The URL can be used to link to this page

2000/11/20REGULAR MEETING November 20, 2000 f. PRAYER: Alderman Ed Michalczyk 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of October 30, .2000 and Minutes of Special Meeting of November 9:. 2000. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Disclosures of pecuniary interest and a brief explanation thereo~: will be made for the current Council Meeting at this time. PRESENTATIONS Ontario Heritage Communi~ Recognition Program A representative from the Ontario Heritage Foundation will be in attendance to recognize Robert Cormier and Jack Hall. Young Family Endowment Scholarship Fund His Worship Mayor Thomson will present the Young Family EndOwment Scholarship Fund to recipients Kaitlan Wright and Danny Wright. DEPUTATIONS Project Red Ribbon 2000 Pam Sharkey and Victoria Kinsman, members of the Westlane Secondary School's Students Against Impaired Driving will address Counc~ regarding the Project Red Ribbon 2000; also in attendance will be Katheryn Wilson, Student Services, Jill Menzies, Heather Stewart and Alicia Niven. Wheel World Car Show Mr. Jim McBurney, Wheel World wishes to address Council with respect to their upcoming 7th Car Show. The Millennium Gateway Development Project Mr. S. Archie Thompson & Associates wish to address Coundl with regard to The Millennium Gateway Development Project. MA YOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS. REMARKS COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK f. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) - Re: Proclamation - requesting that Council proclaim the week of November 25 - December 6, 2000 as "White Ribbon Week". RECOMMENDATION: That the request be supported. Additional Items for Council Consideration: The City Clerk will advise of any further items for Council consideration. Chief Administrative Officer Chairperson, Sports Waft Of Fame Committee REPORTS MW-2000-130, Consulting Services for the Design of Storm Trunk Sewer,' Stanley Avenue Drop Shaft. R-2000-75, 2000 Sports Wall of Fame Inductees. RATIFICATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE ACTIONS (Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairman) RA TIFICA TION OF CORPORA TE SERVICES COMMITTEE ACTIONS (Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chairman) PLANNING MATTERS Chief Administrative Officer PD-2000-127, Application for' Site Plan Approval; SPC-12/2000, 6732 Oakes Drive; Proposed Expansion to the Minolta Tower. Chief Administrative Officer PD-2000-128, Application for Site Plan Approval,' SPC-1512000, 6740 Oakes Drive; Proposed 30- Storey Hotel Chief Administrative Officer PD-2000-130, Roosevelt Draft Plan of Condominium, Owner.' Noelle and Kerrie Sinclair. = Chief Administrative Officer PD-2000-131, Willoughby Drive Draft Plan of Condominium; Agent: K. Group Developments Inc. (David Smith). Chief Administrative Officer PD-2000-132, Street NamE: Change Request, Buchanan Avenue (South of Ferry Street) and Oakes Drive, Proposal "Fallsview Boulevard". - AND - Correspondence from Fallsview B.LA. Correspondence from Orsini Inns Correspondence from Sherman Zavitz Chief Administrative Officer PD-2000-134, amending By.law, Zoning By-law Amendment Application, AM-47/98; Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc. (D. DiCienzo) Southeast Quadrant of Q.E.W. and Mountain Road. - AND - Correspondence from Mr. Victor Muratori Chief Administrative Officer PD-2000-135, Application for Site Plan Approval; SPC-21/2000, 4915 Clifton Hill; Proposed Four- Storey Entertainment/Retail Complex. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS Report from Committee to hear matters involving applications for body rub par/our licences. -4- Chief Administrative Officer L-2000-87, Establishment/f Daylighting Triangle as a Public Highway - Delta Drive. Chief Administrative Officer L-2000-89, Proposed Walkw'ay Closing between Brian Crescent and Harrim.an Street; Block A, Plan NS 30. Note: Mr. David Rosa wishes to address Council. Chief Administrative Officer L-2000-90, Authorization to Proceed with Closing Part of Dock Street, South East of Welland Avenue. RA TIFICA TION OF COMMITTEE-OF- THE-WHOLE BY-LAWS The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to the by- laws listed for Council consideration. 2000-249 To amend By-law No. 96-32, being a by-law to regulate the maintaining of land in a clean and clear condition within the City of Niagara Falls. 2000-250 To amend By-law No. 79-200, as amended. (Re: AM-47/98, Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc., c/o Dino A. DiCienzo) 2000-251 To amend By-law No. 98-114, being a by-law to establish fees, rates and charges regarding licences, certificates, publications and other setvices for the City of Niagara Falls. (Re: Litter Administration Fees) 2000-252 To establish Part 3 on Reference Plan No. 59R-10857, as a public highway, to be known as and to form part of Delta Drive. 2000-253 To amend By-law No. 2000-199, being a by-law to establish a Committee of the Council to hear certain matters involving applications for body-rub par/our licences. 2000-254 To establish rules and regulations for the City of Niagara Falls Municipal Cemeteries. 2000-255 2000-256 2000-257 2000-258 2000-259 2000-260 '5- To prohibit the sounding of engine whistles of trains in respect to a certain highway crossing with the City of Niagara Fails. To amend By-law No. 79-200, as amended. (Re: AM-31/2000, 6028 Culp Street) To amend By-law No. 79-200, as amended.(Re: AM-3~2000, 5840 Dunn St. Michael & Tara Colaneri) To amend By-law 98-114, being a by-law to reestablish fees, rates and charges regarding licences, certificates, publications and other services for the City of Niagara Falls (Re: Ice Rental Rates and Special Event Rental) To amend By-law No. 79-200, as amended. (Re: AM-33/2000, Beechwood Rd., Anne Marie Bouwman, Daniel Bouwman and Jacqueline Burciul) To authorize monies for General Purposes (November 20, 2000) NEW BUSINESS WESTLANE SECONDARY SCHOOL S$,~[0 Pition Read NIAGARA PAl,l,9, ONTARIO L21i ITS (905) ~56-240 t FAX: (905) 35~- ' R.J, DALY, D,A., PRINCIPAL MITZI KLASSEN. B.b_, B, E4., P.H. Ec. VICE PI>,INCIPALS LOLl VE, SCIO, FAX COVERSHEET Date: I'age ,1 or Fax No.: FF OM: Fax IJo.: 3S b ~ (90E) .. Kd'Ar.,',f,,, ~,'lse~., (905) 356-1885 I0 Comrfier~-$!. mt~ District School Board of Niagara ,~ ,/,~, ~r~ N ~' Zo ~K · Tka4,t~ ~ SS 3NtOIS3~ S88IgSE-SBB SS :~I 000~/8g/8I City of Niagara Falls Queen Street Niagara Falls, On Art: Mr. Woody Wagg Re: City Council Meeting Monday, November 20th/O0' Mr. Wagg: I vould appreciate being able to address City Conncil'~.':: the above meeting regarding our up & coming 7th car - show, It will he a short presentation just to inform ;.fi'.-...':i council of the event, detailing a few of the veht'cl~:~~;''- If you. require additional information, please call or f'ax (905) 37~-3388. hanks; ~ ~ O.~JO0 c~B~rney ~ ir ~noter - Wheel ~orld ~ ~ Portage Road ~.A.T,A. 6. A,rd4lE T~ · N~aiX}IA/II October 11th 2000 The City of Niagara Falls The City Hall 4319 Queen Street NIagara Falls, Ontario L2 E 6X5 Attention: Mr. E.C. Wagg City clerk Subject; The Millennium Galeway Development Project aale&'pur~haaa agreement 15a-739 Canada Ino. and CIty of Niagara Fells. Dear Mr. Wagg: So that flare will not be the ctoslln.~ of lines, further to your phone call of today's ?re, advising that fie roesUng for I;he t6 of OCtober had to be re-scheduled for the 23 or Having advJtee my key team members of this,; am advised that they cannot be again available unffi the e~ of November, as they am already scheduled for other engagement. Shoulcl this date be not suitable for you an alternate would be the 20t~ Of November. Kindly advise at your soonest as one is in Dallas, Texas anti rite other has meelings in California, so that they can make their trawl plan. I look forward to your early response of Gate confirmation. Thanffing you, rimsin, Yours truly, $.A.T.A. ~08, DE8/:'lEe - LAVAL. - OtJ~.Jg~S¢ - HI'N tO6 PHONe/FAX: (480) I/.436M WHITE RIBBON 24 Octobor 2000 Re: 2000 White Ribbon Campai. cin Men Working To End Men's Violence Against Women White Ribbon Supporters Include: Dan Aykroyd Kurt Browning Mike Bullard Tom Cochrane Bruce Cockburn Gord Downie Atom Egoyan Phil Fontaine Graham Greene Scott Goodyear Brett Hull Jeff Martin Edc McCormack Rick Mercer Ed Mirvish Michael Ondaatje Steven Page Gordon Pinsent Clayton Ruby Chris Rudge Darry~ Sittier Alex Trebek Moses Znaimer 365 Bloor Street East Suite 203 Toronto, Ontario Canada M4W 3L4 TEL: 416-920-6684 FAX: 416-920-1678 whiterib~idirect. com w~,~v.~vhitcn~borLca Dear Mayor, Councillors and Municipal Colleagues, It's time for municipalilies in Canada to declare White Ribbon Week. Once again this fall we will ask Canadians, espedally men, to put on a white ribbon. This simple gesture, in the weeks and days leading up to Dec.6th, the anniversary of the shootinge at Montmars L'Ecole polytechnique, has become a widely mcognlsed call to end violence against women. The Federation Of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has endorsed the, White Ribbon Campaign far the past 4 years and since then over 200 municipalities farmally proclaimed White Ribben Week. (We published the full list in our newsletter mailed to thousands of Canadians.) And, in many cases, the Mayer and Councillors or the city administration distributed white dbbens and had public poster signings at their municipal offices. Please consider taking the following actions by your council: Proclaim White Ribbon Week: Nov.25-Dec.6 (see attached draft proclamation). Invite the public to come to your municipal offices or local padic~pating retailers such a Shoppars Drag Mart, Pharmapdx, and Loblaws stores to get white ribbons and sign the poster. (we'll send you as many as you need -just fax us hack the attached order form) Assign a senior staff member to coordinate White Ribben Cam paign activities. Request your staff to consider participating in Campaign activities through dbbon and brochure distribution. Please FAX us today with your order for white ribbons, literature handouts and a poster (see: attached order form) and we will enclose an invoice with your shipment. And please send us a copy of your municipal proclamation so we can add your municipality's name to the published list. Thanks for your suppart. I look forward to headng from you. Yours truly, Jack Layton Chair. The White Ribben Campaign Vice-president, Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Attachments: White Ribben Campaign Order Form, 'draft' Proclamation NOV 2 O 2o )0 Community Services Department Municipal Works 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2. E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-maik munwks@city.niagarafalls.on.ca His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 20, 2000 Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng. Director Members: MW-2000-130 Consulting Services for the Design of Storm Trunk Sewer Stanley Avenue Drop Shaft RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City of Niagara Falls enter into a Consulting Services Agreement for the design of the Storm Trunk Sewer for the Fallsview Tourist Core Area from the Stanley Avenue Drop Shaft to Kitchener Street with Philips Engineering Ltd., for the upset limit of $53,640.00 plus GST. BACKGROUND: As Council may be aware the Ministry of Transportation is planning to reconstruct Highway 420 up to and including the Stanley Avenue intersection. In conjunction with this work, the Region of Niagara is planning to reconstruct Stanley Avenue from Valley Way to Kitchener. This work provides the City with an oppommity to construct the new Stanley Avenue Storm Trunk Sewer from the drop shaft to Kitchener Street. It is anticipated by doing the work in conjunction with the other levels of government that we will see cost savings for the constmc;tion. Philips Engineering Ltd. has been retained by both the Ministry and the Region to do the design work. Although their price is above the limit for direct appointment, we are recommending using this firm for the design of the trunk sewer for the City. We anticipate that there will be savings in time and coordination of the construction and therefore costs by using the same consultant. Staff have reviewed the proposal and have concluded that the cost is reasonable for the work program. Working Together to Serve Our Community Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development MW-2000-130 Page 2 'November 20, 2000 Your concurrence with the above recommendation would be appreciated. Darrell E. Smith, P.Eng., Manager of Engineering Services Respectfully submitted: Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng. Director of Municipal Works Approved by: John MacDonald Executive Director of Community Services 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 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario. November 20, 2000 Adele Kon Director R-2000-75 Members: Re: R-2000-75 2000 Sports Wall of Fame Inductees RECOMMENDATION: That Council endorse the following Inductees to the 2000 Niagara Falls Sports Wall of Fame, as recommended by the Sports Wall of Fame Committee: 1900 - 1950 Era Bill Whittet Athlete Cy Patterson Athlete 1951 - 1970 Era Art Conte Bob Couil George Holmes Sam Long Chippawa Midget Baseball Team, 1960 Finbow Juvenile Baseball Team, 1966 Builder Builder Athlete Builder Team Team 1971 - 1990 Era Niagara Falls Special Olympics Stamford Kiwanis Junior Baseball Team, 1974 Builder Team BACKGROUND: The Sports Wall of Fame Committee reviewed the Nomination Forms submitted and selected the above- listed Nominees for Induction to the 2000 Niagara Falls Sports Wall of Fame. The 2000 Sports Wall of Fame Induction Ceremony will be held on Sunday, January 21, 2001 at the Niagara Falls Memorial Arena. dlTl/das S:~Council~Counci12000~.-2000-75.wpd Municipal Works Respectfully Submitted: Alderman Paisley Jm~vary-Pool, Chairperson Sports Wall of Fame Committee Working Together to Serve Our Community - · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development The City of Niagara Falls~ Canada Corporate Services Department Planning & Development 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca November 20, 2000 Doug Darbyson Director PD-2000-127 His Worship Mayor W. Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: PD-2000-127, Application for Site Plan Approval SPC-12/2000, 6732 Oakes Drive Proposed Expansion to the Minolta Tower RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the site plan for the proposed expansion of the Minolta Tower. BACKGROUND: An application for site plan approval has been received for 6732 Oakes Drive, the Minolta Tower. The applicant, Towertropolis Inc., received zoning approval for an expansion to the tower in June of this year. The proposed expansion involves: a three-storey addition to the tower pod for guest rooms which will result in an overall tower height of 285 feet; a four-storey addition to the podlure for guest rooms, a banquet facility and a pool/spa which will result in a podium height of five storeys; and all of the required parking for the tower being provided off-site on the lot located on the northeast comer of Dunn Street and Cleveland Avenue. The applicant is currently planning to undertake construction of the podium expansion this winter and may proceed with the pod expansion in the future. The development will require the applicant to undertake some road and streetscape improvements. Details of these works will be included within the Section 37 agreement. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's · Finance · Human Resoumes · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development November 20, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-127 The site plan drawings have been satisfactorily reviewed by the Site Plan Te.ehnical Committee and as such approval is recommended. Prepared : ey Planner 1 Respectfully sub.mitted: Edward P. Lusti.~ ~O Chief Administrative Officer Recommended by: BN~oug Darbyson Director of Planning & Development Approved by: Tony Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services JB:ko FILE: S:XPDRX2000',PD2000-127.wpd The City of Niagara Falls Canada Corporate Services Department Planning & Development 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Doug Darbyson Director PD-2000-128 November 20, 2000 His Worship Mayor W. Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: PD-2000-128, Application for Site Plan Approval SPC-15/2000, 6740 Oakes Drive Proposed 30-Storey Hotel RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the site plan for a proposed 30-storey hotel at 6740 Oakes Drive. BACKGROUND: An application for site plan approval has been received for 6740 Oakes Drive. The applicant, The Ritz Motel Ltd., is proposing to construct a 30-storey hotel on lands to the north of the Minolta Tower and the Phase 2 expansion to the Marriott Hotel. Council approved the zoning amendment for this proposal in May of this year. The rezoning was subsequently appealed to the Ontaxio Municipal Board (OMB) by the Niagara Parks Commission (NPC) and an adjacent landowner. The appeal by the NPC was later withdrawn because of design changes to the hotel that resolved their concems. These changes include: · a reduction in the number of units; · a reduction in building height to 30 storeys; · a reduction in building mass ie. the building was made to be more slender; and · an increase in setbacks from the Marriott Phase 2 and Minolta Tower. The appeal by the adjacent landowner was denied by the OMB earlier this month, thereby resulting in the approval of the rezohing. The development will provide for a signficant amount of on-site parking within a six-level parking structure. The applicant has also resolved all traffic concerns, however, the development will require the applicant to undertake some :mad and streetscape improvements. Details of these works will be included within the Site Plan/S ection 37 agreement. Working Togaher to Serve Our Community Clerk's · Finance · Human Resoumes · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development November 20, 2000 ~ 2 - PD-2000-128 The site plan drawings have been successfully reviewed by the Site Plan Technical Committee and, as such, approval is recommended. Prepared y: ley Planner 1 Recommended by: Doug Darbyson Director of Planning & Development Approved by: Tony Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services FILE: S:XPDRX2000XPD2000-128.wpd Respectfully submitted: Edward V. Lustig ' ~ a~ Chief Administrative Officer The City of Niagara Falls Canada Corporate Services Department Planning & Development 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls,on.ca Fax: E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca November 20, 2000 Doug Darbyson Director PD-2000-130 His Worship Mayor W. Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: PD-2000-130, Roosevelt Draft Plan of Condominium File: 26CD-11-9903 8863, 8865, 8867 & 8869 Roosevelt Avenue Owner: Noelle & Kerrie Sinclair RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that: 1) the Roosevelt Draft Plan of Condominium be approved subject to the conditions in the attached Appendix; 2) the Mayor or designate be authorized to sign the draft plan as "approved" 20 days after notice of Council's decision has been given as required by the Planning Act, provided no appeals of the decision have been lodged; and 3) draft approval be given for three years, after which approval will lapse unless an extension is requested by the developer and, subject to review, granted by Council. BACKGROUND: This existing fourplex rental development was constructed in approximately 1970: The building is 2 storeys in height and each unit has a ground level entrance. The property is on the south side of Roosevelt Avenue, west of Banring Avenue (see the location map). The unit layout and parking/driveway areas are shown on Schedule 2. The applicant proposes to convert the building to a condominium in order to permit the individual ownership of each unit. The common areas (such as driveways and open space) would be shared by all the condominium owners. Although there are no public notification requirements for plans of condominium under the Planning Act, tenants were notified of this public meeting to discuss the application in accordance with City procedures. The developer also contacted the tenants regarding the proposed condominium conversion. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's · Finance · Human Resoumes · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development November 20, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-130 PLANNING REVIEW: Provincial Landlord and Tenant Legislation The Tenant Protection Act came into force in 1998. This act replaced several pieces of legislation including the Landlord and Tenant Act, Rent Control Act and Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA). Previously, condominium conversion applications required an exemption to the R_HPA and municipalities could impose conditions to safeguard tenants. The Tenant Protection Act removed this municipal review function, but contains sections to protect existing tenants in cases of eondominium conversions. Tenants can continue to rent their units and have the right of first refusal to purchase a converted unit. Rental Housing Planning Policies The City's Official Plan states that rental accommodation shall be protected through such measures as the RHPA and the City' s Condominium Conversion Policy, which discourages the conversion of rental · units to condominium when the vacancy rate is below 3 %. Although the RHPA has been revoked, the principle remains that removal of rental units should not adversely affect the supply of affordable rental housing in the municipality. The Region's Policy Plan similarly indicates that a vacancy rate above 3 % is desirable when considering condominium conversions. The most current wtcancy rate information available from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is from October 1999. The data shows an apartment vacancy rate of3.1% in this area of the City and 3.7% overall in the municipality. These figures indicate a suitable supply of available rental apartment units in Niagara Falls which should allow a choice of price range and location. The removal of these units from the rental market should not adversely impact on the supply of affordable rental housing. Information supplied by the applicant indicates the estimated selling price for the proposed condominium units is approximately $75,000. The anticipated selling prices of the condominium units will provide additional affordable housing options in Niagara Falls. Physical Development The property is within an older plan of subdivision in Chippawa that contains single-detached homes. The land is zoned R1C (Residential Single Family) through Zoning By-law 79-200. The fourplex dwelling has legal non-conforming status as it was constructed in accordance 'with zoning regulations in place prior to the 1979 by-law. The fourplex is larger than surrounding dwellings but is architecturally similar and has achieved compatibility through the years. The condominium process provides the oppommity for improvements to the development. The applicant has renovated the interior of the units (flooring, painting, appliances, heating) as part of the proposed condominium conversion. The number of parking spaces shown exceeds zoning requirements. Closed-board fencing is a normal requirement along the boundaries of multiple-unit developments. Fencing should be installed for this site to provide greater compatibility with existing and future single- detached residential properties. Given the age of the dwelling and safety considerations, verification of compliance with the Ontario Building Code for all fire separations and party walls needs to be provided or necessary alterations undertaken. The eondominium corporation will be responsible to ensure access to the municipal services connected to each unit. November 20, 2000 - 3 - PD-2000-130 CONCLUSION: The proposed conversion of the existing fourplex development to condominium ownership can be supported. The removal of the rental units should not have any adverse impact on the City's rental supply. The rights of current tenants will be safeguarded through the requirements of the Tenant Protection Act. The apartment condominiums will provide additional affordable priced units to the housing market. The conditions of approval are listed in the Appendix. Prepared by: Richard Wilson Planner 2 Respectfully submitted: Edward P. Lustig Chief Administrative Officer Recommended by: Doug Darbyson Director of Planning & Development Approved by: Tony Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services ' P,W:gd Attach. S:~DRX2000',PD2000-130.wpd November 20, 2000 - 4 - PD-2000-130 APPENDIX Conditions of Draft Plan of Condominium Approval Approval applies to the Roosevelt Draft Plan of Condominium prepared by Matthews, Cameron, Heywood - Kerry T. Howe Surveying Limited, dated November 23, 1999, showing a fourplex dwelling. The developer enter into a registered Condominium Subdivision Agreement with the City to satisfy all requirements related to the development of the land. The developer submit a Solicitor's Certificate of Ownership for the property to the City So licitor prior to the preparation of the Condominium Subdivision Agreement. The developer construct closed-board fencing along the property boundaries to the City's satisfaction. The developer submit information verifying compliance with the Ontario Building Code for all fire separations and party walls or undertake any necessary alterations. , The developer provide 6 copies of the pre-registration plan to the: City's Planning and Development Department and a letter stating how all the conditions imposed have been or are to be ful~lled. Clearance of Conditions Prior to granting approval to the final plan, the City's Planning and Development Department requires written notice from applicable City Departments that their respective conditions have been satisfied. Proposed Plan of Condominium Roosevelt Condominium 26CD-11-9903 Subject Land Location Map m S:"Subdeviu~t~Coedo~R~o,veR~map~nl.aF, AUg. 62 KEY PLAN """"~ WEINBRENNER ROAD Rooseve[t' [ondominium. Draft Plan of [ondominium Conversion LOT 60 - PLAN 261 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Reg~na/ M~e~ahty of th~g~ta MATTHEWS, CA~4ERON, ~YW~ - ERRY T, ~WE $~VET~6 LTD. LQCATIQp SOLICITOR & AGENZ. S~V~0~ AOOITIONAL INFORHATION UNDER SECTION S10F THE PLANNING ACT ANO SECTION ~ OF THE CONOONIHrUH ACT. LAND USE ANALYSIS ,%?,';| |,,,-r The City of Niagara Falls Canada Corporate Services Department Planning & Development 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Fails, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Fax: E-maih nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca November 20, 2000 Doug Darbyson Director PD-2000-131 His Worship Mayor W. Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: PD-2000-131, Willoughby Drive Draft Plan of Condominium File: 26CD-11-2000-01 8793 & 8801 Willoughby Drive Agent: K Group Developments Inc.. (David Smith) RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that: 1) the Willoughby Drive Draft Plan of Condominium be approved subject to the conditions in the attached Appendix; 2) the Mayor or designate be authorized to sign the draft plan as "approved" 20 days after notice of Council's decision has been given as required by the Planning Act, provided no appeals of the decision have been lodged; and 3) draft approval be given for three years, after which approval will lapse unless an extension is requested by the developer and, subject to review, granted by Council. BACKGROUND: The existing 8 rental townhouse units (2 buildings each containing 4 townhouse units) were constructed in approximately 1970. The site currently comprises 2 separate properties that utilize a common driveway entrance. The property is on the west side of Willoughby Drive, north of Weinbrenner Road (see the location map). The unit layout and parking/driveway areas are shown on Schedule 2. The applicant proposes to convert the building to a condominium in order to permit the individual ownership of each unit and its associated amenity space. The common areas (such as driveways and open space) would be shared by all the condominium owners. Although there are no public notification requirements for plans of condominium under the Planning Act, tenants were notified of this public meeting to discuss the application in accordance with City procedures. The developer also contacted the tenants regarding the proposed eondominium conversion. Working Together to Serve Our Community . Clerk's· Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development November 20, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-131 PLANNING REVIEW: Provincial Landlord and Tenant Legislation The Tenant Protection Act came into force in 1998. This act replaced several pieces of legislation including the Landlord and Tenant Act, Rent Control Act and Rental Housing Protection Act (R.HPA). Previously, eondominium conversion applications required an exemption to the RHPA and municipalities could impose conditions to safeguard tenants. The Tenant Protection Act removed this municipal review function, but contains sections to protect existing tenants in eases of condominium conversions. Tenants can continue to rent their units and have the right of first refusal to purchase a converted unit. Rental Housing Planning Policies The City' s Official Plan states that rental accommodation shall be protected through such measures as the RHPA and the City' s Condominium Conversion Policy, which discourages the conversion of rental units to eondominium when the vacancy rate is below 3 %. Although the RHPA has been revoked, the principle remains that removal of rental units should not adversely affect the supply of affordable rental housing in the municipality. The Region's Policy Plan similarly indicates that a vacancy rate above 3 % is desirable when considering condominium conversions. The most current vacancy rate information available from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is from October 1999. The data shows a townhouse vacancy rate of 3.0 % in this area of the City. This figure is at the threshold for a desirable rental market. The vacancy rate has decreased from previous years, but the information indicates a suitable supply of available rental townhouse units in this area which should allow a choice of price range and location. Information supplied by the applicant indicates the estimated selling price for the proposed condominium units is approximately $70,000. The anticipated selling prices of the condominium units will provide additional affordable housing options. Physical Development There are several townhouses and low-rise apartments located along this section of Willoughby Drive. The site is zoned R4 (Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings) through Zoning By-law 79-200. The townhouses are a permitted use in this zoning category and the development is in general compliance (or has legal non-eonfomfing status) with respect to the present zoning regulations. Parking is provided in both the front and rear yards and the number o f spaces exceeds the minimum requirement. Full municipal services are available. The condominium process enables the site to be brought more in line with current development standards. Additional tree planting in the front yard will enhance the development and buffer the parking area. The existing location of the garbage container and site layout necessitates a garbage truck to back out of the property. This arrangement is not desirable but has functioned for many years. A fenced enclosure of the garbage area and concrete base for the container is needed. Given the age of the structures and safety considerations, verification of compliance with the Ontario Building Code for all fire separations and party walls needs to be provided or necessary alterations undertaken. November 20, 2000 - 3 - PD-2000-131 CONCLUSION: The proposed conversion of the existing townhouse development to condominium ownership can be supported. The removal of the rental units should not have any adverse impact on the City's rental supply. The rights of current tenants will be safeguarded through the requirements of the Tenant Protection Act. The condominiums will provide additional affordable priced units to the housing market. The conditions of approval are listed in the Appendix. Prepared by: Richard Wilson Planner 2 Respectfully submitted: Edward P. Lustig Chief Administrative Officer · Recommended by: Doug Darbyson Director of planning & Development Approved by: Tony Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services RW:gd Attach. S APDR~2000~D2000-131 .wpd November 20, 2000 - 4 - PD-2000-131 APPENDIX Conditions of Draft Plan of Condominium Approval Approval applies to the Willoughby Drive Draft Plan of Condominium prepared by P. D. Reitsma Surveying Limited, dated September 1, 2000, showing 8 townhouse units. The developer enter into a registered Condominium Subdivision Agreement with the City to satisfy all requirements related to the development of the land. The developer submit a Solicitor's Certificate of Ownership for the property to the City Solicitor prior to the preparation of the Condominium Subdivision Agreement. The developer plant 3 trees on the property along the Willoughby Drive frontage to the City's satisfaction. '5. The developer construct a garbage enclosure (concrete base and closed-board fencing with gate) to the City's satisfaction. The developer submit information verifying compliance with the Ontario Building Code for all fire separations and party walls or undertake any necessary alterations. The developer provide 6 copies of the pre-registration plan to the City's Planning and Development Department and a letter stating how all the conditions imposed have been or are to be fulfilled. Clearance of Conditions Prior to granting approval to the final plan, the City' s Planning and Development Department requires written notice from applicable City DepaxUnents that their respective conditions have been satisfied. Proposed Plan of Condominium Willoughby Drive Condominium 26CD-11-2000-01 Location Map Sul~ject Land / Caronpost Rd. Weinbrenner Rd. 1: NTS WILLOUGHBY DRIVE CONDOMIHIUM~ KEY PLAN SKETCH Corporate Services Department Planning & Development 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Fax: E-mail: nfplan@city.nlagarafalls.on.ca November 20, 2000 Doug Darbyson Director PD-2000-132 His Worship Mayor W. Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: RECOMMENDATION: PD-2000-132, Street Name Change Request Buchanan Avenue (South of Ferry Street) & Oakes Drive Proposal - "Fallsview Boulevard" It is recommended that Council authorize staff to initiate a public consultation process to consider changing the name of Buchanan Avenue (south of Ferry Street) and Oakes Drive to "Fallsview Boulevard". BACKGROUND: The Fallsview Business Improvement Area (BIA) submitted a letter to Council on October 30, 2000 requesting that Buchanan Avenue (south of Ferry Street) and Oakes Drive be renamed "Fallsview Boulevard" (see the attached location map). The BIA is developing a new marketing plan and feels that the proposed street name change would help in creating an identity for their tourist district in combination with other initiatives such as streetscaping improvements. Timing of any change is important to the BIA in order to prepare for the upcoming tourist season. REVIEW: Process The Municipal Act prescribes public notification requirements for changing a street name. A notice must be placed in the newspaper, once a week for 4 consecutive weeks, advising of Council's intention to change a street name. A public meeting must be held. Any person who feels they would be adversely affected or has concerns regarding the proposed name change may speak at the meeting or submit comments. If the name is changed, a by-law must be registered and formal notice given to public agencies and emergency ~ervices. Given the Council meeting schedule, the earliest that the required public meeting could be held is in January 2001. Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that the name change could occur in time for the 2001 promotion season. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's · Finance · Human Resoumes · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development November 20, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-132 Issues There are additional matters to be considered. Many property owners could be impacted by the proposed change. There are over 40 properties directly located on the subject roadways. The Fallsview BIA does not represent all of these properties as the section of Buchanan Avenue between Ferry Street and Robinson Street is not within the BIA boundary. Businesses to the east and west of the streets may also be affected with respect to promotion materials such as maps. Full consultation should occur. The names Buchanan and Oakes have historical significance in the community. The City's Official Historian, Mr. Sherman Zavitz, has provided a letter included in tonight's agenda highlighting those prominent citizens and a history of the street names. The Oakes street name was reassigned to its present location approximately 30 years ago. The original Oakes Drive was previously the stretch of Portage Road along the railway to Marineland Parkway. The Buchanan street name would be maintained on the section north of Ferry Street, however, Oakes Drive would be eliminated. The proposed street name change also needs to be considered within the context of the "Grand Boulevard" component of the Tourist Area Development Strategy (TADS). The Grand Boulevard is a major element of the strategy, linking various tourist districts along the area railway line and abutting streets. Pedestrians and the People Mover system are planned along this route. The proposed alignment of the Grand Boulevard includes portions of Robinson Street and Buchanan Avenue. The relationship of this feature and the current roadways requested to be renamed Fallsview Boulevard needs to be explored with respect to continuity and overall goals for the Central Tourist District. CONCLUSION: This initial review of the requested street name change to Fallsview Boulevard identifies several issues - the impact on property owners not represented by the BIA, historical and geographic significance of the names, and the relationship of the current roadway to the proposed TADS Grand Boulevard. Given the lengthy process to change a street name, there is sufficient time to explore the issues raised in this report. Staff should initiate a public consultation process. Richard Wilson Planner 2 Recommended by: Doug Darbyson · Director of Planning & Development Approved by: Tony Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services RW: d SfiPDR~2000~PD2000-132.wpd Chief Administrative Officer Street Name Change Request Buchanan Avenue (South of Ferry Street) & Oakes Drive Location Map Subject Roadways I :NTS Fallsview BIA 5400 Robinson Street 2"d Floor Niagara Falls, Ontario L2G 2A6 October 27, 2000 Mr E.C. Wagg City Clerk City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street, Box 1023 Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 In June 1998, the City of Niagara Falls adopted their Tourist Area Development Strategy. This report identified a vision, developed the firamework through which to guide future growth and, became a catalyst document that enables the City to be one of the most significant tourist destinations in the world. Policies were established and adopted by City Council as they related to the various oppommities identified in the report. The support of the Fallsview BIA (Business Improvement Area) was evident at that time and continues with the commissioning of our "Fallsview Business Improvement Area Landscape Enhancement Report" in Feb~nmry, 1999. The opportunity to work with the City of Niagara Falls creates excitement and momentum for our membership. I am referring to the Streetscape Master Plan as being developed by The MBTW Group. As an integral component and partner in the development of the Niagara Falls Tourist District, the Fallsview BIA believes that it is most important for us to show our support of City Council in concert with City Staff. The Business Development M_anal~er of our BIA and myself recently met with Mr. Doug Darbyson, Director of Planning and Development to discuss the Streetscape Master Plan and its implementation. As a result of that meeting, we are formally making the following request of City Council: That City Council approve, in principle, the change in street name of Buchanan Avenue, between Ferry Street and Main Street, to "Fallsview Boulevard" and, That City Council approve, in principle, the change in street name of Oakes Drive, between Main Street and Livingstone Street, to '"Fallsview Boulevard" and, That City Staff be directed to initiate the formal process and proceed with our request immediately. Mr. E. C. Wagg - 2 - October 27, 2000 I would like to provide City Council with the reasons for our action at this time: The members of the Fallsview BIA, in partnership with each other, are presently developing a marketing plan under one umbrella to attract more tourists and increase the length of their stay in the City of Niagara Falls. We, the Fallsview BIA, need to create our own "Brand Identity". The change in street name to Fallsview Boulevard plays an integral role in this endeavour. Part of this brand identity is presently occurring when considering the names of some of our properties include the name Fallsview (i.e. Best Western Fallsview, Fallsview PhTa Hotel, Hilton Fallsview, Marriott Fallsview, Renaissance Fallsview, Sheraton Fallsview Hotel and Conference Centre, cte.). .2. Each member of the Fallsview BIA is presently developing their own individual marketing plans for next year in conjunction with the Fallsview BIA. For this reason, it is most important that we receive City Council' s approval at thi.