2002/12/09PLANNING/COUNCIL
MEETING
Monday, December 9, 2002
Order of Business
and Agenda Package
PLANNING MEETING
DECEMBER 9, 2002
PRAYER: Alderman Judy Orr.
DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
Disclosures of pecuniary interest and a brief explanation thereof will be made for the
current Council Meeting at this time.
DEPUTATIONS
PrMect Red Ribbon
Westlane Secondary School's Chapter of WSAID (Students Against Impaired
Driving) wish to address Council and distribute Red Ribbons to members of Council. In
attendance will be students, Ben Trendle, Kelly Brown, Jade Leung and staff advisors,
Or're Morgan and Katheryn Wilson.
ITEM NO. 49
PLANNING MATTERS
Public Meeting
Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-42/2002, 6870, 6886 and 68881/2 Drummond Road
Applicant: S. Navarroli
Agent: Falls City Design/Build (Donato Colangelo)
Proposed Apartment Development
ITEM NO. 50
ITEM NO. 51
Background Material: Report PD-2002-107
- AND -
Correspondence from Metro Bakery
Correspondence form Concemed Residents on Churchill Street
Correspondence from Regional Municipality of Niagara,
Public Works Department
Correspondence from Regional Niagara, Planning &
Development Department
Correspondence from Gary G. Royer
Public Meeting
Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-36/2002, SW comer McLeod Road and Alex Avenue
Applicant: Niagara McLeod Ltd.
Agent: Rob Nicholson, Solicitor
Proposal to Establish Commercial Uses
Background Material: Report PD-2002-114
- AND -
Correspondence from Joyce & John Morocco
Correspondence from Christine & George Teal
Correspondence from Glen & Sharon Dow
Correspondence from Dave Wardner
Correspondence from Regional Niagara, Planning &
Development Department
Public Meeting
Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-41/2002, Thorold Stone Mall, 6161 Thorold Stone Road
Owner: 820872 Ontario Limited
Proposed Shopping Centre Expansion
Background Material: Report PD-2002-115
- AND -
Correspondence from Concerned Residents on Orlando Drive
Correspondence from Regional Niagara, Planning &
Development Department
ITEM NO. 52
Public Meeting
Recommendation Report, Garner Estates Phase 4,
Draft Plan of Subdivision 26T-11-2002-05 (Revised)
Zoning By-law Amendment Application; AM-38/2002
Owner: River Realty Development (1976) Inc.
Background Material: Report PD-2002-118
MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING MATTERS
Chief Administrative Officer
PD-2002-119, Drummond Curt Draft Plan of
Condominium, File: 26CD-11-2002-05; 5595
Drummond Road; Owner: Falls Masonry Limited.
Chief Administrative Officer
PD-2002-120, The Courtyard at Meadow Creek
Draft Plan of Condominium; File: 26CD-1102002-
06; 8142 Costabile Drive; Owner: Meadow Creek
Homes Ltd.
Chief Administrative Officer
PD-2002-116, Adult Entertainment Parlours and
Body-Rub Padours.
Chief Administrative Officer
PD-2002-117, Appeal to Zoning By-law No.
2002-202; AM-24/2001; 5200 Robinson Street;
Proposed Skylon (North) Tower.
Chief Administrative Officer
PD-2002-121, Request to Change Street Name
Beechwood Road to Taylor Road.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
REGULAR COUNCIL
Regular Council Meeting of November 25, 2002.
2003 BUDGET
1. F-2002-69, 2003 General Purposes Budget (Please bring your Budget Binder to the
Meeting)
2. F-2002-70, 2003-2007 Capital Projects Budget (Please bring your Budget Binder to
the Meeting)
3. F-2002-71, 2003 Municipal Utility Budget (Please bdng your Budget Binder to the
Meeting)
4. MW-2002-163, Loose Leaf Pickup
5. MW-2002-165, Portage Road Pathway
6. MW-2002-164, Increase to 2003 Budget
Please note: Mr. Frank DeLuca has requested to speak to this matter.
- AND -
Copies of e-mails related to Mr. DeLuca's request.
MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, REMARKS
COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK
1. FX WORKS INC. - Re: New Year's Eve Fireworks Display - requesting that
Council approve their request for a public fireworks display at the Skylon Tower for
New Year's Eve.
RECOMMENDATION: That the request be approved subject to established policy.
Additional Items for Council Consideration:
The City Clerk will advise of any further items for Council consideration.
-.5-
REPORTS
RAiTIFICATION OF COMMUNI'rY SERVICES COMMITTEE ACTIONS
(Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairman)
R.aI~TIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & GREENING
COMMITTEE ACTIONS (Alderman Selina Volpatti, Chair)
Chair, Environmental Planning &
Greening Committee
R-2002-74, Actions Stemming from the
Environmental Planning & Greening
Committee Meeting of November 20,
2002.
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
Chief Administrative Officer
CD-2002-22, 2003 Appointments to
Agencies, Boards and Commissions.
Chief Administrative Officer
L-2002-83, Establishment of a One Foot
Reserve as a Public Highway; Block 53 on
Plan 59M-268.
Chief Administrative Officer
L-2002-84, Establishment of a Road
Widening as a Public Highway; Part 1 on
59R-11879.
Chief Administrative Officer
L-2002-85, Glengate Motel Site Plan
Agreement.
RESOLUTIONS
That Council has no objections to the Regional Municipality of Niagara modifying
Official Plan Amendment No. 45, if it deems necessary, to ensure compliance
between the Official Plan and By-law No. 2002-201. (Re: Sam's Montrose Hotel and
the lands north of Bridge Street, east of Victoria Avenue)
That Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls reaffirms the passing of
By-Law No. 2002-202, a by-law to permit the construction of a 26-storey hotel at
5200 Robinson Street.
That Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls adopts the minimum
maintenance standards for municipal highways as prescribed in Ontario Regulation
239/02.
That the City-owned lands on the west side of Montrose Road, north of McLeod
Road, in the City of Niagara Falls, be and the same are hereby declared surplus in
the City's needs.
The City Clerk will advise of any additional by.laws or amendments to the by-
law~ listed for Council consideration.
BY-LAWS
2002-221
To establish Block 53 on Plan 59M-268 as a public highway, to be known as
and to form part of Spring Blossom Drive.
2002-222
To establish part I on reference Plan 59R-11879 as a public highway, to be
known as and to form part of Kalar Road.
20O2-223
To amend By-law No. 2002-081, being a by-law to appoint City employees,
agents and third parties for the enforcement of provincial or municipal by-
laws.
2002-224
To authorize 'the execution of an agreement with Klein Building Company
Limited respecting Montrose Road.
2002-225
(HANDOUT) To prescribe the form, manner and times for the provision of
notice under the Municipal Act 2001.
2002-226
(HANDOUT) To amend By-law No. 2000-268, 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.
2002-227
(HANDOUT) To authorize the temporary borrowing of TWENTY-THREE
MILLION DOLLARS for current expenditures for the current year and to
authorize the temporary borrowing of SEVENTEEN MILLION FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS for the acquisition of a certain rail line in
the city of Niagara Falls.
2002-228
(HANDOUT) To consolidate fees and charges for various services, licences
and publications for the City of Niagara Falls in compliance with the Municipal
Act 2001.
2002-229 To authorize monies for General Purposes (December 9, 2002).
2082-230
To adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on
December 9, 2002.
NEW BUSINESS
The City of
Niagara
. Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city, niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-maih
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-7404
planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
PD-2002-107
Doug Darbyson
Director
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2002-107, Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-42/2002, 6870, 6886 and 6888 ½ Drummond Road
Applicant: S. Navarroli
Agent: Falls City Design/Build (Donate Colangelo)
Proposed Apartment Development
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council deny the requested zoning by-law amendment for 6870, 6886 and
6888 ½ Drummond Road that would permit an apartment development of 68 units within two, three-
storey buildings.
BACKGROUND:
The subject properties are located on the east side of Drummond Road, north of Churchill Street, as
shown on Schedule 1. The entire southerly parcel, 6888 ½, and the majority of the parcels known
as 6886 and 6870, is vacant extending east to an Ontario Hydro corridor. The remainder of 6886 and
6870 are occupied by a hair salon with an apartment and a vacant single detached dwelling,
respectively. The property has an 18-metre frontage and 1.0 hectare lot area. The westerly quarter
of the lands is zoned Neighbourhood Commercial (NC) with the majority being zoned Residential
Single Family 1E Density zone (R1E).
Proposal
Mr. S. Navarroli, through his agent, Falls City Design/Build (Donate Colangelo), has requested an
amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit the development of two, three-storey apartment
buildings. One apartment is to have 37 dwelling units, the other 31 dwelling units, for a total of 68
dwelling units. Details are shown on Schedule 2. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning
of the lands from NC and R1E to a site specific Residential 5B Density (R5B) zone in order to
permit the proposed development.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 9, 2002 - 2 - PD-2002-107
Surrounding Land Uses
Lands located to the east are vacant, designated for residential development in the Official Plan.
Lands north, south and west along Drummond Road are a mix of single detached dwellings and a
variety of small commercial uses. Well established residential areas are found north of the site
(Collins Drive and Toby Crescent) and bordering the site to the south (Churchill Street). The site
is bordered by a Hydro corridor to the north.
Circulation Comments
Information regarding the application was circulated to City departments, government agencies and
the public for comments. The following comments have been received.
Municipal Works
- Dedication of a 3.0 metre road widening
across the Drummond Road frontage.
Parks, Recreation & Culture
As the subject lands are adjacent to a
Hydro One corridor identified in the
Transit & Bikeways Master Plan for a
future recreational trail, provision for
access will be required through any
fencing.
Cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication will
be required to be paid as a condition of
any future drat~ plan of condominium or
consent applications.
Building & By-law Services
- All building permits are to be obtained
prior to commencement of construction.
Further comments respecting the Ontario
Building Code shall be addressed during
site plan review.
Neighbouring property owners have expressed concerns respecting the potential increase in traffic
volume on Drummond Road. These concerns are addressed later in the report.
Planning Review
The following is a summary of staff's assessment of the application.
1. The proposal to construct 68 units does not comply with the Official Plan.
The lands are designated Residential in the Official Plan. The Official Plan's policies on
residential development encourage intensification of land use through infilling and the
provision of a mix of housing to cater to a wide range of households. The subject lands are
currently underutilized and are quite deep; thus, opportunity exists for their redevelopment
at a higher density. The Official Plan contains a hierarchy of density and prescribes the
December 9, 2002 - 3 - PD-2002-107
characteristics of the location of the land. Under ideal conditions, the subject land could be
developed up to a maximum density of 75 units/ha. Such lands are to have convenient access
to arterial roads and public transit and should be in close proximity to schools, parks and
open space and neighbourhood commercial areas. However, the frontage, shape and width
create conditions which are not ideal.
The proposal is a "second-tier" development. AS shown on the site plan, Schedule 2,
the development does not have full frontage onto Drummond Road. Frontage is 18
metres along Drummond Road whereas the R5B zone requires a minimum of 30 metres.
Because of this, the frontage does not comply with the minimum requirements of the
R5B zone. This has several implications. First, the opportunity for alternate building
and driveway locations is lost as the frontage dictates that the driveway be located close
to the south property line. Secondly, greater street frontage would give the development
a better street presence on Drummond Road. Lastly, a potentially incompatible land use
relationship is being created between the NC zoned lands at 6870 and 6886 and the
proposed development where one need not exist if the frontage lands were utilized.
The parcel shape has constraints. The parcel is constrained by the angle of the Hydro
corridor at the rear. The lands are not rectangular in shape and because of this,
opportunities are lost for alternate building arrangements, parking configurations and
optimum amounts of landscaping. The lot has a narrow width which further affects
optimum layout and landscape buffer opportunities.
For these reasons, the subject lands are not ideal parcels to develop and thus cannot be
considered for a density in this range. Accordingly, it is suggested that the frontage lands be
included and the density of the development be reduced.
Infill developments are also govemed by policies in the Official Plan that state developments
are to be:
"... designed and integrated to achieve compatibility and sensitivity in terms
of density, height gradation, building mass and arrangement, setbacks and
appearance ...
Density. As discussed, the proposed density of 68 units/ha does not comply with the
Plan's density policies. Moreover, as detailed below, the proposed density has
ramifications with respect to compatibility with the surrounding lands.
Height gradation. Two, three-storey buildings are proposed with an overall height of
just over 11 metres. Additional height is requested in order to provide a pitched roof.
The buildings are well set back from the existing houses to the south, and the pitched
roof will provide a degree of built form compatibility. Three-storey apartments are
typically located adjacent to neighbourhoods of single semi-detached dwellings and have
integrated well in these areas.
Building mass and arrangement. As stated above, the buildings are well set back from
the houses along Churchill Street. However, the height and footprint of the two buildings
will create a massive appearance. A smaller building envelope or stepped roof form
December 9, 2002 - 4 - PD-2002-107
could help. Also, as shown on the site plan Schedule 2, the parking area is situated
adjacent to the rear yards of the houses on Churchill Street with approximately five feet
of landscaping as a buffer strip. The parking area contains 100 spaces. Such a scenario
will result in compatibility issues. Five feet of landscaping does not provide a
satisfactory mount of separation distance and buffering in order to minimize adverse
impacts. If this were a parking lot for a commercial use, 20 feet of landscaping would
be required. Since the level of usage maybe less than a commercial use, a 20-foot buffer
strip may not be required. However, a strip of 15 feet would probably be needed in order
to provide adequate buffering, together with closed board fencing.
Setbacks. The site plan indicates that a minimum setback of 19 feet or a maximum
setback of 24 feet can be provided along the north property lines. The 24-foot setback
should be provided in order to allow for amenity space and separation distance that is
more in keeping with a rear yard of a single or semi-detached dwelling.
Based on the above, the development at its proposed density cannot be supported. The
density, at 68 units on one hectare of land, necessitates that a large area be devoted to
required parking. The design does not provide for a significant amount of landscape
screening and buffering on the south side next to the existing rear yards.
While it is recognized that the lands are appropriate for redevelopment for a multiple-unit
residential land use, a development at a density of about 50 units/ha is more compatible. By
reducing the density, the building size can be reduced to become more compatible with the
surrounding residential lands. Fewer units mean the parking lot is reduced in size. This,
together with the inclusion of the frontage lands, will then afford the opportunity for alternate
building and parking arrangements that would produce an increase in separation distance and
landscaping between the proposed development and the existing residential lands. A street
presence on Drummond Road would also be created.
2. The vacant lands bordering to the north and west could be incorporated.
The lands to the north of the subject property, behind the Drummond Road street frontage,
axe vacant. These lands could be incorporated with the subject lands for a larger, more
comprehensive development that would allow for different building types and manipulation
of the layout to provide for greater separation distance and landscaping. Alternate housing
types, such as townhousing, could be considered. For example, it would appear that the
proposed apartments could be relocated further north such that one building could be located
adjacent to Drummond Road with the second along the Hydro corridor. This arrangement
would provide the opportunity for bungalow townhouses to be located adjacent to the south
property line. This arrangement would shift the denser apartment buildings further north
with townhouse rear yards facing the rear yards of the Churchill Street residents. Parking
would be internal to the site with the buildings buffering the impacts of the parking lot.
3. A site plan agreement will be required.
A site plan agreement will be required for the ultimate development. This will involve
building and parking arrangements, servicing and landscaping. Issues respecting traffic
concerns can also be addressed at this stage. A number of residents have expressed concems
December 9, 2002 . $. PD-2002-107
regarding increased traffic on Drummond Road due to this development. Although the
Municipal Works Department has commented that there are no concerns, based on the
information submitted, a traffic impact study may be required once the site plan agreement
drawings have been provided.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing, the application for a 68-unit apartment development is recommended for
denial for the following reasons:
The development has not been designed to achieve integration with the surrounding
residential land uses.
The proposed density exceeds that permitted by the Official Plan.
Insufficient separation distance and landscape screening has been provided in order to protect
the abutting residential lands from the impacts of the parking lot.
~amsley
Plamler 2
Respectfully submitted:
.~- John MacDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
JB:am
Attach.
S:~PDR~002~D2002-107, 6870,6886, 6888, AM42-02.wpd
...... SCHEDULE 1
LOCATION MAP
Subject Property
Amending Zoning By-law No. 79-200
6870, 68868 & 6888 1/2 Drummond Road
Applicant: Falls City Design~uild
AM-42/2002
I :NTS
Nov~nb~' 2002
STA"FO' H:P ,L~:I NO. 160 t
~ ~O~O~ ~T ~m n~3 ST~Y~ ~AR~ENT
A ....
.
i : ' : ~ : ' ~
~ I ~or
[or ~ j Lor J Lot* j LOt5 J LOt* J tot ~ j iota J LOr ~ J . ~ J J
METRO BAKERY
6903 Drummond Rd. - NIAGARA FALLS,ONTARIO L2G-4P5
Phone (905)356-4566 ~ Fax (905)358-5368 ~ Email metrobakery@cogeco.ca
I.~ Planning
TI~ City of Niagara Falls Canada-
Re: Zoning By-Law Amendment Application
City File: AM-42/2002
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter is in response to the possible development of two, three-storey apartment buildings that
are to be situated at 6870, 6886, and 6888 Drummond Road.
As owner of Metro Bakery, which is located across the street from where the road entrance to
where the apartment buildings are supposed to be, I am deeply concerned with the traffic that
would ensue once this project is approved. At present, the traffic there' on Drummond Koad is
very busy, at times even congested. I would like to know if there has been any sort of a traffic
study done in that area, for it is only reasonable to assume that should this project happen, the
tr_a. fflc will become much worse than it already is.
Thank you for your considerations, and I look forward to your reply.
Sincer;/~
Benny Parillo
President, Metro Bakery
RECEIVED
NOV 2 2 2002
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
Dec. 3,2002
To: The Director of Plffnning and Development
Re: Zoning By-law No, 79-200
City File - AM 42/2002
We the undersigned, citizens from Churchill Street, have grave
con.ms about the proposed apartment complex scheduled for
construction on 68?0, 6886 and 6888 ~ Drummond Road. as indicated
in City File AM 42/2002.
We are long term established home owners and feel this type of
larg~ development would be excessively noisy, increase traffic hawrds
and invade our privacy. The proposal shows parking for 100 cars with
only a 5-foot allowance from our property lines which is unacceptable.
We are asking for your consideration and support in keeping the
current zoning by-law as Residential Single and dismiss this
application.
Thanking you for your assistance this matter.
RECEIVED
BEC 0 zt 20O2
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
NAMG ADDRESS
Lot ~4 ' I "
Lot ~S
Lot ~ -,' ~. ,~..~t~ . :"~,~ ~, ~., I..~ ~ _~-e. ~
Lot ~ .... g' '/~<' -' - -
/..,,/,-; / m/)~. ,..,' / / / .,-
ADDRESS PttOHl~ HUMBI~I~.
.~ . ~.~,,~ ' ~ .... -.,~
DATE:
TO:
SUBJECT:
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA
MEMORANDUM
November 25, 2002
Peter Colosimo, Planner
Planning and Development Department
Zoning By-law Amendment Application .
