Loading...
Additions 2008/10/06ADDITIONS TO COUNCIL. MONDAY. OCTOBER 6 2008 In Camera Background on OPA 66 -OMB Decision -Council Minutes, July 10, 2006 -Council report, July 10, 2006, PD-2006-55 Council Planning PD-2008-80 AM-2008-21, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application REVISED. 5471, 5491, 5507 River Road and Vacant Land on the west Side of River Lane & on the Northwest corner of River Rd & John St. a) Correspondence from Ann Beauregard and AI Dolson b) Form letter from Various residents (1 opposed, 11 in favour). 2 have been reproduced. Hard copies will be provided on Monday. BY_Iaw NOTE re: By-law 2008-174. The first WHEREAS should read 27 metres, not 26 ISSUE DATE: Aug. 20, 2008 PL060875 Ontario PL071072 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de i'On#ario 1N THE MATTER OF subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Appellant: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Appellant: Niagara Parks Gommission Appellant: B.G. Niagara Falls Ltd., 1151676 Ontario Ltd. and Ray Prajapati In Trust. Appellant: Riverview Homes (Niagara) Limited Subject: Proposed Regional Policy Plan Amendment No. 170 Municipality: Regional Municipality of Niagara OMB Case No.: PL060875 OMB Fife No.: 0060159 1N THE MATTER OF subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended Appellant: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Appellant: Phil Fisher Appellant: Tomo Kalaba Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 66 Municipality: Gity of Niagara Falls OMB Case No.: PL060875 OMB File No.: PL071072 APPEARANCES: Parties Regional Municipality of Niagara /City of Niagara Falls 2018846 Ontario Ltd., Grand Niagara Legends Estates Inc., Nimet Karachi Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Counsel*/Agent P. DeMelo" !. Gilbertti' S. Lockwood B. Boxma` C. Young (student -at -law) Review Homes (Niagara Ltd) BG Niagara Falls Ltd, 11516176 Inc., Ray Prajapati, In Trust R. B. Miller` C, Schickedanz' - 3 - PL060875 PL07i072 Area 2 on Map 1 would be the same for their lands. The Other Appellants lands are located in close proximity to the (ands identified as Area 2 on Map 1. They submit that their lands, like the subject lands, have low tong-term potential fior agricultural production because of poor soil capability and poor drainage. Their lands have not been farmed for an extensive period of time and are predominantly surrounded by residential use. Preliminary Matters: There were two preliminary matters before the Board: First, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Hous[ng (MMAN) brought a motion seeking an order declaring that RPPA 170 and OPA 66 must conform with the Growth Plan because both amendments were adopted after the Growth Ptan came into effect and neither is subject to any transi#ion provision. Second, the MMAN requested an amendment to the Board's Procedural Order issued February 12, 2008. The Motion: The MMAN submitted that it was necessary to clarify the law that is applicable in these proceedings and to decide which of the following questions needed be answered at this hearing: aj Must RPPA 170 and OPA 66 conform to the Growth Plan? b) Do RPPA 170 and OPA 66 conform to the Growth Plan? MMAH informed the Board that expert witnesses had not prepared a (ist of agreed facts, as had been directed by the Board in its procedural order issued February 12, 2008, and the position of the Region and the City on the applicability of the Growth Plan remained unclear. The Region and City informed the Board that they did not take issue with the tact that the subject amendments were adopted after and were subject to the Growth Plan, thereby disposing of the motion. -4- Request to Amend the Procedural Order: PL060875 PL071072 Counsel for MMAH noted that the Procedural Order directed the parties 2018846 Ontario Ltd., Grand Niagara Legends Estates Inc. and, Nimet Karachi, alt of whom were represented by the same Counsel, to follow MMAH in the Order of Evidence. Counsel for MMAH requested instead, that evidence presented by those parties fallow immediately the Region's and the City's evidence, as their cases were aligned. 2018846 Ontario Ltd. et ai objected to this request arguing that they would be denied the opportunity to respond tc MMAH's case. The Board granted MMAH's request. It is usual practice for parties that are aligned in interest, to present their cases consecutively. This achieves a more efficient and streamlined hearing. There was never an opportunity for 2018846 Ontario Ltd. et al to respond to MMAH's case. The Procedural Order specified that the Region and the Gity would present evidence first and there#ore had the only right of reply. The Witnesses: The Board heard evidence from 9 qualified land-use planners: 1. Drew Semple, Senior Planner, Regional Niagara Planning and Development Department 2. Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning and Development, City of Niagara Falls 3. John Barnsley, Manager of Policy Planning, City of Niagara Falls 4, Richard Brady, retained by the parties 2108846 Ontario Ltd., Grand Niagara Legends Estates Inc: and Nimet Karachi, in suppore of the proposed amendments. 5. David Sit ,Senior Planner {MMAH} 6. Victor Doyle, Manager of Community Planning and Development for the Municipal Services Office- Central Ontario {MMAH) -5- PL060875 PL071072 7. Ron Glenn, Acting Director, Growth Planning and Analysis with the Ontario Growth Secretariat, Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, responsible for implementation of the Growth Plan (MMAH). 8. Phil Fisher, retained by the appellant Riverview homes (Niagara) Ltd. 9. Greg Hynde retained by the appellant Riverview homes (Niagara) Ltd. The Board also heard evidence from: 10.Sean Colville, Agrologist ,retained by the appellant Riverview 11.Gary Morrison, Engineer, employed by the appellant B.G Niagara Falls Ltd. and 1151676 Ontario ]nc. 12.Tamo Kalaba. Jean Grandoni and Dr. Becher appeared as participants opposed to the amendments and in particular they opposed the. re-designation of (ands from agricultural to residential use. Background and Contex#: The lands that are subject to this appeal are located in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, in the City of Niagara Falls. These lands are within the Willoughby area, which is located east of the QEW, south of the existing urban area of Niagara Falls, north of the Town of Fort Erie and West of the Niagara River. The subject lands are located east of an existing hydro right-of-way, west of the Niagara Parkway, and north of a line halfway between Miller Road and Marshall Road. In 2002 the Regional Municipality of Niagara proposed land use and conservation policies that were identified as Policy Plan Amendment 170, for the Willoughby area, which includes the subject lands. One of the factors that led to the proposed Policy Plan Amendment 170 is the development by Niagara Parks Commission north of the subject lands, of the Legends of Niagara Galf courses and the 1812 Battfefieid Heritage Park. There was also increasing pressure for non-farm use in the area as there was a decline in agricultural activity and increasingly more - 6 - PL060875 PL07i072 fragmentation because of the large number of lots that were being created by testamentary device and severances. In addition, there was a recent amendment to the Regional Plan (RPPA 113} approving an estate residential development and a similar proposal (RPPA 161 }that was then under review. The Region needed to respond to those conditions with long-#erm land-use strategies. The Willoughby land-Use Study was initiated. One of its findings was that there were opportunities for non-farm use in certain areas. Following the release of the land use study as well as the findings from the Southeast Niagara Agricultural Study prepared in January 2002, the City's and the Region's staff made recommendations for estate residential use in the subject area. The planning rationale was that residential use'in that area would be compatible with the golf course and historical heritage uses to the north, and would recognize and help to structure the existing scattered non-fiarm lot pattern. This form of development would be done primarily by plans of subdivision. Facts and Procedural History: The chronology and facts below are essentially undisputed and are seminal to the issues before the Board. In April 2002, the initial proposal for RPPA 170 was circulafed to various agencies and to the Provincial Planning Sen+ices Branch within MMAH. On July 8, 2002, MMAH responded that in addition to other policies, it had concerns with the proposed estate residential use, which did not seem to meet several of the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS}, In particular, MMAH requested justification to support re-designating "Goad General Agricultural Areas" for residential use and noted that idleness of agricultural lands is not sufficient justification. In the