2008/03/31 x-g 1'-'m'4'-T 3
~COMMUNITY~SERVICESCOMMIT,TEE~~AGENDA~
SIXTH MEETING
Monday, March 31, 2008
6:00 p.m.
City Hall, Committee Room #2A & B
1) Approval of the March 17, 2008 Community Services Minutes.
2) REPORTS: STAFF CONTACT:
a) PD-2008-20 Alex Herlovitch
SPC-23/2007, Site Plan Application
2799 St. Paul Avenue
Applicant: 1736071 Ontario Inc. (Michael Colaneri)
Agent: Raimondo & Associates Architect Inc.
3-Storey, 38 Unit Apartment Building
Residents Speaking to the Matter: Victor Marcon of 6292 Emma Street
Sam & Mara Mannella of 6284 Emma Street
b) R-2008-12
Request to Rename Fern Park,
E.E. Michelson Park or Kalar Park Denyse Morrissey
c) TS-2008-04
Bella Senior Care Parking Concerns Karl Dren
3) NEW BUSINESS:
4) ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, March 17, 2008, CITY HALL, ROOM 2 AT 5:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chair Councillor Carolynn loannoni Mayor Ted Salci, Councillors:
Jim Diodati, Vince Kerrio, Victor Pietrangelo, Bart Maves, Wayne
Thomson, Janice Wing and Shirley Fisher.
ABSENT: Alex Herlovitch, Todd Harrison.
STAFF: John MacDonald, Ed Dujlovic, Ken Burden, Ken Beaman, Denyse
Morrissey, Lee Smith, Dean lorfida, Geoff Holman, Karl Dren, Serge
Felicetti, John Barnsley, Bob Bolibruck, Marianne Tikky-
Steno.
GUEST: Chris Dick - 9104 Brown Road, Helen Runciman - 4853
Sixth Avenue, Ken Irvine - 5250 Willmont Street, Geoff
Corleti - 4853 Sixth Avenue. -
PRESS: Corey Larocque, Niagara Falls Review,
Rob Lapensee, Niagara This Week.
MINUTES
It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Fisher and seconded by Councillor
Pietrangelo, that the February 25, 2008 minutes be approved.
Motion: Carried.
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2008/03117.
REPORTS
a) PD-2008-21
Growth Management Official Plan Review
Presentation of Context and Outline of Future Work
Consultant: Dana Anderson -Meridian Planning Consultants
It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Maves and seconded by
Councillor Pietrangelo that this report be received and filed.
Motion: Carried.
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2008103/17.
b) PD-2008-12
Additional Planning Work within the Elgin Industrial Area
(Pilot Project Area) - Cytec Lands and Buttrey Street Area
Consultant: Luciano Piccioni - RCl Consulting
-2-
Itwas ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wing and seconded by Councillor
Pietrangelo that;
1. The Committee support the Land Use Recommendations contained in the
Planning Report prepared by RCI Consulting and GSP Group.
2. Staff proceed with the formal circulation of the amendments and
preparations for the mandatory Public Meeting to change the City's
Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
3. That the consultant include the area for regeneration.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2008103/17.
• c) TS-2008-09
Sixth Avenue at Willmott Street
Intersection Control Review
It was ORDERED on the motion Councillor Thomson and seconded by
Councillor Diodati that;
1. An all-way stop control be installed at the intersection of Sixth Avenue at
Willmott Street;
2. That "No Exit" signs will be posted on Willmott Street, west of Sixth
Avenue; and,
3. That a 10 meter corner parking restrictions be implemented on each
approach of the study intersection.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2008/03/17.
3) NEW BUSINESS:
a) It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wing and seconded by Mayor
Salci that staff prepare a report on the delivery of flyers/newspapers to homes
and meet with the appropriate publishers.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2008/03/17.
b) It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Fisher and seconded by Councillor
Pietrangelo that staff prepare a report with regards to on-street parking at the
Bella Senior Centre.
-3-
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2008103/17.
c) It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Fisher and seconded by Councillor
Thomson that the letter from Frank Clarke be referred to staff to investigate and
report back to Council.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2008/03117.
ADJOURNMENT
It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Pietrangelo and seconded by Councillor
Diodati that the regular meeting of the Community Services Committee be adjourned at
6:35 p.m. and Committee enter into an In-Camera Session.
Motion: Carried
March 31, 2008 PD-2008-20
Niagara,Fialls
c~ntinn
Councillor Carolyn loannoni
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: PD-2008-20
SPC-23!2007, Site Plan Application
2799 St. Paul Avenue
Applicant: 1736071 Ontario Inc. (Michael Colaneri)
Agent: Raimondo & Associates Architect Inc.
3-Storey, 38 Unit Apartment Building
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council receive and file this report for information purposes.
1. That staff be directed to meet withthe developer to advise that the residents wish to
BACKGROUND: split the cost difference to plant 25' trees.
2. That staff prepare a report on the Site Plan Approval Process.
A rezoning was approved for the 0.63 ha (1.5 ac.) parcel of land known as 2799 St. Paul
Avenue in 2001 (By-law No. 2001-135) fora 32 unit apartment building. Over the past
couple of years, there have been a fewdifferent apartment developments proposed for the
site involving a higher building and number of apartment units. A proposal fora 4-storey,
47 unit apartment was presented to Council on October 15, 2007 and was denied. The
owner has proceeded to pursue development based on the original zoning approved in
2001. The City's Committee of Adjustment (C of A) approved application A-42/2007on
December 4, 2007, which increased the total number of apartment units from 32 to 38.
Both Council and the C of A directed staff to invite area residents to participate in the site
plan approval process. The owner has requested site plan approval to permit the
construction of the 3-storey, 38 unit apartment building. A location map is attached as
Schedule 1 and the proposed landscape plan is attached as Schedule 2. This report is in
response to a request that the status of the site plan be provided to Council•
Public Involvement in Site Plan
The subject application was received by staff on November 27, 2007 and circulated for
comments on November 30, 2007. On December 3, 2007, Mrs. Mannella attended City
Hall to review a copy of the site plan at which time she requested a 2.4 metre (8 foot)
rather than a 1.8 metre (6 foot) high fence and taller trees than noted on the plans for
additional privacy. On December 17, 2007, the comments received from City Divisions
were forwarded to the applicant's agent together with those from Mrs. Mannella. The
Working Together to Serve Our Community communlry services Department
~ " Planning & Development
i
_ 'k
if :.:A?'.
March 31, 2008 - 2 - PD-2008-20
applicant's architect revised the plans accordingly. A 2.4 metre (8 foot) high fence and
taller 3 metre (10 foot) high White Spruce trees along the north property line were among
the changes included by the developer. Shortly thereafter an a-mail was received from Mr.
Mannella and Mr. Marcon requesting the fence to be increased in height by another 0.6
metres (2 feet), aboard-on-board fence rather than one with lattice, the fence being
installed priorto construction of the building, 3.6 metre (12 foot) high coniferous trees every
1.8 metres (6 feet) and the trees being planted as soon as the building was completed.
These comments were forwarded to the developer's architect on January 3, 2008.
The neighbourhood meeting required by Council and the C of A was held on January 15,
2008. During the meeting the developer agreed to make further improvements to provide
10 additional trees along the north property line, but stated that the fence could not be
increased to 3 metres (10 feet) in height as requested by the neighbours because it is
contrary to municipal by-laws. Mr. Marcon requested that English Pyramidal Oak trees be
planted instead of White Spruce trees because they are faster growing and have a narrow
canopy.
Since the neighbourhood meeting was held, Planning staff has continued as liaison
between the developer and area residents. Staffs objective has been to achieve a site
plan which is well designed and represents good planning. Staff believes that the
developer has submitted plans which effect a series of compromises (see attached
chronology) which include elements of a higher standard than what is typically achieved,
including:
• 2.4 metre high fence on north side which is the maximum permitted by by-law
• closed board fence rather than decorative fence with lattice top
• 1.8 metre high wood fence on west and south sides
• 1.2 metre high wood fence along the Haulage Road Trail to block headlights and
still meet CPTED principles
• 3.0 metre high trees along the north property line both coniferous and deciduous
• increased number of trees (27 total) along north property line plus a large selection
of trees and shrubs planted throughout the grounds of the condominium
This has resulted in the preparation of awell-designed plan having been submitted.
Two issues remain unresolved from the resident's perspective:
• the height and timing of the fencing; and
• the height and type of the trees to be planted.
