The URL can be used to link to this page

Additions to Council, April 18, 2011 ADDITIONS TO COUNCIL, MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2011 Committee of the Whole 1. CD- 2011 -05 BIA Guidelines a) Copy of petition. b) Correspondence from Dragan Racic and Nemanja Kuntos, requesting to speak. c) Email from Mordechai Grun d) Downtown BIA election results e) Main & Ferry BIA election results 2. MW 2011 - 08 Downtown Revitalization Project - Phase 2 - Streetscape Queen Street - St. Lawrence Avenue to Erie Avenue Tender Results, Contract 2011 - 240 -10 COUNCIL - Planning 1. PD- 2011 -20 - AM- 2010 -008, 4825 Petite Avenue, Proposed Multiple Unit Residential Development a) Correspondence from Nick Coleman, CN Rail b) Proposed official plan amendment from the applicant. C) Various emails from residents 2. PD- 2011 -25 - 26T -11- 2010 -01, & AM- 2010 -004 Owner: Oldfield Development Inc. a) Email from Sue Mabee, Planner, Niagara Region b) Correspondence from Paul Bond, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority c) Correspondence from the Niagara Falls Nature Club. d) Correspondence from John Bacher. Appointments 1. Email from City Clerk on local residency requirements BUDGET 1. F- 2011 -12 - 2011 Municipal Utility Budget a) Copy of Water & Sewer Rates power point presentation b) Request from Ed Bielawski to make a presentation to Council. 2. Copy of 2011 Capital Budget power point presentation. PETITION OF 37 VOTE STRONGHOLD ON THE DOWNTOWN BIA On behalf of the following BIA stakeholders. We are happy to 11?Sif1 1 ec arhun fias stepped down from the Board of Directors. We look forward to the City finally enforcing a fair vote in our Downtown BIA. Eliminating once for and for all the unfair advantage of 37 votes entitled to one property owner on the street. Business Name Print Name ■ Signature j 1 _ YI h� —.Cr, ' fi 7. .")(c`Tl �-�' " I �'t,'1�/ -'4:' - 1 ' ep (i v c j - �� i i 1 I 1 ci J i li i. �` m -� i cep / I .i,'j `. f �.�1 .- L J I i i0 N s i ‘‘(,, 1 -- ---)aker:\ \ fcv t \-)_ 1 . N --._ ‘ If-- ---- VIAC)it\)1\‘‘ \ - i - - - SN\e—ck, ' 1 4 4:.)AlAtictl 1 J.. 1 4 , '-ott \--hts' =-; Bt,i-i\lhe(tc-, I SA- - tri t-r tc: - ..\ _ 1 41 u Lc4, - .1 -,, 7 -,-/-1- r .. / r /gy c ( u Pt � 7e-/ 4:: -- LPL - -- --Z----C — j D i A A, -ovt Ci 7\, 1 „:„. , Ki C ° � ' � I `° , .. , L , °ma y” 1---7 7 , ,Z ' it„ /fir 1 _" ,4,-/I pry v < 45.5/ �! / 7`Z . ( 'Af °V-, Y4.. ( ''', c 2) 6;0 1 - 7 "^- / Ls 7/11 fa fda 1 ar -ea- - 6t),-,,--6-7 A 1 - ' "7., '_. ljtc,.-J Ott,1,-c- -ittaiiT Cc (1,-(st, ott(s,- co , PETITION OF 37 VOTE STRONGHOLD ON THE DOWNTOWN BIA On behalf of the following BIA stakeholders. We are happy to know that Mordechai Grun has stepped down from the Board of Directors. We look forward to the City finally enforcing a fair vote in our Downtown BIA. Eliminating once for and for all the unfair advantage of 37 votes entitled to one property owner on the street. j Business Name I Print Name Signature to 7 t, L 1 t l '' "..,. i Pk Lam -( - •Ci:- aL- 'L% { ' - t 7 ` s-- 6 ? / j 1 H ( r 5 t 2 LA R C F; t2A,i 7 1 (6) L; ,.,,..,,INV i \ 4 C.) L n,:.A l',...' i ,,,,..._i___ : ---)/1„_.....--- --- y I 4. � 1 . . J 1 t i— — -.-` { . ti _.. s_. , t' Y L. i ..\ ., L 4.. i i� ; � , ; s , t . . L (. _� .' i � i L I • I l r" ` a ,; EDi t9- .L7 SS 1► , 1 x c- ,-.2... 1 k I'' °s A ILI -' i A \ 'iLLI _ ! ` BEL i -tt/ - 1. , 1 f , , ' J tA-i ‹.., (..,;.-k; - ,k-i' - 4 :),,-i 6r L I. - 14 C 1 PETITION OF 37 VOTE STRONGHOLD ON THE DOWNTOWN BIA On behalf of the following BIA stakeholders. We are happy to know that Mordechai Grun has stepped down from the Board of Directors. We look forward to the City finally enforcing a fair vote in our Downtown BIA. Eliminating once for and for all the unfair advantage of 37 votes entitled to one property owner on the street. Business Name Print Name S ignature I , � � / 'iv- / I . , ,, __ , 1,0,1--- ,,,J_-,7„v, - ,- ... - , , ..,, ) , Or , -74.1- \■., v./ S C q %\ 611 %&:_ 2 4 - t._.,- Ae-1 ll _ - ' ' til 4 ( 0" 7 ri d- 4( .: , ....-''' - ' 7 ' ''''''''' /V/i .f6)/i17/1' Vi7 /1,/{fe - .. o — y irk i l: � fV 1 � I I I I I i I I l I Niagara R« April 18, 2011 To: Mr D�r%mdG Clerk's Office 09 d Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Box 1023 Nagy:Falls, O% L2E 3X5 Canada wa waud k.4 ofcaUy to request from yo u to /9 us opportunity to speak in front of mew and me'berS on ,our scheduled meeting taking place tonight «pri 18 2011 at Niagara Falls City HaL Our presentation wnb > regards ± Downtown Efeent developments. Please find em »ed emsmenda on on the separate c s, T§,a you. edam« Dr:DnRw? Mema%,K>wm P 7aeR&&G d KA Members aw Bukna; Owners - Downtown Niagara Falls SUBJECT uownto*n Since our f meetmg. being held on March 21 with Councillor Carolyn , ,daitInoni (other Councillors were invited but not attendedii and continues efforts on our side, such as letter to Mr. Dean lorlida dated March 25' 2011, numerous rneeting with major stakeholders in downtown development including our meeting on Zg`2OzIat Downtown, 3/i=,oeice and meeting with m;, 'Dean /orhdaon Friday April 15 2011. *e *ou/d i|Ke co ciuz forward the hzUowngi RECOMMENDATION z �ouncy tod/rect zhe Do* 8oarC1 3ccord,r2:to im authority Section 2040} to uut 7c'*a re, cndidges and budget cyho|dinganothe,�enp,a/ o 8oa.d idegsrd to Fine`i:ja/ ^ilana�ement Vobnin:at 0ene'a/ oxer:ts K1e*t{rg . Pm^/Vctmg and Re:oonsibi|/tiesas Lona/ 2oa,d into rine/' po|ic/es practices snd omcedure accc,uini ,o Section 205(21 the ^xvnicipa. �'z. 5ect/or 2 Ac and g,uids!inesbytne 4t Hcus!nS �|�ha nd000xa:d/n,best 0,acticps suggested bv City s1:3F: 3 70 spuoint#a}o,oftne N|ags'a to on Dnirntown boa; dofManagement RATIONALE Since Downtown Board of Management never officially requested approval of new elected members according to disputed February General Elections we would like Council to follow our requests and Clerks Department recommendations. According to Clerks Department Report dated April 1C 2011, on page 4 under FILL THEV,ACANCOES OR NOT FILL THE VACANCIES that the elections of the Board were legal, we would like to state that there was serious actions taken by the employees of the Downtown BIA and some members of the previous Downtown Management Board to °u^dermined voting of gene membership embership There were name. aus examples as such: n i who is ti to vote (owners, tenants, • General rr.embership was not informed appro :atei'r v provi etc.) ship was not given adequate me to T Financial Statements from the • General previous year new proposed Budget (even voting ballot itself was shamefully prepared) of .hp tin r allowed d ' .o d,. he' were _ a s t` t meeting. * Some ' �{ the members were nG a �v to even a Some of the members of the Downtown Board of Management were elected even do they were not being present on the mee ;ng List of the otne' actEons taken oi v e mentioned ndividua.s that are not accorcEng to poi:c es and procedure, T.! be ` , a.rded ` a r, pa ~e+" re=aueSt r c elect two _ riidit Gr3` o`f _ or to leave the L:.l. -. �i, iii to the above ..., -. .L�i �� not ,. the `. position_ vacant. recommendatior.s and lo, ciao S erE, n ot eot take: . -' ` ._.. ecc0 a g'y i.order to. crotect r i the Downtown. � '� n t in regards to our request. that Council appoints Mayor Janes dat to sit o Management we would iike to remind you tinat previous Mayor was invoked in the same capacity + ? the Downtown Board of Management and on that way you would show to cur general membership that you fully support downtown development plans -- _ - -- - __ - (4/18/2011) Dean lorfida - HNDI and the BIA Page 1 - -- From: "Mordechai Grun" <mgrun @historicniagara.com> To: "'Dragan Racic "' < dragan @drlinksinternational.com >, <nemanja.kuntosl @gma... CC: "Mordechai Grun" <mgrun @historicniagara.com> Date: 4/18/2011 12:22 PM Subject: HNDI and the BIA To all, HNDI is pleased to see that there are a growing number of people that want to be involved with the BIA and the direction that the street is moving in. In order for the street to be successful, all merchants should be involved in some capacity to ensure a successful downtown. The more that an entire community cares about the outcome of a project of this magnitude, the more it will help the process flourish and succeed. HNDI agrees that it would be wise to have a new general election for the BIA and going into these new elections it should be known that HNDI does not want to control the BIA; HNDI wants a successful BIA. A successful BIA can be achieved through the following: The BIA budget needs to be reasonable and within the BIA's core mandate. The BIA needs to provide value to the stakeholders. including the large stakeholders. A financial threshold needs to be established where anything above that threshold, HNDI as well as other major stake holders need to be involved in the decision. The BIA should operate on its core mandates: Beautification and marketing. If there is a disagreement between HNDI and other stakeholders, though finding a resolution will be attempted between the parties, we may look to council for guidance and assistance in how to resolve the issue. HNDI wants a strong and successful BIA; HNDI also wants to be sure that the value that the BIA provides is equivalent to the amount of taxes that HNDI contributes to the budget; every other stakeholder feels the same way. As for the downtown as a whole, we think that we can all agree that in order for the downtown to be successful, HNDI needs to be successful. HNDI, however, cannot achieve this on its own. The downtown currently has thousands of decrepit square feet and there is no way to revitalize it without millions of dollars of investment. This is a co- dependant relationship between a city and a developer- the city needs the developer to revitalize the downtown as much as the developer needs the city to assist in the revitalization process. In order to be successful, the city needs to make the downtown a priority; a plan needs to be created; a strategy and set of priorities must be established. The city should also recognize that HNDI is a major stakeholder on the street and deserves to be involved in major decisions such as how the ISF money should be spent and designed. We should all agree that the downtown cannot be revitalized on a piecemeal basis. Through leadership from (4/18/2011) Dean Iorfida - HNDI and the BIA Page 2 the Mayor and City Council, the downtown should have a clear vision and a plan of action on how to achieve this vision as we continue to make this a great downtown. HNDI needs to know that the city is committed to the downtown revitalization. Without the city's commitment, HNDI cannot commit to the downtown either; both parties need each other to succeed. As the weather continues to change, so will the downtown. We are planning great things this year and look forward to the continued development of this revitalization project. HNDI continues to support any initiative that will benefit the downtown and looks forward to working with the BIA, stakeholders. merchants and the city in this great endeavour. Kindest regards, Mordechai Grun CEO Historic Niagara Developments Inc. (4/18/ Dean lot-fide - results Page From: <bia @niagarafallsdowntown.com> To: <ioannoni @niagarafalls.ca> Date: 3/21/2011 2:29 PM Subject: results Attachments: Carole MacDonald.vcf Please find listed below the election tally results: Bess Georgakakos - 27 + 37 = 64 Dan Trifkovic - 6 Dermot O'Kane - 32 Linda Abbott - 9 Lisa Elliot - 20 Lori Lococo - 28 Lorrie Penteluke - 11 Nemanja kuntos - 14 Roger Thompson - 35 Arlene White - 25 + 37 = 62 Kevin Clement - 18 + 37 = 55 Dave Govan - 25 + 37 = 62 Dr. Joanna Hill - 11 + 37 = 48 Joe Mrkalj - 28 + 37 = 65 Mordechai Grun - 24 + 37 = 61 Phil Ritchie - 21 + 37 = 58 Tony Barranca - 25 + 37 = 62 John Newby - 32 With thanks, Carole (4/18/2011) Dean lorfida - Fwd: signatures & results recap Page 1 From: Janice Wing <janice_wing ©cogeco.ca> To: Dean lorfida <diorfida ©niagarafalls.ca >, CITY COUNSIL <council ©niagarafa... CC: Ross Barr <mail ©scottstrailerpark.com> Date: 4/17/2011 6:45 PM Subject: Fwd: signatures & results recap Begin forwarded message: > From: "N. Shahani " <nshahani ©gmail.com> > Date: April 17, 2011 6:40:08 PM EDT > To: Janice Wing <janice_wing ©cogeco.ca> > Subject: signatures & results recap > Janice. > I forgot to mention that the three signatures at the bottom of the page belong to myself, Hilary Sitlani and Fran Berry > Recap of Results for your convenience: > Election Results: > The newly elected board consists of the following; > 1. Mark Cahill with 29 votes > 2. Inderpal Hansra with 23 votes > 3. Navin Shahani with 21 votes > 4_ David Khurana with 21 votes > 5. Ross Barr with 21 votes > 6. Veena Shahani with 20 votes > 7. Baljit Singh Sheena with 20 votes > 8. Tajinder Kaur Singh with 19 votes > 9. Hardev Dhillon with 19 votes > 10. Arvind Vyas with 18 votes > 11. Indris A. Butt with 17 votes > 12. Hilary Sitlani with 16 votes > 13. George Trianopoulos with 16 votes > 14. Tied between 4 candidates all having 15 votes each; > Tony Vommero, Tish DiBellonia, William 0, and Trevor Barr which is to be discussed with City Clerk and Council as to how we approach this "tie ". MW- 2011 -08 Niagaraaa1IS April 18, 2011 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Committee of the Whole City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW- 2011 -08 Downtown Revitalization Project - Phase 2 - Streetscape Queen Street - St. Lawrence Avenue to Erie Avenue Tender Results Contract 2011- 240 -10 RECOMMENDATION 1. The contract be awarded to the lowest bidder Al Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. at the tendered price of $ 989,819.53. 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Niagara Falls City Council previously approved recommendations contained in Report MW- 2009-84 on November 30, 2009 directing staff to proceed with a phased implementation plan for the Downtown (Queen Street) Infrastructure Revitalization Project. On January 25, 2010, City Council approved the recommendation set out in report MW- 2010-01 to award the Downtown Infrastructure Revitalization Phase 1 project to Peter's Excavating Inc. The First Phase has been completed and is currently under the maintenance period. The Second Phase is scheduled to commence between April 26, 2011 and May 27, 2011 and between September 6, 2011 and November 25, 2011. Work will not take place during the summer months in order to minimize the impact on local businesses. This project will include the replacement of the existing sidewalks, curb adjustments, street signage and the addition of new streetscape features such as bollards, street trees and concrete treatments. BACKGROUND The City of Niagara Falls completed extensive streetscaping work on Queen Street back in the early /mid 1980's which included a significant investment on the aboveground infrastructure. These features are now requiring some upgrading and replacement in order to help the local businesses re -brand and revitalize commercial activity in the Downtown Core. The Community Improvement Plan (CIP) recognized that the use of the public April 18, 2011 -2- MW- 2011 -08 spaces in the Downtown BIA would play a large role in returning this area to a successful business district. Staff has worked closely with the Downtown BIA to finalize the design and source the appropriate streetscape features that will be constructed under the second phase of the project. The Tender Opening Committee, in the presence of the City Clerk, Mr. Dean lofrida, opened tenders on at 1:30 p.m. Thursday, April 14, 2011 for the above noted contract. Tender documents were picked up by thirteen (13) Contractors and seven (7) bids were received. Listed below is a summary of the totalled tendered prices, excluding HST, received from the Contractors. The tenders were checked and the corrected bids are shown in bold and marked with an asterisk (*). Firm City Tender Price Corrected Bid 1. Al Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. Burlington, ON $989,819.87 *$989,819.53 2. Centennial Construction Niagara -On -The Lake, On $1,092,073.00 3. Stevensville Lawn Service Stevensville, On $1,109,405.00 *$1,109,705.00 4. Alfidome Construction Ltd. Niagara Falss, On $1,156,835.00 5. Steed & Evans Ltd. Thorold, On $1,158,170.00 6. Rankin Construction St. Catharines, ON $1,167,208.00 7. Brennan Paving Ltd. Prot Colborne, On $1,235,272 50 *1,235,262.50 ANALYSIS /RATIONALE The lowest tender was received from Al Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. in the amount of $989,819.53. This contractor has not performed similar type projects for the City. It is for this reason, staff felt it necessary to contact the submitted references. Three (3) references were contacted, one (1) at the Town of Oakville, and two (2) at the City of Hamilton. The projects ranged in value from $335,000 to $950,000 and consisted of an annual utility cut contract, concrete work at a transit facility and a street reconstruction. The street reconstruction project was completed on King Street in downtown Dundas. This project is very similar to the Queen Street project in that there was significant sidewalk and curb work, a local Business Improvement Association (BIA) involved and multiple businesses on the street. References spoke very highly of Al Asphalt Maintenance in terms of their workmanship, safety and traffic control, adherence to the construction schedule and their interaction with the public. Based on the information received from the three (3) references, we are of the opinion that this contractor is capable of successfully undertaking this project. The project is scheduled to be completed by November 25, 2011. April 18, 2011 -3- MW- 2011 -08 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff have been working within the $2,278,100 budget allocated for Phase 2 of the overall project. To date the project expenses include: Consultant Fees $10,000 Sound System $74,000 Archways $397,935 Committed to Date $481,935 The award of this contract for the sidewalk and beautification amenities (approximately $990,000) bring the total to $1,471,935. This leaves approximately $806,165 to complete the balance of the project including; • Eastern Gateway Improvements • Streetlighting Rehabilitation • Streetscape Furnishing • Downtown Park Further recommendations on these features will be presented to Council over the course of this Summer. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT This recommendation is consistent with Council's strategic priorities; • To enhance economic vitality • To invest in infrastructure • To promote a healthy and safe community LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Downtown Revitalization Phase 2 - Streetscape Queen Street Presentation 2. Tender Summary - Contract 2011 - 240 -10 3. Letter - Downtown Board of Management - March 30, 2011 Recommended by: Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: Ken To d, Chief Administrative Officer G.Holman _ CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS --� TENDER SUMMARY N''iagaraatl1 S CONTRACT #2011 - 240 -10 Downtown Infrastructure Revitalization Phase 2 - Streetscape Queen Street - St. Lawrence Avenue to Erie Avenue DATE: April 14, 2011 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: S 950,000.00 CONTRACT TIME: November 25, 2011 TENDER DEPOSIT: S 50,000.00 ADDENDUMS ISSUED: 1 FIRM TENDER PRICE CORRECTED BID Peter's Excavating Inc. Phone: 905- 991 -1313 3976 Bowen Road Fax: 905 -991 -1603 Stevensville, ON LOS ISO Stevensville Lawn Service Phone: 905- 382 -3536 2821 Stevensville Road Fax: 905- 382 -3580 S1,109,405.00 S1,109,705.00 Stevensville, ON LOS ISO Curbline Inc. Phone: 905 -562 -7891 2568 Honsberger Avenue Fax: 905- 562 -4774 Jordan Station, ON LOK ISO Peninsula Construction Phone: 905 -892 -2661 2055 Kottmeier Road, R.R. #1 Fax: 905 - 892 -4692 Fonthill, ON LOS 1E6 Steed & Evans Ltd. Phone: 905 -227 -2994 3551 Leslie Street Fax: 905 -227 -2793 S1,158,170.00 Thorold, ON L2V 3Y7 Rankin Construction Phone: 905 -684 -1 111 222 Martindale Road Fax: 905 -684 -2260 S1,167,208.00 St. Catharines, ON L2R 7A3 Alfidome Construction Ltd. Phone: 905- 371 -1701 1701 Thorold Townline Road, R.R. #2 Fax: 905- 371 -1744 $1,156,835.00 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6S5 Norjohn Construction Phone: 905- 371 -0809 9101 Brown Road Fax: 905- 371 -9724 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6S5 Centennial Construction Phone: 905 - 708 -0123 353 Townline Road Fax: 905- 708 -0155 S1,092,073.00 Niagara -on- the -Lake, ON LOS 1J0 Sacco Construction Phone: 905 - 354 -0461 4530 Drummond Road Fax: 905 -357 -4148 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6C7 Brennan Paving Ltd. Phone: 905- 835 -8413 198 Welland Street Fax: 905- 835 -8338 51,235,272.50 S1,235,262.50 Port Colborne, ON L3K 5V7 A -1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. Phone: 905 -631 -7308 2233 Harold Road Fax: 905 -631 -5496 S989,819.87 S989,819.53 Burlin ton, ON L7P 2J6 Peter's Landscaping Phone: 905 -651 -3457 320 South Pelham Road Fax: 905- 732 -5782 Welland, ON L3B 5N8 S Capital and Current Projects1201 1 Contracts1201 1- 240 -10 Queen StreetCCender Summary n pd 7 DowneNrn NagamFaij ' Bo t •i : ?i March 30, 2011 Mr. Dean lorfida City Clerk City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E BX5 Dear Mr. lorfida: The BIA Board of Directors put forth and passed these motions at last night's meeting of March 29th, in regards to the sidewalks, they are as follows: 1. Tony Barranca seconded Dave Govan The BIA would like the City to proceed with the tendering of sidewalks' — unanimous — passed 2. Dave Govan seconded Joe Mrkalj 'The BIA would like construction to start at St. Lawrence Avenue heading East to Crysler Avenue as the first block starting preferably on the North side' — unanimous - passed If anything further is required please do not hesitate to contact the office. Sincerely, Toni Williams General Manager Downtown Board of Management Office & Mailing Address Tel: 905 -356 -5444 4660 Queen Street Fax: 905 -356 -5667 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 2L8 biaruniaearafallsdowntown.com www.queenstreetniagarafalls.com utin Revita lization D owntown ..F. '' S A'2 treetsca ' ' phas-, pe Street -;- Q --- ip :- ,. E Ave. .-,..•.. „„... Ave. to At. . ,v,....- . .. 1 ` ,..., ta - i - noen Lawrence .....,,,,,, . ,--4.z.Ti.i. !-w,t,,,,,,,,p4,31,-.7.4ii-,24.,t1;;=,:*,ii,i&-, , -- re eittatt n--1.-- .,4* r''N-..'; '. ' , - ;1 '. --.., 4:',• ' , .., -.7- - . apa -.:-A ati :•;f1t,tiz.-;.-:::: ..t s city Council .-- ,--- A. .--- ' ---- •' , 4,4,-.4.-, , PA -,,-- ,, r, --, • i ,....: --,.-' ' ,,..,-t -,,,,,,,,:• . ',,•-- L :- , -3rti:" ' `v--•.t. P'IS-fl'I'' e ..,_ ,i- ,c4-.'144- ,,...,<IC ' „- --1 • ";:'......1,--nr].7' , t qtri , .. F - Existing . CO nci It' ons • Q streetscape Queen thtarte„.ne,7t„, h:;4;4:1,-.°11,:a:4 : n d r a e s s numerous s s i ed p ' k ;m-le clean- :1 issues uen__ Street A i ,*.K.,,•-__:,',..--,i,v5.i..i..7-4.-:,71J't•!7-','-:.,4-.:'-'-;---''-'5';-;','''=--1:12 th e.erv.ce life __ , , 4-.4: : L f . ' 7- '' - :_ + ° i I - ..; y ,-, pi ,': 11,-.---P: ---,..:,1-,;..,:;-_-:-.: ,...tzr.--.:ii,_ ,---,‘-, _.•::.,::::-.. 'I'''.'", ' ° ... a... , , is* , !' _= „ t ,,„7:,,,,-,.,....., .., -.. ,-...; -,- -,--: ..--,-..*;7:Atf-r.',:;,:" 1 t '... -.:-.1- ';t- Acesti,74,-.4'-7“. .:7,5-,,k,t--,f-A-k-,?,,,,k-:,:/:. ; -.- ',:w. k ,,,, ,_"`;" . , , - ' -il :l'arf-'4,1X'3,41:4-_,;,-.;-°-_,-7f,-,--,---,Z=1, •=-71L; --7,-''f'''''kl,-._;„-i,-:---t-6----'"- ' ' - T7 '-''-'-'''''''':-.,c-,,:if ,•71,- '4-,-,-;',-=‘''" Existing C o ,,.,_-,..--f---- • Some s a reas &� g� - f, tr have poor drainag : 1 j .wt, ns �, • Deteriora 1 .%-- n ter 14- s tone. - r : 1 ; onditi t. Existing C onditions - , 4 • Chicanes have been ' ` removed bu curbs need to be realigned, per d retuire , repiacement. , ' .x - k,w � a Cs� k 3 ,z 5 a� Existing Conditions - 1 ,.„-,,,A,,, ,,.,,,,.,,,,..,_.- • Some trees have roots ,,,....,,,,,,,,,„, ts,,,.,, 1,14, . th _ _ _ _ I --- effect the sidewalk _3,TITZ.1. ! 1 trees in poo ., .7_,- ...,,2,. ,,,,,....,4 ... • 1„.. ,r , r,.-1 , -m,a, .- i ,_-_,• .,, _ 1 hbpith. ' --.71,4,,,, - .,. - - , l 1 - 4., u , .-- _...... , ,.... --. -,..... Stakeholder Consultation • A design group of City staff and Downtown BIA members. • Designs were p . - :., ,..„ ... • ,..- ....4iia......:„*.., i . ,rs it etitecl at 2010 p ri. ' Y..._ ;14.- , •, - P , Z;` , : - zvLit r# V - ---- .I- :ii--t 4.• , , Tt. 4l re .., ,,,,, , w , d er taken with - 49 „ ,„G --_- 2010 • t4, ri t It r. ,-, .-0 trifeb.'-l' --4 — .., -• _-- , , , , ........„-_,....,---- , t ,, --lit r•-•;- V '4 ' ---. - ..-...1 1 -: '' F ri - ' 1- ilde comments, ,..,,.... -_--„,, -f 6 visii -,.ti –.... ,... — ■ " i 4 : me !!,- wily 04 lotugust 1 1 .- 1, 'Y ,---. .7 20 t- A , e „..-, „..„. Goals • Through stakeholder consultation goals for the project were developed. They include; — Provide for expa reta opportunities, . Q civ re , .ca fe s and eve � - i e $ o mo o ' a and establish branding. .. 3 �a e he f0 o wr t ourist attraction 4 14 1 - 3 4...,',.. inn e ize r u ► is p iol� luring construction No m r k aur g e , season New Streetscape Design Highl • Widen concrete sidewalks with banding, • Asphalt roadways narrowed to 7m, icrt - � , , t ,ifs a able curbs and a it ' '' g, 3e u. .� t €,- :'met �, -, k . , New Streetscape Cross - Section ----- _ 1-- ,,. r # 4 ' ..4,, * '•: ,I ' , - -- 1 I gt f-S - * -,•4_,-,-\------i,...- . ____ - ,___. q 1 ,_,_,-, ,-------- __.11•1111...LI W -=--- Afr r 1 i 1 1 - a Se. C=33 3 3rn An ..3 Zo as m .sos 3,n Flex.eParta., Arca Gana. 5,3maa ■ i New Streetscape • St.Lawrence Ave. to Crysler Ave. ,‹ I l f - -- na 1111110 .' ' Al. vl›. I tc < 1 c., New Streetscape • Crysler Ave. to St.Clair Ave. • • New Streetscape • St.Clair Ave. to Ontario Ave. f - r _ • z o New Streetscape • Ontario Ave. to E Ave. , - ... . . '.' , • _ 1 . • . , _ __,-.__„,..., - •,_•:- -.:::.•-„,„---r---.••-•74,--' i. .,,A.a „ _ -, ----,4,- - . - -- ----,,,,, --.•-, ; - : - -.4 -1-4,-7,-- _, .. - - --- --- ""----- 1 New Streetscape pre • All new .-,,,,.::.:,,-;_:,_:•F,F,:,•7::,,,,, trees & served trees receive soil cells I; ,• / _.---,,,=.,-.----- : ,-„ - -- - ,.:-,,, • ,,,,, New Streetscape tl V i;'-' .:.-:•,:.,4--i*s;,:*41-f,;ii: .... ""----'''' ---"r: - ' 4:44 -=-_--- .- -a- --- E --:- - -7-. : ="- ---,- - -=7---- -7---•_ = - ' ,...--L ' efl- - - ,,,- ..-:'..-,;.: ■ ' ` ' . - -„-e.-: i-,,,,, -. Y 7 -' , "?-7,-;.--1. -7 - - - T ... k t, w Wr.'-' ,,- ,-,-, ' ;- fi.:.?- r'=":"7 ' ,,, , 7, . .,,--:':';'-' - -:-:-.7-'-''' r'-'• , i;;,.' - :41 ,_ I% ;:4; -.7 777: - . "...•..- le -,; - R-4 New Streetscape Where are we now? • Sidewalk, curb, bollard and tree work tender closed for approval, „_-...„..„-- -. - ' ' S s installed, :1 A .4 ` -''' ''' ' '`''''''fi sal 1 atio h s in4) rogress, ,.. 1 -_,.-. _.;-- 7--..--,-,:i-alms-.s..ft.slil-riX:i.-1n.z.' ' ;7 -7-- '‘ "-"----'''' issued, _ .., . .... 1 tr 1 -.- 111 - ':;1_ F P 4 1-4_- ,g - 0 ; RP ...,: ' .1 etng p : ep • Site fultli tende .._ de..:,..,. New St reetscape Next Steps • Sidewalk, curb, bollar and tree work A pr. to May 20 and S ep t . to Nov. 2011, • : Street F J ul y , to Nov 2011, • t A rch in stallatio n s Mid-s 2 011 , bti A S um m e r 0� ''t' : -. r to park design, • , East an W est ga d construction su bject to future budget ap `r Downtown Rev Questions z ' - t ` � , s -fit :4/18/2011) Andrew Bryce - Re: Circulation of OP /Zoning Application to CN Rail, Filer-AM- 2010 -008, 4825Pettit Ave, Niagil::�E1. From: <nick.coleman @cn.ca> dizln _ • To: "Andrew Bryce" <abryce @niagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/1/2011 9:52 AM Subject: Re: Circulation of OP /Zoning Application to CN Rail, File AM- 2010 -008, 4825Pettit Ave, Niagara Falls Attachments: 0980 - FIGURE 5 -SITE PLAN_Mar8- 11.pdf; CN.Itr.pdf; Easement in gross.pdf; PML .pdf; Railway Noise Consultants.pdf CC: "Ken Mech" <kmech @niagarafalls.ca >, Alex Herlovitch <aherlovitch @niagara... Andrew, I've taken a look a the updated plan, and included below, CN comments to Alex Herlovitch from last August 2010, which continues to apply to the updated drawing. I have not been able to find a noise and vibration report or evidence of any emails from Chris Millar (perhaps a phone call), though I may have received one previously, and would appreciate if you could forward a copy by email in .pdf. Looking at the plan, no noise barrier is apparent, which may be acceptable given there does not appear to be any outside amenity planned for the apartments. However, the rear yards of the townhouses will not be completely shielded by the apartments and localised barriers may be required. We would like an opportunity to review the SWM report to ensure the drainage pattern currently existing on the railway right -of -way will not be adversely affected under all storm scenarios, both from a rate and volume point of view. The principal main line requirements in the attachment are requested to be included in the conditions of approval, and the minimum 30 metre setback of dwellings from the railway property line, enshrined in the Zoning By -law. Regards, Nick Nick Coleman B.Sc. Manager, Community Planning & Development CN Business Development & Real Estate 905 - 760 -5007 w Fax: 905 - 760 -5010 w NICK.COLEMAN @cn.ca 1 Administration Road, Concord, ON L4K 1B9 Forwarded by Nick Coleman /COLEMA02 /CNR /CA on 2011/04/01 09:29 AM- 2010 -008, 4825 Pettit Avenue Nick Coleman to: aherlovitch 2010/08/26 15:04 r1 1 APR 1 8 2011 Pi ANNiNG & DEVELOP (4/- ) Andrew t g App — — ji : ::, 4/18/2011 Andrew Bryce - Re: Circulation of OP/Zoning Application to CN Rail, FileV�AM- 2010 -008, 4825Pettit Ave, Nia EZ Alex, introduction of new residential development adjacent railway operations is no appropriate without attenuation measures incorporated into the design of the proposal to reduce the inherent incompatibility and potential for complaints. The proposal is adjacent CN's Stamford Subdivision, that is classified as a principal main line. I have attached the applicable standard residential development requirements which should be included as conditions of approval. It is noted from Schedule 1, that our 30 metre setback requirement for dwellings and a safety berm have already been incorporated into the design, though the berm which should measure 2.5 metres above grade at the property line, appears to be too low, and indicated as only 1.2 metres. • Unless the railway is in a cut or there is a coincident ditch near the property line from which the elevation may have been measured, the height will need to be increased. Regarding the OPA and ZBA, provided subsequent approval of the development proposal includes conditions to satisfactorily address CN's concerns, we will not object to the applications, though we specifically request the minimum 30 metre dwelling setback requirement be enshrined in the By -law. Regards, Nick Nick Coleman B.Sc. Manager, Community Planning & Development CN Business Development & Real Estate 905 - 760 -5007 w Fax: 905 - 760 -5010 w NICK.COLEMAN @cn.ca 1 Administration Road, Concord, ON L4K 1B9 Canadian National Railway Properties 1 Administration Road Concord, Ontario L4K 1B9 PRINCIPAL MAIN LINE REQUIREMENTS A. Safety setback of habitable buildings from the railway rights -of -way to be a minimum of 30 metres in conjunction with a safety berm. The safety berm shall be adjoining and parallel to the railway rights -of -way with returns at the ends, 2.5 metres above grade at the property line, with side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1. B. The Owner shall engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise. At a minimum, a noise attenuation barrier shall be adjoining and parallel to the railway rights -of -way, having returns at the ends, and a minimum total height of 5.5 metres above top -of -rail. Acoustic fence to be constructed without openings and of a durable material weighing not less than 20 kg. per square metre of surface area. Subject to the review of the noise report, the Railway may consider other measures recommended by an approved Noise Consultant. C. Ground -borne