Loading...
Additions 2008/01/14 ADDITIONS TO COUNCIL, MONDAY, JANUARY 14~ 2008 Community Services 1. Re: Railway Grade Separation a) Mark Stirtzinger's ten concerns b) MOE response to Mr. Stirtzinger c) Email from Regional Councillor Norm Puttick Corporate Services 1. 2008 Budget Powerpoint 2. Email from John MacDonald to Councillors loannoni and Wing, re: Main & Ferry CIP Land Purchases. 3. Correspondence from Regional Councillor Norm Puttick. Council 1. Re: CD-2008-01 Conditional Permit Agreements -Copy of Fees related to conditional building permits _ _ ~(1/14/2008j Dean lorfida -Fwd: Re CITY of NIAGARA FALLS RAILWAY GRAD EPARATION MUNICIPAL CLASS EA ~B`~ From: Jim Diodati To: Dean Iorfida; Geoff Holman Date: 1/14/2008 9:35 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: CITY of NIAGARA FALLS RAILWAY GRADE SEPARATION MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PROCESS and possible APPE "Mark" <diane.stirtzinger032~sxmpatico ca> 1/12/2008 11:30 PM To City Council: Hello there! Here are the "TOP TEN" reasons for NOT wanting a Bridge Overpass too near our neighbourhood. 1. An overpass, so close, less than 30 metres, will devalue my Home and that of my neighbours. 2. A raised widened roadway would increase Noise now at High Levels, Pollution and create many other problems. 3. Currently there is a Public Walkway on the north side of Morrison Street without cross arms for pedestrians at the railway crossing. There is the added problem of School Children (approx. 40), who now rely on a crossing guard to deal with vehicles and trains. This concern isn't even addressed in the Railway Grade Separation Muncipal Class EA Study. Without a good safe plan the proposed overpass would cut off foot traffic from Pettit Ave to the Morrison Street Medical Complex and nearby commercial areas. 4. My wife and her mother are very disturbed about losing their ability to see th.e Sunrise over the Top of the Skylon Tower. The overpass have an negative effect on the Aesthetics of our residential neighbourhood by changing the compatibilty of the surroundings and exposing us to a new (unsightly) view. 5. Contact with the Regional Police and Ambulance Services indicates little or NO concern. However, the Fire Department have Grossly Overstated their Concerns, many that could be Resolved using Remedies that are a lot less expensive. 6. Fiscal responsiblity, estimated a Eleven (11) million dollars being approximately one seventh of this City's annual total budget. 7. The Dorchester Road -Morrison Street Class EA 2004 by Delcan stated " unless you build two grade separations, which were deemed too costly for the minimal benefit gained, you will resolve very little. Simply providing four-lane roadways and maintaining level railway crossings will substantially improve traffic queues and avoid conjestion in the area. The current Railway Grade Separation Class EA Study 2007 is in escrow with little improvement to the "entire" City. 8. NO Proper Notification to Persons Directly Affected. Under Phase 3 of the Municipal Class EA planning process for Schedule C projects, once the - ,F.- (1/14/2008) Dean lorfida -Fwd: Re: CITY of NIAGARA~FALLSRAILWAY GRADE SEPARATION MUNICI L LASS EA ~ - - ~ ~ _ ~ r~. preferred alternative(s) were determined (December 2005), it is mandatory for the proponent to "Consult with Directly Affected Public Persons". In my case I first learned from the December 7, 2007 newspaper advertising Phase 4 of the process -Notice of Filing of Enviromental Study Report (ESR) Completion -Railway Grade Separation. 9. In discussions with the CN Railway Engineering Department, I find they have a very different view, when dealing with Railway crossings, where many Pedestrians and young School Children walk across the tracks daily from all directions. Can you imagine how many crossings the CN railway have to deal with in Ontario alone. 