2000/11/20COMMUNITY SERVICES. COMMITTEE AGENDA ::
1)
2)
3)
b)
c)
d)
h)
i)
j)
4)
s)
FIFTEENTH MEETING
Monday, November 20, 2000
From 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
City Hall, Committee Room #2A & B
Approval of the 2000 10 30 Community Services Committee Minutes
DEPUTATION:
Marianne Mclntyre - General Manager of the Four Points Siteraton
Requesting Rebate of 1999 Tipping Fees (see Communication Item)
REPORTS:
MW-2000-131
- Petition for Rural Road Upgrade Ort Road,
Weaver Road, Wi!iick Road & Rexinger Road
PD-2000-126 - Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan
Provincia!!y Significant Weftands
BBS-2000-14 - Set Fines & Short Form Wording
Various By-Laws & Building Code Act
BBS-2000-15 - Litter By-Law- Proposed Administration Fee
BBS-2000-16 - Sign By-Law Variance -
6326 Thorold Stone Road
BBS-2000-17 - 5888 Thorold Stone Road - Sign Applications
BBS-2000-18 - 5950 Victoria Avenue - Courtyard Marriott
Variance Ground Sign
BBS-2000-19 - 6546 Buchanan Avenue Applebee's Restaurant
R-2000-76 - Cemetery By-Law
FS-2000-14 - Protective Clothing for Firefighters
COMMUNICATION ITEMS:
Staff Contact:
E. Dujlovic
D. Darbyson
S. Wheeler
S. Wheeler
S. Wheeler
S. Wheeler
S. Wheeler
S. Wheder
A. Kon
P. Cor~eld
Four Points Sheraton - Correspondence requesting Rebate otF 1999 Tipping Fees
NEW BUSINESS:
6) ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITFEE MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2000, CITY HALL ROOM 2 AT 6:10 P.M.
PRESENT:
Chairperson Victor Pietrangelo, Mayor Wayne Thomson,
Alderman Paisley Janvary-Pool, Alderman Judy Orr, Alderman
Wayne Campbell, Alderman Kim Craitor, Alderman Shirley Fisher,
Alderman Ed Michalczyk, Aldefnxan Janice Wing, Alderman
Carolynn Ioannoni, Alderman Ken Feren, Alderman Norm Puttick,
Alderman Selina Volpatti
ABSENT:
Peter Corfield, Ken Burden
STAFF:
GUEST:
Ed Lustig, John MacDonald, Ed Dujlovic, Woody Wagg, Ray Kallio,
Tom Smith (for Ken Burden),Lee Smith (for Peter Corfield),
Marianne Tikky (Steno)
David Schram - Community Centre Site Selection
Jim Atack - Greater Niagara Baseball Association Houck Park
Fieldhouse
PRESS:
Mr. Corey Larocque - Niagara Falls Review, Rob McGregor - CHRE
1) MINUTES
IT WAS MOVED BY Alderman Michalczyk, seconded by Alderman Craitor
that the minutes of the October 16, 2000 Community Services Committee
Meeting be approved with an amendment referring to Mr. F',osa's deputation
that Alderman Wing proposed that residents be contacted again and given the
choice of closing the walkway or volunteering time to keep the walkway clear of
debris and overgrown vegetation.
Motion: Carried '
Action: ReCommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30.
2) REPORTS
BBS-2000-13 - 6068 Montrose Road Property Standard Order
IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR THOMSON, seconded by Alderman Fisher that
staff be authorized to retain a towing company forthwith to remove the
unlicenced vehicles which 1251459 Ontario Inc., was ordered to carry out under
an Order of the Property Standards Officer.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30.
MW-2000-128 - 6028 Culp Street, Bed & Breakfast Sewer Impact Study
IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR THOMSON, seconded by Alderman Michalczyk
to receive and file this report and to forward a copy to Mr. Tony Rovert of 6212
Pine Grove Avenue, Niagara Falls, Ontario.
Motion: Carried
Conflict: Alderman Wing
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30.
R-2000-68 - Greater Niagara Baseball Association - Houck Park Fieldhouse
IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR THOMSON, seconded by Alderman Michalczyk
that Council authorize the Mayor and City to sign the lease agreement with the
Greater Niagara Baseball Association (GNBA) for the use of the Houck Park
Fieldhouse for a term of 25 years and that the GNBA be congratulated for their
time and effort expended in achieving this agreement.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30. -
Aldetfftan Puttick questioned Staff as to the whereabouts of the steel gates for
Houck Park.
Adele Kon advised Council she would have Staff investigate and report back to
Committee.
R-2000-70 - Community Centre Site Selection Consultation Process
IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR THOMSON, seconded by Aldei-nian Ioannoni that
Council receive the Site Selection Discussion Paper prepared by the Steering
Committee of the Community Centre Project and that Council authorize the
Steering Committee to obtain public input on this Discussion Paper.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30. --
R-2000-71 - Naming of City Owned-Greenspace, West of Paddock Trail &
South of Alpine Drive
IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR THOMSON, seconded by Alderman Feren that the
greenspace located west of Paddock Trail and South of Alpine Drive be named
Paddock Trail Park.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30.
R-2000-72 - Construction of Phase I of the Millennium Trail
IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR THOMSON, seconded by Alderman Fisher that
the Tender TR8-2000 for the construction of Phase I of the Millennium Trail
(McLeod Road to Lundy's Lane) be awarded to Hard Rock Paving Company of
Port Colborne, Ontario at the tendered cost of $361,702.80, and further; that the
by-law appearing later this evening on the Council agenda authorizing an.
agreement with Hard Rock Paving Company be approved.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30.
NEW BUSINESS
1)
QEW @ Sand Plant Hill - CNR Structure Replacement and QEW Widening
Detail Design Information Letter. -
Alderman Michalczyk questioned Staff if any work was scheduled to be done on
the Lyons Creek Overpass.
Ed Dujlovic advised Committee that he had no knowledge of any repairs
scheduled to be done on Lyons Creek and that Staff would investigate this t
matter further.
IT WAS MOVED BY ALDERMAN VOLPATTL seconded by Alderman Janvary-
Pool that QEW @ Sand Plant Hill - CNR Structure Replacement and QEW
Widening, Detail Design information letter be received and filed
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30.
2)
IT WAS MOVED BY ALDERMAN WING, seconded by Alderman Votpatti that
the Ministry of. Transportation be advised that appropriate signage will be
required during construction of the purposed improvements to the QEW and
that the City is concerned with the condition of the Lyons Creek QEW Overpass.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30.
3)
Alderman Craitor advised Council that the Matthews propert3r on Montrose
Road near Oakwood Drive had two vehicles piled high with car parts parked
under a NO PARKING SIGN. Alderman Craitor wanted to 'know why the
Commissioners had not been ticketing these vehicles which are in direct
violation of our parking by-law. Alderman Craitor spoke directly wieh the
5)
6)
owner and to date nothing has changed.
IT WAS MOVED BY ALDERMAN CRAITOR, seconded by Alderman
Michalczyk that Commissioners ticket the illegally parked trucks on Montrose
Road near Oakwood Drive.
Motion: Carried
Opposed: Alderman Puttick
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30.
IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR THOMSON, seconded by Alderman Craitor that
staff and appropriate public agencies meet in the New Year to address the
condition of the Matthews property on Montrose Road.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30.
Alderman Craitor advised Council that vehicles are still parking on Murray
Street and Drummond Road around the Goodfellas Bar and questioned Staff if
these vehicles were being ticketed.
Ed Dujlovic advised Council that Staff would investigate and report back to
Committee.
IT WAS MOVED BY ALDERMAN FEREN, seconded by Alderman Ioannoni that
the City sponsor Mr. Gallan $100.00. '
Motion: Carried
Opposed: Aldet~,'Ln Puttick
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30.
IT WAS MOVED BY ALDERMAN VOLPATTI, seconded by Mayor Thomson
that Staff look into installing a hidden driveway entrance sign on Beaverdams
Road between Garner Road and Kalar Road.
Motion: Carried ~
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2000 10 30.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned moved by Alderman Pietrangelo, seconded by Aidenquire
Craitor at 6:35 p.m.
The City of
Niagara Falls(
Canada
Community Services Department
Municipal Works
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: fhiggins@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng.
Director
MW-2000-131
November 20, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
MW-2000-131 Petition for Rural Road Upgrade
Ort Road, Weaver Road, Willick Road & Reixinger Road
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended.that sections of these roads be considered for inclusion in the 2001 Current Budget
and following years and that an increase in the funding level for the surface treatment program be
considered for the 2001 Budget.
REPORT:
A petition has been received firom the residents of Ort Road, Weaver Road, Willick Rbad and
Reixinger Road, requesting an up-grade of the existing roads. As these roads are rural, the up-grade
would consist of surface treating these roads, similar to the surrounding roadways in this area.
At present these roads are in a granular state. They are maintained by periodic grading to remove wash
boarding and dust control by the use of Timbind, which is brown in colour.
The approximate cost to up-grade these roads to a surface treatment classification would be $250,000
to $330,000. The work would include reshaping the road by pulverizing (to provide proper cross-fall)
adding granular 'A' material and the placement of double surface treatment. [)itching would also need
to be improved.
For the last nittuber of years, the level of funding for surface treated roads has been approximately
$225,000. Together with the reduction of auxiliary funding for items such as granular material,
pulverizing and ditching, the number of surface treated roads that can be maintained has been greatly
reduced.
It has been over ten years since any gravel road have been brought up to a surface treated level by the
City. At the present level of funding, and with approximately 170 km of surface treated roads that
should be re-treated with a single application of surface treatment every six years, it would require
$255,000 annually. However, with other related works that are now required to return the existing
surface treated roads back to where they should be, it is now costing between $50,000 to $65,000 per
Municipal Works
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Fire Services Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development · Building & By-Laws
2000 11 20 -2 - MW 2000-131
kilometre instead of approximately $10,000 per kilometre for a single surface treatment.
It is therefore recommended that funding be increased for the surface treatment program subject to
available funding and that these roads be considered for up-grade over a period of years.
Prepared by:
Frank Higgins, C.E.T.,
Manager of Projects
Ed Dujlovic, P.Eng.,
Director of Municipal Works proved by~~
ohn MacDonald
Chief dministrative 0
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-2000-126
November 20, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:. __
Re: PD-2000-126, Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan
Provincially Significant Wetlands
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended Council approve Option 3 in this report to endorse the, Watershed Plan and
direct staff to advance the wetland policies for .this area.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of October 16, 2000, the Committee considered the attached staff report PD-2000-
116, Schedule 1, which provided background information on the Provincially Significant Wetland
Complex in the Warren Creek Watershed. After considering the report and the comments of Mr.
Blott, the Committee deferred the report along with staff report MW-2000-104 which recommended
the endorsement of the overall watershed plan. Staff were directed to investigate the issue further
and report back. While staff report PD-2000-116 provided a comprehensive overview of the wetland
issue and answered previous concerns, two issues were raised at the meeting which require
elaboration. First, Mr. Blott advised the Committee that if the Dougan report is adopted, the City
is adopting the designated Provincially Significant Wetlands and giving the report political
credibility. It is important to emphasize the wetland evaluation has taken place and been accepted
by the Ministry of Natural Resources. All agencies know of this status through draft circulations of
the Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan. The Wetland Complex is considered Provincially
Significant whether Council endorses the Watershed Plan with or without tl~ke evaluation included
(see Schedule 2 attached).
Second, it was also asked if staff has sufficiently looked into this matter and exhausted all
possibilities offuture development in the wetland areas. Staffhave had several meetings with MNR
and Ministry of Municipal Affairs on the Wetland Complex and Mr. Blo'It's lands specifically.
Protection of the wetlands is triggered through the planning process either when the
developer/landowner makes a specific development application under the Planning Act such as a
zoning change tiom industrial use to horse race track, or when the City develops Official Plan
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's · Finance · Human Resoumes Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development
November 20, 2000 -2- PD-2000-126
policies for the wetlands. Staff are working with the Region in developing policies for the wetland
complex. The Regional Planning staff have indicated a willingness to accept policies which require
"no signific. O, pt impact" to wetlands east of Kalar Road. This would provide slightly more flexibility
than Provincial Policy Statements which require "no negative impact" and don't allow development
within wetland boundaries. The further any Official Plan policies and/or development proposal
deviates from the intent of the Policy Statements, the greater the likelihood of appeal by other
agencies or an environmental group.
Options For Processing The Watershed Plan
The Committee has twice deferred making a decision on the endorsing of the Watershed Plan due
to the wetland issue. The Committee has twice considered this issue and should have all the
necessary information to consider the following options to deal with this issue:
1) Endorse the Watershed Plan Without Including The Wetland Evaluation
As mentioned, whether Council endorses the Watershed Plan without including the wetland
.evaluation or not, the Wetland Complex will still be considered as Provincially Significant
because the evaluation is accepted by the MNR. It should be further noted that all the storm
water runoff calculations and sizing of detention and retention facilities for the Watershed
Plan were based on the wetlands being protected as per Provincial policies.
Accordingly, removal of the wetland evaluation from the Watershed Plan may undermine
hhe integrity of the study and could be subject to a request for bump~up from other agencies.
2)
Defer Endorsement Of The Watershed Plan Until Official Plan Policies Are Developed
Mr. Blott has argued that the issue of land use designation of the wetlands and associated
development opportunities should be done through the planning process. As indicated, staff
is cU,rr_ently preparing wetland policies as part of the update of Environmental Protection
Areas. The wetland policies could be separated from the balance of the update to allow the
revi&v. While some minor flexibility could be attempted, the Planning Act requires approval
authorities to have regard to Provincial Policy Statements for We~Ilands which prevent
development in wetlands and require development around wetlands to have no impact.
Because the wetland evaluation is completed, staff could bring draft policies for wetlands
forward to City Council early in the new year. Council could postpone endorsement of the
Watershed Plan pending the development and adoption of the wetland policies. However,
to delay the Watershed Plan may delay further development approvals in the Warren Creek
Watershed.
3)
Endorse the Watershed Plan and Direct Staff to Advance the Wetland POlicies for this
Area'
This will allow the City to submit the Watershed Plan to the MOE for EA approval and
would give Mr. Blott the opportunity to object to the wetland evaluation and proposed City
Official Plan policies through the planning process. It would provide municipal staff with
the tools to process development applications in the planning district based on an approved
storm water management plan. Alternatively, Mr. Blott could introduce his own site specific
Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment application to reflect a proposed development
and identified wetlands.
November 20, 2000 - 3 - PD-2000-126
CONCLUSION:
The Warreii"Creek Wetland Complex is recognized as "Provincially Si$~cant" whether the
Watershed Plan is approved or not. All agencies are aware of its status and according to Provincial
Planning policy, such lands require protection. Staff have presented three options in this report for
Council's consideration. Option 3 is clearly favoured by staff as it would allow development
applications in the district to be processed while affording Mr. Blott the oppommity to pursue his
objections through the proper process.
Pre ared by:
Dave Heyv(orth
Planner 2
Recommended by:
Doug Darbyson
Director of planning & Development
Ed Dujlovic
Director of 1VI'unicipal Works
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
Res ectfully submitted:
DH:gd
Attach.
SAPDR~2000~D2000-126.wpd
· The City of ~
Niag~a;ac Fall
C ~ .
SCHEDULE 1
Corporate Sen/ices 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-2000-116
October 16, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members oftho Community Services Committee
City of Niaghra Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: PD-2000-116, Warren Creek Watershed
Provincially-Signi~cant Wetlands
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council receive this report for information purposes.
BACKGROUND:
On September 25, 2000, the Committee considered staff report MW-2000-104 whigh recommended
adoption of the Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan. At the meeting, Mr. Allen Blott, who owns
a 92 acre industrial parcel in the watershed, argued that:
,,~
· this document was not the place for a wetland evaluation;
· a wetland evaluation should be part of a planning land use process; and
· wetland protection applies only to urban boundary expansion.
Mr. Blott's objections are detailed in his letters of May 19, 2000 and September 25, 2000, attached
as Schedules 1 and 2, respectively. Letters from the racetrack proponent are attached as Schedules
3 and4.
After cgnside~ng Mr. Blott's statements and presentations by the consultants responsible for the
Watershed Ran, the Committee deferred the report and requested a supplemental staff report on the
wetland issue.
This supplemental report provides a comprehensive overview of the wetland issue. The history of
how the issues developed, information on the wetland issue and public involvement can be found
on pages 1 to 3. Answers to concerns raised by Mr. Blott and the Committee can be found on page
31o6.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerk's · Finance · Human Resources Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development
October 16, 2000 - 2 - PD-2000-116
HISTORY:
The Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan Study was initiated in 1993 to record environmental
resources in the watershed, examine alternatives for the management of natural resources: flooding,
erosion and water quality, and present methods for their management.
The Interim Report on the Watershed Plan identified numerous wet woodlots containing swamp tree
species. The wet woodlots were classified as wetlands. Additional rivcrinc wetlands exist along the
Warren Creek channcl between Brown Road and Montrosc Road. None of these wetlands had been
previously evaluated as to their signi~cancc under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System.
Completion of the Watershed Plan study was linked to the completion of the Gamer Nei ghbourhood
Secondary Ptan, which encompasses a large portion of the watershed and constitutes the City' s next
major residential growth area. Policies were put into the Secondary Plan requiting si~i~cant
woodlot protection. The policies also required developers to evaluate the unevaluated wetlands (wet
woodlots) to ensure they were not Provincially-significant. ff the wetlands were considered
Provin~ially-signi~cant, Provincial policies require their protection. The policies also require the
acceptability of development abutting the wetlands to be deter.nined through environmental impact
studies. The Secondary Plan and all its associated policies was adopted by Council in October 1997.
Mr. Blott's lands are outside the residential Secondary Plan area.
Completion of the Garner Secondary Plan alloweli land use planning information to be integrated
with the Watershed Master Plan. The unevaluated status of the wetlands presented a limitation to
the ~nalization of the Watershed Plan as there were numerous wetlands in the industrial area which
should be treated in a manner similar to the residential area. This would res'ult in numerous
individual evaluations being done at different times. The Watershed Plan Technical Committee
consisting of City staff and agency representatives requested that the consultants pr. epare the wetland
evaluation and that a Comprehensive Environmental Impact Study (CEIS) be included in the WMP.
The purpos~fthe CEIS is to identify the key wetland ~mctions and dependencies, and to specify
conditions"for more site specific EIS work to be completed as part of detailed development
proposals. It was thought a more comprehensive wetland evaluation done at one time would let
developers and landowners know what they were dealing with up f~ont as well as save developers
the cost of evaluations.
Wetland Evaluation:
The Warren Creek wetlands were evaluated in the spring of 1998 using both data collected for the
Watershed Master Plan Study and additional field work. The evaluation followed the Ontario
Wetland Evalhation system which examines and assigns scores to the four areas ofwetland function
namely: biological, hydrological, social and special features. Underthis evaluation system, wetlands
are considered as complex when they are in the same watershed and within 750 roeires of one
· another. The wetlands in the Warren Creek Watershed met the wetland complex criteria.
The evaluation concluded that the wetlands were Provincially-significant based on their score under
special features (species rare in Ontario and Canada) as well as hydrologic functions. Schedule 5
illuslzates the location of the Provincially Significant Wetlands. Schedule 6 is a synopsis of findings
from the consultant who performed the evaluation.
October 16, 2000 - 3 - PD-2000-116
Generally, the outer boundary of each woodlot represents the boundary of the individual wetland
system. Earth system comas wetland pools surrounded by wooded uplaa~d. The delineation of
these wetlands is constrained by lack of detailed topographic mapping (ie. 0.25 m contour interval).
Therefore, it is anticipated that some minor refinement ofwetland boundaries will likely occur when
an Environmental Impact Study is undertaken for any specific proposed development.
