Loading...
Additions to Council July 9/07ADDITIONS TO COUNCIL. MONDAY. JULY 9 2007 couNCi~ 1. Correspondence from Regional Niagara Planning Department re: PD-2007-57 2. Additional requests to speak to PD-2007-14: Aaron Lichtman & Frank De Luca 3. Memorandum from Clerk re: Military Museum Communication 4. Report CD-2007-15: Adult Entertainment Appeals `"""'w•r~ra~~`~~ „ Planning Scanned file: zd ~ , ~,, r ~ ila Ira R~ pan ~ ~' DaTE: July 4, 2ao~ TQ: Doug Darbyson Director of Planning & Development Planning and Development Corporate Services Department SUBJECT; Zoning By-law Amendment Application ApplicantlOwner: 1Nedgewoad Builders Proposal: Request Rezoning to Allow 5-storey, 49 unit Condominium Apartment Dwelling Location: 2799 St. Paul Avenue In the City of Niagara Falls City File; AMr4~I2006 . fur File: D.18.04.64285~032 ~ID# 5990 Regional Niagara Public works Department has reviewed the above-referenced revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application and provide the same comments as provided on~anuary 16, 2007: «~ The subject lot has frontage on a road under local jurisdiction. ~ Regional Waste Management Division has indicated that waste collection is to be provided by a private waste collection contractor at the applicant's/subse uent 1 .owner s expense. • Water supply is to be f rom the local 200 mm diameter watermain and not f rom the Regional X40 mm diameter watermain. ~~.~ William J.y, evens, C.E.T. Development Approvals Manager Public Works Department Transportation Services Division KS/aw L.IENGINEERING PLANNING & QEVELOPMEN~1Vetrone-CarmenlNiagara EaIIsICC~RRESPCJNDENCE 200712007-07-04 St. Paul Avenue Darbyson.doc RECEIVED JUL p 6 2~7 PL.ANNiNG ~ DEV~LaPM~NT ,. . Page 1 of 1 Dean Iorfida „From; "Marcus Mizrachi" <mizrachi@outsidetbb.com> To; "'Dean Iorfida"' <diorfida a~niagarafalls.ca> llate; 71b1200711:48.AM .~...~.....~... M......_M...~.m.. ~...~.~.,...,...:..m..w.~.~..,~~.n~ . . .. ... , .. ,. ~..~„.~. On Monday, July 9, 2007, Council wi(I be considering a report and hearing consultant presentations on Downtown Revitalization. Aaron Lichtman requests permission to speak to this issue. Regards, Marcus Mizrachi dutside the Big Box, LLC 1.560 .Broadway 10th l:loor New York, NY 10036 Phone: 646.292.3550 Fax: 646.292.3551 Cell: 917.902.3718 file://C:1Documents and Settings1di2021Local SettingslTemplXPGrpWise1468E2CObDomai,.. 7/6/2007 Pagelofl Dean ~orfida - reputation -Queen Street Revitalization From: "Frank De Luca" <fdeluca@cogeco.ca> '~o: <dior~da@niagarafalls.ca> date; 7/6/2007 3:37 PM Subject: Deputation -Queen .Street Revitalization Dean, fie; Queen Street devitalization Thank you for the quick reply. After reviewing the Agenda for the July 9, 2007 meeting, I didn't realize that there would publis deputations on this matter. I have an interest in this matter I would like the opportunity to speak on the matter. 'hank you. file;/IC;1Documents and Settings1di2021Local SettingslTemplXPGrpWise1468E61BCDomai... 7/6/2007 Corporate Servioes Department Clerk's division Inter-De a Nia ara ails rtment Memorandum ~ ~ ~ ~ ~„.~ TCJ: Mayor Ted Salci DATE: July 6, 2007 & Members of Council ~RaM: Dean Iorfida City Clerk Ext. 4271 RE: Military Museum On July 4th, the writer received the attached letter from GarryBeck, President of the Nia ara Milita g rY Museum. Cn July 5th, a meeting took place between representatives of the Military Museum, the Board of Museums and City staff. The meeting was productive. Issues surrounding the proposed lease were resolved to all parties satisfaction. At the meeting, Mr. Beck indicated that because of the volume of possible exhibits in the Military Museum's collection, they would like the Council to consider them as the sole tenant of the building (the Armoury). Council is reminded that the proposal for the Armoury would see two. possible tenants (including the Military Museum) on the ground floor, with the second floor being available to community groups for rent, to help subsidize the operating costs of the building. Nonetheless, if the Military Museum would like to put forward a business case, as to how they would operate and fund their operation, as sole tenant of the building, it would be appropriate for the proposal to be referred to staff. The Armoury Ad-hoc Committee be revived, if need be. RECOMMENDATION: Thatthe Niagara Military Museum present a viable business case on how they would fund and operate their operation, as a ro osed sole tenant at the pp Armoury. Working Together to Serve Dur Community Clerks Finance Human Resources informafion Systems Legal Planning & Development W ~M W 11M ~ lei IACAI~A NtI L.