2026-01-12_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour
/źƷǤ ƚŅ {ğźƓƷ WƚŷƓ
/ƚƒƒƚƓ /ƚǒƓĭźƌ aĻĻƷźƓŭ
aƚƓķğǤͲ WğƓǒğƩǤ ЊЋͲ ЋЉЋЏ
Њ͵ /ğƌƌ Ʒƚ hƩķĻƩ
Si vous avez besoin des services en français pour une réunion de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le
bureau du greffier communal au 506-658-2862.
Each of the following items, either in whole or in part, is able to be discussed in private pursuant to the
provisions of subsection 68(1) of the Local Governance Act and Council / Committee will make a
decision(s) in that respect in Open Session:
Ɠķ
ЍʹЍЎ Ʀ͵ƒ͵Ͳ Ћ CƌƚƚƩ .ƚğƩķƩƚƚƒͲ /źƷǤ Iğƌƌ
1.1Approval of Minutes 68(1)
1.2Financial Matter 68(1)(c,f,g,j)
1.3Financial Matter 68(1)(c)
Ville de Saint John
Séance du conseil communal
Lundi 12 janvier 2026
18 h
e
Salle du Conseil municipal, 2 étage, hôtel de ville
Un moyen de communication électronique est utilisé lors de cette réunion. Le public
peut assister à la séance en personne à la salle du Conseil ou la regarder sur le site
Web de la Ville (www.saintjohn.ca) ou sur Rogers TV.
Comité plénier
1. Ouverture de la séance
Si vous souhaitez obtenir des services en français pour une séance du conseil municipal,
veuillez communiquer avec le bureau du greffier municipal au 658-2862.
privé en vertu des dispositions prévues au paragraphe 68 (1) de la \[ƚź ƭǒƩ ƌğ ŭƚǒǝĻƩƓğƓĭĻ
ƌƚĭğƌĻ. Le conseil/comité prendra une ou des décisions à cet égard au cours de la séance
publique :
e
16 h 30 Clôture du comité plénier salle de conseil au 2 étage
1.1Approbation du procèsverbal 68(1)
1.2Question financière 68(1)(c,f,g,j)
1.3Question financière 68(1)(c)
Séance ordinaire
1.Ouverture de la séance
1.1Reconnaissance territoriale
1.2Hymne national
2. Approbation du procèsverbal
2.1 Procèsverbal du 15 décembre 2025
5.1 Renouvellement de la maintenance des serveurs et du stockage HP
(Recommandation dans le rapport)
5.2 Conservation des terres du bassin versant Accord de reconnaissance de
la conservation (Recommandation dans le rapport)
5.3 Rapport annuel sur les effectifs (Recommandation : recevoir à titre
5.4
(Recommandation dans le rapport)
5.4 Correspondance : A. Andrade Voie cyclable protégée sur la rue Main et
transformation urbaine à Saint John (Recommandation : recevoir à titre
5.5 Correspondance : A. Pottle
Saint John (Recommandation
5.6 Correspondance : C. Armstrong Interdiction de stationnement
(Recommandation
5.7 Correspondance : Demande de proclamation Journée de sensibilisation
aux hypersensibilités environnementales/sensibilités chimiques multiples
(HE-SCM) (Recommandation : Confier au greffier la préparation de la
Communications)
6. Commentaires présentés par les membres
7. Proclamation
8. Délégations et présentations
9. Audiences publiques
9.1 Proposition de modification
19, promenade
ree
Anglin (1 et 2 lectures)
10. Étude des arrêtés municipaux
10.1 Modification au règlement sur la circulation concernant les
contraventions pour stationnement dans la rue en temps de
e
déneigement (3 lecture)
10.2 Proposition de modification du plan municipal Lettre de 30 jours 0,
boulevard Rex Hurley/0, chemin Glen
10.3 Proposition de modification du plan municipal Lettre de 30 jours 0,
promenade Summit/promenade Clint/partie du NID 00311126
11. Interventions des membres du conseil
12. Affaires municipales évoquées par les fonctionnaires municipaux
13. Rapports déposés par les comités
14. Étude des sujets
15. Correspondance Générale
16. Ordre du jour supplémentaire
17. Comité plénier
18. Levée de la séance
͵
M&C 2025-292:
City/Developer Agreement - Road Extension off Gault Road
M&C 2025-300: 2026
Insurance Renewal
M&C 2025-293: Saint
John Community Arts Board - Recipients of the Funding Program - Correction
th
M&C 2025-289: City Market 150 Anniversary
Report,
!
!
M&C
2025-290: Large-Scale Development Incentive Program
report M&C
2025-298: 2026-2029 Capital Renewal Plan (CRP)
M&C
2025-297: 5-Year Capital Investment Plan Update (Utility and General Fund)
!
M&C 2025-296: Amendment
to Integrated Bilateral Agreement for the Retail Drive Realignment Project
/haahb /h b/L\[ w9thw
M&C No.2026-0
Report DateJanuary 06, 2026
Meeting DateJanuary 12, 2026
Service AreaStrategic Services
Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: HP Server and Storage Maintenance Renewal
AUTHORIZATION
Primary AuthorCommissioner/Dept. HeadInterim Chief Administrative Officer
Hugh KwakStephanie Rackley Roach /Kevin Fudge
Kevin Fudge
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that Common Council approve the purchase of HP server and storagemaintenance
for one yearfrom Bulletproof Solutions ULC (Bulletproof) at a cost of $212,327.14 (CAD) plus
applicable taxes,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
information technology (IT) infrastructure requires ongoing
maintenance to ensure operational reliability. Three vendors were contacted to provide quotes
for maintenance with Bulletproof Solutions ULC (Bulletproof) being the only supplier providing a
valid quote. This renewal covers hardware and remote technical support, software updates, and
essential care services for critical systems through January 31, 2027.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
N/A
REPORT
IT infrastructure is critical for delivering essential services,
including public safety, administration, and digital platforms. These systems require ongoing
maintenance and support to ensure reliability and minimize downtime.
As part of the procurement process, three vendors were contacted for quotes. HP
Enterprise (HPE) enforces OEM-controlled quoting rights (Original Equipment Manufacturers),
meaning only authorized partners can provide official support renewals for HP hardware and
software. Bulletproof was the only vendor to provide a valid quote within the specified
timeframe.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
This initiative aligns primarily with Perform priority by ensuring operational reliability
and continuity of critical IT infrastructure.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The financial impact of this renewal is $212,327.14 (CAD) plus applicable taxes. Funds are
allocated in the IT budget in the approved 2026 General Fund Operating Budget for this planned
expenditure. While the initiative has minimal direct environmental impact, it contributes to
.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
Name of Service Area/StakeholderNameof Staff Person
Pr Monic MacVicar / Chris Roberts
G Jacqueline Boucher
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
M&C No.2026-005
Report DateJanuary 06, 2026
Meeting DateJanuary 12, 2026
Service AreaUtilities and
Infrastructure Services
Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Conservation of Watershed Lands Conservation Recognition Agreement
AUTHORIZATION
Primary AuthorCommissioner/Dept. HeadChief Administrative Officer
Dean PriceIan FoganKevin Fudge
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that Council resolve to:
Њ͵Support the recognition of the identified City-owned watershed lands as Other Effective
Area-Based Conservation Measure (OECM) and authorize execution of the Conservation
Recognition Agreement. Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the Conservation
Recognition Agreement with the provincial Department of Natural Resources and Energy
Development (DNRED), as required by the Province of New Brunswick to facilitate
reporting of these lands and OECMs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS
Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person
Community PlanningPankaj Nalavde
Real EstateBlair MacPhee
General CounselJacqueline Boucher
ATTACHMENTS
ConservationRecognitionAgreement
His Majesty the Kingin right of the Province of New Brunswick, as
represented by theMinister of NaturalResources and Energy
Development
The City of Saint John,abody corporate by Royal Charter
confirmed and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of
the Province of New Brunswick (the “City”)
City
WHEREAS
AND WHEREAS
AND WHEREAS
AND WHEREAS
AND WHEREASCity
AND WHEREAS
1
AND WHEREAS
AND WHEREAS
AND WHEREAS
STATED PURPOSE
NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH
1 The Minister
2 The City of Saint John
3 Transparency
4 Verification/Accountability
5 Communications
6 Notices
7.Non-Binding MOU
IN WITNESS WHEREOF
HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN THE RIGHT
OF THE PROVINCE OF NEW
BRUNSWICK
AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT
SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTER OF
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT
The City of SaintJohn
\[The City ofSaint Johnsigningauthority\]
5
Schedule A
Schedule B
Definitions
Biodiversity:
Pathway to Canada Target 1:
Pathway to Canada Target 1
Nature Legacy initiative:
Protected Area:
Other effective area based conservation measures(OECM):
e Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database (CPCAD):
Th
.
Conservation, Wildlife and Biodiversity Steering Group (CWBSG):
6
PIDArea of PID Inside DWW (ha)% of PID Inside DWWArea of PID Outside DWW (ha)% of PID Outside DWWTotal Area of PID (ha)
002745220.982.3041.5997.7042.57
00286559423.8391.4939.418.51463.24
552305690.551.2244.6698.7845.21
5523057718.8573.816.6926.1925.54
552305939.10100.000.000.009.10
55230643102.5175.3433.5524.66136.06
552306508.4621.0331.7878.9740.24
55230692120.6766.8459.8833.16180.54
5523118712.3226.4534.2673.5546.58
5523119527.3970.6411.3929.3638.78
552312032.806.6739.1793.3341.97
5523121117.0341.4924.0258.5141.05
5523124511.6995.700.534.3012.21
5523132866.2297.911.412.0967.64
5523133630.1365.0816.1734.9246.29
552313440.9488.050.1311.951.07
552314270.0220.110.1079.890.12
5523143520.8777.096.2022.9127.07
552314926.6919.7627.1580.2433.84
5523150020.0583.883.8516.1223.91
551098059.14100.000.000.009.14
5523058526.58100.000.000.0026.58
5523066844.89100.000.000.0044.89
5523067642.42100.000.000.0042.42
552306841.07100.000.000.001.07
5523070082.60100.000.000.0082.60
55231229146.89100.000.000.00146.89
5523123769.58100.000.000.0069.58
5523125235.51100.000.000.0035.51
5523126091.96100.000.000.0091.96
552313511.09100.000.000.001.09
552313850.38100.000.000.000.38
552314436.79100.000.000.006.79
5523145019.62100.000.000.0019.62
5523146841.97100.000.000.0041.97
% of Total PID Area that fall
Total Area of OECMs Inside DWW (ha)% of total PID area that falls inside DWWTotal Area of PIDs Outside DWW (ha)outside DWWTotal Area of all PIDs (ha)
SUM1521.6078.29421.9321.711943.53
PIDArea Within DWW (ha) % of PID Within DWWArea Outside DWW (ha)% of PID Outside of DWWTotal PID Area
003359197.5655.696.0144.3113.57
0035355729.8399.000.301.0030.13
0035394634.0860.1822.5539.8256.63
00354696139.1928.63346.8971.37486.08
00354720175.9190.1119.319.89195.22
00354829138.4789.0816.9810.92155.45
00354837121.6696.734.123.27125.78
0035907532.2168.4814.8231.5247.03
003902371.1728.952.8771.054.04
3013906754.4696.711.853.2956.31
5500017846.7397.351.272.6548.00
550005660.1942.420.2557.580.44
550182610.804.3717.5495.6318.34
550234519.6938.4315.5261.5725.20
5502944116.5481.243.8218.7620.36
5506268116.1347.4717.8552.5333.98
551446203.4911.6226.5688.3830.06
551550220.081.674.8998.334.97
5518897334.2148.6336.1451.3770.35
5518978163.9493.004.817.0068.75
000526620.33100.000.000.000.33
003489200.44100.000.000.000.44
003491000.26100.000.000.000.26
003492095.67100.000.000.005.67
003494230.28100.000.000.000.28
003494980.13100.000.000.000.13
003496130.07100.000.000.000.07
003497040.15100.000.000.000.15
003499360.65100.000.000.000.65
003499930.09100.000.000.000.09
003500580.27100.000.000.000.27
003500900.41100.000.000.000.41
003502560.23100.000.000.000.23
003503890.20100.000.000.000.20
003504620.06100.000.000.000.06
003506940.39100.000.000.000.39
0035078512.36100.000.000.0012.36
003510490.93100.000.000.000.93
003510980.01100.000.000.000.01
0035113016.78100.000.000.0016.78
0035115524.33100.000.000.0024.33
003511717.98100.000.000.007.98
003511898.23100.000.000.008.23
003511979.58100.000.000.009.58
003513870.31100.000.000.000.31
003514290.09100.000.000.000.09
003514940.43100.000.000.000.43
003517830.07100.000.000.000.07
003518090.09100.000.000.000.09
00351916319.38100.000.000.00319.38
0035198125.41100.000.000.0025.41
0035199914.08100.000.000.0014.08
0035201319.91100.000.000.0019.91
003522860.11100.000.000.000.11
003522940.09100.000.000.000.09
003523020.07100.000.000.000.07
003523440.05100.000.000.000.05
003523510.18100.000.000.000.18
003524680.14100.000.000.000.14
003524928.23100.000.000.008.23
003527161.12100.000.000.001.12
003527240.91100.000.000.000.91
003530860.27100.000.000.000.27
003530940.12100.000.000.000.12
003531280.32100.000.000.000.32
003531360.34100.000.000.000.34
003531770.09100.000.000.000.09
003534410.74100.000.000.000.74
0035353241.85100.000.000.0041.85
003536980.47100.000.000.000.47
003538210.36100.000.000.000.36
003540430.24100.000.000.000.24
0035409214.63100.000.000.0014.63
003541670.12100.000.000.000.12
003543327.75100.000.000.007.75
003545140.12100.000.000.000.12
003547045.32100.000.000.005.32
00354712274.10100.000.000.00274.10
00354738128.76100.000.000.00128.76
0035474613.26100.000.000.0013.26
0035475320.45100.000.000.0020.45
00354779475.37100.000.000.00475.37
0035478723.36100.000.000.0023.36
003548520.12100.000.000.000.12
003548600.20100.000.000.000.20
003549100.29100.000.000.000.29
003551152.69100.000.000.002.69
003553709.77100.000.000.009.77
0036023093.58100.000.000.0093.58
0036024837.75100.000.000.0037.75
004276660.43100.000.000.000.43
004276820.63100.000.000.000.63
004276900.75100.000.000.000.75
004277240.60100.000.000.000.60
004277320.13100.000.000.000.13
004277400.40100.000.000.000.40
004277570.17100.000.000.000.17
004277652.27100.000.000.002.27
004278723.51100.000.000.003.51
004278800.09100.000.000.000.09
004278983.03100.000.000.003.03
004279630.09100.000.000.000.09
004279710.06100.000.000.000.06
004283910.06100.000.000.000.06
004375826.51100.000.000.006.51
004457912.91100.000.000.002.91
0044713622.35100.000.000.0022.35
0044714421.80100.000.000.0021.80
004478620.05100.000.000.000.05
302117348.89100.000.000.008.89
550086190.90100.000.000.000.90
550091381.05100.000.000.001.05
550146250.02100.000.000.000.02
550146330.07100.000.000.000.07
5502184417.65100.000.000.0017.65
550310900.03100.000.000.000.03
550311080.07100.000.000.000.07
550311240.06100.000.000.000.06
550311320.06100.000.000.000.06
550311400.06100.000.000.000.06
5503446633.16100.000.000.0033.16
5503447484.24100.000.000.0084.24
5503448283.29100.000.000.0083.29
5503810316.63100.000.000.0016.63
550416360.02100.000.000.000.02
550429800.74100.000.000.000.74
550429980.01100.000.000.000.01
550555780.46100.000.000.000.46
550555860.43100.000.000.000.43
550556020.48100.000.000.000.48
550556100.49100.000.000.000.49
550556280.47100.000.000.000.47
550556440.38100.000.000.000.38
550556510.47100.000.000.000.47
550872170.24100.000.000.000.24
5508723322.21100.000.000.0022.21
550907400.46100.000.000.000.46
5510134932.41100.000.000.0032.41
5511376517.23100.000.000.0017.23
551184910.84100.000.000.000.84
551185090.68100.000.000.000.68
551185250.45100.000.000.000.45
551185330.27100.000.000.000.27
551414770.01100.000.000.000.01
551443642.87100.000.000.002.87
551443800.12100.000.000.000.12
551444220.23100.000.000.000.23
551501630.29100.000.000.000.29
551501710.03100.000.000.000.03
55153837101.39100.000.000.00101.39
551886190.29100.000.000.000.29
552030874.2414.0525.9685.9530.20
552282581.3631.292.9968.714.36
5522858913.0973.634.6926.3717.77
552287530.822.8228.2297.1829.04
5522876131.1197.690.742.3131.85
5522877934.1995.681.544.3235.73
552287871.9345.612.3054.394.23
552287958.0390.980.809.028.83
552288111.7790.700.189.301.95
552288291.0069.990.4330.011.43
552288451.329.3012.8490.7014.15
5522886014.2876.744.3323.2618.61
5522887811.4296.900.373.1011.79
552288860.3575.470.1224.530.47
552288942.6785.110.4714.893.14
552286050.3572.440.1327.560.49
552040440.31100.000.000.000.31
5521364918.41100.000.000.0018.41
55213722102.18100.000.000.00102.18
552236487.78100.000.000.007.78
552285970.37100.000.000.000.37
552286130.18100.000.000.000.18
552286210.18100.000.000.000.18
552286390.18100.000.000.000.18
552286470.18100.000.000.000.18
552286540.18100.000.000.000.18
552286620.18100.000.000.000.18
552286700.18100.000.000.000.18
552288035.35100.000.000.005.35
552288370.10100.000.000.000.10
552288521.32100.000.000.001.32
552333570.19100.000.000.000.19
003504470.16100.000.000.000.16
003496470.07100.000.000.000.07
Total Area of PIDS Inside of DWW (ha)Total % of Lands Inside DWWTotal Area of PIDS Outside of DWW (ha)Total % of Lands Outside of DWWTotal Area (ha)
SUM3320.6483.62650.4616.383971.10
/haahb /h b/L\[ w9thw
M&C No.2026-002
Report DateJanuary 06, 2026
Meeting DateJanuary 12, 2026
Service AreaCorporate Services
Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: 2024 Annual Workforce Report
AUTHORIZATION
Primary AuthorCommissioner/Dept. HeadChief Administrative Officer
(Interim)
Blessing NjokuStephanie HossackKevin Fudge
RECOMMENDATION
The Chief Administrative Officer (Interim) recommends that Common Council receive and file
this report for information.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
report.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
REPORT
In 2019 City staff committed to providing an annual update on the status of our workforce and
associated costs of providing municipal services. In addition, the Annual Workforce Report also
highlights workforce accomplishments, contributions, key observations, and future planning for
an effective workforce.