1. Height and Timing of the Fencing
The residents to the north on Emma Street want the developer to provide a closed
board fence 3 metres (10 feet) in height to screen the development from their back
yards. The developer has proposed a 2.4 metre (8 foot) high fence (close
board/close board with lattice) along the north property line. Staff recommend a
close board fence 2.4 metres (8 feet) high in this location.
The area residents want the wood fencing installed immediately for safety reasons.
The developer has erected an orange construction fence around the subject site to
March 31, 2008 - 3 - PD-2008-20
satisfy Ministry of Labour requirements for safety. Staff is of the opinion that the
standard municipal practice should be followed which allows all site features to be
completed within six months of the building being finished. This would be
addressed in the Site Plan Agreement. Requiring a wood fence to be erected now
would be difficult as the final grades of the site cannot be realized until the building
is completed. In addition, erecting a wood fence now would subject it to damage
during the construction phase. Further, the erection of the fence cannot be
completed until the encroachments of a private swimming pool(s) and structures
onto the subject property (see Schedule 1) are finally resolved. The primary
purpose of the final fencing is to serve as a screen between the apartment and the
residential uses once the development is ready for occupancy.
2. Height and Type of Trees to be Planted
The developer's most recent landscape plan includes groupings of 27 evergreen
and deciduous trees (White Spruce and Maple) 3.0 metres (10 feet) in height along
the north property line next to the Emma Street properties and groups of plantings
at the front and rear of the property. The residents want Pyramidal English Oak and
Lombardi Popular trees, 6-7.6 metres (20-25 feet) tall and that they be spaded in
by truck. Staff is of the opinion that the trees proposed by the developer at 3 metres
(10 feet) in height will provide an acceptable buffer now and will form a suitable
screen at maturity. The cost to tree spade trees is prohibitive.
Site Plan Approval Process
In 2001, Council passed By-law No. 2001-103 whereby it delegated its powers and
authority to approve site plans under Section 41 of the Planning Act to the Director of
Planning & Development. This was intended to streamline the approvals and not
unnecessarily delay development from occurring. In order for Council to assume site plan
approval authority, Council would have to pass a by-law that provides that the Council
could be the approval authority for this particular site plan application, notwithstanding the
delegation under Sections 5 and 6 of By-law No. 2001-103. Such a change would not be
without issue.
The City's procedures have been working without problem, in the majority of cases. When
an application for site plan approval is filed with the Planning Division, the submission is
circulated to City Divisions and outside agencies for comments. The comments received
are then passed on to the developer to direct the revisions to the plans. Once all the
comments are addressed to staff's satisfaction, the Director of Planning & Development
approves the plans, the necessary agreement is prepared by Legal Services for signature,
appropriate securities are submitted, the agreement is registered on title and the
development is allowed to proceed. Should the developer be dissatisfied with the City's
conditions of the Site Plan Agreement, he may appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB) for resolution. The Planning Act does not make any provision for the public
to be involved in the site plan approval process, nor does the public have the right to
appeal a site plan to the OMB. Nevertheless, on occasion Council and the C of A have
directed that area residents be invited to participate in the site plan approval process.
March 31, 2008 - 4 - PD-2008-20
CONCLUSION:
The site plan process is designed to give the municipality the opportunity to negotiate with
developers matters such as parking, landscaping, fencing, lighting, refuse storage, etc.
Occasionally Council directs staff to include area residents in the site plan approval
process. This was the case with this application. Public consultation has occurred and
many concerns of area residents have been addressed by the developer. Many of these
are beyond what is typically required. Staff is of the opinion that a good plan has been
negotiated with the willingness of the developer to build a compatible project.
Recommended by: ~
Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
Ed Dujlovic, xe utive Director of Community Services
Respectfully submitted:
Jo acDonald, Chief Administrativ Officer
B.BoI ibruck/K.Mech: mb
Attach.
S:1PDR\2008\PD-2008-2D, SPC-23-2007, 2799 St Paul Ave.wpd
SCHEDULE 1
LOCATION MAP
Subjcc;t Land
~ tT ~ 1 F _ (u~ T~~
`r `lt+ _6284 EMMASi ~ ~ t~l i-. 7
r~ ~ ~ h1ANNFl In " r
t ~
t~
629?E_MMASf ~ z~„' 3~, 1
.~A: h1ARCON t~~a~a ~r ~ ~ ~~tr: ~:_a fy ~ 1f ur: ~
~ ri ;12; L . 'n S T ~ ~ a~ s ~ ~ ~
~ lit;e sr T~nul. Avl: ~ 2799 St Paul Avc
? , t
~ ~ ~ s
fit, _ .
,~sAS ~ } ~Od ~ ~ ~ _ . 1.$35 51 PAUI AUE
it+F ar '3~. •y QUEEN'S COACH Rf Sf ~1UfL1P~ f jt ;
-V r~ y
i
N
Location: 2799 St. Paul Avcnuc
s
Applicant: 1736071 Ontario Inc. (Michael Colaneri)
1: V'CS
SPC-23/2007
K: \GIS_Requests\2008\Schedules\Site_Plan\2 799_StPau I\2749_StPaul. map
Fcblwry 200M
SCHEDULE 2
R;~~ a§ ~a~~~
3e§ ~ $A ~ s ,e S
~ i~ tl~y ~ a x € i
y p qa 3
~a~
,'g' ~
F~
anrcanv ~nva ~.cs - a $
3 3 a a ~ t•
e
_ ~
D• is a
u u m Pa 6
a _ ~6yp
ca ~ ~ I ~B
,r-- i
e
9
_ 1 ~ I ~ „
a t ~ ft~t ~ \ _
ry I ~ ~
8 A z C
[a - q ~ 1tl~~t'~ ` _ _ ~e ~ e
~ 4
- - i6
_ ~e ~ ae ~
a F•
a•
a I SP
6 i
- I -i E•
~ry® .I - . ~ - .a
3_ n
f. K i~ ~ ~i P
,„moo ~ ~ ~ ~
1. ~ a°
- -
e e ~ ii
- - j ~4 9
rc t _
t g
/ fa
~ a•
- YC ~E
a- ~ 5- ,
Y h
• 5R
L6 ~ g ~/!l
~l~i Lean
t e ~ ~eaa~l e~ H
ee '
Ea sa p^ z ~ t~~tttl a~ II ~~E
9999 ~ ~ e. ~i ~ - oar~o 4 p~p @ pg9g yg
e~':.~'~' $ f y " tk9 ~ ~~4 j~ 'o
Chronology of Events- 2799 St. Paul Avenue
November 27, 2007 Application received and circulated for comments on November 30,
2007.
December 3, 2007 Anamika and Sue met with Mrs Mannella and Mrs. Marcon regarding the
cutting of trees on 2799 St. Paul Avenue and the proposed variance to
increase the number of units in the apartment building.
During the meeting, Mrs. Mannella was provided a copy of the submitted
site plan and after reviewing the plan she requested that the height of the
fence along north property line should be 8 ft instead of 6 ft as shown on
the site plan. She also requested the trees proposed along the north property
line should be higher to provide privacy.
December 19, 2007 Jamie Douglas reviewed the drawings and requested the following changes
to the site plan drawing:
a) The height of the perimeter fence along north property line be
increased to 8 ft for a section Chat backs onto Lot 10 &11 and for the
remaining section the fence should be Eft high.
b) The height of the coniferous trees along north property be increased
to 3 metres and these trees should be spaded.
c) There should be 6 ft. high wood fence along Haulage Road Trail.
d) There should be landscaping buffer between the parking area and St.
Paul Avenue. The low growing plant material should be replaced with
Burning Bush and Ornamental grass.
December 17, 2007 Comments received from the City Divisions were forwarded to Emilio
Raimondo.
December 2Q 2007 Revised plans were submitted by Emilio which included most of the
comments provided by City's landscape architect and Mrs. Mannella.
a) The height of the fence was increased to 8 ft with a solid close boazd
fence for a section of the fence and wood fence with lattice for the
remaining part of the fence.
b) The height of the coniferous (white spruce) trees proposed along the
north property line was increased to 3 metres.
c) Instead of close board fence requested along Haulage Road trail, the
revised plan provided a chain link fence Oft high along Haulage Road.
d) Landscaping buffer and a decorative metal fence was provided along
St. Paul Avenue.
-2-
January 2, 2008 E-mail received from Mr. Mannella & Mr. Marcon requesting the
following:
a) The height of the fence along north property line be increased to 10
ft instead of 8 ft.
b) The proposed fence should board-on-board without any lattice.
c) The fence should be installed prior to the construction ofthe building.
d) The coniferous trees should be 12 ft high instead of 9.8 ft and should
be planted every 6 ft apart along Lot 10, 11 and 12.
e) These trees should be planted as soon as the building is completed.
f) More information was requested regarding site lighting, noise from
air conditioning units, heat pump units and construction of garbage
enclosure.
g) Consideration should be given to reorient the proposed building
closer to Queen Coach Restaurant.
