2012/03/27COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA
THIRD MEETING
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
5:30 p.m.
City Hall, Committee Room #2A & B
1) Approval of the February 28, 2012, Committee of the Whole minutes.
2) REPORTS: STAFF CONTACT:
a) PD- 2012 -08
Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision
Minor Variance Application A- 2011 -023
Parts 3 & 4 on Reference Plan 59R -7429, Montrose
Applicant: Johnny Ventresca
b) MW- 2012 -14
Don Johnson Park Upgrades & Hydro One Park
Licence Agreement Renewal
c) PD- 2012 -21
Regional Policy Plan Amendment No. 1 -2012
Gateway Urban Employment Lands
3) NEW BUSINESS:
4) ADJOURNMENT:
Alex Herlovitch
Geoff Holman
Alex Herlovitch
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
FEBRUARY 28, 2012
All members present.
1) REPORTS:
a) F- 2012 -10
Development Charges waiver for the FACS Building
1. Staff recommend that Council deny the grant request.
Chris Steven, Executive Director of FACS made a presentation on their service and the building.
Motion: WTNP: Council approve a grant equal to the City portion of the Development Charges
($47,490) funded from the reserve fund and Council support the organization's efforts to get a grant
equal to the Regional development charges.
b) L- 2012 -03
Committee of Adjustment Extent of Authority
1. For the Information of Council.
Motion: WT /BM Receive and file the report.
with Councillor Wing opposed.
Carried Unanimously
Carried
c) PD- 2012 -018
Appeal of the Committee of Adjustment Decision,
Consent Application B- 2011 -024, 7715 Carl Road
Applicant: Salvatore & Rita Pietrangelo
1. That Council authorize staff to appeal the Committee of Adjustment's decision to grant
Consent Application B- 2011 -024 to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Motion: WT /BM: That Council authorize staff to withdraw the appeal of the Committee of
Adjustment's decision to grant Consent Application B- 2011 -024 to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Carried
with Councillor Wing opposed.
Councillor Pietrangelo declaring an indirect pecuniary interest.
PD- 2012 -08
Niagaraaalls March 27, 2012
REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of the Committee of the Whole
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development
SUBJECT: PD- 2012 -08
Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision
Minor Variance Application A- 2011 -023
Parts 3 & 4 on Reference Plan 59R -7429, Montrose Road
Applicant: Johnny Ventresca
RECOMMENDATION
That Council authorize staff to_ooRtiffEe-w ith the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board regarding
the Committee of Adjustment's decision to grant Minor Variance Application A- 2011 -023. ; and
that staff report back on testamentary devise lots and possible Official Plan
amendments related to the testamentary devise lots.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 15, 2011, the City's Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance
Application A- 2011 -023 contrary to Staffs recommendation. Staff recommended the
application be denied because it does not maintain the intent and purpose of the City's
Official Plan, does not maintain the intent of Willoughby Zoning By -law No. 395, as
amended by By -law No. 2002 -23, and is not minor in nature. Staffs report is attached.
Planning staff filed an appeal against the Committee's decision because the last day to
appeal the Committee of Adjustment's decision was January 3, 2012 and staff could not
consult with Council prior to that date. The abutting neighbour to the south has submitted
an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Staff is seeking Council's authorization to
proceed with the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of application A- 2011 -023 is to recognize an existing undersized parcel of
land (Parts 3 and 4 on Reference Plan 59R -7429 -see the attached Schedule 1- Surveyor's
Sketch). The parcel was larger when it was created through the testamentary devise
process. Since its creation a portion was conveyed to another undersized parcel to the
south so that it could comply with zoning standards. This allowed a dwelling to be
constructed on the adjacent parcel. The conveyance reduced the subject parcel's frontage
and lot area. The applicant purchased the subject parcel from the previous owner who
purchased the property from the City in 2009, when lands were offered for sale by public
tender under the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Tax Sales Rules made under that
March 27, 2012 - 2 - PD- 2012 -08
Act. By -law No. 2002 -023 requires a minimum lot frontage of 60 metres, whereas a lot
frontage of 45.72 metres exists and a lot area of 1 hectare, whereas a lot area of 0.7
hectare exists. The Committee approved application A- 2011 -023 which would have the
effect of recognizing the undersized parcel and allow a dwelling to be constructed on it.