Since its inception, City staff annually reviews and benchmarks t
Report against those created and published by other municipalities and organizations to ensure
the information provided remains relevant. The 2024 Annual Workforce Report is presented as
an attachment to this Council Report.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
City is accountable for the best use of human resources.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
N/A
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person
Finance Department Craig Lavigne
ATTACHMENTS
2024 Annual Workforce Report
City of Saint John
Small City, Big Heart
2024 Annual Workforce Report
1 | Page
Table of Contents
Executive Overview..................................................................................................... 3
...................................................... 3
2024 at a Glance ....................................................................................................... 4
Our Workforce ............................................................................................................. 5
Organizational Establishment .................................................................................. 6
Workforce Demographics by Employee Group ......................................................... 7
Retirement Eligibility by Employee Groups ............................................................... 8
Turnover Trends by Employee Group........................................................................ 9
Talent Acquisition and Development......................................................................... 10
Overview ................................................................................................................ 10
Recruitment by Employee Group ............................................................................ 11
Diversity Equity and Inclusion ................................................................................ 12
Employee Health & Safety ......................................................................................... 13
............................................................................................ 13
Employee Wellness ................................................................................................ 14
Workforce Utilization Rate ..................................................................................... 14
Attendance and Absenteeism ................................................................................ 15
Workplace Safety ................................................................................................... 16
WorksafeNB Cost Claims ....................................................................................... 16
Compensation ........................................................................................................... 18
................................................................................................ 18
Wage Increases: 20-Year Summary ......................................................................... 19
Labour Relations ....................................................................................................... 20
Collective Bargaining ............................................................................................. 20
Looking Ahead ........................................................................................................... 21
2 | Page
Executive Overview
A Message from Brent McGovern,
The year 2024 was one of steady progress and purposeful action for
the City of Saint John. Guided by our 10-Year Strategic Planand Council’s Priorities, we remained
focused on delivering what matters most to our community, even in the face of a complex and
evolving operating environment.
change tested cities across the country, and Saint John was no exception. Yet, through it all, we
thrived. We welcomed a notable population increase of 3.9% (nearly double our annual growth
John as a place to live, work, and thrive.
Throughout the year, we stayed true to our strategic plan goals: fostering a Prosperous economy,
building a Vibrant and inclusive community, delivering high-quality Service, and remaining
Accountable to our residents and partners. These guiding pillars shaped every initiative, project,
and policy decision,
delivery in 2025. From Transformational and Catalytic Growth Initiatives to Service Area Initiatives,
and Capital Plan Initiatives, the results speak to the strength and resilience of our people.
None of this would be possible without the dedication of our employees. Their professionalism,
creativity, and commitment to public service continue to drive us forward, and I am deeply proud
of what we’ve achieved together.
This report captures the highlights of a year shaped by vision, guided by strategy, and brought to
life by a team that truly embodies our spirit: Small City, Big Heart.
Thank you for your continued trust and partnership as we look ahead to an even stronger 2025
3 | Page
2024 ata Glance
In 2024, we continued to make meaningful progress across key areas of service. With a growing In 2024, we continued to make meaningful progress across key areas of service. With a growing
population, a focused strategic direction, and the dedication of a committed workforce, we population, a focused strategic direction, and the dedication of a committed workforce, we
of our residents.
Internal mobility strengthened across the organization, with more than half of all permanent
internally, a sign
of growing career
New Hires
Demographics
Turnover Rate
pathways within
theCity.
Absenteeism
Permanent Employees
36
4.6%
declined overall,
585
with notable
reductions among
Outside Workers
and Management
groups, while the
average number
Workforce Capacity
of sick days
Training
Internal Moves
Utilization
declined to 7.9.
Recruitment
Avg. Training cost per
increased, with
48
Employee
78.6%
237hires made
$1,306
across all
employee groups,
City’s continued
focus on frontline
service delivery.
Training investment per employee increased to$1,306, supporting leadership development,
technical skills, and foundational DEI learning. Workforcecapacityutilization improved, and
turnover declined, pointing to greater stability across departments. At the same time,
retirements rose, highlighting the need for continued succession planning. Throughout the
year, inclusive practices were reinforced through citywide DEI training, observance of key
awareness dates, and early-stage awareness for new initiatives. Together, these indicators
4 | Page
Permanent Employees
Avg. Years of Service
2023
12.8
570
Our Workforce 2023
2024
12.7
585
2024
Slight decline.
In 2024, we continued to strengthen
Internal Moves
our workforce through strategic
External Hires
talent management, internal
2023 2023
43
mobility, and targeted recruitment.
44
2023 2023
2024 2024
48
experienced team, with strong
36
2024 2024
retention and a healthy rate of
-8 (fewer new permanent permanent
+5 (more internal
internal movement — signaling
hires-
opportunities for growth and career
progression within the organization.
A notable decrease in employee
turnover and fewer average sick days
Turnover Rate
Avg. Sick Days Per Employee
also suggest increasing engagement
and organizational well-being.
2023 2023
9.2
6.3%
2023 2023
We remained committed to investing
in our people, with a continued focus
2024
7.9
4.6%
2024 2024
on training and development to
support service excellence and
future readiness. Workforce capacity
utilizationalso increasedover 2023.
These indicators reinforce the
Workforce Capacity Utilization
Training Cost per Employee
strength of a workforce that is both
resilient and deeply committed to
77.5%
2023 2023
$1,241
2023 2023
serving the residents of Saint John
with professionalism and heart.
78.6%
2024 2024
$1,306
2024 2024
utilization
Employee
5 | Page
Organizational Establishment
The Establishment represents the approved
number of full-time permanent positions
across all employee groups, as formally
authorized by Common Council through
the annual budget process. It serves as the
ensuring the City is equipped to meet
service demands. While actual headcount
temporary positions, the Establishment
remains a key indicator of strategic
workforce planning.
In 2024, the City’s Establishment grew to
585 positions, up from 570 in 2023,
operations, expand services, and align with the needs of a growing population. This included
increases in outside workersand— areas critical to delivering frontline
PERMANENT POSITIONS ESTABLISHMENT
EMPLOYEE GROUP20232024Change
INSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 486)100101+1
OUTSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 18)236240+4
FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF LOCAL 771)132132
No change
NON-UNION STAFF 910+1
MANAGEMENT 6375+12
PROFESSIONAL 3027-3
TOTAL CITYESTABLISHMENT 570585+15
SAINT JOHN TRANSIT*7178+7
* SJ TRANSITINCLUDES NON-UNIONAND UNIONIZED STAFF
6 | Page
Workforce Demographics by Employee Group
Workforce demographics across employee
Workers (CUPE 18) have the highest average years
of service, at 14.1 and 13.1 years respectively,
underscoring deep operational expertise in
frontline roles. Inside Workers (CUPE 486) and
Management / Professional employees also
demonstrate long tenure, both averaging over 11
years of service. Non-Union employees, with an
average of 7.4 years, represent a smaller, more
dyna
or role turnover. Overall, the City’s average
employee age is 44.5,with age distribution
relatively consistent across all groups.
Workers (CUPE 486) is the only group with a
female majority (57%females to 43%males),
(IAFF 771) are overwhelmingly male-dominated.
Management / Professional shows more balanced
representation (66%males to 34%females), and
Non-Union roles are predominantly held by
some areas and continued opportunities for
greater gender inclusion in operational and
emergencyservice roles.
% %
Overall Average
0%
0%
98 %
2%
Age – 44.5
2%
98 %
43 %7%
Years of Service – 11.6
7 | Page
Retirement Eligibility by Employee Groups
Retirement eligibility trends over the next three years point to a gradual but growing
departure of long-serving employees across several key areas. By the end of 2026, 66
employees will be eligible to retire — a 35 % increase from current 2024 levels. The majority
of these potential retirements are concentrated within Outside Workers (CUPE Local 18),
which alone accounts for nearly half of all eligible employees by 2026. This presents a critical
opportunity to prepare for knowledge transfer and succession planning in this operationally
essential group.
show a steady rise in retirement eligibility, with the number of eligible employees in Fire
Services nearly tripling between 2024 and 2026. While Non-Union roles show no upcoming
retirements, the Management / Professional group sees a modest increase, reaching 9 by
2027. These trends emphasize the importance of proactive workforce planning — not only
to address upcoming retirements but to ensure continuity, training,and talent development
in critical service areas.
Retirement Eligibility by Employee Group (2024–2027)
Employee Group Dec. 31, Dec. 31, Dec. 31, Dec. 31,
2024 2025 2026 2027
11 13 14 16
Inside Workers (CUPE Local 486)
27 27 30 35
Outside Workers (CUPE Local 18)
581418
00 0 0
Non-Union
66 8 9
Management / Professional
49 54 66 78
City of Saint John (Total)
8 | Page
Turnover Trends by Employee Group
The City of Saint John experienced a notable shift in workforce turnover dynamics in 2024,
marked by a rise in retirements and a decline in voluntary resignations. Retirements
in Outside
).
During the same period, resignations dropped by more than half, from 23 in 2023 to 10 in
2024, with declines recorded across all groups. The most notable decreases occurred
retention and organizational stability. See tables below for details.
RETIREMENTS BY EMPLOYEE GROUP 2023 2024 CHANGE
INSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 486)31 -2
OUTSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 57 +2
18)
FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF LOCAL 771) 46 +2
NON-UNION 00
0
MANAGEMENT / PROFESSIONAL 15 +4
TOTAL 1319 +6
RESIGNATIONS BY EMPLOYEE GROUP 2023 2024 CHANGE
INSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 486)74-3
OUTSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 18)94-5
FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF LOCAL 771) 00
0
NON-UNION 20-2
MANAGEMENT / PROFESSIONAL 52-3
TOTAL 23 10 -13
9 | Page
Talent Acquisition and Development
Overview
In 2024, the City of Saint John maintained a strong focus on building internal capacity and
57%were
more career opportunitieswithin and
supporting career advancement across departments. At the same time, external
recruitment remained active, ensuring the City continued to attract new skills and diversity
to meet evolving service needs.
development. Over $763,000 was invested in training-related activities in 2024 — an 8%
increase from the previous year — with an average spend of $1,306 per employee. This
knowledge, and opportunities they need to succeed in their roles and contribute to a high-
performing, future-ready organization.
Recruitment Summary (2023–2024)
CATEGORY20232024CHANGE
INTERNAL HIRES/MOVEMENTS 4348+5
EXTERNAL HIRES 4436-8
Internal
TOTAL PERMANENT HIRES 8784-3
Mobility
% FILLED INTERNALLY 49%57%+8 %
Focus-
% FILLED EXTERNALLY 51%43%-8 %
57% of permanent
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY (2023–2024)
Category20232024Change
Cost per Employee$1,241$1,306+$65
Total Training Cost$707,164$763,712+$56,548
10 | Page
Recruitment by Employee Group
In 2024, the City of Saint John saw a marked increase in overall recruitment activity, with over
237 hires across all employee groups — up from 200
more than doubled their 2023 recruitment levels. Outside Workers (CUPE Local 18)
continued to represent the largest hiring volume, accounting for nearly half of all hires,
While Inside Workers (CUPE
Local 486) experienced a modest increase, Non-Union and Seasonal (Non-Union) hires
demonstrate the City’s continued investment in service
meet community needs.
Recruitment by Employee Group (2023–2024)
EMPLOYEE GROUP2023 2024 CHANGE
INSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 486)20 22 +2
OUTSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 18)104113 +9
SJ FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF LOCAL 771) 11 28 +17
NON-UNION 6 2 -4
MANAGEMENT / PROFESSIONAL 14 32 +18
SEASONAL (NON-UNION) 45 40 -5
TOTAL 200237 +37
11 | Page
Diversity Equity and Inclusion
Inclusion (DEI) journey — laying the groundwork for long-term cultural and systemic change.
mentation framework,
deliberate, phased approach to embedding inclusive practices across the organization.
Red Shirt Day
2024
Recognizing that learning and awareness are fundamental to the Build phase, the City rolled
out DEI training for all employees, with customized sessions for managers and leaders to
ensure consistent understanding and leadership support. Lunch and Learn sessions were
introduced to build internal awareness around the planned DEI Champions program, and
DEI-related observances were commemorated throughout the year in line with the City's DEI
an, helping to
embed inclusive language, promote respectful dialogue, and reinforce the City’s
commitment to creating a workplace where everyone feels valued and respected.
12 | Page
Employee Health & Safety
In 2024,
health, dental, and insurance coverage for employees and retirees. The total cost of the plan
rose to $5.4 million, up from $5.0 million in 2023 — an increase of approximately 8%. This
increase was driven in part by increasing cost of drugs and health services. Active members
increasedto 859 and total cardholders reached 1,622. The average cost per member also
increased from $3,141 to $3,307 e and health care costs.
Despite the increase in costs, total contributions remained stable, indicating that the plan
importance of ongoing monitoring and periodic reassessment to ensure the plan remains
cost-
retirees.
–2024)
GROUP BENEFIT METRIC 2023 2024 CHANGE
TOTAL COST $5.0 M $5.4 M +$.4 M
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS $5.8 M $5.8 M
TOTAL MEMBERS (ACTIVE) 830 859 +29
TOTAL MEMBERS (PENSIONERS) 759 763 +4
TOTAL MEMBERS (CARDHOLDERS) 1,589 1,622 +33
AVERAGE COST PER MEMBER $3,141 $3,307 +$166
13 | Page
Employee Wellness
employer-
short-legal
to employee well-being.
In 2024, EFAP utilization declined to 11% from 14.8% in 2023, and the number of new cases
dropped from 147 to 106. However, the annual program cost increased to $43,350, due to
expanded service in counselling
encourage ongoing use of available wellness resources.
EFAP Summary (2023–2024)
METRIC20232024CHANGE
UTILIZATION RATE 14.8% 11% -3.8 %
NUMBER OF NEW CASES 147106 -41
EFAP ANNUAL EXPENSE$29,016 $43,350 +$14,334
Workforce Capacity Utilization Rate
In 2024, the City of Saint John’s overall Workforce Capacity Utilization Rate (WCU) increased
to 78.61%, up from 77.50% in 2023 — a positive trend. The WCU measures the proportion of
available capacity relative to total paid hours, accounting for leaves such as vacation,
sickness, and training. Improvements were observed across most employee groups, with a
slight decline in some groups, however, the capacity utilization rate remained high relative
to the overall average.
The capacity utilization rate improvement trend suggests
.