~I`T'ARY NiUS~UNI C/O Garry Beck 9200 Sodom Road Niagara Falls Ont. L2E 6S6 Phone 905-295-3686 E-Mail beck(a~falls.net Or E-Mail gvbeck@syrnpatico.ca City of Niagara Falls Canada ~ 04 July 2007 Attention: Mr. Dean ~orfida, City Clerk Re: l~ia~ara Falls Armoury Dear Sir, The Niagara Military Museum, wish to appear as a deputation to speak at the open City Council meeting in the evening of Monday, July 9, 2007 in order to reply to the false accusations in the letter from the Niagara Board of Museums already provided to Council . Please contact Garry Beck of the Niagara Military Museum at phone number (905) 2953686 to confirm our place on the agenda or with any questions or concerns. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Garry Beck President Niagara Military Museum ,jury o, ~ao7 His Worship Mayor Ted Salci and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re.. C~-2007-~5 Adult Entertainment Appeals ~RECOMMEN~ATIC?N: co-ZOO7•~ ~ That based on the recommendation of the Adult Entertainment Appeals Committee, the appeals heard be granted; and . That staffapproach the Police Services Board abouttaking overthe appeals heard under the City's Live Adult Businesses By-law X2002-197}; and Thststaff amend the LiveAdult Businesses By-law (2002-197} accordingly, to aliowforthe delegation of appeals' hearings to the Police Services Board BACKGROUND: City By-law 2002-197, is a by-law that provides for the licensing, regulating, governin , g classifying and inspecting of body-rub parlours and a certain class of adult entertainment parlours. The City has an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services hoard delegating the administration, inspection, enforcement, licensin and re ulatin of g g g adult entertainment ,parlours. The City maintains the administration, inspection, enforcement, icensing and regulating ~of body rub parlours. Under By-law 2002-197 if an applicant is refused a licenr~,, they may appeal re uirin a . .. .. q 9 hearing of a committee of Council. An existrng licen:~a:~~~~ho has their licence revoked, automatically receives a hearing. Upon conclusion ~~~~`~~iearin before the Committee a ,. g , written report shall, as soon as practical, be prese:t~ted to Council. This report is a result of seven (7}appeals heard on July 5t" at Committee Room #1, City Hall arisin out of the g revocation of adult entertainers licenses by the licensing authority from the Police Services Board. Corporate Services Department ^~wr~•w July 9, 2007 .2 Niagara Regianal Police Service CD-200.7.15 The Municipality has an excellent working relationship with the Nia ara Police Service. In .. g addition to the delegation ofAdult Entertainment Parlours, the Police have assisted B -law . Y enforcement with infractions, including unlicensed Body Rub Parlours, been an inte ral g partner in the grow-op enforcement with Fire Services, have a presence on the Ma or's Y Youth Advisory Committee and are, occasionally, asked to assist on other munici al ., p matters. S~m~larly, municipal staff tries to assist the Niagara Police Service whenever possible, especially in a matter of public safety. In late June, the Niagara Police Service brought to staff's attention concerns that the had ,. Y about a specific gang ~nf~ltrating the Region s adult entertainment Indust .The Nia ara . .. , , rY g Police Service s opinion was thatthe gang members, who had no visible means of income were likely living off the avails of adult entertainers and body rubbers and havin them . . .. 9 engage in acts of prostitution. The gang in question had been ident~f~ed as involved in two area murders, shootings and a recent police swarmin , in which threats of violence were g . made: Based on theirintelligence,the Niagara Police Servicewished to revoke a number of adult entertainers' licences and recommended the denial of the issuance~of a number of body rubbers' licences. g~cause of the opportunity for a hearing based on the denial or revocation of a licence under the City's Live Adult Businesses By-iaw, it was antici ated that there would the p. need far numerous hearing dates. The Niagara Police Service was cautioned that our Council are part-time members, which could make a multitude of hearin s difficult. . g Nonetheless, aftera meeting between the appropriate City staff and re resentativesof the . . p Niagara Police Service, ~t was agreed that staff would assist the Police Service in dealin g with what they clearly perceive to be a threat to the safety of the public and to olice . ~ p officers themselves by scheduling the first slate of hearings based on revocation of adult entertainers licences. This writer, who is the issuer of body rubber licences, reserved decision on whether to deny a number of body rub licences, that the Police Service commented should not be issued, until after the first set of a eats. pp Appeal Hearings Ten (10) hearings were scheduled before the Adult Entertainment Appeals Committee. Seven ~7) hearings.proceeded, with two (2) hearings cancelled fortechnical reasons and one hearing not occurring because the appellant had apparently left the .Region. The lawyer forth Police Services Board examined two