Loading...
1995-12-11_Minutes 85-604 COMMON COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 1995 At a meeting of the Common Council, held at the City Hall in the City of Saint John, on Monday, the eleventh day of December, AD. 1995, at 4:00 o'clock p.m. present Shirley McAlary, Mayor Councillors Arthurs, Ball, Brown, Chase, Fitzpatrick, Knibb, Trites, Vincent and Waldschutz - and - Messrs. 1. Totten, City Manager; F. Rodgers, City Solicitor; J. C. MacKinnon, Commissioner of Environment and Development Services; P. Groody, Commissioner of Human Resources; J. Baird, Manager, Community Planning; B. Thompson, Deputy Chief of Police; 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 Reverend David Warren of Saint John Foursquare Gospel Church offered the opening prayer. 2. Approval of Minutes On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Vincent RESOLVED that minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on December 4, 1995, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 3(a) Municipal Plan Amendment (b) Re-ZoninQ Crane Mountain The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to (a) a proposed Municipal Plan amendment to redesignate on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, a parcel of land containing an area of approximately 330 acres and fronting on Highway 7 at the intersection of Highway 177, also being NBGIC Numbers 55087001, 55087027, 55043301, 55043293 and portions of NBGIC Numbers 55086987 and 55087019, from Rural to Heavy Industrial classification; and (b) re-zoning the same parcel of land from "RF" Rural and "P" Park to "1-2" Heavy Industrial classification, to permit the development of a sanitary landfill facility, including recycling and composting facilities, for the Fundy Region, and no written objections were received in this regard, with 3{d) a letter having been received from the Town of Grand Bay advising that, as the matter of use of its sewerage treatment facility for treatment of sanitary leachate from the regional landfill has not been addressed by Town Council, it is the Town's intention to be represented by the firm of Godfrey Associates Ltd. at this public hearing. 3(c) Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting copies of Planning staff's report, letters in opposition to and in support of the above-proposed amendments and presentations considered by the Committee at its December 5 and 7 meetings at which the Committee also had for review copies of the written objections received by Common Council at its November 6 meeting, including the letters from the previous application which were resubmitted to Council by Mrs. Ross; commenting on the Committee's meetings in this regard; and recommending that the application be denied. The Mayor advised the intent for Council to begin the public hearing, continue until 6:00 o'clock p.m. at which time Council would take recess for 45 minutes and subsequently resume the public hearing at 6:45 o'clock p.m., as well as to decide 85-605 COMMON COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 1995 around 10:00 o'clock p.m., taking into consideration how far along the meeting was at that time, whether to continue the public hearing on this date or reconvene on Tuesday, December 12 at 4:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. David Bowen, a Ketepec resident and Chairman of the River Road Concerned Citizens Committee, appeared in opposition to the proposed re-zoning; and, in addressing procedural issues, questioned Council's action in dealing with this issue as there is nothing new about this application from the earlier application of Fundy SWAT which Council refused, as well as Council's impartiality and being open to persuasion as it votes on its own proposal and the impartiality of Council members who in the press and at this forum made statements; and insisted that the Mayor withdraw from further participation on the basis that, as she addressed issues for the proponent at the December 7 Planning Advisory Committee meeting in her role as Chairperson of the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission, her participation in this process and influence over these hearings is most inappropriate as she surely could not consider herself to be impartial or open to persuasion. Mr. Bowen asked why lands are being re- zoned which are neither owned nor for which options to purchase are held by the City, the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission or the Province; questioned the appropriateness of the Crane Mountain re-zoning to Heavy Industrial having been initiated prior to a sanitary landfill being a permitted use in a Heavy Industrial zoning district; and suggested that Planning staff in recommendations to the Planning Advisory Committee and Council has made little effort to investigate concerns and claims by residential representatives, apparently having taken at face value any information provided by the Department of the Environment, the Technical Review Committee and the Waste Commission. Mr. Bowen asked for an opinion from the City Solicitor on the appropriateness of Council rescinding its June 19, 1995 resolution on the Crane Mountain decision; and expressed objection to this public hearing being conducted at mid-afternoon during which time most residents of the community are at work. Mr. Rodgers advised that, while he would not allow himself to give an opinion which would