2000/12/11 Planning Meeting
December 11, 2000
1. Prayer: Alde~mn Voipatti .... ·
DISCLOSURES OF. pECUNIARY IN'I'ERESTS
Disclosures of pecuniary :~terest and a brief the
the current Council Meeting at
PLANNING MArI'YERS
ITEM NO. 2000-47
ITEM NO,,~ ~-48
Public Meeting :
Zon'~mg By-law nm~dment application
AM-39/2000, N~nc~ McKinnon
Legalize Four-Unit Dwelling
Publi~c Me~. '.ng
Zonin$ By-law Amendment Application
· . . :AM...,-41/2000~The Great Lakes Companies Inc.
' :~{~'~h6.m,.~ W.-'Sather; 3950, 4032 and Ea~'t
: .$i~ of'Vtctor~a'Avenue and 4691 and NorXh Side
, · '"' ~t'.,~. eader Lane; Great Lodge Resort
..., ..~.; ~.~ ~ ·
, ~l~nd Mi~terla!:
'';. ? , ., '¢$. ..' ,
Recommendation Report: PD-2000-138
- AND -
Correspondence from Stuart Hayter
ITEM NO. 2000-49
Public Meeting
Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-38/2000, 4671 Zimmerulan Avenue
Proposed Bed and Breakfast Use
Background Material:
Recommendation Report: PD-2000-139
- AND -
Correspondence from Parish Council of Christ Church
Correspondence from M.C. Excavating
ITEM NO. 2000-50
Public Meeting
Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-36/2000, Peter J. Lesdow, c/o Andrew Cserpes
West Side of Stanley Avenue through to Main Street
Site of the Fallsview Motor Inn
Background Material:
Recommendation Report: PD-2000-142
-AND-
Correspondence from Regional Niagara, Public Works Department
Correspondence from National Defence, The Canadian Parachute Centre
MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING MATTERS
Chief Administrative Officer
PD-2000-133, Procedures - Removal of Part Lot
Control On-Street Townhouse Development.
Chief Administrative Officer
PD-2000-143, Public Meeting; Creekside Court
Draft Plan of Subdivision; Owner: Mark
Dimond.
Chief Administrative Officer PD-2000-144, Public Meeting; Colangelo Estates
Draft Plan of Subdivision; Owner: 586112
Ontario Limited (In Trust)
-AND-
Correspondence from Mr. Clyde Carruthers
Correspondence from Maria & John Saczkowski
e
Chief Administrative Officer
PD-2000-140, Application fi~r Site Plan
Approval; SPC-41/2000, 5046 Centre Street;
Proposed Motel Expansion.
Chief Administrative Officer
PD-2000-141, Application for Site Plan
Approval; SPC-42/2000; 5720 Progress Street;
Proposed Warehouse Expansion.
REGULAR COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular Council Minutes of November 20, 2000 and
Inaugural Minutes of December 4, 2000.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Report from the Committee dealing with Dejan Kovinic and Marijana Kovinic
Applications for Body Rub Parlour Licences.
MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, REMA~RKS
COMMUNICATION~ AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK
Ontario March of Dimes - Re: Proclamation - advising that the March of Dimes
would be conducting its annual door-to-door campaign and requesting that Council
proclaim the month of January, 2001 as "Ontario March of Dimes Month" in the
City of Niagara Falls.
RECOMMENDATION: That the request be supported.
Regional Niagara, Office of the Regional Clerk - Re: Appointee to The Niagara
Voice Radio Joint Board of Management - requesting that an elected official be
appointed as the City's representative to sit on the Niagara Voice Radio Joint
Board of Management.
RECOMMENDATION: That the request be approved.
FX Worx Inc. - Pyrotechnic and Gas Effects - Re: Fireworks Display - requesting
penuission to hold a fireworks display at the Skylon Tower for New Year's Eve.
RECOMMENDATION: That the request be approved subject to established
policy.
Mrs. D. Damiano, Chairman, Residents Committee - Re: City File AM-32/2000 -
regarding the development at 5480 Dunn Street and Ailanthus Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION: That the matter be referred to staff.
Additional Items for Council Consideration:
The City Clerk will advise of any further items for Council consideration.
COMMUNITY SERVICES MATTERS
1. Chief Administrative Officer
e
3.
4.
5.
Chief Administrative Officer
Chief Administrative Officer
Chief Administrative Officer
6. Chief Administrative Officer
REPORTS
MW-2000-132, Construction of a turn around;
Kiss & Ride Program - Riverview School.
MW-2000-133, Contract 193-2000, Fallsview
Tourist Core Area Sanitary Truck Sewer,
Phase 1.
R-2000-77, Appointment of Town Crier.
R-2000-78, Interior Restoration of Fralick's
Tavern.
CS-2000-08, Granite Star Inlays Falls Avenue
and Clifton Hill.
RATIFICATION OF CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE ACTIONS
(Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair)
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
1. Chief Administrative Officer CD-2000:27, 2001 Council Schedule.
2. Chief Administrative Officer CD-2000-29, 2000 Municipal Election Question.
Chief Administrative Officer CD-2000-30, Appointments to Boards,
Commissions and Committees.
Please note that the attachments to the Report have been included separately.
Chief Administrative Officer
L-2000-91, Declare Surplus and Disposal of
Portion of Closed Laneway Running Parallel to
Broughton Avenue between Buttrey Street and
Ferguson Street; Part 3 on Reference Plan No.
59R-10928.
RATIFICATION OF COMMITI'EE-OF-THE-WHOLE ACTIONS
BY-LAWS
The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amen&nents to the by-laws
listed for Council consideration.
2000-261
To provide for the adoption of an amendment to the City of Niagara Falls
Official Plan (Re: AM-32/2000, 5840 Dunn Street, Michael & Tara
Colaneri)
2000-262
To amend By-law No. 79-200, as amended. (Re: AM-32/2000, 5840 Dunn
Street, Michael & Tara Colaneri)
2000-263
To amend By-law No. 89-2000, being a by-law to regulate parking and
traffic on City Roads (Limited Parking)
2000-264
To authorize the execution of an agreement with V. Gibbons Contracting
Ltd. Respecting Fallsview Tourist Core Area Sanitary Trunk Sewer Phase I
- River Road from Clifton Hill to Bender Street.
2~0-2~
To declare surplus part of a laneway between Lots 182 to 184 and 209 to
211 on Plan No. 997, designated as Part 3 on Reference Plan No. 59R-
10928, subject to a Judge's Order closing the said portion of the laneway,
and to waive notice to the public of the said land being declared surplus and
of a proposed sale of the said land. (Re: Report L-2000-91)
2000~266
2000-267
2000-268
2000-269
2000-270
2000-271
2000-272
2000-273
To authorize the conveyance to Niagara Bronze Limited of part of a
laneway on Plan No. 997, designated as part 3 on Reference Plan No. 59R-
10928, for nominal consideration, plus costs, provided the said Part 3 is
closed by Judge's Order and provided the purchaser execute a final release
in favour of the City with respect to soil contamination. (Re: Report L-
2000-91)
To amend By-law 89-155 and adopt a Schedule of Meetings.
To amend by-law No. 79-200, as amended. (Re: AM-41/2000, The Great
Lakes Companies Inc.)
To amend by-law No. 2000-199, being a by-law to establish a Committee of
the Council to hear certain matters involving applications for body-rub
parlour licences.
To provide for Appointments to certain Boards, Commissions and
Committees.
To regulate the supply of water and to provide for the maintenance and
management of the waterworks and for the imposition and collection of
water rates.
To amend By-law No. 2000-97, being a by-law to transfer the employees,
assets, liabilities, right and obligations of the Niagara Fails Hydro Electric
Commission and of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls to a
corporation.
To authorize monies for General Purposes (December 11, 2000).
NEW BUSINESS
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-maih nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
December 11, 2000
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD-2000-137
His Worship Mayor W. Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2000-137, Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-39/2000, Nancy McKinnon
Legalize Four-Unit Dwelling
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that:
1)
Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to legalize the existing use of
the dwelling for four dwelling units; and
2)
the applicant be required to pay for the construction of future sidewalks along Church's
Lane and Stanley Avenue, provide the required number of parking spaces, and dedicate
the required road widening strips and daylighting triangle to the appropriate road
authorities through the Site Plan Approval process.
THE PROPOSAL:
An amendment to the City's Zoning By-law is requested by Nancy McKinnon for her property known
as 2907 Stanley Avenue, shown on Schedule 1. The dwelling on the property contains five dwelling
units. Only two of the dwelling units are legal. The amendment is requested to legalize four of the
dwelling units. The fifth dwelling unit located in the cellar is required to be removed. Refer to Schedule
2 for details of the property.
THE AMENDMENT:
The land is currently zoned Residential Single Family 1D Density (RID). The zoning of the land is
requested to be changed to a site specific Residential Mixed (R3) zone to allow the existing dwelling
to conta'm four dwelling units.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's * Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems Legal · Planning & Development
December 11, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-137
CIRCULATION COMMENTS:
Information concerning the requested amendment was circulated to City departments, several
government agencies and the public for comments. The following is a smnm~ry of the comments that
have been received.
Municipal Works
A 2.44 metre wide road widening strip is required to be
dedicated to the City along Church's Lane.
A daylighting triangle with 7.0 metre legs is required to be
dedicated to the City at the intersection of Chumh's Lane and
Stanley Avenue.
The applicant is required to pay the cost of constructing a
future sidewalk along Church's Lane and Stanley Avenue
(estimate - $5,097.00).
Building Division
A building permit was issued in August 1996 to permit the
construction of a second dwelling unit as an addition to an
existing single family dwelling. The basement in the new
addition was proposed to be unfinished.
All necessary Building and Plumbing Permits will be required
to be obtained if the application is approved by Council.
Copies of all test results and field reviews by the Designer
shall be submitted to the City's Chief Building Official as they
become available. Occupancy of the dwelling cannot be
authorized without the required tests and shall be in
accordance with the Fire Prevention Office approvals for all of
the units.
· Parks, Recreation & Culture
No objection.
· Regional Public Works
A 3.05 metre wide road widening strip is required to be
dedicated to the Region along Stanley Avenue.
- A daylighting triangle with 7 metre legs is required to be
dedicated to the Region at the intersection.
The driveway at the northerly limit of the site should be
modified to provide a 20-foot wide throat with 15-foot turning
radii. The parking area must be designed to prevent vehicles
from backing onto Stanley Avenue.
No additional storm water mn-off can be directed to Stanley
Avenue.
Appropriate permits are required prior to any work
commencing within the Regional road allowance.
December 11, 2000 - 3 - PD-2000-137
PLANNING REVIEW:
The following is a summary of staff's assessment of the application:
1. What is the background to this application?
Prior to May 1996, City staffhad several meetings with the applicant to discuss the merits of a
zoning amendment to permit up to 5 dwelling units on her property. Shortly thereafter, she
applied for a building permit to allow the construction of an addition to her dwelling containing
a second dwelling unit. Because the existing dwelling was purported to contain only one dwelling
unit, the application was processed in accordance with the provisions of Bill 120 which permitted
apartments in houses.
In April 2000, a site inspection of the property revealed that the applicant had illegally converted
the original dwelling and the addition into 5 dwelling units without approval from the City. The
applicant was advised that 3 of the dwelling units were illegal and should cease to exist. In an
attempt to address the issue, the applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a change
of use to allow 4 dwelling units within the dwelling. The application was denied by the Committee
because it was beyond the scope of a minor variance.
The subject application has been filed in an attempt to legalize the use of~he land and the existing
dwelling for four dwelling units, one on the main floor of the original building, one on the second
floor, one on the main floor of the addition and one in the basement of the addition.
2. What is the City's plan for the subject and surrounding lands?
The subject land and those surrounding it to the north, south and west are designated Residential
in the City's Official Plan. The predominant use of Residentially designated land is to be housing
catering to a wide range of households. The surrounding land is developed primarily with single
detached dwellings and is now a well established neighbourhood. The original dwelling on the
subject land predates the surrounding development. Single detached housing is intended to
dominate the character and identity of residential neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, the need for
various types of multiple residential accommodation is also recognized. Multiple residential
accommodation is not to be mixed indiscriminately with single detached housing, but rather
arranged in a gradation of building heights and densities. On-street townhouses, apartments and
other similar multiple unit structures 2 to 3 storeys in height can be developed to a maximum
density of S0 units per hectare. This development is to be located priman[ly on collector or major
collector roadways and generally be integrated with residential plans of subdivision.
3. Is the proposal to have the existing converted dwelling recognized and legalized within the
intent and purpose of the City's Official Plan?
Yes. The height of the existing dwelling is 1 V2 - 2 storeys. The density of the dwelling after the
dedication of the required road widenings will be 50 units per hectare. The property is located at
the intersection of a collector street and an arterial road and across from four on-street townhouse
dwelling units. An elementary school, park and convenience store are within easy walking
distance of the property.
December 11, 2000 - 4 - PD-2000-137
4. Is the requested zoning amendment appropriate?
Yes. The lands on the south side of Church's Lane are zoned Residential Mixed (R3). This is the
same zone category requested by the applicant for her property. The R3 zone permits a range of
dwellings including detached, semi-detached, duplex, on-street townhouse, triplex and quadmplex
(4 unit) dwellings if sufficient land is available. The standard provisions of the R3 zone permit
4 unit dwellings to be developed at a density of 43 units per hectare.
A site specific R3 zone is requested to recognize and legalize the existing use of the property and
the residential dwelling thereon. The following chart compares the standard requirements of the
R3 zone with the current proposal.
Standard 113 Zone Current Proposal
Minimum Lot Area 940 sq. m 1015 sq. m
(800.5 after road widening)
Minimum Lot Frontage 25.5 m 21.34 ~n
Minimum Front Yard 6 m 10.21 m
(7.8 m after road widening)
Minimum Rear Yard 7.5 m 7.7 m
Minimum Interior Side Yard 3 m 1.2 m
Minimum Exterior Side Yard 4.5 m + widening 7 m
(4.1 m after road widening)
Maximum Lot Coverage 40% 21.3 %
(27% after road widening)
Parking Requirements 6 spaces 4 spaces
Staff have no objections to most of the modifications because they are minor in nature and
basically reflect the location and size of the existing building. However, staff are concerned about
the number and location of the parking spaces that are proposed to be provided because the
property is at a busy intersection. According to the site plan submitted with the application, two
double-car driveways are proposed to be maintained, one off Church's Lane and the other off
Stanley Avenue. Based on the City's parking standards, two additional parking spaces should be
provided offStanley Avenue. The Region h~s recommended, and staffag~ree, that the parking area
off Stanley Avenue should be designed to enable vehicles to drive forwaxd onto the road.
5. Is Site Plan Approval required?
Yes, all multiple residential development is subject to Site Plan Control. Because the dwelling
already exists, the only site development issues that need to be addressed are parking, land
dedications, and paying for the construction of sidewalks across the frontages of the property. If
Council thinks that the Site Plan Approval process is too onerous in this instance and can be
omitted to reduce the applicant's cost, these matters should be fully addressed prior to the passage
of the amending by-law.
December 11, 2000
CONCLUSION:
-5- PD-2000-137
Based on the foregoing, staff can support the application to recognize and legalize the use of the land
and the existing dwelling for four dwelling units provided that adequate safe parking is provided. The
proposal is within the intent and purpose of the City's Official Plan. A certain measure of land use
compatibility has evolved with the surrounding neighbourhood. Staffrecommend that the construction
of sidewalks, the provision of the required number of parking spaces, and the dedication of the required
road widening strips and daylighting triangle be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process.
Prepared by:
Ken Mech
Planner 2
Respectfully submitted:l
Edward P. Lustig
Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
KM:gd
Attach.
S:~PDRX2000',PD2000-137.wpd
SCHEDULE 1
LOCATION MAP
Subject Land
Levine Sb'eet
Drive
Church's Lane
Avenue
Amending Zoning By-law No. 79-200
2907 Stanley Avenue
Part of Township Lot 37
Former Township of Stamford,
Now City of Niagara Falls
AM-39/2000
Applicant: Nancy McKinnon
LU ri
c.I T~: ELAkJ .~,., ,":,.'.o'
Niogoro Foils
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD-2000-138
December 11, 2000
His Worship Mayor W. Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2000-138, Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-41/2000, The Great Lakes Companies Inc.
e/o Thomas W. Sather
3950, 4032 and East Side of Victoria Avenue and
4691 and North Side of Leader Lane
Great Lodge Resort
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that:
1)
Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to permit the construction
of a 5-storey, 402 unit hotel including an indoor water park, outdoor swimming pool,
restaurant, gift shop and arcade; and
2) Council pass the related amending by-law which is included in Council's agenda.
THE PROPOSAL:
An amendment to the City's Zoning By-law is requested for approximately 10 hectares (24 ac.) of
land located on the east side of Victoria Avenue between Leader Lane and River Road as shown on
Schedule 1. The land contains the Niagara Glen-View Tent and Trailer Park and includes a portion
of an unopened road allowance which passes through the land. The applicant intends to acquire the
road allowance from the City. The amendment is requested to permit the construction of a 5-storey,
402 unit hotel including an indoor water park, outdoor swimming pool, restaurant, gift shop and
arcade. Refer to Schedule 2 for further detail.
THE AMENDMENT:
The majority of the land is currently zoned Tourist Commercial (TC). The balance of the land is
zoned Residential Single Family and Two Family (112). The zoning of the whole of the land is
requested to be changed to a site specific TC zone to accommodate the proposed development.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's · Finance · Human Resources Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 11, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-138
CIRCULATION COMMENTS:
Information concerning the requested amendment was circulated to City departments, several
government agencies and the public for comments. The following is a summary of the comments
that have been received.
Municipal Works
Required road widenings and a daylighting triangle
have been received as a condition of the closure of the
Thorold Stone Road road allowance.
Water supply and storm drainage alternatives can be
addressed at the Site Plan Approval stage.
Municipal Staff are currently initiating a flow
monitoring study to assist in analysing how the
sanitary sewer system currently responds to wet
weather events. Staff expect to resolve any issues
prior to the Site Plan Approval stage.
· Building Division
- All required Building Permits to be obtained prior to
commencement of construction.
The applicant shall contact the Technical Standards &
Safety Authority for all indoor water park
requirements (1-905-937-2293).
All related Ontario Building Code matters shall be
addressed through the Site Plan Approval stage.
· Parks, Recreation & Culture
2% cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication at the time of
Building Permit issuance.
The City's Landscape Architect will review the details
of the development at the Site Plan Approval stage.
Fire Department
No objection. Fire Safety concems can be addressed
through the normal Site Plan Approval and Building
Permit processes.
· Dolores Martin
Concemed if access is proposed to River Road
because of traffic considerations and sycamore trees
that may have to be removed.
NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMENTS:
The applicant held a Neighbourhood Meeting on November 28, 2000 to infom~ area property owners
and residents about the proposed resort style hotel and to answer questions. Questions were asked
about how the development is going to be accessed; how much landscaping is. going to be provided;
December 11, 2000 - 3 - PD-2000-138
how the water park and arcade are going to be operated; and whether the City's Glenview Park will
remain as is. The neighbours were told that the development will utilize the two existing driveways
on Victoria Avenue and be generously landscaped; the water park and arcade will be for guests only
(arcade operated with redemption cards);, and that the City's park will not be affected by the
development.
PLANNING REVIEW:
The following is a summary of staff s assessment of the application:
1. Is the proposal within the intent and purpose of the City's Official Plan?
Yes. The subject land is designated Tourist Commercial in the City's Official Plan. The land
is located in the Whirlpool Satellite District which is intended to function as a gateway to the
City. New development in this area is to enhance the existing sightseeing and recreational uses
on the Niagara Parkway. Land uses in this area are to include accommodations. The City's
tourism policies acknowledge the fact that the subject lands have a significant redevelopment
potential and anticipate a comprehensive development application similar to the resort currently
proposed. The height of the project at 5 storeys is well below the buildin~g height opportunities
established by the City's tourism policies for this area. The site plum submitted with the
application shows that a 6 metre (20 ft.) landscaping buffer is proposed to be provided to screen
the parking area from the streets in accordance with the TADS guideli~es.
2. Is the requested zoning amendment appropriate?
Yes. The current R2 zoning on approximately 0.9 hectares of the land on the north side of
Leader Lane dates back to 1979 when the lands were zoned in accordance., with their Residential
designation in the previous Official Plan. The City's current Official Plan designates these
lands Tourist Commercial. Changing the zoning of these lands to a TC zone will bring it into
conformity with the Official Plan.
The standard height provisions of the TC zone allow the construction of a 4-storey building with
a flat roof to a maximum building height of 12 metres. The zoning of the whole of the land is
requested to be changed to a site specific TC zone to allow the proposed building, which has
5 storeys, a peaked roof and is 24 metres in height at the back of the building (21 metres in
height at the front of the building). Only 4 of the 5 storeys will be visible from Victoria Avenue
and Leader Lane. The pitched roof will help the project blend into the cl:~aracter of the existing
residential neighbourhood to the south. The developer proposes to provide generous 52 metre
(170 ft.) building setbacks from Victoria Avenue and Leader Lane which will assist in giving
the development its desired resort character.
In addition to a modified building height provision, the amending by-law will allow an arcade
to be included in the development. For the past 21 years, it has been Cortncil's practice to only
permit arcades (video, pinball and electronic game machines) in supervised settings by site
specific amendments such as the one requested. Because the hotel will be a highly supervised
environment, staff do not foresee any difficulties in allowing the development to include an
arcade.
December 11, 2000
- 4 - PD-2000-138
The amending by-law has been written and placed on tonight's agenda to expedite the approval
process. In accordance with the City's new tourism policies on increased building heights, the
amending by-law has been written as allowed by Section 37 of the Plarating Act to ensure that
the developer provides improvements to the public realm, such as sidewalks, street trees, street
furniture and landscaped open space. These improvements will be secured as part of the Site
Plan agreement with the City.
3. What issues will have to be addressed prior to and through the Site Plan Approval
process?
As noted earlier in the report, the applicant intends to acquire a portio~t of an unopened road
allowance which passes through the subject land. On October 16, 2000, Council authorized
staffto proceed with the closing of the road allowance. Should Council approve the application
and pass the amending by-law, staffwill continue the process of closing the road allowance and
report back to Council on the matter as necessary.
As part of the Site Plan Approval process, the applicant will have to prepare final plans for
Council's approval addressing the provisions of parking, landscaping, fencing, lighting, services
(water supply and sanitary and storm sewers), entrances, etc. The drawings will also have to
show how the public realm is proposed to be improved.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing, staff can support the application to amend the Zoning By-law. The
requested amendment is within the intent and purpose of the City's Official Plan and will allow the
development of a resort style hotel on the land. The amending by-law which appears in Council's
agenda will ensure that the public realm is improved in exchange for the additional building height.
