2000/10/16COMMUNITYSERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA.
,BARBARA .MUIR'
Thirteenth MEETING
Monday, October 16, 2000
From 4:45 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
City Hall, Committee Room #2A & B
1)
Mr. David Rosa - 7020 Harriman Street, Niagara Falls
Re: Walkway between Brian Crescent and Harriman Street
3) REPORTS:
MW-2000-104 - Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan
Final Report (September 2000)
PD-2000-116 - Warran Creek Watershed Provincially
Significant Wetlands
MW-2000-122 - Cost Sharing for the Retention of Consulting
Services for the Engineera Report for Water
Works
BBS-2000-12 - Wording Change to Sign By-Law
No. 6661 as amended by By-Lay No. 95-254
R-2000-69 - Armoury Acquisition Proposal
4) COMMUNICATION ITEMS:
Staff Contact:
Approval of the 2000 10 02 Community Services Committee Minutes
DEPUTATION:
Ed Dujlovic
D. Darbyson
Ed Dujlovic
Sue Wheeler
Adele Kon
5) NEW BUSINESS:
Alderman Norm Puttick has requested that the following be added to the Community Services
Committee Meeting Agenda - Landfill Tipping Fees
6) ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2000,
CITY HALL, ROOM 2 AT 6:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
Chairperson Victor Pietrangelo, Mayor Wayne Thomson, Alderman Wayne
Campbell; Aldem-aan Kim Craitor; Alderman Ken Feren; Alderman Shirley
Fisher; Aldenrtan Carolynn Ioannoni; AIdere-ran Ed Michalczyk; Alderman Judy
Orr; Alderman Paisley Janvary-Pool; Alderman Norm Puttick; Alderman Selina
Volpatti, Alderman Janice Wing.
John MacDonald, Ed Dujlovic, Adele Kon, Lee Smith, Woody Wagg, Tony
Ravenda, Ken Burden, Barb Muir (Recording Secretary)
GUESTS: Mr. Ted Salei, Roxanne Felice (Project Share); Maple Street Area Residents
PRESS: Mr. Corey Larocque - Niagara Fails Review, Mr. Bob McGregor - CHRE Radio
1) MINUTES
IT WAS MOVED BY Alderman Craitor, seconded by Alderman Feren, that the Minutes of
the September 25, 2000 Community Services Committee Meeting be approved
MOTION: Carried
ACTION: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 02.
2) DEPUTATION:
R-2000-67 - Use of Maple Street School by Project Share - (Residents have requested to
speak on the matter)
Mr. Ted Salci, who was in attendance on behaif of Project Share, discussed Project Share' s
interest in the property and of the proposed utilization of the facility; he indicated that Project
Share had not been aware of the concerns of the area residents in housing Project Share in the
facility and would like an opportunity to meet with the residents to address their concerns.
He advised that there would be no night activity at the facility nor would there be a great influx
of traffic in the area; he stated that using this facility would be ideal in serving the public. He
requested that Council consider leaving the gym and library portion of the building in place and
that Project Share would be willing to meet with the neighbouring residents to address their
ConCerns.
-2-
Alderman Volpatti suggested that the matter be deferred in order that a meeting be held with the
area residents and that Mayor Thomson chair the meeting.
Aldermen Campbell, Orr and Puttick expressed their opposition to the holding of a meeting.
Mayor Thomson indicated that if the neighbours were opposed to the proposal, they should be
given the oppommity to speak to the matter; and he also suggested that a meeting be called with
the concemed neighhours with a response back to Council to see where this was going.
Alderman Fisher commented that she would like to attend the neighbourhood meeting.
ORDERED on the motion of Aldem,an Volpatti, seconded by Alderman Michalczyk, that the
matter be deferred in order to hold a meeting with the concerned neighbours. The motion was
Defeated.
Alderman Craitor advised that there was the possibility of amalgamating several organizations
and providing an opportunity for those organizations to be located in one central location and he
was of the opinion that this issue should be considered.
Alderman Puttick enquired whether it was presumed that this matter would be going through and
whether a public meeting would be held on the assumption that this would go ahead and he
suggested that the matter be discussed in open Council.
Aidcretan Ioannoni requested clarification with respect to the time constraints of the proposal.
Mr. Salei responded that it would be two weeks before the next Council meeting and that the
concerns of the area residents needed to be addressed; he also referred to the imminent closing
of the landfill site and stated that demolition of the building was ready to begin.
IT WAS MOVED BY Alderman Campbell, seconded by Alderman Orr, that the matter be
moved to Open Council for further discussion. The motion Carded with Aldermen
Volpatti and Michalezyk voting contrary to the motion.
ACTION: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 02
3) REPORTS
BBS-2000-11 - Sign By-law Variance, Thorold Stone Road.
Alderman Craitor referred to the placement of the proposed sign and enquired if staff had
checked with the next door neighbeur whether the sign would be blocking his sign.
-3-
Mr. John MacDonald provided clarification with respect to notification of the neighbouring
businesses.
IT WAS MOVED BY Alderman Volpatti, seconded by Alderman Campbell, that the
variance for a ground sign having an area of forty-eight square feet with a three foot side
yard set back for Murphy's Music at 6011 Thorold Stone Road, be approved and further
that the next door neighbour be notified.
MOTION: Carried
CONFLICT: Alderman Feren
ACTION: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 02.
4) COMMUNICATION ITEM
The Niagara Parks Commission Request To Extend the Fireworks Program for Friday,
October 6, 2000 at 10:00 p.m.
IT WAS MOVED BY Alderman Feren, seconded by Mayor Thomson, that the Niagara
Parks Commission's request to extend the fireworks program for Friday, October 6, 2000
be granted.
MOTION: Carried
ACTION: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 02.
5) NEW BUSINESS
Alderman Craltor addressed the Committee and expressed concerns regarding the
installation of a new water meter at a residence and of the subsequent damage caused to several
appliances in the home. He stated that upOn contacting the City, staff had been under the
impression that the matter had been resolved. He requested that the matter be looked into and
that the resident be assisted until the insurance came through.
Ed Dujlovic advised that the problem seemed to be one of settlement with the resident.
Alderman Michalczyk enquired whether this could place the City in a legal predicament and he
was advised by Ed Lustig that it very well could.
IT WAS MOVED BY Alderman Craitor, seconded by Alderman Michaiczyk, that staff be
requested to expedite this matter.
MOTION:
ACTION:
-4-
Carried
Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 02.
6) ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned, moved by Alderman Pietrangelo, seconded by Alderman Craitor
at 6:55 p.m.
Community Services Department
Municipal Works
4310 Queen Street
P.O, Box,1023
Niagara Paris, ON L2.E 6X5
web site: www.c'~.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax:. (905) 356-2354
E-mail: edujlovi@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng.
Director
MW-2000-104
September 25, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members: :~
Re: MW-2000-104 - Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan
Final Report (September 2000)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan - Final Report (2000) be received
and the conclusions therein be adopted by the City of Niagara Falls.
REPORT:
The Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan is a technical resource document that was developed over
a six year period and intended to coordinate the orderly development of vacant land in the Gumer
Neighbourhood with the preservation of natural resources within the watershed..
The study pr6~ess and methodology is described in the attached Executive Summary (see attachment
# 1 ) which also includes on overview of the hydrologic and terrestrial features that were incorporated
into the final plan. The study area involved a number of private properties and as a result four (4)
Public Meetings were held in order to allow for public participation.
The process also included a number of meetings with individual property owners to discnss
redevelopment on their land given some of the storm water management objectives and
environmental protection areas identified in the Watershed Master Plan.
While some property owners are still uncertain of the conclusions outlined in the Warren Creek
Watershad Master Plan (see attachment #2) were properly derived, Municipal WorEs and Planning
staff are contident that the study methodology has been fairly and properly conducted.
The purpose of this report is to present the conclusions and recommendations to City Council for
their review and endorsement. Once the Council has done so, a notice of Study Completion will be
advertised and a thirty (30) day appeal period commenced. All appeals will be directed to the
Minister of the Environment for a final decision.
2000-09-25 -2 - MW-2000-104
The Warren ~2reek Watershed Master Plan provides the City with a comprehensive strategy for the
developnfera-ofthe Garner Neighbourhood while protecting the unique hydrologic and terrestrial
features of this part of our community.
Your favourable consideration of the staff recommendation.
Pr~jared ~~ ~
G. Holman
Manager of Development
Director of Municipal Works
r°vedC~ m~
Executive Director of Community Services
Respectfully Submitted by:
Edward LmfigL~,//~ ~
Chief Adminislrive Officer
GH:mt
Municipal Works ·
Worhing Together to Serve Our Coramunity
Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture ·
Business Development
'WARREN CREEK MASTER WATERSnY, D STUDY
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS-
PROCESS- BACKGROUND
. '... Tho~,Warren Cree~.!Mast~.,WatershedStudy w~s initiated by the City of Niagara Falls to assist
.:::: ~ i'.,..~!:l~blioglnforni~n'l~eefinl~iwasdield~,Mm~h: 2; 1994 to.introduce the Public to various
": .- .' ..reso..ure~..jssuesin~the<studyiarea:~:In:the'.intel'venlng period,. the Cityinitiated a concurrent land
·: · ... 19.9,7~a-~:~lie:.Inform/raon. Meeting van held which x%4ntroduced the Public to the area' s . ' ·
C..am~, .where W...arren. Creek ulflmnt~ly ai~hnrgeS...Currently, most of the drainago. area is~Ufid~r'.! "- ~:
agricultural or. other, open space Isnd usage.., ~ minor mount of exis6nS development::~'-!',7.: ..,:i :+:,-,'.-:.:-
--alongMOLeodRoadnearK~!m'Road(ref. Figure 1):'-. - . .' "
"The Garner/4eighbourhood does not enoompass the whole watershed, rather .its boundaries are
. .KMar Road-to the east, Ontario Hych-o Corridor to the south, Garner Road to the west and
Lundy's Lane. to flae north. The. Seoona_~ryPlan. area constitutes some 238 ha +/-.
** .
March 2000 ..
Executive Summary - 001,
BASELIN~._; rNVENTORY OF WATERSFF~,D' RESOURCES
A comprehensive-base!ioe inventory was completed as part of the Master Watershed Stu.dy for
each of the following disciplines and areas of concern:
(i)
· (iv)
Water ResOurces - Flooding and Erosion
"Slope'Stability
Hydrogeology - ·
Stream Habitat and Fish .-e, ommnnities
.. Terrestrial Biology ~- Vegetation.and Wild!ire
--~i,~-:.,i.:~' :::? !~ .:,,.~:.~po0.rly~-ed'. creek and-~oodplai~ upstream:of Kalar Road; downstream of Ks!at Road to
:...:... .: Hydro:power. Csn,1;:. valley. definition becomes more pronouneed~with stable slopes
throughout, .mar~nnl ins~_ghility downstream of Q.B.W.
... allwatercourses have mild gradi,'ent~,generally exhibiting low ~w velOCities with llmlted · erosion concerns
-- :. ~i.eS~h ~m. ~ P,o,d.to:q~,W..i, co~id~,i ,val~ ~o~ Compon~t ·
~ due to its terrestrial and aquatic featu~
.. thes~i~.`ixa~turewi~hinthewa~rshed.(c~a~P~in)tendstohave~owpermeabi~ity~as~aresu~t
.
· flooded grassed areas througl/the. :.VEC are considered to be suitable spawning and nursery
habitat; no.fish have been observed/sampled upstream of Montrose Road' ' '
" · "wet ~orests,.'. and. m~_,~h! (subsequen~y-. evaluated as :a .Provincially:.Sionificant Weftand
~,~-~,:, :,;: ::*.,.,:.. sey~,~,[.~..:,.~~~0~i~~gi~baSis"'~'~'
· L-.:Li::' '..: ."- ~~Li/l:V. Li,:~;~b~'i~a~i~fi'ed~;th,.t~ 'are'~o~n~id"~"rei~i6'4~.ny' ~":.
March 2000 2
Executive Sununary - 001
IMPACT-,ASSESSMENT: LAND .USE CHANGES
The Second_~ry Plan for the Garner Neighbourhood established a land use plan which reflected
the constraints and issues identified in the baseline inventory of watershed resources, This
proposed land use plan~ along with the. Official Plan designations outside of the Secondary Plan
· - .w~ used to determine potential impacts on ~oodln~ .erosloP, stresDl stability and storm.water
..'~ qnaHW, A watersh~cl modelling procedure was employed, whereby existing'laud uso runoff.
-response to .rainfall was compared with the response duo-to the proposed Second~ry Plan land
us~.,:.In short, peak flows, runoffvolumes, duration ofhighfiows and co~tsm]nnnt loading would
: ~; . ..all~. increase.without effective mauagement, .: ....~ ._~..I! .. · ...: .-:. ·
:... :.~......! , .,~. :., . ~ . ....,~-.~ :~; i.~...~.'~*?~-: .. !:.:...
.~.~ :::.:~.1 .:,*..-stakehold~;-s and the .Public, three primnry' stormw~t__~:management' strategies evolved as
follows:
· -. ~.
...... ~'.~,l~' . ~:' *l'~"~',l;l~/'::~i ,I, ,~ ~I~,,~: ~' ~" *I'!~ ".".
Msmement (Roea).Mmmgeme~t
- b~secng~yof
ca,~ormmdo,,i~s__as~o_(1.~post~)now.
s' . ln~'mnmcasmes(downntnmofr, alarl~__~,~J,_su~as
-kx~dendmpn~x~u'wods(bioen~nm~-inom~as
March~ 2000
Executive Summary - 001
· Locnl flOOd ,and stream impacts would be addressed through in-stream measures such as:
· Increasing oulvert oapacity
· Providing larger watercourse capacity for uncontrolled (i.e. future land use) 100 ycar
flows
· Erosion p. roteotion Coio~ntrineering and armouting) ~
" - In effect, the 'stream forming' flowre, me wouldbe controlled as opposed to the stresmbed and
bank; there wbuld be no lastresin erosi?n protectionworks proposed."
Local flood impaots under this stringy Would b~ addnmed through in-stre, m mitigation such as:
· hcm,cming oulve~t ¢apaoity
· prOvidlngla~go~wateroou~oe~lpaoi~forunoontrolled(i.e. ftm~landuso)lOO.yearc'-
· ' flows :
Two sub-alte~'nnfives we~ b~ considel~l for. Stringy 2 with respect to the sheam-co~twl :'-
sto~e:
A. Proyide on-sitoerosion/stream control. storage
: :....,; ~: .n. ,.:. Provido ..c~_~.-~d ,,~siOn/sU~"~::~n, trul.storaSo~
, . . ~ · ;: ,..