witnesses, the issuer of licences and a memberof the Niagara Regional Police Services intelligence unit. The appellants were cross examined, if they chose to testify and were ap ro riatel sworn or affirmed. p p Y Unfortunately, none ofthe appellants were represented by Legal Counsel, a ri htthe have g Y at the hearings. Nor had any of the appellants been given .notice on the evidence to be used against them. The Police Services Board was relying upan section 19(2)~g) of By-law 2002-197 as the grounds as to why the appeals should be denied, upholding the Issuer of Licence's decision to revoke the adult entertainer's licences; July ~, 2007 - 3 - CD-2007.15 `rhe past or present conduct of the applicant or of an one or more of the ersons y p referred ~to in paragraph (b} of this subsection affords reasonable rounds for belief g that the carrying on of the business ~n respectofwhich the licence is sou ht would . g infringe the rights, or endanger the. health or safety, of one or more members of the public; . The burden of proof for such administrative hearings is "on the balance of robabilities" p and although such a burden ~s less onerous than the criminal standard of be and a y reasonable doubt, the Committee had fio be cognizant of the fact that the livelihood of the appellants was being removed by the revocation of their business licence and the denial of the appeal. Also, "guilt by association" is often difficult to rove. The evidence would P have to showthatthe appellants knew members of the identified an and on a balance ~„ g g ~~ of probab~lit~es, provided gang members with income that the a ellants earned throu h pp g their job as exotic dancers, Although the seven (7} appellants had varying degrees of credibilit some eneral Y g conclusions can be drawn from all the hearin s conducted: 9 none of the appellants had criminal records. all of the appellants had valid adult entertainers' licences, until the recent revocation, In one case, the appellant had been licensed formorethan four ears, . Y without incident. although there was no doubt that the gang in question exists, there was some question as to who were and weren't members of the an and the nature of the g g. association between possible gang members and the appellants. no evidence was presented astowhethertheidentified ~an members had criminal g g records. In only one of the hearings did an appellant identify that they knew a an ..g g member who had been arrested in connection with one of the crimes identified b Y Palace. although the Police identified incidents in which known gang members were at the municipal address of one of the appellants, there was no evidence offered as to whether the gang memberactually was present at the appellant's a artment unit. ~, p Often the incidents identified by the Police occurred at amulti-residential buildin g like an apartment or town house complex or entailed the presence of a an ,g g member vehicle in the parking lot of a multi-residential property ~n which an appellant resided, the connection between the appellants and the gang members often was mere) Y that they had come to Niagara from Nova Scotia. there was no evidence of afinancial connection between anyof the ap ellants and p any of the alleged gang members. although a Police Intelligence officer testified, most of the evidence was second- hand. although an adult entertainer's licence will allow an exotic dancerto work in adult entertainment parlours throughout the Niagara Region, there was some question as to whether the appellants were actually working in Niagara Falls upon revocation of their licence. July 9, 2007 - 4 - CD-2407.15 recommendations of the Adult Entertainment A eats Committee pp A~Ithough the Police showed evidence satisf in that there is a threat b ' Y g y the gang in question in the Region, they did not show enough evidence, an the balance of robabilitie p s, that there was a ffnanc~al connection between the a ellants and an an mem ,. pp yg g bers. In light ofthe fact that the denial of the appeals would have serious copse uence ' q s (i.e., the appellants would lase their ivelihood}, the Committee recommends to Council that t he appeals be granted and the appellants be allowed to resume their activities as licensed adult entertainers. There was insufficient evidence to show that the resum tion of t p he appellant s licences would endanger the health and safety of one ar more members of the public. Delegation of Authority In the days leading up to the appeals, one of the Council members on the A . dult Entertainment Appeals committee resigned. The former Committee member ex res p sed concerns regarding safety,especiallyin lightof the public profile of Council members and proposed that Council should not be involved in such hearings in the future. The Council member'sconcernsare understandableand reasonable. Althou hone g could argue that there is an inherent