Loading...
1992-04-27_Minutes 83-493 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 At a meeting of the Common Council, held at the City Hall in the City of Saint John, on Monday, the twenty-seventh day of April, AD. 1992, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. present Elsie E. Wayne, Mayor Councillors Coughlan, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Flewwelling, Gould, Knibb, Rogers, A Vincent and M. Vincent - and - Messrs. J. Brown, City Manager; F. Rodgers, City Solicitor; 1. Totten, Deputy Commissioner of Finance; J. C. MacKinnon, Commissioner of Environment and Infrastructure Services; P. Groody, Commissioner of Human Resources; S. Armstrong, Director of Engineering; S. Bedford, Director of Community Planning; D. O'Leary, Director of Economic Development; J. Johnson, Building Inspector; M. Hanlon, Purchasing Agent; C. Campbell, Manager - Policy Division; J. Baird, Manager- Development Division; J. Bezanson, Heritage Planner; R. Pollock, Planner; B. Malone, Planner; D. McCaig, Superintendent - Parks; R. Russell, Superintendent, Rockwood Park; D. Sherwood, Chief of Police; R. Johnston, Deputy Fire Chief; Percy Smith, Fire Inspector; M. Crowley, Fire Inspector; Mrs. M. Munford, Common Clerk; and Ms. C. Joyce, Assistant Common Clerk. Reverend Mel Norton, Pastor of First Wesleyan Church, offered the opening prayer. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on Tuesday, April 21, 1992, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor commented on a joint program between the Department of the Secretary of State and Canada's Members of Parliament, in partnership with Air Canada, involving the twinning of the Federal riding of Saint John with the Federal riding of Niagara Falls in the largest Youth Exchange Program in Canadian history, to help foster Canadian unity and celebrate Canada's 125th anniversary, including plans for 125 young people from Saint John to travel to Niagara Falls for a one-week exchange, with Saint John to host the Voyageurs from Niagara Falls for a one-week visit to the City. The Mayor proclaimed April 26 to May 2 as Volunteer Recognition Week, and May 1 to 31 as Salvation Army Month in the City of Saint John. On motion of Councillor A Vincent Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the letter from Civic Employees Local Union No. 18, C.U.P.E. (which was considered in Committee of the Whole earlier this date), be added to the agenda for consideration at this meeting. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor A Vincent Seconded by Councillor Coughlan RESOLVED that the letter from Civic Employees Local Union No. 18, C.U.P.E., regarding contract negotiations, be received and referred to the City's negotiating committee, and that the allegation in the letter that one-sided information has been given to the members, be referred to the City Manager and the City Solicitor. 83-494 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 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 High Density Residential and District Centre Commercial classification, some or all of the following properties, which in total cover an area of approximately 8.5 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 Numbers 368852 and 55084313),80 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368845), Chesley Drive and Main Street (NBGIC Numbers 373613,369074,55085724 and 55085708); (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 373613,369074,55085724 and 55085708 on Chesley Drive and Main Street which are already zoned "ID" Integrated Development classification; and (c) amending the proposal adopted pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act 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 offices, commercial space, indoor and surface parking, condominium apartments and an urban inn, located in a variety of new and existing buildings on the subject site, as requested by Deans Hill Company Ltd., and that written objections were received in this regard, including copies of letters to the Planning Advisory Committee, as well as a letter in support of the project, and a letter from the Preservation Review Board concerning the proposal. Consideration was also given to a letter from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of the Planning Department's report considered at its April 22 meeting at which the applicants attended in support of their application and stated that their primary concern with the report was the recommendation that the Phase 2 office/commercial building be limited to a maximum of 30,000 square feet, and requested that the Committee endorse their proposal to build a 98,000 square foot building; and Mr. Donald Gillis, Chairman of the Preservation Review Board, also spoke to the Committee and indicated that the previous concerns raised by the Board have been addressed to the Board's satisfaction, while Mr. Stephen Hutchison, 1 st Vice President of Uptown Saint John Inc., addressed the Committee with respect to Uptown Saint John Inc.'s objection to the proposal to construct 98,000 square feet of Class A office space outside of the uptown, and cited a number of studies and policy documents in support of his organization's submission, as indicated in the submitted copy of his comments. The letter advises that a number of residents were in attendance and those who addressed the Committee expressed agreement with the recommendation contained in the Planning report, and that eighteen letters, of which copies are submitted, were received by the Committee, including that from Uptown Saint John Inc., and also submits a copy of the supplementary background documentation submitted by the applicant which is referred to on page 13 of Planning Department's report. The letter also advises that the Committee decided to adopt Planning's recommendation with an amendment to section 3(d)(i) to permit a 98,000 square foot office/commercial building, and the Committee did not make a recommendation concerning the proposed financing of the project as it felt that this aspect of the proposal would be more properly for Council's consideration; and recommends that (1) the Municipal Development Plan be amended by redesignating on Schedule 2-A, from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, a parcel of land fronting on Chesley Drive, Hilyard Street and Edward Street, illustrated on the submitted sketch, being NBGIC Numbers 369074 and part of 373613,368878,368860,380329,368852, 55084313 and 368845; (2) the Municipal Development Plan be amended by redesignating on Schedule 2-A, from Medium Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, the following parcels of land illustrated on the submitted sketch: 354 Main Street (NBGIC Number 370445),24-26 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368894),28 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368886), 36 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368878), 50 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368860), 56 Douglas Avenue 83-495 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 (part of 380329),60 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Numbers 368852 and 55084313), 80 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368845), and Chesley Drive and Main Street (NBGIC Numbers 55085708,55085724 and part of 373613); (3) the properties listed in part (1) and (2) of this recommendation which are at present zoned "RM-1" Three-Storey Multiple Residential be re-zoned to "ID" Integrated Development, subject to a resolution pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, setting out the proposal and conditions as follows:- (a) the existing buildings, located at 60 and 80 Douglas Avenue, shall be connected by new construction and converted to a 35-room inn with a 70-seat restaurant, with vehicular access from Douglas Avenue, on condition that (i) a surface parking lot, located to the rear of the building, shall be provided for a minimum of 58 vehicles or such greater amount as required by the B-2 standards in Section 850 of the Zoning By-Law; (ii) all exterior changes to the building and all site development to be undertaken shall be in accordance with detailed plans and elevation