2012-11-05_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, November 05, 2012
Committee of the Whole
1. Call to Order
Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une r6union de Conseil Communal,
veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffi6re communale au 658 -2862.
Each of the following items, either in whole or in part, is able to be discussed in private
pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of the Municipalities Act and Council /Committee
will make a decision(s) in that respect in Open Session:
4:30 p.m. 8th Floor Boardroom City Hall
1.1 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c)
1.2 Employment Matter 10.2(4)(b,j)
1.3 Employment Matter 10.2(4)(a,b,c,f,g)
1.4 Legal Matter 10.2(4)(g)
Regular Meeting
It is anticipated that all items with the exception of the Public Hearings scheduled
for 7:00pm will be forwarded to the meeting of Tuesday, November 13.
1. Call to Order — Prayer
6:00 p.m. Council Chamber
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Adoption of Agenda
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
5. Consent Agenda
6. Members Comments
7. Proclamation
8. Delegations / Presentations
9. Public Hearings
7:00 p.m.
9.1(a) Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 317 City Line
9.1(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending Rezoning with
Section 39 Conditions
2
9.2(a) Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 290 Ludlow Street
9.2(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending Rezoning with
Section 39 Conditions
10. Consideration of By -laws
11. Submissions by Council Members
11.1 Spring Clean Up Program (Councillor Strowbridge)
11.2 Exhibition Association - Field House Project (Councillor Merrithew)
12. Business Matters — Municipal Officers
13. Committee Reports
13.1 Planning Advisory Committee: Proposed Subdivision (Street Vesting) 210
Lawrence Long Rd
14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
15. General Correspondence
15.1 New Brunswick Dental Society - Maintaining Fluoride Levels
15.2 The Hardman Group Ltd. - New Year's Eve Celebrations 2012
16. Supplemental Agenda
16.1 Prostitution (Councillor Fullerton)
16.2 Pension Plan (Councillor Fullerton)
17. Committee of the Whole
18. Adjournment
3
The City of Saint John
Seance du conseil communal
Le lundi 5 novembre 2012
Comit6 pl6nier
1. Ouverture de la seance
Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une reunion de Conseil Communal,
veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffi&re communale au 658 -2862.
Chacun des points suivants, en totalit& ou en partie, peut faire l'objet d'une discussion en
priv& en vertu des dispositions pr6vues a Particle 10 de la Loi sur les municipalites. Le
conseil /comit6 prendra une ou des d6cisions a cet &gard au cours de la seance publique
16 h 30 — Salle de conference, 8e etage, h6tel de ville
1.1 Question financi&re — alin6a 10.2(4)c)
1.2 Question relative a 1'emploi — alin6as 10.2(4)b), j)
1.3 Questions relatives a 1'emploi — alin6as 10.2(4)a), b), c), j), g)
1.4 Question juridique — alin&a 10.2(4)g)
Seance ordinaire
Il est pr6vu que tous les points figurant a 1'ordre du jour, a 1'exception de ceux des
audiences publiques devant se derouler a 19 h, seront transmis a la reunion du
mardi 13 novembre.
1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere
18 h — Salle du conseil
2. Approbation du proces- verbal
3. Adoption de 1'ordre du jour
4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets
5. Questions soumises a 1'approbation du conseil
6. Commentaires pr6sentes par les membres
7. Proclamation
8. Delegations et presentations
9. Audiences publiques
19h
9.1a) Projet de modification de 1'Arr&6 de zonage visant le 317, chemin City Line
9.1b) Rapport du Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage
conform6ment aux conditions impos6es par Particle 39
9.2a) Projet de modification de 1'Arret6 de zonage visant le 290, rue Ludlow
9.2b) Rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage
conformement aux conditions imposees par Particle 39
10. Etude des arrWs municipaux
11. Interventions des membres du conseil
11.1 Programme de travaux de nettoyage du printemps (conseiller Strowbridge)
11.2 Association de 1'Exposition de la Ville et le Comte de Saint -Jean — Projet
relatif au complexe sportif (conseiller Merrithew)
12. Affaires municipales 6voqukes par les fonctionnaires municipaux
13. Rapports deposes par les comit6s
13.1 Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme : Projet de lotissement (d6volution de terrains
a titre de rue) visant le 210, chemin Lawrence Long
14. Etude des sujets 6cart6s des questions soumises it I'approbation du conseil
15. Correspondance g6n6rale
15.1 Societ6 dentaire du Nouveau - Brunswick — Maintien des niveaux de fluorure
15.2 The Hardman Group Ltd. — C616bration 2012 de la veille du jour de 1'An
16.Ordre du jour suppl6mentaire
16.1 Prostitution (conseillere Fullerton)
16.2 R6gime de retraite (conseillere Fullerton)
17. Comit6 pl6nier
18. Lev6e de la s6ance
BY -LAW NUMBER C.P.110-
A LAW TO AMEND
THE ZONING BY -LAW
OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
ARRETE No C.P.110-
ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE
SUR LE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF
SAINT JOHN
Be it enacted by The City of Saint Lors d'une reunion du conseil
John in Common Council convened, as communal, The City of Saint John a
follows:
The Zoning By -law of The City of
Saint John enacted on the nineteenth day of
December, A.D. 2005, is amended by:
1 Amending Schedule "A ", the
Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by
re- zoning a parcel of land with an area of
approximately 912 square metres, located
at 317 City Line, also identified as being
PID No. 00386193, from "R -2" One and
Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four
Family Residential
- all as shown on the plan attached hereto
and forming part of this by -law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of
Saint John has caused the Corporate
Common Seal of the said City to be affixed
to this by -law the * day of *, A.D. 2012
and signed by:
Mayor/Maire
decrete ce qui suit :
L'arrete sur le zonage de The City
of Saint John, decrete le dix -neuf (19)
d6cembre 2005, est modifie par :
1 La modification de 1'annexe «A >>,
Plan de zonage de The City of Saint John,
permettant de modifier la designation d'une
parcelle de terrain d'une superficie
d'environ 912 metres carrels, situ6e au 317,
ligne City, et portant le NID 00386193, de
zone residentielle- habitations unifamiliales
et bifamiliales « R -2 » a zone residentielle
— habitations de quatre logements << R -4 »
- toutes les modifications sont indiquees sur
le plan ci joint et font partie du prdsent
arret6.
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John
a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le
pr6sent arret6 le 2012,
avec les signatures suivantes
Common Clerk/Greffiere communal
First Reading
Premiere lecture
Second Reading -
Deuxieme lecture
Third Reading -
Troisieme lecture
El
BK1
Advertiser Name: Saint John Common Clerk
Advertiser Code: S71206
Size: 4.00 x 11.00 in.
Sales Rep: Elizabeth Cook
PROPOSED ZONING BY -LAW
AMENDMENT
RE: 317 CITY LINE
Public Notice is hereby given
that the Common Council of
The City of Saint John intends
to consider amending The City
of Saint john Zoning By -law at
its regular meeting to be held
in the Council Chamber on
Monday, September 10, 2012
at 7:00 pin., by:
Rezoning a parcel of land with
an area of approximately 912
square metres, located at 317
City Line, also identified as
being PID No. 00386193, from
"R -2" One and Two Family
Resldendal to "RM -1" Three
Storey Multiple Resldendal.
REASON FOR CHANGE:
To permit two apartments and
a rooming house in the existing
building.
The proposed amendment may
be inspected by any interested
person at the office of the
Common Clerk, or in the office
of 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.
Written objections to the
amendment may be sent to the
undersigned at City Hall.
If you require French services for
a Common Council meeting,
please contact the office of the
Common Clerk.
Elizabeth Gormley, Common
Clerk
658 -2862
PROJET DE MODIFICATION DE
1!ARRM SUR LE ZANAGE
OBJET 317, LIGNE CITY
Par les pr6sente5, un avis public
est donn6 par lequel le conseil
communal de The City of Saint
John indique son intention
d'6tudier la modification
suivante a Varret6 sur le zonage
de The City of Saint John, lors
de la reunion ordinaire qui se
tiendra clans la Salle du conseil
ie lundl 10 septembre 2012 a
19h:
Rezonage dune parcelle
de terrain dune superficie
d'environ 912 metres carr6s,
situ6e au 317, ligne City, et
portant le NID 00386193, de
zone r6sldentielle -habitations
unliam9lales et bNamlllales
« R -2 , a zone d'Edlfloes A
logements murdpks de trots
dtages R RM-1 w.
RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION:
Permettre deux logements et
une maison de chambres dans
le batiment existant.
Toute personne int6ress6e
peut examiner le projet de
modification au bureau de la
greffiere communale ou au
bureau de I'urbanisme et du
d6veloppement A I'h6tel de ville
au 15, Market Square, Saint
John, N. -B., entre 8 h 30 et 16 h
30 du lundi au vendredi, sauf les
jours fkri6s.
Veuillez faire parvenir vos
objections au projet de
modification par 6crit a
I'attention de la soussign6e a
Vh6tel de ville.
5i vous avez besoin des services
en fran�ais pour une reunion
de Conseil Communal, veuillez
contacter le bureau de la
greffi&e communale.
Elizabeth Gormley, Greffi&e
communale
658 -2862
Ad Number: A18787
Current Date: Jul 31 2012 10:31 AM
Start Date: 8/14/2012
End Date: 8/14/2012
Color: B/W
Client Approval OK p
67
Corrections p
w
0
•
26 -0
67 -0
13 -9
d
z
rrl
o z c�
a o
Cl o
3 O 3
3
m
HALLWAY --- uQ J"Is °o
z
f�
m
m Fri m
d a m
x M t7
O o O
a 3 3
,a3
A& �D
a
PF`.�'sx�'kli;��".CtCC`�l, �:� Y .�ci'�+ax�'A`3�:�'F�:'i'� \•:�.%
UPPER 0 0
27 -3
32 - -I 1
6 -61,g 3 -2 I -944
z
r+
H
11-5
d
- - ----- - - - - -- -
I
z
�
I
I
H
�
�
I
O <
2
fTl
r—i
�
�
z
KITCHENET
11 -0
11-5
I
- - ----- - - - - -- -
I
z
�
I
I
I
d
�
d c
i
� O
i
o
I
�
I
1
I
/GRADE
AREA UP
TO MEET REO'D
BYLAWS... 42.9
SM
G4 • Go —ning Authority
9A cwt
Planning
Advisory Committee
October 17, 2012
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning
317 City Line
P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800
Saint John
New Brunswick
Canada E2L 4L1
City of Saint John
On October 9, 2012, Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning
Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee
considered the attached report at its October 16, 2012 meeting.
The applicant, Serge Ethier was present and in agreement with the Staff
recommendation and noted he would be landscaping the rear yard of the property
around the parking area.
Beverley Janes of 315 City Line appeared before the committee and expressed
concerns regarding the proposal as outlined in her letter sent to the Committee.
Staff responded from questions from the Committee regarding landscaping
requirements around the parking area and the definitions of a rooming house,
apartment unit and family. Staff confirmed the operations of the dwelling units, as
described by the applicant, are functioning as a multiple unit building and not a
rooming house.
Following consideration of the presentations, letter, and deliberation by the
Committee, the Committee adopted an amended staff recommendation with a
condition added to require appropriate landscaping around the parking area at the
rear of the property to visually screen the parking area and prevent headlight
trespass onto adjacent properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of
approximately 912 square metres, located at 317 City Line, also identified
as being PID No. 00386193, from "R -2" One and Two Family
Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential.
2. That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning
Act, the proposed development of the parcel of land with an area of
approximately 912 square metres, located at 317 City Line, also identified
as being PID No. 00386193 be subject to the following condition:
9
-2-
a. Appropriate landscaping be provided around the parking area at the
rear of the property to visually screen the parking area and prevent
headlight trespass onto adjacent properties.
Respectfully submitted,
Morgan Lanigan
Vice Chairman
FS
Project No. 12 -262
10
F �
The City of Saint John
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
FOR:
PREPARED BY:
OCTOBER 12, 2012
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Stacy F , MCIP, RPP
Planner
SUBJECT:
COMMUNITY PLANNING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2012
Name of Applicant: Serge Ethier
Name of Owner: Serge Ethier
Location: 317 City Line
PID: 00386193
REVIEWED BY:
Mark Reade, P. Eng., MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Municipal Plan: Stable Residential
Zoning: Existing: "R -2" One and Two Family Residential
Proposed: "R -4" Four Family Residential
Type of Application: Rezoning: to convert the existing two - family dwelling to a four -
family dwelling.
1
l�{_
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint john, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saint ohn.ca i C.P. 1971 Saint Jahn, N. -B. Canada E2L4L1
11
Serge Ethier Page 2
317 City Line October 12, 2012
JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE:
The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common
Council concerning proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaw. Common Council will consider the
Committee's recommendation at a public hearing on Monday, November 5, 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE:
That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 912 square metres,
located at 317 City Line, also identified as being PID No. 00386193, from "R -2" One and Two Family
Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential.
INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES:
Municipal Operations and Engineering has the following comments:
• It is assumed from the application that there will not be any changes to the existing municipal
services to the building. If any changes are proposed, this Department must be contacted for
further review and approval.
• A City approved water meter and appropriate backflow prevention must be installed by the
owner.
• All required parking should be provided for on -site.
• Detailed site (including the location and width of any proposed driveways), grading and
stormwater management plans and design brief must be submitted by the owner's engineering
consultant to this Department for review and approval.
■ The owner is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits.
Saint John Transit provides a high level of service to the corner of Woodville Road and City Line in
close proximity to this location.
Buildings and Inspection Services have provided the following comment with respect to the proposal:
The owner must provide required second exits for the proposed rear apartment units. This can be
detailed during the building permit review stage as they can be accommodated on -site.
12
Serge Ethier
317 City Line
Page 3
October 12, 2012
Saint John Fire Department has no objection to this application provided that compliance with all
applicable regulations are adhered to, including but not limited to the following:
• Fire separation within the building units satisfies the requirements of the National Building Code
of Canada and the National Fire Code.
• Fire separation between buildings satisfies the requirements of the National Building Code and
National Fire Code of Canada.
• Required exit doors shall open in the direction of exit travel and shall be operable from the
interior without the use of keys, cards, special devices or specialized knowledge of the door
opening mechanism.