10, The study states 8 to 12 trains per day (confirmed by CNR), why can't the City of Niagara Falls learn the positives of the railway and act accordingly. Sincerely, Mark Stirtzinger 4687 Pettit Avenue Niagara Falls, ON (905) 357-1617 Ministry Ministate of the de • Environment I'Envirannement ~ a r~ 2 St Ciair Ave West 2, avenue St Clalr Ouest Toronto ON M4V t L5 7oronta ON M4V 1 LS Munlclpal Works 1 S enaed 1~~ 1 ~ 1~ ~ ENV 1283MC-2008-5 File. R ~ nn January 7, 2008 ~~U tV Mr. Mark Stirtzinger „s .lAN ~ ; 2008 4687 Pettit Avenue EN~~NEERING Niagara Falls ON L2E 6L4 Uear Mr. Stirtzinger: 9 5 ! '1"hank you for your December 31, 2007 a-mail to the Minister of the Environment (Minister) about the City of Niagara Falls' (City} proposed Railway Grade Separarion (Project), I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister. ~I"he Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) applies, in large part, to public sector projects carried out by the Province, municipalities, or a public body. Approval is obtained under the EAA by preparing and submitting an environmental assessment (EA} to the government. In this case, approval to proceed must be granted by the Minister of the Environment and Cabinet. The requirements for the preparation of ari EA are set out in Part lI of the EAA. ' Alternatively, municipalities maybe able to obtain approval for road, water, and sewage infrastructure projects through planning and developing projects under the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA). The Class EA is an approved environmental planning process based on principles of environmental assessment, including public and agency consultation, considering alternatives and environmental effects (natural, cultural, economic), and ensuring a clear and traceable decision-making process. Class EA projects have predictable and mitigable environmental effects. Class EA projects are characteristically recurring, similar in nature, limited in scale, have a predictable range of environmental effects, and responsive to mitigation. The Class EA categorizes projects based on their anticipated environmental impacts under three schedules: A, B, or C. It is the understanding of this ministry that the Project is being planned by the City as a Schedule C project under the Class EA. Schedule C projects are those that have the potential for significant environmental effects. The Schedule C procedures are comprised of five phases. The proponent is required to identify the problem or opportunity, assess alternative solutions to the problem or opportunity, select a preferred solution, and assess a range of design alternatives. The process includes three mandatory public consultation points. The results of this work are then presented by the proponent in an Environmental Study Report (ESR). The ESR documents the planning and development of the Project and the public and agency consultation that was conducted. The ESR also provides a description of the proposed Project. 0761 L8 (05h09) 10096 Recycled Chbnne F?69 Made in Canada This ministry has been advised that the City issued a Notice of Completion of Environmental Study Report on December 8, 2007. The notice informs the public that the ESR for this Project has been prepared and is available fora 45- a ~pulili~ comment period which ends on January 22 2008. . ~ ~ As with all projects planned under their ss EA,=a person or party with a concern should fcrst bring the concern to the attention of tl~ opca~ept dut-ir,~~the 4~-day comment period. The proponent must consult the person ar p ~ ~m~t lt~o ~es~l~~ the concern. I have, therefore, forwarded