Applicant: Falls City Design/Build
Proposal: To Permit the Development of Two (2), 3-Storey Apartment
Buildings - One Apartment Building with 37 Dwelling Units and the other
with 31 Dwelling Units - Total of 68 Dwelling Units
Location: 6870, 6886 and 6888- 1/2 Drummond Road
In the City of Niagara Falls
Our File: D.10.000.2 (ID#1775)
Regional Niagara Public Works Department has no objection to the above-referenced Zoning By-law
Amendment Application.
Condominium Townhouse Developments are now able to receive internal curbside garbage collection.
However, in order for this service to be provided, the deVeloper and/or subsequent owner shall comply
with The Regional Municipality of Niagara's "Collection of Waste By Way of Entry on Private
Property" Policy (PW2.W07) and enter into an Indemnity Agreement with The Regional Municipality
of Niagara. We advise that a key element for garbage collection is that the site roadway system is to
be adequate for waste collection vehicles to access the site and then leave the site without the need to
back out of the driveway: Developments unable to provide the necessary turn around area will be
provided with pick-up from a main street access point only. Copies of the above referenced policy
may be obtained from the Waste Management Services Division, Public Works Department, 2201 St.
David's ROad, Thorold.
William J~ev~ns, C.E.T.
Development & ApprOvals Manager
Public Works Department
Operational Support Services Division
WJS/cm
L:\Engineering-Planning-and-Development\Dopke-Vic\Niagara Falls\CORRESPONDENCE 2002\7729.p.colosimo.doc
c: Doug Darbyson, Director of Planning and Development, City of Niagara
wo Niagara
rks
~alls
RECEIVED
DEC 0 5 2002
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
December 4, 2002
The City of Niagara Falls
Mr. Doug Darbyson, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning & Development
City Hall,
4310 Queen Street,
Niagara Falls, ON
L2E 6X5
City File: ~-42/2002
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application
Dear Mr. Darbyson:
Having received a Public Meeting Notice on this matter, I feel compelled to submit my position that this
application to amend Zoning By-Law No. 79-200 be denied.
The request to amend the zoning to a site specific 'Residential Apartment 5B Density' (RSB) zone allowing
the development of two, three-storey apartment buildings for a total of 68 dwelling units I believe is
contrary to the respective interests of local residents and is detrimental to the area in general.
Specifically I have the following concerns and comments:
1. I believe that the current zoning for the properties in question as Residential Single Family (1E),
Density (R1E), with a portion zoned Neighbourhood Commercial (NC) as defined by the 'Official
Plan' are perhaps more valid today given the established nature of the residential neighbourhood
in the immediate areas surrounding these properties.
2. The impact of the resulting traffic patterns onto Drummond Rd. with regards to the intersections in
immediate proximity at Atlee St. and particularly Churchill St. along with the access to
commercial properties to the immediate to the North, South and West of the entrance to the
proposed development. This is a high traffic area and the introduction of such an access may
increase the risk to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
3. With regards to point no. 2, I am further concerned for the safety of the children who travel these
routes to attend Father Hennepin School at the east end of Churchill St.
4. The net benefit of such a development appears to be limited to the applicant, Falls City
Design/Build. I do not feel that homeowners (myself included), in the immediate vicinity of
proposed development will realize increased property values or any other tangible benefits as a
result.
5. I question the need for such a high density development given the current (and in the foreseeable
future) occupancy rate for rental properties in Niagara Falls (based on a sampling of local
publications advertising rental units available).
6. Question: have there been previous application(s) for rezoning of these properties? And if so
when and what was (were) the results?
7. As a homeowner with property communicating directly to the properties under review, I have
come to enjoy the tranquility and natural greenbelt afford by these properties and feel a bit
unsettled with the prospect of a three storey, line of sight intrusion into my property. I would not
have the same concern should these properties be developed under the current zoning definitions.
RECEIVED
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
While I sincerely believe that of each of these points have merit and are valid, I strongly feel that
collectively they represent a much stronger argument for the denial of the pending zoning amendment.
It appears that these concerns are shared by many of my neighbors in the area and I add my voice to theirs.
I trust that the City Council will apply due diligence while considering these points and give this matter the
consideration it is due.
Sincerely,
Gary G. Royer
6079 Churchill St.,
Niagara Falls, ON
L2G 2X2
Home Ph: 905-356-1022 evenings
PS: I also would request that I be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendment and/or its
disposition.
cc: City Council/Planning Meeting
~I i ¢~'.;, ~I:ILLS CLERKS' 0~. ~.2C~ "-' "-'
December 4, 2002
The City of Niagara Falls
Mayor Wayne Thomson
& Members of Council
City Hall,
4310 Queen Street,
Niagara Falls, ON
L2E 6X5
City File: AM42/2002
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application
Dear Mr. Mayor & Members of Council:
Having received a Public Meeting Notice on this matter, I feel compelled to submit my position that this
application to amend Zoning By-Law No. 79-200 be denied.
The request to amend the zoning to a site specific 'Residential Apartment 5B Density' (R5B) zone allowing
the development of two, three-storey apartment buildings for a total of 68 dwelling units I believe is
contrary to the respective interests of local residents and is detrimental to the area in general.
Specifically I have the following concerns and comments:
1. I believe that the current zoning for the properties in question as Residential Single Family (1E),
Density (R1E), with a portion zoned Neighbourhood Commercial (NC) as defined by the 'Official
Plan' are perhaps more valid today given the established nature of the residential neighbourhood
in the immediate areas surrounding these properties.
2. The impact of the resulting traffic patterns onto Drummond Rd. with regards to the intersections in
immediate proximity at Atlee St. and particularly Churchill St. along with the access to
commercial properties to the immediate to the North, South and West of the entrance to the
proposed development. This is a high traffic area and the introduction of such an access may
increase the risk to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
3. With regards to point no. 2, I am further concerned for the safety of the children who travel these
routes to attend Father Hennepin School at the east end of Churchill St.
4. The net benefit of such a development appears to be limited to the applicant, Falls City
Design/Build. I do not feel that homeowners (myself included), in the immediate vicinity of
proposed development will realize increased property values or any other tangible benefits as a
result.
5. I question the need for such a high density development given the current (and in the. foreseeable
future) occupancy rate for rental properties in Niagara Falls (based on a sampling of local
publications advertising rental units available).
6. Question: have there been previous application(s) for rezoning of these properties? And if so
when and what was (were) the results?
7. As a homeowner with property communicating directly to the properties under review, I have
come to enjoy the tranquility and natural greenbelt afford by these properties and feel a bit
unsettled with the prospect of a three storey, line of sight intrusion into my property. I would not
have the same concern should these properties be developed under the current zoning definitions.
While I sincerely believe that of each of these points have merit and are valid, I strongly feel that
collectively they represent a much stronger argument for the denial of the pending zoning amendment.
It appears that these concerns are shared by many of my neighbors in the area and I add my voice to theirs.
I trust that the City Council will apply due diligence while considering these points and give this matter the
consideration it is due.
Sincerely,
Gary G. Royer
6079 Churchill St.,
Niagara Falls, ON
L2G 2X2
Home Ph:
905-356-1022 evenings
CCi
Mr. Doug Darbyson, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning & Development
The City of
Niagara Falls!
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-2354
planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
PD-2002-114
Doug Darbyson
Director
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2002-114, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-36/2002, SW corner McLeod Road and Alex Avenue
Applicant: Niagara McLeod Ltd.
Agent: Rob Nicholson, Solicitor
Proposal to Establish Commercial Uses
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that:
1)
Council approve the requested official plan amendment to change the designation of the land
on the southwest comer of McLeod Road and Alex Avenue from Residential to Minor
Commercial;
2)
Council approve the requested zoning by-law amendment to change the zoning of the land
from R4-352 to a site specific GC zoning that includes provisions requiring landscaping and
building setbacks from the south property line as detailed in this report;
3)
Council deny the request for increased building height to accommodate a four-storey
building and instead only vary the maximum building height to permit a roof feature on top
of a three,storey building; and
4)
area residents be given the opportunity to comment on the site plan drawings prior to
approval.
BACKGROUND:
The subject land is located on the southwest comer of McLeod Road and Alex Avenue, as shown
on Schedule 1. The land is currently vacant. It is designated Residential in the Official Plan and is
zoned R4-352 which permits the development of an 80-unit townhouse development. The property
has a frontage of 220 metres on McLeod Road and a lot area of 2.02 hectares.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
De=ember 9, 2002 - 2 - PD.2002-114
Proposal
Niagara McLeod Limited has requested amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to
permit the establishment of commercial uses on the land. A four-storey hotel and a freestanding
restaurant with a drive-thru lane are contemplated at this time. Details are shown on Schedule 2.
The applicant requests that the Official Plan designation be changed to Minor Commercial and the
zoning be changed to a site specific GC zone to regulate landscaping and an increased building set
back from the south property line and increased building height.
Surrounding Land Uses
Lands located to the north of the subject property are primarily residential. Some properties are
vacant. To the east are vacant tourist commercial lands and single detached dwellings which also
border the site to the south and extend further to the south into the Drummond Park Village
subdivision. Commercial developments are located west of the site.
Circulation Comments
Information regarding the application was circulated to City departments, govemment agencies and
the public for comment. The following comments have been received.
Municipal Works
A 1.0 foot reserve exists along the Alex
Avenue frontage. This will have to be
removed to permit access onto Alex
Avenue.
$9,900.00 in impost fees has been
previously paid by the developer at the
subdivision stage. The applicant will have
to pay development charges, less the
$9,900.00, at the time of building permit
issuance.
Parks, Recreation & Culture
Fire Services
Building & By-law Services
No objections
No objections
The applicant is to obtain building permits
prior to the commencement of
construction.
The applicant's architect is to ensure the
site plan meets the Provisions for Fire
Fighting of the Ontario Building Code.
December 9, 2002 - 3 - PD-2002-114
Planning Review
The following is a summary of staff's assessment of the application:
The Planning history of the subject land illustrates there has been a "seesaw" between
commercial and residential designations.
The designation of the subject land has changed four times in the past 26 years. In 1996, it
was changed from Tourist Commercial to Residential as part of the development of the
Drummond Park Village Plan of Subdivision. In 1980, it was changed back to Tourist
Commercial to accommodate anticipated growth in the tourist industry. The designation of
the land was changed to Minor Commercial in 1992 as a result of the City's Official Plan
Review. In 1994, the designation was changed to Residential to permit the development of
an 80-unit townhouse project.
2. The request to change the Official Plan designation to Minor Commercial is reasonable.
The request would remove a large parcel from the supply of future multi-family development
sites. However, along the north side of McLeod Road, the lands are designated Residential
and are zoned R4 for a multiple unit residential development. Thus, the proposal to use
subject land for commercial purposes will not significantly impact on the supply of
Residential land available for higher density development.
As shown on Schedule 3, lands to the west of the subject property and on the southeast
comer of McLeod Road and Alex Avenue are designated Minor Commercial. To the east,
beginning at the junction of McLeod Road and Marineland Parkway, the lands are designated
Tourist Commercial. The requested amendment to Minor Commercial will extend and
enhance the Drummond Road/McLeod Road Minor Commercial node geographically and
will serve as a link between lands of the same designation to the east and west creating a
larger, more significant node. Thus, the proposal can be seen as a minor rounding out of the
existing Minor Commercial node.
The Plan's policies on Minor Commercial districts also provide certain design elements for
orderly development in the form of plazas and multi-unit buildings which are integrated with
the adjacent properties in order to achieve economic stability. Single use buildings are only
to be allowed when developed on a comprehensive scale where no land use conflicts occur.
The site plan, Schedule 2, illustrates the land being developed with a four-storey hotel and
a free standing restaurant with a drive-thru lane. The plan for two individual buildings is
conceptual inasmuch as it is illustrating what the applicant is considering at this time. Under
the proposed Minor Commercial designation and GC zoning, a number of different uses
could be developed within a variety of building types and arrangements. As such, the subject
property can be developed in a manner that will comply with design policies.
The applicant has provided for increased building setbacks from the south property line and
higher landscaping provisions in order to provide better protection for the abutting residents.
While this should provide for a sufficient level of screening and buffering of the parking area
and ground level impacts, building height is probably a more intrusive element of the
proposed development and is more difficult to mitigate. As discussed more in detail below,
this can be addressed within the amending zoning by-law but there is merit to reducing
building height in order to achieve greater compatibility with the abutting residential lands.
De~emb®r 9, 2002 - 4 - PD-2002-114
Overall, the subject property can be developed to enhance the existing Minor Commercial
node and can be designed to achieve compatibility with the neighbouring residential lands.
The requested GC zoning with modifications is appropriate.
The subject land is currently zoned R4-352 which permits an 80-unit townhouse
development. The applicant is requesting a GC zoning with site specific provisions that will
regulate landscaping, building setback from the south property line and building height.
Landscaping. The standard GC zone does not contain any provisions for
landscaping. The applicant proposes to provide six metres of landscaping along
McLeod Road and the south property line respectively and three metres along Alex
Avenue. The street from landscaping along these frontages will provide for increased
aesthetics and will screen the parking area fi.om the street. The landscaping along the
south property line will help provide the abutting residential lands with screening and
buffering from the development.
Building setbacks from the south property line. The standard GC zone would
require a 3-metre setback along the south property line. In this case, the applicant has
provided a 12-metre setback which allows for sufficient separation distance between
the building and the residential lands.
Building height. A maximum building height of 12 metres (four storeys) is allowed
by the GC zone. Alternatively, this would accommodate a three-storey building with
a pitched roof. The applicant has requested an increase to 16 metres in order to allow
for a four-storey building with a pitched roof and has compensated with a larger
setback. While the pitched roof will provide for a measure of built form
compatibility, the additional heights will impact on the privacy and passive outdoor
use of the residential lands. The residential lands have an allowable height of 10
metres. Staff finds that a three-storey height, with a roof feature, should be the
maximum allowed. This can be accomplished within the standard GC height limit
of 12 metres, however, the amending by-law should state that no more than three
storeys is allowed.
Since the precise nature of the development has not yet been determined, it is appropriate to
include within the amending by-law provisions for increased landscaping, building setbacks
and building height limitations to protect the long-term interests of the residential area.
A site plan agreement will be required.
A site plan agreement will be entered into with the owner for the actual development
proposal. At that time, building location and arrangement, number of driveway openings,
together with parking layout and landscaping, will be determined. The site plan will serve
to control the physical impacts of the development. As such, it is recommended that the
neighbouring residents be given the opportunity to comment on the site plan prior to
finalization of the plans.
December 9, 2002 - 5 - PD-2002-114
CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing, the application can be supported for the following reasons:
The proposal to change the Official Plan designation is reasonable and serves to round-out
Minor Commercial node at Drummond Road and McLeod Road.
The development has been provided with increased setbacks and landscaping to improve
compatibility and provide for protection for the neighbouring residents.
A maximum building height of three storeys, plus the roof, is recommended in order to
provide for a better built form compatibility and to lessen the imposition of building height
on the residential landsl
The site plan agreement will address detailed issues respecting building location and
arrangement, parking layout and landscaping.
Planner 2
Respectfully submitted:
John MacDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
JB:am
Attach.
S:~PDRX2002~PD2002-114, Niagara McLeod AM-36.02.wpd
SCHEDULE
LOCATION MAP
Subject Property
Road
Amending Zoning By-law No. 79-200
SW Comer of McLeod Road & Alex Avenue
AM-36/2002
Applicant: Niagara McLeod Ltd.
S:~.oningLtt M~002'~AM-36~lappingapr
I :NTS
October 2002
......... ~ ........ ~.,~+ ~:. ,~. .'
---~=:i~, ',~=~_ ~..~- · ~:~ ~ '-
..~?~'..L.,..~ _ ._ ---: ............ ~'~ ~"~ '; ':' -....~~~~ ..... : ........ :'~:' ' ~: ........
_ ~.~:~,~ ~ov~.~.::- ~. ~,.~' ~ ,~/'x~ m~ '~ .--..-:.:--~..:-. . ~.~.~.~:::-.::::.::::~:~_:':: :~:x,-.
/ ~::"~':vr,~%~l'~ ~Z~¢~ ~.~?. ~?:~-z~:'~ z~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~~ .=:'. ~:~~'~. '"'~"::'~: ....... ~ ......... ..... 1: ..... ::~-"
-','~ .~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ .. · ..'::-..-:~-~."-' -..-.. z~7~~~~~
(~. ~ ~- ~ ~ ~-~:~{ ~ ~_:~.~:~ - -,- ..... ., , , · ......................
SEP 2 6 ~2
PLANNING
~ DEVELOPMENT
Schedule 3,
Official Plan deSignations
Text Layers
Road Names/IDs
Property Outline
Official Plan
Future Land Use
IHENVIRONME'''
EXTRACTIV...
GOOD GENE...
INDUSTRIAL
MAJOR COM...
MINOR COM...
NIAGARA ES...
OPEN SPACE
PARK~NAY R...
RESIDENTIAL
RESORT CO...
UPAL / AG...
EME PAR...
OURIST CO...
/
/
OZ sooTHERAN DRtVE
cADH/~NI sTREET
cRESCEUT ~
SCALE 1: 3,928
100 0 100 20O
METERS
3OO
FRON'~--H AC sTREET
FRONTENAC STREET
~ ........ i ..... i D~ERB"O0~
N
htto:llnfweb.citv.niaaarafalls.on.ca:8081/Qis/mwf/zonina.mwf
FRE~,q
: $.MOROCCO
FAX MO. : 905 3?49305
December 2, 2002
FAX: 905-356-2354
To: Doug Darbyson:
City File AM-36/2002
BY-Law Amendment Application
McLeod Rd. and Alex Ave.
D/rector of Plann/ng
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of City Council
D~c.
This letter is in regards to thc above stated re-zoning application and the currently
contemplated development proposal.
We would like you to know that we have liv~t in this area all of our lives and have
owned property in this subdivision since 1987. We have resided in this particular home
since 1989. The property in question has had a long and storied history, When speaking
with staff in the planning deparm~ent we were informed that this property has beea re.
zoned approximately 3 times since the 1970's and this application represents thc 4
zoning request As original members of this neighborhood we have been personally
involved in one previous m-zoning and now this lamst request.
In 1992 a request,was made by the ovmet ofthis prope~ to have tb~ lands m-zoned from
Tourist Commercial to Residential Low Density Grouped Multiple Dwellings (R4), The
City's Planning departm~at supported this request a~ they v/~n~l th~ lands to b~ surplus
to the commercial inventory. During this application Inocess it was noted ~hat the City's
new official plan designates thes~ lands as Minor Commercial. It should also be noted
that the planning department supported the proposed re~zor~ng application and
development as low-density housing, even though the number of units requited was
above their own criteria for this type of development
We along with other members of our neighborhood did not agree with this proposal. We
appeared at Council and were grateful that Council supported us. In the end the proposal
went to the On.rio Municipal Board who upheld the decision fox re-zoning. This
however was not a loss for us the neighbors as th~ settleme~ that was agreexl upon
reduced thc number of units, increased the distance of $~tbaok for se1~trafion and rcquirecl
1,000 square foot minimum townhouses be built During this entire process the property
owner wa~ indifferent and unw/lling to negoliate with the neighborhood. This is why we
viewed the O.M~B. settlement as a positive finding.
