10-03-2023
AGENDA
City Council Meeting
4:00 PM - Tuesday, October 3, 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: Tammy Armeni (singing live in Chambers)
Land Acknowledgement and Traditional Indigenous Meeting Opening
2. IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL
2.1. Resolution to go In-Camera (added)
October 3, 2023 - Resolution to go In-Camera
11
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
3.1. Council Minutes of September 12, 2023
City Council - 12 Sep 2023 - Minutes - Pdf
12 - 24
3.2. Council Minutes of September 19, 2023 (Special Council
Meeting) (Added)
City Council - 19 Sep 2023 - Minutes - Pdf
25 - 26
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 / APPOINTMENTS
All speakers are reminded that they have a maximum of 5 minutes to
make their presentation.
Page 1 of 345
6.1. Civic Recognition - Greater Niagara Baseball Association
(GNBA) - Niagara Falls 12U Falcons
The Niagara Falls 12U Falcons, GNBA baseball team competed
in the Ontario Baseball Association Provincial Championship in
Chatham, Ontario, in the "A" division against 11 other teams and
won the championship. The team will be recognized for their
achievement.
6.2. Birchway Niagara (formerly Women's Place of South
Niagara)
Amanda Braet, Director of Development & Stewardship from
Birchway Niagara, along with Amy Layton, Founder of the Lip
Sync Niagara Fundraiser, will present to Council about a third-
party fundraiser taking place to support Birchway Niagara, the
Lip Sync Battle. This year marks the 8th year for the event and
to date has raised over $57,000.00 to support our services.
Specifically, the request from Council is the following:
- to request that individual Councillors consider purchasing tickets
to attend.
- to include information and a link for people to purchase tickets
on the city website.
Birchway Niagara - Request to speak before Council
Presentation - Lip Sync
27 - 35
7. PLANNING MATTERS
7.1. PBD-2023-057 (Public Meeting) (Agent presentation added)
AM-2023-012, Zoning By-law Amendment
8178 Thorold Stone Road
Proposal: To rezone a portion of the property from R1C to a
site specific R1E zone to facilitate the creation of a new lot
and construction of a new detached dwelling
Applicant: Anthony Vacca
Tyler Galloway, Student Planner, Planning Department, will
provide an overview of Report PBD-2023-057.
PBD-2023-057 - Pdf
Presentation (Staff) - AM-2023-012 - Public Meeting (REVISED)
36 - 68
Page 2 of 345
Presentation - (Agent) - 8178 Thorold Stone Road - 2022-03-10
(3)
Comments from Resident - Item 7.1
8. REPORTS
8.1. CLK-2023-07
2024 Council Schedule
CLK-2023-07 - Pdf
69 - 71
8.2. HR-2023-02
Whistle-Blower Corporate Policy
HR-2023-02 - Pdf
72 - 80
8.3. PBD-2023-58 (Report and letter added)
Building Permit Fee Review
PBD-2023-58 - Pdf
Letter to Mayor Diodati re Building Permit Fees_Oct 2 2023
81 - 121
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. F-2023-27
2023 Q2 Parking Fund Budget to Actual Variance (Unaudited)
F-2023-27 - Pdf
122 - 125
9.2. PBD-2023-59
GTY-2019-002, Gateway Economic Community Improvement
Plan and Municipal Employment Incentive Program
Application
6162 Progress Street
Applicant: 1992328 Ontario Inc.
126 - 132
Page 3 of 345
PBD-2023-59 - Pdf
10. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK
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 #10.6.
10.1. Proclamation Request - Fire Prevention Week 2023
Fire Chief Jo Zambito is requesting Council to proclaim the week
of October 8 to 14, 2023 as "Fire Prevention Week."
This year's theme is "Cooking safety starts with YOU. Pay
attention to fire prevention."
Recommendation: For the Approval of Council.
Proclamation Request - Fire Prevention Week 2023 - City Clerks
Memo 2023
Proclamation Fire Prevention Week 2023
133 - 134
10.2. Proclamation Request - Mike Glavcic Day - Wednesday,
December 6th, 2023
Denise Mateyk, President of St. George & St. Archangel Michael
Serbian Orthodox Church, is requesting Council proclaim
Wednesday, December 6th, 2023 as "Mike Glavcic Day."
Recommendation: For the Approval of Council.
Proclamation Request - MIKE GLAVCIC DAY IN NIAGARA
FALLS - DEC 6/23
135 - 136
10.3. Proclamation Request - Lung Cancer Awareness Month -
November 2023
137 - 138
Page 4 of 345
A local resident is requesting that Council proclaim the month of
November 2023 as "Lung Cancer Awareness Month."
Recommendation: For the Approval of Council.
Proclamation Request - Lung Cancer Awareness Month -
November 2023
10.4. Resolution - Correspondence from Niagara Region
Attached is a resolution from the Niagara Region regarding
Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and the Damaging Impacts of
Hate and Intolerance.
Recommendation: For Council’s Consideration and Support.
CLK-C 2023-109 CSC-C 18-2023 - Equity, Diversity and
Inclusion and the Damaging Impacts of Hate and Intolera nce
139 - 141
10.5. Resolution - Town of Fort Erie - Region's 2023 Operating
Budget Levy Approval
Attached please find a copy of a resolution passed by Fort Erie
Council at its Special Meeting of September 25, 2023
Recommendation: For Council Consideration and Support.
Town of Fort Erie - Resolution - Region 2024 Operating Budget
Levy Approval
142
10.6. Resolution: Town of Parry Sound - Requesting Provincial
Regulations regarding Short-Term Rental Digital Platforms
At its September 19th Meeting, Town of Parry Sound Council
passed Resolution 2023-138, as attached, which supports the
call of other municipalities for provincial regulation of short-term
rental digital platforms.
Recommendation: For Council Consideration and Support.
Resolution - Town of Parry Sound - 2023-138 request Province
for regulations-short-term rental digital platforms
143
11. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK
Page 5 of 345
RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council receive and file for
information Item #11.1 through to and including Item #11.8.
11.1. Resolution - City of Cambridge - Declaring Intimate Partner
Violence (IPV) an Epidemic
Attached is a copy of a motion passed by Cambridge City
Council on September 12, 2023 regarding Declaring Intimate
Partner Violence (IPV) and Epidemic.
Recommendation: For the Information of Council.
Resolution - City of Cambridge - September 12, 2023
144 - 145
11.2. Resolution - City of Quinte West - Support of Municipality of
Wawa re: Chronic Pain Treatments
At their meeting on September 20, 2023, the Council of the
Municipality of Quinte West carried support in reference to
Motion No 23-356 regarding "The Municipality of Wawa - Chronic
Pain Treatments".
Recommendation: For the Information of Council.
Resolution - City of QW Council Support - Wawa - Chronic Pain
Treatment
146 - 148
11.3. Resolution - Town of Midland - "Catch and Release" Justice
is Ontario
Attached is a resolution of support regarding the Catch and
Release Justice is Ontario, passed by the Town of Midland
Council at its September 6, 2023 meeting.
Recommendation: For the Information of Council.
Resolution - Town of Midland - Letter-Catch and Release Justice
is Ontario - September 8, 2023
149
11.4. Resolution - Northumberland County - Highway Traffic Act
Amendments
Attached is a resolution of support regarding "Highway Traffic Act
Amendments," passed by Northumberland County Council at its
September 20th, 2023 meeting.
Recommendation: For the Information of Council.
Resolution - Northumberland County Resolution - Support
'Highway Traffic Act Amendments'
150 - 155
Page 6 of 345
11.5. Resolution - Town of Aurora - Council Opposition to Strong
Mayor Powers in Aurora
Atttached is a resolution from the Town of Aurora Council
meeting of September 26, 2023, regarding a resolution adopted
by Council respecting Aurora Council Opposition to Strong Mayor
Powers in Aurora.
Recommendation: For the Information of Council.
Resolution - Town of Aurota - Letter-Aurora Council Opposition-
StrongMayorPowers-Aurora
156 - 159
11.6. Resolution - County of Brant - Guaranteed Livable Income
Attached is a resolution from the County of Brant regarding the
Guaranteed Livable Income
Recommendation: For the Information of Council.
Resolution - County of Brant Motion of support of the Town of
Grimsby's resolution- to Municipalities
160 - 161
11.7. Comments from resident
Comments from Resident
162 - 189
11.8. Resolution - Support B/Nai Brith's Demand - Deschenes
Commission Report - War Criminals
Attached is a resolution requesting Niagara Falls City Council
support the request for the immediate release of all
documentation pertaining to the 1986 Commission of Inquiry on
War Criminals in Canada including an unredacted version of the
Rodal report.
Recommendation - For the Information of Council.
Resolution -
190 - 192
12. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK
12.1. Memo to Council - Municipal Response to Housing
Affordability Task Force's Recommendations
Response to The Honourable Paul Calandra, Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing letter of September 15, 2023
requesting a Response to the Housing Affordability Task Force.
It is recommended:
193 - 326
Page 7 of 345
1.THAT the following Task Force recommendations be endorsed
as the top 5 recommendations, and the associated comments be
provided to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing .
•Recommendation 56 (Originally No. 48): The Ontario
government should establish a large “Ontario Housing Delivery
Fund” and encourage the federal government to match funding.
This fund should reward:
a) Annual housing growth that meets or exceeds provincia l
targets
b) Reductions in total approval times for new housing
c) The speedy removal of exclusionary zoning practices.
Comment: Funding for large scale affordable housing projects is
supported, however it should be noted that while the City can
address procedures to efficiently bring projects to a shovel ready
status the actual construction of projects depends on the private
sector (developers and builders). It is recommended that further
measures to encourage the private sector to develop vacant
lands that are shovel ready be considered by the Province.
•Recommendation 38 (Originally No. 31): In clearing the existing
backlog, encourage the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the
finish line that will support housing growth and intensification, as
well as regional water or utility infrastructure decisions that will
unlock significant housing capacity.
•Recommendation 50 (Originally No. 42): Provide provincial and
federal loan guarantees for purpose built rental, affordable rental
and affordable ownership projects.
•Recommendation 51 (Originally No. 43): Enable municipalities,
subject to adverse economic events, to withdraw infrastructure
allocations from any permitted projects where construction has
not been initiated within three years of building permits being
issued.
Comment: Consideration should also be given to enabling
municipalities to withdraw infrastructure allocations to projects
which have received zoning, subdivision or site plan approvals
but have not been initiated within three years of approvals being
granted.
•Recommendation 53 (Originally No. 45): Improve funding for
colleges, trades schools, and apprenticeships, encourage and
incentivize municipalities, unions and employers to provide more -
on-the-job training.
Page 8 of 345
Comment: Staff recognize that substantially increasing the rate at
which housing is constructed depends on increasing the number
of skilled tradespersons and support initiatives to do so. Staff
also note that municipalities may need to increase staffing to
process Building and Planning applications as well as advancing
municipal infrastructure projects.
2.THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be advised
that support of these recommendations is contingent on funding
being provided to the new South Niagara Falls Waste Water
Treatment Plant.
Memo to Council - Municipal Response to Housing Affordabiilty
Task Force's Recommendations
PBD-2022-10 - Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force
Proposal Review
12.2. Memo - Niagara Falls Public Library
Attached is a memo from the Niagara Falls Public Library
requesting Council to appoint Mr. Fraiman, a community
representative, to complete the remainder of the Public Library
Board Term.
Recommendation: THAT the currency vacancy on the Niagara
Falls Public Library Board be filled by Michael Fraiman.
Memo to Council re appointment of Library Board Member -
Fraiman
327 - 328
13. RATIFICATION OF IN-CAMERA
14. MOTIONS
14.1. MOTION - Public Safety - Welland River (Chippawa Creek)
Councillor Nieuwesteeg submitted the attached motion
concerning public safety measures in the Welland River.
It is recommended:
THAT staff bring a report back to Council to see how the City and
other appropriate agencies can improve public safety in the
Welland River (aka- The Chippawa Creek).
Motion from Councillor Nieuwesteeg - Public Safety - Welland
River
329
Page 9 of 345
14.2. Motion to Reconsider - PBD-2023-47
Employment Lands Conversion: Official Plan Amendment
No. 157 (Fraser Street, west of Stanley Avenue and lands
east of Fourth Avenue, north of Hamilton Street)
Councillor Baldinelli requested that PBD-2023-47 (brought before
Council at the August 15, 2023 Council Meeting) be brought back
before Council for reconsideration.
Motion (from August 15, 2023 Council meeting):
ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Lococo, seconded by
Councillor Campbell THAT Council deny the request from Staff to
amend the Official Plan to convert two industrial designated sites
into residential.
Memo to Council - Meeting to Reconsider Refusal of OPA 157
330 - 344
15. 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.
16. BY-LAWS
The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to
the by-law listed for Council consideration.
2023-
093.
A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council
at its meeting held on the 3rd day of October, 2023.
By-law 2023-093 - 03 10 23 - Confirming By-law
345
17. ADJOURNMENT
Page 10 of 345
The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Resolution
October 3, 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 October 3, 2023, Niagara Falls City Council will be holding Closed
Meetings as permitted under s. 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, namely;
(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or
local board.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that on October 3, 2023 Niagara Falls City Council will
go into a closed meeting to consider matters that fall under 239 (2) (c) to discuss the
possible acquisition of land by the municipality.
AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. Carried Unanimously
WILLIAM G. MATSON JAMES M. DIODATI
CITY CLERK MAYOR
Page 11 of 345
MINUTES
City Council Meeting
4:00 PM - Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Council Chambers/Zoom App.
The City Council Meeting of the City of Niagara Falls was called to order on Tuesday,
September 12, 2023, at 4:17 PM, in the Council Chambers, with the following members
present:
PRESENT: Mayor Jim Diodati, Councillor Tony Baldinelli, Councillor Wayne
Campbell, Councillor Lori Lococo, Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg,
Councillor Mona Patel, Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Councillor Mike
Strange, Councillor Wayne Thomson
STAFF
PRESENT:
Jason Burgess, Bill Matson, Erik Nickel, Tiffany Clark, Shelley Darlington,
Kira Dolch, Andrew Bryce, Joe Zambito, Serge Felicetti, Margaret
Corbett, Heather Ruzylo (present in Chambers)
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 4:17 PM.
2. IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL
2.1. Resolutions to go In-Camera
Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo
Seconded by Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg
THAT Council enter into an In-Camera session on September 12, 2023 and on
September 19, 2023 and October 18, 2023.
Carried Unanimously
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
3.1. Council Minutes of August 15, 2023
Moved by Councillor Mona Patel
Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli
THAT Council approve the minutes of the August 15, 2023 meeting as
presented.
Carried Unanimously (Councillor Pietrangelo declared a conflict to Items
#11.3, #11.6 and #11.11).
4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
Page 1 of 13
Page 12 of 345
a) Councillor Victor Pietrangelo declared a conflict of interest to the following
items from the August 15, 2023 Council agenda:
• Item #11.3 - Niagara Region Correspondence - PDS 22-2023 -
Proposed Provincial Planning Statement - Natural Heritage Policies.
• Item #11.6 - NPCA - resolution - as both of these items (#11.3 and
#11.6) deal with Provincial Planning Statements and the Councillor's
family owns lands that can be affected.
• Item #11.11 - Memo - Status of Application - AM-2022-017 - Zoning By-
law Amendment - as Councillor's father owns testamentary devise
lands.
b) Councillor Victor Pietrangelo declared a conflict of interest to the following on
the September 12, 2023 agenda:
• Item #8.3 - PBD-2023-55 - 2023 Provincial Planning Statement Natural
Heritage Policies, as the Councillor's family owns lands that can be
affected.
• Item #11.4 - Niagara Region Correspondence - PDS-24-2023, as
Councillor's parents own land that can be affected.
5. MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Mayor Diodati extended condolences to the following:
• Irene Collee - mother of Doug Collee of our Fire Prevention Office.
• Colin "Barney" Ruddell - Retired Deputy Fire Chief.
The Mayor mentioned the following City events:
AMO – London
•Minister of Transportation
•Minister of Infrastructure (Region)
Niagara United Soccer Club 50th Anniversary [photo]
•(no councillors)
Firefighter Recruit Graduation [photo]
•(no councillors)
Niagara Falls Irish Festival [photo]
•Also attended by Councillors Lococo and Patel
St. Paul’s Evangelical/ Lutheran Church Final Service [photo]
•Also attended by Councillor Lococo
Key to the City Presentation – Fred Fox [photo]
•Also attended by Councillor Nieuwesteeg, Lococo and Thomson
F.H. Leslie Playground Ribbon Cutting [photo]
•Also attended by Councillors Nieuwesteeg, Lococo, Baldinelli and Thomson
Page 2 of 13
Page 13 of 345
Heater’s Heroes [photo]
•Congratulations to Councillors Pietrangelo and Strange
•Raised $50K this year
•Gruelling- cobwebs/ snakes/ mud/ rocks/ leaky motorhome
•Wanted to quit, but couldn’t quit on the kids
•Event attended by Councillors Lococo, Nieuwesteeg, Baldinelli and Thomson
Our First Annual Charity Community BBQ [photo]
•Mike & Armelina Glavcic $1M
•$30K raised between Hospice/ Hospital
•3-5K attendees
•THANK YOU to 100’s of volunteers/ city staff
•Sponsors/ Donors/ Community
•Attended by all of City Council
Councillor Representation
Councillor Patel•Onam Celebration with the United Keralites of Niagara
•Onam Celebration of MASS Niagara
Regional Councillor Morocco•Groundbreaking Ceremony—55 Plus Active
Adult Lifestyle Community
Flag Raisings [photos for each were shown]
•Restoration Day- Dominican Republic
oAttended by Councillor Patel
•Ukraine’s Independence Day
oAttended by Councillor Lococo
•Childhood Cancer Awareness Month
oAttended by Councillors Baldinelli, Thomson, Patel and Councillors
Pietrangelo and Strange virtually from their run
•PKD (Polycystic Kidney Disease) Awareness Day
oAttended by Councillors Baldinelli, Thomson and Patel
Grand Openings & Business Happenings [photos for each were shown]
•Kristina’s Kolours 10th Anniversary – (no councillors)
•Metro - (no councillors)
•High End Cannabis Grand Opening
oAttended by Councillor Patel
•Hazukido Grand Opening
oAttended by Councillors Thomson and Patel
b) The next Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 3rd, 2023.
6. DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
6.1. BDD-2023-001
Page 3 of 13
Page 14 of 345
Niagara Falls Economic Development Strategy
Angela Davidson, Manager of Business Development, introduced Report BDD-
2023-001 and the Niagara Falls Economic Development Strategy and the
consultants from Stiletto, Laura O'Blenis and Tara Sutton, whom led the
presentation.
Laura O'Blenis, President & CEO of Stiletto and Tara Sutton, Project Lead,
made a presentation to Council.
Mayor Diodati left the meeting at 5:12 PM, and Councillor Pietrangelo resumed
as Chair.
At 5:16 PM, Mayor Diodati returned to meeting as Chair.
Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo
Seconded by Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg
1. THAT Council approve the draft Economic Development Strategy Five Year
Plan.
Carried Unanimously
7. PLANNING MATTERS
7.1. PBD-2023-53
AM-2023-011
Zoning By-law Amendment Application
5504 Lewis Avenue
Applicant: Jingfang Wang
Agent: Greg Taras (Urban & Environmental Management Inc.)
Councillor Pietrangelo left the meeting at 5:53 PM and returned at 5:58 PM.
The Public Meeting commenced at 5:53 PM.
Nick DeBenedetti, Planner 2, provided an overview of Report PBD -2023-53.
Samantha Bray, Project Manager from Urban & Environmental Management
Inc., was in attendance and responded to Council questions.
The Public Meeting was closed at 6:02 PM.
Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson
Seconded by Councillor Lori Lococo
1. THAT Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment to rezone the
property, a site-specific Residential Apartment 5A Density (R5A) Zone to allow
Page 4 of 13
Page 15 of 345
the conversion of an existing mixed-use building to an apartment dwelling
containing 7 units, subject to the regulations outlined in this report,
2. THAT the amending Zoning By-law include a Holding (H) provision to require
a Development Agreement be entered into between the applicant and the City
containing noise warning clauses to the satisfaction of the City and the Niagara
Region,
3. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute a Development
Agreement to the Satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and further,
4. THAT the City Solicitor be authorized to register the Development
Agreement on title to 5504 Lewis Avenue in the Land Registry Office at Mr.
Jingfang Wang's expense.
Carried Unanimously
Moved by Councillor Mona Patel
Seconded by Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg
THAT Council enter into an In-Camera session.
Carried Unanimously
8. REPORTS
At 6:03 PM, Councillors left Chambers to go into an In-Camera session.
8.1. MW-2023-27
Climate Change Adaptation Implementation Plan
Rena Viehbeck, from the ICLEI Canada Team, presented to Council and was
available, via Zoom, to respond to Council questions.
Direction to Staff: Councillor Lococo suggested that Municipal Works' staff
provide an annual report on Climate Change and also expressed her interest in
being a Champion on Council for the Climate Change Adaptation
Implementation Plan.
Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo
Seconded by Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg
1. THAT City of Niagara Falls Council approves the Climate Change
Adaptation Implementation Plan (Adaptation Plan); and further,
2. THAT City of Niagara Falls Council directs staff to proceed with the
implementation plan initiatives as outlined in this report; and further,
3. THAT City of Niagara Falls Council direct staff seek funding support
through applicable federal and provincial opportunities as they arise,
including the Natural Resources Canada Climate Change Adaptation
Program, to create a Climate Change Coordinator contract position to
lead the implementation of the Adaptation Plan and climate change -
related initiatives.
Carried Unanimously
8.2. PBD-2023-54
Page 5 of 13
Page 16 of 345
Community Improvement Plan Incentive Programs Review Initiation
Report
Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo
Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell
1. THAT Council receive this report regarding the initiation of a review of
the Incentive Programs for the City’s Community Improvement Plans.
2. THAT Council authorize staff to consult key stakeholders through the
incentives review process.
3. THAT Council direct Staff to delegate the approval authority for simple
grant CIP applications to Staff as discussed in this report.
Carried Unanimously
8.3. PBD-2023-55
2023 Provincial Planning Statement Natural Heritage Policies
Councillor Pietrangelo left the meeting as he had declared a conflict to this
report (PBD-2023-55).
Moved by Councillor Mike Strange
Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell
THAT Council receive this report for information.
Carried (Councillor Lococo was opposed and Councillor Pietrangelo
declared a conflict).
8.4. PBD-2023-56
Quarter 2 Development and Housing Report and Provincial Reporting
Councillor Pietrangelo returned to Chambers at 7:47 PM.
Moved by Councillor Mike Strange
Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell
1. THAT Council receive the Quarter 2 Development and Housing Report
that reviews the status of current development and housing activity in
the City for the second quarter of 2023.
2. THAT Council direct staff to forward the housing information to the
Province as required.
3. THAT Council direct staff to investigate solutions to our City's current
rodent issues.
Carried Unanimously
9. CONSENT AGENDA
9.1. F-2023-28
Page 6 of 13
Page 17 of 345
2022 (unaudited) Water/Wastewater Fund Budget to Actual Variance
report
Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo
Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli
1. THAT Council RECEIVE report F-2023-28, 2022 (unaudited)
Water/Wastewater Fund Budget to Actual Variance report for
information.
Carried Unanimously
10. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK
10.1. Proclamation Request - Wear Red Canada Day
Wear Red Canada is celebrated annually across Canada on February 13th to
raise awareness about women’s cardiovascular health. Organized events held
across the country serve as a reminder for everyone, especially women, to be
mindful, curious and proactive in the management of their heart health and
wellness.
The Wear Red Canada team is requesting Council's assistance in proclaiming
Tuesday, February 13, 2024 as "Wear Red Canada Day" in Niagara Falls.
Recommendation: For the Approval of Council.
10.2. Flag-Raising Request - AIDS Awareness Week; World Aid's Day;
Aboriginal AIDS Awareness Week
Positive Living Niagara is requesting a flag raising on Thursday, November 23,
2023 in recognition of AIDS Awareness Week (Nov 23 - Dec 1), World AIDS
Day (Dec 1) and Aboriginal AIDS Awareness Week (Dec. 1 -8).
Recommendation: For the Approval of Council.
10.3. Resolution - City of Thorold - Support of Keeping Paul Bernardo in
Maximum Security Placement
Attached is a resolution from the City of Thorold requesting support of Council.
Recommendation: That Council Support the resolution.
10.4. Flag-Raising Request - United Way
United Way Niagara is requesting raising the United Way flag in conjunction
with their annual fundraising campaign, during the week of September 25th.
Each year, United Way Niagara strive to raise millions of dollars to help
provide local families and individuals with a social safety net and we can’t
accomplish our goals without the help of local municipalities like the City of
Niagara Falls.
Page 7 of 13
Page 18 of 345
Recommendation: For the Approval of Council.
Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo
Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell
THAT Council approve/support Item #10.1 through to Item #10.4.
Carried Unanimously
11. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK
11.1. Resolution - Township of Emo - Black Ash Tree - Endangered Species
Classification
The Township of Emo has passed the attached resolution at the June 14, 2023
Council meeting regarding the Province of Ontario classification of the Black
Ash Tree being a species at risk.
Recommendation: For the Information of Council.
11.2. Resolution - Township of Severn - Climate Emergency Just Transition
Transfer
Attached is a resolution from the Township of Severn regarding the Just
Transition Transfer (JTT).
Recommendation: For the Information of Council.
11.3. Letter from the Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing
Attached is a letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
regarding the new Building Faster Fund.
Recommendation: For the Information of Council.
11.4. Niagara Region Correspondence
Attached is correspondence sent from the the Niagara Region regarding the
following matters:
1. Niagara Region Report PDS 24-2023 - Approval of City of Niagara Falls
Official Plan Amendment No. 147 (Employment Policies)
2. Niagara Region Motion - Support for Association of Municipalities of Ontario
(AMO) Municipal Code of Conduct Recommendations
Recommendation: For the Information of Council.
11.5. Integrity Commissioner Report - Final Investigation Report - IC-25822-
0823
Attached is a letter and report from the Integrity Commissioner regarding IC -
25822-0823 - Omnibus Complaint re: Various Members of Council.
Recommendation: For the Information of Council.
Page 8 of 13
Page 19 of 345
Joedy Burdett, resident of Niagara Falls, addressed Council.
Councillor Campbell inquired as to the cost of this Integrity Commissioner
Report - IC-25822-0823.
City Clerk, Bill Matson, informed Council that the cost was $15,407.55.
11.6. Comments from resident
Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson
Seconded by Councillor Mona Patel
THAT Council receive and file for information Item #11.1 though to and
including Item #11.6.
Carried Unanimously (Councillor Pietrangelo declared a conflict to Item
#11.4)
12. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CL ERK
12.1. Noise By-law Exemption - Niagara Falls Curling Club Inc. - Gale Centre
Arena Parking Lot
The Niagara Falls Curling Club is submitting an Application for Exemption -
Noise Control By-law for the consideration of Council.
The Event/Entertainment Tent will host live entertainment in support of the
International Curling Event (Grand Slam of Curling) that is being hosted inside
the Gale Centre Arena from October 17-22, 2023.
Recommendation: THAT Niagara Falls Council grant the Niagara Falls Curling
Club relief to the City's Noise By-law to allow entertainment from 11:00 AM
until 12:30 AM on Thursday, October 19, 2023, Friday, October 20, 2023 and
Saturday, October 21, 2023.
Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo
Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange
THAT Niagara Falls Council grant the Niagara Falls Curling Club relief to the
City's Noise By-law to allow entertainment from 11:00 AM until 12:30 AM on
Thursday, October 19, 2023, Friday, October 20, 2023 and Saturday, October
21, 2023.
Carried Unanimously
13. RESOLUTIONS
13.1. Resolution - AM-2021-010 - Minor Report Resolution
As per report PBD-2023-52 on the August 15th Council agenda, please see
attached the resolution to deem changes minor to permit a 10.9m exterior side
yard width along Montrose Road and to permit a 1.5 metre projection for
balconies and canopies into the required side yard. Council approved the
Page 9 of 13
Page 20 of 345
report on the August 15th agenda. This resolution was intended to be signed
after the approval of the report.
Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo
Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli
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
Carried Unanimously
14. RATIFICATION OF IN-CAMERA
Nothing to report or ratify.
15. MOTIONS
15.1. Motion - Amendment to Firework By-law
Councillor Patel asked Council to consider approving amendments to the
current Firework by-law.
It is recommended:
1. THAT staff be DIRECTED to amend By-law No. 2017-101 - Fireworks
By-law; to include Diwali and Chinese Lunar New Year.
2. THAT staff INCLUDE amendments to sections 5.4 and 6.1;
3. AND THAT staff REVIEW similar by-laws from other municipalities.
Joedy Burdett, resident of Niagara Falls, addressed Council proposing that
other holidays be included such as New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.
Moved by Councillor Mona Patel
Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange
THAT staff be DIRECTED to amend By-law No. 2017-101 - Fireworks By-law;
to include Diwali and Chinese Lunar New Year.
THAT staff INCLUDE amendments to sections 5.4 and 6.1;
AND THAT staff REVIEW similar by-laws from other municipalities.
Carried Unanimously (Councillor Pietrangelo was absent from the vote).
16. NOTICE OF MOTION/NEW BUSINESS
a) NOTICE OF MOTION - Public Safety - Welland River (Chippawa Creek)
Councillor Nieuwesteeg submitted the following notice of motion:
Page 10 of 13
Page 21 of 345
THAT staff bring a report back to Council to see how the City and other
appropriate agencies can improve public safety in the Welland River (aka- The
Chippawa Creek).
As there was a tragic death recently in the Welland River, a review of what the
City can do is an appropriate undertaking for Council and the City.
09 12 2023 - Councillor Nieuwesteeg - Public Safety - Welland River
b) Safety Committee
Direction to Staff: Councillor Lococo was looking for an update as to the status
of forming a safety committee.
c) Notice of Motion - PBD-2023-47
Councillor Baldinelli requested that PBD-2023-47 (brought before Council at
the August 15, 2023 Council Meeting) be brought back before Council for
reconsideration.
17. BY-LAWS
2023-
088.
A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No.160 to the City of
Niagara Falls Official Plan (AM-2021-010).
2023-
089.
A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to permit the use of the lands for a 13-
storey and 8-storey apartment dwelling and 10 blocks of 3 storey townhouse
dwellings subject to the removal of a holding (H) symbol, and By-law No.
2007-062 is rescinded for the subject lands (AM-2021-010).
2023-
090.
A by-law to authorize the execution and registration of an Encroachment
Agreement with Vikrampal Singh Moomie and Baljit Kaur Moomie respecting
the partial dwelling, front step and covered front entrance porch at 5705
Buchanan Avenue.
2023-
091.
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-
092.
A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting
held on the 12th day of September, 2023.
Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo
Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli
THAT the by-laws be read a first, second and third time and passed.
Carried Unanimously
18. ADJOURNMENT
a) Adjournment
Moved by Councillor Wayne Campbell
Seconded by Councillor Mona Patel
Page 11 of 13
Page 22 of 345
THAT Council adjourn the meeting at 8:45 PM.
Carried Unanimously
Mayor
City Clerk
Page 12 of 13
Page 23 of 345
Notice of Motion
I am notifying Council of my intent to bring a
motion to the next Council meeting to request:
That staff bring a report to see how the City
and other appropriate agencies can improve
public safety in the Welland River AKAThe
Chippewa Creek
As we know there was a tragic death recently in
the River and I believe a review of what the City
can do is appropriate undertaking for this
Council and the City.Page 13 of 13Page 24 of 345
MINUTES
City Council Meeting
3:00 PM - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Council Chambers
The City Council Meeting of the City of Niagara Falls was called to order on Tuesday,
September 19, 2023, at 3:06 PM, in the Council Chambers, with the following members
present:
COUNCIL
PRESENT:
Councillor Tony Baldinelli, Councillor Lori Lococo, Councillor Victor
Pietrangelo, Councillor Mike Strange, Councillor Wayne Thomson
COUNCIL
ABSENT:
Mayor Jim Diodati, Councillor Wayne Campbell, Councillor Mona Patel,
Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg
STAFF
PRESENT:
Jason Burgess, Bill Matson, Dale Morton, Nidhi Punyarthi, Heather
Ruzylo
1 CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 3:06 PM.
(Councillor Pietrangelo called the meeting to order, in Mayor' Diodati's absence).
2 IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL
a) Resolution to go In-Camera (September 19, 2023)
Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson
Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli
THAT Council enter into an In-Camera session.
Carried Unanimously
3 DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
a) Councillor Tony Baldinelli declared a conflict of interest to Item 2.1 on the In-
Camera Agenda.
4 ADJOURNMENT
a) Adjournment
Moved by Councillor Wayne Thomson
Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli
THAT Council adjourn the meeting at 3:06 PM.
Carried Unanimously
Page 1 of 2
Page 25 of 345
Mayor
City Clerk
Page 2 of 2
Page 26 of 345
1
Heather Ruzylo
Subject:Request from Birchway Niagara (formerly Women's Place of South Niagara)
From: Amanda Braet <AmandaB@birchway.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:46 PM
To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: Amy Layton <amylayton@royallepage.ca>; Lori Lococo <llococo@niagarafalls.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Request from Birchway Niagara (formerly Women's Place of South Niagara)
Hello Bill
I’m reaching out to you for two reasons.
1. Can I please request to speak at an October council meeting about a third-party
fundraiser taking place to support Birchway Niagara, the Lip Sync Battle. This event is
organized by Royal LePage agent, and Niagara Falls resident Amy Layton. This year marks
the 8th year for the event and to date has raised over $57,000.00 to support our services.
Specifically, I would like to request the following from council:
To purchase a table to
participate
To include information
and a link for people to purchase tickets on the city website, in the news emails
To include presentation
slides for when I speak
2. When should I be putting in my request for the Gale Centre for the 2024 Book Riot event? I
know decisions are made quarterly and I want to ensure that there is sufficient time to
advertise leading up to the event.
Thank you in advance Bill for your help. I look forward to hearing from you!
Amanda
Page 27 of 345
2
Amanda Braet B.A., CFRE (She/Her)
Director of Development & Stewardship
Birchway Niagara | www.birchway.ca
8903 McLeod Rd, Niagara Falls ON, L2H 3S6
P:905-356-3933 ext. 240 | F:905-356-5522
We value and respect flexible work arrangements. Although I have sent this at a time that is convenient for me, it is
not my expectation that you read, respond or follow up on this email outside of your scheduled work day or outside of
typical business hours.
Its quick and easy to support Birchway Niagara. Make an online donation – here!
This information is directed in confidence solely to the person named above and may not otherwise be distributed, copied or
disclosed. Therefore, this information should be considered strictly confidential. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender immediately via a return email for further direction.
Avis de confidentialité : Les informations contenues dans ce courriel, y compris tous les documents qui y sont joints, sont pour
l'usage exclusif du/des destinataire(s) désigné(s) ; car elles peuvent être de nature confidentielle et privilégiée. Toute revue,
utilisation, divulgation ou distribution non autorisée est interdite. Si vous n'êtes pas le ou les destinataire(s) désigné(s), veuillez
immédiatement en aviser l'expéditeur par courriel et assurez-vous d'avoir détruit toutes les copies du message original.
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 28 of 345
We will
be a shoulder to lean on, a voice to
advocate for, a space to feel safe in, an
ally to trust, a guide to navigate, and a
counsellor to heal for everyone affected
by abuse of all forms.Page 29 of 345
Niagara’s 2022 statistics alone show the
magnitude of the problem.
•5,160 intimate partner violence calls for service to Niagara Regional Police, resulting in 1,143 criminal investigations;
•749 victims of intimate partner violence assisted by Victim Services Niagara, 91 safety plans and 55 revised safety
plans due to breaches;
•2,571 crisis calls to Birchway Niagara, 233 women and children in shelter and 278 women turned away due to a lack
of space;
•10,383 crisis calls for Gillian’s Place, 166 adults and 127 children in shelter and 431 people turned away due to lack
of space.Page 30 of 345
Amy Layton
•Niagara Falls Resident
•Ally Against Abuse
•Lip Sync Battle Organizer
•Raised $57,000 and counting!Page 31 of 345
Page 32 of 345
Page 33 of 345
Page 34 of 345
Page 35 of 345
PBD-2023-057
Report
Report to: Mayor and Council
Date: October 3, 2023
Title:
AM-2023-012, Zoning By-law Amendment
8178 Thorold Stone Road
Proposal: To rezone a portion of the property from R1C to a
site specific R1E zone to facilitate the creation of a new lot
and construction of a new detached dwelling
Applicant: Anthony Vacca
Recommendation(s)
That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment as detailed in this report to rezone
the eastern portion (Part 2) of the subject land a site specific Residential 1E Density (R1E)
zone to facilitate the creation of a new lot for the construction of a detached dwelling.
Executive Summary
Anthony Vacca has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for 8178 Thorold Stone Road
to facilitate the creation of a new lot for the construction of a detached dwelling.
The amendment is recommended for the following reasons:
• The proposed development conforms to Provincial, Regional and City planning
policies as it will intensify underutilized land within the urban area, and create
additional housing choices for residents;
• The requested and recommended site specific provisions are appropriate to
regulate the proposed use and ensure compatibility with surrounding properties;
and,
• The additional detached dwelling and driveway access is not expected to cause
any significant impacts or differences with respect to traffic operations, design
considerations, or traffic safety on Thorold Stone Road, especially in conjunction
with the proposed turnaround.
Page 1 of 11
Page 36 of 345
Background
Anthony Vacca has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a parcel of land (Part 2)
totaling approximately 0.141 hectares (0.349 acres), as shown on Schedule 1. Schedule
2 shows details of the proposed development.
The subject land is zoned Residential 1C (R1C) Density zone, in part, and Hazard Land
(HL) zone, in part, in accordance with Zoning By-law 79-200.
The applicant is requesting to rezone the eastern portion of the subject land (Part 2 ) to a
site specific Residential 1E (R1E) Density zone to facilitate the creation of a new lot for
the construction of a detached dwelling. The redevelopment will be more dense than the
current development.
Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses
The subject land is located on the south side of Thorold Stone Road, east of Kalar Road.
The property is currently developed with a detached dwelling. Directly north of the subject
land is the Circle K convenience store and gas station, immediately south is Sh riner’s
Creek and detached residential dwellings.
To the east and west are detached dwellings. Further west on the south side of Thorold
Stone Road is a commercial plaza with several businesses and across the street are
detached dwellings.
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 No objections to the application, subject to the implementation of the noise
mitigation measures, recommendations of the Tree Preservation Plan, and
permitting requirements being implemented through the building permit
process.
o Staff suggest the Regional requirement are better to secure as a condition
of consent. A condition of consent will be that the owner submit an
undertaking to the City that the recommendations of the Tree Preservation
Plan will be specified on the submitted site plan for Building Permit
application.
Page 2 of 11
Page 37 of 345
• Building Services
o Building Permit fees and development charges will be assessed during
review of the Building Permit application.
• Fire Services, GIS Services, Legal Services, Business Development &
Transportation Services
o No objections to the application.
• Municipal Works
o No objections to the application.
o Comments and conditions are provided for the future consent application.
• Landscape Services
o No objections to the application.
o Parkland dedication shall be provided as cash-in-lieu at a rate of 5% as a
condition of consent.
Neighbourhood Comments
A neighbourhood open house was held on August 22nd, 2023, and was attended by the
applicant and the applicant’s consultant. No additional residents were in attendance to
the meeting.
No written comments have been received from the public to date.
Analysis
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 proposal satisfies matters of provincial interest as outlined in Section 2 of the
Planning Act; and,
• The proposed intensification is an efficient use of an underutilized residential
parcel.
2. Regional Official Plan
The subject land is designated Delineated Built-up Area in the Regional Official Plan. The
proposed development conforms as follows:
Page 3 of 11
Page 38 of 345
• The proposed development is within the urban area and will utilize existing
municipal infrastructure and services; and,
• It will assist with achieving the City’s minimum residential intensification target of
50% occurring annually within the built-up area.
3. City’s Official Plan
The City’s Official Plan designates the subject land as Residential, in part, and
Environmental Protection Area, in part. The Environmental Protection Area corresponds
with an adjacent watercourse and woodlot. The lands subject to the amendment (Part 2)
do not contain the Environmental Protection Area land use designation.
The proposal complies with the intent of the Official Plan as follows:
• The proposed detached dwelling is permitted under the Residential land use
designation that applies to Part 2;
• A condition of consent will require the owner to submit a legal undertaking in this
regard;
• The proposal will minimize urban land consumption and promote the efficient use
of underutilized land;
• The proposal will facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling. This built form
is consistent with the surrounding community and will contribute to the City’s
supply of housing;
• There are adequate municipal services, and no transportation impacts are
expected, as demonstrated through the Transportation Access Review that was
submitted with the application; and,
• The proposal will contribute to the development of a complete community by
creating a residential lot in proximity to existing commercial developments.
4. Zoning By-law 79-200
The applicant has requested to rezone Part 2, as shown on Schedule 2, to a site specific
Residential 1E (R1E) Density zone to facilitate the creation of a new lot for the
construction of a detached dwelling. Schedule 3 is the draft Zoning By-law.
The departures requested from the current regulations are summarized in the following
table:
Page 4 of 11
Page 39 of 345
ZONE
REGULATION
EXISTING
REGULATION
PROPOSED
R1E
REGULATION
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
(DETAILS TO
FOLLOW)
Minimum lot
frontage for an
interior lot
12 metres 10.6 metres SUPPORT
Maximum width
of a driveway or
parking area in a
front yard
60% of the lot
frontage but in
no case more
than 9 metres
Maximum
driveway width
permitted: 6.4
metres
84.4% of the lot
frontage but in
no case more
than 9 metres
This will only be
to permit a 6m
wide turnabout,
setback on the
property, for
vehicular access.
SUPPORT
The requested regulations can be supported for the following reasons:
• The applicant has demonstrated that a detached dwelling that complies with all
other regulations, including setbacks, height, parking, landscaped open space,
and lot coverage, of the R1E zone can be accommodated on the lot;
• Although the lot frontage is deficient, it is still appropriate for a dwelling and the
lot area exceeds the minimum lot area requirement of the R1E zone;
• The building height, lot coverage, and setback regulations are standard across
the R1C and R1E zones and remain unchanged through this proposal. As such,
no impacts are anticipated on adjacent properties;
• The proposed built form is consistent with surrounding areas. The proposed
development represents a compact form of development that minimizes land
consumption and promotes the efficient use of municipal infrastructure;
• The proposed dwelling is compatible with surrounding land uses;
• The proposal allows for infill development and intensification within the built -up
area. New infill development will often result in smaller lot areas and frontages,
which remains consistent with new development throughout the City and aligns
with policy objectives; and,
• The relief is required to accommodate an on-site turnaround that will eliminate
the need for exiting vehicles to reverse onto Thorold Stone Road, and will
increase the safety for all vehicles and pedestrians. It should be noted that 6
metres of the 9 metres of driveway width along the frontage of the proposed lot
will be setback on the property to accommodate the turnaround, thus reducing
the visual impact on the streetscape. A 9 m driveway is permitted to
accommodate a 6 m wide turnaround for vehicular access.
Page 5 of 11
Page 40 of 345
Operational Implications and Risk Analysis
There are no operational implications associated with this proposal.
Financial Implications/Budget Impact
The proposed development will provide cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication,
development charges, and a new tax assessment.
Strategic/Departmental Alignment
The proposed development supports the Diverse Housing Strategic Priority as it will
contribute to Niagara Falls’ diverse housing market and meeting the needs of people of
all ages, incomes, and abilities.
List of Attachments
Schedule 1- Location
Schedule 2- Site Plan
Schedule 3- Draft By-law
Written by:
Tyler Galloway, Student - Planning
Submitted by: Status:
Andrew Bryce, Director of Planning Approved
- 22 Sep
2023
Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building &
Development
Approved
- 25 Sep
2023
Jason Burgess, CAO Approved
- 25 Sep
2023
Page 6 of 11
Page 41 of 345
Schedule 1
Location Map
Page 7 of 11
Page 42 of 345
Schedule 2
Proposed Site Plan
Page 8 of 11
Page 43 of 345
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
By-law No. 2023-XXX
A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to permit a detached dwelling (AM-2023-012).
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 Schedule 1 of this by-law and shall be referred to in this by-law as the
“Lands”. Schedule 1 is 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 this
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 the uses permitted in the R1E zone.
5. The regulations governing the permitted uses shall be:
a) Minimum lot frontage
(i) For an interior lot
10.6 metres
b) Maximum width of driveway or
parking area in the front yard of
a lot
84.4 % of the lot frontage but in no
case more than 9 metres to
accommodate a maximum 6 metre
wide turnaround for vehicular access
c) The balance of regulations specified for the R1E zone.
6. All other applicable regulations set out in By-law No. 79-200 shall continue to
apply to govern the permitted uses on the Lands, with all necessary changes in
detail.
7. No person shall use the Lands for a use that is not a permitted use.
8. No person shall use the Lands in a manner that is contrary to the regulations.
Page 9 of 11
Page 44 of 345
9. The provisions of this by-law shall be shown on Sheet B3 of Schedule “A” of By-
law No. 79-200 by redesignating the Lands from R1C to R1E and numbered XXX.
10. Section 19 of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding thereto:
19.1.XXXX Refer to By-law No. 2023-XXX.
Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council
this Xrd day of November, 2023.
.................................................................... .....................................................................
WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR
Page 10 of 11
Page 45 of 345
Thorold Stone Rd Glenoaks AvK:\GIS_Requests\2023\Schedule\Zoning2023.aprx 9/5/2023
SCHEDULE 1 TO BY-LAW NO. 2023-
Area Affected by this Amendment
Amending Zoning By-law No. 79-200
¯
AM-2022-012
Description:
Applicant: Anthony Vacca
Assessment: 272503000404000
LOT 11 PL 139 STAMFORD; PT SMITH AV PL 139 STAMFORD (AS CLOSED BY RO363954), PT 1
59R3386; CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
PIN: 64300-0013 (LT)
R1E
xxxx
Page 11 of 11
Page 46 of 345
Address: 8178 Thorold Stone Road
Applicant: Anthony Vacca
Proposal: To rezone a portion of the property to a site specific R1E Zone
to facilitate the creation of a new lot and the construction of a detached dwelling
Zoning By-law
Amendment Application
AM-2023-012 Page 47 of 345
A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME
Location
St. Vincent
de Paul
Elementary
School
Detached
Dwellings
Gas Station
Proposed
Development
Commercial
Plaza
Detached
Dwellings
Shriner’s Creek
Page 48 of 345
A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME
Background
•Approximately 0.14 ha in size
•Official Plan
–Designated Residential, in part, and Environmental Protection Area, in part
•Zoning
–Zoned Residential 1C Density Zone, in part, and Hazard Land Zone in part, in
accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79-200
Page 49 of 345
A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME
Site Plan
Page 50 of 345
A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME
Proposed Zoning Relief -R1E-XX
Max. width of a driveway or
parking area in front yard:
Proposed: 84.4 %
Required: 60.0 %
Min. lot frontage:
Proposed: 10.6 m
Required: 12 m
Page 51 of 345
A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME
Neighbourhood Comments
•Public Information Open House was held on August 22,
2023
•No members of the public attended, and no public
comments have been received
Page 52 of 345
A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME
Recommendation
That Council approve the Zoning By-law Amendment, as
detailed in Report No. PBD-2023-57.Page 53 of 345
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
8178 Thorold Stone Road
2023-10-03
Steven Rivers, MCIP, RPP
South Coast Consulting
Land Use Planning and Development Project Management
Page 54 of 345
Introduction
Steven Rivers, MCIP, RPP
South Coast Consulting
Land Use Planning and Development Project Management
189 Clare Avenue
Port Colborne
905-733-8843
info@southcoastconsulting.ca
Page 55 of 345
Summary
Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a
single detached dwelling on the severed
parcel:
•Frontage reduced from 12m to 10.66m
•Driveway increased from 60% to 84.4%Page 56 of 345
Existing Parcel
1410sqm / 30m frontage
Official Plan Designation
Residential & Environmental Protection
Zoning
R1C in part and Hazard Land in part
Page 57 of 345
Existing Parcel
Page 58 of 345
Existing Dwelling
Page 59 of 345
Development Concept
Page 60 of 345
Technical Considerations
•Tree Inventory
•Seven (7) trees could be removed due to tree health
•Three (3) trees should be removed due to proposed construction
•Two (2) trees should be pruned before construction
•Access Review
•The existing and proposed driveways are supportable
Page 61 of 345
Proposed Single Detached Dwelling
Page 62 of 345
Advantages of Proposal
•Consistent with Provincial, Regional and
City Policy encouraging infilling and
intensification
•Efficient use infrastructure
•Increases City tax base resiliency
•Development constitutes good planningPage 63 of 345
Planning Considerations
•Planning reviews are undertaken by South Coast
Consulting and City Planning Staff of the:
•Planning Act
•Provincial Policy Statement
•Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
•Niagara Region Official Plan
•City of Niagara Falls Official Plan
•City of Niagara Falls Zoning By-Law
Page 64 of 345
QUESTIONS?
P. Leigh Whyte, MCIP, RPP, AICP
Manager of Planning
T •905 984 8676 x236 C •905 658 5314Page 65 of 345
THANK YOU
P. Leigh Whyte, MCIP, RPP, AICP
Manager of Planning
T •905 984 8676 x236 C •905 658 5314Page 66 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-01
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comments for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item 7.1
PBD-2023-057 (Public Meeting) AM-2023-012, Zoning By-law
Amendment 8178 Thorold Stone Road Proposal: To rezone a portion
of the property from R1C to a site specific R1E zone to facilitate the
creation of a new lot and construction of a new detached dwelling
Applicant: Anthony Vacca
Council,
[1] The proposal sounds reasonable, but it is questioned as to why the land was zoned HL
in the first place and what measures have been done to alleviate such zoning.
[2] During the approval process of the recent prior improvement of the land (house), why
was the HL zone not removed at that time?
[3] It is recommended to approve the Zoning By-law providing the conditions that
triggered the HL zoning are no longer applicable.
[4] I want notice of the passing of the Official Plan and or Zoning By-law amendment
and preserve the opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal and request full
participation on all site plan matters.
Page 67 of 345
2
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 68 of 345
CLK-2023-07
Report
Report to: Mayor and Council
Date: October 3, 2023
Title:
CLK-2023-07
2024 Council Schedule
Recommendation(s)
THAT Council approve the proposed 2024 meeting schedule.
Executive Summary
A proposed 2024 Council Meeting schedule is submitted for Council’s consideration.
Staff is proposing a similar meeting schedule in 2024 as compared to previous years
schedule. The schedule consists mainly of meetings that are three weeks apart,
pending holidays, and then scheduled monthly during the Summer. Open meetings of
Council will be scheduled to start at 4:00 p.m. while public meetings under the Planning
Act can be scheduled for 4:30 p.m., when necessary.
During the Summer months for the past few years, Council has been able to schedule
meetings at 1:00 p.m. This start time worked well for all involved and the Clerk would
suggest that the 1:00 p.m. start time could once again be scheduled for the meetings
held in July and August of 2024, should that meet the will of Council.
Background
Section 5.1 of Council’s Procedural Bylaw (2019-04) states that “All regular meetings of
Council shall be held … according to the schedule to be set annually and approved by
Council”. As a result, on an annual basis, a new schedule is put forward for Council’s
consideration for the upcoming calendar year.
Subject to Council’s input, the by-law approving the schedule will be brought forward at
the next regularly scheduled Council meeting.
Analysis
Staff is proposing a schedule mostly consisting of meetings being held every three
weeks for 2024 and on occasion, every four weeks when factoring in some holidays.
Council should also be reminded that special meetings can be called if needed, as per
the Procedural bylaw. In 2023, as to date, Council has already held three Special
Meetings to either review the budget or for educational sessions. Additionally, three
Page 1 of 3
Page 69 of 345
more Special Meetings have been scheduled before year end, again for budget and
educational sessions, as well as to receive direction from Council on certain matters.
The 2024 schedule is very similar to the 2023 schedule. Staff have purposely kept
scheduled Council meetings away from weeks in which a statutory holiday has fallen,
away from March Break, and away from the annual AMO and AMCTO conferences.
Strategic/Departmental Alignment
Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency: Ensure that governance structures are
appropriate and effective.
List of Attachments
Calendar-Council Meetings
Written by:
Bill Matson, City Clerk
Submitted by: Status:
Bill Matson, City Clerk Approved
- 22 Sep
2023
Jason Burgess, CAO Approved
- 25 Sep
2023
Page 2 of 3
Page 70 of 345
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH
2024
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
APRIL MAY JUNE
JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
1 2 3 4 5
8 9 10 11 12
15 16 17 18 19
22 23 24 25 26
29 30
1 2
5 6 7 8 9
12 13 14 15 16
19 20 21 22 23
26 27 28 29
1 2 3 4 5
8 9 10 11 12
15 16 17 18 19
22 23 24 25 26
29 30
1 2 3
6 7 8 9 10
13 14 15 16 17
20 21 22 23 24
27 28 29 30 31
3 4 5 6 7
10 11 12 13 14
17 18 19 20 21
24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4
7 8 9 10 11
14 15 16 17 18
21 22 23 24 25
28 29 30 31
1
4 5 6 7 8
11 12 13 14 15
18 19 20 21 22
25 26 27 28 29
2 3 4 5 6
9 10 11 12 13
16 17 18 19 20
23 24 25 26 27
30 31
1 2 3 4 5
8 9 10 11 12
15 16 17 18 19
22 23 24 25 26
29 30 31
1 2
5 6 7 8 9
12 13 14 15 16
19 20 21 22 23
26 27 28 29 30
2 3 4 5 6
9 10 11 12 13
16 17 18 19 20
23 24 25 26 27
30
Council Meeting Holiday AMCTO ConferenceAMO Conference FCM Conference
1
4 5 6 7 8
11 12 13 14 15
18 19 20 21 22
25 26 27 28 29
New Year's
Day
Family Day
Good
Friday
Easter
Monday
Victoria Day
Canada Day
Civic
Holiday
Labour Day
Thanksgiving
Christmas
Day
Boxing Day
March Break
Page 3 of 3
Page 71 of 345
HR-2023-02
Report
Report to: Mayor and Council
Date: October 3, 2023
Title: Whistle-Blower Corporate Policy
Recommendation(s)
THAT Council receive the attached draft corporate policy (Whistle-blower), and
information for their consideration.
Executive Summary
Following similar policies in municipalities across the Region and province, Niagara
Falls City Council directed staff to come back with a “Whistleblowing” policy for their
consideration.
Whistleblowing” is defined as the disclosure by an employee, to those in authority, of
information pertaining to serious employee misconduct, unethical behavior or illegality.
Such disclosure is typically protected from any form of retaliation.
Current Corporate policies and open door practices may already cover many potential
“whistleblower” type complaints. Upon review, the attached draft policy is derived from
best practice research from other municipalities and offers additional protection for
employees who report incidents of serious wrong doing of City staff. However, this is not
intended as an external “hotline” investigated by third parties.
The report or policy does not include disclosures of serious wrongdoing made by City
Council members as these situations are already covered by Council’s Code of Conduct
and referred to the Integrity Commissioner.
Background
Whistleblower policies provide reprisal protection for employees who are encouraged to
report serious wrongdoing when they become aware of acts that may include: a
contravention of the Criminal Code, provincial statutes or City bylaws, the
misappropriation or misuse of City funds or assets, danger to life, serious risk of health
and safety of others, or significant harm to the environment.
This policy protects the public interest by providing a process for City employees to
report serious wrongdoing and by providing them from job-related reprisals such as
dismissal, suspension, discipline, and workplace harassment.
The reporting process for employees is to first make a disclosure of serious wrongdoing
to their manager or director, or in the case of a conflict, to the Chief Administrative
Officer. Upon receipt of a disclosure, the Chief Administrative and/or his/her delegate
will have the authority to undertake an investigation.
Page 1 of 9
Page 72 of 345
Employees are encouraged and obligated to come forward with the disclosure of any
serious wrongdoing. In doing so, they must identify themselves and have reasonable
grounds or direct knowledge to make the allegation of misconduct. Any disclosure must
be made in good faith and submitted to their manager/director in writing.
It will be the obligation of the General Manager/Manager/Director to submit any suc h
disclosure to the Chief Administrative Officer in a timely matter. Should the employee
choose to remain anonymous, a proper investigation may not be possible unless the
source of information is detailed and identifiable.
Financial Implications/Budget Impact
There are no financial impacts anticipated in this process as the policy is written only as
an internal complaint and investigative procedure. Should external resources be
required, the legal costs may be costly but difficult to quantify.
List of Attachments
Whistleblower policySept2023
Written by:
Jason MacLean, Manager of Client Services
Trent Dark, Director of HR
Submitted by: Status:
Jason Burgess, CAO Approved
- 25 Sep
2023
Page 2 of 9
Page 73 of 345
Human Resources
Policy #: 400.48
Issue Date: October 2023
EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY
1. POLICY STATEMENT
The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls is committed to serving the public and providing
ethical and accountable local government. Employees are entrusted to serve the City and
expected to perform their duties with integrity and in accordance with our organizational values.
To maintain and enhance public confidence and to ensure that the public’s interests, assets and
property are always protected, it is important to provide a process for employees to report any
allegations of serious misconduct, ethical concerns or illegal acts without fear of reprisal.
2. PURPOSE
This policy is intended to maintain and foster a workplace environment where all employees
conduct themselves with integrity and ethics in the service and well-being to our community. By
having a safe, timely and neutral process to allow employees to come forward to disclose illegal
acts and allegations of serious wrongdoing, we foster an organizational culture that is ethical,
transparent and accountable. This policy enables reporting to take place in a confidential manner
with protection from reprisal.
3. APPLICATION
This policy shall apply to all employees of the City of Niagara Falls, including but not limited to
volunteers, students, interns, independent consultants and contractors.
Complaints about members of City Council are addressed through the process outlined in the City
Council Code of Conduct. Rules governing the ethical behavior and conduct of elected officials
are addressed through the Integrity Commissioner.
4. DEFINITIONS
4.1 “Allegation”
An unproven assertion or statement of serious employee wrongdoing submitted under this
Policy.
4.2 “Anonymous”
Not named or identified; the identity of the employee making the disclosure is unknown.
Page 3 of 9
Page 74 of 345
4.3 “Confidential”
The communication of information relating to the disclosure will be restricted and only
divulged on a need to know basis. This includes the identity of the employee coming
forward, named individuals(s), or any information gathered during the investigation.
4.4 “Council”
All the elected officials on Niagara Falls City Council, including the Mayor.
4.5 “Disclosure”
An oral or written allegation to the appropriate City official by an employ ee alleging a
serious wrongdoing by another employee.
4.6 “Good-faith”
Acting under reasonable grounds that the information disclosed is accurate. A sincere
intention to deal fairly with others. Lacking in any trivial, frivolous or vexatious motives.
4.7 “Reprisal”
Taking an adverse action or measures against an employee for making a qualifying
disclosure under this policy. Such actions may include dismissal, suspension, demotion
or harassment.
4.8 “Serious Wrongdoing”
Includes a crime, suspected criminal activity or serious violations of government laws,
legislation or City by-laws. Such actions include the gross mishandling of public funds or
assets, misuse of position for personal gain, exposing the City to undue liability or loss,
forgery or alteration of documents, mishandling/inappropriate access to corporate
information, damage. misuse/inappropriate access to city property, an act or omission that
creates or likely to create danger, harm to the life, safety of any person, an act or omission
that creates or likely to create a substantial danger or harm to the environment.
4.9 “Vexatious”
Being a source of irritation or annoyance; proceeding without sufficient grounds so as to
cause annoyance or embarrassment to someone.
4.10 “Whistleblower”
Confidential disclosure by a employee to those in a higher authority of serious misconduct,
unethical behavior or illegality where there may be fear or retaliation.
Page 4 of 9
Page 75 of 345
5. RESPONSIBILITIES
5.1 Management
Managers, supervisors or persons in a position of authority (i.e., those directing work of
others) are responsible for exercising due diligence and support of this policy, and to
reinforce the opportunity for all employees to report wrongdoing, unethical behaviour or
illegal acts, including preventing any acts of retaliation against the “whistleblower”.
When a disclosure is made, Managers will keep the information received confidential and
bring the matter to the immediate attention to HR. Managers will cooperate with any
investigation and ensure that all relevant resources and information are made available.
Any allegations received about a staff member in Human Resources, will be forwarded
directly to the Chief Administrative Officer. Allegations received about the Chief
Administrative Officer, will be forwarded to the City Solicitor in order to contract outside
legal counsel. Allegations received about a member of Council, shall be processed
through Council’s Code of Conduct and through the Integrity Commissioner.
5.3 Employees
All employees with direct knowledge of or sufficient evidence to make an allegation of
serious wrongdoing have a duty to promptly report such matters to their manager.
When disclosing an allegation, details should be provided in writing. All reports will be
reviewed by Human Resources or as directed by the Chief Administrative Officer.
An employee who wishes to remain anonymous may do so. However, this may impede
the ability to complete a proper investigation if additional information is required and not
identifiable and/or insufficient information has been provided.
All employees will respect the reputation of individuals by nor making trivial or malicious
allegations or by making disclosures in bad faith
6, EXAMPLES OF WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS
The following are examples of Complaints that should be reported under this policy:
- Use of City funds or property for any illegal purpose, improper or unethical purpose
including theft, embezzling funds, misappropriation of funds, bribes, kickbacks, etc.
- Fraud or deliberate error in recording/maintaining financial records including
overstating expense reports, falsifying time sheets, preparing erroneous invoices, etc.)
- Serious wrongdoing that contravenes City policies/by-laws including but not limited
specific danger to the life, health and safety of persons or the environment other than
dangers that are inherent in the performance of the employee’s duties.
- Gross mismanagement of public funds or assets.
-
Page 5 of 9
Page 76 of 345
7, REPORT PROCEDURE
The employee making the disclosure of serious wrongdoing should provide their name
and position along with oral or written documentation outlining all details including names,
locations, dates, times and witnesses. After speaking with their Manager , this disclosure
should be directed to the Director, Human Resources or Chief Administrative Officer
(CAO) using the attached form. This shall be deemed as a qualifying disclosure. Should
the complaint involve the Director of H.R. the complaint should be sent directly to the Chief
Administrative Officer. Should a complaint involve the Chief Administrative Officer, the
complaint should be sent directly to the Head of Council, the Mayor.
Upon review, the Chief Administrative Officer or delegate will decide the appropriate
investigation process and, depending upon the circumstances, whether an internal or
external investigation is conducted.
Complaint Process:
Employee (Whistleblower) Perceives Serious
Wrongdoing by another employee)
Whistleblower files disclosure with the
manager/supervisor and is advised of the
process.
Whistleblower completes the written form and
submits information to CAO or H.R. Director
CAO, in consultation with HR, determines if the her
complaint is a qualifying disclosure
Not a qualifying disclosure –
no further action
Qualified Disclosure
Appropriate investigation
process will be determined
Outcome will be reviewed and
appropriate action will be taken
Page 6 of 9
Page 77 of 345
8. INVESTIGATION PROCESS
(a) After any written disclosure that is received, Human Resources in consultation with the
Chief Administrative Officer, will determine whether or not the information submitted is in
good faith, meets the criteria outlined in this policy and whether an investigation is
warranted or an alternative action to such disclosure.
(b) In consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer, Human Resources may conduct the
investigation, appoint another employee to conduct the investigation, or appoint an outside
third party. This investigation will be conducted as expeditiously as possible with fair due
process of all persons involved.
(c) All employees, including the person making the disclosure and the subject of the
investigation, shall be required to cooperate in any investigation under this policy and no
person shall obstruct or interfere with the investigation.
(d) No person advised of an investigation shall destroy, conceal, falsify, tamper or otherwise
alter relevant information or documents or direct, advise or instruct any person to do so.
(e) Upon completion of the investigation, a written report will be provided to the Chief
Administrative or appropriate authority and shall determine what steps, if any, to be
undertaken. The investigator is not required to investigate a complaint disclosure, and may
cease the investigation, if he/she is of the opinion that the subject matter is more
appropriately dealt with an Act of Legislature or Parliament of Canada: or if the complaint
is deemed to be frivolous and vexatious: or if the complaint is not made in good faith: does
not deal with sufficiently serious subject matter: or the disclosure relates to a matter more
appropriately dealt under a collective agreement or employment agreement: or if the
complaint does not provide adequate particulars about the wrongdoing.
(f) The Chief Administrative Officer’s authority and discretion under this policy includes but it
not limited to, withholding, collecting, using or disclosing information which may reveal the
identity of the employee making a disclosure as is necessary to protect the City’s interests
and to avoid or limit harm to the City, the public or employee.
(g) Any report and records under this policy and provided to City as part of an investigation
shall be considered confidential unless otherwise required by law or in accordance with
Municipal Act, 2001 and Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
9. DISCIPLINARY ACTION
Any employee found to be in violation of this policy may be subject to legal action and/or
appropriate disciplinary action up to and including termination by the Corporation. Any employee
who knowingly reports a wrongdoing in bad faith or a false and misleading statement, shall be
subject to legal action and/or disciplinary action up to and including the termination.
CONTACTS
Questions or advice regarding the intent of this policy should be directed to Human
Resources.
Page 7 of 9
Page 78 of 345
APPENDIX 1 “Whistleblower Policy”
Whistleblower Complaint Form
Serious Wrongdoing means:
a. A contravention of Criminal Code, federal or provincial statute or regulations, or City by-law;
b. An act or omission that results or is likely to result in the misappropriation or misuse of City funds or assets;
c. A contravention of the City’s Code of Conduct for employees that results or is likely to result in profit, payment or
compensation to the employee(s);
d. An act of misconduct;
e. An act or omission that creates or is likely to create a substantial and specific danger or harm to the life, health or
safety of any person;
f. An act or omission that creates or is likely to create a substantial and specific danger or harm to the environment; or
Please Print Neatly
Complainant Name (Your Name): Respondent Name (Allegation made against):
Complainant Title (Your Title): Respondent Title: :
Date and Time of Alleged Workplace Incident: Location of alleged workplace Incident:
Nature of Complaint: (set out full details).
Did you speak to the Respondent, Manager or Witness about the
action? If so who, when and where.
Provide names of all witnesses to the incident.
Have you witnessed prior incidents of wrongdoing? If so, provide
details.
Provide names of other persons who can verify any of these other
incidents.
Complainant
Signature
Date:
Complete a detailed statement on the reverse side of the complainant form if more room is necessary. Submit this form to the Chief
Administrative Officer or Director, Human Resources as soon as possible following the alleged incident.
Page 8 of 9
Page 79 of 345
Detailed Statement of Wrongdoing Complaint:
• Be as specific and detailed as possible using dates, times individual names, etc.
• Feel free to use additional sheets of paper
Complainant Signature Date:
Page 9 of 9
Page 80 of 345
PBD-2023-58
Report
Report to: Mayor and Council
Date: October 3, 2023
Title: Building Permit Fee Review
Recommendation(s)
That Council support the recommendations of the Building Permit review fee study;
That Council approve the recommended building permit fees as amended by staff for
clarification and outlined in Appendix 2;
That Staff forward an amended Building Permit Fee By-law to Council for approval;
That Staff incorporate the building permit fees into the consolidated user fee by -law in
2024 and increase the building permit fees 3% annually starting in 2024;
That Staff establish the Reserve Fund policy for Building Fees at a multiple of between
1.0 to 1.25 times the annual direct cost; and
That Staff report back to Council on the parameters of an expedited service program
(fast tracking) for building permit applications as well as any necessary financial or
resource implications to administer the program.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to present to Council the comprehensive findings of the
building permit fee review and the recommended fees study work undertaken by
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson). The primary objective of this study was
to assess the adequacy of the current building permit fees, propose new fees where
warranted to achieve full cost recovery and also establish a robust reserve fund to
weather economic downturns effectively. Their analysis assessed the actual costs for
the City to deliver the building services permit program. The fee analysis includes all
process related work, as well as the operating and capital support costs to provide the
service.
The Watson study concludes that the City's current fee structure recovers approximately
80% of the total annual costs. Permit fees for new residential construction were the only
fee recovering at full cost for service while other fees were well below their recovering
costs. The study proposes that the City of Niagara Falls focus on full cost recovery for
Page 1 of 40
Page 81 of 345
all permit types with a 3% annual indexing beginning in January 2024. In addition,
Watson is recommending that the City achieve a reserve balance for slow er growth
periods equal to 1.0 to 1.25 times the annual direct costs of service.
Staff support the study conclusions and recommendations with the exception of the fast
tracking permit fee as no clear parameters were set. Staff will report back on the fast
tracking fee over the next couple of months. In addition, staff have requested further
clarification on some of the fees to make sure the customer fully understands the fees
upfront and understands how they will be charged.
Background
The Ontario Building Code Act (BCA) grants municipalities with the authority to levy
fees for the purpose of entirely offsetting the expenses associated with the
administration and enforcement of building regulations. The regulations prescribed
under the BCA, outline the specifics of what can be included within these costs,
including direct and indirect expenditures, as well as provisions for establishing a
reserve fund. Furthermore, the Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act imposes
additional requirements upon municipalities when setting fees in accordance with the
Act. Specifically, the fees must not exceed the anticipated reasonable cost to enforce
the Act; annual reports must be made available to the public; and the municipality must
undertake a public process inclusive of a public meeting to hear the comments of the
public on any proposed fees. The administration and enforcement of the City’s building
service should not impact the general tax levy unless needed in periods of economic
decline. In these latter instances, a building reserve policy can be used to responsibly
manage building related service costs at times of economic downturn.
In 2019, the City of Niagara Falls retained Watson to conduct a review and update of
the City’s building permit fees. Their review assessed the full cost of service including
direct, indirect and capital costs to formulate their final recommendations. This report
summarizes the findings and recommendations of the Watson Study which is attached
as Appendix "1".
The City last examined the building permit fees in 2017, at which time the fees were
adjusted by 3%. The Watson Study reviewed the residential and non-residential building
permit fees for the 12 area municipalities (see figures 3.2-3.7 in Appendix "1") and
Niagara Falls had the lowest fees in the Region. If left unchecked Watson has
anticipates a draw down of 1.1 million on reserves to recover the full costs of the
service. The proposed increase in building permit fees are designed to cover the full
cost of the service thereby mitigating the impacts to the general tax payer or on the
current reserves.
Analysis
The Building Code fees prepared by the Watson include direct costs, capital related
costs, indirect support function costs, corporate management costs and future
anticipated costs. The assessment of fees included staff time in each respective area
(Building, Planning and other Direct Service Departments) in the processing of a
Page 2 of 40
Page 82 of 345
building permit application. This in depth analysis offers a holistic perspective of the
actual expenditures incurred by the City in delivering the building services permit
program. The fee analysis includes the permit-related processing as well as the
operational and capital support costs essential to provide the service.
Direct Costs include labour costs, materials and services and other direct costs such as
professional fees, contracted services. These direct costs were evaluated based on
departmental staff capacity in each of the respective permit types. Key departmental
staff directly involved in the permit process include: Building and Municipal Enforcement
Services, Fire Prevention, Legal Clerk, and Zoning Officer. As anticipated the largest
amount of service delivery staff time is within Building and municipal enforcement
services at 72%. In total there are 26.2 full time (FTE) staff positions utilized annually
with respect to administration and enforcement of the building code.
