Additions 2008/11/17 ADDITIONS TO COUNCIL MONDAY NOVEMBER 17 2008
CORPORATE SERVICES
1. Regarding CPS-2008-04, Water & Sewer Rate Structure Update, to have some
order to the meeting, staff requested that any of the individuals or groups that provided
feedback that wanted to speak to register beforehand. The following have requested
will be given an opportunity to speak after staff's introductory presentation:
~ Jim Bruzzese, BMA Management Consulting on behalf of the Chamber of
Commerce
~ Italia Gilberti on behalf of the Fallsview BIA
~ Ed Bielawski
2. 2009 Funding Requests
Please note the request from the Downtown B.I.A. for 2009 Events. The
correspondence was received too late for listing but was appended to the end of
the Corporate Services agenda.
Copy of Niagara Falls Tourism Powerpoint presentation.
COUNCIL
Planning Matters
1. Re: PD-2008-101, 4955 Clifton Hill, Game Machine Establishment etc.
Correspondence from Rocky Vacca, Sullivan Mahoney
2. Re: PD-2008-102, 8504 McGarry Drive, Recognition of Second Dwelling Unit and
Deck and Porch Additions
Correspondence from Edward & Patricia Umbriaco, Joseph & Natalie Piergentili
Correspondence and petition sent by Robert Dunn
Correspondence from Greg and Carla Porter
Correspondence from James Leitch
3. Re: PD-2008-105, Warren Woods Draft Plan of Subdivision
Correspondence from Jeffrey Wilker, Thomson Rogers
Correspondence from Jean Grandoni
4. Re; PD-2008-106, 4218 Portage Road, Draft Plan of Condominium Conversion
Correspondences from Carla Rienzo
Dorothy Donelda Warren
Barb McMahon
M. McRae
Scott Leslie
2
B -laws
2008-200 A by-lawto authorize the execution of consulting services agreement respecting
the development, implementation and management of the People Mover
System.
-AND-
Deferral request
(11/14/2008)~Dean lorfida AM 2008 025 PD 2008 101 re Application~by 1720679 Ontano Limited (Carmen MenechelPa~ge 1
From: "Rocky Vacca" <rvacca@sullivan-mahoney.com>
To: <diortida@niagarafalls.ca>
Date: 11/13/2008 5:20 PM
Subject: AM-2008-025 ; PD-2008-101 ; re: Application by 1720679 Ontario Limited (Carmen
Menechella)
Attachments: HOCO.CIerk.Mayor.let.pdf
CC: <hoakes@cliftonhill.com>, <cburland@falis.com>, <gil6erti@broderickpartn...
Dean,
As you are aware we have been retained by HOCO Limited (Oakes Family) and by various corporations
owned by the Burland Family. Attached below please find our written comments on the above-referenced
application which we would ask that you circulate to the Mayor and all members of Council at your earliest
opportunity. We will be in attendance at the public meeting to give oral submissions on this application.
Thankyou.
Regards,
«HOCO. Clerk. Mayor.let. pdf»
Rocco(Rocky)Vacca
Partner
Sullivan Mahoney LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
4781 Portage Road
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 661
(905)357-0500
(905) 357-0501(facsimile)
This communication is intended only for the named recipient(s) and is private, confdential or privileged.
Any unawthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you received this
communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, by telephone at
905-357-0500 or by contacting lawyers@sullivan-mahoney.com and immediately deleting the
communication from any computer. Thank you.
~
>
>
>
(1
111 412 0 0 8) Dean lorfida -~~{OCO Clerk.Mayor let p~'-'
~ ~ Page 1'
- ~
~ ~ ~
~ Please renlv to the Niaeara Fa!!s Office
November 13, 2008
via electronic mai]
City of Niagara Falls - .
Cify Hall
4310 Quaen Street .
NIAGARA FALLS, ON
Attention: Dean Iorfida, Clerk
Akention: Mayor Salci and Members of Council
Deaz Sirs/Mesdames:
Re: Our Clients: HOCO Limited (Oakea Family);
Beefeater (Ningawa) Limited, C.L Burland Properties Liroited, Niagarx
CliTton Motor Inn Limited (Burland Family)~
Re: PD-2008-101 re: AM-2008-025, Zoning By-law Amendment Application
4955 Clifton Hill;
Applicant: 1720679 Ontario Limited (Carmen Menechella)
We act as solicitors for the ebove nazned cmporakons. As you aze aware, collectively our clients own
and operate the vast majority of the properties and businesses on Clifton Hill and, as such, have an
interest in this application.
Although this letter shqll serve as our clients' formal comments on the application, we have been
instructed to appear at the Public Meeting to make submissions to Council.
First end foremost, our clients aze generally in support of the redevelopment of ihe subject properry by
the Applicent. It is our clients' collective opinion tk~at the redevelopment of the subject property is a
very posirive improvement to the azea which is long overdue. In addiUon, our clients support the.
proposed uses on the basis of compatibilily with existing uses in the area which hopefiilly wi(I only
serve to attxact tourists to the Clifton Hill azea for en extended period of time.
The relief being sought in the wning by-taw amendment application is three-fold. Our comments on
the three aspects of the application ue as follows:
40 Qp~~ gtreH~ P.O. Hex 116a 8f. G Wtlneq Onrorla L2R 6Z3 Tdepry~~; 905-686~fi655~ F~a1Mlc 9p5-fi88~5811
4981 Portvpe Road, Nbgu~ F.Iie, pnv~io L3E 6H1 Tdep}~one:9p5J5]-0500, Faolmlte:905-35].p501
.~,dw.~-m,mn ,
VP.Mwuorl,Q.C, P.H,ecdud T,A.Rtctvdoon P,M.Aha6en Po~ W,H.:detidg J.DeIW ?.A.Gaelln
).M.Gottll R.B.GLWtw ].RHwL PA,M~hoary HAM~edovld M.).Bonoml GW.Mo(knv
B.J,PcuW C.D'Angda RV~w T.W~II X.A.Baok H.I.T~wp B.Maciq
M~.~M~ NS..Pedvw L.X.PUaon C].Blnie P.H.Laxm~c~ t.P.Meloney 6.&We14
OfCewud(Comm~e~lLw): M.?.Itrpuek
i(~lalzoos) Dean lortida Hoco clerk Mayor let~paf~ ~ pg
Page 2 ~
Addition of Uses (Pinball. Billard Hall. etcJ
Our clients have no objection to the addition of these uses under the subject properry's Tourist
Commercial (TC) zoning.
