Loading...
2000-05-15_Minutes 88-13 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 At a meeting of the Common Council, held at the City Hall in the City of Saint John, on Monday, the fifteenth day of May, A.D., 2000, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. present Shirley McAlary, Mayor Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillors Ball, Chase, Court, Desmond, Fitzpatrick, Titus, Trites, Vincent and White - and - Messrs. 1. Totten, 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; W. Butler, Commissioner of Community Services; S. Galbraith, Director of Works; J. Baird, Manager of Community Planning; W. Edwards, Building Inspector; P. Asimakos, Planner; R. Simonds Deputy Fire Chief; C. Cogswell, Chief of Police; Ms. C. Mosher, Assistant Common Clerk; and Mrs. J. Ferrar, Secretary. 1. MeetinQ Called To Order - Prayer Mayor McAlary called the meeting to order, and Rev. Tim Davidson of the Saint John Vineyard Church offered the opening prayer. 2. Approval of Minutes On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on May 8, 2000, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 3(a) Zoning By-law Amendment Re-ZoninQ 5-7 Milford Road The Assistant Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed re-zoning of property located at 5-7 Milford Road (NBGIC Number 55012504), having an area of approximately 4060 square metres (43,703 square feet), from "R-2" One and Two Family Residential to "MH" Mobile Home Park classification, to permit the placement of a mobile home on the subject property, as requested by Robert Clark, and no written objections were received in this regard. 3{b) Consideration was given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report and ten letters, a petition in support and a larger petition in objection to the proposed re-zoning, considered at the Committee's May 9, 2000 meeting at which the applicant expressed objection to the staff recommendation and indicated that there was no desire to establish a mobile home park; and three presentations were made by area residents in concern that the proposed re-zoning could allow for a mobile home park, although they were supportive of the applicant's proposal if the property did not have to be re-zoned as requested; advising that the Committee resolved not to support the proposed re-zoning; however, it did grant the necessary variance relating to minimum ground floor area in order for a dwelling unit to be placed on the property and, in addition, recommended that a Section 101 agreement be entered into to ensure that the proposed granny suite would meet minimum Zoning By-law standards; and recommending that (1) the re-zoning application be denied; and (2) Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of an agreement pursuant to Section 101 of the Community Planning Act between the applicant, the landowner and the City of Saint John, which would be registered in the Saint John Registry Office, stipulating the conditions as set out herein. 88-14 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 Patricia Kleinke of 66 Francis Street appeared before Council representing the area residents and spoke in opposition to the re-zoning on the basis that it would unnecessarily provide the opportunity for a large-scale mobile home development; and expressed the opinion that, although the community supported the wishes of Mr. Clark with regard to caring for a family member with a medical condition, the value of homes in the area would be drastically reduced. Paul Blaney of 55 Francis Street, appearing in opposition to the re- zoning, expressed concern regarding the reference to park in the re-zoning, and stated there were already two mobile home parks in the area and he saw no need for a third park. Doreen Clark of 16 Milford Road spoke in support of the re-zoning, referring to a similar application for property at 1770 Sand Cove Road; and noted that the application did not support the long-term placement of a mobile home. Robert Clark of 16 Milford Road, the applicant, addressed Council in support of the re-zoning; explained that his application was a request for the placement of one mobile home trailer - not a mobile home park; advised that he would be in opposition to another mobile home park going into the area. and expressed agreement with the recommended Section 101 Agreement. On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, the application of Robert Clark for the re-zoning of property located at 5-7 Milford Road be denied: AND FURTHER that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of an agreement pursuant to Section 101 of the Community Planning Act between the applicant Robert Clark, the landowner, and the City of Saint John, which would be registered in the Saint John Registry Office, stipulating the following: (a) the unit must be situated in the northwestern corner of the subject property located at 5-7 Milford Road as illustrated in the submitted application; (b) the unit must conform to all applicable National Building Code requirements and placed on a permanent foundation; (c) only the applicant's daughter and her immediate family can reside in the unit; (d) the unit must be directly serviced by municipal sewer and water and public utilities at the expense of the applicant prior to its occupation; (e) the unit must be removed from the property within eight weeks of it no longer being occupied by the applicant's daughter; (f) municipal services and public utilities must be properly disconnected by the applicant at the removal of the unit; and (g) the applicant or property owner must refrain from seeking permission to allow the unit to remain on the property once the applicant's daughter is no longer residing in it. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 4(a) Amendment To Section 39 Conditions Of Re-ZoninQ Of 75 CoburQ Street The Assistant Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed amendment to the Section 39 conditions imposed on the September 6, 1994 re-zoning of the property situated at 75 Coburg Street (NBGIC Numbers 15669 and 15214), to permit the establishment and operation of the building as a corporate suite hotel, having a total of 14 units, as requested by Chipman Hill Suites Limited, and no written objections were received in this regard. 4{b) Consideration was given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report considered at the Committee's May 9, 2000 meeting at which the applicant, Susan Fullerton, spoke in favour of the application, and Eleanor Sheehan, an area resident, and Chris McCurdy, a former tenant of the applicant's accommodations, spoke in support of the application; and recommending that Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions attached to the 1994 re-zoning of the property to include, in addition to those uses already permitted, a corporate suite hotel. 88-15 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 Susan Fullerton of Chipman Hill Suites Limited, the applicant, addressed Council, expressing her agreement with the recommendation and offering to answer any questions Council may have. On motion of Councillor Trites Seconded by Deputy Mayor Chase RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions attached to the 1994 re-zoning of the property located at 75 Coburg Street to include, in addition to those uses already permitted, a corporate suite hotel. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 5(a) Zoning By-law Amendment To Re-Zone 1371 Sand Cove Road The Assistant Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed re-zoning of a parcel of land located at 1371 Sand Cove Road (NBGIC Number 55086417), having an area of approximately 2 acres, from "RS-1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential, "RF" Rural and "P" Park to "B- 2" General Business classification, to permit expansion and conversion of an existing bed and breakfast to an inn containing 15 guest rooms and one cottage, as requested by Ross and Willa Mavis, and no written objections were received in this regard. 5{b) Consideration was given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report considered at the Committee's May 9, 2000 meeting at which the applicants and the architect for the project expressed agreement with the staff recommendation; and recommending that Common Council re- zone a parcel of land located at 1371 Sand Cove Road (NBGIC Number 55086417), having an area of approximately 2 acres, from "RS-1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential, "RF" Rural and "P" Park to "B-2" General Business classification, subject to a resolution pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act setting out the following conditions: (a) the use of the subject site for commercial purposes is limited to the applicants' proposal to expand and convert the existing bed and breakfast establishment to an inn containing a combination of guest rooms and/or cottages, together with dining facilities as a secondary use only; (b) the development of the site must be in accordance with a detailed site plan, to be prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating building locations, parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, exterior lighting and landscaping; (c) the approved plans mentioned in condition (b) must be attached to the application for building permit for the development; (d) all driveways and parking areas must be paved with asphalt, concrete and/or interlocking brick/pavement stones; and (e) all work shown on the approved site plan and building elevation plans must be completed no later than one year after approval of the building permit for the development. Ross Mavis of 1371 Sand Cove Road, the applicant, expressed agreement with the recommendation and offered to answer any questions Council may have. On motion of Councillor Desmond 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 1371 Sand Cove Road (NBGIC Number 55086417), having an area of approximately 2 acres, from "RS-1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential, "RF" Rural and "P" Park to "B-2" General Business classification, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time the by-law to amend the Zoning By-law of the City of Saint John. 88-16 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Councillor White 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 1371 Sand Cove Road (NBGIC Number 55086417), having an area of approximately 2 acres, from "RS-1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential, "RF" Rural and "P" Park to "B-2" General Business classification, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time the by-law to amend the Zoning By-law of the City of Saint John. 6(a) Zoning By-law Amendment To Re-Zone 60-80 DouQlas Avenue The Assistant Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed re-zoning of a parcel of land located at 60-80 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Numbers 368845,368852 and 55084313), having an area of approximately 1.2 acres, from "RM-1" Three Storey Multiple Residential and "I D" Integrated Development to "B-2" General Business classification, to permit the expansion and conversion of an existing bed and breakfast to a 10-room inn, comprising the existing buildings at 60 and 80 Douglas Avenue and new construction, as requested by Ralph Holyoke, and no written objections were received in this regard. 