2011-11-14_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour4
City of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, November 14, 2011
Committee of the Whole
1. Call to Order
5:00 p.m. Council Chamber
Regular Meeting
Si vous auriez besoin des services en frangais pour une r6union de Conseil Communal,
veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffi&e communale au 658 -2862.
1. Call to Order — Prayer
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Adoption of Agenda
3.1(a) Proposed Municipal Plan
3.1(b) Municipal Plan Public Hearing and Zoning ByLaw Review
3.1(c) Letters of support
3.1(d) Letters of opposition
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
5. Consent Agenda
5.1 Saint John West Business Association: Lancaster Santa Claus Parade
(Recommendation: Refer to Saint John Police Commission)
5.2 Saint John Transit Commission Letter Re: Expedition of Appointments of
Three (3) Commissioners (Recommendation: Refer to Nominating Committee)
6. Members Comments
7. Proclamation
8. Delegations/ Presentations
8.1 C.E Nicolle Community Centre - ONE Change Proposal
9. Public Hearings
10. Consideration of By -laws
11. Submissions by Council Members
12. Business Matters — Municipal Officers
13. Committee Reports
13.1 Committee of the Whole: Minutes of Settlement with Applied Pressure Inc.
14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
15. General Correspondence
16. Adjournment
2
1.Ouverture de la seance
17 h — Salle du conseil
The City of Saint John
Seance du conseil communal
Le lundi 14 novembre 2011
Comite plenier
Seance ordinaire
1.Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere
2. Approbation du proces- verbal
3. Adoption de l'ordre du jour
3.1a) Plan municipal propose
3.1b) Regime public d'entendre et de zonage municipal revision du reglement
3.1c) Lettres d'appui
3.1d) Lettres d'opposition
4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets
5. Questions soumises a Papprobation du conseil
5.1 Saint John West Business Association Inc.: Defile du Pere Noel sur
1'avenue Lancaster (Recommandation : transmettre au Bureau des commissaires
de la police de Saint John)
5.2 Lettre de la Commission de transport de Saint John portant sur 1'acceleration
du traitement des nominations de trois commissaires (Recommandation
s'adresser au Comite des candidatures)
6. Commentaires presentes par les membres
7. Proclamation
8. Delegations et presentations
8.1 Centre communautaire C.E Nicolle — proposition de ONE Change Inc.
9. Audiences publiques
10. Etude des arretes municipaux
11. Interventions des membres du conseil
12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux
13. Rapports deposes par les comites
13.1 Comite plenier : Proces- verbal du reglement conclu avec
Applied Pressure Inc.
14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a 1'approbation du conseil
15. Correspondance generale
16. Levee de la seance
3
City Hall EO. Box 1971
15 Market Square Saint John
New Brunswick
Canada E2L 4L1
November 14f ", 2011
His Worship Mayor Court
And Councillors
Your Worship and Councillors
SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Plan
�.a
City of Saint John
A Public Presentation was given on October 11 th, 2011 for a proposed Municipal Plan
which would repeal and replace a by -law of the City of Saint John entitled "By -Law
Number C.P. 105 Municipal Plan By -Law of The City of Saint John" and all amendments
thereto.
The required advertising has been completed, and attached you will find a copy of the
public notice, and any letters of opposition or support received.
If Council wishes, it may choose to refer the matter to the Planning Advisory Committee
for a report and recommendation and authorize the necessary advertising with a Public
Hearing to be held on Monday, December 12th in the Council Chamber at 5:30 pm, or
not to proceed with the proposed amendment process and adopt a resolution to deny
the application.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Gormley
Common Clerk
Attachment
9
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice is hereby given that the
Common Council of The City of Saint
John intends to consider the adoption
of a Municipal Plan.
A public presentation of the proposed
plan will take place at a regular meeting
of Common Council on Tuesday,
October 11, 2011 in the Council
Chamber, Lobby Level, City Hall.
Written objections to the proposed
plan may be made to the Council, in
care of the undersigned, by November
10, 2011. Enquiries may be made at
the office of the Common Clerk or
Planning and Development, City Hall,
15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B.
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive,
holidays excepted.
If you require French services for a
Common Council meeting, please
contact the office of the Common Clerk.
Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk
658 -2862
%. fe��a p��� .—ourr� j
t
AVIS PUBLIC
Par les pr6sentes, un avis public est
donn6 par lequel le conseil communal
de The City of Saint John a ]'intention
d'envisager ]'adoption d'un plan
municipal.
Une presentation publique du plan
aura lieu lors de la reunion ordinaire du
conseil communal le mardi 11 octobre
2011 dans la salle du conseil, au niveau
du hall d'entree, a 1'h6tel de Ville.
Veuillez faire part au conseil par 6crit
de vos objections au plan au plus tard
le 10 novembre 2011 a ]'attention de
]a soussignee. Pour toute demande de
renseignements, veuillez communiques
avec le bureau de la greffiere communale
ou le bureau de Purbanisme et du
d6veloppement a 116tel de Ville au 15,
Market Square, Saint John, NA., entre
8 h 30 et 16 h 30 du lundi au vendredi,
sauf les jours f6ri6s.
Si vous auriez besoin des services en
frangais pour une reunion de Conseil
Communal, veuillez contacter le bureau
de la greffiere communale.
Elizabeth Gormley, greffiere
communale 658 -2862
5
0(,- I) 201.1
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C 2011 -291
November 9, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
& Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council,
SUBJECT: Municipal Plan Public Hearing & Zoning By -law Review
BACKGROUND:
The City of Saint John
On September 26th Common Council initiated the process to officially adopt the Municipal Plan
as a By -law of the City of Saint John. As required under the Community Planning Act, on
October 11th Council commenced the 30 day Public Presentation period to receive written
submissions from the public on the final Municipal Plan. -Following the Public Presentation
period which closes on November 100, the next step in the process is for Council to set the
public hearing date to consider further input from the public on the Municipal Plan and refer it to
the City's Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) for its review.
This report recommends moving forward with the next stages in the process to adopt the
Municipal Plan. It also contains recommendations which address the future implementation of
the new Municipal Plan including a work plan to undertake a new Zoning By -law.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is two -fold:
1. Recommend Council move forward with the next steps in the adoption process for the
Municipal Plan which include setting the public hearing date and referral of the
Municipal Plan to its PAC for review.
2. Report on the work plan for undertaking the Zoning By -law review to implement P1anSJ.
0
2
ANALYSIS:
Public Presentation Written Submissions
The Municipal Clerk will provide Council with any written submissions received during the
Municipal Plan Public Presentation period along with a report outlining the options for moving
forward. At the writing of this report, 11 submissions have been received on the Plan during the
30 day Public Presentation period. While many are supportive of the Municipal Plan, there are
some who have requested further changes to the Plan and others who are opposed. Rather than
delaying Council's public hearing process, it is staff's recommendation that these submissions be
considered along with any received during the Planning Advisory Committee review or Council
Public Hearing stage in the process. Staff is seeking Council's support to move forward with the
process and set the date for the public hearing.
Public Hearing
Subject to Council's approval, a hearing date of December 12, 2011 is being recommended to
meet the requirements of the Provincial Community Planning Act and Council's timelines for
completion of the P1anSJ process. Given the high levels of public engagement during the P1anSJ
process, it is anticipated that a significant number of speakers may wish to address Council
during the public hearing. In anticipation of this, staff is recommending that Council set a 5:30
p.m. start time for the hearing and also that a date be set for continuation of the public hearing
should it be required. The recommended times for the Municipal Plan Public Hearing include:
• Monday December 12d' at 5:30 pin, Council chambers
• Wednesday December 14th at 5:30 pin Council chambers (if required)
In order to better facilitate public input during the hearing process for P1anSJ, staff will request
that members of the public who wish to address Common Council notify the Clerk's office in
advance of the hearing requesting their names be added to the list of speakers for the public
hearing. Staff will also be available outside of Council Chambers a half hour before the meeting
to add additional names to the list. Having a "speakers list" will allow the Clerk's office and
Council to better organize the public input during the hearing; and allow speakers who have
notified the Clerk's Office to address Council on a first come first serve basis. During the
evening of the hearing, it is proposed that the Mayor call speakers according to the list, and
should a person not be present when their name is called, they will be given another opportunity
after everyone on the list is called. All members of the public who wish to address Council will
be permitted to do so whether on the list or not.
The communications for the public hearing on the Municipal Plan will begin when the first of
two Public Hearing advertisements appear in the Telegraph Journal on November 21St, 2011.
The advertising campaign will include radio, print and electronic advertising media which will
provide the information on:
• the date, time and location and purpose of the Public Hearing and the reserve date for the
continuation of the hearing should it be required;
7
3
• the Clerk's office contact information for those. wishing to be added to the list of speakers
who wish to address Council at the public hearing;
• how written submissions can be made;
• the Planning Advisory Committee review of the Municipal Plan which is scheduled to
take place on December Oh at 6pm in Council Chambers. Members of the public can also
attend and make submissions to the Planning Advisory Committee as part of the process.
Staff is also recommending Council defer consideration of first and second reading of the
Municipal Plan Bylaw until the New Year. This will enable staff to prepare a supplementary
report outlining for Council how any public submissions made during the adoption phase are to
be addressed in the Municipal Plan. Council should also be aware that for the adoption of a
Municipal Plan a majority of the whole Council is required and only those present at the Public
Hearing can vote.
Zoning By-law Work plan
As the Plan moves to the final phases of adoption, the P1anSJ team is developing work plans to
support implementation of the new Municipal Plan. Key aspects of the implementation program
for the Municipal Plan are:
1. Updated Zoning By -law and Subdivision By -law;
2. A program to deliver the future neighbourhood plans and strategic plans;
3. A program to undertake plan monitoring and reporting on the progress of implementing
P1anSJ;
4. An investment strategy including capital budget priorities that help deliver the Plan and
a new suite of development incentives programs. A separate report will come forward
in the context of the budget process addressing the recommended scope of a new
development incentives program to better align with the vision and directions for
P1anSJ.
The revised Zoning By -law is a critical component of the regulatory framework for
development; it will establish the standards for development which will serve to implement the
land use policies set out in the Municipal Plan. To maintain positive momentum and to fully
implement the Plan, staff is seeking Council's endorsement of the attached work plan to launch a
comprehensive review of the Zoning By -law in the New Year. The City is required under the
Community Planning Act to complete this review within a year of enactment of the new
Municipal Plan. The Act also provides for a year extension to be granted by the Provincial
Minister. Given the scope of this review and other commitments in the Departmental work plan,
staff is recommending that the process be scoped out for an 18 month timeframe, with 14 months
for the engagement and preparation of the Zoning By -law and the remaining 4 months for the
Council adoption process. Staff, therefore, recommend that Council request an extension from
the Province to complete the process within the timeframes prescribed by the Act.
Highlights of the Zoning By -law review work plan include:
• Updates the existing Zoning By -law with a new comprehensive clear and predictable
regulatory framework that fully implements the vision and policy directions in P1anSJ.
Given the degree of change needed to align the By -law with P1anSJ, staff recommends a
0
ri
comprehensive re -write and repeal of the existing Zoning By -law. Some of the key issues
to be addressed in this process include new zones and land use standards to:
o densify urban and suburban growth areas targeted in PlanSJ and enable
appropriate infill in stable neighbourhoods;
o enable mixed use zoning and urban design standards to enable the development of
more complete communities;
o better manage growth and rural resources in rural areas;
o promote economic development in appropriately designated commercial and
industrial areas and minimize future land use conflict;
o offer improved environmental protection for floodplains and natural areas and to
permit small scale local food production;
o promote active transportation and transit alternatives and ensure parking is
managed to support these goals.
Leverages largely internal staff resources building on the skills and capacity our staff
team have gained through the PlanSJ process. The project will be managed by Mark
Reade who is a Senior Planner with the Department. While the Zoning By -law will
draw from the capacity and expertise gained by the entire PlanSJ team, it will require the
dedicated efforts of a Senior Planner, Planner and a Planning Technician. Staff has
developed strong project management and engagement skills through the PlanSJ process
which will position our team to deliver the Zoning By -law review using largely in -house
resources.
Reflects a phased approach to incorporate amendments to the Subdivision By -law to
implement PlanSJ. Due to limited resources and the legislative timeframes for the
Zoning By -law, staff recommends that changes to the Subdivision By -law be phased over
the next several years starting first with the crucial changes to reflect the focus on the
Primary Development Area and the intent to better manage growth in rural areas,
followed by a review of municipal servicing standards.
Builds on the positive momentum of the PlanSJ public engagement process. Following
closely on the heels of the inclusive and transparent PlanSJ process will enable a more
targeted engagement process for the Zoning By -law. It will feature a minimum of three
public forums; engagement with industry through development and landowner's focus
groups; public outreach and awareness through the website and rotating public displays in
prominent locations throughout the City, and regular engagement with the Planning
Advisory Committee and City staff engagement through a Technical Advisory
Committee. The engagement program will include:
o a public launch and awareness outreach early in 2012;
o a spring 2012 issue based interactive public engagement;
o a fall /winter 2012 open house and public review of the proposed Zoning By -law;
and
o at least two targeted focus groups with industry and major land owners.
It is proposed that similar to the PlanSJ process, the team utilize community venues
such as schools with meetings rotating around the City to reach out to citizen in
central, east and west parts of the City. Due to limited resources the team will not be
able to maintain the PlanSJ storefront space, however, are investigating the creation
of a portable display that could move throughout the City and refreshed with new
information as we advance throughout the 18 month process. The process will
D
5
continue to be interactive and utilize innovative community engagement techniques
such as provocative issue based social media campaigns and use of innovative
engagement formats such as "world cafe" workshops and interactive open houses.
Given the timeframes for the process, should substantive issues emerge that require
additional engagement, they may need to be segmented off from the process to be
dealt with at a later stage.
• Requires budget resources approximately $200,000 in 2012 to carry forward with the
Zoning By -law review. The project management and most of the delivery will be handled
using in house planning staff resources. External resources will be focused on public
engagement, translation and any research or data required to support the development of
the Zoning By -law.
Given the legislative timeframes to complete the process, Council should be aware that the
Zoning Bylaw will take priority over other long range policy work and advancement of the
Neighbourhood Plans and may result in some service delivery challenges (e.g. current planning).
Staff has a number of current work plan commitments which include project delivery of the
Recreation Strategic Plan and delivery of a corridor study for Fairville Boulevard which will
continue in the New Year. Staff will also need to be resourced to carry out the commitments in
the new Municipal Plan to undertake regular plan monitoring and reporting.
In order to resource the Zoning Bylaw review and other commitments, it is proposed that the
program for Neighbourhood Planning be deferred until 2013. Staff will work with Council
during the fall /winter of 2012 to establish the program for neighbourhood planning in
preparation for the launch in 2013. The neighbourhood planning process will be staged over the
coming years to deliver Neighbourhood Plans for the areas targeted for growth and change in the
Municipal Plan. It is anticipated that these processes will involve considerable neighbourhood
based engagement and collaboration to implement the city wide vision for P1anSJ at the local
level. Staff will also be investigating with the Province potential for changes to the Community
Planning Act to support full implementation of the Municipal Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The estimated budget for the Zoning By -law review is approximately 200K with the majority of
budget resources to be directed to public engagement and data requirements. Approval of this
budget will be requested as part of the 2012 budget process.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Common Council:
1. Give notice of its intention to consider the adoption of the Municipal Plan at a
Public Hearing to be scheduled for December 12th at 5:30 p.m. and December 10' at
5:30 pm if required to continue the Public Hearing;
2. Refer the proposed Municipal Plan to the Planning Advisory Committee for a
report and recommendation;
10
3. Refer any submissions received during the Public Presentation period to staff for a
report and recommendation following the Public Hearing on the Municipal Plan;
4. Endorse the recommended work plan for the Zoning By -law review and initiate
discussions with the Province to request a one year extension from the Minister of
Environment to complete the process within the timeframes prescribed by the
Community Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Forrest, MCIP RPP
Commissioner
Planning and Development
J, Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
JH:111
Attachments:
1. Zoning By -law Work plan
11
r:
OUR CITY- OUR FUTURE NOTREVILLE•NOTREAVENIR
City of Saint John
Work Plan:
Zoning By -Law
Review
Planning and Development
11/9/2011
12
introdnctinn
With the nearing completion of the new Municipal Plan for the City of Saint John, a critical next
step is the preparation of a new Zoning By -law for the City. The Zoning By -law is the key tool
in implementing the Land Use Vision and Policy Framework established in the Municipal Plan.
The importance of the Zoning By -law is highlighted by the fact that 111 of the 507 policies
contained in the new Municipal Plan deal with specific implementation initiatives to the Zoning
By -law or issues within the scope of the Zoning By -law.
The new zoning by -law will build on the key tenets of the Municipal Plan including:
• Establishing zoning to promote growth in existing serviced areas.
• Promoting a greater variety of housing choice.
• Promoting a greater mix of supporting land uses to create complete communities and
increased density to support transit demand.
• Allowing for increased Active Transportation infrastructure and amenities to promote
travel modes other than the private automobile.
• Promoting increased consideration of urban design principles in new developments.
• Improving standards for environmental protection.
Development of the new Zoning By -law will also contribute to the overall guiding principles of
the Plan SJ process including:
• creating a culture of Integrated Planning in the Corporation and Community,
• community engagement,
• forging of community partnerships,
• adoption of leading edge best practices, and
• incorporation of effective implementation and monitoring techniques.
Immediately following adoption of the new Municipal Plan, Staff will also undertake a series of
amendments to the Subdivision By -law to align the Subdivision By -law with the land use vision
established in the new Municipal Plan. These amendments will focus on critical issues to
implement P1anSJ such as lot creation in rural areas. Following completion of the new Zoning
By -law and Corporate Reorganization, Staff will focus on a comprehensive update to the
Subdivision By -law to clearly outline standards for new subdivision development such as
infrastructure design and servicing.
Under the Community Planning Act (Section 34(1)(b)(i)), a Zoning By -law must be enacted
within one year of the adoption of a Municipal Plan. However, based on consultation between
the Provincial Minister of Environment and the Municipality, this time limit can be extended to a
maximum of two years from the adoption date of the new Municipal Plan. Staff note that this
section of the Act has not been vigorously followed in the past with respect to the adoption of a
Zoning By -law by other municipalities completing a Municipal Plan. The proposed schedule for
the Zoning By -law review provides for a fourteen month period to prepare the Draft Zoning By-
law and provide for a non - statutory Public Comment Period. This would be followed by the
required adoption process under the Community Planning Act that would extend for an additional
four months. Based on this, Staff recommends that Common Council direct Staff to initiate
Page 1
13
discussions with the Province regarding an extension to the initial one year time limit the
adoption of the Zoning By -law beyond the adoption of the Municipal Plan. In the interim period
the existing Zoning By -law will be in force until the new Zoning By -law is adopted and the
Community Planning Act provides that if there is a conflict between the Municipal Plan and
Zoning By -Law that the Municipal Plan prevails.
Resourcing
Staffing for the project will be from existing in -house Planning and Development staff. Mark
Reade, a Senior Planner with 12 years of private- sector planning and engineering experience will
manage the project and lead the development of the new Zoning By -law. The project team will
be supplemented with a Planner and Planning Technician who will be devoted full -time to the
project. Additional staff resources will be cycled onto the project team on an as required basis
following completion of Fairville Boulevard Study and Recreation Strategic Plan.
The use of in -house resources for the majority of the project builds on the capacity and expertise
that was developed in the Plan SJ process through the experience of current Planning and
Development Staff. It also allows for a user -driven by -law development process as staff will
ultimately be responsible for the day -to -day implementation and administration of the document.
External resources totalling approximately $200,000 are budgeted over the course of the project
to cover items such as venue rental and expenses for the Public Engagement component,
translation, advertising and external data requirements.
Community Engagement
Building on the extensive Community Engagement that was a component of the new Municipal
Plan, preparation of the Zoning By -law will also involve interactive Public Open Houses,
stakeholder focus groups, website programming, social media, public displays, a Public Review
period for the Draft Zoning By -law and content in the City of Saint John's citizen newsletter,
Insight.
Staff also propose to utilize input from the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) over the course
of drafting the new Zoning By -law with presentations to the Committee on various aspects of the
by -law at their monthly meetings. In addition, PAC will serve the role provided for by the
Citizens Advisory Committee that was struck for P1anSJ. This approach will allow for input
from a "Citizen -at- large" steering committee and also allow for the Committee to provide input
into the development of the new standards based on their experience with respect to
implementation of the by -law from their role in dealing with various planning applications. This
approach will also provide for a learning opportunity for Committee members with respect to the
technical foundation underlying the by -law standards.
In addition to the broad Community Engagement with residents, landowners, and stakeholders, a
more focused approach will be taken with the development community. This will be similar to
Page 2
14
the Developer's Focus Groups held during the preparation of the new Municipal Plan and
include focused consultation with the residential and commercial development sectors as well as
the large- format retail and industrial development sectors and the signage industry. Planning
Staff will also be available to engage with specific Community Groups as required throughout
the process to inform them of the scope of the Zoning By -law and the review process and to
become aware of their specific issues.
As with the Engagement Program for Plan SJ, the Zoning By -law Engagement Program will
utilize bilingual communications and translation. Staff are also exploring means of using
increased graphic communication to convey concepts associated with the Zoning By -law such as
building height and building setback standards.
The overall Engagement Program can be broken into three discrete stages. The first stage will
focus on creating community awareness of the scope and timing of the review, the second phase
will focus on issues identification and a review of the Draft Zoning By -law will be the focus of
the third stage. The overall Public Engagement process is summarized as follows:
• Three Public Open Houses will be held at various stages through the Zoning By -law
Review:
• The first Open House, tentatively scheduled for February / March 2012, will
officially launch the project and focus on building awareness about the scope of
the Zoning By -law and the process to complete the new Zoning By -law. While
this event will be focused on public education regarding the new Zoning By -law it
also provides for the opportunity to begin to solicit input from the Community
regarding issues relating to the Zoning By -law. Staff propose to base this
component on Best Practices for public information about planning and zoning
matters from other Canadian municipalities such as Ottawa, Calgary and
Saskatoon.
• The second public engagement, tentatively scheduled for May / June 2012, will
coincide with work relating to the development of the actual standards to be
contained in the Zoning By -law. The intent of this session will be to solicit
feedback from the Public and Development Community on the content of the
regulations. The Open Houses would consist of a brief presentation outlining
regulatory options followed by breakout focus group sessions relating to topics
such as residential development, commercial development, landscaping and
parking standards. These breakout sessions would follow a "World Cafd" or other
interactive format.
• The third Open House will involve a presentation of the Draft Zoning By -law for
Public review and initiate a 30 -day Public Comment period. This is tentatively
scheduled for winter 2012/2013 and will allow for the Public to review and
comment on the draft document prior to the legislated adoption process under the
Community Planning Act.
These public engagements will be advertised via radio, television and print advertising.
Other notification initiatives will include the contact list developed for the Plan SJ, social
media, and articles in Insight.
Page 3
15
• Stakeholder Consultation with the development community and major landowners will
also be a component of the consultation process. A series of industry focus groups with
is also proposed to deal with the following topic areas: Residential Development,
General Commercial Development, Large - format Retail and Restaurant Development
and Signage. These focus groups would be similar to those completed during Plan SJ for
the development community as a whole.
• Programming on the City's website and articles in the Insight newsletter will be utilized
throughout the process to inform the Public and invite feedback on the content of the
Zoning By -law.
• Input from the Public Open Houses and the Stakeholder Consultation will be summarized
into Public Engagement Reports and presented to Common Council following the three
Public Open Houses. This will also allow for presentations to Common Council
summarizing work conducted to date at three stages.
• Input will solicited from the Planning Advisory Committee at their monthly meetings
throughout the process of drafting the new Zoning By -law. It is anticipated that this will
begin at the January 2012 meeting with a general orientation of the process and
functionality of the current zoning by -law regulations.
• Staff also propose to utilize an informative static community display that can be moved to
various locations such as shopping malls, libraries and community centres throughout the
City over the course of the project. This display would aid in informing the Public
regarding the Zoning By -law review process and soliciting input from the Community at
large. This links back to the success of the Storefront used during Plan SJ and provides
for the provision of Public Information within the Community as a whole.
• Planning and Development Staff will also be available to provide presentations and
outreach to Community Groups and Organizations throughout the process similar to the
broad Community Outreach that was a component of the development of the Municipal
Plan. This would provide for a better understanding of the Zoning By -law review process
by the Community as a whole and allow for input and feedback from specific Community
Groups and Organizations.
• Staff also propose provocative and interactive use of social media, Twitter, Facebook and
the e-mail contact list developed for Plan SJ as a means of soliciting community input.
• Input from internal City Staff will be solicited through a Technical Advisory Committee
that will consist of representatives of the Municipal Operations and Engineering and
Building and Inspection Services Departments.
• The Planning Advisory Committee will serve in the role provided for by the Citizens'
Advisory Committee that was struck for PlanSJ. This approach will allow for input from
a "Citizen -at- large" committee and also allow for the Committee to provide input into the
development of the new standards based on their experience with respect to
implementation of the by -law from their role and experience dealing with various
planning applications. Staff propose to hold a workshop based presentation at the
Planning Advisory Committee's monthly meeting regarding various issues related to the
zoning by -law throughout the process. This approach will also provide for a learning
opportunity for Committee members with respect to the technical foundation underlying
the by -law standards.
Page 4
16
Methodology
The proposed methodology for the Zoning By -law has the project occurring in five phases. The
first phase will involve a detailed scoping of the content of the Zoning By -law along with
development of a preliminary outline to guide the development of the document. The second and
third phases will involve development of the land use zones and standards which will be
presented to the Public for review and comment. The fourth phase involves revisions to the By-
law based on relevant comments received during the Public Review period and the fifth phase
will consist of the required adoption process under the Community Planning Act. In addition to
the five main components of the work plan, a comprehensive Public Engagement Process will
ran throughout the development of the by -law and target residents, major landowners and
industry stakeholders. Each of the respective phases is discussed in more detail below and a
proposed schedule is attached to this document.
Phase 1— Project Initiation and Background Scoping (November 2011 — mid January 2012)
Following the endorsement of the project work plan and schedule by Common Council on
November 14, staff will commence work on the new Zoning By -law for the City of Saint John.
In preparing this work plan Staff have commenced scoping of the overall process and have
conducted a preliminary review of the scope of the content of the Zoning By -law. Further
scoping of the Zoning By -law content will occur during this initial project phase and include the
following key tasks:
• A review of other zoning by -laws which will identify best practices within the New
Brunswick and the Canadian legislative context. Best practices for the presentation of
technical information in a simplified manner such as via illustrations and diagrams that
explain the key concepts in the by -law will also be reviewed.
• Consultation with Municipal Operations and Engineering and Building Inspection staff.
These are the other key City Departments that have involvement in the regulation and
enforcement of zoning by -law standards.
• Discussions with Planning Department Staff regarding potential changes to the by -law to
simplify day -to -day administration and provide a more user - friendly document.
• A review of recent Planning Advisory Committee and Development Officer Variance
applications to review potential changes to zoning standards.
• A review of the scope of Zoning By -law in accordance with the appropriate legislative
powers provided under the Community Planning Act.
• Development of a preliminary outline and format for the document.
Scoping of the content will also include refinement of the overall Public Engagement strategy
and Public Engagement program content based on the review of best practices from other
municipalities.
Engagement during this phase will involve discussions with internal City Departments regarding
shortcomings of the current Zoning By -law and possible revised standards for the new document.
Page 5
17
Deliverables for Phase 1 will include a detailed preliminary outline covering the scope of the
topics to be addressed in the Zoning By -Law.
Phase 2 —Develop Land Use Zones and Standards (mid January 2012— August 2012)
Development of the land use zones and standards for the new Zoning By -law will implement the
City Structure, Land Use Plan and Land Use Policy direction established in Plan SJ. Creation of
the new zones and standards will also implement the growth management principles for rural
areas that were established through the creation of the Primary Development Area boundary in
the Municipal Plan. Intensification of key urban and suburban areas designated in the Municipal
Plan and protection of stable residential and commercial areas will also be accomplished through
the development of the zoning standards. Zoning that allows for an increased mix of land uses
and better consideration of the urban design aspects of the resulting built form will be reviewed
for incorporation into the new Zoning By -law.
A key outcome of the Public Engagement conducted as part of Plan SJ was the creation of
supporting land use regulations and standards that provide land use and investment certainty to
residents and the business community. Creation of the specific land use zones and standards will
be a step forward in this regard.
An important component of this phase will be the development of a series of land use zones and
standards for appropriate land uses and zone - specific standards such as lot dimensions and
setbacks, density and building height. A key foundation of this task will be building on the City
Structure and Land Use Designations developed in Plan SJ to create the new land use zones and
review what elements of the existing zoning provisions can be retained. Ideally the fewer the
number of zoning designations will result in a by -law that is easier to administer and maintain,
however the number of land use zones is dependent upon community size and character.
Specific tasks relating to the developing the land use zones and zone specific standards are as
follows:
• Specific land use zones will be created based upon the overall City Structure, Land Use
Vision and policies contained in new Municipal Plan. These new land use zones will
generally be grouped based on the following broad land use categories:
• Residential Zoning (Low Density, Medium Density, High Density)
• Primary Local and Mixed Use Centre Zoning
• Waterfront Zoning
• Commercial / Business Zoning (including Commercial Corridors)
• Industrial Zoning
• Institutional Zoning
• Rural Area Zoning
• Urban Reserve Zoning
• Parkland and Environmental Protection Zoning
Page 6
im
Zoning standards will include permitted and conditional uses within each zone and
standards such as minimum lot area, minimum lot widths / street frontages and building
height and lot occupancy. In addition mixed use zoning and form -based urban design
approaches will be employed where appropriate. A key focus of this task will be ensuring
that the intent of the Primary Development Area is implemented through the appropriate
zoning for rural and urban areas of the City.
• A review of existing site specific rezoning agreements including "ID" Integrated
Development zoning agreements, site specific rezonings (spot zonings), rezonings subject
to Section 39 conditions and other previously approved developments will be completed.
This review will assess how best to accommodate these areas in the new Zoning By -law.
Depending on the outcome of the future zoning for the specific sites some of these
agreements may be able to be repealed while some land uses may become legal non-
conforming land uses under the Community Planning Act.
• Land use surveys will be conducted to review existing zoning and land uses in the
context of the Future Land Use designations established in the new Municipal Plan.
Planning Staff have commenced this analysis to prepare for the project and this will
continue this throughout the development of the new land use zones.
• Zoning mapping will be prepared based on the City's Geographic Information System
and mapping prepared for Plan SJ.
• Planning Staff will review the draft land use zoning and associated mapping, once
completed, for consistency.
During Phase 2, key Public Engagement events will include a public launch and awareness event
in early 2012 and a spring 2012 issue based interactive engagement focusing on development of
the zoning standards. Outcomes from these events will be summarized in Public Engagement
Reports for Common Council. In addition, the monthly sessions with the Planning Advisory
Committee will allow for feedback from the Committee in the development of the land uses and
zoning standards. Consultation will also occur with major landowners and development industry
stakeholders.
The key deliverable for this phase will be a series of land use zones for the new zoning by -law
which will outline the permitted uses in each zone and zone specific development regulations
such as lot area, building setbacks and building height.
Phase 3 — General Provisions (June 2012 — December 2012)
Phase 3 of the project will involve the creation of the General Provisions for the zoning by -law.
These are standards addressing items that apply on a broad basis across all of the land use zones
such as parking standards, signage standards, standards for environmental protection, local
agriculture, landscaping, access requirements and standards relating to specific land uses such as
home occupations. Staff expect the scope of the general provisions will be similar to what
currently is regulated in the existing Zoning By -law, but with the possible additions of items
such as design standards depending on the available legislative powers provided under the
Community Planning Act. Given the content of Phases 2 and 3 there will be some overlap with
Page 7
19
the scheduling and development of these components. Key tasks associated with development of
the General Provisions are:
• Development of new Parking, Loading Area and Access standards for the Zoning By-
Law. The scope of these provisions will include the amount of required parking to be
provided for in developments, parking area dimensions and landscaping requirements for
parking lots, drive - through queuing requirements, driveway access requirements,
mobility disabled parking requirements, bicycle parking requirements, and requirements
for loading / unloading areas in commercial and industrial developments. This will
support the Active Transportation and Transit initiatives developed in Plan SJ.
• Development of new signage regulations that will revise the current section of the Zoning
By -law that deals with signage. Staff have identified this as a component that will
require specific consultation with stakeholders in the signage industry and are proposing
that signage be the subject of one of the development - oriented Focus Groups held as part
of the Zoning By -law review.
• A review of by -law regulations relating to Home Occupations. This review will cover the
types of permitted home occupation uses and governing standards such as number of
employees and floor area of the business component.
• Childcare facilities are a specific land use that now has a specific policy direction in the
new Municipal Plan. Staff will develop new general provisions to regulate these
activities.
• Secondary Dwelling Units are another land use that has a specific policy direction in the
new Municipal Plan. These include residential uses such as in -law / granny suites and
basement apartments. Staff will develop standards for these uses for inclusion in the draft
Zoning By -law to implement diverse housing types that meet the needs of a range of
household incomes in all areas of the City.
• Lot and Yard Standards covering items such as exiting undersized lots, the impact of
topography on lot area and permitted encroachments will be developed.
• Standards for Accessory Buildings and Structures relating to items such as the floor area
and setbacks for detached garages and sheds will also be reviewed. These sections of the
Zoning By -law are relatively up -to -date having been the subject of amendments in 2010.
• New landscaping standards will also be developed. It is anticipated that a major focus of
these standards will be for industrial and commercial areas and medium to high density
residential developments. Key considerations for new landscaping standards will be
improved landscaping requirements along important commercial corridors such as
Rothesay Avenue and buffering to better integrate areas of medium and higher density
development with existing adjacent developments.
• Other General Provisions will also be reviewed and revised including changing the
elevation of properties and general site design standards. This will implement concerns
raised by the Community regarding the environmental impacts of filling and excavation
activities to change the elevation of land in preparation for development.
• Preparation of a revised list of definitions for the zoning by -law that define land uses and
aspects of the general provisions such as height and yard setbacks. Diagrams will be also
be prepared for inclusion in the by -law to demonstrate concepts such as building height
and building setbacks.
Page 8
20
• Staff also propose to work towards including better urban design standards for
development and redevelopment in the General Provisions and work towards changes to
Provincial Legislation where required to support this initiative.
Public Engagement events for Phase 3 will be combined with those for Phase 2 as Phases 2 and 3
focus on the development of the actual Zoning By -law standards. The key deliverable for this
phase will be the General Provisions which will be combined with the outcome of Phase 2 to
form the Draft Zoning By -law.
Phase 4 — Finalize Draft By -law (December 2012 May 2013)
Following preparation of the Draft By -Law, the document will be reviewed by City Legal Staff
and then presented at the Public at the third Public Open House in early -2013. A 30 -day Public
Comment period will be provided beyond the requirements of the Community Planning Act to
build on the extensive Community Engagement during the Plan SJ process and allow for
community feedback on the draft by -law. Following the 30 -day comment period, staff will
incorporate relevant public comments and then translate the document into French. The
deliverable for this stage will be the final Zoning By -law to be adopted in accordance with the
Community Planning Act.
Phase 5 — Adoption of the new Zoning By -law (May 2013 — July 2013)
Following the incorporation of relevant Public Comments received during the 30 -day Public
Comment period, the required adoption process under the Community Planning Act will
complete the project. The adoption process is as follows:
• The Zoning By -law will be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee by Common
Council and a Public Hearing date will be set. Required advertising for the Public
Hearing will occur in accordance with the Community Planning Act.
• Using a similar process with the Planning Advisory Committee as that used for the new
Municipal Plan, Staff will first hold an informal workshop with the Planning Advisory
Committee to review and discuss the proposed Zoning By -law. Following this a second
meeting will be held where the Committee can provide formal endorsement to the new
Zoning By -law.
• Common Council will hold the required Public Hearing in accordance with the
Community Planning Act and give the required three readings to the Zoning By -law.
The new Zoning By -law, like the new Municipal Plan, will be a living document and will be
subject to ongoing monitoring to ensure that it continues to promote development that meets the
Community Vision established in the new Municipal Plan. Given this ongoing monitoring that is
a key outcome of the Plan SJ process, it is envisioned that periodic amendments to the Zoning
By -law will be brought forward by Staff to respond to ongoing monitoring and issues raised
through the ongoing implementation of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By -law.
Page 9
21
�
I
\
�
�
�
22
c
�
Q
§q
2
m
/
ƒ
Q
o
■ M
\
k
2/
El
$
/
¢
P-4
a4
�
M /
•/
Q
§
2
g
¥
®
2
/2
.
%
/
ƒ
.§
\
2
ƒ7Q
.z
3
3
/
a
m
£
8
§q
/cn C).
0
<
z
«
7
f
U
o Q 2
#
7
Q/ y
o®
m
R
§
>
U k
ƒ
/
R
ƒ
0.
2
\ E
ƒ t 3$
2
Q4
�oP4
0
/§\
/�
�/�
/m
ƒ
�
2,0
E
a
%
§
J 6
/
o/
22
c
�
Q
Chown, Jeanne
MEL-lip.-M iF54=
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: November -14 -11 9AS AM
To: Chown, Jeanne
Subject: FW: PlanSJ
- -- original Message---- -
From: Robichaud, Andre (ED06) [mailto:Andre .Robichaud @nbed.nb.ca]
Sent: November -10- 117:11 PM
To; External - CommonClerk
Subject: PlanSJ
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing you today to express my support for the direction in which PlanSJ is taking our city. This sort of vision is
what our city has long been lacking. Although they play an important role in our city, our future cannot be left in the
hands of developers and industry alone. It is my sincere hope that council adopts this progressive and sensible
municipal plan. There will be those interest groups fighting against its implementation. I hope that council keeps a
steady course and uses the plan as it was intended: as a road map to a better, more liveable and more financially
sustainable city that attracts residents to its many historical and vibrant neighbourhoods.
