The URL can be used to link to this page

2014/09/09 Niag araCalts , N kD :, COUNCIL MEETING September 9, 2014 PRAYER: Councillor Mayes ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Council Minutes of August 12, 2014 * * * * * DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Disclosures of pecuniary interest and a brief explanation thereof will be made for the current Council Meeting at this time. * * * * * BUDGET 5:00 P.M. Parking Budget A presentation on the parking budget will take place. NOTE: Background material will be sent at a later date. * * * * * REPORTS CONSENT AGENDA THE CONSENT AGENDA IS A SET OF RE PORTS THAT COULD BE APPROVED IN ONE MOTION OF COUNCIL. THE APPROVAL ENDORSES ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN EACH OF THE REPORTS WITHIN THE SET. THE SINGLE MOTION WILL SAVE TIME. PRIOR TO THE MOTION BEING TAKEN, A COUNCILLOR MAY REQUEST THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE REPORTS BE MOVED OUT OF THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. BDD-2014-03 - Celebrate Ontario Grant re: New Year's Eve Show BDD-2014-04-Tourism Partnership of Niagara (TPN) Regional Tourism Organization (RTO) Grant ET Canada New Year's Eve Niagara Falls Show. - 2 - F-2014-37 - Major Receivables - July F-2014-39 - Federal Gas Tax Revenue L-2014-18 - Update-Cost, Ontario Municipal Board Appeal, Zoning By-law Amendment, 6015 Barker Street. MW-2014-30 - 2014 Sidewalk and Concrete Repair Program MW-2014-39-Strang Drive Road Reconstruction and Lamont Avenue Sanitary Sewer Replacement. MW-2014-40-Portage Road Watermain Replacement From 110m South of Valley Way to Valley Way Tender Award. MW-2014-41 - Request for Proposal RFP36-2014, Supply of One New Unit Aerial Fire Truck MW-2014-42 - Buckley Avenue Storm Sewer Tunnel MW-2014-43-Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund(OCIF)and Small Communities Fund (SCF) Programs PBD-2014-49 - PLC-2014-004, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Blocks 22 through 28, Registered Plan 59M-407 Shpaton Crescent, Windylane of Subdivision. Applicant: Mountainview Homes PBD-2014-53 - Matters Arising from Municipal Heritage Committee, Update of Designating By-laws. R&C-2014-12 - Revised Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy R&C-2014-13 - Arts & Culture Wall of Fame 2014 Inductees TS-2014-19-Transit Ag reement with NCSAC(Niagara College Student Administrative Council) TS-2014-31 - Transit Advertising RFP Results PRESENTATIONS/ DEPUTATIONS Alzheimer's Society 6:30 p.m. Peter Nicholson, Board Member, will inform Council on the 19th Annual Coffee Break Campaign. - 3 - United Way 6:45 p.m. Carol Stewart-Kirkby, Executive Director, will address Council on the annual United way campaign and related events. -AND- Related request for relief to the Noise By-law and fees for Food Trucks related to an event. Judo Champion 7:00 p.m. Trinity Reid, local resident, will be recognized for winning the US Junior National Open Judo Championship. Red Raiders The Niagara Falls Red Raiders JUEL Prep Girl's basketball team will be recognized for winning the Ontario Cup Champuionship. * * * * * PLANNING MATTERS 7:00 P.M. Public Meeting 26CD-11-2014-002 & AM-2014-005 Smart Townes Phase 2 Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium Zoning By-law Amendment Application Southwest Corner of Kalar Road and Angie Drive (Block 209, Plan 59M-384 and Block 64, Plan 59M-376) 63 Unit Townhouse Development Owner: Pinewood Homes (Niagara) Background Material: Recommendation Report: PBD-2014-50 * * * * * MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS * * * * * - 4 - COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 1. Lupus Foundation of Ontario - requesting that October 2014 be proclaimed as "Lupus Awareness Month " in the City of Niagara Falls. RECOMMENDATION: For the Approval of Council 2. Royal Canadian Legion Branch 51 - requesting the week of September 21-27, 2014 be proclaimed as " Legion Week" and a flag raising at City Hall September 22, 2014. RECOMMENDATION: For the Approval of Council 3.a Taps Brewery b Niagara Falls Night of Art c 21 Band Salute - various requests seeking relief to the City's Noise By-law for various events. RECOMMENDATION: For the Consideration of Council 4. United Steel Workers - requesting support of a resolution related to amendments to the Criminal Code as a result of the Westray Mine Disaster. RECOMMENDATION: For the Consideration of Council Additional items for Council's Consideration: The City Clerk will advise of any items for council consideration. * * * * * RATIFICATION OF "IN CAMERA" MATTERS * * * * * RESOLUTIONS THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Niagara Falls City Council considers "Niagara Falls Night of Art"to be an event of municipal significance and supports the provision of a Special Occasion Liquor Licence (SOP) for the event. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Niagara Falls City Council considers "the 21 Band Salute" to be an event of municipal significance and supports the provision of a Special Occasion Liquor Licence (SOP) for the event. - 5 - * * * * * BY-LAWS The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to the by- law listed for Council consideration. 2014-113 A by-law to designate Blocks 22 through 28, Registered Plan 59M-407, not be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2014-004). 2014-114 A by-law to amend By-law No. 2000-45, being a by-law to designate 12549 Niagara Parkway, known as the Danner-Sherk House, to be of cultural heritage value and significance. 2014-115 A by-law to amend By-law No. 78-25, being a by-law to designate 4582 Zimmerman Avenue now known as 4177 Park Street and known as the Old Police Building, to be of cultural heritage value and significance. 2014-116 A by-law to amend By-law No. 86-14 being a by-law to designate the British Methodist Episcopal Church, located at 5686 Peer Street as a building of cultural heritage value or interest. 2014-117 A by-law to amend By-law No. 78-68, being a by-law to designate 3000 Portage Road, known as the Church Residence, to be of cultural heritage value and interest. 2014-118 A by-law A by-law to authorize the execution of a Lease Agreement with Peterson Community Workshop Association (Chippawa) respecting the leasing of the premises known as the Peterson Community Workshop. 2014-119 A by-law authorizing execution of a Municipal Funding Agreement for the transfer of Federal Gas Tax Funds between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the City of Niagara Falls. 2014-120 A by-law to amend By-law No. 2007-161, being a by-law to regulate the supply of water and to provide for the maintenance and management of the waterworks and for the imposition and collection of water rates. 2014-121 A by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement with the Niagara College Administrative Council Inc. for the provision of transit services. 2014-122 A by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement with the Town of Fort Erie for the provision of transit services. 2014-123 A by-law to provide for advance voting prior to voting day for the 2014 Municipal Election. 2014-124 A by-law to amend By-law No. 89-2000, being a by-law to regulate parking and traffic on City Roads. (Stopping Prohibited, Standing Prohibited, Parking Prohibited, Through Highways, Stop Signs at Intersections, Heavy Vehicle Restriction, Designated Lanes) - 6 - 2014-125 A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 9th day of September, 2014. * * * * * NEW BUSINESS BDD-2014-03 Niagarap0 September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Business Development SUBJECT: BDD-2014-03 Celebrate Ontario Grant re New Year's Eve Show RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the Celebrate Ontario Agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff made a submission for funding to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport - Celebrate Ontario 2014 funding program for the Niagara Falls New Year's Eve Show which is televised nationally on Global. Staff was successful in securing $184,500 for the event which will be used to secure talent and production for the 2014 broadcast. BACKGROUND: The Minister of Tourism invited event organizers to submit funding applications for special events taking place in 2014. Staff submitted an application to Celebrate Ontario for this year's New Year's Eve Show and were successful in securing $184,500. The funds will be used to secure talent and related production costs for this year's show. The event will be televised on Global Television this year under the "Entertainment Tonight" banner. These funds will augment the financial support provided by the City through the OPG funds, as well as, ET Canada,the Niagara Parks Commission, Fallsview Casino Resort, RTO, Clifton Hill BIA, Fallsview BIA, Victoria Centre BIA, and Lundy's Lane BIA. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE: The cost to produce the Niagara Falls New Year's Eve Show increases annually and these additional funds will assist in covering the increased expenses. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT: Strengthen and promote economic de lopment within the City of Niagara Falls. • Recommended by: 4246 erge Felicetti, Director of Business Development Respectfully submitted: 4/1/4_4..„4,„r( Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer BDD-2014-04 NiagaraM4 September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Business Development SUBJECT: BDD-2014-04 Tourism Partnership of Niagara (TPN) Regional Tourism Organization (RTO) Grant ET Canada New Year's Eve Niagara Falls Show RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the TPN-RTO Agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff made a submission for funding to the TPN-RTO 2014 grant program for the ET Canada New Year's Eve Niagara Falls Show which is televised nationally on Global. Staff was successful in securing $50,000 for the event which will be used for the production of the 2014 broadcast. BACKGROUND: Staff submitted an application to RTO for this year's New Year's Eve Show and were successful in securing $50,000. The funds will be used towards production costs for this year's show. The event will be televised on Global Television this year under the "Entertainment Tonight" banner. These funds will augment the financial support provided by the City through the OPG funds, as well as, ET Canada, the Niagara Parks Commission, Fallsview Casino Resort, Clifton Hill BIA, Fallsview BIA, Victoria Centre BIA, and Lundy's Lane BIA. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE: The cost to produce the Niagara Falls New Year's Eve Show increases annually and these additional funds will assist in covering the increased expenses. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT: Strengthen and promote economic viability within the City of Niagara Falls. September 9, 2014 -2 - BDD-2014-04 Recommended by: � 1 J Serge Felicetti, Director of Business Development Respectfully submitted: Ken odd, Chief Administrative Officer F-2014-37 NiagaraJalls September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Finance Department SUBJECT: F-2014-37 Monthly Tax Receivables Report RECOMMENDATION That Council receive the Monthly Tax Receivables report for information purposes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is prepared monthly to provide Council with an update on the City's property tax receivables. Outstanding taxes as of July 31, 2014 were $18.7 million compared to $18.8 million in 2013. During July, tax receivables as a percentage of taxes billed decreased slightly from 32.9% in 2013 to 32.6% in 2014. The City's finance staff has had continued success in resolving properties that are subject to registration for 2014. At this stage, 83.5% of properties have developed payment arrangements or have paid in full. There are currently thirty-six properties scheduled for tax sale in the next two years. BACKGROUND This report is being provided as part of the monthly financial reporting to Council by staff. It is also submitted to our banking institution for compliance with our banking agreement. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE Tax collection for 2014 improved slightly during the month of July. Table 1 shows that taxes outstanding at July 31, 2014 are $18.7 million. This represents a decrease from $18.8 million in arrears for the same period in 2013. Finance staff continues to actively pursue property owners in arrears. Table 2 provides the breakdown of outstanding taxes by assessment class. The majority of outstanding taxes are for residential and commercial properties. The chart September 9, 2014 F-2014-37 shows that the taxes owing from the commercial property class has decreased from a year ago, whereas the residential property class has increased. Finance staff takes specific collection actions for properties that are subject to registration. These action steps have been outlined in previous reports. At January 1, 2014, 389 properties were subject to registration. Table 3 summarizes the progress of these actions after seven months of activity. This table shows 83.5% of the tax accounts or 325 properties have been paid in full or the owners have made suitable payment arrangements. During July, three accounts were paid in full. In addition, the number of accounts with suitable payment arrangements including full payments increased from 83.3% (June) to 83.5% (July). Finance staff continues to make every effort to have accounts paid in order to avoid the registration process and the associated costs related to that process. Table 4 identifies the properties and associated tax arrears scheduled for tax sales in the future. During the month of July, one registered property was redeemed and one property was registered. The outstanding taxes for registered properties represents 4.3% of the total outstanding taxes at month end. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Tax arrears as a percentage of taxes billed in a year is a performance measure that stakeholders utilize to analyse an organization's financial strengths. Niagara Falls, due to its high reliance on commercial assessment, is traditionally higher compared to municipalities of similar size. The percentage of taxes outstanding to taxes billed as at July 31, 2014 is 32.6% which is a slight decrease from 2013's value of 32.9%. The municipality has a record of full collection and earns significant penalty revenues to offset the higher measure. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Table 1 Taxes Receivable at July 31, 2014 Table 2 Taxes Receivable by Property Class at July 31, 2014 Table 3 Number of Properties Subject to Registration Table 4 Scheduled Tax Sales Dates for Registered Properties /O,,Q Recommended by: ��'� Todd Harrison, Director i f Finance Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer A. Felicetti TABLE 1 Total Taxes Receivable Owing at July 31,2014 2014 2013 Outstanding Taxes @ June 30, 2014 $ 22,489,547 $ 22,922,756 Penalty charged in July $ 197,252 $ 202,993 Taxes Collected during July $ 4,012,915 $ 4,276,571 Outstanding Taxes @ July 31, 2014 $ 18,673,884 $ 18,849,178 Taxes Billed and Due September 30 2014 $ 23,028,469 $ 22,841,570 Taxes Past Due $ 41,702,353 $ 41,690,748 TABLE 2 Taxes Receivable by Property Class as at July 31, 2014 2014 % of Class 2013 % of Class Taxes Owing Taxes Owing Residential $ 33,178,789 79.56% $ 32,426,879 77.78% Multi-Residential $ 99,210 0.24% $ 111,246 0.27% Commercial $ 7,995,323 19.17% $ 8,517,672 20.43% Industrial $ 346,770 0.83% $ 560,683 1.34% Farmlands $ 82,261 0.20% $ 74,268 0.18% Total Receivables $ 41,702,353 100.00% $ 41,690,748 100.00% TABLE 3 Properties Properties Subject to Subject to % Registration Registration as at June 30, 2014 as at July 31, 2014 Initial Amount 389 389 Paid in Full 92 95 24.4% Payment Arrangements 232 230 59.1% Ongoing Collection 65 63 16.2% Action Registered 0 1 0.3% 389 389 100.0% TABLE 4 Scheduled Number Taxes Tax Sales of Outstanding Date Properties Amount November 2014 20 $ 1,235,070 May 2015 9 $ 297,810 November 2015 7 $ 258,079 Totals 36 $ 1,790,959 ?Jr*, F-2014-39 Nia ara alis September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Finance Department SUBJECT: F-2014-39 Federal Gas Tax Revenue RECOMMENDATION That City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The agreement between AMO and the City of Niagara Falls provides the City funding from the Federal Gas Tax revenue. Since 2005, the City has received funding through this agreement to assist in financing certain capital infrastructure projects. The new agreement will guarantee gas tax funding for the next 10 years. The City of Niagara Falls will receive $2.4 million each year until 2018 until which time the amount will be adjusted based on the 2016 Federal Census. The Federal Gas Tax Fund is now permanent legislation and has been expanded to provide additional eligible categories of expenditures to utilize the funding. BACKGROUND On June 17, 2005, Canada, Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the City of Toronto signed a groundbreaking agreement under the Government of Canada's New Deal for Cities and Communities that flows federal gas tax revenue. That agreement ended in 2013. AMO has negotiated a new agreement on behalf of Ontario municipalities with the federal government. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE This program was put in place to address the significant infrastructure deficit for municipalities. Under that agreement, projects eligible for funding from gas tax were September 9, 2014 F-2014-39 City staff are in the process of finalizing an Asset Management Plan (AMP). The revenues received through this agreement will be used to fund capital infrastructure projects identified in the (AMP). Since the implementation of the original agreement, the City of Niagara Falls has received and utilized $16.4 million to fund capital infrastructure projects for roads, bridges, water and wastewater. In addition to making the Gas Tax funding permanent, the new agreement has made modifications to project eligibility and measurement. New categories include broadband connectivity, regional and local airports, brownfield development, sport, recreation, culture, tourism and disaster mitigation. The outcomes, previously restricted to environmental outputs, are now also focused on community benefits. Municipalities are required to clearly demonstrate that projects are prioritized based on an Asset Management framework. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The federal Gas Tax Fund is now permanent in legislation. Municipal allocations will increase over time as the Gas Tax Fund is expected to grow. Entering into this new municipal funding agreement will guarantee gas tax funding for the next 10 years with $2.4 million being received by the City of Niagara Falls each year guaranteed until 2018. The City's anticipated funding amount for 2019 and onwards will be determined by the 2016 Federal Census. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Municipal Funding Agreement for the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Funds Recommended by: Todd Har ison, Dir ctor of Finance Respectfully submitted: 21441/4.A9 Ken T dd, Chief Administrative Officer C. Luey L-2014-18 Niagara falls September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Legal Services SUBJECT: L-2014-18 Update - Cost Ontario Municipal Board Appeal Zoning By-law Amendment 6015 Barker Street Our File No. 2013-110 UPDATE - COST The cost, to date, of the Battlefield Ontario Municipal Board Hearing is $271,217.52. The Hearing lasted 6 days. As of the date of this Report, the Appellants were still contesting the final wording of the Order of the Board. ATTACHMENTS • Reporting Letter from Quinto M. Annibale of Loopstra Nixon LLP, dated June 17, 2014 (excluding attachments) • Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, dated June 26, 2014 Recommended by: "ki 5-4-441101.- Ken Beaman, City Solicitor Jf Respectfully submitted: Ken'Todd, Chief Administrative Officer KB Attachments e LOOPSTRA NIXON LLP This is confidential correspondence subject to solicitor and client privilege which should not be disclosed to any third party. Quinto M.Annibale* *Quinto Annibale Professional Corporation Direct Line: (416)748-4757 e-mail address: qannibale@loonix.com June 17, 2014 By E-Mail City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1042 Niagara Falls, Ontario LE 6X5 Attention: Ken Beaman Dear Sirs: Re: 6015 Baker Street; OMB Hearing Kiwanis Housing Project Morgan Funeral Home File Nos. NI..&Foo7 and NIAFoo8 Pursuant to your instructions we attended at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in this matter commencing on May 5,2014. The hearing was scheduled for eight days but was concluded in six days. Presiding at the hearing was Blair S.Taylor, The Board reserved its decision. .3 2 I. Parties and Participants: The parties to the hearing were(a)The Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield(the "Friends"),represented by counsel Tom Richardson and Patrick Maloney,(b)Janice Wing, representing herself, (c) Morse & Son Limited ("Morse"), represented by counsel John Broderick and Marc DiGirolomo, and(d) the City of Niagara Falls. The participants were Leonard Inkster (Municipal Heritage Committee), Darlena Costello (Treasurer, Main & Ferry BIA), John Garrett (Municipal Heritage Committee), John Ainsley, Laurel Campbell(Co-Chair,Municipal Heritage Committee)and Gary Burke (Co-Chair, Municipal Heritage Committee). II. Background The subject lands at 6015 Barker Street, which are associated with the Battle of Lundy's Lane during the War of 1812, were owned by the School Board until 2012. They consist of a former school building,now vacant,and the former school playground. At that time, the City purchased the subject lands with the intention of selling the portion containing the former school building to the Stamford Kiwanis (for conversion to not for profit seniors apartments),selling a portion of the former school playground to Morse(for expansion of their existing parking lot) and retaining the remainder of the school playground as a commemorative park, as well as an access strip along the west side of the subject lands to Barker Street. In order to facilitate these uses, the City enacted three zoning by-laws: (a) 2013-24, to rezone the lands to be sold to Stamford from R2 to a Residential Apartment 5A Density(R5A)exception zone;(b)2013-25,to rezone the lands to be retained from R2 to Open Space; and(c)2013-26,to rezone the lands to be sold to Morse from R2 to General Commercial. By-law 2013-25 was not appealed and is in effect; the other two by-laws were appealed by the Friends and Ms.Wing and were the subject of the hearing. It was acknowledged in the planners Statement of Agreed Facts that although the Open Space zoning was not under appeal,it was an integral component of the application as a whole. The Municipal Heritage Committee had recommended that the entire site be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The school building itself is not an historic building and has no association with the battle. The appellants were hoping for the eventual demolition of the school building and incorporation of the entirety of the subject lands into the commemorative park, although their request to the Board was simply a refusal of the zoning by-law amendments, which would have left the R5A and GC lands zoned as R2 for the time being. dJ13a"9 3 III. Witnesses The Friends called three witnesses: (a) Donald Graves,a historian who was qualified as an expert in the history of the War of 1812 and the Battle of Lundy's Lane, (b) John Grodzinski, a Major in the Canadian Armed Forces employed at the Royal Military College of Canada, qualified as an expert on historical matters relating to military tactics, operations, and strategy specific to the War of 1812, and (c) Barbara Wiens, a land use planner. Ms. Wing called only herself as a lay witness. I called two witnesses on behalf of the City: (a)Carl Bray,a cultural heritage planner, and (b) Paul Lowes, a land use planner. We had originally listed Ron Williamson as a witness in the area of archaeology,but did not call him as a witness as archaeology was no longer at issue following Dr. Williamson's completion of a Stage 1 & 2 archaeological assessment for the subject lands, and recommendation for a Stage 3 archaeological assessment for the lands being rezoned as General Commercial. Morse called one witness, owner Ernie Morgan, as a lay witness. IV. Summary of Evidence (i) Historians Mr. Graves is the author of several articles and books with respect to the War of 1812, including Where Right and Glory Lead.'The Battle of Lundy's Lane, 1814,which was filed with the Board and was generally the basis for Mr.Graves'testimony. Mr.Graves described the battle including its larger context in the war,the lighting conditions,and the role of the school site in the battle and the outcome of the battle. In his opinion, the removal of the school building would allow for the interpretation of the battlefield for the first time from the American viewpoint. He also noted that the subject lands are within a National Historic Site in connection with the battle. In cross examination,Mr.Graves agreed that the view of the former Minister was that a federal designation does not protect the site, but he suggested that it constitutes a moral imperative, and suggested that there is a different Minister now and he is going to talk to the federal government about the level of protection offered by federal designation. He also noted that he disagrees with the federal government's mapping of the battle. Mr.Graves did not appear credible on these points,in my estimation. Also on cross examination,Mr.Graves agreed that in the 1993 version of his book he had stated that the battlefield was threatened by development but that by the time he wrote the forward for the 1996 edition of the book, he felt that the battlefield was now protected; he explained that in 1996 he thought that the Battlefield Master Plan protected the lands. Mr.Graves stated that in his view he would like all buildings within the National Historic Site (approximately four blocks) to be demolished, but noted that other buildings LO3I8678 S; _ i4 have not come up for sale and realistically the commercial buildings would not be demolished. I believe that Mr. Graves opinion on these points came across as being somewhat extreme which may have an impact on his credibility with the Board with respect to his recommendation for the demolition on the subject lands. Dr. Grodzinksi also spoke to the history of the Battle of Lundy's Lane. He described battlefield tours he conducts of the site and the physical constraints and blockages of viewsheds that create problems currently. He gave evidence that his preference would be for the school building to be demolished, allowing a tour to go to the southeasternmost portion of the site providing a better view of the American advance on the hill. He expressed a preference that no screening be provided between the open space areas of the site and the neighbouring properties as screening would impede views. On cross examination,he acknowledged that he is an employee of the federal government and that he was not aware of whether the federal government would have had an opportunity to purchase the subject lands at the time they were sold to the City. I noted to the Board both in my opening statement and my final argument that while the historical evidence is interesting it is not relevant to the determination of the Board. This is because the City took no issue with the historical record and there are no issues on the issues list about the historical record. (ii) Cultural Heritage Dr. Bray provided evidence that only a part of the subject lands can be considered a significant cultural heritage landscape. This is the area to be retained by the City, and possibly the area to be sold to Morse although this determination should be made after a Stage 3 archaeological assessment is completed. In any event, his opinion was that the proposal was a proper conservation of the significant heritage landscape demonstrated through his Heritage Impact Assessment. The proposed parking area is an encroachment, he noted, but is a "reversible intervention" as it is only on the surface, and a Stage 3 archaeological assessment is required. He described to the Board the different terminology and processes used at the federal level, which would be (if the federal government owned the land) to do a commemorative integrity statement assessing the larger area, and with that determine the key character defining elements, labelling them as either level one or level two priorities; the entire historic place is not of the same value. For the subject lands, the area of the school building has been very heavily disturbed with no further archaeological potential, and no elements relating to the battle or earlier periods. In his opinion this portion of the site is not a cultural heritage landscape, nor is it `significant"for the purposes of the PPS, The playground is a relatively undisturbed open space,close to the original grades(although altered),and would be a cultural heritage landscape at least for its associative value. - 15 Dr. Bray noted that although the federal designation applied to a four block area,the Battlefield Master Plan deals only with the lands owned by the City,having regard for the other lands; in his opinion, only those lands are Level 1 resources, using federal terminology. The other lands would be Level 2, especially the open portions including the schoolyard. He described the site as having a series of layers of historic development,some of which are important; he noted that the Presbyterian Church would argue they are important, and did so when the federal government was considering a four block large historic park. He noted that in urban areas,you need to take into account all of the layers; this is not an open area like Gettysburg, Chippewa or Queenston, it is downtown Niagara Falls; removing all of the development after the battle now, would not be good heritage planning or practical. The federal government shifted its attention to Queenston for this reason. Dr. Bray noted that the Growth Plan uses the phrase "where feasible" when discussing heritage conservation, and in his opinion,this is addressed on the subject lands through retaining a substantial portion for heritage conservation while recognizing the context of the intensification of a downtown area. Dr. Bray also noted that the Regional Policy Plan speaks to the preparation of a Heritage Impact Assessment,which he has now done, and deals with appropriate mitigation measures. Dr. Bray indicated that the key is the acquisition of the former playground lands, substantially increasing the opportunities for interpreting the battlefield. The existing building is not changing, so maintains compatibility, although he would prefer that the zoning by-law be revised to"shrink wrap"the building(i.e.permit development only within the existing footprint). He cautioned about being too optimistic about cultural tourism opportunities on this site, suggesting acquisition as a public park is a good way to go with this opportunity,but it is not necessarily contingent on being a big money maker. Dr. Bray indicated that a seniors apartment would provide"eye on the street"for a park, deterring vandalism and crime in the park and the existing cemetery. His opinion was that adding a portion of the battlefield to public ownership met the purposes of Special Policy Area to. With respect to adjacent heritage buildings, Dr.Bray noted that the only designation is the historic tree in the cemetery(the cemetery itself is not listed or designated). There are two properties listed, but not designated. Dr. Bray's opinion was that the proposed development did not impact on either. Dr. Bray noted that the Community Improvement Plan's intent is for long term preservation of the cemetery, Fralick's Tavern and the school yard(not the building), and providing connections to Main Street. Given the general nature of the proposed land use plans in the CIP, Dr. Bray was of the opinion that the intent is being met, as it shows an Open Space area for the playground with commercial along Main Street and residential along Barker Street including on the subject lands. He noted that it is difficult to determine what the CIP intent is with respect to view corridors at the school, except that the caption indicates there is a height limited aspect, which is met by not increasing the height of the building. L0319678 - 16 Dr. Bray did not speak to whether the application was required to be circulated to the MHC,but in his opinion,the City's intent to designate the majority of the remaining open space lands implements the recommendation of the MHC to the extent that the most historically significant portion is retained and protected. He suggested that an area wide cultural heritage study could be beneficial but is not aware of a policy requirement to do so. In this case,he noted,the City had time constraints to acquire the lands and as noted in the CAO report,the rationale for the City's purchase was that the school would otherwise have been sold on the open market allowing R2 density development. In Dr. Bray's opinion,this would have resulted in the complete loss of the remaining undeveloped lands. As we were no longer calling separate archaeological evidence,Dr. Bray also briefly reviewed for the Board the results of the archaeological assessment prepared by Dr. Williamson. He noted the site had been picked clean of easily found artifacts from the battle, the topography had been altered to create the school yard, artifacts found were of more recent nature,the purpose of the proposed Stage 3 archaeological assessment is to go into more detail and find items deeply buried. He confirmed that he recommends a Stage 3 assessment for the lands to be sold to Morse. (iii) Land Use Planning Ms. Wiens indicated that she was formally retained in June, 2013 by the Friends to provide expert evidence, at which time the appeals had already been initiated. Her conclusion was that the appealed by-laws conflict with the Official Plan and the PPS. Ms. Wiens reviewed the policy framework and photographs of the subject lands and surrounding area. She also indicated that based on her review of the proposed site plan,it appeared to her that the existing building was intended to be expanded to a full two storey building, whereas the current building is one storey with the exception of the two storey gym. On cross examination she acknowledged that the staff report indicated that the building height would not change, but she did not think the site plan was clear. She acknowledged on cross examination that the proposed zoning standards limited the building to 30 units through the combination of minimum unit size and the size of the parcel. Ms.Wiens reviewed the staff report PD-2005-o6 which considered Official Plan and Zoning amendments for the adjacent"Redmond"lands,which considered a redesignation to Open Space of the northern portion of the subject lands, but did not implement such a change. Ms.Wiens noted that there were no limitations on the proposed GC zoning to limit the uses to a parking lot, nor were there limitations on the R5A zoning to limit the apartment use to the existing building. Ms.Wiens opined that the Lundy's Lane battlefield is a"cultural heritage landscape" that is "significant" as defined in the PPS, and that the entirety of the four block National ,LJJ 136'8'; • 7 Historic Site and possibly some additional lands are within the extent of the battlefield. She noted that the PPS requires that significant cultural heritage landscapes are to be "conserved"pursuant to the PPS. She discussed the impact of the proposed development on viewsheds related to the battlefield, with a parking lot giving the impression that the space is smaller, impeding on the views Dr. Grodzinski spoke of, and that the school building itself currently impedes the views,which would be enhanced by the demolition of the school. Ms.Wiens's opinion on the intensification policies of the PPS was that the City had identified areas of intensification through OPA 94,and that although the subject lands are within one of these intensification areas generally, there are other areas within the intensification node identified for greater heights and densities and areas like the subject lands that are in stable residential neighbourhoods would see intensification but not at the same level. On cross examination, she acknowledged that her client had not opposed the inclusion of the subject lands in an intensification area through OPA 94. She concluded that the proposed development does not enhance or improve upon the cultural heritage resource of the battlefield. On cross examination,she agreed that the cumulative effect of all three zoning by-laws was to add to the amount of land available for commemorative purposes, although the two zoning by-laws before the Board did not do so by themselves. Ms. Wiens discussed the cultural heritage policies of the City's Official Plan and stated that although the Staff Report dealing with the zoning by-laws has a section with respect to heritage, it did not discuss the Official Plan policies specifically; she also suggested some statements were peculiar in particular that a Ontario Heritage Act designation would prevent use of a portion of the site as commercial, and that there is no discussion as to why it is not appropriate to designate. Ms.Wiens emphasized Policy 3.2.21 which speaks to conservation of City-owned properties,and indicated that the subject lands is now a City-owned property. She indicated that the subject lands were subject to Special Policy Area 10 which recognizes the historical significance of the battlefield. On cross examination she agreed that there is no specific boundary attached to Special Policy Area 10, and that the policy does not specifically say that any existing development is to be removed,but that it says lands will be protected and preserved to commemorate the battle. Ms. Wiens reviewed the policies with respect to preconsultation meetings and the list of studies that may be required of an applicant; she noted that in this instance the applicant was the City. She noted that no planning justification study was done, nor was a heritage impact assessment or archaeological assessment done for the application, although she noted that a heritage impact assessment and archaeological assessment had since been done for the hearing. She noted that a financial impact study was not done and that one could have been required. On cross examination I asked Ms. Wiens whether she meant that a financial impact study "could" have been required or "should" have been required; she indicated only that it'could"have been required. She agreed on cross examination that the policy lists information that might be required but is not mandatory, and would be determined through preconsultation. I provided the Board with a copy of a preconsultation checklist indicating that preconsultation was considered even though the application was submitted by the City. Ms.Wiens noted that the preconsultation appeared to only include planning staff and not other agencies and departments. I L3313678 H 1 r 8 Ms.Wiens discussed the Drummondville Community Improvement Plan,which in her opinion includes a recommendation to designate the Barker Street frontage of the subject lands as residential only to the depth of the existing residential lots on either side, with the remainder recommended as open space. She noted that the improvements identified as implementation actions in the CIP include redesignation of the lands associated with the Battlefield public school as open space. The Board asked her whether she thought that this was a new thrust, or whether it ties in with the recommendation that the Barker Street frontage be residential; Ms. Wiens indicated that she thinks they go together. Ms. Wiens discussed the Heritage Master Plan, which she noted is primarily implemented by the recreation department but has some recommendations that affect the planning department. She noted in particular a reference on page 109 discussing Part V heritage conservation district designation as a strategy for improvement,which references "Lundy's Lane Battlefield — (the current municipally-owned site plus related publically owned properties)"as a"promising candidate"for such designation. Ms.Wiens could not find any reference in the document to reasons for this. She also pointed to Section 4.3.4 which listed proposed actions for tourism development at the battlefield site. Ms. Wiens also discussed the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Master Plan, describing references to urban uses having encroached on the battlefield and the schoolyard being a visual extension of the cemetery. She referred to the Inventory(section 6.2.1) including "views and viewsheds" describing the predominant views being from the cemetery to the southeast,towards the schoolyard and distant Falls,and describing views being obscured by trees and adjacent buildings. She noted that Battlefield Master Plan recommends including the school and the schoolyard in part of a Part V designation for the area, and includes objectives to be followed to protect and enhance viewsheds including screening of the schoolyard lands and the school building. On cross examination she acknowledged that the Battlefield Master Plan does not contemplate the demolition of the school building (it contemplates screening), and that the City has expanded its land holdings beyond what is shown in the Battlefield Master Plan. Ms. Wiens reviewed her specific responses to the Issues included in her Reply Witness Statement, and recommended that the Board not approve the by-laws. Ms.Wiens had indicated that it was best practice to consult the Municipal Heritage Committee on an application with heritage implications. On cross examination,Ms.Wiens indicated that there is policy direction to consult,but there is not a requirement to circulate an application. She acknowledged that to the extent that Council adopted a recommendation to initiate the designation process for the open space area only, Council appeared to have acted in part on the recommendation of the MHC, and to the extent that Council had not acted on the recommendation, it had rejected it. t "A gyp . ,. • 9 Ms. Wiens agreed on cross examination that the subject lands were zoned R2 and that if a private developer had purchased the lands rather than the City, the zoning by-law would have allowed certain residential uses including singles,semis and duplexes as well as group homes. She acknowledged that such a building could have been 10 metres high (approximately three storeys). In response to cross examination from Mr. Girolomo, she also agreed that the existing commercial owners on Main Street,including Morse,currently have zoning that would allow them to construct four storey buildings on Main Street adjacent to the subject lands. She acknowledged on cross examination that she had no concerns with the reduced parking standard in the zoning by-law. In response to questions from the Board,Ms.Wiens agreed that site plan control would apply to the proposal for the school site. Mr.Lowes advised the Board that he was retained by the City in March 2014 because the City's internal planner had chosen to leave the City to work for another agency. He reviewed the materials and agreed that he could support the City's position. Mr.Lowes began with a discussion of the performance standard changes for the R A zoning. He noted that the by-law limited the apartment building to 30 units based on the lot area and the minimum unit size; an increased maximum lot coverage is appropriate because it reflects the existing building and allows a greater portion of the subject lands to remain in the public park parcel; a reduction in parking is appropriate for seniors housing close to transit and walking distance to a main street; elimination of a requirement for a front yard landscape berm is appropriate because one does not exist for the current building which has front yard parking. He noted that it is clear from the staff reports that the City was contemplating a proposal whereby the existing building was not expanded, and he is comfortable revising the by-law to"shrink wrap"the existing building. He noted this can be done either in text or in a schedule showing exact boundaries, and that he is prepared to make these revisions if the Board approves and suggested that if the by-laws were approved, the Board withhold its Order until the revisions can be prepared. Similarly, in response to concerns that a building would be permitted on the lands to be sold to Morse, Mr. Lowes indicated that he was prepared to recommend that the by-law be revised to allow only parking lot uses. Mr. Lowes discussed the proposed walkway through the lands to be sold to Morse. He indicated that there is an existing easement across the Mints property (adjacent to Morse), which provides access to Main Street, and that a new easement is proposed to be retained across the Morse lands to connect to the existing easement. This would provide pedestrian access between the commemorative park and Main Street,the details of which would be discussed through the site plan approval process. On cross examination, Mr. Richardson attempted to establish that the existing easement may have been extinguished by the passage of forty years, prior to the Mints property being in the Land Titles System. In both re-examination and in argument, I indicated that the easement appears in documents referred to on the current parcel register in the Land Titles System and that no evidence had been offered to demonstrate that the easement was invalid. I asked that the ;D318678 tK X t 10 Board not make a ruling on this matter, as it was best dealt with if necessary in different proceedings in which the City would make more detailed arguments. Mr. Richardson agreed at that point that the status of the easement was best dealt with elsewhere. Mr. Lowes took the Board through the various staff reports,emphasizing that from the beginning in 2012, the City had been looking for innovative ways to protect the battlefield lands, that other levels of government were not assisting and had not stepped forward to purchase the lands as they had priority to do so, and that the sale to Stamford Kiwanis and Morse was always contemplated as an innovative funding mechanism to preserve the remaining lands. Mr. Lowes' planning evidence focused on the need to balance various planning objectives including heritage conservation,but also intensification,affordable housing and support for main street business. Mr. Lowes reviewed the PPS in this context,noting that the subject lands are in an intensification area,the apartment building would add to the mix of housing in the City, the need for assistance for Main Street businesses has been recognized by the City (and would be met by providing much needed parking to a Main Street business),the subject lands in conjunction with other City lands provide opportunity for tourism(although noting that Dr. Bray considers this opportunity to be limited). Mr. Lowes indicated that there are a number of other parking lots within the area that did not exist in 1965 when the federal designation was established. He further noted that the historians had suggested that the battle could be interpreted through the parking lots that currently abut the subject lands with more open screening. Mr. Lowes reviewed the proposal against the policies of the Growth Plan,and noted that we are looking at cultural heritage in an intensification node;it is necessary to balance these objectives, and in his opinion maintaining the playground as a park conforms to the Growth Plan objective of preserving resources"where feasible",while recognizing that the school building (which Dr. Bray does not recognize as a significant cultural heritage landscape)is an appropriate area for intensification. In his opinion,it is not reasonable or feasible to demolish the school building when other lands on this site that are more significant as a cultural heritage landscape can be protected and are being protected. Mr. Lowes reviewed the policies of the Regional Policy Plan. He indicated that the apartment would likely qualify as "affordable housing" as defined. Mr. Lowes noted that boundaries in the City's Official Plan are approximate where there is no defined physical feature. Therefore, although the lands to be sold to Morse are designated as residential in the Official Plan, the by-law to rezone these lands as GC conform to the Official Plan because those lands abut commercial lands to the east. Mr. Lowes then reviewed the various Official Plan policies including intensification policies and heritage policies. He noted a policy that directs Council to consider selling to not-for-profit entities(like Stamford Kiwanis),when disposing of surplus lands suitable for rental use. In {L33t86'9 i; _ 11 response to Ms. Wiens's concern with impeding views,he noted that the school building is not increasing in size and so no views are being impeded. The school building has existed for decades and is part of the character of the neighbourhood in terms of its setback, massing and height; the appearance of the building will improve through the addition of new windows. Appropriate screening for both sites can be determined through site plan. He noted that Special Policy Area 10 is schematically shown and does not denote that any land uses are to be razed to commemorate the battle; this is not what is meant by preservation in his opinion. In his opinion, if it were the intent of the policy that buildings like the school should be torn down, it would have said so. In Mr. Lowes's opinion there is no statutory requirement for a zoning by-law to comply to land use recommendations in a CIP, but the zoning by-laws in this case implement the CIP regardless. In his opinion,the lines on the land use designation figure in the CIP are schematic; although they show residential on Barker Street only in line with the abutting lots,it does not intend that the school building be demolished and new houses built;he noted that the CIP is very specific on many point, and if it meant this it would have said it. Mr. Lowes referred to a policy in the Regional Policy Plan that encourages municipalities to establish a Municipal Heritage Committee to advise and assist Council. In his opinion it is clear that the MHC's role is to advise and assist on heritage matters, and that there is no specific requirement to circulate applications to the MHC although the City may do so to obtain their advice, Any recommendations are only advice and not obligatory. (iv) Lay Witnesses Ms. Wing called herself as a lay witness. We had clarified prior to the hearing that she was not holding herself out as an expert, as she would not be in a position to provide expert opinion evidence due to her standing as a party and because she was acting as her own advocate. Ms.Wing described her own background as a resident of the neighbourhood and the creation of the Friends in 1995 around the proposal for development on the adjacent Holman lands, which are now part of the City owned battlefield lands. She described previous activities of the Friends while she was the President,related to the lands owned by the City prior to the purchase of the subject lands, such as clean-ups, raffles, garage sales and purchase of benches. She referred to the funding application in 1998 that was accepted for the restoration of Fralick's Tavern,and noted that under her leadership the Friends had a good track record of fundraising and service. She said that she left the Friends in 2001 as it was becoming a "political whipping post" and the Friends fell into dormancy. On cross examination, I submitted Treasurer's Report F-2002-33 which dealt with problems the City had in recovering financial costs from the Friends with respect to the Fralick's Tavern restoration and the resulting lost opportunities. Ms. Wing indicated she was not President at the time,although the Staff Report refers to a meeting with"president Janice Wing". I suggested to Ms. Wing that the loss of $200,000 in potential federal , J3 3573 It: z 12 funding described in the report does not sound like a "good track record". On Reply, Ms. Wing suggested that the Friends had run into problems on the Fralick's Tavern project, including City staff commandeering the project and a waste of funds with respect to restoration of the east wall which was demolished after money was spent restoring it. She indicated that the only control the Friends had was to withhold payments to the City,but this was unsuccessful and eventually cheques were handed over. Ms. Wing testified that the Friends came back after Council suggested in 2012 that citizens raise the money themselves to buy the subject lands. She said that City reports erroneously suggest that the Friends were in attendance at that meeting and were asked directly to raise the money. She stated that she recognized in early 2012 that the lands were a significant cultural heritage landscape and that the Municipal Heritage Committee should be involved, but she could not directly contact Council members, the BIA or the MHC because she has a conflict of interest due to her owning property in the area. She noted that Council did not have a recommendation from the MHC until the last meeting when the zoning by-laws were enacted. The Board asked Ms.Wing what her evidence was with respect to the existing school building. Ms. Wing responded that she thinks it should be zoned as open space. She said she would be prepared to go with a compromise that the rear lot lines of the adjacent lots be used as the boundary for an R2 designation on the subject lands so that there is open space to the east of the Holman lands, but ideally for interpretation of the battle the building needs to be gone. She noted that her alternate suggestion would unfortunately result in the loss of mature trees along Barker Street. She indicated that she thought the existing school building is not sensitive to the other buildings on the street or their setbacks, and she finds it perplexing that the City would propose to leave an out of character building when it has cleared other less significant lands. Ms.Wing suggested there is already an undue concentration of apartment buildings in the area,and described others on Barker Street. She also indicated that Barker Street is a narrow legacy road way not designed to bear 21st century traffic; although it is a collector road, she would like to see some kind of heritage road designation. I noted on cross examination that Transportation Services did not raise any concerns with the proposal during the circulation process,nor did Ms.Wiens. Ms.Wing suggested that Transportation Services had changed their mind due to a parking survey that had recently been distributed in the area. Ms.Wing referred to policies of the PPS for conserving heritage landscapes, as well as policies for long term economic prosperity, describing the battlefield as a resource for sustainable tourism that the zoning by-laws are at odds with. In her opinion it would be difficult to attract American tourists while not protecting the American position in the battle. _ 13 Ms.Wing discussed the Battlefield Master Plan,suggesting that views were not being protected,and that selling portions of the subject lands was not protecting them for public use. She discussed plans in the 196os for the potential demolition of the entire block and Council's acceptance at that time,by motion,of a proposal to establish a national park site, which was scaled down significantly due in part to opposition from the Presbyterian Church and local businesses. Ms, Wing discussed the Region's comments and suggested that they demonstrate that the Region did not believe that the subject lands were within the battlefield. She referred to the Regional Policy Plan's directions with respect to tourism. She referred also to the interest of the Main and Ferry BIA through a letter sent to Council, and noted that the BL-has put a significant amount of money into the area through new streetscaping, based on direction in the Community Improvement Plan. Ms.Wing discussed an application for federal funding that was prepared in order to provide funding for demolition of the school building. The application required that the Friends have a long term lease of the building,which was discussed with the City but never signed. Funding would also be contingent on what was done with the site following demolition. She described the Friends'plans for heritage monuments including relating to black history, women's history and aboriginal history. The funding would provide $500,000 as a matching contribution to the City's funding(the purchase of the lands). The Board indicated its understanding that Council had given six months and that there was funding currently established. Ms. Wing suggested five alternatives to approval of the zoning by-laws: (i) that the school building be demolished for open space; (2)that the school building be demolished with the Barker frontage rezoned as R2 to match abutting lot lines and the remainder as open space; (3) the Friends could acquire the subject lands (pursuant to a lease with the City); (4) the subject lands could be made into an active cemetery, recouping demolition costs through sale of plots; and (5) the Province could zone through a Minister's Zoning Order. The Board noted that there is an appeal to the OMB available with respect to a Minister's Zoning Order. Ms.Wing characterized the CAO Staff Report as being"riddled with inaccuracies". I objected to this characterization,and argued that unless Ms.Wing planned to go down that road and demonstrate that it is relevant, the reference should be withdrawn. Ms. Wing indicated that she would not go further into this area. Ms. Wing made a similar reference again,to which I again objected; on Reply,Ms.Wing again made a similar reference but was warned by the Board that if she went further he would allow further cross examination. Ms. Wing was asked on friendly cross examination by Mr. Maloney, co-counsel for the Friends, about the Friends' support at Council of the zoning by-law for General Commercial on the lands to be sold to Morse. Ms. Wing indicated that this was a compromise they had been willing to make at the time because they considered the school ILJii46'B _ 14 building portion of the subject lands to be more important, and because the City was offering assistance on the School site at the time through negotiation of a lease,the Friends had agreed to let the City recoup some of its costs through the sale of the eastern portion of the subject lands to Morse. The Municipal Heritage Committee also then recommended that the entire site be designated under the Heritage Act. She confirmed this is no longer her position and she opposes both by-laws. Mr.Girolomo cross examined Ms.Wing on this point, confirming that the Friends' proposal for the subject lands did not incorporate the parking lot lands. I co-ordinated my cross examination of Ms.Wing with Mr.Girolomo. Mr.Girolomo cross examined Ms. Wing with respect to the properties she owns on Barker Street. She indicated that her family house is on the south side, which she no longer lives in; she purchased 5993 Barker Street in 2007,which she currently lives in with her husband Bill Colclough; 6018 Barker Street was also transferred to her on the death of her father. She also owns 6007 Barker Street, next to the school building, which she converted from a triplex to a duplex and rents out. She indicated that she did not intend to demolish any of the properties or donate the lands for park purposes. She acknowledged that the driveway for the apartment building is across from her property,and agreed that the removal of the school would substantially improve the view from 6018 Barker Street (although would result in more snow). Mr. Girolomo also cross examined Ms. Wing with respect to her involvement with the Friends. She acknowledged that she was the past President, and is currently listed as a Director of the Friends,the head office of the Friends is listed as 5993 Barker Street (her residence), her husband is the current President and is listed as a Director, and her daughter is the Treasurer of the Friends and listed as a Director. Mr. Girolomo suggested to Ms.Wing that she is the directing mind of the Friends,which she did not agree to. Ms. Wing did indicate however that she arranged for Mr. Graves and Mr. Grodzinski for the hearing on behalf of the Friends, with no formal resolution of the Friends. I took Ms.Wing through the CAO Staff Report on cross examination to indicate that several options were considered by Council including options that would have retained either the school portion or the Morse portion, and an option that involved a lease of the school building to the Friends. I also asked Ms. Wing about the regulations under the Education Act that would allow the other levels of government to bid on the subject lands; Ms. Wing indicated she was not aware of whether the federal government had submitted a bid. I also pointed out to Ms. Wing on cross examination that several of the Official Plan policies she had relied on in her evidence were repealed by OPA 94, including a policy dealing with avoiding undue concentrations of housing types. She was not aware of the repeal. She acknowledged that the new policy provides that new forms are encouraged,in response to the PPS. I cross examined Ms.Wing about statements she made that there are too many apartments on the street, and Ms. Wing seemed to be confusing the notion of "affordable housing" with government assisted social housing, as she suggested it should not all be in one place in order to break the cycle of poverty. She did not seem to appreciate the difference between the two and was unprepared to admit that affordable (or even (L0318678 15 assisted) housing would help break the cycle of poverty regardless of where or in what concentration it was. By being this strident on so obvious a point,she lacked credibility,in my view. She acknowledged that the Friends' planner Ms. Wiens did not raise any objections to these policies and was only concerned with heritage issues; Ms. Wing indicated that this was the position of the Friends, but residents on the street have additional concerns. Mr.Morgan provided evidence as a lay witness for Morse as the current owner of the funeral home. Mr. Morgan provided the Board with a brochure for the company and described its history on the site,which began in 1826 as a cabinet maker. He described the evolution of the business and the profession, the history of the buildings on the funeral home site,the modernization of the business, and the transfer of the business through the years amongst the Morse family and its sale to the Morgan family in 1971,with Mr.Morgan himself taking over management in 1990. He noted that the subject lands were historically owned by the Morse family and were sold below market value to the School Board; he characterized the current transaction as the business looking to repurchase a small portion at market value. Mr. Morgan showed some further site photos emphasizing the portion of the subject lands proposed to be sold to Morse. He also presented a draft site plan showing the potential layout of parking, and City walkway providing access to Main Street with the possibility of a "history wall" created along the walkway on the back of one of the Morse buildings. He described the shortage of parking that the business is experiencing, and attempts to buy parking elsewhere that fell through. On cross examination Ms.Wing asked Mr. Morse who prepared the site plan, noting that the revisions were prepared by"P.D.", and asking if this was the City Planning Department. Mr.Morse indicated that this site plan had not been presented to the City yet. (v) Participants Laurel Campbell indicated that she is co-chair of the Municipal Heritage Committee. Her statement included reference to the motion of the MHC from February 4. 