Reduction in Number and Size of Loadine Snaces
Our clients have no objection to the reduction in the number of required loading spaces and the size of
the same.
Elimination of Reauired Parkine
It is our understanding ttiat the Applicant Las commissioned a pazking study by Delcan (tt~e "Delcan
Stud}~~ in support of this request. In addition, it is our understanding that the Applicazrt is seeldng a
credit fox forty-one(41) pazking spaces through legal non-confomung uses. This credit of 41 spaces is
then being applied to the amount of parking spaces tUat would be needed as detemilned by the Delcan
Study resulting in no pazking spaces being required for this development.
W e have reviewed the Delcan Study which was completed using a methodology outlined by the City,
~ which study has been accepted by the City's Txaffic Depar[ment. The proxy site atudied by Delcan
was in fact the exisdng arcade, a racflon, fast food restaurant and.ait down restaurant uses of
our client, HOCO Limited. Delcan conciuded that the existing parkiug requu~ements for these uses
by HOCO Limited under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Sy-law was eactremely excessive based on
its observations of ottr client's uses on Saturday, September 1, 2D07 (Labour Day long weekend). The -
end xesult was that the Delcan Study suppor[ed the following percentage xeduction in parking
xequirements for the four(4) subject uses:
TYPE OF USE : CURRENT PROPOSED PERCENTAGE
PARHING PARIQNG REDUCTION:
RE UIREMENT: RE UIREMENTS:
Ath~actions 1 SD s uare meters 1 er 200 s uare meters 75%
Arcade 1 ex 40 uaze metas 1 t 400 s uare meters 90%
Fast Food Resta~ttant 1 er eve 5 seats 1 ev 25 seats 80°'0
Sit Down Restaurant 1 er eve 5 seats 1 er eva 20 seats 75°~0
Although, at fust glance, the proposed reduction in the parking requn~ements for these uses is
e~ctremely high, our clients have always been of the opinion that the current parking requirements for
Clifton Hill were e~h'emely exaggerated given the pedestrian oriented nature of the area. In other
words, out clienis do not, in principle, disagree with the findings and recommendations set out in the
Delcan Study.
Howevex, if Council does approve the proposed reducfion in pazking demand for the subject property
it will result in a~ross inequalitv on the issue of parking requiYements as between the subject property
end our clienu' properties.
Appendix "A" attached summarizes the pazking celief wMch would be granted to the subject property
if this application is appxoved; relief which would otherwise not apply to our clients' properties or for
that matter, in all faimess, to atl Clifton Hill properties. Appendix "A" illustrates that if the current
parking requirements (thase which have applied to our clients and continue to apply to our clients)
(11/14/2008) Dean lorfida HOCO Clerk Ma'yor let pdf~ "
_ ~~Page~3~1
Page 3
were imposed on the subject ptnperty, then a total of one-hundred and one(101) pazking spaces would I
be required. After applying the credit of fortyone(41) parking spaces being proposed by staff there
would be a deficiency of sixty(60) parking spaces. Based on the findings of the Delcan Study a
reduction from one•hundred & one(101) parking spaces to twenTy-one(21) parking spaces is being
recommended which, after application of the parking space credits, would result in no pazking spaces
being required for the subject property.
It is noted that Yhe staf'f report states that elghty-eight(88) pazking spaces are required by current
standazds. We believe this is iuwrrect and would suggest that the correct amount is one-hundred and
one(101) paz~king spaces. Perhaps staff has applied a credit of thuteen(13) pazking spaces for the off-
site parking which, howevex, is not formally included in stafPs recommendation to Council.
Our clients wish to make it clear that it does not o6ject to the parking rellef being sought by this
Applicant so long as Council directs staff to undeMake a parking demand atudy for Clifton Hill
using the same methodology used by Delcan as outlined by the City. We would auggest that the
e~sting Delcan Study be employed for said purpose. Our clients are coufident that this woutd
result in a recommendatian that the same or similar reduction in parking demand be applied to
all Clffton Hill properties for areades, attractiona, sit down restaurants and fast food
restaurants. Alsq eolely on the grounds of fairness and eaualitv our clients are requesting that
this concept of credits for parking spaces through legal non-conforming uses be made availa6le
to all Clifton Hill properties as it is being made available for the Appllcant. The
recommendations listed at the end of this letter are those which our clieuts are requeating
Council include in its mofion to approve thia application.
Recommendation
We reiterate that our clients do not object to the approval of tlus applicalion on the condiflon that the
following recommendations be included in Council's motion:
• that the Planniug Depar[ment and Transportation Services Depar[ment undertake a pazking
demand study for Clifton Hill for arcades, amections, fast food restaurants and sit down restaurants
using the same methodology used in the Delcan Study and report 6ack to Council witltin
ninety(90) days with recommendations for a reduction in pazking requirements For Clifton Hill;
and
• that the Pltwning Department develop a policy for consideration of Council to amend Patt 4 of the
Official Plan to altow for credits for parking spaces through legal non-conforming usea for Clifton
Hill and report back to Council within ninety(90) days.
We thank you in advance for your time and considerafion.
Yours very tnilY,
SULLIV MAHONEY LLP
Per:
cco Vacca
RV:rhh
~(~1I14/2008) Dean lorfida HOCO Clerk Mayor let pdf~ ~ ~ ~ ~Pa e 4~
_9_
_ . _
Page 4
APPENDIX "A"
Pilgrim Motor Inn Site, (4955 Clifton Hilll
TYPE OF USE : CURRENT PROPOSED PERCENTAGE
PARKING PARI{ING REDUCTION:
RE i7IREMENT: RE UIREMENTS:
Attractions 8,2 _ 2A ~$^/a
Arcade 26.9 2.7 90%
FastFoodRestaurant N/A N/A N/A
Sit Down Restaurant 66 16,5 75%
Totals 101 21 79%
, , ~ PI2nMng
Seanned
~ - flle ~ ' ' ~
j~: .