Public Involvement:
Two open houses, July 20, 1998 and May 3, 2000, on the wetland evaluation tindings have been held
to provide the opportunity to the public to ask consultants and City staff questions on the
ramifications ofthc.wctland evaluation. On November4, 1998, the City's Environmental Planning
and C_n'eening Committee considered an in foilnation report (PD-98-134) on .the wetlands and referred
the matter to,the Conlnlunity Services Committee. On December 7, 1998, the Committee considered
infoxmafio_n. report PD-98-146 as well as a presentation by Dougan and Associates on the
classification of the weftands and their attributes.
Between that time and now, staff have had numerous meetings with Mr. Doug Paten of the Ontario
Mile Corporation with many of the meetings being attended by staff~'om the Regional Planning and
Development Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
Issues:
What lands are affected by the Wetland Evaluation?
Schedule 5 illustrates all the lands within the watershed as well as the complex ofwetlands
which consists of the individual slough forest wet/woodlots. The 'wetland areas on Mr.
Blott's property comprise about 9.25 ha (22.8 acres). There are two wetland areas in the
City's Business Park. One is a fivefine weftand contained within the flo0dplain of Warren
Creeh-which traverses the City's property. These wetlands were already protected by the
Haz.ard zone of the Warren Creek floodplain. A slough forest wetland exists in the northeast
comer of the City's Business Park which comprises 5.82 ha (14.38 acres) including a portion
of the Warren Creek flood plain. The majority of the City's Business Park is outside the
watershed area.
When considering what lands are actually affected by the wetland evaluation, Provincial
Policy Statements must be considered.
How does the Policy Statements affect development of lands within the watershed?
The latest set of Provincial Policy Statements were approvcd by the Province in 1997.
Corresponding changes to the Planning Act require any agency acting as an approval
authority or commenting agency to have regard to the Provincial Po;[icy Statements. The
Provincial Policy Statements prohibit development within wetland areas. Development can
occur on lands abutting the wetlands if an environmental impact study determines there will
be no negative impact to the wetlands. The Policy Statements are triggered when any kind
of approval under the Planning Act is required for a proposed development.
October 16, 2000 - 4 - PD~2000-116
Do the Policy Statements for wetlands only apply to urban boundary expansions?
Mr. Blott stated the Policy Statements only apply to cases of urban boundary expansions.
While the Natural Resources Policy Statements are referred to under policies dealing with
urban boundary expansions, they apply to all eases where development is proposed.
Development is defined as the creation of any new lot, a change in land use or the
construction of buildings and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act. The
implementation section of the Policy Statements indicate the policies are to be read in their
-.entirety and all pertinent policies are to be applied to each situation.
Staff have had several meetings with the MNR and MMA to discuss the different flexibility
op~onssavailable for dealing with the wetland situation on a watershed basis as well as
specifically,dealing with Mr. Blott's lands. A meeting was held as recen~y as September 12,
2000., At.that meeting it was confirmed that it is the approval authority (Region's)
reS~nsibility to have regard for the Policy Statements and that any development proposal
should be reviewed with regard to the Policy Statements. It was noted the wording "regard
to', did not mean dismissing the application of the Policy Statements but means providing
proper consideration for their implementation.
4. Can a re-evaluation of the wetlands take place?
re-evaluation of the weftands could take place at any time independently or as part of the
~atershed Plan study or a planning application. The Provincial agency representatives noted
that any re-evaluation would have to follow MNR's approved format and consider things on
a complex basis. The present evaluation was done by a qualified consultant following
MNR's approved format; it was unlikely any significant differences would be achieved
which MNR would be able to authorize.
Did the Watershed Plan provide a proper vehicle for a Wetland Evaluation?
The Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan Study addresses engineering issues regarding
storm water management; nevertheless, the Study is a comprehensive resource document
which examines engineering, land use and environmental issues. The study basis is in
environmental constraint identification, management and planning. The Terms of Reference
clearly stipulate that terrestrial systems, aquatic resources, surface water and ground water
resources all be investigated for the potential influence on land use. Completing a wetland
evaluation as part of the watershed plan process is not unusual as this level of study has been
done through the watershed plan process by several other municipalities. The Committee
may wi sh to refer to submissions by Philips Engineering and Dougan and Associates attached
as Schedules 7 and 8 respectively in regards to addressing Mr. Blott's statements (Schedules
1 and 2) on the appropriateness of a wetland evaluation through the Watershed Plan Process.
The City's Official Plan encourages the protection and preservation of smaller watercourses
and wetlands in addition to areas already designated as Environmental Protection Area.
Therefore, completing a wetland evaluation to determine the importance of unevaluated
wetlands in the watershed is reasonable.
October 16, 2000 - 5 - PD-2000-116
The Watershed Plan Technical Steering Committee agreed that it would be superior to
condl~ct a comprehensive analysis/assessment of the wetland system as opposed to a piece-
meal approach, due to the complex character of this slough forest. Doing so, and having the
studypaid forbythe City, aetuallyreduces the subsequent financial obligation for study from
the requisite development proponents.
Wh at would be the impact if the Watershed Plan were approved without ineorporating
the wetland evaluation?
Should Council approve the Watershed Plan without the incorporation of the wetland
evaluation, the fact remains that the MNR has accepted the evaluation and it would still need
to be addressed through the pla. ning process. All relevant agencies .know the wetlands have
been. ltetei~-ined to be Provineially significant. Mr. Blott has the fight to request a bump up
of the Watershed Plan to fome a heating.
7. Is there an opportunity to address the evaluation through the planning process?
The City is in the midst of an Official Plan update which includes writing policies on
wetlands. Staff will be using the Warren Creek Watershed Plan as a resource document to
develop policies and comply wi,.th Provincial policy. At a meeting September 12, 2000 with
the proponent to develop Mr. Blott's lands, the Regional Planning and Development
Department staff representative indicated! that policies could be prepared whereby some
development on these land could be considered provided that it is demonstrated that the
proposed development will not have a significant negative impact on the features and
functions of the wetland complex. This would have to be dernonstrated through an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) prepared for the proponent by a ,qualified expert to the
satisfaction of the Region. Mr. Blott would have the oppommity to provide input on the
policies as part of the public consultation process during the Official Plan Review. If Mr.
Blott..felt the policies were detrimental to him, he could appeal Co~mcil's decision to the
Ontario Municipal Board and also have the opportunity to challenge the wetland evaluation
there.
Has staff used every effort to maximize the amount of !and for development purposes
as possible?
As mentioned, the wetland evaluation followed MNR.'s format for evaluations and was done
by a qualified consultant. The wetland areas have been mapped using the best information
available. The wetland in the City's Business Park has been staked to determine actual
boundaries.
CONCLUSION:
The report has been prepared at the direction of the Committee to provide background on the Warren
Creek Wetland issue. It should be noted the evaluation has been accepted by the MNR and all
agencies are aware of the significance of these wetlands. It would seem that removing the evaluation
from the Watershed Plan would not change the status of the wetlands at this stage. Approval
authorities would still need to have regard to the Provincial Policy Statements in considering
October 16, 2000 - 6 ~ PD-2000-116
development proposals within or near the wetlands or in establishing Official Plan designations and
policies for_.~.e ~ea. The municipality has the opportunity to try and establish more flexible policies
for the area through the planning process, however, the greater the departure of any policy or
development approval liom the intent of the Policy Statements, the greater the chance of objection.
Developers have the oppommity to conduct an EIS to better define the wetland, environmental
constraints and impacts as part of the development process.
Dave Heyworth
Planner 2
Reeornmen,dcd by:
tfulTmitte.~ga~
~p'~Soug Darbyson
Director of planning & Development
and
Director of Municipal Works
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
DH:lt
Attach.
S:XPDRX2000XPD2000-116.wpd
BARRIS'FER & SOLICITOR
Hmc, m_LS CU~S '00 C5,_7e 10=46
:':c'.l'"~ '(' .~ k. j
· i~:., ,4~, ~'i'd'
-
-' PR_OJEql F..~Nt~N_.F~r~ ............
Memb r . . , c.I
City Hall
4310 Queen SL
,Niagara Falls. On ._~.L~.N~,,..j,:,,T,~F~. ....:_. I -"
:.~.C.R~,FR~SmUCTu~ ......
Js)..~I.~.LOPMIENI Ik(jr, '
_."2;i21N__ACL~ fiSCn "'J ....... _ _,, ..... 'l
Dear Members of City Council:
.......... : ...... ~. ....-
T~,j:~ Sb_PL~,.:.!.~:~.5-. .....] ......: ....
Re: W.rre. Creek aste W te h, .....i ......
.... 72'2::..:::.:2 ....................
Very soon you will be presented with the above nicely packaged study for your approval·
While I do ;-/St know the day this will occur I am ;,Vfiting in advance so th'ere will be ample
time to consider my very strong objections and so that I will receive sufficient notice to
present these views directly to City Council. '
With respect to this Study, in its present form, I have two major objections, one as to
Process and th.e other as to Substance. Before detailing these two objections; some of the
history of this pro..c, ess must be set out so that these objections can be put in a context and
my reasons fo~ taking this position understood.
Below under the heading of Background I detail my personal interest in this matter. Bdefiy,
my interest over the past five years has been in connection with a 92 acre site at Montrose
and Brown Road (Omada lands) and the 150 acre Montrose Business Park irnmediately to
the south (City lands).
Root of the Problem
The Niagara'Falls ¢ity Council approved the Gamer Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, on
October 20th, 1.997. The City then failed to follow the Planning Act and have this docdment
approved as a proper Official Plan Amendment. I~ it had followed the proper course the
policies then approved by City Council could not be changed without due process. I was
17t;I 1.;( ;I .IN'I'(')N AVENt ~F; WF;.ST'll:)f{Ot,,r '(1 ON M(;g 2117 'l~,lel,honP (| lib 78:~-855-1 F';~san'ulc C.116) 78:1-07G?
satisfied with that Plan as passed by City Council at that time and would have supported it
through the process at the Region; Ministry or the Ontario Municipal Board. In particular I
suppoded the following position: "The policies also required developers to evaluate the
unevaluated wetlands (wet woodlots) to ensure they were not Provincially-
significant'-" (Staff Report PD-98-134 dated November 4. 1998)
However, at some time subsequent to City Council's adoption of this policy the Secondary
Plan was apparently subverted by a cabal made up of: "City Staff in consultalon with
Ministry of Natural Resources, Niagara peninsula Conservation Authority and Region
of Niagara staff requested that the consultants prepare the wetland evaluation and
that a Comprehensive Environmental ImpactStudy (GEEIS) be included in the WMP."
(from'PD-98-134 dated November 4. 1998). This change of planning policy to a
"comprehensive environmental impact study' is totally q. ontrary to the adopted City Council
position and makes a mocken/of the planning process. The "comprehensive" now replaces
the "developers" obligation to do an "environmental impact study". .'
Landown_ers were not given any notice of this unauthorized change in Policy. It is
question~ible Whether City Council was even advised of this change of process and the
potential needless detrimental impact to landowners. It is a substantial change of policy and
not good planning for the following reasons:
Ii 3
It amends a Policy of City Councjl without the approval of City Council.
It removes the fight of, a land owner developer to conduct his own
environmental studie~ on his own land as contemplated by the Secondary
Plan and turns it over to some unknown third par~y sub-consultant.
It improperly stipulates that the third party sub-consultanrs report is to be
included in the Watershed Master Plan. More details on this objection are set
out below (the question of why he is a sub-consultant and not a direct
consultant of the City is never answered).
It impacts severely on the uses of pdvate lands yet was done in a covert way
without notice to any landowners.
It improperly inserts a land use planning study into the Watershed Master
Plan.
Objection as to Process
This wetland study and conclusions rendered by Mr. J. Dougan should not be part of the
Warren Creek Master Watershed Study. His report is a very detrimental document produced
under questionable authority and should be subjected to a process where:
i) it can be completely examined and evaluated;
ii) M.r. [~ougan can be thoroughly cross-examined on his findings; and all i::lone
iii) in a forum Where the opportunity exists to call other expert opinions, to determine
objectively whether these lands, in fact. contain wetlands let alone provincially
significant wetlands
Page 2
The Warren Creek Master Watershed Study started out as a typical engineering study
geared to review the vadous options available to provide water;, sanitary and storm water
services for the,E~merging Garner Neighbourhood. Neither the Omada land,'; (92 acres) nor
the City land~t'150 acres) are within this neighbourhood. However, they are: within the
Warren Creek watershed and hence, were subject to the watershed engineering study. I
have no problem with this process or the ultimate technical options and conclusions. The
conclusions will ultimately be ratified by the Ministry of the Environment with very little public
input except "public consultation" along the way in the form of "open houses".
Mr. Dougan has produced a planning document not an engineering document and as such
it has no'place in a watershed study. It should be pad of the land use planning process and
if it withstands objective scrutiny there, then it could appropriately form the basis of an
approved official plan amendment. It is only through this process that these planning
conclusions can be cdtically examined with an objective result determined. Only after that
scrutiny can the proffered conclusions be accepted as having the weight of "provindally
significant a~r~. implemented accordingly. I reiterate that anything short of this mandated
process continues to adversely impact all pdvate lands in this watershed.
My concem and the reason for my objection relates to the inclusion of Mr. Dougan's highly
prejudidal study and cendusions in this objective engineering watershed study. An
engineering study of the watershed is not really subject to due process. An "Open House" is
merely an information process and is not the same as an OMB headng. The City Council
must resist any attempt to slip this Dougan study and questionable cendusions into this
relatively qbjective and technical engineering report. The DOugan conclusions must come
through the front door and not be allowed to slip in through the back door.
The proper process to be followed with respect to the Dougan repod is explained in the
"Manuel of Implementation Guidelines for the Wetland Policy Statement November 1992, at
Section 1 Page 1: "The Policy Statement and these Guidelines set out that component of
the wetlands m,anagement program which falls under the jurisdiction of the Plan*ning Act.
The Policy Statement addresses wetlands from a land use perspective as prescribed by the
Planning ActY."
Accordingly, all references to Mr. Dougan's wetland conclusions and opinions should be
deleted from the Warren Creek Master Watershed Study before the watershed repod is
even considered let alone approved by City Council, The Dougan conclusions part of the
watershed repod should be made to follow the proper planning process anc~: not slipped in
and approved by City Council through some hybrid engineering process.
Objection as to Substance.
There is no way the Omada lands contain provincially significant wetlands. Before:
Mr. Dougan came along and propounded this myth there was never even the
slightest suggestion that the two damp spots on these lands were even locally
significant let alone provincially significant In fact. in a 1993 evaluation of all 120
· Page 3
woodlands in the City of Niagara Falls, by Mr. Paul A. Robertson, of Trees Unlimited, found
there was no reference to significant wetlands on the Omada lands.
In that study Mr. Robedson inventorled and ranked all 120 wooded sites in the City of
Niagara F'~llsinduding the two woodlots on the Omada lands. He used 10 criteda to rank
the woodlots. The two woodlots on the Omada lands ranked 32 and 47 respectively. In four
of the aiteda used by Mr. Robertson these ~o woodlots scored 0.0. These particular
criterion were:
Criterion 2 significant geologicel formation/landform score 0.0
Criterion 3 significant ecosystem score 0.0
Criterion 8 expansion potential score 0.0
Criterion 9 recreation activities score 0.0
In the top ni. ne-woodlot sites ranked by Mr. Robertson, at that time, he noted all nine had
some welland classification ranging from Class1 to Class 4 wetlands. Actually, number 1
and 2 ranked woodlot sites scored 61.5 and 46.2 respectively, under criterion 3: significant
ecosys~'ms.
In fact, Mr. Robertson "found 26 sites located within or adjacent to significant
ecosystems, Twenty wooded sites were located within wetlands and 23 wooded sites
were located within ESAs. Three wooded sites, #154#198 and #207, were located
within a class 3 provincially significant wetland but were not designated as ESAs."
The two woodlots on the Omada lands were not among any of these significant sites.
This ~tudy was done just seven years ago.,
I-
In a witness statement prepared for CoUrt proceedings this year, when asked about the
existence of provincially significant wetlands on the Omada property, Mr. Robertson
responded as follows:
Question:
Mr: Robertson:
Ques"tion:
I understand from Mr. Campbell and from some of the reports that
this area was designated as provindally significant wetland area.
To the best of my knowledge and looking at the Ministry of Natural
Resources April of 1993 map, that area in fact is not designated as
provindally significant wetlands, it's not designated as either 1,2 or
3 wetlands.
There is a locally significant wetland, which is a class 4 through 7
that is on the south side of Brown Road but there is nothing on the
north side of Brown Road between Brown and McLeod Road. (this
south side lands apparently refers to the city lands)
Could the area at issue been designated as a provindally
significant wetland area subsequent to 1993.
· Page 4
It is my position that Mr. Dougan's study is inherently flawed and of no usE: whatsoever.
However, in the event the City intends to rely on this study for the purposes above
described, then I strongly submit that the proper planning process be followed, so that I can
obtain the in[o.,fR~ation that has been withheld to date and examine Mr. Do~jgan and his
conclusions at an objective OMB headng.
In other words, the hybrid process launched by the "group of four" should be terminated
immediately and the Douggan findings removed from the Warren Creek Watershed Plan. If
City Council actually wants to support the Dougan findings then they should be inserted into
the Garner Neighbourhoocl Secondary Plan and submitted for approval along with the rest
of that PI,an. If this due process is followed all legitimate appeal dghts will be available to the
affected landowners.
Yours truly, ~T'~.~. ,
cc: City Solicitor
Chair and Members of Niagara Regional Council
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Ministfit of Natural Resources
· Page
Mr. Robertson:
From the mapping that t am referring to, the inventory was done by
MNR in 1989. To the best of my knowledge, the MNR have not
done any inventorying of wetlands since that period, unless there
was a particular spedtic study on a given area that requested or
justified any type of MNR involvement or an MNR inventory but, to
the best of my knowledge, no there hasn't been any re-inventorying
of wetlands within the region since 1989.
Mr. Dougan also did a report on the watershed in 1993. It would be interesting to compare
his findings in 1993 with those of Mr. Robertson. However, despite repeated requests for an
unabridged copy of his 1993 findings I have been denied a copy of his original report.
According to his most recent report he visited this watershed four times between 1993 and
1998 as follows:
(I) Nov/Dec :!993; (11} June 11, 1994; (111)Feb. 28, 1998; (IV)Apdl 15, 1998
As he declined requests for his field notes, I was unable to determine which of the 11
woodlotS he visited on those four occasion and whether in fact, he ever visited the two
woodlots on the Omada lands.
Then how did Mr. Dougan reach a conclusion that the two wet spots (apparently not even
noticed by Mr. Robertson in 1993) on the 92 acres were suddenly provindally significant?
The explanation is found in the subjective world 0fwetland complexing. It is my contention
that, contrary to the above mentioned '"wetland guidelines", Mr. Dougan took the whole of
the watershed as his complex for scodng purposes (includes 11 woodlots) and thus was
able to cherry pick from each woodlot to pad the score sufficiently to get over th~ threshold
of 600 points and thus conclude that all of the 11 woodlots were provincially significant
wetlands.
In other word~the boundary of the complex should have been determined in a sdentific
manner, nobby merely adopting the total watershed boundary (then under study of other
reasons) wit~'its huge land area as the complex boundary leading to an aberrant scodng. In
doing so he failed to initially determine that these two woodlots were in fact wetlands of
suffident size and character to be considered wetlands for complexing and scodng
purposes. It boggles the imagination to suggest that the whole woodlot is a wetland. Hence
the current use of'the term "wet woodlots'" which is undefined and is really just a lazy way of
admitting that a proper job of mapping of any potential wetland was not done. Or to put it
another way the consultant must first establish that a welland exists; then map the
boundaries of the wetland to determine if it is more than 5 acres; then this wetland can be
complexed with other found wetlands to determine if they are "provindally signific~,nt". In this
case the consultant did it backwards. I contend that a detailed review of Mr. Dougan's field
notes by a competent independent third party will reveal his incompetent approach.