2013 recommending that the entirety of the subject lands be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, and the presentation of the MHC concerns to Council on February 26, 2013. She indicated that communication between Council,the planning department and the MHC would be improved if a member of Council served on the MHC as a liaison, which is a recommendation of the MHC guidelines. Through cross examination of Ms.Campbell,we drew the Board's attention to the City's Committee Protocol which provides that advisory committees shall not reconsider,recommend or advise on a matter that has been decided by Council, unless directed by Council. Leonard Inkster, also a member of the MHC,told the Board that he thinks Council was wrong to re-zone the subject lands because selling off Canada's heritage is morally wrong, the action is contrary to the spirit of protective regulation,the financial analysis is ,,> / 16 flawed, and history will be lost forever. He provided a presentation which I understand is the presentation he provided to Council prior to the enactment of the by-laws. John Garrett,also a member of the MHC thanked the City for making the decision to keep the subject lands in public hands by their purchase from the school board but believes that by not involving the MHC in the process in a timely manner,the Ontario Heritage Act was ignored and proper consideration was not given to the decision to rezone and sell portions of the property. Mr. Garrett indicated that he supports adaptive reuse of old buildings, and that in the case of the Battlefield school, conversion to housing could be a great adaptive reuse, but alternative uses were not considered (e.g. community building, battlefield interpretive centre,museum annex,partial demolition). He concluded that the entire site should remain under public ownership, wondering about the possibility of permeable parking on the east side of the subject lands that could remain in public ownership but be used for overflow parking for Morse when required. Darlena Costello indicated that she was representing the Main&Ferry BIA and is the BIA treasurer. She spoke to money provided by the BIA for streetscaping and the museum, and indicated that she wanted to see the battlefield preserved in its entirety. On cross examination she indicated that there was a motion of the BIA board to give their position to Council, but no further resolution with respect to participation at the Ontario Municipal Board. She had referred to a phone poll of the BIA members, and clarified on cross examination that this was a poll to determine support for the battlefield. She said that the donation would be for$5000,but no final determination has been made. She was asked by Mr. Girolomo whether any members declared a conflict of interest; she indicated that Ms. Wing,the Secretary,probably declared a conflict but that Ms.Costello herself did not. Mr. Girolomo asked Ms.Costello whether she is involved with the Friends and whether she is a director of the Friends. Ms. Costello initially did not think so,but upon production by Mr. Girolomo of a Corporate Profile Report, she recalled that she was a director and officer (secretary). She indicated that the last time the Friends met was in January of 2013 and that although Ms.Costello is the Secretary,minutes of the meeting were taken by Ms.Wing. She acknowledged that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the position of the Friends before the Council meeting. She was asked by Mr. Girolomo to confirm the attendees of the meeting which included Ms.Costello,Bill Colclough(Ms.Wing's husband), Ms. Wing, Jennifer Costello (Ms. Costello's daughter), Joyce Belfour, Brian Marks, and Guenivere Wheeler. Ms. Costello agreed that she was aware that the Friends were represented at that time by Mr.Vacco, a lawyer who spoke on their behalf at Council. She also agreed that at the time of the Council meeting the Friends did not oppose the Morse parking lot addition. Gary Burke, also a member of the MHC,spoke in opposition to the zoning by-laws. He presented the letter to Council that was provided by the MHC. The Board asked when the letter was from, and Mr. Burke indicated that it was from just prior to the rezoning. He was asked on cross examination whether the MHC has ever lobbied Council to purchase ;1.0318678 t; xy '1 17 other properties that have gone up for sale in the area; Mr. Burke replied that he was not aware of that having been done. John Ainslie began by requesting that he be able to submit a letter from a second BL=S. I objected as the BLa could have participated in the hearing if they had wanted to,and they did not. The Board said that it would hear Mr.Ainslie's evidence,but agreed with me that if the BIA wanted to make any submission they should have been at the hearing to do so and be available for cross examination. Mr.Ainslie spoke in opposition to the zoning by- laws,suggesting that the success of the commemorative park depends on American tourists, and the school building now sits on the American position in the battle. He suggested that the Province can step in and zone the lands, but that he has been in contact with the Minister and the Premier and unfortunately they will not. He suggested it was unreasonable to expect a group of local citizens to come up with money when Council has said that they have no money themselves. V. Final Submissions Mr.Richardson's final submissions provided a summary of the evidence,but did not provide any case law to the Board. He characterized the by-laws as being initiated without any planning or heritage assessment, and being meant to support the commercial transactions to assist the City in reducing the amount of money to be expended acquiring the subject lands. He urged the Board to consider the by-laws on the basis of the policy framework only. He also noted that the Friends had raised concerns that the by-laws would allow development on the lands beyond the existing school building and for uses on the Morse lands beyond new parking; he also noted that the City had agreed to "shrink wrap" both by-laws,but the revised by-laws would still not be consistent with the PPS or conform to the City's Official Plan. The basis for this is that the entirety of the subject lands should be considered a significant cultural heritage landscape. He argued that Dr. Bray's Heritage Impact Assessment is flawed because it was prepared before Dr. Bray acknowledged that the subject lands were within the National Historic Site,and therefore did not consider the impact properly. He argued that the PPS requires that a significant cultural heritage landscape shall be preserved and that this was not being done due to the proposed paving of the Morse parking lot, the development of the school building as a residential use and the impediment to the viewsheds caused by these developments. Mr. Richardson argued that the proposal was not "conserving"the landscape,but as noted he did not address the case law dealing with what this term means. He further argued that intensification should be limited so that the entire cultural heritage landscape can be conserved and not eroded upon. A copy of Mr. Richardson's submissions is attached to this Report as Attachment "1". Ms. Wing characterized the matter before the Board as being two by-laws, not a complete package. She suggested that what may have happened if the lands were not purchased by the City is not germane, nor are arguments about balance. She argued that a Heritage Conservation District study would determine what lands are most valuable, and • 18 that public lands should not be sold until this has been determined. She argued that Dr. Bray's analysis was insufficient and cannot be relied upon. She discussed the areas of the battle and problems of interpretation based on obstructions on the site, and noted the narrow access ways proposed to Barker Street and Main Street are not conducive to tours. She argued that intensification and redevelopment are limited or prohibited where a significant cultural heritage landscape is involved, arguing that the language "shall be conserved" is an imperative that trumps intensification and affordable housing considerations. She suggested that the Intensification Node boundaries were not carefully considered,that they match the boundaries in the CIP because this boundary was applied for convenience in the short term. She argued that the report to Council in camera before the zoning application was signed indicated that the matter had been prejudged to some extent. She also noted a reference in the staff reports that designation under the Heritage Act would preclude commercial uses, and argued that Council refused to designate the subject lands because it would interfere with the intended financial transactions. She argued that the pre-consultation process was insufficient,and that the City took on the risk that once the lands were purchased they may be difficult to sell due to policies that apply to City owned lands. Ms.Wing directed the Board to a Divisional Court decision Trembley u. Lakeshore (Town), 2003 CanLII 6354, in which an application for judicial review was granted of a municipal decision to impose a condition that an owner's consent be required as a pre-condition to designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The court notes that the decision to designate a property is discretionary,but that the discretion must be exercised within the boundaries imposed in the statute,the principles of the rule of law,the principles of administrative law, the fundamental values of Canadian society and the principle of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I noted in my argument however that this case is actually decided on the basis that the municipality had imposed a condition that feters the municipality's discretion, which was therefore invalid. I pointed out that in our case, it is Ms. Wing that is trying to feter the Council's discretion by saying it must designate the lands. A copy of Ms. Wing's submissions is attached to this Report as Attachment "2". I argued that the Friends and Ms.Wing were trying to frame the central issue around a question of whether more can be done to"restore"a heritage landscape,which is not the same as "conserving". I argued that the proper question to ask is whether the proposal appropriately balances the Provincial, Regional and Municipal policy imperatives, which includes"conserving"significant heritage resources,but also the promotion and facilitation of intensification and redevelopment, providing for a range of housing types, optimizing public infrastructure and supporting long term economic prosperity. I reviewed several cases with the Board. The cases dealt with the need to read the PPS in its entirety,including both heritage policies and intensification policies, and balancing the extent to which core goals may be implemented; intensification on lands with a heritage property must look at the interaction between relevant policies rather than a zero sum game between the two. The case of the Friends and particularly Ms. Wing argued for heritage policies to trump intensification; I noted that the evidence opposing the by-laws focused only on the heritage polices of the PPS while the City's planners provided a broad and balanced approach. I also reviewed case law with respect to the definition of "cultural heritage landscape", 'L93 3,018 11 ayD � 119 "significant"and"conserved"from the PPS. The cases demonstrate that not everything in a cultural heritage landscape is significant,which is consistent with Dr. Bray's review of Level 1 and Level 2 heritage resources, and not consistent with much of the case of the Friends who suggested that everything in the four block National Historic Site is equally important. The case law on what it means to"conserve"is clear that it does not preclude development and is not a hands off or frozen in time approach; conservation is not the same thing as protection or preservation. I emphasized that the Board should be considering the entire context of the by-laws, including the third by-law providing for open space as well as the City's contemplation of acquiring the lands while financing the acquisition by the sale of a portion of the same lands. I argued that in determining whether the heritage resources are being"conserved",the Board should consider the entirety of the subject lands, noting that the majority of the existing undeveloped lands are being protected; in the context of the four block National Historic Site,the portion of land being affected appears even smaller I also argued that the proposal is significantly preferable from a heritage point of view to what was permitted on the site as of right before it was purchased by the City. I noted that the Board does not have jurisdiction to order the demolition of the school building,and that a refusal of the zoning by-laws would therefore not result in its costly demolition but in its continuing unused condition; it would not improve the views on the site,while an approval could actually improve the condition through mitigative measures at site plan, I argued that the federal government has already demonstrated disinterest in the site,so there is no reason to rely of the Friends' and Ms. Wing's suggestions that federal funding would be available to them. I argued that the Board is required to "have regard" to the Council's decision and the material it had before it, which includes the report dealing with consideration of whether to purchase the site, the concept that a portion of the lands be resold and rezoned and the CAO's report with alternative options and their financial impact on the City. I argued that Council's decision,to which regard must be had,is to some extent a compromise to allow for protection of the area rezoned as Open Space; the Friends and Ms. Wing were also willing to compromise as demonstrated by their position when the by- laws were at Council,it is simply a different compromise than that chosen by Council which has additional benefits and takes into account fiscal responsibility. I emphasized that the City is the only level of government showing any leadership on this matter despite having more fiscal limitations. A copy of my argument outline (not provided to the Board) is attached to this Report as Attachment "3". Mr. Girolomo in his argument emphasised the long standing nature of Morse's business, and noted that the by-law for the Morse lands had been supported at Council by the Friends. He suggested that Ms. Wing had resurrected the Friends for the purpose of advancing her own personal agenda based in part on fear of low income tenants and too many apartments in the area where she owns property and rents out her own apartments. He argued that she is the directing mind of the Friends with the help of her spouse and daughter. He also emphasized that Morse has been a good partner with the City, noting that Morse had accepted the City's request for a right of way through the new parking lot, resulting in the loss of some parking spaces, without a change in price. L33 36'4 20 VI. Conclusion The Board reserved its decision on the hearing. On your instructions,we asked the Board to approve amended zoning by-laws which would limit the apartment use to the existing building, and which would prohibit uses on the parcel to be sold to Morse except for a parking lot. I asked the Board, in the event that it approves the zoning by-laws, to issue a decision but withhold its Order until Mr. Lowes can prepare a final form of the by- laws and provide it to the Board. I will provide you with a copy of the Board's decision when it is received. Thank you for retaining Loopstra Nixon LLP in this matter. Should you have any questions with respect to the forgoing, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours very truly, LOOP. ' ! - P Per:iipt. Qui ''• M. Anniba e QMAi rni Attachment "1" to Reporting Letter ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD IN THE MAT TER OF subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.0 1990, c.P.13, as amended Appellant: Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield Appellant: Janice Wing Subject: By-law No. 2013-24 Municipality: City of Niagara Falls OMB Case No.: PL130323 OMB File No,: PL130323 IN THE MATTER OF subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c,P.13, as amended Appellant: Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield Appellant: Janice Wing Subject: By-law No. 2013-26 Municipality: City of Niagara Falls OMB Case No.: PL130323 OMB File No.: PL130324 FINAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS OF LI LADY'S LANE BATTLEFIELD MAY 12, 2014 SULLIVAN MAHONEYLLP LAWYERS ' 40 Queen Street,P,O.Box 1360,St.Catharines,ON L2R 6Z2 Telephone: 905-688-6655; Facsimile:905-688-5814 4781 Portage Road,Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6B1 Telephone: 905-357-0500; Facsimile: 905-357-0501 1 FINAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS OF LUNDY'S LANE BATTLEFIELD May 12, 2014 1. On July 25, 1814, that is two hundred years ago, a major battle occurred at the junction of Lundy's Lane and the Portage Road, now called Main Street. Fortuitously, on the eve of the bi-centennial, the preservation of a significant part of the battlefield stands to be lost. 2. The Battle was clearly described for this hearing by noted historian and author, Donald E. Graves and by Dr. Grodzinski. 3. It was a battle of such significance that the battle site, comprising 4 blocks within urban Niagara Falls is designated as a National Historic Site. The site is bounded by Summer Street, Main Street, Barker Street and Drummond Road, as shown on EXHIBIT 2, TAB 21, PAGE 398. 4. The confirmation of the designated site is found in EXHIBIT 1A, TAB 19, PAGE 1107. The reasons for the designation as a National Historic Site are found on the same page, namely it was the bloodiest battle of the War of 1812 and the Americans fail to dislodge the British from their position ending the American offensive in Upper Canada. 2 5. According to the uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Graves and Dr. Grodzinski, the lands which are the subject of by-laws 2013-24 and 2013-26 are within the key battle site and the National Historic Site. 6. The City, in various planning studies, has recognized the importance of the battlefield, and the need to conserve it, including the lands which are the subject of the two zoning by-laws. The City has made recommendations specific to the school property. 7. In 1998 the City commissioned the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Master Plan, prepared by Commonwealth. Mr. Bray was the project manager. The Master Plan is found at EXHIBIT 1A, TAB 13. 8. The Lundy's Lane Battlefield Master Plan addressed the lands then in the ownership of the City, namely Coronation Park, the Redmond lands, the Drummond Hill Cemetery and the Holman lands. 9. But the Battlefield Master Plan also had some information which is helpful to the present deliberations. At page 708 at the bottom of the page, the following statement is found; "The school yard adjacent to the east is a visual extension of the cemetery, providing open space that permits distant views from the cemetery down to the downtown core and the Falls viewing towers." 3 10. At page 711, in the right hand column the statement is made that "The cultural landscape of the battlefield site includes the buildings and open spaces developed on the battlefield since the time of European settlement." 11.The Battlefield Master Plan, on page 756, recommends the designation of a Heritage Conservation District. The Battlefield District is to include lands in public ownership including "Battlefield Public School and playground". The reason for this recommendation is both visual and procedural. "Visually only the remaining undeveloped lands can be easily interpreted as being part of the battlefield and thus their limits make an easily understood District Boundary. In procedural terms, confining the District to public lands makes the designation process much simpler, avoiding objections from other landowners that could slow down or prevent designation."This suggests that the reversal nature of conveying land out of public ownership for a parking lot may not be quite so easy as alleged. 12. The Battlefield Master Plan addressed view sheds on page 763. At PARAGRAPH 9.2.1 the plan said that "The most important guidelines affect the views into and out of the battlefield site. The scene visible from within the remaining battlefield lands already makes difficult attempts to imagine 4 the scene in July 1814; further encroachment of these views will make interpretation very difficult." Mr. Bray, the project manager of this master plan now recommends an encroachment of 100 feet into this important view shed by the conveyance of land to be used for a commercial parking lot. 13. The plan, in the same paragraph recommended that in co-operation with the School Board, screening be placed on the north, east and south edges of the Battlefield School yard. This is the area within which the private commercial parking lot is now to be created. 14. In 2005, the City of Niagara Falls commissioned the Niagara Falls Heritage Master Plan, prepared by Carl Bray and Associates. This Heritage Master Plan is found in EXHIBIT 1A, TAB 10. 15. The Heritage Master Plan, at page 431, recommended the creation of Conservation District Designation. Among those classified as the most promising candidates for Part V designation was the Lundy's Lane Battlefield containing the Lundy's Lane Battlefield (the current municipally- owned site plus related publically-owned properties), That description would include the Battlefield Public School and school yard discussed in the Battlefield Master Plan, 5 16. At PAGE 498, the Heritage Master Plan made recommendations for Tourism Development. The second recommendation was to focus on developing Lundy's Lane Battlefield and make it a pilot project for the War of 1812 bi-centennial. Implement the Battlefield Master plan by acquiring further property and creating an enlarged park, with parking and visitor services interpretation." Mr. Bray now recommends a course of action that will see more than half of the Subject Lands developed for commercial and residential purposes. 17, In 2006 the City adopted the Historic Drummondville Community Improvement Plan found in EXHIBIT 1A, TAB 12 AT PAGE 567. 18. At PAGE 621, in paragraph 6,1.3 the plan says that "The long-term preservation of the Drummond Hill Cemetery, the Battle Ground Hotel Museum and the adjacent school yard is critical in building a cohesive precinct, while providing pedestrian connections between the historic Lundy's Land Battlefield site and Main Street." 19. In the same paragraph the plan goes on to say that "In order to properly protect and conserve the key heritage features and to provide for the development linkages and interpretative facilities, key sites need to be 6 redesignated and rezoned to ensure their long-term availability for reuse. These changes are illustrated in Figures 6.3 and 6.4." 20. Figures 6.3 and 6.4 are found on page 622. Mr. Lowes characterized these plans as conceptual in nature. However, an examination of the plans shows that the property lines are shown on the plans and that the recommended designations and rezonings are site specific. The plan recommends that the entirety of the Coronation Park, the Redmond lands, the Drummond Hill Cemetery, the Holman lands and the school yard be redesignated to open space. The evidence of Ms. Wiens was that all of the lands except the school yard were redesignated to open space. Figure 6.4 then recommends that the entirety of the school yard be rezoned open space. In the intervening 6 years the redesignation and rezoning of the school yard has not occurred. 21. Puzzlement was expressed over the meaning of the plan found at PAGE 627, As pointed out by Ms. Wing, the darker red area is labeled Battlefield while the two arrows have next to them the notation "Battlefield View Corridor, Height limited". 22. It was submitted in evidence that FIGURE 7.6 on PAGE 632, clearly left the school out of the battlefield area. However, the plan, at PAGE 658, in Figure 7 9.1 set out a series of implementation actions. Those actions included 2 (a) acquisition of the Battlefield school site, should it become surplus; 5)redesignate lands associated with the Battle Ground Hotel Museum, Coronation Park, Drummond Hill Cemetery Drummond Hill Trail, Municipal Parking Lot 14 and Battlefield Public School to "Open space"; 6) rezone lands associated with the Battle Ground Hotel Museum, Coronation Park, Municipal Parking lot 14 and Battlefield Public School to "Open Space Zone (OS)". 23. In the face of this history and these studies, the City of Niagara Falls has passed three zoning by-laws. Two of those by-laws are under appeal before this board. 24. The by-laws were passed in contemplation of conveyance of more than 55 percent of the school property for use for an apartment building on the one hand and for a commercial parking lot supporting a funeral home on the other. These by-laws were initiated without any planning or heritage assessment and are meant to support the commercial transactions which will assist the city in reducing the amount of money to be expended by the city to acquire the school lands. 8 25. There is evidence of an agreement of purchase and sale for the school building, EXHIBITS 7 A AND B. There is no evidence of an agreement or the terms of an agreement with Morse Funeral Homes. It is our respectful submission that the existence of an agreement of purchase and sale is not relevant to the proceedings before the Board and that the appeals before the Board are to be addressed with respect to the Provincial Policy Statement and the City of Niagara Falls official plan. 26. By-law 2013-24 is found in EXHIBIT 1B, TAB 48. This by-law proposes to rezone lands described as part 2 to an R5A zone to permit an apartment building. While the justification for the use of the building was the adaptive re-use of the existing school for a senior's apartment building, issues were raised by the Friends that the by-law would permit a building much larger than the existing building. The City's planner has recommended and has agreed to create a by-law to "shrink-wrap" the building to ensure that the intended use, the adaptive reuse of the existing school building as an apartment with the same heights and the stated setbacks is achieved, 27. By-law 2013-26, is found in EXHIBIT 1B, TAB 50. This by-law proposes to rezone lands described on the schedule as part 3, to a General Commercial Zone (GC). Again issues were raised by the Friends that the by-law, while 9 justified as permitting a commercial parking lot in conjunction with a funeral home, would permit a broad range of commercial uses, and a building, 12 metres high built to the property line. The City planner has recommended and has agreed to create a new by-law to restrict the use of the subject lands to a commercial parking lot with no buildings. 28. It is the respectful submission of the Friends that even with these amendments the by-laws are not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and are contrary to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan. The following are our reasons for so stating. THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 29. Policy 2,6.1 of the Provincial Policy statement requires that significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. It is the submission of the Friends that the entire school property, both the playground and the school building should be classified as a significant cultural heritage landscape, Why? 30. First, the uncontradicted evidence of the historians and of the planning documents we have already reviewed is that the entire school site played an integral role in the battle. 10 31. Second, the entire school site forms part of an important viewscape that allows visitors to envision such a key area within an important battle in Canadian history. 32. Thirdly the site is within a National Historic Site. While the City's planners equivocated on whether the site was with the National Historic Site, the evidence is clear that it is within the National Historic Site. 33. The first question to be addressed is whether the lands within an area defined to be a cultural heritage landscape, and if so, should they be conserved (Issues #1 and 2)? Our position is that the entire school lands are within the cultural heritage landscape and that they are not being conserved. 34. Why? We rely on the definition of the term cultural heritage landscape, We note that the definition contemplates an area modified by human activity, such as urban development or the placement of newer buildings. If the Province meant to exclude areas with newer urban development, it would have stated that. But it didn't since it is recognized that areas with great heritage importance may be located in areas modified by human activity. 11 35. Being modified by human activity can still include a new building, such as the school building. The definition of cultural heritage landscape contemplates that areas that are considered to be cultural heritage landscape can include areas with a newer building. It contemplates that regardless of whether there is a school building, the lands on which it sits can still be considered part of a cultural heritage landscape. 36. To determine otherwise, would suggest that only heritage buildings or open spaces can be considered cultural heritage landscape s. it would mean that once a newer building is constructed, that area no longer reaches the level of being a cultural heritage landscape. In our view, that is too narrow of a view. 37. We also note that the definition includes areas "identified as have cultural heritage value/interest to a community". There is uncontradicted evidence that this battle, and the subsequently determined importance of that battle, is identified as having cultural heritage value/interest. 38. The definition of a cultural heritage landscape provides three relevant examples of what could be a cultural heritage landscape; 12 a. Subject Lands are within a "battlefield" as described in detail by Graves and Grodzinski There is uncontradicted evidence of the historians that the entire school site, including the school building, played an integral role in the battle as the central US position b. Subject Lands are within an important "viewshed". One of the most important aspects of this site are the views that are available that make it capable for a person to imagine how the battle was fought. Dr. Grodzinski described the importance of 2 viewsheds as it related to the Battle of Lundy's Lane; i, the US position looking northwest ii. the British position looking southeast On Grodzinski's tours, he asks the participants to take themselves back to July 25, 1814 and imagine what the view would be like from either of these positions. By doing so, you get a true appreciation for the battle and the tactics used by both armies. Grodzinski determined that the school site represents a significant impediment for both viewsheds. Any further development of the site, whether it be the introduction of cars on Part 3 or 13 r the apartment dwelling on Part 4, or whether it be the introduction of new buildings, would destroy those important viewsheds. c. Subject Lands are within the National Historic Site. The minutes of the Historic Site and Monuments Board confirmed that the National Historic Site is the area bounded by Summer Street, Main St, Barker and Drummond. The minutes also describe why? A statement of commemorative intent had been completed (as Dr. Bray indicated what was required), but the purpose was: i. it was the bloodiest battle of the War of 1812 the Americans failed t dislodge the British from their position, ending the American invasion of Upper Canada The City's Heritage planner tried to suggest it was something else- coining it as a "Historic Place". He later admitted it was part of the National Historic Site. A real problem with the City's case is the report by Mr. Bray prepared before he acknowledged that the Subject Lands were within the National Historic Site. It is clear that Mr. Bray did not consider the impact of development within the National Historic Site as he believed the subject lands were abutting the National Historic Site. 14 For instance, the first page of Mr. Bray's report states that the Subject Lands "abut" the National Historic Site. Other references in the report suggest that the national historic site is only the cemetery lands, as described in the plaques. M owes also would not acknowledge that the lands were within the National Historic Site. I would suggest that the hesitation of both City planners is because to acknowledge the Subject Lands are within the cultural heritage landscape should have changed the conclusions reached in the Heritage Impact Assessment Even if you want to break down the areas within the greater National Historic Site as the City planners suggest, the uncontradicted evidence from the historians made it clear that the school site played an important part of the battle. Consequently, the entire school site would warrant greater protection. 39. It is the City's position that only the school yard is part of the cultural heritage landscape, not the school building since it has been there for a period of time and it has disturbed the area. In our view, the opinion is short sighted and tailored to the proposed Zoning By-laws. 15 40. We note that under cross examination, Mr Bray acknowledged that entire playground is cultural heritage landscape. Why does the City conclude that the schoolyard is a cultural heritage landscape? Only because it is part of a "battlefield". There is no consideration as to the impact of the National Historic Site. 41. Is the cultural heritage landscape significant? Mr, Bray attempted to distinguish between part four on the schedule to the by-laws, the school yard to be preserved, and part 3, the lands to be conveyed to Morse funeral homes. In his view the determination as to whether the lands in part 3 are significant would have to await the archeological assessment. But the lands in part 2 have been assessed by an archeologist and nothing of value found. Yet those lands are found to be significant, What is the difference between part 2 and part 3? We submit, there is no difference, When asked by the Board to what area he was referring when speaking of the school yard, Mr. Bray indicated he was referring to the entire school yard to the north of the school building. We submit that all of parts 2 and 3 are a significant heritage landscape. 16 42. Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS requires that a cultural heritage landscape shall be conserved. Are the cultural heritage landscape being "conserved" within meaning of PPS? L 43. Friends position- CHA is not being conserved for these reasons; i. allowing a paved parking area on funeral home property ii. allowing a development of school site for residential use iii. development will impede the viewsheds by boxing in the cultural heritage landscape 44. It is the City's position that Part 3 is conserved because the rezoning to commercial parking and the conveyance are a reversible intervention; and because the implementations of heritage impact assessment (i.e. mitigation though landscape etc) and Stage i11 archaeological assessment will be required. 45, We wish to address the notion of "reversible intervention". The term suggests that some form of development can encumber a cultural heritage landscape, but could be removed at a later date and the cultural heritage landscape would still exist. In our submission, the term is opportunistic. It does not represent preservation of a cultural heritage landscape for the 17 present time. It suggests preservation at some later undetermined date. This "reversible intervention" suggests you can put in an asphalt parking lot on any cultural heritage landscape. That is completely wrong. 46. The term "conserve" is strained to say that the property can be zoned to permit a commercial parking lot and conveyed away and that such actions can at some indeterminate time those actions may be reversed. That is not "conserve" in the present tense. 47. Frankly, many types of development can be reversed. Paved parking lots can be dug up, and sodded. According to the City, this is an acceptable way of "conserving" a cultural heritage landscape. 48. If we actually agree with this notion, then we submit that buildings can also be considered "reversible intervention". As is indicative of several examples within the National Historic Site, the City has purchased several properties, demolished them, and they now sit vacant. Take the Redmond site as an example. Through a donation by Ms Redmond for War of 1812 commemorative purposes, the evidence was that she purchased several properties with buildings, provided lifelong leases to the tenants, and then the houses were demolished and now form part of a park. This is clearly an example of reversible intervention. 18 49. The City has taken the position that the school has been disturbed, therefore not a cultural heritage landscape. By taking the position that an area can't be a cultural heritage landscape if it is disturbed, the City is then suggesting that permission be given to do the exact same thing over the funeral parking lands that are considered part of the cultural heritage landscape, and that it is confident that this "reversible intervention" is acceptable 50. Instead with the school site, the City concludes it can't be reversed because of having a building and paving located on it, yet it recommends that this is an acceptable form of conservation for the funeral parking lands. Who is to say 20 years from now, the same issue is raised and the conclusion is that the funeral parking area is not a cultural heritage landscape because it has been disturbed with asphalt parking. The City wants it both ways. 51. City (through Mr. Bray) also acknowledged that if the recommendations suggested by the Heritage Impact Assessment and the Archaeological Assessment are achieved, then it meets the definition of being conserved under the PPS. We submit that is incorrect. The heritage impact assessment is flawed in that key information was not property considered 19 (i.e. being within the part of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield National Historic Site). 52. We ask the Board to reject the position of the City in that the school property is not a cultural heritage landscape. The City suggests it is not solely because it has been built upon and has been disturbed. We disagree, because the definition of the PPS contemplates that over time, human activity will modify a cultural heritage landscape. BUT, that doesn't make it any less worthy of protection. In our submission, if the Province intended a cultural heritage landscape to have less significance because of human activity, it would have not included that language in the definition. 53. It's a reality of Canadian history. Much of it was determined in areas where, several hundred years later, human activity has modified such history (i.e. urban areas of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal). It doesn't mean that those areas are any less important. 54. Policy 2.6.1 requires a cultural heritage landscape to be conserved. The Friends submit that, with the proposed by-laws, the cultural heritage landscape that is the entire school site is not being conserved. Allowing the paving and parking use of Part 3 on the By-law is clearly not conserving a 20 cultural heritage landscape. We ask the Board to reject this notion of "reverse intervention". 55. Moreover, allowing a 30 unit apartment dwelling on the school lands is also not protecting the area to ensure the cultural heritage value is maintained. 56. Finally, the conveyance of an area for parking and redevelopment of the school building site will have a negative impact on the viewsheds. 57. In our view, the proposed By-law does not properly conserve the cultural heritage landscape that is the entire school property, and is therefore not consistent with the PPS. 1;58. The city submitted evidence that the proposal, taken as a whole, namely all three by-laws, represents an opportunity for intensification, an efficient use of municipal infrastructure and provides affordable housing. Ms. Wiens has agreed to many of these provisions. It is obvious that this is an opportunity to provide an opportunity for intensification. However, the City's position is that a cultural heritage landscape can be compromised, so long as you provide a balanced approach and include consideration for other policies within the PPS. 21 59. We respectfully submit that the PPS does not require that all of its objectives be accomplished on one parcel of land. The City position would result in the bifurcation of each cultural heritage landscape to meet as many of the objectives of the PPS as possible. It is to sacrifice a cultural heritage landscape on the basis that the one parcel must also meet residential intensification goals and sustain commerce, Such an approach allows the requirements of policy 2.6.1 of the PPS to be defeated. 60.There has to be some limitations to intensification. Intensification should not be given "as of right", and each opportunity must be examined based in its merits. That limitation is found in policy 1.1.3,3. Mr. Lowes took the board to this as part of his submission on intensification and redevelopment. May I draw the Board's attention to the second part of policy 1,1.3.3 which reads that "Intensification and redevelopment shall be directed in accordance with the policies of Section 2; Wise Use and Management of Resources and Section 3; Protecting Public Health and Safety", Policy 2.6.1 is found in Section 2 which is to direct intensification and redevelopment. 61. It is our respectful submission that the entire cultural heritage landscape should be conserved and not eroded upon. Grodzinski properly 22 characterized it as a shaving away of cultural heritage landscape lands. Where it imposes a significant burden on a cultural heritage landscape, it is an appropriate time to determine that the intensification policies, and others, should not be applied in these circumstances. 62. It is our respectful submission that City of Niagara Falls by-laws 2013-24 and 2013-26 are not consistent with the provisions of the Provincial Policy statement which requires that significant cultural heritage landscape s shall be conserved.. THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS 63. The subject lands are located within Special Policy Area # 10. Policy 13.10, found in EXHIBIT 1A, AT PAGE 196, states that "This area contains historic significance as the location of the Battle of Lundy's Lane in the War of 1812. It is intended that the lands in this area will be protected and preserved to commemorate the Battle of Lundy's Lane." 64. It is our respectful submission that the proposal as encompassed in the by- laws does not protect and preserve the lands in question. 65. The rezoning to permit the lands on part 3 on the schedule to the by-laws to permit commercial parking does not protect or preserve the lands. 23 Indeed, EXHIBIT 23 shows an elaborate plan to develop the lands as a permanent adjunct of the adjoining lands for parking purposes. We respectfully submit that the use of lands for such a purpose, as noted earlier, does not preserve or protect. 66. Policy 3,2.4, now policy 4.4, found on PAGE 202 OF EXHIBIT 1A, provides that "In order to promote the conservation of heritage resources, the City shall, through the MHC, designate significant properties of cultural heritage value or interest as permitted under Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act." 67, As we have seen the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Master plan, in 1998, recommended that the lands in public ownership at that time, including the Battlefield Public School and playground be designated as a Heritage Conservation District. PAGE 756, The board has heard evidence that neither the school property nor the cemetery have been designated or entered on the Heritage Registry. 68. The Board has evidence that the MHC recommended that the entire school property be designated. The Council has rejected that recommendation in favour of designating only part 2 on the by-law schedule, such designation 24 to occur after development of that portion of the school yard for an as yet undetermined commemoration of the battle. 69. The official plan provides criteria to be addressed when considering possible designation of sites such as the cemetery and the school property. Policy 3.2.9, now Policy 4.9 sets out those criteria. This section was referenced by both Ms. Wiens and Mr. Lowes. There can be no dispute that the cemetery and the school property meet those criteria. The property should have been designated. 70. Policy 3.2.19, now policy 4.19, EXHIBIT 1A, PAGE 205, requires that development adjacent to and surrounding significant heritage properties shall be designed as not to adversely impact on the character, quality or amenity associated with the heritage resource. Currently, parts 3 and 4 on the by-law schedules are, in our submission part of a significant heritage property. Only if they are sold do they become adjacent to or surrounding significant heritage properties. 71. The development of part 3 represents an encroachment into the heritage area. This is acknowledged by Mr. Bray. He then characterizes it as a reversible encroachment. We challenge the characterization of the encroachment as reversible. But all agree that it is an encroachment of 25 approximately 100 feet into the heritage property. Mr. Brays' resolution is to screen it. We respectfully submit that the encroachment affects the character of he significant heritage property. 72. Policy 3.2.19.1, now policy 4.19.1, provides that "In consultation with the MHC, the City may require a proponent of development to submit a heritage impact assessment to determine the impact of a specific development proposal on any heritage resource or area of archeological potential and to recommend the most appropriate method of conservation through mitigative measures or alternative development". 73. The council did not consult with the MHC. The City did not require a heritage impact assessment. A Heritage Impact Assessment was done in April of this year, immediately before the commencement of this hearing, although the council has not seen it. It was done without seeing the proposed site plan for the parking area which was revealed for the first time as part of Mr. Morgan's testimony, EXHIBIT 23. It was done with only the barest of site plans for the proposed use of the school. 74. Similarly no archeological study was done before processing the by-laws. Indeed the City Staff recommended against an archeological study on the misunderstanding that the school yard was a former gravel site. An • 26 archeological study, stages 1 and 2, has now been undertaken and it recommends a stage three on the lands to be used for commercial parking. Mr. Bray was hesitant to determine whether part 3 on the by-law schedule was a level one or a level two resource without seeing the results of the stage three archeological assessment. 75. Policy 3.2.20, now policy 4,20, PAGE 206, imposes a requirement on a proponent of a zoning by-law amendment to address certain matters as part of a heritage impact assessment. No such assessment was undertaken by the City or the proponents, the Kiwanis Club or Morse Funeral Home at the time the council considered these applications. The City's justification at the time of considering its application was financial, how to finance the purchase. It is respectfully submitted that the city proceeded in a manner contrary to its own official plan. 76. There is now a heritage assessment before the board, triggered by these appeals. Had there been no appeals there would have been no Heritage impact assessment and no consideration of the width of the reach of the zoning by-laws. 77. Policy 3.2.21, now policy 4.21, found on PAGE 206, provides that "City- owned heritage properties and buildings shall be conserved, maintained 27 and where possible restored in accordance with the policies of this plan. The board has before it a city owned property which is a heritage property. The Official plan says that it will be conserved, maintained and where possible restored. 78. Please note that the city closed the purchase of the subject lands by deed transfer registered on June 22, 2012. (EXHIBIT 19) The agreement of purchase and sale with the Kiwanis was not entered into until February 7, 2013. (EXHIBIT 7A) 79, It is our respectful submission that allowing for redevelopment and conveying to private interests is not conserving and maintaining as intended by the official plan. The plan goes further and calls for restoration where possible. The conveyance of part 3 for commercial parking is not, in cur submission, conserving and maintaining and its development as a parking area is the opposite of restoring, As for the school building, both the friends and the council originally believed that the restoration of the school site was a possibility. To that end the council passed two resolutions, EXHIBITS 30 AND 31, and was negotiating a lease to facilitate such a plan. For reasons that are not given, the council did not further pursue that plan. 28 There is no evidence that such a process cannot continue to be pursued, and some evidence from Ms. Wing that it can be pursued. 80. Policy 3.2.22, now policy 4.22, PAGE 206, requires that "In recognition of the ongoing evolution of heritage, the City shall continue to study areas of cultural heritage interest to understand the history of place and for possible recognition as a significant heritage resource. Are;identified for possible future studies are listed in Appendix VV Appendix VI is found on PAGE 231 and includes Lundy's Lane Battlefield (municipally owned sits plus related publicly-owned properties. This policy was instituted at a time when the school property was still owned by the school board, but there can be no doubt that it includes the school property, 81. As we saw at the outset of these submissions, there have been studies since 1998 all of which have made recommendations with respect to the school property as part of the public holdings adjacent to the cemetery. None of the recommendations to designate have been carried out although the MHC has again, as a part of this process recommended designation. 82, Official plan amendment 94 is contained in EXHIBIT 1A, TAB 7. It enacts policies to implement the Growth Plan. However, it left the policies just 29 quoted with respect to Heritage intact only renumbering them. Infill and Intensification, in our submission is to be governed by the Heritage policies. 83, This is in accord with the provision of the Growth Plan, Policy 4.2.4 (1)(e) which provides that "Municipalities will develop and implement official plan policies and other strategies in support of the following conservation measures; (e) Cultural Heritage conservation, including the conservation of cultural heritage and archeological resources where feasible, as built up areas are intensified. " 84. It is our respectful submission that by-law 2013-24 and by-law 2013-26 are contrary to the intent and purpose of the official plan of the City of Niagara Falls. The intent of the policies was to protect and preserve any publicly owned lands which were part of or adjacent to the battlefield, recognizing that only a small piece of the site remains in public hands. The amendments intended to permit private development are contrary to those policies CONCLUSION 85. It was the submission of Mr. Lowes that the three by-laws must be taken together and that by doing so the proposal to save a portion of the school lands (45%) while approving the other 55 % for development was appropriate. With respect, it is our submission that the financing of the 30 acquisition is not a planning matter. What is before the board are two by- laws which must meet the requirements of the PPS and of the Official Plan. 86. We say they are not consistent with the PPS and do not conform with the intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 87. We request that the board repeal City of Niagara Falls zoning by-law 2013- 24 and by-law 2013-26. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Attachment "2" to Reporting Letter 1 The zoning by-law amendment at issue here was premature. I am requesting repeal of the two by-laws. As Ms. Wiens indicated in cross-examination by the City: This is not a whole package before the Board. There were three separate by-laws. One is already approved and in effect. Two by-laws are at issue here, not a complete package. Arguments about balance are not germane to what is before the Board. What may or may not have happened if the subject lands had not entered municipal ownership is a red herring and not germane to the case before the Board. The subject lands in their entirety are currently municipally owned. Dr. Bray referred to a "one-time opportunity to secure a part of the former battlefield." In that he concurred with other witnesses. Dr. Bray suggested in his testimony that more study is needed. I wholeheartedly agree. Dr. Bray testified that: "Once lands are in municipal ownership there's lots of time to study them." 2 I concur. There was no planning based reason for attempting to rush through a zoning by-law amendment for the subject lands, which are now in municipal ownership. Mr. Lowes testified that Regional Policy 10.B.2 "encourages Cultural Heritage landscapes and Heritage Conservation Districts." He too concurred that "more study is needed to determine what is valuable and what is not." Mr. Lowes also agreed in cross-examination that the triangle denoting Special Policy Area 10 was conceptual and seems to be applying to a larger area. 1A/13/756 8.3.2 Dr. Bray referenced the Heritage Conservation District recommended in his battlefield master plan as "part of a larger initiative to revitalize Historic Drummondville." The Heritage Conservation District study is needed to determine what the heritage attributes are and what are not of value. I might suggest requiring that this study be done before any further development or redevelopment within the CIP area is approved, including any development or redevelopment affecting the subject lands. 3 Dr. Bray testified that the conservation of the portion of the subject lands now rezoned to Open Space must be "financed by sale and development of additional lands." He did not offer evidence establishing this, nor did he offer evidence that if this were indeed the case the additional lands to be sold and developed must be the subject lands. A Heritage Conservation District study would determine what, of the additional lands the City has acquired since the 1998 Master Plan study, are most valuable. The Lundy's Lane Battlefield Master Plan recommended Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act) Study. This was never done. In the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Master Plan, the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Heritage Conservation District is proposed to include lands held in public ownership. The intent is to make designation and conservation easier. 9.2.1 . Guidelines and Viewsheds The most important are those into and out of the then municipally owned lands. Further encroachment will make interpretation very difficult. The by-laws at issue would do so. The Master Plan only included City-owned lands but it identified the importance of the South-East viewshed and that it was to be protected and maintained. 4 There appears to be ignorance and/or confusion on the part of the City as to what is valuable and what is not. A Heritage District Conservation Study would determine that and formally settle the question. It would be ill advised to allow any part of the subject lands to pass from long- term public ownership to private hands before formal study to determine what is most valuable within the National Historic Site. I would request a condition for such study. Dr. Bray testified that Mr. Graves is an acknowledged expert on the history of the battle and Dr. Grodzinski an acknowledged expert on military tactics in that era. Dr. Bray suggested that the determination of a "significant Cultural Heritage Landscape" under the PPS is made in the context of study. Mr. Graves has made a study. Mr. Graves testified that this property is important to the interpretation of the battle in which the British chose lands south of the crest of the hill, and now within the Drummond Hill Cemetery, to defend against an enemy moving from the south. Mr. Graves' testimony repeatedly indicated that Miller's US 21st Infantry advanced in their successful attack on the British guns over the area now occupied by the school footprint. He testified that he believes he had 5 superimposed the positions and movements shown in Mr. Graves testified that one of the famous catchphrases in US history - Miller's "I'll try, Sir" - is associated with the school footprint area. Mr. Graves' testimony indicated that school area is important from a tactical (battle level) perspective, and that the battle was important from an operational (campaign) perspective since the British would have had to abandon Niagara if the Americans had won. Mr. Graves testified that he considers the subject lands to be a cultural heritage property. His testimony about the operational and strategic importance of the battle indicates the subject lands are significant as such. Mr. Graves testified that the Southern portion of the subject lands are important to interpreting the battle from the American side of the action. In cross- examination by the City, he described their protection as a "moral imperative" - indicating he attached a strong significance to their cultural heritage value. Dr. Grodzinski testified that this was the largest battle fought in the northern theatre in the War of 1812, and that it demonstrates the tenacity of the US troops and resolve of the British-Canadians. He testified that this battle blunted the American offensive for this region (ie. operational importance). Dr. Grodzinski testified that the Americans were trying to influence events in Europe and hoped to achieve a decisive victory that they could use at Ghent to get the upper hand. He testified that if there had been a significant British defeat at Lundy's Lane, the British could have traded territory in the negotiations. Dr. Grodzinski thus attached a strategic (highest level) importance to the outcome of 6 the battle. Dr. Grodzinski's testimony about senior representatives of other governments, serving military and NATO personnel, and representatives from other Canadian military alliances visiting the Lundy's Lane battlefield to study and discuss how units move on the field speaks to the strong significance attached to this cultural resource. Ms. Campbell, Co-Chair of the MHC, referenced the subject lands as "the most important heritage property in City stewardship." Such a description indicates this cultural heritage landscape is indeed significant. Mr. Inkster from the MHC identified the subject lands as having cultural heritage value from the municipal level on up to internationally — another testament to the significance of this cultural heritage landscape. Mr. Inkster referenced strategies used in future battles arising from this one. Mr. Inkster testified to the losses here, when compared in terms of population and longevity of the conflict with later international conflicts, being surpassed only by the US Civil War in which Americans fought fellow Americans. This too speaks to the significance of this event and the cultural heritage landscape associated with it. Even Mr. Lowes agreed in cross-examination that Dr. Bray had agreed the subject lands "may be" a significant cultural heritage resource. 7 Dr. Grodzinski testified that he uses assessment criteria whereby Class 1 heritage lands are those where troops were on the field and under fire, and Class 2 are lands that were secondarily involved, such as mustering areas. Both Dr. Grodzinski and Mr. Graves identified the southern portion of the subject lands as being where the US troops entered the field and came under fire. Dr. Grodzinski's testimony indicated the subject lands, especially the portion subject to By-law 2013-24, are Class 1 according to his criteria. Dr. Grodzinski testified that Winfield Scott's unit deployed on the south side if the school building and that the US 21st Infantry moved through what is now the school building on the attack. Dr. Bray testified that "the view from the American perspective can be appreciated by standing where the apartment parking lot would be." This was contradictory to the testimony offered by Grodzinski and Graves. Dr. Grodzinski testified that "the Americans are behind us" when looking up at the hill from the rear of the building. Since By-law 2013-24 provides for reduced setbacks, visitors would also be expected to stand very near to some of the proposed residential units and certainly very near to the rear yard amenity space of the occupants. Dr. Grodzinski testified that "where the 21st moved is critical to understanding of Li]3L�I:O.I'- 8 the battle." His characterization of that portion of the subject lands as "critical" indicates that it is a significant cultural heritage resource. According to his testimony, to consider this portion of the subject lands as anything less than significant would be a misclassification. Dr. Grodzinski testified that preserving only a small portion of the subject lands would dismiss what happened outside of that area, and that what was left would be almost useless for interpretation. He testified that the school is an obstruction to the view from the Cemetery and that screening the school as recommended by Dr. Bray would further obstruct that view. Dr. Grodzinski testified that the school footprint "takes up an important part of the battlefield, and interrupts the view and interpretation." The South-East corner of the subject lands are where the majority of the American forces came into the battlefield and become exposed to casualties. Dr. Grodzinski testified that as they came to the South-Eastern corner of the subject lands, nine companies of Scott's units would have deployed to the east and west in shoulder to shoulder formation. Dr. Grodzinski testified that the portion subject to By-law 2013-24 was involved in all three phases of the battle. In the third phase, it was the line of communication, and used for moving reinforcements up and casualties back. His testimony attached especial significance to that portion of the subject lands. Dr. Grodzinski testified that the school building is located where the troops arrived and funnelled out, deploying from column formation into lines, were fired upon and decimated. He testified that the school building is in the way of seeing Lil', ,F.); 9 where that happened and privatization of the lands would intensify an existing problem. Dr. Grodzinski testified that the battle is very difficult to interpret currently. He testified that interpretation requires being able to access the South-East portion of the subject lands to get a sense of the terrain and convey what happened. The Americans formed and were fired upon there. He emphasized the great need for continued public access to this portion of the subject lands and the potential for residential development to preclude that. He testified that narrow access ways are not conducive to tours. As Dr. Ainslie testified, the school building visually overwhelms the whole site unless you have your back to it, so one cannot envision the battle scene. Ms. Campbell identified the subject lands as presenting the "opportunity to tell the story from the US position." She identified the landforms as critical to defining this Cultural Heritage Resource and spoke of preserving learning opportunity for future generations. Dr. Bray testified to the "difficulty of achieving meaningful historic interpretation" because lands were not readily available at the time of the Master Plan study. Dr. Bray testified that (Tab 16, p. 1045) "Integrity" is the view extant at the time of the greatest value. At the time of the greatest value, a building was not on the lands subject to By-law 2013-24. ;i.o;'.;:10. l 10 Dr. Bray testified that the proposed parking lot is an encroachment but is a "reversible intervention," meaning it could be removed without influencing what is underneath. He did not offer adequate reasons to explain why the slab on grade school building is not currently reversible and cannot be removed without influencing the view of the lands currently covered by its footprint where important troop movements took place. Mr. Inkster testified that one can visualize the battle from the British perspective but it is extremely difficult from the US. and suggested the excellence of the view that would have existed from the US position prior to the school being built. Mr. Inkster testified that thus was not a one-sided battle. Historical significance is lost if we are unable to teach it accurately. Dr. Bray's 1998 study, which as he stressed only concerned the City-owned lands at that time, concluded those resources "will be unimpaired or not under threat when viewscapes from the site" ... "future development does not create" ... "commemorative purpose." Dr. Bray testified. regarding Viewsheds from within his 1998 study site: "These views should be maintained ... You would want to improve those." There is presently a danger, as came out in Mr. Lowes' cross-examination, that the Cemetery's North, East and South viewsheds could become "a sea of parking 11 lots." Dr. Bray testified that "visually, only the remaining undeveloped lands can be easily interpreted." He concurred with the previous testimony regarding the ease of interpretation increasing when, visually, development does not impede or constrain the views. Enabling new development and/or more intense redevelopment to be layered on would reduce the ability to interpret the significant event that occurred. Dr. Bray agreed in his testimony that the school building blocks the view to the South limit. Dr. Bray testified that he uses a study criteria whereby all lands within municipal ownership at the time are automatically considered Level 1, without regard to their level of involvement in the significant event; and all lands not within municipal ownership at the time of the study are automatically considered Level 2, again without regard to their level of involvement in the significant event. Dr. Bray testified that only the ten acres the City owned at the time were considered Level 1; the rest was Level 2. Dr. Bray testified that "Conserved" is a goal achieved through planning. He spoke to identifying what elements are the greatest attributes. ;Lel 1•i t0.1 12 The greatest attributes of the subject lands have been identified by Mr. Graves Grodzinski, Dr. Ainslie, and the various MHC members participating in this hearing. Dr. Grodzinski's criteria are much more germane than Dr. Bray's to determining what is most valuable within an area designated as a National Historic Site by virtue of having been an important battlefield. Dr. Bray admitted under cross-examination that he had adjusted his criteria in the Heritage Impact Assessment before the Board to consider as Level 1 only the portion of the lands the current owner wishes to retain, instead of considering the subject lands in their entirety as had been his method during the Master Plan study. If the same type of master plan study that Dr. Bray performed in 1998 were carried out today, under the Level 1 and 2 definitions he uses, the subject lands are today, in their entirety, Level 1. Dr. Bray testified that designation of the lands already rezoned Open Space will implement the MHC recommendation for the subject lands "to the extent that is secured under municipal ownership." The extent of the lands secured under municipal ownership includes the subject lands in their entirety. Dr. Bray's Heritage Impact Assessment is based on the presumption that "conservation of the subject lands in their entirety is not feasible," and the subject 13 lands cannot be fully conserved. He does not offer planning-based reasons why they cannot be. Dr. Bray testified at one point that the "playground is relatively undisturbed," and then later testified that the archaeological study had found the topography there had been modified compared to the original slope, that the site had been picked clean of artifacts, that fill was present. Mr. Lowes advised in cross-examination that he was of the opinion that "the portion to be zoned Open Space is relatively unaltered." That does not concur with the evidence previously presented by Dr. Bray. Other witnesses had testified to the importance of the topography to understanding the battle. Dr. Bray freely admitted that the playground area grades had changed, the topography of that area is different from what was there originally, and yet he assessed this area as a valuable resource and characterized acquisition of that space as "very important." This is not the same space it had been at the time of the battle (in fact we heard in Mr. Lowes' testimony that City staff initially believed the playground area had been a sand or gravel pit) and yet it is prized for its associative value as a cultural heritage resource. Dr. Bray's assessment of heritage value appears to be based solely on what the current owner of the lands wishes and wishes not to keep. ;LSI;lol ii).1; 14 Dr. Bray's Heritage Impact Assessment, accepting pre-judgments not based on planning reasons and therefore treating only a portion of the subject lands as Level 1 , is therefore fundamentally flawed. Mr. Lowes testified that he was basing his opinion that more significant lands at 6015 Barker are being protected on Dr. Bray's submissions. The portion of the subject lands already rezoned to Open Space is valued despite having been demonstrated to have been extensively altered. The portion of the lands subject to By-law 2013-24 is also valuable - in fact based on testimony we have heard likely more valuable - and will be more valuable if the addition of a slab on grade building is the only alteration that has taken place. Mr. Lowes agreed in cross-examination that the subject lands may fall within a cultural heritage landscape, noting: "It is up to assessment to determine whether it in entirety or in part in part of a cultural heritage landscape." I concur with that, but the assessment Dr. Bray performed is flawed in a number of ways, including fundamentally his criteria, based solely on the owner's intentions, for categorizing lands as Level 1 and Level 2. Dr. Bray's assessment also was not conducted under the Ontario Heritage Act. The Region submitted additional comments April 23, 2012 (submitted as document collection No. 44 in my submissions) recommending: "that the City 15 also require a cultural heritage assessment be completed" to address "the conservation of any significant heritage resources and any cultural heritage value of the site." The Provincial Policy, at p. 44, defines: "Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and the use of ... cultural heritage landscapes ... In a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act." That Act provides, under Part IV s. 28 (Tab 14, p. 962) for the appointment by the council of a municipality of a Municipal Heritage Committee. The Municipal Heritage Committee appointed by the council under the provisions of that Act subsequently conducted a cultural heritage assessment. According to the February 14, 2013 email from Peggy Boyle (submitted by me as document No. 23), the MHC recommended: "That the entire property known municipally as 6015 Barker Street be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as a cultural heritage landscape due to its associative values with the Battle of Lundy's Lane during the War of 1812-1814." The Municipal Heritage Committee has identified the subject lands, in their entirety, as being a "cultural heritage landscape" under the Ontario Heritage Act." 16 The Municipal Heritage Committee has recommended protection of the subject lands in their entirety under the Ontario Heritage Act. The MHC has made that recommendation to ensure that the subject lands are managed and used in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. The Region had advised that a cultural heritage assessment '`will address" "the conservation of any significant heritage resources and any cultural heritage value of the site." The MHC recommendation addresses conservation of what had been assessed and determined. under the Ontario Heritage Act, as per the Provincial Policy at p. 44, to be a cultural heritage resource. " The MHC has additionally demonstrated, though its prolonged subsequent actions. including Exhibit 13B and the testimony here of four of its members, that it considers this cultural heritage resource to be `significant." Regional Policy Amendment 1-2011 directs: Policy 10B1 "Significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved using the Ontario Heritage Act." Mr. Bray's assessment was not carried out under the provisions of the Act as it pertains to a municipality which has appointed a MHC. 17 The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (at Tab 1, p.6) states the need to read the Statement as a whole. The PPS states, same page: "When applying the PPS it is important to consider the specific language of the policies, Each policy provides direction on how it is to be implemented, how it is situated within the broader PPS, and how it relates to other policies." Some policies set out positive directives, others use enabling or supportive language. Still others set out limitations and prohibitions. "The choice of language is intended to distinguish between the types of policies and the nature of implementation." The PPS, at p. 8 notes: "The wise use and management of these resources [among which cultural heritage resources are specifically recognized] over the long term is a key Provincial interest. Within the Policies: 18 1.1.3.3 (found on p. 12) provides the imperative: "Intensification and redevelopment shall be directed in accordance with the policies of Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources" Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources directs, in the imperative, at 2.6.1 (on p. 33): "... Significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved." Intensification and redevelopment are limited or prohibited where a significant cultural heritage landscape is involved. The Board has heard testimony from Mr. Graves, Dr. Grodzinski and members of the MHC indicating that a significant cultural heritage landscape is at stake. Mr. [owes testified that the proposed apartments would help meet intensification targets "on a minor basis." Seeking to meet general targets through a proposal that would contribute on a "minor basis" does not outweigh the irreversible damage that would thereby be done to an irreplaceable cultural heritage resource. Mr. Lowes testified that cultural conservation (is to be done "where feasible as built up areas are intensified." He does not offer any planning-based reasons as to why this is not feasible here. It certainly becomes less feasible under the 19 intensification of use proposed under by-law 2013-24. Mr. Lowes advised in cross-examination that there is no cap to intensification within a built-up area under either the PPS or the Growth Plan. There are, however, restrictions and limitations where Cultural resources are concerned. Dr. Bray also testified with regards to 1A/5/160 Creative Places - creating a sense of place. Enabling shortened viewsheds, compromised viewscapes, and retaining in public hands only one army's position do not contribute to creating a sense of place. The subject lands are adjacent to the property at 5993 Barker, which is protected by listing on the Municipal Register and has been recommended (as per November 16, 2007 letter from Peggy Boyle, Document No. 20 in my submissions) for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The heritage attributes of 5993 Barker are actively under study for the preparation of a designating by-law. Among those attributes are the property's association with the Battle of Lundy's Lane, both the land and the potential for a structure thereon to be directly associated with the battle. That structure was referenced before the Board by 20 both Dr. Graves and myself. The Heritage Impact Assessment presented by Dr. Bray ignores the City file on this property, as he admitted on cross-examination. Dr. Bray in his testimony advised that he had only considered the minimal information available on the City's website listing of heritage properties in his assessment regarding 5977 and 5993 Barker. He indicated in his testimony that he based his opinion solely on notes taken from the City website only. And Mr. Lowes testified repeatedly that he is based his opinions on Dr. Bray's evidence. In that case, Dr. Bray was entirely unaware of the secondary (barn) structure when he prepared his Heritage Impact Assessment for that property. Dr. Bray's Assessment references nothing further than the website placeholder information, and includes no photos, either of the main structure or the secondary structure under study for its potential association with the battle. Dr. Bray gave no consideration to the importance of the lands at 5977 and 5993 Barker, both located in their entirety within the NHS, for their association with the Battle of Lundy's Lane. The heritage attributes of those protected properties were only glancingly Llli] 1,,).