T(~ WI-IOM IT MAY CC}NCERN
3~Izagara F~ills Citq Cow~cil, Mayor Salci , Niagura F'alls Planning Dept.
kYe ~e fhe property owners of the dwelling at &970 Parksicie Road . W~ purchased
thi~ lio~ne in this subdivision knowi,ng that the Zoning Hy-~aw far this area was Singlc I'ami]y
Aesidential. We strox~ly oppose the Zoning Sy-law amendment for $504 ~1cGarry Drive.
T'here have been signifieant changes to the dwelling ut 8504 McGairy briue without the
approval of the City Plancier. We aze upset thaY such extensive changes have occurred withc~ut
proper agpr~val and without any regard for t}ze eoncerns of the neig3ibors.
Our underst~ad'rng is tha~ the $y-law statas ttrat the groparly renovatinn,s neetl to be
ap~~crved by City Hall wifh input af the resid~ats in fhis srea.
If the $y-law is aitered ~nd tt~e ehara~es are atiowed ta ramain t~en tliere is rea3ly no naed
for a City Pluix~ing Departrnent. Home owners will ba able to make ch~nges at any Cuna within any
subdivision or residentiai area within t3~e city.
. Our horne is our big~est investment and the appearance of fhe area in which it is
situated is very important in retaining the value ofour home.
Please take into considt~ratis~n our concerns as well as the c~ncerns of the other residenzs
in tlus area and rej~ct the requesi to aznend Tlais By-1aw.
Sincerely
Iiomeowners Address Phone #
F,dwerd Umbriaco 6970 Pazkside Road , Niagaza F'alls (90S)-358~5102
~t'~,crrut.c~ ~,~~rt,~'J2tCrcc> .
cia Umbriaco same as abova
q ~P i~~~e as above
Na ie Piergenrili same as above
""''l `-t~~R?..~~~,tti
~E~~~~/~~
NOV 14 ZD~B
Pl,AF9NING
D~VEL,QPfNENT
7.1/15/2068 14:14 9053822217 ICC PAGE 62
~ pianninp
^~+~+enned
Flle:
7o AlI Niagara Falls CounCillors, Mayor Salci and tha Niagara Falls ~ i~kS
Ptanning Department
We, the PROPERTY TAXPAYERS of G.A.RNB~t. ES~'i#TES strongly ~
oppose the zoning bylaw ar~tendment for 8504 McGfa~y Urive, Niagaza
Falls, File AM-20~8-028- Ralaecla Sardar Roll # 2725-100-006-20016.
1.We bought our homes in this area atiracted to and with the fu~]
understandi[zg tb;at it is ZON~D ItESIDBNTIAL SINGLE FAMI~.X IE
Density (R1E-468) which DO~S NOT pextnit a 2°d DWELLING UM'I', (i.e.
Duplex! )
2.We, her neighbours did view the sigtaificant changes in Ms. Saxdars home
and noticeably w~t1i very little regard to us. It was then brought to our
attentaon that Ms. Sardar wez?t ah~ad and made these additions to her house
and yard without any pezmits, Niagara Fal~s building codes, policies or
associated approvals!(these additions are outtined in the planning
departments ~xles)
3.Once Ms. Sardar vvas made aware of this.. , instead of acknowledging ,
and amending the ~rrom she has decided to try and amend the bylaw to
benefit hex financial gain and disregazd ours.
4. We are all aware that ahanging the amendment to benefit her situation
will decrease the equity in our valuable homes aud neighbotu~hpod, as v~,e([
as set a disturbing precedence to the development of all t~eighbourhoods in
Niagara Falis, Adcfressing this fact, that if you go ahead and build it without
fotlowing Niagara falls bylaws and building regulat;lons, the~.e witl be litt~e
co~sequence. (EXCEPT to the fellow taxpayers i,n said neighboUrhood i,e.
as in this case)
Plaase undexstat~d and address our very real cox~cerns regarding the
proposed changes and SAY NO to amending the zot~ing bylaws brought
forth by our neighbour Ms. Raheela Sardar.
SincereJy The
Ho~~aeownexs Address
Phone #
~~f /~Uti~ i~Yyv' ~i ~~y 9~ l s~ 3s
i~~~E~~~~7 ~
NO ~ i 7 E~u~ ~
r~4aNn~ir~U
& nE~r~i..o~Fn~rv~ ~
ll/15/2068 14:14 9053822217 IQC PAGE 03
Homeowners Addre~s Phone #
~ <<
as-ss ~9.~9
~ ~ 9~S 3s ~.~3~
~i~ ~ r~~~ ~~r~/ ~ ~As_
~s<-~-9,~-j
u
"dK i~v ~j A s~ 4 ~3
~ ~
/~P L~cA 7rZ ~ l~c.~`o~ ~~f
A .S 5-i2A 3 S~'~ 8 cf ,y i-t ~~C_ ~y`"~~ - 3~. j'Fi~ 7
~ ~v~s~ay s ~s~t~`~ t1 c Dr S c~~ ~s 5- ot~cr
~l le I~„-~ ~a-~ ~a.-ksr~ e Rd , 5os- 3 7 I- I~~~
~~i ~`'(C~~.~. ~a5~ P~~CSid~e c/r~S"~3S(~-k6a-j
~~~e~ ~ G 5 6? 1~a~vl r 7~cv
~ ~ ~~s ~c
~ ~
69'lz ~,~,,.x~-,dd a. qdA -6z~~yi~/ .