• Smoke Detectors AC/DC are to be installed in each dwelling unit and be connecting to the
buildings Fire Alarm System.
• Approved, portable, wall mounted fire extinguishers are required. As a minimum the type, size
and location of extinguishers shall conform to NFPA 10.
• Smoke alarms shall be installed as per the 2010 NBC requirements. Hardwired (electric)
complete with battery backup are required in each bedroom and outside each bedroom, between
the bedrooms and the remainder of the apartment.
• Each apartment shall have two means of egress.
• All sleeping rooms/bedrooms require an exterior operable window conforming to NBC 9.9.10.
• Continuously illuminated exit signs are required at exits and as necessary throughout the floor
area to clearly indicate the direction of exit travel. Signs shall conform to 2010 NBC.
• AC/DC emergency lighting is required for exits and access paths leading to exits.
• Any garbage enclosures, garbage dumpster, storage sheds shall be located a minimum of 6 in
from this or any other building.
• A fire safety plan is required upon occupation of this building and it shall be acceptable to the
Saint John Fire Department.
• Plans must be submitted to the Department of Public Safety for review.
• Prior to occupancy, a full inspection must be completed by the Saint John Fire Department Fire
Prevention & Investigation Division, contact number 658 -2962.
13
Serge Ethier Page 4
317 City Line October 12, 2012
ANALYSIS:
Site and Neighbourhood
The subject site is located on the west side of Saint John, at the south -end of City Line, just north of
Lowell Street. The subject site is approximately 912 square metres in size and is zoned "R -2" One and
Two Family Residential, as are all of the properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. An
examination of the Service New Brunswick records for the number of units in this neighbourhood
indicate that the majority of residential homes within 100 metres of this property are one and two unit
homes with very few three and four unit dwellings, and one 6 -unit dwelling.
In the broader neighbourhood, there are three churches, a school and parklands, along with Light and
Heavy Industrial lands to the south -east near the waterfront. There are seven properties in this broader
neighbourhood which have been rezoned to "R -4" Four Family Residential, almost all of which are
integrated into neighbourhood streets, such as this proposal. The location, the proposed use, and the
level of intensification is not out of character for this neighbourhood and is thus considered appropriate.
History of the use of the Property
Service New Brunswick records indicate that this two - storey, two -unit residential building was built in
1930. This property is currently being used as a rooming house with two undersized bachelor units
however the Growth. & Development department files for the City of Saint John do not contain any
information to indicate when the building was converted to this use. An individual called the City's
Building Department in June of 2012, identifying themselves as a new tenant of the property, and filed a
complaint indicating they did not believe one of the bachelor units was legal. From this complaint, the
City investigated and determined that there is an eight room boarding house and two existing bachelor
units.
Due to the uses not being permitted, the owner has since been issued Notices for non - compliance. In
order to address this, the applicant must either cease the current residential uses on the property, or apply
and receive approval to legalize the use through the rezoning process. The applicant applied to have the
existing use legalized in July of 2012 however he withdrew the application at the Planning Advisory
Committee. Since this time he has worked with staff in the planning department to find a more intense
residential use of this property that is appropriate for this neighbourhood.
The conversion of this property to a legal four -unit will require an expansion of the parking area to the
rear of the building to accommodate all off -site parking spaces and an expansion to the rear of the
building to create two legal-sized one - bedroom apartments. The interior of the property will be
renovated to provide legal and safe fire separations and individual units. All building deficiencies will be
addressed through the Building Permit review and inspection process.
14
Serge Ethier Page 5
317 City Line October 12, 2012
Municipal Plan
The subject site is designated Stable Residential in the Municipal Plan which speaks to its location in a
long- standing residential neighbourhood in the City. The Plan supports rejuvenation, reinvestment, and
intensification in Stable Areas where it is at a scale and density consistent with the surrounding context.
In this case, the surrounding neighbourhood is primarily single and two - family homes, with a number of
properties in the wider neighbourhood having been converted to "R -4" Four Family Residential. As with
this proposal, these existing "R -4" Four Family Residential properties have been appropriately
integrated into the fabric of the neighbourhood streets.
This proposal is consistent with the Plan's intent for the organic development of Stable Residential
areas, in keeping with the character of existing neighbourhoods and streets. The rezoning will allow the
property owner to invest in this existing building and create safe and appropriately sized residential
dwelling units. This is consistent with the intent to support investment and appropriate intensification in
stable neighbourhoods and is thus considered consistent with the intent of the Municipal Plan.
Zoning Bylaw
The proposal appears to meet all of the site development standards for the "R -4" Four Family
Residential zone, except for the minimum lot width for a 3 or 4 family dwelling; the existing lot width is
17.5 metres and the minimum required lot width is 22 metres. However, section 810(1) of the Bylaw
exempts existing lots from this requirement, provided that all other requirements can be met. In this
case, all other requirements can be met and thus, no variance for lot width is required. The reduced lot
width would not appear to have a negative impact on the proposal, but rather retains the existing
character of the property.
CONCLUSION:
The rejuvenation of older neighbourhoods throughout the City is an objective of the Municipal Plan. The
application to convert this property from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family
Residential is an appropriate level of intensification for this location and is consistent with this objective.
The proposed use is not out of character for this neighbourhood and is consistent with the level of
intensification in other parts of this neighbourhood.
Given the historic use of this property, the neighbourhood context, and the Municipal Plan intent for
neighbourhood investment and appropriate neighbourhood intensification, it is recommended that this
application be approved.
SF
Project No. 12 -262
15
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT / URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT
�� • ` 2 ~ 5
• 3,9 ry 8
20 0
23 J 12 O
02 1 yam(
4 • 1
326 �• 1 ``QJ 1
> 1: k
19 2 ei6 29 `. 3 00*1
1 6 C
20 30 5 y� 00 Xk I -2
20 4 38 10
k
2 04 ��° 39 91 4ahc2 0 3 /
243 Oe
o
32 247 �Q! 39 d,i 4 3
248 n
32 e
33 4b 446
33 326 275 16 \`0
3 32'3 �Q 0 �71 480
33 °a 336 art _ ife 2 4 96 7 k r
34 S9 / 31 �1 6 2 0
3 3535 G \ 321
4 33 • ` l
33 9
6 63 ' • 33 0 1
332 14
369 534 40 19 •
405 2 ,
365 S40 327 411
� 24
7 333 42 426
28
339 /��1 ti RM -1 � /• RM -1 �+
47 .ii 308 +
36 Gi. 66 y' 320• 09 • . ` +
a
32
+
I
• yL�QJ 66 32 3 21
%Q _
°� 71 33
20
38 �� 79 �� U
4( 33
Subject Site /site en question: PID(s) /NIP(s): 00386193
Location: 317, chemin City Line
Date: September 28, septembre 2012
Scale /echelle: Not to scale /Pas a I'echelle
16
�� • .. ` ' .,. �r-Y -yct:!s:srrr.se�es_- y si •� .a[�
N
J � d
v
\
5 ,;ter .•\ ; / i�. � ' "•:�/ •.� � � / : /,• \
/ � \ / / � \ , ' � , '•�•,.,/ � /j 'T °sue• \ '�\. I � '�'.l
te
CL
.,- �r• l'�! ` rte`.. %r i :•••� \ \1�' / � \\ r . ���, , f /
40 % �� • :! per ,� � �/ � \ � >•. \_ / ,_'`` ,. us.
lb
cj
CL
: r\
• ! c j i
�6���/� -\ / �C� / / \��.,� / / / `jam �..•/ /� �,� � i �' '\.�\
/ �..
10
T4V .�
��o
\�\ ,///:
�7 ,�
�j
T_ o"
3fr
�zo
}
�I
♦f11F /IFI■
[Us
LLI
65 -0
H
L
Green /Landscaping
lotal Area
... 45?8 SF
V
I3 -0 10-0
S-C
10-0
4
T
Orl eway L Parking
total Area ... 2923 sf
2
S-0
Ne. E *tens ion
10-0
rd
ro
CL-
50-0 T
r-O
Plan
317 City line
[Us
I
m
fU
0
i
n o�
co �
m
0
:n
v
3 -0
W
.
1�1
T
111
�;::d cr?.�z:'n,•.�r't /ns ,rJ',^L ns >n o
H
W
i
I �I
��.
g
d
r
w
rJr
w
y
V
Zn
H BEDROOM
■ ■
■
J ADDITION)
A
i
F
F �
■ r
IL'•r
��
r
�L
KITCHENE-
�Hivd'riruYvv
m ,FII
3 -0
W
W
T
H
W
i
Li
g
d
w
rJr
w
V
Zn
A
\ \N G
�Fl
TG f9��
DINING ROAM �F.ATHRO)� BEDROOM
Eli
Y
LIVING ROOM 3
J
J
BEDROOM
13 -3
BEDROOM
10_ 2�� 10 -0
35 -5
0
�1
J
z
d
I
DINING/LIVING
BATHROOM
Lo
Stair r
Dn
Stair
Lo
ENTRANCE
KITCHEN
ITCHEN
BATHROOM
DINING ROOM
BEDROOM
fl LIVING ROOM X
BEDROOM
LIVING G R7
OM IF ROO
rmn
BE OOM
BEDROOM OOM BEDROOM
DROOM
STUDY
35-5
---------- ------
14
w
rm 0 cu -5
BEDROOM
<
Ln N W
(NEW ON)
Lj Cr)
Li :K
2-- <
at
cy 0 >_
m
DINING/LIVING
BATHROOM
Lo
Stair r
Dn
Stair
Lo
ENTRANCE
KITCHEN
ITCHEN
BATHROOM
DINING ROOM
BEDROOM
fl LIVING ROOM X
BEDROOM
LIVING G R7
OM IF ROO
rmn
BE OOM
BEDROOM OOM BEDROOM
DROOM
STUDY
35-5
lC 196,
Fy
CD
c�
III
n
n
ti
at
UJ
Lo
lC 196,
Fy
CD
c�
III
n
n
October 15, 2012
Planning Advisory Committee '""' OCT 16 „ 4
City of Saint John iz
Planning and Development
P.O. Box 1971
Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 Q A ■rS't
Dear Stacey Forfar,
This letter is in response to the letter regarding the Rezoning and Variances for 317 City Line.
We very much oppose the rezoning and variances to this property as we live next door with three
children under the age of 7. We live at 315 City Line which is right beside the property in
question. We opposed the Rezoning and Variance for 317 City Line back in August when the
owner wanted the house to continue as a boarding house. He was denied and it was my
understanding that he was no longer allowed to use his house as a boarding house, yet he
continues to do just so. He advertises rooms for rent on Kijiji. I checked the website today and
he last edited the advertisement on October 7, 2012. If Mr. Serge Ethier is permitted to expand
his house, he may continue to defy the City and will have even more rooms to rent to boarders.
We do not want to live beside a boarding house. Why is the City allowing him to do so when he
was denied in August?
We oppose the Rezoning and Variances because it would increase our lack of privacy. When we
are on our back deck we can see their deck and back yard, therefor there is very little privacy. If
the owner is granted permission to expand, there will be even more people looking into my
backyard than before. We have already once replaced our fence in attempt to provide some
privacy from the never ending changing residents at 317 City Line. The backyard of the 317
property will become a parking lot. I do not see how the City can grant him these parking spaces
when he doesn't even meet code for the required space for 5 parking spots. Plus, I really do not
want to look at the proposed parking lot while relaxing on my back deck.
F }We oppose the Rezoning and Variances because it would increase noise due to traffic. Their
driveway runs along the side of our house, so we hear all the noise from the traffic running by
our bedroom windows and the sound of car doors being slammed shut all hours of the night.
This has at times, woken our children and is very unwelcomed. As it is now, there are taxis
honking their horns into the early morning and into the late of night. If the variances and
rezoning are permitted, this traffic noise and pollution would only increase.
We oppose the Rezoning and Variances because it would change to the dynamics of our
neighborhood. This is very much a family orientated neighborhood and it comforts us knowing
who our neighbors are. With the constant change in tenants, it's difficult to keep track of
whether or not the people near our home are strangers or residents. The police have already been
called to 317 City Line due to a problem with one of the residents and this very much concerns
us. This also makes us wonder how thorough the landlord is about looking into who he has living
there. The welfare of my family and the security of our home are of the utmost importance to us.
21
We live in a one and two family residential neighborhood. Allowing this property to be turned
into a four apartment complex significantly changes the dynamics of our neighborhood. Plus, we
notice that on the plans, the smaller apartments are only provided with kitchenettes. This
concerns us. We worry that the tenants would be using additional appliances and overload their
circuits and thus creating a fire hazard right beside our home.
We are fearful that allowing the suggested changes to 317 City Line will decrease the value of
our property and will make selling our house in the future very difficult.
It is with regret that we are not able to attend the Planning and Advisory Committee's meeting
on Tuesday, October 16. If there are any questions regarding this letter, please contact us at
home, 657 -1661.
Sincerely,
Graham and Beverly Janes
22
BY -LAW NUMBER C.P.110-
A LAW TO AMEND
THE ZONING BY -LAW
OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Be it enacted by The City of Saint
John in Common Council convened, as
follows:
The Zoning By -law of The City of
Saint John enacted on the nineteenth day of
December, A.D. 2005, is amended by:
1 Amending Schedule "A ", the
Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by
re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of
approximately 426 square metres, located
at 290 Ludlow Street, also identified as
being PID No. 00365098, from "R -1B"
One Family Residential to "B -2" General
Business
- all as shown on the plan attached hereto
and forming part of this by -law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of
Saint John has caused the Corporate
Common Seal of the said City to be affixed
to this by -law the * day of *, A.D. 2012
and signed by:
Mayor/Maire
ARRETE No C.P. 110 -
ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE
SUR LE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF
SAINT JOHN
Lors dune r6union du conseil
communal, The City of Saint John a
decrete cc qui suit :
L'arret6 sur le zonage de The City
of Saint John, decrete le dix -neuf (19)
decembre 2005, est modifi6 par:
1 La modification de 1'annexe «A»,
Plan de zonage de The City of Saint John,
permettant de modifier la d6signation pour
une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie
d'environ 426 metres carr6s, situee au 290,
rue Ludlow, et portant le NID 00365098,
de zone residentielle unifamiliale «R -1B»
A zone commerciale g6n6rale «B -2»
- toutes les modifications sont indiquees sur
le plan ci joint et font partie du present
arrete.