Indirect costs encompass the support and general overhead functions across various
divisions including Risk Management, Procurement Services, Information Services,
Clerks Services, Legal Services, and others.
Capital Costs pertain to the utilization of facility space and are determined based on
facility replace costs and considering space per employee.
At present, the City's Building permit fees recover approximately 80% of the total annual
costs. Watson breaks down each permit fee by type and provides a detailed breakdown
of the percentage of cost recovery in Table 3-1. Notably, new residential construction
exceeds actual costs to deliver the service and Group A (assembly and Institutional
occupancies) new construction only recovers about 40% of the actual cost. The current
study recommends fee increases for various permit types as outlined in Table 3 -5 of the
Watson study. For example Group A assembly occupancies would increase from
$18.59 to $27.89 per sq.m and Group C residential occupancies (single, semi -detached,
duplex dwellings, detached accessory dwelling units) would increase from $12.09 to
$17.00.
The Ontario Building Code Act permits the City's to establish a reserve policy that can
be used to responsibly manage building related service costs at times of economic
downturn. Watson recommends that the City set a reserve policy at between 1.0 to 1.25
times annual direct costs for reserve fund accumulation. Staff will create the reserve
policy as stated in the recommendation.
A public meeting was held on July 11, 2023, at this meeting there were no members of
the public who spoke on the revised fees nor have staff received any public comments
on the proposed fees. There have been internal comments from staff on needed
clarifications in the fee schedule. The recommended changes are as follows:
Page 3 of 40
Page 83 of 345
There should be a minimum charge fee noted on the fee schedule summary sheet as it
is currently listed in our Building By-law at $150. This change will assist in making sure
our customer is aware of this minimum charge upfront.
Line 110 and 111 is the Occupancy of unfinished buildings and clarification is needed.
Line 110 refers to high rise residential but does not speak to high rise commercial. This
fee should be modified to include any residential apartment building or multi-storey
commercial building and should be based on a per floor charge rather than per unit
charge. Line 111 for all other should be based on a per unit or floor charge depending
on the build. For example, a stacked townhouse would be based on a per unit charge
as inspections are done for occupancy for each individual separate unit.
These changes have been reflected in the fee schedule attached to this report in
Appendix "2".
At the Council meeting there were concerns from a member of Council regarding such
significant increases in certain sectors. Currently the residential sector is supplementing
the commercial industrial sector. There is an ability to increase our commercial rates
however this would put us at the highest in the Region. Watson is currently proposing
an increase which will put us to second highest in the Region. Staff advise against
making additional adjustments to the commercial building permit rates beyond what
Watson has recommended, as it is key that we maintain our competitiveness in t he
Region.
The Watson study recommends the fast tracking of building permit applications,
however no parameters were set for the program such as how many fast tracking
applications can city staff accept at one time. Staff want to ensure that the program i f
instituted is successful and want to ensure our customer has clear expectations from
the program when paying any additional fees. Therefore staff is recommending that the
fast track permit fee not be added to the fee schedule at this time until a clear p rogram
is established. Staff will report back to Council on this matter in the near future.
Staff recommend approving the fees as proposed by Watson, except for the fast
tracking permit fee and the clarifications as recommended by staff as noted above.
These fees are to be effective January 1, 2024, and be inclusive of the 3% annual index
fee.
Operational Implications and Risk Analysis
In order for the fast tracking permit fee and program to be successful staff will need to
assess current staffing levels and expected deliverables. Staff will report back on the
operational implications and parameters of the program.
The other fee increases and the protection of the reserve at 1.0 to 1.25 the annual direct
costs will protect the municipality in times of economic downturn when building permit
applications are lower.
Page 4 of 40
Page 84 of 345
Financial Implications/Budget Impact
Charging building permit fees is an effective method of ensuring those who directly
benefit from a permitting service financially contribute towards it. Building permit fees
provide funds to enforce and administer the City’s building permit program. On an
annual basis starting in 2024 it is recommended that the building permit fees increase
by 3% annually to adjust for inflationary pressures and market co nditions.
Strategic/Departmental Alignment
Based on the Watson full cost recovery analysis, the City's proposal to adjust current
fees and introduce new ones will effectively maintain the financial responsibility for
administering and enforcing the building code. Specifically, these fees will continue to
be recovered from those requiring the services thereby avoiding the subsidization
building services by the general taxpayers.
The recommended full cost of recovery of fees by users, directly relates to the Council's
strategic pillar of financial sustainability.
List of Attachments
Appendix 1 - City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report (1)
Appendix 2 - Revised Fees - Building Permit Fee Review
Written by:
Luciano Chieca, Chief Building Official
Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development
Submitted by: Status:
Jason Burgess, CAO Approved
- 28 Sep
2023
Page 5 of 40
Page 85 of 345
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 6 of 40
Page 86 of 345
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 7 of 40
Page 87 of 345
Report
Page 8 of 40
Page 88 of 345
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 9 of 40
Page 89 of 345
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 10 of 40
Page 90 of 345
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 11 of 40
Page 91 of 345
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 12 of 40
Page 92 of 345
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 13 of 40
Page 93 of 345
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 14 of 40
Page 94 of 345
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 15 of 40
Page 95 of 345
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 16 of 40
Page 96 of 345
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 17 of 40
Page 97 of 345
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 18 of 40
Page 98 of 345
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 19 of 40
Page 99 of 345
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 20 of 40
Page 100 of 345
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 21 of 40
Page 101 of 345
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 22 of 40
Page 102 of 345
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 23 of 40
Page 103 of 345
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 24 of 40
Page 104 of 345
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 25 of 40
Page 105 of 345
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 26 of 40
Page 106 of 345
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 27 of 40
Page 107 of 345
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 28 of 40
Page 108 of 345
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 29 of 40
Page 109 of 345
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 30 of 40
Page 110 of 345
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
$1,350 (+ 41%) but would still be less than the fees imposed in St. Catharines, Port
Colborne, Welland, and Pelham.
Page 31 of 40
Page 111 of 345
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-11
H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx
Figure 3-2
Municipal Comparison
Figure 3-3
Municipal Comparison
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Permit Fee ($)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.)
+$1,104 (+48%)
Page 32 of 40
Page 112 of 345
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-12
H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx
Figure 3-4
Municipal Comparison
Figure 3-5
Municipal Comparison
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
Permit Fee ($)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.)
+$25,300 (+51%)
Page 33 of 40
Page 113 of 345
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-13
H:\Niagara Falls\Niagara Falls 2019 Building Permit Study\Report\City of Niagara Falls 2023 Building Permit Fees Review Final Report.docx
Figure 3-6
Municipal Comparison
Figure 3-7
Municipal Comparison
An impact analysis has also been prepared to assess the total planning application
fees, building permit fees, and development charges for a low-density residential
development. The comparison illustrates the impacts of the recommended building
permit fees in the context of the total development fees payable to provide a broader
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Permit Fee ($)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 34 of 40
Page 114 of 345
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 35 of 40
Page 115 of 345
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 36 of 40
Page 116 of 345
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 37 of 40
Page 117 of 345
Table 3-5
Recommended Building Permit Fees
Description Charging Parameter Current Fees Recommended Fees
NEW BUILDINGS
MINIMUM BUILDNG PERMIT CHARGE
Minimum Building Permit Charge $150.00
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
$225.00
Appendix #2
Page 38 of 40
Page 118 of 345
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 39 of 40
Page 119 of 345
Table 3-5 (Cont’d) Recommended
Building Permit Fees
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 (Apartment Residential and Multi-Storey
Commercial per floor charge)
Flat Fee $150.00 $225.00
111 Occupancy of an Unfinished Building for all other (per floor or unit charge) 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 40 of 40
Page 120 of 345
905.684.9459 | www.niagararealtor.ca | nar@niagararealtor.ca
116 Niagara Street, St. Catharines, ON L2R 4L4
October 2, 2023
Mr. Jim Diodati
Mayor
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
Re: Council Agenda Item 8.3 Building Permit Fee Review
Dear Mayor:
The Niagara Association REALTORS® (NAR), representing 1,500 real estate professionals in
the Niagara Falls area, would like to express our concerns and reservations regarding the
proposal coming to Council on October 3rd to increase building permit fees within the city.
While we understand that the city may be facing budgetary challenges and seeking additional
sources of revenue, we believe it is essential to consider the broader implications of this
proposed increase. Specifically, we are concerned about the potential consequences of raising
fees on residential housing during a time when our community is grappling with a housing
affordability crisis.
The current housing market in Niagara Falls is already placing strain on prospective
homebuyers and renters alike. Housing prices have been steadily rising, and many residents
are struggling to find affordable housing options. We believe that increasing building permit fees
would only exacerbate this problem by further increasing the overall cost of housing. This is
especially concerning when we consider the impact on first-time homebuyers, low-income
families, and seniors on fixed incomes.
Affordable housing is a fundamental component of a thriving and inclusive community. We urge
the City Council to prioritize measures that enhance housing affordability, rather than imposing
additional financial burdens on residents.
We kindly request that the City Council reconsider the proposal to increase building permit fees.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely,
Amy Layton
Amy Layton
2023 NAR President
Cc: NAR Government Relations Committee
Page 121 of 345
F-2023-27
Report
Report to: Mayor and Council
Date: October 3, 2023
Title: 2023 Q2 Parking Fund Budget to Actual Variance (Unaudited)
Recommendation(s)
That the Parking Fund Budget to Actual Variance report for the period ended June 30,
2023 be RECEIVED.
Executive Summary
This report is intended to provide Council with information and details pertaining to the
2023 budget to actual variance results for the quarter ended June 30, 2023 for the
Parking Fund.
Within attachment 1, if there is a note number notation to the right of the variance
column, there is a corresponding explanation to that note number located in the analysis
section of this report. Please refer to this report in conjunction with the attachment.
Background
Council has expressed a desire to view actuals in conjunction with the budget. One
goal of the Finance department is to provide Council with regular, quarterly budget
variance reports. Financial statements for 2021 and 2022 are currently under audit,
with 2021 audited financial statements expected to be presented to Council by the end
of the calendar year. Staff have prepared the unaudited 2023 Q2 budget to actual
results of the Parking fund.
Analysis
Attachment 1 contains the Parking Fund 2023 Q2 budget to actual variance. The
following notes correspond to the statement contained in Attachment 1.
Revenues
1. Miscellaneous Revenue includes Fines, Permits and User Fees and have a
favourable variance of $144,897. These revenue sources have rebounded and
are exceeding pre-COVID levels. Changes implemented by staff, such as
increasing the flat rate from $10 to $15, were well received by the public and
have resulted in increased user fee revenue. In addition, a 10% increase in fines
and increased student patrols in the Fallsview area have resulted in additional
Page 1 of 4
Page 122 of 345
fine revenue. The City was also successful in negotiating a billboard lease which
resulted in unbudgeted revenue of $32,500 but which includes a settlement
amount for prior years. This will be a $2,500 revenue source in future years.
2. Transfers from Special Purpose Reserves was budgeted at $156,512. Due to
the favourable variance for miscellaneous revenues, it is anticipated that this
funding will not be required and that the parking fund will be in a surplus position.
This funding is transferred from the tax levy supported operating budget and as a
result would be transferred back with a subsequent savings in the general
operating budget.
Expenses
3. Materials have a favourable variance of $14,628 largely due to a delay in
procuring parts for parking machine repairs and maintenance, although funds are
anticipated to be fully used by year-end. There is a negative variance of $3,151
in office supplies due to the purchase of a large stock of ticket books which will
last through the year; therefore, there is not expected to be a negative variance
at year-end as the 3rd and 4th quarter budgets were essentially utilized. All other
items are on track with budget.
4. Contracted Services have a favourable variance of $60,876. This is due to
outstanding invoices for Commissionaires services and Hectronic parking
machine monitoring fees.
5. Internal Rent have a favourable variance of $28,483. This is due to outstanding
postings of fleet charges for the second quarter but costs are expected to be on
track with budget.
Operational Implications and Risk Analysis
The goal of the parking fund is to be self-sustaining. From 2020 to 2022 this goal was
not achieved due to lost revenue from COVID-19, as well as the removal of parking on
Clifton Hill and the change to seasonal only parking on Victoria Ave which removed
approximately $250,000 in annual revenues. Revenues have rebounded in 2023 and
are exceeding pre-COVID levels, so staff are projecting a surplus at year-end. As a
result, for the first time in a few years, the parking fund will be in a position to not rely on
any funding from the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve.
Financial Implications/Budget Impact
Financial implications have been communicated above in the analysis section.
Strategic/Departmental Alignment
This report is consistent with the following Council strategic commitments:
1. To be financially responsible to the residents of Niagara Falls by practicing
prudent fiscal management of existing resources, and by making sound long -
Page 2 of 4
Page 123 of 345
term choices that allow core City programs and services to be sustainable now
and into the future.
2. To be efficient and effective in our delivery of municipal services and use of
resources, and accountable to our citizens and stakeholders.
Contributor(s)
Paul Brown, Manager of Parking Services
List of Attachments
F-2023-27 Attachment 1 - Q2 2023 Parking Budget to Actual
Written by:
Jessica Sinkowski, Financial Analyst
Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance
Submitted by: Status:
Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Approved
- 22 Sep
2023
Shelley Darlington, General Manger of Corporate
Services
Approved
- 25 Sep
2023
Jason Burgess, CAO Approved
- 25 Sep
2023
Page 3 of 4
Page 124 of 345
Attachment 1 F-2023-27
October 3, 2023
2023 Q2 Budget to Actual Comparison
Budget
Budget to
June 30
(50%)Actuals
(Over)/
Under
Budget
Variance
(Over)/
Under
Budget
Used
2023 2023 2023 $%%
REVENUES
Fines 476,600 238,300 310,276 (71,976)(30.2%)65.1%
Permits 157,300 78,650 119,409 (40,759)(51.8%)75.9%
User Fees 638,200 319,100 318,762 338 0.1%49.9%
Licenses 0 0 32,500 (32,500)#DIV/0!#DIV/0!
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,272,100 636,050 780,947 (144,897)(22.8%)61.4%[1]
From Special Purpose Reserves 156,512 78,256 78,256 0 0.0%50.0%[2]
Internal Transfers 156,512 78,256 78,256 0 0.0%50.0%
TOTAL REVENUE 1,428,612 714,306 859,203 (144,897)(20.3%)60.1%
EXPENSES
Labour 421,458 210,729 220,273 (9,544)(4.5%)52.3%
Employee Benefits Allocation 124,569 62,285 69,213 (6,929)(11.1%)55.6%
Overtime 1,500 750 369 381 50.8%24.6%
Labour and Benefits 547,527 273,764 289,855 (16,091)(5.9%)52.9%
Materials 82,900 41,450 24,530 16,920 40.8%29.6%
Professional Development 800 400 0 400 100.0%0.0%
Insurance Premiums 230 115 100 15 13.1%43.4%
Conferences/Conventions 3,000 1,500 1,435 65 4.3%47.8%
Membership/Subscriptions 600 300 0 300 100.0%0.0%
Office Supplies 6,400 3,200 6,351 (3,151)(98.5%)99.2%
Electricity 4,800 2,400 2,321 79 3.3%48.3%
Materials 98,730 49,365 34,737 14,628 29.6%35.2%[3]
Contracted Services 468,100 234,050 173,174 60,876 26.0%37.0%[4]
Snow Plowing 108,500 54,250 53,450 800 1.5%49.3%
Contracted Services 576,600 288,300 226,624 61,676 21.4%39.3%
Rents and Financial Expenses 68,000 34,000 40,715 (6,715)(19.7%)59.9%
Internal Rent 69,898 34,949 6,466 28,483 81.5%9.3%[5]
Indirect Costs 67,857 33,929 33,929 0 0.0%50.0%
Internal Transfers 137,755 68,878 40,394 28,483 41.4%29.3%
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,428,612 714,306 632,325 81,981 11.5%44.3%
(Surplus)/Deficit 0 0 (226,878)226,878
PARKING FUND
Page 4 of 4
Page 125 of 345
PBD-2023-59
Report
Report to: Mayor and Council
Date: October 3, 2023
Title:
PBD-2023-59
GTY-2019-002, Gateway Economic Community Improvement
Plan and Municipal Employment Incentive Program
Application
6162 Progress Street
Applicant: 1992328 Ontario Inc.
Recommendation(s)
1. That Council approve the Niagara Gateway CIP Tax Increment Based Grant
program and Municipal Employment Incentive Program Application for 6162
Progress Street, subject to the Owner satisfying the program requirements.
2. That Council approve the use of the CIP City Wide reserve fund if reserves are
required to offset the approximate planning and building permit fees and study
grant costs of $64,890.00.
3. That the Niagara Region be advised of the decision of City Council.
4. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign and execute the Tri-Party grant
agreement and Municipal Employment Incentive Program Agreement.
Executive Summary
The Economic Gateway CIP and Municipal Employment Incentive Plan (MEIP)
applications can be supported as:
- the lands are designated as Industrial in the City’s Official Plan and are intended
for employment uses;
- the minimum point eligibility requirements for both programs are met; and
- the development will bring a combination of investment and new employment to
the City and Region.
Based on the preliminary review of the development, along with an estimated post -project
assessment, it is estimated that the applicant may receive a total grant in both Municipal
and 10 over year per taxes approximately of years Regional $224,863.49
($2,248,634.87). The Municipal portion of the grant at the end of the 10 year TIBG term
is estimated to be $949,418.95.
Background
Page 1 of 7
Page 126 of 345
Council originally supported a Gateway CIP and MEIP for this development in 2019.
Subsequent to the Council decision and due to unforeseen circumstances, the applicant
has (G.W. Company Engineering Construction new Work to switch to had a
Construction).
The new industrial facility would have a total gross floor area of 5,951 sq. m (64,058 sq.
ft.) for the vacant 1.69 ha (4.17 ac) land parcel on Progress Street. The revised building
design is slightly smaller (approximately 722 sq. m. or 27,771 sq. ft.) than the design
previously considered. The new construction and related expansion will support the
retention of the company’s current 60 jobs and support future hires of 40 -50 full time
employees.
Niagara River Trading Company is a provider of products to over 2,000 active retail
customers in the souvenir and resort industry in Canada and the USA. The Company is
projecting sales of over $17 million tor 2023 and is expecting to increase to over $20
million by the time the new facility is complete. They have indicated that they have
outgrown their current space at 6199 Don Murie Street.
An application for the tax increment-based incentive under the Niagara Gateway
Community Improvement Plan has been submitted for the new construction. Also
submitted is an application under the City’s Municipal Employment Incentive Program
(MEIP) for a rebate of site plan control application fees and building permit fees, and a
study grant. The grants related to the MEIP are available for those applications that have
met the eligibility requirements under the Gateway CIP.
Analysis
The Niagara Gateway Economic Zone Community Improvement Plan (Gateway CIP) was
initiated by the Niagara Region to achieve the goals of the Province’s Growth Plan to
revitalize, diversify and strengthen the economy in Niagara by promoting development of
employment lands in the Gateway Economic Zone. The Region’s Gateway CIP was
adopted in 2013 and the City approved a corresponding CIP soon thereafter.
Development, in construction, or rehabilitation projects that result in an increase
assessment value and property taxes for employment uses are eligible for the tax
increment based grant (TIBG) under the Gateway CIP.
Eligibility
The subject lands are designated Industrial in the Official Plan and are intended for
employment uses. The lands are zoned Light Industrial (LI) Zone. An application for site
plan control was completed in February 2022.
Gateway Tax Increment Based Grant (TIBG)
Eligibility under the Gateway Grant program is based on a point formula attributed to
construction value, full time employment created or retained and smart growth design
criteria. The total of these points correspond to the level of the tax increment base d grant
offered.
Page 2 of 7
Page 127 of 345
Based on a review of the application that the applicant submitted, the development could
attain:
• 3 points for a construction value of $10,000.000;
• 10 points for a total of 100 full time jobs created and retained;
• 6 points for design criteria (for façade design, pedestrian/bicycle access and
facilities, waste and water consumption reduction design);
for a total of 18 points or a rebate of 90% of the increased tax assessment. The final
number cannot be determined until final confirmation of the actual jobs created, the tax
assessment increase, and any other relevant program requirements.
The subject lands are located within a designated employment area and are, therefore,
eligible for a TIBG term of 10 years for both the Region and City portion of the tax
increment. It is noted that the education tax is not included within the grant.
Municipal Employment Incentive Program (MEIP)
The City’s Municipal Employment Incentive Program (MEIP) offers further incentives to
those applicants who have been deemed eligible under the Gateway TIBG. These
include:
• a waiver to the Site Plan Control Application Fee and a Building/Occupancy
Permit Rebate; and
• a study grant.
A breakdown of all of the estimated financial incentives available for this project is as
follows:
TIBG
$2,248,634 a 90% rebate of the estimated tax increment calculated over a 10 year term.
(The approximate breakdown of tax rebate per year is $ 94,941.89 from the
City and $129,921,59 from the Region for a yearly rebate of $224,863.49.
MEIP
$ 4,000 Site Plan Control Application Fee waiver
$ 50,000 Estimated Building Permit Fee Rebate (maximum eligible amoun t is $50,000,
based on available funding, the Building Permit fee associated with BP -
2023-059 is $58,224.39).
$ 10,890 Study Grant. Calculated as 50% of the cost of a required study up to a
maximum of $5,000 per study and a maximum of $20,000 per p roperty. The
eligible studies submitted include topographic survey, stormwater/site
servicing; geotechnical and archaeological.
The total of all incentives available to the applicant is $2,313,524.
Process
Page 3 of 7
Page 128 of 345
As a joint program between the City and the Niagara Region, the approval of City Council
is required prior to Regional review for the Gateway TIBG. If Council supports the updated
application, the applicant must enter into a new Tri–Party Agreement with the City and
Region outlining the terms and conditions of the funding. This agreement would be
authorized and signed by the Mayor and Clerk and forwarded to the Region for signature.
A new agreement will also be entered into between the City and the applicant for the
terms and conditions of the MEIP.
The payment of grants commence upon verification of the program requirements and
reassessment of the property MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation).
Applicants are given 365 days from the issuance of an occupancy permit within which to
contact the City regarding the achievement of the eligibility points outlined in their
submission.
Financial Implications/Budget Impact
The Tax Increment Based Grant (TIBG) is provided when the construction is completed
and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation has added the additional taxable
assessment to the roll. This will impact a future taxation year and will be accounted for at
that time.
Based on the preliminary review of the development, along with an estimated post -project
assessment, it is estimated that the applicant may receive a total grant in both Municipal
and years 10 over per year approximately of taxes Regional $224,863.49
($2,248,634.87). The Municipal portion of the grant at the end of the 10 year TIBG term
is estimated to be $949,418.95.
The property owner has a series of incentives available on this project. It is anticipated
that there will be approximately $64,890.00 of app licable planning and building permit
fees and study grants that will be offset with a transfer of capital/operating reserves. The
transfer of building permit fees is a requirement of the building legislation.
Strategic/Departmental Alignment
The City's Community Improvement Plans contribute to the Strategic Pillar of Economic
Diversity and Growth of the City’s proposed 2023 -2027 Strategic Plan by providing
incentives for private sector reinvestment and employment for the City.
List of Attachments
APPENDIX 1 - Location Map and Proposed Facade Plan
APPENDIX 2 - Site Plan
Written by:
Brian Dick, Manager of Policy Planning
Submitted by: Status:
Page 4 of 7
Page 129 of 345
Andrew Bryce, Director of Planning Approved
- 22 Sep
2023
Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building &
Development
Approved
- 25 Sep
2023
Jason Burgess, CAO Approved
- 25 Sep
2023
Page 5 of 7
Page 130 of 345
Appendix 1
Location Map and Proposed Facade Plan
Page 6 of 7
Page 131 of 345
APPENDIX 2
SITE PLAN
Page 7 of 7
Page 132 of 345
A Great City … For Generations To Come
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Inter-Departmental Memo
To: Bill Matson
City Clerk
From: Jo Zambito
Fire Chief
Date: August 31, 2023
Re: Fire Prevention Week 2023
Please arrange to have the attached Proclamation placed on the October 3, 2023 Order
of Business for Council. It is requested that the week of October 8 to October 14, 2023
be proclaimed as “Fire Prevention Week”. This year’s theme is “Cooking safety starts with
YOU. Pay attention to fire prevention.”
JZ:dt
Attach.
Page 133 of 345
City of Niagara Falls
Mayor’s Proclamation
WHEREAS the City of Niagara Falls is committed to ensuring the safety and security of
all those living and visiting our City; and
WHEREAS fire is a serious public safety concern, both locally and nationally, and homes
are where people are at the greatest risk to fire; and
WHEREAS roughly two-thirds of home fire deaths resulted from fires in which no smoke
alarms or no working smoke alarms were present; and
WHEREAS working smoke alarms cut the chance of dying in a reported fire in half; and
WHEREAS residents who have planned and practised a home fire escape plan are more
prepared and will therefore be more likely to survive a fire; and
WHEREAS the Ontario Fire Code requires at least one smoke alarm on every level of the
home (including the basement) and outside all sleeping areas; and
WHEREAS informing the public about the importance of smoke alarm installation and
maintenance serves an essential step toward increasing the public’s safety from home
fires; and
WHEREAS Niagara Falls residents are dedicated to public education measures and are
able to take personal responsibility to increase their safety from fire, especially in their
homes; and
WHEREAS the 2023 Fire Prevention theme for this period is “Cooking safety starts with
YOU. Pay attention to fire prevention.”
NOW THEREFORE, I James M. Diodati, Mayor of Niagara Falls, do hereby proclaim
October 8 to 14, 2023 as Fire Prevention Week; and
FURTHER, encourage all residents to protect their homes and families by heeding the
potentially life-saving messages of Fire Prevention Week 2023 and to support the many
public safety activities and efforts of the Niagara Falls Fire Department; and
FURTHER, challenge all residents to take responsibility for their fire safety and check
their homes and ensure that they have a working smoke alarm on every floor of their
house and outside their sleeping areas, as well as at least on e working carbon monoxide
alarm and have planned and practised their home escape plan.
Page 134 of 345
1
Heather Ruzylo
To:Carey Campbell
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]-WRITTEN REQUEST RE MIKE GLAVCIC DAY IN NIAGARA FALLS - DEC
6/23
From: Denise Mateyk <
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:28 PM
To: Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca>; Carey Campbell <ccampbell@niagarafalls.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]-WRITTEN REQUEST RE MIKE GLAVCIC DAY IN NIAGARA FALLS - DEC 6/23
WRITTEN REQUEST TO PROCLAIM WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6TH, 2023 AS MIKE GLAVCIC DAY IN
NIAGARA FALLS
DEAR MAYOR JIM DIODATI AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL:
We respectfully request acknowledgement for Milomir Glavcic, a respected
philanthropist and businessman who will be turning 99 years old on December 6 th,
2023.
Mr. Glavcic moved to Canada from Serbia after WW2.
Mr. Glavcic was orphaned at the age of 6 and had a very difficult life in Serbia. Many
days he was hungry. He was determined to make something of himself and to give
back to his hometown so that they did not have to endure the poverty that he and
his sisters endured. He vowed he would return one day and take care of his people.
In the early 1950’s he settled in Niagara and bought a restaurant at Turner’s
Corner. Despite the language barrier, he and his wife ran a successful business and
he had the determination to expand the business further. Shortly thereafter, he
purchased the Country Hotel on Lundy’s Lane, which was later known as The
Tropicana. He continued to grow, owning the Arkona Motel and purchasing land
from a local farmer on which he built The Americana Hotel in 1960, and later
purchased adjacent farmland which has recently been developed into a beautiful
subdivision. He sold The Americana in 1986 and purchased and ran Pyramid Place for
the following 15 years. During his time in business, he employed many and
generously contributed to the local community.
Mr. Glavcic’s generosity has extended to the Niagara Region through many generous
donations to local charities over the past 60 years. He is a humble man, with little
recognition sought and often the donations are anonymous. Most recently, he has
Page 135 of 345
2
donated $1Million to the Niagara Health Foundation, cheque presentation was made
at the Mayor’s Charity Picnic on September 10th, 2023.
A donation for the Niagara Health Foundation was very important to Mr. Glavcic as it
will assist absolutely everyone in our community.
He is a member of St. George Church, and served as President of the Building
Committee responsible for building the beautiful church on Montrose Road. He was
always supportive of the community both morally and financially. In 2020 & 2023,
he generously donated a total of $1.7Million towards the construction of the new
hall on the Montrose Road property. Through his generosity over the years, we are
blessed to be able to enjoy such a beautiful church, hall and park including soccer
fields, tennis court, basketball & bocce courts. The property is enjoyed by the larger
Niagara Community, not just the Serbian Community. It is our forefathers that built
the footprint that we all enjoy today.
Mr. Glavcic has been very generous to his hometown of Krajljevo, Serbia, donating in
excess of 10 Million Euros to construct a bridge, purchase a MRI machine,
ambulance, build a school, repair churches and roads that were destroyed by the
American bombing in the early 1990’s.
He also continues to send money annually to individuals who require financial
assistance, healthcare and the necessities.
Mr. Glavcic’s goals were to earn money --- give back to people, write a book and
write a song!
He has accomplished all three in his well-lived life! A rough translation of his song is
:
“ I was poor, so I got a little rich, everything I had I gave to my people and I remained
a happy, poor person again”
We would be pleased if we could honour him on December 6, 2023!
Respectfully submitted,
Denise Mateyk
President
St. George and St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church
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 136 of 345
1
Heather Ruzylo
Subject:Proclamation Request - Lung Cancer Awareness Month
From: Kristine Elia <kelia@niagarafalls.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca>; Heather Ruzylo <hruzylo@niagarafalls.ca>
Subject: FW: Lung Cancer Awareness Month
Hi Bill and Heather
Please see the link to the proclamation below requesting November 2023 as Lung Cancer Awareness Month in the City
of Niagara Falls.
Many thanks,
Kristine Elia | Executive Assistant | Office of the Mayor and CAO | City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | (905) 356-7521 ext 4205 | Fax 905-374-3557 |
kelia@niagarafalls.ca
From: Maya Sharma <mayaussharma@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 2:49 PM
To: Kristine Elia <kelia@niagarafalls.ca>
Subject: Re: Lung Cancer Awareness Month
Hello Ms. Elia,
Thank you very much for your kind interest and assistance.
Please find below a link to a newer draft of the proclamation, however, last year's proclamation would also work
content-wise.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B_0eSmMiOXWo-k_amRfHuoHQGapm9H-e2DDuhFSisRw/edit?usp=sharing
Kind regards,
Maya
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 2:30 PM Kristine Elia <kelia@niagarafalls.ca> wrote:
Dear Maya:
Thank you for your email. Can you please send me a proclamation and I can get it to our Clerks Office to have it place
on an upcoming Council agenda.
Many thanks
Page 137 of 345
2
Kristine Elia | Executive Assistant | Office of the Mayor and CAO | City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | (905) 356-7521 ext 4205 | Fax 905-374-3557 |
kelia@niagarafalls.ca
From: Maya Sharma <mayaussharma@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 4:14 PM
To: Kristine Elia <kelia@niagarafalls.ca>
Subject: Re: Lung Cancer Awareness Month
Hello Ms. Elia,
I hope you are doing well! Thank you again for your efforts to help raise awareness of lung cancer & lung cancer
screening last year!
Would it be possible to again recognize lung cancer awareness month in 2023? As I live in Niagara Falls, I would also
be honoured to come receive the proclamation.
Thank you kindly,
Maya
Page 138 of 345
Administration
Office of the Regional Clerk
1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7
Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977
www.niagararegion.ca
September 25, 2023
CL 13-2023, September 21, 2023
CSC 9-2023, September 13, 2023
CSC-C 18-2023, September 13, 2023
DISTRIBUTION LIST
SENT ELECTRONICALLY
Motion – Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and the Damaging Impacts of Hate and
Intolerance
CSC-C 18-2023
Regional Council, at its meeting held on September 21, 2023, passed the following
recommendation, as amended, of its Corporate Services Committee:
WHEREAS respect for the views and opinions of others is a hallmark of civil discourse
in our society;
WHEREAS freedom of expression is a fundamental value of a free and democratic
society;
WHEREAS speech that threatens violence, intimidates, abuses or bullies is not and
should not be protected as free expression;
WHEREAS there have been many recent instances of violence, threats of violence,
intimidation, abuse, and bullying by some individuals in the Niagara region against
others for a variety of reasons other than legitimate differences of political views or
opinions;
WHEREAS some elected officials in Niagara have been the subject of violent attacks,
online harassment, and physical intimidation over the past several months;
WHEREAS Regional Council approved on February 17, 2022, a Resolution at the
Corporate Services Committee that condemned those acts of violence, harassment,
and intimidation against members of Regional Council and local area municipal
councils, all public servants, and all health care providers;
WHEREAS elected officials are obligated to adhere to the provisions of codes of
conduct that regulate their behaviour when serving the public; and
WHEREAS there is no excuse for bad behaviour by any individual against another.
Page 139 of 345
Motion – Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and the Damaging Impacts of Hate and
Intolerance
September 25, 2023
Page 2
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That Regional Council AFFIRMS that equity, diversity, and inclusion are core values
that it supports and will continue to promote;
2. That the Niagara Regional Police Service BE REQUESTED to consider the
implementation of training and look to update protocols with respect to responding to
complaints of threats of violence, intimidation, and bullying of elected officials and
members of local appointed committees in Niagara;
3. That staff BE DIRECTED to investigate the following and provide a report to the
Corporate Services Committee as soon as reasonably practical:
a) Creation of a program to educate the public on the benefits of equity, diversity
and inclusion and conversely the damaging impacts of hate and intolerance;
b) Whether Council should consider the creation of a residents or citizens code of
conduct to guide individuals engaging elected officials or attending meetings of
Regional Council and its Committees and various advisory committees;
c) Any further information, data or recommendations that Council should consider to
alleviate incidents of hate and intolerance in Niagara;
4. That the Provincial Government BE REQUESTED to develop legislation and/or
policies to protect elected officials and members of local appointed committees from
violence, threats of violence, intimidation, abuse, and bullying by other individuals;
and
5. That a copy of this Resolution BE SENT to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, all
municipalities in Niagara, all Niagara MPPs and MPs, and the Chief of the Niagara
Regional Police Service for consideration and support.
Yours truly,
Ann-Marie Norio
Regional Clerk
:kl
CLK-C 2023-109
Page 140 of 345
Motion – Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and the Damaging Impacts of Hate and
Intolerance
September 25, 2023
Page 3
Distribution List:
The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario
The Honourable Paul Calandra, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
Local Area Municipalities
Jeff Burch, Member of Provincial Parliament, Niagara Centre
Wayne Gates, Member of Provincial Parliament, Niagara Falls
Sam Oosterhoff, Member of Provincial Parliament, Niagara West
Jennie Stevens, Member of Provincial Parliament, St. Catharines
Dean Allison, Member of Parliament, Niagara West
Vance Badawey, Member of Parliament, Niagara Centre
Tony Baldinelli, Member of Parliament, Niagara Falls
Chris Bittle, Member of Parliament, St. Catharines
B. MacCulloch, Chief of Police, Niagara Regional Police Services
Page 141 of 345
Mailing Address: The Corporation of the Town of Fort Erie
1 Municipal Centre Drive, Fort Erie ON L2A 2S6
Office Hours 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Phone: (905) 871-1600 FAX: (905) 871-4022 Web-site: www.forterie.ca
Legislative Services
September 26, 2023
File #120203
Sent via email: ann-marie.norio@niagararegion.ca
Ann-Marie Norio, Regional Clerk
Niagara Region
1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, P. O. Box 1042
Thorold, ON L2V 4T7
Dear Ms. Norio:
Re: Region’s 2024 Operating Budget Levy Approval
The Municipal Council of the Town of Fort Erie at its Special meeting of September 25, 2023
passed the following resolution:
Whereas the Niagara Region taxes form a significant portion of the overall tax bill that is
issued by the local area municipality; and
Whereas the Niagara Region approved a 7.58% increase to the Regional Operating B udget
Levy, 8.59% increase to the Water and Wastewater Levy, and a 5.5% increase to the Waste
Management Levy, which outpaced the ability to pay and affordability of our local taxpayers;
and
Whereas Niagara Region and Local Area Municipalities recognize that the post-pandemic
economy, market inflation and housing shortages are a reality which have driven up costs
for basic housing and food above the means of many residents.
