Transcript
SOURCE TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is downloaded from the source you provided but we haven't reviewed it for accuracy. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record. You can also request an AI-transcription of the audio file with the button to the left.
[22:32]
- [Speaker] Three.
[22:34]
- Welcome, ladies and
gentlemen and council,
[22:36]
to tonight's council meeting
of Tuesday, July the 28th.
[22:39]
Today is a special council meeting
[22:41]
to discuss the official plan,
[22:44]
and we'll be largely relying on
[22:45]
our consultants and our planning staff
[22:47]
to walk council through
[22:49]
because of course this
is going to be the future
[22:51]
of land planning and development
[22:53]
for the city of Niagara Falls.
[22:54]
So welcome, everybody.
[22:55]
First order of business is
the adoption of the minutes
[22:59]
from our July 14th meeting.
[23:01]
A motion by Councilor Lococo,
second by Councilor Kerrio.
[23:04]
All those in favor.
[23:06]
That's unanimous.
[23:06]
Thank you for that.
[23:09]
Not sure why it's written
twice on the agenda here,
[23:11]
but okay.
[23:13]
Just a little link, okay.
[23:14]
Disclosures of a pecuniary interest.
[23:17]
Do we have any conflicts of counsel?
[23:19]
Okay, seeing none,
[23:22]
we'll now open up our
statutory public meeting
[23:26]
with Our Niagara Falls Plan,
[23:27]
so I'm going to start by...
[23:30]
Who am I introducing?
[23:30]
I'm going to go to our
general manager of planning.
[23:34]
Okay, there we go.
[23:36]
Now I have my sheet.
[23:38]
I'm going to go to our clerk,
[23:39]
and I'm going to ask
her to please introduce
[23:41]
the next item on the agenda.
[23:45]
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[23:49]
The next item on the agenda
[23:50]
is a statutory meeting for
the Our Niagara Falls Plan,
[23:55]
the city's new official plan.
[23:58]
This special meeting of
council is being held
[24:00]
under Section 263 of the Planning Act.
[24:03]
The city has engaged
The Planning Partnership
[24:05]
to assist with the preparation
of the new official plan.
[24:08]
The consultants will be providing
[24:10]
an overview of the draft
Our Niagara Falls Plan
[24:13]
at today's meeting.
[24:14]
Notice was given in accordance
[24:15]
with the Planning Act
on July the 8th, 2026.
[24:19]
The purpose of this public meeting
[24:20]
is to hear comments and
concerns from the public.
[24:22]
Modifications to the draft
official plan may occur
[24:25]
as a result of commentary
provided at this meeting.
[24:28]
Staff will present any changes
in the final staff report
[24:31]
and final draft of the
city's official plan,
[24:35]
which is intended to
be presented to council
[24:37]
for adoption at the
August 11th, 2026 meeting.
[24:42]
The adoptive plan will then be forwarded
[24:44]
to the province for final approval.
[24:46]
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and...
[24:49]
Pardon me.
[24:50]
The Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing
[24:53]
is the approval authority for
the city's new official plan,
[24:57]
pursuant to Section 17,
bracket, 36.5, end bracket,
[25:03]
of the Planning Act.
[25:04]
The minister's decision is final,
[25:06]
and there is no appeal in respect
[25:08]
to the minister's decision.
[25:10]
- Thank you, Madam Clerk.
[25:11]
I'm going to call on Kailen Goerz,
[25:14]
senior manager of long
range planning initiatives
[25:17]
from our planning building
and development department
[25:20]
who will introduce the consultants
[25:21]
from our Planning Partnership.
[25:23]
The floor is yours.
[25:26]
- Good evening, mayor
and members of council.
[25:28]
We're excited to be here this evening
[25:29]
to present to you the draft
Our Niagara Falls Plan.
[25:33]
The city has been working
[25:34]
with The Planning Partnership
and Nethery Planning
[25:36]
in the development of
this new official plan
[25:38]
over the past two years.
[25:40]
Today I have here with me
Donna Hinde and Ron Palmer
[25:43]
from The Planning Partnership
[25:45]
and Joe Nethery from Nethery Planning.
[25:47]
Donna and Joe are going to provide
[25:50]
an overview of the draft
Our Niagara Falls Plan
[25:53]
and will be available for
questions after the presentation.
[25:58]
Thank you.
[25:59]
- [Jim] Welcome.
[26:02]
- Thank you very much, mayor
and members of council.
[26:06]
I'd like to go to the next slide
[26:08]
and begin with the land acknowledgement.
[26:12]
Am I clicking? Okay.
[26:15]
There we go.
[26:16]
With the aim of educating our community
[26:19]
and acknowledging the many land treaties
[26:22]
that overlay the city of Niagara
Falls and Niagara region,
[26:26]
we acknowledge and thank
the indigenous peoples
[26:29]
who were stewards of this
land for millennia before us.
[26:36]
A quick overview of the project status.
[26:40]
We are here in phase five
[26:43]
presenting the official plan.
[26:45]
We had our statutory open
house a week and a half ago
[26:48]
and we are here tonight
at the public meeting.
[26:51]
We are reviewing the inputs
[26:53]
that we've received to the official plan
[26:55]
over the last several weeks.
[26:57]
We will be preparing
the final official plan.
[27:00]
We're here tonight at council.
[27:01]
And then as was mentioned previously,
[27:04]
it goes to the province for approval.
[27:07]
A quick snapshot on the engagement.
[27:08]
You told us right from the
beginning of our project
[27:11]
that you wanted all of the work
[27:13]
to be embedded in engagement.
[27:16]
So we have worked through
every phase of the exercise
[27:20]
reaching out to the community
through public open houses
[27:24]
with one-on-one conversations,
with an online survey.
[27:27]
We've had pop-up events.
[27:29]
We've worked in partnership
with our city staff team
[27:32]
to make sure we were reaching out
[27:34]
to as many people as we could.
[27:36]
We worked with a terrific group
[27:38]
of young people from the city
[27:40]
who helped us in the
earlier phases reach out
[27:42]
to connect with the elementary schools
[27:44]
and the folks and the kids at high school.
[27:47]
We've had many meetings
with our city staff team,
[27:51]
with a technical advisory team.
[27:54]
The city has done a terrific job
[27:56]
keeping the online project-specific page
[27:59]
populated with the
team's work in progress.
[28:03]
So we are happy that we've tried to
[28:06]
engage the community at
every step of the way.
[28:11]
The official plan is structured
primarily in two parts.
[28:15]
The part one, vision
statement, key directions,
[28:18]
some general citywide policies.
[28:20]
Part two contains the site
and area-specific policies.
[28:25]
There are schedules or maps at the end
[28:28]
that we're going to be talking
to in this presentation,
[28:31]
and then a few appendices.
[28:35]
So we'll walk through each
section of the document,
[28:38]
high level.
[28:39]
The first section includes
the vision statement.
[28:41]
We've talked about the vision statement
[28:43]
a few times before council.
[28:45]
Niagara Falls, a natural wonder,
[28:47]
anchor for a thriving,
resilient, and connected city,
[28:52]
community of beautiful and
culturally rich neighborhoods
[28:55]
connected to each other,
[28:56]
linked to the jewels in the city's crown.
[28:59]
The beauty of the falls,
the Niagara Parkway,
[29:02]
and the city's parks,
trails, and natural areas.
[29:05]
That vision is underpinned
by six key directions
[29:09]
that speak specifically to housing,
[29:12]
planning for a growing city,
[29:14]
building an attractive and cultural city,
[29:17]
speaks to multimodal transportation
[29:20]
about responding to a changing climate
[29:24]
and fostering sustainability
and resiliency
[29:27]
and promoting a strong
and healthy economy.
[29:33]
The plan is guided by a planning horizon
[29:39]
given to us by the provincial
planning statement in 2024,
[29:44]
so it sets the horizon to 2051.
[29:49]
I'm going to turn it over
to my colleague, Joe,
[29:52]
who's going to walk
through the second section
[29:54]
of the official plan.
[29:58]
- Thank you, Donna. Good afternoon.
[29:59]
Your Worship, Members of council,
[30:00]
great to be back before you.
[30:05]
Outstanding.
[30:06]
So the second section
[30:08]
on managing population
and employment growth,
[30:11]
there is an expectation
under provincial policy
[30:14]
that a municipality's official plan
[30:17]
is based on some minimum targets
[30:19]
with respect to population
growth going forward.
[30:22]
There are a couple of choices
as to how that can work
[30:26]
with the recommendation that would be
[30:28]
in Our Niagara Falls Plan
[30:30]
is using the numbers from the
Niagara region official plan
[30:34]
which have gone through a
provincial approval process
[30:36]
and vetting exercise,
[30:37]
which is entirely consistent
[30:39]
with the provincial planning
statement from 2024.
[30:42]
This includes planning for
a population of 141,650
[30:47]
in terms of residents,
[30:48]
58,110 jobs in the city as well.
[30:58]
We know and you know
through previous exercises
[31:01]
and master planning exercises
[31:02]
that have come through
you about staff's work
[31:04]
with respect to land capacities
and land availability
[31:09]
that is already approved
and in your system.
[31:12]
It remains our opinion
and embedded in the draft,
[31:15]
Our Niagara Falls Plan,
[31:16]
that there is existing approved lands.
[31:20]
Still have to go through the
downstream processes, mind you,
[31:23]
to accommodate a potential
population of 180,000 and up,
[31:27]
just approaching 74,000 jobs as well.
[31:30]
That's a particular
theme that you will hear
[31:33]
throughout our presentation
[31:35]
and staff's responses to questions as well
[31:38]
going through this today.
[31:40]
How that works from a growth
management perspective
[31:47]
is making some assumptions
and setting some targets
[31:49]
with respect to how much
intensification is appropriate,
[31:53]
where it is appropriate,
[31:54]
what minimum density targets
[31:57]
in particularly key strategic growth areas
[32:00]
where redevelopment is
primarily targeted to occur
[32:04]
helps to deliver on that vision as well.
[32:06]
In what we used to call greenfield lands,
[32:08]
and we now call designated growth areas,
[32:12]
a number of which were approved
[32:14]
through the region's official
plan work a few years ago.
[32:17]
We set similar density
targets as well for how much
[32:22]
and a similar target on
employment lands as well
[32:26]
in order to help underpin and understand
[32:28]
where those numbers and figures come from.
[32:32]
They also remain minimum
targets which we use as supports
[32:36]
for planning for infrastructure,
[32:37]
community service needs,
and what have you.
[32:40]
And that minimum is enshrined
in provincial policy,
[32:42]
and all municipalities are expected to,
[32:45]
I'll say, do their part in that regard.
[32:48]
How that works from a
geographic perspective
[32:53]
on the understanding that these
maps are all viewable online
[32:55]
and scalable on on your home computers
[32:58]
is by defining a community structure.
[33:02]
This takes transect-oriented
approach with highest densities
[33:06]
in particularly important centers
[33:09]
and core areas in the city.
[33:11]
A number of these
permissions already exist
[33:13]
in these locations.
[33:15]
And this is where these
form those core areas,
[33:19]
those centers and those corridors
[33:22]
where redevelopment is intended
[33:24]
to be focused and centralized.
[33:27]
Otherwise, within the city structure,
[33:29]
we also have are proposing neighborhoods.
[33:32]
This occupies the majority of the city's
[33:35]
geographic urban area today,
[33:38]
which is the primary home for low density
[33:40]
and ground-oriented
residential development
[33:42]
with sprinkles of higher
density throughout that as well.
[33:46]
We also identify employment areas
[33:49]
and both of these in a built up area
[33:51]
and designated growth area,
[33:53]
the former greenfield or new
development context as well.
[33:57]
Outside of the settlement area itself,
[34:00]
a reminder that Niagara Falls does host
[34:02]
a significant rural and
countryside area as well.
[34:06]
The majority of those lands
[34:08]
within the rural and agricultural area
[34:10]
are prime agricultural lands
[34:12]
with particular protections
in provincial policy
[34:15]
that we'll go into a
little bit more detail on
[34:17]
in a few slides.
[34:19]
And interspersed with it
throughout this as well
[34:21]
is the greenlands system,
[34:22]
the core of our natural heritage system,
[34:25]
and other open spaces that together form
[34:28]
a very important part for
supporting resiliency,
[34:31]
adapting to a changing
climate, biodiversity,
[34:34]
and a number of very important critical
[34:36]
and environmental goals as well.
[34:40]
The identification of the
settlement area boundary,
[34:42]
subject to some technical
refinement through this exercise
[34:46]
is based on the 2022
regional official plan work.
[34:50]
Veterans planning discussions in the city
[34:53]
will recall that the region did expand
[34:55]
the settlement area through that process,
[34:57]
and we're continuing that work through
[34:59]
in this exercise as well.
[35:03]
The land needs within that help,
[35:05]
or how we incorporate, plan for,
[35:07]
and accommodate those plan
minimum targets of 2051,
[35:11]
noting that your infrastructure exercises
[35:13]
and staff's previous work suggest that
[35:15]
we can actually accommodate more
[35:17]
within the baseline minimum expectations.
[35:21]
We also do provide for
[35:23]
within the policies of the text itself,
[35:25]
a recognition on how settlement area,
[35:27]
boundary expansions can occur.
[35:29]
A number of requests have been
made through this assignment.
[35:33]
And once again, the city
has not identified a need
[35:36]
and our work has neither identified
[35:38]
a need for any additional lands
[35:40]
to meet those minimum growth targets.
[35:42]
The city has enough land to do that
[35:44]
in existing state today.
[35:49]
Into section three of the
first part of the official plan
[35:51]
are a range of citywide policies
[35:54]
largely tied to and built upon
those initial six big moves.
[36:00]
These are goals, objectives, and policies
[36:02]
that apply to a range of
topics and issue areas
[36:04]
that cover the city in its totality.
[36:08]
Under section 3.1, our housing policies
[36:12]
where we are providing the policy basis
[36:15]
to support a range and mix
[36:16]
of housing types being encouraged,
[36:18]
including ownership and
rental opportunities,
[36:21]
as well as affordable, attainable,
[36:22]
and additional needs housing.
[36:24]
In a minor bit of
quarantining on our parts,
[36:27]
noting that this team here
does official plan work
[36:31]
in other municipalities.
[36:32]
We note that Niagara Falls already does
[36:34]
considerable and exceptional
work with respect to
[36:37]
securing affordable housing.
[36:39]
And we're ensuring that that approach
[36:40]
is enshrined and continue
forward in this approach
[36:43]
and staff remain committed
[36:44]
to delivering on those high
expectations in the city
[36:48]
well above and beyond what others
[36:51]
seem to be able to accomplish.
[36:54]
And so let's give staff
a feather in the cap
[36:55]
and you, council, a feather in the cap
[36:57]
for that while I have the microphone.
[37:00]
That 40% affordable and
attainable housing target
[37:03]
is also current state
[37:04]
and remains remains proposed
in this draft as well.
[37:07]
And also looking to address
some contemporary issues
[37:10]
with respect to demolition or conversion
[37:12]
of rental housing as well.
[37:17]
Under section 3.2, we introduce policies
[37:20]
with respect to climate resiliency,
[37:22]
noting that the city has already done
[37:24]
a considerable and tremendous work
[37:25]
with its climate change adaptation plan,
[37:28]
which includes a number
of action items that
[37:30]
were recommended for
inclusion in planning matters
[37:32]
and are accommodated through this work,
[37:34]
and some additional other matters as well.
[37:37]
There are a variety of
means and mechanisms
[37:39]
to which city municipalities can plan for
[37:42]
adapting to a changing climate,
[37:43]
and we are looking, contain
policies and permissions
[37:46]
around compact urban development,
[37:48]
the protection and enhancing
of the natural heritage system,
[37:51]
providing for mobility choice,
[37:53]
and incorporating the findings
[37:54]
of your recently approved
transportation master plan
[37:56]
and trails and active
transportation master plans,
[37:59]
and doing what we can to
encourage green infrastructure,
[38:02]
tree canopy protection
and compensation as well,
[38:07]
though those may be in
different policies, not 3.2.
[38:10]
The urban forest and management plan work
[38:12]
is reflected in this draft as well,
[38:15]
maintaining the city's current
30% tree canopy coverage
[38:18]
and setting a target to
increase that to 35% later on
[38:21]
with that compensation support as well.
[38:24]
We provide policies around air
quality and renewable energy,
[38:27]
which includes supporting
[38:28]
carbon sequestration where possible,
[38:30]
encouraging green vehicle parking,
[38:32]
noting that the province has recently
[38:34]
clipped municipal wings in this arena,
[38:37]
and providing the policies around,
[38:39]
appropriate policies around
[38:40]
large scale renewable energy generation,
[38:43]
and noting, again, municipal limitations
[38:45]
on how far you can go
in Planning Act terms
[38:48]
around energy and water conservation
[38:50]
through construction means
and building operations,
[38:53]
setting up and providing
for a basis to encourage,
[38:56]
encourage similar practices
and help make it easier
[39:00]
to do such work in the city.
[39:03]
A number of detailed goals and objectives
[39:05]
with respect to mobility.
[39:08]
Again reiterating and recognizing
[39:10]
your recent approvals of the
two master plans themselves.
[39:13]
We establish and provide the basis, again,
[39:15]
for mobility choice,
[39:18]
supporting and providing the basis for
[39:20]
road windings,
infrastructure requirements,
[39:23]
active transportation
infrastructure requirements
[39:26]
and also providing for
[39:27]
complete street design policies as well,
[39:29]
and the basis for transit
supportive development,
[39:32]
noting again that official plans say
[39:34]
and set an awful number
of goals and objectives
[39:36]
that remains considerable
work to do once this is done
[39:39]
to achieve and continue to
implement those objectives.
[39:44]
Under section 3.4,
[39:46]
under an Attractive and Cultural City.
[39:49]
We do provide for a
number of design criteria
[39:51]
for built foreign types, low rise,
[39:53]
mid-rise, and high-rise buildings.
[39:56]
Included within those
particular design policies,
[39:58]
we do talk about building
placements and orientations,
[40:00]
building entrances,
proximity to amenities,
[40:03]
and a number of items that city staff
[40:05]
are already undertaking
[40:06]
and implementing through
development applications
[40:09]
and that review work as well.
[40:11]
We also provide for
those evaluative criteria
[40:14]
within policies in order to form the basis
[40:17]
for such reviews and assessments
in that downstream work.
[40:21]
We provide for enabling policies
to apply crime prevention
[40:24]
through environmental design as well,
[40:27]
and identifying those key elements that
[40:29]
we know through years of design practice
[40:31]
help to provide for safe communities
[40:33]
through environmental design itself.
[40:35]
Clear sight lines,
appropriate landscaping,
[40:38]
fencing, lighting, windows,
[40:40]
and those sorts of items that
[40:42]
help create those warm and
welcoming spaces for all.
[40:46]
Under section 3.5,
[40:49]
and at the end of this big chapter,
[40:51]
we introduce our policies
[40:53]
with respect to a strong
and diversified economy,
[40:55]
knowing that this has been a major theme
[40:57]
throughout this assignment
[40:58]
and was provided as an area
of focus for this assignment.
[41:02]
We do provide and tie
back to the objectives
[41:05]
that are established through the city's
[41:06]
economic development strategies
[41:08]
by recognizing and providing
the policy protections
[41:11]
to protect employment lands going forward,
[41:14]
noting that provincial policy
[41:15]
has loosened the framework around
[41:17]
how municipalities can or cannot,
[41:19]
depending on your perspective,
[41:21]
continue to protect for those
lands over the long term.
[41:24]
We recognize the agricultural economy
[41:27]
and provide the supporting basis for
[41:29]
evaluating proposals for
agriculture-related uses
[41:31]
such as grain elevators or rural
industrial food production,
[41:36]
and on-farm diversified uses
[41:38]
such as agritourism, on-farm tourism,
[41:41]
and those range of uses all in accordance
[41:43]
with provincial policy to help unlock,
[41:46]
further unlock those opportunities
here in the city as well.
[41:50]
Unless we forget, we have also provided
[41:51]
for objectives around ecotourism
[41:54]
and ensuring that the
city can look favorably
[41:56]
upon those opportunities
[41:57]
where they appropriately
present themselves.
[42:01]
All right, we've now
made it to chapter four.
[42:03]
Onward we go.
[42:04]
Our general land use
policies compatibility-
[42:06]
- Just before we do,
[42:07]
is there any questions so far
[42:09]
that you've heard on section three
[42:11]
that anyone wanted to
address at this point?
[42:14]
Okay, thank you.
[42:16]
- Anytime, Your Worship.
[42:17]
These are focus policies
targeting individual issue areas
[42:21]
that will span multiple
designations or multiple scenarios
[42:24]
instead of repeating them 14 times.
[42:26]
A big part of streamlining
[42:27]
and shortening this policy text
[42:29]
is to put it all in one place
[42:31]
and where those situations would apply.
[42:34]
So we have two chapters, 4.1 and 4.2,
[42:36]
that speak to uses that would be permitted
[42:38]
in all designations.
[42:40]
Really, I'll frame it as
boring and enabling stuff
[42:42]
such as accessory uses if I have
[42:44]
a store parking associated
with that is okay.
[42:47]
Enabling permission in parks, open spaces,
[42:51]
public service facilities,
[42:52]
small renewable energy
systems, infrastructure.
[42:55]
The city's policies with respect to
[42:57]
vacation rental units are found in here,
[43:00]
noting that they are
proposed to be permitted
[43:03]
in a handful of higher intensity,
[43:05]
higher density designations.
[43:08]
And if someone is looking
to do that elsewhere,
[43:10]
and a planning application
would be required
[43:12]
along with the full public process.
[43:14]
In some of those uses,
that would be permitted
[43:16]
in multiple designations
with development criteria
[43:18]
that are associated with them.
[43:20]
We've done our part to try and centralize
[43:22]
those criteria in this one place.
[43:24]
So picking on an example,
[43:25]
if somebody is looking for
[43:26]
particular information
on a home occupation,
[43:29]
short-term accommodation,
home industry, makerspaces,
[43:34]
we find those policies
all in that one place.
[43:36]
These are the criteria that matter,
[43:37]
and eventually filter
their way down and through
[43:39]
into various municipal bylaws,
[43:42]
including but not limited to zoning.
[43:45]
Under 4.3, we have a number of policies
[43:48]
with respect to
compatibility of development.
[43:52]
These include both industrial, commercial,
[43:58]
noise-related uses adjacent to
[44:01]
what we would call sensitive land uses,
[44:02]
such as housing or schools or daycares,
[44:04]
and how that transition
can be handled through
[44:06]
various studies, setbacks, or
protections as is appropriate.
[44:10]
This also includes the
further detailed series
[44:13]
on urban design transition,
[44:16]
and that compatibility around
height transitions as well.
[44:19]
Noting Niagara Falls has a not high...
[44:22]
well, that's not correct.
[44:24]
Has a unique composition
of very high density,
[44:27]
high tall buildings
[44:29]
and adjacency to low density residential.
[44:32]
The Our Niagara Falls Plan contains
[44:34]
some detailed policies on how
[44:36]
some of those transitions can be handled
[44:39]
based on the design team's experience
[44:42]
in some large urban centers.
[44:44]
Generally speaking,
Our Niagara Falls Plan,
[44:47]
as written, includes the
various relevant policies
[44:49]
that allow staff to tie back
into provincial standards
[44:52]
and provincial studies
[44:54]
to review and assess the
proposals that come forward,
[44:59]
with some other specific policies
[45:01]
tied to some specific uses
[45:03]
that have long existed in the city as well
[45:05]
and the city has already
done considerable study on.
[45:09]
Coming back to those design policies
[45:11]
around built form,
[45:16]
Our Niagara Falls Plan contains
[45:17]
the detail that I've been
alluding to thus far,
[45:20]
setting a standard of
three stories or less
[45:22]
for those low rise buildings,
[45:24]
and then a series of designations
[45:25]
where they would be permitted
[45:27]
following later on in
the draft plan itself,
[45:30]
mid-rise of three to eight stories,
[45:32]
and high-rises of 8 to 32 stories.
[45:35]
There are height variations
that are also proposed
[45:38]
in the section provided
certain design criteria are met
[45:42]
and noting that within the
proposed entertainment district
[45:46]
centered around the core existing
[45:48]
tourist district area itself
[45:50]
not proposing a maximum
within that district,
[45:53]
noting that those design policies
[45:55]
around compatible transitions of heights
[45:57]
remains proposed to apply.
[45:59]
Just because there is no maximum
[46:00]
does not mean that anyone
can build to the moon.
[46:05]
We also provide for standard
and routine policies
[46:08]
with respect to contaminated
and hazardous sites as well,
[46:11]
both from a manmade and a natural
environmental perspective.
[46:15]
This will also include some new mapping
[46:16]
that the province is now making
available in municipalities
[46:19]
around the potential presence of karst
[46:22]
which may not come to a surprise
of anybody who understands
[46:25]
that the Niagara Escarpment
is a limestone feature,
[46:28]
and obviously has some
intriguing landscape
[46:31]
and parts within that.
[46:34]
We now make it to section five,
[46:39]
I will keep on trucking.
[46:40]
These are the individual detailed
[46:42]
land use designations themselves.
[46:45]
I got a few slides here,
[46:46]
so let's keep rolling.
[46:50]
I bring you back to that first schedule
[46:51]
one map that appeared on an earlier slide.
[46:54]
We have a series of land use designations
[46:56]
that are tied to strategic growth areas.
[46:59]
This is a term tied to provincial policy.
[47:01]
It's implemented through
a series of designations
[47:03]
that's intended to provide for
[47:05]
and encourage that redevelopment
and intensification
[47:08]
of otherwise underutilized sites.
[47:11]
The benefit to providing for those areas
[47:13]
is signaling to the city and the region
[47:14]
where it is most prudent
[47:16]
to make those infrastructure
investments themselves.
[47:19]
They're generally focused on
key transportation corridors
[47:22]
and existing and planned
mixed-use centers that exist.
[47:26]
These designations all broadly mix
[47:31]
higher density residential,
commercial, and tourism uses
[47:34]
in a variety of forms and
functions depending on context.
[47:41]
Those series of land use
designations themselves,
[47:44]
we introduce those on schedule two.
[47:48]
And we introduce them on schedule two,
[47:50]
and I introduce them through
these following slides.
[47:52]
So within the mixed-use 1 designation,
[47:55]
this is where we're looking at proposing
[47:57]
low and mid-rise buildings,
[48:00]
providing for residential
and related uses,
[48:03]
places of worship.
[48:04]
It can occur in a standalone
or a mixed-use form as well.
[48:09]
That mixed-use 1 generally applying along
[48:12]
some of the corridors with
shallower or narrower lots.
[48:17]
Where we have deeper lots,
[48:19]
we get a little more into
[48:21]
the nice oven roasted salmon color,
[48:23]
Lundy's Lane in particular,
[48:24]
centers where we would be the...
[48:26]
Our Niagara Falls Plan contemplates
[48:28]
mid-rise and high-rise buildings
[48:33]
that we're obviously have to focus on
[48:34]
and would require compatibility
to adjacent buildings
[48:38]
and land uses themselves.
[48:40]
Again, looking to support
[48:42]
residential uses, institutional uses,
[48:44]
commercial uses as well.
[48:46]
So a little taller, a little
more dense in these locations.
[48:50]
We include a Queen Street
downtown mixed-use designation.
[48:53]
I believe we are standing
in it in this moment.
[48:57]
This would recognize the protected
[48:58]
major transit station area status around
[49:02]
the historic train station
[49:04]
that already exists in
policy documents as well,
[49:07]
or in your planning
policies today, rather.
[49:10]
Supporting apartment dwellings,
[49:11]
mixed-uses as well, institutional uses.
[49:14]
There is a minimum density
expectation in this area
[49:18]
in this designation as well,
[49:19]
and we contemplate that in
mid-rise and high-rise forms.
[49:23]
The entertainment district,
this would be the focus,
[49:26]
the focus of the highest
intensity development
[49:28]
within the city that already
exists in that form today
[49:32]
and there remains additional lands
[49:34]
for such development in this area.
[49:38]
We are here to support the province's
[49:39]
Destination Niagara Strategy
[49:41]
as being a particularly
central area for this.
[49:45]
We are looking...
[49:46]
The proposed permissions are for mixed-use
[49:48]
residential apartment
buildings above ground floor,
[49:51]
but reserving those first
stories for that interactivity
[49:54]
and commercial function to
support that walkability,
[49:57]
that intensity of use, that
destination and center focus.
[50:01]
All building forms are
proposed to be permitted,
[50:03]
depending on your context and
the criteria that would apply.
[50:07]
The entertainment generation
districts applies to,
[50:10]
I believe, three total sites as proposed.
[50:14]
The intent is for this designation
[50:15]
to recognize the potential
of these lands for full day,
[50:19]
year-round tourism generation.
[50:22]
It remains our intent,
[50:23]
and we've heard from
council both, I believe.
[50:26]
Well, I believe, in your current form,
[50:27]
but certainly in previous
forms with previous members,
[50:29]
the importance of ensuring
[50:31]
that tourism function is recommended here,
[50:33]
and staff have kept us
accountable in this regard.
[50:36]
We are generally looking
at permitting commercial
[50:38]
and associated uses, those tourism
[50:39]
supporting commercial uses as well.
[50:41]
You do not see residential
uses on this as well.
[50:45]
These lands are intended to follow through
[50:47]
some form of a public process
in order to ultimately define
[50:50]
what would be happening on those spots
[50:52]
and what form does that take.
[50:57]
Our last strategic growth area
designation that is proposed
[51:00]
is the South Niagara Hospital District.
[51:04]
Again, recognizing existing sites,
[51:06]
but also with some
corridor-oriented spines off of that
[51:09]
that are in existing secondary plans
[51:12]
focused on the hospital.
[51:13]
And generally speaking, when
a new large hospital happens,
[51:16]
there is a usual follow-up
and knock-on effect
[51:19]
with respect to medical offices
[51:20]
in support of commercial as well.
[51:23]
We are looking to propose
all those uses as well.
[51:26]
It would include residential
in mixed-use forms
[51:28]
on the understanding
that some of these uses
[51:30]
might require further study,
further investigation,
[51:33]
and potentially a trip before council
[51:35]
to ultimately be permitted
in the long term.
[51:38]
I'm now prepared to shift into
[51:42]
the yellow section of
designations, the neighborhoods.
[51:48]
- Any questions at this point of council?
[51:50]
Okay. Thank you.
[51:51]
- Okay.
[51:53]
The single largest
designation, urban designation
[51:55]
that's proposed is the
Neighborhood's Designation.
[51:58]
This is about well-designed
[51:59]
and attractive residential development
[52:01]
that considers scale character
of existing areas as well.
[52:05]
And would also likely be proposed
[52:07]
to apply in those designated growth areas,
[52:11]
those new communities
on the fringe as well.
[52:14]
More on those in a few slides.
[52:16]
We're looking at permitting
residential uses,
[52:19]
related residential and community
supporting uses as well.
[52:23]
I introduced the term
[52:24]
neighborhood supporting uses this time,
[52:26]
which can include small scale commercial
[52:28]
as a particular function as well.
[52:30]
And generally speaking, in low-rise forms.
[52:36]
A future neighborhood
designation is proposed
[52:38]
to apply where those
designated growth areas
[52:41]
were approved through the
regional official plan process.
[52:45]
This designation intends to apply,
[52:48]
sorry, to go off the slides,
[52:49]
a comprehensive planning approach
[52:51]
that will help demonstrate
[52:52]
how those density targets get met.
[52:54]
A subsequent downstream planning approval
[52:57]
is going to be required.
[52:57]
And last time I checked,
city staff are facilitating
[53:00]
a number of those projects at present.
[53:02]
And long story short,
[53:03]
planning issues on these areas
[53:05]
are being handled through that assignment,
[53:07]
those assignments, not this one.
[53:09]
The uses are generally limited
[53:11]
to what is legally established
[53:13]
and what is already there,
[53:15]
with the point being if somebody
wants to do something new,
[53:17]
it goes through a particular process
[53:18]
and the city and staff will ensure
[53:20]
that various planning
interests and council interests
[53:23]
are taken care of through the review.
[53:27]
Into our employment districts.
[53:30]
I will note at the present of this,
[53:32]
this is a new framework
and a new approach.
[53:33]
It differs than what the
region had identified,
[53:36]
and I think represents both
the project team's opinion,
[53:39]
our employment and commercial
consultant's opinions,
[53:42]
and staff's review work as well
[53:44]
to reflect facts on the ground
[53:45]
and a new vision going forward.
[53:48]
The main designation within that context
[53:50]
is proposed as Flex Business District.
[53:53]
It recognizes those areas that don't meet
[53:55]
the definition of
traditional employment areas
[53:58]
that has been introduced
[54:00]
in the '24 Provincial Planning Statement
[54:03]
which effectively allows the official...
[54:05]
And by going in that route,
[54:07]
it allows Our Niagara Falls Plan
[54:08]
to propose a broad range of
job-generating land uses itself.
[54:13]
It's not intended to be an employment area
[54:15]
under the 2024 Provincial
Planning Statement.
[54:18]
And so therefore that can include
[54:20]
service commercial uses, retail uses,
[54:22]
in addition to traditional
employment uses as well,
[54:25]
such as factories or manufacturing,
[54:27]
processing, warehousing, assembly.
[54:30]
Residential is not permitted in this area,
[54:32]
and the draft Our Niagara Falls Plan
[54:33]
does include I'm going to
say conversion criteria,
[54:37]
though I don't think conversion's
the jargon term anymore.
[54:40]
If somebody is looking to introduce
[54:42]
residential in those areas,
[54:43]
there are specific criterion
tests that need to be assessed,
[54:46]
and it affords counsel the ability
[54:48]
to make a decision on the
long-term future on those sites.
[54:53]
That hardcore traditional
employment area designation
[54:56]
is also proposed on those sites for,
[54:59]
and my jargon term for it
[55:01]
is the biggest, the noisiest,
the stinkiest, the largest.
[55:04]
Those traditional factory type
[55:06]
and warehousing type uses as well,
[55:08]
that are ultimately there,
[55:10]
whose lands and adjacencies
are hoped to be protected
[55:12]
from those more sensitive land uses
[55:14]
such as housing or daycares
[55:16]
that may result in an operational conflict
[55:19]
for those larger industrial
uses going forward.
[55:23]
Though that is tied to the
employment area framework
[55:26]
within the 24 Provincial
Planning Statement as well,
[55:28]
meaning that the list of proposed uses
[55:31]
is much tighter in this
designation than others.