immediately become equivalent to a judgment from the court as he certainly did not have all the facts, individual Councillors including the Mayor should let their conscience be their guide; made the observation that he has advised Council of the law in this regard, the Supreme Court of Canada having given municipal councils a fair latitude with respect to recognizing the fact that municipal councils are not strictly courts of law in that, if it is futile for the public to speak at a public hearing, that obviously turns the public hearing into a farce and the courts will step in; however, short of that and if there is any possibility that individual Council members could make a decision based on what they hear at the hearing and that their minds were not made up, the public hearing could proceed and he is not aware of the facts in detail that would be required to say that a councillor or any elected person should lose their vote and should not participate. Mr. Bowen asked the Mayor if it were her decision to be a part of this decision process, to which the Mayor replied in the affirmative and advised that she already has a legal opinion on the fact that she is the Mayor of the City of Saint John and also the Chairman of the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission. Mr. Bowen, continuing with his presentation, commented on the need for a Section 39 condition to provide for a 150-metre set back from other zoning districts as it appeared that the proposal involved a zero set back from the Route 7 right-of-way, which is unacceptable; and cited sections of the Municipal Development Plan to put forth the position that the re-zoning of the land in question for a sanitary landfill does not conform with the Plan, using overhead slides to illustrate proximity to the Henderson Lake watershed and how, if the set back constraints were properly applied, there would be no land left at the subject location, as well as to show the designation in the Plan of Highway 7 as a path. Mr. Bowen concluded this portion of his presentation, having indicated his intention to appear again before Council later in the meeting on another issue, by indicating that placement of a landfill in a highly-visual location does not conform with the Municipal Plan and all sections referenced are appealable should Council decide to ignore the Plan and make a decision which goes against the intent of the Plan. The Mayor noted the procedure for public hearings with respect to questions to presenters and to staff, and the difference between this public hearing and the Planning Advisory Committee's hearing. 85-606 COMMON COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 1995 Mrs. Marlene Ross, a Martinon resident and Chairperson of the River Road Action Team, addressed Council in opposition to the proposed re-zoning; noted the petition submitted to Council as part of the correspondence from the Planning Advisory Committee and the number of presentations previously made to Council on this issue; and referenced from these presentations concerns about well water supply, the safety of children who travel Number 7 Highway by school bus and also with regard to coyotes and bears, a garbage industry taking over land for recreation, the deterioration of the quality of life, and effect on lake stream fish. Mrs. Ross questioned the status of options to purchase the subject property; expressed concern about liner leakage and collection of leachate; and asked that the landfill be placed in a more remote area, away from a water supply, and that Council deny the re-zoning. Rev. Philip Lee of Morna Heights spoke in opposition to the proposed re- zoning in terms of the water supply in that the subject site is located in a ground water recharge area which is upgrade from private wells, and due to a concern about the effect on property values, as well as tourism and economics as visibility of the site from the south cannot be eliminated completely, thus a landfill would be the first impression at this gateway to the City and would mar the scenery at the critical beginning of a route promoted by the Province as a scenic route; and, with respect to ecological effects in view of efforts being made to promote a healthy economy and a healthy environment, Rev. Lee expressed concern about the possible pollution of the St. John River. Rev. Lee expressed confidence that, even though it is the City asking for this re- zoning, Council would evaluate the application in a responsible manner and therefore avoid making a disastrous mistake. Mr. Tom Simms introduced himself as a member of the River Road Concerned Citizens Committee in opposition to the proposed re-zoning of the Crane Mountain site from Recreational and Rural to "1-2" Heavy Industrial; put forth reasons, including recent legal moves with text amendments and the City initiating the re-zoning, which gave the clear impression that the process was tainted; and commented on the ranking of the social-acceptability and economic-feasibility components of the process. Mr. Simms suggested that the whole package as to the exact specifics of the proposed landfill operation should be put forward at once, including what is contemplated with MaxRF and composting; and, as an alternative to the proposed site, suggested that it could prove worthwhile to establish a MaxRF with a high degree of diversion in an existing industrial zone, possibly without a landfill from