meantime the Region was considering a parallel proposal (RPPA 16i) for approximately 15 hectares of land within the area under consideration far RPPA 170. The proposed RPPA 161 would re-designate i5 hectares of "Good General Agricultural Area" to "Rural Area" to permit an estate residential subdivision on private water and sewer services. By correspondence dated ,July 3, 2002, the Ministry informed the Commissioner of Planning and Development for the Region that section 2.1.3 of the PPS would only - 7 - PL060875 PL071072 permit lands to be excluded from prime agricultural areas if they are for urban or rural settlement expansion, aggregate use or limited non-residential uses (subject to demonstration of need and assessment of alternative Locations). Proposed RPPA 161 did not appear #o satisfy any of those criteria. fVevertheless, the Region adopted RPPA 161 an July 18, 2002. On August 12 2002, MMAH filed an appeal against RPPA 1fi1. Between August 2002 and late 2005, the Region had other priorities and did not resume discussions on RPPA 170 until late in 2005. There were meetings with MMAH to review the changes the Region thought would address MMAH's previous concerns with the amendment as well as with RPPA 161. The planning environment had changed since the original proposal. The Greenbelt Plan had been approved in February 2005. The new PPS came into effect on March 1, 2005. 1n November 2005, a draft of the Growth Plan was released. On February 1, 2006, the Region issued a report on RPPA 170 that addressed the concerns MMAH. had outlined in the July 2002 correspondence. The Region noted that the major area of contention was the proposed estate residential area. The report outlined the rationale for the subject land to be re-designated from "Good Genera! Agricultural Area" to "Rural Area" for estate residential use. With respect to the then proposed Growth Plan the report stated the following: "... the proposed Provincial Growth Plan Places to Grow In Policy 2.2.9 (2} states that the new multiple tots (more than 3 lots) for residential development in Rural Areas are to be directed to settlement areas. In the future, if this policy is approved then there would be limits on the amount of estate development in Rural Areas." This report-was sent to MMAH for review and comments. On March 28 2006, Victor ©oyle, Manager, Community Planning and Development in MMAH responded to the report stating that MMAH's comments were based on a review of the planning report, information and discussions shared during. a meeting of March 10, 2006, and the Provincial Policy Statement 2005. The response further stated that the analysis took into account the implications of the Greenbelt Plan and the proposed Growth Plan on the Region's long-term growth management strategy. - s - PLafias7a PL071072 Mr. Doyle noted that the revised proposed Amendment addressed issues previously raised by the Ministry as well as the overall thrust of the new Provincial Policy framework put into place since the preparation of the original draft in 2002. Mr. Doyle continued: "...as a resalt we are supportive subject to two modifications which would call for further natural heritage/environmental and servicing details to be considered in a corresponding amendment to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan". On June 18, 2006, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 came into effect. On August 9, 2006, a final Recommendation Report on RPPA 170 was issued. The report noted that the Growth Plan had been approved by the Province and that ail planning decisions commenced after June 16, 2006, must conform with the provisions of the Growth Plan. The report also stated that the estate residential provisions proposed by RPPA 170 appeared to be inconsistent with the Rural Area policies in the Growth Plan. The report referred to Regulation 311/06, which provides that commencement for an Official Pian or an amendment to it is defined as the date the bylaw adopting the Plan or amendment is passed. The Report concluded that Policy Plan Amendment 170 appeared to be subject to the provisions of the Growth Plan. MMAH dommented on this final report on August 8, 200fi. David Sit, Team Leader and Senior Planner, responded to the report. Mr. Sit noted. that additional policies were to be provided to Section 6. B. 12 of the amendment prior to its adoption (Policy 6. 6:12 contains the description of the proposed residential area and the policy framework for estate residential development). Mr. Sit provided no comments on the effect of the Growfh Plan on RPPA 170 On August 17, 2006, Regional Council adopted RPPA 170. On September &, 2006 MMAH withdrew its appeal against the adoption of RPPA 161. On September 1, 2008 MMAH appealed Regional CounciPs ,decision to adopt OPA 170. -9- P~osas75 PL071072 On September 27, 2007, the Region approved OPA 66 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan. On October 22, 2007, the Ministry appealed the Region's decision to approve OPA 66. The Issues: The parties have put 8 questions to this Board 1. Are the policies in RPPA 170 and OPA 66 consistent with the provisions in the PPS? 2. Are there lands outside of the area that is the subject of RPPA 170 and OPA 66 that should be included within the lands designated as Estate Residential in RPPA 170 and OPA 66? 3. Do RPPA 170 and OPA 66 represent good planning? 4. Are there lands within the area that is the subject of RPPA 170 that should be included within the lands designated as es#ate residential in RPPA 170? 5. Should RPPA 170 and the designation of the lands within the area, which is the subject of RPPA 170 be adjudicated under the policies #hat prevailed at the time of the application? 6. To what extent did RPPA 170 flow from the statutory planning consultation process involving all parties? 7. Is the decision of the Niagara Regional Council to approve RPPA i70, which will allow estate residential development, in conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden horseshoe 2006, particularly sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.9, as required by section t4 of the Places to Grow Act 2005? 8. Is the dedision of Niagara Regional Council to approve, with modifications, City of Niagara Falls' OPA 66 which will allow estate residential development, in conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006, - 10 - PL060875 PL071072 particularly sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.9, as required by section 14 of the Places to Grow Act 2005? Analysis; There is no dispute among the parties that RPPA 170 and OPA 66 were municipally initiated amendments adopted after the date the Growth Plan came into effect and therefore are required under subsection 14 (1} of the Places to Grow Act 2Q05, to conform 4o the Growth Plan. Subsection 14 (2} further provides that the Growth Ptan is the prevailing planning document. The Board therefore, has first to determine threshold issues 7 and 8 above, before considering the other issues. Conformity with the Growth Rtan A. Pasitfon of the City and the Region The City and the Region have argued that the creation of "Rural Areas" is not prohibited by the Growth Plan, nor is "'estate residential" use so prohibited. Further, the estate residential use proposed for the subject area would be limited and would be within well defined boundaries. This would not constitute major growth within the meaning of Policy 2.2.2. i Q}, to be relegated to a settlement area. The City and the Region submit that the outstanding question is therefore simply one of quantum, that is, whether the proposal is in conformity with the Rural Areas Policy 2.2.9.3 of the Growth Plan, which provides thaf new multiple lots and units for residential development (the creation of more than three units ar lots througfz either plan of subdivision consent or plan of condominium) be directed to settlemeht areas. Planners Drew Semple, Alex Herlavitch and John Sarnsiey, on behalf of the Region and the City, concurred that there is no guidance within the Growth Ptan on why the Province elected to limit the number of lots and units for residential development in rural areas. Mr. Herlovitch and Mr. Barnsley agreed with Mr. Semple's opinion that the intent was to ensure that any impact from development outside of a settlement area could be minimized and assessed. All three planners opined that the intent of the Growth Plan is met by the more restrictive policies for residential development - i i - PL060i375 PL071072 contained in the proposed amendments. Their view was that a comprehensive development would create fewer impacts than would result from individual severances permitted by the Growth Plan. The amendments would provide a framework for residential development that would allow a more rigorous review of the process and lead to better compatibility with the rural landscape, thereby meeting the objectives of the Growth Plan irrespective of the number of lots