2009/04/20 ~ : . . ~ : . . €
~ a ar
y ~ ~ 3,:' ~~a ~ m rv ~s r°, c". d; ~ ~d ° _ ~ "Y ~ ;
`COMMUNITY~SERVICES. ~COMMI~TT~EE AGENDAz;
#
- r w;~.~r-~~.. ~,__~F,~~ . ~ -
. . - ~ ~,.~,~r.~_ r,. ,a r k
FIFTH MEETING
Monday, April 20, 2009
4:00 p.m.
City Hall, Committee Room #2A & B
1) Approval of the April 6, 2009 Community Services Minutes.
2) REPORTS: STAFF CONTACT:
a) Presentation:
People Mover Project Update Report Serge Felicetti
(Note: In-Camera Session Required for Legal Matters
pertaining to the People Mover Project)
b) TS-2009-02
Tourist Area Parking Demand Study Karl Dren
Presentation:
c) PD-2009-25
Matters arising from Municipal Heritage Committee
Regarding the Oswald House Fence
2922 St. Paul Avenue Alex Herlovitch
PD-2009-32
Municipal Staff Review
Regarding the Oswald House Fence
2922 St. Paul Avenue Alex Herlovitch ~
d) PD-200-27
Municipal Heritage Committee
Jolley Cut Alex Herlovitch
3) NEW BUSINESS:
4) ADJOURNMENT:
y~ r a; _ r~~ 1 p, ~;"`,N w,~'-x a: s< ~ o~ ^~#.t s e,f-a i ~,r-'T^:'h~ it-,
o j
, ~ ~:~X~~~ * ~ :'`IN CAMERASESSION~ ~
?~v«~"'.."~,~"€~ ,~'~'.'st".xr,:~~~.~'x~."~i, ~ z":y ~ -°.~3'a" c='.~-z°w~' ^~w$,~~,t'"~"sz
a.:~-~.
a) Resolution to go into Closed Meeting.
Niagara~aIls
MINUTES OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
Fourth Meeting
Monday, April 6, 2009, Committee Room 2, 4:00 P.M.
PRESENT: CouncillorCarolynn loannoni, Chair; MayorTed Salci, Councillors: Jim
Diodati, Shirley Fisher, Vince Kerrio, Bart Maves, Wayne Thomson
Janice Wing and Victor Pietrangelo.
STAFF: Ed Dujlovic, Ken Burden, Geoff Holman, Dean lorfida, Ken Beaman,
Lee Smith, Denyse Morrissey, Alex Herlovitch, Trent Dark, Karl Dren,
Serge Felicetti, John Castrilli, Bob Darrall, James Sticca, Uly Dupuis and
Marianne Tikky - Steno.
GUEST: Ed Nieuwesteeg - 8181 Mount Olive Crescent, Wendy Thompson -
Niagara Regional Housing, 2201 St. David's Road, Tony Ferrara -
Niagara Catholic District School Board, 427 Rice Road, Welland, Victor
Ferraiuolo - Lundy's Lane BIA, Felix Pingue, Ernie Morgan - 5917 Main
Street.
PRESS: Corey Larocque, Niagara Falls Review, Representative from Niagara
This Week
1. MINUTES
MOVED on the motion of Councillor Fisher, seconded by Councillor Maves that the
minutes of the March 23, 2009 meeting be adopted.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council April 6, 2009.
2. REPORTS
a) MW-2009-21
DWQMS Operational Plan with Presentation
MOVED on the motion of Councillor Kerrio and seconded by Mayor Salci;
1) That City Council endorse the Drinking Water Quality Management System
Operational Plan, and
2) That staff be authorized to make the appropriate application to the Ministry of the
Environment prior to May 1, 2009.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council April 6, 2009.
-z-
b) BS-2009-01
House moving concept in partnership with Niagara Regional
Housing, Niagara Region, Niagara Catholic District School Board,
Ed and Ruth Ann Nieuwesteeg and the City of Niagara Falls
MOVED on the motion of Mayor Salci and seconded by Councillor Maves
that the City provide grants equal to land costs, various permit costs and to assist in
dealing with Hydro and the Niagara Regional Police.
Motion: Carried
Conflict: Councillor Pietrangelo (employea by tne Niagara Catholic District school Board)
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council April 6, 2009.
c) R-2009-14
Recreation Property and Building End Use Update
MOVED on the motion of Councillor W ing and seconded by Councillor Thomson that
the former Recreation Building be appraised, put on the open market with a reserved
bid, with notice of the future intent to designate.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council April 6, 2009.
d) MW-2009-18
Front Street Flooding Remedial Works
MOVED on the motion of Councillor Fisher and seconded by Councillor Wing that
City Council authorizes staff to proceed with the installation of sewage ejector
pumps and new sewer laterals at the five-unit townhouse development on Front
Street.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council April 6, 2009.
4) ADJOURNMENT:
MOVED by Mayor Salci seconded by Councillor Maves that the Committee adjourn
to an In-Camera session at 5:40 p.m.
Motion: Carried
aprnza,zoas Ts-zoosnz
CouncillorCamlynn loannoni. Chalr
and Members of ~he Communiry Services Committee
Ciry of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: TS-2009-02
TourislArea Parking Uemantl Stutly
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) ThattheTOUristAreaParking0emantlSWdybereceivetlantlstaffproceetlwi~h
meetings with the appropriate sGkeholtlers antl report back to Council
2) 5[affproceetlwi[h[hepublicpmcessroamentliheZOningBy-0awtoincorporate[he
new stantlards in the Clifron HiIlNicroria Avenue and FallsviewAreas and [he public
process to amend ~he Offcial Plan to eliminate further parking reductions ~hrough
the submission ot Parking ~emand Studies.
BACKGROUND:
In response [o the rapitl tlevelopmen~ in ihe Clifion HiIINic~oria Avenue and FallsviewArea,
a comprehensive Tourist Area Parking Demantl Stutly was ini~iatetl in late 2005. The
objective of the sNtly "was to establish updatetlparkingre~uirements forvanous land uses
withinthetounstaree-"
Parking is an essential part of Me overall iransportation and land development rystem.
Parking supply is based on Ihe expectetl tlemantl for the type o( business imolved, and
fmmtherealisticassessmentofautousageaccessingthesite. Anoversupptyo(parking
is cos~ly, no~ benefcial for businesses, and provides a nega[ive visual impact ~o ihe
surmuntling s~reet scape conversely, an undereupply of parking can cause a development
tofail. Consumersmayei~herrefrainfmmvisiting~heestabllshmentiftheyareunable~o
Nnd convenlent IowHOns to park, orfintl al~eme~ive parking by spilling over onto adJaoent
land uses andlor the local s~reet system.
Communiry Servbes oepanment
IVOrkingTOgvlhermServeOmConmmnity *~~rommuansemaes
April 20, 2009 - 2- TS-2009-02
History:
Forthe past several years, staff have been receiving "Parking Demand Studies" completed
by consultants on behalf of developers requesting lower parking standards than those
identified in the Zoning Bylaw. The Zoning By-law identifies the parking requirements for
an establishment based on the land use and identifies a minimum number of parking
spaces required based on the developments size and operation. Developers have been
challenging the rates in the current by-law claiming that due to the amount of walk-by traffic
in the tourist area, the parking requirements were too high. Parking Demand studies
received for developments such as Gupta Gift Shops, Ripleys Museum, Hilton Hotel,
Copacabana, among others, all justified lower parking standards. Although the results
from the consultants appeared reasonable given the information provided, the
methodology of how and whythe lower parking requirements werejustified varied between
consultants. Also, the consultants surveyed only one similar site and made a comparison
between the proposed site and the one site surveyed. Given potential fluctuations in
results based only on one survey site, it was believed that it was necessary to survey
several similar sites to obtain a more accurate and realistic parking demand results.
Therefore, AECOM consulting firm, (formerly Totten Sims Hubicki) was hired to carry out
a comprehensive Parking Demand Study on behalf of the City for the Clifton HiIlNictoria
Avenue and Fallsviewtourist area (see attached study area map) with the goal of achieving
the following:
• establish rates reflective of actual parking demand for various establishment types
• reduce application processing time
o developer no longer has to wait for consultant to complete Parking Demand
Study - especially if application is received during off-peak season and
surveys must be carried out during peak tourist season
o time savings as back and forth commenting on Study between staff and
consultant is eliminated
• cost savings
o developers no longer have to hire consultants to justify lower parking
requirements - study cost for one land use app. $8,000, complex study ie.
Several uses within one property i.e. hotel with a restaurant, retail etc.
$10, 000+.
The above was accomplished by carrying out field surveys at a variety of establishments
and pertorming statistical analysis consistent with best practice methodologies utilized by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
April 20, 2009 - 3- TS-2009-02
Methodology:
In July and August of 2006 and 2007, a series of surveys was carried out at more than fifty
(50) establishments during their respective peak hours of operation on both weekend and
midweek. Land uses included:
• restaurants
• retail stores
• museums
• theatre/cinemas
• amusement game establishments
• tattoo parlours
• hotels
• motels
Upon approval from the business owner/manager AECOM staff administered brief verbal
surveys (two minutes) to establishment patrons. The survey included questions related to
their travel patterns to the site, i.e. how did you arrive to this location, how many people in
your immediate group, where is your car parked, how many sites are you anticipating
visiting etc. In addition, the owner/manager provided employee information ie. number of
employees, how they arrive to work, shifts, where they park etc. The owner/manager also
provided a general description of their site operation, peak operating hours as well as site
statistics (wherever available), ie. number of seats in restaurant, building size, occupancy.
While the verbal surveys were being undertaken, parking turnover studies were also
carried out at sites that had on-site parking facilities, and patron counts were conducted
at the accesses to the businesses to obtain overall patronage and peaking patterns. The
labour intensive field studies consisted of examining more than 50 sites, surveying in
excess of 3000 tourists, for approximately 2,700 field survey person hours.
Survey responses were converted into a statistical formula, developed and approved by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The process starts with the standard parking
generation ratio (based on a unit applicable to the business ie. seats), separates the
parking components into patron and employee, and then adjusts the rate for site-specific
captive and modal factors. The captive and modal factors encompass the following:
• walk-by traffic
• shared parking opportunities
• linked trips
• mode of fravel
• vehicle occupancy
This statistical analysis was performed taking into consideration all of the survey
information for each of the land uses and resulted in a uniUratio that may be applied to
each establishment.
The results from the statistical analysis are illustrated in the following chart and the resulfs
justify lower parking requirements for the majorrty of land uses in the study area.
April 20, 2009 - 4- TS-2009-02
(r~~ `~`+'~4°. 1`" r'ti- Currentr79 200 By Law~ ~4rrS ~?L ~i",~ ' , ~ ~Proposeil~
k: land Use~.Category ~_f t~~.i : n f-~...; ~e,.~Froposed Parkfng Rate u 5
::v r .z~~.:_'~~ t ~ : ~f;Rate~r ,.,cr~,.~._~ N .v~.~-r.r.rs.S ,r~:~.+c+.~ ,.4..7~ ~.Clian`ge`~,~~
Restaurants 1 space per 5 seats 1 space per 10 seats y
Retail store 1 space per 25 m~ 1 space per 60 m'
Motel Motel Base Room Rates for Motel = T
1 space per 1.3 rooms 1 space per 125 rooms
Hotel Hotel Base Room Rates for Hotel
: 1 space per 2.0 rooms 1 space per 1.25 rooms
Ancillarv Restaurant y
1 space per 10 seats 300 seats = no additional spaces
:>300 seats = 1 space per 15 seats '
Ancillarv MeetinqlConvention
Room y
1 space per 5.5 m' < 1400 m' = no additional spaces
assembly 1 space per 66 m~for z 1400 m~
AncillarvRetail Area
1 space per 25 m~ no additional spaces ~
Bus Parkinn Space Substitution
c substitution currently not ? 1.0 bus parking space = 20 vehicle N@W
available parking spaces. Maximum
substitution of 40 spaces.
Museum 1 space per 50 m' 1 space per 150 m'
Night clu6/6ar 1 space per 5 seats 1 space per 35 m' N1A
Tattoo parlor 1 space per 40 m' 1 space per 2 seats N/A
Amusement game t space per 5 person 9 space per 30 m~ N!A
establishment IawFUlly occupied
Theatrefcinema 1 space per 5 seats 1 space per 10 seats y
N/A - Comparison Not Available due to unit type difference
Lower parking standards have been justified for the majority of land uses. However, an
increase was noted for parking requirements at hotels strictly on a per room basis and a
marginal increase noted at motels,. A hotel is currently required to provide one parking
space for every two rooms. The proposed rate increases the requirement to one
parking space for every 1.25 rooms. However, the increase is offset given that parking
requirements for ancillary uses within hotels is currently over-represented. Parking
spaces are currently required to be provided in hotels for facilities such as restaurants,
meeting rooms, retail space etc. in addition to the parking spaces calculation on a per
room basis. Parking Demand studies have identified that these facilities serve a large
proportion of persons staying in the hotel, and/or walk-by traffic, thus justifying a
reduced parking requirement. Therefore, to acknowledge this, a reduced parking
requirement is proposed for ancillary uses:
• restaurants within hotels that have less than 300 seats are exempt from
providing additional parking spaces
• retail areas within hotels are exempt from providing additional parking
spaces
• hotels with meeting rooms/conference facilities less than 1400sq. m are
exempt from providing additional parking spaces
April 20, 2009 - 5- TS-2009-02
Albeit, at the same time of acknowledging a reduced parking requirement for ancillary
uses, it must be recognized that a large portion of patrons staying at the hotel arrive in
private vehicles. Thus, it is expected that for every 100 rooms, 75 vehicles will need to
be parked on-site. This ratio is still considerably lower than the requirement in many
municipalities that require a 1:1 ratio, in addition to ancillary use parking requirements.
The new proposed City of Niagara Falls standard (in the tourist area) would exempt
additional parking requirements for ancillary uses, as noted above. Recognizing tour
bus companies also provide transportation to hotels ie. from Toronto airport etc. a
further reduction to the parking requirement is justified. Thus, one bus parking space in
lieu of providing 20 parking spaces may be provided on-site up to a maximum of two
on-site bus parking spaces.
A review of the parking supplied at existing hotels versus what would need to be
supplied under the new criteria indicates that some hotels would require less parking
and others more, and is dependant on the type of facilities a hotel provides. In general,
medium to large scale hotels benefit from the parking exemptions due to multiple
ancillary services provided within the hotel.
Summary:
The results from the two and a half year Tourist Area Parking Demand Study carried
out within the Clifton HiIlNictoria Avenue and Fallsview areas justify lower parking
standards for the majority of land uses.
Until now any individual property seeking a reduction in the number of required parking
spaces to serve a site necessitated a private Parking Demand Study and analysis. As a
result of this municipal comprehensive review of parking needs in the tourist core, it was
found that the majority of the land use categories will benefit by a lower parking ratio
standard. These new standards should be brought forward as a municipal update of the
zoning by-law ratios for the study area. Simultaneously, an official plan policy should be
brought forward to preclude the submission of individual parking demand studies once
the new parking ratios have been enacted.
It is recommended:
1) That staff proceed with the public process to amend the Zoning by-law to
incorporate the new standards. Once amended the parking requirements may then
be applied toward future applications.
2) That the Official Plan be amended to eliminate the submission of Parking Demand
Studies to rationalize further reductions to parking requirements.
3) Developers will continue to have the benefit of contributing toward cash-in-lieu for
parking if unwilling or unable to provide the required parking, subject to the
property being located within an approved cash-in-lieu area.
April 20, 2009 - 6- TS-2009-02
Recommended by: li~-
Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning & Development
&
Recommended by: ~u~' ~
Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services
Approved by:
Ed ujlovic, E cutive Director of Community Services
MCarrick
S.\General AdministrationlGA 1.01 Reports\20~9 Communiry Services104 Apr 201TS20~9-02 Tourist Area Parking Demantl SNdy.wpd
~ ~ . .r i~ ~ +Ja¢~14~.., .
- ' _ _ _ - ~ ~
~"~'tirt~.~ ~`t~ ' ~g I : `t N ,~~~u~ .
i~ ~n~ : ~ - . . , - . ~ ~ : t'
fa'@~"'' ~ , r .
, ~ ` Roberts St. . -,i * ' L .
. J
..s..t ~ :•~c i _ i,. _ if
~ ~$`=S, 4. 'y ~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~.v~' ~ il, . .
. ! ,.~u A~ > Philip St.
fF~ ~ 2.~.~. f rr^~C~ ~idO `,Oh~j ~ 'o
~ ~ ~j ¢ ~ ~ . C~ ,S . ~ ~ ~ 'S. ' ` Sf ~ ~ ~
,a~r ,.f..:. ~ ~ 1~- : ~ ~ '~i ~ `
~ ~ m
; , 3 ti, P >
I `y ~
~U ` ~ ay ~
~ ~
~ 3 < ~y ..e~,~ ~ k ~ 3
r
Y ~Z }y ~
j a ~'S~"`;'~~ .~p y ~
,R rj~~ ~ r rc~~ PC~~J . ~~c, ` - ~
7~ i~{ ~ ~ " ~ x ~ -.~yp~.Y
~ ~ ~ ~ ,8.4 ni . x . ~ 1,6` `9y.i . T'M~
$ ~ -x r E ~ yF "sax ' . n C~ . 5,y~ r ~~A - _
P: 7~~'u ~ .•1 y ~}i t ~ t / ~ .e- ~ d3'<?' .
~~S ~ ~ ~ Je ~o~ ~p °,p~ . ~a.
s 7
~i ' y~ ' y 0~ :
k - • ~ ~ Y{y~'d • j : ~ _ f?
~ . ~~a . ~
1 f
r . . y i.' ~i
~S. c~ t ~ f t°,5t`'~~i? ~ ;,f~~~Ny~~ 14' , R `Q,Je aNK:>. ~
~ p . . ~~.r.: ~ ~ 'uF <;;'~c~ ~ 0\ hr(~, i
S~, f' ~6 ~~~,~,~s k a t ~~~i.~~+.~ ~`o~a H~w~ , rw ~ y `i
~ 'a+ s's~`~ti~ ~3'~"r~'.'.i~ "t,~,~. . ~d r
~ . p e ~ '
~ 7 U i'3A~i: ~7 } 1~~ ~^lpFl ~ : 1~`~ F: _ 7. a -da:.. Q ~+iA.,. ~ i
l ~
. ~Y ~ ~ . ~ ~.,'f~? ~ ~'`b'..~rf ~ l~94~ : -
= ytF ~ ~i} Or~ ;
, - 0 , . i ~ .
~
~ ~ , a°~ . ' ;
-o ' ~ ~,~x, ~ ; ;
W ~ ; k ~iJ - .I ~
c ~gt'f'~ 9~- ' "
y ~ F~i y,n7,,,,,,. ..r~ .,r i , i
y +'1 f~ iY ~~~:1 't ~J ~
W ~S ^T~ ~ i.„A. t I q ^!j 11 .
1 SF; ~ ~
a ~ ~ • `
; ~ ~a ' '
` y ~ ~y3.• A c~a'( i
s . . y~~ ~ ;
~ , ri~# "t~ ~ •u
q~ , r j ~r
Y' t ! " , i' l i`.
n t-.F _ ...'S, O1P'~' ..r
i ~ ~ - %
~ ,'+k ~ ~'~r~+- i
F ~ ~e i
~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ '{i r I ~ - j
YR.~ K~ YJ~is..~ ~.'u 1 I .
~~j!enr „zt'aLb • <t ij ~i
A ~ F,}' r r: ~
E s~~.i~°f~ ~ - ~ -
~ ,i , ~
~ 3~ r~;~s x w~a ~~u ,
+~a~ ~ ~ , ,yk~„ ~ ,
F~3.. ; ~C ^ ~
~ r~ ~ ~ - . ~
~ ~ . ' ' ,
1~ ~ ya . y : ~ m ~
' ~ a~ °
~iSi,~ . f ~h
~ j r 8
~i Y~ ~
q . ~ , ~ ^ O 1 ~1
~ Y r+~~. ~ , a~ 4 ~t ± -
~ r3 ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ,
~p. G~~~S,~ gr~~ . ~
' A+r qp~'{mV • - _
+ '~.~pq, " -
Ik'~,' i"~+r~ y '-7
!
5"" , Livin stone St.
+i~~~~, Y~~ ~i~` ~
'j~ TS-2009-02 ~
Tourist Area Parking Limits of Study Area
Niagara,Falls Demand Study NORTH
April 20, 2009 PD-2009-25
Nia~ara~alls
Councillor Carolynn loannoni
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: PD-2009-25
Matters Arising from Municipal Heritage Committee
Regarding the Oswald House Fence
2922 St. Paul Avenue
RECOMMENDATION:
That the recommendation from the Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) as contained in
this report be considered.
BACKGROUND;
On February 25, 2009, Messrs. Fotheringham and Bailey made a presentation to MHC.
It received the information and considered the condition of the structure and the
responsibility of its care.
Municipal Heritage Committee's Motion
"1) That the sfone wall and fence situated on fhe City's road allowance be restored 6y
the City in its current locafion as it is a significanf herifage element included rn the
Reasons for Designation and worthy of preservation.
2) !f not feasible to undertake resforation `in situ' immediately, the fence be stabilized
as soon as possible."
Discussion Points of the Committee
The Oswald House was constructed circa 1835 (see Location Map attached). The stone
wall with iron fence are believed to have been constructed approximately 20 to 25 years
later for the purpose of demarcating the property boundary along St. Paul Avenue and
Church's Lane (see photograph 1).
The property was designated by By-law No. 1978-70 (Appendix 1) which includes a
reference to the wall with fence. At the time the by-law was passed, and until recently, it
was believed that the wall~with fence was on the property with the house.
H~, a
Working Togetker to Serve Our Community ~ o~pia~~ryg a
~e~ei pmen men~
~•t~` = "
T~~.
. ~ , ' . . • . . . ~ . .
.
, ~
r ~ ' ~ ~ ~
eg - . - .
..3 . ~ . /y~~~~~~ -
41,. ~ . • n1LlVV~~~i~~ ~ • 0 •
. . . . . ~ . ~
April 20, 2009 - 2- PD-2009-25
recent survey indicates the wall with fence along St. Paul Avenue is located 3.96 metres
(13 feet) onto the road allowance.
The structure is in poor condition and in need of repair and restoration. (Photographs 2,3
& 4) The owners of the Oswald House, while having indicated in the past the desire to
preserve the fence and pay for all or part of its restoration, do not wish to do so since they
do not have clear title to the structure. It is the opinion of the Municipal Heritage
Committee that the fence is a significant heritage feature that was included in the Reasons
for Designation at a time when very little detail of specific features was included in the by-
laws. This fence is considered to be a rare feature as there are few remaining examples
of cast iron fencing in the City and due to its longevity and existence in a prominent
location. It has an aesthetic importance integral to the overall design and setting of the
Oswald House. For these reasons, the Committee believes it would be appropriate to
preserve this feature in its present location.
CONCLUSION:
The Committee's preference is that the wall and fence be restored in place, but recognizing
that full restoration at this time may not be within the City's budget. As an alternative, the
Committee suggests stabilization of the wall should be undertaken so as to rectify
pedestrian safety concerns and to slow further deterioration.
Recommended by: ~1~-~~C ~ ~ "`x-t~
Alex Herlovitch irector of Planning & Development
Approved by: ~
Ed Dujlovic, ecutive Director of Community Services
P.BOyIelJ. Barnsley:mb
Attach.
S:\PDR12009\PD-2009-25, Matters Arising MHC, Oswald House.wpd
April 20, 2009 - 3- PD-2009-25
~Lp
~ Subject
~ Land
~ CHURCIi'S LANE
~ ~
D
Q C
D< ~
m ~
G9RE ST
8
a
m
A
O N
~
S
1:NTS
2922 St Paul Ave
April 20, 2009 - 4- pD-2009-25
* c~~y_
~ ~
~ f
'y. ~ .
3 y~,~~e.
~ 7 'a
i
S~'" j ~ 3 Mc
s h.! }arn+.~•' 4 `Y,~,t y~. RK',;~~~.^.
s.~~~~~'-'~~tt ~qi~ e.. i~-.'` ~Jwz}'ec^'~a1 1
~
~ ~ ~ H
. , -.i. . sn..,..
sn~~
~4 ~
. _~.v'.r.~c ~ .K<,: .,ss:s2 -d.^ . T .~.;4..a.a-~' ~a
~ } J s-__q • `i
r 1.• _ . ~ ~
T {
is};nYi. -j:N. ~+'i~'. . .'!'A`T3:R _
r ..~~f 3Sfe ~i.~.~;:£(y'_'+~v
~
, t, ` , i •
A 7 , ~ ~y ~ h~~y+• ~ ~ ~ K
~ ~ " .}~~~'r ry'mq~~'~ ;p+~+ ~a~' 4.t.
Y t~. ~ . ~ fd...~f'`~atc"c~.:.`~.. ' v.. - ~.'Sl'...
Figure 1- August 29, 1927, Courtesy of Ontario Archives
; , t ~ 1~ ,
r 1 : ~ I -tt - .a
r~ t i ~i 1 ~ , .
~ / i /
.e ~ ~ ( ? i
f ( ~ i, ~ \ _ f ,
' .~H, ~ I i~Q4 ~ _ F
e{~ ~ /7~ 1 {
~ Y j; ~.~s~ ! . ! ; ~ e ~ ~"i i'~
~ ~ p t`- ~,~r 1 y ~ t x:~ , ~~I ~ .
t y ~ ~ F `
~
d'3. ~ f~
. 1~ ~ _ A ~ y
- ~ w~~ ` \ ~ ti~ :
f - t,. ~
~ ~ „ .
p;., _ .
Y
, ` . , r I~ .'o f ~R
:ti : ' , ~ -x
d.l - rt~ -
~ ' _ ::.e: ~
.a. . .xa-+
x
~ ~ ~ ~ .
~'S y~"'Y`~~~`~ ~~`~'b:~'~`~f }~,~~sr 1". - ~ w,~ ,rr
1~ z3T' f F t~~~i~?L s w~C~Cd E.~~ .
~~S~'~~,,,. 4"?c ~~-~e.~ iF ,~'~-•y~~w~~ry~T
.L~#., „ ,~-~r~r.,
yx4..~
"~"F'~~,t~r ~ ak ~PdEh'%~~?~+SPX'' ~Iy M1~~x p.` y ~ q _
y d
~~"d.G~T fi~; ~ . . ' y} r'~:'. RJS., i ~~~p_
Figure 2- James Oswald House 2006
. ~ - o„r ^z~s.:.:: ~ -Usx
~ , ,
_ > ~i~pPEI~IX~'~:.:,:.
~ ~ . CITY OF NIAG9RA PALLS ~ . - -
~ - Ey-Laa No. 78 - 70. ~ . ~ ' . .
~ A by-law to designaCe [he Oswald Residence at 2922 SL'. PauT. Avenue of
architectunai value and of historic interest. . .
- - WHEREAS The Ontaxio Heritage-Act, 1974, authorizes Che Council o£ a ~
. municipali.ty to enact by-laws Co designate-real property, including all tlie ~
~bulldings and structures thereon, tb be oP historic or architectural value
or intereyt;~ . ~ . - ~ .
AND WHE&EAS~Che Coancil.of The Corporation of the Citp of.Niagara Fa11s has ~
caused to be seroed apoa the owner of the landa and premisss rounicipally
~ known as 2922 St. Pau1 Avenue; commonly kaown as the pswald Res3dence,~upon The -
Ontario Heritage Poundatio¢, Notice of Inteniion to so designata the aforesa3d.
real property~and has caused such Notice oE IaLention to ba published in~a ~
newspapar having general circulation ia tha municipali[y once-£or e8ch of -
-3 conaecutive waeks.;~ ~ ~ ~ , . . .
AND WHEREAS the._feasons for designatioa are set ouC iu Scfiedule~ "B" heret•o;
- AP1D WHEREAS no Notice.of ObjecYion to the propoaed designation has been ~ ~
served upon the Clerk of the muaicipality. ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - - -
NOW THEREFORE THE COIINCTL OF THE CORPORATION 0$ THE CITY OP NTAGqpA gAi,LS . ~
ENACTS AS FDLIAWS: . - . ~ . . . . . .
1. That the real propertq more particularly described in Schedule "A" -
- hereto, kno~in ea the Oavald Reaidence at 2922 St. Paul Avenue be deaignated .
~ ~ as being o£ archipectural valua or interest. ~ . ~ . ' . ~ -
2. The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to~cauae a copy of this by-law ~
~.to be regLstered againat Che property described ia Schedule "A" hereto in~the
~ ~ proper Land Regtstry Office. ~ ~ ~ . - . ~ ~ - . ,
- 3. The CiYy Clexk ia hereby authorized to cause af copy of thie hy-law
W[o be served upon the o»mer oE the aforesaid property and upon The OnEario
. Heri[age Foundation and to cause notice of this bp-laW to be published in a~
news paper having geaeral circulatioa ia tfia City of Niagara Falls. ~
Passed thie 17Ch day of .~~~~+Pril ~ 197$
~ ~
. ~
_ r
~ CLERK . ~ •V•••MAYOR ~ .
i.
I the un~-~~ of ihs
~ First Reading: Apxil 11 ,~978.C~''yofh;ag~.~ ~ a
~ Second Reading: April 17 lg~g_ . , -'~j ~rr-. 3~7
' i i p~ d?r:-; .
Third Reading: Apxil 17 , 1978. By'.,Law..78 7Q......_._...
- ~ (i ^'_SD, . .i_.., ,
-
~~,.._,A.P6.}} 1?,..7.~
' . _ iBII(
~ ~ . ~ . . . . ~ . . . _..r:i.3Ki
_ _ . , ,
scHEnut.~ ~~A~~ .
to
. . CITY OF NiAGAFA FALLS : ~ ~
, ~ . By-law No. 78 ' 70 ' . . ~ .
~ ALL AND SINGUfAR Chat certai.n parcel ox tracC of Land and pxemises, ~
. situate, 1y3,ng aud beisg in the City of Niagara Falls, in the ~ . -
. Regioaal Municipality of.Niagara (£ozmerly in the Township o£ . ~
Stau~{ord) and being composed of part o£ Township Lots~37 and 43 ~
~ and part of Yhe unopened road allowance between Township Lots 36 ~
and 37 and 6etveen Towns03p Lots 43 and 44 in the said £ozmer -
Townsh3p o£ Stam£oxd, which said parcel is.more particu7,arly
desczibed in an instrt~ent registered in the L~d Begi,stsy~0£fice -
~ for the Registry Division of Niagara South on the Sth day of ,7im~t ~
1972 as No. I65384. . ~ ~ . ~
,
~ . . . ' . ' ' . . .I:.SM.;
SCfiEDULE nB" . ' ~ '
~ ~ to ' ' . - . - .
~ ~ CITY OF NSAGARA FALLS . .
BY'1a'~ No. 78 - 70
~
RPASONS FOR ?ESTGNATION OF 7TiE OSW6LD RESIpENC~ ~
. Tlie former Oswald Rasidence (c. 1835) is an excellent examq~le . -
o£ the ^Regencq style" cottage bu3Zt primarily in the decades
- of the~ thirties and forties_ o£ the Last cantury in Canada. Cn~
elabozate iro¢ Eence supporCed in stone, ia~orted Pxom England
and xemaining to-day in good condit3on surmunds the yard on twu ~ ~
.sidas. James Oswald was u prominent businessman in the Niagara
- area,~having run the S~^nirlpool House as an Inn, as well as a Arewery _
- on the road to St. David's. He was once accvsed o# murdezing one
~ of the patxons of his Inn but was~ acquitted when his "victim^ ~ ~
showed iip in court. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . .
`
. . .
Npri120~1009 POd00932
Councillor Camlynn loannonl
and Members of the Community Services Commitlee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members'.
Re: PD3009-32
Municipal SGH Review
Regartling [he Oswaltl House Fence
2922 St. PaulNVenue
RECOMMENOATION: inac s~am work wim propeny owners ro tleveiop a compromise, wit~ Cny
paying for [M1e s~one work 8[M1e property owners paying (or iron worN antl ~M1a~ StaH report back ~o
Comdl.
That Council direc~ s~aH ~o work with the owners of 2922 SL Paul Avenue b close antl atld
a portion of ~he mad allowance to the adlacen~ lantl', reloca~e and restore the s~one potlion
of the s~mcNre to those lands subjec~ to ~he owners assuming responsibility for [he
resroration of ihe iron fence and ongoing maintenance.
BACKGROUND:
City staH hes been In dlscuselons (see Chmnology attachetl) wlih the owners of the Oswald
House (phorogreph 1) concerning ihe location and contlition of [he srone wall with fence for
more than ~wo years. The issue has been prohaqed due to ihe fact ihat ihis issue involves
ownership issues, location constrain~s, heri~age presena~ion issues and fnancial
consitlera~ions. Various atlempts to resolve the condition o( ~he fence have been expbred
by staH.
Initially Messrs. 8ailey and Fotheringham approached ihe City seeking permission to
permanenHy maintain ~he wall with Iron fence in i~s arrent location on the road allowance.
Staff offeretl an encmachmen~ agreemen~ so they could repair iL However, the
encroachmen~ agreement was unacceptable to them because it con~ained a clause which
would require [hat the fence be removetl if ~he City ever needetl tha~ patl o( ~he matl
allowance for sVeet improvemenis or widening. City staR [hen pmposed moving onty the
wall on~o their pmperty, approximately 4 0 m(13 ft) east of ihe current location. This was
not viewetl as an acceptable al~ema~ive because i~ would impact on the landscapinq of the
front yartl. City staff then proposed closing and conveying 25 m(B k) of ~he road allowance
and moving ihe well at a sheratl cos~ ~o that looetion end re~aining LS m(5 0 k) as part of
the road allowance. This op~ion was also relected by the owners of the Oswald House
because of cost.
Working Z'o,~e0ier lo Save Our Corennmity
April 20, 2009 - 2- PD-200932
A legal opinion from the solicitor for the owners of the Oswald House (Appendix 1),
suggests that the wall with fence is owned by the City. Therefore, Messrs. Bailey and
Fotheringham believe responsibility for the maintenance of this heritage feature lies with
the City. The City Solicitor acknowledges that while it could be argued that the fence
belongs to the City owing to the happenstance that it is located on the road allowance, but
that the fence serves no municipal purpose. The fence is there solely to serve and
enhance the Oswald House and it could equally (and likely more convincingly) be argued
that the fence is not the property of the municipality because the portion of the road where
the fence is located was acquired by the Province by way of expropriation. The
expropriation was for highway purposes. A fence in this location is contrary to the status
of the property as a highway.
While the wall with iron fence is listed in the reasons for designation of the Oswald House,
it is also the opinion of the City Solicitor that the location of the structure being on the road
allowance is not subject to the designation by-law because that by-law is not registered on
title of the road allowance.
Restoration in place is the preferred option of the Municipal Heritage Committee. Staff
received a quote to restore only the stone wall of $25,000 (including new foundation
whether in-place or relocated). The cost to restore the ironwork would be additional. Staff
estimate it could cost a total of $38,185 to also restore both the stonework and the iron
fence. Staff has not investigated what would be needed to stabilize the wall and fence
features nor the associated costs.
From a staff perspective there are some problems with restoring the wall in place. The
stone wall is located on the edge of an existing manhole and sanitary sewer within the
boulevard (Photograph 2). A municipal sidewalk is proposed to be constructed along this
portion of St. Paul Avenue to complete the missing portion of sidewalk between Shane
Court (in the north) and the sidewalk south of Church's Lane. Because the boulevard is
higher than the wall and because of the location of the wall within the road allowance,
installation of the sidewalk could affect the wall either through stormwater run-off ponding
next to the fence or potential damage to the wall and fence by heavy equipment during
sidewalk construction. While the City has a duty under the Provincial Policy Statement to
conserve significant built heritage resources, it also a duty to keep public highways free
and clear of obstructions.
In light of all of the above, staff is of the opinion that the best approach is to close the
easterly 2.5 m(8 ft) of the road allowance and the lands be added to Oswald House
property. The stone wall should be moved and restored on these lands by the City. The
restoration of the iron fence atop the wall should be the responsibility of the owners of the
Oswald House. Photograph 3 depicts the lines in question. By moving the wall back 1.5 m
(5 ft) east of the existing shrubs, it provides sufficient room to install the sidewalk and not
encroach on the location of underground hydro services. It also protects the greatest
amount of front yard landscaping for the Oswald House which is part of the historic
character and setting associated with the heritage features.
April 20, 2009 - 3- PD-2009-32
CONCLUSION:
The stone wall with iron fence is a recognizable heritage landmark on a prominent corner
within the historic Stamford area. The wall with fence was initially built to enhance the
property of the Oswald House and the municipal interest has come about by default
because of expropriation of land (by the Province) for the road right-of-way. The City
would like to reduce any liability associated with the structure and relocating it would
resolve this aspect. Relocation of the wall with fence would allow for the installation of the
sidewalk. The costs associated with moving and rebuilding the stone portion could come
from both the sidewalk construction budget and the designated property grant reserve
budget. The owners of the Oswald House should show good faith by participating in the
restoration of the ironwork portion of the structure. If this position proves to be
unacceptable to the owners of the Oswald House, the City should remove the stone wall
with iron fence to reduce the liability associated with the condition of the wall and fence and
to ensure the road right-of-way is free and clear for its intended purpose.
Recommended by: ~`"~4~ U~..~-t\+-~'
Alex Herlovitch, Dir tor of Planning & Development
Approved by: ~
Ed Dujlovic, Ex utive Director of Community Services
P.Boyle:bp
Attach.
S:\PDR120091PD-200932, Municipal Staff Review, Oswald House Fence, 2922 St. Paul Ave.wpd
April 20, 2009 - 4- PD-200932
' _;i. .R. ~ ~
, I t y ..r .
~ !{~~_f' ' ~.7 ~
r N'r ~
f•` ^i
• .
t'-
- ?t
.S-'~ ~ _
~ ' ~ , r jr ~t~
n-, ~ i~.i r
, ~.t ~.?~'(j'r~~i.;lyt;~~i~•.
;1' , F l ~ t -
-c
t~;. P~1 ty f;~~ t ~ +i
. _ u 7 f~v4 F ,4~;.
- :z , , ~ ~ ~
-
~'.'Fir a
~iyu3~r-'. ~i
t
! ~ ,
i a 1 ~ ~
~ ' ~ r ~
S~y ' ki~~t7' ~ .~.,~P.~_ L 4
~ '
: .
,~.~K;,~
, . ' _ , _
Photograph 1- House from St. Paul Ave.
~ +rYx^F .a. s y W .i. f ~~t~e~a'rl~ ~%3- . W • L~
L~' i`il'L. i~~y h ~.;a ~ ~
s''. x~ . ; rs~ r as~ _
' `y °C i ~ ~P~j#'~ i ~ Nt~~.
~ ~ a.
P ~5 i , .
~ ~ . . . ~ d~~~~ ~ , ' o- ~
. ~ ~ ! .
Nµ ~ _
_ h ~ >
. ~ ~ Li~.. ~'~fi ~'r~j~y OF 3 u~.~,-r'f.~,+Y ~ `t~ ~ ~ ~;`i
b' W -1F ~r . ~ S 'S? ~ ~ `Y {~F J ~ ~ OM1' '~+4
~y .f~~~ I ~1 Z i'. ~P^ y~4.. rj;•xL4 v.y C
..yt
`~''°'3~X'~~ +s"'~`~'p~ ~ R ~'`y~ s,~>~,,:~.~ `~~~5 `
i~" ~ ~51~, i ~ ~ ~ ~ d~~`~~~~~ +T
7 t ~
t'f:•' _yY v*~~~~ Y °?'Na2 ~ ~Y ' +
~k~: ~ Y ~ F ? ~ ~ xa` .
a Y ~ y ~ ~
. f' ~ T - '^f ,5.. ~
~ 4
~~t~ ~ y y `F
• ~ : P .
~ \ 1
y~ ~ r~ ~ ~Kt a
S.' ~a r>30" ~.-c , j _y
- ~ ~ , tr. ;~i
_ S~ ~ M` ~
~ e , i . _ i' -r'°.~ ~ ~ t
.u~' ° d .
Photograph 2 - Manhole cover
April 20, 2009 - 5- PD-2009-32
1'~ , r , i - ?~A"r-L;~q~7' ~
S ' Y,5"-~' 7}i a
3~- mSN---,• _ ~~'-~.,°~'~:;{.tie ~:~i
~ ~
_ i
. ~
A
K`
4 Ay..
~p ~ C.~ ~ } 7 {
~ -vt..~i 7-
' 1 6 .i ' 1.. J
i~
t
{
i.
} i ~ 1 h.~ ..f V ..F~~
s ~ . ' }1,1~.4' ,,s...
t~
~ 't~~,
l ~ ,Y
.i r -
Photograph 3- Property line - Service Locations - Proposed fence line
Oswald House Fence
Chronology of Events
December 2005 Steve Bailey/Dave Fotheringham purchase Oswald House
March 27, 2006 A. Herlovitch(AH) receives an email from Dave Fotheringham (DF)
want to make repairs to the fence,
acknowledge that most of the fence is on City property.
reluctant to spend ($12,000) on the fence if City might widen the
road and demolish the fence.
Is anything the City might do to allay their concerns.
March 27, 2006 AH emails E. Dujlovic (ED), Director of Municipal Works
Can he provide any information on when St. Paul Ave. might be
widened, if at all
What is City's position regarding the fence, given its heritage
status.
April 24, 2006 DF email to AH about the possibility of an easement. DF also
advises of a verbal estimate of $12,000 ($6,000 for iron work and
$6,000 for stone work).
April 24, 2006 AH emails DF:
Follow-up with Engineering on the timing for the road widening of
St. Paul (if any).
Will review easement (licence to encroach) with Legal Services
Believes most encroachment agreements contain clause that
allows City to remove encroachment if the land is needed
April 25, 2006 AH sends memo to Karen Kelly, City Solicitor to review the an
easement (licence to encroach) for the fence
May 16, 2006 Geoff Holman of Municipal Works responds that section of St. Paul
Ave is under City jurisdiction and an encroachment agreement
would be in order.
Give both the owners and City some clarification of rights in the
event of future road and/or utility conflicts.
May 24, 2006 DF and Steve Bailey (SB) (owners of Oswald House) submit
application for a designated property grant to restore the stone wall
and fence.
June 12, 2006 Council approves Designated Property Grant application for
restoration of the stone wall and iron fence and restoration work on
shutters, windows and doors.
July 24, 2006 DF emails AH requesting follow-up on assurance from the City
about the future of the fence prior to paying to have it restored. If
the City is not willing to pay for repair to its portion of the fence
owners may need to consider the option of removing the iron work
from the stone wall.
August 21, 2006 Report to Council on August 21, 2006 explaining the request for
deferral of the fence grant application.
Sept. 29, 2006 DF and AH discuss 2 options.
Option 1: owners relinquish ownership and all interests in the wall
and fence on those portions of the City's road allowance.
-the fence would become the responsibility of the City.
DF indicated he did not want to proceed with that option.
Option 2:secure a licence to encroach from the City for the fence
within the City's road allowance.
-this licence would involve the owners having a reference plan
prepared at their expense.
AH acknowledged owners liked this option for its reassurance that
their investment in the restoration of the fence would be protected.
AH :the licence would give the owners certain rights, but City would
retain the right to revoke the licence where municipal interests
prevailed.
AH : the owners concerns about the possibility fence may be
removed for a road widening, but any widening would be subject to
an Environmental Assessment where the public and public
agencies (i.e. MHC) could provide input.
Oct. 16, 2006 DF sent email to Councillor Selena Volpatti, Chair of the
Community Services Committee (CSC) (AH copied) re concerns
about damage to the fence should stop light/cross walk be installed
at St. Paul / Church's Lane / Riall St.
Owners want assurance that City will pay to preserve the fence by
moving it onto the owner's property line.
Ask City to record the condition of the fence prior to work on the
project as damage had occurred previously by City work's crews.
Oct. 24, 2006 AH emails Ken Beaman, City Solicitor, re: clause in an
encroachment agreement that if road widening should occur, the
fence be re-located to property line at City's expense.
Oct. 26, 2006 KB responds to AH :encroachment agreements are at the pleasure
of the City; the right of the public to use road allowance supercedes
right of neighbouring property owner who is encroaching on the
City property.
Request would have to be made through CSC to have Council
deviate from standard policy about encroachment agreements.
Oct. 26, 2006 AH responds to SV :if the owners entered an encroachment
agreement and have a clause added about movement of fence
onto their property at the City's expense, they request this in a
submission to CSC.
August 7, 20o7 DF emails Councillor Janice Wing to inquire about what assistance
she can provide in finding a resolution to the fence
restoration/repair.
DF :all of the fence on the west side of the property and part of the
fence on the south side is on the City's road allowance. The
owners suggest they are willing to pay for the repair of all of the
fence - which in 2008 will be approx. $15,000, of which they expect
to get a grant from the City for $3,000.
DF attached email from AH where he explains the 2 options (Oct
16/06). Owners concerns about the options were lack of assurance
that City would either not repair the fence if they took ownership, or
revoke a licence to encroach to widen the road.
August 8, 2007 AH emails Councillor JW about possible solutions,
- widening of St. Paul and place sidewalk inside the curb, next
to the stone wall and fence.
- Utilities would be inside the front yard of the property, but
still in the City's road allowance. Just a possibility, hence, no
comfort to the owners.
- If a road widening be taken, an EA was also not a great deal
of comfort to the owners.
- AH :possibility of using accumulated Designated Property
Grant funds for a one time large grant opportunity, which
would be a showcase project.
- would be enough to pay half the cost of relocating the fence
to the owner's property, with the owners paying a matching
amount.
- Asks JW if as a Council member the use of public money in
this way is acceptable? He acknowledges ground work
would need to be done.
August 8, 2007 JW to AH suggests as this is exceptional situation, with a
significant fence.
JW; suggests MHC direct some of its reserve money toward the
fence as it is imperilled by its location on public lands. Also notes
that the fence was imperilled due to lands being `taken' by
expropriation, then 'rescue' of the fence using MHC funds was
more compelling.
JW :her preference would be to have it restored in place, rather
than moved.
Another possibility is the owners requesting permission to move the
fence, at which time MHC would recommend that Council deny the
request and thereby Municipal Works staff would just have to work
with it?
JW another option: sell the footprint of the lands on which the
fence sits to the owners, with City retaining the land between the
road and the base of the wall for road widening and sidewalk
purposes and an easement over the lands on the inside of the
fence for utilities ?
Or, what if the footprint was designated and an OHT easement
similar to that obtained for the Ruth Redmond lands was obtained.
August 10, 2007 AH to JW by suggests that he did not know how the fence came to
be located on the road allowance. The fence is not as old as the
house and approximates its construction around 1870. AH not
supportive of selling of a strip of land (footprint) in the boulevard to
the owners as it is not contiguous and could create a hardship for
the municipality later.
AH questions whether he should pursue with city solicitor
regarding development of a heritage easement agreement.
August 14, 2007 AH to JW :we had met with KB, regarding a Conservation
Easement where the City enters into an agreement with the owner
of the land (the City) ourselves, which would not work.
AH advises that PB is investigating what money is available in the
MHC reserves to assist in relocating the fence to the owners
property line.
August 23, 2007 JW emails to advise that DF spoke about the fence at MHC
meeting , fence is deteriorating rapidly, unsightly, detracting from
the rest of the property.
JW spoke with DF and he suggested that if the fence deteriorated
much further they would remove the remaining metal and abandon
the stone base to the elements.
DF would accept an easement with a 10 yr guarantee - with an
amortization clause such that if they repair, and fence is
demolished, they would be reimbursed, in year 1- 100% of the
costs and continuing for 10 years with the reimbursement in year
10 of 10%. JW asks if the City could offer this as an enhanced
easement agreement.
August 27, 2007 KB responds re a heritage easement. Not recommended but
rather the fence could be accommodated by a modified
encroachment agreement where the City would agree not to disturb
the fence. Ideally the fence would be removed from the road
allowance and restored on the property of the owner.
AH already suggested this as there was money in the heritage fund
which could be used to finance this project.
August 28, 2007 AH responds to JW's email: City has offered a Licence to
Encroach, which would maintain the fence in that location.
Re-assuring the owners that an EA would have to take place in the
event of a road widening has not been enough assurance for them.
Fence is a designated feature, if owners want to remove it, need
MHC approval and a recommendation to Council.
Amortization plan could not be considered as the intentional
destruction of the fence by the City is not contemplated.
October 18, 2007 PB contact owners to offer of a one time grant to remove the
encumbrance from City property on a 50150 cost share basis.
Fence be relocated onto their property.
SB comments: fence would require cement foundation in order to
comply with building code; would need to be 12' inside its present
location. Owners not interested due to the recent landscaping. 6
months ago may have considered, but not now.
October 19, 2007 PB receives telephone call from DF re: two options presented to
them earlier.
October 19, 2007 DF states they would agree to gifting fence to City with 2
conditions:
1- restoration of the fence occur in 2008 and
2- that the fence would always remain with the Oswald House.
October 19, 2007 AH replies to email setting out his re-cap of the offers to date:
9 Suggested Solutions:
1. City proposed owners secure a standard licence to encroach
allowing the owners to restore the fence in situ, but requiring any
encroachment to be removed when needed for road widening
purposes. Rejected by the owners as no guarantee after spending
money fo restore the fence.
2. City proposed owners secure a standard licence to encroach
thus allowing the owners to restore fence in situ and rely on an EA
to relocate the fence, as a cultural heritage feature, to the property
line as part of the road works. Rejected by the owners as it
provides no guarantee and relies on a process outside their control.
3. City proposed owners secure a licence to encroach with a
clause stating that the City would work with the owners to relocate
the fence during any road construction/widening works thus
allowing the owners to restore the fence in situ. Was still on the
table for discussion as of October 2007.
4. The owners proposed that they secure a licence to encroach
from the City, restore the fence in situ and that the licence include
wording to the effect that the owners be compensated for the
restoration costs of the fence on a sliding scale should the fence be
removed for road widening purposes. Rejected by the City as the
City typicafly does not directly pay an owner for something which
encroaches onto City property.
5. City proposed that the owners relinquish ownership of the fence,
thus becoming the City's responsibility. Rejecfed by the owners as
a!1 rights would be lost.
6. The owners proposed the they gift the fence with conditions that
the fence be restored by a given date and remain with the Oswald
House. The City will not accept a gift with conditions fo restore the
fence for the sole benefit of fhe owners.
7. City proposed that a one-time matching grant be made available
to the owners who would remove the fence/impediment from
municipal property (depending on City Council accepting such a
proposal) and restore the fence inside the property line. lnitially
rejected, but may still be under consideration.
8. JW proposed that a Conservation Easement agreement be
developed in conjunction with the licence to encroach. The
Conservation Easement is attached to the land, The City owns the
land, so the Conservation Easement would be between the City
and the City. Rejected by the City as fhis land is identified for
future road purposes.
9. Janice Wing proposed that the City sell the land on which the
fence sits, to the owners.
AH suggests the two options availabie to consider would be #3 and
#7.
With respect to DF's two points, AH clarifies that `gifting' and
`relinquishing' all rights are different, albeit, subtle, but distinctly
different.
July 3, 2008 Site meeting held at 2922 St. Paul Ave to view fence condition,
location and surrounding property. In attendance: staff - J.
Barnsley, P. Boyle, Chuck McLeod, Chris Anders; owners - Steve
Bailey and Dave Fotheringham.
August 6, 2008 AH writes letter to DF/SB explaining results of site visit and setting
out City's proposal for a resolution:
- transfer 2.4 m of the St. Paul Rd allowance to owners, at no
cost to them;
- construct new concrete foundation for the wall, at no cost to
owners;
- construct a sidewalk and re-grade boulevard such that
drainage within the road allowance will be directed toward
the road and away from the wall.
A quote for the total cost of foundation, wall relocation, and
reconstruction is $25,000 of which $6,000 from Designated
Property Grant and balance shared between City and owners.
August 21, 2008 DF writes to City advising that as the City proposal was a formal,
more costly solution, they sought Legal advice from their solicitor
Brett Murray, who advanced the position that the portion of the wall
and fence on the road allowance belongs to the City, not the
owners of the Oswald House.
November 6, 2008 AH responds to KB's request for financial information regarding
who would contribute what to the cost of moving, restoring the
fence, AH advises that MHC's grant money may only be available if
Council approves budget for 2009. GH responds that there is
money in his `sidewalk' budget, for now. The money in his budget
was for sidewalk installation, re-grade the boulevard and pour a
new concrete footing for the re-located wall.
December 1, 2008 PB receives cail from DF requesting letter detailing offer conveyed
to them from their lawyer as the result of a conversation with KB.
2 options offered by the City:
1) The City would move the fence onto their property and it would
cost them $6,000.
2) The City will demolish the fence.
Dec 23, 2008 KB sends letter to DF/SB in reply to the August 21, 2008 letter.
acknowledges argument could be made that fence became the
property of the City at the time the County was transferred to the
City.
Proposal to owners was to move the fence to the property line
between the road and the owners property, with City absorbing
$21,000 of the projected $25,000 in cost, balance of $4,000 paid
by the owners. These did not include restoring the iron work.
Jan 25, 2009 DF responds to KB's :the City's proposal is beyond their means.
Cites 3 instances where the City made offers to them and that each
offer increased the amount of money they were expected to
contribute to the restoration.
The re-landscaping of their front yard is expected to be $5,000 -
$6,000.
Jan 25, 2009 DF writes to AH and encloses a copy of the letter sent to KB.
DF: requests that the designating by-law be amended to allow them
to demalish the 75% portion of the fence on their property.
Jan 28, 2009 AH emails DF advises that the request to amend the designating
by-law to remove the listed heritage feature will be referred to
MHC, who will then make a recommendation to Council.
AH also clarifies some statements made by DF regarding
restoration costs. AH concludes the email by stating that they
seem to now prefer to remove the wall with fence and this proposal
will now be advanced to the MHC and ultimately Council.
Feb 9, 2009 A Matters arising report was prepared and taken to Senior Staff
meeting asking that Council consider a recommendation from MHC
that the stone wall and fence be restored by the City in its current
location as it is a significant heritage feature. Report was deferred
when DF/SB's email was received explaining that the owners
wished to removed the wall and fence. It was deferred so that
MHC could consider the request to have the fence and wall de-
designated and removed.
Feb 15, 2009 DF/SB letter to MHC outlining their position that the fence could
remain on the road allowance; the city is responsible for the fence
on the road allowance; not able to participate in the City's most
recent proposal; they gave a short chronology of events leading up
to the last offer from the City of Dec. 23, 2008. DF stated that their
cost to restore the fence would be $22,000.
S:IHISTORYIINV~StPaul2922.dp10swald House FenceChronology of Events - REVISED - 7 April 09 wpd.wpd
~ PD-2U09-32 ~ ~
S.annetl f
APPENDIX 1 P~~°°'°9 p'
^C~. t
File~ F
2922 St. Paul Ave
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2J 2L4
August 21, 2008
Ms. Peggy Boyle, Assistant Planner
Community Services Department
Planning and Development
City of Niagaza Falls
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
Delivered by Hand
Dear Peggy:
Re: Restoration of Stone Wall
Steven and I were never comfortable with the city's position that we owned the portion of
the fence situated on the road allowance. We were stil] willing to commit a limited
amount to repairing the fence in situ in order to achieve some control over the timing and
quality of the work. Now that the city is proposing a more formal and cosdy solution, we
thought it prudent to obtain legal advice.
I have attached a copy of part of a 2005 survey of our property and a copy of a letter from
our lawyer, Brett Murray of Floras and Murray, dated August 19, 2008. It is his opinion
that the fence located on the road allowance belongs to the city. We would appreciate
comments from the city on his letter. If the city still believes that the fence belongs to us,
we would like an explanation so that we can forward it to our lawyer for comment.
Yours very truly:
David Fotheringham
RECEIVED
Au~ 21 zoos
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
i
Floras and Murray
Barris[ers and Solicitors
Frederick Floras, Q.G (Retired) 55 Quemi Slrec[ Easl, Sniie 801 Phone (41G) BG9-31SI
~r<It D. Murray I Tomnro, Ontario I'ax AI b) H69~ I]62
JnAith R. P. Rence MSC IR6
August 19, 2008
Steven Bailey and
David Fotheringham
2922 St. Paul Road
NIAGARA FALLS, Ontario
L2J 2L4
Dear David and Steven:
Re: Fence Issue
Further to our recent discussions, I have considered the matter of responsibility far the
stone and iron fence around your property. You have advised me that you have evidence to document
that this fence has been in existence for a very substantial period of time, back to approximately the
1860s. You have had your property surveyed in late 2005. The fence now sits, as to the Church Lane
side, mostly on your property and would be considered to be a boundary fence. On the rest of the
Church Lane side and along the St. Paul Road side, the fence is now located on public road allowance.
From the 2005 survey, it is evident that many years ago the lastly mentioned section of
the fence was originally a boundary fence as well. However, the then County took a portion ofthe land
owned by your predecessors in title for the purposes ofwidening the road allowance for St. Paul Road.
Given this information, I am of the opinion that you are no longer the owner of that
portion of this fence constructed on the lands taken for road widening by the County (subsequently the
Regional Municipality) and latterly transferred to the City of Niagara Falls.
Had this portion of the fence been constructed after the widening of St. Paul Road
allowance by your predecessor in titie, it would constitute an encroachment onto such road allowance.
Usually for unused road allowances, municipalities do not take issue with such improvements but the
municipality will not assume responsibility for it in any way.
Since the fence appears to have been on the land at the time St. Paul Road was widened,
the fence is not such an encroachment. It is my opinion that, the fence, being an improvement on the
land at the time of the effective transfer oftitle to the municipality, the municipality took ownership and
title to a!1 improviments or. the land and therefore the responsibili.z:s.of ownership.thereof.
I hopethatmy comments will be ofassistanceto you in dealing with the City ofNiagara
Falls in resolving your outstanding issues relating to the fence. I enclose my account herewith for your
kind attention.
Yours very truly
FLORAS AND MURRAY
~
~~~C b. Murray
BDM1pc
Encl.
~ ~ U~ . : i . ~ '.'Vj~`. . . _ ' . .
a ~ZI.
K ~ ~
O JI
CHNN UNK FENGE ~ ~
3~ I ~
x6 ~
a ~I
b'S9 e.l 0.5'0 ~ ~ ^
b, n3x6 b'S u' x 2.65 ' p'nj %65ti
6~~a 0-8~° ~ e
13.9' ~ x
0.5'0 0.5'm 0.5'0
X zo
N
I ~ I~ ~
o m F
m ap z
0
3 X a I~ a~
p~ I Z I S N
Q 1~ N
2~ X xb~dy } O Z
~ 3 I o Q ~ xy'I
_ ~ J
O ~
S 6,3~ Q m x6~ 6.~ti~ tiry
m K ~ 6 O.fi'.
3.5'0 ~ ~ m CONC. SIEPS pCOA
~ ~ Z I w ~ 6 0 6~~6 a!A
p9 n ~ ~ ~ 45.3' s3a.r
\ ~6~ ~Z d I m Z
O
4q~ }a~ I ~ ~ ~ U U 1.2'0
'-„c~' a z OO I z ~
7 634.7' x . U~ } ~ N r. ~ Q ~
6'h3 , ua ,o'.. ~.Zi3 m ~ a ~ S3' h
~ e I~`~. O ~ I S Q N x6 x6~j
y~po aW ~ ~ 'N Q Ol
~
WW ~ Z I a ~ O
I N Q ~ 01
mV ~ Q OJ V
I I ~ I Z O
~ Z O
.634.9" Q ~ ~ d
~I ~.~dA M ~ I O N O
~I ,~.3•° a ~ W
>
x 0 w o
~6 X N
I 6~ v~i 3
~ ~ Z b~~h ^ I J
} x ~ I
CD a I
I w m
s ~
3 Z ~ Q7
N
O~ ~ W d ~ ~ ~
- . . _ . . ~LS 2~ ~ 2 VWI 6~7A ~
' ~i~ W I W O x i
pW N N U
I U I6'"g Z Z ~
~ y~°$ ~ ~ 45.25 x~
~ I I 6}~'
6~ a7~
6"'~ I 0
~ ~ ~ 9
6,~d
6~p~
i ~ S~~
I b3 I I n
} N
6 63h~ 1.5'm ¢ I xb~~h ~
x ~ w
ENCE ON x
I: . 6 . ap S/B(]441 ~
RON~F 6~
April 20, 2009 PD-2009-27
Nia~ara~a,Ils
Councillor Carolynn loannoni
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: PD-2009-27 - REVISED
Matters Arising from Municipal Heritage Committee
Status of Jolley Cut
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Council consider the designation of the Jolley Cut as a Cultural Heritage
Landscape following the design and reconstruction of the pathway.