[55:35]
I've also been asked to
take a second to focus on
[55:43]
the former airport lands,
which, as council knows,
[55:48]
are in the city's ownership at this time.
[55:50]
So it is proposed in the
draft, Our Niagara Falls Plan,
[55:54]
to show this as a potential
new employment settlement area.
[55:58]
It is located within,
[55:59]
and we also maintain this mapping overlay
[56:04]
this future employment corridor
[56:06]
that was identified by the region in 2022
[56:10]
in their official plan.
[56:12]
The land area of those
former airport lands
[56:15]
is generally equivalent
[56:18]
to the amount of land that no longer meets
[56:20]
the definition of employment area
[56:23]
through those designation shifts
[56:25]
that I just described over
the past couple of slides.
[56:29]
Those sites are shown
as flex employment area,
[56:33]
and so the airport proposal
is for employment area
[56:36]
and that core designation.
[56:38]
So the province has requested
[56:41]
in their initial comments back to staff
[56:44]
for a demonstration that infrastructure
[56:45]
and public service facilities
[56:46]
to support that development
would be planned or available.
[56:49]
That's the language that comes
[56:50]
out of the 24 Provincial
Planning Statement as well,
[56:54]
and obviously that the
supporting information
[56:55]
regarding the need for
those lands is demonstrated.
[56:58]
You've heard the number
2051 as a planning horizon
[57:00]
introduced in earlier slides here.
[57:03]
The city can under the provincial
planning statement plan
[57:06]
beyond that time for employment areas,
[57:08]
and that's going to be a
very important criterion
[57:11]
for the decisions that ultimately get made
[57:12]
on this site itself.
[57:14]
- Can I just...
[57:15]
We'll run on that site
just to address this.
[57:18]
So this is of importance to the city
[57:20]
because we acquired 250
acres there recently,
[57:24]
and its intended use is
for employment land for
[57:27]
an industrial park or a major
employer creating good jobs.
[57:33]
And we don't know when that's going to be.
[57:34]
I can tell you I've
spoken with the province
[57:36]
many times about this specific parcel,
[57:39]
and they've been saying we need to get
[57:40]
at least 250 acre sites.
[57:43]
So I just want to just clarify
[57:45]
with the contingencies
that are listed there,
[57:49]
that that's consistent with the province.
[57:52]
Vic Fedeli's traveling the world
[57:53]
trying to bring major employers,
[57:55]
and I've spoken with him
[57:57]
about us having this
parcel for exactly that.
[58:00]
And if this happens,
it'd be long before 2051.
[58:03]
So I just wondered if
you are able to elaborate
[58:05]
just a little bit on
how something like that
[58:08]
could move forward.
[58:12]
- Through Your Worship,
[58:13]
and where this may bed one of those areas
[58:16]
where staff are able to supplement here,
[58:18]
long story short, it boils down to
[58:20]
the various technical
studies need to be complete
[58:22]
and the relevant infrastructure
needs to be available
[58:24]
to support that development.
[58:25]
So there will remain work to do
[58:28]
in order to fully unlock that,
[58:29]
but I'm looking at Ms. Dolce,
[58:31]
who probably has a really
good handle on this. Sure.
[58:33]
- Thank you.
[58:35]
Thank you, Your Worship
[58:36]
So this area in particular,
our approach for this area,
[58:39]
why we included it,
[58:40]
obviously, we knew the
importance to the city.
[58:43]
When we did, the
consultants and ourselves,
[58:45]
we looked at the entire city
[58:48]
and we moved some lands
out of employment area
[58:50]
into flex business.
[58:52]
So it's not necessarily long-term
protected for employment.
[58:56]
We are down in terms of employment areas.
[58:58]
So this area is very important to us.
[59:01]
Secondly, we did come to in 2026 budget
[59:05]
and ask for these studies to be done.
[59:07]
So we did get the budget in 2026.
[59:09]
We're starting to work towards
[59:12]
undertaking those studies now.
[59:13]
So I do think we will have all
the studies that they need,
[59:18]
and they are mainly technical studies.
[59:20]
As you heard from Mr. Nethery,
[59:24]
we can plan beyond 2051.
[59:25]
So that demonstration of need
[59:27]
isn't there at servicing
capacity, all the other things,
[59:29]
which, again, we do have flexible policies
[59:32]
to allow it on full or partial
private services as well
[59:35]
for the short term.
[59:36]
So I think we've laid
out our case pretty well
[59:39]
on the importance of it
and how we feel it meets
[59:43]
in the framework we have to use.
[59:46]
- Well, that's great
[59:47]
because I think it's
important to the council
[59:49]
that we diversify our economy,
[59:51]
and here we have an opportunity to create
[59:52]
more, better industrial
type manufacturing jobs
[59:56]
that pay better.
[59:57]
So it's important.
[59:58]
We want to not just be...
[1:00:00]
We learned the hard way from COVID,
[1:00:02]
being dependent on tourism
jobs when the border's closed.
[1:00:05]
It was difficult for our community.
[1:00:06]
So we want to make sure this is
going to be for good-paying jobs.
[1:00:09]
That's why we bought that land.
[1:00:11]
So you're good.
[1:00:12]
Thank you very much. You can continue on.
[1:00:16]
- I'm now going to move
outside of the urban area,
[1:00:18]
the settlement area to our
rural and agricultural areas
[1:00:22]
of which we have two
designations proposed.
[1:00:24]
Again, the majority of
lands proposed to be
[1:00:27]
designated prime agricultural.
[1:00:30]
This should look very
familiar to followers
[1:00:32]
of the regional official
plan process itself.
[1:00:35]
These are the lands that provincial data
[1:00:37]
and provincial studies suggest
[1:00:38]
are of the highest capability,
the highest performance,
[1:00:40]
the highest agricultural potential.
[1:00:43]
They are limited to farming
and associated uses.
[1:00:47]
There are potential processes
[1:00:48]
to introduce agriculture related uses.
[1:00:50]
Again, the grain elevators,
[1:00:52]
some limited food production
as well on these sites.
[1:00:54]
There are pretty detailed
provincial guidelines
[1:00:56]
around how all of that can work.
[1:00:58]
And typically all of it requires
[1:01:00]
a process and an application to unlock.
[1:01:03]
These are intended to be farmlands,
[1:01:04]
and Our Niagara Falls Plan
continues to protect those farm,
[1:01:07]
to protect that for farmland.
[1:01:09]
There are a handful of sites
[1:01:11]
that are proposed to be designated rural.
[1:01:15]
Again, generally, once again, a part of
[1:01:18]
the rural and agricultural framework,
[1:01:20]
part of an overall agri-food system,
[1:01:23]
but those lands generally do not meet
[1:01:26]
that higher productivity standard.
[1:01:29]
There may be additional uses
[1:01:31]
that are potentially
permitted in this area,
[1:01:32]
and that is what the
OuR Niagara Falls Plan
[1:01:34]
proposes to recognize.
[1:01:36]
Some of that additional
flexibility on some of those
[1:01:40]
theoretically lower productivity,
lower protected lands.
[1:01:44]
And again, limited to...
[1:01:47]
I was about to say two sites, I think,
[1:01:48]
and I think one of them has
a power plant on it, so.
[1:01:53]
Another legacy designation
[1:01:55]
is also proposed parkway residential.
[1:01:57]
It exists today.
[1:01:59]
Long story short, it's about recognizing
[1:02:00]
that ribbon residential development
[1:02:02]
along the Niagara Parkway itself.
[1:02:05]
I am pleased to report
[1:02:07]
I am over two thirds of
the way through the deck.
[1:02:10]
We move into section six on
the Greenland system itself.
[1:02:17]
Generally, this is a designation,
[1:02:20]
a series of designations that transcend
[1:02:22]
the settlement area, the
urban area boundary itself.
[1:02:24]
We have those green spaces,
those natural features.
[1:02:27]
Within Urban Niagara Falls itself,
[1:02:29]
we have considerable opportunities
[1:02:30]
within Urban Niagara Falls
[1:02:32]
for enhancement of those systems
[1:02:33]
and providing for additional
environmental functionality
[1:02:37]
and flexibility and resiliency,
[1:02:39]
and also a pretty significant
[1:02:40]
and integrated network
within the rural area
[1:02:43]
of those key features and functions.
[1:02:47]
In here is where you find our designation,
[1:02:50]
our parks and open spaces designation.
[1:02:53]
Generally speaking, it permits parks.
[1:02:55]
Also recognizing various trails
[1:02:57]
and linear corridors within the city,
[1:03:00]
with the intent of providing
[1:03:01]
parks and recreation facilities,
[1:03:03]
and a very significant
opportunity for enhancement,
[1:03:06]
especially under city leadership,
[1:03:07]
as last time I checked,
[1:03:09]
the city is the owner of
the majority of these lands.
[1:03:12]
We are providing a designation
[1:03:14]
that recognizes Niagara Parks lands
[1:03:17]
as you will all know.
[1:03:20]
The Niagara Parks Commission is subject
[1:03:21]
to its own legislative
legislative framework.
[1:03:24]
It has its own powers and permissions
[1:03:25]
over what it can do with its lands.
[1:03:27]
We've heard consistently
as a consulting entity team
[1:03:30]
since day one on this assignment,
[1:03:32]
that the relationship between the city
[1:03:34]
and the NPC is strong,
[1:03:35]
and all we're trying to do is ensure
[1:03:37]
that that is recognized
through this designation,
[1:03:40]
understanding their
framework, their processes,
[1:03:42]
and the importance of that collaborative,
[1:03:44]
that collaborative work together.
[1:03:46]
- Just on that point, so to clarify,
[1:03:49]
what you're saying is
the city doesn't have
[1:03:50]
planning authority over the
Niagara Parks Commission?
[1:03:53]
- That's correct.
[1:03:54]
- Okay.
[1:03:56]
- Bingo.
[1:03:58]
Next up is a single blob designation,
[1:04:01]
but it has some very important
segmentation within it.
[1:04:05]
We are proposing a single designation
[1:04:07]
for the Niagara Escarpment Plan areas.
[1:04:11]
The policy framework is very
simple, that is proposed.
[1:04:14]
It's that the Niagara
Escarpment Plan applies.
[1:04:17]
So under the Niagara Escarpment Plan,
[1:04:19]
again, a provincial plan.
[1:04:20]
The city decisions need to
be consistent with that plan.
[1:04:25]
In trying to keep the text
of Our Niagara Falls Plan
[1:04:27]
short, concise, and streamlined,
[1:04:30]
we are very simply pointing to
the importance of that plan,
[1:04:33]
and its myriad of designations
and protections within it,
[1:04:36]
including limited urban policies
[1:04:38]
all the way through to potentially
[1:04:39]
some specialty crop
identification as well.
[1:04:42]
It looks like one color.
[1:04:44]
It's actually a very integrated
and complex policy framework
[1:04:49]
under provincial direction.
[1:04:55]
We're going to include, at
this point, our schedule 3-1,
[1:04:58]
which is the Natural
Heritage System itself.
[1:05:02]
The Natural Heritage System
is noted in the staff report.
[1:05:04]
This all about recognizing those linkages
[1:05:06]
between and among significant
natural heritage features,
[1:05:09]
and there are areas along with
[1:05:11]
a water resource system as well,
[1:05:13]
and an agricultural system within that.
[1:05:15]
All of it generally working together
[1:05:17]
to provide for that overall approach
[1:05:20]
to environmental planning
in municipalities.
[1:05:23]
The policies that are
developed recognizing
[1:05:26]
a significant shift in policy
[1:05:28]
with the removal of the growth plan
[1:05:30]
for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
[1:05:32]
that provided for a provincial
natural heritage system.
[1:05:38]
What is shown up onto this is,
[1:05:40]
it has been developed for
this assignment itself.
[1:05:43]
The policies that are in there
[1:05:45]
reflect the protections with...
[1:05:48]
Sorry, let me restart that.
[1:05:49]
The policies in here
reflect the protections
[1:05:51]
that are identified and required
[1:05:53]
within the provincial planning statement.
[1:05:56]
It also provides for additional components
[1:05:58]
that allow for some flexibility and study,
[1:06:00]
all of which are consistent
[1:06:01]
with the provincial planning definition
[1:06:03]
of a natural heritage system
[1:06:05]
and a municipality's ability
[1:06:07]
to provide for additional
protections where necessary.
[1:06:11]
Development within the policies.
[1:06:13]
The province has noted that
natural heritage features
[1:06:15]
must be appropriately protected
[1:06:17]
in accordance with the
provincial planning statement
[1:06:20]
and applicable plan policies.
[1:06:23]
City staff will acknowledge
that those policies
[1:06:25]
do go above and beyond,
[1:06:27]
as proposed, those minimum standards.
[1:06:32]
The province has recommended,
[1:06:34]
as noted in the staff report
[1:06:36]
that those features could
be identified as an overlay
[1:06:39]
with the point being that
[1:06:41]
some of the agricultural work
[1:06:42]
would show as the primary use of land.
[1:06:46]
It's been the consulting
team's advice to the city
[1:06:49]
in finalizing this content.
[1:06:52]
That would provide less
protection from development
[1:06:55]
based on experience elsewhere.
[1:06:58]
So we do continue to
recommend a core designation
[1:07:01]
that recognizes the significant
natural heritage features
[1:07:04]
that have those protections
[1:07:06]
built into provincial policy as well,
[1:07:08]
noting that development
and site alteration
[1:07:10]
is not permitted in a number
of those features as well,
[1:07:13]
or will require the relevant
environmental studies
[1:07:16]
in order to demonstrate
no negative impacts
[1:07:19]
on the features themselves.
[1:07:24]
- [Jim] Excuse me. I'm sorry.
[1:07:25]
We have a question, Councilor Patel.
[1:07:28]
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[1:07:29]
I have a question.
[1:07:30]
When you say provincial,
[1:07:32]
those are basically provincial wetlands
[1:07:34]
that we're protecting, the
heritage of the system.
[1:07:37]
Are we going above and beyond?
[1:07:39]
Are we adding more protection
than what province requires
[1:07:43]
in this official plan?
[1:07:46]
- Through Your Worship,
[1:07:48]
I'm going to refer that question to staff.
[1:07:53]
- Ms. Goerz?
[1:07:54]
- Through the Mayor.
[1:07:56]
So we do have kind of two components
[1:07:58]
of the natural heritage system.
[1:07:59]
So the first piece is the significant
[1:08:02]
natural heritage features designation.
[1:08:04]
That reflects what's included
[1:08:06]
in the provincial planning statement.
[1:08:08]
Then we have the kind of
other component overlay,
[1:08:12]
and that is
[1:08:17]
In addition to the features identified
[1:08:19]
in the provincial planning statement,
[1:08:21]
However, the provincial
planning statement does,
[1:08:24]
in the definition of a
natural heritage system,
[1:08:27]
refer to linkages, buffers,
[1:08:30]
kind of other components
that can be included.
[1:08:33]
And then it does refer to
municipal approaches that
[1:08:38]
achieve or exceed the same
objectives can be applied.
[1:08:41]
So we have taken kind of a hybrid approach
[1:08:45]
between the provincial planning statement
[1:08:47]
and the region's official plan,
[1:08:50]
and have taken some of these
kind of other components
[1:08:55]
and provided some flexibility for them
[1:08:58]
to allow for compensation opportunities,
[1:09:00]
which wasn't previously provided.
[1:09:05]
- Thank you.
[1:09:07]
- I think that does a great job on
[1:09:09]
this particular slide as well.
[1:09:11]
85% of the way through,
[1:09:12]
we're almost there onto section seven
[1:09:15]
the necessary policies
[1:09:16]
with respect to transportation
[1:09:17]
and overall municipal infrastructure.
[1:09:20]
It will be important for
Our Niagara Falls Plan,
[1:09:23]
as in every municipality,
[1:09:24]
to ensure that the road network
is detailed and identified.
[1:09:29]
That plan itself includes
the various road allowance
[1:09:32]
with site triangle requirements
[1:09:33]
and corridor design
policies that overall guide
[1:09:37]
individual development
proposals themselves
[1:09:39]
in the city's own master planning
[1:09:41]
and infrastructure design exercises.
[1:09:45]
This schedule five on the
road network itself identifies
[1:09:48]
and aligns with your recently approved
[1:09:50]
transportation master plan.
[1:09:52]
And staff on the two projects
[1:09:56]
have been in consistent contact throughout
[1:09:58]
at least the work that
I'm talking about today.
[1:10:01]
The province has also recommended
[1:10:03]
the identification of
goods movement corridors
[1:10:07]
which is a term that does
exist in provincial policy.
[1:10:09]
Generally speaking,
those are your highways.
[1:10:13]
There are text-based recognitions
for additional corridors
[1:10:16]
where the movement of goods,
[1:10:17]
open bracket, freight, closed bracket,
[1:10:19]
is a particularly important
function of the route.
[1:10:24]
Again, pointing out that when
it comes to overall design
[1:10:28]
the plan for roads within this city
[1:10:30]
is on a modified grid pattern.
[1:10:32]
We generally like our grids.
[1:10:33]
It requires movement, flexibility.
[1:10:34]
We totally understand that.
[1:10:36]
There is a hierarchy that is
identified within the maps
[1:10:39]
and the policies as well,
[1:10:40]
all depending on the planned
function of that corridor
[1:10:43]
from your international grid crossings
[1:10:45]
all the way down through to
[1:10:47]
those private individual roads
[1:10:48]
associated with common
element development.
[1:10:50]
There are those few oddball lane ways
[1:10:52]
that do continue to
exist in the community.
[1:10:56]
All this to say the relevant
policies that staff require
[1:10:59]
to implement the
transportation master plan
[1:11:01]
are included in this document,
[1:11:03]
and we provide appropriate reference
[1:11:05]
and deference to the
transportation master plan.
[1:11:07]
So it will be assessed
through those reviews as well.
[1:11:10]
And these sections also do include
[1:11:12]
the relevant transportation
demand management policies
[1:11:15]
in order to unlock and future-proof
[1:11:17]
a variety of potential city
programs that may help to,
[1:11:21]
including its hierarchy around
[1:11:24]
spines and its various
ownership functions,
[1:11:27]
connectors and local routes,
[1:11:29]
as well as a significant
rural network itself as well,
[1:11:33]
and incorporating and recognizing
[1:11:35]
those site-specific or
area-specific plans and networks
[1:11:41]
that already exist in your policies.
[1:11:44]
Generally speaking, the
policy framework that exists,
[1:11:46]
and once again, providing
the appropriate deference
[1:11:48]
and incorporation to
that master plan itself,
[1:11:51]
this is all about integrating
active transportation
[1:11:54]
within those developments,
within the community,
[1:11:56]
between communities, between
adjacent communities.
[1:12:00]
Ensuring that the designs
of those corridors is done
[1:12:03]
in a safe function,
[1:12:05]
in a multi-use function as well
[1:12:06]
with a comprehensive
sidewalk network itself.
[1:12:09]
Noting of course that the continued
[1:12:10]
long-term implementation of that,
[1:12:12]
be it through donation,
dedication, or direct purpose,
[1:12:16]
remains an ongoing and always task
[1:12:19]
when staff are doing its work.
[1:12:20]
And council does its work
[1:12:22]
through the various review of these plans,
[1:12:24]
infrastructure designs, budgets,
[1:12:26]
and development applications themselves.
[1:12:30]
We also provide for, in
Our Niagara Falls Plan,
[1:12:33]
a fairly robust section eight
[1:12:34]
with respect to implementation.
[1:12:36]
It's generally required text
[1:12:38]
that implements and
unlocks a variety of tools
[1:12:40]
to deliver on a land use planning
vision in a municipality.
[1:12:45]
This includes the baseline recognition
[1:12:47]
of things like zoning bylaws
[1:12:48]
and temporary use bylaws
[1:12:50]
and community improvement plans,
[1:12:51]
but also some new,
[1:12:53]
I'm about to say new tools,
[1:12:54]
some other alternative tools
[1:12:56]
that can help to implement
an overall vision
[1:13:00]
of which I'm going to
have a little bit more
[1:13:01]
in a couple of slides.
[1:13:05]
One of those items is a
comprehensive development plan.
[1:13:08]
These would be areas where,
[1:13:12]
in a few particular
areas, generally speaking,
[1:13:16]
that is a single document that provides
[1:13:17]
for an overall vision
spanning multiple properties
[1:13:20]
or multiple geographies.
[1:13:23]
When it comes to a settlement
area boundary expansion,
[1:13:25]
the threshold that is
proposed is 50 hectares
[1:13:29]
with the point being that
slightly increased standards
[1:13:34]
would help account for
non-developable lands
[1:13:37]
and will allow for some
additional municipal flexibility
[1:13:39]
and discretion in terms
of applying that tool
[1:13:42]
should those proposals come forward
[1:13:43]
as is landowners right now in Ontario.
[1:13:48]
Notwithstanding that threshold itself,
[1:13:51]
it will still be...
[1:13:52]
Even with that, it is
anticipated and proposed
[1:13:54]
to be required for all boundary expansions
[1:13:56]
to ensure that we're providing for that,
[1:13:58]
the city is providing
for that compatibility
[1:14:00]
and land use permissions
and built form itself.
[1:14:05]
We do also provide for
a baseline recognition
[1:14:07]
of secondary plans themselves.
[1:14:09]
I have a little bit more on
that in a couple of slides.
[1:14:12]
We are also providing
[1:14:13]
for a comprehensive
development plan functionality
[1:14:16]
within the settlement area itself
[1:14:18]
proposed on select sites only
[1:14:20]
where we have parcel fragmentation today.
[1:14:22]
And if redevelopment was to occur,
[1:14:24]
there should be increased consideration
[1:14:26]
of what's happening on the lots next door
[1:14:27]
to ensure that the whole of its totality
[1:14:30]
can eventually be redeveloped
[1:14:31]
and not necessarily free somebody out
[1:14:33]
in an inefficient fashion,
[1:14:36]
which would run counter to
provincial interests and policy.
[1:14:45]
One of the changes that
is in this draft from,
[1:14:48]
that's evolved throughout the
draft as well is a recognition
[1:14:50]
to allow some existing land
uses within those areas
[1:14:54]
for that tool that is proposed.
[1:14:58]
I'm sorry. I misspoke.
[1:15:00]
So we've actually received a request
[1:15:02]
to allow for some existing uses
[1:15:04]
within those particular areas themselves.
[1:15:06]
And the recommendation from staff
[1:15:08]
is to not support that request
[1:15:10]
noting that there would need to be
[1:15:12]
some very clear expectations
[1:15:13]
around what that scale of
expansion could look like
[1:15:15]
and wanting to provide some
[1:15:17]
very direct clarity and certainty
[1:15:19]
with the process going forward,
[1:15:20]
which is for a comprehensive vision
[1:15:22]
for those sites in those areas.
[1:15:27]
We were anticipating some questions today
[1:15:30]
with respect to a study requirements
[1:15:31]
for complete applications.
[1:15:33]
We note that through Bill 98,
[1:15:34]
that the province is proposing
[1:15:37]
some changes that would standardize
[1:15:39]
the request for what could be requested
[1:15:41]
as part of complete
applications in the province.
[1:15:45]
We continue to wait upon what
that happens to look like.
[1:15:50]
There are some current local requirements
[1:15:52]
that don't appear captured
[1:15:53]
in the draft consultation materials
[1:15:55]
that have been released by the province,
[1:15:56]
and I trust that staff is
doing what they need to do
[1:15:59]
both here and in other municipalities
[1:16:01]
to ensure that that feedback
[1:16:02]
is being reflected in the provincial work.
[1:16:05]
Because that work is not yet finalized,
[1:16:08]
it will be very important that
[1:16:10]
Our Niagara Falls Plan includes
[1:16:12]
policy direction in this regard.
[1:16:15]
The provincial expectation is
that it doesn't add new items.
[1:16:18]
And in receiving provincial comments,
[1:16:21]
they did ask for a couple of new items.
[1:16:23]
So, on one hand, don't do new stuff.
[1:16:26]
On the other hand, we think
they should do two new things.
[1:16:29]
Don't worry about it.
[1:16:29]
Staff and the consulting team
[1:16:30]
will take care of navigating that
[1:16:33]
through the finalization process.
[1:16:36]
So that brings us to the
end of the first part
[1:16:38]
of Our Niagara Falls Plan.
[1:16:39]
There is a second part that is proposed,
[1:16:41]
which would contain the detailed policies
[1:16:44]
for specific areas or on
a site-specific basis.
[1:16:47]
Despite any and all land use planner's
[1:16:50]
best attempt to try and get rid of
[1:16:51]
as much of that old stuff as is possible,
[1:16:53]
sometimes it's just not entirely the case
[1:16:55]
that it can be done.
[1:16:56]
And so schedule four consolidates
[1:16:59]
all of those individual areas
[1:17:00]
into a single location
for ease of reference,
[1:17:05]
of which we have a few recognitions.
[1:17:07]
One of those remains the
existing secondary plans,
[1:17:12]
which are proposed to be
rebranded as area plans.
[1:17:16]
The general summary is
that if those policies
[1:17:18]
within the existing secondary plans
[1:17:20]
are already captured or otherwise
[1:17:22]
better reflected in the
main heft of part one
[1:17:24]
that I've already gone through
in this presentation today,
[1:17:27]
it doesn't need to be repeated
in this second part itself.
[1:17:30]
The end result is that
the extent of the text
[1:17:33]
that's necessary to continue
[1:17:34]
to implement existing secondary plans
[1:17:36]
can become a lot smaller
[1:17:38]
as staff can rely on
the main official plan
[1:17:40]
to provide the overall policy
analysis and heft there.
[1:17:45]
Some of those existing,
[1:17:47]
those community development plan areas
[1:17:50]
that I spoke about in an urban
context are shown in green,
[1:17:53]
and they are identified
in the text as well.
[1:17:57]
The individual one-offs
[1:17:59]
on those site-specific basis
[1:18:00]
are identified by an individual number
[1:18:02]
and are captured in a part
within the main policy
[1:18:05]
within the main text of part two itself
[1:18:08]
noting that we're able to streamline away
[1:18:10]
a number of those site
specific policies today
[1:18:12]
because the developments
have already been built
[1:18:14]
and are otherwise captured
[1:18:16]
and reflected through
existing permissions.
[1:18:19]
With respect to ministerial zoning orders,
[1:18:21]
we merely recognize and
acknowledge their existence.
[1:18:24]
Those provincial approvals
that have been granted
[1:18:25]
are outside of the city's
purview at this time.
[1:18:32]
And there is not much that we can do
[1:18:33]
about the existence of
those provincial approvals,
[1:18:36]
noting that the city was
also active participants
[1:18:38]
in the process for both of those.
[1:18:42]
We also provide for a home in this section
[1:18:44]
for future secondary plans
[1:18:45]
and reiterating one of
my points earlier on.
[1:18:48]
Those separate processes
and land use planning issues
[1:18:51]
with respect to those process,
those geographic areas
[1:18:55]
are being handled through
those processes themselves
[1:18:57]
and will come before council for decisions
[1:19:00]
through those project
workflows themselves.
[1:19:04]
No official plan would be complete without
[1:19:07]
a series of maps,
[1:19:09]
and we also have some
appendices tied to them as well.
[1:19:12]
A schedule fancy talk
for map or detailed text.
[1:19:17]
Those are statutory elements.
[1:19:18]
They are operative.
[1:19:19]
They're heavily relied upon
[1:19:22]
in order to provide for
the interpretive route to,
[1:19:25]
the interpretive route to
implement Our Niagara Falls Plan
[1:19:28]
and the current city official
plan for that matter.
[1:19:31]
I believe almost every
single one of those maps
[1:19:34]
found their way into the slide deck today.
[1:19:37]
And we also can propose
including some appendices
[1:19:40]
which are designed to be
non-statutory elements
[1:19:43]
that provides for some
flexibility downstream
[1:19:46]
for providing updates and edits.
[1:19:48]
They are generally here to support
[1:19:50]
or explain the intent of policies
[1:19:52]
with some additional criteria,
[1:19:53]
those additional criteria
that may come forward.
[1:19:56]
This includes definitions,
[1:19:59]
the location of natural hazard themselves,
[1:20:01]
the criteria that are associated
[1:20:02]
with the natural heritage features,
[1:20:04]
a cultural heritage resources map,
[1:20:06]
design guidelines from a variety
[1:20:08]
of existing geographic areas,
[1:20:10]
proposed infrastructure capacity,
[1:20:12]
allocation protocol,
[1:20:13]
and an illustration of the application
[1:20:16]
of building height
policies across the city.
[1:20:19]
And we did it, 61 of 61.
[1:20:22]
So in terms of next steps
[1:20:25]
in completing the official
plan project itself,
[1:20:29]
you've heard from staff that it
[1:20:31]
remains the intent to bring forward
[1:20:32]
a recommendation report
to an August 11th meeting.
[1:20:37]
The recommendation would be
for council to adopt that plan
[1:20:39]
and some various incidentals
associated with it.
[1:20:43]
What happens there is
[1:20:45]
a little bit of back of house
paperwork and administration
[1:20:47]
that are done by staff
and the consulting team
[1:20:49]
to bundle up the Our Niagara Falls Plan
[1:20:52]
and the project record off to
the province for its approval.
[1:20:58]
As noted in the
introduction by Ms. Corbett,
[1:21:01]
one of the changes in
provincial legislation
[1:21:03]
is that our Niagara Falls Plan
[1:21:04]
will go to the province for its approval.
[1:21:07]
It does not go to the region
of Niagara any longer.
[1:21:10]
They do not have planning
responsibilities.
[1:21:13]
Upon that provincial approval,
[1:21:15]
the existing city official plan
[1:21:17]
and the regional plan as it exists
[1:21:19]
and applies within the city of Niagara,
[1:21:20]
would it be officially rescinded?
[1:21:22]
And there is one official
plan going forward.
[1:21:25]
So thank you for letting me
walk you through this document.
[1:21:29]
I turn it back to Your Worship
[1:21:31]
for any questions you
may have of the team.
[1:21:33]
- Thank you, Mr. Nethery, appreciate that.
[1:21:35]
So I've got Councilor
Lococo then Pietrangelo
[1:21:39]
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[1:21:39]
Thank you, Mr. Nethery.
[1:21:42]
I do have some questions based
on the actual official plan.
[1:21:45]
I prepared that before this
presentation was put on,
[1:21:48]
so I have some very specific questions.
[1:21:51]
Regarding the phasing
in the official plan,
[1:21:54]
it says that there's a time limit
[1:21:56]
for approvals that the city
[1:21:58]
can manage our infrastructure allocation.
[1:22:00]
I have spoke with staff,
[1:22:01]
but these are some comments that
[1:22:03]
I would like put in the public meeting
[1:22:05]
because people are asking about them.
[1:22:07]
So if a developer is not on track
[1:22:10]
and the city removes the allocation
[1:22:12]
for the infrastructure that we
were going to work with them,
[1:22:15]
is there any liability towards the city
[1:22:19]
or is there any
[1:22:23]
effect on the budget that
might affect the taxpayers
[1:22:26]
if we are allowed to remove
infrastructure allocation?
[1:22:31]
- So I don't know.
[1:22:32]
We'll go to Ms. Dolch.
[1:22:34]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[1:22:35]
So the infrastructure allocation
[1:22:38]
there's obviously a specific policy.
[1:22:41]
And it provides general guidance
[1:22:43]
if you're out of phase
or things like that.
[1:22:46]
And the reason we do that is because,
[1:22:48]
obviously, as we prepare
[1:22:50]
our development charge background study
[1:22:52]
and all the other things that feed into
[1:22:54]
how we're going to proceed with servicing,
[1:22:57]
it kind of lays out the path
[1:22:58]
and where we're going to go next.
[1:23:00]
And we want to make sure with
this allocation policy that,
[1:23:05]
if there's some commitment or,
sorry, in the phasing policy,
[1:23:08]
if there's some commitment for phasing,
[1:23:12]
we want to understand.
[1:23:13]
It's based on the DC schedule.
[1:23:14]
We can modify and Mr.
Nickel can attest this.
[1:23:19]
Projects move around all the time,
[1:23:21]
depending on who's coming
in, what's happening,
[1:23:24]
who comes first, who comes second.
[1:23:26]
But we always have to
keep in mind that budget.
[1:23:28]
So I don't think there's any liability.
[1:23:29]
It's just making sure that
[1:23:32]
if you're going to go out of phase,
[1:23:33]
how's it going to be done?
[1:23:34]
Who's going to fund it?
[1:23:36]
Where's the money coming from?
[1:23:37]
All those things that we need to look for
[1:23:39]
have to be considered.
[1:23:41]
- Great. Thank you.
[1:23:43]
A lot of people are concerned
[1:23:44]
where vacation rental units are.
[1:23:46]
In the past, we've had them
in commercial designations.
[1:23:49]
And now under this official plan,
[1:23:51]
they've been moved to mixed-use 2,
[1:23:53]
Queen Street downtown mixed-use
[1:23:54]
in an entertainment district.
[1:23:57]
I have talked with staff
about providing a map,
[1:23:59]
what commercial designation was before,
[1:24:02]
and what the three new designations are.
[1:24:04]
People are wondering if
there's more opportunities
[1:24:07]
for vacation rentals.
[1:24:08]
So if we can have that at
our next meeting or before,
[1:24:11]
that would be very much appreciated.
[1:24:14]
- [Jim] Did you want to deal with that?
[1:24:15]
Yeah.
[1:24:15]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[1:24:17]
Yes, we can work on that.
[1:24:18]
It takes us a little bit of time.
[1:24:20]
We do have, just for people's awareness,
[1:24:22]
on our website, on our Let's Talk page,
[1:24:25]
the slider tool,
[1:24:26]
which shows you what it was
before and what it is now.
[1:24:30]
So a great example is the mixed-use 2.
[1:24:32]
There is more mixed-use 2
on our new official plan
[1:24:36]
versus what was in
tourist commercial before.
[1:24:39]
They may have been residential
before, now mixed-use 2.
[1:24:42]
So you'll see some additional
lands added for VRUs for sure.
[1:24:47]
- That might be good for
some people who want VRUs,
[1:24:49]
and that might not be good
[1:24:50]
for people who don't
want the VRUs next door.
[1:24:53]
Thank you.
[1:24:56]
In the housing, it talks about innovative
[1:24:59]
housing types and tenures,
[1:25:00]
co-housing, communal
housing, life lease housing.
[1:25:03]
Would this include things like
container homes, tiny homes?
[1:25:07]
And could you please
explain what co-housing is
[1:25:10]
and what plans do we have for this?