This brings us to today and the latest proposal for this property. When the proponent
won the fight for re-zoning in 1994 the previous zoning was removed. Now that st new
application has be~n made for re-zoning the only entitlement is to the zoning designation
that is currently applied to this property location under the City's own official plan. That
zoning designation is Minor Commercial.
Joyc~ & J<~n
7352 La~wood
RECEIVED
DEC 0 3 2002
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
FROM : J. MOROCCO
FAX NO. : 905 3749305
Dec. 03 2002 11:11PM P2
The current request is for a re-zoning to Minor Commercial with a complimentaxy zone
change to site-specific General Commercial (C~). This is to supposedly permit the land
to be developed for commercial purposes and to regulate landscap~ and setbacks.
The conceptual proposed development for this site of a Hotel/~otor !nn complex does
not fall under the criteria of Minor Comme~ial, However, it does fall under the criteria
for General Commercial arid Tourist Commercial.
The fact fl~.t it falls under CTenetai Coramcrcial is sml~ising given planning deparUnents
interpretation of Tourist Commercial, "Which intends lands to be used to serve the needs
of the traveling public. This designation afford~ that the only a~commodatiolls to be built
are to be iategral to tourist commercial developments". This pro~ dcv¢l~t is
obliviously a Tourist Commercial dev¢lopmen~ and according to the City's own official
plan is clearly not suited for this location
During the 1992 application for re-zoning process the planning department in its report
stated, "Whenever residential infill d~velopment is proposed, it should be designed and
integrated to achieve compafbility with surrounding development in terms of density,
building heights, mass and arrangement, setbacks, and ~. Fmth~more,
appropriate open space, separation distances and design measures, including reasonable
amounts of landscaping and buffering to maximize privacy and to rt~inimize any adv~
impacts on adjacent land use".
We believe this to be sound reasoning for infill development and would expect this logic
to be applied here. It would be hard to imagine that the same logic and criteria the
Planning Department used to support the r~-zoning application in 1992 is no longer
relevant.. As residents living in this neighborhood let us assure you it is relevant to us.
This current proposed land use and conceptual dcvelopaient not only cxce~ls the intent
of the Minor Commercial designation but also will nm come clos~ to avhieving these
desired objectives. The only positive feature offered in this conceptual plan is tho
minimum di. stm~cc for setback and separation of 12 m~xs. Tho current standing O,M.B.
decision for this site supported 9 meters of setback based on a 2-stoD, development,
We were informed by the Planning Department that this was a fair offer of dismn~
eon.nidering that this is truly a side yard ~tback and not a rear yard setbaclc Under
General Commercial zoning the developer would only be requited to provide 3 meters of
side yard diseance. "That is beeaus~ tim true frontage of this property is on Alex Ave."
Well if this is true then this proposed development is complomly out of plave as 99 % of
existing properties on Alex Ave, are Single-family residential homes.
~ & John Moroe~
7352 ~ Cr~
FROM : J. MOROCCO
FAX NO. : 905 3749505 Dec. 05 2002 ll:12PM PZ
The requested height for this proposal is 4 stories with a possible request to build 5
stories. This far exceeds not only the surrounding n¢ighlx>rhood but also any existing
commercial development on all of McLeod Road. Currently, the tallest commercial
development on McLeod Road is 2 stories. The majority of homes in this neighborhood
are t to 11/2 stories and there are a few 2-story homes, including our home.
This type of development is clearly more suited for the already properly zoned Tourist
Commercial area that lies to the east of our neighborhood and starts at the intersection of
AilanthUs Ave. and Madnland Parkway. There would always be the environmental
impacts that come with any type of proposed development, however this area do~s not
directly back on to ex/sting homes or other develol~l, properties and would not directly
affect any particular situation one way or'the other.
In eoncl~slon: We would like to state that we stmoort ~ re-zoning of this property to a
Minor Commercial designation that is identified in the City's current official plan. We
would however ask that the complimentary zoning be .withheld at this time,
We would ask Council to withhold any complimentary zoning until the developer has put
fov0vard a firm development proposal. Council could then ask the developer, resident
neighbors and City Planning smffto sit down and negotiate an acceptable solution.
When this bas happened Council could then re, w, onsider granting additional zoning to the
proposed development on a sit, specific basis. This would afford the residents living
there a tree oppommity to participate in site plan control.
If this is not done you will be placing us thc residents in a difficult if not impossible
situation. This is evident by the current conceptual proposal. The developer has requested
complimentary General Commercial zoning and immediately proposed to possibly
exceeding the maximum height allowed under this desi~ation. This is a clear indication
that the developer is not interested in our concerns.
We will close by saying as life long residents of this City and area we fully understand
and support the need for development and employment opportunities. This however
should not be at all costs. Any d~velopmcm proposal on this site should be approached
with consideration to a positive outcome for tho long time residents of this neighborho0{L
We are a proud and respons~le neighborhood. There have been numerous trillium
awards and sparkle light awards won by our neighbofftoocL All we are requesting is that
proper planning criteria be followed and consideration for our concerns be heard, If this
happens and all parties work together this can be a win/win situation for the developer,
thc neighborhood residents and thc Ci.ty as a whole.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. As residents of Drummond park
Village we would ask for your consideration and support now so that we my achieve a
positive solution for all .parties hveolved.
.Ioy~ & Joim Moroc~
7'352
December 3, 2002
Mr. Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning and Development
City Hall, 4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Dear Mr. Darbyson:
Re:
By-Law Amendment Application - City File: AM - 36~2002
We would like to register the following objections to the proposed Official Plan and
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application - City File: AM 36~2002.
The proposed area is now basically housing with limited two storey commercial
buildings.
By allowing a four (4) story hotel, this would basically double the height of any
existing building with no guarantee prior to completion, or at a later date the
height would not be increased.
The proposed hotel at four (4) stories would hi-lite the skyline.
The drive through restaurant will, along with the hotel, cause more traffic, noise
and littering in an area which is now mainly residential with family dwellings and
some commercial.
o
The present intersection of Drummond Road an McLeod Road is a hazard for
car accidents and by building a hotel/restaurant complex at the corner of Alex
Street and McLeod would put a higher volume of traffic and basically eliminate a
safer exit from this area, which is the only other exit.
Thank
you in advance for consideration of our objections. ~.~......., ,'~
(
Yours truly, .,~j~) ~,~,~ ------Z~ "'
Christine'and Geefge Teal
7404 Sandy Court
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2G 7R3
RECEIVED
DEC 0 3 2002
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
December 3, 2002
Mr. Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning and Development
City Hall, 4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls,' Ontario
L2E 6X5
Dear Mr. Darbyson:
RECEIVED
DEC 0 3 2002
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
Re:
By-Law Amendment Application - City File: AM - 36/2002
As residents of Drummond Park village, located behind the proposed development, my husband
and I would like to object to the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment
Application - City File: AM 36/2002.
I
The proposed area is now basically residential, with limited low density commercial
buildings.
We purchased our house in this subdivision 16 years ago, taking into consideration the
zoning by-law for the area, which was mainly single family and duplex housing. Since
that time numerous changes have been made or proposed for the area and we have had to
continuously fight to try and keep the original zoning.
We would like to mention that the plaza presently located between Drummond Road and
Alex sat almost vacant for close to 10 years because council refused to change the zoning.
l
The majority of residents of our subdivision enter and exit the subdivision from Alex
Avenue. This is the safest way in and out of the subdivision.
The intersection of Drummond and McLeod is dangerous, particularly for vehicles
turning left off McLeod onto Drummond. There are numerous accidents at this
intersection. The danger is also compounded by chemical transport trucks entering and
exiting Drummond Road traveling to Oldfield.
The traffic on McLeod Road is very heavy particularly during the summer months when
Marineland is open and with the new Casino coming on board, as well as a new
McDonald's Restaurant the traffic will become much heavier.
I
Allowing a four (4) story hotel to be built in the proposed area would impede the skyline,
and create more traffic problems at the Alex/McLeod intersection and on McLeod Road.
I
Allowing a free-standing restaurant with a drive thru would compound the traffic
problems and create littering, as well as noise problems for the. residents, particularly
those who live closest to the area.
The residents of this subdivision were here first. Many of us purchased our houses based on the
zoning at the time of purchase. We enjoy our quiet subdivision, and we do not want the safest
way in and out of our subdivision jeopardized by this proposed development.
Respectfully submitted by
Glen and Sharon Dow
6123 Trillium Crescent
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2G 7R4
Tel: (905) 354-3751
Director of pl~nnin~ : RE: F~LE AM- 36/2002,
~do not want a fast food outlet near my home,
! hpve enough trash in my front y,~rd from the ones that are near
my home now.
An increase in noise qnd traffic at l~te hours would not be r~ir
I -J Pl'ning I
to the people that live near this location.
~,: _Zo~f~J 6--
Would you want this 200 feet froam your home, - '
the hotel itself is expected.~,/ nerma! develapmen[.
Dave Warriner
~893 Uc Lead RD.
Niagara Fails
David warriner
5893 McLeod Rd
Niagara Falls ON L2G 3E5
RECEIVED
NOV 2 2
PLANNING
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The Regional Municipality of Niagara
3550 Schmon Parkway, P.O. Box 1042
Thorold, Ontario L2V 4T7
Telephone: (905) 984-3630
Fax: (905) 641-5208
E-mail: plan~reglonal.niagara, on.ca
Scanned
File: ~
December 5, 2002
File: D.10.M.t1.23
Doug Darbyson, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning and Development
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
Dear Mr. Darbyson:
RE:
Feulllets cie transmission
Post-It' Fax Note
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications
Southwest Corner of McLeod Road (Regional Road 49)
and Alex Avenue
Niagara McLeod Ltd.
City of Niagara Falls
Your File: AM-3612002
RECEIVED
DEC 0 5 2002
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
These applications propose to amend the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law to
permit a commercial development on approximately 2.021 hectares (5 acres) of vacant
land. A four storey hotel and a free-standing restaurant, with a drive-thru, are indicated
as uses contemplated at this time.
These lands are within the Niagara Falls Urban Area Boundary according to the
Regional Policy Plan. The site is currently designated Residential in the City's Official
Plan and zoned a site specific Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings
(R4-352) zone that permits a residential development of 80 townhouse units. Regional
policies encourage municipalities to increase the supply of housing that can facilitate
increased densities and provide greater opportunities for affordable housing. The
proposed plan to change this medium density residential site to commercial does not
follow these housing objectives and is not the preferred use for these lands from a
Regional planning perspective.
The adjacent lands to the west and east of this property are currently designated for
Minor Commercial purposes with a plaza developed on the abutting property to the
west. The redesignation of this site to a similar commercial designation would provide a
consistent land use pattern along the south side of McLeod Road. The proposal for a
hotel, however, would not be in keeping with the nature and scale of development in the
area. Lands further east of Alex Avenue are presently vacant and designated for
Tourist Commercial purposes that would be better suited for the proposed use. If the
City does approve this land use change there should be special consideration given in
the zoning by-law te control the types of permitted uses, to maintain a compatible
building height and to provide adequate setbacks and buffering from neighbouring
residential properties. The provision of mixed use development with dwelling units
above the commercial building would also be desirable to maintain the residential
character of the area. There are a number of mature trees on this site. Although-this -
does not appear to be a woodlot that is subject to the Region's Tree Conservation By-
law, trees should be preserved wherever possible to maintain the natural landscape.
Regional Public Works staff has advised that they will provide detailed comments when
the necessary site plan agreement is processed.
Although there are concerns with the loss of a developable medium density housing
site, Regional Planning staff would not be opposed to the approval of the proposed
Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments from either a Regional or Provincial
planning perspective. However, we would encourage the inclusion of a provision that
would permit residential units (preferably rental) above the commercial ground floor. If
these applications are approved, the subsequent site plan agreement should address
building orientation, landscaping, screening, lighting and parking orientation to minimize
any potential negative impacts on adjacent Iow density residential development.
Please send notice of City Council's decision on these applications.
~ truly,
,~--~ David J. Farley
Director. of Planning Services
C: Bill Stevens, Regional Public Works
M:~vlSWORD~PC~,N FzbJa\6161 Thorold$1one,doc
The City o!
Niagara Falls~
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls .on .ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-7404
planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
December 9, 2002
PD-2002-115
Doug Darbyson
Director
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2002-115, Zoning By-law Amendment Application
AM-41/2002, Thorold Stone Mall, 6161 Thorold Stone Road
Owner: 820872 Ontario Limited
Proposed Shopping Centre Expansion
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that:
1)
Council approve the requested zoning by-law amendment application to permit several
additions to the Thorold Stone Mall; and
2)
the amending by-law contain provisions requiring landscape strips along Thorold Stone Road
and abutting the residentially zoned land.
BACKGROUND:
Proposal
820872 Ontario Limited has requested an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 79-200 for the vacant
land to the east of the Thorold Stone Mall, known as 6161 Thorold Stone Road, shown on Schedule
1. The amendment is requested to permit the construction of a one-storey, 22,040 square foot
addition to the existing mall and a 4,750 square foot, 126-seat freestanding restaurant with a drive-
thru lane. A turn-around is proposed to be constructed at the westerly limit of St. Mary's Street.
Details are shown on Schedule 2.
The land is currently zoned in part Residential Single and Two Family (R2) and in part a site specific
General Commercial zone (GC-209). Special provision 209 currently permits an addition to the mall
over a portion of the subject lands. The applicant has requested a new site specific GC zoning over
the entire lands to permit the proposed development.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
De~ember 9, 2002 - 2 - PD-2002-115
In 1989, the General Commercial zoning on the land was extended northward to a line running
roughly westward from St. Mary's Avenue. This zoning was adopted to facilitate a 1,817 square
metre (19,560 sq. ft) addition to the existing mall. It was previously proposed that St. Mary's Street
would extend westward then northward to Marland Avenue and that this extension would form the
boundary between commercial and residential uses. This extension of St. Mary's Street is no longer
being proposed. The applicant feels that dwelling units developed on this parcel will be difficult to
market. This extension of St. Mary's Street is not necessary for traffic movements provided a turn-
around is provided for emergency vehicles. Additionally, there were previous concems expressed
by residents on St. Mary's Street about extending this street. Therefore, the applicant is proposing
the balance of land be used for commercial purposes.
Surrounding Land Uses
The subject lands are located within and adjacent to a commercial area that centers on the Five
Comers intersection. Lands to the south and east along Thorold Stone Road are predominantly
commercial and industrial. Lands to the north and northeast are used for low density residential.
The existing Thorold Stone Mall is to the west.
Circulation Comments
Information regarding the application was circulated to City Departments, The Regional
Municipality of Niagara and the public for comment. The following comments have been received.
Municipal Works
No traffic concems, provided that vehicular access from the
development onto Marland Avenue and St. Mary Street is
physically restricted.
An unopened portion of the Marland Avenue road bisects the
subject lands and the developer has, in the past, utilized the
right-of-way through a lease agreement with the City. The
unopened portion of Marland Avenue has been deemed as
surplus and the developer is presently negotiating the
purchase of these lands at the appraised value. The City
requires a land dedication fi.om the developer to construct a
proper mm-around at the dead end of St. Mary's Street. The
applicant will construct this tm-around during the Mall
expansion. The associated construction and land costs will be
subtracted fi.om the purchase price of Marland Avenue road
allowance.
The development will be subject to site plan control to ensure
that servicing, grading and vehicular movement is addressed
to the City's satisfaction. The Marland Avenue and St.
Mary's Street land transfer must take place prior to the
applicant entering into a site plan agreement. The applicable
commercial development charges will be applied at the time
of building permit issuance.
De~ember 9, 2002
· Parks, Recreation
Culture
-3-
PD-2002-115
No objections to the application, however, beautification of
the existing plaza site at the comer of Thorold Stone Road
and Portage Road, and also along the fi'ontage of Thorold
Stone Road, needs to be addressed at the site plan stage.
Building & By-law Services
All required Building permits to be obtained prior to
commencement of construction. Any further comments with
regard to the Ontario Building Code shall be addressed during
the site plan approval process.
Regional Municipality of
Niagara
No objections to the proposed zoning by-law amendment.
Adequate fencing and buffering should be provided adjacent
to existing residential to minimize potential land use conflicts.
- The parking layout should be designed for safe and
convenient internal traffic circulation.
- A planted landscape strip along the frontage would be
desirable to improve the streetscape.
In addition, verbal comments and concems have been raised by members of the public. Specifically,
the public is concerned about noise, emergency access, garbage, track deliveries to the rear of the
plaza, the provision of adequate fencing and buffering for existing residential properties, the
proposed accessory drive-thru for the restaurant, the future grading of the site and previous
discussions about constructing St. Mary's Street to Marland Avenue. A letter from residents requests
the development be scaled back.
Planning Review:
The following is a summary of staff's assessment of the application.
The proposal conforms to the Official Plan.
The majority of the subject lands abutting Thorold Stone Road are designated Major
Commercial and are considered part of the Stamford Retail District. The Stamford Retail
District is intended to be a principal shopping district providing a full range of retail uses to
meet the weekly shopping requirements of residents. Additionally, the Official Plan
encourages intensification of commercial uses in the Stamford District to strengthen the
commercial viability of the area. As the new commercial development would provide
additional services for residents and would represent an intensification of the property, the
proposed expansion is consistent with these policies.
A small portion of the subject land at the rear is designated Residential. Minor adjustments
to the boundaries of designations are permitted without an amendment to the Plan provided
the general intent of the Plan is maintained. This policy allows the rear portion of the land
to be considered for commercial use. The requested amendment would allow approximately
an additional 670 square metres (7,210 sq. ft.) of floor space to be built. Market impact
studies are not required for such small increases in commercial floor space.
December 9, 2002 - 5 -
PD-2002-115
If the application is approved, a land exchange, which would see the owner obtain the
Marland Avenue extension fight-of-way and the City obtain lands at the end of St. Mary's
Street, would need to be undertaken concurrently with the site plan process. The details of
the precise parcels to be exchanged, the construction of the tm-around facility at the end of
St. Mary's Street, and any monetary compensation for the City, will be determined prior to
Council approval of the land exchange.
CONCLUSION:
The application is recommended for approval for the following reasons:
· It conforms with Official Plan policies and would promote the commercial vitality
of the area.
The expansion represents a logical extension of the existing commercial zoning for
the Thorold Stone Mall.
The provision of generous landscaping strips and plantings, proper garbage storage,
wood fencing and proper grading and drainage would be implemented at the site plan
approval stage and should alleviate residents' concems about inadequate buffeting
from the plaza.
The amending by-law should contain site specific requirements for landscape strips abutting
residential and abutting Thorold Stone Road.
Andrew Bryce
Planner 2
Respectfully submitted:
~ e fMAadcmDi°n~sa 1 trda t i v e Officer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
Attach
S:~PDRX2002~D2002-115, Thorold Stone Mall, AM-41 .wpd
SCHEDULE 1
LOCATION MAP
Subject Property
Thorold Stone
Amending Zoning By-law No. 79-200
6161 Thorold Stone Road
Applicant: 820872 Ontario Limited
AM-41/2002
1 :NTS
No'.,'~mb~ 2002
~ur~y~ng umlte~
SITE PLAN
'~1~ Planning
Sca
City Hall
4310 Queen Street,
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Director of Planning and Development
Dear Sir or Madam
'RECEIVED
DEC 0 3 2OO2
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
Re: Zoning by-law Amendment Application
City File: AM-41/2002
The undersigned have serious concerns with this proposed zoning and by-law change to
allow the development of a large and intrusive commercial.development of lands close to
or abutting our residences. As Niagara Falls' taxpayers and concerned families we ask
that you address our concerns.