6{b) Consideration was given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report considered at the Committee's May 9, 2000 meeting at which the applicant expressed agreement for the staff recommendation; and recommending that Common Council re-zone a parcel of land located at 60-80 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Numbers 368845,368852 and 55084313), having an area of approximately 1.2 acres, from "RM-1" Three Storey Multiple Residential and "ID" Integrated Development to "B-2" General Business classification, subject to a resolution pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act setting out the following conditions: (a) the use of the subject site for commercial purposes is limited to the applicant's proposal to connect and redevelop the existing buildings as a bed and breakfast inn, together with dining facilities as a secondary use only; (b) the development of the site must be in accordance with a detailed site plan, to be prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating building location, parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, exterior lighting and landscaping; (c) the redevelopment of the existing buildings and new construction must be in accordance with detailed building elevation plans, to be prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating exterior building details and materials; (d) the approved plans mentioned in conditions (c) and (d) must be attached to the application for building permit for the development; (e) all driveways and parking areas must be paved with asphalt, concrete and/or interlocking brick/pavement stones; and (f) all work shown on the approved site plan and building elevation plans must be completed no later than one year after approval of the building permit for the development. Ralph Holyoke of 80 Douglas Avenue, the applicant, indicated his agreement with the recommendation and offered to answer any questions Council may have. On motion of Councillor White Seconded by Councillor Court 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 60-80 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Numbers 368845,368852 and 55084313), having an area of approximately 1.2 acres, from "RM-1" Three Storey Multiple 88-17 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 Residential and "ID" Integrated Development" to "B-2" General Business classification, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time the by-law to amend the Zoning By-law of the City of Saint John. On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Deputy Mayor Chase 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 60-80 Douglas Avenue (NBGIC Numbers 368845,368852 and 55084313), having an area of approximately 1.2 acres, from "RM-1" Three Storey Multiple Residential and "ID" Integrated Development" to "B-2" General Business classification, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time the by-law to amend the Zoning By-law of the City of Saint John. 7(a) Zoning By-law Text Amendment And Re-ZoninQ Of 18 Properties To "PQ" Zone The Assistant Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to (1) a proposed Zoning By-law text amendment to establish a new zoning classification - "PQ" Pits and Quarries, with appropriate standards for the regulation of pits and quarries, and to establish a process which deals with the control of short term excavations which are not located in the Pits and Quarries zone, and (2) the proposed re-zoning of the following 18 parcels of land: 18 parcels of land to "PQ" Pits and Quarries zone: 2614 Golden Grove Road, 395 Manchester Avenue, 101 Ashburn Road, 460 Latimore Lake Road, 1003 Latimore Lake Road, 913 Latimore Lake Road, 107 Twilight Avenue, 873 Hillcrest Road, 170 Ashburn Lake Road, 2400 Ocean Westway, 2740 Golden Grove Road, 1450 Golden Grove Road, 1111 Churchland Road, 990 Grandview Avenue, 1657 Sand Cove Road, 1523 Sand Cove Road, 360-370 Latimore Lake Road, and 1360 Rothesay Road, as initiated by the City of Saint John, and 7{c) letters of objection were received in this regard from the Residents' Committee - Pits and Quarries Study, Richard and Jean Hachey, Ed Vanier, and Randall A. Hatfield of the law firm of Gorman Nason, solicitor for Brookville Manufacturing, as well as 7{d) a letter from Fundy Bay Holdings Limited regarding pits and quarries. 