[1:25:12]
I've already talked to Ms. Dolch about it,
[1:25:13]
but I don't know who would
like to speak to this.
[1:25:19]
- Giving Joe a break.
[1:25:22]
I'll take this one on a little bit.
[1:25:24]
Innovative forms of housing are
[1:25:27]
focused kind of mostly on tenure,
[1:25:30]
how people live together.
[1:25:32]
Co-housing is a good example
[1:25:34]
where a group of people get together
[1:25:36]
and perhaps buy a big house
[1:25:39]
and decide to live communally together
[1:25:42]
without any legal separation
[1:25:46]
in between the individual living spaces.
[1:25:49]
That's what co-housing is.
[1:25:52]
Most of the other ones are
difficult mostly because
[1:25:55]
they're not recognized yet
by the federal government as
[1:26:00]
something that they can borrow against.
[1:26:03]
So it's a bit complicated.
[1:26:05]
In terms of other forms of
housing, container housings,
[1:26:11]
that would require a
specific statement, I think.
[1:26:16]
Because a form of housing
can have an impact
[1:26:19]
on the neighborhood within which it is.
[1:26:21]
Tiny housing, which is an interesting one.
[1:26:24]
In my opinion, there's nothing
that precludes it today.
[1:26:31]
It's just a house that is small.
[1:26:35]
So it's very interesting
to start thinking about
[1:26:38]
quonset huts and containers and so on.
[1:26:41]
Those are built forms that are different.
[1:26:45]
Whether the house is big
or small doesn't matter.
[1:26:48]
And then the tenure of the housing,
[1:26:49]
how people choose to share the cost
[1:26:52]
or how the building is subdivided,
[1:26:56]
that's a whole other conversation.
[1:26:58]
But in general, the municipality
should not be too concerned
[1:27:03]
about various tenure arrangements
[1:27:06]
because we're focused on
compatibility with built form.
[1:27:11]
- Okay.
- Does that help?
[1:27:12]
- It does, and it leads
into my next question.
[1:27:14]
So maybe if you'd stay
there through the Mayor.
[1:27:18]
Talking about co-housing,
[1:27:19]
I've heard the term co-sharing,
[1:27:21]
so I think it's the same thing.
[1:27:22]
It's something that we need to look at.
[1:27:24]
In the plan, it talks about
additional need housing,
[1:27:27]
and it really drew my attention
[1:27:29]
because it says small
scale, eight beds or less,
[1:27:32]
or large scales, eight plus beds.
[1:27:34]
And I was thinking about
[1:27:35]
a home with eight beds and division.
[1:27:38]
And when I spoke to Ms. Dolch,
[1:27:39]
that's not really what it is.
[1:27:41]
It's long-term care homes.
[1:27:42]
It's residential, group homes,
[1:27:44]
respite cares, emergency
housing, all of that.
[1:27:47]
The concern though, here in Niagara Falls,
[1:27:49]
what we've had happen quite often
[1:27:51]
is we might have 12, 15 people
[1:27:54]
living in one single detached home.
[1:27:57]
And you talked about community housing.
[1:27:59]
How does that relate
to maybe the challenges
[1:28:02]
that we're having now with
multiple people living in a home
[1:28:06]
that's maybe there's some fire safety,
[1:28:07]
there's some health concerns,
there's garbage concerns,
[1:28:10]
there's parking concerns.
[1:28:11]
Will that be addressed at that time?
[1:28:14]
Because the community housing...
[1:28:16]
I know we need housing and I
know we need different forms,
[1:28:19]
but maybe we also need some licensing
[1:28:21]
or safety checks and that sort of thing.
[1:28:25]
- Through you, Mr. Mayor,
[1:28:26]
I'll start and you can finish.
[1:28:28]
Additional needs housing is a defined term
[1:28:31]
from the province.
[1:28:32]
And Ms. Dolch is correct.
[1:28:35]
It is usually aged care
[1:28:41]
and those kinds of
institutional forms of housing
[1:28:44]
that are intended to
help people find housing
[1:28:48]
that meets their needs, additional needs.
[1:28:52]
I would suggest you have a look at
[1:28:54]
the definition in the
provincial planning statement.
[1:28:56]
That would be very helpful.
[1:28:58]
I've never written an official plan
[1:29:00]
where the list of additional needs housing
[1:29:02]
captures everything that people think
[1:29:05]
is additional needs housing.
[1:29:08]
Nonetheless, we make efforts to do so.
[1:29:12]
In terms of the communal living,
[1:29:15]
it's very difficult in the planning world
[1:29:19]
to regulate the occupancy of a house.
[1:29:23]
It would be seen as discriminatory.
[1:29:26]
We can't regulate the
number of people in a house,
[1:29:30]
how they're related or not.
[1:29:32]
Those are not planning matters.
[1:29:34]
However, there are many instances,
[1:29:37]
and it does go a bit
to municipal licensing,
[1:29:41]
where it's simply not safe.
[1:29:44]
Fire code, building code issues,
[1:29:47]
where there are too many people
living in too small a space,
[1:29:51]
including people living in a garage.
[1:29:56]
This has come up a fair bit in
college and University towns
[1:30:02]
where landlords are putting
[1:30:05]
12 people in a three-bedroom house.
[1:30:09]
That is better dealt with through
[1:30:12]
in one place in Kitchener, Waterloo.
[1:30:14]
We looked at a SWAT team of
building code, fire code,
[1:30:20]
and municipal planning
together to try and make sure
[1:30:23]
that the housing arrangements are safe,
[1:30:27]
and that is a licensing approach
[1:30:30]
where the landlords would
have to agree to be licensed
[1:30:35]
with the intent that we would hope
[1:30:37]
that they would be ethical and concerned
[1:30:40]
about the health and
safety of their residents.
[1:30:43]
I don't know what you do in Niagara Falls,
[1:30:46]
but, again, a complicated question
[1:30:49]
with a lot of different approaches.
[1:30:54]
Okay. Thank you.
- Ms. Dolch,
[1:30:55]
did you want to add to that at all?
[1:30:57]
- I'll just add brief...
[1:30:58]
Thank you, Your Worship.
I'll just add briefly then.
[1:31:00]
Obviously, the problems we're having now,
[1:31:03]
we'll look at that through
the licensing program.
[1:31:07]
And what we'll do is
obviously we have AMP systems
[1:31:10]
and other things we can start to look at
[1:31:11]
for fining and other things
[1:31:13]
to make sure we get some compliance,
[1:31:14]
similar to what we've
done with the VRU program.
[1:31:17]
And that's been a really big
success with Mr. Gallagher.
[1:31:21]
So I think that's something
we'll start to look at
[1:31:23]
in the new year.
[1:31:24]
And I know I will bring you
back something in the new year
[1:31:27]
on lodging houses.
[1:31:29]
- Great. Thank you.
[1:31:30]
I know there's a lot of terms out there,
[1:31:31]
rooming houses, boarding
houses, lodging houses,
[1:31:33]
and we've had complaints,
[1:31:34]
and what we have now
sometimes doesn't address it.
[1:31:37]
So I think it's a good
opportunity to move forward.
[1:31:40]
In the plan, it talks
about inclusionary zoning
[1:31:43]
in major transit areas.
[1:31:45]
Have we considered inclusionary zoning
[1:31:47]
in the downtown major transit area?
[1:31:52]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[1:31:55]
So in this policy, in our
policies in the official plan,
[1:31:58]
we've left it pretty vague in
terms of inclusionary zoning.
[1:32:02]
We want to just make
sure we can consider it
[1:32:03]
should council wish to
do so in the future.
[1:32:06]
So it's kind of in there as a placeholder,
[1:32:09]
but it would be separate
study to look at that.
[1:32:11]
Come back to council for consideration
[1:32:13]
if that's something
council would like to do.
[1:32:15]
- Great. Thank you.
[1:32:16]
Just a few more questions.
[1:32:18]
The next one is about parking policies.
[1:32:21]
I know, in part of it,
[1:32:22]
it says that there's no
minimum parking requirements
[1:32:25]
for motor vehicles.
[1:32:26]
And the concern is that
this is not necessarily
[1:32:29]
the reality for a lot of people.
[1:32:31]
Niagara Falls is very large.
[1:32:32]
It's hard to get around on public transit
[1:32:34]
or bicycles or motorized vehicles.
[1:32:39]
The zoning will establish minimum
bicycle and micromobility.
[1:32:44]
Is that an e-scooter?
[1:32:45]
What is micro-mobility?
[1:32:49]
- [Jim] Ms. Dolch.
[1:32:51]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[1:32:52]
I'll take this one.
[1:32:54]
So yeah, it can be all of those,
[1:32:56]
like an e-scooter, an e-bike,
micro-mobility type of device.
[1:33:01]
So in terms of the policies,
[1:33:04]
the parking policies though,
[1:33:05]
those are provincially regulated.
[1:33:06]
So we can't require parking
[1:33:10]
in the PTMSA, the transit station area.
[1:33:17]
Obviously, all we can do is
kind of monitor the situation,
[1:33:21]
but most developers do
their market research.
[1:33:25]
As I explained to you yesterday,
[1:33:26]
they do their market research to see
[1:33:28]
what they're going to need for parking
[1:33:29]
because if the end user needs the parking,
[1:33:33]
they will demand it as part of a sale.
[1:33:35]
So a lot of them do still provide parking.
[1:33:38]
A great example is our
Park Street project.
[1:33:39]
They don't have to provide parking,
[1:33:41]
but they are because they know the market
[1:33:43]
is there to provide that parking.
[1:33:44]
Maybe not what we would have expected
[1:33:47]
in other areas of the city,
[1:33:48]
but they do know that
parking will be required.
[1:33:50]
So I think all we can do is monitor,
[1:33:53]
see the situation unfold.
[1:33:55]
- Okay, thank you.
[1:33:56]
I know it's a provincial regulation
[1:33:59]
that it's minimized.
[1:34:00]
But some of the challenges
that we're seeing right now
[1:34:03]
over the last week, it's been
on the news about e-scooters
[1:34:06]
and people without insurance,
and safety, and helmets,
[1:34:10]
and the chaos on sidewalks, on streets.
[1:34:14]
So I'm just concerned that
if we don't have the parking
[1:34:17]
and we look towards e-scooters,
[1:34:19]
and that's a provincially
regulated thing as well,
[1:34:22]
how are we going to work through that?
[1:34:24]
So I just want to put that out there that
[1:34:25]
that could be a challenge 'cause
it's a challenge right now.
[1:34:29]
The other thing on parking
I wanted to talk about,
[1:34:31]
it talks in here
[1:34:34]
if there's no minimum
parking on Queen Street,
[1:34:37]
will the city be responsible
to provide a parking structure,
[1:34:40]
and will that be on the taxpayers
[1:34:44]
to provide that parking structure?
[1:34:47]
- I don't know if Mr. Burgess,
[1:34:49]
if you wanted to address the,
or did you want to do it?
[1:34:50]
Okay.
[1:34:51]
Okay, we'll go to Ms. Dolch.
[1:34:54]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[1:34:54]
So I'll start, and if Mr.
Burgess wants to jump in,
[1:34:57]
but again, there's no
minimum parking requirements.
[1:35:00]
We'll watch it unfold,
[1:35:01]
obviously, if there's a
parking demand issue long term,
[1:35:06]
but we do have to remember,
[1:35:07]
we do have the GO Station here.
[1:35:09]
Hopefully we're going to get better.
[1:35:10]
You see the transportation
planning system that
[1:35:14]
both Municipal Works has been working on,
[1:35:16]
active transportation, all those things.
[1:35:19]
In a lot of municipalities,
maybe not Niagara Falls yet,
[1:35:22]
but in a lot of municipalities
[1:35:23]
in the states and other places,
[1:35:25]
they're actually getting
rid of a lot of parking now,
[1:35:27]
and it's going to more curbside.
[1:35:30]
So there's a lot of interest in curbside
[1:35:31]
because of Ubers, Lyfts,
all the other things
[1:35:34]
that people are now getting around with.
[1:35:36]
So I think we'll watch it unfold.
[1:35:39]
If obviously there's a demand,
[1:35:41]
there may come a request
to do something like that
[1:35:44]
or add additional surface
parking in the city,
[1:35:46]
but I really don't think
it'll come to that.
[1:35:48]
A lot of the younger people
don't necessarily want to drive.
[1:35:52]
They actually want to use Uber.
[1:35:54]
They can't afford the
insurance nor the car.
[1:35:56]
So I think we just need to
watch it unfold and see,
[1:35:59]
but I'm not convinced that
we would have to build
[1:36:02]
something at this point in time.
[1:36:04]
- Okay. Thank you.
[1:36:05]
In addition to that, it did say that
[1:36:07]
there's payment in lieu for a developer.
[1:36:09]
If there's an exemption of parking,
[1:36:11]
we can give them an exemption
and the money that we get.
[1:36:15]
What kind of money are we
talking about for that exemption?
[1:36:17]
Would that money be used to
provide a parking structure
[1:36:20]
or where does that money go to?
[1:36:24]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[1:36:24]
So that's just a policy that's
something we can consider
[1:36:28]
in terms of a payment in cash-in-lieu.
[1:36:30]
And so we can consider that.
[1:36:31]
So a lot of times what'll happen is we'll
[1:36:34]
give a value in that policy of how much
[1:36:36]
for a parking spot would be
in lieu of a parking spot.
[1:36:40]
And then it would go into a bank of funds
[1:36:43]
that eventually we would
either acquire land
[1:36:45]
to build the surface parking
[1:36:47]
or a parking structure
or things like that,
[1:36:49]
but it would accumulate.
[1:36:51]
And usually it's based on the standard,
[1:36:53]
and they may reduce it a bit,
[1:36:54]
and then they pay for so
many spots in cash-in-lieu.
[1:36:57]
It happens in a number of
municipalities across Ontario.
[1:36:59]
- Thank you.
[1:37:01]
On page 304 and 305, there's the maps
[1:37:04]
for the riverfront in the Grand Niagara.
[1:37:08]
There's two sections there about
[1:37:10]
woodland removal and wetland removal,
[1:37:13]
and I'm just wondering
[1:37:14]
why they're specifically on those maps.
[1:37:16]
I know they're specialized areas,
[1:37:18]
but why are they on there
if we've already approved it
[1:37:22]
or is that something that has to
[1:37:24]
come back about the removal?
[1:37:25]
How is that working?
[1:37:28]
- Dolch?
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[1:37:29]
So this was carried over
right from the riverfront
[1:37:32]
secondary plan policy.
[1:37:33]
So we haven't changed a thing.
[1:37:35]
We've left everything the way it is.
[1:37:38]
Those removals do have caveats to them
[1:37:40]
if you actually look at the policies.
[1:37:41]
So the policies do say
[1:37:42]
there's further study and work to be done.
[1:37:45]
So that's why the map is there.
[1:37:46]
So we've kept everything the same.
[1:37:48]
The policies are still the same.
[1:37:49]
So, so they do still have to do
[1:37:51]
additional work for those removals.
[1:37:53]
- Final question, and then
I'll have some comments later.
[1:37:58]
So Bill 98, we touched on it a little bit,
[1:38:00]
but my understanding of bill 98 is,
[1:38:02]
as of January 1st, 2028,
[1:38:05]
29 large municipalities
[1:38:07]
are going to have
standardized official plans.
[1:38:09]
And then after that,
[1:38:10]
all of the other 444 municipalities
[1:38:13]
will have standardized
ones on January 1st, 2029.
[1:38:17]
The province is saying
it's supposed to make it
[1:38:19]
simpler and easier, more
consistent, more permissive.
[1:38:22]
The goal is to encourage housing
[1:38:24]
and to reduce the process
of delays in approval.
[1:38:29]
I have concerns about this
cookie cutter approach.
[1:38:32]
Mississauga has a very different character
[1:38:34]
than Niagara Falls does
[1:38:35]
than maybe a 10,000 resident city.
[1:38:38]
So we have different goals and land uses,
[1:38:42]
different commercial.
[1:38:43]
We have tourism.
[1:38:44]
If we go to a standardized
policy on January 1st of 2028,
[1:38:49]
what does that do to all of the work
[1:38:51]
and the policies that are in this plan?
[1:38:54]
How standardized is it going to be
[1:38:56]
and how different will it be
[1:38:57]
than the one we're about to approve?
[1:39:00]
- [Jim] Ms. Dolch.
[1:39:02]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[1:39:02]
So we did look at that
[1:39:05]
and the consultants did consider that.
[1:39:07]
We considered whether or not
we start to go down that path.
[1:39:10]
We talked to the province, but
again, it's not yet approved.
[1:39:12]
So we don't want to.
[1:39:14]
We didn't want to go
down that path too early,
[1:39:16]
and it not be approved the
way it's been proposed.
[1:39:20]
So we're going to have to do some work
[1:39:22]
after this official plan's approved,
[1:39:23]
if it does get approved,
obviously, before that time.
[1:39:26]
In terms of our commenting
to the province on the bill,
[1:39:30]
we did raise concerns about the tourism
[1:39:33]
'cause we are unique,
[1:39:34]
especially we have an
entertainment district.
[1:39:37]
They won't have that.
[1:39:37]
They'll just have commercial.
[1:39:38]
So we wanted to kind
of have them recognize
[1:39:42]
that we do have certain tourism districts.
[1:39:44]
Whether or not they make
that change, I don't know.
[1:39:46]
So all we can do is wait
and see what comes out
[1:39:48]
and what the province approves in the end,
[1:39:50]
and then we'll have to follow suit
[1:39:53]
to adhere to that and make some changes
[1:39:55]
once that's approved.
[1:39:56]
- Will there be a lot of changes
based on what you've heard
[1:39:59]
compared to what we have now in this one?
[1:40:03]
- Through the Worship,
through the council.
[1:40:05]
I think there'll be some work, definitely,
[1:40:08]
but I think we can make it work.
[1:40:11]
And I think Joe wants
to speak to it as well.
[1:40:13]
Mr. Nethery, sorry.
[1:40:16]
- That's all right.
[1:40:17]
Through you, Your Worship.
[1:40:20]
This is the decision, the recommendation
[1:40:22]
that staff and the project team
[1:40:23]
are making for this assignment.
[1:40:26]
There are other municipalities
that are undertaking
[1:40:28]
official plan reviews right now,
[1:40:29]
and they are moving toward the
provincial standard layout.
[1:40:33]
And I don't want to mislead
or kid ourselves here.
[1:40:37]
The province is going
to go in that direction.
[1:40:39]
We don't know what it looks like.
[1:40:40]
It will happen,
[1:40:41]
and there will be an expectation
[1:40:43]
that all municipalities follow.
[1:40:47]
On those other projects
that I'm working on,
[1:40:50]
the work that was undertaken
is a reordering exercise.
[1:40:53]
So rather than policy 4.3 being where the,
[1:40:57]
or 4.5 is where our
brownfield policies are,
[1:41:00]
it finds its way into 7.2
or something like that.
[1:41:05]
So I would submit the baseline
expectation would likely be
[1:41:08]
a reshuffling at that point.
[1:41:11]
You don't have to worry about that again
[1:41:12]
according to the regulation.
[1:41:14]
We're looking at 2028 as being the point
[1:41:16]
where the next exercise
would have to consider that.
[1:41:19]
And 20 bucks says that there
would probably be appetite
[1:41:22]
on staff's part to look at
a particular policy issue
[1:41:26]
or something else at that point.
[1:41:28]
All things that you can deal
with at the next review.
[1:41:30]
The baseline, reordering.
[1:41:33]
- Thank you very much,
[1:41:34]
and I'll have some comments later on.
[1:41:36]
- Okay, Councilor
Pietrangelo, then Nieuwesteeg.
[1:41:39]
- Yeah, thanks, Your Worship.
[1:41:40]
I just wanted to make a
comment in terms of next steps.
[1:41:42]
I know I talked to yourself.
[1:41:44]
I talked to Ms. Dolch as
well before the meeting.
[1:41:47]
I'll just speak for myself personally.
[1:41:48]
I think I would benefit from
an extra session with staff.
[1:41:52]
In camera would be great
[1:41:54]
if we could organize something like that.
[1:41:55]
And if other council members
want to join as well,
[1:41:58]
I just think that it would
be nice to see both plans,
[1:42:01]
like the official plan
that we have in place now,
[1:42:04]
and the new official plan
[1:42:06]
and kind of compare them side by side,
[1:42:07]
understand the fundamentals of the old one
[1:42:10]
as opposed to the
fundamentals of this one.
[1:42:12]
There's a lot of reading that's here.
[1:42:13]
I mean, our plan is over 450 pages.
[1:42:16]
The comments were 450 pages or more.
[1:42:19]
So it's a lot for us to digest.
[1:42:20]
I think it would be good to
have a session with staff
[1:42:23]
and the consultants as well.
[1:42:24]
And I'm not sure when you can schedule it.
[1:42:27]
I don't want to really
make that target disappear.
[1:42:31]
I know staff have that
big target of August 11th.
[1:42:33]
They got to get this done.
[1:42:34]
So if it's sometime in
between now and then,
[1:42:37]
that would be great, Your Worship.
[1:42:38]
I'll make myself available.
[1:42:40]
- So we can address that.
[1:42:41]
We're looking tentatively at a week today.
[1:42:45]
Next Tuesday, that would
be the fourth, I believe.
[1:42:47]
And it would be from
three o'clock, was it?
[1:42:51]
- [Speaker] May we suggested 2:00 to 5:00.
[1:42:53]
- 2:00 till 5:00.
[1:42:54]
It was suggested two till five.
[1:42:56]
- Perfect.
- Does that work?
[1:42:58]
- Ms. Clerk are we going
to need to make a motion
[1:43:00]
to do just that?
[1:43:02]
- Yes.
[1:43:03]
- Okay, so we'll do that at a
later point, like after this.
[1:43:07]
Yes.
[1:43:08]
Lead us.
[1:43:09]
- Lead us.
[1:43:11]
Through you, Mr. Mayor,
[1:43:12]
a resolution from what I
understand from this discussion
[1:43:16]
is that there's a request
from Councilor Pietrangelo
[1:43:19]
to have further education to be held
[1:43:22]
in camera from what I gather.
[1:43:24]
A resolution can be formatted, presented
[1:43:27]
as we don't have necessarily
one completed at this time.
[1:43:30]
But perhaps once we're done,
[1:43:31]
the public, the public
meeting, we can add that.
[1:43:35]
We'll do a procedural,
[1:43:37]
waiving of the procedural
bylaw to have that added
[1:43:39]
and go through those steps.
[1:43:41]
- Good, so we'll do that
after the public meeting
[1:43:43]
that we're currently doing.
[1:43:44]
Perfect, any questions specific to the OP?
[1:43:48]
Okay. Councillor Nieuwesteeg.
[1:43:51]
- Thank you, Your Mayor.
[1:43:52]
And actually, I'd like to agree
with Councillor Pietrangelo.
[1:43:56]
This is such an important
piece for our city.
[1:43:58]
It's a visioning strategy.
[1:44:00]
It's how we live and what our
city's going to look like.
[1:44:02]
So I think as much time
as we can spend on it
[1:44:06]
is very prudent.
[1:44:08]
I as well have a few questions.
[1:44:09]
So I'm not sure where I start,
[1:44:12]
but I do want to say thank
you very much to staff
[1:44:14]
for this amazing amount of work.
[1:44:17]
Everything is so connected, so considered.
[1:44:20]
It's really an impressive document.
[1:44:24]
My first question relates
to growth and cost.
[1:44:28]
We're estimating a significant
amount of growth by 2051,
[1:44:31]
roughly an additional
50,000 people, 20,000 homes,
[1:44:34]
I think 17, 18,000 new jobs.
[1:44:38]
What is the estimated total
cost that the city will
[1:44:43]
have to accommodate for this growth?
[1:44:44]
We'll need to invest in new roads
[1:44:46]
and everything that was explained today.
[1:44:48]
Water, wastewater, transit,
transportation master plan.
[1:44:51]
In other words is there a breakeven point
[1:44:55]
where cost and growth kind
of where we end up saying
[1:44:59]
growth is just going to
cost us way too much,
[1:45:01]
we can't afford the growth,
[1:45:02]
or growth will help us
maintain everything?
[1:45:06]
I don't know the answer to that question.
[1:45:08]
But if you're in business,
you're always saying,
[1:45:10]
"Well, how much do you invest
[1:45:12]
to make your breakeven and do well?"
[1:45:15]
Or does too much growth
end up disabling everyone?
[1:45:19]
- [Jim] So will growth pay for the growth?
[1:45:23]
- Or really a cost of growth, yes.
[1:45:25]
- Yes.
[1:45:26]
Thank you, Your Worship.
[1:45:27]
So, I guess, I can only answer it depends.
[1:45:33]
So in some scenarios, obviously,
[1:45:36]
our development charges are built
[1:45:38]
for growth pays for growth, right?
[1:45:39]
In terms of certain
projects that we allocate
[1:45:42]
usually are growth related projects.
[1:45:45]
So we try to have growth pay for growth.
[1:45:48]
But your larger question is,
[1:45:51]
does that growth ultimately break even
[1:45:55]
on what we're going to get in?
[1:45:57]
It depends on the growth.
[1:45:58]
So as you can see with
our new official plan,
[1:46:01]
we have areas of strategic growth.
[1:46:04]
We have areas of intensification.
[1:46:07]
And the reason we went with that path
[1:46:10]
is because those areas, if you intensify,
[1:46:14]
if you increase density,
[1:46:16]
all those things start to
help the city's bottom line
[1:46:19]
because we're adding more
people on less servicing.
[1:46:22]
If we continue to sprawl, obviously,
[1:46:26]
you will see an impact
[1:46:27]
in terms of the balance being outweighed.
[1:46:30]
So it's not to say though
we never want to see
[1:46:32]
another single detached
dwelling or anything like that.
[1:46:35]
It needs to be balanced in order to offset
[1:46:38]
those that you subsidize,
[1:46:39]
for example, a cul-de-sac,
[1:46:41]
and those that don't need the subsidy
[1:46:43]
like a larger apartment, right?
[1:46:45]
Because what they pay in taxes
[1:46:48]
and all the other things are being,
[1:46:51]
there's more of them to pay
for a very small piece of pipe.
[1:46:54]
So that's why I'm saying growth,
[1:46:55]
it doesn't necessarily
always pay for growth,
[1:46:57]
and I think Ron would
like to speak as well.
[1:47:00]
- Yes, through you, Mr.-
- Palmer.
[1:47:03]
- Absolutely correct.
[1:47:05]
The philosophy of growth
management in Ontario
[1:47:09]
is that growth pays for growth.
[1:47:12]
We're given a number of
mechanisms to do that,
[1:47:16]
and the first one is the official plan.
[1:47:18]
The official plan sets the expectation
[1:47:22]
of how much growth will happen
[1:47:25]
and generally where and what kind.
[1:47:29]
So that's an important first step.
[1:47:33]
Then the municipality needs to consider
[1:47:35]
how are we going to pay for the...
[1:47:37]
What infrastructure do we need
[1:47:39]
and how is that going to be paid for?
[1:47:42]
And that results in a development charge.
[1:47:45]
And the idea is that
the development charge
[1:47:48]
pays for the major
infrastructure requirements
[1:47:52]
of all of that growth
probably phased over time.
[1:47:58]
Municipality also has a
couple of other mechanisms
[1:48:01]
that are part of growth management.
[1:48:05]
The first one is the
parkland dedication bylaw,
[1:48:07]
which is intended to generate
the necessary parkland
[1:48:12]
that will service new development.
[1:48:17]
And thirdly, the
community benefits charge,
[1:48:20]
which is intended to talk
about how community facilities
[1:48:25]
and other elements of what
makes a municipality great
[1:48:30]
will be paid for.
[1:48:32]
All of those things working
together are intended to ensure
[1:48:37]
that growth pays for growth.
[1:48:39]
- And to that point,
through you, Mr. Mayor,
[1:48:42]
at that point, so it
comes to a point where
[1:48:44]
we're expecting developers
to pay for this.
[1:48:46]
And yet at the same time,
[1:48:47]
we have this 40% mandate of
[1:48:50]
having affordable and attainable housing.
[1:48:52]
Do you see a point where it's going to get
[1:48:55]
that we're not going
to see the development
[1:48:57]
and we're not going to
reach this growth of
[1:49:01]
141,000 by the year 2051?
[1:49:04]
Because it's a balancing act here,
[1:49:05]
especially when there's such...
[1:49:08]
Unless there's some miracle
to always fund these
[1:49:15]
40% attainable and affordable dwellings.
[1:49:18]
- Through Mr. Mayor, excellent question.
[1:49:24]
What is the impact of development charges,
[1:49:27]
parkland dedication,
[1:49:28]
and community benefits charges
[1:49:30]
on the objective of achieving
[1:49:33]
attainable and affordable housing?
[1:49:36]
I don't think that the
numbers stop development.
[1:49:40]
If there is demand,
development will happen.
[1:49:43]
That will go up and down
over the next 25 years,
[1:49:47]
but I don't think it would
ever stop development.
[1:49:51]
The desire to achieve 40%
attainable and affordable
[1:49:56]
may require the municipality consider
[1:50:01]
adjustments to development charges,
[1:50:04]
parkland dedication, community benefits
[1:50:07]
much like the federal government has done
[1:50:10]
in terms of providing some
relief to development charges.
[1:50:15]
So it's a big package.
[1:50:16]
The word you said that is the
most important is balance.
[1:50:22]
And you will have the
opportunity to consider balance
[1:50:27]
all the way through your
development approval processes.
[1:50:30]
And remember, the official
plan is not the end of the day.
[1:50:34]
There's still multiple approval
processes to go through
[1:50:39]
and a lot of work to do.
[1:50:40]
Some of it needs to be
done by the municipality,
[1:50:43]
and some of it needs to be done
[1:50:45]
by the development community.
[1:50:47]
We don't have every
answer to every question.
[1:50:49]
- I understand that.
[1:50:50]
And to your point, again,
through you, Mr. Mayor,
[1:50:52]
when you speak of a demand,
the simple economics 101 is
[1:50:54]
economic supply, and that dictates price.
[1:50:57]
But when we're pulling in
here and reducing the cost,
[1:51:01]
then, to me, the fear is the taxpayer's
[1:51:04]
going to have to subsidize
a lot of this extra cost.
[1:51:07]
So that was my...
[1:51:08]
Coming back to my question
about growth and costs,
[1:51:11]
how much...
[1:51:12]
Will it get to a point where
[1:51:14]
the residents will have
to be paying so much that
[1:51:16]
they can't afford to do it?
[1:51:18]
- Through you, Mr. Mayor,
[1:51:19]
that is a decision that
council would have to make.
[1:51:23]
I personally don't see it as a necessity
[1:51:26]
that the existing tax base
[1:51:29]
would be subsidizing housing.
[1:51:33]
However there's certain
flexibility within the numbers
[1:51:38]
for you to make prudent decisions
[1:51:41]
about how development will pay for itself.
[1:51:44]
- It's going to be very
important going forward.
[1:51:46]
- Absolutely.
- I do have another question
[1:51:47]
regarding the infrastructure.
[1:51:48]
And how does this plan ensure that
[1:51:50]
infrastructure capacity
keeps pace with growth
[1:51:53]
rather than approving growth first
[1:51:55]
and then trying to catch
up with infrastructure?
[1:51:58]
- Through you, Mr. Mayor and Ms. Dolch.
[1:52:00]
I'll start, you can finish for me.
[1:52:05]
It's a requirement that new development
[1:52:08]
has to have infrastructure.
[1:52:10]
In fact, you can't have
growth without infrastructure.
[1:52:14]
- Exactly.
[1:52:15]
- So they are fundamentally linked.
[1:52:19]
No investment in
infrastructure, no growth.
[1:52:24]
That's the simplest answer.
[1:52:25]
Perhaps you have a more nuanced one.
[1:52:29]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[1:52:30]
And that's why we do our secondary plans
[1:52:32]
and all the documents that we do do.
[1:52:35]
Once the settlement area
expands, we look at growth.
[1:52:38]
We look at what servicing
we have to provide
[1:52:40]
to service those areas.
[1:52:41]
We look at all those things to make sure,
[1:52:44]
when we do those expansion areas,
[1:52:46]
we can actually service them.
[1:52:47]
We know the cost.
[1:52:48]
We know everything that's going into them.
[1:52:51]
And it helps keep us
informed as we go ahead.
[1:52:55]
Again, you're never going to
stop growth from expanding.
[1:52:58]
It's just how you expand again.
[1:53:00]
And one other point I did want to make
[1:53:02]
about the 40% and the attainable,
[1:53:06]
that policy there, we
have brought forward to,
[1:53:09]
and you'll see it again on August 11th,
[1:53:11]
is the Affordable Housing
Community Improvement Plan.
[1:53:15]
So although we're asking for 40%,
[1:53:18]
we are trying to incentivize a little bit
[1:53:21]
in order to get that
'cause we want to make sure
[1:53:22]
there's houses for all,
not just some, right?
[1:53:25]
So we do want to make sure.
[1:53:27]
And that target has been
working really well to date.
[1:53:31]
So I know we've been doing
a lot of work on policies,
[1:53:36]
and I know there was some comments saying
[1:53:38]
they'd like to understand our policies
[1:53:39]
a little better on that.
[1:53:41]
So we'll do some work
prior to August 11th.
[1:53:44]
- Okay, I have another question here.
[1:53:47]
It's basically growth and our tourism.
[1:53:49]
So how does this plan balance the needs
[1:53:51]
of our year-round residents
[1:53:52]
with the needs of our tourist economy,
[1:53:54]
particularly in the entertainment district
[1:53:56]
and other areas where visitor activity
[1:53:59]
can have significant impact?
[1:54:00]
So, right now, we're looking
at a population growth.
[1:54:03]
So we're taking what we've always had,
[1:54:04]
like this, traditionally,
a 76, 80,000 population.
[1:54:08]
I know we've expanded
in the last little bit.
[1:54:10]
Going to 141,000.
[1:54:12]
And at the same time,
[1:54:13]
we have Destination Niagara Strategy
[1:54:14]
where we're looking at bringing
[1:54:16]
many more millions here at the same time.
[1:54:19]
So we've heard internationally,
[1:54:21]
you hear all these other countries
[1:54:22]
like Japan canceling their spring blossom
[1:54:26]
because the public has gotten
angry with the tourists.
[1:54:29]
Alaska's done it, Spain.
[1:54:31]
My concern is if we have...