~ time for them to be able to identify their location keeping in mind the '"Brand Identity" we are trying to ereate. With the recent announcement of the pennanent casino by His Worship Mayor Wayne Thompson and the Falls Management Corporation, we firmly believe that the street name change to Fallsview Boulevard will have a positive impact on our new partner in the Fallsview Tourism District. In conclusion, it is our position that our request is reasonable ai this time and deserves City Council' s support and approval. I would request the opportunity to appear before City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting to make a brief presentation regarding our letter prior to this item being addressed. I trust this meets with your approval and look forward to your response in this regard. Respectfully submitted, ~"'Davtd Jo,C~v~'/""~'' · atlsview BIA TeL 905-356-1748 ORSINI INNS · ARCO RESTAURANTS ® RED WOOD HOSPITALITY November 6, 2000 The City of Niag~r~ Falls 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Attn: Mayor Wayne Thomson Dear Mayer' Thum~on: I have received a copy of a letter dated October 27, directed to Mr. E.C. Wagg from the Fal~sview BIA regarding the proposed "Fallsview Boulevard". As a Buchanan Avenue property ~wner within the identified area, we are in full support of the name change providing it extends to Ferry Street as proposed. As ou are aware, we have been acquiring land for a large sca~e hotel development in that area. In the past month, we have increased our land holdings and at the present tame, we control seven lots with a Buchanan Avenue address between Robinson Street and Ferry Street. The n-~m~ change issue is of great importance to us and we believe it will positively enhance our marketing presentation. Your su Fort of the name change is encouraged. B~ t regards, EE W D HOSPITALITY INC. Ra , Orsini Pr RECEIVED NOV 07 2000 ORS~Ni BROS- INNS INC- 7429 UJnd)t's Lane Niigar3 ;3lit, ON L2H 1G9 (905) 356-6116 Fax {905) 356-7204 ARCO RESTAURANTS ING. 73~9 Lunciy's Lz'e Niagara Pair,. ON L2H 2W9 (905) 356-5400 Fax (906) 3.56-7204 I:{ED WOOO HOSPITALITY ghiC. 73~g Lundy'= Lane Nt,~pr~ I:~/ur, ON t2H 2Wg (905J 356~61 lg Fax (905) 356-7204 7020 Woodington Road Niagara Falls, ON L2J 2C3 November 15, 2000 Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of Council City of Niagara Falls City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 OFFICE fj iE ,.IAVOR Dear Mayor Thomson and Members of City Council, This letter is in response to a request going before Council from the Fallsview BIA to have that portion of Buchanan Avenue from Feny Street to Main, as well as Oakes Drive, renamed Fallsview Boulevard. As official historian for the city, I feel it is my responsibility to remind Council about how each of these streets received its name. Both recall once prominent citizens here. Buchanan Avenue was named for James Buchanan. The British Consul in New York for many years, he was very fond of Niagara Falls and in 1832, became one of the shareholders in a large real estate project at Falls View (it was originally spelled as two words) called the City of the Falls. Covering some 400 acres, the area was surveyed with streets and building lots established. Ahead of its time, the project collapsed in 1835. However, there are many reminders of the City of the Falls since the subdivision's streets were named after the principal investors. Allan(dale), Dunn, Murray, Clark and Dixon as well as Buchanan were all named this way. In addition, Stanley and Robinson Streets also received their names through the City of the Falls. E. G. Stanley was the head of the British Colonial Office during the 1830s, while James Robinson was the superintendent of the real estate development. Following his retirement, James Buchanan lived here. His home was on Main Street where St. Mary's Ukrainian Catholic Church is presently located. He is also considered the founder of what is now Main Street Baptist Church. Buchanan died in 1851, and is buffed in Drummond Hill Cemetery. Oakes Drive was named for Harry (later Sir Harry) Oakes, the mining magnate who lived in Niagara Falls from the mid-1920s until 1934. His home was Oak Hall. One of the most famous men in the country at the time, he was responsible for a number of philanthropic works here. Although I understand the Fallsview BIA's rationale in requesting the name change, I am, of course, always concerned when there is a possibility that some aspect of our city's rich past may be lost or "tampered with." Nevertheless, if Council decides to approve the name change, there will be some consolation in that (a) there will still be that portion of Buchanan Avenue between Ferry and Kitchener Street, so the name will not be completely lost, and (b) Sir Harry Oakes is still recognized through Oakes Park and Oakes Garden Theatre, as well as Oak Hall. Respectfully, Offici~nFI~~ City of Niagara Falls, Canada Corporate Services Department Planning & Development 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Fax: 356-2354 E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca November 20, 2000 Doug Darbyson Director PD-2000-134 His Worship Mayor W. Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: PD-2000-134, Amending By-law Zoning By-law Amendment Application AM-47/98, Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc. (D. DiCienzo) Southeast Quadrant of the Q.E.W. & Mountain Road RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: 1) Council pass the amending by-law appearing in tonight's agenda which will facilitate the construction of a tourist-orientated welcome centre, restaurant(s), hoteFmotel, office building and 24 on-street townhouses; 2) the applicant be encouraged to proceed with his current site design so that, in the future, the potential will exist to have a free flow of traffic between the proposed development and a similar project on the abutting Brigis lands to the west; and 3) the area land owners be invited to participate in the Site Plan Approval process. BACKGROUND: A) 663848 Ontario Inc. (Brigis) Proposal On December 14, 1998, Council approved in principle an application (AM-35/98) by 663848 Ontario Inc. to amend the City' s Zoning By-law for approximately 7 acres offand fronting onto Mountain Road, as shown on Schedule 1. The amendment was iequcsted to facilitate the construction of a tourist-oricntatcd travel centre including a gasoline station, fruit and vegetable stand, welcome centre, 3-storey - 80 room hotel, and 24,000 square foot factory outlet mall. Refer to Schedule 2 for further detail. Council 's approval was given conditional on the applicant addressing the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Rcgion's traffic concerns. Clerk's · Finance WorMrig Together to Serve Our Community · Humati Resources · Informaaon Systems · Legal , · Planning & Development November 20, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-134 B) Canadian Niagara Hotel Inc. (DiCienzo) Proposal On September 13, 1999, Council approved in principle an application (AM-47/98) to amend the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law for approximately 16 acres of land fronting onto Mountain and Mewbum Roads, as shown on Schedule 3. The amendments were requested to facilitate the construction of a 20,000 square foot tourist-orientated welcome centre, restauraut(s), 3-storey - 100 room hotel/motel, and a 3-storey office building on the majority of the land and 24 on-street townhouse dwelling units on the balance of the land. Refer to Schedule 4 for further detail. Council directed staff to present the formal amendments to them after the applicant had resolved the traffic issues to the satisfaction of the MTO, Region and City. C) Changes to Brigis' Amending By-law On December 6, 1999, Brigis requested Council to adopt an amending by-law for their proposal with a holding symbol CrI) to ensure that the requisite approvals would be obtained regarding the traffic and storm water management issues prior to the development proceeding. The applicant also requested that the maximum number of allowable buildings on the site be increased from 4 to 5. Council had no objection to the request and passed the Zoning By-law No. 99-259 with aholding symbol (I-I) because it would establish the future use of the lined, but ensure Council that the development would not proceed until various issues were resolved. D) Appeal of Zoning By-law No. 99-259 On January 10, 2000, Council was informed that DiCienzo had appealed Brigis' Zoning By-law No. 99-259. The applicant cited failure to provide a traffic study; failure to address servicing feasibility, and incomplete planning for the Mountain and Mewbum Roads area as reasons for the appeal. Council subsequently reaffirmed, by resolution, the passing of the by-law and directed staff to proceed with the submission of the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. E) OMB Hearing & Minutes of Settlement On June 26, 2000, the OMB scheduled a hearing to consider DiCienzo's appeal of By-law No. 99-259 and a subsequent motion on behalf of Bdgis to dismiss the appeal. Instead, the Board ended up serving as a mediator which lead to Minutes of Settlement. Within the Minutes of Settlement DiCienzo agreed to immediately withdraw its appeal of By-law No. 99-259 so that it would become final and binding. in addition, Brigis agreed not to appeal DiCienzo's Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments (AM-47/98). Last, but not least, the two parties agreed to use their best efforts to establish a mutually satisfying arrangement to have their two sites operate, from a traffic point of view, in a complimentary fashion, failing which the parties would develop their sites independently. Subsequent to the two parties signing the Minutes of Settlement, the appeal was withdrawn and the by-law became effective the day it was passed with a holding symbol (H). F) Official Plan Amendment No. 30 On August 21, 2000 Council adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 30 (O.P.A. 30) to change the designation of approximately 6 hectares of DiCienzo's land from Residential to Tourist Commercial. The designation of the land had to be changed to allow a zoning by-law to be November 20, 2000 - 3 - PD-2000-134 passed allowing the proposed tourist-orientated uses. When Council approved the amendment in principle in 1999 they decided that it had merit because of the land' s proximity, exposure and direct access to the Q.E.W. and because the balance of the land in the quadrant owned by Brigis was already designated for tourist commercial purposes. The City's toufism policies state that the quadrant is well suited for tourist commercial development of a highway service nature. G) Traffic Issues The MTO has indicated that a single mutual right-in/right-out entrance to controlled access Mountain Road will be permitted, upon submission of a single mutual entrance permit application signed by both owners (Brigis and DiCienzo). Under this scenario, an all moves access/egress for both sites must be made available via Mewburn Road. In the event that a mutual entrance is not proposed, then the B~gis property will retain access to Mountain Road, subject to MTO approval ofanew traffie study. Sueh access maybe rest~cted to a~ght-in/right- out only. The DiCienzo property is not currently entitled to a Mountain Road entrance and will be restricted to a Mewburn Road entrance only. The Ministry is not prepared to relinquish the controlled access highway designation on Mountain Road and allow two separate entrances along this portion of Mountain Road for safety reasons. In light of the Ministry' s position, DiCienzo had his traffic consultant (Delcan) revise the initial traffic study to demonstrate that his site could be developed with access/egress restricted to Mewburn Road. The MTO has reviewed the revised study and concluded that the traffic volumes associated with the DiCienzo development can be handled by the existing roadways, provided that Waffle signals are provided at both the Q.E.W./Mountain Road west ramp and at Mountain Road and Mewbum Road intersection and certain lane improvements are made. Both the Region's and City's Municipal Works Departments have reviewed the revised study and found the recommendations acceptable which can be addressed at the ti~ne of site plan approval. In the event that the Brigis development proceeds, the owner will have to construct a right- in/right-out access on Mountain Road including a median island. The median island will commence at Mewbum Road and will require Mountain Road to be widened to two lanes westbound fxom Mewbum Road to past the Q.E.W. ramp. Mountain Road will also have to be widened to two lanes for eastbound traffic. DiCienzo is willing to consider a common scheme for ingress and egress that will benefit both properties. However, such a scheme will have to provide mutual benefits and a (private) comprehensive agreement dealing with the costs of such arrangements. DiCienzo has submitted the attached draft site plan (Schedule 5) for a portion of their site which shows that a co- ordinated traffic arrangement can be provided if an agreement is ever reached. Although staff are unaware of any way the two owners could be forced to develop together, DiCienzo should be encouraged to proceed with his current site design so that a connection between his site and the Brigis site could be realized in the future. H) Resident's Concerns When Official Plan Amendment No. 30 (DiCienzo) was considered by the Regional Planning Services Committee on October 25, 2000 Mr. Bernard McManus, President of the Mount Forest November 20, 2000 - 4 - PD-2000-134 Village Condominium, appeared before the committee on behalf of the 26 owners. Staff understand that the residents would like to see the Brigis and DiCienzo sites developed so that they can share entrances as proposed at the public meeting. Unfortuately, the entrances cannot be exactly as initially proposed because the MTO requires a median to be constructed on Mountain Road. Although the two land owners have not come to an agreement to date on cost sharing, staff are optimistic that one will be reached over time. In any event, an all moves access/egress will be required on Mewburn Road to facilitate full access and egress to and from the quadrant. In the interest of recognizing the residents' concerns and their desire to be involved in the approval process, it is recommended that they be invited to participate in the Site Plan Approval process. CONCLUSION: Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the related amending by-law appearing on tonight's agentis be adopted. Council approved the application on September 13, 1999, subject to the resolution of the traffic issues for the development. These issues have recently been addressed by the DiCienzo's ' consultant to the satisfaction of the MTO, Region and City. Any request on behalfofBrigis to insist on a deferral of the by-law would appear to be contrary to the Minutes of Settlement submitted to the Ontario Municipal Board. Prepared by: Ken Meeh Planner 2 Recommended by: Doug Darbyson Director of Planning & Development Approved by: Tony Rayends Executive Director of Corporate Services KM:gd Attach. Res tfully submitted: S :~PDKX2000~PD2000-134 .wpd SCHEDULE 1 Amending Zoning By-law 79-200 Subject Land \\ Mnntrose Road Location Map Part of Township Lot 23 & 34 Former Township of Stamford,now City of Niagara Falls AM-35/98 r"' f I :I,tTS I SCHEDULE 3 Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Location Map Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc. Part of Township Lots 27~ 34, and 46 I :NTS AM-47/98 SCHEDULE 3 Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Location Map Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc. Part of Township Lots 27~ 34, and 46 I :NTS AM-47/98 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN MEWRURN ROAD TOWNHOUSES 7,460sq,ft. ;~4 units +/- MOUNTAIN & MEWBURN COMMERCIAL CONCEPT lz 1000 SCHEDULE 5 November 10, 2000 Please R~ply to St. Catharinez OBSce City of Niagara Fails City Hall Box 1023, 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON 1,2E 6X5 Attention: tdr. W. Wagg Clerk · Dear Sir: Re: Canaellmn Niagara Hotels Inc. Re: Draft ,~menctment By-hw 2000-242 (Mewbum Koafl). Ke: Official Plan Amendment No. 30 for the City of Nia~ra Falls Official Plan Ke: AM47/98 Re: PD 99-99, dated Sq~tcnlb~ 13, 1999 We are the solidton for the applicant, Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc. Draft By-law 2000-242 went to Council at its regular meeting'on October 30~k. At the request of an adjoining l~ndowner the passage of the aforesaid Draft By-law was defetrecL The purpose of rh_i.