January 3, 2008 The concerns of the residents were forwarded to the architect .
January 15, 2008 The neighbourhood meeting for the proposed development was held.
The neighbourhhood meeting was attended by Emilio Raimondo (Agent),
Councillor Carolyn Ioannoni, Anamika Dilwaria (Staff), Jeff Claydon
(Staff) and the following area residents:
1. Michael Raimondo, 6228 Emma Street
2. Angela & Tony Volpini, 6304 Emma Street
3. Victor & Lisa Macron, 6299 Emma Street
4. Sam & Mara Mannella, 6284 Emma Street
5. Ross Wallace, 6351 Jupiter Blvd.
6. Rita Tonet, 6299 Jupiter Blvd.
7. Norma Weaver, 6319 Jupiter Blvd.
8. Clare Burnett, 631 I Jupiter Blvd.
During the meeting Emilio stated that his client (Mr. Colaneri):
a) has agreed to provide 10 additional trees along north property line (8
coniferous and 2 deciduous) making the total number of tress along
north property line to 25.
b) The height of the fence cannot be increased to 10 ft as requested by
the residents because of the municipal by-law. But will provide the
maximum height of the fence along north property line of 8 ft and a
chain link fence will be installed along other perimeters of the
property.
-3-
c) The existing construction fence on the property was sufficient as it
meets the Ministry of Labour requirements.
d) The fence cannot be installed prior to the construction ofthe building.
During the neighbourhood meeting Mr. Marcon requested that English
Pyramidal Oak should be planted instead of White Spruce as provided by
Emilio as they are fast growing and have a narrow canopy. Jeff Claydon
noted that English Pyramidal Oak is a good variety of tree, however he did
not say that White Spruce would not suffice.
Rita Tonet and Ross Wallace requested for a close board fence along
Haulage Road Trail. Emilio mentioned that he would have to speak with
the owner regarding the close board fence along Haulage Road.
During the meeting the residents enquired, if the building permits have
been issued for the proposed condominiums and Emilio mentioned that
conditional building permits had been issued.
January 16, 2008 Mr. Mannella (on behalf of several residents) sent an e-mail stating that the
residents were not in agreement to the landscaping and fencing proposed
and requested that no building permit be issued for the property prior to
finalizing the site plan agreement.
January 16, 2008 Alex discussed the concerns of the residents with Emi]io and the
outstanding issues were resolved in the following manner:
a) The owner has agreed to provide 8 ft high close board fence without
any decorative lattice. The fence cannot be extended to 10 ft as
requested by the residents without seeking relief from the fence by-
law.
b) A 6 ft high close board fence will be provided along west property
line and a close board fence 4 ft high will be provided along Haulage
Road Trail. The 4 ft high fence will address the concern raised by the
residents and will still meet the OPTED design principles.
c) A 6 ft high close board fence will be installed along south property
line (Queen Coach Restaurant)
d) The owner has agreed to provide 27 trees along north property line at
the height of 3 metres.
e) The construction fence which is existing on the property. It would be
more appropriate to install the close board fence after the construction
is complete for the following reasons:
• The fence can get damaged during construction.
• The encroachment issues have not been resolved yet.
• Once the final grading is complete
-4-
f) The noise from heating pumps and air conditioning units will not be
a concern as the heating and air conditioning units will vent onto the
apartment balcony which are inset in the building design.
January 23, 2008 Letters from Ross Wallace (6351 Jupiter Blvd.) and Clare Burnett (6319
Jupiter Blvd.) were received requesting a close board fence be installed
along Haulage Road Trail.
Outstanding Issues: The issues which remain unresolved are:
a) Height of the trees- Residents wants 20-25 ft high trees ,developer
had agreed to provided approximately 10 ft high tree.
b) Type oftrees-Residents wants Pyramidal English Oak and Lombardi
poplar and Developer has agreed to provide spruce and Maple which
as per developer's architect are better suited for the situation
c) Timing of the Fence- Residents would like the fence to be installed
prior to construction, while it may be more appropriate to install fence
at a later date due to the reason mentioned earlier.
S:\Sn'LPLANISTCPILGS\200TSPC-23\Choronology of Gven[s.wpd
Related Correspondence in
Chronological Order
Page 1 of 2
Dean Iorfida -Request for Site Plan 2799 St Paul Ave Condominium to go before Open Council
.
From: "Mannella" <s.mannella@sympatico.ca>
To: <aherlovitch@niagarafalls.ca>, <council@niagarafalls.ca>
Date: 2/6/2008 6:58 AM
Subject: Request for Site Plan 2799 St Paul Ave Condominium to go before Open Council
CC: "'John MacDonald"' <jmacdonald@niagarafalls.ca>, "'Denyse Morrissey"'
<dmorrissey@niagarafalls.ca>, <diorfida@niagarafalls.ca>, "'Ed Dujlovic"'
<edujlovic@niagarafalls.ca>, "'John Castrilli"' <jcastrilli@niagarafalls.ca>,
<adilwaria@niagarafalls.ca>, <victor.marcon@sympatico.ca>, <volpinil@hotmail.com>,
"'Rita Tonet"' <rtonet@niagarafalls.ca>
Wednesday February 6, 2008
Mayor and Council, Mr. Herlovitch:
We respectfully ask that you consider the request for a Site Plan Agreement for the 2799 St Paul Avenue
Condominium at Open Council, and ask that Mr. Herlovitch delay final approval of the site plans until
after this Council meeting. We wish to be advised of the time and location of this meeting by the
Planner or the Clerk.
We continue to ask that the Chief Building Official delay the issuance of any building permits,
conditional or otherwise, until the Site Plan Agreement is finalized.
The site plan agreement should reinforce the principle that an owner of any individual property is
not entitled at any time to develop his or her lands to the detriment of any surrounding property.
In general, Mr. Herlovitch considers that these site plan matters represent a `good design'. But,
specifically, as residents, we do not agree with the landscaping proposed by Pinewood and we justified
fair alternatives as a `better design', in our public meeting of Tuesday January 15, 2008. City Parks &
Recreation Staff present at this meeting saw the merit of our landscaping suggestions, and identified
existing situations in the City where minor enhancements to landscaping created natural privacy screens
for both parties.
Mr. Herlovitch identifies that the current landscaping provides some 10 foot trees and additional trees
and shrubs. We identified that 20 foot high, tree-spaded, fast-growing trees such as Lombardi Poplars,
columnar Pyramidal Oaks, and columnar English Oaks, would provide a dense vegetative privacy
screen, if planted closely together. As these grew, these trees would create privacy in the area between
the top of the 8 foot fence to the top of the 32.8 foot condominium. These are not included in the
draft final Current Site Plan. We requested that these be planted before building construction starts,
so that there will be space for machinery to install these trees. Rough grading can be done, & the newly-
installed trees can be protected with snow fence, silt fence and other techniques.
Some residents knew the zoning of 2799 St Paul Ave when buying their lots. Others already lived in the
area, before the rezoning to permit a 3 storey apartment building on this site was completed in 2001.
Knowledge of the zoning itself should not deny us the ability to request landscaping that will improve
our privacy and reduce noise nuisances. Residents bought and built their homes to enjoy their backyards
and we pay taxes for this privilege.
I have been told that other neighbours will be advising Members of Council of other potential nuisance
file://C:\Documents and Settings\di202\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47A95A8ADomai... 2/6/2008
Page 2 of 2
factors, and will wish to address them at the Open Council meeting requested.
Sincerely,
Sam and Mara Mannella, 6284 Emma Street
Niagara Falls, ON
(905)-374-7068
file://C:U7ocuments and Settings\di202\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47A95A8ADomai... 2/6/2008
Page 1 of 3
Dean Iorfida - RE: Re: 2799 St Paul, Niagara Falls (Site Plan)
L
From: "Rocky Vacca" <rvacca@sullivan-mahoney.com>
To: "Emilio Raimondo" <emilio@raimondoarchitects.com>, "Alex Herlovitch"
<a herlovitch @ niaga rafa Ils.ca>
Date: 2/15/2008 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: Re: 2799 St Paul, Niagara Falls (Site Plan)
CC: "Ken Mech" <kmech@niagarafalls.ca>, <tsalci@niagarafalls.ca>, <kbeaman@niagarafalls.ca>,
<edujlovic@niagarafalls.ca>, <jmacdonald@niagarafalls.ca>, <diorfida@niagarafalls.ca>
Dear Mr. Herlovitch,
Further to our telephone discussion this morning, I confirm my position that there is no legal authority to have
this matter go to Council as is being requested by a single member of Council. The authority to approve site
plans has previously been delegated under the Act to the director of planning by Council presumably by by-law
duly approved by the Council of the day. In this case, you as the delegated approval authority have issued a
written decision by electronic mail message dated Monday, February 4, 2008 at 1:02PM to the applicant, the
neighbours who participated in the site plan process and the members of Council. In your decision you have
clearly stated that the revised site plans are consistent with good site planning practices and that you are in a
position to sign the site plans once you receive clearances from all divisions. If it was Council's intention to
remove the delegated authority away from you then this must be done before you make a decision and it must
be done by by-law approved by the majority of council (and not at the request of a single member of Council).