[1:54:32]
We need to be able to
blend the two in harmony
[1:54:37]
because the last thing
we want is the residents,
[1:54:39]
where if we don't have that balance,
[1:54:42]
them revolting like these other places
[1:54:43]
and not wanting the tourists
[1:54:45]
when that is our number one industry
[1:54:46]
and we need to protect that.
[1:54:48]
So.
[1:54:51]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[1:54:52]
And I am going to look to
our consultants as well
[1:54:54]
'cause I know during the
initial public consultations
[1:54:57]
and things like that,
they heard very strongly
[1:54:59]
that the residents also
wanted to be heard.
[1:55:02]
Although the tourists are important,
[1:55:05]
that they wanted to make sure
they had a place in this plan.
[1:55:09]
So they took extra care to
make sure that happened.
[1:55:12]
So I don't know if you want to
say anything further on that
[1:55:14]
or I can keep elaborating,
[1:55:15]
but I know you guys did a
lot of work on that front.
[1:55:19]
- Allow me to take a shot
[1:55:21]
and invite supplemental, Your Worship,
[1:55:23]
and through you to the councilor.
[1:55:25]
Ms. Dolch does remind us all of
[1:55:29]
that very important
engagement point at outset.
[1:55:33]
And was about ensuring that
the voice of residents,
[1:55:39]
of current other businesses of tourism
[1:55:41]
are also represented through this project
[1:55:43]
and this assignment.
[1:55:45]
I submit to you that
the draft is prepared.
[1:55:48]
Does a pretty halfway
decent job of ensuring
[1:55:52]
that there is land that is protected for,
[1:55:54]
I'll call them non-tourist businesses,
[1:55:57]
and baseline factories,
and items like this
[1:55:59]
with the city already doing
[1:56:00]
a considerable amount of work
[1:56:01]
outside of this process
in that regard as well.
[1:56:05]
When it comes to planning
for residential population,
[1:56:08]
the employment, sorry,
the entertainment district
[1:56:12]
the mixed-use quarters
all provide a function
[1:56:15]
in terms of delivering
some of that housing
[1:56:17]
and the potential to support that.
[1:56:19]
Noting some very different
policies in different areas
[1:56:22]
based on plan function.
[1:56:24]
Recall my point about
ground floor commercial
[1:56:27]
in the entertainment district
[1:56:28]
to provide for the interactivity,
[1:56:30]
the mixing and the moving of those spaces.
[1:56:34]
We continue to reserve lands
including larger holdings
[1:56:37]
within the city for
entertainment generation
[1:56:41]
and protecting for a long-term tourism
[1:56:43]
generating a point there.
[1:56:46]
Because if we didn't do that,
[1:56:47]
Ms. Dolch would be very furious
with us as a project team.
[1:56:51]
So there's a lot of ways that,
[1:56:53]
how do both get balanced
and measured out in this
[1:56:57]
versus other projects where
[1:56:59]
there may not necessarily
be a tourism industry
[1:57:01]
where we don't provide for
land use policies that say,
[1:57:04]
"Well, we want to put a
tourism generator here."
[1:57:07]
That's a pretty unique focus
[1:57:08]
and specific element in this plan
[1:57:10]
that you don't see elsewhere,
[1:57:11]
and I think it's a pretty important...
[1:57:13]
As the outsider coming on in here,
[1:57:15]
that's a pretty important differentiator
[1:57:17]
and means to ensure that
the tourism function
[1:57:19]
is being protected.
[1:57:21]
I hope that helps answer the question.
[1:57:23]
- Thank you.
[1:57:26]
- Just some specific examples.
[1:57:28]
I'll just give you some.
[1:57:31]
we looked at the trail connection.
[1:57:33]
So there was a...
[1:57:34]
We had a large discussion early on about
[1:57:38]
a lot of residents don't necessarily
[1:57:41]
go to the tourist area 'cause it's hard,
[1:57:43]
not hard to get to, but
they don't want to park,
[1:57:45]
they don't want the aggravation.
[1:57:46]
So we wanted to make sure the
connections started to happen
[1:57:49]
so that the residents had
an easy ability to get there
[1:57:51]
through active transportation
or other means.
[1:57:53]
So, again, we worked very closely
[1:57:55]
with municipal works on that as well.
[1:57:58]
And again, the transition between
the entertainment district
[1:58:04]
the consultants took extra care
[1:58:05]
to make sure there's some compatibility
[1:58:07]
because, again, we have residents
[1:58:08]
right up against the
entertainment district.
[1:58:10]
So in the plan, there's a lot
of policies on compatibility
[1:58:14]
and all those things to make
sure that that interface
[1:58:17]
is treated appropriately,
just so that we...
[1:58:19]
So they took a number of
concerns that the residents had
[1:58:22]
and built that into the plan.
[1:58:23]
- That's really good.
[1:58:24]
I'm very glad that you
paid attention to that
[1:58:26]
'cause it is a key thing.
[1:58:28]
And another question.
[1:58:30]
This is a 25 year horizon plan.
[1:58:32]
And in your document, you
said, every five years,
[1:58:34]
you will be reviewing it.
[1:58:36]
What are the key performance measurements
[1:58:38]
that you've indicated to say
[1:58:40]
whether it's working or whether we need to
[1:58:42]
take a look and review it again?
[1:58:47]
- So, thank you, Your Worship.
[1:58:49]
Through you to the councilor.
[1:58:50]
So there's a number of
[1:58:51]
metrics you'll see throughout the plan,
[1:58:54]
and some of them are already
been approved by council.
[1:58:56]
For example, the Woodland Management Plan.
[1:59:00]
Again, there's a metric in there.
[1:59:02]
You want to see a tree
canopy of 35% by 2051.
[1:59:07]
So we want to make sure that
those things are working.
[1:59:10]
So we'll have to obviously work as well
[1:59:13]
with municipal works on
determining, is that working?
[1:59:16]
Are we losing canopy?
[1:59:17]
Are we gaining canopy?
[1:59:18]
That's one example.
[1:59:20]
We also want to make sure we're getting
[1:59:22]
the active transportation connections,
[1:59:23]
again, working with municipal works,
[1:59:25]
because it's an important
function of any city
[1:59:28]
to make sure people can get around,
[1:59:30]
not just by cars, but by every mode.
[1:59:33]
So those are some of the
things we're looking at.
[1:59:36]
In terms of growth, urban design
is a big one for me anyway.
[1:59:41]
I want to make sure that when
you look at Niagara Falls,
[1:59:45]
and as it grows over the next five years,
[1:59:47]
are we getting the developments
[1:59:49]
we want to see as a city that works?
[1:59:52]
And that people can be proud of and say,
[1:59:56]
even though it's a little more intensive
[1:59:57]
than what we're used to, does it work?
[1:59:59]
And is it functioning appropriately?
[2:00:01]
Are we getting good design?
[2:00:02]
Are we getting things that make people
[2:00:04]
want to come and live here?
[2:00:05]
So I think those are a lot of our metrics
[2:00:07]
that we're going to be balancing
[2:00:09]
as we go to the five-year review.
[2:00:11]
How are they working?
[2:00:13]
Are they working?
[2:00:14]
We could get some pushback
[2:00:17]
as provincial legislation
changes on different things.
[2:00:20]
Urban design is one of them that we
[2:00:22]
are losing more and
more control over time.
[2:00:24]
But hopefully, we do have
a good working relationship
[2:00:28]
with a lot of builders
and developers here.
[2:00:30]
So I do think they take that
seriously, and try to show you,
[2:00:33]
obviously, when you see the nice designs
[2:00:35]
that they come in with.
[2:00:36]
- Yeah, very impressive.
[2:00:37]
- If those get built,
[2:00:38]
I think people could be proud of the city.
[2:00:41]
- So then in the next...
[2:00:42]
So in five years from now,
[2:00:43]
there would be report to council
[2:00:44]
without the highlight saying,
[2:00:46]
for example, the tree canopy,
we want to increase it to 25%.
[2:00:50]
This is how we're achieving this goal.
[2:00:52]
This is how it is.
[2:00:53]
Or, our population
growth is not on target.
[2:00:56]
We need to start realigning things.
[2:01:00]
So we can expect something
like that in a five,
[2:01:02]
or council of the day can
expect something like that
[2:01:05]
in five years.
[2:01:07]
Thank you, Your Worship. Yes.
[2:01:08]
And you're going to see.
[2:01:09]
You're going to see
different things come in.
[2:01:11]
We have urban boundary
expansion policies in this plan,
[2:01:14]
so you might start to see
[2:01:16]
people requesting urban
boundary expansions.
[2:01:18]
We could see that they demonstrate
[2:01:20]
there's need three years from now.
[2:01:22]
They might say, "Hey, we need more land,
[2:01:24]
and we've done our numbers."
[2:01:25]
So you're going to see all of that.
[2:01:27]
Those are the metrics,
[2:01:27]
but in the end, in the five-year review,
[2:01:29]
we are going to look at those numbers.
[2:01:30]
Are they still realistic?
[2:01:32]
Do we need to add more land?
[2:01:33]
Do we not need to have them?
[2:01:34]
So all those things, all those metrics,
[2:01:36]
our goal in the end in this plan,
[2:01:39]
and you don't see it here
because it's textual still,
[2:01:42]
But there are going to
be some metric boxes
[2:01:45]
and things on the side.
[2:01:47]
It's just, again, we have to
make everything AODA-compliant.
[2:01:49]
So until the final, final is done,
[2:01:54]
you won't see that until the very end
[2:01:56]
once the province approves everything.
[2:01:58]
- One final question.
[2:01:59]
So as you've changed some
designations, is there...
[2:02:03]
And I don't know how that lines up.
[2:02:05]
But if I was a resident all of a sudden,
[2:02:07]
I went from rural to agriculture,
[2:02:11]
or in anything where
there's significant changes,
[2:02:13]
are we notifying the residents that,
[2:02:15]
"Hey, your zoning has been changed.
[2:02:19]
This can affect you."
[2:02:20]
or are we just relying on them
[2:02:21]
to find us through the website,
[2:02:24]
the official plan, and come here?
[2:02:27]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:02:28]
So I know there's a bit of confusion
[2:02:30]
between zoning and official plan.
[2:02:32]
So we're just designating, not zoning.
[2:02:33]
Zoning's with the zoning bylaw,
[2:02:35]
but I do it all the time too.
[2:02:36]
I always say zoning
and I mean designation.
[2:02:38]
- I mean, yes.
- Yeah.
[2:02:41]
But yes.
[2:02:44]
So under the Planning Act, we do just...
[2:02:45]
Because it's such a large document,
[2:02:47]
we can't notify everyone in the city,
[2:02:50]
but we have done an
extensive public process.
[2:02:54]
This has been going on almost two years
[2:02:56]
or more than two years now.
[2:02:58]
So, we hope that most
people have paid attention.
[2:03:01]
We've tried.
[2:03:02]
There's been pop-ups.
They've gone to markets.
[2:03:05]
So we've tried to get
out as much as we can
[2:03:08]
to the general population as best we can.
[2:03:11]
So we don't notify individually though.
[2:03:14]
- Okay. Very good.
[2:03:15]
Thank you.
[2:03:16]
- Thank you. Councilor Patel.
[2:03:19]
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[2:03:20]
Through you, Mr. Mayor, to
maybe Ms. Dolch actually.
[2:03:24]
The entertainment district
comes on Victoria Avenue.
[2:03:27]
Why not extend it to Queen Street?
[2:03:29]
Was there a reason why we
didn't include Queen Street
[2:03:32]
in Entertainment District?
[2:03:34]
There are lots of restaurants
[2:03:35]
and there are lots of entertainment venues
[2:03:38]
right here on the Queen Street.
[2:03:40]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:03:41]
And if the consultants
want to jump in or...
[2:03:44]
But I do know we had a long discussion on
[2:03:48]
where that entertainment district stopped.
[2:03:50]
We did kind of originally
have along that corridor
[2:03:57]
a little bit of a different connection.
[2:03:59]
Now it's mixed-use 2 up
Victoria all the way through.
[2:04:03]
And mixed-use 2 does still permit height
[2:04:06]
and all the other things,
[2:04:07]
and still permits a lot of the provisions
[2:04:08]
that are in the entertainment district.
[2:04:10]
It just has a cap on height.
[2:04:11]
So we're trying to keep...
[2:04:12]
The entertainment district
has a no height limit.
[2:04:16]
Mixed-use 2.
[2:04:17]
And Kailen's going to correct me,
[2:04:18]
is it 32 stories?
[2:04:20]
High-rise, mixed-use 2.
[2:04:22]
So they can go up to 32 stories.
[2:04:25]
The permissions are
generally very similar,
[2:04:27]
except for, obviously, we
didn't want to see casinos
[2:04:30]
and other things maybe on
Victoria coming all the way up,
[2:04:34]
because, again, we're trying to limit
[2:04:35]
to the tourist core area.
[2:04:37]
That was just our decision
making thought at that time.
[2:04:40]
I don't know if Your Honor had anything.
[2:04:41]
- Just briefly, through Mr. Mayor.
[2:04:46]
When you look at Niagara Falls,
[2:04:48]
and you look at the downtown,
[2:04:50]
and then the entertainment district,
[2:04:52]
in between those two is a neighborhood.
[2:04:55]
So our objective is to
[2:05:01]
promote the significant
success of the downtown
[2:05:07]
and the entertainment district,
[2:05:09]
which is the focus of tourism
[2:05:12]
while still protecting the
sanctity of that interstitial,
[2:05:19]
low-rise residential neighborhood.
[2:05:22]
That's a pretty important element.
[2:05:24]
That could change over time
if there's a desire to do so.
[2:05:29]
We did not hear that desire at this time,
[2:05:33]
but it's understandable that
30, 40, 50 years from now,
[2:05:39]
they could grow naturally together,
[2:05:42]
but they're not quite ready for that yet.
[2:05:46]
- Thank you.
[2:05:47]
Another question, through you, Mr. Mayor.
[2:05:50]
In a presentation, it
said rooftop gardens,
[2:05:53]
private and communal outdoor
patios, decks and gardens.
[2:05:57]
So will that be just the
encouragement for the developers
[2:06:01]
or will that be part of
the policy going forward
[2:06:04]
that we want to see?
[2:06:08]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:06:09]
So, again, it's part of
the policy we want to see.
[2:06:12]
We want to encourage all those things.
[2:06:14]
Obviously rooftop gardens.
[2:06:16]
We do have provisions right now
[2:06:17]
in our zoning bylaw for amenity space,
[2:06:19]
so a lot of times you will
see those rooftop gardens
[2:06:21]
because they can't
provide it on the ground.
[2:06:23]
But things we want still in this plan
[2:06:26]
is encourage and support
those things going forward.
[2:06:29]
- It could become policy
in the future maybe?
[2:06:31]
- Yeah.
[2:06:33]
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[2:06:34]
I have a question about
the industrial land.
[2:06:36]
And I'm going to start
by I always say that
[2:06:38]
you need a job to buy a house,
[2:06:39]
not a house to get a job, right?
[2:06:42]
In last four years as a councilor,
[2:06:43]
we have seen multiple application where
[2:06:46]
we always see issues between
industry and residential,
[2:06:49]
maybe the residential
encouragement on the industry.
[2:06:53]
We make a decision
application by application.
[2:06:57]
Is there opportunity in our official plan
[2:06:59]
to strengthen that policy framework
[2:07:03]
to give a greater protection
of those industries
[2:07:07]
and the business that create
the job and implement this.
[2:07:13]
- Thank you, Your Worship,
through you to the councilor.
[2:07:16]
So we did do a little bit of that.
[2:07:18]
In the industrial area,
[2:07:20]
we did require 300 meter separation.
[2:07:23]
In the policies right now,
[2:07:24]
we asked for a 300 meter separation
[2:07:26]
between that and a sensitive land use.
[2:07:29]
So we have tried to go a bit beyond
[2:07:32]
what the D6 requirement would be.
[2:07:34]
So it's for any industrial
besides sensitive.
[2:07:37]
So we have done that.
[2:07:39]
The standard practice normally
[2:07:42]
is your D6 guidelines by the province,
[2:07:44]
and that's your class
one is 20 meter distance,
[2:07:47]
class two, 70,
[2:07:48]
and class three, 300.
[2:07:50]
Those are the minimum
separation distances.
[2:07:52]
So we've kind of gone to
the more extreme case,
[2:07:55]
just given our experience
[2:07:57]
in the city of Niagara Falls to date.
[2:08:00]
I will advise that we did
hear from the comment.
[2:08:03]
You'll see the comments from the province
[2:08:04]
saying that that should be removed.
[2:08:05]
So we took it under consideration
[2:08:08]
because of all the
concerns raised by council
[2:08:11]
and wanted to make that
change in this policy.
[2:08:15]
- Thank you.
[2:08:16]
- Okay, thank you.
[2:08:17]
Any other questions of council?
[2:08:20]
Okay.
[2:08:21]
Then I have one question.
[2:08:22]
I don't know if this is directed
[2:08:23]
to our consultants or to our staff.
[2:08:26]
It's in regard to the tree canopy.
[2:08:30]
So in the report, it said that
we've got a 30% tree canopy,
[2:08:33]
and we're looking to go to 35.
[2:08:36]
So I don't know who would I...
[2:08:37]
Do I direct this to our...
[2:08:39]
Nobody's rushing to stand
up, so I'm assuming that...
[2:08:42]
Okay.
[2:08:43]
So let me just ask this question before...
[2:08:46]
So the question is,
[2:08:48]
where did that number come from, the 35?
[2:08:51]
We're currently, as I understand it,
[2:08:54]
the third best tree canopy in the region,
[2:08:57]
only behind Fort Erie and Pelham.
[2:08:59]
St. Catharines and Welland,
[2:09:01]
the only other two major
urban centers, sit at 22.
[2:09:05]
So, we are sitting at 30.
[2:09:07]
We're already doing...
[2:09:08]
Where did 35 come from?
[2:09:09]
I just wonder where that number.
[2:09:10]
Yep, thank you.
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:09:12]
So the Urban Forestry Management Plan
[2:09:15]
that was approved a little while ago
[2:09:17]
had identified that we
have the 30% canopy,
[2:09:21]
but that we wanted a
target of 35% in 2051.
[2:09:26]
So that's where it came from.
[2:09:27]
- So it came from the report?
[2:09:28]
- No, the Urban Forestry Management Plan.
[2:09:32]
I can't remember.
[2:09:32]
Erik, I can't remember when.
[2:09:34]
It came to council a little while ago.
[2:09:35]
I don't know the exact date,
[2:09:36]
but I can probably get that for you.
[2:09:38]
- [Erik] Yeah, four weeks ago.
[2:09:39]
- Yeah, three, four maybe.
[2:09:40]
- Okay, so I just wondered
where the number came from.
[2:09:43]
I mean, did they just...
[2:09:44]
I know they had it then,
but where did it come from?
[2:09:46]
Is this a random number
we just picked at target?
[2:09:48]
I just wondered, was there
some science behind this
[2:09:50]
or is this just a wishlist?
[2:09:54]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:09:55]
I may have to wait for Mr.
Nickel to get back on that
[2:09:57]
because it was through the
Urban Forestry Management Plan.
[2:10:00]
Obviously, while we undertook this work,
[2:10:02]
we had a lot of those drafts
as we worked through them.
[2:10:05]
So we built in all the
plans and all the documents
[2:10:08]
that were kind of underway
into the policies.
[2:10:11]
- In fairness to Mr. Nickel,
[2:10:12]
it was his birthday yesterday,
[2:10:14]
so he may be a little bit rough today.
[2:10:17]
Okay, so now...
[2:10:19]
Yes, Councilor Patel.
[2:10:20]
- That point, Mr. Mayor,
[2:10:21]
I just want to add something.
[2:10:23]
I was at the airport a couple
days ago for a meeting,
[2:10:25]
and there was a lady there waiting to
[2:10:29]
catch the landline for the Air Canada.
[2:10:31]
And we started talking and
she was from California.
[2:10:34]
And she was going to catch her flight
[2:10:37]
for Air Canada in Toronto.
[2:10:38]
And she told me that she
does this Miyawaki forest.
[2:10:44]
It's a forest that grows
in very small area.
[2:10:47]
It's some unique technique they use
[2:10:49]
that they plant so many trees
[2:10:51]
and within maybe a three meter,
[2:10:53]
and it becomes a small forest.
[2:10:55]
And I think Lincoln has
some project like that.
[2:10:57]
They got some grant to
do, something like that.
[2:10:59]
Maybe I think we can look into that
[2:11:00]
maybe to increase over canopy.
[2:11:02]
It was interesting.
[2:11:03]
She was very excited to
tell me about her project.
[2:11:06]
She's a teacher in California,
[2:11:09]
and she grew this forest
in abandoned parking lot
[2:11:12]
and they just took all the tarmac off
[2:11:15]
and they made a forest.
[2:11:16]
And so it was pretty interesting.
[2:11:17]
She was showing me pictures.
[2:11:19]
I just wanted to add that because I,
[2:11:20]
something I learned new from
[2:11:22]
just have a conversation with someone.
[2:11:23]
- Thank you. Thank you for that.
[2:11:24]
Councilor Lococo.
[2:11:26]
- I was going to bring
this in my comments,
[2:11:28]
but it's specifically
about the tree canopy.
[2:11:30]
I know we talk in our plan about replacing
[2:11:32]
two to one and even three
to one in other woodlands.
[2:11:35]
There's a difference
between replacing a tree,
[2:11:38]
like a little sapling,
[2:11:39]
in comparison to a 70-year-old
tree that has a huge canopy.
[2:11:44]
We can't just look at the numbers of trees
[2:11:46]
that we're replacing.
[2:11:47]
We need to look at the canopy
[2:11:49]
because what the canopy is,
[2:11:50]
is if I'm a tree and
my canopy goes to here
[2:11:53]
and Councillor Baldinelli's
canopy touches,
[2:11:55]
that's what the canopy is.
[2:11:57]
If you remove that tree,
[2:11:59]
say Councillor Baldinelli is now removed
[2:12:02]
and now Councilor Patel is a tree,
[2:12:04]
we don't have a canopy anymore.
[2:12:05]
We just have a little stick tree.
[2:12:07]
So it's not just about the
replacement number of trees.
[2:12:11]
It's about the actual canopy.
[2:12:13]
So we have to keep that in mind.
[2:12:15]
- Yeah, I know, but that doesn't
address what I was asking.
[2:12:19]
I know what a canopy is,
[2:12:21]
but also smaller trees grow
quicker than bigger trees.
[2:12:24]
And the only thing we can control is...
[2:12:26]
What are you pointing at?
[2:12:28]
Okay. We'll get to him.
[2:12:29]
We'll get to him.
[2:12:32]
The point being though,
[2:12:33]
we're not going to plant the mature trees.
[2:12:35]
We're planting saplings,
which grow into big trees.
[2:12:37]
So our policy, this says here two to one.
[2:12:40]
And this was one of the
other questions I had.
[2:12:42]
And for me, this is very
important because some trees die,
[2:12:46]
some trees are diseased,
[2:12:47]
some trees are in the wrong places.
[2:12:48]
You have to replace them.
[2:12:49]
So how are you going to do that?
[2:12:51]
And the easiest, simplest
way is you plant more trees.
[2:12:54]
And to me, you replace a
tree, replace it with three.
[2:12:57]
That's what I thought
we've been going along,
[2:12:59]
and that's what I say
[2:12:59]
when I go to all the schools to the kids,
[2:13:01]
and I'm surprised to
see two to one in here.
[2:13:03]
So I just wondered if we
can get that addressed on
[2:13:06]
where that number came from
to help with our canopy.
[2:13:08]
'Cause the only way we're going to do it
[2:13:09]
is we plant more trees.
[2:13:12]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:13:13]
So we have a bit of a...
[2:13:14]
So the two to one scenario came.
[2:13:17]
It was previously a direction
[2:13:21]
or a request by Councilor
Pietrangelo and Councillor Strange
[2:13:24]
for any development
site to kind of replace
[2:13:27]
any trees at a two-to-one ratio.
[2:13:29]
So that's how we started
with these policies.
[2:13:33]
Then we also had other woodlands.
[2:13:35]
Other woodlands are something,
[2:13:38]
a larger woodland.
[2:13:39]
And they're protected right now
[2:13:41]
by the region's policy plan
[2:13:42]
saying you can't really
go into other woodlands.
[2:13:44]
They're kind of protected.
[2:13:47]
There's some wiggle room with that,
[2:13:49]
but compensation really
isn't on the table.
[2:13:51]
So with this plan, we tried
to find middle ground.
[2:13:54]
We knew that there was
concern out there about
[2:13:59]
the policies of the region
that we're being too strict.
[2:14:02]
So we wanted to kind of
find a middle ground.
[2:14:04]
So we went with a three to one
[2:14:06]
because you had two to one on the other.
[2:14:07]
Now these are a little
more significant woodlots.
[2:14:09]
We went to a three to one for replacement.
[2:14:12]
The preference here is that
you try to do it on site,
[2:14:15]
but if you can't, you can go elsewhere
[2:14:17]
'cause, again, we want to make sure
[2:14:19]
that we protect the longer tree canopy.
[2:14:21]
And if it is going to be lost,
[2:14:23]
we want to make sure we protect it.
[2:14:26]
As you heard earlier, it is
beyond provincial policy,
[2:14:31]
but we want to make sure
we have the tree canopy,
[2:14:33]
and your goal of kind of 35%.
[2:14:36]
And that's why even with other wetlands,
[2:14:38]
we go to a five-to-one category.
[2:14:41]
So we progressively increased it
[2:14:45]
from that two-to-one scenario
[2:14:46]
that was recommended originally.
[2:14:48]
That's where the numbers came from.
[2:14:49]
- Thank You. Thank you.
[2:14:50]
Mr. Burgess, you wanted to weigh in?
[2:14:52]
- Yeah, just specifically
to your question, Mayor,
[2:14:54]
and when Mr. Nickel comes back.
[2:14:57]
There are benchmarks that
[2:14:59]
like US Forestry Services
[2:15:01]
and other scientific people on that,
[2:15:04]
and they set different benchmarks.
[2:15:05]
It depends whether you're
[2:15:09]
deemed to be in a grassland environment,
[2:15:11]
a desert environment, or a
temperate forest environment.
[2:15:15]
And in the US and a lot of major cities,
[2:15:17]
you'll see the benchmark is at 40%,
[2:15:19]
unless you're in the desert,
then it's at 20 to 25%.
[2:15:22]
So there is benchmarking that
[2:15:24]
that 35% analysis came up with
[2:15:27]
because of our urban and
rural split in the area.
[2:15:33]
But Mr. Nickel and our forestry team
[2:15:36]
could probably give you
a bit more information
[2:15:38]
on how that 35% benchmark was set.
[2:15:40]
But there are standards
out there in North America
[2:15:43]
for tree canopy coverage for
urban and non-urban centers.
[2:15:48]
- Thank you. Thank you.
[2:15:50]
Councilor Strange.
[2:15:51]
- Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[2:15:52]
And talking about the urban canopy,
[2:15:54]
and we always like to give kudos
[2:15:56]
to our Environmental Action Committee,
[2:15:58]
because, currently, right now,
[2:16:00]
we are planting 500 trees per year,
[2:16:03]
and we've been doing, I think,
the last four years already.
[2:16:07]
So if you add those amount of
trees, which could be more,
[2:16:11]
by the time we get to 2031,
[2:16:13]
we're going to have 12,500 trees planted.
[2:16:17]
And I don't know if there's
anyone in this room,
[2:16:19]
including Jason, I could do the math,
[2:16:21]
what that would do to our urban canopy
[2:16:24]
because it would be huge.
[2:16:26]
I don't think any other city
[2:16:27]
is doing that in Canada besides us.
[2:16:29]
So kudos to us,
[2:16:30]
and we've got Lesley Laan over there
[2:16:33]
on Environmental Action Committee.
[2:16:34]
So we've been doing
quite a bit towards that
[2:16:37]
and hitting that market.
[2:16:38]
- Very Good, very good.
[2:16:40]
Councilor Pietrangelo.
[2:16:41]
- Yeah. Thanks, Your Worship.
[2:16:42]
I just wanted to comment on one thing
[2:16:44]
that Ms. Dolch was talking about
with the two-to-one policy.
[2:16:46]
The other item that we brought up,
[2:16:47]
and I know it's going to come
back in the zoning bylaw,
[2:16:50]
was apartments because right
now residential units, I think,
[2:16:53]
for every one residential
unit that gets built,
[2:16:56]
there's one tree that's required.
[2:16:58]
So the developer has to put
that in front of the house.
[2:17:01]
And if there isn't room
to put that tree there,
[2:17:03]
then they pay the city
X amount of dollars,
[2:17:06]
and then the city will go
and plant that tree there,
[2:17:09]
or go and plant it someplace else.
[2:17:11]
Sorry.
[2:17:12]
But at least it's a one-to-one policy.
[2:17:14]
We were asking for a two-to-one policy.
[2:17:17]
With apartments though,
[2:17:18]
I don't believe it's a one-to-one policy,
[2:17:20]
or with high-rise condos.
[2:17:22]
It's not a one-to-one policy.
[2:17:24]
Oftentimes, they're limited in
terms of space that they have
[2:17:27]
in order to plant trees,
[2:17:29]
but it's not even yet a one-to-one policy.
[2:17:31]
So if you have a 40-unit
apartment building,
[2:17:34]
the city doesn't require
them to plant 40 trees.
[2:17:37]
They might be able to have
[2:17:38]
10 of them on their
property and 30 elsewhere,
[2:17:41]
but we don't have that requirement yet.
[2:17:43]
So that's another thing
that we were saying is that,
[2:17:46]
for high density residential,
[2:17:49]
there still needs to be
that one-to-one policy
[2:17:51]
because there is that one-to-one policy
[2:17:53]
for single family homes.
[2:17:54]
So it should filter over
[2:17:56]
into high-density residential as well.
[2:18:00]
- Okay, good. Thank you.
[2:18:01]
Oh, look who's back?
[2:18:03]
We were talking about
you while you were away.
[2:18:05]
Councillor Nieuwesteeg.
[2:18:07]
- I just want to make one
comment about the tree canopy,
[2:18:10]
and I though it was wonderful
that you have it there.
[2:18:12]
If you're looking for areas
to put those excess trees
[2:18:16]
those old city streets
that used to be lined
[2:18:20]
Barker Street, Culp Street, Murray Street,
[2:18:23]
used to be lined with trees,
[2:18:24]
but as time has gone
on, they've disappeared.
[2:18:27]
If you need to put them,
[2:18:28]
I think we should look
at those those streets
[2:18:31]
because they have absolutely
no trees left on them,
[2:18:35]
the boulevard trees.
[2:18:37]
So anyway.
[2:18:39]
- Thank you.
[2:18:41]
Yes, Councilor Patel,
[2:18:42]
did you ask another question?
[2:18:43]
- No, I just want to say something,
[2:18:44]
what you said, Mr. Mayor.
[2:18:45]
Earlier you said the Pelham and Fort Erie
[2:18:47]
is the only one with the higher canopy
[2:18:49]
than Niagara Falls.
- Yes.
[2:18:50]
- Well, we are doing better
[2:18:51]
because we are not like
Pelham and Fort Erie.
[2:18:54]
We're compared more to St. Catharines
[2:18:55]
with our development and size of the city.
[2:18:57]
So I think we are doing much better
[2:18:58]
than any other cities.
[2:19:00]
- We're doing the best of the
urban cities in the region.
[2:19:02]
- Exactly.
- Yeah. Very good.
[2:19:05]
Did you want to jump in on this?
[2:19:07]
- We knew you're at your
[2:19:08]
birthday party yesterday.
- Apologize for
[2:19:09]
just going to the washroom.
[2:19:10]
- Well, we knew about your party, so.
[2:19:12]
- I can tell you we're setting this
[2:19:14]
as a preliminary target.
[2:19:16]
As we had reported to council
[2:19:18]
in our urban forest management
plan a few sessions ago,
[2:19:22]
there was some information
that came back on our surveys
[2:19:25]
and our canopy coverage.
[2:19:27]
And the second phase of that approach
[2:19:29]
in our urban forest management plan
[2:19:30]
is to actually do consultation
[2:19:32]
and to develop the formal target
[2:19:34]
and the action plan that helps
us achieve a future target.
[2:19:37]
So I think we'll be coming back to council
[2:19:38]
with a goal setting exercise
[2:19:40]
of what that target looks like
[2:19:41]
and a few options on how to achieve that.
[2:19:44]
If it is a near
impossibility to get to 40%
[2:19:49]
or whatever the target's going to be,
[2:19:50]
then we may have to scale that back
[2:19:51]
and look at a more practical target,
[2:19:53]
but that is a next step
[2:19:55]
and that's coming back
from municipal works
[2:19:56]
in about a year's time.
[2:19:58]
- Great. Excellent.
[2:20:00]
Excellent. Okay.
[2:20:02]
We will now go to anyone
who wishes to speak
[2:20:06]
to the official plan that's registered.
[2:20:10]
So I'm going to go to you, Madam Clerk.
[2:20:11]
You have a list, I take it.
[2:20:15]
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through you.
[2:20:16]
We do have a number of people that have
[2:20:19]
registered to speak to this matter.
[2:20:22]
The first person being Mr. Rocky Vacca.
[2:20:36]
- Good evening, Your
Worship, members of council.
[2:20:38]
- Evening.
[2:20:40]
- With your permission, I do
have two separate delegations
[2:20:43]
I'd like to make
consecutively if possible.
[2:20:46]
First delegation is
jointly on behalf of...
[2:20:50]
(attendees laughing)
[2:20:52]
I'm posing for you.
[2:20:54]
- Oh, sorry.
- No, I'm posing for you.
[2:20:56]
Take a picture, yeah.
- Oh, thank you, thank you.
[2:20:58]
Irish Insider.
[2:21:01]
Do you like my shirt?
[2:21:02]
(Rocky laughing)
[2:21:05]
- It's a beauty.
[2:21:08]
So, first delegation is jointly on behalf
[2:21:10]
of Mountainview Building Group
and Hummel Properties Inc.
[2:21:14]
I've sent you a detailed submission.
[2:21:16]
I'm not going to be too long,
[2:21:17]
but we are requesting that
five policies be deleted,
[2:21:21]
6.4.8.1,
[2:21:24]
6.4.9.1,
[2:21:26]
8.5.2.5,
[2:21:29]
8.6.5.1.1,
[2:21:32]
and 8.7.2.8A.
[2:21:37]
We provided you detailed reasons
in my written submission.