~ letter is to request, (providing Council does not lose its authority under the provisions of the MunicipalAct as a result of the up-coming Jvjun~cjpaj Election) that the within matter be returned to Council for the purpose of the passage of the aforesaid By-law. The reasons {or this request are as follows: This matter came before Coun~ it the stantto~ 15Ublic meeting under the Pl~rmingAct on Septamber 1:3, 1999. No persons appeared to oppose the proposal and no one spoke against k. Staff recommendation un&r PD-99-99 was that the prop~sai be approved but that the Offidai Plan and Zoning Plan Amendments 'be presented to Council after the tra~c issues have been resolved by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Transportation, Kegional Niagara nd the City;'. NUV-18-2000 15:49 FROM SULMA TO 3569083 Page 2 h is our recoRection that the within recommendation was adopted By Council without any votes in opposition. The Public Meeting under the Planning Act was also concluded at that time. The applicant has completed a comprehensive traffic impact study which addressed completely what staff identified Ctn the body of PD-99-99) as being 'a key issue' to the effect that traffic generated from the project could be fully and properly addressed to the satisfaction of MTO, Region and the City. This study has been completed and this issue has been addressed. MTO, Regional and' your engineering staff have all signed off on this report. The Munidpaliry has ._already passed the By-law to enact Offidal Plan Amendment No, 30. We point out that in doing so the Mn-;dpality has already gone more than half way in implementing the recommendation of staff.. The Offidal Plan Amendment has gone to the Region who has passed the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 30. We believe that we have s~tisfied each and every requirement which has been posed to us as part of th;~ re-zoning and official plan :mendment application. We are. not aware of ~ny land use planning issue tha has been raised either by the lvi,,-Icipality or any cornmentino~ agency that has not been addressed. Accordingly we see no reason why the passage of fixis By-hw should be further delayed. If there should be any question on this matter on the part of members of Council we would respectfully request That the Planning Department be required to. bring forward their report as to the status of this m~tter. We believe this report will confirm exactly what we have said in thi~ letter. We are certainly aware of the fact that the property owner adjoi"ino~ our client's lands to the west has raised the issue of joint or common access and egress f~om her properr/, over our cllent's lands onto 1Viewburn I~oad. As we indicated to Council during the meedng of October 30% this matter was not only canvassed Before Mr. Granger of the Ontario Municipal Board but in fact was the subject matzer of IVYinUres of Settlement, a copy of which Council has in its possession. ., It is simply not true that our client has refused to consider a common scheme for ingress and egress to these two properties. What our client has said is that such a scheme must provide mutual benefits and a comprehensive sgreement dealing with the costS. of such arrangements. h is simply not n-ue and it is not borne out by the traffic study completed by our dieat that dealing with the traffic issues generated by our dient's lands on a stand alone basis will m~ke tragic on Mewburn Road worse for the residential neighbouts to the e.~t. In fact tither scenario 15:49 FROM SULMA TO 3569883 P.004/004 Page3 can be accommodated within acceptable tra~e parameters and sundards. However, there should be no mistake that a coordinated access approach would increase the amount of traffic which would exit onto Mewbum Road. This should be patently obvious to all parties given the fact that the Mewbum Street entrance and exit would now accommoda~ additional traf6e from the property to the east. You should also be aware and we would request that k be available for the Coundl meeting that our client has prepared and flied a draft site plan which dearly shows that the possibility of a coorel~n~ted traffic arrangement has not been at all excluded and more imporgandy Spedfie ~tovisions have been included which would accommodate a common approach if an agreement is ever reached. Finally we would requm the opportunity to be granted delegation' status for the purpose of addressing some of these issues. I specifically say some of these issues since it as our belief that the Public Meeting has now been dosed and that therefore k would be improper to deal with the pl~nln.$ issues which were considered at the time of the application. In order to be very sp,y-_i~c we would intend to only address the following, Whether we had satisfied all conditions required to be satisfied as part of our zoning application, Le. whether there was any rmuer outstanding which would be an im,oedim~t to the passage of the Zoning By-law; and The legith-mcy of the request by the adjoining landowner to insist on deferral of the passage of the Zoning By-law. Should there be any questions in respect to any of the foregoing please do not hesitate to contact the writer. Yours very truly Sullivan LIP 'V'FIV'~,-L r.c. Mayor Wayne Thomson c.c, Mr. Fay lhllio c.c. Mr. Doug D~a'byson c.c. Mr. Dino DiCienzo, Jr. c,c. Mr. Rick Brady TOTI:L P. ~ Corporate Services Department Planning & Development 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Doug Darbyson Director PD-2000-135 November 20, 2000 His Worship Mayor W. Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: PD-2000-135, Application for Site Plan Approval SPC-21/2000, 4915 Clifton Hill Proposed Four-Storey Entertainment/Retail Complex RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the site plan for the proposed four-storey entertainment/retail complex at the Sheraton on the Falls Hotel. BACKGROUND: On October 16, 2000, Council granted site plan approval for a two-storey expansion to the Sheraton on the Falls Hotel at 4915 Clifton Hill. Earlier this year, the applicant, Canadian Niagara Hotels Inc., received approval from the Committee of Adjustment for a four-storey retail/entertainment complex. The minor variance application which involved relief from several provisions of the zoning by-law, was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by an abutting landowner. Resolution of the appellant's concems was achieved by the applicant before the OMB. According to the OMB's order, the development is to proceed in accordance with the plans that are attached to this report. Salient points include: a maximum building height of 55 feet from Clifton Hill; a zero setback from the Casino Niagara building; and a lot coverage of 78.3%. The proposed development will include entertainment facilities (I-Works), Rainforest Caf~, retail areas and conference facilities. Eighty valet-style parking spaces will be provided within part of the basement level. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development November 20, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-135 The site plan drawings for the proposed four-storey entertainment]retail complex are in conformance with the Board' s order, and have been satisfactorily reviewed by the Site Plan Technical Committee. Accordingly, approval is recommended. ey Planner 1 Respectfully submitted: Edward P. Lustig ~ a'~0 Chief Administrative Officer Recommended by: Approved by: Tony Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services YB:gd Attach. S:XPDR',2000XPD2000-135.wpd , m. ,i l! I IA'ml 1- t III FIIIIII+FIIIIIII ~ltl. IIIII i"' ' ' IN THE MATTER of the headng pursuant to the Municipal Act and By-law nos.2000-164 and 2000-199 AND IN THE MATTER of the Hearing regarding DEJAN KOVINIC Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in her Application for a Body-Rub Padour Owner's LicensE: DECISION OF COMMITFEE November 16, 2000 It is the finding of this Committee that the applicant who is already operating a Body-rub Padour out of this location and building did not provide any reasonable explanation for not complying with the Stage 3 eligibility requirements for the application. The applicant commented repeatedly on the proposed expansion to the existing building and blamed the approval process and/or the weather for the delays in providing the necessary documentation. In fact drawings were not received by the City until the day before the Headng (October 17/00), and these drawings again dealt with the proposed expansion and not with the existing site. The applicant should have known that a site plan was required as part of the Stage 3 approval process. Mr. Kovinic mentioned that because of an incident at the Building Department of the City of Niagara Falls he did not want to return to that Department. Mr. Kovinic Refused to elaborate on this statement, and in any case, the alleged incident took place after the 180-Day deadline had expired. This Committee agrees unanimously that Dejan Kovinic made no reasonable efforts to comply with the time limit set out in the By-law and therefore denies the request for an extension to the time limit of the Stage 3 eligibility. Aldem~an Selina Volpatti Alderman Paisley Janvary-Pool' IN THE MATTER of the hearing pursuant to the Municipal Act and By-law nos.2000-164 and 2000-199 AND IN THE MATTER of the Hearing regarding MARIJANA KOVINIC Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in her Application for a Body-Rub Padour Owner's License DECISION OF COMMITTEE November 16, 2000 It is the finding of this Committee that the applicant throughout the Hearing did not produce any substantial reason or explanation for not being able to complete the Stage 3 eligibility requirements, Even with the death of the property owner no evidence was produced at any time dudng the Headng that any steps for compliance of any sort were being taken to fulfill the requirements, This Committee agrees unanimously that Marliana Kovinic made no reasonable efforts to comply with the time limit set out in By-law and therefore denies the request for an extension to the time limit of the Stage 3 eligibility. Alderman Ed Michalczyk (Chair) Alderman Selina Volpatti Alderman Pais. ley Janvary-Pool GRAYDON SHEPPARD, B.A.. LL.B. BARRISTER-AT-LAW CERTIFIED !IY THE LAW SOCIETY OF tIPpeR CANADA A8 A 8pEGIAUST IN CIVIL LITIOATION Mi~,,..1 A..lraaget. B,A. LL,B. BY FAX OHLY; 905-j56-9083 The COrporation of the City of Niagara Falls 43 10 Queen Street Niagara l~.~lls. ON LIE 6X5 19; JAMES S'I'REET SOUTH 3RAM3~TO~', ONTARIO LB? 3A8 TELEPHONE {805l FAX (90l;) E27-2717 or 61,"r7 EMAIL: wge~i~om.el 'November 1~ 2000 Att~p, tion: E.C. Wa~E. Clerk Dear Re,- Dejan Kovinic - Written Submissions · AppUcation for Deja Vu Studio, 8720 Lundy's Lane, Niagara Falls, ON Stage 3 Eligibility Rearing under s. 52a -October 1'/e, 2000 ~ 9:00 a.m. Committee Room #2s City Hall Rep~Subraisdons The following are the "reply" submissions to the Special Committee with respect to Dejan C'D Pan") Kovinic' s application for a body-rob parfour licenee under th~ provisio:ns of By-law No. 164, as amended. In my respectfully submission, Mr. KnlI;o has fairly summarized the testimony presented to the COmmittee in rein_don to this application. Combined with our written submissions dated October 23d, 2000, there iS no over-whelming or substantial reason as to why an extension not be granted to Mr. Kovinic. We maintain our position that IV[r. Kovinic has provided the Committee with a reasonable explanation as to why the 180 day dead-line should be extended.' In my submission, Mr. Kovinic was reasonably diligent to pursuing his application, and all applications (that could have been submitted) were submitted priorto the dead-line. Similarly, most approvals were received at the lime of the 180 day dead-line, with the notable exception of site planning. As indicated in my written submissions dated October 23~, 2000, the delay associated with Mr. Kovinic's application was not ex,t~dy his fault, and some of the delay was caused by factors inherent in either the hnd development process, or the approval process itself. I say this not to lay f~/7 'd OlI~'ON NI~IVNq~3~3A ~tflUlMVqW INw~7~n$ nnfi7 '1 .A~ld "blame'* on anyone, but merely to point'out that development proposals require substantial time (both before .~nd during the review process). As such, flexibility is often required with respect to any dead-lines. Further, in my sub-,jssion, Body rub psrlour businesses should not be treated any differently than any other business, and in the case of Mr. Kovinic, he should be provided with at least a 4 month extension from the date of site plan approval. In regard to Mr. Knllio's argument that the granting of an cootension could establish a · 'precatent", I submit that the provision permitting the Committee to allow for extensions is there for a reason, and should be exercised on reasonable grounds, to the bendit of Mr. Kovinic. l~rther, each situation is unique, and should be examined on a "case by case' basis. In other words, I want to emphasize that should an extension be granted to Mr. Kovinic, it does not necessarily establish a "precedent", unless the subsequent application arises from s'nnilar cir~umstanc;cs. If'yoU require anything fxu~cher please advise. ..,,..