Loading...
2002-05-13_Minutes89-80 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 At a meeting of the Common Council, held at the City Hall in the City of Saint John, on Monday, the thirteenth day of May, A.D. 2002, at 7:25 o'clock p.m. present Shirley McAlary, Mayor Deputy Mayor White and Councillors Ball, Chase, Court, Desmond, Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, Teed and Titus - and - Messrs. T. Totten, City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; A. Beckett, Commissioner of Finance and Commissioner of Corporate Services; P. Woods, Deputy City Manager; P. Groody, Commissioner of Municipal Operations; W. Butler, Commissioner of Community Services; J. Baird, Commissioner of Planning and Development; W. Edwards, Commissioner of Buildings and Inspection Services; B. Morrison, Director of Recreation and Parks; D. Logan, Purchasing Agent; C. Campbell, Planner; G. Tait, Fire Chief; A. Bodechon, Deputy Chief of Police; Mrs. M. Munford, Common Clerk; and Ms. C. Mosher, Assistant Common Clerk. 1. Meetina Called To Order - Praver Mayor McAlary called the meeting to order, and Rev. Dan Trecartin of Grace Harvest Church, offered the opening prayer. 2. Approval Of Minutes On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on May 6, 2002, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor, in apologizing for the late start of the Council meeting, advised that the Committee of the Whole meeting took longer than usual with a grievance hearing having been held; and indicated her intent to move the agenda items around somewhat in an attempt to accommodate those people present at the meeting for various items. 3(a) Zoning By-law Amendment To Re-Zone 125-127 McAllister Drive The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed re-zoning of a parcel of land located at 125-127 McAllister Drive (PID Number 307876), being the Simonds Arena property and having an area of approximately 2.5 acres, from "P" Park to "SC" Shopping Centre classification, to permit the development of a retail plaza, as requested by SCA Plaza Inc., and no written objections were received in this regard. 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 7, 2002 meeting at which Myles Martin, on behalf of the applicant, expressed agreement with the staff recommendation except for the proposed condition (d) that there shall be no direct access from McAllister Drive to the site and requested that this condition be amended to permit a driveway for right turns in and out of the site, as illustrated on the submitted plan; advising of the Committee's decision to adopt the staff recommendation, and recommending that Common Council (1) re-zone a parcel of land located at 125-127 McAllister Drive (PID Number 307876), having an area of approximately 2.5 acres, from "P" Park to "SC" Shopping Centre classification, subject to a resolution pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act setting out the 89-81 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 following conditions: (a) the use of the site is limited to the proposed shopping centre development with a maximum floor area of approximately 20,000 square feet, (b) the developer must pave all parking areas, loading areas, manoeuvring areas and driveways with asphalt and enclose them with cast-in-place concrete curbs to protect the landscaped areas and facilitate proper drainage, (c) adequate site drainage facilities must be provided by the developer in accordance with a detailed drainage plan, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer, (d) street access to the site is limited to the existing signalized intersection via the future extension of Majors Brook Drive, which must be constructed by the proponent, and there shall be no direct access from McAllister Drive to the site, (e) the site development must include a vehicular driveway connection with the adjacent Exhibition Park development, as generally illustrated on the submitted site plan, (f) all utilities, including power and telephone, must be provided underground, (g) prior to commencing the development, the property owner must provide an easement in favour of the City (width and location to be determined by the Chief City Engineer or his designate) for the existing municipal sewer that traverses the subject site, (h) all areas of the site not occupied by buildings, driveways, walkways, parking or loading areas must be landscaped by the developer, including a minimum of 6 meters (20 feet) inside the lot lines abutting McAllister Drive and the future extension of Majors Brook Drive, and the landscaping must extend onto the City street right-of-way to the edge of the City curb/sidewalk, (i) the site shall not be developed except in accordance with a detailed site plan and building elevation plan, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating the location of all buildings, parking areas, driveways, loading areas, signs, exterior lighting, landscaped areas and other site features, including those listed above, and the approved site plan must be attached to the application for building permit for the development, and 0) all site improvements as shown on the approved site and drainage plans, except for landscaping, must be completed prior to the opening of the facility for business, and landscaping must be completed within one year of building permit approval; and (2) assent to a subdivision plan with respect to the vesting in the City of a municipal services easement for the existing sewer that crosses the subject site. On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Councillor Court RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By-law Number C.P. 100-592 A 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 125-127 McAllister Drive (PID Number 307876), having an area of approximately 2.5 acres, from "P" Park to "SC" Shopping Centre 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 entitled, "By-law Number C.P. 100-592 A Law To Amend The Zoning By-law Of The City Of Saint John". On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Councillor Fitzgerald RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By- law Number C.P. 100-592 A 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 125-127 McAllister Drive (PID Number 307876), having an area of approximately 2.5 acres, from "P" Park to "SC" Shopping Centre 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 entitled, "By-law Number C.P. 100-592 A Law To Amend The Zoning By-law Of The City Of Saint John". On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, Common Council assent to a subdivision plan with 89-82 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 respect to the vesting in the City of a municipal services easement for the existing sewer that crosses the property at 125-127 McAllister Drive. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Desmond RESOLVED that the correspondence regarding the above-proposed amendment be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 4(a) Zoning By-law Amendment To Re-Zone 638 Centre Street The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed re-zoning of a parcel of land located at 638 Centre Street (PID Number 391615), having an area of approximately 1,290 square metres (13,885 square feet), from "R-1 B" One Family Residential to "R-2" One and Two Family Residential classification, to place the property in a zone category that reflects the present use of the property as a two-family dwelling, as requested by Carolle Nazaiar-Savoie, and no written objections were received in this regard. Consideration was given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report and two letters in support of the application considered at the Committee's May 7, 2002 meeting at which the applicant appeared in support, and recommending that Common Council re-zone a parcel of land located at 638 Centre Street (PID Number 391615), having an area of approximately 1,290 square metres (13,885 square feet), from "R-1 B" One Family Residential to "R-2" One and Two Family Residential classification. On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By- law Number C.P. 100-593 A 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 638 Centre Street (PID Number 391615), having an area of approximately 1,290 square metres (13,885 square feet), from "R-1 B" One Family Residential to "R-2" One and Two Family Residential classification, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time the by-law entitled, "By-law Number C.P. 100-593 A Law To Amend The Zoning By-law Of The City Of Saint John". On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By-law Number C.P. 100-593 A 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 638 Centre Street (PID Number 391615), having an area of approximately 1,290 square metres (13,885 square feet), from "R-1 B" One Family Residential to "R-2" One and Two Family Residential classification, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time the by-law entitled, "By-law Number C.P. 100-593 A Law To Amend The Zoning By-law Of The City Of Saint John". 