In any event, it is our position that our client looks forward to receiving the executed site plans as soon as you
receive clearances from all divisions. Our client has no intention of appearing before Council given that in my
considered opinion Council has no authority or jurisidiction in this matter.
I would be happy to discuss this matter further with you, if necessary.
Rocco (Rocky) Vacca
Sullivan Mahoney LLP
-----Original Message-----
From: Emilio Raimondo [mailto:emilio@raimondoarchitects.com]
Sent: Thursday, Pebiuary 14, 2008 9:41 AM
To: Alex Herlovitch
Cc: Ken Mech; tsalci@niagarafalls.ca
Subject: Re: Re: 2799 St Paul, Niagara Palls (Site Plan)
Alex, Ms. loannoni is only one voice, have the other Councilors commented, is she the voice of all the
others, has a pole vote been taken to reflect all other councilors wishes whether it is to return to council,
they empowered you to make that decision based on process and our client's willingness to
compromises, which they have, I find this process very disconcerting!!! and a waste of time, money and
energy..Emilio.
Original Message
From: Alex Herlovitch
To: emilio@raimondoarchitects;com
Cc: Ken Mech
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:02 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: 2799 St Paul, Niagara Falls (Site Plan)
file://C:\Documents and Settings\di202\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47B582ECDomain... 3/9/2008
Page 2 of 3
Emilio
I tried to deflect this to keep it in the staff forum, however, I have been asked that the site Plan for
2799 St. Paul come back to Council. Ken and his staff are preparing a report of the chronology of the
site plan process for this file and the movement of your client to meet resident's wishes. We are aiming
for the Council Meeting of March 17, you will likely want to be there and speak to the matter. In a
recent a-mail to Council I said there were 3 outstanding matters: 1) timing of fence which is impeded
by encroachments in any event; 2) request for large spaded trees; and 3) request far columnar English
oaks. I had hoped they would let staff deal with these.
I will be out of the office from Feb 27 and returning to work on March 17. If during that time you have
any questions please contact Ken Mech.
Alex
Carolynn Ioannoni 2/6/2008 3:52 PM
Alex
Could this be brought back to council? If so when would the earliest time be?
Thanks.
Carolynn
-----Original Message-----
From: "Victor Marcon" <victor.marcon@sympatico.ca>
Cc: mike mantesso <mmniagara@hotmail.com>
To: Alex Herlovitch <aherlovitch@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: <bartmaves@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: Bart Moves <bartm@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: Carolynn Ioannoni <ioannoni@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: ]im Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: Janice Wing <jwing@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: Shirley Fisher <sfisher@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: Ted Salci <tsalci@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: Victor Pietrangelo <vpietrangelo@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: Wayne Thomson <wthomson@niagarafalls.ca>
Cc: <kerrio@overlookingthefalls.ca>
Cc: <lisa.marcon@sympatico.ca>
Cc: Mannella <s.mannella@sympatico.ca>
Sent: 2/6/2008 3:26:57 PM
Subject: 2799 St Paul, Niagara Falls (Site Plan)
I would like to express my concern with the site plan issues which i feel have yet to be resolved. The
residents have made a whole hearted effort to negotiate in good faith with both the developer and city
staff back in early december. Now from what i understand our position has been completely
compromised and there has been no effort from the developer in trying to reach a compromise in what
i deem to be both fair and reasonable requests. The main issues are the fencing, which i feel should be
installed prior to the building being erected to provide some means of privacy as the building is within a
few feet from the houses on Emma St, although we had requested the fence be 10' high, the 8'
proposed by the developer is acceptable in so far as the other requests are taken to heart. The
residents would like to see, many rapid growth, tree spaded trees which would be a minimum height of
25' high to provide some sort of natural buffer. The residents feel that due to the fact that it was the
developer who chose to site the building where it presently is, this is both a fair and practical solution
which will allow the current homeowners on Emma St, to maintain the enjoyment of their backyards as
they have been in the past.
At this time, and due to the fact that there has been little effort on the developers part to try and
accomodate the homeowners surrounding the property, i would like to request that this matter be
brought before open council for further discussion and a possible resolution. If you have any questions
pertaining to the contents of this email, please do not hesitate to contact me anytime.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\di202\Local Settings)Temp\XPgrpwise\47B582ECDomain... 3/9/2008
MAR, 7. 2008 10 12Ai41 SULLIVAN MAHCNEY NO. 241 F, i%2
s
sAxa3sreas & souc3rous
d'lease reply to tlJe Niagara Falls Olrce
March 7, 2008 V
via fax#905.356.9083 ~ ~
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street . DATE: Pei°~
NIAGARA FALLS, ON _
L2I"s 6XS
Attention: Aeon lorfida, City Clerk
Dear Mr. Iorfida:
Re: Our Client: 1736071 Ontario Inc.
Re: Application for Site Plan Approval
Re: 2799 St. Paul Avenue, Niagara Falls
As you are aware, we act as solicitors for 1736071 Ontario Tnc. in the above referenced matter.
We understand that an Information Report prepared by the Planning Department will be brought
before Council at its meeting on March 17, 2008 in dealing with our client's application for site plan
approval. Although this writer has not had an opportunity to review the report and further given that
this writer will be om holidays at that time, we would request that this letter be considered by Council
in conjunction with the Infonnation Report.
We understand that flee Information Report will outline, among other things, the requests made by the
neighbours during the site plan process, our Client's response to said requests and the Director of
Planning's opinion based on good site planning principles. We do not intend to continent further on
the discussions which took place during the site plan consultation process, as we trust that the
Information Report will outline same in detail.
Tl3e sole purpose of this letter is to highlight the following undisputed facts:
1. On June 11, 2001, the Council of the day passed By-law 2001-103 wherein the Council
delegated its powers and authority to approve site plans to the Director of Planning and
Development.
a0 Quaen gveei P. O. Boa 1360, S~. Cerharimm, Onurio L2R dZ2 Tehphone: 905-688-0633, Facsimile: 9033884814
9781 Partnpe Rontl. NiaFon Fnlls. Onmrio L3R 681 7elenhone: 905.957-0500, Paesimde; 905•)57.0501
V.F. Murebri. Q.C. P.B. Bedard G.A. Wiggins P.T. Banw<II, Q,C, T.A. RichaNSOn P.M. Shaehan W.O. McKoig
1. Dellel QA. Gcelin J.M. Gattli R.B. Culliron J, R. Bvah P,A. Mshoney B.A, MaaUOnsltl
MJ, eonomi G.W. McCesm S.J. Premi C, D'Mgelo R. ~eoeu T. W00 K,A, King
J. Clarkson 0. 1. Troup 5. Mckay M. lwcak N. Pndunrv C. 0ittlc P, iawrcnoo
Of Covneci (Cosnncrcid fAw): M.D. Knluc4
MAR. 1.2008 10:13A~M SUEEIVAiIi MAHONE4 N0. 241 P. 2/2
Page 2
2. On Febzuary 4, 2008, the Director of Planning and Development issued a written
decision approving our client's site plan application subject to minor changes. Revised
site plan drawings were submitted in accordance wilt the decision.
3. At the time the decision was issued, the Director of Planning and Development was,
and still remains, the approval authority for site plan applications pursuant to By-law
2001-103.
Upon careful consideration of al] the facts and circumstances in this matter, it is our considered and
respectful opinion that Council cannot in this case legally take away or override the authority
previously delegated to the Director of Planning and Development after the Director has issued his
decision to approve the site plan. We take the position that the Director's decision in this matter is
final and binding on the City and look forward to receiving the signed site plans from the Director at
his earliest convenience.