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John
a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le
present arrete le 2012,
avec les signatures suivantes
Common C1erk/Greffiere communale
First Reading -
Premiere lecture
Second Reading -
Deuxieme lecture
Third Reading
Troisieme lecture
23
ONN
Advertiser Name: Saint John Common Clerk
Advertiser Code: S71206
Size: 4.00 x 13.00 in.
Sales Rep: Elizabeth Cook
PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW
AMENDMENTAND SECTION
39 AMENDMEW
RE: 290 LUDLOW STREET
Public Notice is hereby given
that the Common Council of
The City of Saint John intends to
consider amending The City of
Saint John Zoning 8y -law and to
consider a proposal at its regular
meeting to be held in the
Council Chamber on Monday,
November S, 2012 at 7:00
p.m., by:
1. Amending the Section 39
conditions imposed on the
March 25, 1985 rezoning of
a parcel of land with an area
of approximately 1272 square
metres, located at 290 Ludlow
Street, also identified as PID No.
00365106, to permit a revised
proposal;
2. Rezoning a parcel of land
with an area of approximately
426 square metres, located at
290 Ludlow Street, also identi-
fied as PID No. 00365098, from
"R -16" one Family Residen-
tial to "B-2" General Busi-
ness.
REASON FOR CHANGE:
To permit the use of the former
Royal Canadian Legion property
as a facility for corporate meet-
ings, professional gatherings,
seminars, weddings and bingo,
including on -site catering with a
liquor licence.
The proposed amendments may
be inspected by any interested
person at the office of the Com-
mon Clerk, or in the office of
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., Mon-
day through Friday, inclusive,
holidays excepted.
Written objections to the
amendments may be sent to the
undersigned at City Hail.
If you require French services for
a Common Council meeting,
please contact the office of the
Common Clerk.
Elizabeth Gormley,
Common Clerk
658 -2862
PROJET DE MODIFICATION DE
It'AiVd SUR !E ZONAGE ET
DE L'MTICLE 39
OBJET: 290, RUE LUDLOW
Par les pr6sentes, un avis public
est donne par lequel le Con-
seil communal de The City of
Saint John indique son inten-
tion d'6tudier la modification
suivante A 1'arreO sur le zonage
de The City of Saint John et
d'examiner une proposition, fors
de la reunion ordinaire qui se
tiendra clans la salle du Conseil
le Jundl S novembre 2012 ii
19 h;
1. Modification des conditions
impos6es en vertu de I'article
39, le 25 mars 1985, relative -
ment au rezonage dune par -
Celle de terrain d'une superficie
d'environ 1 272 metres camis,
situee au 290, rue Ludlow, et
portant le NID 00365106, pour
permettre la presentation d'une
proposition r6vis6e;
2. Rezonage d'une parcelle
de terrain d'une superficie
d'environ 426 metres carres,
situee au 290, rue Ludlow, et
portant le NID 00365098, de
zone r6sidentielle unifamiliale a
R•IR » a zone Commerciale
ganarale « B-2
RAISON DE LA MODIFICA-
TION:
Pennettre que I'ancienne
propri6te de la Legion royale
canadienne sort utili0e comme
6tablissement o0 se tiendront
des r6unions d'affaires, des
rencontres professionnelles, des
seminaires, des mariages, des
bingos, y compris un service
de restaurant sur place avec un
permis d'alcool.
Toute personne interessk peut
examiner les projets de modifi-
cation au bureau de la greffi6re
communale ou au bureau de
l'urbanisme et du d6veloppe-
ment 6 I'h6tel de ville au 15,
Market Square, Saint John, N.-
B., entre 8 h 30 et 16 h 30 du
lundi au vendredi, sauf les jours
f6ries.
Veuillez faire parvenir vos objec-
tions aux projets de modifica-
tion par 6crit is I'attention de la
soussignde S I'hbtel de ville.
Si vous avez besoin des services
en franpis pour une reunion
de Conseil Communal, veuillez
contacter le bureau de la gref-
fi6re communale.
Elizabeth Gormley,
Greffi6re communale
658.2862
Ad Number: A3 1 020
Current Date: Oct 02 2012 03:32PM
Start Date: 10/9/2012
End Date: 10/9/2012
Color: B/W
Client Approval OK ❑
24
Corrections ❑
Printed: 10/02/12 10:06:47 AM
Scale: 1:1,000.00
RCL Carleton Branch No. 2: 290 Ludlow Street
i
i
i
i
i
.r'
.
#r
I
"I i 0*
401
aS��s ar�xrUCru�
}
J,
Y If
1
RCL Carleton Branch No. 2: 290 Ludlow Street
Printed: 10/02/12 10:08:48 AM
Scale: 1:1,000.00
26
Planning
Advisory Committee
October 17, 2012
Your Worship and Councillors:
P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800
Saint John
New Brunswick
Canada E2L 4L1
SUBJECT: Proposed Section 39 Amendment and Rezoning
290 Ludlow Street
City of Saint John
On October 9, 2012 Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning
Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee
considered the attached report at its October 16, 2012 meeting.
Dwight Allaby appeared before the Committee to speak on behalf of the
applicant, 664638 NB Ltd. Mr. Allaby expressed concern with some of the
Section 39 conditions proposed by staff in their report. Specifically, condition (b),
which proposes limiting the type of liquor licence permitted for the subject site to
a "Special Facility" licence, Mr. Allaby drew attention to the fact that the
Province is currently reviewing regulations associated with liquor licences, which
could change the title and/or description of the Special Facility licence. Mr.
Allaby was satisfied with the condition, but recommended the wording be
broadened to include any potential new liquor licence that would replace the
Special Facility licence.
Mr. Allaby also expressed concern with condition (c) in the report, which
recommended that no physical additions to the existing building be permitted. Mr.
Allaby stated that if the business were to be successful, the applicant would like to
retain the option to expand the building in the future to include office space or
other similar uses. The Committee requested that staff clarify the justification for
this proposed condition; whereupon staff indicated that the proposed condition
was intended to limit the proposed uses of the building to those currently
operating in the building. Any growth of the business could potentially infringe
on the existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood and compromise the
stability of the residential fabric of the area.
Mr. Allaby added that the parking adjacent to St. John Street is actually situated
above the first storey of the building, which would inhibit the ability for a
landscaper to remove the parking and properly landscape this area of the property.
27
-2-
Finally, Mr. Allaby indicated that the barbed wire fencing on the roof of the
building, subject of one of the proposed Section 39 conditions has been there for
several years and serves as a necessary barrier to people getting on the roof.
Julie Baribault, resident of an adjacent property at 106 St. George Street, appeared
before the Committee and expressed concerns with the application. Ms. Baribault
stated that she was not necessarily opposed to the rezoning of the property or the
proposed operations of the applicant; however, Ms. Baribault drew the
Committee's attention to the condition of the retaining wall abutting her property.
Ms. Baribault expressed a desire to include the installation of a new retaining wall
as part of the Section 39 conditions recommended by the Committee. She also
indicated that she would like to see a privacy fence installed along the perimeter
of the subject property where it abuts her property line.
Blaire Reid, a resident of the neighbourhood, appeared before the Committee and
also expressed his concern with the condition of the retaining wall. Mr. Reid was
also in favour of the proposal to establish a privacy fence along the rear property
line.
Mr. Allaby returned to the podium and indicated that he would be in favour of a
privacy fence, but a new retaining wall would create a financial obligation that
could deter his client, the applicant and purchaser of the subject property, from
going through with the sale.
After considering the attached report, the letters received from two neighbours,
and the applicant's presentation, the Committee decided to recommend approval
of the proposed Section 39 amendment and rezoning, subject to the revised
Section 39 conditions as set out below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions imposed on the
March 25, 1985 rezoning of a parcel of land with an area of approximately
1272 square metres, located at 290 Ludlow Street, also identified as PID
No. 00365106 by deleting the existing condition limiting the use to the
activities of the Royal Canadian Legion, and replacing it with the
following:
a) The use of the property be limited to a facility for banquets,
weddings, meetings, seminars, bingo games, and other related
uses;
b) Any liquor licence on the property be limited to a "Special
Facility" liquor licence, or a similar class of licence should a
"Special Facility" licence be changed as a result of the Province's
licence review process;
c) No physical additions to the building shall be permitted;
d) The barbed wire located on the perimeter of the roof be removed
and replaced by a more suitable barrier;
-3-
e) All required off - street parking be provided on site or on a property
within a 100 metres radius of the subject site;
f) No mobile signs are permitted;
g) A wooden privacy fence be installed along the perimeter of the
parking area in the rear yard where it abuts neighbouring
properties; and
h) That the condition of the retaining wall along the property line
abutting the adjacent properties along St. George Street be
reviewed, and repaired if required, to the satisfaction of a
professional Engineer.
2. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of
approximately 426 square metres, located at 290 Ludlow Street, also
identified as PID No. 00365098, from "R -1B" One Family Residential to
"B -2" General Business.
3. That, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the use of
the parcel of land with an area of approximately 426 square metres,
located at 29 Ludlow Street, also identified as PID No. 00365098, be
limited to a parking area developed in conjunction with the adjacent PID
00365106 and in accordance with a detailed site plan, subject to the
approval of the Development Officer.
Respectfully sub it$ed,
�-
-�
Vice
JK
Project No. 12 -253
29
J
4 I
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
FOR:
PREPARED BY:
Jody Kli er
Planner
SUBJECT:
Name of Applicant:
Name of Owner:
Location:
PID:
Municipal Plan:
OCTOBER 19, 2012
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COMMUNITY PLANNING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2012
REVIEWED BY:
ZVI/&
Mark Reade, P. Eng., MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
664638 NB Ltd.
Royal Canadian Legion Branch 2
290 Ludlow Street
365106 and 365098
Low to Medium Density Residential
Zoning: Existing: `B -2" General Business and "R -IB" One Family
Residential
Proposed: `B -2" General Business
Proposal: To permit the use of the former legion as a facility for corporate
meetings, professional gatherings, seminars, weddings and bingo,
including on -site catering with a liquor licence and to rezone the
adjacent parking area in order to align it with the zoning of the rest
of the property.
Type of Application:
041K
SAINT JOHN
Section 39 Amendment and Rezoning
P.O. Bor, 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 411 ( %v%v v.samtiohn.ca C R 1971 5rint John, N. -B. Carada E2L 4L1
30
664638 NB Ltd. page 2
290 Ludlow Street October 12, 2012
JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE:
The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common
Council concerning proposed amendments to the Section 39 conditions and the Zoning By -law. The
Committee recommendation will be considered by Common Council at a public hearing on Monday,
November 5, 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE:
1. That Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions imposed on the March 25, 1985
rezoning of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 1272 square metres, located at 290
Ludlow Street, also identified as PID No. 00365106 by deleting the existing condition limiting
the use to the activities of the Royal Canadian Legion, and replacing it with the following:
a) The use of the property be limited to a facility for banquets, weddings, meetings,
seminars, bingo games, and other related uses;
b) Any liquor licence on the property be limited to a "Special Facility" liquor licence;
c) No physical additions to the building shall be permitted;
d) The parking area containing the eight parking spaces abutting St. John Street be removed;
e) The applicant submit a landscaping plan for the property at 290 Ludlow Street that
illustrates landscaping details specifically for the front yard of the property abutting St.
John Street, subject to the approval of the Development Officer. The approved plan must
be attached to the application for change- of- use/building permit;
f) The landscaping of the property as detailed on the approved landscaping plan be
completed no later than one year after approval of the required change- of- use/building
permit;
g) The barbed wire located on the perimeter of the roof be removed and replaced by a more
suitable barrier; and
h) All required off - street parking be provided on site or on a property within a 100 metres
radius of the subject site.
i) No mobile signs are permitted
2. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of approximately 426 square metres,
located at 290 Ludlow Street, also identified as PID No. 00365098, from "RAB" One Family
Residential to `B -2" General Business.
That, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the use of the parcel of land with
an area of approximately 426 square metres, located at 29 Ludlow Street, also identified as PID
No. 00365098, be limited to a parking area developed in conjunction with the adjacent PID
00365106 and in accordance with a detailed site plan, subject to the approval of the Development
Officer.
31
664638 NB Ltd.
290 Ludlow Street
BACKGROUND:
Page 3
October 12, 2012
The construction of the building at 290 Ludlow Street in 1970 involved a variance to reduce the required
number of off - street parking spaces from 27 to 23, which was approved by the Committee at its May 21,
1970 meeting.
At its March 15, 1985 meeting, Common Council rezoned the property with PID number 365106 to `B-
2" General Business in order to permit the establishment of the Royal Canadian Legion, subject to a
Section 39 condition of the Community Planning Act that limited the use of the property to the activities
of the Royal Canadian Legion, including a liquor license.
INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES:
Municipal Operations and Engineering has the following comments regarding the proposed Section
39 Amendment and Rezoning:
All required parking is to be provided for on -site.
If not already in place, a City - approved (supplied) water meter must be installed by the owner.
It is assumed from the application that there will no changes to the existing site plan or
servicing. If any changes are proposed, Municipal Operations and Engineering must be
contacted in advance for further review and approval.
Buildings and Inspection Services has indicated that the most recent contact their Department has had
with the property was in 2011 when they received a complaint from a neighbouring property owner
regarding the collapsing retaining wall which supports a portion of PID 00365098.
The parking lots across the street should be restricted so as to not be sold separately from the building.
Buildings and Inspection Services has no objection to the re- zoning of PID 00365098. The prospective
owner will have to arrange an inspection of the premises by this office prior to obtaining a liquor
licence.
Saint John Fire Department has no issue with the rezoning or Section 39 amendments.
Saint John Police Force has been notified of this application.
ANALYSIS:
Subject site and surrounding area
The subject property is located in the City's Lower West Side at the corner of Ludlow and St. John
Street. The surrounding neighbourhood is a historical area of the City with a large number of dwellings
dating to the earlier part of the 20th Century. According to Service New Brunswick's data, the average
year of construction of the building stock within a one -block radius of the subject site is approximately
1933. The building at 290 Ludlow Street was constructed in 1970, making it one of the more modern
structures in the area.