Page 5
Backqround
For the p~sl five years I have had a direct interest in the 92 acre Omada lands, at Montrose
and Brown Road and for a pad of that time a direct interest in the 150 ac~es Business Park
(city lands), immediately to the south of the Omada Lands. For a pedod of time, up to May
1998, I made a significant effort to turn this combined site into a Championship Golf Course
with residential and commercial uses. That effort went by the wayside when it was disclosed
to me in May, 1998 that an unauthorized consultant had done a study of these and other
lands in this neighbourhood and had determined that approximately 25% of the combined
site Was found to be "Provincially Significanl Wetlands". It was made w,~ry clear to me and
my associates, by your planning staff, that hencefodh, these lands would carry this
designation as though it were automatically engraved in stone. Needless to say, any
assodate or financial interest that was interested in pursuing that Gol~ Course opportunity
fled immecliately. The Business Park (city lands) was eventually returned to the City. Pdor to
that day in May 1998, I had not been given even the slightest hint that these lands contained
anything:~ven remotely to be considered "Provincially Significant wetlands". I was not
advised of any evaluation in advance nor did I give any consent for entry on these lands for
the purpose of that unauthorized evaluation.
More Backqround
After the Golf Course project was dFopped by this sterilization of 25% of the site I tumed my
attention to the development of the 92 acre site (or now 70 acre site afi:er the deletion of the
so-called Provincially Significant Wetlands). For approximately 18 months in concert with
Ontario Mile Raceway Corporation we Have been attempting to locate a one mile harness
race track at this location. Again the proposed development has been fi'ustra'ted at every
turn by an intransigent planning position that claims an "etched in stond' provincially
significant wetlands exist on this site.
Well, these,:so-called "provincially significant wetlands" are not etched in stone. They merely
reflect the O'~inion of Mr. Dougan, a sub-consultant to watershed engineers Phillips
Engineering, aided and abetted by the manager and his assistant at the Vineland Branch of
the Ministry of Natural Resources, This unapproved opinion has taken on a life of its own
much to the detrimenl of development on these lands and with substantial costs, expenses
and damages as a result.
Nowhere does anyone explain how a plot of land, heretofore totally insignificant, can
catapult into the spotlight as "provincially significant".
ConclUsion,
I believe the situation described above may be rectified if the following sleps are
implemented
· Page 6
· ~JUU I'iUi'{
I' flA IIL/,
ALLAN S. BLOTT Q.C.
BARPJ,',I'E~ & Soucn~R
r. uz
September 25~', 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
And Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls. Ontario
Dear Members:
Re: Win;ten Creek Watershed Master Plan
I understand the above report will be considered by your Commitlee on Monday September
25~', and immediately thereafter by City Council.
1 further :Vnderstand that your staff are recommending that this report be adopted by the Cily
of Niagara Falls. I want to e×press my strongest Objection to City Council adopting this repod
in its entirety. My objections as to process and substance are outlined in my letter of May
19, 2000 to City CourtalL Unfortunately, I must reiterate those objections as well as the
objections set out hereunder.
As noted in your staff report this master watershed study is proceeding as a "Ciass
Environmental,Assessment for Municipal Sewage and Water Projects". This process is one
of holding m4~etings to "inform" the stakeholders. "All .appeals will be directed to the Minister
of the Environment for a qnal decision", It is not nor is it intended to be a land use planning
document. However, contained within it is the Duggan Report which is a land use.planning
document and does not belong them. It should be excised from the Watershed Plan before
/he Plan is adopted by City Council.
In the Executive Summary attached to your staff repod reference is made in the third
paragraph to the Provincial Policy Statement as justification for continuing to include the
Duggan report in the Watershed Plan. The last line states:" The City must 7 have regard to"
the policy' statements when making planning decisions." This statement by itself is-
misleading. 18o not take issue with the part of the statement that confirms the Duggan
Report is part of a planning decision. That has been my position all along. It should be pad
of an official plan process not an engineenng process.
I take issue with the words "when making planning decisions". That is simply not azcorrect
statement of the applicable law. The City does not have to have regard to Provincial Policy
when making every planning decision, As set out below the Provincial Policy Stalement
176 ]. E:GLINI'ON
5EP--25:2000 MOH II:lS ~M FAX i'I0. P. 03
does not se~7 that. My contention i.~.that the Provincial Policy Statement requires the City "to
have regard to" these policieS Only when the City embarks en ~ course of adion to expand
the Urban Boundary. There is"no-ju'sti~cation in the Provincial Policy statement either
commencing the Duggan study within an existing urban area and for certain there, is no
justi~catjon for perpetuating it by adopting it for lands within an urban area. All the'lands he
studied are within an urban boundary,. They are subject to existing Official Plan designations
and in many cases they are already zoned for some form of development. The Provincial
Policy Statement simply does not apply to the lands in the Warren Creek Watershed. They
are all within the Urban Boundary. There is no need for City Council to "have regard to"
either the Provincial Policy Statement or the DugSan Repod, at this time.
I would like to bring the pertinent provisions of the Policy Statement to your attention. It is too
cumbersome to include the whole Statement with this letter, however, I will attach relevant
extracts. T. hi~ key provisions are found in sealion 1. "Efficient, cost-effecYive development
and land use patterns"
Section 1.1.1:
Subject to the provisions of poh~y 1, 1.2 cost-effective development pattems
will be promoted. Accordingly:
(a) Urban areas and rural settlement area ( cities, towns, villages and
. ~ hamlets) will be the focus of growth:
(b) Urban area and rural settlement will be expanded ...................
The policies of Section 2: Resources and Section 3: Pubtic Health
and Safety will be applied in the determina~'on of the most
appropriate direction for expansion .................. (emphasis added).
Secbon 1.1.2T.~
.-' Land requirements and land use pattems will be based on:
5. take into account the applicable policies of Section 2 Resources. ......
Section 2.3 Natural Heritage
(a) Development and site alterations will not be permitted in:
· Significant wetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield. and
The emphasis'is added for the word expansion and for the reference to Section'
2:Resourceoj as it is this clause that links housing and development urban boundary
expansion with the "significant wet/ands" prohibition in Section 2.The bottom line of lhese
provisions is that Provincial Policy Statement is about providing housing It sets out how
more housing will be achieved This will happen by way of expanding existing Urban
Boundaries. The provisions in the Policy relating b "Natural Heritage" are applicable to the
nnntemplated boundary expansions. These padicular policies have no rdevance within an
exes[ing urban area.
Page 2
,SEp-2S-2000 MON II:IS ~M F~X NO. P. ~4
The City has an obligation to insure that the value of the Montrose Business Park is not
diminished by an erroneous process. While it is recognized that a portion of the Business
Park abutting Brown Road is environmentarly sensitive (not provincially sensitive) jt is
important that the City not allow these lands to slip into the Duggan designation arid the
incumbent economid'loss of developable land. It is totally unnecessary to incur this loss if
the right decision is made about shelving the Duggan report
I therefore urge you to:
a) not give the Duggan report any further credibility for the reasons expressed in my May
19~' letter,
b) delete ~h,e Duggan Report from any approvals that are given to the Warren Creek Master
Plan ' "'
c) before City Council follows .the staff recommendation it should seek the solicitgrs opinion
on the applicable law with respect as to whether the Provincial Policy Statement is
applicable to this situation,
To summarize my position:
a) Section 3 of the Planning Act which requires ,City Council to "have regard to" Provincial
Poli&y Statements does not apply.
b) In any event section 2.3 Natural Heritage, of the Provincial Policy Statement, does not
apply, as it only is applicable in an Urban 8oundary expansion situation. ,
c) Because the Provindal Policy Statement isn't applicable anything done pursuant to it
such as the Duggan Repod has no relevance to this fadual situation. In other words, the
law and policy state that the type of assessments done by Mr. Duggan applies when an
Urban Boundary is being expanded, not within the boundaries of an existing City where
land is a'l~ady designated and zoned.
d) The Dug~an Report should be part of an Official Plan process as a possible refinement
of those environmentally sensitive area that have been identified as such for years.
e) The objections raised in my MaY 19TM, 2000 letter am still applicable.
Yours truly,
A la S. Blott Q.C.
· P~gE 3
,SEp-2b-~UL1U i'lON i i:l~ fitl F~X NO. P, 05
POLICY STATENIENTS *
WHEP, L,,S the M. hister of Nfunicipal Affairs and Housing has decided to issue
a policy statement on matters reIat/ag to mu,n/c~pal pla.rming u'ut in the opinion of
the bflnisler ofMun/cipa[ .4.ff'ai.~ and Housing az~ of provincial interest k~owu as
the "Provincial Policy Satemeat" wh/ch is almched ro this Order as Exhib it "A' ';
A.xrO wHIP.~ the Minister has decided that the Provincial Policy Stutem~t
will replace the existing policy sutemeors approved by Order in Council No.
336/95 and issued trader section 3 of the PlanningAct. IL S.O. 1990. c. P. 13 kno~vn
as the" Comprehensive Se~ of Policy Statemeets "';
AND WI~SaEAS the Mj-~ister has decided that r. he Provh2cial Policy Statement
shall rake effect on the day that section 3 of the ~and Use Pla~nning and .Proteen'on
~tct. 1996, Statutes of Ontario I996, Chapter 4 comes into force;
.-L~D uPdl~a/~A$ the N'flnister recommends bar the Lieuten~ n~ Governor in Coun-
cil approve the provincial Policy Statement;
TH';-.~FOP. J~ the Provincial Policy Statement is hereby approved under secdoa
3 of abe Planning Act, ILS.O. i990. c. P.13 ~ ~n. eaded. ~o r.~e effect on the day
that ,'seo~ion 3 of the ~and Use Planning ~2nd borerdon Art. ]996. Sutures of
Ontaz/o 1996. Chapmr 4 comes into force a~d :o r~-place the eMsckxg Comoreheo-
sire Se~ of Pollcy Statemenu.
Recommeoded AIla. n Le2ch
Minister of Municipal
' .~faizs and HousMg
Coocarted Eli2abeth Witmet
Chub o(Cabine~
Approved ud Order=d, May 8th. I996, Hen:y N'-R Jacl,m32~
Lieutenaz~r Governor
I
[1
IH
M/.nL~try of Municipal Affa/rS zmd Housin-.
~Lialst~re des .Lifoires muaicipales et du logemeot
PROVI~CL4. L POLICY STATE.MENT
PREAM:BLE PS 2
PRINCIPLES PS 3
POLICIFS PS 3
I. Efficient, cost-effective development and land use panems PS 3
1. I Developing strong con/nun/ties PS 3
1.2 Housing PS 5
13 Infrasu'ucrure PS 6
2. Resources PS 6
2.1 Agr~culvaral Policies PS 6
2.2 Mineral Resources PS 7
2.3 Natural Hen:rage PS 9
· R~roduc~'d here wi(h k~nd pcrrrdssion cfe. c Minisay
O'qrAgJO ."L,X2/NING PRACTICE PS[
~SEP-292000 MON I I: 17 BM
/
FAX NO.
POLICY STATEb,~ENTS
heritage resources, water ~pply and cukuru[ he~ta=~e resources -- provide eco-
nomic, envi.romental and social benefits. The wise use and protection of these
resources over the long term is a key ptovindal interest.
Equally, the Province has an Linerest in protectS~g the long tet~n heaL~ a.nd safe~
of the population, and the financial and econoudc well-bebag of the ProvLnce ~d
mtm/dpalities.
1I PR.h'N'CIPLES
Ontario's long term economic ptosp~zity, environmental health and social well-
bein~ depend an:
1. managing ch~e and promoting efficient, cost-effcttive development and land
use panems which stimulate economic =-rowth and pro~ect ~he environmcm and
public health; .....
2. protectit~g resources for ~hcir economic use and/or environmental benefits; and
3. teduclng the potential for public cost or risk to Ontado's residents by directing
development away from areas where there is a risk to public health or sal~cy or af
property damage.
III POLIC~LES
It is the policy of the Province of Outs.do that:
1- Efficient, cost-effective development and land use panerns
1.1 Developing strong communities
l.l.t !;ubjcct to the provisions of policy 1.12. cosr-dfectivc development paneins
will be promoted. Accordingly:
(a) Urbanareas andruralsenlementarca.s(cities,towns, villao~csandhamlets)
will be rhc foc~ of gow'..h:
(b) Rural areas will genenlly be the focus of resou~e activity, resource-
based recreational activity and other ru.r~[ land uses;
_~ (c) Urban ar~.s ~d runl senlement areas will be expanded only where
is~ng designated are~ in the municipality do not have sufficient land
supply to accommodate the grow-,h projected for the municipality. Land
requirc'men~ will be determined in accordance with policy I. [ 2.
The policies of -~ecfion 2: Resources, and Section ~: Public Hcakh and
Safety will be applied in ~e determination of the most appropriate direc-
tion for expansions. Expansions in{o ,oHrne agn'c~lmrat aretts ire permit-
ted only where:
1. there are no reasonable ahemative. s which avoid prb'ne agricaltural
area. I; and
2. there are no reasonable alternatives wi~ lower'prioric)' agriculmn/
lands in the pn'me agHc~hur~l ar~a;
O~T.k,P,.IO PL,L~N[NG PRACTICE PS 3
.~_u~us~ 1996
· b~r'-d_3'd_UUu liut'~ I~. I I HlI
1.1,2
(d)
(e)
(a~
r H~ i~u,
:°
PROVINCL~t, POLICY STATEiv!3ENT ' .
sion of u~ ~ or ~ s~e~nt ~c~ ~ not ~¢d in ~jacen~
A c~rdin~d approach should ~ achieved when de~g ~i~ issues
which c~ss municip~ ~uad~es. including:
1. fn~l~uc~re ~d public ~e~ice /acffi~e~;
2. ecosystem and ~ate~hed relace~ isstees;
3, s~o~el[ue ~4 dve~e hu~; ~d '
4. ho~g~demplo~n~p~ec~oas. b~dg~t~g~r~t~re~ ......
~ere ~r 6er ~l~ning t~s phee. ptc~ec~o~ for municip~ide$ will
~ coo~n~ted ~d all~ale~ by upper de.r govemmcags, in consul~don
w}~ [owcf der gove~enu;
D~velopmenl ~d I~d use paue~s ~hlch may c~us; environrachel
public heM~ ~d s~e~ conczm~ ~ill ~ avoided: ud
In te~io~ wi~ou~ municip~ org~izatioo. ~e/~us of deve}opm~nt
ucd~i~ ~ill ~ ~so~ce acdvicles ~d resou~e-b~ed recre~on~ uc~vi-
~es, ~{~ the following res~cdons:
l, ~e esublishmeni of nc~' pcm~cne u>wnslres is not pe~ifled: and
~velopmenl other ~ resource xiivi~ ~d ~sourcc-b~ed
adohal ac~vicy ~ill be resorted n ~e :~a adj~ceac to ~d su~ound-
ing munlcipa{hics unless:
~c ~a fo~s p~ of ~ planning ~c~. ~d
it h~ ~en dele~ined, ~ p~ of a comp~hensive pinning cx-
c~ise. ~at ~e impacu of ~ow~ will no~ place ~ undue
on ~e public se~ice facilities ud infr~ructure of ~e adjacent
municipal~.
requiremenu ~d {~d use ~aue~s ~'HI be b~ed on:
~e proveion of ~clenl ~d for ladaside. commetci~. residentiS,
recreationS, o~n space ~d }nsdmdonal uses co promote employment
oppo~uni6es. ~d for ~ appropdace r~ge ud ~x ofh~ing, to acco~-
m~ace g~h projec~d for a dmc horizon of up to 20 ye~s. (However.
~h~re a longer ~me ~d~ has ~cn esublished for s~cifie ~e~ of the
Province ~ a reset of a comprehensive provinci~ pl~ning exe~ise, such
~ ~al c~inated by ~e ~ov~ce in ~e G~ater Toronto ~ea. that dine
f~e ~y be used for upper and lo~er der muam{cipalieies wi~in ~e
densities ~ch:
{. ef~ciendy use land, ~sourcc5. i~y>~tructure and public sea'ice/a,
PS4 -:
i I Io His
1.1.3
13
1.2.1
POLICY STATENIENTS
2. avoid the need for unnecessary and/or uneconomical expansion of
infrasttucntre;
suppotx the use of public Ira.naiL in azeas where it exists or is to be
developed;
4. uze appropriate to the type of se,vage a,nd ,,,ate.' fyxterru which axe
planned or available: and
5. Uk~ into accou0t the applicable policies of Sccdon 2: Resources. and
Secfon 3: Public Health and Safety:
(c) the Lm'ovision of a range of users in ase~s which have exisdng or pluned
in/rastructure to accommodate them;
(d) development standards which are cost effective and which will minimize
{and consumption and reduce servicing cosu: and
(e) providing opportunities for redevelopmeat. intensificar. ion and revir. ali-
zadon in axe:a3 that have suf'~cicnt existing or planned infra.rtructure.
Long term economic prosperity will be supported by:
(a) molting provisions such that infrastructure iLqd public service facilities
will be ava.ilablc to accommo~te projet.red ~owth:
Co) provitilng a supply of land to meet }ong t:cm requirements. in accordance
with policy 1.1.2:
(c) providing for an efficient cost-effectiv-~. re li,lb/e. multi-modal transpor-
tation .ryxrem that iS inteo°rated ~hh adjac:nt systems and those of other
jurisdictions and is approprhte co adctress expected
(d) conservin:o energ'y a.~d waterby providin~ for energy and watec efficlency:
(e) maintainin3 the wcll-bein~ ofdo'a.'ntowns ~nd main-stfee. ts:
(f) optimizing the long-term availubility lind r.he use c~fagricultural and other
resources; and
(g) planning so that major facilities (such as :x/sports. transportation corridors.
sewa~ treatment facilities. w~stc man',:oemcnt systems. industries and
aggregate activities) and sensitive land uses are appropriately designed.
buffered and/or separated from exh other to preyeric adverse effecrx from
odour. noise and orher cont. asninants.
HOuSing
Provision will be made in all planning jurisdictions for a full range of housing
types and densities to rneel: projected demographic and market requiremenu of
cure:at and futun~ tesidenu of the housing mar.let area by:
(a) I7~inr. alnin$ at all times at le~t a 10-ye:a.r supply of/qnd deslgnatedand
available for new residential development and residential intensification;
(b) mcdnr. xining at all times. where new de'.'elopmcnt is
O~VTAiUO PL,~,',,""/ING PRACTICE PS 5 ).ugus~ 199.6
:
POLICY STATE~EENTS
con~xacu ~vill be pertained, without the nc:ed for official plan amendment.
rezoning, or development permit under the Planning Act in all axeas. excepI
those axca.s of existing development or paj'~icula.r environmental sensidv(ry
which have been detenTdaed to be incornpadble with excncdon axed ~ssociated
activides.
2.2.3,5 Pro~essive rehabilitation to accommodate subsequent land uses will be re-
quired.
2.2.3.6 In prime agricultural a/;eaa. on prime agricultural land. ext~ac6on of mineral
aggregate$ is permitted as an interim use pa'ovided thalc rehabilitation of the
site will h~ carricd out whereby substantially the same axea,~ and saj'ne avenge
soil quaJity for ao~riculrtu'e ~ restored.
On these pr;.me agricultural land. r, complete agricultural rehabil iudon is noc
required
(a) there is a substantial quantity of mineral aggregateX ~elOw the w~.tce table
waEc-j, ndng exu'-acdon; or
(b) the depth of pla.nned extr-~dotl in a quarry malces reslo~tion of pr_,:-
ex. tt'acdon a~ricuJcu. n] capability unfeasiMe: and
(c) other alternatives have been coc~sidered by the applican', ~.'~d found un-
suicable~; a~d
(d} a~-dculturaJ rehabilitation in rem,~-inin~ a~ea.s will be rnax}mized.
2..3 Natur~ Heritage
2..1.1 Na:urdl ~teritagefeatu~e$ a~.d a~eaL will b~ fFmtected from incompaUbZ: dc-
velopmenc.
(a) De','elnc>ment and ~ite alteration will not be pertained
~ignificant ~vetlezndj south aj'ld east o F the Canad]~ Shield:. and
significant pot"don; of the habitat of enrl~n~ered and threotened xpe.
ties.