~. Respectfully Yours, c. Ray K~lllo ('Fax: 905-374-7500) ~/~ 'H ~I/O'oN NI~VN3~qNqA ~HINVfiW WVcZ:n finn7 '1 .^o~ IN THE MATTER of a Heating pursuant to the Municipal ,4et and By-law Nos. 2000-164 and 2000-199 AND IN THE MATTER OF a Heating regarding DEJAN KOVINIC Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in his application for a Body-Rub Parlour Owner's Licenee SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL TO COMMITTEE FACTS By application dated September 18, 1999, Dean Kovinic (the "applieant'~ applied for a body- mb parlout owner's licerice (the "licence") for 8720 Lundy's Lane (the "subject lands"). Exhibit #3, Book of Documents, tab 8 2 By letter dated January 11, 2000, the City Clerk advised the applicant that he was a successful applicant of Stage 1, Preliminary Eligibility as set out in the Body-rob Parlour By- law No. 2000-164, as amended (the "By-law"). Book of Documents, tab 11 By letter dated January 18, 2000, the City Clerk advised the applicant that his application for a licerice would proceed to Stage 3, Licenee Eligibility and further advised her that he must ensure that all requirements of the Health, Fire and Building depatiments are completed and satisfied within 180 days from the date of the letter, in order to comply with the provisions of the By-law. Book of Documents, tab 12 By letter dated July 26, 2000, the Acting City Clerk advised the applic~mt that he had failed to complete requirements of the Stage 3, Licence Eligibility within the required lime period. The applicant was fux~er advised that pursuant to subsection 39(3) of the By-law he was disentitled to proceed further in the licensing process. He was also informed that the By-law provided that an applicant who had received notice of failure to comply with Stage 3 may, in writing, have the matter heard by Council. Book of Documents, tab 16 By letter dated August 8, 2000, the lawyer for the applicant requested, in writing, a hearing before Council. Book of Documents, tab 19 LEGAL AUTHORITY 1 The Committee has the right and duty to hear the appeal by the applicant pursuant to the following authorities: 1.1 Municipal Act R.S.O. 1990, Chap. M. 45, as amended, section 105, and Part XVII. 1. Exhibit #2, Book of Authorities, tab 3 1.2 Statutory Powers Procedure Act R.S.O. 1990, Chap. 22, as amended, sections 5 to 15 and 21 to 24. Book of Authorities, tab 4 1.3 By-law No. 2000-199. Book of Authorities, tab 5 1.4 By-law No. 99-164, as amended Book of Authorities, tab 6 ISSUE 1 Should the 180-day time limit set out in the By-law be extended for this applicant and thereby allowing the application to continue? 2 If the answer to the issue above is yes, then on what terms and conditions? EVIDENCE 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 The applicant testified that the reasons that he could not receive all final approvals within 180 days are as follows: Because the building on the subject lands was an existing body-rob p.arlour, the applicant did not realize that he needed site plan approval and only thought that he needed a building pen~t for a change of use. The site plan process took longer than he realized. At the same time, his wife developed sedons complications from her pregnancy and he had to tend to his wife. There was an unfortunate incident which occurred at City Hall on September 20, 1999 and he was reluctant to return there. The applicant had a difficult time retaining a qualified landscape architect. He tried to retain the services of the landscape architect who had done the plans for another licenee application but she refused the job. He could not find another landscape architect to do the plans. 9 10 The applicant is of the opinion that he needs another two-three months to complete the project. David Pounder, a consulting engineer, gave evidence on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Pounder has 40 years experience as an engineer. Mr. Pounder stated that when the f~t landscape architect refused to do the plans, there were no other architects in the region who were available and that he had to look in the Toronto area before he finally retained one to do the plans for the subject Mr. Pounder stated that the site plan process takes a long time to complete as there are preliminary plans to be submitted; reviews and changes to the plans and the different depathnents at City Hall that are involved in the process.' Mr. Pounder gave evidence that he made a bona fide attempt to complete the project within 180 days. Mr. Pounder was of the opinion that the construction would take three to four months after the building permit was issued. Mr. Pounder was further of the opinion that consideration should be given to the fact that the professionals needed to do the pwper plans are not always available whe,'n you need them and that they are busy people. Mr. John Bamsley, planner for the City, was called on behalf of the applicant, and gave evidence that the site plan process took approximately three-four months and went through the process and in particular the dapattments and agencies involved and the reviews that were carried out. Mr. William Clark, senior zoning examiner, was called on behalf of the applicant and gave evidence that the proposal was in compliance with the zoning by-law. CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE Does the applicant have a reasonable explanation as to why he could not get his final approvals within 180 days? Did the applicant make reasonable efforts to comply with the time lhnit set out in the By- law? Did the applicant take all necessary steps to achieve compliance and was he diligent in his actions? Intent of the By-law is that the applicant comply with it, including the 180-day time limit. However, Council has seen fit, in the By-law, to allow an applicant to appeal this time limit Committee should be aware that it could be setting a precedent with any report and recommendations it makes to Council. Should the Committee recommend that the time limit be extended, on what tenns and conditions? The applicant has requested that the time limit be extended by four months. The Committee's task is to write a report to Council "as soon as practicable" upon the conclusion of the heating, summarizing the evidence and arguments pre:~ented by the parties, the findings of fact made by the committee and the recommendations, if any, of the committee with reasons therefor on the merits of the application in respect of which the heating has been conducted. Book of Authorities, tab 3 All of which is respectfully submitted this 30th day of Octobe~ R. O. Kallio, Counsel to the Committee LEGAL DEPT. GRAYDON StEEPPARD, B.A., LL.B OCT 2 BARRISTER-AT.LAW Ce'R11FIED IIY THE LAW I~OGIETY OF UPPER CANADA M A 5PFCIALIrI' IN CNIL LIT}~S Mich-¢l A, Jaeger, B,A, I,I .-I1. E.MAIL: maj~lx:slrd:LorS ~ ,~ LSP 3A8 TELI-'PHONE {905) 524.1 FAX (g05) 527-2717 ot 527-51T/ BY FAX ONLY: 905-356-9083 The Corporation of the City of Niagara Fails 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 · Attentionl I~.C. Wae_g. Clerk Dear Sir. Re: October 23rd, 20Q0 Dejan Kovinic - Written Submissions Application for Deja Vu Studio. 8720 Lundy's Lane, Niagara Falls, ON Stage 3 Eli~bility Hearing under s. 52a -October 17% 2000 ~ 9:00 a.m. Committee Room #2, City Hall Introduction The following are the written submissions to the Special Committee with respect to Dejan ("Dean") Kovinic's application for a body-rub parlout licenee under the provi sioms ofBy-law No. 99- 164, as amended. On or about September 20th, 1999, Dejan CDean") Kovinic paid the appropriate fee and submitted his application for a body-rub purlour licenee for Deja Vu Studio, 8720 Lundy's Lane, Niagam Falls. There is no dispute about the "completeness" of the application, or that his appl ication successfully advaneed to the Phase 3 approval stage as &January 18m, 2000 (See tab 12 - Joint Book of Documents). By July 20', 2000 virtually all prelbninary approvals, such as police clearance. Public Health Department clearance, and initial zoning review were received without serious advers~ comments. (See Joint Book of DocUments, tabs 9, 10, i i~ i2, and 13) On July 20th, 2000~ Mr. Kovinic submitted his application Ibr site plan control and paid the appropriate fee. Thus, by July 20~h, 2000, all necessary applications for approval were submitted, and various aspects of his proposal continued to be reviewed by the City. Initial comments were received from the Planning and Development Depaxtment on August 3~, 2000 and August 17~, 2000. (See Joint book &Documents, tabs 18.9_3, 24) On or about July 26*, 2000 Kovinic received notice from the Acting Clerk of the Cit~' (Mr. Ray Kallio) that the 180 day period necessary to complete all approvals prescribed under the by-law ,D ........................... -2- had expired as of July 21~, 2000. On August 8d', 2000, pursuant to s. 52a of the by-law, Kovinic appealed the decision to the present committee. (See Joint Book of Documents, tab 19) Preliminary Remari~s During ottr verbal presentatioa, we expressed concern about the role of lVlr. Kallio in the proceedings. ~Vb. ile we do not dispute the commjttee's rioJtt to legal advice, Mr. Kallio's role was not clearly defined, and was contraryw his statedposition that he was "non-adversaria]" and merely there to advise the committee/assist in the proceedings. In the present case, Mr. Kallio both made submissions to the committee, and advised it regarding matters of procedure. Further, he engaged in legal argument and cross-examinution of wimesses (on behalf of the City? The committee?). He is also going to be prov[ding written argument. In my respeotful submission, these are the hallmarks of an "adversarial" and partial role. In additio~ some of the documentation before the committee was authored by Mr. Kallio, so in certain respects he is also a "wimess". All of the above events were a surprise to u-s, and none of the above was specified in the notice oFhearing. Further, there does not appear to be a transcription of the evidence, as appears to be a requirement under the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act, R.S .0. 1990. In any event, we have .entered into this process in good faith, and intend to make w~itten submissions as set out heroin. General Submissions On the merits. Mr. KoVinic should be entitled to an extension of the 180 d~' dead-line under the by-law. The extension should be long to allow him to complete all approvals, the vast majoriW of which have either been completed or were near comple~od within a few weeks OF the deadline. In roy respectful submission, the delayassociatedwith Mr. Kovinic's applicationhas not been his sole responsibilit3,, nor has i t been deiiberate or inordinately lengthy. Further', no-one has stiflered prejudice as a result of any delay. If Mr. Kovinic is denied a reasonable extension it is he that will suffer the prejudice of a purely arbitrary dead-line. While there was no evidence presented on the point, to our knowledge, it doe~ not appear that any of the current applicants for a body- rub padour licenee wcrc able to meet the li80 day d~ad-line. 'Illis is further iridlcati ve ofthe fact that sometimes more than 180 days is required - particularly for tirst time appli~.ants. The E~ide,ce of Mr. Kovin~.!~ Applicant Mr. Kovinic ~'Afied ~."!t if he is granted an extension h~ n~eds approximately four (4) months from the date of the ~xtensiok~. to obtain the necessary approvals and to complete the r~novations outlined in h~s proposal. He:,~rovided ~a variety of reasons ~or not completing all oF the necessary approvals within 180 days, .s~.'h as a lack of understanding of all ~he requirements of the by-law -3- such as site plan control), travel for family reasons, personal difficulties (Le. his wife's difficult p/-egnancy, and a personal incident at City Hall which he did not wish to elaborate upon). Other reasons included the fact that planners, architects, and engineers have had a busy year. In his case. the landscape architect he had lined up refused to do the project, so another lmldscaper had to In found. This evidence was continned by David Pounder (consultant/engineer). In my respectful submission, these are valid reasons for granting an extension,. and it is clear that Mr. Kovinic is serious about his proposal and that he continued to pursue development of the property (either on his own behalf, or through agents) through-out mnst of the lg0 d~y time frame. Mr. Kovinic is not a %'peculator" and there is no evidence of Wilful delay. The Evidence of Davld Pounder -- Consultant/Engineer Mr. Pounder is an e.,cperienced architect, consultant and cn-~xteer. He confirmed that the floor 'space of the body-rob parlo.ur did not exceed the by-law requirements, and that, to ihe best of his knowledge, the proposal (as:per the site plans recen~y submitted) met all of the requirements of the City. He testified that the 180. day deacl-I ine was "ti ghf'. When pressed by the Cornmince, he made a comment to the efi~et that.the dead-line was "slightl~ unreasonable" giw.-n the fact that the profession has had a busy ye~. He also was of the view that the approval process is/was two-sided, in so far as there is a lot of"back and forth" between the mimy persons involved in multiple approval agencies and the persons drafting the proposals. In other WorcL% the gist of his evidence, I submit, is that it takes "two to tango}~nd that the complex proccss::ofsite plan control alone can take many months of preparation - even b~fore submitting it to the government for approwal. The government then in rum sends it back fOr'ravisibns ctc etc.. and the process continues for a few more months. :~:..- ... Mr. Poander al so testified that ~v~'.ather permitting, ti~e prej oct could be ec,mpl eted within four (4) months of the date ofth~'ektensio~ assuxning all site plan issues are resolved. The Evidence of Mr. Barnile~d .? City~ Planner Havi, gj receivec{' 6 iat Zs t of revised noor pli,,,. Mr. BarnsIcy obviously did not have a chance to review same. H6~eVeri in my submission, his ~ornments about the initial site plans did not raise any major objectio~i':.o the pr0bosal. His initial comments were that he needed confin, ,ation that the floor space require .'.z~.~.~ ofth{ by-law were met, land that the various uses in the building should be separated proper!S~} !; ': "' As f~r the approval ~g~ss, ~ t'Barnsley corn mented that it took about 4 months on average. Having said thai, however, ~!fCor~mitie~ should note that ~Vlx. Barnsley's' comments did not (in my view) include preparation t{~n~ for ihe berSon(s) drafting tlie propo.'