Loading...
1991-10-15_Minutes 83-140 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 At a meeting of the Common Council, held at the City Hall in the City of Saint John, on Tuesday, the fifteenth day of October, AD. 1991, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. present Elsie E. Wayne, Mayor Councillors Coughlan, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Flewwelling, Gould, Knibb, Landers and Rogers - and - Messrs. J. Brown, City Manager; F. Rodgers, City Solicitor; 1. Totten, Deputy Commissioner of Finance; C. Robichaud, Assistant City Manager - Operations; J. C. MacKinnon, Commissioner of Environment and Infrastructure Services; S. Armstrong, Director of Engineering; S. Bedford, Director of Community Planning; W. D. Todd, Director of Housing and Property Management; B. Steeves, Deputy Building Inspector; C. Campbell, Manager - Policy Division; J. Baird, Manager- Development Division; J. Bezanson, Heritage Planner; R. Johnston, Deputy Fire Chief; J. McNamee, Assistant Deputy Chief of Police; Mrs. M. Munford, Common Clerk; and Ms. C. Joyce, Assistant Common Clerk. Reverend David Jamer of Saint John Alliance Church offered the opening prayer. The Mayor noted the recent opening of Gentry Gardens, a florist business, on Prince Edward Street; and proclaimed October to be Home and School Membership Month, and Sunday, October 20 to be Columbus Day in the City of Saint John, encouraging participation in the Knights of Columbus Parade and support of their efforts in the community. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on October 7, 1991, be approved. 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, from Medium Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, some or all of the following properties which, in total, cover an area of approximately 8.7 acres:- Address NBGIC Number 354 Main Street 370445 24-26 Douglas Avenue 368894 28 Douglas Avenue 368886 36 Douglas Avenue 368878 50 Douglas Avenue 368860 56 Douglas Avenue 380329 60 Douglas Avenue 368852 80 Douglas Avenue 368845 Chesley Drive and Main Street 373613 and 369074; (b) the proposed re-zoning of some or all of the same properties from RM-1" Three- Storey Multiple Residential to "ID" Integrated Development classification, except those portions of NBGIC Numbers 373613 and 369074 on Chesley Drive and Main Street which are not already zoned "ID" Integrated Development classification; and (c) amending the proposal adopted on July 3, 1973 with respect to the properties on Chesley Drive and Main Street which are at present zoned "ID" Integrated Development classification, to permit the development of a specific proposal which includes an office building, retail space, indoor and surface parking, apartment building and urban inn, as requested by Malcolm A E. Thorne, Douglas W. Thorne and Thorcor Holdings Ltd. 83-141 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 (now Deans Hill Company Ltd.), and that letters, a petition, and copies of letters to the Planning Advisory Committee were received in opposition to, along with one letter in support of, the proposed amendments. Consideration was also given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of the Planning Department's report and correspondence considered at the Committee's October 8 meeting at which the applicant, his architect and solicitor spoke in favour of the application, a representative of the Preservation Review Board stressed that the Board is in favour of development of the site but urged that the applicant's proposal be modified to incorporate the existing buildings on Douglas Avenue and presented a number of alternative ways of achieving this objective, and two spokespersons for a delegation of Douglas Avenue area residents stressed that most residents are not completely opposed to the Deans Hill development and expressed basic agreement with the recommendations contained in the Planning Department's report but suggested additional conditions relating to the provision of a buffer area on Douglas Avenue and of a performance bond prior to each phase of the development to fulfill landscaping, parking and site servicing requirements for the project; also advising that the Committee adopted the Planning Department's recommendation with the modifications to recommendations 3(b) and 3(c) requested by the applicant; and recommending that: (1) the Municipal Development Plan be amended by redesignating on Schedule 2-A, from Medium Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, the following properties, which in total cover an area of approximately 6 acres: 354 Main Street (NBGIC Number 370445),24-26 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368894),28 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368886), 36 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368878), 50 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368860), 56 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 380329),60 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368852), 80 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368845), Chesley Drive and Main Street (part of NBGIC Number 373613), as illustrated in the submitted sketch; (2) the application to amend the Municipal Plan with regard to the land to the rear of 90 Douglas Avenue to 186 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 369074 and part of 373613) not be approved; (3) the properties listed in part (1) of this recommendation, which are at present zoned "RM-1" Three-Storey Multiple Residential classification, be re-zoned to "ID" Integrated Development classification, subject to a resolution pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, permitting: (a) an urban inn at 60 and 80 Douglas Avenue to contain 35 rooms, a restaurant for approximately 64 persons plus separate meeting rooms, on condition that: (i) a surface parking lot located to the rear of the building be provided for a minimum of 50 vehicles or such greater amount as required by the "B-2" standards in Section 850 of the Zoning By-law; and (ii) all exterior changes to the building and all additions be undertaken to be in accordance with detailed plans approved by the Development Officer, such plans to include details on the following items but not limited to: extent and location of verandas, type and location of windows, entry/door type and location, roof type and materials, including cupola, exterior building materials, all colours, paved driveway and parking areas, landscaped areas including plant materials, and signs; (b) a condominium apartment building with a height not to exceed 170 feet above sea level and no more than 75 units on condition that detailed plans be submitted for adoption by Council as an amendment to these conditions; (c) an office/commercial building with a maximum gross floor area of 80,000 square feet in two phases (Phase I to include 50,000 square feet and Phase II to include 30,000 square feet) located on Chesley Drive subject to detailed plans being submitted illustrating exact location, detailed elevation and exterior material for adoption by Council as an amendment to these conditions; (d) the retention of deBury House with office uses on condition that it be developed in accordance with a detailed site plan and detailed elevation drawings approved by the Development Officer; and (e) a parking garage with capacity to accommodate the parking required for the development calculated on the basis of "B-2" standards in Section 850 of the Zoning By-Law, developed with the access being located on Chesley Drive and a roof level 83-142 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 providing a landscaped area integrated with the adjacent deBury House and apartment building; (4) the existing approved development scheme and conditions on July 3, 1973 for the portion of the subject property which is already zoned "ID" Integrated Development classification, be replaced with the resolution in Part 3 of this recommendation at the same time as third reading and adoption of that resolution. Mr. Donald Gillis, Chairman of the Preservation Review Board, appeared in opposition to the above proposal; and explained that, while the Board is not opposed to development and is supportive of development and neighbourhood improvement, nor has the Board taken the position that it is opposed to development of the Thorcor site, it is concerned that new development does not destroy the highly-desirable qualities of an important existing neighbourhood. Mr. Gillis advised that the Board is in the process of reviewing the recently-completed study of a Douglas Avenue Heritage Management Plan, with the intent to hold a series of further discussions with representatives of St. Peter's Church, the Deans Hill-Thorcor