Prepared by:
Ken Mech
Planner 2
Resp..e. ct fully submitted:
Edward P. Lustig
Chief Administrative Officer ......
Recommended by:
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
KM:gd
Attach.
S:WDR~2000~D2000-138.wpd
SCHEDULE 1
LOCATION MAP
Subject Land
Amending Zoning By-law No. 79-200
Part of Township Lot 74 Broken Front,
Part of Road Allowance Between
Township Lot 74 Broken Front and Township Lot 75, ·
Former Township of Stamford and Part of Block 11, Plan No. 1002
Ail now in the City of Niagara Falls Regional Municipality of Niagara
AM-41/2000
x'
L
City Ball Planning Department
4310 Queer~ Street
Niagara Falls Ontario L2E 6X5
Re: City File AM-41/2000
November29,2000
W. Stuart Hayter
4075 Broughton Ave.
Niagara Falls ~nl.. L2E 3K5
Canada
Phone 905 353 0247
To Whom It May Concern
In regards to the neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, November 28,2000 at City Hall, I was unable to attend, as I
drive transport and was away at the time. As a resident of Silver Town and living at the corner of Leader Lane and
Broughton Avenue, I have concerns about the proposed developmem. I feel this would bring the value of my
property and surrounding properties down. This is a relatively quite and peaceful neighborhood and I think this
proposal wilt create much more noise and traffic. It would also take away from the view .qnd would make an awful
eyesore. I feet that I'm not alone in my views and will make an effort to attend the next meeting on Monday,
December 11,2000 at 7:00p.m.
Sincerely,~
Stuart Hayter
RECEIVED
2000
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
December 11, 2000
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD-2000-139
His Worship Mayor W. Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2000-139, Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-38/2000, 4761 Zimmerman Avenue
Proposed Bed and Breakfast Use
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that:
1)
Council approve the proposal for a three-room bed and breakfast use at 4761
Zimmerman Avenue; and
2)
the amending by,law change the zoning of the subject lands from Deferred
Commercial (DC) to Residential Single and Two Family (R2-2).
PROPOSAL:
An amendment to the City's Zoning By-law has been requested for the lands known as 4761
Zimmerman Avenue, as shown on Schedule 1. The applicant, David Tetrault, proposes to
establish a three-room bed and breakfast within the existing dwelling. See Schedule 2 for details.
THE AMENDMENT:
The lands are currently zoned Deferred Commercial (DC). The applicant proposes to include
a bed and breakfast use as a pemlitted use under the DC zoning.
CIRCULATION COMMENTS:
Infomlation concerning the requested amendment was circulated to City departments, several
government agencies and the public for comments. Comments received to date indicate no
objection to the proposal. The Building Division has stated however, that all permits are
required to be issued prior to any construction commencing.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development
December 11, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-139
PLANNING REVIEW:
The following is a summary of the issues affecting this application.
1. What is the property's history?
The property is known as Bampfield Hall, which was built by James Bampfield in 1872.
The dwelling was recently designated as a historical property due to its architectural
significance.
2. Is the proposal within the intent and purpose of the City's Official Plan?
Yes. The lands are designated Residential in the Official Plan. Lands under the
Residential designation are intended to be developed for housing. A number of ancillary
uses may be developed under the Residential designation, without amendment to the
Plan, which include bed and breakfast accommodations (B & B's). B & B's may locate
in areas where they are compatible with the neighbourhood, and their location, size and
traffic generation are to be carefully regulated in order to minimize potential impacts and
to ensure the residential character of the area is maintained.
The proposed B & B is to be located.within an existing 1,800 square foot dwelling that
is comprised of 2-storey, 1½-storey and 1-storey portions. No building additions are
proposed. There is sufficient space within the rear yard to accommodate four parking
spaces, together with an existing 2-car garage. The property's location on Zimmerman
Avenue provides ready vehicular and pedestrian access to River Road, the Falls and other
tourist attractions. Because of these attributes, the proposed B & B is in keeping with the
Official Plan. As no additions are planned and parking can be accommodated on-site,
the residential character of the property will be maintained. Any increase in traffic
generation should have minimal impact on the area due to the property's close proximity
to River Road.
3. Is the requested zoning amendment appropriate?
As noted above, the lands are zoned DC; the applicant proposes to include the B & B use
as a permitted use under this zoning. Although this could be done',, it is recommended
that, instead of placing a site specific DC zoning on the lands, the Residential Single and
Two Family (R2-2) zone that affects the lands south of Morrison Street to Hiram Street
be placed on the lands. The R2-2 zoning permits a three-room B & B as of right, and
will achieve the same result as the site specific DC zoning but with the benefit of
bringing the lands into conformity with the Official Plan designation.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the above, the proposed B & B can be supported. Its establishment should not subject
adjacent properties to undue negative impacts nor jeopardize the residential character of the
December 11, 2000 - 3 - PD-2000-139
neighbourhood. Also, by zoning the lands R2-2, the zoning of the property will be brought into
conformity with the Official Plan.
sley ' --
Planner 1
Respectfully submitted:
ward P. Lustig ,)
Chief Administrative Offlce'r
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
JB:gd
Attach.
S:',PDR'O,000XPD2000-139.wpd
SCHEDULE 1
LOCATION MAP
Subject Land
Qu~n
~. Huron Street
/
Morrison Street
Amending Zoning By-law No. 79-200
4761 Zimmerman Avenue
Applicant: David Tetrault
AM-38/2000
I :NTS
V - J
~ ~ ' . i~b ,,-:~X~ ~h 1.,',~".~ 2 ~" . ~ ~;
Num~to de lelephone:
HC EXCAVATIHG
Number of
Nombce de page, incluclnl Celte-cl:
PA~/ B1/01
Num6ro c[et6~pmone: _ . -
The City of ~1~1~
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www. city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD-2000-142
December 11, 2000
His Worship Mayor W. Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2000-142, Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-36/2000, Peter J. Lesdow c/o Andrew Cserpes
West Side of Stanley Avenue through to Main Street
Site of the Fallsview Motor Inn
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to permit
the construction of a 23 metre tall building containing a mechanical amusement ride (Freefall
Simulator) and that the amending by-law include a provision in accordance with TADS
requiring a 6 m landscaped setback from the street lines to screen parked vehicles.
THE PROPOSAL:
An amendment to the City's Zoning By-law is requested for a 0.16 hectare parcel of land located on
the west side of StanleyAvenue through to Main Street as shown on Schedule 1. The land contains
the former Fallsview Motor Inn. The amendment is requested to permit the construction of a 23
metre tall building containing a mechanical amusement ride (Freefall Simulator). Refer to Schedules
2 and 3 for further detail.
THE AMENDMENT:
The land is currently zoned Tourist Commercial (TC). Site specific provisions are requested to be
added to the zoning of the land to accommodate the proposed development.
CIRCULATION COMMENTS:
Information concerning the requested amendment was circulated to City departments, several
government agencies and the public for comments. The following is a summary of the comments
that have been received.
}Forking Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's Finance · Human Resources Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 11, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-142
Mtmicipal Works
Building Division
· Parks, Recreation & Culture
· Regional Public Works
Fire Department
No objection provided the applicant pays the cost of
constructing a sidewalk along the Stanley Avenue
fi:ontage (estimate - $2,072.0¢).
The applicant should be aware that Main Street may
be closed in the future ;as identified in the
Transportation Master Plan.
The payment of development charges at the time of
building permit issuance will be balanced with a
credit for the gross floor area of the existing motel.
All required Building Permits to be obtained prior to
commencement of construction.
All site plan related matte:rs shall be addressed
through the Site Plan approval process.
No objections.
A 5.18 metre wide road widenfing strip is required to
be dedicated to the Region along Stanley Avenue.
Water services must be connected to the City's 8 inch
watermain, located either on Sl:anley Avenue or Main
Street.
A site plan and servicing drawing detailing lot
drainage and servicing must be submitted for review
and approval.
No additional storm water is permitted to be directed
toward Stanley Avenue.
Access should be restricted to Main Street only.
Entrance permit required.
Survey evidence should not be damaged or removed.
No objection. Fire Safety concerns can be addressed
through the normal Site Plan review and Building
Permit process.
December 11, 2000 - 3 - PD-2000-142
PLANNING REVIEW:
The following is a summary of staffs assessment of the application:
1. Is the proposed 23 metre tall building, containing a mechanical amusement ride, within
the intent and purpose of the City's Official Plan and TADS guidelines?
Yes. The subject land is designated Tourist Commercial in the City's Official Plan and located
in an area known as the Fallsview Subdistrict. This area is intended to function as the primary
location for larger scale accommodations, entertainment, retail and cultural attractions. The
proposal, which is a small-scale "thrill" style attraction, does not appear to conflict with the
City's plan for this area.
The subject property is located in an area where building heights up to a maximum of 90 metres
or 30 storeys can be considered. The height of the proposed building is only a quarter of what
is allowed to be considered. The requested building height is only to be allocated if the
proponent agrees to provide sidewalk and streetscape improvements, and the development
adheres to the intent of applicable design criteria contained in TADS. If approved, the
amending by-law will be written using Section 37 of the Planning Act to ensure that all street
fi:ontages are improved including sidewalks, the planting of street trees, the provision of street
furniture and the provision of landscaped open space. The project was not reviewed by an
architectural peer review panel because it is less than the equivalent of 10 storeys in height.
The proposed building, which is in the shape of a pyramid, is within the built form regulations
contained in TADS. The building is proposed to be built to the Stanley Avenue street line with
ground floor uses to engage pedestrians and becomes narrower to a point as it reaches its
maximum height. Because the Region requires a 5.18 m (17 ft.) strip c,f land to be dedicated
to them for a future road widening, the location of the building will have, to be shifted back the
same distance as the widening.
The parking area is not separated fxom Main Street by a 6-metre landscaped setback as
recommended by TADS. If the application is approved, the amending by-law should include
a provision requiring this landscaped setback to help screen parked vehicles. Staff calculate that
the minimum number of required on-site parking spaces will still be able to be provided if this
landscaped setback is required.
2. Is the request zoning amendment appropriate?
Yes. The land is currently zoned Tourist Commercial (TC). Site specific by-law provisions are
requested to be added to the TC zoning of the land to accommodate the proposed development.
The site specific by-law provisions will only allow a 23 metre tall buildi~:~g to be constructed on
the land if it is stepped back in keeping with the TADS guidelines and lt~e applicant provides
improvements to the public realm such as sidewalks, street trees, street furniture and landscaped
open space. These items will be secured by an agreement with the City. The by-law will allow
the building to be built at the property line after the required road widening.
December 11, 2000 - 4 - PD-2000-142
If approved, the amending by-law will allow a mechanical amusement ride (Freefall Simulator)
to be established inside the proposed building. For the past 21 years it has been Council's
practice to onlypermit mechanical amusement rides by site specific amendments. Staffdo not
foresee any difficulties in allowing a fully enclosed mechanical amusement ride to be
established on the subject land. The ride allows an individual or group of people to experience
the thrill of skydiving indoors, in an air chamber. The fi/cility includes training reoms, a gallery
for observers, caf6 and girl shops. According to the company that manufactures the ride, the
noise level generated by the devise is 74 dBA within a 25 m radius. This level is purported to
be unoffensive because it is within typical background noise levels. Information provided by
the Ministry of the Environment confirms that 74 dBA is lower than the noise level generated
by average street traffic.
3. What issues will have to be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process?
A number of issues will have to be addressed prior to Site Plan Approval. These include the
number and location of driveways, the widening of Stanley Avenue, the construction of
sidewalks across the frontage of the site, on-site landscaping, and improvements to the public
realm. These issues will have to be addressed on the final drawings and addressed in an
appropriate agreement.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing, staff can support the application to amend the Zoning By-law. The
amendment as recommended to be modified is within the intent and propose of the City's Official
Plan and TADS guidelines.
Prepared by:
Ken Mech
Planner 2
Respectfully submitted:
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
Attach.
S APDR~000~D2000-142.wpd
SCHEDULE I
LOCATION MAP
Subject Land
I
Munay Street
Dill-on street
Amending Zoning By-law No. 79-200
Part of Ranges 16 and 17 and
Part of Stanley Avenue (closed),
Registered Plan 1
City of Niagara Falls
AM-36/2000
Applicant: Peter J. Lesdow - Architect
c\o Andrew Cserpes
1 :NTS
S~p~mh~r 2000
NIA A
November 30, 2000
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
OPERA TIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES
The Regional Municipality of Niagara
2201 St. David's Road W., P.O. Box 1042
Thorold, Ontario L2V 4T7
Telephone: (905) 685-1571
Fax: (905) 687-8056
www.regional.niagara.on.ca/departments/works/
Mr. Ken Mech
Planning and Development Department
City of Niagara Falls
Dear Sir:
Public Meeting
Zoning By-law Amendment (AM-36/2000)
Proposed Mechanical Amusement Ride (Free-fall Simulator)
Applicant: Peter J. Lesdow, Architect (c/o Andrew Cserpes)
WS of Regional Road 102 (Stanley Avenue) between Murray Street and Dixon Street
Former Fallsview Motor Inn
City of Niagara Falls
Our File: D.10.102.2 (AM-36/2000)
RECEIVED
0 5 2000
rq_~NNIN~
& DEVELOPMENT
We have no objection to a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of a 23-m tall
building, containing a mechanical amusement ride (free-fall simulator).
Based upon the information currently available to us, we provide the following initial
comments, at this time:
1) Regional Road Allowance
Regional Road 102 (Stanley Avenue) has a road allowance width of only 83-feet at
this location. The City of Niagara Falls is preparing a Master Streetscaping Program
for this road section and the Region is currently reviewing the road design. It may be
necessary, in accordance with the approved Public Works Road Widening Dedication
to request that the applicant deed a 17-foot road widening gratnitously to the Region
across the frontage of the subject property, in order to achieve a road allowance width
of 100-feet, as measured from the centreline of the original road allowance. Such a
widening would be intended to accommodate the future streetscaping, pavement
widenings and to provide sufficient boulevard area for utilities and snow storage.
2)
Servicing
Servicing is the responsibility of The City of Niagara Falls. Water services will not be
permitted to be connected into the Region's 24-inch trunk watermains, located within
Stanley Avenue or Main Street. Water services must be connected into tire City's 8-
inch watermain, located either within Stanley Avenue or Main Street.
St. Catharines, Lincoln, Pelham, Thorold, Toll Free 905 Area - 1-800-263-7215
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Niagara Fells, Welland - 685-1571 Port Colbome, Weinfleet, Stevensviile - 735-7960
Ken Mech
Planning and Development Department
City of Niagara Falls
November 24, 2000
Page 2
3) Access and Drainage
A site plan and site servicing drawing detailing lot drainage and servicing must be
submitted for our review and approval. No additional storm water is permitted to be
directed toward Regional Road 102 (Stanley Avenue). Access should be restricted
toward Main Street only.
4) Regional Permit Requirements
Prior to any construction taking place within a Regional Road Allowance, a Regional
Construction Encroachment and/or Entrance Permit must be obtained from this
Department. Permit Applications may be obtained from the Permits Section of the
Operational Support Services Division.
5) Survey Evidence
Survey evidence adjacent to the Regional road allowance is r~ot to be damaged or
removed during the development of this property. We would request that the site plan
agreement include a clause that requires the owner to obtain a certificate from an
Ontario Land Surveyor, stating that all existing and new survey evidence is in place at
the completion of said construction.
In consideration of these comments, we would request that the site be placed under site plan
control so that a closer review can be undertaken and our concerns addressed.
Yours truly,
William J. SteVens, C.E.T.
Supervisor Development Approvals
DR/cra
L:\Engineering-Planning-and-Development\Rusnak-Dave\Niagara Falls\3238.k.mech.city.o f. niagara, falls.doc
c: B. Mclnnis
R. Clegg
M. Glynn
D. Farley
National Defence
The Canadian Parachute Centre
PO ~ox 1000 stn For(es
Ash'a ON KOK 3W0
D6fense nationale
Le Centre de Parachutisme canadien
cP 1000 succ Forces
Astra ON K0K 3WO
45o0-1 (DCO)
,,~ ~1 Aug O0
Mz. A. Cserpes
Rainbow Motor Inn
5581 Murray St.
Niagara Falls, ON L2G 2J6
USE: OF PROPOSED WIND TUNNEL
FOK CPC PARACHUTE TRAINING
Reference: Telecon Mr. A. Cerpes/Maj D. Galea
As discussed over the phone the Canadian parachute Centre is a school of the
Canadian Armed Forces that is responsible for all parachute training 5)r the Ca, indian
Fore, es. The Canadian forces Parachute Team - SKYHAWKS are also members of the
mnit and the unit also has a mandate to conduct thais and evaluations of parachute
equipment.
The purpose of this letter is to confirm this tmit's interest in using your proposed
wi nd tunnel in support of all the parachute activities described above. Such a facility
would be useful in maintaining our instructor proficiency as well as for instructing
students.
I look forward to meeting you on 11 September 2000. Should you require any
additional information before then please contact me at 613-392-2811 Ext 7583.
D Galea ~
Major
For Commanding officer
(~. 11'11
,anaua
RECEIVED
DFC 0 4 2000
The City of
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 355-7521
Fax: (905) 355-2354
E-maih nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
December 11, 2000
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD-2000-133
His Worship Mayor W. Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2000-133, Procedures - Removal of Part Lot Control
On-Street Townhouse Development
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that this report be received as information and a copy forwarded to Mr. Ledwez.
BACKGROUND:
At the October 16, 2000 Council meeting, zoning amendment application AM-35/2000 (6365 Drummond
Road - Herb Ledwez) was approved to permit a 26 unit on-street townhouse development (see attached
location map and unit layout). A motion that a release from Part Lot Control be :granted immediately when
accurate surveys of the property are available was defeated. Council requested a report regarding freehold
townhouses and the Part Lot Control process.
PLANNING REVIEW:
The Planning Act controls the division of land by requiring the approval of subdivision plans and consents
(severances). Within registered plans of subdivision, Council may designate that land not be subject to Part
Lot Control. This process enables the division of lots or blocks. The general intent of removing Part Lot
Control is for the minor redesign of subdivision lots/blocks, or the separation of:semi-detached or on-street
townhouse units. Property lines are created between the dwelling units to permit their sale with each unit
having a separate deed. There are no formal agency circulation or public notification requirements for this
process under the Planning Act. The City's Official Plan states that land development should generally
proceed by plan of subdivision. Exceptions can be granted when a plan of subdivision is clearly not needed
to ensure the intent of the Official Plan policies are satisfied, such as when the land fronts on an existing
public roadway and is an infill situation.
Application for removal of Part Lot Control can be made to the City when unit foundations have been
constructed so that property lines can be accurately surveyed and shown on a Reference Plan. The
application is reviewed for zoning by-law compliance (e.g. lot areas and frontages, building setbacks). Staff
prepares a report to Council and a by-law must be passed and registered on title. Depending on the size of
the project, the developer may stage construction based on market demand. The Part Lot Control by-law
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's * Finance · Human Resources Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 11, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-133
provides for a time limit (usually 2 or 3 years) to allow the deeds to be created and units sold, after which
the City repeals the by-law. The current processing fee is $200 per application with a $60 fee for the
registration of the by-law.
CONCLUSION:
The removal of Part Lot Control is a relatively quick and inexpensive land division process that can only
be applied in certain cases - within a registered plan of subdivision and where development issues have
akeadybeen addressed. The timing for applications requires that foundations and survey work be completed
by the developer.
With respect to the on-street townhouse development recently approved for Ma:. Ledwez through By-law
2000-230, site plan approval is required to address such matters as servicing, road resurfacing, widenings,
sidewalks and street trees. The developer is also required to pay cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication.
Following the issuance of building permits and start of construction, the Part ]Lot Control mechanism is
appropriate to create the individual freehold properties for sale. Mr. Ledwez has the option of constructing
all units at the same time ($260 in Part Lot Control fees) or a phased development of the 4 blocks of units
(up to $1,040 in fees).
Prep.ared by:
Richard Wilson
Planner 2
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
RW:gd
Attach.
Re, fully, submitted:/~/
Edward P. Lustig
Chief Administrative Officer
S:~PDR~.000~D2000-133 .wpd
SCHEDULE 1
LOCATION MAP
Subject Land
Monroe
Corn/in Cresent
Symmes Street
Murray Street
Amending Zoning By-law N°. 79'200 1
6365 Drummond Road ~ {~}
All of Lots 322 to 330 (Inclusive)
and Part of Block "A" ~
Registered Plan 40 {
City o f Niagara Falls A M-35/2000
I :NTS
Herb Ledwez
=~~ pt>o~ puouJu..inj0
000~, GE :El :~ BO 'J~]S ~d-t §,~P'E-I:,I:,~§E\sqo(\ :9
The Cify of ~1~1~
Niagara Falls
Can~~'
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
December 11, 2000
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD-2000-143
His Worship Mayor W. Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2000-143, Public Meeting
Creekside Court Draft Plan of Subdivision
File: 26T-11-2000-06
Owner: Mark Dimond
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council consider input received at the Public Meeting and refer all
matters to staff for the review of the Creekside Court Draft Plan of Subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this Public Meeting is to receive information and provide an oppommity for the
public to comment on the proposed subdivision. The Planning & Development Department will
consider all comments received from the public, Region, agencies and City depaxhnents and prepare
a recommendation report to Council at a future meeting. There is to be no decision made at the
meeting held tonight. Notice of the Public Meeting was given in accordance with the requirements
of the Planning Act. The applicant has been invited to attend this Public Meeting to provide an
overview of the subdivision proposal and answer any questions.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 0.569 hectare (1.41 acre) site into 5 single-detached lots. The
propertyis at the west end of Front Street, north of the Welland River and southwest of Portage Road
(see location map). The proposed roadway is an extension of Front Street in a cul-de-sac design.
The City's Official Plan designates the property Residential which permits a variety of housing types.
The site is zoned R2 (Residential Single Family and Two-Family) through Zoning By-law 79-200
which would permit the proposed plan.
}Forking Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 11, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-143
CONCLUSION:
The Public Meeting is an important part of the consultation and input process in the review of
development applications. This meeting satisfies the requirements ofthe Planning Act. Comments
received will be considered in preparing the recommendation report on the proposed subdivision.
Prepared by:
Richard Wilson
Planner 2
Respectfully submitted.:
Edw~ar~ e/~u~stig~/"~
Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
RW:gd
Attach.