Yours very truly,
SULLTV N MAT-TONEY LLP
Per:
cco Vacca
RV:rhh
cc. Mayor Ted Saki & Members of Council -via fax#905.374.3557
cc. Alex T-lerloviteh -via fax#905.356.2354
cc. Ken Beaman -via fax#905.371.2892
cc. john MacDonald -via fax#905.374.3557
cc. Bob Bolibruck -via fax#905.356,2354
cc. clients
cc. Emilio Raimondo
i`
~.'i. . ,~6
c.~..,~..:
~i`/ (M C®
~ o a zoos
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
MEDCON-MECHANICAL
PHONE: (9051358-'1644 5927THOROt-D STONE ROAD, UNIT R4
NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO
L2J 1A1
Fax: (905) 358-1748
FACSIMILE TRANSM ITTAL
Date: /rli9.?t.~/ 7'
From: i//C T(/2 /1'I.J9/' CO /tJ
to: /JE/a.2J /02~/,/~/~
Number of Pages: ~ f ncludkng this cover pag®)
~ / ~
~/O ~,v ~ ! /i~l~iDa~v~N /i!
P nP,r ~ M
GY / U io'/JS PP I•PP
~ ~r~
`,c ~
Niagara~alls
March 10, 2008
Mr. Victor Marcon VIA FAX: 905-358-1748
c/o Medcon-Mechanical
5927 Thorold Stone Road, Unit #4
Niagara Falls ON L2J lAl
Dear Mr. Marcon:
Re: March 17"' Council Meeting
2799 St. Paul Avenue
Thank you for your recent fax requested that the item noted above scheduled for our next Council
meeting be pulled until the following meeting.
Staff has no problem rescheduling the matter until Monday, March 31a`. IC should be noted that the
staff report is an information report that will outline site plan authority and what has happened to
date regarding the site plan for the address noted above. City Counci] is not being asked to make a
decision. They are being presented with information only.
As the site plan matter is not a public meeting under the Planning Act, if you or any neighbours wish
to speak to the matter, please make contact with me in writing regarding such a request.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact rne.
Sincerely,
~~1~"' -
Dean Iorfida
City Clerk
c. Mr. Rocco Vacca, Sullivan Mahoney
Mr. Sam Manella
'.xs
Corporate Services Department
Clerks
Working Together to Serve Our Community Ext 4271 Fax 905-356-9083
I diorfida@niagarafalls.ca
3. ~a •o ~ a •i
I
Page 1 of 2
Dean Iorfida - Re: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue
From: Dean Iorfida
To: aherlovi@city.niagara-falls.on.ca; emilio@raimondoarchitects.com; Rocky Vacca
Date: 3/11/2008 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue
CC: Anamika Dilwaria; arecine@cottoninc.ca; Bob Bolibruck; chad@raimondoarchitects.com; Ed
Dujlovic; John Castrilli; John MacDonald; Ken Beaman; Ken Mech; mcolaneri@cottoninc.ca
Rocky, Emilio et al..
Thank you for your concerns.
Rocky, I thought I was the only one foolish enough to check a-mails while on vacation!
Let me stress, that the report on the matter noted above is an information report only. As my letter to one
of the residents indicated, Council is not being asked to make a decision vis a vis the site plan. As indicated in
various e-mails, the authority for approval of the site plan rests with the Director of Planning.
The proposed report outlines what is entailed in the site plan process. Council often requests that residents be
involved in the site plan. This report articulates how that process plays out. If anything, the report is
complimentary to the developer and the accommodations that have occurred to date. With regard to the
fencing and tree requests of the neighbours, the report concludes that staff is of the opinion that a good
plan has been negotiated with the willingness of the developer to build a compatible project and, in
essence, these additional requests are unreasonable.
My understanding is that all that remains are some drainage issues to be addressed and then the Director of
Planning will be able to sign off on the site plan. The delay of the information report will have no bearing on
the timing of such an approval, as long as drainage issues are resolved. Also, there is no impediment to the
issuance of conditional building permits.
I hope this provides some clarification. I can fully appreciate that you do not wish to be unduly delayed. I
assure that this will not be the case.
Enjoy your vacation!
Sincerely,
Dean
Dean Iorfida, City Clerk
Niagara Falls
905-356-7521, Ext. 4271
905-356-9083 (Fax)
"Rocky Vacca" <rvacca@sullivanmahoney.com> 3/10/2008 7:44 PM
file://C:\Documents and Settings\di202\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47D69888Domai... 3/11/2008
1tE: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue Page 2 of 4
Rocco(Rocky)Vacca
Sullivan Mahoney LLP
Original Message
From: Dean Iorfida <diorfida@niagarafalls.ca>
To: aherlovi@city.niagara-falls.on.ca <aherlovi@city.niagara-falls.on.ca>; emilio@raimondoarchitects.com
<emilio@raimondoarchitects.com>; Rocky Vacca
Cc: arecine@cottoninc.ca <arecine@cottoninc.ca>; mcolaneri@cottoninaca <mcolaneri@cottoninc.ca>; Anamika Dilwaria
<adilwaria@niagarafalls.ca>; Bob Bolibruck <bbolibruck@uiagarafalls.ca>; Ed Dujlovic <edujlovic@niagarafalls.ca>; John
Castrilli <jcastrilli@niagarafalls.ca>; John MacDonald <jmacdonald@niagarafalls.ca>; Ken Beaman
<kbeaman@niagarafalls.ca>; Ken Mech <kmech@niagarafalls.ca>; chad@raimondoarchitects.com
<chad@raimondoarchitects.com>
Sent: Tue Mar 11 1434:47 2008
Subject: Re: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue
Rocky, Emilio et al..
Thank you for your concerns.
Rocky, I thought I was the only one foolish enough to check e-mails while on vacation!
Let me stress, that the report on the matter noted above is an information report only. As my letter to one of the residents
indicated, Council is not being asked to make a decision vis a vis the site plan. As indicated in various e-mails, the authority
for approval of the site plan rests with the Director of Planning.
The proposed report outlines what is entailed in the site plan process. Council often requests that residents be involved in the
site plan. This report articulates how that process plays out. If anything, the report is complimentary to the developer and the
accommodations that have occurred to date. With regard to the fencing and tree requests of the neighbours, the report
concludes that staff is of the opinion that a good plan has been negotiated with the willingness of the developer to build a
compatible project and, in essence, these additional requests axe unreasonable.
My understanding is that all that remains are some drainage issues to be addressed and then the Director of Planning will be
able to sign off on the site plan. The delay of the information report will have no bearing on the timing of such an approval,
as long as drainage issues are resolved. Also, there is no impediment to the issuance of conditional building permits.
I hope this provides some clarification. I can fully appreciate that you do not wish to be unduly delayed. I assure that this
will not be the case.
Enjoy your vacation!
Sincerely,
Dean
file://C:\Documents and Settings\di202\I,ocal SettingslTemp\XPgtpwise\47DE9EFSDomai... 3/26/2008
RE: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue Page 3 of 4
Dean Iorfida, City Clerk
Niagara Falls
905-356-7521, Ext. 4271
905-356-9083 (Fax)
"Rocky Vacca" <rvacca@sullivanmahoney.com> 3/10/2008 7:44 PM
Byway of response, it has now been 5 weeks since the decision on my client's site plan application was rendered granting
approval. I am utterly confused as to why the approval is not being processed and now my client is being delayed for another
3 weeks because of an information report going to council which has now been delayed for 2 more weeks at the request of a
single neighbour. We have now got to the point where I must demand that the City state its position once and for all. Is it the
City's position that the site plan has not been approved? If so please provide legal justification for your position. If the City
agrees that the approval has been granted then I am formally demanding that the director of planning sign off on the site plan
forthwith and that a draft of the site plan agreement be forwarded to me.
I am hopeful that a court application will not be necessary in order to enforce my client's rights over a very small minority
who continue to oppose this development.