14 | Page
Workforce Capacity Utilization Rate by Employee Group (2023–2024)
EMPLOYEE GROUP20232024CHANGE
INSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 486)73.42% 77.38% +3.96%
OUTSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 18)75.97% 77.73% +1.76%
FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF LOCAL 771)80.02%79.29%-0.73%
NON-UNION 82.28% 83.43% +1.15%
MANAGEMENT / PROFESSIONAL 81.31% 80.74% -0.57%
CITY OF SAINT JOHN (OVERALL)77.50%78.61%+1.11%
Attendance and Absenteeism
In 2024, the average number of sick days per employee across the City of Saint John
decreased from the previous year from
in Outside Workers
(CUPE Local 18), whose average dropped by 4.1 days, followed by Management /
Professional employees, who saw a decrease of 2.3 days. Improvements were also recorded
-Union employees.
The downward trend highlights areas of progress while also pointing to where further support
return-to-work and accommodation programs across all employee groups, supporting safe
and medically guided reintegration into the workplace.
Average Sick Days per Employee (2023–2024)
EMPLOYEE GROUP 20232024 CHANGE
INSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 486)7.7 9.9 +2.2
OUTSIDE WORKERS (CUPE LOCAL 18) 14.2 10.1 -4.1
FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF LOCAL 771) 9.6 8.4 -1.2
NON-UNION 7.8 6.8 -1.0
MANAGEMENT / PROFESSIONAL 6.8 4.5 -2.3
CITY OF SAINT JOHN (OVERALL) 9.2 7.9 -1.3
15 | Page
Workplace Safety
employee safety and reducing employee absence from work, where preventable and
avoidable, is the primary focus of the City’s safety programs.
In 2024 the City started an extensive safety program redesign to ensure the safety practices
are current with legislative requirements and aligned with best practices. Employee and
management education are an integral part of the redesign. This redesign is a multi-year
initiative that will continue into 2025 and beyond.
lost time injuries while on duty saw a moderate decrease
over 2023. The total number of lost time injuries was largely unchanged, increasing from 22
,
largely attributable to a rise in post-traumatic stress injury (PTSI) claims
in the WorkSafeNB Cost of Claims table.
INCIDENT TYPE 2023 2024
Lost time: ABSENCE FROM THE 22 24
WORKPLACE FOLLOWING A WORK-
RELATED INJURY OR ILLNESS
No Lost Time: a Workers Compensation 16 15
at work
TOTAL 38 39
WorksafeNB Cost Claims *
WORKERS COMPENSATION 2023 2024
ANNUAL COST OF CLAIMS $145,063$258, 720
FREQUENCY (LT) 1.77 1.90
DAYS LOST 390.14 677.23
WORKSAFENB RATE $2.66 $2.56
Cost Claims include Saint John Police Department
16 | Page
he cost of claims for
workers compensation increased by over 78% due to an increase in days lost and despite
a reduction in the City’s WorkSafeNB rate. The City is participating in WorkSafeNB’s
access to treatment. The City is also partnering with WorkSafeNB to build resiliency and
develop action plans to reduce the frequency of future PTSI claims.
17 | Page
Compensation
Salary
Compensationremains a cornerstone of the City of Saint John’s ability to attract and retain
skilled talent in a competitive market. In 2024, the City allocated $58.2 million toward base
salaries and $84.8 .
contractual obligations and the City’s commitment to maintaining a stable, motivated
workforce.
While Compensation costs increased in absolute terms, their share of the City’s total
expenses declined. Base salaries accounted for 22.1% of total expenses in 2024 (down from
23.3%), 32.3% (down from 33.6% in 2023). This shift
indicates that the City is managing overall operational growth while continuing to invest in its
people —
sustainability.
S–2024)
CATEGORY2023 2024 CHANGE
BASE SALARY $54.8 M $58.2 M +$3.4 M
TOTAL SALARY WITH BENEFITS & SP $78.9 M $84.8 M +$5.9 M
PENSION
TOTAL EXPENSES $234.8M$262.8 M +$28.0 M
BASE SALARY AS % OF TOTAL 23.3%22.1% -1.2 %
EXPENSES
TOTAL SALARY AS % OF TOTAL 33.6%32.3% -1.3 %
EXPENES
Note – Amounts for 2023 and 2024 are inclusive of base salary, salary
total expenses for the City including the Water Utility.
Total Salary includes overtime, retro-
and special pension payments equal to 17% of eligible wages in addition to base salary.
18 | Page
Wage Increases: 20-Year Summary
on the City’s operating budget when compared to changes in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI).
19 | Page
Labour Relations
Respectful, collaborative labourrelations remained a priority in 2024. The City continued to
engage its three bargaining units—CUPE Local 18 (Outside Workers), CUPE Local 486
—through regular joint-committee
meetings, mutual interest groups, and open-door communication with union leadership.
This approach helped resolve .
Grievances (2022 – 2024)
Employee Group202220232024Change
Inside Workers (CUPE 486) 01 3 +2
Outside Workers (CUPE 18)32 2
0
01 0 -1
Total 34 5 +1
While total grievances increased to in 2024, they were resolved promptly through
established dispute--
solving processes.
Collective Bargaining
CUPE Local 486 – The four-31
Dec 2026.
IAFF Local 771 – Negotiations for renewal of the collective agreement that expired at
the end of 2023 commenced at the end of Q1 2024 and continued throughout 2024
and carried forward in 2025.
CUPE Local 18 – Preparations began in late 2024 for negotiations for a renewal of the
collective agreement, as the existing agreement expired 31 Dec 2024. Formal
bargaining commenced in early 2025.
Throughout all collective bargaining
settlements that balance competitive compensation with long-term sustainability, while
preserving productive relationships that support reliable public service
delivery.
20 | Page
Looking Ahead
As the City continues to grow and thrive with existing citizens and newcomers choosing Saint
John as their residence of choice, the demand on infrastructure and services continues to
grow. New development in residential, commercial, and industrial sectors also continued
in 2024 to expand.
The need for a skilled and engaged workforce that is ready to deliver on the demands
associated with population growth and changing public needs is crucial to the future
prosperity of the City. From a strategic human resource planning perspective three of the
key areas that the City will invest time and resources are: employee wellness and safety;
talent management and development; and employee experience.
Employee Wellness and Safety
Having an engaged workforce that performs their work safely and are able to return to their
families at the end of each day is the primary objective of the City’s wellness and safety
programs.
In 2024, the City concluded the compressed work week trial for management, professional,
non-
into 2025 to support work life balance and employee health and wellness. Drawing from
option that provided more options for employees to be productive in their work and balance
life commitments. Also, in 2024, the City commenced a multi-yearinitiative to redesign the
corporate safety program to ensure it remains current with legislative requirements and
adopts best practices to ensure employees’ safety.
Looking ahead, the City will focus on a broad perspective of employee wellness including
supporting employee mental health wellness initiatives, as well as continuing the work of
the redesign of the corporate safety programs.
Talent Management and Development
In 2024, the City hired and onboarded 237 casual and permanent employees into positions.
These new employees were supported with safety and job training, as well as managerial
21 | Page
of public service that new employees receive comprehensive onboarding information and
training.
The City continued to invest in professional development for employees as evident from the
increase in training costs in 2024. Training in diversity, equity, and inclusion was also made
available to all employees in 2024.
Looking ahead for talent management and development the focus will concentrate on safety
education for employees and managers. Training in diversity, equity, and inclusion will also
continue to expanded groups of employees.
Employee Experience
The goal of a positive employee experience at the City is to create an inclusive work
experience and a commitment to respect the ideas and view of all. The work and initiatives
that are captured under employee experience engage employees and union partners in
productive discussions to achieve the desired work.
In 2024, the City introduced a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policy and implementation
framework which included the introduction of a diversity calendar with commemorative
dates and on-line training on diversity, equity, and inclusion for all employees. On going
collaborative discussions through mutual interest committees were held with the City’s
bargaining agents, and negotiations were conducted with other bargaining units seeking
renewal of collective agreements.
build
and embed diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout City policies and practices.
Negotiations seeking a renewal of existing collective agreements will continue with IAFF 771
and CUPE Local 18.
Conclusion
we must recognize the
dedication of the City’s workforce along with the many partnerships that have been made to
what being a Small City
with a Big Heartmeans!
22 | Page
23 | Page
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.2026-0
Report DateJanuary 08, 2026
Meeting DateJanuary 12, 2026
Service AreaGrowth and Community
Services
Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Antenna System Siting Policy
AUTHORIZATION
Primary AuthorCommissioner/Dept. HeadInterim Chief Administrative
Officer
Jennifer KirchnerAmy Poffenroth/Kevin Fudge
Pankaj Nalavde
RECOMMENDATION
That Common Council adopt the attached Antenna System Siting Policy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2024, staff became aware that the Canadian Radiocommunications Information and
Notification Service (CRINS)the organization contracted to process antenna system
had ceased operations. In response, Community Planning has
developed an Antenna System Siting Policy to guide staff through the review and approval of
these applications in a manner consistent with established municipal practices.
At the December 16, 2025 meeting of Planning Advisory Committee, the Committee reviewed
the Policy and are in support of the Policy as presented.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
At the March 16, 2015 Meeting of Common Council, it was resolved to:
REPORT
Under the Radiocommunication Act, the federal governmentthrough Innovation, Science and
Economic Development Canada (ISED)has exclusive authority over the approval, location, and
installation of antenna systems. Because antenna systems fall under federal jurisdiction, they
are not regulated by municipal zoning by-laws.
However, ISED requires all antenna system proponents to consult with the local land-use
authority and obtain a statement of municipal concurrence (or objection) before federal
approval is granted. To meet this requirement, municipalities typically either develop their own
policies to guide site selection, design, public engagement, and evaluation of antenna
proposals, or they rely on third-party organizations such as CRINS to administer the
consultation and review process.
Between 2015 and 2024, the City of Saint John contracted CRINS to manage antenna system
Consultation Protocol, which meant the City did not need to maintain a municipal policy. With
CRINS ceasing operations, staff has been processing antenna system applications without a
formal framework to guide public consultation, design expectations, or site evaluation.
Developing and adopting a municipal Antenna System Siting Policy will establish clear
procedures and criteria for staff, applicants, and the public. It will ensure consistency,
transparency, and alignment with federal requirements when reviewing and assessing antenna
system proposals.
Planning Advisory Committee
Under the Community Planning Act, the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) is authorized to
provide advice to Common Council on matters related to community planning. At its meeting
on December 16, 2025, PAC reviewed the proposed Antenna System Siting Policy and
expressed its support for the policy as presented.
Policy Development
Staff has developed an Antenna System Siting Policy based on best practice and our local land
use framework. This included research into best practice criteria for various medium-sized
cities, including the City of Moncton, Town of Hampton, City of Surrey,
Brantford, City of Ottawa, City of Kelowna, and City of Lacombe. Through this research, it was
determined that municipalities predominantly discourage the placement of antenna systems
near residential and community land uses. Instead, the systems are encouraged to be located in
areas zoned for industrial, utilities, infrastructure and commercial uses.
Pre-Consultation and Consultation:
The ISED requires proponents to undertake consultation with municipalities and the public for
proposed antenna systems. The proposed Policy will provide structure for this engagement,
ensuring an approach consistent with existing City policy.
The Policy formalizes a pre-consultation process in which the proponent will engage with City
Staff about potential antenna systems. This provides an opportunity for the proponent and staff
to discuss the proposal, site location and alignment with the Policy. Staff will be able to inform
the proponent of any concerns associated with the proposed location or design, and to discuss
changes to the proposal.
In addition, the Policy formalizes the public consultation requirements, which must be
undertaken by the proponent as part of their application. The consultation requirements will be
based on the site selection.
Development Guidelines:
The Policy establishes location criteria for the siting of these systems with the priority to co-
locate with existing structures when possible. If co-location cannot be accomplished,
proponents will be encouraged to find a location within one of the identified preferred
locations. An application for a discouraged location should be avoided, although proposals will
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and concurrence may be granted dependent on the
proposed design of the system and results of the public consultation.
Preferred LocationsDiscouraged Locations
The Policy establishes criteria for the placement of systems on vacant and developed lots. This
ensures that the system placement will not impede future development of the site, minimizes
visibility from the street and is incorporated the main structure as an addition.
The Policy includes criteria to guide the design of the structure and to limit the visual impact on
the surrounding area. The design criteria include mitigation measures such as colour and
architectural treatments, emphasizes compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood and
requirements for landscaping and screening.
In addition to the design and screening criteria, the Policy includes a section associated with
Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs). While HCAs are a Discouraged Location, the Policy
identifies that any proposed structures would be subject to the Standards and Guidelines for
Historic Places in Canada, the -Law and the
. In addition, any proposal would be subject to a
Heritage Permit, with jurisdiction likely falling to the Heritage Development Board.
A proposed fee system is identified to cover some of the costs associated with the processing of
these applications. A $2,650 application fee is recommended for all applications requiring
Public Consultation, with a $1,000 application fee being recommended for those applications
that are exempt from Public Consultation.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The proposed Policy will establish a framework that will support the design and development of
Antenna Systems within the City. This Policy will help support the following 2021-2026 Council
Priorities:
Grow Economic Growth
Perform Core Service Delivery
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Municipal Governments are required by the Federal Government to review and assess
applications for the siting of Antenna Systems within their municipality. Therefore, the
processing of Antenna System applications is considered a standard operating process within
the One Stop Development Shop and Community Planning Service Areas.
The creation of the Antenna System Siting Policy will establish a framework for the review and
approval of these applications. In addition, the Policy will formalize application fees that will be
utilized to cover the costs associated with the processing and assessment of these applications
by the City.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person
Innovation, Science and Economic Mark Jones
Development Canada (ISED)
Government of Canada
Envision Saint JohnJody Kliffer
Growth and Community ServicesChristopher McKiel, Jeremy Clack, David
Dobbelsteyn
GeCoOfficeBen Whitney and Curtis Langille
Public Works
Infrastructure and EngineeringMichael Baker
ATTACHMENTS
PAC Chair Letter
Policy Authorized by Council Resolution
Title: Antenna System Siting Policy
Subject: Antenna System Siting Policy Category: Growth and Community Services
Policy No.: M&C Report No.: 2026-003
Effective Date: Next Review Date: January 2029
Area(s) this policy applies to: Office Responsible for review of this Policy:
Community Planning and Housing
Related Instruments: Policy Sponsor:
Commissioner of Growth and Community
Services
Document Pages: This document consists of 27
pages.
Policy approved by Common Council: Date
Revision History:
City Clerk's Annotation for Official Record
Date of Passage of Current document: ____________________
I certify that this Policy was adopted by Common Council resolution as
indicated immediately above.
________________ ______________
City Clerk Date
For information Contact:
Page | 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0OBJECTIVES
2.0JURISTICTIONS & ROLES
2.1Industry Canada
2.2Municipality
2.3Proponent
2.4Other Relevant Federal Legislation
3.0DEFINITIONS
4.0EXCLUDED STRUCTURES
4.1Exemptions from Antenna System Siting Proposal Review
and Public Consultation
4.2Notification and Municipal Review of Exempt Telecommunications Structures
4.3Exemptions from Public Consultation Only
4.4Siting on Municipal-Owned Properties
5.0PRE-CONSULTATION WITH THE MUNICIPALITY
5.1Notification
5.2Site Investigation Meeting with Municipality
5.3Confirmation of Municipal Preferences and Requirements
6.0DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
6.1Location
6.2Development and Design Preferences
7.0PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
7.1Proposal Submission Requirements
7.2Fees
8.0PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS
8.1Notice Recipients
8.2Notice Requirements
8.3Written Consultation Process
8.4Public Information Session
8.5Post Consultation Review
9.0STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE OR NON-CONCURRENCE
9.1Concurrence and Concurrence with Conditions
9.2Non-Concurrence
9.3Duration of Concurrence
9.4Transfer of Concurrence
10.0CONSULTATION PROCESS TIMEFRAME
11.0MUNICIPAL PERMITS AND SUBDIVISIONS
12.0REDUNDANT TELECOMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURES
Page | 2
1.0OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this Policy are as follows:
a)To establish a siting and consultation process that is in keeping Radio
Communication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Client Procedures Circular (CPC-2-0-03) and
Guide to Assist Land-use Authorities in Developing Antenna Siting Policys for reviewing land use
issues associated with Antenna Systems siting proposals;
b)To set out an objective process, criteria and guidelines that are transparent, consistent and
predictable for the evaluation of Antenna System siting proposals that:
i.Minimize the number of newer antenna system sites by encouraging co-location;
ii.Encourage designs that integrate with the surrounding land use and public realm;
iii.Establish when local public consultation is required; and
iv.Allow Industry Canada and the communications industry to identify and resolve any
potential land use, siting or design concerns with the City at an early stage in the process.
c)To provide an expeditious review process for Antenna System siting proposals;
d)To establish a local land use consultation framework that ensures the City of Saint John and
members of the public contribute local knowledge that facilitates and influences the siting-
location, development and design (including aesthetics) of an antenna system within
municipal boundaries;
e)To contribute to the orderly development and efficient operation of a reliable, strong
radiocommunication network within the City of Saint John; and
f)To provide the City of Saint John with the information required to satisfy the requirements of
Industry Canada regarding local land use consultation, resulting in an informed statement of
concurrence, concurrence with conditions, or non-concurrence from the City to Industry Canada
at the end of the process.