[; 21 considered. The heritage attributes most germane to the matter before this Board were not considered at all. Dr. Bray testified with regards to 1A/6/205 that "amenity" means the heritage attributes of a heritage resource. Dr. Bray's Heritage Impact Assessment failed to consider the documented heritage attributes in the possession of the municipal Planning Department of the heritage resources at 5993 Barker. With respect to 3.2.19, directing that development next to cultural heritage resources not negatively impact them, Mr. Lowes testified that "Dr. Bray has completed a cultural heritage assessment and his evidence is" that 5993 and 5977's heritage attributes are not negatively impacted. Mr. Lowes testified: "I concur with his evidence in that regard." Dr. Bray's heritage impact study with regard to those properties was cursory, his analysis extremely thin, and did not even bother to include photos. The file on 5993 in the municipal Planning office was not referenced. Dr. Bray's study therefore is suspect, and his analysis cannot be relied upon. Dr. Bray's Heritage Impact Assessment failed to consider the documented heritage attributes outlined in his own previous battlefield master plan of the heritage resources at 6015 Barker. 22 He had those in mind, however, when he posited his question: "Do you really want to look at a bunch of parked cars or surface asphalt?" Dr. Bray's Heritage Impact Assessment was not only fundamentally flawed, but woefully incomplete. The Provincial Policies, Section 2.6.3 (p. 33) states in imperative language setting out a limitation or prohibition: "Planning authorities shall not permit development ... on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved." It has not been demonstrated how the heritage attributes of the protected properties as they relate, through their association with the battle, to the subject lands, will be conserved. It has not been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected adjacent lands will be conserved. Under the applicable Provincial Policy, there is an imperative, "Planning authorities shall not permit development," in such an instance. It us further stated, on p. 44: 23 "This may be achieved by a conservation plan ... And/or heritage impact assessment." Conservation plan and/or heritage impact assessment are not identified as the only means by which conservation may be achieved, but as options. A Heritage Impact Assessment does not abrogate the Provincial imperative that cultural heritage landscape "shall be conserved" where conserved is defined as identification, protection, management and use ... in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act." Cultural heritage Landscape is identified on p 44 as "... A geographical area ... Identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community." Mr. Lowes testified that the April 24, 2013 staff report (at Tab 28, p. 1167) advised that "the community places historic significance in the site." That recognizes the definition "identified as having cultural heritage value by a community" has been met. It is further stated on p. 44: "The area may involve features such as ... spaces ... that are valued together for their interrelationship. meaning or association." "Examples may include, but are not limited to ... [and among the specifically named examples are] battlefields ... and areas recognized by federal .. 24 Designation authorities (eg. A National Historic Site ...)." The subject lands comprise part of a battlefield and are recognized as a NHS for this reason by the federal designation authority. The legislation directing that {lands such as these] ... shall be conserved is in the imperative, It trumps the weaker language (supports, encourages, may, should ...) directing intensification generally within built up areas and the offering of surplus lands to agencies providing affordable housing. Intensification and affordable housing can be provided in alternative locations; cultural heritage resources cannot. The legislation intends that while intensification occurs generally, valuable resources be protected. OPA 94 at P. 241 "Promotes and encourages" residential intensification within intensification nodes. However, it does not require it. There is a distinction between what planning criteria have to be met on the subject site and what do not. Regional Policy Plan Policy 12.5.1.D: "It is intended that this Plan be read in its entirety as existing and proposed land uses may be subject to policies within different sections of the Plan ... with the more specific or restrictive policy applying where there are conflicts. " THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS OFFICIAL PLAN Section 14 "Notwithstanding the general policies of the Official Plan, certain areas are 25 designated Special Policy Areas due to their unique characteristics and/or special circumstances, some which may affect their development or redevelopment. s. 3.14.4 of OPA 94 ... shall be assessed on specific criteria established for the subject lands and the following policies: - consistency with the goals and objectives of the Community Improvement Plan; - sensitivity of the proposal to the surrounding land uses and heritage character Surrounding land uses now include the Holman lands, purchased by the City for their heritage value as part of a cultural heritage landscape, and the Drummond Hill Cemetery, acquired by the City for that same purpose. The subject lands are valued by the community as a cultural heritage landscape in their entirety. The subject lands have not been formally studied to determine their value. Any irreversible decision at this point would be premature. Mr. Lowes testified that the City Council was advised of the risk that they might end up owning the school building. They chose to take that risk. There is an option still available to them, which they have already supported through two resolutions, to ensure what we have been told were their purpose and their intentions in purchasing the property to that portion of the subject lands. 26 Mr. Lowes testified that the City's plan from the outset, from the very first staff report, was to subdivide and sell of portions of the subject lands. There is no evidence that any study had been done of the value of the subject lands as per the purpose for which they were being acquired by the City. There was no formal study done to determine whether certain portions could be deemed surplus because they had been studied and determined not to be of cultural heritage value or interest. Certain portions were arbitrarily deemed surplus based on informal expressions of interest by would-be purchasers. Mr. Lowes referenced OP 1.11.3 at p. 252: "In disposing if surplus lands ... Shall consider offering the lands to not for profit organizations." The Board had been offered evidence that this was the council's intent even before they purchased the lands to do so. The first issue here is that the Council is not required to offer lands to not for profit organizations, only to consider doing so. That requirement has been met. The second issue is Mr. Lowes' testimony that the City had decided certain portions if the lands at 6015 Barker would be surplus even before the lands were purchased and without any study whatsoever of the lands' cultural heritage value to determine what is valuable and required under the PPS to be observed. The Council did not consult with its MHC before deciding what portions of the site L.1 LAS i- I 27 were more and less valuable in respect of the purpose for which they were being purchased. OPA 94 PART 2 — LAND USE POLICIES s. 3.3.1.5 directs: iii) ... Proposals for residential development shall comply with the policies of Part 1, Section 3 Under PART 1 — PLAN OVERVIEW AND STRATEGIC DIRECTION Council may also consider selling surplus City-owned land for redevelopment. In such cases, the City will also undertake a process that requires interested parties to submit a proposal for the development of the lands. These proposals shall be assessed on specific criteria established for the subject lands and the following policies: - compliance with the policies of this Plan; - consistency with the goals and objectives of the Community Improvement Plan; - sensitivity of the proposal to the surrounding land uses and heritage character Ms. Costello testified that the Main &Ferry BIA contributed $15,000 to the CIP study (which I understand to have been 50%); $6,000 for a Landscape Master Plan; and donated $200,000+ for the Streetscape improvements to the City. The BIA is a stakeholder in the CIP. The BIA understands what is and is not in conformity with their CIF. The wishes of its membership as per the motion passed at the 2012 Annual General Meeting should be respected. The Planning Act itself requires: 28 PART IV COMMUNITY IM Community improvement project area ( 1 ) [definitions excerpt] Powers of council re land (6) For the purpose of carrying out a community improvement plan that has come into effect, the municipality may, (b) sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any land acquired or held by it in the community improvement project area to any person or governmental authority for use in conformity with the community improvement plan. R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, s. 28 (6); 2001, c. 17, s. 7 (6). With regard to Mr. Morgan: I do not believe that leasing of lands would offend anything in the CIP. Mr. Lowes testified that an Open Space designation for the portion of the lands subject to By-law 2013-26 could have allowed a parking lot. That zoning, with a long term lease, is an option. The parcel would remain in the hands if the City, and the intervention would be much more readily reversible. There is a difference of opinion between Ms. Wiens and Mr. Lowes over what Figure 6.3 in the CIP (Tab 12, p. 622) is intended to convey. Mr. Lowes suggests it is a schematic line only. 29 The CIP study authors were presenting long term as well as short term intentions, and Mr. Lowes' opinion with regard to their intentions could very well be wrong. This uncertainty as well can, and should, be addressed though further study. The reference to the Committee of Adjustment in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the lands subject to By-law 2013-24 is troubling. It signals an intention on the part of the prospective purchaser to pursue the second building story shown on the site plan drawing that Mr. Morgan submitted. Were the provisions of the City's Land Sales By-law followed? We have heard from Mr. Lowes that the City's intent from the outset was to sell off what Mr. Williamson pointed out in his report was 55% of the subject lands. Mr. Lowes stated in his testimony regarding the document at Tab 29 p. 175 that there had been "deferral for six months for the residents of the Lundy's Lane group to raise funds," Mr. Lowes is confusing the residents present at the 2012 meeting with the Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield, a then-dormant foundation that (as I had indicated in my own testimony) reorganized following that meeting. Mr. Lowes has assumed that the residents opposed to the zoning by-law 30 amendment application and the Friends foundation are one and the same. The Council did not defer to offer the then-dormant friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield an opportunity to raise funds. Council deferred and offered the residents in attendance an opportunity to raise funds. This was pointed out in the document (referenced in my testimony) offering corrections to errors and omissions in the CAO-2013-002 which Mr. Lowes referenced in his. Council had before it in a bound document book, provided to them the previous week, a document pointing out this and numerous other errors and omissions. It also included an aerial map labeled "Option 6," showing the Friends' proposed park project superimposed on the school footprint, which is what they understood to be the portion for which they were then negotiating a lease at the instigation of the City. Interestingly, in the approved minutes of that meeting, of which an excerpt is shown at Tab 38 p. 1232, the Mayor's vote on this matter is not recorded. On a recorded vote, all members of Council, including the head of Council, vote individually and only members whom have a declared conflict are exempt from the vote. Dr Bray that he had intended commemoration of the battle, based on his study only of the lands available in 1998, to be low key and small scale. 31 Since that time the City has, without an acquisition plan, as Dr Bray affirmed, purchased several other properties within the NHS area and demolished all the buildings thereon. It now has acquired another large property within the NHS. The inventory of lands available has increased substantially. VVhen asked to produce the reference, in the battlefield Master Plan, to the arch to be built over Lundy's Lane Dr. Bray responded that it was to be a pedestrian bridge. The multimillion-dollar pedestrian bridge for which he indicated support in his October 30, 2012 email to me seems a bit extreme for a low key, small scale attraction. More importantly: No reference to a pedestrian bridge exists in the Master Plan. The Master Plan is outdated in terms of its intended planning period and in terms of the lands meeting its Class 1 definition. It is time for further studies. It is time also for the Heritage Conservation District study the 16-year old Master Plan directed should be done. It is time also for the master plan to be updated. Mr. Lowes did not tell you that such a study is currently being undertaken for the City by IBI Group. Why was that information not presented? Dr Bray repeatedly expressed belief that further study was needed It seems critical that further studies be done before lands currently municipally owned are subdivided and conveyed to private interests — reversible only through future repurchase or expropriation. 32 To ensure conservation of what is valuable, the Heritage Conservation District study recommended in the Lundy's lane battlefield master plan should be carried out prior to any final decision on the disposal of the subject lands. Dr Bray testified that he took issue with the tourism opportunities suggested by Dr. Grodzinski and Mr. Graves. He indicated he believed the potential for tourism to the site was overrated and advised that he "would be cautious of attracting large numbers of people." This position is at odds with the vision of the CIP, which describes the Battlefield Precinct as a "high profile tourist attraction" and "historic cultural destination." It is at odds also with various City-produced materials. I cite by way of example the City's November 2008 Business News (document 5) and Making Our Mark brochure (document 12). It is at odds with Lundy's Lane BIA Co-Chair Robert Orsini's 1995 letter (document 6), with the recent Ontario Arts Council research (documents group 26), and the studies cited in the "21St Century Tourism — Meeting the Needs" review at Tab 33 in the joint documents book. Dr. Bray testified that [the 1998 Master Plan determined] a "small-scale and modest" interpretation was more suitable for this battlefield. I asked in cross-examination to be directed to the Master Plan reference to the 33 pedestrian bridge that Dr. Bray was supporting in his October 30, 2012 email to me. One will look in vain for such reference because no such reference exists. My point is that he himself has moved away from the small-scale and modest interpretation he originally envisioned by throwing his support behind a $1.5 million project for which no planning justification study exists. Dr. Bray admitted in cross-examination that "modest" does not imply that the position of one army only should be conserved. My presence here is motivated not by financial interests with regard to the by- laws at issue. I gave extremely generously of my time from the mid-1990s onward volunteering to conserve portions of the battlefield relatively distant from my home. I testified under cross-examination that I am seeking to protect the two properties within the NHS that I purchased in recent years by actively pursuing a conservation easement to protect these lands from further development, in perpetuity. A person with financial interests in mind would be capitalizing on a half-acre land assembly within an intensification node. The lands for which I am actively seeking a protective conservation easement are within the Drummondville intensification node, as are, according to Schedule A2 (Tab 7, p. 297) the Drummond Hill Cemetery, Holman lands, Redmond lands and Coronation Park. It is evident that the intensification node boundaries were not carefully 34 considered but that the CIP boundary, to which they are identical, was applied for convenience in the short term as further studies of the area were already directed in the Official Plan and the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Master Plan. The volunteers who came here, two from long distances. while others waited patiently for two or three days for their chance to testify, did so because they understand the importance of remembering and commemorating. This is about memory - about our ability to retain the memory in the land, in the terrain and the viewscapes, and impart to future generations a more complete memory than if the by-laws at issue were to stand. A new Incursion is threatened here where us army entered the field, The subject lands are not a large site in terms of the wider area over which the battle raged but are a critical one. Mr. Inkster: "Not all mistakes can be rectified." Once public lands are transferred to private entities and built upon, it is extremely difficult to go back. Mr. Lowes testified that he based his opinion regarding reversibility on Dr. Bray's evidence, which is flawed. Repealing the bylaws will keep this important property in its entirety in public hands. 35 Mr. Inkster: "Accurate information and flexibility aids informed decision." General Implementation Policies of the Official Plan require: Preconsultation on applications required so agencies can identify what is required so a complete application ... And provided to Council so can make informed decisions. Mr. Lowes testified that the pre consultation checklist is akin to a "shopping list" and that "it is up to the Director, at the pre-consultation planning meeting, to determine if a particular study is needed." In this instance, as Ms. Wiens pointed out in her testimony, the Applicant was the Director, applying to his own department. It cannot be assumed that this situation was entirely innocent and lacking prejudgment. Tab 25, p. 1143 In camera report from the Planning and Development Department is a report on negotiations that department was conducting with the school board. The Director signed the rezoning Application after his department had been reporting on the purchase. No planning justification study done. No needs study done for the residential proposal. Heritage Impact Study not submitted with the application. Archaeological study not recommended. 36 City of Niagara Falls Official Plan Heritage Resources Policy 3.24 "Shall, through the Municipal Heritage Committee, designate significant cultural heritage properties." 3.29 Identify and assess Cultural Heritage Landscapes in consultation with the MHC 3.29.1 Landscape that has associations to ... an event ... that is significant to a community ... linked to its surroundings - Should have triggered the pre-consultation process (The testimony of Mr. Graves and Dr. Grodzinski clearly identified the subject lands as being linked to their surroundings.) 3.2.22 Shall continue to study ... Areas identified listed as Appendix VI Future Cultural Heritage study areas ... Lundy's Lane battlefield municipally owned sites plus related publicly owned properties The subject lands in their entirety are identified for future cultural heritage study. - Should have triggered the pre-consultation process I..,;LeL60 37 Special Policy Area 10 Described as the "Drummond Hill area of Lundy's Lane" and the location of the Battle of Lundy's Lane in the War of 1812 - Should have triggered the pre-consultation process Directives in the policy documents to consult with the MHC in heritage-related matters - Should have triggered the pre-consultation process CIP 11 .6.6 Support of heritage conservation through the Ontario Heritage Act and Municipal Heritage Committee - Should have triggered the pre-consultation process Mr. Lowes testified that the February 14, 2012 staff report found at Tab 23 "recognizes the risk that the City will become the owner of the former school if it is not rezoned." There was a 100% risk that the City would become the owner of the former school building if the City purchased the subject lands. The risk was that the City, once having become the owner of the former school, would not be able to divest itself of the building as intended. 38 The Municipal Heritage Committee had not been consulted, nor had the subject lands had been studied for their cultural heritage significance through any other means outside of what is provided for in the legislation. Mr. Lowes further testified: "They took that risk." Mr, Lowes testified that "there was no intent from the start to retain the school building." The intent, formed before purchase, to subdivide and sell was premature. The Municipal Heritage Committee had not been consulted, nor had the subject lands had been studied for their cultural heritage significance through any other means outside of what is provided in the legislation. There was no effort to assess the subject lands for their cultural heritage value to determine what is and is not valuable. The Council decision to divest itself of the portion of the subject lands subject to By-law 2013-24 was not based on planning reasons. Mr. Lowes recognized in cross-examination that the subject lands in their entirety are a City-owned property. He suggested the only reason it is City-owned is it was purchased with the understanding portions are to be sold, and the application as to be reviewed in that context. 39 He appeared to be if the opinion that the applicable legislation does not apply if the intent is to flip lands. He had also previously advised that the City was aware it was taking a gamble and had chosen to do so. Mr. DiGiralamo suggested that "in good planning all stakeholders are involved." I agree. The MHC and Main & Ferry BIA are identified as stakeholders in the area in the CIP and had paid in part for that study. That should have triggered pre-consultation as well. Dr. Bray authored the Heritage Master Plan, which identifies for Conservation District designation: "Lundy's Lane battlefield currently municipally owned plus related publicly owned properties." - Should have triggered the pre-consultation process Ms. Wiens noted in her testimony that the Applicant was the City, and the application was made by the director to his department. She also noted that in the Heritage Master Plan, a City tool to help inform heritage-related matters, the City Planning Department is mandated with heritage responsibility, including inventorying and evaluating heritage properties with the Municipal Heritage Committee, and carrying out studies relating to districts, to ensure compatibility 40 with heritage. As the Board has noted, the Council direction to staff to designate a certain portion of the subject lands does not apply to the Drummond Hill Cemetery, where Mr. Graves testified the British guns were placed along the "military crest" on the southern slope. Mr. Lowes confirmed for the Board that the direction to designate does not apply to the Cemetery, the Holman lands, or other municipally owned lands. No reason was offered why such lands were being excluded. The Cemetery is not designated, or even listed on the Register, because the current owner does not wish this. The Conservation District study recommended 16 years ago has not been carried out because the municipal owner of the lands to be included does not wish any type of Provincial heritage designation. The City will need to be so directed, or even the Cemetery will languish unrecognized Provincially because of a reluctance on the part of the owner on designate. Mr. Lowes stressed that: "It has been the intent, from the first staff report on, that these lands, when they are brought into City ownership, be sold off." That intent was formed prematurely and without the planning requirements for 41 lands valued by a community being met. 1B Tab 46 p. 1400 Staff report: Designation could preclude commercial uses Council refused to designate because would interfere with intended financial transactions. With the exception of Fralick's Tavern, none of the 10 acres considered in the 1998 Master Plan study have been designated under the OHA or listed on the municipal inventory. This includes the Drummond Hill Cemetery. The reason for this is that the owner of these lands does not want them designated. Council rejected the MHC advice for a portion of the subject lands because the owner was unwilling to designate that portion. The Council for the municipality of the Lakewood rejected their MHC's advice for the same reason: CanLii The decision to designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act is discretionary. However the discretion must be exercised within the boundaries imposed in the statute, the principles of the rule of law, the principles of administrative law, the fundamental values of Canadian society and the principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. . . . In requiring the consent of the owner as a pre-condition to designation, the Town imposed a condition contrary to the intent of the Act and placed an unreasonable obstacle on its own discretionary powers thereby 42 fettering its discretion and aborting the process intended by the Act. Analysis [13] The Ontario Heritage Act, proclaimed in 1975, was Ontario's response to a worldwide effort at preserving for future generations works which have acquired cultural significance [14] The Ontario Heritage Act gives municipalities the power to designate properties within a municipality to be of historic . . . interest. For the purpose of exercising that power, the Act provides that municipalities may appoint a local architectural conservation advisory committee to advise the Council on matters relating to the Act. [15] The purpose of the Act is to provide for the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. In order to protect the heritage of Ontario, municipalities have been given the power to designate the properties of their choice and thus to suspend certain private property rights. Those provisions of the Act must be applied in such a way as to ensure the attainment of the legislature's objectives. [18] The decision to designate a property is clearly discretionary. However, there are limits on the exercise of discretion where fundamental constitutional and societal interests are at stake. That discretion must be exercised "with the boundaries imposed in the statute, the principles of the rule of law, the principles of administrative law, the fundamental values of Canadian society, and the principles of the Charter" [23] Requiring the consent of the owner is not consistent with an overall reading of the Act or its purpose. Indeed, the Act 43 contemplates notice to the owner, possible objections, and a hearing process [24] The object of the Act is the conservation and protection of the heritage of Ontario. This may interfere with individual property rights [See Note 7 at end of document]. Accordingly, in requiring the consent of the owner as a pre-condition to designation, the Town placed an unreasonable obstacle on its own discretionary powers thereby fettering its discretion and aborting the process intended by the Act. [26] The Town imposed a condition contrary to the intent of the legislation. By imposing a condition on the application that was not provided for at law, the Town aborted the decision-making process. The owner's consent is not a pre- condition. Indeed, one can think of a variety of situations where the owner would not want the heritage designation. [27] The Town argues that Council's resolution was reasonable in light of the entire context of the Act: namely, that the owner can ultimately demolish the building notwithstanding the previous designation. However, reading the Act as a whole discloses an assumption that the owner may not consent. Moreover, the very purpose of the Act must be to balance the interests of the public, community and the owner. This balancing would not be necessary if the owner's consent were a precondition. 1 Attachment "3" to Reporting Letter Introduction: You may recall from my opening statement, that I expected that the case of the Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield would only tell part of the story, that being that it would only focus on heritage conservation policies to the exclusion of other important provincial and municipal policies. I would suggest that my opening statement has been shown to be correct with respect to the case of the Friends; and although Ms. Wing has raised some additional planning issues with the proposed apartment use, in my submission these are not supported by any professional planners, including City staff through the staff reports, Mr. Lowes, and Ms. Wiens. There has not, in my submission, been any serious evidence presented that Residential apartments as a use are not appropriate on this site, aside from cultural heritage concerns. The Friends and Ms. Wing would like to frame the central issue of the hearing around a question of whether more can be done to "restore" (which as you will hear later is not "conserve") a heritage landscape. In my submission, the proper fundamental question is whether the proposal appropriately balances the Provincial, Regional and Municipal policy imperatives, which includes conserving significant heritage resources, but also the promotion and facilitation of intensification and redevelopment, providing for a range of housing types, optimizing public infrastructure, and supporting long term economic prosperity. In making this determination, there are 3 questions that in my submission should assist the Board: 1. What is the proper application and interrelationship of the various Provincial policies; 2. Should the acquisition, rezoning and disposition be viewed as one whole transaction or 3 discrete acts; and 3. Is the proposal better than what was and still is permitted as of right? 1. Interpretation of the PPS: There has been a lot of discussion throughout this hearing about Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS, which is the policy that that states that "significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved" I have included several cases in my Book of Authorities that involved cultural heritage issues, and I would like to take the Board to some discussion in these cases with respect to cultural heritage and the PPS, focusing on two points The first point is that the PPS, even when dealing with cultural heritage, is to read as a whole, with the policies appropriately considered and balanced: 2 The first case I would like to go to is at Tab 2 of the Book of Authorites; Rams Head Development Inc. v. Toronto; this was a case in which the OMB was considering a zoning by-law amendment (as well as a site plan and a Heritage Act demolition permit) that would permit a site within the old Town of York in Toronto for an 18 storey mixed use building on a site that contained a structure in the city's inventory of heritage properties, which the City designated following submission of the application. The site was also within a "Regeneration Area", a term from Toronto's Official Plan I would like to look only at the Board's discussion of consistency with the PPS which is found at page 40 of the Book, starting at paragraph 106 to 109: "106 The Provincial Policy Statement [PPS] is clear that it is intended to be read in its entirety and relevant policies are to be applied in each situation. There are several sections of the PPS that are relevant to consideration of the matters before the Board. 107 In terms of development, the PPS focuses growth within settlement areas, with cost effective development standards that minimize land consumption and servicing costs, The PPS stresses the need to utilize infrastructure efficiently by designating areas for intensification and growth within built-up areas and ensuring an appropriate mix of land uses. While encouraging intensification, the PPS also calls for an appropriate range and mix of housing to recognize a variety of housing needs. The proposal before the Board is clearly in a built-up settlement area. Designated as a Regeneration Area, discussed in greater detail below, it has been identified by the City in the City's Official Plan as an area for intensification, investment and growth. With this designation, the City effectively invites proposals for intensification and redevelopment. 103 In terms of cultural heritage, the PPS calls for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources, meaning the ...identification, protection, use and'or management of cultural heritage...resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained..." 109 When the PPS directs that it be read as a whole and that all relevant policies be considered and applied, it does not assume that there is no need for balance or for a careful examination of the ways in which, and the extent to which, the core goals of the relevant policies may be implemented in the context of a particular proposal before the Board. To the contrary, the appropriate application of the PPS requires, for example, that a proposal for intensification on lands that include a heritage property must look at the interaction between the relevant policies rather than see them as opposing fortresses in a zero sum game where if one wins the other must lose." I would refer you also to Tab 3, which is the Board's decision in the PROUD Port Dalhousie case. In this case, the proponent sought OP, Zoning, Site Plan and heritage permits to construct a 17 storey condominium, a hotel, a theatre and commercial uses in an area of St. Catherines that were within the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District, designated under Part V of the Heritage Act. 3 I have also included in the Book of Authorities the Board's decision on a Section 43 Review Request for the Port Dalhousie decision, although I will not be referring to it. The Section 43 decision noted two errors in the Board's original decision related to interpretation of a section of the Heritage Act and the transition regulation of the Growth Plan, but upheld the decision. The errors noted do not affect the references to the PPS that I intend to take the Board to. I would like to take the Board to Paragraph 76, on Page 63 of the Book of Authorities, where the Board begins its discussion of the PPS: "76: ...Having reviewed the evidence of the planners, the Board finds that certain provisions of the PPS are relevant to the Board's consideration of the planning appeals and the heritage permit appeal before it. In making this finding, the Board adopts the words of the Board in Birchgrove Estates Inc. v. Oakville (Town) [2007 CarswellOnt 760 (O.M.B.)], O.M.B.D. No 0338: "while no one section of the PPS overrides others, the Board's decision must be consistent with the (PPS). Just as the Board cannot dismiss or disregard the direction to conserve significant heritage resources, the Board cannot dismiss or disregard the considerable emphasis and priority the Province has placed on intensification in built-up areas. The challenge before the Board is to determine if the provincial goal of intensification can be achieved while meeting the provincial goal of heritage conservation". 77 The Board notes the direction of the PPS on how it is to be read: "the (PPS) is more than a set of individual policies. It is intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policies are to be applied to each situation. A decision-maker should read all of the relevant policies as if they are specifically cross-referenced with each other. While specific policies sometimes refer to other policies for ease of use, these cross-references do not take away from the need to read the (PPS) as a whole". in the Port Dalhousie case, the area was actually designated under Part V of the Heritage Act, and the Board still emphasized that the policies prioritizing intensification needed to be considered. The Board noted that the planners giving evidence opposing the development only referenced the Cultural Heritage policies of the PPS, while the planners supporting the proposal provided a broader consideration of the PPS policies. The Board found that the other policies of the PPS dealing, for example with intensification, were relevant even though in that case the lands were not within an area specifically designated for intensification in the Official Plan. The development in that case was permitted by the Board, within the Heritage District. tJi_35 .. 4 The second aspect of the PPS that I would like to review through the caselaw, is the definitions contained in Policy 2.6.1 and their impact on how the policy is to be applied. These are definitions of "Cultural heritage landscape", "Significant" and "Conserved" Staying with the Port Dalhousie decision, I would like to turn to Paragraph 91 on Page 64 of the Book of Authorities. The Board here has just reviewed the definitions, and then goes on to say: "91All parties acknowledge that the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District, as a district designated under the Ontario Heritage Act constitutes a cultural heritage landscape for the purposes of the PPS. Further, all parties agree that the Heritage District contains significant built heritage resources. 92 It is the position of PDVC, however, that the direction in policy 2.6.1 to conserve "significant built heritage resources" and "significant cultural landscapes" does not require the preservation of everything in the Heritage District. Counsel for PDVC argues "not everything must be retained; only heritage values, attributes and integrity need to be retained, and the heritage attributes of a district do not encompass all matters within the District, but only the principle matters that contribute to the cultural heritage significance of the District". He cited Birchgrove in which the Board considered how "significance" is to be determined. The Board had regard to the Ontario Heritage Toolkit issued by the Ministry of Culture. One volume is entitled "Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process". A five-step process is set out to assess applications involving heritage resources: "the first step calls for historical research, site analysis and evaluation...The second step calls for an identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource. In other words, this step calls for refined identification and selection of attributes that are significant in heritage terms. The entire history of a resource and the listing of all its characteristics is part of step one; step two demands a winnowing down to identify those elements that are significant and stand out". 93 The Board notes that in Birchgrove the Board was dealing with individual structures, designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, not a Part V designated heritage district. However, the Board finds that the logic in that decision is applicable to the consideration of proposed alterations in a heritage district. As with a heritage structure, not every element of a heritage district is of equal significance. The significant attributes of the heritage district should be identified in the district plan or in the case at hand, the District Guidelines. The PPS in defining "significant" necessarily calls for judgment to be used in determining significance. In calling for the conservation of "significant built heritage resources" and "significant cultural heritage landscapes", the PPS implicitly acknowledges that there may be built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes which are not significant and which do not warrant conservation. Such an 5 interpretation allows for the balancing of a variety of provincial interests as mandated by the PPS." Skipping ahead to Paragraph 96: "96 It is the position of the City that as the PDVC proposal "is not adjacent but clearly within (the District) all components of the Heritage District must be conserved". 97 The Board finds that this position is not supported by the words of the PPS. Policy 2.6 clearly provides that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes are to be retained. "Significant" has a meaningful definition for the purposes of the PPS. The word "significant" is used as a modifier of the phrase "cultural heritage landscape". This must mean that not all elements of a cultural heritage landscape included in a designated heritage conservation district are by definition significant. 98 The Board therefore finds that before it can determine whether the PDVC proposal is consistent with the PPS, in its entirety, the Board must understand what the heritage attributes of the district are, for the purposes of determining significance. Then the Board must determine whether the PDVC proposal "conserves" appropriately for the purposes of policy 2.6.1." This discussion is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Bray, and is clear that not everything within a cultural heritage landscape must remain untouched. There are three levels to be considered within Policy 2.6.1: • First, is the landscape a "cultural heritage landscape"? And you have heard Dr. Bray's testimony that the school yard is, and the area of the school building is not. • Second, is the cultural heritage landscape significant? Dr. Bray's testimony here was that the portion of the schoolyard to remain Open Space is significant, and that the portion of the schoolyard proposed to be sold to Mr. Morse may also be significant but he would want to see the results of the Stage 3 Archaeological Report before making a determination. • And thirdly, is the significant cultural heritage landscape being "conserved?" On this point, Dr. Bray's answer was yes. I note that Dr. Bray is the only cultural heritage planner to give evidence to the Board in this hearing. Mr. Graves and Dr. Grodzinski provided historical evidence, but are not experts in the area of cultural heritage planning or the Provincial policies dealing with this area. Both of them suggested that no portion of the four block National Historic Site is more important that other areas; in my submission this is simply not consistent with Provincial policy, nor is it consistent in LO3U 3�.. 6 my submission with the Federal government's own mapping of the National Historic Site, which separately delineates the area endorsed for a national historic park, and more specific areas for the general area of the battle outlined in blue, and the area of heaviest fighting indicated by the heavy dark hatching. It was Dr. Bray's evidence that the area in blue is likely intended as a Level 1 resource while the remainder of the area is likely intended as a Level 2 resource. The fact that the 4 block area is a National Historical site and NHS's are examples of what could be a cultural heritage landscape doesn't change this. On the question of what is means to "conserve", I would like to quickly refer to a couple of other Board decisions that considered the question. The first is at Tab 5 of the Book of Authorities, Hanson v. Boehmer, in which the Board was considering a consent application and minor variances to build a new house in a designated Heritage Conservation District in the City of Markham, which had been opposed by the Municipal Heritage Committee and City staff, but approved by the Committee of Adjustment. The Board discusses Policy 2.6.1 on page 118 of the Book. It is noted in Paragraph 75 that the Heritage Conservation District is a "cultural heritage landscape" under the PPS, and paragraph 76 cites the PPS policy that siginificant cultural heritage landscapes are to be conserved. The Board then states at paragraph 77: 77. That phrasing has given rise to two sources of confusion in Ontario. The first pertained to the verb "conserve", which led some observers to suppose that it precluded construction activity or even that Provincial policy to "conserve heritage" involved the same hands-off, frozen-in-time approach as "conserving nature", or even "conserving food". Lawyers in another Board appeal equated it with the phrases "Saran-wrapped". and "pickled in formaldehyde". Continuing at paragraph 79: 79 Those are both misperceptions. On the first point, the OHA reference to "conservation" does not mean the same as either "protection" or "preservation". The OHA refers more than once to the phrase "conservation, protection and preservation": the statute does not define those terms, but if those three words were synonymous, there would be no need for all three to be listed in the OHA. Different words are presumed to have different meanings. 80 Indeed, both the HCD plan and the Unionville experience underscore how distant the PPS's "conservation" agenda is from"Saran-wrap", and "pickling in formaldehyde". The Board also notes at paragraph 83: 83 In most respects, heritage planning is little different from conventional planning. except in its level of specificity. As mentioned, it too anticipates development, though of a specific type. The key distinctive element about heritage planning in Ontario is its L03113!S.L'r 7 starting-point, namely the identification of a property or district's "heritage attributes": that identification guides the ensuing heritage planning process. Another similar discussion is found at the next case at Tab 6, which was a zoning by-law appeal dealing with a high rise building proposed within and just outside of a designated Heritage Conservation District in Ottawa. Similar to the last case, the Board notes at Paragraphs 50 to 53 that the neither the intensification nor the heritage policies of the PPS "trump" the other, and that "conserving heritage" does not imply a hands-off, frozen in time approach, like "conserving nature" or "conserving food"; and that conservation is not synonymous with protection or preservation. The Board also notes at Paragraph 54 that "intensification" does not just mean replacing existing buildings with larger ones, but also includes "work to re-use existing buildings, via conversions". As the City's witnesses have been stating throughout the hearing, the Board needs to consider the entire package in this case. Although only a portion is before the Board, the City has provided for: Open Space for a commemorative park, adaptive reuse of an existing building for affordable housing, and a boost for a long standing business in a Community Improvement area, while not negatively impacting in a material way the existing area — no new buildings are being proposed here; it was suggested by Ms. Wing in her evidence that it is highly unusual for a municipality to be selling lands in a cultural heritage landscape to private owners — but looking at the full context, the City has purchased a portion; the sales were always contemplated as a way to finance the purchase, while having the sold portions go to a non- profit housing operator and an abutting business for parking, rather than have the entire parcel potentially sold to residential development interests. Just as the entire process should be considered by the Board in order to understand the City's proposal, the entirety of the site should be considered in determining whether the City has properly conserved heritage resources. As noted, conserving does not mean no development; it would not be appropriate for the Board to take a narrow view and look at the smallest parcel involved (the parking lot) and say that this area is not being conserved; more properly, the Board should consider the overall plan and determine whether the landscape is being conserved by protecting the majority of the remaining open space and allowing only a small area of paving, adjacent to already paved portions. When you consider the proposed parking lot area in the context of the size of the National Historic Site 4 block boundary, the size of the parking lot is only a small fraction, and certainly not the only portion on which a parking lot has been permitted (Lowes pointed to several lots that are within what Bray called the Part 1 resource area). To conclude on the first question of what is the proper application and interrelationship of the various Provincial policies, the Board should read the PPS as a whole, including those dealing with intensification, efficient use of infrastructure, provision of affordable housing, economic development including supporting the viability of mainstreets, and conserving cultural heritage L03::3:3_, 8 resources, balancing these considerations where necessary; in applying the cultural heritage policies in the PPS, the Board should keep in mind the three levels of consideration: Are we dealing with a cultural heritage landscape? If so, is the cultural heritage landscape significant? And if so, is it being "conserved" as anticipated by the PPS? 2. One Transaction or Three? The Friends would have you look at the transactions as discrete and unrelated transactions. When they do that, they say the following: • playground, parking lot and school buildings are public lands • can't convey the public lands away if they have any heritage value — this is not protection, preservation or conservation; they should stay in public hands • because you now own the school, you must demolish it, regardless of the cost. However, the City's view of things is that these transactions were all planned and executed as part of a deliberate master plan, the net cost of which was to save almost half of the school site and add it to the existing lands that commemorate the battle. When viewed this way, you see the following: • The lands were about to fall into private hands and redeveloped for residential in their entirety • The City could not otherwise afford the site • The school building and the parking lots are in public hands only temporarily, and exclusively for the purposes of conveying them away • The municipality has no interest in demolishing the school and won't pay for it • The act of conveying the lands has no bearing whatsoever on whether the lands' heritage value is being "conserved" 3. Is the Proposal Better Than "As of Right": I would remind that Board that in my submission there is no jurisdiction for the Board to order demolition of the existing school building. As the demolition would be costly, I would point out that a refusal of the by-law allowing a re-use would more likely result in the building remaining unused on the site for the foreseeable future than it would in the demolition of the building for 9 open space. A refusal would leave the existing R2 zoning, and the same building on site without a determined use. A decision to refuse the by-laws would do nothing to improve the view; meanwhile, a decision to approve would do nothing to harm the view (and may even help through mitigative measures at site plan). It simply does not improve it as much as the Friends and Ms. Wing would like The suggestion that the only thing holding back federal funding is the lack of a long term lease with the Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield cannot be relied upon —the federal government has already demonstrated a disinterest in investing in the site when they had the chance; suggestions from Ms. Wing based on her conversations with the person responsible for funding applications are hearsay evidence and not reliable in any event — there is no way to have any certainty of funding when the applications have not even been reviewed yet and those persons said nothing about whether the applications would be approved. Finally, I would note again that taking the entire City proposal into account, had the City not stepped forward to purchase these lands, which was done on the basis of being able to recover costs through the rezoning and sale of a portion of the lands, the entire site would have gone to sale on the open market as lands zoned in their entirety for residential development, which could potentially have had the effect of losing the entirety of the site to development. There is no heritage designation in place to prevent that. To conclude on the third question of whether the proposal is better that what is permitted as of right: the overall Council decision to purchase the lands and rezone is clearly preferable from a cultural heritage standpoint, as it retains a significant portion of open space lands abutting the already City-owned battlefield site while also providing an adaptive reuse for affordable seniors housing and assistance to a viable mainstreet business. These uses are also preferable to the options should the remaining portions not be rezoned, as they would remain R2. Regard for Council Decision: I would like to comment on the Planning Act requirement that the Board have regard for the decision of municipal council and any supporting information and material that Council considered. I have included in the Book of Authorities at Tab 7 the Divisional Court decision in Minto Communities Inc. v. Ottawa that considered what the requirement entails. Paragraph 33 at page 161 contains the key summary of how the Board is to have regard for the decision of Council. I don't think we need to turn to it, but it is available in the book: it says that the Board has an obligation to "at least scrutinize and carefully consider the Council decision, as well as the information and material that was before Council." 10 In this case, the "decision" of Council was to approve the Zoning By-law Amendments; but the material before Council in making that decision would include all the staff reports that Mr. Lowes reviewed, including the report dealing with the consideration for whether to purchase the site, which included from the start the concept that a portion of the lands be rezoned and sold, and the CAD's report that provided Council with a series of alternative Options and their financial impact on the City. Section 2.1 of the Planning Act requires that the Board consider all of this information and have regard for it in making a decision on the appeals. The decision of Council in my submission, was to some extent a compromise to allow for protection of the area that has been rezoned as Open Space. I note that the Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield and Ms. Wing were also willing to compromise, as demonstrated by their previous position at Council that the rezoning to allow a commercial parking lot was acceptable based on the remainder of the site being rezoned. It is simply a different compromise than that decided upon by Council. The compromise reached by Council also has additional benefits that achieve other mandated provincial policies as we have heard, while conserving cultural resources. The decision of Council also takes into account elements of fiscal responsibility. It has been suggested in this hearing that the City should be showing leadership in this matter by rezoning the entire site as Open Space. In my submission, the City certainly has demonstrated leadership. It has been noted that this area has been designated by the Federal government as a National Historic Site, but there have been no federal resources provided in this matter or action taken. This is despite the site having been considered by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board as recently as 2007 and the suggestions by some through the hearing that the Federal government has been interested in finding ways of commemorating the War of 1812 due to the current bicentennial. The irony is not lost on me that an employee of the Federal government was here in Dr. Grodzinski, advocating for preservation, but the Federal government has taken no steps to purchase the lands for preservation, despite the Minister's letter demonstrating the Federal government's understanding that the existing Federal designation does not offer protection of the lands. Similarly, there has been no Provincial action. There is no evidence that any other body entitled to make a bid on the property prior to an open public sale made any attempt to do so. The only leadership shown on this from any level of government is from the City. The City does not have the deep pockets of the other levels of government. As demonstrated through the staff reports, the City needed a financially responsible plan in order to show leadership on this matter, and they established one. The City's plan not only found a financially responsible solution, but one which also provides for new affordable housing without any new buildings and only minor encroachments onto the existing open space. It also provides support for an extremely longstanding business in an area which the CIP is trying to revitalize. Most importantly the plan provides for the protection of majority of the remaining open space lands. 11 Miscellaneous: Before I conclude, I would like to quickly address two points that have come up —first, whether the zoning by-laws are required to comply with the Community Improvement Plan; and second, the validity of the existing easement through the Mints site to Main Street. I will not spend much time on the question of conformity with the CIP, because in my submission the zoning by-laws comply with the OP in any event. However, I note that a CIP is adopted pursuant to Section 28 of the Planning Act (included in the Book of Authorities at Tab 1, Page 4 for reference). A CIP is is not a Official Plan Amendment, and therefore does not have the same status. Subsection 28(5) provides that certain subsections of Section 17 apply with necessary modifications to a community improvement plan; these deal with consultation and public meetings, notice, and appeals to the OMB. Notably, Section 24, which requires that all by-laws conform to an Official Plan, is not incorporated by reference and does not apply to a CIP. It has been suggested by Mr. Richardson that the easement over the Mints property to Main Street may have been extinguished based on not having been subject of any registration for a period of 40 years—this is a red herring. The Registry Act provides through section 113 that an easement extinguishes after 40 years unless a Notice of Claim is registered to restart the clock. This is because determination of title to property in the Registry system required a search of the previous 40 years so if more than 40 years had passed, a title search would not reveal the existence of the easement. The Court of Appeal has noted that a specific Notice of Claim is not required if another instrument recognizing the easement is registered. I note however that both the subject lands and the Mints property are now in the Land Titles System, which does not include the 40 year rule. In theory, one should be able to rely on the information contained on the parcel register. The property description of the subject lands on both the parcel register at Ex 1B, Tab 61, page 1609, and the transfer for the City (Exhibit 19) includes reference to the document containing the benefit of the easement (NF18196); the parcel register for the Mints property, at Exhibit 1B, Tab 61, Page 1616 has a property description that includes "Subject to RO426889"; that instrument is also in the document book at page 1618 of the same tab, and includes the easement. On the face of the Land Titles documents, the easement appears to be valid. I would request that the Board refrain from comment and not make any ruling dealing with respect to the legality of the easement, as the owner of the servient lands is not present to comment. If there were a dispute about the legality of the easement from the owner of the Mints property, this 12 would be dealt with through the courts between the owners of the tenements. Certainly there would be further arguments to be made beyond what I have touched on. In any event, even if the validity of the easement were successfully challenged, the City would have expropriation options. Further, if this easement is not valid, then there is no current access to the subject lands from Main Street; it would not be the sale to Morse preventing access to Main Street. Wing said intensification boundary follows CIP boundary; no evidence of that on the record, complete fabrication Trembley decision referred to by Wing: stands for principle that designations are not mandatory requiring the consent of the owner, so in requiring that, the City had fettered its discretion; ironically it is the Friends who are asking you to feter the discretion of Council by somehow forcing them to designate and order demolition Request for Relief: The City requests that the Board approve the Zoning By-laws as enacted, with the exception of the addition of a holding symbol to By-law 2013-26 to require a Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment and the addition of restrictions to "shrink wrap" the size of the existing school so that the footprint and height of the existing building may not be expanded. The by-law should still allow for the contemplated parking areas at the apartment site, and the "shrink wrap" would need to be drafted so as to only apply to the external limits of the building. Mr. Lowes has indicated that he has a great deal of experience with preparing "shrink wrap" by-laws of this type. Finally, the City is agreeable to also revising by-law 2013-26 to limit the permitted uses to a parking lot. Should the Board determine that the zoning by-laws should be approved as described, I would ask that the Board issue a decision but withhold its Order until a final form of the by-laws can be provided. Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de ('Ontario f Ima► Ontario ISSUE DATE: June 26, 2014 CASE NO(S).: PL130323 Appellant: Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Appellant: Janice Wing Subject: By-law No. 2013-24 Legislative Authority: Subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Municipality: City of Niagara Falls OMB Case No.: PL130323 OMB File No.: PL130323 Appellant: Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Appellant: Janice Wing Subject: By-law No. 2013-26 Legislative Authority: Subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Municipality: City of Niagara Falls OMB Case No.: PL130323 OMB File No.: PL130324 APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel The City of Niagara Falls ("City") Q. Annibale Friends of the Lundy's Lane T. Richardson Battlefield ("Friends") Morse & Son Funeral Home M. DiGirolamo ("Morse") Janice Wing Participants L. Campbell 2 PL130323 L. Inkster J. Garrett D. Costello G. Burke J. Ainslie HEARING EVENT INFORMATION: Hearing: Held in Niagara Falls, Ontario from May 5 to May 9, 2014 and May 12, 2014 DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR INTRODUCTION [1] The Friends of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield ("Friends") and Janice Wing appealed two City of Niagara Falls initiated zoning by-laws to the Ontario Municipal Board (the "Board"): the first being By-law No. 2013-24 to rezone a portion of a former elementary school known municipally as 6015 Barker Street (the "Subject Lands") to permit the conversion of an existing building to a 30 unit apartment building, and the second being By-law No. 2013-26, to rezone a portion of the Subject Lands to permit the expansion of an adjoining parking lot. The Board heard the appeals over the course of six days in Niagara Falls. [2] The Subject Lands have frontage onto Barker Street of about 69 metres ("m"), a depth of about 180 m, and an area of about 1.6 hectares ("ha"). The Subject Lands are improved by a former elementary school building of about 2,800 square metres ("sq. m.") in size, paved parking in the front yard, some surrounding paved play areas, and a large grassed playground. The Subject Lands are generally flat, rising toward the north and west to Lundy's Lane and the Drummond Hill Cemetery. [3] The Subject Lands are found generally in the midst of single detached dwellings on the north side of Barker Street, and on the south side, single detached and some low 3 PL130323 rise apartment buildings in the two and three storey range. To the east of the Subject Lands are some single detached dwellings including two that are owned by Ms. Wing, and further east is Main Street with commercial uses, and the property of Morse & Son Funeral Home ("Morse"), whose rear yard abuts onto the Subject Lands. To the north of the Subject Lands are commercial uses, and to the north-west is the Drummond Hill Cemetery and Presbyterian Church. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL [4] The whole development proposal initiated by the City involves three (not two) zoning by-laws. By-law No. 2013-24 would rezone the former school building and some of the surrounding lands to "R5A" to permit the conversion to a 30 unit apartment building with a land area of about 6,800 sq. m. (shown as Part 2 on Attachment 1 hereto). [5] By-law No. 2013-25 would rezone a walkway from Barker Street, and most of the former grassed playground area as "OS" (Open Space) for park purposes only, with a land area of about 7,600 sq. m. (shown as Parts 1 and 4 on Attachment 1). [6] By-law No. 2013-26 would rezone a smaller portion of the former grassed playground area at the eastern portion of the Subject Lands as "GC" (General Commercial) with a land area of about 2,000 sq. m. (shown as Part 3 on Attachment 1). [7] As noted above, Zoning By-law No. 2013-25 was not appealed, and it is in full force and effect. [8] As the Subject Lands are unique in their context, the Board has attached a copy of Figure 3 dated November 2, 1965 from the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada ("HSMBC") as Attachment 2. Attachment 2 depicts the Subject Lands in their 1965 context. BACKGROUND [9] There is a considerable background to this matter, and the Board will selectively 4 PL130323 provide a brief overview as a precursor to the issues raised in the hearing and discussed below. [10] To establish the contextual and geographic setting for this matter, the Board notes the following two paragraphs from Report Number: 2007-CED-SDC-37 of the HSMBC: Today, the area where the Battle of Lundy's Lane took place is covered by about four square blocks of residential development in the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario, straddling the street named Lundy's Lane and bounded by Summer Street on the north, Drummond Road on the west, Barker Street on the south, and Main Street on the east. Drummond Hill Cemetery is located within this area. Graves of several fallen soldiers from the battle can be found in the cemetery as well as an 1895 monument to the battle and the HSMBC plaque erected in 1968... In the summer of 1814, American forces crossed the Niagara River at Fort Erie to invade Upper Canada. Advancing northward along the Niagara River, they had initial success, defeating a British force at the Battle of Chippawa. The British under Sir Gordon Drummond regrouped and on the evening of 25 July, on Lundy's Lane almost within sight of Niagara Falls, the British regulars and Canadian fencibles and militia encountered the American forces. Throughout the evening the two armies attacked each other and the battle surged back and forth, especially around the field guns in what is now the Drummond Hill Cemetery. Both sides suffered heavy casualties but by midnight the Americans retired leaving the exhausted British and Canadians holding the field. The Battle of Lundy's Lane was the bloodiest and bitterest contest of the War of 1812 and it broke the American thrust in 1814 to take Upper Canada. [11] The same report notes that in the 1960s, there was a flurry of federal government development activity in concerning Lundy's Lane. In 1964, the local Member of Parliament began a campaign to develop a national historic park on the site of the battle by buying up the property around Lundy's Lane. That year the HSMBC recommended that the responsible federal government Minister be advised to take steps to acquire, over a long period, the four block area shown on Figure 3 above and develop it as a national historic park. [12] The report notes that as this was a considerably built up area, and despite detailed negotiations with local authorities and the Niagara Parks Commission, the development never materialized, and the attention of the federal government turned to Queenston Heights and Niagara-on-the-Lake. 5 PL130323 [13] In 1968, the HSMBC reconciled itself to the situation noting that ..."In view of the historical importance and availability of the battlefield of Queenston Heights, and the great difficulty of achieving a meaningful historical interpretation at Lundy's Lane, the Board recommends that Queenston Heights be substituted for Lundy's Lane as the main battlefield to be interpreted in the program for the commemoration of the War of 1812 in the Niagara Peninsula..." [14] In 2007, the HSMBC observed that although it had been surmised that the Battle of Lundy's Lane had been designated in 1919 as it appeared at that time to have been "marked", the Board moved to confirm the designated place of the Battle of Lundy's Lane as being the four block area shown on Attachment 2 above. [15] To complete the national picture, in the processing of this matter locally, communication was made to the Minister of the Environment with regard to the Subject Lands. The Minister responded on November 23, 2012 indicating that the Subject Lands were within the boundaries of the Lundy's Lane National Historic Site. The Minister added this comment: The designation of a national historic site by the Minister of the Environment does not constitute protection, as these matters are the responsibility of the provinces and territories under their respective heritage legislation. [16] It would appear that there has been a school on the Subject Lands since about the late 1870s, then known as the Barker Street Public School (and now identified as the Battlefield Public School). Attachment 2 shows the location of the former school structure. In or about 1968, the old school structure was demolished and replaced with the current school building which is further set back from Barker Street. In or about 1969, the school yard was enlarged (and at some point levelled). In 2011, the school was closed and declared surplus by the Board of Education. [17] City staff, by report dated February 14, 2012, recommended to City Council that the City acquire the school lands for $900,000 due to their historical significance. The staff report noted that attempts had been made to involve other levels of government to join the City in its attempt to acquire the school property but to no avail. Staff noted that 6 PL130323 it had fallen to the City to look at innovative ways to acquire and preserve the historic battlefield property. In that regard, a local community organization was willing to acquire the school building for $450,000 and retrofit it for affordable housing to be rented to seniors if rezoned; a donor had agreed to contribute $250,000 to Council for the purchase; that an abutting funeral home would purchase about two acres for parking if rezoned; and the balance of the lands (most of the grassed playground) would be retained by the City and zoned as Open Space. As the Board of Education would not accept a conditional offer, staff noted that there was an inherent risk associated with the recommendation to proceed. [18] The Friends had different plans for the Subject Lands. The Friends sought to raise funds to purchase the Subject Lands and demolish the school. The City deferred consideration of the matter to allow the Friends more time to seek funding, which ultimately did not occur. About nine months later, the matter came back to Council with a staff report laying out five options, all with financial considerations for the City. The options ranged from the initial three parts (which would result in 1.9 acres of parkland at a net cost to the City of $100,000 but with an estimated annual tax revenue of$25,000 to $30,000) to the final option being the purchase of the Subject Lands and demolition of the school and the creation of 4.1 acres of parkland at a net cost of$950,000. [19] Appearing before City Council on January 22, 2013, was the lawyer for the Friends. The City Council minutes provide that the Friends' lawyer ... "outlined the economic benefit of preservation of the entire parcel of property although they are not opposed to the accommodation of lands for Morse & Son Funeral Home, as this parcel is less historically significant." [20] Council decided to approve the staff recommendation and the City initiated the rezoning of the Subject Lands in three areas. The first area was the rezoning of the former school building to R5A to permit the conversion of the existing school building to a 30 unit apartment building having an area of about 6,800 sq. m. and being By-law No. 2013-24. The second area was the rezoning of most of the former grassed playground to Open Space and a walkway, for park purposes only having an area of about 7,600 7 PL130323 sq. m. and being By-law No. 2013-25, and the third area was the rezoning of an irregular shaped portion of the former school playground at the eastern extremity of the Subject Lands to General Commercial to permit the expansion of an adjoining parking lot having an area of about 2,000 sq. m. and being By-law No. 2013-26. [21] Ms. Wing and the Friends have not appealed By-law No. 2013-25 (the rezoning of the majority of the school playground to Open Space); they have only appealed 2013- 24 and 2013-26. Ideally, the Friends and Ms. Wing would seek to have both by-laws overturned, and the school building demolished. Ms. Wing, on her own, advanced further alternatives including matching the rear lot line of the adjacent former Holman property and removing a portion of the school, enabling the Friends to purchase the Subject Lands, extending the cemetery unto the Subject Lands, demolishing the school and using the lands as an active cemetery, and finally have a Minister's zoning order applied to the Subject Lands. [22] At the time of acquisition by the City, the Subject Lands were mainly designated "Residential" with "Minor Commercial" in part, and zoned R2. This as-of-right zoning permitted single detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings. All parties agree that no official plan amendment is required. DECISION [23] The Board will allow the appeals in part and direct the City to provide the Board with two revised zoning by-laws within three months of the issuance date of this decision. The first zoning by-law will "shrink wrap" the existing former school building so as to alleviate any concerns that the existing building may be increased in height or mass. This may be achieved either diagrammatically or by description. The second by- law will revise the permitted use for the lands to be conveyed to Morse, restricting that use to parking, and making a reservation for a pedestrian linkage to be finalized at site plan, all of which for By-law No. 2013-26 is contingent upon a Holding provision for a Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment to the satisfaction of the Minister of Tourism, Culture, and Sport. 8 PL130323 HEARING [24] During the course of the hearing, the Board heard evidence from two historians and a land use planner on behalf of the Friends, and from Ms. Wing herself. The Board also heard from six participants, (four of whom are members of the City's Municipal Heritage Committee) all in support of the appeals against the City zoning by-laws. In support of the zoning by-laws, the Board heard evidence from a heritage planner and land use planner on behalf of the City, and Ernie Morgan, principal of Morse. PARTIES [25] The Friends is a not for profit Ontario corporation with its head office at 5993 Barker Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario. Its President is William Colclough who resides at 5993 Barker Street and is the spouse of Janice Wing. Darlena Costello (a participant in this hearing) is the Secretary of the Friends and a Director. Janice Wing (a party to this hearing) and who resides at 5993 Barker Street is a Director and Officer of the Friends, and her daughter Guenivere Dawn Wheeler-Wing is the Treasurer, and she resides at 6018 Barker Street. [26] Janice Wing is a municipal councillor with the City and is the founder of the Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield and served as President from 1996 to 2001. Ms. Wing owns or has an ownership interest in three properties on Barker Street: 5993, 6007 and 6018. 6007 Barker Street abuts the Subject Lands to the east. 5993 Barker Street is an inverted "L" shaped property that abuts 6007 Barker Street to the east, and also abuts the Subject Lands at its northerly rear property line (paved play area), and due to the "L" configuration also abuts the Subject Lands on its westerly property line (another paved area). 5993 Barker Street is listed in the City's Heritage Register but is not designated nor is it within a Heritage Conservation District. [27] Morse is a funeral home located at 5929 Main Street. Its lands abut the Subject Property's grassed playground at its rear property line. Morse has been located at this municipal address since about 1826 and promotes itself as Canada's first funeral home. Morse was purchased by Ernie Morgan's family in 1971. 9 P L 130323 HERITAGE [28] Notwithstanding the HSMBC designation on the Lundy's Lane Battlefield, the only adjacent designation under the Ontario Heritage Act relates to a Copper Beech tree found within the Drummond Hill Cemetery. There are no other Part IV designated properties, nor is there a designated Conservation Heritage District. [29] In 1997, after the City had been gifted with a number of properties (largely north and west of the Subject Lands) within the National Historic Site as shown on Attachment 2, the City commissioned a Master Plan for the Lundy's Lane Battlefield largely focused on those City owned properties. The Study notes that as an urban area, almost all traces of the battlefield are gone. Only the cemetery and the Holman property (Moose Lodge property on Attachment 2) retained any sense of what the site would have looked like in 1814. The Study does indicate that the adjacent school yard to the east of the cemetery provides a visual extension of the cemetery, providing open space that permits views down to the downtown core and the Niagara Falls viewing towers. [30] In 2005, the City commissioned the Heritage Master Plan for the entire City. Among its recommendations were to focus on the War of 1812, use Lundy's Lane Battlefield as a pilot project: designate it as a Heritage Conservation District and implement the Battlefield Master Plan. The report also noted the following: On their own initiative, groups such as the Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield have been instrumental in securing key properties within the battlefield for public use. The Lundy's Lane Historical Society has not only organized events but has also produced publications and sponsored speakers. [31] In 2006, the City commissioned the Community Improvement Plan for Historic Drummondville. This report recommended a substantially larger project area than the then existing Main and Ferry Community Improvement Area. The Subject Lands were outside the Main and Ferry Community Improvement Area but within the recommended new Community Improvement Area. With regard to Main Street, residential infill and seniors and affordable housing along and in proximity to Main Street were 10 PL130323 recommended to facilitate a retail revival. With regard to the Lundy's Lane Battlefield, it was recommended that the Battle be celebrated in a manner that recognizes the national and local significance of the site and that the schoolyard was critical in building a cohesive precinct while maintaining pedestrian connections. Proposed official plan and zoning schedules (Figures 6.3 and 6.4) seem to illustrate an Open Space designation and zone that extended the rear residential property lines on the north side of Barker Street through the Subject Lands (and through a portion of the existing school building), although the Open Space Network clearly circumvents the existing school and proposed a linkage to Main Street (Figure 7.6). The Implementation Actions include the revision of the 1998 Battlefield Master Plan to acquire the school site should it become available, and to redesignate and rezone the Battlefield Public School to Open Space. CITY OFFICIAL PLAN [32] The Subject Lands are found within the Orchard Neighbourhood of the Drummondville Community, are located within the Drummondville Intensification Node, and the Official Plan identifies the Drummond Hill area of Lundy's Lane as a Special Policy Area. There is no specific boundary for this Special Policy Area, but the intent of the plan is to recognize that the area has historical significance and that the lands be protected and preserved. Section 3.14(a) of the Official Plan provides the objective that the Drummondville Node will become a focus for retail and commercial redevelopment and residential intensification, in 3.14(b) will promote development that builds on the heritage aspects of the Drummondville area and s. 3.14.1(e) development shall not impede views or vistas of the cultural heritage landscape. Section 3.2.21 also provides that City owned heritage properties shall be conserved and maintained, and where possible restored. [33] With regard to the intensification policies, the Official Plan in s. 3.10 identifies intensification nodes as areas where the Official Plan promotes and encourages residential intensification to regenerate and increase the vitality of existing commercial areas, and having potential for medium and high residential intensification. For Drummondville s. 3.1 requires respect for the existing built form of four storeys. 11 PL130323 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT ("PPS") [34] In deciding land use planning matters, the Board (and City Council before it) is required to make decisions that are consistent with the PPS. The PPS (2014) provides a vision for Ontario's land use planning system that includes policies for building strong healthy communities, long-term economic prosperity, and cultural heritage and archaeology. The interpretation section of the PPS provides that it is to be read in its entirety and, when more than one policy is relevant, to consider all the relevant policies. There is no implied priority in the order in which the policies appear nor does one policy trump another. [35] For the Subject Lands, which are found within a cultural heritage landscape, and also found within an intensification node, the Board finds that the development proposal by the City must be considered as a whole and not just the impugned by-laws. An archaeological resource study and a heritage impact study have been completed for the hearing, both supportive of the City decision (but contingent upon a Stage 3 archaeological assessment for the eastern portion of the Subject Lands i.e. Part 3). The City development proposal would result in the creation/conservation of some 7,600 sq. m. of additional open space lands that are contiguous to the Drummond Hill Cemetery and the former Holman property, with proposed linkages to both Barker Street and Main Street, and are proposed for heritage designation by the City. [36] As Attachment 2 depicts, Part 4 is adjacent to the area of the heaviest fighting. The development proposal would also implement the intensification policies of the PPS, in an intensification node with all municipal services, proximate to commercial uses, and with transit available. It would provide for affordable housing for seniors, be in the form of the adaptive re-use of the existing school building, and be in an area of the Subject Lands that the Board finds has been disturbed and used for a school for over 100 years. The provision for commercial parking on a portion of the lands identified to City Council by the Friends as being less historically significant is appropriate to the Board in light of the policy direction in 1.7(c) to support maintaining and where possible enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets, but contingent on the Stage 3 12 PL130323 archaeological assessment. [37] The Board finds that the development proposal as a whole is consistent with the PPS. GROWTH PLAN [38] Like the PPS, the Growth Plan has policies related to building compact vibrant and complete communities which optimize the use of existing infrastructure and direct municipalities through their official plans to implement conservation objectives of s. 4.2.4(e) cultural heritage conservation, including conservation of cultural heritage and archaeological resources where feasible, as built up areas are intensified. [39] As noted above, the Subject Lands do fall within a designated intensification area. The record shows that the City had sought financial assistance from other levels of government for the purchase of the Subject Lands. With no other governmental funding, the City assessed its position, reviewed a number of options, and acquired the Subject Lands. The City development proposal as a whole provides for the conservation of 7,600 sq. m. of open space lands adjacent to the area of heaviest fighting, while also providing affordable housing proposed for seniors through the adaptive re-use of the existing school building. The Board finds that the development proposal conforms to the Growth Plan as: cultural heritage conservation has been achieved; intensification in a designated intensification area has been achieved through the provision for affordable rental housing for seniors; and the development as a whole will contribute to a diverse and compatible mix of land uses including residential and employment to support a vibrant neighbourhood. REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN [40] The Board would first note that the circulation comments from the Region of Niagara had no objection from the Region but that an archaeological assessment should be done, and a holding zone applied. As noted above, the study has now been done, and the Stage 3 assessment is to be done for Part 3. 13 PL130323 [41] The strategic policy objectives of the Regional Official Plan include efficient use of land, a variety of housing, recognition of historical features, creation of tourism development opportunities, and the importance of affordable housing. [42] The City's development proposal would provide affordable housing in the adaptive re-use of the existing school building within a locally designated intensification area, while recognizing and conserving 7,600 sq. m. of open space land adjacent to the area of heaviest fighting. [43] The Board finds that the City's development proposal as a whole conforms to the Regional Official Plan. CITY OF NIAGARA OFFICIAL PLAN [44] Reference has already been made above to a number of local official plan policies and designations: i.e. existing land use designations, the Drummondville Intensification Node, Special Policy Area 10, etc. [45] In support of the notion that the existing school building should be demolished, the Friends have referenced s. 3.2.21 of the Official Plan which states the following: City-owned heritage properties and buildings shall be conserved, maintained and, where possible, restored in accordance with the policies of this Plan. In addition, the City and other public agencies may acquire heritage property on a selective basis, where preservation under private ownership is not possible, and where appropriate. (Emphasis added) [46] The Friends place emphasis on City owned heritage properties being restored. The submission being that once the City acquires a heritage property the City is obliged to "restore" that property, which in this case they suggest is the demolition of the school building so as to "restore" a portion of the Lundy's Lane battlefield. [47] The Board does not agree. The wording of the policy speaks firstly to conserve and maintain, and then "where possible" restore. In the circumstances at hand, the Board finds that the City has moved to acquire a heritage property in conformity with the second paragraph of s. 3.2.21, has set aside 7,600 sq. m. of the former playground for 14 PL130323 open space and linkages, and through the archaeological and heritage impact study conserved the most proximate and a large portion of the Subject Lands. The Board does not find any policy obligation imposed by the Official Plan on the City to "restore" by demolishing the existing school. [48] With regard to the Official Plan, the Board finds that the City's development proposal as a whole appropriately conserves a portion of the Subject Lands, appropriately intensifies a portion of the Subject lands through the adaptive re-use of the school building that has been on site and in the neighbourhood for over 40 years, and appropriately supports the existing commercial use on Main Street in the Drummondville commercial area. The eastern area will be zoned to permit parking only and will provide a pedestrian linkage to Main Street. ZONING BY-LAW [49] The Friends submit that By-law No. 2013-24 as presently worded would allow the expansion of the existing school structure, and thus further impair the views and viewshed of the battlefield. The City staff report indicates the clear intent to simply adapt the existing building for the affordable rental accommodation for seniors, and the City submits that there was and is no intent to enable expansion of the building in the zoning by-law. The City states that if approved in principle, it will provide to the Board a revised by-law that "shrink wraps" the existing building to overcome any concerns with regard to possible expansion. [50] The Friends similarly submit that By-law No. 2013-26 as presently worded would not restrict the use of the Part 3 lands to parking only, but rather would enable the use of the Part 3 lands for General Commercial purposes including the construction of a building which if constructed would further inhibit the views and impair the viewshed. [51] The City in response states that it is prepared to revise the by-law to limit the use to parking, and Morse states that it is agreeable to same, and also to the extension of the pedestrian linkage across Part 3. Morse entered a draft site plan (Exhibit 23) illustrating the conceptual parking arrangement and pedestrian linkage to Main Street. 15 PL130323 [52] One final zoning issue was raised by the parties, and it related to the conformity of the parking provisions found in By-law No. 2013-24 and that of the City's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 79-200. The Board notes the evidence of both land use planners was that the reduced parking provision for the affordable seniors' housing was appropriate in light of the use of the building and its proximity to transit. THE PLANNING ACT [53] Section 2.1 of the Planning Act requires the Board in the consideration of a planning matter to have regard to the decision by the municipal council and the information and materials that council considered in making its decision. [54] The Board has reviewed all the staff reports to City Council, the public submissions, the circulated agency comments, and the decisions of Council for the whole of the City's development proposal. For the reasons set out above, the Board has found that City Council decisions are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the Growth Plan, the Regional Official Plan and implement the City's Official Plan, and represent good planning. The evidence before the Board is that the City Council had sought, without success, financial assistance from other levels of government, and notwithstanding that chose to proceed and acquire the Subject Lands before the Subject Lands was put on the open market, knowing the as-of-right land use standards that were in place. The Board finds that the City Council's whole development proposal appropriately balanced the policy directives of the PPS and Growth Plan enabling the conservation of a large portion of the grassed playground for Open Space, the adaptive re-use of the school building for affordable housing for seniors and the support for a commercial use on Main Street within a community improvement area. ISSUES Issue 1: Should the property known municipally as 6015 Baker Street ("Subject Lands") be classified as a significant cultural heritage landscape as described under the Provincial Policy Statement? 16 PL130323 [55] The Board for the reasons noted above, finds that a portion of the Subject Lands (Parts 3 and 4) are significant cultural heritage landscape. Issue 2: If the Subject Lands are classified as a significant cultural heritage landscape, are the Subject Lands being properly "conserved" within the meaning of the Provincial Policy Statement by rezoning the Subject Lands to a site specific residential apartment 5A density (R5A) zone to permit a 30 unit apartment building under By-law No. 2013-24, and a site specific general commercial (GC(H)) zone to permit an expanded parking lot under By-law No. 2013-26? [56] The consideration of this issue requires reference to the definition of conserved which is set out below: Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. [57] As noted above an archaeological assessment and a heritage impact assessment have been prepared in support of the City's case. No other such reports were provided in evidence. [58] The Board finds that the City's development proposal as a whole appropriately conserves the Subject Lands, through the rezoning to Open Space of the majority of the former grassed playground, through the rezoning and adaptive re-use of the existing school building, and through the provision of pedestrian walkways and viewing opportunities, and contingent upon a Stage 3 archaeological assessment the provision of additional parking for an existing use. (The Board would note that in the approximately 50 years since Attachment 2 was prepared, it would appear that five or six other properties within the National Historic Site have been converted to a parking use.) 17 PL130323 Issue 3: Do the proposed zoning by-law amendments conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in terms of conservation of cultural heritage and archaeological resources? Is the property a valuable asset and irreplaceable cultural heritage site as described under the Growth Plan? [59] The City's development proposal as a whole conforms to the Growth Plan. The retention of the majority of the grassed playground as open space adjacent to the area of heaviest fighting conforms to the intent of this policy. The intensification of the former school building also conforms to the intent of the Growth Plan. [60] The actual quote from the Growth Plan is that the GGH ... "is blessed with a broad array of ...irreplaceable cultural heritage sites" which are to be wisely protected and managed. The Board finds that this directive has been met through the actions of the City. Issue 4: Do the proposed zoning by-law amendments conform to the Niagara Regional Policy Plan as conserving, enhancing, restoring a cultural heritage resource or providing for an adaptive re-use that is compatible with the cultural heritage resources? [61] For the reasons stated above, the Board has found that the City's whole development proposal conforms to the Regional Official Plan. There were no objections by the Region upon circulation. An archaeological assessment has been prepared as well as a heritage impact statement. Issue 5: Do the proposed zoning by-law amendments conform to the City of Niagara Falls' Official Plan in the following ways: a. Whether the proposed development conserves, maintains and restores City-owned Heritage properties and whether it provides for the recognition of the lands as a significant Heritage resource? b. By avoiding undue concentrations of any particular housing type, and achieving compatibility and sensitivity with the surrounding area? c. By enhancing the Lundy's Lane Battlefield site and retaining it as a historically important open space, and providing opportunities for cultural heritage preservation and historically- 18 PL130323 related tourism opportunities in the Lundy's Lane satellite tourist district? d. By protecting and preserving the lands in Special Policy Area "10"to commemorate the battle of Lundy's Lane? [62] The zoning by-laws as part of the City's whole development proposal conform to the City's Official Plan, such that a majority of the grassed playground is conserved as open space, and proposed for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The Board does not find there to be any obligation imposed on the City to "restore" the Subject Lands by demolishing the existing school building. The Board finds that the adaptive re- use of the school building is consistent with the PPS. [63] Issue 5(b) is redundant as it references a now deleted policy of the Official Plan. [64] The Lundy's Lane Satellite Tourist District referenced in Issue 5(c) is located north and west of the cemetery lands and the Subject Lands do not fall within that area. Nonetheless the provision of the open space area and the proposed future designation under the Ontario Heritage Act will contribute to the enhancement the Lundy's Lane Battlefield site and provide opportunities for tourism, but at a scale that is appropriate for the urban setting within which it is found. [65] Special Policy Area "10" provides that the lands in the area be protected and preserved to commemorate the Battle of Lundy's Lane. The Board finds that the conservation of the majority of the grassed playground meets this policy, and the Board notes that there is no provision that requires the demolition of existing structures. Issue 6: Considering development is proposed adjacent to lands, structures or buildings i.e. Drummond Hill Cemetery, 5993 Barker Street, 5997 Barker Street listed on an approved heritage resource inventory, is a Heritage Impact Analysis required prior to an approval, by the Regional Policy Plan and the City's Official Plan? [66] A heritage impact statement has been completed indicating no adverse impacts. The Region provided its comments and had no objections. Furthermore there is no requirement that such an analysis be prepared. The wording of the official plan policy is 19 PL130323 permissive, not mandatory. Issue 7: Are the proposed zoning by-law amendments required to comply with and if so, do they comply with the Historic Drummondville Community Improvement Plan, particularly with regard to: a. Section 6.1.3 Battlefield Precinct, Heritage Resources including "Battlefield view corridor"? b. Implementation Actions, particularly Targeted Improvements-Specific Projects? c. Land use plan? [67] The Board finds that there is no statutory requirement for a zoning by-law to conform to a community improvement plan. [68] The Board also finds that the City's whole development proposal does in fact implement the Community Improvement Plan by providing for a range and mix of housing types, affordable housing, and in proximity to Main Street (6.1.2), it will preserve the largest portion of the school yard in an open space format to assist in building a cohesive precinct and provision has been made for pedestrian connections to Main Street. The evidence of the City and Mr. Morgan is that the City will require an easement connection across Part 3 as part of its proposed conveyance to Morse, and this is acceptable to Mr. Morgan. Issue 8: Are the proposed zoning by-law amendments required to implement and if so, do they appropriately implement the City of Niagara Falls Heritage Master Plan and the Lundy's Lane Battlefield Master Plan, particularly: a. Regarding views and encroachment of views, and communicating the contribution of the topography and cultural landscape to the events and outcome of the Battle of Lundy's Lane b. The Master Plan's specific recommendations for the Subject Lands in its recommendation for a Battlefield heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act? 20 PL130323 [69] There is no statutory requirement for a zoning by-law to conform to either the 1998 Lundy's Lane Battlefield Master Plan or the 2005 Heritage Master Plan. Notwithstanding this, the Board has found that the City's development proposal as a whole meets the intent of both documents through the conservation of the 7,600 sq. m. of open space lands and walkway abutting the Drummond Hill Cemetery. [70] The Heritage Master Plan recommended that consideration be given to a conservation heritage district, which would be much broader than just the Subject Lands, and may still be an objective that the City may choose to pursue. Issue 9: Was the application required to be circulated to the City's Municipal Heritage Committee ("MHC") particularly under the Niagara Regional Policy Plan, the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan, and/or the Ontario Heritage Act, and should the Ontario Municipal Board give consideration to a motion passed during the MHC meeting on February 4, 2013 that recommended the Subject Lands be designated under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as a cultural heritage landscape due to its associative value with the Battle of Lundy's Lane during the war of 1812-1814? [71] There is no specific statutory obligation to circulate to MHC, which provides advice and recommendations to City Council. The recommendation of the MHC was part of the staff report to Council. The Board has had regard for the decision of Council and for the material and information before it including the recommendation of the MHC Issue 10: Should a cultural heritage study of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield area comprising of municipally-owned and related publicly-owned lands be required prior to the consideration of the proposed zoning by-law amendments? Issue 11: Should an archaeological assessment have been required to be undertaken and submitted as part of the application for the proposed zoning by-law amendments? [72] An archaeological assessment and a heritage impact statement have both been prepared for the City and form part of the record before the Board. The official plan language with regard to studies in support of an application provides a list of studies that may be required. The language is permissive and not mandatory. 21 PL130323 Issue 12: Do the proposed zoning by-law amendments conform with the intent of the cultural and heritage policies of the Region of Niagara Sustainable Community Policies of the Regional Official Plan? [73] It has been noted above that the Region had no objections to the City's development proposal as a whole with the comment that an archaeological assessment be obtained, that such an assessment has been obtained, and a further stage 3 archaeological assessment is required. The Board prefers the evidence in this regard by the City's heritage planner that the whole development proposal conforms to the Region's Official Plan. Issue 13: Was a Financial Impact Study required given: a. The concern of the Provincial Policy Statements with Building Strong Communities, and the Wise Use and Management of Resources; b. The concern of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe with Protecting What Is Valuable? c. The concern of the Niagara Region Policy Plan directives with conservation as it relates to creation of tourism development opportunities? d. The City of Niagara Falls Official Plan policies regarding tourist commercial development in the Lundy's Lane Satellite District, specifically its provisions for enhancement of the Lundy's Lane Battlefield site and its retention as a historically important open space, and generally its provisions for upgrading and renewal of internationally significant tourism destination physical plant to create a high quality public realm? [74] The Board has noted that the language of the Official Plan with regard to required studies is permissive and not mandatory. The Board has noted in the agreed statement of facts that the land use planner for the Friends takes no position on this issue. Issue 14: Should the purpose and intent of the O.P.A. 94 which had been adopted by the City of Niagara Falls prior to the passage of the proposed zoning by-law amendments be considered by the Board? If so, are the proposed zoning by-law amendments in conformity 22 PL130323 with O.P.A. 94, particularly with regard to the policies on Intensification Nodes, Heritage, Property Consolidation, Drummondville, and Urban design strategy? [75] The provisions of O.P.A. 94 were addressed by both land use planners in the evidence before the Board, and the Board has preferred the evidence of the City's land use planner. Issue 15: Is proposed Zoning By-law No. 2013-24 in conformity with the parking area requirements of City of Niagara Falls Zoning By-law No. 79-200? [76] A site specific parking provision has been made in By-law No. 2013-24 for the reduction of the required parking, which due to the intended use of the building for seniors' rental accommodation and its location in proximity to public transit and commercial uses, the Board has found appropriate. Issue 16: a. Have resources ever been made available, offered or committed by a level of government or private organization (including the Friends of Lundy's Lane Battlefield) for the purchase, dedication, or development for heritage purposes of the Subject Lands to commemorate the Battle of Lundy's Lane? b. If the answer to (a) is NO, are the cultural heritage and/or archaeological purposes of the City adequately served by the City acquiring the Subject Lands and financing the dedication or a portion of the subject by selling the remainder of the Subject Lands for affordable housing and parking lot purposes? [77] The Board does not as a rule venture into financial considerations in land use planning. As a reflection only of the evidence, there was no evidence presented of any resources committed by any other level of government for the Subject Lands. [78] However the Board has found on other land use planning grounds that the City's development proposal as a whole is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan, the Regional Official Plan and the City's Official Plan. Issue 17: Is there any obligation on the City to finance the acquisition, development, and dedication of the Subject Lands for historical or archaeological purposes? I ATTACHMENT 1 394 SCHEDULE 1 TO BY-LAW NO. 2013-24 I I 5 Ig j x z r U} a DQ 1 LSI i I Z LU u_ 6 T m ,� ati bia146 N LTg E 1 ''t _a 1 I .• . _i ', .l �� 11▪ N ;1 ti I ak 6 I ; E7t 11 a a 599 9Y —y-"� o x3 52'.Z s� _ Q �a o cn RI O 1R. 3CZ86 --.'.., 4 Y TN LSS 6S i `KZ'6 "r,moi Ng z! a r ° C/71 n m QQ ^� CZZ t6 ? Z Z t 5 L' ..s r9 -- 994 56 y QI:.: s� A 1 a 9 9 r. W z '� r al3 .Js ATTACHMENT 2 To Confirm the Designation and to Clarify the Designated Place of 398 Battle of Lundy's Lane National Historic Sites of Canada i PROPOSED HISTORIC PABKAREAS LUNDYLANE BATTLEFIELD Magary Fills ! Data; 2 Nov,196 I I SUMMER STREET -----------_ Ip 4 I _� t� I Li RIB LT �. aa. ; II�_ g a -p < tom:�-�� z Q„-i------ --i x l7s O 1 T �� ia �_ MEI r _ z t;tl D CI. a' .� -i--_- II I , • , s L L_ ,� __ . 1 }_,E5r- 7 ( . - ' r°b' ,, co ©�-- _ I O_ 4� Y 1041 6Lana e O-4 i � W • - X • rQ f U 1 -- - Lugs `�J ; r • `_ �� Lip. 4,..•S. ie ,.; -•in 1,1,1-/ , � iiir�� i '! L � if i' .i r il 1 , .'1 rr . f r ' ' r lir4 - s is1 —i.-1-- - - ' ', - - - Emmen! �rsbool ' �.._ �� 0 Moa Lodge •r fly i _ '� •' , � I i 1 ,ir-r, =4_ d I M ; ( 1 m I + al ! i � BARKER STREET Figure 3. Option 2 proposed for designated place, the area endorsed by the Board for a national !A ric is outlined in red The general area'of the battle is indicated byit i)light hatch dlhnes, (identified by blue polygon). Drummond Hill Cemetery, the area of heaviest fighting is indicated by the heavy dark hatching. (Central Registry, C8400/157, Battlefield of Lundys[sic] Lane Niagara Falls, Ont., Vol. 1, attached to Laing to Keighen, 30 Nov. 1966. Modified by David McConnell) MW-2014-30 NiagaraaallU s September 9, 2014 (\p 1 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW-2014-30 2014 Sidewalk and Concrete Repair Program Tender Award - Contract No. 2014-02 RECOMMENDATION 1. That the City of Niagara Falls award the contract for the Sidewalk and Concrete Repair program to Steed & Evans Limited at a tender price of$277,215.00, subject to a spending limit of the approved budget amount of$250,000.00; and, 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has a significant inventory of sidewalks throughout the municipality for which it is responsible to repair and maintain to ensure surfaces are safe for public use. The annual Sidewalk and Concrete Repair Program targets those sections of existing sidewalk that do not meet the Minimum Maintenance Standards and cannot be reasonably repaired or modified sufficiently to improve public safety.The program is completed each year with the goal of improving the sidewalk network within the City of Niagara Falls. The lowest tender was received from Steed & Evans Limited in the amount of $277,215. This contractor has previously performed similar type projects. We are of the opinion that this contractor is capable of successfully undertaking this work. BACKGROUND Sidewalk and Concrete Repair Program: Municipal Works staff inspect the City's sidewalks in order to identify hazards, which are then put on maintenance work lists to make them safe. These hazards include cracked, missing panels and panels that might have settled or heaved creating a trip and fall risk. Before these sections are permanently repaired, staff use temporary measures such as grinding, patching and ramping to make these areas safe. There comes a point where these temporary measures are no longer viable and the panels must be replaced. As sidewalk repair sections are completed, new ones are added. Where possible, permanent repairs are coordinated with other Capital Works required in a given area. September 9, 2014 -2 - MW-2014-30 Where the proposed area of spot-repair works on a given segment of sidewalk exceed 50%of the total area, it becomes more economically feasible to perform a full replacement. Sections fully replaced under the program are brought up to current standards with respect to safety and accessibility. The proposed work for 2014 is shown in the following list: Street From To Scope of Work 1. Winston Street Margaret Street Dorchester Road Full Replacement 2. Wendy Drive Heximer Av Wilson Cres Full Replacement The Tender Opening Committee, in the presence of the City Clerk, Dean lorfida and the Construction Services Supervisor, Eric Lallouet, opened tenders on Tuesday, August 19 2014 at 2:00 p.m. for the above noted contract. The contract tender documents were picked up by four (4) contractors and two (2) bids were received. Listed below is a summary of the totalled tender prices, excluding HST, received from the Contractors: FIRM TENDER PRICE CORRECTED BID 1. Steed & Evans $277,215.00 - 2. Sacco Construction $288,495.00 - ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The sidewalk and concrete repair program targets streets where existing sidewalks are considered to be unsafe for public use and a potential liability for the City. In addition to addressing existing hazards, the program also aims to bring existing sections of sidewalks up to current standards, including increasing the width from 1.2m to 1.5m (where possible) and the implementation of modern accessibility features including tactile warning surfaces at controlled street crossings and intersections. The sidewalk and concrete repair program yields positive results in the form of minimizing risk, enhancing public safety and improving accessibility within our community. The sidewalk and concrete repair program was previously tendered in the Month of July, however was cancelled due to the tendered prices being greater than the approved budget amount. The City received only two (2) bids for the July tender. The contract was tendered a second time with a reduced scope of work to accomodate a more constricted timeline (starting later in the year) and to allow prices to become more in- line with the budgeted amount. Once again, the City received only two (2) bids for the tender, both of which are over the approved budget amount. In order to complete the reconstruction of sidewalk segments this year and to fulfill our obligation to enhance public safety within our community, it is important to begin sidewalk September 9, 2014 -3 - MW-2014-30 repair work as soon as possible. Therefore, it is recommended that the contract be awarded to the lowest bidder, Steed & Evans Limited, with the approval to spend only up to the budgeted amount of $250,000. Staff will modify the scope of work in the contract in accordance with the approved spending limit. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The approved budget for sidewalk repairs/improvements in 2014 is $250,000. The lowest bid, received from Steed & Evans Limited is $277,215. Staff will modify the scope of work in the contract to ensure spending does not exceed the approved budget of $250,000. STAFF CONSIDERATIONS Municipal Works Staff are undertaking spot repairs using our own resources and given the increasing costs, lack of competitive pricing and slow response times we will investigate the feasibility of completing more of this work in-house starting in 2015. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The recommendation is consistent with Council's Strategic Priority to achieve the goal of infrastructure sustainability. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map Recommended by: Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: IL-14A'Q Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer EUGH NI'N-201-i-30 Attac^rre #1 '''''''''''''''--N.C----- I t 'irl.i,---23----- ." ck ------"----T- °I \ gl 1 -, 1 11 § 1 i 1 4 .S- 7S-71 i(; 1 S '° , t 1 i i 5 2 ,T*1 r---;\-t G f r I Q1 M.0.IL_!_i 1 ST.. NOMAS Ti± • UMST OOO :1114F-71 I.EAIVOCC Y ! i 1 gyp/+i \ rfl \ 11 CX171 F 0 `4 , ydARGA I S . F----7 IMI l k• l } 1 O X`--Ji exp 4',/ k c, El =CHURCHILL ST_ IL___________-- I 4 FINSTCN � � l ST. l., 4 "--�-yT ASKtNhI� St. r "' 7 7 \..,.._*1-ilINIAN Av � r___.---,r___.---,� i ill` q''� �i iMAflH1�A'arm Ste. Llli. 1 '11 (6' --j1 Lg F----- D;1 o l IiAM4CINS s q I 1 ; } I tI LEO D 1 ROAD j \1 �.. -11 A INC SJR- I +a►'oEW R' 1 l 1 � , L l / \\ ys CR. ' i I ,l !�8' I 4 5 i rpk k--.4E ! C CR: !, t � I 7°1-rz,974 kt 'off _--_ ( J t 1 `2r 3 Ste_ / E C Ct 7R15tC,a_4Tj 1 t ig @` 'I 1Q______Cl/X t I teL,.E, , — ,,,,,,—, ,--i-.—, —\\ rsi ii , ,z7.5 APPROVED , ; SCALE MUNICIPAL 4YORKS DATE Iiti1EC?OP OF N11kMiPK NCR!{5 201T FILE rc kmp DATE SIDEWALK AND CONCRETE REPAIR ___ T -- 1 //' MW-2014-39 NiagaraFal s September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW-2014-39 Strang Drive Road Reconstruction and Lamont Avenue Sanitary Sewer Replacement Tender Award - Contract#2014-287-12 RECOMMENDATION 1. That the contract be awarded to the lowest bidder Demar Construction at the tendered price of $583,748.02. 2. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lamont Avenue from Callan Street to Bond Street has been identified by Infrastructure staff as needing a new sanitary sewer. Strang Drive from Lamont Avenue to Sarah Street has been identified as needing a new sanitary sewer and watermain. The road will also be reconstructed on Strang Drive, due to the number of services crossing the road. BACKGROUND The Tender Opening Committee in the presence of the Deputy Clerk, Bill Matson and the Project Manager, Chris Anders, opened tenders on Tuesday,August 19, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. for the above noted contract. Tender documents were picked up by eight (8) contractors and six (6) bids were received. Listed below is a summary of the tender prices, excluding HST, received from the Contractors. Contractor City Tender Price Corrected Bid Demar Construction Niagara Falls $583,748.02 Vic Vatrt Contracting Ltd Welland $589,961.84 $589,971.84 Centennial Infrastructure Niagara-on-the-Lake $610,250.00 Alfidome Construction Niagara Falls $641,453.12 Nexterra Substructures Niagara Falls $659,827.50 O'Hara Trucking and Excavating St. Catharines $692,953.00 $715,443.00 September 9, 2014 -2 - MW-2014-39 ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The lowest tender was received from Demar Construction in the amount of $583,748.02. This contractor has performed similar type projects for the City. Staff is of the opinion that this contractor is capable of successfully undertaking this project within the prescribed 50 days. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The project was included in the approved Municipal Works Capital Budget for 2014 with a budgeted expenditure of $620,854.00 CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The recommendations are consistent with Council's Strategic Priority to achieve the goal of infrastructure sustainability. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Plan Recommended by: +� Geoff Holman, Director .f Municipal Works 2,741.4j- Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Chris Anders 4- /— Z C a) E V , c� co E L a lE ii' a) Cr) Cl) J N C I 1 r CD Q`JJ^ 2 Qom_ E C 'L6'6 co , O V N d C °kr Q 0 CI c co L i+ MW-2014-40 Niagaraaalls September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW-2014-40 Portage Road Watermain Replacement From 110m South of Valley Way to Valley Way Tender Award - Contract No. 2014-311-13 RECOMMENDATION 1. The contract be awarded to the lowest bidder, Demar Construction Limited, at the tendered price of $201,047.43. 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project will include the replacement of the existing 200mm cast iron watermain along Portage Road from approximately 110m south of Valley Way to Valley Way with new 200mm PVC watermain, as well as the replacement and upsizing of the existing 150mm cast iron watermain at the intersection of Valley Way and Portage Road with new 200mm PVC watermain. The new Niagara Regional Police Services Headquarters for District 2 is currently under construction in Niagara Falls. Site servicing was approved for the headquarters, including a connection to the existing 200mm cast iron watermain along Portage Road. The existing watermain along Portage Road was installed in 1924 and has been scheduled for replacement. The existing 200mm cast iron watermain, is to be replaced with new 200mm PVC watermain in preparation for the proposed connection to the new Niagara Regional Police Services Headquarters and the planned intersection improvements at Valley Way and Portage Road. September 9, 2014 - 2 - MW-2014-40 BACKGROUND This project is part of the City's Infrastructure Renewal Program and is included in the 2014 Capital Projects Budget. This project will include the replacement of the existing 200mm cast iron watermain along Portage Road from approximately 110m south of Valley Way to Valley Way with new 200mm PVC watermain, as well as the replacement and upsizing of the existing 150mm cast iron watermain at the intersection of Valley Way and Portage Road with new 200mm PVC watermain. The existing 200mm cast iron watermain along Portage Road was installed in 1924 and has been identified for replacement. A new 150mm PVC watermain connection to the existing 200mm cast iron watermain was approved for the new Niagara Regional Police Services Headquarters for District 2, which is currently under construction in Niagara Falls. The new headquarters will be located at 5698 Valley Way, bound to the north by Valley Way, to the east by Stanley Avenue, to the south by Highway 420 and to the west by Portage Road. The City of Niagara Falls and the Niagara Region have identified areas for improvement at the intersection of Valley Way and Portage Road, which are to be initiated upon completion of the Police Services Headquarters; therefore, replacement of the watermain in this location is to be completed in advance of the proposed intersection improvements. This project will also include the replacement and upsizing of the existing 150mm cast iron watermain at the intersection of Valley Way and Portage Road with new 200mm PVC watermain. The existing 150mm cast iron watermain was installed in 1953 and has experienced watermain breaks. The existing 200mm PVC watermains along Valley Way to the east and west of the Portage Road intersection were replaced in 2005 and 1993, respectively. Tenders for the combined contracts were opened publicly on August 19, 2014, in the presence of the Manager of Clerks Services, Bill Matson, the Manager of Supply and Services, Dave Butyniec, and the Project Manager, Livia McEachern. Tender documents were picked up by seven (7) interested parties and four (4) bids were received. Listed below is a summary of the totalled tender prices, excluding HST, received from the Contractors for the summed contracts. The tenders were checked and tendered bids, as well as corrected bids, are shown below. September 9, 2014 - 3 - MW-2014-40 Corrected Contractor City Tender Price Tender Price Demar Construction Ltd. Niagara Falls $201,046.77 $201,047.43 O'Hara Trucking and Excavating Inc. Niagara Falls $225,540.60 - Alfidome Construction Ltd. Niagara Falls $239,707.00 - Nexterra Substructures Inc. St. Catharines $296,032.00 - ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The lowest tender was received from Demar Construction Limited in the amount of $201.047.43. This Contractor has performed similar projects for the City. We are of the opinion that this Contractor is capable of successfully undertaking this project within the prescribed 20 day work period. This watermain replacement was originally to be completed as part of the Valley Way Road Widening project but due to project scheduling and coordination issues it is necessary to complete this work immediately. The overall Capital Budget for this project is $454,100. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The watermain replacement was approved in the City's 2014 Capital Budget. There are sufficient funds approved for this project to fund the proposed tender award. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT Implementation of the Capital Project meets the intent of Council's Strategic Priorities to establish infrastructure investment priorities, and to strengthen and promote economic development within the City. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Plan Recommended by: Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: [2.--1'4141j Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Livia McEachern 1-1 C aw E r ----rtr m-Hv i l t 1'. i -FL•QRENa-AV i fib, n co +4"+ ,y� W s��1 E Q AV —std++-AV-----•---� w LP z U 4 RI _ 0 K a >� UAifR- AV LATER-R4'.,, O 'lei 'Ai ` LATE:R-AV _ 4 To ,-17 I =L-i SSON-AV ESSON-AV- 2 > p°z4V . '~-7b c� AWA AV +�.+ aE., 3JbQf �. I 'atm t3Cti. AV f � j _\ � g{ielANAN-AV j )'s EIlfCANAN AV 1 -ANL-v-AV �Ti4Ni£f-AV r.----5TANtf f A4 161 1� " M i I + k h w 4.0 ui cc 2 3 • z O cc h- d � > F.• Ecri tu t LL YY "11a o a o z M t- - - z z to 5 eery W t(1 ._ F - Q - v^ O V w - ....Y T- i I �, I-- 5 � W j O E Cf 11 1 ,,,,1•1- -;,,. — —=—DUKE-AV _ _ RiAGE �tD ( z 1` 1$ct u _ -----F----1 s'Nl- k j l z O IT as � o 7 > .' wEu asI N Lr) MI e�,lv Q o AVi[)-AV as l a - sIANAN Ce a as N iE¢ ca Id ; (�u. MORSE co ----____ u-iz i ar 2 l� d 6)0y14- ctn ©� 120=Ftti'1 Q Rt�MMOND RD�RUMMG rit Q I —.—T—pRt9et 4" {3 r � g Q 1 1� LU 1 T 1 . '�a 4 '\ ____------r- MW-2014-41 Niagaraaa1Is September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works - Fleet SUBJECT: MW-2014-41 Request for Proposal RFP36-2014 Supply of One New Unit Aerial Fire Truck RECOMMENDATION 1. That RFP36-2014 for the purchase of one (1) new unit Aerial Fire Truck be awarded to Carrier Centers Emergency Vehicles of Brantford, Ontario in the amount of$696,632.00 plus options of$23,470.00 (plus tax). Total of$720,102.00 (plus tax). 2. That staff be authorized to sign the necessary purchase order and related documents associated with this purchase EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fleet and Fire Services staff have identified that the 1989 Sutphen Aerial truck has reached the end of its usage and needs to be replaced. BACKGROUND This purchase follows the rules and guidelines of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and fire emergency needs for operations and liability of unit performance. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE All bids were evaluated by staff and specifications were reviewed. Points were given to each unit and it was concluded that the proposal from Carrier Centers Emergency Vehicles be accepted. Carrier Centers Emergency Vehicles bid met all specifications and was the lowest bid price. September 9, 2014 - 2 - MW-2014-41 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The replacement of this vehicle was included in the City's 2014 Capital Budget. There are sufficient funds approved for this purchase. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The recommendation contained in this report is consistent with Council's strategic priority to continue to monitor and improve the efficiency of the organization. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS None. I Recommended by: Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Rick Zabor/Geoff Holman MW-2014-42 Niagaraaa1ls September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW-2014-42 Buckley Avenue Storm Sewer Tunnel Consultant Fees - Contract#2014-269-12 RECOMMENDATION 1. That Associated Engineering (AE) be retained to perform inspection and contract administration at the estimated price of$127,409.00. 2. That Municipal Works staff be authorized to execute the necessary consulting agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AE was retained by City staff to complete the design of the Buckley Avenue storm sewer tunnel. A traditional open cut methodology was originally proposed, but was later changed to a trenchless solution, due to the anticipated complications. The construction of the tunnel was awarded to Marathon Drilling Co. Ltd (report MW-2014-34). BACKGROUND This is the first tunnelling project the City of Niagara Falls has undertaken. City staff is recommending AE be retained to perform inspection and contract administration, due to the specialized nature and inherent complexity of completing a tunnel. AE has completed several tunnelling projects in southern Ontario, in various municipalities. The inspection and contract administration will be performed by a licenced Professional Engineer, who is familiar with the project and has completed other tunnelling projects. Should any unusual conditions be encountered, we can draw on the experience of AE's trenchless technology group, who were utilized during the design and tendering of this project. This group has completed many tunnelling projects throughout Canada. Having an experienced inspector/contract administrator on site will help City staff with monitoring the progress of the operation, adjusting to unexpected ground conditions and determining if the contractor is justified in submitting change work orders. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE An estimate for the inspection/contract administration was provided by Mr. Joe Tonellato, P.Eng of AE's Niagara office. September 9, 2014 -2 - MW-2014-42 FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The project was included in the approved Municipal Works Capital Budget for 2013. The inspection costs have been factored into the project budget. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The recommendations are consistent with Council's Strategic Priority to achieve the goal of infrastructure sustainability. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. None Recommended by: L r Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: ii*Lit-414/\-/t Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Chris Anders/Geoff Holman MW-2014-43 Niagarap0 September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW-2014-43 Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) and Small Communities Fund (SCF) Programs RECOMMENDATION That staff be directed to submit Expressions of Interest for the Riverview Park — CSO Storage Facility under the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund and Corwin Crescent Sewer Separation/Watermain Replacement/Road Reconstruction Project under the Small Community Fund programs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On August 25, 2014 City staff was informed by the Province of two new funding initiatives aimed at assisting small municipalities (under 100,000 in population) to advance capital infrastructure investments identified as priorities in their respective Asset Management Plans. The Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) proposes to provide funding in the amount of$100 million over the next 10 years to support the repair of critical infrastructure through a $50 million application-based program and a $50 million formula-based program. The Small Communities Fund (SCF) will provide matching commitments from the Province and the Federal governments of $272 million. This program is entirely application-based. Eligibility for the OCIF and SCF programs is determined through a 2 stage process. The first stage involves the submission of an Expression of Interest (EOI) which must be received before September 19, 2014. If successful, full applications are to be submitted by the end of December. September 9, 2014 - 2 - MW-2014-43 The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the funding opportunities and to confirm support for the submissions of EOI's in advance of the deadline. The projects recommended best fit the eligibility and allow the City to access the maximum funding available through the program. BACKGROUND The application-based component of the OCIF and the SCF programs has the following Selection Criteria; OCIF SCF Funding $50 million in annual $272 million from each of the Available Provincial funding Provincial and Federal governments Project Eligibility Roads, Bridges, Water and Highways and Major Roads, Drinking Wastewater Projects Water, Wastewater, Public Transit, Solid Waste Management, Green Energy, Innovation, Connectivity and Broadband, Brownfield Remediation and Redevelopment, Disaster Mitigation, Local/Regional Airports, Short-Line Rail and Short Sea Shipping Projects Funding Formula Up to 90% Provincial Federal and Provincial contribution Funding up to 2/3rds of the total eligible costs Funding Cap $2 million maximum None Completion Date December 31, 2016 As outlined in Contribution Agreement Eligible applicants can submit one project for the OCIF program and one application for the SCF program. The same project cannot be submitted to both programs. Communities that successfully pass the EOI pre-screening stage will be advised in October and invited to submit a full application within 30 days. The full application must include the City's Asset Management Plan. Joint projects are encouraged and funding eligibility is applied to each partner. Land acquisition costs are not eligible. September 9, 2014 - 3 - MW-2014-43 ANALYSIS/RATIONALE City Council, in its wisdom, advanced the engineering design phase of a number of projects in the event that Federal and Provincial funding programs would be announced. While some projects have advanced more quickly than others, staff has considered the following projects that best fit the eligibility criteria. Riverview Park — CSO Storage Tank This project was identified as one of the preferred alternatives in the 2010 "Chippawa Sewer Flooding Relief Study Class EA — Environmental Screening Report". The objectives of the study were to reduce the risk of chronic basement flooding during storms of the two and five year design storm intensity and frequency, reduce the frequency and magnitude of sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) events and reduce the need for emergency sewer pumping in the Chippawa area. The study identified that although the Chippawa area is currently serviced by separated sanitary and storm sewer systems, the sanitary sewer experience significant surcharging during wet weather events leading to basement flooding, SSO's and necessitating emergency sewer pumping into the environment. The recommended solutions involved the implementation of two storage tank facilities situated to provide additional wet weather capacity within the sanitary sewer system and significantly reduce the risk of basement flooding and SSO discharge up to the five year return period design storm event. The facility located at Riverview Park would function as an in-line storage tank consisting of approximately 350 linear metres of horizontal elliptical pipe connecting into the City sanitary sewer system at the intersection of Cattell Drive and Regan Drive. Once completed the storage tank would reduce the hydraulic gradeline of the sewers and significantly reduce the likelihood of basement flooding in what is defined in the EA as "Area of Concern No. 4", which includes; Gunning Drive, Cattell Drive, Mears Crescent, Bell Crescent, Ares Court, Rapelje Street, Chipman Crescent, Ussher Street, the eastern end of Sarah Street and covering 170 parcels at risk during a five year storm event. This project is estimated to cost $3 million and can be completed well within the December 2016 deadline for the Ontario Communities Infrastructure Fund. The scope and scale of this project also allows us to optimize the 90% Provincial funding contribution. Corwin Crescent— Sewer Separation/Watermain Replacement/Road Reconstruction This project encompasses the following streets with the City of Niagara Falls: Corwin Crescent, Laura Crescent, Lindsay Crescent, Merle Crescent and Erwin Crescent. This is approximately 830m of centreline road length. Sewer separation and road September 9, 2014 - 4 - MW-2014-43 reconstruction will be completed on each street. This will include constructing a new sanitary sewer and laterals to property line, storm sewer and catchbasins, watermain and water services to property line, road base and asphalt, curbs and sidewalks. A preliminary investigation has determined that the existing storm sewer on Carlton Avenue does not have sufficient capacity for the stormwater from the project area. Therefore, the project will include the design and construction of a new storm sewer outlet to the hydro canal. The outlet sewer will be constructed along the existing hydro corridor located to the south and west of the project area. This stormwater outlet was originally recommended in the Master Drainage Plan that was completed in 1981. The City of Niagara Falls is currently updating the Master Drainage Plan which will confirm the need for this new outlet. Once complete, this project will alleviate the low chlorine residuals and dirty water complaints in the area, reduce the risk of basement flooding along with infiltration and exfiltration from the sewer systems and reduce flows to the sewage treatment plant. The present CSO study results indicate that the High Lift Pumping Station CSO had three bypasses per year at an estimated volume of 10,264 cubic metres. The new storm sewer outlet will allow for further sewer separation in the areas surrounding the project area, further reducing flows to the sewage treatment plant and infiltration and exfiltration of the sewer systems. This project is estimated to cost $4.5 million and due to the complexity of the issues may need to be completed in phases over a two to three year period. For this reason staff recommends that this project be submitted under the Small Communities Fund because of the less restrictive timeline for completion and the opportunity to access more external funding. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Both projects are currently in the engineering design phase and have been identified as priority projects for 2015. The City's share of the funding programs can be considered during the 2015 Capital Budget deliberations once the funding eligibility has been confirmed. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The recommendation is consistent with Council's Strategic Commitment to achieve infrastructure sustainability. September 9, 2074 - 5 - MW-2014-43 UST OF ATTACHMENTS 1, Notification of Fund rg Programs ®August 25, 2014. :2. Location Plana Corwin Cr. Infrastructure Improvement Project 3. Location Plan — Riverview Park 080 Storage Tank Project Recommended by: , Geof'';! Heiman, Director of Municipal Works Respectfully brnl ed Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Geoff Holman Ministry of Agriculture, Ministere de l'Agriculture,de ^� Food and Rural Affairs ('Alimentation et des Affaires rurales 4th Floor 4'etage / cnta r i o 1 Stone Road West 1 Stone Road West Guelph,Ontario N1G 4Y2 Guelph(Ontario)N1G 4Y2 Tel: 519 826-3419 Tel. : 519 826-3419 Fax: 519 826-3398 Telec. : 519 826-3398 Rural Programs Branch August 25, 2014 Dear Chief Administrative Officer, Clerk or Treasurer: The launch of two new municipal infrastructure initiatives, targeted towards your community, is a key early step in implementing the 2014 Budget through which the province is committing over$130 billion in infrastructure investments over the next ten years. I am pleased to provide you details on the province's continued support for municipal infrastructure projects through: • the $100 million per year new Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF), which, for the first three years of the program, includes both application-based and formula-based components; and • an intake to identify priority projects for the Small Communities Fund (SCF). Through the SCF, Ontario and Canada will each provide up to $272 million to support projects in municipalities with populations less than 100,000. The SCF is part of the federal government's 10-year Building Canada Fund. These programs build on the good work municipalities have been doing to prioritize infrastructure needs through asset management planning. The following supporting materials, which can be found at -- are intended to guide municipalities in understanding how to obtain funding from OCIF and SCF: A. Capital Project Selection Process under OCIF and SCF This guide provides information with respect to eligibility requirements, as well as the application process and deadlines for the application component of these two funds. Applications will have a two-stage process. First, eligible applicants must submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) for pre-screening. Applicants that pass this EOI process will be given an opportunity to submit a full application. The application will build on the EOI and will require more detailed project information. _ Foodland - 2 - B. OCIF and SCF — Expression of Interest Forms Eligible municipalities must submit these forms to be pre-screened for the application- based component of OCIF as well as the SCF. Expressions of Interest are due September 19, 2014. Eligible applicants can submit two projects, one for OCIF, and one for the intake to identify projects under the federal government's SCF. The same project cannot be submitted to both programs; it is the responsibility of eligible applicants to determine the most appropriate project to submit under each program. Please refer to the program guide for more information on the application- based programs. C. OCIF — Formula-Based Component— Program Manual This guide provides information with respect to the allocation of OCIF formula-based funding, its parameters and data sources. It includes an example that walks through the grant calculation step by step. An individual allocation notice and contribution agreement will be sent to you shortly, outlining your municipality's grant for 2014 and the following two years, and the key data used to calculate it. No application is required to access these funds; the full details on conditions to access funding, project eligibility, timing and reporting requirements will be detailed in your contribution agreement. You should review this agreement closely prior to starting any project. Again, the above supporting materials can be found at on:a- o ca. m =;1a a Should you require more information, or are unable to access the supporting materials, please call 1-877-424-1300. In addition, we have arranged for a webinar to provide a high-level explanation of the programs and offer the opportunity to answer any questions you may have regarding the programs. The webinar will be scheduled for the week of September 8, 2014. If you would like to register for the webinar, please contact Ariel Freeman-Fawcett at 519-826-6640 or We look forward to continued collaboration with municipalities as we move forward to modernize infrastructure across the Province. Sincerely, Brent Kennedy Director/A, Rural Programs Branch Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs ±-.' 411= Z EDWARD AV t.n cd DRUMMO 0 RD .10 0 et HExiMR A .rte o I . z r:4 ' a ew1N CR . C _ aJ - ri o L CO) C 6• CARLTON v Z O Ab f:OlztiVJ til �� CI HAC 0 w 0 O 2O ~ it tD DORCHESTER RD DORCHESTER RD DORCHESTER RD Fzivervie\i‘j park Storage Tank MW-2014-43 Attachment #3 , . .._ , .7,71,,, , - ,... 7 4 ,,. - ' 11.11,110r:',',*.t..-, •Ck''' ''',, .,,,0,' _ .„,„.„„ liT4,,47.1_()c:„.4r.11t',.7.41iii, '---.-,,, '., . -0,,,- -, , ,-• 4,-;4 .-,,-„-- - , .....----- ., '-r- i-., f ) i -; .-"14 ik,'-; --7 - At_-'. ' ..4:4•::: ‘ '''' je— i:.- 1..'!,4'.' .. -J- ‘-'1, ' ..' -'.i4- _ -- ,:„ ....1. ;it() - .,..,? , ,. --, ,k * .,- . ...- -.--, -.. - ••%. . # ,• . •. ., i , • .- - tv* t -, - - _ - ; - * • 1 .),,t, , ‘-'• - #-, , -,IL - - • ' • ' '4 ,''. ' . : '''' .- ''' fr;,-,- - t '• „ft .4 _ - • ' 7-- - ..- :. , ., .•;' 4". It ' . • .-'-•-. /A.,* ,......r!...‘.., -4 . . .- , , ? „, ` tr _ . -/ i' ,,. i .. .i. -_ - '' l •- • ,,•• -. •, _: 4 !• '.. ? %II'''. - ••• *-, - r, : - - . ,;*,-- 4.15:;',00 4, *•' .: -,,- , i: , i ,-- A . S ., An:41t, rf ,, *,,-. '-', i ;:' ' s ,,,,----:; . '." ,-,-."4-- ! '-47,:i ....).,. '• - - . .- ..,- . .,---:-. .,..L.....-_,, v. :‘,.. / (...::-., •,,,, - , 41.. . ,.. • •,4 - . -Nir .., ...,,A, . .. .0,..,,,,...„, „.. ...? f. . , i ,,,, ,,,, V' *. - * • --`,/ 41If ''. , . ‘c -- - ..- , i 4 . . .. - ',..- , ' 4.' :'• ,,._ ..,P. — : . , - : , , : , ... .. . + . , ' • 1 '''''' -41r4' ' '' ! - ' t .• ..:." ' ...,', . -., 'ii1 „. ..,.i ....:?. , , .. ;....,. ,..... .,.....,,,,,,,,...blh,„ ,_,, „.. :-‘„. 0 -....... .-,.. - ,., . ,.. ''' A- ,,,,„ %. . ' . , -',-- 2:,-::0;*., ', '' . ' -111F ,• ..;'„..,i, , -,,,, ,,,, • • . .‘t.,„., -,,.,.... . 4'- ' . ' -'-;;',' - ','' . - '•-•t•-_z 1 kit , -•,. - , „ . ,. ..,. /.. . - .4, ', ., .---(-7 4-!tv' .-, .- 'r --( --.,)5---' • T., '. ' * - • '- - a (,-- , i-. 49 ' ` ' -...• ' ^ .f•1.4..'., ... 1,, "... ',,,.•- ",- *.t-1- IE_ ,TD--- - --- _ ' ,,-,. -, *,1 ,....40 A, - .. zi$$T-I:::J. ,lc' '. . •,,';..'A., --,' ,1 '',-- ,,,„ . ; . '•-''-;....-1 .,,,„ At4 „ .,, ,, ,„! . . •".., -.., -.T.; ' ., , i •-•.:1,.4„'-,:'*;.---r 1, : -- I , , .: -14.:,,,,"- ,f2 ,'„,4, - ": ' ' - • of Niagara Falls(the City) ,.. * .•;-, .-,.., • it., ' , ' -..,.-7., expressed or implied, as to Lhe .,'! 7-II:, .. j, ..,.....„,,.„ ,., 'This data ;provided 'aserawnedtti_hdentCitey, and drawings contained „...„,,d0 * . .,,,,,, t... -,....0,4_, ,, .., j makes no representationsfo 'accuracy or completenessrgeneralof the layoutdata.purposes nmseasp jt herein are intendedsonlyinatondtmsahtaiellnnoptiebdese --`• „„:„., , rs ..,,,,..i. , ,-,, , ,, : ...,.. , ,,,,7,7,,. .;,7;,i ;4. ,, ......k. ,. ..--., considered as official plans or drawings For furtherh digital images,or - " t , 11 s"r- ,,,,A0.'--' , Alittl-2M4 *. • ' .„. „_,-- ' contact the City.The City shall not be held ha lethfeorussepeerfiatli.„iisindaddtedn.tuasl,ers -r":„.„,.. , IL . ,,,„. b : i ,,:.i.t,..,,,,,,,_; ,,,,,,,.: *.:7 consequential or indirect damages arising fromh e assume a September 2014 ,...sa- \ • '• ,-Ii ,;,/ c.7 :, :' PBD-2014-49 Niagara,Fa14 September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PBD-2014-49 PLC-2014-004, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Blocks 22 through 28, Registered Plan 59M-407 Shapton Crescent Windylane Plan of Subdivision Applicant: Mountainview Homes RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council approve the request and pass the by-law included in tonight's agenda to designate Blocks 22 through 28 on Registered Plan 59M-407, as exempt from Part Lot Control for a period of four years; and 2. That the applicant be required to notify the City when the new deeds for the lots have been registered. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mountainview Homes has requested Council to pass a by-law to exempt Blocks 22 through 28 in the Windylane plan of subdivision (Plan 59M-407) from being subject to Part Lot Control. This will allow the individual on-street townhouse dwelling units (39 in total) to be sold once they are completed. The request can be supported based on the following: • the use of this Planning Act mechanism is an acceptable alternative to a consent because the blocks are located within a registered plan of subdivision; • By-law No. 2013-127 permits the proposed parcel sizes and provides certainty that the number of parcels for each block will be limited to eight; and • the by-law will permit deeds to be created for the new parcels and permit each property to be sold. BACKGROUND Proposal Mountainview Homes has submitted a request to have Part Lot Control removed from Blocks 22 through 28, in the Windylane plan of subdivision (Plan 59M-407). The seven blocks of land are located on Shapton Crescent. The subject lands are illustrated on Schedule 1. A total of 39 on-street townhouse dwelling units are proposed on the seven September '9, 2014 - 2 - PBD-2014-49 blocks. The removal of Part Lot Control is a planningtool that is intended to allow the creation of separate parcels for each on-street townhouse dwelling unit. ANALYSIS The subject lands are located on Shapton Crescent within the Windylane plan of subdivision (Plan 59M-407) which was registered in 2014. The subdivision contains lots for one family detached lwellincjs and the blocks for on-street townhouses. The subject blocks are zoned Residential Mixed (R3-988) by Zoning By-law No. 9-200, as amended by By-law No. 2013-137. The seven blocks comply with the zoning regulations. All the site servicing works are in place for the 39 on-street townhouse dwelling units. Fart Lot Control provisions under the Planning Act prevent lands that are within a registered plan of subdivision from being further divided without a consent to sever. Municipalities have the ability to exempt lots and blocks from Part Lot Control to allow lot lines to be reconfigured or part of a lot or block to be conveyed without a consent. Approval of a Part Lot Control by-law is requested so that each future on-street townhouse dwelling can be sold with its own parcel of land. Part Lot Control has been requested to be lifted for four years to allow for flexibility in scheduling real estate closing dates and to consider market absorption of theunits. The applicant should be required to notify the City when the new deeds have been created to assist in record keeping. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Any outstanding development charges will be collected at the time of submission of the Building Permit application. There are no financial implications. :CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT Council's priority is to strengthen and promote economic development in the City. The application is consistent withthis ;priority. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Schedule 1 - Location Map Recommended by: Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning, Building & Development Respectfully submitted t Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer N.DeBenedetti:mb Attach. S:\PDR\2014\PBD-2014-49, PLC-2014-884, blocks 22 thru 28, Registered Plan 59M-407, Shapton Crescent.wpd September 9, 2014 - 3 s P!BD 2004 49 SCHEDULE 1 I � I SHAPTON CR Sabiee Limnd PBD-2014-53 NiagarraaaI1s September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PBD-2014-53 Matters Arising from Municipal Heritage Committee Update of Designating By-laws RECOMMENDATION That Council pass the updated Designating By-laws that are listed on tonight's agenda for the following properties: • 12549 Niagara River Parkway • 4177 Park Street • 5674-5686 Peer Street • 3000 Portage Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to assist with the preservation of the heritage of the City, the designating by-laws for all properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act are being updated. The updates relate to the legal descriptions and also the heritage attributes that in many cases were vague and incomplete. Many of the properties were originally designated prior to the 2005 update to the Ontario Heritage Act which included Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Designation. There have been changes in terminology and language in the Heritage Act and this update is reflective of these changes. The draft by-laws were sent to each property owner together with a letter explaining the reasons for the proposed changes. All of the property owners agreed with the proposed changes. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The purpose of amending and updating the by-laws is to update the terminology and legal descriptions of each property. The by-laws also assist by guiding any future restoration by specifically outlining the heritage attributes that contribute to the heritage value and interest of the property. The update was also done in part to assist the Property Standards Officers when dealing with heritage properties insofar as heritage attributes are now better described. Each draft by-law was sent to the respective property owner to review and provide comments. All of the property owners agreed with the proposed changes. September 9, 2014 -2 - PB0-2014-53 Accordingly, staff recommend that Council pass the by-laws. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Appendix 1 - Photograph of each property Recommended by: Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning, Building & Development Respectfully submItted; Ken "Todd, Chief Administrative Officer P Boyle mb Attach S\PDR\2014\PBC-2014-53 Matters Arising from MHC wpd Septe'mbe'r 9, 2014 a 3 - PBD-2014-53 Appendix 1 : 12549 Niagara River Pkwy K I ! 'to ;€ 'lAl ir , j 4 Vas; b E; C t Alit; + - t,.," '' ,t t ' tI 4 i I ;,t , ?/ 1 , s4 t i' 1,4- 4 ' * i f �` ',1„', '� ��,yrs�,= � ;� ?;��,• „` -�c. e. • ..: 6. _ .; t 3 t 5F r I" t 1 t ilk C F w g y x t }, 'ep emb( �9, 214 v o �'�� ®��3 4177 Park Street 4 V �z * . 444 m xs �sh *4 ' : 0 'a ` � tsy,";. ..4 t "f4;:-..,::.,-.s'^k �'�9.$�D� a� _ a 'Y lis �'' ( ..f`''-`-‘,1-.. a-s�v:.-;,' r ' t : �cr r . 2 E tom- cs ki pivt _. ,. ..:,, ,:__ ..„,:_i_,,,, t,),.....,_:. .._._ . ::be, ' , . ..,-..,)„,.- � F y 1 1 k 14 's'7.` i ,i;,..,,,,,.! ' T F.- a f .'.-,, - ..,..,i- .: I A ` -.. __ {tet..' e , ''''' \ MIMpr 9, ' i ; :7::::,',1::::;.,t,„1:5, '' / 4 1 - , ,,, .7...,,,,,* 3 , I- F. a t r� \ t � epterr�ber 9, -5 - PBD-2014-53 9 �,. k, 5674-5686 Peer Street Y a w 'qs ya. - I � •� �+ }} ... dr fir 'a`a A h. a_. ti. 4 r7 n. J , s . ':..., -,.;,-Ifi ..;',.:;;',;':::1";*:, :.::.. pill .:.".'"'. ...)- ..... .. -•...•,..." '-''''''• -'''''—' ' k i yiL} ': tea, x 4,. }^ e1 J W ff �� tf°, "f 1�x �� Y1�.�iy+. a h,4 .t. ...c4;i:-;,:!,.,;--,1:-: w �+e ' i'3 ,e 4. , _ -..-,4 a s £ '..1.-.- #moSiys_5,,1.¢ r" 2 �ry r k$' X 'i { C ! "r r ? - • • i. .Y ^ y RT°I t L• A ,4 o- ,. .. x, 4f V •%,,,,:.,,..5 " '�• "§Wiloilk A< T i x N � R37y ;;A j r 1 N September 0, 214 6..t. p13.0 ,- ..1 21 014-53 300 0 Portage Road • `-'.,,,,rt -, ..f?"'" ',' * - ' - ---•,',,,-,,.t„, :,,c-',..,,,,..2,-;...„,t."-:Ar : '. ,,,, . " • -.?"4,./.;-e,,/,'`'N ;,:"-`i; . ' .., ',... r • -2...-,.• t"'• ,-,....re # . . .,. 4., ; 4 , • ., ,------ , .. ., ,.* *IPI: ' 1 .•''.,* 1C;i!:; ...8,'''' ' 't;11';',;•;.,` ,, ..2.'"i: .', 1-,40,...,,:*.- 1',f': •V'..,. - % ./., ''''' ,...fi. , : ., . ,... ,t4,-.. , .._, , Z', ,I. r - *— ** 0 ''''''..t• I. ,'. i„.- ; ...06. , ,' . —i, ' ..,,, . , , „„ or. • „. ,..."4*. ,-1-• - ,-,' ' Nit R&C-2014-12 Niagaraaalls September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Recreation & Culture SUBJECT: R&C-2014-12 Revised Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the revisions to the Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy. BACKGROUND The Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy was developed and approved on May 1, 1996. The policy was revised and approved by City Council on February 14, 2005, March 31, 2008 and August 30, 2010. As stated in the Policy Section10.0 Policy Monitoring and Revisions "That the policy be reviewed every year by the City of Niagara Falls' Senior Management staff and reported to the City of Niagara Falls Council with suggested policy changes, if required." ANALYSIS/RATIONALE Staff has reviewed the policy and recommends the following revisions. • Section 2, Areas Designated for Conditional Use of Alcohol Niagara Falls History Museum, Stamford Centre Volunteer Firemen's Association park and building, Firehall Station #5 has been added to the list. Removed Service Centre from the areas designated for conditional use of alcohol. • Section 4, Controls 4.6 "That the limit of drinks to be served to one person at any one time has been revised to two drinks from four drinks,"to be consistent with other municipal alcohol policies. 4.9"That non alcoholic beverages, low-alcohol beverages and food be provided and promoted for the entire duration of the event,"to be consistent with other municipal alcohol policies. September 9, 2014 -2 - R&C-2014-12 • Appendix "D" - Areas Designated for Conditional Use of Alcohol The list of designated City facilities and rooms has been revised as above. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS City of Niagara Falls staff continue to enforce the Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy and review the policy as stated on an annual basis. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT Parks, Recreation & Culture Strategic Plan, Action Plan #5: Develop policies to Support Service Delivery. Existing policies need to be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure the policy is reflecting current practices. Permit holders requested to provide alcohol at their event are informed of the Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy. The policy is an important risk management tool for the Corporation. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Revised Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy Recommended by: J'P1,0(1..-a...6"; .-7 Kathy Moldenhauer, Director of Recreation & Culture Approved by: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 \iiagaraJ7'a1I;s Management Policy Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 1 of 17 MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY PREAMBLE The City of Niagara Falls owns and manages facilities where alcohol consumption is not permitted, and other facilities where alcohol consumption is permitted under the authority of a Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement. The City of Niagara Falls has developed this Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy in order to: 1) prevent alcohol related problems that may arise from alcohol consumption within facilities, and 2) to promote a safe, enjoyable environment for those who use these facilities. A range of problems can arise from alcohol consumption. These problems can affect not only the person or persons consuming alcohol, but other people who use the facilities, and the general public. These problems may include: • Injuries to drinkers or other individuals • Liability action arising from alcohol related injuries or deaths • Loss of insurability should the insurer's risk assessment escalate • Increased insurance rates as a result of alcohol related incidents • Suspension or loss of alcohol permit privileges by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (A.G.C.O.) • Charges laid against the City under the Liquor Licence Act • Police being called to municipal property • Vandalism and destruction of City property • Loss of enjoyment by non-drinkers and moderate drinkers • Complaints lodged by offended parties • Reduction in use of facilities by people concerned about alcohol consumption Director Date Submitted by Kathy Moldenhauer Recommended by CAO Ken Todd Date Bylaw# Date ElApproved by Council Report# R-2008-10 March 31, 2008 Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 Management Policy i iagararalls Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 2 of 17 • Loss of revenue due to reduced participation • Increased public concern about alcohol consumption In most cases, these problems will not be attributable to moderate drinkers, or to those who respect the rules regarding alcohol consumption. The majority of these problems arise from drinkers who engage in four specific drinking practices: • Underage drinking • Drinking in unlicenced areas • Drinking to intoxication • Drinking and driving To the extent that these four drinking practices can be reduced, the likelihood of alcohol related problems will correspondingly diminish. For those who do not engage in these targeted drinking practices, the policy will be minimally intrusive. The policy is not intended to stand in opposition to legal and moderate drinking. Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 Management Policy N iagarara1is Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 3 of 17 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE POLICY The Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy consists of a range of measures designed to prevent alcohol related problems and to increase the enjoyment of those who use City facilities. By reducing the potential for alcohol related problems, the City of Niagara Falls concurrently reduces users' loss of enjoyment of the facilities, reduces the risk of injury and death, reduces the risk of liability actions, and also reduces the users loss of enjoyment of the facilities. 2.0 AREAS DESIGNATED FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF ALCOHOL The consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited in the majority of City facilities. Niagara Falls City Council may change the designation of any site at their discretion. The following municipal facilities are eligible to be designated as suitable for Special Occasion Permit and Catering Endorsement (S.O.P.) functions: • Chippawa Willoughby Memorial Arena • City Hall • Coronation 50 Plus Recreation Centre • Firehalls: • Chippawa - Station #4 • Sodom - Station #5 • Crowland - Station #6 • Firehall Theatre • Gale Centre • MacBain Community Centre • Niagara Falls History Museum • Niagara Falls Main Library Parks • Battlefield Park • C.W. Palmer Park • Chippawa Lions Park • Centennial Square • Kalar Road Park • M.F. Ker Park • Oakes Park Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 Nia araF'alhs Management Policy Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 4 of 17 • Patrick Cummings Memorial Sports Complex • Stamford Centre Volunteer Firemen's Association Park and Building • W.L. Houck Park • Municipal streets as approved by Council Each facility is specified in Appendix "D". 2.1 That all other Municipal Owned properties shall not host Special Occasion Permit (S.O.P.) or Catering Endorsement Events. They are known as: • All outdoor Municipal Pools shall not host Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsements Events as they are not an approved area for a gathering • All dressing rooms at arenas and field houses at parks • E.E. Mitchelson, Youth Oriented Facility • All other open green areas, namely municipal parks and playground areas owned and maintained by the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls • All Municipal Works Areas • Niagara Falls Library branches with the exception of the main Library 3.0 CERTIFICATION/TRAINING: SMART SERVE PROGRAM In order to rent a City of Niagara Falls facility for a Special Occasion Permit, the event sponsor must utilize bartenders, ticket sellers, floor monitors, etc. with certification from a recognized Ontario based server program. Proof of certification or training must be provided two (2) weeks prior to the event. The SMART SERVE Program (formerly known as SIP) prepared by the Hospitality Industry Training Organization of Ontario, is approved by the A.G.C.O., and is endorsed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It introduces participants to the following topics: • Alcohol and the Law • Facts about Alcohol • Standard Drink Concept • Managing the Intoxicated Person Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 Management Policy iagaraJalls Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 5 of 17 • Drinking Rates and Limits • Establishing House Policies • Signs of Intoxication The municipality, by requiring the presence of trained monitors, servers and ticket sellers at alcohol-related events, is better able to discharge its responsibilities as the owner of the facility. Caterers and licenced stadia are required by law to have all personnel trained by a recognized Ontario based server program. For information on the Smart Serve program call (416) 695-8737 or toll free at 1-877-620- 6082 or email info@smartserve.ca. Training is available on-line www.smartserve.ca. 4.0 CONTROLS In order to be eligible for a facility permit for a S.O.P. function, the sponsor must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Director of Recreation and Culture or his/her designate, that there are sufficient controls in place to prevent intoxicated or rowdy people from entering the event, and that the aforementioned participants will be refused service and escorted safely from the event. These controls will include: 4.1 That only a photo driver's licence, military identification, a passport, Canadian citizenship card or Liquor Control Board of Ontario "Bring Your Identification" (BYID) card as identification or be accepted for being served or consuming alcohol. 4.2 That all entrances and exits to the event be supervised. 4.3 That a ratio of one (1) floor monitor for every fifty (50) participants be utilized. 4.4 That with a minimum of one monitor, who must be trained, the area outside the licenced area at the event be patrolled as per A.G.C.O. regulations. 4.5 That a limit of four (4) drink tickets be permitted to be purchased by one person at any one time. All unused tickets are redeemable. 4.6 That a limit of two (2) drinks be served to one person at any one time. Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy 1000.10 Niagarapalls Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 6 of 17 4.7 That there be no reference to "last call" announced. 4.8 That single fence of minimum height of four (4) feet high being securely erected will be allowed if the Alcohol and Gaming Commission regulations on the specific permit allows for minors to be present within the permits' designated area, further that if minors are not allowed under Alcohol and Gaming Commission permit, then double fencing of a minimum height of four (4) feet, securely erected will remain a requirement. 4.9 That non alcoholic beverages, low-alcohol beverages and food be provided and promoted for the entire duration of the event. Snacks such as chips, peanuts or popcorn are not acceptable as a food option. It is recommended that non alcoholic beverages be provided at no charge or at cost significantly lower than alcoholic beverages. 4.10 That no high alcohol (greater than 5%) beer be sold. 4.11 That alcohol not be offered or given as a prize in a contest. 4.12 No Advertising of the Sale of Alcohol at the Events is permitted at facilities that are frequented by youth. 4.13 That any beverages being served at a S.O.P.function will be served in plastic or paper containers. 4.14 That no marketing practices which encourage increased consumption, i.e., oversized drinks, double shots, pitchers of beer, drinking contests, volume discounts, will be permitted. 4.15 That Recreation & Culture reserves the right to require the presence of off-duty police officers/security staff to be present for the duration of the event, the cost to be borne by the applicant. Event Worker Control Responsibilities Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 \iagaraF'a11s Management Policy Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 7 of 17 4.16 That all event workers (monitors, bartenders, servers and ticket sellers, etc.) must be of the age of majority, and certified by a recognized Ontario based server program.. 4.17 That all event workers (monitors, bartenders, servers, and ticket sellers, etc.) must refrain from consuming alcohol prior to and during the event. 4.18 That all monitors, bartenders, servers, and ticket sellers, acting in official capacity at the event, must wear an I.D. name tag approved by Recreation & Culture. Sponsor/Event Organizer Control Responsibilities 4.19 That the sponsor provide a list of monitors, bartenders, servers and ticket sellers with their proof of certification or training when application is made for the special event, and that such list shall be posted with the group's S.O.P. See Appendix "C" 4.20 That the person whose name is on the S.O.P. be certified from a recognized Ontario based server program or received training through the City of Niagara Falls. 4.21 That any incident or violation of the Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy which may endanger participants at the S.O.P. function, or off the premises of the S.O.P. function, shall be the responsibility of the S.O.P. permit holder. 4.22 That the person signing the S.O.P. must be present at the event, or his/her designate(s) (who shall be named) being the person(s) responsible for the event. 4.23 The person signing the S.O.P. or his/her designate is responsible for decision-making during the event, and therefore, must refrain from consuming alcohol prior to or during the event. 4.24 That the S.O.P. permit holder has the right to refuse admittance to persons who are under age, or to an individual who appears intoxicated. 5.0 STATEMENT OF INTOXICATION Signs will be displayed indicating that it is illegal to serve participants to a state of intoxication. The sign will be placed near the serving area in each licensed facility and will read: Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# ,�,i/� Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 NiagaraJalls Management Policy Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 8 of 17 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS It is against the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario for licensed establishments to serve customers to intoxication. Servers in our facilities are required to obey the law and not serve anyone to intoxication. We believe that people use our facilities for enjoyable social gatherings, and we are happy to provide this opportunity. Should you wish a non-alcoholic drink, request a soft drink, coffee or other alternative. Should you wish a smaller portion of alcohol, request a low-alcohol beer, wine or mixed drink. RATIONALE • It is a Provincial Offence to serve someone to intoxication. • Provisions in the Liquor Licence Act authorize servers of Liquor to cut off over indulgent consumers. • Individuals/groups named on Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsements and facility owners are responsible for the safety and sobriety of the people attending the event. 6.0 ACCOUNTABILITY AND SIGNAGE Signs must be prominently posted at all Special Occasion Permit and Catering Endorsement functions informing the public where they can direct their concerns. The sign will name the sponsor of the event, the name of the Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement holder, the addresses and telephone numbers of the City of Niagara Falls Recreation & Culture, the Niagara Regional Police and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. Additional signs identify the need for a permit and it is against the law to serve a person beyond the point of intoxication. Depending on the final designation, the minimum requirements for the sign size shall be 24 inch wide by 14 inches high. There shall be uniformity in the signs outlining: Sign "A" • Event Sponsor Name of Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement Holder Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 Management Policy ia'ilt ilTHiIS Issue Date Revision 2014 May 1, 1996 Date September 9, August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 9 of 17 • City of Niagara Falls, Recreation & Culture 7150 Montrose Road, Unit 1, Niagara Falls, Ontario L2H 3N3 Telephone: (905) 356-7521, Extension 3330 After Hours: (905) 356-1355 • Niagara Regional Police Service 4343 Morrison Street Niagara Falls, ON (905) 688-4111, Ext. 3338 • Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario 90 Sheppard Avenue E., Suite 200 Toronto ON M2N 0A4 (416) 326-8700 1-800-522-2876 Toll Free in Ontario Sign "B" • Alcohol Beverages by Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement Only- Violators immediately forfeit all rights to the use of facility. Sign "C" • No Alcohol Beverages Permitted -Violators immediately forfeit all rights to the use of facility. RATIONALE It is not possible for the police and Liquor Licence Inspectors to check on all Special Occasion Permit and Catering Endorsement functions. The signs serve notice to the permit holder that while enforcement personnel may not attend the event, concerned participants will know where to lodge a complaint. 7.0 SAFE TRANSPORTATION That only individuals, groups or organizations implementing a safe transportation strategy involving a designated driver program combined with an additional alternate home transportation option (to prevent intoxicated participants from driving) be permitted rental/use privileges of facilities for Special Occasion Permit and Catering Endorsement functions. Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# ./.:X/:74„ Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 Ni gxaraJalls Management Policy Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy E Procedure 10 of 17 Examples: • Designated Driver Program to be advertised at event • Designated Driver to be identified to servers and monitors • Designated Driver to receive free or low cost non-alcoholic drinks (i.e. coffee, pop, juice) • Intoxicated person to be driven home by a sober friend whom will assume the responsibility of the intoxicated person and that the details be so documented by the Licensed Group or be provided with a taxi ride home. 8.0 PENALTY Any individual or group bringing alcohol onto designated municipal properties must have a Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement. Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement Holders violating city policy and procedures and/or the Liquor Licence Act may be refused future rental privileges. Future rentals to such individuals or groups will depend on them demonstrating to the Director of Recreation & Culture or designate and City Council that all the rules will be followed at future functions. RATIONALE Policy violators must be penalized so as not to jeopardize the use of the facility by other responsible organizations or individuals. The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario has the authority to refuse to issue Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsements for a particular premise if there has been evidence that the laws had been violated during the event. 9.0 ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES FOR POLICY VIOLATIONS 9.1 A violation of this policy occurs when the Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement holder fails to comply with the conditions of the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario, or the Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy. Intervention can be initiated by a participant at the event, a City of Niagara Falls staff member, a member of Niagara Regional Police, or an Inspector of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 �-- Management Policy \;iatara/alts Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 11 of 17 9.2 A member of the organizing group, the S.O.P. holder, or monitor may intervene by informing the offending individual(s) of the policy violation and asking that it stop. Group members, the S.O.P. holder, and monitors are encouraged to intervene in this way because intervention at other levels could result in a loss of privileges and legal charges. 9.3 A City of Niagara Falls staff member will intervene whenever he or she encounters a violation of the policy. Depending upon the severity of the policy infraction, City of Niagara Falls staff may ask the organizers of the event to stop the violation, or they may close down the S.O.P. portion of the event. Should the organizers fail to comply, staff members may call the police for enforcement. 9.4 Where the Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement holders have violated the Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy, and have been warned by a City of Niagara Falls staff member, the sponsoring organization will be sent a registered letter advising of the violation, and indicating that no further violations will be tolerated. 9.5 Should the Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement holder violate the policy within one year of receiving notice of their first violation, the organizers will be suspended from Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement privileges at all municipal facilities for a period of one year. A registered letter will be sent to the S.O.P. holder and sponsoring organization advising of the suspension. A copy of the suspension letter will be provided to Niagara Falls City Council. 9.6 A member of the Niagara Regional Police or an Inspector from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario may intervene in a violation of this policy on his or her initiative, or in response to a request from either a City of Niagara Falls staff member or a member of the general public. Depending upon the severity of the infraction, charges may be laid under the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario, or any other relevant legislation. 10.0 POLICY MONITORING AND REVISIONS That the policy be reviewed every year by the City of Niagara Falls Senior Management staff and reported to the City of Niagara Falls Council with suggested policy changes, if required. Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# ,✓,� Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 Management Policy Niagara cells Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 12 of 17 11.0 APPLICATIONS Liquor Licence applications are approved by the A.G.C.O. All groups wishing to utilize a City owned facility for the serving of alcohol at a special event must also obtain approval from City Staff. Applications for use of City facilities can be obtained from the Recreation & Culture office. The forms should be completed and submitted to the Recreation & Culture office 21 days prior to the event. 12.0 INSURANCE POLICY individuals or groups sponsoring a Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement function at a facility listed in the Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy, must show proof to the Director of Recreation & Culture or his/her designate at least two (2)weeks prior to the event, that they have a minimum of$5,000,000.00 Liquor liability insurance coverage and that the City of Niagara Falls is named as co-insured. The permit holder will indemnify and save the City of Niagara Falls harmless from all claims arising from the permit or event. 13.0 NOISE POLICY That the Special Occasion Permit and Catering Endorsement be also governed by the Municipal Noise Bylaw 2004-105. As per the aforementioned by-law, the playing of music either by band, DJ, radio or other forms at special events held outdoors, sanctioned by a Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement on Municipal Property, cease by 9:00 P.M. each day that their Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement covers. The process for requests for exemptions under the Municipal Noise Bylaw are outlined under Section 7 of said by-law (By-law 2004-105) and require, amongst other requirements, a written application with full particulars and supporting documentation to the Chief Building official. Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 --- Management Policy iagarapills Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 13 of 17 APPENDIX "A" Special Occasion Permit (S.O.P.) or Catering Endorsement HOLDER AGREEMENT (please print) NAME OF ORGANIZATION NAME OF PERMIT HOLDER CERTIFICATION 1. The Permit Holder has received and reviewed a copy of the Municipal Alcohol V received V 1 V V •V V V i Municipal Risk Management Policy. 2. The Permit Holder agrees to adhere to the conditions of this policy and the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario. 3. The Permit Holder understands that if an infraction of the policy occurs, the City of Niagara Falls may warn or suspend the organization from A.G.C.O. permit privileges to use City facilities for one year. 4. The Permit Holder understands that they can be held liable for injuries and damage arising from failure to adhere to the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario, or from otherwise failing to take action that will prevent foreseeable harm from occurring. 5. The Permit Holder understands that the Police and/or a Liquor Licence Inspector can lay charges for infractions of the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario or other relevant legislation. SIGNATURE Permit Holder Address: Phone No. OFFICE USE Agreement received by: Recreation & Culture Date: Day/Month/Year Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 Management Policy \iagaraJ'alls Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 14 of 17 APPENDIX "B" S.O.P. ACCOUNTABILITY Name of Group Sponsoring Event Name of Special Occasion Permit or Catering Endorsement Holder Address and Phone Number of Permit Holder Facility Owner City of Niagara Falls Recreation & Culture 7150 Montrose Road, Unit 1, Niagara Falls, Ontario L2H 3N3 Telephone: (905) 356-7521, Extension 3330 After Hours: (905) 356-1355 Regional Police Niagara Regional Police Service 4343 Morrison Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6Z9 Telephone: (905) 688-4111 Ext. 4220 A.G.C.O. Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario 90 Sheppard Avenue E., Suite 200 Toronto ON M2N 0A4 Telephone: (416) 326-8700 Toll Free in Ont: 1-800-522-2876 Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 Niagara�'alls Management Policy Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 15 of 17 APPENDIX "C" S.O.P. HOLDER & CERTIFIED OR TRAINED EVENT WORKERS S.O.P. HOLDER AND DESIGNATE(S) (Please Print) CERTIFIED OR TRAINED EVENT WORKERS (MONITORS/BARTENDERS/ SERVERS/TICKET SELLERS) (Please Print) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Use additional forms, if necessary. Proof of certification or training must be provided two (2) weeks prior to the event. Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 Management Policy NiagaraJalls Issue Date Revision May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 16 of 17 APPENDIX "D" AREAS DESIGNATED FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF ALCOHOL CHIPPAWA WILLOUGHBY MEMORIAL ARENA • Meeting Room • Roped-off lobby area • Ice floor area • East side of arena building CITY HALL / CENTENNIAL SQUARE CORONATION 50 PLUS RECREATION CENTRE •Main & New Auditorium 'Lower Auditorium FIREHALLS • Chippawa - Station #4 • Sodom - Station #5 • Crowland - Station #6 FIREHALL THEATRE GALE CENTRE •Niagara Falls Memorial Room •Convenor's Meeting Room •Community Boardroom •Main Corridor 'Sleep Cheap Mezzanine MACBAIN COMMUNITY CENTRE •Community Board Room 'Coronation Multi-purpose Room •Main Lobby (permitted only if facility is closed to the public) •Main-Purpose Room A, D, E NIAGARA FALLS HISTORY MUSEUM •Theatre •Lobby •OPG Gallery •Gale Family Gallery •Niagara Community Gallery 'Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation Courtyard Department Division Recreation & Culture Subject Policy# "c07 Municipal Alcohol Risk 1000.10 �_.--� Management Policy i\is araf''alts Revision Issue Date May 1, 1996 Date September 9, 2014 August 30, 2010 Page ❑ Policy ❑ Procedure 17 of 17 NIAGARA FALLS MAIN LIBRARY CITY PARKS: Curfew 11:00 p.m. BATTLEFIELD PARK 'South Park area CHIPPAWA LIONS PARK •Outside area, directly north of the Fire Hall Building •Chippawa Lions Hall C.W. PALMER PARK •Concession area KALAR ROAD PARK 'Clubhouse •Designated location within the artificial turf field spectator area M.F. KER PARK 'Diamond #1 fenced area -Pitch #1 fenced area OAKES PARK -Entire fenced park area 'Ball diamond side of park •Pitch and track side of park •East side of park field house building STAMFORD CENTRE VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S ASSOCIATION PARK 'Facility W.L. HOUCK •South side of park field house building MUNICIPAL STREETS AS APPROVED BY COUNCIL R&C-2014-13 Niagara g11s September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Recreation & Culture SUBJECT: R&C-2014-13 Arts & Culture Wall of Fame 2014 Inductees RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the following 2014 Arts & Culture Wall of Fame Inductees: • Jennifer Garrett • Linus Hand • Big John "T-Bone" Little • Kimberly Newport-Mimran • Lynda Reeves • Daniel Rodrique • Pat Simon • Niagara District Art Association EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Arts & Culture Committee oversees the selection of Inductees for the Niagara Falls Arts & Culture Wall of Fame. Induction into the Wall of Fame is a special acknowledgement recognizing the contributions and achievements of citizens, past and present that reflect the best of Niagara Falls. This year's Induction Ceremony is scheduled for Saturday, November 1, 2014. BACKGROUND On August 14, 2014, the Arts & Culture Committee reviewed the Arts & Culture Wall of Fame nomination forms and selected nominees for induction into the 2014 Arts & Culture Wall of Fame. The objectives of the Arts & Culture Wall of Fame are: 1. To serve as a visual memory of artistic and cultural contributions in the City of Niagara Falls; 2. To ensure that both past and present residents receive due recognition for their artistic and cultural contributions. Inductees must illustrate the following to be inducted onto the Wall of Fame: a) Outstanding achievement in their artistic or cultural field. September 9, 2014 -2 - R&C-2014-13 b) A measurable impact on the Niagara Falls community must be illustrated municipally, provincially, nationally, or internationally. c) A person must have resided in Niagara Falls and/or have Niagara Falls as the main venue for their art for an extensive period of time. d) Community Sponsors must have a minimum of five (5) years of significant contribution. Nominees who have met the minimum criteria; and have been recognized by their peers with a prestigious award such as a Juno, where such an award exists; or have been recognized for their art through national or international acclaim will be eligible for automatic induction. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The City of Niagara Falls Arts & Culture Committee is pleased to acknowledge the contributions of individuals and groups that have contributed to the culture of Niagara Falls. The nominees that were selected to be inducted meet all of the requirements for induction. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS City Staff will coordinate the Induction Ceremony and have budgeted $1800.00 from the Arts & Culture Committee budget for framing of bios and photos, keeper plaques for inductees, and food and refreshments. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The City's Recreation & Culture Department has a commitment to provide optimum leisure service delivery in the City of Niagara Falls which enhances the quality of life, health and well-being of our people, our communities, our environment and our economy. The purpose of the Niagara Falls Arts & Culture Committee is to foster, develop, and unite artistic and cultural activities in the community. Through the Arts & Culture Wall of Fame, the Committee is able to recognize individuals, groups, community builders, community sponsors, and works of art that have contributed to enriching the lives of Niagara Falls residents, our communities, environment, and economy. The Arts & Culture Wall of Fame continues to raise awareness and the profile of culture's contribution to our daily lives and will hopefully inspire future artists, community builders, and communities sponsor. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Background Information on 2014 Arts & Culture Wall of Fame Inductees 7f; Recommended by: '/ ��t-'(16iz-yi Kathy Moldenhauer, Director of Recreation & Culture Approved by: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Attachment # 1: R&C-2014-13 2014 Arts & Culture Wall of Fame Inductees Background Information Jennifer Garrett • lived in Niagara Falls for 18 years • a painter, printmaker, musician, actor, and writer • involved in all aspects of theatre • 67 one person juried public gallery exhibitions in Canada and internationally • Recipient of numerous Ontario Arts Council grants • her artwork is included in numerous public and corporate collections • published artworks in four book covers and 34 illustrations for children's books Linus Hand • lived in Niagara Falls for 27 years • brought high quality professional theatre to Niagara Falls • generously provided thousands of tickets for those that could not otherwise afford and as prizes for community organizations • his productions provide an opportunity for local children to perform with professional artists in productions like Scrooge, Annie, Peter Pan, and Seussical. • founded and oversees the Linus Hand Drama Academy providing an opportunity for Niagara's young people to study drama, vocal music, and dance with professional artists Big John "T-Bone" Little • lived in Niagara Falls for over 30 years • a musician who has been entertaining for more than 60 years • he started entertaining at the age of 6 playing the drums at the BME Church in Niagara Falls • he spent approximately 50 years on the road touring in Canada and the USA. • recently T-Bone returned to Niagara Falls to live and assembled a band called Big John Little and the Niagara Blues Band. Kimberley Newport-Mimran • lived in Niagara Falls for 21 years • a successful fashion designer • co-owner, president, and head designer of Pink Tartan which was launched in Canada in 2002 and expanded with sales offices in New York by 2004 • flagship store opened in Toronto in 2010 • Pink Tartan can be found at Canadian high end retailers and US department stores and retails in over 170 specialty stores in North America and Internationally • Pink Tartan has been worn by many "everyday" women as well as top celebrities Lynda Reeves • lived in Niagara Falls for approximately 20 years • an interior designer and a very well recognized Canadian personality in the field of decorating and lifestyle trends • author of books on decorating and design • founder and publisher of Canadian House & Home Magazine • host and executive producer of House and Home Online TV Daniel Rodrique • Lived in Niagara Falls for 30 years • Producer of a 60 episode series called The Veterans for which he received a commendation from the Minister of Veterans Affairs in honour of his work preserving stories from Canada's decorated war heroes • The series is included in the permanent archive in Canada's Department of National Defense • Involved in several other film projects and PSA's • Active community volunteer serving as a member of numerous military organizations and served as an active Arts & Culture Committee member for many years Pat Simon • Lived in Niagara Falls for 83 years • Attended and photographed almost every community event that took place in Niagara Falls for many years and shared the photos with the community • His restaurant was a local meeting place and the walls told the story of Niagara Falls with numerous photos, signs, paintings, and items. Niagara District Art Association • Founded in 1945 and operated until 2013 (almost 70 years) • Longest running arts organization in Niagara Falls • Provided a home for artists to meet, hold monthly meetings, weekly workshops, group painting, demonstrations, and seminars • Provided a Public Art Gallery for art exhibitions year round and free of charge TS-2014-19 Niagaraanlls September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Transportation Services Department SUBJECT: TS-2014-19 Transit Agreement with Niagara College Student Administrative Council RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the City enter into a one semester Agreement with the Niagara College Student Administrative Council. 2. That Niagara Falls Transit services be extended to both Niagara College campuses from September 2014 through December 2014 at full cost recovery. 3. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The most recent Agreement to provide service between Niagara Falls and the Niagara College Campuses for the benefit of the students expired on April 30, 2014. Transit staff have been in discussion with the College's Student Administrative Council to establish a new Agreement, which will provide Niagara Falls Transit with additional revenues as compensation for the municipal trips the students are taking on our city service. This new municipal levy revenue stream will commence in the January 2015 as new technologies are being introduced between Niagara College and Niagara Falls Transit to accurately account for the number of trips the students are taking within the city. When the counts are verified after the first semester, the per trip municipal levy will be applied for all trips taken within the second semester. As in previous years, various service options have been reviewed with the Student's Council to provide a schedule which meets the needs of the students, while remaining within their budget. BACKGROUND: The Niagara Falls Transit service to Niagara College's Welland and Niagara-on-the-Lake Campuses is an express service operating on a fixed route. The service is provided September through April to ensure the students residing within our city have an opportunity September 9, 2014 -2 - TS-2014-19 to travel to and from the two Campuses to attend their daytime and evening classes, as well as exams. The level of service provided for the 2014/2015 school year is at an hourly rate of $92.93 per hour, which provides Niagara Falls Transit with full cost recovery for the provision of service beyond our municipal borders. In addition, a Municipal Levy has been designed, which will recoup revenue for every trip the Niagara College students take on Niagara Falls Transit for the second semester, January through April. In the initial semester, September through December, the two parties will be introducing a new sticker technology to the student I.D. cards, which will allow our fare collection system to communicate with the sticker on the I.D. card and capture the trips the students are taking municipally. For the term of the second semester, the municipal levy should generate approximately $25,000 in additional revenue for the city. Further, if additional buses are required to address capacity issues, the added costs will be the responsibility of the Student Council. This agreement also has a "Fuel Escalation Clause"to protect the City if the price of diesel fuel increases dramatically. In addition, any fares collected by non student customers choosing to utilize this service to travel to the Campuses are retained by Niagara Falls Transit. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: The first semester Agreement with the Niagara College Student Administrative Council will provide Niagara Falls Transit with revenues of approximately $278,000. The second semester will exceed this amount as it will include the municipal levy, and thus will be approximately $300,000. These revenues will allow the service to operate between Niagara Falls and the two College Campuses at full cost recovery. There are no staffing or legal implications. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT: The provision of service between Niagara Falls and the Niagara College Campuses supports the City's 2011 - 2014 Strategic Priorities which include: Infrastructure Sustainability, Convenient,Accessible, and Sustainable Transportation, Customer service Excellence, and a Healthy and Safe Community. Recommended by: / j' ) Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services Respectfully submitted: - Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer D. Stuart S:\General Administration\GA 1.01 Reports\2014 Council\9 Sept 9\TS-2014-19 Transit Agreement with NCSAC.wpd TS-2014-31 Niagararglis September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Transportation Services Department SUBJECT: TS-2014-31 Transit Advertising RFP Results RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the contract to place exterior and interior advertisements on Niagara Falls Transit buses be awarded to Street Seen Media for the period from September 1, 2014 through August 31, 2019 with an option to renew for an additional three years. 2. That the Mayor and the Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary agreements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City's conventional Transit fleet is currently consisting of twenty-seven buses. To generate additional revenues to offset operational costs, transit staff solicited media sales organizations to lease the space on the exterior and interior of the buses for the purposes of displaying advertising. The City is guaranteed a monthly minimum amount or 55% of net revenue, whichever is greater for access to this space. Based on the current complement of buses, the City will receive a minimum of $48,600.00 per year over the 5 year term of the agreement. BACKGROUND: Niagara Falls Transit has a fleet of 27 conventional buses able to accommodate the placement of exterior and interior advertisements. This space is made available to a media sales and production organization, who sells the advertising opportunity to businesses wishing to utilize this visible medium. In return, the City receives compensation from the media sales firm based upon a guaranteed minimum payment per bus every month or 55% of net revenues. For 27 buses, the minimum payment per month will be $150.00 per bus, which equates to $48,600.00 (plus HST) in the initial year of the agreement. The `Request for Proposals' was distributed to five media sales organizations, in addition to being broadcast on the municipal bid website for greater exposure. At the closing of this RFP, only one vendor responded with a submission. Evaluation criteria, including weighting, were included in the RFP to ensure the bidders were made aware which services and resources were of greatest value to the staff at Niagara Falls Transit. The evaluation criteria are as follows: Company Overview, Experience in the Industry, Project Understanding and Proposed Scope of Services, Project Timing, Human and Equipment Resources, and Guaranteed Financial Revenue. Although there was only one bidder to the RFP, this company is a reputable organization known in our industry and currently provide the sales services for St. Catharines Transit, Transit Windsor, and Hamilton Street Railway. The term of the Agreement will be from September 1, 2014 through August 31, 2019. Upon mutual consent, the parties may renew the Agreement for up to an additional three years in one or multiple year extensions. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Agreement with Street Seen Media provides a financial remuneration of $48,600.00 plus HST in the first year, which equates to a minimum payment of$243,000.00 plus HST over the five-year term. If the current fleet of 27 buses were to increase, the annual minimum revenues would increase beyond $48,600.00. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT This initiative is supported by Council's Strategic Priorities, which include developing and implementing a comprehensive Transportation Plan and strengthen and promote economic development within the City. Recommended by: Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services Respectfully submitted: Keri Todd, Chief Administrative Officer S:\General Administration\GA 1.01 Reports\2014 Council\9 Sept 9\TS-2014-31 Transit Advertising RFP Results.wpd Dean Iorfida From: Terry McDougall <TMcDougall@alzheimerniagara.ca> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 10:51 AM To: Dean Iorfida Subject: Alzheimer Deputation Attachments: Deputation Script Niagara Falls 2014.doc Good morning Dean. I'm just confirming that our Board representative, Mr. Peter Nicholson, will be attending the Council meeting on Tuesday, September 9th to give a deputation regarding our upcoming Coffee Break campaign. I have attached a copy of his speech for you. Sincerely, Terry McDougall (Mrs.) Director of Fund Development Alzheirr?er Soploty Niagara Foundation 403 Ontario St., Unit#1 St. Catharines, ON L2N 1L5 PH: 905-687-6856 ext. 556 FX: 905-687-9952 tmcdougall alzheimerniagara.ca www a zheimern adara.ca 201 �4 NATIONAL COFFEE BREAK u rl for Memories 54t) ,`c,r`e,. CAMPAIGN RUNS FROM SEPT - DEC 2014 Sat. Nov 8/14 '` ' ❑❑� Niana a a l:k C r''r'' Lb 5801 Mcrr sor 3r_ ,� a is fil=l: a Io r i 4,`L' :II'', ' r-:,,rr r a' ,� ljt Fir ' . 'rC1 _ ,4 5 i ,:( ,� L . . cr .r z ar:=`+ ,� vrr `:i ' _ � . _d- :Oli e ' 1t : ;7 �'* Value 14 P9'.1') �'� 905-687-6856 ext. 556 Cott4cs6876856ext_ s5 roregIster' Email: tnncdougall< aIzhe merniagara.ca or w.,I tmcdougat tzheimern^aga:-a.•:a -464 Confidentiality Notice:The information contained in this communication, including any attachments that may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,disclosure, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of it from your computer system.Thank you. 1 Alzheimer Society of Niagara Region - 19th Annual Coffee Break City of Niagara Falls (Mayor Jim Diodati) Presenter: Peter Nicholson Mayor Diodati, members of council, City staff and members of the public, my name is Peter Nicholson, Board member for the Alzheimer Society Niagara Foundation. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about our 19th Annual Coffee Break campaign. The Niagara Chapter of the Alzheimer Society is proud to have inspired Coffee Break, which has evolved into a national annual fundraiser for Alzheimer Societies across Canada that has raised millions of dollars. National Coffee Break Day is Thursday, September 18th, with more than 10,000 Coffee Breaks expected to take place across the country. In the Niagara Region, our Campaign will kick off on that day and run from September through December. Hosted by volunteers, Coffee Breaks provide an opportunity to invite your fellow workers, customers, clients, friends, family or neighbours to come together to enjoy a cup of coffee or other preferred beverage at a break time or another social get-together in exchange for making a donation to the Alzheimer Society. All of the funds raised stay here in Niagara to support the programs and services of the Alzheimer Society of Niagara Region to improve the quality of life of individuals and their families with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Hosting a coffee break is fun, social and easy to organize. Our Society supplies a free kit, while the host supplies the people and venue. Each kit includes coffee for that first pot, a donation box, and promotional signage and literature. While many of the Alzheimer Coffee Breaks in Canada will be held on the National Day, you can certainly choose a date that is more convenient to you, since the Niagara campaign runs from September to December. Coffee Break events are held in homes, work places, community centres, schools, churches, city halls, retail outlets - just about anywhere a social gathering can take place, and where coffee, other beverages, or food can be served and a donation collected. Some of the most successful events in the past have involved doing something a little different. Whether it's an open house, barbecue, raffle, dress down days, selling coffee cup cut- 1 outs or rounding up your bill at the cash register, each break truly makes a difference in the lives of those in your community dealing with the effects of dementia. This year's campaign will kick off as the Grantham Lioness host their annual Coffee Break on September 18th at the Grantham Lions Hall on Niagara Street in St. Catharines. The Lioness have raised more than $40,000 to date in support of Coffee Break and on that day, the Niagara Marine Industry Charitable Council will jumpstart the campaign with their generous annual donation. A couple of Region-wide notable initiatives that we hope everyone will support include Bulk Barn stores asking customers for a donation for a coffee cup cut-out at the registers between September 5th and September 21st and on November 20th, 20 Avondale stores throughout Niagara will donate 20% of the proceeds from coffee sales that day. Why is our campaign so important? Ontario is on the verge of crisis. Our population is aging, and the number of people with dementia is increasing exponentially. Today in Ontario there are 210,000 people living with dementia. By the end of the decade (2020) that number is expected to exceed 255,000 people. The Alzheimer Societies across Ontario have been warning of this significant increase and the need to respond before the number of people requiring help overwhelms the health and social system. We advocate for change to ensure that every single person living with dementia, as well as their families and caregivers, are able to access the care and support they need when they need it. Here in Niagara, there are currently over 8,670 people experiencing a progressive dementia and this number continues to grow. Our Alzheimer Society's mission is to advocate for people with dementia and their care partners, and provide access to a diverse range of appropriate resources and supports throughout their difficult journey that will assist them in remaining independent in their homes and communities longer. With no known cure, maintaining a healthy lifestyle is becoming even more important. Studies have shown that in older adults with Alzheimer's disease, regular physical activity improved their quality of life and 2 decreased the occurrence of depression. Likewise, in older adults without Alzheimer's disease who were very physically active, they were almost 40% less likely to develop Alzheimer's disease as opposed to those who were inactive. This could mean a potential cost savings in healthcare between $88 and $970 million per year. Each year our Society must fundraise for approximately $600,000 of its 1.9 million dollar budget and Coffee Break is our signature event. Thanks to this Council and over 300 hosts, we raised over $90,000 last year. This year, more than ever, we need to count on your support to reach our goal of $100,000. I encourage each of you to consider hosting your own Coffee Break event this year and "make your coffee count". Seventy-four per cent of us Canadians know someone with dementia. Please support your own Niagara community, maybe even a loved one, by choosing to make a difference today and provide hope for tomorrow. Anyone can register for a free Coffee Break kit by calling the Alzheimer Society of Niagara Region at 905-687-3914 or by visiting the website at www.alzheimerniagara.ca. Again, thank you for your time this evening and your consideration to participate in this very worth-while endeavour. Mayor Diodati, may I please present you with your Coffee Break Host Kit? (present kit). Thank you. 3 Where the Money G 2014 yunt+ad Nay Niagara alls and Greater Fort Erie Na cl a ra FallsMoney allocated to support Niagara Falls residents United Way Member Agencies 2014 2013 2012 Adolescent's Family Support Services of Niagara $11,500 $10,000 $9,800 AIDS Niagara $2,730 $0 $0 Autism Ontario Niagara Region Chapter $6,520 $7,500 $0 Bethlehem Housing and Support Services $22,474 $22,474 $21,593 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Niagara Falls $107,000 $98,010 $96,050 Block Parents of Niagara Falls $1,000 $1,500 $1,470 Boys and Girls Club of Niagara $48,175 $47,230 $46,481 Brain Injury Association of Niagara $4,830 $4,830 $6,781 Canadian Mental Health Association $39,154 $32,274 $30,916 Canadian National Institute for the Blind $14,773 $14,627 $13,908 Distress Centre of Niagara $29,810 $25,356 $27,554 Epilepsy Niagara $32,400 $5,580 $7,291 Family Counselling Centre $66,817 $64,001 $59,875 Good Food Box $9,999 $0 $0 In The Orchard $1,167 $0 $0 Learning Disabilities Association of Niagara $15,510 $15,312 $14,817 Multicultural Network of Niagara Falls $0 $0 $25,210 Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada $6,840 $6,480 $6,350 Niagara Centre for Independent Living $5,184 $5,184 $4,978 Niagara Falls Meals-on-Wheels $16,398 $16,398 $15,909 Niagara Furniture Bank Niagara $4,000 $4,000 $0 Niagara Nutrition Partners -South $4,928 $4,928 $4,781 Niagara Region Sexual Assault Centre $0 $8,650 $6,339 Project S.H.A.R.E. $78,659 $114,000 $118,370 Victim Services Niagara $4,235 $4,235 $3,698 Women's Addiction Recovery Mediation $8,500 $8,500 $8,330 YWCA Niagara Region $72,319 $73,600 $70,587 $614,922 $594,669 $601,088 Pledged through the United Way to other charities (eg Humane Society, Heart& Stroke, etc.) $111,355 $129,282 $105,498 Special Project Funding (one time-local initiatives) $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Total amount invested in our community $786,277 $783,951 $766,586 Uncollectible pledges, estimated $27,997 $42,221 $60,000 Special event expenses, estimated for 2014 $39,520 $52,041 $57,965 Cost of running the United Way, budget for 2014 $162,749 $157,426 $157,776 Total $1,016,543 $1,035,639 $1,081,787 0.0„ United Way Niagara Falls and Greater Fort Erie August 15, 2104 Mayor Jim Diodati and Members of Council City of Niagara Falls P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Dear Mayor Diodati and Councillors: The United Way of Niagara Falls and Greater Fort Erie is planning a free, family-friendly event on Friday, Sept. 19 at Oakes Park in conjunction with our annual fundraising campaign kick-off. The volunteer committee planning and organizing the United Way FallFest would like to run it from 4 to 10 p.m. We understand this requires an extension to the city's noise by-law, so on behalf of the committee, I am respectfully requesting this one-hour extension. If you have any questions about the event, please contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Carol Stewart-Kirkby Executive Director 7150 Montrose Road, Niagara Falls, ON L2H 3N3 • Tel: 905-354-9342 P.O. Box 266, Fort Erie, ON L2A 5M5 • Tel: 905-871-5454 Fax: 905-354-2717 • unitedway@caninet.com •WWw.unitedwayniagara.org 1, United Way Niagara Falls and Greater Fort Erie September 3, 2014 Mayor Jim Diodati and Members of Council City of Niagara Falls P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Dear Mayor Diodati and Councillors: Further to our request of August 15, regarding a noise by-law extension, it has come to our attention that the City of Niagara Falls requires business licenses for food trucks. As per the August 15 letter, The United Way of Niagara Falls and Greater Fort Erie is planning a free, family-friendly event on Friday, Sept. 19 at Oakes Park in conjunction with our annual fundraising campaign kick-off. United Way FallFest will include live entertainment, children's activities as well as information about the services offered by our funded agencies. Several food vendors and food trucks are interested in participating in the 6-hour event. On behalf of the volunteer committee, I respectfully request that the business license requirement for food trucks be waived for United Way FallFest. We understand Club Italia, Springilicious and Food Truck Face Off have been granted similar exceptions in the past and hope you look favourably on this request. All public health requirements will be adhered to by the food vendors. If you have any questions about the event, please contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, L — Carol Stewart-Kirkby Executive Director 7150 Montrose Road, Niagara Falls, ON L2I-1 3NJ * Tel: 905-354-9342 P.O. Box 266, Fort Erie, ON L2A 5M5 • Tel: 905-871-5454 Fax: 905-354-2717 • unitedway@caninet.corn •,,vwrdw.unitedwayniagala.org Dean Iorfida From: Lori Albanese Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:37 AM To: Dean Iorfida Cc: Kathy Moldenhauer Subject: Awards at Council - Trinity Reid & Niagara Falls Red Raiders JUEL Prep Girls Basketball Team HI Dean, We have Trinity Reid and the NF Red Raiders Basketball teams for Awards at Council. Trinity Reid recently won gold at the US Junior National Open Judo Championships and the Niagara Falls Red Raiders JUEL Prep Girls Basketball Team won gold at the Ontario Cup Championship. Would Tuesday, September 9, 2014 be available for the Council Presentation? Also, Did Senior Staff discuss whether to award the entire Red Raiders team or only the four players from Niagara Falls? Please let me know. Thanks Lori Lori Albanese Community Development Coordinator Ext. 3332 1 I I- > Z z Z G) 3 D -1 m 73 PBD-2014-50 Niagaraaalls September 9, 2014 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PBD-2014-50 26CD-11-2014-002 & AM-2014-005 Smart Townes Phase 2 Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium and Zoning By-law Amendment Application Southwest Corner of Kalar Road and Angie Drive (Block 209, Plan 59M-384 and Block 64, Plan 59M-376) 63 Unit Townhouse Development Owner: Pinewood Homes (Niagara) Ltd. RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Smart Townes Phase 2 Plan of Vacant Land Condominium be draft approved subject to the conditions in the attached Appendix "A". 2. That 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. That draft approval be given for three years, after which approval will lapse unless an extension is requested by the developer and granted by Council. 4. That the application to amend the Zoning By-law be approved to guide the development of the Vacant Land Condominium, as detailed in this report. 5. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Vacant Land Condominium Agreement and any required documents to allow for the future registration of the condominium when all matters are addressed to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pinewood Homes (Niagara) Ltd. is proposing to develop two blocks of land located on the south-west corner of Kalar Road and Angie Drive as a Vacant Land Condominium comprised of 63 townhouse dwelling units. The applicant has also applied to amend Zoning By-law No. 79-200 to provide the necessary regulations to guide the construction of the dwellings. Planning staff recommends the applications for the following reasons: September 9, 2014 -2 - PBD-2014-50 • the proposal complies with Provincial and Regional policies with respect to achieving minimum density targets and providing for compact development in the City's designated greenfield area; • the proposal complies with the City's Official Plan and the Garner Neighbourhood Secondary Plan with respect to residential densities and housing mix and the development will be compatible with surrounding land uses; and • City and Regional interests will be addressed through the fulfilment of conditions contained in Appendix "A". The conditions of approval are listed in Appendix "A". BACKGROUND Proposal The applicant has applied to register a Vacant Land Condominium on two parcels of land totalling 1.17 hectares (2.9 acres) located on the south-west corner of Kalar Road and Angie Drive (see Schedule 1). This plan will permit the creation of vacant land units (lots) for the future sale of the 63 townhouse dwelling units that are proposed. Schedule 1 shows the proposed plan layout. The applicant has also applied to amend the zoning of the two blocks. The northerly block is currently zoned Residential Apartment 5B Density (R5B-847), and the southerly block is zoned Residential Apartment 5C Density (R5C-921). The R5B-847 zone permits an apartment building and townhouse dwellings. The R5C-921 zone permits only an apartment building and a retirement home. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the R5C-921 zone to add Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings (R4) zone uses, which includes townhouse dwellings. In addition, the applicant is requesting site specific modifications to the regulations that address lot area, side yard widths, number of dwelling units in a townhouse dwelling, separation distances between townhouse dwellings, privacy yards and driveway aisle widths, for both the R5B-847 and R5C-921 zones. Surrounding Land Uses The subject land involves one block of land in the Deerfield Phase 8 subdivision and one block of land in the Deerfield Phase 9 subdivision. The lands are generally devoid of features except for a row of deciduous trees along Kalar Road. A similar condominium townhouse development (Smart Townes Phase 1) and single detached dwellings exist to the west of the subject land. Single detached dwellings also exist to the east of the land, on the east side of Kalar Road. A 3 storey apartment building exists to the south. To the north are vacant lands that are within the draft approved Deerfield Phase 10 Plan of Subdivision and are intended for single detached dwellings. Circulation Comments • Regional Municipality of Niagara No objections from a Provincial or regional Perspective, subject to the implementation of their conditions listed in Appendix "A". September 9, 2014 -3 - PBD-2014-50 • Municipal Works,Transportation Services, Fire Services, Building Services, Canada Post, Enbridge, Bell Canada No objections. Requested conditions included in Appendix "A". Neighbourhood Open House A neighbourhood open house was held on August 6, 2014 to introduce the project to area property owners. No neighbours attended the open house to hear about the proposal or to ask questions. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE 1. Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan The subject lands are located in the City's greenfield area. Provincial policies require minimum density targets to be achieved in these areas. The Region, who oversees the implementation of Provincial policies, has determined that an average density of 53 persons/jobs per hectare is to be achieved in the City's greenfield area. Current zoning approvals,which satisfy the Provincial targets, envision the southerly block to be developed with a minimum of 17 apartment dwelling or townhouse dwelling units and the northerly block to be developed with a minimum of 45 apartment dwelling or retirement home living units. The proposed development would provide 63 townhouse dwelling units and meets the minimum densities established for these lands by zoning. There are no concerns from a Provincial policy standpoint. 2. Official Plan and Garner Neighbourhood Secondary Plan The Official Plan designates the land as Residential. Residential lands are intended to be developed with a variety of compatible housing forms to provide a full range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of residents. Multiple unit residential developments, up to a maximum of 75 units per hectare, may be considered adjacent to collector roads. The subject land is located at the intersection of an arterial road (Kalar Road) and a collector road (Angie Drive). The proposed density of 54 units per hectare conforms to the permitted density. The townhouse design is compatible with the surrounding development in terms of building height and massing. A housing mix target of 70% single/semi-detached units and 30% multiple residential units is specified for the Garner Neighbourhood. The proposed townhouses are an acceptable alternative to apartments that will assist in meeting the Secondary Plan target for multiple residential units and provide housing choices for residents. September 9, 2014 -4- PBD-2014-50 3. Zoning By-law Amendment The southerly block is zoned Residential Apartment 5B Density (R5B-847). This zone permits the development of the land with either an apartment building up to 3 storeys in height or townhouse dwellings. The northerly block is zoned Residential Apartment 5C Density (R5C-921). This zone permits an apartment building or retirement home up to 6 storeys in height. The applicant wishes to retain these zoning rights and add townhouse dwellings as a permitted use subject to the Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings (R4) zone regulations as modified in the table below. As this request facilitates housing choices and a compact development, Planning staff have no objection to adding the use. Standards Proposed Minimum Lot Area 200 square 185 square metres/unit metres/unit Minimum Exterior Side Yard 4.5 m plus 15 m 4.5 m Width from the centreline of Kalar Road Minimum Distance Between 3 - 15 m 3 m Townhouse Dwellings Maximum Number of Dwelling 8 9 Units in a Townhouse Dwelling Minimum Privacy Yard Depth 7.5 m 5.7 m (unit nos 48 to 63 internal to the development) 7 m (unit nos 18-30 along Kalar Road) 7.5 m (the balance of the units) Minimum Aisle Width 6.3 m 6 m These same provisions are to be applied to the block zoned R5B-847 so that both parcels could develop as one project. The requested site specific regulations are supportable. The reduction in lot area will accommodate the density being sought. As necessary widenings have already been taken along the Kalar Road through the subdivision process, it is no longer necessary to maintain a centreline setback to protect for future widenings. The minor reduction in aisle width is not a concern as access for residents, fire trucks and waste disposal vehicles will still be provided. Provisions relating to distance separation between townhouse dwellings and number of dwelling units relate in part to fire safety and building massing. As fire safety will be governed by the Ontario Building Code and the changes do not result in a significant increase in massing, there are no concerns with the modifications requested. The reduction in the privacy yard depth for the units along Kalar Road from 7.5 metres to 7 metres is minor and should not be noticeable. A larger privacy yard depth reduction is requested for the internal unit nos. 48 to 63 (from 7.5 metres to 5.7 metres). Planning staff have no objections to this reduction as it will have no off-site impacts and provide an alternative for residents who wish a smaller yard. September 9, 2014 -5 - PBD-2014-50 4. Condominium Design and Conditions of Approval The layout of the proposed plan is similar to the Smart Townes Phase 1, which is located on the west side of Kelsey Crescent and was approved by Council last year. This design provides for a compact form of housing which has a higher density than a typical townhouse development. However, this design provides for densities that meet Provincial policies and provides a housing choice that is in demand by City residents. The design has reverse lot frontages (rear yards) along Kalar Road and Angie Drive. These are not ideal as they do not reflect development that fronts onto the east side of Kalar Road and rear yard privacy fencing detracts from abutting streetscape. To improve the integration of the reverse lot frontages with surrounding development wood privacy yard fencing should be limited to the privacy yards of the units, with landscaping or low decorative fencing used along the balance of these frontages (ie. the north-east and south-east corners of the development along Kalar Road). Limiting the fencing could also allow for a walkway out to Kalar Road so that residents could access transit. The conditions will require the submission and approval of a landscape drawing by the City's Park Design section. Transportation Services has requested the parking spaces closest to the entry points (nos. 1 and 64) be removed to meet City standards and ensure safe entry into the development. As the project has a surplus of parking this change can be accommodated. The recommended conditions of approval for the Condominium are included in Appendix 1. Many of the matters that would need to be addressed, such as road widenings, cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication and street trees, were dealt with at the plan of subdivision stage and do not need to be addressed now. The conditions of approval include requirements for the submission and approval of site servicing/grading, landscaping and lighting drawings,fencing details,fire safety and access, waste disposal, review of drawings for zoning compliance and the installation of the necessary facilities and services for Canada Post, Bell Canada and Enbridge. Site works will be secured through the execution of a condominium agreement. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Development charge contributions have not yet been payed for these blocks and will be payable in accordance with the Development Charges By-law. The development will generate property tax revenue for the City. There are no other financial implications. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The proposed condominium meets the Strategic Priority of a Well Planned City as it provides for residential intensification along an arterial corridor. September 9, 2014 -6 - :D-2014-50 LIST OF ,'ATTACHMENTS Schedule 1 - Location Map Schedule 2 - Subdivision Plan e Appendix A - Conditions for Draft Plan Approval Recommended by: Alex Herlcvitch, Direcl:crcf Punning, Building & Development Respectfully submitted 711 Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer A.Bryce:mb Attach. S:\PDR\2014\PBD-2014-50,26CD-1 1-2014-002 8,AM-2014-005,Smart Townes Phase 2 Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium wpd September 9, 2014 -7 - PS0-2014-50 SCHEDULE I Subject Land 4-- Ki _ - - 1 I A39-2014-1005,126CD-11-2014-tY02 September 9, 2014 -8 - PBD-2014-50 SCHEDULE 2 ANGIE -0,—2,5,..,' DRIVE = 0 6.97O , 11`‘ -----'' -IIIIIII -' ...: ' va,t•57. 0.3 6454 wIal, / Ur, •37-1 •5, •,-, ,,J,, 5.17, ,.” 1 111111111111111 W414i' r.. 1 . ;,.,t,i,:trit,-:5i-!ti-,,..,,ti-;5,:,, ,;2= ;i• -_,8- , =5 = - - - F; A Z <sr; .., ..i”! ,,- laiiNniall 50" IlliiiMUMMIIMI.1151.1.12111111M. ''''' Iffierj---1—.-----.11S-----_. -------, ,- fl_fl IUTI .50 15.7 < __ , ..._— .'REGLS.TEE.D i"L.4_\ 7.... _ .;-. rai— le 28 i i -.1 to - .... • Ner,51' 15,, .8.'5.: -'.16, ., ., ..... ...„. -, ..._ .7, P 1 i3 8 •--- IRIT 54.;• .. .1.11841157 — - .s :- .•-• :':11 w./70. 2 ..; 7, ; 1%3 . 7.; ___, UPC /.. LNIT 53 1. ; I 58 : 77 ..;.". -7 MT 25 z‘ 2 7' 1 • - i ' , .Z.5•E ,7977 00.3 — – :0 ?- 1 i ... . I '9517 ..• ,61, .2 ,-------------- ,..o. 0 0 ; ,c., •.1 t '..-; V41122 1t Sr ..,. • .9,17 .... .r., :re ttifT 21 i = ______----- UTE 48 ,' F. I urc ,197, '''' 1 ^, '- . u'4 8•'- , ,ter.,)",-, 9... co-, -----' -----------= BLOCK 64 _ .., . —__ ..,--.. , --,.- — _.) ,,—,----,—, _ -• , REcisT:ER_ti) e L A\ C '- Cr, ---- . ----- ' 8 --,' --4 49VT 57 ,377. -.1 i 91 i --.---.., ... ---------07/1 = , 7 somuithautragnErmayammiEnji ,-,_,, . — --, - ,---. I ". N,,..0, .. , N z .3 .6. i- ,;-',. . :' .!. t;-• L., ; : ,. ' ‘; 1,,;,,7. t.-i, 1•••;,, I ''',:', ti", t;'. ti", ti., i'.- ti.- i- ...., -... .,..., '. ....., <", .., ...., ..,., ..•,, ..., ,,, r -.'? II ., I!1.177 i .0 1 crin 4sm I .rr .877 1 4.171 10 sm .0 4,,,, im a., Y:4; 4crzrNNP YerSTSE -74R- ' ;',...//,' 3,375 — N8812.001 -.st' September 9, 2014 -9 - PBD-2014-50 APPENDIX A Conditions for Draft Plan Approval 1. Approval applies to the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium prepared by Matthews, Cameron, Heywood - Kerry T. Howe Surveying Ltd., dated July 9, 2014, showing 63 units of vacant land for townhouses as well as common element areas for private roadways and landscaping. 2. The developer receive final approval of the related zoning by-law amendment (File No. AM-2014-005) in accordance with the Planning Act. 3. The developer submit to the City's Senior Zoning Administrator all necessary drawings and information, including but not limited to, site,elevation and landscaping drawings to confirm zoning compliance. 4. The developer provide five cop1Ps of the pre-registration plan to Planning, Building & Development and a letter stating how all the conditions imposed have been or are to be fulfilled. 5. The developer enter into a Vacant Land Condominium Agreement with the City, to be registered on title, 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 Vacant Land Condominium Agreement, they may be required to become party to the Vacant Land Condominium Agreement for the purpose of enforcing such conditions. 6. The developer submit a Solicitor's Certificate of Ownership for the Condominium land to the City Solicitor prior to the preparation of the Vacant Land Condominium Agreement. 7. The developer provide fencing along Angie Drive and Kalar Road, to the satisfaction of Parks Design. Details of this fence shall be shown on the landscape plan required by condition 8. 8. The developer provide a landscape plan, prepared by a Landscape Architect (OALA), showing fencing, entrance features, streetscape treatment, internal landscaping/lot landscape design, patios, driveway locations, garbage enclosures/collection areas and buffering for the adjacent residential lots. 9. All roadways within the subject lands shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards. 10. All underground services, roadways, sidewalks within the subject lands shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards. NOTE: No looping connections of the existing watermain will be permitted within the development. 11. The lot grading design and construction shall be completed in accordance to City standards. September 9, 2014 - 10 - PBD-2014-50 12. The developer's streetlight scheme shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City standards. 13. The developer submit all servicing plans including water, sanitary, stormwater, private driveway, landscaping, fencing, lighting and lot grading and drainage to Municipal Works for approval and inclusion into the Vacant Land Condominium Agreement. 14. The developer pay the applicable development charges in place at the time of the Vacant Land Condominium Agreement execution and Building Permit issuance in accordance with By-law No. 2014-87, as amended. 15. The developer pay to the City the applicable required fees for Administration. 16. That the following condition be placed in the Vacant Land Condominium Agreement: "Owners shall be required to have their Engineering Consultant provide written acceptance that the works completed conforms with the City's accepted drawings and in accordance with the current City of Niagara Falls Engineering Design Standards manual." 17. The developer submit the necessary servicing drawings and building elevation drawings to the Building Services and Fire Services to satisfy the requirements of Division B, Article 3.2.5.4. of the Ontario Building Code. Note that should no firewalls be proposed in the buildings then a fire access route shall be provided in accordance with Division B, Article 3.2.5.4. The said servicing drawings are to identify the closest hydrant on Kelsey Crescent. 18. If a fire access route is required by condition 17, the developer shall submit a request to the Fire Department to designate through municipal by-law a fire access route on the property. 19. The developer satisfy the Building Department and Fire Department with respect to Fire Department access to units 15-17 and 31-33. 20. That parking space nos. 1 and 64 be removed to the satisfaction of Transportation Services. 21. The developer is hereby advised that prior to commencing any work within the Plan, the developer must confirm that sufficient wire-line communication/ telecommunication infrastructure is currently available within the proposed development to provide communication/telecommunication service to the proposed development. In the event that such infrastructure is not available, the developer is hereby advised that the developer may be required to pay for the connection to and/or extension of the existing communication/telecommunication infrastructure. If the developer elects not to pay for such connection to and/or extension of the existing communication/telecommunication infrastructure, the developer shall be required to demonstrate to the municipality that sufficient alternative communication/telecommunication facilities are available within the proposed development to enable, at a minimum, the effective delivery of communication/ telecommunication services for emergency management services (ie. 911 Emergency Services). September 9, 2014 - 11 - PBD-2014-50 22. The developer agree, in the Vacant Land Condominium Agreement, in words satisfactory to Bell Canada, to grant to Bell Canada any easements that may be required for telecommunication services. Easements may be required subject to final servicing decisions. In the event of any conflict with existing Bell Canada facilities or easement, the developer shall be responsible for the relocation of such facilities or easements. 23. Bell Canada requires one or more conduits of sufficient size from each unit to the room(s) in which telecommunication facilities are situated and one or more conduits from the room(s) in which telecommunication facilities are located to the street line. 24. The developer meet the requirements of Enbridge Gas Distribution with respect to the provision of their facilities to the subject lands including providing any necessary easements and exclusive use locations, any necessary relocation of the gas main, installation of gas piping and subsequent completion of landscaping, grading and paving and providing service and meter installation details. 25. That a Community Mail Box(CMBs) be located next to the rear of unit 1, facing west, or in an alternative location if determined by Canada Post, and that the developer identify this site on a display in the sales office prior to offering any units for sale. 26. The developer include in all offers of purchase and sale, a statement that advises the prospective purchaser that the mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mail Box (CMB) and that the developer will be responsible for officially notifying the purchasers of the exact CMB locations and easements granted to Canada Post prior to the closing of any home sales. 27. The developer satisfy all requirements of Canada Post regarding temporary and permanent CMB locations and associated works, engineering servicing drawings, installation and providing mail service information to property owners. 28. That the developer submit a written undertaking to the Niagara Region Planning and Development Services Department that draft approval of this vacant land condominium does not include a commitment to servicing allocation by Niagara Region as this servicing allocation will be assigned at the time of final approval of the vacant land condominium for registration purposes and any pre-servicing will be at the sole risk and responsibility of the developer. 29. That the developer submit a written undertaking to the Niagara Region Planning and Development Services Department that all offers and agreements of purchase and sale, which may be negotiated prior to registration of this vacant land condominium, shall contain a clause clearly indicating that a servicing allocation for this vacant land condominium will not be assigned until the plan is granted final approval for registration, and a similar clause be inserted in the condominium agreement between the developer and the City. 30. That the condominium agreement contain a clause stating that waste collection will be the responsibility of the condominium corporation and the following warning shall be included in the condominium agreement and inserted in all offers and agreements of purchase and sale of lease for each dwelling unit to survive closing: "Purchasers/Tenants are advised that due to the site layout, waste collection for the development will be provided by the condominium corporation through a private contractor and not the Region." September 9, 2014 - 12 - PBD-2014-50 Clearance of Conditions Prior to granting approval to the final plan, Planning, Building & Development requires written notice from applicable City Divisions and the following agencies indicating that their respective conditions have been satisfied: Planning Division for Conditions 1 to 4 (inclusive) - Legal Services for Conditions 5 and 6 Parks Design for Conditions 7 and 8 Municipal Works Department for Conditions 9 to 16 (inclusive) Building Services for Conditions 17 and 19 Fire Services for Conditions 17 to 19 (inclusive) - Transportation Services for Condition 20 Bell Canada for Conditions 21 to 23 (inclusive) Enbridge Gas for Condition 24 - Canada Post for Conditions 25 to 27 (inclusive) - Regional Niagara Public Works Department for Conditions 28 to 30 (inclusive) C) 0 3 E C Z_ C) D -1O z cn Honorary Patron: Lupus Foundation 294 Ridge Road N Box 687 Ridgeway ON LOS 1NO The Hon. David C. Onley of Ontario 800-368-8377 ON Only Lieutenant Governor of Ontario C 905-894-4611 February 19, 2014 V 905-894-4616 e lupusont@vaxxine.com Website: www.lupusfoundationofontario.com Serving Ontario since 1977 (Inc.) City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls ON L2E 6X5 To Whom It May Concern: The international lupus patient community is requesting your assistance in promoting public awareness and advocacy for"the least known major disease—lupus". We have two very important events planned for 2014 which are: World Lupus Day, May 10th and the entire month of October which is known, world-wide, as "October is Lupus Awareness Month". Lupus affects more than just the person diagnosed with the disease—it also impacts their family, friends and colleagues. It is widely under-recognized as a global health problem by the public, health professionals and governments which drives the need for greater awareness. Early recognition and a definitive diagnosis help to slow the debilitating effects of this disease. Proper treatment, a healthy diet and lifestyle are essential. Lupus is difficult to diagnose as the symptoms frequently mimic common illnesses. With your help, public awareness and education will save lives. We are enclosing two Proclamations, for May and October that we ask to be added to your municipal websites for all citizens to access. We know that many are unaware of the signs and symptoms of lupus and it is our hope to make every person aware that their vague health concerns could be lupus. Our office has been located in Ridgeway for the past forty years. Receiving no funding from any level of government, we depend upon personal and corporate donations to provide our programmes, attend provincial Health Fairs, contribute financially to much-valued research, and distribute literature throughout Ontario to all those who request information. In the past, we have received amazing support from many communities in Ontario who do read our Proclamations during televised meetings for their viewers, and add the Proclamation to their websites in the designated months. Many have passed resolutions to ask their local MPs and MPPs to assist with lupus funding for research. We would be honoured to have your support for both of these events. Thank you. Very truly,yours, Kathy Crowhurst lai hariiabie Registration Number -� 10'64 9410 RR000I 1 US . -lif Honorary Patron: Lupus Foundation 294 Ridge Road N Box 687 Ridgeway ON LOS 1 NO The Hon. David C. Onley of Ontario 800-368-8377 ON Only Lieutenant Governor of Ontario S, 905-894-4611 V 905-894-4616 ,s. , iupusont@vaxxine.com j ' Website: www.lupusfoundationofontario.corn Serving Ontario since 1977(inc.) World i Day'M Whereas, lupus is an autoimmune disease that can cause severe damage to the tissue and organs in the body and, in some cases, death; and Whereas, more than five million people worldwide suffer the devastating effects of this disease and each year over a hundred thousand young women, men and children are newly diagnosed with lupus, the great majority of whom are women of childbearing age; and Whereas, medical research efforts into lupus and the discovery of safer, more effective treatments for lupus patients are under-funded in comparison with diseases of comparable magnitude and severity; and Whereas, many physicians worldwide are unaware of symptoms and health effects of lupus, causing people with lupus to suffer for many years before they obtain a correct diagnosis and medical treatment; and Whereas, there is a deep, unmet need worldwide to educate and support individuals and families affected by lupus; and Whereas, there is an urgent need to increase awareness in communities worldwide of the debilitating impact of lupus; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that 10 May 2014 is hereby designated as World Lupus Day on which lupus organizations around the globe call for increases in public and private sector funding for medical research on lupus, targeted education programs for health professionals, patients and the public and worldwide recognition of lupus as a significant public health issue. Proclaimed This Day, 10 May 2014 Charitable Registration Number 10764 9410 RR0001 , * Honorary Patron: Lupus Foundation 294 Ridge Road N Box 687 Ridgeway ON LOS 1NO The Hon. David C, Onley of Ontario 800-368-8377 ON Only Lieutenant Governor of Ontario 905-894-4611 905-894-4616 e lupusont@ vaxxine.com Website: www.lupusfoundationofontario_corn Serving Ontario since 1977 (Inc.) Whereas, lupus is an autoimmune disease that can cause severe damage to the tissue and organs in the body and, in some cases, death; and Whereas, more than five million people worldwide suffer the devastating effects of this disease and each year over a hundred thousand young women, men and children are newly diagnosed with lupus, the great majority of whom are women of childbearing age; and Whereas, medical research efforts into lupus and the discovery of safer, more effective treatments for lupus patients are under-funded in comparison with diseases of comparable magnitude and severity; and Whereas, many physicians worldwide are unaware of symptoms and health effects of lupus, causing people with lupus to suffer for many years before they obtain a correct diagnosis and medical treatment; and Whereas, there is a deep, unmet need worldwide to educate and support individuals and families affected by lupus; and Whereas, there is an urgent need to increase awareness in communities worldwide of the debilitating impact of lupus; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that October 2014 is hereby designated as "October is Lupus Awareness Month" during which lupus organizations around the globe call for increases in public and private sector funding for medical research on lupus, targeted education programs for health professionals, patients and the public and worldwide recognition of lupus as a significant public health issue. Proclaimed this day during October 2014 haritable Registration [Number 10-649410 RR0001 _ . Honorary Patron: Lupus Foundation 294 Ridge Road N Box 687 Ridgeway ON LOS 1NO The Hon. David C. Onley of Ontario 800-368-8377 ON Only Lieutenant Governor of Ontario \ 905-894-4611 905-894-46166 e'4\ iupusont@vaxxine.com Website: www.lupusfoundationofontario.corn Serving Ontario since 1977 (Inc.) Alors que le lupus erythemateux dissemine (LED)est une maladie auto-immune chronique qui peut causer de serieux dommages aux tissus et organes du corps et, dans certains cas, la mort; Et alors que plus de cinq millions de personnes a travers le monde souffrent des effets desastreux de cette maladie et que chaque armee plus de cent mille jeunes femmes, hommes et enfants en sont atteints, dont Ia majorite sont des femmes en age de procreer; Et alors que les efforts de recherche medicate sur le lupus et le developpement de traitements plus stars et plus efficaces pour les patients atteints de lupus ne disposent pas de fonds suffisants compare aux maladies graves semblables; Et alors que beaucoup de medecins a travers le monde ne connaissent ni les symptomes, ni les effets du lupus, contraignant ainsi les patients atteints de lupus a souffrir pendant plusieurs annees avant d'obtenir un diagnostic et un traitement medical approprie; Et alors qu'il y a un grand besoin d'eduquer et de soutenir les individus et les families atteints du lupus; Et alors qu'il y a un besoin urgent de sensibiliser les communautes diverses sur les mefaits du lupus; Par ce texte, it est done resolu que le mois d'Octobre 2014 soit prociame "Mois de Ia sensibilisation au lupus" durant lequel les organisations qui luttent contre cette maladie a travers le monde sollicitent les secteurs publics et prives pour des fonds de recherche medicate, des programmes d'education pour les professionnels de Ia sante, les patients et le public ainsi que de faire reconnaitre que cette maladie est un probleme de sante publique majeur. Charitable Registration Number 107t-4 9410 RR0001 M .ocwm.R ROYAL CANADIAN LE , BRANCH 51, .;i �F � �k 5610 FRASER STREE ;_ ost,0 E. 3: NIAGARA FALLS, ��6 D�C\� '� (11 GAO L2E3C9. � , � JULY 24, 2014. MAYOR JIM DIODATI, 4310 QUEEN STREET, NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO. L2E 6X5. DEAR MAYOR DIODATI: BRANCHES 51, 396 AND 479 OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION REQUEST YOUR PROCLAMATION OF " IEGION WEEK IN NIAGARA FALLS " FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 21 - 27, 2014. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE RAISING OF THE LEGION FLAG FOR THAT WEEK ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 AT 10AM IF THIS MEETS WITH YOU SCHEDULE. YOUR WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THIS MATTER WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED AS IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT ALL BRANCHES BE NOTIFIED AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE SO EACH CAN HAVE PROPER REPRESENTATION AT THIS IMPORTANT EVENT. THANK YOU I REMAIN, SHARON WINGER PRESIDENT- BRANCH 51 +tA PS Taps Brewing Co. Inc. 4680 Queen St Niagara Falls, ON L2E 2L8 BREWING CO. INC. 289-477-1010 Dean lorfida, City of Niagara Falls, Taps on Queen is has a couple of more outdoor events planed to help get downtown busy this fall. I'm writing to request an exemption from the noise by-law so that we can have live music on the parking lot stage for the dates and events listed below. I have already informed the BIA of our plans. They are working with us for some of the events. I will also let our neighbours know about the events ahead of time. In addition, we have hosted many live music events on our parking lot stage over the past 5 years. Taps continues to attract more people including new visitors and out of town tourists to Queen street to show them a great part of Niagara Falls many are missing out on. To aid in that, advertising for our events is focused on people who not normally be downtown to introduce them to it. Saturday, September 27th (2pm to midnight): 2nd Annual Border City Shakedown. Free Event with bands from across Ontario in support of Project Share. Sunday, September 28th noon to 9pm): Live local bands in support of Cancer Research Tuesday, September 30th (3pm to 11 pm): Niagara Music Awards featuring award ceremony for winners and Live music throughout the show Please feel free to contact me if you have any question or need any other information. Sincerely, Eric Martin Taps On Queen Brewhouse and Grill 289-477-1010 Cell: 905-380-2708 Dean Iorfida From: Beth Angle Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 1:59 PM To: Dean Iorfida Cc: Teresa Fabbro Subject: Noise By-Law Exemption Request - Niagara Falls Night of Art September 18, 2014 Good Afternoon Dean We are hosting the Niagara Falls Night of Art event on Thursday, September 18, 2014 at the Niagara Falls Farmers Market and Niagara Falls History Museum.The event will run from 5 pm until 10 pm with music being played outside. I would like to request that we have an exemption of one and a half hours, until 10:30 pm, on the above date. Please let me know if you any further information for the consideration of Council. Thanks a lot. Beth Beth Angle Community Development Coordinator Recreation &Culture Department City of Niagara Falls 7150 Montrose Road, Unit 1 Niagara Falls, ON L2H 3N3 905 356 7521 X 3336 905 356 7404 fax www.niagarafalls.ca bangle@ niagarafal Is.ca 1 Dean Iorfida From: General Manager <gm@niagarafallsdowntown.com> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:39 PM To: Dean Iorfida Subject: Centennial Square Dean: Celebrate old Downtown would like to request the use of Centennial Square on September 215t from 8am to 11pm. We will hosting an event called 2lband Salute which is in its 3rd year. The event is in honor of United Nations International Day of Peace. 21 bands unite to perform in solidarity with peace in ourselves, our community and our world.. They will be getting an SOP for the day as well. Regards, Nemanja Kuntos BSc General Manager BIA Downtown Board of Management Office Location: 4660 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 2L8 P: 905-356-5444 C: 289-407-2989 F: 905-356-5667 qm@niagarafallsdowntown.com www.niagarafallsdowntown.com This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. 1 UNITED STEELWORKERS 2 District 6 Ontario and Atlantic Canada 5 0 G 13 Marty Warren METALLOS P�P�O�%0_0 District Director August 1,2014 ,% M Dear Jim Diodati: •)Ti-T-- In In 2004, the House of Commons came together in historic fashion to unanimously pass the Westray Act. The legislation came in response to the horrific Westray coal mine explosion in Nova Scotia that killed 26 miners on May 9th, 1992,and after a strong lobby campaign by the United Steelworkers to demand"No more Westrays." The legislation was intended to hold corporate executives, directors, and managers criminally responsible for workplace deaths. Ten years later, approximately 10,000 Canadians have been killed on the job, yet not one corporate executive has faced a single day in jail. In response to this shameful record, our union has launched a campaign to "Stop The Killing and Enforce The Law", which asks provincial, territorial, and federal governments to work together to ensure that workplace deaths are taken seriously,and that, where warranted,the Westray Law is enforced. As part of this campaign, we are asking city councils to pass resolutions expressing their support for proactive action to protect workers.Though not an area of municipal responsibility, we recognize you as community leaders and this is a community issue. There is no place in Canada that has not been touched by workplace deaths, and your voices are needed to take steps to enforce the Westray Law. Already, communities across Canada have endorsed the enclosed resolution, including Toronto, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Hamilton, Port Hope, Elliot Lake in Ontario, Nanaimo, Burnaby, Lake Cowichan,New Westminster, Port Alberni, Mission in British Columbia, Pictou County, Westville, Trenton,New Glasgow in Nova Scotia and Flin Flon in Manitoba. I respectfully request that your council consider adding its voice by passing this resolution, and sending it to your provincial municipal association for endorsement. In doing so, you will be sending a message to senior levels of government that it is time to work together to stop the killing, and enforce the law. We would be pleased to have a representative from our union to make a presentation to you to provide additional information should you require this to pass this resolution. Please contact me at 416-544-5971, 905-741-9830, or sbovice(a,usw.ca to schedule.Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sylvia Boyce District 6 Health, Safety and Environment Coordinator, Ontario and Atlantic Canada. Enc l. SB/ss cope 343 cc: Marty Warren,USW District 6 Director for Ontario and Atlantic Canada United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union 200 Ronson Drive, Suite 300, Etobicoke, ON, Canada, M9W 5Z9 • 416-243-8792 • 416-243-9573 (Fax) • www.usw.ca Enforce the Westray Amendments to Canada's Criminal Code WHEREAS it has been more than two decades since the Westray mine disaster in Nova Scotia and a decade since amendments were made to the Criminal Code of Canada to hold corporations, their directors and executives criminally accountable for the health and safety of workers; and WHEREAS police and prosecutors are not utilizing the Westray amendments, and not investigating workplace fatalities through the lens of criminal accountability; and WHEREAS more than 1,000 workers a year are killed at work THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Council support a campaign to urge our provincial/territorial government, specifically the Attorney-General and Labour Minister, to ensure that: -Crown attorneys are educated, trained and directed to apply the Westray amendments; -Dedicated prosecutors are given the responsibility for health and safety fatalities; - Police are educated, trained and directed to apply the Westray amendments; -There is greater coordination among regulators, police and Crowns so that health and safety regulators are trained to reach out to police when there is a possibility that Westray amendment charges are warranted. The Westrav Law: Unanimously passed by the House of Commons in 2003 to hold employers accountable for negligence that is responsible for a worker being killed on the job. What the Politicians Said: "The explosion at the Westray Coal mine sent a very chilling message to people. That message was the haste and financial gain can put individual lives at risk." - Peter MacKay, MP(March 13, 2000) "We simply want to see that management and ownership is held accountable and responsible to protect the safety, of workers in this case,from avoidable disasters." - Scott Brison, MP(September 19, 2003) "It is incumbent upon us as legislators to ensure that there are safe working environments for all workers." - Peter MacKay, MP(March 13, 2000) "There is no doubt that this is an area that needs attention; namely, the area of regulating the behaviour of the corporate sector when it comes to the security and the safety of its employees." - Charles Caccia, MP (September 19, 2003) "We need federal statutes and legislation that encourage accountability, that encourage liability, and that will bring about a sense that there will be an accounting and deterrence and denunciation of irresponsible behaviour by those who not only in the practical sense may have created a dangerous situation but those who knew of it." What the Politicians Did: Nothing. The Westray Law remains un-enforced, with over 1000 Canadians a year being killed at work. Help us change this. Visit www.stopthekiliing ca and sign our petition urging provincial,territorial and federal governments to enforce the Westray Law. UNITED STEELWORKERS S . METALLOS SRU COPE 343 Corporate Criminal Liability 2004-2013 By Robert Champagne, Legal Counsel United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union October 16, 2013 UNITED STEELWORKERS METALLOS Summary Amendments passed in 2004 to the Criminal Code of Canada to make it easier to impose criminal liability on corporations for serious workplace injuries and fatalities are being woefully underutilized. There have been only three successful prosecutions under the Westray amendments to date. Sentences issued in these prosecutions have been paltry. Serious workplace injuries and fatalities continue to occur at alarming rates. Governments can take concrete steps to better enforce the Westray amendments in order to hold corporations liable for their criminally negligent actions. The Westray Mine Disaster In 1992, 26 miners died at the Westray mine in Pictou County, Nova Scotia as a result of an explosion caused by a build-up of methane gas and coal dust. Only 15 miners' bodies were ever recovered. The Government of Nova Scotia called a Public Inquiry to investigate the causes of the disaster. Justice Peter Richard presided over the Public Inquiry, which heard 76 days of testimony. Justice Richard's concluded that the explosions and the workers'deaths resulted from a combination of corporate neglect and mismanagement, as well as government bungling and indifference. His key findings were: • the mine's Internal Responsibility System for health and safety had failed • mine managers blatantly disregarded health and safety regulations • mine managers intimidated and coerced miners with threats and firings • mine management emphasized production at the expense of safety • government inspectors and officials failed to carry out their oversight responsibilities Justice Richard made more than 70 recommendations to improve workers'health and safety, including a recommendation that the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to ensure that corporations and corporate executives be held accountable for workplace safety. The Westray Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada No individual or corporation was ever successfully prosecuted for the workers' deaths at the Westray mine. At the time, Canada's Criminal Code made it difficult to hold corporate executives and corporations criminally liable for serious workplace injuries and fatalities. For over a decade, Westray family survivors and the labour movement, particularly the United Steelworkers, lobbied the federal government and Members of Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to make it easier hold corporate executives and corporations criminally liable for serious workplace injuries and fatalities. 1 In 2004, Parliament unanimously adopted the Westray amendments to the Criminal Code. The Westray amendments are primarily focussed on the offence of criminal negligence. The Westray amendments make it easier to hold corporations liable for criminal negligence by: • creating a new legal duty (s.217.1) that all persons directing work, or having the authority to direct work, must take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm arising from work, and • creating rules (s. 22.1) for attributing liability to organizations for the acts of their representatives which are criminally negligent. In brief if a person with the duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent bodily halm to a worker fails to do so. and in failing to do so acts with wanton or reckless disregard for the life and safety of the worker, then that person is guilty of criminal negligence (s. 219). If one or more representatives of a corporation commit criminal negligence and a senior officer (or officers) of the corporation departs markedly from the standard of care that could be reasonably expected to prevent the representative from committing criminal negligence, then a corporation can be convicted of criminal negligence (s.22.1). Penalties for a conviction for the indictable offence of criminal negligence under the Westray amendments are: Individuals • Injury - 10 years in prison • Death - life in prison • Unlimited fine and I5% victim surcharge Corporations • Criminal record • Probation • Unlimited fine and 15% victim surcharge Application of the Westray Amendments Between 2004 and 2013, the Westray amendments to the Criminal Code have been utilized in only 10 cases to bring criminal negligence charges in cases of serious worker injury and death. In those 10 cases, criminal negligence charges were brought against five corporations and twelve individuals. As of mid-201.3. there have been only three successful prosecutions under the Westray amendments -- two in Quebec and one in Ontario. Those prosecutions resulted in the conviction of two corporations and one individual. Sentences have been relatively minor. • R v. Transpave — employee of concrete product manufacturer crushed to death; disabled guarding system, no inspection system. inadequate safety training 2 Sentence: $100,000 tine, plus $10,000 victim surcharge • R v. Scrocca—employee of landscape contractor crushed to death by backhoe; failure to maintain multiple braking systems Sentence: 2 years, less a day, to be served in the community, subject to conditions including a curfew • R v. Metron —4 employees killed, one seriously injured, after collapse of faulty swing stage scaffold; employees not wearing safety lifelines Original sentence at trial: $200,000 fine,plus $30,000 victim surcharge Sentence on appeal: $750,000 fine, plus $112,500 victim surcharge Charges have been withdrawn in four cases; acquittals followed trials in two cases; charges in two cases were stayed by the Crown, including one charge laid as a result of a private prosecution brought by the United Steelworkers; one charge against an individual is pending. Workplace Fatalities in Canada Continue at Alarming Rate Between 900 and 1000 workers die in workplace deaths in Canada every year. • 1993 —2011 : 17,062 workplace deaths (average of 898 workers deaths per year) Source: Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Reasons Why the Westray Amendments Are Not Being Utilized More Key reasons for the under-utilization of the Westray amendments: • The consequences and criminal significance of serious workplace injuries and fatalities have not penetrated the consciousness of police, Crown attorneys, and provincial health and safety regulators. There is a prevalent belief that serious workplace injuries and deaths are matters for provincial regulatory response and not criminal sanction. The evolution of thinking on the need to prosecute impaired driving offences and domestic violence demonstrates an important parallel. • Police and Crown attorneys face a lack of knowledge, education, training and resources in utilizing the Westray amendments. • There is a lack of cooperation and coordination amongst health and safety regulators, police and Crown attorneys in the investigations of serious workplace injuries and fatalities. • Governments and employers continue to push an agenda of deregulation which undercuts the desire and means to hold corporations liable for their criminally negligent actions which result in serious workplace injuries and deaths. 3 What is Needed for Better Enforcement of the Westray Amendments? • Health and safety regulators, police and Crown attorneys need education and training about the Westray amendments and their application. • Attorneys General need to curtail Crown attorney discretion to not prosecute for criminal negligence in cases of serious workplace injuries and fatalities. • Dedicated Crown prosecutors are needed to criminally prosecute cases involving serious workplace injuries and fatalities. • Police investigations should be mandatory in all cases involving a serious workplace injury or fatality. • Police need education and training in carrying out workplace accident investigations. • l lealth and safety regulators must be directed to reach out to police when Westray amendment charges may be in order. • A written protocol is needed to coordinate the efforts of health and safety regulators, police. and the Crown in dealing with cases of serious workplace injuries and fatalities. • Dedicated and coordinated teams of health and safety regulators. police and Crown Attorneys should work on the application of the Westray amendments. • Greater financial resources need to be provided to police and Crown attorneys to help ensure proper application of the Westray amendments. 4 Dean Iorfida From: Clark Bernat Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:22 PM To: Dean Iorfida Cc: Bill Matson; Beth Angle Subject: Special Occassions Permit for Niagara Falls Night of Art Dean, Beth and I are working on the Niagara Falls Night of Art. I had emailed you last week to notify you of the event, however I didn't read the application properly and assumed it was the same as before, however this event is public and the last time I did this it was for a private event. As a result, we are required to have the City declare this event, a Significant Event. The exact wording is, "the event must be designated "municipally significant" and the applicant must submit a resolution of municipal council or a letter from a delegated municipal official designating the event as "municipally significant"; and" This is for Niagara Falls Night of Art. Should they weather be nice enough, we hope to use our courtyard for the event and have alcohol served. This event is a public event and we will be ensuring that smart servers are used. The Event will take place on Thursday, September 18th starting at 5pm and ending at 11pm (at the latest). Here are some more details from the press release for this year. Local Artists gather to showcase their talent Thursday September 18th 6-10pm. Niagara Falls History Museum, Niagara Falls Farmers Market, and surrounding area. NIAGARA FALLS, ON—Come join us as we celebrate local musicians, artists, and the vibrant culture of Niagara. The 3rd Annual Niagara Falls Night of Art is set to take place Thursday September 18, 2014 from 5pm-10pm at the Niagara Falls History Museum, Farmers Market and surrounding area. This is a free event, bring the whole family. With activities and artists for the young and the young at heart everyone is sure to have a great time. Local food vendors will also be on site so be sure to come hungry. New this year, we will be featuring local wines and beers made and served by students studying with the Niagara College Brewery and Teaching school. Come and taste some of the award winning brews and wines and learn more about this craft from students and staff from Niagara College. With entertainment and hands on arts and crafts all night long, there is something for everyone. Could you let me know if anything else is required to make this happen? Clark Bernat Manager Niagara Falls Museums www.niagarafallsmuseurns.ca 905-358-5082 Check out [No] Vacancy before it closes on September 7th L 7) III 0 I- C -IO z Nathanial Goold 21 Band Salute 4660 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 2L8 City Clerk's Office 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 September 1th, 2014 Attention: Mr. Dean lorfida Dear Mr. lorfida, We are submitting a Special Occasions Permit (SOP) application to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) in order to obtain an SOP for the upcoming "21 band Salute" event in Niagara Falls on September 21st, 2014. The event will take place at Centennial Square. The AGCO requires that we obtain a letter of non-objection (letter of approval) from your office for the SOP. Could you please provide the AGCO the above mentioned letter on our behalf as well as a copy to us for our records. Thank you in advance. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. We would also kindly like to request a noise bylaw be extended from 9pm to 11 pm on September 21st. 2014 Kindest Regards, Lf Nathanial Goold I® inti CITY OF. CANADAN146ARA FAIT - The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution No. Moved by Seconded by WHEREAS the City has hosted a number of events in the area of the Niagara Falls History Museum and Sylvia Place Market; and WHEREAS the "3`d Annual Niagara Falls Night of Art" is an annual event that celebrates music, art and culture; and WHEREAS the event is scheduled for September 18`h ; and WHEREAS the organizers would like to provide alcohol to the public for the event; and WHEREAS to obtain a Special Occasion Liquor Licence from the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO), the event requires a resolution of Council recognizing it as a public event of municipal significance; and WHEREAS the event is significant as it provides exposure to the local artist community and the Historic Drummondville area. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Niagara Falls City Council considers "Niagara Falls Night of Art" to be an event of municipal significance and supports the provision of a Special Occasion Liquor Licence (SOP) for the event. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. DEAN IORFIDA JAMES M. DIODATI CITY CLERK MAYOR CITY or. ".. .CAA AIACARAF The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution No. Moved by Seconded by WHEREAS a number of events take place in the Downtown Business Improvement Area; and WHEREAS many of the events promoting the Downtown are held at Centennial Square in front of City Hall; and WHEREAS the `'21 Band Salute" is an annual music event, now in its third year; and WHEREAS the event is scheduled for September 2 Lt; and WHEREAS the organizers would like to provide beer and wine to the public for the event; and WHEREAS to obtain a Special Occasion Liquor Licence from the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO), the event requires a resolution of Council recognizing it as a public event of municipal significance; and WHEREAS the event is significant as it provides exposure to the City's Downtown core. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Niagara Falls City Council consents to Centennial Square being the venue for the "21 Band Salute"; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that Niagara Falls City Council considers"21 Band Salute"to be an event of municipal significance and supports the provision of a Special Occasion Liquor Licence(SOP) for the event. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. DEAN IORFIDA JAMES M. DIODATI CITY CLERK MAYOR CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014 - A by-law to designate Blocks 22 through 28, Registered Plan 59M-407, not be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2014-004). WHEREAS subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, provides, in part, that the council of a local municipality may by by-law designate lands that would otherwise be subject to part-lot control, not be subject to such part-lot control; AND WHEREAS such by-laws are required under subsection 50(7.1) of the Planning Act to be approved by the appropriate approval authority, that being the Regional Municipality of Niagara as per subsection 51(5) of the Planning Act, subsequently delegated to the City of Niagara Falls by Regional Municipality of Niagara By-law No. 8819-97; AND WHEREAS the said lands are zoned by By-law No. 2013-127 to permit the erection of on-street townhouse dwellings thereon; AND WHEREAS the owner of the said lands proposes to divide Blocks 22 through 28 into a total of 39 parcels to be sold separately; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls deems it expedient to designate that the said lands not be subject to part-lot control. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, not apply to Blocks 22 through 28, Registered Plan 59M-407, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. 2. This by-law shall remain in full force and effect for four years from the date of passage of this by-law, after which time this by-law shall expire and be deemed to be repealed and of no effect. Passed this ninth day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: September 9, 2014 Second Reading: September 9, 2014 Third Reading: September 9, 2014 S:\PART LOT CONTROL\20141PLC-004\PLC-2014-004 By-law.wpd CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014- A by-law to amend By-law No. 2000-45, being a by-law to designate 12549 Niagara Parkway, known as the Danner-Sherk House, to be of cultural heritage value and significance. WHEREAS By-law No. 2000-45 designated the Danner-Sherk House located at 12549 Niagara Parkway to be of cultural heritage value and interest; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 30.1 (2) (a), the council of a municipality may by by-law amend a by-law designating property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act to clarify or correct the statement explaining the property's cultural heritage value or interest or the description of the property's heritage attributes; AND WHEREAS the requirement for Council to consult with its Municipal Heritage Committee pursuant to Section 30.1 (5) has been fulfilled; AND WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls has caused to be served on the owner a Notice of the proposed Amendment; AND WHEREAS no objections have been filed with the Clerk of the Municipality. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1 . That By-law 2000-45 be amended by deleting Schedule "B" thereto and substituting Schedule "B" attached hereto. 2. The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered against the property described in Schedule "A" hereto in the proper Land Registry Office. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served upon the owner of the property and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust. Passed this ninth day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: September 9, 2014 Second Reading: September 9, 2014 Third Reading: September 9, 2014 SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW No. Lot 713 Plan 338 Willoughby; Lot 714 Plan 338 Willoughby; Lot 716 Plan 338 Willoughby; Lot 717 Plan 338 Willoughby; Lot 725 Plan 338 Willoughby; Lot 726 Plan 338 Willoughby; Lot 727 Plan 338 Willoughby; Lot 728 Plan 338 Willoughby; Lot 729 Plan 338 Willoughby; Part Lot 718 Plan 338 Willoughby; in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. SCHEDULE "B" TO BY-LAW No. Description of Property — Danner-Sherk House, 12549 Niagara Parkway The Danner-Sherk house is a two storey dwelling located south of Niagara Falls on the Niagara Parkway. The house was built in the Loyalist style as evident by its rectilinear plan and balanced façade, and still retains its original form. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The lot on which the house is located was first granted as a patent to Jonas Carol in 1797. In 1801, the 210 acres of land were sold to Ulrick Strickler, a German Mennonite farmer who had moved to Upper Canada from Pennsylvania. Based on building style and material, the estimated date of construction for the house itself is circa 1810. This estimate is supported when, fifteen years later, the property was sold in to Joseph Danner in 1816 for 1000 pounds. The high price of the transaction relative to the time period and previous costs suggests that Strickler had constructed the house prior to that date and had done much to clear and develop his lands. Despite having been built prior to the War of 1812-1814, war loss papers filed by Strickler show that there were no damage claims made regarding the house. Joseph Danner was a part of the Religious Society of Friends, an international movement founded in the 17th century more popularly known as "Quakers". He owned and farmed the property until he sold it in 1847. During his ownership, the house was occupied by military troops once again during the Rebellion of 1837-1838. In 1847, the house was purchased by the trustees of The Community of True Inspiration, commonly known as the Ebenezers. The Ebenezers were a religious sect originating in Germany. The trustees sold the southern half of the property to Elias Sherk in 1855. Sherk was a dairy farmer and had a successful cheese factory on the property. The farm remained in the ownership of the Sherk descendants until 1926. In 1961, the house was purchased by John (Bus) MacTaggart who made updates to the house. MacTaggart was an active businessman, member of the Chamber of Commerce and a director of Louis Tussaud's Wax Museum until his death in 1969. The Danner-Sherk house is a two storey dwelling with attic, featuring an asymmetrical four-bay façade. The building's square openings, small paned windows and solid structure are characteristic of the Loyalist style, a popular building style in the first quarter of the 19th century. The house is built on a limestone foundation, and is constructed of a coursed rubble limestone, and now finished with stucco. A rear wing was added to the structure circa 1820. The building features a low-pitched gable roof clad in cedar shingles, restored in 2006. The roof once featured two chimneys inset from both ends. The front (east) asymmetrical façade contains the building's front entrance, which appears to have been altered from its original form — including its side light openings and the wood panelling in the door recess. A gable pediment is featured above the entire doorcase. It is likely that recessed panels once formed the lower portion of the sidelights but have since been covered with a stucco surface. The rest of the façade consists of rectangular window openings, three on the first storey and four on the second storey. All the building's windows have been replaced with modern casements, and louvered shutters. On the north and south facades are two rectangular window openings on both the first and second storey, with the same plain trim, louvered shutters and covered sill plate as found on the east (front) façade. Two square window openings are placed in the gable ends. The windows on the north side of the house are noticeably narrower than those on the east (front) façade and south wall. Originally, there were three windows at the rear of the main house which were covered when the rear wing was constructed; the central of the three is now an internal doorway leading into the wing. The Danner-Sherk house remains as an example of early Loyalist residential architecture in the Niagara area to have survived the War of 1812-1814. As the first home built on the property, the Danner-Sherk house was remarkable for its size and stone construction. Description of Heritage Attributes Key exterior features that embody the heritage value and are important to the preservation of 12549 Niagara Parkway includes the following heritage attributes: • two storeys with an asymmetrical four bay façade • an example of Loyalist style, popular in the first quarter of the 19th century • constructed of a coursed rubble limestone with stucco finish • limestone foundation • rear wing constructed of dressed limestone blocks • low-pitched gable roof with cedar shingles • two single inset chimneys on both ends • front entrance with side lights and wood panelling in the door recess • gable pediment above the entire doorcase • rectangular window openings, three on the first storey and four on the second storey of the east (front) façade • north and south façades have two rectangular window openings on both the first and second storey • two square window openings in the gable ends on both façades • windows on the north side of the house are noticeably narrower than those on the façade and south wall • connected to several key figures in the township history including Ulrick Strickler, Joseph Danner, Elias Sherk and John MacTaggart • linked historically to the development of the Willoughby Township, the War of 1812, and the Rebellion of 1837-1838 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014- A by-law to amend By-law No. 78-25, being a by-law to designate 4582 Zimmerman Avenue now known as 4177 Park Street and known as the Old Police Building, to be of cultural heritage value and significance. WHEREAS By-law No. 78-25 designated the Old Police Building located at 4582 Zimmerman Avenue, now known as 4177 Park Street, to be of cultural heritage value and interest; AND WHEREAS on January 23, 2003, the owner of the property requested and was granted an address change to 4177 Park Street; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 30.1 (2) (a) , the council of a municipality may by by-law amend a by-law designating property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act to clarify or correct the statement explaining the property's cultural heritage value or interest or the description of the property's heritage attributes or to correct the legal description; AND WHEREAS the requirement for Council to consult with its Municipal Heritage Committee pursuant to Section 30.1 (5) has been fulfilled; AND WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls has caused to be served on the owner a Notice of the proposed Amendment; AND WHEREAS no objections have been filed with the Clerk of the Municipality. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That By-law 78-25 be amended by deleting Schedule "A" thereto and substituting Schedule "A" attached hereto. 2. That By-law 78-25 be amended by deleting Schedule "B" thereto and substituting Schedule "B" attached hereto. 3. The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered against the property described in Schedule "A" hereto in the proper Land Registry Office. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served upon the owner of the property and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust. Passed this ninth day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading September 9, 2014 Second Reading September 9, 2014 Third Reading September 9, 2014 SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW No. All and singular that certain parcel or tract of land and premises situate, lying and being in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, formerly in the County of Welland, and being composed of Lot 1 and Part Lots 2 & 3, Block A, Plan 999-1000, Town of Niagara Falls and Part 1 on 59R-12254, City of Niagara Falls as identified in PIN 64445-0216 (LT). SCHEDULE "B" TO BY-LAW No. Description of Property — Post Office/Customs House, 4177 Park Street The Post Office and Customs House is located on the northeast corner of Zimmerman Avenue and Park Street. As a part of the core business area of the former Town of Clifton, this massive three storey structure is one of the City's only Romanesque Revival style buildings. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The Niagara Falls suspension bridge was opened in 1848, allowing for international traffic between the Canadian village of Elgin (later Clifton, then Niagara Falls) with the American Village of Bellvue (now Niagara Falls New York). It was eventually deemed Port Stamford located at the terminus of the G.N.R. railway station in Upper Canada. A collection of workmen's shanties and houses developed around the new bridgehead, and in 1853, became the incorporated Village of Elgin. The village's success can be attributed to the efforts of Samuel Zimmerman, whose infrastructure and economic investments lead to Elgin's prosperity. In May, 1855, the Zimmerman Bank was constructed, and served as the community's first bank and post office, as well as what was known as "Port" Stamford's customs house. The building was constructed in 1883, as the new post office and customs house. The designer was Thomas Fuller, a renowned government architect, predominantly recognized for his work on the first Parliament buildings in Ottawa. The building remained relatively intact until a furnace explosion in 1927 nearly destroyed the structure. After temporarily relocating its services, the building was enlarged and remodelled. From 1930 until 1953, the building contained only the customs house, as the post office had moved to Queen Street and St. Clair Avenue. After it ceased its use as a customs building, the building was used as police station until 1978. It was during this time that the post office and customs house was briefly featured in Marilyn Monroe's classic movie "Niagara". The post office and customs house is an impressive two-storey with attic structure. Built in the Romanesque revival style, the building features massive stone elements and detailed decorative stonework. At the time of writing, the building has deteriorated, the roof has lost much of its covering, the window sash remain behind the plywood covering, but no glazing exists, and much of the stone structure is in ruins. The exterior of the building consists of quarry faced limestone blocks laid in a random course. Cut finished limestone is used for decorative elements, such as the quoins and window opening surrounds. The truncated hip roof with gable ends retains some of the original slate shingles. A diamond patterned tympanum and a central rosette ornament decorate the gable ends. Directly beneath the gables are three deeply recessed window openings that are now boarded up. The three panels below them feature rosette decoration. On the south façade of the building, the middle panel contains a date stone. Several truncated hip dormers are placed along the roof, two on both the north and south façades and one on the rear (east). Each dormer is supported by three heavy limestone brackets and topped with a finial. Underneath the eaves are a series of wooden brackets. The west elevation features an asymmetrical three bay façade. On the left of the façade is an elaborate entryway containing a large round headed arch, limestone surround, a detailed ornamental tympanum, and a wooden six panel door. Within the arch is an oval ornament carved with the letters "VR". This refers to "Victoria Regina" after the reigning British monarch of the time. In the centre of the façade is a paired set of 1 over 1 sash with square transoms. These windows feature a decorated limestone sill and lintel, with a matching limestone divide. Like the segmental opening found above it, this window contains a limestone surround. Beneath the windows is a finished limestone band that separates the foundation of the building. On the southwest corner of the building are two round headed arches supported by a limestone Corinthian pillar. A double stairway within the arches leads to the building's main entrance. The entrance had once contained double leaf wood doors with glass panes on the upper half.The second storey of the west façade contains two recessed rectangular windows openings with limestone surrounds. These openings flank the central segmental window opening that has a splayed limestone arch. The south façade exhibits a similar arrangement as the west elevation. The second storey features two rectangular recessed windows on either side of a centered segmental window opening. Underneath the second storey window sills are two projecting stringcourse bands separated by four courses of limestone. Between the bands are 10 stone panels, placed directly below the rectangular windows. On the first storey of the façade are several round headed arches, decorated with finished limestone. Above each arch is a projecting band, terminating in a small circular bead. In the centre of the façade is a paired set of 1 over 1 sash windows with square transoms. Like those found on the west façade, these windows feature a decorated limestone sill and lintel, with a matching limestone divide. Unlike the north and west (front) façades, a projecting stringcourse band is placed above the foundation of the building. On the east façade is an attached structure that is stepped back from the south elevation, also made of the same quarry faced limestone. The structure features a stringcourse bands, round headed arches, and a stepped central parapet with a shell ornament. According to early photographs of the site, this structure is believed to be a later addition to the property. At the back of the building is a smaller, separate structure, built in the same style as the main building. The structure features a large segmental window opening with splayed voussoirs, a stepped central pediment, a carved panel with acanthus ornamentation, and two outset stone chimneys with dentils. Along its side facing the north façade are rows of rectangular window openings with limestone quoin surrounds. The Post Office and Customs House is valuable to the landscape of the downtown area, as one of many heritage properties deemed significant to the development of the downtown core and the wider community. It is a significant location both for its ties to government operations, and its long standing service to the City and the community. Description of Heritage Attributes Key exterior features that embody the heritage value and are important to the preservation of 4177 Park Street includes the following heritage attributes: • Romanesque revival style • exterior made of quarry faced limestone blocks laid in a random course • finished limestone is used for the building's decorative elements • separate similar smaller structure on the west elevation • truncated hip roof originally clad with slate shingles • cross gables with heavy stringcourse bands, diamond patterned tympanums, and central floral ornaments • dormers placed along the roof • finials placed on the gable and dormers • block modillions beneath the eaves • asymmetrical three bay façade • main entry on the west façade contains a large round headed arch and a wood six panel door. • southwest corner features two magnificent round-headed arches supported by limestone pillars with Corinthian details. • central segmental window opening that has a splayed limestone arch on the west and south façades • connection to the development and core areas of the Town of Clifton • connection to renowned government architect Thomas Fuller • significant location both for its ties to communication and government operations, and due to its service to the City and the community. CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 86-14 being a by-law to designate the British Methodist Episcopal Church, located at 5686 Peer Street as a building of cultural heritage value or interest; WHEREAS By-law No. 86-14 designated the property located at 5686 Peer Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 30.1 (2)(a), the council of a municipality may by by-law amend a by-law designating property under s. 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act to clarify or correct the statement explaining the property's cultural heritage value or interest or the description of the property's heritage attributes; AND WHEREAS the requirement for Council to consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee pursuant to Section 30.1 (5) has been fulfilled; AND WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls has caused to be served on the owner a Notice of the Proposed Amendment; AND WHEREAS no objections have been filed with the Clerk of the Municipality. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That By-law 86-14 be amended by deleting Schedule "B" thereto and substituting Schedule "B" attached hereto. 2. The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this amending by-law to be served upon the owner of the property and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered against the property described in Schedule "A" hereto in the proper Land Registry Office. Passed this ninth day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: September 9, 2014 Second Reading: September 9, 2014 Third Reading: September 9, 2014 SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW No. Parts 3, 4, and 5 on the south side of Peer Street, according to Registered Plan 653 for the former Village of Niagara Falls, and Part 3 on the south side of Peer Street, according to Registered Plan 219 for the former Village of Niagara Falls, now Plan 267, in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. SCHEDULE "B" TO BY-LAW No. Description of Property — Nathaniel Dett Chapel, 5674-5686 Peer Street The Nathaniel Dett Chapel is a simple gothic church on the southwest corner of Peer Street and Grey Avenue. Although the church's architectural details are relatively plain, the site is significant to the development of the black community in the Niagara area, serving as a religious meeting place. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The mission of the British Methodist Episcopal (B.M.E.) Church began in 1814, serving as a nucleus for the black community throughout the Niagara area. Niagara Falls became a settling point for those who escaped slavery in the United States as a part of the Underground Railroad. Ultimately, this led to the building of a small chapel in 1836 at the intersection of Portage Road and Murray Hill. In 1890, the church was moved to Peer Street by placing the structure on logs and rolling it to the site Previously known as the B.M.E Chapel, the building was renamed in 1983 after Nathaniel Dett, who was born in Niagara Falls in 1882. Dett became a world-renowned musician and composer and is credited with changing the image of Afro centric music at the turn of the 20th century. The Nathaniel Dett Chapel is a one storey structure with a symmetrical three bay façade. The building's simple form and decoration is influenced by the Methodist faith of the church's founders. Later additions are an enclosed entrance at the centre of the north (front) façade and at the rear of the main church is a square addition built shortly after the building's move to its current site in 1890. The building has strong socio-cultural ties through its early role as a meeting place, consequently helping to establish a black community in Niagara Falls. Description of Heritage Attributes Key exterior features that embody the heritage value and are important to the preservation of 5674-5686 Peer Street includes the following heritage attributes: • one storey structure with a symmetrical three bay façade • simple form and medium-pitch gable roof associated with the Loyalist style • original clapboard exterior restored in 2003 • foundation is made of a quarry faced stone • enclosed porch at the centre of the north (front) façade, featuring gable roof, 6- panelled double doors, and two 1 over 1 sash windows • roundel containing coloured glass quatrefoil • addition at the rear of the building with a medium pitch gable roof and three double hung sash windows • lancet windows with multi-paned coloured glass • connection to many of Niagara's most well-recognized black citizens, including Nathaniel Dett, Oliver and Mathilda Pernell, and Burr Plato. CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014- A by-law to amend By-law No. 78-68, being a by-law to designate 3000 Portage Road, known as the Church Residence, to be of cultural heritage value and interest. WHEREAS By-law No. 78-68 designated the Church Residence located at 3000 Portage Road to be of cultural heritage value and interest; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 30.1 (2) (a) , the council of a municipality may by by-law amend a by-law designating property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act to clarify or correct the statement explaining the property's cultural heritage value or interest or the description of the property's heritage attributes; AND WHEREAS the requirement for Council to consult with its Municipal Heritage Committee pursuant to Section 30.1 (5) has been fulfilled; AND WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls has caused to be served on the owner a Notice of the proposed Amendment; AND WHEREAS no objections have been filed with the Clerk of the Municipality. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1 . That By-law 78-68 be amended by deleting Schedule "A" thereto and substituting Schedule "A" attached hereto. 2. That By-law 78-68 be amended by deleting Schedule "B" thereto and substituting Schedule "B" attached hereto. 3. The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered against the property described in Schedule "A" hereto in the proper Land Registry Office, 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served upon the owner of the property and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust. Passed this ninth day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFInp CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading September 9, 2014 Second Reading September 9, 2014 Third Reading September 9, 2014 SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW No. All AND SINGULAR that certain parcel or tract of land and premises situate, lying and being in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara and being composed of Lot 1 according to registered Plan No. 159 for the former Township of Stamford. SCHEDULE "B" TO BY-LAW No. Description of Property — Church Residence, 3000 Portage Road A two storey house located on the northwest corner of Portage Road and Church's Lane, is a counterbalance to the designated Whirlpool House located across the street along the historic Portage Road. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest In May 1799, Robert Hamilton received a Crown patent for 200 acres of land in the former Township of Stamford. In 1809, the property was purchased by Andrew Rorback, a Loyalist from New Jersey, constructing the house circa 1810. The following is a brief history of Rorback, as found in George Seibel's book, The Niagara Portage Road, 200 Years, 1790-1990. As adjutant of the second Regiment of the Lincoln Militia in 1813- 1814, he was involved in militant action during the Wary of 1812-1814, and later commanded the regiment as Lieutenant Colonel in the late 1830's_ Rorback is best known for building the Whirlpool Inn, previously known as Rorback's Tavern, which was a popular resting place for travellers along the historic Portage Road. In addition to acting as a gathering place for social events and meetings, the tavern would have witnessed many types of travellers through the area at a time when Stamford Village was entering a quick period of development, as Portage Road was becoming a vital transportation link for the Niagara Region. The house is located across from the Whirlpool House. Munson Church, after whom the house is now named (along with Church's Lane), bought the house in 1857 from Rorback's widow Matilda, and made significant exterior renovations. The Church Residence is a two storey structure, situated on a stone foundation with a stucco exterior, and featuring an asymmetrical three bay façade. The house's rectangular structure, medium-pitch gable roof and balanced front façade are reminiscent of the Loyalist style, popular in the early 19th century, the structure features a central gable facing the west (front) façade with a balustraded porch beneath the second storey. A projected bay window and simple decorative details are characteristic of the Italianate architectural style, suggesting that these features were added sometime in the 1860's or 1870's. Later additions to the house were a square flat balcony at the rear, a large outset brick chimney, and a garage. The front entrance is centered on the west (front) façade and features a plain wood door case, two pilasters, a simple entablature and shutters. To the left of the entryway is a projected bay window featuring ood moulding around the openings and shl Itters. The bay contains two 10 light windows and a central 15-light window. A simple entablature is incorporated into the feature, with a small pediment above the window. Simple ornamental details are carved into this feature. A cornice runs directly above the bay opening. An asphalt shingle roof is found on the bay window. The window sash is primarily 6 over 6, with wooden trim, plain sills and louvered shutters. Like the bay window, these openings feature a small pediment with detailed wood carving. Four of these windows are on the north elevation and south elevations. In the central gable peak is a blind rectangular window opening with the same trim and casement as found on the other windows. Description of Heritage Attributes Key exterior features that embody the heritage value and are important to the preservation of 3000 Portage Road include the following heritage attributes: • Loyalist style, two storey dwelling with asymmetrical three bay façade • Medium pitch gable roof • Balanced front façade • Stucco exterior situated on a stone foundation • Balustraded porch on front (west) elevation • Later additions include projected bay window on front façade: balcony and large outset chimney on rear façade; • Small pediment above each window • Louvered shutters CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014 - A by-law to authorize the execution of a Lease Agreement with Peterson Community Workshop Association (Chippawa) respecting the leasing of the premises known as the Peterson Community Workshop. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. A Lease Agreement dated September 1, 2014, and made between The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls as Lessor and Peterson Community Workshop Association (Chippawa) as Lessee, respecting the leasing of the premises municipally known as 8198 Cummington Square, Niagara Falls, for a term of five years ending August 31, 2019, as attached hereto, is hereby approved and authorized. 2. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the said Lease Agreement. 3. The Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal thereto and to deliver the said Lease Agreement. Passed this ninth day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: September 9, 2014. Second Reading: September 9, 2014. Third Reading: September 9, 2014. THIS INDENTURE made effective this 1" day of September, 2014. IN PURSUANCE OF THE SHORT FORMS OF LEASES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.11 BETWEEN: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Hereinafter referred to as the "Lessor" - and - PETERSON COMMUNITY WORKSHOP ASSOCIATION (CHIPPAWA) Hereinafter referred to as the "Lessee" PREMISES. TERM AND RENTAL: 1.01 WITNESSETH that in consideration of the rents, covenants, conditions and agreements hereinafter reserved and contained on the part of the Lessee to be paid, observed and performed, the Lessor doth demise and lease unto the Lessee those premises municipally known as 8198 Cummington Square, Niagara Falls, Ontario and which premises are hereinafter referred to as the"Demised Premises", more particularly described in Schedule "A" attached hereto. 1.02 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Demised Premises for and during the term of five (5) years to be computed from the 1st day of September, 2014 (the "Lease Commencement Day") and from thenceforth next ensuing and fully to be complete and ended on the 31st day of August, 2019. 1.03 YIELDING AND PAYING therefor during the said term to the Lessor, its successors and assigns without deduction or offset, the sum of TWO DOLLARS ($2.00), payable in advance on the Lease Commencement Day and on each anniversary of the Lease Commencement Day. LESSEE'S COVENANTS: 2.01 THE LESSEE COVENANTS WITH THE LESSOR: (a) To pay rent. (b) To pay all taxes, rates, charges and licence fees assessed or imposed in respect of the personal property, fixtures, business or income of the Lessee. -2- (c) To pay for all telephone charges for the Demised Premises. (d) To keep the Demised Premises and every part thereof in a clean and tidy condition and not permit waste paper, garbage, ashes or waste or other objectionable material to accumulate thereon. (e) To use the Demised Premises for the purposes only of a community workshop and school for arts and crafts and display of various artisans' wares, known as "Peterson Community Workshop". (f) To keep all sidewalks located on the Demised Premises free from litter at all times. (g) To abide by and comply with all lawful statutes, by-laws, rules and regulations of every parliamentary, municipal or other authority which in any manner relates to or affects the Demised Premises by reason of the tenancy of the Lessee; and to put the said premises in such state of repair as to comply with the said statutes,by-laws, rules and regulations and to indemnify and save harmless the Lessor from any penalty, costs, charges or damages to which the said Lessor may be put or suffer by reason of having to alter the said premises to conform with any such statute, by-laws, rules or regulations by reason of the tenancy of the Lessee. (h) Not to erect signs on the premises without approval of the Lessor. (i) To provide, maintain and keep in force for and during the term, public liability and property damage insurance in the name of the Lessee in respect of the Demised Premises and the Lessee's operation thereon, with a limit of not less than FIVE MILLION DOLLARS($5,000,000.00)inclusive and to furnish to the Lessor a Certificate of said coverage in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; such policy to include the Lessor as an additional insured. 2.02 The Lessee shall indemnify the Lessor against all fines, suits,claims, demands and actions of any kind to which the Lessor may become liable by reason of any breach, violation or non-performance by the Lessee of any covenants, term or provision of this Lease or by reason of any injury occasioned to or suffered by any person or any property because of any wrongful act, neglect or default by the Lessee or any of its employees, servants or agents. 2.03 The Lessee shall not assign or sublet the whole or any portion of the Demised Premises without the consent of the Lessor in writing first had and obtained, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. Any assignment or subletting shall in no event relieve the Lessee from the responsibility of observing and performing the covenants herein contained including the payment of rent for the whole of the term of the within Lease and renewal thereof. -3- LESSOR'S COVENANTS: 3.01 THE LESSOR COVENANTS WITH THE LESSEE: (a) For quiet enjoyment. (b) To pay all taxes, rates and assessments, including local improvements levied against the Demised Premises for each of the years during the term. (c) To pay for heating and air-conditioning of the Demised Premises. (d) To pay water rates and charges for gas and electricity. (e) To maintain and keep in good and substantial repair, order and condition,the Demised Premises. 4.01 PROVISO FOR RE-ENTRY for non-payment of rent and/or non-performance of covenants, subject to the provisions of the Lease. (1) If the Lessee shall fail to pay an instalment of rent payable hereunder when due and shall allow such default to continue for five (5) days or shall fail to perform any of the covenants, conditions and agreements contained and shall allow any such default to continue for ten (10) days, then the Lessor may take possession of the Demised Premises herein described and this Lease Agreement shall be terminated. (2) In case suit shall be brought for recovery of possession of the leased premises, for the recovery of rent or any other amount due under the provisions of this Lease, or because of the breach of any other covenant herein contained on the part of the Lessee to be kept or performed, and a breach shall be established, the Lessee shall pay to the Lessor all expenses incurred therefor, including a reasonable solicitors' fee. 5.01 Provided that the Lessee will not remove from the Demised Premises during the term of this Lease or any renewal thereof any chattels, fixtures or effects which are the property of the Lessee even though there is no rent in arrears, without the written consent of the Lessor. 6.01 Notwithstanding anything else herein contained, the Lessor and the Lessee shall have the option to terminate this Lease at any time, provided that the party wishing to terminate, gives the other at least twelve (12) months' prior written notice of its intention to exercise this right. On the termination date specified in such notice(the "Termination Date"), the Lessee shall deliver up vacant possession of the Demised Premises and this Lease will be fully and completely ended as of the Termination Date. -4- 7.01 Upon the expiration of this Lease either by notice or by expiration of the term or for any cause, all improvements made and fixtures attached to the Demised Premises by or on behalf of the Lessee shall become the property of the Lessor, without payment of any consideration. 8.01 The Lessee agrees that the within Lease constitutes the entire understanding between the parties hereto and that there are no representations or warranties, oral or otherwise, except as contained herein. The Lessee further agrees that it has inspected the Demised Premises prior to the commencement of this Lease and that by virtue of these presents accept the said premises in the condition that the same were in as of the commencement of this Lease. 9.01 The Lessee agrees not to make any leasehold improvements or changes to the layout of the Demised Premises without first submitting the plans to the Lessor and obtaining the Lessor's written consent. 10.01 AND IT IS HEREBY DISTINCTLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE LESSOR AND THE LESSEE THAT: (a) The Lessee waives and renounces the benefit of any present or future statute taking away or limiting the Lessor's rights of distress and agree with the Lessor that notwithstanding any such enactment, all goods and chattels from time to time on the Demised Premises shall be subject to distress for rent. (b) In case, without the written consent of the Lessor, the said Demised Premises shall become and remain vacant or not used for a period of fifteen (15) days or be used by any other persons other than the Lessee or for any other purpose other than that for which the same are hereby demised, or in case the term hereby granted or any of the goods and chattels of the Lessee shall at any time be seized or taken in execution or attachment by any creditor of the Lessee or the Lessee shall make any assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becoming bankrupt or insolvent, shall take the benefit of any act that may be in force for bankrupt or insolvent debtors, (or, if the Lessee is a corporation), any proceedings shall be taken or orders shall be made for the winding-up of the Lessee or for the surrender or forfeiture of the charter of the Lessee, then and in every case the then current month's rent and the next ensuing three (3) month's rent shall immediately become due and payable and, at the option of the Lessor, this Lease shall cease and terminate and the said term shall immediately become forfeited and void, in which event the Lessor may re-enter in upon the said premises or any part thereof in the name of the whole and the same to have again, repossess and enjoy as of their former state, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding. -5- 11.01 The Lessor shall not be responsible in any way for any injury to any person or for any loss of or damage to any property belonging to the Lessee, or to employees, invitees or licensees of the Lessee while such person or property is in the building located on the Demised Premises, including (without limiting the foregoing) any damages to any such property caused by steam, water, rain or snow which may leak into, issue or flow from any part of the said building or any adjacent or neighbouring lands or premises or from the water, steam or drainage pipes or plumbing works of the Demised Premises or from any other place or quarter unless such damage is caused by anything done or omitted to be done by any other tenant of the said building and unless such arise through the negligence of the Lessor, its servants, agents, invitees and licensees. The Lessee covenants to indemnify the Lessor of and from all loss, costs, claims or demands in respect of any injuries or damage referred to in this paragraph for which the Lessee is in law responsible. 12.01 If the Lessee shall fail to perform any of the covenants or obligations of the Lessee under or in respect of this Lease, the Lessor may from time to time, in its discretion, perform or cause to be performed any of such covenants or obligations, or any part thereof, and for such purpose may do such things as may be requisite, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the right to enter upon the Demised Premises or any part thereof as the Lessor may consider requisite or necessary. The Lessee covenants that all expenses incurred and expenditures made by or on behalf of the Lessee together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum, shall be forthwith paid by it to the Lessor, upon receiving written demand, and failing payment, forthwith upon such demand, such amounts may be collected as rent in arrears. 13.01 IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties hereto that any notice in writing which either party may desire to give to the other with regard to any matter or thing in this Lease contained may be validly and effectually given by mailing the same by prepaid registered post or facsimile transmission, if intended for the Lessor, to: The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Attention: Director of Recreation & Culture Telephone: (905) 356-7521 Ext. 3348 Facsimile: (905) 356-7404 and if intended for the Lessee, to: -6- Peterson Community Workshop Association (Chippawa) 8198 Cummington Square Niagara Falls, Ontario L2G 6V9 Telephone: (905) 295-4846 and 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. 14.01 The captions in this Lease are for convenience only and are not to be considered as part of this Lease and do not in any way limit or amplify the terms and provisions of this Lease. 15.01 Words importing the singular number only shall include the plural and vice-versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine gender and words importing persons shall include firms and corporations and vice-versa. 16.01 Unless the context otherwise required, the word "Lessor" and the word "Lessee" whenever used herein shall be constructed to include and shall mean the successors and assigns of the Lessor and the successors and assigns of the Lessee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their corporate seals, duly attested by the hands of their proper signing officers and the said signing officers certify that they have authority to bind their corporation. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Per: James M. Diodati, Mayor Dean lorfida, City Clerk PETERSON COMMUNITY WORKSHOP ASSOCIATION (CHIPPAWA) Per: / 7/ James Heppner, Treasurer M �J 41 Kat erine Evans, Secretary SCHEDULE "A" Part Lot 101, designated as Part 2 on Reference Plan 59R-908. CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014- A by-law authorizing execution of a Municipal Funding Agreement for the transfer of Federal Gas Tax Funds between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the City of Niagara Falls. WHEREAS the Municipality wishes to enter into an Agreement in order to participate in the Federal Gas Tax Fund; AND WHEREAS the Municipality acknowledges that Funds received through the Agreement may be invested in an interest bearing reserve account for a maximum of five (5) years; AND WHEREAS Section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes a municipality to delegate its powers and duties under the Municipal Act, 2001, including those related to investments; Now THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Niagara Falls, a municipal corporation pursuant to the Municipal Act, 200, ENACT AS FOLLOWS: The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute this Municipal Funding Agreement for the transfer of Federal Gas Tax Funds between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the City of Niagara Falls as in Schedule "A", attached hereto; and That the Corporation authorizes the appointment of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as the Municipality's delegate for the investment of the municipality's Gas Tax Funds in the specific Gas Tax investment options offered through the One Investment Program. Schedule "A" shall form a part of this by-law. Passed this ninth day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: September 9, 2014 Second Reading: September 9, 2014 Third Reading: September 9, 2014 Schedule "A" SCHEDULE OF FUND PAYMENTS RECIPIENTS NAME: CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS The following represents an estimate of the Funds and Schedule of Payments for the first five (5) years of the Agreement: Year Schedule of Fund Payments Payment#1 Payment#2 2014 $1,201,606.24 $1,201,606.24 2015 $1,201,606.24 $1,201,606.24 2016 $1,261,686.55 $1,261,686.55 2017 $1,261,686.55 $1,261,686.55 2018 $1,321,766.86 $1,321,766.86 An estimate of the Funds and Schedule of Payments for the latter five (5) years of the Agreement(2014- 2023) will be provided following the review and amendment procedures specified in Section 2.2 and 2.3. MUNICIPAL FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF FEDERAL GAS TAX FUNDS This Agreement made in duplicate as of 1st day of April, 2014. BETWEEN: THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO (referred to herein as "AMO") AND: THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS (a municipal corporation pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, referred to herein as the "Recipient') WHEREAS the Government of Canada makes up to $2 billion per year available for allocation by the Government of Canada for the purpose of municipal, regional and First Nations infrastructure starting in the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2014 under Section 161 of Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, S.C. 2011, c. 24; WHEREAS Canada, the Province of Ontario, Ontario municipalities as represented by AMO and Toronto are signatories to the administrative agreement on The Federal Gas Tax Fund on April 1, 2014 (the "Canada-Ontario-AMO-Toronto Agreement"), whereby AMO agreed to administer federal gas tax funds made available to Ontario municipalities, excluding Toronto, pursuant to the Canada-Ontario-AMO-Toronto Agreement on behalf of Canada; WHEREAS the Canada-Ontario-AMO-Toronto Agreement contains a framework for the transfer of federal gas tax funds to Ontario municipalities represented by AMO and Toronto to provide stable, reliable and predictable funding for municipal infrastructure purposes; WHEREAS the Recipient wishes to enter into this Agreement in order to participate in the federal Gas Tax Fund; WHEREAS AMO is carrying out the fund administration and coordinating role in accordance with its obligations set out in the Canada-Ontario-AMO-Toronto Agreement and it will accordingly undertake certain activities and require Recipients to undertake activities as set out in this Agreement. THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION 1.1 Definitions. When used in this Agreement (including the cover and execution pages and all of the schedules), the following terms shall have the meanings 1 ascribed to them below unless the subject matter or context is inconsistent therewith: "Agreement" means this Agreement, including the cover and execution pages and all of the schedules hereto, and all amendments made hereto in accordance with the provisions hereof. "Annual Report" means the duly completed report to be prepared and delivered to AMO as described in Section 7.1 and Section 1 of Schedule D. "Asset Management Plan" means a strategic document that states how a group of assets are to be managed over a period of time. The plan describes the characteristics and condition of infrastructure assets, the levels of service expected from them, planned actions to ensure the assets are providing the expected level of service, and financing strategies to implement the planned actions. The plan may use any appropriate format, as long as it includes the information and analysis required to be in a plan as described in Ontario's Building Together: Guide for Asset Management Plans. "Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)" means a legally incorporated entity under the Corporations Act, 1990 R.S.O. 1990, Chapter c.38. "Base Amount" means an amount reflecting total municipally-funded capital spending on Infrastructure between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2004 less: (i) monies raised (during that period) under the Development Charges Act, 1997 S.O, 1997, c.27; and (ii) monies received (during that period) by Municipalities under federal and provincial infrastructure programs against which investments of Funds will be measured to ensure that investments of Funds are incremental. "Canada" means Her Majesty in Right of Canada, as represented by the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs. "Contract" means an agreement between the Recipient and a Third Party whereby the latter agrees to supply a product or service to an Eligible Project in return for financial consideration. "Eligible Expenditures" means those expenditures described as eligible in Schedule C. "Eligible Projects" means projects as described in Schedule B. "Eligible Recipient" means: (a) a Municipality or its agent (including its wholly owned corporation); and (b) a non-municipal entity, including for profit, non-governmental and not-for profit organizations, on the condition that the Municipality(ies) has (have) indicated support for the project through a formal by-law passed by its (their) council(s) 2 "Event of Default" has the meaning given to it in Section 12.1 of this Agreement. "First Agreement" means the Municipal Funding Agreement for the transfer of federal gas tax revenues under the New Deal for Communities entered into by AMO and the CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, with an expiry date of March 31, 2015. "Funds" mean the Funds made available to the Recipient through the Gas Tax Fund, a program established by the Government of Canada under Section 161 of the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, S.C. 2011, c. 24 as amended by Section 233 of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, S.C. 2013, C. 33 or any other source of funding as determined by Canada. Funds are made available pursuant to this Agreement and includes any interest earned on the said Funds. For greater certainty: (i) Funds transferred to another Municipality in accordance with Section 6.2 of this Agreement, other than as set out in Sections 7.1(a), (c) and (f), are to be treated as Funds by the Municipality to which the Funds are transferred and are not to be treated as Funds by the Recipient; and (ii) any Funds transferred to a non-municipal entity in accordance with Section 6.3 of this Agreement shall remain as Funds under this Agreement for all purposes and the Recipient shall continue to be bound by all provisions of this Agreement with respect to such transferred Funds. "Ineligible Expenditures" means those expenditures described as ineligible in Schedule C. "Infrastructure" means municipal or regional, publicly or privately owned, tangible capital assets primarily for public use or benefit in Ontario. "Lower Tier Municipality" means a municipality that forms part of an upper-tier Municipality for municipal purposes, as defined under the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001 c.25. "Municipal Fiscal Year" means the period beginning January 1st of a year and ending December 31st of the same year. "Municipality" and "Municipalities" means every municipality as defined under the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001 c.25. "One Investment Program" means the co-investment program operated jointly by Local Authority Services, an incorporated subsidiary of AMO and CHUMS Financing Corporation, an incorporated wholly-owned subsidiary of the Municipal Finance Officers' Association of Ontario. "Outcomes Report" means the report prepared and delivered to AMO by the Recipient by March 31, 2017 and again by March 31, 2022 which reports on how Funds are supporting progress towards achieving the program benefits, more specifically described in Schedule D. "Oversight Committee" means the committee established to monitor the overall implementation of the Canada-Ontario-AMO-Toronto Agreement. 3 "Parties" means AMO and the Recipient. "Recipient" has the meaning given to it on the first page of this Agreement. "Third Party" means any person or legal entity, other than the Parties to this Agreement who participates in the implementation of an Eligible Project by means of a Contract. "Transfer By-law" means a by-law passed by Council of the Recipient pursuant to Section 6.2 and delivered to AMO in accordance with that section. "Unspent Funds" means the amount reported as unspent by the Recipient as of December 31, 2013 as submitted in the Recipient's 2013 Annual Expenditure Report (as defined under the First Agreement). "Upper Tier Municipality" means a Municipality of which two or more lower-tier municipalities form part for municipal purposes, as defined under the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001 c.25. 1.2 Interpretations: Herein, etc. The words "herein", "hereof" and "hereunder" and other words of similar import refer to this Agreement as a whole and not any particular schedule, article, section, paragraph or other subdivision of this Agreement. Currency. Any reference to currency is to Canadian currency and any amount advanced, paid or calculated is to be advanced, paid or calculated in Canadian currency. Statutes. Any reference to a federal or provincial statute is to such statute and to the regulations made pursuant to such statute as such statute and regulations may at any time be amended or modified and in effect and to any statute or regulations that may be passed that have the effect of supplementing or superseding such statute or regulations. Gender, singular, etc. Words importing the masculine gender include the feminine or neuter gender and words in the singular include the plural, and vice versa. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT 2.1 Term. Subject to any extension or termination of this Agreement or the survival of any of the provisions of this Agreement pursuant to the provisions contained herein, this Agreement shall be in effect from the date set out on the first page of this Agreement, up to and including March 31, 2024. 2.2 Review. This Agreement will be reviewed by AMO by December 31, 2018. 2.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time in writing as agreed to by AMO and the Recipient. 4 2.4 Notice. Any of the Parties may terminate this Agreement on two (2) years written notice. 2.5 The Parties agree that the First Agreement, including section 15.4 thereof, is hereby terminated. Notwithstanding the termination of the First Agreement, including section 15.4, the reporting and indemnity obligations of the Recipient thereunder with respect to expended Funds governed by the First Agreement as set forth in sections 5, 7, 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6 of the First Agreement shall survive the said termination. 3. RECIPIENT REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Communications. The Recipient will comply with all requirements outlined in Schedule E, including: (a) Providing upfront project information on an annual basis for communications purposes; (b) Including Canada in local project communications; and (c) Installing federal project signs. 3.2 Incrementality. Any Funds that the Recipient may receive from Canada are not intended to replace or displace existing sources of funding for the Recipient's tangible capital assets. The Recipient will ensure that its total annual expenditures on tangible capital assets over the life of the Agreement, on average, will not be less than the Base Amount. 3.3 Contracts. The Recipient will award and manage all Contracts in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and, if applicable, in accordance with the Agreement on Internal Trade and applicable international trade agreements, and all other applicable laws. (a) The Recipient will ensure any of its Contracts for the supply of services or materials to implement its responsibilities under this Agreement will be awarded in a way that is transparent, competitive, consistent with value for money principles and pursuant to its adopted procurement policy. 4. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS 4.1 Eligible Project Categories. Eligible Projects include investments in Infrastructure for its construction, renewal or material enhancement in the categories of public transit, local roads and bridges, wastewater, water, solid waste, community energy systems, capacity building, local and regional airports, short-line rail, short-sea shipping, disaster mitigation, broadband connectivity, brownfield redevelopment, cultural, tourism, sport and recreational infrastructure, as more specifically described in Schedule B and Schedule C. 4.2 Recipient Fully Responsible. The Recipient is fully responsible for the completion of each Eligible Project in accordance with Schedule B and Schedule C. 5 5. ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES 5.1 Eligible Expenditures. Schedule C sets out specific requirements for Eligible and Ineligible Expenditures. 5.2 Discretion of Canada. Subject to Section 5.1, the eligibility of any items not listed in Schedule B and/or Schedule C to this Agreement is solely at the discretion of Canada. 5.3 Unspent Funds. Any Unspent Funds, and any interest earned thereon, will be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and will no longer be governed by the terms and conditions of the First Agreement. 5.4 Reasonable Access. The Recipient shall allow AMO and Canada reasonable and timely access to all documentation, records and accounts and those of their respective agents or Third Parties related to the receipt, deposit and use of Funds and Unspent Funds, and any interest earned thereon, and all other relevant information and documentation requested by AMO or Canada or their respective designated representatives for the purposes of audit, evaluation, and ensuring compliance with this Agreement. 5.5 Retention of Receipts. The Recipient will keep proper and accurate accounts and records of all Eligible Projects including invoices and receipts for Eligible Expenditures in accordance with the Recipient's municipal records retention by- law and, upon reasonable notice, make them available to AMO and Canada. 6. FUNDS 6.1 Allocation of Funds. AMO will allocate and transfer Funds that Canada may make available for Ontario Municipalities to Recipients on a per capita basis with allocations made on a 50:50 basis to upper-tier and lower-tier Municipalities, where they exist. 6.2 Transfer of Funds to a Municipality. Where a Recipient decides to allocate and transfer Funds to another Municipality (the "Transferee Municipality"): (a) The allocation and transfer shall be authorized by by-law (a "Transfer By-law"). The Transfer By-law shall be passed by the Recipient's council and submitted to AMO as soon thereafter as practicable. The Transfer By-law shall identify the Transferee Municipality and the amount of Funds the Transferee Municipality is to receive for the Municipal Fiscal Year specified in the Transfer By-law. (b) The Recipient is still required to submit an Annual Report in accordance with Sections 7.1 (a), (c) and (f) hereof with respect to the Funds transferred. (c) No transfer of Funds pursuant to this Section 6.2 shall be effected unless and until the Transferee Municipality has either (i) entered into an agreement with AMO on substantially the same terms as this Agreement, or (ii) has executed and delivered to AMO a written undertaking to 6 assume all of the Recipient's obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Funds transferred; in a form satisfactory to AMO. 6.3 Transfer of Funds to a non-municipal entity. Where a Recipient decides to support an Eligible Project undertaken by an Eligible Recipient that is not a Municipality: (a) The provision of such support shall be authorized by a by-law (a "Non- municipal Transfer By-law"). The Non-municipal Transfer By-law shall be passed by the Recipient's council and submitted to AMO as soon as practicable thereafter. The Non-municipal Transfer By-law shall identify the Eligible Recipient, and the amount of Funds the Eligible Recipient is to receive for that Eligible Project. (b) The Recipient shall continue to be bound by all of the provisions of this Agreement notwithstanding any such transfer. (c) No transfer of Funds pursuant to this Section 6.3 shall be effected unless and until the non-municipal entity receiving the Funds has executed and delivered to AMO a written undertaking to assume all of the Recipient's obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Funds transferred, in a form satisfactory to AMO. 6.4 Use of Funds. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees the Funds are intended for and shall be used only for Eligible Expenditures in respect of Eligible Projects. 6.5 Schedule of payout of Funds. The Recipient agrees that all Funds are to be transferred by AMO to the Recipient as set out in Schedule A. Subject to Section 6.14, AMO will transfer Funds twice yearly, on or before the dates agreed upon by Canada and AMO, and, more specifically on the basis set out in Schedule A. 6.6 Use of Funds. The Recipient will deposit the Funds in a dedicated reserve fund or other separate distinct interest bearing account or invest the Funds through the One Investment Program or any other eligible investment permitted by the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001 and shall retain the Funds in such reserve fund, account or investment until the Funds are expended or transferred in accordance with this Agreement. The Recipient shall ensure that: (a) any investment of unexpended Funds will be in accordance with Ontario law and the Recipient's investment policy; and, (b) any interest earned on Funds will only be applied to Eligible Expenditures for Eligible Projects, more specifically on the basis set out in Schedule B and Schedule C. 6.7 Funds advanced. Funds transferred by AMO to the Recipient shall be expended by the Recipient in respect of Eligible Expenditures within five (5) years after the end of the year in which Funds were received. Unexpended Funds shall not be retained beyond such five (5) year period. AMO reserves the right to declare that Unexpended Funds after five (5) years become a debt to 7 Canada which the Recipient will reimburse forthwith on demand to AMO for transmission to Canada. 6.8 Expenditure of Funds. The Recipient shall expend all Funds by December 31, 2028. 6.9 GST & HST. The use of Funds is based on the net amount of goods and services tax or harmonized sales tax to be paid by the Recipient net of any applicable tax rebates. 6.10 Limit on Canada's Financial Commitments. The Recipient may use Funds to pay up to one hundred percent (100%) of Eligible Expenditures of an Eligible Project. 