our letter to Mr. ~t'~~ ; ' F' Y ~ ac dw~~oa,1'~oj+act Manager at the City for this Project. Mr. Schachowskoj has informedtimh that he is w~,g td discuss any outstanding concerns you may have. ; - ~ ~ -t ~ . w s If the concern is not resolved through discussions with the proponent, you may make a written submission to the Minister of the Environment, asking that the Minister require the City to prepare an individual environmental assessment far the Project. This is referred to by the Class EA as a Part II Order request. A copy of the request must also be sent to the City. This must usually be done during the 4S-day comment period. Despite this, where significant concerns are raised during the 45-day review period, proponents should be prepared to take additional time to address and attempt to resolve them. In this event, the Class EA requires the proponent to provide the person or party raising the concerns a further seven calendar days following the end of any discussions or consultations to submit a Part II Order request to the Minister if the concerns have not been resolved by the proponent. Please note that personal and other information in your letter such as your name, address, and telephone number and your concerns with this Project will form part of the public record on this matter. If you wish this information to be excluded from the public file, this Branch must be advised. Despite this, this information may still be obtained by members of the public if the ministry is required to disclose it under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with this ministry. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Ms. Kristina Rudzki of this Branch at (416} 314-028b. Yours sin rely, Agatha Garcia-Wright A/Director Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch c: K. Schachowskoj, City of Niagara Falls EA File: Correspondence Binder Mark Stirtz~nger 4687 Pettit Avenue Niagara Falls, Ontarro L2E 6L4 January 2, 2008 Re CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS -NOTICE OF FILING OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT RAILWAY GRADE SEPARATION -Municipal Class Environmental Assessment M~ntstry of the Environment / Minist~re de 1'environnement 135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto, ON M4V 1 P5 ~ Tel 416-325164 1-800-565-4923 Dear Minister In reference to the above-mentioned Murncipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Report (ESR), !wish to subrn~t the following My wife and I reside at 4687 Pettit Avenue, in the City of Niagara Falls. We have enjoyed Iwmg at this address for almost twenty years My mother-in-law has lived nght next door for almost as long Our neighbourhood includes a public school, medical center, a church and shopping center within walking distance There is a real sense of pnde within our neighbouhood On or about December 8, 2007, by notice In the Niagara Falls Review, t seamed of the Notice of F~l~ng of the Environmental Study Report - Railway Grade Separation (ESR) This report offers 45 days for public review before proceeding with the detail design and construction as documented in the ESR For as long as I have lived in my home, I have been employed by the Town of Gnmsby as an Engmeenng Technologist dealing mostly wrth municipal infrastructure so cntical to the community So, as a result of the nonce in the newspaper, t set out to obtain the complete ESR and other studies related thereto. It would appear that the ESR is flawed in regard to its content and it conflicts with earlier reports ~ regarding the same subject (e g } Environmental Study Report {Dorchester Road and Momson Street ~ Class EA September 2004 The city has been unable to offer any resolve to the many issues raised by • my