We purchased our properties with the comfort that the city would respect the residentially
zoned lands between Thorold Stone Road and our properties on St. Mary's Avenue and
Orlando Drive. Our properties are small homes and semi-detached homes. Close by are
rental townhomes. Many small children live in this area and we will be negatively
affected by this development in many ways.
Our concerns are as follows:
1. That our property values will be negatively affected by their proximity to a
commercial venture
2. That our health, and that of our children, will be negatively affected by environmental
issues that arise from a large double drive-through that will, no doubt, be open 24
hours per day. Long lines of idling car motors will hamper our enjoyment of our
properties, both inside and outside. The plan itself shows 19 cars idling in the huge
drive through lanes. A new truck entrance on the east side of the development will
bring traffic and noise closer to our properties.
3. That noise levels have not been properly addressed both fi'om increased traffic, idling
engines and noisy drive-through speakers that will be positioned closer to our homes.
The existing McDonalds speakers can now be heard through the night and they are
now many yards farther away from us. We also suffer from honking horns and yelling
youths throughout the night.
4. That the plan allows for only a 1.8 metre high fence between this development and
our streets. This appears to be the only buffer between our homes and the noise and
the air pollution that will result from it.
5. That the plan only mentions "landscaping" with no specifics for trees or shrubs of any
consequence to absorb noise and gases that will result from this extensive
development.
6. That no mention is made in the plan to establish any aesthetic concerns for a buffer
from what could be an eyesore and negatively affect our enjoyment of our properties
and also, negatively affect their value.
7. That no attempts seem to be put forth for the emergency entrance from St. Mary's
Avenue to this development. This entrance will affect all of St. Mary's Avenue and
all but surround two homes with something that is only marked as-a "knock-down
chain"
8. That the garbage from these new commercial ventures is planned for the rear of the
new McDonald's restaurant closest to our properties. We suffer now from litter and
garbage from the existing smaller restaurant.
9. That the track ramp for the 1-story proposed building addition is positioned close to
our properties.
10. That this development ignores the existing zoning by-laws of Niagara Falls and
proposes a dense commercial use on residential lands with no regard for the taxpayers
that live close by.
The undersigned taxpayers ask the planning and Development Director to protect us from
air pollution; to protect us from noise pollution, to protect our property values, to help
secure the pleasure of enjoyment in our homes and yards, and to support the existing
zoning by-laws that we enacted to protect the taxpayers of Niagara Falls. We ask that
this development be scaled back to commercially zoned lands and safety measures be
placed to adequately buffer our homes from any development on this Thorold Stone Road
properly.
Yours~tmly, ru~C
~'~Margaret Wood andace Cooper
3854 Orlando Drive
· ' O~
3854 Orlando Drive
Anna McKinty, owner
3895~ ~//l'a-Orland° Drive
Keith Mooney, owner
3893/~~__~Oflando
Sylvia Mooney, owner
3893 Orlando Drive
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-2354
planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
PD-2002-118
Doug Darbyson
Director
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2002-118, Recommendation Report
Garner Estates Phase 4
Draft Plan of Subdivision 26T-11-2002-05 (Revised)
Zoning By-law Amendment Application AM-38/2002
Owner: River Realty Development (1976) Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that:
1)
the Garner Estates Phase 4 Plan of Subdivision be draft approved subject to the conditions
in the attached Appendix;
2)
the Mayor or designate be authorized to sign the draft plan as "approved" 20 days after notice
of Council's decision has been given as required by the Planning Act, provided no appeals
of the decision have been lodged;
3)
draft approval be given for three years, after which approval will lapse unless an extension
is requested by the developer and, subject to review, granted by Council; and
4)
the application to amend the Zoning By-law be approved to provide the necessary land use
regulations to guide the development of the subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
These applications are a revision of a subdivision (File 26T- 11-2002-04) and zoning amendment
(File AM-27/2002) that were refused by Council on September 16, 2002. At that meeting, a motion
to adopt the report recommendations for approval was defeated. Although Council unanimously
passed a subsequent motion to defer the subdivision for further consultation with area residents, the
loss of the original motion resulted in a technical refusal of the applications. The owner has
submitted new applications for the land rather than appeal the Council decision to the Ontario
Municipal Board.
}Forking Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
De~ember 9, 2002 - 2 - PD-2002-118
Proposal
The applicant proposes to subdivide an 11.57 hectare (28.59 acre) site into 90 single-detached lots,
19 semi-detached lots, and separate blocks for a stormwater management area and parkland. The
subdivision has recently been revised to exclude a 0.824 hectare (2.04 acre) block of land proposed
as an institutional use - the related zoning amendment still applies to this parcel. The subject land
is located north of McLeod Road and east of Garner Road as shown on Schedule 1. The road pattern
is an extension of McGan'y Drive to Garner Road, connects to McLeod Road, includes a cul-de-sac
and provides three dead-end streets to be continued on abutting land in the future. The development
surrounds sites approved for a church and high school. There is one lot with direct access to Garner
Road. Schedule 2 illustrates the proposed subdivision layout.
The site is currently zoned Development Holding (DH) through Zoning By-law 79-200, as amended.
The applicant has requested the zoning of the land be changed to the Residential Single Family 1E
Density (R1E) zone for the single-detached lots, to the Residential Single Family and Two Family
(R2) zone for the semi-detached lots, and to provide a special Institutional (I) zone for land identified
as Block 110. The zoning requirement for an additional special setback from McLeod Road is
requested to be removed. The Institutional zoning would permit a residence for emergency and
temporary care and associated office space, with site specific building setbacks and parking
standards. The preliminary site plan for this institutional use with frontage on McLeod Road is
shown on Schedule 3.
Public Consultation
There has been extensive public involvement in the proposed development of the subject land.
Through the previous applications, Council held three public meetings under the Planning Act when
residents made submissions. City staff conducted neighbourhood meetings with residents in May,
August and September this year to discuss overall development in the area and the Garner Estates
Phase 4 proposals. Staff has also met and had telephone conversations with individual property
owners regarding the subdivision. The stated concerns relate to implications for future development
on adjacent land to the north, stormwater management and drainage impacts on land south of
McLeod Road, and the location of the connection of McGarry Drive at Garner Road.
The Planning Act requires that a Public Meeting be held to receive input on subdivision proposals
prior to making a decision. Council held the Public Meeting required for this new plan submission
on November 18, 2002. Area property owners identified issues and objections with stormwater
management and the street connection at Garner Road. It was suggested that the proposed east-west
road could terminate at the rear property boundary of the land containing the dwelling at 6972 Garner
Road to continue at some future date when that property is purchased. The required Public Meeting
for the zoning amendment is satisfied through tonight's meeting and provides another opportunity
for public comment.
Planning Review
Various matters were considered in assessing the proposed plan of subdivision and zoning
amendment. Based on this analysis, approval is recommended subject to conditions associated with
urban development. The review of the applications is addressed under the following headings.
December 9, 2002 .3 - PD-2002-118
Official Plan
The City's Official Plan designates the property Residential which permits a variety of housing types.
A compatible mix of housing types and lot sizes is promoted by the Official Plan to provide a full
range of housing opportunities. Land to the north consists of deep residential properties and the
German Village Club along Garner Road, and vacant land for future residential development.
Northeast of the site are soccer facilities under construction, elementary schools and a future
recreational trail. Existing dwellings abut the subdivision to the west and Garner Road is the Urban
Area Boundary. There is an auto service use located on the northeast comer of McLeod Road and
Garner Road. A proposed church and high school will be directly south of the plan and land on the
south side of McLeod Road is in agricultural use. An existing stormwater area and single-detached
dwellings within Garner Estates (Phases 1,2 and 3) are to the east. The subdivision contains several
semi-detached lots and also adds to the supply of single-detached lots in the area reflecting the strong
market for this type of housing. This proposal should be compatible with the existing development
along Garner Road, and future uses in the neighbourhood.
Garner Neighbourhood Secondary Plan
The policies of the Official Plan are refined through the Garner Neighbourhood Secondary Plan
which was adopted by Council in 1997 and updated in October 2001. The Secondary Plan provides
a framework to guide development in the area. General locations of roadways and facilities are
shown on the land use concept which is utilized in conjunction with the detailed policies.
Development proposals in the neighbourhood satisfy the intent of the policies but may differ slightly
from the scheme depicted on the concept plan (e.g., shifted school locations, configuration of the
stormwater management area).
The subdivision proposal complies with the Plan policies and principles. Specific policies indicate
a target housing mix of 70% single/semi-detached and 30% multiple residential in the overall Garner
Neighbourhood. Although the subdivision provides semi-detached lots, there are no multiple
residential units approved thus far in the neighbourhood. Allowance was given for the initial Garner
subdivision due to the relative concentration of multiple unit development on the east side of Kalar
Road. Future plans in the area should include townhouses and/or apartments in accordance with
location criteria.
Stormwater Management
This subdivision expands the existing stormwater management area that was constructed in keeping
with the Secondary Plan and Warren Creek Watershed study recommendations. The strategy of the
Watershed Plan is a phased implementation of an open channel drainage system. Municipal Works
staff have met on several occasions with the landowner south of McLeod Road (Mr. Badger) to
discuss concerns regarding drainage impacts on his site. Staff will continue to work with
downstream property owners to ensure that any short term impacts during construction in the area
are sufficiently mitigated.
Collector Roadway Alignment
In November 2001, severances and a zoning amendment were approved for the proposed church and
high school on McLeod Road. Approval of these two large uses determined the general alignment
of the collector roads (the extension of McGarry Drive and the north-south Street "A"). The
establishment of a collector roadway to Garner Road is essential to provide proper vehicle and
December 9, 2002 - 4 - PD-2002-118
pedestrian connections to and from the internal neighbourhood. There are limited options to locate
a street out to Garner Road given existing dwellings. The Secondary Plan indicates a possible street
at Lot 109 and also south of the hydro corridor. The location at Lot 109 does not provide a direct
linkage to McGarry Drive as desired and is too close to the McLeod Road intersection to adequately
disperse traffic. There is a Provincially Significant Wetland adjacent to the hydro corridor that
imposes environmental restrictions for a road in that location.
Schedule 4 shows the possible road alignments and lotting design in the northwest section of the
subdivision. Option A provides a dead-end street to the north limit of the developer's land that
would need to be continued on the Futino land (6916 Garner Road). This design requires the
combination of land between the property owners to create buildable lots. The Futino's object to this
road and have no immediate plans for development. Option B is the current application with
McGarry Drive located on vacant land between two existing dwellings (Bedard - 6972 Garner Road
and Wojnarowski - 7000 Garner Road). The road connection is possible now (under the control of
the applicant), the layout provides efficient lotting and is not dependent on the timing of
development on adjacent land. However, the landowner to the south objects to this proposal. Option
C indicates a design as suggested on November 18, 2002 with the extension of McGarry Drive
stopping behind the Bedard house. This scenario requires the land to be purchased and dwelling
demolished at a furore date. The acquisition of the land needed for the road would fall upon the City,
likely funded through Development Charges. The lotting at the north limit of the plan requires
coordination of the abutting property owners to create approximately six lots and road to the north.
The current application (Option B) achieves the goal of a collector roadway connection at this time.
The required 23 metre (75.4 foot) road allowance width is provided which allows for the roadway
pavement width (9.75 metres/32 feet), service installation, sidewalks and grassed boulevards. The
garage and driveway area of the abutting Wojnarowski dwelling to the south are located next to the
proposed road thereby minimizing potential impacts. The garage is set back 3.54 metres (11.6 feet)
from the property line and would be slightly under the zoning standard of 4.5 metres (14.8 feet) for
a comer lot. The City could shift the pavement slightly or transfer a 1 metre (3.3 feet) wide strip of
land to this owner if desired to address this building placement. Niagara Transit endorses a street
connection to Garner Road as soon as possible. Bus routing options are being considered to service
this emerging residential area, high school and the special institutional use.
· Neighbourhood Park
The proposed neighbourhood park (Block 111) is 0.619 hectares (1.53 acres) in area which is smaller
than the normal requirement. However, the park is central to the neighbourhood and has frontage
on the collector roadway. This location has the benefit of being adjacent to the planned recreational
trail within the stormwater management area. Access is also to be provided from a future street to
the north on other land owned by the developer. The smaller park size is acceptable to staff in this
instance. Block 111 reflects the 5% parkland dedication requirement for this subdivision phase. The
City will assess the overall Parkland contribution of the developer in Garner Estates Phases 1 to 4
to determine any credit or shortfall.
Additional Subdivision Issues
Street connections are provided to allow the integration of the land to the north. Traffic generated
by development in the Garner Neighbourhood will impact on the surrounding arterial and major
collector road system (McLeod/Gamer/Kalar). Traffic & Parking Services have requested that the
December 9, 2002 - 5 -
PD-2002-118
developer contribute to the preparation of a future traffic impact study. Sidewalks are required
throughout the subdivision and on McLeod Road to provide safe pedestrian connections to the
schools and other facilities in the area. Residents on the east side of Garner Road are to be provided
full municipal services when available. The development of the subdivision will extend services to
these homes and sewer connections will be incorporated in the servicing design for the plan.
Fencing is a normal condition where a subdivision surrounds non-residential uses. Chain link
fencing is requested around the expanded stormwater detention facility, school and the church. The
developer has advised that a fencing requirement was included in their agreements to sell the land
to the school and church. A landscape plan/fencing detail is required for the McLeod Road frontage.
Zoning Amendment - Single & Semi-Detached Lots
The requested change to the R1E classification for the single-detached portion of the plan would
pcnmit minimum lot sizes of 370 square metres (3,983 square feet) in area and a minimum 12 metres
(39.4 feet) in frontage. This is the same zoning category as the original Garner Estates to the east
where a variety of lot sizes are provided. The proposed lots in the subdivision exceed these
minimum requirements as lots on the collector roads are encouraged to provide larger frontages to
reduce driveway accesses. The special zoning setback requirement from McLeod Road only affects
the side yards of two lots. Sufficient land is protected for road improvements by a requested
widening condition. The R2 zoning standards for the semi-detached lots allow a minimum lot area
of 600 square metres (6,459 square feet) and minimum lot frontage of 18 metres (59.1 feet). The
requested zoning changes are appropriate.
Zoning Amendment - Special Institutional
The City's Committee of Adjustment granted provisional consent (File B51/2002/NF) on December
3, 2002 to remove the land shown as Block 110 and part of Block 113 from the draft plan. This
severance will allow the development of the special institutional use to proceed prior to the
completion of the subdivision. The proposed zoning amendment remains applicable to the parcel.
The site is proposed as a residence for emergency and temporary care with associated administrative
space. The use would provide shelter to women and their children (up to 45 people) and outreach
services to clients (drop-in programs). The location on McLeod Road allows access to community
facilities and also reduces the number of potential individual driveway entrances to this arterial
roadway. The preliminary site plan indicates building setbacks of 7.62 metres (25 feet) on the east
and west sideyards, and 12.19 metres (40 feet) for the front and rear yard areas. The maximum
height of the residence would be the same as surrounding dwellings and large amenity areas are to
be provided. The requested parking standard of one space per three people (residence) and one space
per 25 square metres (269 square feet) of administration space has been developed with staff and is
anticipated to meet parking demand. The development will be subject to Site Plan Control to
establish design details such as parking layout and landscaping/buffering. The requested relief from
a special setback from McLeod Road is acceptable as sufficient road widening will be granted. The
zoning amendment is supported.
Regional Comments
Standard conditions for servicing have been requested by the Regional Public Works Department
to allow development of this subdivision. The Regional Planning Department has reviewed the
proposal with regard to the Regional Policy Plan and also Provincial policies. The Region notes that
the subdivision provides a mix of housing types with the semi-detached lots having the potential to
Deoember 9, 2002 - 6 - PD-2002-118
be affordable housing. The stormwater block is an expansion to the existing detention facility. The
drainage outlet is Warren Creek which is classified as an important fish habitat necessitating special
protection measures. The approval of a stormwater management plan is required as a condition.
Agency Comments
The District School Board of Niagara requests sidewalks on the collector roads and McLeod Road.
Canada Post has indicated that the plan will be served by Community Mailboxes. The comments
of Niagara Transit were discussed previously. In addition, the developer will be required to enter
into separate agreements with several utility companies.
CONCLUSION:
The provision of a collector roadway to connect with Garner Road is a key element in the
development of this subdivision. There have been several discussions among staff, the developer
and surrounding property owners to attempt to resolve issues. The developer acquired additional
land and redesigned the Plan in recognition of the City's goal to achieve the road connection.
Stormwater management in the area is proceeding based on the Warren Creek Watershed study
recommendations. The Garner Estates Phase 4 Draft Plan of Subdivision is an appropriate
development of the land. The application complies with the policies of the Official Plan and Garner
Neighbourhood Secondary Plan and should be compatible with existing and future development.
The requested zoning by-law amendment will provide suitable regulations for the construction of
the dwellings and the special institutional use. The required conditions of approval are listed in the
Appendix.
Prepared by:
Richard Wilson
Planner 2
Respectfully submitted:
John MacDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
RW:am
Attach.
S:~DRX2002XPD2002-118, Garner Estates 4.wpd
December 9, 2002 .7 - PD.2002-118
APPENDIX
Conditions for Draft Plan Approval
Approval applies to the Garner Estates Phase 4 Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Upper
Canada Consultants, dated August 7, 2002, and revised by the City on December 9, 2002,
showing 90 lots for single-detached dwellings, 19 lots for semi-detached dwellings, Block
111 for parkland and Block 112 for stormwater management.
The developer enter into a registered Subdivision Agreement with the City to satisfy all
requirements, financial and otherwise, related to the development of the land. Note: Should
any other body wish to have its conditions included in the Subdivision Agreement, they may
be required to become party to the Subdivision Agreement for the purpose of enforcing such
conditions.
The developer submit a Solicitor's Certificate of Ownership for the subdivision land to the
City Solicitor prior to the preparation of the Subdivision Agreement.
The subdivision be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Subdivision
Policy which, in part, includes the following:
a) construction of roadways to municipal requirements;
b) dedication of the road allowances to the City as public highway and the streets named
to the City's satisfaction;
c) provision of appropriate daylighting triangles at all intersections;
d) dedication of a 3.05 metre (10 foot) road widening to the City along the north side of
McLeod Road (revised Block 113);
e) provision of water distribution, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems;
f) provision of an overland stormwater flow route; and
g) application of the City's Lot Grading and Drainage Policy.
The developer dedicate 0.3 metre (1 foot) reserves to the City at the terminus of the dead-end
streets that are to be extended in the future, and also along the north limit of McLeod Road
(including daylighting triangles) abutting Lots 57 and 58 to preclude direct access.