(b) Development and site aherddon may be F'rmirced in:
fi,fh h~bitat,
~ignificanr weelands in the Canadian :~hield:
significant woodland, r south and e~t .of the Ca.nadia~ Shieldz
significant valleylan&v south a.qd e:xs~ of the Canadian Shield:
significant wildlife habitat. axed
significant area3 of natural and sciemi~c interest,
I Other aJctmatives include resour=~ in axexs of cla-~.scs J. to 7 :tcdculoaral laxtds resources on
lands cornmhced to (utur~ urban uses. and resources on pr~'nc a~ficultural I~nds ,.vhcrc :ch;-
b~lir,ltion to a~r~culI~re is possible.
? Areas sc;ulh and :2.sc of ~c Casadian Shield a~ ~ho'.t-n on F.gurc I.
O,",TAJ~O PL~-",2~L~,'G pRACTICE PS 9 ~,uZ,.tst
ONTARIO MILE CORPORATION RACEWAY
SE~T BY FAX
#8145 STATION DUNDAS L.C.D.
HAMILTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
L9H 5E7
PHONE: (905) 627-3133
FAX: (905) 335-1523
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
TO: Mr, John MacDonald
Director-Con~nunity Services
FR: Doug Paton, chair, Raceway Niagara
RE: Lot ~198 - Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan
John;
A major impediment to deu~opment of the industrial lands
at'Lot e198 has been this long term watershed study which
seems to spin along without resolution. Recently with
t~e help of Geoff Holman, we re-jigged the entire layout
to miss the damp spots but are being stonewalled by the
Guelph M.N.R., it seems. 18 charges under the tree bylaw
cost the Region well into 6 figures so we jumped in to
stop the bleeding by plead~ to 1 charge at $2,500 with
no restitution before Provincial Court to save the taxpayers
and ourselves from [un-away legal costs .... ergo, there
are technically no more woodlots on Lot ~198.
i'At all of the meetings I have attended, the Conservation
Authority has not been present yet they are the group
charged with watershed management.
What is going on here?
We have great demands to move forward with the equestrian
centre project at this time but I cannot seem to:get clear'
to ~he critical stages of Zoning change, site preparation
and'final design/tender d~tails. This project will never
see the light of day as long as expropriation without
compensation looms over the Dougan portion of the study.
We are slowly losing the confidence of the landowner group,
losing momentum within our agri-industry, may suffer delays
in allocation of slots, seem to have lost the infields for
soccer, horse shows, playing fields, rallys etc., and had to
split parking adding supervision and maintenance costs- The
investor group is also losing enthusiasm as upfront costs
escalate.
This study is a city initiative that to us is blocking
realistic, job-creating, major tourist year round ~ttraction
on development land identified by the City.
Help! !
ONTARIO MILE CORPORATION RACEWAY
#8145 STATION DUNDAS L.C.D.
HAMILTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
LgH 5E7
PHONE: (905) 627-3133
S.~NT BY FAX FAX: (905) 335-1523 p.EPTF-MBF-R 26, 2000
Mr- Geoff Holman, C.E.T-
Manager of Development
Community Services Department
City of Niagara Falls
905 356 2354 (F)
RE: Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan Report
Dear Geoff;
We were advised of last night's presentation to the
Community Services Committee by the Lot #198 owner's
g~oup, and were present when ~hc engineers introduced
the Plan-
The let drawing presented appeared to model the March
16, 2000 vegetation and wetland unit Drawing ~5 stamped
by Dougan and Associates which we have seen before and was
used to re-set the Raceway site configuration. However,
a 2nd schematic was then shown which we have not seen
be'Gore which expanded the surface drainage wlt~ 'blue'
colouting appearing,to introduce a proposal for some
type of flood control system which could impact on Lot
#198. I did not get an opportunity to view this 2nd
!drawing nor did I verify any-input from the Conservation
Authority who are responsible for watershed management
in thc Region as I understand it.
Before this goes back to committee and council, I would
like to study this new information and run it by Dr-
Coleman to dete~x.ine what is involved and ho~ it. impacts
the work he is about to perform pursuant to the .terms of
reference for the E.I.S. for our zoning/OF amendmex]t
application.
***** Please'advise me how I can see or obtain a copy of this
d'~awing and written support materials.
We also met with Thompson from ~aval who appears to be
proposing a sports development at Ga~ner/Lundys Lane
Site #15 so our focus is strictly on Lot ~198 at this
time.
Thank you again for all your help and advice.
Sincerely,
RACEWAY NIA .M.C.R.
fc. John MacDonald
357 9293
ONTARI(}' MILE CORPORATION RACEWAY
#8145 STATION DUNDAS L.C.D.
HAMILTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
LgH 5E7
PHONE: (905) 627-3]33
S.~PTEMBER 15, 2000 FAX:(9OS) 335-1523
Dr. Derek Coleman
ESG InternatioDal Inc
361 Southgate Drive
Guelph, Ontario
N1G 3M5
Dear Dr- Coleman;
REF: Lot #198 Niagara Falls
E.I.S. - Full Site
The attached revised site plan layout for Lot #198
avoids identified wetted areas. Significant t~ee
cutting may obviate 'woodlot' consideration. ·
At a recent meeting with the. City Planners, cngineers~
M.M.A.H., M.N.R. and the Re~ion; it was noted that
a development Zoning/OP application will require a
full E.=i.S. as set out on Pages 4 &t5 (Sect 3.) of th~
attached July 20, 1998 Guidelines by Dougan & Associate&
of Guelph. While it is possiblc the City and Region
would support our application, M.M.A.II. would merely
cite the P.P.S. and yield to the M.N.R. who seem to
want to dig their.heels into the statement by Dougan
that 'The evaluation concluded that the Warren Creek
Wetland Complex is Provincially Significant', thus no
development can take place.
Given the current knowledge you have of the property,
at the recommended SIS criLe=ca level of Section 3
we need to know:
~.) Can ESG carry out this work and over what
time line?
2) The approximate fee, disbursement, upset
limit to perform this work?
3) Is this likely to be just an exercise in
futility?
A FAMed response or verbal comment will suffice at this
time as we ~re considering examining other sites.
Sincerely,
ONTARIO~RATION
Doe a~r etc
McLeod Road
Legend
Provincially Significant WetJands
City Business Park
Blott Land
City of Niagara Fails
Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan
Wet!and Evaluation Findings & EIS Requirements
April 2000
Introduction
The Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan (WMP) study was initiated in late 1993 to document environmental
resources in the Warren Creek watershed, to examine alternatives for the management of natural resources.
flooding,'h'osion and water quality, and to present targets, goals and objectives for preferred approaches to their
nmnagement.
Field studies for the, ~ determined that remnant mtural areas in the watershed ~e dominated by relatively
uniform wet o~h fo/es~ contMni~ tegn,lar.peols or 'doughs' 'with s~-'amp and marsh (i.e. wet[end) cover. The
forests contain ..syramp tree spedes such as Pin Oalc~ Swamp White Oak, and Tupelo.'The landform, .consisting of
gently undulatlng fine-textured soils, traps and stores precipitation in pools. This storage results in minimal
response flows to Warren Creek after precipitation events, which is a valued wedand function. Additional
tiverine wetlands occur along the channel or Warran Creek, between Brown Road and Montrc~e Road. None of
the identified wedands were previously evaluated under the Ontario Wedand Evaluation System (1993).
[Xtring the preparation of the Garner Secondary Plan, City staff included requirements for woeallot protection,
evaluation of unevaluated wetlands by devel6pment proponents, and requirements for Environmental Impact
Studies Where development is proposed within 120 m of Wethnds determined to be Prc/vincially Significant, or
woodlots. '][he SP underwent Public review in 1997, and waLs ;pproved by City Council in October 1997.
The unevaluated status of the wet!snds presented a limitation to ~_nallzation of the WMP; City staff, in
consultation with Ministry of Natural Resources,' Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authorit+ and Region of
Niagara staff requested that the consultants prepare the wetland evaluation, and specify conditions for site-
spedtic Environmental Impact Studies to be completed as part of detailed development propos..a~s.
Wedand Eval~ation Findings
The Warren Ca'ee~ wetlands were'evaluated :'.m' the spring of'1998based on existing data compiled during'the:
WMP study, and limited~ additi0hal field .reccxmn{scav_ce.~ The. evaluation followed the' Ontario Wetland
Evaluation System (1993) which yields scores in four areas o~wefland function: biological, hydrological, social,
and spe, qnl features. Under the Evaluation System, 'the wetlands are considered as a complex when a) the
component wedands are located the same watershed, and b) are within 750 m of each other.
The evaluation concluded that the Warren Creek Weflnnd Complex is Provincially Significant, on the basis of
speciM features (species considered rare in the Region, Ontario and Canada), supplemented by hydrologic
functions (high leeel of attenuation of runoff due to headwater location). Based on this outcome~ development
proposals withYin 120 m of the individual wedand in the complex must be accompanied by an Environmental
Impact Study in accordance with the Provincial Weftand Policy (1992). The results of the evaluation were
reviewed and confirmed with City and agency staff in May and June, 1998. An Open House was held on July 20,
1998 to inform landowners and the Public of the outcome of the evaluation.
The WMP..d..~te.rmined that most of the wedands are reliant on the micro-catchments around the low-lying.
seasonal to permanent pools in the wet forest. The WMP study did not identifi/groundwater influences to the
surface water regime at the overall watershed scale; however, local-scale linkage is a possibility. Biologically, the
slough forest systems are highly diverse, containing species typical of wedand and upland habitats over short
distances. Vegetation forms include floating species (such as duckweed), emergent plants, herbaceous
groundflora, shrubs, and trees. Pin Oak, a species considered tare in Canada, is prevalent in all of the f0rested
wetlands. Tupelo (a rare tree species) and Roundleaf Greenbriar (a rare shrub species) are nationally rare species
found in the westem half of the watershed.
The slough weftands sup~rt wildlife including common amphibians, mammals, songbirds, and waterfowl. Some
of the .,pp4~mnent pools contain minnow species. No rare or threatened wildlife sp~..'~ are currently on record,
although 17 regionally significant songbird species were observed during the 1998 brei~ding season.
Wetlands loca'r. ed along Warren Creek are reliant on the flood characteristics in this p~ of the watershed. They
are less extensive than the wet forest habitats, and are associated with remnant forest cover along the better-
defined sections of the creek valley. Water Starwort, an aquatic plant considered rare: in the Region, occurs in
the floodplain of Warren Creek. A warmwater fishery was identified in the Creek durinl; the watershed study.
Environmental Impact Study Requirements '
Under ~e Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statements, m Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) is normally
required ?vhen development is proposed within 120 m of Provindally Significant Wedartds.
The Watershed Master Plan identified three key dependency factors that sustain these wetlands:
· water quantity and q, mlity of local micro-catchraents feeding the slough forest wedands;
· quality biological and physical resources (i.e. fine soils and micro-topography) within. the.slough forest;
· flow characteristics and water quality along the valley of Warcen Creek downstream of K.41ar Road
Applications fSr development of lands located more than 120 metres from the identified boundary of
wetl~nds can be processed without an EIS. Proposed developments located between 50 m to 120 m
from the wetland boundary may be,required to 'complete a scoped EIS-ff rSte type and extent of
development will 'result'in site alteration of 'a ~ale and degree (i.e. significant alteration of existing
runoff quality and quahtity, potemt~_n!!y affecting werhnds in the vici~0/; removal of forest or
successional cover that is contiguous to wetlands in the vicinity) such that a scoped EIS is warranted.
Proposed developments located less than 50 m from the werlnnd boundary may be required to
complete a full site EIS fithe type and extent of development will result in site alteration of a scale and
degree such th,lt a scoped EIS is deemed inadequate. This includes more detailed study of potential
impacts to local drainage, water quality, groundwater, and adjoining habitat which may affect the
wetland.
The scoped or full site EIS must include a Mitigation Plan to offset any iderttified irapacts to the
weftands. A MOnitoring Plan is required for developments located within 50 m ofa wetlaffd.
PHILIPS
ENGINEER-'Ie'RG
3215 Norlh Service Road. Box 220. Burlinglon. Onlario LTR 3Y2
Faxed (905) 356-2354 and Mailed
June 6, 2000
Our File: 93054-10
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls. ON L2E 6X5
ATTENTION: Mr. Geoff Holman, C.E.T.
ManaRer of Develooment
Dear Sir:.
Review of May 19, 2000 Correspondence
from Allan S. Blott, O.C.
Further to our meeting of May 30, 2000, we have undertaken a .review 'of the correspondence received
from Mr. ;,Blott and offer the following commentary:
Page 2, Paragraph 2
'Fhe Technical Steering Committee agreed that it would be superior to conduct a comprehensive
analysis/assessment of the wetland system as opposed to a piece meal approach. due to the complex
character of this slough forest. Doing so, and having the study paid for by the City, actually reduces the
subsequent financial obligation for study from the requisite development proponents.
Page 2, Paragraph 3, Point No. 3
Th,. ,t,;r,~ party subcot:su!tant referred to in '~';s point is ......"' of the "'{"s
.................. y a member Watershed
Planning Team (Dougan & Associates). All environmental information gathered under the guise of the
Warren Creek Watershed Plan and supplemental efforts should rightly be incorporated into the Watershed
Plan.
Page 2, Paragraph 3, Point No. 4
To suggest. that any of the actions in this process were done in a "covert way" is ludicrous, given the
numerous open hotases and public presentations which have been held to date.
Page 2, Paragraph 3, Point No. 5
Land use planning is the catalyst/raison d'C:tre for preparing watershed master plans, hence suggesting that
a land use planning study has nothing to do with a walershed plan is also somewhat ludicrous (ref
attached exerpt from Ministry of Natural Resources documentation)
tel (9051 335-2353 · Fax. (905) 335 14 14 · adm~n@p/,hpse-g corn · www phdepseng corn
F'hilips Engineering Ltd.
City of Niagara Falls
June 6, 2.0~0
Page 2
Page 3, Paragraph 2
Mr. Blott suggests that the Warren Creek Master Watershed Study "started out as a typical engineering
study". This is inaccurate, as the study's basis is environmental constraint identification, management
and planning. The Terms of Reference clearly stipulate that terrestrial systems, .aquatic resources, surface
water' and groundwater resources all be investigated for their potential influence on land use. In addition,
the Warren Creek Master Watershed Study did not examine potable water and sanitary issues. This was
done separately. Also, the Warren Creek Master Watershed Study has been subject to numerous open
houses itself, hence to suggest that there has been "very little public input" is inaccurate.
Page 3, Pa;'agraphs 3 and 4
As previously discussed, the Watershed Study is an environmental, not solely engineering document and
it right!y should incorporate land use directires, such as the Dougan piece on environmental impacts. In
fact. recent subwatershed planning initiatives, which our firm has been involve,] in the Town of Milton
(Sixteen Mile Creek Areas 2 and 7), as well as the Town of Oakville (Fourteen Mile Creek Tributary)
have both incorporated this level of study.
Page 5, Paragraph 2
We w6hld note that Mr. Dougan did not forward copies of his notes at the direction of the City due to the
ongoing court case for the unlawful logging in the area. Dougan & Associates are a subconsultant to
Philips Engineering Ltd. in this initiative, hence Philips, on behalf of Dougan. contacted the Municipality
with respect to facilitating the release of its information.
The balance of the letter basically addresses environmental issues and legislative mallets that are probably
best handled by either Dougan & Associates or the City directly. Should you 'require additional
cornrnentary.;we can provide this at your request.
Yours very truly,
PHILiPS ENGINEERING LTD.
Per: ~0~Ronald B. Scheckenberger, M. Eng., P. Eng.
Cc:
Mr. Ed Dujlovic, City of Niagara Falls
Mr. Dave Heyworth, City of Niagara Falls
Jim Dougan, Dougan & Associates
RBS/mp
Dougan &
Associates
Ccologlcal Consulting
~ervices [~: 16r6 O~I. Inc.)
? Waterloo Avenue
Guelph. Ontario
NIH 3H2
(519) 822-r609
(5~9) 822-5389
douganassociates
C"~home.com
members.home.net
/douganasso<iates
Natural Heritage
Planning
Landscape Design
& Interpretation
Habitat
Assessment.
Restoration &
Management
Environmental
Impact Studies
Urban Street Tree
& forest
Management
E×pert Witness
Testimony
Native Plant
Nursery Services
June 6, 2000
Mr. G. Holman, P. Eng.
Municipal Works Depa:u:tenr
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen Stree~
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls. ON
LIE 6X5
Dear sir;
Letter to Mayor Thomson and Council of May 19/OO from A. Blott
I ha~e now rev:t'w~d the aLx~.-erefeteneed letter and have the lbllog'ing cornturns:
n 1-3
This pomon of the letter suggests that Mr. Blott is still unfimihat ~.'ith the hL, to~' ol this proleer,
dc~F, ite cxplanatlon~ to him in F,~mon on at le~c three oc.c~llnn,. and the detailed de~r:otlon in the
Xlt~tershcd Mutcr Plan Draft Repom 'Watershed ~o.M .~ rnutinel,/examine natural heritage
resources. assess ~heir significance and sensitivity, and defermine appropriate levers of prorec~ion and
further study to guide fuRire de.'elopment- A Compr~hensk'e HS summarizes the kt~; functions and
sensitMnes ofwoodlots and wetlands. and ~nu.'ides ~ndance on de,,ailed ass~.~menrs to be conducred
prior to de-~lopment. 11: standardizes the study requirements. so that dc~'elopers do no,, h,we ~o
'reinvent the ~.'heel' for each EIS exercise. This approach ,~.as supported ,,ruder rhc onginal Wcrland
Poli~V (1992), and under the curren~ Prm'incial goliQ' :Scatemen~ (i997} and ~c Natural Hcrit~.c
Reference Manual (1999).
The evaJuation and re-e. aluatioq of g'ethnds is a routine invenm' component of u?atershed studies
For e<amplc, the 1998 terms of reference for St Subgace~hed Areas Z & 7 Study of Stx'teen Mde
Creek in the Tcy.~n of Milton required d'-- n.4,v~l.mrinn of all t::n~'iouslv cx"aluact~ wetlands. and
evaluation of any additional wetlands identified in the study area. The 1997 Torrence Creek
Wamt,~ed Study in the City of Guelph (cond,ac~ed in pan ~' ESG Incemanonal) had a similar
requirement in regard to the Totfence Creek Wedand Compl~ The 1996 Moilrat Creek x.Fatershed
Study in the City of Cambridge required a Comprehensive E1S ,,o Ue completed ~'or the Prcr,'mciallv
Sgnificant Moffar Creek Wetland Complex as pag of r. he wan:rshed study. There are mare other
example~ ua}~re this :tppto~h h~s I'w, en Fr, lln'u.'~d.
The Warren Creek xY/atershed Master Plan Study ~.as a m,,drid:sciplina'`'y project fTom its incept,on
Like all u.'atershed studies completed in the past decade. ir requited the a~,sessment of tervesmal and
aquatic re-'ources in addition to engineering makers. This ~s a basic requirement of the m,,lniclpalit','
and agencies u,'hlCh o,,'er~e the preparauon uf thc.-c .~UlklIC;. Ot,m fi, ,,, h~ d,te,.Fvl~. b<c. h~--:.i-'cd
,,he Warren Creek study since in incepfon. We h;n'e been invok'ed a.s a sukonsuhant ptcr,,iding
t~n'c,srrial ecological a.$.~c.s3mcn~ for ~-',tcr:~hcd ,~tudiet and many od~et proiec'n:. o,.'er the pau 2n
The Trees Unlimited Study (1993) did not undertake wedand c",'ak,ations. and Was reliant o,,
background information. The Ontario Wetland E,,~luarion System has been r. gc accepted
.~stem for ~:dand o-'aluadon before prm'incial bodies such as the OMB and Em'ltonmental
Asses.~ment Board since the early 1980's. E,zaluaturs receive formal MNR trainrag. and appk
scoring tinder 49 gparate criteria to determine the significance of a ~e'dand We have three
SCHEDULE 2
Ministry of Ministbre des
Natural Resources Richesses naturelies
Box 5000 .e Tel: (905) 562-4147
4890 Victoria Avenue N. Fax: (905)562-1154
Vineland Station, Ontario
L0R 2E0
Ontario
Guelph District
November 6, 2000
The City of Niagara Falls
Planning and Development Department
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Attention:
Doug Darbyson
Director of Planning and Development
Dear Mr. Darbyson:
Subject: Warren Creek Watershed Wetland Evaluation
This letter i'g"in response to the ongoing discussions around the Warren Creek Watershed and
specifically, the Warren Creek Wetland evaluation carried out by Dougan and Associates, on
behalf of the City of Niagara Falls. This will serve to clarify MNR's position on this matter:
MNR staff have reviewed the wetland evaluation carried out by Dougan and Associates.