The Official Plan and Zoning By -law require a minimum lot frontage of 60 metres (200
feet) and lot area of 1 ha (2.5 acres). Policy 14.37.1.2 (1) c), Part 2 of the Official Plan
prohibits the reduction of minimum lot size or lot frontage. Council should be aware that
this variance will directly conflict with the provisions of the City of Niagara Falls Official
Plan. The requirements of the Official Plan are mandatory there is no question of
interpretation or differing opinions. Therefore, the variance simply does not comply with the
Official Plan. Pursuant to section 24 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13 a municipal
Council cannot take actions which do not comply with its Official Plan. A Committee of
Adjustment is a delegate of the municipal council. As such, it has no greater powers than
the delegating municipal Council itself has. Accordingly, the granting of this minor variance
is beyond the powers of the Committee of Adjustment and, indeed, the Council itself in the
absence of an amendment to the Official Plan.
There are approximately 95 testamentary devise parcels in the Willoughby and Crowland
areas of the City which do not comply with the minimum requirements of the Official Plan
and Zoning By -law. Approval of the application could set a precedent and encourage
others to seek reductions to municipal standards rather than merging sufficient land to
achieve compliance. The proposal is contrary to the decision of the Ontario Municipal
Board which found that the Plan and by -laws established uniform development standards
such as lot sizes, setbacks and roadways access to ensure proper siting of buildings and
safe development of septic systems.
Staff appealed the Committee's decision to the OMB to meet the January 3, 2012 deadline
on the basis that:
The proposed relief does not maintain the intent and purpose of the City's Official
Plan and the Zoning By -law.
The proposal is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.
The proposal is not considered minor in nature.
Approval of the application could set an undesirable precedent.
There was no opportunity for staff to consult with Council before the final appeal date on
January 3, 2012. Staff is seeking Council concurrence and authorization to proceed with
the appeal.
A copy of this report has been provided to the applicant and the applicant has been
advised that Council will be considering the matter tonight.
CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT
The minor variance conflicts with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By -law and is contrary
to the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.
March 27, 2012
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
- 3 - PD- 2012 -08
► Schedule 1- Location Map
► Schedule 2 - Planning Report to the Committee of Adjustment
Recommended by:
Respectfully submitted:
S.Scerbo
Attach.
Alex Herlovitch,
Director of Planning, Building & Development
Keri Todd, Chief Administrative Officer
S: \PDR\2012 \PD- 2012 -08, Appeal of C of A Decision.wpd
March 27, 2012
- 4 -
SCHEDULE 1
PD-2012-08
Subject Land
".. ...'..
March 27, 2012
- 5 -
SCHEDULE 2
PD- 2012 -08
REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
City of Niagara Falls FILE NO. A- 2011 -023
NAME OF MUNICIPALITY
HEARING DATE November 15, 2011
NAME OF APPLICANT Johnny Ventresca
SUBJECT PROPERTY Parts 3 & 4 on Reference Plan 59R -7429 , Montrose Road
PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting the Committee to recognize an existing undersized parcel that was
initially created through testamentary devise and then reduced in lot frontage and area. Site specific By -law
No. 2002 -023 requires a minimum lot frontage of 60 metres, whereas a lot frontage of 45 72 metres exists.
A variance of 14.28 metres is requested. Also, where the by -law requires a minimum lot area of 1 hectare,
a lot area of 0.7 hectares exists. A variance of 0.3 hectares is requested.