Alternatively, the Region and the City argued that there is no restriction against a phased development, where three lots at a time would be developed within the subdivision framework that is proposed. B, Position of MMAH: Mr. Ron Glenn, who is responsible for the implementation ofi the Growth Plan, gave evidence that the Growth Plan is intended to provide specific policy direction an managing growth and development in the Greater Horseshoe Area. Those directions are contained under Policy 2.2 of the Growth Plan and ensure. that growth is accommodated and development proceeds in a manner that best utilizes existing infrastructure and results in compact, vibrant and complete communities. Detailed policies exist io direct growth and development to urban and rural settlement area, except where necessary for development related to the management or use of resources and resource-based recreational activities. MMAH submits that RPPA 170 and OPA 66 are not in conformity with these policies. There was no evidence by the Region and City that the proposed residential use is necessary for development related to any of the specified exceptions. MMAH agrees with the Region and the City that there is no absolute prohibition on residential development in rural areas. However, MMAH argued that there are specific policies that guide development in rural areas. Not only has the Province expressed in the overall direction and objectives of the Growth Plan a desire to limit residential development outside of urban and rural settlement areas, but ft also specifies that limit in Policy 2.2.9.3. -1z- PLOSOS7s PL07t072 MMAH does not accept the interpretation on Policy 2.2.9.3 offered by the planners for the City and the Region. MMAH rejects any suggestion by the Gity and the Region that a phased development of up to three lots at a time would be consistent with Policy 2.2 .9. 3. MMAH submits that this would be attempting to achieve indirectly what is directly prohibited by the Growth Plan. Nor does MMAH accept the City's and the Region's conclusion that the intent of the Growth Ptan would be met by the proposed amendments because their common goo! to reduce potential negative impacts from residential use in rural areas, would be achieved. MMAH submits that although the Growth PJan is a policy document and not intended to be rigidly interpreted, it is important to consider its overaA intent and not to ignore the specific language of the policies. The Region's and City's interpretation conflicts with the plain meaning of words used in Polley 2.2.9.3, that the creation of four or more lots be directed to settlement area. The Board's Findings The Board agrees with the submissions made by MMAH and accepts Mr. Glen's opinion on the intention and purpose of the Growth Plan fie Board finds that policy 2 .2 .9 .3 expressly Limits residential development in rural areas to three or fewer units. The language is plain and unambiguous and is consistent with the declared intent and purpose of the Growth Plan to manage and direct growth to urban-and rural settlement areas. The Board finds that any phasing scheme to develop three lots at a time would indeed be an attempt to circumvent the clear policy direction expressed by the Province. The Board #inds that the proposed amendments, RPPA 170 and OPA 66, intend development of more than three lots to proceed by way of plan of subdivision and therefore do not con#orm to the Growth Plan. The Other Lands Issues 2 and 4 are specific to (ands that are the subject to the appeals by the Other Appellants. Those lands would be subject to the policies proposed in RPPA 170 and OPA 66, which the Board finds do not conform to the Growth Plan. A decision to allow those appeals would therefore be contrary to subsection 14 {1) of the Places to -18- PL060875 PL07t072 Grow Act 2005, as there are no o#her policies except for estate residential development, proposed for that area. The Statutory Planninct Consultation Process The Region presented evidence that they consulted with MMAH and undertook significant re-drafting of the proposed amendment based on responses and discussions with MMAH, This eventuaAy led to the subject amendments, for which MMAH declared its support in March 2006. The Planners for the region and City testified that even after the Growth Plan took effect, these discussions continued. MMAH supplied its final comments on August ts' with no reference to conformity or lack thereof with the Growth Plan. The City and the Region submit that MMAH's position on this appeal raises questions on whether the pre-consultation process works, If MMAH's responses cannot be relied an, there can be no confidence in the process. MMAH expressed support for the. amendments and Gity and Region acted on that and proceeded in the belief that the requirements were all met. MMAH was not forthcoming with respect to the effect of the Growth Plan on these amendments. The City and Region submit that the provincially initiated planning process has #ailed them. MMAH responded that the Region of Niagara is exempt by Regulation 525/97 from Ministry's approval of amendments to the Official Pian. In this case the Ministry worked cooperatively with the Region and the City in an advisory role and had no decision making authority. MMAH submits that its support was for a proposal that was not then subject to the Growth Plan. Had the amendment been adopted before. the Growth Plan took effect these appeals would not have been necessary. Further the Region's Planner was aware, that the estate residential policies seemed to be inconsistent with the Growth Plan. He raised the issue in the final recommendation report dated August 9, 2006. David Sit, Senior Planner {MMAH} testified that the Region is a mature level of government on which the ultimate decision making authority rests, including the responsibility to make decisions that are in conformity with the Growth Ptan. MMAH submits that the history of the process does not change that responsibility. -14- PL060875 PL071072 The Board's FindinUs The statutory planning consultation process has been an undercurrent in these appeals. The chronology and salient facts relating to this process are outlined above. The Board has been asked to determine to what extent did RPPA 170 flaw from the statutory planning consultation process involving all parties. The Board finds that there is no need to decide #hat question. The answer would no# change or mitigate the requirement for the proposals to conform to the Growth Plan. That said, the Board is mind#ul that #rust in provincial institutions must be safe-guarded and fostered. Mr. Sit has admitted that, in hindsight, he should have corrected the assumption in tf~e final recommendation report to Council of August 9, 2006, which stated the following: "Given the history of Amendment 170 and the support previously expressed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in their recent comment it is assumed that Ministry will argue the special circumstances. related to Amendment 170 and recommend support for the estate residential component of Amendment 170". In the Board's view, MMAH was imprudent in not clarifying its position. An unclear message was conveyed by the letter commenting on the final report. MMAH recommended additional policies be added to the proposal and was silent on the assumption that the Minisfry would support RPPA 170. As stated, however, while regrettable, nothing in this case ultimately turns an this. The Otherlssues A. Are the policies in RPPA 170 and QPA 66 consistent with the provisions in the PPS? MMAH's position is that an effective and successful pre-consultation process with Provincial Staff, working with the Region and the Gity, had identified and addressed concerns relating to the Provincial Policy Statement. That process resulted in proposed amendments that were consistent with the PPS and the subsequent withdrawal of MMAH's appeal to RPPR 16f . -15- PL060875 PL071072 The Board therefore does not need #o address this issue. 8. Do RPPA 170 and OPA 66 represent good planning? Much of the planning evidence focused on whether the amendments represent goad planning. The Board agrees with the submissions by MMAH that the proposals do not represent good planning because they do nat conform to the Growth Plan. The Board's Order; Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the Board Orders as follows: 1. The Appeals as requested by the Ministry of Municipal Afifairs and Housing, are allowed. 2. The Appeals by Riverview homes (Niagara Ltd.), BG Niagara Falls Ltd., 1151676 Ontario Ltd., and Ray Prajapati In Trust, are dismissed. 3. Parts 2 and 5, except for lands that are the subject of Regional Plan Amendment No. 16i and No. 113, of Regional Plan Amendment No. 170 for the Regional Municipality of Niagara, are not approved. 