2002/04/08REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING
Monday, April 8, 2002
Addendum to March 25, 2002
Agenda Package
**Items that are included in
the addendum to Council.
REGULAR MEETING
April 8, 2002
PRAYER: Mayor Wayne Thomson
ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Planning/Regular Meeting of Mamh 18, 2002.
DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
Disclosures of pecuniary interest and a brief explanation thereof will be made for the
current Council Meeting at this time.
PRESENTATIONS
Presentations will be made to Darcy Dungey, Jonathon Makowski and Kendra
Lawde, members of Team Niagara on their wins at the Sport Karate World Games In
California.
DEPUTATIONS
The Many Hands Proiect
Sean McGrfllen, Manager, Marketing and Communications of Niagara College's
Many Hands Project, wishes to provide information to Council on the upgrading and
construction on the new and existing facilities of the Niagara Support Services' KalarRoad
residence.
Annual Greater Niagara Circle Trek Fun Ride
Mr. Clyde Carruthers and Mr. Vince Catone, of the Trails & Bikeways Committee,
wish to provide information on the 1st Annual Greater Niagara Circle Trek Fun Ride being
held on May 4th in order to raise funds for Phase 2 of the Millennium Trail.
-2-
District School Board of Nia~lara
Ms. Linde Baiano, Vice Principal, Stamford Collegiate and Ms. Sue Szaszi, Principal,
Orchard Park Elementary School wish to address Council and request that Council prcclaim
the month of April es "Education Month".
**Privatization and Derequlation of Ontario Hydro
Mr. John Dawson, Niagara Chapter of the Council of Canadians and the Ontario
Electrical Coalition wishes to address Council and present a resolution on the privatization
and deregulation of Ontario Hydro.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
1. Report F-2002-17 - 2002 General Purposes Budget.
2. Report F-2002-18 - 2002.2006 Capital Projects Budget
3. Report F.2002-21 Amendments to the 2002 Budget
** - AND. Correspondence from the Niagara Falls Public Library ~
4. Report MW-2002.26. Municipal Parking & Traffic Committee
Recommendation. Review of Monthly Parking Rates - February 19, 2002.
5. Report MW-2002.27 - Municipal Parking & Traffic Committee
- 2002 Budget Recommendations, February 19, 2002.
** ITEM NO. 08
Public Meeting
Orchard Grove West Draft Plan of Subdivision
Zoning By-law Amendment; 26T-11,2001-03 (Revised)
Application; ^M-34/2001; Owner: 527786 Ontario Limited
(Agreement of Purchase and Sale)
Background Material:
Recommendation Report: PD-2002-34
-3-
** - AND -
Correspondence from Canadian National Railway
Correspondence from J. Mark Lelievre
Correspondence from Canadian National Railway
Correspondence from Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
Correspondence from Regional Niagara, Planning and
Development Department
Correspondence from Brooks, Bielby & Smith
Correspondence from Acres International
MAYOR~ REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, REMARKS
w
ap
COMMUNICATIONS
Youth for Christ Niagara - Re: Outdoor Concerts - requesting permission to hold
a sedes of free outdoorconcerts, beginning with a concert at City Hall during Hiphop
Appreciation Week, being the third week of May and to use vadous parks throughout
the City from May 18th to August 31, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION: Refer to staff.
Chippawa Amateur Athletic Association - Re: Arena'Complex in Chippawa.
requesting this item be budgeted for this year.
RECOMMENDA T/ON: Refer to Staff.
Downtown Niagara Falls- Re: Downtown Beautification- requesting that Council
1) help subsidize the hydro expense that is incurred to keep the lights on the trees
located on Queen Street; and 2) requests unlimited access and use of the market
area between Queen and Park Street and 3) that Council waive all permit fees and
support the effort by cleaning and repairing the building area for their ongoing use
and 4) that the City provide electricity to accommodate vendors who will provide
perishables and in addition to providing washroom facilities to the Patrons of the
market.
RECOMMENDATION: Refer to staff.
Lundy's Lane Historical Museum. Re: Commemorating Railway History.
requesting that consideration be given to two sections of railway track, both the rails
and ties be preserved to be later reintroduced as part of a streetscape design and
to allow for a plaque to be placed in a prominent location commemorating one of the
most important eras of our City's past.
RECOMMENDATION: Refer to staff.
-4-
The Niagara Parks Commission- Re: Fireworks Displays. requesting permission
to carry out the Falls Fireworks Displays from May 17~h, 2002 through September 1,
2002 commencing at 10:00 p.m. on Sunday and Friday nights; including Victoria
Day, May 20~; Memorial Day, May 27~; Canada Day, July 1~ ; Independence Day,
July4t~ in the Lower Gorge along the Power Generation Access Road.
RECOMMENDA T/ON: That the request be approved subject to established po/icy.
** Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontar/o - Re: Big Bike for Stroke Research -
requesting peirr~ission to hold its annual "Big Bike for Stroke" event on April 28~,
2002.
RECOMMENDA T/ON: That the request be approved subject to established po/icy.
Additional Items for Council Consideration:
The City Clerk will advise of any further items for Council consideration.
REPORTS
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MA TTERS
1. Chief Administrative Officer
COMMUNITY SERVICES MA TTERS
BDD-2002-01, Niagara Commercial Properties
User Agreement.
Chief Administrative Officer
MW-2002-3g, TenderContract #2002-03, Asphalt
Patching.
2. Chief Administrative Officer MW-2002-40, Tender Contract #2002-116-01,
Victoria Avenue BIA Sidewalk Improvements.
Please note that a telephone poll of Council approved the above two reports - these
items will be formally endorsed at this Council meeting. ~
Chief Administrative Officer
Chief Administrative Officer
**MW-2002-44, Building Division Renovation,
Tender #04-2002.
**MW-2002-45, Highway No. 420 Reconstruction;
Information Report.
Chief Administrative Officer
R-2002-16, Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield.
RATIFICATION OF PARKING & TRAFFIC COMMITTEE ACTION,~
(Alderman Klm Craitor, Chair)
Chair, Municipal Parking and
Traffic Committee
CORPORA TE SERVICES MA TTERS
Chief Administrative Officer
Chief Administrative Officer
FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1. Chief Administrative Officer
MISCELLANEOUS MA TTERS
1. Chief Administrative Officer
**MW~2002-43, Municipal Parking and Traffic
Committee Recommendations, Mamh 19, 2002
Meeting.
**F-2002-23, Municipal Accounts.
IS-2002-01, Ministry of Natural Resources
Agreement for Hydrology Data.
**FS-2002- 07, Agreement with Walker Brothers
Quarries Limited Temporary Training site for
Niagara Fails Fire Department; Vacant House at
9555 Mountain Road.
L-2002-18, Agreement with The Regional
Municipality of Niagara; Temporary Training Site
for Niagara Falls Fire Department Vacant Houses
and Apartment Building - Roberts Street.
lea TIFICA TION OF COMMITTEE. OF. THE. WHOLE MA TTER,~
-6-
The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to the by-
laws listed for Council consideration.
BY-LAWS
2002-057 **To provide members of Council with an Aldem~anic Community Expense
Allowance.
2002-0~
**To amend By-law No. 99-140, as amended, being a by-law to appoint by-
law enforcement officers for the City of Niagara Falls.
2002-059
**To amend By-law No. 89-2000, being a by-law to regulate parking and
traffic on City Roads (parking Prohibited, Standing Prohibited, Stopping
Prohibited, Stop Signs, Parking Meter Zones)
2002-060 **To authorize monies for General Purposes (April 8, 2002).
2002-061
**To adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held
on April 8, 2002.
NEW BUSINESS
MR. DEAN IORFIDA, CLERK,
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ONT.
D~AR MR. IORFIDA,
ON BEHALF OF THE NIAGARA CHAPTER'
6955 HAGAR AVE
NIAGARA FALLS, ON.
MAR. 28, 2002.
OF THE COUNCIL OF CANADIANS
AND THE ONTARIO ELECTRICAL COALITION, I REQUEST A PLACE ON THE AGENDA
AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SPEAK BRIEFLY AND PRESENT A
RESOLUTION ON THE PRIVATIZATION AND DEREGULATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO.
DEREGULATION WILL RESULT~IN AT-COST POWER NO LONGER BEING AVAILABLE
AND WOULD TIE US IN TO THE VOLATILE U.S. ELECTRICITY MARKET. THIS WOULD
EFFECT THE STABILITY OF BOTH RATES AND SUPPLY.
SOURING ELECTRICITY RATES WOULD BE A FINANCIAL BURDEN ON ALL MUNICIPAI
GOVERNMENTS IN NIAGARA, AND WOULD BE A BLOW TO THE WELL - BEING OF OUR
ENTIRE CON~UNITY. PUBLIC SERVICES AND LOCAL BUSINESSES, AS WELL AS
INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS WOULD FACE ELECTRICITY BILLS THEY JUST COULDN'T
AFFORD TO PAY.
THERE IS SOME URGENCY FOR CITY COUNCIL TO VOIC~ ITS OPPOSITION TO
DEREGULATION AS PLANS FOR OPENING THE MARKET ARE SCHEDULED FOR MAY 1st.
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNNENT HOWEVER IS NOT OBLIGED TO PROCEED WITH IT.
IT IS WORTHWHILE TO NOTE THAT EVERYWHERE DEREGULATION HAS BEEN TRIED
IT HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL! THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
(NAFTA) WILL NOT PERMIT US TO EASILY GO BACK TO PUBLICLY REGULATED
ELECTRICITY IF PRIVATIZATION IS UNSUCCESSFUL IN ONTARIO.
INCIDENTALLY, THE CITY OF WELLAND AND THE TOWN OF FORT ERIE HAVE
ALREADY PASSED SIMILAR RESOLUTIONS. BY TAKING A TIMELY PUBLIC 'STAND
AGAINST DEREGULATION, NIAGARA FALLS CITY COUNCIL CAN PROVIDE LEADERSHIP
TO PROTECT OUR COM]~UNITY. PLEASE ACCEPT THIS REQUEST AS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR CONCERN FOR THE PEOPLE, CO~I~IERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
INTERESTS OF OUR CON2~UNITY.
LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR EARLY RESPONSE WITH THANKS.
SINCERELY, ~-h ~
\!
P.S. I WILL, WITH YOUR PERMISSION,LEAVE YOU WkLTH MORE MATERIAL ON THIS
TOPIC TO HGPEFULLY DUPLICATE AND DISTRIBUTE TO ALL MEMBERS OF CITY COUNC
THANKS AGAIN ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL AND THE 100,000 ME~IBERS ACROSS
CANADA.
RESOLUTION ON
:;ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION & PRIVATIZATION IN ONTARIO
WHEREAS the Government of Ontario's proposed deregulation and privatization
of electricity will result in higher consumer and industrial rates that will put
increased pressure on municipal/school board budgets and affect every aspect of
our community's well-being; -and -
WHEREAS everywhere that electricity deregulation has been tried rates have
significantly increased, reliability has decreased, and the economy has declined; -
and-
WI~REAS the Government of Ontario is unable to provide assurances that
electricity rates under deregulation will enable Ontario business and industry to be
competitive with American states, and that the environment can be protected; -
and
WHEREAS deregulation and privatization will cause our electricity to be subject to
NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) which will take away our control
of Ontario's electrical supply.
TFI'F~REFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this municipal government calls on the
Government of Ontario to cancel its plans for the deregulation of electricity and
privatization of Ontario's electricity assets.
ALL ABOUT
ELECTRICITY
DEREGULATION & PRIVATIZATION
IN
ONTARIO
A N I N F O R M A T I O N "HANDBOOK"
Compiled for The Council of Canadians
Niagara Chapter
W.H.
January, 2002
ALL ABOUT
ELECTRICITy
DEREGULATION & PRIVATIZATION
IN
ONTARIO
AN INFORMATION "HANDBOOK"
Compiled for The Council of Canadians
Niagara Chapter
W.H.
January, 2002
ELECTRICITY
1.
2.
3.
4.
ALL ABOUT
DEREGULATION
IN ONTARIO
& PRIVATIZATION
AN INFORMATION "HANDBOOK"
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
CONTENTS
THE STRUCTUREFOR DEREGULATION
OVERVIEW OF THE DEREGULATED MARKET
IMPLEMENTING DEREGULATION:
- A - Ontario Power Generation (OPG)
- B - Hydro One
- C - The ,Independent Market Operator (IMO)
- D - The Ontario Financial Corporation (OEFC)
- E - Local Municipal Utilities
EXPERIENCES WITH DEREGULATION
- A - Alberta
- B - California
- C - Britain, Penn.qylvania and Australia
THE LINEUP AGAINST DEREGULATION
NAFTA MAKES DEREGULATION "A FATAL DISEASE"
APPENDIX 1: A DISCUSSION OF THE NUCLEAR OPTION
APPENDIX 2: A DISCUSSION OF OTHER OPTIONS: FOSSIL FUELS
Page
1
2
2
3
9
10
12
13
Compiled for
The Council of Canadians
Niagara Chapter
January, 2002
ELECTRICITY
ALL ABOUT
DEREGULATION
IN ONTARIO
Page 1
& PRIVATIZATION
AN INFORMATION "HANDBOOK"
INTRODUCTION
Premier Mike Harris has split Ontario Hydro into several pieces with the aim of privatizing the generating and
transmission pieces and pitting them against U.S. competitors in a free market.
In December, 2001, the Premier announced that the distribution company, Hydro One, will be sold first, with
the generating plants to follow, and that full-scale deregulation would begin May 1, 2002.
In effect, Mr. Harris is dismantling a viable, regulated government electricity monopoly that has provided
cheap, reliable power for decades. He is putting in its place a deregulated and privatized environment that is
sure to increase electricity rate costs.
The certainty of such increase(s) is understandable. Private corporations don't move into any new business
without some expectation of profit. Their objective is to make money, not to provide services at cost.
Everywhere that deregulation of electricity has been tried it has been unsuccessful. Not only have rotes
increased, reliability has decreased, and people and economies have been negatively impacted.
In the case of Ontario, there is also a threat of loss of control of our resources and our economy because of the
NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) which will kick in with the advent of deregulation.
Indeed, this poses another threat to the sovereignty of Canada.
From an ideological point of view, the government and its big business supporters hope that the breakup mad
privatization of Canada's largest Crown corporation will lend legitimacy to their campaign to privatize all
public services, including health care and education.
Concerns about the impact of high electricity rates on our economy and standard of living have been voiced by
almost every strata of society, including a number of big business users.
All of these concerns and implications are too serious to dismiss or ignore. Ontarians must familiarize
themselves with the issue of deregulation to present an informed challenge to Mr. Harris's plans.
Page 2
1. BACKGROUND
Ontario's previous system of publicly owned at-cost electricity was created in 1906, and operated as a
monopoly under the name "Ontario Hydro". Its mandate was to provide cheap power, and to promote
industrial development and the opening of northern Ontario.
Ontario Hydro was successful in discharging its mandate and was the prime reason for Ontario's impressive
economic development. It expanded during the post-Second World War boom to become one of Canada's
largest corporations, and by some measures (such as total assets) its largest. As an example of how publicly
owned corporations could promote the interests of both capital and working people it was universally lauded.
However, the new Tory government of Mike Harris in 1995 criticized Ontario Hydro for wasting money (at
One time it had a $38 billion debt - mostly incurred for building nuclear plants) and having too large a surplus
of electricity. It also claimed that private companies could be more efficient and that competition would bring
rates down (even though there was no proof of that in jurisdictions where deregulation had been
implemented).
Accordingly, the government decided to deregulate the electricity market. Big business was going to get the
opportunity to directly profit from the sale of electric power..As a result, after market opening, the price
consumers pay for power will no longer be based on the real cost of producing that power. If the demand is
high - sellers will make super profits. If the demand is low - sellers could find themselves bankrupt.