" withl, on-site measures.(0rend-of-pipefacilities).located within each'deVfiol~me~bi~Cl~Tlie'' ;~' :':'"
· rationals for thi., altemafiv~ is, to control ,.streamfor,.i-s
-mlnlm!~ing the need for replacement and/or oversl~ing of culverts and watercoinse:cl~nn~slS}"
The .sub-al.te!na~ves for Strategy 3 are similar .to. Strategy 2 in that flood and erosion stream
control storage may be provided in centralized or di~izlbuted facilities.
March 2000
ExecutiVe Summary- 001
ASSESSMENT OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Each Stormwater Management Strategy was crafted to meet the established targets for flood,
erosion and water quality control. Each strategy was subsequcnfiy assessed based on overall
performance related to:
· Economics :=~ Capital ~ost
=:, Maintenance Cost
=:, Land Cost
· Physical RnVir0nment
:~ Hydrogeology and Soils
~ Terre~hlal
PREFERRED SOLUTION
Based On the results .of -tho assessment process and consultation involving the Project Steering
Commlttoo, exte!~gJ a~ellcie$ ~ ganera] PBb]ia, S~l*atogy 2B has been recommended as. the
prefeffed solution for the management of stormwater and ollvironmental Systemg in thO Warren
Creek watershed. ,'
Strateg3~ 2B involves the following:
(i) Sto~inwater QuatiO~ Management:
Stormwater is to be ~eated in centr~ll~,-d ~eighbourhoodfacill~es as shown on Figure 2..':-: '
The Central-East development area due, .to the dependence of the wet woodlot/wetland system.~ '. · ':
on trenJ__~t Stoxm~ter, and. general lack of grnfiAent, should consider a semi-urban drainage
System for-ro~ways which will drn~n to the wet woodloB,
Deficient culverts and channel ~OOdplln' ~n are proposed to be increased in' size tO be~.'v '~:
compatible with future hind use 'uncontrolled flows. '
Ott) Erosion/Stream Managemere:
Potential fis.h b.bitat is conSidered to be limited tO the,reach downstream of Kalax Road. The
portion of the watercome Future land use flow impacts 'on this reach are proposed tO
mitigated through 'in-stream' storage for frequent stoxm events, in the reach between Kahr Road.'
and McLeod Road. This reach is proposed to be coma. tacked compatible with future uncontrolled:
runoff from adjacent and upstmtm development. using natural channel design stabilffycritefia~
March 2000 5 Executive Summary - 001
City of Nia~ra Fnll,~
Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan
Wetland Evahmtlon Fl~rllngs & EIS Rexp~Irements.
Apra 2000
Inn~!ucfion-
~7~L~SP undawen" ptdtx~d.~.lZO m.of we~,a, clezem,aned to be Ptoi, ind~ Slgnitlcant~ or
tPubrtc teview in 1997, and was apptoved by Cit,/Cotmeil ln Oetolaer 1997.
. !
specific Environm~xtal ]f..mpact $_n_wll_~_ m be ~ m lxart Of dmiled devd.~t ptx3posals. :
'The WMP ditermined that mo~t of the wetlands ate reliant on the micro-catchments around the low-lying,
seasonal to permanent pools in the wet forest. The WMP stu~ did not identify groundwater influences to the
surface water regime at.the overall watershed scale; however, locabscale linkage is a possibility. Biologically, the
slough forest systems .are highly diverse, containing species t~cal of wetland and upland habitats over short
distance, Vegetation forms include floating species (such as du~weed), emergent plants, hea~oaceous
groundflora, shrubs, and tree~. Pin Oak, a species considen~d rar~ in Canada. is prevalent in all of the forested
wethnds. Tul~.lo (a rare tre~ sl~q___'~) and Roundleaf Greenbriar (a rate shnab slyties) are haftorally tar~ species
found in the western half of the watershed.
· The slough wetlm~d~
a~ !_~__ ~ than th~ ~t h~st habitats, and'm associa~l ~th remnant forest cover along the bet~o.
d~ned seelions of th~ cree__k' valley. Water Staxwo~ an aquatic plant considered tat~ in th~ Region, occurs in
the floodplain of Wa~e~ Creek. A warmwate~ ~hety was identit~ed in the Creek during the watershed study.
Envkotmmntal Impact Study Requirem~ls'
;.
,.
, waterquantitYand~m!Ityoflocalmicro-cat~hn~-nt~feedingthesloughforestwetlands;
· quality biological and ph~_'~! r'-~xuees (Le, fine soils and.mlcro-R~raphy) witl-~n abe, slough
· ~wcharacteristicsandwaterq~`~i~/s~ongtheva~eyofWammC~eekdowmtreamofKa~arR~ad
App,¢_~tions. for devdopm_,~tof lands located, more than 120 ,~ettes from the ic~.a_M bour~ary of
wefla~d.~ c. sn be processed without an. EIS;.,~ ~_~m located:between 50 m to .12o m
Proposed develolmatmts located less ,th,,, 50 m:tm the wetlnnd boun'cl_~y may be required to
complete a full site EIS ff th~ Wlz and extent d deve!cgm~ will result in site alteration of a scale and
degree such that a scoped F. IS is .deemed inadequate.This includes more -de_m_iled 8thdy of potentlnl
impacts to. ~ draknage, water q,_ality, groundwater, and adjo'ming habitat which may affect the'
weftand. ·
The scoped or full site HIS .must include a Mitigation Plan to offset any identified impacts .to the
wedands, A MQni,t0ting Planis required for developments locatedwithin 50 ra of a wetlyrid,
4
OF CITY COUNCIl.
JUN 12 20D0
_AT.T., T S. BLOTT Q.C.
I~a,P. RIm-,~j~ & Souaft'oR
."z.)
May 19~', 2000
DIR. MUN. 'VVORK~
· PRO JEC1 ENGINEER
Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members ~;~~.r~ City
City Hall
4310 Queen St,.
Niagara Falls, On
L2E 6E5 ';
Dear Members of City Council:
HZt~FrtLSCLEW, S'OO~
DEFT
MAYOR
%I)MINISTRATOR
s{UII.DI~G
':IEMI"I'I~RY
,:~..,~'<
DA'rI:
DIM/YR. IN'rL .~
...
e: Warren Creek Master
~(e ~ FIIr N~ ' '
~ H you will be pmsent~ ~ ~e a~ve, ni~ly pa~g~ study, for your approval.
~ile I do not ~ ~e day ~is ~11 ~r I'am ~ in ~an~ so ~re ~11 ~ ample
time to ~nsid~ my veW m~ obj~ons and ~ ~at I will ~ive S~dent no~ to
prese~ ~ese ~ dirty to Ci~ Cornall.
With respect to this Study, in its present form, I have two major objedions, oneas to.
Process and tl')~ other as to Substance. Before detailing these two objedions some of the
histoW of this process must be set out so that these objedionS can be put in a context and
my reasons for taking this position understood.
Below under the heading of Background I detail my personal interest in this matter. Bdefly,
my interest over the past five years hasbeen in connection with a 92 acre site at Montmse
and Brown Road (Omada lands) and the 150 acre Montrose Business Park immediately to
the south (City lands).
Root of the Problem
The Niagara Falls City Coundl approved the Gamer Neighbourhood Secondary Plan on
October 20m~ -1997. The City then failed to follow the Planning Act and have this document
approved as a proper Of~dal Plan Amendment. If it had followed the proper course the
policies then approved by City Coundl could not be changed without due process. I was
1761 EGLINTON AVENUE WEST TORONTO, ON. M6E 2H7 Telephone (416) 7838554 Facsimile (416) 783-0762
satisfied with that Plan as passed by City Council at that time and would have supported it
through the, process at the Region; Ministry or the Ontado Munidpal Board. In particular I
supported_ the following position: 'The policies also requireddevelopers to evaluate the
unevaltiatcrd wetlands (wet woodlots) to ensure they were not Provincially-
significant." (Staff Report PD-98-134 dated November 4, 1998)
However, at some time subsequent to City Coundrs adoption of this policy the Secondary
Plan was apparently subverted by a cabal made up of.. 'City Staff in consultslion with
Ministry of~t~kraI-Resources,. Niagara-Peninsula ConservaUon Authority and Region
of Niagara ~requ,ehted that the consultants prepare the weUand evaluaUon and
that a m~ehsiv~rEnvi~nmental: Impa.Ct-$~..dy (CBS) be included in the WMP."
(from PD-98:l'~:'.d~t.~ NoVembef4:~.l.9.98~;,.'Zl~i~:~cfiange of planning policy to a
'comprehe~ive-~i'~iin~e'ntai-im~a~ ~t~.~i~: toiaily contrary to the adopted City Coundl
position and makes a mockery of the plahni.~ 'prOCess. The 'comprehensive' now replaces
the "develope~".:bbligatiOnt0 do~n".;~i~f.m.n.'m.'~! :impact study'. '
..... 1 ......... -...~ 2...s.~ ~,l.~ '!.':. '
.............
Landowners weret not given any. notic6!dfth'i~riai. ithodzed change in Policy. It is
questionable '.Wh'~th~' C!tyLCi3Ur/ciW.~:..f~:~i.'.d~iSed of this change of process and the
potential needless detrimental impact to landowners. It is a substantial change of policy and
not good planning for the following rea~0nS:-'::'' ~- -
,
1- I~' amends a Policy of City Council without the approval of City Council.
2 ... It removes. the right Of a land owner developer to conduct his own
"'environmental .studies on his'own land as contemplated by the Secondary
Plan and turns it over to some unknown third party sub-consultant.
3 It improperly stipulates that the third party sub-consultant's report is to be
included in the Watershed Master Plan. More details on this objection are set
out below (the question of why he is a sub-consultant and not a direct
consultant of the City is never answered).
4 It impacts severely on the uses of private lands yet was done in a covert way
,~. without notice to any landowners,
5 It improperly inserts a land use planning study into the Watershed Master
-. Plan.
Obiection as to Process
This wetland study and conclusions rendered by Mr. J: Dougan should not be part of the
Warren Creek Master Watershed Study. His report is a very detrimental document produced
under questionable authority and should be subjected to a process where:
i)
ii)
iii)
it can be completely examined and evaluated;
Mr. Dougan can be thoroughly cross-examined on his findings; and all done
in a forum where the opportunity exists to call other expert opinions, to determine
objectively whether these lands, in fact, contain wetlands let alone provincially
significant wetlands.
· Page2
The Warren Creek Master Watershed Study started out as a typical engineering study
geared to renew the vadous options available to provide water, sanitary and storm water
services for T~e~merging Gamer Neighbourhood. Neither the Omada lands (92 acres) nor
the City lands (150 acres) are within this neighbourhood. However, they am within the
Warren Creek watershed and hence, were subject to the watershed engineering study. I
have no problem with this process or the ultimate technical options and conclusions. The
conclusions will ultimately be ratified by the Ministry of the Environment with very liffie public
input except '~ublic consultation" along the way in the form of "open houses".
Mr. Dougan has produced a planning document not an engineering document and as such
it has no place in a watershed study. It should be pert of the land use planning process and
if it withstands objective scrutiny there, then it could appropriately form the basis of an
approved official plan amendment. It is only through this process that these planning
conclusions ca~ be critically examined with an objective result determined. Only alter that
scrutinycan the proffered conclusions be accepted as having the weight of "provindally
significant' ar~id implemented accordingly. I reiterate that anything short of this mandated
process continues to adversely impact all pdvate lands in this watershed.
My concern and the reason for my objection relates to the inclusion of Mr. Dougan's highly
prejudicial study and conclusions in this objective engineering watershed study. An
engineering study of the watershed is not really subject to due process. An 'Open House" is
merely.. an ir~onT~ation process and is not the same as an OMB headng. The City Council
must'resist any attempt to slip this Dougan study and questionable candusions into this
relatively ~bjective and technical engineering reporL The Dougan conclusions must come
through the front door and not be allowed to slip in through the back door.
The proper process to be followed with respect to the Dougan report is explained in the
"Manuel of Implementation Guidelines for the Wetland Policy Statement November 1992, at
Section 1 Page 1: "The Policy Statement and these Guidelines sat out that component of
the wetlands .m. anagement program which falls under the jurisdiction of the Planning Act,
The Policy Statement addresses wetlands from a land use perspective as prescribed by the
'Planning Act".
Accordingly, all references to Mr. Dougan's wetland conclusions and opinions should be
deleted from the Warren Creek Master Watershed Study before the watershed report is
even considered let alone approved by City Coundl. The Dougan conclusions part of the
watershed report should be made to follow the proper planning process and not slipped in
and approved by City Council through some hybdd engir'~,_,,cring process.
Obiection as to Substance.
There is no way the Omada lands contain provincially significant wetlands. Before
Mr. Dougan came along and propounded this myth there was never even the
slightest suggestion that the two damp spots on these lands were even locally
significant let alone provincially significant In fact, in a 1993 evaluation of all 120
· Page 3
woodlands in the City of Niagara Falls, by Mr, Paul A. Robertson, of Trees Unlimited, found
them was no reference to significant wetlands on the Omada lands.
In,that;s~t~df Mr.; Robertson inventoded and ranked all 120 wooded sites in the City of
Niagara Falls including the two.woodlots on the Omada lands. He used 10 criteda to rank
the woodlots:' ~The: two ,woodlots on the Omada lands ranked 32 and 47 respectively. In four
of the criteda. usedby Mr:; Robertson these two woodlots scored 0.0. These particular
criterion were: ~
Criterion 2 significant geological formatjon/landformscore 0.0
Criterion 3 ~. ;significant ecosystem ;. - score 0,0
Criterion 8 .: expansion potential I. score 0.0
Criterion 9 ;;,~:recreation activities .;,-:: · , score 0.0...
-:.~
Inthe top. Oineswoodlot~sitee ranked by Mr~ Robertson,. at that time, he noted all nine had
· some wetlanddass~cation rangingfrem Class 1to Class 4'wetlands. Actually, number 1
and2renl~ed ~x~:llot sites scored 61:;5 and 46.2 respectively, under criterion 3: significant
ecosystems.