Rocco(Rocky)Vacca
Sullivan Mahoney LLP
Original Message
From: Emilio Raimondo <emilio cr aimondoarchitects.conv
To: Dean Iorfida <diorfida@niagaxafalls.ca>; Rocky Vacca
Cc: Anamika Dilwaria <adilwaria@niagarafalls.ca>; Bob Bolibruck <bbolibmck@niagarafalls.ca>; John MacDonald
<jmacdonald@niagarafalls.ca>; Ken Beaman <kbeaman@niagarafalls.ca>; Ken Mech <kmech@niagarafalls.ca>; angelo
Recipe <arecine@cottonine.ca>; mcolaneri@cottonine.ca <mcolaneri@cottoninc.ca>; RAAI -Chad
<chad@rimondo aechitects. com>
Sent: Mon Mar 10 17:15:52 2008
Subject: Re: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue
Dean, if this is an information type t'eport, we are of the opinion that council had delegated the approval decision making to
senior staff or the director of planning, therefore are we to assume the information in this report is there for Council's review
on how the Director of planning approval for this project was derived. We are of the understanding that the site plan has been
approved.. who is making the final decision here and when???....Emilio
Original Message
From: Dean Iorfida <mailto:diorfida(a~uiagarafalls.ca>
To: Emilio <marlto:enulio cDraimondoarchitects.com> ;Rocky Vacca <mailto;rvacca(c~sullrvan-mahouey_.c,onD ;
Mannella <mailtoa.mamtella(a~svmuatico.ca> ; victor.marcon@sympatico.ca
Cc: Anamika Dilwaria <mailto:adilwaria(c~niaearafalls.ca> ;Bob Bolibruck <mailto:bbolibruck a niagarafalls; ca>
John MacDonald <mailto:imacdonald~unia,earafalls.ca> ;Ken Beaman <mailto:kbeaman rcniagarafalls_.c@> ;Ken Mech
<mailtoaanech(rJniagarafalls.ca>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 2:08 PM
Subject: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue
Please find my response to a request to postpone the report related to the matter noted above to March 31st.
Thanks
file://C:\Documents and Settings\di202\Local Settings\TemplXPgtpwise\47DE9EFSDomai... 3/26/2008
RE: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue Page 1 of 4
Dean Iorfida - RE: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue
From: "Rocky Vacca" <rvacca@sullivanmahoney.com>
To: "Alex Herlovitch" <aherlovitch@niagarafalls.ca>
Date: 3/17/2008 4:40 PM
Subject: RE: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue
CC: <diorfida@niagarafalls.ca>, <mcolaneri@cottoninc.ca>, <mcolanerisr@cotfonino.ca>,
<arecine@cottoninaca>, <emilio@raimondoarchitects.com>
Hi Alex,
The indication of a "delay" was premised on the notion that the site plan approval would beheld in abeyance until City
Council dealt with the information report. At the time the a-mail was sent there was no response to my e-mail and
correspondence from the City as to where the approval stood and BB was calling enquiring if out client was prepared to
move any fiuther on the fencing height and addition of spaded trees (which implied that the approval was being treated as
less than final and binding). Dean's subsequent clarification that the approval is final and binding and that you would sign off
on the site plan as soon as the drainage issues are resolved, notwithstanding the information report before Council, has now
confirmed that no delay will occur. I apologize if my e-mail implied something otherwise. Unfortunately we were both on
holidays otherwise a simple phone call behn~een the two of us would have clarified the situation before I sent the e-mail. I
also tried John Macdonald before I sent the e-mail but he was away as well.
Thanks,
Rocco(Rocky)Vacca
Sullivan Mahoney LLP
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Herlovitch [mailto_aherlovitch(a~nia¢arafalls.caj
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:17 PM
To: Rocky Vacca
Subject: Re: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue
Dean
Rocky refers to a "delay" which of course is non-existent as his client has building permits and was proceeding with the
sh'uchrral shell before I left on vacation. To date I do not have the required concurrence that site servicing has been satisfied.
I understand from BB the Planning report is deferred
Alex
"Rocky Vacca" <rvacca@sullivanmahoney.com> 3/11/2008 3:29 PM
Dean,
Thank you so much for clarifying that the approval remains in place. I will ensure that the client deals with the drainage
issues as soon as possible. I think the devil invented the blackberry!! I am chasing my kids around a waterpark in Erie, PA
while my wife is shopping....hardly avocation!
Thanks,
file://C:\Documents and Settings\di202\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47DE9EFSDomai... 3/26/2008
'ter 5927 THOROLD STONE ROu4D, UNIT sr4
PHONE: (805)968.1644 c
4 IHG. FRLIS GLEKKS f
1.
~ t
1:,~515:41 NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO
('mc: (906)368-t 749 l2J 1 At
FACSMri1LE T6iP?MTAL
~A,~ .zs/D~
From: v/GTrJ2 /~•~•Cta~J (6X ~.Z G{m rx ~~l NF
Nombar of Pages: c~G [mdutOng this cover page)
ran s cr~~~rG ~ p
~ ~ ~
.f' "
d"`
Page 1 of 2
Dean Iorfida -Request to address Council re Staff Info report on Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul
Avenue
From: "Mannella" <s.mannella@sympatico.ca>
To: <diorfida@niagarafalls.ca>
Date: 3/25/2008 11:40 PM
Subject: Request to address Council re Staff Info report on Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue
CC: <aherlovitch@niagarafalls.ca>, <adilwaria@niagarafalls.ca>,
<council@niagarafalls.ca>, <victor.marcon@sympatico.ca>, "Angela) Volpini(Tony"
<tvolpini 1 @hotmail.com>
Attachments: 2799 St. paul avenue.pdf
March 25, 2008
Dear Mr. lorfida,
I request that you place my wife & I (Sam & Mara Mannella, 6284 Emma Street, Niagara Falls) as a delegation
that wishes to address council on this Site Plan for 2799 St Paul Avenue, at the Monday March 31, 2008 Council
Meeting.
We would appreciate a copy of any public staff report, and any other public information on this issue, that we
have not yet received, as soon as it is available. Please call my home at 9D5-374-7068 to advise.
In the body of the attached letter dated March 10, 2008, you advise that this matter is scheduled so that Council
will be given information only.
I wonder if Council must approve all Site Plans, and would like to know when Council will have the opportunity to
review this Site Plan for 2799 St Paul Avenue.
Regards,
Sam & Mara Mannella, 6284 Emma Street, Niagara Falls, s.mannellaCa sympatico.ca
From: Dean Iorfida [mailto:diorfida@niagarafalls.ca]
Sent: March 10, 2008 2:08 PM
To: Emilio; Rocky Vacca; Mannella; victor,marcon@sympatico.ca
Cc: Anamika Dilwaria; Bob Bolibruck; John MacDonald; Ken Beaman; Ken Mech
Subject: Site Plan - 2799 St. Paul Avenue
Please find my response to a request to postpone the report related to the matter noted above to March 31st.
Thanks
file://C:\Documents and Settings\di202\Local SettingslTemp\XPgrpwise\47E98D70Domai... 3/26/2008
~Aarch 31, 2008 R-2008-12
Niagara~alls
c~n,~oa
Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: R-2008-12
Request to Rename Fern Park, E. E. Mitchelson Park or Kalar Road Park
RECOMMENDATION:
That City Council approve the recommendation of the Recreation Committee to not
rename Fern Park, or E. E. Mitchelson Park and Kalar Road Park.
BACKGROUND:
At the February 12, 2008, meeting of the Recreation Committee, two requests to rename
City parks were considered.
The Naming and Renaming Parks Policy directs such requests to the Recreation
Committee for their consideration and recommendations to Council. Renaming of parks
and open spaces carries a much greater burden of process compared to initial naming.
Tradition and continuity of name and community identification are important community
values.
The first request was to consider renaming Fern Park to "Robert Blanchfield Park". The
second request was to consider renaming either Kalar Road Park (Home for Girls Soccer}
or E.E. Mitchelson Park, (Home for Soccer) to "Dan O'Connor Park".
As stated in Section 5.3 of the Naming and Renaming of Parks Policy (attachment),
existing names will not be changed without the consideration of
a) the Historical significance of the existing name;
b) the impact on the individual or organization associated with the existing name;
c) the cost and impact of changing existing signage, rebuilding community recognition
and updating records (data bases, maps, promotional materials, etc.).
Working Together to Serve Our Community Community Services Department
Parks, Recreation & Culture
.tit ;*3;.;
March 31, 2008 - 2 - R-2008-12
The Recreation Committee did not supportthe requests to rename either Fern Park or E.E.
Mitchelson or Kalar Road Park. Fern Park, Kalar Road Park and E.E. Mitchelson Park
were deemed established City parks. The parks names were also seen to hold strong
organizational partnerships identities associated with the two sport parks. The Recreation
Committee did not recommend renaming the parks orthe initiation of a public consultation
process (cost of time and money) to further consider the renaming of these parks.
The Recreation Committee acknowledged the contribution of both of the individuals in
developing sport and recreation opportunities for the City of Niagara Falls. It was
suggested that options available to recognize the individuals would be to include their
names in the inventory of names for consideration in naming new parks .