vibration transmission to be evaluated in a report through site testing to determine if dwellings within 75 metres of the railway rights -of -way will be impacted by vibration conditions in excess of 0.14 mm /sec RMS between 4 Hz and 200 Hz. The monitoring system should be capable of measuring frequencies between 4 Hz and 200 Hz, ±3 dB with an RMS averaging time constant of 1 second. If in excess, isolation measures will be required to ensure living areas do not exceed 0.14 mm /sec RMS on and above the first floor of the dwelling. D. The Owner shall install and maintain a chain link fence of minimum 1.83 metre height along the mutual property line. E. The following clause should be inserted in all development agreements, offers to purchase, and agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease of each dwelling unit within 300m of the railway right -of -way: "Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a rights -of -way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such rights -of -way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and /or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights -of- way." F. Any proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern affecting railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway and be substantiated by a drainage report to the satisfaction of the Railway. G. The Owner shall through restrictive covenants to be registered on title and all agreements of purchase and sale or lease provide notice to the public that the safety berm, fencing and vibration isolation measures implemented are not to be tampered with or altered and further that the Owner shall have sole responsibility for and shall maintain these measures to the satisfaction of CN. H. The Owner shall enter into an Agreement with CN stipulating how CN's concerns will be resolved and will pay CN's reasonable costs in preparing and negotiating the agreement. The Owner shall be required to grant CN an environmental easement for operational noise and vibration emissions, registered against the subject property in favour of CN. June 2008 AMENDMENT NUMBER TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS PART 1 - THE PREAMBLE 1.1 TITLE This Amendment when adopted by Council shall be known as Amendment Number to the Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls. 1.2 COMPONENTS The proposed amendment consists of two parts. "Part 1 — The Preamble" does not constitute part of the actual amendment and is supplied to provide background information to the reader. "Part 2 — The Amendment" shall serve as the actual and official text body of the amendment and is accompanied by "Schedule A" mapping that identifies the lands subject of the amendment. 1.3 PURPOSE The subject lands are currently designated as 'Industrial' in the Official Plan for City of Niagara Falls. The purpose of this Amendment is redesignate the lands to "Residential" to permit a redevelopment mix of street townhouses, semi - detached and/or single detached dwellings along the frontage of Cropp Street and Pettit Avenue with low to mid -rise apartment dwellings on lands behind and adjacent to the CNR lands. An amendment to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan is required in order to achieve residential permissions for these lands. 1.4 LOCATION The subject lands are described and located at: Lots 1 to 25 & Part of Block 'H' Registered Plan 108, Township of Stamford, now in the City of Niagara Falls, Regional Municipality of Niagara. The site comprises 4.22 ha. (10.45 ac.) and is known municipally as 4825 Pettit Avenue. The subject lands are illustrated of i Schedule 'A' attached hereto. 1.5 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT The basis of the Amendment is to permit conversion of retired /idle industrial lands for redevelopment of the site with increased residential densities through a mix of street townhouses, semi - detached and /or single detached dwellings on the existing road frontage and low to mid -rise residential apartment dwellings for remaining lands. The site has not been in operation as a manufacturing /processing facility for a number of years with no existing plans for re- establishing light industrial uses at this location. The site is also predominantly bounded by a low density residential neighbourhood interface and is considered to be orphaned industrial land in context with the land uses and physical constraints of its immediate surroundings. Conversion of the site to residential will permit the rounding out of the existing residential neighbourhood. Recently completed Growth Management Strategies of the Region of Niagara and the City of Niagara Falls have identified the projected population and housing requirements for the planning period extending to 2031. As part of its background study work the City of Niagara Falls commissioned a Comprehensive Municipal Review that concluded industrial land conversions will be required to meet with the population projections of the planning period. Responding to this identified need has prompted the application for Official Pian Amendment in meeting with the future Provincial, Regional and Local projections. PART 2 - THE AMENDMENT 2.1 PREAMBLE All of this part of the document entitled PART 2 - THE AMENDMENT, consisting of the explanatory text and the attached map, designated Schedule 'A' and attached hereto, constitutes Amendment No. to the Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls. 2.2 DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT The City of Niagara Falls Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. Schedule A to the Official Pian — Future Land Use, is hereby amended by redesignating the lands identified of Schedule A, attached hereto, and forming part of this amendment, from "Industrial" to "Residential"; 2. Section 14 — Special Policy Areas be amended to include the following text: 14.XX Special Policy Area XX includes lands lying on the northwest corner of Pettit Avenue and Cropp Street, comprising 4.22 hectares of land and known locally as the former Con -Agra food processing facility, be permitted to redevelop with a mix of residential form including street townhouses, semi - detached, and /or single detached dwellings and low to mid -rise apartment dwellings. 14.XX.1 Notwithstanding the density provisions of Sections of 1.7.1 and 1.7.2, that street townhouses, semi - detached, single detached or combination thereof, be permitted provided a net density range of 34 to 61 units per hectare is achieved. Net density in this instance recognizes the units will access existing public right of ways that have not been included as part of the density calculation. 14.XX.2 Notwithstanding the density provisions of Section 1.7.4, that multiple 4 to 6 storey apartment dwellings may establish on the site to a maximum net density 128 units per hectare. Net density for this calculation includes lands subject of the CNR 30m building setback and exclude lands fronting Pettit Avenue and Cropp Street that are identified in 14.XX.1. 14.XX.3 The implementing By -law contain appropriate regulations respecting setback and separation of built form on the same lot. 14.XX.4 In order to ensure that the lands can be developed for residential purposes, a Record of Site Condition must be filed with the Ministry of the Environment demonstrating compliance for the intended uses. 14.XX.5 The Council for the City of Niagara Falls may impose Holding Provisions (Planning Act, Section 36(1) R.S.O.) on the implementing by -law that would ensure compliance with Ministry of the Environment guidelines for residential use of the site. The Holding provision could be removed in whole or in part, after proof of compliance is demonstrated to the City and that furthermore, Council delegate authority to the Director of Planning & Development in processing the removal of the "H" holding symbol on the respective lands. 14.XX.6 Reduced parking standards of up to 17% may be considered for the apartment dwellings where Council is satisfied the proposed residential redevelopment will support transit use along Morrison Street and Dorchester Road and that underground parking is provided as part of the total requirement. 14.XX.7 Development of this site be permitted in phases and that relevant agreements acknowledge such permissions 14.XX.8 Consents may be permitted for : a) technical or legal purposes; b) where the municipality is satisfied that the consent will not prejudice the ultimate subdivision of the land; or c) in case of part lot control. Draft March 31, 2010 Revised July 21, 2010 Revised August 2, 2010 Revised March 3, 2011 Revised April 17, 2011 SCHEDULE 'A' TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT No. - G -- • m„ilm.NE ROAD OVE WI" 9 vailipip - t -_ m Mk n jill n a' EN DRIVE v o .. N , n n c DORE in sum W .:2 _ iiI i iiII1IIIIIII IJ II I LANDS To BE REDESIGNATED - �• `,poiP .••••• s•••••____ r FROM "INDUSTRIAL" TO '__ z �P \OAP\ "RESIDENTIAL" WM m cP�''00 MORRISON STREET o MORRISON STREET ' 1111111° � giiIIIIIIIII i . : . : . ! � ♦ ...... � o �i�1�. .�. TTE DRIVE 0 x ' J i .... 0. ..... ♦ `' '� BURDE� - i��i ��n o .. .�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�........�.�.�. Z - BRACKEN STREET ' v ► � . � . � . � . � . � . � . SUBJECT LANDS �� x 4 1°' '(\° CROFT C ROFT STREET ,--4 I GP� \ 9�F °r Mill „III N MI q� P O KEIFFER STREET � = ' i:111111111/.111 n ♦ G ‹ . O\ {� ..r m � u u� � 1111111111111111_ STREET i DAVISON NM IIMIIII OM THIS IS SCHEDULE 'A' TO OFFICIAL 1 1 PLAN AMENDMENT No. 0 DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1 TO 25 (BOTH INCLUSIVE) & PART OF BLOCK '1-1', REGISTERED PLAN 108, IN THE TOWNSHIP OF STAMFORD, NOW IN THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA APPLICANT: PALETTA INTERNATIONAL (1990) INC. N.T.S. CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By -law No. 2011 - A by -law to amend By -law No. 79 -200, to regulate street townhouses, semi- detached and single detached dwellings with frontage on Cropp Street and Pettit Avenue and multiple apartment dwellings with frontage and access from same, subject to specific regulations as set out herein. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Lands that are the subject of and affected by, the provisions of this by -law are described in Schedule 1 of this by -law and shall be referred to in this by -law as the "Lands ". Schedule 1 is a part of this by -law. 2. The purpose of this by -law is to amend the provisions of By -law No. 79 -200 to permit the use of the Lands in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by that by -law. In the case of any conflict between a specific provision of this by -law and any existing provision of Bylaw No. 79 -200, the provisions of this by -law are to prevail. 3. Notwithstanding any provision of By -law No. 79 -200 to the contrary, the following uses and regulations shall be the permitted uses and regulations governing the permitted uses on and of the Lands. 4. Residential Mixed Zone (R3 Zone) as modified for Street Townhouses The Regulations governing the permitted use shall be: a) Minimum lot area 150m per dwelling unit b) Minimum lot frontage 5.48m per dwelling unit c) Minimum front yard depth 6.0m to garage 4.5m to main wall d) Minimum rear yard depth 6.0m e) Minimum interior side yard width 1.25m to any lot or block line 2.50m separation between any two end walls 0.0m for any units sharing a vertical common wall ij Minimum exterior side yard width 3.0m to any lot or block line 3.0m to any private road (back of curb) g) Maximum lot coverage 55% h) Maximum height of building or structure 12m i) Minimum floor area 65m j) Maximum number of one family attached dwellings per block 9 k) Minimum Parking 2 spaces per dwelling inclusive of attached garage 1) Maximum driveway width 55% of lot frontage m) Accessory buildings and accessory structures In accordance with sections 4.13 and 4.14 5. Residential R3 Zone as modified for Semi - Detached (restricted to Cropp Street and/or Pettit Avenue frontage) The Regulations governing the permitted use shall be: a) Minimum lot area 450m per semi dwelling lot (2 units) b) Minimum lot frontage 16.5m per semi dwelling lot (2 units) c) Minimum front yard depth 6.0m to garage 4.5m to main wall d) Minimum rear yard depth 6.0m e) Minimum interior side yard width 1.5m to any lot or block line 3.0m separation between any two end walls 0.0m for any units sharing a vertical common wall f) Minimum exterior side yard width 3.0m to any lot or block line 3.0m to any private road (back of curb) g) Maximum lot coverage 55% h) Maximum height of building or structure 12m i) Minimum floor area per dwelling (1 unit) 75m j) Minimum Parking per dwelling (1 unit) 2 spaces inclusive of attached garage k) Accessory buildings and accessory structures In accordance with sections 4.13 and 4.14 6. Residential R3 Zone as modified for Single Detached (restricted to Cropp Street and /or Pettit Avenue frontage) The Regulations governing the permitted use shall be: a) Minimum lot area 270m b) Minimum lot frontage Interior Lot 10.0m Corner Lot 13.0m c) Minimum front yard depth 6.0m to garage 4.5m to main wall d) Minimum rear yard depth 6.0m e) Minimum interior side yard width 0.6m one side 1.2m other f) Minimum exterior side yard width 3.0m to any public road 3.0m to any private road (back of curb) g) Maximum lot coverage 50% h) Maximum height of building or structure 12m i) Minimum floor area 75m j) Minimum Parking 2 spaces inclusive of attached garage k) Accessory buildings and accessory structures In accordance with sections 4.13 and 4.14 7. Residential Apartment 5D Density Zone (R5D Zone) as modified In addition to those permitted uses stated under section 7.13.1, that "retirement home" be added. The Regulations governing the pen use shall be: a) Minimum lot area 78m per dwelling unit b) Minimum lot frontage 3 Om c) Minimum front yard depth 7.5m d) Minimum rear yard depth 7.0m from any property line e) Minimum interior side yard width 30m from Rail Right of Way 7.0m from any other property line 12m separation between any two apartment dwellings f) Minimum exterior side yard width 7.5m g) Maximum lot coverage 30% h) Maximum height of building or structure 22m to a maximum of 6 storeys i) Minimum floor area 1 bedroom - 37m 2 bedroom - 55m 3 bedroom - 75m j) Maximum number of apartment buildings 5 k) Minimum Parking 1.17 spaces per dwelling unit I) Accessory buildings and accessory structures In accordance with sections 4.13 and 4.14 m) Minimum landscaped open space 35% In addition to the regulations for apartment dwellings above, driveway access shall be permitted to Cropp Street and Pettit Avenue. For the purposes of this By -law, the lot frontage for the apartment dwellings is deemed to be the frontage of Pettit Avenue. 8. All other applicable regulations set out in By -law No. 79 -200 shall continue to apply to govem the permitted uses on the Lands, with all necessary changes in detail. 9. No person shall use the Lands for a use that is not a permitted use. 10. No person shall use the Lands in a manner that is contrary to the regulations. 11. The provisions of this By -law shall be shown on Sheet C3 of Schedule "A" of By -law No. 79 -200 by redesignating the Lands from `LI' to `R3 and R5D' accompanied by number 12. Section 19 of By -law No. 79 -200 is amended by adding thereto: 19.1. Refer to By -law No. 2011- Passed this day of , 2011. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JIM DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: , 2011 Second Reading: , 2011 Third Reading: , 2011 Revised August 2, 2010 Revised August 27, 2010 Revised March 3, 2011 Revised April 17, 2011 SCHEDULE '1' TO BY -LAW No. 2011- , LEGEND: \ R3 //// R5D a o =- 1111111UER.YGROVE ( '11r ,-7 ROAD y m , y_ - p ''' GF \ I ( m m MI o DOREEN DRIVE IIII 11111i11111 L_Ljr,-i �1• \ k <' 1= c \,_ _ _ ) „ Gpap0 MORRISON STREET MORRISON STREET ' I i _ gURDETTE D RIVE • o \_-0,,, I NINE ® m \ i ml o / z _ BRACKEN STREET o \ �� p � SUBJECT LANDS4 F I 0.. PI II �p Z\ O� P \ \\\\\\ \ / CROPP STREET ill .