The evaluation was prepared in accordance with the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System,
Southern Manual (OMNR, March 1993). The Warren Creek wedands have been identified
as a wetland complex, using the standard procedures in the evaluation manual.
2. the boundaries of the wetland complex, as proposed and indicated by Dougan and
Associates have been accepted by MNR;
the Warren Creek Wetland is accepted as a Provincially Significant Wetland. As such, the
City of Niagara Falls and the Regional Municipality of Niagara are to have regard for the
Provincial Policy Statement on wetlands.
RECEIVED
Nn,, '!:: 2000
A G
& DEVELOPMENT
~ained evaluators on staff: The process ol'~,~Land evaluation and r,x-~luation in southern Ontario ~s ongoln?:
in 199,3 only a ~ wedands had been evaluated in Nl~ara Region. I am aware el' so,oral no,' c~sluatiot~s and
re-e~'aluations that have been completed in the Region ~,'ithin the pn.sr `3 ~ar~, despil~ ~e cited comment o/Mr
Paul .B~Be'e~on (a foresre-r) that there have no~ been any re-e~'aluations "t~ the best o( his kna~'lcdge".
The only report prepared for the City in 1993 ,~-a.~ the Warren Creek Watershed Master Plan Interim Reporx ~ 1
prepared by Phlll~ Planriling a,~.l Engineering Ltd.; wc ~.~rotx: the t~rtesuial reso~,r,:e..; ~rrlnn~ ThL~ documen~
has been on file with the Ci0/since 1993 and was certainly a~'ailable ar the t~me Mr. Blotx became invol,~ed ,~'ith
the Orearia lands. The 1993 report presenred preliminary findings. including a d~scuss~on of une~luated
we~lands within the watershed. The current Draft: Watershed Master Plan report contains refined infi~rmation
ba3ed on field sn~lics completed in 1-09.4. and 1908..rid alto raking into consideration the Ecological Land
Classification system adopted by the prc~mce in 1998. Habitae~ including those on Mr Blott's land ,~'ere
reviewed during most field sessions. Depres.qons with standing water and associated wetland cover ,~'ere noted.
more than I0 x~'et deixessions are plainly vtsible on aerial ph<xos of his property.
The method u~d to determine the presence and ex~nt of werlands i~ clea,[~ dcgtik,ed in the 2000 report. and
the opl~ortuni0/eo refine the ~,edand limits through site-specific shady is also described. There are approximately
100 individual pools contained in the [oresB w~thm the Warren Creek w'ate~shed. each ~'ith particular m~cre
catchment characteristics. Mr. Blott has asserred that the ,~'etlands lack sufficient sue Eor compl~mg and scor:ng
purpu~; h~,.,~'er. p~gc 13 of the ~'ed~nd g,~uation Manu:d (yd i~d ) ~tares rha~ ~mall ~-'etland uni~ me,',
e.'aluated where this can be justified We ro~c-,~-ed sr,'ailable 'vetland mapping op~ior, s ,.t~th the respo.~.qb',e
~NR bi~.,ltn~i.~t (n~.u~dated b.'f the Pto'*'incc to admlnlrter the u-'~tl:,nd ,-~a~h,arinn ,~sreml and the,' concunr~
~.4th the aplxoach adopted as the most :ealk, nc and practical in this si~ation. No ",:hen3'-plcking" occurred .~.-
Mr. Btotx as.',em: ~.d~e~. ,-'e created the cntttc ~,eem m a unlf~rrn fr~hion Both ,r'.it'.' and MNR staff can
to the (airne.~s of out approach on all affected lands
Mr... Blott sent letters to the Region's sohc~tor and m me earlier this year. demanding my file mlBtmat~on
invoices; I referred him to Ci~' s~ff He has recer~cl a copy of my Ix'rsonal not~ through his court prcxreed,r!g
on the matter ot illegal tree curerig. and u.-~ prc~dcd with a col~'uflhc ~ctJ~,d dat.~ ~ot-,'{ c,~o >~:,v...xgo
C-onclu~ions
Information on the pte~nce of wedan~ on d3e Omada lands bats been on tile ,~'ith the C~' since late 1993
my ,=,q~cficnct tha~ rnax~y de~'elep~rs do no~ ~d~,,ar~ly ~.~arch natural hesi~ ma~ ~te en~t~ng
bmineg ~emen~; ~ could ~eatly r~ce their nsb if the' ~e to do so. The ~'s ~re&~M m Mr
Blo~'s [era dMay 19/~ are inconstant ~'i$ the dUcm~ions at ~e meeting of July 28/99 be~en Mr Blo~.
h~ ~t~ ~d co~ulm~, Ci~' staff MNR staff. M~ staff. CiW staff. and the ~'~rshed
At ~at ~e~lng, M~ ~d Cit~ s~aff indicat~ that $~ would be ~ible ~gardi~ an ~cepe~bl- d~'elnpment
~1 on h~ land.. b~ on r~ I=~ rise hiito~ ~nd r~ gig prot~ol.
Plea..~ contact me if ~,ou require fi~r~het clarification oll tht~ matzer.
Sincerely,
Princtpal& St. Ecologt<t
c c g Schecken~re~. P En~ M Eng
Phdips E~ineering Limit~
· Page 2
-2-
The MNR has been involved in numerous meetings regarding this wetland, and specifically, the
development of the Blott property. It is our opinion that the proposed racetrack development
will result in a loss of wetland functions.
I trust I have clarified our position. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not
hesitate to contact myself or Anne Yagi at this office.
J
isor
Guelph District
c.c. Robert Kikulis, MMAH, Provincial Planning Services, Toronto
c.c. Don Campbell, Region of Niagara
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Building and By-law Services
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 374-7500
E-mail: melb@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
BBS-2000-14
Mel Brown,
Chief Building Official
November 20., 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
BBS-2000-14
Set Fines & Short Form Wording
Various By-Laws & Building Code Act
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council be advised that the following set fines and short form wordings as set out on the
attached appendices shall be forwarded to the Regional SeniOr Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice
for the Province of Ontario.
REPORT:
In order for By-Law Enforcement staff to more efficiently enforce cert~dn by-laws by "writing
tickets" to the offending party "on the spot", it is necessary that the Regional Senior Justice for the
Province approve the set fines and short wordings for various offences. We currentl~ have several
by-laws with set fines, however we find that additional short form wordings, and the amendment of
short fom~ wordings to the Building Code Act are required.
The by-laws that new short form wordings are being proposed are as follows:
By-Law No. 93-242, to provide adequate and suitable heat in a rental accommodation.
By-Law No. 96-32 to provide for the cleaning up and drainage of lands in Niagara Falls (Litter By-
Law)
Fgorking Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development ,, Building & By-law Services
-2- BBS-2000-14
Amendments to the short form wordings for the Building Code Act is also required, increased fines
are being proposed for this as well. Previous fines under the Building Code Act were $105.00, these
have been increased to $205.00. The proposed fines include court costs.
The suggested fines are shown on the attached appendices along with the short form wordings.
Prepared by:
"" ue Wheeler
~~By-law Enforcement
~ed by~
Mel Brown
Chief Building Official
~e Director of Community Services.
Respectfully Submitt{;d:
Edward P. Lustig,
Chief Administrative Officer
attach.
Appendix A
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS BY-LAW NO. 93-242 TO REQUIRE ADEQUATE HEAT FOR A RENTAL ACCOMMODATION
Item
COLUMN 1
Description of Offence
COLUMN 2
Provision Creating or
Defining Offence
COLUMN 3
Set Fine (Includes Court Costs)
Fail to provide adequate and
suitable heat in a dwelling
unit.
2. $205.00
The general penalty provision for the offence cited above is section 3. of By-law No. 93-242, a certified copy of which has been filed
Appendix B
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS BY-LAW NO. 96-32 TO REGULATE THE MAINTAINING OF LAND IN A CLEAN AND CLEAR
CONDITION
Item
,
COLUMN 1
Description of Offence
Fail to keep land filled up,
drained, clean or cleared up.
Fail to keep in repair the private
drain on the land.
Using the land or structure for
dumping or disposing of garbage,
refuse or waste of any kind.
COLUMN 2
Provision Creating or
Defining Offence
COLUMN 3
Set Fine (Includes Court Costs)
2.(a) $205.00
2.Co) $205.00
5.(b) $205.0O
The general penalty provision for the offenee cited above is section 13. of By-law No. 96-32, a certified copy of which has been filed
Appendix C
The Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, Chapter 23, As amended
Item
COLUMN 1
Description of Offence.
COLUMN 2
Provision Creating or
Defining Offence
COLUMN 3
Set Fine (Includes Court Costs)
1 Constructing/Demolishing a building without a permit. Section 8(1 ) $205.00
2. Causing to be constructed/demolished a building without Section 8(1) $205.00
a permit
3. Failing to file details of a material change with Chief Section 8(12) $205.00
Building Official.
4. Constructing a building not in accordance with the Section 8(13) $205.00
information on the basis of which a permit was issued.
5. ccu n sing a bu g w oiit
completion to ~e CMefBuild~g Official.
6. , Permitting occupancy/use,of a, building without notice Sectign 11 $205.00
to the Chief Building Official.
The general penalty provision for the offence cited above is section 36.(3)(4)(5)(6) of The Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, Chapter 23, As amended.
Appendix D
The Building Code Act, S.0. 1992, Chapter 23, As amended
Item COLUMN 1
Description of Offence
COLUMN 2
Provision Creating or
Defining Offence
COLUMN 3
Set Fine (Includes Court Costs)
7. Occupying/Using a building without compliance with Section 11 $205.00
Inspector's Order
8. Permitting occupancy/use of a building without compliance Section 11 $205.00
with the Inspectors Orders.
9- Failing to comply with an Order issued by an Inspector Section 36.(1)(b) $205.00
under Section [12(2)]; or [13(1)]; or [15(3)].
10. Failing to comply with an Order issued by the Chief Section 36.(1)("o) $205.00
Building Official under Section [12(6)]; or [14(1)]; or
[15(5)].
11. Failing to notify the Chief Building Official of Section 36.(1)(c) $205.00
commencement of construction under section 2.4.5.1.
of Reg. 403/97, as amended., *
The general penalty provision for the offence cited above is section 36.(3)(4)(5)(6) of The Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, Chapter 23, As amended.
Appendix E
The Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, Chapter 23, As amended
Item
COLUMN 1
Description of Offence
COLUMN 2
Provision Creating or
Defining Offence
COLUMN 3
Set Fine (Includes Court Costs)
12. Failing to notify the Chief Building Official of the Section 36.(1)(c) $205.00
readiness to construct/substantial completion of/
completion of construction of/readiness for inspection
and testing of, the footings/footings and foundations/
structural framing/insulation and vapor barriers/
duct work and piping for heating and air conditioning
systems/fireplaces and chimneys/fire separations and
closures/fire protection systems/interior finishes/building
sewers and building drains/water service pipes/drainage
systems and venting systems/water distribution systems.
The general penalty provision for the offence cited above is section 36.(3)(4)(5)(6) of The Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, Chapter 23, As amended.
T.h. egCily of flj
Community Services Department
Building and By-law Services
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 374-7500
E-mail: melb@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
November 20,, 2000
BBS-2000-15
Mel Brown,
Chief Building Official
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
RECOMMENDATION:
BBS-2000-15
Litter By-Law- Proposed Administration Costs
That Council approve an amendment to Litter By-Law No. 96-32 to provide for administration costs
of $250.00 exclusive of disbursements. '
BACKGROUND:
The City of Niagara Falls at times is required to enter upon private property to perform clean up
work under Litter By-Law No. 96-32. Section 9.(c) of the Litter By-law states that; "The City may
recover the expense of performing a task; a matter, or the things required to be done in subsection
9(a) by action, or in like manner as municipal taxes."
To date, the City has charged only the costs incurred as noted above to the taxpayer. The proposed
administration fee is for the City to offset clerical costs, inspections, notices, negotiations, and
contractor being hired.
The $250.00 administration fee in the enforcement of The Weed Act, has been a proven and effective
deterrent in reducing the need of City's staff to co-ordinate these services. Staff are hoping to further
encourage negligent property owners by informing prior to entering propez~ of the administration
fee. ,
Respectfully Submitted:
~d P.~~,'
Chief Administrativ/e~Of~cer
Pre
Mel Brown
Chief Building Official
~ive Director of Community Services.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development .. Building & By-law Services
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
By-law No. 2000-
A by-law to amend By-law No. 98-114, being a by-law to establish fees, rates and charges regarding
licences, certificates, publications and other services for the City of Niagara Falls.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS
AS FOLLOWS:
1. Page 12 of By-law No. 98-114 is amended by adding a fifth row to read:
LITTER BY-LAW ADMINISTRATION FEES
$250.00
Plus Disbursements
Passed this day of ,2000.
E. C. WAGG, CITY CLERK
WAYNE THOMSON, MAYOR
First Reading: ,2000.
Second Reading: ,2000.
Third Reading: ,2000.
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
By-law No. 2000-
A by-law 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.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS
AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 9 is amended by the following being inserted
9 (d)
An administration fee be charged to the property owner, lessee or occupant of the land as set
out in page 12 row 5 of By-law No. 98-114.
Passed this day of ,2000.
E. C. WAGG, CITY CLERK
WAYNE THOMSON, MAYOR
First Reading: ,2000.
Second Reading: ,2000.
Third Reading: ,2000.
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Building and By-law Services
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 374-7500
E-mail: melb@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
BBS-2000-16
Mel Brown,
Chief Building Official
November 20, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
BBS-2000-16
Sign By-Law Variance - 6326 Thorold Stone Road
RECOMMENDATION:
That the variance for a ground sign having an area of thirty_two (32') square fi~et with all'tree (3') foot
side yard set back, for Sunstmm's Town and Country Florists sign at 6326 ThorolaL Stone Road,
Niagara Falls, Ontario be approved.
BACKGROUND:
An application was received for a ground sign at 6326 Thorold Stone Road. The Sign by-law allows
a maximum thirty-two (32') square foot ground sign when not located on th{; business site. The by-
law also requires a six (6') foot side yard set back for all ground signs. The applicant has requested
a variance to allow the three (3') foot side yard set back. The request for th{; variance is made so as
not to place the sign in the centre of a parking space and to avoid a gas line in the area. Compliance
has been met on all other aspects of the Sign by-law.
A letter from the sign company with a plot plan and diagram of the proposed sign is attached for
Council' s review.
Prep d ieL ~"
ger of By-law Enforcement
Mel Brown
Chief Building Official
~App, oved bqy:
Mac%o~
~ve Director of Community Services.
attach.
Respectfully Submitte.d:
Chief Administrative Officer
FForking Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-law Services
signatua
Monday, November 06, 2000
CITY OF NIAGARA FAT l S
4310 Queen Street
NIAGARA FAI .t ,S, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Attention: Mr. Wayno Thompson
Re.: Sunstrum's Town & Country Florist
6326 Thorold Stone Road
We request a variance to allow the ground sign to be moved at 6326 Thorold Stone Rd.
We feel this is necessary for the following reasom:
We require a 3' sideyard set back instead of re ,gUlation 6' sideyard set back
became of a gas line running along the 6' location.
Wc request thc 3' sideyard to allow forc more parking spaces al thc front of thc
building.
Sincerely, ·
Jeff Walli~
JW/jr
4875 KENT AVE. · NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO L2H 1J5 · PHONE: 905-357-0885 · FAX: 905-357-1967
~ Floris~
41 Left on Longhurst
Country Florist
Back I block on LonghUrst
bJ
D
0
Z
0
E
50'.00
P LAZN'
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Building and By-law Services
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 374-7500
E-mail: melb@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
BBS-2000-~7
Mel Brown,
Chief Building Official
November 20, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members 6fthe Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
BBS-2000-17
5888 Thorold Stone Road - Sign Applications
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council approve the variance to allow nine signs in total at 5888 Thorold Stone Road.
REPORT:
Applications have been received for an additional seven signs at the new GM Dealership located
at 5888 Thorold Stone Road. Council has already approved the variance to the height of the two
ground signs at this location. Staff have since received the additional applications which will bring
the total amount of signs on site to nine. The Sign By-Law currently only allows a maximum of six
signs in total at any location with a frontage greater than 400 hundred feet. The signs erected are
the standard signs that the GM Dealership franchises erect on their establisrnnents. The additional
signs comply with all other aspects of the Sign By-law.
A diagram from the applicant is attached for Council's review.
Prepared b ~ Respectfully Submitted:
Wheeler .
~aw Enforcement
Re omm e~
Chief Building Official
Edward P.
Chief Administrative Officer
Approved by:
cDonaldohn
Executive Director of Community Services.
attach.
gForking Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-law Services
DATE OCTOBER 19, 2000 SCALE N.T.S,
NEON PRODUCTS
A DiViSiON OF JiM PAT1~SON iNDUSTRiES LTr~ SALES P. KENNY DESIGN NO. 0D 0194
555 ELLESM~RE RD SCARBOROUGH
ON MI~ 4~a DESIGNER R. FERRARA REVISION R4
4 16.75c~- l I I I FAX 416-759.4Rb5
DAE
CUSTOMER $1GNA1URE
E!
FALLS
NIAGARA FALLS, ON.
'T'f.~E "E"
-II
'D'pE "C"
FALLS
'1-
r-1
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Building and By-law Services
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 374-7500
E-mail: melb@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
BBS-2000-17
Mel Brown,
Chief Building Official
November 20, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members 0fthe Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
BBS-2000-17
5888 Thorold Stone Road - Sign Applications
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council approve the variance to allow nine signs in total at 5888 Thorold Stone Road.
REPORT:
Applications have been received for an additional seven signs at the new GM Dealership located
at 5888 Thorold Stone Road. Council has already approved the variance to the height of the two
ground signs at this location. Staff have since received the additional applications which will bring
the total amount of signs on site to nine. The Sign By-Law currently only allows a maximum of six
signs in total at any location with a frontage greater than 400 hundred feet. The signs erected are
the standard signs that the GM Dealership franchises erect on their establishments. The additional
signs comply with all other aspects of the Sign By-law.
A diagram from the applicant is attached for Council's review.
Prepared b ~ Respectfully Submitted:
Wheeler .
~aw Enforcement
C O~TL,31 e '
town
Chief Building Official
Edward P. g,
Chief Administrative Officer
Approved by:
cDonaldohn
Executive Director of Community Services.
attach.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-law Services
NEON PRODUCTS
A DIVISION OF JiM pAI~ISON $NDUSTRIES LTD.SALES
555 E~SMERE RD SCARBOROUGH "
ON M1R 4E8 DESIGNER
416-759-1111 FAX 416-759.4965 . ..
DATE OCTOBER 19, 2000
P. KENNY
R. FERRARA
ml,li~}l,~le. 00 0194
DA~
CUSTOMER SIGNAIURE
JOB NO.
FALLS
NIAGARA FALLS, ON.
· ~'h'Pt~ "c."
1,~...T....F..T..I~
FALLSC~
zl,q[
'TYPE "c
FALLS
FI
--tyPE "A (~
Side View
11' - 6 114"
(3,511 m)
4' - O"
( 1,219 m )
COUR'IYARD- -
Graphic Elevation I Scale: 318" = 1' - O"
ILLUMINATED D/FACE SIGN
TREES ~2177 SPARCAL
MIRROR GOLD,
LOGO'S BACKGROUND
WHITE LEXAN.
f/'2177 SPARCAL
MIRROR GOLD
BORDER
WHITE COPY ON
GREEN BACKGROUND
3M VT3254
I/8"THK ALUMINUM
COLUMN
PAINTED BEIGE
PMS #465.