FILE: S :kPDR~2000kPD2000-143 .wpd
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Creekside Court
26T-11-2000-06
Location Map
1: NTSI
No.,~mb~r 2000
The City of
Niagara Falls
con mm
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Fails, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-maih nfplan@city,niagarafalls.on.ca
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD-2000-144
December 11, 2000
His Worship Mayor W. Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2000-144, Public Meeting
Colangelo Estates Draft Plan of Subdivision
File: 26T-11-2000-07
Owner: 586112 Ontario Limited (In Trust)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council consider input received at the Public Meeting and refer all
matters to staff for the review of the Colangelo Estates Draft Plan of Subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this Public Meeting is to receive information and provide an opportunity for the
public to comment on the proposed subdivision. The Planning & Development Department will
consider all comments received from the public, Region, agencies and City departments and prepare
a recommendation report to Council at a future meeting. There is to be m) decision made at the
meeting held tonight. Notice of the Public Meeting was given in accordance with the requirements
of the Planning Act. The applicant has been invited to attend this Public Meeting to provide an
overview of the subdivision proposal and answer any questions.
PROPOSAL:
This proposal is a revision of a subdivision (File 26T-11-2000-03) that was refused by Council on
August 21, 2000. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.663 hectare (4.11 acre) site into 18 single-
detached lots and 1 block for future residential use in combination with abutting land. The property
is south of Mountain Road, between Dorchester Road and St. Paul Avenue, and extends to the hydro
haulage road trail (see location map). There is 1 lot with direct access to Mountain Road. The
proposed roadways connect to land for future development to the east and west. Temporary road
access is proposed to Mountain Road over 2 lots. The City's Official Plan designates the property
Residential which permits a variety of housing types. The site is currently zoned DH (Development
Holding) through Zoning By-law 79-200. The applicant has requested a zoning change to a modified
R1C (Residential Single Family) classification to pemfit the proposed plan. 'rhe related zoning by-
law amendment (File AM-40/2000) will be subject to a Public Meeting at a later date.
}Forking Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 1 I, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-144
CONCLUSION:
The Public Meeting is an important part of the consultation and input process in the review of
development applications. This meeting satisfies the requirements of the Planning Act. Comments
received will be considered in preparing the recommendation report on the proposed subdivision.
Prepared by:
Richard Wilson
Planner 2
Respectfully submitted:
Edward P. Lustig ~j
Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
RW:gd
Attach.
FILE: S APDR~2000~PD2000-144.wpd
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Colangelo Estates
26T-11-2000-07
Location Map
Subject Land
1: NTS
Doug Darbysou
Director of Planning and Development
City of Niagara Falls
City Hall
P.O. Box 1023
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
"Friends of the Haulage Road"
c/o Clyde Carruthers
6681 Dellpark Drive
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2J 3G7
358-9966
November 28, 2000
Concerning "Colangelo Estates" Draft Plan of Subdivision
File: 26T-11-2000-07
Dear Mr. Darbyson
"Friends of the Haulage Road" is a neighbourhood-based community group here in
Niagara Falls that has as its mandate the maintenance and preservation of the
Haulage Road Trail. This 2 km long trail, an excellent Niagara Falls. recreational
facility that runs from approximately the Mountain Road/Dorchester intersection to
the St. Paul/Riall intersection, has been officially adopted by our group as part of
the City's Parks, Recreation and Culture Department "Adopt-A-Trail" Program.
This proposed development has the Haulage Road Trail as its southern boundary.
Consequently, our group is interested in whether or not this proposal compromises
the integrity of the trail in any way.
After studying the "Notice of Public Meeting" received in the mail on Monday,
November 27, 2000 from your office concerning the revised "Colangelo Estates"
Draft Plan of Subdivision File: 26T-11-2000-07 1 contacted your office and spoke to
Rick Wilson. He verified for our group that this revised Colangelo F.states Draft
Plan did not in any way affect the Haulage Road Trail.
Consequently, "Friends of the Haulage Road" have no objections to this "Colangelo
Estates" Draft Plan of Subdivision File: 26T-11-2000-07.
Sincerely,
Clyde Carrnthers
RECEIVED
~ ~r 0 1 2000
-~,~ING
~ L~'~ VELOPUENT
~ 4, 2000
Doug Darbyson, Director of Planning & Development
City l F, fll,
P,(). Box 1023,
4310 Queen St.,
Niagara Falls, Ontario, L2E 6X5
o7
SUI~JECT: "COI,AN(;I~I,O F;S'D\TES" DRAIq' PLAN OF SUBD. FILE: 26T-11-2000~4V
~ are in receipt of a Notice of Public lleahng, for Monday, December 11, 2000, to further consider thc
above referenced applications. We for~vard the following for consideration in prov:iding a decision on thc
applications.
Our property of 12.75 acres is currently designated as farmland and abuts the East Side of thc subiect lands.
We are requesting that as part of the consent that the following be incorporated:
A fence be erected on the subject land, at 586112 Ontario I.'mteds expense, for the full len~h of the
properties between Mountain Rd. and the former Ontario Hydro haulage road. \'%' request that this fence
be at the maximum height as the bylaws allow.
A dr,'finage plan he prepared and executed, at 586112 Ontario [,re'ted s expense, nn the subjc:ct land sc)
that run off will not impact our property and farm operation.
\% would appreciate your addressing the impact/restrictions/conditions as they would apply to the owners of
fl~e 12.75 acres if they were to develop their property. Specifically we see a need to explore thc implications for
us resulting from the block of land which is being set aside FUr Future development.
\Ve plan to attend thc Puhlic I lcaring and look forxvard to clarifications of issues of concern. Please notif) us
of any future meem,gs ,,r decisions of com~cil as they relate to the above.
If there are an}, questions, please contact (before Dec. 12) Marie Saczkowski Campbell at 905-689-4930 or
John Saczkowski (after Dec. 11) at either 688 - 4434 (work) or 468 - 4376 (home).
Yours truly,
Mafia Saczkowski t~nd John Saczkowski
6486 Mountain lid., Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6S4
copy: Rick Wilson, Planning and Development
RECEIVED
DEC 0 6 2000
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city, niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalis.on.ca
Decemb6r 11, 2000
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD-2000-140
His Worship Mayor W. Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2000-140, Application for Site Plan Approval
SPC-41/2000, 5046 Centre Street
Proposed Motel Expansion
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council approve the site plan for a proposed motel expansion at 5046
Centre Street.
BACKGROUND:
An application for site plan approval has been received for 5046 Centre Street, the Microtel Inn and
Suites. The applicant, Niagara Princess Hotel Limited, proposes a two-phase expansion to the
existing two-storey motel. The existing motel is composed of two, two-storey buildings and a three-
storey building, all with exterior access. The first phase of expansion includes the addition of a third
storey to the two-storey buildings and the connection of all three buildings together with interior
access. The addition will result in 18 more rooms for a total of 64 rooms. The second phase of
development is the construction of a two-storey, 170 seat restaurant. Construction of the first phase
is to commence shortly, with the second phase to start later next year.
Site alterations will involve extensive landscaping around the motel and proposed restaurant. The
proposed restaurant will have an exterior patio adjacent to Centre Street which is in keeping with the
Official Plan tourism policies that encourage uses to be located along street frontages which engage
pedestrians. Parking for the development is to be located "behind" the motel on lands that front onto
McGrail Avenue. These lands are intended for further redevelopment; the applicant will apparently
be submitting a rezoning application in the near future. Because of this, the parking lot will not be
paved and landscaping around it is minimal. However, staff will be retaining sufficient security
through letter of credit to ensure that the parking lot will be paved should the proposed
redevelopment not be constructed.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development
December 11, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-140
The site plan drawings have been satisfactorily reviewed by the Site Plan Technical Committee and,
as such, approval is recommended.
Jol~ Bamsley
Planner 1
Respectfully submitted:
~d~Ad m'dm~mU'::irgative ~fficer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
JB:gd
Attach.
S:XPDR~2000~D2000-140.wpd
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD-2000-141
December 11, 2000
His Worship Mayor W. Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: PD-2000-141, Application for Site Plan Approval
SPC-42/2000, 5720 Progress Street - Proposed Warehouse Expansion
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council approve the site plan for a proposed warehouse expansion at 5720
Progress Street.
BACKGROUND:
An application for site plan approval has been received for 5720 Progress Street. 'The applicant, Harry Oakes,
proposes a 6,200 square foot addition to an existing 23,000 square foot warehouse. The 29,500 square foot
warehouse is, and will continue to be, utilized for the storage of equipment for Mr. Oakes' tourist operations.
Surrounding land uses are industrial.
Site alterations include increased front yard landscaping and improvements to storm drainage and grading and
to garbage storage facilities.
The site plan drawings have been satisfactorily reviewed by the Site Plan Technical Committee and, as such,
approvalTecommended.
J6hn~amsley
Planfier 1
Rec~nded by:
Doug Darbygon
Director of Planning & Development
Appr~oved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
JB:gd
Attach.
Chief Administrative 0 ff.~'er
S:~PDR~2000~PD2000-141.wpd Workiltg Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's · Finance * Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
_-: _-
Ill!!l!!! i ,....
' """C !Ii
I'll
Niagara Falls
Clerk's Department
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Tel:
Fax:
E-mail:
web site:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-9083
clerks~city.niagarafalls.on.ca
www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
E.C. Wagg, C.M.O.
City Clerk
November 27, 2000
Graydon Sheppard
195 James Street South
Hamilton, Ontario
L8P 3A8
Attention: Mr. Michael A. Jaeger
Dear Mr. Jaeger:
Re: De_ian Kovinic. Application for Deja Vu Studio, 8720 Lundy's Lane,
Niagara Falls. Council Meeting of December 11, 2000
Council members had been circulated with copies of all the information at the
previous Council meeting, however, it is our intent that all members of Council get
copies of the information for the December 11, 2000 meeting.
The Standing Rules of Council dictate a deputation time of 10 minutes, however,
it is with Council's discretion to allow deviations from that and it will be Council's
responsibility to do so. Council, generally, is very flexible with deputations. I will ensure
that the material that you forwarded to me, will be included in the Council package for
the December meeting.
Yours truly,
E. C. Wagg, C.M.O.
City Clerk (E-'xt. 4271)
ECW/bhm
cc: R. Kallio, City Solicitor
l'he City of
.iogo o Fo,s II!
Legal .. ~partment
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel:
Fax:
E-maih
(905) 356-7521
(905) 374-7500
rkallio@city.niagarafalls .on .ca
R.O. Kallio
City Solicitor
November 22, 2000
Messrs. Graydon Sheppard
Barristers and Solicitors
196 James Street South
Hamilton, Ontario
LSP 3A8
Attention: Mr. Michael A. Jaeger
Dear Mr. Jaeger:
Dean Kovinic
Application for Deja Vu Studio
8720 Lundy's Lane
This is in response to your letter to me of November 20, 2000 criticizing my action in drawing the
Special Committee's attention to the requirements of section 105 of the Municipal Act.
It is noted that you and other counsel for the applicants were provided copies of my communication
to the Special Committee.
Now that the Council has agreed to provide additional time to counsel for the applicants to prepare
their submissions to the Council, I trust that you will draw to the attention of the Council, should you
see fit to do so, what prejudice you feel that you have suffered by reason of my providing advice to
the Special Committee of the requirements of the law with which they were under a duty to comply.
It is noted that nowhere in my communication to the Special Committee d/d I suggest the "re-
writing" of the decision which they had akeady delivered, nor did I make any submissions of any
kind on the merits of the case or the reasons for their decision.
I am somewhat surprised that you feel that I have done something improper in drawing to the
attention of the Special Committee the additional requirement of subsection 105(2) of the Municipal
Act, that the Committee make a written report to the Council summarizing the evidence and
arguments presented by the parties, and the findings of fact made by the committee, as well as the
-2-
recommendations, with reasons therefor, on the merits.
ROK:mm
encl.
City Solicitor
c. E.C. Wagg
City Clerk
GRAYDON SHEPPARD, B.A., LL.B.
BARRISTER-AT-LAW
CERTIFIED BY THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA AS A SPECIALIST tN CIVIL LITIGATION
Michael A. Jaeger, B.A. LL.B.
EMAIL: maj~bestnet, org
195 JAMES STREET SOUTH
I~MVJ~TON, ONTARIO
LSP 3A8
TELEPHONE (905) 524-1660
FAX (905) 527-2717 or 527-
!i177
EMAIL: wgs@icom.ca
November 21st, 2000
The Corporation of the City
of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, ON
L2E 6X5
Attention: E.C. Wa~, Clerk
Dear Sir:
Re:
Dejan Kovinic
Application for Deja Vu Studio, 8720 Lundy's Lane, Niagara Falls, ON
Council Meeting - December 11*, 2000 ~/7 p.m.
Please find attached a copy of the written submissions that I would like distributed to City
Council members for the December 11th, 2000 meeting.
I am not sure whether or not the written submissions were before Council at the November
20~, 2000 meeting. I think it is important that Council have an opportunity to review the full record
of information before making any decision.
I should also indicate that I will require longer than 10 minutes in order to make my
presentation to Council. I would estimate that I will need 15 to 20 minutes.
If there is a problem with the above please advise,
Respectfully Yours,
Encl.
c. Ray Kallio, City Solicitor
GRAYDON SHEPPARD, B.A., LL.B.
BARRISTER-AT-LAW
Mi~ael A. Joe. lex, B.A. LL.B.
BY FAX ONLY: 905-374-7500
las JAMES STREET SOU'iH
IINtQ~I'ON, ONTARIO
LIBp 3A8
TEI.~PHONE I~O~l 62~16~
FAX {905} 527-2'/17 or S27-
EMAIL: wg~icom.ca
November 20th, 2000
The Corporation of the City
ot' Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Fails, ON
L2E 6X5
Attention: Ray Kallio
Dear Sir;
Re: Dejan Kovinic
Application for Deja Vu Studio, 8720 Lundy's Lane, Niagara Falls, ON
I acknowledge receipt of your facsimile of November 17th, 2000 wherein you have taken the
libert3, of writing the chair of special committee without first contacting me.
I take exception to the fact that you have decided to unilaterally contact the committee, attd
in particular, suggest to it how the report should be re-written, having handed down its decision a day
earlier.
You have already had an opportunity to make written submissions to the Committee and I do
not recall the Committee providing you with another opportunity to do so. If the report of the
Committee is deficient because of a l~ilure to meet the requirements of the Municipal Act, R.S.O.
1990 then that is an issue for council, and perhaps more importantly, the courts to decide,
c. E.C. Wagg (Fax: 905-356-9053)
Note 7671E 1
II"'UIGI DE LISIO
ILqRRIN'FI'R &.
Nm,,ember 17,
&_l.!.e!lliun: I,:. ('. W,lz~
I ')Cra' ,"; h':
'lTmnk-.~ ~tl I~r I".r~widiHg me ~,ilh a ~.',.~1~.~ Ibc I')e,.'i~ion oF( '.mmh~.~'e dated N<~vemher
16.2~)1)() ,,,. hh rc's[),.'~.:l h~ N,lm'i.i ul;~ Ko~. init: I'm' .lu' alH'nli~m.
I Ul~dcr:-;l;md Ih;;I IhL' ( '~m]Nel me~d h'::.~ i~, ',cht.'duled I~1' N. hmd;~). N,tvk. mbcr 'hi. 2I)(}(L
will I',e Ill;.ll,.hl~_~ Htl['H~li~;",i~Hl:', (HI Ilic i'-;;',tlU'-; ;ti Ih;l( (i111~.',
16-261 MAI~,'I'INI).41.1~ I~.()AI), M'l'. ("A'I'II.~I~INI,;.~, ON'I',\I{I(} I,ZW IA2
I'1 lONE (905) 687-41,)85 FAX (905) 687-331 I
Woody Wagg - Committee - Dean.wpd Page
IN THE MATTER of a Hearing pursuant to the
MunicipalAct and By-law Nos. 2000-164 and 2000-199
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing regarding
DEAN KOVINIC
Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in his
Application for a Body-Rub Parlour Owner's Li~nse
2.
5.
6.
INDEX
Summary of Evidence ..................................... page 2
Summary of Arguments presented by the parties .............. page 2
Findings of fact .......................................... page 3
Recommendations of the Committee with reasons therefor ..... page 3
WoodY wagg: committee- Deanlwpd
1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
-Clerks office provided applicant all notifications within time limits.
-Applicant testified that he did not know that a Site Plan approwfl was required
for the existing building.
-Site Plan process took longer than applicant thought it would.
-Drawings that were finally provided were for expansion not that of current
building that is already being used as a Body-Rub Parlour.
-Applicant stated that an "incident" took place at City Hall on September 20/00
that he would not expand upon.
-Applicant could not find a qualified Landscape Architect and that one such
architect had refused to do another Body-Rub Parlour
-Mr. Pounder testified that he tried to complete the application in time but stated
that Professional people are very busy.
-Mr. Barnsley stated that the process can take 3-4 months to complete.
Mr. Barnsley also stated that he had just received drawings for the expansion the d~y
before the heating.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES
Applicant:
-That the deadlines for the process were unreasonable because the profession is
having a busy year.
-That construction of the expansion can not begin in the winter months.
-That the 180-day dead line is to short.
-That the applicant was diligent in pursuing the application.
Counsel To Committee:
-The Clerk's department had sent all notification and documentation within the
time limits.
-That the Applicant was in contact with an Architect on June 8/00 only weeks
before the dead line.
-That the Applicant had left for Europe on July 15/00, Days before the dead line.
-That Building inspections due not cause delays in the process.
, Woody Wagg - Committee - Dean.wpd Page 3 !
FINDINGS OF FACT
-Clerks office had given all notices and documentation within the time limits.
-Applicant could not show any proof of reason as to Stage 3 Approval could not
be met for the existing building other than he did not know he needed the Site
Plan Approval.
-That an incident took place at City Hall on September 20/00.
-First Landscape Architect refused to do another Body-Rub Parlour.
-Drawings for approval were not submitted until October 16/00 the day before the
Heating.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE WITH REASONS THEREFOR
(previously delivered)
IN THE MATTER of a Hearing pursuant to the
Municipal Act and By-law Nos. 2000-164 and 2000-199
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing regarding
MARIJANA KOVINIC
Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in her
Application for a Body-Rub Parlour Owner's License
INDEX
2.
5.
6.
Summary of Evidence ...................................... page 2
Summary of Arguments presented by the parties .............. page 2
Findings of fact .......................................... page 3
Recommendations of the Committee with reasons therefor ..... page 3
Woody Wagg - Committee - Marijana.wpd
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
-Applicant:
-Application and Agreement Of Purchase And Sale for 8568 Ltmdy's Lane
-Letter fi.om vendors Widow stating that she wants to extend closing date.
-Applicant stated she came to City Hall to move location "around the end of May" to
Bender Hill.
-Applicant stated she left for Europe on June 4/00 and returned on September 10/00.
-Notification of Power of Attorney given to Father in Law.
-2"d Agreement of Purchase Of Sale to close October 30/00.
Counsel To Committee:
-Provided all documents as to the application and notifications ,Mthin the time limits.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES
Applicant:
-That the Father In Law's role was financial in nature.
-That Dean Kovinic had discussed this application with the City.
-Delay is a result of vendor's death and Widow asking for different closing date.
Counsel To Committee:
-That all documentation and notifications were given within time limits.
-That the applicant came to City Hall asking to move the locatio~t and was told she could
not.
-That the applicant went to Europe fi.om June 4/00 through Sept 10/00
-Father In Law was given power of Attorney and other than speaking to Father In Law
Woody Wagg - Committee - Marijana.wpd Page
occasionally by phone had no further involvement.
-Applicant had no idea Father In Law entered into 2nd Agreement with Vendor while she
was still in the City.
-Dean could not remember if he gave Sister In Law any advise on Vendor not closing the
purchase in May.
Woody Wagg
FINDINGS OF FACT
-All documents and notifications from Clerk's Office were give~t within the Time
limits.
-Applicant could not show any proof of timing to close land deal with Vendor on
original date.
-Applicant could not show any proof of trying to fulfill any of the Stage 3
Eligibility requirements.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE WITH REASONS THEREFOR
(previously delivered)
IN THE MATTER of the hearing pursuant to the
MunicipalAct and By-law nos.2000-164 and 2000-199
AND IN THE MATTER of the Hearing regarding
DE JAN KOVlNIC
Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in her
Application for a Body-Rub Parlour Owner's License
DECISION OF COMMITTEE
November 16, 2000
It is the finding of this Committee that the applicant who is already
operating a Body-rub Parlour out of this location and building did not provide any
reasonable explanation for not complying with the Stage 3 eligibility requirements
for the application.
The applicant commented repeatedly on the proposed expansion to the existing
building and blamed the approval process and/or the weather for the delays in
providing the necessary documentation. In fact drawings were not received by
the City until the day before the Hearing (October 17/00), and these drawings
again dealt with the proposed expansion and not with the existing site.
The applicant should have known that a site plan was required as part of the
Stage 3 approval process.
Mr. Kovinic mentioned that because of an incident at the Building Department of
the City Of Niagara Falls he did not want to return to that Department. Mr.
Kovinic Refused to elaborate on this statement, and in any case, tlie alleged
incident took place after the 180-Day deadline had expired.
This Committee agrees unanimously that Dejan Kovinic made no
reasonable efforts to comply with the time limit set out in the By-law and
therefore denies the request for an extension to the time limit of the Stage 3
eligibility.
Alderman Ed Mici~
Alderman Selina Volpatti
Alderman Paisley Janvary-Pool
IN THE MATTER of the hearing pursuant to the
Municipal Act and By-law nos.2000-164 and 2000-199
AND IN THE MATTER of the Hearing regarding
MARIJANA KOVlNIC
Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in her
Application for a Body-Rub Parlour Owner's License
DECISION OF COMMITTEE
November 16, 2000
It is the finding of this Committee that the applicant throughout the Hearing
did not produce any substantial reason or explanation for not being able to
complete the Stage 3 eligibility requirements. Even with the death of the property
.owner no evidence was produced at any time during the Hearing that any steps
for compliance of any sort were being taken to fulfill the requirements.
This Committee agrees unanimously that Marijana Kovinic made no
reasonable efforts to comply with the time limit set out in By-law and therefore
denies the request for an extension to the time limit of the Stage 3 eligibility.
Alderman Ed Michalczyk (Chair)
Alderman Selina Volpatti
Alderman Pais!ey Janvary-Pool
Clerk's Department
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6XE,
Tel:
Fax:
E-ma~:
web site:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 366-9083
www.city,niag arafalls,o ri.ca
E.C. Wagg. C.I~.O.
City Clerk
September 18, 2000
VIA FACSIPITLE AlqD OP, DINAI{¥ HAIL
lvfr. Oraydou Shcppard
195 James Street South
Hamilt~,=Ontario
LSP 3A~
Dear S~:
Body-Rub Parlour Application
Dean Koviuic
8720 Lundy's Lane, Niagara Falls, Ontario
This is fuxther to your request, on behalf of your ab0x;~meutionext client, to have heard by thc City
Council a_ma~ter involvingyourc]i~aI's aUeged failureto ~%l~rnply w~thpara~aph 39(4)(a) of By-law
No. 99-164. [:
This i-< to advise that thc City Council, at its meeting held on September 1 I, 2000 established a
conmaittee (."the Committec'~ m deal with applications for body-mb parlour liccnces, and matters
relating to such applications.