In fact,. Mr; Robertson:"found 26 sites located within or adjacent to significant
ecosystems. ~Twenty wooded sites were located within weUands and 23 wooded sites
were located within ESAs. Thmc wooded sites, ~54~198 and #207, were located
within.a, claes! 3 provinclally significant weUand but were not designated as ESAs."
The two woodlots on the Omada lands were not among any of these significant sites.
This ~tudy was done just seven yeare ago..
In a withess statement prepared for Court proceedings this year, when asked about the
existence of pmvincially significant wetlands on the Omada property, Mr. Robertson
responded as follows:
Question:
Mr. Robertson:
I understand from Mr. Campbell and from some ~f the reports that
this area was designated as provincially significant wetland area.
To the best of my knowledge and leoking at the Ministnj of Natural
Resources Apdl of 1993 map, that area in fact is not designated as
provindally significant wetlands, it's not designated as either 1,2 or
3 wetlands.
There is a locally significant wetland, which is a class 4 through 7
that is on the south side of Brown Road but there is nothing on the
north side of Brown Road between Brown and McLeod Road. (thi.s
south side lands apparently refers to the city lands)
Question:.
Could the area at issue been designated as a provindally
significant wetland area subsequent to 1993.
· Page 4
Mr. Robertson:
From the mapping that I am referring to, the inventory was done by
MNR in 1989. To the best of my knowledge, the MNR have not
done any inventorying of wetlands since that pedod, unless there
was a particular specific study on a given area that requested or
justified any type of MNR involvement or an MNR inventory but, to
the best of my knowledge, no there hasn't been any re-inventorying
of wetlands within the region since 1989.
Mr. Dougan also did a report on the watershed in 1993. It would be interesting ~o compare
his findings in 1993 with those of Mr. Robertson. However, despite repeated requests for an
unabridged copy of his 1993 findings I have been denied a copy of his original report.
According to his most recent report he visited this watershed four times .between 1993 and
1998 as followS:
(I) Nov/Dec 1'993; (11) June 11, 1994; (111) Feb. 28, 1998; (IV) April 15, 1998
As he declined requests for his field notes, I was unable to determine which of the 11
woodlots he visited on those four occasion and whether in fact, he ever visited the two
woodlots on the Omada lands.
Then how did Mr. Dougan reach a cendusion that the two wet spots (apparently not even
noticed by Mr. Robertson in 1993) on the 92 acres ware suddenly provindally signfficent?
The explanation is found in the subjective world of wetland cemplexing. It is my contention
that, contrary to the above mentioned "wetland guidelines', Mr. Dougan took the whole of
the watershed as his complex for scoring purposes (includes 11 woodlots) and thus was
able to cherry pick from each woodlot to pad the score sufrK:ientiy to get over the threshold
of 600 points and thus conclude that all of the 11 woodlots ware pmvincially significant .
wetlands.
In other wordS;'the boundary of the complex should have bccn dete,",~ined in a scientific
manner, not by merely adopting the total watershed boundary (then under study of other
reasons) with its huge land area as the complex boundary leading to an aberrant scodng. in
doing so he failed to initially dete,,ine that these two woodlots wore in fact wetlands of
sufficient size and character to be considered wetlands for complexing and scodng
purposes. It boggles the imagination to suggest that the whole woodlot is a wetland. Hence
the current use of the term 'wet woodlots' which is undefined and is really just a lazy way of
admitting that a proper job of mapping of any potential wetland was not done. Or to put it
another way the consultant must first establish that a wetland exists; then map the
boundaries of the wetland to determine if it is more than 5 acres; then this wetland can be
complexed with other found wetlands to determine if they are "pmvindally signffican~'. In this
case the consultant did it backwards. I contend that a detailed review of Mr. Dougan's field
notes by a competent independent third party will reveal his incompetent approach.
Page 5
BackarouNd
For the past five years I have had a dired interest in the 92 acre Omada lands, at Montrose
and Brown Road andfor a part ofthattime a direct interest in the 150 acres Business Park
(city lands), immediately to the south of the Omada Lands. For a pedod of time, up to May
1998, I made a significant effort to turn this combined site into a Championship Golf Course
with resideffial and. commemial uses. :That effort want by the wayside when it was disclosed
to m'e in May, .!998 thatan unauthorized consultant had done a study of these and other
lands-in this neighbourhood and had determined that approximately 25% of the combined
site was found to be "Provindally Significant Wetlands". It was made very dear to me and
my assodates,-by your planning staff, that henceforth, these lands would carry this
design~i)n= as. thoUgh,it, were automatically engraved in stone. Needless to say, any
associate .or finendal interest that was interested in pursuing that Golf Course opportunity
. fled immediately: :The Business Park (city lands) was eventually returned to the City. Pdor to
that day in: May 1998, I had not been: given even the slightest hint that these lands contained
anything even remotely to be considered "Provindally Sign'fficant watlands'. I was not
advised of any evaluation in advance nor did I give any consent for entry on these lands for
the purpose of that unauthorized evaluation.
More Backaround
After the Golf Course project was dropped by this sterilization of 25% of the site I turned my
attentibn to the development of the 92 acre site (or now 70 acre site after the deletion of the
so-called Provindally Significant Wetlands).. For approximately 18 months in concert with
Ontado Mile Raceway Corporation we have been attempting to locate a one mile harness
reca track at this location. Again the proposed development has bccn frustrated at every .
turn by an intransigent planning position that claims an "etched in stone" provindally
significant watlands exist on this site.
Well, thes~o-called "provindally significant watlands' are not etched in stone. They merely
reflect the=opinion of Mr. Dougan, a sub-consultant to watershed engineers Phillips
Engineering, aided and abetted by the manager and his assistant at the Vineland Branch of
the Ministry of Natural Resources. This unapproved opinion has taken on a life of its own
much to the detriment of development on these lends and with substantial costs, expenses
and damages as a result.
Nowhere does anyone explain how a plot of land, heretofore totally insignificant, .can
catapult into the spotlight as "provindally significant".
Conclusion
I believe the situation described above may be rectified if the following steps are
implemented
· Page 6
It is my position that Mr. Dougan's study is inherently flawed and of no use whatsoever.
However, in ~e event the City intends to rely on this study for the purposes above
described, then I strongly submit that the proper planning process be followed, so that I can
obtain theinf<5'rmation that has been withheld to date and examine Mr. Dougan and his
conclusions at an objective OMB headng.
In other words, the hybdd process launched by the "group of four" should be terminated
immediately and the Douggan findings removed from the Warren Creek Watershed Plan. If
City Council actually wants to support the Dougan findings then they should be inserted into
the Garner Neighbeurhood Secondary Plan and submitted for approval along with the rest
of that Plan. If this due process is followed all legitimate appeal rights will be available to the
affected landowners.
. Yours truly,.:.
cc: City Solicitor
Chair and Members of Niagara Regional Council
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
MiniStry of Natural Resources
· Page 7
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-maih nfplan@city. niagarafalls.on.ca
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD-2000-116
October 16, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
· and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
RECOMMENDATION:
PD-2000-116, Warren Creek Watershed
Provincia!ly-Significant Wetlands
It is recommended that Council receive this report for information purposes.
BACKGROUND:
On September 25, 2000, the Committee considered staff report MW-2000-104 which recommended
adoption of the Warren. Creek Watershed Master Plan. At the meeting, Mr. Allen Blott, who owns
a 92 acre industrial parcel in the watershed, argued that:
this document was not the place for a wetland evaluation;
a wetland evaluation should be part of a planning land use process; and
wetland protection applies only to urban boundary expansion.
Mr. Blott's objections are detailed in his letters of May 19, 2000 and September 25, 2000, attached
as Schedules 1 and 2, respectively. Letters from the racetrack proponent are attached as Schedules
3 and4.
After considering Mr. Blott's statements and presentations by the' consultants responsible for the
Watershed Plan, the Committee deferred the report and requested a supplemental sta, ffreport on the
wetland issue.
This supplemental report provides a comprehensive overview of the wetland issue. The history of
how the issues developed, information on the wetland issue and public involvement can be found
on pages 1 to 3. Answers to concerns raised by Mr. Blott and the Committee can be found on page
3 to6.
Clerk's ·
IYorking Togaher to Serve Our Community
Finance · Human Resoumes Information Systems · Legal
· Planning & DevelopmeAt
October 16, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-116
HISTORY:
The Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan Study was initiated in 1993 to record environmental
resources in the watershed, examine alternatives for the management of natural resources: flooding,
erosion and water quality, and present methods for their management.
The hterim Report on the Watershed Plan identified numerous wet woodlots containing swamp tree
species. The wet woodlots were classified as wetlands. Additional rivefine wetlands exist along the
Warren Creek channel between Brown Road and Montrose Road. None of these wetlands had been
previously evaluated as to their significance under the Ontario Weftand Evaluation System.
~: :~.~:i.,. ~.', .' ~:;~ Completion of the Watershed Plan study was linked to the completion of the Garner Neighbourhood
.~:~. ::,~'~!~,i:~e SecondaryPlan; which encompasses a large portion of the watershed and constitutes the City's next
· '.~4~¢ :~: ~'.~:~;'major residential growth area. Policies were put into the Secondary Plan requiring si~i~cant
woodlot pro~ection. The policies also required developers to evaluate the tinevaluated wetlands (wet
woodlots) to ensure they were not Provincially-signi~cant. If the wetlands were considered
Provindially-significant, Provincial policies require their protection. The policies also require the
acceptability of development abutting the wetlands to be determined through environmental impact
studies. The Secondary Plan and all its associated policies was adopted by Council in October 1997.
Mr. Blott's lands are outside the residential Secondary Plan area.
Compk/tion of the Garner Secondary Plan allowed land use planning information to be integrated
with the Watershed Master Plan. The unevaluated status of the wetlands presented a limitation to
the finalization of the Watershed Plan as there were numerous wetlands in the industrial area which
should be treated in a manner similar to the residential area. This would result in numerous
individual evaluations being done at different times. The Watershed Plan Technical Committee
consisting of City staff and agency representatives requested that the consultants prepare the wetland
evaluation and that a Comprehensive Environmental Impact Study (CEIS) be included in the WMP.
The purpos~i~fthe CEIS is to identify the key wetland functions and dependencies, and to specify
conditions for more site specific EIS work to be .completed as part of detailed development
proposals. It was thought a more comprehensive wetland evaluation done at one time would let
developers and landowners know what they were dealing with up front as well as save developers
the cost of evaluations.
Wetland Evaluation:
The Warren Creek wetlands were evaluated in the spring of 1998 using both data collected for the
Watershed Master Plan Study and additional field work. The evaluation followed the Ontario
Wetland Evaluation system which examines and assigns scores to the four areas ofwefland function
namely: biological, hydrological, social and special features. Under this evaluation system, wetlands
are considered as complex when they are in the same watershed and within 750 metres of one
another. The wetlands in the Warren Creek Watershed met the wetland complex criteria.
The evaluation concluded that the wetlands were Provincially-significant based on their score under
special features (species rare in Ontario and Canada) as well as hydrologic ~mctions. Schedule 5
illustrates the location of the Provincially Significant Wetlands. Schedule 6 is a synopsis of findings
from the consultant who perforated the evaluation.
October 16, 2000 - 3 - PD~2000-116
Generally, the outer boundary of each woodlot represents the boundary of the individual wetland
system. Each system contains wetland pools surrounded by wooded upland. The delineation of
these wetlands is constrained by lack of detailed topographic mapping (ie. 0.25 m contour interval).
Therefore, it is anticipated that some minor refinement ofwetland boundaries will likely occur when
an Environmental Impact Study is undertaken for any specific proposed development.
Public Involvement:
Two open houses, July 20, 1998 and May 3, 2000, on the weftand evaluation findings have been held
to provide the oppommity to the public to ask consultants and City staff questions on the
ramifications of the wetland evaluation. On November 4, 1998, the City's Environmental Planning
and Greening Committee considered an in formation report (PD-98-134) on the wetlands and referred
themattertotheCommunityServicesCommittee. OnDecember7, 1998, the Committee considered
information report PD-98-146 as well as a presentation by Dougan and Associates on the
classification of the wetlands and their attributes.
Between that time and now, staff have had numerous meetings with Mr. Doug Paten of the Ontario
Mile Corporation with many of the meetings being artended by staff from the Regional Planning and
Development Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
lestlee,-
1. iVhat lands are affected by the Wetland Evaluation?
Schedule 5 illustrates all the lands within the watershed as well as the complex ofwetlands
which consists of the individual slough forest wet/woodlots. The wetland areas on Mr.
Blott's property comprise about 9.25 ha (22.8 acres). There are two wetland areas in the
City's Business Park. One is a fivefine wetland contained within the floodplain of Warren
Creek which traverses the City's property. These wetlands were already protected by the
Hazard zone of the Warren Creek floodplain. A slough forest wetland exists in the northeast
comer of the City' s Business Park which comprises 5.82 ha ( 14.38 acres) including a portion
of the Warren Creek flood plain. The majority of the City's Business Park is outside the
watershed area.
When considering what lands are actually affected by the wetland evaluation, Provincial
Policy Statements must be considered.
2. How does the Policy Statements affect development of lands within the watershed?
The latest set of Provincial Policy Statements were approved by the Province in 1997.
Corresponding changes to the Planning Act require any agency acting as an approval
authority or commenting agency to have regard to the Provincial Policy Statements. The
Provincial Policy Statements prohibit development within wetland areas. Development can
occur on lands abutting the wetlands if an environmental impact study determines there will
be no negative impact to the wetlands. The Policy Statements are triggered when any kind
of approval under the Planning Act is required for a proposed development.
October 16, 2000 - 4 - PD-2000-116
Do the Policy Statements for weftands only apply to urban boundary expansions?
Mr. Blott stated the Policy Statements only apply to cases of urban boundary expansions.
While the Natural Resources Pohcy Statements are referred to under policies dealing with
urban boundary expansions, they apply to all cases where development is proposed.
Development is defined as the creation of any new lot, a change in land use or the
construction of buildings and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act. The
implementation section of the Policy Statements indicate the policies are to be read in their
.entirety and all pertinent policies are to be applied to each situation.
Staff have had several meetings with the MNR and MMA to discuss the different flexibility
options available for dealing with the wetland situation on a watershed basis as well as
specifically dealing with Mr. Blott'slands. A meeting was held as recently as September l2,
2000. At that meeting it was confirmed that it is the approval authority (Region's)
responsibility to have regard for the Policy Statements and that any development proposal
should be reviewed with regard to the Policy Statements. It was noted the wording "regard
to" did not mean dismissing the application of the Policy Statements but means providing
proper consideration for their implementation.
