Loading...
1990-05-07_Minutes 82-368 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 At a meeting of the Common Council, held at the City Hall in the City of Saint John, on Monday, the seventh day of May, AD. 1990, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. present Elsie E. Wayne, Mayor Councillors Coughlan, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Gould, Knibb, Landers, Rogers and A Vincent - and - Messrs. G. Taylor, City Manager; F. Rodgers, City Solicitor; D. Wilson, Commissioner of Finance; C. Robichaud, Assistant City Manager - Operations; J. Brown, Assistant City Manager- Development; P. Groody, Commissioner of Human Resources; J. C. MacKinnon, Commissioner of Environment and Infrastructure Services; S. Bedford, Director of Community Planning; S. Armstrong, Director of Engineering; S. Galbraith, Director of Supply and Services; R. Adams, Housing and Property Management; M. Hanlon, Purchasing Agent; R. McDevitt, Fire Chief; G. Tait, Deputy Fire Chief; A Bodechon, Assistant Deputy Chief of Police; Mrs. M. Munford, Common Clerk; and Ms. C. Joyce, Assistant Common Clerk. Her Worship the Mayor offered the opening prayer. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on April 30, 1990, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Her Worship the Mayor proclaimed May 8 to be Arbour Day in the City of Saint John, and welcomed to the Council Chamber members of the 8th Courtenay St. James Scout Troop to whom she briefly explained the Council meeting procedure to assist them in their efforts to earn their citizenship badges. The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to a proposed Municipal Plan amendment to redesignate on Schedule 9-A, from Stage One to Unstaged classification, a 5.5 acre parcel of land located at 881 Sand Cove Road (L.R.I.S. Number 395756), with frontage on Sand Cove Road and Keans Road, for the reason that the Municipal Plan requires most development in the Stage One area to be serviced with central water and sewer services and the proposed amendment to redesignate the property Unstaged will permit the subdivision of the property into 5 lots which will have individual on-site sewage disposal facilities, as requested by Dr. P. W. Chase Professional Corporation, and that no written objections were received in this regard, with a letter and petition in support of the proposal, and a letter from the solicitor for the applicant having been received. Consideration was also given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of the Planning staff report considered by the Committee at its April 17 meeting at which Mr. B. Mosher, the solicitor for the applicant, reviewed the past events which led up to the submission of the application, and Mr. George Richardson represented the residents and spoke in support of the application; advising that, although questions were raised on the accuracy of the staff report with respect to the input from the Department of Health, the Committee examined the original correspondence from all those who provided input and was satisfied with the accuracy of the staff report; and recommending that Common Council deny the application to amend the Municipal Development Plan with respect to 881 Sand Cove Road. Mr. Brian Mosher, solicitor for Dr. P. W. Chase Professional Corporation, appeared in support of the above-proposed amendment and, having reviewed the 82-369 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 applicant's efforts in 1989 to subdivide the subject property and the City and residents' concerns in this regard, noted that on December 18, 1989, at his request on behalf of Dr. Chase, Council tabled the matter. Mr. Mosher expressed the opinion that the developer has done all he can to accommodate all concerned and still maintain the business sense of his proposal and suggested that, as subsection 9.1.2 of section 1 O( c) of the Municipal Development Plan clearly allows on-site services for a subdivision with less than 6 lots where in the opinion of the Planning Advisory Committee and the Commissioner of Engineering and Works the extension of central water and/or sewerage service is not feasible, the operative words are whether or not such service is feasible; therefore, the discretion exists and can be exercised to put the services in as the lots adjacent to the proposed subdivision are serviced in this manner and the approval, of what is in essence for four lots because there is already the existing lot where the applicant has his residence, is not a major departure from the policy of providing full services in this area. Mr. Mosher referred to the above- mentioned letter submitted on behalf of the applicant, which includes copies of correspondence between City departments and between the City and the Province as well as between the applicant and the Province with respect to on-site services, and made the observation that, as indicated in the May 3, 1990 letter to him from Dr. James Fan, District Medical Health Officer, the Province's position regarding sewage disposal in general is as stated to City Planning in that, where there is a municipal sewage line available, this is the method of choice and, where this is not readily available, other methods such as on-site disposal systems may be installed if it meets the health regulations, and that the Province cannot comment upon the availability of communal sewage lines to any proposed lots. Mr. Mosher noted that, as indicated in the submitted correspondence, not only did Public Health Inspector M. J. Allanach on June 16, 1989 approve on-site services for a five-lot subdivision very similar to that now being proposed but Dr. Fan approved a variance due to an insufficient lot width; explained that, at the recent Planning Advisory Committee meeting, the situation became confused in the sense that the applicant did not have the documentation to support his position that the Department of Health could approve on-site services while City staff was indicating that the Department would not do so, and the Committee decided that, since the Department of Health denied same, it would do likewise; and suggested that the applicant now has the documentation to support his contention that on-site services could be suitable on the subject property and would be recommended if it is not feasible to hook into the municipal services. Mr. Mosher also advised that, having had a preliminary cost analysis prepared to put in municipal services for the 4 lots requested, the cost is between $120,000 and $150,000, which means that there is absolutely no way the developer could afford to install this service, add the cost of the lots and other costs, and sell the lots at a break-even price; therefore, it is totally unfeasible to suggest that the applicant hook into municipal services and there are grounds to support the on-site services application being made. Mr. Mosher expressed the opinion that the developer has compromised to the point of this proposal for a five- lot subdivision which creates four additional lots with on-site sewage services for three of the lots and on-site sewage and a well on the fourth lot, and which is fully supported by the residents in the area and totally compatible with the area. Mr. Mosher concluded that the area residents are in favour of the proposal and all have on-site services, there is no danger to anyone and there are no houses below the subject site and that, if Dr. Chase is required to hook into the municipal services, such services would be completely for the four lots in question and would never be used by anyone else because the property below would not go uphill to hook into the services but rather would hook into services from the rear and eventually into the sewage lagoon; and Dr. Chase, if required, would be unable to hook into the municipal at the estimated cost and, if he did, it would benefit no one. Councillor Knibb asked if Dr. Chase has estimated the cost of providing on-site sewage services in view of the opinion that the provision of such services would be difficult due to the amount of gravel to which Mr. Mosher replied in the affirmative and that fill is available to do what the Department of Health is asking and further that, if the Municipal Plan amendment is enacted, each lot owner will be required to obtain approval from the Department of Health and bring the lots up to the Department's standard thereby providing a safeguard. Councillor Coughlan asked if Dr. Chase had obtained a cost estimate for providing services to the previously-proposed ten-lot subdivision to which Mr. Mosher replied that, although the amount would probably be approximately the same or minimally more, the matter before Council only concerns a five-lot proposal. Councillor Landers asked if, in view of the documentation before 82-370 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 Council from the Planning Advisory Committee and the Departments of Health and the Environment, the applicant is assured that approval for the variances and septic systems will be obtained to which Mr. Mosher replied in the affirmative and re-iterated that in June 1989 a very similar plan had been approved; however, Dr. Fan and Mr. Allanach do not want to be drawn into the feasibility question as to how far away or how close a development should be in order to provide on-site services or hook-up to