89-83 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that the correspondence regarding the above-proposed amendment be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor asked Council's consideration at this time of agenda item 19 and for the Saint John Transit Commission Chairman to address Council in this regard. On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that agenda item 19 be brought forward for consideration at this time and the Chairman of the Saint John Transit Commission be invited to address Council with regard to the Commission's 2001 Annual Report. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 19. Transit Commission - 2001 Annual Report Andrew Britton, Chairman of the Saint John Transit Commission, recognized the presence at the meeting of Commission Vice Chairman Susan Isaccs- Lubin, and Commissioners Donald McKim, Dawson Moyer, Douglas Finlay and Julie Esselmont, as well as Councillor Titus, and General Manager Frank McCarey and Comptroller Wayne Thorne; and, in highlighting the Commission's 2001 Annual Report, advised that, for the first time since its beginning, the Commission exceeded its budgeted cost of operations by $45,000 or 2.2% due to the pressure of increased costs on its financial capacity, and experienced 2.2% decline in ridership during the year, and expressed the Commission's concern about its aging fleet which, although not a safety issue, was one that impacted on expenses and reliability of service. Mr. Britton referenced the benchmark report included in the 2001 Annual Report which compares Saint John Transit Commission's operation to other similar-sized operations on the basis that it speaks very highly to efficiency with which Saint John Transit is operating, and expressed the view that the citizens were getting good value for the money being invested in the Saint John Transit Commission operation. The Mayor expressed appreciation to the members and staff of the Saint John Transit Commission for their efforts on behalf of the City, and called for a motion to accept the Commission's Annual Report. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the 2001 Annual Report of the Saint John Transit Commission be accepted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 5(a) Zoning By-law Amendment To Re-Zone 55 Gaelic Drive The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed re-zoning of a parcel of land located at 55 Gaelic Drive (PID Number 55156566), having an area of approximately 1060 square metres (11,410 square feet), from "R-1 B" One Family Residential to "R-2" One and Two Family Residential classification, to permit the construction of a raised bungalow with a separate basement dwelling unit for immediate family members, as requested by Lisa and Eric Almon, and no written objections were received in this regard. Consideration was given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report and two letters from area residents considered at the Committee's May 7, 2002 meeting at which the applicants 89-84 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 appeared in support of the staff recommendation and Edward Smith of 11 Gaelic Drive appeared in opposition, and the Committee resolved to adopt the staff recommendation; and recommending that Common Council re-zone a parcel of land located at 55 Gaelic Drive (PID Number 55156566), having an area of approximately 1060 square metres (11,410 square feet), from "R-1 B" One Family Residential to "R-2" One and Two Family Residential classification. Edward Smith of 11 Gaelic Drive spoke in opposition to the proposed re- zoning on the basis that, while he was not opposed to families moving in with families as indicated by the letters to the Planning Advisory Committee, he was against two families moving into 55 Gaelic Drive, having been told when he bought the land that it was zoned for single-family; and expressed the belief that it would lower the value of his home. Mr. Gaelic asked whether or not, if the property were re-zoned as requested and subsequently sold, the zoning would revert to single-family, or if it could get into an issue of people renting out one or both halves of the residence, and also asked how people who had bought lots on Gaelic Drive but did not yet have an address there could voice their opinions in this regard if they had not received a letter from Planning about the proposal. Mr. Smith questioned why, as the home on the subject property was probably more than two-thirds completed and the people would be moving in anyway, they would bother with re-zoning for a two-family dwelling and just go with a single-family dwelling. Lisa and Eric Almon appeared in support of their application and, in addressing Council, Mrs. Almon indicated their agreement with the Planning Advisory Committee's recommendation and advised that it was not the intent to have a rental unit or sell the property but rather to do something for her aging parents and her grandmother and, from the outside, the residence would not look like a two-family dwelling. Mrs. Almon explained that, as her grandmother could not use stairs, without a second stove downstairs, her meals would have to be carried down to her instead of cooking downstairs and all eating together and having it as a second unit; and advised that, as for people who own property there and may not have moved in, only about four other houses have yet to be built and she has talked to people and they are aware of what they are planning to do. On the concern about lowering property value, Ms. Almon indicated that their home would look like any of the others there and one would never know that there was a separate living quarters in the basement of it, and it would be valued as much, if not more, than some of the other properties in the area; and made the observation that the neighbouring property was zoned for two-family, although it has only one family in it and, as for definition, acknowledged that they wanted a two-family zoning as they needed the second stove downstairs to accommodate her grandmother; and, as for extra traffic, advised that they were only a two-car family, her parents and them each having a car. During discussion, Ms. Almon advised that they would not have a problem if the re-zoning were restricted to the extent that, if they sold the property, the two-family zoning would not go along with it. On motion of Councillor Ball Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By- law Number C.P. 100-594 A 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 55 Gaelic Drive (PID Number 55156566), having an area of approximately 1060 square metres (11,410 square feet), from "R-1 B" One Family Residential to "R-2" One and Two Family Residential classification, be read a first time: AND FURTHER that the matter of possible Section 39 conditions to be imposed on the above re-zoning be referred to the City Manager for a recommendation prior to third reading. As to restricting the re-zoning as mentioned above, Mr. Baird spoke on the basis that the legislation did not provide for what was commonly referred to as people zoning so that property could be used in a certain way as long as it was owned by a specific family or there were certain relationships involved, and Mr. Nugent advised that the Community Planning Act operates in such a way, in