Sincerely,
Andre Robichaud
Z
23
Chown, Jeanne
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: November -14 -11 9:46 AM
To: Chown, Jeanne
Subject: FW: PlanSJ Adoption
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Andrew Pollock [mailto :andrew.pollock @mail.mcgill.ca]
Sent- November -10 -11 11:51 PM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: RE; PlanSJ Adoption
To Mayor and Council,
As a lifelong Saint Johner, I would )ike to briefly declare my support of adopting the new Municipal Plan in its current
form. When (WHEN, not if) I return to Saint John after my studies, I'll be looking to our urban neighbourhoods to live.
PlanSJ represents two years of comprehensive public consultation and review, and I can assure you that my generation
is fully behind it. I urge you: don't let those who are stuck in yesterday's paradigms change this document at the last
minute. Commit to growing Saint John smarter and more sustainable, and the rest will fall into place. I'll make sure of it.
Sincerely,
Andrew Pollock
24 Maple Grove Terrace
1
24
Chown, Jeanne
Mm
From:
Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent-
November -14 -11 9 :45 AM
To:
Chown, Jeanne
Subject:
FW: Municipal Plan for Si
From: Janelle [ mailto :janelle.leblanc @gmail.com]
Sent. November -14-11 7:17 PM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject., Municipal Plan for SJ
To Whom It May Concern:
I just wanted to take a minute to say how happy I am that Saint John has a municipal plan at last. I visited the
storefront they had set up in Brunswick Square and I was really impressed. I live on the West side and I think
there is a lot we can do to improve our great city. This is a step in the right direction.
Thanks for the great work,
Janelle LeBlanc.
25
November 09, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council
City of Saint John,
P.Q. Box 1971,
Saint John, N.B.
E2L 41_1
Your Worship and Members of Common Council,
RE: PLAN SJ
The Housing Working Group, hosted by the Business Community Anti - Poverty Initiative, is a
network of government, business and community organizations that are individually and
collectively focused on the ways and means to help Saint John achieve: safe and affardabie
housing and neighbourhoods for ALL, one of the goals of the Saint John Poverty Reduction
Strategy.
Members of the Housing Working Group participated in Plan SJ's consultations and Plan SJ
was discussed at a number of our meetings. Last week we reviewed, together, the most recent
version of the new Municipal Development Plan.
We congratulate all who were part of leading Plan SJ's development. We support the plan and
offer this feedback:
1. Overall, the Housing Working Group likes:
• The focus on "smart growth ".
The quality and comprehensiveness of the report and the integration of the many
components /conditions that contribute to smart growth.
p The identification of priority areas for growth, primary/full service centres and
neighbourhood intensification areas.
2. Specific to Neighbourhoods and Housing, the Housing Working Group is pleased
Plan SJ is committed to:
• Affordable housing in all neighbourhoods.
• A broad range of housing types in neighbourhoods to meet diverse income levels,
household types and special needs (including supportive housing, rooming houses and
secondary suites).
• Neighbourhood plans for specific neighbourhoods targeted for intensification.
• Enhancements to the quality of existing housing and the condition of vacant lands.
• Investments in housing renewal and in key infrastructure and facilities to achieve safe,
stable, vibrant neighbourhoods, particularly in core areas.
• A housing strategy.
3. We recommend two policies be strengthened to demonstrate the City's
commitment to "investing" in housing and neighbourhood improvements.
Business Community Anti - Poverty Initiative
300 Union Street, P.O. Box 5777, Saint John, New Brunswick E21_ 4M3
Page 2
Policy HS -1:
Current: Monitor the land supply for housing across the City to ensure the land supply is
adequate to meet the housing needs of all residents.
Recommended. Monitor the land supply for housing across the City and develop programs
like land banking to ensure the land supply is adequate to meet the housing needs of all
residents.
Policy HS -14:
Current: Encourage housing providers to build affordable housing using available incentives,
when possible, such as tax rebates, grants or subsidies.
Recommended. Ensure there are adequate incentives such as tax rebates, grants or
subsidies for housing providers to:
a. build affordable housing and
b. develop a range of housing types in core neighbourhoods.
4. Specific to, Implementation:
Achieving this plan is a major accomplishment. However, a plan is only as good as those that
see it through. Open and broad consultation must continue throughout the plan's
implementation to ensure buy -in and participation by all stakeholders.
We encourage the City to quickly prepare an implementation plan, accompanied by appropriate
budgets that will define the key actions, timefirames, stakeholders and base funds Saint John
will need to move forward the stated intentions of the plan. The public want to understand Plan
SJ's next stages of planning, implementation and monitoring. Confidence in the plan will
increase as the commitment to action is demonstrated.
In relation to housing, current incentives are not sufficient to encourage private investment in a
range of affordable housing in Saint John's priority neighbourhoods. We recommend that the
City commit to a new program of incentives for these neighbourhoods with funding being
specified as part of the implementation plan and budgets.
The Housing Working Group offers its network of housing leaders to assist the City, where
appropriate, in its next stages of decision- making and actions.
Again, Congratulations?
On behalf the Housing Working Gro ,
RV
G o pe,
Chairperson
27
To: Mayor and Councillors, Common Council, City of Saint John
From: David Drinnan
Member, PlanSJ Citizen Advisory Committee
111 Connors St, Saint John, E2M 3118
2011 -11 -07
Regarding: Adoption of PIanSJ
PlanSJ is approaching a watershed moment — both for the process and for our community. Adoption of
the Municipal Plan will launch a new chapter in this city's history and make quality of life and fiscal
sustainability not only priorities, but measurable goals.
A wide range of residents participated in the various PlanSJ meetings, workshops and consultations over
the past year and a half, and the resulting Plan reflects the many voices of Saint John citizens.
Unfortunately, I fear that the loudest voices Council is likely to hear now that we're close to adoption
belong to those who either dislike certain aspects of the Plan due to impacts on individual or business
interests, or belong to the few who resist PlanSJ's implementation altogether. It is important that
Council does not let those few, powerful voices drown out the community aspirations of the many
citizens who have participated in this process.
With that in mind, I'd like to make some specific arguments in support of the new Plan in its current
form:
Saint John citizens first. This Plan belongs to the citizens of our city, not to the businesses that operate
here, and not to the good residents of Greater Saint John. Our priority must be the wishes and interests
of our citizens first and foremost. Economic and regional interests are factors that influence
sustainability and quality of life, and must be considered in any decision, but they are not our direct
goals.
Instead, the promotion of business and regional prosperity should be tools we use to maximize benefits
for our citizens. All too often in this city's history it's been the other way around, and Saint Johners'
quality of life has been compromised for the sake of business or regional interests. While that might
have been good for business, and good for the region, it hasn't been a winning strategy for the City of
Saint John or for its residents. Saint John must come first and Saint John citizens must be the priority.
This Plan embodies that imperative.
11 Page
Status quo is not an option. One thing that has been clear to every member of the PlanSJ team, and to
almost every participant in this process, is the fact that the status quo is unsustainable and
unacceptable. This city faces a catastrophic future if we continue down our current path. Those who
argue against change, or even against the very idea of strong municipal policy, are either blind to this
reality or — worse — willing to sacrifice the future of our city and its residents' quality of life in favour of
other goals or in protection of entrenched interests.
We cannot afford to hold on to old and broken models. We must embrace change, despite the short
term costs it will impose on many of us, and recognize the opportunity not only to reduce service
burdens but to bring new kinds of prosperity to this city. To reject the need for change, or even to
simply defer it, would be inexcusable.
Development and a range of residential options. Some in the business and development community
have decried the limitations that the Municipal Plan will impose on suburban development in the city,
suggesting that a lack of suburban options will increasingly drive migration to outlying communities. I
find that argument baseless for the following reasons:
1. Availability of suburban housing has already proven itself to be a poor 'competitive advantage' over
outlying communities, in terms of both immigration and retention.
2. The city already has a wide range of residential options in suburban settings.
3. What the city lacks are more attractive options for urban living, needed to enable greater
immigration and to give Saint John residents better options for staying in the city.
4. The new Municipal Plan and the follow -on incentives needed to support it will promote infill and
development in specific opportunity areas without reducing that existing suburban residential stock.
5. Abandonment of the strategy of increased concentration and investment in opportunity areas is,
effectively, a return to the status quo, as discussed above.
acknowledge that the change in policies will be challenging for the development community. The
implementation of the Plan — in terms of both restrictions and incentives — will create pain points for
some developers, and opportunities for others. In the longer term, those developers whose business
models and philosophy are compatible with a sustainable Saint John will prosper.
What will be critically important is the support and incentive structure the City provides once the
Municipal Plan is adopted, to protect, motivate and reward those developers who are willing to adapt to
this new framework and build for a more sustainable future. Smart incentives and investments in
specific neighbourhoods will be crucial with respect to both infill and new development.
2jP ::ge
29
Board of Trade. I'm guessing that Council may have received further comments from the Saint John
Board of Trade requesting modifications to the Plan to protect business interests (for example,
accommodations for'homegrown' businesses such as Moosehead, JD Irving and Irving Oil, or provisions
for multi - functional energy transmission corridors 111). As stated previously, I feel very strongly that the
Municipal Plan's policies should remain focused on the benefits to Saint John citizens. Any City decision
regarding corporate projects and business opportunities should be based on a cost - effectiveness
analysis that balances the risks and burdens placed on citizens against the economic benefits for citizens.
Hardwiring blanket accommodations into the Municipal Plan simply isn't appropriate, regardless of
whether the corporate actor is'homegrown'. Projects that could impact the quality of life for Saint
Johners should be forced into substantive reviews (including, if appropriate, environmental
assessments) to ensure that the benefits outweigh the costs and risks, not only for the citizenry at large
but for the specific neighbourhoods affected by those projects. (The recent power line controversy on
the Lower West Side provides a clear example of this type of situation.) The Municipal Plan's policies
should not be modified in any way that could later be used to justify an 'expedited' treatment of any
project that has the potential to impact quality of life.
Airport. I also assume that Council has received comments from the Airport reiterating its request for
designation as an Opportunity Area under PlanSJ, in addition to other supportive language within policy
statements Izi. I am very sympathetic to the airport's plight. The ongoing lack of federal support and the
Airport's omission from the federal government's Atlantic Gateway Strategy has put the airport at great
risk, and the Airport's own inability to define a viable business plan has increased that risk. Our city
benefits from continued access to a local airport, as do the many other communities in the airport's
catchment area, and it's critically important that a strategy be found to ensure Saint John Airport's
sustainability.
However, that strategy must not place the burden on the shoulders of Saint John taxpayers alone, either
directly through the infrastructure investments that an Opportunity Area designation would mandate,
or indirectly through competition by the airport with the City's own industrial park operations. The
demands of the Airport to incorporate language into PlanSJ that would open the door to those types of
costs is simply unacceptable. The solution to the Airport's problems must be a regional one that shares
the burden fairly across the many communities the Airport serves, and should also involve the other
levels of government that benefit very directly from the taxes that result from airport operation.
Frankly, the suggestion that PlanSJ policy should be amended in a way that could eventually make Saint
Johners solely responsible for subsidizing a regional facility makes me very angry, as a Saint John
taxpayer and as a CAC member.
31 Page
30
The changes in PlanSJ language made recently to address the Airport's concerns are sufficient; if Saint
Johners are going to be asked to pay to keep the Airport open, they should first be asked if that's what
they really want to do, and what costs they're willing to incur to make that possible. The new language
in the Plan will require public hearings before any change in policy regarding the Airport (as well as
requiring the Airport to first produce a viable business plan).
In conclusion. I hope that Council has received a range of feedback during this comment period. My fear
is that the majority of Saint Johners who support PlanSJ and those who have participated in the process
may have assumed that the heavy lifting has been done, and that the Municipal Plan is certain to be
adopted in its current form. I urge Council to consider the full range of input and citizen participation
over the last year and a half when dispositioning the feedback received in the last few weeks.
The new Municipal Plan is a tangible product of Saint Johners' desires and aspirations; it truly is
community vision translated into hard, precise policy. The Plan's value to current and future Councils
and planners will be enormous, guiding decision - making to help ensure that this city develops in
directions its citizens want; that is, so long as the Plan is adopted in its current form — as a true reflection
of our citizens' priorities. The Plan, and the commitment that Council has shown in launching and
supporting the PlanSJ initiative, will help to ensure that those decisions serve to protect quality of life for
Saint John citizens and promote a sustainable future for this community.
I want to thank you all for your commitment to PlanSJ. It has been an honour to serve on the Citizens
Advisory Committee, and i appreciate the opportunity I've had to contribute to this process.
Best regards,
Dave Drinnan
[1] Letterfrom the Saint John Board of Trade to the City of Saint John Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner of Planning and Development, 2011- 04 -21.
[2] Presentation from the Saint John Airport to Common Council, 2011- 08 -15.
41 Page
31
f
f
y�
�f
November 4, 2011
To: Mayor and Council
City of Saint John
c /o: Common Clerk
15 Market Square
PO Box 1971
Saint John NB E2L 41_1
Re: Plan SJ
Friends of Rockwood Park (FORP) have been interested in the development of
Plan SJ. Members of the group have attended public presentations, participated in
round -table discussions, submitted written opinions and suggestions, and listened to
council discussions. It has been an informative process.
FORP are quite impressed with the present report; it is a very thorough and
well- written document. We are especially pleased with the numerous references to the
serious importance of maintaining and developing our natural environment. These
comments begin with the Executive Summary. On the first page it states, "The City's
new direction for growth and change, as described in the Municipal Plan, focuses on
... Planning in a holistic manner to consider economic, social, cultural, and
environmental sustainability" (p.1) This is expanded a few pages later, under the
headings, "Natural Environment and Energy (p.3) and "Community Facilities, Arts,
Culture and Heritage ". (p.4)
Many more references to the importance of the natural environment are placed
throughout the report. We paid special attention to Section 7, and we have highlighted
and attached all of page 149, the introduction to that section. We have also highlighted
and attached the policies NE 22 - NE 30 in Section 7.5.
32
We were very pleased to see Rockwood Park directly mentioned in Section 10.2.3,
Regional Parks, with a policy directive specifically for it: policy CF - 16: "Continue to
support and enhance Rockwood Park, the Irving Nature Park and the Uptown
Waterfront as Regional Parks ".
It is our sincere hope that these goals and policies are indeed carried out in the
future so Rockwood Park will be protected and enhanced for generations to come.
JoaVPearce,
Chair, Friends of Rockwood Park
Ernestine ooney,
Treasurer, Friends of Rockwood Park
Betty Lizotte
Secretary, Friends of Rockwood Park
Peggy Campbell
Member, Friends of Rockwood Park
David H. Thompson
Member. Friends of Rockwood Pai
33
The natural environment provides the elements we require for life: air, water,
food and fuel. Human wellbeing and economic and social activity depend
on a healthy natural environment. Today, however, human activity is placing
increasing pressure on the natural environment. As a result there is a need
to better understand the relationship between community and the natural
environment in order to protect and restore the ecosystem functions. The
way the built environment is designed, constructed and used has significant
impacts on local and global natural environments. Environmental protection
is a shared responsibility and partnerships must be developed between
individuals, the business community, all levels of government and other
organizations and agencies to achieve true, lasting sustainability.
The City's natural environment is a defining feature of the City. The Bay of
Fundy, the St. John and Kennebecasis Rivers, our extensive coastlines, unique
geology and vast forested areas contribute to make the City one of the most
environmentally diverse areas in Atlantic Canada. Residents of the City expect
that the Municipal Plan will address environmental issues such as air quality.
water quality, and climate change as they significantly impact quality of life.
One of the foundations of the Municipal Plan is a commitment to an
integrated planning approach to promote a more sustainable future. Land
use, the built environment, infrastructure, the natural environment, and
financial considerations must be considered interdependent elements to
create a sustainable City. Supporting the PlanSJ Vision and Directions, the
Municipal Plan concentrates residential and employment growth in the
Primary Development Area in order to maximize the use of existing services
and preserve the natural environment.
CHAPTER SEVEN I NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 149
34
7.5 Natural Areas & Land
The Municipal Plan aims to protect and enhance natural areas in the City to aid and
improve the functioning of ecosystems and maintain biodiversity. The City is very
large geographically and hosts a diversity of natural landforms. To the maximum
extent possible in an urban area, the City intends to create a balanced relationship
between the functioning of urban systems and natural systems and will work with
other levels of government and community partners to restore degraded natural
environments.
Council shall:
Policy NE -22 Enhance natural areas within the City by:
a. Protecting and limiting development in environmentally sensitive areas including
significant nabitat areas, open spaces and areas with rich biodiversity;
b. Minimizing the fragmentation of significant natural areas by limiting development
in rural areas and linking natural areas, wherever possible, to maintain wildlife
habitat and natural corridors:
c. Working with the Government of New Brunswick and other agencies to encourage
sustainable forest management practices on Crown Land and private woodlots;
and
d. Carefully analyzing and mitigating the impacts of resource uses on adjacent
natural areas when considering development applications.
Policy NE -23 Protect significant natural areas by working with the Government of New Brunswick
and other agencies to identify, protect, and enhance designated Environmentally
Significant Areas (ESAs), Protected Natural Areas (PNAs), conservation areas, nature
preserves, ecological reserves, bird sanctuaries and other significant natural areas,
including sites owned and managed by the Nature Trust of New Brunswick.
Policy NE -24 Enhance biodiversity throughout the City by:
a. Encouraging the use of native species of vegetation for landscaping in private and
public development, where appropriate; and
b. Preserving representative vegetation, species and ecosystems in major open
spaces and City parks.
Policy NE -25 Protect significant natural landforms unique to the City.
CHAPTER SEVEN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 155
35
Policy NE -26 Control the impacts of erosion by:
a. Restricting development in erosion -prone areas; and
b. Working with the Government of New Brunswick to ensure appropriate erosion
and sedimentation control measures are implemented where development
takes place.
Policy NE -27 Participate in provincial and federal environmental impact assessments undertaken
for projects in the City to advance the City's interests.
Policy NE -28 Where possible, seek to harmonize the environmental impact assessment process
and the City's land use planning processes for development projects.
Policy NE -29 Utilize Land for Public Purpose dedications, as described in the Subdivision Bylaw,
to enhance natural areas within the City by:
a. Seeking public ownership of key natural areas with the potential for sensitively
integrating passive recreation opportunities, biodiversity preservation, or
ecosystem enhancement through the development process, where there is not
a neighbourhood need for active recreation sites; and
b. Exploring mechanisms for developers to participate in the creation or
enhancement of community facilities and natural areas in lieu of Land for
Public Purposes.
Policy NE -30 Enhance the urban forest by:
a. Encouraging the retention of mature trees and natural tree growth wherever
possible;
b. Establishing a planting program along designated streets and public rights -of -way
where doing so will not interfere with existing municipal services, sidewalks or
roadway infrastructure;
c. Utilizing hardy native species with appropriate diversity and longevity where
appropriate; and
d. Implementing sustainable forest management practices on City -owned lands
to explore and manage issues such as biodiversity, sustainable harvesting, and
management for fire safety. and encourage sustainable management practices
on other lands in the City.
156 f- Sj CITY OF SAINT JOHN MUNICIPAL PLAN
36
10.2.3 Regional Parks
The largest parks in the classification system are Regional Parks which attract
residents and tourists from the City, the Greater Saint John Region and beyond.
Regional Parks typically provide both structured and unstructured recreational
opportunities as well as a wide range of specialized uses, The City has many
Regional Parks. including Rockwood Park. Irving Nature Park, as well as parks
along Saint John's Harbour, including Partridge Island. Although Partridge Island
is currently not accessible to the general public, it exhibits strong potential as a
signature piece of the City's park system.
Council shall:
Policy CF -16 Continue to support and enhance Rockwood Park, the Irving Nature Park and the
Uptown Waterfront as Regional Parks.
Policy CF -17 Work with other levels of government to create a national heritage site at Partridge
Island that is publicly accessible.
Policy CF -18 Explore future recreational opportunities for underutilized areas of Rockwood Park to
enhance its ability to serve the Greater Saint John Region.
Policy CF -19 Pursue revitalization plans for Reversing Falls, outlined in the Reversing Falls Master
Plan (2009), to enhance the range of recreational and leisure activities it offers to
the regional population.
Policy CF -20 Explore opportunities to better celebrate historically significant parks around the City,
such as Fort Howe, Fort Latour, Partridge Island and Martello Tower.
Policy CF -21 Explore opportunities to better utilize the Market Square Boardwalk in ways that
engage various age groups and cultures to better connect them to the Uptown.
Policy CF -22 Support the continued expansion of Harbour Passage to develop a connected system
of trails along the City's waterfront.
212 C6?ZSJ CITY OF SAINT JOHN MUNICIPAL PLAN
37
FUSION
connecting saint rohn
November 9, 2011
His Worship Ivan Court and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councilors:
FUSION Saint John is an organization that seeks to promote and encourage engagement by the citizens of
Saint John. We work to provide opportunities for people to be involved in making Saint John a getter place
to live, work and play. We believe that Plan SJ incorporates those values that FUSION promotes.
Plan SJ provides guidelines for developing "complete communities ". The growth and development zones
and regulations provided for in Plan SJ are based on innovative principles of urban growth. Past
development practices and an increasing reliance on vehicular transportation have contributed to population
decline in the urban core, increased cost for utilities and facilities, and greater commuter distances to work,
necessities, and recreational activities. Plan SJ refocuses on providing residents with the means to access
these essential parts of their lives without the need for vehicular transportation. It seeks to create
communities, promotes the beautification and development of communal spaces, and greatly enhances the
visual appearance, affordability and livability of Saint John. The densification that Plan SJ promotes
matches Saint John's unique historical character and provides a foundation for future growth that will allow
citizens to live, work and play all within the same community center.
In addition to the benefits outlined above, Plan SJ also promotes sustainable practices which will benefit not
only the current citizens of Saint John, but future residents for generations. Pushes for advanced ideas and
design guidelines that promote the use of local resources, reduction of carbon footprints, and alternative
energy and transportation strategies allows for not just the conservation of resources but also growth of the
local economy and markets. This provides even greater opportunities for new and emerging industries and
employment in Saint John.
FUSION supports the implementation of Plan SJ as it believes that Plan SJ allows for changes in the growth
of our communities which will promote happier and healthier lifestyles and allow our citizens to live, worts
and play all within a short walking distance. FUSION therefore encourages Council to adopt the principles
outlined in Plan SJ and work towards promoting a new direction of smart and sustainable growth for our
communities.
FUSION welcomes the opportunity to discuss Plan SJ with Council. Please do not hesitate to contact
FUSION for input or involvement in the future.
Yours Very Truly,
Austin Durbin
Director, FUSION Saint John Inc.
FUSION Saint John Inc.
info@fusions'.com
john ieroux
351 regent street - fredericton - new brunswlck - E38 3X3 - (506) 455 -4277 - johnnyleroux@hotmall.com
Community Planning Office
c/o City of Saint John Clerk
PO Box 130
Saint John, NB
E2L 4L1
November 9, 2011
RE: Letter of Support for PIanSJ
Dear Councilors,
I would like to express my strong support for the current P1anSJ initiative /Saint John Municipal Plan.
While I am a resident of Fredericton, I have been closely involved with architectural, heritage and cultural
aspects of Saint John over the past decade. As such, I maintain a deep interest in the maintenance,
stability and growth of the city - one of Canada's urban treasures. Over the past few years, I have written
at length on issues regarding the city in books and newspapers, offered consultation and lectures with
regards to heritage and public art, and been professionally engaged as an architect for new structures
within the Uptown.
My foremost support is for the Plan's progressive balance of the preservation of built heritage along with
a clear support of well- designed contemporary architecture. This dovetailing is listed within the new plan
document as providing "an urban design framework which respects the strong sense of place in Saint
John, while allowing for high quality innovative design, reflective of the current time, to create enduring
and memorable places in Saint John which represent the next generation of heritage for the City. " This is
absolutely critical if Saint John is to grow and reestablish itself as one of Canada's strong centres of
architecture and urban form.
As a design professional that cares deeply for New Brunswick, and especially for Saint John, the
thorough research, public consultation and innovative environmental aspects connected to the Plan were
welcome indeed. I put my full weight behind this initiative and strongly hope that Common Council
adopts it as it currently stands. There will likely be pressure to reconfigure or alter certain aspects of the
Plan, but I would hope that the overall quality of life for the majority of Saint John's citizens will hold
sway over self - seeking private interests.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
h
John Leroux, architect AANB MRAIC
39
Saint John
Board of Trade
Making it happen for business
November 7, 2011
Common Council
City of Saint John
15 Market Square
P.O. Box 1971
Saint John, NB E21L 4L1
Your Worship and Councillors:
Bureau de Commerce
de Saint John
Faisons marcher les affaires
The Saint John Board of Trade respectfully submits this letter as feedback on the new Municipal
Plan.
Generally, we are pleased with the Municipal Plan that was presented and are encouraged that a
more sustainable growth plan for the City is supported in the draft. We agree that the scattered
development of the past few decades has weakened the City and a new approach is needed to
improve the City's health and future.
For the new municipal plan to be successful, it is important that its policies and those who
administer them recognize that people /citizens are increasingly able to choose where they live,
where they work, and where they invest. We need to ensure that we have a user friendly
implementation of the Plan that encourages people to choose Saint John.
Just as important, a strong economy is critical to the municipal plan's success. As a result, we firmly
believe that several supportive measures will be necessary, including:
i. Implementation of the appropriate tools and /or incentives to encourage development in the
priority neighbourhoods since urban development will be more costly. Also, inclusion of
appropriate policy wording with a positive tone will ensure that the Plan's goals are met.
2. Development of neighbourhood plans to encourage population density, and encourage
collaboration between the areas, not competition.
3. Unified land use planning for the Inner Harbour.
4. Creation of a mechanism or plan to address the concerns of citizens who have previously
purchased land outside the growth boundary with plans of building homes there; and
5. Development of a Regional plan to complement and enhance the goals of the draft Municipal Plan
and recognize the important role of the region in the growth of our economy. The City is not an
island.
One of our primary concerns from the outset has been the possibility of the new growth boundary
being used as a punitive measure which would lead to further reduction in population density.
There has been concern expressed by our members regarding recent decisions taken by Common
Council citing PlanSJ core values as decision triggers to not permit developments to proceed in areas
that would be considered infill. The new Plan must not become a barrier for development but rather
provide positive reinforcement that will encourage development in specific areas and provide
developers more options to grow.
2...
40 rue King Street c, C.P /P.O. Box 6037 • Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada E21 4R5 a tel 506.634.81 11 • fax 506.632.2008 • info@siboardoftrade.com
www.siboardoftrade.com
W
-z-
Finally, we support the careful, measured and accountable implementation of the Plan. The Saint
John Board of Trade feels that a well defined project governance structure, regular progress reports,
and a continued commitment to effective community and stakeholder engagement will be essential.
Evaluating the City's successes and failures on a regular basis will ensure the effort that has gone
into the creation of this new Plan thus far will not be wasted. In particular, we welcome the
opportunity to be part of any future body that is tasked with periodic review and updating of the
Plan.
We look forward to the public hearing of the Municipal Plan in the upcoming months.
Sincerely,
r6hrringt(n
Cha
CC:
no
Imelda Gil an
President
nl +Yn
LLaM dHtu��kSh
• d6 i •
• ' •
Mr Ken Forrest, Commissioner of Planning & Development, City of Saint John
41
Tibbits, Kelly
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 20114:32 PM
To: Tibbits, Kelly
Subject: FW; Strong support for Plan SJ
For our municipal plan input file
From: Jeff Roach [mailto:jeff @familyroach.com]
Sent: November -01- 114:29 PM
To: Eternal - CommonClerk
Subject: Strong support for Plan SJ
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Municipal Plan (Plan SJ) as well as the open, public
process that led to it's creation.
Plan SJ is the most progressive act of smart growth planning I have seen come out of Saint John City Hall and I
strongly urge Common Council to proceed with its approval and quite implementation to ensure our city has a
sustainable, livable future in which we can attract more people to join us in building this great community.
Sincerely,
Jeff Roach
http: / /ieffroach.ca
Save Our Inboxes! Adopt the Email Charter!
42
Tibbits,_Kelly
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:57 AM
To: Tibbits, Kelly
Subject: FW: planSJ
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Steve Mallett [ mailto:steve.mallett @gmail.com]
Sent: November -01 -11 6:36 PM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: planSJ
Please support planSJ. I just moved from Moncton to this area and the one place SJ falls
down is the urban core. It needs work. Badly.
Steve Mallett
http: / /about.me /stevemallett
1
43
Tibbits, Kelly
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 1:02 PM
To: Tibbits, Kelly
Subject: FW: Support for the Municipal Plan
From: Quinn, Heather (DOE /MDE) [mailto:Heather.Quinn @gnb.ca] T
Sent: November -02 -11 11:19 AM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: Support for the Municipal Plan
Common Council:
Please accept this message as a submission in support of the new Municipal Plan for the City of Saint John that was developed by
PlanSJ.
The development of this leading edge Plan reflected the priorities as set out by Council to provide significant opportunities for public
engagement, tackle issues that were important to the community and become a leader in environmental sustainability. These
priorities set the tone for a well respected process that was inclusive and challenging but always focused on solutions and positive
outcomes for the future of the City. Council should be proud of the decision to provide the resources and leadership to make the
Plan a reality; most importantly those individuals that guided the process in the City's planning department.
Public engagement and feedback were at the forefront of the development of the Plan right up until its final revisions prior to being
presented to Council for the start of the adoption process. Numerous citizens, community groups, businesses and industry have
provided their feedback and comments on the Plan and changes have been made to reflect their concerns. A holistic approach was
taken to ensure all voices were heard and reflected in the final Plan. Although there are still some outstanding issues that may not
have been addressed to the satisfaction of some groups, the Plan leaves room for changes with citizen input. This compromise is
important given the uncertainty of creating a plan for 25 years into the future.
The City of Saint John faces many challenges for the future. Having a Municipal Plan that was developed by the community will
ensure it is up to facing those challenges in a way that meets the needs of its citizens. Focusing on priority neighbourhoods and
developing the core areas for business and utilizing the industrial parks for industry will ensure that Saint John grows in a sustainable
manner. Planning the maintenance and development of municipal infrastructure to meet the growth and changes in the city will
help to reduce costs and ensure the delivery of services to all areas in need. It is up to the Mayor and Council to uphold the values of
the Plan in their decision making in order for it to live up to its potential.
I would like to thank Council for providing me the opportunity to participate in the Citizen Advisory Committee for PlanSJ. Although
there was not always consensus among the group, there was always respect for opinions and an inclusive atmosphere, i hope there
are similar opportunities for input into the future development of the City as we grow and change.
Sincerely,
Heather Quinn, P.Eng
471 Millidge Avenue
Saint John, NB
E2K 2N3
..
Tibbits, Kelly
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: Monday, November 07, 20118:42 AM
To: Tibbits, Kelly
Subject: FW: Municipal Plan - PlanSJ
- - - -- original Message---- -
From: William Jones [mailto:will.jones@rogers.com]
Sent: November -06 -11 9:59 AM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: Municipal Plan - P1anSJ
Dear Sir or Madame,
This is to let you know that I fully support P1anSJ's proposed municipal plan for Saint John,
especially the focus on encouraging inner -city residential growth.
William Jones, 78 Sydney Street
45
Chown, Jeanne
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: November -10 -11 11:48 AM
To: Chown, Jeanne
Subject: FW: Plan SJ
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Terrance Cormier [ mailto :terrance.cormier @rogers.com]
Sent: November -10 -11 10:31 AM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: Plan SJ
would like to just state that I'm in favour of the proposed Municipal Plan that has been prepared by Plan Si. I believe
that the plan is very well thought out and applaud the public consultation that has taken place though out the planning
process. Well done.
Terrance Cormier
23 Riley Dr.
Saint John, NB
M
VC.) 0 "M6fY1f�ITl F.S
Vibrant Communities Saint John's Comments on Plan SJ
November 9, 2011
Common Clerk
Vibrant Communities has actively participated in the many stages of Plan SJ and we are
very pleased to see the emphasis that has been placed on priority neighborhoods,
accessible transit, and mixed housing in our municipal plan. We are fortunate to have a
municipal plan that aligns so closely with our poverty reduction strategy. The plan is
very ambitious and describes a community that many of us are working to create.
Plan SJ indicates, not only that the City of SJ will be a participant in community and
economic development, but also a leader. We were particularly pleased the municipal
plan includes an explicit participation in poverty reduction via neighbourhood
revitalization. "Support poverty reduction initiatives through neighbourhood enrichment
activities, undertaken in collaboration with other levels of government and key
stakeholders. " "Support initiatives that create and enhance neighbourhood identity and
a sense of place for residents and the community. "
Being an ambitious plan, Plan SJ indicates a need to develop multiple plans to be
undertaken over the upcoming years.
We would like to request that at least one neighbourhood plan begin in the next fiscal
year (2012 - 2013), rather than wait for the completion of by -laws updated. Further,
given the significant decline in transit service, we also request that a Transit review be
considered of very high priority. In each review and planning process we would ask that
the City actively engage (not only consult) with stakeholders such as neighbourhood
groups and transit users.
We look forward to our continued participation in the realization of Plan SJ and its
associated planning documents. Thank you for your vision and leadership,
Dr Regena Farnsworth
Chair, Vibrant Communities Saint John
Vibrant Communities Saint John
116 Coburg Street, Saint John, New Brunswick - E2L 3K1 - Phone: 506 -693 -0904; Cell: 506 - 333 -0104
47
t
AP7 i
Vibrant Communities Saint John
Bill Bastarache
Shilo Boucher
Sarah Brown
Mike Butler
Lisa Chamberlain
Monica Chaperlin
Kathy Craig
Debbie Cooper
Michel Cote
Ivan Court
Leadership Round Table
October 2011
Common Front for Social Justice /John Howard Society
YMCA -YWCA
Fusion - KPMG
School District 8
Village Neighbourhood
Business Community Anti - Poverty Initiative
Saint John Board of Trade
Saint John Boys and Girls Club
ARCF- Saint John
Mayor- City of Saint John
Elaine Daley
Belyea, Colwell and Associates
Francine DiMambro
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Carolyn VanderVeen/
Sisters of Charity
Alex Coles
Irving Oil Ltd
Penni Eisenhauer
South End Neighbourhood
Craig Estabrooks
MP Rodney Weston's Office
Regena Farnsworth (Chair)Dean Faculty of Business — UNB Saint John
Debbie Godlewski
Public Health Services, Horizon Health Network
Randy Hatfield
Human Development Council
Gregor Hope
Business Community Anti - Poverty Initiative
Elizabeth Jadoo
Greater Saint John Area United Way
Carl Killen
MLA SJ Harbour Southern Caucus
Lyn King
Community Representative
Mary LeSage
People United for Lower South End
Grace Losier
Mayor Grand Bay Westfield
Mark Leger
Community Member
Brian Marks
Social Development
Bonnie McGraw
St. Joseph's Community Health Centre
Brenda Murphy
Urban Core Support Network
Clare Northcott
Greater Saint John Community Foundation
Mary Eileen O'Brien
SJ Board of Police Commissioners, Carleton Law
Group
Rob Salloum
St. Luke, St. George Churches- West Side
Shirley Robinson
Resident Old North End
Sister Roma De Robertis
Sisters of Charity
Nancy Savoie
Crescent Valley Neighbourhood
Donnie Snook
Inner City Youth Ministry, Common Council
Lois Vincent
Enterprise Saint John
Lisa Wetmore
Resident
Pat Woods
City of Saint John
.•
Saint john
UNIVERSITY OF PO SOX 5050
TEL 506 648 -5695
NEW BRUNSWICK SAINT JOHN, NB
FAX 506 648.5528
SAINT JOHN CANADA
VPSJ @UNBSI.CA
EA 45
WWW.UNB.CA
Monday 31 October 2011
Common Clerk
Planning and Development, 10th Floor, City Hall
City of Saint John
15 Market Square
PO Box 1971
Saint John, New Brunswick
E2L 41-1
OFFICE OF THE PHILIP W. OLAND HALL
VICE - PRESIDENT
RE: MUNICIPAL PLAN ADOPTION
In response to the call for public comment as Saint John's Common Council moves toward
adoption of the new Municipal Plan under the Community Planning Act, I am pleased to write on
behalf of UNB Saint John.
The University of New Brunswick has followed the work of the PlanSJ team closely, and
members of the university community have participated in the extensive public consultation
process at every opportunity. Council and city staff should be commended for its efforts to
ensure the process was successful in capturing a wide and balanced perspective in the draft
plan document. It is our hope that the collaborative approach embraced in this planning process
can continue throughout the development of university- related specific neighborhood plans and
regulatory frameworks.
When implemented, the municipal plan will have a profound and positive influence on our
community and its institutions. The municipal plan and UNB's strategic plan complement each
other and support Saint John's economic, social, and cultural prosperity. In outlining Saint John's
municipal land use strategy for the coming decades, the draft municipal plan helps set the stage
for many aspects of university growth and development. In doing so, it will help to support
enhanced youth attraction and retention, research and innovation activity, recreational and
cultural pursuits, and a high quality and competitive post - secondary education environment.
With respect to the approval process, we request that Common Council proceed with adoption
of the new Municipal Plan.
Yours Sincerely,
/all, �_ -
Dr. Robert MacKinnon
Vice - President (Saint John)
99
ENTERPRISE
SAINT JOHN
November 10, 2011
Common Clerk
City of Saint John
PO Box 1971
Saint John NB E2L 41_1
Dear Common Clerk,
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Enterprise Saint John, I would like to thank you for
allowing us to comment on the most recent PlanSJ draft introduced to Common Council on
October 11, 2011.
Enterprise Saint John has been actively engaged in the PlanSJ process since its launch in
late 2009. Our CEO, Steve Carson, has been an active member of the PlanSJ Steering
Committee. On February 25, 2010, the PlanSJ team provided a project overview
presentation to our Board and throughout the process our Board has been given regular
updates from our CEO. In addition, Enterprise Saint John Board Members and Staff have
participated in all of the open houses and workshops.
We applaud the City and in particular the PlanSJ senior leadership team in their
commitment to an unprecedented level of community engagement.