~al. As Mr. Pounder's evidence suggests, the pre-submissic~:l~lanrfini~:~tages alone can beia lengthy and intensive process. -4- The Cornmince should also take special note of the fact th'~t Mr. Barnslcy himself had correspondence in his file (Exhibit 4: the September 22~a, 2000 letter from the Region of Niagara to him) which had not yet been provided to Mr. Kovinic, his architect or his legal counsel. Moreover, Mr, Bamsle~ al so indicated that Mr. Kovinic's proposal had not ye[ been circulated to the BIA, Mr. Barnsley's memo of July 26~, 2000 at tab 17 of Ghe Joint Book of Documents clearly indicales that he wss going to circulate it to the BIA, but he did not as oFthe date ofthe heating. Note: This is not to suggest that Mr, BarnsIcy is "slow", or incompetent, but merely to show that the process '~takes time", and that sometimes the factors causing "delay" are not all within the comtol of the applicant, nor are they specified within the by-law. (For example, the BIA is notified as a courtesy, and this requirement is not specified in the body-rub pailour by-law) All told, Mr. Barnsley's evidence eoaf_trms (a) tint Mr. Kovinic's proposal has afewrelatively minor deviations from compliance with the City's. site plan control requirements; and (b) that the · delay associated with the application has not entirely been the "f~ult" of the applicant, or his agents. .:. The Evidence of William Clark ~ Zoning Administrator ..: Mr. Clark testi fled that Mr. Ko~nic's current proposal was in "substantial compliance'; with the zoning requirements o,f..~he CitY. Like Mr. Barnsley, Mr. Clark obviously has not yet had an opportunity' to review the re;vised'plans recently submitted by Mr. Kovinic. It should be noted that the revised plans are desig~ed to adc~esS the remainder of the City's concerns in regard to a proposal that is alxeady in"substanti;,l~ompliance'. Lastly, Mr. Clark also testifled that~o his knowledge the requirement of site plan coii~ol '.W~.not specifically mentioned in the body-rob padour by-law. ::". :: i::.:: :'~: i ·:: .!!:'i' Cottclusiotts :i:!:" E: · .~'i-':: ..::~ In my respectfill sub~is~i'b~:~Mr'. Kovinic should be granted an extension of four months to complete the Phase 3 eligib~[i~y:l~r~e~. If there is a serious further delay cm~sed bv weather. for instance, it should not be h'~fd ~g~ah~stihim. Once again, the delay associated with blr. Kovi~ie's application has not been e~].ssZi.ge'.'}~o~ prejudicial. Mr. Kovinie has been reasonably diligent in advanzing his proposal, and:~h:r'e!.iK::i.~liable evidence that the delay has not been entirely his fault or entirely due to actors wi,hi~!lti~i ~/tr~L fithe purpose of this hearing body is m gradt extensions for applicants who require i~4~a~i'eg~.timate and reasonable grounds, then Mr. Kovinic is dearly MICHAEL A. JAEGER IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing pursuant to the Municipal Act and By-law Nos. 2000-164 and 2000-199 AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing regarding Madjana Kovinic Stage 3 eligibility requlmments in her application for a Body-Rub Padour Owners Licence SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT MARIJANA KOVINIC AFTER 'HEARING HELD TUESDAY OCTOBER 17TM, 2000 9:00 A.M. Submitted by: Luigi De Lisio Banister & Solicitor 16-261 Martindale Road SL Cathadnes, Ontario L2W 1A2 T: (905) 687-4885 F: (905) 687-3311 Solicitor for the Applicant To: Alderman Edward Michalczyk, Chair Alderman Paisley Janvary-Pool Alderman Selina Volpatti Mr. R. Kallio, City Solicitor v/ Mr. E.C. Wagg, C.M.O., City Clerk SUBMISSIONS PURPOSE OF HEARING The Applicant. Madjana Kovinic, has requested this Committee hear and consider her request under subsection 52a(2) of By-law No. 99-164 with respect to a notice under paragraph 39(4)(a) of the By-law. alleging failure to comply with Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in her application for a body rub padour owners licence. BACKGROUND The Applicant is a resident of 4348 Bamp~eld Dr.. Unit ~'2, Niagara Fails, Ontado. and is married with 2 children. On or about the 20~' day of September, 1999, the Applicant signed and submitted an Application for Body-Rub Padour Owners Licence to the City of Niagara Falls. Ontario as required by By-law No. 99-164 with respect to property owned by Jorgen Greftegreff (hereinafter referred to as 'J.G.') and municipally known as 8568 Lundy's Lane, Niagara Falls, Ontado (hereinafter referred to as 'the property'). A copy of the Application is found at Tab "A" of the Applicant's Document Brief filed herewith. On or about September 20~, 2000, the Applicant entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with J. G. with respect to the property. A copy of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale is found at Tab "B" of the Applicant's Document Brief filed herewith. In or about February or March. 2000, the Applicant was info.~ed that J,G. had died while in Arizona. J. G.'s wife advised that she did not wish to be bound by the terms of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. Spectcaliy, given her Husband's untimely death, she was not propared to close the transaction and provide vacant possession by May 26, 2000 as required by the Agreement. I I I I I I I I i I ! '~. On or about May 16~', 2000, the Applicant entered into a second Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the late J.G.'s widow with respect to the same property. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale contained the same tem~s as the Agreement first entered into with J.G. save and except that dosing was scheduled for October 30~, 2000. A copy of the second Agreement of Purchase and Sale is found at Tab "C" of the Applicant's Document Brief filed herewith. According to the evidence given at the Hearing held herein by Dejan "Dean" Kovinic, the Vendor conducted a small commercial business from the property and she required some time to move her inventory which included rocks used to make souvenir keep-sakes. The second agreement of Purchase and Sale was signed by her father-in-law in trust for the Applicant. Her father-in-law was going to assist in the purchase of the property with money. 10. On June 15~', 2000, the Applicant, by her father-in-law, caused a letter to be sent by her solicitor, Stephen Schmidt, to the City of Niagara Falls Licensing Division and Building Department advising the City that she could not comply with the requirements of the by-law prior to October 30~ and requesting an extension of time for ccmpliance given J.G.'s untimely death. A copy of the letter is found at Tab "D" of the Applicant's Document Brief filed herewith. 11. On June 28~', 2000 the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario wrote to the solicitor for the Applicant and advised that the by-law did not give staff the discretion to extend any time limits. A copy of the letter is found at Tab "E" of the Applicant's Document Bdef filed herewith. 12. The Applicant requested and was granted a hearing before this Committee. THE LAW 13. It is respectfully submitted that this Committee has been authorized by by-law no. 2000-t99 to hear applications for licenses, and other matters relating to such applications, pursuant to the said By-law no. 99-164, in the place of the Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, particularly section 105 thereof, and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. A copy of the By-law is found at Tab "F" of the Applicant's Document Brief filed herewith. 14. It is respectfully submitted that after hearing, the Council shall, in accordance with applicable law, hear the matter and shall either confirm the decision represented by the notice or allow the application to proceed, or grant the licence as the case may be. A copy of the By-law is found at Tab "G" of the Applicant's Document Brief filed herewith. 15. A copy of the headnote to Roncarelli vs. Duplessis, 176 [1959] S.C.R. 121, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is found at Tab "H" of the Applicant's Document Brief filed herewith. The Committee must be fair in the manner in which it exercises its discretion. The exercise of discretion implies good faith in discharging public duty. ARGUMENT 16. The Applicant has used her best efforts in fulfilling the requirements of By-law no. 99-164. 17. No act or omission on the part of the Applicant resulted in the transaction involving the property from closing on May 26, 2000 as first agreed. 18. The purchase of the property was frustrated by the death of J.G.. 19. The Applicanttook steps to notify the City of her inability to close May 26, 2000 and fulfill the stage 3 of the by-law. 20. The Applicant has demonstrated a willingness to comply with the City by-laws and to engage in all inspections as required to fuffill stage 3 of the by-law. 21. The Applicant took steps to revive the transaction and, in fact, signed a second agreement of purchase and sale forthe property requiring it close October 30, 2000. 22. There was no evidence presented at Headng to suggest the transaction will not dose as scheduled. 23. No evidence was presented to suggest that there would be any prejudice to anyone other than the Applicant if the time for completion of the stage 3 requirements were i I ! I I I I i i I i I I ! I not extended. 24. There is no reason in law to deny the Applicant an extension as requested. 25. It would be unfair and not equitable to deny the Applicant an extension given that she has satisfied 2 out of 3 stages as required by the by-law in a short time and would likely have satisfied the stage 3 requirements had it not been for J. G.' s death and his widow's request to allow her more time to move her belongings including inventory for her business. ORDER REQUESTED 26. That the time for the Applicant to complete stage 3 of by-law no. 99-164 be extended to December 31`t, 2000. All of which is respectfully submitted this 23"~ day of October, 2000. ~r~e Applicant IN THE MATTER of a Hearing pursuant to the Municipal Act and By-law Nos. 2000-164 and 2000-199 AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing regarding MARIJANA KOVINIC Stage 3 Eligibility requirements in her application for a Body-Rub Parlour Owner's Licenee SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL TO COMMITTEE FACTS By application dated September 2, 1999, Maxijana Kovinic (the "applicant") applied for a body-rub parlour owner's licenee (the "licenee"). Exhibit #3, Book of Documents, tab 6 By letter dated January 11, 2000, the City Clerk advised the applicant that she was a successful applicant of Stage 1, Preliminary Eligibility as set out in the Body-rub Parlour By- law No. 2000-164, as amended (the "By-law"). Book of Docutnents, tab 9 By letter dated January 18, 2000, the City Clerk advised the applicartt that her application for a licenee would proceed to Stage 3, Licence Eligibility and fur~er advised her that she must ensure that all reqnents of the Health, Fire and Building depm~nents are completed and satisfied within 180 days from the date of the letter, in order to comply with the provisions of the By-law. Book of Documents, tab 10 4 By letter dated June 15, 2000, Stephen Schmidt, the applicant's lawyer, wrote to the City asking for an extension of time within which to complete the Stage 3, Licenee Eligibility. Book of Documents, tab 11 By letter dated July 26, 2000, the Acting City Clerk advised the applicant that she had failed to complete requircracnts of the Stagc 3, Liccncc Eligibility within the; required time period. The applicant was further advised that pursuant to subscction 39(3) of thc By-law she was disentitled to pmcccd furthcr in the liccnsing pmccss. She was also inf0i~ned that the By-law provided that an applicant who had received notice of failure to comply with Stage 3 may, in writing, havc the matter hcard by Council. Book of Documents, tab 13 -2- By letter dated August 8, 2000, the lawyer for the applicant requested, in writing, a heating before Council. Book of Documents, tab 14 LEGAL AUTHORITY 1 The Committee has the right and duty to hear the appeal by the applicant pursuant to the following authorities: 1.1 Municipal Act R.S.O. 1990, Chap. M. 45, as amended, section 105, and Part XVII. 1: Exhibit #2, Book of Authorities, tab 3 1.2 Statutory Powers Procedure Act R.S.O. 1990, Chap. 22, as an~ended, sections 5 to 15 and 21 to 24. Book of Authorities, tab 4 1.3 By-law No. 2000-199. Book of Authorities, tab 5 1.4 By-law No. 99-164, as amended Book of Authorities, tab 6 ISSUE 1 Should the 180-day time limit set out in the By-law be extended for this applicant and thereby allowing the application to continue? 2 If the answer to the issue above is yes, then on what teniis and conditions? EVIDENCE The applicant, when she filed her application, submitted an agreement of purchase and sale for the lands known municipally as 8568 Lundy's Lane (the "subject lands"). The vendor was Mr. Jorgen Gre~egreff. The transaction was to close on May 26,, 2000. According to the applicant, Mr. Greftegreff died in February, 2000 but Mrs. Greftegreff did not contact the applicant until April, 2000. 