32
664638 NB Ltd. Page 4
290 Ludlow Street October 12, 2012
The Surrounding neighbourhood includes a wide variety of residential densities, ranging from single
family homes to multi -unit dwellings. The neighbourhood also includes a place of worship, an
elementary school, a group care facility and a billiard parlour.
The Royal Canadian Legion building is a 28 metre by 23 metre single- storey rectangular structure with
parking located at the rear of the building (on the lot with PID number 365098) and at the side of the
building abutting St. John Street. It should also be noted that the Legion owns the properties located
across the street at 166 St. George Street (PID Nos. 55017859, 55017867 and 00364968), which it uses
for off -street parking. The area can provide approximately 24 spaces. The applicant indicates that he will
also be purchasing this property.
Proposal
The Legion is now in the process of selling the property; however, the applicant would like to continue
the operations of the subject property in the same manner as the Legion, including holding banquets,
weddings, meetings, bingo games and seminars. The applicant would like to retain the ability to cater
events with a liquor licence, which requires an amendment to the existing Section 39 conditions.
The rezoning component of the current application involves the rezoning of the adjacent property (PID
No. 365098) from "R -1B" One Family Residential to `B -2" General Business in order to align it with
the zoning of the property at 290 Ludlow Street. This property serves as the rear parking area for the
subject property.
Analysis
The rezoning of the subject property in 1964 to "B -2" General Business was subject to considerable
public opposition. The rezoning of a property in the middle of a residential neighbourhood to enable the
sale of alcohol is not a proposal that would typically be supported by Planning staff. However, the
rezoning of the subject property was justified at the time due to the level of community engagement that
generally describes the work conducted by the Royal Canadian Legion, and the perceived benefits the
organisation would have on the surrounding community. Common Council imposed a Section 39
condition limiting the use of the property to the operations of the Royal Canadian Legion, recognizing
the potential inappropriateness of allowing the establishment of a licenced venue in the heart of a
residential neighbourhood.
The ensuing 48 years since the initial rezoning of the property have enabled the Legion and its
operations to grow as an accepted component of the community fabric. Although it is unlikely that staff
would recommend approval for a new building proposing the same use at the subject site, the unique
situation of the current application warrants closer consideration. There have been no discernable
negative impacts on the community as a result of the operations of the Legion, and there is no reason to
believe that the same use going forward by a different operator would result in different outcomes.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that a residential or other land use will occupy the same space now that a
structure designed for the use of an organisation like the Legion has been established.
However, staff feel it is important in this case to limit the use of the site to the same operations that were
conducted by the Legion and proposed by the applicant, including weddings, banquets, seminars, bingo
33
66463 8 NB Ltd. Page 5
290 Ludlow Street October 12, 2012
games and professional meetings. Limiting the type of liquor license to a "special facility license" is also
recommended as a mechanism to control the types of events that take place onsite.
Landscaping and parking
As a "Banquet Hall" the Zoning By -law requires a minimum of one off - street parking space per 19
square metres of the ground floor area of the building. As such, the subject site is required to provide a
minimum of 24 off - street parking spaces. As mentioned, the parking area owned by the Legion across
the street from the subject site (PID numbers 55017859 and 55017867) can accommodate approximately
24 parking spaces, while the property to the rear of the former Legion subject to the rezoning component
of this application (PID number 00365098) can comfortably accommodate a minimum of six spaces. In
addition to these two parking areas, the front yard of the building abutting St. John Street contains a
parking area with eight delineated parking spaces.
The Zoning By -law requires two metres of the front yard abutting the street to be Iandscaped, which in
the case of the subject site would include the area containing the eight off -street parking spaces abutting
St. John Street. Considering the subject site can more than adequately provide the required amount of
off -street parking spaces between the rear yard on lot with PID 00365098 and the parking area across
the street mentioned above, staff recommend that approval for the Section 39 amendment and Rezoning
be subject to the condition that the parking area abutting St. John Street be removed and the applicant
establish a landscaped buffer between the street and the building in its place. Landscaping this area of
the property will help enhance the aesthetics of the streetscape and generally contribute to the
beautification of the surrounding neighbourhood. To ensure that the property will retain the appropriate
amount of off -street parking, it is recommended that all off -street parking spaces required for the subject
site be provided for from within a 100 metre radius of the property.
The roof of the building at 290 Ludlow Street currently has a barbed wire fence along its perimeter that
is well within reach of children. The roof on the eastern portion of the building is low to the ground and
thus easily accessible. The barbed wire fence ostensibly functions as a barrier to accessing the roof from
this side of the building. However, not only does the barbed wire present an undesired physical hazard,
but it also lends an unsightly aesthetic detail to the premises. It is recommended that the barbed wire be
removed and a more appropriate barrier be installed to prevent people from accessing the roof.
Finally, it is recommended that no mobile signs be permitted on the subject property as the presence of
such commercial signage is inappropriate in a residential neighbourhood.
CONCLUSION:
The property at 290 Ludlow Street has been the location of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 2 since
the early 1960s. The Legion has offered several events over the years at the subject site, many of which
have involved the sale of alcohol. Due to the historic role the property has played in the community in
providing a venue for the above - mentioned activities with little to no neighbourhood opposition, staff
feel the continued operations of the subject site for similar uses would not be out of character for the
34
664638 NB Ltd. Page 6
290 Ludlow Street October 12, 2012
area, or disruptive to the surrounding community, Approval for the proposed rezoning and Section 39
amendment is recommended, subject to the above conditions.
JK
Project No. 12 -253
35
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT /URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT
4 112
8 2
98 -2 2 2� # 4
g P /
02 0
. 8
2
9 6 2 �� ^'
9 I�±
C 10 2 •�
10 �4r 14 27
w• 0 18
0 2
•
0 7 AA i
'(��
7
6 a�� 1 y 1 r. 90 8 2
28 y V t
-sl B
• ` 16 8 �. 10 0
02 10 0 L
•
♦ + 46 so 06 12 12
.54 10 / 10
17 •
166 2 1 +'� �QJ 19 3
70
12
2 % 13 . %V 1
��• ♦ 12
82 24
90 A is � B- 28
2 ! J�
'i � 15
17 1 15 •�iQ� 15 O 40 • 34
_A
St
18 . 1 ; 46 1 `�� 60 13
♦ 58
18 �
Qj 64
03 70
RM -1 17• 16 36
16
17
29 /►� 88 ' 80 -4 i 17
L 19 Z-
18
g ��QJ 90 �♦
290
12 s• 2019 9 ♦ 2
`N
/00 20 Q• 18
♦
g �♦
•
4 20 r ♦ 21 �� 38 19 842
2 _• '� t o0
P 20 s6
Subject Site /site en question:
PI D(s) /N I P(s): 00365106
Location: 290 Ludlow Street
Date: September 28, 2012
Scale /echelle: Not to scale /Pas a 1'6chelle
36
❑CT -11 -2012 20:18 From:
October 10, 2012
The Planning Advisory Committee
City of Saint John
Planning and Development
P. 0. box 2971
Saint John, NB
E2L 4L1
To:6582837
Page:212
Re: 290 Ludlow Street
Proposed Section 39 Amendment and Rezoning Application
We are the property owners at the back of 290 Ludlow Street. Our main concern is the access
to our backyard. We are the only ones with keys for the gate that is there. When we
purchased this home, the access to our backyard was the driveway next to the Royal Canadian
Legion (290 Ludlow Street). We need to continue using the driveway but the access has been
blocked because the retaining wall was collapsing. They did put large boulders along the
driveway but we are not sure if that fixed the problem of the driveway collapsing. If it isn't
fixed, will it be fixed? Also if there ever were a need, hopefully not, for an emergency vehicle at
the back of our home, they would need access.
In the past during events liquor bottles and garbage have been tossed over the fence on our
property. We don't mind people going out to smoke, get air, etc.,,we just ask that the back
area be monitored somewhat.
If this should be passed, we would like to have contact numbers in case there is a problem.
Thank you for your consideration with this matter.
Yours truly
1A.4- OAA
Ann Parks
Kevin Parks
129 St. John Street
Saint John, NB r`J
E2M 2.84
Ph. # (506) 635 -8070 '
Cell # (506) $33 -5422
F
37
3.
the vianninq Advisory Committee,
I wish to address the concerns I have regarding the property of 290 Ludlow St. and the application for
rezoning and the amendment. My name is Julie Baribault and I own the property at 106 Saint uenc.,. :.
which is runs adjacent to the property in question. 2yrs ago the retaining wall let go and it was reolacec
with a "temporary rock wall" which was to be replaced with a permanent wall with a fence. This was
what 1 was told by the Legion at the time the wall let go. Since the rock wall was put into place I have
had water lying in my backyard, and drainage is a big concern as the water and sewage department
tested the water in 2011 and said there was high concentrations of bacteria and to not allow animals or
children in or near the water. Since this drainage issue started in Nov 2010 when the retaining wall let
go my children and I have been repeatedly sick with gastro intestinal problems and my children have
missed a number of days from school over the past 2 years. I have tried to keep the children and dog
out of the area affected but as it is getting worse it is getting harder have a place for them to go. This
year the water and sewage dept. carne out and did a dye test and there appears to be no leak in my line.
Where the sewage is coming from is still unfounded. I feel that expanding the parking lot to the
adjacent lot and allowing vehicles to park in behind will further cause the temporary wall to shift as we!;
as it will further complicate the drainage and sewage issue.
The temporary rock wall is shifting and the gravel has washed away from in between the bigger rocks,
the smaller rocks have fallen off the wall and thankfully no one was around as they would have hurt a
person if they did fall on them. Also I have noticed that the rocks are now inline past my baby barn's
corner and the gravel has washed down and blocking the circulation under the barn. I have asked the
city to investigate the issue as well as I have contacted the Legion and their Head Command in Ottawa
to address the safety concerns many times over the past 2 years and have had no response.
At the rear of the building where the parking lot is and where they want to extend the lot has
insufficient lighting, no fencing to stop the cars from going over the edge if they were to back up too far,
this would cause serious damage and possibly have a gas or oil leak into the ground. There is no video
surveillance for would be criminals for instance this summer there was a constant issue with individuals
climbing over the upper fence and on top of the building trying to break in or down over the wall and
through my yard or the neighbors and prowling around. I have cleaned up numerous beer bottles, chip
bags and other garbage left behind from when the Legion had functions as well I found a can full of
cigarette butts that were from the patrons and it was left on top of my baby barn. I have listened to
fights and loud music as well as been in my yard with my children and had patrons come out for a smoke
and they have urinated over the side of the wall. This past summer there was a wedding reception in
this location and a few guest decided to climb over the wall and invite themselves to the bonfire we
were having and they were also smoking pot in behind the building. These issues need to be addressed
as well because it is interfering with my family's quality of life and ability to use our yard. I feel that re-
opening a business of this type is not good for the area or for the property value or resale ability of my
home.
I am including pictures and the correspondence from the past 2yrs.
Subject:
Re: Saint John Water
From:
JULIE BARIBAULT Gbaribault @rogers.com)
To:
Kendall.Mason@saintjohn.ca;
Cc:
shell ey.rinehart @saintjohn.ca;
Date:
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:07:44 AM
Good Morning Kendall,
I was wondering ifyou received a report from Paul Woodhouse who came on Sept. 24th to my home to test the
sewage line for 106 St. George St.... He did the dye test and said that the sewage was tied into the main water
line but he was certain that the water in my yard was sewage. He said he was going to tell you the findings and
you would contact me.
Also I have not heard any more regarding the retaining wall..
thank you
Julie
From: "Mason, Kendall" <Kendall.Mason @saintjohn.ca>
To: 'JULIE BARIBAULT <jbaribault @rogers.com>
Cc: "Mason, Kendall" <Kendall.Mason @saintjohn.ca>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:50:57 PM
Subject: RE: Saint John Water
From: JULIEBARIBAULT [mailto jbanbault@rogers.com]
Sent: September 7, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Mason, Kendall
Subject: Re: Saint John Water
Good Day Kendall,
I am sorry I did not get back to you sooner.
There are a number of issues concerning my property and the Legion 2 located on Ludlow street. ,After their
retaining wall let go in Nov 2010_ The Legion put in a "temporary rock wall" or sea wall. This was only to be
there until spring 2011. This was never replaced. Asa result of this my backyard now has a water issue. Last
summer I contacted the Saint John Water Dept. to have the water tested as my backyard smelt like marsh creek
and there is brown water laying there. The water has a scum on the top of it and my concern was it sewage
water or a broken water pipe. I have not had this much water in rry backyard before the rock wall was put in.
abouttlank
39
112
know the water dept. came out last year and tested the water but I was not contacted to know the results.
There is so much water and the smell is at times unbearable that I cannot mow the lawn back there.
As far as the other issues I am not sure if you would look into them as well where they are not related to the
Water Dept.
thanks
Julie
From: "Mason, Kendall" < ` >
To: "'Jbaribault @ro gers.cod" < >
Cc: "Mason, Kendall" < >
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 4:58:08 PM
Subject: Saint John Water
Hello Ms. Banbauh,
Could you please email the issues to me and I will have the appropriate staff investigate the issue.
Thanks
Kendall
l�cesd:ell N111son. 1'. I'M P
about:blank
W
212
Date: Wednesday, September b, 2012 2:1U:36 NM
Julie. I am going to ask Bill Edwards to get in touch with you In the meantime I will look for the email. I
switched machines and you know how- that goes
Shelley
Dr. Shelley M. Rinehart
Deputy Mayor
City of Saint John
(506) 977 -3847
On 2012- 09 -05, at 2:06 PM, "JULIE BARIBAULT" < > wrote:
Good Day Dr. Rinehart,
I was talking to someone who was at the legion and had asked about the wall and the were told
that unless something was brought to the before the 14th of September it would not be dealt with.
I did notice that some smaller rocks have fallen behind the baby barn since I had sent you pictures.
also the gravel has shifted. now with all ofthis rain today it is making me nervous about the shifting
and the build up of water in my yard.