The Conunittee, composed of Alderman Edward l~ichalczyk, Aldermar~ Paisley Sanvary-Pool and
Alderman Shirley Fisher, h~ established October 17, 2000 a~ 9:00 o'clock ~.m~ al 4310 Queen
Street, Niagara Malls, City Hall, in Committee Room No. 2, to deal with the above matter.
Your client has a right to attend, with cotmscl, at thc meeting, and to call wimesscs and make
· submissious as he see, fits.
The he. ring will be an oral hearing held pursuant to thc provisions of the MunicipaIAct, particularly
section 105 earl Part XVIL 1, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. and the pm¥isions of By-law No.
99-164, as a~xended.
-2-
' understanding that your ~pplication for a heating arises out of a notice delivered to you
paragraph 52a(2Xd) of thc By-law, issued pursuant to what appears to be your client's
failure' to comply with the Stage 3 Licence Eligibility requirements within thc t~me allotted by
sections 38 and 39 of the By-law.
In this regard, I would greatly appreciate your providing a notice in wrkhtg to the City at thc eaxlicst
possible dmc setting out the grounds ofyonr client's application, the information upon wkich you
intend to rely at the hca~ing o£this matter, and the relief which you intend to seek ~rom the Council.
If your client docs not attend at the hearing,.the Conmaittee may proceed in Iris absence, and he will
not be entitled to any further notice in the proceeding.
It is n~e45 tlmt the hea~mg ~,1 he eoafmex~ to the issues arising from the sununary and reference
referred to above relating to compliance with the Eligibility requirements, and '~11 not be a hearing
for flae Council to decide upon other grounds wl~ether or not to issue the licence~ except to the extent
to which such a decision could flow from a decision relating to compliaa~ce with the By-law.
At the present time, I amnot aware of any documents which axe intended to be placed before thc
Council relatfi~g this matter, o~her th~ the City's file relating to your application.
B. clewam flocurnenls ~m th~s rite, ~tIfick vdll be placed before thc Committee, are attached hereto
for your infommtion.
(Please advise me at the earliest possible time as to whether or not you will be prepared to proceed /
on the 6ate ~nd at the time an~ pl~c set out above, /
This notice is forwarded to you as counsel on behslf of your client, Dean Kovitfic. I assume that you
have authority to accept this notic~ on his behalf. Please advise ifI am Inco~ect in this assumption,
aaa we will ensure that the notice is s~rve~l personally on your client.
ECW:mm
encls.
City Clerk
GRAYDON SHEPPARD, B.A., LL.B.
BARRISTER-AT-LAW
CERTIFIED BY THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA AS A SPECIALIST IN CIVIL LITIGATION
Michael A. Jaeger, B.A. LL.B.
EMAIL: raaj~bestnet.org
BY FAX ONLY: 905-356-9083
The Corporation of the City
of Niagara Falls
43,10 Queen Street
N~agara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
Attention: E.C. Wa~, Clerk
195 JAMES STREET SOUTH
B, AM]LTON, ONTARIO
LSP 3A8
TELEPHONE 1905} 624-1660
FAX (905) 527-2717 or 527-
15177
EMAIL: wgs@icom.ca
October 24*, 2000
Dear Sir:
Re:
Dejan Kovinic - Written Submissions
Application for Deja Vu Studio, 8720 LundY'S Lane, Niagara Falls, ON
Stage 3 Eligibility Rearing under s. 52a -October 17ta, 2000 ~ 9:00 a.m.
Committee Room #2, City Hall
Introduction
The following are the written submissions to the Special Committee with respect to Dejan
("Dean") Kovinic's application for a body bub parlour licence under the provisions of By-law No.
99-164, as amended.
On or about September 20~', 1999, Dejan ("Dean") Kovinic paid tlhe appropriate fee and
submitted his application for a body-mb parlour licence for Deja Vu Studio, 8720 Lundy's Lane,
Niagara, Falls. There is no dispute about the "completeness" of the application, or that his application
successfully advanced to the Phase 3 approval stage as of January 18~, 2000 (See Tab 12 - Joint
Book of Documents). By July 20th, 2000 virtually all preliminary approvals, such as police
clearance, Public Health Department clearance, and initial zoning review were received without
serious adverse comments. (See Joint Book of Documents, tabs 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13)
On July 20e, 2000, Mr. Kovinic submitted his application for site plan control and paid the
appropriate fee. Thus, by July 20~', 2000, all necessary applications for approval were submitted,
and various aspects of his proposal continued to be reviewed by the City. Initial comments were
received from the Planning and Development Department on August 3'a, 2000 and August 17a', 2000.
(See Joint book of Documents, tabs 18, 23, 24)
-2-
On or about July 26~, 2000 Kovinic received notice from the Acting Clerk of the City (Mr.
Ray Kallio) that the 180 day period necessary to complete all approvals prescribed under the by-law
had expired as of July 21st, 2000. On August 8~, 2000, pursuant to s. 52a of the by-law, Kovinic
appealed the decision to the present committee. (See Joint Book of Documents, tab 19)
Preliminary Remarks
During our verbal presentation, we expressed concern about the role of Mr. Kallio in the
proceedings. While we do not dispute the committee's right to legal advice, Mr. Kallio's role was
not clearly defined, and was contrary to his stated position that he was "non-.adversarial" and merely
there to advise the committee/assist in the proceedings.
~ In the present case, Mr. Kallio both made submissions to the committee, and advised it
re~arding matters of procedure. Further, he engaged in legal argUment and cross-examination of
witnesses (on behalf of the City? The committee?). He is also going to be providing written
argument. In my respectful submission, these are the hallmarks of an "adversarial" and partial role.
In addition, some of the documentation before the committee was authored by Mr. Kallio, so in
certain respects he is also a "witness". All of the above events were a surprise to us, and none of the
above was specified in the notice of hearing. Further, there does not appear to be a transcription of
the evidence, as appears to be a requirement under the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act, R.S.O.
1990.
In any event, we have entered into this process in good faith, and intend to make written
submissions as set out herein.
General Submissions
On the merits, Mr. Kovinic should be entitled to an extension of the 180 day dead-line under
the by-law. The extension should be long to allow him to complete all approvals, the vast majority
of which have either been completed or were near completion within a few weeks of the dead-line.
In my respectful submission, the delay associated with Mr. Kovinic's application has not been
his sole responsibility, nor has it been deliberate or inordinately lengthy. Further, no-one has suffered
prejudice as a result of any delay. If Mr. Kovinic is denied a reasonable extension it is he that will
suffer the prejudice of a purely arbitrary dead-line. While there was no evidence presented on the
point, to our knowledge, it does not appear that any of the current applicants for a body rub parlour
licence were able to meet the 180 day dead-line, This is further indicative of the fact that sometimes
more than 180 days is required ~ particularly for first time applicants.
The Evidence of Mr. Kovinic - Applicant
Mr. Kovinic testified that if he is granted an extension he needs approximately four (4) months
from the date of the extension to obtain the necessary approvals and to complete the renovations
-3-
outlined in his proposal. He provided a variety of reasons for not completing all of the necessary
approvals within 180 days, such as a lack of understanding of all the requirements of the by-law (i.e.
such as site plan control), travel for family reasons, personal difficulties (i.e. his wife's difficult
pregnancy, and a personal incident at City Hall which he did not wish to elaborate upon).
Other reasons included the fact that planners, architects, and engineers have had a busy year.
In his case, the landscape architect he had lined up refused to do the project, so another landscaper
had to be found. This evidence was confirmed by David Pounder (consultant/engineer). In my
respectful submission, these are valid reasons for granting an extension, and it is clear that Mr.
Kovinic is serious about his proposal and that he continued to pursue development of the property
(either on his own behalf, or through agents) through-out most of the 180 day time frame. Mr.
Kovinic is not a "speculator" and there no evidence of wilful delay.
Ti~e Evidence of David Pounder Consultant/Engineer
Mr. Pounder is an experienced architect, consultant and engineer. He confirmed that the floor
space of the body rub parlour did not exceed the by-law requirements, and that, to the best of his
knowledge, the proposal (as per the site plans recently submitted) met all of the requirements of the
City.
He testified that the 180 day dead-line was"tight". When pressed by the Committee, he made
a comment to the effect that the dead-line was "slightly unreasonable" given the fact that the
profession has had a busy year. He also was of the view that the approval process is/was two-sided,
in so far as there is a lot of"back and forth" between the many persons inw)lved in multiple approval
agencies and the persons drafting the proposals. In other words, the gist of his evidence, I submit,
is that it takes "two to tango" and that the complex process of site plan control alone can take many
months of preparation - even before submitting it to the government for approval. The government
then in turn sends it back for revisions etc etc., and the process continues for a few more months.
Mr. Pounder also testified that weather permitting, the project could[ be completed within four
(4) months of the date of the extension, assuming all site plan issues are resolved.
The Evidence of Mr. Barnsley - City Planner
Having just received the latest set of revised floor plans, Mr. Barnsley obviously did not have
a chance to review same. However, in my submission, his comments about the initial site plans did
not raise any major objections to the proposal. His initial comments were that he needed confirmation
that the floor space requirements of the. by-law were met, and that the various uses in the building
should be separated properly.
As for the approval process, Mr. Barnsley commented that it took about 4 months on average.
Having said that, however, the Committee should note that Mr. Barnsley's comments did not (in my
-4-
view) include preparation time for the person(s) drafting the proposal. As Mr. Pounder's evidence
suggests, the pre-submission planning stages alone can be a lengthy and intensive process.
The Committee should also take special note of the fact that Mr. Barnsley himself had
correspondence in his file (Exhibit 4: the September 22nd, 2000 letter from the Region of Niagara to
him) which had not yet been provided to Mr. Kovinic, his architect or his legal counsel. Moreover,
Mr. Barnsley also indicated that Mr. Kovinic's proposal had not yet been circulated to the BIA. Mr.
Barnsley's memo of July 26th, 2000 at Tab 17 of the Joint Book of Documents clearly indicates that
he was going to circulate it to the BIA, but he did not as of the date of the hearing. Note: This is not
to suggest that Mr. Barnsley is "slow", or incompetent, but merely to show that the process "takes
time", and that sometimes the factors causing "delay" are not all within the control of the applicant,
nor are they specified within the by-law. (For example, the BIA is notified as a courtesy, and this
r~quirement is not specified in the body rub parlour by-law)
All told, Mr. Barnsley's evidence confirms (a) that Mr. Kovinic's proposal has a few relatively
minor deviations from compliance with the City's site plan control requirements; and (b) that the
delay associated with the application has not entirely been the "fault" of the applicant, or his agents.
The Evidence of William Clark - Zoning Administrator
Mr. Clark testified that Mr. Kovinic's current proposal was in "substantial compliance" with
the zoning requirements of the City. Like Mr. Barnsley, Mr. Clark obviously has not yet had an
opportunity to review the revised plans recently submitted by Mr. Kovinic. It should be noted that
the revised plans are designed to address the remainder of the City's concerns in regard to a proposal
that is already in "substantial compliance"~ Lastly, Mr. Clark also testified that to his knowledge the
requirement of site plan control was not specifically mentioned in the body rub parlour by-law.
Conclusions
In my respectful submission Mr. Kovinic should be granted an extension of four months to
complete the Phase 3 eligibility process. If there is a serious further delay caused by weather, for
instance, it should not be held against him. Once again, the delay associated with Mr. Kovinic's
application has not been excessive nor prejudicial. Mr. Kovinic has been reasonably diligent in
'advancing his proposal, and there is reliable evidence that the delay has not been entirely his fault or
entirely due to factors within his control. If the purpose of this hearing body is to grant extensions
for applicants who require them on legitimate and reasonable grounds, then Mr. Kovinic is clearly
such an applicant.
If you require anything further please advise.
Yours very truly,
c. Ray Kallio (Fax: 905-374-7500)
-5-
Michael A. Jaeger
IN TI--IE MATTER o£a Hearing purst,_a.n[ to the
Municipal Act and By-law Nos. 2000-164 and 2000--199
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing regarding
DF-JAN KOVINIC
Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in his
application for a Body-Rub Parlour Owner's Licence
FACTS
SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL TO COMMIT~gl*.
By apphcation dated September 18, 1999, Dean Kovinic (the "applicant") applied for a body-
mb parlour owner's licence (thc "licence") for 8720 Lundy's Lane (the "subject lands").
Exhibit #3, Book of Documents, tab 8
By letter dated January 1 l, 2000, the City Clerk advised the applicant that he was a
success£ul applicartt of Stage l, Preliminary Eligibility as set o'ut in the Body-mb Parlour By-
law No. 2000-164, as amended (the "By-law"). Book of Documents, tab 11
By letter dated January 18, 2000, the City Clerk advised the apphcant that his application for
a licence would proceed to Stage 3, Lieence Eligibility and further advised her that he must
ensure that all requiremen.ts of the Health, Fire and Building depa,~mJ.ents are completed and
satisfied within 180 days from the date of the letter, in order to comply with the provisions
of the By-law. Book of Documents, tab 12
By letter dated July 26, 2000, fl~e Acting City Clerk advised the applicant that he liad failed
to complete requirements of the Stage 3, Licence Eligibility within the required time period.
The applicant was further advised that pursuant to subsection 39(3) of the By-law he was
disentitled to proceed further in the licensing process. He was also irr~ormed that the By-law
provided that an applicant who had received notice of failure to comply with Stage 3 n~ay,
in writing, have the matter heard by Council. Book of Docnlnents, tab 16
By letter dated August 8, 2000, the lawyer for the applicant requeste(t, in writing, a hearing
before Council. Book of Documents, tab 19
Received Time Oct,31, 9:50AM
LEGAL AUTHORITY
1 The Committee has the right and duty to hear the appeal by the applicant pursuant to the
following authorities:
1.1 Munici, val,4ct R.S.O. 1990~ Chap. M. 45, as amended, section 105, and Part XVII. 1.
Exhibit #2, Book of Authorities, tab 3
1.2 Statutory Powers Procedure ~,lct R.S.O. 1990, Chap. 22, as amended, sections 5 to
15 and 21 to 24. Book of Authorities, tab 4
By-law No. 2000-199. Book of Authorities, tab 5
By-law No. 99-164, as ~mended ltook of Authorities~ tab 6
1.3
1.4
ISSUE
I
2
Should the 180-day time limit set out in the By-law be extended for this applicant and
thereby allowing the application to continue?
If the answer to the issue above is yes, then on what te, iiis and conditions?
EVIDENCE
The applicant testified that the reasons that he could not receive aE final approvals within
· 180 days are as follows:
1.1
Because the building on the subject lands was an existing body-mb parlour, the applicant
did not realize that he needed site.plan approval and only thought tlc,at he needed a bull.ding
pemdt for a change of use.
1.2 The site plan process took longer than he realized.
t.3
At the same time, his wife developed serious complications fi:om he~ pregnancy and he had
to tend to his wife.
1.4
There was an unfbrtunate incident which occurred at City Hall on S~tember 20, 1999 and
he was reluctant to return there.
1.5
The applicant had a difficult time retaining a qualified landscape arch~.tect. He tried to retain
the services of the landscape architect who had done the plans for another licence application
but she refused the_job. He could not find another landscape architect to do the plm~s.
Received Time Oct.3l, 9:50AM
10
The apphcant is of the opinion that he needs another two-three months to complete the
project.
David Pounder, a consult/.~lg cn~neer, gave evidence ou behalf of the applicant. Mr.
Pounder has 40 ye~ experience as au cn$ineer.
Mr. Pounder stated that wh~u the first landscape architect refused to do thc plaus, there were
no other architects/n the re~ion who were available and that he had to look in the Toronto
area before hc finally retained one to do the plan~ for thc subject lands.
Mr. Pounder stated that the site plm~ process takes a long time 1:o complete as there are
pz'climinary plans to be submitted; reviews and changes to the plans and the different
depatiments at City Hall that are involved in the process.
Mr. Pounder gave evidence that he made a bonafide attempt to complete the project withiu
180 days.
Mr. Pounder was of the opinion that the co~astmction would take three to four months after
the building permit was issued.
Mr. Pounder was further of thc opinion that consideration should be given to the fact that the
professionals needed to do the proper plans are not always available xvhen you need them and
that they are busy people.
Mr. John Barnsley, planner for the City, was called on behalf of the applicant, and gave
evidence that the site plan process took approximately three-four months and went thro'ugh
the process and in particular the departments and agencies involved and the reviews that
were carried out.
Mr. William Clark, senior zoning examiner, was called on behalf of'the apphcant and gave
cx, idence that the proposal was in compliance with the zoning by-law.
10
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE
Does thc applicant have a reasonable explanation as to why he could not get his fin. al
approvals within 180 days?
Did the applicant make reasonable efforts to comply with the time limit set out in the By-
law?
Did the applicant take all necessary steps to achieve compliance and was he diligent in his
actions?
Received Time Oct.31. 9:50A~
Intent of the By-law is that the applicant comply with it: including the 1.80~day time limit.
However, Council has soen fit, in the By-law, to allow an applicant to appeal this time limit
Committee should be aware that it could be setting a precedent with any report and
reeonn-nendations it makes to Council.
Should the Committee recommend that the time limit bo extended, on what terms and
conditions? The applicant has requested that the time limit be extended by four months.
The Committee's task is to write a report to Council "as soon ss practicable" upon the
conclusion of the hearing, ,ummarizing the evidence and arguments presented by the parties,
the findings of fact made by the committee and the recommendations, if any, of the
committee with reasons therefor on the medis of the application in respect of which the
hearing has been conducted. Book of Authorities, tab 3
It
,all of which is respectfully submitted this 30th day of October,~l~l~/!
R. O. Kallio, Counsel to the Committee
Eece Yed Time Oct,3]. 9:50^M
GRAYDON SHEPPARD, B.A., LL.B.
BARRISTER-AT-LAW
CERTI~ClED BY 3'HE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA AS A SPECIAL~ST IN CIVIL LITIGATION
Michael A. Jaeger, B.A. LL.B,
EMAIL:m~bestnet. org
BY FAX ONLY: 905-356-9083
The Corporation of the City
of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
N)agara Falls, ON
L2E 6X5
195 JAMES STREET SOUTH
~L~I]~'~ON. ONTARIO
LSP 3A8
TELEPHONE (905) 524-1660
FAX (906) 527-2717 or 527-
5177
EMAIL: wgs@icom.ca
November 1st, 2000
Attention: E.C. Wagg, Clerk
Dear Sir:
Re:
Dejan Kovinic - Written Submissions
Application for Deja Vu Studio, 8720 Lundy's Lane, Niagara Falls, ON
Stage 3 Eligibility Hearing under s. 52a -October 17th, 2000 ~ 9:00 a.m.
Committee Room #2, City Hall
Reply Submissions
The following are the "reply" submissions to the Special Committee with respect to Dejan
("Dean") Kovinic's application for a body-mb parlour licence under the Provisions of By-law No. 99-
164, as amended.
In my respectfully submission, Mr. Kallio has fairly summarized the testimony presented to
the Committee in relation to this application. Combined with our written submissions dated October
23fa, 2000, there is no over-whelming or substantial reason as to why an extension not be granted to
Mr. Kovinic. We maintain our position that Mr. Kovinic has provided the Committee with a
reasonable explanation as to why the 180 day dead-line should be extended[.
In my submission, Mr. Kovinic was reasonably diligent to pursuing his application, and all
applications (that could have been submitted) were submitted prior to the dead-line. Similarly, most
approvals were received at the time of the 180 day dead-line, with the notable exception of site
planning.
As indicated in my written submissions dated October 23rd, 2000, the delay associated with
Mr. Kovinic's application was not entirely his fault, and some of the delay was caused by factors
inherent in either the land development process, or the approval process itself. I say this not to lay
-2-
"blame" on anyone, but merely to point out that development proposals require substantial time (both
before and during the review process). As such, flexibility is often required with respect to any
dead-lines. Further, in my submission, Body rub parlour businesses should not be treated any
differently than any other business, and in the case of Mr. Kovinic, he should be provided with at least
a 4 month extension from the date of site plan approval.
In regard to Mr. Kallio's argument that the granting of an extension could establish a
"precedent", I submit that the provision permitting the Committee to allow fbr extensions is there for
a reason, and should be exercised on reasonable grounds, to the benefit of Mr. Kovinic. Further, each
situation is unique, and should be examined on a "case by case" basis. In other words, I want to
emphasize that should an extension be granted to Mr. Kovinlc, it does not necessarily establish a
"precedent", unless the subsequent application arises from similar circumstances.
If you require anything further please advise,
Respectfully Yours,
c. Ray Kallio (Fax: 905-374-7500)
IN THE MATTER OF
a Hearing pursuant to the Municipal Act
and By-law Nos. 2000-.164 and 2000-199
AND IN THE MA'I-rER OF
a Hearing regarding Marijana Kovinic
Stage 3 eligibility requirements in her
application for a Body-Rub Parlour Owner's Licence
REPLY TO
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY COUNS;EL TO THE COMMITTEE ON
THE APPLICATION OF MARIJANA KOVINIC
STAGE 3 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS IN HER APPLICATION
FOR A BODY-RUB PARLOUR OWNER'S LICENC[;
Submitted by:
Luigi De Lisio
Barrister & Solicitor
16-261 Martindale Road
St. Catharines, Ontario
L2W 1A2
T: (905) 687-4885
F: (905) 687-3311
Solicitor lor the Applicant
To:
Alderman Edward Michalczyk, Chair
Alderman Paisley Janvary-Pool
Alderman Selina Volpatti
Mr. R. Kallio, City Solicitor
Mr. E.C. Wagg, C.M.O., City Clerk
SUBMISSIONS IN REPLY
Counsel to the Committee stated in submissions that he was not adopting an
adversarial roll in these proceedings but was present and participating in his roll as
Counsel to the Comn'~ittee to provide advice on maffers of law.
The Applicant gave evidence that her father-in-law was going to assist her
financially in buying the property, The father-in-law's involvement was financial in
nature.
The Applicant stated in evidence that she spoke to her father..in-law by teleph'one
frequently while she ~vas in Europe and in the course of those conversations she
spoke to him about the purchase of the; property.
The Applicant left for Europe and left a Power of Altorney appointing her father-in-
law as her attorney to deal with matters. The second Offer was signed while she
was in Canada but signed back by the Vendor after she had left.
There was no evidenr::e presented at the hearing to suggest that the parties are not
bound by the second Agreement of Purchase and Sale.
Dean testified that he discussed matters with Mr. Kallio and although he could not
give a specific date, ~nvited Mr. Kallio to check his notes and report on the date
when their meeting took place. Mr, Kallio did not provide this information at the
hearing nor did he deny that the meeting occurred.