The developer provide a proportional financial contribution to the City to undertake a future
traffic impact study in the area.
o
The developer construct 1.5 metre wide sidewalks on the north side of McLeod Road
abutting the plan, both sides of McGarry Drive, both sides of Street "A", and on the east or
west side (determined during the review of future plans to the north) of the dead-end street
between Lots 100 to 103.
o
The developer provide a 6 foot high chain link fence along the boundary of the church and
school property, or provide assurance to the City's satisfaction that such fencing will be
installed by the church and school.
The developer provide a 6 foot high chain link fence along the north boundary of Block 112
(stormwater management area).
December 9, 2002
-8-
PD.2002-118
10.
The developer pay the Development Charges in force at the time of execution of the
Subdivision Agreement.
11.
The developer grant the City and Public Utilities any easements required to service the
subdivision.
12.
The developer dedicate Block 111 to the City as the parkland requirement for the plan. The
overall parkland dedication requirements of the developer for Garner Estates Phases 1, 2, 3
and 4 will be reviewed to determine any credit or shortfall.
13.
The developer provide a 6 foot high chain link fence along the westerly and north boundaries
of Block 111.
14.
The developer submit a landscape and fencing plan for the review and approval of the
Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture illustrating the streetscape treatment for Lots 57 and
58 along McLeod Road.
15. The developer provide boulevard trees in accordance with City policy.
16.
The developer receive final approval from the City to the zoning by-law amendment to
provide land use regulations to guide the development of the subdivision.
17.
The developer provide three calculated plans prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor and a
letter to Planning & Development confirming that all lots comply with the Zoning By-law.
18.
The developer provide six copies of the pre-registration plan to Planning & Development and
a letter stating how all the conditions imposed have been or are to be fulfilled.
19.
The design drawings for the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer facilities for this plan be
submitted to the Regional Public Works Department for review and approval.
20.
The developer obtain Ministry of Environment Certificates of Approval to the satisfaction
of the Regional Public Works Department for the necessary servicing for this development.
21.
Immediately following notice of draft plan approval, the developer submit a letter to the
Regional Planning Department acknowledging that draft approval is not a commitment of
servicing allocation by the Region as this servicing allocation, if available, will be assigned
at the time of final approval of the subdivision for registration.
22.
Immediately following notice of draf~ plan approval, the developer provide the Regional
Planning Department with a written undertaking that all offers and agreements of purchase
and sale which may be negotiated prior to registration of this subdivision shall contain a
clause clearly indicating that a servicing allocation for this subdivision will not be assigned
until the plan is granted final approval for registration, and a similar clause be inserted in the
subdivision agreement between the developer and the City.
23.
Prior to approval of the final plan or any on-site grading, the developer submit two copies
of a detailed stormwater management plan designed and sealed by a suitably qualified
professional engineer in accordance with the Ministry of Environment's "Stormwater
Dm=ember 9, 2002
-9-
PD-2002-118
Management Practices Planning and Design Manual", June 1994, and incorporating erosion
and sedimentation control measures, to the Regional Planning and Development Department
and that the approved plan be implemented through provisions in the subdivision agreement.
The Region has requested the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority to review the
stormwater management plan on the Region's behalf and to submit comments to the
Regional Planning and Development Department regarding the approval of this plan and the
subsequent clearance of related conditions.
24.
The subdivision agreement Contain provisions whereby the developer agrees to implement
the approved stormwater management plan in accordance with condition 23.
Clearance of Conditions
Prior to granting approval to the final plan, Planning & Development requires written notice from
applicable City Divisions and the following agencies indicating that their respective conditions have
been satisfied:
Regional Niagara Public Works Department for Conditions 19 and 20
Regional Niagara Planning and Development Department for Conditions 21, 22, 23 and 24
SCHEDULE 1
Proposed Plan of Subdivision &
Zoning By-law Amendment Application
Garner Estates Phase 4
26T-11-2002-05 & AM-38/2002
Location Ma
Other Lands
Of Applicant
Elementary Schools
Phase 3
Future
High School
Subject Land
l :NTS
S:~Subdlvis~flxl~Gamm4resub'anapping. apr Octolx, r 2002
REDLINE REVISION TO GARNER ESTATES PHASE FOUR
~-'*-'r-T--' i ....... ~- .... * .... -j , ; ', ~ k--
,'~' -~
_. ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
'X/ ' ....... A
~mo~ ~o~
~ ltl l~ Ill ~l~ ~ ~
393.7'
i
10 10 12
! ! ! I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I 1, L I.
tee'
SITE PLAN
ASSOCIATES
INC.
81.~LTeR
,; [~.SP.1
700O
FU~NO
6916
64,264-0095
SCHEDULE 4
4
FUTINO
6916
"B"
~ / 49.62m
WOJNAROWSKI
® 39
36®
FUTINO
6916
7000
64264-0095
The City of
Niagara Fallsi
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-maih
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-7404
planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
December 9, 2002
PD-2002-119
Doug Darbyson
Director
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2002-119, Drummond Court
Draft Plan of Condominium
File: 26CD-11-2002-05
5595 Drummond Road
Owner: Falls Masonry Limited
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that:
1)
the Drummond Court Plan of Condominium be draft approved subject to the conditions in
the attached Appendix;
2)
the Mayor or designate be authorized to sign the draft plan as "approved" 20 days after notice
of Council's decision has been given as required by the Planning Act, provided no appeals
of the decision have been lodged; and
3)
draft approval be given for three years, after which approval will lapse unless an extension
is requested by the developer and, subject to review, granted by Council.
BACKGROUND:
The Drummond Court townhouse development is located on the west side of Drummond Road,
north of Lundy's Lane and south of Frederica Street (see the attached location map). Construction
of the 27 unit project was initiated in April 2002. The site layout is shown on Schedule 2. The
application for plan of condominium subdivision will permit the individual ownership of each unit
in the development with the common elements (e.g. open space, driveways) shared by the
condominium corporation.
Planning Process
This development has proceeded through various planning approvals and consultation with the
public. The project has been designed for compatibility with surrounding land uses and contributes
to the mix of available housing types in the area. The property was subject to a rezoning application
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 9, 2002 - 2 - PD.2002-119
(AM-28/2001) that was approved in principle in October 2001. The zoning by-law amendment
(2001-254) was adopted by Council in November 2001 to zone the land Residential Low Density,
Grouped Multiple Dwellings (R4) with special provisions. The site plan for the development was
approved in January 2002. The Site Plan Agreement was registered on title March 15, 2002.
Conditions of Approval
Standard requirements for all subdivision developments are applied to plans of condominium
including payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication as permitted by the Planning Act.
Construction has not been completed and a condition is included respecting confirmation of zoning
by-law and site plan compliance when the project is finished. The designation of a fire access route
through the site, if required by Fire Services, is also a condition of approval.
CONCLUSION:
The Drummond Court townhouse development has received the appropriate zoning and site plan
approvals. The proposed Draft Plan of Condominium will allow the separate ownership of the units.
The conditions of approval are listed in the Appendix.
Prq>ared by:
Richard Wilson
Planner 2
Respectfully subn~itted.' , /
John MacDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
RW:am
Attach.
S 5PDR~2002XPD2002-119, Drummond Court.wpd
December 9, 2002 - 3 - PD-2002-119
APPENDIX
Conditions of Draft Plan of Condominium Approval
Approval applies to the Drummond Court Draft Plan of Condominium prepared by
Matthews, Cameron, Heywood - Kerry T. Howe Surveying Limited, dated August 8, 2002,
showing 27 townhouse units.
The developer enter into a registered Condominium Subdivision Agreement with the City
to satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, related to the development of the land.
o
The developer submit a Solicitor's Certificate of Ownership for the property to the City
Solicitor prior to the preparation of the Condominium Subdivision Agreement.
The developer submit a request to Fire Services to designate through municipal by-law a fire
access route on the property, if required.
The developer provide information to Planning & Development to confirm compliance with
the provisions of the Zoning By-law and Site Plan Agreement.
6. The developer pay the City cash-in-lieu of 5% parkland dedication.
The developer provide six copies of the pre-registration plan to Planning & Development and
a letter identifying how all the conditions imposed have been or are to be fulfilled.
Clearance of Conditions
Prior to granting approval to the final plan, Planning & Development requires written notice from
applicable City Divisions indicating that their respective conditions have been satisfied.
Proposed Plan of Condominium
Drummond Court
26CD-11-2002-05
Location Map
Prosl
Cres.
Subject Land
S:~S ubdivis~PComlo~mmo~demur6mapping.apr
North Street
1: NTSi
December 2002
Drummond Court
PART OF THE NORTH PART OF LOT 54,
ALL OF THE sOUTH PART OF LOT 54
(on the west :side of the road allowance in
front af township lots 125 & 151, being Drummond Road)
PLAN 2 (MAJOR LEONARD PLAN) &
PART OF' THE UNOPENED ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN STAMFORD TOWNSHIP LOTS 125 & 151
KEY PLAN
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on .ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-2354
planning@city, niagarafalls .on .ca
December 9, 2002
PD-2002-120
Doug Darbyson
Director
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2002-120, The Courtyard at Meadow Creek
Draft Plan of Condominium
File: 26CD-11-2002-06
8142 Costabile Drive
Owner: Meadow Creek Homes Ltd.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that:
1)
the Courtyard at Meadow Creek Plan of Condominium be draft approved subject to the
conditions in the attached Appendix;
2)
the Mayor or designate be authorized to sign the draft plan as "approved" 20 days after notice
of Council's decision has been given as required by the Planning Act, provided no appeals
of the decision have been lodged; and
3)
draft approval be given for three years, after which approval will lapse unless an extension
is requested by the developer and, subject to review, granted by Council.
BACKGROUND:
The Courtyard at Meadow Creek townhouse development is located on the south side of Costabile
Drive, east of Kalar Road, north of Barrett Crescent and west of Francesco Avenue (see the attached
location map). Construction of the 19 unit project was initiated in July 2002. The site layout is
shown on Schedule 2. The application for plan of condominium subdivision will permit the
individual ownership of each unit in the development with the common elements (e.g. open space,
driveways) shared by the condominium corporation.
Planning Process
This development has proceeded through various planning approvals and consultation with the
public. The project has been designed for compatibility with surrounding land uses and contributes
to the mix of available housing types in the area. The site is a planned multiple residential block
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 9, 2002 - 2 - PD-2002-120
within the Meadow Creek Three subdivision (59M-295) which was draft approved in June 2001 and
registered in May 2002. The property was subject to a rezoning application (AM-05/2001) that was
approved in principle in May 2001. The zoning by-law amendment (2001-154) was adopted by
Council in July 2001 to zone the land Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings (R4)
with special provisions. The site plan for the development was approved in June 2002. The Site
Plan Agreement was registered on title July 31, 2002.
Comditions of Approval
Standard requirements for all subdivision developments are applied to plans of condominium.
Parkland dedication was satisfied through the original subdivision of the land. Construction has not
been completed and a condition is included respecting confirmation of zoning by-law and site plan
compliance when the project is finished. The designation of a fire access route through the site, if
required by Fire Services, is also a condition of approval.
CONCLUSION:
The Courtyard at Meadow Creek townhouse development has received the appropriate zoning and
site plan apprOvals. The proposed Draft Plan of Condominium will allow the separate ownership
of the units. The conditions of approval are listed in the Appendix.
Prepared by:
Richard Wilson
Planner 2
Respectfully submiyed: /
// Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
RW:gd
Attach.
S:\PDRX2002~PD2002-120, Courtyard at Meadow Creek.wpd
De~ember 9, 2002 - 3 - PD-2002-120
APPENDIX
Conditions of Draft Plan of Condominium Approval
Approval applies to the Courtyard at Meadow Creek Draft Plan of Condominium prepared
by Matthews, Cameron, Heywood - Kerry T. Howe Surveying Limited, dated August 22,
2002, showing 19 townhouse units.
The developer enter into a registered Condominium Subdivision Agreement with the City
to satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, related to the development of the land.
o
The developer submit a Solicitor's Certificate of Ownership for the property to the City
Solicitor prior to the preparation of the Condominium Subdivision Agreement.
The developer submit a request to Fire Services to designate through municipal by-law a fire
access route on the property, if required.
The developer provide information to Planning & Development to confirm compliance with
the provisions of the Zoning By-law and Site Plan Agreement.
The developer provide six copies of the pre-registration plan to Planning & Development and
a letter identifying how all the conditions imposed have been or are to be fulfilled.
Clearance of Conditions
Prior to granting approval to the final plan, Planning & Development requires written notice from
applicable City Divisions indicating that their respective conditions have been satisfied.
Proposed Plan of Condominium
Courtyard at Meadow Creek
26CD-11-2002-06
Location Map
0
0
0
Subject Land
S:~Subdivis~PCond o~lc~-ekcou~yard~apping.apr
1: NTS!
December 2002
KEY PLAN
THE COURTYARD AT ~ADOW CREEK
I ~'I ~ ,
I ' I s~u,i[ I - I ~,1 I I I I ,
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-2354
planning@city.niagarafalls,on.ca
PD-2002-116
Doug Darbyson
DireCtor
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of.the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2002-116, Adult Entertainment Parlours and
Body-Rub Parlours
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council approve the resolution attached to this report confirming the
exceptions made to By-law No. 2002-201, for the Sam's Montrose Hotel, and lands north of
Bridge Street, east of Victoria Avenue, were also meant to apply to Official Plan Amendment No.
45.
BACKGROUND:
On November 4, 2002, Council passed By-law No. 2002-201, which established zoning provisions
for adult entertainment parlours and body-mb parlours. In approving the by-law, Council
incorporated a site specific exemption to the 100-metre setback provision for the Sam's Montrose
Hotel property. The intent of this exemption was to provide the opportunity for an adult
entertainment parlour or body-mb parlour to go into the existing building.
On thc same evening, Council adopted Official Plan Amendment (OPA) No. 45 to establish
Official Plan policies for adult entertainment parlours and body-mb parlours. These policies
contain a variety of setback requirements one of which is the 100-metre setback from a controlled
access highway such as the Queen Elizabeth highway (Q.E.W.).
The attached resolution clarifies that Council's intent was to exclude the Sam's Montrose Hotel
property from the 100-metre setback requirement from the Q.E.W. In light of Council's decision,
it is recommended that Council request the Region to modify Official Plan Amendment No. 45 to
provide the Sam's Montrose Hotel property with an exception to the 100-metre setback
requirement in the Official Plan as well. This clarification will provide consistency with the
modification made to By-law No. 2002-201 and OPA No. 45.
}Forking Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 9, 2002 - 2 - PD-2002-116
In addition to the above, Council, on November 4, 2002, also deleted lands shown on Schedule 1,
attached for information purposes, from By-law No. 2002-201. Council, however, did not modify
the Official Plan Amendment No. 45. In order to provide consistency between By-law No. 2002-
201 and OPA No. 45, it is recommended that Council request the Region to modify OPA No. 45
to state the lands shown on Schedule 1 are not suitable for an adult entertainment parlour or body-
mb parlour. This modification will ensure consistency between By-law No. 2002-201 and OPA
No. 45.
David Heyworth
Planner 2
Respectfully submitted:
John MacDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
DH:am
S:~DR~2002~PD2002-116, AdultEnt&Body-Rub.wpd
SCHEDULE 1
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT #45
Industrial Areas Not Permitting Adult Entertainment
Parlours & Body-Rub Parlours as Specified in the Official Plan
(After application of separation distances from
sensitive zones, lands uses and QEW Highway)
Applicant: City of Niagara Falls
S :kZoningXBodyrubXaep s',Mapping.apr
60 0 60 120
Meters
Scale: 1: 5,000
October 2002
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-maih
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-2354
planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
PD-2002-117
Doug Darbyson
Director
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re.'
PD-2002-117, Appeal to Zoning By-law No. 2002-202
AM-24/2001, 5200 Robinson Street
Proposed Skylon (North) Tower
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council reaffirm, by resolution, the passing of By-law No. 2002-202.
BACKGROUND:
The City has received an appeal to Zoning By-law No. 2002-202. from Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc.
(CNH). The by-law would permit the construction of a 26-storey hotel tower on the north side of
the Skylon Tower. The reasons for the appeal are attached to this report, but can be summarized as
follows:
The by-law is premature as it only contemplates one of the two hotels proposed and does not
address pedestrian and vehicular movements.
The proposed north hotel will block views of CNH's proposed hotel adjacent to the Jolley
Cut.
The parking structure is not located at the northern end of the property and the Warren
Avenue road allowance. CNH believes that in this location the parking structure would
provide a greater public benefit than being located at the south end of the property and
Warren Avenue.
4. Failure to provide for street frontage uses.
o
CNH was not provided an opportunity to review the draft amending by-law and to participate
in a meaningful way on the final application.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 9, 2002 .2 - PD-2002-117
The City is required by the Planning Act to forward the appeal and other applicable information
within 15 days of the receipt of the appeal. The Board requires that Council's position be submitted
with the appeal.
CONCLUSION:
Council passed By-law No. 2002-202 in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act and
ba~ed on staff's recommendation, comments from various agencies and individuals, together with
submissions made at the public meeting. A resolution of Council to reaffirm the passing of By-law
No. 2002-202 is required.
Respectfully submitted:
J~°~ M/acD~/, Chief A~~°n~al~er
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
JB:gd
Attach.
S:LPDR~2002~PD2002-117, Appeal Skylon Hotel, AM24-01.wpd
AIRD ~ BERLIS i. la,
Barristers and Solicitors
Patent and Trade Mark Agents
N. Jane Pepino, G.M., Q.G.
Direct: 416.865.7727
E-mail: jpepino@airdberlis.com
November 29, 2002
BY COURIER
Mr. Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning and Development
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Dear Mr. Darbyson:
Re: Notice of Appeal
City of Niagara Falls Zoning By-law No, 2002-202
File #77280
!RECEIVED
DEC 0 2 .?,002
PLA ING
We are writing on behalf of Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc. ("CNH"). CNH is the owner of
the lands directly north of and abutting the site that is the subject of By-law No. 2002-202.
Please treat this letter as their notice of appeal against the City of Niagara Falls By-law
2002-202. ^ cheque in the amount of $125.00 payable to the Minister of Finance is
enclosed in satisfaction of the appeal fee.
CNH has a number of concerns with respect to the By-law, both in terms of the process by
which it was adopted by City Council on November 4, 2002, as well as the substance of
the By-law itself. It is our view that the By-law is deficient from both a procedural and
substantive basis in that it fails to conform with the Official Plan and the requirements
regarding public notice as set out in the Planning ACt. As a result, the By-law is void ab
initio.
Substantive Deficiencies of the By-law
The original proposal for the subject site envisioned the development of two towers on
either side of the Skylon Tower and included a parking garage at the southern end of the
site. The By-law however only addresses the construction of a portion of the development
proposed for the site, being a hotel of up to 26 storeys on the north side of the existing
Skylon Tower. The fact that the By-law only addresses this one tower necessarily means
that it has not contemplated, nor can it address, important considerations such as
BCE Place, Suite 1800, Box 754, 181 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2T9 T: 416.863.1500 F: 416.863.1515
www,airdberlis,com
Affiliated with Owen, Bird / Vancouver
November 29, 2002
Page 2
vehicular and pedestrian movement both into and Within the site in a comprehensive
manner. Moreover, the August 12, 2002 staff report, and the Architectural Peer Review
accompanying it, clearly evaluated and approved the comprehensive odginal proposal
rather than the partial development that is the subject of the By-law. As a result, we
believe the By-law is premature and compromises the ability of the City to ensure a
comprehensive approach to the development of the site.