2. THE STRUCTURE FOR' DEREGULATION
Under the terms of legislation passed by the Tories in 1998 and 1999, a number of corporations were formed
from the former Ontario Hydro to facilitate the establishment of a competitive electricity market:
Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG): - Owns and runs the power generation plants that
generate 85% of the electric power consumed in Ontario;
Ontario Hydro Services Inc. (''Hydro One"): - Owns/operates the high voltage transmission/
distribution lines/facilities and is responsible for transmitting electricity through the hydro
grid;
The Independent Electricity Market Operator (IMO): - Will nm the wholesale market in which
retailers, local utilities, and big power users will buy power from generators once the market
opens;
Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC): - Has assumed the multi-billion dollar debt
of the former public utility (Ontario Hydro) and is responsible for administering and servicing
it. This debt continues to be fully guaranteed by the Province of Ontario.
Page 3
The Electrical Safety Authority (ESA): - Responsible for the promotion and administration of
safety in the industry.
In addition, the legislation required that local/municipal utilities be set Up like private corporations, trying m
earn a remm on their assets. These utilities own the wires and deliver the electricity to homes and businesses.
The utilities are mainly owned by municipalities, but can be sold to private companies. Many have already
been sold to Hydro One.
3. OVERVIEW OF THE DEREGULATED MARKET
The wholesale price of electric power will no longer be an annually fixed rate.
The price will include charges for: - Regulated elements for transmission and distribution;
- Competitive components for the electrical energy itself;
- Ancillary services to ensure reliability.
The "spot market" price will change from hour to hour, day to night, from season to season, and for short
periods in response to high levels of demand or sudden changes to demand. As demand increases, the price
rises. As demand drops, the price drops.
Customers will be able to respond to prices by shifting some of their demand to off-peak periods, similar to
long-distance telephone charges.
Customers will also be able to purchase electricity from many different suppliers. Where wholesale prices
change quickly, suppliers may offer "packages" for service and pricing.
Custonl~rs
- Enter into term contracts with suppliers at a guaranteed fixed rate;
Or
- Purchase their supply on the "spot market".
Note: Also see below: Section 4 - IMPLEMENTING DEREGULATION, Item "C - The Independent
Market Operator."
Page 4
4.IMPLEMENTING DEREGULATION
A - Ontario Power Generation Inc.(OPG)
1. OPG is required to divest two-thirds of its generating capacity within 10 years. This will allow
private firms to compete in the generation and sale of electricity. Private companies will be permitted to build
power plants in order to sell power to retailers, who in turn, would sell to homeowners.
- (Note: OPG's divestiture of its generating assets means that there would be no dominant
government-owned generating company to exercise control over private sector rates.)
This dismantling of OPG should commence May 1, 2002, according to an announcement by Premier Harris in
December, 2001.
2. As one of the first steps in implementing deregulation, OPG leased for 18 years the Bruce nuclear
generating station to the Bruce Power Partnership, which is 95% owned by British Energy PLC. However, a
provincial government corporation remains the owner of the physical plant and will ultimately be responsible
for expensive decommissioning and clean-up costs.
British Energy made $90 million in a 6-month period in 2001 on its investment of $367 million, i.e., a
24.5% profit. (It will not be responsible for decommissioning and clean-up costs.)
3, The Ontario cabinet h~q quietly extended special, low electricity rates to a clutch of businesses
who had enjoyed special deals with Ontario Hydro. They,ll continue to enjoy lower rates up to 2004. The
Toronto Star of July 22, 2000, reported that the Energy Minister's office has refused requests to release a list
of the businesses getting the special break. (Of course, bestowing these breaks for a favoured few forces
Ontario Power Generation to charge its other customers higher rates to make up the difference.)
4. Private electric generating companies in Ontario will find it impossible to resist high prices south
of the border. People in Ontario will be forced to start paying New York and Boston prices to retain their own
supply of electricity.
5. The costs of the hydraulic facilities in Ontario are nearly all fully depreciated. Therefore,
privafization of these would be an absolute gift to the purchaser.
6, Offshore utilities can come in and buy OPG generation plants and set up shop in Ontario. In the
case of U.S. utilities they do not have the spare power to sell into Ontario directly, so they have to set up shop
in Ontario. This means they can "cherry pick" the generation plants they want - probably hydraulic, and with
large and continuous demands.
7. To ensure that OPG won't overcharge customers, the government has capped the company's
revenue at 3.8 cents per kilowatt hour and required it to rebate what it earns beyond that level.
- This rebate provision will last until at least the fall of 2005, or until OPG sells off two-thirds of
its generating capacity. Then, consumers will be on their own, face-to-face with the market.
(In effect, the real impact of deregulation may be ma~ked until then.)
- There are no other price caps or protections for consumers.
B- Ht~dro One
1. On December 17, 2001, Premier Mike Harris announced that Hydro One wilt be privatized through
the public sale of shares which the government hopes will net it at least $5.5 billion. Hydro One's assets are
valued at just under $10 billion. (The value of Hydro One's services in future years (which will likely be
many times its sales price) is apparently not being taken into account. ( This is similar to the government's
Page 5
attitude in the sale of Highway 407.)
- The sale of Hydro One is the largest privatization in Canadian history and wilt open Ontario's
$10 billion electricity market.
- Mr. Harris. says that the sale will help pay down the $20.9 billion debt of the old Ontario
Hydro.
2. Hydro One transmission costs are estimated to account for about 10 - 15% of an average household
~power bill.
3. Under private ownership, Hydro One will have to get permission from the Ontario Energy Board, a
government-appointed body, each time it attempts to raise rates.
- (According to the National Post of January 28, 2000, the Energy Board has been changed from
being an independent, quasi-judicial agency to a body that is mom compliant to the
government, and has dispensed with such due process provisions as sworn evidence, and cross-
examination that once helped protect the public and bound the Board.)
4. Hydro One has bought more than 100, mostly smaller, local utilities (which carry power to homes
and bus'messes), and has bids for more.
- (The province slapped a 33% transfer tax on any municipal utility sold to a private sector firm.
Hydro One is exempt from the tax, and thus has an advantage over other bidders.)
5. The mai sienificance of Harris's announcement to privatize Hydro One is that it will be impossible
for his successor not tO proceed with the market opening, which includes privatizing generating plants.
C- The Independent Electricit~ Market Operator (IMO)
1. The IMO's mandate is to control the bulk electrical system in Ontario. This involves balancing the
demand for, and supply of, electricity on a second-to-second basis. In essence, it is responsible to "direct the
flow of electricity fi:om those who make it to those who need it."
- In the "spot market", generators can submit offers for electric power in different quantities and
prices for each hour of the day. The IMO collects offers from suppliers and bids from
purchasers to determine the "on-the-spot market" price for electricity that reflects demand
across the province. Every 5 minutes, the IMO calculates a new "spot market" price by
balancing the supply of electricity with demand.
2. The IMO will bill and settle financial accounts with those in the wholesale market.
3. The IMO is a non-profit, regulated corporation without share capital. It is under the direction of
the Ministry of EnergY, Science and Technology and is independent of all other players in the industry.
(Note: Also see above: Section "C - OVERVIEW OF THE DEREGULATED MARKET"
D- The Ontario Electrici~_ Financial Corporation (OEFC)
1. The OEFC is an agency of the Province of Ontario and is responsible for servicing and retiring the
former Ontario Hydro's provincially guaranteed debt and managing certain other legacy liabilities. The OEFC
relies on a series of dedicated revenue streams generated from the electricity sector to extinguish its
obligations (ref. item 4 below).
2. In return for assets transferred from Ontario Hydro, the successor companies issued debt to the
OEFC in April, 1999 as follows:
- OPG: $8.5 billion Page 6
- Hydro One: $8.6 billion
- The IMO: $78 million
3. In order for OPG and Hydro One to have capital structures competitive with those of other industry
participants, the two companies entered into a debt-for-equity swap with the Province whereby the Province
has assumed $8.9 billion of the debt issued by the two corporations to OEFC as follows:
- OPG: $5.1 billion of common equity;
- Hydro One: $3.8 billion in equity.
4. The $38 billion of outstanding Ontario Hydro debt and other liabilities held by the OEFC will be
serviced as follows:
- Debt from the successor companies (item 2);
- Debt from the Province (item 3);
- "Payments-in-lieu of taxes" from the successor companies and Municipal Electric Utilities;
- A Debt Retirement Charge (DRC) to service residual "stranded debt" (i.e., the debt that cannot
be repaid normally from revenues). This will come from a portion of electricity consumers
electricity bills which will be paid to the OEFC to service the residual "stranded debt"
(Note: "Payments-in-lieu of taxes" and "stranded debt" are mentioned below in item $ of Section E -
Local Municipalities)
5. According to the OEFC web site, the former Ontario Hydro entered into Power Purchase
Agreements with about 90 non-utility generators (NUGs) that expire on various dates up to 2048. They
represent about 6% of Ontario's energy requirements. The price of the power purchased under these
Agreements is expected to exceed the market price by about $4.3 billion over the life of the contracts. Enron
(whose parent U.S. firm is in bankruptcy) was recently selected to manage these contracts.
E - Local Municipal U_~_'_l_O!es
1. To cope with the market opening, municipal utilities will require setting up a sophisticated and
expensive metering, billing and invoicing system.
- Under the new competitive market, there will be a complex, round-the-clock auction with
generators offering to produce set amounts of power at different prices, and buyers such as the
electricity retailers or local utilities bidding on the power. The local utilities, which deliver the
power directly to customers must monitor how much power was delivered to each customer, at
what price, and from whom.
- On December 27, 2001, it was reported that almost half of Ontario's 94 local utilities will not
be ready to participate in Ontario's competitive electricity market when it opens on May 1,
2002 (according to Energy Board Chair Floyd Laughren).
- The utilities that won't be ready for market opening are the small ones and represent
only 18% of the customers in the province. The Board says it is preparing contingency
plans for these and that the market will be able to open on schedule.
- Customers of unprepared utilities will be at a disadvantage when the market opens if they have
signed contracts with retailers for fixed price as they will not be able to buy power under these
retail contracts.
2. The Ontario Energy Board has licensed more than 100 retailers to sell electricity.
P~e7
3. In 2000, Bill 100 was introduced to "prohibit municipalities from taking 'windfall profits' from
their local hydro". For example, the Energy Board blocked a 6% interim rate increase from Toronto Hydro.
- In its wording, Bill 100 seems to limit the rates of utilities owned by municipalities - but not
private companies. However, this is unclear.
- The Bill expires in 2003, which means the effects of the changes arising from deregulation
won't be fully apparent until then.
- The Bill also seems to limit the return that utilities can earn on their assets. This makes it
awkward for municipal utilities to borrow money and fired equity.
4. Municipal utilities now have to pay provincial taxes on income.
- A common private sector financing strategy is to take on debts to cut tax exposure.
- Municipalities are now tempted to do this with their utilities and use the money they
can gain from this for local purposes not related to the utility.
5. Local utilities are required to pay what amounts to a corporate tax called "payment in lieu of
taxes" (mentioned above in Item 4 of Section D - The Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC)).
These are earmarked to help pay offthe $20.9 billion of"stranded debt" of the former Hydro. (This is debt
that can't be paid offthrough normal commercial means.)
- Based on some estimates, once the tax kicks in a residential customer's basic monthly charge
and the hourly distribution rote could rise as much as 20%. This, in most cases, would
probably represent 3 - 5 °A of the total electric bill.
(Note: T. Adams, executive director, Energy Probe, estimated in the Toronto Star on January 9, 2002,
that this tax will raise only $160 million a year, which won't put much of a dent in the $20.9 billion debt.)
5. QUESTIONS ABOUT MANAGEMENT& CONTROL
Ontario Hydro's monopoly enabled it to plan the total needs of the province 40 years into the future
(according to a Hydro White Paper) based on statsfical forecasts.
In the new world of deregulation and privatization it is not clear or certain:
- Who will Co-ordinate this long-term 40-year vision and its realization;
- Without this kind of vision for Ontario:
- New businesses will be reluctant to locate here;
- Decisions of existing businesses about expansion will be affected unless there
can be assurance ora reliable and affordable power supply.
- What control government will have over generation and generation reserve.
If there is no centralized control this could lead to a patchwork quilt of system reliability that could affect
growth in different parts of the province. It could also lead to less government maneuverability for economic
development with the province. To regain this, the government could have to subsidize a utility (the kind of
thing the present government wants to get out of doing). In this kind of environment it is possible that private
utilities could control policy, and the economic direction and future outlook for the province.
Page 8
The reactions of private utilities to short-term conditions were illustrated in an article in the Globe and Mail of
January 4, 2002, which highlighted the fact that energy companies in the deregulated U.S. market are scaling
back power plant construction to cope with low wholesaie electricity prices, slack demand, and market jitters
over high levels of corporate debt. As there is a long lead time to build a Power plant the article expressed
.concern with the lack of forward long-term planning and visiOn of the future by private utilities. The concern
~s that capacity may not get built to be ready when needed, and that what does get built is in the best place.
Government, politicians and civil servants only think one year ahead. Businesses only think ahead to the next
quarter. Under these conditions there can be little or no effective, managed co-ordination or control of the
electricity system on which our economy depends.
Finally, in the new world of deregulated private electric utilities it is not clear: - Whether there is going to be any constraints on foreign ownership;
- What measures will protect the consumer interest over the long term;
- What measures will be taken to protect the environment;
- What will happen ifa private utility decides that its operation is no longer profitable and it
wants to abandon the enterprise.
As far as is known, there have been no public indications that these kinds of questions have been fully
considered. If they have been, they haven't been publicized.
6. ACTUAL EXPERIENCES WITH DEREGULATION
Wherever deregulation has been tried, electricity rates have increased. Proponents of deregulation are
in deep denial of this reality.
~4 - Alberta
1. Consumers paid almost twice as much for power when the province deregulated its market in 1996.
In some instances, however, it was reported that the price went up as much as 6 times. Alberta's steel and
petrochemical firms saw power rates quadruple.
2. Business interests who had originally promoted privatization now think it is a disaster.
3. Alberta now buys electricity from British Columbia and Saskatebewan.
4. The province was forced to subsidize Albertans with rebates - about $4.5 billion (U.S.), which
went into the pockets of private companies. Last year, consumers reaped a $1 billion rebate.
_B - CalijCornla
1. Deregulation began in 1996. Since then prices and numbers of blackouts have skyrocketed.
2. In March, 2001, the California Independent System Operator reported that generating fh'rns have
overcharged Californians by a whopping $5 billion (U.S.) during a 1 O-month period. According to the state's
Electricity Oversight Board, generating firms saw their profits rise in 2000 from 47% to 1800%.
Page 9
3. In the first years of deregulation Pacific Gas and Electric was able to pay $4 billion to its parent
holding company so that it could pay generous dividends and undertake foreign acquisitions.
4. Stronger federal controls over wholesale power rates had to be imposed in June, 2001.
5. The disastrous 1999 deregulation has largely been undone (according to the L.A. Times, June,
2001).
C - Britain, Penn~lvania, and Australia
On December 18, 2001, Premier Mike Harris pointed to three places where deregulation has worked:
Britain, Pennsylvania, and Australia. In an article in The Toronto Star on December 22, 2001, entitled: "Tall
Tales ofprivatized electricity" Thomas Walkom analyzed the experience of these three places and detailed
how Harris's "three success stories are not exactly as advertised." To quote the article:
- "In Pennsylvania and Britain, deregulation on the scale Ontario is contemplating simply never
occurred. Government regulators in both places still keep a tight ceiling on consumer
electricity rotes .......... And in Australia, full deregulation for residential consumers won't even
begin until next year. When it does, analysts expect electricity prices to jump."
The article went on to mention that:
- Two of Australia's biggest states may face blackouts this summer.
- In the ease of Pennsylvania, it stated that rates for 90% of Pennsylvauians are set by regulators.
Decline in power prices was not due to deregulation. It was the result of regulation.
- In Britain, it has been calculated that because of"gaming" ( turning offa turbine for pretended
maintenance) electrical prices were 25% higher than they should have been.
Note: Re: - British Columbia
The Globe and Mail of December 22, 2001 reported that a government-appointed energy task force in
B.C. had identified that "market-based electricity prices.., could be as much as 30% higher than current rates."
7. THE LINEUP AGAINST DEREGULATION
1. Dofasco is the biggest single user of electricity in Ontario. Its president, John Mayberry, predicted
in December, 2001, in the Globe and Mall, that under privatizafion rates will jump between 20 - 40 %
after the market opens - for both businesses and householders alike.
