to the contrary, the following uses and regulations shall be the permitted uses and regulations governing the permitted uses on and of the Lands. 4. The permitted uses shall be: (a) The uses permitted in a TC zone. (b) Dwelling units in combination with one or more of the uses permitted in the TC zone, provided that dwelling units are located above the ground floor, except for entrances thereto and for dwelling units located on the ground floor abutting Allendale Avenue. 5. The regulations governing the permitted uses shall be: (a) Minimum lot area The whole of Parcel TC-1195, save and except for any part required for road widening (b) Location of the various components of the building or structure on the Lands, their maximum height and maximum number of storeys and minimum yards Refer to the plan on Schedule 2 of this by-law and clause (d) of this section (c) Maximum lot coverage 100% (d) Maximum height of buildings or structures 245 metres as measured from Geodetic Elevation 196.5 metres Page 841 of 847 2 or a maximum of 77 storeys, whichever is the lesser which does not include a roof feature as required by clause (e) of this section with a maximum podium height of 20 metres (e) Roof feature A building having a height greater than 24 metres shall have a roof feature which has a maximum height of 9 metres above the top storey. The roof feature shall be a distinct architectural element of the building and may not contain a place of occupancy. (f) Maximum number of dwelling units at ground level provided such dwelling units front onto Allendale Avenue 7 dwelling units (g) Minimum floor area for commercial uses located on the ground floor adjacent to Robinson Street 516 square metres (h) Minimum indoor amenity area 1.6 square metres per dwelling unit (i) Minimum outdoor amenity area 10.8 square metres per dwelling unit (j) Minimum number of parking spaces 0.74 parking spaces per dwelling unit 5 car share parking spaces per building 1 bicycle parking space per dwelling unit (k) Deemed front lot line Robinson Street is deemed to be the front lot line for the purpose of this by-law (l) The balance of regulations specified for a TC use. 6. For the purposes of this by-law: “Bicycle Parking Space” means a space to park a bicycle. “Car Share” means the practice where a number of people share the use of one or more cars that are owned by a profit or non -profit car-sharing organization and where such organization may require the use of cars be reserved in advance, Page 842 of 847 3 charge fees based on time and/or kilometers driven, and set membership requirements of the car-sharing organization, including the payment of a membership fee that may or may not be refundable. "Car Share Parking Space” means a parking space that is exclusively reserved and actively used for car-sharing. “Roof feature” means a distinct architectural element erected above the top storey of the tower component and shall be provided for the purposes of enhancing t he design of the hotel and may enclose any roof mounted mechanical equipment, mechanical penthouses, or other similar elements. Notwithstanding Section 4.7 of By-law No. 79-200, and except for any flagpoles, or other similar decorative roof features, and radio, telephone, television or telecommunication towers or antennae, no water tank, elevator or other mechanical penthouse shall have a height greater than the roof feature unless clad to be aesthetically consistent with the roof feature. 7. All other applicable regulations set out in By-law No. 79-200, as amended, shall continue to apply to govern the permitted uses on the Lands, with all necessary changes in detail. 8. No person shall use the Lands for a use that is not a permitted use. 9. No person shall use the Lands in a manner that is contrary to the regulations. 10. The Holding (H) symbol that appears on Schedule 1 attached hereto is provided for in the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act. No person shall use the Lands described in section 1 of this by-law and shown hatched and designated TC(H) and numbered 1195 on the plan Schedule 1 attached hereto for any purpose, prior to the H symbol being removed pursuant to the Planning Act. Prior to the H symbol being removed, the landowner or developer shall complete: • A Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, Record of Site Condition and an updated Pedestrian Wind Assessment to the satisfaction of the Niagara Region and the City; • An updated Shadow Study to the satisfaction of the City limiting shadow impacts for residential designated properties within two blocks of the proposed development; • An updated Traffic Impact Study to the satisfaction of the City; • That step-backs be considered through the site plan process above the 30th floor. The location of step-backs, if feasible, are to be determined through the refinement of building architecture to incorporate necessary wind Page 843 of 847 4 mitigation measures and a revised roof feature that provides a distinct terminus to the building and conformity to the City’s Tourism Policy Review Implementation Handbook and Official Plan design policies to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Planning , Building, and Development; • A development agreement for the Owner entering into a long-term lease for 300 off-site parking spaces, distribution of 10-ride transit passes to the occupants of each dwelling unit, provision of 20 moderately affordable dwelling units, cash in lieu for 50 trees, and incorporation of green building initiatives; and, • The inclusion of archaeological, noise, traffic volume (regarding operational constraints at Ferry Street and Allendale Avenue/Stanley Avenue), and parking restriction warning clauses in site plan and condominium agreements. 11. The provisions of this by-law shall be shown on Sheet D5 of Schedule “A” of By- law No. 79-200 by designating a portion of the Lands from TC to TC(H) and numbered 1195. Section 19 of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding thereto: 19.1.1195 Refer to By-law No. 2023-073. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 11th day of July 2023. ....................................................................... ..................................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 844 of 847 Page 845 of 847 Page 846 of 847 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2023 – 074 A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 11th day of July, 2023. WHEREAS it is deemed desirable and expedient that the actions and proceedings of Council as herein set forth be adopted, ratified and confirmed by by-law. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The actions of the Council at its meeting held on the 11th day of July 2023 including all motions, resolutions and other actions taken by the Council at its said meeting, are hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed as if they were expressly embodied in this by-law, except where the prior approval of the Ontario Municipal Board or other authority is by law required or any action required by law to be taken by resolution. 2. Where no individual by-law has been or is passed with respect to the taking of any action authorized in or with respect to the exercise of any powers by the Council, then this by-law shall be deemed for all purposes to be the by-law required for approving, authorizing and taking of any action authorized therein or thereby, or required for the exercise of any powers thereon by the Council. 3. The Mayor and the proper officers of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said actions of the Council or to obtain approvals where required, and, except where otherwise provided, the Mayor and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents arising therefrom and necessary on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls and to affix thereto the corporate seal of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. Read a first, second, third time and passed. Signed and sealed in open Council this 11th day of July, 2023. .............................................................. ............................................................. BILL MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 847 of 847