Throughout the process we have been very pleased that our comments, questions and
suggestions have all been well received and the PlanSJ team has incorporated much of that
feedback into the latest draft. An addendum is attached with the written feedback we
provided on July 15, 2011 along with a summary of the PlanSJ responses.
We would like to highlight in particular that "Chapter 6: Economic Prosperity" strongly
reflects the input and feedback we have received from our stakeholders and is very well
aligned with our economic development initiatives.
Enterprise Saint John is pleased to support the most recent PlanSJ draft and encourage
Common Council to proceed with the process to adopt the new municipal plan.
We look forward to continuing to provide our comments as the process continues. We are
eager to work closely with the City, our other partners and the Community as we move to
implement the Plan.
Yours truly,
Tony Gogan
Chair, Enterprise Saint John
Encl.
Grand Bay - Westfield a Quispamsis o Rothesay a St. Martins • Saint John
50
November 10, 2011
ENTERPRISE
SAINT JOHN
- Addendum -
Summary of PlanSJ Responses to
Enterprise Saint John's July 15, 2011 Submission
1. MCALLISTER INDUSTRIAL PARK
As an economic development agency, Enterprise Saint John is often involved in the early
stages of attracting new industrial development opportunities to the region. Based on our
experience in this role, we would like to share our observations on potential demand for
industrial development within the City.
As a region, we are competing against other regions, provinces and countries to attract
industrial development. Beyond simply having adequate amounts of land available,
attracting industrial development has more to do with location, suitability, amenities,
proximity to other industrial operations and transportation linkages.
The McAllister Industrial Park, located between the Irving Oil Refinery to the north and
Canaport LNG to the south has a very strong relationship to our local and regional energy
sector and energy trade corridor, in addition to existing rail access. While trucking is the
mode of choice for many industries, port and rail remain vitally important to our energy
sector and energy trade corridor. It is our opinion that the McAllister Industrial Park, based
on proximity to existing business, as well as proximity to rail, port and road infrastructure,
is well positioned to experience demand for additional industrial lands. Enterprise Saint
John is concerned that the amount of land identified for new industrial development in the
McAllister Industrial Park may not be sufficient to meet this potential demand. Having a
lack of appropriately designated land for industry can be a significant competitive
disadvantage in the quest to attract new industrial operations.
We have reviewed the DRAFT Municipal Plan, Technical Background Report (TBR) and Urban
Structure Report in detail to better understand the planning rationale for allocation of new
industrial growth that has been proposed through PlanSJ. It is understood from the TBR
that about half of the lands currently designated for industrial use in Saint John are vacant
or underutilized and that these lands are largely located in the Spruce Lake Industrial Park
(99 hectares available for development in McAllister, 152 hectares available in Spruce Lake
and an additional 1,011 hectares of raw, unserviced land available in Spruce Lake). As
described in detail in sections 3.1.3 and 3.3.1 of the TBR, McAllister is serviced by rail while
Spruce Lake does not have rail access:
"There is no direct rail service via the NBSR rail network into the Spruce
Lake Industrial Park, as the rail line was removed. Goods destined to points
beyond the region by rail must be trucked to the west side NBSR distribution
facilities; thus somewhat diminishing the attractiveness of this park's
location for transportation based industries."
- p. 170 of the Technical Background Report
Grand Bay - Westfield • Quispamsis o Rothesay a St. Martins • Saint John
1
51
,.ENTERPRISE
SAINT JOIN
The TBR notes that access from the highway to the McAllister Industrial Park has been
problematic but notes that the $60 million currently being invested by two senior levels of
government in the One Mile House Interchange will alleviate this problem:
"East of Somerset St. full access to Route 1 is provided only at the
interchange with Rothesay Ave. This has been problematic in terms of
servicing the industrial areas and commercial areas in the city's east end.
The One Mile House Interchange will alleviate this problem significantly
improving access to the east side"
- p.164 of the Technical Background Report
However, the TBR later goes on to note about the McAllister Industrial Park that "...its
location and current difficulties associated with access to Route 1 make it a less desirable
industrial park for transportation based industries" (p.164 of the TBR). This statement
appears to contradict the earlier statement that the One Mile Interchange will alleviate
highway access issues for the McAllister Industrial Park.
Although the TBR appears to state that neither of the two industrial parks is overly
attractive for transportation based industries, Enterprise Saint John believes the on -going
One Mile House Interchange and existing rail access, in addition to its proximity to large
scale industrial uses, makes it likely that market demand for industrial land will be focused
in the McAllister Industrial Park. Given the lack of detailed rationale in the Urban Structure
Report, TBR or DRAFT Municipal Plan on the decision to increase industrial development in
Spruce Lake instead of McAllister, and the context outlined herein, Enterprise Saint John
believes that is important to provide for additional industrial development in McAllister over
the coming years.
Although it is understood that there is not a significant demand for additional industrial
lands in McAllister at this time, we believe it is likely to arise in the future. In the interest of
mitigating the risk of a lack of industrial lands in McAllister, we propose the concept of
creating the new land use designation of Industrial Reserve. The purpose of this new
designation would be to set aside land to meet the need for future industrial expansion. We
propose that additional lands surrounding the McAllister Industrial Park be given the
Industrial Reserve designation. While this would not permit industrial development as -of-
right on these lands (i.e. a municipal plan amendment would still be required), it would
nonetheless indicate that the future intended use of these lands would be for industrial
purposes. This approach, rather than leaving the lands designated Rural Resource as
currently proposed, would lessen the risk that proponents of future industrial projects would
view this as a competitive disadvantage when deciding to locate in Saint John versus
elsewhere in New Brunswick or the Maritimes.
Please consider creating the new designation of Industrial Reserve and apply that
designation to additional lands surrounding the McAllister .industrial Park with
this new designation.
Grand Bay - Westfield • Quisparnsis • Rothesay St. Martins • Saint John
52
ENTERPRISE
SAINT JOHN
PIanSJ response,
While the suggested change was not made, we were provided with the following
explanation:
"The lands surrounding the McAllister Industrial Park are privately owned, and
designating them as Industrial Reserve in advance of anticipated demand would be
premature. Plan monitoring and limitations on residential development in Rural
Resource Areas will ensure an adequate supply of industrial land."
2. APPROVAL PROCESS FOR LARGE SCALE, UNANTICIPATED INDUSTRIAL
PROJECTS
Enterprise Saint John is pleased that the DRAFT Municipal Plan outlines the types of
information that Council would consider in evaluating a Municipal Plan Amendment to
facilitate unanticipated large -scale industrial developments that cannot be accommodated
by existing industrial lands. In this type of scenario it would be very important that the
Municipal Plan would allow the City to respond in a timely fashion to such an opportunity.
We have reviewed the considerations listed in Policy LU -51 and are generally supportive of
the intent underlying this policy, which is to facilitate future unanticipated large -scale
development that may be appropriate. Enterprise Saint John would like to request that
some additional flexibility be provided to recognize the unique circumstances in Saint John,
since these proposals would arise from demonstrable need rather than an inadequacy in
existing designated lands; this would provide clearer guidance to assist Council in its
decision - making when evaluating such proposals.
Please consider making the following changes to Policy LU -51 as noted in the
table below.
PIanSJ response:
LU -51 is now LU -71 in the revised plan. The City made changes for each policy as outlined
below with wording that reflects what was suggested.
LU -51 (a) Adequate lands that are already Replace with "A rationale is provided by
designated for Industrial the applicant demonstrating the need for
development are available or are the location, size and phasing -in of lands
inappropriate to accommodate being proposed for an unanticipated, large -
the proposed use; scale industrial development."
PIanSJ: changed to "Adequate
lands designated for industrial
development are not available or
there is a demonstrated need for
a particular location"
LU -51 (c) Due consideration is given to site Consider replacing the word "road" with
suitability including such "site "; as noted in our comments in
considerations as road access, I Section 3.1 of this letter, industrial site
Grand Bay - Westfield • Quispamsis u Rothesay o St. Martins • Saint John
53
r ENTERPRISE
SAINT JOHN
3. AIRPORT LANDS
The Saint John Airport is an integral component of the Saint John regional economy. The
Airport provides passenger, freight and cargo air services; these services are an important
piece of the region's multi -modal transportation system and as such are part of the critical
transportation infrastructure on which the long -term economic prosperity of the Saint John
region depends.
Although the Plan does mention the Saint John Airport in passing (sections 6, 8, 8.1(4),
8.13), we believe the Plan needs to more strongly recognize the importance of the Airport
to the region. The reality is that our Airport must be viable in the long -term in order to
achieve economic prosperity in the Saint John region. Conversely, if the Airport is not
financially sustainable, many of the PlanSJ goals - not just for economic prosperity but also
for quality of life - will not be achievable.
In their recent strategic planning process, the Saint John Airport Authority identified
revenue diversification as a key priority. One of the suggested mechanisms to diversify
revenue is development of some airport lands for commercial and industrial uses. The TBR
states that the cost of operating the airport continues to increase, simultaneously while
these costs are being borne by the airport users, there are other competitive airports
nearby, and the "development of some of the airport lands for commercial /industrial uses"
(p.262) is an option for the airport's greater financial stability and sustainability.
It is understood that the Saint John Airport Authority has not yet carried out an
opportunities analysis or developed a specific business case to confirm whether demand for
this proposed development actually exists. However, the plan discourages industrial and
commercial development' that "does not have a direct relationship to the provision of air
transportation," on the basis that this is the "community's strong desire." We would rather
the plan be supportive of the need for the municipality and Saint John Airport Authority to
' We agree that residential uses may not be appropriate on federal airport lands.
Grand Bay - Westfield • Quispamsis • Rothesay o St. Martins • Saint John
54
necessary municipal servicing,
access can be in many forms (road, rail,
landscaping and buffering,
port, air, etc) all of which are important.
Plan SI: changed to "Due
consideration is given to site
suitability including such
considerations as transportation
needs, necessary municipal
servicing, landscaping and
buffering"
LU -51 (d)
N/A
Consider adding a new item (d) to Policy
PlanS]: Added (d) "There is
LU -51 which states that "Due consideration
clearly demonstrated social and
is given to the number of new jobs being
economic benefits to the
created, the increase in tax assessment
proposal"
base, and the economic spin- offs."
3. AIRPORT LANDS
The Saint John Airport is an integral component of the Saint John regional economy. The
Airport provides passenger, freight and cargo air services; these services are an important
piece of the region's multi -modal transportation system and as such are part of the critical
transportation infrastructure on which the long -term economic prosperity of the Saint John
region depends.
Although the Plan does mention the Saint John Airport in passing (sections 6, 8, 8.1(4),
8.13), we believe the Plan needs to more strongly recognize the importance of the Airport
to the region. The reality is that our Airport must be viable in the long -term in order to
achieve economic prosperity in the Saint John region. Conversely, if the Airport is not
financially sustainable, many of the PlanSJ goals - not just for economic prosperity but also
for quality of life - will not be achievable.
In their recent strategic planning process, the Saint John Airport Authority identified
revenue diversification as a key priority. One of the suggested mechanisms to diversify
revenue is development of some airport lands for commercial and industrial uses. The TBR
states that the cost of operating the airport continues to increase, simultaneously while
these costs are being borne by the airport users, there are other competitive airports
nearby, and the "development of some of the airport lands for commercial /industrial uses"
(p.262) is an option for the airport's greater financial stability and sustainability.
It is understood that the Saint John Airport Authority has not yet carried out an
opportunities analysis or developed a specific business case to confirm whether demand for
this proposed development actually exists. However, the plan discourages industrial and
commercial development' that "does not have a direct relationship to the provision of air
transportation," on the basis that this is the "community's strong desire." We would rather
the plan be supportive of the need for the municipality and Saint John Airport Authority to
' We agree that residential uses may not be appropriate on federal airport lands.
Grand Bay - Westfield • Quispamsis • Rothesay o St. Martins • Saint John
54
ENTERPRISE �
} f SAINT JOHN
collaborate on a land use planning exercise (opportunities analysis, business case
development, etc) for the airport, which would then guide development if appropriate and
feasible.
If the City acknowledges the importance of the Airport to our regional economy
and is supportive of the Airport undertaking a more detailed planning process to
assess the business case for additional development of airport lands, the wording
of Policies LU -111 and LU -112 should be softened to articulate that support. If
the City is not willing to adjust these policies as proposed, then we suggest that in
partnership with the Saint John Airport Authority and the regional community that
the City of Saint John take a lead role in exploring alternative revenue streams
and /or funding options to ensure the long -term economic viability of the Airport.
P1anSJ response:
Although the policies referenced above remain, the revised Plan opens the door for the City
to consider development if an adequate business case arises. This is reflected in new policy
LU -113 which states:
"Consider amendments to the Municipal Plan should the Saint John Airport Authority
provide a business case and supporting land use plan that is generally consistent with
the vision and directions of PlanSJ and is acceptable to the Saint John community and
Common Council."
4. PORT LAND USE PLAN
The Saint John Port Authority (SJPA) Land Use Plan recently prepared and adopted by the
SJPA conflicts directly with several policies in the DRAFT Municipal Plan. Several key
stakeholders - including the City of Saint John, the Saint John Waterfront Development
Corporation and Uptown Saint John - submitted their concerns about this conflict to SJPA
after reviewing the draft Land Use Plan; however, the majority of these concerns were not
addressed by the SJPA prior to adopting the final version of the Land Use Plan.
Attracting new investment to Saint John is an on -going global competition; as an economic
development agency we continually focus on identifying and removing or mitigating
potential competitive disadvantages or perceived barriers that could hinder our investment
attraction efforts. If conflict between the Municipal Plan and the Port Land Use Plan are not
resolved, there is no doubt that this lack of clarity and cohesion will hinder the Port,
Enterprise Saint John and the Community's attempts to lure new investment and economic
activity.
PIanSJ response:
While no new policy was developed, these points were noted in the City's comments:
"The Municipal Plan recognizes the federal jurisdiction of Port land, but has included
the Uptown Port lands in the Intensification Area designation to express the
community's desire for greater access to the waterfront in this area. This designation
has not been applied to the West Side Port lands; however, it is recognized that public
access and investment at strategic locations on the West Side are crucial to supporting
the urban revitalization of this area. The City has expressed an interest in continuing
Grand Bay - Westfield - Quispamsis o Rothesay - 5t. Martins • Saint John
55
ENTERPRISE
SAINT JOHN
to work with the Port Authority to harmonize land use plans with the community's
aspirations."
S. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Enterprise Saint John is supportive of development of this service strategy (outlined in
Policy EP -11) and is looking forward to playing a lead role by sharing our economic
development expertise and experience. It is assumed that this strategy would build on
much of the significant economic development work that has been done by Enterprise Saint
John and others in the community. We are in support Policy EP -11 and would like to offer a
recommendation on how the list in Item (b) could be better presented for the sake of
clarity, optics and thoroughness.
Modify Item (b) to read, "...including the development of industries related to, in
no specific order.-" Relocate Item (vi), "The energy sector" to Item (i) and
renumbering the other items accordingly. Consider adding a new item, "Tourism ",
and renumbering the other items accordingly.
PlanSJ response:
Tourism has been added under EP -11(b) and there has been some re- ordering of industries
listed:
"The City will continue to build upon previous work and partner with Enterprise Saint
John and other partners to advance economic development as discussed in Section
6.6. The list of growing economic sectors in policy EP -15 has been amended as
suggested. Tourism and destination marketing policies have been added to the
Municipal Plan as a key component of economic diversification in Section 6.7 of the
Municipal Plan."
6. TOURISM
Tourism contributes greatly to our economy; it is a strategic sector of focus for Enterprise
Saint John as identified in our own strategic plan. It is also a priority identified by others
including the City of Saint John (through creation of Saint John Destination Marketing Inc.)
and the Saint John Board of Trade. The City, Enterprise Saint John, Saint John Port
Authority and many others have done significant work to support growth in the tourism
sector. Current priorities for this sector include upgrades to the Saint John Trade and
Convention Centre, on -going expansion to the Port of Saint John's berthing capacity to
accommodate increased cruise ship traffic and development of the Stonehammer Geopark
UNESCO- supported site. The TBR acknowledges the importance of tourism to the local
economy, noting that:
Tourism is one of the largest and fastest growing industries in the world, and
as local economies restructure, it has become an increasingly important
component of local economic development. It has great potential to
contribute to the achievement of many of the City's objectives, such as
sustainable development, economic growth, employment, and economic and
social cohesion. This emerging sector's potential has been recognized by
various local economic development stakeholders and has been identified as
one of the priority sectors within the City's True Growth Strategy (2006).
- p.80 of the Technical Background Report
Grand Bay - Westfield a Quispamsis a Rothesay a St. Martins • Saint John
6
56
ENTERPRISE
SAINT JOHN
N
F -�
However, although the TBR acknowledge the importance of tourism, the DRAFT Municipal
Plan does not appear to reflect the same. There is no subsection on tourism within
Chapter 6 Economic Prosperity and it is not mentioned in detail elsewhere within the Plan.
It should also be noted that of the abovementioned on -going priorities for tourism, only the
Stonehammer Geopark and the importance of cruise ship traffic are referenced briefly in the
plan; there is no reference to the needed upgrades to the Saint John Trade and Convention
Centre which have been identified as a priority by the City. The Trade and Convention
Centre, similar to the Saint John Airport, plays an important role in the prosperity of our
regional economy and should be supported by the Municipal Plan. We are aware that the
City does need to upgrade its convention facilities to support tourism, but the Plan is silent
on this matter.
Consider substantially strengthening the Plan's policies to fully address the
importance of tourism, including identified tourism priorities. Enterprise Saint
John would be pleased to work with the PlanS.7 and Saint John Destination
Marketing Inc. teams to develop appropriate policy and wording.
PIanSJ response:
A new subsection 6.7 Tourism has been added in the Economic Prosperity chapter:
"Policy EP -12 states that Council shall: Work with tourism agencies and the
community to support the marketing of key destinations in the City and the Greater
Saint John Region. Policy EP -13 states that Council shall: Ensure the Saint John Trade
and Convention Centre continues to operate as a first -class facility in order to continue
to attract users. Policy EP -14 states that Council shall: Support the Saint John Port
Authority in growing the number of cruise ship visits to the City and support the
community in continuously improving the experience for residents and visitors."
7. ECONOMIC PROSPERITY METRICS
We have reviewed the Monitoring and Review Metrics outlined in Section 6.7 of the DRAFT
Municipal Plan and agree that the suggested metrics are appropriate at this time; however,
we suggest that the size of the overall labour pool be included as an additional metric. It
should be noted that significant work is taking place nationally and internationally in the
field of measuring economic development; it will be important to update the Plan's
economic prosperity metrics regularly to reflect best practices as they emerge over the
course of plan implementation.
PIanSJ response:
An additional metric has been added as requested in section 6.8 (4) for labour force
participation rates by age and education:
"Labour force participation, including age and education level, has been
included as a metric in Chapter 6: Economic Prosperity."
S. ANNUAL REVIEW
As outlined in Section 12.7 Plan Monitoring Program, the City intends to carry out a five
year review of the Plan as well as an annual review that would include preparation of an
annual report card. We understand that the annual review will provide an opportunity to
Grand Bay - Westfield a Quispamsi.s * Rothesay a St. Martins • Saint John =
57
ENTERPRISE
SAINT JOHN
consider any non - substantive or technical changes to the Plan. Given the number and
variety of agencies, boards and commissions that will be key stakeholders in
implementation of the Plan, Enterprise Saint John suggests that the City bring together
these stakeholders on an annual basis to review the results of the report card. The purpose
of this session would not only be to update these stakeholders on implementation progress
and challenges but would also be an opportunity to ensure that agency, board and
commission annual work plans continue to be directly aligned with the Plan.
PlanSJ response:
Policy I -19 (a) has been amended to include key stakeholder groups: An annual review to
report to the public and key stakeholder groups in a readily accessible communications on
annual progress towards achieving the goals of the Plan. No additional detail was added
with respect to the possibility of hosting a review meeting for key stakeholders or the
concept of directly aligning annual work plans of agencies, boards and commissions with
PlanSJ updates:
"The Annual Report Cards on the Municipal Plan will be reviewed publicly and form
part of ongoing public engagement on the Municipal Plan, Policy I -19 states that
Council shall: Further to I -18, require the City's Planning and Development
Department to conduct an annual review to: (a) Report to Council, the public and key
stakeholder groups on annual progress towards achieving the goals of the Municipal
Plan."
Grand Bay - Westfield • Quispamsis o Rothesay a St. Martins - Saint John
M
�i
,-r
i
•r-r
Z November 10, 2011
z Mayor Ivan Court and
x Members of Common Council
O
ti Re: Draft Municipal Development Plan
On behalf of the Board members of Uptown Saint John Inc. I would like to
z express our support for the draft Municipal Development Plan (MDP). We
continue to support the Plansj process as it enters the formal adoption process
d required under the New Brunswick Community Planning Act.
The process to date has created a community's vision for growth based on
sustainable principals. This is the only way forward if we are to reign in our
expenditure side of the annual budget equation and have a community that
w attracts people. Smarter growth objectives will support a liveable, sustainable
w community vision.
tx
Clearly the community has said we need a strong urban core which includes a
CIO regional center of commerce, arts and entertainment — the uptown. The policies
and principles of the MDP have been crafted to reflect this, so that a dispersed
0 pattern of development does not continue unabated leading to greater demands
z on operating budgets. The MDP supports a big picture look at how all the pieces
of a city relate and support each other.
x Upon the adoption of the MDP, next steps include revising Zoning Bylaws,
Q initiating a process of neighbourhood planning and an investment strategy. We
are very interested in getting to the neighbourhood planning stage for the
uptown and area and support the need to have a set of new development
incentives that will help to implement the plan.
.� We encourage Council to adopt the draft MDP and allocate funding so that the
neighbourhood planning process can start with the Uptown Peninsula area and a
0 focused development incentive program in 2012. Congratulations and continue
on with your efforts towards this milestone.
Sincerely,
att ander
c�
N 506 633.9797 r 506 652.3525 www.uptownsj.com
59
Chown, Jeanne
From:
Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Serf
November -14- 119:45 AM
To:
Chown, Jeanne
subjem
FW: Comments re PlanSJ
From: Purinton, Beverly [ mailto :Beverly.Purinton@xemx.com]
Sent: November -10 -11 4:44 PM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: Comments re PlanSJ
Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the new plan. I would like to say that I think an update
or revision to the plan is long over due and generally I agree with a majority of the direction laid out in the new
plan. Where I have concern is with what appears to be confusion around its interpretation and application in
regards to development. I feel a few adjustments to the plan could help make the plan clearer and provide
better direction for the type of development we need in Saint John.
I'm thinking specifically with regards to the Opportunity Areas and the primary Development Boundary, This
was bought to light in the handling of two developments this summer in the Lakewood Heights area. Staff
supported the developments and presented them to Council as in line with the direction of Plan SJ. There was
significant opposition from local residents and it seemed their primary concern was the density level of the
housing even though the Plan clearly calls for higher levels of density in new developments. I know the plan
has been promoted as going through extensive public engagement however there still seems to be a lack of
understanding by the general public of the desired density levels until they see it on a subdivision plan next to
their homes. I think this will continue to be a problem for future councils, residents and developers with this
new plan unless it's better communicated.
A key lack of understanding by the general public is what is permitted for development outside of the
opportunity areas and what's not allowed. I think what surprised me the most is that this confusion seems to be
at the highest levels of responsibility for the new plan. My example is again the handling of the proposals for
1429 and 1515 Loch Lomand Rd. In that situation staff fully supported new roads and infrastructure outside of
the opportunity area in Forest Hills and the reason for support was explained as "Infill" and that they provided
connectivity to other neighbourhoods. I attended the PAC meeting dealing with the applications and they
unanimously rejected the plans with the discussion lead by Gerry Lowe on the basis that close to 200 lots could
not be considered infill. PAC also said that the plan did not support any development outside the opportunity
area if it meant new infrastructure being roads, water and sewage. At the public hearing with council the
applications received mixed support and did narrowly pass I' and 2"d reading only to be turned down on 31d
reading a few weeks later. The public debate in the media after this was interesting. Some residents were
surprised that the new plan didn't support new development in areas that could utilize current infrastructure. I
think clarification around this issue needs to be dealt with before the plan becomes official. If it's not clear now
it will only get more confusing as time passes and others get involved after the fact. If the plan allows for
development outside the opportunity areas and the qualification are that they utilize current municipal
infrastructure like water and sewage and are connected to an existing neighbourhood why can't it be explained
that simply. If PAC is confused at how to understand its application then I think it's only fair that potential
developers and residents will as well struggle to understand it in its current state.
1
60
Also, I've have asked questions of staff as to why certain areas were selected as opportunity areas and I still
don't think I fully understand. For example one issue is down stream flooding, the opportunity area at the top
of Forest Hills is part of the Marsh Creek water shed, uphill from Glen Falls and currently being developed
however the two developments I mentioned earlier are outside of that opportunity area and are part of the Little
River watershed with no downstream flooding issues for other residents however some say they are not
supported by the Plan. As well with regards to the selection of opportunity areas is an issue that was brought
up at the PAC meeting dealing with 1429 and 1515 Loch Lomand Rd. Scott Fash a planner with Genivar group
presenting on behalf of one of the developers stated he has worked in planning in other jurisdictions and has
seen opportunity areas created before but never this specific as to where they appear to follow property
lines. He felt this gives the impression of selecting certain developers and property owners over others at the
planning level and could lead to perceived favouritism by staff.
I've attended all the P1anSJ public meetings and proN ided feedback at every opportunity given but I don't
remember a discussion about the pros and cons of specific areas. There was a meeting last October in Simonds
High where we were asked to pick between two options. One had no opportunity areas outside of the uptown,
old north end and lower west and the second option include opportunity areas West (near Monte Cristo), East
(between Forest hills and Lakewood Hts) and along Sandy Point rd bordering Rockwood Park. Of course with
the Rockwood Park development issue on the go at that time the second option had no chance and there was no
discussion of the merits of either option. It was just a show of hands and from that point on the Plan SJ
information has suggested that the public preferences would be centered around option one. I think people that
weren't at that meeting are surprised today to learn that the new plan is so restrictive and doesn't permit
development outside these very small and specific opportunity areas.
If these areas were selected because the City has invested significant money in building lift stations in Monte
Cristo or the top of Forest Hills then I think this is short sited planning and should be rn isited. The lift stations
were built outside of the Plan SJ process and although I get the fact that the City needs to recoup costs, should
that really be the determining factor when building a plan for the next 25 years and selecting where people can
live?
Another concern I have are the Opportunity areas and Primary Development Boundary conceptual or rigidly
set? I've heard some on Council state that others were interpreting the plan too literally and that the plan does
support development outside the opportunity areas that will add infrastructure if it's connected to existing
infrastructure. As well I've heard staff say the boundaries are conceptual however it appears it's still debatable
depending on how you want to interpret the plan. I would like to see development take advantage of capacity
in municipal infrastructure and this should take precedent over any arbitrary boundaries. These areas and
boundaries should be treated conceptually and with common sense.
I've been discussing a plan with staff to develop a property that would be outside the opportunity area but
would fully utilize current City infrastructure and be connected to an existing neighbourhood but have been told
the Primary Development boundary would not allow staff to support my plan. When the Primary Development
Boundary was set it goes directly through the middle of my property. I'm confused how a conceptual boundary
can be that specific and restrictive as to say these lots are in and these lots are out when I was never consulted
as the boundary was established and staff has had my preliminary plans since 2009. For this plan to be
effective it shouldn't come down to a debate between staff, PAC, Council members and residents about
interpretation of policies and boundaries that were set without property owner /developer's input. Anyone that
reads the plan for the next 25 years should clearly be able to understand what they are allowed to do within the
plan. If the plan is followed as black and white then there will be developments that make common sense like
1429 and 1515 Loch Lomand Rd and mine that won't be built because both the opportunity areas and primary
development boundary are too restrictive. If the opportunity areas and Primary development boundary are
conceptual and not to be interpreted as "black and white" then they should be that way for everyone. I'm
struggling with how support can be provided for one development with the reasoning that the Opportunity Area
61
is "Conceptual" but won't support another development in the same neighbourhood because the Primary
Development Boundary has been set. At the end of the day if the City can add development to desirable, stable
areas where people want to live and take full advantage of municipal water, sewage, roads, schools and
shopping the Plan should not stand in the way.
Respectfully submitted,
Bev Purinton
672 2944H
638 -3533W
Saint John, NB
3
62
Iii *V G J.D.Irving,'imIted
P.O. Box 5777, 300 Union Street, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada E2L 4M3
Tel.: (506) 632 -7777
November 10, 2011
Office of the Common Clerk
City of Saint John
PO Box 1971
Saint John NB, E21. 41.1
Dear Common Clerk
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the City of Saint John Municipal Plan
(2011) as presented by the PlanSJ team to Council on October 11, 2011.
This submission has been organized Into three (3) sections. Section 1.0 Speclflc Comments
outlines property - specific comments from J.D. Irving, Limited (JDI) and requested changes to
the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Section 2.0 General Comments outlines general comments
from JDI on the Plan. Section 3.0 Closing articulates JDI's intention to remain an engaged
participant in the remainder of the Municipal Plan adoption process.
1.0 SPECIFIC COMMENTS
There are three (3) areas where JDI requests changes to the Future Land Uses shown on
Schedule B of the Municipal Plan (2011). Details on each of these areas are provided below.
1.1 Irving Pulp and Paper, 408 Mill Road (PID 55162416)
The Irving Pulp and Paper property has been designated
primarily Heavy Industrial but with a 30 -metre wide band of
Park and Natural Areas along the coastline In Schedule B —
Future Land Use of the Municipal Plan (2011) as shown to
the right.
We understand that the Park and Natural Areas designation
has been applied to all lands within 30 metres of the shore
around the City in conformity with the Provincial
Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Regulation, except
where there are active marine uses (e.g. Courtney Bay, Saint -
John Port facilities, Atlantic Towing, etc).
The lands within 30 metres of the shore around the Irving Pulp and Paper Property (PID
55162416) have been designated Park and Natural Areas; however, as Identified on the
63 1
attached aerial plan and photos, and described below, there are critical structures and marine
uses within this designated area:
- There are three significant wharf structures utilized on the western side of the mill
property. Each wharf was constructed by Irving at a significant cost. These wharfs are
presently utilized for barge tie up /storage, loading and unloading of equipment brought
to the site via barge, as well as regular docking of tugs from Atlantic Towing.
- In recent years, barges were used to load out wood chips for mill operations. There are
future opportunities to reinstate the use of chip barges at the site.
In order to reduce demands on the municipal water system, future plans under
consideration include installation of a cooling system at the mill site. Given the nature
of such a system, it would be installed within the designated area and utilize shoreline
access.
- The proposed area overlaps existing operations, including building structures, drainage
systems and access roadways.
- Future expansion plans for the mill site will require significant marine use and shoreline
access on the east site of the mill property.
In this context, the shoreline and these marine uses represent a critical component to
continued mill operations at this site, In fact, the implementation of a Park and Natural Area
designation at this site would have a material adverse affect on existing mill operations. 1DI
requests that — in keeping with the approach used for other coastal properties with marine
uses — the 30 metre wide Park and Natural Areas designation of the mill property (PID
55162416) be changed to Heavy Industrial in recognition of the existing marine and heavy
industrial uses on the property.
1.2 Irving Equipment, 375 Greenhead Road (PID 00407031)
The Irving Equipment property has been designated +�
primarily Park and Natural Areas, except for a
southern portion of the property that has been
designated as Light Industrial in Schedule B -- Future
Land Use of the Municipal Plan (2011). !DI
understands that the portion of land designated as
Light Industrial is meant to reflect the footprint of the
existing Irving Equipment operation.
However, a portion of the existing operation Is
currently shown as Park and Natural Area rather than
Light Industrial. On August 28, 2008, JDI applied to
the City for approval to expand the eastern storage
d
f�
64 2
yard of the property. Approval was granted to expand the laydown area for crane apparatus
on the condition that screening would be provided in accordance with Section 830(4) of the
Zoning Bylaw on September 12, 2008. Upon receipt of approval from the City the yard was
expanded accordingly. JDI requests that the Light Industrial designation of the Irving
Equipment property be expanded to include the previously approved existing yard expansion.
1.3 Fallsview Road (PID 55141089)
This property has been designated as Park
and Natural Areas In Schedule B — Future
Land Use of the Municipal Plan (2011) as
shown to the right.
N
k
/_-
This property was originally the site of the
Murray and Gregory sawmill, sash and door -'
factory and art glass works. The site is }. l .,,.,':.;
currently partially cleared and includes some internal roadways. Under the existing Municipal
Plan, this site is primarily designated as Low Density Residential and is zoned as R2 — One and
Two Family Residential under the current zoning bylaw.
JDI is aware of the Reversing Rapids Master Plan that was created in 2010. This plan presents a
long term vision for continued development of Harbour Passage and creation of a tourism
destination centered on the Reversing Falls Rapids. It Is understood that the JDI Fallsview Road
property (PID 55141089) was included within this study. The Reversing Rapids Master Plan is a
long term plan with a cost estimate of over $35 million, not including costs for necessary land
acquisitions. Implementation of this plan Is dependant on securing matching Provincial and
Federal Government funds that have not been secured.
While JDI is generally supportive of the overall plan and some of its elements, we believe it is
speculative and premature to change the designation of the JDI Fallsview property from Low
Density Residential to Park and Natural Areas at this time. The property is located within the
Primary Development Area and in proximity to key development centres, Harbourview High
School, existing park space and existing residential areas. The property value and potential for
future residential development should not be eliminated by a Park and Natural Areas
designation at this time, particularly when there is no indication that the necessary Provincial
or Federal Government funding has or will be secured for implementation of the Reversing
Rapids Master Plan.
JDI requests that the designation of this property be changed to Stable Residential, in keeping
with current zoning and the designation of several other properties In the immediate area. If
and when funding is In place to move ahead, JDI would be willing to consider an appropriate
Plan amendment at that time to facilitate implementation of the Reversing Rapids Master Plan.
65 3
2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
Overall, JDI is pleased with the Municipal Plan (2011). We applaud the significant time and
effort that the City has devoted to this project. Although we recognize that work remains to be
done, the document is generally well written and takes bold steps to move Saint John in a new
direction.
We appreciate the opportunity to have been actively engaged throughout the past 18 months
of the PIanSJ process and would recommend that the City adopt a similar approach during
subsequent reviews of the Plan. It is important that opportunities to participate early on in the
process are available, particularly as implementation of the Plan progresses.
3.0 CLOSING
The JDI team intends to remain an active participant in the remainder of the Municipal Plan
adoption process and looks forward to being engaged in subsequent planning efforts including
the Zoning By -Law review and the preparation of secondary plans.
We thank you for your consideration and look forward to your response.
Attachments (3)
cc: Jacqueline Hamilton, Ken Forrest
Yours truly,
w
Chris MacDonald
Director, Government Relations
At
te
I it
t4
Qai4t
I r jr
A4 k.
ly
Z OY
�77
t i—k-
Irving PULP & Paper shoreline
67
. l i'
I '
.•
-a fl
Ina
r
4a
v
r - r a
■ J � '�rA ' � '�
r
A N�
r�
7
J
4-hww,
.
i' _ � �► �` .� fir` ' - '7""'�P°
At
i ,•; � • 1
HORST SAUERTEIG
88 RAell Ave., saint John, N.B... F2K 2C4, phone (506) 658 -1326, e-mail sauertwo .sy,?nMUt w.oa
November 7, 2011
To the Office of the Common Clerk of the City of Saint John
Att.: Ms. Elizabeth Gormley. Common Clerk
Re.: Comments on the proposed Municipal Plan (the MP)
Dear Ms. Gormley,
The Office of P1anSJ advised me to address comments on the proposed Municipal Plan to
you. Should this be a misunderstanding I would appreciate if you would redirect my
comments to the correct person(s).
The Municipal Plan is for a period of 25 years. Considering that long time predictions for
the development of a City are more or less guesswork, it seems to me that such a plan has
to show flexibility in its philosophy and its execution, i.e. in its by -laws. If a by -law rules
that for the next 25 years one can build a house only in specific areas of the city, the
rationale for such a limitation of choice has to be explained, or prospective house owners
and - builders might decide to move outside the City where no such restrictions exist. But
the MP does not explain very well the rationale for this restriction of free movement.
The MP could eliminate this real possibility of losing prospective residents if it would
allow more flexibility in the criterion for building permits, which should not be based on
the "Future Land Use Plan" but on the capacity of the existing infrastructure. This would
limit houses, or whole developments, to be built only where they can be serviced by
existing (!) water- and sewer lines. The cost of new streets, with new water -and sewer
lines, if they are needed, would be paid for by the developer, who would get a permit
only if the existing water- and sewer lines have the capacity to absorb the additional
load. This could be taken one step further. When ageing existing pipes have to be replac-
ed and a developer has suitable vacant land close by, he or she could get a permit to
develop this land if they are prepared to pay the cost increase for the installation of larger
diameter pipes which could carry the additional load of the new development.
I wonder if the MP could be a bit more specific when considering "mixed occupation ".
I predict that the 6- bedroom 5' /z- baths houses now in vogue will eventually fall out of
fashion and that some, and probably other houses in other areas as well, could be conver-
ted into offices and other uses which would not unduly impact upon the neighbourhood,
provided the by -law allows for such a flexibility. It would be great if one could walk or
bicycle to work, or move his business out of his basement to the house next door. It might
also give a family who lives near such an enterprise and looks for a second income this
opportunity, because public transportation to farther away work is often not available.
70
I am a bit sceptical about your plans for the Inner City. I wrote to P1anSJ before that this
should primarily be a place for business in daytime and for entertainment at night. It is no
place to bring up a family. The children have no place to play or for sport, and even the
schools and any after school activities are problematic. The housewife has to drive to the
suburbs for practically all household needs, parking is a problem, and it also costs more
to life downtown than in the suburbs. This is compounded in the Heritage Conservation
Area by unrealistic building restrictions which make this area more of a museum than of
a vibrant part of the city, The concept of the future Inner City should be reconsidered.