A. OFFICIAL PLAN: Good General Agriculture - Special Policy Area 37
DOES THE PROPOSED RELIEF FROM THE BY -LAW MAINTAIN THE GENERAL
INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN? YES NO X
Special Policy Area 37 recognizes a significant amount of non -farm lot creation that took place through a
bequest of land by Will. The Official Plan establishes minimum lot sizes of I hectare and 60 metres of
frontage. Council adopted these standards in an attempt to reduce the potential land use conflicts that can
result from concentrations of non -farm parcels in the agricultural area. The Council policy is that lot sizes
and frontages are not to be reduced from the standards. Where parcels were created which do not meet the
required sizes, the amalgamation of parcels is encouraged to reduce the impact of unplanned development,
provide better configured parcels and improve the prospects for the long -term functioning of private waste
disposal systems. A portion of the undersized parcel was added to the parcel abutting to the south to enable
it to conform with the City's standards.
B. ZONING BY -LAW: Rural - Agricultural, in accordance with Willoughby No. 395/66, as amended by site
specific By -law No. 2002 -023.
DOES THE PROPOSED RELIEF FROM THE BY -LAW MAINTAIN THE GENERAL
INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING BY -LAW? YES NO X
The minimum lot frontage and lot area requirement of the by -law were established to ensure that adequate
land would be available for a dwelling as well as the necessary septic and water supply systems. The lot area
requirement was set at 1 hectare (2.5 acres) so that a hydrogeological study would not be required. As the
subject parcel is below the City's minimum standards its' amalgamation with an abutting parcel should be
encouraged.
C. DESIRABILITY:
IS THE PROPOSAL DESIRABLE FOR THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OR USE
OF THE LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE? YES NO X
The subject parcel is one of numerous undersized parcels in the City agricultural area. Approval of the
application could set an undesirable precedent for further applications for undersized lots. The proposal is
contrary to the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which found "The Plan and by -laws also establish
uniform development standards such as lot sizes, setbacks and roadway access to ensure proper siting of
buildings and safe development of septic systems."
D. MINOR IN NATURE:
IS THE PROPOSAL CONSIDERED MINOR IN NATURE'.' YES NO X
The requested variances are not permitted by the Official Plan and are not minor in nature.
RECOMMENDATION:
The application be denied as it does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan,
does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By -law, is not desirable for the
appropriate development of the land, building or structure; and is not minor in nature.
DATE: November 11, 2011 SIGNATURE:
NAME: Alex Herlovitch TITLE: Director of Planning, Building & Development
SS:ss
S vCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTCotA20 I tAVentresea 023vReport wpd
(3/22/2012) Dean lorfida - Please forward to City Council (APPLICATION NO A-2011-023) Page 1
From: Eddy Pybus <eddypybus @gmail.com>
To: Scerbo Sue <sscerbo @niagarafalls.ca>
Date: 2/7/2012 4:47 PM
Subject: Please forward to City Council (APPLICATION NO A- 2011 -023)
Dear Sue,
Please forward this message to the members of City Council.
I am writing in regards to the application for minor variance (APPLICATION NO: A- 2011 -023), which was
to be addressed in a public meeting originally scheduled to occur November 15, 2011, 5pm.
As previously discussed, we our opposed to this variance for multiple reasons, and hope the city will
support the planning department's position in an appeal to the OMB.
My family purchased our property in 2003 fully aware that building on any lot with less than 200' of
frontage is strictly forbidden. Because the adjacent lot to our home was only 150' we gladly to paid a
premium for our home. Had we known there was any risk of our home's beauty value would be negatively
impacted by a change in planning codes, we would not have purchased this home
As a realtor in Niagara Falls, I fully understand and am deeply concerned about the implication this
variance will have for existing home owners and their property values. By allowing this variance the city
would be setting a precedence for further variances and an even greater risk to public health as it is
related to septic systems not to mention the devastation to valuable green space.
Again, 1 hope the City Council will support the planning department and pursue this matter by appealing to
the OMB.
Kindest Regards,
Eddy Pybus
Email: eddy @listwitheddy.com
Website: www.ListWithEddy.com
RE /MAX Niagara Realty Ltd.