4. Section 8 and the related mapping identified as Area 2 on Map 1 of Official Plan Amendment No. 66 for the City of Niagara Falls, are not approved. This is the Order of the Board. "K. J. Hussey" K. J. HUSSEY MEMBER - 8 - July 10, 2006 Council Minutes ORDERED on the motion ofAlderman Wing, seconded byAlderman Kerdo thatthe report be approved with the suggestion that the designation in the northwestern agricultural area, as "Good Grape and Good Fruit" lands be submitted to the Region for consideration. Motion Carried with Alderman Pietrangelo and Volpatti opposed. R#1fYk PD-2006-55 -Chief AdministrativeOtficer: Public Meeting, Official Plan Amendment No. 66, Proposed Amendments to the Official Plan Regarding Part of the Lands of the Former Willoughby Township The report recommends that this report be submitted to Regional Planning and Development Department as comments on Regional Policy Plan Amendment No.170;and Council adopt the amendments to the Official Plan (OPA # 66) regarding part of the lands of the former Willoughby Township (east of the QEW) and forward them to the Region for approval. The Clerk advised that a public meeting was now being convened to consider proposed amendments to the Official Plan regarding part of the lands of the Former Willoughby Township. He advised that Notice was given through newspaper publication in accordance with the Planning Act and by prepaid first class mail on June 9, 2006. The Clerk informed that anyone wishing to receive notice of the Passage of the Official Plan Amendment shall leave their name on the sign in sheets outside the Council Chambers. Background History of the Amendments The examination of the City's agricultural lands east of the OEW began with the Willoughby Land Use Study (WLS) in 2001. The WLS was a joint project between the City, Region and Niagara Parks Commission to examine land uses and prescribe a new land use regime. The Study recommended: - an Open Space designation for the Legends Golf Course and Battle of Chippawa heritage site - Estate Residential south of the Open Space area - Deferred Urban Area far an area between Ussher's Creek and Lyon's Creek - Rural Recreational for the remainder of the lands east of the QEW Draft amendments to implement this recommendation were prepared by both the City and the Reg ion however the Province expressed strong opposition to the policy direction being proposed. The Province has since made changes to the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statements that aim to ensure the preservation of agricultural lands. Based on discussions with the MMAH the City and the Region have developed revised policies. The revised policies for the City were outlined in PD-2006-30. Council adopted this report on April 3, 2006 and staff was directed to hold a Public Open House. The Public Open House was held on June 8, 2006 in conjunction with the Region's Policy Plan Amendment #170. 9 - July 10, 2006 Council Minutes Planning Analysis Official Plan Amendment No. 66 The City's revised policies propose the following: 1. Open Space Designation - Permitted uses would include public parks, golf course and recreational uses. - The policies will not usurp the Niagara Parks Commission's Authority under the Niagara Parks Act. - The redesignation of the golf course lands within the urban boundary (currently designated Residential) will remove a large area from the City's inventory for future housing development. 2. Estate Residential Designation - Development is to occur by plan of subdivision, severances may be considered for single Pots within the designation. -The minimum lot area is 1ha and minimum lot frontage is 100m. - An Environmental Impact Study is required for development near natural areas. - Development shall be on private services. -All applications must include a storm water drainage plan. -Traffic generated by development will be accommodated on municipal roads to limit impact on the Parkway. 3. Good General Agriculture This designation would replace the RurallAgricultural Deferred designation on the agricultural lands east of the QEW. The designation is hosed on the following: - the lands are considered a prime agricultural area by the Provincial Policy Statements (i.e. Class 1, 2 or 3 soils) -the soil capability, climate, agricultural potential and market location of this area closely resembles that of the abutting municipalities, all of which are designated Good General Agricultural in the Region's Policy Plan - the current Official Plan policies regarding testamentary devise lots continue to apply. 4. Special Policy Areas The Good General Agriculture designation with Special Policy Area notations are to be placed on the lands between Lyon's and Ussher's Creek, east of the QEW as well as the Sodom Road -QEW interchange. These areas are intended to be studied for future urban development. The Province has released its Growth Plan which identifies the urban area of Niagara Falls as a Gateway Economic Zone due to its proximity with the U.S. border. Expansion of the urban boundary (and Gateway Economic Zone) requires a comprehensive review at the Regional level. The Region has a initiated a Growth Management Study to detennine the supply of residential and employment lands and possible expansion areas. The special policy overlay indicates that these two areas will be assessed through the Growth Management Study. 10 - July 10, 2006 Council Minutes Regional Policy Amendment No 170 The Region's modified policies for Amendment No. 170: - would recognize the Legends Golf Course within the Rural designation -would designate an area of land south of the Legends Golf Course as Rural to allowestate residential use - introduce new policies for the Sodom Rd/QEW Interchange and the lands between Ussher's Creek and Lyon's Creek that will allow land uses consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. The areas are also to form part of the Region's Growth Management Study which will consider future long term land uses for the lands. Comments Received Most of the comments received regarding proposed amendment #66 pertain to the extent of the Estate Residential Designation. The Estate Residential boundary was selected on the basis of input received from the Province and Region. Provincial staff were reluctant to support any development of an estate nature but were persuaded by City and Regional staff because of the amount of land fragmentation currently existing in the immediate area. Conclusion The proposed land use changes and policies are the result of extensive study, public consultation and negotiation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Region. Consequently staff support the amendments proposed through RegionalAmendment No. 170. The City's policies will provide a clear and contemporary framework to manage land use consistent with upper tier documents. Limited estate residential development is provided that is to respect the area's rural character and natural features. Provision has been made for future land uses which wiVl be considered further through the Region's Growth Management Study. Together, amendments #66 & #67 and the Region's Amendment #170 update the agricultural policies which apply to Niagara Falls. The amendment completes a major component of the City's 2006 Work Program for the Planning and Development Division. Recommendation It is recommended that Planning Report PD-2006-55 be submitted to the Regional Planning and Development Department as comments on Regional Policy Plan Amendment No. 170; and Council adopt the amendments to the Official Plan (OPA #66) regarding part of the lands of the former Willoughby Township (east of the QEW) and forvvard them to the Region for approval Tomo Kalaba, 9694 Willoughby Drive, overall approves of the amendments but would like to see his property included in the proposed estate residential by moving the boundary west to Willoughby Drive and further south. -11 - July 10, 2006 Council Minutes Vic Kershall, 9677 Niagara River Parkway, is the owner of a 15 acre parcel. He is pleased to see the amendment to OPA No. 88. The only concern he has is with the minimum 2 Y acre lot size for estate residential. Barry Meyer, a real estate agent from Niagara-on-the-Lake, supports the proposal, believes h fits the trend of today's market for more estate residential. Jean Grandoni, R R # 1, Garner Road, believes this proposal is poor planning, she believes that the tax payers will end up paying for services in the long run and the policies do not help or encourage new farmers. Dr. John Bacher, 134 Church Street, St. Catharines, believes that the amendment should not permit new designations for rural estate development. He indicated that having rural estate lots here is contrary to the goal of the Niagara River Restoration Plan. He believes the growth management plan does not permit amendment 170, it should be withdrawn for further consideration. Italia Gilberti, Broderick 8 Partners, representing a number of property owners advised that she is in support of the report and commends City and Regional staff. The Director of Planning 8 Development pointed out that the properties on the Niagara parkway were not part of the study area. ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Volpatti, seconded by Alderman Diodati that the recommendations be approved with an amendmentto the Proposed Estate Residential designation moving it to the west at Willoughby Road and to the south to Marshall Road. Motion Carried with Alderman Kerrio, Pietrangelo and Wing declaring a conflict. •1,kfeR MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING MATTERS PD-2006-56 -Chief Administrative Officer-Official Pian 8 Zoning By-IawAmendment Application, AMA6/2006, 5471, 5491 and 5507 River Road 8 4399 and 4407 John Street. Applicant: O.R.E. Development Corporation, Agent: Italia Giiberti, Solicitor. Condltlons of Council's Approval of a Proposed 29-Storey Residential Development The report recommends that Council receive this report for information purposes ; and pass the by-law appearing on tonight's agenda to adopt the Official Plan amendment in order to implement Council's approval of this development and to incorporate the conditions outlined in the report. ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Volpatti, seconded by Alderman Kerrio to approve the report as recommended. Motion Carried with Alderman Wing declaring a conflict. }y,R}# PD-200658 -Chief Administrative Officer -Matters Arising from the Municipal Heritage Committee The report recommends that Council pass the amending by-law to amend the designating by-law for the Strickler/banner House at 12549 Niagara River Parkway to correct the legal description of the property; and approve a designated property grant for two-thirds of the eligible costs to restore the masonry of the east and westwall of the house at 4325 Bampfield Street as outlined in this report. ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Wing, seconded by Alderman Volpatti that the report be approved as recommended. Carded Unanimously Corporate Services Department Planning 8 Development The City of 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls ~ P.o. Box 1023 Canada Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X ~~ web site: www.niagarafa Tel.: (g05) 356-7521 Fax: (905)356-2354 E-mail: planning@niag .His Worship Mayor Ted Salci and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario 5 Ils.ca arafalis.ca Members: July 10, 2006 Re: P1)-2006-55, Official Plan Amendment No. 66 Proposed Amendments to the Official Plan Regarding Part of the Lands.of the Former Willoughby Township RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: PD-2006.55 Doug Darbyson Director 1) this report be submitted to Regional Planning and Development Department as comments on Regional Policy Plan Amendment No. 170; and 2) Council adopt the amendments to the Official Plan (OPA # 66) regazding part of the lands of the former Willoughby Township (east of the QEW) and forward them to the Region for approval. BACKGROUND: This report outlines the culmination ofwork from the Willoughby Land Use Study, numerous staff reports and meetings between City, Regional and Provincial representatives concerning a lazge azea south ofLyon's Creek and Chippawa, east of the QEW (see Schedule 1). It brings to fiuition a major component ofthe Planning and Development Work Program by introducing new Estate Residential - policies; Special Study areas forpotential growth and Good.General agricultural policies for a large area which is currently without relevant land use policies (see Schedule 2). The Willoughby Land Use Study was a joint project of the City, Region and Niagara Pazks Commission to examine land uses and prescribe a new land use regime. The Study recommended redesignation of Legends Golf Course and Battle of Chippawa heritage site as Open Space and provided for limited estate residential development adjacent to the golf course. An azea between Lyon's Creek and Usher's Czee$was identrfied fo;.future urban uses.with the balance of the: azea, _,,. _ . set astde for Rural Recreational fuses. The Regron~ and~City-}irepazed amendment docninents to _ -` implement this direction. However, Regional Plan Amendment # 170 was opposed by the Province during the circulation stage because it was not consistent with the direction the Province was moving. This effectively terminated the approach of the Region and City. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks Finance Human Resources Information Systems Legal Plsnning 8 Developmenl July 1D, 2006 -2 - PD-2006-55 The Province, taking a more centralized approach to planning in Ontario, legislated that all municipal planning documents "must be consistent with" Provincial Policy. The Province strengthened its Provincial Policy Statements (PPS) to ensure the preservation of agricultural lands and recently approved a Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe area. The City and Regional planning staffundertook a reexamination offarming activity, quality ofsoils, parcel fragmentation and "grow south" strategy in an effort to address Provincial interests. The work ofstaffwaspresentedtoCouncilonApri13,2006throughreportPD-2006-30. Council adopted the report and directed staff to hold a public open house. Public Opeu House A public open house on the draft policies was held Tuesday, May 9, 2006 at the former Willoughby Township Hall on Sodom Road and was attended by40 people. Themeetingwas held in conjunction with Niagara Regional staffhr consideration oftheir PolicyPlan Amendment No.170 and the City's proposal to revise its Good General Agriculture policies. A questionnaire was provided which was completed by some of the attendees. Comments received were generally supportive; specific comments included: • requests to include several azeas under the proposed Estate Residential designation either to permit further development or to recognize existing residential enclaves; • concerns respecting drinking water contamination, surface drainage and the condition of existing roads be addressed; • a preference that urban development (the urban azea boundary) not be extended south of Lyon's Creek; and • a request that urban development be permitted in the area of the QEW/Sodom Road interchange. These comments will be addressed within this report. Planning Analysis The lands in the Willoughby azea, east of the QEW, are currently designated RuraUAgricultural Deferred except for the portion of the Legends Golf Course that lies within the urban area which is designated Residential. The RuraUAgriculturaldesignafioriisdeferredbecausetheProvincedidnof approve the policies when the rest ofthe Official Plan came into effect in 1993. Therefore, there are no effective policies to guide land use in this part of the City. Staff has had to rely on outdated policies of the previous Crowland and Willoughby plans. Staff have drafted proposed policies that will result inup-to-date locally-drivenpolicies thatprovide cleaz direction and guidance for decision making. Simultaneously, the Region is preparing updated policies as part of Regional Policy Plan Amendment No. 170 to correspond with these changes. , , . f Schedule 2 illustrates theproposed changes in land use designationthatwould affect the Willoughby azea east of the QEW. These designations aze: - Open Space - Estate Residential - Good General Agriculture - Good General Agriculture Special Policy Area 8 July t0, 2006 - 3 • PD-2D06-55 1. Open Space As shown on Schedule 2, the Open Space designation affects the lands developed for the Legends of Niagara golf course which is under the jurisdiction of the Niagara Pazks Commission (NPC). The policies ofthe Open Space designation include public pazks, golf courses and recreational areas as permitted uses. In addition, the policies provide for uses which are ancillary to these uses and provide a level of guidance for these uses. This designation has been used for other golf courses within the City. The policies will not usurp the NPC's authority under the Niagara Parks Act. Finally, the change from the Residential designation will recognize that a large land area has been removed from the City's inventory for future housing development. 