neighbours and me The population of nearby Cherrywood Acres Public School is about 300 students It appears that about 40 children cross Morrison Street at the puncture of the CN Railway crossing. The ESR study makes no mention of this situation and its related concerns According to the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment June 2000 -Section A.3 5 Public Consultation, there seems to be some dispute and question as ro proper notification of a!I persons directly affected by this project and contained parties The only notice received is that of the newspaper ESR dated December 7, 2007 My property is within 35 meters of what could be the columns of an elevated roadway overpass in closing, I would like to offer any of my research of this ESR to you and your staff. I can be reached at home 905-357-1617 or at work 905-309-2012 I will be mailing a true copy of this letter ASAP Thank you very much Mark D Stirtzinger CET (1/14/2008) Dean lorfida - Fw: Re: CITY of NIAGARA FALLS RAILWAY GRADE SEPARATION MUNICIPAL CLASS EA P~~ - _ _ - a~..r- , From: "Norm Puttick Cogeco" <nputtick@cogeco.net> To: "Ken Burden" <kburden@niagarafalls.ca> Date: 1 /13/2008 1:06 PM Subject: Fw: Re: CITY of NIAGARA FALLS RAILWAY GRADE SEPARATION MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PROCESS and possible APPEAL Part 2 order request consideration CC: "Dean lorfida" <diorfida@niagarafalls.ca> Ken -Dean: Just info. Give road to Region ans if .bridge built City only in for 22% of cost. Norm Original Message From: "Norm Puttick Cogeco" <nputtick@cogeco.net> To: "Mark" <diane.stirtzinger032@sympatico.ca> Cc: "William. Smeaton" <William.smeaton@regional.niagara.on.ca>; "Barbara. Greenwood" <barbara.greenwood@regional.niagara.on.ca>; <council@niagarafalls.ca> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:17 PM Subject: Re: Re: CITY of NIAGARA FALLS RAILWAY GRADE SEPARATION MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PROCESS and possible APPEAL Part 2 order request consideration > Mark: I appreciate your concerns. If I had a vote regarding this overpass > it would be NO. Not political but perhaps > having been through the "east-west" discussions many years may be of help >toyou. > Morrison St "extension" was not in place nor the present interchange at > Dorchester and the 420. Beginning at Portage and Morrison the present > design {including the taking down of the Hydro bridge was initiated with > a plan to go right through to > Montrose and beyond. This would give the City a much needed east -west > artery in the middle of Lundys Lane and Thorofd > Rd. David St. was to forma 4 way stop at Morrison. {This is why we have > present tangle of traffic coming North on Portage > and in effect a one way stop. If David was extended you would be able to > signalize. > Also this is why Fingland St is a "collector" for traffic exiting Scott > subdivision and then going to Drummond and Portage.. > Now to the meat of the problem. > Homes were purchased {south of Branscombes new bldg.} {one was Mowers} > and Morrison was extended to the East stopping short of the QEW. Keep in > mind Brights Winery ,Acres etc were still there. > The Province promised a "fly-over to Monrose and then would be extended > Kalar and eventually to Lundys Lane. This was an important link for a > third east-west link FROM DOWNTOWN. > At about this time interest was coming in N. Falls for its first "indoor > Mall". There were three: Lundys Lane and Montrose: > Present Niagara Square and the land on Dorchester near Morrison {across (1%14/2008) Dean lorfida - Fwa Re: CITY of NIAGARA FALLS RAILWAY GRADEySEPARATION MUNICIPAL~CLASS EA PF~~ > from Acres}. I voted for the one on Dorchester {not for Niagara Square.