Additions to Council Oct 15/07 StaffADDITIONS TO COUNCIL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2007
In- Camera
Claim denial from Crawford Adjusters
Community Services
PD-2007-62 -Growth Management Official Plan Review
- memo from Clerk and various deputation requests
Corporate Services
Email form Acting Executive Director of Corporate Services Re: CPS-2007-03
Council
Correspondence from Rocco Vacca, Sullivan Mahoney Re: PD-2007-88
C)ctober 9, 2{}Q7
June 8urr:il
7964 eaverdams Rd.
Niagara Falls, Qntario
L2H ~
Cur Insured:
Date of Loss:
Claimant:
Qur File No.;
H~il~ l~lwlrtvlr~>rQ
Corporation of the Gity of Niagara Falls
July 19, 2t1a7
June Burch
MA1852598
Ct. `'
r~~~~~
V1{e have now completed our investigation into this matter and have reviewer! that
investigation with our principals.
We have confirmed through weather records that a short but severe rainstorm struck the
Niagara Fails area can the date of this incident. 1n your particular area of the city during a
1l~ minute duration when it rained the hardest this storm was quantified as a greater than
25 year storm.
We have confirmed a history of previous service requests on E~eaverdams Rd.
concerning the ditch and culvert system. These service requests were dealt with in a
prorr~pt and reasonable balls by the City of Niagara Falls staff,
In regard to the storm r~rainage system %n the Qrchard Grove extension sub-division
{Magnolia Drive} we have confirmed that it has been designed and constructed in
accordance with the 5 year refurn storm criteria which was approved by the Ministry of
the Environment.
Given this information we can see no gross negligence resting with the City of Niagara
Falls and have been instructed to deny liability for any claims you wish to present.
Please be advised that your claim is subject to a limitation period.
If you have any questions regarding our letter or information that may alter our principal's
decision in this matter please contact the writer at 9Q5-356-4929.
Thank you.
Yours very truly,
Mike Archer, C1P
Adjuster
MA:mt
Encl. Mike.Archer~crawco.ca
4056 Dorchester F2d., Lower Levet. +- Niagara Falls, ON. L2E 6M9 . Phone (905) 356-4929 Fax (S05) 356-0671 a wv~nv.crawfordandcompany.ca
Toil Free Phone (866) 257-9?47 Crawford Adjusters Canada Incorporated
Corporate Services Department ~/~
Clerk's Division ~~,~~~
Inter-Department Memorandum Niagara ally
.F,...
T0: Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni DATE: October 12, 2007
& Members of the Community Services Committee
FROM: Dean Iorfida
City Clerk
Ext. 4271
RE: Growth Management Official Plan Review
Although we take a more informal approach in committee meetings, a number of individuals have
specifically requested, or made known, that they wish to speak to the item noted above on Monday's
Community Services Agenda.
Staff foresees the matter unfolding as follows:
1. Introduction by Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning
2. Presentation by Peter Thoma, Urban Metrics
3. Deputation Requests (in order received)
• Derek Costello
• Ed Lustig, Broderick & Partners, on behalf of Thundering Waters
• Glenn Wellings, Wellings Planning Consultants, on behalf of Niagara Falls
Landowners Group
• Peter Smith, Bousfields Inc., on behalf of the Hilton
• Any additional interested speakers in the gallery
4. Presentation by Dana Anderson, Meridan Group
~'~"'" -
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks Finance Human Resources Information Sysfems Legal Planning & Development
11 Oct 2007 1:45PM WELLINGS PLANNING CONSULT 9056818741 p.2
October 11, 2007
Mr. Dean lorfida
City Clerk
City of Niagara Falls
4390 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Dear Mr. lorfrda:
Re: PD-2007-62
Growlih Management Uffiaiia! Plan Reviiew
Please accept this letter as our formal request to appear as a delegation before the
Camrnunity Senrices Committee to speak to the above matter. I will be speaking on
behalf of the Niagara Falls Landowners Group, including Club Italia with respect to the
Northwest Community Urban Area expansion.
Yours truly,
WELLINGS PLANNING CONSULTANTS INC.
Glenn J. Wellings, MCIP, RPP.
c. client
564 Emerald Street-Burlington ON L7R2N8
T 405 681 1769 - F 905 6$1 $T41
(10/12/2007) Dean lorfida -Community Services-Commitee Page 1
From: Heather Inglis <hinglis@bousfields.ca>
To: <diorfida@niagarafalls.ca>
Date: 10/12/2007 10:00 AM
Subject: Community Services Commitee
CC: <psmith@bousfields.ca>
Dear Mr. lorfida,
Mr. Peter Smith from Bousfields Inc., Community Planning Consulting,
would like to make a presentation to the Community Services Committee
at their meeting this Monday, October 15th. We understand that the
Committee is meeting at 4:15 pm.
The presentation is regarding the City's report, PD-2007-62, Growth
Management Official Plan Review, that is being considered by
Committee at that meeting.
I have spoken with John Barnsley from the City, and he is aware that
we wish to address the Committee.
Please let me know of any further steps that we need to take.
Many thanks,
-Heather Inglis Baron
Heather Inglis Baron, B.E.S.
Bousfields Inc.
3 Church Street, Suite 200
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1 M2
t: 416-947-9744
f: 416-947-0781
d: 416-947-1318 x 106
hinglis@bousfields.ca
The information contained in this transmission is confidential and
may be privileged. It is intended for the use of the individual to
whom or entity to which it is addressed. If you have received this
transmission in error, please notify us immediately, and delete it
from your system. Thank you for your co-operation.
Page 1 of 1
Dean lorFida -Fwd: Re: Meeting with Meridian
From: John MacDonald
To: Dean lorfida
Date: 10/11/2007 11:25 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Meeting with Meridian
Dean:
I believe this relates to the third Planning Item. As John is away, I thought I should forward it to you for
response.
Thanks.
Karen
»> <Don.Wilson@jjb.com> 10/1 1/2007 1 1:14 AM »>
Good morning John. We met with UrbanMetrics and Meridian yesterday (Joe Dicosimo and Peter
Smith). We now wish to attend and make some type of representation for the Committee
meeting of October 15. We are presuming it is an open meeting and presume we will be able to
make some type of representation during the discussion period. Please advise as to time and
location. Thanks John..don Wilson
file://C:\Documents and Settings\di202\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\470E080DDom... 10/11/2007
(10/12/2007) Dean lorfida -Report CPS 2007 03 V1/ater and Sewer Rates Review Page 1
From: Ken Burden
To: Dean Iorfida; Ed Dujlovic; John MacDonald
Date: 10/12/2007 3:05 PM
Subject: Report CPS 2007 03 Water and Sewer Rates Review
CC: Joanna Daniels
Hello John, Ed, Dean,
Please note this report may be deferred once again.
During today's meeting with Mr. Ed Bielawski and Councillor Thomson, I learned that Mr. Bielawski is preparing his own
follow-up report to CPS-2007-03, and plans to address the Committee. We again discussed Mr. Bielawski's main concerns
which he hopes to impress upon the Committee members.
After a lengthy dialogue, I mentioned the time requirements that might arise from earlier agendas on that same evening,
which would reduce the time available for a full discussion of this report. Councillor Thomson suggested another deferral
may be necessary to appropriately deal with this matter. Mr. Bielawski was not opposed to another deferral, but hoped that
this matter would receive priority at the next Corporate Services meeting (Oct.29/07).
As a result of our discussion, it is my understanding that Councillor Thomson will be requesting a deferral of report CPS-
2007-03.
Ken
S lli n•M h n
BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS
Please reply to the Nia~ar'a Falls Office
October 12, 2007
via fax#905.356.9083
City of Niagara Falls
City Hall
4310 Queen Street
NIAGARA FALLS, ON
L2E 6X5
Attention: Dean Iorfida, Clerk
Attention: Mayor Salci and Members of Council
Dear Sir/Madam:
Re: PD-2007-88
Re: AM-41/2006, Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application
2799 St. Paul Avenue
Re: Proposed 4-Storey, 47 Unit Condominium Apartment Dwelling
We act as solicitors for the Applicant in this matter.