2. Estate Residential An Estate Residential designation is proposed for the lands south of the Open Space designation (see Schedule 2). The extent of the Estate Residential designation has been determined based on the following: • There is a low demand for a housing outside the urban area; • A defined area will allow for development to proceed in a planned manner; • The area identified is bounded by numerous small lots which aze already developed; • The fragmentation of surrounding lots does not allow for development to be comprehensivelyplanned; and • This area is separated from the balance ofthe azeathus removing pressures to extend development. The intent of the Estate Residential policies is to meet the needs of the community by providing for large lot non-urban housing in a defined area where development can be controlled in terms of lot area, frontage, density, road patterns and servicing. The objective is for residential development not to proceed in an ad hoc, unplanned manner but to be in keeping with the rural character of the area and to be compatible with the surrounding natural features. Highlights of the policies are: • Estate residential development is to be permitted- in the area to be designated; '. • Development is to occur by plan of snbdivisiori. Severances may be considered for ' `: lands which cannot be incorporated into a plan of subdivision provided that they comply with the policies of the Estate Residential designation; • Lot areas are to be a minimum of one hectare and lot frontages of a minimum 100 metres; - An Envi adjacent heritage; Development shall be sustainable on private services; Applicants shall provide, as part of any application, a storm water drainage plan that July 10, 2006 - 4 - pD-2006.55 illustrates the management of surface water runoff; and Traffic generatedbydevelopment is to be accommodated on municipal roads in order to limit impacts on the Niagara River Parkway. As noted above, comments have been received that certain other areas should be included under the Estate Residential designation either to recognize existing residential clusters or to permit further development. These areas are shown on Schedule 3. Staff cannot support expansion of the boundaries for a number of reasons: The majority of lands adjacent to the proposed Estate Residential area are fragmented. The extent of fragmentation precludes any future development from occurring in a comprehensive manner as contemplated by the Estate Residential policies. Uncontrolled small lot development could ultimately lead to private services not performing satisfactorily, related health concerns and pressure to extend municipal services. The boundaries of the Estate Residential lands were established through previous public input, and discussions with the Region and Ministry of Municipal Affairs representatives. The Ministry staff reluctantly accepted the Estate Residential designation only after City and Regional staff assured the Province that there is a limited need for this type of lot based on statistics which indicate 5 percent or less of the annual residential building permits are issued for dwellings located outside the Urban Area Boundary and thus, the areal extent required to meet the demand for this type of housing is relatively small. The requests shown on Schedule 3 would expand the Estate Residential designation to Willoughby Drive, Marshall Road and Reixinger Road. The likely effect would be pressures to further expand the Estate Residential area to lands across the street. It is not the intent of these policies to create an overall non-farm.residential azea and subvert the Provincial Policy Statements which prohibit residential lot creation in prime agricultural areas. 3. Good General Agriculture The remainder of the azea is to be designated Good General Agriculture (see Schedule 2). ThepoliciespertainingtotheGoodGeneralAgricultureazeexamined inreportPD-2006-54, which is also on tonight's agenda. These policies would replace the Rural/Agricultural Deferred designation for the following reasons: • These lands meet the Provincial criteria for prime agricultural lands in Ontario. The Provincial Policy Statementrequires that all prime agricultural lands, including Class 1, 2 and 3, be preserved '= • The soil capability, climate, agricultural potential and market location of the area closely resemble the qualities of the surrounding lands in Fort Erie, Port Colborne and Welland, all ofwhich are considered to be suited for agricultural activities by the Southeast Niagara Agricultural Study. • There are no contemporary Official Plan policies to deal with land use in this area July 10, 2006 - 5 - PD-2006-55 and the City must refer. to the Regional Policy Plan for direction. The proposed amendment would bring the area into the current planning program of the City, remove an outstanding deferral and place it on equal footing with the adj acent lands. The current Official Plan policies regarding testamentary devise lots would continue to apply. 4. Special Policy Areas Two areas shown on Schedule 2, between Lyon's Creek and Ussher's Creek (east of the QEW) and the lands around the QEW/Sodom Road interchange are to be designated Good General Agriculture with Special Policy Area notations in the Official Plan. Previously, the Willoughby Land Use Study had proposed the lands between Lyon's Creek and Ussher's Creek be identified as an area for future urban boundary expansion. This approach was not acceptable to the Province. Under the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, growth is to be managed. The Growth Plan recognizes that Niagaza Falls interfaces with the Gateway Economic Zone due to its proximity to the U.S. border. Economic opportunities aze recognized within urban boundaries and no expansion of these boundaries can occur without a comprehensive review. The PPS requires a comprehensive review be undertaken from a regional perspective with regazd to anticipated population and employment growth. The Region is undertaking a Growth Management Study which will determine theneed, locationand feasibilityoffuture urbanboundaryexpansionsregion-wide and will include these two areas as part of the assessment. Therefore, a Special Policy overlay will apply to these lands indicating that they are subject to the Growth Management Study. Regional Policy PIan Amendment No. 170 As stated, the WilloughbyLand Use Studywas ajoint studywhich also necessitated changes in the Regional Policy Plan. The Region prepared a draft of Policy Plan Amendment No. 170 which was circulated to the Province for input. At that-time the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing voiced strong opposition to the amendment; as a result the Amendment No 170 did not proceed to Regional Council. Since that time, Regional and City planning staffhauebeenworkingtyiththe Province to resolve the various issues. As aresult, Regional planning staffpropose a number ofmodifications to No.170 andpresented those atthe Open House and a subsequent Public Meeting. The Region is seeking input from the City before finalizing Amendment No::170. Amendment No: 170 with the modifications would: • includeanewpolicyintheRuraldesignationtorecognize the Legends Golf Course; • designate those lands south of the Urban Boundary (which would be designated Estate Residential in the Niagara Falls Official Plan) as Rural together with a new policy to address the specific location of the estate residential use, lots size and ser¢rcing and environmental issues;, introduce new policies to include the azea around the Sodom Road interchange and the lands between Lyon's Creek and Ussher's Creek as areas of study within the Region's Growth Management Study. The policies would also add specific conditions which would prohibit development which would jeopazdize efficient future urban use in the Lyon's Creek area, prohibit extension of urban water or sewers, prohibit estate residential development in the Lyon's Creek area, allow the July 10, 2006 -6- PD-2006-55 continuation or expansion of existing uses provided they do not jeopardize future orderly development, allow for certain consents of 25 acres or more and lastly, require any development comply with the environmental policies of the Region. Amendment No. 170would facilitatetheproposed changes to theNiagaza Falls Official Plan as described in this report and contained in Official Plan Amendment # 66. Therefore, the Region's draft amendment as modified can be supported. CONCLUSION: The proposed land use changes and polices as contained in OPA # 66 aze the result of extensive public consultation and negotiation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing and thorough discussion with the Region. The policies will provide a cleaz and contemporary framework to manage land use that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Region's Policy Amendment #170. Limited estate residential development is provided for within a contained, regulated area that is to respect the area's rural character and the natural heritage features. Provision is also made for the further consideration of future land uses through the Region's Growth Management Study. Moreover, Amendment # 66 will remove a significant deferral of Official Plan policy which has been outstanding for over a decade. Further, this amendment also brings to fruition a major component of the City's 2006 work program for the Planning and Development Division. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the proposed policies for the area of the fonner Willoughby Township, east of the QEW represent good planning. Prepared Manager of Policy Planning and ~.