Can a re-evaluation of the we~tlands take place?
re-evaluation of the wetlands could take place at any time independently or as part of the
Gatershed Plan study or a planning application. The Provincial agency representatives noted
that any re-evaluation would have to follow MNR' s approved format and consider things on
a complex basis. The present evaluation was done by a qualified consultant following
MNR's approved format; it was unlikely any significant differences would be achieved
which MNR would be able to authorize.
Did 'the Watershed Plan provide a proper vehicle for a Weftand Evaluation?
The Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan Study addresses engineering issues regarding
storm water management; nevertheless, the Study is a comprehensive resource document
which examines engineering, land use and environmental issues. The study basis is in
environmental constraint identification, management and planning. The Terms of Reference
clearly stipulate that terrestrial systems, aquatic resources, stirface water and ground water
resources all be investigated for the potential influence on land use. Completing a wetland
.evaluation as part of the watershed plan process is not unusual as this level of study has been
done through the watershed plan process by several other municipalities. The Committee
may wish to refer to subm i ssions by Philips Engineering and Dougan and Associates attached
as Schedules 7 and 8 respectively in regards to addressing Mr. Blott's statements (Schedules
1 and 2) on the appropriateness of a wetland evaluation through the Watershed Plan Process.
The City' s Official Plan encourages the protection and preservation of smaller watercourses
and wetlands in addition to areas already designated as Environmental Protection Area.
Therefore, completing a wetland evaluation to determine the importance of tunevaluated
wetlands in the watershed is reasonable.
October 16, 2000 - 5 o PD-2000-116
The Watershed Plan Technical Steering Committee agreed that it would be superior to
condttct a comprehensive analysis/assessment of the wetland system as opposed to a piece-
meal approach, due to the complex character of this slough forest. Doing so, and having the
study paid for by the City, actuallyreduces the subsequent financial obligation for study from
the requisite development proponents.
What would be the impact if the Watershed Plan were approved without incorporating
the wetland evaluation?
Should Council approve the Watershed Plan without the incorporation of the wetland
evaluation, the fact remains that the MNR has accepted the evaluation and it would still need
to be addressed through the planning process. All relevant agencies .know the wetlands have
been determined to be Provincially si~i ticant. Mr. Blott has the right to request a bump up
of the Watershed Plan to force a hearing.
Is there an opportunity to address the evalnation through the planning process?
The City is in the midst of an Official Plan update which includes writing policies on
wetlands. Staff will be us'rag the Warren Creek Watershed Plan as a resource document to
develop policies and comply wi~ Provincial policy. At a meeting September 12, 2000 with
the proponent to develop Mr. Blott's lands, the Regional Planning and Development
pepartment staff representative indicated that policies could be prepared whereby some
development on these land could be considered provided that it is demonstrated that the
proposed development will not have a significant negative impact on the features and
functions of the wetland complex. This would have to be demonstrated through an
Environmental Impact Study 0!lS) prepared for the proponent by a qualified expert to the
satisfaction of the Region. Mr. Blott would have the oppommity to provide input on the
policies as part of the public consultation process during the Official Plan Review. If Mr.
Blott felt the policies were detrimental to him, he could appeal Council's decision to the
Ontario Municipal Board and also have the oppommity to challenge the wetland evaluation
there.
Has staff used every effort to maximize the amount of land for development purposes
as possible?
As mentioned, the wetland evaluation followed MNR's format for evaluations and was done
by a qualified consultant. The wetland areas have been mapped using the best infonnation
available. The wetland in the City's Business Park has been staked to determine actual
boundaries.
CONCLUSION:
The report has been prepared at the direction of the Committee to provide background on the Warren
Creek Wetland issue. It should be noted the evaluation has been accepted by the MNR and all
agencies are aware of the significance of these wetlands. It would seem that removing the evaluation
from the Watershed Plan would not change the status of the wetlands at this stage. Approval
authorities would still need to have regard to the Provincial Policy Statements in considering
October 16, 2000 - 6 - PD-2000-116
development proposals within or near the wetlands or in establishing Official Plan designations and
policies for tl~ area. The municipality has the oppommity to try and establish more flexible policies
for the area through the planning process, however, the greater the departure of any policy or
development approval from the intent of the Policy Statements, the greater the chance of objection.
Developers have the opportunity to conduct an EIS to better define the wetland, environmental
constraints and impacts as part of the development process.
Dave Heyworth
Planner 2
Recommended by:
~oug Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
and
Director of Municipal Works
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
DH:lt
Attach.
S:~PDRX2000~PD2000-116.wpd
I"2 2oo9
ALLAN S. BLO?T
BARRIS'rER & SOLICITOR
May 19~h, 2000
OIR. MUM, WORKS
PROJECI ENGINEER
uIpc. m. LS C'LE~S '00 05,% 10z16
Ivlayor Wayne Thomson and member~
City Hall ~GR~QF ~v~Q~', .... · .
4310 Queen S~
, Niagara Fails, On
Dear Members of City Council:
,~ ................. ~ ...................
Ve~ soon ypu will be pmsent~ with the a~ve, nicely pa~aged study, for your approval.
~ile I do not know the day ~is will o~ur I am ~iting in advan~ so there will ~ ample
time to ~nsider my yew strong objections and so that I will re~ive s~cient notic~ to
present these views directly to City Courtall.
With respect to this Study. in its present form, I have two major objections, one as to
Process and th.e other as to Substance. Before detailing these two objections some of the
history of this process must be set out so that these objections can be put in a context and
my reasons low taking this position understood.
Below under the heading of Background I detail my personal interest in this matter. Bdefiy,
my interest over the past five years has been in connection with a 92 acre site at Montrose
and Brown Road (Omada lands) and the 150 acre Montrose Business Park immediately to
the south (City lands).
Root of the Problem
The Niagara Falls City Council appreved the Garner Neighbourhood Secondary Plan on
October 20u~, 1997. The City then failed to follow the Planning Act and have this document
approved as a proper Official Plan Amendment. If it had followed the proper course the
policies then approved by City Council could not be changed without due process. I was
lTn l i,;( 11 ,{brrr)N AVF;NL II;; WFkST TOI'[C)Nr{'(/, ON MGF, 2117 Telephone (.I l(;) 78:kRSYi l F'ac:sm~de 6116) 783-0762
satisfied with that Plan as passed by City Council at that time and would have supported it
through the process at the Region; Ministry or the Ontario Munidpal Board. In particular I
supported the following position: ~The policies also required developers to evaluate the
unevaluat,ed wetlands (wet woodlots) to ensure they were not Provincially-
significant." (Staff Report PD-98-134 dated November 4, 1998)
However, at some time subsequent to City Council's adoption of this policy the Secondary
Plan was apparently subverted by a cabal made up of: "City Staff in consultation with
Ministry of Natural Resources, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and Region
of Niagara staff requested that the consultants prepare the wetland evaluation and
that a Comprehensive Environmental ImpactStudy (CEIS) be included in the WMP."
(from'PD-98-134 dated November 4, 1998). This change of planning policy to a
"comprehensive environmental impact study' is totally contrary to the adopted City Council
position and makes a mockery of the planning process. The "comprehensive" now replaces
the "developers" obligation to do an "environmental impact study".
Landowners were not given any notice of this unauthorized change in Policy. It is
questionable Whether City Council was even advised of this change of process and the
potential needless detrimental impact to landowners. It is a substantial change of policy and
not goOd planning for the following reasons:
It amends a Policy of City Council without the approval of City Council.
It removes the dght of, a land owner developer to conduct his own
environmental studies on his own land as contemplated by the Secondary
Plan and turns it over to some unknown third party sub-consultant.
It improperly stipulates that the third party sub-consultant's report is to be
included in the Watershed Master Plan. More details on this objection are set
out below (the question of why he is a sub-consultant and not ~ direct
consultant of the City is never answered).
It impacts severely on the uses of pdvate lands yet was done in a covert way
without notice to any landowners.
It improperly inserts a land use planning study into the Watershed Master
Plan.
Objection as to Process
This wetland study and conclusions rendered by Mr. J. Dougan should not be part of the
Warren Creek Master Watershed Study. His report is a very detrimental document produced
under questionable authority and should be subjected to a process where:
i)
ii)
iii)
it can be completely examined and evaluated;
Mc. Dougan can be thoroughly cross-examined on his findings; and all 8one
in a forum where the opportunity exists to call other expert opinions. to determine
objectively whether these lands, in fact, contain wetlands let alone provincially
significant wetlands
Page 2
The Warren Creek Master Watershed Study started out as a typical engineering study
geared to review the vadous options available to provide water; sanitary and storm water
services for theemerging Garner Neighbourhood. Neither the Omada lands (92 acres) nor
the City lands (150 acres) are within this neighbourhood. However, they are within the
Warren Creek watershed and hence, were subject to the watershed engineering study. I
have no problem with this process or the ultimate technical options and conclusions. The
conclusions will ultimately be ratified by the Ministry of the Environment with very little public
input except "public consultation" along the way in the form of "open houses".
Mr. Dougan has produced a planning document not an engineering document and as such
it has no place in a watershed study. It should be part of the land use planning process and
if it withstands objective scrutiny there, then it could appropriately form the basis of an
approved official plan amendment. It is only through this process that these planning
conclusions can be critically examined with an objective result determined. Only after that
scrutiny can th~ proffered conclusions be accepted as having the weight of "provincially
significant' and implemented accordingly. I reiterate that anything short of this mandated
process continues to adversely impact all private lands in this watershed.
My concern and the reason for my objection relates to the inclusion of Mr. Dougan's highly
prejudicial study and conclusions in this objective engineering watershed study, An
engineering study of the watershed is not really subject to due process. An "Open House" is
merely an information process and is not the same as an OMB headrig. The City Council
must resist any attempt to slip this Dougan study and questionable conclusions into this
relatively Objective and technical engineering report. The Dougan conclusions must come
through the front door and not be allowed to slip in through the back door.
The proper process to be followed with respect to the Dougan report is explained in the
"Manuel of Implementation Guidelines for the Wetland Policy Statement November 1992, at
Section 1 Page 1: "The Policy Statement and these Guidelines set out that component of
the wetlands management program which falls under the jurisdiction of the Planning Act.
The Policy Statement addresses wetlands from a lafid use perspective as prescribed by the
Planning Act;'.
· Accordingly, all references to Mr. Dougan's wetland conclusions and opinions should be
deleted from the Warren Creek Master Watershed Study before the watershed report is
even considered let alone approved by City Council. The Dougan conclusions part of the
watershed report should be made to follow the proper planning process and not slipped in
and approved by City Council through some hybrid engineering process.
Objection as to Substance.
There is no way the Omada lands contain provincially significant wetlands. Before'
Mr. Dougan came along and propounded this myth there was never even the
slightest suggestion that the two damp spots on these lands were even locally
significant let alone provincially significant. In fact. in a 1993 evaluation of all 120
Page 3
woodlands in the City of Niagara Falls, by Mr. Paul A. Robertson, of Trees Unlimited, found
there was no reference to significant wetlands on the Omada lands.
In that stu~' Mr. Robertson inventorled and ranked all 120 wooded sites in the City of
Niagara Falls including the two woodlots on the Omada lands. He used 10 criteria to rank
the woodlots. The two woodlots on the Omada lands ranked 32 and 47 respectively. In four
of the criteda used by Mr. Robertson these two woodlots scored 0.0. These particular
criterion were:
Criterion 2significant geological formation/landformscore 0.0
Criterion 3significant ecosystem score 0.0
Criterion 8expansion potential score 0.0
Criterion 9recreation activities score 0.0
In the top njne-woodlot sites ranked by Mr. Robertson, at that time, he noted all nine had
some wetland classification ranging from Class 1 to Class 4 wetlands. Actually, number 1
and 2 ranked woodlot sites scored 61.5 and 46.2 respectively, under criterion 3: significant
ecosystems.
In fact, Mr. Robertson "found 26 sites located within or adjacent to significant
ecosystems. Twenty wooded sites were located within wetlands and 23 wooded sites
were located within ESAs. Three wooded sites, #1 54~198 and #207, were located
within a class 3 provincially significant wetland but were not designated as ESAs."
.The two woodlots on the Omada lands were not among any of these significant sites.
This s~tudy was done just seven years ago.
In a witness statement prepared for CoUrt proceedings this year, when asked about the
existence of provincially significant wetlands on the Omada property, Mr. Robertson
responded as follows:
Question:
Mr. Robertson:
I understand from Mr. Campbell and from some of the reports that
this area was designated as provincially significant wetland area.
To the best of my knowledge and looking at the Ministry of Natural
Resources April of 1993 map, that area in fact is not designated as
provindally significant wetlands, it's not designated as either 1,2 or
3 wetlands.
There is a locally significant wetland, which is a class 4 through 7
that is on the south side of Brown Road but there is nothing on the
north side of Brown Road between Brown and McLeod Road. (this
south side lands apparently refers to the city lands)
Question:
Could the area at issue been designated as a provingally
significant wetland area subsequent to 1993,
· Page 4
It is my position that Mr. Dougan's study is inherently flawed and of no use whatsoever.
However, in the event the City intends to rely on this study for the purposes above
described, then I strongly submit that the proper planning process be followed, so that I can
obtain the infoGffnation that has been withheld to date and examine Mr. Dougan and his
contusions at an objective OMB hearing.
In other words, the hybrid process launched by the "group of four" should be terminated
immediately and the Douggan findings removed from the Warren Creek Watershed Plan. If
City Council actually wants to support the Dougan findings then they should be inserted into
the Garner Neighbeurhood Secondary Plan and submitted for approval along with the rest
of that Plan. If this due process is followed all legitimate appeal dghts will be available to the
affected landowners.
' Yours truly,
cc: City Solicitor
Chair and Members of Niagara Regional Council
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Ministrn/of Natural Resources
Page 7
IIII I]
Mr. Robertson:
From the mapping that I am refe~ng to, the inventory was done by
MNR in 1989. To the best of my knowledge, the MNR have not
done any inventorying of wetlands since that period, unless there
was a particular spedtic study on a given area that requested or
justified any type of MNR involvement or an MNR inventory but, to
the best of my knowledge, no there hasn't been any re-inventorying
of wetlands within the region since 1989.