„ C. 01''' 1 111 _ I , F L P, E � KEIFFER STREET IIIIE n F ti � , non G O�{ ... . almilim------==ros II = = m _ =vI -1 u u 11W111 I. !9 IIlIIIlU 1 I DAWSON STREET -• A 4 AMENDING ZONING BY —LAW No. 79 -200 O DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1 TO 25 (BOTH INCLUSIVE) & PART OF BLOCK 'H', REGISTERED PLAN 108, IN THE TOWNSHIP OF STAMFORD, NOW IN THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA APPLICANT: PALETTA INTERNATIONAL (1990) INC. N.T.S. • _,- ��a rninq � 4886 Pettit Ave c � , Niagara Falls, ON, L2E 6L6 r j // March 22,2011 yyy / Z / / Alex Herlovitch Director of Planning, Building & Development City of Niagara Falls To whom it may concern: I writing in response to City File: AM -2010 -008, re housing proposal for applicant Paletta International (1990) Inc. First and foremost, my wife and I are completely opposed to this proposal. The selection of a family home is a very personal Endeavour. We selected this particular location because of its quiet neighborhoods, closeness to schools and low volumes of traffic. The proposed homes would definitely put an end to that. Living in a society such as we do, this kind of thing should not be imposed on anybody, it's certainly immoral but probably not illegal ( it should be). Ultimately we as citizens should have the final choice of what kind of neighborhood we would like to live in. In this day and age where quality of life is highly regarded, this proposal will most likely have a negative impact on everyone near it, during and after the construction. I'm personally not against having houses built across the street from my home. However, 1 am against the extreme high density of this housing proposal. On the east side of Pettit from Cropp to Burdette there are 6 homes, the proposed west side will have 27 residences. That means I'll look across the street and see 4 to 5 home over the width of my lot. To me, this seems a little ridiculous. I also don't think there should be special dispensation given for reductions in lot area, lot frontage, front, rear, and side yards. It has also been proposed to have tandem parking spaces for the townhouses, this will allow for approx. 54 parking spaces. That's an awful lot of extra traffic for the street. To sum things up, my new proposed view will be a total eyesore. A more acceptable proposal would be to match the current housing type and densities in the neighborhood. That covers to some extent my dislike for the proposed homes that will be directly in my view. The entire project is somewhat of a joke. These people are proposing a total of 450 new residences, both townhome and apartments. This will add anywhere from 450 to maybe 1,400 people to a very small area. Again there will be from 450 to 900 more vehicles added to an infrastructure that having problems coping with current loading. Another concern of mine relates to the demographic of the intended inhabit for these apartments. Let's face it, high density near a high speed train line. I don't think it will be high end housing. It would also appear that all the traffic from this complex will empty out onto secondary streets, shouldn't this complex empty onto a primary road like Morrison or Dorchester. I know there a lot of logistics involved in doing this, but this should be considered in the decision. There was a person at the city meeting in September that attested to some results taken and that traffic flow would be not problem. Unfortunately these studies are not always accurate and once the complex is build nothing would ever be done if a problem had arisen. I personally don't want my tax dollars going to upgrade infrastructure for a project I don't want to be a party to. I attended the first meeting regarding this proposal in I believe it was September of 2010. Andrew Bryce spoke of specific areas within Niagara Falls that where proposed to be ultra high density areas. My question is why was the public not informed of this. Had I know the city had this little nut up their collective sleeves, I would have tried to move out of this area earlier, now I'm afraid I'll be stuck here with a deflated home value. Further with regards to that Sept. meeting the representatives from Palleta Inter'I, there responses to most of the questions where evasive and in most cases they talked around the concerns of the people. They are a middle man and have no interest in what the existing inhabitants wish. They're only interest is in profit, I really hope this isn't a driving factor for the City of Niagara Fails. Another issue brought up was the need for more housing because increases in the population of Niagara Falls, I do belive that Niagara Falls has grown from 75,000 in the mid 80's to about 83,000 currently. The statistics given at the Setp meeting suggested much higher increases. Truth be told, there are no descent paying long RECEIVED APR 1 4 2011 DI Amrsi UAlt; types of employment in this city. This city is basically a bedroom community for out of town workers. What the city actually needs to do is attract some industry. Ironically the proposed site is the death spot for over 200 descent paying full time jobs_ Another concern of mine is the affect this type of housing project will have on my property value. My guess is, it will decrease. I don't want to get stuck living across from a project like this, I don't think to many people would, would you. I'm afraid that the appreciation my home has gotten of the years will be lost, who would want to live across from something like what is being proposed. Are we, the people living directly across from thing going be compensated in any way, I don't think so. Further more, I don't wish to endure the stink, noise, mess and inconvenience of what will be a least a two year project for which there is no benefit for me in any way, shape of form. It will only prove to be a headache and a pain in the rear for everyone living nearby area, during construction and for years to come. I closing, I just like to say that there is really no need for this kind of housing complex. There is no market for it, (unless it's low income housing), the specific land isn't zoned for it, and it will only increase the conjestion of an already conjested area. Bottom line, it's a waste of time and energy. Sincerely, Mark Piech & Judy Piech /e / 6 8 /%/ April 8. 2011 Alex Herlovitch Director Of Planning & Development Dear Sir: In that I cannot attend the Public meeting, regarding the proposed development of 4825 Pettit Ave. and surrounding lands, I am writing to express my disapproval and concern regarding this intensification project. Of special concern, from my understanding, is that there is no exit to Morrison St. and the impact of added car traffic at LaMarsh and Morison, Cropp or Dawson and Dorchester will choke traffic especially around train movement thru the area. Secondly, "the not in my backyard" issue has to be addressed; Niagara Falls has never had any such development for citizens to fully comprehend the impact. I have resided in downtown Toronto since 1971 and also own a house on Bracken St. This proposal conjures up the Regent Park Housing complex where one only has to study it's history to see why it was deemed a bad idea and is now dismantled. One would think that we would need more Senior's residences what with the aging demographic -- -would it not make sense to build this type of residence in an area which is so close to all amenities? The section closer to Dorchester already has businesses in keeping with the light industrial designation, so why not expand on that? Housing in Niagara is very affordable in comparison to other cities one and a half hours drive from Toronto; therefore, my question is - - -Do we simply need more housing for an expected migration to Niagara Falls (Retirees ?) or more low -rent, subsidized housing? I'm afraid the proposed density suggests the latter and whenever there is this many people housed in a confined area next to a train track yet, the image is not a favourable one. I was once told by a proud neighbour that we live right in the centre of Niagara Falls. How unfortunate that the Niagara Intensification plan would allow for the creation of a potential slum -like complex in the heart of the city! Sincerely, RECEIVED APR 1 4 2011 3 N 'oc-ke-rN �l k Pi aNN `ti - 1 0. f a_as �J CtEvEL�JPrI T� �. (4/18/2011) Dean lorfida - PD- 2011 -20 -4825 Pettit Ave. Page 1 From: Mary Stranges <mstranges @sympatico.ca> To: <council @niagarafalls.ca> CC: <diorfida @niagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/17/2011 3:06 PM Subject: PD- 2011 -20 -4825 Pettit Ave. Hello All: This a written submission for the subject: PD- 2011 -20- Official Plan @Zoning By -law Amendment Application for 4825 Pettit Ave. I am a resident on Pettit Ave and I will be representing my close neighbours on their behalf due to them being Italian seniors /unable to drive or have access to a computer they are unable to attend the meeting on Monday April 18, 2011. We all oppose to this application due to the size of the development. It is not realistic to have up to 456 dwellings units and up to 5/ 4 -6 storey apartment buildings with 387 units ? ?? than they throw in the idea that one or more of the apartment buildings could be retirement homes is Paletta International just saying "retirement homes" so the proposal looks more attractive or will it just end up as apartments. What happens when all of these dwellings don't sell a lot of people are out of work as we all know does that mean that it becomes available for low income people and it becomes government housing? if so, that would mean that the people who have lived here for 30 years plus and have made this into a wonderful neighborhood where we all watch for each other into a more busy neighborhood where alot of them could be single parent with children when in some instances the parents are not at home and the children are out in the streets on their own or teens may be causing mischief at the park at night. Lot of neighbors are not feeling safe anymore we think more consideration should be looked at the resid. in this neighborhood seeing that we have been paying taxes all these years for the quality of the neighborhood that we have and kept in a decent manor. We have all renovated our homes cause we purchased these homes for indefinite years. I my self have renovated everything from the inside to the outside of our home ending with siding this spring cause to me wasn'tmoving anywhere(now it's questionable) we really enjoy this neighborhood and feel safe which is important. Now, if I knew that all of this new development would occur and possibly reduce the value of my home depending on the end result than only the importants of the renov. would have taken place. Behind us we already have kids that come into the neighborhood that live in the low apt. housing and they kick down the the garbage cans, etc. I'm only adddressing these concerns if the homes /apt don't sell and than turn them around for gov't housing and please no offense to them at all and it's just that we did not purchase our homes knowing that this would be a possibility in the future. Please think of us, and not just building as many dwellings as you can for your buck. The development that is on the corner of Dorchester Rd. & Dawson known as "Dufferin Place" is a very nice complex it fits in nicely with the neighborhood why can't they develop something like that ?? In closeure would you like to have all this development in your neighbourhood that you have Lived & cherished many, many years ?! Regards, Mary & Nieghbours (4/18/2011) Mary Benson - chef boyardee proposal OBJECTION Page 1 From: Mary Strange <md_strange @yahoo.ca> To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/17/2011 10:30 PM 41-A 6; s . Subject: chef boyardee proposal OBJECTION To Whom It May Concern: I would like it to be known that Mr. and Mrs. James Strange and Family Strongly oppose the plans for development at the Chef Boyardee site. My Family has lived in this area since it was first established and it is a well established, quiet, and safe single home primarily neighbourhood. The proposal being put fourth is outrageous, its suggested size of units and 6 storey apartment buildings will completely change our skyline in the area to a concrete view, without any green space or enviromental concerns for the existing residents. The traffic for the area would be increased dramatically creating not only safety concerns in this elementary school zone area, but also emmision concerns and in general crime and noise and reduced property value concerns. Furthermore, we already have an existing problem with a sink hole and water main break, creating another sink hole area on the corner of cropp and heather which still has not been addressed and adding this development would just furthermore exacerbate the issue. This neighbourhood should be developed in a similar style to which it is designed at present, with single family homes and green space not a concrete jungle with people crammed in wall to wall because a developer without any understanding of this area of Niagara Falls wants to make a buck. I'm quite sure if this plan were being proposed in his back yard,(a backyard of school children who's safety should be considered,) he would not tolerate it either. So this Family SAYS NO to this outrageous Proposal. Thank You for Your Time. MR. & MRS. JAMES STRANGE 6435 Bracken Street L2E 5J5 Phone 905 - 358 -8078 RECEIVED APR 18 2011 PLANNING & DEVELOPMNT___ _.: (4/18/2011) Mary Benson - RE: Chef Boyardee re- zoning Page 1 From: Fonzina Grottola <fonzina.grottola @hotmail.ca> To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca > Date: 4/18/2011 8:39 AM Subject: RE: Chef Boyardee re- zoning Mary Benson, I cannot believe the City is even considering a proposal of 456 Rental Unit building in this neighbourhood. I have invested most of my savings in upgrading my home. We all know our taxes will definitely not be dropping.property value will definitely be dropping, who would want to live in this neighbourhood. What about all the vehicles that will be going in and out of the apartment... We already have high traffic on Dorchester & Morrison, now you want to add to that. 1 strongly oppose this happening. Fonzina Grottola 6743 Dawson Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 7B6 RECEIVED APR 1 8 2011 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT '4/18/2011) Mary Benson - Paletta Interantional application for Pettit Avenue Page 1 From: <DonnaMS419 @aol.com> To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> i - Date: 4/17/2011 10:15 PM _. Subject: Paletta Interantional application for Pettit Avenue I would like to voice my objection to the application of Paletta International for Pettit Avenue. Our neighbourhood and traffic patterns would be dramatically altered in a negative way by the project. I believe that there is no advantage to the reduced lot sizes proposed- The current lot sizes should be maintained. The loss of green space would be tragic. It has been suggested that property values in the area would decease. This may be a naive question but has the developer any plans to reimburse the current property owners for their losses? Donna Smith 6793 Dawson Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 7B6 905 - 354 -2181 RECEIVED APR 18 2011 PLANNING & DE`s Esc'?. PMEN-r (4/18/2011) Mary Benson - RE: Re- zoning of the former Chef Boyardee property Page 1 From: Sabrina Booth <booth.sabrina @live.ca> To: <mbenson @niagarafalls -ca> i2 Date: 4/17/2011 5:43 PM Subject: RE: Re- zoning of the former Chef Boyardee property Attention: Mary Benson I live at 6743 Dawson Street in Niagara Falls. My name is Sabrina Booth, my telephone number is 905 394 0415 I strongly oppose to the rental units being put in our neighbourhood. This is not Toronto, this is a quite neighbourhood in Niagara Falls. I for one would not want to live here anymore. If the City allows this, our property value will be less Will our taxes go down. I strongly oppose to the this. The City should not make a decison that effects those who live in the neighbourhood. I strongly oppose. Sabrina Booth D APR 1 6 2011 PLANNING • - & DEVELOPMENT 4/18/2011) Mary Benson - Re Paletta International(1990) Inc _Proposal for Petit Avenue Page 1 From: <tsacino @cogeco.ca> - ✓� To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> ";4' /, Y; Date: 4/17/2011 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Paletta International(1990) Inc. - Proposal for Petit Avenue To Whom it may concern: We are submitting this letter to let you know that we are opposed to the application from the above Corporation. We have lived on Heather Avenue for the last 20 years and prior to that we lived on Burdette Avenue for 6 years. We would not have stayed in this area if we were aware of plans to build a 4 -6 storey apartment building. It is a small subdivision and this is what attracted us to the area There are only a few exits from our street and with the added population of these building it will become congested and noisier. In addition the height of the building would also detract from the aesthetics of our area. We would appreciate any updates on this proposal as they become available Sincerely, Debby & Tony Sacino 5025 Heather Avenue Niagara Falls, Ontario (905) 356 -1580 RECEIVED APR 1 8 2011 PLANNING & OEVELOPMENT (4/18/2011) Mary Benson - Paletta International application for Pettit Ave. Page 1 From: Joseph Pullia <joe.pullia @sympatico.ca> To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> ,( Date: 4/17/2011 3:06 PM Subject: Paletta International application for Pettit Ave. Good Afternoon, I am sending you this email in regards to the re- zoning of the former Chef Booyardee property. I strongly object this proposal. I have been a life long resident of Niagara Falls, and have lived at my current residence for over fourteen years. I oppose this horrible "Apartment 5D Density" proposal for the simple fact that it will diminish my property value; add congestion to the area and increase crime and noise levels. IT WILL RUIN MY NEIGHBOURHOOD!! Carolin Pullia 5150 Woodside Avenue Niagara Falls, ON L2E 7G3 905 374 8902 fi APR 1 8 2011 • PLANNING & DES, ELOP •, (4/18/2011) Mary Benson - Palletta International proposal for Petit Avenue Page 1 From: mark dimond <mddimond @yahoo.ca> : t =p z To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> ' Date: 4/18/2011 9:33 AM S .