Real Estate Brokerage
5627 Main Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario L2G 5Z3
Phone: 905 - 356 -9600
Cell: 289 - 219 -4111
Toll Free 1- 877 - 219 -9600
Fax 905 - 374 -0241
" YOUR REFERRALS ARE THE SINCEREST COMPLIMENT
I CAN RECEIVE... THANK YOU FOR YOUR TRUST & SUPPORT"
MW- 2012 -14
Niagaraaalls March 27, 2012
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- 2012 -14
Don Johnson Park Upgrades &
Hydro One Park License Agreement Renewal
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Council authorize staff to proceed with a renewal agreement with Hydro One
for the use of Hydro property and that the Mayor and City Clerk execute the
finalized agreement.
2. That staff be authorized to complete the engineering phase ($10,000).
3. That an expenditure of $138,000 be included in the 2012 Capital Budget
deliberations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Don Johnson Park has been in existence since the late 1980's. Old- timers slo -pitch
is the main sport on this two diamond park. The two ball diamonds are also included in the
inventory for the annual provincial and national slo -pitch tournaments.
A license agreement with Ontario Realty Corporation allows the City to utilize a portion of
the lands for public recreational purposes for an annual fee of $2.00. A portion of one
diamond is located on Hydro lands.
The Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 479 owns the property adjacent to the park, including
the right of way and the parking lot off of Spring Street. The Legion members find it
increasingly difficult to host events and functions during the weekends of slo -pitch
tournaments, as their private parking lot is used extensively by ball players.
The purpose of this report is to authorize an expansion of the parking area onto the Hydro
lands and extend the lease with Hydro One (through ORC).
BACKGROUND
Municipal Works Staff met with Legion members twice in the past two years to discuss their
concerns and come up with a viable solution to the unwanted use of their private parking
lot. It was determined that one diamond adjacent to the Legion property would not be
included in the tournament inventory, thereby directing the ball players to the diamond
located off of Emery Street. This worked in theory, however it was found that a
replacement field in a different location of the City was not adequate for the tournament
March 27, 2012
games in 2011.
ANALYSIS /RATIONALE
- 2 - MW- 2012 -14
The construction of a sixty (60) space parking lot off of Emery Street and on Hydro lands
would allow for sufficient parking for both ball diamonds during league play as well as
tournament play, thereby freeing up the parking issues at the Legion. The provision of a
parking lot in order to accommodate tournament play is particularly timely with the eminent
loss of the Optimist Park diamonds.
If approved, the parking lot would have to be completed by mid August in order to
accommodate the 2012 SPN tournament. Should the parking lot not be approved, the
ongoing parking issues will continue to be problematic. The Legion has made it clear that
their parking lot is no longer available for tournament access. The existing parking lot on
Emery Street is not sufficient to accommodate parking for both fields, leaving a congested
parking situation on Emery Street and on side streets.
The license for the Hydro lands is up for renewal in June 2012. If approved by Council, the
parking lot will be included in the renewal agreement. As the parking lot is less than 10%
of the leased lands, it is anticipated that no additional fees will be added to the lease
agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The engineering phase needs to be completed at a cost of approximately $10,000. It is
proposed that $138,000 be included in the 2012 Capital Budget for the paved parking lot,
including infrastructure costs, and that this expenditure be fast tracked in order to complete
construction by mid August.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The License Agreement will be prepared for the Mayor and City Clerk's signature at a later
date, as required.
CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT
The recommendation contained in this report is consistent with Council's Strategic
Priorities to provide Economic Vitality and Customer Service Excellence.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
1. Concept Plan for Parking Lot on Hydro Lands adjacent to Don Johnson Park.
Recommended by:
Respectfully submitted:
Geoff Hol n, Di ctor of M nicipal Works
Ken To d, Chief Administrative Officer
Geoff Holman, Cynthia Roberts, Jeff Claydon
41 ,
0
he
g 0• 1-
A
Z 0
O z
Z X
O 4
a.
z
O ILI
O (1)
0
CL
0
O.