Mr. Dougan also did a report on the watershed in 1993. It would be interesting to compare
his findings in 1993 with those of Mr. Robertson. However, despite repeated requests for an
unabridged copy of his 1993 findings I have been denied a copy of his original report.
According to his most recent report he visited this watershed four times between 1993 and
1998 as follows:
(I) Nov/Dec 1993; (11) June 11, 1994; (111) Feb. 28, 1998; (IV) Apdl 15, 1998
As he declined requests for his field notes, I was unable to determine which of the 11
woodlots he visited on those four occasion and whether in fact, he ever visited the two
woodlots on the Omada lands.
Then how did Mr. Dougan reach a conclusion that the two wet spots (apparently not even
noticed by Mr. Robertson in 1993) on the 92 acres were suddenly provindally significant?
The explanation is found in the subjective world of wetland complexing. It is my contention
that, contrary to the above mentioned "wetland guidelines", Mr. Dougan took the whole of
the watershed as his complex for scodng purposes (includes 11 woodlots) and thus was
able to cherry pick from each woodlot to pad the score sufficiently to get over th~ threshold
of 600 points and thus conclude that all of the 11 woodlots were provincially significant
wetlands.
In other word~; the boundary of the complex shoul~l have been determined in a sdentific
manner, noti'by merely adopting the total watershed boundary (then under study of other
reasons) with its huge land area as the complex boundary leading to an aberrant scoring. In
doing so he failed to initially determine that these two woodlots were in fact wetlands of
sufficient size and character to be considered wetlands for complexing and scodng
purposes. It boggles the imagination to suggest that the whole woodlot is a wetland. Hence
the current use of the term "wet woodlots" which is undefined and is really just a lazy way of
admitting that a proper job of mapping of any potential wetland was not done. Or to put it
another way the consultant must first establish that a wetland exists; then map the
boundaries of the wetland to determine if it is more than 5 acres; then this wetland can be
complexed with other found wetlands to determine if they are "provincially significant". In this
case the consultant did it backwards. I contend that a detailed review of Mr. Dougan's field
notes by a competent independent third party will reveal his incompetent approach.
· Page 5
Backqround
For the past five years I have had a direct interest in the 92 acre Omada lands, at Montrose
and Brown Road and for a part of that time a direct interest in the 150 acres Business Park
(city lands). immediately to the south of the Omada Lands. For a period of time. up to May
1998, I made a significant effort to turn this combined site into a Championship Golf Course
with residential and commercial uses. That effort went by the wayside when it was disclosed
to me in May, 1998 that an unauthorized consultant had done a study of these and other
lands, in this neighbourhood and had determined that approximately 25% of the combined
site was found to be "Provincially Significant Wetlands". It was made very clear to me and
my associates, by your planning staff, that henceforth, .these lands would carry this
designation as though it were automatically engraved in stone. Need!ess to say. any
associate or financial interest that was interested in pursuing that Golf Course opportunity
fled immeaiately. The Business Park (city lands) was eventually retumed to the City. Pdor to
that day in-May 1998, I had not been given even the slightest hint that these lands contained
anything even remotely to be considered "Provincially Significant wetlands". I was not
advised of any evaluation in advance nor did I give any consent for entry on these lands for
the purpose of that unauthorized evaluation.
More Backqround
After the Golf Course project was dropped by this sterilization of 25% of the site I turned my
attention to the development of the 92 acre site (or now 70 acre site after the deletion of the
so-called Provincially Significant Wetlands). For approximately 18 months in concert with
Ontado Mile Raceway Corporation we have been attempting to locate a onesmile harness
race track at this location. Again the proposed development has been frustrated at every .
turn by an intransigent planning position that claims an "etched in stone" provincially
significant wetlands exist on this site.
Well, these'so-called "provincially significant wellands" are not etched in stone. They merely
reflect theopinion of Mr. Dougan, a sub-consultant to watershed engineers Phillips
Engineering, aided and abetted by the manager and his assistant at the Vineland Branch of
the Ministry of Natural Resources. This unapproved opinion has taken on a life of its own
much to the detriment of development on these lands and with substantial costs, expenses
and damages as a result.
Nowhere does anyone explain how a plot of land, heretofore totally insignificant, can
catapult into the spotlight as "provincially significant".
Conclusion
:-
I believe the situation described above may be rectified if the following steps are
implemented
· Page 6
,'O00 ~ON 1l:14 Rn vR~ ~u. P. 02
ALaN S. gLO'n' QLC.
BARP, J,',TSR ~ SOUCRDR
September 25~', 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
And Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Dear Members:
Re: Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan
I understand the above report will be considered by your Committee on Monday September
25~, and immediately thereafter by City Coundl.
I further'understand that your staff are recommending that this report be adopted by the City
of Niagara Falls. I want to express my strongest objection to City Council adopting this report
in its entirety. My objections as to process and substance are outlined in my letter of May
19, 2000 to City Council, Unfortunately, I must reiterate those objections as well as the
objections set out hereunder.
As noted in your staff report this master watershed Study is proceeding as a "Class
Environmental Assessment for Municipal Sewage and Water Projects". This process is one
of holding mdetings to "inform" the stakeholders. "All .appeals will be directed to the Minister.
of the Environment for a ~nal decision". It is not nor is it intended to be a land use planning
document. However, contained within it is the Duggan Report which is a land use.planning
document and does not. belong there. It should be exdsed from the Watershed Plan before
the Plan is adopted by City Council.
In the Executive Summary attached to your staff repod reference is made in the third
paragraph to the Provincial Policy Statement as justification for continuing to include the
Duggan report in the Watershed Plan. The last line states:" The City must: haveregard to"
the policy sta.tements when making planning decisions." This statement by itself is'
misleading. I do not take issue with the part of the statement that confirms the Duggan
Report is part of a planning decision. That has been my position all along. It should be pad
of an official plan process not an engineenng process.
I take issue with the words 'when making planning decisions". That is simply not a:correct
statement of the applicable law. The City does not have to have regard to Provincial Policy
when making every planning decision. As set out below the Provincial Policy Statement
1761 EGLINTON AVENUE \V/':ST TORONTO, ON, M6E 2H7 Tcicvhone (4161 783-855~, b'n× 14 16~ 7R,3-719g
'%p-25L2000 MON tl:15 AM FAX N0, P. 03
does not sacthat. My contention is, that the Provincial Policy Statement requires the City "to
have regard to" these policies only, when the City embarks on a course of action to expand
the Urban Boundary. There is'no-juStification in the Provincial Policy mate~ nerft either
commencing the Duggan study within an existing urban area and for certain there, is no
justification for perpetuating it by adopting it for lands within an urban area. All the'lands he
studied are within an urban boundary. They are subject to existing Official Plan designations
and in many cases they are already zoned for some form of development. The Provincial
Policy Statement simply does not apply to the lands in the Warren Creek Watershed. They
are all within the Urban Boundary. There is no need for City council to "have regard to"
either the Provincial Policy Statement or the Duggan Report, at this time.
I would like D bring the pertinent provisions of the Policy Statement to your attention. It is too
cumbersome to include the whole Statement with this letter, however, I will attach relevant
extracts. The key provisions are found in section 1. "Efficient, cost-effective development
and land use patterns"
Section 1. 1.1:
Subject to the provisions of policy 1.1.2 cost-effective development pattoms
will be promoted. Accordingly:
Urban areas and rural settlement area ( cities, towns, villages and
hamlets) will be the focus of growth:
Urban area and rural settlement will be expanded ...................
The policies of Section 2: Resources and Section 3: Pubtic Health
and Safety will be applied in the deterrninab'on of the most
appropriate direc~on for exDansio,n,~ ................. (emphasi.s added).
Section 1.1.2:
' Land requirements and land use patfems will be based on:
5. take into account the apphCable policies of Section 2 Resources, ......
Section 2.3 Natural Hen'rage
(a) Development and site alterations will not be perm itfed in:
· Significant wetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield. and
The emphasis is added for the word expansion and for the reference to Section'
2:Resource~ as it is this crause that links housing and development urban boundary
expansion with the "significant wetlands' prohibition in Section 2,The bottom line of these
provisions is that Provincial Policy Statement is about providing housing It sets out how
more housing will be achieved This will happen by way of expanding existing Urban
Boundaries. The provisions in the Policy relating to "Natural Heritage" are applicable to the
cnntemplated boundary expansions. These particular policies have no relevance within an
existing urban area
Page 2
· SEP-~S,-2000 NON il:lS AM FAX NO. P. 04
The City has an obligation to insure that the value of the Montrose Business Park is not
diminished by an erroneous process. While it is recognized that a portion of the Business
Park abutting Brown Road is environmentally sensitive (not provincially sensitive) jt is
impodant that the City not allow these lands to slip into the Duggan designation arid the
incumbent economic.; loss of developable land. It is totally unnecessary to incur this loss if
the fight derision is made about shelving the Duggan report.
I therefore urge you to:
a) not give the Duggan report any further credibility for the reasons expressed in my May
19~' letter,
b) delete the Duggan Report from any approvals that are given to the Warren Creek Master
Plan
c) before City Council follows the staff recommendation it should seek the solicit<Jrs opinion
on the applicable law with respect as to whether the Provincial Policy Statement is
applicable to this situation.
To summarize my position:
a) Section 3 of the Planning Act which requires City Council to "have regard to' Provincial
Poli~y Statements does not apply.
b) In any event section 2.3 Natural Heritage, of the Provincial Policy Statement, does not
apply, as it only is applicable in an Urban Boundary expansion situation. ~
c) Because the Provindal Policy Statement isn't applicable anything done pursuant to it
such as the Duggan Report has no relevance to this fadual situation. In other words, the
law and policy state that the type of assessments done by Mr. Duggan applies when an
Urban Boundary is being expanded. not within the boundaries of an existing City where
land is already designated and zoned.
d) The Dug~an Report should be part of an Official Plan process as a possible refinement
of those environmentally sensitive area that have been identified as such for years.
e) The objections raised in my MaY 19TM, 2000 letter am still applicable.,
Yours truly,
AII~.
· P~ge 3
'sEP-~-200o NON 11:16 n~ FgX NO. P. 05
POLICY STATEMENTS *
WI-IE~.~S the Minister ofbfunicipal Affaiss and Housing has decided to issue
a policy statement on matters relating to municipal planning that in the opimoo of
the Minister ofMuzdcipal .,~:f'airs and Housing ate of provincial interest known as
the "Provincial Policy Statement" which is anached to this Order as Ex.l:dblt "A ":
A.xrv W'vlER.~ thc Mini~qer has decided that the Provincial Policy Statement
will replace the existbag policy statements a/~proved by Order in Council No.
335/95 and issued under section 3 of the PlanningAct, R.S.O, 1990, c. P. 13
as the "Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements' ';
AND WIlIERlEAS the MiniSter h~s decided that the Provincial Policy Statement
shall r~ke effect on the day that section 3 of the tand Use Plan nine and Proreczion
Act, 1996, Statutes of Ontario 1995, Chapter 4 comes into force;
.~,~4D u/gl~v,~A$ the MinisTer recommends that the LieutenUre Governor in Coun-
cil approve the Provincial Policy Sutemenq
TRER,IEFORE the Provincial Policy Sca~emen~ is hereby approved under section
3 of~the PlanningAct, 1~..S,O. I990, e. P.13 ~s mended. to t,~ke effeee on the day
that section 3 of the rand Use Planning and Protection .4ct. 1996, Statutes
OnBsio 1996, Chaplet -1 comes into force ~d ~.o replace the existing Comprehen-
sive Set of Policy StatemenB.
Recommeuded Allan Leach
Minister of Murdcipal
~ ,.~i-fai.rs and Housing
Concurred Elizabeth Witmet
Chab of Cabinet
Approved and Ordered, May 8r.h, 1996. Heru'y N.R. Jack.mam'~
Lieutenant Governor
I
I[
lVl/nistr~. of Municipal Affa/rS and Housing
blinisti~re des Aftaires muaicipales et du Iogement
PROVINCEAL POLICY STATE.MI2NT
PREAVLBLE PS 2
PRINCIPLES PS 3
POLICIES PS 3
1. Efficiem, cost-effective development and land use panems PS 3
1.1 Developing strong communities PS 3
1.2 Housing PS 5
13 Infrastruct~e , PS 6
2. Resources PS 6
2.1 Agricultural Policies PS 6
2.2 Mineral Resources PS 7
2.3 Nav. u"al Heriuge PS 9
· R~roduced here ,~'{th ~nd pcrrrdssion of the, .Minis~'y
OFVI'AYdO PL,~'V)tI~G PRACTICE PS[
1996
SEf>'2522000 NON 11:17 AM
-/
Fa× NO.
POLICY STATEbIENTS
heritage resources, water ~pply and cultural heritage resources --provide eco-
nomic, environmcnL~t ~nd social benefits. The wise use and protection of these
resources over the Ions teen is a. key provincial Luterest.
Equally, th~ Province has an hitcrest Lu protecting the long ter~ heaLfeb and safely
of the population, and the financial and econon'tic wcll-beLug of the Province and
municipalities.
II PR.ENCIPLES
Ontario's long term eeonomio prosperity. envirormsenta. l healr~ ~d social well-
being depend
I. managing change and promoting efficient, cos~-effec~ive development and land
use panems which s~imulate econorr~c grow',h and protect ~e environment and
public health; .....
2, protecting resources {or ~heir economic use and/or e~vironmental beneft is; and
reducing tile po~en~i,,l for public cost or risk to Ontario's residents by directing
development away from areas whe[e chrc~ is a risk ~o public he~hh or safety or of '
property damage.
Ill POLICIES
k is the policy of the Province Of Oll[~riO
1. Efficient, cost-effective development and land use patterns
I. 1 Developing strong communRies
l.l.l ~ubjcct to ~hc pro~sions of policy l.l~, cos~-effcc~ve d~vclopm~n~ pa~s
will be promoted. Accordingly:
(a) U~b~arcasandmrals~lem~are~(cides, to~s, vitlagesandham~cts)
will be ~c foca of ~o~;
~) Rural ;reas ~ll ~nmlly be ~e foc~ of resou~c acdvky, reso~ce-
based recreational a~ ~d o~er ~1 land u~s;
(c) Utb~ ar~ ~ ~t se~em~n( areas will be ~xpaMcd only where
ist~ng desi~a~ed area in ~ m~icipallty do not have suf~d~c land
supply ~o acco~oda~e ~e ~o~ projected for ~c munlclpafi~. Land
requirmcn~ will be dc~ in accor~cc ~ plicy l .l 2.