Behind the babybam the gravel has washed up so there is not venting underneath so this has a good
chance of causing water to run into the babybarn
I would appreciate it if you could forward me the email you mentioned below that I was copied into
but I did not receive.
Thank you
Julie
From: JULIE BARIBAULT < n
To: "Rinehart, Shelley" a >
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9 :22:25 AM
Subject: Re: Who did the water tests julie
Good Day Shelley,
I checked back and did not receive the email you mentioned. Also I am wondering if you have
heard anymore.
about:blank
41
113
Subject:
Re: Who did the water tests julie
From:
JULIE BARIBAULT (jbaribault @rogers.com)
To:
Shelley.Rinehart@saintjohn.ca;
Date:
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 2:06:21 PM
Good Day Dr. Rinehart,
I was talking to someone who was at the legion and bad asked about the wall and the were told that unless
something was brought to the before the 14th of September it would not be dealt with.
I did notice that some smaller rocks have fallen behind the baby barn since I had sent you pictures. also the
gravel has shifted. now with all ofthis rain today it is making me nervous about the shifting and the build up of
water in my yard.
Behind the babybann the gavel has washed up so there is not venting underneath so this has a good chance of
causing water to nm into the babybam.
I would appreciate it if you could forward me the email you mentioned below that I was copied into but I did not
receive.
Thank you
Julie
From: JULIE BARIBAULT <jbaribault @rogers.com>
To: "Rinehart, Shelley" <Shelley.Rinehart@saintjohn.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:22:25 AM
Subject: Re: Who did the water tests julie
Good Day Shelley,
I checked back and did not receive the email you mentioned. Also I am wondering ifyou have heard anymore.
Thanks
Julie
From: "Rinehart, Shelley" <Shelley.Rinehart@saintjohn.ca>
To: `j bad bault @rogers.com " <jbaribault @rogers.com>
Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 10:25:10 AM
Subject: Re: Who did the water tests julie
From: JULIE BARIBAULF [mailto jbaribault @rogers.com]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 10:18 AM
To: Rinehart, Shelley
Subject: Fw: Who did the water tests julie
about: blank
GA
112
Good Morning Shelley Rinehart,
I was just wondering ifyou have any update on this. Did you get a the photos I sent..
thanks
Me muelq:arnogs
-- Forwarded Message -----
From: JULIE BARIBAULT <jbaribauit @rogers.com>
To: "Rinehart, Shelley" <Shelley.Rinehart@saintjohn.ca>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:07:47 PM
Subject: Re: Who did the water tests julie
Hello
I called water and sewage last summer and they sent someone out to test the water. Unfortunately I was at
work and I did not see who came or I don't have the name of who I spoke to.
I tried to send you the pictures but I keep getting bounce backs. What is the restriction size for incoming emails.
thanks
From: "Rinehart, Shelley" <Shelley.Rinehart@saintjohn.ca>
To: "'jbaribauit @rogers.corn` <jbaribault @rogers.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:26:07 AM
Subject: Who did the water tests julie
Dr. Shelley M. Rinehart
Deputy Mayor
City of Saint John
about:blank
43
212
Thanks
Julie
From: "Rinehart, Shelley" < >
To: "' III < >
Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 10:25:10 AM
Subject: Re: Who did the water tests julie
From: JUUEBAR[BAULT [mailto:jbaribault @xogers.corn]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 10:18 AM
To: Rinehart, Shelley
Subject: Fw: Who did the water tests julie
Good Morning Shelley Rinehart,
I was just wondering ifyou have any update on this. Did you get a the photos I sent..
thanks
Julie
— Forwarded Message ---
From: JULIE BARiBAULT < >
To: "Rinehart, Shelley" < >
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:07:47 PM
Subject: Re: Who did the water tests julie
Hello
I called water and sewage last summer and they sent someone out to test the water. Unfortunately
I was at work and I did not see who came or I don't have the name of who I spoke to.
I tried to send you the pictures but I keep getting bounce backs. What is the restriction size for
incoming emails.
thanks
From: "Rinehart, Shelley" < >
To: < >
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:26:07 AM
Subject: Who did the water tests julie
Dr. Shelley M. Rinehart
Deputy Mayor
City of Saint John
about:blank
M
213
Re: not sure where else to turn.
Hide Details
FROW
a Rinehart, Shelley
TO:
'jbaribault @rogers.com'
Saturday. July 7, 2012 7:26:38 PM
Sure and I will ask sorrmwone to follow up wiih you
Dr. Shelley M. Rinehart
Deputy Mayo.*
City of Saint Johr
Shelley. Rinehart @saintjohn.ca
From: JULIE BARIBAULT [mailto:jbaribault @rogers.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 07:08 PM
To: Rinehart, Shelley
Subject: Re: not sure where else to turn.
Good Evening Dr. Rinehart,
Thank you for following up. I did receive an email from one of the building inspectors Dave
Crawford who states that there is no violations on the property of the legion. I am confused as to
how this could be as last fall I received a letter stating there was after I had put in an inquiry
about the safety of the wall. I have pictures that I am going through to see if the wail has
shifted. Someone has gone out and moved the fence post that was resting on the baby barn but
the fence does not appear to be very stable. No one has contacted me in regards to the findings
of the water test that were done last year and the water is laying in the yard. The only thing I did
find out regarding the water is that it was full of bacteria. As to the type I am not sure.
If you are interested in seeing the photos I have, I would be happy to send them along to you.
Thank you
From: "Rinehart, Shelley" <Shelley.Rinehart @saintjohn.ca>
To: JULIE BARIBAULT <jbaribault @rogers.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 5:44:59 PM
Subject: Re: not sure where else to turn.
Ms. Baribault
Has there been resolution to this issue?
Dr. Shelley M. Rinehart
Deputy Mayor
City of Saint John
45
sFe.Jwg'.:ineli rtt ?r, aintiohn.ca
(506) 977 -3847
On 2012- 06 -30, at 9:29 PM, "JULIE BARIBAULT" <jbariraukL�.,!ro;;ci•s.coii3> wrote:
Good Day,
I am contacting you all as I no longer where to turn. I understand that this property has been sold
and to my knowledge the safety issues have not been addressed. I am still having water issues in
my back yard. The water was tested last year. I am unsure of the results as to where it is coming
from. this was not an issue before the retaining wall let go almost 2 years ago. I have not been
able to enjoy my back yard for almost 2 years. The rocks are unsafe and I have 2 children and a
dog that I am afraid will be hurt. I have been trying to resolve this issue with the legion but they
fail to contact me back. My hope is that one of you could help me out. I have pictures and
emails that I have sent and a copy of letters I sent to the legion. I am a single mother who cannot
afford to spend thousands of dollars to clean up the mess caused by the retaining wall letting
go. I think that 2 yrs is unacceptable for this to be left unresolved.
thank you
Julie Baribault
Hello — I have read your a -mail and looker! at the attached pictures. From the information you have
given, I was able to oper a case for one or our inspectors to investigate the property for any dangerous
and /or unsightly cone ?ition violations ihat can be handled by ou. department. Qur cases are openaci
internally, and your name will riot be given to anyone. If the inspector needs any further information,
he'il contact you directly. if you don't hear anything, you can check with our office in approximately 2
weeks. We will not be able to give you any information about the specifics of any violations that may
arise, but we will be able to say whether or not we a,,e pursuing the matter. I hope this helps resolve
your situation. if anything changes, please contact us.
Julie Carleton
Buildings & Inspection Services
658 -2911
From: JULIE BARIBAULT [mailto:jbaribault @rogers.com]
Sent: November -10 -11 1:03 PM
To: External - BuiidingInspection
Subject: Fw: Legion website inquiry
Good afternoon,
I am not sure if this is an area where the city could help but as you can see from the below emails and
attachements I have been trying to have the legion correct the issue. I am being told that the emails have
been sent to the head office for Saint John branch of the legion and they have not responded.
I will understand if there is nothing the city can do but some advise would be appreciated as well.
thank you
Julie Baribault
47
Subject RE: Legion website inquiry
From: info (info@legion.ca)
To. jbaribault@rogers.com;
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:52:52 AM
I have forwarded your message to NB Command and to our Administrative officer
From: JULIE BARIBAULT [mailto:jbaribault @rogers.com]
Sent: September 26, 2011 12:07 PM
To: info
Subject: Re: Legion website inquiry
Good Afternoon,
It has been over a month since I contacted your Command and you forwarded the message to the NB Command. I
still have not heard from them. I am curious to know if you are aware of what is going on?
I am attaching some pictures. Some are of the orginal wall falling and others were taken after the temp wall was put
up and in the spring.
" ie Fence is still leaning on my baby barn and I am still having issues with children that their parents and them are
attending a function at the legion climbing on the rocks or throughing rocks into my yard and at my dog. There are
cars parking back there and at night there is no baracade or lights to show them where the edge is and some day
some one is going to go over the edge. I was assured at the time the temp wall was put up that a permanent wall
would be constructed. I would like to find out when this is going to take place.
Also I have lived in my home for almost 9yrs and I do not normally complain about the noise, garbage and other
things that go on there but usually I have to clean up bottles and cans the morning after a function and with proper
fencing this would cut this down.
thank you
Julie Baribault
.•
10/12/12 Print
Subject: RE: Legion website inquiry
From: info (info @legion.ca)
To: jbaribault @rogers.com;
Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 2:47:03 PM
I have sent your message to NB Command.
----- OrigkW Message - - - --
From "�.1n31n�i�x" �, mSW9�� <.c_t;��t��t.i- . ➢a�,$.,a ,�D <f'�
Sent: August 19, 2011 1:31 PM
To: info
Subject: Legion website inquiry
Below is the result of your feedback form It was submitted by
Obarthauh(a rogcrs.corn) on Friday, August 19, 2011 at 1331:09
Topic: Tired of trying to get Branch #2 to fix the issues with the
parking lot/retaining wall etc.
Name: Julie Banbault
Address: 106 St. George St.
City: Saint John
Province: NB
Postal- E2M2A7
Phone: 50669694239
Question or Comment: I am writing to you as it is now the end of summer
and this has been going on for way to long. I
wrote a letter to the #2 branch in Saint John as
you can read below the retaining wall let go and
there was damage done to my yard. I was hoping
that this could have been handled nice and quick
but I have not heard from the branch at at In
addition to the damage from the wall it has cause
a water issue in my backyard and the chain link
fence is leaning on my baby barr All of these
issues they are aware of but I have had no
response to the first letter. I have pictures of
the water and the fences issues as well as the
pictures from when the wall let go. below is a
copy of the letter I sent to the Legion.
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to you regards to the work that was
abouttlank 1/3
49
10/12/12
Print
done after the retaining wall let go in November
of 2010. Let me f>rst said 1 am glad the work was
started right away. The wall looks much better
then the old rotting wall. I am the owner of the
property that had most ofthe damage when the wall
let go. I do thank you for repairing the wall of
the baby barn_ It is my understanding that a rock
fell into the back of the barn
Now I dons t want to sound Ike I am trying to be
a bad neighbor but there are a few things that I
would like to bring to your attention and I would
Ike to know what is going to be done. Firstly
the trees that were uprooted as a result of the
work that needed to be done. I was asked by the
contractor what I would Ike done with them and I
stated to I would like to have them replanted.
Now this was not done. I am unsure as to why and
if it was something that my neighbor Mr. Reid told
him but the trees were removed from the property
and not replanted. Secondly the clothesline pole,
I again spoke to the contractor regarding this and
he asked me where I would Ike to have it put.
He and I walked back and I showed him where the
pole was before. I stated I wanted it put back in
the same place or close to it. When it was put
up it was placed over about l0a towards Mr. Reida
s property. Now I was told that Mr. Reid had
asked him to do this as he believes that he might
hook on to the pole. This was not discussed with
me and I have not given pern-�ssion for this. Mr.
Reid does not have any authority to make decision
for my property as he does not live there nor does
he pay the bills. Where the clotbesline pole is
now affects a number of firture plans I have for my
property as it is directly behind the cement pad
where the old garage was. I am no longer able to
build a garage or move the baby barn to the cement
pad without the pole being in the way. My
question to you is why a person who does not live
on the property in question was allowed to make
the decisions for the property considering I made
the decisions.
abouttlank 213
50
10/12/12
Print
Sincerely,
Julie Baribauh
I hope that this matter can get cleared up quickly
and I appreciate any assistance in clearing this
matter up. I normally do not have an issue with
the Legion or the events going on there but with
there not being a proper wall and fericing there
has been gavel and rocks thrown by guest of the
Legion into my yard and at my dog and children as
well I am constantly cleaning beer bottles, and
other garbage from my yard.
Thank you again for your time in clearing this
matter.
Julie Banbault
** Spam/Virus Protection by Barracuda * *
about:blank 313
51
10/12112
Print
Subject: Complaint regarding the Legion on the corner of Ludlow and St. John st. lower west.
From: JULIE BAPJBAULT Qbaribault @rogers.com)
To: mel.norton @saintjohn.ca;
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 8:52:23 AM
Good morning Mr. Norton,
As you are the councillor for my ward I am asking for your help to get the legion to fix the problem occurring in
my backyard as a result of the retaining wall letting going last fill due to the heavy rain. They put up a temporary
wall which I was assured would be replaced with a permanent wall in the spring. This has not happened I have
also sent a letter to the legion expressing my concern in the fact the property damage that was caused was not
fixed to how we discuss at the time the contractor was doing the work. I have had no reply from the Legion on
this matter either. Also the temporary wall has caused water damage to my yard and the water looks Ike there is
a Urn on the top of it. Their fence is falling over and leaning on my baby barn I am attaching a copy of the letter
I sent to the Legion in the early spring.
I would appreciate any help you can provide in getting this issue fixed.
thank you
Julie Banbault
abouttlank 111
52
Julie Baribault
106 St. George St.
Saint John NB
E2M 2A7
Royal Canadian Legion
290 Ludlow Street
Saint John. NB
E2M 1 E5
Tel: (506) 635 -9919
Dear Pat McCluskey:
I am writing to you regards to the work that was done after the retaining wall let go in
November of 2010. Let me first said I am glad the work was started right away. The
wall looks much better then the old rotting wall. I am the owner of the property that had
most of the damage when the wall let go. I do thank you for repairing the wall of the
baby barn. It is my understanding that a rock fell into the back of the barn.
