Loading...
Additions 2010/08/30ADDITIONS TO COUNCIL, MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2010 COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. TS- 2010 -37 - Niagara Air Bus Vehicles a) Email from Paul Mountain 2. PD- 2010 -74 - Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions (10460 Ort Road, Part of Lot 1, Concession 6, Town of Crowland) a) Copy of the minutes from the Committee of Adjustment Meeting of Tuesday, August 3, 2010 COUNCIL 1. PD- 2010 -72 -AM- 2010 -012, Deerfield Estates Phase 9 Draft Plan of Subdivision Kalar Road ( West Side), South of Lundy's Lane. a) Correspondence from Deb O'Connor ADDITIONS TO COUNCIL, MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2010 COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. TS- 2010 -37 - Niagara Air Bus Vehicles a) Email from Paul Mountain 2. PD- 2010 -74 - Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions (10460 Ort Road, Part of Lot 1, Concession 6, Town of Crowland) a) Copy of the minutes from the Committee of Adjustment Meeting of Tuesday, August 3, 2010 3. MW- 2010 -53 - Downtown Infrastructure Revitalization Project COUNCIL a) Memo from City Clerk re: Results of Downtown - related Request for Proposals (RFP's) 1. PD- 2010 -72 -AM- 2010 -012, Deerfield Estates Phase 9 Draft Plan of Subdivision Kalar Road ( West Side), South of Lundy's Lane. a) Correspondence from Deb O'Connor (8/27/2010) Dean lorfida - Niagara Air Bus XL, Transit buses. Page 1 From: "Paul Mountain" <paulm @niagaraairbus.com> To: < Council @niagarafalls.ca >, <diorfida @niagarafalls.ca >, <paulm @niagarAirb... Date: 8/8/2010 7:39 PM Subject: Niagara Air Bus XL, Transit buses. Dear City Council of Niagara Falls; I am away on family vacation, "greetings" from The Pinery...weather is Super, water is clean. Airbus Transit Buses; We had offered the Transit of Niagara Falls a "special" package price to sell them six, 2003 model Bluebird XL 39 passenger Transit shuttle buses this past April for $330,000 plus tax, with Safety sticker and valid, passed E -Test. We now have 5 XL buses available for sale. These units are listed currently with McNab Bus Sales for $79,000, plus HST per unit. This price includes certification, E- Test.... We will sell the 5 to the City of Niagara Falls for a net special package price of $275,000, plus HST. Safety and E- test...60 day drive train warranty included. History; A special price of $330,000 for 6 XL units...plus tax. (This was given to Karl Dren) verbally by myself in April. I explained to Mr Dren that Niagara Air Bus were offering this "very special" price to our City only...with our very LOW price the City of Niagara Falls would pay $55,000, plus HST per bus, leaving a savings.... bus to pay for various up grades. Wheel chair lift ($17,000 to install by Bluebird) rails, overhead sign, hook up "kneel" front door load option...etc. As a taxpayer of both property and business taxes, a local resident for 22 years.... I feel strongly that whether the City buys our bus or another. There are options out there for various bus sizes, both new and used. A "blended" Transit fleet could work well in the HIGH summer months and just as well in Winter slower months. With smaller buses working with larger, Transit could run outlying and LOW volume routes at lower fuel, parts and Capitol cost to the City. Further, why keep leasing buses (not accessable) from SC Transit ?? With GO Train, Conference Centre, new outlying subdivisons the Transit could well use these type units, and SAVE money for the taxpayers. We can bring an XL bus to the meeting Monday August 9 if needed. Bus features: - All buses are geared for stop and go City driving. They are specifically built for City, school and Regional shuttle. - Front load step and Kneel option can be activated...minimal cost. - Air Conditioner, Coach size, Carrier brand...very strong, good brand. - Buses have large rear step, unload rear door. - Buses are Manufactured for the North American, School, Transit, Bus markets. Ten's of thousands have been built, parts are easily accessable, if needed we ship over night for parts we may not stock. Cost are very reasonable. - Buses meet all Ontario safety and emmissions standards. - Buses are equipped with top of the line...body, suspension structure. Heavy duty. - Power train is a very reliable...V -6 Cumins Diesel Motor and Allison Transmission. - Buses are one owner, well maintianed, stored inside every winter. Very nice condition, they look newer... Very sincerely, Paul Mountain : ) Cc. RS, NFT, PM, JD Minutes of a Committee of Adjustment meeting, Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. in Committee Room 2, City Hall. ATTENDANCE: J. Collinson (Chairman), V. Pietrangelo, G. Prata, C. Antonio, L. Stranges, M. Cahill, (Members), S. Scerbo, A. Dilwaria (Staff). CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: V. Pietrangelo declared a Conflict of Interest with application A- 2010 -021, Kyle Lakomy, because his father owns lots which were created through Testamentary Devise. APPLICATIONS: B- 2010 -011, Nell Weaver, 9644 Sodom Road: Correspondence: Planning & Development Transportation Services Regional Public Works Department B. Sinclair, agent for the applicant, was present at the meeting and explained the nature of the application. C. Antonio stated that the application was straight forward as it is a technical error with the properties merging on title due to the death of a spouse. The property would remain as agricultural. Ken Prohaszka, 9608 Sodom Road, expressed concern that Part 2 may be severed in the future. B. Sinclair responded that he could not foresee a severance of Part 2 happening anytime soon. It was moved by C. Antonio, seconded by G. Prata, that