} > Several reasons: We were talking "vision" and with plans for extended > Morrison St:; the present > interchanges {easy to get to what some of us hoped would be new in-door > Mall on Dorchester} and most importantly > Queen St. would with the new Morrison St. extension complimented each > other with bus traffic moving freely between a > established business area and the New. > > Niagara Square won out. McLeod Rd was a level crossing. The Province had > promised a reconstruction of the Thorold Rd > Bridge AND a bridge to carry Morrison over QEW. > However the lobbyists who won the Niagara Square Mall now needed a Bridge > to cross Mcleod and eliminate the dangerous > level crossing. The Niagara Square lobbyists won again as the bridge for > the extension of Morrison St was shifted to McLeod Rd. > The Province "had a vision" but the City kept screwing it up. > The two Fire stations built on Dorchester North and McLeod were built in > order to take care of the railway problem. > What is needed in my view is an outlet to QEW from Morrison {Optimist} > such as the Tourist Office at Stanley and 420. > > This would be North of course and anyone wishing to go south on QEW > {Ft.Erie} could use present Dorchester OR > new outlet and go North and turn around at Thorold Stone bridge. {Poorly > built by the way} > This Plaza depends on Regional trade. > > By the way two other proposals were an extension of DunnSt. to QEW for > those wishing to go North instead of congested > McLeod. > Pettitt also was to be bridged at the Canal for an outlet to present420. > I would go after the Province for an outlet to the QEW. > I would ask Region to take over Morrison Street .Thorold just gave back > part of Beaverdams that is need of work . > Grimsby is receiving about $10M to buy land to join their service Rd and > have a NEW outlet to QEW along with land for > police station.. Wainfleet is looking for $75M for new sewers for heavens > sake. > Anyway I hope this will assist you in your views. r ~ ~ ~ s rs;~ f. r i 'rn, f ~ ~ d ~ ~ - r t~ ~ _ Y _ Y; # a `s F ` :f i 4 G' .F ~ 1 , ~ L 7MF. E7 < ~ ~ i ~ a ~ ~ i' C 7. ~ i . ` a' t. t a C 2 y ' T v ~ ~ 4:~ g~ v ~ s, I i i~~. { < f~ ~ . 4~ .Yt ~r Y :g, L S 3: { ~ i. - r E / ~ _ t ~w. ~ of ~ ~ f ~ v,~ p y`e, 1 f `~:x ~i j t:` f` 8; 4 ~ ~ ~ .wj iy W ~ F . ~A M x . ~ ' ~j ~1 h, iE 3 r aH, 1 ~ ~ k'~tt~ ~ ~~+C a n' ~ n3. rt r'°""' ~ ~ ~ s ~ t ",~~~~'~a~.. ~ a ua -sk„ ~ ; say P' F ~ , ~ y rw, r',,. ' n ry y ~ ~ r , M, a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k{ r~ rr~~ E ~s" , . ~ , : ' ' , . m t~~ ~ _;~s i , ~ ~ ~ s s i ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ay~ "Y~a .r z~.:; ~ i t ~ V i The Cit of Nia ara Falls y g 2008 Bud et g Januar 14 2008 y Presentation to ics: p Cor orate Services p Current Status of 5.4% tax increase Proposed Cuts im act on Residential Pro ert Taxes p p Y ,,J ~~Y, .p Corporate Service Divisions: Clerks -Dean lorfida Finance -Todd Harrison Human Resources -Trent Dark Information Systems -Lynn Molloy Legal Services -Ken Beaman F, /I' Division 2008 Change Expense Clerks $1,182,445 $210,362 Finance 1,008,677 37,526 Human 4,905,091 1,990,072 Resources Information 2,838,315 108,465 Services Legal 731,375 (391,309) Services - ~ ~ ;a x ~ ~ 4Y ,~4 ,n f, . , . s^ ,K; Wh y Clerks • near urchasing fficer position • transfer of City Clerk position to divisional budget Human Resources • provision for labour negotiations • Increased '~vSl expense Information Systems • Agin dock lease Legal Services • reduction in staff positions • reduction in other legal assistance ~ ~ _ . 