Loading...
2000-03-13_Minutes 87 -891 COMMON COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2000 At a meeting of the Common Council, held at the City Hall in the City of Saint John, on Monday, the thirteenth day of March, AD., 2000, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. present Shirley McAlary, Mayor Councillors Ball, Chase, Court, Fitzpatrick, Titus, Trites, Vincent and White - and - Messrs. P. Woods, Deputy City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; A Beckett, Commissioner of Finance and Commissioner of Corporate Services; J. C. MacKinnon, Commissioner of Environment and Development Services; P. Groody, Commissioner of Municipal Operations; W. Butler, Commissioner of Community Services; J. Baird, Manager of Community Planning; W. Edwards, Building Inspector; S. Lodhi, Manager of Real Estate and Facility Management; R. Simonds, Deputy Fire Chief; C. Cogswell, Chief of Police; Mrs. M. Munford, Common Clerk; and Ms. C. Mosher, Assistant Common Clerk. 1. MeetinQ Called To Order - Prayer Mayor McAlary called the meeting to order, and Rev. Bob Freill of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint John offered the opening prayer. 2. Approval of Minutes On motion of Councillor Vincent Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on March 6, 2000, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor called for a motion to add to the agenda of this meeting, as item 3A, the Capital Budget for the year 2000. * Added Item On motion of Councillor Ball Seconded by Councillor Court RESOLVED that a Committee of the Whole recommendation of this date with regard to the 2000 Capital Budget - General Fund be added to the agenda of this meeting for consideration as item 3A Question being taken, the motion was carried. *3A. 2000 Capital BudQet - General Fund On motion of Councillor Trites Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that Common Council adopt the City of Saint John 2000 Capital Budget for the General Fund in the total amount of $8,990,000. Mr. Woods, noting that the 2000 Capital Budget proposed expenditures of $8.99 million compared to a $11.9 million Capital Budget in 1999 and that Council had yet to consider the 2000 Capital Budget for the Water and Sewerage Utility, described the 2000 Capital Budget for the General Fund as a "must do" budget, which tries to balance the need to maintain and improve the City's transportation system, particularly the roads and streets infrastructure with some 46% of it allocated to that type of expenditure, with the need to address other needs, priorities and commitments that exist 87 -892 COMMON COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2000 across the City. Mr. Woods noted the focus of the 2000 Capital Budget on fulfilling Council's standing commitments, responding to public safety issues, trying to protect the City's significant investment in other infrastructure beyond roads and streets, including parks, buildings and equipment that have to be maintained, improved and upgraded from time to time, and leveraging funding from other sources so that the City is not paying a hundred percent of the cost. Mr. Woods highlighted some of the initiatives to be undertaken in 2000, including the Mark Drive realignment, a continuing commitment to flood control and the Marsh Creek, residential housing incentives, the construction of a works garage in East Saint John, and waterfront development; and recommended that Council adopt a budget of $8,990,000 for the Capital Program in the General Fund. Council members spoke, in turn, in the above regard during which time Mayor McAlary suggested that, as funds could not be found at this time in response to the February 7,2000 presentation by Mispec Park Recreation Committee Inc., Council could consider a motion, after dealing with the matter at hand, to send the Committee a letter stating that Council approves of its project, however at this time due to all of the other issues, many of which have already been committed to, funding could not be found for its project right now, but in the case that the Committee may be able to get funding from the Provincial Government, Council could assist it with a letter expressing the belief that the project has merit and Council's desire to see the work done, and offering to discuss any other assistance that Council could give. The Mayor, noting that no funding was included in the 2000 Capital Budget to build a new building at Rockwood Park and also that Council's application for Millennium funding from the Federal Government for the Lily Lake Pavilion was denied, advised of Council's agreement to meet with the members of the Saint John Horticultural Association and the Rockwood Park Advisory Board in an attempt to work toward some conclusion on what can be done in this regard. Councillor Titus advised that, having listened to the Commissioner of Finance who indicated that limiting future borrowings to $6 million for four to five years would yield a significant reduction in annual debt service payments which could be redirected towards paying for capital items or increased funding for other programs, he would go on record as saying that the City could not afford an $8,990,000 Capital Budget and, having listed items which in his view could be cut from the Budget put forth, advised that he would not support the 2000 Capital Budget. In response to Councillor Chase's question as to whether or not the proposed $8.99 million budget was safely within the City's debt ratio for borrowing, Mr. Beckett advised that, as a $9 million capital program would mean that the City would incur $9 million in new debt, $9 million in annual new debt to the City would result in its annual costs of paying back that debt in principal and interest payments remaining at its current level of about $12.5 million. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Titus voting "nay". On motion of Councillor Vincent Seconded by Councillor Court RESOLVED that a letter be forwarded to Mispec Park Recreation Committee Inc. advising that Council endorses its project and greatly appreciates the work that the volunteers have done over the past years and that, although Council cannot provide funding at this time, Council is supportive of the project and will do whatever it can to support the Committee when it goes forward to the Provincial Government and also is available for the Committee if it can do whatever the Committee feels necessary. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 3. Labatt Blue 24 Hour Relay Consideration was given to an information package on the Labatt Blue 24 Hour Relay scheduled for August 12 through August 13, 2000, at Fisher Lakes in Rockwood Park, the funds raised from this year's Relay having been committed to support the Saint John Chapter of Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the Boys and Girls Club and the YMCA/YWCA. Craig Donaldson, a representative of Labatt Breweries in Saint John, introduced Wanda Hughes, Regional Coordinator of the Labatt Blue 24 Hour Relay Organizing Committee; expressed appreciation to the Mayor and Council for the support 87 -893 COMMON COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2000 given to the Relay; and noted the invitation (copies of which were forwarded to Council members as an information item) to participate in the official launch of the 2000 Relay on March 15, 2000 at Thistle-St. Andrews Curling Club. Mayor McAlary recognized the presence in the Council Chamber of former Councillor Pat Landers. 4. Zenon Plant At Crane Mountain Landfill Read a letter from Councillor White advising that he would like to address the issue that has arisen in recent weeks regarding the operation of the Zenon water treatment plant at the Crane Mountain landfill site. Councillor White, referring to articles in the local newspaper on February 18, 21 and 24, 2000 in regard to the non-operation of the Zenon plant at the Crane Mountain landfill site, advised that he would like Councillor Chase, Council's representative on the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission, to get for Council from the Commission a full status report of where the Zenon plant is with regard to operation, how long it will take to get the plant in full operation, what the alternatives will be with regard to the handling of leachate if the plant could not be put into operation, the amount of money paid to date to the company setting up the Zenon system and if it would be recovered if the system did not work, and the reporting mechanism in place through the General Manager of the Commission to the Commission members; and proposed a motion to ask Councillor Chase to come back with a full disclosure of what was going on with this project. Councillor White concurred with the Mayor's suggestion that the motion could be to ask the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission to make a presentation to Council in this regard. On motion of Councillor White Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission be invited to meet with Council and be prepared to answer questions and give an overview with regard to the Zenon plant and the entire operation, and the City Manager be requested to submit a report, when the Commission comes before Council, on leachate readings as leachate is taken from the site to the Lancaster lagoon. Councillor Vincent advised that a report provided to him by Councillor Chase on the amount of leachate taken from the Crane Mountain landfill to the Lancaster lagoon used an averaging based over a period of a month or two months or three months, with no specific readings identified by date; and asked, as the report makes reference to readings in excess of four which would be contrary to the conditions the City set out, to be advised at the time the Commission comes before Council of the readings as they are taken from the site, not averaged over periods of time as he is concerned that there are readings in excess of the acceptable four. The mover and seconder of the motion agreed to add this to the motion. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 5. Re Projects Proceeding Without BuildinQ Permits Consideration was given to a letter from Councillor Chase expressing concern about the issue of builders/developers proceeding with their projects without permits; submitting copies of by-laws in place in Fredericton and Moncton relating to buildings, as well as a copy of a City of Saint John draft by-law dated March 5, 1997 respecting the construction, repair and demolition of buildings and structures, and proposing that Council ask the Legal Department to report on the City's draft by-law that addresses this issue. Councillor Chase commented on penalties in place in Fredericton and Moncton if building occurred without a permit, and noted that the City of Saint John's draft Building By-law of 1997 would increase the penalty if a construction project were started in Saint John without a permit. 87 -894 COMMON COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2000 On motion of Councillor Chase Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that the City Solicitor be asked to bring forward the draft Building By-law dated March 5, 1997 for a recommendation on first and second readings, and that this matter be referred to the City Manager for comment on the proposed changes in the By-law. Mr. Nugent advised that the particular issue of penalties as described by Councillor Chase was a well-defined issue on which he could report back to Council; however, as the above letter seems to suggest that Councillor Chase was looking for a report on the entire draft by-law, he would suggest that, while he would come back probably at the next meeting to deal with the issue of penalties per se, the by-law itself raises much broader and far more time-consuming issues. In response to Councillor Trites' question as to whether or not the draft by-law would be a consolidation of the current by-law in an updating or a new document compared to the 1976 Building By-law, Mr. Edwards replied that staff had suggested a fair number of changes to the By-law thus the reason for section 18 of the draft repealing the 1976 By-law rather than replacing one sentence with another because there would be substantial changes to it; and, in response to Mr. Edwards' indication that he would be desirous of Council moving forward with the draft by-law, Councillor Trites asked that the motion include referring the draft by-law back to staff for comment to apprise Council of the changes made, with which the mover and seconder of the motion agreed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 7. Easement For Encroachment Of BuildinQ At 110-112 Water Street Read a report from the Deputy City Manager submitting correspondence from the Legal Department advising of a request for a grant of easement to permit the encroachment of the building at 110-112 Water Street upon Water Street; and recommending adoption of the resolution as set out herein. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized, in consideration of the sum of one dollar ($1.00), to execute a grant of easement in favour of Rockaberry Investment Corporation to permit the encroachment of their building at 110-112 Water Street upon Water Street, such easement to terminate with the destruction or removal of such encroachment. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor Titus withdrew from the meeting as he was not present for the March 6, 2000 public hearings for a proposed amendment to the Section 39 conditions of re-zoning of 189 Waterloo Street and for a proposed Zoning By-law amendment to re- zone 233 Lancaster Street.) 6. Proposed Office/Service Building And Amendment To Section 39 Conditions Of Re-ZoninQ 189 Waterloo Street Consideration was given to a report from the City Manager submitting additional information on Matrix Properties lnc.'s proposal and commenting thereon, further to the City Solicitor's advice that Council can reconsider a proposed amendment to the Section 39 conditions of re-zoning of the Old General Hospital site at 189 Waterloo Street for which the public hearing was held on March 6, 2000; and recommending that, if Common Council is satisfied with the proposal including the additional information submitted, adoption of the resolution as set out herein, which is similar to the Planning Advisory Committee's recommendation with the additional detail specifically adopted by Council. 87 -895 COMMON COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2000 On motion of Councillor Trites Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that Common Council amend the conditions attached to the September 29, 1986 re-zoning of the subject property situated at 189 Waterloo Street, also identified as NBGIC Numbers 14514, 55048334, 16139, 16121, 16113, 16105, 14530, 14522 and 13326, as amended on September 20, 1999, to permit the development of the proposed office/service building on a separate lot, subject to the following conditions: (a) the use of the building is limited to the proposed one-storey office/service building for an office equipment sales and service company, with a maximum office area of approximately 4,000 square feet and a maximum total area of approximately 10,500 square feet; (b) development of the site must be in accordance with the submitted detailed elevation plans and with a detailed site plan, to be prepared by the proponent, indicating building location, parking and loading facilities, vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, emergency access and exit routes, and landscaping; (c) no development may occur until the Development Officer approves the site plan mentioned in (b); (d) the number of off-street parking and loading spaces, and the size, number and location of signs for the development must meet the Zoning By- law's requirements for the "B-2" General Business zone; (e) all parking and vehicular circulation areas must be paved with asphalt and enclosed by cast-in-place concrete curbs; (f) all utilities, including power and telephone, must be underground in the same trench as the water and sewer laterals unless, in the opinion of the Development Officer, the installation of underground power and telephone is not feasible, in which case power and telephone may be placed overhead; and (g) all work shown on the approved site plan, except final landscaping work, must be completed prior to occupancy of the building, and landscaping must be completed no later than one year after approval of the first building permit for the development. Councillor Fitzpatrick asked if negotiation had taken place on the siding to which Mr. Baird replied that the developer, in terms of the type of siding and the material being used, was not able from his perspective to offer any changes, but he was able to clarify the colour scheme and the details of how he proposed to do it and offset it with accent strips; so, with respect to the nature and the type of siding, there is no change. Councillor Fitzpatrick advised that he would like to see further discussion take place in an attempt to have a different type of siding. Councillor Chase proposed a motion, which was not seconded, to amend the above motion by including in part (g) that trees be a minimum height of 14 feet and there be at least 20 trees; and Councillor Fitzpatrick advised that, if siding were added, he would second the amendment. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Chase and Fitzpatrick voting "nay". 8. Zoning By-law Amendment To Re-Zone 233 Lancaster Street On motion of Councillor Trites Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that the by-law to amend the Zoning By-law of the City of Saint John", insofar as it concerns re-zoning a parcel of land located at 233 Lancaster Street (NBGIC Number 366518), having an area of approximately 465 square metres (5,000 square feet), from "R-2" One and Two Family Residential to "R-4" Four Family Residential classification, be read a third time and enacted and the Corporate Common Seal be affixed thereto. The Mayor noted the need for six affirmative votes in order to enact the above By-law in that it would be going against the recommendation of the Planning Advisory Committee. Councillor Fitzpatrick expressed the opinion that, as the applicant went ahead with the proposal having been given cease work orders and having no building permit, Council would be giving the wrong message in approving this by indicating that everybody could proceed accordingly; and advised that he would not be supporting this issue, being of the understanding from the report considered at the last meeting that there were fire codes to which the applicant did not adhere, as well a concern about the safety of the building. Mr. Nugent, advising that he was commenting in light of Councillor Fitzpatrick's observations and using the language set out in the Community 87 -896 COMMON COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2000 Planning Act, expressed the opinion that, while Council has relatively broad discretion in the items it takes into consideration in voting on a proposed amendment to a Zoning By- law, he would think it would give rise to a challenge to the vote if the only reason Councillors voted against an amendment was because someone has not complied with the Building By-law requirements or has violated the Zoning By-law requirements with respect to the property earlier, and that the focus clearly should be on the Council's view of the appropriateness of the proposed change from a land use perspective; thus he would caution Council members, especially if they were to speak to the issue and in fact oppose the re-zoning, to make it clear that it was for some reason other that simply violation or alleged violation of the Zoning or Building By-laws and not based solely on the past behaviour of the applicant in terms of other by-laws. Councillor Court expressed concern that, if the re-zoning application had come forward to avoid a court appearance, none of the improvements the Building Inspector was seeking on that project would take place; and asked if he had a problem voting against the re-zoning because he had no guarantee that the people living there were being protected because the owner has not made those corrections. Mr. Edwards advised that, last Tuesday following the Monday night Council meeting, Mr. Foriere contacted his office and made an arrangement to meet with one of the inspectors at the building at which time all the deficiencies as they currently exist were pointed out and Mr. Foriere indicated to the inspector that he would undertake those repairs right away and, if he did that, all of the deficiencies with the exception of the asphalt and the parking lot would be done right away. Mr. Nugent added that the deficiencies identified at the last meeting were, as he recalled, deficiencies of the nature of instances where work that was required by some law had not been undertaken in a timely fashion and for which mechanisms were in place to pursue; so if, for example, this re-zoning failed the applicant would be back in court; and expressed the view that, as there were mechanisms in place to deal with the shortcomings identified, the appropriate way to deal with them would be to use the mechanisms the legislature has given Council and not to try to make the whole process even more cumbersome by layering those concerns into a re-zoning process. Councillor Court asked, if Council approved the By-law and there was a fire in the building in which someone was injured before the changes were made, Council would have any liability, to which Mr. Nugent replied that, if the potential legal liability of the City were to be dealt with, he would ask Council to do so in Legal Session; however, if the re-zoning were given third reading at this time, the Building Inspector, based upon what he has told Council, would not wait long to make sure that things are as they should be and, if it turned out that there were provisions not done that should have been done, the City would endeavour to have that before the court at the mid-April date referenced at the last meeting, and he would think that these concerns would be dealt with as much expedition as the system within which the City worked allowed it to do. Councillor Fitzpatrick, in clarifying his stance on this matter, advised that it went above and beyond not just having a building permit. Mr. Edwards confirmed Councillor Trites' observation that the April 2000 court date was to deal with the issue of zoning in that there were four families in a residence zoned for two, and not with the deficiencies; and also that, if Council approved the re-zoning meaning that the four families could continue to live in the subject building, the owner would have a responsibility to immediately correct the deficiencies while, if Council did not approve the re-zoning, the City would proceed to court to have two families removed from that unit and, once it reverted to a two-family unit, there would be no deficiencies. Councillor Vincent asked if there had been a change since the last meeting in Mr. Edwards' concern from a fire safety standpoint about the building as it was presently occupied, to which Mr. Edwards indicated in the negative. The by-law to amend the Zoning By-law of the City of Saint John was read in its entirety. Question being taken, the motion was lost with Councillors Court, Fitzpatrick and Vincent voting "nay", the affirmative vote of the majority of the whole Council being required to enact the by-law. (Councillor Titus re-entered the meeting.) 9. Committee Of The Whole Report Read the report of the Committee of the Whole (as follows) 87 -897 COMMON COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2000 To the COMMON COUNCIL of the City of Saint John The Committee of the Whole reports Your Committee reports that it sat on Monday, March 6, 2000, when there were present Mayor McAlary, Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillors Ball, Chase, Court, Fitzpatrick, Trites, Vincent and White, and your Committee submits the following recommendation, namely: 1. That as recommended by the City Manager, (1)(a) the City lease to Hunter's Ventures Limited, doing business as Pearl's Corner Kitchen, Stalls "B" and "C" in the City Market for a period of two years using the City's usual form of lease for rental of stalls in the City Market; (b) the rental rate to be as per the City Market By-law, as amended from time to time; (c) the lease to specify the products and services as outlined in the offer to lease; and (d) the lease to specify the tenant contribution to the City Market promotion fund, in addition to rent; and (2) the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documents. March 13, 2000, Saint John, N.B. Respectfully submitted, (sgd.) Shirley McAlary, C h air man. 9.1. Lease Of Space In City Market To Pearl's Corner Kitchen On motion of Councillor White Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the above report be received and filed and the recommendation therein be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 10. David F. Filliter Re Protective Services On motion of Councillor White Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the letter from David F. Filliter explaining a series of events which occurred the week of March 2, 2000 resulting in his expression of gratitude and appreciation for the dedicated effort of protective service employees in the City of Saint John and his uncommon sense of willingness for the first time to pay his municipal taxes, be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 11. Saint John Port Authority - Sponsorship Of Port Days/National Transportation Week On motion of Councillor Trites Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that the letter from the Saint John Port Authority requesting sponsorship support for Saint John Port Days/National Transportation Week to be held June 5 and 6, 2000, be received and filed and the City sponsor the event at its normal participation rate. The Mayor noted that Council approved $1,500 for last year's Port Days/National Transportation Week. Councillor Titus advised that he would only support $500. Question being taken, the motion was carried was Councillor Titus voting "nay". Adiournment The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned Common Clerk