Therefore be it resolved that the Niagara Regional Council be requested to ensure that
the Region’s 2024 Operating Budget Levy be approved at or below the current rate of
inflation 3.7%, as a responsible, affordability measure for the residents of Niagara; and
That: This resolution be circulated to the Region and all local area municipalities for their
support and endorsement.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Peter Todd,
Manager, Legislative Services / Town Clerk
ptodd@forterie.ca
PT-dlk
c.c. LAM’s
Page 142 of 345
^ci^iy^
^,^
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PARRY SOUND
RESOLUTION IN COUNCIL
DIVISION LIST
Councillor G.ASHFORD
Councillor J.BELESKEY
Councillor P.BORNEMAN
Councillor B.KEITH
Councillor D.McCANN
Councillor C^McDONALD
Mayor J.McGARVEY
N0.2023 -J ^&
YES N0 DATE:September 19,2023
MOVED BY:
CARRIED:
^.A,^^.._"__..ySECONDEDBY:•^^^sfS
DEFEATED:Postponed to:
WHEREAS the Council ofthe Town of Parry Sound has received resolutions from the
Town of Fort Erie and the Township of The Archipelago with regards to controls on
Airbnb,VRBO and other global technology platforms which affect municipal rentals;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Parry Sound
hereby supports the request to the Government of Ontario to establish a regulatory
framework requiring digital platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO to:
Require owners using the digital platforms to comply with municipal planning and
licensing regulations;and
Prevent advertising of properties that are not registered with the relevant municipality;
and
Provide a contact with the platform to ensure ongoing and effective communications for
provincial and municipal officials;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Parry Sound calls upon the
Province of Ontario to work with municipalities to address situations in which long term
housing stock has been lost to corporate ownership of short-term rental properties;and
That a copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to Premier Doug Ford,Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing Paul Calandra,MPP Graydon Smith,the Association of
Municipalities ofOntario (AMO)and all municipalities in Ontario.
M
Page 143 of 345
The Corporation of the City of Cambridge
Corporate Services Department
Clerk’s Division
The City of Cambridge
Tel: (519) 740-4680 ext. 4585
mantond@cambridge.ca
September 20, 2023
Re: Declaring Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) an Epidemic
At its Council Meeting of September 12, 2023, the Council of the Corporation of the
City of Cambridge passed the following Motion:
WHEREAS the safety of our community and its members is of extreme importance to
every single Cambridge resident, as well as to Cambridge Council;
WHEREAS intimate partner violence, often referred to as domestic violence, means
any use of physical or sexual force, actual or threatened in an intimate relationship,
including emotional and/or psychological abuse or harassing behaviour, and persons
of any gender or sex can be victims of intimate partner violence;
WHEREAS Waterloo Region is experiencing a rise in intimate partner violence (IPV)
and domestic violence during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Waterloo
Region Police Service (WRPS) experiences an average of 17 calls related to IPV per
day, with a total of 6,158 calls in 2022 and 66,000 calls for service in total, despite the
fact that 70% of IPV incidents go unreported due to feelings of shame, fear, and
secrecy;
WHEREAS the WRPS has laid more than 35,000 charges related to IPV, or an
average of 3,500 per year;
WHEREAS in 2022, five out of six homicides in Waterloo Region stemmed from IPV
and domestic violence, with over 3,800 criminal charges issued by WRPS in relation
to IPV;
WHEREAS between 2012 and 2022, the WRPS received a total of 20,870 calls
related to IPV in Cambridge, and laid a total of 11,020 charges related to IPV in
Cambridge;
WHEREAS Indigenous women are approximately 3.5 times more likely to experience
some form of intimate partner violence than non-Indigenous women, and the homicide
rate for Indigenous women and girls is approximately 6 times higher than for non -
Indigenous women and girls, and Indigenous women are 12 times more likely to be
murdered or missing than any other women in Canada, and 16 times more likely than
white women;
Page 144 of 345
WHEREAS violence against women costs the national justice system, health care
systems, social services agencies and municipalities billions of dollars per year, and
municipalities are on the front line in addressing gender-based violence;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Cambridge joins over 30 other Ontario
municipalities in supporting the Recommendation #1 from the Culleton, Kuzyk and
Warmerdam Inquest (C.K.W. Inquest) in formally declaring intimate partner violence
(IPV) as an epidemic;
AND THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to declare that intimate partner
violence and violence against women is an epidemic, in accordance with
Recommendation #1 of the C.K.W. Inquest;
AND THAT Cambridge recommends that Waterloo Regional Council integrates
intimate partner violence in the Region’s Community Safety and Wellbeing Plan, in
accordance with Recommendation #10 of the C.K.W. Inquest, and set out gender-
based violence/intimate partner violence as a separate priority within the plan;
AND FURTHER THAT the City Clerk be directed to send a copy of this motion to the
Region of Waterloo, Province of Ontario, The Right Honourable Prime Minister,
Members of Parliament, Provincial Members of Parliament, United Nations, and all
Ontario Municipalities.
Should you have any questions related to the approved resolution, please contact
me.
Yours Truly,
Danielle Manton
City Clerk
Cc: (via email)
Hon. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
Members of Parliament
Provincial Members of Parliament
United Nations
Province of Ontario
Region of Waterloo
All Ontario Municipalities
Page 145 of 345
P.O.Box 490
7 Creswell Drive Tel:6l3-392-284|
Trenton,Ontario K8V SR6 A N I A ,Toll Free:I-866-485-284|
www.quintewest.ca atura ttracuon josh.machesney@quintewest.ca
JoshMachesney,City Clerk
September 25,2023
The Honourable Doug Ford
Premier of Ontario
Premier’s Office,Room 281
Legislative Building
Queen’s Park,Toronto,ON M7A 1A1
RE:Support for Municipality of Wawa Resolution re:Chronic Pain Treatments
Dear Premier Ford:
This letter will serve to advise that at a meeting of City of Quinte West Council held on
September 20,2023 Council supported the attached resolution from the Municipality of
Wawa regarding maintaining OHIP coverage for chronic pain treatments by passing the
following resolution:
“And further that Staff be directed to prepare a letter of support for Item 12.1 (e)
Resolution from the Municipality of Shuniah in relation to Support for the
Municipality of Wawa regarding Chronic Pain Treatments.”Carried
We trust that you will give favourable consideration to this request.
Yours Truly,
CITY OF QUINTE WEST
CC:Municipalities of OntarioRyanWilliams,MP,Bay of QuinteHon.Todd Smith,MPP,Bay of QuinteHon.Sylvia Jones,Minister of HealthHon.Michael A.Tibollo,Associate Minister of Mental Health and AddictionsAssociationofMunicipalitiesOntario(AMO)Page 146 of 345
The Corporation of the Municipality of Wawa
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
RESOLUTION
Moved by:.3
I
C[‘\,k\'&”"‘3“~J'\.‘\2~tw’“*~'
WHEREAS the OntarioCollege of Physicians a Surgeo s has made a decision that
will lead more people who suffer from chronic =in to turn to opioids to alleviate their
pain and;
WHEREAS the College is targeting community pain clinics by requiring the use of
ultrasound technology in the administration of nerve block injections by licensed
physicians.This requirement will increase the time it takes to administer the nerve block
and,therefore,reduce the number of patients a physician can see in a day and;
WHEREAS the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP)is proposing to reduce coverage
for several vital healthcare services,including a drastic reduction in the number and
frequency of nerve block injections a patient can receive and;
WHEREAS these changes have been proposed without any consultation with pain
management medical professionals or with their patients and;
WHEREAS this cut will force chronic pain clinics to shut down,putting a greater strain
on family physicians and emergency rooms and;
WHEREAS with the reduction in the number of nerve bocks being administered,many
patients,looking for pain relief,will turn to overcrowded emergency rooms,opioid
prescriptions from doctors or opioid street drugs;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOVLED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Wawa is requesting that the Government of Ontario maintain OHIP
coverage for chronic pain treatments and continue to provide much-needed care for the
p.2....This document is available in alternate formats.Page 147 of 345
The Corporation of the Municipality of Wawa
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
RESOLUTION
AND FURTHEFIMORETHAT a copy of the resolution be forwarded to all Municipalities
of Ontario,local MP5 and MPPs,Premier Doug Ford,the Minister of Health,Associate
Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario.
.._......._......._I..I..I.I.J.I..I..I.
C]Disclosed the pecuniary interest and general name thereof and abstained from the discussion,voteandinfluence.Clerk:This document is available in alternate formats.Page 148 of 345
THE CORPORATION OF THE
TOWN OF MIDLAND
575 Dominion Avenue
Midland, ON L4R 1R2
Phone: 705-526-4275
Fax: 705-526-9971
info@midland.ca
September 8, 2023
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A4 Via Email: sencom@sen.parl.gc.ca
Premier Doug Ford
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto ON
M7A 1A1
Via Email: premier@ontario.ca
Dear Premier Ford:
Re: “Catch and Release” Justice is Ontario
At its September 6, 2023, Regular Council Meeting with Closed Session the Council
for the Town of Midland passed the following Resolution:
That the Town of Midland send a letter to the Federal and
Provincial Governments requesting meaningful improvements to
the current state of “catch and release” justice in the Ontario legal
system. Police Services across Ontario are exhausting precious
time and resources having to manage the repeated arrests of the
same offenders, which in turn, is impacting their morale, and
ultimately law-abiding citizens who are paying the often
significant financial and emotional toll of this broken system; and
That this resolution be sent to other Municipalities throughout
Ontario for their endorsement consideration.
Thank you.
Yours very
truly,
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND
Sherri Edgar
Sherri Edgar, AMCT
Municipal Clerk
Ext. 2210
Page 149 of 345
The Corporation of the
County of Northumberland
555 Courthouse Road
Cobourg, ON, K9A 5J6
Northumberland County
Council Resolution
Northumberland County Council Resolution
SENT VIA EMAIL September 25, 2023
Hon. Paul Calandra, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Hon. Prabmeet Sarkaria, Minister of Transportation
Hon. David Piccini, Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development &
MPP for Northumberland - Peterborough South
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
All Ontario Municipalities
Re: Northumberland County Resolution – ‘Highway Traffic Act Amendments’
At a meeting held on September 20, 2023 Northumberland County Council approved
the following Council Resolution # 2023-09-20-647 adopting the below recommendation
from the September 7, 2023 Public Works Committee meeting.
Moved by: Councillor Olena Hankivsky
Seconded by: Councillor John Logel
"That the Public Works Committee, having considered the correspondence from the
Municipality of St. Charles regarding 'Highway Traffic Act Amendments', recommend
that County Council support the correspondence, and direct staff to send a copy of this
resolution to key stakeholders."
Council Resolution # 2023-09-20-647 Carried
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
the undersigned at matherm@northumberland.ca or by telephone at 905-372-3329 ext.
2238.
Sincerely,
Maddison Mather
Manager of Legislative Services / Clerk
Northumberland County
Page 150 of 345
Page 151 of 345
Page 152 of 345
otlLo
The Conporation of the Municipality of St. Charles. RESOLUTION PNCE
Regular Meeting of Council
{genda Number: 10.4.
Resolution Number 2023-152
Title: Resolution Stemming from May 17,2023 Reg
Correspondence #16) and the June 21,2023
- Correspondence #10)
Date: July 19,2023
ular Meeting of Council (ltem 9.1 -
Regular Meeting of Council (ltem 9.1
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Councillor Pothier
Councillor Lachance
BE lT RESOLVED THAT Council for the Corporation of the Municipality of St. Gharles hereby supports
the Resolution passed by the Gity of Cambridge, on May 9,2023, regarding Highway Traffic Act
Amendments;
AND BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be foruarded to the Ministry of
Transportation (MTO); the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH); the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario (AMO); the local Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) and all Ontario
Muncipalities.
CARRIED
YOR
Page 153 of 345
The Corporation of the City of Cambridge
Corporate Services Department
Clerk’s Division
The City of Cambridge
50 Dickson Street, P.O. Box 669
Cambridge ON N1R 5W8
Tel: (519) 740-4680 ext. 4585
mantond@cambridge.ca
May 10, 2023
Re: Highway Traffic Act Amendments
Dear Ms. Mulroney,
At the Council Meeting of May 9, 2023, the Council of the Corporation of the City of
Cambridge passed the following Motion:
WHEREAS speeding on our roads is a major concern in our community,
AND WHEREAS speeding can occur in all areas of our community,
AND WHEREAS barriers and delays to enforcement pose a danger to our community,
AND WHEREAS our municipality has limited resources to implement speed mitigation
road design and re-design,
AND WHEREAS our local police service has limited resources to undertake speed
enforcement,
AND WHEREAS s.205.1 of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) provides that Automated
Speed Enforcement systems (ASE) may only be placed in designated community
safety zones and school safety zones,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City of Cambridge request that the
Ontario Government amend s.205.1 of the HTA to permit municipalities to locate an
ASE system permanently or temporarily on any roadway under the jurisdiction of
municipalities and as determined by municipalities and not be restricted to only
community safety zones and school safety zones;
AND THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Ontario Minister of
Transportation, the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, local area
MPPs, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and all Ontario
Municipalities.
Page 154 of 345
Should you have any questions related to the approved resolution, please contact
me.
Yours Truly,
Danielle Manton
City Clerk
Cc: (via email)
Steve Clark, Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Local Area MPPs
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
All Ontario Municipalities
Page 155 of 345
September 28, 2023
The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario Delivered by email
Premier’s Office, Room 281 premier@ontario.ca
Legislative Building, Queen’s Park
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1
Dear Premier:
Re: Town of Aurora Council Resolution of September 26, 2023
Motion 10.4 - Councillor Weese; Re: Aurora Council Opposition to Strong Mayor
Powers in Aurora
Please be advised that this matter was considered by Council at its meeting held on
September 26, 2023, and in this regard, Council adopted the following resolution:
Whereas the Head of Council is required to confirm in writing his commitment to
meet a municipal housing target by October 15, 2023, in order to receive Strong
Mayor Powers; and
Whereas the municipality is required to submit a formal housing pledge which
will outline how the municipality plans to meet the housing target by December
15, 2023; and
Whereas Strong Mayor Powers will result in the Head of Council being granted
powers such as:
• Choosing to appoint the municipality’s chief administrative officer;
• Hiring certain municipal department heads and establishing and re-
organizing departments;
• Creating committees of council, assigning their functions, and appointing the
chairs and vice-chairs of committees of council;
• Proposing the municipal budget, which would be subject to council
amendments and a separate head of council veto and council override
process;
• Vetoing certain by-laws if the head of council is of the opinion that all or part
of the by-law could potentially interfere with a provincial priority;
Legislative Services
Michael de Rond
905-726-4771
clerks@aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
100 John West Way, Box 1000
Aurora, ON L4G 6J1
Page 156 of 345
Town of Aurora Council Resolution of September 26, 2023
Aurora Council Opposition to Strong Mayor Powers in Aurora
September 28, 2023 2 of 2
• Bringing forward matters for council consideration if the head of council is of
the opinion that considering the matter could potentially advance a provincial
priority; and
Whereas these Strong Mayor Powers undermine democratic processes executed
through municipal elections; and
Whereas Strong Mayor Powers may also violate by-laws established in Aurora
that provides accepted and legal procedures for governance; and
Whereas Aurora Town Council recognizes the important role each Councillor
provides the residents in their Ward and the community-at-large;
1. Now Therefore Be it Hereby Resolved That the Aurora Town Council opposes
Strong Mayor Powers provided to the Head of Council; and
2. Be It Further Resolved That this approved Motion is to be sent to the Premier
of Ontario, the Honourable Doug Ford; the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing, the Honourable Paul Calandra; the Regional Municipality of York;
and each of the Municipalities in Ontario.
The above is for your consideration and any attention deemed necessary.
Yours sincerely,
Michael de Rond
Town Clerk
The Corporation of the Town of Aurora
MdR/lb
Attachment (Council meeting extract)
Copy: Hon. Paul Calandra, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Christopher Raynor, Regional Clerk, The Regional Municipality of York
All Ontario Municipalities
Page 157 of 345
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Council Meeting Extract
Tuesday, September 26, 2023
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 2
10. Motions
10.4 Councillor Weese; Re: Aurora Council Opposition to Strong Mayor Powers
in Aurora
Moved by Councillor Weese
Seconded by Councillor Gaertner
Whereas the Head of Council is required to confirm in writing his
commitment to meet a municipal housing target by October 15, 2023, in
order to receive Strong Mayor Powers; and
Whereas the municipality is required to submit a formal housing pledge
which will outline how the municipality plans to meet the housing target by
December 15, 2023; and
Whereas Strong Mayor Powers will result in the Head of Council being
granted powers such as:
• Choosing to appoint the municipality’s chief administrative officer;
• Hiring certain municipal department heads and establishing and re-
organizing departments;
• Creating committees of council, assigning their functions, and
appointing the chairs and vice-chairs of committees of council;
• Proposing the municipal budget, which would be subject to council
amendments and a separate head of council veto and council
override process;
• Vetoing certain by-laws if the head of council is of the opinion that all
or part of the by-law could potentially interfere with a provincial
priority;
• Bringing forward matters for council consideration if the head of
council is of the opinion that considering the matter could potentially
advance a provincial priority; and
Whereas these Strong Mayor Powers undermine democratic processes
executed through municipal elections; and
Page 158 of 345
Council Meeting Extract – Tuesday, September 26, 2023
Page 2 of 2
Whereas Strong Mayor Powers may also violate by-laws established in
Aurora that provides accepted and legal procedures for governance; and
Whereas Aurora Town Council recognizes the important role each
Councillor provides the residents in their Ward and the community-at-
large;
1. Now Therefore Be it Hereby Resolved That the Aurora Town Council
opposes Strong Mayor Powers provided to the Head of Council; and
2. Be It Further Resolved That this approved Motion is to be sent to the
Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Doug Ford; the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable Paul Calandra; the
Regional Municipality of York; and each of the Municipalities in
Ontario.
Yeas (4): Councillor Weese, Councillor Gilliland, Councillor Gaertner, and
Councillor Gallo
Nays (3): Mayor Mrakas, Councillor Thompson, and Councillor Kim
Carried (4 to 3)
Page 159 of 345
September 27, 2023
to Whom it May Concern
Re: Support for Motion RE: Guaranteed Livable Income
At the meeting of September 26, 2023, the Council of the County of Brant adopted the following
resolution in support of the September 5th resolution passed by the Town of Grimsby on
Guaranteed Livable Income :
“Whereas the Canadian livable wage for the Brant—Niagara—Haldimand—Norfolk
Region, two years ago was determined to be $19.80. This was $6000 above the annual
income of a minimum wage employee; and
Whereas County of Brant residents on programs such as Ontario Works, receive
targeted fixed monthly incomes of $733, and ODSP recipients receive $1376; and
Whereas at the current Ontario minimum wage rate, a person working 37.5 hours per
week will earn approximately $2,500 monthly (before tax); and
Whereas the median rent for one bedroom in the County of Brant as of 2022 was
$1143.90 a month, and the County of Brant does not have current AMR for September
2023; and
Whereas rent is considered affordable, when it is less than 30% of income. In the
County of Brant, rent is approximately 156% of Ontario Works, 83.13% of Ontario
Disability Support Services, 45% of minimum wage full-time (before tax), and 90% of
minimum wage part time; and
Whereas an annual 2.5% allowable rent increase can be combined with an additional 3-
6.5% capital investment increase, raising the cost of rental housing another minimum of
$110 monthly; and
Whereas the recent report by the County of Brant Policy Planning and Corporate
Strategy departments determined that the County of Brant has serious shortfalls in both
affordable and attainable housing supply;
Page 160 of 345
County of Brant Page 2
Therefore be it resolved the County of Brant supports the resolution shared by the Town
of Grimsby; and
Be it further resolved that The County of Brant circulate correspondence to Ontario
municipalities encouraging them not only to collect data of their housing and poverty
statistics, but also to examine their pending economic vulnerability as a result; and
Be it further resolved that The County of Brant encourage these same municipalities to
join the County of Brant in advocating on behalf of our communities with this data, and
by writing a letter to the Prime Minister, Premier, and local politicians calling for a united
effort in establishing a Guaranteed Livable Income program.”
Respectfully,
Alysha Dyjach
Director of Council Services, Clerk
County of Brant
Page 161 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-02
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comments for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.1
CLK-2023-07 2024 Council Schedule
Council,
[1] I have no conflicts with the proposed schedule.
[2] It is recommended to approve the schedule.
Page 162 of 345
2
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 163 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-03
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comments for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.2
HR-2023-02 Whistle-Blower Corporate Policy
Council,
[1] It is recommended to recieve the draft policy.
Page 164 of 345
2
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 165 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-04
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comments for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.3
PBD-2023-58 (Report added) Building Permit Fee Review
Council,
[1] I will be filing an information request, which will be shared, to learn the price the city
paid Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. to research what other municipalities
charge then propose that the city of Niagara Falls raise all their rates as high as
possible without becoming the most expensive municipality in Niagara.
[2] I could have done that.
[3] I have a document on file within the agendas that predict council will produce double-
digit budget increases for every year they are in office, I did not foresee council
creating triple digit fee increases though.
[4] Ruth-Anne was concerned that the fee increase for graves to bury dead people was
unreasonable, and spoke up.
[5] How does council feel about an even greater increase to the fee to build affordable
homes for living people?
[6] Permit fees are the foundation of the administration costs for attainable housing, and
you're about to rip that out from under those goals.
[7] Not impressed.
[8] I understand they have to go up, but how do you make it look like you're
compromising with the high cost of attainable housing.
[9] The minimum permit fee should never be “$225”, this directly affects small
improvements from homeowners, the people that really need those savings.
Page 166 of 345
2
[10] No fee increase should exceed 25% in a given change event. Increase them 25%
each year until you reach a balanced fee if need be.
[11] If someone wants to do the math, there is a proposed +3% annually increase, go
back to 2017 when the last fee assessment was done and calculate what the fees for
2023 would be with that same annual increase and use that as a basis/comparison for
incremental increases.
[12] If council does agree to allow the increases, it is recommended council at least
delay the increase until January 1st 2024.
[13] This would provide consistency with the practice to “advise” the public of the
impending increase and allow those to whom it matters to prepare for it, just like the
grave fee.
[14] It would also set the annual increase to the first of the year, try to annualize fee
increases to January 1st when everyone expects annual changes.
[15] These are the questions and actions I would be taking if I was a city councilor.
Page 167 of 345
3
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 168 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-13
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comment for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda
4500 Park Street Legacy updated Report
Council,
[1] Council approved nearly $2 million to restore the 4500 Park Street site for affordable
housing development.
[2] That project has failed to materialize.
[3] Considering that that money could have been used to pay off debt and or defer debt
borrowing at an interest rate of nearly 8%, councils failure to complete this project is
costing taxpayers approximately $160,000 per year in interest payments.
[4] The total estimated cost to taxpayers, of council's continuing failure, will be
calculated and updated for the next update reports.
[5] Council needs to do perform their roles and mange taxpayers money more efficiently,
people are watching and not letting your mistakes fade away.
Page 169 of 345
2
Page 170 of 345
3
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 171 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-10
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comment for the 10 03 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,
321 days Council Members,
321 failures ...
Page 172 of 345
2
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 173 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-05
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comments for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item 9
CONSENT AGENDA
Council,
[1] It is recommended to approve the consent agenda items 9.1 and 9.2.
Page 174 of 345
2
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 175 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-06
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comments for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item 10
COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK
Council,
[1] It is recommended to approve/support the agenda items 10.1- 10.6.
Page 176 of 345
2
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 N iagara Falls.
Altering or redacting this document will be viewed as a violation of Section 2(b) of The Canadian
Charter of Rights.
Page 177 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-07
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comments for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item 11
COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK
Council,
[1] It is recommended to receive and file the agenda items 11.1- 11.6.
Page 178 of 345
2
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 179 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-08
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comments for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item 12
COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK
Council,
[1] It is recommended to receive and file the agenda items 12.1- 12.2.
Page 180 of 345
2
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 181 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-09
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comments for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda Item 14
MOTIONS
Council,
[1] 14.1 MOTION - Public Safety - Welland River (Chippawa Creek) is appropriate.
[2] 14.2 Motion to Reconsider - PBD-2023-47 Employment Lands Conversion:
Official Plan Amendment No. 157 (Fraser Street, west of Stanley Avenue and
lands east of Fourth Avenue, north of Hamilton Street), is not.
[3] It is recommended to vote down 14.2, all information has been previously provided to
public and council.
[4] Two thirds vote required, if I recall to reconsider a matter brought before the same
sitting council.
[5] City staff's pride will heal in time.
Page 182 of 345
2
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 183 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-11
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comment for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda
Mayor Diodati and Councilor Strange comments concerning 15,000
students updated Report
Council,
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] It has been 293 days since Mayor Diodati and Councilor Strange claimed 15,000
students and faculty were going to be living and working in the downtown.
[5] The claim remains false.
[6] The current occupancy, as researched, is 0.
Page 184 of 345
2
Page 185 of 345
3
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 186 of 345
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
Comments #10-03-2023-12
Tuesday October 03, 2023
Comment for the 10 03 2023 Council Meeting Agenda
Mayor Diodati comments concerning Development Downtown
updated Report
Council,
[1] On December 31, 2021, a Niagara Falls Review news article was published, with
Mayor Jim Diodati stating:
[2] "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."
[3] "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."
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] It has been 640 days since Mayor Diodati made that claim, and it remains false.
[7] There are currently no high-rises, residential apartments, condos, cranes, or grocery
stores being built in our downtown.
[8] News article link
[9] (https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/news/council/2021/12/31/announcement-for-
falls-downtown-university-could-come-this-spring-diodati.html)
Page 187 of 345
2
Page 188 of 345
3
Joedy Burdett
President of the Niagara Falls Shadow Council
Former 2022 Candidate for The Niagara Falls City
Council election.
Ontario Independent Designer (BCIN 38837)
Building Services, Plumbing-All Buildings, Small
Buildings
Owner Niagara Tinting
4480 Bridge Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 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 189 of 345
1
Heather Ruzylo
To:Bill Matson
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]-MOTION SUPPORTING B'NAI BRITH'S DEMAND THAT ALL
DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO THE DESCHENES COMMISSION REPORT ON WAR
CRIMINALS IN CANADA BE MADE PUBLIC IN THEIR ENTIRETY
From: Carey Campbell <ccampbell@niagarafalls.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Marvin Rotrand <marvinr@bnaibrith.ca>; Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca>; Bill Matson
<billmatson@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: Carey Campbell <ccampbell@niagarafalls.ca>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]-MOTION SUPPORTING B'NAI BRITH'S DEMAND THAT ALL DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO THE
DESCHENES COMMISSION REPORT ON WAR CRIMINALS IN CANADA BE MADE PUBLIC IN THEIR ENTIRETY
Dear Marvin:
As this is a matter for City Council as a whole, I’m including our City Clerk, Bill Matson in order
to follow up with you on your request. Thank you.
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: Marvin Rotrand <marvinr@bnaibrith.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 1:27 PM
To: Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: Carey Campbell <ccampbell@niagarafalls.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]-MOTION SUPPORTING B'NAI BRITH'S DEMAND THAT ALL DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO THE
DESCHENES COMMISSION REPORT ON WAR CRIMINALS IN CANADA BE MADE PUBLIC IN THEIR ENTIRETY
Good afternoon Mayor Diodati,
Given the events in Parliament last week, we are shifting our focus for the time being and
asking Mayor and Councillors to table the motion below in their Councils.
Would you be willing to bring the following motion to Ajax City Council ?
Would appreciate if you could let me know as soon as possible.
Page 190 of 345
2
Best regards,
Marvin Rotrand
National Director - League for Human Rights
B'nai Brith Canada
416.633.6224 x 121
Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
MOTION SUPPORTING B'NAI BRITH'S DEMAND THAT ALL DOCUMENTATION
RELATED TO THE DESCHENES COMMISSION REPORT ON WAR CRIMINALS IN
CANADA BE MADE PUBLIC IN THEIR ENTIRETY
Whereas recent events in Parliament culminating in the resignation of Speaker
Anthony Rota, highlight the need to release historical records pertaining to the
Holocaust to allow light to be shed on Nazi war criminals and collaborators that settled
in Canada after the Second World War;
Whereas in 1985 and 1986 Justice Jules Deschenes chaired the Commission of
Inquiry on War Criminals in Canada, often referred to as the Deschênes Commission,
to investigate claims that Canada had become a haven for Nazi war criminals;
Whereas Part II of the Deschênes Commission report, addressing individual cases,
has never been made public and the hundreds of Nazi war crimes files originally held
by the Department of Justice and Royal Canadian Mounted Police are inaccessible;
Whereas no unredacted version of the report written by Alti Rodal for the Deschênes
Commission, titled Nazi War Criminals in Canada: The Historical and Policy Setting
from the 1940s to the Present has ever been released;
Page 191 of 345
3
Whereas Canada is a member in good standing of the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and has endorsed its Stockholm Declaration which
commits the signatories, including Canada, to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the
opening of archives in order to ensure that all documents bearing on the Holocaust are
available to researchers.”;
Whereas In 2017, IHRA’s Monitoring Access to Holocaust Collections Project
recommended that governmental archival institutions “release Holocaust related
records, irrespective of any personal identifying information or national security
classifications.”
Whereas B’nai Brith’s, Canada’s oldest Jewish advocacy organization, nationally active
since 1875, has called on Parliament to introduce amendments to the Access to
Information Act (ATIA) that would mandate the disclosure of all records relating
specifically to alleged Nazi war criminals in Canada and to any other Canadian citizen
or resident who may have been complicit in carrying out the Holocaust and all other
Holocaust-related records (as defined by IHRA) in the possession of the Government
of Canada;
It is moved by
Seconded by
That Niagara Falls City Council support the request for the immediate release of all
documentation pertaining to the 1986 Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in
Canada including an unredacted version of the Rodal report;
That a copy of this motion be sent to the Honourable Arif Virant, Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada and Honourable Anita Anand, President of the Treasury
Board.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have
received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited.
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 192 of 345
Page 193 of 345
Page 194 of 345
Page 195 of 345
Page 196 of 345
Page 197 of 345
Page 198 of 345
Page 199 of 345
Page 200 of 345
Page 201 of 345
Page 202 of 345
Page 203 of 345
Page 204 of 345
Page 205 of 345
Page 206 of 345
Page 207 of 345
Page 208 of 345
Page 209 of 345
Page 210 of 345
Page 211 of 345
Page 212 of 345
Page 213 of 345
Page 214 of 345
Page 215 of 345
Page 216 of 345
Page 217 of 345
Page 218 of 345
Page 219 of 345
Page 220 of 345
Page 221 of 345
Page 222 of 345
Page 223 of 345
Page 224 of 345
Page 225 of 345
Page 226 of 345
Page 227 of 345
Page 228 of 345
Page 229 of 345
Page 230 of 345
Page 231 of 345
Page 232 of 345
Page 233 of 345
Page 234 of 345
Page 235 of 345
Page 236 of 345
Page 237 of 345
Page 238 of 345
Page 239 of 345
Page 240 of 345
Page 241 of 345
Page 242 of 345
Page 243 of 345
Page 244 of 345
Page 245 of 345
Page 246 of 345
Page 247 of 345
Page 248 of 345
Page 249 of 345
Page 250 of 345
Page 251 of 345
Page 252 of 345
Page 253 of 345
Page 254 of 345
Page 255 of 345
Page 256 of 345
1 of 9
Attachment: List of 74 Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF) Recommendations for Response
Please identify the top 5 HATF recommendations that you support, and rationale / comments
1. Recommendation 56 (Originally No. 48) : The Ontario government, should establish a large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and encourage
the federal government to match funding This fund should reward:
a) Annual housing growth that meets or exceeds provincial targets
b) Reductions in total approval times for new housing
c) The speedy removal of exclusionary zoning practices
Comment: Funding for large scale affordable housing projects is supported, however it should be noted that while the City can address
procedures to efficiently bring projects to a shovel ready status the actual construction of projects depends on the private sector (developers
and builders). It is recommended that further measures to encourage the private sector to develop vacant lands that are shovel ready be
considered by the Province.
2. Recommendation 38 (Originally No. 31) : In clearing the existing backlog, encourage the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the finish line
that will support housing growth and intensification, as well as regional water or utility infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant
housing capacity.
3. Recommendation 50 (Originally No. 42): Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and
affordable ownership projects.
4. Recommendation 51 (Originally No. 43): Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external economic events, to withdraw infrastructure
allocations from any permitted projects where construction has not been initiated within three years of build permits being issued.
Comment: Consideration should also be given to enabling municipalities to withdraw infrastructure allocations to projects which have received
zoning, subdivision or site plan approvals but have not been initiated within three years of approvals being granted.
5. Recommendation 53 (Originally No. 45): Improve funding for colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeships, encourage and incentivize
municipalities, unions and employers to provide more on-the-job training.*
Comment: The City recognizes that substantially increasing the rate at which housing is constructed depends on increasing the number of
skilled tradespersons and support initiatives to do so. Staff also note that municipalities may need to increase staffing to process Building and
Planning applications as well as advancing municipal infrastructure projects.
Page 257 of 345
Page 258 of 345
Page 259 of 345
Page 260 of 345
Page 261 of 345
Page 262 of 345
Page 263 of 345
Page 264 of 345
Page 265 of 345
Page 266 of 345
PBD-2022-10
Report
Report to: Mayor and Council
Date: March 22, 2022
Title: Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force Proposal Review
Recommendation(s)
1. That Council support the recommendations from Planning staff on "The Report of the
Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force" as detailed in Appendix "2" of PBD-2022-
10.
2. That Council forward a copy of this report to Minister Steve Clark.
3. That Staff monitor how these recommendation are implemented by the Provincial
government and bring forward any necessary staffing implications to Council through
the 2023 budget.
4. That Staff prepare a future report to Council on permitting additional uses in the low
density areas and zones for gentle intensification, recommendations for intensification
corridors as part of the City's new Official Plan, consideration of a reduction of parking
requirements based on the City's parking study review and on dele gated authority.
Executive Summary
On February 8, 2022 the provincial task force released “The report of the Ontario
Housing Affordability Task Force” (Appendix "1"). This report outlined fifty-five
recommendations to support the construction of 1.5 million new homes in 10 years to
assist the housing affordability problem. The task force breaks up the fifty-five
recommendations into five main categories:
1. Focus on getting more homes built
2. Making land available to build
3. Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs
4. Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent
5. Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply
The recommendations in the provincial report are geared towards intensification through
modernization of zoning to permit a wider more inclusive variety of housing in existing
Page 1 of 60
Page 267 of 345
neighbourhoods, intensification of transit corridors and roadways and to monopolize on
underutilized commercial properties. These recommendations open the door for more
housing within the urban area to make better use of existing roads, water, wastewater,
transit and other public services.
The report focuses on ensuring growth happens at a faster rate with less costs. The
recommendations focus on timelines, clear expectations for developers, new innovative
options for development and preventing the abuse of the appeal process. The province
suggests that funding may be available for additional human resources, e -permitting, to
support intensification and faster development approval.