4 ~ t ` ~ s i G i C Priorities for 2008 • To ensure the Corporation is ready for P.S.A.B. compliance in 2009, including software applications • Offer new training opportunities to staff • Improve the Corporation's health and safety culture • Continued improvements in licensing, purchasing and Council functions • Update the Corporation's inventory of saleable surplus lands ro• - - • ~lI m . I Current Position after December 10, 2007 Meeting $ Amount Tax Levy Proposed Expenditure Budget $93,675,467 4.0% Additional Expenditures: Additional Drainage Funding $500,000 1.1% Increase to Niagara Falls Tourism $120,000 0.3% Revised Expenditure Budget $94,295,467 5.4% 11 - ~ • , Y ~a ~ e c , Proposed Cuts Tax Levy Revised Expenditure $94,295,467 5.4% Budget Eliminate transfer to (440,000) (1.0%) reserves established by new financial policies Eliminate transfer to (849,682) (1.9%) reserves to fund anticipated Casino assessment appeal Proposed Final 2008 Expenditure Budget $83,005,785 2.5% 1t . i x ; ~ ; r.a ~ r, ~ 3y j ~~t ~ J~:<.. . * ¦ om arson o ax ev on e vera a ouse o Tax 2007 2008 $ Change Change Assessment '159,000 159,000 0 0% City $812.92 $833.08 $20.16 2.5% ..r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t i - ~ (1/10/2008) Dean lorfida Re: Main & Ferry CIP Land Purchases Page r From: John MacDonald To: Carolynn loannoni Date: 1 /1 0/2008 1 1:38 AM Subject: Re: Main & Ferry CIP Land Purchases CC: Council Members Hi Carolynn: Thanks for your comments regarding my memo about the Main & Ferry land purchases. I would just like to clarify that in the discussions regarding the Downtown, staff did not recommend any increase to the 2008 levy as a result of the CIP Program. The suggestion for consideration of Council was that if Council wanted to allocate the $12 million amount over three (3) years, $4 million could be placed in the 2008 Capital Budget. As you are aware, items identified in the 2008 Capital Budget would not have an impact on the Operating Budget until the following year. To Janice's point that we could include $200,000 for the purchase of land in Main & Ferry area while offsetting that cost in the Revenue Account for land sales, staff is reluctant to identify the land sales as a revenue source, at this time, as these sales are still being negotiated and finalized. However, if Council is comfortable with that approach, it will be necessary to clarify that the purchase of lands in the Main & Ferry area would be contingent upon the sale of City land. I look forward to our discussions on Monday evening. .John Carolynn loannoni 1/9/2008 12:32 PM Hi John The corporations commitments to CIP's are starting to become very confusing, at least to me. I clearly understand your email to Janice but I read it with the knowledge that you presented to council a report recommending that we dedicate millions of dollars to the downtown for 2008 at the last Community Services meeting. How is it that there was money for that ($4 million, if I am not mistaken) in 08 but not $200,000 for Main and Ferry? - _ (1/'i0/2008 Dean lorfida - Re: Main & Fer CIP Land Purchases ~ - - - - - - Page 3 Considering the revitalization developments already underway here (eg. the $2 million Patterson Funeral Home expansion, the recent opening of the Petrullo Floral Design Studio -which is the type of shop you'd expect to find on Queen St. in Niagara-On-The-Lake); the delivery to us, last night, of the Main & Ferry Streetscape Final Report; and the rapid approach of the War of 1812 Bicentenniary, in preparation for which this is needed, t am in full support of this request and will be making a motion to that effect at our next Budget meeting. Given that Main and Ferry is only about a kilometre from the Fallsview Tourist Area, I would suggest that strong support for continuing the renaissance already underway here could provide a boon to tourism as well by offering our future visitors an opportunity to shop in one-of-a-kind