The Rockwood Park / Sandy Point Road area had been left out of the planning process
because some zoning controversy had to be settled. This was eventually accomplished,
but Rockwood Park still does not get the special consideration in the MP which it should
have, being a truly unique asset for all SJ residents and a renowned attraction for tourists
and visitors. If the City goes to quite some length to make the Inner City a show -place for
the Tourist industry it should equally promote and protect the Park. As a start, in the MP
Section 7.5 Natural Areas & Land' the terms "Habitat Area" and "Open Spaces" are used
but not defined in the MP's Glossary or anyplace else. This will, however, become very
important when the Park has to be defended again against new attempts by developers to
take chunks out of it for profitable housing developments. It certainly is not reassuring if
Policy NE -22 speaks of "limiting development" in habitat areas and open spaces. The MP
has to be unequivocal in that there shall be no housing of any kind in the Park, ever.
These are a few comments which, however, should not disparage a job well done by the
team P1anSJ, supported by the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Planning Department
with their Consultants. They all have earned our commendation and congratulation.
For the implementation of the many "policies" which make up the MP, the cooperation
between the professional teams and the public has to continue. The devil is in the detail,
and we saw in the Rockwood Park proceedings that the public is not always in agreement
with the Planning Department, and for good reasons. This has to be a community effort.
The public should at least have, at predetermined intervals, the opportunity to comment,
as other parties will try to persuade the professionals and local politicians to take care of
their special interests in respective by -laws. The future of our city depends to a large
degree on how the "policies" of the MP are transformed into by -laws which will convert
its ideas into workable reality, for the benefit of all the citizens of Saint John for 25 years.
Respectfully,
r
(H. Sauerteig)
2
71
Chown, Jeanne
�,-,F
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: November -14 -11 9.44 AM
To: Chown, Jeanne
Subject: FW. Strong Objection!!!
From: Jane McKIel [ mailto:ajanemckiel @hotmail.com)
Sent: November -10 -11 4:22 PM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: Strong Objection!,!
Please be advised that we are filing a strong objection to plan SJ's idea of future Land Use. This proposed plan adversely
affects all our land in Red Head (aprox. 50 acres in total). It basically takes away all our rights as landowners who have
paid taxes, and supported this City for years, I might add! We are shocked that you would consider our front field as
Park and Natural Area, when the Province of N.B. has all ready addressed this area in their wellfield act -- mandated by
the Federal Government, I believe. Continuing behind the house to the rest of our land plan SJ identifies this as heavy
industrial. So, we can't do anything with this piece of property either. Heavy industrial is certainly not conducive to this
area's health and well being, and certainly not ours.
At this point in time, we are sorry that we have worked in this city, lived in this city, raised our children in this city AND
paid taxes in this city. This sweeping plan is just another example of why people give up and choose to move outside the
city limits!
Jane McKiel
Doug McKiel
90 Eden Street
Saint John, N.B.
E2P 1Ci
1
72
Chown, Jeanne
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent November -14- 119:45 AM
To: Chown, Jeanne
Subject FW: plan sj
From: m carpenter [mailbo:safeplaysj@gmall.com]
Sent: November -10 -11 4:56 PM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: plan sj
Date: November 10, 2011
To: Plan SJ commonclerk@a saintiohn.ca
Cc: Mayor & Council
From: Mazy Ellen Carpenter
I am dissatisfied with the Plan SJ Public Input process. Saint John is Canada's largest, most diverse,
geographic city so a meaningful request for public input without some form of regional representation is an
exercise in futility.
I attended four Plan SJ public sessions. I hand delivered, emailed and faxed two reports for which I have not
yet received an acknowledgement of receipt. I was insulted at the seminar held at Barnhill School when our
group was reprimanded several times for concentrating too much on the West Side. One gets the impression
the plan was finalized before public input was sought.
Transportation is the lifeblood of any community. Goods must get to market, commodities to the home and
people to work and play. Ease of access/egress is the infrastructure on which economic prosperity is based.
Beyond recognition that Main St W, Fairville Blvd and the Provincial highway are major traffic
arteries connecting the two West Side links across the river, I saw no Plan SJ strategy to address West Side
transportation priorities: pedestrian safety, transit accessibility, antiquated convoluted truck routes, and the
escalating restrictive access across the Harbour Bridge.
I am currently compiling a West Side Parks, Recreation & Tourism report commissioned by SJWBA that will
include an evaluation of the catastrophic transit route changes to be implemented in December of this year. I'll
ensure Plan SJ receives a copy.
73
Mary Ellen Carpenter
389 Duke St W
f•` 1.�� `I: 9N"VO[i[!
z
74
Tibbits, Kell
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 8:42 AM
To: Tibbits, Kelly
Subject: FW: PlanSJ
From: Latimore Lake Community Center [mailto:latimorelake @gmail.com]
Sent: November -05 -11 9:20 PM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: Plan5J
To whom it may concern;
I am writing to address my concerns about P1anSJ. I have been a resident of Saint John for 52 years, my
husband 62 years. I have resided in Latimore Lake with my present family for the past 36 years. I belies a in
progress, and have watched our city grow. My husband and I decided to move to Latimore Lake to raise our
children because we enjoyed the country setting, and believed the air in our community was much healthier to
breath, and we enjoyed the quiteness within our community, not to mention less traffic on the roads, making it
saffer for our children. We have invested everything we have in our home. For the past twelve years, we have
seen our community bombarded with gravel pits in our area. You would not believe what we have had to deal
with due to the expanded gravel pits in our area. The noise, dust, heavy truck traffic, and deteriation of our
health! It is not healthy living in these conditions.What is even worse, is that our city cannot regulate the by-
laws to make sure these companies are running their opperations legally.The residents in our area, as well as
residents in the surrounding areas, have let City Council know numerous times,how disappointed we are from
the prospect of Saint John using our community as a prime area for agrigate. We pay taxes the same as the rest
of the city, but we certainly do not get the same services. We have felt like second hand citizens for some time
now.The people that run these pits do not reside in reside in our area, but have the right to crucify our
community, taking away our health as well as depreciating the value of our homes! We have also lost our
community police officer! What about our road conditions due to the haevy truck traffic in our area. The cith
has yet fixed our roads that was suppose to be done a few years ago.We do not want our area designated for any
more gravel opperations, and if your new piansj is propposing to do this to the people in our community, than
buy us out so we can move elsewhere. We keep hearing how the city wants more homes built to collect more
taxes for our city.Why aren't homes being built in our community where the agrigate is being removed? Was
there not a plan in place for homes to be built in this area when this city gave out permits to allows these
companies to remove there agrigate? We certainly have not seen this happening in our community as yet! What
about the homes that are already here that you have been collecting taxes from for years? Do you think you
have the right to make decissions within our community without considering how it will effect our lives! We
also dont't believe we should be told where in this city we should live or build. That should be left to our
discretion. As we stated earlier, we chose to live in Latimore Lake and you collect taxes from us as well as the
rest of the city area, but again i'll stress, we do not recieve the same services but pay the same amount of
taxes.I'm sorry I could not attend the public meetings that were available to discuss our concerns, but I want you
to know that my family as well as the residents in our community do not want our area designated as an agrigate
area. I'm sure there are other ways for our city to obtain agrigate! We believe that residents are the best resorce
for our city, not dirt! So please respect the people in our community, and do not use our area for a designated
area for more pits. Could you please send me verification that you have recieved our letter, as well as when your
finall decission will be publc.
Sincerly;
75
Odette and Tim McGrath
31 Lackie Road,
Saint John, N.B.
E2N 1 X6
(506) 696 -7228
76
Tibbits, Kell
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 11:02 AM
To: Tibbits, Kelly
Subject: FW: Plan Sj
Would you add this to the municipal plan feedback?
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: John E. Horgan [ mailto :jhorgan @belmontfinancial.com]
Sent: October -13 -11 7 :18 PM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: Plan Sj
Disappointed with plansj by eliminating poetential development for small landowners this has
reduced property value. This should be reflected in tax bills or it will be an issue next
May.
John Horgan
696 -2339
Sent from Samsung Mobile
1
77
Tibbits, Kelly
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 11 :02 AM
To: Tibbits, Kelly
Subject: FW: COMMENTS - PLAN SJ
Here is another for the 30 day timeframe for municipal plan feedback
From: Mike & Cathy Long [mai Ito: mlong @nb.sympatico.ca]
Sent: October -15 -11 9:10 AM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: COMMENTS - PLAN SJ
THE PLAN SJ CONCEPT /PLAN IS DISCRIMINATORY TO LANDOWNERS WITHIN OUTER CITY (EPANDED IN 1967)
LIMITS. EITHER SAME INCENTIVES AND SUPPORT OF DEVELOPMENT OF LAND SHOULD BE AVAILABLE
OTHERWISE TIERED TAXATION MATCHING LESS SERVICE /REPRESENTATION AGAINST TAXATION PER
1000.VALUE.
THE PLAN DISCOURAGES DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WITHIN CITY LIMITS WHERE SOME PEOPLE WANT TO
RESIDE AND /OR BUILD HOMES (OUTSIDE OF FOG BELT ,ALONG THE TWO RIVER SYSTEMS AND BAYS. YOU
CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO LIVE IN THE SOUTH END,NORrTH END OR LOWER WEST OR NEAR EAST SIDE!
WITH PREVIOUS MUNICIPAL PLAN OF 1973 CITY PLANNERS.COUNCILS ETC.. IMPOSED HIGHER COST TO
DEVELOP AND RED TAPE EFFECTIVELY FORCED DEVELOPERS TO EXPLOIT OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS THUS THE
BUSTLING COMMUNITIES OF GRAND BAY AND QUIS /ROTHESAY ETC.. OF TODAY, WE MISSED THAT BOAT!!!
PLEASE RE- CONSIDER AND PLAN TO AVOID MAKING SAME MISTAKE AGAIN WITH PLAN SJ IN IT'S PRESENT.
CONTINUING THE PREDJUDICE AGAINST OUTLYING AREAS BUT STILL WITHIN CITY LIMITS (FORGOTTEN
AREAS) OF SAINT JOHN SINCE AMALGAMATION. GOLDEN GROVE,LOCH LOMOND < SOUTH BAY THRU
MARTINION AND RED HEAD DESERVE BETTER SERVICE AND SUPPORT IN DEVELOPMENT OR LOWER TAXES
IF CONTINUING OLD WAYS IN NEW PLAN.
Yours Truly;
Michael G. Long
Tibbits, Kelly
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:57 AM
To: Tibbits, Kelly
Subject: FW: Plan SJ
From: Vern Stiles [mailto:vern.e @live.ca) ^
Sent: November -01 -11 6:53 PM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: Plan 53
As a long time resident of Saint John and specifically East Saint John, I was shocked & dismayed recently when council
turned down zoning for two separate zoning applications on properties off the Loch Lomond Road,
While I sympathize with the Planning Departments desire to encourage in -fill housing in already serviced lots, a large part
and most likely a majority of the citizens of Saint John who want to purchase a new home, want to live in an area where
there is a little bit of vegetation (grass & trees) in their front yard and not just a concrete sidewalk.
Also, these two developments would have provided residents with a choice of different developer and not limit it to only
one developer who seems to have the majority of new starts in the East sides serviced lots.
I live in a non - serviced area but I also sympathize with the cities desire to limit non serviced lots, but these two
developments would have had to provide such services.
To summarize my feelings on this subject I would offer the following: If we do not allow & approve developments such as
these, we will be chasing residents who want to build a quality home in a east side of the city , out to the K- Valley where
they welcome such developments. If we don't allow these types of development, our future will be limited population
growth & increased taxes which most do not want.
Thank You,
Vernon Stiles
65 Aspen St
Saint John, NB
E2N1P9
506 - 696 -3001
79
Tibbits, Kelly
From: Taylor, Jonathan on behalf of External - CommonClerk
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 8:42 AM
To: Tibbits, Kelly
Subject: FW: Municipal Plan Feedback
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Ron Watters [mailto:wattersr @nbnet.nb.ca]
Sent: November -06 -11 8:06 PM
To: External - CommonClerk
Subject: Municipal Plan Feedback
As requested, I am submitting feedback to the Saint John municipal plan.
I feel the plan does not properly address the opportunity to develop the UNBSJ /regional
hospital area. Most cities would develop a showcase environment around an area such as this,
given the multitude of newcomers to Saint John that dwell or travel to the
hospital /university. To most of them, their impression of Saint John is based on the quality
of services provided in the area around and near to the complex.
To that end I recommend that special attention be given to that area. If I look at what is
there now I see:
- a badly deteriorated University ave and Sandy Pt. road network
- recent new concrete sidewalk on one side of University Ave., but poor condition asphalt on
the other side. No pedestrian walkway on Sandy Pt. road.
- no traffic light X -walks or intersections, eg, at the intersection at Varsity St and
University Ave. Those many who are visiting our city to study or work at the hospital should
not be put in harms way while trying to cross 4 lanes on University Avenue without the
assistance of a crossing light.
- badly deteriorated streets and sidewalks around the adjoining community of Varsity St. and
Craig Cres.
The university area including the adjoining 52 homes on Craig Cres. and Varsity street, are
home to many foreign students and immigrating medical staff. The general area should be a
showcase for the best of what the city has to offer people... which is what other successful
cities do to their university /hospital areas with many positive results.
Please consider this as you define and execute the municipal plan.
Ron Watters
52 Varsity St.
Sent from my iPhone
:1
Saint John Planning
City of Saint John
New Brunswick
RE: Schedule B - Future Land Use
According to the map on the above schedule you are planning to
extend McAllister Industrial Park to Woodlawn Subdivision. Last
week you had a meeting of the Wellfield Protection Program.
This Program should be extended to and including all of Debly
Sub - division. All the residents of the greater Red Head area
should be protected not just a few.
Since the extension of Bayside Drive we know that Irving has
purchased a lot of the land in this area all the way to Canaport and
beyond. After this extension was concluded Red Head has become
and "Industrial Park" area instead of a Residential area further
eroding our quality of life.
DAVID G. GRIFFIN
m
RECEIVED , �G
COMMON CLERK'S OFFICE
NOV 1 Q[u i?
CITY OF SAINT JOHN
IVIAH-4 STREET BAPTIST CHURCH
Pastors: Rob Nylen, Renee Embree, Joe Page, John Knight
211 Main Street, Saint John, NB E2K 1H7
506 642 -8060
www.mainstreetbaaptist.ca
November 9, 2011
Common Council
City of Saint John
15 Market Square, PO Box 1971
Saint John, NB E21- 41-1
RE. MUNICIPAL PLAN
Main Street Baptist Church Development
Your Worship and Counselors:
We are writing to express our concern about the impact that the proposed Municipal Plan may have on
our proposed development.
Currently our church is operated out of a facility on Main Street in the north end. For the past few years
we have been working toward building a new facility off of Forbes Drive. The proposal includes a new
church building as well as a residential component. We have been through the rezoning process,
preliminary planning and have begun detailed design on Phase 1 of the development which will be a
new church.
As shown on the attached sketch, the new location is in an area designated in the draft Municipal Plan
as a "Stable Area" and is presently zoned as Institutional. We propose a mixed use development
comprising the church and mixed residential. In line with the definition of Stable Area, the proposed
development is seen as being consistent with the current character of the neighbourhood and
enhancing the completeness of the community. The proposed residential development component
would be consistent with the existing higher density developments within close proximity.
It should be noted that although our church will be operated out of the new facility, we do not plan on
abandoning operations in the north end. The current facility on Main Street will continue to provide
community outreach with many of our programs as well as some new ones being operated out of that
location. We will continue to have a presence in the north end and remain committed to that
neighbourhood.
We respectfully request consideration of the details provided herein and that they be accommodated in
the final version of the Municipal Plan. Although we believe that our proposed development does fit
within the category being proposed, we want to ensure that no impediments to our current plans are
imposed based on an oversight or misunderstanding.
Sincer
ZG—erry Mab
:.
HUGHES
HUGHES SURVEYS & CONSULTANTS INC.
NB LAND SURVEYORS, CONSULTING ENGINEERS
November 8, 2011
Common Council
City of Saint John
15 Market Square, PO Box 1971
Saint John, NB E21.41.1
RE., Municipal Plan — Submission on behalf of Bursa Ventures Ltd.
Your Worship and Members of Common Council:
Our Job#: YO-537 -R
We are writing on behalf of our client, Barsa Ventures Ltd., who have carried out a number of projects in
the City of Saint John, most notable being Cambridge Estates Subdivision in Millidgeville. The reason for
our writing is to relay concerns with the impact of the proposed Municipal Plan on that development.
The attached "Municipal Plan Potential Impacts on Cambridge Estates" outline provides background
information on initial phases of the project, activities undertaken towards future development areas and
outlines concerns with respect to the Municipal Plan's impact on future development plans. It also
notes suggested actions /changes that could be made to address the concerns.
It should be noted that the investments and past performance of our client demonstrates a long term
commitment to the community backed by substantial expenditures as he continues to invest in
Cambridge Estates and its future development.
We respectfully request consideration of the details provided and that adjustments be made to the
proposed Municipal Plan, specifically with respect to the location of the "Urban Reserve" classification
designated for the future development area of Cambridge Estates.
Yours truly,
HU SURVEYS & CO ULTANTS INC.
chard urner
RET /ms
Enclosure
c.c. Kemal Debly
Rod Gillis
575 CROWN STREET, SAINT JOHN, NB E21, 5E9 (506) 634 -1717 FAX (506) 634 -0759
83
Municipal Plan Impacts on Ca brid a Estates Subdivision
Developer — Barsa Ventures Ltd. Saint John New Brunswick
Background
The developer of Cambridge Estates, Barsa Ventures Ltd., began investing in the area In 2002.
When Hughes Surveys was engaged they were requested to do a master plan for the entire
property. As a result of the master plan being prepared there were a number of boundary
adjustments with adjoining properties and other acquisitions that made sense in order to
assure the feasibility of the project. Some of the transactions involved acquiring land from the
City of Saint John and setting out natural areas to be controlled by the City with respect to
natural areas and flood control. Barsa Ventures Ltd. willingly participated in following up with
the master plan concepts.
To date Barsa Ventures Ltd. has developed over 70 home sites with over SO housing units now
constructed. Cambridge Estates has proven to be a popular neighbourhood with a suburban
feel. It has attracted residents of both Rothesay and Quispamsis who see Cambridge Estates as
an attractive development offering a comparable life style and homes as they enjoyed in their
prior neighbourhoods. Approximately 30 % of the residents of Cambridge Estates previously
resided in the Kennebecasis Valley.
The tax base created in Cambridge Estates thus far is assessed at over $12,000,000, Moving
into the upper plateau of the property, where view planes of Grand Bay and the Kennebecasis
River can be achieved, will be even more attractive. It is the developer's goal to develop this
area next as it assures continued interest from the Kennebecasis Valley residents as people look
to move closer to the city core but maintain a comparable life style and homes of a quality that
they have lived with over the years.
Activities Undertaken Towards Future Development Areas
As stated above the developer has taken a long -range view with respect to Cambridge Estates
from its inception. There has been a strong focus on immediate, short-term and long -term
development of the property and investing in the future. This being done in a manner that
minimizes disruption to those who have already chose Cambridge Estates as their home.
The activities undertaken towards future development areas are, but not limited to, those
outlined below;
+ Cher- sizing of infrastructure to accommodate development of future development
areas.
01
Strategic land assembly and trades of property to maintain the feasibility of the project.
Note, a portion of the land assembly Included land owned by the City of Saint John as a
result of a development proposal by the municipality.
• The future development area was rezoned in 2005 as part of a long -term strategy for
substantial capital investments.
• A focus of the rezoning in 2005 which is outlined in the application is as follows: "The
developer of the property is in the process of completing a long -range business plan and
marketing strategy for the property. In order to reach the upper plateaus of the
property a substantial investment must be made....."
"The developer of this site has committed to a 15 to 20 year project which Is a
substantial commitment to the City of Saint John and Millidgeville Community. Long -
range planning is necessary to assure the viability of the project as It goes forward.
Within the next five years the developer Intends to make a substantial upfront
investment therefore knowing the long -range prospects of the property is essential."
• Based on the rezoning approval in 2005 the developer has undertaken preliminary
designs for the future development area.
• Based on the rezoning the developer has undertaken preliminary engineering design of
an access road in order to determine access requirements and approach required.
• A substantial cut and fill operation has been undertaken in order to prepare an access
point to access the rear of the property and its higher plateaus.
• Acquisition of strategic properties on the proposed access road were negotiated and
acquired in order to assure the future for feasibility of constructing an access.
These activities have amounted to a substantial investment
Concerns with respect to the Municipal Plan's impact on Future Development Plans
The main concern with the Municipal Plan as presently proposed is that it indicates the future
development area for the Cambridge Estates Development as "Stable Area" or "Urban
Reserve ". Ongoing financing of projects requires a degree of certainty which financial
institutions rely on the zoning and /or Municipal Plan designations of properties as determining
factors as to whether to finance projects. The Municipal Plan as presently set out places the
property in a state of "limbo ". The adoption of the Municipal Plan would designate the most
desirable portion of the property as an "Urban Reserve ", not to be developed within the next
twenty -five years and could potentially result in it being rezoned by Council in the future.
SMested Actions /changes to the PrQoosed MMniclual Plan
In order to facilitate the ongoing development of Cambridge Estates as a popular suburban
Saint John neighbourhood we propose as follows;
o Expand the Suburban Neighbourhood Intensification Area "M" to include Cambridge
Estates or,
• Show Cambridge Estates as a separate Suburban Neighbourhood Intensification Area.
Respectfully submitted,
Hughe Surveys & Con ultants Inc.
6 Richar urner
On behalf of Barsa Ventures Ltd.
0
CANTERMuRY OZVELCPMEf urG LTD.
3 D Wd hoard, ROMWWy, Now Mu mvic k r28 1A7
f I l�rlephon4 605- 847,29D0
errtaN: �4 svesfopmants,eem
November W, 2011
Common Coundl
City of Stint John
15 Market Square, Po Box 1971
Saint John, MR E21. 411-1
W. Prnpase+d mrn%rjpd iw — FlIsm and akskY Drhre De,,k nrent
Your War* p Mayor Court and Members of Corn mon Council,
The ProPosad Munidpad Plant Is a bold and smerhtgiy necessary move being proposed. I agree with
many of the general princOgs but have aonterrrs diet opportunities maybe tort if the plan does not
provide a degree of flemb" for Intel Prokctsr ewpeciatWy fully serviced Brownfield sleet. A Case In
Point Is a protect on OreWuV MW we have spent a number of years Preparing to proceed with
krwwn as PW fl 55093963 & 55172066.
The attached correspondence outlines the Ievel of effort we have Put Into this site and our
reasoning as to why it would be beneficial to enwumga its dmmbpntent but to briefly iMustrate a
flew of the primary points the site is:
APw 0) acre ftmw :8W appwE uft site vjM over 9iD16► fled of rzxa wy reh ulik ov[mbed ored
uNdW,utRred WOW rands+ wr iilnea vita rg tiWONO it jiountlnp an an WdMbrp Pak* SO MI !h
an arse fW has oft e101001W seryfm and canoes arrarkIlWIC(me eM49 attaabraent cod
ragdr far moo dalaJL
it is widen. mcogntwd that one of the best inrvestfna t opportunities that can be encouraged by a
muWdpaltty is the redevelopment of a B ownf!ield site, The bei *ff am even greater when the site
is In the urban eNter core area that already is being WWded with essential services and
° ncm Such err OPPwWnfty exists with the above noted Property. We have made a
wbstan teal f conxnfmnent toward ft and would tike to see our Irnesmm mme to fruition.
We remntiy received rWC@ that the city In: In the process of estabiisldng a PumPing station
adjacent to etQ Property as part of the harbour deanup ktMWve. For the last seven years we have
CLAW Out oilier pm)aets white waiting for harbour cleanup to take place. We are pleased to see
that the lydrastmcture Inyastment is underway for this area of the dtY and we would welcome the
opportunity to moot forward with a project that would tdGm It This would enable us to cue
is the trennendaus cost lrtvested by the city for harbour cleanup thrvvO payment of water and
sewer timer fees to the utlRty budget red expanded tax base.
We were dfsappointed that we were not given the opporWnity to meet with the Plan 51 car
SUltants
and .naive a presentation to the Cltiaem Advisory Comfttm (CAQ as we had requested in our
submission of January 10, 2011. if we had been able to make a presm tatioh wee believe the melt
of our proposal nvay hove been reflected more Paalthrely in the Munidpar Plan Praopmai you are
cons;dering.
1:11
As the prOtm roes outwa remain une-kor as to wtiether the proposed Wntdpal Plan is supportive
of the development of this sRe. The designation of 'Stable Area"' gives us We comfort as to
whether our proposed project fits the Municipal Plan Proposal. We believe It fits the tr teda. Do
you agree? This Is a questtOn t would Mm darMed by Council or staff.
It would be our preferertte to have the Chmtey grave Brownfield six given a more definitive
desinatlon. Wf rOsPectfully request the iolbwing desigrw Ims In the Munikl Plan be
considered:
ij On Schedule A- Designate It as an eKlension to 'Arm I — l L%W Use Center"', or
- Designate it as an exbenslon to 'Arm E-- Primary Carder^
Mar of these desWvflions vAxdd be tnmpattble with the sues present Integrated Development
xon tg.
2) On Wmdule B deslg» ate it as an exte ngan to the `Medium to Magi Der Reslderntiar
da"CIRIDA extending from the North End to Chedey Drive where our site Is tocated.
TTh.��{Y-
an�k voy'u for y= oonslcte sum
CANTUOURY DEWLiOP'MeM LTO.
Richard Tumer
E;1;a
Chown, Jeanne
From: Hamilton, Jacqueline
Sent: January-11- 119:09 AM
To: 'Rick Turner
Subject: RE: Chesley Drive Site Resubmission of Information
Rick,
Thanks for your response. The PIanSJ team and the Citizen's Advisory Committee will be carefully considering all input
in developing the final growth strategy.
All the best,
Jacqueline
From: Rick Turner [mailto:turners @nbnet.nb.ca]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 201111:57 PM
To: Hamilton, Jacqueline
Cc: Forrest, Ken; Pollock, Randy
Subject: Chesley Drive Site Resubmisslon of Information
Jacqueline,
Thank you for your response dated Dec 2, 2010 to my submission with respect to our proposed plans for Chesley Drive
and your offer to further discuss my concerns and suggestions. The purpose of my writing previously was to have our
site considered for designated as an Opportunity Area or a Committed Development Site.
What prompted my previous communication was what was presented at a public session for Plan Si. I was surprised to
see, when mapping was presented to the public, that our Chesley Drive site was not designated as an Opportunity Area
considering its many positive attributes. That being said I was further surprised when I noted the site was also not
labeled as a Committed Development Site. As my previous submission, which was brief, was rejected I felt it necessary
to prepare this follow up reply.
I understand staffs rational for only going back 10 years for purposes of doing your calculations. I think a more
important factor is whether the "Committed Developments" from the past are actually being pursued. This warrants
consideration. The benefits the committed sites bring to the city should also be weighed and I will address this through
two questions. What committed sites are best for the city? What committed sites are being actively pursued?
First to the question 'What committed sites are best for the ci ?"
The Chesley Drive site has the following attributes that are positive from a development standpoint as compared to
most other Committed Development Sites:
• It is an area that was included in the Inner Harbour Plan and has been promoted as a residential opportunity
area
The site is presently zoned Integrated Development (I -D) with Section 39 conditions approved by Common
Council by Resolution dated May 4, 1992 (we require a further predevelopment Section 39 amendment)
• Existing water and sewer services run through the complete length of the site that were rebuilt in the 199{Ys
with capacity for the project
+ Because of its close proximity to the harbour storm water retention issues are minimal therefore will not
contribute to flooding
• Natural gas and adequate utility infrastructure are adjacent to the site
• The site has a topographic separation from existing Douglas Avenue properties thus minimizing its impact on
the existing established stable neighbourhood
• The site is in the Harbour Passage capture area
The site connects directly to an arterial roadway for access
• This is a prime example of potential Brownfield development that can enhance tax base and utilize existing
services at minimal cost to the municipality
As compared to many of the other committed sites the Chesley Drive site has superior attributes and does not have
many of the negative aspects such as requiring servicing extensions, pumping stations or contributing to outright sprawl
or "scatterization" as I have heard it referred to. The subject area is a Brownfield Site highly suited to infill development.
it became vacant through urban renewal initiatives in the 1950's.
Secondly to the question "What committed sites are being actively oursued?"
Our level of commitment to the development of Chesley Drive has been consistently moving forward since we acquired
the site though a city proposal call. This has not taken place without some setbacks along the way. Some of the steps
we have taken to clearthe site for development are as follows:
• After at least 2 proposal calls Canterbury Developments Ltd. acquired the site when it was offered by the city for
development proposals
• We have investigated municipal infrastructure and made provisions for easements in favor of the City of Saint
John
• Applied under the "Stopping Up and Closing of Streets" to have a physically abandoned street incorporated into
our plans (Edward Street)
• Acquired Edward Street once closing was completed which went through a Public Hearing process
• Various conceptual design plans and costing have been reviewed with city staff
• After selecting a conceptual design had a rendering prepared that was submitted to the Waterfront
Development Partnership. Subsequently our site was included in the inner Harbour Land Use Plan and
Implementation Strategy prepared by Urban Strategies Inc. as was proposed as a potential development site
We are currently working on building and suite layouts with respect too costing
• Environmental work is completed
• Currently in the process of having a transportation engineer address site access requirements
2
90
Negotiating with a longterm user for the proposed Phase 1 building in preparation for finalizing Section 39
predevelopment provisions.
Most of these activities have taken place in the last 10 years or less and are completed or currently being actively
pursued. A major setback came in 2004 when in effect a moratorium was placed on projects discharging untreated
sewage through the municipal system direct to the harbour. Background on this is in the Planning and Development
Departments files for 430 Prince Street West. The Department of Environment took a position at that time that "N.&
Department of Environment and Local Government advised that the proponent should not proceed with the
development of the site (430 Prince Street West) without the provision of water and sewage (collection and treatment)
by the developer or the Municipality. The Department would confirm that an Approval to Construct, issued by the
Minister may be required prior to construction of the necessary infrastructure to ensure sewage treatment.
This effectively placed our project and various others around the city on hold until it could be confirmed that treatment
of sewage could be provided with commitments on dates. It was apparent that no further new development would be
able to proceed until arrangements for a project like Harbour Cleanup were in place. This being the case, we pursued
two other projects through a partnership arrangement; the development of an existing site at 37 Somerset Street for a
21 unit apartment building and the Blue Rock Residences Project in West Saint John which contains 52 apartment units.
These projects are completed, Harbour Cleanup is now underway and we are once again concentrating our efforts on
moving the Chesley Drive site forward, possibly through a partnership arrangement.
I would be pleased to meet with your department and your consultants so there is a clear understanding of each other's
position. I would also appreciate the opportunity to make a presentation to the Citizens Advisory Committee as I
understand they are an important component to the decision making process. I have in the past and continue to have
good support in the community for following through on our development plans. Surely this is a reflection of the
community's interest in the site.
With respect to current status Section 39 predevelopment conditions a statutory amendment is required and we have
been preparing for it. We are presently not ready to make the application but can be in a relatively short timeframe,
would much sooner make the application with the support of the Plan Sl team with respect to future direction of the
plan. Based on the context of current by -laws and the status of the site 1 would expect the amendments would be
positively received. This does bring to mind a question I would like addressed. At what stage does the Municipal Plan
go before Common Council? Will there be opportunity for public input, comments or a submission at that time or is
that later in the process?
When applying to have the predevelopment Section 39 conditions finalized an aspect of the application will be to
reduce the scale of the previous proposal to reflect a transition between the various uses that exist in the immediate
area. I will not elaborate in this communication but if more information is required to further explain this please advise.
The Chesley Drive site is warranted to be reflected as an Opportunity Area or a Committed Development Site in the
Municipal Plan. With a better understanding of the intent of these designations I would be in a position to suggest our
preference should it be considered as appropriate. Since using a 10 year cutoff date for Committed Development Sites
serves no legal precedence I respectfully request consideration of this submission based on the information provided
and my offer to make presentations as outlined above.
My previous submission is appended below for the convenience of the reader(s). A copy of the site diagram and site
rendering will be forwarded under separate cover. i look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully submitted,
CANTERBURY DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
Richard Turner
3
91
TEXT OF PREVIOUS SUBMISSION BY CANTERBURY DEVELOPMENTS LTD. BELOW
Hi Jacqueline and Cindy,
Further to the Oct. 14th Plan SJ sessions I just want to bring to your attention a site that I believe should be included in
the Opportunity Area adjacent to the inner harbour. The property is known as PID # 5$093983. This is a significant
Harbourfront/view site containing over 2 hectares in area. Following is my response to the question "Would you add or
make changes to the OpportunityAreas ?" as it relates to this property.
The reasons I believe it should be Included as an opportunity area are as follows:
- It is an area that was included in the Inner Harbour Plan and has been promoted as a
residential opportunity area
The site is presently zoned integrated Development (I -D) with Section 39 conditions approved
by Common Council by Resolution dated May 4, 1992 (we may require a further Section 39
amendment)
- Concept plans have been developed
- Existing water and sewer services run through the complete length of the site that were
rebuilt in the 1990's with capacity for the project
Because of its close proximity to the harbour storm water retention issues are minimal
- Natural gas and adequate utility infrastructure are adjacent to the site
- The site has a topographic separation from existing Douglas Avenue properties thus
minimizing its impact on the existing established stable neighbourhood
- The site is in the Harbour Passage capture area
The site connects directly to an arterial roadway for access
- This is a prime example of potential Brownfield development that can enhance tax base and
utilize existing services at minimal cost to the municipality
We have been working with a development group for some time and hope to have a Memorandum of Understanding
for development of the property in the future. Having the area identified as an "Opportunity Area" places more focus
on the site thus enhances the prospects of its eventual development. The development would be proceeded with based
on market demand. A visual illustration of the proposed first building is shown below.
4
92
'W
A
Chw0cy Drive Property
Agir�r� r �:
The red-coloured building Is a Proposed four -stay apartment/ condominium complex. The proposed
building will have two levels of parking or a mix of parking and commercial use under the four stories of
nasiderdial space.
AN ha nIj xd: OL LuM% Ckffrh (MM end Mwmpw inn W an tim hm Famgmund. Hbwd bw and
Haftw PMW SwMw "ww 10 MM &WwAidar . chaday orN% tm Overpen at S
AN
To the Mayor and Council of the city of Saint John
Re: Plan SJ November 10th ,2011
In the very near future this Mayor and Council of date of the city of Saint John
will be asked to approve a new Municipal Plan updating the old 1973 Municipal
Plan by their Plan SJ committee , This old 1973 plan is some 38 years old and
this new plan is suppose to correct/guide the future growth of Saint John putting
in guidelines and by -laws to correct past mistakes costing the city taxpayers
money. At a recent open house at the Saint John Community College on the
subject of " Wellfield Water Protection of the Harbourview Subdivision "
sponsored by the department of the Enviroment NB and the city of Saint John {
October 26,2011 ) we learned that there is NO protection for the Red Head
residents other than those living in the Harbourview Subdivision on city
water/wells . This meeting was very informative in that it brougth to light the past
developements of the Red Head area since the amalgamation of 1967 in which
the parishes of Simonds and Lancaster joined the city of Saint John an were
ruled under the 1973 Municipal Plan . The following is a list of Industrial
developement projects that now are effecting the well being and enjoyment of life
of all Red Head residents and future residents .
From the north side of Red Head going south we have
Irving Paper on Bayside and their wastewater lagoon behind Midwood Avenue
on north side of Red Head Marsh
Emera Power Power Plant on Bayside Drive
Sunbury Transport on Bayside
Gulf Operators on Bayside
Irving Oil Refinery on Grandview Avenue
Old sewage lagoon of Saint John next to NRB ( Lafarge ) on Bayside Drive
Lagoons replacement treatment plant Hazen Creek ( removed Aug 2011 )
New Harbour Clean Up Plant (SJWWTP ) which is now running and leaking into
Red Head Marsh and surrounding air
Grandview Industrial Park on Grandview Avenue /Black River Road
McAllister Industrial Park on Bayside Drive /Secondary Access Road to Red
Head
Thomas Construction on Bayside Drive ( Gravel Pit)
Canaport Crude Terminal and the 15" & 20" crude lines passing through the
water wellfield of Red Head of which part of the 15" line was abandoned in the
Red Head Marsh when Irving Oil placed the second line in the 70's .
Canaport LNG Terminal and the 30" gas line running through the Red Head
water wellfield
Auto salvage yards ( 2 of ) on Black River Road /Cottage Roads
New industrial corridor through Red Head area caller Secondary Access Road to
Red Head or Bayside Drive extension to the LNG Terminal / Canaport Crude Tank
Farm
.,
All these changes to the once peacefull RS2 /RF zones of Red Head have
changed since the 1973 old Municipal Plan allowing Heavy Industrial
Developement to creep in poluting the natural enviroment of Red Head .
Now this new Plan SJ is going to change Red Head even more so by changing
RS2 /RF zones to RS /l zones ( Rural Resources /Industrial ) to meet the needs for
future Industrialization of Red Head . The plan restricts all future homebuilding
and the future roads in this area . The water table from which all of the Red Head
communitty draws from is encreasingly under bombardment from heavy industry
and this Plan SJ will only add in the distruction of a clean /healthy water supply.
Speaking for ourselves and how this Plan SJ will effect us we have only to point
out to this Mayor & Council past experiance with the city of Saint John in which
our rights as landowners have been abused by the city of Saint John in matters
of Secondary Access Road to Red Head and September 20th,2011 . The
Communitty Planning Act of NB clearly states rights of both the city and
landowners ! ?.
We therefore oppose the Plan SJ in changing our property zoning from RS2 /RF
to the new proposed Rural Resources /industrial zones further reducing the
enjoyment/quality of life and property values in our once beautiful Red Head
communitty /Home enviroments
This new Plan SJ reminds us of the old saying of " Putting the cart before the
horse " in that the city now wants only industry in this area an developing a new
municipal plan to suit ?