PLATE COVER
FABRICATED FROM
.081 ALUMINUM
PAINTED BEIGE
14"
--::::::::::::::::::::: --
.040 'LORIN GOLD"
ALUMINUM SIGN CABINET,
1114' ALUM. LOP, IN GOLD STRIPE
STICK GN FACE SIDES.
3/16'thk WHITE LEXAN FACES WITH 1 'STRIPE
CIMENTED ON SECOND SURFACE PERIMETER,
V~NY1. GRAPHIC APPLIED ON FIRST SURFACE
BY COLD TRANSFER.
(2} STEEL TUBINGS PAINTED WHITE
FUORESCENTS LAMPS H/o, C/W, PJS.
I t/2' X 11/2' X 1/8"THK ALUM. ANGLES.
2' X 2' X 1' ALUMINUM ANGLE PAINTED
BEIGE # 465 PMS.
1/8'THK ALUM. COLUMN
PAINTED BEIGE # 465 PMS.
Cross Section
Scale: 1'/2" = 1' - 0"
I) =i'R/3NSF_./3N/-IDA
(416] 335-1333 FAX; (416 ] 33,5-5553 E~VIGtl; Icdg--,~'SCmelrQns.rndl.neI
CUSTOMER
ADRESS
DATE
COURTYARD Marriott
POSTAL
NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO. CODE
02 / 10 / 2000 RER P. SIRDIS
DESIGNER A. LEBLANC
ILLUMINATED D/FACE SIGN
DRAWING# C09513m2
sc, u_s INDIQU~E
ORDER
RE'VISIONS
D~SCRtPTIONS
DArE
2/3
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Building and By-law Services
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 374-7500
E-mail: melb@city.niagarafalls.on,ca
BBS-2000-18
Mel Brown,
Chief Building Official
November 20, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members'of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re-'
BBS-2000-18
5950 Victoria Avenue - Courtyard Marriott
Variance - Ground Sign
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council approve the variance to allow three ground signs in total at :5950 Victoria Avenue.
REPORT:
An application has been received for an additional ground sign at the Courtyard Marriott, 5950
Victoria Avenue. The Sign By-Law currently only allows a maximum of two ground signs in total
at any location with a frontage greater than one-hundred and fifty feet (150'). The Marriott has a
frontage of one-hundred and eighty-four feet (184').
The sign to be erected is eight and one-half (8' 1/2') feet high, and will have a total area of forty-five
(45) square feet. The sign will be set back appropriately and will not interfere with any traffic site
lines. The additional sign complies with all other aspects of the Sign By-law.
A diagram and letter from the applicant is attached for Council's review.
Prepare eel~_~.Z.,,'
~of~~law Enforcement
Mel Brown
Chief Building Official
Respectfully Submitled:
Edward P. Lustig, "'~
Chief Administrative Officer
ZdDol'~~alc~d
Executive Director of Community Services.
attach.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development .. Building & By-law Services
October 31,2000
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
Members of City Council
City of Niagara Falls
4310 Queen St.
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Dear Madam/Sir:
As you may well be aware, our firm operates the new Niagara Falls Courtyard by
,v,u,rlo~ ~. ,-, first class hotel facility, which is municipally known as 5°50 Victoria Avenue,
Niagara Falls, Ontario.
It is our intent to construct a pylon sign that will be aesthetically appealing. As a result
of conversation with City Staff, I understand that the proposed sign does noT'meet the
requirements of'the by-law which regulate signage with respect to the maximum
number of ground signs. The proposed signage details are as follows:
Drawing #9513M2 at Victoria Avenue driveway, total (45.5) sq. ft., which exceeds the
maximum amount of ground signs permitted by the respective by-law by one.
Please note that the T.G.I. Friday's sign at Victoria Avenue will be relocated on thb
property municipally known as 5930 Victoria Avenue, is for the purpose of parking only.
Not with standing the one ground sign exceeding the statutory maximum permitted, it is
our opinion that the proposed signage will not adversely effect the appearance of this
hotel facility or any neighboring properties. The respective sign has been designed to
be proportionate to the size of the lot and its' businesses.
Also, the height has been significantly reduced and set back on the property, so as to
attract the attention of pedestrians only, as well, the sign location has been/.esearched
in so far as safety concerns, the subject sign will not interfere or obstruct vehicular or
pedestrian sight lanes. Therefore, we respectfully request your consideration of the
matter and thank you in advance for your time and indulgence.
Si.ncerely,
John Loreti
Purchaser
JL/js ..
NIAGARA FALLS ~ ~
FALLSVIEW ,.a~.~,~aLL.
5950 VICTORIA AVENUE, NIAGARA FALLS, ON L2G 3L7 · Tel: 905-353-4044 ° Fax: 905-353-4035
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Building and By-law Services
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 374-7500
E-mail: melb@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
BBS-2000-19
Mel Brown,
Chief Building Official
Nove:mber 20, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
RECOMMENDATION:
BBS-2000-19
6546 Buchanan Avenue
Applebee's Restaurant
That the variance for a ground sign at 6546 Buchanan Avenue be approved.
BACKGROUND:
An application was received for a ground sign at the above noted address. The Sign By-law currently
states that ground signs shall not exceed twenty-five (25') feet in height, and that a variance may be
requested if the f~ontage of the property exceeds one-hundred and fifty (150') feet. The lot frontage
on this property is three-hundred and forty-two (342') feet. The application is for a thirty-five (35')
foot high ground sign. The proposed sign will be one-hundred and forty (140) square feet.
The applicant requests this variance to conform to Applebee's franchise fom~at, as well as a visibility
issue due to the height of surrounding structures. The sign complies with all other aspects of the
Sign by-law.
Attached is a letter from the applicant for Council's review.
Prepare e:r~
ager of By-law Enforcement
Chief Administrative Officer
Mel Brown
Chief Building Official
Approv~b~~
ohn MacDonald
~ive Director of Community Services
attach.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-law Services
NIAGARA HOSPITALITY HOTELS
7280 LUNDY'S LANE
NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO
L2G 1W2
November 15, 2000
Mayor Wayne Thompson,
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls
City Hall
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Re:
Request for Sign Permit
Applebee's, Buchanan Avenue
Dear Mayor Thompson & Members of the Municipal Council;
We have applied for a Sign Permit to erect a pylon sign at Applebeels restaurant on Buchanan Avenue. We
request council to consider our request for an additional 10'0" in height from 25'-0" ~o 35'-0", for the
following reasons:
· There is a distinct sign specification required by the Franchisor to have the sign this high.
· Visibility is blocked by neighboring buildings, particularly from Dunn Street (near the Marriott and
Sheraton buildings).
· Consideration of future development in this area obstructing visibility.
We appreciate your consideration of our request for the additional ten feet in height :for our sign, and look
forward to councirs response.
Thank-you.
NIAGARA HOSPITALITY HOTELS
VirtUe Kerrio
President
flow
11/15/00 WED 16;06 FAX 905 356 4445 NF HILTON ~001
NIACON
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Memo
To:
Fmll~
Date:
Re,,
Sue Wheeler
Manager of By-Law Services
Barb Wilson
Chris Hawkswell
11 / 15/00
Sign Pern~it Application, Applebee'a, Buchanan Ave.
Sue;
Further to our telephone conversation of today. attached please find a letter ~3rn the Owner to the
Mayor stating reasons for request for additional 10' height for Applebee's sign,
We trust this will be sufficient to bring up our request at the council meeting on Monday. November
20/00,
I can be reached at the Hitton jobsite at 356-4450_ Please call if you require additil~nal information.
Barb Wilson
· Page 1
~' "~'~..~_~; %ff-L OIF PYLON
The City of
Niagara Falls
CGnGaG
Community Services Department
Parks, Recreation & Culture
7565 Lundy's Lane
Niagara Falls, ON L2H 1G9
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-7404
E-mail: akon@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Adele Kon
Director
R-2000-76
November 20, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: R-2000-76
Proposed Cemetery By-law
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the revised Cemetery By-law be approved effective January 1, 2001.
That following City Council's approval, the new Cemetery By-law be forwarded to the Ministry
of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Cemeteries Branch, for their review and approval in
accordance with the Cemeteries Act.
3. That following City Council's approval and prior to implementation, thirty (30) days public
notice be given outlining the changes in the Cemetery By-law.
BACKGROUND:
The Cemetery By-law determines the policies that govern the administration and operation of the
municipal cemeteries. The by-law is a useful public document ou~ining the rules and regulations
conceming lot sales, interments, cemetery services, monument restriction, flower bed regulations,
as well as the general operation of the municipal cemeteries. As such, the By-law is issued to the
Interment Rights Holder upon purchase of a cemetery plot, and an order of an interment service.
The attached Cemetery By-law is a complete revision of the current By-law 87-87. The revisions
are based on a review of By-law 87-87, the Provincial Cemeteries Act, discussions with staff, input
from the Death Care Services Industry, as well as a review of other municipal cemetery by-laws.
The revised Cemetery By-law has no substantive changes but provides a document that is user
friendly, is current with the times and is easily administered.
R-2000-76 - 2 - November 20, 2000
Council's concurrence with the recommendations contained in this report would be appreciated.
Adele Kon
Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Respectfully Submitted:
Edward P. Lustig
Chief Administrative Officer
Approved by:
John MacDonald
ive Director of Community Services
CR/das
Attachment
S:\Council\Council 2000~l.-2000-76.wpd
City of Niagara Falls
By-law No. 2000 -
A by-law to establish rules and regulations for the City of Niagara Falls Municipal Cemeteries.
WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls owns, operates and maintains those active
and non-active cemeteries within the City limits set out in Schedule "A" hereto;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of subsection 50(2) of the Cemeteries Act (Revised),
R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, as mended, an owner of a cemetery may make by-laws affecting the operation
of the cemetery;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA
FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1: DEFINITIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND DUTIES
1.1 Definitions
In this by-law, unless the context otherwise requires:
"Act" shall mean the Cemeteries Act (Revised), R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, as amended, and the
Regulations thereto;
"Cemetery" means lands set aside and approved for the interment of human remains;
"City" means The Corporation of the City of Niagara Fails;
"Council" means the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls;
"interment rights" is the right to require or direct the interment of human remains;
"intemient rights holder" means a person with interment rights with respect to a lot, and
includes a purchaser of interment rights under the Act;
"lot" means an area of land in a cemetery containing or set aside to contain human remains;
"marker" means a flat stone placed flush with the ground used for the purpose of
perpetuating the memory of a deceased person;
"monument" means and includes a headstone, bevel, column, shaft, cenotaph, die, stone or
other upright structure placed on a cemetery lot/plot for the purpose of perpetuating the
memory of a deceased person;
-2-
1.2
1.3
"plot" means two or more lots in which the rights to inter have been sold as a unit;
"Superintendent" means the Superintendent of Cemeteries, or his designate.
Appointments
The Council shall appoint a Superintendent of Cemeteries and assistants, as required.
Duties
The Superintendent of Cemeteries and/or his assistants shall perform the following duties:
(a)
(b)
observe and carry out all of the provisions of this by-law and the Act;
attend to the regular and proper administration, maintenance and operation of the
Cemeteries; and
perform such other duties as Council may from time to time require.
Article 2: CEMETERY RULES & REGULATIONS
2.1 Entry - Limitations
No person shall enter the Cemeteries except through an established entrance, nor shall they
enter or be within any Cemetery before dawn or after sundown. Police Constables and City staff are
exempted.
2.2 Gratuities - Prohibited
No gratuities shall at any time be given to an officer or employee of the City, nor shall any
reward be given for any personal service or attention.
2.3 Bicycles - Restricted
Bicycles shall be permitted only on Cemetery roads. Bicycle racing, or racing of any kind,
is not perutitled in any Cemetery.
2.4 Animals - Restricted
No person shall permit any animal, domesticated or otherwise, to enter or remain in any
Cemetery. Leader dogs are exempted.
2.5 Alcoholic Beverages - Prohibited
No person shall bring any alcoholic beverage upon Cemetery properties.
2.6 Damage
No person shall:
(a) damage any marker or structure within the Cemeteries;
(b) damage any tree, shrub, plant or flowers, be they private or public property, within
the limits of the Cemeteries;
(c) damage any fence, railing or gate used for the protection of the Cemeteries;
(d) play any game of sport on Cemetery property;
(e) discharge any firearms on Cemetery property, except at a military funeral;
(f) disturb any person or persons assembled for the interment of' any other person; or
(g) create a disturbance, commit a nuisance or behave in an unmannerly nature in any
Cemetery at any time.
2.7 Debris
No person shall deposit rubbish on the grounds of any Cemetery except in the receptacles
provided.
2.8 Soliciting ~ Prohibited
No person shall solicit work of any kind in any Cemetery. ~
2.9 Superintendent - Direction - Control
All workers in any capacity within the Cemeteries, whether as monument dealers, vault
suppliers, etc. are subject to the direction and control of the Superintendent.
2.10 Staff Requirements
Only City staff or persons authorized by the Superintendent may perform interment services,
mark out graves and install monument foundations within the Cemeteries.
-4-
2.11 Unauthorized Work
Any person working without the permission or authorization of the Superintendent will be
removed from the Cemetery property.
2.12 Vehicular Traffic
No person driving a vehicle in a Cemetery shall:
(a) leave the traveled portion of the road; or
(b) exceed a speed of 20 km per hour.
2.13 Picnics - Prohibited
Picnics of any kind are not permitted on Cemetery property.
2.14 Proper Dress - Required
Persons entering or remaining in a Cemetery shall be fully clothed at all times.
Article 3: SALE OF INTERMENT RIGHTS
3.1 Cemetery Fees Schedule
The purchase price of interment rights shall be set forth in a Cemetery Fees Schedule,
attached hereto as Schedule "B", and forming part of this by-law.
3.2 Perpetual Care and Maintenance Fee
A perpetual care and maintenance fee shall be charged in aecordanc9 with the Act, and shall
be set out in the Cemetery Fees Schedule.
3.3 Payments - Cemetery Office
All payments shall be made at the Cemetery Office at Fairview Cemetery.
3.4 Payment - Certificate of Interment Rights
No Certificate of Interment Rights shall be issued until thirty (30) days after payment has
been received in full.
-5-
3.5 Non-Resident - Surcharge
A surcharge shall be levied against any non-resident of the City, as set out in the Cemetery
Fees Schedule.
3.6 Monuments and Flower Beds
The interment rights holder shall be permitted to erect a monument and maintain a flower
bed in accordance with the provisions of this by-law at any time after having received a Certificate
of Interment Rights from the City.
3.7 Minors
A minor is not permitted to purchase interment rights in his own name unless he/she is the head
of his/her family.
Article 4: TRANSFERS, SELL-BACKS AND EXCHANGES OF INTERMENT RIGHTS
4.1 Transfers
Interment rights may be transferred by the interment rights holder to another party at any time
before a burial takes place. Such rights are transferable by writing to the Superintendent indicating
the intention and providing all particulars of the proposed transfer.
4.2 Transfers - Certificate of Interment Rights
Upon the transfer of interment rights pursuant to this Article, all documents pertaining to the
original sale, including the Certificate of Interment Rights, must be retumed to the City for
cancellation. The City will prepare and issue a new Certificate of Interment Rights, following the
procedure set forth herein for an original sale of interment rights.
4.3 Transfers - Fees
A fee will be charged for the transfer of interment rights pursuant to this Article, which fee shall
be set forth in the Cemetery Fees Schedule.
4.4 Sell-back
Interment rights will be re-purchased from the interment rights holder pursuant to the provisions
of the Act at any time before a burial takes place.
-6-
4.5 Exchange
An interment rights holder may exchange a plot or single lot for another one within a Cemetery
at any time before a burial takes place.
4.6 Exchange - Certificate of Interment Rights
Upon the exchange of interment rights pursuant to this Article, all documents pertaining to the
original sale, including the Certificate of Interment Rights, must be returned to the City for
cancellation. The City will prepare and issue a new Certificate of Interment Rights, following the
procedure set forth in this by-law for an original sale of interment rights.
4.7 Exchange - Fees
A fee wilt be charged for the exchange of interment rights pursuant to this Article, which fee
shall be set forth in the Cemetery Fees Schedule.
Article 5: INTERMENTS
5.1 Burial Permit - Cremation Certificate Required
No interment shall take place without a Burial Permit or a Cremation Certificate, as is
applicable, nor until the person making the arrangements for the interment has complied with all
laws, rules and regulations relative to burials.
5.2 Interments - Conditions Precedent
The Superintendent shall not make any interment unless and until the person or persons ordering
same shall first exhibit:
(a) a signed contract respecting the purchase of the interment rights and the authorization to
proceed with the interment; or
(b) an Interment Rights Certificate or deed indicating the party is the rightful owner of the
interment fights upon which the interment activity is requested.
53 Interments - Waiver
In those circumstances where the party requesting the interment activity is unable to provide
evidence of ownership, the Superintendent may require the party requesting the intemient to sign a
waiver saving the City harmless from all subsequent claims from such inteiment activity.
-7-
5.4 Interments - Requirements
Persons contracting for interment rights or services and/or making arrangements for burials
shall:
(a) comply with all laws, rules and regulations relative to burials;
(b) be responsible for all incurred fees and charges, which must be received by the Cemetery
Office before an intem~ent service takes place;
(C)
under normal circumstances when the opening of a grave is required, give not less than
eight (8) working hours notice of a proposed interment, excluding Sundays and holidays;
and
(d) arrange the time of the funeral in order for the interment to be completed by 3: 15 p.m.,
failing which an additional charge will apply, as set out in the Cemetery Fees Schedule.
5.5 Funerals - Conditions
All funerals within the said Cemeteries shall be under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent or
his designate. No funeral service shall be held and no interment shall be made in the said Cemeteries
on New Years Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday or Christmas Day, unless ordered by the Medical
Officer of Health. An additional charge, as set out in the Cemetery Fees Schedule, will apply for
interments held on any other legal holiday, or on a Saturday or Sunday.
5.6 Location of Graves - Errors
Neither the City nor the Superintendent or City staff shall assume any responsibility for errors
in the location of an interment site that is a result of improper instructions by the interment fights
holder or his designate.
5.7 Interment Equipment - Vaults
No interment equipment, except that provided by the City, shall be used, except that where
burial vaults and liners are used, same shall be installed by a supplier who shall use his own
equipment. An outer case/vault/liner must be installed at least five (5) hours before the interment
service takes place. The supplier shall be responsible for any damage to the grounds or casket which
was caused due to the supplier' s equipment or operator error.
5.8 Multiple Interments - Limitations
(a) only one (1) full burial per lot is allowed;
(b) extra depth or double depth burials are not permitted in any Cemetery;
-8-
(c) up to four (4) cremains may be interred in a eremain plot;
(d) up to five (5) eremains may be interred in an adult single lot if no full body burial takes
place;
(e) up to four (4) eremains may be interred on top of an already existing full body burial;
(f) only one (1) eremain interment is permitted on top of an already existing full body burial
in a Veteran lot;
(g) eremain interments are not permitted on top of a child, infant or stillborn lot;
(h) a "Remembrance Garden" is situated at Fairview Cemetery for the purpose of interring
human eremains. Cremains shall be placed in the ground without the use of ums or
containers of any kind. Monuments or markers are not permitted.
5.9 Elevated Mounds - Prohibited
No elevated mounds shall be built over graves and no lot shall be filled above the grade
established for the Cemeteries, except temporarily for maintenance reasons by City staff.
Article 6: DISINTERMENTS
6.1 Approval ~ Medical Officer of Health
No disinterment of human remains shall take place without the written approval of the interment
rights holder and/or the Medical Officer of Health, or by order of a Court of comPetent jurisdiction.