terms of the authority that it gives to municipalities to control zoning, so as not to provide an opportunity to address, through the zoning process, the concern expressed, and trying to restrict this arrangement to the length of time of the people who are involved was not an 89-85 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 arrangement that the courts have said is within the jurisdiction of the zoning process. In response to a suggestion that this matter could be tabled to see if there were some way, by contract or Section 39, to accommodate both the applicants and the neighbours so that, when the family members moved out, the zoning would revert to a single-family unit; Mr. Nugent re-iterated the need for legislation to enable the municipality to involve itself with that sort of arrangement; and advised that, depending upon the nature of the shared living arrangements, it might be possible that, for example, if there were elderly family members living with the younger family who would not be preparing their own meals or using kitchen facilities, it would then be a matter of having the configuration of the house determined by zoning but, if there were in fact two separate dwelling units, then the arrangement provided by the legislation for zoning would require that the property be zoned to allow that to occur; and, as for a contract that the property would be re-zoned again if the parents moved out, expressed the view that the Zoning By-law, which controlled the use of property, would take precedence over a contract that the City might enter into that was outside the scope of the Community Planning Act. Mr. Baird advised that, as the issues of a certain style or size of home or size of a secondary unit do not get into the people using the homes but rather into the nature of the development, some municipalities have gone to the point of allowing a secondary unit but it must be only, for example, seventy-five percent of the floor unit of the main unit thereby limiting it to the extent to which people would not be developing what is typically referred to as a two-family home where they have two units of, in essence, the same size; and noted that, in this particular application, the site in question is in an area zoned single-family but it is immediately beside a significant area that is zoned two-family, so it would not be a matter of a major departure in the whole neighbourhood but rather an extension to the two-family zone from a significant area that already exists into one additional lot. As to re-zoning the subject property subject to a Section 39 condition, Mr. Baird advised that staff could have discussion with the applicant and come back to Council with the specific wording of a resolution prior to third reading, if that were the wish of Council, and the mover and seconder of the initial motion for first reading agreed to add to it that the matter of Section 39 conditions be referred for a recommendation prior to third reading. During discussion Councillor Titus advised his support of the people in opposition to the proposed re-zoning in that, when they purchased property and moved to the area, they did so with the fact in mind that it was a one-family area. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Chase and Titus voting "nay". Read a first time the by-law entitled, "By-law Number C.P. 100-594 A Law To Amend The Zoning By-law Of The City Of Saint John". On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By- law Number C.P. 100-594 A 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 55 Gaelic Drive (PID Number 5515656), having an area of approximately 1060 square metres (11,410 square feet), from "R-1 B" One Family Residential to "R-2" One and Two Family Residential classification, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Chase and Titus voting "nay". Read a second time the by-law entitled, "By-law Number C.P. 100-594 A Law To Amend The Zoning By-law Of The City Of Saint John". On motion of Deputy Mayor White Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that the correspondence regarding the above-proposed amendment be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 89-86 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 6(a) Zoning By-law Amendment To Re-Zone Properties Alona Hillcrest Road The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed re-zoning of various properties along Hillcrest Road having a range of civic numbers between 234 to 1001 inclusive, from "RS-1 M One and Two Family and Mobile Home Suburban Residential to "RS-1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential classification, to prohibit mobile homes from being developed on the lots, as initiated by the City of Saint John, and 6(c) a written objection was received from Karla Yurco and Nelson Hogan. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report, fourteen letters in favour and four against the re-zoning application, considered at the Committee's May 7, 2002 meeting at which Duane McAfee, representing a number of property owners in the area, spoke in favour of the proposed re-zoning, as did five persons who reside in the area, and Don Legassie made a presentation on the growth and quality of manufactured homes in Atlantic Canada, representing the Canadian Manufactured Housing Institute, and Karla Yurco and Nelson Hogan of 520 Hillcrest Road spoke against the re-zoning and indicated their desire to locate a mini home on their property; advising that the Committee adopted an amended recommendation, as contained below, that excludes civic numbers 520 and 977 Hillcrest Road from the area proposed to be re-zoned; and recommending that Common Council re-zone various parcels of land located along Hillcrest Road, having a range of civic numbers between 234 to 1001 inclusive, excluding two parcels of land identified as civic numbers 520 and 977, from "RS-1 M" One and Two Family and Mobile Home Suburban Residential to "RS-1" One and Two Family Suburban Residential classification, as illustrated on the submitted map. Richard Northrup, solicitor representing Karla Yurco and Nelson Hogan, advised his clients' position in terms of opposing the re-zoning of the whole area, while supporting the Planning Advisory Committee's recommendation to Council which includes exempting their property from the re-zoning, having essentially purchased their property at 520 Hillcrest Road on the Friday before Council passed its motion freezing development in the subject area; related his discussions with Planning staff, before Council prohibited development and initiated the re-zoning of the area, in terms of his clients' proposal to put a mini-home on their property and, as to the issue of whether it was a mini- or mobile home, his view being that the point was moot because the property was zoned for mobile home in any event thereby allowing for both; and advised that, although the next day after his discussions with City staff Mr. Baird through the City Manager to Council wrote a letter asking Council to re-zone, nobody mentioned anything to him in this regard, thus his clients on Friday purchased the property and were told on Monday they had a problem. Mr. Northrup expressed the view that this was not fair to his clients as they had very clearly made their intention known, hid nothing and there was no intent to deceive, yet now they were blocked; and asked Council to accept the Planning Advisory Committee's proposal because it was the fair and equitable thing to do; and pointed out that the property at 520 Hillcrest Road has been zoned "RS-1 M" for a considerable period of time and his clients bought it knowing its zone, although they were now being told that the whole area was to be re-zoned and, if Council approved the whole zone change, basically they could not put their mini-home on the property. Mr. Northrup clarified that, while a mobile home is referenced, his clients were not putting a mobile home at 520 Hillcrest Road; explained the difference between the mini-home and a mobile home in accordance with the City's definition of the latter in the Zoning By-law, and cited the definition of mobile home, as well as that of mini-home as set out in the City's Building