7{b) Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report and correspondence considered at the Committee's May 9, 2000 meeting at which the Committee decided to deal first with the adoption of the proposed "PQ" zone and then the individual pits and quarries to be re-zoned to the "PQ" zone, and at which a number of presentations were made by those persons representing the pit and quarry operators and those representing the residents who live near some of the operations; and summarizing the presentations made to the Committee. The report advises of matters of legal interpretation raised at the Committee's meeting, one being a question of whether or not it would be legal to adopt the "PQ" zone more than two years after the Municipal Plan had been amended, another relating to errors with respect to specific properties which were to be included in the advertising of 2614 Golden Grove Road; also advises that, although the Committee had concerns about the proposed "PQ" zone, it was felt that, after the duration of time it had taken and the efforts that had been made to deal with these uses, it was time to move forward, and it was also noted by staff that, if the Committee decided to table the proposal for further review and input, the Section 71 (1) resolution adopted by Council would cease to be effective and the present By-law would continue to be applicable allowing new operations to open under the old standards; further advises that the Committee did not have time to review any of the individual re-zonings for the pits and 88-18 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 quarries and it is anticipated that Council will request the Committee to consider these specific re-zonings at a later date; and recommending that Common Council amend the Zoning By-law as indicated in the submitted amendment. Mayor McAlary expressed the understanding that the public hearing at this time was to consider only the establishment of a zone for Pits and Quarries and not the proposed re-zoning of the individual parcels of land because the Planning Advisory Committee had not dealt with those sites. Mr. Nugent advised that, since the Planning Advisory Committee did not deal with the individual properties, it would be his opinion that Council should not be conducting a public hearing without having heard the Committee's recommendation, in light of Council's policy that reflects that sequence of events; but, consistent with the terms of the Community Planning Act, Council could proceed with the public hearing for the proposed creation of a new Pits and Quarries zone. Councillor Titus advised his preference to deal with the matter in one complete package as it would be difficult to restrict people who live in an area where the individual properties are located to speak only to the text amendment and, as this matter has been ongoing for a long period of time, there would be no harm in deferring it until Council received the complete package; and expressed the view that the public hearing should not be held at this time so that the whole issue, including the proposed re-zoning of the eighteen specific properties, can be dealt with by the Planning Advisory Committee and subsequently by Council. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Desmond RESOLVED that the public hearing for the proposed Zoning By-law text amendment for a "PQ" Pits and Quarries zone be delayed until the entire issue, including the proposed re-zoning of the specific properties, is back to Council from the Planning Advisory Committee: AND FURTHER that pursuant to Section 71 of the Community Planning Act, the development of new pits and quarries be prohibited until the submitted proposed Zoning By-law amendment becomes valid or fails to become valid. The initial motion proposed by Councillor Titus and seconded by Councillor Desmond was to not hold the public hearing at this time. In response to the Mayor's question as to what, if any, problems could occur if Council did not proceed with the public hearing at this time, Mr. Baird advised that the resolution adopted by Council pursuant to Section 71 of the Community Planning Act, when Council initiated the process to establish a new zone and advertise for the specific sites, would cease to have effect, such resolution having prohibited, or placed a so-called moratorium, on the development of new pits and quarries until the proposed Zoning By-law amendment became valid or failed to become valid. Councillor Vincent spoke in support of conducting the hearing, but questioned the process, and Mr. Nugent expressed the view that, as indicated by Mr. Baird, Council has the opportunity, if it so wished, to proceed with the public hearing on the portion of the proposed amendments that deals with the proposal less the eighteen specific properties identified, after which it could be referred for further input, and Council could make the subsequent decision to refer the proposed re-zoning of the eighteen sites back to the Planning Advisory Committee, authorize the Common Clerk to undertake the necessary advertising and set a date for a public hearing on that portion of the proposed amendment, the combined effect being that, on a single date sometime in the future, Council would be in a position to hold the public hearing on the proposed re-zoning of the eighteen sites and take from the table the proposed amendments to the Zoning By- law that are textual in nature and deal with the complete package at that time. Councillor Trites advised that he would like to start the process at this time and, in response to his question as to whether or not Council could hold the hearing and then refer the proposed text amendment back to staff prior to making a motion for first reading, Mr. Nugent advised in the affirmative. As to whether or not the moratorium would be maintained if the hearing were held and the matter referred, Mr. Baird advised that it would be in effect until the By-law was disposed of, noting the time limit of six months from the date of the first advertisement within which Council must finalize its consideration of the proposed By-law; and he advised that, if the eighteen individual properties were referred and advertised for a public hearing, June 19 would be the earliest possible date on which the Planning Advisory Committee could report to Council in this regard. As to a date when the City Solicitor could report to Council on legal 88-19 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 issues raised in this regard, Mr. Nugent advised that he could do so by June 19. In response to Councillor Fitzpatrick, Mr. Nugent explained that the essential reason he would suggest that Council not proceed to hold a public hearing into the merits of re- zoning the eighteen site was that the process which has been followed historically by the Planning Advisory Committee and adopted indirectly by Council was that the Planning Advisory Committee advises of its intention to consider a proposed re-zoning, gives notice to anybody who might be affected and gives those people the opportunity to be heard and, as people who would be potentially affected by the proposed re-zoning of the eighteen sites did not have an opportunity to be heard at Planning Advisory Committee, it would be contrary to that normal process if Council were to proceed now with a public hearing thereby putting the decision Council might make at risk of being successfully challenged in court. Mr. Nugent agreed with Mr. Baird's conclusion that the effect of a moratorium would continue if Council were to split the public hearing, and expressed the view that, if Council were to decide it was in the best interest of the community that all these proposed changes be dealt with at a single public hearing, Council has the opportunity, presuming that its decision was done in good faith, to adopt a motion that the public hearing would not be held at this time, refer the entire matter back to the Planning Advisory Committee, authorize the Common Clerk to conduct the necessary advertising, and immediately thereafter adopt a resolution pursuant to Section 71, similar to that previously adopted, prohibiting development until Council considers the proposed amendment. The mover and seconded of the motion agreed to add to it a resolution pursuant to Section 71, and the Mayor called for the question on the motion as set out above. Question being taken, the motion was lost with Mayor McAlary, Deputy Mayor Chase, Councillors Chase, Court, Fitzpatrick, Ball, Trites, Vincent and White voting "nay". Terrance Gray of 19 Nicolle Road, a member of the Latimore Lake and Area Residents Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment, referring to the truck traffic and the effect on the quality of life of residents who live in areas where pits are located, and noting the location of thirteen pits in East Saint John; and requested Council to instruct City staff to arrange a meeting with the pits and quarries operators committee and Residents Committee to discuss the matter, and asked for the following if this were not done: (1) a minimum $10,000 permit fee to be used for infrastructure repairs in the pits and quarries areas; (2) between $1.00 and $2.00 per truck, per load for every truck including independents that haul out of the pits each day, to be used to buy, equip and staff two cars for the Police Force for by-law enforcement; (3) bigger buffer zones, 300M from residential properties, (5) progressive rehabilitation, meaning rehabilitate behind work as they move deeper into the pits; (6) the replacement in the enforcement draft of words "may" or "shall" with "will" and "shall" so that there is no option in the way of enforcing by-laws, and (7) protection of public water supply to also apply to private wells. Odette McGrath of 31 Lackie Road appeared before Council representing the Latimore Lake and Area Residents Association and, through a slide presentation, explained the condition of various pits and the impact of them on residents' health; and stressed the need for new rules and regulations for pits and quarries in Saint John. Ms. McGrath advised that the residents' main concerns were the safety of their children, dust control, loss of property values, enforcement of by-laws, and the condition of roads due to the heavy traffic; circulated photographs of Lackie Road, which she advised were taken in February 2000, noting the brown colour of the sand-covered snow; and, in concluding her presentation, requested that Council leave the moratorium in place and for the residents and pit operators to be given more time to discuss the matter to see if a resolution can be reached. David Bowen, of 11 By Road 7, Ketepec, and Margaret Dubee of 1330 Grandview Avenue were present at the meeting representing the Residents' Committee for the Pits and Quarries Study in opposition to the proposed amendment. Mr. Bowen reviewed the changes proposed by the Committee in its revised Pits and Quarries Zoning By-law, a copy of which was submitted to Council in the above correspondence. Mrs. Dubee reviewed the Planning staff report to the Planning Advisory Committee, highlighting a number of inconsistencies and inadequacies, in the Committee's opinion, with regard to site rehabilitation, environmental impacts, and truck traffic. 88-20 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 Elizabeth Cann of 1133 Rothesay Road addressed Council in opposition to the proposed amendment, asking for some form of relief from the noise created by the quarry in her neighbourhood from 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 a.m.; explained how it has affected the quality of life for all residents in the area; and expressed concern that, although a proposed by-law document has been pending for many years, nothing has yet been finalized. Stephen Langille of 1319 Main Street, Hampton, appearing on behalf of the Aggregates Producers of Greater Saint John, spoke in regard to the future impact of the proposed amendment on pits and quarries; expressed concern that resource protection was not included in the proposed By-law; and requested that the By-law be referred back to staff and that the citizens and operators be given an opportunity to meet to discuss the matter. Gail Gray of 19 Nicolle Road, Secretary of the Latimore Lake and Area Residents Association, requested to speak to respond to a comment made by Mr. Langille about setting up a meeting, to which the Mayor advised that this was a public hearing and not a question-and-answer period, and that the issue of a meeting was not one for the public hearing on the proposed amendment. Randall Hatfield of the law firm of Gorman Nason, counsel for Brookville Manufacturing, appeared in opposition to the proposed amendment, accompanied by Malcolm Hoar, President of Brookville Manufacturing, to address concerns on the process and substance of the proposed amendment, as set out in the above-mentioned letter. In the former regard, Mr. Hatfield expressed the opinion that Council had no jurisdiction to consider the By-law in that Section 34 of the Community Planning Act requires that the by-law giving effect to the Municipal Plan must be adopted within one year and, as he understood it, the Municipal Plan was amended on May 3, 1999; and explained his position that, with respect to the Zoning By-law as it relates to Brookville Manufacturing, there was a conflict between the Municipal Plan and the Zoning By-law and Section 27 of the Act indicates that, in the event of a conflict, the Municipal Plan prevails. Mr. Hatfield expressed the view that the proposed By-law should be defeated or withdrawn. Stephen Horgan, solicitor for Galbraith Construction Ltd. and Galbraith Equipment Company Limited, expressed concern with respect to an error in the advertising for one of the properties owned by his client; and advised, unless there was another advertisement before the proposed By-law came back to Council for consideration, it would change an existing conforming use to a non-conforming use. Mr. Horgan advised the intent for Robert Ridgeway, Engineer for the Galbraith Companies, to speak to particular concerns on the wording of the proposed By-law, particularly with regard to the fencing and setback provisions; explained that his clients, over the years, have acquired properties for future use adjacent to pits which they own and operate, but the proposed By-law setbacks would prohibit them from effectively utilizing that property; and expressed the view that the By -law was out of time and in contravention of Section 34 of the Community Planning Act. Robert Ridgeway of Ready Street, representing the Galbraith Companies, spoke with regard to the wording of the proposed By-law and setback provisions and how the proposed setbacks will prohibit operators from expanding their pits and quarries; explained the difficulties in rehabilitating a pit; and expressed the view that the proposed By-law was well written and the operators could work with it if a few changes were made, noting that the City must be able to manage the by-law. On motion of Councillor Trites Seconded by Councillor Vincent RESOLVED that the proposed Zoning By- law text amendment for pits and quarries be referred to the City Manager for comment, taking into consideration the views and comments made at this meeting; that staff be asked to facilitate a meeting of the Residents' Committee and the companies and their representatives involved in the process; and that the legal questions be referred to the City Solicitor for his comments to Council on June 19, 2000, and that this be done in time to meet a July 4, 2000 public hearing date. 88-21 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 The initial motion proposed was for the legal questions to be referred to the City Solicitor for his comments and that this be done in time to meet a June 19, 2000 public hearing date for the 18 individual properties and to authorize the necessary advertising in this regard. With regard to the June 19, 2000 date, Mr. Nugent advised that he could have a report back to Council by June 19,2000; and Mr. Baird acknowledged that, as there was still considerable work to be done with regard to the proposed By-law, a July 4, 2000 public hearing date would give staff the month of June to deal with the issues and have further discussions and also give the Planning Advisory Committee the ability to have more than one hearing if necessary, and he advised that the corrections for the Galbraith site would be made in the advertising of the eighteen sites for a public hearing, and the mover and seconder of the motion agreed to change the public hearing date to July 4, 2000 and to request the City Solicitor's comments at the June 19, 2000 meeting. As to the possibility of setting more than one public hearing date, Mr. Nugent suggested that, if Council thought the public hearing would take more than one day, it would be wise to authorize the Common Clerk to set the public hearing on identified dates. Question being taken, the referral motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Trites Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that the proposed re-zoning of eighteen properties to the "PQ" Pits and Quarries Zone be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation, and the necessary advertising be authorized in this regard, with the public hearing to be held on Tuesday, July 4, 2000, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillors Chase and White withdrew from the meeting.) 8. Municipal Plan Amendment Re 264 Golden Grove Road Public presentation was made of a proposed Municipal Plan amendment to redesignate on Schedule 2-A, the Future Land use Plan, a parcel of land with an area of approximately 5380 square metres (1.3 acres), located at 264 Golden Grove Road (NBGIC Number 438077), from Open Space to Light Industrial (Approved Development) classification, to permit re-zoning of the property from "RS-2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "1-1" Light Industrial classification, thereby permitting an existing auto body shop, known as Grove Auto Body, to remain, as requested by Gordon Defazio. (Councillor Chase re-entered and Councillor Trites withdrew from the meeting.) 9. Mavor's Remarks Mayor McAlary proclaimed May 14 to 20,2000 as Canadian Police Week, and May 16, 2000 as McHappy Day in the City of Saint John, noting in the latter regard McDonald's Restaurants' contribution to children's charities in Canada and their direction of funds to the "Glen R. Carpenter Camp and Outdoor Education Facility" in Saint John. (Councillor White re-entered the meeting.) 9A. Mav 18th Birthdav Celebration Councillor Vincent reviewed the schedule of events for the City of Saint John's Birthday and Loyalist Day Celebrations on May 18, 2000; and advised that the budget was not expected to exceed $20,000 for this celebration and he would ensure that Council was provided with the budget in open session. (Councillor Trites re-entered the meeting.) 88-22 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 9B. Mavor's ChallenQe Consideration was given to a letter from Councillor Court submitting information on the forthcoming Mayor's Cup - High School Challenge on May 27, 2000, and advising that he would like to give an update in this regard, including budget information. Councillor Court reviewed the activities planned, noting the budget for this event of $3,500 of which $2,000 has already be raised through various fundraising events. (Councillor Vincent withdrew from the meeting.) 10. Re Bomb Threat Policv On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Trites RESOLVED that the letter from Councillor Fitzpatrick advising that he would like to discuss the bomb threat policy which he believed was developed by the Saint John Police Force, and more particularly the most recent incident at City Hall, and see this matter referred to the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners asking for a report, be referred to the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners for a report. Councillor Fitzpatrick related his concerns about the manner in which a December 1999 bomb threat in City Hall was handled, referencing the City Manager's report to Council in this regard. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 11. BudQet Deliberations Re City Commissions On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Trites RESOLVED that the letter from Councillor Titus requesting the support of Common Council regarding budget deliberations as they relate to City Commissions viz. Parking, Water and Energy, to refer to Legal Session/Committee of the Whole any questions regarding restrictions/limitations Council may have, be referred to Legal Session/Committee of the Whole. (Councillor Vincent re-entered and Councillor Ball withdrew from the meeting.) Councillor Titus clarified that he placed the item on the agenda of this meeting for referral to closed session in view of the recent discussion by Council on the procedure to follow with regard to Council agenda items, and during discussion Councillor Trites raised a point of order on the basis that comments should be on the referral motion rather than on the issue, and the Mayor, in acknowledging the referral motion, noted that there would be discussion on the Council Procedural By-law at the forthcoming Committee of the Whole meeting on May 23, 2000. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor Ball re-entered the meeting.) * Added Item On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that a letter from Councillor Court (copies of which were distributed to Council members at this meeting) requesting the opportunity to respond to recent newspaper articles with regard to Councillors taking a trip to London, Ontario, be added to the agenda as Item 11A. 88-23 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Titus voting "nay". *11A. Re Newspaper Articles ReQardinQ Trip to London. Ontario Councillor Court expressed his frustrations regarding the above-noted newspaper articles regarding the upcoming Federation of Canadian Municipalities Conference in London, Ontario. On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Councillor Desmond RESOLVED that the above letter from Councillor Court be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12. Bid For Ride-On Mowers On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the bid submitted by Halifax Seed Co., in the amount of $13,840 each, plus tax, be accepted for the supply of two 60" cut ride-on mowers. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Deputy Mayor Chase withdrew from the meeting.) 13. Tender For DiQitallmaQinQ Equipment On motion of Councillor Trites Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the tender of Norman Wade Company Ltd., in the amount of $35,994, plus tax, be accepted for the supply of new digital imaging equipment. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 14. Tender For Traffic Controllers On motion of Councillor Vincent Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the tender of Tacel Ltd., in the amount of $62,630, plus tax, be accepted for the supply of new traffic controllers. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Deputy Mayor Chase re-entered the meeting.) 15. Tender For Contract 2000-4. Crack SealinQ 2000 On motion of Councillor Trites Seconded by Councillor Court RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, Contract 2000-4, crack sealing 2000, be awarded to the low tenderer, Road Savers Maritime Limited, at the tendered price of $22,480, as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. 88-24 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 Councillor Desmond asked if this work would benefit the road to which Mr. Galbraith advised that it was a process to extend the life of the pavement but it would deteriorate over time. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Desmond voting "nay". 16. Re The Boys & Girls Club Of Saint John Inc. Request To Make Presentation To Council On motion of Councillor White Seconded by Councillor Trites RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the submitted letter from The Boys & Girls Club of Saint John Inc. requesting to appear before Common Council further to the City Manager's letter requesting it to immediately seek alternative funding and plan for the elimination of funding, in view of an anticipated $2.2 million reduction in Provincial transfer payments to the City of Saint John, be received and filed, and the Common Clerk schedule a presentation to Council by The Boys & Girls Club of Saint John Inc. at a mutually convenient time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 17. Saint John City Market On motion of Councillor Ball Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that the report from the City Manager addressing, in response to a request in Committee of the Whole on March 20, 2000 for a report on the operations of the Saint John City Market, financial and operating issues relative to City Market; and summarizing actions underway, be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 18. Fines For Violation Of Municipal Bv-Iaws On motion of Deputy Mayor Chase Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that the report from the City Solicitor in response to comments made during the May 1, 2000 Council meeting on the size of fine which could be imposed upon a person convicted of violating a municipal by- law, and commenting in terms of the range of fines which can be levied in such cases and the jurisdiction of the City and the Legislature, be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor Titus withdrew from the meeting.) 19. Legal Session Resolution - Bonney Construction Small Claims Action Read a letter from the Common Clerk submitting a Legal Session resolution of May 8, 2000. On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that Common Council hereby ratify the filing on May 2, 2000 of the Response and Counter-Claim to the Small Claims proceeding filed on March 30, 2000 and commenced against the City of Saint John by Bonney Construction Ltd. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 88-25 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 15,2000 (Councillor Titus re-entered the meeting.) 20. Committee Of The Whole Report Read the report of the Committee of the Whole (as follows) To the COMMON COUNCIL of the City of Saint John The Committee of the Whole reports Your Committee reports that it sat on Monday, May 8, 2000, when there were present Mayor McAlary and Councillors Ball, Chase, Court, Desmond, Fitzpatrick, Titus, Trites and White, and your Committee submits the following recommendation, namely: 1. That Council adopt the submitted Common Council meeting schedule. May 15, 2000, Saint John, N.B. Respectfully submitted, (sgd.) Shirley McAlary, C h air man. 20.1. Schedule Of Council MeetinQs On motion of Councillor Trites Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that the above report be received and filed and the recommendation therein be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 21. Saint John Development Corporation Election Of Officers. Financial Statements On motion of Councillor Trites Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the letter from the Saint John Development Corporation advising that the following Directors were elected as Officers of the Corporation: William 1. Grant, Chairman; Stephen Clarke, Vice Chairman; Shirley McAlary, Secretary/Treasurer; and submitting the 1999 Audited Financial Statements for the Corporation and for the Market Square Parking Garage, be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Vincent voting "nay". 22. Havelock Home and School Association Cost SharinQ In PlaVQround Equipment On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Councillor Desmond RESOLVED that the letter from the Havelock Home and School Association submitting two quotes for pieces of playground equipment for its community school; and requesting Council to share in 50% of the cost of this equipment, be referred to the City Manager. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Vincent voting "nay". Adjournment The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. Assistant Common Clerk