municipal services, and further that each lot must be approved on its own application. Responding to queries of Councillor Fitzpatrick, Mr. Mosher advised that the City sewer line is approximately 700 feet from the edge of the subject property and, as the front of Dr. Chase's property is approximately 600 feet, the service would have to be extended approximately 1300 feet and, to tie-in to the rear of the property, another 200 feet; with regard to the possible contamination of the existing well and whether or not the City would be considered responsible having enacted the proposed amendment, advised that there has been no contamination in the area for many years and that, based on his understanding, the lot in question is one of the best lots on which to locate sewage and a well in any event; and he concurred that, while it is hypothetically desired to have all dwellings hooked into municipal services, the question is whether or not this would be feasible. Mr. George Richardson of 2 Fishermans Lane appeared on behalf of the area residents in support of the proposed Municipal Plan amendment with regard to 881 Sand Cove Road and, having made the observation that for the past ten months the residents have been vehemently opposed to the plans put forward for the development of the subject property, advised that the opposition was based on concerns about (1) the safety hazard of many driveways accessing a dangerous curve on Sand Cove Road, (2) the incompatibility of high-density development, (3) the destruction of a very unique natural area of the City, and (4) the negative impact on the many wells due to the heavy blasting expected. Mr. Richardson also advised that, as a result of meetings with the developer in an attempt to resolve the subdivision matter, Dr. Chase has returned to a development concept for which he received Board of Health approval in the early spring of 1989, such proposal being for the subdivision of the 5.5 acre property into five lots and installation of four additional septic disposal systems and the drilling of one private well; and made the observation that the submitted petition from area residents virtually indicates that the entire neighbourhood has expressed its full support for the five-lot development proposal. Mr. Richardson expressed, on behalf of residents, complete endorsement of the proposal as it addresses very well each of the stated four major concerns; suggested that enactment of the proposed amendment would allow a development to take place which is earnestly desired by the developer, solidly supported by area residents, approved by the Board of Health, and beneficial to all members of the community; and asked if, as it appears that the question of feasibility could stand in the way of the development, it is feasible to require the developer to install a quarter mile of sewer line at a cost in excess of $100,000 and involving much blasting, or would it be more feasible to install four additional on-site disposal systems for less than $2,000 each which would probably not require blasting. Mr. Richardson added that area residents believe that the extension of the City sewer line is not financially feasible for the developer, is not feasible from a health and safety point of view for the residents and, furthermore, it is not feasible from a use standpoint for the City as the vast majority of undeveloped area is downhill from the Chase property and could not be serviced from such a sewage line extension; and, on the basis of safety and quality of life, requested Council's assent to the proposed amendment with regard to 881 Sand Cove Road. In response to Councillor Rogers, Mr. Richardson confirmed that, on the basis that a large number of driveways accessing the "S" curve on Sand Cove Road is considered dangerous, area residents are in favour of doing whatever can be done to eliminate this hazard; and, responding to Councillor Davis as to the current number of on-site sewage systems in the area, Mr. Bedford advised that there is a considerable number of homes in the immediate area which would have on-site services and that there would be more than the 25 residences which are indicated on the submitted map, whereupon Councillor Davis expressed concern about the age and maintenance of the existing systems due the lack of on-site inspection services. Mr. Bedford, in response to Councillor Landers, confirmed that, if Council approves the amendment, Provincial inspectors would review each lot as application for on-site services is made. On motion of Councillor Knibb 82-371 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law", by redesignating on Schedule 9-A, a 5.5 acre parcel of land located at 881 Sand Cove Road (L.R.I.S. Number 395756), with frontage on Sand Cove Road and Keans Road, from Stage One to Unstaged classification, be read a first time. Upon the Mayor's observation that Councillor Coughlan seconded the above motion, Councillor Rogers expressed the understanding that Councillor Coughlan seconded her proposed motion to adopt the Planning Advisory Committee's recommendation, and Mr. Rodgers expressed the opinion that Councillor Knibb's proposed motion for first reading was on the floor first. At the Mayor's call for a seconder to the above motion, Deputy Mayor Gould seconded same. Mr. Rodgers advised that, as the above motion is contrary to the Planning Advisory Committee's recommendation, an affirmative vote of a simple majority of Council members would be required to give the proposed amendment first and second readings, and a majority of the whole Council, which means 6 affirmative votes, would be required at third reading. Question being taken, the motion was lost with Councillors Coughlan, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Landers, Rogers and A. Vincent voting "nay". Councillor Rogers proposed a motion that the above recommendation of the Planning Advisory Committee be adopted, whereupon the Mayor called for a motion to receive and file the above correspondence on the basis that Councillor Rogers' motion is unnecessary. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that the correspondence regarding the above matter be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor Fitzpatrick withdrew from the meeting.) The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to (a) a proposed Municipal Plan amendment to redesignate on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, a parcel of land at 167 Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345413), consisting of 4770 square feet with a frontage of 57 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive, from Low Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification; and (b) re-zoning the same parcel of land from "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential to "B-2" General Business classification, to permit development of an office building, as requested by John Walker Insurance Ltd., and that no written objections were received in this regard. No person was present with respect to the proposed amendments. Consideration was given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee recommending that (1) the Municipal Development Plan be amended by redesignating on Schedule 2-A of the Plan, from Low Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, a parcel of land at 167 Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345413), consisting of 4770 square feet with a frontage of 57 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive; (2) the same parcel be re-zoned from "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential to "B-2" General Business classification; and (3) by resolution, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the re-zoning be subject to the following:- (a) the site shall be developed in accordance with a site plan approved by the Development Officer; and (b) the rear portion of the lot, having dimensions of 9.1 metre x 15.2 metres (30 feet x 50 feet), and located adjacent to the common lane, shall be used for no other purpose than landscaped open space for as long as the property at 8 Edith Avenue is used for residential purposes. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers 82-372 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law", by redesignating on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, a parcel of land at 167 Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345413), consisting of 4770 square feet with a frontage of 57 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive, from Low Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor A. Vincent RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law", by redesignating on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, a parcel of land at 167 Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345413), consisting of 4770 square feet with a frontage of 57 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive, from Low Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, be read a second time. (Councillor Fitzpatrick re-entered the meeting.) Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John, insofar as it concerns re-zoning a parcel of land at 167 Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345413), consisting of 4770 square feet with a frontage of 57 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive, from "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential to "B-2" General Business classification, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City Saint John. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor A. Vincent RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John, insofar as it concerns re-zoning a parcel of land at 167 Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345413), consisting of 4770 square feet with a frontage of 57 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive, from "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential to "B-2" General Business classification, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City Saint John. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor A. Vincent 82-373 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 RESOLVED that the letter from the Planning Advisory Committee regarding the above-proposed amendments be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to (a) a proposed Municipal Plan amendment to redesignate on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, a parcel of land at 147-149 Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345140), consisting of 3,500 square feet with a frontage of 35 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive, from Low Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification; and (b) re-zoning the same parcel of land from "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential to "B-2" General Business classification, to permit the continued use of the property for a drapery shop, as requested by Joseph and Cathy Gould, and that no written objections were received in this regard. No person was present with respect to the proposed amendments. Consideration was given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee recommending that (1) the Municipal Development Plan be amended by redesignating on Schedule 2-A of the Plan, from Low Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, a parcel of land consisting of 3,500 square feet with a frontage of 35 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345140); and (2) the same parcel be re-zoned from "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential to "B-2" General Business classification. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law", by redesignating on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, a parcel of land at 147-149 Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345140), consisting of 3,500 square feet with a frontage of 35 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive, from Low Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law", by redesignating on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, a parcel of land at 147-149 Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345140), consisting of 3,500 square feet with a frontage of 35 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive, from Low Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John, insofar as it concerns re-zoning a parcel of land at 147-149 Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345140), consisting of 3,500 square feet with a frontage of 35 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive, from "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential to "B-2" General Business classification, be read a first time. 82-374 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor A. Vincent RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John, insofar as it concerns re-zoning a parcel of land at 147-149 Bayside Drive (L.R.I.S. Number 345140), consisting of 3,500 square feet with a frontage of 35 feet on the eastern side of Bayside Drive, from "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential to "B-2" General Business classification, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the letter from the Planning Advisory Committee regarding the above-proposed amendments be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to a proposed Zoning By-Law text amendment to add "a dwelling unit" to the list of permitted uses in Section 410 Neighbourhood Institutional (IL-1) zone, to permit a dwelling unit to be located on the same site as other permitted institutional uses and initially to permit a dwelling unit to be erected at 358 Charlotte Street West next to a special care home, as requested by Mr. Raymond Gagnon, and that no written objections were received in this regard. Consideration was given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting copies of the Planning staff report and two letters of objection with regard to the proposed amendment, and recommending that Common Council amend the Zoning By-Law by adding the following to the list of permitted uses in Section 410(1)(a): "a dwelling unit". Mr. Sterling Brown of 357 Maple Row appeared in opposition to the above-proposed amendment on behalf of area residents and advised that questions were asked by area residents at the Planning Advisory Committee about the number of institutions allowed to develop in one area on the basis of their concerns that their area is being changed into institutional buildings which could result in their own homes being converted to an institutional use also as slowly, one by one, their neighbours decrease. Mr. Brown made the observation that the Lower West Side area contains larger dwellings which are desirable for small institutions based on his understanding that prospective purchasers have viewed same with this as an intended use, and further that the transportation system required for such institutions to work effectively is also good on the West Side thereby making the area right for this type of development. Mr. Brown also advised that, in the block bounded by Lancaster Avenue, Charlotte and Champlain Streets and Maple Row, there is a two-level group home, a two-level special care home and a bungalow special-care home, with the proposal now before Council for a special care and dwelling unit, with other such facilities located in close relationship to this area including 10-12 City Line, 371 Dufferin Row, 425 Prince Street and Lancaster Avenue. Mr. Brown clarified that the purpose of the opposition is not against such facilities or the residents thereof but rather that, as this area has more than its fair share of such facilities, any further placement of institutions in this area is in question until the concerns of the citizens have been addressed; and read from the May 1, 1990 response from the Community Planning Department to the Planning Advisory Committee to concerns and questions by area residents at the Planning 82-375 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 Advisory Committee meeting of April 17, such response dealing with regulations for institutions and group home facilities and the governing body/bodies responsible for such regulations and for addressing concerns in this regard. Mr. Brown expressed opposition to the expansion of the Gagnon's Special Care Home at 358 Charlotte Street based on area residents' concerns that the property will and can develop into a mini-institution in the middle of a residential area as the subject property is large and, with zoning in place, has the potential to unbalance the residential area; referred to the May 1988 presentation to Council of a report on group homes; and suggested that the density at 358 Charlotte Street West with its two existing buildings and the additional building proposed would be no different from having an apartment building on the property, which would increase the current residency of approximately 22 by another 6 residents. Mr. Brown expressed the opinion that the effect on property values in the area because of the number of institutions therein and the possibility that the area could be saturated due to the number of institutions should be reviewed prior to approval of further development on the subject property, and recommended that (1) action be taken on the group home report presented to Council in May 1988, with modifications and review as to how it relates to the other classifications of homes; (2) all groups responsible for setting up group facilities, such as group homes, half-way houses, etc., coordinate their efforts to ensure better placement thereof in neighbourhoods so that no one area becomes saturated and residents' concerns do not keep coming up every time a home is placed in a neighbourhood in the future; and (3) public consultations must take place to ensure community residents that stability and management exist in their neighbourhoods and that such homes/residents are being looked after. Mr. Brown concluded that residents in the area of 358 Charlotte Street West are committed to making their neighbourhood a good place to live while sharing it with residents of such homes as they are currently doing; however, in order to do so, action must be taken, people must be informed and concerns must be addressed, such as (i) how many of these homes are appropriate in one community; and (ii) when does integration of residents of such homes reach saturation point so that it becomes no longer workable for them or the community. Councillor Coughlan asked if area residents were aware, prior to the above application, of the type of residents accommodated at 358 Charlotte Street West, to which Mr. Brown replied that, although the use of the facility was known, the residents did not know who to contact with their concerns, and further that the smaller building on the property which was a residence became a special care home as recent as January 1990 through zoning which already existed of which the residents were not aware. In response to Councillor Rogers' query about the Province's reply to questions about the facilities at 358 Charlotte Street West, Mr. Brown advised that, after having attempted to obtain answers to questions from the Department of Health, he had his first fulfilling conversation with a government official on this date with respect to this matter, and he added that Mr. Gagnon declined to attend a public meeting to which he was invited by area residents, although he provided information which had already been obtained at the Planning Advisory Committee meeting. Deputy Mayor Gould asked if the matter of increasing numbers is one of the residents' major concerns with the above application to which Mr. Brown replied in the affirmative with respect to this particular property as it can hold more buildings, with a concern about safety being with respect to the proximity of a group home on Maple Row, and clarified that the number of institutions could increase to the point that residents might question their reason for being in the area. Mr. C. Crawford of 360 Maple Row appeared in opposition to the proposed amendment on the basis of the lack of control over the subject property in that, because the property is zoned the way it is, the owner has the right to expand as far as he wants and, for example, can and has changed a residence into a special care facility which accommodates more persons, and expressed concern that, if the application is approved for a residence, the applicant could make the same change. Mr. Norman Bosse, solicitor for the applicant, appeared in support of the proposed amendment, and suggested that, based on the above remarks, the solution to the problem would be to enact the amendment subsequent to which Mr. Gagnon would reside on the property to respond to area residents, and noted that it is within the realm of the Provincial Government to ensure that Mr. Gagnon is in compliance with the regulations with respect to his facility. Mr. Bosse expressed the understanding that 17 persons are presently accommodated in the large unit on the property which has been 82-376 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 used as a nursing home for a number of years, 5 persons are accommodated in the building adjacent to the large unit in which he is permitted to have 9 persons, and that the proposed unit, which would cost approximately $120,000 therefore having no effect on property prices in the area, would be for the purpose of a residence upstairs for Mr. Gagnon and his family and 8 residents downstairs. Mr. Bosse advised that Mr. Gagnon has told him that there has been no complaints with respect to residents or noise, nor has there been any Police visits to the facility, and also suggested that Mr. Gagnon's residency on the property would improve the situation for him, the facility residents and the community at large. Mr. Bosse explained that, with respect to the public meeting referred to by Mr. Brown, Mr. Gagnon does not want the situation to become hostile and wants to keep a good working relationship with the area residents, and that this would be achieved by the enactment of the proposed amendment. Mr. Bosse made the observation that the proposed text amendment would allow each and every property presently zoned "IL-1" Neighbourhood Institutional classification the same ability to have in-resident owners who are not presently living on the property to build a dwelling unit to live there, and that the purpose of the application is simply to amend the Zoning By-Law, and not to get into the issue, which he considers irrelevant, as to whether or not the facility is being properly controlled or how large it is getting, because, after all, Mr. Gagnon has the proper zoning and the right to construct the building; however, the only right he does not have is the right to live in the building. Mr. Bosse noted that, as indicated in the submitted Planning staff report, since most "IL-1" zoned lands are located in residential neighbourhoods, the presence of a dwelling unit would be compatible with the surrounding area and, in addition, it would allow the owner or manager of the institutional use to remain close to the operation at all times and to be a member of the community in which the institutional use is located. Councillor Rogers questioned Mr. Bosse's suggestion that the issue of facility control and size is irrelevant to which Mr. Bosse explained that the application is not to allow Mr. Gagnon to put additional residents on the property in a special care home as he already has that right and, while the issue of what takes place in communities with respect to such facilities and the care of the disabled or persons less fortunate is certainly relevant, such issue is not relevant to the application which is to amend the Zoning By-Law to allow a dwelling unit. Councillor Fitzpatrick expressed concern about the proposal to combine a dwelling unit and a special care home, and asked where the applicant currently resides and whether or not Planning staff has prepared a response to the concerns of the area residents, the latter to which Mr. Bedford replied that the response of May 1, 1990 referred to above by Mr. Brown dealt with each of the properties identified and described by the residents. Councillor Coughlan asked if only the owner could reside in the proposed dwelling unit or if another person could be designated by the owner to reside therein; expressed concern about the density; and asked if the garage to the rear of the property is occupied, the latter to which Mr. Bosse replied that, to his knowledge, the garage is not a designated special care facility and that two persons reside upstairs therein. Mr. Bosse responded to Deputy Mayor Gould's question about the number of residents currently accommodated on the subject property and the maximum number which is permitted, as well as the number of staff, and the recreational facilities available; and, in response to Councillor Landers about the number of residents who could be accommodated in the proposed building should the owner not reside therein, advised that, although he is not certain, the building may be able to accommodate 12 to 16 persons. On motion of Councillor A. Vincent Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the application of Mr. Raymond Gagnon for a Zoning By-Law text amendment with respect to adding a dwelling unit to the list of permitted uses in Section 410 Neighbourhood Institutional (IL- 1) zone be denied. In response to Councillor Coughlan, Mr. Bedford explained that, if the proposed amendment is not enacted, the applicant could not construct the one dwelling but could build more buildings to house more residents without Council's approval. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Coughlan, Davis and Fitzpatrick voting "nay". 82-377 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the letter from the Planning Advisory Committee regarding the above-proposed amendment be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor Coughlan withdrew from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest.) The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed amendment to delete the condition of re-zoning imposed by Council resolution of September 18, 1978 with respect to 120 Carleton Street and substituting the following condition: that the use of the premises be restricted to a group care facility for not more than fifteen (15) persons; for the reason that the existing condition limits the use to not more than ten men, and the facility will be used for both men and women and up to 15 persons, as requested by John Howard Residential Centre Inc., and that no written objections were received in this regard. Consideration was given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee recommending that Council delete the condition of re-zoning imposed by its resolution dated September 18, 1978, with respect to 120 Carleton Street, and substitute the following condition: "that the use of 120 Carleton Street be restricted to a group care facility for not more than fifteen (15) persons and associated offices". Mr. Ralph Poley, solicitor for the applicant, spoke in support of the above application and, having noted the presence in the Council Chamber of Messrs. Ian Webster, President of the Saint John Branch, and William Bastarache, Executive Director of the Saint John Branch of John Howard Residential Centre Inc., expressed agreement with the Planning Advisory Committee's recommendation. Mr. Poley made the observation that the more than fifteen-year facility in question is well-run and supervised 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and neither the applicant nor staff is aware of any complaints, referrals are well screened and there is no lack of control; and advised that, with respect to general public awareness, in addition to the letters of support received by the Planning Advisory Committee and the standard letter of notice forwarded by the Planning Department to area residents, businesses, etc., John Howard Residential Centre Inc., itself, in March 1990 forwarded letters to its neighbours in at least a two-block area advising of the application and requesting views or criticisms and of an open house at the Centre for interested persons, which had virtually no response. The Mayor asked if, rather than a mixed use, it would be better to have a separate facility for both men and women to which Mr. Poley replied that the type of facility proposed has been duplicated successfully in other parts of Atlantic Canada; and Mr. Bastarache advised that, as presently the government is not prepared to support an independent living unit for women because of the cost factor, two independent living units would be set up in the Centre that would be separate, while at the same time a continuing lobbying effort to the government would be made for a separate residential care facility for women; and explained how, in the three-storey facility at 120 Carleton Street, the mixed-use could be accommodated. Councillor Rogers asked the optimal number for residential care for group homes for, for example, young offenders, or special care to which Mr. Bastarache replied that, presently, in residential care for adult facilities, fifteen seems to be the maximum number although many facilities operate with more or less and fifteen is the standard number for the Federal Government. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Landers RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, Common Council delete the condition of re-zoning imposed by its resolution dated September 18, 1978 with respect to 120 Carleton Street and substitute the following condition:- "that the use of 120 Carleton Street be restricted to a group care facility for not more than fifteen (15) persons and associated 82-378 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 offices" . Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the letter from the Planning Advisory Committee regarding the above amendment be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor Coughlan re-entered the meeting.) The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to (a) a proposed Municipal Plan amendment to redesignate on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, a parcel of land containing approximately 23 acres at 170 Ashburn Road (being a portion of L.R.I.S. Number 298422), adjoining land previously zoned to permit a quarry operation and located north of Ashburn Road and east of the Saint John Throughway, from Open Space and Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial classification; (b) the proposed re-zoning of the same parcel of land from "RS- 2" One- and Two-Family Suburban Residential to "1-2" Heavy Industrial classification; and (c) amending the agreement dated December 21, 1987 pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act so as to include the said 23-acre parcel of land; to change conditions 2, 5, 7 and 8 relating to fill within the flood risk area; completion date for site plan requirements; access road construction; and water supply to the site; and to make any other changes or additions to the agreement as may be considered relevant to the situation, as requested by Crestwood Holdings and Realty Ltd., and that no written objections were received in this regard. Consideration was given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee advising that the applicant was represented by Mr. William Tomlinson and his solicitor at the Committee meeting of May 1 at which Mr. Delphus Ferguson was present and represented by his solicitor who raised several questions relating to the conditions of the 1987 approval, and that one other person spoke against the application and one person spoke in favour of the application; also advising that, after discussion of all the evidence, the Committee felt that the matter should be tabled to allow members to visit the site; and recommending that the public hearing be held but no decision be made until a recommendation is received from the Committee. Mr. Ferguson of 579 Rothesay Avenue appeared in opposition to the above-proposed amendments on the basis of the possible damage to his property from blasting in the area. During discussion Mr. Ferguson responded to Council queries with respect to pre-blast surveys and inspection of his property, and the possibility that blasting will affect his water supply. Mr. W. Tomlinson, President of Crestwood Holdings and Realty Ltd., appeared in support of the above-proposed amendments and advised that, as a result of the Planning Advisory Committee meeting last week, he contacted Fundy Engineering and Consulting, the firm which does the pre-blast surveys and reports to the insurance company, with respect to the status of the 1990 pre-blast surveys and was told that a number of the residences have been completed and a few have not and that, with regard to his request to the firm that Mr. Ferguson's survey be completed if possible prior to this public hearing, Mr. Gordon Mouland of the firm attempted to visit the Ferguson property on this date to complete the pre-blast survey and was told that, although he could visit the property next week possibly, he was not wanted there today. Mr. Tomlinson also advised that his Company has made every attempt it can with respect to Mr. Ferguson, having in 1989 monitored the blasts from his residence and from other residences, and that many of the blasts would not even trigger the machine that does the monitoring; and concluded that pre-blast surveys will be carried out in 1990 as in 1989 and insurance is in place should property damage occur. The Mayor asked what is proposed with respect to the flood plain area to which Mr. Bedford replied that, generally, the owner is proposing to use some of the 82-379 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 flood risk area land for his operation but to replace that land with compensatory storage and, in fact, provide the City that land so that it can be used in the future for additional storage for a floodway; and Mr. Tomlinson advised that, concerning the Mayor's question of whether or not the property owner will do the necessary dredging and ditching required to compensate for the land to be filled in or if it is the intent to just pass over a piece of land to the City, the applicant will do the necessary excavation to make up for any material placed in the flood plain and, in addition, to deed a piece of property as indicated on the submitted sketch to the City for its future needs, and that the applicant will increase the width of the ditch on the Throughway side of the entrance into the quarry and the piece of property to be deeded to the City is on the Rothesay side. Mr. Bedford, in response to Councillor Fitzpatrick, indicated on the submitted map the location of Mr. Ferguson's property and the subject property. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, the application of Crestwood Holdings and Realty Ltd. for a Municipal Plan amendment, re-zoning, and amendment to the Section 39 conditions of re-zoning, with respect to 170 Ashburn Road, be laid on the table until a recommendation is received from the Planning Advisory Committee. Question being taken, the tabling motion was carried. The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to (a) the proposed re-zoning of a parcel of land at 21 Marlborough Avenue in the Morland Mobile Home Park (L.R.I.S. Number 303479), from "RS-2" One- and Two-Family Suburban Residential and "1-2" Heavy Industrial to "MH" Mobile Home Park classification; and (b) amending Section 130(1)(b) of the Zoning By- Law by adding "subject to the Mobile Home Parks By-Law, a mobile home park;", to permit the expansion of the Morland Mobile Home Park as requested by Clearview Mobile Homes Ltd., and that a written objection (copies of which were distributed to Council members on this date) was received in this regard from D. Caldwell. No person was present with respect to the proposed amendments. Consideration was given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee advising that the Committee considered at its May 1 meeting the submitted Planning staff report and approved the recommendation to table the above application until the required detailed plans have been provided and analyzed by staff; and recommending that the public hearing be held but no decision be made until a recommendation is received with respect to the proposed re-zoning. On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, the application of Clearview Mobile Homes Ltd. with regard to the re-zoning of 21 Marlborough Avenue be laid on the table until a recommendation is received from the Planning Advisory Committee. Question being taken, the tabling motion was carried. The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed amendment to the Section 39 conditions of re- zoning of 1120 Loch Lomond Road by amending the proposal adopted on December 22, 1986 to permit construction of a separate warehouse building, to provide for additional storage of building materials associated with the existing hardware store business, as requested by Mr. Ron Scott of Satin Holdings Ltd., and that no written objections were received in this regard. No person was present with respect to the proposed amendment. Consideration was given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee recommending that the conditions imposed pursuant to Section 39 of the 82-380 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 Community Planning Act on January 7, 1987 with regard to the re-zoning of 1120 Loch Lomond Road be amended to permit the following:- (1) the proposed 50 foot x 200 foot building be permitted in the rear yard storage compound as indicated on the proposed Schedule "A"; (2) the chain link existing fence surrounding the storage compound and gate facing Hickey Road be permitted as indicated on Schedule "A"; (3) the applicant provide to the Development Officer, for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed landscaping plan prepared by a qualified professional, showing the location and size of planting materials for the buffer to screen the storage compound; (4) the work in condition #3 be completed to the satisfaction of the Development Officer prior to July 31, 1990; and (5) the curbing required in the original agreement be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, the conditions imposed pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act on January 7, 1987 with regard to the re-zoning of 1120 Loch Lomond Road, be amended to permit the following:- (1) the proposed 50 foot x 200 foot building be permitted in the rear yard storage compound as indicated on the proposed Schedule "A"; (2) the chain link existing fence surrounding the storage compound and gate facing Hickey Road be permitted as indicated on Schedule "A"; (3) the applicant provide to the Development Officer, for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed landscaping plan prepared by a qualified professional, showing the location and size of planting materials for the buffer to screen the storage compound; (4) the work in condition #3 be completed to the satisfaction of the Development Officer prior to July 31, 1990; and (5) the curbing required in the original agreement be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Gould Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the letter from the Planning Advisory Committee regarding the above amendment be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to amending the zoning conditions imposed on October 6, 1975 and amended on August 16, 1976, with regard to 23 St. Anne Street, to increase the number of units permitted from seven to eight, to permit the continuing use of the existing building for eight apartments, as requested by Mr. Demetre J. Bountalas, and that no written objections were received in this regard. No person was present with respect to the proposed amendment. Consideration was given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee advising that the Committee at its May 1 meeting considered and adopted the recommendation in the submitted Planning staff report, and that, while no one attended the meeting to speak in opposition to or in favour of the application, the three submitted letters of objection were received; and recommending that the application for amendment to the Section 39 conditions be denied. On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, the application of Mr. Demetre J. Bountalas for an amendment to the Section 39 conditions of re-zoning of 23 St. Anne Street be denied. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb 82-381 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that the above letter from the Planning Advisory Committee be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a letter from Mayor Wayne submitting the Final Report of the Environmental Consultation Review Committee, entitled "A View Of The City", which was presented to her and The Honourable V. Blaney, Minister of the Environment, on May 1, 1990 by the Committee; advising that appendices - Book 1 and Book 2 of the Report can be viewed in the Common Clerk's Office; also advising that Mr. Barry Morrison, Chairman of the Committee, will be in attendance at this meeting to answer any questions with respect to the Report; and recommending that the City Manager and appropriate City staff do an immediate review of the Report and its recommendations and report to Council in this regard. The Mayor noted the presence in the Council Chamber of Mr. Barry Morrison, Chairman of the Environmental Consultation Review Committee, to respond to Council queries with regard to the recommendations in the Report. Councillor A. Vincent proposed a motion that, due to the lateness of the hour, the above report be tabled for one week as it is deserving of input whereupon the Mayor asked if it is Councillor A. Vincent's intent to refer the Report to staff for input on the basis that the recommendations would have to be reviewed from the point of view of their effect on the City. Councillor Landers, a member of the Committee, advised that she asked that the subject Report be scheduled for a presentation at this meeting and not that the Report be referred to staff. Mr. Barry Morrison, Chairman of the Environmental Consultation Review Committee, suggested that he could present the Final Report, "A View Of The City", in two stages by providing a precis at this meeting and concluding the presentation at the next Council meeting, and the Mayor concurred with his suggestion. Mr. Morrison, having expressed his intent to emphasize the areas wherein the topic of water and sewerage is referred to in the Report as this area is one traditionally within the City's jurisdiction, noted that the Committee's mandate was to (1) identify and priorize the environmental issues in the City of Saint John; (2) separate the jurisdictional responsibilities for the above into municipal, Provincial, Federal or joint levels of government; and (3) provide background information and rationale supporting recommendations for action on issues with related timing seen necessary. Mr. Morrison highlighted the Final Report with particular focus on air pollution problems resulting from odor, sulphur dioxide, oxides or nitrogen and ozone gases, acid rain and fog and particulates, and water pollution in the City's potable water supply and waterways, and suggested that he would present the Committee's recommendations at Council's next meeting which would allow more time to question and discuss the Report, with which the Mayor concurred, and she thanked Mr. Morrison for his presentation. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that the letter from Mayor Wayne submitting a letter of introduction of Mr. Walter S. Davis as prepared by Mayor John J. Murphy of St. John's, Newfoundland, Mr. Davis being the Founder and Leader of the Children's Crusade for Peace who is presently travelling around the country in an effort to advocate new strategies for peace in Northern Ireland; submitting a petition which Mr. Davis left at her office calling for Canadian Government involvement in the struggle for peace in Northern Ireland; and asking that Council consider signing this petition -- be received and filed and the petition be available for any Council members who may wish to sign it. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Landers RESOLVED that the letter from 82-382 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 Councillor Fitzpatrick advising that he received in his Council kit for the last meeting the submitted letter and photographs to the Mayor and Common Council from Barry and Darlene Boyle concerning the condition of the Blair Construction property on Northumberland Avenue; advising that, in the past, he has received calls from other residents of Northumberland Avenue expressing their concerns about the condition of the subject property; and suggesting that staff could expedite the process with regard to the Unsightly Premises By-Law and thus protect these citizens from the perpetual worry about the safety of their children and the deplorable condition that they have to view each day -- be referred to the City Manager for a report to Council as soon as possible. Mr. Brown advised that the Building Inspector has investigated the property in question and the Planning Department is preparing a report for Council's consideration on May 28 recommending action Council should take. The Mayor suggested that the above correspondence should be received and filed with Council to receive a staff report; however, Councillor Fitzpatrick suggested that action should be taken and proposed the above motion. Councillor Knibb noted that Blair Construction Ltd. has previously applied unsuccessfully for re-zoning of the property which might have resolved the matter. Question being taken, the motion was carried with the Mayor and Councillor Knibb voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that two matters (which were considered in Committee of the Whole earlier this date) concerning B.L.E.U. Non-Profit Housing Inc.'s request for a H.I.D. grant extension, and City Market management and By-Law, be added to the agenda for consideration at this meeting. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor A. Vincent withdrew from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest.) On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the date for a construction start on the Blue Rock Hill project as it relates to qualification for funding under the Housing Through Infill Development Program be extended to June 1, 1991. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor A. Vincent re-entered the meeting.) On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that with respect to the management of the City Market, Council adopt the recommendation of the City Manager that staff in the City Market continue to be a part of Municipal Operations, and that the City Market come under the responsibility of the Director of Parks, and further that the submitted proposed City Market By-Law be given first reading at open session of Council on May 7, 1990. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that the by-law regarding the City Market be read a first time. 82-383 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time the by-law regarding the City Market. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, authority be granted for payment of the following invoice, namely:- Standard PavinQ Maritime Limited - supply of asphalt April 25-May 1, 1990 $7,569.90 Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the tender of Schooner Industrial Ltd. be accepted for supplying traffic vests and cones at the prices as indicated in the submitted summary of bids. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a report from the City Manager advising that, during the planning and implementation of the Protective Services Computer Project, it was realized that electrical enhancements would be required at both the Police Headquarters and the No. 1 Fire Station to ensure continuous service in the event of a power shortage, and that tenders were advertised for this service; and submitting a recommendation with respect to the award of the tenders for (1) emergency power system and (2) uninterrupted power supply. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the tenders for (1) emergency power system and (2) uninterrupted power supply at the Police Headquarters and the No. 1 Fire Station be awarded to Gardner Electric in the amounts of $24,200 and $43,727, respectively. Councillor Coughlan asked if the City has experience with the above Company to which Messrs. Wilson and Robichaud replied that they are not familiar with the Company. On motion of Councillor A. Vincent Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the above matter be laid on the table for one week pending a report on the above Company. Question being taken, the tabling motion was carried with the Mayor and Councillors Coughlan and Knibb voting "nay". (The Mayor withdrew from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest, whereupon Deputy Mayor Gould assumed the chair.) Consideration was given to a report from the City Manager advising that five replies were received as a result of the tender call for tires and tubes as indicated in the submitted summary of bids and that all bids were examined on the basis of an award which would result in the lowest total cost to the City; explaining why the lowest bid is not recommended in all instances, and that the total value of the contract, based on the approximate quantities stated, is $107,059.91; and recommending the award of the tender as indicated in the submitted summary of bids. 82-384 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the tender for the supply of tires and tubes for a period of one year be awarded as indicated in the submitted summary of bids. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (The Mayor re-entered the meeting and reassumed the chair.) On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, contract 90-2, dredging - Lancaster wastewater treatment plant, be awarded to the low tenderer, Beaver Marine Construction Co. Ltd., at the tendered price of $522,500, and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Councillor A. Vincent suggested that City specifications should indicate that preference will be given to local labour when and if available. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor A. Vincent voting "nay". Consideration was given to a report from the City Manager advising that Mr. Gordon Graham has completed the additional work with regard to Phase 1 of Graham Crescent Estates Subdivision at 55 Lakewood Avenue West, with the value of the work yet to be completed estimated at $15,000, and recommending that the security held to guarantee completion of the remaining work be reduced accordingly. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, pursuant to clause 25.2 of the Subdivision By-Law, the security held to guarantee the completion of the remaining work at Graham Crescent Estates Subdivision, Phase 1, be reduced to $15,000 from the existing amount of $25,500. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that the report from the City Manager advising that, further to the April 9, 1990 authorization of a subdivision agreement with respect to land on Fallsview Avenue and a letter from area residents about the status of a right-of-way behind their property, Council considered a request from Murray & Gregory Ltd. in February 1988 to officially close and deed to it a Reserve Road that had never been developed, and that this Reserve Road was closed and sold to Murray & Gregory Ltd., which subsequently sold the adjacent land and the road to the applicant for the subdivision approved on April 9, 1990; and concluding that, as the Reserve Road has been officially closed, no further action is proposed -- be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By- 82-385 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 Law Number C.P. 100-202 A Law To Amend The Zoning By-Law Of The City Of Saint John", insofar as it concerns re-zoning a parcel of land at 915 Red Head Road (L.R.I.S. Number 338350), containing approximately 4,290 square metres (1.06 acres) with a frontage of 92 metres (302 feet), from "RS-2" One- and Two-Family Suburban Residential to "1-1" Light Industrial classification, be read a third time and enacted and the Corporate Common Seal be affixed thereto: AND FURTHER that the said re-zoning be subject to an agreement with the developer pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read report of the Committee of the Whole (as follows) To the COMMON COUNCIL of the City of Saint John The Committee of the Whole reports Your Committee begs leave to report that it sat on April 30, 1990, when there were present Mayor Wayne and Councillors Coughlan, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Flewwelling, Gould, Knibb, Landers, Rogers, A. Vincent and M. Vincent, and your Committee submits the following recommendations, namely:- 1. That the Grants Advisory Board be disbanded, with all future requests for grants to be considered by the Grants Committee, being Committee of the Whole of Council, or by Council in open session. 2. That a grant of $1,000 be approved for the Victorian Order of Nurses (Saint John) to assist in hosting its 92nd National Annual Meeting in Saint John on October 18 to 20, 1990. 3. That a grant of $200 be approved to assist The New Brunswick Association of Nursing Homes Inc. in the sponsorship of its annual Provincial Conference to be held in Saint John on May 23 to 25, 1990. 4. That with regard to the request of Saint John Jaycees for deferral of the rental of the Lily Lake Pavilion for a fund-raising event for the Izaak Walton Killam Children's Hospital, a grant of $100 be approved. 5. That with regard to the request of the West Side Preservation and Development Association that a parcel of land at Market Place, presently leased to the Saint John Port Corporation, be made available for low-cost housing units, Council adopt the recommendation of the City Manager that the Association be advised that the land at Market Place will not be made available for a housing development. 6. That as recommended by the City Manager, the land at 271 Main Street (L.R.I.S. Numbers 378737 and 55019566) be leased to Mr. Bruce P. Polley under the following terms and conditions: (1) date of lease: April 1, 1990 to March 31,1993; (2) rental: $425 per year payable in advance; (3) a clause be included permitting the lessee to purchase the land for $4,000 at any time during the first year, subject to the improvements as required by the Planning Advisory Committee having been completed; (4) the lessee to reimburse the City for any taxes charged against the property; and (5) a clause be included that, if improvements as approved by the Planning Advisory Committee are not completed within one year, the lease will be cancelled. 7. That as recommended by the City Manager, (1) the cheque issued to Irving Oil Limited on January 20, 1988 in the amount of $52,750, with regard to the expropriation of land Parcels "E" and "F" on Westmorland Road, that was not cashed by the Company, be cancelled; (2) the sum of $95,500 be paid to Irving Oil Company Limited for the following:- (2.1) in full settlement for the land on Westmorland Road that was expropriated October 23, 1987; (2.2) acquisition of 3,649 square feet of land on McAllister Drive identified as Parcel "J" on a subdivision plan prepared by Kierstead Surveys Ltd. dated December 15, 1988; (2.3) payment of the Company's appraisal fees 82-386 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 incurred during negotiation of the settlement; and (3) transfer of the title of the McAllister Drive property and the release of any claim on the Westmorland Road expropriation to be completed on or before May 31,1990. 