2. That Council forward the following Municipal Heritage Committee comments to the
architect responsible for preparing a landscape plan for the Jolley Cut:
- that the walkway follow its existing path and remain true to the natural
contour of the moraine;
- the walkway width should be maintained at its current width;
- that native species should be used;
- a tree protection plan should be completed; and
- that the Municipal Heritage Committee be consulted in the design stage.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of February 25, 2009, the Municipal Heritage Committee reviewed report
MW-2009-04 (Appendix 1) regarding improvements to the Jolley Cut. The Committee
reconsidered its December 2002 motion to designate the Jolley Cut under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act.
Municipal Heritage Committee Motion
"Thaf Council considerthe Municipal Herrtage Committee's recommendation
that fhe Jolley Cuf pathway be designated as a Cultural Herrtage Landscape
due to ifs historical significance to the City, and fhe designation should cover
the entrre length of the pathway."
Working Together to Serve Our Communiry I C~mPlanning & De el Pme rtment
- -`~•~.,.,w....., '
. r . :.;i..~.
. _ , . ~~'.Lw•,D~f(~"' ~ ~a ~ . 0 . •1 .
. , . . . . .
. . . ~ , ,~.r -
,
~ . . . . . . . . . . k°..v.'s"av::'
April 20, 2009 - 2- PD-2009-27
Points of Committee Discussion
The evaluation completed by the Municipal Heritage Committee in 2002 was based on
criteria of the day, which is not unlike the current criteria of Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario
Heritage Act. The Municipal Heritage Committee re-affirmed the recommendation made
in 2002 to designate for the following reasons:
Criteria Assessment
Style/ Visual appeal Only totally pedestrian route to Queen
Victoria Park and its naturalized
appearance
Association/Pattern Association with the City of the Falls
Company Plan
Age Continuous use since 1787
Contextual setting A familiar landscape in the context of
Queen Victoria Park
Alterations From natural growth of vegetation and
changes are minor in nature
The Committee also discussed specific matters that should be addressed in the
preparation of the landscape plan by The Kirkland Partnership that would assist in
maintaining the naturalized character of the Jolley Cut as they represent the character
defining elements. These would include:
• that the walkway width be maintained as it currently exists;
• that native species be used; and
• that a Tree Preservation plan be included in the landscape plan, so that any
trees that can be preserved will be identified.
In addition, the Municipal Heritage Committee wished to be consulted during the design
stage.
Atthe Municipal Heritage Committee meeting on March 25, 2009, itwas requested that the
following point be added to the specific matters being addressed in the landscape plan
preparation.
• that the walkway follow its existing path and remain true to the natural
contour of the moraine.
Staff Commentary
The Jolley Cut has been a pedestrian pathway since the early 19'h century which has
played a role in connecting the Fallsview area with Queen Victoria Park. As noted by the
Committee, the Jolley Cut is an evolved landscape which meets the provincial criteria as
a cultural heritage landscape. The Jolley Cut has evolved from what was once a gully to
a path to the current state as a partially improved walkway. It has changed in appearance
and performance over the years. In addition, the Jolley Cut also acts as a utility corridor
for municipal sanitary and storm sewers.
April 20, 2009 - 3- PD-2009-27
The current condition of the Jolley Cut has deteriorated to the point where pedestrian
safety is an issue. Construction of the proposed hotel on the abutting lands to the south
will also disturb the Jolley Cut. Maintenance of the sewers will also mean the Jolley Cut
may be disturbed in the future if there are problems.
It is possible to rectify pedestrian safety matters and address the overall appearance and
amenity of the Jolley Cut through the preparation of a designed landscape plan. It is
possible to maintain the Jolley Cut as a cultural heritage landscape, but rather than be
classified as an evolved landscape it would fit the category of a defined landscape. A
defined landscape is one which has been designed by a professional, exhibits a high
degree of technical or scientific achievement, or may contain excellent craftsmanship. If
the matters requested by the Committee are included in the preparation of the landscape
plan it will serve to ensure that the character defining elements are addressed
appropriately in the design process.
The municipality must find a balance between creating a safe public walkway for the
benefit of the entire community and preserving the heritage qualities. Accordingly,
designation and preparation of the landscape plan for an improved walkway should be
integrated. It may be that designation occurs as a defined cultural heritage landscape
which recognizes the ongoing evolution of the Jolley Cut.
CONCLUSION:
The Municipal Heritage Committee is recommending the designation of the Jolley Cut as
a cultural heritage landscape. Designation of the Jolley Cut as a cultural heritage
landscape could occur following the design and reconstruction process as a defined
landscape. The comments of the Municipal Heritage Committee should be forwarded to
The Kirkland Partnership to be addressed during the design stage. Consultation with the
Municipal Heritage Committee would allow direct input by the Committee members.
Recommended by: ~,~t~~ ~1~~ ~
Alex Herlovitch, irector of Planning & Development
Approved by: v
Ed Dujlovic, Executive Director of Community Services
P.Boyle/J. BamsleylA.Herlovitch:mb
Attach.
S:1PDR120091PD-2009-27, Status of Jolley Cut.wpd
MW2009-04
APPENDIX 1
l~T~a~ara,FaIls
CANApA
His Worship Mayar Ted Salci
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara FaOs, pntario
Members:
Re: MW-2009-04
Robinson Street Cul de Sac/JOlley Cut
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City support the licensing of the Robinson Street cul-de-sac, subject to the
necessaryplans as requested being prepared and meefingswiththe neighbouring propeity
owners.
BACKGROUND;
In 2008 Mr. Michael DiCienzo of Canadian Niagara Hotels approached City staff as they
had an interest in using the Robinson Street cul-de-sac in conjunction with the
development of their property. City staff was supportive in, principle, subject to a number
of conditions. !t is staff
preference that a licence agreement would be entered into and
that there would be an appropriate level of compensation to the City whether it be
community banefits of a physical, financial or material nature. Staff's main consideration
would invoive enhancements to/maintenance of the Jolley Cut.
In order to move Mr. DiCienzo's request forvvard the City requested that a landscape plan
he prepared to conceptual show the following;
• 7he full extent of the area involved from the start of the cuf-de-sac to the bottom of
the Jolley Cut in Queen Victoria Park.
• Access points from cul-de-sac to Canadian Niagara Hofel property and any other
properties.
~ Improvements to the cul-de-sac showing the planned canopy feature, decorati~e
surface treatment of the cul-de-sac, lighting in the central art or water feature.
• A three meter wide decorative public pedestrian sidewaik along the north side of the
cul-de-sac connecting the;Jotley Cut with appropriate direciional signage.
1
Working Together to Serve Our Community Communfty Servlpes Department
' Munidpal Works ~
.,;i;
l0 - •p ; ~
Fe6ruary 9, 2009 - 2- MW-2009-04
• Improvements to the Jolley Cut walkway including any or all proposed upgraded
surface treatments, stairs/ramps, IigMting/fumiture, adjacent landscape treatment
and natural areas within the right-of-way to be preserved/protected.
• Any connections between the Jolley Cut and the proposed hotel.
• Integration of the Jolley Cut and Niagara Parks Commission lands.
Staff also commented that discussions wouid have to take place with the immediate
neighbours. (HOCO, Skylon and NPC} to seek their comments and feedback.
As the requiraments by staff are considerable and costly, Mr. DiCienzo requested that a
report be put to Council, in principle, in proceeding with the licencing of the cul de sac in
exchange for improvements to the Jolley Cut. Staff has reviewed this matter internaliy and
has raised no concerns with the licencing of the cul-de-sac.
Accordingly, based on the above it is staff's recommendation that the City approve in
principle tne concept of ficencing the cul-de-sac in exchange for the improvements to the
Jolfey Cut.
Recommended by: ~
Ed Dujlovic, Executive Director of Community Services
S:IFZEPORTSti20091MW2009-04 - Robinsan Street Cul de sac.wpd
!
The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Resolution
No.
Moved by
Seconded by
WHEREAS all meetings of Council are to be open to the public; and
WHEREAS the only time a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subj ect
maYter falls uvder one of the exceptions under s. 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT on Apri120, 2009 Niagara Falls Council will go into
a closed meeting to consider matters thaY fall under the subject matter of 239(2)( fl of the Muiaicipal
Act, 2001, to receive advice that is stiibject to solieitor-client privilege, and 239(2)(c)a proposed or
pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality.
AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed.
DEAN IORFIDA R. T. (TED) SALCI
CITY CLERK MAYOR