PD- 2012 -21
Niagara q 1s March 27, 2012
REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of the Committee of the Whole
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development
SUBJECT: PD- 2012 -21
Regional Policy Plan Amendment No. 1 -2012
Gateway Urban Employment Lands
RECOMMENDATION
That this report be submitted to Niagara Region as the City's formal comments on Regional
Policy Plan Amendment No. 1 -2012; and that the expansion of the gateway urban
employment lands include the DiCosimo /Montrose lands.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, designates lands within the region as
Gateway Economic Centre (GEC) and Gateway Economic Zone (GEZ). The GEC
designation affects urban lands within Thorold, Welland and Port Colborne; the GEZ
designation affects urban lands within Fort Erie and Niagara Falls. As a result of
background reports prepared for Niagara Region that defined the extent of the affected
lands and developed a strategy for their future development, the Region has prepared an
amendment (1 -2012) to its Policy Plan to implement these reports. The Region has
requested the City's for comments on the draft Amendment.
While Staff generally support of the objectives of the Amendment, the strategy and
approach presents a limiting policy program. Staff recommend that the Region expand the
extent of lands within the city that should be included as well as broaden the scope of uses
that are to be targeted for these lands.
BACKGROUND
The Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe,
designates lands within the
region as Gateway
Economic Centre (GEC)
and Gateway Economic
Zone (GEZ) (see map on
right). The GEC designation
affects urban lands within
Thorold, Welland and Port
Colborne; the GEZ
Legend
Urban '.rowt' Centres
h.t. •e Irans;c ta'cn
Ccr-vdo's •
Es, Stria Ma; w H y'rw∎ays
- - - Hlyhway Edensl:zn •
Ewq NI Re l i tney •
'fief and Canal •
smii Gateway FcunurIc Zone
I•Pl•T Do'cer Coss n;s
• I-_erno:3 Hubs
I I "xr•atltlna Al-ports
Proposal Airport
(;j) Mk :or Dots
Gale'Ady [curio—tic
Centre
Eult -UG Area - Conceptual K Greenre4 Aver
Ues'pated Gree °geld Area Greater Golder
Horseshoe Growth
Concep
Plan Area"
March 27, 2012
- 2 - PD- 2012 -21
designation affects urban lands within Fort Erie and Niagara Falls. The affected area is
shown as a wavy line next to the Niagara River. However, this area is not described
definitively, it is the responsibility of the Region and affected municipalities to define the
extent of the lands and to develop a strategy for their future development.
Last year, Niagara Region hired Dillon Consulting and RCI Consultants to prepare
background reports. The Dillon report determined the lands that would be affected by the
Gateway designation whereas the RCI report focussed on incentive programs which the
upper and lower tiers could provide to stimulate the development of these lands.
As a result of these reports the Region has prepared an amendment (RPPA 1 -2012) to its
Policy Plan to implement these reports. As the City's Official Plan has to comply with the
Region's Plan, amendments to the Official Plan will have to be prepared once the Region's
amendment has been approved.
Overview of Regional Policy Plan Amendment 1 -2012
There are several strategic objectives to the amendment, the primary of which are:
To strengthen Niagara economy through strategic long range planning and
economic diversification; and
To attract private sector investment in Niagara's existing and emerging
economic clusters.
The policies then describe the lands that are to be affected by these policies and the
specific role that they are to play, in terms of the broad range of employment uses for
which the lands are to be targeted. The policies also recommend that lower tier
municipalities undertake more detailed secondary plans for their respective lands, that the
Region will prepare a CIP, identify servicing and transportation upgrades needed for
development and the urban boundary expansions should there be a need for addition
urban employment land.
The Amendment depicts the Economic Gateway in Niagara Falls on Schedule A attached.