Page | 3
2.0JURISTICTIONS&ROLES
2.1Industry Canada
The Minister overseeing Industry Canada, under the Radiocommunication Act, has sole jurisdiction over
inter-provincial and international communication facilities. The final decision to approve and license
the location of Antenna Systems is made only by Industry Canada. In June, 2007, Industry Canada issued
an update to its Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Client Procedures Circular
(CPC-2-0-03) which outlined the process that must be followed by Proponents seeking to install or
modify Antenna Systems, effective January 1, 2008.
Industry Canada requires that Proponents intending to install or modify an Antenna System notify and
consult with Municipalities (Land-use Authority) and the local community within an established
distance from the proposed structure. Industry Canada also published a Guide to Assist Land-use
Authorities in Developing Antenna Siting Policys
to be
considered by a Proponent seeking to install, or make modifications to, an Antenna The CPC
also established a dispute resolution process to be used where the Proponent and Municipality have
reached an impasse.
2.2Municipality
The ultimate role of the Municipality is to issue a statement of concurrence or non-concurrence to the
Proponent and to Industry Canada. The statement considers the land use compatibility of the Antenna
herence to this Policy. The
Municipality also guides and facilitates the siting process by:
a)Communicating to the Proponents the particular amenities, sensitivities, planning
priorities and other relevant characteristics of the area;
b)Developing and design guidelines for Antenna Systems contained in Section 6 of this Policy;
and
c)Establishing a community consultation process, where warranted.
By working with Proponents throughout the siting process, beginning with preliminary notification and
the site investigation meeting, the Municipality seeks to facilitate Antenna System installations that are
sensitive to the needs of the local community.
2.3Proponent
Proponents need to strategically locate Antenna Systems to satisfy technical criteria and operational
requirements in response to public demand. Throughout the siting process, Proponents must adhere to
the antenna siting guidelines in the CPC, including:
a)Investigating sharing or using existing infrastructure before proposing new antenna-
Page | 4
supporting structures (consistent with CPC-2-0-17 Conditions of License for Mandatory
Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements);
b)Contacting the Municipality to determine local requirements regarding Antenna Systems;
and
c)Undertaking public notification and addressing relevant concerns as is required and
appropriate.
2.4Other Relevant Federal Legislation
Proponents additionally must comply with the following federal legislation and/or regulations, where
warranted:
a)ety Code 6 Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3KHZ to 300 GHZ Safety Code 6
(2009);
b)The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; and
c)irements for aeronautical
safety.
Page | 5
3.0DEFINITIONS
Antenna System: an exterior transmitting device, or group of devices, used to receive and/or transmit
radio-frequency (RF) signals, microwave signals, or other federally-licensed communication energy
transmitted from, or to be received by, other antennas. Antenna Systems include the antenna, and may
include a supporting tower, mast or other supporting structure, and an equipment shelter. This Policy
most commonly refers to the following types of Antenna Systems.
a)Freestanding Antenna Systems: a structure (e.g. tower or mast) built from the ground for the
expressed purpose of hosting an Antenna System or Antenna Systems.
b)Building/Structure Mounted Antenna System: an Antenna System mounted on an existing
structure, which could include a building wall or rooftop, a light standard, water tower, utility
pole or other.
Co-location: the placement of antennas and equipment operated by one or more Proponents on a
telecommunication Antenna System operated by a different Proponent, thereby creating a shared
facility.
Community Sensitive Areas: land on which the siting of new Antenna Systems is discouraged or
requested to be subject to greater consultation than otherwise dictated by the standard Policy. Such
locations include land used for a cemetery, park or playground, community use (community centre,
community garden, cultural establishment, municipal recreation use, recreation facility, recreational
use), day care (day, neighbourhood, centre), school (K-8) and school (9-12).
CPC: Client Procedure Circulars issued by Industry Canada.
Designated Municipal Officer or Designate: the municipal staff member tasked with receiving,
evaluating and processing submissions for telecommunication Antenna Systems. The Designated
Antenna System Siting Flowchart
provided in this Policy. This position is normally held by the Development Officer or designate and will
be responsible for issuing the final letter of concurrence or non-concurrence.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: areas such, but not limited to, the City of Saint John drinking water
watersheds, the shore of a lake, river, stream, sea or other body of water, flood plains, marshlands,
wetlands, and steep slopes.
Heritage Conservation Area: a defined area that identifies specific lots for heritage protection through
Heritage Conservation Areas By-Law.
Municipal Departments: branches of municipal government that administer public services and area
operated by City staff.
Municipality: refers to the City of Saint John body corporate.
Other Agencies: bodies that administer public services but are not operated or staffed by the
Municipality (i.e. applicable Provincial/Federal Departments)
Page | 6
Prescribed Distance Discouraged Locations: a minimum of 300 metres from all property lines of the
location for the proposed Freestanding or Building/Structure-Mounted Antenna System.
Prescribed Distance Preferred Locations: a minimum of 100 metres from all property lines of the
location for the proposed Freestanding or Building/Structure-Mounted Antenna System.
Proponent: a company or organization proposing to site an Antenna System (including contractors
undertaking work for telecommunications carriers) for the purpose of providing commercial or private
telecommunications services, exclusive of personal or household users.
Residential Area: land used or zoned to permit residential uses, including mixed uses.
Page | 7
4.0EXCLUDEDSTRUCTURES
4.1Exemptions from Antenna System Siting Proposal Review and Public Consultation
For the following types of installations, Proponents are generally excluded by Industry Canada from the
requirement to consult with the Municipality and the public, but must still fulfill the General
Requirements outlined in Section 7.0 of this Policy:
a)New Antenna Systems, including masts, towers or other antenna-supporting structure with a
height of less than 15m above ground level except where required by the Municipality as per
Section 4.2.2;
b)Maintenance of existing radio apparatus including the Antenna System, transmission line,
mast, tower or other antenna-supporting structure.
c)Addition or modification of an Antenna System (including improving the structural integrity of
its integral mast to facilitate sharing), the transmission line, antenna- supporting structure or
other radio apparatus to existing infrastructure, a building, water tower, etc., including
additions to rooftops or support pillars, provided:
i.The addition or modification does not result in an overall height increase above the
ii.The existing Antenna System is at least 15 metres (15m) in height;
iii.The existing Antenna System has not previously been modified to increase its original
height by 25%;
d)Maintenance of an painting or lighting in order to comply with Transport
e)Installation, for a limited duration (typically not more than 3 months), of an Antenna System
that is used for a special event, or one that is used to support local, provincial, territorial or
national emergency operations during an emergency, and is removed within 3 months after
the emergency or special event.
The CPC also states that: Individual circumstances vary with each Antenna System installation and
modification, and the exclusion criteria above should be applied in consideration of local circumstances.
Consequently, it may be prudent for the Proponents to consult the Municipality and the public even
though the proposal meets the exclusion noted above. Therefore, when applying the criteria for
exclusion, Proponents should consider such things as:
The Antenna physical dimensions, including the antenna, mast and tower,
compared to the local surroundings;
The location of the proposed Antenna System on the property and its proximity to
neighbouring residents;
The likelihood of an area being a Community-Sensitive Area; and
Page | 8
Transport Canada marking and lighting requirements for the proposed structure.
4.2Notification and Municipal Review of Exempt Antenna Systems
Antenna Systems, Municipalities should
be informed of all new Antenna System Installations/Modifications within their boundaries so they can:
Be prepared to respond to public inquiries once construction/installation has begun;
Be aware of site co-location within the Municipality;
Maintain records to refer to in the event of future modifications and additions; and
Engage in meaningful dialogue with the Proponent with respect to the appearance of the
Antenna System and structure prior to the Proponent investing in full design.
However, Proponents are required to undertake the following steps for all exempt Antenna System
Installations before commencing construction/modification.
4.2.1Building/Structure - Mounted Antenna Systems
The Proponent will in all cases provide the following information for all new Antenna Systems or
modifications to existing Antenna Systems that are mounted to an existing structure, including, but not
limited to, a building/rooftop, water tower, utility pole or light standard:
a)The location of the Antenna System (address, name of building, rooftop or wall mounted, etc.)
b)Description of proposed screening or stealth design measures with respect to the measures
used by existing systems on that site and/or the preferences expressed in Section 6;
c)The height of the Antenna System;
d)The height of any modifications to existing systems.
The Municipality may notify the Proponent of any inconsistency with the preferences and sensitivities
expressed in Section 6.0 and the parties will work towards mutually agreeable solution.
4.2.2Freestanding Antenna Systems and Additions to Freestanding Antenna Systems
The Proponent will confirm to the Municipality that the Freestanding Antenna System to be erected, or
an addition to an existing Freestanding Antenna System as defined in Section 4.1(c), meets the exclusion
criteria in Section 4.1 by providing the following:
a)The proposed location, including its address and location on the lot or structure;
b)A short summary of the proposed Antenna System including a preliminary set of drawings
or visual rendering of the proposed system; and
c)A description of how the proposal meets one of the Section 4.1 exclusion criteria.
Page | 9
The Municipality will review the documentation and will contact the Proponent where there is a site-
specific basis for modifying the exemption criteria based on the preferences and sensitivities expressed in
Section 6.0 of this Policy. In such cases, the Municipality and the Proponent will work toward a mutually
agreeable solution, which may include the Municipality requesting the proposal be subject to all or part
of the pre-consultation, proposal submission and public consultation process defined in Section 5.0, 7.0
and 8.0 of this Policy, as applicable, concluding with a letter of concurrence or non-concurrence.
4.3Exemptions From Public Consultation Only
In addition to Industry basic exemptions listed in Subsection 4.1, the following types of
Antenna Systems are exempt from the public consultation requirement by the Municipality:
a)New Antenna Systems which will be located on an industrial zoned property, as identified in
Section 6.1 Preferred Locations. The Public Consultation requirement shall be waived if there
are no existing dwelling units located within 100m of the lot.
4.4Siting on Municipal Owned Properties
Any request to install an Antenna System on lands owned by the Municipality shall be made to the
Designated Municipal Officer described within this Policy. Requests will be reviewed and
coordinated Service Area.
Page | 10
5.0PRE-CONSULTATION
5.1Notification
Proponents will notify the Designated Municipal Officer that locations in the community are being assessed
for potential Antenna System Siting.
5.2 Site Investigation Meeting with Municipality
Prior to submitting an Antenna System siting proposal, the Proponent will initiate a site investigation
meeting with the City of Saint John.
The purpose of the site investigation meeting is to:
a)Identify preliminary issues of concern;
b)Identify requirements for public consultation (including the need for additional forms of
notice and a public information session);
c)Guide the content of the proposal submission; and
d)Identify the need for discussions with any Municipal Departments and Other Agencies
as deemed necessary by the Designated Municipal Officer.
Where the City of Saint John has an initial concern with the proposed siting of the proposal they will
consideration.
The Proponent will bring the following information to the site investigation meeting:
a)The proposed location;
b)Potential alternatives;
c)The type and height of the proposed Antenna System;
d)Preliminary drawings or visual renderings of the proposed Antenna System
superimposed to scale; and
e)Documentation regarding the investigation of co-location potentials on existing or proposed
Antenna Systems within 500 metres (500m) of the subject proposal.
If desired by both the Proponent and the City of Saint John, multiple Antenna System siting proposals
may be reviewed at a site investigation meeting.
5.3 Confirmation of Municipal Preferences and Requirements
Following the site investigation meeting, municipal staff will provide the Proponent with an information
package that includes:
a)This Policy, which outlines the approval process, excluded structures, requirements for public
consultation and guidelines regarding site selection, co-location, installation, design and
Page | 11
landscaping;
b)Proposal submission requirements;
c)A list of plans and studies that may be required (i.e. EIA, WAWA);
d)A list of Municipal Departments and Other Agencies to be consulted; and
e)An indication of the City of Saint John-location for the site(s) under
discussion.
To expedite the review of the proposal, the Proponent will review this information package before the
proposal is submitted so that the interests of the City are taken into account. The Proponent is
encouraged to consult with the Designated Municipal Officer before submitting the proposal.
Page | 12
6.0DEVELOPMENTGUIDELINES
Antenna Systems should be sited and designed to respect local sensitivities and preferences as identified by
the Municipality.
The City of Saint John has set out guidelines for the selection of sites and construction of new Antenna
Systems.
a)Location, including co-locations; and
b)Development & Design Preferences
The Proponent should review the guidelines identified below as early as possible and should attempt to
resolve any outstanding issues prior to submitting its Antenna System siting proposal and undertaking
the public consultation, where required by the City. The Proponent is encouraged to discuss the
guidelines fully with the City at the site investigation meeting.
Proponents are also required to obtain all applicable building permits for new structures, as well as
additions and modifications.
6.1Location
Co-location
Prior to submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the Proponent must explore the
following options:
a)Sharing an existing Antenna System, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary;
b)Locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure, including, but not
limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards.
Where co-location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible, a new Antenna System
should be designed with co-location capacity, including in Residential Areas, where deemed appropriate
by the City.
The City recognizes that the objective of promoting co-location and the objective of making Antenna
Systems less noticeable may sometimes come into conflict; however, the City intends to review each
submission on its merits with a view to promoting both objectives and where necessary, will determine
the appropriate balance between them. The Proponent should, in all cases verify, with the City, site-
specific design preferences during the pre-submission consultation process before investing in a final
design or site location.
Preferred Locations
When new Antenna Systems must be constructed, where technically feasible, the following locations
and criteria are preferred:
a)Sites on industrially zoned lands as defined -Law.
Page | 13
b)Sites on commercially zoned lands woning By-Law, which do not
permit the inclusion of dwelling units.
c)Locations that contain existing Antenna Systems, provided setbacks can be met;
d)Existing Transportation/Utility Corridors;
e)As near as possible to similarly scaled structures;
f)Located in a manner that does not adversely impact view corridors; and
g)Other non-Residential Areas where deemed appropriate.
Discouraged Locations
New Antenna Systems should avoid the following areas. Proposals, however, will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis and concurrence may be granted dependent on the proposed design of the system
and the results of the public consultation:
a)A location within Heritage Conservation Areas;
b)A location in or near an area zoned for residential or mixed-use residential land uses;
c)A location that would interfere with a locally popular view corridors, landmarks, or public
areas;
d)Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and
e)Community Sensitive Areas.
Page | 14
6.2DevelopmentandDesignPreferences
Antenna Systems should be designed in terms of appearance and aesthetics to respect their immediate
surroundings, including being un-obtrusive and inconspicuous, minimizing visual impact, avoiding
disturbance to natural features, and reduce the need for future facilities in the same area, where
appropriate. The City
Site Placement Vacant Lots
When determining the placement of the Antenna System on a vacant lot, the Proponent shall:
Ensure the placement does not impede the future development of the site.
Shall not be located within the required front, side, flankage or rear yards of the zone as
-Law.
When possible, shall be placed to the rear of the site to minimize visibility from the street.
Site Placement Developed Lots
When determining the placement of the Antenna System on a developed lot, the Proponent shall:
Prioritize the incorporation of the Antenna System into the main structure, as an addition (eg.
steeple on a place of worship, clock tower, etc);
Freestanding Antenna Systems shall not impede future development of the site.
Proposed site placement shall align with the site development standards established within
-Law including:
o The Antenna System shall not be located within the required front, side, flankage or rear
yard.
o The placement of the Antenna System shall not result in the loss of required parking,
landscaping, amenity space, site design or any other site requirements.
Style & Colour
The architectural style of the Antenna System should be compatible with the
surrounding neighbourhood and adjacent uses;
In all instances, the Proponent should mitigate negative visual impacts through the use of
appropriate landscaping, screening, stealth design techniques etc.; and
Towers and Communication equipment shall have a non-reflective surface.
Buffering & Screening
Antenna Systems and associated equipment shelters should be attractively designed or
screened and concealed from ground level or other public views to mitigate visual impacts.