which the amount of garbage to be moved to another location could be one third of the garbage that would go into the facility, and that a case could be made for paying somewhat more to transport garbage elsewhere for a time in order to make certain that the ultimate solution is in the long- term best interest. Mr. Simms explained why it appeared evident that the best available technology was not used in the site selection process; and stated that he is against the re-zoning of Crane Mountain for a sanitary landfill for four basic reasons: (1) the site is on a slope in the heart of a watershed with three streams flowing from it and in a known aquifer area; (2) there would be a detrimental effect on land values in the area which would negatively impact on tax revenues and also preclude new residential development which would otherwise enhance tax revenues; (3) the site is too close to one of the major artery ways into the City considering the beautiful panorama from the outlook there, as well as possible problems with respect to containment of debris which falls off trucks or blows in the wind from dumping; and (4) the present interchange is inadequate to provide access to the subject site and improved access at a cost in the area of $2.8 million would be added to the project cost; however, there is a belief that the Provincial Government would be ultimately extending the highway along this roadway and putting in a proper exchange at a cost of probably $4 to $5 million. Mr. Simms concluded by stating his belief that the members of Council truly do not want to approve any re-zoning proposition on this critical issue if the proposal does not conform to recognized guidelines, holds the potential of serious environmental risks, and would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring communities and that, in light of the submissions made again, Council should vote against the re-zoning in the full long-term interests of the citizens of Saint John as this would be the only responsible course of action for Council to take. Ms. Julie Dingwell, appearing in opposition to the proposed re-zoning, advised that her presence at this meeting was not as a resident of South Bay but as an environmentalist and that she would make a presentation on her own behalf, as well as a presentation on behalf of Mr. Roy Hobson who was unable to present. Ms. Dingwell 85-607 COMMON COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 1995 expressed concern about the possible degradation of the water, the fact that the residents are back before Council in this regard, the starting time of 4:00 o'clock p.m. for this public hearing making it inaccessible to many people, and the process in view of past short-sighted approaches taken, such as with the Spruce Lake and the Howe's Lake dump sites. Ms. Dingwell suggested that, rather than try to attract business to the area by offering cheap garbage disposal, Council should consider the opposite in that, only by implementing a truly state-of-the-art landfill employing innovating technology on the most technically-superior site would the City lure the kinds of business that are needed and wanted in this region; and urged Council to turn down this application for re-zoning. Ms. Dingwell read, on behalf of Mr. Roy Hobson, Mr. Hobson's presentation to the Planning Advisory Committee (copies of which were submitted to Council in the above-mentioned report from the Committee). The Mayor, at approximately 5:55 o'clock p.m., called for a 45-minute recess, following which the meeting reconvened. The Mayor, prior to continuing with presentations in opposition to the proposed re-zoning of Crane Mountain, commended those involved with the implosion of the old General Hospital on December 10; and advised that, as the building's dome remained intact with the flag pole still on it, the City would make the necessary arrangements to have it removed from the debris, stored in a safe place and make a decision at a later time as to where the dome could be resituated. Ms. Beatty Stubbs of 2184 Old Westfield Road in Ketepec spoke in opposition to the proposal in concern about the effect a landfill could have on life in a community in which she and her family enjoy living, good water and fishing in the brooks and streams; made the observation that monitoring for leachate would not stop the problem as, once it is in the ground, it would be too late; and asked, as nobody wants to take the risk of something going wrong, Council not to let this happen. Mr. Clayton Rogers of Godfrey Associates appeared in opposition on behalf of the Town of Grand Bay with two specific concerns which, he advised, both arise from the Planning staff's brief to the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of December 5, one involving a proposal to construct a pipeline to the Grand Bay sewage treatment facility in that this has not formally gone through due process and there has been no formal application for discharge to the Grand Bay system; the other involving the traffic arrangement for the interchange and access to the property as indicated on the sketch included in the Planning staff's brief, which in the opinion of the Grand Bay Council still does not adequately address traffic activity at that intersection, the Grand Bay Council having previously expressed concern to the EIA review process that there should be more indepth consideration of the traffic-turning