The explanation given as to tile delay in closing is simple and consistent- the
Vendor did not wish to close as previously agreed as a result of her Husband's
death and the resulting need to re-locate.
The Applicant brougt't the problem to the attention of City officials well in advance
of the closing date, ,'.,;he made written application for an extension of time early
through her solicitor, ,'~tephen Schmidt followed by the Application currently before
Committee.
The Committee will n:)t be setting a precedent which would apply automatically to
future applications. Each Application is to be determined on its own merits, The
Applicant acknowledges that any decision made in this case would apply to future
applications where the time limit cannol be complied with as a result of the death
of the Vendor and a Purchaser willing to co-operate in setting a new closing date
to accommodate the '~eeds of the Vendor's estate,
10.
Other than forcing the. Vendor's widow to sell through litigation and considering the
delay entailed in same, what more could the Applicant do other than follow the
course adopted givin,g rise to these proceedings?
All of which is respectfully submitled this 31st day of October, 2000.
/L~igi ~e Li{io --
1',,~3olicitor for the Applicant
IN THE MATTER of a Hearing pursuant to the
Municipal Act and By-law Nos. 2000-164 and 2000-199
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Heating regarding
MARIJANA KOVINIC
Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in her
application for a Body-Rub Parlour Owner's Licence
SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL TO COMMITTEE
FACTS
By application dated September 2, 1999, Marijana Kovinic (the "applicant") applied for a
body-mb parlour owner's licence (the "licence"). Exhibit #3, Book of Documents, tab
6
By letter dated January 11, 2000, the City Clerk advised the applicant that she was a
successful applicant of Stage 1, Preliminary Eligibility as set out in the Body-mb Parlour By-
law No. 2000-164, as amended (the "By-law"). Book of Docmnents, tab 9
By letter dated January 18, 2000, the City Clerk advised the applican~t that her application
for a licenco would proceed to Stage 3, Licence Eligibility and further advised her that she
must ensure that all requirements of the Health, Fire and Building depaxtments are completed
and satisfied within 180 days from the date of the letter, in order to comply with the
provisions of the By-law. Book of Documents, tab 10
By letter dated June 15, 2000, Stephen Schmidt, the applicant's lawyer, wrote to the City
asking for an extension of time within which to complete the Stage 3, Licence Eligibility.
Book of Doeuments~ tab 11
By letter dated July 26, 2000, the Acting City Clerk advised the applicant that she had failed
to complete requirements of the Stage 3, Licence Eligibility within the required time period.
The applicant was further advised that pursuant to subsection 39(3) of the By-law she was
disentitled to proceed further in the licensing process. She was also informed that the By-law
provided that an applicant who had received notice of failure to comply with Stage 3 may,
in writing, have the matter heard by Council. Book of Documents, tab 13
-2-
By letter dated August 8, 2000, the lawyer for the applicant requested, in writing, a hearing
before Council. Book of Documents, tab 14
LEGAL AUTHORITY
The Committee has the right and duty to hear the appeal by the applicant pursuant to the
following authorities:
1.1
MunicipalAct R.S.O. 1990, Chap. M. 45, as amended, section 105, and Part XVII. 1.
Exhibit/12, Book of Authorities, tab 3
1.2
Statutory Powers Procedure Act R.S.O. 1990, Chap. 22, as amended, sections 5 to
15 and 21 to 24. Book of Authorities, tab 4
1.3 By-law No. 2000-199. Book of Authorities, tab 5
1.4 By-law No. 99-164, as amended Book of Authorities, tab 6
ISSUE
1 Should the 180-day time limit set out in the By-law be extended for this applicant and
thereby allowing the application to continue?
2 If the answer to the issue above is yes, then on what terms and condihons?
EVIDENCE
The applicant, when she filed her application, submitted an agreement of purchase and sale
for the lands known municipally as 8568 Lundy's Lane (the "subject lands'~. The vendor
was Mr. Jorgen Greftegreff. The transaction was to close on May 26, 2000.
According to the applicant, Mr. Greftegreff died in February, 2000 but Mrs. Crreftegreff did
not contact the applicant until April, 2000.
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
-3-
The applicant testified that Mrs. CJrefiegreffinformed her that Mrs. Crrefiegreff did not want
to sell the subject lands in May but wanted to wait for a while.
The applicant then came into City Hall "around the end of May", 2000 to see if she could
change locations from the subject lands to a site on Bender Street. She was told that she
could not.
The applicant left for Europe on June 4, 2000 and stayed for approximately three months and
returned home on September 10, 2000.
Before she left for Europe, the applicant spoke to her father-in-law because "he was going
to buy the property". Other than speaking to her father-in-law by telephone occasionally, the
applicant had no further involvement in the subject lands.
The father-in-law was going to give the applicant a personal loan to buy the subject lands.
A second agreement of purchase and sale ("second agreement") was entered into between
Jorgen Greftegreffand Zivota Kovinic, in trust for the subject lands. It was executed by Mr
Kovinic on May 12, 2000 and by Beverly Greftegreffon June 8, 2000.
The closing of the second agreement was scheduled for October 30, 2000.
The applicant had no explanation as to why her father-in-law entered into the second
agreement even though she was still in the city on May 12.
The applicant did not know if her father-in-law waived the financing condition in the second
agreement nor did she know whether the subject lands were inspected and whether that
condition was waived in the second agreement.
Dean Kovinic ("Dean") gave evidence that Mrs. Greftegreff, in March 2000 told him that her
husband had died and that she didn't want to move because she had many stone sculptures
and didn't have a place to store them.
Dean testified that he discussed the matter with City officials but could not give a specific
date.
Dean was somewhat familiar with the second agreement but was not sure if the financing and
inspection conditions were waived,
Dean stated that he did not talk to his father about the second agreement.
Dean could not recall if he gave the applicant any advise when he became aware of Mrs.
Greftegreff refusing to close the deal on the subject lands in May.
-4-
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE
When the applicant was informed by the City Clerk in January, 2000 that she had
successfully reached Stage 3, Licence Eligibility, she took nO steps to contact Mr. Grefiegreff
to see whether the closing date could be advanced so that she could take possession of the
subject lands sooner.
In fact, even after Mrs. Grefiegreffinformed the applicant, in April, that the vendor had died
and that Mrs. Greftegreffwas reluctant to close on May 26, the applicant did not approach
City Hall until the end of May to try to change locations.
The applicant gave no explanation as to why her brother-in-law, Dean, who had been
speaking to Mrs. Greftegreffin March, did not tell the applicant that there was a potential
problem as the applicant testified that she only found out about Mr. Greftegre~s death and
the delayed closing date when she was contacted by Mrs. Greftegreff in April.
4
With a potential delay in the closing date, the applicant went to Europe on June 4 and did
not return until September 10.
While the applicant was still in the city, her father-in-law submitted a new offer to purchase
the subject lands dated May 12 to Mr. Jorgen Greftegreff, who had been dead for at least
three months, which offer was accepted by his widow on June 8.
The applicant did not give an explanation as to why her father-in-law executed the second
offer and what happened to the first agreement except to say that her father-in-law was going
to buy the propcuXy.
The applicant gave no evidence as to what steps she took to ensure that the transaction for
the subject lands would close ott May 26, if not sooner.
Other than a few telephone conversations to her father-in-law while she was in Europe, the
applicant had no further involvement in the second agreement and did not know the status
of it.
Does the applicant have a reasonable explanation as to why she could not get his final
approvals within 180 days?
10
Did the applicant make reasonable efforts to comply with the time limit set out in the By-
law?
11 Did the applicant take all necessary steps to achieve compliance and was she diligent in her
12
13
14
15
16
-5-
actions?
Intent of the By-law is that the applicant comply with it, including the 180-day time limit.
However, Council has seen fit, in the By-law, to allow an applicant to appeal this time limit
Committee should be aware that it could be setting a precedent with any repo'rt and
recommendations it makes to Council.
Should the Committee recommend that the time limit be extended, on what terms and
cOnditions? The applicant has requested that the time limit be extended to December 31,
2000.
The Committee's task is to write a report to Council "as soon as practicable" upon the
conclusion of the hearing, summarizing the evidence and arguments pn;sented by the parties,
the findings of fact made by the committee and the recommendations, i~ any, of the
committee with reasons therefor on the merits of the application in respect of which the
hearing has been conducted. Book of Authorities, tab 3
All of which is respectfully submitted this 30th day of October,
R. O. Kallio, Counsel to the Committee
IN THE MATTER OF
a Heating pursuant to the Municipal Act
and By-law Nos, 2000-164 and 2000-199
AND IN THE MATTER OF
a Heating regarding Marijana Kovinic
Stage 3 eligibility requirements in her
application for a Body-Rub Parlour Owner's Licence
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
MARIJANA KOVINIC
AFTER
HEARING HELD TUESDAY OCTOBER 17TM, 2000 9:00 A.M.
Submitted by:
Luigi De Lisio
Barrister & Solicitor
16-261 Martindale Road
St. Catharines, Ontario
L2W 1A2
T: (905) 687-4885
F: (905) 687-3311
Solicitor for the Applicant
Alderman Edward Michalczyk, Chair
Alderman Paisley Janvary-Pool
Alderman Selina Volpatti
Mr. R. Kal,o, City Solicitor/'
Mr. E.C. Wagg, C.M.O., City Clerk
SUBMISSIONS
PURPOSE OF HEARING
The Applicant, Marijana Kovinic, has requested this Committee hear and consider
her request under subsection 52a(2) of By-law No. 99-164 with respect to a notice
under paragraph 39(4)(a) of the By-law, alleging failure to comply with Stage 3
Eligibility requirements in her application for a body rub parlour owner's licence.
BACKGROUND
o
The Applicant is a resident of 4348 Bampfield Dr., Unit #2, Niagara Falls, Ontario,
and is married with 2 children.
o
On or about the 20~ day of September, 1999, the Applicant signed and submitted
an Application for Body-Rub Padour Owner's Licence to the City. of Niagara Falls,
Ontario as required by By-law No. 99-164 with respect to property owned by Jorgen
Greffegreff (hereinafter referred to as "J.G.") and municipally known as 8568
Lundy's Lane, Niagara Falls, Ontado (hereinafter referred to as "the property"). A
copy of the Application is found at Tab "A" of the Applicant's Document Brief filed
herewith.
On or about September 20~, 2000, the Applicant entered into an Agreement of
Purchase and Sale with J. G. with respect to the property. A copy of the Agreement
of Purchase and Sale is found at Tab "B" of the Applicant's Document Brief filed
herewith.
In or about February or March, 2000, the Applicant was informed that J,G. had died
while in Arizona.
o
J. G.'s wife advised that she did not wish to be bound by the terms of the
Agreement of Purchase and Sale. Specifically, given her Husband's untimely death,
she was not prepared to close the transaction and provide vacant possession by
May 26, 2000 as required by the Agreement.
o
8.
9.
10.
On or about May 16~', 2000, the Applicant entered into a second Agreement of
Purchase and Sale with the late J.G.'s widow with respect to the same property.
The Agreement of Purchase and Sale contained the same te~i-(~s as the Agreement
first entered into with J.G. save and except that closing was scheduled for October
30~, 2000. A copy of the second Agreement of Purchase and Sale is found at Tab
"C" of the Applicant's Document Brief filed herewith.
Accordingto the e~/idence given atthe Headng held herein by Dejan "Dean" Kovinic,
the Vendor conducted a small commercial business from the property and she
required some time to move her inventory which included rocks used to make
souvenir keep-sakes.
The second agreement of Purchase and Sale was signed by her father-in-law in
trust for the Applicant. Her father-in-law was going to assist in the purchase of the
property with money.
On June 15~, 2000, the Applicant, by her father-in-law, caused a letter to be sent
by her solicitor, Stephen Schmidt, to the City of Niagara Falls Licensing Division and
Building Department advising the City that she could not comply with the
requirements of the by-law prior to October 30~ and requesting an extension of time
for compliance given J.G.'s untimely death. A copy of the letter is found at Tab "D"
of the Applicant's Document Brief filed herewith.
!
!
11.
On June 28~, 2000 the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario wrote to the solicitor for the
Applicant and advised that the by-law did not give staffthe discretion to extend any
time limits. A copy of the letter is found at Tab "E" of the Applicant's Document
Brief filed herewith.
12. The Applicant requested and was granted a hearing before this Committee.
THE LAW
13.
It is respectfully submitted that this Committee has been authorized by by-law no.
2000-199 to hear applications for licenses, and other matters relating to such
applications, pursuant to the said By-law no. 99-164, in the place of the Council, in
accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, particularly section 105 thereof,
and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. A copy of the By-law is found at Tab "F"
of the Applicant's Document Brief filed herewith.
14.
It is respectfully submitted that after hearing, the Council shall, in accordance with
applicable law, hear the matter and shall either confirm the decision represented by
the notice or allow the application to proceed, or grant the licence as the case may
be. A copy of the By-law is found at Tab "G" of the Applicant's Document Brief filed
herewith.
15.
A copy of the headnote to Roncarelli vs. Duplessis, 176 [1959] S.C.R. 121, a
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is found at Tab "H" of the Applicant's
Document Brief filed herewith. The Committee must be fair in the manner in which
it exercises its discretion. The exercise of discretion implies good faith in discharging
public duty.
ARGUMENT
16. The Applicant has used her best efforts in fulfilling the requirernents of By-law no.
99-164.
17.
No act or omission on the part of the Applicant resulted in the transaction involving
the property from closing on May 26, 2000 as first agreed.
18. The purchase of the prbperty was frustrated by the death of J.G..
19. The Applicant took steps to notify the City of her inability to close~ May 26, 2000 and
fulfill the stage 3 of the by-law.
20.
The Applicant has demonstrated a willingness to comply with the City by-laws and
to engage in all inspections as required to fulfill stage 3 of the by-law.
21. The Applicant took steps to revive the transaction and, in fact:, signed a second
agreement of purchase and sale for the property requiring it close October 30, 2000.
22. There was no evidence presented at Headng to suggest the transaction will not
close as scheduled.
23.
No evidence was presented to suggest that there would be any prejudice to anyone
other than the Applicant if the time for completion of the stage 3 requirements were
!
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
I
!
I
not extended.
24. There is no reason in law to deny the Applicant an extension as requested.
25.
It would be unfair and not equitable to deny the Applicant an extension given that
she has satisfied 2 out of 3 stages as required by the by-law in a short time and
would likely have satisfied the stage 3 requirements had it not been for J. G.' s
death and his widow's request to allow her more time to move her belongings
including inventory for her business,
ORDER REQUESTED
26. That the time for the Applicant to complete stage 3 of by-law no. 99-164 be
extended to December 31't, 2000.
· All of which is respectfully submitted this 23~ day of October, 2000.
the Applicant
GP, AYDON SHEPPARD, B.A., LL.B.
BARRISTER-AT-LAW
Michael A. ~aeger. B.A. LL.B.
~a~ ~@~
BY FAX ONLY: 905-~56-90S3
The Corporation o£the City
of Niagara Falls
43 I0 Queen Street
Niagara F.~lls, ON
L2E
II[A.~I~'I'ON, ONTARIO
~EPHONE {905) 52~1~
FAX ;905) G27-2717 or G27-
6177
I~AIL: ~g~i~m.~
November 1 st, 2000
Attention:,E.C. Wave_. Clerk
Dear Sir:
Re:
Dejan Kovinic - Written Submissions ·
Application for Deja Vu Studio, 8720 Lundy's Lane, Niagara ~alls, ON
Stage 3 Eligibility Hearing under s. 52a -October 17~, 2000 ~ 9:1)0 a.m.
Committee Room #2, City Hall
Reply Submissions
The following arc thc "reply" submissions to the Special Committee with respect to Dejau
("Dean") Kovinic's application for a body-mb parlour licence under the provisions of By-law No. 99-
164, as amended.
In my respc~y submission, Mr. Kallio has fairly summarized thc test~nony presented to
the Committee in relation to this application. Combined with our written subrrfissions dated October
23'a, 2000, there is no over-whelming or substantial reason as to why an extension not be granted to
Mr. Kovinic. We maintain our position that Mr. Kovinic has provided the Committee with a
reasonable explanation as to why the 180 day dead-line should be extended.
In my submission, Mr. Kovinic was reasonably diligent to pursuing his application, and all
applications (that could have been submitted) were .~ubmitted prim-to the dead--line. Similarly, most
spprovals were received at the time of the 180 day dead-line, with the notable exception of site
planning.
As indicated in my written submissions dated October 234, 2000, thc delay associated with
Mr. Kovinic's application was not entirely his fault, and some of thc delay was caused by factors
ir~ercnt in either thc land developmemt process, or the approval process itself. I say this not to lay
"blame" on anyone, but merely to point out that development proposals require substantial time (both
before .~n.~ during the review process). As such, flexibility is often required with respect to any
dead-lines. Further, in my submission, Body rub parlour businesses should not be treated any
di~erently than any other business, and in the case of Mr. Kovinic, he should be provided with at least
a 4 month extension from the date of site plan approval.
In regard to Mr. Kallio's argument that the granting of an extension could establish a
"precedent", I submit that the provision permitting the Committee to allow for tm'tensions is thero for
a reason, and should be exercised on reasonable grounds, to the benefit of Mr. Kovini¢. ~urther, each
situation is unique, and should be examined on a "case by ease" basis. In other words, ! want to
emphasize that should an extension be granted to Mr. Kovinic, it does not necessarily establish a
"precedent", unless the subsequent application arises from similar dreumstances.
If you require anything further please advise.
~.~.. Respectfully Yottrs,
c. Ray g~lllo (Fax: 905-374-75o0)
IN THE MATTER of a Hearing pursuant to the
Municipal Act and By-law Nos. 2000-164 and 2000-199'
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing regarding
DE JAN KOVINIC
Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in his
application for a Body-Rub Parlour Owner's Licence
SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL TO COMMITTEE
FACTS
By application dated September 18, 1999, Dean Kovinic (the "applicant"') applied for a body-
rub parlour owner's licence (the "licence") for 8720 Lundy's Lane ('the "subject lands").
Exhibit #3, Book of Documents, tab 8
2
By letter dated January 11, 2000, the City Clerk advised the applicant that he was a
successful applicant of Stage 1, Preliminary Eligibility as set out in the l%dy-rub Parlour By-
law No. 2000-164, as amended (the "By-law"). Book of Documents, tab 11
By letter dated January 18, 2000, the City Clerk advised the applicant that his application for
a licence would proceed to Stage 3, Licence Eligibility and further adv/sed her that he must
ensure that all requirements of the Health, Fire and Building departments are completed and
satisfied within 180 days l~om the date of the letter, in order to comply with the provisions
of the By-law. Book of Documents, tab 12
By letter dated July 26, 2000, the Acting City Clerk advised the applic,mt that he had failed
to complete requirements of the Stage 3, Licence Eligibility within the required time period.
The applicant was further advised that pursuant to subsection 39(3) of the By-law he was
disentitled to proceed further in the licensing process. He was also info~med that the By-law
provided that an applicant who had received notice of failure to comply with Stage 3 may,
in writing, .have the matter heard by Council. Book of Documents, tab 16
By letter dated August 8, 2000, the lawyer for the applicant requested, in writing, a heating
before Council. Book of Documents, tab 19
LEGAL AUTHORITY
The Committee has the right and duty to hear the appeal by the applicant pursuant to the
following authorities:
1.1
MunicipalAct R.S.O. 1990, Chap. M. 45, as amended, section 1105, and Part XVII. 1.
Exhibit//2, Book of Authorities, tab 3
1.2
Statutory Powers Procedure Act R.S.O. 1990, Chap. 22, as amended, sections 5 to
15 and 21 to 24. Book of Authorities, tab 4
1.3 By-law No. 2000-199. Book of Authorities, tab 5
1.4 By-law No. 99-164, as amended Book of Authorities, tab 6
ISSUE
Should the 180-day time limit set out in the By-law be extended for this applicant and
thereby allowing the application to continue?
2 If the answer to the issue above is yes, then on what terms and conditions?
EVIDENCE
The applicant testified that the reasons that he could not receive all final approvals within
180 days are as follows:
1.1
Because the building on the subject lands was an existing body-mb parlour, the applicant
did not realize that he needed site plan approval and only thought that he needed a building
permit for a change of use.
1.2 The site plan process took longer than he realized.
1.3
At the same time, his wife developed serious complications from her pregnancy and he had
to tend to his wife.
1.4
There was an unfortunate incident which occurred at City Hall on September 20, 1999 and
he was reluctant to return there.
1.5
The applicant had a difficult time retaining a qualified landscape architect. He tried to retain
the services of the landscape architect who had done the plans for another licence application
but she refused the job. He could not find another landscape architect to do the plans.
7
10
The applicant is of the opinion that he needs another two-three months to complete the
project.
David Pounder, a consulting engineer, gave evidence on behalf of the applicant. Mr.
Pounder has 40 years experience as an engineer.
Mr. Pounder stated that when the first landscape architect refused to do the plans, there were
no other architects in the region who were available and that he had to look in the Toronto
area before he finally retained one to do the plans for the subject lands.
Mr. Pounder stated that the site plan process takes a long time to complete as there are
preliminary plans to be submitted; reviews and changes to the plans and the different
departments at City Hall that are involved in the process.
Mr. Pounder gave evidence that he made a bonafide attempt to complete the project within
180 days.
Mr. Pounder was of the opinion that the construction would take three to four months after
the building permit was issued.
Mr. Pounder was further of the opinion that consideration should be given to the fact that the
professionals needed to do the proper plans are not always available when you need them and
that they are busy people.
Mr. John Bamsley, planner for the City, was called on behalf of the: applicant, and gave
evidence that the site plan process took approximately three-four monl:hs and went through
the process and in particular the departments and agencies involved and the reviews that
were carded out.
Mr. William Clark, senior zoning examiner, was called on behalf of the applicant and gave
evidence that the proposal was in compliance with the zoning by-law..
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE
Does the applicant have a reasonable explanation as to why he coald not get his final
approvals within 180 days?
Did the applicant make reasonable efforts to comply with the time limit set out in the By-
law?
Did the applicant take all necessary steps to achieve compliance and was he diligent in his
actions?
4 Intent of the By-law is that the applicant comply with it, including the 180-day time limit.
5 However, Council has seen fit, in the By-law, to allow an applicant to appeal this time limit
Committee should be aware that it could be setting a precedent with any report and
recommendations it makes to Council.
Should the Committee recommend that the time limit be extended, on what terms and
conditions? The applicant has requested that the time limit be extended by four months.
The Committee's task is to write a report to Council "as soon as practicable" upon the
conclusion of the hearing, summarizing the evidence and arguments presented by the parties,
the findings of fact made by the committee and the recommendations, if any, of the
committee with reasons therefor on the merits of the application in respect of which the
hearing has been conducted. Book of Authorities, tab 3
All of which is respectfully submitted this 30th day of October,7~l//~tt
R. O. Kallio, Counsel to the Committee
GRAYDON SHEPPARD, B.A., LL.B
BARRISTER-AT-LAW
CERTIFIED 8Y THE t. AW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA ~ ASP ECIN. I~T IN CM~. LF
Michael A. Jaeger, B,A. IJ,.B.