[2:21:41]
I do have Jennifer Vida,
[2:21:42]
who's the planning consultant
for Hummel Properties,
[2:21:45]
in the audience if you have any
specific planning questions.
[2:21:50]
I've also provided you a copy
[2:21:52]
of a planning report
from the city of Welland,
[2:21:54]
dated April 14, 2026,
[2:21:57]
wherein Welland Council accepted
[2:22:00]
a legal opinion from Aird & Berlis that
[2:22:02]
sunset clauses relating
to zoning are illegal.
[2:22:13]
So in short, the reason
that these policies
[2:22:17]
ought to be deleted is they all impose
[2:22:20]
requirements or conditions
on development proposals
[2:22:24]
or introduce policies that go beyond
[2:22:26]
what is required by the province
[2:22:27]
or permitted by applicable law.
[2:22:30]
This council has consistently voted down
[2:22:32]
any conditions or policies
[2:22:34]
that fall within this category.
[2:22:36]
Why?
[2:22:37]
Because there is already enough red tape
[2:22:39]
and hurdles imposed on developments
[2:22:41]
by provincial policies and laws.
[2:22:44]
Specifically with respect
to the use of sunset clauses
[2:22:48]
on zoning approvals, as I stated,
[2:22:50]
I provide an opinion from Aird & Berlis.
[2:22:53]
Their opinion is sunset
clauses are illegal
[2:22:55]
in terms of zoning.
[2:22:57]
I'm not aware of any
municipality in the region
[2:23:00]
that has included it
in their official plan,
[2:23:03]
presumably for the reason
that it is illegal.
[2:23:07]
And Aird & Berlis is a law firm that
[2:23:10]
the city is very familiar with.
[2:23:11]
They've done quite a bit of
work for you in the past,
[2:23:14]
and I believe they still do.
[2:23:18]
So Welland had a legal opinion.
[2:23:21]
They accepted that they are illegal
[2:23:23]
and did not put in a policy
regarding sunset clauses.
[2:23:29]
Finally, today, I discovered
in a memo dated December 16th,
[2:23:33]
Fort Erie planning staff stated
to counsel the following,
[2:23:37]
"Staff were unable to find any examples
[2:23:39]
of sunset clauses being
posed by other municipalities
[2:23:42]
as standard practice.
[2:23:44]
Should this approach be
considered by council,
[2:23:46]
the legal feasibility and implications
[2:23:48]
should be considered
prior to implementation.
[2:23:52]
Furthermore, it is unknown
if applying sunset clauses
[2:23:55]
would result in a faster
development approval process."
[2:23:59]
So I'll leave you with that.
[2:24:00]
In conclusion,
[2:24:02]
on behalf of Mountainview
and Hummel Properties,
[2:24:04]
we're requesting that the
five policies in question
[2:24:06]
be deleted from the draft OP before you.
[2:24:09]
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[2:24:11]
Ms. Vida is available as well.
[2:24:13]
Also like to thank all
the hard work put in
[2:24:15]
by your consultants and by planning staff.
[2:24:19]
I mean, it's very exciting
to have a new official plan.
[2:24:21]
It's been over 20 years.
[2:24:23]
So I'm very excited to have a new one,
[2:24:26]
but we do have some concerns
[2:24:28]
that I think need to be addressed.
[2:24:30]
- Any comment or question to staff?
[2:24:33]
I don't know, Mr. Burgess,
you wanted to jump in first?
[2:24:37]
- With regards to the sunset clause,
[2:24:38]
council has spoken very
affirmatively on that process.
[2:24:42]
The city has I don't know
how many planning files
[2:24:47]
on file that never seem
to get accomplished,
[2:24:50]
and we have diminishing
servicing capability.
[2:24:53]
And every time something's approved,
[2:24:55]
we have to meet with that
servicing capability.
[2:24:58]
And the reality is there is
[2:25:00]
upzoning that is going
on with speculation.
[2:25:04]
So we happen to have a
different legal opinion.
[2:25:08]
The nice thing about legal opinions is
[2:25:10]
there's always two
lawyers who go into court
[2:25:12]
with different opinions,
[2:25:13]
and a judge seems to determine
which lawyer is correct.
[2:25:16]
So there will always be
a differing legal opinion
[2:25:18]
on any of these matters.
[2:25:20]
And I think counsel has previously spoken
[2:25:23]
very specifically on this issue.
[2:25:25]
And I think Niagara Falls is more unique
[2:25:27]
than a Fort Erie or a Welland
[2:25:29]
because I don't think any of those have...
[2:25:32]
I don't know, I think we have
[2:25:33]
close to a hundred hotel
developments on file
[2:25:37]
that never seem to get built.
[2:25:39]
So I think that's the position of staff,
[2:25:41]
and we're affirmative with that
[2:25:44]
and we're following counsel's
direction on that issue.
[2:25:47]
- Yep.
[2:25:48]
So on that one, we've got
our own legal opinion.
[2:25:50]
We don't agree.
[2:25:52]
And obviously, it serves
the public much better
[2:25:54]
to have something like this.
[2:25:56]
So I mean, that's one maybe judges
[2:25:57]
will have to sort out at some point.
[2:25:58]
And then on the other ones,
[2:26:00]
I guess his other points,
[2:26:02]
I don't know, Ms. Dolch,
[2:26:03]
if you wanted to address that.
[2:26:05]
- Thank you.
[2:26:06]
I can speak to some of them.
[2:26:07]
I know there was comments
on other woodlands
[2:26:10]
and the compensation policy.
[2:26:12]
The approach, I believe, Mr.
Vacca and his submission,
[2:26:15]
was that it should be
more of a one-to-one ratio
[2:26:18]
rather than the three to
one and five to one ratio.
[2:26:21]
As we spoke just briefly
a few minutes ago it,
[2:26:26]
we're trying to make sure we protect
[2:26:27]
the long-term tree canopy.
[2:26:29]
So we've put that in place.
[2:26:31]
I know counsel spoke loud and clear
[2:26:32]
about trying to protect the
trees when they're removed.
[2:26:35]
They didn't have necessarily concerns
[2:26:38]
on the removals to facilitate development,
[2:26:41]
but wanted to see the replacement
so that we had more trees,
[2:26:46]
a larger tree canopy.
[2:26:48]
And we did base it on
the original two-to-one
[2:26:50]
and then went up from
there as I indicated.
[2:26:54]
And we did...
[2:26:56]
And just in case counsel didn't know,
[2:26:57]
on one of the natural heritage plans,
[2:26:59]
you'll see the kind of
identified compensation areas
[2:27:02]
that we are looking at offsite,
[2:27:04]
because we do want to see these
protected for the long term.
[2:27:07]
We don't want to plant them in a location
[2:27:09]
that could be removed in the future.
[2:27:10]
So we are looking at parcels
[2:27:13]
that were adjacent to other
natural heritage features.
[2:27:15]
So long term, we would maintain that.
[2:27:18]
So that's something we did look at.
[2:27:21]
And so I can only tell you the reasons.
[2:27:23]
In the end, you can make the decision.
[2:27:26]
And non-provincially significant
wetlands was the other one.
[2:27:29]
Again, compensation is very similar.
[2:27:31]
It's three-to-one and five-to-one.
[2:27:33]
With non-provincially
significant wetlands,
[2:27:37]
they do provide some hydrologic function
[2:27:40]
and help with species
[2:27:43]
and species traveling from
one pocket to the next.
[2:27:46]
So we do feel they're important.
[2:27:49]
We do understand that we don't
want to hinder development.
[2:27:53]
We want to make sure that
development can go ahead,
[2:27:55]
and that's why we're saying
we are allowing offsetting
[2:27:57]
beyond what was allowed
in the region's plan.
[2:28:00]
So we want to provide that flexibility,
[2:28:02]
but we do think it's important
to maintain the wetlands
[2:28:05]
for a number of things.
[2:28:07]
Climate change, all the
things that we know about,
[2:28:10]
we want to make sure that those
are protected and enhanced
[2:28:13]
if they're going to be lost in that area.
[2:28:18]
I think the other was
draft plan approvals.
[2:28:21]
So plan is subdivision.
[2:28:23]
This one, we are going to take away.
[2:28:27]
So, generally, the comment or the policy
[2:28:30]
says that you can't extend from more than
[2:28:33]
a cumulative maximum of three years.
[2:28:36]
We will take this away and
consider it a bit further.
[2:28:39]
We appreciate the point
Mr. Vacca has made on this.
[2:28:43]
We know there's been changes
[2:28:44]
in the Planning Act and things like that,
[2:28:46]
so we will take this away
[2:28:47]
and consider that a bit
further prior to August 11th.
[2:28:52]
In terms of the sunset clause,
[2:28:54]
we've spoken about that.
[2:28:56]
In terms of the peer review,
[2:28:57]
so the policy right now does say
[2:28:59]
that the application may
not be deemed complete
[2:29:03]
until we're satisfied with the extent
[2:29:04]
and quality of work of
these studies that come in.
[2:29:07]
We will revise this statement.
[2:29:10]
The concern we have...
[2:29:11]
And I'll tell you,
[2:29:15]
right now, the way it's
been working is we don't...
[2:29:20]
We deem everything complete
[2:29:21]
provided it's been provided.
[2:29:23]
We don't analyze it until later.
[2:29:25]
Difficulty that we do
encounter now is that
[2:29:29]
so we analyze the studies
after we've deemed it complete.
[2:29:31]
We have a window of 90 days
[2:29:33]
for a zoning amendment
to get it before you,
[2:29:36]
and they can appeal on non-decision.
[2:29:37]
And we've been pretty good
at trying to get it to you
[2:29:40]
in those 90 days.
[2:29:43]
If we have issues with it,
[2:29:44]
we will never get that peer
review done in that timeframe.
[2:29:47]
So that's our biggest concern.
[2:29:49]
And, obviously, we hope that
the development community
[2:29:53]
won't go for a non-decision,
[2:29:54]
but we do ask now that
they provide us a letter
[2:29:59]
saying they want to hold the application
[2:30:01]
just in case they do go for non-decision.
[2:30:03]
So we think that's enough protection
[2:30:05]
or almost like a gentleman's handshake
[2:30:09]
that the development community
[2:30:10]
won't go for that non-decision.
[2:30:12]
I'm not saying it hasn't happened,
[2:30:13]
but we think we can modify this policy
[2:30:16]
because I really don't...
[2:30:18]
I've made commitments previously
[2:30:20]
that I wouldn't analyze
these policies upfront
[2:30:24]
because I don't think it's fair.
[2:30:25]
We have 30 days.
[2:30:27]
We'll rely on their consultants,
[2:30:28]
but we will review it.
[2:30:30]
And if we think there's problems,
we will get a peer review
[2:30:33]
and raise those concerns.
[2:30:34]
So I think we can make that change.
[2:30:38]
- Councilor Lococo.
[2:30:39]
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[2:30:40]
To the point that Ms. Dolch
was saying about that,
[2:30:43]
here in Niagara Falls,
[2:30:46]
we don't really have any
concerns about the removal,
[2:30:49]
but the replacement.
[2:30:50]
So I guess my question is,
[2:30:52]
do other municipalities have tree bylaws
[2:30:55]
that affect the removal
[2:30:57]
and then don't have
such a high replacement?
[2:31:01]
Is that what is happening
in other communities?
[2:31:04]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:31:05]
So there are tree bylaws
in other communities.
[2:31:08]
And like I said, we're just trying to find
[2:31:10]
a balanced approach because...
[2:31:12]
I'll be very frank with you.
[2:31:15]
I don't want to see the policy deleted.
[2:31:18]
So we're trying to find a middle balance.
[2:31:21]
Obviously, we know the
development community
[2:31:22]
is very loud and clear that
they want to see it removed
[2:31:25]
and not be included as part of,
[2:31:28]
from the region's plan.
[2:31:29]
They don't want to see that carried over.
[2:31:30]
We felt we made some changes to allow...
[2:31:33]
Would we like it to remain
[2:31:35]
the other woodlands where they are?
[2:31:36]
Yes, that's our preference.
[2:31:38]
But if they can't, we
will allow compensation
[2:31:41]
because we don't want to...
[2:31:43]
As Mr. Vacca, it causes red tape.
[2:31:45]
We don't want to cause that red tape,
[2:31:47]
but we want to give them
a tool to replace that
[2:31:50]
we feel we at least get
some benefit out of it,
[2:31:53]
and it's at a higher benefit.
[2:31:55]
So a net benefit if we have to lose it.
[2:31:57]
But our preference, our
first and foremost preference
[2:31:59]
is remain where it is, but
if not, it can be removed.
[2:32:03]
So that's our goal, long term.
[2:32:06]
- Okay, thank you.
[2:32:07]
I've brought up a tree
bylaw numerous times before,
[2:32:09]
and I guess you either protect the trees
[2:32:12]
to not take them down,
[2:32:14]
or you replace them if
they are taken down.
[2:32:16]
So I don't know if the
development community
[2:32:19]
likes one over the other,
[2:32:20]
but I think a municipality
has to have one of those.
[2:32:23]
Because if you don't
have either one of them,
[2:32:24]
then you have no protection.
[2:32:27]
- Yes, Councilor Strange.
[2:32:28]
- Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[2:32:30]
Kind of going back to the sunset clause,
[2:32:32]
and I know Mr. Burgess talked about why.
[2:32:34]
Well, actually, can you say what...
[2:32:36]
Just tell everyone 'cause the
people meet in the audience
[2:32:38]
and the thousands of
people watching at home.
[2:32:42]
Just explain why we did
put the sunset clause.
[2:32:44]
Is it working?
[2:32:46]
And what happens if they don't
build by that certain time?
[2:32:51]
Like I said, is it working though?
[2:32:53]
Since we implement it,
[2:32:54]
we've seen more development,
[2:32:56]
more buildings go up because of it.
[2:32:58]
And if they don't follow
up with it, what happens?
[2:33:04]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:33:05]
So, yes, we have seen building happen
[2:33:08]
as a result of the sunset clause.
[2:33:10]
Obviously, they try to
get in the ground sooner
[2:33:12]
because they know their
zoning is going to expire,
[2:33:15]
but it's not to say...
[2:33:16]
We do provide flexibility.
[2:33:18]
We have the one year extension
from the general manager,
[2:33:20]
so we're not to those dates yet
[2:33:22]
since we've put it in, a lot of them,
[2:33:24]
but we're starting to see people action.
[2:33:26]
So we have a lot of...
[2:33:26]
So we had an increase
in site plan application
[2:33:29]
'cause people are starting
to move their applications
[2:33:31]
'cause they know their
sunset date's coming up.
[2:33:33]
So I have seen that.
[2:33:35]
So I do think it is working.
[2:33:39]
Are we going to see every scenario
happen as it comes forward?
[2:33:44]
Maybe, maybe not.
[2:33:46]
Some people may lose it,
[2:33:47]
but hopefully we will be a bit flexible
[2:33:50]
if market condition's right.
[2:33:52]
Now there is some market
conditions out there,
[2:33:54]
so we understand that,
[2:33:55]
but we are providing some flexibility.
[2:33:57]
But I do think it is working in the city.
[2:33:59]
I think people are concerned
[2:34:02]
that they might lose their zoning
[2:34:04]
that they work so hard to get.
[2:34:05]
So I think it is really
working at this point in time.
[2:34:08]
And I think with the
flexibility that we've built in
[2:34:10]
and council is going to consider as well,
[2:34:14]
it doesn't hand tie anybody.
[2:34:16]
It just makes sure
people are going to build
[2:34:18]
what they say they're going to build,
[2:34:19]
and we're not sitting with
[2:34:21]
I think we're up to 19,000 units
[2:34:23]
that are just sitting
waiting prior to the...
[2:34:26]
That was prior to the
sunset clause coming in.
[2:34:29]
- The CAO would like to weigh in.
[2:34:30]
- Okay, yeah, go ahead.
[2:34:32]
- Yeah, actually, I've
had two conversations
[2:34:34]
with developers who've
not brought theirs forward
[2:34:36]
because they were waiting
for the market timing.
[2:34:39]
Because as Ms. Dolch said,
[2:34:42]
part of this is someone comes forward,
[2:34:44]
there is an expectation
that what they propose
[2:34:47]
they're actually going to build
[2:34:48]
and they actually have the
capability to build it.
[2:34:50]
There is no obligation currently
[2:34:52]
for them to live up to their obligations,
[2:34:54]
but we're stuck with living up
[2:34:56]
to our obligations to Infinity.
[2:35:00]
So I think it's fair
[2:35:02]
that if we're going to
grant certain things
[2:35:03]
and invest the time into it
[2:35:05]
and potentially hold capacity back,
[2:35:08]
that they live up to their obligations
[2:35:10]
or at least be put to that requirement.
[2:35:13]
And if they don't meet their obligations,
[2:35:14]
that capacity should be released
for someone else to do it.
[2:35:18]
And as Ms. Dolch says, we're
not trying to be punitive.
[2:35:21]
The market changes.
[2:35:22]
We can always come to council.
[2:35:24]
There's a one year extension
and council can also extend it.
[2:35:27]
So there is an element of
fairness if market changes.
[2:35:30]
But like I said, I've
talked to two developers
[2:35:33]
who have decided to postpone
their coming to council
[2:35:37]
until they kind of line
up their things before,
[2:35:39]
where before they might have
[2:35:40]
rushed to council just to get it,
[2:35:42]
and then try to flip the
property or try to do something.
[2:35:44]
Now they're actually bringing
in development partners
[2:35:46]
to be able to execute it.
[2:35:48]
So it's not just whether
they actually build.
[2:35:51]
It's also, are they coming
to council prematurely
[2:35:54]
on something getting approval?
[2:35:57]
So, we'll see.
[2:35:58]
What I can say though is,
[2:36:01]
is there any record that it increases it?
[2:36:03]
No, but I got pretty good record here
[2:36:05]
with 19,000 undeveloped
units that were approved
[2:36:08]
that the current system isn't working.
[2:36:11]
And the definition of insanity
[2:36:12]
is keep doing the same thing,
expecting different results.
[2:36:15]
- And would there be any alternative of...
[2:36:18]
Because what happens when we say approve
[2:36:21]
goes from whatever, agriculture, to...
[2:36:23]
It wouldn't be agriculture,
but something to a higher zone.
[2:36:27]
Would the taxes go up right
away or not until they build?
[2:36:34]
- Ms. Dolch?
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:36:36]
So it takes a little bit of
time for impact to catch up,
[2:36:38]
but they do get notified
[2:36:40]
of the zoning change when it happens.
[2:36:43]
So they do consider it.
[2:36:44]
I couldn't tell you the exact timeframe
[2:36:46]
that they actually make that change,
[2:36:47]
but they are aware of it,
and it does play a factor.
[2:36:51]
- Okay. Thank you.
[2:36:53]
- All right.
[2:36:54]
Any other comments, Mr. Vacca?
[2:36:56]
No?
- Nope.
[2:36:57]
- Okay. Thank you very much.
[2:36:58]
- If I can move on to
the second delegation?
[2:37:00]
Sorry.
- Yeah.
[2:37:02]
- Second delegation is solely
for Hummel Properties Inc.
[2:37:06]
who owns lands fronting onto Willick Road.
[2:37:08]
A portion of these lands have been
[2:37:10]
in the city's urban boundary for decades.
[2:37:13]
The city plans on
constructing Willick Road
[2:37:17]
to full urban standards
[2:37:19]
as the project was included
[2:37:20]
in your latest development charges study.
[2:37:22]
I understand the cost
will be in the millions.
[2:37:26]
I did request.
[2:37:27]
I'm not sure, Madam Secretary,
[2:37:29]
if you can put up the two exhibits
[2:37:30]
that were attached to my...
[2:37:33]
I think it was page 40 and
41 of the second last link.
[2:37:41]
- Just give us a moment.
- Yep.
[2:37:53]
Yeah, it's not the official plan.
[2:37:54]
It's the public comments.
[2:37:57]
The second last link
that's in your agenda.
[2:38:30]
- [Jim] The silence puts
pressure on him to perform.
[2:38:37]
- [Margaret] Was it the last one or the-
[2:38:38]
- It was the second last
link in your agenda.
[2:38:41]
And I think it was page 40 and 41.
[2:38:47]
- [Speaker] Does this
count towards his time?
[2:38:50]
- [Jim] Yes.
[2:38:52]
(attendees speaking indistinctly)
[2:38:54]
- Using two minutes.
- More pictures.
[2:38:56]
(Rocky laughing)
[2:38:59]
(attendees speaking indistinctly)
[2:39:04]
- I charge much more per
hour for that, Jason.
[2:39:14]
What's that?
[2:39:17]
(Rocky laughing)
[2:39:18]
Hey, I wish it was a
(indistinct) photographer though.
[2:39:27]
Oh, here we go. Here we go.
[2:39:29]
Group shot.
[2:39:30]
- [Speaker] Got your good side,
[2:39:33]
the Irish Insider.
[2:39:36]
- [Speaker] You're standing by the light.
[2:39:44]
Make sure they reset your time.
[2:39:49]
- Yeah.
[2:40:09]
(attendees speaking indistinctly)
[2:40:47]
- [Jim] How we making out?
[2:40:49]
Are we getting close or...
[2:40:50]
Yeah.
- There's a lot of
[2:40:51]
correspondence that came through.
[2:40:52]
- Okay.
- So I apologize.
[2:40:53]
- [Jim] No.
[2:41:13]
- [Margaret] Is this the one?
[2:41:14]
- [Rocky] Yep, if you keep going,
[2:41:15]
you'll hit exhibit one.
[2:41:22]
No, that's not the one.
[2:41:23]
That's the one we just discussed.
[2:41:28]
- [Margaret] Yes, please.
[2:41:34]
- [Speaker] Can you
forward it to Sam, please?
[2:41:37]
Sam.
- Sam?
[2:42:04]
- That's the one.
[2:42:05]
Yeah, exhibit one and two.
[2:42:08]
- [Jim] 41.
[2:42:12]
- There we go.
- Yeah, that's it.
[2:42:15]
Okay.
[2:42:17]
So exhibit one,
[2:42:21]
the northernmost red line shows
[2:42:24]
the current urban boundary line
[2:42:26]
in the current official plan.
[2:42:29]
The southern red line beside it
[2:42:35]
is the proposed boundary line
[2:42:37]
in the draft official plan before you.
[2:42:41]
And, finally, the solid
blue line just below that
[2:42:46]
is the boundary line we are requesting,
[2:42:48]
which amounts to a 20 meter
extension of the boundary line.
[2:42:53]
Basically, Mr. Mayor, it's a little bit
[2:42:58]
more than the wall behind
you to the wall behind me.
[2:43:02]
That's roughly 55 feet.
[2:43:03]
So that's how much of an
extension we're asking for.
[2:43:06]
That's it, less than the
size of a road allowance.
[2:43:11]
To classify it as a
minor boundary adjustment
[2:43:14]
would be an overstatement quite frankly.
[2:43:16]
If you can move on to exhibit
two, the next page, please.
[2:43:22]
So exhibit two shows as a concept plan
[2:43:24]
of what can be developed
[2:43:26]
if the boundary line is
expanded by 20 meters.
[2:43:30]
It results in 91 lots or units
[2:43:34]
and substantially more
on the abutting lands
[2:43:37]
from Sodom to Willoughby.
[2:43:41]
We have quantified that
the development charges
[2:43:44]
would be approximately $8 million
[2:43:47]
which would fund the
construction cost of Willick Road
[2:43:50]
probably three times over.
[2:43:53]
So the planning reasons
in support of the request
[2:43:55]
are to contribute to the cost recovery
[2:43:57]
of building Willick Road,
[2:43:59]
which supports sustainability of the city.
[2:44:02]
Two, the boundary adjustment is natural
[2:44:04]
and logical in these circumstances.
[2:44:07]
Three, the failure to adjust the boundary
[2:44:09]
would result at best in 19 signal lots
[2:44:12]
fronting on Willick Road,
[2:44:14]
each over 200 feet deep.
[2:44:16]
This would be a very
inefficient use of urban lands.
[2:44:19]
Four, there is immediate access
[2:44:21]
to servicing on Willick Road.
[2:44:23]
Five, it's a logical choice for expansion
[2:44:26]
because it is not near any sensitive
[2:44:28]
or incompatible land uses,
[2:44:30]
such as industry,
chicken barns, livestock,
[2:44:33]
farms, et cetera.
[2:44:35]
Six, the lands are in close proximity
[2:44:37]
to the new South Niagara Hospital
[2:44:39]
where many new jobs will be created.
[2:44:42]
Seven, the lands are in close proximity
[2:44:44]
to major highway interchanges.
[2:44:48]
So in summary, we're requesting that
[2:44:49]
the current boundary line
[2:44:50]
and the draft official plan before you
[2:44:53]
between Sodom Road and Willoughby Drive
[2:44:55]
be extended to the south by 20 meters
[2:44:58]
as shown on the blue line as exhibit one.
[2:45:00]
That is the request.
[2:45:02]
- Okay.
[2:45:03]
Maybe we'll start with staff
[2:45:05]
and then questions or comments of council.
[2:45:07]
And then if council wanted
to go in this direction,
[2:45:10]
what would have to happen?
[2:45:13]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:45:14]
So we did do a minor
adjustment to the boundary.
[2:45:19]
And as we noted early on,
[2:45:22]
is that minor boundary just followed
[2:45:24]
the closest lot line to the south.
[2:45:26]
Because right now,
[2:45:28]
that urban boundary is floating
in the middle of the lots.
[2:45:32]
There was no clear delineation
on where that boundary was.
[2:45:36]
So we dropped it to the nearest lot line.
[2:45:38]
That's where you saw the first red line.
[2:45:40]
If we can just go up one.
[2:45:43]
Yeah, so that's where you saw...
[2:45:45]
Actually, the first red
line is the current one.
[2:45:47]
The second red line, you can
see that lot that we used
[2:45:50]
to kind of make sure we knew
[2:45:51]
exactly where the boundary would be.
[2:45:54]
So, we can make those kind of adjustments
[2:45:58]
because it follows clear lines.
[2:46:00]
We can follow creeks.
[2:46:01]
We can follow all these things, roads.
[2:46:04]
So those are things we can adjust
[2:46:05]
if it doesn't make sense.
[2:46:08]
The difficulty with further
expansion beyond that
[2:46:11]
is there comes a point where when is it...
[2:46:14]
Is there a need for additional urban land?
[2:46:18]
I know Mr. Vacca has his
points on additional need,
[2:46:21]
but there's certain policy thresholds
[2:46:22]
in the provincial policy statements
[2:46:24]
that have to be considered.
[2:46:25]
So we cannot recommend,
obviously, to the province
[2:46:29]
without additional backing.
[2:46:33]
If it was just servicing
and things like that,
[2:46:34]
those are technical studies,
[2:46:36]
but this is a need study, and why...
[2:46:38]
The question would then
become why expand here?
[2:46:41]
Why not expand elsewhere?
[2:46:42]
So we need to have those assessments.
[2:46:44]
And that's why, in our new official plan,
[2:46:46]
we put in policies to allow
for urban boundary expansions
[2:46:49]
provided you demonstrate these things.
[2:46:51]
And it goes through that process
[2:46:53]
so that we can evaluate
those that want to expand
[2:46:56]
and consider it if there is a need.
[2:46:59]
We don't feel there is at this point,
[2:47:00]
but maybe consultants can
demonstrate there is one.
[2:47:02]
So next steps.
[2:47:04]
Obviously, if council decides
to expand this boundary,
[2:47:07]
ultimately, be up to the
province to make that decision.
[2:47:11]
I know even with our Sodom Road site,
[2:47:13]
they have some concerns
they're not meeting policy.
[2:47:16]
So I would...
[2:47:18]
Whether or not they would approve this,
[2:47:20]
that would be a big question mark
[2:47:22]
just based on provincial policy.
[2:47:24]
But those are the options you have.
[2:47:26]
- Questions or...
[2:47:27]
Councilor Strange.
[2:47:29]
- Thank you. Mr. Mayor.
[2:47:31]
So, Mr. Vacca, what you're...
[2:47:33]
So the person that owns that
land owns all the blue there?
[2:47:39]
- Yes.
[2:47:40]
Well, there's two
separate landowners, sir.
[2:47:42]
Hummel Properties owns...
[2:47:45]
If you go to exhibit two,
[2:47:46]
you can see better what
Hummel Properties owns.
[2:47:50]
Yeah, so what is laid out as a subdivision
[2:47:54]
is what Hummel Properties has.
[2:47:56]
And then to the north of that
[2:47:58]
as you go towards Sodom, I believe,
[2:48:02]
that is another landowner.
[2:48:03]
- That's another land.
- Yep.
[2:48:04]
So we're just saying
[2:48:06]
the boundary that you're proposing,
[2:48:08]
if you're going to expand it 20 meters,
[2:48:10]
it should go all the way up.
[2:48:11]
If you don't want to go all
the way up, that's up to you.
[2:48:14]
I'm here on behalf of Hummel.
[2:48:15]
I'm not here on behalf
of the other landowner,
[2:48:17]
but doesn't make sense to
have a zigzag boundary line.
[2:48:20]
- Just have a line with
the other property.
[2:48:23]
- Yeah. Yeah.
[2:48:24]
- And how many units would that add?
[2:48:26]
- Well, that would get you 91 units.
[2:48:28]
- 91 units.
[2:48:29]
- And we're saying if you
don't add to the boundary,
[2:48:31]
you're going to have 19
lots fronting on Willick,
[2:48:34]
which are well over 200 feet.
[2:48:36]
So it all comes down to
efficiency of the development.
[2:48:40]
These are urban lands that
[2:48:42]
if you don't get the extra 60 feet,
[2:48:45]
you're basically doing a very
inefficient use of urban lands
[2:48:49]
with only 19 very deep lots.
[2:48:52]
- And you said they're
reconstructing which road?
[2:48:54]
- Willick.
- Willick Road already.
[2:48:56]
Okay, so.
[2:48:57]
Okay. Thank you.
[2:48:59]
- And we're willing to take
our chances with the ministry.
[2:49:01]
We think we have very valid
reasons to support it.
[2:49:04]
And I appreciate your
planning director's comments.
[2:49:07]
It is up to them,
[2:49:09]
and we will take our
position to the minister.
[2:49:12]
We just need your support.
[2:49:14]
I think it makes sense.
[2:49:15]
It's a very minor adjustment
to what's before you.
[2:49:20]
- Questions or comments
of the rest of council?
[2:49:24]
So at what point, if we wanted
the province to consider it,
[2:49:29]
at what point do we do this?
[2:49:29]
Madam Clerk, is this
after the meeting or...
[2:49:34]
Okay. Ms. Dolch?
[2:49:36]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:49:37]
So, obviously, this is just
a public meeting right now,
[2:49:39]
but prior, on August 11th,
[2:49:41]
obviously prior to your final decision,
[2:49:44]
if you want to make a comment tonight,
[2:49:45]
we can obviously take that back.
[2:49:47]
But I think in the end,
[2:49:49]
the final recommendation would be modified
[2:49:51]
and you would add this in
at that time on August 11th
[2:49:54]
for that to proceed to the province.
[2:49:56]
- Okay. Thank you.
[2:49:57]
All right, so is there
anything else you've got?
[2:50:00]
- Nothing further.
[2:50:01]
- Pose for a few more pictures, otherwise.
[2:50:03]
- [Mike] Change your shirt.
[2:50:06]
- You know what, if
you're going to do one,
[2:50:07]
I want counsel in the background.
[2:50:10]
- [Speaker] Can I get a selfie?
[2:50:11]
- [Rocky] Yeah, yeah, hold on.
[2:50:14]
- This is classic. This is classic.
[2:50:20]
Turn around. He's doing a selfie.
[2:50:23]
- I'll let you push the button.
[2:50:27]
- Beautiful.
[2:50:33]
- Hey, Mayor Jim, smile.
- Smile.
[2:50:37]
What a team. Look at you two.
[2:50:43]
- It's for fun.
- You may see these
[2:50:44]
on a website that I'm in, but...
[2:50:46]
- I'm counting on it.
- Thanks everyone.
[2:50:47]
- All right, thank you very much.
[2:50:49]
Madam Clerk, who do we have next?
[2:50:55]
- The next person registered
to speak is Jeremy Brown.
[2:51:19]
- Are we ready yet or...
[2:51:23]
Awesome.
[2:51:25]
Okay, first off, I just
wanted to thank everyone,
[2:51:27]
planning staff, council, mayor,
[2:51:30]
and the consultants for all
their hard work thus far
[2:51:33]
on the official plan.
[2:51:35]
So my name is Jeremy Brown.
[2:51:37]
I'm a planning consultant with
Niagara Planning Consultants.
[2:51:40]
I'm here representing
[2:51:42]
the owner of 8356 Thorold Stone Road,
[2:51:45]
which is this property
right here, as you can see.
[2:51:50]
I have emailed digital copies
of these plans to everyone.
[2:51:54]
Unfortunately, we were behind
on the deadline yesterday,
[2:51:58]
but you do have those in your inboxes.
[2:52:03]
So if you look at the poster,
[2:52:05]
you'll see that property
located on the southwest corner
[2:52:08]
of Thorold Stone Road and Kalar Road.
[2:52:10]
The eastern edge of our
client's property is 88.5 meters
[2:52:14]
from that intersection and
the urban area boundary,
[2:52:17]
and we are asking council
to review this line
[2:52:20]
and include the existing
developed residential cluster
[2:52:23]
immediately west of this commercial plaza,
[2:52:26]
which is right here at 8278.
[2:52:28]
There's a commercial plaza.
[2:52:29]
It's not prime agricultural,
it is commercial,
[2:52:33]
and is currently being
designated as prime agricultural
[2:52:37]
along with all of these residences,
[2:52:38]
which, as far as I can tell
from aerial photography,
[2:52:41]
have never been prime
agricultural for anything.
[2:52:45]
So this specific...
[2:52:48]
Oh, sorry.
[2:52:49]
We are not asking for a rezoning.
[2:52:51]
We're not asking for immediate
development approval.
[2:52:53]
We're not asking for any removal
[2:52:55]
of environmental protections
[2:52:56]
or expanding into broader
agricultural lands.
[2:53:00]
We are simply asking to
correct what appears to be
[2:53:04]
a small boundary inconsistency
[2:53:06]
before the official plan is finalized.
[2:53:08]
This specific pocket of land
[2:53:10]
already functions as an urban area,
[2:53:12]
and it sits right beside, as
I said, the commercial plaza.