They also propose recommendations to balance government fees such as development
charges, parkland dedication, HST, property taxes to ensure they do not discourage
development.
After review there are four main areas of concern for staff and they are:
1.Density without amenities or good design
2.No relationship or shared common goal with government and developers
3.The plan is Toronto/GTA centric
4.The financial impacts to the City of Niagara Falls
The Provincial task force recommendations are a starting point but we need to consider
a made in Niagara approach to ensure development and intensification focus on good
design, appropriate integration into existing communities and the support of amenities to
create great places for people to live.
Accelerated growth does come at a cost. The City will need to invest in human
resources and e-permitting systems to efficiently process applications to make sure
developers get in the ground sooner. The province is committing to providing funding to
assist municipalities at the outset but the Province needs to make sure that the burden
of faster more affordable housing does not come at a cost to just the taxpayer. The
Province needs to engage the development community to commit to assisting in this
effort. This collaborative approach to housing affordability is missing from the current
task force recommendations and needs to be further considered by the Province.
Background
On December 6, 2021, the Ontario government appointed nine members to a new
Housing Affordability Task Force to determine measures to address housing
affordability. The mandate of this task force was to:
• Increasing the supply of market rate rental and ownership housing;
• Building housing supply in complete communities;
• Reducing red tape and accelerating timelines;
Page 2 of 60
Page 268 of 345
• Encouraging innovation and digital modernization, such as in planning
processes;
• Supporting economic recovery and job creation; and
• Balancing housing needs with protecting the environment.
On February 8, 2022 this task force released “The report of the Ontario Housing
Affordability Task Force” (Appendix "1"). This report outlines fifty-five
recommendations to build 1.5 million new homes in 10 years to assist the housing
affordability problem. The task force has broken up the fifty-five recommendations into
five main categories:
1. Focus on getting more homes built
The goal is to build 1.5 million homes in 10 years by permitting the full spectrum of
housing to support intensification through redevelopment in the existing urban areas.
We are in a housing crisis and the goal of the Province while ambitious will help to
assist in providing housing for all.
2. Making land available to build
These recommendations are geared towards modernizing zoning to permit a wider
more inclusive variety of housing in existing neighbourhoods, to intensify transit
corridors and to monopolize on underutilized commercial properties. These
recommendations open the door for more housing options through increase density
making better use of existing roads, water, wastewater, transit and other public
services.
The government plans is to do this by proposing the followin g "as of right":
• Four storeys and up to 4 units on a single residential lot;
• conversions of underutilized commercial lands;
• secondary suites, garden suites and laneway houses;
• multi-tenant housing;
• unlimited height and density within major transit stations if a municipality has not
planned for intensification within 2 years; and
• 6-11 storeys with no minimum parking requirements on streets that have public
transit.
The government is also proposing to make changes by:
• removing policies/zones that prioritize preservation of the character of a
neighbourhood;
• exempting from site plan approval and public consultation all projects of 10 units
or less;
• proposing province wide zone standards and remove floor plate restrictions;
Page 3 of 60
Page 269 of 345
• limiting municipalities from requesting or hosting additional public meetings
beyond; the planning act and permitting digital participation options;
• removing any barriers to affordable construction in the Ontario Building Code;
• incentivizing municipalities to increase densities in school zones with capacity;
• requiring mandatory delegation of site plan approval and minor variance to staff
or 3rd party consultants;
• limiting the abuse of the heritage preservation and designation process and
requiring compensation by municipalities to homeowners for loss of property
value as a result of heritage designation; and
• restoring developers rights to appeal Official Plans and Municipal
Comprehensive reviews.
Lastly, the government suggests responsible housing growth on undeveloped land
including land outside urban area boundaries to support higher density complete
communities.
3. Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs
The recommendations in this section focus on timelines, clear expectations for
developers, new innovative options for development and preventing the abuse of the
appeal process.
These recommendations consider how to improve the standardization, speed and
alternatives for development applications through:
• Legislative timelines that must be adhered to or the application is deemed
approved;
• fund approvals facilitators;
• pre-consultation with a binding list of requirements;
• allow 12 storey wood frame construction;
• standardization of draft plan conditions;
• standardization of legal agreements;
• an option to pay on demand surety bonds and letters of credit.
The changes to the appeal process include such things as:
• the removal of the right to appeal housing projects with at least 30% affordable
housing guaranteed for 40 years;
• a $10,000 filing fee for third party appeals;
• costs to the successful party in any appeal brought by a third party or
municipality where council has overridden staffs recommendation.
• encourage oral decisions;
• awarding punitive damages to a municipality that has refused an application to
avoid the deemed approval timelines;
Page 4 of 60
Page 270 of 345
• fund additional staffing at OLT (Ontario Land Tribunal) and set shorter time
targets.
4. Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent
This section proposes recommendations to balance government fees such as
development charges, parkland cash in lieu, HST, property taxes to ensure they do not
discourage development. This section also covers further legislative changes to the
Planning Act, the and Perpetuities Act and focuses on provincial funding and other
strategies to address affordable housing and the need for more housing.
The government is proposing to:
• Waive DC's, parkland cash in lieu for all infill projects up to 10 units or where no
new material infrastructure is required;
• Waive DC"s on affordable housing guaranteed for 40 years;
• prohibit interest rates on development charges higher than a municipalities
borrowing rate;
• Review by province of cash in lieu, DC's and benefit reserves to ensure they are
used in a timely fashion and are used in the neighbourhoods where they are
collected.
• recommend that HST rebates reflect current home prices.
• Align property taxes for purpose built rental;
• Extend maximum period for land leases and restrictive covenants to 40 years or
more;
• Funding for pilot projects for pathways to homeownership for those in need and
loan guarantees for purpose built rentals;
• call on the federal government to implement an urban, rural and northern
indigenous housing strategy; and
• eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to housing growth;
5. Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply
The recommendations in this section focus on ensuring infrastructure construction and
allocation can be provided without the use of development charges, assist in solutions
to address labour force shortages, impose funding penalties on municipalities that do
not address the need for growth and to monitor progress.
The Province plans to do this by:
• enabling municipalities to withdraw infrastructure allocation where construction
has not started within 3 years;
• implementing a municipal service corporation utility model for water and
wastewater to amortize costs among customers instead of using DC's.
• improving education and funding programs for skilled trades and fund on the job
training;
Page 5 of 60
Page 271 of 345
• expediting immigration status for needed trades;
• establishing an "Ontario Housing Delivery Fund" to reward annual growth that
meets provincial targets, reductions in approval times and speedy removal of
exclusionary zoning practices;
• reducing funding to municipalities that fail to meet provincial housing growth and
timeline targets;
• Funding e-permitting systems and common data architecture standards and set a
goal of 2025;
• requiring municipalities and the provincial government to use the Ministry of
Finance population projections as the basis for housing need analysis and report
publicly on housing data and any gap between demand and supp ly;
• empowering the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing lead a
government committee to meet weekly to ensure recommendations and other
ideas are implemented; and
• evaluating these recommendations for the next three years.
Overall the above five categories focus on changes to public participation, delegation,
heritage matters, Ontario Local Planning Tribunal changes and as of right zoning and
other legislative changes. These categories also focus on providing Provincial funding
for changes and at the same time imposing new financial burdens on the municipality.
Analysis
The Affordability Task Force has put forth 55 recommendations to get home built faster
by cutting red tape and reducing costs. The proposal while bold lacks a few
fundamental key components and creates additional impacts on municipalities and its
residents. The key issues are:
1.Density without amenities or good design
2.No relationship or shared common goal between government and developers
3.The plan is Toronto/GTA centric
4.The financial impacts to the City of Niagara Falls
Density without amenities or good design
1) Increasing density without design or amenities to create a sense of place where
people want to live creates poor environments that lead to crime, depression and other
social impacts. In order to increase density in key areas proper planning should be
undertaken to ensure there is sufficient service capacity, transit systems, parks and
open space, commercial amenities, schools and other amenities within walking
distance. The recommendations by the Task Force encourage density in areas without
adequate transit, servicing and other amenities. Density in key locations should be
planned.
The Task Force did identify density near low enrollment schools as one
recommendation. These schools are normally in areas of transition close to downtowns.
These areas are ideal for intensification provided they have adequate amenities and
Page 6 of 60
Page 272 of 345
services. This recommendation should be taken further to permit affordable housing on
top of existing schools to increase enrollment and utilize shared open space and
parking.
Of particular interest is the recommendation to permit four storeys and up to 4 units on
any single residential lot. The focus of the Province should be on a more gentle
intensification and the elimination of red tape for second dwelling units, single to
multiple conversions within existing structures and new permissions to permit a variety
housing forms with a height of 2.5 storeys in lower density neighborhoods. This lower
type of intensification will blend in with the existing neighbourhoods. This would then
support the Province's goal to intensify along transit corridors by allowing more gradual
intensification (4-6 storeys) as you get to the collector and arterial road system to
support more intense transit ridership Niagara.
In addition, recommendation 12 sets prohibitions for urban design type standards such
as shadow impacts, angular planes all which assist in creating good building design. If
these are not put in place what can result is large massive block buildings within limited
windows creating places where people do not want to live. This is further compounded
by limitations on Development Charges and parkland cash in lieu to fund new parks and
other amenities for the new residents.
The proposed changes need to consider further how to intensify with good design and
appropriate amenities to create great places for people to live. The goal of the Province
cannot be massive housing tracks without appropriate planning as this will come at a
heavy social price.
Common goal with Government and Developers
2) The approach by the Province is one sided and affordable housing needs to be a
partnership between government and the developers. There is no guarantee that the
reduction in these costs/timelines will translate to affordable housing or more housing.
In the City of Niagara Falls the Planning Department had approved 4407 units within the
Built up area which remained unbuilt as of the end of 2020. In addition, there were 560
units that remained unbuilt in the Greenfield area. Last year there were 860 residential
units approved for construction in the City of Niagara Falls and the City has yet to
calculate the amount of new units approved which will add to the supply inventory. City
staff have noticed a significant amount of land banking occurring which also contributes
to lack of supply.
As can be seen, the Province needs to analyze further why the housing is not getting
built faster with the supply ready and available for development. In addition, they need
to consider how affordable housing will get built collectively through the
municipalities/region/provincial work and the construction industry. Two possible
solutions are to put in place "as of right" inclusionary zoning for any development above
4 units or set a percentage of affordable units that must be met by developers.
Page 7 of 60
Page 273 of 345
As the approach cannot be one sided and the City of Niagara Falls has already planned
for increased density in line with Provincial targets in the Downtown GO station area
and have already begun work on, identifying new and revamping old, intensification
nodes and corridors and will finalize this work through the City's new Official Plan. Staff
have are also beginning an exercise to streamline the planning process and identify any
bottlenecks in the process to ensure applications are not needlessly held up.
Toronto/GTA centric Plan
3) These recommendations seem to stem from the Toronto/GTA area where transit is
sufficient to accommodate this type of increased density. There should be a made in
Niagara approach where Niagara has the ability to plan for intensification in each
community and for those communities to determine the locations where growth is best
suited. The provincial government should allocate a specific density and time frame for
each municipality to identify there growth corridors or nodes to accommodate the
projected growth. Given that the Region of Niagara's new Official Plan is almost
complete this timeframe can be linked to the completion of the municipal conformity
exercise.
Financial Impacts
4) The municipality will need to increase staff to process applications to meet or exceed
Provincial time target. These timeline targets and growth related projections will be
linked to current and future funding allocations. The City has received funding to
implement an e-permitting, planning and by-law system and any remaining funding
could be used for additional staffing. There also may be future opportunities for funding
for staffing.
The province is recommending to waive DC's and parkland cash in lieu for projects up
to 10 units and for other projects that do not require material infrastructure. Although
this number seems small the City relies on DC's to fund capital infrastructure
replacement and new infrastructure projects, fund park development, transit etc. The
City also relies on parkland cash in lieu to purchase parkland and this will be extremely
important in the future with the planned intensification. The reduction in these
allocations will mean more costs on the general tax payer and residents of the City of
Niagara Falls to fund projects. The province is suggesting that current taxpayers should
pay for growth rather than the current model that growth should pay for growth.
In addition, the Province is proposing compensation by municipalities to homeowners
for loss of property value as a result of heritage designation. How this will be determined
is a question and this is not currently budgeted by the municipality and will need to be
considered further if approved relative to the possible heritage designation sites. Staff
are of the opinion that there is no evidence that suggest heritage designations trigger
lower property values and I would argue this is definitely not the case in Niagara on the
Lake which has a very large heritage district which increases the property value of the
area.
Page 8 of 60
Page 274 of 345
Some of these financial burdens may be appropriate if they result in more affordable
housing, but staff do not see how the compensation on heritage designation achieves
the goal of providing more attainable and affordable housing. This recommendation is
an outlier that is not in keeping with the theme of the Task Force mandate.
The Provincial Task Force recommendations are a step in the right direction and they
definitely open the door for further dialogue with area municipalities. The commentary
above is a brief overview of concerns and suggestions but Planning staff have reviewed
all the recommendations of the Task Force in detail in Appendix "2".
Operational Implications and Risk Analysis
The recommendations put forward by the Province will have operational impacts which
will be tied to funding allocations. Additional staff will be needed to adhere to or exceed
Provincial time targets.
Financial Implications/Budget Impact
The recommendations put forward by the Province will have an financial impact on the
City. The financial impacts were identified above in the financial section above.
Strategic/Departmental Alignment
The City of Niagara Falls Strategic Vision for the City 2019-2022 is in line with the
majority of the Provinces recommendations from the Provincial task force. The City's
strategic plan focuses on streamlining the approvals process to support economic
growth and development by updating plans and policies to be in line with future trends.
This also includes a review of parking requirements to accommodate growth and
economic development. The strategic plan also focuses on improvements to the transit
system, the improvement and utilization of existing services, the long term planning for
future services and linkages to other communities and amenities. Lastly, the City's
strategic plan envisions a comprehensive housing strategy that will establish a housing
mix to build complete communities, encourage infill opportunities, incentivize the
development of affordable rental housing units and facilitate the delivery of new
affordable housing units on both City-owned and third party land.
List of Attachments
Appendix 1 Ministry Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force v2
Appendix 2 Affordability Task force
Written by:
Kira Dolch, Director of Planning, Building & Devlopment
Submitted by: Status:
Page 9 of 60
Page 275 of 345
Jason Burgess, CAO Approved
- 16 Mar
2022
Page 10 of 60
Page 276 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force
February 8, 2022
APPENDIX 1
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING REPORT
Page 11 of 60
Page 277 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 2
Contents
Letter to Minister Clark .......................................................................3
Executive summary and recommendations ...............................4
Introduction ............................................................................................6
Focus on getting more homes built ..............................................9
Making land available to build .......................................................10
Cut the red tape so we can
build faster and reduce costs ........................................................15
Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent ....................................18
Support and incentivize
scaling up housing supply .............................................................22
Conclusion ..........................................................................................26
Appendix A: Biographies of Task Force Members ................27
Appendix B: Affordable Housing .................................................29
Appendix C: Government Surplus Land ....................................31
Appendix D: Surety Bonds ............................................................32
References ..........................................................................................33
Page 12 of 60
Page 278 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 3
Letter to Minister Clark
Dear Minister Clark,
Hard-working Ontarians are facing a housing crisis. For many years, the province has not built enough housing
to meet the needs of our growing population. While the affordability crisis began in our large cities, it has now
spread to smaller towns and rural communities.
Efforts to cool the housing market have only provided temporary relief to home buyers. The long-term trend is
clear: house prices are increasing much faster than Ontarian’s incomes. The time for action is now.
When striking the Housing Affordability Task Force, you and Premier Ford were clear: you wanted actionable,
concrete solutions to help Ontarians and there was no time to waste. You asked us to be bold and gave us the
freedom and independence to develop our recommendations.
In the past two months, we have met municipal leaders, planners, unions, developers and builders, the financial
sector, academics, think tanks and housing advocates. Time was short, but solutions emerged consistently
around these themes:
• More housing density across the province
• End exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing
• Depoliticize the housing approvals process
• Prevent abuse of the housing appeals system
• Financial support to municipalities that build more housing
We present this report to you not as an “all or nothing” proposal, but rather as a list of options that the government
has at its disposal to help address housing affordability for Ontarians and get more homes built. We propose an
ambitious but achievable target: 1.5 million new homes built in the next ten years.
Parents and grandparents are worried that their children will not be able to afford a home when they start working
or decide to start a family. Too many Ontarians are unable to live in their preferred city or town because they
cannot afford to buy or rent.
The way housing is approved and built was designed for a different era when the province was less constrained
by space and had fewer people. But it no longer meets the needs of Ontarians. The balance has swung too far in
favour of lengthy consultations, bureaucratic red tape, and costly appeals. It is too easy to oppose new housing
and too costly to build. We are in a housing crisis and that demands immediate and sweeping reforms.
It has been an honour to serve as Chair, and I am proud to submit this report on behalf of the entire Task Force.
Jake Lawrence
Chair, Housing Affordability Task Force
Chief Executive Officer and Group Head, Global Banking and Markets, Scotiabank
Page 13 of 60
Page 279 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 4
Executive summary and recommendations
House prices in Ontario have almost tripled in the past 10 years, growing much faster than
incomes. This has home ownership beyond the reach of most first-time buyers across the
province, even those with well-paying jobs. Housing has become too expensive for rental units
and it has become too expensive in rural communities and small towns. The system is not
working as it should.
For too long, we have focused on solutions to “cool” the
housing market. It is now clear that we do not have enough
homes to meet the needs of Ontarians today, and we are
not building enough to meet the needs of our growing
population. If this problem is not fixed – by creating more
housing to meet the growing demand – housing prices will
continue to rise. We need to build more housing in Ontario.
This report sets out recommendations that would set a bold
goal and clear direction for the province, increase density,
remove exclusionary rules that prevent housing growth,
prevent abuse of the appeals process, and make sure
municipalities are treated as partners in this process by
incentivizing success.
Setting bold targets and making
new housing the planning priority
Recommendations 1 and 2 urge Ontario to set a bold
goal of adding 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years
and update planning guidance to make this a priority.
The task force then recommends actions in five main areas
to increase supply:
Require greater density
Land is not being used efficiently across Ontario. In too many
neighbourhoods, municipal rules only allow single-family
homes – not even a granny suite. Taxpayers have invested
heavily in subway, light rail, bus and rail lines and highways,
and the streets nearby are ideally suited for more mid- and
high-rise housing. Underused or redundant commercial and
industrial buildings are ripe to be redeveloped into housing
or mixed commercial and residential use. New housing
on undeveloped land should also be higher density than
traditional suburbs, especially close to highways.
Adding density in all these locations makes better use
of infrastructure and helps to save land outside urban
boundaries. Implementing these recommendations will
provide Ontarians with many more options for housing.
Recommendations 3 through 11 address how Ontario
can quickly create more housing supply by allowing
more housing in more locations “as of right” (without
the need for municipal approval) and make better use
of transportation investments.
Reduce and streamline urban design rules
Municipalities require numerous studies and set all kinds of
rules for adding housing, many of which go well beyond the
requirements of the provincial Planning Act. While some of
this guidance has value for urban design, some rules appear
to be arbitrary and not supported by evidence – for example,
requiring condo buildings to include costly parking stalls
even though many go unsold. These rules and requirements
result in delays and extra costs that make housing either
impossible to build or very expensive for the eventual home
buyer or renter.
Recommendation 12 would set uniform provincial
standards for urban design, including building
shadows and setbacks, do away with rules that
prioritize preservation of neighbourhood physical
character over new housing, no longer require
municipal approval of design matters like a building’s
colour, texture, type of material or window details,
and remove or reduce parking requirements.
Page 14 of 60
Page 280 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 5
Depoliticize the process and cut red tape
NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a major obstacle to
building housing. It drags out the approval process, pushes
up costs, and keeps out new residents. Because local
councillors depend on the votes of residents who want to
keep the status quo, the planning process has become
politicized. Municipalities allow far more public consultation
than is required, often using formats that make it hard for
working people and families with young children to take
part. Too few technical decisions are delegated to municipal
staff. Pressure to designate buildings with little or no
heritage value as “heritage” if development is proposed
and bulk listings of properties with “heritage potential” are
also standing in the way of getting homes built. Dysfunction
throughout the system, risk aversion and needless
bureaucracy have resulted in a situation where Ontario lags
the rest of Canada and the developed world in approval
times. Ontarians have waited long enough.
Recommendations 13 through 25 would require
municipalities to limit consultations to the legislated
maximum, ensure people can take part digitally,
mandate the delegation of technical decisions, prevent
abuse of the heritage process and see property
owners compensated for financial loss resulting from
designation, restore the right of developers to appeal
Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews,
legislate timelines for approvals and enact several other
common sense changes that would allow housing to be
built more quickly and affordably.
Fix the Ontario Land Tribunal
Largely because of the politicization of the planning process,
many proponents look to the Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body,
to give the go-ahead to projects that should have been
approved by the municipality. Even when there is municipal
approval, however, opponents appeal to the Tribunal –
paying only a $400 fee – knowing that this may well
succeed in delaying a project to the point where it might
no longer make economic sense. As a result, the Tribunal
faces a backlog of more than 1,000 cases and is seriously
under-resourced.
Recommendations 26 through 31 seek to weed out or
prevent appeals aimed purely at delaying projects,
allow adjudicators to award costs to proponents in
more cases, including instances where a municipality
has refused an approval to avoid missing a legislated
deadline, reduce the time to issue decisions, increase
funding, and encourage the Tribunal to prioritize cases
that would increase housing supply quickly as it tackles
the backlog.
Support municipalities that commit to transforming
the system
Fixing the housing crisis needs everyone working together.
Delivering 1.5 million homes will require the provincial and
federal governments to invest in change. Municipalities that
make the difficult but necessary choices to grow housing
supply should be rewarded, and those that resist new
housing should see funding reductions.
Recommendations 49 and 50 call for Ontario
government to create a large “Ontario Housing Delivery
Fund” and encourage the federal government to match
funding, and suggest how the province should reward
municipalities that support change and reduce funding
for municipalities that do not.
This executive summary focuses on the actions that will get
the most housing units approved and built in the shortest
time. Other recommendations in the report deal with issues
that are important but may take more time to resolve or
may not directly increase supply (recommendation numbers
are indicated in brackets): improving tax and municipal
financing (32-37, 39, 42-44); encouraging new pathways
to home ownership (38, 40, 41); and addressing labour
shortages in the construction industry (45-47 ).
This is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”.
There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing
housing prices and find solutions. This time must be
different. Recommendations 50-55 set out ways of helping
to ensure real and concrete progress on providing the
homes Ontarians need.
Page 15 of 60
Page 281 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 6
Introduction
Ontario is in a housing crisis. Prices are skyrocketing: the average price for a house across
Ontario was $923,000 at the end of 2021.[1] Ten years ago, the average price was $329,000.[2]
Over that period, average house prices have climbed 180% while average incomes have
grown roughly 38%.[3] [4]
Not long ago, hard-working Ontarians – teachers,
construction workers, small business owners – could afford
the home they wanted. In small towns, it was reasonable to
expect that you could afford a home in the neighbourhood
you grew up in. Today, home ownership or finding a quality
rental is now out of reach for too many Ontarians. The system
is not working as it should be.
Housing has become too expensive for rental units and
it has become too expensive in rural communities and
small towns.
While people who were able to buy a home a decade or
more ago have built considerable personal equity, the
benefits of having a home aren’t just financial. Having a
place to call home connects people to their community,
creates a gathering place for friends and family, and
becomes a source of pride.
Today, the reality for an ever-increasing number of
Ontarians is quite different. Everyone in Ontario knows
people who are living with the personal and financial stress
of not being able to find housing they can afford. The young
family who can’t buy a house within two hours of where
they work. The tenant with a good job who worries about
where she’ll find a new apartment she can afford if
the owner decides to sell. The recent graduate who will
have to stay at home for a few more years before he can
afford to rent or buy.
While the crisis is widespread, it weighs more heavily on
some groups than on others. Young people starting a family
who need a larger home find themselves priced out of the
market. Black, Indigenous and marginalized people face
even greater challenges. As Ontarians, we have only
recently begun to understand and address the reality
of decades of systemic racism that has resulted in lower
household incomes, making the housing affordability gap
wider than average.
The high cost of housing has pushed minorities and
lower income Ontarians further and further away from
job markets. Black and Indigenous homeownership
rates are less than half of the provincial average.[5] And
homelessness rates among Indigenous Peoples are
11 times the national average. When housing prevents an
individual from reaching their full potential, this represents
a loss to every Ontarian: lost creativity, productivity, and
revenue. Lost prosperity for individuals and for the entire
Ontario economy.
Average price for a
house across Ontario
2021
$923,000
$329,000
2011
+180%+38 %
Over 1 0 Years
average
house prices
have climbed
while average
incomes have
grown
Page 16 of 60
Page 282 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 7
As much as we read about housing affordability being a
challenge in major cities around the world, the depth of the
challenge has become greater in Ontario and Canada than
almost anywhere in the developed world.
How did we get here? Why do we have this problem?
A major factor is that there just isn’t enough housing.
A 2021 Scotiabank study showed that Canada has the
fewest housing units per population of any G7 country – and,
our per capita housing supply has dropped in the past five
years.[6] An update to that study released in January 2022
found that two thirds of Canada’s housing shortage is in
Ontario.[7] Today, Ontario is 1.2 million homes – rental or
owned – short of the G7 average. With projected population
growth, that huge gap is widening, and bridging it will
take immediate, bold and purposeful effort. And to support
population growth in the next decade, we will need
one million more homes.
While governments across Canada have taken steps to
“cool down” the housing market or provide help to first-time
buyers, these demand-side solutions only work if there is
enough supply. Shortages of supply in any market have a
direct impact on affordability. Scarcity breeds price increases.
Simply put, if we want more Ontarians to have housing, we
need to build more housing in Ontario.
Ontario must build 1.5 million homes over the
next 10 years to address the supply shortage
The housing crisis impacts all Ontarians. The ripple effect of
the crisis also holds back Ontario reaching its full potential.
Economy
Businesses of all sizes are facing problems finding and
retaining workers. Even high-paying jobs in technology
and manufacturing are hard to fill because there’s not
enough housing nearby. This doesn’t just dampen the
economic growth of cities, it makes them less vibrant,
diverse, and creative, and strains their ability to provide
essential services.
Public services
Hospitals, school boards and other public service providers
across Ontario report challenges attracting and retaining
staff because of housing costs. One town told us that it
could no longer maintain a volunteer fire department,
because volunteers couldn’t afford to live within 10 minutes
drive of the firehall.
Environment
Long commutes contribute to air pollution and carbon
emissions. An international survey of 74 cities in 16 countries
found that Toronto, at 96 minutes both ways, had the
longest commute times in North America and was
essentially tied with Bogota, Colombia, for the longest
commute time worldwide.[8] Increasing density in our cities
and around major transit hubs helps reduce emissions to
the benefit of everyone.
Our mandate and approach
Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
tasked us with recommending ways to accelerate our
progress in closing the housing supply gap to improve
housing affordability.
Time is of the essence. Building housing now is exactly
what our post-pandemic economy needs. Housing
construction creates good-paying jobs that cannot be
outsourced to other countries. Moreover, the pandemic
gave rise to unprecedented levels of available capital that
can be invested in housing – if we can just put it to work.
We represent a wide range of experience and perspectives
that includes developing, financing and building homes,
delivering affordable housing, and researching housing
market trends, challenges and solutions. Our detailed
biographies appear as Appendix A.
Canada has the lowest amount of housing per
population of any G7 country.
We acknowledge that every house in
Ontario is built on the traditional territory
of Indigenous Peoples.
1.5MOntario must build
homes over the next 10 years
to address the supply shortage.
Page 17 of 60
Page 283 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 8
Our mandate was to focus on how to increase market
housing supply and affordability. By market housing, we are
referring to homes that can be purchased or rented without
government support.
Affordable housing (units provided at below-market rates
with government support) was not part of our mandate.
The Minister and his cabinet colleagues are working on that
issue. Nonetheless, almost every stakeholder we spoke
with had ideas that will help deliver market housing and
also make it easier to deliver affordable housing. However,
affordable housing is a societal responsibility and will
require intentional investments and strategies to bridge the
significant affordable housing gap in this province. We have
included a number of recommendations aimed at affordable
housing in the body of this report, but have also included
further thoughts in Appendix B.
We note that government-owned land was also outside our
mandate. Many stakeholders, however, stressed the value
of surplus or underused public land and land associated
with major transit investments in finding housing solutions.
We agree and have set out some thoughts on that issue in
Appendix C.
How we did our work
Our Task Force was struck in December 2021 and
mandated to deliver a final report to the Minister by the end
of January 2022. We were able to work to that tight timeline
because, in almost all cases, viewpoints and feasible
solutions are well known. In addition, we benefited from
insights gleaned from recent work to solve the problem in
other jurisdictions.
During our deliberations, we met with and talked to over
140 organizations and individuals, including industry
associations representing builders and developers,
planners, architects, realtors and others; labour unions;
social justice advocates; elected officials at the municipal
level; academics and research groups; and municipal
planners. We also received written submissions from many
of these participants. In addition, we drew on the myriad
public reports and papers listed in the References.
We thank everyone who took part in sessions that were
uniformly helpful in giving us a deeper understanding of the
housing crisis and the way out of it. We also thank the staff
of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who
provided logistical and other support, including technical
briefings and background.
The way forward
The single unifying theme across all participants over the
course of the Task Force’s work has been the urgency
to take decisive action. Today’s housing challenges are
incredibly complex. Moreover, developing land, obtaining
approvals, and building homes takes years.
Some recommendations will produce immediate benefits,
others will take years for the full impact.
This is why there is no time to waste. We urge the Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his cabinet colleagues
to continue measures they have already taken to accelerate
housing supply and to move quickly in turning the
recommendations in this report into decisive new actions.
The province must set an ambitious and bold goal to
build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. If we build
1.5 million new homes over the next ten years, Ontario can
fill the housing gap with more affordable choices, catch up
to the rest of Canada and keep up with population growth.
By working together, we can resolve Ontario’s housing
crisis. In so doing, we can build a more prosperous future
for everyone.
The balance of this report lays out our recommendations.
People in households that spend 30% or more of total household income on shelter expenses are defined as
having a “housing affordability” problem. Shelter expenses include electricity, oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels,
water and other municipal services, monthly mortgage payments, property taxes, condominium fees, and rent.
Page 18 of 60
Page 284 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 9
Focus on getting more homes built
Resolving a crisis requires intense focus and a clear goal. The province is responsible for the
legislation and policy that establishes the planning, land use, and home building goals, which guide
municipalities, land tribunals, and courts. Municipalities are then responsible for implementing
provincial policy in a way that works for their communities. The province is uniquely positioned to
lead by shining a spotlight on this issue, setting the tone, and creating a single, galvanizing goal
around which federal support, provincial legislation, municipal policy, and the housing market
can be aligned.
In 2020, Ontario built about 75,000 housing units.[9] For this
report, we define a housing unit (home) as a single dwelling
(detached, semi-detached, or attached), apartment, suite,
condominium or mobile home. Since 2018, housing
completions have grown every year as a result of positive
measures that the province and some municipalities have
implemented to encourage more home building. But we
are still 1.2 million homes short when compared to other
G7 countries and our population is growing. The goal of
1.5 million homes feels daunting – but reflects both the need
and what is possible. In fact, throughout the 1970s Ontario
built more housing units each year than we do today.[10]
The second recommendation is designed to address the
growing complexity and volume of rules in the legislation,
policy, plans and by-laws, and their competing priorities,
by providing clear direction to provincial agencies,
municipalities, tribunals, and courts on the overriding
priorities for housing.
1. Set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes in
ten years.
2. Amend the Planning Act, Provincial Policy
Statement, and Growth Plans to set “growth in the
full spectrum of housing supply” and “intensification
within existing built-up areas” of municipalities as
the most important residential housing priorities in
the mandate and purpose.
The “missing middle” is often cited as an important part of the housing solution. We define the missing
middle as mid-rise condo or rental housing, smaller houses on subdivided lots or in laneways and other
additional units in existing houses.
Page 19 of 60
Page 285 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 10
Making land available to build
The Greater Toronto Area is bordered on one side by Lake Ontario and on the other by the
protected Greenbelt. Similarly, the Ottawa River and another Greenbelt constrain land supply
in Ottawa, the province’s second-largest city.
But a shortage of land isn’t the cause of the problem.
Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas
and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts.
We need to make better use of land. Zoning defines what
we can build and where we can build. If we want to make
better use of land to create more housing, then we need
to modernize our zoning rules. We heard from planners,
municipal councillors, and developers that “as of right”
zoning – the ability to by-pass long, drawn out consultations
and zoning by-law amendments – is the most effective tool
in the provincial toolkit. We agree.
Stop using exclusionary zoning
that restricts more housing
Too much land inside cities is tied up by outdated rules.
For example, it’s estimated that 70% of land zoned for
housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or
semi-detached homes.[11] This type of zoning prevents
homeowners from adding additional suites to create
housing for Ontarians and income for themselves. As one
person said, “my neighbour can tear down what was there
to build a monster home, but I’m not allowed to add a
basement suite to my home.”
While less analysis has been done in other Ontario
communities, it’s estimated that about half of all residential
land in Ottawa is zoned for single-detached housing,
meaning nothing else may be built on a lot without public
consultation and an amendment to the zoning by-law. In
some suburbs around Toronto, single unit zoning dominates
residential land use, even close to GO Transit stations and
major highways.
One result is that more growth is pushing past urban
boundaries and turning farmland into housing. Undeveloped
land inside and outside existing municipal boundaries must
be part of the solution, particularly in northern and rural
communities, but isn’t nearly enough on its own. Most of the
solution must come from densification. Greenbelts and other
environmentally sensitive areas must be protected, and
farms provide food and food security. Relying too heavily
on undeveloped land would whittle away too much of the
already small share of land devoted to agriculture.
Modernizing zoning would also open the door to more
rental housing, which in turn would make communities
more inclusive.
Allowing more gentle density also makes better use of
roads, water and wastewater systems, transit and other
public services that are already in place and have capacity,
instead of having to be built in new areas.
The Ontario government took a positive step by allowing
secondary suites (e.g., basement apartments) across the
province in 2019. However, too many municipalities still
place too many restrictions on implementation. For the last
three years, the total number of secondary suites in Toronto
has actually declined each year, as few units get permitted
and owners convert two units into one.[12]
These are the types of renovations and home construction
performed by small businesses and local trades, providing
them with a boost.
70 %It’s estimated that
of land zoned for housing in Toronto
is restricted to single-detached
or semi-detached homes.
Page 20 of 60
Page 286 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 11
Underused and vacant commercial and industrial properties
are another potential source of land for housing. It was
suggested to us that one area ripe for redevelopment into
a mix of commercial and residential uses is the strip mall,
a leftover from the 1950s that runs along major suburban
streets in most large Ontario cities.
“As of right” zoning allows more kinds of housing that are
accessible to more kinds of people. It makes neighbourhoods
stronger, richer, and fairer. And it will get more housing
built in existing neighbourhoods more quickly than any
other measure.
3. Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through
binding provincial action:
a) Allow “as of right” residential housing up to
four units and up to four storeys on a single
residential lot.
b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies
to remove any barriers to affordable construction
and to ensure meaningful implementation
(e.g., allow single-staircase construction for
up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.).
4. Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or
redundant commercial properties to residential
or mixed residential and commercial use.
5. Permit “as of right” secondary suites, garden suites,
and laneway houses province-wide.
6. Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting
rooms within a dwelling) province-wide.
7. Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase
density in areas with excess school capacity to
benefit families with children.
Align investments in roads and transit
with growth
Governments have invested billions of dollars in highways,
light rail, buses, subways and trains in Ontario. But
without ensuring more people can live close to those
transit routes, we’re not getting the best return on those
infrastructure investments.
Access to transit is linked to making housing more
affordable: when reliable transit options are nearby, people
can get to work more easily. They can live further from the
centre of the city in less expensive areas without the
added cost of car ownership.
The impacts of expanding public transit go far beyond
serving riders. These investments also spur economic
growth and reduce traffic congestion and emissions. We all
pay for the cost of transit spending, and we should all share
in the benefits.
If municipalities achieve the right development near
transit – a mix of housing at high- and medium-density,
office space and retail – this would open the door to better
ways of funding the costs. Other cities, like London, UK
and Hong Kong, have captured the impacts of increased
land value and business activity along new transit routes
to help with their financing.
Ontario recently created requirements (residents/hectare)
for municipalities to zone for higher density in transit
corridors and “major transit station areas”.[13a] [13b] These are
areas surrounding subway and other rapid transit stations
and hubs. However, we heard troubling reports that local
opposition is blocking access to these neighbourhoods
and to critical public transit stations. City staff, councillors,
and the province need to stand up to these tactics and
speak up for the Ontarians who need housing.
The Province is also building new highways in the Greater
Golden Horseshoe, and it’s important to plan thoughtfully
for the communities that will follow from these investments,
to make sure they are compact and liveable.
Page 21 of 60
Page 287 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 12
8. Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height
and unlimited density in the immediate proximity
of individual major transit stations within two years
if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet
provincial density targets.
9. Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with
no minimum parking requirements on any streets
utilized by public transit (including streets on bus
and streetcar routes).
10. Designate or rezone as mixed commercial and
residential use all land along transit corridors and
redesignate all Residential Apartment to mixed
commercial and residential zoning in Toronto.
11. Support responsible housing growth on
undeveloped land, including outside existing
municipal boundaries, by building necessary
infrastructure to support higher density
housing and complete communities and applying
the recommendations of this report to all
undeveloped land.
Start saying “yes in my backyard”
Even where higher density is allowed in theory, the official
plans of most cities in Ontario contain conflicting goals like
maintaining “prevailing neighbourhood character”. This bias
is reinforced by detailed guidance that often follows from
the official plan. Although requirements are presented as
“guidelines”, they are often treated as rules.
Examples include:
• Angular plane rules that require successively higher
floors to be stepped further back, cutting the number
of units that can be built by up to half and making
many projects uneconomic
• Detailed rules around the shadows a building casts
• Guidelines around finishes, colours and other design details
One resident’s desire to prevent a shadow being cast in their
backyard or a local park frequently prevails over concrete
proposals to build more housing for multiple families. By-laws
and guidelines that preserve “neighbourhood character”
often prevent simple renovations to add new suites to
existing homes. The people who suffer are mostly young,
visible minorities, and marginalized people. It is the perfect
example of a policy that appears neutral on its surface but
is discriminatory in its application.[14]
Far too much time and money are spent reviewing and
holding consultations for large projects which conform with
the official plan or zoning by-law and small projects which
would cause minimal disruption. The cost of needless
delays is passed on to new home buyers and tenants.
Minimum parking requirements for each new unit are another
example of outdated municipal requirements that increase
the cost of housing and are increasingly less relevant with
public transit and ride share services. Minimum parking
requirements add as much as $165,000 to the cost of a new
housing unit, even as demand for parking spaces is falling:
data from the Residential Construction Council of Ontario
shows that in new condo projects, one in three parking
stalls goes unsold. We applaud the recent vote by Toronto
City Council to scrap most minimum parking requirements.
We believe other cities should follow suit.
While true heritage sites are important, heritage preservation
has also become a tool to block more housing. For example,
some municipalities add thousands of properties at a time to
a heritage register because they have “potential” heritage
value. Even where a building isn’t heritage designated or
registered, neighbours increasingly demand it be as soon
as a development is proposed.
This brings us to the role of the “not in my backyard” or
NIMBY sentiment in delaying or stopping more homes from
being built.
New housing is often the last priority
A proposed building with market and affordable
housing units would have increased the midday
shadow by 6.5% on a nearby park at the fall
and spring equinox, with no impact during the summer
months. To conform to a policy that does not permit
“new net shadow on specific parks”, seven floors
of housing, including 26 affordable housing units,
were sacrificed.
Multiple dry cleaners along a transit route were
designated as heritage sites to prevent new housing
being built. It is hard not to feel outrage when our laws
are being used to prevent families from moving into
neighbourhoods and into homes they can afford along
transit routes.
Page 22 of 60
Page 288 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 13
NIMBY versus YIMBY
NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a large and constant
obstacle to providing housing everywhere. Neighbourhood
pushback drags out the approval process, pushes up
costs and discourages investment in housing. It also keeps
out new residents. While building housing is very costly,
opposing new housing costs almost nothing.
Unfortunately, there is a strong incentive for individual
municipal councillors to fall in behind community opposition –
it’s existing residents who elect them, not future ones. The
outcry of even a handful of constituents (helped by the rise
of social media) has been enough, in far too many cases, to
persuade their local councillor to vote against development
even while admitting its merits in private. There is a sense
among some that it’s better to let the Ontario Land Tribunal
approve the development on appeal, even if it causes long
delays and large cost increases, then to take the political heat.
Mayors and councillors across the province are fed up and
many have called for limits on public consultations and
more “as of right” zoning. In fact, some have created a new
term for NIMBYism: BANANAs – Build Absolutely Nothing
Anywhere Near Anything, causing one mayor to comment
“NIMBYism has gone BANANAs”. We agree. In a growing,
thriving society, that approach is not just bad policy, it is
exclusionary and wrong.
As a result, technical planning decisions have become
politicized. One major city has delegated many decisions to
senior staff, but an individual councillor can withdraw the
delegation when there is local opposition and force a vote
at Council. We heard that this situation is common across
the province, creating an electoral incentive for a councillor
to delay or stop a housing proposal, or forcing a councillor
to pay the electoral cost of supporting it. Approvals of
individual housing applications should be the role of
professional staff, free from political interference.
The pressure to stop any development is now so intense that
it has given rise to a counter-movement – YIMBYism, or “yes
in my backyard,” led by millennials who recognize entrenched
opposition to change as a huge obstacle to finding a home.
They provide a voice at public consultations for young people,
new immigrants and refugees, minority groups, and Ontarians
struggling to access housing by connecting our ideals to
the reality of housing. People who welcome immigrants to
Canada should welcome them to the neighbourhood, fighting
climate change means supporting higher-density housing,
and “keeping the neighbourhood the way it is” means
keeping it off-limits. While anti-housing voices can be loud,
a member of More Neighbours Toronto, a YIMBY group that
regularly attends public consultations, has said that the most
vocal opponents usually don’t represent the majority in a
neighbourhood. Survey data from the Ontario Real Estate
Association backs that up, with almost 80% of Ontarians
saying they are in favour of zoning in urban areas that would
encourage more homes.
Ontarians want a solution to the housing crisis. We
cannot allow opposition and politicization of individual
housing projects to prevent us from meeting the needs
of all Ontarians.
12. Create a more permissive land use, planning, and
approvals system:
a) Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning,
or plans that prioritize the preservation of
physical character of neighbourhood
b) Exempt from site plan approval and public
consultation all projects of 10 units or less that
conform to the Official Plan and require only
minor variances
c) Establish province-wide zoning standards, or
prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum
building setbacks, minimum heights, angular
planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth,
landscaping, floor space index, and heritage
view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site
plan exclusions (colour, texture, and type of
materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning
Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking
requirements; and
d) Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow
larger, more efficient high-density towers.
13. Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting
additional public meetings beyond those that are
required under the Planning Act.
14. Require that public consultations provide digital
participation options.
15. Require mandatory delegation of site plan
approvals and minor variances to staff or
pre-approved qualified third-party technical
consultants through a simplified review and
approval process, without the ability to withdraw
Council’s delegation.
Page 23 of 60
Page 289 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 14
16. Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and
designation process by:
a) Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal
heritage registers
b) Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after
a Planning Act development application has
been filed
17. Requiring municipalities to compensate property
owners for loss of property value as a result of
heritage designations, based on the principle of
best economic use of land.
18. Restore the right of developers to appeal Official
Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews.
We have heard mixed feedback on Committees of
Adjustment. While they are seen to be working well in some
cities, in others they are seen to simply add another lengthy
step in the process. We would urge the government to first
implement our recommendation to delegate minor variances
and site plan approvals to municipal staff and then assess
whether Committees of Adjustment are necessary and an
improvement over staff-level decision making.
Page 24 of 60
Page 290 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 15
Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs
One of the strongest signs that our approval process is not working: of 35 OECD countries,
only the Slovak Republic takes longer than Canada to approve a building project. The UK and
the US approve projects three times faster without sacrificing quality or safety. And they save
home buyers and tenants money as a result, making housing more affordable.[15]
A 2020 survey of development approval times in
23 Canadian cities shows Ontario seriously lagging:
Hamilton (15th), Toronto (17th), Ottawa (21st) with approval
times averaging between 20-24 months. These timelines
do not include building permits, which take about two years
for an apartment building in Toronto. Nor did they count the
time it takes for undeveloped land to be designated for
housing, which the study notes can take five to ten years.[16]
Despite the good intentions of many people involved in
the approvals and home-building process, decades of
dysfunction in the system and needless bureaucracy have
made it too difficult for housing approvals to keep up with
the needs of Ontarians. There appear to be numerous
reasons why Ontario performs so poorly against other
Canadian cities and the rest of the developed world. We
believe that the major problems can be summed up as:
• Too much complexity in the planning process, with the
page count in legislation, regulation, policies, plans, and
by-laws growing every year
• Too many studies, guidelines, meetings and other
requirements of the type we outlined in the previous
section, including many that go well beyond the scope
of Ontario’s Planning Act
• Reviews within municipalities and with outside agencies
that are piecemeal, duplicative (although often with
conflicting outcomes) and poorly coordinated
• Process flaws that include reliance on paper
• Some provincial policies that are more relevant
to urban development but result in burdensome,
irrelevant requirements when applied in some rural
and northern communities.
All of this has contributed to widespread failure on the part
of municipalities to meet required timelines. The provincial
Planning Act sets out deadlines of 90 days for decisions
on zoning by-law amendments, 120 days for plans of
subdivision, and 30 days for site plan approval, but
municipalities routinely miss these without penalty. For
other processes, like site plan approval or provincial
approvals, there are no timelines and delays drag on. The
cost of delay falls on the ultimate homeowner or tenant.
The consequences for homeowners and renters are
enormous. Ultimately, whatever cost a builder pays gets
passed on to the buyer or renter. As one person said:
“Process is the biggest project killer in Toronto because
developers have to carry timeline risk.”
Site plan control was often brought up as a frustration.
Under the Planning Act, this is meant to be a technical
review of the external features of a building. In practice,
municipalities often expand on what is required and take
too long to respond.
8,200
Then & Now
Total words in:
1996
Provincial Policy
Statement
17,000
2020
17,000
1970
Planning Act
96,000
2020
Page 25 of 60
Page 291 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 16
An Ontario Association of Architects study calculating the
cost of delays between site plan application and approval
concluded that for a 100-unit condominium apartment
building, each additional month of delay costs the applicant
an estimated $193,000, or $1,930 a month for each unit.[17]
A 2020 study done for the Building Industry and Land
Development Association (BILD) looked at impacts of delay
on low-rise construction, including single-detached homes. It
estimated that every month an approval is delayed adds, on
average, $1.46 per square foot to the cost of a single home.
A two-year delay, which is not unusual for this housing type,
adds more than $70,000 to the cost of a 2,000-square-foot
house in the GTA.[16]
Getting rid of so much unnecessary and unproductive
additional work would significantly reduce the burden on
staff.[16b] It would help address the widespread shortages of
planners and building officials. It would also bring a stronger
sense among municipal staff that they are part of the housing
solution and can take pride in helping cut approval times and
lower the costs of delivering homes.
Adopt common sense approaches that save
construction costs
Wood using “mass timber” – an engineer compressed wood,
made for strength and weight-bearing – can provide a
lower-cost alternative to reinforced concrete in many mid-rise
projects, but Ontario’s Building Code is hampering its use.
Building taller with wood offers advantages beyond cost:
• Wood is a renewable resource that naturally sequesters
carbon, helping us reach our climate change goals
• Using wood supports Ontario’s forestry sector and
creates jobs, including for Indigenous people
British Columbia’s and Quebec’s building codes allow
woodframe construction up to 12 storeys, but Ontario limits
it to six. By amending the Building Code to allow 12-storey
woodframe construction, Ontario would encourage increased
use of forestry products and reduce building costs.
Finally, we were told that a shift in how builders are required
to guarantee their performance would free up billions of
dollars to build more housing. Pay on demand surety bonds
are a much less onerous option than letters or credit,
and are already accepted in Hamilton, Pickering, Innisfil,
Whitchurch-Stouffville and other Ontario municipalities.
We outline the technical details in Appendix D.
19. Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial
and municipal review process, including site plan,
minor variance, and provincial reviews, and deem
an application approved if the legislated response
time is exceeded.
20. Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with
the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among
municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure
timelines are met.
21. Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties
at which the municipality sets out a binding list that
defines what constitutes a complete application;
confirms the number of consultations established
in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that
if a member of a regulated profession such as a
professional engineer has stamped an application,
the municipality has no liability and no additional
stamp is needed.
22. Simplify planning legislation and policy documents.
23. Create a common, province-wide definition of plan
of subdivision and standard set of conditions which
clarify which may be included; require the use of
standard province-wide legal agreements and,
where feasible, plans of subdivision.
24. Allow wood construction of up to 12 storeys.
25. Require municipalities to provide the option of pay
on demand surety bonds and letters of credit.
Then: In 1966, a draft plan of subdivision in a town in
southwestern Ontario to provide 529 low-rise and
mid-rise housing units, a school site, a shopping centre
and parks was approved by way of a two-page letter
setting out 10 conditions. It took seven months to clear
conditions for final approval.
And now: In 2013, a builder started the approval
process to build on a piece of serviced residential land
in a seasonal resort town. Over the next seven years,
18 professional consultant reports were required,
culminating in draft plan approval containing 50
clearance conditions. The second approval, issued
by the Local Planning Appeals Board in 2020, ran to
23 pages. The developer estimates it will be almost
10 years before final approval is received.
Page 26 of 60
Page 292 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 17
Prevent abuse of the appeal process
Part of the challenge with housing approvals is that, by the
time a project has been appealed to the Ontario Land
Tribunal (the Tribunal), it has usually already faced delay and
compromises have been made to reduce the size and scope
of the proposal. When an approved project is appealed, the
appellant – which could just be a single individual – may pay
$400 and tie up new housing for years.
The most recent published report showed 1,300 unresolved
cases.[18] While under-resourcing does contribute to delays,
this caseload also reflects the low barrier to launching an
appeal and the minimal risks if an appeal is unsuccessful:
• After a builder has spent time and money to ensure a
proposal conforms with a municipality’s requirements,
the municipal council can still reject it – even if its own
planning staff has given its support. Very often this is to
appease local opponents.
• Unlike a court, costs are not automatically awarded to
the successful party at the Tribunal. The winning side
must bring a motion and prove that the party bringing
the appeal was unreasonable, clearly trying to delay the
project, and/or being vexatious or frivolous. Because the
bar is set so high, the winning side seldom asks for costs
in residential cases.
This has resulted in abuse of the Tribunal to delay new
housing. Throughout our consultations, we heard from
municipalities, not-for-profits, and developers that affordable
housing was a particular target for appeals which, even if
unsuccessful, can make projects too costly to build.
Clearly the Tribunal needs more resources to clear its
backlog. But the bigger issue is the need for so many
appeals: we believe it would better to have well-defined
goals and rules for municipalities and builders to avoid this
costly and time-consuming quasi-judicial process. Those who
bring appeals aimed at stopping development that meets
established criteria should pay the legal costs of the successful
party and face the risk of a larger project being approved.
The solution is not more appeals, it’s fixing the system. We
have proposed a series of reforms that would ensure only
meritorious appeals proceeded, that every participant faces
some risk and cost of losing, and that abuse of the Tribunal
will be penalized. We believe that if Ontario accepts our
recommendations, the Tribunal will not face the same volume
of appeals. But getting to that point will take time, and the
Tribunal needs more resources and better tools now.
Recommendation 1 will provide legislative direction to
adjudicators that they must prioritize housing growth and
intensification over competing priorities contained in
provincial and municipal policies. We further recommend
the following:
26. Require appellants to promptly seek permission
(“leave to appeal”) of the Tribunal and demonstrate
that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence
and expert reports, before it is accepted.
27. Prevent abuse of process:
a) Remove right of appeal for projects with at
least 30% affordable housing in which units
are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years.
b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party
appeals.
c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award
full costs to the successful party in any appeal
brought by a third party or by a municipality
where its council has overridden a
recommended staff approval.
28. Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the
day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow,
and allow those decisions to become binding the
day that they are issued.
29. Where it is found that a municipality has refused
an application simply to avoid a deemed approval
for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award
punitive damages.
30. Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators
and case managers), provide market-competitive
salaries, outsource more matters to mediators,
and set shorter time targets.
31. In clearing the existing backlog, encourage
the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the
finish line that will support housing growth and
intensification, as well as regional water or utility
infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant
housing capacity.
Page 27 of 60
Page 293 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 18
Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent
The price you pay to buy or rent a home is driven directly by how much it costs to build a home.
In Ontario, costs to build homes have dramatically increased at an unprecedented pace over
the past decade. In most of our cities and towns, materials and labour only account for about
half of the costs. The rest comes from land, which we have addressed in the previous section,
and government fees.
A careful balance is required on government fees because,
as much as we would like to see them lowered, governments
need revenues from fees and taxes to build critically
needed infrastructure and pay for all the other services that
make Ontario work. So, it is a question of balance and of
ensuring that our approach to government fees encourages
rather than discourages developers to build the full range
of housing we need in our Ontario communities.
Align government fees and charges
with the goal of building more housing
Improve the municipal funding model
Housing requires more than just the land it is built on. It
requires roads, sewers, parks, utilities and other infrastructure.
The provincial government provides municipalities with a way
to secure funding for this infrastructure through development
charges, community benefit charges and parkland dedication
(providing 5% of land for public parks or the cash equivalent).
These charges are founded on the belief that growth – not
current taxpayers – should pay for growth. As a concept, it
is compelling. In practice, it means that new home buyers
pay the entire cost of sewers, parks, affordable housing, or
colleges that will be around for generations and may not be
located in their neighbourhood. And, although building
affordable housing is a societal responsibility, because
affordable units pay all the same charges as a market
unit, the cost is passed to new home buyers in the same
building or the not-for-profit organization supporting the
project. We do not believe that government fees should
create a disincentive to affordable housing.
If you ask any developer of homes – whether they are
for-profit or non-profit – they will tell you that development
charges are a special pain point. In Ontario, they can be
as much as $135,000 per home. In some municipalities,
development charges have increased as much as 900%
in less than 20 years.[20] As development charges go up, the
prices of homes go up. And development charges on a
modest semi-detached home are the same as on a luxury
6,000 square foot home, resulting in a disincentive to build
housing that is more affordable. Timing is also a challenge
as development charges have to be paid up front, before
a shovel even goes into the ground.
To help relieve the pressure, the Ontario government
passed recent legislation allowing builders to determine
development charges earlier in the building process. But
they must pay interest on the assessed development charge
to the municipality until a building permit is issued, and there
is no cap on the rate, which in one major city is 13% annually.
Cash payments to satisfy parkland dedication also
significantly boost the costs of higher-density projects,
adding on average $17,000 to the cost of a high-rise condo
across the GTA.[21] We heard concerns not just about the
amount of cash collected, but also about the money not
being spent in the neighbourhood or possibly not being
spent on parks at all. As an example, in 2019 the City of
Toronto held $644 million in parkland cash-in-lieu payments.[22]
Everyone can agree that we need to invest in parks as our
communities grow, but if the funds are not being spent,
perhaps it means that more money is being collected for
parklands than is needed and we could lower the cost of
housing if we adjusted these parkland fees.
A 2019 study carried out for BILD
showed that in the Greater Toronto Area,
development charges for low-rise housing are
on average more than three times higher per unit than
in six comparable US metropolitan areas, and roughly
1.75-times higher than in the other Canadian cities.
For high-rise developments the average per unit
charges in the GTA are roughly 50% higher than in the
US areas, and roughly 30% higher than in the other
Canadian urban areas.[19]
Page 28 of 60
Page 294 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 19
Modernizing HST Thresholds
Harmonized sales tax (HST) applies to all new housing –
including purpose-built rental. Today, the federal component
is 5% and provincial component is 8%. The federal and
provincial government provide a partial HST rebate. Two
decades ago, the maximum home price eligible for a rebate
was set at $450,000 federally and $400,000 provincially,
resulting in a maximum rebate of $6,300 federally and
$24,000 provincially, less than half of today’s average home
price. Buyers of new homes above this ceiling face a
significant clawback. Indexing the rebate would immediately
reduce the cost of building new homes, savings that can be
passed on to Ontarians. When both levels of government
agree that we are facing a housing crisis, they should not
be adding over 10% to the cost of almost all new homes.
32. Waive development charges and parkland
cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection
fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units
or for any development where no new material
infrastructure will be required.
33. Waive development charges on all forms of
affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable
for 40 years.
34. Prohibit interest rates on development charges
higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate.
35. Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community
Benefit Charges, and development charges:
a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections
and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are
being used in a timely fashion and for the
intended purpose, and, where review points
to a significant concern, do not allow further
collection until the situation has been corrected.
b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide
infrastructure projects, require municipalities to
spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they
were collected. However, where there’s a
significant community need in a priority area of
the City, allow for specific ward-to-ward allocation
of unspent and unallocated reserves.
36. Recommend that the federal government and
provincial governments update HST rebate to
reflect current home prices and begin indexing the
thresholds to housing prices, and that the federal
government match the provincial 75% rebate and
remove any clawback.
Make it easier to build rental
In cities and towns across Ontario, it is increasingly hard to
find a vacant rental unit, let alone a vacant rental unit at an
affordable price. Today, 66% of all purpose-built rental
units in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and
1979. Less than 15% of Toronto’s purpose-built rentals were
constructed over the ensuing 40 years in spite of the
significant population growth during that time. In fact,
between 2006 and 2016, growth in condo apartments
increased by 186% while purpose-built rental only grew by
0.6%.[12] In 2018, the Ontario government introduced positive
changes that have created growth in purpose-built rental
units – with last year seeing 18,000 units under construction
and 93,000 proposed against a 5-year average prior to 2020
of 3,400 annually.[23]
Long-term renters often now feel trapped in apartments
that don’t make sense for them as their needs change. And
because they can’t or don’t want to move up the housing
ladder, many of the people coming up behind them who
would gladly take those apartments are instead living in
crowded spaces with family members or roommates.
Others feel forced to commit to rental units at prices way
beyond what they can afford. Others are trying their luck
in getting on the wait list for an affordable unit or housing
co-op – wait lists that are years long. Others are leaving
Ontario altogether.
Government charges on a new single-detached home
averaged roughly $186,300, or almost 22% of the price,
across six municipalities in southcentral Ontario. For a
new condominium apartment, the average was almost
$123,000, or roughly 24% of a unit’s price.
of all purpose-built rental units
in the City of Toronto were
built between 1960 and 1979.
66%
Page 29 of 60
Page 295 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 20
A pattern in every community, and particularly large
cities, is that the apartments and rented rooms that
we do have are disappearing. Apartment buildings are
being converted to condos or upgraded to much more
expensive rental units. Duplexes get purchased and
turned into larger single-family homes.
A major challenge in bridging the gap of rental supply is that,
more often than not, purpose-built rental projects don’t make
economic sense for builders and investors. Ironically, there is
no shortage of Canadian investor capital seeking housing
investments, particularly large pension funds – but the
economics of investing in purpose-built rental in Ontario just
don’t make sense. So, investments get made in apartment
projects in other provinces or countries, or in condo projects
that have a better and safer return-on-investment. What can
governments do to get that investor capital pointed in the
right direction so we can create jobs and get more of the
housing we need built?
Some of our earlier recommendations will help, particularly
indexing the HST rebate. So will actions by government to
require purpose-built rental on surplus government land
that is made available for sale. (Appendix C)
Municipal property taxes on purpose-built rental can
be as much as 2.5 times greater than property taxes
for condominium or other ownership housing.[24]
The Task Force recommends:
37. Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with
those of condos and low-rise homes.
Make homeownership possible for
hardworking Ontarians who want it
Home ownership has always been part of the Canadian
dream. You don’t have to look far back to find a time when
the housing landscape was very different. The norm was for
young people to rent an apartment in their twenties, work
hard and save for a down payment, then buy their first
home in their late twenties or early thirties. It was the same
for many new Canadians: arrive, rent, work hard and buy.
The house might be modest, but it brought a sense of
ownership, stability and security. And after that first step
onto the ownership ladder, there was always the possibility
of selling and moving up. Home ownership felt like a real
possibility for anyone who wanted it.
That’s not how it works now. Too many young people
who would like their own place are living with one or both
parents well into adulthood.
The escalation of housing prices over the last decade has
put the dream of homeownership out of reach of a growing
number of aspiring first-time home buyers. While 73% of
Canadians are homeowners, that drops to 48% for Black
people, 47% for LGBTQ people[5] (StatsCan is studying rates
for other populations, including Indigenous People who are
severely underhoused). This is also an issue for younger
adults: a 2021 study showed only 24% of Torontonians
aged 30 to 39 are homeowners.[25]
In Canada, responsibility for Indigenous housing programs
has historically been a shared between the federal and
provincial governments. The federal government works
closely with its provincial and territorial counterparts to
improve access to housing for Indigenous peoples both on
and off reserve. More than 85% of Indigenous people live in
urban and rural areas, are 11 times more likely to experience
homelessness and have incidence of housing need that is
52% greater than all Canadians. The Murdered and Missing
Indigenous Women and Girls report mentions housing
299 times – the lack of which being a significant, contributing
cause to violence and the provision of which as a significant,
contributing solution. The Province of Ontario has made
significant investments in Urban Indigenous Housing, but
we need the Federal Government to re-engage as an
active partner.
While measures to address supply will have an impact on
housing prices, many aspiring homeowners will continue
to face a gap that is simply too great to bridge through
traditional methods.
The Task Force recognizes the need for caution about
measures that would spur demand for housing before the
supply bottleneck is fixed. At the same time, a growing
number of organizations – both non-profit and for-profit are
proposing a range of unique home equity models. Some
of these organizations are aiming at households who have
sufficient income to pay the mortgage but lack a sufficient
down payment. Others are aiming at households who fall
short in both income and down payment requirements for
current market housing.
Page 30 of 60
Page 296 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 21
The Task Force heard about a range of models to help
aspiring first-time home buyers, including:
• Shared equity models with a government, non-profit or
for-profit lender holding a second “shared equity mortgage”
payable at time of sale of the home
• Land lease models that allow residents to own their home
but lease the land, reducing costs
• Rent-to-own approaches in which a portion of an occupant’s
rent is used to build equity, which can be used as a
down payment on their current unit or another market
unit in the future
• Models where the equity gain is shared between the
homeowner and the non-profit provider, such that the
non-profit will always be able to buy the home back and
sell it to another qualified buyer, thus retaining the home’s
affordability from one homeowner to the next.
Proponents of these models identified barriers that thwart
progress in implementing new solutions.
• The Planning Act limits land leases to a maximum of
21 years. This provision prevents home buyers from
accessing the same type of mortgages from a bank or
credit union that are available to them when they buy
through traditional homeownership.
• The Perpetuities Act has a similar 21-year limit on any
options placed on land. This limits innovative non-profit
models from using equity formulas for re-sale and
repurchase of homes.
• Land Transfer Tax (LTT) is charged each time a home is
sold and is collected by the province; and in Toronto, this
tax is also collected by the City. This creates a double-tax
in rent-to-own/equity building models where LTT ends up
being paid first by the home equity organization and then
by the occupant when they are able to buy the unit.
• HST is charged based on the market value of the home.
In shared equity models where the homeowner neither
owns nor gains from the shared equity portion of their
home, HST on the shared equity portion of the home
simply reduces affordability.
• Residential mortgages are highly regulated by the federal
government and reflective of traditional homeownership.
Modifications in regulations may be required to adapt to
new co-ownership and other models.
The Task Force encourages the Ontario government
to devote further attention to avenues to support new
homeownership options. As a starting point, the Task
Force offers the following recommendations:
38. Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to
extend the maximum period for land leases and
restrictive covenants on land to 40 or more years.
39. Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to
housing growth.
40. Call on the Federal Government to implement
an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous
Housing Strategy.
41. Funding for pilot projects that create innovative
pathways to homeownership, for Black,
Indigenous, and marginalized people and
first-generation homeowners.
42. Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees
for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and
affordable ownership projects.
Page 31 of 60
Page 297 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 22
Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply
Our goal of building 1.5 million homes in ten years means doubling how many homes Ontario
creates each year. As much as the Task Force’s recommendations will remove barriers to
realizing this ambitious goal, we also need to ensure we have the capacity across Ontario’s
communities to deliver this new housing supply. This includes capacity of our housing
infrastructure, capacity within our municipal planning teams, and boots on the ground
with the skills to build new homes.
There is much to be done and the price of failure for
the people of Ontario is high. This is why the provincial
government must make an unwavering commitment to
keeping the spotlight on housing supply. This is also
why the province must be dogged in its determination to
galvanize and align efforts and incentives across all levels
of government so that working together, we all can get
the job done.
Our final set of recommendations turns to these issues of
capacity to deliver, and the role the provincial government
can play in putting the incentives and alignment in place
to achieve the 1.5 million home goal.
Invest in municipal infrastructure
Housing can’t get built without water, sewage,
and other infrastructure
When the Task Force met with municipal leaders, they
emphasized how much future housing supply relies on
having the water, storm water and wastewater systems,
roads, sidewalks, fire stations, and all the other parts of
community infrastructure to support new homes and
new residents.
Infrastructure is essential where housing is being built
for the first time. And, it can be a factor in intensification
when added density exceeds the capacity of existing
infrastructure, one of the reasons we urge new
infrastructure in new developments to be designed for
future capacity. In Ontario, there are multiple municipalities
where the number one barrier to approving new housing
projects is a lack of infrastructure to support them.
Municipalities face a myriad of challenges in getting this
infrastructure in place. Often, infrastructure investments
are required long before new projects are approved and
funding must be secured. Notwithstanding the burden
development charges place on the price of new housing,
most municipalities report that development charges are
still not enough to fully cover the costs of building new
infrastructure and retrofitting existing infrastructure in
neighbourhoods that are intensifying. Often infrastructure
crosses municipal boundaries creating complicated and
time-consuming “who pays?” questions. Municipal leaders
also shared their frustrations with situations where new
housing projects are approved and water, sewage and
other infrastructure capacity is allocated to the project –
only to have the developer land bank the project and
put off building. Environmental considerations with new
infrastructure add further cost and complexity. The Task
Force recommends:
43. Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external
economic events, to withdraw infrastructure
allocations from any permitted projects where
construction has not been initiated within three
years of build permits being issued.
44. Work with municipalities to develop and
implement a municipal services corporation
utility model for water and wastewater under
which the municipal corporation would borrow
and amortize costs among customers instead
of using development charges.
Page 32 of 60
Page 298 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 23
Create the Labour Force to meet
the housing supply need
The labour force is shrinking in many segments
of the market
You can’t start to build housing without infrastructure.
You can’t build it without people – skilled trades people
in every community who can build the homes we need.
The concern that we are already facing a shortage in
skilled trades came through loud and clear in our
consultations. We heard from many sources that our
education system funnels young people to university
rather than colleges or apprenticeships and creates the
perception that careers in the skilled trades are of less
value. Unions and builders are working to fill the pipeline
domestically and recruit internationally, but mass
retirements are making it challenging to maintain the
workforce at its current level, let alone increase it.
Increased economic immigration could ease this
bottleneck, but it appears difficult for a skilled labourer
with no Canadian work experience to qualify under
Ontario’s rules. Moreover, Canada’s immigration policies
also favour university education over skills our economy
and society desperately need. We ought to be welcoming
immigrants with the skills needed to build roads and
houses that will accommodate our growing population.
The shortage may be less acute, however, among
smaller developers and contractors that could renovate
and build new “missing middle” homes arising from the
changes in neighbourhood zoning described earlier.
These smaller companies tap into a different workforce
from the one needed to build high rises and new
subdivisions. Nonetheless, 1.5 million more homes will
require a major investment in attracting and developing
the skilled trades workforce to deliver this critically
needed housing supply. We recommend:
45. Improve funding for colleges, trade schools,
and apprenticeships; encourage and incentivize
municipalities, unions and employers to provide
more on-the-job training.
46. Undertake multi-stakeholder education program
to promote skilled trades.
47. Recommend that the federal and provincial
government prioritize skilled trades and adjust
the immigration points system to strongly favour
needed trades and expedite immigration status
for these workers, and encourage the federal
government to increase from 9,000 to 20,000
the number of immigrants admitted through
Ontario’s program.
Create a large Ontario Housing Delivery
Fund to align efforts and incent new
housing supply
Build alignment between governments to enable
builders to deliver more homes than ever before
All levels of government play a role in housing.
The federal government sets immigration policy, which has
a major impact on population growth and many tax policies.
The province sets the framework for planning, approvals, and
growth that municipalities rely upon, and is responsible for
many other areas that touch on housing supply, like investing
in highways and transit, training workers, the building code
and protecting the environment. Municipalities are on the
front lines, expected to translate the impacts of federal
immigration policy, provincial guidance and other factors,
some very localized, into official plans and the overall
process through which homes are approved to be built.
The efficiency with which home builders can build, whether
for-profit or non-profit, is influenced by policies and decisions
at every level of government. In turn, how many home
developers can deliver, and at what cost, translates directly
into the availability of homes that Ontarians can afford.
Page 33 of 60
Page 299 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 24
Collectively, governments have not been sufficiently
aligned in their efforts to provide the frameworks and
incentives that meet the broad spectrum of housing needs in
Ontario. Much action, though, has been taken in recent years.
• The Ontario government has taken several steps to
make it easier to build additional suites in your own
home: reduced disincentives to building rental housing,
improved the appeal process, focused on density around
transit stations, made upfront development charges more
predictable, and provided options for municipalities to
create community benefits through development.
• The federal government has launched the National
Housing Strategy and committed over $70 billion in
funding.[26] Most recently, it has announced a $4 billion
Housing Accelerator Fund aimed at helping municipalities
remove barriers to building housing more quickly.[27]
• Municipalities have been looking at ways to change
outdated processes, rules, and ways of thinking that
create delays and increases costs of delivering homes.
Several municipalities have taken initial steps towards
eliminating exclusionary zoning and addressing other
barriers described in this report.
All governments agree that we are facing a housing crisis.
Now we must turn the sense of urgency into action and
alignment across governments.
Mirror policy changes with financial incentives
aligned across governments
The policy recommendations in this report will go a long way
to align efforts and position builders to deliver more homes.
Having the capacity in our communities to build these homes
will take more than policy. It will take money. Rewarding
municipalities that meet housing growth and approval
timelines will help them to invest in system upgrades, hire
additional staff, and invest in their communities. Similarly,
municipalities that resist new housing, succumb to NIMBY
pressure, and close off their neighbourhoods should see
funding reductions. Fixing the housing crisis is a societal
responsibility, and our limited tax dollars should be directed
to those municipalities making the difficult but necessary
choices to grow housing supply.
In late January 2022, the provincial government
announced $45 million for a new Streamline Development
Approval Fund to “unlock housing supply by cutting red
tape and improving processes for residential and industrial
developments”.[28] This is encouraging. More is needed.
Ontario should also receive its fair share of federal
funding but today faces a shortfall of almost $500 million,[29]
despite two thirds of the Canadian housing shortage being
in Ontario. We call on the federal government to address
this funding gap.
48. The Ontario government should establish a
large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and
encourage the federal government to match
funding. This fund should reward:
a) Annual housing growth that meets or
exceeds provincial targets
b) Reductions in total approval times for
new housing
c) The speedy removal of exclusionary
zoning practices
49. Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail
to meet provincial housing growth and approval
timeline targets.
We believe that the province should consider partial grants
to subsidize municipalities that waive development charges
for affordable housing and for purpose-built rental.
Sustain focus, measure, monitor, improve
Digitize and modernize the approvals and
planning process
Some large municipalities have moved to electronic
tracking of development applications and/or electronic
building permits (“e-permits”) and report promising
results, but there is no consistency and many smaller
places don’t have the capacity to make the change.
Municipalities, the provincial government and agencies use
different systems to collect data and information relevant to
housing approvals, which slows down processes and leaves
much of the “big picture” blank. This could be addressed by
ensuring uniform data architecture standards.
Improve the quality of our housing data to inform
decision making
Having accurate data is key to understanding any challenge and
making the best decisions in response. The Task Force heard
from multiple housing experts that we are not always using
the best data, and we do not always have the data we need.
Page 34 of 60
Page 300 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 25
Having good population forecasts is essential in each
municipality as they develop plans to meet future land
and housing needs. Yet, we heard many concerns about
inconsistent approaches to population forecasts. In the
Greater Golden Horseshoe, the forecast provided to
municipalities by the province is updated only when the
Growth Plan is updated, generally every seven years; but
federal immigration policy, which is a key driver of growth,
changes much more frequently. The provincial Ministry
of Finance produces a population forecast on a more
regular basis than the Growth Plan, but these are not
used consistently across municipalities or even by other
provincial ministries.
Population forecasts get translated into housing need in
different ways across the province, and there is a lack of data
about how (or whether) the need will be met. Others pointed
to the inconsistent availability of land inventories. Another
challenge is the lack of information on how much land is
permitted and how much housing is actually getting built
once permitted, and how fast. The Task Force also heard
that, although the Provincial Policy Statement requires
municipalities to maintain a three-year supply of short-term
(build-ready) land and report it each year to the province,
many municipalities are not meeting that requirement.[30]
At a provincial and municipal level, we need better data on
the housing we have today, housing needed to close the
gap, consistent projections of what we need in the future,
and data on how we are doing at keeping up. Improved
data will help anticipate local and provincial supply
bottlenecks and constraints, making it easier to determine
the appropriate level and degree of response.
It will also be important to have better data to assess how
much new housing stock is becoming available to groups
that have been disproportionately excluded from home
ownership and rental housing.
Put eyes on the crisis and change the conversation
around housing
Ours is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”.
There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing
housing prices and find solutions so everyone in Ontario
can find and afford the housing they need. This time must
be different.
The recommendations in this report must receive sustained
attention, results must be monitored, significant financial
investment by all levels of government must be made. And,
the people of Ontario must embrace a housing landscape
in which the housing needs of tomorrow’s citizens and
those who have been left behind are given equal weight
to the housing advantages of those who are already well
established in homes that they own.
50. Fund the adoption of consistent municipal
e-permitting systems and encourage the
federal government to match funding. Fund
the development of common data architecture
standards across municipalities and provincial
agencies and require municipalities to provide
their zoning bylaws with open data standards.
Set an implementation goal of 2025 and make
funding conditional on established targets.
51. Require municipalities and the provincial
government to use the Ministry of Finance
population projections as the basis for housing
need analysis and related land use requirements.
52. Resume reporting on housing data and
require consistent municipal reporting,
enforcing compliance as a requirement for
accessing programs under the Ontario
Housing Delivery Fund.
53. Report each year at the municipal and provincial
level on any gap between demand and supply by
housing type and location, and make underlying
data freely available to the public.
54. Empower the Deputy Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing to lead an all-of-government
committee, including key provincial ministries
and agencies, that meets weekly to ensure our
remaining recommendations and any other
productive ideas are implemented.
55. Commit to evaluate these recommendations
for the next three years with public reporting
on progress.
Page 35 of 60
Page 301 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 26
Conclusion
We have set a bold goal for Ontario: building 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years.
We believe this can be done. What struck us was that
everyone we talked to – builders, housing advocates,
elected officials, planners – understands the need to act now.
As one long-time industry participant said, “for the first time
in memory, everyone is aligned, and we need to take
advantage of that.”
Such unity of purpose is rare, but powerful.
To leverage that power, we offer solutions that are bold but
workable, backed by evidence, and that position Ontario
for the future.
Our recommendations focus on ramping up the supply
of housing. Measures are already in place to try to cool
demand, but they will not fill Ontario’s housing need.
More supply is key. Building more homes will reduce the
competition for our scarce supply of homes and will give
Ontarians more housing choices. It will improve housing
affordability across the board.
Everyone wants more Ontarians to have housing.
So let’s get to work to build more housing in Ontario.
Page 36 of 60
Page 302 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 27
APPENDIX A:Biographies of Task Force Members
Lalit Aggarwal is President of Manor Park Holdings, a
real estate development and operating company active
in Eastern Ontario. Previously, Lalit was an investor for
institutional fund management firms, such as H.I.G. European
Capital Partners, Soros Fund Management, and Goldman
Sachs. He is a past fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute and a
former Director of both Bridgepoint Health and the Centre for
the Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. Lalit holds
degrees from the University of Oxford and the University of
Pennsylvania. He is also a current Director of the Hospital for
Sick Children Foundation, the Sterling Hall School and the
Chair of the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario.
David Amborski is a professional Urban Planner, Professor
at Ryerson University’s School of Urban and Regional
Planning and the founding Director of the Centre for Urban
Research and Land Development (CUR). His research and
consulting work explore topics where urban planning
interfaces with economics, including land and housing
markets. He is an academic advisor to the National
Executive Forum on Public Property, and he is a member
of Lambda Alpha (Honorary Land Economics Society).
He has undertaken consulting for the Federal, Provincial
and a range of municipal governments. Internationally,
he has undertaken work for the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA), the World Bank, the
Inter-American Development Bank, the Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy, and several other organizations in Eastern
Europe, Latin America, South Africa, and Asia. He also
serves on the editorial boards of several international
academic journals.
Andrew Garrett is a real estate executive responsible for
growing IMCO’s $11+ Billion Global Real Estate portfolio to
secure public pensions and insurance for Ontario families.
IMCO is the only Ontario fund manager purpose built to
onboard public clients such as pensions, insurance,
municipal reserve funds, and endowments. Andrew has
significant non-profit sector experience founding a B Corp
certified social enterprise called WeBuild to help incubate
social purpose real estate projects. He currently volunteers
on non-profit boards supporting social purpose real estate
projects, youth programs and the visual arts at Art Gallery
of Ontario. Andrew sits on board advisory committees for
private equity firms and holds a Global Executive MBA
from Kellogg School Management and a Real Estate
Development Certification from MIT Centre for Real Estate.
Tim Hudak is the CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association
(OREA). With a passion and voice for championing the
dream of home ownership, Tim came to OREA following a
distinguished 21-year career in politics, including five years
as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.
In his role, Tim has focused on transforming OREA into
Ontario’s most cutting-edge professional association at
the forefront of advocacy on behalf of REALTORS® and
consumers, and providing world-class conferences, standard
forms, leadership training and professional guidance to its
Members. As part of his work at OREA, Tim was named one
of the most powerful people in North American residential
real estate by Swanepoel Power 200 for the last five years.
Tim is married to Deb Hutton, and together they have two
daughters, Miller and Maitland. In his spare time, Tim enjoys
trails less taken on his mountain bike or hiking shoes as well
as grilling outdoors.
Jake Lawrence was appointed Chief Executive Officer and
Group Head, Global Banking and Markets in January 2021.
In this role, Jake is responsible for the Bank’s Global
Banking and Markets business line and strategy across its
global footprint. Jake joined Scotiabank in 2002 and has
held progressively senior roles in Finance, Group Treasury
and Global Banking and Markets. From December 2018 to
January 2021, Jake was Co-Group Head of Global Banking
and Markets with specific responsibility for its Capital
Markets businesses, focused on building alignment across
product groups and priority markets to best serve our
clients throughout our global footprint. Previously, Jake was
Executive Vice President and Head of Global Banking and
Markets in the U.S., providing overall strategic direction and
execution of Scotiabank’s U.S. businesses. Prior to moving
into GBM, Jake served as Senior Vice President and Deputy
Treasurer, responsible for Scotiabank’s wholesale funding
activities and liquidity management as well as Senior Vice
President, Investor Relations.
Page 37 of 60
Page 303 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 28
Julie Di Lorenzo (GPLLM, University of Toronto 2020), is
self-employed since 1982, operates one of the largest
female-run Real Estate Development Companies in
North America. She was instrumental in the Daniel Burnham
award-winning Ontario Growth Management Plan (2004)
as President of BILD. Julie served as the first female-owner
President of GTHBA (BILD) and on the boards of the Ontario
Science Centre, Harbourfront Toronto, Tarion (ONHWP),
St. Michael’s Hospital, NEXT36, Waterfront Toronto, Chair
of IREC Committee WT, Havergal College (Co-Chair of
Facilities), York School (interim Vice-Chair), and Canadian
Civil Liberties Association Board. Julie has served various
governments in advisory capacity on Women’s issues,
Economic Development, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
Awards include Lifetime Achievement BILD 2017, ICCO
Business Excellence 2005 & ICCO Businesswoman of the
Year 2021.
Justin Marchand (CIHCM, CPA, CMA, BComm) is Métis and
was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Aboriginal
Housing Services (OAHS) in 2018. Justin has over 20 years of
progressive experience in a broad range of sectors, including
two publicly listed corporations, a large accounting and
consulting firm, and a major crown corporation, and holds
numerous designations across financial, operations, and
housing disciplines. He was most recently selected as Chair
of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association’s (CHRA’s)
Indigenous Caucus Working Group and is also board
member for CHRA. Justin is also an active board member for
both the Coalition of Hamilton Indigenous Leadership (CHIL)
as well as Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig, located in
Bawaating. Justin believes that Housing is a fundamental
human right and that when Indigenous people have access
to safe, affordable, and culture-based Housing this provides
the opportunity to improve other areas of their lives.
Ene Underwood is CEO of Habitat for Humanity Greater
Toronto Area), a non-profit housing developer that helps
working, lower income families build strength, stability and
self-reliance through affordable homeownership. Homes
are delivered through a combination of volunteer builds,
contractor builds, and partnerships with non-profit and
for-profit developers. Ene’s career began in the private
sector as a strategy consultant with McKinsey & Company
before transitioning to not-for-profit sector leadership. Ene
holds a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from the University of
Waterloo and a Master of Business Administration from
Ivey Business School.
Dave Wilkes is the President and CEO of the Building
Industry and Land Development Association of the GTA
(BILD). The Association has 1,300 members and proudly
represents builders, developers, professional renovators
and those who support the industry.
Dave is committed to supporting volunteer boards and
organizations. He has previously served on the George
Brown College Board of Directors, Ontario Curling
Association, and is currently engaged with Black North
Initiative (Housing Committee) and R-Labs I+T Council.
Dave received his Bachelor of Arts (Applied Geography)
from Ryerson.
Page 38 of 60
Page 304 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 29
APPENDIX B:Affordable Housing
Ontario’s affordable housing shortfall was raised in almost every conversation. With rapidly
rising prices, more lower-priced market rental units are being converted into housing far out
of reach of lower-income households. In parallel, higher costs to deliver housing and limited
government funding have resulted in a net decrease in the number of affordable housing units
run by non-profits. The result is untenable: more people need affordable housing after being
displaced from the market at the very time that affordable supply is shrinking.
Throughout our consultations, we were reminded of the
housing inequities experienced by Black, Indigenous
and marginalized people. We also received submissions
describing the unique challenges faced by off-reserve
Indigenous Peoples both in the province’s urban centres
and in the north.
While many of the changes that will help deliver market
housing will also help make it easier to deliver affordable
housing, affordable housing is a societal responsibility.
We cannot rely exclusively on for-profit developers nor
on increases in the supply of market housing to fully solve
the problem.
The non-profit housing sector faces all the same barriers,
fees, risks and complexities outlined in this report as for-profit
builders. Several participants from the non-profit sector
referred to current or future partnerships with for-profit
developers that tap into the development and construction
expertise and efficiencies of the private sector. Successful
examples of leveraging such partnerships were cited with
Indigenous housing, supportive housing, and affordable
homeownership.
We were also reminded by program participants that,
while partnerships with for-profit developers can be very
impactful, non-profit providers have unique competencies
in the actual delivery of affordable housing. This includes
confirming eligibility of affordable housing applicants,
supporting independence of occupants of affordable
housing, and ensuring affordable housing units remain
affordable from one occupant to the next.
One avenue for delivering more affordable housing
that has received much recent attention is inclusionary
zoning. In simple terms, inclusionary zoning (IZ) requires
developers to deliver a share of affordable units in new
housing developments in prescribed areas. The previous
Ontario government passed legislation in April 2018
providing a framework within which municipalities could
enact Inclusionary Zoning bylaws.
Ontario’s first inclusionary zoning policy was introduced in
fall 2021 by the City of Toronto and applies to major transit
station areas. Internationally, inclusionary zoning has been
used successfully to incentivize developers to create new
affordable housing by providing density bonuses (more units
than they would normally be allowed, if some are affordable)
or reductions in government fees. Unfortunately, the City’s
approach did not include any incentives or bonuses.
Instead, Toronto requires market-rate fees and charges for
below-market affordable units. This absence of incentives
together with lack of clarity on the overall density that will be
approved for projects has led developers and some housing
advocates to claim that these projects may be uneconomic
and thus will not get financed or built. Municipalities shared
with us their concerns regarding the restriction in the
provincial IZ legislation that prohibits “cash in lieu” payments.
Municipalities advised that having the option of accepting the
equivalent value of IZ units in cash from the developer would
enable even greater impact in some circumstances (for
example, a luxury building in an expensive neighbourhood,
where the cost of living is too high for a low-income resident).
Funding for affordable housing is the responsibility of
all levels of government. The federal government has
committed to large funding transfers to the provinces
to support affordable housing. The Task Force heard,
however, that Ontario’s share of this funding does not
reflect our proportionate affordable housing needs. This,
in turn, creates further financial pressure on both the
province and municipalities, which further exacerbates the
affordable housing shortages in Ontario’s communities.
Page 39 of 60
Page 305 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 30
Finally, many participants in Task Force consultations
pointed to surplus government lands as an avenue for
building more affordable housing and this is discussed
in Appendix C.
We have made recommendations throughout the report
intended to have a positive impact on new affordable
housing supply. We offer these additional recommendations
specific to affordable housing:
• Call upon the federal government to provide equitable
affordable housing funding to Ontario.
• Develop and legislate a clear, province-wide definition of
“affordable housing” to create certainty and predictability.
• Create an Affordable Housing Trust from a portion of Land
Transfer Tax Revenue (i.e., the windfall resulting from
property price appreciation) to be used in partnership
with developers, non-profits, and municipalities in the
creation of more affordable housing units. This Trust
should create incentives for projects serving and brought
forward by Black- and Indigenous-led developers and
marginalized groups.
• Amend legislation to:
• Allow cash-in-lieu payments for Inclusive Zoning units
at the discretion of the municipality.
• Require that municipalities utilize density bonusing or
other incentives in all Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable
Housing policies that apply to market housing.
• Permit municipalities that have not passed Inclusionary
Zoning policies to offer incentives and bonuses for
affordable housing units.
• Encourage government to closely monitor the
effectiveness of Inclusionary Zoning policy in creating
new affordable housing and to explore alternative
funding methods that are predictable, consistent and
transparent as a more viable alternative option to
Inclusionary Zoning policies in the provision of
affordable housing.
• Rebate MPAC market rate property tax assessment
on below-market affordable homes.
Page 40 of 60
Page 306 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 31
APPENDIX C:Government Surplus Land
Surplus government lands fell outside the mandate of the Task Force. However, this question
came up repeatedly as a solution to housing supply. While we take no view on the disposition of
specific parcels of land, several stakeholders raised issues that we believe merit consideration:
• Review surplus lands and accelerate the sale and
development through RFP of surplus government land
and surrounding land by provincially pre-zoning for
density, affordable housing, and mixed or residential use.
• All future government land sales, whether commercial or
residential, should have an affordable housing component
of at least 20%.
• Purposefully upzone underdeveloped or underutilized
Crown property (e.g., LCBO).
• Sell Crown land and reoccupy as a tenant in a higher
density building or relocate services outside of
major population centres where land is considerably
less expensive.
• The policy priority of adding to the housing supply,
including affordable units, should be reflected in the
way surplus land is offered for sale, allowing bidders
to structure their proposals accordingly.
Page 41 of 60
Page 307 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 32
APPENDIX D:Surety Bonds
Moving to surety bonds would free up billions of dollars for building
When a development proposal goes ahead, the developer typically needs to make site
improvements, such as installing common services. The development agreement details
how the developer must perform to the municipality’s satisfaction.
Up until the 1980s, it was common practice for Ontario
municipalities to accept bonds as financial security for
subdivision agreements and site plans. Today, however,
they almost exclusively require letters of credit from a
chartered bank. The problem with letters of credit is that
developers are often required to collateralize the letter of
credit dollar-for-dollar against the value of the municipal
works they are performing.
Often this means developers can only afford to finance
one or two housing projects at a time, constraining housing
supply. The Ontario Home Builders’ Association estimates
that across Ontario, billions of dollars are tied up in
collateral or borrowing capacity that could be used to
advance more projects.
Modern “pay on demand surety bonds” are proven to
provide the same benefits and security as a letter of credit,
while not tying up private capital the way letters of credit
do. Moving to this option would give municipalities across
Ontario access to all the features of a letter of credit with
the added benefit of professional underwriting, carried
out by licensed bonding companies, ensuring that the
developer is qualified to fulfill its obligations under the
municipal agreement.
Most important from a municipal perspective, the financial
obligation is secured. If a problem arises, the secure bond
is fully payable by the bond company on demand. Surety
companies, similar to banks, are regulated by Ontario’s Office
of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to ensure they
have sufficient funds in place to pay out bond claims.
More widespread use of this instrument could unlock billions
of dollars of private sector financial liquidity that could be
used to build new infrastructure and housing projects,
provide for more units in each development and accelerate
the delivery of housing of all types.
Page 42 of 60
Page 308 of 345
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 33
References
1. Ontario Housing Market Report
https://wowa.ca/ontario-housing-market
2. Global Property Guide
https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/Canada/
Price-History-Archive/canadian-housing-market-strong-127030
3. National Household Survey Factsheet
https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/census/
nhshi11-6.html#:~:text=Median%20After%2Dtax%20Income%20
of,and%20British%20Columbia%20at%20%2467%2C900
4. CMHC
https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en/TableMapChart/
5. The Globe And Mail
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-black-canadians-
have-some-of-the-lowest-home-ownership-rates-in-canada/
6. Scotiabank
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/
economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.
housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html
7. Scotiabank
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/
economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.
housing-note.housing-note--january-12-2022-.html
8. Expert Market
https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/vehicle-tracking/
best-and-worst-cities-for-commuting
9. Statista
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198063/total-number-of-
housing-starts-in-ontario-since-1995/
10. Poltext
https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/discoursV2/DB/
Ontario/ON_DB_1975_29_5.pdf
11. Toronto City Planning
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/
backgroundfile-173165.pdf
12. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO)
https://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/
Urbanation-FRPO-Ontario-Rental-Market-Report-Summer-2020.pdf
13a. Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at
Ryerson University (CUR)
https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/centre-urban-research-land-
development/pdfs/CUR_Pre-Zoning_Corridor_Lands_to_a_
Higher_Density.pdf
13b. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
https://www.ontario.ca/document/growth-plan-greater-golden-
horseshoe/where-and-how-grow
14. More Neighbours Toronto
https://www.moreneighbours.ca/
15. The World Bank
https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/
dealing-with-construction-permits
16. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/BILD%20Municipal%20Benchmarking%20
Study%20-%20FINAL%20-%20Sept%202020%20BILD.pdf
16b. Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at
Ryerson University (CUR)
https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/centre-urban-research-land-
development/CUR_Accelerating_Housing_Supply_and_
Affordability_by_Improving_the_Land-use_Planning_System_
Nov_2021.pdf
17. Ontario Association of Architects
https://oaa.on.ca/OAA/Assets/Documents/Gov.%20Initiatives/
p5727_-_site_plan_delay_study_-_oaa_site_plan_delay_study_
update_-_july_....pdf
18. Tribunals Ontario 2019-20 Annual Report
https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Tribunals_
Ontario_2019-2020_Annual_Report_EN_v2.html
19. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/Bild/FINAL%20-%20BILD%20-%20
Comparison%20of%20Government%20Charges%20in%20
Canada%20and%20US%20-%20Sept%2013%202019.pdf
20. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/FINAL%20GTA%20-%20
Development%20Charges%20-%2009%202020.pdf
21. Toronto Star
https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2018/09/01/
where-did-the-money-go-parkland-dedication-fees-should-be-
used-to-build-parks-in-gta.html
22. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/misc/BILD%20-%20New%20
Homeowner%20Money%20Report%20-%20Oct%205%20
2021%20(002)_Redacted.pdf
23. Urbanation Inc.
https://www.urbanation.ca/news/336-gta-rental-construction-
surged-2021-vacancy-fell
24. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO)
https://www.frpo.org/lobby-view/cities-still-ripping-off-renters
25. Edison Financial
https://edisonfinancial.ca/millennial-home-ownership-canada/
26. Government of Canada National Housing Strategy
https://www.placetocallhome.ca/what-is-the-strategy
27. CMHC
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/media-newsroom/
news-releases/2021/housing-accelerator-fund-rent-to-own-program
28. Toronto Star
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/01/19/
ford-government-announces-45-million-to-cut-red-tape-and-
speed-up-applications-for-new-home-construction.html
29. Canadian Real Estate Wealth
https://www.canadianrealestatemagazine.ca/news/
federal-funds-must-flow-for-housing-programs-334810.aspx
30. Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at
Ryerson University (CUR)
https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/centre-urban-research-land-
development/pdfs/CUR_Submission_Proposed_Land_Needs_
Assessment_Methodology_A_Place_to_Grow_July_2020.pdf
Page 43 of 60
Page 309 of 345
APPENDIX 2
1. Focus On Getting More Homes Built- Recommendations 1-2
Task Force Recommendations Impacts/Benefits-City of Niagara Falls Made In Niagara Suggestions
1.Set a goal of building 1.5 million new
homes in ten years.
Increased development and increase in
population. Benefits- Increased tax
dollars, utilization of existing
infrastructure more to share the
infrastructure cost burdens, more
commercial developments, more
housing. Impacts- Increase demand for
more services, additional traffic,
increased concerns from residents
about compatibility,
Growth should be based on Region of
Niagara’s growth allocations by
municipality and each municipality should
be required to plan where their growth
should go.
2.Amend Planning documents to set full
spectrum housing growth and
intensification within existing built-up
areas as the most important residential
housing priorities in the mandate and
purpose.
Impact on existing residents who
generally like to see like development
with like development.
Benefits better communities and
efficient utilization of existing services.
And will benefit currently underutilized,
underdeveloped areas.
Supported by staff
2. Making Land Available to Build- Recommendations 3-18
Task Force Recommendations Impacts/Benefits-City of Niagara Falls Made In Niagara Suggestions Page 44 of 60Page 310 of 345
3. Limit exclusionary zoning in
municipalities through binding provincial
action:
a. Allow “as of right” residential housing
up to four units and up to four storeys on
a single residential lot.
b. Modernize the Building Code and
other policies to remove any barriers to
affordable construction and to ensure
meaningful implementation
This will change existing
neighbourhoods significantly. Impacts to
existing services and the impacts to the
local road network.
The City’s infrastructure may not be
able to handle the increased density,
creating a need for unplanned upgrades
to systems.
b) No impacts
Allow intensification of up to 4 units without
increasing height to 4 storeys in low
density areas – provide for increased units
within existing height regime (with some
flexibility) to reflect neighbourhood
character suitable for the municipality.
This will allow more gradual intensification
such as permitting 4-6 storeys as you get
to the collector and minor arterial road
system and then to the 6-11 storeys or
more on major arterials which can then be
planned to support more intense transit
ridership Niagara.
4. Permit “as of right” conversion of
underutilized or redundant commercial
properties to residential or mixed
residential and commercial use.
This would permit underutilized
commercial properties to redevelop to a
more sustainable use. For example,
some commercial areas along Lundy’s
lane where an abundance of
commercial lands would benefit from an
influx of residential units.
The City of Niagara Falls currently has
policies within its Tourist Commercial
designation to permit residential use to
assist in the creation of complete
communities.
Benefits –intensify area that are used to
larger volumes of traffic.
Suggest that the government permit as of
right conversions to residential provided
that a certain percentage of commercial
lands is available for future economic
growth in each community/node or
alternatively they only permit the
conversion to mixed use to ensure that
commercial services are still available for
these new residents. This will ensure the
developments that are created help to build
a complete community.
The province would also need to define
how it will be determined that commercial
land is redundant or underutilized.
Page 45 of 60Page 311 of 345
Impacts-Compatibility would need to be
determined based on the past use of
the site.
This recommendation is supported by staff
with the above noted suggestions or
considerations.
5.Permit “as of right” secondary suites,
garden suites, and laneway houses
province-wide
This would allow gentle intensification in
low density neighbourhoods. This is the
type of intensification that should occur
in areas outside collector or arterial
roadways. Currently the City does allow
accessory dwelling units but one of the
dwellings on the property must be
owner occupied.
This is supported by staff and provides
appropriate low intensification options in
low density neighbourhoods.
6.Permit “as of right” multi-tenant
housing (renting rooms within a dwelling)
province-wide.
This would intensify existing
neighbourhoods but would not
significantly change the outward
appearance. Some impacts that could
result would be increased on street
parking.
This is not in line with the City’s
historical position on boarding houses
that these are not permitted as of right
in residential areas.
In Niagara, this does occur in university
and college Towns and number of negative
impacts such as garbage, noise, parking
etc. has occurred. This should be permitted
as of right only in owner occupied
dwellings to assist in mitigating impacts.
In Niagara Falls ‘motels’ provide temporary
housing for those without housing, and
creates absentee landlord issues with lack
of heat, infestation and other issues that
don’t meet Fire or Building Codes.
7.Encourage and incentivize
municipalities to increase density in
areas with excess school capacity to
benefit families with children
In Niagara Falls school’s generally
operate over capacity. There are five
schools that are underutilized- less than
65%, 3 in the public school board and 2
in the catholic school board. These
schools are: Victoria, Simcoe Street and
John Marshall and St.Patrick and
St.Mary.
Schools could be considered as
opportunities for mixed use or affordable
housing above to facilitate additional
enrollment.
The majority of these school sites would be
on collector and arterial roadways and an Page 46 of 60Page 312 of 345
increase in density in these areas could be
supported.
The Province should consider giving
municipalities surplus school sites to
accommodate affordable/attainable
housing projects rather than requiring
municipalities to pay for them.
8.Allow “as of right” zoning up to
unlimited height and unlimited density in
the immediate proximity of individual
major transit stations within two years if
municipal zoning remains insufficient to
meet provincial density targets.
The City has identified provincial density
targets (150 residents and job per ha.)
in the Go Transit downtown area.
Staff is supportive of this recommendation
as it support transit ridership for major
transit station areas and is good planning.
9.Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11
storeys with no minimum parking
requirements on any streets utilized by
public transit.
This will significantly impact low density
areas as our bus routes go through a
number of low-level low-density
neighbourhoods
This should not be permitted as of right
along public transit routes in Niagara.
This level of intensification is best suited
for collector, arterial roads and lots closer
to public amenities and transit. These
roads have the ability to adequately service
the additional density as they can handle
additional traffic loads and larger services
pipes to accommodate the demand.
Intensification corridors should be planned
over the next two years to achieve the
needed density. These should be identified
by each of the 12 municipalities over the Page 47 of 60Page 313 of 345
next two years as part of Official Plan
updates.
A made in Niagara solution needs to be
considered for this approach to work as the
transit services and other necessary
commercial services are not yet adequate
to provide no parking with these densities.
10.Designate or rezone as mixed
commercial and residential use all land
along transit corridors.
The City does permit in TC, GC mixed
use development or residential
developments. All transit corridors will
permit these types of development in
low density areas. This will impact areas
with limited transit and with limited
amenities.
Mixed use/residential is best suited along
identified municipal corridors.
11.Support responsible housing growth
on undeveloped land, including outside
existing municipal boundaries, by
building necessary infrastructure to
support higher density housing and
complete communities .
This contributes to urban sprawl and
leads to unplanned growth. The City
would have difficultly planning for
servicing for the long term if
development is permitted everywhere.
The current approach to identify additional
lands to accommodate the allocated
growth is adequate and does not lead to
unbridled growth anywhere outside the
urban area. Any urban boundary
expansions should be tied to requirements
for complete communities and specific
increased densities.
What is considered reasonable and how is
reconciled with intensification and
utilization of existing infrastructure and the
protection of agricultural land.
Page 48 of 60Page 314 of 345
12.Create a more permissive land use,
planning, and approvals system:
a. Repeal or override municipal policies,
zoning, or plans that prioritize the
preservation of physical character of
neighbourhood
b. Exempt from site plan approval and
public consultation all projects of 10 units
or less that conform to the Official Plan
and require only minor variances
c. Establish province-wide zoning
standards, or prohibitions, for minimum
lot sizes, maximum building setbacks,
minimum heights, angular planes,
shadow rules, front doors, building
depth, landscaping, floor space index,
and heritage view cones, and planes;
restore pre-2006 site plan exclusions
(colour, texture, and type of materials,
window details, etc.) to the Planning Act
and reduce or eliminate minimum
parking requirements; and
d. Remove any floorplate restrictions to
allow larger, more efficient high-density
towers
Density can be accomplished without
impact to existing character.
Site Plan controls things such as
garbage locations, lighting, turning radi
etc. This is fundamental to planning
efficient spaces. This will impact the
City and could result in places that
create light overspill, lack of
landscaping or garbage. Poor urban
design creates spaces where people do
not want to live.
Site Plan also can be used to require
landscaping that can be advantageous
in addressing climate change issues.
The City’s future OP policies should
promote multiple residential forms in all
residential areas with consideration given
to massing, shadowing, etc. This is
supported as it provides additional density
but mitigates impact.
b. A minor site plan approval process
should be established to check plans for
basic things such as garbage pick up,
turning radi, etc. This will expedite the
process but not create poor developments.
c and d. Province should not remove
policies relating to good urban design as
this will create block buildings and will
diminish a sense of place and pride.
Province should put in consistent and
standardized design standards if this is a
major issue to obtaining affordable housing
or faster housing.
13.Limit municipalities from requesting or
hosting additional public meetings
beyond those that are required under the
Planning Act.
This approach will limit the ability to
solve and find solutions to development
issues raised.
The province should consider one open
house for each type of planning application
to allow the residents face time with
developers to raise concerns. Page 49 of 60Page 315 of 345
14.Require that public consultations
provide digital participation options.
Due to the pandemic this is currently
standard practice at the City.
Consultants prefer the digital open
houses & the ability to attend open
houses/public meetings
remotely. There are more people from
the public that attend these meeting as
they are more accessible. There is no
impact to the City.
Support recommendations.
15.Require mandatory delegation of site
plan approvals and minor variances to
staff or pre-approved qualified third-party
technical consultants through a
simplified review and approval process,
without the ability to withdraw Council’s
delegation.
The City of Niagara Falls already has
staff delegated the authority for site
plans so there is no impact. Delegation
of Minor Variances will speed up the
process and allow staff to make
decisions on these minor applications.
Support recommendations
16.Prevent abuse of the heritage
preservation and designation process
by:
a. Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on
municipal heritage registers
b. Prohibiting reactive heritage
designations after a Planning Act
development application has been filed
Point a is agreed to by staff and the City
will not bring forward bulk designations.
b. could lead into more early forced
designations to protect what is valuable.
In Niagara Falls, if the owner disagrees
with designation it isn’t done. This
recommendation could cause us to lose
more of our heritage.
Heritage designation should be based on
merit on whether the structure has
significant heritage value. The province
should provide key criteria to determine
what would qualify as having significant
heritage value.
17. Requiring municipalities to
compensate property owners for loss of
property value as a result of heritage
This will impact the financials of the City
and the City should not have to pay for
what is in the public good.
Recommend that if this is put in place it is
only in place for forced designations not
voluntary. Alternatively, the province could
consider new criteria and parameters on
what needs to be protected just the shell or Page 50 of 60Page 316 of 345
designations, based on the principle of
best economic use of land.
certain components of the interior or only
significant buildings vetted through the
province.
The Province should also identify what
parameters and proof is needed to support
the claim of ‘loss of property value’ as in
the past this has been shown not to be the
case,
18.Restore the right of developers to
appeal Official Plans and Municipal
Comprehensive Reviews.
This approach limits appeals to just
developers and this right should be
given to any person or municipality.
Recommendation permit appeals by all
with merit only, must show how it does not
meet provincial policy. Appeals without
merit should be dismissed or penalized.
This is contrary to the achievement of
intensification, housing, and employment
targets in a timely fashion.
3. Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs- Recommendations 19-31
Task Force Recommendations Impacts/Benefits-City of Niagara Falls Made In Niagara Suggestions
19.Legislate timelines at each stage of
the provincial and municipal review
process, including site plan, minor
variance, and deem an application
approved if the legislated response time
is exceeded.
Impacts to ensure adequate staffing are
in place to meet timeframes. If timelines
are not met this could impact the quality
of development and lead to future
municipal issues ie poor drainage, poor
design, lack of garbage facilities etc.
This could result in an intentional flood
of applications that would overwhelm
Recommend timelines that are realistic and
ensure the talent pool is available to
accommodate the demand prior to putting
this recommendation in place.
A better, more streamlined process for
minor applications may free up Staff time
to consider more complicated proposals
under the current Planning Act timelines. Page 51 of 60Page 317 of 345
Municipal resources and lead to the
concerns above.
20.Fund the creation of “approvals
facilitators” with the authority to quickly
resolve conflicts among municipal and/or
provincial authorities and ensure
timelines are met.
Impacts-Not clear on where the position
would reside. A good initiative.
Staff support this initiative to resolve
conflicts quickly.
21.Require a pre-consultation with all
relevant parties at which the municipality
sets out a binding list that defines what
constitutes a complete application;
confirms the number of consultations
established in the previous
recommendations; and clarifies that if a
member of a regulated profession such
as a professional engineer has stamped
an application, the municipality has no
liability, and no additional stamp is
needed.
This is currently being done with the
exception that at times additional
studies are recommended based on
new information. Staffing resources will
assist in ensuring pre-consultation
applications are vetted in more detail
and new studies are not asked for
beyond preconsultation.
Liability clauses should be placed into
agreements to ensure professionals are
accountable and liable not municipalities.
Subdivision drainage for example is an
agreement between the developer and the
City if we blindly accept the engineers
drainage plan then any drainage issue or
claim should be dealt with by the
professional.
Province would need to ensure that these
clauses are upheld in the court system as
right now the decisions reflect that the
municipalities have a role to play in the
review of these studies.
22.Simplify planning legislation and
policy documents.