- He said that by breaking up Hydro into separate profit-making generating, transmission, and
distribution companies, the govermnent is simply creating more middlemen - each with his
hand out. "There is no competition", he said. "Instead, we are moving from one monopoly to
another."
2. Dan MacNamara, lobbyist for some of Alberta's biggest fim~s was reported (in The Toronto Star,
December 15, 2001) as saying that "in theory the free market is great; in practice it doesn't seem to work
- at least in the electricity industry."
3. The Association of Major Power Consumers (AMPC) in Ontario includes 60 of the province's
biggest industrial companies, most of which are heavy contributors to the Conservative Party. They have
suggested mining Hydro One into a non-profit co-op committed to delivering cheap and reliable energy. This
Page 10
idea was also supported by Tony Fell of RBC Dominion Securities, a leading Tory bagman.
- The AMPC contends that a non-profit co-op could
- Give the government an estimated $3.8 billion more than it will gain from selling
Hydro One; '
- Eliminate the prospect of more profit-taking middlemen;
- Minimize increases to householders and businesses.
4. ~: The NDP is the only party that has expressed unequivocal opposition to the
privatization and deregulation of the electricity system and regards a publicly owned system as the only way to
ensure a reliable supply ofreusonably priced power.
5. Organized labour is generally opposed to deregulation and privatization. It regards it as putting
working people at the mercy of big business and the free market and sees this as threatening living standards
and utility workers' jobs. Diverse other groups have also expressed opposition to deregulation; e.g., the
Retired Teachers of Ontario, etc.
6. Legitimate concerns have been raised by the AMPC and others that a privafized, profit-seeking
Hydro One would have every incentive to market power abroad and to invest in ancillary sectors rather than
keep prices down in Ontario. This is borne out by news reports:
- On December 24, 2001, it was reported that Hydro One has jointly filed (with TransEnergie
U.S. Ltd.) for a permit to install lines under Lake Erie to link Ontario with Ohio and
Pennsylvania.
- On January 5, 2002, the Chi&Executive Officer of Hydro One was quoted as being
"determined to diversify beyond power distribution".
- "Our plan," said Eleanor Clitheroe, "is to build a critical-mass presence in the U.S."
New York and the U.S. mid-west would thus have full access to Ontario's cheap electricity. This
obliges the U.S. which, since September 11, 2001, has increased pressure to create an integrated North
American electricity market.
8. NAFTA MAKES DEREGULATION
"A F A T A L D I S E A S E"
Electricity prices in New York arc more that double those in Ontario
Once deregulation and privatization are implemented, privatizcd operators in Ontario will seek to compete in,
and exploit, the more profitable U.S. market.
When competition thus begins, it will cause a leveling out of prices within Ontario and neighboring U.S.
states. However, since Ontario's prices are lower than those of its American neighbors, the leveling will mean
that American prices will fall somewhat, while O ' ' ' ·
ntarlo s wall ~ncrease.
Over time, as more and more of Ontario's electricity supply is sold to the U.S., the price of electricity will soar
in Ontario. (To a great extent, this has been the experience with natural gas.) The NAFTA (the North
American Free Trade Agreement) requires that the price for energy charged in Canada to Canadians cannot be
less than that charged American customers.
Moreover, as provincial supplies fall as a result of the increased volumes 0f electric power being funneled to
the U.S., and availability to Ontario users is affected, the supply to the U.S. cannot be arbitrarily reduced.
under NAFTA without a corresponding reduction to Ontario users even if Ontario is experiencing shortages.
The likely result of such a shortage situation could be blackouts in Ontario. This may also be the scenario if
Ontario can't match what U.S. customers pay for power.
If Ontario utilities sell into the U.S. NAFTA grants U.S. utilities the right to sell into Ontario.
However, the U.S. has built little generation or transmission capacity during the last decade and supply is
tight. In addition, natural gas (an alternative to coal and nuclear power) is doubling or tripling in price
(another reason why the price of electricity will soar in Ontario).
As a result:
If these U.S. utilities sell electricity from oil, coal, or gas, this will be at a high cost, and will
not be competitive with water or nuclear produced power.
- The U.S. could claim that Canada subsidizes nuclear power and invoke a NAFTA
challenge. (The U.S. could insist that valuation and bookkeeping be based on U.S.
experience and rules.)
- As there are no more water sites of significance left for development of hydro power in
Ontario, U.S. utilities could use their considerable financial resources to buy existing water
hydro plants in Ontario.
Either way, rates would increase for Ontario customers.
The bottom line is: - Once deregulation and privatization of electricity start, the government will
be helpless and unable to stop selling to U.S. customers because ofNAFTA. NAFTA will give
Americans wide-open and unfettered access to Ontario's electricity. In fact, under NAFTA Ontario will
have less control of its electrical power than California has of its electricity industry.
Ontario's economic health and competitive advantage depends on an electricity price that is significantly
lower than that of its U.S. neighbors. If this price is pushed to the same level that prevails in the U.S., Ontario
will not be able to compete with American businesses in mining resources, pulping paper, manufacturing
steel, producing autos, etc. The result will be a lower standard of living, fewer jobs, and a declining economy.
NAFTA will not allow this to be reversed.
Stopping deregulation is the only way to avoid this scenario. This was the theme of an article in The Toronto
Star of August 7, 2001 (on which some of the foregoing is based). It was written by Myron Gordon, professor
of finance emeritus at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, and John Wilson, former
president of the Society of Energy Professional and a former board member of Ontario Hydro Services (now
Hydro One). They ended their article with the warning: "Electricity deregulation will be a fatal disease for
Ontario."
Page 12
APPENDIX 1.
.A DISCUSSION OF THE NUCLEAR OPTION
Between 1994 and 2001 Ontario reduced its reliance on nuclear-generated electricity because it needed
to refurbish reactors. Now that pattern is going to be reversed to start increasing our reliance on
nuclear power.
Ifthe "nukes" work well, Ontario customers will pay relatively Iow prices. However, this may
b? an optimistic expectation. The nuclear program has failed to deliver on its promises every
single year since 1983.
Ontario doesn't have anymore water of significance for base power hydro development. So the only
other economical option for large base load is nuclear power.
Utility analysts on Wall Street downgrade any utility with a nuclear component. Therefore, it is
going to be very costly to borrow. It may even be uneconomic to borrow.
This throws doubt on the viability of cortstmction of new nuclear plants.
If the government lends OPG (or its divested companies) the money, or guarantees a loan:
Under NAFTA the lower government borrowing rate would constitute a subsidy.
· This would be considered to be "unfair" to U.S. utilities selling into the Ontario market
and disallowed on pain of penalties to Canada under NAFTA.
Nuclear plants are depreciated over 40 years. This allows only 2.5% of the charge per year to appear in
the cost of power. This could be attacked by the U.S. as "unfair".
As mentioned above, Wall Street downgrades all utilities with nuclear generators. This makes it
difficult to raise capital.
" OPG and/or whoever owns a nuclear plant will eventually have to go to the market for capital.
Then it will have to revalue its nuclear component. The rate of depreciation will have to be
changed or the nuclear facility/facilities written off sooner. The effect would be to increase
electric rates in Ontario.
So market conditions may make it unfeasible to build a nuclear plant for base load in the future. As a
result, base load would have to come from coal, oil, or gas. This will bring a dramatic increase in
rates.
Thus, Ontario would lose its competitive advantage over the U.S.
· The result: Loss of significant production in Ontario by manufacturers (such as GM,
Ford, DaimlerChrysler, etc.)and other businesses
(Most of the above is a summarized from an Ontario Hydro White Paper.)
Page 13
APPENDIX 2.
A DISCUSSION OF OTHER OPTIONS: FOSSIL FUELS
· In Appendix 1 it was stated that Ontario really doesn't have any more water sites for large-scale hydro
electric power development. As a result, the following circumstances could arise that could force the
use of fossil fuels:
· An increase in demand for power;
· Decommissioning of existing nuclear plants for economic or other reasons;*
· A decision not to build any more nuclear plants for environmental or other reasons;*
*(Retubing of one reactor costs in excess of $800 million. Retubing takes place every 8 months. Over
40 years this costs $3.2 billion.)
If it is decided to use coal:
· Alberta has only a limited supply
· Pennsylvania coal contains sulphur
Therefore, all new plants will require scrubbers at a cost $250 - 300 million each.
Also, the following problems may be encountered:
- Difficulty in suitably disposing of flyash
- Environmental pollution
- Future coal price escalations
If it is decided to use oil:
° Ifthe U.S. source of supply from the Middle East should be decreased or dry up, the U.S. has
the right to buy Canadian oil at the market price. The price of electrical power would soar.
· And under NAFTA, if a shortage of oil occurs in Canada it still must share its oil
proportionately with the U.S. (In such a situation brownouts and/or blackouts could be
a possibility.)
If it is decided to use natural gas:
· Pipeline capacity from Alberta could be a problem. Pipelines take time to build. Pipelines
planned or being built are mainly to supply the U.S. (Ontario could be faced with buying back
Canadian gas as electricity.) In any case, the volatility of natural gas prices would be reflected
in electricity rates. (Natural gas is doubling and tripling in price in the U.S..)
(Most of the above is a summarized from an Ontario Hydro White Paper.)
VOrme. r "yd. ro produ.cer
Ontario pang 2'000Job
yar. o °v r' o Yea s
· CUtsjobs
lng s~fion ~ ~ssis~uga; ~e
; q~o~. But the over-~ -~ ~d ofl-b~ ~ox
S~e ~ me~ ~ t6 station ne~ ~ton;
2,000 reductions
or trahsfcrs seen
BY RICHARD BRENNAN
AND JOHN SPEARS
Ontario Power Generation
-will be shedding up to 2,000
jobs over the next two ygars as
part of a newly completed busi:
, ness plan.
'M/kc Kfizan~, a spokes-
: .person for Energy Minister Jim
Vfflson, refused .to confirm de-
tails, but said the Company has
· shown its plan to the govern-
ment, and will spell out its in-
ten~ions today.
An industry /nsider said
eliminating 2~000 jobs is the
two-year target for the compa-
ny, usually referred to as OPG;
The cuts are part of OPG's
current program, ordered by
· the proxqnce, to sell or lease a
substantial portion of its gener-
ating capacity. ·
It has been ordered to shrink
itself to make room for compet-
itors as Ontari6 moves to a
competitive electricity market
starting May i ~
· Some of the jobs disappear-
lng from CCPG will be trans-
fen'ed to the new owners of its
generating plants, which will
need staff to operate their ac-
OPG administration as its size
diminishes.
The company currently has
about 11,000 'employees. That's
down from 15,000 in May,
when the. company leased its
Bruce nuclear generating fact.
ities near Kincardine to Bruce
Power, a parthership led by
British Energy PLC.
Ontario Power Generation/s
one of the successors to the for-
mer Ontario Hydro, which the-
pro.v~, ce broke up after it ran
up ~lebt 0f$38 billion.
As part of Ontario's electric-
!tyindustry restructuring, OPG
ts losing its stranglehold on
.supplying power in the prov-
ince. It currently generates
about 77 per cent of Ontario's
power.
On May I, the market will be
opened to many electricity sup-
pliers. To give them room to
compete, OPG has been or-
dered to cut its capacity to 35
per centof the province's pow-
er market within 10 years.
In addition to leasing the
Bruce station, OPG has put a
string of other generating sta-
tions 6n the block. They in-
burning plants in Thunder Bay
and Affitokan; and four hydro-
electric stations on the Missis-
sag/River.
More sales or leases will be
needed after those deals are
compleged to get OPG to its 10-
year target.
In addition, new generating
companies plan to compete for
a share of Ontario's. ·power
market.
In Vfmdsor, an armounce-
ment is expected soon on' a
$400 mflilon gas powered
plant. It is being built by Arco
Power in partnership with
OPG, and will be operated by
Coral Energy, a division of
Shelf Canada.
Sithe Energies Canadian [~e-
velopment Ltd., which has
PIans for gas-fired generators
in Mississauga add Brampton,
has applied to the Ontario En-
ergy Board for an operating li-
cence. Transalta is }nstalling a
gas fired generator in Sarma.
Other generators with smal~
scale "idreen energf projects
powered by Wind, or by gas
from old garbage dumps, also
plan to compete.
Please s~ Hydro, Cll
-5-
Excerpt from Council Minutes of April 15, 1996
PRESENTA~ONS
Fire Chief Peter Con~leld referred to Report FD-g6-03 and advised that the
Niagara Falls Fire Department was in the process of enhancing their telephone system
to both emergency and non-emergency services to the public. He indicated that the
system would be fully operational by Ap#122, 1996 and would increase the emergency
telephone service and provide better service to the public for non-emergency situations,
such as fire prevention information..
Pdor to dealing with further Council matters, His Worship Mayor Thomson
introduced members of the media to Council, Mr. Gord Howard, The Niagara Falls
Review; Ms. Colleen Turner, St. Catharines Standard; Ms. Celeste DiStefano, Niagara
Falls Chronicle; Radio Station CJRN and Rogers Cable 10.
COMMUNICATIONS
~-~ Communication No. 87- Town of Kincardine - Re: Opposing the
Privatization of Ontario Hydro - requesting Council endorse a
resolution opposing the privatization of any significant portion of
Ontario Hydro.
ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Cummings, seconded by
Alderman Pietrangelo, that the communication be received and filed
for the Information of Council. The motion Carried. ~
Communication No. 88 - Mr. Rudy Tychynski, Sr. - Re: Casino Location. The
communication provides a bdef and suggestions on why the casino should be located
in the downtown area.
ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Volpatti, seconded by Alderman Janvary, that
the communication be received and filed for the information of Council and that the
matter be referred to the Casino Corporation. Carded Unanimously.
niagara
falls
public
library
forty
eight
forty
eight
victoria
avenue
niagara
falls
ontario
L2E 4C5
Tel.: 905/356-8080
Fax: 905/356-7004
March 25, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Fall~ Ontario
Members:
Re: F-2002-21: Amendments to the 2002 Budget
I just received a copy of report F-2002-21 stating that Council will consider this
evening reducing the 2002 proposed operating budget of the Niagara Falls Public
Library Board by $81,700. The report states that expenditures of $81,700 could be
delayed for at least one year or eliminated without significantly reducing service.
Since it is not possible for the Board to meet today to discuss this report, Chief
Librarian Joe Longo and I wish City Council to note the following which will be
discussed at the next Board meeting.
1) It is recognized and accepted that City Council fundamentally
determines the level of public library service each year through the General
Purposes Budget.
2) On October 17, 2001 the Board proposed an increase of 3.6%
($81,700) in municipal funding for the Library in 2002. A reduction of
$81,700 means that City Council will freeze (0% change) our 2002
municipal funding at the 2001 level. This is a significant concern as the
library must also continue to manage significant increased operating costs
particularly for general insurance and group insurance premiums, hydro,-
electricity rates, natural gas rates, OMERS and Canada Pension Plan
premiums and other inflationary items.
3) $81,700 is equivalent to the purchase of approximately 4085 new
books costing $20 each. This would be a 24% reduction in the number of
new books proposed for purchase in 2002. We have attempted since 2000
to improve our budget for new books, magazines and audio visual
materials to help make-up for the below-average expenditures from 1990
to 1999. It is not likely that the Board will reduce our book budget by
$81,700 but would consider reducing it at least by $16,600. This would
result in a 2002 book budget frozen (0%) at our 2001 proposed book
budget which was approved by Council last year.
4) Consideration will also be given to other reductions in expenditures
including building maintenance and repairs, furniture and equipment, public
programming, sending one fewer person to the annual conference of the
Ontario Library Association in Toronto and postponing for one year our
niagara
falls
public
library
forty
eight
forty
eight
victoria
avenue
niagara
fails
ontario
L2E 4C5
Tel.: 905/356-8080
Fax: 905/356-700,
budget proposal to create a new step in the wage scale for our lowest paid
employees ("Pages" who earn no more than $7.40 per hour) after
successfully completing two years of service.
5) Consideration will also be given to revenue generating plans including
a) increased user fees such as for community groups renting library rooms
and for children's program registration; and b) a further reduction in our
special project/gil~ reserve to fund regnlar operating expenses instead of
special projects as was intended.