the application be approved as outlined in Staff s report. A- 2010 -021, Kyle Lakomy, Part of Lot 1, Concession 6, Ridge Road: Correspondence: Planning & Development Municipal Works Landscape Design & Development Services Transportation Services Regional Public Works Department CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Kyle Lakomy and his agent, Brian Sinclair, were present at the meeting. B. Sinclair explained the nature of the application. B. Sinclair pointed out that Mr. Lakomy purchased Part 23 from the City of Niagara Falls. The City never disclosed that the property was created through Testamentary Devise and was undersized, therefore unbuildable. Mr. Lakomy then approached the abutting neighbour (Part 21) with a verbal offer to purchase but not was successful. Mr. Lakomy now has an offer to purchase Part 22 conditional upon the minor variance and building permit. 2 B. Sinclair explained that the application was a special situation. His client did his best to try to purchase property to enlarge his property as per the by -law requirements. The lot size is close in size to the by -law requirement. Mr. Lakomy has agreed to a warning clause being registered on title. The nearby farm does not have a lot of cattle - likely a weekend farmer. The application is minor. The City has somewhat of a responsibility because they sold his client property that he cannot get a building permit for. L. Stranges questioned why Mr. Lakomy was not made aware of the undersized lot by his lawyer when purchasing the property. B. Sinclair replied that his client did not have a lawyer at that time. M. Cahill confirmed with B. Sinclair that the Farm Practices Act is applicable. M. Cahill felt that there should have been fault disclosure by the City. C. Antonio felt that any concerns with odours from the nearby farm could be addressed through a condition of approval requiring a warning clause being registered on title. A. Dilwaria explained the MDS formula. The MDS 1 provides minimum distance between proposed new development to existing livestock operations. MDS 2 provides minimum distance separations between proposed new or enlarged livestock operation and existing or approved development. Even with the inclusions of a warning clause, the future expansion of the farm may be constrained in the future, we would be restricting his opportunities to expand. The warning clause only protects future purchasers of Parts 22 & 23 - it could actually restrict the farmer's future intentions. C. Antonio felt that it was similar to commercial & residential separation distances. There is no difference. If a warning clause can be included as a condition than he could support the application. B. Sinclair stated that something has to be done either with Part 22 or Part 23 otherwise the properties are useless. A. Dilwaria commented that agricultural uses should be promoted. Promoting residential use in agricultural areas creates land use conflicts. J. Collinson stated that the applicant has tried purchasing additional property. Presently, there are two sterile lots. The report indicates the Official Plan is to protect agricultural pursuits - however, it is very unlikely that it will ever be used for agricultural purposes. With respect to the MDS setback - people moving into the country should expect certain smells or odours associated with country living. C. Antonio felt that the by -laws are outdated. The Region's Private Sewage Systems Group has indicated that they would have no objection to the application. In his opinion, City staff really built the application up as an issue where it's really not, it is a minor variance. It was moved by C. Antonio, seconded by M. Cahill, that application be approved as the application is within the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By -law and Official Plan, is desirable for the use of the property and is minor in nature, conditional upon Parts 22 & 23 merging on title and a warning clause being registered on title. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. J. Collinson advised there is a 20 -day appeal period. Mr. Art Federow, 4079 Marshall Road, requested copies of the decisions of applications B- 2010 -011 and B- 2010 -010 and any future regional comments. B- 2010 -010, Jeffery R. Susin, 10460 Ort Road: Correspondence: Planning & Development Regional Public Works Department Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority 3 Jeffery Susin and his agent B. Sinclair, were present at the meeting. B. Sinclair explained the nature of the application. The application is an infilling situation. The property to the south is actually smaller. There are 9 lots surrounding the subject property. Approval of the severance would have no negative affect on agricultural use. This is a hamlet - strictly an infilling situation. The subject property is not within the floodplain. A previous OMB appeal and subsequent OMB approval for severance for lots in Chippawa show that the Growth Plan allows such a severance. In response to J. Collinson, B. Sinclair noted that the applicant had not received any previous severances. Through no fault of the applicant, residential development has occurred around his property. The impact on agricultural uses of land are very minimal. The applicant has donated over an acre of land to Ducks Unlimited. A variance to lot frontage will be required if the severance is approved. A. Dilwaria added that an EIS would be required prior to obtaining a building permit. A protected woodlot (ECA) exists along the south property line and any development within 30 metres of the protected woodlot would trigger a need for an EIS. V. Pietrangelo felt that the comments were very well put and the property could only really be used for residential purposes. 