[2:53:16]
And then across the street
is also the Vector Court,
[2:53:20]
which you see uses this
creek, Shriners Creek,
[2:53:25]
as the boundary here.
[2:53:27]
And so in using this creek,
[2:53:30]
we're proposing a firm line that
[2:53:33]
allows a more consistent urban boundary
[2:53:37]
in this specific pocket.
[2:53:42]
Let's see here.
[2:53:43]
Furthermore, this site
is perfectly positioned
[2:53:47]
to capitalize on existing
municipal investments.
[2:53:50]
Kalar Road already equipped
with full municipal services,
[2:53:54]
including large diameter
sewer, water mains.
[2:53:57]
So it makes logical sense to maximize
[2:53:59]
the efficiency of this
existing infrastructure.
[2:54:04]
And so in the spirit of transparency,
[2:54:06]
we want the council to know
[2:54:08]
the long-term vision for this site.
[2:54:10]
If the boundary is corrected,
[2:54:12]
they're intending to pursue
residential development here
[2:54:16]
which would obviously
help with the numbers
[2:54:18]
and the goals set in the official plan.
[2:54:22]
Additionally, the owner of 8328, 8335,
[2:54:28]
this parcel is already
in talks to purchase
[2:54:32]
and be included in this
proposed development.
[2:54:36]
In summary, this is a modest...
[2:54:39]
Excuse me.
[2:54:40]
This is a modest mapping request
[2:54:41]
with a significant
long-term public benefit.
[2:54:43]
We respectfully ask that
council direct planning staff
[2:54:46]
to review this boundary in consistency
[2:54:48]
and determine whether a minor refinement
[2:54:50]
would create a more logical,
defensible, urban edge.
[2:54:54]
Thank you for your time, your leadership,
[2:54:55]
and your consideration.
[2:54:57]
I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
[2:55:00]
- Any questions for...
[2:55:03]
Any questions or comments of council?
[2:55:08]
Okay.
[2:55:08]
And yes, Councilor Patel?
[2:55:10]
- Question through, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.
[2:55:12]
What is the green or yellow
area behind the red line?
[2:55:15]
- Yeah, so that is the
protected Shriners Creek area.
[2:55:19]
So it's NPCA regulated as well.
[2:55:23]
A portion of this land is NPCA regulated,
[2:55:25]
so obviously any future
development would require
[2:55:28]
planning staff approvals in
conjunction with the NPCA
[2:55:31]
and all governing agencies.
[2:55:35]
- So, through you, Mr. Mayor.
[2:55:36]
In that house, there's
one house that's owned by
[2:55:40]
a gentleman, I think.
[2:55:41]
So is there services there?
[2:55:44]
- So there are services on
Thorold Stone Road right now.
[2:55:49]
If there's a larger development,
[2:55:50]
I believe they would want to tap into
[2:55:52]
the Kalar Road services,
which are built up larger.
[2:55:57]
So that would ultimately be
the plan of the development,
[2:55:59]
but obviously no development
would be pursued.
[2:56:02]
We've already done pre-consultation
meetings with staff.
[2:56:04]
Nothing would be able to be pursued
[2:56:06]
without the urban
boundary adjustment first.
[2:56:09]
- Thank you.
- Yep.
[2:56:10]
- I just figured, while we've
got our consultants here,
[2:56:12]
maybe Mr. Nethery,
[2:56:14]
since this is an urban boundary expansion,
[2:56:17]
maybe he might be able to offer
some comment on the request.
[2:56:23]
I know you couldn't see
from your angle, but...
[2:56:26]
- No, through you...
[2:56:28]
Through Your Worship, we have the letter.
[2:56:31]
We have the submission, and that's there.
[2:56:34]
The best that I'm going
to be able to offer today
[2:56:36]
is that we will take this submission in
[2:56:39]
along with any other information
[2:56:40]
that's coming in from anyone else tonight,
[2:56:42]
and it'll be reviewed and
assessed and with a report back
[2:56:46]
as a part of the final recommendation.
[2:56:47]
That's the best I can do for you today.
[2:56:49]
- That's great.
[2:56:50]
Oh, we do have one question, gentlemen.
[2:56:52]
Councilor Lococo.
[2:56:54]
- [Lori] Does Ms. Dolch have
any comments on this one?
[2:56:57]
- Ms. Dolch, did you want...
[2:56:59]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[2:57:00]
I'll just make one brief comment.
[2:57:01]
And again, same thing applies
as did to the last speaker.
[2:57:05]
The provincial policy statements advise
[2:57:08]
on urban boundary expansions,
[2:57:10]
and our policies have
[2:57:12]
urban boundary expansion policies in them,
[2:57:14]
for people to make
applications in the future.
[2:57:16]
Right now, I don't feel we have need
[2:57:20]
just based on our calculations.
[2:57:21]
But again, through a process,
[2:57:23]
once this official plan's approved,
[2:57:24]
they could apply and
do their needs analysis
[2:57:27]
to put something forward at that time.
[2:57:30]
But again, under the provincial guidance,
[2:57:31]
under the PPS, provincial
policy statements,
[2:57:34]
there is a requirement
to demonstrate need.
[2:57:39]
- Okay, I think we're good for now,
[2:57:41]
and they'll take it under
advisement and come back to us.
[2:57:43]
Thank you, gentlemen.
[2:57:45]
Okay. Madam Clerk?
[2:57:49]
- Next up, I have Robert and Donna Soyka.
[2:57:54]
- Are they online or in person?
[2:57:57]
- [Donna] Oh, that's me.
[2:57:58]
That's me, Your Honor.
[2:57:59]
Oh, yeah, if you'd like
to come to the microphone.
[2:58:00]
- No, I just registered
to be here, not to speak.
[2:58:03]
- Okay.
[2:58:04]
Okay. Thank you.
[2:58:05]
No problem.
[2:58:07]
All right. Who do we
got next, Madam Clerk?
[2:58:09]
- Moving along, we have Dr. John Bacher.
[2:58:13]
- Okay, Mr. Bacher,
[2:58:15]
if you can just state your address.
[2:58:19]
And then of course you've
got up to five minutes.
[2:58:22]
- Yeah, I live at 134 Church Street.
[2:58:27]
Dr. Bacher.
[2:58:32]
When I
[2:58:34]
read the official plan
that's being proposed, it was
[2:58:42]
actually one of my
happiest moments in my life
[2:58:45]
because it corrected a
lot of egregious loopholes
[2:58:50]
in past official plans,
[2:58:52]
both at the region and in Niagara Falls.
[2:58:58]
Loopholes which led to
unnecessary litigation
[2:59:02]
at the Ontario Municipal Board in LPAT.
[2:59:08]
Now I'll read the clause
that I was so pleased
[2:59:13]
to see in the plan.
[2:59:17]
Policy 6.4.14.1.
[2:59:22]
It states when a feature such
as a significant woodland
[2:59:26]
or other woodland at the date
of the approval of the plan
[2:59:30]
or the regional plan,
whichever is applicable,
[2:59:33]
no longer meets the
definition of significant
[2:59:37]
because of disturbance,
[2:59:39]
the feature shall retain
[2:59:43]
its nature as a significant woodland.
[2:59:49]
Now this corrects problems
[2:59:53]
that have been caused by
[2:59:56]
developer-approved
environmental impact statements,
[3:00:04]
often which are compiled
[3:00:08]
where people are not able to go on site
[3:00:11]
to see if the conditions
are actually true.
[3:00:17]
Now, this was shown most egregiously
[3:00:21]
in the long process at Riverfront.
[3:00:31]
And there was a environmental
impact study that said
[3:00:37]
an area of significant woodland
[3:00:40]
was going to lose that characteristic
[3:00:43]
under the regional plan
[3:00:46]
based on what was to happen in the future,
[3:00:50]
not what was actually there.
[3:00:53]
And they claimed that most
of the trees in this woodland
[3:00:58]
were sick and dying.
[3:01:01]
And this was totally refuted
[3:01:04]
after all the land use planning
approvals had been done.
[3:01:08]
Even at a court litigation,
[3:01:12]
the judge dismissed my request for appeal
[3:01:17]
based on this erroneous statement
[3:01:19]
and the environmental impact statement
[3:01:22]
actually gave me a cost of war.
[3:01:25]
And the city also still is
party to this cost of war.
[3:01:31]
And it said...
[3:01:35]
This tree-saving plan refuted
[3:01:41]
the claim that this area of 1,775 trees,
[3:01:52]
they found in the tree saving-plan
[3:01:55]
no obvious sign of widespread
disease was present.
[3:02:00]
So that was what it's required
[3:02:03]
under the regional tree bylaw,
[3:02:06]
that this tree saving plan be done.
[3:02:09]
And it was found that all
the trees were healthy.
[3:02:12]
It was totally bogus, this
environmental impact statement
[3:02:17]
that was submitted to council.
[3:02:21]
And this is a very important corrective
[3:02:24]
sort of nonsense ever happen again.
[3:02:34]
And they found that many of the trees,
[3:02:40]
ash trees were actually
minority in this woodland.
[3:02:44]
The most numerous trees were cottonwood.
[3:02:47]
Some of very large diameter
[3:02:49]
quoting from the tree-saving plan.
[3:02:52]
- [Jim] Mr. Bacher, you've
only got about a minute to go.
[3:02:54]
Is there anything about the-
[3:02:55]
- Yes, we heard a lot from Mr.
Bacher went on much longer.
[3:03:04]
And I would say that
the other point is that
[3:03:08]
this good provision has been
weakened by the regional plan
[3:03:12]
designating a lot of woodlands as,
[3:03:16]
the new term is other wetlands,
[3:03:19]
before they were called
provincially significant woodlands.
[3:03:24]
So this policy should also be applied
[3:03:29]
to what are called locally
significant woodlands
[3:03:32]
in the official plan.
[3:03:34]
And these areas receive further protection
[3:03:40]
under the provincial policy statement
[3:03:43]
because they're significant
[3:03:45]
woodland amphibian breeding habitat.
[3:03:48]
Under the provincial policy statement,
[3:03:52]
there is a provision for
[3:03:54]
provincially significant wildlife habitat.
[3:03:59]
And the most obvious form
[3:04:01]
of provincially significant
wildlife habitat
[3:04:05]
is in these other wetlands.
[3:04:09]
And they're very easy to...
[3:04:11]
It's shown in the wetland
studies themselves that they are
[3:04:18]
a very good woodland breeding
habitat for amphibians.
[3:04:23]
So that is the key thrust
of my presentation.
[3:04:29]
- Thank you. Thank you.
[3:04:30]
Do we have any questions
or comments of council?
[3:04:35]
Okay, thank you very much.
[3:04:37]
Thank you.
[3:04:39]
Madam Clerk?
[3:04:41]
- The next registered
participant is Mr. David Rupay.
[3:04:46]
- David Rupay, is he online or in person?
[3:04:49]
- Everyone was registered to be in person.
[3:04:51]
- Okay.
[3:04:53]
Okay, looks like he's a no show.
[3:04:54]
So we'll go to the next one.
[3:05:00]
- Sorry.
[3:05:01]
The next person we have
registered is Jean Grandoni.
[3:05:24]
- I have some maps here, Mr. Chairman.
[3:05:27]
- Okay.
[3:05:29]
- There's two maps and one picture.
[3:05:31]
- You may want to pull that
microphone down a little bit
[3:05:33]
so we can hear you.
[3:05:36]
Yeah, that too.
[3:05:37]
- I have a set of...
[3:05:39]
I only have 12 of each.
[3:05:42]
- Okay.
- They're stapled together.
[3:05:44]
- We can send some.
[3:05:45]
Okay, our general manager
of planning is going to
[3:05:49]
come and grab that or...
[3:05:50]
Oh, we've got our
[3:05:54]
senior manager of long-term planning.
[3:06:08]
Just give us half a second.
[3:06:09]
We'll
[3:06:12]
hand them out.
[3:06:23]
Oh, thanks.
[3:06:25]
Get one for yourself too, don't forget.
[3:06:38]
- Perhaps I could just explain
the maps before I speak.
[3:06:42]
- Pardon me?
[3:06:43]
- Can I explain the maps
a bit before I speak?
[3:06:45]
- Yeah, we haven't started the clock yet.
[3:06:47]
We're just waiting till
everyone has a copy of the map.
[3:06:52]
Everyone's got one.
[3:06:55]
Does everyone have their copies?
[3:06:58]
Okay, good.
[3:06:59]
Okay, we're good to go, Ms. Grandoni.
[3:07:04]
- The map was showing the former
[3:07:07]
vineyards and orchards is...
[3:07:13]
(Jim speaking faintly)
[3:07:15]
Oh, yes.
[3:07:18]
It was expensive to copy.
[3:07:23]
The map should...
[3:07:25]
Oh.
[3:07:29]
The one map entitled
[3:07:31]
"Shriners Creek
Environmental Impact Study"
[3:07:34]
is actually a map produced by the city.
[3:07:36]
It's a 1966 topographical.
[3:07:40]
And this is an excerpt
from the larger city map.
[3:07:45]
And the red is your former vineyards.
[3:07:49]
Green is former family orchards.
[3:07:52]
And I should explain that
[3:07:55]
up here you see just a few dots
[3:07:57]
because those are much larger acreages.
[3:08:00]
Down here is smaller
acreages, so you see more.
[3:08:04]
And I should point out these
moon-shaped dots or red dots
[3:08:10]
over here along the town line are formerly
[3:08:13]
Mr. Davis and Mr. Lemick, two Grape Kings,
[3:08:16]
and they competed with the grape
kings below the escarpment.
[3:08:21]
- [Jim] Okay.
[3:08:24]
- Or with grape growers
below the escarpment.
[3:08:27]
Excuse me.
[3:08:32]
The next map,
[3:08:34]
well, you have a picture there,
[3:08:35]
that's Mr. Davis's, the
Grape King's produce,
[3:08:40]
his Concord grapes.
[3:08:45]
The soils map of Welland County,
[3:08:47]
I though you should see that
[3:08:49]
and see the direction we've
been going all these years.
[3:08:53]
Over in this area here to the east
[3:09:00]
towards the Niagara River,
[3:09:02]
this is all the city of Niagara Falls.
[3:09:04]
You can see they built
on all the fruit land.
[3:09:09]
And the HC is the area
I'm talking about here.
[3:09:14]
About half of that.
[3:09:15]
The other half is in Thorold.
[3:09:17]
That's your Haldeman Clay.
[3:09:19]
And some, there is a site...
[3:09:22]
We did have a soils
map that called it HCL,
[3:09:26]
the area that I'm talking about.
[3:09:29]
The Haldeman clay loam,
[3:09:32]
which is actually more accurate.
[3:09:41]
I'll start on my letter.
[3:09:47]
The agricultural designation of farmlands
[3:09:50]
between Niagara Falls and Thorold
[3:09:52]
and between the escarpment
and the Welland River.
[3:09:55]
The schedule two map entitled
"Land Use Designation"
[3:09:58]
shows them as prime, but they
are actually higher than that.
[3:10:02]
They should be designated specialty crop
[3:10:05]
and belong in the green belt.
[3:10:09]
Their fruit and grape
capability was proven
[3:10:11]
in the eight-week-long February 9th, 1979
[3:10:15]
Ontario Municipal Board
hearing on the urban boundaries
[3:10:18]
of the regional policy plan.
[3:10:21]
The chairman, Mr. Blake and Mr. Blair
[3:10:23]
on page 10 of that decision concluded
[3:10:26]
that the lands are good
agricultural lands,
[3:10:28]
which because of climatic advantage,
[3:10:31]
have good potential for
such crops as grapes,
[3:10:35]
pears, apples, plums, prunes, corn,
[3:10:39]
and other grain crops,
[3:10:40]
and are capable of better
than average yields.
[3:10:44]
The Beaverdams Winery existed
[3:10:46]
at the intersection of
Beaverdams and Garner Roads,
[3:10:49]
but the farmer owner, Mr. Tatterson
[3:10:51]
died very young and the winery was lost.
[3:10:55]
This is all part of the
history of this area.
[3:10:58]
My father knew the owner,
[3:11:00]
and I met one of the sons
[3:11:01]
who gave us a picture of
the inside of this winery,
[3:11:05]
which is demolished in
the '70s approximately.
[3:11:08]
And the son told us
how he was selling wine
[3:11:11]
as far away in those days
[3:11:13]
was quite an accomplishment in Hamilton
[3:11:16]
and how good the wine was.
[3:11:19]
A new winery has recently
been built on Highway 20
[3:11:22]
between Beechwood and Townline Roads,
[3:11:25]
along with a supporting vineyard.
[3:11:30]
Now my late brother
Peter calculated around
[3:11:32]
600 acres of grapes in various locations
[3:11:36]
along with small family
orchards were grown here,
[3:11:39]
but have been removed
mostly by land speculators.
[3:11:42]
Some were removed by farmers
[3:11:44]
under the unfortunate and
mistaken grape pullout program
[3:11:49]
where incompetent government
paid them to remove
[3:11:52]
valuable Lambrusco type vineyards.
[3:11:56]
The area produced two grape kings,
[3:11:58]
Mr. Davis and Mr. Lemick,
on the Townline Road,
[3:12:02]
east and west sides.
[3:12:04]
Years ago in the '60s and '70s,
[3:12:07]
the escarpment scientists
wanted to take control
[3:12:09]
of all the lands between
the QEW and Thorold
[3:12:13]
and between the escarpment
and the Welland River
[3:12:16]
due to their spring-fed pike
spawning streams and ponds.
[3:12:20]
It's provincially
significant wetland forests
[3:12:23]
and unique, unique farms and farmlands,
[3:12:26]
but the political forces of that day
[3:12:28]
voted against the protection
[3:12:30]
of this natural heritage richness.
[3:12:37]
47 years have passed since
the 1979 OMD decision,
[3:12:43]
and the truth has still not been mapped.
[3:12:47]
The council should move
that the designation
[3:12:50]
be changed to specialty crop
[3:12:54]
and put it in the green belt,
[3:12:56]
If you can get past Ford.
[3:13:00]
Point two, two majestic wetland forests
[3:13:02]
exist south of Mountain Road
[3:13:04]
between Kalar and Garner.
[3:13:07]
It is disturbing to see that they are only
[3:13:09]
faintly mapped in schedule
two land use designations
[3:13:13]
and especially when other
much smaller forests
[3:13:15]
are clearly shown.
[3:13:18]
Having seen the original development plans
[3:13:20]
prior to Doug Ford's dictatorial
ministerial zoning order
[3:13:24]
where partial destruction
[3:13:26]
of both these forests was proposed.
[3:13:30]
What are the latest plans here?
[3:13:33]
These forests contain a high
number of wetland vernal pools
[3:13:38]
'cause I have walked them,
[3:13:39]
and rare, threatened buttonbush,
which flower in August.
[3:13:43]
The Fernwood plan forest
also contains buttonbush
[3:13:48]
and this is one big
reason it was preserved.
[3:13:51]
The developer's own
ecologist, that is a Fernwood,
[3:13:55]
recommended preservation of
the Fernwood forest buttonbush.
[3:14:01]
Hundreds of frogs will
be lost with disturbance
[3:14:04]
of any part of these two landmark forests.
[3:14:07]
You must visit the forest
in April when it's dark
[3:14:12]
or when it first warms up to
hear the frog mating calls
[3:14:16]
to know of their existence there.
[3:14:20]
Cougars, I am told,
frequent these forests.
[3:14:23]
And I just learned this this
year from the neighbor there.
[3:14:28]
Cougars, I am told, frequent these forests
[3:14:31]
as evidenced in video
captured on night filming.
[3:14:36]
A herd of eight deer were
seen crossing Garner Road
[3:14:39]
from east to west, from the
direction of these forest,
[3:14:42]
and just missed my car.
[3:14:45]
When you destroy your forest,
[3:14:46]
you're destroying the
very source of the wood
[3:14:49]
that you need to build your houses
[3:14:52]
because a properly managed
forest will provide that.
[3:14:57]
You also destroy as many jobs
as you think you are creating.
[3:15:01]
With such destruction,
it will be difficult
[3:15:03]
to achieve the provincial
goal of 30% forest cover.
[3:15:08]
In recent years, the Niagara
Escarpment Commission
[3:15:11]
tried to include these
two majestic forests
[3:15:14]
and adjacent lands in
their protective control.
[3:15:17]
But once again, good planning was denied
[3:15:19]
by the political forces.
[3:15:22]
Point three, the Welland
River Watershed Plan.
[3:15:25]
Where is it?
[3:15:26]
Plans were done on the upper end,
[3:15:28]
but when they started on
the Niagara Falls lower end,
[3:15:31]
the watershed plan seemed to
be delayed or to disappear.
[3:15:35]
Where is the floodplain mapping?
[3:15:37]
Development of all kinds does not appear
[3:15:40]
to be respecting the river floodplain.
[3:15:44]
Point four.
[3:15:45]
Point four and five are missing
[3:15:48]
or faintly mapped forests and creeks.
[3:15:51]
And I missed a couple.
[3:15:53]
There's so many of these.
[3:15:54]
I missed two tributaries myself
[3:15:58]
that come out of the Fernwood subdivision.
[3:16:03]
Strange that you are
draining hundreds of acres
[3:16:05]
of urban lands through these creeks,
[3:16:08]
causing greatly increased flows
through both the urban lands
[3:16:11]
and to downstream landowners,
[3:16:13]
yet seem reluctant to
strongly recognize them
[3:16:17]
in your mapping.
[3:16:19]
They are mostly headwaters
[3:16:20]
that are spawning grounds for fish,
[3:16:22]
and therefore protected under
the Federal Fisheries Act.
[3:16:26]
You need a storm water
policy that dictates
[3:16:29]
that our streams be left
open and not channelized.
[3:16:34]
One engineer said that
the worst thing invented
[3:16:36]
is the storm sewer pipe.
[3:16:39]
Point six, missing wildlife
corridors of travel
[3:16:42]
throughout the city,
[3:16:44]
especially to connect
wildlife to escarpment
[3:16:46]
and to Welland River and beyond.
[3:16:49]
Wildlife need access to clean water
[3:16:51]
is found in wetland
forests since our streams
[3:16:54]
are mostly all polluted,
especially in the north,
[3:16:58]
between the Welland
River and the escarpment.
[3:17:02]
Point seven, flood lines.
[3:17:04]
Where are they for the Wellland River?
[3:17:06]
Currently, new subdivision homes
[3:17:08]
are being proposed too
close to the Welland River,
[3:17:12]
which should be accessible to public,
[3:17:14]
especially in the future, as
it gets developed in wildlife.
[3:17:18]
Ecosystems such as forests and creeks
[3:17:21]
should be connected to
rivers and escarpment lands.
[3:17:26]
If creeks are piped, flood
lines cannot be preserved.
[3:17:30]
And I have a statement here
[3:17:31]
that I thought of after
I'd written all this.
[3:17:34]
In fact, your basements
become the floodplain.
[3:17:38]
In other words, they get
flooded when you build them
[3:17:41]
in farmer creek areas.
[3:17:49]
Velocity- -
[3:17:50]
- [Jim] I need you to wrap up.
[3:17:51]
we're 10 minutes in.
[3:17:52]
- Okay, velocity is increased
and downstream suffers
[3:17:58]
tree and crop losses
when creeks are piped.
[3:18:07]
With regard to the gentleman
that was just asking
[3:18:10]
for urban boundary expansion,
I'm dead against it,
[3:18:13]
and you can bet that the
Kaylor Road pumping station
[3:18:16]
can handle it.
[3:18:18]
They have no business
adding outside the boundary.
[3:18:21]
That station was built
for the drainage area.
[3:18:28]
But what was inside the boundary?
[3:18:30]
not outside the boundary.
[3:18:32]
And they've already got too much in there
[3:18:34]
as far as I'm concerned.
[3:18:36]
Can't handle what you got.
[3:18:43]
And you certainly don't need it.
[3:18:48]
I have a big map if this
doesn't satisfy you.
[3:18:52]
I have the big one there from the city.
[3:18:57]
Yeah.
[3:18:59]
And one thing you should know,
[3:19:02]
I might as well tell you while I'm here,
[3:19:04]
this area up here,
[3:19:07]
that actually should have
gone into the 10-mile creek.
[3:19:09]
When they diverted the hundred acres
[3:19:12]
from the headwaters of the 10-mile
[3:19:14]
into the W51 of the Shriners,
[3:19:17]
they had to go so deep because
it was a different watershed.
[3:19:21]
They had to go so deep that they
[3:19:24]
dried up the springs that fed the W51.
[3:19:31]
Yeah, they dried up the springs
that went through there.
[3:19:41]
- Sorry. Do we have any
questions for Ms. Grandoni?
[3:19:46]
No? Okay.
[3:19:48]
No, I appreciate these,
[3:19:49]
and these maps we're going to...
[3:19:50]
our consultants and our staff and council
[3:19:53]
will utilize these maps as well.
[3:19:55]
- And we're on a suicide course.
[3:19:58]
I just want to repeat.
[3:20:02]
This was all tender fruitland.
[3:20:04]
And an interesting story
that Dr. Jim McGarry
[3:20:07]
told me years ago about how
these fruitlands were lost.
[3:20:16]
Because when they dug the hydro canal,
[3:20:19]
they de-watered and it
changed all the fruit trees,
[3:20:22]
and they had to get water lines.
[3:20:25]
And my dad said that it actually dried up
[3:20:28]
a lot of the springs
that fed the Shriners.
[3:20:31]
- When they put in the hydro canal?
[3:20:32]
- Yeah, the open cut.
[3:20:33]
It should have been tunneled.
[3:20:36]
Hindsight.
- Yeah, right?
[3:20:37]
I know, 'cause it's all sandy
loam in that area, I see.
[3:20:40]
- The best in the world.
[3:20:42]
Dr. Jim McGarry also told me that when
[3:20:48]
this Mr. Berger must have
been a patient of his.
[3:20:52]
He went all over the world
looking for a place to farm.
[3:20:56]
He was in Australia, California, Africa.
[3:21:01]
And he chose Stanford
Township, now Niagara Falls,
[3:21:04]
because of the soil
capability and the climate.
[3:21:09]
And now St. Catharines is just as bad
[3:21:11]
for having destroyed all the,
[3:21:13]
being built on all the fruitland
[3:21:15]
as if there was no other place to go.
[3:21:17]
It was actually better than
what was in Niagara-on-the-Lake,
[3:21:20]
this one farm, old Jack Mira.
[3:21:22]
You remember Jack Mira? I don't know.
[3:21:24]
He said...
[3:21:29]
He said...
[3:21:36]
I'm forgetting what I wanted to say.
[3:21:40]
Oh, Jack Mira told me, he says
[3:21:43]
they went to Niagara-on-the-Lake
[3:21:45]
after they destroyed what was above here
[3:21:47]
and in St. Catharines.
[3:21:49]
And then they had to drain all that.
[3:21:51]
It was all wetland.
[3:21:52]
That's why you see those
big ditches down there.
[3:21:55]
Niagara Falls and St. Catharines
actually had better land.
[3:21:59]
That concludes my presentation.
[3:22:02]
- Okay. Thank you, Ms. Grandoni.
[3:22:06]
Thank you for this.
[3:22:14]
Okay, Madam Clerk, do we have anyone next?
[3:22:17]
- Yes, we do.
[3:22:18]
We have Feng Xi.
[3:22:31]
- Hello, if you can just state
your name and your address.
[3:22:33]
And you have up to five
minutes, if you would.
[3:22:36]
- Okay. Good evening, Mayor,
member of our council,
[3:22:39]
and the city staff.
[3:22:42]
Thank you for this opportunity
for the speak today.
[3:22:45]
So my name is Feng Xi.
[3:22:47]
I'm a professional engineer,
[3:22:49]
and I have lived and work in Network Force
[3:22:53]
more than eight years.
[3:22:56]
So my children grew up here
[3:22:58]
and this city is not where I work,
[3:23:02]
but also my family calls home, right?
[3:23:10]
First of all, I fully
support the protecting our
[3:23:14]
natural environment,
[3:23:17]
but my concern is it's not the
city's environmental goals,
[3:23:23]
but my concern is whether
the policies are clear,
[3:23:27]
practical, and easy to apply.
[3:23:33]
So the number one is
regarding to the other wetland
[3:23:37]
and the other woodland.
[3:23:39]
The provincial planning statement
[3:23:42]
already provides a very clear framework
[3:23:45]
for protecting the important
nature heritage features.
[3:23:50]
So if the city wants to introduce
a new policy categories,
[3:23:56]
so I believe it should be clear explained
[3:24:00]
why they are needed.
[3:24:03]
I also have some concern
about the proposed
[3:24:07]
this three-to-one,
five-to-one compensation ratio
[3:24:13]
for the other woodland and other wetlands.
[3:24:18]
I have not found any similar
requirements in the PPS
[3:24:23]
or Provincial Natural Heritage Guidelines.
[3:24:29]
The draft official plan
also does not explain
[3:24:33]
why this ratio were chosen
[3:24:36]
and whether they are used by other,
[3:24:40]
like Ontario municipalities.
[3:24:44]
So without those information,
[3:24:46]
it's a difficulty to understand
[3:24:48]
whether these requirements are practical.
[3:24:53]
So for this reason,
[3:24:54]
I respectfully to ask the council
[3:24:57]
to remove the other woodland
[3:24:59]
and the other wetland policy category
[3:25:02]
unless the city can provide
clear scientist reasons
[3:25:09]
and practical employment rules.
[3:25:16]
So, myself, I believe good planning
[3:25:20]
should only introduce a new policy
[3:25:24]
when it is a clear need and clear benefit,
[3:25:30]
but I don't see this
explanation in the draft plan,
[3:25:34]
draft official plan.
[3:25:36]
So another concern is about
the term of no negative impact,
[3:25:44]
and to satisfy of the city.
[3:25:48]
So these policies tells us the goal
[3:25:51]
but they don't well explain how
[3:25:55]
the applicants can prove
they meet those requirements.
[3:26:03]
From my professional experience,
[3:26:05]
I have worked for like a project
[3:26:09]
that were revised many times about a yes,
[3:26:13]
because there's no clear standard for
[3:26:17]
deciding when this no
negative impact were achieved.
[3:26:25]
So without very clear standards,
[3:26:29]
different reviewers may
reach different conclusions
[3:26:34]
in the same project.
[3:26:36]
So increase the delay uncertainty
[3:26:39]
and unnecessary cost.
[3:26:43]
So my opinion is a good official plan
[3:26:48]
is not creating by adding more policy.
[3:26:53]
It's to creating a policy clear,
[3:26:58]
objective, based on the science,
[3:27:01]
and easy to apply.
[3:27:05]
- Okay.
[3:27:06]
Thank you, Mr. Xi.
[3:27:07]
I'll see whether or not our
staff have any comments,
[3:27:09]
and then whether or not there's
any questions of council.
[3:27:13]
- Thank you, Your Acting Worship.
[3:27:18]
So I'm just going to just make
reference to a couple things.
[3:27:20]
Obviously, I've talked about
other wetlands and woodlands
[3:27:23]
under previous requests for removal,
[3:27:26]
but I know you asked
the question as to why.
[3:27:28]
So, obviously, protections,
[3:27:30]
we're allowed to go beyond the
provincial policy statement.
[3:27:32]
It's right in the PPS 2024
under natural systems.
[3:27:37]
So it does let us...
[3:27:38]
it does let municipalities
go beyond and exceed.
[3:27:41]
We just can't go any
less than what they have.
[3:27:45]
So in terms of woodlands and wetlands,
[3:27:48]
the benefits obviously to the city are
[3:27:50]
they help with climate change,
[3:27:51]
biodiversity, habitat,
reducing flood risk,
[3:27:58]
improving water quality.
[3:27:59]
All those things are
things we want to kind of
[3:28:02]
enhance in the municipality
[3:28:04]
and make sure that we protect
those things where we can.
[3:28:08]
We have in this plan.
[3:28:10]
We didn't go as far as
it has been in the past,
[3:28:12]
but we do provide some
flexibility on that.
[3:28:16]
So we do feel that we've kind
of struck a middle balance.
[3:28:21]
As I indicated previously,
[3:28:22]
our preference is that
these woodlands and wetlands
[3:28:25]
are retained on site.
[3:28:27]
But if they can't be retained
on site for whatever reason,
[3:28:29]
we are willing to consider the offsetting
[3:28:32]
because we do think that
there's still a big benefit.
[3:28:35]
And we do like the
three-to-one, the five-to-one
[3:28:37]
because it at least offers a net benefit.
[3:28:40]
So that's what we're looking for.
[3:28:42]
And again, it's just
those items specifically.
[3:28:46]
- Okay. Thanks.
[3:28:47]
I'll see if there's any
questions of council.
[3:28:51]
I don't have any questions of council,
[3:28:52]
so thank you, Mr. Xi.
[3:28:54]
- Okay.
[3:28:55]
- Appreciate your comments.
[3:28:56]
Madam Clerk, are there any other speakers?
[3:28:59]
- There is one last person
registered to speak.
[3:29:02]
I have their first name of Sylvia,
[3:29:05]
but no last name at this time.
[3:29:07]
- Is Sylvia here with us?
[3:29:19]
Okay.
[3:29:20]
Yeah.
[3:29:23]
- So,
[3:29:26]
through you, Mr. Chair, at this time,
[3:29:27]
we have gone through the
list of registered speakers.
[3:29:30]
We are now able to open
up the floor to anyone,
[3:29:32]
any members of the
public that are present.
[3:29:34]
If they'd like to speak,
[3:29:36]
I just ask that maybe we have a line or-
[3:29:38]
- Oh, okay.
[3:29:39]
- Just see who is interested.
[3:29:40]
- Is there anyone here in the public
[3:29:42]
that didn't register that wishes to speak?
[3:29:43]
Come on up, sir.
[3:29:44]
We just need your name and your address
[3:29:46]
so that we can record it into our minutes.
[3:29:56]
- Good evening, Your Acting-
[3:29:57]
- [Margaret] Sir, there is the microphone.
[3:29:59]
It's not on.
[3:30:02]
- Good evening, Your Acting Worship,
[3:30:04]
esteemed members of council,
[3:30:06]
city planners, and members of the public.
[3:30:11]
My name is Mark Michalkoff.
[3:30:13]
I am the president of Oleo Energies
[3:30:15]
and I'm here representing Oleo Energies
[3:30:18]
with regards to the draft official plan.
[3:30:25]
I would like to raise two issues,
[3:30:27]
and I have raised them
before in front of council
[3:30:31]
and they become quite
poignant with this matter.