6) As noted in our October 17, 2001 budget proposal, "after our Ontario
Base Grant was reduced 40% to $130, 258 in 1996/1997, it has remained
frozen at that level. There has been no announcement as yet from the
Government of Ontario of any changes to our funding in 2002 and no
changes have been budgeted. ". There has still been no announcement and
the Board is concerned that it might also have to manage a fin'ther
reduction in this provincial grant.
In 2001, there was a 3% increase in the number of active registered library
borrowers, a 6% increase in the number of library books, magazines and audio
visual materials borrowed by them and a 15% increase in the number of people
who enter the Niagara Falls Public Library for borrowing, informational and many
other purposes. Such public use will likely be reduced in 2002 by funding
reductions.
Respectfully submitted,
Niagara Fall.q Public Library Board
J. MacDonald
T. Ravenda
K. Burden
Niagara Falls Public Library Board
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD.2002-34
April 8, 2002
His Worship Mayor W. Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2002-34, Recommendation Report
Orchard Grove West Draft Plan of Subdivision 26T-11-2001-03 (Revised)
Zoning By-law Amendment Application AM-34/2001
Owner: 527786 Ontario Limited (Agreement of Purchase and Sale)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that:
1) the Orchard Grove West Plan of Subdivision be draft approved subject to the conditions in
the attached Appendix;
2) the Mayor or designate be authorized to sign the draft plan as "approved'' 20 days after notice
of Council's decision has been given as required by the Planning Act, provided no appeals
of the decision have been lodged;
3) draft approval be given for three years, after which approval will lapse unless an extension
is requested by the developer and, subject to review, granted by Council;
4) the application to amend the Zoning By-law be approved as detailed in this report to provide
the necessary land use regulations to guide the development of the subdivision; and
5) Council authorize staff to close that portion of the unopened road allowance between
Stamford Township Lots 122 & 134 (part of proposed Lots 29 & 30, and part of Block 96)
as shown on Schedule 4.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 9.233 hectare (22.81 acre) site into 94 single-detached lots,
a block for future residential use (mix of singles and townhouses) and a block for a stormwater
management facility. The subject land is located on the west side of Kalar Road, north of Lundy's
Lane and south of the CNR tracks as shown on Schedule 1. The proposed road pattern connects with
Kalar Road in two locations and also includes a cul-de-sac. The northerly street utilizes an unopened
municipal road allowance. Schedule 2 illustrates the proposed subdivision layout.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's Finance · Human Resources · Information Svstems Leaal Plannina & Development
April8,2002 -2- PD-2002-34
The property is currently zoned Tourist Commercial (TC) through Zoning By-law 79-200, as
amended. The applicant has requested a zoning change for the single-detached lots to the Residential
Single Family 1E Density (RI E) category with modifications to increase the minimum floor area for
the dwellings and require attached garages. The Development Holding (DH) classification is
requested for the future mixed residential portion of the plan - Block 95.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Act requires that a Public Meeting be held to receive input on subdivision proposals
prior to making a decision. Council held the Public Meeting for this plan on February 4, 2002.
Members of the public spoke at the meeting and letters of concern have been submitted. Issues
identified include noise impacts from Hodgson Custom Rolling Inc., compatibility with the KOA
Campground and improvements to Kalar Road. Staff fxom the City, Region and Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority met with the developer on February 20, 2002 which resulted in revisions to
the plan and submission of additional supporting documentation. A meeting was held on April 2,
2002 between staff, the developer and campground representatives to discuss specific areas of
concern relating to the campground. The required Public Meeting for the zoning amendment is
satisfied through tonight's meeting and provides another opportunity for public comment.
PLANNING REVIEW:
Various matters were considered in assessing the proposed plan of subdivision and zoning
amendment. Based on this analysis, approval is recommended subject to detailed conditions and
modifications to the requested zoning standards. The review of the applications is addressed under
the following headings.
Official Plan
In November 2000, Official Plan Amendment 31 was approved to change the designation of the
subject land from Tourist Commercial to Residential. Through the review process, the abutting
campground operators to the west raised concerns regarding the compatibility of a residential use
with their camping establishment. As a result, a special policy is included for the site requiring
single-detached lots along the campground boundary with appropriate mitigation measures to include
adequate separators, fencing, berming and landscaping to address potential impacts. The specific
details to achieve compatibility of the proposed residential development of the land and the
surrounding uses (campground, CN Rail, commercial, industrial, roadways) was acknowledged to
be addressed through the subdivision and rezoning process. The current applications willimplement
the Official Plan amendment.
The Official Plan promotes a compatible mix of housing types and variety of lot sizes to provide a
full range of housing opportunities. The subdivision proposes a mix of single-detached lot sizes that
adds to the supply in the area and is a reflection of the strong market for this type of housing. The
submitted concept for the future development of Block 95 indicates singles and townhouses which
would improve the range of housing types available in the area. The development should be
compatible with the surrounding uses subject to the measures discussed later in this report.
April 8, 2002 - 3 - PD-2002-34
Compatibility with Campground
The campground owners concerns relate to possible complaints due to noise and smoke generated
by campers and security of the site. A greater separation from the future residents as well as a berm
and acoustic wall on the property boundary are preferred. The subdivision is designed with deep rear
yards of single-detached lots abutting the campground land. A noise study submitted by the
developer considered the campground and indicates that monitoring results do not mandate a noise
fence in accordance with Ministry of Environment guidelines. The study proposes a 2 metre (6.5
foot) high noise fence along the entire west boundary of the site to mitigate any potential noise
nuisance, and provide a visual screen and security. Increased dwelling setbacks in this area are also
suggested as are warning clauses in the subdivision agreement and purchase offers regarding
potential noise and smoke fi'om the campground.
A planner hired by the campground submitted an alternative design for the proposed subdivision to
address their concerns (see Schedule 3). This concept slightly reduces the number of lots, shifts
Street D to the west and provides a berm and fence, resulting in an approximate 40 metre (131 foot)
separation between the campground boundary and residential dwellings. This added distance
separation responds to the setback requirement contained within the Camping Establishment (CE)
zone - 60 metres (197 feet) from a campsite to a residential boundary. Future homeowners would
be aware of the established campground and further cautioned by warning clauses. City staff are
satisfied, given current information, that the deep lot design, added setbacks and fence can achieve
the principle of compatibility intended by the zoning setback. Furthermore, the campground
driveway abuts the property line increasing the separation from camp sites, the noise is of a
temporary resident nature, and the distance travelled by smoke cannot be controlled.
The placement of the westerly road in the submitted alternative layout would allow for the possible
future integration of the campground site if redeveloped for residential use. However, this design
would increase servicing costs in the current application as lots are only provided on one side of the
street. In addition, the campground operators have stated no desire to redevelop their property for
residential use, and given the investment in this commercial site, the land cost for residential
development is prohibitive. Other options are available to make street connections to the
campground if desired in the future through Block 95 to the south.
Surrounding Noise Sources
The site is bordered on the north by a CN Railway line and commercial use, abuts Kalar Road to the
east with Hodgson Custom Rolling Inc. further east. The submitted noise and vibration study
addresses these noise sources and the development must satisfy Ministry of Environment criteria.
The subdivision provides deep lots at the north limit to allow for noise and vibration attenuation
measures and setbacks. CN Rail has requested standard conditions regarding safety, noise, vibration
and warning clauses for residential uses nearby railway lines. The noise study recommends acoustic
fencing and specific dwelling construction techniques depending on lot location.
April 8, 2002 - 4 - PD-2002-34
Stormwater Management and Fish Habitat
The revised plan includes Block 96 in the northwest comer of the site for a potential stormwater
management facility. The developer has submitted preliminary stormwater infomaation for review.
Further investigation is needed to determine design details as the developer is considering various
options to direct stormwater from the site (proposed Block 96, the existing facility within the
Orchard Grove subdivision to the east, or an outlet to the south). Any stormwater area within the
plan requires street frontage and to be dedicated to the municipality. The review and approval of the
stormwater scheme is a shared responsibility among the City, Region and Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority. A potential area offish habitat has been identified on the site that flows to
the northwest underneath the railway tracks to a tributary of Beaverdams Creek. This tributary is
classified as a Type 2 Fish Habitat by the Ministry of Natural Resources. An Environmental Impact
Study (EIS) is required to assess the site and potential downstream impacts of the development.
Conditions for a detailed stormwater management plan and the EIS may result in revisions to the
subdivision plan.
Kalar Road Improvements
A widening on Kalar Road (Major Collector) is a condition of approval to attain the desired Official
Plan width of 26 metres (85 feet) in this location. Future reconstruction of the roadway is planned.
The City intends to conduct a study to determine specific design improvements including if left-hand
turning lanes are warranted at the Kalar/Harvest/Street C intersection resulting from this and other
developments in the area. The provision of a sidewalk on Kalar Road abutting the subdivision land
is required and the City would construct a connection to Lundy's Lane. CN Rail and the City have
reviewed the railway crossings at both Kalar Road and Beaverdams Road and have agreed to pursue
gated crossings due to urban growth and the existence of nearby schools.
Zoning Amendment - Single-Detached Lots
The requested zoning change from TC to the R1E classification would permit minimum lot sizes of
370 square metres (3,983 square feet) in area and a minimum 12 metres (39.4 feet) in frontage. The
plan provides a mix of lot frontages up to 15 metres (49.2 feet), deep lots and lot areas greatly
exceeding the minimum requirement. The inclusion of an increased dwelling floor area provision
and requirement for an attached garage are acceptable. The minimum rear yard setback within the
R1E zone is 7.5 metres (24.6 feet). In order to promote greater land use compatibility in
combination with noise and privacy fencing, additional rear yard setbacks can be achieved abutting
the campground and the commercial use to the north. The developer has agreed to a minimum 15
metre (49.2 foot) setback in these locations. The CN Rail request for a 30 metre (98.4 foot) dwelling
setback from the railway right-of-way will also be incorporated into the amending by-law.
Block 95 - Future Residential Development
The developer has requested a zoning change to Development Holding (DH) for this portion of the
subdivision. A submitted concept plan for the block illustrates a potential vacant land condominium
development of single-detached and townhouse units. The City does not have an existing zoning
category that would accommodate such a proposal. The DH zoning of the land represents an interim
zoning stage. Further applications (subdivision/condominium and rezoning) are necessary to
develop the block at which point suitable development standards and compatibility measures
regarding the commercial uses to the south can be established. The size of Block 95 also allows for
a development on a public roadway.
April 8, 2002 - 5 - PD-2002-34
Block 95 in the revised subdivision plan has been enlarged to include a separate commercial block
that was previously proposed with frontage on Kalar Road. This change was at the request of the
City. During the processing ofOPA 31, there was no subdivision layout submitted and Official Plan
mapping depicts a general boundary between the Residential and Tourist Commercial designations.
The intent of the boundary is that more intensive commercial uses be oriented to the Lundy's Lane
intersection rather than extend north along Kalar Road.
Unopened Road Allowance
Street A in the subdivision follows the alignment of the unopened road allowance between Stamford
Township Lots 122 & 134 on the west side of Kalar Road. The majority of this road allowance is
excluded from the plan and would be opened by the City and dedicated as a public highway as part
o£ the plan development. However, the west section of the road allowance is intended to be
incorporated in the subdivision as part of Lots 29 and 30, and part of stormwater Block 96 (see
Schedule 4). The developer needs to acquire this land for the plan to proceed as proposed. The City
is required to satisfy Municipal Act public notification procedures to close the road allowance and
facilitate the transfer of thc land. A specific recommendation is included in the report authorizing
the City Solicitor to undertake the necessary steps to close the described portion of the unopened
road allowance.
General Subdivision Design
Sidewalks are recommended on one side of the looped internal road system but not on the cul-de-sac
in accordance with municipal practice. The length of Street B satisfies the Official Plan policy that
internal streets terminating in a cul-de-sac shall not normally extend beyond 150 metres (492 feet).
Emergency access issues for this road should be adequately addressed through pavement design,
water supply system, hydrant locations and possible vehicle parking restrictions. The provision of
active parkland for this area was considered during the processing of the Official Plan amendment.
A site adjacent to the west boundary of the plan would be central i£the campground were ever to
develop for residential use. However, based on input during the earlier application process and the
campground's concern for security, cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication is requested.
Regional Comments
Standard conditions for servicing have been requested by the Regional Public Works Department
to allow development of this subdivision. The Regional Planning Department has reviewed the
proposal with regard to the Regional Policy Plan and also Provincial policies. The Region has
provided comments and conditions for the stormwater management and noise aspects of the
development. In addition, there are concerns of potential soil contamination at the northeast comer
of the site due to past service station use and dumping of scrap material. An Environmental Site
Assessment is requested. Based on the property's location close the Beaverdams Creek, a condition
of approval for an archaeological assessment is included.
Agency Comments
Canada Post has indicated that the lots will be served by Community Mailboxes. In addition, the
developer will be required to enter into separate agreements with several utility companies.
April 8, 2002 - 6 - PD-2002-34
CONCLUSION:
The Orchard Grove West Draft Plan of Subdivision is an appropriate development of the site. The
application complies with the policies of the Official Plan. The subdivision design and mitigation
measures should make the residential development compatible with the surrounding uses.
Environmental issues will be addressed through the completion of various studies. The
recommended zoning by-law amendment will provide suitable regulations for the construction of
the dwellings and ensure land use compatibility. Further planning applications are necessary for
Block 95. The required detailed conditions of approval are listed in the Appendix.
Prepared by:
Richard Wilson
Planner 2
Respectfully submitt,ed:
John MacDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
RW:gd
Attach.
FILE: S :~PDR~2002~PD2002-34.wpd
April 8, 2002 - 7 - PD-2002-34
APPENDIX
Conditions for Draft Plan Approval
Approval applies to the Orchard Grove West Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Matthews,
Cameron, Heywood - Kerry T. Howe Surveying Ltd., revised February 21, 2002, showing 94
lots for single-detached dwellings, Block 95 for future mixed residential use and Block 96 for
stormwater management.
The developer enter into a registered Subdivision Agreement with the City to satisfy all
requirements, financial and otherwise, related to the development of the land. Note: Should any
other body wish to have its conditions included in the Subdivision Agreement, they may be
required to become party to the Subdivision Agreement for the purpose of enforcing such
conditions.
The developer submit a Solicitor's Certificate of Ownership for the subdivision land to the City
Solicitor prior to the preparation of the Subdivision Agreement.
The subdivision be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Subdivision Policy
which, in part, includes the following:
a) construction of 8.0 metre wide pavement on the straight roadway sections with a 14.7
metre wide pavement radius on the cul-de-sac bulb;
b) dedication of the road allowance to the City as public highway and the streets named to
the City's satisfaction;
c) provision of appropriate daylighting triangles at all intersections;
d) dedication of a 3.05 metre (10 foot) road widening to the City along the west side of Kalar
Road (Blocks 100 & 102);
e) provision of water distribution, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems including a major
and minor strum sewer design concept;
f) implementation of a stormwater management concept to control the quantity and quality
of stormwater directed to the receiving system at pre-development rates;
g) provision of an overland stormwater flow route; and
h) application of the City's Lot Grading and Drainage Policy.
The developer dedicate 0.3 metre (1 foot) reserves to the City along the west limit of Kalar
Road to preclude direct access.
The developer construct 1.5 metre wide sidewalks on the west side of Kalar Road abutting the
plan, north side of Street A, south side of Street C and west side of Street D.
The developer design and construct the water supply system and pavement radius on the cul-de-
sac bulb, and locate hydrants all to the satisfaction of Fire Services.
If necessary, the developer submit a legal undertaking to the Municipal Works Division - Traffic
& Parking Services agreeing to restrict parking to one side of the cul-de-sac roadway in the
plan, which will be implemented through municipal by-law after plan registration.
April8,2002
-8- PD-2002-34
The developer obtain ownership of that portion of the unopened road allowance between
Stamford Township Lots 122 & 134 (shown as part of proposed Lots 29 & 30, and part of Block
96) for inclusion in the final plan of subdivision.
10.
The developer pay the Development Charges in force at the time of execution of the
Subdivision Agreement.
11.
The developer grant the City and Public Utilities any easements required to service the
subdivision.