Tbe policies of Section 2: R~so~ccs, ~d Scion B: ~blic Health and
Safc~ will be applied ~ ~e detonation of ~¢ mos~ appmpdat~ direc-
tion for expnsio~, Expnsions imo p~m~ agi~lmral are~ ~c perub-
led ~[y
I. ~herc ~e no r~onab[~ ~t~ativ~ which avoid pdme agn~ahural
2, there ~e no reason~t~ ah~afives wi~ lower'pfioti~ ~culm~l
lands in the ~mt agd~Iru~l area;
06
Ot',zT.d~,JO PL,L~INING PRACTICE PS 3
..tu;ust 1996
' SEp-~5-20OO MOH lI:17 AM
1.1.1,
FaX ~o.
P. 07
PROVINCL4i POLICY STATElYlENT
(d) Development and land use pasterns nha: would hinder ~e effici~.~
sion of u~ ~ or m~ se~e~nt ~c~ ~e not ~ aed in ~jacen~
(e) A c~rdin~cd appr~ch should ~ achieved when de~g w[~ issues
wMch cross mu~cip~ ~und~es. including:
1. fnp~ru~re ~d public $e~ic~ f~ciliatf:
2. ecos~r~m nd watenhed ~la~d
3. shordlne nd dve~e h~:
~ere up~r der pinning t~x place. projecdou for municipdkics will
~ coo~na{cd ~d nll~ated by upper fief govcmmcn{s. in consulndon
wi~ lower da
(0 ~velopmcnt ~d {ud use paHcms which may causl ~nvironmen~l or
public hc~ ~d s~c~ cone:ms will ~ a~'oid~d: ~d
(g) In ~e~to~ wi~ou{ municipal or~ization. ~c f~us of development
acdQi~ will ~ mso~ce activities nd r~sou~-b~d rccrcad~n~ acdvi-
des. wi~ the following rcs~cdoni:
I. ~ establishment of new pcm~cn~ {ownskis is no: pe~iued: and
2., ~v~lopmcn{ o~hcr ~ resourc= acrivi~ ~d mxourcc-b~cd recre-
ational acdvky ~II bc rcs~c~ed in ~c ~a ndj~cent to ~d su~ound-
{ng muaicipalidcs
· ~e ~a fo~s p~ of a planning ~ca. ~d
· it h~ ~cn dotemined. n p~ of a compdh~nsive plmning cx-
c~i~e. ~at ~e impacu QF ~ow~ will not place ~ undue s~n
on ~e pubHc ~t~c~faci/i/i~ ~d infr~{ruc~ur~ of ~e adjncent
munkip~.
L~d requiremenu ~d lnd use paa~m~ wiU be b~cd on:
(a) ~e provhion of mfficient ~d foe industrial. commc~i~. residen~i~,
r~rea{ion~. o~n spac~ nd institutional uses m promot~ employment
oppo~i~es. ~d for ~ appropda~ r~gc ~d ~ orating, to accom-
m~ate gm~h proj~c~d for a dmc hodson of up to 20 yc~s. (However.
whdr~ a longer dine ~d~ has bccn es~blishcd for s~cific ~eas of {h~
Provinc~ ~ a r~ult of a comprehensive provinci~ pl~ning e xc~ise. such
~ ~c~nated by ~c ~ovhcc {n ~e O~a~r Toeonto ~a. that
f~e may be used for upper and lower fief man {cipalkics wi~in ~e ~ca):
~) densities w~ch: ,
I. efficlendy use hnd. ~sourccs. iaft~tucm~e and ~Ub/ir se~.icefa-
PS4 =
- SEP-2b-2000 MON 11:18 RH
1.1.3
1J
1.2.1
FAX NO. P. 08
POLICY STATEtv[ENTS
2. avoid the need for unnecessary and/or uneconomical expansion oF
infrastructure;
3. support de use of public u'ansit, in areas where it exists or is to be
developed;
4. are appropriate to the rype of sewage and water systems which ate
plazmed or available: and
5. uke into account the applicable policies of Section 2: Resources. and
Section 3: l%blic Health and Safety:
(c) the lx~visioa of-', range of users in ueAs which have existing or planned
infrastructure tO accommodate them;
(d) development standards which are cost effective :rod which will minimize
]~d consumption and reduce servicing costs: and t
(e) providing opportunities for redevelopment. intensification and revita.li-
z',don in areas that have sufficient existing or planned infrastructure.
Long term economic prosperity will be supported by:
(a) making provisions such that infrastructure a.'~d public service facilities
will be available to accommod.ate proie.'cted __,growth:
Co) providing a supply of land to meet long term requirements, in accordance
~uith policy 1.12:
(c) providing for an efficient. cost-effective. reliable. multi.modal transpor-
tation system that is integrated ~'ith adjacent systems and those of other
jurisdictions and is appropriate to address expected. growth:
(d) conservingenergya. ndwaterbyprovi,qngforenergya.ndwatecefficiency:
(e) maintaining the ,.veil-being ofdov-'ntowns and mil. in-su'eets:
(f) optimizing the long-term avait,~-bility and the use of agficuhural and other
resources: and
(g) planning so that major facilities (such as airports. transportation corddon.
sewa~ treatment facilities. waste management systems. industries and
aggregate activities) and sensitive land ~es are appropriately designed.
buffered ~d/or separated from exh other to prevent adverse effects from
odour. noise and other cont:aninanu.
Housing
Provision will b~ made in all planning juri~icdons ford full ra.n~e of housing
type~ and densities to rneec projeered demographic and market requirements of
cure:at and future t'~idents of the housing market area by:
(a) rn~n~ning at all times at le~t a 10-year supply of land designated and
a vailable for new residential development and residential intensification:
(b) majnuining at all times, where new development is to occur, at least a
O~VFA~O PL~\'NINC PRACTICE PS 5
Augrut 199.6
· SEP-~.5-2000 ~ON II: 18 AM
FRX NO. P. 09
POLICY STATEN[ENTS
conuaccs will be pern-dned. without the need for official plan :h'nendmenc.
tezoning, or development permit under the planning Act [n all areas. except
those ;w:as of existing development or paeticulaf environmental sensitivity
which have been determined to be incompatible with exu'-action and associated
activides.
2,2.3.5 Pro~essive tehabilitatlon to accommoc~ate subsequent land uses will be re-
quired.
2.2.3.6 In prime agricultural aFtas, on prime agricultural/and, e~uacdon af mineral
aSgregates is pertained as an interim use provided that rehabilitation of the
site ~,ill be carried out whereby substamialty the same azeas and same average
soil quality for agriculnat¢ as¢ restored,
On these prime agrlcaltural lands. oomplete agricultural rehabillution is not
required if:
Ca) theft is a subs:andal quantity of mineral ag;,regatet gelow the water table
warranting extraction; or
(b) ~e depth o~ pinned exwacdon in 1 qu:~q]' m~,'s restor'~don of
e,~tz~ctio~ a~r, lculo, u'M capability un~easible; and
(c) edge:' a, ltcrn~dves h~ve been consldep:d by the appliczq'. and Found un-
sgir. Jblel; and
(d) a~ticul[ural rehnbili~don in rsmajnin~ ~re~ will be maximiz~d.
2.3 Natural Heritage
2.3.1 Natural heq'~aye features and areas. will be perfected from iacompadbl~
velopmen~.
(a) De','elo~ment and site alteration will noc be pertained in:
~igni~cant tqetla. nds sou~ al'ld east of the C:nad/an Shield:. and
s~ni~cant pogion; of ~e habir. a~ of endangered a. ad threatened spe-
cies.
(b) Development ~d site aheradon may be permitted
fish h~bitat,
significant wetlandJ in th,' Canadian Shield:
significant woodlands south ~d east of' the Canadian Shield~
significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield:
significant wildlife habitat. and
, significant areas of natural and scientific interest.
10~her aJarnatives includ,z fesourzes in azeu of classes 4 to 7 agrl. culatral lads, resources on
lands. committed In ~uture urban u~es. and resources on pdrne agricultural lands ~-,hcc¢ rch~-
bilira6oa In agricult~t¢ is possible.
? Areas south and ~:~c of the Canadian Shield an: iho,J..n on Figure l.
ONTARIO MILE CORPORATION RACEWAY
SE~T BY FAX
~8145 STATION DUNDAS L.C.D.
HAMILTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
LgH 5E7
PHONE: (905) 627-3133
FAX: (905) 335-1523
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
TO: Mr. John MacDonald
Director-Community Services
FR: Doug Paton, chair, Raceway Niagara
RE: Lot ~198 - Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan
John;
A major impediment to de~opment of the industrial lands
at Lot ~198 has been this long term watershed study which
seems to spin alon9 without resolution- Recently with
the help of Geoff Holman, we re-jigged the entire layout
to miss the damp spots but are being stonewalled by the
'Guelph M.N.R., it seems. 18 charges under the tree bylaw
cost the Region well into 6 figures so we jumped in to
stop the bleeding by plead~ to 1 charge at $2,500 with
no restitution before Provincial Court to save the taxpayers
and ourselves from run-away legal costs .... ergo, there
are technically no more woodlots on Lot ~198.
At all of the meetings I have attended, the Conservation
Authority has not been present yet they are the group
charged with watershed management. ,
What is going on here?
We have great demands to move forward with the e~uestrian
centre project at this time but I cannot seem to get clear'
to the critical stages of zoning change, site preparation
and final design/tender d~tails. This project will never
see the light of day as long as expropriation without
compensation looms over the Dougan portion of the study.
We are slowly losing the confidence of the landowner group,
losing momentum within our agri-industry, may suffer delays
in allocation of slots, seem to have lost the infields for
soccer, horse shows, playing fields, rallys etc., and had to
split parking adding supervision and maintenance costs. The
investor group is also losing enthusiasm as upfront costs
escalate.
This study is a city initiative that to us is bloQking a
realistic, job-creating, major tourist year round attraction
on development land identified by the City.
Help!!
Reg~..
Doug P
ONTARIO MILE CORPORATION RACEWAY
#8145 STATION DUNDAS L.C.D.
HAMILTON, ONTARIO. CANADA
L9H 5E7
PHONE: (905) 627-3Z33
SENT BY FAX FAX: (905) 335-1523 S~PTEM~ER 26, 2000
Mr. Geoff Holman, C.E.T.
Manager.of Development
Community Services Department
City of Niagara Falls
905 356 2354 (F)
RE: Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan Report
Dear Geoff;
We were advised of last night's presentation to the
C~nmunity Services Committee by the Lot #198 owner's
group, and were present when the engineers introduced
the Plan-
The let drawing presented appeared to model the March
16, 2000 vegetation and wetland unit Drawing #5 stamped
by Dougan and Associates which we have seen before and was
used to re-set the Raceway site configuration. However,
a 2nd schematic was then shown which we have not seen
before which expanded the surface drainage w~th 'blue'
colouting appearing 'to introduce a proposal for some
type of flood control system which could impact on Lot
#198. I did not get an opportunity to view this 2nd
drawing nor did I verify any~input from the Conservation
Authority who are responsible for watershed management
in the Region as I understand it. ~
Before this goes back to committee and council, I would
like to study this new information and run it by Dr-
Coleman to determine what is involved and how it impacts
the work he is about to perform pursuant to the terms of
reference for the E.I.S. for'our zoning/OF amendment
application.
***** Please~advise me how I can see or obtain a copy of this
~rawing and written support materials.
We also met with Thompson from haval who appears to be
proposing a sports development at Garner/Lundys Lane
Site ~15 so our focus is strictly on Lot #198 at this
time.
Thank you again for all your help and advice.
.Sincerely,
RACE~~A! -M.C .R,
P. 2
fc. John MacDonald
357 9293
ONTARIO MILE CORPORATION RACEWAY
#8145 STATION DUNDAS L.C.D.
HAMILTON, ONTARIO. CANADA
I..gH 5E7
'PHONE: (905) 627-3] 33
2000 FAX: (905) 335-1523
Dr. Derek Coleman
ESG International Inc
361 Southgate Drive
Guelph, Ontario
N1G 3M5
Dear Dr. Coleman;
· . REF: Lot #198 Niagara Falls
E.I.S. -- Full Site
The attached revised site plan layout for Lot #198
avoids identified wetted areas. Significant tree
cutting may obviate 'woodlot' consideration. .
At a recent meeting with the, City Planners, engineers,
M.M.A.H., M.N.R. and the Region; it was noted that
a development Zoning/OP application will require a
full E.~.S. as set ou~ on Pages 4 & 5 (Sect 3.) of th
attached July 20, 1998 Guidelines by Dougan & Associa~
of Guelph. While it is possible the City and Region
would support our application, M.M.A.H. would merely
cite the P.P.S. and yield to the M.N.R. who seem to
want tO dig their.heels into the statement by Dougan
that 'The evaluation concluded that the Warren Creek
Wetland Complex is Provincially Significant', thus no
development can take place.
Given the current knowledge you have of the property,
at the reconunended EIS criLerea level O~ Section 3 (p~
we need to know:
~.) Can ESG carry out this work and over what
time line?
2) The approximate fee, disbursement, upset
limit to perform this work?
3) Is this likely to be just an exercise in
futility?
A FAMed response Or verbal comment will suffice at this
time as we are considering examining other sites.
sincerely,'
ONTARIO M.,~TT.I,~ :Q.~P-ATION
Doug Paton, e~a~r etc
Schedule 5
Provinicially Significant Wetlands
j////~ Lundn/s Lane
lilac~
lllllllilllll _
Brown Road
lu 3~
Legend
Provincially Significant Wetlands
City Business Park
Blott Land
S:%Comunity\Westlane~Garner~lap~c,wetlnd,apr
City of Niagara Fall-~
Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan
Wetland Evaluation Findings & EIS Requirements
April 2000
Introduction
The Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan (WMP) study was initiated in late 1993 to document environmental
resources in the Warren Creek watershed, to examine alternatives for the management of natural resources,
floodin~ erosion and water quality, and to present targets, goals and objectives for preferred approaches to their
management.
,
Field studies for the WMP determined that remnant nag areas in the watenhed are dominated by relatively
uniform wet o~k forests, containing reg~,larpools or 'sloughs' with swamp and marsh (i.e. wetland) cover. The
forests contain swamp tree species such as Pin Oak, Swa/~ White Oak, and Tupelo. The landform, consisting of
gently undulati~g fine-textured soils, traps and stores precipitation in pools. This storage results in minimal
response flows to Warren Creek after precipitation events, which is a valued wetland function. Additional
rivefine wetlands occur along the channel or Warren Creel between Brown Road and Montrose Road. None of
the identified wetlands were previously evaluated under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (1993).