Recommended by: ~ .4,c 1'nu~
Denyse orrissey, Direc r of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Approved by:
Ed Dujlovic, Executive Director of Community Services
Gti
Respectfully submitted:
John cDonald, Chief Administrativ Officer
Attachment
S:\Council\Council 20081R-2008-12-Request to Rename Fern Park, E.E. Mitchelson Park or Kalar Road Park.wpd
~~~~R_:'t ~ ~4 X ~ ~ ~lrK Hsu ~ ~~a ~ ~ ?h s~-~.. _5'~~:
~ l ~ ~ ,,~,:,.,ti. ~ a wit,
F. yr ,y. p ~
y '
. ~~f° .
!t ~ 4 `
X51 Y 1..Y~~ ~__..,...rr ~y~l,~;
~ ! ~
.1_ 1, 1i- ~ys J~f ABCh.`SK~~ y
VCS A ~ ~ i r .Jj~.Z a.' ~ I~ * r!~
'i '
.4 _t
dim , 777 _ i
l N ~ 4 t :12
Ct~ ~ ¢ ~ _
ry T h
47 ~ ^ ~ xl Y.,
`4 i -
~
h
7. '
n r_~
ti
~~h r,-r~ A 'YS
sir 1 p,~~
f:
i ' s s~j # . n, ~ i
`J ~ _ n~
w ~ +
r ~
~O
~ i i N N ~
~I ~ ~ a,. l~~c*' - ~ ~ ~ cif;: ~ _ti'_ 3P
~ _ _ ~ ry _ .
_ ~ a~
d h
' n y: ~ ~Y~ i
T ~ 'w
:s n 9 ~.f''?P'~
_ `~_J
p~ ' ~
7 ~ '
~ t~ C.
c~ .
i ~ fr~~~~~ _ ' ~ t ~ , wx'W A
t , ati
~
U - ~ -
O ~ Ol ' ; s
/Mty
~p - ~ ' i:s
~ ~
_
. '
_ t~... M +tt • K~
~ rr' ~y'I'
¦ ~ ~ ~
f0 ~ .
~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ram i s ~
CCU {~+R} ALE ~ ~ ° , ti
~ ~ ~ I
/w' t~'Y gTJ ~
n' w .
M ~ ~ 1~ Nom.. ~ ` .
U r ~ ~'7 '~s X14 ~ ~Ir'ii=Ly:a -
4 _ i
K~ ~ ~ 1 ~
z'9.s L'a r
~ ~ ,a
' M I,
~ ,
DEPARTMENT: DATE EFFECTED: POLICY:
COMMUNITY SERVICES APRIL 13, 1982 Naming and Renaming of
PARKS, RECREATION & Parks
CULTURE DATE REVISED: R-2007-14
August 28,1995 R-2007-35
September 10, 2007
November 26, 2007
SECTION:1000.32
Page 1 of 7
POLICY
PurpOSQ:
The purpose of this policy is to outline a procedure for the commemorative naming or renaming of
parks/open spaces, and component features as part of the acquisition and/or management of these
spaces by the City of Niagara Falls.
Commemorative Naming refers to the naming of a property in honour of outstanding achievement,
distinctive service, or significant communitycontribution, generallywithout financial consideration.
Objective:
1. To provide a consistent process for the City of Niagara Falls to recognize significant local
events, people and geographic features through the naming of parks/open spaces, and
features;
2. To provide the guidelines by which names will be chosen for new City parks/open spaces,
and features, and by which these features will be renamed, if necessary;
3. To include community involvement in the naming/renaming, and dedication ofparks/open
spaces, and features through a clearly defined process.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are provided for greater clarity.
Component Feature -means all substantial structures or recreational aspects of a park which
includes, but is not limited to, such things as sport fields, ball diamonds, hard surface courts, tennis
courts, lawn bowling greens, bocce courts, gardens, playgrounds, washrooms and skateboard park
facilities, etc.
Commemorative Naming -naming rights granted to honour outstanding achievement, distinctive
service, or significant community contribution. Commemorative naming will not be tied to a
financial contribution.
Individual and Community Organization Commemorative Naming -naming rights granted to
an individual, group of individuals, family foundation, or anon-profit community organization in
recognition of significant philanthropy.
Page 2 of 7
Open Space -includes, but is not limited to, trails, pathway systems, utility features such as storm-
watermanagement ponds, and other like structure under the jurisdiction of the City ofNiagara Falls.
Parkland- means all parkland designations including, but noC limited to, dedicated parkland, city-
wide parks, community parks, neighbourhood parks, parkettes, open space, etc. owned by and/or
under the jurisdiction of the City of Niagara Falls.
Significant Financial Gifts - means a monetary donation reflective of the total capita] cost or
appraised value of the amenity being considered for naming.
Criteria:
1.0 Commemorative Name Designation Associated with Functional Use, Geographic Location
or Historical Significance.
1.1 Staff may assign a name based on the adjacent street, functional use, geographic feature,
community name or historic significance. Examples include:
Alpine Park -adjacent to Alpine Dr.
Lundy's Lane Battlefield -Historical Significance
1.2. Chosen names within this designation shall be assigned by Staff and may remain unchanged
until a formal request for a name change has been approved by Council.
1.3 The chosen name shall not conflict with similar names, in whole or in part. For example, if
a park is named Oakes Park, no other similar name shall be used, such as Red Oak Park.
1.4 Generally, chosen names shall reflect the adjacent street name. For example, Ontario Park -
majority of street frontage on Ontario Avenue. This is to ensure continuity and minimize
conflicts for emergency services.
2.0 Commemorative Name Designation Associated in Honour of Individuals or Groups.
2.1 This section applies to any request to:
a) naming
b) renaming
a park/open space, or component feature in honour of individuals or groups.
2.2 Council shall approve all names in honour of individuals or groups. All requests for naming,
designating or renaming in honour of individuals or groups shall be submitted in writing,
with supporting explanation and/or justification to the Chair of the Recreation Committee,
c/o the Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture. Staff will forward a report with the
Committee's recommendations to Council for consideration.
Page 3 of 7
2.3. Names for consideration shall be Choseofdistinguishedpersons,organizations,corporations,
foundations or families:
a) where there has been significant contribution to the quality of life, well being
of the City of Niagara Falls; or
b) where the person/group is perceived as a role model and open to close
scrutiny relative to their character, integrity and values; or
c) demonstrated excellence, courage or exceptional service to the citizens of the
City of Niagara Falls; or
d) to memorialize or otherwise recognize substantial gifts and significant
donors, individuals designated by donors, or individuals who have made
exemplary or meritorious contributions to the City of Niagara Falls; or,
e) where there is a strong historical or cultural connection to the City and has a
major contribution to the historical or cultural preservation of the City; or,
f) where there is a strong contribution toward enviromnental preservation,
conservation or enhancement of the City; or,
g) where there is a major contribution made to the acquisition, development or
conveyance of land or building in question and/or its subsequent
development; or
f) where there is a direct relationship or association that exists between the
place or former place of residence of the person or group and the facility/park
to be named.
2.4 Naming in honour of elected or appointed public officials, City officials, or Staff shall
normally occur only after the public service or City employment has concluded.
2.5 Notwithstanding the above, Council, by resolution, may approve a name or name change in
honour ofindividuals or groups when circumstances] ustify such an action. Council may also
remove the original name designation when circumstances justify such action.
3.0 Commemorative Names of Provincial, National or International Significance
3.1 Council may approve a name or name change in honour of individuals or groups who have
made an outstanding contribution provincially, nationally, or internationally.
3.2 In such instances, and prior to approving the use of any name of individuals or group, Staff
shall investigate anyprotocoland/or requirements ofanyprovincial, national or international
agency or organization.
4.0 Names Derived from Significant Financial Contributions
4.1 In selected instances where a naming request has been proposed as a result of receiving a
unique and extraordinary financial, or other significant contribution, towards the acquisition,
creation or redevelopment of a property or park consideration will be given to the
sponsorship contribution being provided. The merits and value of each such naming will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It should not be assumed that a financial contribution
guarantees that a park is named after the service club business/individual/organization.
Page 4 of 7
5.0 Renaming Existing Parks
5.1 Renaming of parks and open spaces carries with it a much greater burden of process
compared to initial naming. Tradition and continuity of name and community identification
are important community values. Each application must meet the criteria in this policy, but
meeting all criteria does not automatically ensure renaming.
5.2 Critical examination will be conducted to ensure that renaming the park will not diminish
the original justification for the name or the prior contributors. Renaming will follow the
same procedures as naming apark/open space, or component feature:
a) Only parks and facilities named for geographic location, outstanding feature
or subdivision should be considered for renaming. Parks that have been
named by deed restriction shall not be considered for renaming;
b) Parks and facilities named after individuals shall not be changed unless it is
found that because of the individual's character the continued use of their
name would not be in the best interest of the community.