EMAIL: nmj.rE'lbc$1nct.orE.
BY FAX ONLY: 905-356-9083
The Corporation of the City
of Niagara Fails
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
Attention: E,C. Wa_oe. Clerk
Dear Sir:.
Re:
LEGAL DEPT.
OCT 2 2llC
TiEI. EPHONE (EOS) 524-1l~0D
F,'"~ (~05) 527-2717 o¢ 527-5177
October 23r& 2000
Dejau Kovinie - Written Submissions
Application for Deja Vu Studio, 8720 Lundy's Lane, Niagara Falls, ON
Stage 3 Eli~bility Hearing under s. $2a -October 17'h, 2000 ~ 9:00 a.m.
Committee Room #2, City Hall
Introduction
The following are the written submissions to the Special Committee ,Mth respect to Dejan
( an ') Kovmtc s apphcatmn for a body-rub parlour hccnce under the prov:stons orBy_law No. 99_
164, as amended.
On or about September 20'~, 1999, Dejan ("Dean") Kovinic paid the: appropriate fee and
submitted his application for a body-mb parlour licence for Deja Vu Studio, 8720 Ltmdy's Lane,
Niagara Falls. There is no dispute about the "completeness" of the application, or that his application
successfully advanced to the Phase 3 approval s[~ge as of January 18'h, 21300 (See tab 12 - Joint Book
of Documents). By July 20'a, 2000 virtually all preliminary approvals, such as police clearance.
Public Health Department clearance, and initial zoning review were received without serious advers~
comments. (See Joint Book of Documents, tabs 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13)
On July 20'~, 2000, Mr. Kovinic submitted his application Ibr site pisa control and paid thc
appropriate fee. Thus, by July 20t~, 2000, all necessary applications for approval were submitted.
and various aspects of his proposal continued to be reviewed by the City. I~.ifial comments were
received from the Planning and Development Depm tment on Augu,qt 3~, 2000 and August 17t', 2000~
(See Joint book of Documents, tabs 18, 23, 24)
On or about July 26'h, 2000 Kovinic received notice from the Acting Clerk of the CiD' (Mr.
Ray Kallio) that the 180 day period necessary to complete all approvals prescribed under the by-law
:D
-2-
had expired as of July 21'~', 2000. On August 8a`, 2000, pursuant to s. 52a of'the by-law, Kovinic
appealed the decision to the present committee. (See Joint Book of Doctmients, tab 19)
Preliminary Remarlcs
During oar verbal presentation, we expressed concern about the role of Mr. Kallio in the
proceedings. While we do not dispute the committee's right To legal advice, Mr. Kallio's role was
not clearly defined, and was contrary to his stated position tha~ he was "non-adversarial" and merely
there to advise the committee/assist in the proceedings.
In the present case, Mr. Kallio both made submissions to the comrtfittee, and advised it
zegarding matters of procedure. Further, he engaged in legal argument and cross-examination of
witnesses (on behdt' of the City? The committee?). He is also going to be providing ~xxitten
argument. In my respectful submission, these are the hallmarks oran"adversarial" and partial role.
In addition, some of the documentation before the committee was authored by Mr. Kallio, so in
certain respects he is also a "wimess". All of the above events were a surprise to us, and none of the
above was specified in the notice ol~hearing. Further, there does not appear to, be a transcription of
the evidence, as appears to be a requirement under the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act: R.S.O.
1990.
In any event, we have entered into this process in good thith, and intend to m'ake w~itten
submissions as set out herein.
General Subrnissqons
On the merits, Mr. Kovinic should be entitled to an extension of the 180 da3' dead-line under
the by-law. The extension should be long to allow him to complete all approvals, the vast majori~-
of which have either been completed o~ were near completior/Within a £ew weeks OF the deadline.
In my respectful submission, the.delay associated with Mr. Kovinic's application has not been
his sole responsibilit3,, nor has it been deliberate or inordinately lengnhy. Further, no-one has stfft'ered
prejudice as a result of any delay. If Mr. Kovinic is denied a reasonable extension it is he that will
suffer the prejudice of a purely arbitrary dead-line. While there was no evidence presented on the
point, to our knowledge, it doe~ not appear that any of the current applicants for a body- rub parlour
licence were able to meet the li80 day dead-line. This is further indicative ofthe fact that sometimes
more than 180 days is req~ixed - particularly for first time applicants.
The Evidence of Mr. Kin, intel!:.- Applicant
Mr. Kovinic testified ttifit if he is_exanted an extension he n~eds approximately four (4) months
from the date of the extensioti, to obtain the necessary approvals and to complete the renovations
outlined in his proposal_ He:,brovided :a variety of reasons for not completing all of the necessary
approvals within 180 days, sudh as a lack of understanding of all the requirements of the by-law (i.e.
such as site plan control), travel for/~amily reasons, personal difficulties (l.e. his wife's difficult
p~gnancy, and a personal incident at City Hall which he did not wish to elaborate upon).
Other reasons included the fact that planners, architects, and engineers have had a busy year.
In his case, the landscape architect he had lined up refused to do the project, so another landscaper
had to be found. This evidence was confirmed by David Pounder (consultant/engineer). In my
r~spectful submission, these are valid reasons for granting an extension, and it is clear that Mr.
Kovinic is serious about his proposal and that he continued to pursue development o£ the property
(either on his own behalf, or through agents) through-out most of the lg0 day time fraxne. Mr.
Kovinic is not a "speculator" and there is no evidence of Wilful delay_
7fire Evidence of David Pounder ~ Consultant/Engineer
Mr. Pounder is an experienced architect, consultant and engineer. He confirmed that the tloor
space of the body-rub parlour did not exceed the by-law requirements, and that, to the best of his
knowledge, thc proposal (as:per the site plans recently submitted) met all ofth~,' requirements of the
City.
He testified that the 180 day dead-Ii ne was "tight". When pressed by the Commit-tee, he made
a comment to the effect that.the dead-line was "slightl3/unreasonable" g/yen the fact that the
profession has had a busy year. He also was of the view that the approval proem;ss is/was two-sided,
in so far as there is a lot of"back and forth" between the many persons involved in multiple approval
agencies and the persons drafting the proposals. In other Words, the gist of htr5 evidence, I submit,
is that it takes "two to tangO~':ahd that the complex processiof site plan control alone can take many
months of preparation - even before submitting it to the go~,emment for approval. The government
then in turn sends it back tbi"r~visi0ns etc etc.. and the process continues ft~r a few more months.
Mr. Pounder also testified that Weather permitting, the project could be completed within four
(4) months of the date of th~iextensioh; assuming all site plan issues are resolved.
The Evidence of Mr. Barn~le~ ~ City:Planner i
Having just receivedil~e iat~st'sdt of revised floor plans, Mr. Barnsley obvionsly did not have
a chance to review' same. Ifffv~eVer~.in my submission, his Comments about the initial site plans did
not raise any major objectio~i~ the pr0posal. I, Iis initial comments were that he ~needed confim~ation
that the floor space requirements of th6 by-law were met, ~nd fl~at the various uses in the building
should be separated properl:y['i:.!: ! !'ii::'
As for the approval l~i~6~ss, Mr.~Barnsley cotnmented that it took about 4 months on average.
Having said that, however, l~e:::Con~mit~ee should note that Mr. Bamsley's' comments did not (in my
view) include preparation ti~n6 for the ~erSon(s) drafting the propose. As Mr. Pounder's evidence
suggests, the pre-submissio~:l~lanninEistages alone can beia lengthy and intensive process.
-4-
The Committee should also take special note of the fact that Mr. Bamslcy himself had
correspondence in his file (Exhibit 4: the September 22"d, 2000 letter from the Region of Niagara to
him) which had not yet been provided to Mr. Kovinic, his architecl or his legal counsel. Moreover,
Mr. Bamslcy also indicated that Mr. Kovinic's proposal had nol yet been circulated to the BIA. Mr.
Barnsley~s memo of July 26~, 2000 at tab 17 o£the Joint Book of'Documems clearly indicates that
he was going to circulate it to the BIA, hut he did not as oFthe date ofthe hearing. Note: This is not
to suggest that Mr. Bamsley is "slow", or incompetent, but merely to show that the process "takes
time", and thru sometimes the factors causing "delay" are not al1 within the control of the applicant,
nor are they specified within the by-law. (For example, the BIA is notified as a courtesy, and this
requirement is not specified in the body-mb parlour by-law)
All told, Mr. Bamsley's evidence confn-ms (a) that Mr, Kovinic's proposal has a few relatively
minor deviations from compliance with the City's site plan control requirements; and (b) that the
delay associated with the application has not entirely been the "[~ult" orthe applicant, or his agents.
The Evidence t~f William Clark ~ Zoning AdtnJnistrator
Mr. Clark testi fled that Mr. Kovinie's current proposal was in "substantial compliance' with
thc zoning requirements or,he City. Like Mr. Barnsley, Mr. Clark obviously has not ),et had an
opportunity to review the revised'plans recently submitted by Mr, Kovinic. It should be noted that
the revised plans are desigr/ed to address, the remainder of the City's concerns in regard to a proposal
that is alreadv in "substantial'eompl~aUce''.Lastly, Mr. Clark also testified that to his ~knowledgethe
requirement of site plan control iw, ~.no! specifically mentioned in the body-mb parlour by-law.
In my respectful sub~is~i'b~iMi/2 Kovinic should be granted an extension of four months to
complete the Phase 3 eli~b{l~i~y:l~r~ce~. If there is a serious further delay caused by weather, for
instance, it should not be li~i"d ~tihim. Once again, the delay associated with Mr. Kovinic's
application has not been ek~sli~e'.i~ho~: preiudicial. Mr. Kovinic has been reasonably diligent in
advancing his proposal, ana: tel, i :C. ellabl/eviaence that the delay has not bee.,n entirely his fau]~ or
entirely due to factors withi;~!hig ~'tr~l. If the purpose of this hearing body i:, zo grant extansions
for applicants Who require ~}~ii'egiiimate and reasonable grounds, then Mr. Kovinic is clearly
If you
require
an~g i. er~lease~ advise.Yours very tnfly,
c. R~y Kallio .(Fax: 905-37957500)'i.
8055 McLeod Road, Unit 204
Niagara Falls, Ontario L2H 2Y6
November 21, 2000
Mr. E. C. Wagg CMO.
City Clerk
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5
Dear Mr. Wagg:
Throughout the month of January, 2001, the Ontario March of Dimes will be conducting
its annual door-to door campaign across the province. I would appreciate it if you could
have council, at their December, 2000 meeting, proclaim the month of January, 2001 as
"Ontario March of Dimes Month" in the City of Niagara Falls.
Should you require any further information about our campaign, I encourage you to
contact me at (905) 358-9904.
Sincerely,
Area Co-ordinator
Encl.- 1
NIA ° A
OFF/CE OF THE REGIONAL CLERK
The Regional Municipality of Niagara
2201 St. David's Road, P.O. Box 1042
Thorold, Ontario L2V 4T7
Telephone: (905) 685-1571
Facsimile: (905) 685-6243
E-Mail Address: rhollick@regional.niagara.on.ca
November 24, 2000
Mr. E.C. Wagg, City Clerk
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Our Ref.:
Council, November 23, 2000
PWA 240-2000 (Revised)
A.08.0999
Dear Mr. Wagg:
The Niagara Voice Radio Joint Board of Management
The Council of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, at its meeting of November 23,
2000, approved the following recommendation:
"That appointees be sought from the participating pa~rtners to fill
identified positions on the previously approved Joint Board of
Management to oversee the implementation and operation of the new
Voice Radio System as outlined in Report PWA 240-2000 (Revised).
That the current Niagara Voice Radio System Implementation Co-
ordinating Committee and its membership as described in PWA 240-
2000 (Revised) continue day to day responsibility for implementation
of the new system until completion in November 2001.
That KVA Communications Inc. be retained at an upset limit of
$19,453 to review all existing radio paging/alerting systems utilized by
the area municipal fire departments including the Town of Fort Erie,
with a view to investigate the current operations and shortcomings
and to recommend alternatives and improvements."
pLANNiN i .F. TtNG EC 1 1
-2-
As per the Proposed Governance Structure for Implementation andl Operations of the
Niagara Voice Radio System (FleetNet), the Niagara Voice Radio Joint Board of
Management will be comprised of eleven members. The Board will include one staff
person representing the three largest Fire Departments (St. Catharines, Niagara Falls
and Welland); one representing the other nine Fire Departments; one staff
representative from the Region of Niagara; two staff representatives from Niagara
Regional Police Service; one staff person representing the Ambulance Service; one
elected official representing the three largest Municipalities (St. Catharines, Niagara
Falls and Welland); one elected official representing the other nine area Municipalities;
two elected representatives from Regional Council and one Niagara Regional Police
Board Regional Council non-elected appointee.
It is therefore requested that St. Catharines, Welland and Niagara Falls Chief
Administrative Officers provide the Regional Municipality of Niagara with the name of
an elected official as their representative on the Niagara Voice Radio Joint Board of
Management as soon as possible.
The Regional Municipality of Niagara also requests that the Chief Administrative
Officers of the remaining nine area Municipalities seek the appointment of an elected
official as their representative on the Niagara Voice Radio Joint Board of Management
as soon as possible.
A copy of the background report, PWA 240-2000 (Revised) is enclosed herewith for
your reference.
Yours truly,
Thomas R. Holliok
Regional Clerk
/JP
Attachment
CC,
I. Neville, Director of Public Works
J. Cousins, Assistant Director, Transportation Division
B. Johnson, Manager Traffic Systems
REViSeD
PWA 240-2000
November 23, 2000
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA
REPORT TO:
SUBJECT:
Chair and Members of the
Committee of the Whole Council
Niagara Voice Radio Project
Implementation Update and Project Governance
RECOMMENDATION(S)
That this Committee recommends to Regional Council:
That appointees be sought from the participating partners to fill identified positions on
the previously approved Joint Board of Management to oversee the implementation and
operation of the new Voice Radio System as outlined in Report PWA 240-2000
(Revised).
That the current Niagara Voice Radio System Implementation Co-ordinating Committee
and its membership as described in PWA 240-2000 (Revised) continue day to day
responsibility for implementation of the new system until completion in November 2001.
That KVA Communications Inc. be retained at an upset limit of $19,453 to review all
existing radio paging/alerting systems utilized by the area municipal' fire departments
including the Town of Fort Erie, with a view to investigate the current operations and
shortcomings and to recommend alternatives and.i .mprovements.
PURPOSE
To seek the appointees to the Joint Board of Management to oversee the
implementation and operation of the Niagara Voice Radio System and the retention of a
consultant to complete the fire paging study.
REVISED
PWA 240-2000
November 23, 2000
BACKGROUND
On August 30, 2000, Regional Council approved report CAO 36-2000 which included
the approval for the contract between the Regional Municipality of Niagara and Bell
Mobility for the installation of the FleetNet Trunk Voice Radio System in Niagara for the
area municipal fire departments, The Niagara Regional Police Service, and the Region's
Public WorkS Department.
Included in report CAO 36-2000 was a recommendation that the Regional Director of
Public Works be directed to report on the appointment of a Project Manager after
consultation with a Joint Board of Management' and address the responsibilities
representing the partners interest in the implementation of the new Voice Radio System
in accordance with the contract.
In addition, report CAO 36-2000 also recommended that the Project Manager obtain
studies on:
a) The formation of Communications Niagara Corporation or Joint Board of
Management to oversee the implementation and operations of the new Voice Radio
System.
b) Examination and evaluation of alternative dispatch systems.
c) Enhancements to the current fire paging and alerting systems prior to
· implementation of the new Voice Radio System.
d) Alternative revenue sources such as ambulance dispatch, alternative dispatch
arrangements, and sale of replaced used eqi~ipment to reduce and/or eliminate
Regional deficit and shortfall.
This report addresses the. actions taken to date to maintain the initial stages of the
project implementation process including the fire paging study and recommendations on
the establishment of a Joint Board of Management for consideration by the participating
partners.
2
November 23, 2000
IMPLEMENTATION
Following the award and execution of the contract, the Director of Public Works was
appointed interim Project Manager to facilitate a speedy transition into the
implementation stages. The Director established an Implementation Co-ordinating
Committee with representatives from the partnership combineC with four Bell Mobility
staff including their Project Manager. The makeup of that committee is as follows:
Chair (interim Project Manager) - lan Neville
Niagara Regional Police Services Co-ordinator - Cathy Berecz
Fire Department Co-ordinator - Al Jones, St. Catharines Fire Department, and Peter
Corfield, Niagara Falls Fire Department
Regional Public Works Co-ordinator - Dave Wight
Bell Mobility - Gary Collier, Chris Coulson, Dave Russell, and Dan Puklicz
The Implementation Co-ordinating Committee meets regularly every two weeks with
ongoing interim tasks being undertaken to ensure that the project is carried out in
accordance with the signed contract and on time. The primary emphasis at the early
stages has been focused on meeting the early deployment requi~rements of the Niagara
Regional Police Services for their portables and the acquisition of the infrastructure
equipment, all of which is detailed in the implementation tasks and timelines attached to
this report as Appendix A.
Prior to implementation of the new Bell Mobility FleetNet System, there was agreement
that a study would be undertaken to investigate the current operations and
shortcomings of all existing radio paging/alerting systems utilized by the area municipal
fire departments including the Town of Fort Erie.
This report recommends that KVA Communications Inc. be retained at an upset limit of
$19,453 to undertake the study and submit a draft i'eport on Part 1 in January 2001 and
Part 2 report be completed in February 2001.
Part 1 covers the data gathering including meetings with the fi~re staff at existing fire
dispatch centres and site visits to all existing fire paging radio sites in order to verify site
configurations and conditions. The first draft which summarizes the findings will be
circulated to all area fire departments for their review and comments following which a
final version of the report will be produced.
Part 2 will include the assimilation of the results of the data gathering phase and the
development of alternative paging/alerting solutions that the area municipalities may
consider to implement (either individually or collectively).
November 23, 2000
Given that current paging coverage is inadequate in various locations, KVA
Communications Inc. will also undertake a radio coverage analysis including coverage
predictions to ascertain the number, locations, and technical characteristics of base
radio sites required to improve fire paging coverage. Industry Canada will also be
contacted to determine the long term prospects and the technical requirements for fire
paging operations to remain in the VHF band. The choices woutd include (but not
limited to) retention of the current tone and voice pager units and alternative
technologies, as appropriate. Budgetary costs will be developed for each alternative
under consideration.
ESTABLISHING A JOINT BOARD OF MANGAEMENT
With execution of the contract with Bell Mobility and the ongoing implementation
process currently underway, it is now necessary to ensure that a governing body
representing the interests of all system partners is established as soon as possible. As
outlined in CAO 36-2000, conflicting legal opinions were submitted with respect to the
creation of a not-for-profit corporation to oversee the Voice Radio project. Furthermore,
preliminary indications from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in August
indicated that it would be at least the fall of 2000 before the new Municipal Act was
introduced which is to contain provisions to allow municipalities to establish corporations
to conduct municipal business. Regional Council decided, in the interim, to create a
Joint Board of Management with all partners represented until such time as the new
Municipal Act is enacted or alternative arrangements are in place. Attached to this
report as Appendix B is the structure for the Joint Board of Management approved by
Regional Council on April 6, 2000.
STRUCTURE AND REPRESENTATION
The Joint Board of Management will be comprised of 11 members in accordance with
the following representation:
One elected representative of the three largest municipalities
One elected representative for the remaining nine area municipalities
Two elected representatives from Regional Council
One non-elected representative from the Niagara Regional Police Services Board as
appointed by Regional Council
One staff representative for the three largest fire departments (Niagara Falls, St.
Catharines, and Welland)
One staff representative for the remaining area municipal fire departments
One Regional staff representative from Public Works
Two staff representatives from the Niagara Regional Police Services
One staff representative from the ambulance service within Niagara Region
4
November 23, 2000
It is recommended that upon confirmation of appointees that the 11 members of the
Joint Board of Management select from within their ranks a Chair, Vice-Chair, and
Secretary together with establishing the schedule for meetings.
IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE (ICC)
It is recommended that the ICC, which is already established and currently charged with
the day-to-day technical and logistical requirements for implementation as per the
contract be retained and report directly to the Joint Board of Management. It is further
recommended that for continuity during the implementation period, that key staff
members from the Implementation Co-ordinating Committee be considered for
appointment to fill appropriate staff positions on the Joint Board of Management and
that these specific appointments be reviewed following completion of implementation in
November as per the proposed membership outlined in this rep¢)rt. Upon completion of
the project in November 2001, the Implementation Co-ordinatin~a Committee would be
discontinued.
OPERATIONS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Although it may not be necessary to have the Operations and Advisory committees in
place immediately during the initial implementation stages, it is recommended that the
proposed structure for same be considered in the context of the ultimate governance
framework for the long-term operations of the Voice Radio System with all participating
partners.
The proposed structure of the Operations Committee is outlined in Appendix B and
would be comprised of 16 staff representatives from the various partners as follows:
r~ Three staff members - each representing one of the three largest municipal fire
departments
r~ Three staff members representing the other municipal fire department partners
r~ Six staff from the Niagara Regional Police Services
~ Three staff from the Regional Municipality of Niagara
a One staff representative for the ambulance service within the Regional Municipality
of Niagara
November 23, 2000
It is proposed that the Advisory Committee structure as outlined in Appendix B be
comprised of nine members as follows:
Three members holding elected municipal political office, one from each of the three
largest municipalities by population
Three elected area municipal officials from the remaining municipalities
Two elected officials from the Regional Municipality of Niagara
One civilian member of the Niagara Police Services Board appointed by the
Regional Municipality of Niagara
The conceptual role for the Operations Committee at this point would deal with all
elements arising from the ongoing operations of the FleetNet System and any
implications relative to the contractual obligations o[ Bell Mobility with the Region and.
the other two partner groups.
Similarly the potential establishment and role of the Advisory Committee would revolve
around pending and outstanding issues such as the establishrnent of a not-for-profit
corporation.
SUMMARY
Given the fundamental operational importance of the new FleetNet System to each of
the three partnership groups and the integrated system contract for the next 15 years, it
is essential that the governance structure for the Niagara Voice Radio System is not
only truly representative but effective in dealing with all matters covered in the contract
in a timely cost effective manner that maximizes the FleetNel System outputs and
minimizes any distributions to expected and contracted service levels.
Submitted by: /~
-~ Ii~ir~eNc~;il'o~ ' pMu'~l ;cA'~0 ~s g '
IN/pr
(#PWA-NoYernber-2$opr-IN-1)
Attachments - Appendix A
Appendix B
Approved by: ~'"~
~li~eefT;~Jma~n istrative~ficer
This report was prepared by lan Neville, M.P.A., P. Eng., Director of Public Works.