Now I don't want to sound like I am trying to be a bad neighbor but there are a few things
that I would like to bring to your attention and I would like to know what is going to be
done. Firstly the trees that were uprooted as a result of the work that needed to be done.
I was asked by the contractor what I would like done with them and I stated to I would
like to have them replanted. Now this was not done. I am unsure as to why and if it was
something that my neighbor Mr. Reid told him but the trees were removed from the
property and not replanted. Secondly the clothesline pole, I again spoke to the contractor
regarding this and he asked me where I would like to have it put. He and I walked back
and I showed him where the pole was before. I stated I wanted it put back in the same
place or close to it. When it was put up it was placed over about 10' towards Mr. Reid's
property. Now I was told that Mr. Reid had asked him to do this as he believes that he
might hook on to the pole. This was not discussed with me and I have not given
permission for this. Mr. Reid does not have any authority to make decision for my
property as he does not live there nor does he pay the bills. Where the clothesline pole is
now affects a number of future plans I have for my property as it is directly behind the
cement pad where the old garage was. I am no longer able to build a garage or move the
baby barn to the cement pad without the pole being in the way. My question to you is
why a person who does not live on the property in question was allowed to make the
decisions for the property considering I made the decisions.
Sincerely,
Julie Baribault
53
the baby barn.
the circulation under the baby barn
Rocks that have fallen from the wall behind
a `the gravel that have washed away and block
54
x# .
M`
ZVI
the rock has shifted out past the corner of my baby barn.
rocks are below the existing pavement
55
'� %�.' --"-.'water lying in the yard all the
trees have died, no supports holding the wall back, no fence
56
water in yard
57
m
October 26, 2012
His Worship Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subject: Spring Clean Up Program
I am told that the program was cut approximately 9 years ago and the cost was approximately $500,000
to do. I would ask that the current program of pick up twice annually with only 3 items each be
eliminated as it was brought in to replace the old Spring Clean Up program and what the costs of this
current program are.
I feel that this program will contribute to our clean city and would help to eliminate illegal dumping
sites.
Motion: That Council consider, reinstating the Spring Clean Up program beginning in spring of
2013. And that the City Manager submit a report to give the costs of administering this program. I
would ask him to please address the savings when FERO was eliminated curb side pick -up. Council
may wish to refer this to the budget.
Respectfully Submitted,
(Received via email)
Ray Strowbridge,
City Councillor — Ward 4
City of Saint John
/r
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21L 40 I www saingohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1
59
x.
October 30, 2012
His Worship Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subject: Exhibition Association - Field House Project
I feel that it is important that we hear from these groups that are willing to co -fund recreation projects
within the City. This is also an optimal time as Council will be /is in budget discussions.
Motion: That Council hear a 15 minute presentation from the Exhibition Association regarding the
field house project.
Respectfully Submitted,
(Received via email)
David Merrithew,
City Councillor — Ward 4
City of Saint John
(P4 —
SAINT JOHN
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 41_1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 41_1
.1
Planning
Advisory Committee
October 17, 2012
Your Worship and Councillors:
P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800
Saint John
New Brunswick
Canada E2L 4L1
City of Saint John
SUBJECT: Proposed Subdivision (Street Vesting) - 210 Lawrence Long
Road
The Planning Advisory Committee considered the attached report at its October
16, 2012 meeting. The applicant, Mrs. Catherine Long, appeared to speak in
support of the application and was in agreement with the Staff Recommendation
contained in the report.
Mrs. Donna Henderson, of 94 Lawrence Long Road, addressed the Committee
and requested clarification on the nature of the street conveyance as it was her
understanding that the street was already publicly - owned.
No one else appeared to speak in support of or in opposition to the application,
and no letters were received. After considering the application, the Committee
adopted the recommendation as set out below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or
more phases, with respect to the vesting of the proposed public street(s), as
generally illustrated on the attached photo- reduced tentative subdivision plan,
including any necessary municipal services, municipal drainage and public
utility easements.
2. That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of a
City/Developer Subdivision Agreement(s) to ensure provision of the required
work and facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval
of the Chief City Engineer.
Project No. 12 -214
61
��
Jri`
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2012
TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM: COMMUNITY PLANNING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
FOR: MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2012
W M / i
Patrick Foran Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP
Planning Officer Commissioner
SUBJECT: Proposed Subdivision (Street Vesting) - 210 Lawrence Long Road
The Planning Advisory Committee, at its August 21, 2012 meeting, favourably considered a subdivision
application proposing the creation of nine (9) unserviced residential lots having access via an extension
of Lawrence Long Road, which was also to connect with Arthurs Road to the north (see attached Staff
Report). Staff was supportive of this application on the basis that the existing privately -owned portion of
Lawrence Long Road would be conveyed to the City in its present form, in exchange for the applicant
constructing the "future street" to the rural road standard at his expense.
While Council has given its assent to the proposed street extension, tentative approval cannot be given
to the proposed subdivision until assent has also been given to the vesting of the privately -owned portion
of Lawrence Long Road, which was not part of the previous application.
As required by the Subdivision By -law, the proposed conveyance of the street to the City (i.e., street
vesting) must be submitted to the Planning Advisory Committee for a recommendation before being
forwarded to Common Council for its consideration.
With the incorporation of the Acamac / South Bay area into the City of Saint John, the City inherited
some maintenance responsibilities from the Province with regard to Lawrence Long Road, The
conveyance of the privately -owned portion of the street to the City would allow it to be added to the
public street inventory thereby facilitating future maintenance. As detailed in the attached report, the
street conveyance, in conjunction with the connectivity to Arthurs Road resulting from the proposed
subdivision, would address the loss of access suffered by certain homeowners during times of seasonal
SAINT )OHN P.O. Box 1971 "tilt John, NB Canada E 2L 4L1 UR 1 971 Saint JoE- n, N, -B. Canada EEL •ILI
62
Michael and Catherine Long
210 Lawrence Long Road
Page 2
October 12, 2012
flooding as well as provide for a safer traffic pattern in the long term. Consequently, approval of the
proposed street vesting can be supported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE:
That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, with
respect to the vesting of the proposed public street(s), as generally illustrated on the attached
photo- reduced tentative subdivision plan, including any necessary municipal services, municipal
drainage and public utility easements.
2. That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of a City /Developer Subdivision
Agreement(s) to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and
drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer.
PF
Project No. 12 -214
63
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 1 URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT
S-21 A
t
;1 ♦w
I�
r♦
1
r
�� �♦� rrr
ter•
rrr
RF
M
Subject Site / Site en question: PID(s) / NIP(s):
55163133
Location: 210, chemin Lawrence Long Road
Date: July / juillet 18, 2012
Scale / echelle: Not to scale / Pas 6 1'echelle
Approximate Section
of Lawrence Long Road
to be conveyed
The City of Saint John
DATE: AUGUST 17, 2012
TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM: COMMUNITY PLANNING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
FOR: MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 2012
PREPARED BY:
Patrick Foran
Planning Officer
SUBJECT:
Name of Applicant:
Name of Owner:
Location:
PID:
Municipal Plan:
Zoning:
Proposal:
Type of Application:
SAINT JOHN
REVIEWED BY:
Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner
Michael & Catherine Long
Michael & Catherine Long
210 Lawrence Long Road
55163133
Rural Residential
"RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential
To develop a nine -lot subdivision.
Subdivision and variances to:
1) allow the proposed street to be constructed to the "rural road"
standard, whereas it is required to be constructed to the "local
street" standard;
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 www,saintjohn.ca C.P. 1971 Saint John, N, -B. Canada E2L 4L1
66
Michael & Catherine Long Page 2
210 Lawrence Long Road August 17, 2012
2) reduce the minimum required width of the proposed public
street right -of -way from 23.1 metres to approximately 20.1
metres;
3) reduce the minimum required amount of Land for Public
Purposes from 2,919 square metres to approximately 452
metres;
4) allow the placement of "front- overhead" electrical utility lines
whereas they are required to be placed underground at the front
of the proposed lots;
5) reduce the minimum required lot area from 5,350 square
metres to lot areas varying between 4,603 square metres and
5,064 square metres for lots 08 -01 to 08 -05 and lots 08 -07 to
09 (inclusive); and
6) reduce the minimum required lot width from 59 metres to
approximately 20 metres (Lot 08 -06), approximately 56 metres
(Lot 08 -03) and approximately 58 metres (Lot 08 -02).
JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE:
The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to advise Common Council
concerning the vesting of public streets and land for public purposes in conjunction with the subdivision
of land.
The Act also authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to grant reasonable variances from the
requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning By -laws. The Committee can impose conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE:
That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, with
respect to the vesting of the proposed public street(s), as generally illustrated on the attached
photo - reduced tentative subdivision plan entitled `Pasture Hill Estates Subdivision' dated April
20, 2012, including any necessary municipal services and public utility easements.
2. That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of a City/Developer Subdivision
Agreement(s) to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and
drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer,
3. That Common Council accept a cash -in -lieu payment instead of the required land dedication in
order to satisfy the Land for Public Purposes requirement.
67
Michael & Catherine Long Page 3
210 Lawrence Long Road August 17, 2012
4. That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the proposed street name of "Pasture Hill
Road ".
That the Planning Advisory Committee grant the following variances from the requirements of
the Subdivision and Zoning By -laws to:
a) allow the proposed street to be constructed to the "rural road" standard, whereas it is required
to be constructed to the "local street" standard;
b) reduce the minimum required width of the proposed public street right -of -way from 23.1
metres to approximately 20.1 metres;
c) allow the placement of "front- overhead" electrical utility lines whereas they are required to
be placed underground at the front of the proposed lots;
d) reduce the minimum required lot area from 5,350 square metres to lot areas varying between
4,603 square metres and 5,064 square metres for lots 08 -01 to 08 -05 and lots 08 -07 to 09
(inclusive); and
e) reduce the minimum required lot width from 59 metres to approximately 20 metres (Lot 08-
06), approximately 56 metres (Lot 08 -03) and approximately 58 metres (Lot 08 -02).
6. That the Planning Advisory Committee deny the requested variance to reduce the minimum
required amount of Land for Public Purposes from 2,919 square metres to approximately 452
square metres.
BACKGROUND:
The Acamac / South Bay area (which includes the Lawrence Long Road) was annexed by the City in the
mid- 1960's. The exact length and configuration of Lawrence Long Road at the time of amalgamation is
not clear, but City records indicate that the initial 336 metres (1,100 feet), approximately, appear to be
public with the remaining approximately 560 metres (1,800 feet) being privately owned and extending
to the original, long- existing Lawrence Long homestead.
Also unclear is the number of dwellings that were existing at the time of amalgamation and whether they
fronted on the publicly or privately owned portion of the road. However, since the 1980's the Planning
Advisory Committee has approved the creation of approximately eight lots that have access via the
privately -awned portion of the street, most recently in 1996. While the earliest staff report(s) expressed
concern with the state of repair of the road (and in fact a condition was imposed by the Committee
prohibiting further subdivision without street construction to City standards), additional subdivisions
were allowed in the mid- 1990's subsequent to Committee approval of the access (which appears to have
included favourable recommendations from Planning Staff). It is not clear what, if any, street
improvements were undertaken in the intervening years, however at present the latter portion of
1 In 1996, tentative approval was given to a subdivision proposing the creation of three lots on a private access (Lawrence
Long Road) subsequent to approval of the access by the Committee. However, the final plan actually creating the lots was
only approved in 2003.
•:
Michael & Catherine Long
210 Lawrence Long Road
Page 4
August 17, 2012
Lawrence Long Road is still considered a private street and does not satisfy the minimum construction
standards for a public street.
In August of 2011, an application was submitted proposing to sever a lot with an area of approximately
2.8 hectares (7 acres) from the parent property in order to accommodate the future construction of a
single - family dwelling. Because access to the proposed lot was by means other than a public street,
approval of the Committee was required. The Committee, at its September 20, 2011 meeting, considered
the proposal and approved the proposed access as being advisable for the proposed development of land.
Notwithstanding the approval of the proposed means of access, the proposed subdivision has yet to be
undertaken.
INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES:
Municipal Operations and Engineering has indicated that:
• There is no municipal servicing (water, sanitary, storm) available.
• While minimum road maintenance services are provided to Lawrence Long Road a portion of the
access is located on private property.
• The majority of the existing Lawrence Long Road is of substandard construction (including the
width). This access is not constructed to current municipal engineering standards for right of way
and travel lane widths, shoulders, base and surface materials, and drainage features.
• In accordance with the Subdivision By -law, every lot should abut a public street.
• There is no guarantee to the level of service or continuation of service that will be provided by the
municipality as this is a privately owned road.
• Support of this application is conditional on ownership of the existing portion of Lawrence Long
Road, in its present state, being conveyed to the City to vest as a public street, as agreed to with the
applicants in 2009.
• The proposed extension of Lawrence Long Road would extend to the existing "future street" and be
built as a public street to at least the Rural Road standard. The requested reduced width variance
from 23.1 m to 20.1 metres can be supported for this proposal;
• A "future street" should be constructed to the Rural Road standard in order to provide the
interconnectivity with Arthurs Road as this was the basis of Staff's support for the original proposal.
• As with all other proposed subdivisions, any street construction or improvements would be the fall
responsibility of the developer. Detailed engineering (street) plans must be provided by the
developer's engineering consultant to the City by the developer's engineering consultant for review
and approval.
• The developer's engineering consultant must provide detailed engineering storm water drainage
plans and a design report to the City for review and approval. In addition to the Lawrence Long
Road being very narrow with drainage issues, there is a significant issue with the existing
infrastructure on this road which must be addressed prior to considering development at the end of
the existing road.
• During the spring Lawrence Long Road toward its end can be submerged with floodwater and can be
impassable for several days. Although the existing few property owners managed to transport via
boats, there would a delay in emergency response if it was needed. Increasing the number of
residences beyond the section that flooded would increase the risk of such an emergency event
occurring should a similar flooding event occur in subsequent years. Prior to any new development
.•
Michael & Catherine Long Page 5
210 Lawrence Long Road August 17, 2012
taking place, upgrades would be required by the developer to ensure continuous road access
unaffected by annual spring freshet. (Photos attached)
Buildings and Inspection Services has indicated that it has no issues with the proposed subdivision as
there is a distinct advantage to having the roadway looped through Lawrence Long and Arthurs Roads
from a public safety viewpoint and a servicing aspect.