` 0,%'i' Subject: Palletta International proposal for Petit Avenue <:avglsdata id= avglsdata> Hello Ms Benson, I have just returned from vacation and found a copy of this proposal in my mailbox. This is the first I have heard of the proposal for the old Chef Boyardee property. I am very concerned with the density of units that the Developer is seeking. Anyone who lives in this city will be aware of the traffic conditions in the Dorchester /Morrison area. The abundance of commercial retail buildings, high traffic volume on Dorchester road and the railway crossings with no bridges all contribute to long lineups. This subdivision has very limited access and all are affected by the railroad crossings on these busy main routes through the city. 1 cannot imagine that another 400 or so families in the close confines of the proposed development will make this situation any better. I do not see any plans for traffic relief on the table either. The project that has been submitted does not in any way conform to the neighbourhood, nor does it enhance the property values or quality of life for the adjacent homeowners. Lot size reductions and increased lot coverage in this sensitive area would appear to be a bad planning move to me. It only serves the Developer in his quest for more money while removing the right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes from the people in the existing neighbourhood. I am not opposed to development and infilling. I have always thought that a nice townhouse project would be well suited to the property when the factory finally closed down. I would like to go on record as being opposed to the proposal as submitted. I will not be available this evening to speak to council due to a previous commitment. My wife Anne and I live at 5142 Carisa Court, not far from the development property and I can be reached at 905 321 7228. Thank You, Mark Dimond RECEIVED APR 1 8 2011 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Page 1 of 1 Mary Benson - Paletta International Inc. meeting From: Lisa Tiller <tillerfamily ©sympatico.ca> To: <mbenson ©niagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/18/2011 10:00 AM Subject: Paletta International Inc. meeting Hi, I am writing to voice my concerns about the proposed project at the former Chef Boy -a -dee plant. I wrote to the planning committee before the last public meeting as well. This whole plan is out of proportion, just so the developer can make the most money possible. I have looked at the plans and it looks like there will be very little space anywhere around those buildings, and I also counted up the parking spaces, and there aren't even enough spaces for 1 car per apartment, let alone if they have more than 1 car per unit. The roads will be full of parked cars, even more than already are there on Cropp Street, due to the semis not having enough parking places. We have a nice quiet neighbourhood, which adds to our property values. If this project goes in, it will result in a drastic drop in value to our current properties, and will result in a lot of for sale signs. My husband already wants to put the house up for sale, before they start building. We have 3 entrances into our subdivision, and when there is a train blocking Dorchester Road, it gets incredibly busy with cars trying to get around it. We have trouble getting out of the subdivision now, and if there are 456 more rental units, that will result in at least 600 more cars trying to get in and out of our subdivision. The neighbours are all concerned about this turning into a bad neighbourhood, like many of the other areas in Niagara Falls that have built these types of units. The fact that the developer has said they might build a retirement residence is just to try to entice council. They must realize that it is a big fat MAY build, not WILL build. My family STRONGLY objects to this project, and if it goes through we will be selling our house, which we thought we would like in for the next 25 years, and consider moving out of Niagara Falls. Please send my concerns onto council. Thank you. Lisa & Matt Tiller 5008 Heather Avenue Niagara Falls, ON L2E 5J2 905 - 357 -9409 RECEIVED APR 1 8 2011 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT file: / /C:ADocuments and Settings \mb310 \Local Settings \Temp \XPgrpwise \4DAC0BB8Do... 4/18/2011 4/18/2011) Mary Benson - PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT - PETTIT AVENUE Page 1 From: "KATHLEEN" <k.collee @cogeco.ca> = To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/18/2011 11:40 AM Subject: PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT - PETTIT AVENUE Re: Roll No.: 2725 - 050 - 004 -17300 City File: A2010 -008 Paletta International (1990) Inc. Please consider this as an objection to the proposed residential redesignation and possible construction of 456 rental units at 4825 Pettit Avenue. As a resident and taxpayer of this area for the past 21 years, we ask that you give some consideration to the fact that our neighborhood is already experiencing problems with traffic overload at Dorchester Road and Morrison Street and also the many trains utilizing the Canadian National Railway lines. We are appalled that, in addition to these problems, a proposal for up to 456 rental units is also being considered This can only create and add to the existing problems of noise, traffic and attempts to enter and exit our residence. Emergency vehicle access is also a concern. There have been five generations of our family who have resided, worked, paid taxes, supported and been caring citizens of the city of Niagara Falls and we ask that our elected officials give some consideration to us in this matter. Yours truly, Leroy and Kathleen Collee 5049 Heather Avenue Niagara Falls, ON L2E 5J3 Tele: (905) 354 -9281 RECEIVED APR i 8 2011 �AN N,NG & DEVELOPMENT Page 1 of 1 Mary Benson - Re- zoning of the former Chef Boyardee property From: Sandra MacLean <macleansandra@svmpatico.ca> To: <council a niagarafalls.ca >, <mbenson'niagarafalls.ca >, <jdiodati(,c;],niagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/18/2011 11:20 AM Subject: Re- zoning of the former Chef Boyardee property Dear Sir /Madam: The purpose of this email is to indicate my objection to the proposed residential development at Pettit Ave. and Cropp St. in Niagara Falls. The development of 69 townhouses and 5 x 6 storey apartment buildings would indeed have an negative impact on my quality of life and all the others currently residing in this area. The increase in traffic, noise, and reduced property values in this area would be detrimental to the entire neighbourhood. I can agree that this land should be re- developed. However, new housing should be comparable to existing homes and lot sizes in this area. Your support and consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sandra MacLean 4970 Heather Ave., Niagara Falls, On L2E 5J2 905 - 371 -1381 RECEIVED APR 1 8 2311 1 ?, ANNINU DEVELOPMENT file: /. /C:ADocuments and Settings \mb310 \Local Settings \Temp \XPgrpwise \4DAC1E99Dom... 4/18/2011 Page I of 1 Mary' Benson - re- zoning of the former Chef Boyardee property From: Ron Maclean <ttcspud 2.sympatico.ca> To: <council 2niagarafalls.ca >. <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca >. <jdiodati 2niagarafalls.ca >u��= Date: 4/18/2011 11:28 AM % ::'' - vt:= Subject: re- zoning of the former Chef Boyardee property Dear Sir /Madam: The purpose of this email is to indicate my objection to the proposed residential development at Pettit Ave. and Cropp St. in Niagara Falls. The development of 69 townhouses and 5 x 6 storey apartment buildings would indeed have an negative impact on my quality of life and all the others currently residing in this area. The increase in traffic, noise, and reduced property values in this area would be detrimental to the entire neighbourhood. I can agree that this land should be re- developed. However, new housing should be comparable to existing homes and lot sizes in this area. Your support and consideration in this matter is anticipated and greatly appreciated. Ron MacLean 4970 Heather Ave., Niagara Falls, On L2E 5J2 905 - 371 -1381 APR 1 8 2011 PLANNING & GEV'ELOPMEN file://C:\Documents and Settin2s \mb310 \Local Settings \Tema \XPamwise \4DAC2052Dom_ 4/1 X /20 1 1 Page 1of1 Mary Benson - Re- Zoning of former Chef Boyardee property(Paletta InternationalApplication) From: will foster <wtsfoster @hotmail.com> To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/18/2011 11:27 AM - Subject: Re- Zoning of former Chef Boyardee property(Paletta InternationalApplication) Mary, As a neighbour I strongly oppose this type of development on this property. The density is too high, there is insuffient parking, there is too little green space and traffic congestion in the area of Dawson and Dorchester, Cropp and Dorchester and LaMarsh and Morrison will bring the whole area to a standstill. Thank You, Will Foster 6396 Carolyn Ave. Niagara Falls, On L2E 5H5 905 - 357 -9405 RECERV APR ` - PLANNING & OEVELO' PMEN _ �. file: / /C:ADocuments and Settings \mb310 \Local Settings \Temp\XPgipwise \4DAC203EDom... 4/18/2011 2011-04-18 14:32 GNG OR Reception 9053584967 » 905 356 2354 P 1/1 549 yc- .7L ok,oTh Li-/OP e CC--"Or c 1 Picz-nn tr27 Cvelop 1 ,Sic) Qii Or\ 40E; 6?)(5 h / X __ 1 72 ey-"t / ;nd dn/elDp e/- p c)sc )2 vo I prvp ($ o? rin y A4, ./s *"; / y r S c. An 0 Li-A /e-ti 7 RECEIVEDI APR 1 8 2011 1 X _ 67'<;1 PLANNING i 35017 --- T/orves a 930/y Page 1 of 1 Mary Benson - 4825 Pettit Ave Roll no. 2725 -050- 004 -17300 Objection From: <AurelioR4 ©aol.com> To: <mbenson ©niagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/18/2011 3:23 PM Subject: 4825 Pettit Ave Roll no. 2725 - 050 - 004 -17300 Objection /9/ /Q -- 0U S/ Ms. Benson, I just received notification concerning townhouses and 6 storey apartment buildings going up at the above mentioned address (old Chef Boyardee) I totally object to this project. I live at 5059 Pettit Ave and I believe my property value will significantly go down if this really happens. We live on a quiet street and that's the way we want to keep it. I have 3 small young children that I want to raise here. Let them build somewhere else. If you need to contact me my phone number is 905 -354 -5369. Please help stop this idiotic proposal to build!. Sincere Regards, Aurelio Rosano APR 1 8 2011 Ps file: / /C:ADocuments and Settings \mb310 \Local Settings \Temp \XPgrpwise14DAC5764Dom... 4/18/2011 (4/18/2011) Mary Benson - rezoning Chef boyardee property Page 1 C2' From: john gigliotti <jgigs2002 @yahoo.ca> To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/18/2011 3:17 PM jG /C= C F Subject: rezoning Chef boyardee property I live on 4994 Pettit Avenue and myself and my family are strongly opposed to the rezoning bylaw on the chef boyardee property. The reasons being that it will create a lot more traffic crime and noise to a very nice and peaceful neighborhood thank you Sincerly Angelo Gigliotti & gliotti Fit C E APR 1 8 2011 PLANNING _ & Gam` L PPE ! 1 Monday April 18th, 2011 To: The City of Niagara Falls, Planning and Development Department RE: FILE #: AM -2010 -008 Paletta International (1990) Inc. From Donald Gibson, 5226 Woodside Ave., Niagara Falls, ON L2E 7G3 905 - 371 -3066 I STRONGLY OPPOSE the redevelopment of the current 4.2 hectare site on the corner of Pettit and Cropp Avenues, as per the proposed development plan submitted by Paletta International. I STRONGLY OPPOSE the re- zoning to Residential Apartment 5D Density (R5D). I STRONGLY OPPOSE the re- zoning to permit a Retirement Home under R5D. This current Residential neighbourhood, (outside of the former Chef Boyardee Plant), is a very well maintained area of mainly owner occupied single family homes as well as a some semis and condominiums. The pride of ownership of this area is very evident on every single street. It is a quiet neighbourhood with a very low crime rate. Traffic in this area is only from local residents. Many people who live in this neighbourhood have chosen to purchase in this area because of the above statistics. My family specially chose to move from the Toronto area to this neighbourhood because of the peacefulness and pride of ownership of this area. Looking at Schedule 1 provided, this "compound- type" layout of all the proposed buildings is totally disgusting. Why would anyone what to live next to or in this "Guetto" type of subdivision? Why is the City of Niagara Falls not requiring city streets within this area? The only place I know of where this type of densely populated subdivision exists is in downtown Toronto — namely Regent Park. It has been well publicized over the years that Regent Park was a total failure in its design as it created a " Guetto" type of environment. Why do we need this in Niagara Falls? How does Niagara Falls compare to downtown Toronto where land is in short supply? We do NOT need this density of housing in our neighbourhood. I STRONGLY OPPOSE the use of this former Chef Boyardee Plant to be used for RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDINGS. This neighbourhood and the surrounding area has no need for additional apartment buildings. This area has some commercial businesses nearby but most are high end businesses, such as investment banking, dentists, chiropractors, etc. I have not heard any issues from local businesses that they can not attract workers from within the city boundaries. There are several apartment buildings nearby on Drummond Road and I often see "for rent" signs posted. If anything, there is an over abundance of rental units available for those requiring such accommodations in this city. I would like to see the City of Niagara Falls