12. The developer pay the City cash-in-lieu of 5% parkland dedication.
13.
The developer submit a landscape plan for the review and approval of the Director of Parks,
Recreation and Culture illustrating the streetscape treatment along Kalar Road.
14. The developer provide boulevard trees in accordance with City policy.
15.
The developer construct a noise attenuation fence, 2 metres in height, along the west boundary
of the subdivision (Lots 14 through 28, Block 95 and Block 96).
16.
The Subdivision Agreement and all Offers of Purchase and Sale shall include warning clauses
advising purchasers of the abutting campground to the west and potential impacts of noise and
campfire smoke resulting from its normal operation.
17.
The developer receive final approval from the City to the zoning by-law amendment to provide
land use regulations to guide the development of the subdivision.
18.
The developer provide three calculated plans prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor and a letter
to Planning & Development confirming that all lots comply with the Zoning By-law.
19.
The developer provide six copies of the pre-registration plan to Planning & Development and
a letter stating how all the conditions imposed have been or are to be fulfilled.
20.
The detailed design drawings for the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer facilities for this
plan be submitted to the Regional Public Works Department for review and approval.
21.
The developer obtain Ministry of Environment Certificates of Approval to the satisfaction of
the Regional Public Works Department for the necessary servicing for this development. Note:
Should the design of the stormwater management system incorporate an end-of-pipe facility (i.e.
detention pond) or outlet to an existing waterbody, the design should be submitted directly to
the MOE (Attention: M. Dhalla, P.Eng.) for approval and the issuance of a Certificate of
Approval.
22.
Immediately following notice of draft plan approval, the developer submit a letter to the
Regional Planning Department acknowledging that draft approval is not a commitment of
servicing allocation by the Region as this servicing allocation, if available, will be assigned at
the time of final approval of the subdivision for registration.
April 8, 2002
23.
- 9 - PD-2002-34
Immediately following notice of draft plan approval, the developer provide the Regional
Planning Department with a written undertaking that all offers and agreements of purchase and
sale which may be negotiated prior to registration of this subdivision shall contain a clause
clearly indicating that a servicing allocation for this subdivision will not be assigned until the
plan is granted final approval for registration, and a similar clause be inserted in the subdivision
agreement between the developer and the City.
24.
Prior to approval of the final plan or any on-site grading, the developer submit two copies of a
detailed stormwater management plan designed and sealed by a suitably qualified professional
engineer in accordance with the Ministry of Environment's "Stormwater Management Practices
Planning and Design Manual", June 1994, and incorporating erosion and sedimentation control
measures, to the Regional Planning and Development Department and that the approved plan
be implemented through provisions in the subdivision agreement. The Region has requested
the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority to review the stormwater management plan on
the Region's behalf and to submit comments to the Regional Planning and Development
Department regarding the approval of this plan and the subsequent clearance of related
conditions.
25.
The developer prepare an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), if necessary, to evaluate the
potential presence of an on-site fish habitat and any impacts on the Important (Type 2) Fish
Habitat associated with Beaverdams Creek together with any necessary mitigation measures,
to be submitted to the Regional Planning and Development Department and the Niagara
Peninsula Conservation Authority for review and approval.
26.
The developer submit two copies of a detailed noise and vibration study, conducted by a
qualified professional engineer, to the Regional Planning and Development Department for
review and approval, with the assistance of the Ministry of Environment, assessing the impact
of railway and stationary noise on the subdivision and recommending appropriate measures to
reduce noise levels and warning clauses advising of noise conditions within the development
in accordance with the Ministry of Environment's noise criteria.
27.
The recommendations of the approved noise and vibration study be implemented through the
subdivision agreement to the satisfaction of the Regional Planning and Development
Department and the Ministry of Environment.
28.
The developer undertake a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared by a
qualified consultant in accordance with the "Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in
Ontario", Ministry of Environment, February 1997, verifying the history of use(s) at the
northeast comer of the property to demonstrate that this portion of the property does not contain
any hazardous materials that exceed MOE standards for residential development, and that the
Phase 1 ESA be submitted to the Regional Planning and Development Department. If any
evidence is found to suggest that there may be potential contamination, recommendations shall
be implemented through the subdivision agreement including additional studies (Phase 2 and/or
Phase 3 ESA), if necessary, and any mitigation measures. If soil analysis and remediation is
necessary, an MOE acknowledged Record of Site Condition (RSC) indicating that the site is
suitable for residential use should be submitted to the Regional Planning and Development
Department and the City of Niagara Falls prior to final approval of the subdivision.
April 8, 2002
- 10- PD-2002-34
29.
If required by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, an archaeological assessment
be conducted of the undisturbed portion of the development site by a licensed archaeologist and
adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found on the site be mitigated
through preservation or resource removal and documentation. No demolition, grading or other
soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation, through the Regional Planning and Development Department,
confirming that all archaeological resource concerns have met licensing and resource
conservation requirements. Note: A copy of the archaeological assessment report is to be
submitted to the Regional Planning and Development Department for information.
30.
The developer submit to the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA), to review on
behalf of the Region of Niagara, a detailed stormwater management plan for the subdivision
completed in accordance with the Ministry of Environment documents entitled "Stormwater
Management Practices, Planning and Design Manual", June 1994 as revised, endorsed by a
qualified Professional Engineer.
31.
The developer submit an Environmental Impact Statement (prepared in accordance with the
Region of Niagara's EIS Guidelines) to the NPCA to review on behalf of the Region of Niagara
and Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to address the potential on-site fishery, on-site
measures to mitigate impact on the potential on-site fishery and the downstream Type 2 Fish
habitat.
32.
If necessary, the subdivision be revised to implement the recommendations of the NPCA-
approved stormwater management plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
33.
The developer submit detailed lot grading and drainage plans, noting both existing and proposed
grades and the means whereby overland flows will be accommodated across the site, to the
NPCA for review and approval.
34.
The developer submit detailed sedimentation and erosion control plans to the NPCA for review
and approval.
35.
The developer agree in the executed Subdivision Agreement to implement conditions 30
through 34.
36.
The zoning by-law amendment require a minimum dwelling setback from the railway right-of-
way of 30 metres.
37.
The developer engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and vibration in order to
recommend abatement measures necessary to achieve the maximum level limits set by the
Ministry of Environment and Canadian National Railway. Upon review and approval of the
noise and vibration reports, all recommendations provided should be included in the
Subdivision Agreement.
38.
The developer agree in the Subdivision Agreement, in wording satisfactory to Canadian
National Railway, to the following:
April 8, 2002
-11- PD-2002-34
a)
Construct and maintain an earthen berm a minimum of 2.5 metres above grade at the
property line, having side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1, adjoining and parallel to the
railway right-of-way with returns at the ends.
b)
Construct and maintain an acoustic barrier along the top of the berm of a minimum
combined height of 5.5 metres above top-of-rail. The acoustic fence to be constructed
without openings and of a durable material weighing not less than 20 kg. per square metre
of surface area. The Railway may consider other measures, subject to the review of the
noise report.
c) Install and maintain a chain link fence of a minimum 1.83 metre height along the mutual
property line.
d)
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.
39.
The following warning clause shall be included in the Subdivision Agreement and inserted in
all Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease for each dwelling unit. Provisions must be
included in the Subdivision Agreement to ensure that the warning clause survives the release
of the developer's obligations under the Subdivision Agreement and remain on title.
"Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in
interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject
hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail facilities on such
right-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 right-of-way."
40.
The developer 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 developer shall have sole responsibility for and shall maintain these measures to the
satisfaction of CN.
41.
The developer enter into an Agreement stipulating how CN's concerns will be resolved and will
pay CN's reasonable costs in preparing and negotiating the agreement.
Clearance of Conditions
Prior to granting approval to the final plan, Planning & Development requires written notice from
applicable City departments and the following agencies indicating that their respective conditions have
been satisfied:
April 8, 2002
- 12- PD-2002-34
Regional Niagara Public Works Department for Conditions 20 and 21
Regional Niagara Planning and Development Department for Conditions 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
and 28
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority for Conditions 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35
Canadian National Railway for Conditions 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41
Ministry of Enviromnent for Conditions 21 and 27
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation for Condition 29
SCHEDUI~E 1
Proposed Plan of Subdivision &
Zoning By-law Amendment Application
Orchard Grove West
26T-11-2001-0~ (Revised) & AM-$4/2001
Location
Hodgso~
Steel
Campground
Subject Land
1 .:t,rrs
ORCHARD GROVE WEST
DRAFT PLA~ OF SUBDIVISION
PART STAMFORD TOWNSHIP
LOTS 134 ~ 122.
Iii ,~~ , : "~ -~
' ' ' I ~ e / REoEIVED
.%
STREET'% ,:",. ,.~
STREET ~ {~ B
.%
A
-%
114.17
"~ G7
Canadian Propri~t~s
National f~rroviaires du
Railway Canadlen
Properties Inc, National Inc.
277 Fm~t Stre~ WeSt
Toronto, Onla~o
Mb'V 2X7
Tele~hone~ (416)
Pacslmlk: (41~
VZA FACSZMZLE - (905) 356-23S4
.lanuary 30, 2002
Your Rla:
Our File:
26T-11-2001-03 &
AN-34/2001
TS-4500-SFD-027-60
AttJl: Director of Planning &, Development
The City of Niagara Falls
City Hall, PO Box 1023
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Dear Sir or Macl~m:
Re-'
Proposed Draft Plan & Zoning By-law Amendment
~Orchard Grove West"
West side of Kalar Road~ North of Lundy's Lane~ South of CNR
RECEIVED
FEB 0 1 2002
We have reviewed your lather dated 3anuary 18, 2002 regarding the above noted application.
Residential development adjacent to the railway right-of-way is not appropriate without impact
miUgaUon measures to reduce the incompatibility, We request that the following comments be
Included in the Draft Conditions, Lo be cleared by CN:
The Zoning By-law shall require a minimum dwelling setback from the railway right-of-way of
30 me~e.
The Owner Is required to engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and vibration
in order to recommend abatement measures necessary to achieve the maximum level limits
set by the Ministry of Environment and Canadian National Railway, Upon review end approval
of the noise and vibration reports, all recommendations provided should be Included in the
SubdNlsion Agreement.
~ Owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement, in wording satisfactory to CN, to the
following:
(a)
Construc~ and maintain an earthen berm a minimum of 2.5 metres above grade at the
property fine, having side slopes not st~.eper than 2.5 to 1, adjoining and parallel to the
railway right-of-way with returns at the ends.
Construct and maintain an acoustic barrier along the top of the berm of a minimum
combined height of 5.5 metres above top-of-rail. The acoustic fence to be constructed
without openings and of a durable material weighing not less than 20 kg. per square
metro of surface area.
7'~ Rail~y may con.,idar ob'~er rr~mr~s/ subjec~ to E~e review of
A wfloliy ow~ml subsldla~/of Canadian National Railway Company I Une ~lale an pt0pddt~ exflwlve de la Compag~lle da~ chemlns cie Er naUonmux du Canaaa
Director of Planning & Development
.3anuary 30, 2002
Page 2 of 2
(c) Znstell and maintain a chain link fence of minimum L83 metre height along ~he mutual
property line.
That any proposed alterations to the edsflng drainage pattern affecting Railway pmpem/
mu~c receive prior concurrence from the Railway and be substantlatecl by a drainage
report to the satisfaction of the Railway.
The following weming clause shall be Include in the SubdMslon Agreemen~ and insert In all
Agreements of Purchase arid Sale or Lease for each dwelling unit. Provislorts must be
Included in the Subdivi~lon Agreement to ensure that the warning clause survives the release
of the Owner's obligations under the SubdMslon Agreemerfl: and remain on title.
'Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in
interest has or have a right-of-way wlthln :300 metres from the land the subject
hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the ra~l faclllfles on such righ~
of-way in the future including the _pc~__,ibilib/ that the railway or Its a~!gns or
successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the
living environment of the residents in the vlcinlty~ 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 faolil~es and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-
way."
The Owner shall through restrictive covenants to be registered on title and all agreements o1:
purchase and sale or lease provide noUce 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
satisl'acUon of CN.
6. The Owner enter Into an Agreement stipulating how CN's concerns will be resolved and will
pay C;N's reasonable costs In preparing and negotiating the agreement.
Should Coundl decide to approve the applications without incorporating the above requirements,
we have no alternative but to request that the. sa applications be referred to the Ontario Munidpal
Board pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, R,$.O. 1990, C,P,13.
We would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft conditions p~r to appmval~ and
ultimately, we request receiving a copy of the Approved Draft Conditions and notice of the
Amendment being approved.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hes~ba to contact the undersigned at
(416)217-696~,.
Development Review Coordinator
J. Mark Lelievre
8263 Harvest Crescent
Niagara Falls, ON
L2H 3G4
~ Planning
.~,anne~
File: ~U ~'1:)1 ~/
February 4th, 2002
905-353-0591
Director of Planning and Development
City Hall
P.O Box 1023
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, ON
L2E 6X5
To the Director of Planning and Development,
RECEIVED
FEB 0 7 2002
In regards to "ORCHARD GROVE WEST" Draft Plan of Subdivision File:26T-11-
2001-03.
My name is Mr. J. Mark Lelievre and I live at 8263 Harvest Crescent Niagara Falls, ON
which would be the second house in on the left side, if entering from Lundy's Lane and
Kalar Road.
After careful review of the purposed site plan as mentioned in the letter mailed to us on
January 18th, 2002, concerns regarding the purposed development of land have arised.
It seems that the new entrance into the purposed Orchard Grove West seems to meet w/th
the entrance of Harvest Crescent of Orchard Grove Estates. My concern is as follows:
will there or has consideration been made to either put a stop light system in, to
accommodate the two sub-divisions or a four way stop system. Since the completion and
extensions of this subdivision as well as Beaver Valley the increased traffic flow along
Kalar Road is increased a 100 % or more, you are now adding another sub-division and
what has been done to either improve Kalar Road to handle the added flow, and to mainly
slow the traffic down now that all these sub-divisions are being built.
My second concem is the Railway crossings at Kalar Road and Beaverdams Road. You
and the Canadian National Rail Systems need to take a good look at the increased flow
and seriously consider placing rail barriers at both sites before a child or someone is
severely injured or killed, With the added homes and families you can well imagine the
amount of increased traffic that will increase on this street from all the feeder sub-
divisions and it is a matter of time before something serious is going to happen and then
whom will be responsible the City of Niagara Falls or the Canadian National Rail
Systems or a combination of both for not rectifying the problem before it happens.
Thirdly it also states on the site plan, placed on the proposed site, a block of Townhouses,
will these townhouses be deemed low income, as a home owner I do not want to loose the
value of my property being so close to the adjoining subdivision, we already pay enough
taxes and at this end of the City we don't seem to receive the servicing required by the
City of Niagara Falls, either in the Winter months or the Summer Months.
Fourthly will the developers be adding sidewalks to the following side of the road and
will the ditches be filled in and the proper drainage systems in place. Will sound barriers
be placed to block the noise of the oncoming trains as they did on the Beaverdams side
closet to the tracks?.
You have also deemed the Comer of Lundy's Lane and Kalar Road Commemial what is
the developers plans in regards to what is commercial going there has that been made
known or is it still on the drawing board.
I have never stopped and in fact believe in development, but what I want to see is the
planning thought out very carefully and the fullest of safety systems in place for all
families and children living in all the adjoining subdivisions.
I would appreciate follow-up in regards to my letter of concerns.
Thanking you in this Matter,
J. Mark Leliewe
M~R ~3 '0£ 0~:34PM CHRP TOROHTO
Canadian propri~t~s
National ferroviaires du
Railway Canadien
Properties Inc. National Inc,
~.~ Planning t P.
277 Front Street West 277, me Front ouest
Root 8 8' ~tage
Toroato, Onta~o Toronto
M~V 2X7 MSV 2X7
Telephone: (416) 217,6961
~aoimile: (416) 217-67411
T{l~phone: (416) 217-6961
T~l~pieu~. (45 ;) 217.6743
V~ FAX: 905-356-2354
13 March 2002
Mr. Rick Wilson
Planning and Deyelopment Department
City of Niagara Falls
City Hall, PO Bo~ 1023
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls ON 1_2E 6X5
Your File: 26T-11-2001-03 &
AM-34/2001
Our File: TS-4500-SFD-027-60
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Re:
Proposed ResidenUal Development
~Orchard Grove West"
West side of Kalar Road, North of Lundy's Lane~ South of CNR
We refer to the resident comments attached to your letter dated 11 February 2002,
regarding the railway crossings in proximity to the above noted property.