6.11 Federal Funds. The Recipient agrees that any Funds received will be treated as federal funds for the purpose of other federal infrastructure programs. 6.12 Stacking. If the Recipient is receiving federal funds under other federal infrastructure programs in respect of an Eligible Project to which the Recipient wishes to apply Funds, the maximum federal contribution limitation set out in any other federal infrastructure program agreement made in respect of that Eligible Project shall continue to apply. 6.13 Withholding Payment. AMO may withhold payment of Funds where the Recipient is in default of compliance with any provisions of this Agreement. 6.14 Insufficient funds provided by Canada. Notwithstanding Section 2.4, if Canada does not provide sufficient funds to continue the Funds for any Municipal Fiscal Year during which this Agreement is in effect, AMO may terminate this Agreement. 7. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 7.1 Annual Report. The Recipient shall report in the form in Schedule D due by March 31st following each Municipal Fiscal Year on: (a) the amounts received from AMO under this Agreement in respect of the previous Municipal Fiscal Year; (b) the amounts received from another Municipality; (c) the amounts transferred to another Municipality; (d) amounts paid by the Recipient in aggregate for Eligible Projects; (e) amounts held at year end by the Recipient in aggregate, including interest, to pay for Eligible Projects; (f) indicate in a narrative the progress that the Recipient has made in meeting its commitments and contributions; and, 8 (g) a listing of all Eligible Projects that have been funded, indicating the location, investment category, project description, amount of Funds and total project cost. 7.2 Outcomes Report. The Recipient shall account in writing for outcomes achieved as a result of the Funds through an Outcomes Report to be submitted to AMO. Specifically the Outcomes Report shall describe, in a manner to be provided by AMO, the degree to which investments in each Eligible Project are supporting progress towards achieving: (a) beneficial impacts on communities of completed Eligible Projects; and (b) enhanced impact of Funds as a predictable source of funding. 8. ASSET MANAGEMENT 8.1 Asset Management Plan. The Recipient will develop and implement an Asset Management Plan prior to December 31, 2016. 8.2 Outcomes. On a date and in a manner to be determined by AMO, the Recipient will provide a report to AMO demonstrating that Asset Management Plans are being used to guide infrastructure planning and investment decisions and how Funds are being used to address priority projects. 9. RECORDS AND AUDIT 9.1 Accounting Principles. All accounting terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them; all calculations will be made and all financial data to be submitted will be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in effect in Ontario. GAAP will include, without limitation, those principles approved or recommended for local governments from time to time by the Public Sector Accounting Board or the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants or any successor institute, applied on a consistent basis. 9.2 Separate Records. The Recipient shall maintain separate records and documentation for the Funds and keep all records including invoices, statements, receipts and vouchers in respect of Funds expended on Eligible Projects in accordance with the Recipient's municipal records retention by-law. Upon reasonable notice, the Recipient shall submit all records and documentation relating to the Funds to AMO and Canada for inspection or audit. 9.3 External Auditor. AMO and/or Canada may request, upon written notification, an audit of Eligible Project or an Annual Report. AMO shall retain an external auditor to carry out an audit of the material referred to in Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of this Agreement. AMO shall ensure that any auditor who conducts an audit pursuant to this Section of this Agreement or otherwise, provides a copy of the audit report to the Recipient and Canada at the same time that the audit report is given to AMO. 9 10. INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY 10.1 Insurance. The Recipient shall put in effect and maintain in full force and effect or cause to be put into effect and maintained for the term of this Agreement all the necessary insurance with respect to each Eligible Project, including any Eligible Projects with respect to which the Recipient has transferred Funds pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement, that would be considered appropriate for a prudent Municipality undertaking Eligible Projects, including, where appropriate and without limitation, property, construction and liability insurance, which insurance coverage shall identify Canada and AMO as additional insureds for the purposes of the Eligible Projects. 10.2 Certificates of Insurance. Throughout the term of this Agreement, the Recipient shall provide AMO with a valid certificate of insurance that confirms compliance with the requirements of Section 10.1. No Funds shall be expended or transferred pursuant to this Agreement until such certificate has been delivered to AMO. 10.3 AMO not liable. In no event shall Canada or AMO be liable for: (a) any bodily injury, death or property damages to the Recipient, its employees, agents or consultants or for any claim, demand or action by any Third Party against the Recipient, its employees, agents or consultants, arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement; or (b) any incidental, indirect, special or consequential damages, or any loss of use, revenue or profit to the Recipient, its employees, agents or consultants arising out of any or in any way related to this Agreement. 10.4 Recipient to Compensate Canada. The Recipient will ensure that it will not, at any time, hold Canada, its officers, servants, employees or agents responsible for any claims or losses of any kind that the Recipient, Third Parties or any other person or entity may suffer in relation to any matter related to the Funds or an Eligible Project and that the Recipient will, at all times, compensate Canada, its officers, servants, employees and agents for any claims or losses of any kind that any of them may suffer in relation to any matter related to the Funds or an Eligible Project. The Recipient's obligation to compensate as set out in this section does not apply to the extent to which such claims or losses relate to the negligence of an officer, servant, employee, or agent of Canada in the performance of his or her duties. 10.5 Recipient to Indemnify AMO. The Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless AMO, its officers, servants, employees or agents (each of which is called an "Indemnitee"), from and against all claims, losses, damages, liabilities and related expenses including the fees, charges and disbursements of any counsel for any Indemnitee incurred by any Indemnitee or asserted against any Indemnitee by whomsoever brought or prosecuted in any manner based upon, or occasioned by, any injury to persons, damage to or loss or destruction of property, economic loss or infringement of rights caused by or arising directly or indirectly from: 10 (a) the Funds; (b) the Recipient's Eligible Projects, including the design, construction, operation, maintenance and repair of any part or all of the Eligible Projects; (c) the performance of this Agreement or the breach of any term or condition of this Agreement by the Recipient, its officers, servants, employees and agents, or by a Third Party, its officers, servants, employees, or agents; and (d) any omission or other wilful or negligent act of the Recipient or Third Party and their respective officers, servants, employees or agents. 11. TRANSFER AND OPERATION OF MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE 11.1 Reinvestment. The Recipient will invest into Eligible Projects, any revenue that is generated from the sale, lease, encumbrance or other disposal of an asset resulting from an Eligible Project where such disposal takes place within five (5) years of the date of completion of the Eligible Project. 11.2 Notice. The Recipient shall notify AMO in writing 120 days in advance and at any time during the five (5) years following the date of completion of an Eligible Project if it is sold, leased, encumbered or otherwise disposed of. 11.3 Public Use. The Recipient will ensure that Infrastructure resulting from any Eligible Project that is not sold, leased, encumbered or otherwise disposed of, remains primarily for public use or benefit. 12. DEFAULT AND TERMINATION 12.1 Event of Default. AMO may declare in writing that an event of default has occurred when the Recipient has not complied with any condition, undertaking or term in this Agreement. AMO will not declare in writing that an event of default has occurred unless it has first consulted with the Recipient. Each and every one of the following events is an "Event of Default": (a) failure by the Recipient to deliver in a timely manner an Annual Report or Outcomes Report. (b) delivery of an Annual Report that discloses non-compliance with any condition, undertaking or material term in this Agreement. (c) failure by the Recipient to co-operate in an external audit undertaken by AMO or its agents. (d) delivery of an external audit report that discloses non-compliance with any condition, undertaking or term in this Agreement. (e) failure by the Recipient to expend Funds in accordance with Section 6.7. 11 12.2 Waiver. AMO may withdraw its notice of an Event of Default if the Recipient, within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the notice, either corrects the default or demonstrates, to the satisfaction of AMO in its sole discretion that it has taken such steps as are necessary to correct the default. 12.3 Remedies on default. If AMO declares that an Event of Default has occurred under Section 12.1, after thirty (30) calendar days from the Recipient's receipt of the notice of an Event of Default, it may immediately terminate or suspend its obligation to pay the Funds. If AMO suspends payment, it may pay suspended Funds if AMO is satisfied that the default has been cured. 12.4 Repayment of Funds. If AMO declares that an Event of Default has not been cured to its satisfaction, AMO reserves the right to declare that prior payments of Funds become a debt to Canada which the Recipient will reimburse forthwith on demand to AMO for transmission to Canada. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 13.1 No conflict of interest. The Recipient will ensure that no current member of the AMO Board of Directors and no current or former public servant or office holder to whom any post-employment, ethics and conflict of interest legislation, guidelines, codes or policies of Canada applies will derive direct benefit from the Funds, the Unspent Funds, and interest earned thereon, unless the provision of receipt of such benefits is in compliance with such legislation, guidelines, policies or codes. 14. NOTICE 14.1 Notice. Any notice, information or document provided for under this Agreement will be effectively given if in writing and if delivered by hand, or overnight courier, mailed, postage or other charges prepaid, or sent by facsimile or email to the addresses, the facsimile numbers or email addresses set out in Section 14.3. Any notice that is sent by hand or overnight courier service shall be deemed to have been given when received; any notice mailed shall be deemed to have been received on the eighth (8) calendar day following the day on which it was mailed; any notice sent by facsimile shall be deemed to have been given when sent; any notice sent by email shall be deemed to have been received on the sender's receipt of an acknowledgment from the intended recipient (such as by the "return receipt requested" function, as available, return email or other written acknowledgment), provided that in the case of a notice sent by facsimile or email, if it is not given on a business day before 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, it shall be deemed to have been given at 8:30 a.m. on the next business day for the recipient. 14.2 Representatives. The individuals identified in Section 14.3 of this Agreement, in the first instance, act as AMO's or the Recipient's, as the case may be, representative for the purpose of implementing this Agreement. 14.3 Addresses for Notice. Further to Section 14.1 of this Agreement, notice can be given at the following addresses: 12 (a) If to AMO: Executive Director Federal Gas Tax Fund Agreement Association of Municipalities of Ontario 200 University Avenue, Suite 801 Toronto, ON M5H 3C6 Telephone: 416-971-9856 Facsimile: 416-971-6191 Email: gastax@amo.on.ca (b) If to the Recipient: Todd Harrison Director of Finance /Treasurer City of Niagara Falls Box 1023, 4310 Queen St., Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Telephone: (905) 356-7521 Facsimile: (905) 356-9083 Email: tharrison@niagarafalls.ca 15. MISCELLANEOUS 15.1 Counterpart Signature. This Agreement may be signed in counterpart, and the signed copies will, when attached, constitute an original Agreement. 15.2 Severability. If for any reason a provision of this Agreement that is not a fundamental term is found to be or becomes invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, it will be deemed to be severable and will be deleted from this Agreement, but all the other terms and conditions of this Agreement will continue to be valid and enforceable. 15.3 Waiver. AMO may waive any right in this Agreement only in writing, and any tolerance or indulgence demonstrated by AMO will not constitute waiver of rights in this Agreement. Unless a waiver is executed in writing, AMO will be entitled to seek any remedy that it may have under this Agreement or under the law. 15.4 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable in Ontario. 15.5 Survival. The Recipient agrees that the following sections and provisions of this Agreement shall extend for seven (7) years beyond the expiration or termination of this Agreement: Sections 5, 6.7, 6.8, 7, 10.4, 10.5, 11, 12.4 and 15.8. 13 15.6 AMO, Canada and Recipient independent. The Recipient will ensure its actions do not establish or will not be deemed to establish a partnership, joint venture, principal-agent relationship or employer-employee relationship in any way or for any purpose whatsoever between Canada and the Recipient, between AMO and the Recipient, between Canada and a Third Party or between AMO and a Third Party. 15.7 No Authority to Represent. The Recipient will ensure that it does not represent itself, including in any agreement with a Third Party, as a partner, employee or agent of Canada or AMO. 15.8 Debts Due to AMO. Any amount owed under this Agreement will constitute a debt due to AMO, which the Recipient will reimburse forthwith, on demand, to AMO. 15.9 Priority. In the event of a conflict, the part of this Agreement that precedes the signature of the Parties will take precedence over the Schedules. 16. SCHEDULES 16.1 This Agreement, including: Schedule A Schedule of Fund Payments Schedule B Eligible Project Categories Schedule C Eligible and Ineligible Expenditures Schedule D Reporting Schedule E Communications constitute the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained in this Agreement and supersedes all prior oral or written representations and agreements. 17. SIGNATURES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AMO and the Recipient have respectively executed, sealed and delivered this Agreement on the date set out on the front page. RECIPIENT'S NAME: CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By: Name: Date Affix Title: Corporate Seal 14 Name: Date Title: THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO By: Affix Title: Executive Director Date Corporate Seal In the presence of: Witness: Date Title: 15 SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE OF FUND PAYMENTS RECIPIENT'S NAME: CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS The following represents an estimate of the Funds and schedule of payments for the first five (5) years of the Agreement. Year Schedule of Fund Payments Payment#1 Payment#2 2014 $1,201,606.24 $1,201,606.24 2015 $1,201,606.24 $1,201,606.24 2016 $1,261,686.55 $1,261,686.55 2017 $1,261,686.55 $1,261,686.55 2018 $1,321,766.86 $1,321,766.86 An estimate of the Funds and schedule of payments for the latter five (5) years of the Agreement (2019-2023) will be provided following the review and amendment procedures specified in Section 2.2 and 2.3. 17 SCHEDULE B ELIGIBLE PROJECT CATEGORIES Eligible Projects include investments in Infrastructure for its construction, renewal or material enhancement in each of the following categories: 1. Local roads and bridges — i.e. roads, bridges, tunnels, highways and active transportation infrastructure (active transportation refers to investments that support active methods of travel. This can include: cycling lanes and paths, sidewalks, hiking and walking trails). 2. Public transit — i.e. a shared passenger transport system which is available for public use. 3. Drinking Water — i.e. drinking water conservation, collection, treatment and distribution systems. 4. Wastewater — i.e. wastewater and storm water collection, treatment and management systems. 5. Solid waste — i.e. solid waste management systems including the collection, diversion and disposal of recyclables, compostable materials and garbage. 6. Community energy systems — i.e. infrastructure that generates or increases the efficient usage of energy. 7. Capacity building - i.e. investments related to strengthening the ability of Municipalities to develop long-term planning practices. 8. Short-sea shipping — i.e. infrastructure related to the movement of cargo and passengers around the coast and on inland waterways, without directly crossing an ocean. 9. Short-line rail — i.e. railway related infrastructure for carriage of passengers or freight. 10. Regional and local airports — i.e. airport-related infrastructure (excludes the National Airport System). 11. Broadband connectivity — i.e. infrastructure that provides internet access to residents, businesses, and/or institutions in Canadian communities. 12. Brownfield Redevelopment i.e. remediation or decontamination and redevelopment of a brownfield site within municipal boundaries, where the redevelopment includes: (a) the construction of public infrastructure as identified in the context of any other eligible category referred to in this Schedule, and/or; (b) the construction of municipal use public parks and publicly-owned social housing. 18 13. Sport Infrastructure — i.e. amateur sport infrastructure (excludes facilities, including arenas, which would be used as the home of professional sports teams or major junior hockey teams (e.g. Junior A)). 14. Recreational Infrastructure - i.e. recreational facilities or networks. 15. Cultural Infrastructure— i.e. infrastructure that supports arts, humanities, and heritage. 16. Tourism Infrastructure — i.e. infrastructure that attracts travelers for recreation, leisure, business or other purposes. 17. Disaster mitigation — i.e. infrastructure that reduces or eliminates long-term impacts and risks associated with natural disasters. Note: Investments in health infrastructure (hospitals, convalescent and senior centres) are not eligible. 19 SCHEDULE C ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES 1. Eligible Expenditures 1.1 Eligible Expenditures of Recipients will be limited to the following: (a) the expenditures associated with acquiring, planning, designing, constructing or renovating a tangible capital asset, as defined by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and any related debt financing charges specifically identified with that asset; (b) for capacity building category only, the expenditures related to strengthening the ability of Municipalities to improve local and regional planning including capital investment plans, integrated community sustainability plans, life-cycle cost assessments, and Asset Management Plans. The expenditures could include developing and implementing: (i) studies, strategies, or systems related to asset management, which may include software acquisition and implementation; (ii) training directly related to asset management planning; and, (iii) long-term infrastructure plans. (c) the expenditures directly associated with joint federal communication activities and with federal project signage. 1.2 Employee and Equipment Costs: The incremental costs of the Recipient's employees or leasing of equipment may be included as Eligible Expenditures under the following conditions: (a) the Recipient is able to demonstrate that it is not economically feasible to tender a contract; (b) the employee or equipment is engaged directly in respect of the work that would have been the subject of the contract; and (c) the arrangement is approved in advance and in writing by the Oversight Committee. 1.3 AMO as Agreement Administrator: Up to 0.5% of the total funds will used by AMO to undertake the administrative responsibilities to implement the Agreement and to undertake related capacity building and program delivery including expenditures associated with communication activities such as public project announcements and signage. Canada will review and accept AMO's detailed business case submitted in accordance with the Canada-Ontario-AMO-Toronto Agreement prior to undertaking the administrative and related activities. 20 2. Ineligible Expenditures The following are deemed Ineligible Expenditures: (a) project expenditures incurred before April 1, 2005; (b) project expenditures incurred before April 1, 2014 for the following Eligible Project categories: (i) regional and local airports; (ii) short-line rail; (iii) short-sea shipping; (iv) disaster mitigation; (v) broadband connectivity; (vi) brownfield redevelopment; (vii) cultural infrastructure; (viii) tourism infrastructure; (ix) sport infrastructure; and (x) recreational infrastructure. (c) the cost of leasing of equipment by the Recipient, any overhead costs, including salaries and other employment benefits of any employees of the Recipient, its direct or indirect operating or administrative costs of Recipients, and more specifically its costs related to planning, engineering, architecture, supervision, management and other activities normally carried out by its staff, except in accordance with Eligible Expenditures above; (d) taxes for which the Recipient is eligible for a tax rebate and all other costs eligible for rebates; (e) purchase of land or any interest therein, and related costs; (f) legal fees; and (g) routine repair and maintenance costs. 21 SCHEDULE D REPORTING 1. Annual Report By March 31st of each year, the Recipient will provide to AMO an Annual Report in an electronic format deemed acceptable to AMO, consisting of the following: (a) Financial Reporting Table: The financial report table will be submitted in accordance with the following template: Annual Cumulative Annual Report Financial Table 20xx 2014-20xx Opening Balance $xxx Received from AMO $xxx $xxx Interest Earned $xxx $xxx Received from a Municipality $xxx $xxx Transferred to a Municipality ($)oxx) ($xxx) Spent on Eligible Projects (for each Eligible Project category) ($xxx) ($xxx) Closing Balance of unspent $xxx funds (b) Project List: The Recipient will provide to AMO a project list submitted in accordance with the following template: Eligible Project ProjectTotal Funds (GTF) Recipient Title Description Project Project Cost Spent Completed category (Yes/No/Ongoing) (Yes/No/Ongoing) (Yes/No/Ongoing) (Yes/No/Ongoing) 1For the 2014 Annual Report this means the amount reported as unspent by the Recipient at December 31, 2013 as reported in the 2013 Annual Expenditure Report(as defined under the First Agreement). 22 2. Project Outcomes. The Outcomes Report shall outline, in a manner to be provided by AMO, the degree to which investments in each project are supporting progress towards achieving: (a) Beneficial impacts on communities of completed Eligible Projects; and (b) Enhanced impact of Funds as a predictable source of funding. 3. Asset Management Outcomes. On a date and in a manner to be determined by AMO, the Recipient will provide a report to AMO demonstrating that Asset Management Plans are being used to guide infrastructure planning and investment decisions and how Funds are being used to address priority projects. 23 SCHEDULE E COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOL 1. Purpose. The provisions of this Communications Protocol apply to all communications activities related to any Funds and Eligible Projects. Communications activities may include, but are not limited to, public or media events, news releases, reports, web articles, blogs, project signs, digital signs, publications, success stories and vignettes, photo compilations, videos, advertising campaigns, awareness campaigns, editorials, award programs, and multi-media products. 2. Information Sharing. The Recipient agrees to provide AMO with upfront information on planned Eligible Projects and Eligible Projects in progress on an annual basis, in an electronic format deemed acceptable by AMO, by March 31. Information will include, at a minimum: Eligible Project name, Eligible Category, Eligible Project description, total budgeted federal contribution (gas tax) and anticipated start date. 3. Project Signage 3.1 The Recipient may have a sign recognizing its contribution to Eligible Projects. 3.2 At Canada's request, the Recipient will install a federal sign to recognize federal funding at Eligible Project site(s). Federal sign design, content and installation guidelines will be provided by Canada. 3.3 Where the Recipient decides to install a permanent plaque or other suitable marker with respect to an Eligible Project, it must recognize the federal contribution to the Eligible Project and be approved by Canada. 3.4 The Recipient is responsible for the production and installation of Eligible Project signage, or as otherwise agreed upon. 3.5 The Recipient agrees to inform AMO of signage installations, in a manner determined by AMO. 4. Media Events and Announcements for Eligible Projects 4.1 The Recipient agrees to have regular announcements of Eligible Projects that are benefitting from the Funds that may be provided by Canada. Key milestones may be marked by public events, news releases and/or other mechanisms. 4.2 Media events and announcements include, but are not limited to, news conferences, public announcements, official events or ceremonies, and news releases. 4.3 Canada, AMO or the Recipient, may request a media event or announcement. 4.4 Media events and announcements related to Eligible Projects will not occur without the prior knowledge and agreement of AMO, Canada and the Recipient. AMO as administrator will ensure prior knowledge and agreement of other signatories to the Canada-Ontario-AMO-Toronto Agreement. 24 4.5 Canada, AMO or the Recipient in requesting a media event or an announcement will provide at least 21 working days' notice to the Parties of their intention to • undertake such an event. The event will take place at a date and location that is mutually agreed to by the Recipient, AMO and Canada. The AMO, Canada and the Recipient will have the opportunity to participate in such events through a designated representative. Each participant will choose its designated representative. 4.6 The conduct of all joint media events, announcements and products will follow the Table of Precedence for Canada as outlined at the current Government of Canada website. 4.7 All joint communications material related to media events and announcements must be approved by Canada and recognize the funding of all contributors. 4.8 All joint communications material must reflect Canada's policy on official languages and the federal identity program. 5. Program Communications 5.1 The Recipient may include messaging in its own communications products and activities with regards to the use of Funds. 5.2 When undertaking such activities, the Recipient will provide the opportunity for AMO and Canada to participate and will recognize the funding of all contributors. 5.3 Canada and AMO agree that they will not unreasonably restrict the Recipient from: (i) using, for its own purposes, public communications products related to the Funds prepared by Canada or AMO ("Communication Products") or, (ii) linking to web-based Communication Products. 5.4 Notwithstanding Section 4 of Schedule E, Canada retains the right to meet its obligations to communicate information to Canadians about the use of Funds through communications products and activities. 6. Operational Communications 6.1 The Recipient is solely responsible for operational communications with respect to the Eligible Projects, including but not limited to, calls for tender, construction and public safety notices. Operational communications as described above are not subject to the federal official languages policy. 6.2 The Recipient will share information promptly with Canada and AMO should significant emerging media or stakeholder issues relating to an Eligible Project arise. AMO will advise Recipients, when appropriate, about media inquiries received by it concerning an Eligible Project and, when appropriate, other signatories to the Canada-Ontario-AMO-Toronto Agreement will advise the Recipient about media inquiries, concerning an Eligible Project. 7. Communicating Success Stories. The Recipient agrees to communicate with Canada and AMO for the purposes of collaborating on communications activities and produces 25 including but not limited to Eligible Project success stories, Eligible Project vignettes, and Eligible Project start-to-finish features. 8. Advertising Campaigns. Recognizing that advertising can be an effective means of communication with the public, the Recipient may, at its own cost, organize an advertising or public information campaign related to the use of the Funds or the Eligible Projects. However such a campaign must respect the provisions of this Agreement. In the event of such a campaign, the Recipient agrees to inform Canada and AMO of its intention, and to inform them no less than 21 working days prior to the campaign launch. 26 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014- A By-law to amend By-law No. 2007-161, being a by-law to regulate the supply of water and to provide for the maintenance and management of the waterworks and for the imposition and collection of water rates. WHEREAS Section 11 and Part III of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorize a municipality to pass by-laws respecting matters within the sphere of jurisdiction of public utilities; AND WHEREAS Section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes a municipality to pass by-laws imposing fees and charges for the use of waste management systems, use of sewage systems of the consumption of water. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. By-law No. 2007-161, is hereby amended by deleting the SCHEDULE OF RATES, FEES AND CHARGES attached to it and substituting therefore Schedule "A" to this amending by-law, being the Schedule of Water Rates, Sewer Rates, Fees and Charges. 2. Repeal By-law 2013-61. Passed this ninth day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: September 9, 2014 Second Reading: September 9, 2014 Third Reading: September 9, 2014 Schedule "A" SCHEDULE OF RATES, FEES AND CHARGES 1. Service Charges: Meter Size After Due Date Before Due Date 15 mm meter $23.36 $22.25 monthly 18 mm meter $23.36 $22.25 monthly 25 mm meter $23.36 $22.25 monthly 37 mm meter $70.09 $66.75 monthly 50 mm meter $140.18 $133.50 monthly 75 mm meter $280.35 $267.00 monthly 100 mm meter $513.98 $489.50 monthly 150 mm meter $981.23 $934.50 monthly 200 mm meter $1,752.19 $1,668,.75 monthly 250 mm meter $2,453.06 $2,336.25 monthly 2. Water Rates: After Due Date Before Due Date $1.0109 $0.9628 Per cubic metre 3. Flat rates for a private water service not metered by choice or other determination of the City: After Due Date Before Due Date $52.34 $49.85 4. Flat rates for a private water service not metered because of refusal of owner: Residential Premises After Due Date Before Due Date 3x the current flat rate as per Section 3 3x the current flat rate as per Section 3 Other than Residential Premises After Due Date Before Due Date 3x the current service charge per Section 1 4% less than the After Due Date amount as plus 3x single month average of previous 12 calculated for ICI, Section 4 months consumption history, OR 3x the current service charge per Section 1, 4% less than the After Due Date amount as Residential Premises After Due Date Before Due Date plus, if no previous consumption history, 3x calculated for ICI, Section 4 single month average of similarly sized account/type at the Engineer's discretion 5. Service Deposits: Two times the estimated billing for a billing period with a minimum of the amount of$230.00. 6. Sewer Rates: (a) Service charge as set out in Section 1: 90.02% (b)Water rates as set in in Section 2: 110.57% (c) Flat rates as set out in Sections 3 and 4 108.00% 7. Charge for Installation of Water Service: (a)Actual cost—deposit required bases on estimated costs. (b) City supervised tapping fees 3/4 -5/8 up to and including 1" service $100.00 flat rate 2" and above $400.00 flat rate 8. Charge for shutting off or turning on supply of water(for arrears): (a) During normal working hours: $ 55.00 (b) Outside normal working hours: $175.00 (c) During normal working hours for maintenance $ 34.00 (d) Outside normal working hours for maintenance $175.00 Note: For the purposes of the by-law, normal working hours shall mean Mondays to Fridays (exclusive of holidays) between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 9. Charge for meter removal or reinstallation (for maintenance): (a) During normal working hours: $40.00 per hour/per city employee (b) Outside normal working hours: $100.00 per hour/per city employee 10. Charge for Testing Meter Consumption: At cost with a deposit of$75.00 11. Bulk carrier rate for City stand-pipe: (a) For Water—Cost plus 25%: $1.18 per cubic meter (b) Service deposit: based on estimated charges for two billing periods, minimum of$500.00 (c) Bulk water card purchase $15.00 12. Use of Water for Construction Purposes: (a)At rates shown in Sections 1 and 2 together with the cost to supply and install a meter. (b) Service Deposit: based on estimated charges for two billing periods; minimum of$500.00. 13. Charge for private water service account transferred to tax account: (a) Per transaction fee of$22.00 14. Charge for meter purchase to be paid at building/sewer permit issuance. 5/8" positive displacement water meter and costs $ 209.70 5/8"x 3/4" positive displacement water meter and costs $ 211.15 3/4" positive displacement water meter and costs $ 246.65 1" positive displacement water meter and costs $ 333.60 1.5" positive displacement water meter and costs $ 653.62 2" compound water meter and costs $ 2,442.80 3" compound water meter and costs $ 3,258.10 4" compound water meter and costs $4,878.63 5" compound water meter and costs $8,879.85 4" protectus compound water meter and costs $ 8,745.38 6" protectus compound water meter and costs $10,444.56 8" protectus compound water meter and costs $13,961.52 10" protectus compound water meter and costs $19,683.84 Wall transmitter$207.85 Pit transmitter $262.58 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014 - A by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement with the Niagara College Administrative Council Inc. for the provision of transit services. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. An agreement between the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls and the Niagara College Administrative Council Inc. respecting the provision of transit services, as attached hereto, is hereby approved and authorized. 2. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding. 3. The Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal thereto. Passed this ninth day day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: September 9, 2014. Second Reading: September 9, 2014. Third Reading: September 9, 2014. THIS AGREEMENT dated as of the 9th day of September, 2014. BETWEEN: NIAGARA COLLEGE STUDENT ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL INCORPORATED Hereinafter referred to as "NCSAC" - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Hereinafter referred to as the "City" WHEREAS NCSAC and the City have discussed the implementation of the Universal Transit Pass for full-time students registered in the Fall and Winter Semesters of Niagara College ("Eligible Students") with the exception of those students in programs not required to pay the Student Activity Fee; AND WHEREAS approval was obtained for this agreement (the "Agreement") by Council for the City on September 9th, 2014; AND WHEREAS approval for this proposal was obtained through a vote in a referendum amongst the full-time student membership of NCSAC; NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) paid by each of the parties to the other, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Term For the purposes of the Agreement the "School Year" commences in September and ends the following calendar year in April. The term of this Agreement is for the Fall Semester commencing on September 1, 2014 and ending on December 31st, 2014 . 2. Total Fee For the 2014 Fall Semester, NCSAC shall remit to the City a total fee of TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND AND TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY ONE 89/100 DOLLARS $278,291.89 (taxes included). NCSAC shall make payments to the City according to the payment schedule outlined in Paragraph 12 of this Agreement. The total fee payable is not subject to reduction. NCSAC acknowledges that all fees and increases anticipated herein are based on the City supplying one bus in accordance with the service schedule outlined in Schedule "A". In the event that more than one bus or additional services are required, NCSAC shall be responsible for all additional costs associated therewith. 2 The City will provide a separate invoice and record schedule to NCSAC for any additional buses required based on the current hourly rate, with a minimum of two (2) hours, and based on bus and personnel availability. 3. Fuel Surcharge In addition to the charges calculated in accordance with Paragraph 2 above; in the event that the cost of diesel fuel increases during the School Year, such that it exceeds the base rate, NCSAC hereby agrees to pay a fuel surcharge, to be known as the "Fuel Surcharge Fee" and calculated as follows: On or before the 30th day of September 2014, the parties shall agree on a price/liter for diesel fuel, which shall be known as the "Base Rate". The Base Rate will be calculated based on the average price of diesel fuel/liter, plus ten percent (10%). At the end of the School Year the City shall calculate the average diesel fuel price/liter by dividing the total of the monthly average diesel fuel price/liter by eight (8), which shall be known as the "Average Rate". The Base Rate shall then be subtracted from the Average Rate and multiplied by the number of liters of diesel fuel consumed during the School Year in the execution of this Agreement. Example: Approximate total liters of diesel fuel used during School Year 20,000 Average Rate for the School Year $1.36/liter Base Rate $1 .32/liter 20,000 x ($1.36 - $1.32) = $800 (Fuel Surcharge Fee) The parties further agree that the Fuel Surcharge Fee, if applicable, shall be paid to the City, in full, by the 31st day of May 2015. 4. Identification Eligible Students shall be entitled to unlimited ridership privileges on Niagara Falls Transit regular routes during the Fall Semester when a valid Niagara College Photo Identification Card is produced to the Bus Operator upon entry, and it is understood that there is no expectation for service to be provided beyond which is scheduled. In the event a passenger does not produce a valid Niagara College Photo Identification Card or cash fare, they will be refused access to the bus. The nature and format of the acceptable identification will be subject to the approval of the City and NCSAC. NCSAC will supply each Eligible Student with a Niagara College Photo Identification Card. This card must also have affixed to it a sticker that will indicate the student is enrolled in the 2014-2015 validity period. 3 NCSAC will supply the City with information and copies of the Universal Transit Pass stickers that will be accepted by Niagara Falls Transit Bus Operators and keep the City informed of any changes or alterations to the Photo Identification Card or sticker. The City will accept Niagara College Photo Identification Cards without a Universal Transit Pass sticker from September 1st until September 22nd 5. Assignment The Universal Transit Pass is not assignable. Any student who is found to have breached the conditions of the use of the Universal Transit Pass will have the privilege revoked without rebate. 6. Confiscated Passes The City reserves the right to check the validity of a Universal Transit Pass with respect to the identity of the user of the Pass and the validity of the Pass itself and to further deny use of the Pass, for cause, as stated in the general policies of the City. Universal Transit Passes that are being used inappropriately will be confiscated by the Bus Operator and will be forwarded to the office of Niagara College Campus Security with an explanation of the circumstances of the abrogation to Campus Security and to the NCSAC within twenty-four (24) hours of the confiscation. In the event that the student does not produce a valid Universal Transit Pass, they shall be instructed to pay the cash fare or be refused access to the bus. 7. Non Student Ridership NCSAC acknowledges that non-eligible students or individuals who do not possess a Universal Transit Pass may use the services provided by the City under this Agreement upon payment of the applicable cash fare as set by the City. The City is not required to account or remit said cash fares to NCSAC. 8. Responsibility of Service The City will not be held responsible for service disruptions due to unforeseen circumstances (i.e. weather, accidents, traffic congestion, detours, striking workers, mechanical breakdowns, etc.). 9. Service Interruptions In the event of a period of sustained interruption of regular service exceeding ninety-six (96) consecutive hours, being four (4) school days, the City's liability will be limited to a reimbursement to NCSAC on a basis of a "Daily Rate". The Daily Rate is defined as the total fee paid by NCSAC to the City in that year divided by the total amount of operating days in that year multiplied by the amount of days without service. Operating days shall only include those days where service is offered between September 1st and December 31st. Said reimbursement will be paid to NCSAC within thirty (30) days of resumption of service. 4 10. Payment Schedule Payment for the Fall Semester shall be made to the City no later than October 31, 2014. If additional buses (service) were agreed upon by the City and NCSAC, the payment for these additional hours of service will be determined by the City by May 31, 2015 for payment by NCSAC by June 30, 2015. Late payments will be assessed at an interest charge of 1.5% per month (18% per annum). 11. Service Schedule a) Only one bus shall be provided unless other Agreements have been reached. b) Schedule "A" shall be provided Monday to Friday during the dates indicated. c) This Agreement does not include service from May 1st to August 31st . d) No service shall be provided to the Campuses on statutory holidays. The service schedule, Schedule "A", shall be provided by the City for the 2014 Fall Semester. NCSAC and the City shall make good faith efforts to discuss any potential scheduling changes within the School Year in which the sought schedule changes will take effect. Any adjustment in service indicated in Schedule "A" to this Agreement must be agreed to by both parties, in writing. 12. Eligible Student Totals The City may request NCSAC to provide a record of the total amount of Universal Transit Passes issued in a given year. NCSAC may request the City to provide a record of Niagara College student ridership numbers during a given year. Both parties shall make good faith efforts in their assumptions. 13. Contract Terms and Notice of Termination Any party wishing to terminate the Agreement, for any reason, must provide the other party with sixty (60) days written notice of its intent to terminate the Agreement. 14. Lost or Stolen Replacement Passes The City is not responsible for any Universal Transit Pass that has been lost or stolen. The student will be responsible to secure a new student card and transit validation through the processes established by the NCSAC. 15. Insurance The City shall provide NCSAC with proof of liability insurance of not less than $5,000,000. 5 16. Arbitration If at any time any dispute shall arise between the NCSAC and the City under this Agreement, then such dispute shall, upon notice, by one party or the other party that such a dispute exists, be referred to arbitration under such rules and at such time and place as the City and NCSAC shall mutually agree. Nothing in the foregoing, though, shall prevent the parties from trying to resolve such dispute(s) in a mutually satisfactory way by discussions and negotiations. 17. Notices Any notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given by personal delivery or sent by prepaid registered mail to the parties at the following addresses. Notices sent by registered mail shall be deemed to be received three (3) business days after mailing. To NCSAC at: Niagara College Student Administrative Council Incorporated 300 Woodlawn Road, Room SA 205 Welland, ON L3C 7L3 To the City at: The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street, P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Attention: Transportation Services Telephone No. (905) 356-7521 Fax No. (905) 371-2892 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto executed this Agreement. NIAGARA COLLEGE STUDENT THE CORPORATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS INCORPORATED Per: Per: Shane Malcolm, President James M. Diodati, Mayor Matthew Cowell, Exec. V. P., NOTL Dean Iorfida, City Clerk J nifer Howarth, Executive Director We have authority to bind the Corporation CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014 - A by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement with the Town of Fort Erie for the provision of transit services. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. An agreement between the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls and the Town of Fort Erie respecting the provision of transit services, as attached hereto, is hereby approved and authorized. 2. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding. 3. The Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal thereto. Passed this ninth day day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: September 9, 2014. Second Reading: September 9, 2014. Third Reading: September 9, 2014. THIS AGREEMENT made this 1 3;i-\ day of t\-Lv tLS-A, 2014. BETWEEN: THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF FORT ERIE Hereinafter referred to as "Fort Erie" OF THE FIRST PART; - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Hereinafter referred to as "Niagara Falls" OF THE SECOND PART. WHEREAS Fort Erie and Niagara Falls wish to implement an intermunicipal transit service operating between the Town of Fort Erie and the City of Niagara Falls; AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the City of Niagara Falls approved Report No. TS-2014-26 on August 12, 2014 authorizing Niagara Falls Transit to enter into an Agreement with Fort Erie to provide inteiuiunicipal transit services to Fort Erie; AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Town of Fort Erie passed Report No. IS-18-14 on July 14th, 2014 authorizing the entry into an Agreement with Niagara Falls Transit to provide intermunicipal transit services as per Schedule "A"to this Agreement; AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Town of Fort Erie passed By-law No. 101-2014 on July 21st, 2014 authorizing the entry into an Agreement with Niagara Falls Transit to provide intenuunicipal transit services as per Schedule"A"to this Agreement; NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and agreements hereinafter contained and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Term The term of this Agreement is for one school year commencing on September 2°d,2014 and ending on May 1st, 2015. Extension of the Agreement beyond May 1st, 2015 shall require mutual consent and agreement of all parties hereto. 2. Payment Schedule and Total Fee (1) For the services provided throughout the initial term of this Agreement, Fort Erie shall remit to Niagara Falls a total fee of$129,718.20 payable in two equal instalments of 50% of the total fee on or before October 31st, 2014 and on or before February 28th, 2015. The total fee payable is not subject to reduction. Late payments will be assessed at an interest charge of 1.5%per month(18%per annum). (2) Fort Erie acknowledges that all fees anticipated herein are based on Niagara Falls providing services as outlined in Schedule "A" attached to this Agreement. In the event that additional services are required, Fort Erie shall be responsible for the additional costs associated with same. Any additional costs will be negotiated between the parties at such time as this Agreement is to be amended. (3) In the event that increases in the level of service are required by Fort Erie, Niagara Falls will provide a separate invoice to Fort Erie for any additional buses or services required. The invoiced fees will be based on an hourly rate (to be negotiated by both parties) with a base minimum of two hours required per call out and transit fleet availability. 3. Fares and Fare Revenue Fort Erie acknowledges that individuals who use the services provided by Niagara Falls under this Agreement must remit the applicable fare as agreed to by both parties and as outlined in Schedule "A". Niagara Falls shall remit said fares to Fort Erie within one month after the completion of the Fall and Winter school semesters respectively. 4. Responsibility of Service Neither party shall be responsible to the other for the non-performance, or for delay in performance, occasioned by any cause beyond its control including, acts of civil or military authority, embargoes,acts of God,delay of suppliers or inability to obtain or shortages of materials or supplies but, for greater certainty, the shortage of funds by a party thereto, thereby preventing it from discharging its obligations hereunder shall be deemed to be a cause within its control. During the period of such delay, Fort Erie shall have the right to source services elsewhere. Fort Erie and Niagara Falls, acting reasonably and in good faith, shall jointly decide whether any such situation is likely to continue for a period exceeding 90 days and if so, then either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. 5. Service Interruptions Niagara Falls will not be held responsible for service disruptions due to unforeseen circumstances (i.e. weather, accidents, traffic congestion, detours, road closures, mechanical breakdowns, etc.). In the event of a period of sustained interruption of regular service exceeding 96 consecutive hours, Niagara Falls' liability will be limited to a reimbursement to Fort Erie on a basis of a daily rate, defined as the total fee paid by Fort Erie to Niagara Falls in that year, divided by the total amount of operating days in that year, multiplied by the amount of days without service. -3— Operating days shall only include those days where service is offered between September 1 and May 1 of each year. Said reimbursement will be paid to Fort Erie within 30 days of resumption of service. 6. Service Schedule All services anticipated to be delivered under the terms of this Agreement are set out in Schedule "A" as attached. 7. Ridership Data Fort Erie requires Niagara Falls to provide a record of ridership numbers for the Fall and Winter Semesters covered within this Agreement. 8. Contract Terms and Notice of Termination (1) Any party wishing to terminate the Agreement, for any reason,prior to May 1st, 2015 must notify the other party of its intent to terminate the contract for the subsequent January - May, 2015 year by November 1st, 2014. (2) Fort Erie understands and agrees that Niagara Falls shall have the right to terminate this Agreement on 60 day's notice in the event of either of the following: (a) Niagara Falls no longer has the authority to transport passengers within the jurisdiction required by this Agreement; (b) A frustrating event occurs whereby legislation is enacted by any level of government which would effectively prohibit or in any way limit Niagara Falls from carrying out its obligations under this Agreement, then Niagara Falls shall be relieved of its obligations under the Agreement. Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, in the event the rights of Niagara Falls to perform its obligations under this Agreement are, or may be, frustrated by legislation, by any level of government, then Niagara Falls shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without any liability or obligation upon 60 days written notice to Fort Erie or such lesser period of notice as may be required by the subject legislation. Repayment terms of this Agreement's section 5 would then come into effect for the balance of the term of the Agreement. 9. Insurance (1) During the teuu of this Agreement and any extension thereof,Niagara Falls shall maintain in full force and effect the following insurance coverage. Commercial General Liability policy covering all services as described in this Agreement. The policy will be extended to include bodily injury and property damage,personal injury,blanket contractual to a limit of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) per occurrence. The policy shall be -4— endorsed to include Fort Erie as an additional insured. (2) All policies of insurance shall: (a) be written with an insurer licensed to do business in Ontario; (b) be non-contributing with, and will apply only as primary and not excess to any other insurance or self-insurance available to Fort Erie; and (c) contain an undertaking by the insurers to notify Fort Erie in writing not less than 30 days before any cancellation or teuuination of the policies. (3) Before the commencement of any activities hereunder,Niagara Falls shall provide to Fort Erie, a Certificate of Insurance in a form acceptable to Fort Erie evidencing the above policies. Fort Erie reserves the right to request a certified copy of the above-mentioned policies. 10. Arbitration (1) The parties agree to make every reasonable effort to resolve any disputes arising from this Agreement by negotiations between them. (2) If a dispute occurs between the parties concerning any matter governed by the Agreement, the manager or designate of the party raising the dispute shall advise the manager or designate of the other party, in writing, and the two managers or designates shall work together and use all reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute. (3) If the managers or their designates are unable to resolve the dispute informally within five business days of it being referred to them, the dispute shall be forwarded, in writing, to the Town Clerk or his/her designate of Fort Erie and the City Clerk of Niagara Falls. Using direct communications, the Town Clerk or his/her designate for Fort Erie and the City Clerk of Niagara Falls will have 15 business days from the matter being referred to them to resolve the dispute. (4) If the town Clerk or his/her designate for Fort Erie and the City Clerk of Niagara Falls do not resolve the dispute, the dispute may, with the consent of both parties,be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 as amended. The place of arbitration will be the Town of Fort Erie, in the Province of Ontario. 11. Notices Any notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given by personal delivery or sent by prepaid registered mail to the parties at the following addresses. Notices sent by registered mail shall be deemed to be received three regular business days after mailing. -5— To Fort Erie at: The Corporation of the Town of Fort Erie 1 Municipal Centre Drive Fort Erie, Ontario L2A 2S6 And to Niagara Falls at: The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street, P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day of , 2014. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF FORT ERIE Per: Do 2171.- . in, Mayo Pirr5 0, •• „Ay" _ eek THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Per: James M. Diodati, Mayor Dean Iorfida, City Clerk g = m O m 0 e- M ID E c w O .r li ,r..0;:i,- co .1:,..- � `L; a U Q)w ~ t' E-- _ J � "% a U ` O F f= Z co a.. O s;' H Q r ; to I-0 03 p Q Cm a C �y • Il_'. CO ci) D�• • np � j ms. " , ,A '7744 . t - N 2 • t 4- c13 co i• coL >+ t Cti CD cn ��r///''�� Ci) >+ In O r6 (� m M i" sW • 1U O. o ) L -1— O O a C � QQ4.. O O.. a 0 om E a0 a0 v?c•I CO f� O O C sii �/� 43) ; � # U co — i t� a.+ O U • ¢ Qmay'ad"01- ad r N c0 Z ++ng. C � � C u oo • oo o � v 0 cf; UN >, . _ i:�' g,�s..;a's, ' s "`i s'`>r` � �..�rte'+ ,;' a- .. _ L al L � � N .Q co -0 * w 6 43 2 2 a_ 0_ o w > C > d a Vjei Lo as aaa til R • CO I�-±- 00 t -V) 0ut C r"J O� O-11,...4.• -' O O O O O nzZO d.� J$@ ` 7.30 2O 'LU isQ W an an a 0 OO 3 Um cii ICOCL .:0 a ] eNi _A W, - - ,sn• < n " ) U)sW QQ " a VA a- a s = G)O O GC� • (Y ?� W 1) t1) w tft) O7 Q, OU a 1 • 1.0 to >r� Q ILL N d' c0 Z Q c0 r-- '',,-;.".3 —; " V O O ? O O O as O O yf N LL- • co•II '. A Z I v; R .,•....1 N f6 ti d d 0 to a.[) N N{', jO O O W -C .r 4 W N N i °43d c' �— L C) 0 t. Z CO i - {•�Jz tf) co N CO I '_ 1 I 1 n'i I l l i3. U w CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014 - A by-law to provide for advance voting prior to voting day for the 2014 Municipal Election. WHEREAS Section 43(1) of the Municipal Elections Act, S.O. 1996 provides that a municipal council shall pass a by-law establishing one or more dates for an advance vote, and the hours during which voting places shall be open on that date or dates; and AND WHEREAS voting day for the 2014 Municipal Election is October 27, 2014. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Advanced votes shall be held on Wednesday, October 15, 2014, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., at the MacBain Community Centre, 7150 Montrose Road, Niagara Falls. 2. Additional advance votes shall be held on Thursday, October 16, 2014, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., at the Gale Centre Arena, 4171 Fourth Avenue, Niagara Falls. 3. Further, additional advanced votes shall be held on Friday, October 17, 2014, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., at the Chippawa Arena, 9000 Sodom Road, Niagara Falls; and, 4. Lastly, additional advance votes shall be held on Saturday, October 18, 2014, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., at McBain Community Centre, 7150 Montrose Road, Niagara Falls; as well as at the(new) Optimist Club, 7085 Morrison Street, Niagara Falls. Passed this ninth day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: September 9, 2014. Second Reading: September 9, 2014. Third Reading: September 9, 2014. IVI1II1 LAW �i�,11�I�III'j!; $ CITY 4'4 t CANADA NG IA� Alt - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS BY-LAW Number 2014 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 89-2000, being a by-law to regulate parking and traffic on City Roads. (Stopping Prohibited, Standing Prohibited, Parking Prohibited, Through Highways,Stop Signs at Intersections, Heavy Vehicle Restriction, Designated Lanes) The Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls hereby ENACTS as follows: 1. By-law No. 89-2000, as amended, is hereby further amended: (1) by removing from the specified column of Schedule A thereto the following items: STOPPING PROHIBITED COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 HIGHWAY SIDE BETWEEN TIMES/DAYS McLeod Road North A point 69 metres west of Kalar Road At All Times and a point 116 metres east of Kalar Road McLeod Road South A point 69 metres west of Kalar Road At All Times and a point 35 metres east of Kalar Road (2) by adding to the specified column of Schedule A thereto the following items: STOPPING PROHIBITED COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 HIGHWAY SIDE BETWEEN TIMES/DAYS McLeod Road North A point 69 metres west of Kalar Road and At All Times a point 116 metres east of Kalar Road COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 HIGHWAY SIDE BETWEEN TIMES/DAYS -2- McLeod Road South A point 69 metres west of Kalar Road At All Times and a point 59 metres east of Kalar Road McLeod Road Both Pin Oak Drive and At All Times a point 72 metres west of Pin Oak Drive (3) by removing from the specified column of Schedule B thereto the following items: STANDING PROHIBITED COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 HIGHWAY SIDE BETWEEN TIMES/DAYS McLeod Road South A point 35 metres east of Kalar Road and At All Times a point 60 metres east of Kalar Road Prospect St. North A point 45m east of Drummond Rd to a At any time point 60m east of Drummond Rd (4) by adding to the specified column of Schedule B thereto the following items: STANDING PROHIBITED COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 HIGHWAY SIDE BETWEEN TIMES/DAYS McLeod Road North A point 150 metres west of Pin Oak Drive and At All Times a point 187 metres west of Pin Oak Drive McLeod Road South A point 59 metres east of Kalar Road and At All Times a point 90 metres east of Kalar Road McLeod Road South A point 72 metres west of Pin Oak Drive and At All Times a point 130 metres west of Pin Oak Drive (5) by removing from the specified column of Schedule C thereto the following items: PARKING PROHIBITED COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 HIGHWAY SIDE BETWEEN TIMES/DAYS McLeod Road North A point 136 metres east of Kalar Road and At All Times a point 250 metres east of Kalar Road McLeod Road South A point 60 metres east of Kalar Road At All Times and a point 250 metres east of Kalar Road Prospect St. North Drummond Road to a point 45m east At any time. of Drummond Rd Prospect St. North A point 60m east of Drummond Rd At any time and a point 115m east of Drummond Rd (6) by adding to the specified column of Schedule C thereto the following items: -3- PARKING PROHIBITED COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 HIGHWAY SIDE BETWEEN TIMES/DAYS Barker Street North Corwin Avenue and a point 75 metres east of At All Times Corwin Avenue McLeod Road North A point 136 metres east of Kalar Road and At All Times a point 187 metres west of Pin Oak Drive McLeod Road North A point 72 metres west of Pin Oak Drive and At All Times a point 150 metres west of Pin Oak Drive McLeod Road South A point 90 metres east of Kalar Road and At All Times a point 130 metres west of Pin Oak Drive Prospect Street North Drummond Road and a point 115m At All Times east of Drummond Road (7) by removing from the specified column of Schedule N thereto the following item: THROUGH HIGHWAYS COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 HIGHWAY BETWEEN Swayze Dr. West limit of Stanley Ave. to the east limit of Portage Rd. (8) by adding to the specified column of Schedule N thereto the following items: THROUGH HIGHWAYS COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 HIGHWAY BETWEEN Swayze Drive West limit of Stanley Avenue to the Southeast limit of Heritage Drive/Judith Avenue Swayze Drive Northwest limit of Heritage Drive/Judith Avenue and the Southeast limit of Mayfair Avenue Swayze Drive Northwest limit of Mayfair Avenue and the East Limit of Portage Road -4- (9) by adding to the specified column of Schedule P thereto the following items: STOP SIGNS AT INTERSECTIONS COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 INTERSECTION FACING TRAFFIC Swayze Drive& Heritage Drive/Judith Avenue Southeast bound on Swayze Drive Swayze Drive& Heritage Drive/Judith Avenue Northwest bound on Swayze Drive Swayze Drive& Heritage Drive/Judith Avenue Northeast bound on Judith Avenue Swayze Drive& Heritage Drive/Judith Avenue Southwest bound on Heritage Drive Swayze Drive&Mayfair Drive Southeast bound on Swayze Drive Swayze Drive&Mayfair Drive Northwest bound on Swayze Drive Swayze Drive& Mayfair Drive Northeast bound on Mayfair Drive (10) by adding to the specified column of Schedule S thereto the following items: HEAVY VEHICLE RESTRICTION COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 HIGHWAY BETWEEN TIMES/DAYS Jepson Street Valley Way and Victoria Avenue At All Times Prospect Street Drummond Road and Main Street At All Times Including"No Buses"and "Up To$5,000 Fine" (11) by adding to the specified columns of Schedule U thereto the following item: DESIGNATED LANES COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 COLUMN 5 HIGHWAY BETWEEN DESIGNATED LANE TIMES/DAYS DIRECTION McLeod Road Kalar Road and 1.5 Metre Curb Lane At All Times Eastbound and Pin Oak Drive for Cyclists Only Westbound This By-law shall come into force when the appropriate signs are installed. Passed this ninth day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: September 9,2014 Second Reading: September 9,2014 Third Reading: September 9.2014 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2014 - A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 9th day of September, 2014. WHEREAS it is deemed desirable and expedient that the actions and proceedings of Council as herein set forth be adopted, ratified and confirmed by by-law. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The actions of the Council at its meeting held on the 9th day of September, 2014 including all motions, resolutions and other actions taken by the Council at its said meeting, are hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed as if they were expressly embodied in this by-law, except where the prior approval of the Ontario Municipal Board or other authority is by law required or any action required by law to be taken by resolution. 2. Where no individual by-law has been or is passed with respect to the taking of any action authorized in or with respect to the exercise of any powers by the Council, then this by-law shall be deemed for all purposes to be the by-law required for approving, authorizing and taking of any action authorized therein or thereby, or required for the exercise of any powers thereon by the Council. 3. The Mayor and the proper officers of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said actions of the Council or to obtain approvals where required, and, except where otherwise provided, the Mayor and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents arising therefrom and necessary on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls and to affix thereto the corporate seal of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. Passed this ninth day of September, 2014. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: September 9, 2014 Second Reading: September 9, 2014 Third Reading: September 9, 2014