Most Sincerly ,
Dennis & Janice Griffin
865 Red Head Road
Saint John NB
E2P 1,13
6338223
3332233
November 9th . 2011
cc: Mayor & Council of the city of Saint John
Minister of Enviroment of NB
Minister of Municipalties of NB
Primier of NB
File
ps: please find enclose parts of the Communitty Planning Act of NB & a copy of
letter to the previous city planner in which we asked for but did not receive from
the city access to our property from this newly created Bayside Drive
95
To the Mayor and Council of the city of Saint John
October 3rd 2011
On September 20 th of this year our family met with the PAC of the city of
Saint John to request permission to suddivide a parcel of ia9d 1.2 hectre
from our land in Red Head located at 31 Griffin Lane. In the past we had
received permission from Mayor and Council to locate our son's mini
home there with no problems to the city. This June our son sold this mini
home after he built a new home in Latimore Lake Estate and our daughter
and husband would like to build on this already developed lot. We in the
past have installed a well and septic field at a cost of $8500.00 and have
placed some $15000.00 in improving Griffin Lane to accomadate both
passenger vechiles and heavy trucks ( fire engines ) . The services of
hydro , phone and cable are all there ready to hook up to this new home _
At the PAC meeting the planning department submitted a report ( see
enclosed report ) that we felt was very negative which help in the PAC
deciding that we should be rejected based on this report. We would like
to point out that we have been for some 34 years using Griffin Lane with
out any finacial cost to the city and we request non in the future We will
look after all cost to maintaning this Griffin Lane .
The services of the fire and building services and the neighbour residents
all think this will pose no problems if you grant our request .
Also at this PAC meeting we learned that the Plan SJ when approved by
the Mayor and council at some future date will change the zoning of our
lands which are now RS2 and RF to something quite different - Heavy
Industrial and Rural Resources ( see maps of Plan SJ ) . When we looked
into this with the Plan SJ committee we were told not to worry and that
things in our area would not change. We would like this Mayor and
Council to explain to us the ramifications if Plan SJ is implemented ?
Also to please see the attached letter of May 30th 2008 in which the city
of Saint John still owes this family $224,469.82 plus accumulated interest
We await your reply and suggest that this to be done by the end of
ni -tnhPr gn11
Thank You,
Dennis and Janice Griffin
865 Red Head Road
Saint John ND
E2P U3
��3
w maows Live - iotmau rnni fvtessage 1 ar:,V, J. VI-
No Subject AY
Frorn: Foran, Patrick (patrick.foran @saingohn.ca)
Sent: May -26 -11 1:26:09 PM
To: 'weusco @hotmail.com' (weusco @hotmaii.com)
1 attachment
Planning Development Application (Official .. English).pdf (90.5 KB)
http: //hl 156w.blu156.mail. live. corn /mail/PrintMessages.aspx ?chi... 11/6/2411
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message
Good morning Mr. Griffin,
Page 2 of 2
I've had an opportunity to speak with the Commissioner of Planning, Mr. Ken Forrest,
concerning your inquiry. Our office could begin to process a subdivision application for the
creation of a lot on a private access (Griffin Lane) which would require approval from the
Planning Advisory Committee. Should the Committee approve the proposed means of access,
an assessment of the suitability of the proposed lot for the installation of an on -site septic
disposal system will still be required. However, as discussed previously, the Department of
Health no longer performs these assessments and, because an alternate means of obtaining
this assessment has not yet been adopted, our office will not be able to grant final approval of
the subdivision. Common Council is in the process of adopting a new process for determining
the suitability of proposed lots for on -site septic disposal systems and it is expected that the
necessary By -law amendments will be adopted by the end of June. Also as discussed, it is
anticipated that there will be some costs to you, the developer, in obtaining this assessment,
and you may therefore wish to seek approval of the proposed means of access prior to
incurring the expense of the lot assessment (once the exact process has been adopted by
Council). Should you wish to proceed, you may submit a subdivision application (copy
attached) complete with $1300 processing fee at your earliest convenience.
If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Patrick Foran
Planning Officer
City of Saint John
(506) 649 -6074 (ph)
(506) 658 -2837 (fx)
. IVY I
\J ✓ � 11
"ul
http: //bl 156w.blu 156. mail. live. com /mail#rintMessages.aspx ?cpi... 11/6/2011
offer �.' R. J0JUL ± ��.. i,Y'� ne.gi
hoods
•::iiA�(.lvY.�'I� i:A.F �'
ff j;oster Ttlarston Drive in
F:.
y ¢ Saim John, there is a subdiv-
NX
W`01x under construction not
far from the urversity and hos-
%.,.k pital. There are alread.-; w eral
ocv- nplewd houses with commanding
vze< s of the Kepnebecasis River, and
man_ emptF,; I.uLc marked with For Sale"
signs. k the enira-ace w the dmelop-
menc, lhexe is a bi b card fox commuters
too. the ]Kennebec3sis vaunt Shat reads,
'`if you IT Tied he you'd be horse now"
On the .Ma..Kzy highway, there is also
a oil.lboard visible .o people Beading
home to IC v a night. An advertisement
for the ivateri�ront condos under con -
straclaor� on Watex Street, the sig:i says,.
«Turn; arolmdfor !iptown lii:ng:
.One is a pitch to people - enjoying a
suburl -an life but tired of the 15- minute
drive to and from the valley every day.
The other is a pitch to those Teary trf
suburbaD He generally -the commute,
ya:d z"anrienance, and isolated neigh-
bourhoods •rot wul-jn wall 4 distance
of work, shopping, and =ecreationa? and
cultural Opp,. ituaities. T.ogetrer, they
are the two p0.lars of P1anSj - the city's
attempt to exalt the flow of residents
to suburban commurAti.es by o�fe ing
urba;: and suburban alternatives near
the iy ';i core.
The city bad more tnap °9,�0: people
in the 1970s - rrore than 20,1W0 more
than today. City planners expect the
pol lation to drop to as low as 66.000 in
the next. fe?,v years before climbing back
up to more than 77,00C by 2031. We can't
gei there by rejecring so mar=l propos-
als for suburban housing developments
P..ear the zky centre. which is exactly
what council has done over the past few
months.
in August, the Telegraph Journal pub -
!isheo' a story that: cited four proposed
suburban -style projects totalling neariy
300 homes that were rejected by council.
All tour had received the blessing of plan -
n!ng staff before being voted down in
But I'm also a iealist. -Moo Saint Ja�nuers
are suburban by nature, and w it move
outside he city if we don't expand sub-
urban neighbourhoods new the core. I
also know that urban people are reluc-
tant trt move to, or remain in, cite neigh -
bourfloods that appear neglected by de-
velopers and the cit_r piver imeo u
Ivlarrj peop;e whe support rebuilding
the urban core believe restricting sub-
urban developments wil help create de-
MAXY PEOPLE WI30 SUPPORT REB'LMMNG TOE
URBAN CORE BELIEVE RESTRICTING SUBIMBAN
DM ?ELOPMAEN'I'S WILL HELP CREATE DEM&ND
IN THE CI'T'Y CENTRE. THEY RE WRONG FOR A
COUPLE OF REASONS.
council chambers, though recently coun-
cil reversed a decision on one of them
after being threatened with legal action.
obviously, some developments have
more merit than others, sc it's not rea-
sonable to think they'd: all be approved.
But re reject so mapy in a short span of
time sends the wrong message to de-
velopers and potential residents weigh-
ing the decision to live inside or outside
the city. It also sends a confusing mes-
sage to citizens about the implementa-
tion of PlanSJ. The plarniing department
recommended the preposed develop-
ments rejected by council - the same
planning department that authored
P1anSJ.
Let me be clear: I'm an urban person.
I live uptown and whole hearredly sep-
port efforts to repopulate and revitalize
the neighbourhoods in the city's core.
t•
99
mand in the city cenfxe. They're wrong
for a�,ouple of 'reasons.
One, someone who wants to live in a
suburban zommunity has a different
value set than someone -ho prefers an
urban neighbourhood. The suburbanite
grants a big yard, a garage and the peace
and quiet that comes with low- density
neighbourhoods, whe_e houses are If)-
rated farther apa-t from each other. If
they can't get t=iat in a rim development
off Loch Lomond Road or in Miilidge-
ville, they're going �.o Quxs'pamsis, not
the South End or Old North End.
Two, there are many sububan people
who would prefer the city ft its urban
neighbourhoods were in better shape.
The city has to make significant ap-
grades to parks.. roads and sidewalks
in the urban core, offer seraerous de-
velopment incentives; and make more
headway or, tackling drug crime ana
substandard housing conditions.
I live in a safe, clean neighbourhood
- just dawn the street from the new
condo development - but i understand
the suburban people who have negative
perceptions of the city's arban neigh-
bourhoods. The city government needs
to back up the promise of PlanS) =Anth a
comprehensive and well-financed plan
to tackle the persistent, decades -old
problems is these neighbourhoods.
'Saint John is tr mg to address the chal-
lenge of suburban flight faced by North
American: cities - big and small —For the
last several decades.: In the late 19709
and '80s my father took me to baseball
games ImBoston. on the way out of town
- on the Storrow Drive expressway head-
ing out to he suburbs -there was ahill-
board for downtown condos targeting
Boston-area commuters. It had the same
slogan as the sign out near he hospitat .
and uriversitj in Milhdgevfde: "If you
lived here you'd be homenow:� '
In the Boston of the 1970s. the push
was to get more people living ammtown
again.. in the Saint . ohn & 2.011, the em-
phasis is getting —pople back into the city,
in urban anti suburban. neighbourhoods
The tax base needs to grow to pay for bet-
ter city services and infrastruaure, includ-
ing the much needed improvements to
urban neighbourhoods near the city cen
tre."We can't do that with an urban. retgtas-
ization strategy that t rimttingiyy dares
more people to suburban communitie€
outside the city.
M. ukLWr wr.'tez abnuf cor;irnunfry
usues rm his website: rnr!rkleger.wn.
^1
4U
1
c
Al v
.$
Id
t
1k
t w
�i�K•� t i ;t. ' ryl�' w �;. 4
u• r t ,�
A.%t Erg:
�f 100 t t
TV VT►7'/1 • V 1. J.V f.L11W.11 A L1114. 1�iVA7 A.7K�V
Municipal Developement
From: Forrest, Ken (Ken.Forrest @saintjohn.ca)
Sent: May -20 -10 5:26:57 PM
T : dennis griffin (weusco @hotmail.com)
Mr. Griffin
Someone from the Plan SJ team will be in touch with you.
.I
Ken Forrest, MCIP RPP
Commissioner of Planning and Development Services /Commissaire
d'urbanisme et deeveloppement
City of/Ville de Saint John
PO Box/CP 1971
Saint John, NB
E21- 41-1
Ph. (506) 658 -2835
Fax (506) 658 -2837
From: dennis griffin [weusco @hotmail.com]
Seat: May 20, 2010 5:04 PM
To: Forrest, Ken
Cc: weusco @hotmail.com
Subject: Municipal Developement
Good afternoon Mr. Ken Forrest,
1 "5W i V i 1
I contacting you today seeking information on the new Municipal Developement for the city of Saint
John . I have a small track of property in the McAllister Industrial Park that will someday be used to
build homes on by our family and would like to have input on this matter .
Sinceriy
Dennis Griffin
865 Red Head Road
Saint John NB
E2P 113
6338223
30 days of prizes: Hotmail makes your day easier! Enter now
/7?'
http: //bl 156w.blu 156. mail. live. com /mailNintMessages.aspx ?c... 10/23/2011
v
Thank you for register "ing for the Plan l
Irks P�
From: PlanSJ (PIanSJ @saingohn.ca)
Sent: May-31 -10 10:51:23 AM
To: weusco @hotmail.com (weusco @hotmail.com)
Good morning Dennis,
Thank you for registering for the PlanSJ Opportunities & Directions Workshop on June 12th.
We will e-mail you an information package on June 7th with more details about the workshop
and background materials. Parking will be available on-site, and Saint John Transit bus routes
1, 2, 5 and 6 have nearby stops on Douglas Avenue. The building is also fully accessible.
Please note that lunch will be provided — if you have any significant food allergies please let us
know.
Thank you,
The PlanSJ Team
Ps. Annamarie realized she gave you a number that does not redirect you to the office upstairs
-- rather it is for one of our planner's direct line who is out of the office today. The general office
number is 606-668-2836.
http: //b1156w.blu l 56.mail.live .corn /mail/NntMessages.aspx ?c... 10/23/2011
- AAAUV Ti .J Lx ♦ V 11V 411Aµ11 1 11114 1�iVUV{.i�. V 1 "5%' A %Jl I,
E: C en time ��_r ��.s
From: dennis griffin (weusco @hotmail.com)
Sent: October -27 -10 4 :48:19 PM
To: PIanSJ (plansj @saingohn.ca); Ken Forrest SJ
(ken.forrest @saingohn.ca)
Cc: weusco @hotmail.com
The answer to the workbook is no but I would like to make a few comments if it is possible ?
The first thing we would like to point out that our families have lived in the Red Head area for over 50+
years and
to BIGGEST changes came 1967 when the city /province combined the Parishes of Lancaster & Simonds
to form what we now call Saint John . This was done to stop the out flow and to gain a greater tax base
under the pretense that bigger is better . The mayor & council promised many things to the residents
such as better roads , sidewalks garbage pickup weekly and so on . There was also a hidden agenda to
this amalgation , to also encrease the area of Industrial growth under the control of Saint John . Later
when the urban renewal scheme of the 70s took place many of the displaced residents of the North End
of Saint John moved to Red Head & Black River Road to obtain a more rural life . But this all changed
when Saint John formed " Saint John Industrial Parks Ltd. " . This comminsion of Saint John started with
Grandview Park and later expanded to McAllister Park in the heart of RS & Rural land zones .
Today if one looks at a map of the areas of Red Head , Black River Road & Mispec one would find HUGE
tracks of land owned by the Irving Group of companies especially Irving oil Ltd. This was /is made only
possible by the city going to the province for a tax break for all lands under the Canaport TaxBreak Act
of 2006 . Also the fact that the city helped the Irving Oil Ltd. to build a industrial corridor through the
Red Head communitty calling it first the Secondary Access to Red Head then renaming it Bayside Drive
to complete the connection from Highway # one at Russel Street in 2012
Your committe would do well in looking into just a few examples of why people are moving out of the
city of Saint John as I have shown because this is a direct repeat of the 60s . People do not want to
invest in homes in industrial areas of Saint John and the Red Head area will be just that in a decade or
two . The mayor & council all talk of URBAN sprawl but not a word of Industrial sprawl . Also I would
like to see that any further developement of the McAllister Industrial Park be subjected to a full EIA by
the province of NB to see what the true cost will be to the residents of Red Head & Black River areas ?
Sincerly
Dennis & Janice Griffin
865 Red Head Road
Saint John NB
E2P 1J3
633 8223
3332233
From: PIanSJ @saintjohn.ca
To: weusco @hotmaii.com
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:42:02 -0300
Subject: RE: Comments time limits
Good morning Mr. Griffin;
http://b1156w.blu 156.mail. live. com /maiVKintMessages.aspx ?c... 10/23/2011
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 2 of 2
Our deadline for comments on the Options for Growth and Change is this Friday, October
1 lC
29th Do you have a copy of the Workbook questions from the Open House? If not, please let
me know and I'll send them to you.
Thanks!
Sarah
Sarah Herring, MCIP, RPP
City of Saint John
506- 649 -6079
Please think before you print this e-mail!
From: dennis griffin [mailto:weusco @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 4:42 PM
To: PlanS3
Cc: weusco @hotmail.com
Subject: Comments time limits
Good afternoon,
Is there a time limit to when you will stop taking comments from the public? If so please do tell
Dennis Griffin
865 Red Head Road
saint John NB
E21) 133
http: / /b1156w.blu156.mail. live .com /maiMintMessages.aspx ?c... 10/23/2011
RE: PlanSJ Update
From: Bennis griffin (weusco @hotmail.com)
Sent October -14-11 9 :11:27 AM
To: plansj @sainJohn.ca
Cc: weusco @hotmaii.com
Good morning Plan SJ members,
7 /,L
We have been reviewing your PlanSJ & find that it is quite remarkable composed . It seems on the
surface that your committe has achieved a future for Saint John up to & beyond 25 years . The details
in your report & recommendations to council are very thoughtful & enlightening . There is only one
serious drawback to all your planning , you forgot the landowners who will be greatly effected if &
when PlanSJ is implemented . You have forgotten certain parts of the NB Community Planning Act 1973
& other provinical acts that govern municipalities & land owners rights ?!.
Dennis & Janice Griffin
865 Red Head Road
Saint John NB
E2P 113
From: PlanSJ @saintjohn.ca
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 201111:52:03 -0300
Subject: PlanSJ Update
The PlanSJ Team is pleased to announce that Council formally initiated the Municipal Plan
adoption process on Tuesday night. The Plan is now open for a 30-day public comment
period, beginning October 11th with the presentation of the Plan to Council and ending on
November 10th, 2011.
You may submit your comments on the Plan to the Common Clerk's office in writing to PO Box
1971, Saint John NB, E21L 21-1 or by e-mail to common cierk(a-saintiohn_ca. Comments can be
submitted up to midnight on Thursday, November 10th
Copies of the Municipal Plan are also available on -line at www.saintiohn.ca /Pllansi, on CD in
the Brunswick Square Storefront (open from 8:30 -4:30 Monday through Friday and staffed
from 10 -1) and on CD in the Common Clerk's office on the 8th Floor of City Hall.
The comments received during this period will be sent to Council with a report from the
Common Clerk on November 14th, 2011.
http : //bl 15 6w. blu 156.mail. live. com/mai1*PintMessages.aspx?c... 10/14/2011
.1 - -- -p - - i wbv cam✓ v>` v r
(a) be a statement of the objectives for the future development of the municipality;
(b) contain a statement of the objectives to be accomplished by a zoning or subdivision by -taw;
(c) be consistent with the applicable regional plan If any; and
(d) be based on such studies and surveys as the Minister may require.
1972, c.7, s.29; 1994, c.95, s.12_
30(1) Subject to this section, a council may by by -law adopt a basic planning statement prepared
under the conditions and in the manner set out In section 29.
30(2) Subject to this section, where a council is required under paragraph 29(1)(b) to prepare
basic planning statement, it shall by by-law adopt such statement within two years of the effective
date of the plan or order mentioned in that paragraph.
30(3) No by-law under this section is valid unless a majority of the whole council votes In favour of
It.
30(4) With respect to any municipality, the Minister may extend or reduce a time limit under
subsection (2).
1972, c.7, s.30.
30.1 If a rural plan under subsection 77.2(1) is not in effect for a rural community, sections 29 and
30 apply with the necessary modifications to the rural community council.
2005. c.7, s.12.
31 The provisions of sections 25, 26 and 27 pertaining to a municipal plan apply muteds mutandfs
to a basic planning statement adopted under section 30.
1972, c.7, s.31.
DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES
32(1) Where a municipal plan, basic planning statement or rural plan under subsection 27.2(1) or
77.2(1) is in effect, the council or rural community council, as the case may be, may by by -law adopt
a development scheme to carry out or amplify
(a) any proposal therein suggested or outlined, or
(b) any project that is not inconsistent therewith.
32(2) For greater certainty without limiting the general power conferred by subsection (1), a
development scheme
(a) shall
(i) consist of such written statements, maps, drawings and other descriptive matter, all
under seal, signed by the cleric or rural community clerk and indicating that they are a part of
the scheme, as may be necessary to illustrate the scheme,
09 delineate the land affected by the scheme,
(iii) set out details of the development or redevelopment to be carried out in the scheme
area,
http:// laws. gnb. ca/ en/showfulldoc /cs /C- 1JP/�0111013 10/13/2011
%�,V111111U1111.y 1 1QJ.1111116 !?.VL L u.45v c, r %J A. v•
(Iv) describe the manner in which the scheme Is intended to be Implemented, !� r
(v) indicate the amount of any land to be reserved In the scheme area, or if feasible the
particular land to be reserved, and the manner In which the reservation is to be effected, and
(vi) prescribe the manner in which land in the scheme area is to be subdivided; and
(b) may, in relation to the scheme area,
(i) prescribe
(A) the manner in which existing buildings and structures may be altered or
repaired where such developments would not otherwise be permitted by the scheme,
and
(B) developments for which no building permit is required,
(ii) provide for the acquisition, assembly, consolidation, sate or lease by the municipality or
rural community of such land, buildings or structures necessary to carry out the scheme
(li) Indicate land to be acquired as the site or location of streets, public buildings, schools,
parks or recreation areas, or other public services such as light, water or sewerage,
(v) provide for agreements with the owners of land mentioned In subparagraph (ii) as will
permit the acquisition of such land for such purposes,
(v) allocate areas of land available for residential, commercial, industrial, agriculwral or
other purpose at any particular time, and
(vo specify the order and timing for subdivision or development of any particular part
thereof.
32(3) A development scheme shall be prepared under such direction as is provided herein for the
preparation of
(a) a municipal plan or rural plan under subsection 27.2(1), in the case of a scheme pertaining to
a municipality or rural community, or
(b) a regional plan, In the case of a scheme pertaining to an unincorporated area,
and shall make provision for such general matters as the Minister may require.
32(4) The provisions of sections 25, 26 and 27 with respect to a municipal plan apply mufatfs
mutandis to a development scheme under this section.
32(5) Notwithstanding any development scheme by -law, a council or rural community council, as
the case may be, may authorize the constructing, altering or repairing of any land, building or
structure if
(a) in its opinion, such land, building or structure will conform to the scheme, or
(b) the owner of the land, building or structure enters into an agreement with the council or rural
community council containing such terms and conditions as the council or rural community council
considers fit.
http:// laws. gnb. ca /en/showr'ulldoc /cs /C -IY. /20111013 10/13/2011
Planning and Development
Urbanisme et developpement
www.saintjohn.ca
October 4, 2006
Dennis and Elizabeth Griffin
865 Red Head Road
Saint John, NB
E2P 1 J3
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Griffin
P.O. Box/C.P. 1971
Saint John, NB /N. -B.
Canada E2L 4L1
Re: Access to Red Head Secondary Access Road -- PID Number 336701
The City of Saint John
This letter is intended to address your request for access to your above noted property off the proposed
secondary access road.
According to the Design /Build agreement between the City of Saint John and Irving Oil Limited, the City
is required to adopt a Controlled Access Street By -law for this new road. This By -law would address the
need for controlled access to the fiiture road.
On January 30, 2006 Common Council considered a "discussion report" pertaining to the preparation of
the above noted By -law. The conclusion of this report indicated the following access should be
permitted:
Provide for resource, utility and emergency access;
Provide for local street access in a manner consistent with Department of Transportation
Level III;
Provide driveway access as an exception when no local street has been developed on that
parent property but on condition that:
- only one driveway access be permitted (one on each side of the access road);
- the driveway access be located where a local street would be developed;
- provision be made for the turning of a vehicles) using the driveway so that no
vehicle would back onto the new arterial road.
Common Council agreed with this direction, but the By -law has not yet been prepared and adopted by
Council. It should also be noted that the proposed access road is still under construction and will not be a
public street open to the public until work is completed. It will be at that time the above noted guidelines
will be put in place.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at 658 -2835.
Jim R. Baird, MCIP
Commissioner, Planning and Development
1:
. — rage i 01 Z5 1
62(2) Where the owner of land proposed to be acquired under a deferred widenin g by -aw requests
the council in writing at any time after the filing of the by -law In the registry office to purchase the
land, and such land is free of buildings and structures, subsection 61 (11) shall cease to apply to the
land at the expiration of six months from the day the request is made,
1972, c.7, s.62.
63(1) Subject to subsection 62(2), a deferred widening by -law shall cease to have effect at the
expiration of five years from the day it was fled in the registry office, except as to the payment for
land acquired thereunder,
63(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a council may extend the period of effectiveness of a deferred
widening by -law by re- enacting or replacing such by -law.
1972, c,7, s.63.
63.1 Sections 60 to 63 apply with the necessary modifications to a rural community council.
2005, c.7, s.12.
CONTROLLED ACCESS STREET BY-LAW
64(1) Subject to this section, the council of a municipality or a rural community council may by a
controlled access street by -law
(a) declare all or any part of any existing or proposed publicly owned street to be a controlled
access street, and
(b) subject to such exceptions as are set out in the by -law, in respect to a street mentioned in
paragraph (a),
(I1) restrict access thereto, and
(it) prohibit any development on properties abutting thereon that in the opinion of the
advisory committee or commission, would interfere in any way with the use of such street.
64(2) Any property that would have no arxtess to a street as the result of a controlled access street
by-law shall, subject to subsection (3),
(a) retain an access at a place approved by the advisory committee or commission, or
(b) be provided by the municipaltyy or Tura! community, as the cane may be, with an alternative
access to another street at a place approved by the advisory committee or commission.
69(3) An access mentioned in subsection (2) shall have such width as the council determines.
69(4) A by -law under this section shall be consistent with any applicable regional plan, municipal
plan, rural plan under subsection 27.2(1) or 77.2(1), basic planning statement, development scheme
or urban renewal scheme.
1972, c.7, s.64; 1973, c.22, s.10; 1977, c,101 s.25; 1982, c.3, 3.9; 1994, c.95, s.20; 2005, c.7, 5,12.
FEES
2007, c.59, s.17.
http: // laws. gnb. ca /en/showfulldoc /cs /C -1 �9?20111013 10/13/2011
BY-LAW NUMBER CP-13
BAYSIDE DRIVE CONTROLLED
ACCESS STREET BY-LAW
Be it enacted by the Common Council
of the City of Saint John under the authority of
the Community Planning Act, as follows:
1 This by-law maybe cited as the
" Bayside Drive Controlled,4ccess Street By-
Law".
Z This by-law declares the Bayside .Drive
arterial street between Old Black River Road
and the Proud Road (previously this was
referred to as the Red Head Secondary Access
Road) to be a controlled access street and
under this by -law there will be no access
allowed to this portion of the street except as
set out in this by -law below.
3 For the purposes of this by-law, the term
"parent property(s)" is to refer to the parcels of
land that adjoin Bayside Drive between Old
Black River Road and the Proud Road and that
were existing at the time of the construction of
this section ofBayside Drive.
4 The portion of Bayside Drive and the
parcels of land or parent properties referred to
in this by-law are shown on the map in
Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming part
of this by -law.
5 Limited local access to Bayside Drive will
be permitted only for the following uses and
situations:
(a) resources utility and emergency access;
(b) local street access to be allowed as part
of a subdivision plan where the design
of the subdivision is such that all of the
proposed lots front on the local street
and the sole access to those lots is by
PR
ARR]t,T*, N°CP 13
ARRI,TL DE'LF&UTA,T,ION D'ACCtS
DES RUES — PROMENADE DAYSIDE
Le Conseil communal de The City of
Saint John, sous le r6gime de, la Loi sir
Purbanisme, Mcte ce qui suit :
1 Le pr6sent arr&6 peat titre cit6 sous le
titre ; a Arr&i de limitation d'accFs des rues
promenade Bayside v.
Z Cot MT&6 &once que la voie artdrielle
RT46e Promenade Bayside entre le chemin
Old Black River et le chemin Proud (secteur
connu autrefois sous le now de vole d'acc6s
secondaire Red Head) devienne une rue i acc6s
limit6 et, on vertu du pr6sent an t6, qu'aucun
aces ne Wit Perris pour cette Pattie de la rue,
A 1'exception des instances 6nonc&s ci-.
dessous.
3 Aux funs du pr6sent MT&6, l'expression
a propri6Ws) d'origine o renvoie aux parcelles
de terrain attenantes A la promenade Bayside
entre le chemiu Old Black River et le chemin
Proud et qui 6ttaient pr6sentes au moment de la
construction de cette section de la promenade
Drive.
4 La partie de la promenade Bayside et les
paraelles ou les propri" d'origine auxquelles
it est fait r96rence clans cet arrft sont
indiqu6es star la carte d1am6nagement figunnt
6 l'annexe a A » ci- jainte et faisant partie de
cot arr6t6.
5 Un ace& limit6 61a circulation locale
sera permis uniquement dens le cas des usages
et situations suivants :
a) un aces aux ressources, aux services
publics et en cas d'urgence,
b) un ace6s # la nee locale sera permis
dares le cadro dun plan do lotissement
Oil la conception pour le lotissement
est telle quo sous les lots propos6s
donnent sur la rue locale et quo le seul
110
means of that local street; in the case
of a parent property that was divided
by the construction of the Bayside
Drive arterial street, local street access
is allowed on that parent property on
each side of the Bayside Drive arterial
street;
(c) one driveway access in lieu of a local
street when the location of the local
street, as noted in 5(b), has been
assented to by Council but no local
street has been developed on that
parent property, with the condition
that;
(i) only one driveway access be
permitted and is to serve only one
lot on each parent property (one
on each side of Bayside Drive);
(ii) the driveway access be located
where a local street would be
developed according to time assent
of Council;
(iii) provision be made for the turning
of a vehicle(s) using the driveway
so that no vehicle would back
onto the arterial road.
6 In each case noted in 5(a), (b), (c) above,
the developer will be responsible for the
design, construction and paving of the
access from the parent property line to the
paved travel surface of Bayside Drive in
accordance with specifications of the
Department of Municipal Operations and
Engineering of the City of Saint John, in
addition to the normal requireanents of the
Subdivision By-law of the City of Saint
John. This will include providing
appropriate culverts and any necessary
provisions for public utilities,
ac c6s 6 ces lots est su moyen de cette
rue locale, dans le cas dune propri&6
d'origine qui a W divis6e on raison de
la construction de la voie mt&ielle
promenade Bayside, Pacc6s 6 la rue
locale est permis Sur cette propri&6
d'origine de chaque c6t6 de la voie
art6rielle promenade Bayside;
c) une voie d'acc6s an guise et lieu dune
rue locale lorsque l'emplacement de la
rue locale, comme it on est fait
mention au point 5b), a Mu
Passendment du conseil mail aucune
rue locale n'a bt6 am&ng6e sur cette
propri&6 d'origine, A condition
(i) qu'une seule voie d'acc6s soft
permiae at no sort uniquement
quIA un lot soot chaque propri6t6
d'origine (une propri6t6 de
chaque c8t6 de la promenade
Bayside);
(ii) que In voie d'acc6s se trouve ot`t
une rue locale sera construitc
conformbrnent 6 Passentiment
du conseil;
(iii) quo des dispositions soient
prises pour le virage de
vbhicules qui utilise la voie
d'acc6s de sorte qu'aucun
Whicule no puisse reculer sur la
route de d6gagement.
6 Dann chaque cas mentionn6 aux points
5a), b) et c) ei-dessus, le promoteuar sera
responsible de In conception„ de la
construction et de l'aspltaltage de la voie
Wac & de la lipne de is propri&6 d'origine a In
surface de d6placement asphalt6e de la
promenade Bayside conform6ment aux
sp6cifications du service des Opbrations et
g6nie municipaux de The City of Saint John,
an plus des exigences normales de 11arr06
concamnt le lotissement de The City of
Saint John. Le promoteur devra 6galement
fournir des ponceaux ad6quats et prendre Ies
mesures n6cessaires pour les services publics.
J � 111
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City of Saint
John has caused the Common Corporate Sea]
of the said City to be affixed to this by-law the
24'h day of Sept=bear, A.D. 2007 and signed
by.
r
Mayor /Maire
ILq
T /?
EN FOI DE QUOL The City of Saint John a
fait WOW son sceau communal suer le pr&ent
arr&d 1e 24. jour de septembre 2007, avec les
signatuu es suivantes :
communal
First heading - September 10, X007 Premi&re lecture -10 septembre 2007
Second Reading - September 10, 2007 DMXW me lecture - 10 septembre 2007
Third Reading - September 24, 2007 Troisidme lecture - 24 septembre 2007
3
112
ga:..fzld Odee Controlled Access Street By -Law -- Schedule A
Arse de limirtatlon d'accbs des rues - Prom. Sayslde _ Annexe A
J
Subject Site/site en question; P!D(s)1NIP(s);
Location: promenade Bayside Drive
Date: July 24 Juillet, 2007
Scale /fcheile: Not to scale/pas 1) 1'6chelle
113
Fa
W"A- ,
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message
RE: PlanSJ Update
From: PlanSl (PIanSJCa@saingohn.ca)
Sent: October -20 -11 2:56:39 PM
Tip: dennis griffin (weusco @hotmaii.com)
Dear Mr. Griffin;
Thank you for submitting your comment on the Municipal Plan to the PlanSJ Team.
Pagel of 3
PlanSJ, the process to create the new Municipal Plan, has been a 20 -month effort by City staff,
our consultants, a 13- member Citizen Advisory Committee and the Saint John community. It
has been the largest community consultation process ever undertaken by the City, and
included:
A Storefront space in Brunswick Square where people could view displays, ask
questions and leave comments Monday to Friday from 8:30 -4:30 (staff were available
in the Storefront from 10:00am -2:00 daily);
- 40 stakeholder interviews with over 70 community organizations;
- A website (www.saintjohn.ca pllansi), Facebook page and Twitter updates;
- 9 Workshops and Open Houses held at locations across the City (and attended by
over 900 community members);
2 Focus Gr-o-*s for maicr Iandowners and-devatopers,
- Youth Workshops attended by over 70 youth from high schools, the Teen Resource
Centre and TeenVibe; and
- 52 presentations given to individual community groups on request
http: //b1156w.blul 56.mail.live.com/maiMintMessages.aspx?c... 10/22/2011
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 2 of 3
f)� �
Through these community engagement activities and the response we've received from people
across our community, I would point out that we have indeed thought of, and consulted,
fiando rye s i�, S i� i 'F " ° +. Although each individual landowner may not have had every
request included in the Municipal Plan, it has been written in consultation with the community
and represents the best interests of the community as a whole.
Again, I thank you for submitting your comments and encourage you to stay involved in the
PlanSJ process as Council moves forward with the 30-day comment period and a public
hearing in December 2011. There will also be opportunities for further community engagement
in the development of a new Zoning Bylaw, Subdivision Bylaw and detailed Strategic Plans.
If you would like to discuss, any questions or concerns about speck sections of the Municipal
Plan or the Community Planning Act, please let us know.
Thank you,
The PlanSJ Team.
From: dennis griffin [mailto:weusco @hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 20119:11 AM
To: PlanSJ
Cc: weusco @hotmaii.com
Subject: RE: PlanSJ Update
Good moming Plan SJ members,
We have been reviewing your PlanSJ & find that it is quite remarkable composed . It seems on the
surface that your committe has achieved a future for Saint John up to & beyond 25 years . The details in
your report & recommendations to council are very thoughtful & enlightening . There is only one serious
drawback to all your planning , you forgot the landowners who will be greatly effected if & when PlanSJ
is implemented . You have forgotten certain parts of the NB Community Planning Act 1973 & other
provinical acts that govern municipalities & land owners rights ?I.
Dennis & Janice Griffin
865 Red Head Road
Saint John NB
E2P 113
http : //b1156w.blu156. mail. live. com /mail/ fintMessages.aspx ?c... 10/22/2011
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 3 of 3
From: PIanSJ @saintjohn.ca PA3
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:52:03 -0300
Subject: PlanSJ Update
The PlanSJ Team is pleased to announce that Council formally initiated the Municipal Plan adoption
process on Tuesday night. The Plan is now open for a 30 -day public comment period, beginning
October 11th with the presentation of the Plan to Council and ending on November 10th, 2011.
You may submit your comments on the Plan to the Common Clerk's office in writing to PO Box 1971,
Saint John NB, E2L 21-1 or by e-mail to commoncierk@saintiohn.ca. Comments can be submitted up to
midnight on Thursday, November 10th.
Copies of the Municipal Plan are also available on -line at www.saintjohn.ca /plansi, on CD in the
Brunswick Square Storefront (open from 8:30 -4:30 Monday through Friday and staffed from 10 -1) and
on CD in the Common Clerk's office on the $t' Floor of City Hall.
The comments received during this period will be sent to Council with a report from the Common Clerk
on November 14th, 2011.
Thank you!
The PlanSJ Team
http: //b1156w.blu156. mail. live. com /mail/P ntMessages.aspx ?c... 10/22/2011
Saint John - Drinking Water
0 SAINT JOHN
Dri.nldng Water
Pagel of 3
� aY
People must have water to live. Clean, safe drinking water is important for
public health and quality of life in Saint John. The Drinking Water Service
provides quality drinking water to all users within the community.
Regulated by the Clean Environment and Clean Water Acts, this service
involves:
• supply of water
water quality testing
water treatment
• transmission and distribution
• billing and collections
What you need to know
�.. Water Bill Payments
--' S ""
Ap ,. How do I pay my water bill? What are the rates?
http: / /www.saintjohn.ca/en/ home /citysery 6cs /environment/drin... 10/29/2011
Saint John - Drinking Water Page 1 of 1
��3_
SNT JOHN
DrInWnq Water
T i -iMs i:: Drinking Water
What are T i i,ft?
THiHs are trihalomethanes, chernical compounds that cars die formed when
water is disinfected with chlorine. ThMs occur when chlorine reacts with
organic matter, naturally present in water, such as decaying leaves, and for
this reason THMs are common in surface water supplies (take & rivers)
'throughout Canada.
Is there a drinking water guialeYirre set f9or "[ ii-IMs in sirinlcinq water?
The Canadian drinking water guideline for total THMs is 100 micrograms of
THMs per litre of water (Lag/Q. This is set by Health Canada in consultation
with the provinces and territories.
What are he potential problemis of Ihavii ig THMs In drinking tAral er?
There is concern among experts in Canada that THMs, may pose a risk in the
development of cancer. Some studies report an association between elevated
THMs and reproductive effects, though there is presentiv insufficient evidence
to establish a specific relationship, suggesting the need for more studies.
Xf I'm worried about T1*4 levels in my water svppiy, what can X do't
To reduce or eliminate THMs in drinking water use a water pitcher with an
activated carbon filter, install a tap - mounted carbon filter, or to use bottled
water. When using a filter, check to verify that it is certified to NSF Standards
for removal of THMs and follow replacement instructions recommended by the
manufacturer.
What if T have my own water well?
Most private well water supplies are not disinfected. The iack of chlorine
disinfect-ion means there shorild be no THMs present.