Screening could involve existing vegetation, landscaping, fencing, or other means in order to
blend with the built and natural environments;
Page | 15
A mix of deciduous and coniferous trees is preferred to provide year-roundcoverage; and
Where adjacent to a principal building, equipment shelters should be constructed of a
material similar in appearance to at least one of the materials used in the facades of the
principal building and one of the same colours used in the principal building.
Structure
The appropriate type of telecommunication antenna structure for each situation should be
selected based upon the goal of making best efforts to blend with the nearby surroundings
and minimize the visual aesthetic impacts of the telecommunication antenna structure on the
community;
New Structures should consider multi-use design (i.e. street lighting, electric vehicle charging
stations, wifi etc.); and
The use of guy wires and cables to steady, support or reinforce a tower is discouraged;
structures shall be designed for self support.
Height
The City prefers that Freestanding Antenna Systems be a maximum of forty-five metres
(45m) in height;
Height of Freestanding Antenna Systems must be measured from grade to the highest point
on the structure, including lighting and supporting structures; and
Where Building/Structure Mounted Antenna Systems will exceed 25% of the height of the
existing building to which the structure will be attached, the City prefers that the height of the
tower and building/structure not exceed forty-five metres (45m) measured from grade to the
highest point on the structure.
Yards, Parking & Access
Adequate yards, to be determined on a site-by-site basis and align with the minimum setback
-Law, shall separate Antenna Systems from adjacent
development without unduly affecting the development potential of the lot over the lease
period; and
Parking spaces, where provided at each new Antenna System site, should have direct access
to a public right-of-way at a private approach that does not unduly interfere with traffic flow
or create safety hazards.
Equipment Cabinets in Public Spaces
Cabinets shall be designed in a manner which integrates them into their surroundings. This
should include the use of decorative wraps that are graffiti-resistant;
Cabinet dimensions shall be as minimal as possible; and
Cables and wires must be concealed or covered.
Page | 16
Signage & Lighting
2
Small owner identification signs up to a maximum of 0.5 m, shall be posted on
Antenna Systems with all relevant emergency contact information;
No advertising signage is permitted;
Appropriate signage may also be used as part of screening or disguise;
Unless specifically required by Transport Canada or NAV Canada, the display of any on-
structure lighting is discouraged;
Where Transport Canada or NAV Canada requires a structure to be lit, the lighting should be
limited to the minimum number of lights and the lowest illumination allowable, and any
required strobe lighting should be set to the maximum strobe interval allowed by Transport
Canada; and
The lighting of Antenna Systems and associated equipment shelters for security purposes is
supportable provided it is downcast and shielded from adjacent residential properties, is kept
to a minimum number of lights and illumination intensity, where possible, is provided by a
motion detector or similar system.
Rooftop Equipment
Equipment shelters located on the roof of a building/structure may be supported if:
o The height and scale of the building will result in minimal, or no visibility of the
equipment shelters from the street level or pedestrian realm.
o The equipment shelters shall be setback from the roof edge (of any street facing façade)
to the greatest possible extent.
o The equipment shelter is either painted to match the building/structure or screened
through the introduction or use of architectural features.
Heritage Conservation Areas
Proposals to locate an antenna system on a property within a Heritage Conservation Area will
be subject to design considerations as identified in the National Standards and Guidelines for
Historic Places -Law and the
The proposals will be subject to the Heritage Permit application process. This process involves
an assessment of the proposal regarding alignment with the above-mentioned guidelines and
policies and the suitability of the proposed design of the system in relation to the architecture
of the site and surrounding area.
Unless otherwise indicated, the application will be reviewed by the Heritage Development
Board and the installation of the antenna system is subject to the successful receipt of a
Heritage Permit for the proposed work.
Page | 17
7.0PROPOSALSUBMISSION
For a proposed Antenna System, the Proponent will submit an Antenna Systems Siting Proposal as described
below, along with the proper application fee (see Section 7.2 Fees).
7.1Proposal Submission Requirements
The following must be included when submitting an Antenna System Siting Proposal:
a)A letter or report from the Proponent indicating the need for the proposal, the proposed
site, the rationale for site selection, coverage and capacity of existing Antenna Systems in
the general area and a summary of opportunities for co-location potentials on existing or
proposed Antenna Systems within 500m of the subject proposal, including reasoning for
non-utilization if applicable;
b)Visual rendering(s) of the proposed Antenna System superimposed to scale;
c)A Site Plan showing the proposed development situated on the site, including setbacks to all
property lines;
d)A Map showing the horizontal distance between the property boundary of the proposed site
and
the nearest property containing or zoned for residential uses;
Community Sensitive Areas (if applicable);
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (if applicable); or
Heritage Conservation Areas (if applicable).
e)For Antenna Systems requiring public consultation, a map depicting all properties located
within the Prescribed Distance from the proposed Antenna System;
f)Confirmation of legal ownership of the lands subject to the proposal, or a signed letter of
authorization from the registered land owner, their agent, or other person(s) having legal or
equitable interest in the land;
g)An attestation that the Antenna System de 6 which
sets safe radiofrequency emission levels for these devices; and
h)Any other documentation as identified by the Designated Municipal Officer
following the site investigation meeting (i.e proof of insurance if applicable).
Confirmation of receipt of proposal will be provided within five (5) working days of proposal submission.
Upon receipt of a complete proposal submission, the City will circulate the proposal for review and
comment by all affected City Service Areas.
7.2 Fees
The Proponent is required to pay the following application fee for the processing and review of the
Page | 18
antenna system siting application.
$2650 for all applications involving Public Consultation as per this Policy.
$1000 for all applications exempt from Public Consultation as per subsections 4.1 and 4.3.
In addition, the Proponent must pay any fees associated with permits required for the construction of
the approved system.
Page | 19
8.0PUBLICCONSULTATION
If the proposed Antenna System is not exempt from the public consultation process as per the requirements
in Section 4.0, the Proponent will initiate the following public consultation process, including issuing notices,
undertaking written consultation, hosting a public information session where required and reviewing the
consultation results with the City.
8.1 Notice Recipients
After the Proponent has submitted an Antenna System Siting Proposal, the Proponent will give notice to:
a)All affected properties within the Prescribed Distance Discouraged Locations or Prescribed
Distance Preferred Locations;
b)All designated community associations within the Prescribed Distance Discouraged Locations or
Prescribed Distance Preferred Locations
c)Any adjacent municipalities/local serviced district(s) within the Prescribed Distance Discouraged
Locations or Prescribed Distance Preferred Locations;
d)The Designated Municipal Officer; and
e)The Industry Canada regional office.
The City will assist the Proponent in compiling a mailing list of addresses of the affected properties
within the Prescribed Distance from the proposed Antenna System.
8.2 Notice Requirements
The notice will be sent by regular mail or hand delivered, a minimum of 30 days prior to the public
information session, if required, and shall include the following:
a)Information on the location, height, type, design and color of the proposed Antenna System;
including a 21cm x size copy of the site plan submitted with the application;
b)The rationale, including height and location requirements, of the proposed Antenna System;
c)The name and contact information of the Proponent or their representative;
d)The name and contact information of the Designated Municipal Officer;
e)
sets safe radiofrequency emission levels for these devices;
f)The date, time and location of the public information session when required; and
g)A deadline date* for receipt by the Proponent of public responses to the proposal.
* where a public information session is required, the deadline date must be no more than
five (5) days before the date of the session; where a public information session is not
required, the deadline must be at least thirty (30) days after the notices are mailed.
The notice shall be sent out in an bold
Page | 20
type on the face of the envelope the statement:
FOR RESIDENTS WITHIN \[INSERT PRESCRIBED DISTANCE\] OF A NEW PROPOSED CELL
TOWER.
The City may also require the Proponent, based on local conditions such as a high proportion of rental
accommodation in the vicinity of the site, to provide such additional forms of notice as deemed
necessary. Additional notification requirements will be identified by the City during or following the
site investigation meeting. Other forms of notification may include, but are not limited to:
a)Publication of the Notice in a local newspaper(s); and
b)Hand delivery of Notices to specific buildings.
8.3 Written Consultation Process
Following the delivery of the notification, the Proponent will allow the public to submit written
comments or concerns about the proposal.
The Proponent shall:
a)Provide the public at least thirty (30) days to submit questions, comments or concerns about
the proposal;
b)Respond to all questions, comments, and concerns in a timely manner (no more than 60
days from the date of receipt);
c)Allow the party to reply to the response (providing at least 21 days for public
reply comments)
d)Keep a record of all correspondence that occurred during the written consultation process.
This includes records of any agreements that may have been reached and any concerns that
remain outstanding; and
e)Provide a copy of all written correspondence to the City and the Regional Industry Canada
office.
8.4 Public Information Session
The City may request that the Proponent host a Public Information Session in cases where there is
anticipated to be significant public interest in the proposed Antenna System or due to the proposal being
situated within a Discouraged Location as per subsection 6.1. The type of Public Information Session to
be conducted (open house or drop in format) shall be at the discretion of the Proponent; however:
An appropriate date, time and location for the Public Information Session will be determined
in consultation with the Designated Municipal Officer; and
The Proponent shall make available at the Public Information Session an appropriate visual
Page | 21
display of the proposal, including a copy of the site plan submitted with the application and
an aerial photograph of the proposed site.
The Proponent will provide the City with a package summarizing the results of the public information
session containing at a minimum, the following:
a)List of attendees, including names, addresses and phone numbers (where provided
voluntarily);
b)Copies of all letters and other written communications received; and
c)A letter of response from the Proponent outlining how all the concerns and issues raised by
the public were addressed.
NOTE: Statement of Non-Concurrence will result should the above not be provide to the City.
8.5Post Consultation Review
The City and the Proponent will communicate following the completion of the public consultation
process to discuss the results and next steps in the process.
Page | 22
9.0STATEMENTOFCONCURRENCE/NON-CONCURRENCE
9.1Concurrence and Concurrence with Conditions
The City will provide a letter of concurrence to Industry Canada (copying the Proponent) where the proposal
addresses, to the satisfaction of the Municipality, the requirements as set out within this Policy and the City
technical requirements and will include conditions of concurrence if required.
The City will issue a letter of concurrence in the time frame provided in Section 10.0.
9.2Non-Concurrence
The City will provide a letter of non-concurrence to Industry Canada (copying the Proponent) if the
proposal does not conform to City requirements as set out within this Policy. The City will also forward
Industry Canada any comments on outstanding issues, including those raised during the public
consultation process.
The City will issue a letter of non-concurrence in the time frame provided in Section 10.
9.3Rescinding a Letter of Concurrence
The City may rescind its concurrence if following the issuance of a concurrence, it is determined by the
City that the proposal contains a misrepresentation or a failure to disclose all the pertinent information
regarding the proposal, or the plans and conditions upon which the concurrence was issued in writing
have not been complied with and a resolution cannot be reached to correct the issue.
In such cases, the City will provide notification in writing to the Proponent and to Industry Canada and
will include the reason(s) for the rescinding of concurrence.
9.4Duration of Concurrence
A concurrence remains in effect for a maximum period of three (3) years from the date it was issued by
the City. If construction has not commenced within this time period the concurrence expires and a new
submission and review process, including public consultation as applicable, is necessary prior to any
construction occurring.
In addition, if construction has not commenced after two (2) years from the date the concurrence was
issued, the City requires that the Proponent send a written notification of an intent to construct to the
Designated Municipal Officer once the work to erect the structure is about to start. This notification
should be sent sixty (60) days prior to any construction commencing. No further consultation or
notification by the Proponent is required.
9.5Transfer of Concurrence
Once a concurrence has been issued, the concurrence may be transferred from the original
Proponent to another Proponent without the need for further consultation provided:
a)All information gathered by the original Proponent in support of obtaining the concurrence
Page | 23
from the City is transferred to the new Proponent;
b)The structure and all other components of the infrastructure for which the
concurrence was issued are the same; and
c)Construction of the structure is commenced within the duration of concurrence period.
Page | 24
10.0CONSULTATION PROCESS TIMEFRAME
Consultation with the City is to be completed within sixty (60) days of the proposal being accepted as
complete by the City as explained in Section 7.0 of this Policy.
Where public consultation is required, consultation with the City and public consultation are both to be
completed within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the proposal being accepted as complete by
the City.
The City or Proponent may request an extension to the consultation process timeline. This extension
must be mutually agreed on by both parties.
In the event that the consultation process is not completed in two hundred and seventy (270) days, the
Proponent will be responsible for receiving an extension from the City or reinitiating the consultation
process to the extent requested by the City.
11.0MUNICIPAL PERMITS AND SUBDIVISIONS
11.1 Municipal Permits
The Proponent will be required to apply for any development or building permits necessary for the
construction of the approved system. The permit, dependent on the system design and placement, may
be subject to conditions, including but not limited to the following:
a)The completion of screening or buffering of the system which may include fencing,
screening, landscaping or architectural features;
b)A commitment to accommodate other communication providers on the Antenna System,
where feasible, subject to the usual commercial terms and Industry Canada Conditions of
License for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit
Exclusive Site Arrangements (CPC-2-0-17);
c)The placement and design of the site access and associated parking; and
d)All conditions identified in the letter of concurrence.
11.2 Subdivisions
The Proponent will be required to apply for any subdivisions required to facilitate the placement of the
approved system. Subdivision applications will be subject to review by Municipal and Provincial departments
and external agencies to identify any conditions or notations necessary to facilitate the subdivision. All
subdivision approvals will be subject to any conditions required to provide physical and legal access to the
lot, protect existing municipal or private utilities, and any other conditions applicable to the subject site.
Page | 25
12.0REDUNDANT ANTENNA SYSTEMS
The City may issue a request to network operators to clarify that a specific Antenna System is still
required to support communication network activity. The network operator will respond within 30 days
of receiving the request and will provide any available information on the future status or planned
decommissioning of the Antenna System.
Where the network operators concur that the Antenna System is redundant, the network operator and
City will mutually agree on a timeframe to remove the system and all associated buildings and
equipment from the site. Removal will occur no later than two (2) years from when the Antenna
System was deemed redundant.
Page | 26
REFERENCES
1. Antenna System Siting Protocol Template, by Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Canadian
Wireless Telecommunications Association.
Page | 27
CƩƚƒʹ /źƷǤ ƚŅ {ğźƓƷ WƚŷƓͲ bĻǞ .ƩǒƓƭǞźĭƉ ѡǞĻĬŅƚƩƒΏƓƚƩĻƦƌǤθƭğźƓƷƆƚŷƓ͵ĭğѢ
{ĻƓƷʹ ǒĻƭķğǤͲ 5ĻĭĻƒĬĻƩ ЋЌͲ ЋЉЋЎ ЋʹЎА ta
ƚʹ /ƚƒƒƚƓ /ƌĻƩƉ ѡĭƚƒƒƚƓĭƌĻƩƉθƭğźƓƷƆƚŷƓ͵ĭğѢ
{ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹ ĻĬŅƚƩƒ ƭǒĬƒźƭƭźƚƓ ŅƩƚƒʹ {ǒĬƒźƭƭźƚƓ Ʒƚ /ƚǒƓĭźƌ CƚƩƒ
CƩƚƒʹ /źƷǤ ƚŅ {ğźƓƷ WƚŷƓͲ bĻǞ .ƩǒƓƭǞźĭƉ ѡǞĻĬŅƚƩƒΏƓƚƩĻƦƌǤθƭğźƓƷƆƚŷƓ͵ĭğѢ
{ĻƓƷʹ ǒĻƭķğǤͲ 5ĻĭĻƒĬĻƩ ЌЉͲ ЋЉЋЎ ЍʹЋЎ ta
ƚʹ /ƚƒƒƚƓ /ƌĻƩƉ ѡĭƚƒƒƚƓĭƌĻƩƉθƭğźƓƷƆƚŷƓ͵ĭğѢ
{ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹ ĻĬŅƚƩƒ ƭǒĬƒźƭƭźƚƓ ŅƩƚƒʹ {ǒĬƒźƭƭźƚƓ Ʒƚ /ƚǒƓĭźƌ CƚƩƒ
CƩƚƒʹ City of Saint John, New Brunswick <webform-noreply@saintjohn.ca>
{ĻƓƷʹ Thursday, December 11, 2025 11:48 AM
ƚʹ Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca>
{ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹ Webform submission from: Submission to Council Form
From: Marie LeBlanc <m.leblanc.art@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 8:00AM
Subject: Proclamation request
To: <mayor@saintjohn.ca>
CC: Marie LeBlanc <m.leblanc.art@gmail.com>
Dear Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of City Council,
I am writing to respectfully request a proclamation declaring May 12 as Environmental
Sensitivities / Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (ES/MCS) Awareness Day in Saint John, NB.