In addition, our client is concerned that the construction of the tower as contemplated by
By-law No. 2002-202 will block the views from the CNH property to the north of the
subject site. We acknowledge the comment in the staff report "that the Plan does state
that no additional setbacks will be required of site specific zoning approvals to
accommodate grand fathered developments". Given the emphasis on the protection of
view corridors in the Fallsview District, however, we believe it is imperative that this issue
be addressed prior to any development occurring on the subject site, especially if there
are alternatives which permit the proposed development to proceed without compromising
important view corridore from other sites in the area.
Finally, CNH also has concerns with respect to the proposed location of the parking
garage on the subject site. In our opinion, the garage would be better located on the
northern end of the site where it would be both closer to the "people mover" and able to
serve as a parking node for the proposed development as well as other areas attractions.
As the parking structure is proposed to be located On municipal property it is our
submission that it is in the public interest to ensure the land is used appropriately in order
to maximize the public benefit which may be derived from this development.
In summary, CNH believes that the lack of a comprehensive approach, the potential
blocking of important view corridors, the creation of significant wind impacts (as identified
in the staff report), the location of the parking garage and the failure to provide street
frontage on key aspects of the site are all examples of deficiencies in the proponent's
application which have not been sufficiently addressed in the By-law.
Procedural Deficiencies of the By-law
CNH has been consistent in voicing its concerns with respect to this proposal to the City
staff. On August 8, 2002, this office wrote to the Planning Department on behalf of CNH
and expressed concern with respect to the original application for the subject site. At that
time, we requested copies of the Planning Department Report on the application as well
as a copy of the draft by-law once drafted. These materials were never provided.
On August 22, 2002 we wrote to the Clerk's office requesting a copy of any
documentation related to the application, as well as notice of any further action by Council
or Committee on this matter. The Clerk's office failed to provide this office with the
requested information. Finally, despite a written request, this office was not provided with
notice of the passage of the By-law, contrary to section 34(18) of the Planning Act and
section 4 of O. Reg. 199/96. As a result, it is our position that the By-law is void ab initio.
AIRD ~.~ BERLIS ~
November 29, 2002
Page 3
The City has proceeded with the approval of this By-law without providing our client with
sufficient notice or with an opportunity to take part in a meaningful way in reviewing the
final application or form of zoning by-law prior to approval. As a result, CNH has been
forced to file this notice of appeal in order to ensure that the subject site is developed in a
comprehensive manner, that CNH's substantive concerns with respect to vehicular
access, pedestrian access and the potential loss of views from its property are properly
addressed, and that CNH is given an opportunity to comment on the proposal.
CNH has consistently stdven to develop high quality projects in the Fallsview District
which enhance the area's natural features as well as providing superior accommodation
and other tourist facilities. CNH has long been committed to the development and
evolution of the Fallsview District as a first class tourist destination. It believes the By-law,
as approved, is contrary to the goals of the OP and the vision for the Fallsview District.
Please acknowledge receipt of this notice of appeal in writing and provide us with notice of
any subsequent meetings of Committees or Council or an Ontario Municipal Board
Hearing related to this by-law.
Yours very truly,
AIRD & BERLIS LLP
N. Jane Pepino, C.M., Q.C.
NJP/EPC/ra
encl.
cc: D. DiCienzo
::ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCS\1381119\5
AIRD & BERLI$
AIRD ~a' BERLIS r.~.l,
Barristers and Solicitors
Patent and Trade Mark Agents
VIA OVERNIGHT COURIER
N. Jane Pepino, C.M., Q.C.
Direct: 416-865-7727
E-mail: jpeplno~)airdberlis.com
August 8, 2002
Mr. Douglas Darbyson
Director of Planning and Development
The City of Niagara Falls, City Hall
4310 Queen Street, Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
File: 77280
Dear Mr. Da..rbyson:
City File: AM-24/2001 -Skylon Application for Zoninq Amendment
We act on behalf of Canadian. Niagara Hotels Inc., owners of property directly abutting the
Skylon property to the north.
Our client's property is zoned to permit a hotel development, at a height of 27 stories.
Our client intends to make an application for a high-rise hotel on its property.
Section 4.4.5 of OPA 26 provides that design Controls need to be established to ensure
that adverse impacts such as encroachment on the view of other landowners does not
occur. Enclosed is a copy of a preliminary sight line analysis showing the relation of our
client's proposed development to that which we understand is presently proposed for
development on the abutting Skylon lands. As you can see, approximately 50% of the.
rooms on the south face of our client's property will have any view of the Horseshoe Falls
blocked, according to this analysis.
Moreover, in the absence of more detailed plans being made available by the applicant,
our client has no opportunity to satisfy itself that the requirements with respect to the
relationship with its proposed adjacent .building have been met. It is our client's concern
that the Skyl0n proposal creates privacy concerns for its development due to location of
windows and overlook. No information has been provided to date with respect to the
environmental impacts of Shadowing and wind effects on our client's proposal, at both the
pedestrian level, 'and on proposed above-grade amenity areas such as outdoor pools.
BCE Place, Suite 1800, Box 754, 181 Bay Street, Toronto; Ontado, Canada M5J 2T9 T: 416.863.1500 F: 416.863.1515
www.airdberlis,com
Affiliated with Owen. Bird / Vancouver
Mr. Douglas Darbyson
Director of Planning and Development
City of Niagara Falls
File: 77280
August 8, 2002
Page 2
Finally, in the absence of the completion of a comprehensive Street.scape Master Plan for
the area, the "continuous publicly-accessible landscaped trail" to be created along the top
of the escarpment from Clifton Hill to the southern end of Fallsview, (section 4.3.12 of.
OPA 26) cannot be identified. Therefore, any decision on the final location of the
proposed Skylon development is premature. '
As a result, it is our client's position that this ap.'plication does not cOmply with the direction
of the Official Plan,.unless the building is moved further to the west, or otherwise
reconfigured, so as to maintain the views from our client's property, mitigate against the
other impacts,, and provide flexibility for the location of the landscaped trail.
We would ask that'we be provided with a copy of your report and the draft by-law
proposed for this"application, as well as a copy of the Minutes of the Statutory Public
Meeting, any action by Committee or Council, and notice of any future action by .
Committee or Council with respect to this application. In addition, should Council see fit to
approve this by-law, we ask we be provided, with a copy.
Yours very truly,
AIRD & BERLIS LLP
N. Jane Pepino, C.M., Q.C.
NJP/sh
Enclosure
c.c. Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc.
Attention: Mr. Dino DiCien~o, Junior-
· Poraino + Raimondo Associates (Architects)
Attention: Mr. Emilio Raimondo
::ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCS\1279650\1
AIRD ~ BERLIS u.v
AiRo & B RL s ,.rP
Barristers and Solicitors
Patent and Trade Mark Agents
N. Jane Peplno, C.M., Q.C.
Direct: 4t6-865-7727
E-mail: jpepino~airdberlis.com
VIA FACSIMILE: 1.905.356.9083
The City of Niagara Falls, City Hall
4310 Queen Street, Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON' L2E 6X5
./
Attention: Mr. Dean Iorfida, Clerk
August 22, 2002
File: 77280
Dear Mr. Iorfida:
.,'
City File: AM-24/2001 - Sk¥1on Application for Zoninq Amendment
We act on behalf of Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc., owners of property directly abutting the
Skylon property to the north.
We would ask that we be provided with a copy of the Minutes of the Statutory Public
Meeting, any actiOn by Committee or Council; and notice of any future action by
Committee or Council with respect to this application. In addition, should Council see fit to
approve this by-law, we ask we be provided with Notice of the passage of the By-law
Yours very truly,
AIRD & BERLIS LLP
N. Jane Pepino, C.M., Q.C.
NJP/sh
Attachment (Copy of August 8~h letter to Mr. Darbyson)
c.c. Mr. Dino DiCienzo
BCE Place, Suite 1800, Box 754, 181 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontado, Canada M5J 2T9 T: 416.863.1500 F: 416.863.1515
www. airdberlis.com ,
Affiliated with Owen. Bird / Vancouver
The City of
Niagara Falls~
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-2354
planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
PD-2002-121
Doug Darbyson
Director
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2002-121, Request to Change Street Name
Beeehwood Road to Taylor Road
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council direct the Street Name Committee review the proposed street name
change of Beechwood Road to Taylor Road and report back to Council.
BACKGROUND:
The Region has requested that the City consider a street name change for a portion of Beechwood
Road (Regional Road 70). The Region undertook the reconstruction of portions of Mountain Road
and Beechwood Road to address sightlines and vehicular safety and operations of Walker Industries.
The works created a new continuous curved street extending from Taylor Road at the north end of
the City to Thorold Stone Road at Townline Road in the south. Mountain and Beechwood Roads
now terminate at the newly aligned street (see attached plan). The aligned street changes name three
times along its short length. The Region has requested the street be renamed Taylor Road along its
entire length (shown as - ' ')since it forms an extension of this road.
REVIEW PROCESS:
Where Council is of the opinion that further information is required before making a decision,
Council can direct that the Street Name Committee consider the request and report back. The Street
Name Committee consists of representatives from Planning and Development, Municipal Works and
Fire, Police and Ambulance Services and the road authority (Region). The Committee will survey
property owners abutting the affected portion of the street' (first class mail for small areas), examine
the implications for emergency response and investigate potential conflict with other street
names/numbering. Once the Committee has completed its assessment, it will report back to Council.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 9, 2002 - 2 -
PD-2002-121
Council will make its decision based on input received. Where it is determined the street name
change should occur, Council will authorize Legal staff to process the street name change in
accordance with the Municipal Act.
CONCLUSION:
The portion of road involved affects approximately 8 - 10 properties (6 ownerships). The road
reconstruction has created sufficient change to wan'ant full consideration of this matter.
Prepared by:
Alex Herlovitch
Deputy Director of
Planning & Development
Respectfully submitted:
onald
Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
Dou~ D~yson
Director of Planning & Development
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
AH:gd
Attach.
S:XPDR~2002XPD2002-121, Street Name Change-Beeehwood to Taylor.wpd
Realignment Beechwood Road and Mountain Road
SCALE
1 · 15,000
2003 BUDGET
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
community services Department
Municipal Works
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.n iagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-2354
edujlovi@city.niagarafalls,on.ca
MW-2002-163
Ed Dujlovic
Director
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
MW-2002-163 -LooSe Leaf Pickup
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City discontinue the Loose Leaf Pickup Program.
BACKGROUND:
As a result of this years late dropping of leaves and the problems that were created with the loose
leaf pickup program, staffwas directed by Committee to prepare a report on the service.
As Council is aware, the current provides residents with two options in disposing of leaves in the
Fall, the options are bagged curbed side collection and loose leaf pickup. The bagged service is
provided by The Regional Municipality of Niagara as part of the waste management services
provided to the City. The bagged leaves are picked up on a by-weekly basis, same day as the
recycling, with the residents allowed an unlimited amount of bags. This service is normallyprovided
until early December. The loose leaf pickup, a service provided by the City using City forces, allows
residents to rake leaves to the edge of their property near the road where the City using two leaf
vacuum machines collect the leaves. The level of service provided is for two passes throughout the
City for those areas that receive the service (see attached service area map). This program is provided
when the leaves begin to fall and is normally anticipated to be completed by late November. The
cost of providing this service for 2003 is anticipated to be $86,000.
BAGGED LEA VE$
Although, affective in dealing with the Fall leaf problem there have been concerns raised regarding
bagged collection. The issues raised are as follows;
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire SerVices · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-Law SerVices
December 9, 2002 - 2 - MW-2002-163
· Bags not always picked up on day of collection. This is as a result of either equipment
breakdown or large volumes which slow the operation. Normally the leaves are picked up
on the following day.
· Bags being put out on the wrong collection day and not picked up until the following week.
· Amount of work required to bag the leaves. For some properties this could amount to 30 to
40 bags.
· Service not offered to Commercial Sector.
LOOSE LEAF PICKUP
This operation, since its inception, has had numerous problems and as stated in the newspaper ads
is not guaranteed. The problems associated with the operation are;
· It is weather dependant.
· Wet Fall slows down operation as leaves are heavy and difficult to vacuum.
· Early snowfalls halt operation.
· Cold weather causes equipment to freeze.
· Leaves do not fall as anticipated.
· For 2002 the start of the pickup program was delayed two to three weeks.
· Residents raking leaves onto roads, although clearly advised not to, which results in
additional liability to the City due to narrowing of roads, blocking of gutters and catch basins
and creating slippery conditions.
· Leaves let~ at the edge of the road can be blown back onto properties that have bagged their
leaves.
· Residents asking for City crews to return as they have missed the pickup or raking leaves to
the road immediately following the pickup.
· Request for more than the two passes that are provided.
As Council is aware, leaves for this year were not all picked up due to the heavy snowfall. Staffhas
already received phone calls from residents as a result of the leaves that were not picked up being
pushed into their driveways as a result of the snow plowing operations. This will continue to be a
problem throughout the winter until the Spring when the City will pickup the remaining leaves.
Following the last Council meeting an article appeared in The Niagara Falls Review regarding the
loose leaf pickup. The article quoted the Mayor asking that residents call into his office with their
opinion on the service. The results of the informal survey are as follows, 51% want to retain the
program with 49% recommending that it be discontinued. City staff also canvassed local
Municipalities, St. Catharines, Welland, Port Colbome, Fort Erie, Grimsby and none of these
Municipalities provide this service.
Based on the above difficulties associated with the loose leaf pickup program it is staff's
recommendation that this service be discontinued.
Approved~:
Ed Dujlovic, P.Eng.
Director of Municipal Works
espectfully subncitted: j
John MacD°nald
Chief Administrative Officer
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Municipal Works
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city, niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-2354
edujlovi@city.niagarafalls .on .ca
MW-2002-165
Ed Dujlovic
Director
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re;
MW-2002-165 - Portage Road Pathway
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the construction of the pathway on Portage Road from Marineland to Norton
Street be considered for construction in 2003.
BACKGROUND:
As previously reported in MW-2002-140 the construction of the pathway was estimated to be
approximately $110,000 if asphalted and $85,000 for a stone dust pathway. It is staff's
recommendation that the construction of this pathway be considered in 2003 along with the other
new sidewalks that need to be constructed throughout the City. Staffwill be preparing a report in
the Spring of 2003 identifying the new sidewalks required/requested and their priority.
It should be noted that in the 2003 Budget $100,000 has been included for the construction of new
sidewalks.
Committee's concurrence with the above recommendation would be appreciated.
Ed Dujl(
lby:
~vic, P Eng
Director of Municipal Works
Respectfully submitted:
John MacDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-Law Services
The City of ,
Niagara Falls1
Canada .
Community Services Department
Municipal Works
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
ara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city, niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-2354
edujlovi@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
MW-2002-164
Ed Dujlovic
Director
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: MW-2002-164
Increase to 2003 Budget
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the proposed increase to the 2003 Budget be re-examined when the final
assessment information is provided to the City.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the 2003 Budget deliberations a motion was put forward recommending that staff include
an additional $175,000 in expenses in the budget. The $175,000 is made up of the following items,
$15,000 for soccer field maintenance, $47,000 for a third roving crew, $100,000 for asphalt overlay
and the remaining $13,000 for snow removal.
It is staff's recommendation that in order to avoid an increase to the Municipal Tax Rate that these
items not be included at this time and that they be considered when the final tax assessment numbers
are provided to the City in March of 2003. Staff are anticipating that the fmal numbers may be
greater than the preliminary numbers provided and that some or all of these additional expenses can
be provided without impacting the Municipal Tax Rate as purposed in the 2003 Budget.
Council's concurrence with the above recommendation would be appreciated.
Ed Dujlovic
Director of Municipal Works
Respectfully submitted:
(~/)C°hihnef~CmDi°~salttdative Officer
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-Law Services
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
John MacDonald
fdeluca@cogeco.ca
12/5/02 2:35PM
Deputation at Council - December 9, 2002
Mr. De Luca:
The City Clerk, Dean Iorfida, and I spoke about your request and as he is away from the office until Friday,
Dean has asked that I contact you.
Further to your e-mail of December 4, 2002 and recognizing that you have requested approval to make
your presentation directly to Council, rather than addressing your issues with Staff, you will be listed on the
Council Agenda to speak on Monday evening, December 9, 2002. Budget discussions are scheduled to
begin at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
If you have any further questions in this regard, please contact me.
John
CC: Iorfida, Dean; MacDonald, John
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Frank De Luca" <fdeluca@cogeco.ca>
"Dean Iorfida" <diorfida@city. niagarafalls.on.ca>
12/4/02 10:55PM
Re: Budget deliberations
In my previous email which is attached, I expected the budget deliberations
to be a public process. It is very apparent that it won't be. Therefore I
am asking to speak to council on Monday night about the lack of public input
about the budget process. I would like to present several options on
budget cuts that I would like to be looked into before your budget is
approved. This year's budget is unique in that is will come before year
end, therefore I do not think that my request is unreasonable. This
council's track record on anyone's ability, other than themselves, to get
their point across is well documented. My suggestions are very direct and I
do not think that my aldermen would do a good job of conveying my thoughts,
especially when both of them were my opponents in the last election. If you
fail to grant my requests then please let me know the times and places of
all committee meetings that are discussing budgets. Thank you.
--- Original Message --
From: Dean Iorfida <diorfida@city. niagarafalls.on.ca>
To: <fdeluca@cogeco.ca>
Cc: John MacDonald <jmacdona@city. niagarafalls.on.ca>; Ken Burden
<kburden@city. niagarafalls.on.ca>; Tony Ravenda
<travenda@,=ity.niagarafalls.on.ca>; Wayne Thomson
<wthomson@city. niagarafalls.on.ca>
Se~t: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Budget deliberations
> Dear Frank:
> There was a discussion at our Senior Staff meeting this morning
> concerning your request for deputation.
The budget process is a public process; however, it is not a public
meeting in the sense that Council is expected to entertain public input
similar to a Planning application.
We respectfully suggest, therefore, that if you have specific questions
concerning the budget that you either make an appointment with Mr. Ken
Burden, our Director of Finance or you e-mail a list of questions that
Staff will attempt to answer promptly.
Of course, you could also contact any of the Council members to bring
up specific concerns during budget discussions Monday evening.
Thanks
Dean Iorfida
City Clerk
>>> "Frank De Luca" <fdeluca@cogeco.ca> 12/04/02 07:34AM >>>
During last year's budget deliberations it was stated that there would
be public input into the budget process.
> I haven't seen any input therefore I am requesting to speak before
> approval. Please let me know the times and dates.
> Frank De Luca
> 4341 KIIman Place
> Niagara Falls
> 905-358-9685
CC: <wthomson @city. niagarafalls, on. ca>
~.li~l~ FFILLS CLERKS 'C~ i_i.'.-'_NC)3 i0:i4
2147 Powedine Road West_
Lynden,Ontario. LOR 1TO
(905) 304-1348 (905) 304-4643 fax
~N benedict~-~_ fxworxlnc.com
December 3 02
D. ]~orfida, City Clerk
City of Niagara Falls,
4310 Queen St.
Niagara Falls, Ont. L2E 6X5
By Fax, 905-356-9083
FX WORX INC. would like to make application to City council for a
public fireworks display at the SkTIon Tower for New Years Eve. This
pro~ect has been Qpproved by you Captain/Fire prevention Officer,
,Tohn T. Laur.
Thanking you in advance.__
Nancy Benedict
Acct. Executive.
Cc: I~. Gillies, 5kylon Tower.
DEC 0 9 2002
PLANNING MEETING ~
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canad¢
Fire Services l-iIAu, F~tLLs CLER,..~, .X. ~.~.O.J 14:4~
5809 Morrison Street
Niagara Fails, ON L2E 2E8
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel:
Fax:
E-mail
(905) 356-1321 ext. 207
(905) 356-1583
pburke@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Patrick Burke
Fire Chief
December 3, 2002
FX Worx Inc.
2147 Powerline Road W
Lyndon, ON L0R IT0
Attention: Mark Rice
Dear Mark;
Re: Skylon Tower 5200 Robinson Street
Pyrotechnic Display, New Years Eve
The information submitted to our office regarding the above noted proposal has been reviewed. The
proposed display is acceptable to this office. A site inspection may be required, prior to the display.
The submitted application has been signed; however, please be advised that the display is a public
fireworks display and must be approved by City Council. If an application has not been forwarded to
Council, please ensure that an application is forwarded no later than Friday, December 6, 2002.
If you have any questions concerning the foregoing, or any other fire safety related matter, please do not
hesitate to contact this Office.
Yours in fire safety,
· Laur
Captain/Fire Prevention Officer
JTL:cd
C:
D Iorfida, City Clerk
Dave Gillies, Skylon Tower
Smoke Alarms Save Lives - Check Your Smoke Alarm
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development
seo.tnte$ n~eT-X~/~ 8u.tPlln~ · ~ueutdole,~eCl ttseutsn8 · aJnllnO ~ uo.tte~oe~i '~p~W · ~eo//ueS aJ!d · S~OA4 i~dt.:).tunH
~..tmunuoD ~nO ~a$ o~ ~¥1~,~oJ, ~m.~poAl
~i.~o,~K'.lq!~fodsaa ~u~oagzbq oq~L~omadx/~ ,,aau~oamoz~ql?~paAom~ ~1 ;aa~/~a~tlaI~i
· uo.rlmap!suoo S,llOtmoD ioj SllnSa.~ aql ltl~!lq'a.nl ol qs.u~ pue s9u.tlaom
luaoa~ I!atI1 m. sram! jo laqumu e ql.~ llrap a,~!mmoD ~u.maa~O ~ .~!mmlcI Imuamuo~?,ulI ati
:QNflOM~OV8
· aml.nmuoD i]u.mamD ~, i~ .mumqd Imuaumo~.auE
aql jo il~. aam E00: '0i: IaqtuaaoN oql jo suo!loe aql osxopuo i!oUnOD Imp papuaunuooaJ si li
: NOIIVONaitlliqiOOa~J
ZOO: '01: .~aqma,tol~I jo ~la,~ aa#lmmoD ~ .muaaaD ~P Bm. umq&
le;uamuo.q.tU~l aql modl au!mmals suopav - I,/,'~OOZ'~l :aH
:s~aqtualal
o.mnuc) 'sffe:l ere~!bljo aid
l!OUnoD Ied!o.mnI,~I aql jo r, xaqmal~I pue
uosmoqi au. ieA~ iotrv~I d.nt~o,~, s.q-I
~:00~; '6 JaqmaoaCI
JOlOeJlO
uo)! elePV
eo'uo'sllejede§e!u'll!o~uo~le :l!ecu-3
t,0t, z-ggg (906) :xe.4
~lg£-gg~ (906) :'ICJ.
eo'uo'sllelede~e!u'/q!o'Av, ua :ells q~
gX9 3~1 NO '$11ed e. m6e!N
£10~ xo~ 'O'd
lee~s ueenl3 01.£~'
OpOUD:::)
mODOlN
All::) eq.I.
I,L-gOOg-I:l lueu~md®(! #opueS i#unmmoo
December 9, 2002 - 2 - R-2002-74
2. Request for City Street Tree Removal at 6030 Carlton Street
The Environmental Planning and Greening Committee reviewed a request from Mr. A1 Norkett, for
the removal of a City street tree at 6030 Carlton Avenue, on City property. After investigation and site
inspection, it was recommended that the street tree at 6030 Carlton Avenue be removed.
The Environmental Planning & Greening Committee recommends that the street tree at 6030
Carlton Avenue be removed at the homeowner's expense. The homeowner is responsible to
work with City Staff for the removal and replacement of the street tree.
3. Request for Street Tree Removal north of the Millennium Clock on Dorchester Road
The Environmental Planning and Greening Committee reviewed a request for the removal of two to
three City trees located directly north of the Millennium Clock, on Dorchester Road, on City property.
After investigation and site inspection, the Committee recommended the following:
The Environmental Planning & Greening Committee recommends that one street tree, located
directly north of the Millennium Clock on Dorchester Road be removed and one tree be planted
on Morrison Street, west of Dorchester Road.
4. Beautification Updates:
The Environmental Planning and Greening Committee reviewed the following projects that are
currently underway.
a) Streetscape Master Plan Phase 2
Paula Berketo & Associates, Landscape Architect, has been hired by the City to extend the Streetscape
Master Plan into other areas of the City. Paula Berketo has met with the Steering Committee for the
project and completed her picture inventory.
b) Queen Street Beautification Project
Touchstone Site Contractors have been hired to complete the landscaping development around the
Queen Street gazebo and adjacent centre boulevard. Approximately 60% of the project is now
complete. A new retaining wall has been constructed near the gazebo which has been opened and
planting beds have been installed. Due to the weather, irrigation systems will be completed in the
Spring of 2003.
December 9, 2002 - 3 - R-2002-74
c) Thorold Stone Road and Stanley Avenue Beautification
The City has been working with thc Regional Municipality of Niagara and Polish Hall representatives
for improvements on this Regional Road allowance. Water service has been installed and trees will
be planted at this comer. Retaining walls, sprinkler irrigation system, paving and flower planting will
be completed in the Spring of 2003.
Council's endorsement of the above recommendations would be appreciated.
LA/das
Respectfully Submitted,
Alderman Selina Volpatti, Chair
Environmental Planning & Greening Committee
S:\Council\Council 2002~R-2002-74 -E.P.&G. November 20, 2002.wpd
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Clerk's Division
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 356-7404
diorfida@city, n iagarafalls, on. ca
CD-2002-22
Dean Iorfida
City Clerk
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
CD-2002-22
Appointments to Committees, Boards and Commissions for 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council vote on applicants to serve on various committees, boards and commissions.
BACKGROUND:
The terms for a number of appointees on various committees, boards and commissions conclude
with the calendar year; therefore, it is necessary for Council to make new appointments to the Arts
& Culture Commission, Greater Niagara Falls Transit Commission, Niagara Falls Board of
Museums, Niagara Falls Recreation Commission and the Property Standards Committee. All
appointments are for two years (2003 & 2004), with the exception of the Board of Museums and
Property Standards positions which are for three years (2003-2005).
Appointments will be done through secret ballot with those obtaining the highest number of votes
filling the available positions. In the event of a tie vote, where both or all cannot be appointed, a
secret ballot will be held amongst the names tied. Pre-printed ballots will be available to assist in
the process.
Finally, the appointment will be formally ratified by by-law at the first Council meeting of the new
year.
}Forking Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resoumes · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
- 2 - CD-2002-22
Arts and Culture Commission
Appointees required: seven (7)
Karen Akalu *
Anne Angelone #
Isabelle Bald *
Barbara Greenwood #
Winston Heron *
Ceri Hugill
Debbie Lamb
Deborah Legge*
Giarmi (John) Marinelli #
Miehale Pembleton #
Stoyan Penev
Diane Sharkey
Km'en Sirianni
Patti Walling, ton
Nancy Zimmerman
Niagara Falls Board of Museums
Appointees required: wee (3)
Elizabeth Allen
Robert Collier
Kevin Fisher
Marie Henry
Giarmi (John) Marinelli #
Anthony Sobie
Greater Niagara Transit Commission
Appointees required: two (2)
Vince Audibert
Jim Diodati Jr.
Anthony Di Giacomo *
Sam Iorfida
Wayne (Bart) Maves *
Gianni (John) Marinelli #
Lou Stranges
* = incumbent
# = has applied for appoinmaent to more than one committee etc.
- 3 - CD-2002-22
Property Standards Committee
Appointees required: one (1)
Anne Angelone
Gianni (John) Marinelli #
Tony Nielsen *
Tony Ricciuto
Niagara Falls Recreation Commission
Appointees required: three (3)
Arme Angelone #
Ken Eastman *
Wayne Gates *
Wayne Gilmore
Barbara Greenwood #
Nathan Hyde
John Kis
Richard Legare
Gianni (John) Marinelli #
Michael Pembleton #
John Robinson
Giacomo (Jack) Villella
Brad Worden
* = incumbent
# = has applied for appointment to more than one committee etc.
Recommended by:
City Clerk
Respectfully submitted:
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
The of
Niagara Falls 11~1~
Corporate Services Department
Clerk's Division
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city, niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-9083
E-mail: diorflda@city, niagarafalls.on.ca
CD-2002
Dean Iorfida
City Clerk
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario.
Members:
Re: CD-2002 -23 - Print Shop Equipment
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Council approve the proposal for the print shop equipment- colour photo copier to the low
bidder, Beatties Basics for a purchase price of $ 21,995.00 plus taxes.
BACKGROUND:
Proposals were received for a new copier for the print shop to enable the production of copies with
colour. This copier will produce copies for a cost of 10.6 cents in comparison to the cost 0£32 cents
per copy from existing laser printers. The expected savings over the period of the contract, will be
$64,200.00. Monies are available in the Clerks Department equipment budget to cover this expense.
A copy of the proposal results are attached to this report.
Prepared by:
Raymond Miller
Manager of Supply and Services
Recommended bY3.'
City Clerk
RIM:Iw
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda ~
Executive Director of Corporate Services
,~.Respectfully sub.mitted: !
//Chief Administrative Officer
Colour Photocopier Proposal #P69-02
SUMMARY OF PRICING (TAXES EXTRA)
PRICING BASED UPON FULL 5 YEARS (60 MONTHS) AND A TOTAL OF 300,000 COPIES
COMPANY COPIER
PURCHASE FINISHER SERVICE TONER
PRICE -COPIER PRICE
Beatties Basics
$ $ $ $
Canon IR C2058 21,995.00 included 27,600.00 included
Advanced Office Soulutions
Doering & Brown
Ricoh Image Communication
Xerox 2240 18,500.00 3,200.00 37,194.00 included
Minolta CF2001 17,365.00 2,537.00 42,000.00 included
Minolta CF2002 16,368.00 2,537.00 42,000.00 included
Minolta CF3102 18,848.00 2,537.00 42,000.00 included
Aficio AP3800CMF
TOTAL
JBM Office Systems
Aficio AP3800 CMF
$
49,595.00
Brock Office Automation
Workflow Innovation
Ikon Office Solutions
Konica 7920
Toshiba e-Studio 210C
Canon CLC3100-
58,894.00
61,902.00
60,905.00
63,385.OO
18,913.00 3,720.00 39,600.00 included 62,233.00
21,793.00 3,669.00 3,580.00 41,760.00'
70,802.00
* based on 20% coverage. All other quotes based upon 30% or higher coverage.
24,526.00 2,835.00 44,100.00 included 71,461.00
34,495.00 included 40,500.00 included 74,995.00
111,572.00 6,356.00 53,700.00 included 171,628.00
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Legal Services
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 371-2892
rkallio@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
December 9, 2002
L-2002-83
R. O. Kallio
City Solicitor
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re.'
L-2003-83
Establishment of a One Foot Reserve
As a Public Highway - Block 53 on Plan 59M-268
Our File No.: 2000-07
RECOMMENDATION:
That the one foot reserve described as Block 53 on Plan 59M-268 be established as a public highway
to form part of Spring Blossom Drive.
BACKGROUND:
Block 53 on Plan 59M-268, shown on the plan attached, is a one foot reserve conveyed to the City
at the time of registration of Orchard Grove Extension Subdivision for the purpose of controlling
access to adjacent lands. Now that development has been approved on the adjacent lands, staff
concurs that the one foot reserve is no longer required and can be established as a public highway
to permit legal access to the adjacent subdivision.
Prep/ar~J by: /
~Iedby:
"Ray Kalho~
City Solicitor
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
Respectfully submitted:
John MacDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Legal Services
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 371-2892
rkallio@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
December 9, 2002
L-2002-84
R. O. Kallio
City Solicitor
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re~
L-2002-84
Establishment of a Road Widening As a Public Highway
Part 1 on 59R-11879
Our File No.: 2002-520
RECOMMENDATION:
That a road widening, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 59R-11879, attached as Appendix "1", be
established as a public highway, to be known as and to form part of Kalar Road.
BACKGROUND:
As a condition of site plan approval, Hodgson Properties Inc. conveyed a road widening to the City.
The subject lands are located on the east side of Kalar Road and shown in heavy outline on the plan
attached. Staff is now recommending that the subject lands be dedicated as a public highway to form
part of Kalar Road.
d by:
City Solicitor
MM/lb
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
Respectfully submitted:
John MacDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
Working Together to Serve Our Community
C/erRs · Finance * Human Resources · /nformation Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
Spring Blossom ,Drive
64505-04.46
APPENDIX
\ / lI ~C1tl II
x~ I ~,~ .........
P~ ~ tOl 123
/ ~ '~ I~ T~SHIP ~ ST~F~D
r,f
i~,~11 ~. [ ' I' i~
,¢.,B~ ROe
~Y.~
~ P,~t~
(~) ~s-~
, , I I
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Corporate Services Department
Legal Services
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.:
Fax:
E-mail:
(905) 356-7521
(905) 371-2892
rkallio@city.niagarafalls .on .ca
L-2002-85
R. O. Kallio
City Solicitor
December 9, 2002
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
L-2002-85
Glengate Motel Site Plan Agreement
Our File No. 2002-147
RECOMMENDATION:
.That the Site Plan Agreement dated July 19, 2001 between 1331207 Ontario Inc. and The
Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls be registered on title, notwithstanding the numerous
outstanding mortgages and liens registered against the property.
BACKGROUND:
Site Plan approval for Glengate Motel, located at 5534 Stanley Avenue, was given by the Director
of Planning and Development on July 19, 2002, pursuant to by-law No. 2001-103, which delegates
authority to the Director of Planning and Development. All of the terms and conditions of site plan
approval were set out in the Site Plan Agreement, which Agreement was executed by 133 I207
Ontario Inc., the owner of the Glengate Motel.
However, there were outstanding mortgages on title which would take priority over the Site Plan
Agreement. The City's procedure requires the owner to obtain postponements of outstanding
mortgages so that our Site Plan Agreement will take priority over the mortgages. But the owner
never did obtain the postponements of the mortgages and the Site Plan Agreement has not yet been
registered against the title. In the meantime, a number of lien claimants have filed against the
property and construction was halted.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
December 9, 2002 - 2 - L-2002-85
This project is an eyesore and has been in this condition for at least two years. It is the Building
Department's recommendation that the project be allowed to continue and a Building Permit be
issued therefor. The City is holding $21,000.00 by way of a Letter of Credit to secure the works
required pursuant to the Site Plan Agreement. By permitting the owner to finish and complete the
building and site plan requirements, the building will no longer have a negative impact in that
neighbourhood.
By registering the Site Plan Agreement at this time with the prior mortgages and liens, there is a real
possibility that the Site Plan Agreement will be deleted fi.om the title should a mortgagee or lien
claimant sell the property. Should our Site Plan Agreement be deleted fi'om the title to the property,
then the new owner will not be bound by any of the terms and conditions set out in the Site Plan
Agreement affecting the Glengate Motel; items such as sidewalks, parking, lighting, fence, trees,
shrubs, landscaping, snow removal, ramps, driveways, garbage collection, storage facilities, storm
water, sanitary drainage and lot grading for storm water runoff, will no longer apply to the lands nor
will these terms and conditions be enforceable.
Staff is of the view that this is a risk that Council should consider so as to get this building finished
and completed.
/
i~ ~ by:
City Solicitor
Respectfully submitted:
John MacDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Council Chambers
No.
December 9, 2002
Moved by Alderman
Seconded by Alderman
RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls confirms
that the property known as Sam's Montrose Hotel, and situated at the southwest comer of Montrose
Road and Chippawa Creek Road, is to be excluded from the 100-metre setback requirement as it
applies to By-law No. 2002-201 as well as from the intent of the same separation distance policy as
outlined in Official Plan Amendment No. 45;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls
requests the Regional Municipality of Niagara to modify Official Plan Amendment No. 45 to specify
that the lands shown hatched on Schedule I to this resolution are not suitable for an adult
entertainment parlour or body-mb parlour as also specified in By-law No. 2002-201;.
AND THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council requests the Regional
Municipality of Niagara to modify Official Plan Amendment No. 45, to ensure compliance and/or
consistency between the Official Plan and By-law No. 2002-201.
And the seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed.
DEAN IORFIDA
CITY CLERK
WAYNE THOMSON
MAYOR
SCHEDULE 1
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT #45
Industrial Areas Not Permitting Adult Entertainment
Parlours & Body-Rub Parlours as Specified in the Official Plan
(After application of separation distances from
sensitive zones, lands uses and QEW Highway)
Applicant: City of Niagara Falls
S :~nin g~Bodymb'~ps'~lapping.aln'
60 0 60 120
Meters
Scale: 1:5,000
October 2002
The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
No,
Moved by Alderman
Seconded by Alderman
Council Chambers
December 9, 2002
RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls reaffirms
the passing of By-law No. 2002-202, a by-law to permit the construction of a 26-storey hotel at 5200
Robinson Street.
AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed.
DEAN IORFIDA
CITY CLERK
WAYNE THOMSON
MAYOR
The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Council Chambers
No.
Moved by Alderman
Seconded by Alderman
WHEREAS Section 44(1) of the Municipal Act 2001 states that the municipality that has
jurisdiction over a highway or bridge shall keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the
circumstances, including the character and location of the highway or bridge; and
WHEREAS Section 44(4) of the Municipal Act 2001 states the Minister of Transportation may
make regulations establishing minimum standards of repair for highways and bridges or any class
of them; and
WHEREAS Ontario Regulation 239/02 (Schedule 1), which sets minimum maintenance standards
for municipal highways, came into force on November 1, 2002.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls
adopts the minimum maintenance standards for municipal highways as prescribed in Ontario
Regulation 239/02.
AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed.