drawings approved by the Development Officer and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the required plans and elevations shall include details on the following items: 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, signs; (b) the existing buildings located at 24-26,28, 36 and 56 Douglas Avenue (except for rear wings) shall be retained and a new building similar in size to 56 Douglas Avenue shall be constructed to replace the existing building at 50 Douglas Avenue, and the use of these buildings shall be converted to a combination of hotel suites operated in conjunction with the inn (60-80 Douglas Avenue), apartments and offices, on condition that: (i) a surface parking lot, located to the rear of the buildings, with access from Douglas Avenue, shall be provided for a minimum of 15 vehicles or greater amount as required by the B-2 standards in Section 850 of the Zoning By-Law; and (ii) all exterior changes to the existing buildings, all new construction and all site improvements shall be in accordance with detailed plans and elevation drawings approved by the Development Officer and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the required plans and elevations shall include details outlined in part (3)(a)(ii) of this recommendation; (c) the existing buildings located at 354 Main Street (except for rear wing) shall be retained for office uses, subject to the following conditions: (i) all exterior changes to the building and all site improvements shall be in accordance with detailed plans and elevation drawings approved by the Development Officer and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the required plans and elevations shall include details outlined in part (3)(a)(ii) of this recommendation; and (ii) any existing required parking spaces displaced by the development of landscaped areas shall be provided elsewhere on the site; (d) an office building, with or without general commercial uses on the ground floor, shall be constructed on Chesley Drive in the general location indicted on the applicant's proposed development plan, subject to the following conditions: (i) the building shall contain a maximum gross floor area of 98,000 square feet, constructed in two stages of 49,000 square feet, with approval of each stage subject to the conditions in part (3)(d)(iii) below; 83-496 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 (ii) parking facilities shall be provided with sufficient capacity to accommodate parking for the development calculated on the basis of B- 2 standards in Section 850 of the Zoning By-law; and (iii) detailed plans, illustrating the exact location of the building and vehicular access, height, elevation views and exterior materials, shall be submitted for adoption by Council as an amendment to these conditions, and the design guidelines as recommended by the Preservation Review Board will be used to evaluate the detailed plans; (e) a 162-unit condominium apartment building, with or without local commercial uses on the ground floor, shall be located on Chesley Drive in the general location indicated on the applicant's proposed development plan, subject to the following conditions: (i) commercial uses shall be restricted to those permitted in the "RM-2" or "B-1" zone and shall be limited to not more than 6% of the gross floor area of the building; (ii) parking facilities shall be provided with sufficient capacity to accommodate parking for the development calculated on the basis of RM-2 standards in Section 850 of the Zoning By-Law; and (iii) detailed plans, illustrating the exact location of the building and vehicular access, height, elevation views and exterior materials, shall be submitted for adoption by Council as an amendment to these conditions, and the design guidelines as recommended by the Preservation Review Board will be used to evaluate the detailed plans; (f) the area of the subject site extending from the corner of Hilyard Street and Chesley Drive to the rear of 186 Douglas Avenue shall be developed with a variety of multiple residential buildings containing an overall maximum of 276 dwelling units, subject to the following conditions: (i) access to the development shall be via an extension of Hilyard Street parallel to the existing railway right-of-way, constructed at the applicant's expense, and this extension of Hilyard Street shall not be connected with Alexandra Street; (ii) no more than 120 dwelling units shall be constructed on this portion of the subject site until such time as an additional access to Chesley Drive is provided, and there shall be no vehicular access to this portion of the subject site from Alexandra Street or Douglas Avenue; (iii) parking facilities shall be provided with sufficient capacity to accommodate parking for the development calculated on the basis of RM-2 standards in Section 850 of the Zoning By-Law; (iv) the height and massing of all buildings shall provide for minimum obstruction of the views from properties located on Douglas Avenue; and (v) detailed plans, illustrating the exact location of buildings and vehicular access, site development, height, elevation views and exterior materials, shall be submitted for adoption by Council as an amendment or amendments to these conditions, and the design guidelines as recommended by the Preservation Review Board will be used to evaluate the detailed plans; (g) as interim uses of the site, the following uses shall be permitted: (i) a sign for the purposes of identifying the development, having a maximum area of 120 square feet, oriented toward Chesley Drive and the Harbour Bridge, shall be permitted to be located on the hillside to the 83-497 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 rear of 60-80 Douglas Avenue on condition that: - the sign shall not be visible from Douglas Avenue; - the sign shall be removed when Phase 3 of the development, as set out in the applicant's proposal, is substantially completed; (ii) other construction signs shall be permitted on the site subject to compliance with the requirements of Section 840(6) of the Zoning By- Law; (iii) the site of the proposed 162-unit condominium building may be developed and used as a surface parking area upon issuance of a building permit for the office commercial building, subject to the approval of the Development Officer of a detailed site plan illustrating the proposed parking lot improvements to City standards; (iv) the site of the proposed 60-unit condominium building at the intersection of Chesley Drive and Hilyard Street may be developed and used as a surface parking area upon issuance of a building permit for the proposed 162-unit condominium building, subject to the approval of the Development Officer of a detailed site plan illustrating the proposed parking lot improvements to City standards; (h) the subject site shall be consolidated into one parcel and registered in the same name and interest within six months of adoption of this resolution, and may not be subsequently re-subdivided except as follows:- Parcel 1: The site of the urban inn and restored buildings on Douglas Avenue, being Phase 1 of the proposal, may constitute a separate parcel. Parcel 2: The site of the Debury House and office commercial building, being Phase 2 of the proposal, may constitute a separate parcel. Parcel 3: The site of the 162-unit condominium building, being Phase 3 of the proposal, may constitute a separate parcel. Parcel 4: The remainder of the site, extending from the corner of Hilyard Street and Chesley Drive to the rear of 186 Douglas Avenue, being Phase 4 of the proposal, may constitute a separate or each building approved pursuant to subsection (f) may separate parcel when fronting on the developed portion Street. parcel, be on a of Hilyard (4) the existing approved proposal and conditions adopted pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act on July 3, 1973, for the portion of the subject property which is already zoned "ID" Integrated Development, be replaced with the resolution in part (3) of this recommendation at the same time as the third reading and adoption of that resolution. Mr. Stephen Hutchison, 1 st Vice President of Uptown Saint John Inc. (formerly Saint John Central Business Development Corporation), appeared before Council in opposition to the above proposal; explained that Uptown Saint John Inc. is opposed to one portion of the Deans Hill development proposal, that being the 98,000 square foot office/commercial building on the basis that the construction outside of the uptown core cannot not be supported unless, in accordance with the Municipal Development Plan, it can be shown that such a building will not have a negative impact on the uptown; and cited excerpts of the Saint John Uptown Development Opportunity Study (copies of the Executive Summary of the Study were distributed to Council members at this time), the City's Goals For Saint John: A Plan For Progress report, the Municipal Development Plan and in particular section 6 thereof which deals with the Central Business District, the Planning Department's report submitted above, and the Upper Floor Grant Program Study report, in support of this position. Mr. Hutchison suggested that, as the City has actively invested in the future of the uptown through the Upper Floor Strategy and the Preservation Area facade grants, the City must continue 83-498 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 to encourage and promote development that is consistent with the revitalization of the uptown, where the economic benefit to the City will be the greatest; and expressed the view that the development of a 100,000 square foot office/commercial building will clearly have a negative impact on the uptown. Mr. Hutchison, reading from the submitted Executive Summary of the Saint John Uptown Development Opportunity Study, advised that the office market is generally slow with an average annual absorption of about 20,000 square feet, although the vacancy rate for existing Class A space has been low and will increase temporarily now that the Mercantile Centre has commenced construction and that, as uptown development and growth depends on the major generators - office uses, institutional uses and attractions and, because of the limited opportunities in Saint John in each of these areas, serious consideration must be given to any dilution of these opportunities resulting from development outside the uptown; and expressed the opinion that this Study provides clear evidence that the construction of the proposed office building at Deans Hill will, in the limited Saint John market, considerably dilute the opportunity for similar development in the uptown and, accordingly, must have a negative impact on the economic vitality and vigour of the Central Business District. Mr. Hutchison commented on vacancy rates in the uptown area, based on an informal survey recently conducted by his organization; noted that the position taken by the Planning Department, as indicated in its report to the Planning Advisory Committee, is essentially identical to the position taken by Uptown Saint John Inc.; and, in challenging the applicant to show that the proposed office building will not have an impact on the uptown in accordance with section 6.3.1 of the Municipal Plan, re-iterated that, as clearly indicated in the Uptown Development Strategy Study, the proposed office building will have a very serious negative impact. In response to the Mayor, Mr. Hutchison confirmed that he provided the applicant with a copy of the Saint John Uptown Development Opportunity Study, and confirmed Deputy Mayor Gould's observation that Uptown Saint John Inc. supports the recommendations contained in the April 22, 1992 report from the Planning Department to the Planning Advisory Committee. Councillor Rogers asked why Mr. Hutchison's organization did not appear before Council in opposition to the applicant's previous proposal for an 80,000 square foot office building, to which Mr. Hutchison replied that, at the time of the initial proposal in late October, the results of the Uptown Development Opportunity Study were being awaited and an appearance before Council would have been considered premature. Mr. Joseph Calnan of 34 Alexandra Street addressed Council in opposition to the above proposal based on his major concerns, being the opening of Alexandra Street to thoroughfare from the western end of Hilyard Street, and the increased traffic due to the 276 possible units which could result in possibly 220 vehicles, including garbage, oil, delivery and snow removal trucks, on a small street on which it is difficult to manoeuvre; and suggested that, as both Alexandra and Edward Streets would probably have to be widened, the trees along the sidewalk and a three- unit duplex would be lost, respectively. Mr. Calnan expressed concern about the erosion problem being experienced by CNR of the 40-foot bank on the opposite side of Edward Street; the possible decrease in assessed values of the residences on Alexandra Street because the dead-end street might cease to exist; about the effect of blasting on old residences with stained glass windows and plaster walls and ceilings; and the environmental effect of the additional untreated sewerage to be discharged into the Harbour. Mr. Bedford confirmed the Mayor's observation that, while the developer asked that Alexandra Street be re-opened, the Planning Advisory Committee did not recommend its re-opening. Mr. Thomas O'Neil addressed Council on his behalf as a resident of Douglas Avenue, as well on behalf of a number of other Douglas Avenue residents, and complimented the developer for his present proposal, which the residents of Douglas Avenue feel is much more appropriate and suitable for the site, and much more authentic and responsive to the concerns of the residents. Mr. O'Neil explained that the residents' three principal concerns are relevant to the extension of Alexandra Street, the size of the office building, and an assurance that what is being proposed will, in fact, be built; and confirmed that the residents can live with Planning staff's recommendation which, basically, is that adopted by the Planning Advisory Committee with the exception that the size of the office building should be increased to 98,000 83-499 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 square feet from Planning's recommended 30,000 square feet. Mr. O'Neil, in concurring that Alexandra Street should not be re-opened and expressing agreement with Uptown Saint John's concerns relevant to a 100,000 square foot office building, advised that an additional concern, as referred to in the Planning Department's report, is the transition from the uptown area to Douglas Avenue in that such an office building in a residential area does not create that transition because the building is right on the transition area, and advised that, on balance, the residents are prepared to accept a 30,000 square foot office building. Mr. O'Neil requested some assurance that the project will be built as presented in the developer's proposal, and recommended that, should Council approve the amendments, that it also approve the recommended Section 39 conditions; and concluded that the residents' position is not that the project should not be built and, in fact, the residents would welcome a proposal for the area, being basically what the Planning Advisory Committee is recommending, with the exception that the office building space be limited to 30,000 square feet, unless the developer could come before Council at a later date, as suggested by Uptown Saint John Inc., and justify the impact on uptown Saint John of a building larger than 30,000 square feet. The Mayor made the observation that, while there is concern expressed in some of the submitted letters from the residents about the development including bars and taverns, that is not the intent based on the developer's proposal, and Mr. O'Neil advised that the Planning Department's report and the Planning Advisory Committee's letter alleviated a number of concerns, although there is some concern over the density of some of the units and the massing of the project. Carol Madsen of 186 Douglas Avenue appeared in opposition to the proposal on the basis of her concern about the high density requested for the condominiums to be built on the City-owned land; and suggested that a mix of high- and medium-density would be more suitable for the property which, coming from the corner of Hilyard and Chesley, is much more open than the land behind the properties between 90 and 186 Douglas Avenue and the back of Alexandra Street is much narrower and very uneven. Mr. Malcolm Thorne of Alymer, Quebec, appeared in support of the application, and introduced his colleagues, Messrs. Peter Douglas of Douglas Gillen, Ottawa, Ontario; Douglas Thorne, President of Deans Hill Company Ltd.; Lawrence Cheslock, Architect; and David Morgan, Marketing Associate with Century 21-River Valley Realty, Saint John. Mr. Thorne made the observation that, for the first time, Planning staff has given the project something close to an excellent review, while the Planning Advisory Committee has voted for the third time in support of the project; and suggested that, while some of the arguments that remain outstanding are of interest in this ten-year project, by the time it is built considerable compromise by Council, staff and investors along the way, will have taken place; although there is one thing that is certain, that being the long-standing commitment which has been outstanding for nine years. As to the economic viability of a project in an under-built City, Mr. Thorne concurred that it is difficult to determine, especially when that City has a zero growth market; and suggested that, if the City is to ever captivate its origin, such as the City Harbour and all that Saint John was created for, Deans Hill is a fine place to recreate the City with the joie de vivre and charm unlike what has been seen since the Urban Renewal Program, and that the City's Economic Development Department should not be afraid to support the project wholeheartedly, without limitation. Mr. Thorne also suggested that the many attributes of this mixed-use project, with care and attention to proper landscaping and sense of openness, will attract people to the exteriors and interiors of the buildings; advised that it is very difficult to say that the project will all be built in that it depends upon the market; noted that, with regard to the issue of the office building, directly opposite the proposed 98,000 square foot two-phase office building is located at 160,000 square foot combined office building and commercial use facility, as well as a 7 -storey hotel directly opposite the subject site; and made the observation that a company like McDonalds would find the traffic pattern such that a site opposite Deans Hill would deserve its flagship McDonalds in the Province, and that it is highly questionable to say that the corner is not a commercial corner, with all of the improvements, the medical facilities, commercial eating facilities, and commercial office space. Mr. Thorne expressed the opinion that the land assembly for the project is itself extraordinary and that, as a commercial office building site, it has tremendous amenities, including a place to live and work; and noted that, relative to the proposed 83-500 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 condominium project, the plans which were accepted under the Municipal Plan in 1973 had indicated no less than 276 on that land which is City-owned. Mr. Thorne explained that, in order to be able to afford the restoration and redevelopment of properties on Douglas Avenue, a far greater cash flow is required than would be realized from a 30,000 square foot commercial building, which would come nowhere near looking at the Harbour or having any sense of proportion for what the site deserves. The Mayor asked if, on the basis of Mr. Thorne's indication that the project will be market-driven and the Planning Advisory Committee's recommendation deals with the four parcels of land in four phases, it is the intent to proceed immediately with the project. Mr. Thorne replied that, relative to the urban inn, they would be through a restoration program in about ten days in anticipation of doing something with the inn on Deans Hill either beginning or before the end of June, and that the inn might well employ 20 people, with all that has to be done, certainly next spring, and that he would have to work closely with Mr. Johnson with respect to building permits. With regard to parcel 2 involving the Debury House and office commercial building, Mr. Thorne advised that the Debury House, as it stands, needs some immediate repair and attention, and site preparation at the corner, which would be an easy task to begin with, would hopefully begin this summer; although, before the final design of the office and condominium buildings, a great amount of money must be expended to prepare final working drawings, and to ensure that proper marketing is done vis-a-vis all its various phases; and expressed the opinion that, to mobilize a site like that in question for a 30,000 square foot office building, would be something close to insanity because of the required levels of parking. Mr. Peter Douglas of Ottawa, Ontario, addressed Council relative to the efforts to protect the existing houses on Douglas Avenue from any development, with respect to view and traffic, with the suggestion of opening Alexandra Street purposely left open because it would obviously be a question of study by the City with respect to traffic pattern; and, with regard to the concern that the view of Debury House would not be as clear due to the office building, explained that the office building was moved around away from Main Street onto Chesley Drive so that a clear view of Debury House was seen from both Main Street and Chesley Drive, and that, with regard to Mr. Thorne's comment about constructing a 30,000 square foot office building, the site is a very difficult one on which to work, requiring much sub-structure; therefore, to even suggest a 30,000 square foot office building on a site of that character, would indicate a lack of knowledge about development or construction. Mr. Douglas commented on the concept of all development being in the uptown area of the City from the point of view of it consisting of too many office buildings with little residential development promoted, thereby resulting in the uptown area being stagnant at night and a dead centre if only commercial office space is given priority over residential; and made the observation that, in view of the expense of the proposed restoration work which is very rarely a money-making proposition, a 30,000 square foot office building would not provide an adequate subsidy. During discussion Mr. Douglas, in response to Councillor M. Vincent confirmed that the project could be designed and proceed, from his point of view, without Alexandra Street being re-opened, although the City should be consulted in this regard; made the observation that the density of the project seems to be the same as that originally intended by the City for the area; and explained that his drawings at this point are to show, in block form, the massing of the buildings and they are not necessarily the architectural drawings. With regard to blasting, Mr. Douglas advised that blasting is avoided as much as possible because it is very expensive, although with good insurance and pre-inspection and if carefully done, people should not have to worry too much in this regard; and, concerning parking, confirmed that the applicant would guarantee the required parking by the By-Law. Councillor Flewwelling asked if the applicant is still seeking a tax rebate or reduction in taxes for three to five years, to which Mr. Thorne replied that this is hardly a subject for discussion in this forum. The Mayor suggested that the matter of financing has nothing to do with re-zoning and Mr. Thorne would have to make any requests in this regard in writing to Council, and questioned the propriety of the reference to financing in the submitted correspondence. Mr. Rodgers expressed the opinion that Council members, at this stage, should be free to ask far-reaching, wide- ranging questions, although how Mr. Thorne responds is another matter. Mr. Thorne 83-501 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 advised that the letter, referring to financial matters was appended to the proposal document, has not yet been discussed with the person to whom it was directed and that he takes great offence to the Director of Planning making that public. Councillor Flewwelling questioned the applicant's intent with respect to a liquor license for the urban inn and the intent of the cost sharing reference in the submitted correspondence, to which Mr. Thorne replied that he is aware of the licensing procedures in the Province, and that the latter is referenced in an exploratory letter and, for example, the memo to the Province has not even been forwarded to the Province, nor has any discussion with the Province or municipal officials taken place. Councillor Flewwelling asked if the applicant is still desirous of having the subject area designated as part of the City centre in order to make the project viable to which Mr. Thorne replied that he does not care what the area is called in that it is the upper centre of the City of Saint John and, as to include it in something referred to as the uptown agency, he does not care at all, and he confirmed that Deans Hill Company Ltd. is still of the opinion that the participation of the public in the development of Deans Hill is the key to the success of the project. With regard to the status of the purchase of the City-owned land, Mr. Rodgers clarified that, as Council has previously been informed, the matter of the property transfer is not outstanding because of the developer but rather because of title problems. Deputy Mayor Gould made the observation that the project before Council at this time has changed quite substantially since October and the whole project now appears to be much more massive than it was at that time; and noted the reference in the application to the City sharing in building a 320-car garage, participating in the restoration of the 5 Douglas Avenue buildings and the Debury house and tax concessions, as well as the allusion to the City guaranteeing a $60 million bond issue, and he asked if the project is contingent on the latter, to which Mr. Thorne replied that the project to date has been conditional on him; and, relative to the continuation of the project, he would like to have serious discussion with the municipality relative to a project costing approximately $78 million, which would stimulate a return to the tax base of about $1.7 million on an annual basis; and also that, if the City cannot or will not assist with respect to a bond issue, advised that the prospects of the project proceeding are probably good, and better than different projects in the City. In response to Councillor Knibb's question about the interest in condominium housing in the City, in view of the above letter in support of the proposal, Mr. Thorne advised that he has lists of persons whose names are indicative of purchase of a condominium on Deans Hill, and there are many others indicative of a degree of interest in committing to office space on Deans Hill. Councillor Knibb asked if the applicant's agenda for development is in the order of phases 1, 2, 3 and 4, as referred to in the Planning Advisory Committee's letter, to which Mr. Thorne replied that his keenest interest in the site is to have an office building, with his secondary interest being to build condominiums, and his third interest being to invest in the restoration of the buildings, and he concurred with Councillor Knibb's observation that they have made the concession to preserve the subject buildings, while economically it would have made much more sense to tear them down. Mr. Thorne responded to queries of Councillor Fitzpatrick with respect to the proposed building restoration, with Mr. Thorne's suggestion being that, if the buildings are historic in nature, perhaps they should be so designated and he advised that his commitment is to restore them to the best of his ability starting this summer; and, concerning a market study relative to justifying a 98,000 square foot office building, Mr. Thorne advised that several market analyses have been carried out over eight years, with the most recent analysis having been probably about eight months ago and ongoing monitoring carried out which indicates that, for about eighteen months, there has been a zero growth market, with the prediction for the immediate future being likewise. Councillor Davis made the observation that the drawings of the project, as displayed in the Council Chamber, illustrate that there is no new building proposed on Douglas Avenue and that new construction starts on the corner of Main Street and Chesley Drive, opposite the modern construction across the street, meaning that there is no clash; and expressed the opinion that it would not be fair to ask the applicant to build only a 30,000 square foot office building with a view of adding more later. Mr. Nicholas Barfoot appeared in support of the above proposal on behalf of Douglas Avenue Christian Church, and advised that the Church continues to support the proposal and, in fact, finds that the new proposal, with the new locations of the office building and condominiums, represents an improvement from the Church's point of view, and commended Mr. Thorne for the changes. Mr. Barfoot also advised that the Church's main interest in the project is that it will bring new growth and new life 83-502 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 to the subject area, and the project and all other facilities in the area will complement each other, with a mutual benefit to the people who live there. Mr. Barfoot noted that Council has made the transfer of the City land conditional upon working out satisfactory parking arrangements with the Church, and concluded that the Church looks forward to completing that arrangement before the land is transferred. Mr. Lawrence Cheslock addressed Council in support of the application and, in making the observation that the proposal reflects positive and substantial changes from the previous submission of last October, advised that he is confident that the major changes for the master plan have been successfully incorporated for an aesthetically-pleasing mixed-use integrated development; and suggested that, not only will the project help to promote the City of Saint John into the 21 st century and celebrate the Harbour front, most important it will reinforce the growth and stability of the present uptown core. Mr. Cheslock expressed the view that the 98,000 square foot office building proposed, for two phases of 49,000 square feet per phase, represents prudent thinking so that checks and balances are in place and over-building does not occur; however, it is very important, for the initial overall economic viability for the development, that a minimum of 98,000 square feet be approved for the office building in the re-zoning application at this point in time, as this design component anchors the development and helps support, financially, the major restoration costs of the existing buildings on Douglas Avenue and the Debury House on Main Street. Mr. David Morgan appeared in support of the application, representing the marketing for the Deans Hill development, and advised that the marketing is geared to an entirely new market in that it is proposed that, rather than leasing the property which is owned by the landlord, persons will lease the property to own it in that, after three years, they will have equity to put back into the property, and also that, of the proposed 100,000 square feet office building, approximately 17,000 square feet would be used for common area, such as elevators and hallways. Mr. Morgan concurred with the earlier observation that the proposal would not touch the market of the downtown area, which needs people at this time. Councillor Rogers asked if the recommended Section 39 conditions indicate that the phases must be carried out in order, to which Mr. Bedford replied that, while the proposal was assumed to mean phase 1 would go before phase 2 which would go before phase 3, there is no requirement in the wording of Section 39 that that phasing would be absolute, and that, with respect to the restoration of the buildings, there is no ability within a Section 39 requirement to absolutely require something to happen; for example, there is no provision in the above recommendation to