What is being dove to reduce the levels of THMs in municipal drinking
'W,71fier?
The City of Saint.John is working in conjunction with the New Brunswick
Departments of Health to monitor the level of THMs so that they are within
the guideline of 100pg /l. The City of Saint John is continuing to collect data
through THM surveys, analyze data and pursue opportunities (cleaning and
lining of pipe infrastructure, watermain flushing, unidirectional flushing) of
THM � "ormation reduction.
http://www.saintjohn.ca/en/home/cityse4l8es/environmenVdrin... 10/29/2011
a-we
---A
SJEWTF/ SJETTBRH (Saint John Enviromental
Ticking Time Bomb in Red Head)
119
olu o t� k.
I- -,l 6 YES
c-P
kQ ct ,r s
�` ' c 1._
U p i
L.irr..I_!
Qj
SUJO ��
00-ysiee D+�ve Controlled Access Stmt BY -,LaW -- Schedule A
Arr&6 de limitation d'acc4s des ales - Prom. Saysidie -- ,annexe A
r
s
� 1 M
e4/f
Subject Site /site en question: r
Locati on: promenade Bayside Drive
Date: July 24 juillet, 2007
Scale /6chelle: Not to scale/pas a I'dchelle
a...r eA111x.)- r7ndLLs1rra.L
a4-t� r N C's, S y/ S cA-
0
>l0
VID(syNIP(s):
CJ-
2AJ� a
J
15t-g ' "D
C) /g
f /
3aysidieve ®rio1le 4ce street Bar -Law -- Sc
�eciule
AraYet� de limitation c�'accbs des rues — Prom. Bayside _ Annexe A
III
ar �
,.�
IG►.E FJ 0 GrV f + v �
0 .�
Sub' Site/site en question: PID(s)INIp(s):
s � � - �"'i fir..
Ali
Location: ®�4 ��.c � � 1. �i� a e � 0 �� k59,,* � �
promenade Bayside Drive
Date: July 24 juillet, 2007 r� to- es .0 u-Nes) v
Scale /6chelle: Not to scale/Pas A 1' &chelle
Y122`���'— ➢ m 1
5
Y3o
Schedule B - Future Land Use
4
I0
Boundary
Employment Areas
Rural Areas
Other Areas
is
!
PDA
Regional Retail Centre
Rural Settlement
Federal Transportation
D 2 4
Intensification Areas
- Business Centre
Rural Resource
Major Community Facility
Km
Low Density Residential
Stable Commercial
r Rural Industrial
Park and Natural Areas
Low to Medium Density Residential
Heavy Industrial
Rural Residential
Stable Residential
�I Medium to High Density Residential
Light Industrial
Urban Reserve
J
Corridors
Primary Centre
won vw.ma
Note: The symbols and boundaries shown on this map are approxirnete only and represent the general
Local Centre
Commercial
concepts and policies of this Plan
Nfixed Use Centre
This Schedule should be read only In conjunction with the text of the Municipal Plan, as well as other
m.a „.,..., »..
statutory Schedules, secondary plans adopted by Common Council and other federal,
provinclal or municipal policies apply.
...123_
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Pagel of 2
RE: ETTB (Enviroment Ticking Time PV
Bomb)
From: dennis griffin (weusco @hotmail.com)
Sent: November -06 -11 7:50:29 AM
To: paul.groody @saingohn.ca; groody @nbnet.nb.ca
Cc: weusco @hotmail.com
Good morning Paul ,
I just finished reading your reply to my ETTB _ At this time I think you may want to put off any
meeting . I looked up your presentation on Harbour Clean Up & the progress to date for Oct 7th Council
Meeting . On the general overall to date it would appear to be comming along very nicely until this
possible ETTB goes off .
As you may or may not know I have worked almost from the beginning at this SJWVVfP project of
yours . The breaking of the ground by Gulf Operators was an eventfull happening that was recorded
fully . As I understand it this plant has a 10 meter differance in height from the beginning of the
Headworks to the outflow ( duckbill diffusers ) . This is some 35+ feet in water fall ? The main Process
building , Primary Clarifier Tanks & Aeration Tanks all sit on pillings driven into the bed rock which is
well below the Red Head Marsh . In each tank including the Secondary Clarifier there are a series of
relief valves on the floor . I have in the past observed firsthand the flooding of one tank to the next in
the downhill event from the Aeration to Secondary tanks which was caused by PopUp valves sticking
opened . This to some might not cause alarm but since there is NO liner or Enviromental barrier
between EJWWTP & the Red Head Marsh this concerns us Red Headers somewhat. Think of these
tanks as your own bathtub . Once the clicker valve is raised you hope all the tubwater goes down the
drain to the next containment tank & field dispursion . Also you might think of these tanks as say
petrolium storage tanks being put in place today in ground or above ground & all the requirements to
prevent Enviromental disasters from happening . Also I might point out that when the tanks were being
fill with fresh city drinking water there were several leaks from cracks allowing the water to seep
through to the outside and onto the ground & between tanks . One can only think what is happening
below ground with the tank pressure greatly increased ! ?. This was especially true in the basement of
the Process building & Pipe alley.
In concluding this email to you Paul one has only to look at the old outflow from this SJWWTP to
see /smell that there may be a problem & that this might become a more serious concern for the Mayors
& Councils of tomorrows ?1.
The city might look into what it will cost to provide all Red Head residents who now get their drinking
water from private wells if & when what I have witnessed may become a significant envirimental
event in th future P.
Dennis Griffin
From: paul.groody @saintjohn.ca
To: weusco @hotmail.com
CC: nicole.taylor @saingohn.ca; Kendall Mason @saintjohn.ca; Christopher. Petrie@saint ohn.ca
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 201109:39:09 -0300
Subject: RE: ETTB (Enviroment Ticking Time Bomb )
Dennis, vve should get together sornne time to talk about this; maybe next week. Paul
http : //b1156w.blu 156. mail. live. corn/maihftintMessages.aspx ?cpi... 11/9/2011
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 2 of 2
From: dennis griffin [mailto:weusco @hotmaii.com]
Sent: November -04 -11 6:12 AM
To: Groody, Paul
Cc: weusco @hotmail.com
Subject. ETTB (Enviroment Ticking Time Bomb )
Good morning Paul ,
Last Wed Oct 26th 2011 the city of Saint john & the NBGov dept of Enviroment held an open house at
NBCCSJ on the Wellfield Water Protection of the Harbourview Sub Div in Red Head . They had many
interesting facts about how to protect the water table in this area of Red Head . I asked several reps
both city & envir persons about the water aquifier in Red Head based on my 59 years of living in this
communitty & observing the changes to it by industry & the city of Saint John . One question that was
asked was how the new SJWWTP on the Red Head Marsh was going to effect the quality of drinking
water in the Red Headers private wells . No one could answer this so I though of you and the article in
the Telegraph Journal on Harbour Clean & how it was going to change the city's image .
Do you have any ideas on the future drinking water of all Red Headers ?!.
Dennis Griffin
865 Red Head Road
Saint John NB
EY 133
http://b1156w.blul56.mail.live.com/maiVPAntMessages.aspx?cpi... 11/9/2011
E=astern Wastewater Treatmenj Facility
FACT SHEET
Waist'- -water suatj qy
In 1493. the city of Aklrll ,John gWpted the Wastevyaje.r St{amgy as a mRscer plan Inc
the o0le.clon and frea anent of waste veter garlurated within the City. PIC, gjra?04jV
qUarnAW existing and future wa Stewa� ter floc's and prt�pr�sed long term ti- Qatmp.rlr
a elutiaris. I! reuognized that 109 than 50016 of thu, urzisrewater generated ir; thL-
e.ralral ano Isa [qri� �rsr\rired are 'afi of the Chy ;bras burr rrea:�ted and Mat the a isring
pl.a pis a Tht�rne A+r iue any+ Hazen Grer±k were overlGadeo 0Ofing 1raCL k flow)a5.
T r3 strateq reccirririPnciGd i11at wnstO va ler geriefatod PT, Ifre C0DtmJ 4n Ea $trgrrr araari
Lie V- satie�! al a proposed nevu l acility a0jacar3t the existing Hazen re . aetr�vua�Ser
" Trerktrr ono Favilhty. vbsequorrf studies, ev.vir,rrirllentat and requiatory approv�l�, ar)d
ongwee -ring design have pfogressed 10 the cure �fencerneril of the coristraictjon n# tree
Eas re! rri VVasl wa-tet TreairTien I eoClhi Y { EWVV TF)
Propo; ed Works
Me & VVTF 1-1r0ject involves the Coristr ;tiun A. a wasrewate' tr�Lalrrier�t ta�cEllly �apabl
of treaiing an anli6pM d 2030 average dally flow of 35,000 cubiC rneter5 per day (m,11,J)
Prim peak dally JJDWS 4a! %),bQ E m�' /d. 'The 11 'rF will be a conventional .activated
Sludge treiAmenl' proor;ss providinq.gecoridary lreatmeni tlirougIi the, dLQve[0 rrrterk# ot:
A heaClWorks b0dirng McorporAtIng mechanical liar screens, ;aria cc'hieCWr1 iind
Influent Pumps:
T hrew primary clarifier tanks:
Three aura #gun 1,9�riks;
Thre.e s coridary cl roJer tanks:
I.JrtraViul 0 fUV) dJsrnf+ctienl'blawer buNding; idm!riis €ration bu11ding with a la borawry.
wasnFoorn..,. Qorrfr rP:,rlce rUorri and etfhc,e:s: arif.1
■ Ertt,i�JlTlerrt ;or ,1;iuc1Qe Management.
The new t2014y, locared on aporo innately 3.3 h ([r_earsm,,, al the exhsling Hazem uregk.
pJent off they Rpd Hwid 960, Mil he tonged ano guited'. The IadyOut and deve¢opmont cl
the {law faulitleq gill al[ow ihe exIsting P1a nt to remaiir.� in service. th7roughous
consiruvilon. [..}m;e �;onstfucted, these existing 18611llas not Ino;orpofal d into -,Fla:+ n%.4w
plant will be rerun -wed Without any interruption U treatmerit
P* exr�tirig Mazerl C. re.ek oiitfbIi dlwLhafges- off luent +directly nn, Ic I .1 a'd He�jq Bea c,ri. it
55 P rap oaeri to construr.1 4.i axIerided out(alI same I ,1 O Ill ONli orr) Mtlich Mil dIsche.irgay
lreateCj LffiuP!-+t 1 m b0low II'r& waier 80dar� e during a bw ;ide ;irid at =r sa14 rfttvjcf..
rrarri:d,nv ps�irrt of burn rr corilac.l l.Jtff[��ers will be al stalled-al the disch rye p,rni tax
rrraximize d 11011t�rp of the ef!IU W1 I (.I Lit ierP the- entire We cycle
126
F 11
)Iklm/
alue4 Habitats
This EW"(TF wziI be iucaled adjAc Tint the R 9 h9a0 n.rsh -afid thc- a.I�ij if)tjr Ha +` r,
Both are eculo i l habitats val.Ubd b.j '!h ro: I,de is of Ilse pitry, There wW be rrc
di "C t I a rq e s tr +,,txi tlrtt3 W1dV J Ea.triu rrfar t-, Tft 61ir i.patiorl 01 effILaoi1t di;O w93rgU d#fr��, �t,f.�,
to ROO Head �eaft wall remvr • hurnan health risk anii �rnprove !Itc. envifr)r�rr' ul
haalth of the bouch and ro -iiortidnl ?!orie.
FlarbOW 01PEMUI) r+'rV0lV; - -s inters e'pting raw severer outfalls nlarrg th.e central pn-ninsula and
cunw? rrlg wasiowater to the E I TF for Ireatment. Saint John Harbrjur is the eur:ntrraJ
reci Pier i1 oa the Gary`s wostewaler efJtlueni. Tyra CQnsfruCtiOn of 111 0' pruprIsO LI Or)tfaII and
Cliff os e r 'Nil I Cor)snlidnto I h P dispUsat df Irea#8d effluent at a sfn_gle location- The effftrertit
will be, innmedrately dispersed by the enOr'gy inherent in tho Fundy tidal systems- The
Modeling c ompteted as part Cif this protect indicates substantial Jmprcvemc�ts to th�,%
quality of the ma nne waters in Caurtenay Bay, adjacent Iced Head Leach and in the
overall riarbour as a d €reel result at rh'te proposed collection aKid Ireaanrent system. T hr.$
iRiprovorrient will Substantially advance tk! City's Waterfront Strategic: Plan-
Federal and Provincial Environmental Regulatory Proca$s
The cornpielion of thP.'prnpused worts h 11; b�eefi the nu(cc P ne of a Icing pror:US.s of siudy
and review by Me f itk . interested groups and Provincial and Federal agencies. The
r,,omrnitimanI in the Lie slgn. construct +on at Id opeFAtion of the. PFoposed worts is to satt�fy
regOatory requirements with consideration tar standards that may bt collie more
rigorous in the lutrrre .
fioth :: e Provo: r,r,.i�JI 1ir,El PeS.Ief01 10vi.;I;;.01 9r,)ueritrrrarit hawo ir<+yisiaUve refrypr)giblitit3s-I�.
ecm -kjr,L� that the, prowls d works are uridEriakepir~ in a susmintbiia and trr�vif€�rrr,}er� ;�lky+
fesfrar ible mr*}nnot. The e nv i ro n rn e ntal asses smenI That has been undertakeir complies
wiTh the regWi ements of both the Now Bviinswin* Gloaa Environment ,Act and the
Canadian E-rjv roorriontal Asw Oth.ar POrmIT ing xntAnn-kIes incILldc-:
Trar-gport aan'dla providing autnorization tinder the Na}viga le t atprs Protoc i orr
MP Act
Fimwrhm and Or:earzs Q anaila providing aclhorizstlon under the Fisheries Act: and
# Egvirortm ono -F.;anada providing authorizatior under tine - Pmztjarr Er vinwwrieMa.
F7ev 6V ov -Act-
The preperat on of lore emrr)rimerital assessment has involved a numbe, of cleta,iled
tietd studies, MWe11ng, destgn, as wall a S pubiio con SuItatiop., The prttject trrL hail r r +rl
with rmny Irrdrvid�raJ anrir[ ups traiglf Ikre designr1d crv�rtnrrtrr[atl stt�tfres and ill
w•orrtinue to rneel with inWcresled parties as is necessary 1hrough construction.
Construction
Corrstructrar"F of the EWWTF will crmmone6-may 200'el VVIth a schedLiled c..ornpletior) t]f
July 201 1. f oostruction a�tiv'itres will take plate betw en 07:00- and 19:00 hours.
Src rrspOria'tiOn of project materials ?3nd egij;'pmr ml will be by trucks anrj Erallers- City
tfiuck route , wilI b iA;iced to rnrnimize disrupiloris tai IGCaI tt'atfle. Acrress tD the Site *III
be via the existing Ha7an Creek otrircance off Red Head Road.
Should you have questions, vwiah to cornment, or provide iriformation about the
EWWTF project, please eosntacit. Municipal Oper6tions & Engineering - urtorrleF
Service at (506) 658-4455 or C13CL Lirnited, Consulting Eingin rs (506) 6336650,
127
S1 SUSINFSS s
9
a z
08 November 2011
Mayor and Council of the
City of Saint John
PO Box 1971
Saint John, NB
E2L 4L1
Re: Lancaster Santa Claus Parade
Saint John CWest �f jusiness kssociation Inc.
23 MAIN STREET WEST
SAINT JOHN, NB, E2M 3M9
506- 693 -6357
www.sjwba.com
Your Worship and members of Council:
Greetings:
I am writing today on behalf of the Parade Committee for the Lancaster Santa Claus Parade
This year the west side will celebrate the 7`h Annual Lancaster Santa Claus Parade, and we are seeking the
permission of the Common Council of the City of Saint John to use the route as established last year,
whereby the parade travels as follows:- (This route allows for the least disruption of traffic)
The parade has been scheduled for Saturday, November 26`h, 2011 with a start time of 1:00pm.
Parade will start and stage on Manawagonish Rd, in front of Barnhill and St. Rose Schools, travel east to
Main St. West and continue east until the intersection of Ready St, turn south on Ready St, and continue to
the intersection of Catherwood, turn east on Catherwood to Fairville Blvd, turning west on Fairville Blvd
and continuing to Plaza Ave where the parade will complete its route. (Please see Map)
_ '>� .� �� s' - -• bpd
C ro P
bpd �tgRr g
Barnhill SchOO ► s'bw ADY a
9
m
. tark..sl°rq,� s
Parac Start a� T ne ell stati
G �
fee atl ; ®
Y6 o- s
3rerndale 3 `' G
6
Si—. a 3 p W'gyy Sr
S11°rD1°04°6t RW
Purdys iB A Q
IV
Comer 3, WlMiaal FV. Rr
hy^aeai C
♦90°
m o A�9 Nw.cn Aw �n MoL q,E
.dead Rd �'i
e, SOb s Sure 1 �"" ° °^� °Q Mck Cove
+� P Plaza A44 rgad�
Finis��
Our Vision
" To Aftwmote, Develop and Support the Business Community,
Recreational Opportunities and Spirit of Saint John West "
Incorporated March is` 2002
128
Lancaster Santa Claus Parade
Mayor and Council, 08 November 2011
Page 2
This year's parade has registered 74 entries to date and it is expected that it will top out at 100 entries. The
parade has become an event that the citizens of Saint John have come to enjoy and expect, and it has grown
in popularity amongst the young and old.
We have the support of the Saint John Fire Police Salvage Corp who have assisted in the protection and
safety of the spectators who number in the thousands, as well as the Municipal Works who provide the
barricades for traffic control.
We would respectfully ask the Council to assist this parade with the cooperation of the Police Department
to ensure that the traffic is contained to a minimum of disruption.
It is anticipated that the route itself will only be disrupted for approx 1 hour at the farthest point, and about
30 minutes at the starting point once the parade is under way.
On behalf of the committee I would like to thank you for your consideration of this request and pray for a
favorable response of Council.
Respectfully,
Blaine R. Harris
Executive Director
Saint John West Business Assoc
Parade Chairperson
Our vision
To Promote, Develop and Support the Business Community,
Recreational Opportunities and Spirit ofSamt John West "
Incorporated March 1" 2002
129
4 AV
SAINT JOHN
SAINT JOHN TRANSIT COMMISSION
55 MCDONALD STREET/ 55 RUE MCDONALD
SAINT JOHN, N.B. CANADA! SAINT JOHN, (N.-B.) CANADA
E2J OC7
Your Worship Mayor Court
And Members of Common Council
P.O. Box 1971
Saint John, NB
Dear Mayor Court and Councilors:
TRANSIT INFORMATION
(506) 658.4700
www.thinktransit.com
GENERAL OFFICES (506) 658 -4710
FAX (506) 658 -4704
November 10, 2011
With the recent expiration of the terms of Commissioners Chris Titus and Stephen Chase
and the resignation of Commissioner Glen Tait for conflict of interest reasons, the Saint John
Transit Commission is short three of its seven members.
Due these shortages, the Commission has been unable to form a quorum at a time
when decisions by the Commission are of significant importance due to changes being made in
our level of service.
This letter is written to request Common Council to please move expeditiously towards
the appointment or reappointment of three Commissioners to return the Commission to full
strength in order to enable us to move forward with essential business.
CDA /mk
Yours truly,
SAINT JOHN TRANSIT COMMISSION
C. Dwight Allaby
Vice Chairman
130
C.E. Nicolle Community Centre
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICATION FOR MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
"A COMMUNITY CENTRE CONTROLLED AND DIRECTED BY
THE COMMUNITY THAT ADDRESSES COMMUNITY
CHALLENGES IN A MEANINGFUL WAY"
131
ONE Change Now
YIP
NCPC National model site
Community Access Centre
Health Centre
Summer Arts in the Park
New Horizons Seniors Program
Community Development Workshops (P.E.I.)
Track Record: ONE Voice
132
REASONS FOR ONE CHANGE PROPOSAL FOR
CENTRE OPERATIONS:
•DESIRE FOR COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP AND
ENGAGE M ENT (APPENDIX H - PG'S 16 - 34)
•NEED FOR COMMUNITY `HUB'(APPENDIX H - PG'S 16 - 34)
•ALIGNING CENTRE DIRECTION WITH COMMUNITY PARTNER
PLANS
•ABILITY TO ACCESS FUNDS NOT AVAILABLE TO
MUNICIPALITY (NON- PROFIT STATUS)
133
134
135
Custodians
Resident Advisory
Council
YIP Staff
Centre Director
Asst. Centre Director
Pre -natal Programs
0 -5 Programs
6 -11 Programs
12 -14 Programs
15 -18 Programs
Adult Programs
Senior Programs
ici.
Part -time staff
Youth Council
Family Programs
Community Centre Programs (Appendix A)
------ ------ - -------------- ---------- ---- ------------------------
0-
Prenatal — Parenting and Prenatal classes for all expectant parents. Targeted to teen
and first time parents
o -5 Programs - Early childhood education: Playgroup, Talk with Me, diaper /formula
program, daycare
6 -11 Programs - Recreational, social, and educational programs
12 -14 Programs - Youth Inclusion Program, featuring a Manager, Teacher, Case
Worker, and Recreation Coordinator, providing a combination of recreational, social, and
educational programs.
15 -18 Programs - Recreational, social, and educational programs.
Adult Programs - Parents Night Out, Adult Learning, Career Exploration, Fitness
Programs, and Health Clinics.
Family Programs-- Programs that will promote healthy families and relationships:
parenting courses, family recreation, community celebrations (North End Days, Movies,
Xmas party, etc.)
Seniors Program — Support `Golden Oldies' Group, establish mentoring program with
youth
137
Parenting Program (4 -9)
Parenting Program(6 -12)
Early Childhood
Playgroup
Early Childhood
Parent Support
Talk With Me
Partners (Appendix D)
-------------------- nn ------------ -------------------------
19F
CMHA
YMCA
YMCA
Horizon Health
Confirmed -dj�mw
Discussion
Confirmed
Confirmed
Confirmed
Infant parenting YMCA Confirmed
138
$20,000 for all Y programs
Partners (App
-----------------------------------
�0
endix D)
---------------------------- - - - - --
Youth Career Boys & Girls Club Discussion j"""w
Youth Program Boys & Girls Club Discussion
Development
St. Thomas University
Confirmed
$24,000
Workers
Health Clinic
Horizon Health
Confirmed
$10,000/ year
Community Developer
Horizon Health
Confirmed
$25,000/ year
YIP Program — recreation,
ONE Change/ NCPC
Confirmed
$300,000/ year for 3 years
parenting, family
Financial Support
Cooke Aquaculture
Confirmed
$5,000/ year for 2 years
139
Partners (Appendix D)
---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
Volunteer Support
Gym Space
Play Park
Main Street Baptist Church Confirmed
Lorne Middle
School /School District
District 8
Kiwanis
(# volunteers X time X
$20 /hr)
Confirmed
Confirmed
140
Year 1 $16,400
Year 2 $32,800
Year 3 $65,000
$38,965.75
$488,565.75/yea r
Staffing
0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mr���
Centre Director:
Full -time day position.
Responsible for entire centre operations.
Responsible for program development, marketing, and partner relationships.
Centre Asst. Director:
Full -time day /evening position.
Responsible for program oversight and staff supervision
Lead program development with residents
Program (Part -Time) Staff:
Will run specific programs
Will develop relationships with youth
Will recruit residents for program participation
141
----------------------------
0
Lescription Ad
Staffing
Programs
General expenses
Total
I: r.60
Centre
Director
Assistant
Director
NECC Fall Winter Program -
Part-Time
Custodial
Youth & adult
Food program
$50,000/ annum
$57,000
+ MERCS
$30,000/ annum
$34,200
+ MERCS
Staff(32 weeks X 64 hours /
$22,325
week X $(10.25 / hour)
1 staff @ $12.00
$28,454
40hrs /wk (52 wks) +
MERCS
Supplies/ year $12,000
Supplies/ year $6,000
Admin- phones, Supplies/ year $8,000
advertising, office supplies,
staff travel etc
142
$167,922
Evaluation
------------ -,0 ---- -----------------------
Process and Impact Evaluation Strategies:
Centre Usage —track daily and specific program attendance
Program evaluation — participant evaluations
Annual evaluation — yearly evaluation utilizing outside
evaluator and program participants. Staff will monitor annual
success.
Resident Advisory Committee — Ongoing meetings with
residents to effectively evaluate programs to meet community
needs.
ilom M 1 0 1 M
143
C.E Nicolle Community Centre
Management & Operations
ONE Change Proposal
March 15, 2011
(Updated June 23, 2011)
144
Section A: Proposal Considerations & Elements
1. Introduction
If poverty is a disease that infects an entire community, in the form of
unemployment, violence, failing schools, broken homes, we can't just treat those
symptoms in isolation, we have to heal the entire community and we have to
focus on what works. — President Barack Obama
The Old North End was once one of Saint John's most prosperous neighborhoods
and the centre of a once - thriving shipping industry. Now this 20 -block area of the
city is now struggling with issues related to poverty, high unemployment, run-
down buildings, absentee landlords, a disproportionately high level of rental and
public housing, and high percentage of single parent families. This area is also
lacking in readily accessible recreational facilities and opportunities for youth.
ONE Change was formed to respond to these challenges.
ONE Change is an Incorporated Registered Charity that began work in this
neighborhood approximately seven years ago with the 'simple' mission of
improving the quality of life in the Old North End. The group was originally
brought together by concerned residents and the Saint John Police Force who
were concerned with the high levels of crime in the neighborhood. This dedicated
group of individuals is now made up of stakeholders representing police, the
church, housing, the school, the City, the Province, the University, and health and
youth experts. The real experts however are the residents and the youth who live
here. As the organization quickly learned, crime could not be addressed without
dealing with many of the underlying causes such as poverty, drug abuse,
unemployment and low education levels. One Change now boasts teams of
individuals concentrating on each of these areas. The organization is also
committed to bringing the neighborhood and families together through events
organized by our Community Celebrations Team. ONE Change has achieved some
major successes and the neighborhood is moving in the right direction. There has
been a marked reduction in crime, initiation of housing programs (including a
program for homeless youth who want to finish their education), and the
145
creation of an annual calendar of neighborhood celebrations and environmental
activities. As a result of the work of ONE Change on all these fronts, it has
received local, provincial, and national awards for its work.
2. Mission and Purpose of Organization
a. The mission of the One Change is 'to improve the quality of life in the Old
North End'. This is accomplished in a number of ways but with 'grassroot'
community involvement at its core. Poverty and its associated challenges
are major issues in this neighborhood, therefore ONE Change has targeted
issues such as crime prevention, housing and environment issues,
education, recreation, health, youth, and community pride as major areas
of intervention. ONE Change has, and still is, undertaking major planning
exercises to determine specific issues the residents feel are priorities. ONE
Change has experienced major successes over the past seven years but is
well aware that the work is far from complete. The organization has been
successful having a community office constructed which now houses many
programs, including a community library, a diaper and formula program, a
health clinic, a computer centre and police office. ONE Change was the
key organization fighting the proposal to close Lorne Middle School and
was successful. The National Crime Prevention Centre has awarded a
national program, the Youth Inclusion Program, to ONE Change bringing
almost a million dollars of funding over three years for youth
programming. The National Health Council of Canada and Social
Development Canada have independently named ONE Change as an
innovative practice in Canada. ONE Change has presented their successes
at an international Youth Institute in Orlando and Detroit and was one of
two featured national speakers on Prince Edward Island last November.
The most impressive statistic may be that the calls for service to the police
have been reduced almost 50% since ONE Change began its work in the
neighborhood.
3. Vision
a. The vision of ONE Change in relation to managing and operating the C.E
Nicolle Community Centre is simple. One Change envisions a Community
USEV
Centre controlled and directed by the community. The C.E Nicolle
Community Centre will then regain its spot as the true 'Center' of the
community. It will act as a recognizable 'hub' from which interventions can
radiate into the community in order to address community challenges in a
broad -based and interrelated fashion.
b. The impact created by ONE Change operation of the C.E Nicolle
Community Centre will be one of ownership and engagement. If the
community is directing the content of programs and services, they will be
relevant to the unique needs of the North End. The initiatives of the
Centre will be responsive to any changes in priorities and demographics
and be able to quickly adjust direction and focus.
4. Goal and Objectives
a. Goals
i. Mitigating the Effects of Poverty —The Old North End is labeled as a
'Priority Neighborhood' due to the high cluster of low income
within its boundaries. A major cause of generational poverty is an
inequality of opportunities; a lack of resources. A major goal of the
C.E Nicolle Community Centre will be to provide the resources,
skills, and interventions that will allow North End residents to move
forward and be successful.
ii. A Centre for Everyone — ONE Change has the goal of creating a
Centre that will be relevant from 'cradle to grave'. While youth will
always remain the key demographic, the community has been clear
that they want services that respond to all ages from pre -natal
classes for parents to programs that keep seniors active and
engaged.
b. Objectives
i. Community Engagement - The Centre will be operated by a 'grass-
roots' organization further enhanced with a Resident Advisory
Board to ensure that programming remains relevant to the needs of
the neighborhood.
147
ii. Use of Best Practices - A responsibility of the Centre Director will be
to constantly investigate best practices and to incorporate them
into the programming of the Centre. Further, the programs will be
evaluated on an on -going basis to make certain the programs are
effective.
iii. Community Hub - The Centre will act as the coordinating force for
the community. Staff will hold regular meetings with community
partners to ensure they have an understanding of all programs in
the neighborhood. In conjunction with the ONE Change, the Centre
will keep residents informed of community programs and events
whether Centre or partner operated.
iv. Partner Supported - A major objective of the Centre will be to
engage other partners in Centre programming. By incorporating the
knowledge, resources, and volunteer staff of other organizations,
the Centre can cost effectively add many quality programming
opportunities. See Appendix D and E.
v. Funding Opportunities - The ONE Change has access to funding
sources that the Municipal Governments cannot access. The ONE
Change is committed to supplementing City dollars with business
and philanthropic funding to increase scope of service.
5. Operations
a. The ONE Change commits to operating the C.E Nicolle Community Centre
from 9 am to 9 pm Monday to Friday and from 9 am -3 pm on Saturday.
Special events will be offered that will increase hours of operation on an as
scheduled basis. See sample schedule Appendix A.
b. The Centre programming will ultimately be the responsibility of the ONE
Change Board of Directors. The Centre will be managed by a full -time
Centre Director and Assistant Director for daily operations. The Centre
Director will be responsible for staffing, building conditions and needs, and
marketing. A major part of the Director's job will be program development
and partner relations. The Assistant Director's work will be afternoon and
evening and will be responsible for the day to day successful operations of
the programming, overseeing part -time staff, and basic discipline of the
participants.
6. Outcomes, Expectations, and Deliverables
a. The C.E Nicolle Community Centre will be responsive to all ages. The
priority targets will be children and youth from 0 -18, but programs and
services will be provided for all age groups.
b. The programs and services offered by the C.E Nicolle Community Centre
will focus on recreation, education /training, and social activities. A special
focus on active living and healthy lifestyles will be provided as well as
programs that provide skill building opportunities to residents. See
Appendix B.
c. The core programs offered by the C.E Nicolle Community Centre will be
free of charge for all users. To obtain the goal of mitigating the effects of
poverty, programs must be free of financial charge. The members of the
Centre will 'pay' for programs through an expectation of service and
volunteerism to the community. Not everyone has financial means, but all
have an ability to 'give back' to their community. Youth programs will
include daily duties such as cleaning up after activities while all will be
asked to take part in neighborhood clean -ups etc. Special events that
require additional funding may include members taking part in fund raising
activities. There will however be an opportunity to generate funds through
rentals of facility for outside agencies.
d. Centre usage and participation levels will be monitored as part of the
overall evaluation strategy. All members will provide general registration
forms/ behavior contracts before taking part in any Centre activities. A
Centre membership database will be created to organize participants.
Individual programs will have participation levels monitored for each
session. Youth programs will have a daily sign -in procedure in which
overall Centre usage can be monitored. These numbers will be utilized by
the Centre Director as a tool to maintain quality and relevance of
programming.
7. Staff Qualifications
a. Certification/ Education
i. Centre Director — The expectation is that the Centre Director will
possess a university degree, preferably a Masters Degree in a
149
related field as well as practical experience in a community
environment.
ii. Assistant Director —The Assistant will possess a University or
College degree in a related field or be working towards completion
as well as practical experience in a community environment.
iii. Leaders, Instructors, Supervisors — Other staff will have education
or experience compatible with the programs they are responsible
for. While there is room for some positions to be developmental in
nature, most will preferably have formal education, coaching
certification, or other relevant credentials.
8. Staff Compensation
a. Compensation for staff will be relative to the degree of responsibility and
qualifications for their position. Projected salaries/ wages are as follows:
i. Centre Director - $50,000 per annum
ii. Assistant director - $30,000 per annum
iii. Leaders, Instructors, Supervisors - $10.00 hourly
iv. Custodial - $12.00 hourly
9. Insurance
ONE Change has met with our insurance agent and are prepared to have
all relevant conditions met.
10. Indemnification
ONE Change will provide necessary indemnification documentation upon
operational agreement between ONE Change and the City of Saint John
11. Cleaning and Maintenance of Facility
a. The ONE Change and Centre Director will assume responsibility of hiring
and overseeing custodial services for the C.E Nicolle Community Centre.
Wages for custodial staff will be transferred from existing Community
Centre budget to ONE Change to pay staff. This is seen as an opportunity
for job creation from within the community. ONE Change will seek
neighborhood residents with custodial experience to fill these roles.
150
b. The expectations of ONE Change with regard to building maintenance and
repairs is to work in partnership with the City of Saint John. The ONE
Change's expertise is in running high quality programming for the
residents of the Old North End and does not have interest or experience
maintaining the physical structure of the building. The Centre Director will
be responsible for monitoring building condition, damage etc but will
engage the City of Saint John for required work. The ONE Change will work
as partners to seek funds for renovations, upgrades etc but do not
anticipate being responsible for building or grounds maintenance.
Programs may work on projects such as mural painting, flower planting
and other activities as part of their activities as they have traditionally
done and ONE Change may seek groups such as Deloitte to help with
aesthetic improvements but will work with the City of Saint John to
achieve these improvements. Outside of Custodial services, ONE Change is
only interested in providing the programs and services contained within
the C.E Nicolle Community Centre building. ONE Change will seek approval
from Leisure Services for any physical modifications to the Centre
property.
12. Budget
a. See Appendix C
13. Evaluation
• A combination of process and impact evaluation techniques will be used to
monitor program effectiveness including:
O Centre Usage — daily attendance for overall Centre usage as well as specific
program attendance.
O Program evaluation — Each program will conclude with users asked to take
part in short evaluations of programs effectiveness, enjoyment, and
concerns or suggestions for future programs.
O Annual evaluation — A yearly overall evaluation utilizing a representative
group of users preferably administered by an outside assessor. Staff will
also hold annual planning to monitor success.
O Resident Advisory Committee — Ongoing meetings with residents to
effectively adjust programs to meet the needs of the community.
151
14. Other Considerations
a. ONE Change has the expectation of being close partners with the Leisure
Services Department. ONE Change hopes to learn from the successes and
challenges of other Community Centres as well as sharing C.E Nicolle
Community Centre's experiences. We hope to have a Leisure Services
employee continue to sit as ex- officio on the ONE Change Board and
representation on the Resident Advisory Committee. We anticipate
regular meetings to discuss success of programs and any issues that may
arise. The relationship between Leisure Service Department and ONE
Change has been very positive and it's anticipated that the cooperative
relationship will only strengthen through this arrangement.
b. Our plans for sustainability areas follows:
i. The ONE Change organization constantly works to secure funding
from business, philanthropy, and their own fundraising efforts.
Because of the high level of volunteer involvement operational
overhead of the organization remains small. Constant evaluation
and planning allows the organization's mission to stay relevant to
the community and thus an important part of the Old North End.
ii. The sustainability of the C.E Nicolle Community Centre will involve a
concentrated effort to engage new sponsors and partners to be
involved. City funding will be required for core operations as will
bringing business and philanthropies to the table. By incorporating
a number of currently funded ONE Change programs in the plans
for C.E Nicolle Community Centre some sustainability will be 'built
in'. The biggest key perhaps is engaging partners to offer their
programs at the C.E Nicolle Community Centre site. We have
already received confirmation from a number of service providers
who have interest in bringing their programs to C.E Nicolle
Community Centre.
c. The gym is a key component to any community centre and would have to
be a priority should Lorne School close. ONE Change would be committed
to working with the City to solve this problem should it arise. ONE Change
152
will also actively oppose any attempt to close the school should a proposal
to do so be put forward.
d. Lorne School has already made the commitment to ONE Change that the
gym will remain a community asset that will be available whenever
possible for C.E Nicolle Community Centre use. Should ONE Change
assume operations of C.E Nicolle Community Centre, a formalized Memo
of Understanding would be sought to confirm the availability of the gym.
Section B: Support organization is requesting from the City of Saint John
ONE Change has the following expectations of the City of Saint John in the following
areas:
a. Financial Commitment — The expectation is that the City of Saint John continue to
provide the current level of funding to C.E Nicolle Community Centre with
expectation that ONE Change will seek further funds to expand programming
options.
b. Staffing — ONE Change anticipates hiring all programming staff for operations.
The expectation is that the City will provide a liaison to work with the C.E Nicolle
Community Centre to maintain communication and cooperation.
c. Building Maintenance —ONE Change expects that the City of Saint John will
continue to be responsible for maintenance of the C.E Nicolle Community Centre
with the exception of custodial. ONE Change commits to ensuring any
maintenance issues are immediately brought to the attention of the relevant City
Departments.
d. Other — The expectation is that all current assets at the C.E Nicolle Community
Centre remain (furniture, computers, etc). Replacement items will be a joint
responsibility of the City of Saint John and ONE Change, to be discussed on an
individual basis.
153
APPENDIX A
Potential Program Schedule
154
Appendix A — Potential Program Schedule
Times Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
9:00- Adult Ed Adult Ed Adult Ed Adult Ed Adult Ed B -fast
12:00
Clothing Play Clothing Baby Parent
Group group program
12:00- Adult Ed Adult Ed Adult Ed
3:00
Clinic
3:00 -7:00 Middle
Mini
Middle
Tutoring
Tutoring
Tutoring
Mini
Middle
Parent P
cheer
cheer
Mini cheer
7:00 -9:00 Old teen Adult Parent
Program
9:00- Rental Rental Rental
10:00
Adult Ed Adult Ed Family or
Youth
Seniors
program
Mini Mini Family or
Youth
Tutoring Tutoring Program
Middle
cheer
Adult Dance
Movie
Rental Dance
Movie
155
Appendix B
Potential Programs for
C.E Nicolle Community Centre
156
Appendix B — Potential Programs for C.E Nicolle Community Centre
• Prenatal - Parenting Classes available for all expectant parents but
specifically targeted to teen and first time parents. Classes will focus on
prenatal health and expectations for infant care.
• 0 -5 Programs - Early childhood education including; Playgroup Talk with
Me, diaper/ formula program, daycare opportunities.
• 6 -11 Programs - A combination of recreational, social, and educational
programs including basic service and volunteer activities.
• 12 -14 Programs - This will be provided as the Youth Inclusion Program. This
component will feature a Manager, Teacher, Case Worker, and Recreation
Coordinator. They will provide a Combination of recreational, social, and
educational programs focusing on school, home, and recreational
environments.
• 15 -18 Programs - A combination of recreational, social, and educational
programs.
• Adult Programs - A variety of programming including but not limited to;
Parents Night Out, Adult Learning Programs, Job finding opportunities and
counseling, Fitness Programs, and Health Clinics.
• Family Programs — Programs that will promote healthy families and
relationships. Some programs include; parenting courses for parents of
tens, family recreational outings, celebrations (North End Days, Movies,
Xmas party, etc)
• Seniors Program — Supporting existing 'Golden Oldies' Group, providing a
mentoring program with youth and health clinics.
157
Appendix C
Proposed Budget
158
Appendix C — Proposed Budget
Description Description
Staffing
Programs
General expenses
Centre
Director
Assistant
Director
Program Staff
Custodial
Youth & adult
Food program
Admin- phones,
advertising, office
supplies, staff
travel etc
Frequency Amount
$50,000/ annum
$57,000
+ MERCS
$6,000
$30,000/ annum
$34,200
+ MERCS
3 staff @ $10.00
$38,540
94hrs /wk total (41wks)
1 staff @ $12.00
$28,454
40hrs /wk (52 wks) +
MERCS
Supplies/ year
$12,000
Supplies/ year
$6,000
Supplies/ year
$8,000
Tota 1 $184,194
159
Appendix D
Contributions and In -Kind
Service
160
Appendix D — Contributions and In -Kind Service
Program Organization Confirmed /discussion In -kind value
Parenting
CMHA
Confirmed ??
Program (4 -9)
Parenting
CMHA
Discussion
Program(6 -12)
Early Childhood
YMCA
Confirmed $20,000 for all Y
Playgroup
programs
Early Childhood
YMCA
Confirmed
Parent Support
Talk With Me
Horizon Health
Confirmed
Infant parenting YMCA Confirmed
Youth Career Boys & Girls Club Discussion
Youth Program Boys & Girls Club Discussion
Development St. Thomas Confirmed $24,000
Workers University
Health Clinic Horizon Health Confirmed $10,000/ year
161
Community Horizon Health Confirmed
Developer
YIP Program — ONE Change/
recreation, NCPC
parenting, family
Financial Support Cooke
Aquaculture
Volunteer
Support
Gym space
Play Park
Total value to
date
Main Street
Baptist Church
Lorne Middle
School/ School
District 8
Kiwanis
$25,000/ year
Confirmed $300,000/ year
for 3 years
Confirmed $5,000/ year for 2
years
Confirmed Year 1 $16,400
(# volunteers x time x Year 2 $32,800
$20 /hr)
Year 3 $65,600
Confirmed $38,965.75
Confirmed
162
$488,565.75/
year
Appendix E
Letters of Support
163
Appendix F
Leadership
ONE Change Board of Directors
164
Board of Directors - 2011
President
Scott Crawford
Horizon Health
28 Richmond Street,
Saint John, NB E2L 3132
647 -3899
Email: Scott.Crawford @HorizonNB.ca
Vice - President (Stakeholder)
Kurt Peacock
UNBSJ
56 Canterbury Street, 3rd Floor,
Saint John, NB E2L 5C3
(0) 648 -2307
Email: kpeacock @unbsi.ca
Vice - President (Resident)
Tammy Calvin
2 Cunard Street,
Saint John, NB
(H) 608 -4356 (0) 658 -2416
Email: Tammy.Calvin @gnb.ca
Secretary /Treasurer
Kit Hickey
Ex. Director - Housing Alternatives Inc.
75 Adelaide Street,
Saint John, NB E2K 1W4
(0) 632 -9393
Email: khickey @nb.aibn.com
165
Members
Connie Gould
44 Main Street,
Saint John, NB E2K 1H1
642 -1115
E -mail: connie- .Qould(@hotmail.com
Rose young
230 Main Street
Saint John,N.B.
642 -7420
John Knight
Main Street Baptist Church
211 Main Street
Saint John, NB E2K 1H8
(H) 849 -6735 (0) 642 -8060
Email: iohn @mainstreetbaptist.ca
Gary Sullivan
Principal — Millidgeville North
500 Woodward Ave
Saint John, NB E2K 4G7
(0) 658 -2738
Email: gary.sullivan @nbed.nb.ca
Carla Bigney
222 Main Street, Apt. #2
Saint John, NB E2L 1H6
663 -9438
Email: imhlaw @live.ca
..
Greg Norton
Principal — Lorne Middle School
90 Newman Street
Saint John, New Brunswick
E2K 1M1
(0) 658 -5351
Email: greg.norton @n bed. nb.ca
Ex- Officio
Cst. Brian Kelley
Community Police Officer
(0) 632 -6139 (C) 977 -1373
Email: Brian.kelley @saintiohn.ca
Greg Cutler
North End Community Centre
(C) 650 -3763
Email: gregory.cutler @saintiohn.ca
167
Appendix G
Audited Financial Statements
.:
Appendix H
ONE Voice Report
169
S2. LVXE'SASGLrCAX CffV XYf
369 914AINST, S/AINTJOYfX, XB E2X 1JI
,dune 27, 2011
31r. Xevin Watson — .Leisure Services
City of Saint ,john
171 Adelaide St.
Saint John, XB E2K1W9
Dear �41r. Watson,
The proposed partnership between Leisure Services and One Change
around the North End Community Centre is exciting news for the people
of the .North End
St. Luke's Church has responded to the call of the One Change ever since
its conception some years ago. We have a Loaves and Fishes hot lunch
program that feeds up to 50 people on ,Monday and Thursdays, which
includes some Lorne School students. We also have a free breavast
program on Tuesday mornings, and have in the last few months sponsored
a youth night on Thursday evenings working with the One Change. We
supply a clothing closet and support the Food Bank both financially and
with food: So, we know the needs in the North End, and are painfully
aware of the poverty and lack of resources in the area for all peoples,
especially the Touth. We at St. Luke's have seen the good, positive
changes in the neigbourhood that have taken place because of One
Change, schools, churches, police and others working together with the
residents taking leadership.
We hope that we can continue to be apart of this experience, and we will
do all that we can to support this perspective partnership between .Leisure
Services and ONE Change. We support this endeavor.
Respectfully,
Eileen Irish, Wriest and lector of St. Euke'sAnglican Church.
170
171
MAIN STREET BAPTIST CHURCH
June 21, 2011
Kevin Watson
Leisure Services
City of Saint John
171 Adelaide St.
Saint John, NB
E2K 1W9
Mr. Watson:
I am writing this letter on behalf of the pastoral staff and lay leadership of Main Street Baptist
Church.
Main Street Baptist Church, as you know, is located in Saint John's Old North End, an area beset
by many social and economic challenges — hence its designation as a Priority Neighbourhood
for the purposes of municipal planning. We, as a church, support this designation and, in
partnership with others, are seeking to promote and rebuild a sense of community within this
neighbourhood.
The people who call the Old North End "home" only desire for themselves the opportunity to
lead productive and fulfilling lives. But unfortunately, the challenges of this neighbourhood
often prevent them from reaching their full potential. Our church is determined to change this!
We work closely with local residents, Lorne Middle School, the North End Community Centre,
and the ONE Change around initiatives intended to benefit the neighbourhood. We also have
many volunteers dedicated to the cause.
That is why we are so encouraged by the proposed partnership between Leisure Services and
ONE Change around the North End Community Centre. We are confident that this partnership,
aided by future renovations and additions to the centre, will enable it to house a cradle -to-
grave array of programs that will address a range of needs expressed by, or identified among,
the children, youth, and adults who live here. In so doing, the centre will make an important
contribution toward enabling and empowering the people of the Old North End to enjoy a
productive and fulfilling future.
We, as a church, look forward to playing a vital role in all this through an expanded partnership
with the North End Community Centre too. You may be aware that our church is in the midst of
172
a capital campaign to build a new facility on Forbes Drive (on the other side of Shamrock Park).
On completion of this new building, hopefully in 2012, our existing building and properties in
the Old North End will be used to more fully benefit this neighbourhood.
These plans include donating our "parking lot" property adjacent to the community centre in
order to build, in partnership with others, a wonderful playground park for the pleasure of
families in the neighbourhood. As you can see, this will serve as a strategic addition to future
plans for expanding family programming at the community centre. Moreover, as our already
large congregation continues to grow, we intend to recruit an ever - growing army of volunteers
to help staff all future programs at the expanded community centre — a commitment that will
amount to an in -kind contribution running to thousands of dollars on an annual basis.
It should be clear, by now, that we are very excited by the prospect of a partnership between
Leisure Services and ONE Change. We believe that this partnership will enable the
development of a community centre in the Old North End that could well become a model for
others — benefiting this neighbourhood and enhancing the reputation of our city.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at iohn @mainstreetbaptist.ca if you wish to discuss
anything further, or if we can be of service to you.
Respectfully,
I q-Q
John P. Knight
Community Outreach Pastor
173
LOMW LORNE MIDDLE SCHOOL
90 Newman Street
Saint John, NB E2K 1M1
http: / /Iomems.nbed.nb. ca/
Phone: 506-658-5351 Fax: 506-658-3779
Mr. G. Norton, Principal
21 June 2011
ONE Change Inc.
223 Victoria Street
Saint John, NB E2K 1L9
To whom it may concern:
This letter acknowledges the outstanding work that the ONE Change Inc. does in the Old North
End of Saint John, NB. The commitment of the ONE Change Inc. to revitalization of the Old
North End is unwavering and provides a powerful influence for positive change in one of Saint
John's priority neighborhoods. The ability of ONE Change to deliver high - quality programming,
accountability and authentic community engagement are just a few of the qualities that have
propelled the ONE Change into a nationally recognized model. It is without hesitations that I
give an unequivocal endorsement for the ONE Change Inc. in all of its endeavors.
Yours Truly,
Greg Norton
Principal, Lorne Middle School
"Discovering, respecting, and achieving the potential
of ourselves, others, and our community."
174
LOMW LORNE MIDDLE SCHOOL
90 Newman Street
Saint John, NB E2K 1M1
http: / /Iomems.nbed.nb. ca/
Phone: 506-658-5351 Fax: 506-658-3779
Mr. G. Norton, Principal
May 4, 2011
Scott Crawford
President, ONE Change Inc.
The Resource Centre for Youth
28 Richmond Street,
Saint John, NB E21, 3132
Dear Scott:
This letter aims to acknowledge the continuation of the current memorandum of understanding
between Lorne School and the North End Community Center (NECC) with respect to the use of
the school gymnasium in the event that ONE Change Inc. should assume programming
responsibility and day -to -day operations of the NECC.
Yours Truly,
Greg Norton
Principal, Lorne Middle School
cc: Chris Toole, Director of Finance & Administrative Services
"Discovering, respecting, and achieving the potential
of ourselves, others, and our community."
175
VC4AOT I E S
Saint John
December 14, 2009
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council
City of Saint John,
15 Market Square
P. O. Box 1971
Saint John, NB E21- 41-1
Re: Letter of Support for ONE Change's proposal to manage the North End
Community Centre
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council,
Vibrant Communities Saint John has been championing a neighbourhood approach
to revitalization, based on best practice research and the successes of ONE Change
in the Old North End. Partners in the Old North End have been coordinating programs
and working together to better meet the needs of residents.
We feel that ONE Change has demonstrated its capability of assuming management
of the North End Community Centre and represents another step in the actions of a
neighbourhood that wants to take a leadership role in addressing its challenges and
solutions. We also believe firmly in partnerships. We would encourage the City of
Saint John, and Leisure Services in particular, and other groups in Saint John to
contribute to the success of the North End Community Centre by lending support
through such means as satellite programs.
ONE Change has shown itself to be innovative and a leader in Saint John. With sufficient
funds and a commitment to invest in improvements to the facility from the City of Saint
John, the Leadership Roundtable of Vibrant Communities Saint John endorses the
request that ONE Change manage the North End Community Centre.
Thank you,
Tom Gribbons
Chair, Leadership Roundtable
Vibrant Communities Saint John
cc: ONE Change- Scott Crawford
Vibrant Communities Saint John - Community Health Centre 116 Coburg St.
Saint John, New Brunswick • EM 3K1
Fax: 506 - 632 -5539 - Phone: 506 - 693 -0904
Cell: 506 - 333 -0104
176
THE ONE CHANGE INC.
(Incorporated under the laws of New Brunswick)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DECEMBER 31, 2010
177
THE ONE CHANGE INC.
AUDITORS' REPORT
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Statement of Financial Position
Statement of Changes in Net Assets
Statement of Operations
Statement of Cash Flows
Notes to Financial Statements
DECEMBER 31, 2010
CONTENTS
178
Page
1
2
3
4
5
b -7
B E LYEA
C
COLWELL
ASSOCIATES Luft '
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT
To the Members of The One Change Inc.
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of The One Change Inc., which comprise the statement of
financial position as at December 31, 2010, and the statement of changes in net assets, statement of operations and
the statement of cash flows for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other
explanatory information.
Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with
Canadian generally accepted accounting standards, and for such internal control as management determines is
necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to
fraud or error.
Auditor's Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit
in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with
ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of
material misstatement of the non - consolidated financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those
risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the
financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the
purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes
evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial. statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit
opinion.
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of The One
Change Inc. as at December 31, 2010, and its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in
accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting standards.
Saint John, NB
April 21, 2011
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
133 fhinceWilfiom Simet, Wh 601, kintlohn, Hew Bruns0i 12L2B5, P.w 633.4815 HOPE
E
E info@he*lwell.com
1�f9
THE ONE CHANGE INC.
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION
AS AT DECEMBER 31, 201.0
2010 2009
ASSETS
CURRENT
Cash $ 113,285 $ 13,757
Cash - Youth Council & Senior Groups 649 644
Accounts receivable 13,575 15,613
Prepaid expenses _ 1,750 1,716
129,259 31,730
CAPITAL ASSETS (Notes 2, 3 and 4) 161,565 172,811
$ 290,824 $ 204.541
LIABILITIES
U "; .r
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 34,444 $ 11,514
Deferred income - Youth Council & Senior Groups 25,280 280
Deferred revenue 45,126 5,100
104,850 16,894
LONG -TERM
Deferred contributions related to capital assets (Note 4) 164,171 175,021
NET ASSETS
NET ASSETS INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS $ (15,940) $ (15,544)
UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS 37,743 28,170
21,803 12,626
$ 290,824 $_ __ 204,541
F THE BOARD:
010,114"Aii1offit Director
0
THE ONE CHANGE INC.
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
(Unaudited)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010
Invested in Total Total
Capital Assets Unrestricted 2010 2009
BALANCE AT BEGINNING OF
YEAR $ (15,544) $ 28,170 $ 12,626 $ 27,934
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUE
OVER EXPENDITURE {396_) 9.573 9.177 15 308
INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL
BALANCE AT END OF YEAR $ $ 37.743 $ 21.803 $ 12.626
1� 1
THE ONE CHANGE INC.
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010
2010
REVENUE
Donations
Grants
Investment income
Fundraising
Youth Inclusion Program
Case Management
Amortization of deferred contributions related to capital assets
EXPENDITURE
Program expenses
Wages and benefits
Supplies
Insurance
Professional fees
Building maintenance and property taxes
Fundraising
Interest and bank charges
HST expense
Telephone
Amortization
Youth Inclusion Program
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURE
"I
$ 9,380
84,190
350
19,932
150,663
14,789
10.850
290,154
24,843
72,486
3,087
3,591
3,040
2,491
6,808
462
1,568
724
11,246
150.631
280,977
$ 9,177
2009
$ 7,744
141,471
239
340
10.850
1 60,644
39,563
110,050
681
3,481
5,920
2,202
185
1,417
1,207
11,246
175.952
$ {15,308)
THE ONE CHANGE INC.
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010
2010
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN)
Operating activities
Excess of revenue over expenditure
Items not involving cash
Amortization of deferred contributions related to
capital assets
Amortization
Changes in non -cash working capital balances
Accounts receivable
Prepaid expenses
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
Deferred revenue
Deferred income - Youth Council and Senior
Financing activities
Contributions related to capital assets
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH
CASH AT BEGINNING OF YEAR
CASH AT END OF YEAR
REPRESENTED BY:
Cash
Cash - Youth Council and Senior Groups
A3
$ 9,177
(10,850)
_ 11,246
9,573
2,038
(34)
22,930
40,026
25.000
99.533
99,533
14.401_
$ 113,934
$ 113,285
649
$ 1 i3,934
2009
$ (15,308)
(10,850)
11,246
(14,912)
(584)
(40)
2,373
(46,455)
31I)
(59,929)
5,000
(54,929)
69,330
$ 13,757
644
$ 14.401
THE ONE CHANGE INC.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DECEMBER 31, 2010
1. PURPOSE OF THE ORGANIZATION
The purpose of The One Change Inc. is to increase the quality of life in the north end of the City of
Saint John by effecting Iasting change in the youth of the neighbourhood, with the view that the
youth will grow into community- caring adults. The organization was incorporated without share
capital under the New Brunswick Companies Act as a non - profit organization on July 26, 2004 and
became a registered charity under paragraph 149(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act on October 18, 2005.
As such, it is exempt from income taxes.
2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Revenue recognition
The One Change Inc. follows the deferral method of accounting for contributions. Restricted
contributions are recognized as revenue in the year in which the related expenses are incurred.
Unrestricted contributions are recognized as revenue when received or receivable if the amount to
be received can be reasonably estimated and collection is reasonably assured.
Contributed Services
Volunteers contribute an indeterminable number of hours per year. Because of the difficulty of
determining their fair value, contributed services are not recognized in the financial statements.
Capital Assets
Capital assets are stated at cost less accumulated amortization. Amortization is being provided for
on capital assets using the straight line method at the following annual rates:
Building 5%
Furniture and fixtures 20%
Computer equipment 33%
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting
principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount
of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial
statements and the reported amount of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. These
estimates are reviewed periodically, and as adjustments become necessary, they are reported in
earnings in the period in which they become known.
Financial Instruments
All financial asset instruments are classified as one of the following: held -to- maturity (HTM), loans
and receivables (L &R), held -for- trading (HFT) or available- for -sale (AFS). All financial liability
instruments are classified as either held -for- trading (HFT) or other liabilities (OL). Financial assets
and liabilities classified as held -for- trading are measured at fair value with gains and losses
recognized in excess of revenue over expenditure. Financial assets classified as available- for -sale
are measured at fair value, with changes in fair value recorded directly to net assets until the
investment is derecognized or impaired at which time the amounts are recorded in net income.
Financial assets classified as held -to- maturity or loans and receivables and financial liabilities
classified as other liabilities are measured at amortized cost based on the effective interest method.
0
THE ONE CHANGE INC.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DECEMBER 31, 2010
2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (cont'd)
The organization has designated its financial instruments as follows:
Balance Sheet CategorX Catego1l' Explanation
Assets
Cash HFT Measured at fair value
Accounts receivable L &R Measured at amortized cost
Liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities OL Measured at amortized cost
Transaction costs that are directly attributable to the acquisition or issuance of financial assets or
liabilities are accounted for as part of the respective asset or liability's carrying value at inception.
Unless otherwise noted, it is management's opinion that the organization is not exposed to
significant interest, currency or credit risks arising from its financial instruments.
3. CAPITAL ASSETS
4. DEFERRED CONTRIBUTIONS RELATED TO CAPITAL ASSETS
Deferred contributions related to capital assets represent contributions to The One Change Inc. for
the purchase and construction of building. These contributions are amortized to revenue on the
same basis as the related capital assets are amortized to expenditure. The change in the deferred
contributions balance for the year is as follows:
Balance at beginning of year
Contributions received related to the purchase of capital assets
Amount amortized to revenue
Balance at end of year
1785
2010
$ 175,021
(10.850)
$ ]64,171
2009
$ 180,871
5,000
(10,850)
$.1.7.5
.1.0
2010
2009
Accumulated
Cost
Amortization
Net
Net
Land
$ 10,000
$ -
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
Building
202,773
51,604
151,169
161,307
Furniture and fixtures
5,542
5,146
396
1,504
Computer equipment
1.734
1.734
-
-
$.2.2.0
$�4
$ 1565
$ 12 811
4. DEFERRED CONTRIBUTIONS RELATED TO CAPITAL ASSETS
Deferred contributions related to capital assets represent contributions to The One Change Inc. for
the purchase and construction of building. These contributions are amortized to revenue on the
same basis as the related capital assets are amortized to expenditure. The change in the deferred
contributions balance for the year is as follows:
Balance at beginning of year
Contributions received related to the purchase of capital assets
Amount amortized to revenue
Balance at end of year
1785
2010
$ 175,021
(10.850)
$ ]64,171
2009
$ 180,871
5,000
(10,850)
$.1.7.5
.1.0
OLD NORTH END
ONE Voice:
Social
Programming
Initiative
Social Programming Initiative
12/1/2010
:.
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initiative
Table of Contents
Project Participants and Acknowledgements ...... ..............................3
Getting Started
Introduction to the Old North End Voice ........... ..............................6
Situating Ourselves: Who we are ..................... ..............................7
Rational: The ONE Plan .............................. ............................... 8
Geographical Location ................................. ..............................9
LandUsage .............................................. .............................10
Community Statistics .................................. ..............................1 l
Past and Current Successes/ Community Strengths . .............................13
Process for Determining Current Community Priorities .......................14
2010 Old North End Community Priorities
Childrenages 0- 5 ....................................... .............................16
Children ages 6 -12 ..................................... .............................21
Youth.................................................... .............................24
Adults.................................................... .............................26
Seniors................................................... .............................28
ONE Voice Recommendations ....................... .............................31
Conclusion.............................................. .............................34
Appendices
AppendixA ............................................. .............................35
AppendixB ............................................ ............................... 39
AppendixC .............................................. .............................44
References...................................................................... .............................46
187
ONE Voice: Social Program
Project Participants and Acknowledgements
The following project was made possible by the passion and commitment of
the residents of the Old North End and the ONE Voice committee and
community partners.
ONE Voice Committee
The ONE Voice committee provided direction and expertise in the
preparation of this document. Through our meetings with the committee we
were able to gain the knowledge to complete the ONE Voice.
Robin Mackie, ONE Change & St. Thomas University
Katie Mason, ONE Change & St. Thomas University
Heather McLeod, ONE Change & St. Thomas University
Melanie Walsh, ONE Change & St. Thomas University
Scott Crawford, ONE Change
June Rennick, ONE Change
Monica Chamberlin, the Business Community Anti- Poverty Initiative
Randy Hatfield, Saint John Human Development Council
Cathy Boudreau, St. Joseph's Community Health Center
Cathy Wright, Vibrant Communities
Greg Cutler, City of Saint John: North End Community Center
Greg Norton, Principle Lorne Middle School
ONE Change Board of Directors
The ONE Change Board provides direction and leadership for the activities
of ONE Change. The Board consists of stakeholders and residents in the
community.
Scott Crawford
Kit Hickey
Trevor Holder
Gary Sullivan
March Hussey
Tammy Calvin
Linda Negus
Connie Gould
::
Helene Williams
John Knight
Kurt Peacock
ONE Voice: Social Program
Key Participants
Special thanks goes to the following:
• All community members of the Old North End
• Youth Inclusion Program staff
• Main Street Baptist Church
• St. Luke's Anglican Church
:•
0
ONE Voice: Social Program
Getting Started
190
ONE Voice: Social Program
Introduction to the Old North End Voice
The Old North End Voice (ONE Voice) is the companion document to the
Old North End Plan (ONE Plan) that was prepared in August 2010 by
Katherine Bailey from the Business Community Anti - Poverty Initiative Inc.
(BCAPI).
The ONE Voice:
• Outlines the social and economic issues facing residents of the Old
North End
• Provides Priority needs are addressed by age group, as well as
recommendations for addressing these issues.
• The priorities and recommendations reflect primarily the voices of
residents, but also others who work in the Old North End, including
community development workers, professionals and volunteers.
• Additional recommendations are included in Appendix A at the end of
the document.
The ONE Voice will be used in conjunction with the ONE Plan by the ONE
Change to aid in determining where their project directions will be for the
next 5 years. As with the ONE Plan it will provides information regarding
the greatest needs of the community members of the Old North End as well
as recommendations that community members had voiced.
191
ONE Voice: Social Program
Situating Ourselves: Who We Are
This project was undertaken by four social work students from Saint Thomas
University, located in Fredericton, New Brunswick, as part of a social action
placement.
We are white, middle -class women, who come from privileged backgrounds.
None of us grew up in the Old North End or reside there currently. Initially,
we were concerned with the barriers this may pose; we acknowledged this
concern and discussed ways of minimizing the power imbalances inherent in
the relationships we would develop with residents. We decided against
disclosure of our educational program, as we recognize the location of social
work as both a power - infused profession and a historically oppressive
institution. We identified ourselves as volunteers or simply as working with
ONE Change.
192
ONE Voice: Social Program
Rationale
The Old North End Voice (ONE Voice) is a companion document to the Old
North End Plan (ONE Plan), which was developed by Katherine Bailey in
the summer of 2010.
The ONE Plan:
• Provides a summary of the progress made to date in the Old North
End as it relates to the action areas determined by the community in
2005;
• Describes the current priorities of the neighborhood in view of the
progress that has been made;
• Recommends priority actions for the next five years (2010 -2015)
which have been identified by the community; and
• Informs the Municipal Plan for the City of Saint John as it relates to
the Old North End (p.5)
The ONE Plan will serve as a tool for the Old North End and ONE Change
as it determines its strategic directions and projects for the next five years. It
provides information about the greatest needs residents of the Old North End
face and recommended actions to address their priorities and bring about
positive changes (p.5).
While the ONE Plan focuses mainly on physical improvements and small
business development, including housing renewal, storage and removal of
garbage, improvement to streetscapes, and attracting commercial tenants
(pp.56 -68). The vision for this project was to capture the short-term and
long -term social needs of the community and translate them into tangible
and achievable social programs and services.
193
ONE Voice: Social Program
Geographic Location
ED
�14
4' PAW
moo{
- _ ry
aj
20D rn
F- 2''1-a4 Yahf n M%E O i0Ia GOT L-w
Community Facilities
The main community facilities in the Old North End are:
• ONE Change building
• North End Community Centre (NECC)
• Lorne Middle School
• Millidgeville North End Lions Club
• Main Street Baptist Church
• St. Luke's Anglican Church
• Saint John Fire Station # 5
• North End Food Bank
194
ONE Voice: Social Program
Land Usage
The primary commercial use in the community is the Lansdowne Shopping
Centre located on the east side of the Old North End. Smaller commercial
uses are also located along Adelaide Street and the eastern portions of
Metcalf Street and Main Street.
In recent years, significant investment has been made in the parks located in
the Old North End. Both Victoria Park and Robertson Square have been
revitalized to become showpieces in the community. Active recreation space
is located adjacent to the Old North End including a baseball diamond at St.
Peter's Park and Shamrock Park which includes sports fields, baseball
diamonds, and tennis courts (ONE Plan, p.10).
195
ONE Voice: Social Program
Community Statistics
The Old North End has been identified as one of five priority
neighbourhoods in Saint John where there are high poverty rates, high
proportion of single parents, high crime rates, older housing stock, primarily
rental housing, low levels of education, and low labour force participation.
In both the 2001 and 2006 census, the Old North End was classified as a
very high poverty neighbourhood because more than 40% of residents lived
below the poverty line, that is, the threshold at which sociologists warn that
the entire area is under stress (ONE Plan, p.8).
Table 1: Summary Data for the Old North End Census Tract, 1996 2006
Census Profile
1996
2001
2006
Population
2,287
2,150
1,974
Occupied Private Dwellings
Total private dwellings
960
1,073
1,076
Total private dwellings occupied by
usual residents
960
960
905
Owned dwellings
240
205
185
Rented dwellings
720
755
720
Average value of owned dwelling
$86,419
$78,055
$89,183
Average gross rent of tenant households
$425
$461
$491
Tenant households spending 30% or
more of household
income on gross rent
370
350
335
Educational Attainment
Total population >15 years
1,770
1,725
1,585
No certificate, diploma or degree
920
735
620
High school certificate or equivalent
290
335
585
Apprenticeship or trades certificate or
diploma
95
200
115
College, CEGEP or other
non - university certificate or
diploma
290
145
175
196 #or
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initiative
2010
,M
University certificate or diploma below
the bachelor level
15
10
University certificate, diploma or
degree
30
30
40
Labour Force Activity
Total population >15 years
11765
1,720
1,585
In the labour force
965
950
895
Employed
715
700
765
Unemployed
260
245
125
Not in the labour force
800
765
690
Participation rate
55.0%
55.4%
56.5%
Employment rate
40.5%
40.9%
48.6%
Unemployment rate
26.3%
25.8%
14.0%
Income
Median income of census families
$22,201
$23,671
$27,924
Median income of private households
$185327
$20,301
$25,476
Median income of persons >15 years
$1306(M)
$11,096 (F)
$13,458
$16,515
Low income
48.8%
49.7%
43.3%
Family Characteristics
Total number of census families
605
610
520
Number of female lone - parent families
190
235
165
Number of male lone - parent families
40
15
60
197
E121
ONE Voice: Social Program
Past and Current Successes
The ONE Plan document highlights many of the successes already achieved
in the Old North End community. They include:
• ONE Home program for homeowners
• ONE Life (Old North End Living independently for Education
• ONE Change Environment Team for beautification projects
• ONE Teen Summer Takeover
• Development of Youth Council
• Youth Inclusion Program (YIP)
• Development of the community garden
• Various community events
• Winds of Change (repairing of drafty windows in community)
• Revitalization of Victoria Park
• ONE Change Clothing Room
Community Strengths
• Youth Involvement/ Leadership
• Partnerships with the other Saint John priority communities
• Partnerships with Main Street Baptist and St. Luke's Church to
provide community members with nutritious meals
• Determination, passion and pride of community members
• Partnership with the Saint John Apartment Owners Association
• Partnership with the Saint John Learning exchange to have CALP
(Community Adult Learning Program)
• Neighbourhood advocacy
.;
ONE Voice: Social Program
Process for Determining Current Neighbourhood Priorities
Focus groups were carried out with residents in late August 2010 by ONE
Change in preparation for this project. Participants brainstormed desired
programs and services and recorded them on flip chart paper for easy
reference. Suggestions from participants who attended were then recorded
and prioritized. These served as a starting point for us to begin thinking
about the needs and types of programs already identified by those who
attended. In order to start the process of engagement we were first required
to complete an application form to the St. Thomas University Research
Ethics Board (see Appendix B) to ensure there was no harm done to
participants.
Engagement with the Old North End community involved meeting with the
ONE Change Board of Directors; talking with YIP staff, meeting with John
Knight from Main Street Baptist Church; attending lunches at the Main
Street Baptist and St. Luke's churches; talking with youth; and going door -
to -door and speaking with residents about programs and services they want
to see implemented in their community.
From the beginning of October to mid- November, we began the process of
going door -to -door. We created a one -page explanation (see Appendix C) of
who we are and what we were looking for from community members. This
was given to every resident we spoke with, if desired, and left in the mail
boxes for residents who were not home. Included on this form was: the ONE
Change logo, a brief description of ONE Change, what we were looking for
(ideas for programs); the phone number for ONE Change (if anyone wanted
to call with input); and our names and signatures. In total, we visited
approximately 150 homes and we spoke with approximately 65 community
members.
From engagement with residents, we have identified two priorities and
recommendations for each of five age groups. These age groups range from
pre -natal to seniors. These reflect the most pressing needs and concerns
identified by those who live and work in the Old North End community.
Included in Appendix A are additional recommendations identified by
residents.
199
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initial
2010 Old North End Community Priorities
is
200
ONE Voice: Social Program
Children
"The quality of a child's life depends on decisions made every day in
households, communities, and in the halls of government. We must make
those choices wisely, and with children's best interests in mind... As children
go, so go nations, it's that simple. " UNICEF
Priority # 1: Prenatal Programs
Prenatal education promotes wellness and the prevention of illness by
providing information and support to pregnant women, their partners and
families to enhance capacity, facilitate informed decision - making and
maintain or enhance their own and their baby's physical and emotional
health. (Prenatal Education and Support Working Group, 2005). As stated by
individuals in the community they believe that there is a need for prenatal
programs for those expecting. In the city of Saint John 4.6% of newborns are
born with a low birth weight (Statistics Canada, 2007). Prenatal information
could provide community members with the knowledge to help ensure that
their babies are born at a healthy weight. Individuals in the community feel
that prenatal education is essential in preparing themselves for parenthood.
Through prenatal education community members will gain the knowledge to
not only provide their unborn child with a healthy environment but they will
also be prepared to do the same once their child is born.
Recommendation # 1
The following is a list of prenatal programs that are offered in the Saint John
area that ONE Change could partner with in order to implement these at the
NECC.
Early Childhood Initiatives
Offered by: Public Health
The ECI program strives to assist parents or future parents to give their
children (0 -5 yrs) the best start in life. This program is provided by either a
Public Health Nurse or Nutritionist:
201
ONE Voice: Social Program
I he prenatal program includes:
1. Individual teaching and referral to prenatal classes;
2. Individual nutrition counseling;
3. Provision of nutrition supplements and milk to those meeting the financial
criteria;
4. Referrals to other health professionals and /or community partners.
Contact Information for Public Health
Telephone #: 1 -506- 658 -3067
VON Programs
Healthy Baby & Me
Healthy Baby & Me is a project funded by Health Canada (Canada
Prenatal Nutrition Program) and administered by VON Canada New
Brunswick. It is designed to provide education and support to youth who are
either expecting a baby or parenting an infant. The overall goal of Healthy
Baby & Me is to contribute to a healthy pregnancy and the healthy growth
and development of infants of Healthy Baby & Me participants. The
program offers free education and support that helps pregnant and parenting
youth in communities across New Brunswick make healthy choices for their
babies and themselves.
The programs are free and provide an opportunity for youth to:
-Relax in a non judgmental atmosphere
-Meet new friends
-Get support from others who are going through a similar situation
-Get information on making healthy choices for yourself and your baby
-Share experiences
-Learn the latest on pregnancy and parenting
-Work together to ensure having a baby is a memorable and positive
experience
Special Delivery Club
Prenatal education especially for youth. We talk about labour &
delivery, breathing and relaxation exercises, nutrition, feeding baby, etc...
We also include a hospital tour and as a grand finale, a baby
202
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initiative
shower /celebration! Each week we have a healthy snack, door prizes and
activities like videos and/or games.
Rock & Talk
Parenting education especially for youth. We talk about childcare, infant
feeding, life skills, parenting responsibilities and expectations, etc... Each
week we have a healthy snack, door prizes and fun activities.
*VONProgramming, 2010
Contact Information for VON
Telephone #: 1 -506- 635 -1530
Contact Information for VON Healthy Baby and Me
Telephone #: 1 -506- 672 -9647
Information Packages
In conjunction with the various programs for new parents, it is vital that
additional information is given to community members. The following
should be provided:
• Contact information for the various resources for new parents in the
Saint John area.
• Calendar of events for the Old North End
• List of all other programs offered through ONE Change at the North
End Community Center
By providing community members with the above information individuals
would be aware of other programs that they can participate in. This
information may also be passed onto other community members who may be
unaware of what ONE Change has to offer the community.
Priority # 2: Play Groups / Education Sessions
The following programs are in response to community members stating that
programs or activities that include both parent and child would be beneficial
at the North End Community Center. These activities would aid in fostering
better parent/ child relationships as well as to strengthen social skill that
their children will utilize throughout their life. Community members stated
1
203
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initiative
they would like to see activities such as arts and crafts, music and play
groups where they are able to participate with their child while socializing
with other parents. In the Old North End, 39 % of the population is
composed of single mothers (Poverty & Plenty, 2007) and 10.7 % are single
fathers. Providing these individuals with support via educational sessions
and parental support groups would be beneficial in supporting health
families.
Recommendation # 2
The Saint John Family resources center would make a great partner in the
implementation of the Play Groups and Education Sessions, funding and a
set location would be the only concerns in regards to these programs. Their
mission statement is one that is one that fits with ONE Change and that is to
" Through a supportive environment, provide information, education, and
resources to caregivers of children and expecting parents by encouraging
them to develop and affirm their abilities, aspirations, and potential"
(SJFRC, 2006). The following is a list of programs offered through the Saint
John Family resource center
Urban Play Groups
Available in the lower West side and North end of Saint John, these play
groups provide opportunities for parents, caregivers and their children to
meet and play in their own communities. Play - groups offer snacks, crafts
and story time, as well as transportation support.
Positive Parenting
A parenting program based on Barbara Coloroso's bestseller "Kids are
Worth It - Giving kids the gift of inner discipline ". This program covers a
variety of topics including teaching kids how to think not what to think,
problem solving, empowering children, the patterns of conflict and the
importance of self -care. The program has seven sessions. Limited, on -site
childcare and transportation support are available. Registration is required.