Background:
This request supports Canada’s national Awareness Month in May, which features a
coordinated event on May 1, when more than 25 landmarks across the country will be
illuminated in yellow. A few places are scheduled other dates in May.
Environmental Sensitivities—including Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS),
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), and mold-related illnesses—
million Canadians. People with these conditions may experience severe reactions to
everyday chemicals and environmental factors—including perfumes, laundry products,
exhaust fumes, building materials, smoke, electronic devices, and Wi-Fi—often making it
inclusion, and create healthier communities for everyone.
Recommendations for Municipal Participation:
• Issue the proclamation (editable draft attached).
• Illuminate city landmarks in yellow on May 1, May 12, or throughout May.
•Take photos of something yellow and post in the event.
• Share photos of landmarks lit yellow or community initiatives on city media and social
media channels.
Mold Illness, and Lyme Disease, I experience severe physical reactions completing online
forms when using digital devices, therefore limiting my time on the internet. Accordingly, I
respectfully request accommodation to submit this request by email.
Your leadership and support play an important role in advancing awareness and promoting
the health and well-being of all residents in Saint John, NB.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Marie LeBlanc
Outreach and Public Awareness Coordinator for the Environmental Health Association of
Manitoba
https://ehamanitoba.weebly.com
Event will be created end of April
FaceBook: Marie LeBlanc Artist/Advocate (you can see the 2025 event on here)
Staff Recommendation for Council Resolution
19 Anglin Drive (PID 55054779) Rezoning
stnd
Public Hearing, 1 and 2 Readings: January 12, 2026
Item Required: Recommendation
(Y/N)
Municipal Plan No
Amendment
stnd
Zoning By-Law Yes That Common Council give 1 and 2 reading to By-Law
Amendment Number C.P. 111-213 a Law to Amend The Zoning By-Law of
the City of Saint John.
rd
Tentative 3 Reading: January 26, 2026
Item: Required: Recommendation
(Y/N)
Municipal Plan No
Amendment
rd
Zoning By-Law Yes That Common Council give 3 reading to By-Law Number
Amendment C.P. 111-213 a Law to Amend The Zoning By-Law of the City
of Saint John.
Section 59 No
Conditions
Other No
Report Date:
To:
From:
Meeting Date:
SUBJECT
Applicant:
Landowners:
Location:
Civic Address:PID:Lot Size:
55054779
Plan Designation:
Zoning
Proposed Zoning:
Application Type:
Jurisdiction: Community Planning Act
Monday,January
12, 2026
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION
DECISION HISTORY
The property located at 19 Anglin Drive (PID 55054779) is hereby declared surplus
ANALYSIS
Proposal
Site and Neighbourhood
Municipal Plan and Rezoning
Municipal Plan
Within the Stable Residential designation, housing of almost every form and density may be
found and both the existing neighbourhood context and compatibility with the Municipal Plan
goals will determine suitability of new proposals. Other compatible uses that may be found in
the Stable Residential designation include convenience stores, home occupations, parks, and
community facilities which are permitted in the designation without amendment to the Municipal
Plan.
Intend that the areas designated Stable Residential will evolve over time from a land use and
built-form perspective but that new and redeveloped land uses are to reinforce the predominant
community character and make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.
Zoning
Affordable Housing and the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF)
Statements of Public Interest (SPIs)
Service Area Review
Internal Service AreasFeedback
Conclusion
ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
ENGAGEMENT
APPROVALS AND CONTACT
Jennifer KirchnerPankaj NalavdeAmy Poffenroth
Contact:
Telephone:
Email:
Application:
APPENDIX
Aerial Photography
Future Land Use
Zoning
Site Photography
Policy Review
Site Planand Renderings
ATTACHMENT 1: SITE PHOTOGRAPHY
st
Subject Site from Anglin Drive where 1 access would be located
Northern portion of Subject Site
Center of Subject Site
Southern portion of Subject Site
Anglin Drive from Subject Site
-
and
3-
an
rise multi
-
nto
o
existing
, is served by
within an
unit
-
an
the existing
to
increase density
unit buildings across
-
including low
While a rezoning is
would
ensity in
.
.
to the existing residential
area
aw, landscaping standards will
utilizes a vacant lot
Rise Residential zone.
established residential zones and
-L
-
storey buildings, which aligns with
-
municipal infrastructure
increased d
on Anglin Driveafe access and a storm water management
similar typology
similar design to multi
the Municipal Planexisting
a
provide
aligns with the
the neighbourhood. This includes
be of
will feature three
is in proximity to an elementary school.
within
development.
would be of
residential development
and
buildings located
found
19 Anglin Drive
The rezoning will
unit
-
.
In accordance with the Zoning By
residential
.
property is serviced by development will
City
The proposed established neighbourhood. The development add housing diversity to an existing neighbourhood. The proposed building type and height would be similar to existing multidevelopment
located within the vicinity. The proposed rezoning residential uses currently located within the unit Thepublic transit The development will require splanprovide buffering to separate
the parking area from neighbouring sites. The the
Assessment The proposed rezoning facilitates the integration of new housing existing site.neighbourhood as identified in This developmentdevelopment
required to facilitate the building typology of apartment buildings, the proposed development the height permitted within the City’s Lowstorey multi
a.b.c.d.e.
Municipal Plan Policy Review
Attachment 2:
urhood.
form perspective but that new and redeveloped land
-
88
86 87
-
--
high quality exterior building design is provided that is consistent
The proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood; The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses; The development is in a location where all
necessary water and wastewater services, parks and recreation services, schools, public transit and other community facilities and protective services can readily and adequately be
provided; Site design features that address such matters as safe access, buffering and landscaping, site grading and stormwater management are incorporated; A with the Urban Design
Principles in the Municipal Plan.
a.b.c.d.e.
Policy LU Ensure that significant new development and redevelopment in areas designated Stable Residential shall generally be permitted only through a rezoning process where compliance
is demonstrated with the following requirements:
Municipal Plan PolicyPolicy LU Within the Stable Residential designation, housing of almost every form and density may be found and both the existing neighbourhood context and compatibility
with the Municipal Plan goals will determine suitability of new proposals. Other compatible uses that may be found in the Stable Residential designation include convenience stores,
home occupations, parks, and community facilities which are permitted in the designation without amendment to the Municipal Plan.Policy LU Intend that the areas designated Stable Residential
will evolve over time from a land use and builtuses are to reinforce the predominant community character and make a positive contribution to the neighbo
-
ose portions
but the
Rise Residential zone.
-
the requirements of the Zoning By
elevation changes
some
to be located in a way to avoid th
conforms to
features
and
While the proposed development will be undertaken
site
height established in the Low
The development will utilize existing infrastructure and
Rise Residential zone, the proposed development will align
-
storey
-
.
Municipal Plan
A potential variance may be required to permit the use of common
development
This proposal aligns with residential land use policies as established in the City’s Law. amenity space as opposed to private amenity space for the units. This would be considered by
the Development Officer once detailed design has been completed. The proposal is located on an existing lot in an established residential neighbourhood. will not have a negative impact
on service provision. The zone standards will ensure appropriate height, setbacks, parking and landscaping buffers.within the Midwith the 3Thedevelopment is proposed of the site
a.b.c.d.
8;
-
7 and I
-
proposed building;
Financial inability of the City to absorb costs related to development and ensure efficient delivery of services, as determined through Policy IThe adequacy of central wastewater or
water services and storm drainage measures;Adequacy or proximity of school, recreation, or other community facilities;Adequacy of road networks leading to or adjacent to the development;
andPotential for negative impacts to designated heritage buildings or areas.Type of use;Height, bulk or appearance and lot coverage of any Traffic generation, vehicular, pedestrian,
bicycle or transit access to and from the site;Parking;Open storage;Signs; andAny other relevant matter of urban planning.
2
-
i.
i.ii.iii.iv.v.ii.v.
iii.iv.vi.
The proposal is in conformity with the goals, policies and intent of the Municipal Plan and the requirements of all City bylaws;The proposal is not premature or inappropriate by reason
of:Appropriate controls are placed on any proposed development where necessary to reduce any conflict with adjacent land uses by reason of:The proposed site is suitable in terms of
steepness of grade, soil and geological conditions, locations of watercourses, wetlands, and
vii.
a.b.c.d.
Policy I In considering amendments to the Zoning Bylaw or the imposition of terms and conditions, in addition to all other criteria set out in the various policies of the Municipal Plan,
have regard for the following:
to
), which has
of the road. The
Anglin Drive
rise development.
-
Amendment and associated
Assessment
rise to mid
-
the City.
as defined in the City’s Municipal Plan) and is as defined in the City’s Municipal Plan) and is
osed Zoning
will add 72 new housing units.
– –
The development
e proposed development is being undertaken as a fully affordable housing
Th
The proposed development is within the City’s serviceable boundary (Primary Development Area (PDA) located on a site served by an existing access, transit routes, infrastructure, and
City services. The propdevelopment represents an extension of an existing neighbourhood and an appropriate increase from lowGiven these considerations it conforms to the criteria as
it is an expansion of an existing land use which makes use of the City’s existing infrastructure and services.This development represents an opportunity to increase housing options
in an existing neighbourhood.project. The proposed development is outside of any regulated wetland and watercourse buffer.The proposed development is within the City’s serviceable boundary
(Primary Development Area (PDA) located on an existing roadway that is serviced by transit routes, infrastructure, and City services. This policy is not applicable.The development
is located on an existing roadway (been developed with sidewalks on the northwestern sidelocation is also served by one of the City’s transit lines, which connects wider transit networks
acrossThe proposed development is outside of any regulated wetland and watercourse buffer and flood zones
Settlement Patterns
Statements of Public Interest
SPI
term.
-
susceptibility of flooding as well as any other relevant environmental consideration;
SP.1 Promote efficient development and land use patterns that are in the best interests of the Province, local governments and residents of the Province in the longSP.2 Promote a range
of housing options such as size, type, density and design throughout communities.SP.3 Support the provision of a range of affordable housing options throughout communities. SP.4 Avoid
development and land use patterns that may cause environmental or health and safety issues. SP.5 With respect to development that occurs in a community with existing or planned public
infrastructure and services, promote development in locations where the public infrastructure and services are or are planned to be available. SP.6 With respect to development that
occurs in a community with no existing or planned public infrastructure or services, promote development in locations with previously constructed and actively maintained roads.SP.7
Promote a range of transportation options, including public, regional and active transportation. SP.8 Promote the use of green infrastructure, including climate resilient lands.
The expansion of the existing site can be viewed as an infill development, as it is increasing density on a lot that already exists within an established neighbourhood.Not applicable.Not
applicable.The subject site is located within a developed neighbourhood with access to existing road, sanitary and water infrastructure. Not applicable.Not applicable.Not applicable.Due
to the location and topography of the subject site, there are no risks associated with flooding or natural hazards. Not applicable.Not applicable.Not applicable.Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Agriculture
Climate Change
Natural Resources
Flood and Natural Hazard Areas
, including reciprocal setbacks if appropriate,
backs
-
SP.9 Promote development in downtown areas and urban cores through increased density, infill and brownfield development. AA.1 Identify prime agricultural areas and prioritize them for
agricultural uses and other compatible uses. AA.2 Identify current and future areas for fishery use and aquaculture use and prioritize them for those uses and other compatible uses.
AA.3 Consider setbetween areas with an agricultural use, fishery use or aquaculture use and areas used for incompatible purposes. CC.1 Promote energy conservation and efficiency, improved
air quality, climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation through development and land use patterns. CC.2 Consider how the siting and design of infrastructure can improve
air quality and energy conservation and efficiency, minimize the health and public safety impacts of climate change and increase climate resiliency. FH.1 Identify flood and natural
hazard areas using provincial flood hazard mapping, provincial erosion mapping and other resources. FH.2 Promote land use and development in areas other than flood and natural hazard
areas.FH.3 Promote land use and development that are not expected to increase the impacts on safety and costs associated with flooding and natural hazards. FH.4 Promote land use and
development that incorporate mitigation measures with respect to flooding and natural hazards or that are appropriate for areas subject to natural hazards.
Not applicable.
backs, including reciprocal setbacks if appropriate,
-
NR.4 Consider set
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
ª!pteb!3136!
NAME
KathleenJackson
Mailing ADDRESS
94 Thornbrough Street
Saint John. E2K 3P6
Public Hearing Information
PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Mon, 01/12/2026 - 00:00
Address or name of development
19 Anglin Drive (PID 55054779)
Do you support or oppose the development
IN OPPOSITION
Do you wish to speak about your support/objections at the public hearing?
YES
Please provide your comments about the development
1.Existing street configuration cannot support additional traffic for access to/from proposed
building. Also, consideration should be made for additional school bus traffic and city services.
From the site plan, there are only two (2) access areas, both on Anglin Drive, to the direction of
Thornbrough Street or continuation on Anglin Dr. to Sandy Point Road. There is no alternative
access from existing Kiwanis Court or Taylor Ave. Congestion will be concentrated in the
Thornbrough St./Anglin Dr. intersection. Access for construction vehicles will be limited to
Anglin from Thornbrough or Anglin from Sandy Point Road (a better alternative). The proposal
for four (4) buildings of 18 units, assumes at least parking for same, 72 vehicles, using the two
access points in the line of a major school bus route and city bus route. No mention made of
moving the existing city bus stop.
2.Site construction and neighbourhood disruption. Earlier this year, residents on Thornbrough
Street lived through constant construction noise and traffic disruption for most of the summer.
The construction of a youth centre on Thornbrough required the area having to be dug out using
industrial jack-hammering. This unprecedented noise continued ALL SUMMER, starting as
early 7:00 a.m. until after 5:00 p.m. Some residents work shift work which interrupted their
sleep schedule. Others of us who are senior citizens could not obtain proper rest periods. The
builder at no time warned us of their work schedule so we could alter our comfort level.
3.Road closures and driveway blockages. We were subject to a main access road closure
from Sandy Point Road on to Thornbrough WITHOUT WARNING and without detour notice.
This lead to excess traffic in front of our homes/driveways, causing blockage and being unable
to leave/enter out driveways without experiencing unreasonable delays. Our access was often
blocked by large construction vehicles, again, without warning or notification of the
construction company. There is no reason to believe that we will not be spared the noise and
inconvenience, given that the project is four-fold in the land footprint to that of the recent
Thornbrough Street development.
4. Utility interruption. Several times throughout the summer, both water and hydro were
affected by the construction on Thornbrough. Water pressures dropped suddenly and without
warning through the day, sometimes to a trickle. We were also affected by sudden power
surges.
5. General interruptions and inconveniences for seniors. There are many long-time residents
who are now seniors and rely on services specific to their general well-being. Road closures
meant longer waits for taxis and possible ambulance delays. Driveway blockages/flag-
persons/traffic delay caused late appointments for medical services and possibly residents
awaiting extra-mural services. We (seniors) often have medical devices that need monitoring,
meal delivery, transportation for medical and social services, all of which are affected by
excess traffic and construction.
Considering the above, overall, there is an expectation that these problems will become a
major concern with a large development mere yards from our homes.
I thank the committee for the chance to express my opinion in regards to this proposed
development.
With respect,
Kathleen Jackson
94 Thornbrough Street
Declaration
Yes
Atlantic Community Housing Ltd.
77 Westmorland St
Fredericton,NB
E3B 6Z3
(506) 469-4460
info@atlanticcommunityhousing.ca
October 02, 2025
Subject Property Address: 19 Anglin Drive, Saint John, NB, PID 55054779
Low-Rise Residential (RL)
Mid-Rise Residential (RM)
Dear Members of the Planning Advisory Committee:
Atlantic Community Housing Ltd. is a non-It is our intent to
convert this existing vacant baseball diamond, formerly known as Anglin St Ball Diamond,
into four new apartment buildings, each comprising 18 units. The 18-unit buildings will be a
mixture of one- and two-bedroom apartments with 2 apartments in each building meeting
barrier free requirements.
current residents and newcomers to the City of Saint John, NB.
The proposed three-storey apartments will be modern, energy-
construction, communal outdoor spaces and essential modern amenities like in unit
washer and dryer rather than luxury features.
increased housing availability, enhance property values, use of currently underutilized
surplus city owned land, and use of existing infrastructure. We are committed to working
that this development meets the needs and expectations of all stakeholders.
Purpose of rezoning:
Request to rezone from current RL to RM zoning for the purpose of increasing housing
zoning in this area will help to provide diverse housing and urban
growth. As previously noted, the development will consist of four 18-unit apartment buildings
with outdoor amenity space, and 87 onsite parking spaces for residents and visitors.
The site will provide two on-site stormwater management ponds, private screened garbage
enclosures, area for snow storage, and pedestrian walkways connecting all four buildings
to the existing sidewalk on Anglin Drive. Two vehicle entrance/exits from the developments
will be provided via Anglin Drive.