6.2 Approval - Cemeteries Act
All other requirements under the Act must be met in order for a disinterment to proceed.
6.3 Vaulted Remains
Authorized City staff shall perform a disinterment of remains in a vault.
6.4 Disinterments - Remains Not in Vault
Where remains which are to be disinterred are not contained in a vault, the party requesting the
disinterment services shall contract with an outside party for the said services, and the expense of
the disinterment shall be paid by the party requesting same.
-9-
6.5 Conditions
Except as otherwise ordered by the Coroner' s Office, disinterments shall be made only:
(a) between May 1s' and November 1s' of each year; and
(b) when conditions, in the opinion of the Superintendent, are suitable to guarantee that a safe
removal can take place.
6.6 Outer Case - Provision of Same
If the burial was made in other than a permanent-type outer case, a new outer case must be
supplied by the party requesting the disinterment, if necessary.
6.7 Private Memorials - Removal Of
Any flush or upright markers or monuments designating the location of an interment shall be
removed from the burial site at the time a disinterment is made, and the expense of same shall be
bome by the interment rights holder.
6.8 Fees
A fee will be charged for a disinterment pursuant to this Article, which f~e shall be set forth in
the Cemetery Fees Schedule.
Article 7: MONUMENTS, MARKERS & CORNER STONES
7.1 Monuments, Markers, Comer Stones - Construction
All markers, monuments and headstones must be constructed of granite only and must conform
to all rules and regulations. Wooden crosses are allowed on a temporary basis only, for a period of
up to one year, and only with the written permission of the Superintendent.
7.2 Monuments - Requirements
(a) Only one monument per plot or single lot is permitted in any Cemetery.
(b) The monument must be placed at the centre of the head end of a lot or plot unless the
alignment with existing nearby monuments justifies another location. Special requests
must receive written permission from the Superintendent.
(c) Where a monument already exists, only fiat markers are permitted in a plot that is double
or more.
- 10-
7.3 Monuments - Permission to Install
(a) Permission must be received by the Superintendent before a monument or marker is
installed in any Cemetery.
(b)
Monument and marker installations will take place only during the working hours of 8:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays, unless
written permission to do otherwise is given by the Superintendent. Failure to abide by the
hours of operation will result in the removal of the monument or marker at the supplier's
expense.
7.4 Monuments - Foundation Required
Monuments requiring a foundation must be delivered and installed only after the foundation has
been poured. Monuments placed on Cemetery property without the proper foundation will be
removed at the supplier's expense.
7.5 Monuments - Foundation Not Required
Where a foundation is not required, a six to eight inch (6"-8") screening/stone dust must be
installed by the monument supplier prior to the installation of a monument.
7.6 Marker Care and Maintenance Trust Fee
A Marker Care and Maintenance Trust Fee, as governed by the Act and as set out in the
Cemetery Fees Schedule, shall be charged for monuments and markers measuring over 172 square
inches.
7.7 Monuments Markers, Bases - Dimensions
Monument, marker and base dimensions shall be determined by the City, and are set out in
Schedule "B" hereto. Monument dealers and suppliers shall abide by the regulations and will be
responsible for infonidng their clients of the monument and marker regulations as set out in this by-
law.
7.8 Fees - Paid in Full
All fees, including the Marker Care and Maintenance Trust Fee, must be paid in full prior to the
installation of a monument or marker.
7.9 Monuments, Markers, Bases, etc. - Standard of Workmanship
All work on monuments, markers, bases, etc, performed within a Cemetery must be completed
in a good and workmanlike manner and to the satisfaction of the Superintendent.
-11-
7.10 Turf Protection - Planking
Monument dealers and/or suppliers shall ensure there exists adequate planking to protect the
turf, and shall remove materials and equipment immediately upon completion of the work being
performed. The site shall be left in a clean and orderly condition.
7.11 Monuments - General
(a) Only the interment rights holder, or his/her personal representative has the right to erect
and maintain a monument.
(b) A Contract for Cemetery Services must be completed prior to a monument installation or
a request for a foundation.
(e) A monument cannot be erected if defective, cracked or faulty. The monument and base
must have the joint cut level and true.
(d)
A monument must be suitable in design, dimensions, materials and character in keeping
with the general landscape and the harmony and sanctity of the Cemetery within which it
is located.
(e)
The monument inscription must contain proper, non-objectionable language. The
monument must be constructed and erected in such a manner as not to be objectionable,
detrimental or injurious to Cemetery property or to the sanctity of the Cemetery within
which it is located.
(f) Only one monument per plot or single lot is permitted in any Cemetery.
(g) Only the family name will be permitted on the back of a monument, unless written
permission to do otherwise is given by the Superintendent or his authorized representative.
7.12 Markers - General
(a) Markers shall be conslmcted of granite only. Bronze plates are allowed if mounted on a
granite marker. A two inch (2") granite border must surround the bronze plate.
(b) Markers must be installed so that the top is level or flush with the ground.
(c) Only flat markers may be set on a stillbom lot.
(d) Where a monument already exists, only flat or foot markers are permitted in a plot that is
double or more.
7.13
(a)
(b)
7.14
(a)
(b)
7.15
(a)
(b)
- 12-
Statues - General
Statues may only be placed at the sides of a monument and must be secured to the base.
Statue dimensions shall not extend more than six inches (6") above the monument and
shall not extend past the width of the base dimensions.
(c) Statues shall be constructed of bronze, Kozmolux or a similar non-deteriorating material.
(d) Statues will be the sole responsibility of the interment rights holder. City staff will not be
responsible for any damage, wear and tear, or theft of statues or other fixtures.
Corner Stones
A plot boundary may be distinctly defined by comer stones, set at each comer of the plot.
Comer stones shall be allowed only in those sections of the Cemeteries designated for
double plots or more.
(c) The comer stones shall be constructed of granite only, with a flat surface, and must be
placed level with the ground. The size of each comer stone must be six inches (6") square.
(d) All comer stones shall be installed by authorized City staff at the expense of the interment
rights holder. The charge to install comer stones is set out in the Cemetery Fees Schedule.
Foundations
A proper foundation is required prior to the installation of any monument.
Foundations shall be constructed by authorized City staff at the expense of the interment
fights holder, and the fee for same shall be set out in the Cemetery Fees Schedule.
(c) Foundations shall be made of concrete and extend no less than four feet (4') below the
ground. Foundations shall be as long as the monument base, or longer if required by the
Superintendent or his authorized representative.
(d) Foundations shall only be constructed between April 1st and October 15th of each year,
unless otherwise ordered by the Superintendent or his authorized representative.
(e) Foundation orders will be constructed first on an at need basis, and then on a pre-need
basis.
13-
7.16 Care of Monuments & Markers
(a)
The interment fights holder is required to keep the monument and/or marker in proper
repair so as to ensure the safety of the public and to preserve the dignity and sanctity of the
Cemetery.
(b) The interment rights holder shall be informed of a specific problem and that proper repair
is required prior to any remedial action being taken by City staff.
(c) Repairs are to be made at the expense of the interment rights holder, and to the satisfaction
of the Superintendent or his authorized representative.
(d)
Repairs not completed by the interment rights holder within a three (3) month period of
notification will be undertaken by the City at the expense of the interment rights holder.
Failure to pay will constitute an outstanding debt.
(e) Photographs attached to any memorials or placed within a lot will be the sole responsibility
of the interment rights holder.
Article 8: LOT DECORATIONS & FLOWER BEDS:
8.1 Defined - Exceptions/Limitations
Lot decorations shall be deemed to include all structures, ornaments, plantings, or other
embellishments, with the exception of flush or upright markers which are placed on Cemetery lots
with the intention of improving the appearance of said lot.
8.2 Damage - Limitation of Liability
Neither the City nor the Superintendent or City staff shall be responsible for any damage to lots
and structures or objects therein, or flowers or articles removed from a grave except for damage
shown to be caused by City staff. Neither the City nor the Superintendexit or City staff shall be
responsible for any damage to upright markers and/or flush markers caused by any means or
individuals, except damage shown to be caused by City staff, in which case the City shall be liable
only for the cost of repairs.
8.3 Floral Tributes - Removal Of
Floral tributes will be removed from a lot by City staff within two (2) weeks after an intetrnent
takes place.
- 14-
8.4 Lot Decorations - Where Permitted
Lot decorations will be permitted only within the dimensions stated for a flower bed, and as
stated below. Lot decorations are not permitted behind a monument. Lot decorations, and plant
material of any kind, are not permitted in any area designated for eremain lots. Flat markers must
be placed flush to the ground.
8.5 Lot Decorations - Rules
Certain types of lot decorations may not be in harmony with the development of the Cemeteries
as a whole, or they may be a safety hazard to the public, or they may intensify maintenance problems.
Therefore, the following rules will be observed in regard to the decoration of cemetery lots and plots
where a monument exists:
(a)
Only concrete borders will be allowed to enclose a flower bed. The border shall not extend
past the designated dimensions of the flower bed, and shall be no higher than three inches
(3") above the ground.
(b)
Borden are installed at the interment rights holder' s own risk. Due to maintenance and the
general operation of the Cemetery, City staff will not be responsible for breakage or
damage to any border.
(c) Fences or curbs made of iron, wood, wire or plastic are a hindrance to the operation and
maintenance of the Cemetery and are not pem~itted.
(d)
Lot decorations that have become unsightly due to neglect or age, or create problems for
the maintenance and operation of the Cemetery, will be removed at the discretion and
direction of the Superintendent or his authorized representative. Where possible, the
interment rights holder will be notified in advance of the removal.
(e)
Lot decorations that are considered to be a safety hazard to the public and City staff will
be removed without notice to the interment rights holder. Wire fencing and ornamental
stones and rocks are considered a safety hazard and will be removed.
(f) Hanging baskets may be placed flush to a monument, but shall not extend past the flower
bed dimension.
(g)
Permanent reqeptacles for cut flowers, candles, etc. will only be pemdtted if installed at
the side of a monument and secured on the base. Due to maintenance and the general
operation of the Cemetery, City staff will not be responsible for breakage or damage to any
receptacle.
(h) Any container considered to be a safety hazard will be removed without notice to the
interment fights holder.
- 15-
(i) Artificial Christmas flowers and wreaths must be removed from the Cemetery no later than
April 1 st of each year.
(j) All baskets, clay pots or other receptacles must be removed from the Cemetery no later
than November 15th Of each year.
(k)
Artificial flowers, wreaths, baskets, clay pots, etc. which have become unsightly due to age
or damage will be removed and disposed at the discretion and direction of the
Superintendent or his authorized representative.
(1)
Lot decorations established on a lot or plot prior to the adoption of this by-law which have,
in the opinion of the Superintendent, become unsightly by reason of neglect or age, or
problematic to the maintenance and operation, shall be removed if the interment rights
holder has failed to retum the lot 6r plot to good condition and in accordance with this by-
law after having received three (3) months notice of the situation.
8.6 Flower Beds - Definition
Flower beds include all plant material, bushes, shrubs, trees and annual and perennial flowers
that are placed on a lot or plot with the intention of improving the appearance of same.
8.7 Flower Beds - Planting and Dimensions
The interment rights holder shall be permitted to plant and care for a flower bed in accordance
with this by-law, and within the dimensions determined by the City. The flower bed dimensions are
set out as follows:
(a)
Single lot: flower bed dimensions will not exceed eighteen inches (18") in front of the
monument by the length of the monument only. Plant material, including bushes/shrubs,
are not permitted at the sides of a monument.
(b) Double plot or more: flower bed dimensions will not exceed eighteen inches (18") in from
of the monument and fourteen inches (14") on either side of the monument.
(c)
Cremain plot or infant/baby lot: flower bed dimensions will not exceed twelve inches (12")
in front of the monument by the length of the monument only. Plant material, including
bushes/shrubs, are not permitted at the sides of a monument.
8.8 Plant Materials - Damage
Neither the City nor City staff shall be responsible for any damage or rentoval of plant materials.
- 16-
8.9 Plant Materials - Rules
Certain types of plant material may not be in harmony with the development of the Cemetery,
may be unsightly due to neglect, or create problems for the maintenance and operation of the
Cemetery. Therefore, the following rules will be observed in regard to flower beds:
(a) Planting and maintenance of~ower beds is the responsibility ofthe interment rights holder,
and flowers, trees, bushes, etc. are planted at the risk of the interment rights holder.
(b) No plant material or structure containing plant material of any kind shall be situated behind
a monument.
(c) Bushes, shrubs or trees are permitted only on plots that are a double size or more and have
a monument. Such plant material shall be placed at the side of the monument only.
(d) Bushes, shrubs or trees shall be of a miniature or dwarf variety only and shall not at
maturity exceed three feet (3') high or extend past the flower bed dimensions.
(e) Rose bushes are a safety hazard and are not permitted in the Cemeteries.
Bushes, shrubs, trees or unsightly plant material that is obstructing a monument or is
encroaching upon an adjoining lot, or is a hindrance to the maintenance and operation of
the Cemetery, will be removed at the discretion and direction of the Superintendent or his
authorized representative. Where possible, the interment rights holder will be notified in
advance of the removal.
(g) All planted annuals must be removed from the Cemetery no later than November 15th of
each year.
Article 9: CEMETERY FEES SCHEDULE
9.1 Adoption - By Council
Subject to the Act and the Regulations thereto, Council may from time to time adopt a Cemetery
Fees Schedule to regulate the fees and charges to be paid by persons purchasing interment rights in
the City Cemeteries, or requiring services to be.performed therein.
- 17-
Article 10: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
10.1 Penalties
Where a specific penalty is not provided for an offenee under the Act, any person who
contravenes any of the provisions of this by-law shall, upon conviction, be liable for a fine as
provided for in the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, e. P.33, as amended.
Article 11: REPEAL AND EFFECTIVE DATE
11.1 By-law No. 87-87 - Repeal of
By-law No. 87-87 of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls is hereby repealed.
11.2 Effective Date
This by-law shall take effect upon approval of same by the Minister of Consumer and
Commercial Relations, Province of Ontario.
Passed this day of ,2000.
E. C. WAGG, CITY CLERK
WAYNE THOMSON, MAYOR
First Reading: ,2000
Second Reading: ,2000
Third Reading: ,2000
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS MUNICIPAL CEMETERIES
BY-LAW # 2000 -
Municipal Cemetery Inventory
The City of Niagara Falls administers, operates and maintains a number of Active and Non-active Cemeteries within
the City limits.
Active Cemetery: Interment Rights are sold and/or burials continue to take place.
Non-active Cemetery: The Cemeteries Act, Section 62, Chapter 57 (1970), requires that abandoned cemeteries
become the responsibility of the municipality in which they are situated. hterment Rights are no longer sold and
burials no longer take place, however the cemetery continues to be maintained by the City.
The following inventory lists the City's Active and Non-active cemeteries:
ACTIVE CEMETERIES
CEMETERY NAME
A. Fairview Cemetery
B. Lundy's Lane Cemetery
C. (Stamford) Presbyterian
Burial Grounds
D. Drummond Hill Cemetery
E. Weaver Cemetery
F. Willoughby United
Congregational Church Cemetery
LOCATION & SIZE
Stanley St. & Morrison St.
- 77 acres
Lundy's Lane & Montrose Rd
0ot 132)
- 16 acres
St. Paul St. & Brock St.
- 2 acres
Buchner Place at Drummond
Willick Rd at Sodom
(lot 19, cone. 3)
105' x 105'
Sauer Rd. & Ort Rd.
mSTORICAL DATA
· first burial in 1:883
· rounded in 1886 as a Municipal Cemetery
· established in 1934 by the Township of
Stamford
· Township of Stamford was annexed to the
City of Niagara Fails in 1963
· also, location of the Lundy's Lane Methodist
Church Burial Grounds (first burial in 1820)
· established in :1944 by the Township of
Stamford
· Township of Stamford was annexed to the
City of Niagara Falls in 1963
· burials date back to 1797
· historical site of Battle of 1812
· City acquired ownership from Niagara
Parks Commission in 1996
· former cemetery of the German Evangelist
Protestant United St. Paul's Church (founded
in 1863)
· Weaver family received portion of cemetery
from the Church elders in 1872
· City acquired ownership in 1993
· first burial in 1843
· originallyproperty;of Henry Sauer
· City acquired ownership'in 1998
CEMETERY NAME
Byer Burial Ground
2. Dell Cemetery
: 3. Gonder Burial Ground
4. Lampman Burial Plot
5. Lundy's Lane United Church
Cemetery
6. Lapp Cemetery
7. Lutz Burial Ground
8. Lyon's Creek Cemetery
9. McCredie (Misoner)Burial
Plot
10. Miller (1) Cemetery
11. Miller (2) Burial Ground
12. Willick Burial Ground
13. Young Cemetery
NON-ACTIVE CEMETERIES
, LOCATION.:& SIZE
Bosserr at Niagara Pkwy
(lot 8, conc. 1)
- .029 acres / 20' x 60'
Reixinger at Willodell
(lot 7, cone. BF)
- 2 acres / 200' x 200'
Willoughby Dr. at Sherk Rd.
- across Miller Creek)
(lot 6, cone. 1)
- .403 acres
Garner at Sh~ners Creek
- .020 acres
Latshaw St. & Lowell Ave
(lot 3, Reg PI. 653)
- .255 acres / 50' x 150'
Detenbeck at Niagara Pkwy
(lot l 1, cone. 1 )
- .055 acres
Miller at Niagara Pkwy
(lot 15, cone. 1)
- 20' x 20'
Old Lyon's Creek & Schisler
(lot 2, cone. 4)
- .230 acres / 150' x 180'
McCredie at Willodell
(lot 13, cone. 7)
- .002 acres / 10' x 10'
9841 ;(drgSl'9):Niagara Pkwy
(lot 17, NPC Sew. Rd. 26)
- .057 acres/50' x 50'
Montrose Rd. at Ridge Rd.
(lot 1, cone. 7)
- .005 acres
Detenbeck & Sodore
- near Willoughby Town Hall
(lot 11, cone. 3)
- .009 acres
Grassy Brook at McKenny
(lot 10, cone. BF)
- .080 acres/100' x 100'
· origin of cemetery unkown
· City acquired ownership in 1973
· formerly a United Church cemetery, burials
took place between 1853 & 1919
· City acquired ownership in 1973
· established by MOrris P. Gonder family in
1900
· City acquired ownership in 1973
· origin of cemetery unkown
· City acquired ownership in 1973
· formerly known as Wesleyan Methodist
Cemetery (established in 1846)
· City acquired ownership in 1973
· Abraham Lapp's family burial ground
- first burial in 1828
· City acquired ownership in 1973
· Christian Hershery's family burial ground
- established prior to 1845
· City acquired ownership in 1973
· formerly a United Church Cemetery
· City acquired ownership in 1973
· one burial at side of mad
- Mary Misoner buried in 1801
· City took ownership in. 1973
· HT;~en~. Miller's family 'burial ground
- first burial in 1839
· City acquired ownership in 1973
· W. J. Miller's family burial grounds
- 7 burials from 1852 to 1895
· City acquired ownership in 1973
· Johann Willick family burial ground
- first burial in 1831
· City acquired ownership in 1973
· origin of cemetery unkown
· City acquired ownership in 1973
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS MUNICIPAL CEMETERIES
BY-LAW # 2000
MONUMENT & MARKER PROCEDURES
The following information is a summary of the procedures for installing monmnents or markers in
Municipal Cemeteries. A complete listing of rules and regulations pertaining to Monuments,
Markers & Cornerstones is indicated in the By-law, Section G.
1. ONLY ONE MONUMENT IS ALLOWED ON A PLOT OR SINGLE LOT.
2. Flat markers must be installed so that the top is level with the ground.
Foundations are poured between April 1st and October 15~ of each year on at "at-need" basis
first.
4. Foundations are not required for markers placed on Baby, Infant or Stillborn Lots.
Where a foundation is not required, stone dust must be placed under a fiat marker, bevel or
pillow monument, prior to the installation.
6. All monuments, bases and markers must be made of granite only.
Wooden crosses are only allowed on a temporary basis of up to one year and with the written
permission of the Superintendent.