patterns and so on to create an interchange that would be efficient and yet totally minimize the conflict of vehicles turning across in front of oncoming traffic. The Mayor asked if Mr. Rogers' comments were an indication that the Grand Bay Council is against the re-zoning of Crane Mountain, to which Mr. Rogers replied that, while he was not sure whether or not to address Council at this point, the first item was really one of clarification to indicate that due process would be necessary if the proposal were to proceed and, as to the second issue, the Grand Bay Council is opposed to the proposed traffic arrangement at the Route 7 - 177 intersection. Mr. Joseph C. Oliver, Sr., a resident of Martinon at the corner of Ann Avenue and Westfield Road, addressed Council in opposition to the proposal to place a sanitary landfill in the Henderson Lake / Crane Mountain area which, according to the plans he has, is designated as a watershed area; clarified that, while he is in no way against the operation of a sanitary landfill with a full MaxRF for the area, he is very much against it being in the Crane Mountain area which includes Henderson Lake, four surrounding lakes, and twelve swamps and bog areas, and is a recharge area. Mr. Oliver expressed concern about the devastating effect this proposal would have on the environment, specifically along the beaches, brooks and streams, and on marinas and boating in the area, recreational fishing and other activities depended upon for fun and enjoyment during the year, and on tourists who vacation in the area; and also about the effect of piping leachate to the Grand Bay sewage lagoon. 85-608 COMMON COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 1995 Mr. David Bowen, appearing again before Council in opposition to the proposed re-zoning on behalf of the River Road Concerned Citizens Committee, referenced Department of the Environment guidelines and key recommendations and findings of consultants with which, he suggested, this proposal does not conform or were overlooked by Fundy SWAT in passing over sites which were shown to rank superior to the Crane Mountain site thereby favouring a site which would only be economically advantageous, especially to the industrial component of refuse generation, including social economic criteria, natural buffering to shield site operations, set back distances, site topography, regional ground water flow, and soil and rock conditions. Mr. Bowen noted the impact on ground water should liner and leachate management systems not be properly installed and managed; circulated photographs of the Crane Mountain area to which he referred to describe the topography of the site; and referenced an overhead slide on the technical rating of the sites to indicate what, he suggested, appeared to be a severely flawed process, and an overhead slide to comment on property ownership in the subject area. Mr. Bowen suggested that the City, which is now the applicant, refused the earlier re-zoning request and is now supporting the previous applicant and that, as to property ownership or option to purchase as it is not owned by the City, the Province or the Commission, should the land be re-zoned and the proposal not be approved, the individual property owners would be left with industrially-zoned properties. Mr. Bowen concluded his remarks by indicating that, under the circumstances, it would be improper to move forward with this re-zoning. Mr. Roy Hobson appeared in opposition to the proposal and offered, as the presentation made earlier in the meeting on his behalf by Ms. Dingwell included all the technical data which he was prepared to present, to respond to any questions Council might have in this regard. Mr. David Thompson of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, addressing Council in opposition to the proposed re-zoning, put forth the position that any site for a regional landfill must be environmentally-sound, include a recycling and waste reduction program, and be acceptable to the host community, and the Crane Mountain site meets none of these conditions, the matter of the groundwater being of most concern; and commented on the use of the area for recreation and outdoor activity, the wildlife and fish, the need to retain green space and the visibility of the site to passersby. Mr. John Belyea of Morna appeared in opposition to clarify that, with regard to an indication that there is no more money for an EIA, at a meeting in Fredericton he was told that Vaughn Blaney had not said there was no more money, but that he would look into it. The Mayor expressed the understanding that Mr. Blaney was not the Minister of the Environment at the time the statement was made about no more funds being available. The Mayor, at approximately 8:05 o'clock p.m., called for a five-minute recess, following which the meeting reconvened. Mr. MacKinnon spoke in support of the proposal on the City's behalf and, having reviewed the background on this topic from the time of Fundy SWAT's appearance before the Planning Advisory Committee prior to the June 19, 1995 public hearing of Common Council leading to the proposal before Council at this time, made the observation that the application before Council essentially would provide the option to locate a solid waste facility in an "1-2" zone proposed for the area known as Crane Mountain, a solid waste facility that could receive the City's waste as well as the waste from neighbouring communities in the Fundy Region. Mr. MacKinnon related the economic benefits of a landfill site within the City's boundaries, as well as the next steps in this process, should Council approve the Municipal Plan amendment and the re-zoning as follows:- (1) the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission would undoubtedly review all of the options in "1-2" zones within the City of Saint John 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; (3) the Commission would have to reappear before the Planning Advisory Committee to settle the matter of terms and conditions, at which stage the Committee might choose to impose reasonable terms and conditions on site development; and (4) the Commission 85-609 COMMON COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 1995 would ultimately have to seek the final approval of the Provincial Cabinet before development could occur. Mr. MacKinnon addressed the following issues, which were presented to the Planning Advisory Committee and to Council at this meeting:- (i) the EIA process and the Review Committee; (ii) the question of the Spruce Lake / Musquash watershed boundary in view of Mr. Bowen's reference to plans depicting the watershed as including the subject area, and made the observation that the watershed boundary does not include Henderson Lake or the area that is being considered; (iii) the reasons that, through assessment, the total number of 157 sites identified as a result of initial constraint mapping was reduced to 46 sites, to 45 sites, to 30 sites, 25 sites, 14 sites, 6 sites, and the final 2 sites which went through an environmental impact process; (iv) a suggestion that the selection process was flawed or tainted in that it is not part of the planning process and, as such, is not part of the question of whether or not something should be re-zoned as the planning process would determine whether or not the site in question is an appropriate site, not why the site is before Council; (v) a concern about a lack of a decision by the Minister and the Cabinet in that Planning staff required the environmental technical data in order to make an informed decision on planning issues such as re-zoning and it was concluded that the two processes could proceed at the same time and, when it got to the point that Planning staff needed information to make a recommendation, a completed EIA technical position would be required from the Department of the Environment; (vi) with regard to umbrage taken to suggestions that residents did not want a landfill in their backyards, it was not the intent to trivialize the issue but rather to indicate that no matter where a landfill was to be placed there would be objection as no one wants such a facility and, in this case, this site is acceptable and can be engineered to be environmentally sound; (vii) with regard to concern about the view plane and buffering of the site, this has to be addressed by the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission to the point that it can be satisfied in the submission for the final design; and (viii) on a question on ownership of and options on the land, the Commission would deal with the Department of Supply and Services in this regard which would contact the owners or representatives of the owners. Mr. MacKinnon also addressed concerns relative to the lack of an agreement with the Town of Grand Bay on the basis that it is similar to the option on the land issue, as well as access to the Crane Mountain site in that, if the trumpet-type design as shown in information submitted to Council at this meeting does not meet approval, this would be another issue that would be on the table for discussion, and the issue of the liner. Mr. MacKinnon suggested that, from a generic point of view, the ideal site would not be handy to homes, lakes, rivers, airports, surface watersheds and it should be downstream from any groundwater users, near an adequate supply of cover material, in an area with an adequate ground cover, away from transportation routes and yet on a major route, and close to the centre of generation; made the observation that it is unlikely to obtain an ideal site, nor were the Crane Mountain and Paddy's Hill sites proposed as ideal sites as constraints in the Fundy Region would show that there are a number of difficulties in trying to locate an ideal site and it comes down to picking out what is considered to be the best of the sites and ensure that it can be engineered to provide an environmentally-sound site; and concluded that the Municipal Plan amendment and re-zoning of the Crane Mountain site is seen by the City as being in the best interest of all citizens of Saint John and it is for this reason that Common Council's concurrence with the proposed changes is being sought. Mr. MacKinnon suggested that questions on issues concerning the liner, the EIA process, the selection process and computer modelling for the subject area could be directed to Messrs. Owen Washburn of Neill and Gunter, and Geoff Dickinson of GEMTEC Ltd., who were present at the meeting. Councillor Vincent asked for clarification on Mr. Bowen's slide presentation indicating a watershed designation in the Municipal Plan and set backs, to which Mr. MacKinnon explained that, while the slide presented by Mr. Bowen portrays what is in the Municipal Plan and although the set backs are not part of the Plan but are part of the process of locating the facility, he is suggesting to Council that the line, shown by Mr. Bowen from which the set backs would be, is inaccurate. Mr. Dickinson addressed Councillor Vincent's query relative to surface and underground leachate flow to the effect that a reasonable idea could be obtained from computer modelling as to which direction ground water is flowing and that, with regard to River Road residents' concern as they are located downhill of the site, their wells do not appear to be vulnerable when the actual ground water flow path is considered; and, as to the capabilities of a clay liner, advised that the designers, in the future final design of the liner, would have to observe the Department of the Environment requirements, and 85-610 COMMON COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 1995 commented on the different components of a liner system and their longevity. Mr. Washburn responded to Councillor Trites' query as to an interception system for leachate should the liner crack and how any leachate intercepted would be treated prior to asking the Town of Grand Bay to receive it, as well as questions relative to the effect of dumping of liquids of different sources; and Mr. Dickinson referred to an overhead slide in response to a question on the River Road residents water source, as well as Deputy Mayor Chase's questions about possible well contamination, and advised that, from a technical standpoint, he would put it higher than being 99% certain that wells would not be contaminated, although he respects the residents' concerns, in a social sense, as valid; and he responded to Councillor Fitzpatrick's question relative to Mr. Bowen's reference to a number of bore holes which were not acceptable. Mr. Donald Hayward of Ketepec, appearing in support of the proposal, advised that he and his wife are property owners at the Crane Mountain site and that he was also representing his mother-in-law and her son; and, during his comments about negotiations on the sale of their property for the landfill, Councillor Trites, on a point of order, questioned the necessity and appropriateness of Mr. Hayward's presentation as options on the land and explanations in this regard were not part of Council's deliberations at this meeting. The Mayor ruled on the point of order to the effect that Council was dealing only with a re-zoning issue and the business of land transactions would be with the Commission and the Department of Supply and Services, not with Council, and noted that Council at this time was hearing from those persons in favour of the re-zoning, and Mr. Hayward commented on the issue of ground water based on his experience of cutting wood in the area and suggested that, with berms and ditches, it should be an easy task to remove any surface water problem. On motion of Councillor Vincent Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, the proposed Municipal Plan amendment and re- zoning of a parcel of land containing an area of approximately 330 acres and fronting on Highway 7 at the intersection of Highway 177, to permit the development of a sanitary landfill facility including recycling and composting facilities for the Fundy Region, be denied. Councillor Vincent expressed concern about the number of persons who would be affected should something go wrong and advised that, while he fully supports and recognizes the need for Saint John to be responsible for its own garbage and a need for a proper landfill site with recycling and such, he could not be convinced that there was not another site in a City of 124 square miles and it would take a strong show of absolutely nothing else available in the City before he could support the disruption and penetration of the residential communities that have been dealt with to date. The Mayor questioned the validity of the slides presented by Mr. Bowen which depicted the elimination of the whole site because of set backs and, in response to Councillor Trites' point of order that there was a motion on the floor and only Councillors could speak to the motion, the Mayor acknowledged the point of order, and asked staff for a response to her query, and Mr. MacKinnon responded to the effect that the area is boggy and retains water, but is dry the majority of the time. Deputy Mayor Chase asked for assurance that Council is legal in dealing with this matter in view of Mr. Bowen's allegation that Department of the Environment guidelines and the City's Municipal Plan and Zoning By-Laws have been ignored and violated, to which Mr. Baird responded by explaining the concept with respect to Section 39 for a specific proposal and the Zoning By-Law's provision which basically indicates that land already zoned must meet the general separation requirement because no specific proposal was available at that time but, if there were a specific proposal, Council could specifically address the types of terms and conditions and what types of separation requirement it felt was adequate; and advised that he is very comfortable that this provision was included specifically so that additional conditions could be imposed by Council and it is quite within the intent of the overall By-Law. Mr. Baird commented on the Municipal Plan on the basis of its variety of statements, general descriptions of how areas have developed and are anticipated to be developed, statements of objectives; and policies, with respect to Mr. Bowen's reference to how the Plan takes precedence with respect to zoning and, as to the description of the residential area of the Ketepec / Morna area as indicated in the 85-611 COMMON COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 1995 Municipal Plan, made the observation that this description obviously did not recognize that there was a potential for a sanitary landfill site and, as this was not one of the policies in the Plan, enactment of the amendment would not be contrary to the section of the Plan referenced, and also that, even if the population growth in the Ketepec / Morna area had taken place as envisaged in the Plan as adopted in 1973, this would still not involve the area being discussed at this meeting - the actual site of Crane Mountain - as this area would have been out of the residential growth area at that time, as well as outside the area designated in the Plan as open space. Mr. Baird referenced Mr. Bowen's comments relative to Route 7 being a path, as shown in the Plan on the basis that, while it is recognized that the visual presence of a facility is one of the major concerns, it is not a matter where the Municipal Plan would indicate that the proposed development could not be undertaken at this location because of policies with respect to visual features; and, with regard to the legality of proceeding with re- zoning in the absence of some type of plan, noted that the general site layout was submitted as the third drawing submitted with the Planning Advisory Committee's report to Council, although it may change to some degree. Councillor Fitzpatrick asked if, should the area be re-zoned and the landfill facility not be approved, the present property owners would have to go through the Planning Advisory Committee to develop the property for a heavy industrial use, to which Mr. Baird replied that, if Council were to re-zone the site to Heavy Industrial without any Section 39 conditions, the owners would possibly be given some flexibility as to a variety of types of uses they could do there; however, staff would recommend, if Council were disposed to re-zoning the site, that Section 39 conditions be attached that would limit the use to a proposed sanitary landfill facility with recycling and composting. Councillor Fitzpatrick expressed the view that, as with the recent Zoning By-Law text amendment relevant to sanitary landfills in the "1-2" zone, the proposed amendments would also take the control away from Council and that it did not seem appropriate for Council to try to re-zone property that is not owned, nor for which options are held, by the City, the Province or the Commission. Question being taken, the motion was lost with the Mayor and Councillors Arthurs, Brown, Chase, Knibb, Trites and Waldschutz voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Waldschutz RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law", to redesignate on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, a parcel of land containing an area of approximately 330 acres and fronting on Highway 7 at the intersection of Highway 177, also being NBGIC Numbers 55087001, 55087027, 55043301, 55043293 and portions of NBGIC Numbers 55086987 and 55087019 from Rural to Heavy Industrial classification, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Ball, Fitzpatrick and Vincent 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 Waldschutz RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By-Law", to redesignate on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land Use Plan, a parcel of land containing an area of approximately 330 acres and fronting on Highway 7 at the intersection of Highway 177, also being NBGIC Numbers 55087001, 55087027, 55043301, 55043293 and portions of NBGIC Numbers 55086987 and 55087019 from Rural to Heavy Industrial classification, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Ball, Fitzpatrick and Vincent voting "nay". Read a second time the by-law entitled, "A Law To Amend the Municipal Plan By-Law". 85-612 COMMON COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 1995 On motion of Councillor Knibb Seconded by Councillor Waldschutz 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 containing an area of approximately 330 acres and fronting on Highway 7 at the intersection of Highway 177, also being NBGIC Numbers 55087001, 55087027, 55043301,55043293 and portions of NBGIC Numbers 55086987 and 55087019, from "RF" Rural and "P" Park to "1-2" Heavy Industrial classification, subject to Section 39 conditions to be worked out, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Ball, 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 Waldschutz 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 containing an area of approximately 330 acres and fronting on Highway 7 at the intersection of Highway 177, also being NBGIC Numbers 55087001, 55087027, 55043301,55043293 and portions of NBGIC Numbers 55086987 and 55087019, from "RF" Rural and "P" Park to "1-2" Heavy Industrial classification, subject to Section 39 conditions to be worked out, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Ball, Fitzpatrick and Vincent voting "nay". 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 Brown RESOLVED that the correspondence regarding the above-proposed amendments be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Ball, Fitzpatrick and 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