The Railway met with the City to review the Kalar Road and Beaverdam Road rail
crossings on 24 .luly 200]., At the meeting the City identified a proposal for a residential
development in this vicinity. Due to urban growth, schools in close proximity to the
railway right-of-way and train speed variance all parties att. ending agreed to pursue gates
and grade crossing predictors for both crossings, currenUy equipped with flashers.
Estimates and agreements covering the proposed upgrades have been forwarded to the
City for authorization, Additionally, the Railway has made application to the Minister of
Transport for an 80% grant of the project costs.
Should you have any fuKcher questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned
at (416) 217-6961,
Yours truly,
Development Review Coordinator
CC,
I. Thomson, CN Public Affairs (via email)
P. Gorski, CN Engineering (via email)
RECEIVED
MAR 14 2002
A wholly owne~ subsidiary of Canadian Na6ollal Ra~way Company; One filial~ e~ p~,¢i~l~ exclusive de la Compagnie d~s r. hemin~ de {er nationaux du Canada
NIAGARA PENINSULA
CONSERVATION
A U T H 0 R I T Y
2So Thorold Read West, ~d Rom' Tel [9o.~ 7S8'3135
Welland, Or~r/o L3C3W2 Fax (go.~)
E-mail: npcaOco~$e~ation.nia~ara.on.ca
March 20, 2002
Sent by fax 1-905-356-2354
~' Scanned
RECEIVED
MAR 2 0 2002
Our File No. MPR. 6.9.11:)
City of Niagara Falls
Planning Department
Attention: Mr. ,Rick Wilson
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Subject:
Orchard Grove West, Revised subdivision plan (Rev. 2, dated February 21
2002) ,
File: 26T-11-2001-03
Part of Stamford Township Lots 134 and 122 and part of
Road Allowance between Stamford Township Lots 1.34 and 122
,City of Nia,qara Falls
Further to our letters dated January 24, 2002 and February 28, 2002 the Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority (NPCA) provides the following comments on Draft Approval of the above
noted subdivision. The NPCA remains concerned that the preliminary stormwater management
work to date does not adequately justify the size and location of the proposed stormwater block.
We also understand that the developer is now considering using existing stormwater facilities off
site to treat the stormwater from this location. We also understand that the applicant has
agreed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to address the potential flshedes on the
site and the downstream impacts on the Type 2 f~shery (as identified by the MNR).
Many planning authorities make use of a preconsultation process with the applicant and
agencies to determine, prior to submitting an application, the supporting doCUmentation that is
needed to accompany an incoming planning application. Such a process helps to avoid costly
revisions to plans after draft approval has taken place. If the City has determined that the
application is complete and they intend to proceed at this time with conditions of draft plan
approval, we recommend the following conditions:
1. That prior to final approval, the owner submit to the Niagara Peninsula Conservation
Authority, to review Of behalf of the Region of Niagara, a detailed stormwater management
plan for the subdivision completed in accordance with the Ministry of Environment
documents entitled Stormwater Management Practices, Plann n.q and Desi,qn Manual, June
1994 as revised, endorsed by a qualified Professional Engineer.
2. That prior to final approval, the owner submit a Environmental Impact Statement (prepared
in accordance with the Region of Niagara's ElS Guidelines) to the Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority to review on behalf of the Region of Niagara and Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, to address the potential on-site fishery, onsite measures to mitigate
impact on the potential on-site fishery and the downstream Type 2 Fish habitat.
3. Pdor to final approval, that the subdivision be subject to redline revisions to implement the
recommendations of the Conservation Authority approved stormwater management plan
and Environmental impact Statement.
4. That detailed lot grading and drainage plans, noting both existing and proposed grades and
the means whereby ovedand flows will be accommodated across the site, be submitted to
the Conservation Authority for our review and approval.
5. That detailed sedimentation and erosion control plans be submitted to the Conservation
Authority for our review and approval.
6. That the owner agrees in the executed subdivision agreement to implement conditions 1
through 5 above.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Su~3nne Mclnnes, M.C.I.P., R.P.P,
Watershed Planning Coordinator (ext. 235)
SMM
Eric Conley, Region of Niagara PJanning Dept., fax 1-905-641-5208
Rick Brady, Urban & Environmental Management Inc., fax 1-905-371-9763
Eric Henry, Metre Development, fax 1-905-262-5654
V& S Engineering Group, fax 905-687-4064
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The RegionaJ Municipality of Niagara
3550 $chmon Parkway, P.O. Box 1042
Thorold, Ontario L2V 41'7
Telephone; (905)984-3630
Fax: (905) 641-5208
E-mail: plan@regional,niagara.on.ca
March 21, 2002
FILE: D.I1.M.11.24
Mr. Doug Darbyson, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning & Development
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E6X5
Feulllat~ cie transmi~$tonpar t~l~copieur D,~
Dear Mr. Darbyson..
Orchard Grove West Plan of Subdivision
File: 26T-11-2001-03
527786 Ontario Limited
West Side of Kalar Road, North of Lundy's Lane
City of Niaqara Fall-
RECEIVED
NAR 2 12002
&
Regional Planning Staff has reviewed the Orchard Grove West plan of subdivision dated
February 21, 2002 which proposes the development of 9.233 hectares (22.81 acres) of land for
94 single detached residential lots. a future residential development block and a stormwater
management block. This plan Ilas been revised from the original submission to address
stormwater management items raised during preliminary discussions with the applicant.
The proposed subdivision is within the urban area bounda.ry for the City of Niagara Falls
according to the Regional Policy Plan. Amendment No. 31 to the City's Official Plan
was approved in 2000 to redesignate the property from Tourist Commercial to
Residential. A wide range of housing types is permiffed. These lands are also
identified as Special Policy Area No. 31 due to the proximity of an existing campground
situated to the west. The subdivision provides lots for single detached dwellings
adjacent to the campground as set out in the Special Policy. The implementation of
other appropriate mitigation measures outlined in the local Official Plan are to be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City. Insofar as Regional Planning interests are
concerned, the proposed subdivision can be provided with municipal services and
meets the basic land use provisions of the Regional Policy Plan. A commitment of
servicing allocation will be assigned at the time of final approval for the plan of
subdivision. Standard conditions of draft plan approval in this regard have been
included in the attached Appendix 1.
"~ ~[._E_I],NG_ .APR O 8 2002
Regional Public Works
Regional Public Works staff has no objection to draft plan approval subject to standard
servicing conditions. Servicing calculations and designs will be required as conditions
of draft plan approval for review and approval by the Regional Public Works Department
under the MOE Transfer of Review Program. Regional Public Works comments are
attached and their conditions have been included in the attached Appendix 1.
PROVINCIAL REVIEW
To address Planning Act requirements, the Region and other agencies must have
regard for the Provincial Policy Statement. Regional Planning staff has reviewed the
Orchard Grove West plan of subdivision with regard to Provincial policies and has the
following comments:
Affordable Housino
Policy 1.2.1 encourages the provision of housing forms and densities designed to be
affordable to moderate and lower Income households. The proposed subdivision
provides a variety of lot sizes with'a number of lot frontages less than 14 metres (45
feet) and a future development block that may be developed as a condominium for
townhouses and/or smaller single detached dwellings. This provides an opportunity for
the construction of a range of housing types that may offer some affordable housing.
Ministry of the Environment
i) Land Use Compatibility
The proposed subdivision will place sensitive residential land uses in close proximity to
activities that generate noise, most notably Hodgson Custom Rolling to the east. Noise
and vibration from the Canadian National rail line along the north side of the subdivision
will also have to be addressed. The applicant has recently submitted a noise study in
accordance with Ministry of the Environment (MOE) guidelines for locating sensitive
land uses near potential noise sources. With regard to the existing KOA campground to
the west, Ministry staff has indicated that it Is not subject to MOE noise guidelines and
that this potential noise source is a local by-Iaw issue. It is recommended that this item
be addressed by the City as part of local consideration of this subdivision. In this
regard, the City may wish to consider the inclusion of a warning clause in the
subdivision agreement to alert future residents of the campground's location. MOE
approval is necessary for the stationary industrial noise source (Hodgson Custom
Rolling) component of this study. A copy of the noise study has been forwarded to the
MOE for review and approval with regard to this stationary noise source. Regional
Planning staff will review the transient noise (i.e. railway) aspects of the study.
Deeper than normal lots have been proposed near potential noise sources to provide
mitigation measures such as berms, acoustic fencing and increased building setbacks.
Special requirements may be necessary for the construction of dwellings near the rail
line and appropriate warning clauses will be registered as part of the subdivision
agreement. Final recommendations of the noise study will be implemented through
conditions of draft plan approval including the provision of appropriate remediation
3
measures and noise warning clauses as part of the subdivision agreement between the
developer and the City.
ii) Stormwater Management
A preliminary stormwater management report has been prepared and a 0.388 hectare
(0.96 acre) block has been included in the recently revised subdivision plan to
accommodate a possible stormwater detention facility. The report indicates that the
natural drainage pattern may allow some storrr~water to outlet into an existing sewer
outlet along Lundy'e Lane and into an existing detention pond on the east side of Kalar
Road in the original Orchard Grove subdivision that has additional drainage capacity.
This could reduce the scale of the on-site detention facility. A detailed stormwater
management plan will be required as a condition of approval. The Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority has been requested to review this plan on behalf of the Regional
Planning and Development Department. If a stormwater detention pond is required, a
Certificate of Approval must also be obtained directly from the MOE.
iii) Potential Site Contamination
Some dumping of scrap material took place a number of years ago toward the northeast
comer of the site. These lands formed part of a service repair garage that operated on
the adjoining property. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment should be prepared
for this section of the subdivision to determine if any there is any need for further
investigation or remediation. Should there be an indication of possible contamination,
appropriate testing and remedlation may have to be undertaken pursuant to MOE
guidelines.
Ministry of Natural Resoure_~
The site is close to a tributary of Beaverdams Creek which is classified as an Important
{Type 2) Fish Habitat by the Ministry of Natural Resoumes. The Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority (NPCA) has indicated that the fish habitat may extend to the
subject property. The NPCA has requested a closer examination of site conditions to
determine if the fish habitat is present. An Environmental Impact Study (ELS) may be
necessary if evidence is found to support the existence of a fisheries resource. The ElS
must meet Ministry guidelines and provide appropriate measures to protect the fish
resource. This could result in modifications to the proposed stormwater management
block.
The stormwater management plan will make provision to consider water quality and
quantity together with erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent adverse effects,
including any impacts on the fish habitat downstream. Flows to the Beaverdams Creek
tributary north of the site are to be maintained at pre-development levels in the interest of
protecting the downstream fish habitat.
Ministry of Tourism, ~ultUre and Recreation
The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation normally requires an archaeological
assessment where an area has medium to high potential for the discovery of
amhaeological resoumes. When the first Orchard Grove subdivision was being
considered on adjacent lands to the east, the Niagara Falls Board of Museums
indicated that there was no historical evidence of any military activity on these lands
associated wk'h the War of 1812. Regional Planning staff advised the Ministry in this
regard but were informed that there may be potential for other discoveries on the
Orchard Grove West site due to its relatively close proximity to Beaverdams Creek.
Further discussions are pending on this matter. In the inter~m, an archaeological
assessment has been included as a condition of draft approval, The Ministry retains the
option to withdraw this requirement if it is determined to be unnecessary.
Conclusion
From a Regional and Provincial planning perspective, Regional Planning staff has no
objection to draft approval of the Orchard Grove West plan of subdivision subject to the
conditions of draft plan approval set out in the attached Appendix 1.
If you have any questions concerning these comments or conditions, please contact
Peter Colosimo, Planner for assistance.
Please send notice of the City's decision on this application.
Yours truly,
Director of Planning Servi,~"
Attachments: Appendix 1 (Conditions of Draft Approval)
Appendix 2 (Comments from Regional Public Works)
Co
Mr. E. Henry, c/o 527786 Ontario Limited, 1959 Fruitbelt Parkway, Niagara Falls, Ont., L2E 6S4
Mr. J. Durst, Minislnj of Natural Resources, Vlneland
Mr. N. Fen'is, Archaeologist, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation
Ms. B. Ryter, Ministry of the Environment, Hamilton
Ms. S. Mclnnes, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
Mr. W. Stevens, Regional Public Works
APPENDIX
Conditions of Draft Approval
Orchard Grove West
City of Niagara Falls
26T- 11 - 2001- 03
1. That the owner acknowledge promptly to the Regional Planning and Development
Department that the draft approval of this subdivision does not include a commitment
of servicing allocation by the Regional Municipality of Niagara. Servicing allocation
will be assigned instead at the time of final approval of this subdivision for registration
purposes, and a similar clause be inserted in the subdivision agreement between the
owner and the City of Niagara Falls.
2. That immediately following notice of draft plan approval, the owner shall provide the
Regional Planning and Development Department with a written undertaking that all
offers and agreements of purchase and sale which may be negotiated prior to
registration of this subdivision shall contain a clause clearly indicating that a servicing
allocation for this subdivision will not be assigned until the plan is granted final
approval for registration.
3. That the detailed design drawings for the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer
facilities to service this development be submitted to the Regional Public Works
Department for review and approval.
4. That Ministry of the Environment Certificates of Approval be obtained for the
necessary servicing (water, sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage) for this
development prior to final approval for registration. Note.' Should the design of the
storrnwater management system incorporate an end-of-pipe facility (i.e. detention
pond) or outlet to an existing waterbody, the design should be submitted directly to the
MOE (Attention: M. Dhalla, P.Eng.) for approval and the issuance of a Certificate of
Approval.
5. That prior to approval of the final plan or any on-site grading, the owner submit two
copies of a detailed stormwater management plan designed and sealed by a suitably
qualified professional engineer in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment's
"Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual", June 1994, and
incorporating erosion and sedimentation control measures, to the Regional Planning
and Development Department and that the approved plan be implemented through
provisions in the subdivision agreement, The Region has requested the Niagara
Peninsula Conservation Authority to review the stormwater management plan on the
Region's behalf and to submit comments to the Regional Planning and Development
Department regarding the approval of this plan and the subsequent clearance of
related Conditions.
That a Phase t Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) be prepared by a qualified
consultant in accordance with the "Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in
Ontario", Ministry of the Environment, February 1997, verifying the history of use(s)
at the northeast comer of the property to demonstrate that this portion of the
property does not contain any hazardous materials that exceed MOE standards for
residential development, and that the Phase 1 ESA be submitted to the Regional
Planning and Development Department. If any evidence Is found to suggest that
there may be potential contamination, recommendations shall be implemented
through'the subdivision agreement including additional studies (Phase 2 and/or
Phase 3 ESA), if necessary, and any mitigation measures, If soil analysis and
remediation is necessapj, an MOE acknowledged Record of Site Condition (RSC)
indicating that the site is suitable for residential use should be submitted to the
Regional Planning and Development Department and the City of Niagara Falls prior
to final approval of the subdivision.
7. That an Environmental Impact Study (ELS) be prepared, if necessary, to evaluate the
potential presence of an on-site fish habitat and any impacts on the Important (Type 2)
Fish Habitat associated with Beaverdams Creek together with any necessary
mitigation measures, be submitted to the Regional Planning and Development
Department and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority for review and
approval
8. That the owner submit two copies of a detailed noise and vibration study, conducted
by a qualified professional engineer, to the Regional Planning and Development
Department for review and approval, with the assistance of the Ministry of the
Environment, assessing the impact of railway and stationary noise on the subdivision
and recommending appropriate measures to reduce noise levels and warning clauses
advising of noise conditions within the development in accordance with the Ministry of
the Environment's noise criteria.
9. That recommendations of the approved noise study be implemented through the
subdivision agreement to the satisfaction of the Regional Planning and Development
Department and the Ministry of the Environment.