[3:30:35]
The first is a corrective
measure on the boundary
[3:30:40]
or on the land use schedule two,
[3:30:43]
which deals with the southernmost
boundary of our property,
[3:30:47]
which is 5800 Thorold Stone Road.
[3:30:51]
We operate the facility there.
[3:30:53]
It's a lubricant and chemical
manufacturing facility,
[3:30:56]
and it is a class three industrial site.
[3:31:01]
The southernmost boundary of our facility
[3:31:04]
is a rail corridor,
[3:31:06]
which is an active rail corridor
[3:31:08]
subject to a service agreement by CN.
[3:31:10]
We actually purchased the property from CN
[3:31:14]
numerous years ago,
[3:31:15]
and that is designated on schedule two
[3:31:19]
as parks and open space,
[3:31:21]
and we believe that to be incorrect.
[3:31:24]
We made reference to that in a letter
[3:31:26]
that we provided to city staff
[3:31:28]
shortly after the release of
the draft plan in the spring.
[3:31:32]
And we attended the open house
[3:31:36]
and personally redelivered
the letter to the city
[3:31:41]
as well as spoke
personally to the planning
[3:31:43]
and the consultants to rectify this.
[3:31:47]
We see that, as of today,
[3:31:49]
that it has not yet been rectified,
[3:31:51]
and we believe that this incorrect matter
[3:31:54]
should be rectified.
[3:31:57]
The other matter that
I want to address today
[3:32:01]
is the land use itself
[3:32:05]
and the designation to
a flex employment land,
[3:32:11]
which is I believe a light purple.
[3:32:14]
Perhaps if we can get this
slide on, is it page 24, 28?
[3:32:19]
- [Speaker] 28.
[3:32:20]
- Page 28 of the presentation
given by Mr. Nethery.
[3:32:33]
- 28, you said?
- Yes.
[3:32:36]
Is there any way to blow
that up a little bit
[3:32:39]
so that we can see Thorold
Stone Road fairly clearly?
[3:32:50]
So what you can see if
you look at the feature
[3:32:55]
which is traversing from the
south west to the northeast
[3:33:00]
is the OPG or the hydro canal,
[3:33:03]
which is the easternmost
boundary of our property.
[3:33:08]
And at the bottom, what you see is
[3:33:12]
the incorrectly designated rail corridor,
[3:33:16]
which was formerly CN lands.
[3:33:20]
And what we see above that,
at that rail corridor,
[3:33:24]
which proceeds all the
way to Stanley Avenue,
[3:33:27]
is what's designated as
employment flex lands.
[3:33:33]
We were here in front of
council several years ago
[3:33:37]
when there was an
application that was made
[3:33:40]
to redesignate those lands
together with another parcel.
[3:33:46]
And council turned down that application
[3:33:49]
to redesignate it to residential uses.
[3:33:53]
We vigorously defended our position
[3:33:56]
because we are an employer.
[3:33:59]
We employ 60 people in
good manufacturing jobs.
[3:34:03]
We are growing.
[3:34:04]
We are taking on another shift.
[3:34:06]
We will soon be at 100
good manufacturing jobs.
[3:34:10]
We find that we have to continuously
[3:34:13]
defend our lawful uses of our property,
[3:34:19]
and there is an ever
increasing expansion of
[3:34:24]
incompatible uses being made
against industrial properties.
[3:34:30]
And notwithstanding D6 guidelines,
[3:34:33]
there's a level of
ambiguity that's created,
[3:34:36]
and council has a difficult time,
[3:34:38]
at times, dealing with
these types of issues.
[3:34:41]
And we believe that the
city planners and staff
[3:34:48]
arrived at an erroneous decision
[3:34:51]
when they recommended
that there be a parcel.
[3:34:56]
Nevermind the entire piece,
[3:34:58]
but a specific use parcel
designated for residential use.
[3:35:03]
And that passed council
at a meeting in February,
[3:35:06]
I was unfortunately unable
to attend for health reasons,
[3:35:09]
but nevertheless, it makes no sense
[3:35:12]
that we hear a common theme throughout
[3:35:16]
tonight's presentations and others
[3:35:18]
that we have to protect employment lands.
[3:35:21]
And what we see is a continuing onslaught
[3:35:24]
where we have to defend ourselves
[3:35:26]
and our uses of those properties.
[3:35:29]
So number one, we would like clarification
[3:35:31]
of what the change in designation means.
[3:35:34]
And number two, we would like those
[3:35:36]
to remain employment lands
[3:35:38]
and be so reflected in the official plan.
[3:35:43]
- Thank you.
- Thank you.
[3:35:43]
- That's my presentation.
[3:35:44]
- Questions of council?
[3:35:47]
(speaker speaking faintly)
[3:35:50]
- We have two questions.
- Oh yeah, I'm sorry.
[3:35:51]
- [Speaker] Yeah, you were away.
[3:35:52]
- So we had two questions.
[3:35:54]
I'll get staff. I don't know, Ms. Dolch.
[3:35:55]
Okay. Okay.
[3:35:57]
So I'm going to get Ms. Goerz
[3:35:58]
to answer the question
about open space and flex,
[3:36:02]
or our consultants are going to do it.
[3:36:04]
Our consultants are going to do it.
[3:36:05]
Okay. Mr. Nethery?
- Yes.
[3:36:07]
- And then our staff will be
ready to jump in if we need it.
[3:36:10]
- Yes, a two-part question.
[3:36:11]
So on the first part question,
[3:36:13]
the draft of the maps
that are here tonight
[3:36:16]
are the same ones that
were at the open house
[3:36:19]
at the Gale Center.
[3:36:21]
And I recognize other Oleo
representatives here in the back,
[3:36:23]
and Ms. Goerz and I have already committed
[3:36:25]
to changing that rail
corridor line from open space
[3:36:31]
to the employment designation.
[3:36:32]
We just haven't made the edits yet.
[3:36:34]
We have already committed to doing that.
[3:36:36]
- Okay. That's good news.
[3:36:37]
- In terms of part two, I'm
stepping away from (indistinct).
[3:36:39]
- Okay.
[3:36:41]
- Part two is very important.
[3:36:44]
Existing industries should not be
[3:36:47]
defending themselves
against sensitive land uses.
[3:36:50]
And in fact, the provincial
planning statement
[3:36:53]
has changed the onus of who is responsible
[3:36:58]
to mitigate existing industry
[3:37:01]
versus the introduction
of sensitive land uses.
[3:37:06]
The first part of the question
is, why did we change it?
[3:37:08]
And I think we heard earlier tonight
[3:37:11]
that the change to the flex
from the employment area
[3:37:16]
was really a response to the
existing land use context
[3:37:19]
in these older industrial
areas that include land uses
[3:37:24]
that would not be permitted
in an employment area anymore.
[3:37:29]
Those include institutional
uses and commercial uses.
[3:37:34]
And by commercial, we mean both
[3:37:37]
retail and service commercial uses
[3:37:39]
as well as standalone office uses.
[3:37:42]
We want those to still be permitted.
[3:37:45]
In terms of the impact on
[3:37:48]
the encroachment of sensitive land uses,
[3:37:51]
I would point to,
[3:37:54]
in section 4.3.2 of the
draft official plan,
[3:37:58]
there are very specific policies
[3:38:00]
that set the framework through which
[3:38:04]
the proponent of a sensitive land use
[3:38:08]
that may encroach to an
existing industrial use,
[3:38:14]
the rules that have to be followed
[3:38:17]
for the mitigation of the impact,
[3:38:20]
and that mitigation may
include you can't develop it.
[3:38:24]
Again, the provincial planning statement
[3:38:26]
has changed the onus
[3:38:28]
in favor of existing industrial uses
[3:38:32]
for their protection from the encroachment
[3:38:36]
of sensitive land uses.
[3:38:37]
So I would point to 4322 and 4323
[3:38:42]
as the policies that are
intended specifically
[3:38:46]
to protect existing industrial uses
[3:38:49]
from those sensitive lands.
[3:38:51]
- Do you know when that change happened?
[3:38:52]
- It was in the 2024
Provincial Planning Statement
[3:38:56]
and the requirement to
ensure compatibility
[3:38:59]
with existing industrial development.
[3:39:03]
- Thank you.
[3:39:05]
Does that cover? Okay, good.
[3:39:06]
Thank you for that.
[3:39:07]
So did our staff have any
further comment on that?
[3:39:10]
No?
[3:39:11]
Okay.
[3:39:12]
So now I'm going to go to the council,
[3:39:14]
Councilor Lococo and then Nieuwesteeg.
[3:39:18]
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[3:39:20]
Through the mayor to Mr. McCulloch,
[3:39:21]
thank you very much for joining us.
[3:39:23]
This is where I get very confused
[3:39:25]
when we have different
guidelines and recommendations.
[3:39:31]
Mr. McCulloch has said
that they're class three.
[3:39:35]
On the report for the
residential last time,
[3:39:38]
it said they're class two.
[3:39:40]
How are we supposed to distinguish?
[3:39:42]
They run the business.
[3:39:43]
They know what the business is.
[3:39:45]
And then another consultant
tells us a different class.
[3:39:48]
And this was in my comments,
[3:39:50]
that I was going to talk
about employment areas
[3:39:52]
and the flex business district.
[3:39:56]
As council, we have to
protect our employment areas
[3:39:59]
and the businesses that are here,
[3:40:01]
but we also have to protect our residents
[3:40:03]
from the noise, the
pollution, and all of those.
[3:40:07]
But the policies that are in front of us
[3:40:09]
are making it very, very difficult.
[3:40:10]
And I'm glad to hear that
there has been a change
[3:40:13]
to protect that.
[3:40:14]
And I just feel like we're
going around in circles.
[3:40:17]
This has now been three applications
[3:40:19]
when there's been conflict
about what the class is,
[3:40:22]
a class two or a class three.
[3:40:24]
If it's class three, it
has to be further out.
[3:40:29]
If it's class two, it can be closer.
[3:40:30]
Well, then you argue
about what class it is.
[3:40:32]
So we really need to come to some sort of
[3:40:35]
understanding about...
[3:40:37]
We know what businesses are in our area.
[3:40:39]
Why can we not just have a
list that everybody agrees to
[3:40:42]
about what they are?
[3:40:43]
Speak to the industry to say,
[3:40:46]
"Here is the business,
the number of hours,
[3:40:48]
the number of shifts,"
[3:40:49]
whatever the classes are
per the D6 guidelines.
[3:40:53]
So it can help us because
we're going around in circles.
[3:40:57]
We're approving something,
[3:40:58]
and then all of a sudden there's an issue.
[3:41:02]
We can't keep on doing this.
[3:41:03]
We only have...
[3:41:04]
There's Washington Mills.
[3:41:06]
Salit Steel has moved out. We have Oleo.
[3:41:09]
We really have to come up with better
[3:41:11]
protection for everybody.
[3:41:13]
And I hope that through this conversation
[3:41:15]
and through our official plan
[3:41:16]
that we can come up with something better
[3:41:18]
because we just go around in circles.
[3:41:22]
- So, you're right.
[3:41:24]
Now, at the same time,
[3:41:26]
you're last time addressing
noise from the neighbors
[3:41:28]
for Washington Mills.
[3:41:30]
Now that hurts industry when
you do things like that.
[3:41:33]
So we need to get clarity on
what position we're taking.
[3:41:36]
Are we protecting the industry?
[3:41:39]
- With all due respect, Mayor,
[3:41:40]
it's not that we're protecting anybody.
[3:41:42]
When somebody comes to us with a concern,
[3:41:44]
whether it's a business or a resident,
[3:41:46]
me as a council member,
[3:41:47]
I have to bring that forward.
[3:41:49]
So we have residents that
we approve that development
[3:41:52]
close to Washington Mills.
[3:41:53]
If they have a concern, I'm
going to bring it forward.
[3:41:57]
Yes, it was in their purchase of sale
[3:41:59]
that there would be some occasional noise.
[3:42:02]
And we heard from the plant manager
[3:42:05]
that some of the operations changed
[3:42:07]
because they were given a
different class from two to four
[3:42:10]
and they changed their operations.
[3:42:12]
That changed the noise.
[3:42:13]
So it can't just be, are
you for the residents?
[3:42:15]
Are you for the business?
[3:42:16]
It shouldn't be like that.
[3:42:18]
We should be working with
everybody to accommodate it.
[3:42:20]
- Well, unfortunately, you can't.
[3:42:22]
You have to decide what side you're on.
[3:42:24]
In this case, what came
first? The industry.
[3:42:27]
You move next to industry, buyer beware.
[3:42:29]
We lived next to a train
track when I was a kid.
[3:42:31]
You can't complain about your
house shaking from the trains
[3:42:34]
because the trains are longer and bigger.
[3:42:37]
As far as I'm concerned,
you protect industry.
[3:42:39]
You got to pick a side.
[3:42:40]
So, here, we need to protect
the industry, protect the jobs.
[3:42:43]
As Councilor Patel said, you
need a job to buy a house.
[3:42:45]
You don't need a house to buy a job.
[3:42:47]
So you got to pick.
[3:42:48]
So Washington Mills felt
very threatened last time
[3:42:51]
by comments that were made.
[3:42:52]
They're very concerned.
[3:42:53]
They're trying to expand.
[3:42:54]
- Everybody's very concerned,
[3:42:56]
but we can't just ignore a
bunch of residents who have-
[3:42:58]
- Never said to ignore them.
[3:43:00]
- Well, that's how
they're feeling right now.
[3:43:02]
- Well, I don't know about that,
[3:43:04]
but fact is you move next to a factory,
[3:43:06]
you have to expect noise.
[3:43:08]
That's how it is.
[3:43:09]
- Again, it does say
occasional noise on the deed.
[3:43:13]
And noise at three o'clock in the morning
[3:43:15]
that is above the D6 guidelines,
[3:43:18]
that's not what their expectations are.
[3:43:20]
- Well, why don't we ask
maybe our consultants
[3:43:21]
if you can weigh in on...
[3:43:24]
We talk about different
guidelines for industry
[3:43:26]
because we have residential creep and,
[3:43:28]
and they're moving in,
[3:43:29]
and we don't want to lose
the industry that's here.
[3:43:32]
So I don't know if
you've got some insight,
[3:43:34]
and the councilor, Lococo,
makes a valid point that
[3:43:38]
one person says we're D this
[3:43:41]
and someone else says,
"No, you're D that."
[3:43:43]
So who is the authority on what they are?
[3:43:45]
- I just have one quick point.
[3:43:47]
- Your Worship, may I
make a quick point to
[3:43:49]
Councilor Lococo?
[3:43:51]
- Yes.
[3:43:52]
- I just wanted to add to
what you said, Councilor.
[3:43:56]
And that is that the D6
guidelines are fairly clear.
[3:44:01]
We had a consultant, ours,
[3:44:04]
who was a very reputable
InterNity consultants
[3:44:07]
deem what our uses constituted,
[3:44:10]
whereas the report that the city relied on
[3:44:12]
and thereby the council,
[3:44:13]
in order to make its decision
[3:44:14]
to allow a residential development,
[3:44:17]
that study, the consultants never once
[3:44:21]
set foot on our property,
never contacted us,
[3:44:24]
and had no knowledge of what we did
[3:44:29]
other than available public knowledge.
[3:44:31]
So I do agree with you 100%
[3:44:35]
that there has to be a set of guidelines
[3:44:37]
that makes council's job
that much easier to do
[3:44:41]
in order to achieve what
you were looking for
[3:44:44]
in the draft plan, to protect industry
[3:44:46]
and to protect residents from
industry that's too noisy.
[3:44:53]
- To you, Mr. Mayor.
[3:44:56]
There's two contexts that
we're talking about here,
[3:44:58]
existing situations.
[3:45:00]
And again, in a city
[3:45:02]
with the age and context of Niagara Falls,
[3:45:06]
there's always going to be conflicts
[3:45:09]
when residential
development has surrounded
[3:45:14]
an existing historic industrial use.
[3:45:17]
And the industrial uses have to be given
[3:45:20]
the opportunity to grow,
to evolve, to change.
[3:45:24]
Fundamentally, the guidelines are D6,
[3:45:28]
but they can't always be
met in an existing context.
[3:45:33]
The goal of the policies
that I spoke about here
[3:45:38]
is to not permit new sensitive
land uses to encroach
[3:45:45]
towards an existing industry.
[3:45:49]
It doesn't matter if it's
in an employment area
[3:45:51]
or in the flex business district.
[3:45:55]
The goal is to apply
the D6 for the current
[3:45:59]
or for the proposed situation.
[3:46:01]
And the trigger, again,
that has been used elsewhere
[3:46:05]
is the 300 meters.
[3:46:07]
The work needs to be done.
[3:46:09]
The D6 guidelines need to be implemented.
[3:46:12]
And the goal is to avoid
future and additional conflict.
[3:46:18]
But both need to be dealt with.
[3:46:21]
Very difficult in a historic
city like Niagara Falls
[3:46:24]
to deal with the long-term
conflict between land uses,
[3:46:30]
and particularly when you
want to protect the jobs
[3:46:35]
that are so important to
the vitality of the city.
[3:46:39]
So that's why the province changed
[3:46:42]
the onus to the sensitive,
[3:46:45]
the proponent of the sensitive land use.
[3:46:47]
They have to make their case
to the satisfaction of council.
[3:46:54]
- Thank you. Thank you.
[3:46:57]
Yeah, the questions are...
[3:46:58]
You'll get a chance to speak publicly,
[3:47:00]
but right now it's just for
the council to ask questions.
[3:47:04]
Any other questions or
comments of council?
[3:47:08]
Yes, Councilor Nieuwesteeg.
[3:47:09]
- Actually, a lot of my
comments have already been said,
[3:47:11]
but I do want to reiterate.
[3:47:13]
When you see this provincial
D series guideline,
[3:47:16]
the onus is on the
resident, not the industry.
[3:47:18]
So we need to really enforce that
[3:47:21]
and refer back to that and not give the...
[3:47:25]
We have to balance it out that way.
[3:47:26]
So when we get confused
in these situations,
[3:47:28]
I think we have a provincial guideline
[3:47:30]
that we need to refer to.
[3:47:31]
And I think anything that we
can do in this official plan,
[3:47:34]
I know we were speaking
earlier to Ms. Dolch
[3:47:36]
about the extra 300,
[3:47:38]
anything we can do to
protect the industry,
[3:47:41]
I think is honest and
here's a good opportunity
[3:47:43]
with the official plan to do it.
[3:47:45]
So if the 300 extra meters helps,
[3:47:48]
then maybe that's what we have to do
[3:47:50]
to ensure this going forward.
[3:47:54]
- [Jim] Thank you, Councilor Patel.
[3:47:58]
- I have a question.
[3:47:59]
Who is-
- Microphone, Councilor Patel.
[3:48:00]
I have a question.
[3:48:01]
Who decides to what type
of industry that is?
[3:48:05]
Is it-
[3:48:06]
- Ms. Dolch.
[3:48:08]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[3:48:09]
So it's based on experts in the field.
[3:48:12]
So depending on the type.
[3:48:14]
So for when you do assessment,
it could be air quality,
[3:48:17]
it could be noise,
depending on the industry.
[3:48:19]
So then they do a study to determine
[3:48:22]
whether the sensitive land
use can go in proximity.
[3:48:25]
So they determine what the class is.
[3:48:28]
Obviously, in this case too,
Oleo did their own study
[3:48:32]
to determine their class,
[3:48:33]
but it's based on the D6 guidelines
[3:48:35]
and the requirements in the D6 guidelines
[3:48:36]
by consultants in those fields,
[3:48:39]
especially when you're
introducing a sensitive land use.
[3:48:41]
They determine what's appropriate setbacks
[3:48:44]
and things like that.
[3:48:46]
The D6 guidelines give you your
standard class one setbacks,
[3:48:49]
class two.
[3:48:51]
So they lay out the setbacks.
[3:48:52]
They also give you a
potential area of influence,
[3:48:55]
which tells you where you have to kind of
[3:48:57]
consider as a red flag, like
this could cause issues.
[3:49:00]
That's when we start
to ask for studies. So
[3:49:03]
- To you, Mr. Mayor.
[3:49:04]
So when we had a development on,
[3:49:07]
what was that, around the George Street.
[3:49:09]
I forgot the name of it.
[3:49:11]
What was the street?
[3:49:12]
- Fraser?
- Fraser Street.
[3:49:14]
So we had...
[3:49:15]
Our staff had information
that was a type two industry
[3:49:18]
and Oleo said they were
type three industry.
[3:49:22]
So how is there difference in two report?
[3:49:25]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[3:49:26]
In that scenario, we did get Oleo's
[3:49:30]
through the council meeting that evening.
[3:49:32]
So we didn't get notified
that they had their own study
[3:49:35]
until that evening at council.
[3:49:37]
So that was the difficulty there.
[3:49:39]
Normally, in those scenarios,
[3:49:41]
we rely on the consultants,
the experts in the field.
[3:49:45]
If we have a situation early,
[3:49:46]
if we would've got their
information earlier
[3:49:48]
prior to coming to council,
[3:49:50]
we could have done a
peer review on the study
[3:49:52]
to see generally who was right
and kind of determine that.
[3:49:56]
But in that case, obviously,
[3:49:58]
it was raised right on
the floor at council,
[3:50:00]
so I wasn't really
aware of it at the time.
[3:50:03]
- Okay, thank you.
[3:50:05]
- I just would like to add a
little bit more information
[3:50:07]
if that is okay, Your Worship.
[3:50:10]
We were not made aware of that study
[3:50:13]
nor the fact that it was peer reviewed
[3:50:18]
for the consultant
working for the proponent.
[3:50:22]
When we saw that the Friday
[3:50:23]
before the Tuesday council meeting,
[3:50:25]
we immediately engaged
our longtime consultants
[3:50:28]
that do our air permits for
the Ministry of the Environment
[3:50:31]
and handle all of the
regulatory requirements for us
[3:50:35]
to write a detailed letter in support
[3:50:39]
of the type of facility that we were.
[3:50:42]
And it was obviously in conflict
[3:50:43]
with the information
that the city received
[3:50:45]
and what the council was able
[3:50:47]
to make the decision relying upon.
[3:50:49]
And thereby, we believe,
there was an inequity there.
[3:50:53]
And we are currently appealing this
[3:50:56]
to the Ontario Land Tribunal
[3:50:58]
and are awaiting our hearing at this time.
[3:51:03]
- Yep. Yep. You still got it.
[3:51:05]
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[3:51:06]
So, to Ms. Dolch,
[3:51:08]
so is it possible for us
to request all the industry
[3:51:10]
to send us their what
kind of industry they are,
[3:51:14]
type one, type two?
[3:51:15]
I'm not sure what it is.
[3:51:16]
Is it possible for us to keep the record
[3:51:18]
or it goes by the application basis?
[3:51:21]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[3:51:22]
So, obviously, any industry can
do that work if they choose.
[3:51:26]
And if we want to keep a database,
[3:51:28]
happy to do so here at the city.
[3:51:29]
What happens though is
obviously anybody who comes in
[3:51:33]
to introduce a sensitive land use
[3:51:36]
would be required to do that study anyway.
[3:51:38]
And even though the
classification does occur,
[3:51:42]
I just want to caution,
it doesn't say it must be
[3:51:47]
300 meters from a class three.
[3:51:48]
It says that's the setback,
[3:51:50]
but there's provisions that allow for
[3:51:53]
you to reduce those setbacks in the D6.
[3:51:55]
So mitigation measures other things.
[3:51:57]
So I just want to caution that
even though it's class three,
[3:52:00]
it doesn't mean, hey,
we apply this setback.
[3:52:02]
With our new official plan,
[3:52:03]
we're putting in a
policy to say 300 meters,
[3:52:08]
which allows us at least
some control over that
[3:52:13]
when it comes to council.
[3:52:14]
But normally just through
D6, yeah, you would have to,
[3:52:18]
if they wanted to do that work,
[3:52:19]
but again, the proponents
still would introduce that
[3:52:22]
because they're going
to have to demonstrate
[3:52:24]
how they can mitigate those concerns
[3:52:27]
from a class three industry
or whichever class.
[3:52:30]
- Through you, Mr. Mayor,
only reason I'm asking is
[3:52:31]
if we get a complaint from resident,
[3:52:33]
last meeting when we actually
had industry partners
[3:52:37]
come out and speak about it,
[3:52:38]
if we actually have the information,
[3:52:39]
it's easier for staff to give that answer.
[3:52:42]
That's the only reason.
[3:52:42]
If we have more information,
[3:52:44]
we can give the answer properly.
[3:52:47]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[3:52:48]
No, and definitely obviously helpful.
[3:52:51]
If they wanted to do that work,
[3:52:52]
obviously, we don't have that
on our work plan or anything,
[3:52:57]
and the cost might be substantial,
[3:52:58]
but I think that if they
did want to provide us
[3:53:01]
with the information they have,
[3:53:02]
it gives us a basis for
when applications come in.
[3:53:05]
Because when they do come in,
we do do pre-consultation.
[3:53:09]
And if we had some information in advance
[3:53:11]
about what type in class,
[3:53:12]
we at least would know that early on
[3:53:14]
to advise the proponents
when they came in,
[3:53:16]
we have this information.
[3:53:18]
- Perfect. Thank you.
[3:53:19]
- Thank you.
[3:53:19]
Councilor Lococo.
[3:53:21]
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[3:53:22]
I've suggested that we've
had a list now three times.
[3:53:25]
I hope we can do this.
[3:53:27]
The other one that we had
the issue was BVGlazing
[3:53:30]
The owner of the building came and said,
[3:53:32]
"We're class three."
[3:53:33]
And then the consultants
for the developer said,
[3:53:35]
"We're class two."
[3:53:37]
Again, we really need to solve that.
[3:53:42]
- Some consistency for
the classifications.
[3:53:44]
- Exactly.
[3:53:46]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[3:53:46]
And I just want to be clear,
[3:53:48]
they would have to provide
us with some study work.
[3:53:52]
You know, obviously they
can't just come in and say,
[3:53:53]
"I'm a class three."
[3:53:54]
They would have to provide it
from a reputable consultant
[3:53:57]
that we could rely on,
[3:53:58]
just not that they feel
they're class three.
[3:54:01]
- And I think that's
maybe part of the problem.
[3:54:04]
The agenda gets posted
on Thursday publicly.
[3:54:08]
I'm sure that they
would have been notified
[3:54:09]
that something was coming to council,
[3:54:11]
but there's no discussion.
[3:54:14]
They didn't have a discussion.
[3:54:15]
They didn't talk with Ms. Dolch and say,
[3:54:16]
"I'm class this, class that."
[3:54:17]
Then they come to council
that night and said,
[3:54:19]
"No, we're class three."
[3:54:21]
So I think there needs to
be a better process for...
[3:54:23]
And anytime we're near industry,
[3:54:25]
we should make that extra effort
[3:54:27]
to go out to them and have
conversations ahead of time
[3:54:30]
that it's not on the evening of,
[3:54:32]
or like it was with BVGlazing
[3:54:33]
when the owner stood up and said
[3:54:36]
they were class three as well.
[3:54:37]
- I Agree.
[3:54:38]
And Ms. Segney would like to speak.
[3:54:42]
Ms. Segney?
[3:54:43]
Please answer.
[3:54:44]
- Just wanted to add as well that
[3:54:45]
since the January 2026 meeting of council
[3:54:48]
where we had this discussion,
[3:54:50]
we now require applicants to reach out
[3:54:52]
to local industry within a thousand meters
[3:54:56]
to make them aware of a
development application.
[3:54:59]
They are engaged early on
[3:55:00]
both by the applicant and by staff.
[3:55:03]
So that is a process change
we've made since January,
[3:55:06]
and I think that addresses
[3:55:07]
some of the comments that you're making.
[3:55:09]
- That's great. Really good.
[3:55:11]
Really good. Okay.
[3:55:13]
I think we're good.
[3:55:14]
Thank you very much.
[3:55:15]
Yeah. I'm going to come back to the crowd.
[3:55:17]
Okay, so thank you, Oleo guys
for being here, appreciate it.
[3:55:20]
Thank you, Your Worship and council.
[3:55:21]
- All right, thank you. Thank you.
[3:55:24]
Yep. I'm going to go to our clerk.
[3:55:25]
So do we have a list running
or are we to the public?
[3:55:28]
- [Margaret] The list is completed.
[3:55:29]
It's now members of the
public that wish to speak.
[3:55:30]
- Okay, so I've got a gentleman
in the back there, Mr. Pine,
[3:55:37]
and then I've got the lady in front,
[3:55:38]
young lady in front of him.
[3:55:39]
And is there anyone else that
wants to speak tonight too?
[3:55:42]
Okay, another young lady in the back.
[3:55:44]
Where else?
[3:55:45]
All right, we got three speakers.
[3:55:47]
Pardon me?
[3:55:49]
You've got up to five minutes.
[3:55:51]
If you can state your name.
[3:55:52]
- Hi.
- It's on.
[3:55:53]
And your address.
[3:55:54]
- Brad Pine, 4900 St. Clair Avenue.
[3:56:00]
I have two topics.
[3:56:02]
The one is about...
[3:56:05]
- Well-
- It's just on
[3:56:06]
the official plan, right?
[3:56:07]
On the official plan is
the comments are now.
[3:56:10]
- If I'm wrong, you can
correct me and stop me.
[3:56:13]
I issued letters.
[3:56:16]
Just kind of...
[3:56:17]
I think it goes with the official plan.
[3:56:20]
The first one's about
how we deal with garbage.
[3:56:23]
I've been doing some investigative
studies on Queen Street,
[3:56:28]
and I noticed the garbage-
[3:56:30]
- So garbage-
[3:56:30]
- It's supposed to be sorted.
[3:56:32]
- [Jim] Yeah, so that would be
another topic, but not on...
[3:56:35]
Official plan is just about
the zoning discussions
[3:56:39]
for future use of lands.
[3:56:41]
- Okay, so it's just land.
- Just for land.
[3:56:42]
- All right, I should
not be standing here.
[3:56:45]
I apologize.
[3:56:45]
- [Jim] Yeah. No, no, that's fine.
[3:56:47]
Appreciate it.
[3:56:48]
It's a learning process.
[3:56:49]
- But I will say, I hope everyone knows
[3:56:51]
we have such a beautiful city
[3:56:53]
and there's so much potential.
[3:56:55]
And what that woman was saying about
[3:56:58]
the past and how it's been destroyed,
[3:57:00]
that is such a shame.
[3:57:02]
And thank you for
highlighting that, ma'am.
[3:57:05]
If I may say ma'am,
[3:57:06]
'cause sometimes you get
in trouble saying ma'am.
[3:57:10]
What a beautiful city
that we could've had.
[3:57:15]
You were thinking about the wine.
[3:57:17]
- Anyways, have a good evening.
[3:57:19]
Have a good evening.
[3:57:20]
- Thanks, Mr. Pine. Thank you.
[3:57:22]
All right, ma'am, if
you'd like to come forward
[3:57:24]
and state your name and your address,
[3:57:25]
and then you've got up to five minutes.
[3:57:31]
- Good evening, Mr. Mayor and councilors.
[3:57:34]
I wasn't prepared to speak
earlier, but I am now.
[3:57:36]
Donna Soyka and 5601 Green
Avenue here in Niagara Falls.
[3:57:41]
So I wanted to talk about
the posting of this meeting
[3:57:45]
and maybe for them to
proofread when they post.
[3:57:50]
And also the one at the
Gale Center that I attended
[3:57:54]
for the stacked housing.
[3:57:57]
The dates and the days don't match.
[3:58:00]
So, for instance, at the Gale Center,
[3:58:03]
they said it was Wednesday,
June the 18th, the posting
[3:58:09]
where they post on the properties,
[3:58:11]
and it was actually Thursday.
[3:58:13]
And so this meeting posted
said Thursday, July the 28th,
[3:58:18]
and actually it's today.
[3:58:21]
- So, Mr. CAO, would that
be our comms department
[3:58:24]
or is that planning?
[3:58:25]
Yes. Oh, Ms. Dolch?
[3:58:26]
Okay.
[3:58:29]
- And through the Worship to the speaker.
[3:58:31]
And we do apologize for that.
[3:58:33]
We did have the correct
date, but we did note...
[3:58:36]
I know you sent a letter in.
[3:58:37]
Obviously, we didn't notice at the time.
[3:58:39]
And unfortunately, our human
makes mistakes once in a while.
[3:58:43]
My staff are quite busy trying to
[3:58:45]
get this in front of council
as quickly as we can.
[3:58:47]
So we do apologize for that,
[3:58:49]
but thanks for bringing
that to our attention.
[3:58:52]
- I appreciate that,
[3:58:53]
but the dates for the public are important
[3:58:57]
because then we would've missed it.
[3:58:59]
Thank you.
- Absolutely.
[3:59:00]
- Okay. Thank you very much.
[3:59:02]
Thank you.
[3:59:04]
As they say in "The Price
is Right," "Come on down."
[3:59:08]
Oh, yeah.
[3:59:09]
Kailen, you wanted to weigh in as well?
[3:59:11]
Is that to the last speaker,
[3:59:13]
Ms. Soyka?
Yes. I just...
[3:59:14]
- Yes, I just wanted to
add something to that.
[3:59:15]
So my understanding is that
[3:59:17]
the newspaper notice was corrected
[3:59:20]
before it went to print.
[3:59:21]
So that was correct.
[3:59:22]
And then the notice that was
emailed out was incorrect,
[3:59:27]
but that was rectified as soon as
[3:59:30]
we realized that it was incorrect.
[3:59:32]
- Yeah.
- This was also
[3:59:33]
on the lawn signs.
[3:59:35]
- Okay.
[3:59:37]
- Thank you for that. Appreciate it.
[3:59:39]
Come on down.
[3:59:45]
You know the exercise.
- I do.
[3:59:47]
Good evening.
[3:59:48]
My name is Lesley Laan.
[3:59:50]
My address is 5525 Reixinger
Road in Southern Niagara.
[3:59:56]
And I think that's all
you need to know, right?
[3:59:58]
Phone number?
[3:59:59]
- [Jim] No, no, we're good.
[4:00:00]
- Okay.
[4:00:01]
It's on the bathroom.
No, I'm just kidding.
[4:00:04]
Anyway, I want to first
say that I think this,
[4:00:09]
in reading this official plan,
[4:00:11]
I think all of the people involved
[4:00:14]
have done an amazing job on
[4:00:16]
finding that balance that
you were speaking of earlier.
[4:00:22]
We do realize we have to go forward
[4:00:24]
and develop to a certain extent.