Base dimensions are regulated for various sizes of upright, bevel and pillow monuments.
Bases shall not be wider than 16" nor thicker than 10".
The City of Niagara Falls is NOT responsible for any theft or vandalism to monuments,
markers or lot decorations of any kind.
10. A "Marker Care & Maintenance" trust fee, as determined by the Pwvince of Ontario, will
be charged for monuments/markers as set out in the Cemetery Fees Schedule.
The following pages provide the dimensions for monuments and markers that are allowed in the
Municipal Cemeteries. The monument and base size can not exceed the dimensions indicated for
the specific lot (i.e. eremain plot, infant lot, single lot, double plot).
To avoid disappointment, please check with the Staff at the Fairview Cemetery Office prior to
ordering a monument.
-2-
APPROVED MONUMENTS
ln'fantJBaby 1 ,ot - Bevel Monument
· Fairview - Section 7a; SS
Lot size: 3' x 5'
· Maximum Monument Dimensions:
- Base 12" wide 18" long
- Bevel 14" high 14"long
· Foundation required: No (use stone dust)
· Care & Maintenance Fee: $100 + GST
· Other approved Monument: Flat Marker if Bevel not used
4" thick
8" bottom slanting to 3" top
Stillborn I ,ot - Flat Marker
· Lundy's Lane - Section E; Stamford Presb. - Section 4 Lot 8
- Lot size: 2'8" x !'8"
· Maximum Marker Dimensions:
- Flat . 12" wide 14" long 4" thick
- installed flush with the ground
· Foundation required: No (use stone dust)
· Care & Maintenance fee: No
· Other approved Monument: Foot Marker
Example: I" '~' '
Bevel
Bas
Example:
/////~ Flat
Marker
- I"t"
Cremain Single l,ot - Flat Marker
; Fairview - Section 5a
- Lot size: l'6"x 1'6"
~, Maximum Marker Dimensions:
- Flat 12" wide 14" long
- installed flush with the ground
· Foundation required: No (use stone dust)
· Care & Maintenance fee: No
· Other approved Monument: No
4" thick
Example:
-3-
Cr_emain Plot - Upright Monument
· Fairview- Section 12
- Plot Size: 4' x 5'
· Lundy's Lane - Section E
- Plot Size: 4' x 4'
· Maximum Monument Dimensions:
- Base 12" wide 34" long 8" thick
- Upright 6" wide 30" long 24" high
· Foundation required: Yes
· Care & Maintenance fee: $100 + GST
· Other approved Monument: Bevel, Pillow, Flat Marker if Upright not used
Example:
/
Updght
MOnument
Adult Single I .ot - Bevel Monument
· Fairview - Section LrU & TT
- Lot size: 4' x 10'
· Maximum Monument Dimensions:
- Base 16" wide 30" long
- Bevel 24" long 14" high
· Foundation required: No
· Care & Maintenance fee: $100 + GST
· Other approved Monument: Pillow, Flat Marker if Bevel not used
* Uprights are allowed in "new" Section TT with special permission
8" thick
8" bottom slanting to 3" top
All Other Adult Single I .ors - Upright Monument
· All Cemeteries
- Lot size: 4' x 10'
· Maximum Monument Dimensions:
'I - Base 12" wide 34" long 4 - 8" thick
- Upright 8" wide 30" long 24" high
· Foundation required: Yes
· Care & Maintenance fee: $100 + GST
· Other approved Monument: Bevel, Pillow, Flat Marker if Upright not used
Example: a._,~ '
'T
B a
as
Bevel
Monument
Example:
-4-
Double Plot - Upright Monument
· Fairview
- Plot size: 8' x 10' (Q = 6'8" x 10')
· Lundy's Lane
- Plot size: 6'8" x 10'
· Maximum Monument Dimensions:
- Base 16" wide 52" long 8 - 10" thick
- Upright 10" wide 48" long 42" high
· Foundation required: Yes
· Care & Maintenance fee: $200 + GST
· Other approved Monument: Bevel, Pillow if Upright not used
ONLY ONE MONUMENT PER PLOT
Flat / Foot Markers allowed in addition to Monument
Example:
Ul~rjght
MOnument
Base
Triple Plot - Upright Monument
· Fairview & Lundy's Lane
- Plot size: 10' x 10'
· Maximum Monument Dimensions:
- Base 16" wide 84" long 8 - 10" thick
- Upright I0" wide 72" long 42" high
· Foundation required: Yes
· Care & Maintenance fee: $200 + GST
· Other approved Monument: smaller Upright, Bevel, Pillow if this size Upr
ONLY ONE MONUMENT PER PLOT
Flat I Foot Markers allowed in addition to Monument
Example:
/
Larger than Triple Plot - Upright Monument · Monument Dimensions:
~ a detailed drawing must' be submitted and written permission from t~
is required if monument exceeds 6' in length T.
· Foundation required: Yes
· Care &Maintenance fee: $200 t
ONLY ONE MONUMENT PER PLOT
--
Updght
Monument
Base
OTHER APPROVED MONUMENTS:
Pillow Monument
· Maximum Monument Dimensions:
- Base 16" wide 30" long
- Pillow 12" wide 24" long
· Foundation required: No
· Care & Maintenance fee: $50 + GST
4" thick
Y' front slanting to 6" at back
Example/
Monument
Flat Marker
· Marker Dimensions:
- Flat 12" wide 24" long 4" thick
· Foundations required: No (use stone dust)
· Care & Maintenance: $50 + GST
Marker must be installed flush with the ground
Foot Marker
· Marker Dimensions:
- Foot 6" wide 14" long
· Foundation required: No (use stone dust)
· Care & Maintenance fee: No
Marker must be installed flush with the ground
4" thick
Example:
Flat
Marker
Veteran Monument
· Fairview - Section 4 Vet; M & new UU (& various locations in Fairview & Lundy's Lane)
Lot size: 4' x 10'
· Foundation required: Yes
· Care & Maintenance fee: $100 + GST
· Dimensions:
- determined by the standards adopted by the
Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS MUNICIPAL CEMETERIES
BY-LAW # 2000 ~
FLOWER BED GUIDELINES
The following information is a summary of the flower bed regulations pertaining to Municipal Cemeteries. A
complete listing of rules and regulations for Lot Decorations and Flower Beds is indicated in the By-law,
Section H.
Public safety, cemetery maintenance and operation, as well as the sanctity and haniiony of the cemetery
environment, are reasons why the Corporation sets the rules and regulations. Failure to observe the rules
will result in removal of the plant material and or decorations by cemetery staff.
· A good rule of thumb when purchasing plant material and decorations, is to think of how it will look twenty
years from now and who will care for it.
Flower bed dimensions are as follows:
fl~ SinglLlat - dimensions will not exceed 18 inches in ~:ont of a monument by the length of
the monument only. Plant material, including bushes are not permitted at the sides of a
monulTtezlt.
~? Double plot or more - dimensions will not exceed 18 inches in front of the monnment and 14
inches on either side of the monument.
~ Cremain plot or infant/baby lot - dimensions will not exceed 12 inches in front of the monument
by the length of the monument only. Plant material, including bushes are not permitted at the
sides of a monument.
Only concrete borders, measuring no higher than 3 inches above the ground, will be allowed to enclose a
flower bed. Borders are installed at the Right.~ Holder's own risk. Due to maintenance and the general
operation of the cemetery, staff will not be responsible for breakage or damage of any kind.
Miniature or dwarf size bushes, shrubs or trees are permitted on either side of a monument in a double plot ·
or more. The plant material must not exceed three feet high nor extend past the flower bed dimensions, at
maturity. Rose bushes of any kind are not permitted.
· Borden, plant material and decorations are not pei mitted behind a monument.
Bushes shrubs, trees, unsightly plant material or lot decorations that are obstructing a monnment, are
encroaching on an adjoining lot, or are a hindrance to the maintenance and operation of the cemetery will
be removed at the discretion and direction of the Superintendent. Where possible, the Interment Rights
Holder will be notified in advance of the removal.
Lot decorations and plant material that are considered to be a safety hazz~rd to the public and cemetery staff
will be removed without notice. Wire fencing, ornamental stones and wse bushes are considered a safety
hazzard.
· Lot decorations and plant material are placed in a plot or single lot at the risk of the Interment Rights Holder.
Cemetery Staff and/or the Corporation are not responsible for any d_a_rnage or removal..
$
To avoid disappointment, please check with the Fairview Cemetery Office, prior to prepaxing the flower bed.
Flower Bed Examples
Cremain & Infant l,ot
· Dimensions: 12" in front of monument by
the length of the monument only
· Flower beds and lot decorations are to be
placed across the front of the monument only
· Shrubs/bushes/trees are NOT allowed
Single !,or
· Dimensions: l 8" in front of monument by
the length of the monument only
· Flower beds and lot decorations are to be
placed across the front of the monument only
· Shrubs/bushes/trees are NOT allowed
Double Plot or More
· Dimensions: 18" in front of monument plus 14"
on. either side of the monument
· Only dwarfshrubs/bushes/trees may be planted
at each side of the monument
SCHEDULE "B"
CEMETERY FEE SCHEDULE
JANUARY1,2001
Interment Rights Transfer 45.00 3.15 48.15
Interment Rig hts Exchange 45,00 3.15 48.15
Interment Rights Replacement/Duplicate 22.00 1,54 23.54
Cemetery Records Search 25 per hr, 1.75 per hr. 26.75 per hr.
Memorial Tree 200.00 14.00 214.00
Memodal Bench 1250.00 87,50 1337.50
Memodai Ranter 450.06 31,50 481.50
Weekday Fueeml Late Arrival Scheduled After 3:15p.m,
Saturday Casket Budal - Arrival Before 1:00 p.m.
Sunday & Holiday Casket Burial - Arrival Before 2:00 p,m.
Saturday Cremains Budal - Ardval Before 1:00 p.m.
Sunday/Holiday Cmmains Budal - Anival Before 2:00 p,m.
Tent Rental (Child/Stilibom/Cmmains Burials)
Tent Rental Only (Saturdays/Sundays/Holidays)
Less Than 8 Working Hours Casket Budal Order
Less Than 8 Working Heure Cremains Burial Order
Lower & Seal Concrete Vault/Liner Lid
Lower Concrete Vault/Liner Box
79.00 5.53 84.53
28t .00 19.67 300.67
360.00 25,20 385,20
t46,00 10.22 t56.22
230.00 16.10 246.10
160,00 11,20 17t.20
324.00 22.68 346.68
t57,00 10,99 167,99
79.00, 5.53 84,53
25.00 1.75 26,75
50.00 3.50 53.50
Foundation Concrete/Cubic Foot Supply & Install
Foundation Installation (Minimum Charge)
Veteran Upright Marker Beffing
Small Flat Marker Setting Under 172 Square Inches
Large Flat Marker Seffing Over 172 Square Inches
Comer Markers Setting (Per Set of 4)
19.00 1.33 20.33
223.00 15.61 238,6t
80.00 5.60 85.60
36.00 2.52 38.52
80.00 5.60 85.60
45.00 3.15 48.15
Flat Marker Over 172 Square Inches 50.00 3.50 53.50
Upright Marker Including Base Up To 4 Feet High/Long 100.00 7.00 107.00
Upright Marker Including Base Over 4 Feet High/Long 200.00 14.00 214.00
AduPJChlld Dis-interment Only * 810.00 60.90 930.90
Adult/Child Re-interment t430.00 100.10 t530.t0
Infant/Stillborn Dis-interment Only * 325.00 22,75 347.15
Infartt/Stillbom Re-interment 450.00 31.50 481.50
Cremains Dis-interment Only * 160.00 11.20 171.20
Cremaine Re4nterrnent 330.00 23.10 353.t0
· Remains are removed from Mun~al Cemetery
PLEASE NOTE:
1) Dis-interments will take place on a day. & at a time determined by the Cemetery Section
2) Dis-interments may be scheduled from May 1st to November 1st only
3) Dis-interments not in a vault will be contracted out & will be the responsibility of the Funeral Director
4) The Funeral Director is responsible for Ihe scheduling & all related costs of:
- casketvault%urn removal
- vault%um unsealing & resealing ,--
- Niagara Regional Health Unit
S:%C~maefieS~ADMINISTRATION~mmcil I~pofi~Ceml'ee
CEMETERY FEE SCHEDULE
JANUARY 1, 2001
Interment R~h~ Transfer 45,00 3.15 48.t5
Inte~nt Rights ~a~e 45.00 3.15 48.15
Inte~nt Righ~ Repis~men~upli~te 22.00 1 .~ 23.~
~mte~ Re~s Sea~ 25 ~r hr. 1.75 per hr. 26,15 per hr.
Mem~al T~ 200.00 14.00 214.00
M~odal ~n~ t 250.00 87.50 1337,50
Memdal Pi~er 450.00 31.50 481.50
Weekday Funeral Late Ardval Scheduled After 3:15p.m,
Saturday Casket Buda[ - Arrival Before 1:00 p.m.
Sunday & Holiday Casket Buda] - Arrival Before 2:00 p.m.
Saturday Cremains Budal - Arrival Before 1:00 p.m.
Sunday/Holiday Cremains Burial - Arrival Before 2:00 p.m.
Tent Rental (Child/Stillborn/Cremains Budals)
Tent Rental Only (Saturdays/Sundays/Holidays)
Less Than 8 Working Hours Casket Budal Order
Lass Than 8 Working Hours Cremains Burial Order
Lower & Seal Concrete Vault/Liner Lid
Lower Concrete Vault/Liner Box
79.00 5,53 84.53
281.00 19.67 300.67
360.00 25.20 385.20
t46.00 10.22 156.22
230.00 16.10 246.t0
160.00 11.20 17t,20
324.00 22.68 346.68
t 51.00 10.99 161.99
19.00 5.53 84.53
25.00 1.75 26.75
50.00 3.50 53,50
Foundation Concrete/Cubic Foot Supply & Install
Foundation Instalistion (Minimum Charge)
Veteran Updght Marker Betting
Small Fist Marker Setting Under 172 Square Inches
Large Flat Marker Setting Over 172 Square Inches
t9.00 1.33 20.33
223.00 15.61 238.6t
80.00 5.60 85.60
36.00 2.52 38.52
80.00 5.60 85.60
· 45,00 3.15 48.15
Flat Marker Over 172 Square Inches 80.00 3.50 53.20
Up~ght Marker Including Base Up To 4 Feet High/Long 100,00 7.00
Upright Marker Including Base Over 4 Feet High/Long 200,00 14.00 214,00
AdurdChtld Dis-lntem~ent Only * 870.00 60.90 930,90
Adult/Child Re-interment 1430,00 100.10 1530.10
Infant/Stillborn Dis-interment Only * 325.00 22.75 347.75
Infant/Stillborn Re-interment 450,00 31.50. ? 481.60
Cremeins Dis-interment Only * 160.00 11.20 171,20
Cremeins Re-interment 330.00 23.10 353,10
· Remains ere removed from Municipal Cemetery
PLEASE NOTE:
1) Dis-interments wig take pisce on a day, & at · time determired by the Cemetery Section
2) Dis interments may be scheduled from May 1st to November 1st only
3) Dis-intemnents not in a vault will be contracted out & will be the responsibility of the Funeral Director
4) The Funeral Director is responsible for the scheduling & eli related costs of:
- casket%vaulRum removal
- vault%urn unsealing & resealing ~
- Niagara Regional Health Unit
S:~:;emete~es%ADMINISTRATION%CoeacU Rqon%Cemlrcc
The City of
Niagara Falls
Canada
Community Services Department
Fire Services
5809 Morrison Street
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 2E8
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.: (905) 356-1321
Fax: (905) 356-6236
E-mail: pcorfiel@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
FS-2000-14
Peter Corfield
Fire Chief
November 20, 2000
Alderman Victor Pietrangelo, Chairperson
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: FS-2000-14 - Protective Clothing for Fire Fighting
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council approve the purchase of 19 sets of firefighter safety clothing from Safedesign
Apparel Limited, in the amount of $1,023.93 plus taxes each. (Total 19,454.67 plus taxes.)
BACKGROUND:
We have recently had all our safety clothing inspected by a company called Fire Service
Management. This company routinely inspects and repairs the gear when minor problems arise.
This company has developed a rating system for this clothing and has made recommendations to us
on a replacement schedule. This type of safety clothing is required by law for structural fire fighters.
This company has recommended replacements based on use and condition of the present clothing.
This program of replacement will ensure that the firefighters have the required protection.
We have sent requests for quotations to eight different suppliers and received respo~tses from five
companies with various quotes for various styles and options as listed below. The company which
we wish to deal with is Safedesign. We have dealt with this company in the past and had excellent
service and quality. They have offered options not included with other companies.
Staff is recommending Safedesign Apparel Limited, for the following reasons:
low price with extra comfort and durability features;
meets CGSB and NFPA standards;
· Safedesign is the same company which has supplied us with our previous clothing;
· Safedesign supplies many of the major cities in Ontario (i.e., Mississauga, Richmond
Hi!l, Ajax, etc.);
· excellent warranty, user maintenance and safety guidelines provided with each outfit.
The following competing companies and their costs are illustrated:
Company
Safedesign Apparel Limited
Safedesign A15parel Ltd
Levitt Safety (Chieftain)
ResQTech (Lion)
M&L Supply (Chieftain)
Seeuritex (Securitex)
Securitex (Securitex)
Cost
$1023.93 (plus tax)
$1150.60 (plus tax)
$1055.92 (plus tax)
$1100.00 (plus tax)
$1128.00 (plus tax)
$994.12 (plus tax)
$1070.98 (plus tax)
FINANCING: Them are sufficient funds available in Reserve and Operating Budgets to fund this
purchase.
Recommended by:
Assistant Chief
Respectfully submitted:
E. P. Lustig
Chief Administrative Officer
Approved by: ~
ohn MacDonald .
Director of Community Services
CR:rs
November 7, 2000
Mr. Ed Dujlovic
City Engineer
Municipal Works
City Hall
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5
Dear Mr. Dujlovic:
We recently added a new tower of 80 rooms to our existing 1 i2 room Hotel known as the Four Points
Hotel, By-The-Falls. As result of our addition we created employment for approxinmtely 30 local
residents.
Two houses known as 5570 Peer Lane and 6046 Allendale Street, were demolished prior to contraction by
Modem Landfill Company. The Demolition Company hauled and disposed of 111 .'76 tons of debris.
The dumping fees were calculated at $10,350.00. I am requesting that our dumping fees be reimbursed
back to the Hotel. Our intention is to use the reimbursement toward a beautification project for the exterior
of the Hotel.
Mr. Dujlovic, I have noted that Council meets again on November 20% please submit this request on my
behalf at that time.
· . . l
Enclosed is a copy of the article from the Review stating that Canadxan Niagara Hotels, Kraft and Niagara
Bronze Company had their fees reimbursed. Also I am enclosing the statistics on the tonnage and fees.
I anxiously await your reply.
Yours truly,
General Manager
MAM:gd
(2) Encls.
Four Points Hotel Niagara Falls
6045 Stanley Avenue (at Ferry), Niagara Falls, Ontario L2G 3Y3
(905) 374-4142 · 1-800-263-2566 · Fax (905) 358-3430
(:'
Trans Date Service
09j"ZO/99 ~ OF 5570 PEER
09/20/99
o9/2_.!/99 HE.',ZC
.[30 11t.76 D_L76
r'-,.~.,-*:,; T; rhot R~ViPW bY C~sT~mer - W/O TAX co~t'6 ~q next ,oaofi
Rate Tota] Chat~es TicJeer ~
_00 .00 1~ ~::d547 0 859{r:~
.00 .0O R 952548 0 8S9C64
.00 .O0 TIC Qror~19 0 8Fx_q0S4
.O0 .0G TK SSZSSY 0 859064
.00 .O0 1K 952SE2 0 859064
l~r
BreakfOr' hotel:',:
Counfil. voteS;-to. reimburse.,
$18,000. id :dumping fees, .:
FOUR POINTS HOlE
-.
i
~]001