local stores in an authentic historic area for Made In Niagara products. (Please check out Petrullo at 6032 Main St., at the foot of Barker, to see all these possibilities already unfolding.) John and Ken, perhaps you can keep this in mind as well when revamping the budget to accomodate the other two items put back in this past Monday night and Council's desire to keep any increase as low as possible. Thanks. Janice Corporate Services Department Clerk's Division Inter-Department Memorandum NiagaraFalls TO: Councillor Victor Pietrangelo DATE: January 14, 2008 & Members of the Corporate Services Committee FROM: Dean Iorfida City Clerk Ext. 4271 RE: Distribution of Regional Levy to Area Municipalities Regional Councillor Norm Puttick wanted Council to have a copy of the attached document. Working Together to Serve fur Community Clerks Finance Human Resources Information Systems Legal Planning & Development ~~d ~ OZ' ~ ~N•~Z 7~~~'~Zr'(,~'11~-IfAO Z ~m o1v ~ ~L"~ ~ c-~ ~ a~ro d ~•r~ ~ amp o-°*n' ~ o_ o~~ ~ O ~ 4 ~ to 3 N~N~ N~ ~ ~ ao~~r~~~~-~-~~cn~w N Cn ~ N O O W CD W 00 OD O 00 V ...a O CJt N O C)0 O CD •A W V CO V O V O W N O V N C~ O CO CO -P GOO W O N W O O N W CJI ~ C31 V O •A O~ O O CTt CA W •A CO Cn V N O (D Cn V OD O O W •P 11 N 00 ~ IV ..a Qo ~ GJ GJ W ~ O ~ V O CD N ~ '.1 -a IV 0 0 0 0 ~ o o ~ o ~ o o ~ •A V N COJt OVO pWj ~ ,A (gyp „VP ~ ~ ~ y. © N O -P N 11 CO O :.'p O CO <D 00 N N °o N y a~ iO W cn I w o i~ o w iv o0 0 ~ rh V W~ N V. W N CJt Clt V~ •A O = O N •-i W Cat .A CJt V CO •P cN0 •P ~ ~ ,;A O ~ N yp Cn Cb N 0D N ~ O rt O W CTS 11 00 c0 IV .P rn cD c,Jt a' Oo iD C37 W O IV vt ~P Oo N ~ ~A ~ ~CO~•p"pCO3OOONV O Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O Cn W WOO -p 0o V O W Cb N ~ ~ 0¦ N fig ffl ffl fig ffl ff3 fig 0 3 o fig ffl f~ ~ ~ fig rn fig -ti ~ N ~ ~ •P W V N O O ~ CD O W .p N O ~ C~ CJO O C~ W NCO •A .P W O ~ C)0 O ~ ~ O N N O ~ W 00 CJt V C~ -P CJt •P C~ W CD O Q. O N ~ W O Ut Ut V O •P CD •P N ,;P . W .p N CJt N O C31 N O W ~ N ~ / O GJ (Jt 11 O O GJ O ~A• U7 U7 j ~ W N IV ~ O y ~ IV Cfl 00 ~ NV N••1NOC77tOCACOtn•PO o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O (n Cn N~ V Cn s Cn ap CA V W ~ ~ 0¦ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ N ~ ;u w~w~~rnoc~o~o~o~ ~ o ~ jWw.Prnooo-~=t~v,ao~ovto ~p 3 0 0 - Nwrn:t~.AOVtoo~-~.Oa~oo N N Oo ~1 V cO 00 CJt W S W O W W W O' N W O f37 CJt V CO ~A CO ;P -l C" (W CTI O 01 ~ C31 D ~ O OD ~ ~ O ~ ~A. tat 00 IV O ~A GJ GJ GJ GJ ~ U1 ~ j V V a ~ .i N N W N W ry. ~ [ owoOCncnoocoVrnVwcoo ~ O O O O O O D O O O O O O O CA N ff3 ffl ~ ffl ffl ffl ~ ~ ~ 1 1 j = C31 CJt W ()0 Cn W CO 00 COO ~D ~ ~ O ~ O V Cat CO O 11 -i f11 IV OD VA V O p ~ O N N O ~ C~ O O 00 ~ OD W N C~ CJt W CD O O N W CA CJt CJt V O •P CO ~ ~ ~ 00 00 W ~ (p ~ jV ~ pp ~ O ~ Ut 00 -P O 01 t1t O fV GJ N W O V V Q1 ~ ~ V N C~ O = O o 0 0 0 o D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 p ~ Cn V GOON-P-~ W NC)OCJt'•PN Q ~ _ ~ ~ ~ CNTt ffl fA ffl ffl fA ffl ff} N 39 6VR ff3 ~ ~i 1 ~ ~ ~ N ~ W tD GT N -P OO N O N O .P ~ ~ ~ ~ O p~ W 01 C~ Cn O ~ W V O . ,P p O ¦a 00 O ~ 00 V .V W. W Cn Cp •P ~ O N s W Cn U't CJt V W •P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O N V W CO C~ ~ 00 N N CJt ~ O ~ ~ m ~ V v0 •P CA 00 ~ .P W V O t~ ~ ~ U'i 00 .P. O 00 ~ CO O ~ CJ1 00 C3~ V N ~ C)0 CJt V •A W C~ V~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r'f` .p O V p O O O N --i .p N O ~ ~ ~ •614 r , ~ ~ ffl {,q ffl ffl ffl fA fig N f~ fiV9 ~ ffl ~ ~i ~ ~ ...1 ..S m N ~ OC~WOCnWCnWNOOCO~N e ~ o o~ tw o~ ~ is ~ iw is iv vt ~ ~ ~ m ~ o N ~V co o~ V o0 0 0 0o rn cO rn o °o O N N t7~ V Cb O O W 11 O. N CD CJt N Cn O O N W Cn CJt CTI V 00 P to W ~ ~ ~ 3 01 D CO ~ C3i cD CJt f V co GJ ~ f V ~I 00 O W W ~ N .A• V ~ ~ COO co 0~0 N o 0 0 ~ o