Existing Site and Land Use:
The subject property at 19 Anglin Drive, Saint John, NB, PID 55054779, is currently
zoned as Low-Rise Residential (RL) and is proposed to be rezoned Mid-Rise Residential
(RM). The property is nestled in a mature neighbourhood bordered by single family homes,
townhouses and apartments. The property currently houses exterior and interior metal
fencing from There are no above ground structures
requiring demolition outside of the metal fencing. Existing water and combined sewer run
parallel to the site on Anglin Drive. Existing above ground power runs along the front, back
and right-side yard of the site.
Impact on Surrounding Area:
g - As per the attached pre-
Impact Study will not be required as the development does not meet the thresholds
for the trip generation trigger or safety triggers in the TIS screening form. Although
the study is not required the site will allow for ample parking for residents and
visitors with 87 parking spaces.
Infrastructure – as per the attached pre-applications meeting minutes a
Stormwater Management Plan is to be submitted prior to approval of building
permits for review and approval. We will meet infrastructure requirements (Zero
Net, etc) with our plans at the permitting stage.
Construction Phase – A small portion of construction will take place on Anglin
two driveways and water and sewer street excavation. The larger size of the site will
allow for materials, work trailers, and larger vehicles to be kept on the site instead of
street parking. Work will be kept to hours between 7:30am and 6:00pm Monday to
Friday. Our construction team will be sure to keep residents up to date on any
required
Cohesiveness in Community – The 3 storey buildings will allow for these four
building will integrate well into the current community consisting of smaller homes,
buildings will be clad is traditional materials and will match the surrounding
neighbourhood.
Noise - The four buildings and outdoor amenity space have been strategically
located to provide a barrier to keep noise largely within the development.
Zoning Requirements RM:
We will require a variance for private amenity space as we will not be providing
ce
maintenance, reduce the cost of construction and simplify building construction. As per
the site plan we will provide a large community outdoor space at the back of the property.
For compliance with RM zoning please see the site plans and Architectural drawings.
*Architectural drawings included as an attachment to application email.
We look forward to hearing from you and working with you through this rezoning process.
Sincerely,
Erik de Jong
President
Atlantic Community Housing Ltd.
A By-law respecting the Traffic on Streets in The Arrêté relatif à la circulation
City of Saint Johndans les rues de The City of Saint John
January 12, 2026
Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Councillors
SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment 0 Rex Hurley Boulevard / 0 Glen Road
A Public Presentation was made on December 1, 2025 of a proposed amendment to the
Municipal Development Plan which would redesignate on Schedule A of the Municipal
Development Plan land having an approximate area of 5.5 hectares identified as a portion of
PID 00302778 and 00420802, from Rural Resource Area and Park and Natural Area, to Stable
Area; and redesignate on Schedule B of the Municipal Development Plan land having an
approximate area of 5.5 hectares identified as a portion of PID 00302778 and 00420802 from
Rural Resource and Park and Natural Area to Stable Residential, and extend the boundary of
the Primary Development Area (PDA), to extend the existing Mini-Home Park.
The required advertising has been completed and attached you will find a copy of the public
notice and application. No citizen letters were received.
If Council wishes, it may choose to refer the matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a
report and recommendation and authorize the necessary advertising with a Public Hearing to
be held on Monday, February 9, 2026 in the Council Chamber at 6:30 pm, or not to proceed
with the proposed amendment process and adopt a resolution to deny the application.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Taylor
City Clerk
January 12, 2026
Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Councillors
SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment 0 Summit Drive / Clint Drive / Portion
of PID 00311126
A Public Presentation was made on November 17, 2025 of a proposed amendment to the
Municipal Development Plan which would redesignate on Schedule A of the Municipal
Development Plan land having an approximate area of 18 hectares identified as a portion of
PID 00311126, from Rural Resource Area and Park and Natural Area, to Stable Area; and,
redesignate on Schedule B of the Municipal Development Plan land having an approximate
area of 18 hectares identified as a portion of PID 00311126 from Rural Resource and Park and
Natural Area to Stable Residential, and extend the boundary of the Primary Development Area
(PDA), to extend the existing Low-Rise Residential neighbourhood.
The required advertising has been completed and attached you will find a copy of the public
notice, application and citizen letters.
If Council wishes, it may choose to refer the matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a
report and recommendation and authorize the necessary advertising with a Public Hearing to
be held on Monday, February 9, 2026 in the Council Chamber at 6:30 pm, or not to proceed
with the proposed amendment process and adopt a resolution to deny the application.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Taylor
City Clerk
General Application Form
HSPXUI!'!DPNN OJU !FS JDFT
neupq tbjoukpio/db Phone: 6 .3 22! Fax: 43. 2 DJU !PG!TBJOU!KPIO!
LOCATIONCIVIC ADDRESS :PID # :
Tvnnju!Esjwf-!Mblfxppe!Ifjhiut
422237
HERITAGE AREA: Y / N INTENSIFICATION AREA: Y / N FLOOD RISK AREA: Y / N APPROVED GRADING PLAN: Y / N
APPLICATION #:DATE RECEIVED:
RECEIVED BY:
APPLICANTEMAILPHONE
Pbl!Ijmm!Ipnft!Jod/!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EfsflAmfjtvsfujnf/oc/db!!!!!!!!!!!!!617.769.9512!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MAILING ADDRESS POSTAL CODE
CONTRACTOR EMAILPHONE
Jtbjbi!Sfje!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!jtbjbi/sfjeAentf/db!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!617.961.9278
MAILING ADDRESS POSTAL CODE
OWNEREMAILPHONE
Pblijmm!Ipnft!Jod/!)Buu(o;Ebwf!Epctpo*!!!ebwjeAepctpohspvq/db!!!!!617.557.4319
MAILING ADDRESS POSTAL CODE
57!Dibqbssbm!Spbe-!Xbbtjt-!OC-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!F4C!1H:
PRESENT USE:PROPOSED USE:
Wbdbou!MboeSM
BUILDINGPLANNINGINFRASTRUCTUREHERITAGE
INTERIOR RENOVATIONNEW CONSTRUCTIONVARIANCESTREET EXCAVATIONHERITAGE DEVELOPMENT
EXTERIOR RENOVATIONACCESSORY BLDGPLANNING LETTERHERITAGE SIGN
5
DRIVEWAY CULVERT
ADDITIONPOOLPAC APPLICATIONHERITAGE INFILL
5
DRAINAGE
DECKDEMOLITIONCOUNCIL AWATER & SEWERAGEHERITAGE DEMO
5
CHANGE OF USESIGNSUBDIVISIONOTHEROTHER
MINIMUM STANDARDSOTHEROTHER
Xf!bsf!tffljoh!gps!bo!fyqbotjpo!pg!uif!QEB!bt!pvumjofe!jo!pvs!PWB!Esbxjoh/!Bmpoh!xjui!uif!
Sf{pojoh!gspn!Svsbm!up!SM!\[pof/!Qmfbtf!tff!uif!buubdife!esbxjoht/
I consent to the City of Saint John sending to me commercial electronic messages, from time to time, regarding City initiatives and incentives.
I,the undersigned, hereby apply for the permit(s) or approval(s),
indicated above for the work described on plans, submissions and
forms herewith submitted. This application includes all relevant
documentation necessary for the applied for permit(s) or approval(s). I
agree to comply with the plans, specifications and further agree to
comply with all relevant City By-laws and conditions imposed.
Jtbjbi!Sfje
!
Applicant Name
!
Applicant Signature
Nbz!16-!3136
!
Date
Council Application
GROWTH & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
CITY OF SAINT JOHN
CIVIC ADDRESSAPPLICATION #FEE PAID
Tvnnju!Esjwf-!Mblfxppe!Ifjhiut2
TYPE OF APPLICATION
5
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION
Xf!bsf!tffljoh!gps!bo!fyqbotjpo!pg!uif!QEB!bt!pvumjofe!jo!pvs!PWB!Esbxjoh/!Bmpoh!xjui!uif!
Sf{pojoh!gspn!Svsbm!up!SM!\[pof/!Qmfbtf!tff!uif!buubdife!esbxjoht/
ENCUMBRANCES
AUTHORIZATION
Jtbjbi!Sfje
Nbz!33-!3136
LakewoodHeightsTIS
DobsonGroup
Traffic Impact Study
September 23, 2025
02508126.000
DobsonGroup
Prepared by:
JacquelineConnors,M.Sc.E,EIT
EIT -Transportation Engineering
Civil and Transportation Engineering
Reviewedand Approvedby:
AndrewNorthmore,PhD,P.Eng.,RSP1
Transportation Engineer
Civil and Transportation Engineering
T 506 451-4400 x179131andrew.northmore@englobecorp.com
565 Priestman Street, Unit 400Fredericton, NB Canada E3B 5X8 englobecorp.com
Production team
Dobson Group
Dave Dobson
Englobe Corp.
Project Manager / Technical Lead Andrew Northmore, PhD, P.Eng., RSP1
Junior Engineer Jacqueline Connors, M.Sc.E., EIT
Peer Review Ryan Esligar, M.Sc.E., P.Eng.
Revisions and publications log
REVISION No. DATE DESCRIPTION
0A September 12, 2025 Draft submission to client for comments
0B September 23, 2025 Final submission
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 I
Summary
The Dobson Group is planning to develop a residential property on the north end of the Lakewood
Heights subdivision in Saint John, NB. The proposed site plan, as shown in Appendix A, will ultimately
contain 219 single detached homes. The proposed development extends the existing roads of Summit
Dr., Riley Dr., and Clint Dr. Impacts of the development were analyzed for a horizon year of 2040, 5
years past the anticipated completion in 2035.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Traffic volumes were collected by Englobe staff in August 2025 using a Miovision camera to collect 6-
hour turning movement counts at the Loch Lomond Road/McAllister Drive/Champlain Drive, Loch
Lomond Road/Hickey Road, Loch Lomond Road/McNamara Drive, Loch Lomond Road/Lakeview
Drive, and McNamara Drive/Summit Drive intersections. A prior traffic count from January 2024 at
Loch Lomond Road/Hickey Road was used to validate the school year traffic volumes in the area.
The future background traffic volumes in 2040 were estimated by applying a 1.0% annual growth rate
to the 2025 volumes and adding traffic volumes estimated for known nearby developments.
It was estimated that the proposed mixed-use development would generate 153 trips (38 in / 115 out)
during the AM Peak period, 206 trips (130 in / 76 out) during the PM Peak period, and 2,075 trips daily
at full buildout.
The development volumes were added to the background volumes to estimate the 2040 traffic
conditions with the development in place.
LOS RESULTS
The Study Team completed LOS analyses for the existing 2025 conditions, the 2040 background
conditions, and the projected 2040 conditions with the development completed.
2025 Existing Conditions
Overall the area operates well in the existing conditions, though several movements are approaching
or at capacity at the Loch Lomond Rd./Hickey Rd. and Loch Lomond Rd./McAllister Dr./Champlain Dr.
intersections.
2040 Background Conditions
To support the background conditions, improved signal timings will be required at the Loch Lomond
Rd./Hickey Rd. intersection. The conditions at this intersection also merit a corridor study on Loch
Lomond Rd. to better support future demands.
2040 Development Conditions
The added development traffic will require rebalancing the signal timings at Loch Lomond
Rd./McAllister Dr./Champlain Dr. The increased volumes at Loch Lomond Rd./Hickey Rd. bring the
intersection to its capacity, and further highlight the need for a detailed corridor study.
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 II
ADDITIONALCONSIDERATIONS
The need for traffic calming on Lakeview Dr. was reviewed and found to not be required based on the
available existing volume and speed data, the anticipated traffic volume increase from the proposed
development, and the overall context of the road network through the existing subdivision.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
In order to support the 2040 background volumes regardless of the construction of the proposed
development, the intersection of Loch Lomond Rd./Hickey Rd. needs to have the cycle length
increased to 120 seconds and the available time between the phase rebalanced. The challenges at
this intersection also reflect the need for a more detailed study of the Loch Lomond Rd. corridor to
support future demands.
To further support the proposed development, we recommend that the Loch Lomond Rd./McAllister
Dr./Champlain Dr. phase timings be rebalanced to better manage the projected volumes.
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 III
PROPERTY AND CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
this report, including all data, analyses, and
recommendations, is confidential and proprietary to Englobe and/or the Client.
OWNERSHIP AND USE
All intellectual property rights in this report remain the exclusive property of Englobe. Provided that all
fees owed to Englobe under the Agreement have been paid in full, the Client is granted a limited, non-
transferable license to use the report solely for its intended purpose, in accordance with the
knowledge at the time of preparation.
The report contains confidential information proprietary to Englobe. The reproduction, distribution, or
adaptation of the report, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited without the prior written consent of
Englobe. The report must be read and considered in its entirety. Extracts or partial use are not
permitted without prior written authorization.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
This report has been prepared in accordance with the standard of care, skill, and diligence generally
exercised by professional engineers providing similar services under comparable circumstances in the
same locality at the time the services were performed. No other warranties, express or implied, are
made, including but not limited to warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, or suitability of the
information contained in this report. Englobe expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for:
Use of this report beyond the scope of the Agreement;
Use of the report or any portion thereof by third parties without prior written authorization from
Englobe; or
Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or adaptation of the report.
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 IV
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Tasks .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Study Methodology........................................................................................................................ 3
2 Information Gathering ...................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Existing Traffic Counts .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Existing Streets and Intersections ................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Planned Future Development ........................................................................................................ 5
3 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Existing (2025) Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Existing (2025) LOS Analysis ........................................................................................................ 8
4 Background Conditions .................................................................................................. 13
4.1 Background (2040) Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 13
4.2 Background (2040) LOS Analysis ................................................................................................ 13
4.3 Background Improvement Requirements .................................................................................... 19
5 Future Development ...................................................................................................... 22
5.1 Traffic Generation ....................................................................................................................... 22
5.2 Traffic Assignment ...................................................................................................................... 22
5.3 Development Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 23
5.4 Development LOS Analysis ......................................................................................................... 23
6 Additional Considerations .............................................................................................. 28
6.1 Lakewood Drive Traffic Calming Review ..................................................................................... 28
6.2 Recommended Improvements .................................................................................................... 29
TABLES
Table 1: Level of Service Definitions ........................................................................................................... 3
Table 2: 2025 Existing Conditions LOS Results ........................................................................................ 11
Table 3: 2040 Background Conditions LOS Results .................................................................................. 17
Table 4: 2040 Background Conditions LOS Results with Improvements ................................................... 20
Table 5: Trip Generation Summary ........................................................................................................... 22
Table 6: 2040 Development Conditions LOS Results with Improvements ................................................. 26
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 V
FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Area (study intersections circled) ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Other Planned Developments in the Study Area ........................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Existing AM Peak Traffic Volume Adjustments ............................................................................. 9
Figure 4: 2025 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Traffic Volumes from Known Developments ............................................................................... 15
Figure 6: 2040 Background Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 16
Figure 7: Development Traffic Assignment ................................................................................................ 24
Figure 8: 2040 Development Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 25
APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Plan
Appendix B Traffic Counts
Appendix C Detailed Synchro Analysis
Appendix D Lakewood Dr. Speed Data
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 VI
1
1Introduction
The Dobson Group is planning to develop a residential property on the north end of the Lakewood
Heights subdivision in Saint John, NB. The proposed site plan, as shown in AppendixA, will ultimately
contain 219 single detached homes. The proposed development extends the existing roads of Summit
Dr., Riley Dr., and Clint Dr.
Englobe Corp. was hired by the Dobson Groupto conduct a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the
proposed development. Based on discussions with the City, the study area for this TIS includes the
intersections ofLochLomondRoad/McAllisterDrive/ChamplainDrive,LochLomondRoad/Hickey
Road,LochLomondRoad/McNamaraDrive,LochLomondRoad/LakeviewDrive,andMcNamara
Drive/SummitDrive,along with reviewing the need for potential traffic calming on Lakeview Drive.The
study area is shown below in Figure1.
Lakewood Heights TIS| Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000| September 23, 20251
Figure1:StudyArea(studyintersectionscircled)
1.1StudyTasks
The main objective of this TIS was to estimate how much additional traffic the development would
create and determine what impact, if any, the development traffic would have on the adjacent streets
and intersections. The following activities were undertaken as part of this TIS:
Englobe staff visited the development site to document the character of the roadway and to count
AM and PM traffic volumes at the study area intersections shown above.