Only the QEW (Montrose) Business Park and the former CN Rail lands on the south side
of Buttrey Street are identified. The extent of lands identified is too limited. Further, the
Amendment provides that the Montrose Business Park is slated only for traditional
business service uses. The Buttrey Street lands are targeted as a "Secure Storage Zone"
given their proximity to the border and the railway access. The lands adjacent to the QEW
outside the urban boundary extending south to Fort Erie are also identified within the text,
but are not shown on the map and there are no implementing policies. These three matters
are seen as short- comings within the Regional Amendment.
Assessment of the Amendment
The amendment sets out a policy regime for the Niagara Economic Gateway which
provides guidance to the City for its future development. However, there are a number of
specific issues that staff are of the opinion that need to addressed. The major points are
highlighted below.
1. Both the Growth Plan and the amendment promote and encourage the use of
existing infrastructure. The QEW is a major component of existing infrastructure
which connects the US directly with the City. Lands along this highway corridor
provide significant exposure with important marketability opportunities. Emphasis
March 27, 2012
- 3 - PD- 2012 -21
should be placed in the amendment on greater utilization of the QEW corridor. The
QEW through Niagara Falls provides the opportunity to create Central, North and
South Corridor areas. These are depicted on Schedule B.
► The Central Corridor - These are the lands identified in the Niagara Falls
OPA #94 as the QEW Employment Corridor. This corridor extends from
south of Lundy's Lane through to Lyon's Creek Road and includes the
Tourist Commercial lands within the northwest quadrant of Montrose Road
and Lyon's Creek Road.
The Region's Amendment should be consistent with the already
adopted goals of the City. Both sides of the QEW, south of Lundy's
Lane, contain significant industrial land employment opportunities.
Further, the lands are fully serviced with municipal water and sanitary
sewers.
In addition, the QEW highway interchange at both McLeod Road and
at Lyon's Creek Road represent essential infrastructure and important
access points to these industrial lands which should be included.
The lands in the northwest quadrant of the QEW and Lyon's Creek
Road are zoned for a mix of Light Industrial uses and Tourist
Commercial uses and form an important part of the development
opportunities of this district. Tourist Commercial land uses are the
City's major employer and also employ a significant percentage of
Niagara's work force. The Growth Plan also includes tourism uses as
part of the GEZ.
► The North Corridor - This includes two distinct areas, the Kent
Avenue /Montrose Road lands and the southwest and southeast quadrants
of Mountain Road and the QEW.
The Kent Avenue /Montrose Road Industrial lands adjacent to the
QEW between Thorold Stone Road and Hwy 420 have arterial road
access to the Thorold Stone Road and Hwy 420 interchanges, are
serviced, have significant highway exposure and have the potential for
redevelopment.
The lands within the southwest quadrant of the QEW and Mountain
Road lie outside the urban boundary, however, given their location,
exposure and access to the QEW were recommended within the
City's Municipal Comprehensive Review as additional employment
lands. Therefore, these lands should be included. The lands within
the southeast quadrant that are within the urban boundary, share
equal attributes and should also be included within the GEZ.
► The South Corridor - This includes the node at the QEW /Sodom Road
interchange and all lands adjacent to the QEW extending south from Lyon's
Creek Road to the municipal boundary with Fort Erie. These lands should be
shown on a map as Rural Employment Lands in the amendment in order to
implement General Policy (e).
March 27, 2012
•
- 4 - PD- 2012 -21
Dillon missed recognizing the lands at the QEW /Sodom Road
interchange which are currently designated in the Official Plan for
employment purposes. This node is a special policy area permitting
research and development facilities related to the aeronautics
industry. Research and development operations and advanced
manufacturing are technologies are in short supply in the region and
thus is an opportunity not to be ignored.
No policies are included in the amendment to address how the lands
adjacent the QEW extending south from Lyon's Creek to Fort Erie are
to develop. These lands should be treated in a manner which is
consistent with how non -urban employment lands are treated in Port
Colborne and Thorold. Policies for dry industry similar to 4.D.9 and
4.D.10 of RPPA 1 -2012 should be included in the amendment to
ensure fairness and equity where rural employment lands are
involved.