5% cash in lieu of parkland dedication should be a condition of approval. It was moved by V. Pietrangelo, seconded by M. Cahill, that the application be approved as the creation of the parcel is appropriate and consistent with the immediate area and the creation of the parcel would have minimal negative impact on agricultural uses. Approval is subject to final approval of a minor variance to the zoning by -law requirement for lot frontage Part 1 and payment to the City for cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication (5% of the appraised raw land value) of Part 1 together with the standard administration conditions. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. M. Cahill felt that the applicant should be recognized and commended for his generosity to Ducks Unlimited. J. Collinson advised there is a 20 -day appeal period. MINUTES: It was moved by M. Cahill, seconded by C. Antonio, that the minutes from the July 6, 2010 be approved as circulated. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (8/27/2010) Dean lorfida - Debys Presentation to Council August 30th.doc Page 1 Mr. Mayor and Members of Council August 27, 2010 On behalf of the affected residents I am sending you what was going to be the basis for our presentation but instead have decided to send some of our thoughts in advance of the Council meeting. Certainly, some of the matters we raise may necessitate you asking questions of staff in advance and at a minimum allowing you more time to consider our points. It would be our intention to provide a different and maybe shorter presentation Monday night. We however would ask you to remember and consider the matters and points we have raised in this and previous communication with you. First, although River Realty has made some movement, it really is NOT enough and the plan as proposed, does NOT satisfy the resident concerns. We also believe that City staff need to co- operate more to make a better plan, especially in presenting a different road design to help save as much of the mature streetscape and trees as they can. There really are just a few issues and with some effort and co- operation we can have a WIN =WIN situation. We need both River Realty and the City to work together with the residents to come up with a better plan, and we really believe it can be done. We should not just do what is ok and minimally acceptable in complying with general policies. If this plan is approved as is, there will be NO single family or low density housing from Bethlehem Place all the way to Lundys Lane. Only apartments and commercial will face the exisiting well established single family residences. Additionally, the development and road widening proposal would destroy the existing streetscape and bring down the standard of streetscape to a level far below what exists. We are just common hardworking people who take pride in our properties and most go to great lengths to develop and maintain our properties and we don't want to see years of hard work and time be so easily dismissed so we can look at a much wider road and apartments, especially when there are other options. We are not opposed to the development across the street or the road widening. We know it must happen...we just ask that it be designed in the best way possible to minimize the impact on a mature single family area that has extensive landscaping and trees. Is this not possible to achieve? We think it is, however. more effort than what has been put forward is required. If the road widening and development plan proceed as presented, then do you know that (8/27/2010) Dean lorfida - Debys Presentation to Council August 30th.doc Page 2 some 24 to 28 existing trees, some as old as 40 years will be destroyed? How is this good development and planning, especially when it appears no lands are being taken from River Realty for the road widening? We also believe this to be contrary to the City's official plan per section 1.5.34 which states equal amounts of property shall be taken from both sides of the street and from the centerline of the road where possible. In fact, I have attached as an appendix, a recent decision form the OMB that involved just 3 new lots but the newly created lots would be smaller and 2 mature trees would be lost. The opposing residents argued that the character of the neighborhood would be negatively changed. The hearing officer accepted the argument that both the trees and the character of the neighborhood should be saved. I will read the hearing officers statement, "The board finds that the proposed lot results in development that is out of character with the area, detrimentally impacts the existing farm house at 179 Lakeshore...and removes two large trees that add to the ambience of the area," he wrote in his decision. It does not, in the boards view, represent good planning." ... "People need to know the value of trees," he said. This affected just one property and involved just 2 mature trees. If 2 trees are worth saving, certainly more than 20 should be! City Council even has a by -law that states, "BY -LAW NO. 2004 -173 the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls recognizes the ecological and aesthetic value of trees and deems it expedient to regulate or prohibit certain acts relating to trees within the City of Niagara Falls Application of By -law 2. No person shall: (a) injure or destroy a tree growing on public property; We hope Council will insist the spirit and meaning of this by -law be upheld. The City's official plan also states in Section 11.23.1, 1The retention and protection, to the greatest extent possible, of the existing tree cover, recognizing its environmental and aesthetic importance. Section 5.1, New development, redevelopment and public works projects shall (8/27/2010) Dean lorfida - Debys Presentation to Council August 30th.doc Page 3 utilize building, streetscaping and landscaping designs to improve the built and social environment of the City and to enhance quality of life. Development should integrate and be compatible with the surrounding area including natural and cultural heritage features 5.1.1 The design of new development and redevelopment shall specifically address height, setbacks, massing, siting and architecture of buildings in order to provide a compatible relationship with development in an area. 5.2.3 The City shall cooperate with other levels of government in protecting existing trees and planting new trees along roadways and highways. 