project and the general community, following which the Board expects to submit its detailed recommendations to Council regarding the designation of Douglas Avenue as a preservation area, and that the Board, having carried out a preliminary review of the consultant's recommendations in the study, concurs that, subject to further refinements based on further discussions with persons in the area, the recommendations proposed would be appropriate to preserve the historic, architectural and streetscape, and neighbourhood qualities of the area. Mr. Gillis commented on a sketch, which he presented in slide form, which was prepared by the Board and explained in its submitted letter to Council, to indicate how the objectives to retain the historic qualities of the area could be met while maintaining a Douglas Avenue address, without demolishing historic buildings; and also commented on the proposed process, if the developer pursues demolition, as an alternative to that set out in the Preservation Area By-Law, which is also referred to in the submitted letter from the Board. Mr. Gillis expressed the opinion that the applicant's proposal appears to be easily accommodated in the area without necessitating demolition of historic buildings and that it could be accomplished while retaining the very significant qualities of Douglas Avenue, and, having highlighted the Board's comments on each of the major components of the Thorcor proposal as set out in its submitted letter, recommended that consideration be given to placing both the large condominium building and the office building slightly further down the hill toward/along Chesley Drive. During discussion Mr. Gillis advised that the Board is looking forward to another opportunity to meet again with the developer to put forth its point of view on how development on Douglas Avenue could proceed, and expressed the understanding that the developer has had initial discussion with the Heritage Planner in this regard; and clarified that, while it is the consultant's recommendation that Douglas Avenue in its present context be preserved, the Board's stand with respect to demolition would be that the original buildings should remain and that, based on his tour earlier this date of the subject properties, the L-shaped additions to these properties could be demolished, while retaining the original front structures on Douglas Avenue to minimize the impact of the proposed new development on the Avenue. Mr. David Smith, Senior Warden at St. Luke's Anglican Church of 369 Main Street, appeared in opposition to the above proposed-amendments on the basis of two concerns, as indicated in the submitted copy of the Church's letter to the Planning Advisory Committee, relating to any proposed liquor establishment and to the matter of liability and blasting insurance; and advised that the validity of the latter concern is based on damage to the wall of the Church facing Lansdowne Avenue which was sustained when the street was widened some years ago, which was duly resolved in the Church's favour through litigation. Mr. Smith asked that the Planning Department include in any proposal adopted that the matter of blasting and liability insurance be incorporated into conditions that might apply to safeguard any structure in the immediate area that would be affected as a result of construction; and he filed a copy of his presentation with the Common Clerk. Mrs. Carol Madsen of 186 Douglas Avenue addressed Council in opposition to the above proposal, and related her concerns (1) with respect to the portion of the land behind Douglas Avenue which abuts her property in that it should 83-143 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 neither be redesignated on the Municipal Development Plan as requested, nor should it be sold to the developer on the basis that it is not part of the present Deans Hill proposal, there is no specific plan for this land, the project should be able to stand on its own merits, and its financial viability should not depend on this land; (2) respecting the retention of the residential neighbourhood in that, as indicated in recommendation (3)(b) in the Planning Department's report to the Planning Advisory Committee, the City planners have shown sensitivity to the needs of the residents and the whole appearance of the area with their direction to either retain the five buildings on Douglas Avenue or replace them with new buildings of similar height, scale and design at the street level, and asked Council to keep the residents concerns in mind in dealing with this issue; and (3) regarding traffic in that, in her opinion, a no-left turn sign as proposed by the developer at the exit of the urban inn onto Douglas Avenue would be no more effective than the no-truck traffic signs presently in place at both ends of the street with Clarendon Street likely to bear the brunt, and asked the City's plans to handle the impact on Douglas Avenue, on which parking is allowed on one side only, with the addition to the already 10,500 cars daily on the Avenue of the estimated 1,050 additional cars from the urban inn and the condominium building, combined with overflow traffic from Chesley Drive. Mrs. Madsen confirmed Deputy Mayor Gould's observation that the land to the rear of her property, to which she referred above, is that from 90 to 186 Douglas Avenue, and Mr. Bedford clarified that, while the application includes such properties, the Committee's recommendation does not include these properties for a Municipal Plan amendment. Mr. Rodgers noted that such property is part of the public hearing. Mr. Del O'Brien of 180 Riverhill Drive appeared in opposition to the above proposal on behalf of St. Matthews Presbyterian Church at 90 Douglas Avenue; and requested Council's consideration of the Church's concerns for such a project of this nature in that its size and scope would have too much of an impact on the particular area at this time. Mr. O'Brien advised that there is a concern that Church parking, which is currently a problem, would be completely eliminated if the project proceeds, as well as about the anticipated increase in traffic on Douglas Avenue which would cause problems with respect to senior citizens in the area; questioned the need for additional shopping areas in the City; and, in expressing the opinion that the office building proposed is far too large for such an area nor does the area fit the uptown core area that is often mentioned and that the developer must be able to show financial approval and commitment letters from prospective tenants, asked if there are tenants for the building or if it would remain empty without government offices or agencies to lease the space, on the basis that the Church, through experience in constructing a facility that was both too large and too costly, is concerned that vacant space could become a haven for vandalism and undesirable persons. Mr. O'Brien, in noting that a restaurant is proposed in the development and on the assumption that a liquor license would be necessary to a successful restaurant operation, asked if liquor should be served within a few hundred yards of four churches; clarified that, contrary to rumour, the Church property is not for sale; and asked Council to give serious considerations to the Church's concerns before voting on the proposed amendments which, in the Church's opinion, will not enhance the subject area. Mr. Rodgers, in response to the Mayor's question about Mr. Smith's above concern respecting blasting and whether or not the developer would have to provide liability insurance to cover damage from blasting and have pre-inspections carried out prior to any development taking place, advised that he will examine the matter taking into consideration the reference in Mr. Smith's submitted letter to including this in the conditions and advise Council, if it proceeds with readings of the amendments, prior to third readings. Mr. Mark Smith of 149 Douglas Avenue appeared in opposition to the above proposal based on his concern about an increase in traffic due to the development, and asked, while it is indicated that traffic can be accommodated from a functional perspective in that the streets can handle it, about the effect on pedestrians and safety in the area, as well as what measures will be taken to ensure an adequate response time for emergency vehicles accessing the route from Main Street and Chesley Drive to the Harbour Bridge artery. Mr. Smith suggested that, while a developer may be able to contain certain aspects such as the size of parking areas and how vehicles should exit from premises, a developer has no control on what persons 83-144 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 themselves will choose in entering and