During the preparation of the Garner Secondary Plan, City staff included requirements for woodlot protection.
evaluation of unevaluated wetlands by development proponents, and requirements for Environmental Impact
Studies ~yhere development is proposed within 120 m of wedands determined to be Provincially Significant, or
woodlots. The SP underwent Public review in 1997, and was approved by City Council in October 1997.
;
The unevaluated status of the wetlands presented a limitation to fiDaliTation of the WMP; City staff,, in
consultation with Ministry of Natural Resources,' Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authori& and Region of
Niagara staff requested that the consultants prepare the wedand evaluation, and specify conditions for site-
specific Environmental Impact Studies to be completed as part of detailed development proposals.
Wetland Evalttation Fmdin~a
The Wamm Creek wetlands were'evaluated :'.m' the spring of:1998based on existing data compiled during the-7
XVMP study. and limited. additieiml field reconnaissance.' The. evaluation followed the' Ontario Weftand
Evaluaticn System (1993) which yiel& $cores in four areas o.f:wetland function: biological, hydrologj~l; sodal,
and special features. Under the Evaluation System, the wetlan& are considered as a complex when a) the
component wedands are located the same watershed, and b) are within 750 m of each other.
The evaluation concluded that the Warren Creek Wetland Complex is Provindally Significant, on the basis of
special features (spedes considered rare in the Region. Ontario and Canada), supplemented by hydrologic
functions (high level of attenuation of runoff due to headwater location). Based on this outcome~ development
proposals withln -120 m of the individual wedand in the complex must be accompanied by an Environmental
Impact Study in accordance with the Provincial Weftand Policy (1992). The results of the evaluation were
reviewed and confirmed with City and agency staff in May and June, 1998. An Open House was held on July 20,
1998 to inform landowners and the Public of the outcome of the evaluation.
The WMP d~termined that most of the we~an~ are reliant on the mjcro-catchmenm around the low-lying,
seasonal to permanent pools in the wet forest. The WMP study did not identify groundwater influences to the
surface water regime at the overall watershed scale; however, local-scale linkage is a possibility. Biologically, the
slough forest systems .are highly diverse, containing species typical of weftand and upland habitats over short
distances. Vegetation forms include floating species (such as duckweed), emergent plants, herbaceous
groundflora, shrubs, and trees. Pin Oak, a species considered rare in Canada, is prevalent in all of the foresteal
wetlands. Tupelo (a rare tree species) and RoundleafGreenbriar (a rare shrub species) are nationally rare species
found in the western half of the watershed.
· The slough wetlands support wildlife including common amphibians, mammals, songbirds, and waterfowl. Some
of the ..p~'manent pools conralrt minnow species, No rare or threatened wildlife sp.~..i..'es are currently on record,
although 17 regionally significant songbird spedes were observed during the 1998 breeding season.
Wetlands located along Warren Creek are reliant on the flood characteristics in this part of the watershed. They '
are less extensive than the wet forest habitats, and are associated with remnant forest cover along the better-
defined sections of the creek valley. Water Starwort, an aquatic plant considered rare in the Region, occurs in
the floodplain of Warren Creek. A warmwater fishery was identified in the Creek during the watershed study.
Environmental Impact Study Requirements:
Under he Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statements, an Environmental Impact Studies CEIS) is normally
required When development is proposed within 120 m of Provindally Significant Wedands.
The Watershed Master Plan identified three key dependency factors that sustain these wedands:
· water quantity and q, mlity of local micn>catchments feeding the slough forest wedands;
· quality biological and physical resourc~ (i.e. fine soils and micro-topography) within theslough forest;
· flow characteristics and water q, m!ity along the valley of Warren Creek downstream of Kalar Road
AppLications .for development of lands located more than 120 metms from the identified boundary of
weftands can/be processed .wi.'thout an EIS. Proposed developments located between 50 m to 120 m
from the Wetland boundnry may bedrequired to complete a scoped EIS-ff the type and ex/ent'of
development will result in site alteration of'a scale and degree (i.e, signfficant alteration of existing
runoff quality and quahtity, potentinlly affecting wetlands in the vici~W; removal of forest or
successional cover that is contiguous to weftands in the vicinity) such that a scoped EIS is warranted.
Proposed developments located less than 50 m from the wetland botmdary may be required to
complete a full site EIS if the type and extent of development will result in site alteration of a scale and
degree such that a scoped EIS is deemed inadequate- This includes more detailed study of potential
impacts to lq~.al. drainage, water quality, groundwater, and adjoining habitat which may affect the
wedand.
The scoped or full site EIS must include a Mitigation Plan to offset any identified impacts to the
wetlands. A MQnitoling Plan is required for developments located within 50 m of a wedarid.
2
PHILIPS
ENGINEEKI~'G
3215 North Service Road, Box 220, Burlington. Ontario LTR 3Y2
Faxed (905) 356-2354 attd Mailed
June 6, 2000
Our File: 93054-10
City of Niagara Falls
43 10 Queen Street
Niagara Falls. ON L2E 6X5
ATTENTION:
Mr. Geoff Holman. C.E.T.
Manager of Development
Dear Sir: -
Review of May 19, 2000 Correspondence
from Allan S. Blott, C).C.
Further to our meeting of May 30. 2000, we have undertaken a review of the correspondence received
from Mr. ,Blott and offer the following commentaryr
Page 2, Paragraph 2
The Technical Steering Committee agreed that it would be superior to conduct a comprehensive
analysis/assessment of the wetland system as opposed to a piece meal approach, due to the complex
character of this slough forest. Doing so, and having the study paid for by the City, actually reduces the
subsequent financial obligation for study from the requisite development proponents.
Page 2, Paragraph 3, Point No. 3
The ,bir,4 party subcopsuhant referred to in this point is actu~' ' of the .......
........ } a member Watershed
Planning Team (Dougan & Associates). All environmental information gathered under the guise of the
Warren Creek Watershed Plan and supplemental efforts should rightly be incorporated into the Watershed
Plan.
Page 2, Paragraph 3, Point No. 4
To suggest.that any of the actions in this process were done in a "covert way" is ludicrous, given the
numerous open houses and punic presentations which have been held to date.
Page 2, Paragraph 3, Point No. 5
Land use planning is the catalyst.t'raison d'etre for preparing watershed master plans, hence suggesting that
a land use planning study has nothing to do with a watershed plan is also somewhat ludicrous (ref.
attached exerpt from Ministry of Natural Resources documentation).
Tel (905) 335 2353 · Fax: (905) 335, 1414 · adm~n@phd~pserlg com · www ph.lps,eng Com
Philips Engineering Ltd.
City of Niagara Falls
June 6, 2000
Page 2
Page 3, Paragraph 2
Mr. Blott suggests that the Warren Creek Master Watershed Study "started out as a typical engineering
study". This is inaccurate, as the study's basis is environmental constraint identification,- management
and planning. The Terms of Reference clearly stipulate that terrestrial systems, aquatic resources, surface
water and groundwater resources all be investigated for their potential influence on land use. In addition,
the Warren Creek Master Watershed Study did not examine potable water and sanitary issues. This was
done separately. Also, the Warren Creek Master Watershed Study has been subject to numerous open
houses itself, hence to suggest that there has been "very little public input" is inaccurate.
Page 3, Paragraphs 3 and 4
As previously discussed. the Watershed Study is an environmental, not solely engineering document and
it rightly should incorporate land use directires, such as the Dougan piece on environmental impacts. In
fact, recent subwatershed planning initiatives, which our finn has been involved in the Town of Milton
(Sixteen Mile Creek Areas 2 and 7), as well as the Town of Oakville (Fourteen Mile Creek Tributary)
have both incorporated this level of study.
Page 5, Paragraph 2
We would note that Mr. Dougan did not forward copies of his notes at the direction of the City due to the
ongoing court case for the unlawful logging in the area. Dougan & Associates are a subconsultant to
Philips Engineering Ltd. in this initiative, hence Philips, on behalf of Dougan, contacted the Municipality
with respect to facilitating the release of its information.
The balance of the letter basically addresses environmental issues and legislative matters that are probably
best handled by either Dougan & Associates or the: City directly. Should you require additional
commentary, we can provide this at your request.
Yours very truly,
PHILIPS ENGINEERING LTD.
Per: ~?"Ronald B. Scheckenberger, M. Eng., P. Eng.
Cc:
Mr. Ed Dujlovic, City of Niagara Falls
Mr. Dave Heyworth, City of Niagara Falls
Jim Dougan, Dougan & Associates
RBS/mp
./
Dougan &
Associates
/cological Consultin
Seevices (911616 Ont. Inc,
7 waterloo Avenue
Guelph, Ontario
NIH 3H2
(519) 822-1609
(5{ 9) 822-5389
douganassociates
C'~_home.com
membershome.net
/douganassociates
· NatUral Heritage
Planning
Landscape Design
Fa Interpretation
. Habitat
Assessment.
Restoration 6
Management
Environmental
Impact Studies
· Urban Street Tree
G Forest
Management
Expert M,4tness
Testimony
Native Plant
Nursery Services
June 6. 2000
Mr. G. Holm an, P.Eng.
Municipal ~Vorlc. s Department
City of Niagara Fails
43 10 Queen Stre~
P,O, Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON
LZE 6X5
Dear sir;
Re, Letter to Mayor '['hca'nson and Cotu'xcil of Msy 19/CO from & Blon
I ha,.'e now reviewed the aL'e.'ereferenced letter and have the tblDwing commen~:
n 1.3.
This portion of the {et~er sugges~ Sac Mr. Blott is still unhmihar ~'ith the hC~tox3,' ot this prolet-t,
dc=,b, ilt cq3lanations to him in peteon on at leur rRree o<c;,q. inn~. and the det2iled de.~noC~on in the
~/~,tershed ML, tcr Pl6n E)reft Report X.Y/arersktd so.,rti~ rn,~rinely examine natural heritage
resources. assess their significance and sensitivity. and determine appropriate le.'e[s of prc~ecrion and
further study to guide funIre de.'elopment- A Comprehensive E[S summanzes the k~' fianctions and
sensirMnes ofv..c~"llou and wetlands, and provides gridante on tiecalled asse.%ments ro be conducttx]
prior to development. It standardizes rbe study requirements. so chat de.'elopers do not have ~o
'reinvent the v.'heel' for each EIS exercise This approach ~-as supported under the original Wetland
Poli,_~' (1992), and under the cumnr Prcy.'incial Potiq,' 5tacemen~ (1991) and the Natural Herits.=
Reference Manual (1999).
The evaluation and re-e-'aluation of wetb. nds is a routine invenKrcy component of w~tershed studies
For example. the 1998 terms of reference for the Sub~'ater~hed Areas Z & ? Study of Stx-ceen Mile
Creek in the Town of Milton required th,' ,-~ox=l,mrion of al{ pre.'iouslv e,~luared wetlands. and
evaJuation of any additional wedands identified in the study area. The 1997 Totreact Creek
Wanerahed Study in the City of Guelph (conducted in par~ I~' ESG lntemanonal) had a similar
requirement in regard to the Tortonce Creek ',llerland Compfex The 1996 Moffat Creek Watershed
Study in the City of Cambridge required a Comprehensive EIS to be completed for the Prc~'mcially
S~gni~cant Moffat Creek Wedand Complex as part of the ~,'atershed study. There are man', ocher
example, u~ete thL~ approach h~s I',een fr,llnv..d.
The Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan Study '.,.~s a multidisciplinary project from its inception
Like all watershed stttdies completed in the past decade. ir requited the assessment of terrescnal and
aquatic resources in addition to engineering marxors. This ts a basic requirement of the munic~palit','
and agencies '.'htc. l'l ~'er~e the preparation oftbox 3HIdic.,. Or,, (i.,., h.~ d,t,~.l~.,.~ k:,.:c.~ i.~,'.:,l-~d
the Warren Creek study since its inception. We have been revolved as a sukonsukan[ prt~.,idtng_
terresrxial ecological a-x.~Qamcnu for w~rctahcd ,studice and many od~er projects er,'~r the past 2tq
The Trees Unlimited Study (1993) did not undertake werland c",'aluarions. and Was reliant
bac~oround information. The Ontario '0~terland E,.aluarDn System has been thc accepted
.~stem for ~aedand evaluation be(ore prc~'incial k.,dies such itq the OMB and Environmental
Assessment Board since the early 1980's. D,'aklarors receive formal MNR vrainmg, and apply
~coring tinder 49 ~parate crtreria to determine rhe significance of a wetland We have three
trained evaluaton on stafl: The process of~land e.'aluation and re-e,'aluation in southern Ontario ts ongoing:
in 1993 only a ~, weftands had been e~aluated in Niagara Region. [ am a~'are of s~etal hey.. ~.aluations and
r~-aluations that has'e been compl~ed in the Region ,~,ithin the past 3 years, despite the cited comment of Mr.
Paul Ro~_-~bon (a forester) that there have not been an}' r~r.'aluations "m the best of his kncy~ledge".
The only report prepared foe the City in 1993 w~ the Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan Interim Report ~ l
prepared by Phllll~ Plantring and E|tginccring Ltx:Li ~: wrote the terrytrial re~ource-i ,,,~rion-~ThL~. document
has been on file with the City since 1993 and was certainly available at the t~me Mr. BIo~ became imolx~ed ~'ith
the Omada lands. The 1993 report presentt~ pteliminat3' findings, including a diso,~ssion of unevaluated
,~'dand$ within the ',.rateshed. The current Draft Watershed Mawr Plan report contains refined information
ba~ed on field ,null,= comph,t~d in l%4. ara I..Ogg, =nd al~o raking into consideration the Ecological Land
Classification system adopted by the province in 1998. Habitats including thot. e on Mr. Blott's land ~'ere
reviewed during most field sessions. Depressions with standing water and assc~iated wetland cover were noted.
more than 10wet depressions ate plainly visible on aerial photos of his property.