10. That, if required by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, an amhaeological
assessment be conducted of the undisturbed portion of the development site by a
licensed archaeologist and adverse impacts to any significant archaeological
resoumes found on the site be mitigated through preservation or resource removal
and documentation. No demolition, grading or other soil disturbances shall take place
on the subject property prior to the Ministry of Toudsm, Culture and Recreation,
through the Regional Planning and Development Department, confirming that all
archaeological resoume concerns have met licensing and resource conservation
requirements. Note: A copy of the amhaeological assessment report is to be
submitted to the Regional Planning and Development Department for information.
Clearance of Conditions
Pr!or to granting final plan approval, the City of Niagara Falls must be in receipt of
written confirmation from the following agencies that their respective
requirements have been met satisfa=torily:
· Regional Niagara Planning for Conditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
* Regional Public Works for Conditions 3 and 4.
· Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority for Condition 5 and 7.
· Ministry of the Environment for Conditions 4 and 9.
* Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation for Condition 10.
Subdivision Agreement
Pdor to registration, a copy of the executed subdivision agreement for the proposed
development should be submitted to the Regional Planning and Development
Department, Ministry of the Environment and Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
for verification that the appropriate clause(s) pertaining to any of these conditions of
draft approval have been included.
Note
The owner is advised that, if necessary, the appropriate Regional permits must be
completed prfor to any constmctJon occurring within the Regional right-of-way.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 2002
Peter Colosimo, Planner
Planning and Development Depaxtment
William J. Stevens, C.E.T.
Development & Approvals Manager
Draft Plan of Subdivislon
Applicant: 527786 Ontario Ltd. (Eric Henry)
Proposal: Orchard Grove West Subdivision - 97 Residential Units
Location: Kalar Road and Harvest Crescent near Regional Road 20
(Lundy's Lane)
In the City of Niagara Falls
Municipal File: 26T-11-2001-03
Our File: D.11.000 (ID#874)
Regional Niagara Public Works Department has reviewed the above-referenced draft plan of
subdivision and provide the following comments:
1) Sanitary and Water Services
The plan does not indicate the location of the water or sanitary services. Therefore, we
are unable to assess the downstream impact, if any.
We would anticipate that servicing for the subdivision will require MOE approval. In
this regard, a detailed set of servicing plans will be required to be reviewed by the
Public Wor~ Department under the MOE Transfer of Review Program.
2) Storm Drainage
As noted in the application, a Stormwater Management Report is to follow draft
approval.
Although storm drainage is essentially a local issue, we would note that any stormwater
management scheme intended to provide quality enhancement/quality control to a
receiving stream/body of water or sewer will require the direct approval of the MOE
(Toronto),
Peter Colosimo
Planner
Planning and Development Deparlmcnt
February 12, 2002
Page 2
3)
Collection of Waste
This draft plan for the subdivision should address the matter of the turning radius
design (minimum 12.8 m radius) with respect to conforming to the policy for providing
an acceptable mm-a-round for refuse collection vehicles, if municipal collectio,~ of
household refuse is expected. This is outlined in the Region's Policy "Collection of
Wast, By Way of Entry on Private Property" Pollcy (PW2. W07). Copies or
clarification of this policy may be obtained from Catherine Habermebl, 905-685-4225,
extension 3204, of the Waste Management Services Division, Public Work~
Department, 2201 St. David's Road, Thorotd.
Regional Permit Requirements
Prior to any construction taking place within a Regional road allowance, a Regional
Construction Encroachment and/or Fdltrance Permit must be obtained. Applications
must be made through the Permits Section of the Operational Support Services Divisiot!
of the Public Works Department.
In conclusion, we have no objection to this pla,) being approved provide this developer is
forewarned that draft approval does not include a commitment of servicing allocation, but will
be assigned at the time of final approval/registration and any pre-servicing, which may be
undertaken, will be at the sole risk of the developer.
Dovelopmen['~ Approvals Manager
Public Works Depaitment
Operational Support Services Division
VD/cm
L:~Fa~l~rln$-Planning-ai"g-Devel~pmc~t'~Dopke. Vic\l~iaganl PalIs\CORRI~PONDENCE 2002~6078.p. coln~imo.memo,doc
Bryan Melnnis, Supervisor of Peimlts
Paul Montgomery, Sr. Environmental Engineer, Water & Wastewater Services Division
Planning Department, City of Niagara Falls
wo Niagara
rks ,
BROOKS, BIELBY & SMITH
BARRISTERS & SOLIC4TORS
CONTINUING THE PRACTICE F~TAI~LISHI~ IN lgS2
P. O. BOX 67
THOMAS A, BIELBY, B.A., LL, B. 24-7 EAST MAIN STR~t~T
~ BRUCE SMITH, B.A., LL.B. W£LLA~D. ONTARIO
THOMAS O. [{/%NP, AHAN, B,A.. LL,B., A.~oc{st~ L3B 5N9
CANADA
GEOr'~-'_,~Y F. BROOKS, Q.C, - COUNSEL (R~it'cd)
T~LEPHONE NO.: (905) 735~5684
FAX NO.: (905) 735-3340
March 26, 2002.
VIA FAX 688-5814
Messrs. Sullivan, Mahoney,
Barristers and Solicitors,
40 Queen Street,
p. o. Box 1360,
St. Catharines, Ontario.
L2R 6Z2.
A~_tentlon= V. F. Muratort, Es=.. O.C.
Dear Sir:
Re: Orchard Grove West 8ubdlvision
__ Nia=ar& Falls KOA
RECEIVED
NAR 2 6 2002
We have now received notice of the
public meeting scheduled for April 8th, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. at the
Council Chambers in Niagara Falls and we have also had an
opportunity to review your experts' Stormwater Management Report
and Noise Study.
We welcome an opportunity to meet
with you before the public meeting to discuss the issues we believe
need to be addressed.
The issues are as follows:
The noise study was conducted during two weekends towards the
end of last summer, Our clients indicate that during the
weekend of August 24th the campground was less than three
quarters full. The long weekend resulted in more campers and
by September 3rd the occupancy was down to less than one
quarter. Through the months of July and beginning of AUgUSt
the campground operates at almost or at 100% capacity. On that
basis alone the studies are incomplete. Perhaps your expert
can extrapolate the increased noise levels that could be
anticipated during these peak times.
2
Further the test instrument was located in the north-westerly
portion of the proposed subdivision. In our opinio~ the
instrument should have been located in a location more central
to the campground.
The current City of Niagara Falls by-law calls for a 60 metre
separator between the boundary of a residential zone and the
camp sites. Clearly the proposal does not provide for such a
separator. How can your proposal be justified given the City
of Niagara Falls by-law?
We enclose an alternative plan of subdivision design prepared
by BLS Planning which goes further towards addressing the
separator issue. This proposal creates 92 lots and even takes
into account the stormwater management needs. In our opinion
a subdivision of this nature would be much more appropriate
and would meet the needs of both our clients.
Your consulting engineer is proposing a 2 metre wooden fence.
Given the probable inadequacies of the study a~d the fact that
our client is prepared to negotiate the 60 metre separation
distance we think that the proposed barrier is insufficient·
We are still requesting a berm fence combination as required
by CN Rail.
Another issue that has not been addressed is that of smoke.
During the busy season the campground generates a great deal
of smoke. This is another issue to be considered when dealing
with the issue of setbacks and barriers. Whatever barrier is
ultimately agreed upon or imposed, it should extend the entire
length of the property llne including Lot 99.
Your consultant suggested a warning clause be placed in the
agreements of purchase and sale vis-a-vis CN Rail. As per our
previous meetings you have agreed that warning clauses would
also be imposed with respect to the campground. It is our
belief that placing such a clause in the agreements of
purchase and sale is insufficient since it is only notice to
the first purchaser of the lots. In our opinion such warning
clauses ought to be part of the subdivision agreement and
thereby registered on title and notice to any subsequent
purchasers.
Again we point out that at its peak capacity this campground
entertains more than 1500 people at night all of whom are
essentially outdoors until late in the evening. The conflicts
which arise from such a use have simply not been properly
addressed.
and remain,
We look forward to hearing from you
TAB:bd
Encl.
cc--city of Niagara Falls
Fax 3~6-23S4
cc--Mr, and Mrs. Jim Williams
cc--Mr. Glen Barker Fax 688-5893
Yours very truly,
BROOKS, BIELBY & SMIT}{
PER: ~ ~/
/
905 5?4 1157
MAR 28 8002 14:37 FR ACRES INT'L NIAGARA905 374 II57 TO 9905P6~5854 P.OI
International
To Mr. Eric Hem~
At
No.
From
Metro Development'
905 262 5654
John Codrington
Acres International Limited
4342 Queen Street
Niagara Fails, Ontario
L2E 6W1
Telephone
Facsimile
Date
Charge No.
Del
No. of Pages
(905) 374-5200
(905) 374-1157
March 28, 2002
P] 3978.00.
JBC
2
RECEIVED
APR 0 22002
& DEWLORIENT
Subject Orchard Grove West Subdivision Noise Study
A request has been made (TAB, Brooks, Bielby and Smith, March 26, 2002) for further comments
on noise issues relating to the KOA campground adjacent to the Orchard Grove West Subdivision.
Referring to the BBS letter:
Notwithstanding that the August 24/25 weekend may have seen the campground lightly used,
the occupancy of September 1 - 2 particularly appeared to be quite high. Activity may have been
somewhat less on the evening of September 2, and no monitoring was done on the evening of
September 3 since low occupancy was anticipated. The numerical data obtained on September
1 - 2 and September 2 - 3 are consistent with a noise environment that is set by traffic noise
(road, rail), insect noise and random events typical of community noise. In my opinion the
campground noise, even on the busy September 1 - 2 weekend, is not the dominant contributor
to the overall noise on the western boundary of the Orchard Grove subdivision.
Regarding the extrapolation of noise levels from, say, 75% to 100% occupancy: If it assumed'
that campground activity is the dominant noise source, an increase in noise proportional to the
above increase would increase the noise level by 1.2 dB. However, as already noted, the
measured noise levels appear to be dominated by general community noise. Since the camping
activity does not affect this dominant community noise, I would not expect to see significantly
higher noise readings in the June/July period.
Regarding the location of the instrument, I am of the opinion that, if there was a significant noise
problem from the campground, it would have been quite apparent from the location that was
selected.
MAR 28 2002 14:37 FR ACRES INT'L NIAGARA905 374 1157 TO 99052625654 P.02
Acres Facsimile - 2
March 28, 2002
Regarding the proposed 2 m high wooden fence, this has been proposed to ensure privacy
between the campground and the adjacent residences. A 2 m fence provides an effective visual
and acoustic barrier between groups of people engaged in typical outdoor activities. Barriers of
1.5 to 2.0 m are widely used to provide acoustic and visual separation between work stations in
an office environment.
A 5 m barrier is appropriate where it is necessary to block the loud noise levels emitted from the
high exhaust stacks ora group of freight hauling locomotives. The berm provides the safety
barrier that could be needed in the event ora derailment. There is no such noise and safety issue
between the backyards of the proposed subdivision and the campers on the KOA site.
Accordingly, no recommendation should be made for the type of separation that is appropriate
between the railway and the subdivision.
The 2 m noise fence has been proposed to ensure harmony between the future residents of
Orchard Grove West and the KOA campers. There is nothing in the noise data that mandates
that the fence should be built, or that it should be constructed from the heavy timber sections
so that it meets the requirements for a noise barrier.
In closing, and to address the concern for the adequacy of the report, I draw attention to the
following:
- A total of 66 hours of noise sampling has been taken.
Four overnight samples were taken.
- Two of the overnight samples were taken on a long weekend when camping activity was
high.
Personal observations (visual and auditory) made when the instrument was placed support
that the campground is typically used by family groups.
- If any identifiable noise was present in the sounds from the campground, it was that of
children at play.
I believe that the noise report does charaeterise the campground activities and that, given the
recommended noise fence, the two adjacent land uses are compatible with respect to noise and
privacy.
Regards,
hn Codrington, P. Eng.
TOTAL
HEART & STROKE ;NIAG PAGE 82
Heart' and Stroke Foundation. of Ontario
diAQ&RA AREA
~OO Bunt~g Reed, Unlt 3
~. Cal{hadnea, ON ~M 7X3
~el; (905) 93B-~800
:=~: (905) 938-8811
~REA MANAGER
~ngela Kerr
~REA ADMINISTRATOR
>ROGRAM CO-ORDINATOR
March 13,2002
City of Niagara Falls
Clerks Office '
4310 Queen Street PO Box 1023
Niagara Falls ON L2E 6X5
RE: BIG BIKE FOR STROKE RESEARCH
Dear City COuncil Members;
The Niagara Falls Chapter of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of
Ontario. would.like to hold its annual "BIG BIKE FOR STROKE"
event on Saturday Apr 28th at Mick& Angelo's Eatery and Bar.
The event is Scheduled to start with the first ride at 8:30am and the
last ride will be at 2:00pm.
OCAL CHAPTERS:
~ELHAM CHAPTER
ERIE CHAPTER
',RIMSBY/LiNCOLN
~HAIpTER '
~IAGARA FALLS
:HAPTE~
~L~GARA ON THE LAKE
=HAPTER
· ORT COLBORNE!
NAINFLEET CHAPTER
CATHARINE$/TH ORDLD
'.H&PTER
VELLAND CHAPTER
H F-ART
AND STROK~
FOUNDATION
OF ONTARIO
1 would also like to notify council of the proposed route:
· Begin at'Mack O'Rooney's Pasta and Grill House
· . TurnRight onto Thorold Stone Rd. ( A Regional Road)
· Turn left onto iLundy's Lane and head West ( Regional Road)
· Cross Lundy's Lane and turn around at 8870 Lundy's Lane and
then head back East on Lundy's Lane to Mick& Angelo's Eatery and
Bar.
We would like to obtain permission from the Niagara City Council for
this event.. I.t was held with great success last year.
I have enclosed proof-of insurance with both the City of Niagara
Falls and Mack O'Rooney's Pasta and Grill House named, I have
also been in contact with the Region of Niagara and I am in the
process.of.supplying a copy of the insurance naming the Region as
covered. I am also filling out the application for Regional road use.
If the city requires more information please contact me at the
Niagara district,office at (905) 938-8800.
Yours in heart healthy living,
"COUNCIL MF...F..TI G APR 0 8
judy Ziraldo
Area Coordinator- Corporate Programs
For more heart and stroke information, visit www, heartandstroke.ca or =all 1-888,HSF4NFO (473-4636).
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Municipal Works
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www. city. niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-6460
E-maih munwks@city, niagarafalls.on.ca
April 8, 2002
Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng.
Director
MW-2002-44
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson,
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
MW-2002-44
Building Division Renovation
Tender #04-2002
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council award Tender No. 04-2002 for the Office Alterations Building & By-Law Services
Division 1~t Floor City Hall to Serianni Construction of Welland, Ontario for the total sum of
$47,015.80.
BACKGROUND:
Recent renovations to the 2~a floor of City Hall allowed for the relocation of the Legal Depmtment into
their present space located on the 2"a floor. The Office space on the 1"t floor vacated by the Legal
Department was turned over to the Building and By-Law SerVices Division.
To accommodate the needs of the Building and By Law Services Division, plans for the alteration of
· their new space where prepared by Chris Cristelli and Associates Inc. On March 21, 2002, the City
received tenders for the Office Alterations to the Building and By-Law Services Division 1st Floor City
Hall.
The following is a list of tenders we received:
Serianni Construction
Welland, Ontario
$47,015.80
Draftcon Construction
Niagara Falls, Ontario
$59,122.00
Charter Building Company
St. Catharines, Ontario
$105,136.00
Municipal Works
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Fire Services Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development
Building & By-Laws
MW-2002-44 - 2 - April 8, 2002
Funds for this project have been allocated in the 2002 City Operating Budget. Council's favourable
approval would be appreciated.
Prepared by:
Tom Mussari
Manager of Building Services
Respectfully submitted by:
cDonald
ministrative Officer
Ed Dujlovic, p. Eng.
Director of Municipal Works
/SC
Community Services Department
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Municipal Works
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: fhiggins@city, niagarafalls.on.ca
Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng.