By-law. Mr. Northrup re-iterated his request for Council to consider the Committee's recommendation to exempt his clients' property because of the unique situation and asked, as his clients were simply putting a home on a foundation, that they be allowed to do that; and, in technically opposing the re-zoning, requested Council to follow the Committee's recommendation in exempting his clients' property and, in the bigger picture, possibly not re-zoning the area. Mr. Northrup, in response to questions, advised that his clients' mini- home was sixteen feet by seventy-two feet in size and also that, on the issue of covenants in deeds of other property owners in the area, indicated that his clients purchased their land without covenants, commenting on his search of his clients' property. There was a question of whether or not the home in question would fit into the 89-87 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 character of the neighbourhood from a planning point of view, and Mr. Northrup made the observation that people who located in that area would also know the zoning and that the property at 520 Hillcrest Road was zoned "RS-1 M" and what the conditions for zoning were, noting that this was not a spot re-zoning but rather the re-zoning of a whole strip of land along the side of Hillcrest Road. The intent for the owners of 520 Hillcrest Road to expand their home was questioned, and Mr. Northrup expressed the understanding that the expansion would take place shortly after the home was located there; and expressed the view that the City should not have refused his clients' application for a building permit as the building was not a mobile home. Karla Yurco, appearing on behalf of her and Nelson Hogan as the owners of 520 Hillcrest Road in opposition to the proposed re-zoning, requested that, if the re- zoning were approved, to be exempt from it as they purchased the land without the knowledge of it going to Council; related the background leading up to their property purchase, as well as their intention to relocate their mini-home from Quispamsis onto a new foundation on Hillcrest Road and their intention to add onto it and the difference between a mobile home or trailer and a mini-home; and, on the concern about a mini- home devaluating other properties, advised of her discussion with the Taxation and Property Assessment Office to the effect that it was hard to prove that mini-homes would devalue property around it. Ms. Yurco noted the many different sizes of houses located on Hillcrest Road, ranging from a trailer, a mini-home, what looked like modular homes, bungalows and conventional homes; and expressed the view that the residents there should be more concerned about the condition of the road itself as it is not well paved, the garbage along the road, and untidy properties there; and referenced the inclusion in her above-mentioned letter to Council of the specifications of her mini-home, the differences between trailers and min-homes, and maps showing the distances of the existing trailer and mini-home and the approximate distances from Nina Street and Sherwood Drive to 520 Hillcrest Road, as well as her submission to the Planning Advisory Committee. Ms. Yurco advised that she and Mr. Nelson felt like they were being discriminated against because of the confusion over the type of home that they own, and re-iterated her request to be exempted from the re-zoning of the area. Don Legassie, Executive Director of the Manufactured Housing Association of Atlantic Canada, spoke in opposition to the re-zoning, on an ad-hoc basis, of the area in question, noting his presentation to the Planning Advisory Committee and suggesting that the re-zoning should perhaps have taken place during a full review of the City's five-year plan at which time the proper terminology currently being used at the manufacturing level could be applied. Mr. Legassie addressed the issue of the confusion between a mobile home and a mini-home and advised the concern of the Association as an industry representative about some of the current by-laws in place as they were archaic and dated to when mobile homes were actually being built; circulated photographs of a mobile home which, he advised, was built to the Z240 mobile home standards that meet and/or exceed the 1995 National Building Code, and come in two sections and attached together and similar to what the public would know as a modular home today; and suggested that the City should be careful in re-zoning so as to do it in a fashion where there could be a lot of debate about the terminology, and that this Z240 product should be taken into consideration. Mr. Legassie also suggested that, if the area were re-zoned, the lot at 520 Hillcrest Road, because of the time line involved, should be exempt. In response to questions, Mr. Legassie advised of the Association's efforts over the last two years with the Provincial Government to update the Provincial regulations for mobile homes and land-leased communities, and commented on the issue of affordability in the City and the extent of people's rights with respect to having affordable home ownership, as well as on the difference between a mobile and mini home. Karen McCaig of 60 Marilyn Drive appeared in support of the proposed re-zoning and, referring to a prepared brief (copies of which were distributed to the Council members at this time), gave a computer-aided presentation during which time she discussed the Hillcrest Road/Marilyn Drive area, providing an overview of the nature of the homes there and the lot at 520 Hillcrest Road and the mini-home planned for that lot; and asked Council to keep in mind that the mini-home in question, at a value of $51,000-$56,000 with a foundation, would be at least half the value of any other home in the immediate area and one-quarter to one-fifth of the value of the home located directly across the road that has been there for approximately thirteen years. Ms. McCaig gave examples of deficiencies in the Hillcrest Road area in terms of the Road itself and the 89-88 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 continual use of the area as a dumpsite, as well as of a deed for the first three lots sold, and related background information from March 9, 2002 with respect to the property at 520 Hillcrest Road, referring to property deeds and covenants, as well as the number of letters forwarded to the Planning Advisory Committee for and against the proposed re- zoning. William Grant, solicitor representing Mary and Elmer Needle of 560 Hillcrest Road and Terrence and Laurie Peterson of 580 Hillcrest Road to the east of the Hogan-Yurco property, addressed Council in support of the proposed re-zoning in terms of what he considered to be the two issues to be dealt with - the planning issue and the issue of assessments and property values, and spoke to the re-zoning process as being discriminatory by nature. On the former issue, Mr. Grant noted the nature of the development in the subject area over the last fifteen years or so in that, while zoned "RS-1 M" which permits mobile homes, there was one and maybe two examples of mobile homes in this particular zone and the rest has been the conventional-type of single-family homes; expressed the view that the use proposed for the one lot in question was not compatible with the existing uses and urged Council to not allow the exemption requested. Referring to an SNB Real Property Map and assessment data on properties on Hillcrest Road and Marilyn Drive (copies of which were distributed to the Council members at this time), Mr. Grant asked Council to consider that, in terms of compatibility, the proposed development on the Hogan-Yurco lot would not be in character with the existing development and would represent a spot zoning, and also to consider that, in terms of fairness and equity, the Petersons and the Needles both bought their properties with a covenant saying no mobile homes. Duane McAfee, solicitor, addressed Council on behalf of area residents Trevor and Michelle MacDonald, concurred with Mr. Grant's comments with respect to spot zoning and discrimination, as well as the indication in Planning staff's report that the City should encourage