maintain their status on the zoning of this former Chef Boyardee property to the maximum height of 2 -3 storeys, as the residents of this area voiced their say during the recent Intensification Policy put forward in February of this year. [cE1 APR 1 8 2011 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Residents of the Morrison- Dorchester NODE voted to have this area at this maximum height. This should be maintained and not changed for this Toronto developer. There was public outcry for this maximum height restriction of 2 -3 storeys as well as the much lower maximum density allowable that was approved. This should not be altered. The large number of local residents that voiced their concerns to ensure these restrictions were in place, should be maintained. If this former Chef Boyardee property is to re -zoned for residential usage, then the City of Niagara Falls should maintain that this area conform to the current type of housing that current exists, ie. single and multiple owner- occupied dwellings on city streets. NO zoning for rental apartment building permitted. If this horrible project were approved, the TRAFFIC, NOISE and CRIME of this area would be significant. All the traffic would be diverted to Dawson or down Bernadette which would be overwhelming from 456 RENTAL UNITS. Why would we the residents of this area want to be subjected to this? Why do we need this ?? I know many of my neighbours have indicated they would move from this nice neighbourhood ASAP if this horrible project were approved. Eventually this entire neighbourhood would turn into a run down, high crime area if this were built. This would cost the city tax revenue (as home prices would decrease), increased police protection visits as well as Fire department visits (a known occurrence amongst densely populated rental accommodations). FACT: It is a known fact that the Niagara Region is trying to build itself up as a High Technology Area that would bring in high paying jobs. Therefore new high paid employees would be looking for new housing in the Niagara Region. They most certainly would not look to this proposed complex to buy into. If this is how the Niagara Region is starting to promote itself, then why would the City of Niagara Falls even consider this Regent Park type of project for the city ?? It is currently a well publicized fact that mid to high priced homes are what people are purchasing in the Niagara Region. We are NOT attracting low end jobs for RENTAL accommodations. The low paying jobs are in the Hotel sector area and housing should be made available within short distances from the Hotel district — not the Morrison /Dorchester Node. The City of Niagara Falls Planning Dept. needs to be well aware of this fact and create a city that high paid employees will gravitate to — they most certainly don't want to be anywhere near a "Ghetto ". I am totally disgusted how the City of Niagara Falls informed the residents of this neighbourhood of this planned proposal and city meeting tonight. My wife and I decided to take it upon ourselves to copy our letter and deliver it to all the residents in our neighbourhood, outside of those facing the former Chef Boyardee Plant. I was shocked that people just two doors down from those facing the former Plant were not aware of the meeting. Some residents had heard from others but little fact was known. I find this totally unacceptable given the magnitude of this project and the effects it will have on everyone in this neighbourhood. This needs to change for any future notification of this project. All residents within the Morrison /Dorchester Node should be notified by letter in the future. I would like this voted on tonight at the meeting. A very concerned resident of the Dorchester /Morrison Node. Regards, Donald Gibson Page 1 of 3 Mary Benson - FW: RE: file #AM-2010-008 -- Public Meeting written submission Nancy Malyniak From: "Nancy Mlaly niak" • To: <mbenson arniagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/18/2011 12:29 PM Ly;�7GiD"("C'' Subject: FW: RE: tile #AM-2010-008 -- Public Meeting, written submission Nancy Malyniak Re-sent with proper formatting! From: Nancy Malyniak Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:28 Pm To: 'mbenson@niagarafalis.ca' Subject: RE: file #AM-2010-008 -- Public Meeting written submission Nancy Malyniak Hello Mary, Can you please forward my letter to the appropriate individuals. Please e-mail back to confirm this letter had been received Regards, Nancy To The City of Niagara Falls, Planning and Development Department RE: FILE #: AM-2010-008 Paletta International (1990) Inc. From Nancy R Maivniak. APR 1 0 2011 PLANNING & EVELOPMENT I STRONGLY OPPOSE the redevelopment of the current 4 2 hectare site on the corner of Pettit and Cropp Avenues, as per the proposed development plan submitted by Paletta International I STRONGLY OPPOSE the re-zoning to Residential Apartment 5D Density (R5D) 1 STRONGLY OPPOSE the re-zoning to permit a Retirement Home under R5D This current Residential neighbourhood, (outside of the former Chef Boyardee Plant), is a very well maintained area of mainly owner occupied single family homes as well as a some semis and condominiums. The pride of ownership of this area is very evident on every single street. It is a quiet neighbourhood with a very low crime rate. Traffic in this area is only from local residents. Many people who live in this neighbourhood have chosen to purchase in this area because of the above statistics My family specially chose to move from the Toronto area to this neighbourhood because of the peacefulness and pride of ownership of this area. Looking at Schedule 1 provided, this "compound-type" layout of all the proposed buildings is totally disgusting Why would anyone what to live next to or in this "Guetto" type of subdivision? « . .7 C' -11 co .,._.,I ..1' nr♦ n �-.rri-r r� r n:-1.,r r a.�c LW > Why is the City of Niagara Falls not requiring city streets within this area? The only place I know of where this type of densely populated subdivision exists is in downtown Toronto — namely Regent Park. It has been well publicized over the years that Regent Park was a total failure in its design as it created a 'Guetto' type of environment. Why do we need this in Niagara Falls? How does Niagara Falls compare to downtown Toronto where land is in short supply? We do NOT need this density of housing in our neighbourhood. I STRONGLY OPPOSE the use of this former Chef Boyardee Plant to be used for RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDINGS This neighbourhood and the surrounding area has no need for additional apartment buildings. This area has some commercial businesses nearby but most are high end businesses. such as investment banking dentists chiropractors etc I have not heard any issues from local businesses that they can not attract workers from within the city boundaries There are several apartment buildings nearby on Drummond Road and I often see for rent" signs posted If anything there is an over abundance of rental units available for those requiring such accommodations in this city I would like to see the City of Niagara Falls maintain their status on the zoning of this former Chef Boyardee property to the maximum height of 2-3 storeys, as the residents of this area voiced their say during the recent Intensification Policy put forward in February of this year Residents of the Morrison-Dorchester NODE voted to have this area at this maximum height This should be maintained and not changed for this Toronto developer There was public outcry for this maximum height restriction of 2-3 storeys as well as the much lower maximum density allowable that was approved This should not be altered The large number of local residents that voiced their concerns to ensure these restrictions were in place. should be maintained If this former Chef Boyardee property is to re-zoned for residential usage then the City of Niagara Falls should maintain that this area conform to the current type of housing that current exists, ie single and multiple owner-occupied dwellings on city streets NO zoning for rental apartment building permitted If this horrible project were approved the TRAFFIC, NOISE and CRIME of this area would be significant All the traffic would be diverted to Dawson or down Bernadette which would be overwhelming from 456 RENTAL UNITS. Why would we the residents of this area want to be subjected to this? Why do we need this?? I know many of my neighbours have indicated they would move from this nice neighbourhood ASAP if this horrible project were approved Eventually this entire neighbourhood would turn into a run down. high crime area if this were built. This would cost the city tax revenue as home prices would decrease), increased police protection visits as well as Fire department visits to known occurrence amongst densely populated rental accommodations. FACT: It is a known fact that the Niagara Region is trying to build itself un as a High Technology Area that would bring in high paying jobs Therefore new high paid employees would be looking for new housing in the Niagara Region They most certainly would not look to this proposed complex to buy into If this is how the Niagara Region is starting to promote itself, then why would the City of Niagara Falls even consider this Regent Park type of project for the city?? It is currently a well publicized fact that mid to high priced homes are what people are purchasing in the Niagara Region. We are NOT attracting low end jobs for RENTAL accommodations The low paying jobs are in the Hotel sector area and housing should be made available within short distances from the Hotel district— not the Morrison/Dorchester Node The City of Niagara Falls Planning Dept. needs to be well of aware of this fact and create a city that high paid employees will gravitate to— they most certainly don't want to be anywhere near a "Ghetto" I am totally disgusted how the City of Niagara Falls informed the residents of this neighbourhood of this planned proposal and city meeting tonight. My husband and I decided to take it upon ourselves to copy our letter and deliver it to all the residents in our neighbourhood, outside of those facing the former Chef Boyardee Plant. I was shocked that people just two doors down from those facing the former Plant were not aware of the meeting. Some residents had heard from others but little fact was known. I find this totally unacceptable given the magnitude of this project and the effects it will have on everyone in this neighbourhood This needs to change for any future notification of this project. All residents within the Morrison/Dorchester Node should be notified by letter in the future. ! would like this voted on tonight at the meeting. A very concerned resident of the Dorchester/Morrison Node Regards. Nancy Malyniak Documents and Soningsrnh3 1 U'Local Scttinws.Tvmp Pgrpvk ise,4D:AC?EI37Du... 4.. 18:7011 18/2011) Mary Benson - AM-2010-008 - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application Page 1 From: Hansa Wojtowicz , t../ To: <mbenson@niagarafalls.ca> J Date: 4/18/2011 2.12 PM i i Subject: AM-2010-008 - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application CC: <jdiodati@niagarafalls ca>, <wgates@niagarafalls.ca> <ioannoni@niagaraf. I have been made aware that the proposed rezoning of the former Chef Boyardee property is still being considered My first question would be why this is being pursued in secret and why none of the people in the affected neighbourhood are being informed I had previously put my name down to be informed regarding this proposal and received no official notice about it I had to hear about it from a neighbour I am absolutely stunned that City Hall would even cons der such an insane proposal to add 69 townhouses and 5 six-story apartments to such a small piece of land in a quiet neighbourhood of predominantly single family homes. The character of the neighbourhood would be completely destroyed Many of the residents of this area have lived here for over 40 years and cherish the peace and quiet of their homes Permitting this massive overdevelopment would bring excessive traffic, crime noise and reduced property values Also. I can't imagine that the existing water/sewer/power infrastructure could possibly cope with this massive influx of people and traffic. We strongly and vehemently object to this proposal and want City Hall to reject it. If the proposal was reasonable (such as just the 69 townhouses). then we might be willing to compromise with that. But 6 apartment buildings is completely outragious and unacceptable. Hania Wojtowicz I ucv Klimczuk RECEI 6 APR 182011 F,' ANN ,,,_,,_ f (4/18/2011) Mary Benson - RE Proposal to re -zone the former Chef Boyardee property Page 1 !. From: Jennifer Ireland <jen- Ireland @hotmail.com> l , i To: <mbenson @niagarafails.ca> Date: 4/18/2011 1:05 PM Subject: RE: Proposal to re -zone the former Chef Boyardee property Hello, My name is Jennifer Durant and I am writing to voice my objection to the above noted proposal. I live at 6448 Bracken Street and my telephone number is 289 -296 -6616 Thank you. Jennifer APR 1 8 2011 PLANNING & (4/18/2011) Mary Benson - re: Chef Boyardee Property Page 1 From: nikki sapphire <blueyz03 @hotmail.com> 770 To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> ../77/4 Date: 4/18/2011 2:00 PM Subject: re: Chef Boyardee Property Vincenzo & Maria Grottola 6414 Burdette Drive Niagara Falls, Ontario L2e 5H2 905 354 6645 Mary Benson, I object to the proposal for the rental units at Chef Boyardee. We are both seniors and have invested money in our home and to live in a quiet neighbourhood in our retired years. Our property value will drop, and we would not be able to afford moving to a quiet neighbourhood. I OBJECT to this proposal - Vincenzo Grottola I OBJECT to this proposal Maria Grottola RECEIVED APR 1 8 2011 PLANNING & DE'vELOPM N (4,'18/2011) Mary Benson - PROPOSED ZONING AT 4825 PETTIT AVENUE Page 1 • From: <deborrandowd @sympatico.ca> To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/18/2011 1:01 PM Subject: PROPOSED ZONING AT 4825 PETTIT AVENUE REGARDING ROLL NUMBER 2725 - 050 - 004 -17300 CITY FILE A2010 -008 PALETTA INTERNATIONAL (1990 INC.) PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AN AN OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REDESIGNATION AND POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF 456 RENTAL UNITS AT 4825 PETTIT AVENUE. AS A RESIDENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 YEARS IN THE PETTIT AVENUE AREA, I HIGHLY DISAGREE WITH THE PROPOSED ZONING AT 4825 PETTIT AVENUE. WE ARE AT THIS TIME ALREADY DEALING WITH VERY HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME IN THIS AREA WITH THE MANY BOX STORES ON MORRISON STREET, AS WELL AS THE HIGH TRAFFIC LEVELS ON DORCHESTER ROAD. ALSO, THE TRAFFIC IS VERY CONJESTED OFF ALL THE SIDE STREETS BECAUSE OF THE C.N N. RAILWAY CROSSING. IN THE PAST, MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH THE TRAFFIC AND NOISE CONJESTION FROM THE CONSTUCTION OF THE CLINIC ON MORRISON STREET. TO THIS DAY WE'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH ONGOING TRAFFIC PARKED IN FRONT OF OUR HOME, PLUS WE ARE ALREADY DEALING WITH HAVING OUR DRIVEWAY PARTLY BLOCKED BY VEHICLES NOT PULLING UP FAR ENOUGH AHEAD. GETTING OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAY IS DIFFICULT AS WELL, AS WE HAVE TO WATCH FOR TRAFFIC COMING FROM MORRISON STREET, LAMARSH AND IN BOTH DIRECTIONS ON BURDETTE (WHICH IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE PARKED VEHICLES IN THE FRONT OF OUR HOME AS MENTIONED.) SO, WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF HAVING THIS RENTAL UNIT BUILT WILL ONLY ADD TO THE EXISTING PROBLEMS IN THIS AREA. WE, AS TAXPAYERS FIND THAT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE 456 RENTAL UNITS, THIS WILL CREATE MORE TRAFFIC AND NOISE CONJESTION IN OUR AREA THERE WILL BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC CONJESTION GOING TO AND COMING HOME FROM WORK WITH RESIDENTS PASSING THIS RENTAL UNIT ON PETTIT AVENUE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM FOR SUCH A PROPOSED UNIT TO EXIST. CONSIDER MY OBJECTION AS A RESIDENT AND TAXPAYER IN THIS AREA. KEVIN AND DEBORRAH DOWD 6402 BURDETTE DRIVE NIAGARA FALLS, ONT. L2E 5H2 RECEIVED APR 1 8 2011 PL ^,NNING z D,`_ __JPMENT Page 1 of 1 Mary Benson - Re- zoning Paletta application. From: A WEBSTER <andy.webster @sympatico.ca> To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> Date: 4/18/2011 3:02 PM Subject: Re- zoning Paletta application. A.C. Webster 5114 Southgate Ave Niagara Falls L2E 7G5 Dear Sir /Madam I am E mailing my objection to city hall's ludicrous proposal that would allow Paletta Int. to build their Toronto, prison style units, with only one access into the yard so to speak. This is next to a main freight railroad and adjacent to two level crossings, where the danger from chemical spills from accidents are possible at any time. Also because of increased traffic in the area and only one access, to suit the greed of the developer, as he tries to squeeze as many hen sheds together as physically possible, thus leaving no room for safe access, traffic and accidents will increase damatically In plain speak as they say. This is the dumbest idea I have ever seen for our town in the 30 years I have lived and paid my taxes in. The deterioration of this well kept and prosperous area, to suit the greed of Toronto developers and possibly City Hall can only be described as bordering on sabotage as far as I am concerned,so get it stopped immediately, as I for one will seeking be seeking legal advice on how to sue City hall, if any devaluation of my property occurs. I appreciate your attention to this matter, yours sincerely Andy Webster ( 905- 356 4182) APR 18 2011 PLANNING r & D E''11=L'-�r-��i•1 file•/IC'• \Dnc-umentc and ettinac \mh - 110\T.neal Settinoc \Temn \XParnwice \4TDAC57QPlnrn d /1R /21111 Ewen Donofrio - Paletta International application for Pettit Ave. 