~'(7 b'~-~ Alex Herlovitch Deputy Director of Plannhrg & Development Recommended by: Doug Dazbyson Director of Planning & Development JB:gd Attach. Approved b~ u /-"°^ T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services lly//sunubmitted: Irv John MacDonald Chief Administrative Officer S:1PDR~2006~PD2006-55, OPA 66, Part of Lands of Former Willoughby Twp.wpd SCHEDULE 1 LOCATION MAP a .,Legend ;' ~ Subject Land ~~- Urban Area Boundary ~~~- International Boundary ~, Munfclpal Boundary I/ I I ,. I' Schedule 2 Location Map Proposed Designations Under the Niagara Falls Official Plan The proposed designations replace the "RuraUAgricultural" designation of the current Official Plan only and do not affect any other designations such as "Environmental Protection Area" or "Open Space". N s 1:NTS K:\GISJieques[s\2006\SChedules\Newspaper\Ag CeslgnaUOns.map Tune 2006 Schedule 3 ® Lands requested to be included under the N ESTATE RESIDENTIAL deslgnatlon Q Property Parcels Iuna 2oas s K:\GIS Reques65\2006\Schedules\NeWSpaper\hg_deslgnatlons.map 1:NTS Location Man - 7 _ PD-2006.55 July 10, 2006 APPENDIX "A" PART 2 -BODY OF THE AMENDMENT All ofthis part ofthe document entitled Part 2 - Bodyofthe Amendment, consisting ofthe following text and attached map, constitute Amendment No. 66 to the Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT The Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls is hereby amended as follows: MAP CHANGE Area # 1 shown on the map attached hereto entitled "Map 1 to Amendment No. 66" shall be redesignated from Residential and Deferred RuraUAgricultural to Open Space on Schedule "A" of the Official Plan. Area #2 shown on the map attached hereto entitled "Map 1 to Amendment No. 66" shall be redesignated from Deferred RuraUAgricultural to Estate Residential on Schedule "A" of the Official Plan. Area #3 shown on the map attached hereto entitled "Map 1 to Amendment No. 66" shall be redesignated frorn DeferredRuraVAgricultureto Good General Agricultural onSchedule "A" of the Official Plan. Area #4 shown on "Map 1 to Official Plan Amendment No. 66" shall be identified as SPECIAL POLICY AREA "8" on Schedule "A" of the Official Plan. 2. TEXT CHANGE (i) PART 2, SECTION 8 - RiJRAL/AGRICULTLIItAL, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: SECTION 8 -ESTATE RESIDENTIAL POLICIES PREAMBLE The policies of this section govern the lands designated Estate Residential on Schedule "A". The intent of these policies is to provide large lot development on private services that is planned and to control and guide limited residential development that is rural in character and is compatible with the surrounding natural features and open space in terms of lot area, density, setbacks, road patterns and servicing.. Policies 8.1 The objective is to permit Estate Residential development within the area designated on Schedule "A", and in a form that is not a typical small-lot, urban development. July 10, 2006 '$- Pp-200655 8.2 Estate residential development shall take place through site specific amendment to the Zoning By-law and by plan of subdivision. Development is encouraged to be planned on as large and comprehensive basis as possible having regard to adjacent properties in order to protect natural areas and to provide forproperlydesigned storm watermanagement facilities and internal road systems. 8.3 Developers shall make every effort to consolidate all available lands into a plan of subdivision. In rare situations, there may occur parcels of land that fall outside of lands that are within a plan of subdivision. Such lands that cannot be incorporated into a plan of subdivision may be severed through individual consents provided the lots that aze to be created are compatible with the natural environment and surrounding uses and comply with the policies of subsection 8.5. 8.4 Single detached dwellings and accessory buildings that aze customarily associated with single detached dwellings only are permitted within the Estate Residential designation. 8.5 In order to preserve the rural chazacter of the area and the natural environment, subdivisions shall be designed to be consistent with the following: 8.5.1 The minimum area for individual lots shalt be 1.0 hectare. Subdivisions should contain a range in lot sizes, with lazger lots utilized to protect woodlots, creeks and other natural aeeas and to provide a vaned streetscape. The minimum lot frontage shall be 100 metres. 8.5.2 Subdivisions shall be developed with intemal road systems so as to avoid strip development along rural roads. Generally, reverse lot frontage shall not be permitted, or where buildings are to be located along existing, non-internal roads they shall have generous setbacks and integrate with the landscape. 8.5.3 Development shall be designed to preserve and enhance wetlands, wood lots, drainage courses and floodplains. In this regazd, development and site alteration may be permitted on lands adjacent to Environmental Protection Areas and other lands of significant natural heritage where it ean be demonstrated that any adverse impact of such development can be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated. Complete planning applications shall include an Environmental- . Impact Study (EIS) prepared by a qualified person.. 8.5.4 Subdivisions shall be designed and constructed to ensure the long term health and protection of the natural environment and shall provide the required Minimum Distance Sepazation (MDS) with respect to agricultural operations within the adjacent Good General Agricultural area. Moreover, lot sizes should be increased at the peripheryofthe Estate Residential azea, and dwellings sited, suchthat July 10, 2006 - g - PD-2006.55 farming operations within the Good General Agriculture area may establish, continue or expand. Hedgerows should be used instead of fencing to delineate property boundaries, where possible, to provide natural space linkages andwildlife corridors. Placement ofbuildings and driveways shall be regulated so as not to adversely impact natural buffers. Conservation easements may be used as a means to secure long term protection of natural features. 8.6 The extensionofmunicipalwaterorsewageservicestotheEstateResidential area is neither appropriate nor contemplated by this Plan. Only development that is sustainable on private services over the long term shall be considered. 8.6.1 Individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services shall require approval from the Regional Public Health Services Departrnent. As part of an application for a plan of subdivision a report shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Regional Public Health Services Departrnent, preparedby aqualified person, that demonstrates: (a) the adequacy and safety of individual on-site water services; (b) the long-term sustainability of individual on-site sewage services; and (c) the protection of human health and the natural environment. 8.6.2 Application for estate residential development shall be accompanied by: (a) a storm water drainage plan that illustrates the management of surface water runoff; or (b) a Master Grade Control Plan, designed to the satisfaction of the Director .of Municipal Works, for any application for a plan of subdivision; and (c) a stormwater management plan that maybe required as part ofan application for subdivisionbythe Director ofMunicipal Works. 8.6.3 The design of storm water management features shall serve to protect the natural envirorunent and not negatively impact any individual on- site sewage services or individual on-site water services or adjacent lands. 8.7 Traffic impact studies may be required as part of any planning application in order to access any impacts on the surrounding road network: 8.8 Home occupatioris, including bed and breakfast facilities, shall be permitted by site specific Zoning By-law amendment as ancillary uses to a residence where it can be demonstrated that they are compatible with and retain the rural chazacter of the Estate Residential area. To ensure compatibility the ancillary uses shall remain designated and zoned Estate Residential and be in compliance with other policies ofthis Official Plan. The ancillary uses shall July 10, 2006 -10 - PD-2006.55 not have associated outside storage of materials or hinder the surrounding residential uses in terms of noxious odours, noise or traffic and shall provide adequate on-site parking as outlined in the City's Zoning By-law. The severance of an ancillary use is not permitted. In addition to the above: (a) A home occupafion or a bed and breakfast facility shall be carried on within the residence and remain ancillaryto the residential use ofthe property. (b) Bed and breakfast facilities shall be operated by a permanent resident of the dwelling and shall have a maximum of 6 guest rooms. The facilities shall be carefully regulated through a zoning by-law amendment as to their location, size and traffic generation in order to minimize potential disturbances to adjacent properties and to ensure that the private sewage disposal system can accommodate the increased sewage loading. ii) PART 2, SECTION 14 -SPECIAL POLICY AREAS, Special Policy Area "8" is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following text: 14.8 SPECIAL POLICY AREA "8" Special Policy Area 8 applies to the lands south of the Urban Area Boundary to Usher's Creek and east of the QEW and to the lands surrounding the Sodom Road/QEW interchange. These lands are to be studied as part ofRegional Niagaza's Growth Management Study to determine if they are appropriate in the long range for urban development. Notwithstanding, the lands at the Sodom Road/QEW interchange, in the vicinity of the existing airstrip, will continue to be considered for the manufacturing of components as well as technological and reseazch facilities related to the aerospace industry. Additional uses related to and complementaryto aerospace industries shall be permitted as ancillary uses. Development shall be subject to an Official Plan amendment phased through amendments to the Zoning By-law and commensurate with approval of appropriate sewage disposal systems and potable water supplies. iii) PART 4, SECTION 8.3 -CONSENT POLICIES FOR RURAL/AGRICULTURAL AREAS is hereby deleted in its entirety. MAP 1 TO AMENDMENT NO. 66 SCHEDULE - A - TO THE OFFICIAL, PLAN Proposed Changes: Area Affected by this Amendment Area t -Residential and AuraUAgricultural to Open Space Area 2 - RurnVAgricultural to Estate Residential rna P~oPP]Pa denvaanw~s ~=Plow ma'auraVAgrimkurar and xammnar Area 3 - RuraVAgricultural to Good General Agricultural aesisrevPn or mecvrent omciai Piaa rnM a~a ao rucarc«z eay other oesgeacansmmm•mmm~n:aui gohCign AM2• Area 4 -ADD SPECIAL POLICY AREA #S w'Open Span' w Spedal Pdicy Meas. ~ ' , . ` ~~ \y /y~ ~ ~ ~' j .~~- ~~ F ,~. ~ `F ~ ~ ~...A~/ 4 ~ S .~~;~~ ~ _.~ .. .J., .. ~Y x'~y~ ~~ ~;<' AREA=1*,. ~~~~ P~~a`.t_~~h _ t. _ . ~ `.;,e~ µD "~~z. !~?: ;°:ti X15., n, ,~~ 3 _._.____ • .qO~c' „wif ~ WI TICK RD~AgT _. ____.. __ ;. i tip. -~ f1EDSINGER RD " • . WEAV.E0. RD AREA 2 : ~ ~ ~ l' ' .. ,.. N RO ~ ~ l i l MI L aRD I 8 y1 . 1 . ~ i SSERT'R~ AREA. ~~~ AREA 4 ;;.~ ~,., x R O ~ .Y' CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS U1''1+'1(j1AL rLaty EXCERPT FROM SCHEDULE - A -FUTURE LAND USE PLAN Official Plan ~'~,", ENVIRONMEMAL PROTECTION AREA EXTRACINE INDUSTRIAL ~~~~~` GOOD GENERAL AGRICULTURE. f~l INDUSIRTP.L ® MA70R COMMERCIAL ~~~` MINOR COMMERCIAL :; NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLAN AREA OPEN SPACE PARKWAY RESIDENI7AL ~. '~RESIDENTIAL~- -. RESORT COMMERCIAL RURAL/AGRICULTURAL ~~ ~ :THEME PARK MARINELAND TOURIST COMMERCIAL I:1VT5 AM-12/2006 NOTE: This schedule forma pan of Amendm<M No. 66 to the Official Plan for the City of Niagen Fille arM it must be reed in cogjunction with the written text. June 2006 ._ Crop gspenNfd&4eaeaWnbt AmeMmannW(}uLa].nvP Nia~~ ra Par ~~~ M age,vyd'We Cortmmm,of On,dud,we lRa4 cif F . 7t;~~1 Engineering Dave GIIIis Phone: 9061358.2241', ext. 280 Fax: 9051358.7282 E-Mail: npcengQniegaraparks.com t~enNn9 FMe: ~~ June 14, 2008 Mr. John Barnsley Planner 2 City Hall 4310 Queen Street Box 4310 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Dear Sir: RE: OPEN SPACE POLICY yYILLOUGHBY TOWNSHIP • LEGENDS In response to your a-mail The Niagara Parks Commission submits this recommendation. Changes noted in bold and underlined. Open Space 13.8 The lands located south of Chippewa and west of the Niagara River Parkway to the Canadian Niagara Power transmission corridor are under ownership of the Niagara Parks Commission and contain the Legends of the Niagara golf course and Battle of Chippewa interpretive centre. This Plan recognizes and respects the jurisdiction of The Niagara Parks Commission which is allowed uses under the Niagara Parks Act or for Commission uuraoses. Yours truly, ~`~.~. ,.. Dave Gillis, MCIP, RPP /cr RECEIVED Manager-Planning&Properties JUN,19 2006 GARA PARKS CQMT'IISSION John Kern Jim W1llfams General Mar Chairman P.O. Box 150, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada L2E 6T2 w~vw.niagarapazks.com Assocaa'rEp Corrs[nxnv~ Gxov.1>° iA llivlslon{o~f 819890 Uaterio Ltd.) FIAI7NQ~Q hNA 1/tlV~tC)PMENT CANSVLTitNTa i`ity t~f Niagara Fntit ;? 1 t! Crueea Strett Niagara Fells, t)e,tar[a t.2Fr 6M5 'ait2~ninn: Mr. D,1?azby9on ~Diirx7ar aP,planaiug aad Devrlcpmctli Ju»c 34th, 2005 ~, Planning acrtnnrd cow n pro N'ax No: (9{1S) 356-2354 Re: Auposed AotendmentNa d6 To Tire City of Niagara Falls Official Flan Willoughby Larai Use Polides 1 wish to bo notified of Are adoption of the proposed amendment and seQiust that my comments be '~'tasirtcmol prior m the adoytion of the AlikDdmatrL i `• `lI'he amenduusu would impletnent guidelines for the Wil7oughhy Land Use Study area, which was ia~suiously undcrtalcen in 2dt?l1 and recently eotttplet~l, MYclltlfrrients were also prevlattslp p~ nvldod on May 2Dth, 2006 for the Region of Niagara public Meeting t'o[ policy Pisn {irocndmeat No. 178. ~ Conardcratlon uncle; thin proposed plan amendment should provide far the neagglNan end iaaluaian. of exeslylg residential 'cluairts' altsslg; 1} The east side of Wi~lqughby IJdve from W311ick Aaed to Marshall Road, 2) The nasth side of Mat'sball Road between Willoughby Drive! Niagara River Parkway. These'clustets' should be designated aS ailher'l?state Re9tdential' andlor 'Aura]'. 'l'hc area is not justifiable as good general agdcultrtral Land. Ttte9o clnat¢rs' could then pcmtrt quatified'irtfilling' which will be limned t0 mmaining vacant aroas ut tha'olu5ters'• Back grouadrepoxts prepared ly the Kegion of Niagara and the City of Niagara 1=x119, provide atali9tical and land use data that would auppprt tha inclusirnn of the 'clusters'. 'lhe 'clusters are non-intrusive to an agricultural area, 7utd would not havo 4t1Y ttdvetao tmpact on agriculture. Jt1N 2 120U6 31 1ltere is merit iwr an al[ttnauve ~vnstderalion to the form and contettt of propra6Gd Asneadttu»t Itio. 6S. "Lhe pxeperation of a comp[ahanaive secandaty Platt covwing tha ~1 Wtiioughby sandy tuna should de inc2udcd 1n the pracass. Tne plan amendment should outlipe all areas gwdified for tedesigaadon $otn Good Gsataral A,gricuttuta! Land tp Rural, which ntenot juahfiabie for adndnuaneG as flood General Agricultttra! Land. These comments can also he road m con,jwtcttvn widf my previoua letter grovided to you ptt gpri! 28,1(X73 for' the initial public meeting held for the 1Vi11vughhy Land use study. Ycuss m>ly. Plti1 Piaher, Pwsldent & Seniar Develbpnunt Planner cep Aar. G Cam6rdy Conp~3saionc+of Plnnving -Region of Ntagaza - - - - ~ - - - - - Fax (965)641-5ZU8 -0Z81 itltteheLl Avenue, Aiagura Falls, Ontario I.3H bA4 Tel. 405-356-3014 Ccll: 905 933.3828 Fax:403-374.8506 k',tttailf pbfasaociatcsl~yahou.ca October 1, 2008 Mr. Andrew Bryce Planner 2, Planning & Development 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Dear Mr. Bryce, We would like to register our objection to the project proposed for the redevelopment site on River Road between Philip and John Streeets. Our major concern is the setback from River Road. We feel that if the developer is asking for a change to residential zoning that residential setbacks should not be so totally compromised. We were originally led to believe that these setbacks were to be adjusted. However we later became aware that our information was incorrect and the setbacks that were adjusted were from River Lane, not River Road. This is why we have had to rethink our unconditional support for the project. We look forward to the meeting on October 6, 2008. Best regards, Ann Beauregard and Al Dolson 5435 River Road, Niagara Falls. cc: Italia M. Gilberti, Broderick & Partners -niter' CI e~ k '~-- Mr. Alex Herlovitch Director of Planning & Development City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street PO Box 1023 Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Dear Sir: Re:Applicatfi~on AM1 -2008-021 JY/1, H4•Jf gli(.i ~ifiC71~41iC~ v~iCBd Niagara Falls Pointe Limited Partnership We have reviewed the applicant's proposal for a seven storey, 119 unit residential condominium apartment building, and are i s a-~~ o ~' y' L Y ~ Boa s ~,~ I Sincerely, Name: f ;2A~9L /7~~lye/~ ~U 1 S Address: SL 7/`~ ~ /~c-ti"~'/d'r'i / ~ 1 J2 N / g ~A2~ >~r~LC-.y ~~~- Date: ~ L9P~ oZ ~' ~~. / l7DJ.? /T /~/'/~L/`~l/D ti' kAJpt2~ C<J/~C> ~~ ~.9~'~'~D / ~~ ~~ f OGT 4 3cG PLANNIN(a ZClll V1C{ C-~ ewKs Mr. Alex Herlovitch Director of Planning & Development City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street PO Box 1023 Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Dear Sir: Re: Application AM-2008-021 5471, 5491 and 5507 River Road Niagara Falls Pointe Limited Partnership We have reviewed the applicant's proposal for a seven storey, 119 unit residential condominium apartment building, and are in support of the proposed plans. J Sincere) ~' ' 1 c Name: i5 Ceti 5'l u/~ i i~/~i ~~~ S Address: ~~~:~; ~Jf"lG~N ~~~ ~~- Date: ~llf? ~~ C~ k RECEIVED ocr o s Zoos PLANNING