5.2.4 In all public works, no trees within the road allowance or on public property shall be removed unnecessarily 5.2.5 The City shall participate in tree planting programs to enhance the environment and shall encourage private landowners to protect existing trees and plant additional trees on their own property. We are trying to just do what the city OP wants. 5.3.4 The City shall encourage the utilization of adequate buffering, screening and other landscaping measures to ensure separation between potentially incompatible uses. 5.3.5 The City shall encourage the preservation and the incorporation of existing trees, vegetation, green areas and topography into the design and landscaping plans of proposed developments River Realty cleared the property of all trees prior to submitting an application. We do acknowledge that the trees on the property were not as mature or taken care of as on our side, BUT there was coverage there. Lastly, I would like to cite another section regarding Adverse impacts. Section 1.2 "Adverse Impacts" - where a proposed use or development may: - impair the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it; - result in injury or damage to property or plant or animal life; - cause harm or material discomfort to any person; - negatively affect the health or safety or any person; - render any property /plan /animal life unfit for human use; - result in loss of enjoyment of normal use of the property; or - interfere with the normal conduct of business. We think this proposal as designed is contrary to the above. (8/27/2010) Dean Iorfida - Debys Presentation to Council August 30th.doc Page 4 We are not professional planners and hope at this point we need not engage the services of one, however it is clear that these and other city policies can be used to support a different plan and argue against what is being proposed. In fact, all of the above have been developed and put forward by your Planning staff. There are other sections that are approved or put forth for council consideration that we have mentioned in earlier presentations and correspondence such as section 1.13.1, the character of existing neighborhoods within the Built- up area shall be retained.' This section goes on to state that new and infill development shall blend into the existing lot fabric, streetscape and built form of the neighborhood. We know that Council and ultimately the OMB requires planning evidence to support objections and we believe there is plenty of planning evidence to support denial and deferral of this application as proposed. We also remind Council that the earlier presentation of River Realty implied conformity of city policy ver batim, but in fact many of those sections allow for more flexibility than what was portrayed or at least other sections can be used to support an opposing view and others a modified better plan. Example The developer quotes city policy to support his location of the apartment blocks but the actual wording of the policy states, "should generally be..." and does not say SHALL BE The policy quoted to support the application can also be used to alter the application and still conform to policy! I will conclude by borrowing some statements offered by the Ontario Planning Council. It doesn't help that some proposals do not have regard for the local context and the need for compatibility. It is easy to selectively interpret policies while neglecting compatibility, transitions, and buffering. Proponents need to realize that proposals that entail considerable increases in density demand greater responsibility Bottom line, we need to step up to the plate and see the best plan developed and approved so we can all WIN, not just one party. Obviously, I do not have enough time allotted to cover the various scenarios as to how we can achieve this. We requested through planning, a meeting with River Realty to address how we could achieve this but no meeting was accepted or arranged. I will attach as an appendix some ideas as to how we can achieve a better development. (8/27/2010) Dean lorfida - Debys Presentation to Council August 30th.doc Page 5 On behalf of the residents I thank Council for listening to our concerns and we sincerely hope that you will support us in our efforts to achieve a better result. (8/27/2010) Dean lorfida - OMB St.catharines Hearing.doc Page 1 Appendix 1 OMB St.Catharines Hearing —Conn Bailey resident - Hearing officer J.E. Sniezek At a March OMB hearing neighborhood residents appealed to OMB and opposed an infilling project they claimed would alter the character of the neighborhood and destroy mature trees. Sniezek accepted arguments that both the trees and the character of the neighborhood should be saved. St.Catharines Standard July 29, 2010 The board finds that the proposed lot results in development that is out of character with the area, detrimentally impacts the existing farm house at 179 Lakeshore...and removes two large trees that