[4:00:27]
And that is how a city progresses.
[4:00:30]
I think in looking at
[4:00:35]
the guidelines that have
been developed by this plan,
[4:00:38]
I think it's a very positive move forward
[4:00:41]
in the direction that they're trying to go
[4:00:43]
to try and balance the development
[4:00:45]
with the natural heritage,
the economic development,
[4:00:49]
our transport, all of those things.
[4:00:52]
And I think this plan has done
a really good job with that.
[4:00:56]
I would like to maybe suggest
[4:01:00]
in the economic development part,
[4:01:02]
I was very, very happy
[4:01:04]
to see the ecotourism component of that,
[4:01:07]
and I think that has some
really positive direction
[4:01:13]
or a really positive
direction to take that.
[4:01:16]
We are surrounded by water.
[4:01:21]
We've got some amazing existing parks,
[4:01:23]
but I think we have to look outside
[4:01:26]
that green strip along the river
[4:01:28]
for more of those
ecotourism opportunities.
[4:01:31]
And I think that can also
bring some job development
[4:01:34]
to the area as well.
[4:01:36]
Industry, there's so many
[4:01:41]
green industries that are
[4:01:46]
coming to the forefront around building,
[4:01:50]
and we are building.
[4:01:51]
Niagara is targeted basically as
[4:01:54]
one of the largest areas to expand
[4:01:56]
for building in our future.
[4:01:58]
And I think the environmental aspect
[4:02:01]
and the development aspect can be combined
[4:02:05]
if the will is there.
[4:02:06]
And I think that's a big part of it.
[4:02:10]
Mayor Jim, you said
previously about buyer beware.
[4:02:17]
Okay.
[4:02:18]
I think a lot of the...
[4:02:19]
I think that not only has
to apply to homeowners,
[4:02:23]
but I think that also has
to apply to our speculators
[4:02:28]
who are purchasing land
in the area to develop.
[4:02:32]
We have these natural
heritage and green spaces,
[4:02:37]
and I think they have to
be more than aware of that
[4:02:41]
when they purchase.
[4:02:43]
And not only taking into consideration
[4:02:46]
that it's something they
can apply to have removed
[4:02:50]
or reduced buffers or
whatever in the future.
[4:02:54]
That requires a visionary shift
[4:02:59]
away from the way development
has traditionally happened,
[4:03:04]
possibly changing the paradigm
of what we would like to see
[4:03:08]
as a community and as a municipality
[4:03:10]
to see how we would like to
see development moving forward.
[4:03:14]
We've seen some really
wonderful designs come down.
[4:03:20]
I keep referring back to,
[4:03:21]
I believe it was
[4:03:25]
one of the Rodan families,
[4:03:27]
had an amazing development
for a tall tourist hotel.
[4:03:35]
- On Portage Road.
- Yeah.
[4:03:37]
And it encompassed so many positive
[4:03:42]
green and eco forward-thinking ideas.
[4:03:46]
Again, will we ever see it? Possibly not.
[4:03:49]
But the ideas are there and
we're starting to see them.
[4:03:53]
And if somehow we can get
it from just seeing them
[4:03:57]
to actually building them.
[4:03:59]
And that takes policy change.
[4:04:02]
And it takes, again, the will.
[4:04:06]
And we also have to...
[4:04:12]
I've sat in council for
a lot of years watching.
[4:04:15]
And I see a lot of concessions made
[4:04:23]
that maybe could have been
revisited and possibly not.
[4:04:35]
Again, I'm an eco person.
[4:04:37]
I'm an environmental person,
[4:04:39]
but I also know that
development has to happen.
[4:04:42]
And I think the two can mesh really well.
[4:04:47]
I love the five-to-one. That's amazing.
[4:04:50]
The three-to-one, the
five-to-one tree thing.
[4:04:52]
I think something to go forward to that,
[4:04:56]
that is only applicable
to the urban lands.
[4:04:59]
Is that correct?
[4:05:00]
The public urban lands?
[4:05:01]
- [Jim] Ms. Dolch?
[4:05:03]
- Or does that also include
[4:05:04]
private property owners removing trees?
[4:05:08]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[4:05:08]
It does include private
property owners with trees.
[4:05:11]
And again, our preference though
[4:05:12]
is so if you don't retain it on site,
[4:05:14]
you can offset it offsite as well,
[4:05:16]
but it's at the five-to-one.
[4:05:18]
And then we do have
areas that we identified
[4:05:21]
where we think it's appropriate
[4:05:22]
because we want to make sure
it's there for the long term
[4:05:25]
outside the boundary rather
than inside in certain instances
[4:05:28]
because, again, if it's
inside, most likely
[4:05:31]
same thing will happen once
that canopy goes again.
[4:05:34]
- Now, are we moving that...
[4:05:38]
Are we moving that forward
to a private tree bylaw?
[4:05:40]
Because right now our, we don't
have a private tree bylaw.
[4:05:44]
It's kind of controlled by the
region, if I'm not mistaken,
[4:05:48]
beyond a certain point.
[4:05:49]
And I think since there is such
[4:05:56]
upheaval right now, shall we say,
[4:05:58]
around the region and where it's going,
[4:06:00]
then I think, as a community,
[4:06:01]
we need our own private tree bylaw.
[4:06:04]
We can't rely on someone
else to be enforcing things
[4:06:07]
that affect us directly.
[4:06:12]
Within that, and again,
within those natural corridors
[4:06:15]
and the buffers that we
apply to the natural heritage
[4:06:21]
the provincially significant wetlands,
[4:06:23]
those provincially significant woodlands,
[4:06:28]
I feel that...
[4:06:32]
I think those have to be not
only observed, but enhanced.
[4:06:37]
You yourself have reiterated that
[4:06:42]
the provincial policy are guidelines.
[4:06:46]
And those are the minimum standards
[4:06:48]
that we should be striving for.
[4:06:51]
I don't think it's unreasonable
to not just encourage,
[4:06:58]
but possibly create policies that mandate
[4:07:03]
certain minimums for our own standards,
[4:07:07]
not necessarily the provincial standards.
[4:07:10]
That's just a thought
on my behalf because,
[4:07:13]
again, if I was having brain surgery,
[4:07:15]
I wouldn't want the guy who
only got 50% doing it, okay?
[4:07:18]
I'd want the person who got 90% doing it.
[4:07:21]
So if you apply that to
our natural heritage,
[4:07:26]
I think that's a positive for everybody
[4:07:30]
because those natural heritage spaces
[4:07:34]
are also our climate change mitigation
[4:07:40]
tools that we have.
[4:07:42]
And they're free right now.
[4:07:44]
And I watched videos from
Niagara on the lake this morning,
[4:07:50]
and they were just horrendously flooded.
[4:07:54]
Okay?
[4:07:56]
And they have one of our more
[4:08:00]
absorbent and porous
soil types down there.
[4:08:05]
That's why the farmland
is so good down there.
[4:08:07]
It usually absorbs and runs off.
[4:08:13]
Here in Niagara, we are
above the escarpment.
[4:08:15]
We're between two...
[4:08:17]
Well, we're between Lake Erie.
[4:08:19]
And between Lake Erie and
the brink of the falls,
[4:08:22]
there is a 10-meter elevation change.
[4:08:27]
Okay?
[4:08:28]
All that water moves
through our whole region.
[4:08:33]
But specifically, a
lot of it moves through
[4:08:36]
Niagara, Port Colborne,
Welland, those southern areas.
[4:08:41]
And the river, yes, it accommodates
a certain amount of it,
[4:08:45]
but water just goes where water will go.
[4:08:48]
It goes through the Wainfleet Marsh,
[4:08:50]
the Wainfleet Bog, the Willoughby Marsh.
[4:08:53]
And I think we have to remember
[4:08:58]
that a lot of our community drains
[4:09:02]
start in those places.
[4:09:05]
And if they are overwhelmed,
[4:09:07]
then everything downhill
will be overwhelmed as well.
[4:09:11]
And I think trying to
contain it in diameter,
[4:09:20]
like culverts and things of a diameter
[4:09:23]
that are based on past extreme events,
[4:09:31]
that doesn't cut it anymore
[4:09:32]
'cause we're entering new
extreme events all the time.
[4:09:36]
And I think moving forward,
[4:09:38]
I don't know if this is a,
[4:09:40]
I'm not an engineer,
[4:09:41]
but, to me, maybe overbuild
[4:09:46]
going into the future
instead of relying on
[4:09:48]
what's worked in the past.
[4:09:50]
So, anyhow, thank you for your time,
[4:09:52]
and I appreciate all the
work that everyone's done.
[4:09:56]
And we'll just keep planting more trees.
[4:10:00]
- Thanks, Leslie. Thank you.
[4:10:01]
Councilor Lococo.
[4:10:03]
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[4:10:04]
Two comments to what Ms. Laan said.
[4:10:07]
I wholeheartedly agree
regarding the tree bylaw.
[4:10:10]
And she also spoke about ecotourism.
[4:10:14]
A while ago I was speaking with
[4:10:15]
the Niagara Falls Hotel Association
[4:10:18]
and Niagara Falls Tourism
[4:10:19]
about looking at ecotourism,
[4:10:21]
the UNESCO designation.
[4:10:23]
In the official plan,
[4:10:24]
it talks about that the Niagara escarpment
[4:10:25]
is a UNESCO world biosphere reserve.
[4:10:29]
If you move towards a UNESCO designation,
[4:10:32]
you open up the tourist possibilities
[4:10:36]
for people to come here
[4:10:37]
for a completely different experience than
[4:10:40]
they might not have come here before.
[4:10:42]
So I'd like to revisit that
[4:10:44]
maybe at another time
about looking at UNESCO,
[4:10:46]
but ecotourism is in the official plan.
[4:10:49]
So I'd like to look at that,
[4:10:51]
revisit that conversation later.
[4:10:53]
Thank you.
- Thank you.
[4:10:55]
Okay.
[4:10:57]
There was a motion.
[4:10:59]
Oh, did you want to speak, Aras?
[4:11:01]
Okay, I had your name
crossed off the list.
[4:11:03]
Okay.
[4:11:04]
Yeah, if you want to introduce
yourself and your address.
[4:11:07]
- Yes. Aras Reisi,
resident of Niagara Falls.
[4:11:10]
As this council knows,
[4:11:11]
I'll come to all the council
meetings, sit here in person.
[4:11:13]
So some of the comments
that I want to mention is
[4:11:15]
based on things that I
heard from my neighbors
[4:11:18]
with fellow citizens of the city,
[4:11:20]
a lot of things has been discussed,
[4:11:22]
so I'm not just going
to skip through them,
[4:11:25]
but given that this is
a commenting period,
[4:11:26]
I just want to mention that
[4:11:28]
one of the issues that
I want to talk about
[4:11:29]
is the encroachment on industrial lands,
[4:11:33]
which has been already discussed.
[4:11:35]
I just want to mention that,
[4:11:36]
in addition, BVGlazing was mentioned,
[4:11:38]
Oleo was mentioned,
Washington Mill was mentioned,
[4:11:40]
but PALFINGER.
[4:11:41]
That was the issue with them as well.
[4:11:45]
One thing I've noticed is that
[4:11:46]
the problem arises when we
absolutely need housing.
[4:11:49]
It's a crisis, cost of
housing significantly high,
[4:11:53]
but we need new housing.
[4:11:54]
But the problem is that
with the development
[4:11:56]
goes in neighborhood that
doesn't match with it.
[4:11:58]
And I appreciate it.
[4:11:59]
I want to thank the staff and consultant.
[4:12:01]
They've done an amazing job.
[4:12:02]
And I'm so happy to hear the
comment that's been made about
[4:12:05]
protecting other industrial jobs
[4:12:07]
because we need the jobs to be able to
[4:12:09]
buy the homes as Councilor Patel said.
[4:12:12]
I am very interested about
this whole mixed-use 1 and 2
[4:12:15]
and existing neighborhood.
[4:12:17]
But my question is,
[4:12:19]
so you discussed about
how we are protecting
[4:12:21]
the industrial zone, which, again,
[4:12:23]
I want to make a comment
that I support that motion,
[4:12:25]
that idea.
[4:12:26]
But what happens is that moving forward,
[4:12:30]
given that we have a
beautiful new master plan,
[4:12:33]
are we trying to make
things next to each other
[4:12:35]
so we don't have a high-rise
[4:12:37]
all of a sudden goes to
a small neighborhood?
[4:12:39]
I understand perhaps that
based on the planning,
[4:12:44]
we could not prevent the
applicants to come forward
[4:12:46]
saying that, "I want
to build this high-rise
[4:12:48]
in the middle of a small,
single-story households,"
[4:12:51]
but at least I believe
from the perspective of
[4:12:54]
good urban planning,
[4:12:55]
we need to put things next to each other.
[4:12:57]
So if you have those
corridors has been identified,
[4:13:00]
so if you could have those
high-rises on those corridors,
[4:13:03]
this means that the residents
[4:13:04]
will get a frequent public transport.
[4:13:07]
You don't need a car.
[4:13:08]
And so my question is that
[4:13:11]
not going to industrial use,
[4:13:14]
but how are we going...
[4:13:17]
If we have this new master plan,
[4:13:19]
are we going to see less of friction
[4:13:22]
that major high-rises
go next to industrial
[4:13:25]
or next to a single story?
[4:13:27]
What protection do we have?
[4:13:29]
- [Jim] Well, we'll go to
Ms. Dolch for this one.
[4:13:31]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[4:13:32]
And I may refer to the
consultants as well.
[4:13:34]
So I'll just go to Mr. Palmer first.
[4:13:39]
- Perfect.
- Because it's my
[4:13:40]
favorite part of...
[4:13:43]
Through you, Mr. Mayor.
[4:13:44]
I go back to chapter four.
[4:13:47]
And absolutely correct,
[4:13:50]
the tension where build form
heights mostly abut each other.
[4:14:00]
Been doing this for a really long time,
[4:14:03]
and there's policies in
this plan in section 4.3.2.
[4:14:07]
Compatibility transition requirements
[4:14:10]
based on the land use designation.
[4:14:12]
There's a requirement for the higher,
[4:14:15]
the designation that permits
the highest building types
[4:14:21]
has to consider the appropriate transition
[4:14:24]
down to the adjacent low-rise development.
[4:14:28]
That means that while
there are maximum heights
[4:14:33]
identified in this official plan
[4:14:35]
for various land use designations,
[4:14:37]
they cannot achieve them
[4:14:40]
until they've dealt with
compatibility and transition.
[4:14:45]
That will be implemented through
[4:14:47]
subsequent zoning approvals.
[4:14:50]
So quite on a deep lot, you could have
[4:14:54]
an 18-story building
that steps its way down
[4:14:58]
to a three story building,
[4:15:00]
adjacent to a three story building.
[4:15:02]
You can have more distance separation.
[4:15:04]
There's many, many, many ways to detail
[4:15:08]
and articulate an appropriate transition
[4:15:12]
between two land use designations.
[4:15:14]
And that's the intent of this
section of the official plan.
[4:15:18]
It applies everywhere
to every development.
[4:15:23]
So it's a very important part of the plan,
[4:15:27]
and it's been thought about for 42 years.
[4:15:31]
- [Jim] 4.3.2.
[4:15:33]
Yes. Got it.
[4:15:35]
Okay.
- Thank you.
[4:15:36]
- Aras?
[4:15:37]
- Okay, thanks for that.
[4:15:38]
And just very brief comment
about, that's been mentioned.
[4:15:41]
Developers, they can go around,
[4:15:42]
shop around to whatever
consultant they want.
[4:15:45]
They can go five.
[4:15:46]
Four of them say, "No, this
is level three or level..."
[4:15:49]
And then the moment they
find the one that they want,
[4:15:52]
and they come to us with
presenting whatever they want.
[4:15:54]
Just want to mention that
[4:15:55]
because the comment has been,
[4:15:57]
"How do we know?
[4:15:58]
Are the Oleo's plan or the applicants?"
[4:16:00]
Well, applicants, they go shop around.
[4:16:03]
The other issue that I want to come here,
[4:16:04]
give my issue that echo what
our CAO said about up zoning.
[4:16:08]
The problem that we have in this city,
[4:16:09]
and I appreciate the position of the staff
[4:16:12]
and yourself, Your Worship,
about the sunset clauses.
[4:16:14]
I want to defend that sunset clause.
[4:16:16]
One of the people was asking for it.
[4:16:17]
It was me behind the scene.
[4:16:19]
We have out-of-town investors
[4:16:21]
and sometimes in-city investors.
[4:16:23]
They buy a land, dilapidated land,
[4:16:26]
and they come with the application.
[4:16:28]
They hire the best lawyer in town.
[4:16:30]
And they would come here.
[4:16:31]
They're building 70-story,
50-story, multiple towers.
[4:16:35]
At time before even they come here,
[4:16:37]
they have a huge PR firm advertising.
[4:16:40]
They have no intention of getting built.
[4:16:42]
All they are doing, upzoning
it, creating a speculation
[4:16:46]
so that they can go to bank
[4:16:47]
and say that the property
that I built for $1 million,
[4:16:50]
now it's worth $10 million.
[4:16:51]
Securing loan against
it to go build in GTA,
[4:16:54]
and they say, "Look, we
are legitimate builders.
[4:16:56]
We are building in GTA."
[4:16:57]
But what happens is that
[4:16:58]
that trickling the cost of
those up-zoned speculations
[4:17:03]
goes then to all the
youth of Niagara Falls
[4:17:06]
who are struggling to buy housing.
[4:17:08]
So I want to commend you.
[4:17:09]
I want to put that...
[4:17:11]
I really appreciate that sunset clause.
[4:17:13]
I hope the city will defend it vigorously.
[4:17:15]
My other question would be that
[4:17:18]
if we are having a brand
new slate of official plan,
[4:17:24]
what could we do to fight back
against this speculations?
[4:17:30]
And what can we so that we
don't get the situations
[4:17:34]
that we have upzoning, that speculation?
[4:17:39]
Could we go back and use
those use it and reuse it,
[4:17:42]
or minister passed a law that says,
[4:17:45]
if you don't use it, use
your site servicing plan?
[4:17:47]
What could we do other than sunset clause?
[4:17:50]
Should I defend it?
[4:17:51]
To fight against this upzoning
[4:17:52]
because it's really hurt our,
[4:17:54]
especially next generation of
home buyers of the our city.
[4:17:58]
- So Ms. Dolch, other than
sunset clauses, what else?
[4:18:03]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[4:18:04]
- Look, so you got some
backup support here.
[4:18:08]
Mr. Palmer.
[4:18:10]
We're 3.2.
[4:18:12]
- I like the sunset approach.
[4:18:15]
It used to be in the Planning Act.
[4:18:17]
- [Jim] Oh, it was?
[4:18:18]
- Many, many, many, many years ago.
[4:18:20]
And it was removed.
[4:18:22]
- It was what?
- It was removed
[4:18:24]
from the Planning Act.
[4:18:26]
That doesn't mean you should
not take your lawyer's advice
[4:18:30]
and try to do it specifically for zoning.
[4:18:34]
Obviously, there's
opportunities for sunsetting
[4:18:37]
through draft plans subdivision
[4:18:39]
and not renewing the draft plan approval.
[4:18:42]
But also another powerful tool
[4:18:44]
is the infrastructure allocation protocol.
[4:18:49]
You absolutely can sunset an allocation,
[4:18:55]
and it's outside of this official plan,
[4:18:56]
and it's outside of the Planning Act.
[4:18:58]
It's not subject to appeal.
[4:18:59]
I would suggest that the city
[4:19:03]
establish a allocation protocol
[4:19:06]
for various forms of
infrastructure, sewer, water, road,
[4:19:10]
that considers removing an allocation
[4:19:14]
so that it's not held up
and can be reallocated
[4:19:18]
based on someone who's ready to build.
[4:19:21]
So you have the three approaches,
[4:19:23]
draft plans, zoning,
and allocation protocol.
[4:19:27]
All of them should be brought to bear
[4:19:29]
on the issue of making
sure development happens.
[4:19:34]
Because I've worked across Ontario.
[4:19:36]
It's an issue everywhere
[4:19:38]
where somebody gets an approval
[4:19:40]
and an allocation and sits on it.
[4:19:44]
And it basically freezes
development elsewhere
[4:19:47]
on the basis of those approvals.
[4:19:50]
So it's a really important
principle to get through.
[4:19:55]
And I hope that it is successful
in this official plan.
[4:19:58]
- [Jim] And the three were
zoning, allocation, and?
[4:20:02]
- Draft plan.
[4:20:03]
- Draft plan, okay.
[4:20:04]
That's good.
[4:20:05]
I know our staff are all listening to that
[4:20:08]
to strengthen our sunset positioning.
[4:20:10]
That's great.
[4:20:11]
- Yeah, and sunset's what
it's typically called.
[4:20:14]
- Yeah.
- Call it whatever you want,
[4:20:15]
but-
- I didn't know
[4:20:16]
it used to be in the Planning Act though.
[4:20:17]
- Yeah, many, many, many, many, many.
[4:20:19]
- Before 4.3.2 or after?
[4:20:21]
- Yes.
[4:20:22]
Well before. Well before.
- Okay.
[4:20:25]
Just want to show I'm paying attention.
[4:20:29]
- Just want to finish and say that
[4:20:30]
I have no objection from this
application gets renewed,
[4:20:34]
director of planning or even the council.
[4:20:36]
If they're truly
legitimately showing that,
[4:20:38]
look, I'm working with
it, the market is bad.
[4:20:40]
Sure, let's renew it.
[4:20:41]
Let's renew it.
[4:20:42]
But the fact that they sit
on them and secure financing,
[4:20:46]
they have no intention of getting built.
[4:20:48]
You're not going to build
77-story in a half an acre.
[4:20:51]
No way.
[4:20:52]
It's just the financing.
[4:20:53]
And also, I just want to add that
[4:20:55]
the other downside of that is that
[4:20:56]
when we have, I don't know, 12
major hotels being approved.
[4:21:01]
If they're truly a legitimate builder
[4:21:03]
who really wants to build it,
[4:21:04]
if they see their 12 approval on a plan,
[4:21:07]
they would never come
spending billion dollars
[4:21:09]
because what should...
[4:21:10]
They don't know.
[4:21:11]
If they start building, and
the rest of them, they come up,
[4:21:15]
they lose money.
[4:21:16]
So I think it's very important for us,
[4:21:17]
not just for the youth,
[4:21:18]
not the fact that this is going
to impact the housing market.
[4:21:21]
It's just to say that, you know what,
[4:21:23]
if you cannot build it,
we're going to take it away,
[4:21:26]
blank a slate to someone else.
[4:21:28]
And now with that being said,
[4:21:30]
I want to thank the
staff and the consultant
[4:21:32]
for really engaging the community.
[4:21:34]
And I know it's not easy
to make everybody happy,
[4:21:37]
but I think if we all get
a little bit something
[4:21:39]
and manage to compromise and
recognizing the rest of us
[4:21:43]
might have different perspective,
[4:21:45]
I guess we will have a beautiful city.
[4:21:47]
Thank you very much.
[4:21:47]
- Thanks, Aras.
[4:21:48]
Thank you very much.
[4:21:50]
Is there anyone else?
[4:21:51]
I'm afraid to ask.
[4:21:52]
Okay. There's none.
[4:21:53]
Okay.
[4:21:54]
Before anyone else steps up,
[4:21:55]
thank you for everyone's
efforts, time, and input,
[4:21:59]
and 4.3.2.
[4:22:01]
And now I'm looking,
[4:22:04]
the meeting for the official
plan is now concluded.
[4:22:07]
So I'm looking for motion, two parts,
[4:22:09]
one that we receive the information,
[4:22:11]
and two, direct staff to consider
[4:22:13]
the comments received at this meeting,
[4:22:16]
the open house, this public meeting,
[4:22:18]
and in the final draft of our
Niagara Falls Official Plan.
[4:22:21]
Motion by Councilor Kerrio,
second by Councilor Nieuwesteeg.
[4:22:24]
Any discussion to the motion?
[4:22:26]
Councilor Lococo?
[4:22:27]
- Not necessarily to the
motion, I'll vote for it.
[4:22:29]
I just had a couple of
final comments or questions.
[4:22:32]
- Okay.
- If that's okay.
[4:22:33]
Well, not questions now, just comments,
[4:22:34]
because we've already done the questions.
[4:22:36]
- Yep.
- Yeah.
[4:22:41]
- In the official plan, it
talks about vacancy rate,
[4:22:45]
looking at the vacancy
rate over three years
[4:22:49]
and it needs to be 3%.
[4:22:50]
I do have a concern.
[4:22:52]
I know it's a CMHC guideline
for the vacancy rate,
[4:22:56]
but what I've been hearing
from a lot of landlords
[4:22:58]
here in Niagara Falls is that
[4:22:59]
they don't want to rent
to long-term tenants.
[4:23:02]
They would rather leave
their building vacant.
[4:23:05]
And I'm afraid if the vacancy rate
[4:23:08]
is applied to a vacation rental unit,
[4:23:11]
whether another one can be added
[4:23:14]
or if it's going to be
removed, that's my concern.
[4:23:19]
So I don't know linking the vacancy rate
[4:23:21]
to adding more VRUs is,
[4:23:27]
if it's going to be accurate,
[4:23:28]
because I don't think the
vacancy rate is accurate.
[4:23:31]
And I know CMHC does it,
[4:23:33]
so I don't quite know how we would.
[4:23:35]
- [Jim] I don't know
who would address this.
[4:23:38]
Ms. Dolch?
[4:23:39]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[4:23:40]
So the policies in the plan about these,
[4:23:46]
about the vacancy rate and
the vacation rental units,
[4:23:49]
we want to make sure there's
some kind of standard.
[4:23:52]
And if we don't use the vacancy rate,
[4:23:55]
the question is, what do we use?
[4:23:57]
And the vacancy rate is the only tool
[4:23:59]
that we have at this point in time
[4:24:01]
to determine whether or
not we should start to
[4:24:05]
allow these things to happen.
[4:24:09]
There's other provisions in there also,
[4:24:12]
but I think we need to make
sure we have some kind of basis.
[4:24:18]
If I take that out, there is no basis.
[4:24:21]
Vacancy rate can be 1%,
[4:24:23]
and they could come forward
and just meet the other policy.
[4:24:26]
So we want to make sure that they have
[4:24:28]
at least the minimum based on
that information from CMHC.
[4:24:34]
In terms of those residents
[4:24:35]
that may not rent it but have it,
[4:24:37]
we can't help that we
don't know who they are.
[4:24:39]
All we have is the information that we get
[4:24:42]
from CMHC at this point.
[4:24:43]
- Okay. Thank you.
[4:24:45]
I just have a concern about it,
[4:24:46]
and I don't know how
that's going to work out.
[4:24:47]
Okay.
[4:24:49]
We also talk about the
mineral aggregate resources
[4:24:52]
and there's a map of the resources.
[4:24:55]
I'm glad to see the map there,
[4:24:57]
and I spoke with Ms. Dolch about this.
[4:24:59]
There's resources all mapped out.
[4:25:01]
We know that they're there,
[4:25:03]
and I link this to Fernwood.
[4:25:04]
We knew that the resources were there,
[4:25:06]
but yet we built that anyway.
[4:25:08]
So when we're looking at this map,
[4:25:10]
I want to make sure that
we're extra diligent
[4:25:12]
that we're not building homes in an area
[4:25:15]
that there would be mineral extraction.
[4:25:17]
So I'm really glad to see that map there.
[4:25:24]
This was interesting.
[4:25:25]
So when I was reading this
about Queen Victoria Park,
[4:25:28]
and I know, Mr. Mayor, you brought up
[4:25:29]
saying that we weren't responsible.
[4:25:31]
There were things in here that I read
[4:25:34]
that I did feel responsible for.
[4:25:35]
I know that technically
[4:25:37]
we're not responsible to do anything,
[4:25:38]
but some of the wording that was in here
[4:25:40]
about Queen Victoria Park
[4:25:42]
to protection of the escarpment
[4:25:45]
and separating Queen Victoria Park
[4:25:47]
is significant natural features.
[4:25:49]
Establishing plans for
future harmony development
[4:25:52]
within and adjacent to the park
[4:25:54]
provide support for new
development within the park
[4:25:57]
on non-intrusive facilities
[4:25:59]
which interpret and/or
enhance the falls experience.
[4:26:03]
New buildings and
structures should complement
[4:26:06]
and not detract from open space
viewing, function, and park.
[4:26:09]
So when I read that, I asked Ms. Dolch,
[4:26:11]
was this added in after
[4:26:13]
the discussion about Queen Victoria Park?
[4:26:14]
And she said, "No, it's
been in the official plan."
[4:26:16]
So I found it interesting,
[4:26:18]
but I do feel responsible
that we could work
[4:26:20]
with the Niagara Parks Commission
to have those discussions.
[4:26:23]
So that was just a comment
that I wanted to state.
[4:26:27]
And then going back to
that environmental overlay,
[4:26:32]
we've talked about the other woodlands
[4:26:34]
and the other wetlands.
[4:26:35]
And I'm really happy that they're there.
[4:26:37]
I think we do need to protect it.
[4:26:39]
I want more to protect more.
[4:26:41]
I just don't want the minimum.
[4:26:43]
So that's great.
[4:26:43]
We're protecting our environment,
[4:26:45]
and those are all my comments.
[4:26:46]
Thank you.
- Thank you, Councilor.
[4:26:48]
Yes, Councilor Patel.
[4:26:51]
- I just have one comment.
[4:26:52]
Is it possible for us to see
[4:26:54]
the progress that has made
in a city over the years?
[4:26:57]
I'm sure official plan,
when the map comes out...
[4:27:00]
- Progress.
- Because I'm sure,
[4:27:01]
20 years ago, there were
lots more trees in the city,
[4:27:04]
then residents happen,
[4:27:05]
and maybe, 100 years ago,
there were trees everywhere,
[4:27:07]
and then even city hall
happened the same place.
[4:27:11]
Is there some way for us to see it,
[4:27:13]
the progress of the city?
[4:27:14]
- I'm sure we're planning.
[4:27:15]
Is that a yes. Ms. Dolch?
[4:27:19]
- Thank you, Your Worship.
[4:27:20]
So there's a couple resources there
[4:27:22]
in terms of tree canopy and
the changes over the years.
[4:27:25]
Obviously, there's air photos going back.
[4:27:27]
We have air photos across the whole city.
[4:27:29]
But in terms of progress,
[4:27:32]
and I'm going to take it more from
[4:27:33]
a development perspective too.
[4:27:35]
We are looking at, in planning,
[4:27:37]
showing all the things that have happened
[4:27:40]
and all the approvals and the
things that have been built.
[4:27:43]
So we're going to have kind
of a showcase coming out.
[4:27:46]
It's going to be definitely
after August 11th,
[4:27:48]
but we are working on that to kind of show
[4:27:52]
what you saw at council
[4:27:54]
and what was built kind of display.
[4:27:57]
So we are working on that.
[4:27:58]
But again, the tree canopy,
[4:28:00]
I know Mr. Nickel's group has done
[4:28:02]
quite a bit of work on the tree canopy,
[4:28:04]
but you can see from
the air photos progress
[4:28:07]
and something that will continue
to be monitored as we go.
[4:28:12]
- Okay. Thank you.
[4:28:13]
So what I'd like to do now.
[4:28:14]
So we call the vote first.
[4:28:15]
All those in favor?
[4:28:17]
Okay, unanimous.
[4:28:18]
And then Madam Clerk, you've
got a motion to bring forward
[4:28:22]
that Councilor Pietrangelo suggested.
[4:28:25]
- Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through you.
[4:28:29]
Earlier this afternoon, evening,
[4:28:32]
Councilor Pietrangelo had requested that
[4:28:35]
the opportunity to have further education
[4:28:39]
provided by staff and consultants.
[4:28:41]
And as such,
[4:28:44]
because we haven't put
it yet onto the agenda,
[4:28:47]
my recommendations as
the clerk would be that
[4:28:50]
we do first proceed with a pass of the...
[4:28:55]
Sorry, a motion to-
[4:28:57]
- Waive.
- Thank you.
[4:28:59]
I'm sorry.
[4:29:00]
To waive the procedure bylaw.
[4:29:01]
We'll need a two thirds majority.
[4:29:02]
And then from there, I have scribed
[4:29:05]
the resolution to go in camera.
[4:29:07]
And then that way, it's
the August the 4th meeting,
[4:29:10]
we can just proceed as directed.
[4:29:13]
- Okay, so I need a motion.
[4:29:14]
Motion by Councilor Pietrangelo,
[4:29:15]
second by Councilor Nieuwesteeg
[4:29:16]
to waive the procedural bylaw.
[4:29:18]
All those in favor.
[4:29:19]
Okay, it's unanimous.
[4:29:20]
- To move the resolution.
[4:29:22]
- A motion by Councilor Pietrangelo,
[4:29:23]
second by Councilor Nieuwesteeg,
[4:29:24]
that we make a motion
[4:29:26]
to have a special
information council meeting
[4:29:29]
on the 4th of August.
[4:29:32]
- [Margaret] To commence at two o'clock.
[4:29:33]
- To commence at two o'clock.
[4:29:34]
- [Margaret] Yes. Thank you.
[4:29:35]
- Okay. We'll call that vote.
[4:29:36]
All those in favor?
[4:29:37]
That's unanimous.
[4:29:38]
- Thank you.
- Now the bylaws?
[4:29:39]
- [Margaret] Yes, correct.
[4:29:41]
First, second, third.
- First, second, third.
[4:29:42]
- Councilor Pietrangelo makes a motion
[4:29:44]
to give the bylaws the first,
second, and third reading,
[4:29:45]
seconded by Councilor Strange.
[4:29:48]
All those in favor?
[4:29:50]
Okay.
[4:29:51]
(Jim laughs)
[4:29:53]
The Oleo guys are happy.
[4:29:54]
"Let's get out of here."
[4:29:55]
Some other time.
[4:29:57]
What else? Is there anything else?
[4:29:59]
- [Margaret] Adjournment, please.
[4:30:00]
- Motion for adjournment.
[4:30:00]
Councilor Kerrio. (laughs)
[4:30:01]
I've never seen your hand move so fast.
[4:30:03]
Second by Councilor Baldinelli.
[4:30:05]
All those in favor?
[4:30:06]
We are concluded.
[4:30:08]
Thank you, everybody.
[4:30:09]
Thank you to our consultants.
[4:30:12]
4.3.2.
[4:30:13]
Thank you to Oleo sticking
it out to the end.