DEAN IORFIDA
CITY CLERK
WAYNE THOMSON
MAYOR
O. Reg. 238/02
THE ONTARIO GAZETTE / LA GAZETTE DE L'ONTARIO
O. Reg. 239/02
1069
ONTARIO REGULATION 239~02
made under the
MUNICIPAL ACT
Made: July 23, 2002
Filed: August 8, 2002
MINIMUM MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
FOR MUNICIPAL HIGHWAYS
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION
Definitions
I. ( I ) In this Regulation,
"cra' means centimetres~
"day" means a 24-hour period;
"motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in subsection I ( 1 ) of the
Highway Traffic Act, except lhat it does not include a motor
assisted bicycle;
"non-paved surface" means a surface that is not a paved surface;
491
1070
THE ONTARIO GAZETTE / LA GAZETTE DE L'ONTARIO
O. Reg. 239/02
"paved surface" means a surface with a wearing layer or layers of
asphalt, concrete or asphalt emulsion;
"roadway" has the same meaning as in subsection 1 (I) of the
Highway Traffic Act;
"shoulder" means the portion of a highway that provides lateral
support to Ihe roadway and that may accommodate stopped
molor vehicles and emergency use;
"sm'face" means the top of a roadway or shoulder.
(2) For the purposes of this Regulation, every highway or part of
a highway under the jurisdiction of a municipality in Ontario is
classified in the Table to this section as a Class I, Class 2, Class 3.
Class 4. Class 5 or Class 6 highway, based on the speed limit appli-
cable to it and the average annual daily traffic on it.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) and the Table to this sec-
tion, the average annual daily traffic on a highway or part of a
highway under municipal jurisdiction shall be determined,
(a) by counting and averaging the daily two-way traffic on the
highway or part of the highway for the previous calendar
year; or
(b) by estimating the average daily two-way traffic on the high-
way or part of the highway in accordance with accepted traf-
fic engineering methods.
TABLE
CLASSIFICATION OF HIGHWAYS
Average Annual Daily Traffic Posted or Statutory Speed Limit (kilometres per hour)
(number of motor vehicles) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40
15,000 or more I I I 2 2 2 2
12,000- 14,999 I I I 2 2 3 3
10,000 - 11,999 I I 2 2 3 3 3
8,000- 9,999 I I 2 3 3 3 3
6,000- 7,999 I 2 2 3 3 3 3
5,000 2 5,999 I 2 2 3 3 3 3
4,000- 4,999 I 2 3 3 3 3 4
3,000- 3,999 I 2 3 3 3 4 4
2,000- 2,999 I 2 3 3 4 4 4
1,000 - 1,999 I 3 3 3 4 4 5
500 - 999 I 3 4 4 4 4 5
200 - 499 I 3 4 4 5 5 5
50 - 199 I 3 4 5 5 5 5
0- 49 I 3 6 6 6 6 6
Application
2. (I) This Regulation sets out the minimum standards of repair
for highways under municipal jurisdiction for the purpose of subsec-
tion 284 (1.4) of the Act.
(2) The minimum standards of repair set out in this Regulalion
are applicable only in respect of motor vehicles using the highways.
(3) This Regulation does not apply to Class 6 highways.
MINIMUM STANDARDS
Routine patrolling
3. (1) The minimum standard for the frequency of routine
patrolling of highways is set out in the Table to this seclion.
492
O. Reg. 239/02
(2) Routine patrolling shall be carried out by driving on or by
electronically monitoring the highway to check for condilions
described in this Regulation.
(3) Routine patrolling is not required between sunset and sunrise.
TABLE
ROUTINE PATROLLING FREQUENCY
THE ONTARIO GAZETTE ! LA GAZETTE DE L'ONTARIO 1071
Class of Highway Patrolling Frequency
1 3 times every 7 days
2 2 times every 7 days
3 once every 7 days
4 once every 14 days
5 once every 30 days
Snow accumulation
4. (I) The minimum standard for clearing snow accumulation is,
(a) while the snow continues to accumulate, to deploy resources
to clear the snow as soon as practicable after becoming aware
of the fact that the snow accumulation on a roadway is
greater than the depth set out in the Table to this section; and
(b} after the snow accumulation has ended and after becoming
aware that the snow accumulation is greater than the depth
set out in the Table to this section, to clear the snow accumu-
lation in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) or subsec-
tions (2) and (4), as the case may be, within the time set out
in the Table.
(2) The snow accumulation must be cleared to a depth less than
or equal to the depth set out in the Table.
(3) The snow accumulation must be cleared from the roadway to
within a distance of 0.6 metres inside the outer edges of the road-
way.
(4} Despite subsection (3), for a Class 4 highway with two lanes
or a Class 5 highway with two lanes, the snow accumulation on the
roadway must be cleared to a width of at least 5 metres.
(5) This section,
(a) does not apply to that portion of the roadway designated for
parking; and
(b) only applies to a municipality during the season when the
municipality performs winter highway maintenance.
(6) In this section,
"snow accumulation'~ means the natural accumulation of new fallen
snOw or wind-blown snow that covers more than half a lane
width of a roadway.
TABLE
SNOW ACCUMULATION
Class of Highway Depth Time
I 2.5 cm 4 hours
2 5 cm 6 hours
3 8 cm 12 hours
4 8 cm 16 hours
5 I 0 cm 24 hours
Icy roadways
5. ( I ) The minimum standard for treating icy roadways is,
(a} to deploy resources to treat an icy roadway as soon as practi-
cable after becoming aware that the roadway is icy; and
(b) to treat the icy roadway within the time set out in the Table to
this section after becoming aware that the roadway is icy.
(2) This section only applies to a municipality during the season
when the municipality performs winter highway maintenance.
TABLE
ICY ROADWAYS
Class of Highway Time
I 3 hours
2 4 hours
3 8 hours
4 12 hours
5 16 hours
Potholes
6. (1) If a pothole exceeds both the surface area and depth set
out in Table I, 2 or 3 to this section, as the case may be, the mini-
mum standard is to repair the pothole within the time set out in
Table I, 2 or 3, as appropriate, after becoming aware of the fact.
(2) A pothole shall be deemed to be repaired if its surface area or
depth is less than or equal to that set out in Table I, 2 or 3, as appro-
priate.
TABLE I
POTHOLES ON PAVED SURFACE OF ROADWAY
Class of Surface Area Depth Time
Highway
I 600 cma 8 cm 4 days
2 800 cma 8 cm 4 days
3 1000 cm2 8 cm 7 days
4 1000 cma 8 cm 14 days
5 1000 cm~ 8 cm 30 days
TABLE 2
POTHOLES ON NON-PAVED SURFACE OF ROADWAY
Class of Surface Area Depth Time
Highway
3 1500 cm2 8 cm 7 days
4 1500 cma 10 cm 14 days
5 1500 cm2 12 cm 30 days
TABLE 3
POTHOLES ON PAVED OR NON-PAVED SURFACE
OF SHOULDER
Class of Surface Area Depth Time
Highway
I 1500 cma 8 cm 7 days
2 1500 cma 8 cm 7 days
3 1500 cm~ 8 cm 14 days
4 1500 cma l0 cm 30 days
5 1500 cma 12 cm 60 days
493
1072
THE ONTARIO GAZETTE / LA GAZETTE DE L'ONTARIO
O. Reg. 239/02
Shoulder drop-offs
7. ( I ) If a shoulder drop-off is deeper, for a continuous distance
of 20 metres or more, than the depth set out in the Table to this
section, thc minimuni standard is to repair the shoulder drop-off
within the time set out in the Table after becoming aware of the fact.
(2) A shoulder drop-off shall be deemed to be repaired if its
depth is less than or equal to Ihat set out in the Table.
(3) [n this section,
"shoulder drop-off" means the verlical differential, where the paved
surface of the roadway is higher than thc surface of thc shoulder.
between the paved surface of the roadway and the paved or non-
paved surface of thc shoulder.
TABLE
SHOULDER DROP-OFFS
Class of Highway Depth Time
1 8 cm 4 days
2 8 cm 4 days
3 8 cm 7 days
4 8 cm 14 days
5 8 cm 30 days
Cracks
8. (I) Ifa crack on the paved surface ora roadway is greater, for
a continuous distance of three metres or more, than both the width
and d~pth set out in the Table to this section, the minimum standard
is to repair the crack within the time set out in the Table after
becoming aware of the fact.
(2) A crack shall be deemed to be repaired if its width or depth is
less than or equal to that set out in the Table.
TABLE
-- .. CRACKS
Class of
Width Depth Time
Highway
I 5 cm 5 cm 30 days
2 5 cm 5 cm 30 days
3 5 cm 5 cm 60 days
4 5 cm 5 cm 180 days
5 5 cm 5 cm 180 days
Debris
9. (1) if there is debris on a roadway, thc minimum standard is
to d~loy resources, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of
Ihe fact, to remove the debris.
(2) In this section,
"debris" means any material or object on a roadwaY,
la) thai is not an integral part of the roadway or has not been
intentionally placed on the roadway by a municipality, and
(b) that is reasonably likely to cause damage to a motor vehicle
or to injure a person in a motor vehicle.
Luminaires
I0. (1) For conventional illumination, if three or more consecu-
tive luminaires on a highway are not functioning, thc minimum
standard is to repair the luminaires within the time set out in the
Table to this section after becoming aware of the fact.
(2) For conventional illumination and high mast illumination, if
30 per cent or more of the luminaires on any kilometre of highway
are not functioning, the minimum standard is to repair the lumi-
naires within the time set out in the Table to this section after
becoming aware of the fact.
(3) Despite subsection (2), for high mast illumination, if all of
the luminaires on consecutive poles are not functioning, the mini-
mum standard is to deploy resources as soon as practicable after
becoming aware of Ihe fact to repair the [uminaires.
(4} Despite subsections (I), (2) and (3), for conventional illumi-
nation and high mast illumination, if more than 50 per cent of the
luminaires on any kilometre ora Class I highway wilh a speed limit
of 90 kilometres per hour or more are not functioning, the minimum
standard is to deploy resources as soon as praclicable after becom-
ing aware of the fact to repair the luminaires.
(5) Luminaites shall be deemed to be repaired,
la) for the purpose of subsection (1), if the number of non-
functioning consecutive luminaires does not exceed two;
lb) for the purpose of subsection (2), if more than 70 per cent of
luminaires on any kilometre of highway are functioning;
{c) for the purpose of subsection (3), if one or more of the lumi-
naires on consecutive poles are functioning;
{d) for the purpose of subsection (4}, if more than 50 per cent of
luminaires on any kilometre of highway are functioning.
(6) Subsections ( 1 ), (2) and (3) only apply to,
la) Class I and Class 2 highways; and
(b) Class 3, Class 4 and Class 5 highways with a posted speed of
80 kilometres per hour or more.
(7) in this section.
"conventional illumination" means lighting, other than high mast
illumination, where there are one or more luminaires per pole;
"high mast illumination" means lighting where there are thr~e or
more luminaires per pole and the height of the pole exceeds 20
metres;
"luminaire' means a complete lighting unit consisting oL
{a) a lamp, and
lb) parts designed to distribute the light, to position or protect the
lamp and to connect the lamp to the power supply.
TABLE
LUMINAIRES
Class of Highway Time
1 7 days
2 7 days
3 14 days
4 14 days
5 14 days
Signs
11. (I) if any sign of a type listed in subsection (2) is illegible.
improperly oriented or missing, the minimum standard is to deploy
resources as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the fact Io
repair or replace the sign.
(2) This section applies to the following types of signs:
494
O. Reg. 239/02 THE ONTARIO GAZETTE / LA GAZETTE DE L'ONTARIO 1073
I Checkerboard. 4~ There are phase or cycle timing errors interfering with the
· ability of a pedestrian or vehicle to safely travel through an
2. Curve sign with advisory speed tab.
3. Do not enter.
4 One Way.
5. School Zone Speed Limit.
6. Stop.
7. Stop Ahead.
8. Stop Ahead, New.
9. Traffic Signal Ahead, New.
10. Two-Way Traffic Ahead.
I 1. Wrong Way.
12. Yield.
13. Yield Ahead.
14. Yield Ahead, New.
Regulatory or warning signs
12. (l) Ifa regulatory or warning sign other than a sign listed in
subsection II (2) is illegible, improperly oriented or missing, the
minimum standard is to repair or replace the sign within the time set
out in the Table to this section after becoming aware of the fact.
(2) In this section,
"regulatory sign" has the same meaning as in the Manual of Uni-
form Traffic Control Devices published in 1985 by the Ministry
of Transportation;
"warning sign" has the same meaning as in the Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices published in 1985 by the Ministry of
Transportation.
TABLE
REGULATORY AND WARNING SIGNS
Class of Highway Time
1 7 days
2 14 days
3 21 days
4 30 days
5 30 days
Traffic control signal systems
13, (I) If a traffic control signal system is defective in any way
described in subsection (2), the minimum standard is to deploy
resources as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the defect
to repair the defect or replace the defective component of the traffic
control signal system.
(2) This section applies ifa traffic controt signal system is defec-
tive in any of the following ways.
I. One or more displays show conflicting signal indications.
2. The angle of a traffic control signal or pedestrian control
indication has been changed in such a way that the traffic or
pedestrian facing it does not have clear visibility of the
information conveyed or that il conveys confusing
information to traffic or pedestrians facing other directions.
3. A phase required to allow a pedestrian or vehicle to safely
Iravel through an interseclion fails to occur.
intersection.
5, There is a power failure in the traffic control signal system.
6. The traffic control sigmal system cabinet has been displaced
from its proper position,
7~ There is a failure of any of the traffic control signal supporl
structures.
8. A signal lamp or a pedestrian control indication is not func-
tioning.
9. Signals are flashing when flashing mode is not a part of the
normal signal operation.
(3) Despite subsection {1} and paragraph 8 of subsection (2), if
the posted speed of all approaches lo the intersection or location of
the non-functioning signal lamp or pedestrian control indication is
less than 80 kilometres per hour and the signal that is not function-
ing is a green or a pedestrian "walk" signal, the minimum standard
is to repair or replace the defective component by the end of the next
business day.
(4) In this section and section 14,
"cycle" means a complete sequence of traffic control indications at a
location;
"display" means the illuminated and non-illuminated signals facing
the traffic;
"indication" has the same meaning as in the Highway Traffic Act;
"phase" means a part of a cycle from the time where one or more
traffic directions receive a green indication to the time where one
or more different traffic directions receive a green indication;
"power failure" means a reduction in power or a loss in power
preventing the traffic control signal system from operating as
intended;
"traffic control signal" has the same meaning as in the Highway
Traffic Act;
"traffic control signal system" has the same meaning as in the
Highway Traffic Act;
Traffic control signal system sub-systems
14. (I) The minimum standard is to inspect, test and maintain
the following traffic control signal system sub-systems every 12
months:
I. The display sub-system, consisting of traffic signal and
pedestrian crossing heads, physical support structures and
support cables.
2. The traffic control sub-system, including the traffic control
signal cabinet and internal d~evices such as timer, detection
devices and associated hardware, but excluding conflict
monitors.
3. The external detection sub-system, consisting of detection
sensors for all vehicles, including emergency and railway
vehicles and pedestrian push- buttons.
(2) The minimum standard is to inspect, test and maintain con-
flict monitors every five to seven months and at least twice a year.
(3) In this section,
"conflict monitor" means a device that continually checks for con-
flicting signal indications and responds to a conflict by emitting a
signal.
495
December 3, 2002
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The Regional Municipality of_Niagara
3550 Schmon Parkway, P.O. Box 1042
Thorold, Ontario L2V 4T7
Telephone: (905) 984-3830
Fax: (905) 641-5208
E-mail: plan@regional.niagara.on.ca
Planning
File: D.10.M.11.23
Doug Darbyson, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning and Development
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
Dear Mr. Darbyson:
RE:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application
6161 Thorold Stone Road (Regional Road 57),
East of Portage Road
820872 Ontaflo Ltd.
City of Niagara Falls
Your File: AM-4112002
This application proposes to amend the zoning by-law to a site specific General Commercial
(GC) zone to permit the development of a 20,400 square foot addition to the existing Thorold
Stone Mall and a 4,750 square foot, 126 seat free-standing restaurant.
These lands are within the Niagara Falls Urban Area Boundary according to the Regional Policy
Plan and appear to be designated Major Commercial in the City's Official Plan. An adequate
buffer (i.e. fencing and landscaping) should be provided along the property boundary adjacent
to existing residential uses to minimize potential land use conflicts. The City should ensure that
the parking layout is designed for safe and convenient internal traffic circulation. A planted
landscape strip along the frontage would be desirable to improve the streetscape. Regional
Public Works staff has advised that they will provide detailed comments that should be regarded
when the necessary site plan agreement is processed.
in this regard Regional Planning staff would not be opposed to the approval of the proposed
zoning by-law amendment from either a Regional or Provincial planning perspective.
Please send notice of City Council's decision on this application
Yours truly,
Director of Planning Services
C: Bill Stevens, Regional Public Works
M:\MSWORD\PC\NFzbla\6161 ThoroldStone.doc
RECEIVED
DEC 0 5 2002
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT ,
1074 O. Reg. 239/02 THE ONTARIO GAZETTE / LA GAZETTE DE L'ONTARIO
Bridle deck spalls
15. (1) Ifa bridge deck spall exceeds both lhc surface area and
depth set out in thc Table Io this section, thc minimum standard is to
repair thc bridge deck spall within thc time set out in thc Table after
becoming aware of thc fact.
(2) A bridge deck spal[ shall bc deemed to be repaired if its sur-
face arca or depth is less than or equal to that set out in the Table.
(3) In this scction,
"brid~e deck spall" means a cavity left by onc or more fragments
detaching from the paved surface of thc roadway or shoulder of a
bridge.
TABLE
BRIDGE DECK SPALLS
Class of
Surface Area l~th Time
Highway
I 600 cm2 8 cm 4 days
2 800 cm2 8 cm 4 days
3 1,000 cm2 8 cm 7 days
4 1,000 cm2 8 cm 7 days
5 1,000 cm~ 8 cm 7 days
Sur face.discontinuities
16. (I) If a surface discontinuity, other than a surface disconti-
nuity on a bridge deck, exceeds the height set out in the Table to this
sectima, the minimum standard is to repair the surface discontinuity
within the time set out in the Table after becoming aware of the fact.
(2) Ifa surface discontinuity ona bridge deck exceeds 5 cra, the
minimum standard is to deploy reso~ces as soon as practicable after
becoming aware of the fact to repair the surface discontinuity on the
bridge deck.
(3) In this section,
"surface discontinuity" means a vertical discontinuity creating a step
formation at joints or cracks in the paved surface of the roadway,
including bridge deck joints, expansion joints and approach slabs
to a bridge.
TABLE
SURFACE DISCONTINUITIES
Class of Highway Height Time
I 5 cm 2 days
2 5 cm 2 days
3 5 cm 7 days
4 5 cm 21 days
5 5 cm 21 days
REVIEW OF REGULATION
Review
17. (1) The Minister of Transportation shall conduct a review of
this Regulation every five years.
(2) The first review shall he startod before the end of 2007.
COMMENCEMENT
Commencement
18. This Regulation comes into force on November I, 2002.
NORMAN W. STERLING
Minister of Transportation
Dated on July 23, 2002.
34/02