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -3- The applicant testified that Mrs. Greftegreff informed her that Mrs. Greftegreff did not want to sell the subject lands in May but wanted to wait for a while. The applicant then came into City Hall "around the end of May", 2000 to see if she could change locations from the subject lands to a site on Bender Street. She was told that she could not. The applicant left for Europe on June 4, 2000 and stayed for approximately three months and returned home on September 10, 2000. Before she left for Europe, the applicant spoke to her father-in-law because "he was going to buy the property". Other than speaking to her father-in-law by telephone occasionally, the applicant had no timher involvement in the subject lands. The father-in-law was going to give the applicant a personal loan to buy the subject lands. A second agreement of purchase and sale ("second agreement") was entered 'into between Jorgen Greftegreff and Zivota Kovirtie, in trust for the subject lands. It was executed by Mr Kovinic on May 12, 2000 and by Beverly Cxreftegreff on June 8, 2000. The closing of the second agreement was scheduled for October 30, 2(00. The applicant had no explanation as to why her father-in-law entered into the second agreement even though she was still in the city on May 12. The applicant did not know if her father-in-law waived the financing condition in the second agreement nor did she know whether the subject lands were inspected and whether that condition was waived in the second agreement. Dean Kovinic ("Dean') gave evidence that Mrs. Greftegreff, in March 2000 told him that her husband had died and that she didn't want to move because she had many stone sculptures and didn't have a place to store them. Dean testified that he discussed the matter with City officials but could not give a specific date. Dean was somewhat familiar with the second agreement but was not sm'e if the financing and inspection conditions were waived. Dean stated that he did not talk to his father about the second agreement. Dean could not recall if he gave the applicant any advise when he became aware of Mrs. Gre~egreffrefusing to close the deal on the subject lands in May. -4- CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE When the applicant was informed by the City Clerk in January, 2000 that she had successfully reached Stage 3, Licenee Eligibility, she took no steps to contact Mr. Greftegreff to see whether the closing date could be advaneed so that she could take possession of the subject lands sooner. In fact, even after Mrs. Grefiegreff informed the apphcant, in April, that the vendor had died and that Mrs. Greftegreff was reluctant to close on May 26, the applicant did not approach City Hall until the end of May to try to change locations. The applicant gave no explanation as to why her brother-in-law, Dean, who had been speaking to Mrs. Greftegreff in March, did not tell the applicant that there was a potential problem as the applicant testified that she only found out about Mr. Greftegre,ff's death and the delayed closing date when she was contacted by Mrs. Greftegreff in April. With a potential delay in the closing date, the applicant went to Europe on June 4 and did not return until September 10. While the applicant was still in the city, her father-in-law submitted a new offer to purchase the subject lands dated May 12 to Mr. Jorgen Greftegreff, who had been dead for at least three months, which offer was accepted by his widow on June 8. The applicant did not give an explanation as to why her father-in-law executed the second offer and what happened to the first agreement except to say that her father-in-law was going to buy the property. The applicant gave no evidence as to what steps she took to ensure that the transaction for the subject lands would close oft May 26, if not sooner. Other than a few telephone conversations to her father-in-law while she was in Europe, the applicant had no further involvement in the second agreement and did not know the status of it. Does the applicant have a reasonable explanation as to why she could not get his final approvals within 180 days? 10 Did the applicant make reasonable efforts to comply with the time limit set out in the By- law? 11 Did the applicant take all necessary steps to achieve compliance and was she diligent in her 12 13 14 15 · 16 -5~ actions? Intent of the By-law is that the applicant comply with it, including the 180-day time limit. However, Council has seen fit, in the By-law, to allow an applicant to appeal this time limit Committee should be aware that it could be setting a precedent with any report and recommendations it makes to Council. Should the Committee recommend that the time limit be extended, on what tetixxs and conditions? The applicant has requested that the time limit be extended to December 31, 2000. The Committee's task is to write a report to Council "as soon as pxacticable" upon the conclusion of the hearing, summarizing the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, the tindings of fact made by the committee and the recommendations, iC any, of the committee with reasons therefor oh the merits of the application in respect of which the hearing has been conducted. Book of Authorities, tab 3 All of which is respectfully submitted this 30th day of October, 20~~ R. O. Kallio, Counsel to the Committee IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing pursuant to the Municipal Act and By-law Nos. 2000-164 and 2000-199 AND IN THE IvlATTER OF a Hearing regarding Marijana Kovinic Stage 3 eligibility requirements in her application for a Body-Rub Padour Owner's Licence REPLY TO SUBMISSIONS MADE BY COUNSEL TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE APPLICATION OF MARIJANA KOVINIC STAGE 3 ELIGI!;'tlLITY REQUIREI~4ENTS IN HER APPLICATION FOR A BODY-RUB PARLOUR OWNER'S LICENCE Submitted by: Luigi De Lisio Barrister & Solicitor 16-261 Martindale Road St. Cathadnes, Ontario L2W 1A2 T: (905) 687-4885 F: (905) 687-3311 Solicitor for the Applicant Alderman Edward Mi::halczyk, Chair Alderman Paisley Janvary-Pool Alderman Selina VolF, atti Mr. R. Kallio, City Solicitor Mr. E.C. Wagg. C.M.O., City Clerk SUBMISSION8 IN REPLY Counsel to the Committee stated in submissions that he was not adopting an adversarial roll in the-'m proceedings but was present and participating in his roll as Counsel to the Comp'~ittee to provide advice on matters of law. The Applicant gave evidence that her fatl~er-in-law was going to assist her financially in buying the property, The father-in~law's involvement was financial in nature. The Applicant stated in evidence that she spoke to her father..in-law by telephone frequently while she ~vas in Europe and it1 the course of those conversations she · spoke to him about the purchase of the property. The Applicant left for Europe and left a Power of Attorney appointing her father-in- law as her attorney to deal with matters. The second Offer was signed while she was in Canada but signed back by the Vendor after she had left. There was no evidenGe presented at thf~! hearing to suggest that the padlos are not bound by the second Agreement of Purchase and Sale. Dean testified that he discussed matters with Mr. Kallio and although he could not give a specific date, invited Mr. Kallio to check his notes and report on the date when their meeting took place. Mr, Kallio did not provide this information at the hearing nor did he deny that the meeting occurred. The explanation given as to the delay in closing is simple and consistent- the Vendor did not wish to close as previously agreed as a result of her Husband's death and the resulting need to re-locate. The Applicant brougl't the problem to the attention of City officials well in advance of the closing date, 8he made written application for an extension of time eady through her solicitor, 8tophen Schmidt followed by the Application currently before Committee. The Committee will n:~t be setting a precedent which would apply automatically to future applications. Each Application is to be determined on its own merits. The Applicant acknowled,qes that any decision made in this case would apply to future applications where the time limit canno! be complied with as a result of the death of the Vendor and a Purchaser willing to co-operate in setting a new closing date to accommodate the '~eeds of the Vendors estate. 10. Other than forcing thE!. Vendor's widow lo sell through litigation and considering the delay entailed in saP'le, what more CoL~Id the Applicant do other than follow the course adopted giving] rise to these proceedings? All of which is respectfully submitted this 31 st day of October, 2000. · /-"' / igi e(~L'i~o ' ~,. f'.~uo~licitor'for the Applicant Corporate Sen/ices Department Legal Sen/ices 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)374;7500 E-maih rkallio@city.niagarafalls.on,ca R.O. Kallio City Solicitor L-2000-87 November 20, 2000 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of Municipal Council, City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: L-2000-87, Establishment of Daylighting Triangle As a Public Highway - Delta Drive Our File No.: 2000-276 RECOMMF, NDATION: That the daylighting triangle, described as Part 3 on Reference Plan No. 59R-10857 be established as a public highway, to form part of Delta Drive. REPORT: As a condition of Land Division Committee Consent, Austra Andzans transferred a daylighting triangle to the City. The subject land is located at the south east comer of Delta Drive and Montrose Road and is shown hatched on the plan attached. Staff is now recommending that the subject land be dedicated as a public high.way to form part of Delta Drive. Prepared by: S.M. Daniels, A.M.C.T. Legal Assistant/Property Manager. .o. by: .Kal m, City Solicitor. Approved by: 'B° .ect tt ,,(' Tony Ravenda, Executive Director of Corporate Services. Respectfully Submitted: Working Together to Serve Our Community .. Clerk's · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development The City of Niagara Falls~ Canada Corporate Services Department Legal Services 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905)374-7500 E-maih rkallio@city.niagarafalls.on.ca R.O. Kallio City Solicitor L-2000-89 November 20, 2000 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of Municipal Council, City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: L-2000-89, Proposed Walkway Closing Between Brian Crescent and Harriman Street Block A Plan N.S. 30 Our File No.: 1999-316 RECOMMENDATION: That area residents not be re-surveyed regarding a request to close the w;~kway joining Brian Crescent to Hardman Street. REPORT: Mr. Rosa resides at 7020 Harriman Street. He lives next to a walkway joining Brian Crescent to Hardman Street. The walkway is shown hatched on the plan attached. In December of 1999, a request was received from Mr. Rosa to close the walkway. Problems with the walkway are outlined in Mr. Rosa's letter, a copy of which is attached, together with signatures of property owners abutting the walkway, in support of the closing. At a recent meeting of Council staff was directed to re-survey area residents, however, staff is recommending against another survey for the following reasons. In February of this year, staff sent letters to 160 area residents requesting their comments regarding the proposed closing of the walkway. We received 51 responses from residents who were against closing the walkway. Many of the respondents were strongly opposed to the proposed closing. Many parents who responded voiced their concerns about children walking along Domhester Road to get to school if the walkway was closed. They consider it to be a convenient and safe route. We also received a response from the Niagara Catholic District School Board and from Mary Ward School indicating their preference in leaving the walkway open. The District School Board of Niagara adviseAt the closing of the L-2000-89 - 2 - November 20, 2000 walkway would have no impact on pedestrian travel of their students to Orchard Park and A.N. Myer Schools. The walBvay has been maintained by the City on an "as needed" basis. S.M, Daniels, A.M.C.T. Legal Assistant/Property Manager. City Solicitor. Approved by: Tony Ravenda, Executive Director of Corporate Services. Chief Adn~'nistrative Of~c~. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's · Finance · Human Resoumes · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development David Rosa 7020 Harriman Street 356-6901 L?.C" EPT. INFO .... We have lived next to the walkway joining Brian Crescent and Harriman Street for over twenty years and have al,~ays had problems, but the past several years have gotten much worse. There has been damage done to our cars that were parked in our driveway, damages are' estimited to be just under nine thousand dollars. We are picking up broken beer bottles on a itaily basis in the summer and have also encountered used condoms, which we feel is a danger not only to the children passing but the residents of the homes surrounding the walkway, who have to clean up. Two months ago, I was forced to jump in and break up a fil;ht where two older boys were beating a much younger boy. These incidents are only a few of the, many that we have had to deal with, and we have had enough, something must be done. We haw,~ spoken to the Other neighbors and they also agree. I have received signatures from the neighbors and have enclosed it in this letter. They also feel that the walkway should be closed. Thank You Sincerely, David Rosa /"4 .. ... ~-. :.'-~:~.,t.~;~7'-'-'.,. :. ~ . ~...~ ? .... . ..: Nov. 16 '00 17:04 " ~ ATTENTION: CITY CLERK E.C. WAGCa On Wednesday November 15$h I spoke to Sfisan Daniels in the legal department concerning the closing of th6 walkway between Brian Crescent and Harriman Street. Mrs. Daniels had said that the matter would be discussed during the next council meoting tl~s Monday. I would like to be present and if possible make a brief statement. Tha:~tou. Sincerely: David Rosa The City of Niagara Falls' Canada Corporate Services Department Legal Services 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905)374-7500 E-mail: rkallio@city.niagarafalls.on.ca R.O. Kallio City Solicitor L-2000-90 November 20, 2000 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of Municipal Council, City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: L-2000-90, Authorization to Proceed with Closing Part of Dock Street, South East of Welland Avenue Our File No.: 2000-244 RECOMMENDATION: That staff be authorized to proceed with the closing of that part of Dock Street lying south east of Welland Avenue. REPORT: 1314540 Ontario Inc. is the owner of 3780 Welland Avenue. The company is requesting the City close that portion of Dock Street abutting its property and convey it to them tbr $1.00. The subject portion of Dock Street is shown hatched on the plan attached. Based on our available records the subject portion of the street has never been opened for public travel. Records do show that a railway did operate on this land in the past. Staff has no objection to closing the road, however, once the road is closed staff will recommend, in a subsequent report to Council, that the property will be offered for sale llo the abutting owners Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems Legal Planning & Development L-2000-90 - 2 - November 20, 2000 on both sides of the road at the appraised value. Prepared by: S.M. Daniels, A.M.C.T. Legal Assistant/Property Manager. Approved by: Tony Ravenda, Executive Director of Corporate Services. Reco d by: R.. Kalh City Solicitor. Respectfully Submitted: