March 28, 2017 City Council Live Streaming


– Thanks, Your Worship. I think everyone has the report MW2017-09, Drinking Water System
Summary Report and Overview. I think Mr. Holman, you’re
going to introduce it. – [Mr. Holman] I can, Mr. Chair. With us tonight is James Stica, who’s our manager of environmental
services will give you an overview of the performance
of our large distribution system and answer any
questions you might have. – Okay, thank you. Welcome Mr. Stica. – Thank you, good evening everyone. As Mr. Holman said, my
name is James Stica. I’m the manager of environment
services here at the City of Niagara Falls. What we’ll be going through
here tonight is just a brief overview of our drinking water system. We have to do an annual
summary report to meet the Ministry of the Environment
and Climate Change guidelines. I will go through that, a little bit of the operations
that we have here at the city, some challenges that
we’ve faced and then happy to answer any questions at
the end of the presentation. So we’ll discussed the
city-owned infrastructure. We’ll briefly touch the
municipal drinking water licensing program, it’s
the guidelines in which we operate our drinking water system and then a little bit of the
compliance and conformance. The rules and regulations
we follow and how we meet and/or exceed those rules. A little brief overview. As you know the city is expanding
over the last few years. We’ve kind of got some
new development going on in the south end, so our
drinking water system and waste water system have expanded. Right now we’re about 450
kilometers of of watermain. About 4,300 water vavles,
those are the valves that actually isolate the system,
that allow us to isolate and repair watermain if we have to. About 3,000 fire hydrants
to ensure that we have proper coverage for our
residents and businesses and about 28,000 curb stops. Curb stops are the
individual shut off valves, you’ll see in this next little, in a picture to come. The curb stops are the actual valves that shut off at the property line. As you know, we’re a
two-tiered system here. So the region of Niagara
takes care of the treatment of the drinking water, so
they pull the water from the well and river, they
treat the water and they pass on the water to us
which we then distribute to the residents and
businesses in the city. The city is also responsible
for the meters located within the building or out
in front of the building. That’s our way of measuring
consumption and then billing back to the
resident and/or business. So this little sketch just
gives you a rough idea of what the city is responsible for. The watermains in the
middle, the water valve again isolates the distribution system. The curb stop is at the property line, which is our way of controlling
the flow into a home in case there’s something broken
inside the home we have the ability to shut it off and
allow the homeowner to make a repair and then the fire
hydrant, as I mentioned earlier. Just a brief summary of what we’ve done, what we did in 2016. We had 71 watermain breaks,
that’s down slightly from 2015. I believe we had 80 in
2015 and 71 in 2016. We take free chlorine
residuals a few times a week. That’s to make sure that the water has adequate disinfection. Along with those chlorine
residuals, we also take microbiological samples,
again that to meet the Ministry Environment and
Climate Change guidelines to make sure that the water
is safe for consumption. What I’ve included here
is just a short breakdown of actually the composition
of our drinking water system, the materials that we have in the ground. You’ll notice that over half of our system is still metallic, so that’s
vintage anywhere between 30 and 70 years old still. As we move into the newer parts
of town or things that were replaced through the capital program, that’s the PVC, the Polyvinyl Chloride, that’s the new style
watermain, the blue watermain you see on the side of the road during a capital construction project. So we’re almost at half at
that point and that small 4% is a mixture of various
different materials that would be too small
for this illustration. This is an important part for
Mayor, Council and the CAO to understand what you’re
ultimately responsible for and this is right from the Ministry in Environment
and Climate Change. You are the actual drinking
water license holder, so the city actually has
a license to distribute safe drinking water to its residents. Ultimately Council,
Mayor, CAO are responsible for that license and as well
as giving staff the ability to purvey that, so that
means infrastructure, staffing requirements, things like that. Things that you’ve been
doing over the years and you’ll see our compliance
rating illustrates that as well. The overseer of the drinking
water, so ultimately that’s why I’m here to kind of share
with you the things that we’ve done and to keep you up to speed. Provision of infrastructure
that relates to the capital program obviously, as well
as our maintenance programs. Compliance and legislation,
that’s why we have licensed drinking water operators. In order to work on the drinking
water system in Ontario, you need to have a license. We’ve got over 30 licensed staff in Environmental Services who meet
the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change guidelines. And then ultimately to receive reports and presentations, such as this. This is just our
organizational chart in terms of who actually owns the
drinking water system and has oversight over it. You’ll see the Mayor, Council
and the CAO up at the top, Mr. Holman is top management. The Director of Municipal
Works and then you’ll see the rest of us, kind of the
operating authority, the people that are kind of on the ground making sure the system operates properly. So I mentioned the Municipal Drinking Water Licensing Program earlier. This came out of the Walkerton inquiry and the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2002. There’s various guidelines
and things in place. Not a lot of it pertains
to us necessarily. The permit to take water is
something the region has to have because we don’t actually
treat the water we don’t need that particular permit, but
things like the Drinking water works permit, the financial
plan and then having accredited operating authority. Those are things that we
need to have and demonstrate to the province annually
to make sure that we actually have the right
to do what we do everyday and that’s have our residents
and businesses turn on the tap to have some clean,
safe drinking water. One of the things that also
came out of the Walkerton inquiry is having a quality
management system in place. Similar to ISO 9001 or ISO 14001, it’s a way of ensuring that
you meet a specific guideline. You say what you’re going to
do and you do what you say. It’s kind of a little catch
phrase that we use in the DWQMS environment to kind make
sure that not only do we have a plan in place, but we actually
are going to follow that plan and that we can demonstrate
how we followed that plan. Having checks and balances
in place are very important in making sure that not
only can one person operate the system, but multiple people
know how to operate the same way so we have consistency
across the board. We take a great deal of pride
in the fact that our system is accredited with NSF International. We go through an audit every year. A gentleman from NSF
International comes on site. He’ll be on site this August,
we’ll spend about three days with this gentleman and we’ll
show him our whole system. All of our documentation
and all of our paperwork to prove that we actually
meet the province’s drinking water quality
management standard. Following that inspection and the audit, we’ll get a report back. To date we have not had
any non-conformances. It kind of sounds like a double-negative, but really what that means is
we meet or exceed the standard and that’s been since 2008. One last little bit, so
we have annual audits, but we also have annual inspections. So there’s a two-tiered
system in terms of checks and balances from third parties. So the inspection itself is from the Ministry of Environment
and Climate change. Every year I spend two to
three days with our inspector. He goes over it with a fine-tooth comb, all of our paper work, all
of our operator reports. Every little bit of
activity that takes place in the drinking water system
we document and record and that inspection’s job
is to make sure that we meet or exceed the legislation. I’m very happy to say that we again had 100% compliance rating. It’s been that way for the
last seven years, I believe. That’s something we take
a great deal of pride in. I know our operators work very
hard out there in the field to make sure that when we do make repairs, we do installations, that
we make sure that we do so in a manner that provides
safe and clean drinking water to our residents and visitors. So like I said the presentation
is going to be quick. It’s something that we’ve
done similar before, but I think it’s important
that everybody understands and is up to speed on what
we’ve done over the last few years and where we’re going. So if there’s any questions,
I’d be happy to answer them. – [Chairman] Does anyone have
any questions of Mr. Stica? Counselor Craitor. – Thank you, it’s a
pleasure to see you again. Thanks very much. Just two short things. I did ask this last time
and I’ll ask it again. I had a bottle of water
that I paid a buck fifty for or is the same bottle filled
up with water came through our system, what’s the
difference in the cost? – The water that you filled
up or that I have in my glass today is tested multiple
times before it actually gets to you, bottled water,
I don’t want to speak for bottled water provider, that being said, I don’t know what their
testing perameters are. I do not believe they
are inspected annually by the Ministry of Environment
and Climate Change. I do not believe that
they are licensed to test the water, to treat the water
in the case of the region they’re licensed to treat
the water or to actually perform repairs inside their facility. I know our people that
are outside in the field are licensed to perform repairs as well. So we have a safety net in
place that I don’t know is there otherwise. – It sounds to me, the
way you just said it, as a lay person, I’d rather
drink our own water than go out and buy bottled water. It sounds like that’s what you said. The only other thing was,
and it is deceiving when you think about how much money
people spend for water in a plastic bottle
thinking that it’s safer and they’re better off
and much more protected when we actually have a really good system ourselves here. The treament of the water that
the residents get, receive the water is treated
strictly by the region, they control all the
treated water that comes out and for the residents that
live here it’s the flow of the water that goes through
our system that we have to make sure that we’re not, people have asked me,
they’ve said we’re not contaminating or doing anything
that can effect the quality of the water that goes through our system. Is that how we’re measured
on that part of it? – Correct, so when the water
leaves the water treatment plant it becomes our responsibility. So from that point on
we’re responsible for, we call them distribution mains. Essentially the mains that
run down the main streets, then into the subdivisions
and ultimately into your home. So the water’s treated at
the regions facility in Chippawa, but from that point
there it is our responsibility to make sure that all the
repairs, installations are done in a safe and clean manner. – Thank you.
– Thank you. – You’re welcome. – Are there any other
question of Mr. Sticca? Okay, if not, there is a
report in front of you. The recommendation in the report is that it be received and filed. Looking for a motion, motion
by Counselor Campbell, seconded by Counselor Kerrio. If there aren’t any other
questions, I’ll call the vote. All those in favor? Those motions carried unanimously. Thank you Mr. Stica for
coming down, I appreciate it. We’re going to get into the
Municipal Utility budget and waterway baylaw, but before
we do I believe that we have Mr. Belowski here who
want to address council. So, hello Mr. Belowski. Welcome Mr. Belowski. – Thank you. Good afternoon members of council, staff, ladies and gentleman. I’ve come here to turn around
and show you a reason that I think that, a legitimate
reason, to turn around and ask that this particular report
be deferred until I have a chance to turn around and study it. I will just give you two instances, the report was released, I
think some time last night. In August of 23rd of 2016, you again had a meeting on a report for the budget. That report, there was no
indication that that meeting would be held, as you know,
I have attended religiously all of these meetings. There was a memorandum
asserted in the morning, inter-office memorandums,
released to the members of council that there was going
to be a budget meeting. As a consequence, I could not respond and when I did see the report
it was not a report, pardon me, and we passed the
budget and the pay structure. That read straw pay structure
was completely flawed. You had in that particular
year, a rate study and it was released on I
think the 23rd of June. That rate had, was supposed to compare, of course the 2015 with
some options and whatnot. In that report you had 2016 budget and that was the budget
for 2016, but it wasn’t a legitimate budget because
it had never been approved. And it was used and it
does not resemble a budget that was presented to you people. It was the initial part was
what you had a rate structure that you approved and it had
a report of the fixed costs was $21 for water that on the initial rate structure which was the two numbers
that were in there that was $21.99, this is
what you had reported in this budget and it has $21 for 2016 and $20.13 for 2017. The real number is $21.99. For the water fixed cost
monthly charge you had… let me think now, I can’t recall now, yes it was $19 and I think 53 cents, but at that time it
was reported as $19.59, but the real number was
$19.86 which totaled $41.85. You have the old numbers for 2015, which were $41.43 and that compares with the numbers that you have for 2017 because
you have a reduction of $2, almost well, $21.99 cents, $20 and… let’s see what the number was 20, 19. I haven’t got my notes with
me, but it was and 13 cents. As a consequence the
numbers are very disturbing, but I have not chance to
go into any detail because I had no chance to study it. As I say the 2015 numbers
presented to you were not the numbers that were in the budget and shown up, but I would
have, but as I said, I didn’t expect it to be
structured like we were today. So now I have the second
meeting, of course today, and then we get the data in
the morning of, this morning and that is not a scenario that requires even a remote type of study. I’ve been a professional
engineer since 1959, almost 60 years. I’ve consulted around the
world, in fact I’ve been placed in China consulting, South America, you name it, Israel. But never have we seen an opportunity and I can’t see how
council, and I’ve studied, the rate structure back to 1997 and I believe I got involved in 2005, and as you know I’ve made presentations and attended all these council meetings. So for that reason, when I saw
these numbers come out again I questioned them and I didn’t
have time at all to prepare any kind of report, to say
everything’s that’s going to come out of here even though
I don’t have the one eye. I just have these two
slides to show you what the numbers are for 2016 and 2017. And the numbers were presented in the 2016 are not accurate, in fact
they’re very disturbing. Like I say, the numbers
got approved in 2000, August 23rd. I can’t tell, is this the
slide, the one with the? I think you can you see off to the side, I’m not sure because as I say I can’t see. Is this the fixed costs
for water that says $21? Okay, well that one you
can see is really the $21, it’s really $21.99, that’s the real number and that is from the report. And a lot of them is
19.86, which is the one for the service charge, okay. So you can see why nothing makes sense and that’s why I’m asking council to defer so that I can have an
opportunity to turn around and go into the detail, because
this is a new type of rates, budget where we have nothing
but present a lot of expense, but there’s nothing for revenue. But it’s a new style, I
guess, so the other side is the water one which again is
the, shows a rate for water and it had in 2016, because in 2015 it was 95 and nine tenths, or .9 cents and so as a consequence you see that does not show the same thing for 2016 and on the side of that
slide, I don’t know if they put that one up yet or not. It’s the one with the rate for the volume. Is the volume one on yet? Yeah, because it again
shows you the big difference and for that reason– (woman speaking out of mic range) For that reason I’m before
you and request a deferment, so that we can get some realistic numbers and have some confidence in them. – Well, I think before
we suggest a deferment it’s important that Mr.
Harrison at least stand up and address the fact that your
numbers are a little bit different, so I’d ask Mr.
Harrison to enlighten the council. – Thank you, as you recall last year we had spent most of the year
doing a water rate review. And when we got to the water rate review, we never actually brought
forward a budget up until the time that we had
the water rate review. As the time that we presented
the water rate review we, as staff chose to go with
the water rates that were the 2015 numbers and that
we didn’t alter the numbers. The numbers that were in
that preliminary budget that was used for study
purposes would have increased the rates, again I don’t
know what the scribbles are and if that’s what the numbers were, this is the first time I’ve seen this, but those rates are higher
than what we had in 15. And at the time you may
recall that I had said that based on the fact that
we were through the year that our water billing
percentages were higher than what we had factored in. We felt that holding the
rates at the rates that we had would be an effective opportunity. We also said that we would be
going forward as Mr. Belowski had supported, our rate
structure that is indicative in the numbers that are here
tonight of a 60/40 split between variable costs and fixed costs. This is something that we had worked with. We had held public meetings,
we had gotten input from the public and so the
rates that are being proposed tonight are going down. If we had of raised the
rates on the preliminary data in the water rate study,
based on that, which we didn’t because we recommended
against it and holding it. They would have gone up and then they would have gone down further. Certainly when I go
through my presentation you’ll see the information that
supports where we’re going. I think it’s a very good news
story when you talk about the rest of the
municipalities in our region and what’s happening in Ontario. Quite frankly, I don’t think
there’s a basis for deferral. What you’re basically going
to do is just defer another month or two for reductions
to property owners that have water accounts. – Any questions at all of Mr. Harrison? – [Mr. Belowski] Can I respond? – Sure. – Just a fine point that… that I missed was that the
budget for the fixed costs in 2016 was eight million, 845
thousand and 42 dollars. This year, if you work
out the mathematics, that was the other thing
that was disturbing it is now been knocked down,
first time it’s ever happened. And it is now for this
budget eight million, 180 thousand, I think 183 dollars. That is where this is coming from and as soon as I saw that I said, “Well how the hell do these things happen “that all the sudden, you
know that your costs are “going to increase, how
does the fixed costs, “the monthly charge now
drop down significantly to “$21 for water from $21.99?” The mathematics is $20.13,
mathematics is simple. For some reason the total cost
dropped from eight million, 845 thousand dollars to eight million, 180 thousand, 183. That’s a significant drop
and so that’s why I say the numbers weren’t realistic
and I’ve had no time to study any of that, so that’s
the only reason I asked for the deferral because the
mathematics doesn’t show up. – Okay, did you want to respond? – Yeah, certainly, there are a
number of factors that are in and again if I get the opportunity
to make my presentation I can explain it, but the number
of meters that we’re using in the system has increased. Also, the shift between,
from a system that was 56/44% volume metric fixed has resulted
in some of these shifts. I think at the end of the
day, the numbers are verified, they’ve been put into our model and certainly they make sense. The costs, the operating
costs have been contained and certainly this is a good news story. – Okay, thank you. – [Mr. Belowski] My other comment– – Are there any– – I just want, just last comment. In 2015 when the mathematics
show that the ratio split was 60/40, and it has
been for quite a few years before that, so therefore
we’re talking about the options were in their head 60/40,
when it was already 60/40. So now we’re talking about
going to a split of 60/40? It was there, that’s what
the numbers showed in 2015. Thank you. – Okay, I’ll let Mr. Harrison– – The revenuesthat were generated were not 60/40, that has been changed. Council was provided a
backup sheet that illustrates how the calculations were done
for the four revenue streams. Again, certainly, the
calculations are effective. They’re lowering, we’re the
only municipality that I know of that is reducing its rates
and certainly I would encourage Council to not
defer, and let me make the presentation and move forward. – Okay, thank you. I have Councilor Morocco. – Yes, Chair, Your Worship. (laughs) – No, no. – I’d like to say that
I thank you very much for the presentation of Mr.
Belowski and his dedication and passion into this,
that we see him every year. So thank you very much for coming, but I’d like to recommend
that maybe he takes the time to meet with Todd Harrison
and go over the numbers. In the meantime, I think
this is a great opportunity for the residents of Niagara. First time in a long time
to see that we’re actually reducing the rate and I
think that’s great, because we’ve also made a huge commitment
as part of this council over the years to put money
invest in infrastructure. That’s part of our mandate,
provincially driven. So I think that we’re on the
right path to fixing our water and making sure that it’s safe, but also reducing as a bonus too. So I would like to recommend
that we pass this tonight and then also have Mr. Belowski
meet with Mr. Harrison. So I’d like to make that motion. – Good idea.
– When the time comes. – Sure, I think it
would be appropriate now to have a motion just to
receive Mr. Belowski’s presentation and then move
on and have Mr. Harrison make his presentation, so
if you want to make that I have a second here by Councilor Kerrio. I’ll take the vote, all those in favor? Opposed, the motions carried. Mr. Harrison, your presentation please. – Thanks. And just before, I want to make a comment. Mr. Belowski and I have
worked on water-related issues for a number of years and
he was a very, very strong advocate for the rate review
and some of the changes that we did make, so like
Councilor Morocco says I think that his dedication
to that is well warranted. So, finally we’re here for
the last municipal budget to be approved this year. It seems to be water budget
season because I know St. Catherine’s approved
theirs last night. A few of the other municipalities
are on board doing that. Again, it’s based on the
direction of the 2016 rate review and in fact, I say that the
rate structure is based on 40/60, but it’s actually 39.09
and 60.91, the percentages. So we went a little bit further
transferring some of the burdens around and as Mr.
Stica had indicated in his presentation about the high
quality of water that we’re producing, it’s a two-tiered system between the region and the city. We’re going to talk about
city expenditures and explain how we came up with these rates. We’re going to have an
identification of some of the 2017 capital program and what’s
going to be happening this year. Proposed rates and the impacts on users and a comparison with other
municipalities through Ontario and in the region. Like I indicated, we’re
looking to approve this budget so that the rates can be
changed effective April the 1st. the region is responsible for,
as Mr. Stica had indicated, water waste and water treatment plants. They have a small part in
the distribution system. They underwent a rate
review as it impacted the lower tiers back in 2014. At the time there was
no changes to the system and really no changes to the methodology. That’s continued to this date. the region still collects
water, 75% on a variable rate and 25% based on fixed, based on the flows in the municipality. It’s uniform across all municipalities. And the regional rate structure for waste water is 100% fixed. That makes it a challenge for
us because we have a variable rate and we have to predict how much sewage we actually bill. Regional costs are 55%, oh, that doesn’t add up. It’s a typo, uh oh, it’s actually 50. No it does, 55% water
and 58% for waste water. That makes up the total cost. The waste water cost
is a little bit lower. the regional cost was down. It’s been traditionally about 60%. Also, the region is a
co-contributor in some capital projects, mostly through the CSO program. The city’s responsibility
is obviously the maintenance and replacement of the
distribution network. We’re responsible for the
charges, the residents, the water and waste water system. And we have to have it fully
funded from the budgets and the rates, not to be
covered by the property taxes. The city resumed billing
responsibility in 2014 and we’re seeing continued
improvements in efficiency and information sharing
exhibited in that process. As I indicated we did a
water rate review in 2016. We did it in-house and
what we looked at was the rates that the city has,
how our water structure works, what we spend in capital
and how we compare against other municipalities
across the province to see if there was a better
way to do the mouse trap. Because there was a lot
of comments that maybe we could to the structure differently. The conclusion of the rate
review is that what we’re doing is majority of the
municipalities in Ontario are doing it that way. There are some that do it
a little bit differently. And that our rate structure
was, for a variety of different categories or users, was in a reasonable middle of the road situation. It’s important to know that
right now the municipality has 470 kilometers of water mains and 427 kilometers of sewer mains. This is up from 2002 where
we had 351 kilometers of sewers and 375 of water. That’s significant growth
in the infrastructure that we’ve had to deal with. So the water budget
breakdown as we see here is we had a slight
reduction of less than 1%. We saw a slight reduction
in the regional charges and basically that
consists of two components. The fixed charge, which
was down very slightly. That was in the documentation
that was in the budget itself and the percentage of what we buy in the variable percentage. We buy approximately 26.56% of
the regional water treatment in a year and that’s reflective of that. the regional cost remained
at the same rate of .554 that it was the previous year. Our fixed capital charges have
again remained at 4.1 million dollars, this is even though
despite the fact that we continue to have an
infrastructure deficit. As we look at going forward
we may want to invest in more capital programs,
but I’ll touch why we’re not doing that this year. The net city operating
charges is basically our costs of operating the system
less ancillary revenues. Ancillary revenues would
include the penalties that were charged on delinquent accounts, the sales of water meters
on new homes builds, shut off notices, various
other things, and flat charges. The flat charges is during
the construction period time. The costs have dropped
modestly, or the net costs have dropped modestly and
that’s because of an increase in revenues in those ancillary revenues. We are experiencing, as we
all know, a residential boom in parts of the city and
that’s resulted in more water accounts, more construction and higher revenues in this area. So this was an opportunity to
come up with the total costs. This is what it costs us in this area. I’ve touched on some of these items. The volume metric charge for
the region is $8.4 million, down slightly from previous year. 25% is fixed, 2.06. This might seem like a
small amount, but I’m trying to explain why it’s gone up. The audit fee, the allocation
of the audit fee for the utilities have gone up. We’ve done some realignment of staff costs of administration. It’s still significantly lower
than when we contracted out, but there was some movement
of costs allocations which was increased. We reduced the amount of
overtime in our labor area. There was a bit of a reduction
in the contracted services for our system just by a
realignment of services. As I indicated, flat charge
revenue was increasing meter sales, so these are all
things we’ve talked about. So on the waste water side,
we can see that the regional charges dropped a little bit
and now this is important to note is that our payments to
the region is approximately $14 million, but if you recall
the way the region does it there’s a reconciliation
at the end of the year based on the the sewage flows. This is something that the
mayor was involved in a number of years ago and required
the region to do this reconciliation where
based on actual flows. So in this particular year,
and we were recipients of a fairly significant amount of money. We’ve set that aside to deal
with these so that we don’t get into the flow differences. We are using some of that
reserve to off-set our costs, but our true costs for ’17 is a bit of decline to 13 million. The fixed capital charges
has remained the same and again, like I said, with
water it’s looking after an expanding system and
dealing with multiple needs. We may need to look at
increase in the future. And then that operating cost
in this area has increased slightly and basically to
talk to that is that we’ve had some increase in the contract
area historically that we’ve identified where we’ve
had some sewer backups in that so we’ve included that cost. So if you can see, that’s
a marginal increase of less than 1% in the total cost of the system. So what we’ve done is we’ve
added those two together and that’s where we come up
with the $41 million cost and that’s where we’ve
allocated the breakdown to come up with what the appropriate
revenue streams would be. Okay, so we’ll flip to the next chart. One important thing to
back-up, go back, sorry Dean. One of the important things
to say is that as you recall we do have a debenture
payment in there and that is offset by development charges,
so that the current repairs not paying for that. There is however a slight
decrease in interest. So we can see in the capital
program and we’ve already approved the capital
program and as I indicated we have not had a change in funding. It’s been a positive
impact of the clean water and waste water fund application,
but we’re still waiting for confirmation from
the federal government and the provincial government. We were eligible for almost
$9 million of project funding that we would have to
contribute a portion of that. We’re waiting for that
and in those projects are four very large construction projects as well as some other studies
that we wouldn’t be able to do otherwise and so we’re
waiting with bated breath that the federal government
will make an announcement. We were hoping that
would be in the budget. It wasn’t. It’s in the budget somewhere,
but it’s not been announced as officially there being review. Key projects in ’17 is the sanitary sewer network condition assessment. This ties in perfectly with
our asset management plan to start to get an understanding
of where in our network that we need to look. As you know, our asset
management plan that we approved a few years ago based on historical costs and the materials, but we
really need to get this kind of condition assessment
and this is included. The water meter replacement program. This is an interesting one. This did come out of the
study that we talked about. There was a lot of concern
about the wrong size meters by certain people in the public. We also have a problem with
under-performing meters. As meters age they start
to wear out and contrary to what some might think, they
don’t over read, they don’t spin, they actually under read. So when they stop working properly, that’s a negative to the city. The large commercial meters are aging. That’s in the commercial
properties, and they need to be replaced, as does the properties
in the residential area. As you know, the residential
meters started being installed in 1999, 2000, 2001 and
so these are now getting to their lifecycle replacement. The benefit of this program also too, is that we can put remote
reads, radio reads on the meters themselves, so it
doesn’t require someone to go to the site, you
can walk down the road, you can drive down the road. We’re starting, we’ve
implemented over the last year, approximately 240 meters
and these were in mostly accounts that the meters
were not working properly and they were not recording,
so we’ve replaced them. Instead of replacing
them with an old meter, we replaced them with a brand new meter with this remote read. We also are working through the CVO to work with the builders to now put the remote reads in new
developments so that the meters that are going in there
will be those types. As I indicated, four large
water sewer separation programs, these are part of the CWWF program. I like saying that, I don’t
know, my kids like wrestling. Rural road culvert
design and construction. This is something that we’ve
needed to look at is in our rural road section and so there is a large project that’s there. I think there is six location
that we’ll be addressing this year, which will help rural
drainage and other problems. 2016, some of the big
projects that you may recall Level Street, we did a major
sewer separation and watermain replacement and Desson Avenue. And those are winding up as we speak. Another part of our
program, part of our budget is rebate programs. As you know we have a
Senior’s Water Rebate, there’s much debate about our seniors. We want to make sure that
they stay in their homes and we don’t make it
unaffordable for them. So for people that are eligible for this, the Sewer Water Rebate is there. I have to say that we’ve had
this program for over a decade and other municipalities
have copied our program, which is kind of a hats off to council, previous council’s as well who
suggest that we had it right. The WRAP program which is
a program that’s monitored in our engineering department
is an opportunity for us to reduce drainage into
our sanitary system. It’s an ongoing program. It’s a fairly costly program,
but we have it there. High-water Consumption Program. This was initiated when
we first put the meters in where people that had plumbing
problems or difficulties that resulted in high water consumptions, as opposed to having an arbitrary process we have this program and we
have a few people that have dealt with that over the years. And the Industrial Sewer Program,
again this was a targeted program that’s been around
for a couple of decades for manufacturers that use sewer
waters in their process are not charged the sewer because
it does not go into the area. And then of course, the low
flow toilet program which we’ve done in conjunction with
hardware stores in the area. In 2017… The rate structure was completed, review was completed in 2016. As I indicated earlier when
we’re talking about what happened last year, we kept
the rates the same as 2015 even though preliminary
data would have suggested that maybe we should have raised it. It turned out to be the
right decision to make. Staff direction when towards
60/40 revenue collection model. As I indicated our
actual is 60.9 and 39.1. We’ve changed… This is a change from
where the variable rate was totally the regional cost
and the fixed charges was totally the city charges,
plus the capital program. And that staff start
to begin at the meter. It’s actually more about
right-sizing meters, but it’s also included in our
meter replacement program. The next slide indicates
what our rate unpacked is. No, sorry, I got my slides
mixed up, I’ll read off here. So based on what we talked about earlier of the $41 million dollars
being the total cost, we can see that the rates have come down. The rates have come down partly
from an allocation issue, but mostly because our billable
consumption has increased. Both on the water side
and on the sewer side. This has allowed us to project
that we would be able to lower the rates and so we’ve
lowered the rates marginally. Hopefully this trend continues and that we’ll be able to
do this again next year. The next slide, when we
determined the number of accounts, you can see that during
2015 at the end of the year we had 28,751 accounts
active and at the end of 2016 we had 29,143. Now, that’s an increase of 392 accounts. This is a small part of
the revenues that we’ve increased because of this increase. And that’s had an impact here. As I indicated we saw that
the cost, the net operating cost was lower and we were
also collecting less money from these areas and we
also have an increase in the number of meters so you
can see that the reduction is $1.77 per meter, which is about
a reduction of about 4.2%. Which is a good news story
and it’s consistent with previous discussions about
impacts on water rate owners. We devised this methodology last year. The rates are going down. There are some anomalies
where accounts are going up and that would be in situations where perhaps a property is
not being charged sewer and they’re a fairly high volume user. But in the majority of cases the accounts, the costs are going down. We’ve identified three of
what we call standardized or at the spectrum
residential users, 300, 100 and then the average user
which we used in the study of 180 cubic meters which
when we run the numbers at the end of 2016 is actually 182 numbers. There was some debate
in the water rates study that we were out of whack with this. It was interesting to note
last night at St. Catherine’s their indication was that
the average water user in St. Catherine’s average
residential user was 174 cubic meters, so it’s
within the margin of error and it certainly is consistent with that. So for the purposes of our charts though. This is the study, as you can
see there’s a slight error in the presentation of it. The sewer fix charge for 16
and this is a typo error, this is not any other
error, it should be 245.16 across the board. The rate reductions at
the bottom are correct, it’s just the way it was
inputted into the presentation. We can see that a low volume
user, 100 cubic meters is approximately $23.69. Obviously the average
user, which is again, we indicated 182, but
we’ve used 180 is $25.70. And for a high volume user,
300 cubic meters is $28.71. Now the lot of our people
that we have that are maybe a single spouse in a
home that’s on a fixed income fall into that first category. It should be noted that in
that particular category if a person is receiving
$100 rate protection, you would see that number
even falling even lower. So it’s important. The other thing is that a
lot of families are in that category, so this is a good
news story for everybody. So the next chart shows where we fit because the water rate
study we looked at a number of municipalities across the sector. We identified that obviously
at the low end Mississauga. I believe Mississauga is
100% consumption rate. Pretty new infrastructure
and it’s down at 2021. Then up in the upper end
is Pembrook, at 1,100. I’m not trying to pick on
Pembrook, but we fall clearly right in the middle with the
new rate structure for that. At the next chart is the average, we’re again right in the middle. And then the next chart shows
that for a 300 cubic meter family residential water user,
we start to trend towards the lower end of the municipal sector. As we indicated though,
for those other categories, we do have, we do have opportunities. The sewer, the toilet rebate
program, the low income senior report that we can
address some of those issues. This is our local municipal section. We can see comparing the
high end and the low end. Again, it’s difficult for us
to project without knowing exactly all the municipal budgets, what their average users
are because it does change. So we just use it at both ends. You can see at the low
end, the 100 cubic meters, we’re below the median and then
on the high residential user we’re at the upper end, or at
the lower end I should say. So, and we’re below the
average in both cases, so again it kind of is a
comparison that we are continuing to go in the right direction
with our cost maintenance. Could we do better, sure,
I think everybody strives to do better and we’re going
to do that, but it’s better. So our recommendation, and
then we have a bylaw that amends Schedule A, so this would be approved effective April 1st. Staff is continuing to
implement changes in with developers on meter
installations, some changes there. Staff implement a new
meter replacement program, which will really commence
in full in the fall. And then obviously we’re
going to come back next year as part of a budget process
to report on the asset management plan to see where
we’re going and update council. So I certainly would take
any questions that council has at this moment. – That’s great, thanks Mr. Harrison. Anyone have any questions
of Mr. Harrison at all? Council Craitor. – Thank you, just a suggestion
that might have assisted Ed. I think the problem that he incurred, maybe some other people. We have really made the
effort to put our budgets on the website, which I think is great. I push for that, but in
this case because it only went out Monday he didn’t really have the time to go through it. I think he sort of had
the time, but I think he’ll give you a call
because you kind of addressed some of the things that
he expressed concern with. So I’m just saying this
in a positive basis, maybe next time around
we could try to get it up a bit sooner, not just for Ed,
but anybody from the public that wants to look at any of our budgets, they have sufficient time to look at it. So I’m saying that on a positive basis. The only other thing I
wanted to ask you was, and I think you touched on it
or maybe it was Mr. Holman. When we put in the new meters, we’re going to use the word right-size, we’re going to put in the proper meters, the right size for the
locations that use them because we know some of the
places have improper meters and the cost is great
than it really should be. We’re going to right size all the meters, that’s the point I’m making, right. – Okay, well I think that
the point that’s going to be made there is at the time
that meters were installed originally, the ones that
are currently in the system, they would have had to come
into the building department and they would have had to apply for the meter size at that time. The property may have been
transformed or changed use or something at that
time and as a result the volumes may have
fallen, they may not be, it might not be used for the same matter. So the meter itself has
become maybe too large and that was part of the
discussions that we had in the water rate study. The new meters that are being
installed have to be to the standards that the building
department requires. So there’s fire comments on
it, there is other reasons, depending on the purpose
of the construction. Well we’re really talking
about a new meter replacement process is on residential properties about the timing that the meter goes in, who installs it, when that is going on and we’re going to be going out to
the builders on that process. So that we get a really, a
more clean process with it. Okay, but certainly, we
are as part of the meter replacement program, we are looking at, we have a list of properties
that maybe have been identified by owners, that would
like to take a look at it. But again, the meter size has to be adequate on the pressure. I’m not an engineer, but
that would be the case. It would have to be on
the appropriate line. – Okay, and the last question I have and I know that we visited
a couple of the homes that don’t have meters
for a very logical reason and they actually end up
paying more than people who have meters and I wanted
to make sure that when we go into the homeowners and install them are we going to leave those
homes alone that don’t have them and they’ll still have
to pay that higher rate because they don’t have a meter in place. – The meters, my understanding
of the properties that don’t have meters would
be ones that maybe have a galvanized pipe, a galvanized pipe. – So we’ll leave them alone? – The rates are going down for them too. – But we won’t force,
you know what I’m asking. Thank you very much, I
just want to be sure that we don’t have them calling
us because we’re out there trying to put meters into homes that aren’t able to have them. I want to emphasize that
they pay a higher rate than people who have meters,
but they want to stay with what they’ve got, so the
Director of Municipal Works is shaking his head yes,
so thank you very much. – Okay, are there any other questions? No, not yet, but I’m looking
for motion to approve the next steps that Mr. Harrison
had in his presentation. Motion by Councilor Kerrio,
seconded by Councilor Morocco. Any other questions for Mr. Harrison? If not then all those in favor? Opposed the motions carried unanimously. Thanks for much, I will pass the meeting back over to the mayor. – Okay, thank you very
much, Councilor Pietrangelo. So we are now moving on
to our consent agenda. I know we do have conflicts
on one of the items. Is there anything that
Council wants lifted? Okay, so we’ll move the consent agenda with the two noted conflicts. Okay, seconded by Councilor Strange. Is there any discussion
to the consent agenda? Seeing none, all those in favor? And that’s unanimous. Thank you. Okay, I just asked the
clerk and one of the items on the consent agenda
is the procedural bylaw, which there have been some
changes so I just asked the clerk if maybe he can just give us a quick update on where we’re at. – Yes, Your Worship. Procedural bylaws, also
known as the standing rules of Council, which are
technically what you’re supposed to be following during
your council meetings. I’ve been the clerk since
December 2001 and probably when I started the Procedural
Bylaw was already outdated. So what you have on tonight’s
agenda is really what I say is a snapshot as how your
procedures work today. As you know the Ombudsman’s
Office has criticized us in the past for not
incorporating the Municipal Act requirements into the
bylaws, so that’s been done. So what I presented to you
was sort of the existing Procedural Bylaws, strike out
version of the sections that weren’t pertinent anymore
and because it was outdated, we haven’t even shared that
bylaw with you in many years. So what my plan is going forward is giving you the bylaws approved tonight. We will have further
opportunity to look at possible changes, I know sometimes
there’s criticism of some of the areas, like
the reconsideration rules which are fairly liberal
in our municipality. Although the Council
surprisingly hasn’t availed themselves of those that often. I did a quick search and
we’ve probably only had reconsideration motions six
times in the last nine years and on a couple of occasions they failed, including the last meeting. So I appreciate you
approving the report tonight and the bylaw. There will be further
opportunity for consultation with Council on these
issues and there’s also anticipated to be some
changes, provincial legislation changes related to the
beginning of the council term, related to more grounds to
go in cameral, et cetera. So a work in progress, but now
better snapshot as of today. – Okay, thank you very much Mr. Clerk. Okay, moving on to–
(man interjects) Pardon, yes, Councilor Campbell. – A quick question
through you to the clerk. Would it be possible to get, once these changes have
actually been made, to get a copy that could
be left in our desk? – Yeah, that’s the plan and like I said, we used to have the copy
of the bylaw in your desk, but it got so outdated, it
was almost embarrassing. So approving this tonight,
that’s definitely the plan and hopefully I’ll have those
for you by the next meeting. And then you can study them,
look at things that you like or dislike with the bylaw and feel free to send on those comments to me. I may do a bit of a questionnaire
later in the year as well. – Also at the region we’re
updating, and Councilor Campbell you may appreciate this,
we’re updating our procedural bylaw there as well and we’ll
have a whole bunch of things that we an share with
the clerk and then we can figure out what it is
specifically that we like and how we want our meetings to run. So now on to Councilor
Thomson’s favorite part of the meeting, the Mayor’s remarks. Fairly brief, so I
apologize Councilor Thomson. – Can we have a motion, can
we have a motion to make sure that we follow that up with
the region and have a report back to council with respect
to ideas and changes? I’d like to know really
what the parameters are, with respect to what the
procedural bylaw covers and how it can be expanded and developed. – Yeah, so we’ve got a
motion by Councilor Thomson, seconded by Councilor
Campbell that we get a copy of the procedural bylaws
we updated at the region and then we can peruse it
for our own procedural bylaw. All those in favor, okay
that’s approved, thank you. Starting off with obituaries, John Tingy, father of Chris Tingy, a
firefighter with the city of Niagara Falls passed away, so
we pass on our condolences. Like to thank Councilor Morocco
for representing the city at the 2016 Niagara
Community Design Awards and the 64th Annual Ontario Small Urban Municipalities Conference. And Councilor Kerrio for
representing the city at the Niagara Falls Curling
Club 125th Anniversary the 60th Annual Kerrio Bonspiel. Council acknowledgements,
the state of the city was drawn by Councilors Thomson, Morocco, Kerrio and Strange. The Niagara Falls tourism
AGM, that was also attended, myself as well as Councilor Thomson. The Bowl for Kids Sake, City
Bowling night fundraiser took place at the Boston
Pizza Bowling ally and that was joined by Councilor Morocco. The Oaks Park Grandstand
Improvement project was attended by Councilor Thomson,
Campbell and Craitor. And the State of the region
with Chair Al Calzlin was attended by Councilor
Morocco and Kerrio. Updates, one update I’d like
to give that I’d like Council if they would consider making a motion. Something I’ve been wanting
to bring forward for a while is the idea of remove a tree and replace it with two or three. I’d like to ask a motion
to request staff to come back with a report. I’d like to see the city
enact a new policy that would see every tree, where
every tree that’s removed in the city that will
replace it with two or three. That doesn’t mean where the tree stood. So if you’ve got a boulevard tree. In the old days they’d plant
trees too big for the street and damage the sewers,
damage the sidewalk. The idea is replace smaller
ornamental type trees, but we can plant the
extra one or two in a park or trail or somewhere in the
city to expand the canopy. On average we currently sit
at about 97% replacement rate for each tree that’s removed. The trees have to be
removed for various reason, age, health, risk,
storm-related down trees, emerald ash borer, we’ve had
a major issue in the city and around the region
and southern Ontario. Significant resources have
been focused on the emerald ash borer removal and
replacement over the last years. Therefore we need to get back on track and increase our replacement rate. The the standard tree
replacement program as well, like to combine it with
community plantings where we can replace trees at almost a one to one ratio in our city. Moving forward we’d like to
see this increase to at least two, so two trees replanted
for every one removed. To do that we have to ensure
that we’ve got Council’s support behind us, so I
would ask Council if they’d entertain a motion. Moved by Councilor Strange,
seconded by Councilor Morocco and you’d like to speak
to it, yes Councilor. – Yes your Worship, I’d like
to say that I think that would work hand in hand. We do have a, I think we
passed a tree inventory to be done, so we actually
have the ability to see through you Mr. Holman, we
do have an inventory created, with all the trees in the
city, how many trees we have and where they come down and
all those also that had to be taken down, the emerald ash. – Mr. Holman? – Yeah, Mr. Mayor, that’s correct and we’re just working out
the final details of it now and if you’d like we
can have a presentation when it comes back to show
you how we’re going to use that information to determine
which trees need to be trimmed, which trees are
private, which are public domain and help us manage replacement program. – Do we have an idea, through you again, to the extent of how many
of the emerald ash trees were removed or still have to be removed? How many did we lose throughout the city? – Hopefully I give you the
same number that I gave the press when they asked a week
ago, but I think we were about halfway done and we
were about 1,800 trees. – Okay, good, so I know that
we have some good partnerships like with U-Haul and
that I remember, Mayor, that we’ve actually done
a number of partnerships, I think with Canada Blooms too. There’s some opportunities
there that they partner with different cities as well,
so is this something that we could also look at implementing
or are you looking at over and above that, Your Worship? – In addition, so that’s
why I’m hoping that we can get a staff report that
includes Communities in Bloom, Park in the city, our interaction
with the Parks Commission. Just the idea to increase
our canopy in the community. – Yeah, okay. I totally support that, thank you so much. – That’s great, thank you for that. Is there any other
discussion to the motion? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. All those in favor,
okay thank you for that. Couple more items and then I’ll. Top 100 festivals and events Ontario. Very, very proud that
three of our festivals in Niagara Falls landed on the list for 2016. The Niagara Falls Canada Day Celebration, the Santa Clause Parade and
the Winter Festival of Lights. The Winter Festival of Lights
also received a level of distinction recognition from festivals and events Ontario. So our festivals and our
events are making their mark around the province. Also to point out that we do
have live streaming taking place tonight for the first
time as was mentioned earlier, so a little call out to We
Stream for their participation in getting this up and running. I know we’ve live-streamed
the State of the city as well, it was a great experiment and it’s nice. We’ve got our partners
at Cogeco and We Stream for those people who maybe
don’t have traditional television, cable television at home. Our next meeting is going to
be Tuesday, April the 25th and I call on Councilor Kerrio
for one other announcement. – Thank you Mr. Chair, just
like to have our condolences passed along to the Decozni family. There seems to be some family
in our community that we all seem to go to, all the
chairs seem to go to and all the groups seem to go to and
they’re one of the outstanding families that never say no to
anything that’s asked of them. So I’d like to have us
pass along our condolences to that family as well. – Thank you for that
Councilor Kerrio and seconded by Councilor Pietrangelo. All those in favor,
okay, thank you for that. On to communications and
comments to the city clerk. We have four items, first
the Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance requesting
that the month of April be proclaimed Dig Safe
Month and a flag be raised. – [Victor] I’ll move the motion. – Moved by Councilor
Pietrangelo, seconded by Councilor Strange, all those in favor. Thank you for that. Canadian Association of
Nurses and Oncology requesting April 4th be proclaimed as
Canadian Oncology Nursing Day. Moved by Councilor Ioannoni,
seconded by Pietrangelo. All those in favor, item
three, Recreation Committee is requesting that council
will allow the proposed fundraising activity for
the activities subsidy fund on the Gayle Center property,
approve the related fee and waive the related
business license requirement. Moved by Councilor Strange,
seconded by Councilor Campbell. All those in favor,
that’s approved and lastly St. Paul High School requesting
permission to hold a one day event on their property
and waive related fees. Moved by Councilor Morocco,
seconded by Councilor Campbell. All those in favor, with
a declared conflict for Councilor Pietrangelo. Mr. Clerk, are there any additional items for Council’s consideration? – Yes, Your Worship, there’s
another proclamation request in the additions for Rail Safety Week, which is in April some time. – Okay, so we’re looking for
a motion to receive and accept the proclamation Mr. Clerk? Okay moved by Councilor Pietrangelo. Councilor Thomson? (speaking out of mic range)
(laughs) Seconded by Councilor Thomson. All those in favor, that’s
approved, thank you. Okay, so we did, if you
notice in your agenda we did have a scheduled
deputation, but that has in fact been canceled so we, I
guess we’ll move forward to in camera, Mr. Clerk. Okay, Mr. Clerk, in camera. – One recommendation for
consideration that the parties from 4239 Herron and 4711 Zimmerman
be invited to a future council meeting to make representations on the drainage issue. – Okay, looking for a motion. Moved by Councilor Campbell,
seconded by Councilor Kerrio. All those in favor, okay and
that’s approved, thank you. On to resolutions, we have
three here in our package and then we’ve got any
additional resolutions, no. So the first resolution
is that the Niagara Falls City Council consider
the annual SPN slow pitch and street dance an event
of municipal significance in support the provision of
a special occasions license and to allow amplified music until 11 p.m. Moved by Councilor Morocco,
seconded by Councilor Strange. All those in favor, that’s approved. Second resolution that
Niagara Falls City Council consider the 10th Annual
Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer to be an event of
municipal significance and support the provision of a special occasions license permit. – [Councilman] Moved, as long
as you’re in it. (laughs) – Moved by Councilor Campbell,
seconded by Councilor Strange, all those in favor. Okay, and that’s approved, thank you. And lastly, the council consent
to celebrate all downtown’s desire to allow for alcohol
on municipal property for this year’s Springalicious and
that the council consider the Springalilcious an event
of municipal significance and support the provision of
a special occasions liquor permit, moved by Councilor
Craitor, seconded by Councilor Morocco, all those in favor. That’s approved. Okay.
(clerk mumbles) – Pardon?
– New business. – New business because our
public meeting portion doesn’t start until 7 p.m., so
we do have some time. Councilor Thomson. – I think we have a half
an hour, so that’s good. I’m only going to take 20 minutes. If we have a couple more
meetings during the month then I’ll be able to only have one or two. Anyway, I’ve had calls
from the coronation center and you would think that this
wouldn’t even be a necessary motion, but they don’t have
Wi-Fi internet there and they are devastated that they don’t. It would make a huge difference
to them and their program there, so I’d like to make a
motion that we do what we can to accommodate the coronation
center with respect to appropriate internet connection. – Okay, that’s a motion
by Councilor Thomson, seconded by Councilor Ioannoni
that we make sure that we have internet connections
at the coronation center. – We don’t have them yet?
– Wi-Fi. – Well what I can tell you,
what I did learn the other day our TV, if you notice, in the
lobby is not working right now, so we tried to do something,
we found out that the box that provides the internet to
City Hall, the cable internet is not working, so their
replacing and upgrading it. With the upgrade, IT was telling
us we’ll be able to do it a lot less expensive at all
of our other facilities, including the coronation center. So it’s been down and this will help them move that forward quicker. – We have a motion anyway. – [Councilman] Good time
to ask for free membership. – Free membership? (laughs) Alright, let’s call the vote. All those in favor. Okay, thank you, that’s approved. – I was driving home from
work just before noon a week or so ago and got a call
again to come to the corner of Stanley and Heritage,
where the car wash there. Mr. Dan Mobray has been
complaining for several years about the speeding, about the accidents that appear there and these
are actual photos taken by me, so this has happened on a
regular basis and in spite of the fact that we keep asking the
region to do another study to update on this situation,
it hasn’t happened. – [Jim] It’s Churches Lane. – Churches, yeah, anyway
I would make a motion that we again ask the region. Mr. Dramond was helpful
with that to refer, see if we can’t get that through to
have a four-way stop there. – [Chairman] I’ll second it. – Okay, moved by Councilor
Thomson, seconded by Councilor Pietrangelo that we ask the
region to look at putting a four-way stop at the corner
of Stanley Avenue North and Churches Lane, all those in favor. Okay, that’s approved. – I really was disappointed
when I saw in the paper that the regional council,
they did not go ahead with the airport issue and taking that over. I’ve been talking about this
for probably 15, 18 years to have this turned over to the region. The economic value for
development of our communities is extremely important. Everybody benefits around
the region and it’s the only airport that has the
potential to be significant and expand and develop
to be an appropriate airport for our particular area. When I saw that, it takes me back to the time
when the city of Thorald sent us a letter and said we’re out, we’re giving you one year’s
notice and after the year was up they were out and
then three municipalities, instead of four were
responsible for the airport. So I would like to resolution
forward that we notify the Region that we’re giving them
notification now that prior to our 2018 budget, we’re going
to make a decision with respect to pulling out of the airport
to put some pressure on them to make the move on this
and get a discussion. They’ll be able to say
some bad things about me causing trouble from Niagara
Falls regarding the airport issue, but at least I’ve been consistent. I’ve been doing this steady. – Would you consider the word
divest, using the word divest? – Yes. – Okay, reason being, I’ll tell you why. And Wellen has done the same thing. They’ve done the same
motion and reason being if you read. – They’re not involved. – No, but the Dorothy Runling Airport which is out their way in
Pellum and same situation. – Is that a grass strip? – I think so, it’s not
actually considered an airport. I think it’s called an aerodrome. It’s a little different and
Councilor Morocco is our member on the Airport Commission. So there was a story in the
Globe and Mail last week, a good story about Pearson
Airport looking at privatizing. They said the values in the
billions, many billions. They said airports do have
value, so we have the other option of if the region
doesn’t want to come in as our partner, we can sell a portion
of it to a private operator and they’re run it like a business and they’ll bring in their money. So this puts them on notice,
if they don’t want to be a partner, we’ll find a partner. – That’s what I’m trying to do. – So we’ve got a motion
by Councilor Thomson looking for a second by Councilor Strange, we’ll call the vote, all those in favor. Okay and that’s approved, thank you. – Okay and the last thing. I’m happy to say that
we’ve been able to help the people who were at
the council meeting a few weeks ago with respect to
their spay and neutering with the feral cats in the community. We are helping them out and
they will get some assistance, which came through the Holcall meeting, so I’m very pleased about that. The last thing is the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. I was contacted and sent a
copy of a resolution that went to the city of St. Catherine’s,
which they approved and read the documentation,
I think, was that handed out in the information tonight? No, it wasn’t? So you didn’t follow
through with my request? Anyway, let me finish here. I would like to have
everybody have a copy of that resolution and basically
it says that the Attorney General’s office is willing
to carry out a forensic audit for the Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority at no cost to any municipalities or to the Conservation Authority. I thought that was letting
the tax payers off the hook locally here, with respect to that and accomplishing the objective
of finally doing this and getting this out of
the way once and for all with respect to what they’re doing at the Conservation Authority. Anyway, I would like
to make a motion that, and it’s rather unfair because
the council has not seen this and I understand from the Clerk that the Conservation Authority has already– (Carolynn mumbles) Pardon me? – [Man] We got an email. – Oh you did? Okay, anyway I make a
motion that we endorse that and send it on to the
appropriate people involved and just makes sense to me. It’s not going to cost us
anything and you got the highest authority in the province
carrying and being responsible for that, so I think it’s a great idea. – Okay, motion by Councilor Thomson, seconded by Councilor Craitor
that we endorse the idea of the Auditor General
doing the audit for the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. – [Woman] Record the vote please. – Councilor Campbell. – Thank you, Your Worship. For further information to that effect I received a copy of the
letter that was sent to Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority from the Provincial NPP in
the area and they were asking that the same thing be followed through. It just came up today. – [Man] I’m sorry. – Well, the letter was directed
to have it done through the Auditor General. – Any other questions, Mr. Clerk. – Yeah, just with regard,
St. Catherine’s passed a resolution at their last meeting. I just received it, I
think last week after the agenda was done,
it was my intention to bring it to the next meeting. Sounds like it’s been circulated via email from other sources. I do know there’s a lot of
media coverage on this already. Fact of the matter was that
the NPCA had already engaged in an RFP process, that
RFPs out there right now regarding the audit and I
think it closes the first week of April, so just so
Council has that context. – Councilor Ioannoni and Morocco. – To that point, St. Catherine’s
city council believed in it so much, if I’m not
mistaken, they passed a motion that said they seek immediate
withdraw of the city’s funding to the NPCA in response to
the board’s recent action on the RFP, it is a real concern
that other municipalities may decide to follow suit
with similar actions of non-confidence, unnecessarily
disrupting funding that the NPCA relies on to serve
the citizens of the region. So I think it’s important, I
think we had this discussion a few council meetings ago
and the motion to ask the NPCA to do so failed, but I’m glad
to see that it’s come back here and now we’re going to
endorse the St. Catherine’s resolution we did have a
number of meetings ago. I think I made the motion actually. So, I think now that you’ve
got everybody pulling together and saying, “Hey listen.” Dean’s shaking his head no. – No, that’s not right. What was brought forward
a couple of meetings ago or last meeting was the,
it was the communication from Ms. Cridlin which
was about the populating of the NPCA and how that
process was to be done. The resolution from St.
Catherine’s is related to the Auditor General’s offer to do the forensic audit of the NPCA. Two different issues. – Okay, sorry. I won’t cross those two
issues, but we were looking at NPCA issue at the last
council meeting that we didn’t support, but I
think it’s important enough that if St. Catherine’s
willing to pull its money from the NPCA that we really
have to take a strong stand. Dean are you having an issue with? – No, sorry.
– Okay, thank you. – I think just the question
is around how the money, I understand it’s through
an order in council that this is done by the
province, so it’s not up to us how this works, it’s
more a symbolic motion, a gesture more than anything. So that’s fine, Councilor Craitor. – The only comment I was going to make. I don’t think in the 10
years that I was at NPP, I ever saw the Auditor General
of Ontario make that kind of an offer, so that’s pretty significant. And I’ll tell you that the Auditor General when they audited, didn’t
matter who government was in power, they were very thorough. I remember many times that
our government was criticized for the way money was
spent, or inappropriately or not a good program. I think the only point I’m making here, you’re really getting a quality audit from a quality organization that has no– – Unbiased. – Is unbiased, but I also
think it’s good for the, I think it’s good for the
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority because no
one can every suggest, there’ll always be this– – Cloud. – Yeah, that’s a good word,
there’ll always be this cloud that, and I’m not saying
they are going to do this, but there’d be this suggestion
that they got a report the way they wanted it as
opposed to an independent. This has become pretty controversial. So I just think it’s a
positive thing to do. And you’re right, it’s pretty
expensive, these audits could be $100,000, I don’t
know, could be $100,000. That means it’s not going to
be tax payers footing for it. That’s the reason I second it, I think it’s a good opportunity. – Councilor. – And I just want to make
sure that what Councilor Thomson is asking for is
a fiscal, financial audit. Because that was a concern
the St. Catherine’s Council had also that when the actual
motion went through the NPCA it didn’t resemble any of
the eight prior motions that had gone through. So I hope that included in
Councilor Thomson’s motion is that they asked out a
general to come in and do a fiscal financial audit, is
what the other municipalities are asking for also. – I think a forensic audit
covers the whole gambit. – Is there any other comments
or questions to the motion? And I should also point out
that, and I did follow up with this with the Chair and
he did mention and I asked him specifically to help me
understand, to articulate for Council why the AG,
the Auditor General was not brought in and initially
the concern was the process and timing didn’t fit with
the motion of the NPCA. As well, the Auditor General
was unclear if it was her mandate and didn’t give
an explanation of what a pilot audit was, but the
intention since it has gone to tender already is to reach
back to her once this first process is done, to get her engaged. I think everybody feels
the same way about it, that would be a good unbiased way to do it and I would support that as well, so we’ll call the vote then, Mr. Clerk. – Councilor Campbell.
– In favor. – Councilor Craitor.
– In favor. – Councilor Ioannoni.
– In favor. – Councilor Kerrio.
– In favor. – Councilor Morocco.
– In favor. – Councilor Pietrangelo.
– In favor. – Councilor Strange.
– In favor. – Councilor Thomson.
– In favor. – Mayor Diodati.
– For. – Okay, passes. – Thank you, Councilor Craitor. – Thank you, Worship. I just wanted to quickly bring up and I know you’ve talked to
this individual awhile back. That’s that situation with
Petrullo’s Floral Design, that had the flooding problem. What I was hoping… this is no longer in the courts. – It’s not?
– No, I know and I understand. And I had an opportunity
to go out and visit him and I thought I would just
go because I wasn’t on Council at the time this took place. So I’m going to share with you. He received an awful lot of
information because it was going through the courts,
but he wasn’t the individual taking it through the courts. His insurance company had
wanted to go through the courts because they felt there was liability. His insurance company thought
there was a good case, so they were taking it through the courts. His insurance company decided
not to continue on with it because of the cost has gone
beyond what they expected. So, in essence, what he received
and I had an opportunity to look at it, was all the
disclosure information. Documents that he’d never
seen before because it wasn’t him that was presenting it to the courts. So what I was hoping that
the council would support a motion to give him an
opportunity to maybe sit with with our legal department
to take a look at this. Not to decide whether or not there should be some action taken about
his claim, but whether or not he would have an opportunity
because what he’s asking for is an opportunity to
maybe show it to council. To show us what he has
since learned from this. So I’m going to make that a motion and I’m making it for the right reasons. I’m not trying to interfere
with the process, but after spending two hours out
with him, he’s very sincere. I know Alder and Campbell
have spoken to him as well and you may want to speak on this. – [Jim] Okay, thank you for that, so– – [Wayne] Second that. – Okay, first we got a
motion, seconded by Councilor Campbell and then Councilor Campbell, did you want to speak to it? Then I’ve got Councilor
Kerrio and Thomson. – Thank you, Your Worship. I did bring this up, but
I do believe it was before Christmas and at the time the
Solicitor, the city Solicitor said that he felt that it was improper because it was before the courts. So this changes the whole
thing as far as I’m concerned. So, I would like to hear
further information, thank you. – [Jim] Fair enough, Councilor Kerrio. – Thank you Your Worship. I spoke to Mr. Petrullo today as well, and I suggested that Mr.
Petrullo articulate the story in writing and get a
copy to each one of us. So if we could add that to the motion, that he agrees that he’s going
to try and articulate it in chronological order, so
that we can all see exactly what he’s talking about. Because when he starts to
talk, it’s very complicated. And he jumps around a little
bit, it’s a little bit difficult to understand the whole story, so I asked him if he would
please write it down, put it in writing and then
we could have a chance to look at it and then whether
he meets with the Solicitor or comes and meets with
us, whatever, but I’d like to see it all in writing and
I’m sure that the council would appreciate seeing
what he has to say, written and explained to us first. – That’s very good.
– You’re agreeable to that? That’s good. I think that’s a great idea too. Councilor Thomson. – Yes, well I was up
looking at the property when all of this took place
and I thought that it was going through the whole process. I know some of these
things take a long time, but I think it’s been
mismanaged somewhere along and I think what this
Council has to see and hear is Mr. Petrullo and his factual
information with respect to the whole matter and
I don’t want to say any comments or details at this
time because there are a lot of possibilities of legal action
and maybe a negative effect to the municipality, so
let’s just get him here, let everybody hear the
situation, examine the facts and then we can make a decision
on what this council would like to do with a long-standing,
extremely serious problem that should have been looked
after a long time ago. – Okay, Councilor Kerrio. – Kerrio. – That’s what I said.
– I thought you said Craitor. The other question I had was,
once he puts this in writing and brings it back to us,
because of the possible implications, is this going to
come back to an open council meeting or is this going to
come back to us in camera? – [Jim] Mr. Beamen. – [Mr. Beamen] Well, that
would depend on what’s in– – [Vince] That’s why I
want to see it in writing. – Is this about the, I just
want to be clear which of these claims we’re dealing with. Is this the one involving the flower shop? – [Group] Yes. – Okay, could I asked that
that be sent to me before it’s sent to you? Okay, that’s fine, because
what I’m concerned (laughs)– You want to take the risk, that’s fine. It’s just that there is a
contractor involved in that. – [Vince] That’s why I asked
if it should go in camera. – He might not be very happy
with what Mr. Petrullo has to say about him. – [Vince] Should it go on camera? – So I think we have to
consider that because there’s libel considerations
to be thought about there. That’s why I wanted to review
it before you passed it on because then there wouldn’t be
a risk that it was published for purposes of libel law. However, if Council, there’s nothing wrong with a constituent
communicating directly with his council, that’s allowed, but he has to be careful of
what he says and how he says it. – [Vince] You answered my question, but should it go on camera? – Oh well, the problem is
I can’t take it in camera when it’s not a legal claim. Now if they would just amend
the act, I could say yes, but the act hasn’t been
amended yet, we we’re still stuck with the very strict
reasons to go in camera. – You articulated that it could possibly trigger a legal thing, so I
don’t mind Council seeing it, but I’m not sure if I want to
have that out to the public until we see it and you see it. That’s why I asked the question. – Could we wait until we
see what he says and then perhaps I could huddle with
the clerk and we can see if we can assess it at that time, Councilors. Would that be fine, but I
would ask that Councilors keep it strictly amongst
yourselves, once he provides you with that information,
then there will be a certain amount of what’s called
privilege protecting what he says when he’s communicating with you. He’s allowed to speak to
his elected representatives and you can discuss it among
yourselves and with the staff. Beyond that, we would like to
not circulate the information beyond that until we’ve had
an opportunity to assess just whether or not there
are any libels in it. – I’m not the mover or
the second of the motion, but I think we should be
looking at it before anyone else sees it because if there’s
legal implications to it, we should see it and you
should see it before– – I think that would be
a good way to proceed. – The way it was described
to me is exactly what you’re suggesting, that there are
many legal implications and there are many companies involved. – Certainly, a constituents
allowed to raise these things, we just have to be careful
that we protect him from being hopped on by the
people he’s complaining about. – [Vince] Absolutely. – Okay, so we have a
motion by Councilor Craitor seconded by Councilor Campbell
that we have Mr. Petrullo meet with our legal and
senior staff about his claims and also to chronologically
itemize the order of events and provide that to council
members as well as our staff. Is that right, does that
capsulate what you’re after? Yes, okay, so we’ll
call the vote for that. All those in favor, okay
and that’s approved. Thank you for that. Any other new business? Councilor Kerrio, Kerrio
and then Pietrangelo. – Just a question, at the last meeting I was asking about our
firefighters study update that Councilor Thomson
initiated on a motion. Could you give us an update
on where we are with it? Have we been speaking to anyone? Is it… – Okay, Mr. Acting CAO. – I wasn’t here at the
last council meeting, but I did have an opportunity
to talk to Mr. Dark and Mr. Todd did fill me in. The engagement of that, Mr.
Dark is working on an RFP for the engagement. It will be a modified RFP, much
like we did with the police consultant and we anticipate
that we’ll have that ready in the next month and we’ll
be going out to get the consultant hired and engaged. After that there would
be a two to three months turn around for the report. – Next month, did you say for next month? – Yeah, we’ve been working on it. It’s been a variety of
factors, but we anticipate that the RFP would be in a condition
to go out within the month. – Are we going to have a
look at what’s in the RFP to find out what the guidelines
are, is anybody privy to it, do we want to be privy to it? – Normally, I think– – What are we asking? – I think that it was
clear with the motion to Mr. Todd as to what you were looking– – Asking for? – Asking for and I believe
that’s in the motion, the original motion and
we’d be working off of that. – [Vince] Okay. – It’s not normal that we
would come back with an RFP to Council to get approval for the RFP. It’s usually the direction
that you provide to us that we would use to go forward. – So then will that have a
timeline with it because– – Yes, I mean certainly,
certainly we don’t want to be dragging our feet on this. This is an important issue
and we’d like to get it going quicker, sooner than later,
it’s just that staff has been engaged in a number of
different issues with regards to a number of different
projects and we’re just at the point where we’re going
to be finalizing it. – Well we can’t move forward until we see the updated report. And I don’t think council
members look at it as an issue to delay anything, so
the sooner we see it. – Certainly, we’ll get it back
a lot quicker than we have with the police report. – Councilor Ioannoni. – Thank you Mr. Mayor. I voted against that, us
going on to get that report, but at that point we’d
never had the Chief, I didn’t have the Chief
behind, we had the new deputy at the time and Mr. Harrison
just said, you know, as he was talking about the water issue that we’re experiencing
a residential boom in the city and I’ve read the articles on how happy we are that that’s happening. So I guess through you to the
Chief, I’d like to ask him if in his opinion with
the growing development out in the southwest end of the city, is that station seven proposed
in the right location now and is the time to have
it built and staffed now? Because we’ve never heard an
answer from our Chief on that. – [Jim] Chief. – Through Your Worship
to Councilor Ioannoni, having reviewed the study
that was done in 2012 with regards to the station
location study and the staffing and looking at our ongoing
development in the southwest end of the city with correlating
to our response times in that area, we definitely
are in need of that building and that staffing of that station. We’re not meeting our
response times as directed by NFPA 1710, which is our
goal at all times to do. And the other concern that
comes to light for me right now that wasn’t encompassed
in the study in 2012 was the potential of building a hospital which is also creating
us issues for responses and won’t create and we can
help offset that coverage. So, if you read the study from
2012, it said it was a short term recommendation by the M&M Group. And their definition by a
short term recommendation was to build and staff that
station within one to two years. That was back in 2012. Predicated on a lot of what
ifs and now that those what ifs are come to fruition, we do
have that area completely developed or the majority
is certainly developed. So our responses are suffering
from our response time. – [Jim] Okay, Councilor. – [Carolynn] That’s fine. – [Jim] Councilor Thomson. – Yeah, well you know, it just blows me away. We had a five year old
report and that report is not to do build a fire hall, Mr. Chief. It was to pick a location, it
was not to build a fire hall. – [Jim] Councilor, if you’d direct your comments this way please. – Well, I’m really upset
listening to this nonsense. And somebody is going to go
ahead and build a fire hall when they don’t know what the cost is, they don’t know what the cost
of the two fire trucks are, they don’t know the
impact of the budget of 24 permanent fire fighters to go in that hall and the impact annually on
the budget for the city. All I’m looking for is that information so I can make a decision
with factual information. Not five year old information. – [Jim] Thank you Councilor,
any other, Councilor Morocco. – Yes, unfortunately I
wasn’t here to take the vote, but I just wanted to ask the
Chief too, when they talked about the calls were increased. The calls, and this is part of the report, so I was also looking for
too is to included growth in the Chippawa area is
extensive as well, not just out in the west end, I believe
it’s west end of Lundy’s Lane. But the number of calls that you refer to, were they fire or paramedic? – [Jim] Chief? – So 48.5, 49% of our call
volume is medical related. So of the increase that’s happen, 49% of that would be
definitely medical related. Off the top of my head I
don’t have the exact numbers. – I’m just hoping that in
the report that we get back it also includes the number
of paramedic calls versus fire calls because I’m seeing
right now in other areas throughout the province that
there is maybe a new fire station, but maybe not
including all the fire men to go with it, but they’re actually
including paramedics to be there because it’s a
quicker response time having the paramedics right there. And as the paramedics are
leaving the fire station, then they’re not having to
send the fire truck out. So it’s kind of a nice compliment
and I think that we really have to look at the best case scenario moving forward in the new
technology and everything that’s out there and I truly
believe that it is time to have a new fire station
because of the new updates and that that are there and
a lot of our fire stations are getting older, so I’m
truly supporting a new fire station, but what’s the
compliment with that? So I would like that. – We’ll get an answer
just to confirm, Mr. CAO. Is that one of the things
we’re looking at in our RFB? – I’d have to look back
on the request at the time of the report, but certainly
we can encompass anything. – Well if it was in the motion, I guess. – I mean I can only speak
for the CAO who’s away. I can hear the concern
that we get moving on this and we’ll be making it a priority that we move the process along. – Good, thank you. Councilor Ioannoni. – Thank you, I also agree,
we should vote on everything informed, that said,
through you to the clerk. We’ve passed, I think we
passed a motion to move forward on this and then we passed
a motion for a study. Do you remember, and I’m
sorry off the top of my head, I didn’t realize this was being raised, what have we approved so far
in regards to this new station? – Are you asking the Clerk? – [Carolynn] He keeps
track of the motions, but I’m just wondering. – The Fire Chief may
remember better than me. – Then through you to
the Fire Chief, how far have we gone through on it,
because if I’m not mistaken we did purchase that property
and we approved the build of a new building. That’s what I’m asking. Did we approve a build of a new building? – [Jim] Who can answer that question here? – No. Actually when you’re talking
about approving the build, you’re talking about approving money and it’s not in the budget,
it’s never been in the capital. We approved the purchase of
the land, but we have not approved the actual building of it. We did engage an architect
for the design of the project and that was approved,
but we have not approved the actual building. – Through Your Worship,
through you, just to clarify, 2012 when the presentation was made at that time there was a decision on, they gave you four alternative
areas on what we could do and one of the picks was to
provide a station, station seven a new one at the area, or correction, Lundy’s Lane and Kalar area, which was the decision
of Council at that time to approve that recommendation,
which was one of four from the consultant. After that happened, the
approval was granted through, I wasn’t the Fire Chief at
that time, but the approval was granted through this
council to go ahead and purchase the property as where it stands today. And then the next phase was
the approval to go ahead and engage an architect
to start to work on architectural designs and
to work through the planning and building procedures. Where we’ve stopped is we’re
prepared or ready to go forward now with RFP to build, so we can get the actual costing on it. We do have a Class C
costing, which is in around 4.5 million, but we
wanted to go to RFP to see what the actual build cost was going to be and then the staffing would come next, so that’s where
we are chronologically. – Thank you for that, Councilor Thomson. – Yeah, I’m sorry that
the CAO is not here today. In talking with him, he as
a result of my questioning contacted the former Chief
and the former Chief said that report was to identify
the location Lundy’s Lane and– – [Man] Kaler. – Kaler, and that’s what we’ve done. We’ve moved ahead because we
know we’re going to do it, but at the time the Chief said to the CAO, there will have to be another
report come to identify exactly how we’re moving forward. That’s all we’re trying to find out here. When is the right time to move forward? If the Chief says he has
the factual information now that that’s when it has to happen, the comments of Councilor
Morocco, I think on my mind at the time when we made
the motion about the medical calls and how they impact and
how they can be managed better and how we can make the best
decision with respect to how we move forward. And I remember talking with
the Chief, that I asked the clerk on numerous occasions
to get that on the tape, because I remember saying to the Chief, “Can you tell me when we’re
going to move ahead with this?” And he said, “Well
there’ll be a report back “with factual information.” And I remember his words, “There will be a drop dead time when “we should be moving forward.” And in spite of that, the
clerk has been very negligent on coming up with that, because
that was a key aspect of it. And what I remember
distinctly about the issue. – Councilor Kerrio. – Thank you, Your Worship. Councilor Morocco’s questions
and the Chief’s answers pertaining to the medical
calls is very interesting. And I think that we can
probably get that part of the equation answered
without us paying for it, because we should be able
to get that information through the people who are
handling the paramedics. How are we being staffed
now with paramedics? How many are on duty? That information should be
readily available to us. We shouldn’t have to pay
to get that information. I’m thinking that we
could get that information without having to have
our consultant get it. But it could be available
to us at the same time to have a look at,
considering 50% of the calls, or roughly 50% of the calls are medical. So we need to see, and
if our fire departments getting there faster in most
cases than the paramedics, I’d like to know why and
I’d like to see how many paramedics do we have, how
many crews, where are they. Happen to have had some
experience with paramedics just today and they said
they don’t have nearly, and I asked the question,
they don’t have nearly as many crews and as many trucks
stationed in our municipality as we do fire, so that’s why in most cases fire department beats them. So I think that we
could get those answers, and not have to pay for
the, but have them available for Council to review
when we review the, or ahead of the other statement
or the other survey or report. I think we should have that as well. It’s just as important as the other. – Absolutely is. And I will add too that I
did speak with Kevin Smith, the head of our Niagara EMS, and I asked him if they had
intention of building one of their stations at a
fire station location on Lundy’s Lane. Said because in some cases
yeah, it makes more sense to send out an ambulance
than it does a fire truck. So anyway, they were still debating that, so hopefully when this all comes together we’ll know where they stand. I’ve got Councilor Campbell,
but just first the CAO wanted to say something. – I was just going to say
Mr. Mayor, through Councilor Kerrio that, touching on
what the Mayor just said, that perhaps it would be
in that request of EMS is to find out what their
future capital plans are for Niagara Falls because
that may also impact the report that Councilor
Thomson has requested. – [Councilor] Could we
get a motion for that? – I would think we could
or we could just ask. I mean, through the Fire
Chief, we could certainly, or our staff, we could
reach out to EMS and ask what the future and capital plans are – So why don’t we just make
it formal, so we can check. Move by Councilor Kerrio,
second by Councilor Campbell that we ask Niagara EMS
what their future capital plans are for Niagara Falls. – [Vince] Their staffing
levels and all the things– – Staffing levels, responses times and see what kind of data. – Same thing last year. – Okay, any discussion to that? All those in favor, I’m
sorry, Councilor Campbell. On that motion. – Thank you, Your Worship. You know with today’s telecommunications, I can’t believe that we
haven’t figured out how to get the right vehicle, the
right service at the site and it’s costing three
times the amount of money what it should cost because
the police show up as well. So, I would like to include
the police in that motion and have us look towards a
better way of communicating so that the right vehicle is
there for the right reason. – Okay, yep, so we’ve got… Mr. Clerk, did you want to
articulate that so we have a motion or is that part of that,
did we vote on that part of that, no, no we did and
we stopped the vote. So we’re asking Niagara EMS
and Niagara Regional Police to come up with their
capital investment plans for Niagara Falls, along
with their response times to the various calls. Is there anything I’m
missing in that motion? – [Woman] Can you repeat that? – And the possibility of a communication system being developed. – Okay and that was discussed
and it’s probably a great idea with GPS on all the
vehicles, that you can pick the most appropriate vehicle for the call. If it’s a medical call, you
don’t necessarily need a police officer, you need an ambulance. So it makes sense. So do we have any other
discussion on that motion? Okay, so we’ll call that
vote, all those in favor. Okay, that’s unanimous, thank you. New business, Councilor Campbell. – Thank you, Your Worship. Some time ago, I asked that you meet with the major
players in the tourist industry about the destination tax. Have you met? – [Jim] Yes. – And is there any feedback
that you can provide? – Well, what I can tell you
is we haven’t completed. Councilor Thomson was
there with myself as well, as well as the major, and
Councilor Kerrio too, I’m sorry. As well as the major players
in our community in tourism. We had an excellent discussion. There was a number of
ideas that were shared, so Niagara Falls tourism
staff were going to go back and come back with some
data and then we’re going to reconvene and then once
we formalize the idea then there’ll be an official announcement. But this was the first
meeting, I think it was about a couple of week ago maybe,
a couple weeks ago here at City Hall and it was very positive. As I say, everyone showed
up, everybody is looking for some solutions and
we’re just not ready to come forward yet because we
haven’t finalized that. It was well received. – I took it upon myself
to do a poll, a survey. Which I will release
tomorrow morning by email to all the council members. I think that it’s really
important in the big picture that the industry
understand the feedback that I’ve gotten from this. I’m going to be the first
to say that it’s not on a scientific basis or anything
to that effect, but it does give really, really important
information with respect to how the tourist views
tourism in Niagara Falls. So I will release that tomorrow morning. – I look forward to that. What time so I can be ready? – Seven o’clock.
– Seven o’clock, okay. – Any other new business,
or Councilor Pietrangelo. – Yes, thanks Your Worship. Your Worship, right now at the
region I think that they’re doing a number of master plans,
I think there’s one for how we grow, how we go and how we flow, right. And it’s the how we flow
that I wanted to talk to because I think it was last
year that I brought forward a motion at this council
that we asked the region to incorporate in their study criteria, looking at the possibility
of building a self-end waste water treatment plant. I mean, I’m sure we’ve
gone over this before, but everything in Niagara
Falls south of Lundy’s Lane ends up getting pumped to
the high rate treatment plant that’s across the street
from Wal-Mart and then from there is gets force mained over to Dawson. Your Worship, I understand
that at the region you were given a presentation,
I don’t know if you were present for that. – [Jim] I was there. – There was a consultant
that came in and talked about the possibility of a south end
waste water treatment plant. Talked about the fact that
I believe there was going to be a significant cost in
order to upgrade the high rate treatment facility and
it would be a little bit more, but there would obviously
be a much greater benefit if we were able to build
a south end waste water treatment plant here in Niagara Falls. And what I wanted to ask is
can we get that consultant here to our city council,
so that our city council can listen to that
presentation and then we can take a stance on where we want to be on that issue, Your Worship? – That’s a great idea,
and I have to tell you, so impressed this guy knew he business. He knew it well. Nobody could fool him. Even someone tried to
fool him on the flow of the Welland River, sometimes
it flows the other way, and one of them thought
they were going to stump him but he was all over it. He knew all about it. So he was very bright
and really understood the broader picture of
what this represents and how there’s no question
we have to invest and he said it’s the smart longterm
investment is to build a second plant rather than
pump everything uphill. And we’re already at
capacity in some lines, so definitely. Did you want that into a motion? – Yeah, I’ll make a motion that we invite, or through our staff actually,
that our staff invite the consultant to come here,
make a presentation to us and then hopefully our council
can take a stance on it and pass over our
recommendation to the region. – That’s great. So move by Councilor Pietrangelo seconded by Councilor Morocco. – I’ll be glad to second it. I think it’s a tag team
that we kind of always talk about that when it comes up. Yeah, it’s great. – It’s a great motion. You’re ahead of the curve of the flow. You’re ahead of the flow on that one. So we’ll call that vote, do you want to speak, Councilor? – I believe there’s some
Federal infrastructure money too and I had a conversation that there is some project like that. Is that an opportunity that that project could actually work for us in going after the Feds for money? – Oh, yeah. It’s a significant project. – So anyway, that was kind of a heads up so I just wanted to bring it to attention. – So we’ll call the vote. All those in favor? Okay, and that’s unanimous. Thank you. Do you have more, Councilor? – I do, Your Worship. In our handouts there was correspondents from a Mr. James Nargate. He is the founder and president
of a local non-profits, Dreams for Beams. They’re having a fundraiser
over at the Boston Pizza on it’s looks like May 4th. It’s $20 a ticket. I just wanted to make a
motion that we buy 10 tickets and they be distributed I
guess through your secretary or the secretary in your
office as they usually are, Your Worship. – So we have a motion
by Councilor Pietrangelo seconded by Councilor
Strange that we support this initiative by buying 10
tickets for Boston Pizza. All those in favor? Okay, that’s approved, yes. The floor is yours. – Thanks, Your Worship. The last issue that I
wanted to bring forward is an item that came forward
to the Committee of Adjustments last week, and I know
Councilor Craitor was there as a spectator. Your Worship, last year we
had a motel on Ferry Street apply for a boarding room designation. And they received that designation. There was a bit of a delay in the process but they did end up
receiving that addition to their zoning. And now the Committee of
Adjustments has received another application for a
boarding room designation to a larger hotel up on Lundy’s Lane. And I guess in a nutshell, Your Worship, it’s gotten some people a bit concerned. And one of the thoughts that
I had is that it would be prudent for the city to have a policy, because I don’t believe that
right now we have a policy on, I guess the level or the number
of boarding room facilities we should have, much like
we did for other uses that we have in the city. We devised a policy on how
many of them we want to allow, whether they be in specific
areas or not too many of them in one area. Initially I thought of
an interim control bylaw. I think with an interim control bylaw the city would have to undertake a study. The one benefit of an
interim control bylaw is it would stop the city from
actually taking applications to convert that tourist commercial use to a boarding room house. And I think, Your Worship,
as we get into it, some of these facilities are being used for a number of reasons. Obviously, I mean, the
cost of housing has gone up enormously so for people
to be able to afford to own your own place or a
lot of times even rent at at permanent place is
very difficult for them. So the use, obviously,
has become more popular and perhaps if we do pass it on to staff or if we go through with
an interim control bylaw we can also contact regional
housing and bring them in because I truly believe that
the two are tied together. So, I mean, I open it up, I know that there’s probably
going to be some staff that want to comment on it, maybe there’s other councilors, and at the end of that I
can a motion, Your Worship. – Fair enough. Other comment? Yes, we’ve got Councilor
Thomson and Craitor. – Extremely important topic
and it’s just starting. We all experience the difficulty
on Brookefield and whatever but that situation is happening
all the way up Lundy’s Lane. Lundy’s Lane is in transition. Obviously, some of the
properties have been there since the 50s and with
homelessness, difficulties, I would say in the wintertime
most of those properties are being rented out at
least on a weekly, monthly and through the winter time. And it’s something that
we’re going to have to really have a full report
assessment of the situation to council to come here. If it’s on Lundy’s Lane and there’s no residential
properties around it’s something that we may have to look at
but certainly where there’s any residential properties around, this is going to be a problem because the people that are usually
housed there, and the region is involved paying welfare
recipients to live in those accommodations so we have to
come up with a really firm, educated, knowledgeable
bylaw which is going to take all these factors into consideration. It’s going on now and I
don’t think any of them in the winter time out there are exempt, with the exception of the
first class large ones that exist there. So I would second the motion
to have this dealt with. – [Jim] Thank you. Councilor Craitor. – Thank you, Worship. Just going to share with
Council as the representative for the Main Ferry BIA,
I happened to be there at the time, it was only a
few months ago that a motel, Continental Inn, made a proposal to go to the Committee of Adjustment
for exactly the same reason. The bit of the challenge with
the Committee of Adjustment is that by their own rules
there’s a very small area that they notify people. So actually the BIA was never notified. There was a couple of
businesses close by and across the street and that’s how
they became aware of it. So I did attend attend
a couple of the meetings and I came to the Committee
of Adjustment meeting when the application
appeared and it was approved. But I can tell you now that, I don’t think I’m speaking out of turn, that the BIA is kind of regretting that they didn’t be a little more forceful. There’s some impacts that this has. One is, once you convert
to a boarding house, you’re no longer a member of the BIA, as far as inhabiting can contribute to it. You don’t contribute anymore. Lundy’s Lane, there’s
19 facilities out there. Yeah, they got that through your office, I remember that brought forward. Neither is the big family
resident, the seniors’ residence out there, the motel. – [Jim] Oh, the Emerald. – To be part of the BIA you have to be commercial ratable property. Obviously, like the Emerald for example, still has an aspect that is commercial so it still pays into the
levy but in all likelihood that’ll decrease overtime. So it’s not quite on day one they’re in and then they’re out, that’s a fallacy. – I hope they’re watching
’cause that’s what they thought when I listened to their explanation. Thanks Gene, I appreciate it. And the other thing is, for example, the one that’s made the
application is right next door right beside the AN Myer school out there. – [Jim] West Lane. – West Lane, thank you. Thank you very much, West Lane. And so there’s some concerns, I’ve already heard some
concerns about that as well. So I think Councilor
Pietrangelo and so is Councilor, this is a bigger problem
than just the conversion. We’ve got a huge problem with
unfortunately homeless people. Many of those people are
staying in those facilities, and I’m not criticizing
the owners of the motels, they’re trying to continue to operate, but many of the people
who go into those motels, that’s sort of the last resort. They’ve actually gone through our system to try to find some place to stay, our homeless list, the waiting list, is four, five, six years, waiting to get into an
affordable facility. We just don’t have enough. So this is kind of the
tip of the iceberg of where they’re going to go for now. So, you’re quite right, we have to put a motorium
and then come up with some kind of solution and
as Councilor Thomson said, we need to be working a lot more closely with the region as well and the provincial government. They need to get involved in this as well. So those are my comments, thank you. – Thank you. Any other comments? Oh, Mr. Bieman. – I’m just going to make a suggestion with the hearing council’s
concerns (mumbles). I’m just wondering if the councilor who’s pleading the motion has considered the direction of staff that these type of matters,
if they come forward, being referred to council for rezoning as opposed to the committee, as a measure, which would
not require (mumbles) or they would put that
measure of protection in place while the reports were being prepared, they wouldn’t have to go
a form of control bylaw and similarly, they wouldn’t have to amend the official plans (mumbles). So I’m just suggesting that. I don’t normally interfere
in Council business, but is it a possibility that Council thinks that’s an appropriate solution? – Councilor. – Your Worship, I mean, I like
that on a go forward basis but I still believe that we
need a strategy in terms of how we’re going to deal
with these applications in the future. The reason why I like
an interim control bylaw is because it doesn’t
allow the city to take any more applications until
we actually have a strategy or a policy in place. That’s the reason why I like
the interim control bylaw. Unless I hear from staff that
that’s absolutely not possible or for some reason
that’s not the way to go, then that’s the motion
that I’ll put on the floor. – [Jim] Mr. Clerk. – Yeah, obviously I’m not a planner so I’m not going to comment
on the interim control bylaw but one of the things
that has been brought up to this council in relation
to the Brookefield situation is that these operations
are already happening. And actually, it’s
positive that the ones like the Carriage House and
the Continental have come for applications through
the Committee of Adjustment, I agree with Mr. Bieman, perhaps they should be coming to Council so there’s a greater
notification of the public but at least they’re
going through that process to legalize as opposed
to the fact that we know that these operations are going on in tourist commercial motels, in essence, and this way there’s at
least a process going forward so that the residents who are in the area can come out and make representations. – Yeah, Mr. Bieman. – I don’t want to find anything the matter with opposing an interim control bylaw. This was just an
alternative that I put forth before the council to consider. The council’s perfectly fitting to put in an interim control bylaw if they wish. If anyone finds an issues
then it’s certainly, in my view, a proper
application of interim control. – Okay, so did you want to then state your motion, Councilor? – Yeah, Your Worship, in
that case then I would like to make a motion that Council
enact an interim control bylaw that deals specifically with the use of boarding room designations and that staff report back to Council with what a strategy or a
policy would be going forward. – Thank you for that. And I’ve seconded by Councilor Thomson. Yep, he’s good with that too. Any discussion of the motion? Yes, Mr. Bieman? – Just in case we’re
going to draft the bylaw, I want to be clear,
this is about converting a commercial hotel use
to a boarding house. – Hotel, motel, yeah, motel. Okay, Councilor Ioannoni. – So those that are operating
illegally as a boarding house. – [Man] I think it’s got to come back as part of the strategy. – And there’s a fine line
we walk there because I know a school that has a number of students who have entire families
living in one room in some of those hotels
out on Lundy’s Lane. So we walk a fine line on
do we make people homeless, there’s nowhere for them to go. When we tighten the rules
we’ve got to realize that some of those rules
will put entire families out on the street. So it’s a scary situation. – I think bringing
Niagara Regional Housing into the mix is key
’cause it’s all connected. Yes, Mr. Bieman. – To be clear, I don’t
interpret and I don’t think there’s any intent to go around
and start knocking on doors and close the place down. We’re going to study them
and then draft a policy for Council going forward. – Okay. So if there’s no further
discussion, we’ll call the vote. All those favor? Okay, and that’s unanimous. Okay, thank you. Anything else? So we’re done with new business? Yes, Councilor Morocco? – Just two things really quickly. I had through social media, I had Tina… Sorry, can’t see where it is. Anyway, save the date for July 11th, she was looking for Council
to put a team together for a tug-of-war and there
event goes toward sponsorship but I’m going to ask her to
come and make a presentation so that they can tell us
what their event does. And a second, very quickly, is that I would just like to follow
up, I had someone else through social media ask about McLeod Road and Heximer and a light that
we’ve talked about many times before going there, and I think it’s the region,
but the region actually I think did a study a few years ago and said it didn’t warrant– – [Jim] Crosswalk? – A crosswalk and a light, a light. And I think somebody
has brought that up too so if we could maybe have
that looked at again, taken back to the region so
I’d like to have a motion to have that looked at again. It’s near the school. Is it Heximer? – [Councilor] I did that a month ago. – Okay. – It was approved.
– It was approved, yeah. – It was approved in the
budget, our contribution. Rosanne, do you have any update
on our knowledge of that? The crosswalk on McLeod Road? – Yes, Chair. We actually sent an e-mail to the region just asking the status of that just approximately a month ago, we haven’t heard anything back. But initially back in
October there were some new criteria that came out
with respect to crosswalks and we asked the region to
review that location to see whether the new criteria
for the crosswalks would apply there. So we’re waiting for that response. So we’re hoping to either
get one of the new standard crosswalks installed there
or possibly, if need be, a traffic signal. So we’re not sure which one
it would be at this point. – Okay, and I know regional
councilor Selena Patty is here too so I’m sure that
she’ll take that concern on to follow up for us as well. Thank you very much. – Alright, thank you for that. Okay, so now we will get back to the planning matters on council. So Mr. Clerk, would you
please introduce the next item on the agenda? – Your Worship, a public
meeting is now being convened to consider a proposed amendment
to the city’s official plan and zoning bylaws to permit
a carwash on the north side of McLeod Road, west of Sharon Avenue. Notice was given by First Class Mail in accordance with the Planning Act on Friday, February 24th, 2017 and by posting a sign on
the property in question. Anyone who wants notice of
the passage of the official plan and zoning bylaw
amendments to participate in any site plan process if applicable or preserve their
opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board
shall leave their name on the sign in sheets
outside the council chamber. – Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I’ll now ask our director of
planning, Mr. Herlevischt, to explain the purpose and the reason for the proposed zoning bylaw amendment. – Thank you, Your Worship. This application is for a property on the north side of McLeod Road. It’s about 1114 square
meters or .27 of an acre. In size it’s two residential lots. The property immediately to the west, I’m going to flip back to the air photo, it’s clearer to see here. So, the properties to the west are single family detached dwellings. To the north are single
detached dwellings. To the east of the property
is a church parking lot and the church is right at the corner of McLeod Road and Sharon. South across McLeod Road is,
basically kind of southwest, is the Cogeco building. And then there are commercial plazas immediately across and
then a number of other detached residential dwellings on the south side of McLeod Road as well. So that sets the context
for this application. And again, this just basically
depicts the same thing. The site plan for the
property then is to take those two residential lots and
to request an official plan amendment and a zoning amendment. The ultimate plan then would
be to place a three bay manual carwash towards
the back of the property. They’re proposing two driveway
accesses onto McLeod Road. McLeod’s a regional
road and they’re seeking a number of variances. The city zoning bylaw has
special provisions for car washes and so there are increased
standards for a typical car wash that establishes in the city. And so they’re seeking
a number of variations from those standards. So they’re requesting a reduced rear yard down to 2.1 meters. A reduced landscaped area of 14%. Reduced interior side yard of
1.5 meters on the west side. They’re reducing the number
of car stacking spaces. So, our typical standard
is to allow for four cars to be stacked in a row to enter a bay for your self-serve car wash. So they have two stacking areas
for each of the three bays. The lot depth for a car wash, the standard I think is 38 meters, they have 34 meters. And they’re looking for
a reduced street frontage as well of 30.48 meters. So those are the variations
from the standard. The background behind this, again, they want to construct
a three bay car wash. The lands are designated residential. The application is
seeking a special policy to the residential designation
to permit commercial uses with the exception of the
typical residential policies. The land are zoned institutional. They were once part of the church property but were severed a number of years ago. And as I mentioned, the
applicant is seeking some specific zoning amendments. So this, in planning’s
opinion, will introduce a commercial use into McLeod
Road or onto McLeod Road where no commercial use was intended. Doesn’t represent a logical
extension of a commercial area. The proposal is actually
disorderly in terms of compatibility with the adjacent land uses. I know there’s a letter in your package that was received from
the applicant’s planner who suggested the church
is not residential use when in actual fact, our
official plan recognizes churches and institutional uses that
serve the residential population as being compatible
with residential areas. The site is undersized,
and that’s evidenced by the fact that they need a
number of special provisions to the zoning. And the lands have been
identified in our official plan as a residential intensification corridor. This is done in order to comply with the province’s growth plan that we make accommodation
to use our urban lands more efficiently for residential purposes. The zoning bylaw under those
intensification policies could accommodate a four to
six unit apartment building. So if you imagine something
like a fourplex or a sixplex on the property, that could be accommodated
within those density provisions. The zoning requested is not supported because the reductions to rear yard depth, side yard, really bring that commercial business closer to the housing than we think is appropriate. As I mentioned, our typical
standards for car washes are higher than just the
typical commercial use. But in the event that Council
should decide that they wish to grant this,
then we would recommend that we require noise attenuation fencing along those edges to
protect the residents. We did have a neighborhood meeting, we had the neighbors come out, have expressed concern about the noise that they might expect. It would also be necessary
to have those lots deemed not to be lots in
the plan of subdivision so that they could operate as one parcel. Therefore staff does not
find that this is a logical extension of of a commercial node. The lands are insufficiently
sized to accommodate the use. The lands would be more
appropriately developed for a multiple unit residential dwelling as envisioned by the official plan. So it’s staff’s
recommendation that Council deny the official plan amendment, deny the zoning bylaw amendment and that they not allow the
three bay manual car wash. Those are the highlights. – Thank you, Mr. Herlevisctz. Any questions or comments
for Mr. Herlevisctz of the council? Okay, seeing none, members of the public are
advised that a failure to make an oral or written
submission at this public meeting will result in the Ontario Municipal Board dismissing any referral that it receives. Failure to sign the sign in sheets will result in staff rejecting an appeal as per Section 1724 of the Planning Act. Council will now hear from
anyone other than the applicant who wishes to speak to the
proposed zoning bylaw amendment. Is there anyone here
other than the applicant? Yes, you can step forward
to the microphone please. You can just state your name
and your address, please. – Susan Rogers, 7149 McLeod Road. – Thank you. – Sorry about that
apparel but it’s game day. – [Jim] I’m a Habs fan, so. – [Vince] You may have
lost a couple votes. (laughing)
– Watch it. Good evening, Your Worship,
and members of City Council. My name is Susan Rogers,
I presently reside at 7149 McLeod Road and have
lived here for almost 21 years. I am speaking tonight in
opposition of the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendment for Lot 79 and 80 on McLeod Road. I agree with the oppositions
made to the council by the various city departments. I will present three points. First, the lot cannot support
additional traffic flow and noise according to recommendations by Transportation
Services and Parks design. Second, the two lots are
in a subdivision plan and cannot be joined without
a necessary bylaw change. Third, even if we accept
the current size of the lots as appropriate, the proposed
size by the developer is overestimated due to
the presence of an easement between an adjacent lot. The regional Municipality
of Niagara recommended that a noise study be
conducted and a road widening with the width to be
determined by regional staff be dedicated at the plan stage, sorry. Transportation services has
advised that the current configuration of the queuing
spaces cannot be supported by transportation services staff. They recommend that the
westerly access be closed, the queuing spaces be oriented in an east to west direction
and turning templates be applied to ensure vehicles can navigate the revised configuration. Parks design proposes
increased rear and side yard buffers for the development. They also recommend noise
attenuation buffer treatments along the abutting residential properties should be considered. Seven letters of objection were received from surrounding residents. These letters cite concerns
about the potential 24 hour operation of the facility, noise, visual and lighting impacts, and the potential of
increased traffic accidents on McLeod Road as a
result of the facility. The applicant claims that
the lands are not appropriate for single detached dwellings
due to their location on a busy arterial road. I take offense to their clear disdain for the current residents of the area. I have personally lived in this location with my family for over 20 years and I am confident that other residents have similar feelings. With significant additional
investment and changes, the lands are undersized the
for the suggested zoning change and that the requested
zoning regulation changes cannot be supported. Please refer to the zone
regulations of page five of the report you received. The two lots are full lots
in a plan of subdivision and they cannot be merged without the passage of
a bylaw to deem the lots not to be in a plan of subdivision. I also understand that the
applicant is considering an apartment building on
this land if the car wash is not approved. Would this not mean the
merging of the two properties as well in order to
accommodate an apartment? One last point. A question that was asked
last June at the neighborhood open house was never answered regarding the six-foot bell
easement on the west side of lot 79 and 80, which is
right next to our driveway, which cannot support the development of any permanent structures,
including pavement. This then makes the lots even smaller with regards to zone regulations. I would expect that
the applicant’s planner has looked into this discrepancy
and may have an answer now. Thank you for your time, and I believe the right
decisions will be made by the Council for this
property in the best interest of the residents and the
city of Niagara Falls. – Thank you.
– Thank you. – Is there anyone else,
other than the applicant, who wishes to address Council? Okay. Council will now hear from the applicant or his or her representative. – Is this where I? – Yeah, if you pick either microphone. – Okay, my name is Tom
Vodbaz, I’m the applicant. My son, Christian, he’s going
to take care of the computer moving the presentation on. I’m going to start off by… By getting into, number one, looking at McLeod Road as a whole. And I’m going to give you some facts. So I’m going to present you
with a bunch of these facts. This is one of the busiest
streets in Niagara Falls. We’re not going to dispute that. It is a very, very, busy, busy, busy road. And this is due to the
population expansion on the west side of the QEW. Also that there is
shopping on the east side, which includes Canadian Tire, Food Basics and some commercial mini malls. Number three, it is one
of the main arteries leading to the casino, Niagara
Marineland and Game Farms. So there’s a lot of traffic going easterly on McLeod Road from the QEW. The neighbors will be glad to hear that in the near future, this is
being taking under consideration by the region, that the
road may be widened. I spoke with region and
they are considering, and they are at their
preliminary stages of considering widening the road. So that would actually
mean they are considering, when I spoke to them, that
there may be a traffic light at the corner of, I think
it’s Sharon and McLeod Road, which is the corner of
where the church is. There may be consideration
for a center lane and that in fact would actually mean that some more lands would be taken
off both sides of the street. Now, that’s not a good
thing for the residents of McLeod Road because already it’s one of the noisiest
streets in Niagara Falls. And I will show you some facts and figures that will show you that as well. Okay, McLeod Road is, like I said, one of the noisiest
roads and will continue with more traffic because of
surrounding population growth. I don’t think the
residents of McLeod Road, they wouldn’t agree with
that, but it’s getting busier and it’s getting louder
and will continue to do so in the years to come. As far as multi-family
dwellings being constructed on McLeod Road, no residence has been built from the QEW, multi-family
dwellings, have been built from the QEW to almost
Drummond Road except for the huge apartment buildings located a 6515 and 6601 McLeod Road which are these huge apartments that have 15 plus apartments in them. Within the past 30 years, there has not been anything
but commercial buildings built between the QEW and Dorchester Road. There has been only commercial from Canadian Tire to there’s a Muffler Man, a car shop, there’s a
strip mall, there’s A&W, and a couple more, McDonalds,
so forth and so on. So now we’re going to get into the visual aspect of this presentation. Okay, so this is the property and this is what’s being proposed. A three bay car wash
with the vacuum cleaners located to the right of that. I’m proposing to have quite a large fence put on the property and you
can see the kind of trees that are being considered. There it is again, the three vacuums. Now in this picture I have
the adjoining property on the left, which is
a residential property owned by the Rogers. And in the back, I’ve put
in this picture some garages that are in the back
yards of the people living on Anne Street. Okay. There was a meeting held,
I think, June the 21st and some of the residents on
Anne Street and McLeod Road had concerns. They had concerns and I
felt it very important to address these concerns
and that’s why I’m here. Because I have looked
at all these concerns and I’ve taken them to heart. So the concerns were noise,
traffic, night time, equipment, vacuums, lighting, obviously loitering and the traffic circulation. So we’re going to go
into that point by point. This is the property in question. I want you to get a feel of how the lands, the surrounding lands, are
in relation to this property. So we’re going to do a little
droning and we’re going to show you in fact what exists
on the lands to the east and the west of this. So, right across the street
here is neighborhood commercial. It’s a mall that’s being
occupied by many… Many little retail stores. The Cogeco building. The Cogeco building is right there. There’s a parking area. This is the neighborhood commercial. Then there’s three houses over here. I’ve been in correspondence
with the person who actually owns all three houses. Okay, so, in fact the person
who owns all three houses is kind of waiting to see
what’s going to happen today. Because their intent is to hopefully go into a
commercial use but everything is pending on the outcomes of things that are going to happen. So let’s continue on. So this gives you a feel of
exactly what we’re looking at when we look across the street. We are looking at commercial, we’re not looking at residential. That’s not residential,
that’s commercial again. A little further is the fire station. Now we’re going from Dorchester Road, there’s a Canadian Tire on the left. To the right is your gas station. You cross the road, there we go, we got general commercial, there’s a car sales on the left, there’s again, a Tim Horton’s donut, Tim Horton’s, Wendy’s. We go a little further we get into A&W. A huge strip mall. And then there’s the fire station. – [Woman] Is this all done by drone? – [Tom] Yes, I did it by drone, yes. – [Woman] That’s a little bit unnerving. – Okay. Can you stop? Excuse me? – [Woman] That’s a little unnerving. – Yes. Okay, so, we’re coming up to my end but on the left, again, like I said, the fire station, we’ve got the church and then we have those
houses, those transitional residential multi zone houses that are basically being left
and await future development. Neighborhood commercial right
across, again the parking lot, light industrial and
then we have four houses. Now this is where the proposed car wash is going to be sitting on, on these lands, in relation to the rest of the houses. Now we’re going to get
back to this picture because this picture is really important because of the buffers and everything that are going to be incorporated in relationship to the neighbors and the neighbors need to know this. Continue. Here we are the QEW, we’re working our way into the property and to the
right there’s McDonald’s, there’s a gas station, and there’s Walmart to the right of that. We’re crossing over the canal, the canal tunnel there, and here again, this is what exists. From the opposite direction. I can definitely appreciate the concerns the neighbors have with the noise and that to me is important as well because I certainly wouldn’t want to have more noise than I need to have. Okay, so there we are
with that part of it. Okay. Do you want to move it forward? Okay. So I did a noise study. And I did a noise study
because I think was one of the greatest
concerns the neighbors had. So I decided, you know what, I’ve got to do a noise study, I’ve got to figure this out and I’ve got to see, in fact, how much noise is actually
being generated out there. And what I did, is I
went to other car washes. Okay, so this is one
car wash that I went to and I did a noise study on the vacuums. In fact, this is a car wash
that’s located on Drummond and I think it’s Scott Street. And this car wash, you can
actually drive right to the back and there’s a house to the back and there’s vacuum cleaners
located to the right. And from those vacuum cleaners, there’s residential housing
located to the right of that which is approximately 113 feet away. Okay, so I started noise studies. I took a reading at the vacuum cleaner that you see at the side of the building and I came up with 83 decibels and then I went to the corner of the house and I had a reading of 64.6 decibels. Now to the next one. Okay, you’ll notice on
that picture as well that there were no barriers,
there was no barriers from the vacuum cleaners to that house. Okay, so there was no
allowance for a barrier. Okay, so next one. Then there’s another vacuum
cleaner that was located about 20 feet away, again we had a
reading of about 83 decibels. As we go to 25 feet, 50
feet and to the house which was about 97 feet, we
came up with 83 decibels. Again at the vacuum, at 25
feet, 69, at 50 feet, 62 and at 100 feet, 60 decibels. So there we are. I also went into that car wash because unlike other typical car wash, you could actually drive
right through this one. So I went into the car
wash, I took a reading and I got 80 decibels. Again, there was no fencing or buffers, I came up with 64, 65
decibels at the house. Next. I then went to the car
wash located on Dorchester and Crop Street. I did the exact same thing. You’ll notice that on the right, there’s a lot of cars there. There’s a lot of cars,
there’s a lot of houses there, excuse me. And they are approximately 113 feet away from the vacuums that exist
on the side of the building. So again, these vacuums,
this vacuum is actually louder than the other vacuum. It gave off 93.5 decibels
and at 25 feet, 50 feet, and at 100 feet and 113
feet, those are the readings. So 71 at 25. But the most important one I want you take into consideration is the one at 100 feet which is 61 decibels and the one at the very front of the house which is 60 decibels. We’ll get back to that. So there’s the readings. Then I went to my property. This was very important. I mean, this is really
important, this aspect of it. I went and I took readings
from the curb of the road. Go ahead. So reading number 13,
from the curb of the road to the front of all those properties that are lined up on McLeod
Road, they are 50 feet back. The decibel readings are 70 decibels. That is huge. That is very loud. And at the back of the property, the decibel reading is 62 decibels. That means that every time a car drives by,
they’re getting 70 decibels. Go ahead. Go ahead, go to the next one. So then I did a comparison study. And when I did a comparison study. I can hardly see that. When I did a comparison study the reading that we need
to take into consideration is that when we look at number 13 reading, which is 50 feet, we’re getting 70 decibels. The vacuums that I am proposing to install are going to be from
the neighboring house, which is the Rogers house,
which is, hold on… Which is 7149, to the left of the car wash if I’m looking at the car wash. So they’re getting 70 decibels
from the street to the house from my proposed vacuum cleaner locations, you are approximately 80 feet away without any barriers
taken in consideration from the house, the corner of the house, to the vacuum with no barriers is approximately 70 to 80 feet. So if you start looking at
the readings of the vacuums and you go between 50 and 97 feet between reading four and five, you’re going to get about 61, 62 decibels. And if you go between reading 10 and 11, you’re going to be again at
about the 64, 65 decibel reading on a vacuum when it’s running. We’re not taking any barriers
in consideration here either. Okay? So that means that the
traffic on that street is giving off more noise than any vacuum cleaner
could ever give off. So every car that drives by there, there may be smaller readings of 60 if you notice when you see reading 13, it may go down as low as 63 but it can go higher than 70. Now, if we now start taking roads, start taking road away from that, the houses will even be closer to the road and the readings will even be higher. So, I needed to bring
that point up because this is what we’re up
against on that street. Noise is a huge issue. And planning is proposing
to have residential put on that property, yet the noise and the
studies that we’ve conducted, it just would be… It doesn’t make sense to
put a residential property on a road that is so busy like that. So, those are our really important facts that need to be taken in consideration. The great thing about this is noise barriers can be put be up. Like I’m proposing to put
a huge fence in the back to cut down that noise for the properties behind on Anne Street. And that should highly
be taken in consideration because if I was a neighbor, I’d rather be looking at a nice fence than looking at a three story
building if that was case. Something to think about. So, we plan to put these
buffers, these trees, these fences to accommodate that and to cut the noise to the back. When taken all into consideration, the noise that you would
hear would be almost zero when those vacuums run. When they run, there’s going
to be more noise from traffic than there will ever be
with those vacuum cleaners. And the vacuum cleaners
give off a lot more noise than the car wash itself
because it is contained in a concrete structure. Let’s go to the next. Next one. The next one is security. The great thing about
security and technology is that we have all the
resources, the apps, let’s go to the next one, all the cameras that can basically be monitored by telephone. So security, I mean that’s
going to be important. Obviously I want the best of
security to prevent loitering, to make sure that the machines
don’t get broken into, vandalism of any nature and to see if there’s ever going to be
contentions with anything. So I’m always going to
be monitoring these. So security is not going to
play a factor in here because it’s within my best interest
to take care of things. Next. Lighting. One of the things that has to be done when you do any construction
is you have to a get photo, studies done, photometric designs to accommodate the lands. And neighbors did have concern
regarding the lighting. This is the type of lamps
that we would be considering. These are the pot lights
that we would be using for the soffits. Go ahead. And this is where they
actually would be laid out on the property. There would be three lamp
posts, one, two, three, and these would be the
ones under the soffits. Continue. This is how the lighting would actually reflect out the neighbors. It is negligible. Let’s go to the next one. And that’s how it actually would look. So the neighbors would not be hindered whatsoever with lighting. These special lights, make sure of this. Next, traffic circulation. We hired engineers to conduct an onsite circulation study. It was important that we figured out and we properly knew that
there was going to proper traffic circulation on this property. And this company, UEM, conducted
this study three years ago, actually, and they’ve done
all the appropriate designs through AutoTURN simulation
to verify that this land would in fact properly facilitate
the circulation of cars within that minimum lot size consists. And these are the studies
that were conducted. Continue. Okay, so here is all
the designs showing how the cars would come in, how
it would turn in the bay. And all the bays you can
properly back up, go out. How it would queue as well. And queuing was a question
that was brought up by planning. And on a letter that I have dating back to October 3rd of 2011 on a proposed car wash that was being, that is being considered
on Thorold Stone Road. I have that paperwork
that basically states that these changes are minor
and necessary to promote the proposed building and structure. The requested reduction
to the required number of queuing spaces for
the manual car wash bay has been supported through a study and is not expected to have any impact on off-site traffic movement. And this was a car wash by Gales Gaspare that was being proposed
and I don’t know if or when it is going to come of being. So that was a a traffic
study that was done by them. The Site Plan Department actually suggests
a low rise apartment building. That’s what they’re suggesting. They’re saying I can’t do anything with institutional wise, they’re proposing that this
wouldn’t be a good fit. So they’re suggesting this
low rise apartment building. And in conducting my studies
and research and everything, I would have more
variances and adjustments on putting a building on there than I would putting this car wash. And it just doesn’t fit. We’re talking about a lot
that is simply 100 feet by 120 feet. The car wash is all laid out and designed, and yes there are adjustments being made but there would be a lot more adjustments and people living there,
because of the noise factor, it just doesn’t suit that. The noise impact on this road is not conducive to
residential development. It’s just sold out over there. The fact that a noise barrier type fence, I want you to show them the
noise barrier type fence here. Go back a little. I took a picture of the kind of fence that I would highly consider. It’s actually a solid fence. This is a fence with boards that run up and down with battens. And I have no problems putting
that up, eight, nine feet, whatever Planning would accept. They are of the acceptance
that should the noise barriers be implemented that
they would be satisfied with some of these conditions so that was actually put into the report. This would obviously in
the reduction of noise and this would be actually
aesthetically pleasing. I’m hoping that Your Worship and Council members take
this in consideration. I spend a lot of time
doing research on this. My planner actually has a
couple of things to say. Thank you very much. – Thank you. Council, do you have any
questions for Mr. Vadavaz? Any questions of council? Okay. What’s that? I’m sorry, didn’t hear. Councilor Kerrio? – No, Mr. Perry, the planner. – Oh, I’m sorry. Yeah, Mr. Perry, you’re going to speak? Yeah, please. – Good evening, Your Worship
and members of City Council. My name is John Perry, I’m a professional planning consultant. I’ve been retained by Mr. Vadavaz to offer an independent planning opinion on this application. One thing I should explain
that has come recently to my attention is that as a professional planner I can offer an independent
planning opinion, I have to be careful
about becoming an advocate so all I can really respond to is the planning report and
the letter that I wrote to Mr. Herlevitz on March 26. The reason that I have
to be careful is that if we’re to continue on to
an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on this matter,
then I have to make sure that I have not become an
advocate of this application, only offering an independent
planning opinion. I did prepare a planning
impact assessment. And that was submitted
with the application. I don’t know whether it was
included in your package. It was submitted and
I’m assuming that it was at some point included. It’s a detailed planning analysis, offering a independent planning opinion. Basically, one comment I
will make about it is that what you have on McLeod Road at the moment is at one end, just taking a
particular area into account, is at one point you have
a Canadian Tire store, which is a major anchor. At the other end you have Walmart, which is another major anchor. Shopping center design
planners will tell you that you get two major anchors like that, then in between it becomes
all the smaller retail stores that are extremely
viable because they have the two anchors and
the traffic in between. So what you’ve created on McLeod Road, and I’m sure your planners
have told you this, is that you have a shopping center. One anchor being the Canadian Tire store, and the other being the Walmart. The uses in between will
eventually, if not today, someday will all become commercial. They are transforming to that, as my client has explained
to you and noted, hasn’t been a lot of residential
development in this area, mostly commercial. And that’s what’s been going on. The letter that I wrote to Mr. Herlevitz was intended simply to
highlight some of the items in his report that I said maybe this should be a little clearer. That’s one of the things
that you want to do when you write a planning
report to Council is it should be good reporting. That is, be accurate
about what you’ve said. And I have made a number of notes, I want to just refer to a couple of them. First of all, it’s just
that this is an intrusion of a commercial use into the middle of a
residentially designed area. That’s fair enough if you
just look at the residential designation but if you look
at the land uses in the area, you find that there are
very few residential uses, most of them are commercial. Directly across the street is a plaza. Next to that’s Cogeco. Then you have the institutional
use of the church. Then you have four single family homes that have been there for quite some time. The other uses that are in
the area, again, are all, they’re commercial uses that
have been developed recently and that tells you that this is changing from a residential area
into a commercial area which all makes sense because
of the two commercial anchors that you have at each
end a shopping center. The next point that I’d
like to talk to you about is it notes in the report that
the lands are insufficiently sized to accommodate use
as reflected in a number of departures necessary to
the city’s zoning standards. As a land use planner, my
approach has always been if something represents
good land use planning I don’t care what document
you have to amend, you amend all of them until you get to good land use planning. I don’t care if you
have to do 100 variances or if you have to amend the
official planning zoning bylaw. The first task of a planner is to say “What represents good
land use planning here?” Not how many documents you have to amend. So in this sense, this
use fits in well with the context of what’s
going on McLeod Road. So in that sense I don’t
really understand why it’s so important to wonder
about what the variances are as opposed to what represents
good land use planning. The final point that
I’d like to make is that the report recommends
that it should be used for residential purposes. This doesn’t really make
a lot of sense to me because of the noise from McLeod Road. The building you’re talking about that would have to be there
as an apartment building or whatever you want would
have to be soundproof. You wouldn’t be able to open a patio door. You wouldn’t be able to open up a window unless you’re going to be
disturbed by the traffic. So it doesn’t make a lot of sense to put residential in that position. Now, Walmart’s not bothered by noise, Canadian Tire’s not bothered by noise, the shopping center across the street’s not bothered by noise. Those are the uses that you look at when you’re talking
about a noise situation and you want to put a land use in there that fits appropriately. The car wash is not bothered by noise. So, in essence, the best
land use that I can think of is really the car wash. There are things that
has to be done through the site plan process to make
sure that it technically fits but we think we can do that. Anyway, as I said at the
outset, Mr. Chairman, I’m sort of handcuffed
because I can only speak with regard to my planning report and the letter that I wrote
and those are my comments. I’d be pleased to answer any
questions the Council may have. – Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Perry from Council? Okay, looks like we’re good. No questions right now. Thank you very much for that. Alright Council. You’ve heard the presentation. The public meeting with respect to the proposed official plan
and zoning bylaw amendment is now concluded. Looking for a motion or
direction from Council. Councilor Ioannoni. – Commence staff’s recommendation. – Okay, move by Councilor Ioannoni seconded by Councilor Craitor. Do we have any comments
or questions of Council? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. All those in favor. Opposed? Okay, so the council
report has been approved so the proposal is not allowed. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, could you pleasure introduce the next item on the agenda? – Your Worship, a public
meeting is not being convened to consider a proposed amendment to the city zoning bylaw to permit a four story 32
unit apartment dwelling and block townhouse project
with 19 dwelling units at basically the property at
the corner of Mewburn Road and Mountain Road. Notice was given by First Class Mail in accordance with the Planning Act on Friday, February 27, 2017 and by posting a sign on
the property in question. Anyone who wants notice of the passage of the zoning bylaw amendment to participate in any site
plan process if applicable or preserve their opportunity to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board
shall leave their name on the sign in sheets
outside the council chamber. – Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And I’ll ask Mr. Herlevitz,
our Director of Planning, to explain the purpose and the reason for the proposed zoning bylaw amendment. – Thank you, Your Worship. The property in question is located at the southeast corner of Mountain Road and Mewburn Road. It involves actually
three parcels of land. So the parcel containing a motel, the back of a residential property and then another residential property that fronts onto Mountain Road, rather. You can see there are
adjacent single family houses to the east. There are condominium
townhouses to the south, there are some vacant
residential commercial lands to the west and to the north
are some city owned lands, part of the former landfill site. So again, this is basically
pointing out the lands that I’ve just described using
just the lotting pattern, but basically the site
is 1.12 hectares in size. The proposal is to establish
an apartment building right at the corner of
Mewburn and Mountain Road. And then a number of townhouse blocks that would be abutting
the single family houses to the north and the single
family houses to the east. There’s a driveway then
that would come south off Mountain Road and service
the site internally. The apartment building has an
underground parking structure, the layout of the parking structure is shown here on the left, the ramp to that parking structure there as well as surface parking. The townhouse condominiums
would actually have their own garages and driveways. They are seeking a number of variations from the standard zoning. So where the zoning
requires somewhere between 200 square meters per
unit for the apartments and 250 square meters per
unit for the townhouses, they’re seeking an overall
average of 215 square meters per unit across the entire site. They do want to build
a four-story building, so they’re seeking a
height of 16.2 meters, that’s just slightly under 50 feet. They are seeking some side
yard setbacks of 1.5 meters. It’s largely here, I’m not sure
what that’s pointing there, oh that’s half the building height is what they’re seeking there, and at 1.5 meters here. The maximum building
height for the townhouses would be 10 meters, so same as the adjacent single
family residential zone. So those are the general
layout of the property and the proposal. So in essence, three
parcels as I’ve mentioned, almost three acres of land. Four story apartment building
at the corner for 32 units. Those would be condominium
units and then the 19 unit townhouse block development. Lands are currently zoned
Development Holding. They’re seeking an R4 zone and the R4 zone permits both apartment dwellings
and townhouse dwellings. And I’m outlying the
variations that they’re looking to those standards. There was a neighborhood
meeting in February. Quite a few residents did come out. Their primary concerns
were about the servicing and storm drainage. There had been some basement flooding in this general vicinity in the past. They were concerned that this would not exacerbate that situation. They also had concerns that
there be pre-construction surveying done so that
if there was any damage, the damage could be repaired. They had questions about
fencing and privacy, the use of the cedar trees, whether those would be retained. One resident said he would
prefer the three stories instead of a four story building. The applicant basically outlined that, that they would need to be
doing the servicing study, although the region does say
there’s sufficient capacity in the pumping station next to, at Mewburn Road and Mountain. The provincial policy statement, as we’ve said many times, encourages intensification and encouraging efficient use of urban lands. The site itself is just
to the right hand side there’s a wooden fence and
that’s where the motel is now. And the lands are basically classified as under-utilized or
underperforming in terms of their residential opportunities. Lands are Designated Residential. The Official Plan provides
for a mix of townhouses and apartment buildings. With Brundy on a collector road, Mountain Road is actually
an arterial road, they’re a higher ordered road. Mewburn Road is a collector road. The apartment building is set back from the townhouses and the single, if we can just flip back here again. So basically, the single
families that are located here, the apartment building is well set back and we have actually these townhouse that Valheuse has proposed
as an intervening use so the developer has proposed… I’m sorry, a sympathetic
arrangement of those uses. The apartment building I
mentioned has a parking garage. The roads can support the traffic that would be generated and there are services
to support development. The requested zoning, I
mentioned, is an R4 zone. The density is acceptable. Again, it is a little bit higher than what we normally have. So rather than 250 and 200, they haven’t exactly averaged out, they reduced that down to
215 square meters per unit. They are seeking an additional height to accommodate the fourth floor
of the apartment building. The town houses, as I mentioned, would have the same height as the adjacent residential zoning. The reduced privacy yard, there’s a six meter privacy yard, I’ll just flip back a second. Might not have been clear, I didn’t speak to that as I went through. So between this row of townhouses
and this row of townhouses they would have a six meter yard where normally we would
require seven a half. They do provide it here. This is a lesser yard as well there. So again, these are back
to back interior units. This is backing onto the side
yard of the existing dwelling. So we are… We have concluded rather,
that the scale of the housing is compatible with the intent of the residential designation. That the policies do support
the multiple unit dwellings. There is an appropriate transition between the height of the apartment building and the adjacent low density and low height housing adjacent to it. The deviations from the
standard R4 regulations are acceptable as part of the contract urban form of development. There is sufficient servicing and transportation infrastructure to support this development and therefore we are
recommending that Council approve the Zoning Bylaw for the R4 zone Residential Low Density and
Grouped Multiple Dwellings for the four story 32
unit apartment building and the 19 lot townhouse units, subject to the regulations
outlined in this report. – Thank you, Mr. Herlevitz. Any members– – Can I just interject?
– Yes. – I know the proponent
is here and he has his presentation on a stick. I don’t know whether it’s
going to be possible to install that today or not but. Anyway, I just thought I’d bring that up. Normally we do get them in advance but that wasn’t the situation here. – Okay, thank you very much Mr. Herlevitz. Any questions of Council
for Mr. Herlevitz? Okay, seeing none, members of the public are advised that failure to make an oral
or written submission at this public meeting will result in the Ontario Municipal Board dismissing any referral that it receives. Failure to sign the sign in sheet will result in staff rejecting an appeal as per section 3419 of the Planning Act. Council will now hear from anyone other than the applicant who wishes to speak to the
proposed bylaw amendment. Is there anyone here other
than the applicant who wishes? Yes, you can step forward
just to the microphone here. If you could just state your
name and your address, please. – Your Worship, members of Council, my name is Anne Crews and
I live on Mewburn Road. I’m part of a group from
the condominium corporation at 2684 Mewburn. And we realize we can’t stop progress but we really want to voice
our concern and disapproval for the four story apartment building. The townhouses are going to
be two story, that’s fine. Our condominium corporation
are all bungalows so this four story apartment building is going to stick out like a sore thumb. It’s going to be much higher
than any of the buildings in the area. Over on Olden, the houses are two story. There are also two relatively
new condo corporation apartment buildings in
the city of Niagara Falls. One’s near Queen’s Coach on Portage Road and the other one is at
the end of Pettit Street. Both of them are only three story. They look very nice, they blend in with the
properties around them and this is our main concern. We would really like to see it a three story apartment building. Thank you. – Okay, thank you very much Miss Crews. Do we have anyone else
other than the applicant? Can you state your name
and your address please? – Yes, hello Council
my name is David Mason. My family and I reside
at 2673 Olden Avenue so we kind of back onto
this area a little bit. Our concerns are the same as what my neighbor just talked about. We are concerned about the height. The zoning amendment for
the height of this building. It doesn’t fit in with the
character of our neighborhood. We actually love our neighborhood, we’ve been there for over 25 years. When we bought our house, the house behind us, where my fellow neighbor who
just talked about lives now, it was a piece of land
with one home on it. When we acquired to the
city as to zoning changes would there have be an apartment
building in my backyard, we were told, “No, that can’t happen.” Doesn’t fit in with the
character of the neighborhood. It would be very difficult to
change that zoning amendment. And now we have one in front of us now. So we’re opposed to that. We have concerns regarding
flooding and other things as well but our main concern is
the four story building. It doesn’t fit in with the
character of our neighborhood and my concern looking forward is, if you allow this change, what’s going to happen to
the land that’s between Mewburn and the QEW? It’s currently vacant land. Are we going to wind up having
an amendment down the road where it winds up with a
32 story condo building there as well? So my concern is going forward. I don’t like the idea of
us changing it for one, because then you’re going
to be forced to change it for others down the road. So that’s why we’re opposed to having this zoning amendment change to allow the building of
this four story building. We also had concerns, as
I mentioned to Council, I did send an e-mail to
Council before regarding this, we’re concerned with the flooding, because our area does have
a high flooding issue. We actually fought for many, many years to finally get a sump pump
installed in our house because we had flooding issues. We want to see changes with that. And we’re concerned as well
with the Robinson Road, I’m sure when they come
out with their amendment, there’s a street here that heads out to, it’s on the right hand side
of that picture that’s up now, it heads out onto Mountain Road. We’re concerned that that exit to there is now going to create
more traffic on my street, which is Olden Avenue, also
exit within one house width to the left of that picture. So we’re concerned about traffic coming out that way as well. So maybe a consideration
to look forward to, sorry, for Council to look forward at is if we’re going to allow
this and looking at traffic study around that, is it maybe in the best
interest to close off the Olden Road access to Mountain Road. Kind of helps reduce traffic
in my area to begin with but it would also create
less of a traffic or vehicle, what I’m concerned about
is vehicle incidents with vehicles trying to
leave that Robinson Lane area and trying to leave Olden
Avenue at the same time. So that’s something I would like you guys to consider as well. Sorry, I’m just making
sure I’m covering all the things that we talked about. So we’re concerned about the flooding, we’re concerned about the
height of the building. And one other thing if I could ask, in the past when we had the
development behind us done, during that whole process, back then we were a work system and we’re now a city at large system, but it would be nice if we
could have a Council member at the open houses so we could
have someone to speak with at that particular time. Because when I relayed
my concerns via e-mail through to the council, I kind of got the impression
I wasn’t supposed to do that. So I would prefer to have that
voice at the council meeting. I know there was some
short notice, I guess, and a couple Councilors expressed that they would’ve liked to have come but it couldn’t happen. But maybe there was something that Council could consider down the road, when you know these open
houses are going to happen, maybe we can send a
Councilor there as well. – [Jim] Councilor? – Yeah, just through you to Mr. Mason. You can contact any of us at any time. That’s never overstepping. – Yeah, and I have before. I mean, I’ve ever spoken with Dean about that land’s that’s going to change now, about the grass getting
very high. (chuckles) But I just wanted to express
that it would be really nice to have a voice there at that meeting that we can talk to. We see a lot of out
and around all the time but at that particular time it would’ve been nice to have
someone there to represent us. – [Jim] Councilor Craitor. – I was just going to let
you know that our staff does send us out. And they call it neighborhood meetings. And they faithfully send us a notice and then the councilors can decide. Many have commitments. Those meetings aren’t regularly scheduled whenever they decide to have them. And to the Council’s credit, at one time they didn’t have neighborhood meetings. – No, that’s right. – One time you just came
right to the City Council. So it was this council
many, many years ago that made a decision to try
to have neighborhood meetings so we get a chance to meet the developer before you show up at City Council. I’ve attended a few of
them myself but again, it’s hard because they’re
scheduled at random so not every councilor can
fit their schedule to go. – [David] I understand that. – It isn’t that they don’t want to. I know I’ve gone to a few, I know some of the other
councilors as well. The point’s well taken though, I understand that. Just before you sit down. Is it appropriate to
ask a couple questions? – [Jim] A question of Mr. Mason, yes? – Okay, thank you. The… The three story. Did you have any discussions
with the developer at the neighborhood about– – At the neighborhood meeting
we had talked about it. Most of the conversations
kept revolving around all the flooding issues. It was brought up but it
didn’t really go anywhere at the meeting. Because we only had like an hour, right? And there were quite a few people there and it took a while and the
majority of the conversation was around the flooding and noise and things during construction. So, it was tabled but it wasn’t really able to be discussed. – What’s the solution
to the flooding problem? – Well myself, we had
flooding up on our street on Olden Avenue for years. Not too long after we bought the house we got flooded out. – Does the development have a solution? – My understanding is that they have, the way they talked about, and I don’t want to speak for them but they way they talked
about the drainage, they have to follow rules as far as whatever water comes off the land now can only be the same amount of water that leaves the land that way. So they talked about some storm
sewer systems and so forth internally but I don’t want to speak to– – We’ll save that for the– – Yeah, exactly. – So, I’ll just close with just asking so if was a three story then
you could live with everything? Is that what you– – Three story I could live with more, yes. Because like I said, I’m
looking at this development but also I’m trying to
think down the road. – So maybe the developer
has some good news. Okay, thank you very much. – And last thing I just
wanted to mention sorry, was the other day when your had your state of the city address and you talked about the my neighborhood, I like that idea and that’s why, we love our neighborhood,
it’s a great neighborhood, I mean that’s what all these
people have moved in for so thank you very much for your time. – Thank you, Mr. Mason. (man muttering) (laughing) Do we have anyone else? Yeah, by all means, come up
to the microphone please. You can just state your name
and your address, please. – Yes. My name is Daphne Johnson and I’m number 17, we are number
17 at 2684 Mewburn Road. Your Worship Mayor, obviously we’re here because of the zoning and
we do have a real problem with the four story apartment complex. And actually, our condo
complex is directly south of the proposed development right at the very property line. And we, in our condos and homes, are all one stories. And we respectfully asked to really, to approve a two story, I
don’t even know why we’re talking three story nevermind four story because they’re all two story, even their proposed development of townhouses are two stories. So we would really,
really like to see them even stay lower because I mean, we’re in this special complex. And we did approach the developer regarding three stories and as usual, as we all know here, this part of life, it’s all about money. And we’re also concerned
about the underground parking and the additional parking
that’s going to happen with this apartment complex on Mewburn. Because we have five of
our people, our neighbors that are right on there and
that’s going to be unbelievable. So thank you. – Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else other than the applicant
that would like to speak? Yeah, by all means, you can come forward. – Bob Wilkinson, I live in unit seven at 2684 Mewburn. And I’m just an interested resident. And when this all started I thought well okay, it’s going to happen. I have spent a lot of
time thinking about this and it was Saturday, I guess, I drove back from St. Catherine’s and I came over the
highway on Mountain Road to get to Mewburn. And it struck me at that point that when you drive, and I would
like anybody to do this, and tell me that a four
story apartment building is going to fit into that landscape. There is nothing the eye can see that isn’t at the two most two stories. And I think, and I applaud the developer, I applaud the Planning
Department and all these people, but I think that we need to move forward but at the same time we have to recognize the people that have
already invested their money in the property that’s already there. And that’s what this is all about is that we’re really talking
about trying to protect our property, to protect our investment. And I don’t know whether a
four story, a three story, or a two story will have
a great deal of effect but when you look at it,
it doesn’t look right. Thanks very much. – Thank you, sir. Next up. – Your Worship, Council, my name is Rick Andrews, I
live at 2664 Olden Avenue. I’m only going to speak on one matter and that’s the size of
the apartment building. Four stories versus two or three stories. I think this Council
remembers the controversy that took place several years ago with regards to a sign on
just the opposite side of the road here that was
about three stories high and was deemed unfit
because of the escarpment and the appearance of the neighborhood. And that sign was an eyesore. It was taken down. This apartment building will be just the same sort of eyesore. Now, again, we have to
realize that the neighborhood is one and two story size homes. So a four story home in that neighborhood will be something different
than what is there in the entire neighborhood all
the way down to Dorchester. So what I’m thinking is what
other people are saying, the project has to go ahead, what is there should
not be there right now. But maybe we should reconsider
the idea of four stories. Thank you. – Thank you for that. Do we have anyone else
that would like to speak other than the applicant
with any new ideas or new concepts we haven’t already heard? – Yes, Your Mayor, Ken Crews, unit two on 2684 Mewburn Road. In 2006, the pumping station
that is on the corner failed to do whatever, all our basements along
Mewburn Road were flooded. When we spoke to the gentlemen
that are proposing the site they said that has been addressed and this pumping station will
handle this new development. My concern is if it didn’t
handle what’s already there, how’s it going to handle
this with no new adjustments? And the next point I want to make, the Bruce trail is right there. The city put up a nice
walkway across the QEW which is just adjacent to this property, the Bruce trail is very popular, it’s world renowned. Now you’re going to have this four story building sitting there? I don’t think it fits into the landscape. Thank you very much. – Okay, thank you sir. Mr. Holman, can we just
get a confirmation on the pumping station and its
health and its capacity? – Mr. Mayor, in the staff report you’ll see comments from
both regional and city staff that the pumping station has
adequate dry weather capacity to handle one of these floods. So, there have been some
upgrades to that station, I don’t remember if it’s pre or post 2006. But we’ll be asking the developer to provide us with the design brief that confirms what the
actual pumping capacity is. – Okay, thank you. Yes, Councilor Pietrangelo. – Thanks, Your Worship. Just through you to Mr. Holman, did I Mr. Holman correctly say that it has adequate dry weather capacity? – That’s correct. – So that means that when
there’s no rain it works fine, but when it rains it’s not guaranteed? ‘Cause it means that it’s for dry weather? – No, as I’ve reported in the past, we allocate capacity based
on dry weather flows. So, in the calculation, the
regional staff, the city staff, would look at what flows
would’ve come out the previous develop site and
look at then the impact and that increase. And so the pumping station
has a serving capacity. During wet weather events, depending on the duration, the frequency, intensity of the storm, the existing conditions, there may be some impacts. And some of the residents have been, especially on Olden Avenue, have been impacted by wet weather flows. That’s largely the result
of weeping tile connections, down spout connections and
the quality of effluent that’s in that particular area. This development would drain into the Mewburn Road pumping station which is right on the corner of the intersection. And its effluent during dry weather flows, dry weather conditions, would be pumped up along Mountain Road to the next road up. That’s. – [Jim] Saint Paul? Woodview?
– Woodview. The flows from this subdivision
or from the development would not be discharged into the pipe right across from the
residents on Olden Avenue. So we still have a problem on Olden Avenue and we’ve tried to mitigate those issues through our wrap program and
through downspout disconnection and we’ll see when we come
back with our PCP plan, we’ll have a more aggressive strategy. But unless we design our sewer system to every weather condition there would be no further
development in the city. – Councilor. – Your Worship, I’m not
sure about other people but, and I can appreciate
what Mr. Holman’s saying, but it doesn’t give me
a great deal of comfort to know that we’re okay
for dry weather systems. I can understand that the region would own the pumping station. Just a question that’s
through you to Mr. Holman, would the region dictate the capacity of that pumping station
or would it be something that the city has involvement in? – Mr. Holman. – Well, science dictates the
capacity of the station. It’s designed to handle
development in that area, including the vacant land
that sits to the south of it, which is undeveloped at the moment. So, the question is how
much capacity do you reserve and do you reserve it for storm events or do you design it
using the best practices across the province which is this dry weather flow calculation. So, I don’t know how to give
you any other assurance. Can I say that when it rains it’s going to overflow? Probably not. But in that situation where
the pump station failed, I don’t know if it was a
malfunction of the equipment, backup power, I couldn’t give
you the specifics on that. But we’ll have those
answers before we approve the site plan because
we’ll have the document being prepared a professional engineer and approved by all the approval agencies including the regional manager
that owns that facility. – Okay, thank you. Councilor Kerrio. – On that, I appreciate Mr.