The lands identified as the Niagara Falls Priority Investment Area should be
expanded to include all of the lands within the entire Brownfield CIP Pilot Project
Area including the former Cytec and Treibacher lands (see Schedule B) and take
advantage of existing Hwy. 405 infrastructure.
► A pilot project area CIP study was completed in 2008 which identified the
whole of this area as suited to redevelopment of service
industrial /commercial uses.
► These additional lands have direct arterial road access via Stanley Avenue
to Hwy. 405 and in the case of the former Cytec lands potential rail access.
Staff has concerns with the term "Priority Investment" as it implies everything
else is not a priority. Clarification should be provided on the meaning of this
term.
The lands identified by the consultant were rezoned for a major commercial
retail development which seems to contradict with the consultant's approach.
3. The Amendment includes both the GEC and GEZ under the broader term "The
Niagara Economic Gateway" which has all inclusive objectives to strengthen
Niagara's economy. On page ii of the Niagara Gateway Employment Lands Study,
the following key clusters were identified to be the focus of the economic
development of the Gateway:
Advanced manufacturing;
Transportation, warehousing and wholesale trade industries;
Research and development;
Corporate office and business services; and
Tourism and business support.
► The use of employment clusters ignores the multiple strengths of Niagara
Falls. Specifically, the Amendment limits targeted uses in the Priority
Investment Area to storage, warehousing and logistics and business services
and confines the Montrose Business Park to business policies. The policies
should be revised to expand the targeted uses to allow the lower tier the full
range of uses outlined in the 5 above bullets in order to implement the
Gateway objectives in Niagara Falls.
March 27, 2012
CONCLUSION
- 5 - PD- 2012 -21
Regional Policy Plan Amendment No. 1 -2012 was undertaken to implement the GEZ and
GEZ in advance of appropriate amendments to the City's Official Plan as well as more
detailed secondary planning. However, the Amendment as drafted constrain the
opportunities for the Region to operate as an attractor to economic investment because
it separates and divides the activities and fails to focus on the existing infrastructure of the
QEW and Hwy. 405 which are the vehicular transportation routes linking Niagara with the
United States market. The failure to designate additional lands in the City for gateway
development will limit the City's capacity to play a major role in the Niagara Gateway.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Encouraging the development of urban employment land will generate both assessment
income and Development Charge revenue and makes better use of existing infrastructure,
transit and other public services. As such, gateway development will assist in the financial
sustainability of the City. The Regional Amendment must be modified in order to take
advantage of the City's strategic location and international recognition.
CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT
The Region's amendment, together with the appropriate amendments to the City's Official
Plan will provide for a Well- planned City. These will also assist in the implementation of
Economic Vitality and Infrastructure Sustainability.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
► Schedule A - Lands Included in the GEZ as Proposed in RPPA 1 -2012.
► Schedule B - Lands Staff are Recommending to be included in the GEZ.
,
Recommended by: /--L Lk Lid
Alex Herlovitch,
Director of Planning, Building & Development
Respectfully submitted:
J. Barnsley /A. Herlovitch. gd
Attach.
Kin Todd, Chief Administrative Officer
S: \PDR\2012 \PD- 2012 -21, Comments on Regional Policy Plan Amendment No 1- 2012.wpd
4, Lands Included in the GEZ as Proposed in RPPA 1 -2012
I iagaraTirlls
Subject Lands
Lands to be included
in the GEZ as proposed
in RPPA 1 -2012
Other
Roads
Parcels
Urban Area Boundary
March 27, 2012
- 7 -
SCHEDULE B
PD- 2012 -21
NiagaraJ-alls
Lands Staff are Recommending to be Included in the GEZ
North
Corridor
i F
_DTI ( I
i t -c - -- r1-11.I -
- 1 / t �")
j
Subject Lands
QEW Corridors
Pilot Project Area
Other
Roads
Parcels
— — - Urban Area Boundary
Central Corridor
1
1 ;1; South
Corridor
\PIan nirb \Propaeed4PA 1- 2012Zor1es. map