70
Michael & Catherine Long Page 6
210 Lawrence Long Road August 17, 2012
Saint John Fire Department has been forwarded a copy of the application.
Saint John Transit indicates that it offers limited service along the Westfield Road on weekdays in
close proximity to this location.
Leisure Services has indicated that the UP lands proposed on this plan have little utility as recreational
space if undeveloped. In lieu of numerous small areas of land obtained by piecemeal development, cash
in lieu would better serve the broader neighbourhood by supporting improvements to existing
recreational facilities in the area as well as connections between them.
Geographic Information Systems (Planning and Development) has indicated that "Pasture Hill
Road" is an acceptable street name and has been reserved.
Saint John Energy has been forwarded a copy of the application.
Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, Enbridge Gas, and Brunswick Pipeline advise that the area is all
"clear" and that the proposal is not near any pipeline facilities.
ANALYSIS:
Site and Neip_hbourhood
The subject property extends from the end of the publicly -owned portion of Lawrence Long Road
(approximately 336 metres east of its intersection with Westfield Road) to the banks of the Saint John
River / South Bay in the Acamac / South Bay area (see attached location map).
The property is configured similarly to a flag- shaped lot, with the "stem" of the lot (containing the
privately -owned portion of Lawrence Long Road) extending from the end of the publicly owned portion
of the street a distance of approximately 560 metres eastward to the developable portion of the property.
This rear portion has an area of approximately 54,000 square metres (13.5 acres) which the applicant is
proposing to subdivide into nine unserviced lots residential approximately 5,000 square metres (one and
a quarter acres) each in area. Presently existing on the parent property is the applicants' dwelling for
which a building permit was issued in 2009.
The surrounding area is rural in nature, being comprised primarily of single - family dwellings of varying
styles situated on large (4,000 or more square metres) unserviced lots. The only strictly non - residential
use in the general vicinity appears to be on the property to south addressed as 186 & 320 Lawrence
Long Road, which was rezoned in 1999 to permit a horse stable and riding arena for up to twelve horses.
Proposal
The applicant has submitted a subdivision application proposing the creation of nine unserviced
residential lots along an extension of Lawrence Long Road (see attached tentative subdivision plan). As
part of the proposal, the "future street" (PID 55065346, see attached map) would be constructed, thereby
allowing Lawrence Long Road to connect to Arthurs Road via a new street tentatively named Pasture
Hill Road. A narrow Land for Public Purposes (LPP) dedication of approximately 452 square metres
would extend from the proposed Pasture Hill Road to the Saint John River.
71
Michael & Catherine Long page 7
210 Lawrence Long Road August 17, 2012
The configuration of the current proposal was derived in large part from a number of previous
discussions between City Staff and the applicant beginning in late 2007 / early 2008. In reviewing
earlier versions of the proposed subdivision, Staff had concerns pertaining to the proposed means of
access given that most of the existing Lawrence Long Road is a private street that is not constructed to
the current minimum street standard. Further, the developable portion of the property where the
proposed lots would be created is beyond the section of Lawrence Long Road that is susceptible to
flooding during the spring freshet. In fact, there are some existing properties created in the late 1990's /
early 2000's that can become inaccessible at certain times of the year due to the higher water level.
In situations such as the present instance where an existing street or other access to a proposed
subdivision is substandard, the Subdivision By -law requires that the proponent make provision to bring
the existing access up to the same standard as required for the new street(s) within the subdivision as a
condition of approval. It is recognized that there are substantial challenges in doing so in the present
instance. Specifically, the length of the privately -owned portion of Lawrence Long Road that would
have to be improved is significant and would likely be cost - prohibitive. This is coupled with the fact that
an Environmental Impact Assessment would likely be necessary to build up the low point of the road so
as to resolve the flooding issue.
The costs of the required street upgrades, coupled with those of the new street construction, speak to
viability of the proposal. While it is not ordinarily the City's responsibility to resolve the feasibility of a
particular project, it is recognized that the City has inherited some maintenance responsibilities from the
Province with regard to Lawrence Long Road that differentiate this project from other proposals.
Further, given the inaccessibility of certain lots at the end of Lawrence Long Road, there is concern
(liability) regarding the City's ability to provide emergency services.
Consequently, the above- mentioned concerns were discussed between the applicants and Staff, and it is
Staff's understanding that there was general agreement with the following compromise to address the
concerns pertaining to the access:
The applicants would accept responsibility for constructing the City -owned "future street" (identified on
the tentative subdivision plan as PID 55065346) to the "rural road" standard at their cost as part of the
standard City/Developer Subdivision Agreement. This would be in addition to the street construction
required for the extension of Lawrence Long Road and the creation of Pasture Hill Road.
In exchange, Staff would recommend that Common Council accept transfer of ownership of the
privately -owned portion of Lawrence Long Road in its current state to the City, with appropriate "rural
road" right -of -way width. Once ownership of the road was transferred, the City would become
responsible for the costs of improving and maintaining Lawrence Long Road, including any
Environmental Impact Assessment(s) necessary to build up the low point that is prone to flooding.
Staff's support of this concept is predicated on the fact that the connection of Lawrence Long Road to
Arthurs Road via the new Pasture Hill Road would create an alternate access point to the properties that
are rendered periodically inaccessible due to flooding. Not only would the inaccessibility problems be
rectified, but with the transfer of ownership of the road to the City, future maintenance and
improvements could be undertaken as per the normal prioritization process. Staff remain supportive of
the general concept, although a number of variances (detailed below) are required.
72
Michael & Catherine Long Page 8
210 Lawrence Long Road August 17, 2012
It should be noted that Municipal Operations and Engineering has provided comments to the applicants
in a letter dated October 16, 2009 advising that in order to ensure that the physical roadway is not
located on third -party lands, both the City (for the apparently publicly -owned portion) and the applicant
(for the privately -owned section) may need to have their respective portions of the road surveyed, at
their cost. For clarification purposes, should the survey(s) illustrate that the portions of the road to be
conveyed are on third -party lands, the Staff recommendation to Common Council may be affected.
Municipal Plan Context
The subject property is designated Rural Residential. This designation applies to those lands which
accommodate existing or approved low - density residential development that is not located within a
Rural Settlement Areal, is unserviced, and is located beyond the Primary Development Area. The
Municipal Plan seeks to curtail this form of development in the future by limiting further subdivision of
lots for this purpose.
Further, Council intends that land within the Rural Residential Area designation is generally intended to
accommodate existing rural residential development. Development of residential uses on existing lots is
permitted but the creation of new lots for additional rural residential development is generally
discouraged.
However, the dedication of new public streets (or street extensions) can be accepted as part of a
subdivision approval if, in the determination of Council, the new streets / street extensions are necessary
to provide safe access to the proposed development or are necessary to improve connectivity between
existing developments in the general area. In light of the access issues outlined earlier in this report,
Staff s opinion is that the current proposal would address the outstanding safety and connectivity issues
that presently exist and can be recommended to Common Council as per the policies of the Municipal
Plan.
Subdivision & Variances
Street Construction & Utility Servicing Standards
Because the proposed subdivision involves new public streets, the Community Planning Act requires the
Planning Advisory Committee to provide a recommendation to Common Council concerning the
proposed street vesting. Based on the submitted tentative subdivision plan, the street layout is acceptable
to Municipal Operations and Engineering and can therefore be recommended to Council on this basis.
The Staff Recommendation includes all the necessary assents and approvals for the tentative plan,
easements, and City/Developer Agreements, etc.
With regard to the actual street construction, the Subdivision By -law requires the proposed street to be
constructed to the "local street" standard. This standard requires concrete curbing and sidewalks, which
are not features present on adjoining streets, such as Arthurs Road, which was recently reconstructed to
the "rural road" standard. In order to allow the proposed street to be constructed in manner consistent
with other existing streets in the surrounding area, and based on discussions with City Staff, the
2 The Rural Settlement Areas are Martinon to Ketepec, Lomeville and Treadwell Lake.
73
Michael & Catherine Long Page 9
210 Lawrence Long Road August 17, 2012
applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed street to be constructed to the "rural road"
standard. Municipal Operations and Engineering is in support of this variance and, for the reasons
outlined, Staff can also recommend approval of this variance.
Should the Committee be inclined to grant the necessary variance to allow the street to be constructed to
the "rural road" standard, a subsequent variance will be necessary to reduce the minimum required width
of the public street right -of -way from 23.1 metres to approximately 20.1 metres. In addition to the
concrete curbing and sidewalks, the other difference between the "rural road" and "local street"
standards is the minimum required width of the public street right -of -way. A "local street" is required to
have a minimum width of 20 metres, whereas the "rural road" is required to have a minimum width of
23.1 metres. However, this standard was only recently increased to 23.1 metres, when it had previously
been 20 metres. A width of 20 metres would be consistent with the existing streets to which the new
streets would connect (Lawrence Long Road and Arthurs Road). Given these observations, in
conjunction with Municipal Operations and Engineering's support, approval of this variance can be
supported.
In addition, the Subdivision By -law requires that the electrical utility lines be placed underground at the
front of the lots to be served. Although the By -law permits the utility lines to be placed overhead when
subdivision occurs along existing streets, there is no such relaxation for street extensions / new streets.
Further, the By -law allows "front overhead" utilities in Rural Residential subdivisions, but as the present
proposal does not entail a rezoning to "RR " One Family Rural Residential, this provision is not
applicable.
However, both the existing Lawrence Long Road and Arthurs Road have front overhead servicing
presently in place. Continuing the "front overhead" servicing would allow for consistency with the
surrounding area and given that the proposal is essentially characterized as a rural residential
subdivision, approval of this variance can be supported.
Land for Public Purposes
The development of the original parent property has unfolded over a period of several decades. Not
uncommon in these types of rural settings, it appears that the lots were generally created either one at a
time or in small numbers. It does not appear that there was an overall plan guiding the development of
the subdivision (street configuration, LPP, etc.) and as a consequence it does not appear that having a
publicly - accessible area, be it along the shoreline or elsewhere, was ever contemplated. The remnant
parcel is the last phase which can be developed and there are difficulties in attempting to require a
significant land -based LPP dedication at this time given it was never a feature that was planned for.
In light of the comments received from Leisure Services, it is not anticipated that any proposed LPP
parcel as part of this subdivision would be developed by the City, The specific LPP parcel put forth by
the applicant, while satisfying the intent of the By -law in providing public access to a water feature,
would only have a width of approximately 6 metres, limiting its ability to be developed or utilized by the
public in any event. Therefore a land dedication would be of little benefit to the community if it were
accepted and is not considered appropriate in this instance.
While there is no planning rationale to support a variance to reduce the minimum amount of LPP
required, the Subdivision By -law allows for a cash -in -lieu payment to be provided. Although this
74
Michael & Catherine Long Page 10
210 Lawrence Long Road August 17, 2012
payment is based on a percentage of the value of the land being subdivided, the calculation of the value
of the payment takes into account the cost of the street construction. It is anticipated that the net LPP
payment would be approximately several hundred dollars per lot. By providing a cash -in -lieu payment,
not only would the LPP requirement be satisfied, but, the tentative plan could be revised to increase the
size of the proposed lots, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for some of the lot area variances.
A cash -in -lieu payment is supported by Leisure Services as they have indicated that it would be more in
keeping with the strategy of Play SJ of improving and supporting existing recreational facilities instead
of adding to the large number of existing parcels which are costly to develop and maintain. For the
reasons outlined above, Staff is recommending an LPP dedication in the form of a cash -in -lieu payment,
based on the full By -law amount (i.e., no variance).
Lot Dimensions
At the time the original concept was prepared and subsequently reviewed by Staff, all of the minimum
required lot dimensions were in conformity with the standards of the Subdivision and Zoning By -laws,
with the exception of Lot 08 -06. However, as this lot was essentially a "flag- shaped" lot with ample area
beyond the access portion (in fact it is the largest lot in the subdivision), Staff was supportive of the
necessary lot width reduction from 54 metres to 20 metres.
However, since that time, there have been a number of legislative changes affecting standards for
unserviced development. Aside from the adoption of the new Municipal Plan (P1anSJ) which was
detailed earlier in this report, the regulations administered by the Provincial Department of Health were
amended such that they no longer provide an assessment of the proposed lots as part of the tentative
subdivision review process for suitability of an on -site sewage disposal system. Based on discussions
with the Department of Health, it was determined that, as a substitute for having a lot assessment,
increasing the minimum required lot area to 5,350 square metres and minimum required lot width to 59
metres should be sufficient in most instances for property owners to install a traditional on -site septic
disposal system.
As a result of the increased lot dimension standards, only one of the proposed lots (Lot 08 -06) would
meet the current minimum lot area requirement, and three of the lots need variances to reduce the lot
width from 59 metres to approximately 20 metres (Lot 08 -06), approximately 56 metres (Lot 08 -03)
and approximately 58 metres (Lot 08 -02).
Notwithstanding that the earlier proposal was never given tentative approval and that lot assessments
were never undertaken prior to the changes to the Public Health Act, the proposed lots are all well over
the previous threshold of 4,000 square metres in area and, other than Lot 08 -06, would exceed the
previous lot width requirement of 54 meters. As mentioned previously, however, Lot 08 -06 is essentially
a "flag- shaped" lot — the developable part of the lot, which contains the applicants' recently constructed
dwelling, has almost double the minimum required lot area (approximately 8,906 square metres) and
almost twice the width (approximately 93 metres).
Further, the proportions of the proposed lots would be consistent with those of the existing lots in
surrounding area which have been able to accommodate private on -site well and septic. It is not
anticipated that the proposed lots would be any different. Based on the above observations, approval of
the lot dimension variances can be supported.
75
Michael & Catherine Long
210 Lawrence Long Road
CONCLUSION:
Page I I
August 17, 20I2
At first glance, the proposed subdivision is not in keeping with the vision of the recently adopted
Municipal Plan as it is outside of the Growth Boundary and involves the extension of a street to
accommodate additional unserviced development. Further, the number of variances may create concerns
about the conformity of the proposal with City standards.