public duty in ensuring that the munici alit 's b -law is . .. p Y Y upheld and individuals are given a rightto a hearing, thefactthatthere could be re risals p cannot be underplayed. With the concerns expressed i~n mind, staff would recommend that it attem t to ne otia e . p g t with the Police Services Board to have hearings heard by their members. Current) the Y~ Police Services Board deals with licence appeals for taxi cab and tow truck drivers. It would be necessary to make some amendments to the Cit 's b -law and current . Y Y agreementw~th the Police Services Board to accomplish such a delegation. It has alread . Y been expressed by the Police Services Board s lawyers that the would Ike to see some . Y wording changes to the C~tys By-law. Recommended by: Dean lor~id'a, C~~le Approved by; E. Burden, Acting Director of Corporate Services Res ectfull submitt ~ ~I p y ed. J~f~n MacDonald, Chief Administrative officer Page 1 of 1 Dean Iorfida - RE: Deputation -Queen Street Revitalization From: "Frank IJe Luca" <fdeluca@cogeco.ca> To: <diorfida@niagarafalls.ca> Date; 7/9/2007 3:24 PM Subject; RE: Deputation -Queen Street Revitalization Attachments: Ontario Ombudsman should find answers to,doc 1/4Gn, I am really sorry for the inconvenience but I will not be able to attend tonight's meeting. I have the stomach flu and cannot seem to shake it. I would most definitely be there to speak if I was feeling better. Please send me the details on the decision that the council makes. I have attached my copy of my speech for your disposition. Thank you. From: Frank De Luca [mailto:fdeluca@cogeco.ca] Sent; Friday, July 06, 2007 3:40 PM To; 'diorfida@niagarafalls.ca' Subject: Deputation -Queen Street Revitalization Dean, Re: C~ueen Street Revitalization Thank you for the quick reply. After reviewing the Agenda for the July 9, 2007 meeting, I didn't realize that there would public deputations on this matter. I have an interes# in this matter I would like the opportunity to speak on the matter. Thank you. ale://C:1Documents and Settingsldi2021Loca1 SettingslTemplXPGrp~Vise146925318Domain.., 7/912007 My concerns are not over the revitalization program, it is something that should be done and are long overdue. My concerns are with the process. We have witnessed several large scale projects that are being subsidized by various levels of government, any casino or Niagara Parks Commission involvement is still taxpayer's money. I have heard this quote many times in this council chamber and I believe it to be very true. "There is only one taxpayer" 1) Robert Street Gateway $3 Million plus 2) People Mover /Railway Corridor $45 million plus 3) Construction improvements to Table Rock and the Incline Railway between the Casino and hotels on Portage Road for $35 million plus 4) And the big one the Fallsview Convention Centre $35 million Province $15 million from the Casino and hopefully $35 million from the Feds. 5) Please do not forget the tens of millions of dollars that we lost through poor negotiating with the OGLC In less than ten years the total for the tourism industry is a whopping $148 million dollars plus The convention centre is really the only one that I would agree would have been important. Getting back to Queen Street we are talking about a commitment of $36 million for an area that needs it badly and is in direct competition with the tourism industry. This process is my concern. As a citizen of this great city I must petition another level of government when I feel that something is wrong. When I feel that someone has stepped into an area that he or she should not be involved with. That area is tourism. There are three to four councilors who are involved in tourism, directly and indirectly. Why do I as a citizen must stick out my neck to do something about it? I challenge the provincial government at this time to get involved and make a ruling on this entire situation. If you a hotel and restaurant owner, if your wife owns a business and is a tenant of the Casino, or you are an employee of one of the hotels in the Fallsview area or you were once a contracted employee for that same hotel or your spouse works for the Niagara Parks Commission. How can any one of these people not have a conflict of interest with any of the following" People Mover, Niagara Parks Commission, Convention Centre, the Casinos and most importantly others BIAS and their community improvement plans. If you are involved in tourism you have a conflict of interest with this plan. You should have declared your conflicts a long time ago. The even bigger issue is that all four of the individuals mentioned above campaigned heavily on the issue of Queen Street spending thousands in newspaper ads alone. This is also a moral conflict of interest and since the municipal government cannot do anything about this, it is now time for the province to step in correct this situation. Thank you.