204
ONE Voice: Social Programs
12 3 4 Parent
A six -week video based parenting program focusing on developmental
stages from ages one to four. Through group discussions and activities,
parents share ideas and effectives strategies.
Some of the topics covered are building the bond, non - violent discipline
skills, the power of encouragement, and the importance of self -care. This
program runs for six weeks. Limited, on -site childcare and transportation are
available. Registration is required.
*Taken from the Saint John Family Resource Center website (2006): http://f�rc-crf.com/saint-john/0
Contact Information for Saint John Family Resource Center
Telephone #: 1 -506- 632 -2182
Website: http://frc- crf.com/saint john/
205
ONE Voice: Social Program
6 -12 years old
Priority # 1: Safe Walk
When canvassing the neighborhood many community members stated that
they feel that it is not safe to allow their children to walk to and from the
community center to attend programs especially children between the ages
of six and twelve .
Recommendation # 1:
• Have a volunteers walk the kids to and from the center as a group
• Form a "buddy system" that matches up an older youth with a
younger youth. The older youth will be responsible for picking up and
taking home the younger child from his or her home. This is not only
beneficial for the younger child but can help instill leadership skills
with the older youth.
• Look to implement a program similar to the province of Ontario's
"Ontario Communities walkON ".
Ontario Communities wa1kON
Ontario Communities walkON is based on the success of walkON, six
community partnerships of the Ontario Heart Health Program who
collaborate to engage and support their communities to create environments
that support walking. walkON works in partnership with politicians,
planners, engineers, and citizens from 17 community groups, using
comprehensive, easy -to -use resources and tools designed to educate,
empower and inspire community members. The goal is to take the successful
walkON model and replicate it around the province of Ontario. (Green
Communities, 2010).
The wa1kON Walkability Toolkit can be found online at:
http://Www.canadawalks.calproject—walkon.asp
206
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initiative
I I
Priority # 2: Programming aimed at 6 -12 year olds
Children's readiness to learn at school entry is a well - established predictor
of their success in school and later in life. It is known that individual
characteristics (e.g., socio- economic status, health, parental education)
contribute to children's readiness to learn. In order to foster positive growth
of the children in the North End it is vital to ensure that their needs are being
meet especially between the ages of 6 -12. Children who participate in
recreation programs benefit in the following ways: improved social skills,
less or no need for special education instruction during subsequent school
years, better grades, and enhanced attention spans (Education Corner, 2009).
Community members voiced that they would like to see more programming
for children 6 -12 years of age that does not solely include unorganized
sports.
Recommendation # 2: Expand on recreational programming at the
centre
Expand Programming to include the following:
• Bike Club
A bike club can be formed by community members and can
utilize the new biking trails that will be near Shamrock Park.
The bike club could be lead by and older youth or adult and
they could guide younger youth through the designated trails.
Donations of bikes could be made to the ONE Change via a
bike drive.
• Contact various bike clubs in Saint John to inquire if they are
able to volunteer time to teach youth about bike safety as well
as proper biking techniques.
• Art Classes
• Art classes are already being taught at the North End
Community Center, continuing these classes would be
recommended.
• Inquire with various art teachers (pottery, painting, knitting,
seeing) to see if specialized classes could be implemented
monthly.
• Connect With Other Community Centers
• Look into the possibility of hosting a youth social once monthly
with the other Saint John community centers to foster a sense of
community amongst youth.
207
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initiative
• Socials can incorporate team activities/ challenges or
specialized programs such as art or music.
M:
ONE Voice: Social Program
Youth (13 -18 _years old)
Priority #1: Legal advice /support
"In one week, I had seven youth leave my office in handcuffs. "
-Greg Norton, Principal, Lorne Middle School
In response to the high levels of crime in the Old North End, including
arson, which is often perpetuated by youth, and in response to concerns
raised by Greg Norton, principal of Lorne Middle School, and residents, that
parents are often unsure how to navigate the legal and criminal justice
systems, the need for assistance for parents and youth once an arrest has
been made has been identified as a priority.
Many of the residents we spoke with identified as a major concern crime
committed by youth in the community. While the reasons for the
engagement of youth in crime are complex, multi - faceted and often tied to
poverty and marginalization, and while the other recommendations address
these issues from the prevention side, in the interim, given the low levels of
education and literacy as well as the complexity of legal documents received
by families following the arrest of a youth, it is recommended that some
legal advice and support be provided to families when a youth comes into
contact with the law.
Recommendation #1
The provision of legal advice /support could include:
• Information sessions with a lawyer (pro -bono) on the rights of
families and youth once a youth has come into contact with the law
• One -on -one sessions with a volunteer to assist families in interpreting
police and other legal documents
• Download or order (free of charge) resources from the Public Legal
Education and Information Service of New Brunswick (PLEIS -NB
Youth Justice website http:// www .youthjusticenb.ca /main.asp ?3
• Resources available on this website include: a Youth Justice Toolkit, a
Youth Justice in New Brunswick Workbook, and a Youth Rights
Booklet
209
ONE Voice: Social Program
Priority #2: Drop -In Centre Improvements
In order to foster a sense of inclusion, assist youth in coping with problems
at home, school, etc., and work towards crime prevention, improvements in
the drop -in centre at the North End Community Center is identified as a
priority. While a space exists currently in the centre, mental health issues
have been identified both in the focus groups and by residents we spoke
with, as a large concern in the Old North End. Moreover, we heard from
Kelly, the YIP teacher /caseworker that often youth are facing many
problems at home, which, while not always obvious, often make it difficult
for youth to focus on school.
Recommendation #2
• Enhance the drop -in space for youth with comfortable furniture
• Offer a coffeehouse in the evenings
• Include resources on services and programs relevant to youth in Saint
John
• Provide free condoms
• Designate a day /time for youth to set up appointments with a youth
counselor or social worker. Ensure that an office is available where
youth can talk to the social worker regarding a variety of personal and
social issues they are facing as well as needs such as housing,
employment, etc.
• Look to the Teen Resource Centre (TRC) for additional suggestions
Contact Information for Teen Resource Center
Telephone #: 1 -506- 632 -5531
210
ONE Voice: Social Program
Adults (18 +)
Priority #1: Addiction Services
The majority of individuals who engaged in the canvassing process of this
project identified addictions issues as the underpinning barrier to health,
safety, and an overall sense of well- being. It was noted on several occasions
that no services targeting this social problem currently exist in the
neighbourhood. The suggestion offered by many people who outlined this
need, was access to such supports.
Recommendation #1: Development of Addiction Services
• Establish an Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) group in the North End
• Contact A.A. organization regarding the implementation of this
program.
• Establish an Narcotics Anonymous (N.A.) group in the North End
• Contact N.A. organization regarding the implementation of this
program.
• Access to an addictions outreach worker in the North End
• Partner with relevant local agencies such as Ridgewood
Addiction Service to create an outreach program in the North
End Community.
• Organize a needle exchange program in the North End
• Partner with relevant AIDS SJ to develop a needle exchange
program in the North End.
Priority #2: Education and Employment Training
As indicated in the ONE Plan report, an overwhelming amount of
individuals living in the North End are unemployed. Many people who
engaged in the door -to -door process highlighted the need for programs in
their community to tackle this social issue. Suggestions outlined services
grounded in education and employment.
211
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initiative
Recommendation #2: Development of Education and Employment
Services
• Enhance and promote the computer access center located in the ONE
Change building.
• Many individuals indicated that they were not aware of this
existing program.
• Promote and advertise the C.A.L.P education program located in the
North End Community Center.
• Again, many community neighbours were unaware of this
program.
• Provide a space and a facilitator to engage in programming, such as:
soft skills training, resume building, job search, accessing community
resources, etc.
• Ideally, this facilitator would be a ONE Change employee. If
this is not feasible, ONE Change could partner with other
agencies to access their support within the North End
community.
• Educate and promote awareness about structures that provide funding
and loans for individuals seeking education and employment
opportunities.
• Services tackling this issue are provided locally by
organizations, such as: the Department of Social Development
(access to social assistance, applying for health card status,
etc.), Community Loan Fund, etc.
212
ONE Voice: Social Program
Seniors
Priority #1: Helping Program
In today's society, social programs are often geared towards youth in high
priority communities. However, it has become increasingly clear that seniors
need to be recognized as an important part of community and thus included
in community initiatives. Programs for seniors have been lacking in the Old
North End and we plan to address this gap with the following
recommendations.
Furthermore, seniors have a wealth of knowledge, skills and experiences to
share with the youth of the Old North End. In fact, when provided the
opportunity, seniors make a positive difference in society, the economy and
community.
The majority of youth do not have the opportunity to interact with seniors on
a regular basis. Sometimes initiating conversation with someone so far
removed from your environment can seem awkward, stilted, or even boring;
but when you have patience, you will be surprised at the rewards. Seniors
are not only the link to our past, but also a link to the future.
Recommendation # 1 Connect Youth to Seniors
The helping program should include:
• An Introduction of services provided by youth to seniors
• Snow removal
• Grocery shopping
• Gardening
• Assistance with household chores
• Classes where seniors teach youth a skill
• Music
• Painting
• Knitting, crochet, cross stitch
213
ONE Voice: Social Program
Possible Resource
We have contacted the Golden Oldies group in the Old North End and they
have received a $25,000 grant that could potentially be used to implement
programs that connect seniors to youth.
Program: Students Helping Seniors
Students Helping Seniors is a program that has been implemented by
Ladysmith Downtown association in Vancouver, BC that helps unite youth
with seniors. Students Helping Seniors enables seniors to complete odd jobs
around the home with the aid of local youth through a coordinated summer
program. Students provide assistance with jobs such as, yard and garden
maintenance, household chores, pet care and shopping. The homeowner
supplies all the tools, materials and equipment required. The helpers are
students, not experienced trades persons. For major projects seniors are
encouraged to use local skilled tradespersons. Students are paid by the
seniors for their assistance. Funding is available for seniors unable to meet
the expense.
Priority # 2: Educational Seminars
Seniors, as an increasing proportion of society, are playing important roles
that should not be taken for granted. Seniors often financially support their
children and grandchildren. Furthermore, seniors write letters to newspapers,
they are the vast majority of church attendees; they run charity organizations
and are involved in an incredible range of recreation and sports. Learning
needs of seniors need to include appropriate training for these multiple roles,
as well as a range of life skills in relation to health, safety, housing, financial
management, recreation and so on. Providing educational opportunities for
seniors is becoming increasingly important, as seniors are more and more
reliant on themselves rather than on the extended family.
Recommendation # 1
Educational seminars should include:
• Safety for seniors in and out of the home
• Computer programs for seniors
214
ONE Voice: Social Program
Possible Resource
• The Canadian Red Cross is a good resource, as they provide seminars
which specifically address safety for seniors.
Contact Information for Red Cross
Name: Pat Burgess, Senior Advisor, NB Region, Canadian Red Cross
Email: pat.burgess @redcross.ca
• The Saint John YMCA -YWCA offers a variety of adult learning and
computer training programs. The computer programs are taught "at-
your -own- pace" environment. Courses take place during the day,
three times per week. Courses are approximately 18 hours in
length. Computer courses include:
• Introduction to Computers
• Introduction to Windows
• Introduction to Microsoft Word Level I and II
• Introduction to Microsoft Excel Level I and II
• Learn to Use the Internet
Contact Information for Saint John YMCA -YWCA
Name: Julie Barbault, Coordinator, Opportunities Program
Telephone #: 634 -4932
Email: j.barbault @saintjohny.com
215
ONE Voice: Social Program
ONE Voice Recommendations
Although these recommendations were often not explicitly stated by
residents, these priorities were highlighted by other stakeholders, board
members and other concerned community members.
Priority # 1 Message Board
Resulting from meeting with the residents of the Old North End we
discovered that many lack awareness regarding the programs that take place
at the North End Community Center and ONE Change. Clearly,
communication is a barrier in residents taking advantage of social programs
and something that needs to be addressed.
Community residents believe it would be beneficial to build a message board
outside the community center to advertise what programs are taking place
and when. Furthermore, the consensus among the residents is that attendance
at programs would significantly increase with the implementation of the
message board.
Priority # 2 Child Care
The two major purposes of early childhood programs are care and education.
A majority of families today use childcare while they are employed or
engaged in other activities. Many programs include an educational
component, based on a growing body of research that documents the
importance of children's early experiences for their healthy development and
academic success. A large number of programs have originated through
concern for children living in poverty and who may be at risk for success in
school and later life. Programs may also include a parent component
designed to educate parents through their participation in children's
activities.
Upon going door -to -door in the Old North End, community members sited
the lack of child care as a huge barrier to searching for employment and
becoming involved in social programs. The population of single mothers is
very high in the Old North End and thus the implementation of child care is
ever more important. If parents are to take advantage of the social programs
216
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initiative
and services that will be implemented at the North End Community Center,
child care needs to be made accessible.
Transportation
Transportation is listed within its own section of this project because this
priority was indicated on numerous occasions amongst all age groups.
Access to services within the Greater Saint John Community is not available
for many community members living in the North End because of lack of
transportation. "Not able to get there when I need to/have an appointment"
was reported as a barrier to entrance into addictions services, both Saint John
hospitals, doctor's appointments, and mental health services. Not only does
this highlight the need for access to transportation, but solidifies the
requirement for outreach work in the Old North End.
Community Health Center
Saint John currently has a Community Health Center, which affords citizens
numerous health and social services. Service providers employed by this
facility include social workers, nurses, nutritionists, and dieticians. The
location of this facility, however, is in the city's center. Considering the
plethora of social and health issues underpinning those living in the Old
North End, the need for a similar facility in the Old North End should be
noted.
Information - Sharing
There was a lack of awareness of the existence of ONE Change as well as
what is happening at the centre. It is recommended that ONE Change work
towards information - sharing and communicating more effectively with the
community. This could involve:
• Utilize phone /text tree similar to the system used at Lorne Middle
School
• On -going community engagement (i.e. door -to -door)
217
ONE Voice: Social Program
Improving Participation
There was an on -going concern with limited participation in community
events and activities. It is recommended that ONE Change work towards
enhancing community motivation. This could involve:
• Social events such as dinners, dances, movie nights
Housing
During the engagement process, we observed that the majority of dwellings
are substandard. It is recommended that infrastructure improvements are
undertaken.
Funding
A concern reiterated by other community organizations is related to a lack of
funding for programming. It is recommended that ONE Change seek out
additional funding for the implementation of programs.
218
ONE Voice: Social Program
Conclusion and Reflections
This document outlines priorities identified by North End community
members as well as the ONE Voice committee, ONE Change Board, and
stakeholders. The next phase of this process will involve the implementation
of the above - mentioned recommendations by ONE Change. In order for this
to be efficiently put into action, partnerships, funding, and human resources
are required.
219
ONE Voice: Social Program
Appendix A
Additional Recommendations as stated by
Community Members
220
ONE Voice: Social Program
0 -5 Age Group and Families
Drop -Ins : Play groups/ moms and tots/ play therapy
Mother Goose
Family Literacy
Prenatal Courses
Safety
Legal advice ( custody /access /child rights)
Quality Day Care
Basic Needs: food /clothing /diapers/ dental care
Free hair cuts
Early childhood education
Nutritional classes
Support group for fathers
Link to other community resources
Health Care
Day Care
6 -12 Age Group
Organized sports
movie night
dance lessons
day camp
cultural outings
crafts
music lessons
Nutritional classes - health snacks
Bike club
Self - esteem
Safe walk to and from center
Activities that combine child and family
information sessions on bullying
swimming lessons
Health Care
221
ONE Voice: Social Program
13 -18 Age Group
Swimming pool
Drop In center
Counseling ( mental health/ addictions/ general)
Sexual education
Dance Instructions
Music Lessons
Bus passes
mentors for youth
youth to mentor younger children
Homework help
Babysitting course
Connection with other community centers
Bullying courses
Health Care
Young Adults/ Adults
Counseling (family/ addictions/ mental health/ marriage/ domestic
violence)
Organized sports
Sexual education
Creative Arts
Music Programs
GED tutoring
Movie Nights
Computer training
Job search/ career counseling
Mentoring opportunities to youth
Access to day care
Family Planning
Health Care
Cooking classes
Adult Library (newer books)
Free Legal advice
Self esteem
Community Garden
222
ONE Voice: Social Program
Senior Age Group
Crafts : Sewing /knitting
Learning groups
Outings: shopping. museum
Counseling ( mental health/ addictions/ health relationships)
Volunteer opportunities : mentoring children
Exercises classes: Tai Chi/ walking/ yoga
Assistance from youth: snow removal/ grocery assistance
Information on what is in the community
Health Center
Computer training
Community garden
223
ONE Voice: Social Program
Appendix B
Ethics Committee Proposal
224
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initiative
Community Engagement
We will be engaging with North End community members for one purpose:
to identify the needs and /or wants regarding social programming of those
residing in the area. In this light, the only question that will be asked is as
follows: what programs (for all ages) would you like to see introduced in the
Old North End? From this question, we are hoping that a casual dialogue
surrounding community programming is initiated by the community
member. It is important to note that we will not be collecting any identifying
information from participants.
Application for Review of Research Involving Humans
SECTION A:
Principal Investigator(s): Name(s), e-mail Address, Office Telephone,
Home
Katie Mason
Robin Mackie
Heather McLeod
Melanie Mercer
Title of Proposed Research: O.N.E Voice: Social Programming Initiative
Commencement Date: October 4, 2010
Completion Date: December 8, 2010
Co- Investigator(s): Academic Unit, e-mail address, Office Telephone:
St. Thomas University Social Work Department
# 1 -506- 452 -0532
Supervisor(s) (if Principal Investigator is a student); Academic Unit, e-
mail address, Office Telephone:
Barb Wilkins - Social Work Field Liaison - bwilkins @stu.ca
Scott Crawford: O.N.E Change - Scott. Crawford @HorizonNB.ca
225
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initiative
SECTION B:
1. Summary: Provide a summary of the proposed research, outlining
the research question and methodology. Please include a description of
the role of the research participants and any procedures to which they
will be subjected.
It is important to note that this is not a research project. We will be engaging
community members via causal dialogue in regards to future programming
at the North End Community Center in Saint John, New Brunswick.
Participants are not required to have a role in this project. Participants will
be given an opportunity to have their voices heard in regards to
programming at the community center.
Procedures: Not Applicable
2. Risk: in your opinion, does this research pose more than minimal risk
(Tri- Council Policy, Section 1.C1) to participating subjects?
No, we do not believe there is any risk.
3. Research Participants:
3.1 Number of Participants: How many participants will participate in
this research?
We are potentially going to speak with 1,200 community members.
3.2 Recruitment: How will they be recruited, and from what
population?
We wish to speak with community members from the 25 block radius that
makes up the Old North End.
We hope to reach community members by attending community functions
(Mission Lunch and Community Programming Activities), focus groups. If
invited into members homes we may have a conversation.
4. Informed Consent:
226
ONE Voice: Social Program
4.1 Informing Participants: How will the nature of the research be
explained to potential participants, in compliance with Section 2D of the
Tri- Council Policy? Attach a copy of any document(s), such as an
explanatory letter, to be used for this purpose.
As this is not a research project, informed consent is not applicable. We will
not be asking for personal or identifying information.
4.2 Consent: If written evidence of informed consent will be obtained,
attach a copy of the consent form. (See Information on Informed
Consent Forms.) If written evidence of informed consent will not be
used, explain here, in detail, how you intend to comply with the
requirements of Section 2A of the Tri - Council Policy: See particularly
Article 2.1(b) and subsequent commentary.
We will take willingness of community members to offer their suggestions
as implied consent.
4.3 Children as Research Participants: If the proposed research
involves children as participants, provide here a statement indicating
how compliance with Section 2E, and specifically with Articles 2.5, 2.6
and 2.7 of the Tri - Council Policy, will be achieved.
Community children will not be targeted in the engagement process.
4.4 Adults who have a Limited Capacity to Consent as Research
Participants: If the research involves adults of diminished competence
as participants, provide a statement indicating how compliance with
Section 2E, and specifically with Articles 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of the Tri -
Council Policy, will be achieved.
Not Applicable
5. Inducements: Will any inducements (money, grade points, etc.) be
offered to encourage participation?
No
If yes, indicate here how compliance with Section 2B of the Tri - Council
227
ONE Voice: Social Programming Initiative
2010
Policy (concerning voluntariness) will be achieved. If academic rewards
are to be used, give details of alternative means of achieving equivalent
rewards.
6. Private Information: Does the proposed research involve accessing
identifiable personal information about participants by means of
surveys, questionnaires, etc.?
No. Questionnaires and surveys will not be used.
If yes, indicate here, in detail, how you propose to meet the
requirements of the Tri- Council Policy, Section 3, specifically Article
3.2. A copy of any questionnaire, survey document or interview
schedule to be used should be attached as well.
7. Feedback: Describe the measures which you propose for providing
feedback to research subjects concerning the outcome of the research.
A document outlining community programming will be presented to any
interested community members upon completion.
8. Data Security: Describe the measures which you propose for
ensuring the security of any identifiable personal data which will be
retained after completion of the research.
Not Applicable
9. Additional Information: Please feel free to append any additional
information which you feel may be helpful to the REB in evaluating this
application.
FOR REB USE ONLY:
File Number: 5073 -10 -03
Date Complete Application was received: October 5, 2010
Approved /Approved with Modification /Rejected: Approved
Date: October 5, 2010
228
ONE Voice: Social Program
Appendix C
Explanatory Pamphlet Given to Residents
229
ONE Voice: Social Program
OXE Change
223 Victoria Street, Saint John, NB
1 -506- 635 -2035
We are from ONE Change, a community organization in the North End. We
are looking for ideas for programs in your community. We came by your
house to talk with you about programs and events you would like to see (for
you and others).
If you have any ideas and would like your voice heard, please contact us at
506- 635 -2035. We look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you.
Heather, Katie, Melanie, and Robin
ONE Change Volunteers
230
ONE Voice: Social Program
References
Government of Nova Scotia (2008). Prenatal Education and Support
Working Group. Retrieved online November 14, 2010:
http: / /www. gov.ns. ca /hpp /publications/ 08097 _PrenatalEducationBooklet_M
ar07_En.pdf
Green Communities (2010). Walk ON Communities. Retrieved November
22, 2010: http: // www. canadawalks .ca /project_walkon.asp
Government of Canada ( 2007). Statistics Canada.
Vibrant Communities (2008) .Poverty and Plenty II.- A Statistical Snapshot
of the Quality of Life in Saint John: Retrieved online November 20, 2010:
http: // www .humandevelopmentcouncil.nb.ca /Poverty %20 & %20PIenty %20I
I.pdf
231
City Hail
15 Market Square
November 10, 2011
P.O. Box 1971
Saint John
New Brunswick
Canada E2L 4L1
Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillors,
Subject: Minutes of Settlement with Applied Pressure Inc.
City of Saint John
The Committee of the Whole, having met on November 7, 2011, recommended
Common Council adopt the following resolution:
"RESOLVED that the City enter into the Minutes of Settlement with Applied
Pressure Inc. in connection with the expropriation from the latter of a portion of its lands
located on Kennedy Street in the City of Saint John, a copy of which Minutes are
attached to the correspondence dated the10th day of November, 2011 from the
Committee of the Whole to Common Council, and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be
authorized to execute the aforesaid Minutes."
Respectfully Submitted,
Ivan Court
Mayor
232
I
City ,Solicitors Office
Bureau de Pavocat municipal
Ruc M G'satncrWM
r--.-25�,J
SAINT JOHN
November 2, 2011
Committee of the Whole
of Common Council of
The City of Saint John
Mayor Court and Committee Members:
Re: Expropriation — Parcel SLS#24
The City of Saint John Expropriating Authority
101 Kennedy Street, Saint John — PID No.: 00377150
At its meeting on April 26, 2011, Common Council authorized proceedings
under the Expropriation Act to acquire the unencumbered freehold title to
a portion of land at 101 Kennedy Street for the purpose of constructing
Sanitary Lift Station #24.
A Notice of intention to Expropriate (Notice of intention) dated May 6,
2011 was filed with the Expropriations Advisory Officer (EAO) on May 9,
2011 with registration of Notice in the New Brunswick Land Titles Office
(Saint John) on May 10, 2011. A Notice of Objection dated June 9, 2011
given by the owner, Applied Pressure Inc., was filed with the EAO on June
9, 2011. Pursuant to section 10 of the Expropriatlon Act, the EAO
scheduled a Public Hearing for September 16, 2011.
A few weeks before the Public Hearing discussions took place between
Applled Pressure Inc. and the City In an effort to accommodate the wishes
of the owner and still meet the City's operational needs_ As a result of
these discussions, the September 16 Hearing was adjourned.
During the discussions, it became evident that the site of Sanitary Lift
Station #24, while remaining on the western sideline of Kennedy Street,
could be reduced from 317 square metres to 269 square metres to
accommodate the owner while not jeopardizing the City's operational
needs.
It was then in order, notwithstanding the ongoing discussions with the
owner, to amend the Notice of Intention to reflect the smaller area required
for Sanitary Lift Station #24. At Its meeting held on October 11, 2011,
Council resolved that the City Solicitor make application to the EAO for an
amendment to the Notice of Intention to Expropriate to reflect the smaller
PO. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada 121-41-1 ; wwwsaintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, NA. Canada E21-4U
233
2 Common council
November 2, 2011
area (269 square metres) and further that the City Solicitor make
application to the EAO to extend the existing 180 day period stated in
section 19 of the Expropriation Act for a further period of 60 days.
Since then, we were able to negotiate Minutes of Settlement satisfactory
to both parties. The Minutes provide that the owner consents to the
expropriation of 269 square metres of its property and that upon execution
of the Minutes of Settlement, the owner shall withdraw its Notice of
Objection and abandon and release all its rights under the Expropriation
Act in respect of the expropriation of 269 square metres of Its property. In
return, the City agrees, upon registration of the Notice of Expropriation in
accordance with section 19 of the Expropnation Act — which vests the said
lands in the City, to pay to the owner the lump sum amount of $29,000.00,
and grant to the owner a right -of -way for the purposes of parking, ingress,
egress and regress of persons, vehicles and equipment over a small
portion of the expropriated lands which Is located outside of the fence on
the expropriated lands.
This settlement is favourable to the City for a number of reasons. Mainly,
because it keeps the City's costs in expropriating the lands reasonably
low, while providing certainty.
When Notices of Objection are maintained in an expropriation proceeding,
the test to be met by the Expropriating Authority at the Hearing before the
EAO in order to obtain a favourable report from the said Officer is stated at
subsection 17(2) of the Expropriation Act. That section reads as follows:
"17(2) The report submitted under subsection (1) shall
contain a summary of the evidence and arguments
presented at the hearing and any finding of fact by the officer
and shall state the opinion of the officer as to whether the
proposed expropriation
(a) is reasonably necessary to accomplish the objectives
of the expropriating authority or applicant,
(b) is fair, balancing the objectives of the expropriating
authority or applicant against the interests of the owner that
would be extinguished by the expropriation."
It was clear through the discussions with the owner that Sanitary Lift
Station #24 could have been pushed back 7 to 10 metres southwardly,
and that such a location would have less of a negative Impact on the
owner while still meeting the City's operational needs. The cost of
234
3�Common Council
November 2, 2011
pushing Sewer Lift Station #24 back 7 to 10 metres is, we are told, in the
range of $40,000.00 to $45,000.00.
Consequently, we had to determine whether the EAO would find the
expropriation of the originally proposed location "fair, balancing the
objectives of the Expropriating Authority against the interests of the
owner,
Since the cost of pushing back the lift station 7 to 10 metres southwardly
was in the range of $40,000.00 to $45,000.00, we attempted to negotiate
a settlement with the owner which would keep the cost reasonably lower.
The parties eventually agreed to $29,000.00. The settlement provides
that in return for this amount, the owner agrees that the lift station will
remain in the originally proposed location, and that the footprint of the
required land will be reduced by 48 square metres. This settlement
therefore maintains the lift station in what the City Engineers have
described as the "preferred" location. The settlement also avoids the
following;
1. $40,000.00 to $45,000.00 cost associated with the relocation of
Sanitary Lift Station #24 southwardly.
2. Further appraisal costs for the southwardly location (likely in the
range of $2,500.00).
3. Survey costs of an entirely new parcel of land for the relocation of
Sanitary Lift Statlon#24 southwardly (likely in the range of
$2,500.00).
4. Costs of experts necessary for the Hearing before the EAO as well
as the Hearing before the Court of Queen's Bench to argue the
owner's monetary claim for the expropriation — these costs would
likely be upwards of $10,000.00.
5. Business loss and/or injurious affection to which the owner might
be entitled pursuant to Part II of the Expropriation Act.
6. The legal and other reasonable costs incurred by the owner to
object to the expropriation to which the owner is entitled pursuant to
the Expropriation Act.
235
4 Common Council
November 2.2011
7. Time and resource of City staff (Engineering, Legal and Planning)
to prepare for and attend two separate Hearings — one before the
EAO and one before the Court of Queen's Bench.
For the purposes of this expropriation, the City obtained on January 25,
2011, an appraisal from deStecher Appraisals Limited of the current
market value of the land required for the proposed lift station. deStecher
concludes that the current market value of the fee simple interest in the
originally proposed land for Sanitary Lift Station #24 as of January 25,
2011 is $6,340,00. In this respect, Council at its meeting held on March
28, 2011 directed the City Manager to negotiate the acquisition of all land
interests required in connection with the remainder of the Harbour Clean
Up Project to a maximum of 125% of the appraised value (in this case:
$7,925.00).
In light of the above, we are of the opinion that the Minutes of Settlement
attached to this report are in the best interests of the City. If Council
agrees. the following is an appropriate resolution:
That the City enter into the Minutes of Settlement in the form
and upon the terms and conditions as attached to the City
Solicitor's report dated November 2, 2011 and that the
Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute same.
Respectfully Submitted,
John . Nugent
City Solicitor
Enclosures
236
IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPROPRIATIONACT, RS.N.B. 1973, C. E -14
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Notice of Intention to Expropriate
filed with the Expropriation Advisory Officer by the
City of Saint John on the 9`h day of May, 2011;
AND IN THE MATTER OF PID # 00377150,
BETWEEN;
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
The Expropriating Authority
- and -
APPLIED PRESSURE INC.
The Owner
MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT
WHEREAS the Owner is the registered owner of PID #00377150,
AND WHEREAS the Expropriating Authority did, on May 9, 2011, cause to be filed
with the Expropriations Advisory Officer, a Form A -2 Notice of Intention to Expropriate certain
lands forming part of PID #00377150,
AND WHEREAS on June 9, 2011, the Owner filed a Form A -10 Notice of Objection in
accordance with section 9 of the Expropriation Act;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to section 10 of the Expropriation Act, the Expropriation
Advisory Officer arranged for a public hearing to be held on September 16, 2011;
AND WHEREAS the public hearing was adjourned because the Expropriating Authority
and the Owner entered into settlement discussions;
AND WHEREAS the Expropriating Authority and the Owner have resolved their
differences and wish to reflect the terms and conditions of the settlement that was reached,
NOW THEREFORE it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
I The Owner consents to the expropriation of 269 square meters of its property bearing PID
#00377150 as depicted on a Plan of Survey titled `Tian of Survey to Accompany
Application to Amend Notice of Intention to Expropriate Parcel SLS#24 City of Saint
John Saint John County, N.B." prepared by Kierstead Quigley and Roberts Ltd. certified
correct by Steven R. Saunders, NBLS #352 dated October 4, 2011, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Schedule "A" and forms part hereof.
237
2. Upon execution of these Minutes of Settlement, the Owner shall withdraw its Form A -10
Notice of Objection dated June 9, 2011 and filed with the Expropriations Advisory
Officer the same day.
3. Upon execution of these Minutes of Settlement, the Owner shall abandon and release all
its rights under the Expropriation Act in respect of the expropriation of 269 square meters
of its property bearing PID #00377150 as shown on the Survey Plan attached hereto as
Schedule "A'
4. Upon registration of the Notice of Expropriation in accordance with section 19 of the
Expropriation Act, the Expropriating Authority shall pay to the Owner the lump sum
amount of $29,000.00.
5. Upon registration of the Notice of Expropriation in accordance with section 19 of the
Expropriation A -t, the City shall grant a right -of -way to the Owner in the form attached
as Schedule "B" for the purposes of parking, ingress, egress and regress of persons,
vehicles and equipment over that portion of the expropriated lands which is located
outside of the fence on the expropriated lands, and is shown cross- hatched on a drawing
dated September 27, 2011 prepared by Crandall Engineering and attached hereto as
Schedule "C" and forming part hereof.
DATED at Saint John, New Brunswick this _ day of October, 2011,
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Mayor
Common Clerk
Melanie C. Tompkins
Solicitor for The City of Saint John
APPLIED PRESSURE INC.
Per: �cu.rt GS►ce �eci¢5� _ �,�,a Matthew Letson
Duly Authorized Signing Officer Lawson Creamer
Solicitor for Applied Pressure Inc.
238
. wyp 1
3158
:fliF 1
URM
lag g
�;1 o N xzzo
if' J
�`� .. .................. ... . .. a.vr.., ........ '.
i
WGJJS Apauua)j an.f
4
9nYJ V.9 ��d u4or wbs �
MOW GIN/Cid
Fix
fip
op�E iF i 0 ry :! [BR'i��
Ei
• 3FUNO -, G S r, e 6 Oc � Rf [�i z
a'�
m� m s R Sa
iq 9 r ll u & �r �� � Hill t.I
co
I
239
SCHEDULE "B"
Form 14
EASEMENT
Lard Titles Act, S.N.B. 1981, c.L -1.1, s. 24
Parcel Identifier of Parcel
Burdened by Easement:
Parcel Identifier of Parcel
Benefited by Easement;
Grantor of Easement:
Grantee of Easement:
[City's newly created PID]
377150
City of Saint John (The)
B"' Floor, Clty Hall Budding
15 Market SQ
P.O. Box 1971
Saint John, NB
E21- 41-1
Applied Pressure Inc.
491 Prince Street West
Saint John, NB
E2M 1R2
Description of Easement: See Schedule A
Purposes of Easement: See Schedule A
The grantor grants to the grantee the described easement over or In the specified
parcel for the specified purposes.
Date: .2011
Grantor of Easement:
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Mayor
Common Cleric
Common Council Resolution:
Grantee of Easement:
Applied Pressure Inc.
Pee
And:
240
2011
SCHEDULE A
DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF EASEwAENT
Lands subject to the description and purpose of easement:
ALL that certain lot, piece and parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of
Saint John, in the County of Saint John, in the Province of New Brunswick and
designated "Easement rny' on a Plan of Surrey entitled "Plan of Survey
Easement Requirements Kennedy Street Lift Station #24, City of Saint John
Property, Kennedy Street, City of Saint John, Saint John County, New
Brunswick ", dated 2011 certified correct Kierstead Quigley
and Roberts Ltd. per Steven R. Saunders, NBLS and filed in the New Brunswick
Land Titles Office (Saint John) on 2011 as Number
A free and uninterrupted right-of- -way at all times and for all purposes In common
with the Grantor of the Easement for persons, machinery, materials, vehicles and
equipment for parking, ingress, egress and regress over the Easement Lands
and the Grantee of the Easement covenants with the Grantor of the Easement
that the Grantee of the Easement will, at its cost and expense, build the right -of-
way and keep the said right- of-way in proper repair and condition, provided
always that the rights granted herein do not in any way interfere wdh or impair
the Grantor's use of the Easement Lands as a Lift Station and anything related
thereto.
241
Form 45
AFFIDAVIT OF CORPORATE EXECUTION
Land Titles Ac4 S.N.B. 1981, c.L -1.1, s. 55
Deponent:
Elizabeth A. Gormley
City of Saint John
P,O. Box 1971
Saint John, NB E2L 41-1
Office Held by Deponent:
Common Clerk
Corporation:
The City of Saint John
Other Officer Who Executed
the Instrument:
G. Ivan Court
City of Saint John
P.O. Box 1971
Saint John, NB E21- 4L1
Office Held by Other Officer
Who Executed the Instrument: Mayor
Place of Execution: City of Saint John
Date of Execution: .2011
I, Elizabeth A. Gormley, the deponent, make oath and say.
1. That I hold the office specified in the corporation specified above, and am
authorized to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the matters
hereinafter deposed to;
2. That the attached instrument was executed by me and the other officer
Specified above, as the officers duly authorized to execute the instrument on
behalf of the corporation;
3. That the seal of the corporation was affixed to the Instrument by order of the
Common Council of (The) City of Saint John;
4. That the instrument was executed at the place and on the date specified
above.
5. The corporation has no shareholders.
SWORN TO at the City of
Saint John, In the County of
Saint John, Province of New
Brunswick on the day
of 2011
BEFORE ME:
Lynda D. Farrell
Commissioner of Oaths
Being a Solicitor
242
Elizabeth A. Gormley
Form 45
AFFIDAVIT OF CORPORATE EXECUTION
Land Titles Act, S.N.B. 1861, c.L -1.1, s. 55
Deponent:
491 Prince Street West
Saint John, NB
E2M 1 R2
Office Held by Deponent:
Corporation: Applied Pressure Inc.
Other Officer Who
Executed the Instrument:
491 Prince Street West
Saint John, NB
E2M 1 R2
Office Held by Other Officer
Who Executed the Instrument:
Place of Execution: City of Saint John
Date of Execution: _ _ 2011
I, the deponent, make oath and say:
1. That I hold the office specified in the corporation specified above, and am
authorized to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the matters
hereinafter deposed to;
2. That the attached instrument was executed by me and the other officer
specified above, as the officers duly authorized to execute the instrument on
behalf of the corporation;
3. That the seal of the corporation was affixed to the instrument by order of the
Board of Directors of the corporation;
4. That the instrument was executed at the place and on the date specified
above.
5. That the ownership of a share of the corporation does not entitle the owner
thereof to occupy the parcel described in the attached instrument as a marital
home.
SWORN TO at the City of
Saint John, in the County of
Saint John, Province of New
Brunswick on the day
Of 2011.
BEFORE ME:
Commissioner of Oaths
Being a Solicitor
243
NN* �—
or
e
�► � Lk i
tog 1
ji,
244