Holman’s comments as well but I feel the same that
Councilor Pietrangelo does and some of the neighbor may do. If I listen carefully to
what Mr. Holman was saying then I agree with the neighbors that without that development there, if it rains for six days,
I don’t flood my basement. If it rains for seven days, maybe I do. But with the new development there, maybe my basement floods
after two days of rain. So not knowing what the
thing is designed for, it makes it difficult for
us to make an assessment on their concern on that one, I guess. – Okay, thank you, thank you. Any other councilors have questions? Okay. Seeing none, Council will now hear from the applicant or his or her representative. – Hello, Lee White, 116
Jarver Street in Fort Erie, representing the applicant. If you could put the
sketch of the property up I’d appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you. This is the design concept
concept that we’ve got right now and it’s been described in detail. I’ll just go over it very briefly with the existing apartment building here, 32 units on four floors and 30 parking spaces beneath that. Six blocks of town homes. A total of 19 units here. On the east end over here at the entrance onto Mountain Road. We did a traffic study for the project and it was recommended
that that be a right in, right out only so that if you are coming along the development here you can only turn right
onto Mountain Road. You cannot turn left into it, only if you’re traveling eastbound here can you pull into the site. So that if you live here
and you want to go to the QEW, you come out
this way along this road to Mewburn, go around the circle and head out the QEW that way. So that’ll limit the amount
of traffic on Mewburn Road, sorry on Mountain Road
at that intersection that is closest to Olden right there. So we have proposed a four story building. It has been designed in such a manner that is has an appearance
of three stories. The fourth story has sort of shingling going down the side of it that I’ll describe just in a little bit. And also the roof is the
minimum slope necessary to keep the height to a
minimum as well overall. The architect has taken a
look at the visual impact of this building here to
the single family residents right here. From a second story window
would not be able to see this because all they would see would be this town home unit right here. So even to the peak of the
roof from a second story window that would not be visible. We are proposing a privacy fence around the entire east side
and along the south side and around these properties right here. So that there would be a privacy fence was an issue that we have
discussed with the neighbors, that we would accept their
input into the design of that. And I’ll discuss later as well but there’s even a three meter buffer along the entire side here, the east side and the south side, that would be available for landscaping. We will do a landscape
plan as part of the design. And we’ll consult the neighbors on that. There’s actually some existing cedar trees right in this area right in here that the neighbors to the south have expressed a desire to keep. They do encroach a little
bit onto our property but we have agreed that
we would have the fence sort of jog in a little bit, still maintained on that three meter and then just be able to keep them, that wouldn’t be an issue. So the town home units themselves have been designed by our architect and are aesthetically very pleasing. Not boxes by any means. They have good finishes,
columns in the front. Not rectangular, do have corners
knocked off them as well. You can see they are
architecturally quite pleasing. As well on the apartment building itself, It’s a mansard roof, sort of comes down the side on the fourth floor. I don’t know if you
will be able to see this but you’ve got the first,
second and third floor. The fourth story windows have
got shingling on the side, it has the appearance of being
the roof on the fourth floor and then it’s relatively
flat across the top with a minimum peak slope along the roof just to keep the height 26.2 meters. The design criteria that
we used in coming up with this proposal would
be removing a dated motel that’s used for long
term rentals right now. Not by any means for tourists. See that as being desirable, increasing the tax base for the city with upscale residential units
in a desirable neighborhood. Opportunity for aging in place residency. There’s currently not much opportunity in the north end right now for that. Mixed residential development providing housing opportunities, both the town homes and
these apartment style units. It achieves residential intensification which is good planning and consistent with the provincial policy statement and the city’s official plan. And as was previously mentioned, it provides a transition of densities to keep the highest density,
being the apartment building, furthest away from all of
the existing residences. We can’t go any further
to maintain setbacks here. We’ve got over 17 meters… well over 50 feet on this side here. And we’re as far away
as we can get from here and the residences over
on this side as well. And to quote staff, we’ve got substantial buffers
to the existing residences. How did we get to this point right here? By no means did we just
throw something together and throw it in front of
everybody and make application. We had our initial
pre-consultation meeting in August of 2015, at which
time we got some feedback from staff, including
expect some pushback from the neighbors based on
some historic proposals and suggested that we meet
with the neighbors as well to discuss any opposition
that they may have. So we went back to the drawing board, came up with a revised concept plan to incorporate some of the
recommendations from staff, the region and the NPCA and
refined the concept plan, had a second pre-consultation
in June of 2016. Again, getting some additional feedback. When we had made our original proposal we had proposed to rezone
the westerly portion of the property where the
apartment building is to R5, which would allow for
higher apartment buildings, and R4 for the balance
where the town homes were. In order to provide some
assurance to the neighbors that our proposal truly was
for a four story building and in consultation with the staff, decided rather than
proposing R5 on the west end and the balance R4, we do our site specific
R4 for the entire site and set at maximum height so that it could only be four stories and not be any higher on the westerly end of the parcel. That’s sort of the
rationale of how we got here and that sort of necessitated
that height variance was by allowing that to be the maximum in the R4 district. So, once we got a plan that we had a good sense of comfort with, we knocked on doors, every single one of the adjacent property owners, had some flyers with us, spoke with some people,
left some information for some other people, in advance of the normal
neighborhood meeting. Did that in October of 2016 after that last pre-consultation and then the neighborhood meeting was
held last month in February and then even as recently last Friday met with some of the
neighbors at their house. At the condo association to the south, the representative also from this center single family residence
right there was also there and some concerns were voiced as well, primarily being the height
of that apartment building. That seemed to be the primary issue, although there were several points of agreement that we did have. And some things that we agreed to work with them in the future as well. There is currently a
short bit of an open ditch right here in the south
end of the property right in there that we agreed that we would close in as part of the design and just have that closed pipe system. That there would be no blasting
as part of the construction. That we would conduct
pre-construction surveys of all of the existing homes from the people who were
willing to allow us to do that. Take pictures, walk around with them just to make sure and
document any potential damage down the road, whether or
not it was attributable to the construction on the site, at least be able to document
it and have that done. Also agreed that they did
want those cedar trees on the south side maintained. They do encroach onto the property but we’ll just jog around them
with the privacy fence. Also agreed to work with the neighbors during the development
of the landscape plan. During the neighborhood meeting there was some interesting
concepts that had come up. One of the individuals who
lived on Olden over here, he said, “I’ve got a pool in my backyard, “I’ve got some young kids, “how do I know somebody’s
not going to come “screaming around this corner
and crash through my fence “into my backyard?” We’ll put a great big rock right here as part of the landscape plan. Great. Problem addressed. Those are the types of simple things that we can address by sitting down and we’ll get them involved in the landscape plan development. So, this isn’t the detailing
of the landscaping, we’ll develop that in
consultation with the neighbors. I’ve made that promise to them. So we’ll have whatever they’re looking for in this strip that we’ve
got along the edge here as well as interior. There are some existing trees in there, most of it’s mowed lawn, but there’s some relatively
large existing trees that’ll have to come down. So we’ll work with them and a licensed landscape architect to put that plan together as
part of the plan submittal. Also agreed to follow up
meetings with the neighbors. We’ll be attending their condo association annual general meeting
coming up later on in April. And they also suggested
that they would like to see some speed bumps installed
and that wouldn’t be a problem for us either. So there was definitely quite a few points that were brought up that we agreed we could work with them on and we’ll continue to do so. In our opinion, the project
constitutes good planning as well as that of staff. We’re looking at an 18
million dollar new assessment for the city. As well as getting rid of that old hotel. Achieving residential intensification consistent with the policy statement, provincial policy statement
and the official plan. The subject lands are
designated as residential in the city’s official plan. And then I’ll take three
quotes from the staff report. Residential lands with
frontage on collector roads can be developed with
apartments with building heights up to four stories and a maximum density of 75 units per hectare. Mewburn Road is a
collector and Mountain Road is classified as a higher
ordered arterial road. So maximum density potential,
75 units per hectare. The development contains
a mix of townhouses and apartment buildings and has a density of 45 units per hectare. Quite below what the maximum
development potential of this property is in accordance with the city’s official plan. This density’s well below
the maximum permitted density for a development with
frontage on a collector road and the types are expected on
a property at this location. The apartment building, again, this is staff’s report’s recommendation, the apartment building
is proposed to set back a significant distance from
adjacent low density housing, over 17 meters from the south lot line and 120 meters to the easterly lot line. These setbacks, along with
intervening townhouses, will mitigate any perceived
impacts of the height of the apartment building and provide a graduation of building
heights and densities. That’s the reason we
designed it the way we did. Now with the single loaded road all the way around the outside just to maximize the distance from those existing houses
to the extent that we could. And there are several other higher density residential uses north of Thorold Stone Road, many of which you’re familiar with, between five to nine stories in height. And again, all of these are
achieving provincial policy of intensification of
residential development within existing urban areas. And basically at this
point, respectfully request that Council give consideration
to staff’s recommendation and approve the rezoning. – Okay, thank you very much Mr. White. We’ve got questions Council. I’ve got Councilor
Morocco, and then Strange. – Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you sir for your presentation, greatly appreciate it
and it’s great to know that you try to work
with the residents too. I’m somewhat still a little confused. You said that your four story somewhat looks like a three story. So it’s either a four story
or it’s a three story? – It’s a four story. – It’s definitely a four story. – It is, but it’s got a flat roof and it keeps the height to a minimum. – I think that, what I’m hearing
from the residents is that they’re willing to compromise
and the only problem that they have is this
four story building. Is there any possibility that
the developer or yourself would look at a two story or a three story at the maximum? Is that something that
would be of negotiating? – Each one of the stories
has got eight units on it that are approximately
value of $250,000 each. That’s two million dollars
of assessment and value with relatively little– – I appreciate the fact that
we talk about the money. For me, yeah that’s
great that they want to bring more in the coffers. I think that it’s more important
what the residents want. That’s what I was elected to do is to make sure that we make a decision based on the people that put us here. So I appreciate the dollars but when it comes down to
the people that are here to tell us that that’s not what they want, I’m here to try and negotiate and kind of come to some type of a deal that works for everyone. So when it comes down to it, I’m sorry that I’m not all about the money that’s going to be made from this condo or four story apartment. And with all due respect,
I will speak to myself, and I’m sure my fellow councilors will speak for themselves
on that but again, my question is would you look or consider doing a three story? Because at the point it is right now and based on not knowing
the capacity of the sewer that’s able to hold this new development, I really have a huge issue with that. I know that we’ll have
to address the sewer and if the sewer system and their staff says that it’s something that we can fix and can accommodate, I’d
really like to see this become a three story and not a four story because I think that would work with pretty much all the residents here. And then I would be able to support it. As the way it stands now, I would definitely not look
at supporting this plan. So. (applauding) – [Jim] Okay, Councilor Strange. – Yeah, through you, but I was just going to ask the same question for some kind of compromise. Obviously the residents
here, the two issues is obviously the flooding
and then how high it is. He says the four story
looks like a three story so if you made a three story
it’d look like a two story so it’d be awesome. (laughing) (applauding) – [Jim] Okay, Councilor Pietrangelo. I’d just ask you, if you don’t mind, but we have to maintain decorum here. Councilor Pietrangelo. – Yeah, thanks Your Worship. I would echo the comments
of the previous Councilors on the height. I just have a couple questions
through you to Mr. White. Mr. White, thanks for your presentation. I just want to let you
know I really appreciate the fact that you stated to Council that you’re going to
include all the neighbors in the site planning approval process. I think it’s very important
that they stay with you and that they have input and that you take their input to heart. Couple of questions that I have. You talked about building a fence, and the fence would go on the
south side of your property and on the east side. And I’m just wondering,
I have two questions, what would that privacy
fence look like to you and who would have ownership of it? Because my understanding
is that it would be along the roadway, so in 10 year’s time, I guess I’m looking down the
road and thinking to myself if perhaps it needs maintenance, who’s responsible for it at that point? – That did come up at our
conversation last Friday. It would be on our property, nice side facing the neighbors. So it would be our responsibility. We’ve got a three meter buffer so it would be as close to
the property line as we can to maintain a little
bit of room for shrubs, trees and even grass
to grow on that strip. So it’d be close to the
property line on our side except where it jogs to go around those existing cedars on the south side and would go all along
the east, the south, as well as around the
properties to the north. – [Victor] So, that’s a pretty long fence. – Yep. – And that would be the
ownership of the condominium that’s going on the corner? Is that how it would work? So how would maintain
that fence is my question. Like 10 years down the road
if it needs maintenance, who would be responsible for that? Because I understand that
you’re going to take ownership in building it, but
then who would maintain ownership of it once it was built? – The condo associations
that would be created as part of the new development. – And the condo association
would consist of whoever the purchases the apartments only or would it be the
townhouse complex as well? – Technically there’d be
two condo associations. One for the common element of the road going all the way around,
that would be maintained by all of the parties; the town home owners as well as the apartment building owners. The apartment building
owners would also have a second condo association in order for the specific maintenance,
including internal common areas within that building and the
underground parking as well. So there’s just a little bit
of additional responsibility but collectively for the common element, the entire road would be held
in basically five shares. One for the apartment
building and four being held between the townhouses. – My other question was in
regards to the frontages that the apartments would
have on both Mountain Road and Mewburn Road. Could you just let me know
because it’s really hard to read, it’s a very small diagram that we get, what would be your
frontage on Mountain Road and what would be your
frontage on Mewburn Road? – Okay, frontage on
Mountain we sort of split. The far easterly portion
where the block six and that one entrance is, that’s about 30.5 meters. – And on Mewburn? – On Mewburn I believe
it’s just over 75 meters. – 75 meters, okay.
– Yeah. And then we’ve also got the
westerly portion on Mountain which makes the total of about
over 90 meters, I believe, on Mountain Road. – Okay. And I guess the reason
that I’m asking is because you very well articulated the fact that you’re on a collector
road and so therefore you should be given the privilege
of 75 units per hectare. But the way I look at, as
I look at the building, you only have a small portion
of frontage on Mountain Road. Your main frontage is on Mewburn Road and your main entrance is on Mewburn Road. Even the diagram that
you passed around to us shows the frontage of the
building being on Mewburn Road. So would it not be more
correct to establish the units per hectare on Mewburn Road as opposed to on Mountain Road? – Technically, there is
less frontage on Mewburn than there is totally along– – Totally, right I agree with you but not for the apartment building. For the apartment building
you have less frontage on Mountain Road than
you do on Mewburn Road. And the way that the
apartment building shows, your frontage is on Mewburn Road. I’m just wondering why you
would be quoting the statistics based on fronting onto Mountain Road as opposed to fronting onto
Mewburn Road, that’s all. – It’s my understanding–
– Sorry? (man muttering) – I understand that and
I know that and yeah, I do know the answer. – Well, you’re allowed to
have 75 on a collector. Mewburn is a collector. Mountain is an arterial. – Thanks. – [Jim] Thank you, Councilor. I’ve got Councilor
Craitor and then Kerrio. – Thank you, Worship. First of all, thanks
for your presentation. And I was pleased to see that
you certainly made an effort to meet with the residents. So, couple short questions. Is the developer here? – There’s a group of developers, they’re all local individuals. – ‘Cause I didn’t know who they were. So who is River Crest Corporation? Who are the people? – There’s probably 10 individual partners, three of whom are in the room
right now, three or four. Paul Heath, the lawyer from Niagara Falls. Jason Pizza Corolla, he’s the architect. So you got half of them are here. – So, on that basis, I’m going to tell you
where I’m coming from so you can understand the question
I’m going to propose to you. For all the years I’ve
been a city councilor and I think many of my
colleagues feel the same way when I look at development, I always try to think
what if I lived there? That’s how I really measure everything. What if it was me and I
lived at that location. For example, some of
you were here earlier, we had a proposed car wash
right beside some residents. Well, I went out there
and took a look and said “Jeez, if I lived there
I know I would not want “to have a car wash right beside.” It didn’t fit. And that’s how I kind
of look at everything. I always put myself in
the resident’s place. That’s their home and
that’s their whole world. So, since there’s a large number of the board of directors
here from River Crest, can we ask them would you consider going down to three stories? By a show of hands? (laughing) – [Man] It’s the financial
model (mumbling). It’s very costly to build. – Alright, thanks for your sincerity. Thanks for commenting. So the answer is no. So you realize that what
I’ve said to you is that’s how I measure things, rightly or wrongly. If I lived there, how would I feel? And right now, being truthful, you’re not calling the vote
yet but being truthful to you, if I lived there I would
not be supporting it. The other issues you
seemed to have addressed reasonably well, the flooding, and we’ve got serious problems
in the city with flooding. I’ve been out to Chippawa and other areas that are having flooding problems. I sure don’t want people who
are currently living there having problems and I
hope we can address those. So it looks like unless we do
get it down to three stories then I’m not going to
be able to support this. But I appreciate and you gave a very
professional presentation. Congratulations. – Thank you. – Thank you. Councilor Kerrio. – [Vince] My question was answered. – Oh, it was answered? Okay. Do we have any questions of Council? Councilor Ioannoni. – Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you to staff on page three under regional municipality
of Niagara comments. On page three, the first
dash is due to the proximity of the property to agricultural lands, a sewage pumping station in the former Mountain Road landfall warning
clauses should be inserted into the future development
agreements advising purchasers of these uses. Now, Councilor Kerrio said that while he’s not really
comfortable with the answer Mr. Holman gave him regarding to flooding. Neither am I because when you speak to a lot of these residents, their
homes flooded so many times their insurance will no longer cover it. So the money comes out of their own pocket or they come after us for that revenue. And we’ve dealt with many of those. My concern isn’t so much the
aesthetics of the four story, though three story is definitely the message we’re giving you, my concern is the entire development and us being able to
give a confident answer to the residents that we can
assure them that there will not be continual flooding. I didn’t get that from this meeting. So the apartment’s not
just my issue but the… the chance that they could
have the flooding again. I’ve been to some of their basements when the flooding was
terrible and it’s devastating. And once it’s happened
more than a couple times their insurance drops them. So I’d need more
confidence in the proximity to the properties there. Because if you have to put
a warning clause there, there’s something wrong. – [Joyce] And just to that point– – And I’m not supporting
this application either. – [Jim] Thank you, yes, Councilor Morocco. – Just to that point, Your Worship, you know we talk about
the residents there, we also have to take into consideration this huge development and these people that will purchase this. Now, the onus is again on us responsible that we are
letting them build this and bail all flood. So we have to address that for sure. – [Jim] Yes, Councilor. – And to the point, couple
tabs down it says that any storm water flows from the development does not have post-development flows, Mr. Mason talked about that. But it said potential overland flows are to be maintained on the subject lands up to the 100 year storm event. We’re having 100 year
storms every couple weeks. We’re long passed worrying
about 100 year storms, we have them all the time. And we joke about it here but it’s no joking matter
when you’re in their house having to replace
everything that they love. So I think this is far too risky for both the people purchasing it and the neighborhood behind it. – Mr. Mayor, could I just
address one quick question? That specific point she mentioned
about the warning clause, that relates to the noise
generated by the pump station, so that there’ll be
probably windows that don’t open on the west side. So it’s the noise, not
necessarily the capacity or any issues with the
pump station itself. – Okay, thank you for that. Any other questions or
comments of Council for Mr, yes, Councilor Kerrio. – Just a quick comment or
question, Your Worship, about the sewage, again. I understand that we don’t
have a whole lot to say about the provincial guidelines and the density, the only person that could’ve fixed that was Mr. Craitor when he
was back at Queen’s Park, but it is what it is today. So, my question I guess would
be do we not have any say in the sewer capacity? Can we not limit density based
on a cushion that we insist be built in as far as run off or storms go so that we can’t just
get density forced on us by the provincial policy or guidelines and then have to try and
explain how the storm situation works with the residents? Do we not have any say at all about how much of a cushion
we insist be built in on our flows and whether or not
our systems can handle this? – Mr. Holman. – The short answer is yes
and that’s what we would be asking for in the design brief. So if your concern is more
about the wet weather events we could have them do draw
down testing to confirm the actual pump capacity and we could do some flow monitoring to determine what impact there
is from certain storm events and make sure that they’ll have at least the same level of service
that we provide to other homes across the
city or new developments. So that’s the target. Will we ever come up with
a system that prevents basement flooding? No, we’ll never be able
to design the system that can do that but we can make sure that any new development
coming in at least meets the one in five year
storm return and allows us to provide protection to those that are in that immediate system. – My only concern, Mr. Holman, is where people are
asking for more density adjacent to people that are
already having problems, not a new construction, I’m assuming you can build
in different factors, but in a situation where the
people are already concerned about flooding, I think
that I’d like to see the guidelines a little
stricter before we go and increase the density
because the province tells us we have to. Even now, even if we vote against this, I’m sure that if we asked
our planner if these guys go to the province and take us to O1B, we don’t have much of a case to win. – Okay, thank you for that. Any other questions or
comments of Council? Okay. The public meeting with respect to the proposed zoning bylaw
amendment is now concluded. Councilor Ioannoni. – Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that the recommendation
before us be denied and that the application be denied. – Okay, seconded? Okay, move by Councilor Ioannoni, seconded by Councilor Craitor that the recommendation be denied. Okay, is there any
questions to the motion? Okay, seeing none, all those favor? And opposed? Okay, so that’s unanimous. Thank you very much, Mr. White. Thank you. – Had it been three stories? – I think it would’ve been. – That was obvious. – We can’t do that on the fly now. – Yeah, no I understand. – Bring it back.
– You can bring it back. Thank you. What’s that? Bylaws? – Ready for them?
– I’m ready, are you? Oh, Mr. Clerk, are there any additional bylaws
or amendments for tonight? – Yes, Your Worship. Obviously the water rate bylaw
has been added to the list of bylaws so that’ll be 21741 and the confirmatory bylaw will be 42. – [Victor] Motion to introduce
the bylaw, Your Worship, and that they be given a first reading. – Motion by Councilor Pietrangelo, seconded by Councilor Strange that the bylaws be given a first reading. All those in favor? Okay, that’s approved. – Bylaws 2017, 35 to
201742 read a first time. – [Victor] Second and third. – Motion by Councilor
Pietrangelo to give the bylaws a second and third reading,
seconded by Councilor Campbell. All those in favor? Okay. – Bylaws 2017-35 to 2017-42 read a second and third and pass. – Motion for adjournment? Councilor Thomson, seconded
by Councilor Ioannoni. All those in favor. We are adjourned. Thank you. Time for me to–
(microphone mutes)

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *