1995-10-30_Minutes
85-527
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
At a meeting of the Common Council, held at the City Hall in the City of Saint
John, on Monday, the thirtieth day of October, A.D. 1995, at 7:00 o'clock p.m.
present
Shirley McAlary, Mayor
Councillors Arthurs, Ball, Brown, Chase, Fitzpatrick, Gould,
Knibb, Trites, Vincent and Waldschutz
- and -
Messrs. 1. Totten, City Manager; F. Rodgers, City Solicitor; J.
Baird, Manager, Community Planning; A. Bodechon, Assistant
Deputy Chief of Police; M. Leggett, Lieutenant - Fire Department;
M. Crowley, Inspector - Fire Department; Mrs. M. Munford,
Common Clerk; and Ms. C. Joyce, Assistant Common Clerk.
1. MeetinQ Called To Order - OpeninQ Prayer
Mayor McAlary called the meeting to order, and offered the opening
prayer.
2. Approval of Minutes
On motion of Councillor Knibb
Seconded by Councillor Arthurs
RESOLVED that minutes of the meeting
of Common Council, held on October 23, 1995, on be approved.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
The Mayor proclaimed October 30 to November 5 to be Sun Life Skate
Canada International Week, and November 1 to 7 to be National Community Safety
and Crime Prevention Week in the City of Saint John; and expressed appreciation to
the Irving companies for the provision of bus transportation to Montreal for persons in
support of the Quebec Referendum's "No" side, and to all Saint John citizens for going
to Montreal in an attempt to keep a united Canada.
Mayor McAlary extended condolences to the family of the late Mr. Medor
Joseph (Mickey) Chiasson, brother of Mrs. Sherry Cunningham of the Common Clerk's
Office, whose death occurred by accident on Friday, October 27; and also to the family
of the late Mr. Dale J. Maguire of Lorneville, who passed away on Saturday, October
28.
Mayor McAlary welcomed to the Council Chamber Mr. R. Wanamaker
who addressed Council on the 1995 Poppy Campaign sponsored by the Royal
Canadian Legion, and Mr. H. Clements presented a poppy to the Mayor.
* Added Item
The Mayor called for a motion to add to the agenda of this meeting as
item 2A a report from the City Manager (copies of which were distributed to Council
members in Committee of the Whole earlier this date), with regard to Red Head
properties.
On motion of Councillor Vincent
Seconded by Councillor Knibb
RESOLVED that the City Manager's report
regarding Red Head properties be added to the agenda of this meeting for
consideration as item 2A.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
85-528
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
2A. Red Head Properties
Consideration was given to a report from the City Manager advising that,
as previously discussed with Council, the Province of New Brunswick is in the process
of acquiring ownership of the three affected properties on the Red Head Road, the
long-term plan being to have title to these properties transferred to the City, after which
the City would demolish the properties and undertake some slope restoration; and also
advising that, although the process is well underway, at the request of the Province, he
has instructed staff to take whatever steps are necessary to remove the safety hazard
before nightfall on October 31 and, in addition, he has been advised by the Legal
Department that Council should adopt the submitted resolution in order for the Legal
Department to complete the transfer of title.
On motion of Councillor Knibb
Seconded by Councillor Vincent
RESOLVED that as recommended by the
City Manager, the City acquire good and marketable freehold title from Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by the Minister of
Municipalities, Culture and Housing in and to the lands and premises in the City of
Saint John known by the civic addresses 1150, 1162 and 1180 Red Head Road for the
nominal fee of $1.00.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3(a) Zoning By-Law Text Amendment
Sanitary Landfill Facilities
In "1-2" Heavy Industrial Zone
The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was
completed with regard to a proposed Zoning By-Law text amendment respecting
sanitary landfill facilities in the "1-2" Heavy Industrial zone by (a) deleting the words
"subject to subsection 2(e) and (f), municipal sanitary landfill" and inserting the words
"subject to subsection 2(e) and (h), a sanitary landfill" in subsection 630(1)(b); (b)
deleting the word "municipal" in subsection 630(2)(e); (c) deleting the words "a
municipal sanitary landfill" in subsection 630(2)(f); and (d) adding a new subsection
630(2)(h) to read as follows: "(h) a sanitary landfill shall be enclosed by natural
buffering and/or constructed earth berms.", to (1) permit the establishment of a regional
sanitary landfill facility in all "1-2" Heavy Industrial zoned areas, including the proposed
"Paddy's Hill" site on the Lorneville Peninsula, by removing the reference to municipal
ownership of a sanitary landfill in the "1-2" zone provisions; and (2) delete the
requirement that a sanitary landfill in the "1-2" Heavy Industrial zone be enclosed with a
painted, solid fence, and replace it with a requirement for natural buffering and/or
constructed earth berms, and that 3{c) letters in opposition to the proposed amendment
were received from Clovis & Lydia Caissie, Paul & Susan Chase, Garnett MacLean,
Yvon and Jeannette LeBlanc, Melvin A. Wilson & Eileen H. Wilson, and Mrs. Mona
Hayward, with additional letters in opposition (copies of which were distributed to
Council members at this meeting) received from Sandra M. Clark and Michael E. Clark,
and the Chairman of the River Road Concerned Citizens Committee; and also received
was 3{d) a letter in support of the proposed amendment from the Fundy Region Mayors
Association, as well as two letters in support (copies of which were distributed to
Council members at this meeting) from Saint John Construction Association Inc.
3{b)
Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory
Committee submitting a copy of the Planning Department's report, as well as letters,
presentations and/or supporting material, a brief and a petition, which were considered
by the Committee at its October 17, 18 and 25 meetings; advising the details of its
meetings with respect to the proposed Zoning By-Law text amendment concerning
sanitary landfill facilities in the "1-2" Heavy Industrial zone; and recommending that the
application be denied.
Mayor McAlary, having commented on the procedure and decorum for
85-529
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
the public hearing at this meeting, advised Council's intent, if the public hearing is not
completed by 9:30 o'clock p.m. on this date, to recess and reconvene on Wednesday,
November 1, at one of two times, 4:00 o'clock p.m. or, if that is inconvenient for the
people making presentations, 6:00 o'clock p.m.; and asked that those persons
concerned discuss the issue of an appropriate time to reconvene on November 1 and
advise Council accordingly at the end of this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Frank Hogan, lawyer for the Lorneville Community and Recreation
Association, appeared in opposition to the proposed amendment; advised the intent to
raise three procedural points for Council's consideration and response prior to the rest
of his presentation, with the third point to be addressed by Mr. Pat Donovan, President
of the Association; and questioned the impartiality of the Mayor and Councillor
Waldschutz as follows:- (1) the Mayor's impartiality in relation to her position both as
Mayor and the Chairman of the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission and the
question of how much participation she should have in these proceedings and, more
important from a legal perspective, his concern not on conflict of interest or pecuniary
conflict of interest but about the administrative law point of impartiality, or bias, or even
appearance of bias, in that it is his belief that the point of impartiality was passed when
the Mayor made a presentation to the Planning Advisory Committee in favour of the
application, and the question of whether procedurally it is correct for the Mayor in this
position to speak in favour of the application and then to occupy the chair, listen, make
a decision and actually participate in any part of the Common Council portion of this
decision; and (2) the impartiality of Councillor Waldschutz in respect to the previous
Planning Advisory Committee hearings within the last two weeks based on an Affidavit
sworn by Dawn Marie Alexander (a copy of which he subsequently filed with the
Common Clerk), which he read, requesting that Christopher Waldschutz be excluded
from further participation in this application.
Mr. Pat Donovan, President of the Lorneville Community and Recreation
Association, addressed the third procedural point, being the issue of land ownership
and the owner's support of the application, and advised that City staff indicated during
the Planning Advisory Committee hearings that the Province of New Brunswick owned
the Paddy's Hill site and that the land was under the administration and control of the
Department of Economic Development and Tourism and that, while the Department
was aware of the application, there was no clear indication of support. Mr. Donovan
also advised of his discussion in this regard with a representative of the Economic
Development and Tourism Department to the effect that it is quite possible that there
might not be support from the Department for the use of this site, nor if the land in
question is even available at this point in time, and also that a consultant company
called Fiander-Good in Fredericton is conducting a best-use land survey in the
Lorneville Peninsula, which will not be completed until January or February of next year
and is an all-encompassing survey, not only for tourism but for light industrial and
residential development; and suggested that Council might wish to contact the
Department to find out its position in this regard, as well as the Department of the
Environment to find out the status of the EIA.
The Mayor noted the purpose of this public hearing in that it was not to
select a site for the landfill facility; and, in responding to Mr. Hogan's point of procedure
relevant to whether she has a conflict being the Mayor and the Chairman of the
Commission, made the observation that she was elected as the Mayor of the City and
was appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as a member of the Fundy
Region Solid Waste Commission, and stated that she does not feel in any way that she
is in a conflict and is doing both jobs as she is supposed to do. The Mayor advised
that, if there was any conflict of interest, it would mean she would be gaining something
personal from this, which she is not, so she will not be stepping out of the Council
Chamber.
On the point of impartiality, Mr. Rodgers advised that the Municipalities
Act, in its indication that all members are required to vote unless they are disqualified to
vote by reason of interests or otherwise, contemplates the possibility of being
disqualified for something other that conflict of interest; and expressed the view that an
elected official losing the right to vote is very significant and, regarding this public
hearing at which an affidavit has been mentioned, he has no doubt that, with respect to
the argument put forward, there are points being made that are valid; however, that is
not enough for him to give an opinion at this time in that, in looking at an issue like this,
85-530
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
the entire picture has to be looked at and one affidavit does not decide a case. Mr.
Rodgers suggested that, with everything that is known with respect to past instructions
and past warnings and advice, Council members should use their conscience as a
guide at this meeting and the hearing should proceed, and that further examination
from a legal standpoint can be given to the issues raised before any voting takes place
in that the voting is what is crucial, although he would not make a commitment,
depending on what he can uncover or discover, on whether or not at a later point an
opinion will be given on the status of the particular members referred to and, as to the
matter proceeding to court for the judge to rule on it which is what the final decision is
all about, any opinion he gives would not satisfy with respect to what the outcome
might be in a court of law.
Mr. Hogan, in presenting his opposition to the proposed amendment,
referred to a prepared brief (a copy of which was subsequently filed with the Common
Clerk) summarizing the procedural developments in the proposed amendment to the
Zoning By-Law between November 18, 1994 upon Fundy SWAT's application for the
re-zoning of the Crane Mountain site and an amendment to Section 630 of the Zoning
By-Law identical to the current request and October 25, 1995 when the Planning
Advisory Committee recommended again that this application be denied, as well as
procedural issues relevant to Sections 91 0(3)(d) and 910(3)(f) of the Zoning By-Law
with regard to Council considering a further application where an application has been
refused by the Council, and Common Council initiating amendments to the Zoning By-
Law, respectively, and on the issue of a proper notice of the proposed text amendment.
On the issue of bias and conflict of interest, Mr. Hogan expressed the view that the
duty to act fairly and impartially is violated when the City steps out of its normal role of
proposing Zoning By-Laws of general application where there is a particular
development behind the scenes, and that the particular development is clearly stated in
the Planning staff's report to the Planning Advisory Committee as submitted above in
its reference to the proposed Paddy's Hill site on the Lorneville Peninsula. Mr. Hogan
addressed the following substantive issues: (1) the municipal drinking water supply at
Spruce Lake, and (2) the impact on property values; and, having suggested that
Council must go back and ask whether the current solution meets the basic criteria of
being socially and environmentally acceptable, put forth the following as alternatives to
the proposal with respect to the "1-2" zone: (1) if there were a true commitment to
recycling, a much smaller site would be in order; (2) an independent review of the 157
sites within the Region; (3) the site selection process should be expanded to properly
assess sites that are very close to the region but not actually in it; and (4) if none of
these alternatives is suitable, the option of a transfer station with a remote landfill
accessible by rail or truck should be more fully explored. Mr. Hogan, in concluding his
remarks, advised that, if Council approves the subject text amendment, Council will no
longer be the final safeguard for the people of Lorneville in that the Fundy Region Solid
Waste Commission will no longer have to come to Common Council with a specific
proposal for a landfill in Lorneville but will only be required to appear before the
Planning Advisory Committee which will not have the power to deny the application but
only be able to attach terms and conditions; and asked Council to consider whether this
is truly in the best interests of the City of Saint John.
Ms. Dawn Alexander of Lorneville addressed Council in opposition to the
proposed amendment and, through a slide presentation, provided a summary from a
history report of Lorneville's misfortunes which, she advised, was prepared by some
residents, from January 1967 upon amalgamation with the City of Saint John to date;
and asked Council to listen and act on the concerns of the citizens of Lorneville and
take the Planning Advisory Committee's advice and reject the proposed amendment,
noting that the community has been opposed to the landfill from the beginning and it is
not socially acceptable to Lorneville. Ms. Alexander distributed to Council members two
aerial view photos, one of Lorneville Harbour, the Spruce Lake dump, the adjacent
proposed Paddy's Hill site, and the Spruce Lake water supply; the other depicting
Musquash Harbour with a salt water marsh, the current dump and the Spruce Lake
water supply; and asked, as the distance between the sites and Spruce Lake is 1912
feet, if Council can honestly say that this is a good site for a landfill.
Mr. Roy Hobson of 90 Ketepec Road, appearing in opposition to the
proposed Zoning By-Law text amendment, commented on the issue of centre of
garbage generation being the Reversing Falls Bridge based on his opinion that,
including the Kingston Peninsula with the West, there is still only 25% of the regional
85-531
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
population west of Reversing Falls and, for the most part, much closer to the Bridge,
thus the centre of generation cannot possibly be Reversing Falls, but a significant
number of kilometres to the east; and addressed Council on the following issues:- (1) if
the proposed By-Law change is enacted, there will be no control within the jurisdiction
of the City of Saint John concerning either the placement or acceptability of landfill and
waste disposal within the City, and any application for waste disposal within Saint John
would be subject only to terms and conditions applied by the Planning Advisory
Committee, appealable to the Provincial Planning Appeal Board, the latter meaning
that, as the priorities and influences that direct that Board's decision may not match
those priorities and influences desired by the citizens and officials who live and work
within the City of Saint John, the effect would be to hand control of Saint John landfills
over to non-elected Provincial officials and subject to arguments and influences of the
landowners; and (2) the deletion of fencing around sanitary landfills in that, as the
problems of trash being transported by seagulls is well documented, it is patently
unwise to also open landfills to four-legged garbage carriers which could transport toxic
waste into surface water systems, and also that, as it can be realistically expected that
Provincial or Federal regulations will in the foreseeable future place requirements on
landfills that will in effect reverse any decision to remove enclosures, the City would in
that situation, if the proposed By-Law amendment were enacted, then be required to
make unbudgeted expenditures to fence-in any unfenced waste sites.
Mr. Milton Sherwood of the Village of Westfield advised that, as the MLA
for Grand Bay/Westfield which includes the area of Lorneville, his appearance was in
support of the Lorneville residents who are overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed
location of a regional landfill at Paddy's Hill as recommended by Fundy SWAT, and
that, based on his contact with a large percentage of the people living in the Lorneville
area and hearing their personal views, Lorneville does not want to be burdened with
another dump situation and their opposition is unequivocal with most having indicated
that they would not accept the facility under any circumstances; and expressed the
belief that this firm expression of public opinion in the community must be accepted, as
well as the hope that Council, in the interest of good planning, would reject the
proposed landfill site recommendation.
Ms. Julie Dingwell of South Bay appeared in opposition to the proposed
amendment; and read a letter which, she advised, was written by MLA Elizabeth Weir
in support of the residents of the community of Lorneville, urging that the members of
Common Council respect the decision of the Planning Advisory Committee and reject
the general text amendment put forward. Speaking on her own behalf, Ms. Dingwell
put forth reasons why she would live in Lorneville; and expressed the view that the City
must simply admit to both the Province and the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission
that neither of the chosen sites is acceptable and it is time to concede that SWAT failed
to come up with an appropriate site and that the Commission must look elsewhere, and
urged Council to make the decision that will save Lorneville.
Mr. David Thompson of Chance Harbour, a Director with the
Conservation Council of New Brunswick, addressed Council in opposition to the
proposed amendment; and commented on the issue of seagulls on Spruce Lake and
the dump site and problems with rodents, foxes, coyotes and other animals in the dump
area, as well as leachate from the dump, and the negative aspect of Council again
considering placing another landfill adjacent to a City water supply. Mr. Thompson
presented slides relevant to the geology and natural features in the area around the
existing and the new proposed dump site at Lorneville, depicting areas such as Black
Beach and the Musquash area estuary which he advised is one of the last remaining
undisturbed salt marsh ecological areas in the lower Bay of Fundy and the area into
which the leachate from the dump is flowing, salt ponds and wildlife and, to
demonstrate the diverse biology of the area, depicting mud flats, bogs and rock
outcroppings. Mr. Thompson recommended that Council seriously consider re-zoning
the area as park land with the purpose of protecting the flora and fauna, backing the
proposal for an ecological reserve in the area.
Mr. Hodges Hamm of West Saint John addressed Council in opposition
to the proposed amendment for the following reasons:- (1) the existing By-Law satisfies
the needs of the City as to the industrial zoning and an amendment to the By-Law to
allow "1-2" land to be made available for landfills or dumps could result in future abuses
by industrial users; (2) his belief that the City's action to amend the existing "1-2" zoning
85-532
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
is a sneaky way to accomplish the end goal, which is to place the proposed regional
landfill at Paddy's Hill, and, also because it will affect the value of residences located
on properties located adjacent to all "1-2" zoned properties located in the City because
all the "1-2" zoned areas will be able to accept a sanitary landfill, be it privately-owned or
a regional landfill; (3) his concern that proper notice was not given to residents within a
certain radius of those "1-2" properties which will be affected by the change; and (4) his
concern for the residents of Lorneville who were promised that the dump would only be
temporary and they should not be concerned because it would only be there for two
years, while seventeen years later the dump is still there. Mr. Hamm asked Council to
vote against the amendment and consider a formal proper application to locate the
regional landfill in a specific site, in other words, in either Lorneville or Crane Mountain.
Ms. Catherine Baird of 99 Lorneville Road, appearing in opposition to the
proposed amendment, read a letter, which she advised was from Gwendolyn Beatteay
of 920 Sand Cove Road, asking what is being done to protect the drinking water supply
from contamination by seagulls, and suggesting that the West Side should join in with
the Lorneville residents and help them with their fight to have the present dump closed
and not replaced by another landfill site in this area. Ms. Baird advised that she is
opposed to the text amendment for the reason that she resents being manipulated in
that, regardless of the wording of the amendment, the spirit of the amendment is to
open the door for a landfill at Lorneville, and because of concern about pollution of
streams and the devaluation of property in the area, and fear of rats, bears and
coyotes. Ms. Baird introduced Danny Wilson and Damien Farnham who, she advised,
were terrorized by a bear and subjected to repeated visits to the hospital for painful
needles for a time after, to say nothing of the trauma they experienced from being
attacked; and gave other examples of incidents involving animals in the area, as well as
the loss of recreational activities, including fishing, berry picking, and hiking in the
woods. Ms. Baird commented on the stigma of living in Lorneville because of the
location of the dump there; and, with respect to Council's rescinding of its previous
motion with respect to Lorneville, asked what has changed or what new facts have
been presented. Ms. Baird suggested that Lorneville has much potential, especially in
the area of tourism; presented a slide depicting the size of Lorneville in the past and as
it is now on the basis that the residents of Lorneville are before Council trying to
preserve that little bit that they have left; and asked Council, in making its decision, to
consider Lorneville's past and future.
The Mayor asked Mr. Donovan, as President of the Lorneville
Community and Recreation Association, the preference with respect to reconvening
this meeting either at 4:00 o'clock p.m. or 6:00 o'clock p.m. on November 1, to which
Mr. Donovan replied that 6:00 o'clock p.m. would be more appropriate as many of the
residents work during the daytime.
The Mayor, in adjourning this portion of the meeting, advised that the
meeting would reconvene on Wednesday, November 1, 1995, at 6:00 o'clock p.m.
The October 30 Council meeting was reconvened on Wednesday,
November 1, 1995 at 6:00 o'clock p.m., when there were present Mayor McAlary and
Councillors Arthurs, Brown, Chase, Fitzpatrick, Gould, Knibb, Trites, Vincent and
Waldschutz, and staff members Messrs. Totten, Rodgers, Baird, C. Robichaud,
Commissioner of Municipal Operations; M. Jamer, Director of Water and Sewerage; P.
Hanlon, Water and Sewerage Utility Operations Engineer; G. Ingraham, Assistant
Deputy Chief of Police; Mrs. Munford, and Ms. Joyce. The Mayor offered a prayer and,
having noted that this was a continuation of the October 30 public hearing with respect
to a proposed Zoning By-Law text amendment, asked if there were persons present
who wished to speak against the proposed amendment.
Copies of a letter from Mr. Milton Sherwood, MLA Grand Bay-Westfield,
expressing opposition to the proposed amendment to Section 630 of the Zoning By-
Law, as well as a Municipal Plan amendment and re-zoning relevant to Crane
Mountain, were distributed to Council members at this meeting by the Common Clerk.
Mr. Pat Donovan, appearing again before Council, advised that, while
there would be a number of speakers addressing Council and prior to this, he would
like to bring up the subject of impartiality, not conflict of interest, in that Council must
not only be impartial in order for the process to work but it must also be perceived as
85-533
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
being impartial; and questioned the Mayor's impartiality in that, while she suggested
that she did not speak in favour of the text amendment but only on the need and
advantages of a landfill within the City limits, the Planning Advisory Committee's report
to Council refers to Ms. Shirley McAlary, Chairperson of the Fundy Region Solid Waste
Commission, as having attended its meeting to speak in favour of the amendment. Mr.
Donovan expressed the belief that the Mayor could not be impartial in this matter in that
a clear perception was given that there was bias and that to remain in the Chamber
presiding over this issue would not and could not provide the citizens of Saint John with
the confidence and faith that they require of their elected officials and, as for Councillor
Waldschutz, he should allow his conscience to guide him in this matter. Mr. Donovan
asked if the Mayor would care to respond to his comments, to which Mayor McAlary
replied to the effect that her response was the same as she gave on Monday evening,
October 30, and, if it became a legal matter, she would have legal counsel.
(Councillor Ball entered the meeting.)
Mr. Norman Ferguson of 2669 Lorneville Road, in addressing Council in
opposition to the proposed amendment, spoke on the history and operation of the
current landfill at Spruce Lake and the issue of rodents, seagulls and fencing, as well
as on the matter of the water quality in Spruce Lake based on Mr. Jamer's indication at
the Planning Advisory Committee meeting that the water analysis initiated by the Water
and Sewerage Department showed that it has not deteriorated since the inception of
the Spruce Lake dump, while a survey done by the Lorneville Community and
Recreation Association indicates that 56% of the residents of West Saint John do not
drink the water directly from the tap, but boil or filter the Spruce Lake water or buy
water elsewhere; and suggested that, to reconcile the two views on the water quality,
the two groups tested different characteristics of the water, using different tools in that
the Water and Sewerage Department uses technical and sophisticated analysis of
things which are not evident through casual observation, while the citizens of West
Saint John use their eyes, nose and taste buds. Mr. Ferguson spoke on the selection
of Lorneville and Crane Mountain as the preferred sites for a landfill when they were
ranked fourth and fifth on Fundy SWAT's own ratings; and, as to acceptable risks
associated with a landfill at Paddy's Hill, suggested that, if the land could be put to
better use as a tourist area or a business park, a landfill could preclude these other
uses which could in the long term provide more jobs with less risk to the environment;
and expressed the opinion that there is no acceptable risk in that the loss of the West
Side water supply cannot be allowed to happen no matter how small the risk. Mr.
Ferguson, referring to the introduction to Council on October 30 of the two young men
who had survived the mauling of a bear, advised that, as the children and bears and
dump are still there, this type of incident can happen again if a landfill is placed
adjacent to the old Spruce Lake dump or if the dump is not properly closed, and that no
amount of benefits could be worth the life of one of the children; and concluded that the
only way to eliminate this risk is to deny the application for a text amendment which is
now before Council for the sake of the environment and the future safety of the
children.
Mr. John Leonard of 2517 Lorneville Road spoke in opposition to the
proposed amendment on the basis that it could lead to another landfill in Lorneville, and
that his home is in one of the areas defined in the 400-page Environmental Impact
Statement as being negatively affected by the visibility of this project; made the
observation that the dump site would also be visible from the Irving Nature Park which,
according to a document recording park visitation statistics, is on a par with and in
some months far exceeding the visitation to Fundy National Park and Kouchibouquac
Park; and addressed the issue of contamination of springs, wells, brooks and streams
and the need to protect watersheds, as well as the elimination of sites in East Saint
John on CALPA's recommendation, and promises to Lorneville from City officials,
mayors and government officials that the Spruce Lake landfill would remain open only
until a new site was found and that Lorneville would not receive another dump. Mr.
Leonard commented on the ever-changing figures between $56 and $47 per tonne
relevant to the cost to dump at Lorneville and the cost, as high as $90 per tonne and as
low as $57 per tonne, of shipping garbage out of the region, and the neglect to tell the
citizens that it might cost the average household $50 per year to export the waste; and
made the observation that, with respect to an indication that Fundy SWAT could not
reapply for one year to amend Section 630 so the City did, this seems like a way to get
around some of the rules set down to protect the public from having to endure hearing
85-534
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
after hearing when nothing has changed. Mr. Leonard expressed concern that the EIA
is not complete, nor does it commit to anything, and that questions asked by Mr. Frank
Hogan in his review of the impact statement for the Lorneville site have not, to date,
been answered; and suggested that Lorneville residents could go into more depth with
their concerns had they, like Fundy SWAT, had the opportunity to meet with Council
privately and that, if one side is allowed to speak in private at some point prior to public
hearings, the other side should be allowed the same courtesy. Mr. Leonard read the
petition presented to Council at the June 19, 1995 public hearing by his son Eric
Leonard; and, having advised Council of the effect this issue has had on his home life,
asked Council to reject the amendment and let Lorneville residents get on with their
lives.
Mr. Pat Donovan of 1739 Lorneville Road, speaking in opposition to the
proposed amendment, addressed the Environmental Impact Statement's reference to
land use impacts at Paddy's Hill and the eventual requirement of 30 hectares for the
active area of the landfill to accommodate the 25-year disposal area, while the basis of
the Environmental Impact Analysis process was a usable area of 105 hectares to
ensure adequate buffering around the site; noted the Fiander-Good study being
undertaken for the Province of the Lorneville Peninsula and its expected completion
date of January or February, according to an article in The Saint John Times Globe
newspaper on this date; and asked, in view of Common Council's request of June 19
for Fundy SWAT to look elsewhere, the extent of the effort to do so in the past four
months or if all hopes have been placed on getting the land in Lorneville, which has yet
to be negotiated and will not be able to be discussed until January or February. Mr.
Donovan commented on the rating given Lorneville in the siting criteria process, as set
out in the Environmental Impact Statement, as well as on the summary of the potential
impact at the Paddy's Hill site; and advised that, while he does not have an answer to
the landfill problem, he would suggest that Council look into the concept of a tipping
floor, rather than an expensive transfer station, and consider transporting to another
region temporarily until all the facts are obtained and the proper choice can be made.
Mr. Donovan distributed to Council members copies of correspondence, including a
letter dated March 8, 1990 to City staff person Mr. J. Claude MacKinnon from Kirk
Gordon, EIA Coordinator with the Department of the Environment; correspondence
dated November 14, 1989 to City staff person Mr. Dan Harvey from GEMTEC, including
a list of sample locations, type and reference page of the Spruce Lake landfill project;
and an inter-office memo from Kirk Gordon, dated November 23, 1989, regarding the
Saint John landfill expansion - water quality monitoring program review; and, referring
to the Common Council minutes of May 26, 1978 at which time first and second
readings were given for the new Spruce Lake landfill, noted the indication to a site that
was free of pollution, scavengers and lots of other problems usually affected with a
landfill site, as well as comments and questions asked by Council members at that time
and staff's response.
Mr. Leonard Baird of 992 Lorneville Road, appearing in opposition,
suggested that, as he received a letter at his home informing him of the proposed text
amendment and is of the opinion that the Lorneville "1-2" area was the only area that
received letters, this made it very site specific and anything Lorneville residents have to
say about it is relevant as far as a landfill is concerned; and advised that seventy per
cent of the questions forwarded by their lawyer to the New Brunswick Department of
the Environment on the EIA report were not answered and, having submitted the list to
the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission, they have yet to receive any written
answers and, although Mr. David Stevens of the Commission has advised that he
would be glad to discuss these questions, the residents need things in writing for the
obvious reason that they are back again before Council when they thought the issue
was dead. Mr. Baird questioned the completeness of the EIA in that it indicates that it
does not include an analysis of the impact of a MaxRF, as well as the centre of waste
generation, the latter to which he referred to on an overhead slide of a map of the
Fundy Region and a slide indicating the 1996 population estimates of the area; and
commented on the collection and treatment of leachate from the current landfill at
Spruce Lake and on daily cover and the use of alternate daily cover material at a
landfill, as referenced in the EIA report. Mr. Baird used overhead slides of the maps in
the EIA report of the footprint for the landfill site and the footprint of the 25-year
disposal area asked for by the Commission to illustrate that there is a lot of Mill Creek
and Burchill Brook under the set back, thus the Solid Waste Commission is not listening
to its own setbacks in this situation; and asked that Council use the same foresight as
85-535
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
the Planning Advisory Committee in voting against the amendment.
Mrs. Mona Hayward, a resident of Lorneville and a member of the
Lorneville Landfill Committee, addressed Council in opposition to the proposed
amendment and, referring to an overhead slide, related to Council the results of a
survey conducted during the time frame of September 18 to October 6, 1995 (copies of
which were distributed to Council members at this time). Mrs. Hayward recommended
that (1) a questionnaire be circulated amongst the households of West Saint John prior
to the addition of fluoride in the Spruce Lake watershed as the expense of fluoridation
would definitely be a waste of taxpayers' money if a high percentage of the people are
buying their drinking water; and (2) the revenue received through tipping fees, should a
landfill be located at Paddy's Hill, should be invested to ensure that funds are available
for safe drinking water for the residents of West Saint John in the event in the future
that Spruce Lake becomes contaminated by either the current dump or a regional
landfill. Mrs. Hayward quoted Fundy SWAT's mandate as cited by Mr. Bill Artiss at the
EIA meeting on February 1, 1995 on the basis that Council, if it truly believes that a
regional landfill should be located at Paddy's Hill, would be confirming that economics
outweigh the social and environmental aspects of Fundy SWAT or the Fundy Region
Solid Waste Commission's mandate; and objected to the manner in which, in her
opinion, the City of Saint John has made the community of Lorneville be seen in a
negative manner through suggesting that the taxpayers' money would be wasted
should other locations for a regional landfill be revisited, the City tax rate would
increase should a regional landfill be located outside the City limits, and Paddy's Hill is
the best suitable location within the City limits. Mrs. Hayward expressed the opinion
that it would be ridiculous for the City of Saint John to approve the location of a regional
landfill in Lorneville, a community along the Bay of Fundy.
Mr. Melvin Wilson of 1521 Lorneville Road addressed Council in
opposition to the proposed text amendment and, having circulated a bottle containing
what he described as a sample of water taken from Spruce Lake, commented on the
contamination of the Spruce Lake supply by seagulls depositing garbage from the
landfill into the Lake; and asked Council's consideration of a proposal for the possible
establishment of a regional sanitary landfill in the Enniskillen area (copies of which he
distributed to Council members at this meeting). Mr. Wilson asked Council to support
and honour the common sense decision of the Planning Advisory Committee in this
regard.
Mr. Edmund Wilson of 3451 Lorneville Road, speaking against the
proposed amendment, commented on a meeting in and tour of Lorneville on October 4
with Provincial Ombudsman Ellen King concerning the desecration of their human
rights, and read a letter which, he advised, he received from the Ombudsman indicating
that she forwarded the summary of events of the October 4 meeting to The Honourable
Vaughn Blaney and has also written to Mayor Shirley McAlary requesting a meeting to
discuss the Lorneville case and to review the documentation pertinent to this situation.
Mr. Wilson distributed to Council members at this time a copy of the Provincial
Ombudsman's letter and a chronology of events leading to the desecration of their
human rights; and requested Council to live with its unanimous decision of June 19,
1995 and deny the Zoning By-Law amendment as did the Planning Advisory
Committee.
The Mayor, at approximately 8:05 o'clock p.m., called for a ten-minute
recess, following which the meeting reconvened.
The Mayor asked for some indication of the anticipated number of
presenters yet to address Council in opposition to the proposed amendment, to which
Mr. Donovan replied that, although there was quite a number of presenters, in the
interest of time they would be glad to restrict it to six very quick speakers so that the
proponent would have an opportunity to speak, and also that, if it ends up that they
have to come back again at another time, they would like to reserve the opportunity for
those other speakers to speak. The Mayor explained that Council does not have a
rebuttal as does the Planning Advisory Committee and those opposed speak first,
followed by those in favour of the application and that, as those in opposition can take
as long as they like to make their presentations, her intent in asking the question was to
determine how much time would be needed prior to hearing from the people in favour
85-536
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
of the proposed amendment; and Mr. Donovan asked for the opportunity to discuss this
and, following the next speaker, he would have an answer.
Ms. Jill LeBlanc of 1270 Lorneville Road, appearing in opposition to the
proposed amendment, read a letter which, she advised, was from Paul Gordon, a
former resident of Lorneville, and presented a slide of Mr. Gordon who had done diving
at Spruce Lake a few years ago and a slide showing a newspaper article with respect
to things found in Spruce Lake. Ms. LeBlanc spoke also as a resident of Lorneville for
28 years, having been a child when her family's property was expropriated in 1971 and
having experienced what she referred to as the dump syndrome.
Mr. Donovan advised that there would be approximately five more
presenters.
Mr. Brian LaRocque of 2791 Lorneville Road addressed Council in
opposition to the proposed amendment and advised of the reasons, when it was
indicated that there would be no dump there, for purchasing a property in Lorneville.
Mr. David Bowen of 11 By-Road No.7, Ketepec, spoke in opposition to
the proposed amendment on behalf of the River Road Concerned Citizens Committee
and the River Road Action Team from the South Bay to Martinon area based on the
experience of these groups from October 1992 from their participation, upon receipt of
an invitation from the Fundy Solid Waste Action Team, in constraint mapping during the
siting process, attendance at SWAT workshops, presentations and briefs during the
environmental impact assessment, review of the full reports from the Fundy,
Westmorland, Kings and Charlotte areas, meeting with the Minister of the Environment
and members of the Technical Review Committee, visits to waste management
facilities in other areas of the Province and facilities in Nova Scotia and the State of
Maine, and considerable documentary research and consultation with professional
engineers and experts in the waste management field. Mr. Bowen addressed the site
selection process on the basis that, while an environmental impact assessment was
conducted at Crane Mountain and Paddy's Hill, three sites were clearly shown as
better, but were ignored, being Lepreau, Bonney Road at Nauwigewauk and Cranberry
Head at Dipper Harbour; put forth the suggestion that an amendment must be made to
the Municipal Plan to establish a waste management zoning district to include sewage
treatment plants, domestic and industrial solid waste management facilities and
industrial effluent facilities thereby eliminating the possibility of industrial enterprises
impacting adjacent uses in a negative manner; and expressed concern about the far-
reaching effect the change in wording from municipal landfill to sanitary landfill could
have in the establishment of landfills for industrial, smoke stack fly ash, and hazardous
waste with no means of protection other than applied conditions which are often easily
overturned. Mr. Bowen commented on the importance of fencing at landfills to prevent
the intrusion of bears, coyotes and other animals, as well as access by all-terrain
vehicles and snowmobiles, and as it is aesthetically pleasing as well as practical in
deterring intruders and containing litter, and noted that berms would be a complement
in screening the landfill from view and should be added as an essential of the waste
management facility when applicable. Mr. Bowen suggested that if it is the case, as Mr.
Totten indicated at the Planning Advisory Committee meeting on October 25, that the
three better sites were put aside primarily due to the large number of homes in close
proximity, then the Crane Mountain site should have preceded them in the elimination
process and the Lorneville site would have fallen into this category; and requested that
Council adopt the following recommendations with respect to this application:- (1) the
present application be denied because the term "sanitary landfill" is too general and far-
reaching; and (2) the Municipal Development Plan be changed to incorporate a waste
management zoning district and any zoning for the purpose of establishing a landfill by
a Section 39 of the Community Planning Act shall not preclude conditions which
otherwise would apply as presently as is the case and any zoning under Section 39 of
the Act must require a return to the Planning Advisory Committee for additional
appropriate conditions to be applied; (3) fencing for a landfill is an essential component
and must remain in place and berms may be a complementary component to fencing
but not a replacement; and (4) Crane Mountain or Lorneville should not be considered
as the last resort as the waste management solution to the Fundy Region. Mr. Bowen
questioned the legal and ethical manoeuvring in the City representing the Waste
Commission as the applicant in this matter.
85-537
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
Ms. Elsie Rusling of 1435 Lorneville Road spoke in opposition to the
proposed amendment and related her experience relevant to the impact of the
expropriation process in Lorneville 24 years ago, referring to slides to show the amount
of area expropriated and that remaining after expropriation; and, in stating her objection
to another dump in Lorneville and to the proposed Zoning By-Law text amendment
which would clear the way for a landfill at Paddy's Hill, expressed the view that the
community needs some peace of mind, and noted the tourism potential of the area.
Mr. Garry Prosser of Red Head appeared in opposition to the proposed
amendment and, having addressed the issue of bias and disqualification from voting,
as well as on a maximum recycling facility and trucking associated with it, referred to
the Owen Washburn Associates report of October 1992 in relation to the Spruce Lake
landfill expansion and closure relevant to the reversal of ground water flow direction
and his concern about putting a landfill, which could include chemicals including
industrial waste, in close proximity to the City's drinking water supply when the full
parameter of chemicals is not being checked in the drinking water supply, as well as a
concern about the manner in which sludge from the sewerage treatment plants is being
placed in the landfill. Mr. Prosser noted the areas which could be affected by the
proposed text amendment, as well as the effect of removing the reference to municipal
landfill as commented on by Mr. Hamm at the October 30 portion of this meeting;
commented on the constraint mapping carried out by Fundy SWAT, as well as on
persons moving outside of Saint John for the quality of life they do not have in the City,
one because of the insecurity of not knowing what is going to move in next door to
them; and referenced, on both a legal and moral basis, a newspaper clipping relevant
to a January 6, 1967 pledge to everyone in the newly-amalgamated City of Saint John
of a bill of rights ensuring every resident as a community of the right to shape and
mould their community. Mr. Prosser expressed the view that this whole process should
be stopped and a recycling facility be done immediately and, having commented on the
issue of transportation costs relevant to taking garbage out of the area, suggested that,
on compassionate grounds, Lorneville should be turned down as a landfill area, as
should the proposed text amendment.
Mr. Frank Hogan appeared again before Council and, having advised
that he would be the final speaker and would complete the presentation in opposition
by bringing up three unrelated points that have not been brought up previously,
circulated photographs of several "1-2" zones in the City, including Dever Road near the
Manchester Avenue area, the South Bay area by CP Rail, and the Dexter property near
the Dever Road, which seem to have become garbage-strewn or mini-landfill areas;
and, with regard to the position of the owner of the Lorneville land which is the
Department of Economic Development and Tourism, read what, he advised, was a
short document produced by the Department of Economic Development and Tourism,
dated May 23, 1995, in this regard concerning the Lorneville Peninsula; and distributed
to Council members at this time a list of some main points and unanswered questions
which, he advised, is similar to the list of unanswered questions submitted to the
Planning Advisory Committee last week.
In response to a request for a copy of the above-mentioned Department
of Economic Development and Tourism's document dated May 23, 1995, Mr. Hogan
advised that, as his copy has writing on it, he would prefer that Council obtain this
document directly from the Province; and, with regard to the indication in the Planning
Department's report to the Planning Advisory Committee that the fencing aspect of the
proposed text amendment is not absolutely necessary to permit the Paddy's Hill
proposal to proceed, Mr. Hogan advised that the question is, as currently the wording in
the "1-2" zone permits a municipal sanitary landfill and with what exists in Lorneville now
with the dump situation and if only the word "municipal" is being taken off, what is the
difference between a municipal sanitary landfill and a sanitary landfill. As to whether or
not a municipality could contract out to another party the responsibility of operating a
landfill site, Mr. Hogan advised that, while he is not sure on the privatization operation,
"municipal" is a key word from several perspectives, connoting ownership, control, size
and the type of waste in that it would accept the typical things a landfill would be
receiving rather than a private industrial landfill that is not open to the general waste
stream and, as he does not think that a private industrial landfill is a permitted use
under the current wording in the By-Law, he would be afraid that it would be a
permitted use by taking the word "municipal" out.
85-538
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
Mr. Totten, in response to a query as to the anticipated length of the
presentation in support of the proposed amendment, advised his intent to speak for
approximately 45 minutes and, while at the Planning Advisory Committee meeting he
had a number of consultants or experts who had done work for the Solid Waste
Commission, it would not be his intent to call upon them at this meeting but to advise
Council that, if there were any questions with respect to any of the residents' concerns,
the persons were present to answer them and, with respect to others who may wish to
speak in favour, he is not aware of how many there might be.
There was discussion on the procedure relevant to the remainder of the
public hearing during which time Councillor Trites suggested that, as it was unlikely that
Council would complete this process on this date and as he would like an opportunity to
review the documentation presented to Council at this meeting, Council should recess
and set another date to complete the process.
On motion of Councillor Trites
Seconded by Deputy Mayor Chase
RESOLVED that this meeting be
adjourned until 6:00 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, November 7, 1995, to carry on with
presentations by those in favour of the proposed amendment.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
The October 30 Council meeting, having adjourned and reconvened on
Wednesday, November 1, was reconvened on Tuesday, November 7, 1995 at 6:00
o'clock p.m. when there were present Mayor McAlary and Councillors Arthurs, Ball,
Brown, Fitzpatrick, Gould, Knibb, Trites, Vincent and Waldschutz, and staff members
Messrs. Totten, Rodgers, Robichaud, Baird, Jamer, Hanlon, Ingraham; J. C.
MacKinnon, Commissioner of Environment and Development Services; Mrs. Munford,
and Ms. Joyce. The Mayor offered a prayer and, having noted that this was a
continuation of the October 30 public hearing with respect to a proposed Zoning By-
Law text amendment, asked if there were persons present who wished to speak in
favour of the proposed amendment.
Mr. 1. Totten, City Manager, appeared before Council representing the
municipality as the applicant for a text amendment to the Zoning By-Law which, he
advised, would benefit the community at large; and explained that, while there is
seldom a recognized representative to present the City's position in cases where the
City is the applicant, the reason for his appearance was because of confusion on the
issue on which Council was being asked to decide with the public debate regarding
Paddy's Hill and Crane Mountain, and speculation as to what the City of Saint John
intends to do with respect to its existing landfill. Mr. Totten clarified that the proposed
text amendment would allow for the establishment, somewhere within an industrial
zone within the City's boundaries, of a landfill that could receive the City's waste as well
as that from neighbouring communities, including local service districts, and further that
such a site would not necessarily have to be enclosed with a painted solid fence; and,
as to the reason for the amendment, commented on the City's responsibilities to the
region, the environment and to the community to find a solution to waste management
difficulties, with Council's support for the text amendment: (1) representing another
small step in positioning the City of Saint John to deal with its responsibilities and
confirm that within an industrial zone a sanitary landfill is permitted subject to certain
terms and conditions that need be in place to protect the public interest; (2) indicating
to the Region that a landfill, if it can be sited within the City's boundaries, would be able
to receive the remaining 30% of the waste generated in the Region, demonstrating to
the Province and neighbours to the East and West that the City is truly interested in a
regional solution; (3) allowing those charged with the responsibility of managing the
waste stream in the region an opportunity to proceed to select a site within the City of
Saint John, the only real cost effective solution, as well as the only real
environmentally-acceptable alternative; (4) ensuring job creation, the purchase of
approximately $3 million in goods and services annually from local suppliers, benefits to
local firms, a highly-advanced system of waste disposal and management system
within the Region, and the benefits of a major capital investment in excess of $15
million; and, in removing the word "municipal", acknowledging that government is not
85-539
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
the best vehicle to manage all facilities in a changing world with a public far more
knowledgeable and industries far more specialized. As to what action would be taken
next should Council proceed to enact the proposed text amendment, Mr. Totten
advised that (1) the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission would undoubtedly review
those "1-2" zones within the City and decide whether it is reasonable to proceed on a
particular site; (2) should the Commission choose to proceed with a site, environmental
approval with conditions would be sought from the Provincial Cabinet as part of the EIA
process; and (3) the Commission would have to reappear before the Planning Advisory
Committee, at which stage the Committee might choose to impose reasonable terms
and conditions on site development that it deems necessary to protect the public
interest, and the Commission then would ultimately have to seek the final approval of
the Provincial Cabinet before development could occur. Mr. Totten, in addressing
comments made during this public hearing, advised that the reference to Paddy's Hill in
both the public notice and the staff report was done so that the City would not be
accused of being "back door" in its approach and, while high property taxes is the most
often-stated reason for persons moving to the outskirts of the City, never once has this
been put forth to staff as a reason why someone has chosen to leave the City; and
made the observation that, with the dump's location in the Lorneville for years, the
coastline has not been destroyed and the beauty of the area remains intact. On the
issue of water quality, Mr. Totten stated that City staff are in regular contact with the
Board of Health, and residents should have no concern with respect to the potability of
the water being delivered to their homes; and suggested that the City has nothing to be
ashamed of in its efforts to effectively monitor the existing landfill site in view of its
proposed $8 to $10 million expenditure to do a proper close out of the facility, a
commitment to collect the leachate in the year 2000 as part of the close-out, and the
engagement of professional expertise to undertake, as an ongoing process, a more
rigorous testing process than has been used anywhere else in the region. Referring
specifically to the Paddy's Hill site, Mr. Totten advised that this site has been subject to
a complete EIA process which concluded that the project could be constructed in an
environmentally-acceptable manner, with the only item needing to be done is that
Cabinet approval must be obtained; water quality at Spruce Lake has not deteriorated
since the Spruce Lake landfill was established, as clearly indicated in documentation
from the Department of Health; ground water in the area does not flow toward Spruce
Lake, as confirmed by all of the technical people who have researched the area; the
nearest residential dwelling to the Paddy's Hill site is 2.3 kilometres, while in the other
six candidate sites five have anywhere from 40 to 430 homes within 2.5 kilometres;
access is a critical component to siting a landfill and Paddy's Hill has the best access;
the Planning Advisory Committee has extremely broad latitude in setting terms and
conditions should the Commission be able to acquire the lands and attempt to proceed;
as the Solid Waste Commission does not own the lands nor has it agreed to proceed
with the Paddy's Hill site, it would be presumptuous to withhold support for the text
amendment on the basis that the landfill is to be sited at Paddy's Hill; in every "1-2"
zoned area in the City, an attempt could be made to establish a municipal landfill site,
provided an EIA was undertaken and the change proposed would mean that the City
would not necessarily have to confine the site to waste generated in this area and it
could accept waste from neighbouring communities; by withholding support for the
amendment, Council would be limiting its ability to deal with the waste management
issue; and reviews done by GEMTEC indicate that conducting a transfer station and
transporting waste to Charlotte County would cost the taxpayers an additional $1.6
million. Mr. Totten noted the support for the position being put forth by the City
administration, and asked for Council's support for the proposed text amendment.
Councillor Knibb suggested that Mr. Jamer should present his brief on
the Saint John water supply, dated October 18, 1995 (a copy of which was submitted to
Council by the Planning Advisory Committee in its above-mentioned report), and Mr.
Totten advised that Mr. Jamer would be prepared to do so if Council so wished.
Councillor Fitzpatrick asked what allowed the City to accept garbage from other
municipalities in the past without the text amendment, to which Mr. Totten replied that,
while he was not sure if there was a specific reason that made the situation different, it
was done on a sporadic basis as a result of municipalities seeking the City's help at
that point in time and this was done, in most cases, on a temporary basis. Councillor
Fitzpatrick referred to the indication in the Planning Advisory Committee's report to
Council that, while the By-Law does not define the term "municipal sanitary landfill", the
proposed amendment would make it clear that a sanitary landfill may be operated by
bodies other than the municipalities; and asked the need for the text amendment in
85-540
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
order for the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission, the City or somebody else to
operate a municipal or regional landfill, to which Mr. Totten replied that the mere fact
that Mr. Hogan presented to Council an argument that the word "municipal" connotes
ownership, control and such, would indicate to him that the reference should be
removed, otherwise there would be arguments on interpretation in the future. The
Mayor suggested that questions to staff should be asked following any other
presentations in support of the amendment.
Mr. Bruce Dowd, President of the Saint John Board of Trade, appeared
in support of the proposed amendment, and highlighted the Board's letter to the
Planning Advisory Committee (a copy of which was submitted to Council by the
Planning Advisory Committee in its above-mentioned report) to the effect that the
Board is in favour of the text amendment to allow a sanitary landfill within the "1-2"
zoning in Greater Saint John, provided it is a modern recycling, composting landfill
operation, and the City of Saint John and surrounding municipalities should not lose the
jobs and other economic spin-offs that would result from the development of a modern
landfill within their borders, and also that the Greater Saint John area should be able to
maintain a reasonably cost landfill to make it competitive with other New Brunswick and
Canadian communities.
Mr. Gary McLaughlin, having introduced himself as a local Saint John
area person, expressed the opinion that there must have a state-of-the-art disposal
facility located in the community, as close to the centre of waste generation as
possible, and also that, from a Provincial perspective, Saint John will be judged on the
strength of Council's leadership in handling this difficult issue.
Mr. Stephen Carson, General Manager of Enterprise Saint John,
addressed Council, representing Greater Saint John Economic Development
Commission Chairman Harry Gaunce and members of the Board who, he advised, are
in support of the proposed text amendment for several reasons, the primary reason
being that, as Enterprise Saint John is the arm of the community promoting economic
development in the region both from a seek-and-find perspective of bringing new
business to the area and also in working with the existing business community to
ensure that it grows and expands within the area, it has a role to playas the centre of
the Province as far as industry, trade and commerce have a role to look after waste
that is generated within the City, and this has to be done in a cost-effective manner.
Mr. Carson, in noting the advantages to businesses locating in Saint John, commented
on the fact that the City's tax rate, the highest in the Province, is a topic of discussion
on a regular basis with both existing business and those Enterprise Saint John is
hoping to attract to the City; and expressed the opinion that, in order to pick a solution
to the issue before Council that would have as minimal effect as possible, that solution
would to have a regional landfill centre located within the Saint John area. Mr. Carson,
in noting Mr. Totten's reference to the economic development benefits, made the
observation that Saint John, showing a leadership role with a state-of-the-art facility,
would be well positioned to attract many of the environmental industries, and Enterprise
Saint John would like the City to be on the leading edge of that industry and believes
that, if the right decision is made with this issue, it will be well positioned to take up that
challenge and be able to sell Saint John as a centre of excellence in environmental
industry.
Mr. Patrick Darrah, representing the members of Saint John Construction
Association Inc., appeared in support of the text amendment; noted the succinct and
chronological manner in which Mr. Totten outlined the areas of concern addressed by
the various consultants, the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission and the citizens,
as well as the involvement of the construction industry in discussions with the
Commission in its process of making its original recommendation and in other sanitary
landfills through the Atlantic Provinces and the country; and expressed the opinion that
it is important that the City make the decision to look after its own sanitary landfill.
Mr. Herb Duncan, representing the Fundy Region Development
Commission, spoke in support of the text amendment on the understanding that it
provides for the inclusion of additional areas as possible sites for a solid waste facility;
and advised that the Commission does not support nor endorse the selection of any
particular site in a particular location, but rather hopes that all reasonable due
consideration will be given to all possible site locations with the following
85-541
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
considerations:- (1) it will be a development of a state-of-the-art waste facility; (2) it will
consider the economic benefits to the City of Saint John and the Fundy Region; (3) it
will consider the increased cost associated with a location too remote from the centre of
waste generation and the adverse affects it might have on business expansion or
business relocation or attraction; and (4) it will give full consideration to the possible
environmental and social impact.
Mr. Peter McKelvey of Fundy Engineering and Consulting Ltd.
addressed Council as a private citizen in that, he advised, he has no vested interest in
the forthcoming event as a result of what happens at this meeting as most of the
engineering work has gone to other firms; and expressed concern that, because there
has been an inadequate response to citizens' concerns during the siting phase, Council
and the citizens have been forced into a confrontational position, and also that the
siting methods used by Fundy SWAT were not the most advanced available as existing
computerized methods would have allowed for more expedient analysis and better
graphical presentation of the siting process. Mr. McKelvey expressed the opinion that a
site that was more significantly better would probably not be found, if more time were
taken, if the disposal of waste continued in an unsanitary fashion with no long-range
plan and if more money were expended as the area does not have a preponderance of
ideal landfill sites because of its large areas of shallow soil, large pristine water sheds
that need to be protected, developed areas, transportation corridors, the St. John River
through the middle, and a transportation network that, while it serves the central parts
of the City reasonably well, would make it very difficult to site a landfill too far from the
major transportation corridor with the possibility of having to route traffic through
residential areas. Mr. McKelvey, in asking the importance between having the best site
or the best engineered facility, made the observation that, with today's technology,
there is the ability with a well-engineered facility to protect the health and safety of
residents, to securely dispose of waste and not leave a legacy for future generations to
clean up; and suggested that, if the decision is made to take care of the City's problem
and dispose its own waste, there is a need for a maximized recycling facility so that the
City can divert and reduce its solid waste to the maximum degree possible and the
citizens must be educated, buy in and ultimately have an enforced system of source
reduction as the community needs a state-of-the-art secure landfill, including a multi-
layered liner system that will prevent leachate and a leachate production system,
adequate cover to avoid excessive bird problems and policing the landfill to control
what is going into it. Mr. McKelvey made the observation that, while he understands
that the text amendment does not pertain to specific sites, it is obvious that the Paddy's
Hill site would be one of prime consideration; and commented, from the technological
point of view, on how a modern state-of-the-art landfill presents an opportunity, in the
most cost effective manner possible, to prevent further damage from the insecure
Spruce Lake landfill and protect the lives and security of the citizens who live nearby,
as well as water supplies in the area and on the need for an independent professional
review of the design and throughout the construction of the facility, reporting directly to
Council, to ensure that the facility is the best available.
Mr. William Artiss of Rothesay appeared before Council in support of the
proposed amendment; noted his chairmanship of the former Fundy SWAT as well as
his current representation of the Town of Rothesay on the Fundy Region Solid Waste
Commission; and addressed the question of whether or not the Department of
Economic Development and Tourism, the owner of Paddy's Hill, supports the
application in that, while the Departmental staff's initial reaction was quite negative as it
was seen simply as an extension of the Spruce Lake operation and staff outlined a
renewed land vision for land use in the Lorneville Peninsula, eventually a letter signed
by the Minister was received giving approval in principle subject to some conditions,
although the conditions attached to the letter were not the decisions made by Cabinet
or the Board of Management but were decisions made by staff in the Department. Mr.
Artiss, having commented on the subject conditions, advised that the EIA did not fully
address the effect of marketing the land because there was uncertainty as to what the
target was and that, in his opinion considering the land uses currently indicated for the
subject property including a liquified natural gas terminal and oil refinery, anything that
would be done by the Commission would complement or certainly be a step ahead of
that considering the opportunities for economic development associated with recycling
and composting activities. Mr. Artiss made the observation that the environmental
impact assessment has been accepted by the Technical Review Committee which
includes input from Economic Development and Tourism, and Cabinet has given
85-542
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
conditional approval subject to any zoning issues being dealt with and a final resolution
of the environmental impact assessment, with zoning to be done first as required by the
legislation; and suggested that, if it is so that the approval of the text amendment would
allow landfills of various types to be built in all "1-2" zoned lands, the City could do this
now as the legislation clearly differentiates between sanitary landfills and other
somewhat similar activities, such as ash pits and sewage treatment facilities, and also
that the legislation indicates that a sanitary landfill must be 40 hectares or
approximately 100 acres which eliminates several "1-2" zoned areas.
The Mayor advised Mr. Artiss that, as she was not taking questions at
this time and as some of his comments were to the objections, he would have to speak
only in favour of the application.
Mr. Artiss, continuing with his remarks relevant to the "1-2" zone, advised
that the approximate cost of $750,000 of a full EIA required for a sanitary landfill, when
all activities are included, and the cost of development of it as well would eliminate any
such sites, and the only such site in the City currently zoned "1-2" that would be
acceptable is Paddy's Hill and the only site in the City that could be zoned "1-2" and
meet all those criteria is Crane Mountain, although there is one possible site half in the
City and close to the Airport and ranked very low technically and has significant access
problems. Mr. Artiss also advised that the Enniskillen option, which was referred to
earlier in the meeting, was not studied specifically and is a variation of the idea of
taking the waste to Gagetown or to Charlotte County, the former land in the Army Base
not being available and the latter
During Mr. Artiss' comments, Councillor Trites, on a point of order,
suggested that this was not a rebuttal session to those people who spoke against the
proposed amendment but an opportunity to speak in favour of the issue before Council,
and Mr. Artiss was getting into the rebuttal aspect of things which is not part of the
public hearing process. The Mayor replied that the point of order was well taken, and
re-iterated that at this time Council would only hear presenters in favour and asked Mr.
Artiss to comment accordingly.
Mr. Artiss concluded his comments by indicating that, as to the point that
there would be lack of control by Council should the proposed text amendment be
approved, that is simply not the case.
The Mayor, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m., called for a ten-minute
recess, following which the meeting reconvened.
* Added Item
The Mayor called for a motion to add to the agenda of this meeting a
report from the City Solicitor (copies of which were distributed to Council members at
this meeting.)
On motion of Councillor Knibb
Seconded by Councillor Vincent
RESOLVED that the report from the City
Solicitor regarding questions that have been raised about the right of certain members
of Council to vote on the proposed amendment to the Zoning By-Law text amendment
with regard to sanitary landfill facilities in the "1-2" Heavy Industrial zone -- be added to
the agenda for consideration at this time.
The Mayor noted the requirement for eight affirmative votes of Council to
add the above report to the agenda.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Consideration was given to the above-mentioned report from the City
Solicitor referring to the questions raised about the right of certain members of Council
to vote on the proposed Zoning By-Law text amendment with regard to sanitary landfill
85-543
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
facilities in the "1-2" Heavy Industrial zone on the basis that members, by their
statements, are not impartial and are bias towards a particular predetermined outcome;
making the observation that this public hearing puts Council in the position of
performing a quasi-judicial function and, in these proceedings, there are judicial court
decisions to the effect that the participation of bias councillors in the decision of council
will be fatal to the proceedings even though their votes were not necessary to make up
the required majority; and referring to a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision on a
case in Manitoba which referred to a New Brunswick decision based upon Section 68
of the New Brunswick Community Planning Act which requires a municipal council to
honestly and fairly hear and consider any objections to land use change even though
individual councillors may previously have expressed opinions on the matter; and
expressing the opinion that whether or not a member of Common Council has already
made up his mind in this matter, it is a matter of fact and, certainly, in most cases, the
individual Councillor is in the best position to assess his own state of mind in this
regard.
On motion of Councillor Knibb
Seconded by Councillor Gould
RESOLVED that the above report from the
City Solicitor be received and filed.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
On motion of Councillor Knibb
Seconded by Councillor Trites
RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the
Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John, by (a) deleting the words "subject to
subsection 2(e) and (f), municipal sanitary landfill" and inserting the words "subject to
subsection 2(e) and (h), a sanitary landfill" in subsection 630(1)(b); (b) deleting the
word "municipal" in subsection 630(2)(e); (c) deleting the words "a municipal sanitary
landfill" in subsection 630(2)(f); and (d) adding a new subsection 630(2)(h) to read as
follows: "(h) a sanitary landfill shall be enclosed by natural buffering and/or constructed
earth berms, be read a first time.
Councillor Waldschutz, in advising that he was speaking without the
benefit of legal counsel in a matter which could become a subject of legal proceedings
of Council at an appeal hearing, stated that the Alexander Affidavit purporting to show
prejudgment by him in the matter before Council does not, and that he has diligently
and attentively listened to and understood the presentations made during the course of
this hearing and is ready, when Her Worship calls for it, having been open and
receptive to suasion by all speakers, with a clear conscience, to cast his vote as is his
right, indeed his duty.
The Mayor noted Councillor Knibb's earlier request for Mr. Jamer to
present his report on the Saint John water supply, and Mr. Jamer, having advised that
his presentation was prepared based on discussions with other members of the Water
and Sewerage staff and the District Medical Health Officer and a review of
Departmental files, apprised Council of the various aspects of the City's water system,
including water chemistry, guidelines and testing, chlorination and fluoridation,
comparing the Spruce Lake system with that of the Loch Lomond system. With regard
to concern that the Spruce Lake water quality has been adversely affected as a result
of the location of the Spruce Lake landfill, Mr. Jamer advised that the Water and
Sewerage Utility has reviewed this concern many times over the years and has
concluded that the landfill in Lorneville has not adversely affected water quality from
Spruce Lake, which remains similar to water quality from the Loch Lomond system and
has been unchanged since the landfill was first opened, and that this position is
supported by the Provincial Department of Health as recently as October 1995. Mr.
Jamer responded to the concern relevant to seagulls on the basis that Utility staff is
more concerned with increasing human population residing on the Loch Lomond
watershed than with the seagull population at Spruce Lake; and, as to the issue of the
parasite Giardia, advised that the Utility maintains a close relationship with the District
Medical Health Officer and would be informed immediately of any concerns relating to
waterborne disease.
85-544
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
Mr. Totten responded in the affirmative to Councillor Vincent's question if
adequate service of notice for consultation opportunities existed; and, replying to
Councillor Vincent's query relative to Mr. Bowen's indication in his presentation that
three sites were eliminated due to the number of houses in the overall accumulation of
sites, Mr. R. Lutes of GEMTEC advised that, in the siting process and when it got down
to five sites, a ranking exercise was conducted, including a number of factors, one of
which was the attendance at open houses, which narrowed the siting down to Paddy's
Hill and Crane Mountain simply on the basis of a number of economic, technical and
social factors, and also advised that proximity to houses was one of approximately
twenty variables used in the ranking exercise, and that sites have not been eliminated,
but have been set aside, throughout the entire exercise. Mr. Baird responded to
Councillor Brown's questions relevant to the purpose, as currently required in the
Zoning By-Law, for solid fencing and advised that, although the Planning Advisory
Committee could impose this as a term of condition, it has been stated in discussions
with the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission that it is quite likely that the
requirement for chain link or fencing of some nature may be a requirement of the
Provincial Department of the Environment. Councillor Vincent, in concurring that the
City must take the initiative in establishing a landfill facility with recycling capabilities,
advised that, with regard to the conclusion in the final analysis of the Paddy's Hill and
Crane Mountain locations and the criteria used in this regard, his problem centred when
he did not see enough weighting placed on the human element; suggested that Council
could not ignore the quality of life and lifestyle that people have established in those
two areas; and also advised that, as he has not had any new information made
available to him nor is he aware of anything new, he would not be able to support the
text amendment. Councillor Gould asked what commitment the City or the Fundy
Region Solid Waste Commission has made to the citizens should their private water
systems become contaminated because of a landfill that might be operated in their
particular area, to which Mr. Totten advised that, while he would not anticipate a
Common Council resolution to this effect, he would think it is clear that, with the existing
site, if it could be shown that wells have been contaminated as a result of the existing
landfill, then he would expect certain actions to be taken and that the City of Saint John
would be found liable, and the Mayor expressed the understanding that the
Commission has discussed this issue and has agreed that it would guarantee any
water supply of any area where a recycling and composting landfill facility would be
sited, and noted Council's request to staff to look into putting some guarantee in place
for the residents of Lorneville where the present landfill is located if their water supply
was contaminated by the present landfill site. Councillor Fitzpatrick advised that he
agreed with some of the Planning Advisory Committee's reasons for recommending
denial of the proposed text amendment, and he is not comfortable with the process and
does not like the idea of enacting the text amendment in that an applicant would not
have to come to Council to put a landfill in Saint John; and also advised that he could
not support the motion but would respect the decision Council makes and work towards
whatever has to be done to find an appropriate landfill within the region.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Fitzpatrick
and Vincent 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 Trites
RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the
Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John, by (a) deleting the words "subject to
subsection 2(e) and (f), municipal sanitary landfill" and inserting the words "subject to
subsection 2(e) and (h), a sanitary landfill" in subsection 630(1)(b); (b) deleting the
word "municipal" in subsection 630(2)(e); (c) deleting the words "a municipal sanitary
landfill" in subsection 630(2)(f); and (d) adding a new subsection 630(2)(h) to read as
follows: "(h) a sanitary landfill shall be enclosed by natural buffering and/or constructed
earth berms, be read a second time.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Fitzpatrick
and Vincent voting "nay".
85-545
COMMON COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1995
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 Gould
RESOLVED that the correspondence
regarding the proposed Zoning By-Law text amendment be received and filed.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
* Added Item
On motion of Councillor Knibb
Seconded by Councillor Waldschutz
RESOLVED that the matter of a
Municipal Plan amendment regarding the Crane Mountain property, which was tabled
at Council's last meeting, be taken from the table and added to the agenda, together
with the proposed re-zoning of the said property to "1-2" Heavy Industrial zone.
The Mayor noted the requirement for eight affirmative votes of Council to
add the above item to the agenda.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Vincent
voting "nay".
On motion of Councillor Knibb
Seconded by Councillor Waldschutz
RESOLVED that the proposed
Municipal Plan amendment and re-zoning to "1-2" Heavy Industrial zone, of the Crane
Mountain property fronting on Highway 7 at the intersection of Highway 177, 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 be held
on Monday, December 11, 1995 at 4:00 p.m., to continue, if required, on consecutive
days at 4:00 p.m.
Upon Councillor Brown's indication that he would be available for the
December 11 public hearing and, if a second and third date were needed, only on
continuous nights, otherwise he would be out of town, the Mayor suggested that the
motion could indicate that, if a second date were needed, it would be December 12
beginning at 4:00 p.m. or that, if the hearing was not completed on December 11,
Council would continue on consecutive days until the hearing is completed; and the
motion was changed accordingly.
The Mayor noted that six affirmative vote were required to adopt the
above motion.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Vincent
voting "nay".
On motion of Councillor Knibb
Seconded by Councillor Trites
RESOLVED that this meeting be
adjourned.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Common Clerk