[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.