The purpose of this letter is to set out our comments with respect to the above referenced report given
that this writer may not be available to attend the public meeting on October 15, 2007. We do
however confirm that our client's agent will be in attendance to speak to the matter.
In any event, to say the least we were extremely surprised by the comments and recommendations
contained in report PD-2007-88. We took into account planning staff's comments and
recommendations set out in its previous report, PD-2007-57, which addressed the previous proposal of
a 5-storey, 49 unit apartment building. In said report, planning staff clearly stated that the project at 5-
storeys met the locational criteria in the Official Plan and was within the density intended by the
Official Plan. IrI short, the previous report dealing with a 5-storey proposal was more balanced and
generally more positive than the report dealing with a 4-storey proposal.
As well, we are surprised that report PD-2007-88 failed to mention the Sun Shadowing Study and Tree
Preservation Plan which our client was asked to submit, the conclusions of which supported the
proposed 4-storey development.
40 Queen Street, P. O. Box 1360, St. Catharines, Ontario L2R 6Z2 Telephone: 905-688-6655, Facsimile: 905-688-5814
4781 Portage Road, Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6B1 Telephone: 905-357-0500, Facsimile: 905-357-0501
V.F. Muratori, Q.C. P.B. Bedard G.A. Wiggins P.T. Banwell, Q.C. T,A. Richardson P.M. Sheehan W.B. McKaig
J. Dallal D.A. Goslin J.M. Gottli R.B. Culliton J.R. Bush P.A. Mahoney B,A. Macdonald
M.J. Bonomi G.W. McCann S.J. Premi C. D'Angelo R. Vacca T, Wall K.A. King
J. Clarkson B. J. Troup S. Mckay M, Lescak N. Paduraru C. Bittle P. Lawrence
Of Counsel (Commercial Law): M.D. Kriluck
Page 2
Although PD-2007-88 includes a comparison of the previous 5-storey proposal and the existing 4-
storeyproposal, which leads to the conclusion that a 5-storey proposal would have a decrease in
massing in terms of length and would have a larger setback then the rear yard setbacks of the adjacent
detached dwellings to the north, the report fails to compare the proposal to that which could be legally
developed on the property pursuant to the current zoning. The previous report (PD-2007-57) did
include said comparison. Had this comparison been made in the current report, it would have led to
the conclusion that a 3-storey apartment building with 32 dwelling units constructed pursuant to the
current zoning would be less compatible with the surrounding area in terms of mass, setbacks and
appearance. A comparison of the current and proposed zoning standards, which ought to have been
included in report PD-2007-88, is as follows:
Current Zoning (RSA - 547) Proposed Zoning (RSC)
Maximum number of units 32 47
Maximum height 10 meters (32.8 feet) 14 meters (46 feet)
Minimum interior side yard
setback %2 building height 5 meters(16.4
feet %Z building height 7 meters (23
feet)
With respect to the issue of massing, a 3-storey proposal would result in the building being sited away
from the front of the site with parking inserted towards the front of the site. In other words, whereas
the 4-storey proposal would result in a building envelope which abuts only 2 neighbours to the north
(one of which is not objecting to this proposal) the 3-storey proposal would impact 4 neighbours to the
north (once again, one of which is not objecting to this proposal). We also note that the 4-storey
proposal includes terraces which do not extend into the larger side yard setback of 23 feet, whereas a
3-storey proposal would include terraces/balconies which would extend into the side yard setback of
16.4 feet as permitted by the current zoning.
The second purpose of this letter is also to remind Council of a number ofmulti-residential
developments in the surrounding area and outside of the surrounding area which have been previously
approved by this Council and previous Councils. In addition, it is important to note that a number of
these proposals were approved prior to the new Provincial Policy Statements and amendments to the
Planning Act which require that a Council decision shall conform to Provincial Plans and any
Provincial Policy Statements which all promote higher density infill developments. For example, we
draw your attention to the following:
(a) 2634 St. Paul Avenue
This property is located within approximately 100 meters of the subject property on the
opposite side of St. Paul Avenue. In 1991, the subject property was rezoned to RSA-285
which allows fora 6-storey 69 unit apartment building. It is noted that the subject property
backs onto the Mountaingate subdivision. This zoning remains in place today.
Page 3
(b) Eagle Valley Golf Course - 2334 St. Paul Avenue
This properly is located less than 500 meters from the subject property across St. Paul Avenue.
In 2000, Council approved OPA 27 to permit, among other things, a 10-storey residential
apartment building. The decision was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by a land
owner in the area. By Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board dated March 31, 2005,
Council's decision was upheld which allows a 10-storey apartment with up to 101 units. This
zoning remains in place today.
(c) North-west corner of Portage Road & Stanley Avenue
This site is within the general area of the subject property. On Apri12, 2007, Council approved
an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment to allow the development of 2 10-storey
apartment dwellings containing approximately 240 units. This zoning remains in place today.
(d) Corner of Dunn Street and Ailthanis Avenue
In or about 2003, an application was submitted to Council fora 5-storey, 20 unit apartment
building. The application was denied by Council and appealed to the Ontario Municipal
Board. By Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, the property was rezoned to allow a 4-
storey, 16 unit apartment building which has just been completed within the last few months.
The building is adjacent to single family dwellings with a side yard setback similar that being
proposed by our client.
(e) 6870, 6888, 6890 Drummond Road
This matter was recently dealt with by Council. By way of application to the Committee of
Adjustment, the current zoning allowing 2 3-storey apartment buildings and a maximum of 70
dwelling units was varied to allow a 5-storey apartment building and 95 dwelling units. A
variance in the building height from 11.5 meters (37.73 feet) to 14.33 meters (47 feet) was
allowed. The property was surrounded by a subdivision to the south and commercial property
to the north (similar to our client's property). The Committee of Adjustment's decision was
appealed by Planning Staff. On September 10, 2007, Planning Staff brought forward report
PD-2007-77 requesting direction from Council as to whether the appeal be continued.
Council, notwithstanding Planning Staff's opinion that the variances will result in a 10 foot
increase in height and an increase of 25 units on the property, decided not to pursue the appeal
further. (It is noted that the increase in height requested in this matter is 13 feet and the
increase in the number of units is 15).
In summary, we are requesting that Council give due consideration to the final form of the
development should a 3-storey apartment building be developed rather than the proposed 4-storey
development. In our considered opinion, a 3-storey development would be less compatible than a 4-
storeybuilding in that the building would be set back only 16 feet from the adjacent dwellings to the
north, would have protruding terraces/balconies, and would have a building envelope larger than that
being proposed impacting 4 of the adjacent dwellings rather than only 2 of the adjacent dwellings
under the current proposal. Furthermore, a decision by Council refusing the application would be
Page 4
inconsistent with Council's previous approvals for properties in the immediate area and, as well, most
of which approvals are for developments substantially greater in height and were approvals granted
prior to the existing Provincial Policy Statement, Provincial Plans and amendments to the Planning
Act which further promotes residential intensification such as that which is being proposed.
Finally, we feel it is important that we clearly enunciate our client's intentions in this matter. We can
advise that our client's instructions are as follows:
(a) in the event the application is approved, an application for site plan approval shall be
submitted immediately followed up by immediate construction of luxury ownership
condominium units; or
(b) in the event the application is denied:
(i) the decision will not be appealed to the OMB; and
(ii) the developer will be proceeding with construction of the 3 storey building as
affordable housing for the rental market and availing itself of any available
governmental funding for the construction of same.
Yours very truly,
SULLNAN MAHONEY LLP
Per:
Rocco Vacca
RV:rhh