5.3 Existing names will not be changed without the consideration of:
a) the historical significance of the existing name;
b) the impact on the individual or organization associated with the existing
name;
c) the cost and impact of changing existing signage, rebuilding community
recognition and updating records (data bases, maps, promotional materials,
etc.).
5.4 Only nominations having a direct relevance to the park/open space, or a component feature
within the space in question will be considered for renaming.
5.5 Renaming of a park/open space, or component feature may occur if:
a) the policy criteria are met; and
b) a valid justification for renaming the facility is provided; and
c) changing the name will not cause undue confusion within the community;
and
d) an appropriate level of community support exists.
6.0 Inventory of Names
6.1 The Parks, Recreation & Culture Department shall be responsible far maintaining an
inventory of names for parks/open spaces, and component features.
6.2 Proposals for names that will not be given consideration or counted as part of the
inventory include:
a) names that cause confusion for the public or emergency services due to
duplication with an existing name;
b) names that duplicate a school or facility name that is not directly adjacent
Page 5 of 7
to the area to be named;
c) names that are meaningful only to a few members of the community;
d) the proposal suggests a name after a specific builder or developer;
e) the proposed name advertises a product or private company.
7.0 Signage
7.1 The City will be responsible for coordinating the public presentation of Signage to
acknowledge the naming/renaming designation. Costs associated with naming/renaming
of a park/open space, or component feature as outlined in this policy will be assumed by
the City of Niagara Falls.
7.2 The City will have final approval for the selection and location of any Signage, including
Signage text and design.
7.3 The addition of flowers, plant material, other Signage and/or ornaments/memorials near
the sign, by the public, is prohibited.
7.4 The City will bear the responsibility of ongoing maintenance for the Signage.
Procedures:
1. Any individual or group wishing to submit a request for naming/renaming any park/open
space, or component feature must provide a written proposal to the Recreation Committee,
c/o the Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture Department, and should include at least the
following minimum information:
i) name ofthe applicant; and
ii) identification of the parks/open spaces or park features to be
named/renamed; and
iii) proposed name; and
iv) background information describing the accomplishments and/or
legitimacy of the name designation; and
Proposals are encouraged to include letters of endorsement supporting the application.
2. When there is a local neighbourhood association or community group associated with the
area in which the park/open space, or component feature in question is to be named, the
Parks, Recreation & Culture Department will circulate the proposal to those parties.
3. When possible, if a request to name/rename is directly associated with, or is on land that has
been donated to the City, the original donor or family will be advised.
Q. When a naming/renaming request is submitted, Staff shall conduct a historical review of the
current name prior to recommending approval.
5. When anaming/renaming request is submitted, staff will ensure that the nominee being
Page 6 of 7
honoured is in agreement with the naming proposal (if they are living), or by their legal
representative should they be deceased.
6. Naming/renaming requests will also appear on the City's website allowing for (30) thirty
calendar days for written comments from the public to the Recreation Committee.
7. The Parks, Recreation & Culture Department will convene a meeting of the Recreation
Committee, as appropriate, to review the request. Staff will consult and request comments
from all other divisions that have jurisdiction relative to the amenity in question. Staff will
forward the recommendation(s) of the Recreation Committee via a report to Council.
8. When a request proposes Che naming/renaming of a park open space, or component feature
after an individual or group, the report shall be dealt with in-camera, similar to a personnel
matter. This will ensure the integrity of the process and avoid any potential embarrassment.
9. The Parks, Recreation & Culture Department will notifythe applicant ofCouncil's decision.
S:\POlicies\Policy & Procedures Manual\1000.32 Naming and Renaming of Parks.wpd
Page 7 of 7
City of Niagara Falls
Parks, Recreation and Culture
7150 Montrose Road, Unit t11
N1ilaLTPiIkll11S Niagara Falls, Ontario
? L2H 3N3
Telephone: 905-356-7521, ext. 3330
Fax: 905-356-7404
E-mail: pre@niagarafalls.ca
Website: www.niagarafalls.ca
NAMING /RENAMING REQUEST
OF A PARK/OPEN SPACE OR PARK FEATURE
Date of Submission:
k .
- ~ NAME~OFINOb11NATOR
3Confact nformaU
n
oft[he person"~suhmtmng the
request ~
Name:
Address:
Citv:
Postal Code:
Telephone Number-Day: F,vening:
Email Address:
~ " NAME
OF
NON "'a' ~ _
ntact mformation~'efthe nominee ortm
the event of a(posihumous nom~rta&on
3a.-xs ~ the contact mfoemanon otiihe next o01nn. ~,-_t
Name of Nomince:
Address:
Ciq•:
Pas[al Cade:
Telephone Number-Day: Evening:
Email Address:
Letter of consent from nominee or next of kin attached: ? Yes ? No
~ • ~ REQUEST DETADS 7`
a Please mdteatr the of re ues[ ou
are rn
k
tl ~Be euteto•com lete ParLS A & B
tl'P_T. q- 5, ._g. _ P. u
PART A - Typc of Rcqucs[
? Naming -Request to name an amenity not currently named.
? Renaming -Request to rename an existing named amenity.
For renaming requests only -Please indicate [he existing name that You arc
requesting be changed.
PART 0 -Type of Amenity [o be considered:
? 1'ark/Open Spacc/I'rail
? Park Feature
Specific Location/Address of Park/Open Space/Trail:
r dPROP09ED'N~ME:FOR CONS[DERA7TON ~"~"`xi
~r~.
Reasons for Nominatimt and History of Nominee.
Please attach a written submission stating the reasons for the nomination. Be sure to include sufficient
information as to how the proposed name satisfies the criteria of the policy. This may include, but is not
limited to, background and/or biographical information and supporting documentation including letters
of support, newspaper articles, etc.
Please submit the completed application package, with all accompanying documents to:
Parks, Recreation & Culture
7150 Montrose Road, Unit 1, Niagara Falls, ON, L2H 3N3.
March 31, 2008 TS-2008-24
Niagara~aIls
ct~~nun
Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: TS-2008-24
Bella Senior Care Parking Concerns
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council approve atwenty-five (25) meter extension of the permissible parking area
on Willoughby Drive, adjacent to the Bella Senior Care Residence.
BACKGROUND:
Bella Senior Care Residences Inc. has requested the City review the practice of issuing
parking infractions in the no parking zones immediately to the north and south of Bella
Senior Care Residence during their shift change.
In May of 2004 City staff reviewed a request to permit parking immediately in front of Bella
Senior Care Residence to accommodate overflow parking when their lot was full. Council
approved a removal of the no parking zone and accordingly parking has been permitted
in this area.
Bella Senior Care is now advising due to shift changes at approximately 3:00 p.m. each
day, this on street parking area is insufficient to accommodate staff and visitors when the
lot is full. They have advised it is a matter of 2-3 spaces that is required. Additionally they
note that during special events, or education and training, there is insufficient parking.
A twenty-five meter extension to the permissible parking area would accommodate
approximately fourvehicles, which would satisfactorily meet the needs of the facility. In the
case of special events, etc. occurring at the facility, additional parking can be
accommodated on Weinbrenner Road.
Community Services Department
Working Together to Serve Our Community Transportation Services
dir.. _
~"~,'~F,
March 31, 2008 - 2 - TS-2008-24
Recommended by: .
~h~arl Dren, Director of Transportation Services
Approved by: ~
Ed Dujlovic, Execu •v Director of Community Services
~ ~
Respectfully submitted:
Joh acDonald, Chief Administrative Officer
Sue Wheeler
S:1General Administration\GA 1.01 Reports\2008 CommuniTy Services103 Mar 31\TS-2008-24 Bella Senior Care Parking Concerns.wpd
= r
~..#4. - n
a`f• e`~ ~
t f
_ ~ 1..J (~l
~ l/^^~i -
_ ~ ~ O
~ L U ~
'L O..
r - - N ~
~ ~ ~
, f ~ ' _ ~ , L.L to i
1 ~ -X ~ a
w ~c
~-y ¦
t. L
_
p.
' ~ ~ ~ m ~
~ O
k ~
. ; auk ~ ~
faHEs`~ Df~ IN~LLpl~GH13Y DR
~ o ai
.
? c ~
E- ~ ~ }
~ ~ ~ o
~ _ ~
- ~
~ ~ ~
~ ' stl LL E
~ Y J•j~
e A ~ ~ ~ 1~1 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ n qg - s- ~ 0 ~ ~.r I •1~1