The method u~d ,co determine the presence and extent of we~ands ia ~.lcaal~ degri/xd in ~hc 2000 eel.ore
the opportuni~ to refine the ,~,etland limits through site-specific sn. dy is also describe,-1 There are approximately
100 indi~'idual pools contained in the forests w~thin the War~en Cre~k watershed. each ,.'ith particular m~cre
catchmenr characteristics. Mr. glott has asserted thac the ~,'etlands lack sufficient sue for compl~mg and scor:n_~
purpuu:~; huwc..~er, p~ 13 of the ~'edand g~-aluation Manual (3~ ~d ) ~tare.~ rha~ small u.'etland uni~ may L'.e
evaluated where thts can be justified We rev~c-~'ed available ~vetland mapping options ~lth the tespons,b~e
MNR bit,k,g~.t (m.mdat~d by the P~c~-'incc to adrnlnigtet the wedand eu~h,arlnn ,3,'steml and they concurt~
w, ith the approach adopted as the most ~ahsnc and Ixactical in this si0aation. No "chen~.'.p~cking" occurred
Mr. Blotx as.~.rt~; tadre, ,,'e fieaPed th,~ entire sy~oem m a uniforrn frahion Both Ci~, =nd MNR staff' can at~esl
to the fairness of our approach on all aff6aed lands.
Mt~ Blott sent leEers to the Region's sohcI~or and m me earlier this year. demanding my file information and
mvoices~ [ referred him to City staff He has recev.,ed a copy oC my personal notes through his court pr~e~dlr!g
on the matr. erot illegal tree curerig. and u..as proxided ~.'lrh a col~'uf tl t~ ,,~ctlat~d data rx:~.ocd cv.o ~:,~. ,xg.o
Conclusions
Information on the prepnee ofwedands on the Omada lands has been on file with the Cxw since late 1993
my cxpc-ricnc~ that ~y det,elol~n do no~ acl~q, mr~.ly rt'.~.arch natural herit'~e matters before entering Into
business arrangements; th~ conld greatly reduce their risk~ if the' were to do so. The ~iev~s expressed in Mr
Blots letter of May 19/00 are inconsistent with the discussions at the meeting of Juh' 28/99 bet~en Mr. BIotL
his a~ociates and consulrants, City staff, MNR staff, MMA staff. City staff. and the watershed study cortsukant~
At [hat meeting, MMA ~a~d City staff indicat-ed that they would be ~ible regarding an at:ceptabb..q~'elc~pmenr
D-opo,~l on hi.~ land.. b:~ on rl~ laruzl use hiitoty and the glS; prt3rocoL
Please contact me ify~u require further dact~cation on thk~ marceL
Sincerely,
Principal St. Ecologg~D°~
r c. R Scheckenbergcr. P Eng. MEn.o
Ph,lips Engineering Limited
· Page 2
Community Services Department
Municipal Works
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: edujlovi@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng.
Director
MW-2000-122
October 16, 2000
Aideman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re;
MW-2000-122 - Cost Sharing for the Retention
Of Consulting Services for the Engineers Report for
Water Works.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City cost share with the Region in the mount of $9,773.00 for the
retention of a consultant to carry out the engineers report for water works as required under the New
Provincial Regulations.
REPORT:
As Committee is aware the Province of Ontario ha.q passed new water regulations in response to the
contamination of the Walkerton Water System. A significant component of the new regulation is
the mandatory review of Water Works Systems across the Province.
The review and subsequent report must be carded out by an independent professional engineer and
follow the tem~s of reference as prepared by the Minisay of the Environment. The report for the
Niagara Falls System is due in the Spring of 2001.
In that both the distribution system and trealment plants need to be reviewed it was agreed by the
public works officials for the area municipalities that the area municipalities would parmer with the
Region in having the work carried out.
Accordingly the Region prepared the terms of reference and invited various consultants to provide
proposals to carry out the work. The successful consultant that will be undertaking the review for
the Niagara Falls and Fort Erie Systems will be Earthtech. The total cost to carry out the review is
$79,360.00 plus GST with the City's share being $9,773.00 pins GST.
FForking Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development
2000-1 O- 1 ~ -~ - MW-2000-'122
Committees concurrence with the above recommendation would be appreciated.
Ed Dujlovic, P.Eng.
Director of Municipal Works
.Approved by~
John MacDonald,
ireclot of Community Services
Respectfully Submitted by:
Edward P. Lustig,
Chief Administrative Officer
ED:mt
Community Services Department
Building and By-law Services
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 374-7500
E-mail: melb@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
BBS-2000-12
Mel Brown,
Chief Building
Official
October 16, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of the Commtmity Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
RECOMMENDATION:
BBS-2000-12
Wording Change to Sign By-Law
No. 6661, as amended by By-law No. 95-254
That Council appwve the attached by-law, amending Sign By-Law No. 6661, as amended by By-
law No. 95-254 to replace section 6~c)10. which reads "A portable sign must be placed and remain
in the specific location on the lands as appwved in the sign permit.", with the following; "A portable
sign shall be placed, erected or continued and remain in the specific location on the lands where the
advertised business, product or service is located as approved in the sign pemiit."
BACKGROUND:
Sign By-Law No. 6661 was amended in 1995 by By-law No. 95-254 to clearly define the use of
portable signs within the City of Niagara Falls. The intent of section 6(c)10 is to ensure that portable
signs are allowed to advertise on the site of the business that is applying for the sign. Section 6(c)10
is amended to further clarify this. Committee's concurrence with the above recommendation would
be appreciated.
Prepared b ·
eeler~
anager of By-law Enforcement
~dby: .
Mel Brown
Chief Building Official
Approved byu,~
ohn MacDonald
've Director of Community Services.
Respectfully Submitted:
Edward P. ~/~
Chief Adminisl~ative Officer
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-law Services
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
By-Law No. 2000-
A by-law to amend By-law No. 6661, 1964 as amended, being a by-law in respect of signs
THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 6.(c).10. is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:
6.(c).10
A portable sign shall be placed, erected or continued and
remain in the specific location on the lands where the
adveaised business, product or service is located as approved
in the sign penuit.
Passed this day of ,2000.
E.C. WAGG, CITY CLERK
WAYNE THOMSON, MAYOR
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Third Reading:
,2000
,2000
,2000
The City of
Niagara Falls~
Canada
Community Services Department
Parks, Recreation & Culture
7565 Lundy's Lane
Niagara Falls, ON L2H 1G9
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-7404
E-mail: akon@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Adele Kon
Director
R-2000-69
October 16, 2000
AIde.nan Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: R-2000-69
Armoury Acquisition Proposal
RECOMMENDATION:
That David Schram & Associates be retained at a cost of $7,200 to prepare a Proposal and an
accompanying Business Plan for the Armoury, and also to address the viability of severing and
rezoning part of the site.
BACKGROUND:
In a previous report, Members of Council were informed that the appraised value of the Armoury
was $375,000. Members of Council directed the Mayor to contact both The Honourable Arthur C.
Eggleton, Minister of National Defence and our local member, Mr. Gary Pilliteri, M.P., to request
that the building be transferred to the City for a nominal fee.
As a result of the Mayor' s correspondence, a meeting recently took place with staff representatives
of the Federal Government, the Mayor and City staff to further discuss the acquisition of the
Ai-moury. The Federal Government staff representatives explained that the Federal Government
catmot legally give away buildings or land _but must obtain their appraised value. However, they did
suggest an alternative proposal that is outlined below. They felt that their suggested proposal would
address both the Federal and Municipal concems.
That the back section or parking lot area of the Amioury is severed, rezoned, and retained
by the Federal government for future sale. From their perspective, the sale of this property
would generate sufficient revenue to support the transfer of ownership of the Armoury to the
City for a nominal consideration.
That a covenant be registered on title ensuring the protection of the building's historic site
designation.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Sen/ices Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development
R-2000-69
-2-
That the City prepare a proposal for the use of the building and accompanying business plan
for their consideration.
If the City agrees in principal to further pursue their conditions, the Federal Govemment indicated
a willingness to hold the sale of the building in abeyance. They are also willing to provide a
sufficient time for the City to prepare a response to their proposal, but are hopeful that we can
complete the process by this coming February.
Staff is recommending that we retain the services of David Schram & Associates to; prepare the
proposal for the use of the building and the business plan, as well as to address the severing of the
back portion of the Armoury site. The cost for consulting services has not been budgeted and
therefore, it will have to be charged to the City' s reserve.
Recommence_:
Director of Parks, Recreation & Calmre
Respectfully Submitted:
Edward P. Lustig
Chief Administrative Officer
Approved by:
John acDonal
M d
Director of Community Services
attachment
AK/das
S:\Counoil\Council 2000~R-2000-69.wpd
DAVID SCHRAM
& ASSOCIATES
8~6100 Thorold Stone Road
Dow Plaza
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Canada L2J 1A3
telephone
905,371.1506
facsimile
905,371.9763
email
dschram~iaw.on.ca
* approvals
· public private partnerships
· infrastructure development
management
· alternative service delivery
· project management
· environmental
· organizational
, change management
· waste management
October 9, 2000
Ms. Adele Kon, M.A.
Director of parks, Recreation and Culture
City of Niagara Falls
Parks, Recreation and Culture
7565 Lundy's Lane
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2H 1 G9
PARKS, RECREATION
& CULTURE
Dear Ms. Kon:
Ref:
Proposal for Consulting Services - Preparation of a Business
Plan and Related Advisory Services - Victoria Avenue
Armoury
Thank you for the invkation to present a work program and estimated
budget to assist the City in developing a business plan for the Victoria
Sweet Armoury. The following describes a phased approach to working
with the City and ensuring that the plan is produced in a most efficient
and cost effective manner.
Proposed Work Program
The Federal Government currently owns ~e A~'moury but is willing to
consider a transfer of ownership to the City with certa'm conditions. In
turn, the City must ensure that ownership of the Armoury does not result
in financial, administrative or management burdens.
A three phased approach is suggested to move this project forward.
Each phase is briefly discussed as follows:
Phase One - Defining the Business Plan. There is some uncertainty
of the Federal Government's expectations of a business plan.
Therefore, the first step would be to produce a business plan ou~ine
that specifically,.., describes the scope of the evaluation and the plan
content. The oVerview would be developed for review with the
Federal Government. This should ensure that there are no
disagreements or delays in the subsequent process of moving from
the completed business plan to the transfer of property.
The business plan outline would be sufficiently detailed to allow all
participants to "buy in" to the process.
Page 2
Other important Phase One activities will involve a complete review of background
information, meeting notes and plans relevant to the project. This work will be
necessary to assist the City in working with possible tenant~ and completing the business
plan.
Phase Two - Preparing the Business Plan. Following agreement with the Federal
Government the business plan will be prepared. We expect it to address several
matters that address the fundamental question of "how to use this building". For
example:
The use of the building by different and perhaps competing interests
Possible roles for the private sector
An approach to identify and evaluate potential tenants including what is a
"suitable tenant/service"
The role of the City and other levels of government in providing stewardship
to historical and cultural matters
Cost and revenue analysis including estimated effects on the City budget
Management and operations considerations as it may affect the City and the
alternative of private sector involvement
Potential risks, liabilities and benefits
A drat't business plan will be prepared for review and comment. Following, a final
edition will be produced.
Other Phase Two activities could involve assisting the City in determining the
feasibility of severing part of the rear yard property. This assistance can include
evaluation of design alternatives, potential effects on the neighbourhood (i.e.
parking) and independent advice to consent and rezoning applications, if required.
We also suggest that possible tenants that have already expressed an interest in using
the Armoury should be consulted in the preparation of the business plan and the
assessment of appropriate governance models. We expeet that this consultation
could involve an initial level of negotiation with respect to space and tenancy
conditions. These discussions will be important input to the business plan and Phase
Three activities.
Phase Three- Implementation Activities. The completion and acceptance of the
business plan will allow the City to proceed with the transfer of ownership and the
development of the building for its future uses. The implementation program will
involve several activities where independent assistance may be useful~ For example:
Completion of negotiations with the Federal Government
Agreement with major tenants on matters related to occupation and use
Assessment of building management options
Coordination of building improvements
Pa~e 3
Certainly, Phase Three needs will be better defined as the implementation program
moves forward.
The Project Team
David Schram will be responsible for all aspects of the project. He has completed
similar work for municipalities throughout Ontario and has over 25 years of professional
and consulting experience. If additional resources or expertise is required, then the
following professionals are available:
· Mr. Cxreg Taras is a Professional Planner who has over 15 years experience in
planning and organizational studies.
Mr. Cam Watson is a municipal economist with over 30 years experience in financial
evaluation. Mr. Watson and David Schram have participated on several business and
organizational plans together including Essex-Windsor, Regional Niagara and Metro
TorontO.
Estimated Budget
We have estimated a budget to complete Phase One activities. This will allow the City
to participate in defining the scope and extent of Phase Two and agreeing to a budget
before any further work proceeds.
For the purposes of estimating a budget the same rate structure agreed to for the
Community Centre Project is used. It is also assumed that any meetings with Federal
Government representatives will be in Niagara Falls. The budget also includes four
formal meetings as follows:
Meeting #1 - with City staff to review and agree on the Phase One Work Program,
exchange information and establish-a schedule including a meeting date with the
Federal Government. /
Meeting #2 - would likely involve more than one meeting with potential tenants to
understand needs, possible issues and stewardship expectations, all of which will be
important input to the business plan overview. These meetings should occur before
meeting the Federal Government representatives.
Meeting #3 - is a meeting with the Federal Government to review the business plan
outline. It is important that consensus be reached at this meeting. This will probably
require some discussions on their expectations as part of the business plan overview
preparation.
Page 4
· Meeting/t4 - would be to review the final version of the business plan overview, the
Phase Two Work Program, estimated budget and schedule.
In addition, it is expected that several project meetings will be held with the City staff.
Preparation for and attendance for these type of meetings are included in the budget.
The estimated budget to complete Phase One including normal project disbursements
would be $7,200.00 (exclusive of GST).
Project Schedule
The critical activity of Phase One will likely be the involvement of the Federal
Government. It is important that this meeting be established early in the process and
other activities be undertaken accordingly. We have assumed that if the project starts in
mid-October, a meeting could be held in mid-October. If so, we anticipate that Phase
One could be completed as follows:
· Initiation and "tenant" meetings - mid-October to mid-November, 2000
· Completion of draft business plan overview - first week of November
· Final version of overview - early December
· Phase Two Work Program, budget and schedule - mid-December
Based on previous experience, we would expect that the business plan could be prepared
in about 2 months - no later than March 2001, assuming no significant delays in the
schedule.
In conclusion ....
We appreciate the invitation to be considered for this assignment. If any further
information or clarification is required please contact me.