add to the ambience of the area,'" he wrote in his decision. "It does not, in the boards view, represent good planning. "' ... "People need to know the value of trees," he said. Planning services manager said, the planning department was supporting the city's goal of infilling to grow from within. - Lot coverage seemed to be a successful argument and supported the view that the proposal would alter the appearance of the neighborhood, which has established landscape, mature trees and lower lot coverages. Conn Bailey now believes any neighborhood can now do this. " Now that we have succeeded in what we wanted to do, which is preserve our neighborhood and preserve our individual properties, we want to get out there so other people can see what we have done, said Bailey. It would appear that resident concerns and arguments, similar to Kalar Rd residents now has a precedent to rely on with this OMB decision though we understand the OMB is not bound by precedent. The River Realty proposal seeks to increase lot coverage beyond what currently exists in the neighborhood, will destroy existing mature trees and landscape as a result of the proposed road widening as planned, and alters the single family environment with the proposed two mutli- storey buildings. Additionally some questions need to be asked why taxpayers are being asked to pay for private property acquisitions for the proposed road widening when it is as a direct result of new developments on Kalar Rd. Is the developer paying for these costs? And if not, then the issue of its legality should be (8/27/2010) Dean lorfida - OMB St.catharines Hearing.doc Page 2 examined as it is contrary to Provincial law to provide bonus or incentive by the municipality to private business. This may very well be a form of this and needs to be reviewed. Lastly, we are very curious as to why the most enhanced and mature streetscape with the most mature trees has been left to the end for an environmental assessment? Seems to us that was a self serving choice to box in the alternatives available. We are extremely pleased and agree with Councilor Thompson that the matter of the road design and River Realty plan need to be addressed now and not after the fact when choices are then very limited. Clerks Department Inter - Department Memorandum TO: His Worship Mayor Ted Salci DATE: August 30, 2010 & Members of Council FROM: Dean Iorfida City Clerk Ext. 4271 RE: Results of Downtown - related Request for Proposals (RFP's) Council will be considering MW- 2010 -53, Downtown Infrastructure Revitalization Project, Project Status and Implementation Plan. The two RFP's mentioned in the report, a Downtown Wireless Sound System and a Series of Decorative Archways, closed either during or subsequent to the production of the Council agenda. Design, Supply and Installation of a Sound System for Downtown- RFP - P47 -2010 Date Closed: August 24, 2010 Budget: $60,000 Recommended Proposal and Price: Design Electronics - $56,673.15 (taxes extra) Analysis: Interested companies were invited to submit a proposal for the design, supply and installation of an Outdoor Sound System along Queen Street from Valley Way to Erie Avenue and along Erie Avenue from Queen Street to Bridge Street in Niagara Falls. The sound system will involve a wireless system utilizing the existing streetlight poles for speakers and receivers. The evaluation criteria for the RFP were proponent team, quality of system, price, warranty and service operations. Although only one (1) proposal was received, the proposal met the specifics of the RFP. Design Electronics is a reputable company, who designed, supplied and installed the City's security system. Design, Supply and Installation of Archways - Downtown - RFP - P50 -2010 Date Closed: August 27, 2010 Budget: $300,000 Recommended Proposal and Price: Merit Contractors Niagara- $363,700 (taxes extra)* *provisional pricing based on the traffic lights no longer being required Analysis: Interested parties were invited to submit a proposal for the design, supply and installation of several archways throughout the downtown area. The RFP encouraged creative and dynamic design proposals. Proponents were requested to submit unit construction and installation costs for up to fifteen (15) archways. Working Together to Serve Our Community Two compliant proposals were received (Signature Signs and Merit Contractors). An evaluation team comprising City staff and Downtown representatives analysed the submissions based on proponent team, attractor value, creativity, quality and overall appearance, experience of proponent, service operations and price. Signature Signs scored higher in the creative categories, however, their pricing for the arches were substantially higher at approximately $560,000. After totaling the evaluation criteria, Merit Contractors scored higher. Merit's submission is more than the budgeted amount. Council will have to consider whether the excess amount should be taken from other items in the Proposed Spending Breakdown Phase 2 chart contained within MW- 2010 -53. It should be noted that the other components of the project have yet to be tendered and there's a contingency amount allocated. Council could direct that the $300,000 for archways be the upset limit for this component of the project, likely resulting in less than 15 arches installed. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve Design Electronics as the preferred proponent for the Design, Supply and Installation of a Sound System for Downtown; and That Council approve Merit Contractors Niagara as the preferred proponent for the Design, Supply and Installation of Archways for Downtown; and That the Mayor & Clerk be authorized to execute the related agreements.