However, the Plan does recognize that there are instances where this type of development can be
accommodated in order to address existing safety concerns or to improve street connectivity. Staff is of
the opinion that this is one of those instances_
The proposal outlined herein is an opportunity for the City to acquire a private road for which it has
inherited some maintenance responsibilities, but has faced significant challenges in being able to service
properly given the ownership issue. Not only could future maintenance be facilitated, but until such time
as the road is improved, an alternate access point would be provided via the Arthurs Road.
A number of variances which are considered relatively minor in nature are necessary to allow the
concept to proceed, but neither the overall subdivision configuration nor individual lots would be
inconsistent with the established development pattern of the surrounding area. Consequently, Staff can
recommend the necessary assents and variances as detailed in the Staff Recommendation.
PF
Project No. 12 -214
76
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 1 URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT
f
f
1
- � r
t ♦ f
I � 1
♦wi�J Z l
1
1
f
1,
r
r�
J
;'•
100 �y zw a''r.,4rOr'`
R -2M ,
di
rr ` rr'.rrrrr ..
4
� rrr r y.r
rr
RF
err
�prrr
M
Subject Site / Site en question: FxA = `'' " PID (s) I NIP(s):
55163133
Location: 210, chemin Lawrence Long Road
Date: July / juillet 18, 2012
Scale / echelle: Not to scale / Pas a 1'echelle
c
� ff
/ O
Q (t n °�qq• Ro N 8.0
2�
C)
41 CD
CD
CP
$ o �I
Vn
ND
so
S
Yn V'.,'°.i� ♦aa .a�, u> ^.y\ lu Jo
pRST Hill _ - -Y• - 6�
2 C tM S
CP
CP
8
s s xo
so
q -;
Sg1NT o
NN R a q 9 --xe rnn xon x
v 9a g.. � s..` F
F n c r : a
p rn e= 5 E E ` 5� €F• #. ••a;�"e8•o m
o � � � � � �i de. - § i >; 5' f •i e' •si � e e � �s . �� �b . f ��':x�
o g � °_ � � .`- � � � � � �y {: y � y: y ` Ey N� �� ;} fr �9 S�f� g: �F y $ 3 �p 3F iFE�$` g rte.. &3eFjFE Z ��'• (1� ..
Pf
S a ! Y
m
t p P fiEfg
i
New Brunswick
Dental Society
' Societe Dentaire du
Nouveau- Brunswick
Mayor Mel Norton and Council of the City of Saint John
City of Saint John
15 Market Square
PO Box 1971
Saint John, New Brunswick
E2L 41_1
October 23, 2012
Dear Mayor and Council,
520 rue King Street, HSBC Place #820
P.O. /C.P. Box 488, Station "A"
Fredericton, N.B. E3B 4Z9
Tel.: (506) 452 -8575 Fax: (506) 452 -1872
We are writing to follow -up on the recent article in the Telegraph Journal ( "Water treatment Proposal
Could Save City Millions ", October 17 2012).
We wish to provide you with some information that we hope will encourage you to consider maintaining
the fluoride levels in the municipal water system.
As dentists,we know that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay. We see
it on a daily basis and can distinguish, particularly among children, those who live in areas with
fluoridated water and those who do not. The policy of water fluoridation saves millions of dollars in
public health costs and protects those who might not have access to dental health care, such as the
elderly and low- income families. The New Brunswick Dental Society strongly opposes the removal of
this public health measure for purely financial reasons.
One of water fluoridation's biggest advantages is that it benefits all residents of a community — at home,
work, school or play — throughout their lifetime. This is of key importance for families when income level
or ability to receive routine dental care is a barrier to receiving its health benefits. Fluoridated water
greatly reduces the number of cavities in children's teeth, which contributes to their healthy
development. (1)
While cavities are largely preventable, tooth decay is an infectious disease and is the #1 chronic disease
in children and adolescents in Canada. It is four to five times more common than asthma and is the
second most expensive disease category in Canada (2, 3). Untreated tooth decay can lead to infection,
pain and abscesses. It can affect school performance, even a child's sense of self- worth. Communities
without municipal fluoridation reveal higher dental decay rates than other communities with water
fluoridation.
Water fluoridation is supported by more than 90 health - related organizations around the world,
including the World Health Organization, Health Canada, the Canadian and American Dental
Associations, the Canadian Medical Association, the Food and Drug Administration of the United States
and the Canadian Public Health Association. Both Canada's Chief Dental Officer and New Brunswick's
Chief Medical Officer have issued statements in support of continued municipal water fluoridation.
Additionally, the Chief Medical Officer for Ontario released a report in 2012 recommending a review of
current policies and mechanisms to ensure that all Ontarians have access to optimally fluoridated
drinking water. (4)
/2
website: www.nbdental.com email: nbds @nb.aibn.com
79
The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia stated that "water fluoridation remains
the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community -wide exposure to the caries
prevention effects of fluoride." [emphasis added] (5) The (US) Surgeon General supports this statement,
noting "community water fluoridation continues to be the most cost - effective, equitable and safe means
to provide protection from tooth decay in a community." (6)
It is worth noting that in several communities across the country, city councils are considering adding
fluoride to the water systems in order to minimize the levels of dental caries in the local populations,
particularly in children. The most recent community to undertake this examination is the town of Orillia,
Ontario.
Some communities which are making the decision to add it in again, after having taken it out. One such
community is Dorval Quebec. Having removed the fluoride during an equipment upgrade in 2003, the
community restored fluoridation in 2007. Data collected on children enrolled in public schools in Dorval
between 2003 and 2006 indicated that the percentage of kindergarten children at high risk of developing
dental caries doubled in the two -year period after water fluoridation was halted in 2003, rising from 8
to 17 %, which represents a statistically significant difference. (7)
What are the benefits of community water fluoridation — beyond the proven oral health benefits?
• Less out -of pocket expenses — a Centre for Disease Prevention and Control study says that for
every dollar invested in community water fluoridation, $38 is avoided in costs for dental treatments. (8)
• Less public spending on health care for emergency room visits to treat pain and infection —
welcome news in a time when governments are faced with shrinking budgets and increasing needs
• Less missed school and work time - Health Canada's research estimates 2.26 million school days
and 4.15 million working days are lost annually to oral health issues. (9)
As President -Elect and Vice - President of the New Brunswick Dental Society, practicing dentistry in the
Saint John region, we can attest to the positive impacts of municipal water fluoridation. Dentists are the
health care professionals who are trained to promote good oral health. Municipal water fluoridation is
one way to increase the oral health, and overall health, of our local citizens. It has been proven Pffprfivp
many times over.
We hope that you will take the time to consider all of the information before making a decision on this
important issue.
Should you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact either of us, or the New
Brunswick Dental Society.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jeff Clark
President - Elect, NBDS
Dr. Kelly Manning
Vice - President, NBDS
SI
REFERENCES CITED:
1. Journal of the American Dental Association. Fluoride. http://www.iada-
plus.com /content /136/12 /`1783.full
2. Centre for Disease Control. Water - related hygiene.
http: / /www.cdc.gov /healthvwater /hygiene /disease /dental caries.html
3. Federal Provincial and Territorial Dental Working Group. http: / /www.fptdwg.ca /English /e-
documents.html
4. King, Arlene. 2012. Oral Health — More Than Just Cavities A Report by Ontario's Chief Medical
Officer of Health. April 2012. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/`minist
health /oral health.pdf
5. Government of Australia. 2007. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Water
fluoridation - information for health professionals.
http: / /www.health.vic.gov.au/ environment /fluoridation /fluoriprof.htm
6. Surgeon General, Richard H. Carmona, MD, MPH, FACS, VADM, USPHS. Surgeon General's
Statement on Community Water Fluoridation, 2004.
http: / /www.cdc.gov /fluoridation /fact sheets /sg04.htm
7. Institut national de sante publique du Quebec. Water fluoridation : An analysis of the Health
Benefits and Risks. 2007. http: / /www.inspg.gc.ca /pdf/ publications /705- WaterFluoration.pdf
8. Centre for Disease Control. Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation.
http: / /www.cdc.gov /fluoridation /fact sheets /cost.htm
9. Health Canada. Health Measures Survey 2007 -2009. http: / /www.hc- sc.gc.ca /hl -vs /pubs /oral-
bucco/ fact - fiche - oral - bucco - stat- eng.php
QD
The Hardman Group Limited
October 2k"h, 2012
Mayor Mel K. Norton and Councillors
PO Box 1971
Saint John, NB E2L 4L 1
Dear Mayor Norton and Council:
Re: New Year's Eve Celebrations 2012
It's hard to imagine it now, but we are quickly coming up to the start of the holiday season and
the end of another wonderful year. Soon, hearts and souls will light up with the warmth and joy
of the most wonderful time of the year, and children will be bursting with anticipation of a
magical visit. To top off all of our community's joyous celebrations is our New Year's Eve
festivities at Market Square, New Brunswick's Festival Place.
Each year, families from all over our region gather in Uptown Saint John to see our amazing
fireworks show, which lights up the Saint John skyline like a Christmas tree! Along with live
entertainment, activities for the whole family to enjoy, and festive giveaways, this year promises
Development to be the best ever!
Management As always, Saint John's New Year's Eve festivities are provided at no charge to our guests. In
order to provide the highest of both quality and quantities to our citizens, we would greatly value
Consulting a contribution from your organization. Your financial support will help to provide that priceless
Brokerage feeling of warmth and charity as we gather with family and friends, neighbours and strangers
alike, rejoicing in the promise of a new year.
In appreciation for your partnership, we will promote your business throughout the New Year's
Eve promotions and event via print, radio, and social mediums. In this fashion, your business
garners high - profile placement in heavily trafficked areas that extends beyond conventional
advertising and demonstrates your support of our community - the gift that keeps on giving.
Thank you for your anticipated collaboration in providing one of the most cherished and
memorable parts of Saint John's New Year's Eve. We would appreciate confirmation of your
contribution at your earliest convenience so that we may coordinate the highest caliber event
possible!
Yours very truly,
The an Group Limited
ae
Regional Property Manager
One Market Square, Saint John, New Bruns x ick Canada E2L 4Z6 Tel 506.658.3600 Fax 506.658.3605
0
PRESENTING SPONSOR $3,000
✓ Recognition as Sponsor of the event in all advertising pre, during, and post event
✓ Banners /signage displayed
✓ Logo placement on event website
✓ Web link to your company website
✓ VIP seating for four guests and $250 in gift certificates
✓ Recognition by Emcee as Presenting Sponsor throughout evening
✓ Exhibit opportunity available to your company during the event
✓ Opportunity to introduce headlining band and engage with crowd onstage
GOLD SPONSOR $1,500
✓ Recognition as Sponsor of the event in advertising pre, during and post event
✓ Logo placement on event website
✓ Web link to your company website
✓ VIP seating for four guests and $100 in gift certificates
✓ Recognition as Event Sponsor during evening
✓ Opportunity to introduce opening band
SILVER SPONSOR $1,000
✓ Recognition as Event Sponsor on signage during and post event
✓ Logo placement on event website
✓ VIP seating for four guests and $50 in gift certificates
✓ Web link to your company website
BRONZE SPONSOR $500
✓ Recognition as Event Sponsor on signage during and post event
✓ Logo placement on event website
SUPPORTING SPONSOR $250
✓ Logo placement on event website
Thank you for your contribution to the 2012 Saint John and Surrounding. Area New Year's Eve
Celebrations, and the continued development of or, community.
Please indicate your level of sponsorship:
o PRESENTING SPONSOR $3,000.00
o GOLD SPONSOR $1,500.00
❑ SILVER SPONSOR $1,000.00
❑ BRONZE SPONSOR $500.00
❑ SUPPORTING SPONSOR $250.00
❑ OTHER/INKIND
Please make cheques payable to:
The Hardman Group Limited
One Market Square
Saint John, NB
E2L 4Z6
Please forward this form via fax to (506) 658 -3605 or mail to the above address with your
payment. Please call (506) 658 -3600 with any questions or concerns and to get more
information about the celebrations.
Once again, thank you for your contribution!
Please indicate contact information below:
Business Name:
Contact Name:
Mailing Address:
Email:
Phone:
01
October 31, 2012
His Worship Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subject: Prostitution
I would like to have a discussion with Council on the topic of prostitution in the City of Saint John.
Respectfully Submitted,
(Received via email)
Susan Fullerton,
City Councillor —Ward 2
City of Saint John
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I wwwsaintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1
-----------�
85
November 1, 2012
His Worship Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subject: Pension Plan
Reading in this morning's Telegraph Journal (November 1, 2012) that Susan Rowland does not guarantee
that the Provincial Pension Task Force will be back to The City of Saint John with their recommendations
before the end of the year, I once again call for immediate action on the part of this Council.
We must NOT wait any longer.
All deadlines for us to hearfrom the Provincial Pension Task Force have been missed, and our situation
with regard to the Pension absolutely MUST be dealt with.
It is long past time for THIS COUNCIL to take the leadership role for which we were elected.
This is our fiduciary responsibility.
This is what we promised our Citizens we would do, if they elected us.
It is time we step up and make the hard decisions on behalf of our Citizens, our employees and our
retirees, all of whom are looking to US for solutions. We have abdicated our responsibility for long
enough and it is now time that we take it on.
As a member of Council and also a member of The Pension Board, I am completely in the dark regarding
what discussions are happening, what progress is being made and what the status is of the work of the
Provincial Pension Task Force in regards to the Saint John Pension Plan.
MOTION: That Common Council immediately strike a committee, with power to add, to immediately
embark on a mission to find the best possible "Made In Saint John" solution for our Pension Crisis in
order that we have something to compare to the Dutch Model, if and when it is presented. I am not
only volunteering but sincerely requesting to chair this committee.
-and-
/�
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E21L 4L1
---------�
0
MOTION: That Common Council insist that the Provincial Pension Task Force should immediately
present a very candid update to Common Council regarding the status of the proposed Dutch Model
Pension Plan.
Respectfully Submitted,
(Received via email)
Susan Fullerton,
City Councillor —Ward 2
City of Saint John
MN