exiting such an establishment, and that these issues must be addressed in order to maintain the confidence of the public in its awareness that the City and the developer have its safety and trust in hand. Mr. Harry Colwell, solicitor, appeared in opposition to the above proposal and, having advised that he has been retained as solicitor for a steering committee of approximately 145 citizens of Douglas Avenue and adjacent areas who signed the submitted petition, noted the attendance at the meeting of approximately 65 or 70 of these citizens. Mr. Colwell also advised that his clients are permanent residents in that ownership turnover is not significant on Douglas Avenue, who are not opposed to good development nor, while appreciating increased tax base versus increased assessments, is higher market value their driving force, and their concern is with regard to a diminished quality in a way of life. Mr. Colwell explained that the present application is much more acceptable much to the extent that the Planning staff report and recommendations, dated October 8, 1991, are basically acceptable to his clients; and, referring to staff's report and the Planning Advisory Committee's report of October 10, noted that the recommendations are the same save and except for recommendations (3)(b) and (3)(c), in that the Committee's recommendation in (3)(b) appears to be silent with respect to staff's recommendation relative to the retention of the existing five buildings or the construction of new buildings indicating that it was either not considered by the Committee or the Committee basically accepts and endorses the applicant's proposal to demolish the five buildings in question; and (3)(c) in that staff recommended an office/commercial building with a maximum gross floor area of 30,000 square feet on the basis that the City has required in the past shopping centre developments of more than 30,000 square feet to be supported by market analysis which demonstrates that there will be no negative impact on the uptown, while the Committee's recommendation (3)(c) is contrary to that. Mr. Colwell, having explained his intent to ask questions on behalf of his clients about each element of the development as set out in the above-mentioned recommendations of the two referenced reports, put forth the following questions related to the urban inn proposal:- what is an urban inn; has there been any disclosure or consideration by the applicant of condominium, i.e. ownership, of any of its units; what is the marketing plan for the urban inn; what is its impact on potential traffic flow on Douglas Avenue, particularly the reference to 600 vehicles per day projected by staff; and clarification as to proper and reasonable requirements in any Section 39 resolution that would apply to this portion of the project. With respect to the condominium apartment, Mr. Colwell posed the following questions:- is the height of five storeys and a height not to exceed 170 feet above sea level the same and, if not, what is the difference; is the setback in the applicant's submitted site plan the same as that presented above by the Preservation Review Board in that, if it is, the setback it is not an issue with his clients; is the condominium structure with respect to ownership being established pursuant to the Condominium Property Act of New Brunswick and is it necessary in any Section 39 resolution; and, with respect to the five buildings referenced, if they are replaced by new construction rather than demolished, will they blend to streetscape requirement and will this be set out specifically and in sufficient detail in a Section 39 resolution, in that, while it is not acceptable to his clients for the applicant to demolish the existing buildings and use the then-vacant land for parking purposes, his clients' request for a buffer zone could be accommodated with less than the five existing buildings, if all of them could not be retained, from a practical and economic point of view as determined by Building Inspector and Fire Marshal's Offices over and above any by-law or safety requirements, without the requirement for the applicant to replace them, as long as some of the existing buildings are left to preserve the streetscape. Mr. Colwell, in confirming that the proposed location of the office/commercial building is not an issue, asked the mix of commercial/retail proposed for the bottom floor in that this would impact on traffic, parking and lifestyle; its size, in view of any City policy as referenced in the Planning staff report, with his clients' recommendation being that 30,000 square feet be the maximum approved at this time failing a market analysis disclosure by the applicant sufficient to give the City comfort that, over a reasonable period of time, i.e. five years, approval to the completion of the office/commercial building that a building of 50,000 square feet is viable; and added that, while his clients take no issue with recommendation (3)(e) based on his above comments and his indication that there is no issue with respect to (3)(d), his clients are concerned about any increase in traffic on Douglas Avenue and request that all access to the office/commercial portion of the development, if the proposal were to be approved, be strictly limited to Chesley Drive, as indicated in this recommendation, but more importantly that the parking capacity not 83-145 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 only apply to existing by-law standards but also be adequate; and recommended the use of Section 39(6) of the Community Planning Act which deals with the requirement of a performance bond, particularly with respect to a buffer zone on Douglas Avenue comprising some of the existing five buildings and any rehabilitation work, including landscaping requirements, on the existing buildings' access to the new development from Douglas Avenue. Mr. Colwell commented on the Common Council resolutions dealing with the sale of land to the applicant; expressed the understanding that the intent of the developer's request to delete the original requirement imposing a five-year time limit was because, from his perspective, it was an impediment to obtaining financing, and that the City's right to repurchase the property was to prevent a "flip" of the lands after amendment to the Municipal Plan, re-zoning and approval of the "ID" development pursuant to Section 39, and purchase of the lands so packaged by the developer; in other words, if the developer obtains much of what he requested he would purchase the land, with the package being significantly enhanced from that which he bargained to buy for $60,000; and asked for assurance that the latter element is in place on the City's behalf to prevent a "flip" by the developer at that juncture without taking any further action. Mr. Colwell asked for clarification as to whether or not the reference to a $2 million building permit, in the amended Council resolution for the property sale, relates to an element of this project being on City lands authorized for sale to the applicant and that this would not relieve the City's right to repurchase its property; and concluded that, as long as his comment on the amended resolution indicates a correct understanding, all of what he has said, opposed and requested, on behalf of his clients, stands. With respect to the latter matter, Mr. Rodgers made the observation that, while not to interfere with the public hearing process, Mr. Colwell's request for assurance with respect to Council's previous decisions on property conveyance, it may be necessary for Council to take such matter under advisement if there is ever a question about it, as opposed to, at this point, saying if or not to that position. Mr. Colwell responded to Council queries, and the Mayor advised that an attempt will be made to provide answers to Mr. Colwell's questions either by the developer or staff. Paulette Garnett, solicitor for the developer, appeared in support of the above-proposed amendments; noted the presence in the Council Chamber of Douglas Thorne, President of Deans Hill Company Ltd., and Larry Cheslock, Architect and Head of the project; and, in expressing agreement with recommendation (1) above, confirmed that the property referred to in recommendation (2) still forms part of the developer's application, with the developer's request for approval of its redesignation for financial and marketing reasons. Ms. Garnett expressed the opinion that, as the properties referred to in recommendation (2) are already zoned "ID", its redesignation on the Municipal Plan will not take away from Council the ability to control what is placed thereon for the reason that the current zoning would require the developer to seek Council's approval of his proposal for this land. Ms. Garnett, in noting that the urban inn proposal would incorporate the heritage buildings at 60 and 80 Douglas Avenue, advised the developer's intent to provide whatever parking is required by the By-Law according to the number of rooms and restaurant, and there is no dispute in this regard; explained that, while there is no definition for an urban inn, the concept is a small hotel- type, homey accommodation, as opposed to a Delta or Hilton hotel; and, with regard to the concern about traffic, noted that only two parts of the project would front on Douglas Avenue; namely, the urban inn and the condominium projects, with parking for 50 vehicles and a no-left turn signal or sign at the bottom of the driveway leading onto Douglas Avenue with regard to the former. Concerning the condominium project, Ms. Garnett confirmed that this will comply with the Provincial Act referred to in an earlier presentation, and that it is the developer's intention to sell, not to rent, the units; and explained that, to address a concern about the possibility that this building would overwhelm the older buildings on the street, the developer has taken as the high point of the project a height of 170 feet above sea level, which is the height of the cupola on the building at 60 Douglas Avenue. Ms. Garnett expressed the developer's concern about the proposal of the Preservation Review Board with respect to the five buildings abutting Douglas Avenue, of which she distributed copies of a photograph, in that the developer does not want to retain these buildings for a number of reasons, one of which is their condition; noted some of the work that would have to be completed in order to incorporate them into the project, which is estimated to cost between $800,000 83-146 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 and $1 million; and, with respect to suggestions by the Preservation Review Board of various ways that these buildings could be incorporated into the project, explained why the developer rejects all such proposals. Ms. Garnett addressed the traffic concern relative to the condominium project from the point of view that owners of the units would be provided parking in the parking garage or building at the back off Chesley Drive, so that these 75 units would be sold with a parking lot in a garage; therefore, the only traffic component in this part of the project is a 20-vehicle parking lot which would be off Douglas Avenue designed for visitors to the condominium project, and that again the developer agrees that a no-left turn sign at this entrance would be beneficial. With respect to the office/commercial building, Ms. Garnett clarified that this part of the project would not face on Douglas Avenue, with the parking requirements to be provided by the parking garage on Chesley Drive; explained that the developer's request for an 80,000 square foot building in that a 30,000 square foot commercial building is not viable and a 50,000 square foot building is the minimum number of square feet that the developer needs in order to market space in this building; and emphasized that, although approval is being requested for 80,000 square feet, the developer does not intend to build 80,000 square feet for the obvious reason that he does not want an empty building and that, to make sure that 50,000 square feet can be filled, a 50,000 square foot building would be constructed and, when the 50,000 square feet are filled, the other 30,000 square feet would be constructed, providing Council approves an 80,000 square foot building, and less than 50,000 square feet in the first phase is not economically feasible for the developer, and that approval of the 80,000 square feet would allow him to develop in two phases and market it in that way. Ms. Garnett noted that the office/commercial building will also incorporate the deBury House. Ms. Garnett addressed the concern about a buffer by explaining that the commercial-retail part of this project is not going to be on Douglas Avenue, but rather on Main Street and Chesley Drive; suggested that the topography of the subject piece of land provides a natural buffer in that the Douglas Avenue side is higher than the Chesley Drive part and the activity on Chesley Drive is divided from Douglas Avenue by this natural buffer, which would be effective in keeping the retail-commercial activity from interfering with the legitimate right of residents to enjoy their homes; concluded that, while she questions why a performance bond would be needed to ensure that the developer would landscape a project into which he has invested millions of dollars, it would be in the developer's interest to make this property as attractive as possible and he intends to do so. In response to Councillor Flewwelling, Ms. Garnett confirmed that the developer of the above project is Deans Hill Company Ltd. and that the status of other properties was reviewed during the marketing research carried out. Councillor Landers asked if her understanding is correct that, while legal counsel for Douglas Avenue residents indicates that they are able to compromise to some degree, there is absolutely no compromise from the developer's perspective, to which Ms. Garnett replied that, with respect, there have been huge compromises made by the developer who has gone through many months of dealing with the various levels and departments of City Hall and is now before Council with the result of having made all of the compromises which are considered all that can be economically and reasonably made. Mr. Thorne, in response to Councillor Landers, explained that the land was bought on the basis that the condition of the buildings was horrible prior to his Company's purchase of them, and recognizing the potential of the lands to the backside facing the Harbour, which encompasses approximately 8.5 acres, and that, combining the two land assemblies, recognizing the great potential not only for the subject area but for Saint John, and he advised that, while there are investors in the company other than he and his brother, he would not disclose their names at this time. Responding to Councillor Rogers, Ms. Garnett explained that the monetary amount referred to above with respect to the rehabilitation of the five buildings on Douglas Avenue is an estimate made by persons familiar with the buildings in that the developer already owns them and is already very familiar with them and has invested much money to keep them in a respectable condition for their current purposes; clarified that the developer has no objection to putting up a performance bond; and advised that, based on her understanding that the solicitor for the residents is concerned mainly about the integration of the five buildings into the project, the developer is not willing to speak with the solicitor for the residents in an attempt to see if a compromise can come about in that numerous meetings have been held and it is the firm belief of the developer that the buildings in question are not worth preserving. Councillor Fitzpatrick questioned the scheduling of the project to which Mr. Thorne replied that completion dates for this 83-147 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 proposal, as well as for the previous proposal, were included in a detailed graph illustrating the beginning and ending time of 5 years, with the urban inn to begin immediately and the condominium and office building being market driven, and he advised that the developer would like to purchase all of the lands, even if those properties to the rear of 90 to 186 Douglas Avenue are not redesignated and that, while it is the hope to construct an 80,000 square foot office/commercial building, the reference to 50,000 square feet is in place in case the total is not re-sold, meaning that this building as an office building is not going to be totally leased and it would be also sold based on condominium office space, which is part of the detailed study in looking at other avenues of marketing office space, and that the reference to both 50,000 and 30,000 square feet is based on how much of the market can be actually gained in that the 50,000 square foot building could be constructed and a year later build another 30,000 square foot; and Ms. Garnett explained that that is the reason for the request for approval of 80,000 square feet now and that the 30,000 square foot addition would be built on top of the 50,000 square foot building and take up no more space, with the control of the phase-in being with the developer as it is the intent to build a 50,000 square foot now and eventually build the remaining 30,000. Mr. Rodgers made the observation that this latter matter is covered in recommendation (3)(c) and is subject to a process as stated. Deputy Mayor Gould questioned the condition and number of buildings to be demolished and whether or not there might be any change in the developer's stand with respect to the 80,000 square feet of office space, to which Ms. Garnett replied that the buildings are in better condition now than when the developer purchased them upon his investment of approximately $180,000 in order to bring them up to the point of being used as rental units, and that five of the eight buildings must be demolished, and that there is flexibility with respect to the latter in that the developer only wants to build 50,000 square feet now with approval requested at this time for 80,000 square feet, with the understanding of the Board's proposal for a setback of the condominium toward Chesley Drive being that it would require the retention of five buildings. During ensuing discussion Mr. Thorne responded to Council queries related to other projects carried out by the developer, the floor area of the office building of 10,000 square feet per floor and the proposed loading dock area which is basically off Chesley Drive, and the developer's agreement with the Committee's recommendation other than (2); the matter of parking for the Douglas Avenue Christian Church; and Mr. Cheslock commented on the matter of the shopping centre development. Mr. Nicholas Barfoot, representing the Trustees of Douglas Avenue Christian Church, appeared in support of the above proposal; expressed appreciation to Council for its resolution requiring that the Church's parking requirements be mutually satisfied, and advised that the Church is looking forward to receiving a letter from Mr. Thorne confirming the parking matter. In response to Councillor Landers, Mr. Barfoot advised that, with respect to any opposition to a possible liquor establishment in the urban inn, the Church would have to take such matter under advisement. Dawn-Elizabeth Evans, a Design Consultant, appeared in support of the above proposal; advised that, while she resides in Sussex, she has a business in Saint John; and, referring to her previously-submitted letter, explained that the focus of her work is the union of heritage design and new development in that there must be some harmony between the two. Ms. Evans expressed the opinion that, with respect to the possible effect of this development on the downtown core, the proposal is different in nature from either Brunswick or Market Squares. On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that the above matter be laid on the table for one week so that the solicitor for the residents and the solicitor for the developer could meet. The Mayor noted the developer's indication of no interest in meeting. Question being taken, the tabling motion was lost with the Mayor and Councillors Davis, Flewwelling, Fitzpatrick, Gould, Knibb and Landers voting "nay". 83-148 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Davis 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, the following properties, which in total cover an area of approximately 6 acres: 354 Main Street (NBGIC Number 370445),24-26 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368894),28 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368886), 36 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368878), 50 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368860), 56 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 380329),60 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368852), 80 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368845), Chesley Drive and Main Street (part of NBGIC Number 373613), from Medium Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, be read a first time. During discussion Mr. Armstrong responded to Councillor Landers' concern with respect to traffic, as referenced in the submitted report from the Planning Department, and Deputy Mayor Gould made the observation that, while the residents appear to be flexible and most would support a scaled-down model of the current proposal, the developer does not feel that he can deviate from its proposal. Question being taken, the motion was lost with Councillors Coughlan, Flewwelling, Gould, Landers and Rogers voting "nay". 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. The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to amending the conditions with respect to the development of McAllister Place which were imposed in 1988 pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, to permit the development of a gas bar in the parking area of the McAllister Place shopping centre, as requested by McAllister Place Limited, and that no written objections were received in this regard. Consideration was given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of the Planning Department's report considered by the Committee at its October 8 meeting at which no persons objected to the proposal in person or in writing and the applicant was represented by its solicitor who indicated the applicant's desire to have direct access to Westmorland Road, and recommending that the application, as proposed, be denied. Brenda Duffy, solicitor of the law firm of Mosher Chedore, appeared on behalf of the applicant in support of the above-proposed amendment; explained that the two proposed changes to the Section 39 agreement relate to the relocation of the gas bar site from the Mark Drive and Westmorland Road corner of the parking lot to a more centralized location in the parking lot off Westmorland Road, and to provide a direct access to Westmorland Road from that gas bar; and clarified that, as there was some confusion in this regard at the Planning Advisory Committee meeting, it is not her client's wish to have the two proposed amendments separated from one another in that they are to go together, or not at all. Ms. Duffy advised that the main reason for the proposed amendment is pure and simply the financial viability of the gas bar based on projections to the effect that its viability will be severely affected without direct access to a road and her client realizes that direct access to the road from the corner of Mark Drive and Westmorland Road, where the gas bar is now agreed to be, is impossible as it would be too close to the corner to have cars move safely around the corner and into and out of the gas bar; therefore, in compromise, her client proposes a relocation of the gas bar further up Westmorland Road to the centre of the parking lot, but would also need access to the road from there on the basis that an alternate access to the gas bar would not be attractive to motorists passing by and they would go elsewhere. Ms. 83-149 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 Duffy expressed the opinion that Tritor Developments, owner of McAllister Place Ltd., has been a welcome corporate citizen in Saint John and New Brunswick for many years, and circulated photographs of gas bars of this nature in other areas. Councillor Flewwelling questioned the number of tanks to be placed underground and whether or not soil tests have been carried out to ensure that there will be no effect on the movement of water in the area, and Ms. Duffy made the observation that the gas bar is already approved for the area but on the corner of the lot. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Landers RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, the application of McAllister Place Limited for an amendment to the conditions with respect to the development of McAllister Place, which were imposed in 1988 pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, be denied. Question being taken, the motion was lost with the Mayor and Councillors Coughlan, Gould, Knibb and Rogers voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that as requested by McAllister Place Limited, the conditions imposed in 1988 pursuant to section 39 of the Community Planning Act with respect to the development of McAllister Place, be amended to permit relocation of the gas bar site from the corner of Mark Drive and Westmorland Road to a more centralized location in the parking area of the McAllister Place shopping centre, with direct access to Westmorland Road. Councillor Landers questioned the need for another gas bar in the City. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Fitzpatrick, Flewwelling and Landers voting "nay". Public presentation was made of a proposed Municipal Plan amendment to redesignate on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, an area of land measuring approximately 3 hectares (6.5 acres) located at 303 Milford Road (NBGIC Number 405373), from Low Density Residential and Open Space to Light Industrial classification, to permit the construction of a building to be used for a general contracting business, as requested by Peter A Martin General Contractors Ltd. Public presentation was made of a proposed Municipal Plan amendment to redesignate on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, an area of land located at 101 Kennedy Street (NBGIC Numbers 377150 and 380535), having approximately 72,000 square feet, from Park and Open Space and Medium Density Residential to Light Industrial classification, to permit the re-zoning of the existing Ring Boat Yard to a Light Industrial classification to facilitate the construction of a new boat repair building and marina facilities, as requested by Ralph Carpenter. Notice had been given to Nora Lena MacDonald, Owner and Chas. Henry Jordon, Mortgagor, to appear at this meeting of the Common Council to show cause, if any, why the building located at 1430 Golden Grove Road, NBGIC (formerly L.R.I.S) Number 310359, in the City and County of Saint John, should not be removed or destroyed as a dangerous or dilapidated building. No person was present to speak either in opposition to or in favour of the recommended demolition. Mr. Steeves circulated photographs of the subject two-storey woodframe building which, he advised, has been vacant for some time and is dangerous and dilapidated, and recommended that Council adopt the resolution included in the submitted report from the Building Inspector. Mr. Steeves, in response to the Mayor's 83-150 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 query as to the possibility that a representative might have been present earlier in the meeting in view of the scheduled time for the appearance being overdue, replied that staff has been unable to reach any representative in the last several months. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that notice having been given to Nora Lena MacDonald, Owner and Chas. Henry Jordon, Mortgagor, as appears by the records of the Registrar of Deeds for the County of Saint John, of the building located at civic number 1430 Golden Grove Road, NBGIC (formerly L.R.I.S.) Number 310359, in the City of Saint John, requesting that the said owner appear before this meeting of the Common Council to show cause why the said building should not be removed or destroyed as a dangerous or dilapidated building and, having considered the report of the Building Inspector, the Common Council hereby deems and declares the said building located at 1430 Golden Grove Road in the said City to be dilapidated and dangerous: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said Nora Lena MacDonald, Owner and Chas. Henry Jordon, Mortgagor, are hereby required to remove or destroy the said building situate at 1430 Golden Grove Road, in the City of Saint John, within ten days after receiving notice to do so by the Building Inspector: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon failure of the said Nora Lena MacDonald, Owner and Chas. Henry Jordon, Mortgagor, to remove or destroy the said building situate at 1430 Golden Grove Road, in the City of Saint John, in compliance with the request of such notice that the Building Inspector cause such work to be done and the cost thereof recovered from the said Nora Lena MacDonald, Owner and Chas. Henry Jordon, Mortgagor. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Landers RESOLVED that the letter from Mayor Wayne explaining that her office has coordinated Tag Days in the City by sending out the application for permission to hold tag days and scheduling the dates of the proposed project in a book upon return of the application, with only one group per weekend scheduled; advising that, apparently, tag days are becoming a very good way for groups to raise money and, because there is no policing of tag days, more than one group is tagging on the weekends, which makes the group that went through the proper procedure by obtaining a permission slip and booking its weekend very upset; and asking that the appropriate staff look into this problem and report to Council --be referred to the City Manager for a report to Council. (Councillor Rogers withdrew from the meeting.) Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that the letter from Mayor Wayne submitting a letter from Nora A Gallagher of Canadian Mental Health Association Saint John Branch Inc. requesting financial assistance to assist in covering the costs of a keynote speaker and other expenditures that will be incurred to host a one-day workshop on depression -- be received and filed. Councillor Coughlan initially proposed that the above request be referred to the City Manager, whereupon Mr. Brown advised that the application does not meet the City's guidelines for grants. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 83-151 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 (Councillor Rogers re-entered the meeting.) On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the letter from Mayor Wayne submitting an "Economic Outlook" release issued by Investment Dealers Association of Canada for Council's information and to be made public -- be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Flewwelling Seconded by Councillor Davis RESOLVED that the letter from Councillor Flewwelling regarding Council's past receipt of complete lists of payments made during the previous month; expressing the opinion that, with the use of the computer to produce the list, it became too complicated for Council to go through; and recommending that staff be asked to again produce the type of list that was previously made available and that this recommendation be reviewed by the Commissioner of Finance for a report to Council on when and how such a financial report can be made available -- be received and filed and the recommendation adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a report from the City Manager advising that Mr. Hammond of 20 McKay Street (L.R.I.S. Number 299602) has made application to fill a portion of his property and is unable to economically provide the compensating flood storage and would like to take advantage of Common Council's policy adopted on September 23, 1991; also advising that the Marsh Creek Flood Abatement Program will cost $2.08 per cubic yard of flood storage and, as the applicant wishes to fill an area of land requiring 57.22 cubic yards of flood storage, the applicant is therefore required to provide the City with $125 in lieu of the compensating flood storage that is required by the Flood Risk Area By-Law; and recommending Council's adoption of the submitted resolution. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that whereas Mr. Hammond of 20 McKay Street (L.R.I.S. Number 299602) has proposed to construct a new development for which the applicant cannot economically provide compensating flood storage, the City of Saint John will accept $125 in lieu of the compensating flood storage as provided for by Section 41.2.(6) of the Community Planning Act. Discussion was with regard to the adequacy of the above amount in providing compensatory flood storage, the amount of funding expended to date in the flood plain and the effect of the work completed, as well as the amount of development permitted, and the status of the fund for compensatory flood storage. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, authority be granted for payment of the following invoice, namely:- Standard PavinQ Supply of asphalt Maritime Limited October 2-8, 1991 $84,398.81 Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Rogers 83-152 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, authority be granted for payment of the following construction progress certificate, namely:- 1. Contract 90-22, Water and Sewer Renewals Hank E. Merchant Ltd. Original estimated value of contract Total work done, Estimate Number 4 Retention Payments previously approved Sub-Total G.ST Component Sum recommended for payment, Progress Estimate Number 4, dated October 8, 1991 Final holdback release $271,394.00 240,838.38 Nil 232,087.80 8,750.58 612.54 $ 9,363.12 Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the tender of Galbraith Construction Ltd. be accepted for the supply of sand for the City's winter salting and sanding operations at the unit prices as indicated in the submitted report from the City Manager. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Consideration was given to a report from the City Manager regarding Mr. Peter Pappas' request to Council on September 30 for a re-evaluation of the decision with respect to his application 90-5 for a Housing Through lnfill Development Grant relative to 269 Princess Street; submitting a plan to illustrate that all other properties on this side of Princess Street have a zero setback in that one of the factors considered in evaluating plans is the relationship of the project to the street, and it is staff's opinion that a 25-foot setback from the front property line for this project would clearly be out of context with the remainder of the street and would not be in general conformity with the Program guidelines, and that staff has proposed alternatives to the applicant which would meet these objectives without the need for a 25-foot setback; explaining that, with respect to Mr. Pappas' reference to a project developed by Manford Thomas Construction Ltd. at 207 Princess Street and the fact that it was permitted to be set back further from the street, there are three reasons for this as follows:- (1) the subject site is adjacent to a large open area to the west which justifies a transition from development on either side of the site; (2) the Manford Thompson project was on a wider lot width which permitted the development of three units, which resulted in circumstances which deterred from providing parking at the rear of the lot as the middle unit would not have a separate access; and (3) the street right-of-way at the front of the subject site contains three large trees which are an important element of the streetscape, and excavation necessary for the building construction may have jeopardizes those trees, and that, after reviewing these factors and alternatives, it was concluded that permitting a front-yard setback was the best solution for the Manford Thompson project. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Landers RESOLVED that Mr. Peter Pappas be invited to address Council at this time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Mr. Peter Pappas addressed Council and explained the situation with respect to his proposed development at 269 Princess Street in that, while a building permit has been issued for a setback of 20 feet, a H.I.D. grant was rescinded on the 83-153 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 basis of this setback because of conformity to the area, the latter which he questions because of other H.I.D. programs which have been completed in the downtown South End, such as the Manford Thompson project referred to in his previous letter and another Manford Thompson development on Mecklenburg Street. Mr. Pappas questioned why a H.I.D. grant would be rescinded when a permit can be issued and the property was taken through all the proper stages of planning and the outside was designed in accordance with Planning's views. The Mayor asked Mr. Todd to explain why a H.I.D. grant was rescinded and why parking should be at the rear, rather than at the front, of the proposed development, and Mr. Todd, referring to the above report which sets out the guidelines under which projects are considered and approved for funding under the H.I.D. program, explained that often the guidelines in the Building Code or the Zoning By-Law may allow a project to proceed and, in this case Mr. Pappas has been able to obtain a building permit; however, guidelines have been established for the H.I.D. program to allow projects to proceed into neighbourhoods in a manner so as to fit into the context of the particular neighbourhood and that, in this particular case, the lot on which Mr. Pappas proposes to build is on the north side of Princess Street between Wentworth and Pitt Streets, on which all of the properties happen to be built right up to the property line and that Mr. Pappas' property is in the centre of the block with his proposal being to build his project 25 feet back from the property line which, in staff's opinion, puts it totally out of context with the rest of the Street and, from an appearance point of view, this would not be beneficial to the neighbourhood. Mr. Todd suggested that Mr. Pappas' objectives for the property he plans to build could be better met by moving the building forward on the lot and, as Mr. Pappas has indicated that one of his objectives is to provide a good backyard space, if the property is brought forward on the lot, in actual fact a better backyard space would result than if the property is setback 25 feet, and that staff has offered alternatives to provide parking while, not at the front of the property, could certainly be provided adjacent to the property which, in staff's opinion, is in keeping in context with the area. Mr. Todd noted that the above report explains the reasons for the location of the Manford Thompson project at 207 Princess Street and, with respect to the Mecklenburg Street property, there is a variation of setbacks in that area. Mr. Pappas, in response to Deputy Mayor Gould's query as to whether or not he can proceed with his development without the H.I.D. grant, advised that, as a prospective purchaser is not interested in the property without a setback, its sale would be on speculation which he is not in a position personally to accept, and that he will own the other half of the unit; and he explained that the problem with building the property on the street is that the backyard would then be a parking lot thereby eliminating the enjoyment of the property for other uses. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that a Housing Through lnfill Development grant be approved for Mr. Peter Pappas relative to his project at 269 Princess Street. (Councillor Davis withdrew from the meeting.) Question being taken, the motion was lost, a tie vote having been created with the Mayor and Councillors Coughlan, Landers and Rogers voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that the report from the City Manager advising that, further to Council's consideration on July 15 of a complaint from Mr. Douglas Carter about the condition of a section of St. James Street West, Mr. Carter's requests for a section of City fence and a section of sidewalk to be repaired were deemed to be valid and both were repaired and, in staff's opinion, Mr. Carter's concerns have now been addressed; and also advising that, as staff's attempts to contact Mr. Carter by telephone have been unsuccessful, a letter has been forwarded to him advising him of the work done and inquiring if he has further concerns -- be received and filed. 83-154 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that the report from the City Manager advising that, further to the September 30 presentation by the Saint John Board of Trade Tourism Committee concerning its proposal for a Saint John bicycle path network, the Parks Department supports the idea in principle and will take all of the points made into consideration within the context of the Community Recreation and Open Space Strategy currently underway, and Mr. Chris Williams of the Saint John Board of Trade Tourism Committee, has been asked to be a member of the Study's advisory committee -- be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a report from the City Solicitor advising that the solicitor for Deans Hill Company Ltd. has uncovered some flaws in the title for a portion of the land, the sale of which Council authorized in July 1991, to the Company, and that the portion for which good title does not presently vest in the City is contained in the land designated under L. RI.S. Number 373613 for which there are two problems associated with two different portions, one problem relating to a 1920 conveyance of a portion of the land not having been recorded in the Saint John Registry Office, next conveyed in 1956, and acquired by the City in 1964; and the other problem relates to another portion of the same parcel of land involving a 12 foot x 93 foot strip in that it was discovered when the necessary subdivision plan was being prepared that, with regard to the land acquired by the City on each side of the right-of-way under the Urban Renewal expropriations of the 1960s, it has been determined that the fee simple title to same was vested in Count Robert Visart deBury at the time of his death in 1907; and submitting a recommendation in this regard. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the City Solicitor or his designate be authorized to take the necessary steps to acquire good title through the Quieting of Titles Act, or through expropriation powers or other means that may be available to satisfy the request of Mr. G. Dwight Hubley, solicitor for Deans Hill Company Ltd. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Consideration was given to a letter from the City Solicitor submitting a resolution to allow The Market Square Corporation to carry out its duties and responsibilities in connection with the design and construction of the Saint John Regional Exhibition Centre, the description of the City Centre District for the purposes of this project having been provided by the Assistant City Manager - Operations, Mr. Charles Robichaud. It was noted that a revised description (copies of which were distributed to Council members earlier in the meeting) is to replace that included in the above letter from the City Solicitor. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that: WHEREAS the City has made arrangements to have The Market Square Corporation assume responsibility of supervision of the future design and construction administration of the Saint John Regional Exhibition Centre; 83-155 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 AND WHEREAS the objects of The Market Square Corporation can be carried out in an area of the City within the City Centre District; AND WHEREAS the City Centre District means that portion of the City as may be established by resolution of the Council and approved by the Province: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Centre District include an area described as follows: beginning at a point on the southern sideline of Union Street, the said point being the intersection of the southern sideline of Union Street and the western sideline of Smythe Street; going thence easterly along the southern sideline of Union Street to its intersection with the eastern sideline of Chipman Hill; thence northerly, crossing Union Street, and continuing along the eastern sideline of Hazen Avenue to the southern sideline of Carleton Street; thence in a northeasterly direction to the point of intersection of the southern sideline of City Road with the eastern sideline of Garden Street; thence in a northwesterly direction to the CNR rail tracks; thence in a southwesterly direction along the CNR tracks to the point of intersection with the northerly prolongation of the western sideline of Smythe Street; thence southerly along the aforesaid prolongation and western sideline of Smythe Street to the place of beginning. 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 October 7, 1991, 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 as recommended by the City Manager, Mr. Gary Lawson be appointed as the City's nominee to the board of arbitration of the Local No. 18, C.U.P.E., grievance 91-29 concerning gas attendant, and Mr. Urban Murphy be appointed as the City's nominee to the board of arbitration of the Local No. 18, C.U.P.E., grievance 91-31 concerning shift differential at the City Market. 2. That as recommended by the City Manager, Mr. Richard Armstrong be appointed the Plumbing Inspector of the City of Saint John in accordance with the By- Law Respecting the Plumbing Trade and Master Plumbers. 3. That as recommended by the City Manager, the land on the corner of Tippetts Drive and Dominion Park Road, shown as Part A on a plan entitled Subdivision Plan Michael John Hunter Subdivision with an area of 99 square metres, be acquired for a price of $3,000, such property required for road improvements. 4. That as recommended by the City Manager, (1) the City concur with the decision to remove the decorative units from the front of City Hall in order to replace the roof over the Council Chamber; and (2) staff evaluate other alternatives to replacing the units, with appropriate input and present a report to Council by the end of February 1992. 5. That as recommended by the City Manager, the property on Cedar Grove Crescent identified as Lot 4 on a plan of the Parks Estate on file in the Registry Office as File 12 #47 be leased to Charles and Catherine McKay under the following terms:- (1) the lease rent to be $350 payable in advance; (2) the lease to be for a period of 3 years commencing on the date the lease is approved by Common Council; (3) the lease contain a clause permitting the purchase of the land during the first year 83-156 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 for a price of $3,300; and (4) a portion of the rent based on the unexpired term of the lease be applied against the purchase price. 6. That as recommended by the City Manager, the City Purchasing Agent be authorized to take action to terminate supply agreement 91-0402-T and to tender for Kauffman Kingtread work boots for City issue. Tuesday, October 15, 1991, Saint John, N.B. Respectfully submitted, (sgd.) Elsie E. Wayne, C h air man. On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Knibb RESOLVED that section 1 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Mr. Rodgers asked that Council add the following words to the section 2 of the above report "with authority to issue orders under the Plumbing Installation and Inspection Act". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, Mr. Richard Armstrong be appointed the Plumbing Inspector of the City of Saint John in accordance with the By-Law Respecting the Plumbing Trade and Master Plumbers, with authority to issue orders under the Plumbing Installation and Inspection Act. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that section 3 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 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 Rogers Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that section 6 of the above report be adopted. 83-157 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, Common Council assent to a subdivision (photo reduction submitted) with respect to the proposed 130 square metre (1,399 square foot) widening of Gault Road. (Rescinded December 9, 1991 Bk. 83 pg. 264 ) Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor Landers RESOLVED that the letter from Mr. Mark Reece drawing to Council's attention, as a client of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and a member of the Provincial and County Boards of Management, a serious hazard to the safety of blind and sight-impaired persons; namely, the proliferation of double-board advertising signs on uptown sidewalks; advising of incidents which resulted in injury to persons who unexpectedly encountered one of these signs; and concluding that some action by Common Council to remedy this problem being experienced in Saint John by sight-handicapped persons would be greatly appreciated --be referred to the City Manager for immediate attention. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Landers RESOLVED that the letters from three residents of Red Head Road expressing objection to the Planning Advisory Committee's decision with respect to cutting of a woodlot at 1067 Red Head Road (NBGIC Number 338335) -- be referred to the City Manager and appropriate staff to address. Councillor Landers asked, on the basis of a resident's request, that the above correspondence be read in its entirety by the Common Clerk, to which the Mayor replied that, according to the City Solicitor, a motion of Council would be required in this regard. Councillor Landers proposed a motion that the correspondence be read by the Common Clerk, whereupon Councillor Fitzpatrick noted that there was already a motion on the floor. Mr. Rodgers expressed the opinion that, in view of the referral motion, the only debate at this time should be on whether or not the matter should be referred. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the application of Mr. Eugene O'Connor for a Zoning By-Law text amendment with respect to property at 87- 89 Golden Grove 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 November 25, 1991. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Coughlan Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the letter from Keep Saint John Beautiful Inc. commenting on its activities since its 1989 organization, with its aim over the next few years being to concentrate its focus on litter management and education; noting that, to this point, the City of Saint John has fully funded Keep Saint 83-158 COMMON COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 John Beautiful through the Works Department with an annual budget of $25,000; advising that it is approaching the private sector for funding of $12,500; and requesting Council to provide a grant of $25,000 to assist in financing the continuation of its efforts to reduce litter in the City of Saint John, such grant to replace the $25,000 presently allocated in the Works Department Budget -- be referred to the City Manager. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the letter from Mr. J. L. Adams advising that, with regard to his application for the re-zoning of 92 Mallette Road for which a public hearing is scheduled on November 12, he will be out of the City from due to a prior commitment from November 2 to 17, and requesting a later date for the public hearing -- be received and the public hearing be rescheduled to December 9, 1991. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that this meeting be adjourned. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Common Clerk