the continued residential growth for this area, similar in character and design to that which has developed over the past number of years, it having been suggested that this will not occur if the area continues to allow mobile homes; and suggested that this spot zoning would be somewhat of a dangerous precedent to set, leading the way for similar acts, and also that, to allow the full re-zoning to go ahead with no exemption would really affect only one property and one potential resident whereas a decision the other way has the potential of affecting a number of residents along Hillcrest Road and in the neighbouring subdivision. Mr. McAfee addressed the issue of the covenant prohibiting mobile homes during which time he distributed copies of it, as well as the timing of the purchase of the property at 520 Hillcrest Road; and advised of his clients' offer to purchase the subject property from Mr. Hogan and Ms. Yurco for the price they paid and all reasonable expenses they have occurred to date for legal fees, etc., as a possible resolution to this, and also that his clients also have a potential sale for one of the lots which would not proceed if the exemption were allowed, and circulated a copy of a letter in the latter regard. Edward Keyes, solicitor representing Marilyn MacDonald of 561 Hillcrest Road in support of the proposed re-zoning, advised his client's concern about the loss in value of her property and about the potential sale of other property owned by her in the area as she has two offers where the purchasers have told her that they were not interested if the proposed mini-home went in; asked that Council take into consideration that a mini-home would be a major departure from the development in the area and also that his client would be prepared to buy the lot from Ms. Yurco and Mr. Hogan to prevent this type of development there; and expressed the understanding that both ends of Hillcrest Road have already been re-zoned to restrict the placement of mobile homes, thus the proposed re-zoning did not represent anything different from what had already been started on Hillcrest Road. Andrew Munford, appearing in support of the proposed re-zoning, advised that he purchased property last year on Marilyn Drive at which time the covenants on the property as well as on the property at the end of the road were explained to him, and also that he was getting prepared to build a finished home on his property in September, pending the outcome of this matter. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that the above matter be referred to the City Solicitor and the City Manager. 89-89 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 Councillor Fitzpatrick suggested a referral to staff and Legal to determine if Council could legally do this, and Councillor Titus agreed that there could be a legal question with one of the suggestions made by Mr. Northrup. The Mayor asked when Council could anticipate receiving a report from staff, and Mr. Nugent advised that, if all the facts heard at this meeting were the only ones that were relevant as he reviewed them, he could be back to Council at the next meeting, although it would depend, if other questions arise as he reviewed the matter, on how quickly those answers could be obtained. Question being taken, the referral motion was carried. On motion of Deputy Mayor White Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that the correspondence regarding the above-proposed amendment be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor asked for consideration at this time of agenda item 15, noting that representatives of the Environment Committee were present at the meeting. A motion was proposed by Councillor Fitzpatrick and seconded by Councillor Titus to bring forward agenda item 15 for consideration at this time, whereupon the Mayor advised that a motion was not needed in that it was indicated earlier in the meeting that she could move the agenda items around. 7. Proclamations The Mayor proclaimed Thursday, May 16, 2002 as Arbour Day, and May 12 to 18, 2002 as Canadian Police Week in the City of Saint John. (Councillor Titus withdrew from the meeting.) 15. Establishment Of Tree Proaram Committee & Fund Consideration was given to a report from the City Manager further to the Mayor's announcement at the July 23, 2001 Council meeting of the establishment of a special fund to enable individuals, businesses and corporations to donate monies to purchase trees for the City and also to Council's November 19, 2001 request that staff work in conjunction with the Environment Committee to provide the terms of reference for a tree fund, including how monies were to be received and dispersed; and advising that staff worked with the Environment Committee on the development of the submitted Schedule "A" Tree Program Committee and Schedule "B" Special Purpose Fund - Tree Fund, which the Commissioner of Finance has reviewed. On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council (1) establish a Tree Program Committee as outlined in the submitted Schedule "A" and appoint members to the Committee, and (2) establish a Special Purpose Fund - Tree Fund, as outlined in the submitted Schedule "B", and that a member of the Environment Committee be a member of the Tree Program Committee: AND FURTHER that the appointment of members to the above Committee be referred to the Nominating Committee for a recommendation. The Mayor noted the presence at the meeting of members of the Environment Committee, including Chairman Terry Gray, and expressed the view that a member of the Environment Committee should be on the Tree Program Committee, perhaps as Chairman. An amendment to the motion was proposed by Councillor Court and seconded by Councillor Fitzgerald, that a member of the Environment Committee be a member of the Tree Program Committee. Councillor Teed advised his concern about the receipt of restricted funds to stipulate where trees would be planted, and the Mayor asked the amount of money collected last year in the Tree Fund and asked about the issuance of tax receipts. Mr. Beckett advised that, in relation to restricted funds, the City would not have to accept money if the restrictions were too severe or counter to the 89-90 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 City's plans, and gave examples of cases where the Income Tax Act would prohibit the City from issuing an income tax receipt. Councillor Teed suggested the addition of the words "approved by the City" to 2. of Schedule "B" following the words "Restricted monies are those funds which are specified by the donor to be used for a specific purpose", as that would give the City control. The Mayor called for the question on the motion including the amendment (Councillor Titus re-entered the meeting during the above discussion.) Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that agenda items 21, 28 and 10 be brought forward for consideration at this time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 21. Planning Advisory Committee Subdivision - 371 Manchester Avenue On motion of Councillor Ball Seconded by Councillor Chase RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, (1) Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, in general accordance with the submitted photo-reduced West Sides Estate Subdivision tentative plan of 371 Manchester Avenue, but with the following changes: (a) the proposed Porter Street public right-of-way be extended and constructed to the existing asphalt road within the Stewart Street public right-of-way, (b) the portion of Short Street from the intersection of Hawkes Drive to Glenwood Drive (extension) not be vested as a public street, but that Hawkes Drive be developed as one continuous street and that a 6-metre (20-foot) wide pedestrian walkway be vested as Land for Public Purposes and developed within this area, and (c) a future street be shown in the vicinity of proposed Lot 18 in order to provide for the convenient further subdivision of the adjoining Barbara A. Sussenberger property; (2) Common Council assent to the new public and any required future streets, as well as to any required municipal services or public utility easements