8. That as recommended by the City Manager, E. & M. Enterprises Ltd. be given an option to purchase the property at 321 Princess Street (L.R.I.S. Number 11759) under the following terms:- (1) length of option: 6 months; (2) cost of option: $100; (3) purchase price of land: $7,000; (4) as a condition of exercising the option, the purchaser must have a development plan approved by City staff and, if this involves adjoining land, the purchaser must have purchased or have options on these other parcels; (5) when the option is exercised and the land sold, the City will retain the right to reacquire the property if it is not developed completely within one year; and (6) the option to be signed by May 31,1990. 9. That as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council resolution of October 10, 1989 relative to the option of RGL Developments Ltd. to lease/purchase the so-called George Street site be rescinded: AND FURTHER that as recommended by the City Manager, RGL Properties Inc. be given an option to lease/purchase the so-called George Street site on the following terms and conditions:- (1) the option will be for the period ending December 31, 1990; (2) during the option period, RGL will submit a detailed proposal for the site including detailed conceptual plans and schedules, the schedule to indicate a construction start of no later than June 30, 1991; (3) disposal of the site:- if the proposal and schedules are acceptable to the City, the following will be the disposal terms: (3.1) freehold - (a) the developer can purchase the lands within the first six years at a price of $365,000; (b) the developer will purchase the property between the 6th and 25th years of the lease at the then-market value; (3.2) leasehold - (a) the lease will be for a period of 25 years commencing (1) the first day following the commencement of construction of the foundation of the project or (2) July 1, 1991; (b) the rent for the first two years will be $1.00; (c) the rent for the next two years will be $30,000 per annum; (d) the rent for the remainder of the lease will be $38,500 per annum; (4) if the proposal submitted is acceptable to the City, the City will undertake to begin proceedings to advertise to close George Street, with the City neither implicitly nor explicitly obligated to do so; (5) (a) the City agree to the principle of connecting the proposed development to the indoor pedestrian system; (b) the developer agrees to the principle of the design of his building recognizing the potential of the pedway system being extended at a future date; (6) all documentation relative to this matter will be in a form and substance acceptable to the Legal Department and will be executed by the Mayor and Common Clerk: AND FURTHER that Council acknowledges that development of the so- called George Street site will contribute to the revitalization of the central core of the City. 10. That as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council approve the submitted policy #1105 for the standardization of safety footwear. 11. That the report from the City Manager regarding the vehicle policy be received and filed and the policy be adopted. 82-387 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 12. That with regard to the request of the West Side Preservation and Development Association for a grant to assist with the expenses of West Side Days in June 1990, Council adopt the recommendation of the City Manager that a grant in the amount of $1,000 be approved. May 7, 1990, Saint John, N. B. Respectfully submitted, (sgd.) Elsie E. Wayne, C h air man. On motion of Councillor Gould Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that section 1 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that section 2 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Gould Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that section 3 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that section 4 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that section 5 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that section 6 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that section 7 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 82-388 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that section 8 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that section 9 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Deputy Mayor Gould voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Davis RESOLVED that section 10 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor A. Vincent Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that section 11 of the above report be laid on the table. The Mayor asked Councillor A. Vincent to state a reason for his motion to table section 11 of the above report to which Councillor A. Vincent replied that it was his understanding based on discussion with the Mayor that this matter would not be before Council at this time and that he had not been given an opportunity to fully discuss the matter in Committee of the Whole. Question being taken, the tabling motion was carried with a majority of the Council members present voting "yea". On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that section 12 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, the following sums of money be accepted in lieu of land for public purposes with respect to the Marilyn MacDonald Subdivision at 282 Churchland Road: $435 for each of the lots 1 and 2; $402 for each of the lots 3 to 7; and $360 for lot 8; and (2) Common Council authorize the preparation of a City/ Developer subdivision agreement to ensure completion of the work required by the Engineering Department. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould 82-389 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, Common Council approve the conveyance of the portion of L.P.P.-1 at 55 Woodward Avenue as illustrated on the submitted map to Cedar Point Estates Limited with regard to Cedar Point Estates Subdivision - Phase 3, 55 Woodward Avenue. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the letter from Lois Jones submitting a letter to Mr. Gordon Jones from Mr. H. B. Steeves, Deputy Building Inspector, advising that the owner of the building at 189 Main Street North has been notified that he is in violation of the Building By-Law and action is in hand to attempt to resolve this matter; and asking what could be done to have the house at 189 Main Street North torn down/removed -- be referred to the City Manager for investigation and a report to Council. Mr. Brown, in response to Councillor Fitzpatrick, expressed the understanding that the building is now secure and that the matter will be presented to Council in June under the 1925 Act. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the letter from the Multicultural Association of Saint John noting that Council has named streets of the City after prominent personage; reminding Council of the people who have been part of Saint John since 1783 and before; and suggesting that, as many street names have disappeared in the urban renewal programs, some or all of these names can be returned to their rightful places before an alternative is chosen -- be referred to the Planning Department for consideration. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that the application of McAllister Place Limited for an amendment to the Section 39 resolution of February 18, 1988 regarding the re-zoning of 515-519 Westmorland Road be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation and that the necessary advertising be authorized in this regard, with the public hearing to be held on June 25, 1990. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that the letters and petition from residents of Highmeadow Drive South requesting that individual house-to- house garbage collection service be given back to them, and submitting photographs depicting the litter problem that has arisen due to the change in garbage removal -- be referred to the City Manager for a report to Council. Mr. Robichaud, in response to Councillor Fitzpatrick, advised that the reason for staff recommending that the garbage not be collected on Highmeadow Drive South is that the street is private property and not a public street. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 82-390 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 7,1990 On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that the letter from the Village of Westfield advising that, for well over a year, the Department of the Environment has been pressuring the Town of Grand Bay to cease burning at its landfill site and it is inevitable that burning will cease at this site in the near future; and requesting, in view of the definite possibility that garbage from the Village of Westfield will no longer be accepted at Grand Bay, permission for use of the Saint John landfill site -- be referred to the City Manager for a report to Council. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Councillor Knibb proposed a motion to adjourn the meeting, whereupon Councillor A. Vincent requested that Council meet in Legal Session at this time with respect to an urgent matter. On motion of Councillor A. Vincent Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that this meeting be adjourned and that Council meet in Legal Session. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Common Clerk