~~ic~.,~_.~~`~i,,.~~,a,~~ 69'l~0 ~rLC ,J ~ q~5g_Sim~
6CC~1~-el ~s.eo 69 t~ ~,o.¢~S'ro~ ,~i~ . 9oa' 3S8 -57vz~
~a.a I~ c,r~, , 6~ 7~ ~
r~ ~ZO 9m s ~
~ 3s'7 /J~
r~~ ~ oS~S~7 /S"6~
~a ~ " ~~rC r~~ ~er ~Sd - ~3~3
f~ ~ ~~rs r~~ti /~2 3~6 - ~z7~L
i~
l m- ' ~N ~
V / Y
. . . r A~ ~
~----__ti ~
~ ~ Planning
c~nnM~f
Flle. G.b
CI ~r kS
Greg and Carla Porter
7118 Bryanne Court ~ ~
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2H 3L4
knortaria)becou or~
905-358-6R82
November 14, 2008
Director of Planning and Development
City Hall
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Re: Proposed Change - 8504 McGarry Drive (Roll #2725-100-066-20016)
We ~'e opposed to che City of Niagara Falls allowing for change in the Zoning Sy-I,aw
regarding the above mentioned address. We buill in this area ofNiagara Falls knowing that
multi-family residents were not allowed. If you change the Zoning By_Law for this one residence
then you will be forced to change it for others in the neighbourhood.
We do not have an issue with the added exterior stairwell and entry way. I fowever the
deck addition is over powerin~; and not fair to the residence behind it on Parkside Drive. We f'cef
that this deck reduces the property value of the home on Parkside Drive.
It is our £eeling that the City of Niagara Falls denies the application to amend the Zoninb
By-Law and request that the owner of this property reduce the size of deck to an appropriate size.
You are welcome to contact us for further comment if necessary,
Yours truly
~
Greg and Carla Porter
RE~E~1~~[~ f
NQ1~ 1 ~ 2u~'c ~
Pt.AN~I1NLa ~
& ["JEV#~LQPpq€=~~".' ~
11/17/2008 12:12 FAX 9057~49952 PARRS & RECREATION ~ 002
r _ --'"1
~ Planninq ~
7S~c~e~n~ne~~d~~~ ~
Flle; ~(..~1.yLY]l,~~~
~,l ~,~-S
James Leitch, GISP, A.Sc.T.
7178 Parkside Road
Niagara Fa11s, Ontario L2H 3L6
Novemb~r 17, 2008.
Director of Planning and Development
City Hall
4310 Queen 5treet
Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5
RE: Zoning By-law Amendment Application
Citv File: AM•2008•028 - Raheela Sardar
To Whom It May Concem:
Please accept this letter as my formal written opposition to the Froposed zoning by-law
amendment AM-2008-028 affecting 8504 McGarry Drive in Niagare Falls, Ontaria.
As a homeowner and resident close to the subject property, I oF pose the proposed
change to the zoning by-law for the following reasons:
1. Traffic and Parking:
The Planning Recommendation Report PD•2008-102 st~des that the driveway oi
the subject property wilf need to be widened from 4.5 me,tres to 5.5 metres in
order to provide a seco~d parking space for the second ~iwelling unit, in
accordance with the zoning by-law.
As a resident in the area I pick up my mail every day at the community mail box
which is immediately adjacent to the subject property on Parkside Road. I have
frequently seen e vehicle parked on Parkside Road within what appears to be 1 ~
to 15 metres ofi the fntersection of McOarry Drive and Pa rkside Road,
immediately adjacent to the side entrance to the second dweliing unit. I heve
witnessed people coming out of the slde entrance and e~itering this vehicle on
more than one occasion. I have also seen the same veF~icle parked on the grass
within the slde yard, partialiy on city-owned land immedi:ateiy adjacent to the side
entrance.
I have concems that even though the driveway at the front of the property may
be widened to the required width, the occupants of the s~cond dweiling unit will
continue to park or remaln stopped on the road wlthin 1 C~ or 15 metres of the
irrtersection, or on the grass immediately adjacent to the entrance to the second
dwelling untt for reasons of convenience. The likelihood of this occurring is
fufther increased by the fact that there is no pedestrian tiualkway from th~
driveway at the front of the prOperty to the side entranCe to the secpnd dwelling
unit. Parking an the grass in the side yard has immediafely obvious negative
V~
~
P< ~ 7 i~QS
PLANhlfIVG
& faF;~lFLC?WP~lEhl7~
11/17/2008 12:12 FAX 9057549952 P.ARKS & RECt2EATI0N ~AJOaS
effects on the aesthetics of the area, and does not respect the Characler and
appearance of the neighbourhood. Parking within 10 me;tres of an intersection,
and stopping within 15 metres of an intersectipn are viol~itions ot the Niagara
Falis Parking and Tr~c By-Law 89-2Q00. The safety irriplications are clear as
there are three sctlools in the neighbourhood, and this intersedion is {requented
by student pede54rians crossing the road.
2. 2oning By-Law;
The Planning Recommendation Report PD-2008-102 coitains three main points
regarding the app~ication:
a. "The basement of this dwelling has been illegaliy converted into a second
dwelling unit"
b. a covered entrance to the basement has been built in th~ exterior side
yard_."
c. a deck has been exYended into the rear yard i~eyond what the zoning
by-law permits."
It is not immediately obvious why the City would permit txee very clear zoning
tnfractions. Although the application may be aligned witt~ Provincial policy
initiatives, and the Garner Neighbourhood Secondary f'i.an, the City should
facilitate this type of residential intensification through th~: required amendment
and permitting procedures as set out by the City.
It is my belief that by allowing this special provision application to be approved, given tile
fact that the property owner ignored the required permits, zoninc~ by-laws, and
application procedures prior to making the modificaUons to the K~roperty, as well as for
the reasons stated above, the City will be encouraging this type of illegal development
within its boundaries into the future. This will set an unfavourable precedent in terms of
adhering to City policies and procedures that were put in place lo pramote and ensure
responsible and beneflcial development. If passed, this applica~:ion wfll speak to the old
adage: "It is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permisc:ion.°
Sincerely,
e
James L ch
Jeffrey J Wilker
416-868-3118
jtivilker@thornsonrogers. co~n
SENT BY Emai! and FAX
November 17, 2008
Mayor Ted Salci and Members of Council
City of Niagara Falls
P.O. Box 1023
4310 Queen Street
Niagaza Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Dear Mayor Salci and Members of Council:
PD-2008-105
26T-11-2006-02 (Revised) and AM-42/2006 (Revised)
Warren Woods (East) Draft Plan of Subdivision
Our File No. 050225
We are the solicitors for Cytec Canada Ina ("Cytec").
Cytec has been provided with a copy of the Notice of Public Meeting with respect to the
draft approved Wazren Woods East Draft Plan of Subdivision and the proposed changes to
the subdivision plan and the zoning by-law. We also had an opportunity to review the
Planning Department staff report.
As the City is aware, our client participated in the planning process on these matters
previously, and resolved its OMB appeal on the draft plan approval of the subdivision with
the developer and the City. Cytec appreciates th8 opportunity to continue to comment on
the planning process on these lands, and also reaffirms its continuing interest in the Warren
Woods Secondary Plan process.
As Council is aware, Cytec owns approximately I,000 acres of land north of Chippawa
Creek Road and west of Garner Road ("the Cytec lands"). The Cytec lands are designated
Industrial under the City's Official Plan and are zoned for heavy industrial purposes. The
B A R R I S T E R S a N D S 0 L I C I T O R S
SUITE 3100 . 390 EAY STREET ¦ TORONTO. ONTARIO ¦ CANp.pp ¦ MSH 1W2 . FAX: 416 8683134 ¦ TEL: 416 868-3100
~1Om90W~pgCpg.Cap?
-Z-
Cytec lands have been used for heavy indusfrial purposes since World R~ar II and are
currently occupied by a chemical manufacturing plant, which manufactures phosphine.
The Cytec lands are part of an industrial precinct that fonn an important part of the
employment land supply for the City. Maintenance of the viability of the Cytec lands for
these type of uses is paramou~t Co C}~tec, and is also in the public interest to ensure that the
City maintains a diverse employment base.
The importance of a proper planning assessment to determine the viability of introducing
additional residential land uses and the intensification of residential lands uses in the
vicinity of an industria] precinct has been graphically illustrated by the recent Superior
Propane explosion in Toronto and Yhe resultant lawsuits facing the City of Toronto.
We have had an opportunity to review the Planning DepartmenYs report and wish to
comment as follows:
1. Separation Distance
We note that this draft plan of subdivision is norCh of OPA 82, (dealing with
other of the Warren Woods lands) and hence is outside the 2 km separation
distance incorporated into that document.
2. Building Heieht
Outside the separation distance, building height is another appropriate
mechanism to deal with managing the risk of introducing residential
development in the vicinity of Cytec lands. This has been recognized in OPA
82 by the imposition of a 2%: storey residential restriction (at 14.57.2.2 (d)).
We have noted the request of the developer for Block 188 to be zoned for
aparhnent building/townhouse block and to provide relief from the height
restriction of 10 m(32.8 feet) to a height restriction of 12 m(39.4 feet). We
understand that the City uses a standard of 3.6 m per storey (see for example
section 3(e) of By-law 2001-157 on Grand Niagara). As such the 10 m height
restriction is equivalent to 3 storeys. The reason given for the relief being
sought is for architectural reasons, rather than an increase in the number of
storeys. . As such, the Zoning By-law should incorporate a restriction on the
number of storeys of the buildings on this block to 3 storeys.
-3-
For other residential buildings in this development, fl~e 2% storey residential
standard which was agreed to between Cytec and developer far the OPA 82
lands should also equally govern the remainiug lots/blocks in tliis residential
development.
3, Block 188
It is our specific understanding that this development includes standard
residential uses oniy and does not include any special residential buildiugs such
as seniar citizen residences, which pose different questions for risk
management purposes.
4. Notiee Clause
We have noted that the notice clause (condition 51) has remained within the
draft conditions as previously agreed to. Given the introduction of the
apartment building concept, that building may be a condominium and/or may
be leased to tenants. Additionally, it will likely be subject to site plan approval.
As such, we request that the notice clause be amended so that the preamble
reads: The following notice clause shall be included in the Subdivision
Agreement and in any Condominium Agreement and in any Site Plan
Agreement and in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale for the subdivision lots
and blocks, and in any leases.
As such, Cytec requests the above revision to condition 51 of the draft plan of subdivision;
and Cytec also requires consultation on the drafting of the implementing zoning by-law by
the City and the developer, as was agreed to as part of the OMB settlement of the prior
appeal.
Until Cytec has an opportunity to review the final form of the zoning by-law, it cannot
advise City Council or planning staff or the developer as to whether its concerns have been
satisfied or not.
Cytec recognizes and appreciates that it has ongoing consCructive dialogue with the
developer throughout this process, and Cytec trusts that continuing discussions can provide
Cytec with the necessary assurances it requires to ensure that its concerns and objectives I
are being met through planning process.
-4-
We request that both our offices and our client, C~tec Canada Inc. attention Mr. Ken Milo,
continue to receive all documentation with respect to this proposal, and specifically request
that we both be notified of any revisions to the conditions of draft plan approval of the
subdivision being granted together with any adoption of the Zoning By-law Amendment in
accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. We have copied Mr. Iarfida, the City
Clerk, on this request as well.
We thank Council for its consideration ofthis correspondence.
Yours very truly,
G~
Jeffrey J. Wilker
JJ W/pf
cc: Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning and Development
cc: Rick Wilson, City Planning
cc: Dean Iorfida, City Clerk
cc: Bob O'Dell, Warren Woods
cc: Tom Richardson, solicitor for Warren Woods
cc: Doug Darbyson, Warren Woods Consulting Planner
cc: Martin Lehman, Cytec Canada Inc.
cc: Ken Milo, Cytec Canada Inc.
cc: Glenn Wellings, Cytec's Consulting Planner
r
~ 4 ~
~ i~ # I l`3-a~..i.9-. r~ -
c~.Q-~.~,k--4-~ 6~ (~o--.~~ rv',~.,,,v- i~.f.~a g~[
P~?af~. F~1LLS ~LEFi~S'OY ],n J;.3.,j 7-~~ ~ .S /
YUo-v, , 7~ 0 0~
'f 31 o c~ ,~,9„~ S~-ln H,~2..1
~ ~-~J~o . ~ 2-~ b X.S
~I.~,v.-G,.Q~ :/~Le: P D-~u i oS t°u,(.~..~. ~vi~
~~A.~~ ~ ~ a~ ~ s~~.L~
~ ~ Z ~
~ -~-:~-.Q, a.,~,.~,,,~~1 ~ ~~„~p
fl`e ~ f"
t ~ ~Q"'n"~,d- ,P
~ f'IZ ~ A~~~
e-~.~~.~ ~v-, f~¢~~~, fa
~ ~ ~~-Y..~-c.a~ ~v~-~?~a-~~ -fa ~..a~-~.~-., /~,.u--~
-O~u-G.~ oo ~~O d-d%~'~m~o fo czva-~-~ Q~r'/(3
1-~ T/~e c~a,ca-Q.o~ys-~~ c~a.. a~ti~~~„~ f~ ,u~.~,,~ ~a
~9-~- ftia ~ r~~~..1
~ ~-~-~.~.gg ~ i~~-. y~~
.~/~l 0. ,Y/ p-r~_,•,~ , ~ ~R.. ~ t~ C~G~
l
p.~ f~ty.~ ~s ta s~~~
~ ~'a-~.~~-v~ -~-t.~.~ S u.~z~-~-~a-~=ar ~-n o--c,-z
o / ~ . ~ . . 7L-~.;~, ~ ~`d`
-a(
~.,-~Q.Q ~ ~ ~--c~ ~~-,~,..~.~.~~t,~.,,.
~-,9~ ~ t~ 6ry- f .~.~y4~r,
~ •
~
~ ~
J~RN GYZ/~-NOai~l
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Dear Ted Salci,
Having spoken to you on the phone earlier, I still felt the need to add my voice to
th~ veice~ af th~ Qther t~nants ~rith wham I sha[~ my a~actment ~amplex
regarding Scott Parekh's application for the conversion of his apartment building,
at 4218 Portage Road, into condominiums.
As mayor, you are likely aware that most o# tfie apartment buiidings in the city of
Niagara Falls are all at least 30 years old. Very few have seen any upgrades
and are in a very serious state of neglect cosmetically if not structurally. I know.
I have spent the last few months viewing them.
I have spent the last 26 years in my apartment on Portaqe Road. I have painted,
installed new wall to wall carpet, tiled the kitchen floor and installed updated
lighting. Just prior to Scott Parekh's purchase of the apartment building, each
ap~rtmen# received a new fridge, stave and dishw~sher. The improvements I am
describing are all but impossible to find in any apartment unit currentiy available
in Niagara Falls. Further, the rents have been higher in every building I have
iaaked ~t tfi~n what I~uree~tly pay. Rd~liHofi~Hy, r~ry utiliti~~ ~r~ p~rt ~fi my i~~f.
Utilities are an additional expense in most other apartment complexes. If I were
evicted as a result of the conversion to condominiums, I would face higher rent,
the addition of the cost of utilities, AND, I would have a rental unit in need of the
many upgrades described above.
~ince ~cott Parekh purchased the apartment building at 421$ Po~tage Road, he
has shown utter disregard for the Residential Tenancy Act. Building
maintenance has been abysmal. I have taken Scott before the Ontario Rental
and Housing Tribunal twice for maintenance hearings. I have faced eviction for
helping other tenants secure their right to maintenance. I have written probably a
hundred letters to Scott ove~ the past 5 years requesti~g mairtenance, An
i~complete history of the problems incurred is as follows:
Failing aluminum wiring, unsecured banister, inoperable washers ~nd dryers
(inoperabie as this ~etter is being written, and with a iong history of being
inoperable), dirty common areas, stained hallway carpets, dilapidated fencing,
potsr ~now ~emoVal (sntiw is pl~wezl rrttc~ our p~rking sp~c~s), tori~ carp~fs on
exterior stairs, inoperable intercom system, inoperable bathroom vent, fai~ing air-
conditioner, detached downspout, longstanding rubbish around waste bin, poor
lawn care/trimming/weed control, broken bathroom plumbing and related
extensive mold issues, discrimination where use of exterior water faucets are
concerned (not all tenants can use them), etc., etc.
5cott Parekfl has amply demonstrated' an unwillingness to respect the R7A.
Without repetitive pleas for maintenance followed by ORHT hearings,
maintenance is severely neglected and i$nored. Dear Mr. Salci, how can
you now assume that Scott would now be any more governable or
accountable as owner of ~ condominium complex?
I am a renter because it suits me from a financial standpoint and from a lifestyle
standpoint. As state above, decent, clean, maintained, updated apartment units
in Niagara are scarce if not financially crippling to those of us who have resided
at 4218 Portage Road, as I have, for the past 26 years. Due to my own expense
and requests for maintenance, my apartment unit is most suitable for me. The
rent I. pay; utiliti~s inclusive, I find agr~~at~l~; and du~ to its prediGtat~iliry; I hav~
been able to time my retirement around it. Condo plans would seriously disrupt
my life and my financial situation if I were faced with eviction.
i know that fgh#ing eviction would cost me in excess of $3000 in legal fees.
This is money I saved for a successful retirement, not for battling landiords over
my right to remain in my apartment. The amount of $3000 is accurate because I
have already fought one eviction when Scott requested my unit for his daughter's
habitation. I successfully,defeated his eviction application. Scott is appealing the
decisian even thaugh an apartment across the hall from me is vacant, It is cl~ar
that he does not want an apartment for his daughter. He simply wants me out
because I have fought tirelessly for maintenance, detailed above, for myself and
€or other tena~ts. Tkris is a transparent abuse o€ la~dlordltenant law ~nd should
be given serious consideration when determining whether or not to pass Scott
Parekh's application for the conversion of his apartments to condominiums.
Certainly his character and motivation are questionabie.
Note, electrical upgrades in the apartment building have not been made, you
would be hard-pressed to find a window that is not drafty or a unit that has
sufficient heat in the winter.
VV`~th everything that I have written in mind, I am asking that ypu not allow the
conversion into condominiums the apartment building at 4218 Portage Road.
5incerely,
Carla Rienzo, tenant.
4218 Portage Road,
;d1u~~.'RL13G~ER4::,'~:i~a'1'il:~~'1=d`~.~ Apt.104,
Niagara Falls, Ontario,
L2E6A4
Nov. 12`h., 2008
Re: Condominium Conversion of 4218 Portage Road
File: 26CD-11-2008-03
Deaz Niagara Fall's Council;
An application to convert the apartment building {I live in} to condominiums is being
placed before you and the Planning & Development Dept. I plan to attend the Public
Meeting you have arranged Monday. If helpful I may try to address this matter. This
change affects my well being.
I am concerned by the thought of this happening. I do not have the funds to buy my apt.;
that is very much my home.
The buildiug is old. The plumbing is noisy as I'm next to the furnace. The furnace is
uncontrollable by tenants. The drains appear to have roots & the roots are heaving the
cement first floor. The door intercom is broken. My phone outlet in the bedroom is dead.
Anyone who buys this apt. may fmd too late that iYs a money pit.
Yours, ~s .
~ /
Dorothy Donelda Warten
c.c: neighbour
g
,
, , -
~ ~ ~ tiC~ ~o ~ ~1 ~ ~c~e ~
c/~~~ C' Ct~t . ~ ~~~~-F ,~.ciJ ~ C~ ~~~~-c~ ~ C.7~
~ ~ '~v1 / c~ ~l~ Y~ 6~Gt'
~ in ~ ~ ,
~ ~
C.
~ ~ ' ~lL~ C,~ ~ ~`l C ~ ~ ~~Oi rC~ .~-C- ~C~ O
v ~ ~i~ ~i o~a, ~ j,~ a~; v%~-e C,c ,
{1~
~~f ~-i`~-e ~n~n-c a ~
% ~ ~e~.~ ~~~~~c~C
/~-e.-Pa-~~a-n .
~ ~
~ C~ ~n- cz ,~~~~a._0 ~o~ 1~
u~ ~Le ~C'~a_~ ; ~ccy ~~~-C~--- ~
o~~- °c
P~~-~-~-~- • ~ 1 ~ C~t.~-~~-L~~
~:~~-e-,~-~-- ~ .~c~~
v-~
~ ~ i-~~~ v-~~%~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,
?Cc~ ~ ~-e ~ ~ c~ i~c~c~~~~~~
~~-2 ~ ~ ~~,u-c~,~~f ~ ' a~,~
~ 0-Z~~ ~-~~~~r~.~ 1 G ~ G~y ,~c~:~
o--~~~s ~c , D '
~ ~,~~v-~
~ ~~o /
Mayor Ted Salci,
I am strongly opposed to the conversion of the apartment building at 4218 Portage Rd.,
Niagara Falls, to a condominium. Where are apartment dwellers to live, if they continue
to turn apartment buildings into condominiums? Financially, not everyone is in a
position to purchase/own a condominium or home, or even want to. There is a need for
more apartments to rent. Lf conversion of apartnnent buildings is allowed to continue,
Niagaza Falls coulci have a larger °homeless" population, in the future.
M. McRae
Apt. #303
At one time, you could be proud to live in this building. Ever since Scot Perekh took
possession, the building has gone down hill. Upkeep and maintenance seem to be foreign
words to him. Sending his kids to do a man's job is his way of dealing with this.....and, of
course, it is never done properly. Mr. Perekh will not be any different, if allowed to be a
condominium owner. The only difference will be the tenants will have to pay a fee for
the so-called maintenance and not receive their worth. This will be a more irritating
situation than already exists.
` ~'~-4~ /~~'~c ~2 L~t~,:,`~~i2 ,
~`S 7~~',l,;v:~r~l c~~<4 ~~cruDu•~~,j~~I
~,~1,~'' ~5 Tl~ l~~p~i~.'i71UnJ ~y~,J ,~~7'~~~~- /3v«,~r~:~7
~~~~~T's~ ~ ~ ~rF~~e,~c~?? C.4~v tv~ ~v~~~re~ u,~..
:`~c~ni~i'~ '~ju=~~~'~ U~~ r.~/~-~ ~h,l`~~ ~i ~U~~ t,"
~
~ ~
C,~ =j?.~ ~ ~ R-~`-
~~~e ~s/~ US inI Cc~t:v7~c~'L i~'lo,e.~s ~t~ t~~v'; ~~~r,.~4~
=~r- ~ S-r2Essf-0 ~ ~ q,~ on~ Y I~.r~~-T~-G . ~ S~-wr~ Fu,Z ~u~ b~ /
~
~~~~Lf .~~~~~-.~crz_ ~ _ c , - CfJ-cL
~juS~ ~'/`~-/SS"~ B~
,
F ~ .~€~G~~ ~ „~~u r
w ~~.s~ ~ ~ r~'•t`-at`,~
~ ~ i ; ~~j° ~`.aavf~kl ~r~~'- 's~ L/1 F!~/~c
` ~ % ~ ~`.r.~ F
~ ° ` ~ ~~s' `r~~~,°
~ w`1a~ttES , ~~v&i~ tne i,~~~ / ~ !
L J
/ `-~LIJ`~?~~ ~Gr'S ~(~f.,.~ /'~f~. y, . fizj~',
, C ~1~r ~ 5J ~
x `rt
~ ~ . ;tr ~~~g~' ~a r`
, J a f %a .s~ v
~ ` .~v ~~/~.~40 . ' . f E.{s' ~i2§~~~
y~N
~ 3"{ p~
f - 4~ dJ
; 1 p,lY y.~~~~P. '
_ : ~t~° 3h'~ s~.X°tle'SY" k
A
. . . - : f ' 3 ,rr 7lt'"~'~" a
5 ~
4C
. . . . . i r.~1 t kn
. . . ~~~ay t~~~`.
- . 4az,,.:5~ _
i
i
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
By-taw No. 2008 -
A by-law to authorize the execution of consulting services agreement respectiug the development, implementation
and management of the People Mover System.
WHEREAS the People Mover System (hereinafter referred to as the "ProjecY') is a project that will manage traffic
congestion in the primary tourist area, while providing a major transportation linkage to facilities and attractions
in a safe, efficient and convenient manner; and
WHEREAS Niagara I'alls City Council approved report CAO-2008-05, People Mover Project Update, that
recommended that the City continue to dedicate the necessary resources to meet the June 30, 2009 Canada
Strategic Infrastructure Fund deadline, set by the Federa] government, for the Project; and
WHEREAS the City's role on the Project has always been that of facilitarion, coordination and clerical support;
and
WHEREAS the lead for the City on the Project has been recently retired Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. John
MacDonald (hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"); and
WHEREAS at a closed meeting on November 3, 2008, Niagara Falls City Council directed staffto offer a contract
to the Consultant for eight (8) hours a week to work on the People Mover System; and
WHEREAS given the pressing Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund deadline, the lack of current staff that would
be able to familiarize themselves with the Project in time and the experience of the Consultant on ihe Project, it is
appropriate for the Corporation to enter into a contract with the Consultant.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS
FOLLOWS:
1. An Agreement made between John MacDonald, or his corporate nominee, and the Corporation of the City
of Niagara Falls, as the City, respecting consulting services, directly related to the development,
implementation and management ofthe "People Mover ProjecY', as attached hereto, is hereby approved and
authorized.
2. The Mayar and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the said Agreement.
3. The Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal thereto and to deliver the said Agreement.
Passed this seventeenth day of November, 2008.
DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK R. T. (TED SALCI MAYOR
First Reading: November 17, 2008
Second Reading: November 17, 2008
Third Reading: November 17, 2008
LETTER OFINTENT
THIS LETTER OF INTENT made this 17th day of November, 2008.
BETWEEN:
JOHN MACDONALD
OF THE FIRST PART;
-and-
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
(hereinafter referred to as the "City")
OF THE SECOND PART.
WHEREAS the People Mover System (hereinafter refened to as the "Project") is a project that
will manage traffic congestion in Yhe primary tourist area, wlule providing a major transportation
linkage to facilities and attractions in a safe, efficient and convenient manner; and
WHER~AS Niagara Falls City Council approved report CAO-2008-05, People Mover Project
Update, that recommended that the City continue to dedicate the necessazy resouxces to
meet the June 30, 2009 Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund deadline, set by the Federal
government, for the Project; and
WHEREAS the City's role on the Project has always been that of facilitation, coordination and
clerical support; and
WHEREAS the lead for the City on the Project has been recently retired Chief Administrative
Officer, Mr. John MacDonald; and
WHEREAS given the pressing Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund deadline, the lack of
cturent staff that would be able to familiarize themselves with the Project in time and the
experience of Mr. MacDonald on the Project, it is appropriate far the City to enlist the services
of Mr. MacDonald; and
WHEREAS at a closed meeting on November 3, 2008, Niagara Falls City Council directed staff
to offer a contract to Mr. MacDonald for eight (8) hours a week to work on the People Mover
System.
The terms of the Letter of Agreement are:
1. Scope of Services
Mr. John MacDonald (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. MacDonald") will be retained by the City,
to provide consulting services, directly related to the development, implementation and
management of the "People Mover ProjecY'. ndr. MacDonald will report to the Director of
Business Development. Mr. MacDonald will have access to corporate support services
including, but nof limited to, the use of the People Mover office located in the Hatch Building
4342 Queen Street, Niagara Falls Ont. and one direct, supporC staff inember
2. Term of Letter of Agreement
The tertn of this leCter of agreement will run from November 3, 2008 to July 3, 2009. Either
parCy may terminate the letter of agreement upon the provision of fifCeen (15) days prior notice
in writing to the other.
3. Fee for Services
Mr. MacDonald will wark an average of one day per week, based on an eight hour work day, at
the going rate of the Chief Administrative Officer plus G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax). The
rate at the commencement of the agreement is $87.57 per hour.
4. Expenses
The City will reimburse Mr. MacDonald for any reasonable expenses incuned in the
performance of his duties in accordance with the existing City policy on expenses for staff
members.
5. Intellectual Property Rights
Any and all documentation produced during the course of the performance of this letter of
agreement shall become the properly of the City and shall be subject to the provisions of the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario.
Accepted by:
John MacDonald
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY
OF NIAGARA FALLS
Per:
R.T. (Ted) Salci, Mayor
Dean Iorfida, City Clerk
` (1'f71712008)~Deanlo ida-'Re~Motion~
_
Page
From: Carolynn loannoni
To: Dean lortida
Date: 11/5/2008 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Motion
Thanks Dean
I am away during the next council meeting so I am requesting that the contract be deferred until the
meeting on December 1st so that I may vote and speak on it.
Carolynn
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean lorfda
To: Carolynn loannoni <ioannoni@niagarafalls.ca>
Sent: 11/5/2008 9:27:49 AM
Subject: Re: Motion
Carolynn:
Sorry, I didn't have a chance to return your phone call yesterday afternoon as I was in meetings and I have
Senior Staff this morning.
Cali me later.
As for the motion, as Clerk, I may massage them, however, I don't make them!
Nonetheless, I don't think there was anything vague about the motion. The going rate was outiined in the
meeting and i understand that Ken has provided you that information. Clearly, Mr. MacDonald will be
working on the People Mover equivalent to one day a week. The "other applicable projects" may seem
vague. I would say it is supertluous. Mr. MacDonald will be occupied on People Mover. If staff needed
his assistance they could contact him for guidance. I don't really see this happening or being necessary:
Also, Councillor Fisher, the Chair, clearly read the recommendation before the unanimous vote was taken.
Finally, this is an offer. Mr. MacDonald has not agreed to anything at this point in time.
i"hanks
Dean
Carolynn loannoni 11/4/2008 3:23 PM
Very vague.
-----Original Message----
From: Dean Iorfida
To: Carolynn loannoni < ioannoni@niagarafalls.ca >
; Sent: 11/4/2008 2:56:34 PM
~ Subject: Motion
~ Carolynn:
As requested..:.
I 3 People Mover System
( Recommendation:
WTNK: Offer an on-going contract to John MacDonald for 8 hours a week to work on the People Mover
_ _
System and any other applicable projects at the going rate suggested.
Action: Direction to staff
Carried Unanimously