o ~ o ~ o o ~ o O W V O Cb W~ O V N W CA CEO c ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ fib ffl ffl ffl ff3 fig N fi~9 6V~ ~ ~ .l ~ ~1 ''~~C ~ N CO O •P O V~~ CO W O OD O 00 N y ~ ~ ~ CO~O~OO-ii~~tDNO11O ~ ~ V W O W W •PN O-~O~-»O ~ O N W Cn tJt C~ V 00 .p ~ W ~ ~ Cat •P W C37 y.l Cat O tJt CAD ~ W V Z O U1 f31 tO ~ fV O IV ~ O O '~I ~l ~ OVO O CWD ~ i N ~ OWO COD ~ O .pO ~ ~ o 0 0 0 ~o 0 0 0 0\\ -'•A-pC3~oOC~C770~U~•PN•A ~ w y N ~ a N oN~wrncs,cnVCO.p~.p~~ r O ~ U1 OD O CJt IV IV W ~ O ~ (p \°\\°\\°\°\°\°~\°~D ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 „r-3~ e CLASS OF PERMIT ~ PERMIT FEE OTHER PERMITS (cont,~ v n $/sq. ft. $/sq. m. 10. Demolition of a building or structure 11. Public Pool ~ ~ ~ ~ $0.021 $0,22 $350.00, Flat Fee 12. Private Pool 13, Miscellaneous Residential. ~ Value method, as below. a) Addition to existing dwelling, $0 871 b) Garage. $9.38 Rt c) Accessory Building, closed porch, solarium $0'281 $3.02 $0.248 $2.67 d) Finishing Basement. $0 255 $2 74 e) Carport, Open Porch, Deck. $75.00, Flat Fee f) Mobile Home (CSA certified -foundation extra $100.00, Flat Fee g} Mobile Home Foundation Plus $0.140 $1,51 h) Mobile Home(Uncertified)-including foundation $0,488 $5.25 j) Signs $65.00 for up to 25 sq. ft. plus $1.50 PLUMBING DRAINS & SEWERS for each additional sq. ft. 1. Installation of Plumbing. $75.00 for all plumbing, up to seven t fixtures, in each unit, plus $4.00 for 2. Rain water leaders, Manhole, Catchbasin, Area Drain. each additional fixture. 3. Building Drain, Building Sewer, Building Storm Drain, $4,00 each Building Storm Sewer, Storm Draina e Pi in $75.00 for the initial 1 SO feet (4S m.) g P g~ ~ of pipe, or portion, thereof, plus Private Drain, Private Storm Drain. $15.00 for each SO feet (1 Sm.) of additional pipe. 4. Connection to Municipal Sewer $100.00, Flat Fee S. Water service pipe (2" diameter, or less} $20.00 per run ~ 6. Water service pipe or private main over 2" diameter ~ ~ ~~I ~ ~ ~ ( ) Value method, as below. MISCELLANEOUS t 1. Transfer of Permit to new owner. 10% of on final fee min. 75 2. Extension of revocation date of ermit g ~ $ .00 $80.00, Flat Fee 3. Conditional Permit Agreement : a) Not Registered 0 min. (See below) b) Registered on Title $250.00 min 4. Non-routine Inspection ee: a n regu ar ours . at ee b) Out of regular hours $90.00, Flat Fee S. Partial occupancy Inspection Fee (per hour) $60.00 per hour 6. Compliance letter to Lawyers, etc. $70,00 per property 7. Liquor Licence Letter (includes Fire Department fee), ~ $125.00 per property 8. Zoning Confirmation - $6.00 per property 9. Weekend Inspection -Min. fee + $90 per hour after 4 hrs. Min, Fee $240.00 per inspection The fee for a Conditional Permit Agreement (CPA) is based on the full permit fee. Where the ermit fee is $2,000 or less, the CPA. fee is 10%, min. $110.00. Where the. CPA, fee is mare than $2,000, the CPA. fee is 20% of the full permit fee and in the event that the CPA is complied with, in full by the due date, then 50% of the CPA fee will be refunded. - The fees above, calculated on a sq. ft./sq. m. basis, include new floor area either in a new buildin or an addition to an existing building. ~ _ g - For categories of construction not listed above (including swimming poo,~s), the permit fee shall be $125.00. . for the initial $5,000.00 of valuated cost, or portion thereof, plus $10.00 for each additional $1,000.00 of valuated cost, or portion thereof. Fees are payable at time of application. - Minimum Permit Fee $125.00 for all classes of permits not rioted above. - Other applicable fees may be payable for servicing, deposits, development charges, park dedication, etc, - The fee fnr fact trarkinn a 11At~YM 7t (t,c /l,e« ~~rr.: ~..Lt..\ 1 C i!.. - •t • • -