require the office building to be built, or any of the project to happen, at a certain time; however, while the question of the applicant possibly allowing the buildings to deteriorate to the point of necessary demolition, that is not what staff reads into the intent of the proposal. Mr. Bedford confirmed Councillor Rogers' observation to the effect that, with respect to the manner in which the conditions are presently presented, there are no absolute requirements for penalties for the phasing not to be done in the way it is proposed, and Councillor Rogers asked if, on the basis that the proposed re-zoning and the Section 39 conditions are approved, the developments proposed are what will take place on the property, or if it is simply allowing the developer to have the land re- zoned, to which Mr. Bedford replied that, from his perspective, the applicant should provide for himself the confidence needed by the Councillor and, from a planning perspective, the applicant has illustrated or indicated that this project will all unfold over a ten-year period as the market dictates and, while at this time a specific proposal is being recommended for approval and the applicant appears to have made his proposal based on his best information at the present time, as time unfolds Council may receive changes, or more detail, that may indicate that, in the end, the final development may not be absolutely the same as what is presently before Council; but, at least, based on the best information staff has, the general context for the development is considered to be set forth in the conditions. Councillor Rogers asked, if the re-zoning is approved, how many changes can occur within the zoning to which Mr. Bedford replied that the recommendations before Council provide for separate and specific approval by Council for the design of the office building and the design of the condominium buildings, and the only part of the development that can proceed without further Section 39 83-503 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 amendment is the urban inn and the development on Douglas Avenue; and that staff would expect that the next step would be clarified with more detailed plans and that the developer would be using this approval for the basis of his plans, and he noted that the above recommendation indicates that the applicant will come back to Council. Councillor M. Vincent asked if recommendation (3)(d)(i) above means that the initial stage of the office building shall be 49,000 square feet and if recommendation (3)(d)(iii) means that, if it is to have the second 49,000 square feet included for a gross total of 98,000 square feet, Council must approve the second stage, to which Mr. Bedford replied in the affirmative; and clarified that the wording of (3)(d)(i) speaks only to design, and that the detailed design of stage one of 49,000 square feet and then the detailed design of stage two of 49,000 square feet is what would come back to Council, with the consideration of market at that stage not to be an issue for Council deliberation. Mr. Bedford confirmed Councillor M. Vincent's observation that adoption of the Planning Advisory Committee's recommendation would allow for a structure to be built in office tower form that will, in fact, have the capability of providing 98,000 square feet, of which only 49,000 square feet can be used without approval for the second stage, although Council's approval is only of the design, not market, issues. 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, (1) a parcel of land fronting on Chesley Drive, Hilyard Street and Edward Street, being NBGIC Numbers 369074 and part of 373613,368878,368860, 380329,368852,55084313 and 368845, from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential classification; and (2) the following parcels of land: 354 Main Street (NBGIC Number 370445),24-26 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368894),28 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368886), 36 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368878), 50 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368860), 56 Douglas Avenue (part of 380329),60 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Numbers 368852 and 55084313),80 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368845), and Chesley Drive and Main Street (NBGIC Numbers 55085708,55085724 and part of 373613), from Medium Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, be read a first time. With respect to questions related to the proposed Section 39 conditions, Mr. Rodgers suggested that, as these relate to the re-zoning and not to the Municipal Plan amendment, Council should deal with the proposed Municipal Plan amendment at this time and, if first and second readings are given and Council considers it necessary to make changes in the Section 39 conditions, Council could even give first and second readings to the proposed re-zoning, or the matter could be tabled so that the necessary staff could meet with the developer to see if the conditions are feasible or can be worked out, with a position on the Section 39 conditions to be received prior to proceeding to third readings. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Flewwelling voting "nay". 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 M. 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, (1) a parcel of land fronting on Chesley Drive, Hilyard Street and Edward Street, being NBGIC Numbers 369074 and part of 373613,368878,368860, 380329,368852,55084313 and 368845, from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential classification; and (2) the following parcels of land: 354 Main Street (NBGIC Number 370445),24-26 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368894),28 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368886), 36 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368878), 50 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368860), 56 Douglas Avenue (part of 380329),60 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Numbers 368852 and 83-504 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 55084313),80 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368845), and Chesley Drive and Main Street (NBGIC Numbers 55085708,55085724 and part of 373613), from Medium Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Flewwelling voting "nay". Read a second time the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law". On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor Gould RESOLVED that the matter of the above- proposed re-zoning be laid on the table to deal with the two questions relevant to the Section 39 conditions, being the phasing of the project and a contingency on the office space requirement. Councillor Knibb suggested that there will be sufficient time to consider the above questions in the interim following first and second readings and third readings. Question being taken, the tabling motion was lost with the Mayor and Councillors Coughlan, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Knibb and M. Vincent voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John, insofar as it concerns re-zoning (1) a parcel of land fronting on Chesley Drive, Hilyard Street and Edward Street, being NBGIC Numbers 369074 and part of 373613,368878,368860,380329,368852, 55084313 and 368845; and the following parcels of land: 354 Main Street (NBGIC Number 370445),24-26 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368894),28 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368886), 36 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368878), 50 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368860), 56 Douglas Avenue (part of 380329),60 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Numbers 368852 and 55084313), 80 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368845), and Chesley Drive and Main Street (NBGIC Numbers 55085708,55085724 and part of 373613), which are at present zoned "RM-1" Three-Storey Multiple Residential, to "ID" Integrated Development, 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 with Councillors Flewwelling and Gould voting "nay". 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 Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John, insofar as it concerns re-zoning (1) a parcel of land fronting on Chesley Drive, Hilyard Street and Edward Street, being NBGIC Numbers 369074 and part of 373613,368878,368860,380329,368852, 55084313 and 368845; and the following parcels of land: 354 Main Street (NBGIC Number 370445),24-26 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368894),28 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Number 368886), 36 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368878), 50 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368860), 56 Douglas Avenue (part of 380329),60 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Numbers 368852 and 55084313), 80 Douglas Avenue (part of NBGIC Number 368845), and Chesley Drive and Main Street (NBGIC Numbers 55085708,55085724 and part of 373613), which are at present zoned "RM-1" Three-Storey Multiple Residential, to "ID" Integrated Development, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act as recommended 83-505 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 by the Planning Advisory Committee, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Flewwelling and Gould voting "nay". Read a second time the by-law to amend the Zoning By-law of the City of Saint John. Mr. Rodgers suggested that, as Council has every right to consider the recommended Section 39 conditions, if Council is not satisfied with the conditions, Council should, in resolution form so that it is a Council decision, ask the appropriate staff to meet with the developer and discuss what Council wants as different conditions, with staff to subsequently report to Council for consideration of third reading at that time. Mr. Rodgers made the observation that there is a difference between getting an interpretation on what is presently before Council as opposed to wanting different conditions that what is before Council; but, if Council has a concern about certain conditions it wants included in the Section 39 resolution, Council should decide what those conditions are, and that it is important that staff not be negotiating with the developer at this point, but rather communicate to the developer the conditions Council wants. On motion of Councillor Rogers Seconded by Councillor M. Vincent RESOLVED that the Section 39 conditions include that the phasing of the project be done in the order as presented in the Planning Advisory Committee's recommendation, and regarding the office tower and floor space. Question being taken, the motion was carried with the Mayor and Councillor Knibb voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor A Vincent RESOLVED that the above correspondence be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor, in noting the time of 9:45 o'clock p.m., advised her intent to request adjournment at 10:00 o'clock p.m. and resume at 8:00 a.m. on April 28, 1992. (Councillor Fitzpatrick withdrew from the meeting.) The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed re-zoning of a parcel of land located at 772 Millidge Avenue (NBGIC Number 55002265), from "R-1A" One-Family Residential to "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential classification, to permit expansion of an existing single-family dwelling for a two-family dwelling, as requested by F. Byron Thomas, 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 indicated at the Committee's April 22 meeting that he had no difficulty with the recommendation in the submitted report from the Planning Department, and one letter was received expressing concern but no one appeared to oppose the application; and recommending that the City of Saint John Zoning By-Law be amended by re-zoning a parcel of land located at 772 Millidge Avenue (NBGIC Number 55002265), from "R-1A" One-Family Residential to "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential classification. Mr. Byron Thomas appeared in support of his application and expressed agreement with the above recommendation. On motion of Councillor Knibb 83-506 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 Seconded by Councillor Gould 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 located at 772 Millidge Avenue (NBGIC Number 55002265), from "R-1A" One- Family Residential to "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential classification, 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 of Saint John. On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Coughlan 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 located at 772 Millidge Avenue (NBGIC Number 55002265), from "R-1A" One- Family Residential to "R-2" One- and Two-Family Residential 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 Flewwelling RESOLVED that the above letter from the Planning Advisory Committee be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor Rogers withdrew from and Councillor Fitzpatrick re-entered the meeting.) Public presentation was made of a proposed Municipal Plan amendment to redesignate on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, two parcels of land located at 701 and 705 Brunswick Drive (NBGIC Numbers 15743 and 12658), having an area of approximately 3,670 square feet, from High Density Residential to District Centre Commercial classification, to permit the re-zoning of the same area and the development of a new and used goods shop, as requested by David McEachern. Notice had been given to Geneva Roth Holdings II Ltd., c/o Barry M. Stewart, Director, to appear at this meeting of the Common Council to show cause, if any, why the former General Hospital Boiler House located at 211 Waterloo Street (NBGIC Number 14514), in the City and County of Saint John, should not be removed or destroyed as a dangerous or dilapidated building. Consideration was given to a report from the Building Inspector advising that the three-storey brick building and chimney, being the former General Hospital Boiler House, located at 211 Waterloo Street (NBGIC Number 14514), is deteriorated, dilapidated and dangerous, and the building has been open to the public frequently over the last ten months and the owner has not been able to secure it from public entry; and also advising that the building would require extensive renovation prior to re-use, the chimney is missing a considerable amount of mortar bonding the bricks, some of which are loose and may fall, and the reduction in bonding of the bricks suggests that the structural integrity of the chimney has been impaired; and recommending that Common Council pass the submitted resolution by virtue of the Saint John Building Act of 1925. Mr. Johnson circulated photographs of the above-mentioned property (which he subsequently provided to the owner for review); noted that the boiler house 83-507 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 and chimney are part of the old General Hospital, the former having been open to the public many times over the last year, and advised that the owner seems to have difficulty keeping it secure and safe to the public, and there is an area of the building which has had a collapse of the roof members; and also that there are sections of the chimney, which is quite tall, where the masonry has deteriorated to the point that he is unable to relate how it is standing up; and recommended that the boiler house and chimney be demolished under the 1925 Building Act. (Councillor Rogers re-entered the meeting.) Mr. Reid Chedore, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the owners; and, in confirming that the owners did receive the notice given by Mr. Johnson, advised that, as Mr. Johnson is believed to be aware, the owners have contracted a firm from Toronto, Ontario, to come to the City to do a full exhaustive report on the chimney itself; and also advised that the owners were of the understanding, through Mr. Johnson's office albeit there had been some concern over the condition of the boiler house for some time, that the main concern was that of the chimney itself in that it was deteriorating. Mr. Chedore expressed the understanding that Mr. Johnson's office has made no tests at all, and noted that the photographs were taken from the ground looking up at the chimney. Mr. Chedore explained that, while the owners do not suggest that there is not something that should be done, the owners do not know exactly what needs to be done; and referred to a report dated April 9, 1992, from McLean Chimney Company Ltd. (a copy of which he advised was given to the Building Inspector), which apparently has been servicing this particular chimney for the past 40 years and is familiar with the chimney and has done much chimney work in the City of Saint John, advising that it was prepared to come and inspect the chimney. Mr. Chedore further advised that McLean Chimney Company Ltd. has, in fact, inspected the chimney already, and that a report is anticipated within 3 weeks; and that, based on its preliminary observations, the Company's belief is that the chimney is not dangerous and dilapidated, but rather that it does need attention, in particular the top 15 feet, but that the base structure itself is not of a concern as addressed by the Building Inspector; and also that Wildwood Masonry, a local company which was engaged to check the chimney, indicated that the major concern with the chimney is the top 20 feet, which could be handled at a very minimum cost in the sense of between $5,000 to $7,000, as opposed to a demolition of the entire chimney at close to $50,000. Mr. Chedore requested that Council allow the owners to provide more information to Council, being a full report from the representative of McLean Chimney Company Ltd. who carried out the inspection. During discussion Mr. Johnson advised that there are elements of the boiler house that are not structurally sound, although the basic building is relatively plumb and could be expected to stand for a long time without being a hazard to anybody and, in response to Councillor Fitzpatrick's query as to why the recommended resolution would refer to the building and not just to the removal of the dangerous chimney, explained that the resolution with respect to the building relates to the fact that the building has been open to the public in a variety of instances over the last 6 to 10 months; and that, based on the observation of inspectors who have been visiting the site on an almost daily basis, the building has been observed to be open a significant number of times and the owner has been unable to keep the building secure to the public for public entry, which is the major concern about the building. In response to the Mayor's question about the chimney inspection having been carried out from the ground looking up as suggested by Mr. Chedore, Mr. Johnson advised that the closest staff has been able to get to the chimney is the equivalent of the telephoto lens on the camera, not having the equipment to get to the top of the chimney. Mr. Chedore advised that, as indicated in the above-mentioned interior inspection report to the Building Inspector, the inspector was to go down inside the chimney, and expressed the understanding that the inspector from the McLean company went almost to the top of the chimney on the rungs provided on its exterior, which indicates the extensiveness of his inspection. With regard to the security of the building as questioned by Councillor Flewwelling, Mr. Chedore advised that various ways of securing the building have been considered, many of which are not legal, and confirmed that there has been some difficulty keeping the building secure and that, although certain aspects of the complex have been open at times, it is his understanding that they are secured very quickly. The Mayor asked when the report from the McLean company is 83-508 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 expected to be received to which Mr. Chedore replied that it has been indicated that the owners will have a report within 3 weeks, and advised that the Company perceives, according it is oral report, that remedied work, not taking the entire chimney down, would take approximately 3 to 5 days. With regard to the recommendation that the boiler house itself should be demolished because it is difficult for the owner to keep it secure, Mr. Chedore asked if the boiler house is any less secured than the rest of the site, to which Mr. Johnson indicated that, unless the City Solicitor suggests otherwise, he did not wish to respond to that question at this time. The Mayor asked if there is any other way to inspect the chimney than by binoculars, to which Mr. Johnson replied that he certainly would not send his staff up the ladder on the outside of the chimney in that there is no mortar between the bricks, which he considers unsafe. Mr. Rodgers, in expressing the opinion that the Building Inspector has covered the condition of the building with respect to the safety aspect, expressed concern and cautioned Council about proceeding on ordering a demolition of a part of a structure based on the information before Council at this time when there is also other information that is not rebutted by someone who has been closer to the actual physical structure; and expressed the opinion that, in the circumstances, Council is justified in attempting to find out more information about the condition, one way or another, of the structure. On motion of Councillor Flewwelling Seconded by Councillor Rogers RESOLVED that the above matter be laid on the table in order for the City to pursue whatever means is available to get information on the chimney structure. Question being taken, the tabling motion was carried with Councillors Gould and M. Vincent voting "nay". Patricia Hay, Vice President of The Saint John District Labour Council, addressed Council concerning the W. Frank Hatheway Trust, which initially consisted of a large tract of land at Ragged Point in Millidgeville, which was given to the members of the various trade unions in the City of Saint John and their families to be used for what he described as a Labour Park, such land sold some years ago so that funds could be raised to build a Labour Temple for workers and their families; and, in highlighting the Labour Council's previously-submitted brief, requested, on the basis that workers in Saint John do contribute a vital element to the society and in order to make Mr. Hatheway's vision become a reality, Council to grant a suitable piece of property in Rockwood Park so the workers may finally have a Labour Temple in Saint John. Ms. Hay noted that Mr. Theodore Wilson, solicitor for the Trustees, was present at the meeting. Councillor A. Vincent asked when the City Manager's response would be forthcoming to his April 13 letter concerning the above matter, whereupon the Mayor suggested that the above presentation should be referred to the City Manager. On motion of Councillor A. Vincent Seconded by Councillor M. Vincent RESOLVED that presentation by Patricia Hay, Vice President of The Saint John District Labour Council, concerning land in Rockwood Park for a Labour Temple, be referred to the City Manager to attempt to arrange a meeting in the very near future with Rockwood Park representatives. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor called for a meeting to adjourn until 8:00 o'clock a.m., Tuesday, April 28, 1992. On motion of Councillor Gould Seconded by Councillor Flewwelling RESOLVED that this meeting be adjourned until 8:00 o'clock a.m., Tuesday, April 28, 1992. 83-509 COMMON COUNCIL APRIL 27,1992 Question being taken, the motion was lost with the majority of the Council members present voting "nay". The Mayor called for a motion to adjourn and, in response to Councillor Fitzpatrick's proposed motion to receive and file the Mayor's item regarding a passenger loading bridge for the Saint John Airport, indicated that she would not take any more items. Councillor Coughlan suggested that the meeting be adjourned until the afternoon of April 28, to which the Mayor replied in the negative; and, with respect to Councillor Rogers' motion to continue with the agenda, the Mayor advised her intent to withdraw from the meeting, and called for a seconder to Councillor Davis' motion to adjourn. On motion of Councillor Davis Seconded by Councillor A. Vincent RESOLVED that this meeting be adjourned. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Common Clerk