'rom: "Michelle" <peremard'cogeco.ca> - 'o: <planning @niagarafalls.ca> )ate: 4/18/2011 3:03 PM ubject: Paletta International application for Pettit Ave. ear Mary Benson I am writing this e mail to voice my opinion on this proposal. My husband and I object to this. This is a beautiful, eaceful neighborhood that will be ruined with building these apartment buildings and etc. With all the old senior people alot of 'em Italian speaking who barely speak English oppose this decision. They have been living here for years it would disrupt their 'e here with more noise, crime will go up and our property value will go down. I am paying $3000 a year taxes, that's way to gh as it is, and they are suppose to go up 12 % ?? If you go head with these plans, it going to destory this neighbourhood. This is bad idea. incerely, Ir and Mrs. Crema ]04 Pettit Avenue iagara Falls, Ontario L2E 7B1 '89) 296 -3345 APR 1 8 2011 PLANNUNG �.... �- E wa - -ix�r Page 1 of 1 Mary Benson - 4825 Pettit Ave Roll no. 2725 - 050 - 004 -17300 Objection From: <AurelioR4 @aol.com> To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> -u Date: 4/18/2011 3:23 PM Subject: 4825 Pettit Ave Roll no. 2725 - 050 -004 -17300 Objection //� /C 00 SS Ms. Benson, I just received notification concerning townhouses and 6 storey apartment buildings going up at the above mentioned address (old Chef Boyardee). I totally object to this project. I live at 5059 Pettit Ave and I believe my property value will significantly go down if this really happens. We live on a quiet street and that's the way we want to keep it. I have 3 small young children that I want to raise here. Let them build somewhere else. If you need to contact me my phone number is 905 - 354 -5369. Please help stop this idiotic proposal to build!. Sincere Regards. Aurelio Rosano bCEP-vc APR 1 8 2011 PLANNING fil / /C: \Documents and Settings \mb310 \Local Settings \Temp \XPumwise \4DAC5764Dom... 4/18/2011 (4/18/2011) Mary Benson - rezoning Chef boyardee property Page 1 V1x2Y <_� • From: john gigliotti <jgigs2002©yahoo.ca> - To: <mbenson @niagarafalls.ca> f Date: 4/18/2011 3:17 PM /7 7O/0- Q Subject: rezoning Chef boyardee property I live on 4994 Pettit Avenue and myself and my family are strongly opposed to the rezoning bylaw on the chef boyardee property. The reasons being that it will create a lot more traffic, crime and noise to a very nice and peaceful neighborhood thank you Sincerly Angelo Gigliotti & Family ER APR 1 8 2011 F LAN NG (4/18/2011) Dean lorfida - Phone Call - Objection to Paletta Page 1 From: David Deluce To: Herlovitch, Alex CC: Bryce, Andrew; Iorfida, Dean; Mech, Ken Date: 4/18/2011 11:37 AM Subject: Phone Call - Objection to Paletta Hi Alex I received a phone call from Eva Szijarto (5232 Woodside Avenue; 905 - 356 -9014) at 11:20 am this morning objecting to the Paletta applications. She cites concerns about traffic, noise, crime and decreased land values. I advised her to attend tonight's meeting if she can and let Council know her concerns. She will try to attend but may not be able to. Regards, David Deluce, MCIP, RPP Planner II City of Niagara Falls Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 905 - 356 -7521 ext. 4296 905 -- 356 -2354 (Fax) ddeluce ©niagarafalls.ca Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re -send this communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you. (4/15/2011) Dean lorfida - RE: Oldfield Road Subdivision - Staff Report PD- 2011 -25 Page 1 From: "Mabee, Sue" <sue.mabee @niagararegion.ca> To: "Bond, Paul" <pbond @npca.ca >, 'Ken Mech' <kmech @niagarafalls.ca >, "'DDeI... CC: 'Alex Herlovitch' <aherlovitch @niagarafalls.ca >, "Hamilton, Lee -Ann" <Ih... Date: 4/15/2011 12:25 PM Subject: RE: Oldfield Road Subdivision - Staff Report PD- 2011 -25 Good afternoon, Regional staff has reviewed the email from the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority requesting a change of wording to condition 33 for the Oldfield Road Draft Plan of Subdivision. Regional staff had similar concerns with the wording for condition 33, and we concur with the NPCA's suggested wording below. Sincerely Sue Mabee, MCIP, RPP Planner Development Services Division Regional Municipality of Niagara Phone: 905 - 685 -4225 ext. 3386 Fax: 905 - 687 -8056 Regional Municipality of Niagara Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re -send this communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you. From Bond, Paul Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 11:31 AM To 'Ken Mech'; 'DDeluce @niagarafalls.ca'; Dean lorfida Cc: Mabee. Sue; 'Alex Herlovitch'; Hamilton, Lee -Ann; 'Beriault, Karine (MNR)'; Radman, Marilyn Subject RE: Oldfield Road Subdivision - Staff Report PD- 2011 -25 David /Ken, Thank -you for providing a copy of your staff report PD- 2011 -25 for the Oldfield Road Subdivision which I understand will be on the Council agenda this coming Monday April 18, 2011. As discussed with you this morning, I have reviewed draft plan condition no. 33 contained in Appendix "A" of the report and would like to request that the wording be modified to: a) include specific reference to re- designation and re- zoning of the habitat of endangered and threatened species, and b) specifically name the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority as a clearance agency for the condition. I note that draft plan conditions 16 and 17 refer to OPA/ZBA approvals in general terms. However, more detail is warranted with respect to the area containing endangered and threatened species, and therefore should be included separately in the wording of condition 33. While the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is the agency responsible for delineation of this habitat, it is the NPCA that has the responsibility to ensure that (once the limit is established) there is no negative (4/15/2011) Dean lorfida - RE: Oldfield Road Subdivision - Staff Report PD- 2011 -25 Page 2 impact on the natural feature itself or its ecological function, pursuant to section 2.1.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement and Regional Environmental Policy (through the existing Memorandum of Understanding with the Region of Niagara and Area Municipalities). To this end, I would respectfully request that the wording of draft plan condition no. 33 be modified as follows: "33. That prior to the final approval of the plan of subdivision the limit of the habitat of endangered and threatened species be identified and approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources; that the subdivision be redline revised accordingly to the satisfaction of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and the Region of Niagara; and that the area be re- designated in the Official Plan and re -zoned to an Environmental Protection Area that prohibits development and site alteration, to the satisfaction of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and the Region of Niagara ". By copy of this e -mail, I am advising the City Clerk, Mr. Dean lorfida of our agency comment herein. Please send "Notice" of your Councils decision in this matter Thank -you again for your help, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about our additional comments. Paul Paul Bond Senior Watershed Planner Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority 250 Thorold Road West, 3rd Floor Welland, ON L3C 3W2 tel. 905 - 788 -3135 ext. 234 fax 905 - 788 -1121 e -mail: pbond @npca.ca web site: www.npca.ca Original Message From Ken Mech [mailto:kmech @niagarafalls.caj Sent: Thursday. April 14, 2011 2:22 PM To Bond. Paul Subject Re: Oldfield Road Subdivision - Staff Report Here is a final copy (unsigned). »> "Bond Paul" <pbond©npca.ca> 4/14/2011 10.00 AM »> Ken, Could I get a copy of your staff report for the Oldfield Road subdivision please? Paul. Paul Bond Senior Watershed Planner Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority 250 Thorold Road West, 3rd Floor Welland, ON L3C 3W2 tel. 905 - 788 -3135 ext. 234 fax 905 - 788 -1121 e -mail: pbond @npca.ca <mailto:pbond @npca.ca> web site: www.npca.ca <http: / /www.npca.ca> The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended (4/15/2011) Dean lorfida - RE: Oldfield Road Subdivision - Staff Report PD- 2011 -25 Page 1 From: "Bond, Paul" <pbond @npca.ca> To: 'Ken Mech' <kmech @niagarafalls.ca >, "'DDeluce @niagarafalls.ca "' <DDeluce... CC: "Mabee, Sue" <sue.mabee @niagararegion.ca >, 'Alex Herlovitch' <aherlovitc... Date: 4/15/2011 11:32 AM Subject: RE: Oldfield Road Subdivision - Staff Report PD- 2011 -25 David /Ken, Thank -you for providing a copy of your staff report PD- 2011 -25 for the Oldfield Road Subdivision which I understand will be on the Council agenda this coming Monday April 18. 2011. As discussed with you this morning, I have reviewed draft plan condition no. 33 contained in Appendix "A" of the report and would like to request that the wording be modified to: a) include specific reference to re- designation and re- zoning of the habitat of endangered and threatened species, and b) specifically name the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority as a clearance agency for the condition. I note that draft plan conditions 16 and 17 refer to OPA/ZBA approvals in general terms. However, more detail is warranted with respect to the area containing endangered and threatened species, and therefore should be included separately in the wording of condition 33. While the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is the agency responsible for delineation of this habitat, it is the NPCA that has the responsibility to ensure that (once the limit is established) there is no negative impact on the natural feature itself or its ecological function, pursuant to section 2.1.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement and Regional Environmental Policy (through the existing Memorandum of Understanding with the Region of Niagara and Area Municipalities). To this end, I would respectfully request that the wording of draft plan condition no 33 be modified as follows: "33. That prior to the final approval of the plan of subdivision the limit of the habitat of endangered and threatened species be identified and approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources; that the subdivision be redline revised accordingly to the satisfaction of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and the Region of Niagara; and that the area be re- designated in the Official Plan and re -zoned to an Environmental Protection Area that prohibits development and site alteration, to the satisfaction of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and the Region of Niagara ". By copy of this e -mail, I am advising the City Clerk Mr. Dean lorfida of our agency comment herein. Please send "Notice" of your Councils decision in this matter. Thank -you again for your help, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about our additional comments. Paul. Paul Bond Senior Watershed Planner Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority 250 Thorold Road West, 3rd Floor Welland, ON L3C 3W2 tel. 905- 788 -3135 ext. 234 fax 905 - 788 -1121 e -mail: pbond @npca.ca web site: www.npca.ca Original Message f l l . From: Ken Mech [mailto:kmech @niagara a s ca ] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 2:22 PM To: Bond, Paul (4/15/2011) Dean lorfida - RE: Oldfield Road Subdivision - Staff Report PD- 2011 -25 Page 2 Subject: Re: Oldfield Road Subdivision - Staff Report Here is a final copy (unsigned). »> "Bond, Paul" < pbond @npca.ca> 4/14/2011 10:00 AM »> Ken, Could I get a copy of your staff report for the Oldfield Road subdivision please? Paul. Paul Bond Senior Watershed Planner Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority 250 Thorold Road West, 3rd Floor Welland, ON L3C 3W2 tel. 905 -788 -3135 ext. 234 fax 905 - 788 -1121 e -mail: pbond @npca.ca <mailto:pbond @npca.ca> web site: www.npca.ca <http: / /www.npca.ca> The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re -send this communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you. (4/15/2011) Dean lorfida - NFNC - draft Plan of Subdivision -File 26T -11- 2010- 01.doc Page 1 _ NIAGARA FALLS NATURE CLUB P.O. BOX 901, NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO, L2E 6V8. April 14. 