Director
MW-2002-45
April 8, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of thc Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls
Members:
Re: MW-2002-45
Highway No. 420 Reconstruction
Information Report
RECOMMENDATION:
That this report be received for the information of Council.
BACKGROUND:
On April 2, 2002, staff attended the preconstmction meeting for the Ministry of Transportation
contract to reconstruct Highway No. 420. The following items may be of interest to Council.
The work will commence April 15, 2002 starting at the Queen Elizabeth Highway. The
contract will be phased over three years ending in 2004.
The first phase will include the reconstruction of the bridge over the CN Rail Line and
overlay of the asphalt from the QEW to Drummond Road.
In the second phase Drummond Road bridge will be reconstructed. The bridge will be
completely removed thereby closing Drummond Road for the duration of the
reconstruction. The second phase will also include gateway works between Drummond
Road and Portage Road.
The third phase will include the reconstruction of the Portage Road bridge. Again the
bridge will be completely removed thereby closing Portage Road for the duration of the
reconstruction. This phase will also include the reconstruction of the Stanley Avenue
intersection and the construction of a portion of the City's storm trunk sewer.
City Council's concurrence with the recommendation made would be appreciated.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works Fire Sen/ices · Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development
2002 - 04 - 8 2 MW2002-45
Prep~by:
arr'.Eng.
Manager of Engineering Services
Recommended by:
Director of Municipal Works
Despectively Sub 'Red:
inistrative Officer
The City of
Niagara FalL,
Canada
Community Services Department
Parks, Recreation & Culture
7565 Lundy's Lane
Niagara Falls, ON L2H 1G9
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-7404
E-mail: akon@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Adele Ken
Director
R-2002-16
March 25, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: R-2002-16 - Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield
RECOMMENDATION:
For the information of Council.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to respond to an e-mail in which allegations were made (see attached)
and sent to both Members of Council and Senior Staff by Margaret Mingle on behalf of the Friends
of Lundy's Lane Battlefield (Friends).
Mrs. Mingle indicates that "it has come to her attention" incorrect statements have been made about
the Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield's financial status. We would suggest that the source for her
information is not correct.
The first two allegations named the Finance Department. With regard to the first allegation, "The
Finance Department HAS NOT been in touch with our auditors to obtain information on our
financial status, nor do they have the authority to do so." Even though the Finance Division was
requested by the Committee to obtain information from the Auditors, the City does not have the
authority to do so. Therefore, we did not attempt to contact the auditors. It was never suggested by
City staff that we intended to do so. However, prior to December 18, 2001, the Finance Division
made several requests to the Friends to complete the necessary forms to acquire payment for the
completed work. Finance did get some information, then discovered that there was missing
information. Finance did fill out the forms from the City's information and then forwarded them to
the Friends on December 18,2001. We asked to be kept advised of the progress and that the Friends
provide the City with copies of any correspondence sent to, or received from, the Millennium Bureau
regarding the final claim. To date, no information has been received.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works Fire Services Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development
R-2002-16 - 2 - March 25, 2002
With regard to the second allegation, "NO ATTEMPTS have been made by the Finance Department
to request or arrange a meeting with the Friends." Prior to the January 28, 2002 meeting, several
meetings were held between City staff and representatives of the Friends ofLundy's Lane Battlefield
to discuss the costs, invoicing and payments for work associated with the Battlefield work. At the
January 28, 2002 meeting, we were told that the invoicing for the work has finally been submitted
by the Friends to the Millennium Bureau. Therefore, another meeting seemed unnecessary.
As a back grounder, Finance Division has been involved with the project since July 2000. At that
time, and in cooperation with other staff, under the direction of Council, Finance agreed to do the
accounting, payables and receivables for the project. At each quarter of the year, an invoice was
presented to the Friends for their portion (including the Millennium Bureau) of the total project
costs. Approximately $243,000 has been billed of which $53,000 has been paid by the Friends.
As per the letter from the Friends, Staff is now significantly concerned about the collection of this
outstanding account. The letter indicates that Finance has inappropriately invoiced the Friends for
project expenditures and has questioned Staffs authority to do so.
Mrs. Mingle's remaining allegations deal with staff usurping the Friends' authority to manage the
project and staff's lack of cooperation. As Members of Council are aware, the Friends did receive
a grant for improvements to the Lundy's Lane Battlefield. However, the Friends had the mistaken
impression that the Millennium Bureau also gave them jurisdiction over City property. In the early
stages of the grant, the Millennium Bureau recognized the City staff role and recommended that the
contract be transferred from the Friends to the City. However, staff did not want to hurt a volunteer
group, and therefore, did not pursue this change. In hindsight, this recommended change would have
alleviated many of the ongoing problems.
From the onset, as with all other projects funded by volunteer groups, City staff assumed full
responsibility for project coordination. It is unfortunate that in the early stages of the project, staff
was not aware that the Friends desired to manage the project. Once this was understood, the Friends
were advised by staff that it would be necessary to direct their request to City Council. However,
for reasons unknown, the Friends chose not to address Council with their request. Clearly, staff does
not have the authority to delegate their responsibility to a volunteer group.
From the beginning of the Fralick's restoration project, the Friends did have the opportunity to
provide input into the project. Thirty-seven (37) meetings were held between April 2000 and
October 2001, and one or more representatives attended all but two of the meetings. In addition,
another five meetings were held with the Friends and members of senior staff to address a number
of issues including project management.
R-2002-16 - 3 - March 25, 2002
Mrs. Mingle stated that there were numerous untrue statements made by City staff during the past
three years. Staff find this comment offensive and welcome the opportunity to address all of Mrs.
Mingle's allegations. Staff is also of the opinion that many of these issues have already been
discussed with the Past President (Janice Wing) of the Friends and other Executive Members.
However, staff is prepared to formally revisit these issues in order to bring closure to this matter.
Prepared by: ~'~
Adele Kon
Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Recommended by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
Prepared by:
Ken Burden
Director of Finance
AK/KB/das
Attachment
Respectfully Submitted:
~i~saJrdat ive Officer
SSCouncil\Counci12002\R-2002-16 l:'riends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield,wpd
Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield
7101 Ridgewood Crescent
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2J 2C2
(905) 358-6514
February25,2002
Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of Council
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Re: "Development of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield as a Historic Site" Project
Dear Mayor and Council,
It has come to our attention that incorrect statements were made at the January 28,
2002 Community Services Committee meeting about the Friends of the Lundy's Lane
Battlefield and our financial status.
1. The Finance Department HAS NOT been in touch with our auditors to obtain
information on our financial status, nor do they have the authority to do so.
2. NO ATTEMPTS have been made by the Finance Department to request or arrange
a meeting with the Friends.
These represent only two of the numerous untrue statements made by City Hall staff
regarding the Friends over the past three years (the life of The Project).
Even though the Millennium Bureau of Canada gave the Friends the authority for this
project (which is stated in our contract with them), this authority was undermined
and usurped by the project manager and other staff of City Hall. Throughout the life
of The Project, the Friends had no authority and yet you are now expecting us to take
responsibility for expenditures of The Project made by your staff.
The situation has become intolerable.
I have personally worked diligently since early September, having spent well over
100 hours as a volunteer to collect and forward all the remaining information required
by the Millennium Bureau regarding this Project.
We approached The Project in the spirit of cooperation, but this was not reciprocated
by SOME City Hall staff. Our members have spent thousands of volunteer hours in
the interest of the Proiect, yet we have been consistently maligned and our
contributions have been disregarded.
Although the treatment we have endured over the past three years continues to be
neither acceptable nor accepted, we refrained from public comment on this matter
lest it should jeopardize The Project.
The Project ended September 30th; all necessary information has been filed with the
Millennium Bureau. In view of the fact that we now have enlightened you on the
disrespectful treatment by SOME of your staff, we expect to see no more of this.
Yours truly,
Margaret Mingle
On behalf of the Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the
convenience of buying online with Shop~Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mall account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Municipal Works
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: munwks@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng.
Director
MW-2002-43
File G-180-01
April 8, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson,
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
RE: MW-2002-43
Municipal Parking & Traffic Committee
Recommendations - March 19, 2002 Meeting
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) 2002 Shrine Ceremonial - Request for Parking Passes
It is recommended that the request from the Shriners to provide free parking passes to it's
delegates, for parking throughout the City, during the 2002 Shrine Ceremonial to be held
June 6, 7, 8 & 9, 2002, be approved
2)
MW-2002-28 - Request to Place Waste Container on Public
Property in Municipal Lot #13 (Main Street)
It is recommended that:
the request to place two waste containers on public property in a predesignated
area in Municipal Lot # 13 (Main Street) be granted subject to site specific details;
and,
2. staff be authorized to prepare the necessary agreement
3) MW-2002-29 - Prospect Street - Parking Review
It is recommended that:
a "no parking" restriction be implemented on the north side of Prospect Street
from Drummond Road to a point 45 metres east of Drmnmond Road;
a "no parking" restriction be implemented on the north side of Prospect Street
from a point 60 metres east of Drummond Road to a point 115 metres east of
Drummond Road; and,
a "no standing" restriction be implemented on the north side of Prospect Street
from a point 45 metres east of Drummond Road to a point 60 metres east of
Drummond Road.
April 8, 2002
-2-
MW-2002-43
4)
MW-2002-30 - Longhurst Avenue - On-Street Parking Review Update
It is recommended that the current parking situation along Longhurst Avenue be
maintained.
MW-2002-31 - Homewood Avenue at Menzie Street - Intersection Control Review
It is recommended that a stop sign be installed on the west leg of Menzie Street at
Homewood Avenue facing eastbound motorists.
BACKGROUND:
The Municipal Parking and Traffic Committee, at its meeting of January 15, 2002, considered the
matters noted and formulated the recommendations above.
City Council's concurrence with the recommendations outlined in this report would be
appreciated.
Respectfully submitted by:
Alderman Kim Craitor, Chairperson,
Murficipal Parking & Traffic Committee
The City of ~f'~l~l~
Corporate Services Department
Finance Division
4310 Queen Street
P,O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2016
E-mail: kburden@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
F-2002-23
Kenneth E. Burden
Director of Finance
April 8, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: F-2002-23 - Municipal Accounts
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the municipal accounts totalling $26,939,739.71 for the period ending
April 8, 2002.
BACKGROUND:
The accounts have been reviewed by the Director of Finance and the by-law authorizing payment
is listed on tonight's Council agenda.
Recommended by:
K.E. Burden
Director of Finance
Respectfully submitted:
~acDonald
/~/Chief Administrative Officer
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
KEB:jd
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's · Finance Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development
Fire Services
The City of--~'~'~11~. 5809 Uorrison Street
Niagara Fails ~l~.. Niagara Falls, ON L2E 2E8
web site:www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
~~' Teh (905) 356-1321
Fax: (905) 356-6236
E-mail: pburke@city.niagarafalls.on,ca
Patrick R. Burke
Fire Chief
FS-2002-07
April 8, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of Municipal Council,
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
FS-2002-07, Agreement with Walker Brothers Quarries Limited
Temporary Training site for Niagara Falls Fire Department
Vacant House at 9555 Mountain Road
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council authorize an agreement with Walker Brothers Quarries Limited to permit the Niagara
Falls Fire Department to temporarily use the property and building at 9555 Mountain Road for the
training of its firefighters.
BACKGROUND:
Walker Brothers Quarries Limited is the owner of the property at 9555 Mountain Road which is
slated for demolition. The building located on the property is unoccupied and in substandard
condition. The Niagara Falls Fire Department is interested in using the building to carry out training
activities related to the duties of its firefighters and intends to use the building for ventilation
practice, foam practice, laddering p~actice, fire cause determination and overhaul (making sure the
fire is out).
Walker Brothers Quarries Limited is agreeable to the request and is prepared to enter into an
agreement with the City for this purpose. Once the training has been completed the Walker Brothers
Smoke Alarms Save Lives - Check Your Smoke Alarm
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Quarries Limited agrees to demolish the buildings, at its own expense, within 90 days of receiving
notice from the City to do so. The use of the property will be at no cost to the City~
City Solicitor
PRB:rs
~. roved by: ~x~
Edward P. Lustig ]
Director of Fire Servic~
Respectfully submitted:
~ative Officer
THIS AGREEMENT made this 12~h day of March, 2002.
BETWEEN:
WALKER BROTHERS QUARRIES LIMITED
Hereinafter called the "Owner",
of the FIRST PART;
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
Hereinafter called the "City",
of the SECOND PART;
WHEREAS the Owner is the owner of the lands known municipally as 9555 Mountain Road,
Niagara Fails, and described in Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming part of this agreement;
AND WHEREAS the City is desirous of entering into an agreement with the Owner to enter upon
the lands of the Owner for the purpose of permitting the Niagara Falls Fire Services to carry out
training activities related to the duties of its firefighters;
AND WHEREAS the Owner is agreeable to the said request.
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the premises and the covenants and agreements hereinafter
to be performed and other good consideration, the parties hereto COVENANT AND AGREE as
follows:
1. The Owner of the lands, more particularly described in Schedule"A" attached hereto and
hereinafter referred to as the "said lands", agrees to permit the City, its employees and agents, to
enter upon the said lands for the purpose of permitting the Niagara Falls Fire Services to carry out
training activities related to the duties of its firefighters in and around the buildings situate on the
-2-
said lands up to and including the 30th day of April, 2002.
2. The Owner understands and agrees that the City may cause the buildings on the said lands to
be destroyed partially or wholly by fire, or otherwise, as a result of the said training activities and
the City shall not be held liable for any or all destruction.
3. The City shall notify the Owner, in writing, when training activities have ceased and the said
lands are no longer required by the City.
4. The Owner agrees that within 90 days of receiving such notice the Owner shall level and
demolish the buildings which may have been partially or wholly destroyed by fire, and to clear the
site of said buildings, structures, debris or refuse, and leave the site in a graded and levelled
condition at the Owners expense and to the satisfaction of the City's Property Standards Officer.
5 The Owner releases the City from all claims and demands in respect of any loss, damage or
injury (including death) to persons or property arising out of this agreement/
6. The City agrees that no fire accelerants shall be used nor will it bring any material or items
onto the said lands that would have a deleterious effect on the said lands.
7. The City indemnifies, saves, defends and keep harmless from time to time and at all times,
the Owner of, from and against all actions, causes of action, interest, claims, demands, costs,
charges, damages, expenses and loss which may arise as a result of the Owner permitting the use of
the said lands and premises under this agreement save and except for costs arising out of this
agreement.
8. Any notice to be given pursuant to this agreement may be delivered or sent by Prepaid First
Class Mail or
-3-
Facsimile Transmission to the Owner and the City as follows:
Walker Brothers Quarries Limited
P.O. Box 100
Thorold, Ontario
L2V 3Y8
Attention: Mr. Cary Clark, Project Manager
Telephone: (905) 680-3716
Fax No.: (905) 680-1916
The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls
Attention: City Clerk
4310 Queen Street,
P.O. Box 1023,
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Telephone No.: (905) 356-7521
Fax No.: (905) 356-2354
Any such notice, if mailed, shall be conclusively deemed to be given to and received by the other
party three (3) business days after the mailing thereof or if sent by facsimile transmission, on the date
the facsimile transmission was sent.
9. Wherever the singular or masculine is used in this agreement they shall be construed as if
the plural or feminine or the neuter has been used where the context or the party or parties so require,
and the rest of the sentence shall be construed as if the grammatical and terminological changes
thereby rendered necessary had been made and all covenants herein contained shall be construed to
-4-
be several as well as joint.
IN WITNESS WHERE OF the City and the Owner have hereunto affixed their corporate seals duly
attested by the hands of the proper signing officers in that behalf and the said signing officers certify
that they have the authority to bind their corporation.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WALKFfiR BROTHERS QUARRIES
Tit/e:'
) Name:
) Title:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
NIAGARA FALLS
Name: Wayne Thomson
Title: Mayor
Name: Dean lorfida
Title: City Clerk
-5-
SCHEDULE "A"
to an Agreement dated March 12m, 2002
between
WALKER BROTHERS QUARRIES LIMITED
and
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
Part Township Lot 32 Stamford designated as Part 1 on 59R-5959, in the City of Niagara Falls, in
the Regional Municipality of Niagara.