for this subdivision development; (3) Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City/developer subdivision agreements to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer; (4) Common Council authorize cost-sharing outside the limits of the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 26 of the Subdivision By-law; (5) Common Council assent to the proposed Land for Public Purposes dedication of 1.16 hectares (2.87 acres), as shown on the submitted tentative subdivision pan, with the recommended change of the public street extension to Stewart Street; and (6) the City undertake the necessary improvements to Stewart Street in order to accommodate the connection to the proposed development. At the Mayor's request for an explanation of the work to be done on Stewart Street and the cost involved, Mr. Baird advised that the developer would be required to provide a secondary access by modifying his development in, what staff considered to be a minor way, by providing a connecting street onto the end of Stewart Street, and the major decision before Council was the upgrading of Stewart Street in that, having looked at the Subdivision By-law and past practice in what had been done in other situations, it was determined that the City has not required developers to change or modify the secondary accesses; and also advised that, having asked the Engineering Division to do a rough estimate of what would be required to upgrade Stewart Street, the estimate was $167,000 involving widening, curbing and the installation of sidewalks and, while services would not be extended on it as the nature of the development was such that it was not being proposed as the means for water and sewerage, the cost would be more if services were extended. Councillor Court expressed concern that the $167,000 estimate was not realistic in that Stewart Street, basically, was an alleyway and would need to be widened, as well as about the use of Stewart Street as a shortcut through the area and about septic systems in the area possibly being affected when the road was widened; and the Mayor expressed the view that, if Council adopted the 89-91 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 recommendation, it would be giving assurance that Stewart Street would be upgraded and therefore the money would have to be found in the Capital Budget to do the work whether this or the following year. Councillor Fitzpatrick expressed the view that, until the area developed further, Stewart Street should be used only as an access for emergency vehicles and as a walkway as it was his understanding that the residents and the developer preferred that Stewart Street not be used as proposed; and suggested that, if the Stewart Street improvements were delayed, perhaps something could be worked out with the developer so that, for example, when fifty homes were developed, it could be looked at again, and that this alternative could perhaps be referred to staff to consider. Councillor Desmond suggested that the developer should go through Glenwood Drive which is now the access to his property and start development there, with Stewart Street to be fixed up when development got to there. Councillor Teed advised why he could not accept the recommendation to assent to one or more subdivision plans in that the City would lose assessment dollars by the developer doing the development in stages and also that Council would be giving carte blanche approval in that it had no idea what assenting to new public and any required future streets would mean; and suggested that, if the local people wanted Stewart Street improved, they should be taxed a certain amount for local improvements. On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that the above matter be referred to the City Manager for a report on options available to the City. Councillor Chase advised that he was prepared to support the development at this time and did not know if there was anything more staff could add. The Mayor indicated that she was prepared to go ahead with the Planning Advisory Committee's recommendation at this time. Question being taken, the referral motion was carried with the Mayor and Councillors Ball, Chase and Desmond voting "nay". 28. Wayne MacEachern - Proposed Subdivision - 371 Manchester Avenue On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that the letter from Wayne MacEachern regarding the Planning Advisory Committee's decision on the proposed subdivision West Side Estates at 371 Manchester Avenue; and expressing the view that, without Stewart Street being fully upgraded with a sidewalk and proper lighting, children walking on the street with busy traffic is an accident waiting to happen and, if Common Council does not approve the report with the recommendations, then the original proposal of Porter Street having a cul-de-sac with no access to Stewart Street is the only option, be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 10. Aquatic Centre Consideration was given to a letter from Councillor Titus requesting the opportunity to discuss in public session the future of the Aquatic Centre, making specific reference to the document, The Canada Games Aquatic Centre Recreation, Sport and Wellness Centre - A Vision for the Future and, after discussion, he would like to propose a motion that would put this item to a vote. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Court RESOLVED that Common Council endorse the document The Canada Games Aquatic Centre Recreation, Sport and Wellness Centre - A Vision for the Future, as presented by the Saint John Aquatic Centre Commission and the document be made public: 89-92 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 AND FURTHER that the City Manager's reports (a) and (b), under agenda item 33 in Committee of the Whole on this date, be made public. The Council members spoke, in turn, in the above regard during which time Councillor Chase advised that, as essentially the motion would put an end to any bid that the YMCA has to assume ownership of the Aquatic Centre, he did not think that was appropriate at this time in that, in all fairness, Council had not yet dealt with a letter of intent from the YMCA and should in good faith, having been several months negotiating with the Y, pursue that. Councillor Ball expressed the view, as both the YM- YWCA and the Aquatic Centre made presentations to Council which were not debated publicly, this matter should be tabled and both organizations should come before Council next week and make their presentations publicly, along with the letter of intent; expressed the view that, if the Y followed through on the letter of intent, there would be superb bringing together of two fine organizations as one total unit, working together not in competition, but to provide a centre for health, wellness and recreation in the City, and noted the YM-YWCA's fundraising ability; and Deputy Mayor White indicated that he would support a tabling motion and request that the two associations come forward and make an open presentation to Council next week. Upon Councillor Ball's indication that he would second a tabling motion, the Mayor suggested that the other Council members should first be given the opportunity to speak and a tabling motion could then be considered, and discussion continued with the Mayor speaking to the issue from her point of view of the future for Saint John in having one Uptown facility for health and wellness, not one competing against another but a joint venture of two facilities working together, and advised that she could not support the motion because, in her view, one facility was the future for the City and that was the way the City should go. On motion of Councillor Chase Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that the above matter be laid on the table. Question being taken, the tabling motion was lost with the Mayor and Councillors Court, Desmond, Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, Teed and Titus voting "nay". Councillor Chase proposed an amendment to the motion, which was seconded by Councillor Teed, to make public the City Manager's reports (a) and (b) under agenda item 33 in Committee of the Whole, namely the letter of understanding - Saint John YM-YWCA and the staff report outlining pros, cons and risks with the two proposals; and following discussion, the Mayor called for the question on the motion, including the amendment. Question being taken, the motion was carried with the Mayor and Councillors Ball and Chase voting "nay" 11. Tender For Demolition Of Simonds Arena On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Desmond RESOLVED that the tender of Gulf Operators Ltd., in the amount of $39,255.00 plus tax, be accepted for the demolition of the Simonds Arena building, as per the terms and conditions of the tender. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12. Tender For Electrical Maintenance On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the tender of Bay Electric Ltd. be accepted for the provision of electrical maintenance services, for a two-year period, to City-owned buildings and equipment used by the Water and Sewerage Division. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 89-93 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 13. Tender For Plumbina Maintenance On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the tender submitted by Campbell's Plumbing and Heating Ltd. be accepted for the provision of plumbing maintenance services to City-owned buildings for a period of two years, as indicated on the submitted bid summary. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 14. Amendment To Council Resolution Re Easement Acquisition - Wallace Court Read a report from the City Manager advising that, subsequent to the Council resolution of February 18, 2002 for the purchase of a municipal services easement in the Wallace Court area from the Province of New Brunswick, the Province modified the size of the parcel being deemed surplus to its needs to encompass additional lands, and Water and Sewerage scoped the lines in the additional surplus lands and determined that another 95 ± m2 of municipal services easement is required. On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Councillor Court RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council amend the February 18, 2002 resolution to acquire a municipal services easement of 760 ± m2 from the Province of New Brunswick, by deleting 760 ± m2i and replacing it with "855 ± m2,, , and all other elements of the resolution remain the same. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 16. Establishment Of Greenwav Fund Committee & Fund Consideration was given to a report from the City Manager referring to the Saint John Waterfront Development Partnership's active pursuit of the City of Saint John's #1 development priority - development of the waterfront, one of the Partnership's ten working groups having publicly presented its plans for the proposed construction of a multi-use trail pathway system extending from York Point to Douglas Avenue and eventually from Chesley Drive to Fort Howe, and also to the establishment of a fundraising committee as part of the Harbour Passage working group; and providing a recommendation for the establishment of a Special Purpose Fund - Saint John Greenway, as well as a Greenway Committee to have specific responsibilities for promoting, seeking donations and providing recommendations to Council and staff regarding the use of monies contained within the Fund. On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Councillor Fitzgerald RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council (1) establish a Greenway Fund Committee, the composition, duties, responsibilities and term for which are outlined in the submitted Schedule "A", (2) appoint members to the Greenway Fund Committee, (3) approve the establishment of a Special Purpose Fund - Saint John Greenway, to be known as the Greenway Fund, as detailed in the submitted Schedule "A", and (4) provide the Commissioner of Finance with the authority to make disbursements from the Special Purpose Fund - Saint John Greenway in accordance with the terms outlined in the submitted Schedule "A": AND FURTHER that the matter of appointments to the above Committee be referred to the Nominating Committee for a recommendation. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Teed voting "nay". 89-94 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 17. 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, April 29, 2002, when there were present Mayor McAlary, Deputy Mayor White and Councillors Ball, Chase, Court, Desmond, Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, Teed, Titus and Trites, and your Committee submits the following recommendations, namely: 1. That, effective December 16, 2001, the salary for the position of City Manager be set at an amount equal to the top level in the management pay scale as approved by Council on an annual basis, divided by a factor of .8. 2. That the City provide the appointee to the position of City Manager with a supplemental pension calculated as 2% of the annual salary at the date of retirement for each of the five years of service commencing December 16, 2001. 3. That the City Manager be provided with the option of retiring any time after he or she reaches the age of 55, with a pension as calculated under Section 10(2) of the City of Saint John Pension Act and, should the employee select this option, his or her pension shall be calculated as per the City of Saint John Pension Act as of the employee's retirement date and compared to that as calculated with sole reference to section 10(2) of the Act, and this calculation shall be made once on the date of retirement and, should the amount calculated under the appropriate provisions of the Act be less than the amount as calculated under Section 10(2), the City shall annually pay the amount to the employee in the same manner as the employee's pension as stipulated in section 10(3) of the Act. 4. That a grant of $1,000 be approved for the 2002 local Senior Friendship Games. Respectfully submitted, May 13, 2002, (sgd) Shirley McAlary, Saint John, N.B. C h a i r m a n. 17.1. 17.2. 17.3. Compensation Packaae For Citv Manaaer On motion of Deputy Mayor White Seconded by Councillor Fitzgerald RESOLVED that sections 1, 2 and 3 of the above report be adopted. Councillor Fitzpatrick spoke against the motion on the basis of his view that it would set a dangerous and expensive precedent. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Fitzpatrick and Teed voting "nay". 17.4. Grant To Local Senior Friendship Games On motion of Councillor Fitzgerald Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that section 4 of the above report be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 89-95 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 18. 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 6, 2002, when there were present Mayor McAlary, Deputy Mayor White and Councillors Ball, Chase, Court, Desmond, Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, Teed and Titus, and your Committee submits the following recommendation, namely: 1. That as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council amend its resolution of July 9, 2001 pertaining to the sublease of the 12th floor of 15 Market Square to KINEK Technologies Inc. by deleting "18 months" and inserting in its place "30 months" and all other aspects of the resolution remain the same. Respectfully submitted, May 13, 2002, (sgd) Shirley McAlary, Saint John, N.B. C h a i r m a n. 18.1. KINEK Technoloaies Inc. - Sublease Extension On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that the above report be received and filed and the recommendation therein be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 20. Planning Advisory Committee Street Vestina - 335 Union Street On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee, Common Council assent to the submitted photo- reduced tentative subdivision plan that would vest an approximate area of 64 square metres (689 square feet) from the subject property at 335 Union Street into the Union Street public right-of-way. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 22. Saint John Development Corporation / Waterfront Development Partnership - Greenwav Fund/Committee On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that the letter from the Saint John Development Corporation and the Saint John Waterfront Development Partnership in support of the establishment of the proposed Special Purpose Fund - Saint John Greenway and the Greenway Fund Committee, and submitting a list of suggested nominees for Council's consideration for appointment to the Committee, be referred to the Nominating Committee. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 89-96 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 23. Shipbuilding Committee - Request To Appear To Present Uodate On Activities On motion of Councillor Fitzpatrick Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that the letter from M. A. Vincent, Chairman of the Canadian Committee on Shipbuilding and Policy, requesting an opportunity to appear at the next regularly scheduled open session of Common Council to give an important update on the Committee's efforts, be received and Mr. Vincent be invited to address Council at the next meeting. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 24. Dorothy C. Dawson (a) Aquatic Centre & Y. (b) Reauest To Present Petition On motion of Deputy Mayor White Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that letters from Dorothy C. Dawson, (a) commenting on a concern raised by Dr. Les Allaby as reported in the media, it being obvious to her that the Aquatic Centre and the Y serve two different markets, and expressing the view that giving away an asset paid for by the people of Saint John is short-sighted; and u requesting permission to report on the result of a petition, taken by her and Julie Esselmont to the City Market on the proposed give-away of the Aquatic Centre, and expressing the view that it makes no sense to cut in half the availability of residents to engage in health promotion and health maintenance activities, not to mention the number of groups and teams who come to Saint John to access the only Olympic-size pool in New Brunswick, be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 25. Crime Prevention Association - 2002 Award On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the memo from the Atlantic Coordinating Committee on Crime Prevention and Community Safety submitting application criteria for an award to recognize the work of municipalities that are actively involved in, and supportive of, local crime prevention programs and activities, the deadline for applications being May 15, 2002, be referred to the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 26. South Central Citizens Council Clearina Streets For Snowolowinq On motion of Councillor Desmond Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that the letter from the South Central Citizens' Council expressing the opinion that clearing of streets on the South Central Peninsula for snow plowing is impractical, and advising its opposition to Appendix A of the Parking Commission's report to Council in this regard, be referred to the Saint John Parking Commission. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 89-97 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 27. Indiantown Neighbourhood Watch - Condition Of Property In Bridae Street and Pokiok Road Area On motion of Deputy Mayor White Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the letter from the Indiantown Neighbourhood Watch bringing to Council's attention a problem in the Bridge Street and Pokiok Road area in that Northern Marine Atlantic Ltd. has created a dumping site on its property by depositing large amounts of used construction material, rotting wooden timbers and other debris which should be taken to a designated landfill and not be allowed in primarily a residential area and believed to be in contravention of the Unsightly Premises By-law; and asking Council to take immediate action to bring this matter to a higher level on the priority list and enforce the by-laws, be referred to the City Manager for a recommendation. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 29. Ravmond Real Estate Ltd. - Site For Police Station On motion of Deputy Mayor White Seconded by Councillor Desmond RESOLVED that the letter from W. Raymond Doyle of Raymond Real Estate Ltd. advising that the owners of properties situated at the corner of Richmond and Prince Edward Streets have asked him to offer their properties to the City as a possible site for a Police station, and also of the adjoining property and other properties for sale, be referred to the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 8. Prime Minister's Task Force Report On Urban Issues On motion of Councillor Fitzgerald Seconded by Deputy Mayor White RESOLVED that the letter from Mayor McAlary submitting a copy of a report - Canada's Urban Strategy A Vision for the 21st Century, prepared by the Prime Minister's Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues and presented to the Council members by MP Andy Savoie; and asking that the Council members review this report and advise her by June 7 if there are any suggestions and/or additions, as the final report will be presented to the Prime Minister in September, be received and filed. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 9. Establishment Of NB Dav Merit Awards Committee Read a letter from Councillor Teed regarding the Province of New Brunswick's New Brunswick Day Merit Award in that, over recent years, there has been some apparent confusion over how selections are made, by whom and where presentations take place; and proposing that, in order to conform with the policy and to enable the fullest participation of the citizens with respect to this program, (1) a New Brunswick Day Merit Awards Committee for the Municipality of Saint John be established, and (2) the Committee shall be composed of not less than 5 nor more than 9 citizens of the City, appointed for up to a two-year term on or before May 30 in each year, and members may be re-appointed for one consecutive term, the function of the Committee to be to (a) to promote the concept of New Brunswick Day Merit Awards, (b) to request nominations of citizens within the Municipality from residents, service clubs and community organizations of the Municipality, and (c) nominations to be received by June 30; and further proposing that the appointment of the first members of the Committee be referred to the Nominating Committee for recommendation to Council. 89-98 COMMON COUNCIL MAY 13, 2002 On motion of Councillor Teed Seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick RESOLVED that the above matter be referred to the Nominating Committee. The Mayor expressed the view that the City did not have the authority in the above regard and that it was up to the Minister. Question being taken, the motion was carried with the Mayor and Councillor Desmond voting "nay". 10A. Number Of Ranks In Police Department On motion of Councillor Teed Seconded by Councillor Ball RESOLVED that the letter from Councillor Teed referring to Perivale and Taylor report on the operation of the Saint John Police Department and a recommendation in it that the number of ranks be reduced from ten to five, in that this recommendation has apparently been ignored as the Police Commission has reinstated a number of ranks, including Staff Sergeant, seeming that the intent of the Perivale and Taylor report has been bypassed at considerable expense to the City; and expressing the view that, in any event, it would seem reasonable to ask the Police Board why it has not followed the recommendation respecting the number of ranks, be referred to the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners to explain the reason for its ranks. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 10B. Former School Board Buildina, Lancaster Avenue On motion of Councillor Fitzgerald Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that the letter from Councillor Fitzgerald requesting that the City Manager look into the status of the former School Board building on Lancaster Avenue, be referred to the City Manager to investigate. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Adiournment The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. Common Clerk