No detail on what is changing so difficult
to determine if there will be any impacts.
No recommendations
23.Create a common, province-wide
definition of plan of subdivision and
standard set of conditions which clarify
which may be included; require the use
of standard province-wide legal
agreements and, where feasible, plans
of subdivision.
No impact standardization sets upfront
expectations for the development
community.
The standardization should be done
collaboratively with municipalities. The
Niagara Region and area municipalities
have been working to standardize planning
application forms and everyone has been
successfully working together on this.
24.Allow wood construction of up to 12
storeys.
No impacts Support recommendations Page 52 of 60Page 318 of 345
25.Require municipalities to provide the
option of pay on demand surety bonds
and letters of credit.
The City is currently working on a pilot
program to accept on demand surety
bonds. This pilot is based on the
Hamilton model and there is limited risk
to the municipality in this model.
Support recommendations. Buy in should
be by choice by each municipality.
Province should work on showcasing those
areas where the surety bonds have been
successful.
26.Require appellants to promptly seek
permission (“leave to appeal”) of the
Tribunal and demonstrate that an appeal
has merit, relying on evidence and
expert reports, before it is accepted.
Leave to appeals would be known
earlier and would need to have merit.
Support recommendations
27.Prevent abuse of process: a. Remove
right of appeal for projects with at least
30% affordable housing in which units
are guaranteed affordable for at least 40
years. b. Require a $10,000 filing fee for
third-party appeals. c. Provide discretion
to adjudicators to award full costs to the
successful party in any appeal brought
by a third party or by a municipality
where its council has overridden a
recommended staff approval.
This would impact third party appeals
with legitimate concerns from the public
and municipal council. These appeals
would be heavily penalized. Not sure
this is fair and equitable.
Penalties or awarding of costs for frivolous
without justification appeals should be
awarded more often to discourage matters
coming before the board without a planning
basis instead.
28.Encourage greater use of oral
decisions issued the day of the hearing,
with written reasons to follow, and allow
those decisions to become binding the
day that they are issued.
Good initiative will provide decision
earlier.
Support recommendations
29.Where it is found that a municipality
has refused an application simply to
avoid a deemed approval for lack of
decision, allow the Tribunal to award
punitive damages.
The City will need to have sufficient staff
to process applications.
Support recommendation but the Province
needs to assist municipalities to hire
qualified staff before implementing this
change. Page 53 of 60Page 319 of 345
30.Provide funding to increase staffing
(adjudicators and case managers),
provide market-competitive salaries,
outsource more matters to mediators,
and set shorter time targets.
Good initiative to speed up
development.
Support recommendations
31.In clearing the existing backlog,
encourage the Tribunal to prioritize
projects close to the finish line that will
support housing growth and
intensification as well as regional water
or utility infrastructure decisions that will
unlock significant housing capacity.
Good initiative to speed up larger
projects that will assist in making a
difference to bring more housing units
on stream sooner.
Support recommendations
4. Reduce the cost to build, buy and rent- Recommendations 32-42
Task Force Recommendations Impacts/Benefits-City of Niagara Falls Made In Niagara Suggestions
32.Waive development charges and
parkland cash-in-lieu and charge only
modest connection fees for all infill
residential projects up to 10 units or for
any development where no new material
infrastructure will be required.
The City relies on DC's to fund
replacement and new infrastructure
projects, park development, transit etc.
The City also relies on parkland cash in
lieu to purchase parkland and this will
be extremely important in the future with
the planned intensification and due to
rising land costs. The reduction in these
allocations will mean more costs on the
general tax payer to fund projects.
The City currently provides a
reduction/waiver of development
Growth should pay for growth and the
payment of development charges and
parkland assist in providing upgrades to
existing systems and rejuvenation of
parklands. This recommendation is not
supported by staff. Page 54 of 60Page 320 of 345
charges and cash-in-lieu of parkland for
areas within approved Community
Improvement Plans.
33.Waive development charges on all
forms of affordable housing guaranteed
to be affordable for 40 years.
The City currently exempts
development charges for affordable
housing projects that receive funding
through an agreement with Niagara
Regional housing.
Support recommendations
34.Prohibit interest rates on
development charges higher than a
municipality’s borrowing rate.
No impact we have not yet established
interest rates.
Support recommendations
35.Regarding cash in lieu of parkland,
s.37, Community Benefit Charges, and
development charges:
a. Provincial review of reserve levels,
collections and drawdowns annually to
ensure funds are being used in a timely
fashion and for the intended purpose,
and, where review points to a significant
concern, do not allow further collection
until the situation has been corrected.
b. Except where allocated towards
municipality-wide infrastructure projects,
require municipalities to spend funds in
the neighbourhoods where they were
collected. However, where there’s a
significant community need in a priority
area of the City, allow for specific ward-
to-ward allocation of unspent and
unallocated reserves.
Will impact the way projects are
planned and additional staffing will be
needed to track and allocate the dollars
to specific neighbourhood projects.
This should be based on the 10 year
capital forecast as city staff are limited in
the amount jobs that can be accomplished
in any given year. The City should have to
demonstrate how the reserves are to be
used and in what areas over the 10 year
horizon. Page 55 of 60Page 321 of 345
36.Recommend that the federal
government and provincial governments
update HST rebate to reflect current
home prices and begin indexing the
thresholds to housing prices, and that
the federal government match the
provincial 75% rebate and remove any
clawback.
No impact to the City but unless the
cost savings are passed onto the home
owner it will not create more affordable
or attainable housing.
This will not impact affordability unless the
developers are capped on profit. The
additional HST money needs to be of
benefit to affordable housing or units.
Recommendation this rebate should only
apply to affordable housing.
37.Align property taxes for purpose-built
rental with those of condos and low-rise
homes.
Good Initiative, supports rental housing Support recommendation
38.Amend the Planning Act and
Perpetuities Act to extend the maximum
period for land leases and restrictive
covenants on land to 40 or more years.
Good initiative supports longer term
mortgages.
Support recommendations
39.Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives
to housing growth.
Limited information on what tax
disincentives they are referring to.
Cannot support recommendation at this
time until more information is provided.
40.Call on the Federal Government to
implement an Urban, Rural and Northern
Indigenous Housing Strategy.
Good initiative support provincial goal. Support recommendations
41.Funding for pilot projects that create
innovative pathways to homeownership,
for Black, Indigenous,and marginalized
people and first-generation homeowners.
Good initiative supports where the need
is the greatest.
Support recommendations
42.Provide provincial and federal loan
guarantees for purpose-built rental,
affordable rental and affordable
ownership projects.
Supports affordable housing projects. Good initiative but there seems to limited
uptake by developers in the current CMHC
incentives and it should be analysed by the
Province as to why.
5. Support and Incentivize scaling up housing supply Recommendations 43-55
Page 56 of 60Page 322 of 345
Task Force Recommendations Impacts/Benefits-City of Niagara Falls Made in Niagara Suggestions
43.Enable municipalities, subject to
adverse external economic events, to
withdraw infrastructure allocations from
any permitted projects where
construction has not been initiated within
three years of build permits being issued
This is currently done on a regional
level. Allocation of capacity is only
granted when you are ready to proceed
and not part of draft plan approval.
Support recommendations
44.Work with municipalities to develop
and implement a municipal services
corporation utility model for water and
wastewater under which the municipal
corporation would borrow and amortize
costs among customers instead of using
development charges.
Impact to general taxpayers and would
create a significant amount of work on
the municipal side to implement.
Additional staff would be needed to set
up the corporation and to set up the
necessary financial requirements. This
corporation would need to be staffed.
The province should ensure this model will
provide a cost savings and makes homes
more affordable. This solution seems to
just add additional costs to the operation of
the household which does not solve the
affordability issue.
45.Improve funding for colleges, trade
schools, and apprenticeships; encourage
and incentivize municipalities, unions
and employers to provide more on-the-
job training.
No impacts but financial benefits to the
municipality to secure resources to
complete the work needed.
Support recommendations
46.Undertake multi-stakeholder
education program to promote skilled
trades.
Benefit to future positions at the City
and the construction industry. This will
assist with labour shortages.
Support recommendations
47.Recommend that the federal and
provincial government prioritize skilled
trades and adjust the immigration points
system to strongly favour needed trades
and expedite immigration status for
these workers and encourage the federal
government to increase from 9,000 to
20,000 the number of immigrants
admitted through Ontario’s program.
Additional pressure on providing
needed housing.
Support recommendations. Page 57 of 60Page 323 of 345
48.The Ontario government should
establish a large “Ontario Housing
Delivery Fund” and encourage the
federal government to match funding.
This fund should reward
a. Annual housing growth that meets or
exceeds provincial targets
b. Reductions in total approval times for
new housing
c. The speedy removal of exclusionary
zoning practices
Financial impacts to the City could be
reduced depending on the level of
funding from the Province and the
Federal Government. Additional
resources will be needed to process
applications and put in place measures
and policies to expedite approvals.
Sufficient funding is need to offset initial
costs for proper planning. Funding should
cover Secondary Plan study work,
servicing reviews, environmental study
work etc. to remove delays and risk from
developments.
49.Reductions in funding to
municipalities that fail to meet provincial
housing growth and approval timeline
targets.
This will create significant impact to the
City. Firstly, the city will need to ensure
they have adequate staff to process
applications within the allocated time
targets. Secondly, in the shorter period
the City may need to plan for funding
shortfalls until they can sufficiently staff
the planning department to meet the
requirements. The impacts will be in
various departments Planning, Building
and Development and Municipal Works,
Need to ensure sufficient time is provided
to get additional resources in place given
the talent market is limited. The provincial
government should release new funding
models for last or second to last year
students in planning, building and
engineering to ensure they can do on the
job training.
Lack of funding may further inhibit the
municipality from meeting growth and
approval timeline targets over the long run.
50.Fund the adoption of consistent
municipal e-permitting systems and
encourage the federal government to
match funding. Fund the development of
common data architecture standards
The City did receive funding for a
municipal e-permitting system in March
of 2022.
Support recommendations. Page 58 of 60Page 324 of 345
across municipalities and provincial
agencies and require municipalities to
provide their zoning bylaws with open
data standards. Set an implementation
goal of 2025 and make funding
conditional on established targets
As both of these initiatives are funded
the only impact is staffing resources to
accomplish the requirements by 2025.
51.Require municipalities and the
provincial government to use the Ministry
of Finance population projections as the
basis for housing need analysis and
related land use requirements.
No impact to the City. Support recommendations.
52.Resume reporting on housing data
and require consistent municipal
reporting, enforcing compliance as a
requirement for accessing programs
under the Ontario Housing Delivery
Fund.
No impact Support recommendations
53.Report each year at the municipal
and provincial level on any gap between
demand and supply by housing type and
location and make underlying data freely
available to the public.
Impact on resources to prepare this
work. Additional staffing or software
may be needed.
Support recommendations
54.Empower the Deputy Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing to lead an
all-of-government committee, including
key provincial ministries and agencies,
that meets weekly to ensure our
remaining recommendations and any
other productive ideas are implemented.
Benefits- Committee can review and
make small changes to improve the
system during the transition.
Municipalities should be part of the future
process to ensure that recommendations
can be easily implemented.
55.Commit to evaluate these
recommendations for the next three
years with public reporting on progress
No impacts Support recommendations Page 59 of 60Page 325 of 345
Page 60 of 60Page 326 of 345
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Alicia Subnaik Kilgour, CEO/Chief Librarian
CC: Jason Burgess, CAO
Bill Matson, City Clerk
Date: September 25, 2023
Subject: Appointment of Member from the Community
Recommendation:
The Niagara Falls Public Library Board respectfully requests that Council appoint a community
representative to complete the remainder of the Library Board Term. The Library Board recently passed
the following motion #2023-74 on September 20th 2023 at the monthly Library Board Meeting:
To recommend that the current vacancy on the Niagara Falls Public Library Board be filled by Michael
Fraiman.
Moved by: J. Roddy
Seconded by: J. Anstruther
Carried
Background:
After the City of Niagara Falls committee appointments were completed in the autumn of 2022, the
Library Board had one vacancy remaining. Traditionally, Council has allowed the Library Board to recruit
for any vacancies during the Board term. The improved recruitment process established in 2022 was
followed when the Library engaged in the internal procedure to fill that vacancy in the summer of 2023.
This process included a public call for applicants, a review of applications and resumes, followed by a
formal panel interview and reference checks. The Library received six applications for the vacancy, and
shortlisted and interviewed three candidates. All candidates interviewed were avid library users and
brought a variety of skills and knowledge. Heartfelt thanks to all applicants who put their names forward
to serve their community.
Mr. Fraiman submitted his application to the Library for consideration during this period, and has been
chosen as the top candidate by the Library’s Board Recruitment Committee. The Board Recruitment
Committee brought forward the successful candidate’s name to the Library Board as a whole for
endorsement. At the September 20th 2023 Library Board Meeting, the Board passed a formal Motion to
recommend Michael Fraiman for appointment to fill the vacancy.
Page 327 of 345
Mr. Fraiman is a journalist by training, a self-published author, and is an avid user of the Niagara Falls
Public Library system. Mr. Fraiman an active member of the community, with skills in advocacy,
diplomacy, and leadership. The Committee was impressed by Michael’s enthusiasm and passion for
public libraries. The Library Board is very excited and thrilled and believes Mr. Fraiman’s skillset would
be a welcomed addition to the Library Board. Please see Mr. Fraiman’s attached resume for reference.
Conclusion:
The Niagara Falls Public Library Board respectfully requests that Council appoint Mr. Fraiman, a
community representative, to complete the remainder of the Library Board Term.
Attachments:
Application: Michael Fraiman
Resume: Michael Fraiman
Prepared:_____________________________________________________________________
Alicia Subnaik Kilgour, CEO/Chief Librarian
Respectfully Submitted:__________________________________________________________
Alicia Subnaik Kilgour, CEO/Chief Librarian
Page 328 of 345
Notice of Motion
I am notifying Council of my intent to bring a
motion to the next Council meeting to request:
That staff bring a report to see how the City
and other appropriate agencies can improve
public safety in the Welland River AKAThe
Chippewa Creek
As we know there was a tragic death recently in
the River and I believe a review of what the City
can do is appropriate undertaking for this
Council and the City.Page 329 of 345
PLANNING,BUILDING &DEVELOPMENT
Inter-Departmental Memo
To:Mayor James M.Diodati &Members of Council
From:Andrew Bryce,MCIP,RPP
Director,Planning and Development
Date:October 3,2023
Re:Meeting to Reconsider Refusal of Official Plan Amendment 157
Fraser Street,west of Stanley Avenue and east of Fourth Avenue,north of
Hamilton Street
Official Plan Amendment 157 proposes to convert two subject sites of employment lands
to a non—industrial use.The two sites are in the vicinity of the Gale Centre and,more
specifically,are on lands centered around Fraser Street,west of Stanley Avenue and
lands east of Fourth Avenue,north of Hamilton Street.For the most part,these sites
contain land uses (primarily residential)that do not conform to the Industrial designation
in the City’s Official Plan
In response to development inquiries,staff commissioned a review of the current
Industrial designation in this area to determine whether the potential conversion to a non-
industrial use is appropriate and justified.These lands are currently designated Industrial
as shown in the City’s Official Plan.An amendment was initiated to formally determine if
the potential conversions to a non—industrialuse,(i.e.Residential)was appropriate.
At its August 15”‘meeting,Council considered the attached staff report PBD—2023—47and
passed a motion to refuse to approve OPA 157 as Council was of the opinion that the
proposed amendment was not compatible with the surrounding area land uses.
At its September 12”‘meeting,Council introduced a notice of motion to reconsider the
above noted decision to refuse Official Plan Amendment (OPA 157).Through this memo
staff respectfully request Council consider this motion and provide direction on how it
wishes to proceed.Should Council decide to reconsider its decision on OPA No.157,a
future public meeting of Council with a recommendation report will be scheduled and
meeting.ABAttachment:PBD-2023-47 A Great City For Generations To ComePage 330 of 345
Nia ara PBD-2023-47Ens”
CANADA
Report to:Mayor and Council
Date:August 15,2023
Employment Lands Conversion:Official Plan Amendment
No.157 (Fraser Street,west of Stanley Avenue and lands
Title:east of Fourth Avenue,north of Hamilton Street)
Recommendation(s)
1.That Council preliminary support Official Plan Amendment No.157 with site specific
conditions as outlined in this report.
2.That final Council approval of Official Plan Amendment No.157 occur after public
input has been collected and reviewed by staff.
Executive Summary
OPA 157,which permits the conversion of two employment land sites to a non—industrial
use,is recommended for approval.This report also provides Council with information on
the intent of OPA 157:Employment—Lands Conversion for the statutory public meeting
as stipulated by the Planning Act.
This City initiated amendment intends to convert two subject sites of employment lands
to a non—industria|use.(i.e.residential)The two sites are in the vicinity of the Gale Centre
and more specifically on lands centred around Fraser Street,west of Stanley Avenue and
lands east of Fourth Avenue,north of Hamilton Street.
For the most part,these two sites contain land uses (primarily residential)that do not
conform to the current Industrial designation in the City’s Official Plan.The amendment
recommends converting these lands to a Residential designation that will now reflect the
existing land uses of both areas.
Both sites are located in proximity to lands zoned Light Industrial,while the Fraser Street
site is located to existing industrial uses.To address concerns raised by one of these
operators (OLEO Energies
No.157 to ensure new developments address land use compatibility including ProvincialD6guidelines.Background Page 1 of14Page 331 of 345
The City initiated an Official Plan amendment to consider the conversion of two additional
candidate employment land sites to a non—industrial use.(see Appendix 1)These two
sites were not investigated by the City’s Employment Lands Strategy and staff were made
aware of potential land use conflicts through development inquiries.
These lands are currently designated Industrial in the City's Official Plan and given that
both areas are primarily residential in nature they could be considered for non—industrial
use.To determine if the potential conversions to a non—industrialuse are appropriate and
justified staff initiated an amendment process through OPA 157.
PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
A copy of the draft amendment was circulated and made available for public and agency
review on June 14,2023.An open house was held on June 27,2023 where 4 individuals
participated and submitted oral comments.
The Planning Act requires that a statutory public meeting be held for amendments to
Official Plans.A public meeting will be held at the August 15,2023 Council meeting to
receive comments from members of the public.
All comments received on the amendment through all forms of engagement have been
reviewed,summarized and responded to by staff in Appendix 2.Appendix 2 also provides
the reader with the public body/stakeholder who submitted the comment,the nature of
the issue and whether a modification could or could not be supported to the amendment
provisions.
Significant issues that prescribed commenting agencies and stakeholders have identified
in the review of OPA 157 are addressed under Planning Analysis.
Analysis .
Site Context and Surrounding Land Uses
The two candidate conversion sites are located in the vicinity of the Gale Centre and more
specifically on lands centred around Fraser Street,west of Stanley Avenue and on lands
east of Fourth Avenue,north of Hamilton Street.
The Fraser Street candidate site located immediately north of Fairview Cemetery,is
(primarily residential)that would not conform to the Industrial designation contained in theCity’s Official Plan.It should be noted that there are 4 active businesses (servicecommercialinnature)in this candidate site.Page 2 of 14Page 332 of 345
The second candidate site is located on lands along Second and Fourth Avenue,north of
Hamilton Street.Land uses within the 2.5 hectare site are primarily residential however,
the area also has an existing auto repair shop (service commercial)and a former ball
hockey centre (commercial)that would also not be reflective of the land uses originally
envisioned by the Industrial designation contained in the City’s Official Plan.
Policy Context
Provincial Policies:Provincial Growth Plan 2020
The subject lands are employment lands as they are located outside of designated
employment areas.The 2020 Provincial Growth Plan provides a less prescriptive
framework for assessing the conversion of employment lands outside of employment
areas to a non-employment use.According to Section 2.2.5.14 of the Provincial Growth
Plan,employment lands that fall outside of employment areas should follow a
development criterion “to ensure that the redevelopment of any employment lands will
retain space for a similar number of jobs to remain accommodated on site”As both
candidate conversion sites are existing,long established residential neighbourhoods that
have been designated Industrial in name only,there are only a limited number of existing
business and thus jobs located within these two areas.With the approval of OPA 157,the
few businesses with their respective workforces can continue to operate unimpeded into
the foreseeable future.It is anticipated though in the fullness of time that the existing
businesses may eventually vacate their current locations and allow the properties to
redevelop to a residential use or mixed use state in key locations.
Niagara Region Official Plan
Similar to Provincial policy,the Niagara Region Official Plan contains a policy framework
for assessing the conversion of employment lands located outside of employment areas.
Policy 4.2.5.1 states that any proposed redevelopment of non-employment uses on
employment land,outside of employment areas,shall retain space for a similar number
ofjobs to remain accommodated on site.Further,Policy 4.2.5.2 states that local official
plans may contain criteria for employment land redevelopment to nonemployment uses
outside of an employment area.
City Official Plan
OPA 157 proposes to amend the City of Niagara Fall’s Schedule A:Future Land Use by
redesignating the two subject sites from lndustrial to Residential to recognize and reflect
are employment lands and not employment areas to be protected for long termemploymentuse.Employment lands have a lower level of protection and can bepotentiallyconsideredforconversionasthelandshavelimitedabilitytoaccommodatelargescaleorcontiguousemploymentusesandthattheconversionwillnotnegativelyimpacttheCity’s employment base.In addition to Provincial criteria,each candidatePage 3 of14Page 333 of 345
conversion site was evaluated on a set of localized criteria which were also used in the
City’s employment lands strategy.The criteria are listed below:
A.Area is located outside of an established or proposed industrial/business park.
(i.e.employment areas).
Area is located away from surrounding designated employment lands.
.Area is surrounded by non—employment land uses on three sides.
.Conversion would not create incompatible land uses.
Conversion of the lands would not negatively impact other employment lands in
the area.
Conversion would be consistent with/supportive of City planning objectives and
does not contravene any City policy planning objectives.
G.Area offers limited market choice for employment lands development due to
small size,configuration and physical conditions.
H.Area does not offer potential future expansion on existing or neighbouring
employment lands.
7”W00?”
A B C D E F G H
Fraser
Street,
West °f //w /./«w /Stanley
Avenue
site
Fourth
Avenue,
”°”h_°f //.//¢//¢
Hamilton
Street
site
From a review of the above table,it is evident that the continuation of the Industrial
designation would serve no economic purpose for several reasons.Both sites are
primarily residential in nature and though designated Industrial for a considerable period
of time have never seen significant redevelopment for employment purposes.Second,
the subject lands offer limited economic opportunities as the properties are undersized
for a typical employment use and significant consolidation of properties would be
necessary which is unlikely to happen.
this primarily residential area would create land use conflicts with nearby residential uses.This above analysis was confirmed by Watson Consulting who performed an independentassessmentofthetwocandidatesitesandconcurredthattheconversionstoanon-employment (i.e.industrial)use are appropriate and suitable from a planning andeconomicperspectiveandwouldbeconsistenttheCity’s planning objectives.Page4 of14Page 334 of 345
The westerly Fraser site is in proximity to two industrial operators (OLEO Energies on
Thorold Stone Road to the north west and Ferti—Tech on Stanley Avenue to the south-
east).The industries are located on lands zoned General Industrial (GI),which permits a
wide range of industrial uses,including uses that may conflict with residential uses if the
residential uses are within an area of influence and mitigation measures are not provided.
Both sites are located close to Light Industrial (LI)Zoned Lands (extending from Stanley
Avenue to east of the Gale Centre).These Ll zoned lands permit a range of non-retail
commercial uses,light manufacturing within fully enclosed buildings and warehousing.
These uses are expected to have a more limited impact on residential uses.
Appendix 5 shows the sites in relation to nearby industrial zoned lands.Provincial D—6
Guidelines mandate and area of influence of 70 metres for Class 1 (light)industrial uses
that typically locate on LI zoned lands,and 300 metres for Class 2 (medium)industrial
uses that could locate on GI zoned lands.As can be seen on the attached Appendix,the
sites are approximately 30 to 40 metres away from lands zoned LI and GI and the east
side of Stanley Avenue and about 120 metres away from GI zoned lands (where OLEO
Energies is sited)to the northwest.Therefore the lands may fall into the area of influence
of existing and future industries.
To protect nearby existing and future employment uses from potential land use conflicts
and to ensure lands zoned for employment are not constrained by new residential uses,
staff have made both employment conversion sites a ‘Special Policy Area‘that will require
that new future residential development on these lands have regard for compatibility with
nearby existing and future industrial uses in terms of Provincial D—6Guidelines or their
equivalent.The D—6Guidelines provide direction on when mitigation may be necessary
(if a proposed residential use falls within an area of influence of an existing or proposed
industry)and what land use compatibility studies are needed with residential development
applications to determine necessary mitigation.This measure will address concerns
raised by OLEO Energies,as detailed in Appendix 2.
Next Steps
City Council is the approval authority for OPA 157 as the amendment is exempt from
Regional Council approval.Following the approval of OPA 157 by Council,staff will issue
and circulate a Notice of Decision pursuant to Section 17 of the Planning Act.Approval
of OPA 157,pending the 20 day appeal period,will allow staff to move forward and make
while considering any new comments.Conclusion Page5 of14Page 335 of 345
Staff is recommending that Council approve OPA 157 as the conversion to a non-
industrial use is appropriate from a planning perspective.Approval of this amendment will
allow these two residential neighbourhoods to have a Residential designation that is more
compatible with the surrounding area and properly reflects the existing land uses of both
areas.
Financial |mp|icationslBudget Impact
There are no direct financial implications arising from this report as the cost to process
this proposed amendment (i.e.public notice requirements,staff time etc.)is included in
the Planning Department's 2023 operating budget
Strategic/Departmental Alignment
OPA 157 is consistent with the Vibrant and Diverse Economy and Diverse and Affordable
Housing strategic priorities.
List of Attachments
Appendix 1 OPA 157 Location Map
Appendix 2 OPA157 —Summamof Comments from Participants
Appendix 3 OPA 157 Amendment Document
Appendix 4 OPA 157 Amendment Schedule
Appendix 5 Distance Between Sites and Industrial Zoned Properties
Written by:
Brian Dick,Manager of Policy Planning
Andrew Bryce,Director of Planning
Submitted by:Status:
Andrew Bryce,Director of Planning Approved
—09 Aug
2023
Kira Dolch,General Manager,Planning,Building &Approved
Development -09 Aug
2023
Jason Burgess,CAO Approved
—09 Aug
2023
Page 6 of 14Page 336 of 345
APPENDIX 1
Z Location Map
Niagara}-'g_I_I§
Area Affected by this Amendment
Thorold'Stone
.-.'-c‘-"*"~¢
"‘=,V,2O21\€JJ'1 YP\_ZnnIrv1.702'5.awx ,‘(<.\_Z'0Z7\F-If‘('JI:|c\_Zv=r\iI‘q\nf'.\1-37 7/1790“Page 7 of 14Page 337 of 345
REMOTE OPEN HOUSE —June 28,2023 @ 5pm
Appendix 2
OPA #157 —EMPLOYMENT LAND CONVERSION FRASER STREET AND
HAMILTON STREET SITES
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
Name Submitted Comments Staff Response Staff Action
Aaron Butler,0 inquired if the City has a o The City does not No action
Niagara specific density target in have specific density required.
Planning mind for the residential targets in mind,the
Group lands and referenced lands would be
the new development of
Fourth Ave with a
density of 100 units/ha
subject to the
Residential policies.A
higher residential
density could be
considered on a site-
specific basis through
an Official Plan
Amendment.
Oleo Energies
inc.
Daniele
Cudizio
5800 Thorold
Stone Road
inquired about the
mapping on the notice
including a rail spur that
is currently used for the
business and if the land
use change would
impact his ability to use
the property for this use
and how it would impact
the potential expansion
of the business.
He indicated there are
already several
mitigation measures in
place as to not affect
the residential to the
north such as a berml.
Raised a concern about
future residential
impacted by the currentnoiseandvibrationfromtheindustrialusethattheexistingresidentialisusedto
Staff recognized the
mapping error on the
map sent out in the
notice and ensured
the designation
change does not
include the rail spur.
Afuture residential
development in this
area would need to
comply with D—6
guidelines due to
industrial use to the
west (across the
Hydro Canal).
Mapping error
to be corrected
in amendment
document.
Page8of14Page 338 of 345
Marc Beaudry,o Indicated his question -Staff indicated the No action
Dun-Rite about residential mapping followed required.
Aluminum and density was previously what was previously
Vinyl Ltd.answered.in the Official Plan
4425 First a Asked about the which does not follow
AVerlUe proposed mapping only parcel lines.
covering a portion of Additionally,the
his property.portion of property.Inquired if the not included is
residential designation already residential 80
could impact the the change in
industrial use of the designation would
property and if the make the property all
business would be the same residential
allowed to expand Cle5lQn3tl0n-
o Staff indicated the
OPA is only changing
the designation not
the zoning which
does not impact the
use of property.The
industrial use can
continue except if
substantial change
which would then
require Committee of
Adjustment approval.
A substantial change
would also need to
be assessed against
the existing
residential land uses.
Linda Pope o Raised an issue that Staff explained the Staff will
and Stephen she was unable to zoning would not be Consider
Lucas receive a residential changing just the however,the
5626 George mortgage from any Official Plan existing zoning
Street bank or credit union due designation for future for the subject
to the surrounding uses.property Will
industrial uses and remain in
potential contamination.place.
significant number oftrucksandnoiseinthearearesultingfromtheindustrialuse Page 9 of 14Page 339 of 345
-Asked Staff to
reconsider the proposed
residential designation
for George Street since
there is limited
residential use and
concerns about
devaluing property and
possible resale.
Written Comments received through circulation
Name/Author Date Submitted Comments Staff Staff Action
Response
Danaka June 15,No comment No response No action
Kimber,City 2023 required
GIS
Mike June 15,No comment on the No response No action
Embleton,2023 proposed amendment.required
Cogeco
Abby June 16,No comments or No response No action
(LaForme)2023 concerns at this time.required
Lee,
Mississaugas
of the Credit
First Nation
Taran June 16,No objections to the No response No action
Lennard,2023 proposed amendmen.t required
NPCA
Willie June 28,No objections to the No response No action
Cornelio,2023 proposed amendment.required
Enbndge
Talitha June 30,No objections to the No response No action
Laurenson,2023 proposed amendment.required
Ontario
Power
Generation
Terry July 7,In support of proposed No response No action
Masterson 2023 amendment.required
CanadaBrianKostuk,July 14,No Concerns No response No actionMunicipal2023requiredWorks Page 10 of14Page 340 of 345
Katie Young,
Niagara
Region,
Growth
Strategy and
Economic
Development
July 18,
2023
Satisfied that the
amendment is
consistent with
Provincial Policy
Statement and
conforms to Provincial
and Regional plans.
Amendment is exempt
from Regional Council
approval.
No response No action
required
Page 11 of 14Page 341 of 345
PART 2 —BODY OF THE AMENDMENT
All of this part of the document entitled PART 2 —BODY OF THE AMENDMENT,consisting
of the following Map and Text Changes,constitute Amendment No.157 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 157”,shall be identified as Residential and Special Policy
Area “91”on Schedule A —Future Land Use to the Official Plan.
2.TEXT CHANGE
PART 2,SECTION 13-SPECIAL POLICY AREAS is hereby amended by adding the
following subsection:
13.91 SPECIAL POLICY AREA “91”
Special Policy Area “91”applies to the 3.8 hectare site immediately north of Fairview
Cemetery and is bounded by Stanley Avenue to the east,George Street to the north
and the Hydro Canal to the west and a 2.5 hectare site located on lands along Second
and Fourth Avenue,north of Hamilton Street.New residential development on these
lands shall have regard for compatibility with nearby existing and future industrial uses
in terms of Provincial D—6Guidelines or their equivalent.
Page12of14Page 342 of 345
Z/r
Niagara?qljg
Area Affectedby this Amendment
APPENDIX 4
MAP 1 TO AMENDMENT NO.157
SCHEDULE A TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
l:|Proposed Change From:Industrial
Proposed Change To:Residential
HamiltonSt
MenzieSt
Bridge St
ElmSt
3III'2('054’AVpooMauJ0H
City of Nlagara Falls Official Plan
Excerpt from SCHEDULE -A -FUTURE LANDUSE
,'Environmental Conservation Area .Residential|_
H Tourist CommercialW‘Minor CommercialNote:Thisscheduleform part of AmendmentNo.157 to the OfficialPlan for the City of Niagara Falls:1;1ZOL’3.Hng'i‘(>F‘»'«,.and it must be read In conjunction withthe written text.Page13of147:17;2n2wPage 343 of 345
Qc?eamacEE2.2a.mau..z6Euo.
._os_m_um_u«E..:o£_.;u$:£=m_u._o\u:~u?zuoa?3>2:=55so:«um:um_n_euu.az8.._o=§_:o.=_.0.n.m~=__.25..82:.0:3ozEmu$5mew::_83.__~mszmmnnow:.23«B.B3:.2:En:m?mtmmwmmsuu~uo__uS.0_n_Em=uemcouI_5:ou_u:_._£uuQu..0_£25.Eu;on8::5?EU«Fr.552:??coumums....:o_?E_£:_.o.=.=¢.3.mu:_3!v8Su?_~_u_=omavo?uvcouma.0:__5tucmbaaUmoE_.§59$._Eu:um
.2umu=m.=_Em=_m§.uac_~.=8mm:_3n._Unanman...9.».53.2:.0ur.=_m.m_aEouE>u..I_:H.mm.=o_m~.E__aE_Buoama?Wm_~:m:E$5m_.o__£.a&.%.onma?a$6m__:m__£n=~mm_Z.0EU.2:9:.Mum.vwu_BEm_Emumg»
I.
I
II
Iam.._om_.:o_ZII.II
I...
.I.w.II.I.III\I.HI
IIn1
I
.asnuuI
It._I<I.II.WI
II
..IIMIIII
III
-II-
PM
I.
III
..I.
Sc.€I2._
IWI0.7.mI
I
I
IIIIIumm_o.:IiII
I
IM
0.mI4o//m
III
.I._.II.I.IIIIII
II.
I,m7av..u.,.
.II.
I.I“II.
__
I.IVI
I.DVW‘El”.IIH
II..A«mcuu:C
I.I
IIII.IIIIIIIIImVII
I
III
IIoI
A
I.I-Su_e..s_
IIN.II.H.LrLIILIWWIIIII,IIHIIIIIwI..ImIE_m..
I
I
I.
I;{&IIIM.I.HII
II
H
I
H.m.x
III“IIII.|VI
I
I
II..
II.
I.Iu?1A.
M.
I
I..IIII‘r\\H.I.ImII.
.II
I.
L.IIF..|
II.V
II
.hIII...ym%u_..m.I
v.I
IM_
‘MII
IdI
I
I
I
I
I
III
dIAIHIHII.mL5u§.c22
IInI.IIIIaIII.
II.
...
.0IIII
I
..\
I
cI
I.I
I«Ie.......IIII..0IIIII
.un.IIS
II
.IIm.
I.II5co:_€uIHS.B:.EnrII.Mv.
IIII.MMII-IH
I
I
.M.mIIImm
I9d....NW3\U.C.~w3~O2\BgmcmwEWIII..
I
Om
3>.EE.m
Im3:B:..§nsEm:Im
IVvMI_0Amm:E.Em:bSEm:W...
I
IIIvmco.ma...:£vI.wC._O.v.
IIAIIVII..I..IuI..hIIII
M.I
I
M
IICI.Evan;IIIIIIII
ma.Emma.@X_CC®QQ<I.Z Page14of14Page 344 of 345
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
By-law No. 2023 – 093
A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the
3rd day of October, 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 3rd day of October 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 3rd day of October, 2023.
.............................................................. .............................................................
BILL MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR
Page 345 of 345