Implementation Tasks and Timeline
Task Description
1. [ Contract Sienarul'e
'
Install Demonstration E~mpmem at Brock S~te
Demonstratmn Test at Brock Site Comvieted
Demonstration AcCePtance Certificate Corot>lc:ed
5. I Letter to lC Re.gard. in.g Release of Desi.~n.ated Sve:trum
6. [ Acquit~ lnfi-a~trucrare Eqmpment
6.1 Review CF. IB Confi.euration
6.2 [ Review Dispzch Centre Phys,!cal Layout
6.3 I Review Fixed Mobile .' Remote Controller Phvs~zal I. ocanon
6.4, [ Review Console Equipmem Details fl:ootswitcN.~lonitor Stands~
6.5 [ Review Network Demarcation Points
16.6
] 6.7
7.2
7.3
t Review Dispatch Power ' Ventilation
Review Interim Acceptance Plan
6.8 I Review Final Ace'eptance Plan
{ Acquire User Equipment
I Perform Fleetmappm.e
[ Review User Equipment Installanon Plan
j Review Custom Installation Requirements
'7.,1 [ Review User Equipment Maintenance Plan
7.5 I Review User Equipment MiFation Plan
l $SEPO0 BM NR
O~SEPO0 B.',I
15SEPO0 BM
16SEP00
NR
01JAN01 NR
16FEB01 BM :
:0NO 00 BM ~
30NOV00
' v
_-0NO O0
' ' V
.>0.,NO 00
30NOV00
oO..NO O0
29DEC00
BM ~
BM
BM t
BM
BM
BM
26JAN01 BM ! N'R
01MAY01 BM
29DEC00 BM / NR
28FEB01 BM ,' NR
2$FEB01
28FEB01
28FEB01
BM/N~
BM / N'R
BM ,' ~
Immll ldrastrucmre
Install N1LPS Commecntre Console
I Imtall SC/: Comt9. c== Comole (1)
NILPS Commcc~,tre Ready Notice
10. ! SCI: Coi~u.cen~r~ Ready Notice
I 1. I Ready For Use Notice
13.1'i, [ Site Coven.ge Test (Drive Testl
User Training
Interim Acceptance Test
181VlAY01 I BM
30APR01 I BM
30APR01 { BM
30APR01 { BM
30APR01 } BM
18MAY01 i BM
30JIJN0I BM / NR.
15JUN0I I BM/NR
15J'UN01 I BM / NR
13.2 [SiteCovera.geTest(AudioOualirv. Test) 15?U'N0 ] I BM/NR
1313" Demons~nte NR?S Co~ole ]:unctionati~ 15YUX01 BM / N'R
13..4. } Demomlnte SCF Comole Functionali~ I 15J'Ulq01 ! BM / NR
14. { Interim Acceptance Test Certificate [ ISJUN0I ] NR
15. ' { In~tall NRPS Consoles 15IUL01 [ BM
15.1, I Install NTF Consoles 15JU'N01 { BM- ~,
15.2 I Im~all PW Console 15ID'N01 J BM
1 '7 JUL01
16. I Install .'NP. PS User Equipment
I17. { N1LPS "Live"
8. { NFF commccn~ze Ready Notice
19. I PW Commcentre Ready Notice
20. [ Install 'PW User Equipment
20.1 I.Idenu.'fy Install ~. °Cations
} BM
18JUL01 I BM/NR
· ' ISJUN01 I BM
18JUNOI [ BM
I5AUG01 j BM
2~2. { Imtall Firr. .1
2.~.24.25., }Fire C°mt=leteAcceptance
26. Final Certificate
I30MAR01 . [BMINR
21. ~ PW Complete ,5AUG0I , BM
255EP01 BM
26SEP01 BM
User Equipment Install Comvlcte Notice 26SEP01 BM
Final Acceptance Test 21tNOV01 BM / NR
28NOV01 INrR.
"13
0 ,'~ w z
EEEEE
0oooo
BY FAX (905) 356-9083
FX WORX,. .
PYROTECHNIC AND GAS EFFECTS
Dear Sir,
FX WORX INC. Would like to mid(e al~ica~n to City Counel( for a public fireworks ¢~isplay at the Skylon
Tower [or New Years Eve. This project has been approved by your Captain/Fire prevention Officer
John Laur.
Thanking yo~nee. -
Operations Manager
C.c; Dave Gilfies, Skyl0n Tower
PLANNING MEETING, DEC 1
FX WORX
NAME: FX WORX INC.
SHOOTER: MARK R/CE
^or~:~,~. ~-t47 POWE~LINE I~D ANCA~TER, ONTARIO,
LOR ITC. CANADA,
SPKq;IAL FFffE(;T$ PYROT{cHIqlC..IAN CARD # PO:3102 EXP- FEB 2001
FIREWORKS SUPERVISOR LEVEL 2 CARD · D03877 EXP. JUNE 20ol
CLIENT/SHO..~W: .~<~'/V'./.._O-~/ 7-~br~.
CONTACT: ~ ~/~ g/~.~ PHONE: ~- ~'~ -,~' `%- /
LOCATION~~ ~F TIME: ~ ~// ~ ~~
CERTIFICATE OF IN~U~CE A~ACHED: ~/NO
2~t7 ~r~,..~1¥,,~ Ro~,(L W~$t. Lynclen. O~t~r~o, 1.OR 1'1'0. (905) 304-1,¥.8. 304,4643 fax
l'h.~ City of
Niagara Fails
Canada
Gommunity ,Services Department
Ftre Services - Fire Prevention Office
5809 Morrlson Street
Niagara Falls. ON LZE 2E8
web ails; www,clty.nlagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356.132~, ext, 207
Fax: (S05) 356-1583
·Pe[er Caffleld
Fire Chief
Nove[nber 23, 2000
FX Worx Inc.
2147 Powerline Road
Ancaster, ON LOP. 1T0
Attention: Mark Rice
Dear Mark;
Re: Skylon Tower 5200 Robinson Street
The information submitted to our off,ce regarding the above noted propose has been reviewed. The
proposed display is acceptable to this office. A site inspection may be required, prior to the display.
The submitted application has been signed; however, please be advised that the display is a public
fireworks display and must be approved by City Council. If aa application kas not been ferwarded to
Council, please ensure that an application id forwald~ no later than Friday, Nov. 24, 2000.
If you have any questions concernhtg the foregoing, or any other fire safety related matter, please do not
hesitate to contact this Ottice.
Yours in fire safety,
· Laur
Captain/Fire Prevention Officer
JTL:mw
c: E.C. Wagg, City clerk
Dave Gillies, Skylon Tower
Munl~psl Works
Smoke Alarms Save Lives - Check Your Smoke Alarm
Working Together to Servd Our Community
· Fire Services Parks, Reereat/on & Culture Business Dsvelopmen~
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ont. L2E 6X5
Attention: City Clerk
Re: City File AM32/2000 - 5480 Dunn St.
December 4,2000
Dear Mr.Wagg,
Enclosed please find copies of a report I am requesting be
included in the packages given to the City Council members for
the December 11 meeting. I have sent copies to the residents
who have attended our neighbourhood meeting and[ to other
individuals who have requested to be kept up to date with this
development. They would also like to be notified[ as to the
outcome of the upcoming by-law hearing. Please add their names
to your list of people to be notified as to the results of the
December 11 meeting. Thankyou for your co-operation.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. D. Damiano
Chairman, residents committee
CC:
Mike & Linda Earle - 5835 Sunnylea Cres
M. Shoemaker - 5842 Sunnylea Cres
Anthony Jackson - 5842 Sunnylea Cres
John & Kathie Murray 5706 Sunnylea Cres
Paul Flachs - 5853 Dixon St.
Mr & Mrs Oscar Bignacolo - 6683 Stanley Ave.
Frank & Janet Costa - 5693 Dunn St.
Norm & Susan Roy - 5938 Dunn St.
Joan & Ben Schweitzer - 6704 Ailanthus Ave.
Skeila Stevens - 6701 Ailanthus Ave.
Cindy Candeloro 6710 Ailanthus Ave.
Jim Smith - 6710 Ailanthus Ave.
Dennis Bresson - 5858 Dunn St.
Marino Gegliodi - 5801 Sunnylea Cres
Brian Collinson - C/O Falls View Hose Brigade - 5786 Dunn St
Don & Denise Mackinnon - 6694 Ailanthus Ave.
Carol Scott - 5834 Sunnylea Cres
Joe Pivarnyk - 5834 Sunnylea Cres.
Brian Rozell - 6682 Ailanthus Ave.
Mike Beaupit 6674 Ailanthus Ave.
Wade & Laura Buchanan - 6671 Ailanthus Ave.
Pamela Dunn - 5698 Sunnylea Cres.
Randy Burke - 5770 Dunn St.
B. Burrows - 5717 Dunn St.
(CONT. NEXT PAGE) p~NNING~ET~ ~C ~-'~
( CC CONT.)
Helen Bruder - 3410 Callan St.
F.C. Berkeu - 6531 Cleveland Ave.
Doris Dennis - 5982 Dunn St. #47
Cliff & Betty Ripenburg - 6013 Dunn St.
Sandra Daley - 4469 Hiram Ave.
Linda Weber - 4865 Amelia Cres.
Rob Nicholson - 4786 Queen st (po box 868)
Corey Larocque -Niagara Falls Review
REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AT DUNN ST & AILANTHUS AVE ( City file AM 32-2000)
On Oct 29/00 approximately 60 residents met at the Niagara Fals Hose Brigade on Duma St. for o~:r second neighbourhood meeting.
This gathering was to inform the residents as to the outcome of the Oct. 16 City Council meeting and to express concerns over this
rezoning. At this time a committee was formed to review all of thc Cit3/s documentation in respe~ to the rezoning application and
the upcoming by-law hearing. City staff released this documentation to us Nov 8/00.
REPORT ON FINDINGS
APPLICATION;
I) item#8: "Describe the present use of properties abutting and opposite the subject land" -ERROR FOUND-
-the application shows a single family residence to the east and an automotive repair shop to the west. Mrs Bresson's house
is to the west. The properties have been transposed.
This may explain why the city staffdid not feel a shadow study was required. However, the Official Plan states in Part 3
(page 3-21) item 3.1.3. "Acess to direct sunlight shall be protected in order to provide opportunities for passive solar heating thereby
reducing the consupmtion of energy resources."
-the passing of this by-law and peet, ant development will deny Mra. Bresson her right to protection which ia
mandatory under the Ofllclal Plan guidelines.
2)item#9 "Describe the particular use or general zone classifications which necessitated this application" & "Describe those features
of the site and/or surrounding area and list the materials and studies which are provided in supp<~t oftha proposed application"
-the applicants have entered ~'he city has a shortage of apartment buildings and we know this site is suitable for such a
development."
-Our committe did a physical survey of the area and found within a lion radius of thia site the following multi-unit
market value apartment buildings:
5621 Hennipen Cres
6105 MeLeod Rd
7081 Stanley Ave
6070 Dunn St
6445 Drummond Rd
6419 Drummond Rd
6035 Murray St
6523 Drummond Rd
6381 Dunn St
6351 Dunn St
6245 Main St
6183 Main St
6155 Main St
6114 Cu/p St
Villa Apts.- Frontenac St
5729 McLeod Rd
6075 Dtmn St
6164 Dunn St
6586 Drummond Rd
6333 Dawlish Ave
5717 Murray St
6521 Drummond Rd
6305 Duma St
6042 Murray St
6235 Main St
6151 Main St
6049 Culp St
6022 symes St ............... 28 market value apt bidgs
multi-unit geard to income apartment buildings:
6938 Ailanthus Ave
7032 Ailanthus Ave
6858 Ailanthus Ave
Cavendish Manor oDunn St
YWCA Apts - Ailanthus Ave
5800 Dixon St
6980 Ailanthus Ave
6165 McLeod Rd
6868 Ailanthus Awe
Kiwanis Village -Dunn St
Kiwanis Apts - Ailanthus Ave
....................... 11 geared to income housing
We found a total of 39 apartment buildings/housing complexes' 7 of which ar located at the south ~ad of Ailanthus Ave. We also
contacted the Co-ordinated Housing Acess Niagara who confirm there is no need for market vaine apa,toaents in this area. The
purpose given to necessitate the rezoning is F~I-gK.
3)item 1 l-""identify the extent to which the Official Plan is intended to be amended to accommodate the proposed development." -the applicant has marked "change to Official Plan policies" and the policy to be amended is 1.7.4.
-Official Plan policy !.7.4 reads:" Apathuents of 4 to 6 storeys in height can be developed up to a maximum density of 100
l~r hectare" This would mean that the pro1~'ty on this application which has an area of.18 hectare would be limited to a
max~num capacity of lg units. The applicants have requested this increased to 27units. A 50% INCREASE [N DENSITY.
4)item 13: "Using the following identify the extent to which the Zoning By-law is intended to be amended to accomodate the
proposed development"
-the applicant has requested a change from R4 to RSE AND amemdments to existing zoning regulations.
To fully understand this item our committee has refferred to the Official Plan and the Zoning By. laws 79/200. To clarify what an
RSE rating actually is at the present time, this chart was prepared to show the difference between the current R4 and the current
RSE:
R4 RSE
max, height: 10m-3 storeys
25m - 10 storeys
density:. 200 sq m/unit
67 sq m/unit - to examine just what kind of density we are looking at,
lets take this one step further:
max. lot coverage 0aldg & structures) 35% =70 sq m/u
estimated public space: -10% = 7 sq m/u ...
private living space: 63 sq m/u
(670 sq ~)
min. lot size: 200 scl m X 27 units = 5,4000 sq m
30% = 20 sq m/u
-10% = 2 sq m/u (lobby, halls, stairwells,laundry etc)
18 sqm/u
(191 sqR)
67 sq m X 27 units = 1,809 scl m (1/3 the size)
We have discovered that the RSE rating is a very extreme rating - in short it is designed to stack them high, pack them in & leave
only enough land to provide the bare minimum safety zone. This is so extreme as a matter of fact that there are no ~ ratings i~
the city of Niagar~ FalI~ But what you may find even more interesting is that even at such an e>~eme rating, this development
still doesn't fit! The applicants have requested numerous modifications to fit their development into an P, SE rating-and they are not
minor modifications 1
For example, under the current RSE maximum lot coverage is defined under by-law section 2 item 2-31-3 "Lot coverage means the
percentage of the lot area covered by the ground level area of ali buildings and structures inelud~g accessory buildings and
accessory structures on the lot measured to the outside of all exterior walls or sides provided that the ground level area of an
unenclosed private swimming pool shall not be included" Section 2 item 2.58 states:""STRUCTURE" means anything constructed
or erected, the use of which requh'es location on the ground, or attached to something having location on the ground and includes a
mobile home."
This development requires 70% coverage of the lot so a modification was requested to redefine the zoning by-law to exclude
accessory structures. By requesting this change they would be allowed to increase the mm lot coverage by 130% without actualy
having to advise anyone the amount of the increase in lot coverage!
To show all the modifications requested on this application we have prepared this chart to show what has been changed and how:
R4 RSE AMENDED R5E
min.lot frontage 30m
rain.front yard depth 7.5m
min. rear yard depth lOrn
rain.interior side yard 1/2 bldg height
rain.exterior side yard 7.5m
· max lot coverage 35%
rain.landscaped space 45 sq m/unit
max. # of dwellings 9
35m J;2m
7.5m 6m
lOm eception to 0.6 m
1/3 bldg height exception to 0.6 m
7.5m exception to 0.3 m
30%-includes all bldgs 30% excluding accessory bldgs
50% total lot area 30% total lot area
18 27
CONCLUSION;
These modifications can only be v/ewed as extreme changes to an already extreme zoning- keep/n mind that these changes are made
to what is considered the "safety zone"-these are the side yards and set backs that put proper distanea between buildings so that there
is enough space to keep fire in check from spreading just long enough for emergency crews to get there or to keep falling debris from
one building from damaging the next. The current RSE has already been trimmed to the minimum; these changes will make this
"new" by-law every fireman's nightmare.
Please remember that at present there are NO RSE zones in the city of Niagara Falls. If passed, this development will be the first and
will set the standard for all future development in Niagara Falls under the RSE rating. Allowing tile current zoning by-law to be
redefined to aeoommodate this development would set a very dangerous preeedant~ A precodant that would allow future developers
to deprive residents abutting development sites of certain rights currently protected and allow devdopment of accessory buildings
to within a foot of lot lines. To what extent will the next developer want to modifiy this by-law??
The Cih/of
Niagara FallsI
Canada
Community Services Department
Municipal Works - Traffic & Parking Services
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www. city. niagarafalls,on, ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 353-0651
E-mail: kdren~city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng.
Director of Municipal Works
MW-2000- i 32
File G-180-1
December 11, 2000
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson,
and Members of the Mtmicipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members: Re:
MW-2000-132
Construction of a Turnaround
Kiss & Ride Program - Riverview School
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City of Niagara Falls not construct a turnaround at Riverview School.
BACKGROUND:
The Kiss & Ride program was launched in Niagara Falls in April of this year and was endorsed
by City Council. The Kiss & Ride program is the management of vehicular traffic through school
sites in a planned and supervised environment.
Basically the Kiss & Ride program uses the school property to provide a turnaround area to allow
a safe and consistent method for parents to drop their children off at school In some cases the
school property has sufficient space available to establish a Kiss & Ride area with little cost
implications such as Notre Dame School. In other cases the school must construct an area to
provide this service, such as Mary Ward School.
The City's Role
The City's role is to provide education and training only. This includes init)marion on
implementation procedures, on site inspections and suggested physical improvements. As well,
we provide brochures, video packages and other materials to illustrate the methodology of the
Kiss & Ride program. Staffalso act as advisors during the initial startup of the program,
undertake follow-up visits and periodic reviews of the program.
The School/School Board's Role
It is the School/School Boards role to determine whether the Kiss & Ride program is right for
them. Once they have decided to proceed with the program, it is their respe,nsibility to
implement the program by undertaking physical changes to the individual si.tes to ensure the
success of the program. They are responsible for overseeing and managing the program which
includes the recruitment of dedicated volunteers to oversee the daily operation of the program.
They will also communicate with parents through newsletters/meetings to help ensure a
successful program.
December 11, 2000 -2- MW-2000-132
The Request
Staff have been requested to consider the possibility of undertaking an expansion of the
Riverview School parking lot in Chippawa by constructing a gravel turnaround on School
property for the purpose of establishing a Kiss & Ride program.
The cost to undertake this project by City forces is approximately $10,000.00.
Staffis recommending against our involvement in the actual'construction of this site for the
following reasons:
1)
The said property is not under the City's jurisdiction, therefore, it is the responsibility of
the School Board to budget and construct improvements to their property to
accommodate the Kiss & Ride program.
2)
Other schools in the City have similar situations and by undertaking this project, it would
set a precedent for other schools to request the same consideration, thereby, relinquishing
the School Board's responsibility in this regard. In fact, recently, Staff and Aldermen met
with Sacred Heart School representatives and they also have a simiilar situation with
regard to the expansion of a parking lot to provide for a turnaround.
3)
With City Staff's role of being an advisory body only, it was never the intent of this
program for the City to fund improvements on school property. That is clearly a function
of the School Board, once they have determined that the program is fight for them.
Council's concurrence with the recommendation outlined in this report would be appreciated.
Prepared by:
Karl Dren, C.E.T.,
Manager of Traffic & Parking Services
Ed Dt/jtovic, P. Eng.,'
Director of Municipal Works
.. ec~ly Submitted by:
Edward P.<L-ustig, '~
Chief Administrative ~t~er
Approve~ ~
K. Dren
S :\TRAFFICLREPORTS',2000k2000 CouncilVvlW2000-132.wpd
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Municipal Works
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www. city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: fhiggins@city, niagarafalls.on.ca
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls
Members:
Re:
Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng.
Director
MW-2000-133
File 2000-193-2000
December 11, 2000
( Ridgeway )
( Niagara Falls )
( Niagara Falls )
( Thorold )
Municipal Works ·
( St. Thomas )
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture
*$1,470,788.08
*$1,479,415.00
*$1,745,711.79
$1,828,416.19
*$2,116,053.42
($2,111,345.64)
· Business Development
($1,471,908.08)
($1,457,545.00)
($1,742,628.78)
1. V. Gibbons Contracfmg
2. Centennial Construction
3. Provincial Construction Ltd.
4. DeRose Bros.
5. Elgin Construction
(5) Contractors, together with the corrected bids *
MW-2000-133
Contract 2000-193-2000
Fallsview Tourist Core Area
Sanitary Trunk Sewer - Phase 1
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the unit prices submitted by the Iow tenderer, V. Gibbons Contracting, be
accepted and the by-law be passed;
And further, that the mount of $1,224,909.72 be included in the 2001 Water & Sewer Budget
for this project.
BACKGROUND:
The Tender Opening Committee, in the presence of a representative of the City Clerk, opened
tenders on Tuesday, December 6, 2000 at 1:30 p. m. for the above noted contract.
Tender documents were picked up by eleven (11) Contractors and five (5) bids were received.
Listed below is a summmy of the totalled tendered prices, excluding GST, received from the five
2000-12-11 -2- MW-2000-133
The lowest tender was received from V. Gibbons Contracting in the mount of $1,470,788.08.
This Contractor has previously performed similar type projects for the City. We are therefore, of
the opinion, that this Contractor is capable of successfully undertaking this project.
This is the first phase of a three year project required to service the growth in the Fallsview area
including the permanent casino. Based on the time constraints for construction in the approval
from Niagara Parks Commission this project must be commenced in 2001 to ensure completion
before the end of 2003.
Council, by approving the award of this contract, will be committing to the expenditure in the
2001 Capital Budget.
Financing:
The Engineer's estimate for this contract was $900,000.00. Contractors have indicated that it was
the severe limitation to allotted time for construction which has caused the significant surcharge
to this project.
Project Costs:
Awarded Contract
Consultant
Miscellaneous Fees ( MOE )
Net G.S.T. 3%
$1,470,788.08
$ 42,500.00
$ 1,100.00
$ 45,431.64
TOTAL
$1,559,819.72
Funding:
2000 Capital Budget
Niagra Parks Commission
Development Charges
2001 Water & Sewer Budget
$ 44,910.00
$ 110,000.00
$ 180,000.00
$1,224,909.72
This project is scheduled to commence on January 8, 2001. All works are to be completed by
March 8, 2001 in accordance with the approval from the Niagara Parks Conunission.
Council's concurrence with the recommendation made would be appreciated.