2011 Director of Planning and Development City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision — File 26T -11- 2010 -01 On behalf of the Niagara Falls Nature Club, I would like to express our hope that. within the City of Niagara Falls. wetlands and forests and the connections between then will be given protection. In the Drummond Oldfield Development proposal. I am pleased to see that the Round - leaved Greenbrier habitat is being re- designated an Environmental Protection Area to ensure the protection of this Species at Risk. As the plan now stands. the Greenbrier habitat will be cut off from other natural areas. Current scientific accepted practices demonstrate that in order to sustain species at risk such as the federally and provincially threatened Greenbrier in the long term, their habitats must be connected to other forested areas. When natural habitats are reduced in size and fragmented, exotic species invade and out - compete native species. The proposal also mentions the eventual development in the forest south of Oldfield Road. This forest should remain intact. Development around the wetlands would result in the loss of connectivity of the natural system. One reason that Niagara Falls now has a problem with coyotes traveling through residential areas is because we have allowed sprawling subdivisions to cut off natural corridors between forested areas. The City of Niagara Falls Council has an opportunity to protect this beautiful complex of forests and wetlands, which possess rich biodiversity and which form one of the largest forested areas within an urban boundary in Carolinian Canada. Thank you. Sincerely, Joyce Sankey, President Niagara Falls Nature Club jsankey cogeco.ca April 16, 2011 134 Church Street St. Catharines, Ontario L2R -3E4 To Niagara Falls City Council Re Public Meeting Proposed Plan of Subdivision Oldfield Road 1. Approval at this City Council Meeting is Premature. I am writing in regards to the proposed plan of subdivision and related official plan amendments to facilitate a residential development at Oldfield Road. I would like to stress at the outset. that I believe it to be premature for the Niagara Falls City Council to vote on the plan of subdivision and related official plan and zoning changes at this meeting. The Planning Department should listen to the public and possibly modify their recommendations. By this time we will have also had input from the Ministry of Natural Resources as to the extent of the area to be designated as Environmental Protection Area. 2. Most of the Land in the Parcel Before Council is Appropriate For Development Although until the early 1990s virtually the entire parcel before council tonight was a healthy swamp forest, the majority of the property was clear cut at this time to an open field. There are however, important remnant forests on this property which should be protected and the proposal before council tonight does not do this adequately. The remnant forests are located immediately adjacent to the hydro right of way which forms the northern boundary of the proposed Oldfield Road subdivision. In addition to the population of endangered Round - Leaved Greenbrier identified as Block 265 there is provincially rare plant community. Buttonbush. In walking along the forest identified four separate Buttonbush communities in different ponds or vernal pools in the forested strip. There were in total some 10 ponds located, most of which were ringed with Pin Oak. 3. Block 265 Only Protects Part of the Potential Habitat of the Endangered Greenbrier From reading the Planning Department report it appears that the designation of Block 265 is based on the existing habitat of the population of endangered Round Leaved Greenbrier plus a buffer. In this regards, it should be noted that adequate planning for an endangered species should ensure that the Greenbrier can expand its range. This is not done in the recommendation before council tonight which proposes much of this habitat to be converted for development. The entire area of canopy forest adjacent to the hydro right of way should remain intact and undeveloped. This will allow the Greenbrier to expand its population into similar areas of canopy swamp forest that provide it with appropriate habitat. The main habitat requirement this 2 species requires is forest shade and swamp wetland conditions and this is provided by all of the forest adjacent to the hydro right of way. Protecting all of the forest strip will also safeguard a provincially rare plant community. Buttonbush. It will also protect ecologically communities that are quite rare throughout this part of North America, notably the Pin Oak vernal pool wetlands. 4.Proposed Storm Water Management Pond Located In Pin Oak Forest Another unfortunate aspect of the Oldfield subdivision proposal is that it is proposed to locate the stoiln water management pond in what is now a predominately Pin Oak Forest near Dorchester Road. This seems to be because this area is not suitable for building lots and therefore has been condemned as a storm water management pond. There are a number of ways other was in which the stoin► water management function may be served other than by the sacrifice of forest. An underground detention facility could be constructed, perhaps when the road is modified. The power company could be approached for the use of some of its lands beneath the its towers for this purpose. Also the storm water pond could be located on land now proposed for development. 5. Take Care To Protect More Forests The basic approach that is being taken to this subdivision is cramming development without regards to maintaining the natural forest amenities. There is not any effort being made to maintain the treed strip which now lines Oldfield Road. An area of forest which is too small for lots is being used as a stoiui water pond. It appears that their has been a long on going battle with the Ministry of Natural Resources about the extent of the Greenbrier habitat. There has been no recognition of a the provincially rare Buttonbush. The approval of the Planning Department Report this evening. would seem to be another stage in this on -going dispute. It appears that the process being applied to the Oldfield subdivision is short sighted. Houses with forest amnesties as developer Eric Henry recently eloquently demonstrated to council can command higher prices. There appears to have been no attempt to make use of the five per cent parks dedication to create natural forest parks. (4/18/2011) Dean Iorfida - Re: Fw: Fraud - Monday's Committee Vote Page 1 From: Dean Iorfida To: Jim Diodati CC: Bill Matson; Carey Campbell; council @niagarafalls.ca; Ken Todd; Tere... Subject: Re: Fw: Fraud - Mondays Committee Vote The practice has always been that a committee volunteer must be a resident of Niagara Falls. Some committees may have this in their terms of reference. There have been examples when volunteers have been asked to vacate if they don't meet the residency requirement. I assume that part of the rationale of the residency requirement is two fold: it is similar to the requirement for a person to be on Council (over 18, resident or owner of property in the municipality or spouse, thereof) and to ensure that a Niagara Falls resident is not denied a spot taken by someone from out of town. I would add, however, not being a resident does not preclude a volunteer from being committed to the community. On occasion, you will have an individual applying for a position, who may work in the community. Dave Martineau, for example, applied for the Recreation Committee in 2007. Apparently, he lived elsewhere but as publisher of the Review, he certainly had a commitment to the community (he didn't get appointed). With regard to Dean Tedesco, he has a business on Queen Street, so it could be argued that he has a vested interest in what he has applied for (Arts & Culture, Museums and Municipal Heritage Committee). There is no need for a vote regarding A &C, as the applications are within the minimum and maximums for the committee. I don't see any harm in him remaining on this committee. On the application blank, he did indicate he was a Niagara Falls resident. We don't ask for proof of residency. I would suggest that his name remain on the ballot for Municipal Heritage Committee and the N. Falls Museums Advisory Board. Council can weigh whether he is a worthy candidate or not based on his credentials. Thanks Dean »> Jim Diodati 4/17/2011 5:27 PM »> Dean...is living in Niagara Falls a requirement to volunteer on one of our committes? Jim (4/15/2011) Dean lorfida - Re: FW: Board of Museum Page 1 From: Dean Iorfida To: Cathy Crabbe; daniel.rodrique @sympatico.ca CC: Bill Matson Subject: Re: FW: Board of Museum Daniel: We can add your name to the ballot for Monday. As you know, it will ultimately be Council's call. Thanks Dean »> <daniel,rodrique@svmaatico.ca> 4/15/2011 2:06 PM »> Hi gang, It seems I had your e -mail addresses wrong so here is your copy of my e -mail that you missed. Sony, & thanks, Daniel R. Rodrique - ProducerTHE VETERANS - a Documentary Series8745 Westport Dr, Niagara Falls, ON, L2H 0A2Tel: (905) 354 -4805 Cell: (905) 351- 4220Look For The Series © www.pwu.ca From: daniel.rodrique,GSympatico.ca To: idiodati niagarafalis.ca; deaniorf ida©sniaaarafa is.ca; cbernat©niagarafalisca; gwest6C cogeco.ca CC: ccrbberefalls,ca Subject: Board of Museum Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:55:00 +0000 Gentlemen, Due to my absence on business and my current, temporary busy schedule somehow I missed the opportunity to voice my wish to continue on with the Board of Museums for the city. I do have a lot of close contacts with National Museum due to the nature of my work and could be a real asset to the board and therefore hope that you would consider having me continue with the city's Board of Museums. Thank you for your time and consideration. Warmest Regards, Daniel R. Rodrique - ProducerTHE VETERANS - a Documentary Series8745 Westport Dr, Niagara Falls, ON, L2H 0A2TeI: (905) 354 -4805 Cell: (905) 351- 4220Look For The Series @ www.pwu.caSimply Click On The Tr- Service Icon lit iu ri; 1 LER _' A 0407 151:q - Sae Reverse Side for List of Committees & Contacts - ;/,.,:. r 2011 - 2014 zsrs Application for Citizen Appointments to il*N7 ia aJ is Boards, Commissions and Committees Committee of Adjustments (NAME OF BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE) APPLICATION INFORMATION — N a m e: e-mail: Mark Cahill mark.cahill ©centuy2l.ca YES NO i Street Address Postal Code: Age 18+ X 8015 Woodsview Crescent L2H 3E9 Horne Phone: + Cell Phone: (optional) Resdento` X 905- 356 -7702 905- 347 -5100 Niagara a! ! QUESTIONNAIRE Did you attend the committee open house in 2011? Yes No !X Have you been on a City Council appointed committee or board in the past ?: Yes x - No Briefly describe your recent volunteer experience: I am a volunteer with Out Of The Cold. Newly elected Board member for the Lundy's Lane Business Improvement Area. Briefly describe additional skills or experience relevant to this appointment._ Served two terms on the Committee of Adjustments. Real Estate agent for nearly 5 years. I hereby x consent / do not consent, to the release of my address and telephone number(s). This information will be included in the list of Boards, Commissions and Committees which is used by the Clerk's Division Staff and released to the public. Applicant's signature/� r;i Date: , / f 0// Please return this application form to the attention of: Applicants must be residents of the City of City Clerk - City of Niagara Falls T Niagara Falls. Personal information on this 4310 Queen Street, form is collected under the authority of the Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and will be used Phone: (905) 356 -7521 Fax: (905) 356 -9083 to evaluate the qualifications for citizen or e-mail: bm is _. (J ia a: `: ;i . appointees to the City of Niagara Falls Boards, Commissions & Committees. - See Reverse Side for List of Committees & Contacts - ,,,,,,(> - tEs.. : plic �� }�? '_ 2011 - 2014 —.:-...... Apation f Citizen Appointments to NiagaraFalls Boards, Commissions and Committees Q,, ; %t ,. (NAME OF BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE) I APPLICATION INFORMATION I Name; e -mail: YES NO Street Address. Postal Code: Age 18+ Home Phone: Cell Phone: (optional) Resident of Niagara Falls QUESTIONNAIRE Did you attend the committee open house in 2011? Yes No Have you been on a City Council appointed committee or board in the past ?: Yes No '-_ Briefly describe your recent volunteer experience: Briefly describe additional skills or experience relevant to this appointment. hereby %- consent / (i = do not consent, to the release of my address and telephone number(s). This information will be included in the list of Boards, Commissions and Committees which is used by the Clerk's Division Staff and released to the public. Applicant's signature; - - , r _ - _ - -, >> Date =1 -, ;, c ; I . Please return this application PP form to the attention of: =3 . Applicants must be residents of the City of City Clerk - City of Niagara Falls ° - N Falls. Personal information on this 4310 Queen Street, form is collected under the authority of the Niagara Fails, ON L2E 6X5 Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and will be used Phone: (905) 356 -7521 Fax: (905) 356 -9083 to evaluate the qualifications for citizen or e-mail: bmatson @niagarafalls.ca ice appointees to the City of Niagara Falls Boards, Commissions & Committees. N iagara]WilIs City of Niagara Falls Water & Sewer Rates April 18, 2011 Overview Niagara 1. Rending Issues • Region /Rate Structure Review 2. 2011 Rate Setting • Consumption Rates • Service Charges 1 Regional Review Niagavaftzti • Rates review completed at Regional Level • Reconfirmed existing structure 2011 • Na‘vv review to be conducted in 2011 focused on service delivery review not rates • Requirement by Region to provide data to assist • Significant ramifications to municipality Water Structure Review .tagara • City review • Staff commitment • Operational issues to resolve • Regional issue • Billing and Metering agreement review 2 Fixed Charges NiagaraNIs City costs of operating of distribution system includes a staffing costs - full cost of capital infrastructure e Offset other revenue streams • Factor used in fixed charges increases fixed charges per meter Fixed Service Charge Costing Niagararaii 2011 2010 Variance % Net Water Expenditures $8,513,398 $8,475,033 0.4% Net Sewer Expenditures 7,751,241 7,703,667 0.6% Total $16,264,639 $16,178,700 0.5% 1" Average Rate Per Meter 2011 2010 2009 Water $21.88 $21.88 $21.99 Sewer 20.20 20.20 19.99 Total - Monthly $42.081 $42.08 $41.98 No Increase 3 Volumetric Water Rates Overview Niaga rapt ils • Regional costs consist of 25% fixed and 75% variable charge • Variable rate increased by 1.1% • Fixed charge increased by 4.5% • Full Realonal cost collected from volumetric rate • Percentage of unaccounted water flows - increasing • Stabilization reserves VOILIMetric Sewer RatesNiagararf'"" Overview • Fixed Regional Charges • Based on 3 year average flow not actuals • Revenues based on water billings 4 Volumetric Rates Combined Rate Impact Niagara "11` 2011 2010 Increase Water Rate per cubic 0.90721 0.8605 5.4% meter Sewer Rate per cubic 1.0120 1.0328 (2.0)% meter Total 1.9192 1.8933 1.4% ▪ !Mitigated since costs blended with service charges to determine actual cost • Rate increases favour low consumption rate payers Average User Niaeara rill.' User Quantity 2010 Cost 2011 Cost % Increase Residential 100 m $694.29 $696.29 0.00295% 1" meter Residential 360 m $1,186.55 $1,195.87 0.0078% 1" meter Commercial 5,000 m $30,676.50 $30,806.00 0.0042% 6" meter Commercial 800,000 m $1,535,850.00 $1,556,570.00 1.34% 6" meter 5 Summary Niagarqpdis Regional review underway City comfnitted to improving water loss 5evii,3cle flows down, so positive impact Less than i% price increase 6 (4/15/2011) Teresa Fabbro - Re: water rates Page 1 From: Dean lorfida To: pbielawski @cogeco.ca CC: Teresa Fabbro Date: 4/15/2011 4:02 PM Subject: Re: water rates Thanks Ed. It will be up to Council but we will advise them of your request. Dean Original Message From: "ultimate" <pbielawski @cogeco.ca> To: Dean lorfida <diorfida @niagarafalls.ca> Cc: Teresa Fabbro <tfabbro @niagarafalls.ca> Sent: 4/15/2011 3:53:16 PM Subject: water rates Dean, Please be advised that I wish to make a presentation on the Municipal Utility Budget report to be presented at Mondays Council meeting. If possible I would request that I be allowed to speak for more than the 10 minutes allowed. Thanks Ed . . Niagararans City of Niagara Falls 2011 :„,,apital Budget April 18 9 2011 iagarargii< Overview • Schedule • Available Funding Sources • Next steps 1 Available Funding Sources of Niagarargils Capital Budget • Transfer from Operating, Water or Sewer Bud • Other Sources • Debentures 2011 Transfer to Capital , . — Niagara/Id/3 • Operatjng Budget $ 4,449,265 • Water Budget (proposed) $ 4,100,000 • Sewer Budget (proposed) $ 4,245,000 $12,794,265 2 Other Funding Sources Niagararalis 1. Reserves a) capital reserves b) development charges reserves 2. Grants 3. Third Party Contributions Debentures \iagaraPaii • Last Source of Funding • Commits Council to Future Expenditures in General Purposes Budget • Debentures Incurred Year after Construction Completed • Debt Management Strategy 3 Committed Debentures --------- Niagargrlirifs Department 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Fire Services $3,312.630 $0 $0 $0 $0 Municipal T1, SO I 50 $0 $0 Works Transportation 50 50 I $0 $0 I $0 Services ■ Recreation & SO I $- 5 50 $0 Culture Parks $544,625 I $01 SO $0 $0 TOTALS $3,9572551 $0 I 52 $0 $0 Next Steps • Priority Setting Completed • • Capital Budget Book Next Meeting — May 16th 4