Prepare:
Manager of Engineering Services
Respectfully Submitted by:
C~'W~Ad ~'Sts;ga'tive Officer/
2000-12-11 -3- MW-2000-133
Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng.,
Director of Municipal Works
AppJloved by: __
JoJm MacDonald
Executive Director of Community Services
S :',REIK)RTS~2000 ReportsR2ouncil~VlW-2000.133 - Tender 2000-193-2000.wpd
The Ci~/of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Parks, Recreation & Culture
7565 Lundy's Lane
Niagara Falls, ON L2H 1G9
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-7404
E-mail: akon@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Adele Kon
Director
R-2000-77
December 11, 2000
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: R-2000-77
Appointment of Town Crier
RECOMMENDATION:
That Derek Tidd be appointed to the position of Town Crier for the City of Niagara Falls for a
further 3 year term.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Tidd became the official Town Crier for the City of Niagara Falls in the summer of 1995 when
he successfully competed for the position. In November of 1997 his appointment was extended for
a three year term that would coincide with the term of the Municipal Council[. Mr. Tidd receives an
honorarium of $1,000.00 per year for perfocming this role for the City of Niagara Falls. Mr. Tidd
has indicated that he would be interested in continuing in this role.
Recommended by7'
Adele Kon
Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Respectfully Submitted:
Edward P. Lustig ~
Chief Adminislmtive Officer
Approved by:
Jo~ MacDonald
Executive Director of Community Services
AK/das
s:\couneil\Counci12000~.2000.77.W~orl~ittg Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture ·
Business Development
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Parks, Recreation & Culture
7565 Lundy's Lane
Niagara Falls, ON L2H
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-7404
E-mail: akon@cily.niagarafalls.on.ca
Adele Ken
Director
R-2000-78
December 11, 2000
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
'Re: R-2000-78
Interior Restoration of Fralick's Tavern
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City continues to use the services of Jon Jouppien, to complete thc interior restoration of
Fralick's Tavern.
BACKGROUND:
In August of this year, Council directed staff to proceed with the exterior renovations of Fralick's
Tavern without going through the normal tendering process. This recommendation was made by
Chapman, Murray & Associates, the architectural firm retained for the restoration project. Their
rationale was that there was insufficient time for the preparation of drawings and for the tendering
process before the onset of cold weather. Jon Jouppien, Heritage Consultant carded out the exterior
repairs, which are now 95% complete.
Drawings have been completed for the electrical and mechanical system and will be tendered in the
future. The architect has recommended that we continue to use the services of Jon Jouppien as the
contractor for the plaster, floor, trim and door restoration. His recommendations for not tendering
this restoration work are as follows:
the contractor's expertise with restoration of heritage buildings;
the contractor's in-depth knowledge of the Fralick's building;
exploratory work is still being conducted, which makes it difficult to prepare a specification;
change orders resulting from exploratory work would be costly; and
high quality tradesmen are difficult to find because of the numerous construction projects in
the City.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development
R-2000-78 - 2 - December 7, 2000
Council's consideration with respect to the above recommendation is appreciated.
Recommended by:
Adele Kon
Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Respectfully Submitted:
Edward P. Lustig ?
Chief Adminislxative Officer
Approved by:
~/ohn MacDonald
Execmive Director of Community Services
AK/das
S:\Council\Counei12000~R-2000-78.wpd
The City of
Niagara Falls:
Canada
Community Services Department
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail;
(905) 356-7521
(905) 357-9293
jmacdona@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
CS-2000-08
John MacDonald
Executive Director
December 11, 2000
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
re: CS-2000-08 - Granite Star Inlays
Falls Avenue and Clifton Hill
Recommendation:
That the City of Niagara Falls and Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc. enter into ~m agreement to allow
the Granite Star Inlays to remain.
Background:
Some time ago, Canadian Niagara Hotels requested permission bom the City to install "granite
stars" in the sidewalk along Falls Avenue and partially up Clifton Hill. The purpose of the stars
was to promote Planet Hollywood in a fashion similar to other Walks of Fame in Toronto and
Hollywood.
For the past several months, City staffhas been working with Canadian Niagara Hotels to ensure
that the surface of the "stars" would not create a hazard due to their slipper), surface. These
"stars" have subsequently been treated and, therefore staff is recommending; that the City enter
into an agreement with Canadian Niagara Hotels to allow the "stars" to remain, subject to the
following conditions:
1)
2)
the City be named as an additional insured on Canadian Niagara Ho'tels' insurance policy
in the amount of $2,000,000 by way of a "hold harmless" clause
that the City has Canadian Niagara Hotel's commitment to apply and maintain the slip
resistance coating at the 25% resistance level.
The Committee's favourable consideration of the recommendation is appreciated.
John MacDonald
Executive Director of Community Services
V:L3000COUNCIL~00121 BCS-20OIM)8 - Granite Stats.wpd
R~w. arectfully submitted _
d P. Lustig
Chief Administrative Officer
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-Law Services
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Clerk's Division
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-9083
E-mail: wwagg@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
CD-2000-27
E.C. Wagg
City Clerk
December 11, :2000.
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: CD-2000-27
2001 COUNCIL SCHEDULE
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council pass the By-law appearing on this evening's agenda adopting a schedule of meetings
for Council for 2001.
BACKGROUND;
Members are reminded that the Procedure By-law, rule 2 requires that Council adopt a schedule of
meetings to be held within any given year. Attached is a proposed schedule of meetings for Council's
consideration. The identical schedule will form part of the By-law which is included on this
evening's agenda for Council's consideration.
E. C. Wagg,
City Clerk
Respectfully submitted:
E. P. Lustig
Chief Adminislrative Officer
Approved by
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
;ecw
Attach.
V:~2000COUNC[L~00121 I\CD-2000-27 2001 Council sehdule.wpd
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's · Finance · Human Resoumes · Information Systems · Legal
· Planning & Development
COUNCIL SCHEDULE
2001
January
S MT WT F S
--rl~-- 2 3 4 5 6
7(8') 9 10 11 12 13
14 QIS~ 16 17 lg 19 20
21 (22) 23 24 25 26 27
28 F2,~9') 30 31
February
S MT WT F S
I 2 3
4 ~) 6 7 g 9 i0
11 1~ 13 14 15 16 17
18 I~ 20 21 22 23 24
March
S MT WT F S
1 2 3
4 ~i 6 7 8 9 10
18 (19) 20 21 22 23 24
25 ('~26~ 27 28 29 30
31
April
S MT WT F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1~5~16 10 11 12 1~ 14
17 18 19 20 21
2~9~24 25 26 27 28
May
S MTWT F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 (~) 15 16 17 18 19
20~ 22 23 24 25 26
27 29 30 31
June
S MT WT F S
I 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1(1~I) 12 13 14 15 16
10
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
January Apdl
I New Years Day 9 7:00 PM Planning/
Council
8 7:00 PM Regular
Council 13 Good Friday
15 7:00 PM Regular 15 Easter
Council
16 Easter Monday
22 7:00 PM Planning/
Council 23 7:00 PM Regular
Council
29 7:00 PM Regular
Council 30 7:00 PM Regular
Council
February
5 7:00 PM Regular May
Council 14 7:00 PM Planning/
Council
12 7:0O PM Planning/
Council 21 Victoria Day
19 7:00 PM Regular 28 7:00 PM Regular
Council Council
25 Ontario Good Roads June
Convention 11 7:00 PM Planning/
Council
26 Ontario Good Roads
Convention July
2 Canada Day
27 Ontario Good Roads
Convention 16 7:00 PM planmng/
Council
28 Ontario Good Roads
Convention August
March 6 Civic Holiday
5 7:00 PM Regular 13 7:00 PM Planning/
Council Council
12 March Break 19 A.M.O. Conference
13 March Break 20 A.M.O. Conference
14 March Break 21 A.M.O. Conference
15 March Break 22 A.M.O. Conference
16 March Break September
17 March Break 3 Labour Day
19 7:00 PM Plauning/ 10 7:00 PM Planning/
Council Council
26 7:00 PM Regular October
Council 1 7:00 PM Regular
Council
October
8 Thanksgiving Day
15 7:00 PM Plarming/
Council
22 7:00 PM Regtdar
Council
29 7:00 PM Regnlar
Council
November
5 TOO PM Regular
Council
12 7:00 PM Plamfing/
Council
19 7:00 PM Regtflar
Council
26 7:00 PM Regular
Council
December
3 7:00 PM Regular
Council
10 7:00 PM Plamfing/
Council
17 7:00 PM Regtdar
Council
25 Chrislmas Day
26 Boxing Day
~ly
S MT WT F S
1-~34567
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 ~ 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 ~ 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
August
S MT WT F S
1 2 3 4
5 (~ 7 8 9 10 11
1~2 l~ 1~4 I~55 16 17 18
IL.~.~2_0~21j~) 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
September
S MTWT F S
1
11 12 t3 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
3O
October
S MTWT F S
7~82 3 4 5 6
9 I0 11 12 13
14 ~15~ 16 17 18 19 20
21 ~ 23 24 25 26 27
28 /~29') 30 31
November
S MT WT F S
I 2 3
4 ~) 6 7 8 9 10
11~ 13 14 15 16 17
18 20 21 22 23 24
25 27 28 29 30
December
S MT WT F S
1
2 .~ 4 5 6 7 8
9
~ I1 12 13 14 15
16 (17~ [8~ !9~ 20 2t 22
23 24 (25 (2~6) 27 28 29
30 31
Printed by Cal~mdar Creato~ Plus o~ 11 / 17/2000
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Clerk's Division
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www. city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-9083
E-maih wwagg@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
CD-2000-29
E.C. Wagg
City Clerk
December 11, :2000.
His Worship Mayor Thomson
and Members of Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls
Members:
Re: CD-2000-29
2000 Municipal Election Ouestion
RECOMMENDATION:
That the information contained in this report be received for the information of Council.
BACKGROUND:
As Members are aware, a question concerning the Municipal Electoral Ward System was included
on the ballot for the 2000 Municipal Election. The question was one that was provided by the Chief
Elections Officer for Ontario, subsequent to a Heating called after the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing objected to our question. The wording of the question, was as follows:
"Are you in favour of changing the existing Ward System for the election of
Aldermen in the City of Niagara Fails".
Official results for the election show that 40% of the eligible voters cast a ballot on the question with
10,186 (50%) voting "NO" and10,162 (49.9%) voting "YES".
Under the terms of the Municipal Elections Act, the results do not constitute a, binding result, as 50%
of the eligible voters in the City of Niagara Falls did not vote in the election, therefore, the results
are merely a guide to Council..
City Clerk
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
Working Together to Serve Our Community
EC~/~s · Finance · Human Resources Information Systems · Legal
Planning & Development
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Clerk's Division
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-9083
E-mail: wwagg@city,niagarafalls.on.ca
CD-2000-30
E.C. Wagg
City Clerk
December 11, 2000
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls
Members:
RE: CD-2000-30
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council select appointees to serve for various terms on Boards, Commissions and Committees
and that the appointments be confirmed by the By-law to be passed at this meeting.
BACKGROUND:
It is necessary for Council to appoint Aldermanic and Citizen representatives 'to a number of Boards,
Commissions and Committees for the period covering December 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.
It is suggested that where applicable, the Citizen appointments be made by secret ballot with those
obtaining the highest number of votes down to the number of appointments required being appointed
and in the event of a tie vote, where both or all cannot be appointed, a secret ballot for the remaining
appointments will be held amongst the names tied. (Preprinted ballots will be available to assist in
the process).
ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION
Appointees required: Four Citizen Representatives for the 2001, 2002 term and two Aldermen for
the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term.
Applications Received:
* Karen Akalu
Winston Heron
* Deborah E. Legge
Laura Moffat
* Wayne S. Scott
Laurie Warman
* = incumbent # = has applied for appointment to more than one board
..2
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB
-2-
Appointee Required: One Alderman for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
PROJECT SHARE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Appointees Required: One Alderman for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Appointees Required: One Council representative and one Council Alternate for the 2001, 2002,
2003 Term.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
Appointees Required: Four Citizen and four Aldermen plus the Mayor for the 2001, 2002, 2003
Term.
Applications Received:
*# Chuck Antonio
Robert Briant
# Joe Bruzzese
# Sam Carrera
* Jack Collinson
Tom Gibbs
Frank Herman
Anna Lee
Cris Margeson
* Guy Prata
# Albert Scordino
COMMUNITY RESOURCES CENTRE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Appointees Required: Two Council Representatives and three Citizens for the 2001, 2002, 2003
Term.
Note: No applications were received to fill all three citizen vacancies.
COURTS OF REVISION (Local Improvement Act and Drainage Acfl
Appointees Required: Three Citizens for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
Applications Received:
*# Chuck Antonio
* Edward Kearns
*# Albert Scordino
..3
-3-
GREATER NIAGARA SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOCIATION
Appointees Required: Two Council representatives for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
GREATER NIAGARA TRANSIT COMMISSION
Appointees Required: Two Citizen Representatives for 2001, 2002, Term, and Mayor Thomson for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
Applications Received: # Robert Blanchfield
* Anthony DiGiacomo
# Wayne Gates
* Wayne A. (Bart) Maves
LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (L.A.C.A.C.)
Appointees Required: Six Citizen representatives, one Council appointee and City Historian -
On Going Term
Applications Received: * Todd Samuel Barclay
* Kym Cody
Frances Mary Corfield
* Margaret Mingle
Kathleen Powell
Gunter Sommcrfeldt
* Sherman Zavitz (City Historian)
LOCAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN
Appointees Required: One Council representative for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
MUNICIPAL NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION
Appointees Required: Three Council representatives for the 2001, 2002, 20~)3 Term
..4
-4-
NIAGARA FALLS BOARD OF MUSEUMS
Appointees Required: Three Citizen appointees and two Council representatives for the 2001,2002,
2003 Term
Application Received: Ken Warren
Note: Insufficient applications were received to fill all three Citizen vacancies.
NIAGARA FALLS TOURISM
Appointees Required: Mayor and two members of Council for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
NIAGARA FALLS HUMANE SOCIETY
Appointees Required: Two Citizen representatives, One (1) Council representative and one alternate
for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
Applications Received: # Robert Blanchfield
# Cris Margeson
Tracey L. Merrett
Rev. Dr. Ken Smith
NIAGARA FALLS PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
Appointees Required: Mayor Thomson and in accordance with the Public Libraries Act, the
appointment of not more than 9 members in total, is required (At least three of the members must
be recommended by the Public School Board and at least two of the members must be recommended
by the Separate School Board and three Council Appointees, either Aldermen or Citizens..
Applications Received:
Anne Andres-Jones
Isabelle Bald
Nan Doan
# Nancy Eidt
Doreen P. Levair
PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATIVES
Barbara Ness
Kenneth Smith
Carm Dix
..5
-4-
NIAGARA FALLS BOARD OF MUSEUMS
Appointees Required: Three Citizen appointees and two Council representatives for the 2001, 2002,
2003 Term
Application Received:
Ken Warren
Note: Insufficient applications were received to fill all three Citizen vacancies.
NIAGARA FALLS TOURISM
Appointees Required: Mayor and two members of Council for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
NIAGARA FALLS HUMANE SOCIETY
Appointees Required: Two Citizen representatives, One (1) Council representative and one alternate
for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
Applications Received:
# Robert Blanchfield
# Cris Margeson
Tracey L. Merrett
Rev. Dr. Ken Smith
NIAGARA FALLS PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
Appointees Required: Mayor Thomson and in accordance with the Public Libraries Act, the
appointment of not more than 9 members in total, is required (At least three of the members must
be recommended by the Public School Board and at least two of the members must be recommended
by the Separate School Board and three Council Appointees, either Aldermen or Citizens..
Applications Received:
Anne Andres-Jones
Isabelle Bald
Nan Doan
Nancy Eidt
Doreen P. Levair
PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATIVES
Barbara Ness
Kenneth Smith
Carm Dix
..5
-S-
PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATIVES
SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
No Recommendations have been received as of this date.
NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION
Appointees Required: Mayor Thomson is appointed as the City's pemianenl annual appointee.
PLUMBERS EXAMINING BOARD
Appointees Required: Two (2) Citizen representatives for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
Joseph Picca
Application Received:
PROPERTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Appointee Required: One citizen representative for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
* John Anstmther
Robert Briant
# Sam Carrera
# Frank DeLuca
Tom Gibbs
# Anna Lee
# Cris Margeson
# Sante Sticca
Applications Received:
RECREATION COMMISSION
Appointees Required: Two (2) Council Representatives for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term and Four
(4) Citizen Appointees for the 2001, 2002 Term
Applications Received:
* Vincent M. Audibert
# Joe Bruzzese
* Christopher Cage
* Ken Eastman
# Wayne Gates
Donald (Don) W. Jackson
Paisley Janvary-Pool
Bernie Villamil
..6
-6-
REGIONAL NIAGARA TOURIST COUNCIL
Appointees Required: One Alderman and One Alternate for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
TRAILS AND BIKEWAY COMMITTEE
Appointees Required: One (1) Council representative
Applications Received: Joseph D. Feor
# Doreen P. Levair
UNITED WAY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Appointee Required: One Alderman for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
Y.M.C.A. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Appointee Required: One Alderman for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
Y.W.C.A. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Appointee Required: One Alderman for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
CIVIC COMMITTEE
Appointee Required: As determined by Council for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
Co-Chairs: Alderman Shirley Fisher
Alderman Gary Hendershot
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND GREENING COMMITTEE
Appointee Required: As determined by Council for the 2001, 2002, 2003 Te, rm
CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
Appointees Required: All Members of Council for 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
Appointees Required: All Members of Council for 2001, 2002, 2003 Term
..7
-8-
CHIPPAWA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
Appointees Required: Two (2) Council Representatives
CLIFTON HILL BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
Appointee Required: One (I) Council Representative
DOWNTOWN BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
Appointee Required: One (1) Council Representative
FALLSVIEW BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
Appointee Required: One (1) Council Representative
LUNDY'S LANE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
Appointees Required: Two (2) Council Representatives
MAIN AND FERRY BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
Appoimee Required: One (1) Council Representative
VICTORIA AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
Appointee Required:
One (1) Council Representative
..9
City Clerk
Approved by
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
ECW:lw
Attach.
-9-
Respectfifily submitted:
~'h~ fL~stidm~ni att at--~ive Offie~r
The City of ~"/l~lllf
Corporate Services Department
Legal Services
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on,ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905)374-7500
E-mail: rkallio@city.niag arafalls.on.ca
R.O. Kallio
City Solicitor
L-2000-91
December 11, 2000
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of Mtmicipal Council,
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
L-2000-91, Declare Surplus and Disposal of Portion of Closed
Laneway Running Parallel to Broughton Avenue between
Buttrey Street and Ferguson Street
Part 3 on Reference Plan No. 59R-10928
Our File No.: 2000-111
RECOMMENDATION:
That, the portion of the laneway running parallel to Broughton Avenue between Buttrey
Street and Ferguson Street, described as Part 3 on Reference Plan No. 59R-10928, be
declared surplus to the City's needs, subject to its closing by Judge's Order.
That notice to the public declaring the said land surplus and of the City's intention to convey
the said land to Niagara Bronze Limited, be waived.
That, subject to its closing by Judge's Order, the said land be conveyed to Niagara Bronze
Limited for nominal consideration, together with any costs, provided, the purchaser execute
a final release in favour of the City with respect to any soil contamination.
REPORT:
Earlier this year, Council approved report L-2000-48, a copy of which is attached hereto, authorizing
staffto proceed with closing the subject portion of a laneway running parallel, to Broughton Avenue
between Buttrey Street and Ferguson Street, more particularly described as Part 3 on Reference Plan
No. 59R-10928. Niagara Bronze Limited and Canadian Corps Association each own property that
abut the subject portion of the laneway. Both companies consented to the closing of the laneway by
Judge'sOrderpursuanttorequirementsundertheRegistryAct. Application l~or a Judge's Order has
been submitted to the Superior Court of Justice for consideration. Niagara Bronze Limited has
indicated their interest in purchasing the subject portion of the laneway for nominal consideration,
plus costs. Canadian Corps Association has confirmed they have no interest in purchasing any part
of the laneway.
}Forking Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's · Finance · Human Resources . Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
L-2000-91 - 2 -. December 11, 2000
Staffis recommending that the subject portion of the laneway be declared surplus to the City's needs
and offered to Niagara Bronze Limited for nominal consideration plus costs. Staff further
recommends that Niagara Bronze Limited execute a final release in favour of the City with respect
to any soil contamination, as they did in 1996 when they purchased an abutting portion of the
laneway under the same terms and conditions.
In order to assist Canadian Corps Association in alleviating certain time constraints with respect to
a related real estate transaction, staff is requesting that Council waive the requirement under the
City's by-law for the sale and disposal of municipal property that notice be given to the public,
declaring the subject portion of the laneway surplus to the City's needs and i[ts intention to convey
the said land to Niagara Bronze Limited for nominal consideration.
Prepared by:
S.M. Daniels, A.M.C.T.
Legal Assistant/Property Manager.
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda,
Executive Director of Corporate Services.
/~nded by:
City Solicitor.
Restfully Submitt0d_:
Edward P. Lustig, ./
Chief Administrative Offi%r.
Legal Department
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 374-7500
E-mail: rkallio@cj~/~iagarafalls.on.ca
· ~ -' S. DANIELS
FROM: R.O. KALLIO
June 12, 2000
T'~ E RECO~.J~N~DATION (S} CONTAINED IN
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson T2 ~S t~.~t'~J)~%/~RE ADOPTED BY CITY
and Members of Municipal Council, COUNC~/&.~ ~ MEETING HELD ON
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
L-200048, Authorization to Proceed with the Closing of
Part of Laneway Running Parallel to Broughton Avenue
Between Buttrey Street and Ferguson Street
Our File No.: 2000-111
R.O. Kallio
City Solicitor
L-2000-48
2000
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffbe authorized to proceed with the closing of part of the unopened lam.way running parallel to
Broughton Avenue between Buttrey Street and Ferguson Street.
REPORT:
In 1996, Council approved the closing of part of an unopened laneway separating properties owned
by Niagara Bronze Limited and F. W. Roberts Manufacturing of Canada. Council further authorized
conveyance of the laneway to the abutting owners, for nominal consideration together with costs,
provided the abutting owners executed final releases in favour of the City with respect to any soil
contamination. This closed portion of the laneway is shown in heavy outline on the plan attached.
Mr. Ralph Tallman, President of Niagara Bronze Limited, located at 4248 Broughton Avenue is now
requesting a similar agreement for that portion of the same laneway located between the properties
owned by the Canadian Corps Association and Niagara Bronze. The subjec,t portion of the laneway
proposed to be closed is shown hatched on the plan attached.
This matter has been examined by City Departments who have indicated that the subject portion of
the unopened laneway can be closed and declared surplus to the City's needs. A subsequent report,
LEGAL DEPT.
JUN t 9 2 00
D'scussl
INFo