Existing information was collected and reviewedon other planned developments in the area;
Future 2040background volumes (5-year horizon from 2035buildout) were estimated by applying a
1.0% growth rate in addition to the known development plans;
Future traffic generated by the proposed development was estimated and added to the 2040
background volumes to determine the traffic conditions with the development in place;
LOS analyses were completed for the 2025existing conditions, 2040background conditions, and
the 2040future conditions with development;
The traffic impacts on Lakeview Dr. were reviewed to identify the potential need for traffic calming
measures; and
The methodology, findings, and recommendations of the TIS were documented in this report.
Lakewood Heights TIS| Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000| September 23, 20252
1.2Study Methodology
Traffic conditions were modelled using Synchro 11, which is traffic analysis software that uses the
Highway Capacity Manual and Intersection Capacity Utilization procedures.
The study was conducted for a horizon year of 2040 based on a 5-year horizon on the 2035 projected
completion of construction.
The intersection performance was evaluated mainly in terms of the level of service (LOS), which is a
common performance measurement of an intersection. The LOS is determined based on vehicle delay
and is expressed on a scale of A through F, where LOS A represents very short delays and LOS F
represents very long delays. A LOS D is often considered acceptable in urban locations; however,
some jurisdictions will accept a LOS E. The LOS Criteria for signalized intersections, stop-controlled
intersections, and roundabouts are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Level of Service Definitions
Control Delay (Seconds Per Vehicle)
Stop Controlled /
Signalized
LOS LOS Description Roundabout
AVery low delay; most vehicles do not stop (Excellent) less than 10.0 less than 10.0
BHigher delay; more vehicles stop (Very Good) between 10.0 and 20.0 between 10.0 and 15.0
Higher level of congestion; number of vehicles stopping is
Csignificant, although many still pass through intersection between 20.0 and 35.0 between 15.0 and 25.0
without stopping (Good)
Congestion becomes noticeable; vehicles must sometimes
Dwait through more than one red light; many vehicles stop between 35.0 and 55.0 between 25.0 and 35.0
(Satisfactory)
Vehicles must often wait through more than one red light;
Econsidered by many agencies to be the Limit of Acceptable between 55.0 and 80.0 between 35.0 and 50.0
Delay
This level is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers;
Foccurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the greater than 80.0 greater than 50.0
intersection (Unacceptable)
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 3
1
2InformationGathering
2.1ExistingTrafficCounts
The Study Team collected AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts at all of the study area
intersections in August 2025. A 24-hr speed study was also conducted on Lakeview Drive near
Lakewood Heights School in September 2025 after the start of the school year.
2.2ExistingStreetsandIntersections
LochLomondRoadis a major arterial roadway within the Study Area. This road generally features a 3-
lane cross section near the study area, with one alternating turning lane and two thru lanes. Loch
Lomond Rd. has sidewalk on the south side through the Study Area.
McAllisterDriveis a major arterial roadway within the Study Area. This road features a 5-lane cross-
section and sidewalk on both sides.
ChamplainDriveis an urban collector roadway within the Study Area. This road features a 2-lane
cross-section and sidewalk on both sides. Champlain Drive is home to Champlain Heights School, a
K-Grade 5 elementary school with approximately 300 students.
HickeyRoadis an urban collector roadway within the Study Area. This road generally features a 2-
lane cross section with monolithic sidewalk on the south side. Hickey Road is home to Simonds High
School, a Grade 9-12 high school with approximately 920 students.
LakeviewDrive,McNamaraDrive,andSummitDriveare local roadways that feature a 2-lane cross
section and sidewalk on one side near the study area. Lakeview Drive is home to Lakewood Heights
School, a K-Grade 5 elementary school with approximately 300 students.
The LochLomondRoad/McAllisterDrive/ChamplainDriveintersection is a 4-leg signalized
intersection.In the eastbound direction,Loch Lomond Rd. has a left turn lane, thru lane, and shared
thru/right turn lane. In the westbound direction, Loch Lomond Rd. has one of each a left turn, thru, and
Lakewood Heights TIS| Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000| September 23, 20254
right turn lane. In the southbound direction, McAllister Dr. has two left turn lanes and a shared
thru/right turn lane. In the northbound direction, Champlain Dr. has one of each a left turn, thru, and
right turn lane. There are marked crosswalks with pedestrian signals across all legs of the intersection.
The Loch Lomond Road/Hickey Road intersection is a 3-leg signalized intersection. Loch Lomond Rd.
has a thru lane in each direction, an eastbound right turn lane, and a westbound left turn lane. Hickey
Rd. has separate northbound left turn and right turn lanes. There is a marked crosswalk with no
pedestrian signal heads across the Hickey Road approach.
The Loch Lomond Road/McNamara Drive and Loch Lomond Road/Lakeview Drive intersections are 3-
leg stop controlled intersections, with minor road stop control on the McNamara Dr. and Lakeview Dr.
approach (respectively). Loch Lomond Rd. has an eastbound thru/left turn lane and westbound
thru/right turn lane at both intersections. McNamara Dr. and Lakeview Dr. each have a shared left/right
turn lane at their respective intersections. There are unmarked crosswalks across the side road
approach at both intersections.
The McNamara Drive/Summit Drive intersection is a 3-leg stop controlled intersection, with minor road
stop control on the Summit Dr. approach. McNamara Dr. has a southbound thru/left turn lane and
northbound thru/right turn lane, and Summit Dr. has a shared left/right turn lane. There is an unmarked
crosswalk across Summit Dr. at the intersection.
2.3Planned Future Development
Our team is aware of several other developments that will add traffic to the Study Area over the coming
decade, as shown in Figure 2. These include Treadwell Village off Ash St., Babatunde Ct. at the end of
Dolly Dr., Bally Desmond off Mallory St., 15 Blue Jay Way off Loch Lomond Rd., and 1440 Loch Lomond
Rd. Trips for these developments were estimated and added to the network following procedures detailed
further in this report. To account for any additional development, our team applied a 1.0% linear growth
rate, which the traffic generation for the five known developments was then added to in order to calculate
the total 2040 background traffic volumes.
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 5
6
a
e
r
A
y
d
u
t
S
e
h
t
n
i
s
t
n
e
m
p
o
l
e
v
e
D
d
e
n
n
September 23, 2025
|
a
Traffic Impact Study
l
|
P
r
e
h
t
O
:
02508126.000
2
e
r
u
g
i
F Lakewood Heights TISEnglobe |
3
3ExistingConditions
3.1Existing(2025)TrafficVolumes
The turning movement counts collected by our team were obtained during the summer, but the study
area is home to three public schools that are significant traffic generators during the school year.
Adjustments were made to the turning movement counts our team collected using the following
approach:
The LochLomondRd./HickeyRd.counts were compared to counts previously collected by our team in
January 2024. The total traffic volume in the AM peak period in January 2024 was 31% higher than
what we collected in August 2025, but the PM peak was largely unchanged (1% lower).
The added traffic at this intersection would be most directly related to the traffic generated by
Simonds High School, which is just south of the intersection on Hickey Rd.
We substituted the AM peak period data we collected as part of this study with the January
2024 data, but left the PM peak period data as-is.
Trips were added coming in/out of Champlain Dr. and Lakeview Dr. at their intersections with Loch
Lomond Rd. to reflect the traffic generated by Champlain Heights School and Lakeview Heights
School, respectively, during the AM peak period.
Based on available school enrolment data, both were assumed to have enrolment of 300
students.
th
ITE Trip Generation Manual 11Edition rates were used to estimate AM peak period trips
generated by the schools.
It was assumed that 50% of the AM peak period trips for Champlain Heights School would go
through the LochLomondRd./McAllisterDr./ChamplainDr.
catchment. 100% of the AM peak period trips for Lakeview Heights School were assumed to
go through the LochLomondRd./LakeviewDr.intersection.
Lakewood Heights TIS| Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000| September 23, 20257
Trips were added at these intersections based on the existing traffic flow data
The added trips during the AM peak period at these three school access intersections were then
propagated through the network based on the existing traffic flows.
The adjustments made by our team are shown in Figure 3 and the combined existing (2025) traffic
volumes collected by our team are shown below in Figure 4.
3.2Existing (2025) LOS Analysis
A level of service (LOS) analysis was completed for the existing 2025 traffic conditions Using Synchro
11. The analysis revealed that:
Loch Lomond Rd./McAllister Dr./Champlain Dr. operates at an overall LOS C during the AM and PM
peak periods. Several movements operate at LOS D during both peak periods, with the max v/c
ratios of 0.80 in the AM peak and 0.76 during the PM peak.
Loch Lomond Rd./Hickey Rd. operates at an overall LOS B during the AM peak period and LOS C
during the PM peak period. During the PM peak the northbound left turn movement operates at LOS
D and the eastbound thru movement has a v/c ratio of 0.88 (LOS C).
The remaining intersections operate at LOS A during both peak periods with no movements
operating lower than LOS C.
The LOS results, including average delay, volume to capacity (v/c) ratios, and the 95th percentile
queue lengths for the 2025 conditions are summarized in Table 2 with detailed LOS results in
Appendix C.
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 8
R
)
m
SharedShared
(
d
e
n
u
u
e
o
u
b
--
T
Q
h
t
e
u
l
i
o
t
n
S
e
c
r
e
L7
CC
15
P
18.519.6
\[0.40\]\[0.23\]
h
t
5
9
/
/
--
R
\]
)
c
/
v
d
(
n
o
u
i
t
o
a
b
--
T 12
R
h
t
r
y
t
o
i
c
N
a
p
a
C--
L
o
t
e
m
u
l
o
V
R
\[
SharedShared
/
/
d
)
n
h
u
e
o
v
b
T
/
t
<1<1
c
FreeFree
sFlowFlow
\[0.39\]\[0.24\]
e
e
s
(
W
y
a
l
e
--
L
D
e
g
a
r
e
v
A
--
R
/
/
S
d
n
O
u
L
o
t
22
T
AA
b
n
t
2.71.9
e
s
\[0.06\]\[0.07\]
a
m
E
e
v
o
s
t
M
l
L
u
s
SharedShared
e
R
)
S
l
h
l/
/
AA
y
e
a
O
ra
63
v
l
S
SS
..
/
L
e
e
c32
v
O
OO
s
e
D
L
LL
O
s
n
(
o
i
t
i
d
d
n k
o
i
a
o M
M
r
e
A
P
e
C
P
P
g
n
i
t
l
s
c
i
o
i
r
f
x
t
f
n
na
E
r
o
o
i
T
t
5
C
c
September 23, 2025
2
e
|
0 Traffic Impact Study
s
r|
2
.
e
t
:.
d
r
)
n
I
.t
R
@
D
t
e
t
d
n
e
w
e
rn
o
t
e
e
oi
r
S
tv
C
m
r
(
e
S
o
02508126.000
o
k
L
n
2
n
a
i
i
L
h
a
e
M
c
l
M
o
@
b
L
a
T Lakewood Heights TISEnglobe |
4
4BackgroundConditions
4.1Background(2040)TrafficVolumes
A 1.0% annual linear growth factor was used to inflate the 2025existing traffic volumes to the
anticipated 2040background traffic volumes without the new development.A lowergrowth rate was
used as we anticipate that most of the development in the area over the next decade will be related to
the followingknown nearby developments:
Treadwell Village Phase 2 20 single detached homes
Bally Desmond Phase 5 18 single detached homes
Babatunde Court 10 single detached homes
15 Blue Jay Way 88 apartment units and 24 townhouses
1440 Loch Lomond Road 104 apartment units and 16 townhouses
The development volumes for nearby projects that were known at the time of the study were estimated
and are shown in Figure5and were added to the inflated 2025traffic volumes to determine the 2040
background traffic volumes. The 2040background traffic volumes are shown inFigure6.
4.2Background(2040)LOSAnalysis
A level of service (LOS) analysis was completed for the 2040background traffic conditions. The
analysis revealed that:
LochLomondRd./McAllisterDr./ChamplainDr.operates at an overall LOS Dduring the AM and PM
peak periods. The southbound left turn operates at LOS E during both peak periods and the
northbound thru movement operates at LOS E during the PM peak. Several other movements
operate at LOS D during both peak periods, with the max v/c ratios of 0.94in the AM peak and 0.91
during the PM peak.
Lakewood Heights TIS| Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000| September 23, 202513
Loch Lomond Rd./Hickey Rd. operates at an overall LOS B during the AM peak period and LOS D
during the PM peak period. During the PM peak the eastbound thru movement operates at LOS F
with a v/c ratio of 1.12 and the northbound left turn movement operates at LOS D.
The remaining intersections operate at LOS A during both peak periods with no movements
operating lower than LOS D.
The LOS results, including average delay, volume to capacity (v/c) ratios, and the 95th percentile
queue lengths for the 2040 background conditions are summarized in Table 3 with detailed LOS
results in Appendix C.
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 14
R
)
m
SharedShared
(
d
e
n
u
u
e
o
u
b
--
T
Q
h
t
e
u
l
i
o
t
n
S
e
c
r
e
L
DD
2713
P
27.129.4
\[0.56\]\[0.37\]
h
t
5
9
/
/
--
R
\]
)
c
/
v
d
(
n
o
u
i
t
o
a
b
--
T 18
R
h
t
r
y
t
o
i
c
N
a
p
a
C--
L
o
t
e
m
u
l
o
V
R
\[
SharedShared
/
/
d
)
n
h
u
e
o
v
b
T
/
t
<1<1
c
FreeFree
sFlowFlow
\[0.47\]\[0.29\]
e
e
s
(
W
y
a
l
e
--
L
D
e
g
a
r
e
v
A
--
R
/
/
S
d
n
O
u
L
o
t
22
T
AA
b
n
t
2.92.5
e
s
\[0.08\]\[0.09\]
s
a
t m
l
E
e
u
v
s o
e
M
L
R
S SharedShared
O
L
)
l
h
l/
s
/
AA
y
e
a
n
ra
91
v
l
S
SS
..
/
o e
e
i
c43
v
O
OO
t
e
i
D
L
LL
O
s
d
(
n
o
C
d
k
o
d
i
a
M
M
r
n
e
A
P
e
u P
P
o
r
g
k
l
c
c
o
i
r
f
a
t
f
n
na
B
r
o
o
i
T
t
0
C
c
September 23, 2025
4
e
|
0 Traffic Impact Study
s
r|
2
.
e
t
:.
d
r
)
n
I
.t
R
@
D
t
e
t
d
n
e
w
e
rn
o
t
e
e
oi
r
S
tv
C
m
r
(
e
S
o
02508126.000
o
k
L
n
3
n
a
i
i
L
h
a
e
M
c
l
M
o
@
b
L
a
T Lakewood Heights TISEnglobe |
4.3Background Improvement Requirements
Based on the LOS results outlined in the previous section, improvements will be required at one of the
study area intersections to support the background (2040) traffic volumes. The improvements are
summarized over the following bullet points, with an updated LOS summary provided in Table 4, and
detailed LOS reports provided in Appendix C.
Loch Lomond Rd./Hickey Rd.: There is no clear best solution for this intersection due to the
conflicting traffic volumes, topography, and right-of-way requirements that would make widening
Loch Lomond Rd. challenging. A roundabout would also not fit well here due to these reasons but
may not operate well due to an imbalance in traffic volumes. We were able to marginally improve
LOS at this intersection during the PM peak by increasing the cycle length to 120 seconds and
rebalancing the available time between the phases. A more detailed study of the Loch Lomond Rd.
corridor is likely required to support future demands.
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 19
R
)
m
SharedShared
(
d
e
n
u
u
e
o
u
b
--
T
Q
h
t
e
u
l
i
o
t
n
S
e
c
r
e
L
DD
2713
P
27.129.4
\[0.56\]\[0.37\]
h
t
5
9
/
/
--
R
\]
)
c
/
v
d
(
n
o
u
i
t
o
a
b
--
T 21
R
h
t
r
y
t
o
i
c
N
a
p
a
C--
L
o
t
e
m
u
l
o
V
R
\[
SharedShared
/
/
d
)
n
h
u
e
o
v
b
T
/
t
<1<1
c
FreeFree
sFlowFlow
\[0.47\]\[0.29\]
e
e
s
(
W
y
a
l
e
s
--
L
t
D
n
e
e
g
a
r
m
e
e
v
v
A
--
o
R
r
/
/
p
m
I
S
d
n
O
h
u
t
L
i
o
t
22
T
AA
b
n
w
t
2.92.5
e
s
\[0.08\]\[0.09\]
s
a
t m
l
E
e
u
v
s o
e
M
L
R
S SharedShared
O
L
)
l
h
l/
s
/
AA
y
e
a
n
ra
91
v
l
S
SS
..
/
o e
e
i
c43
v
O
OO
t
e
i
D
L
LL
O
s
d
(
n
o
C
d
k
o
d
i
a
M
M
r
n
e
A
P
e
u P
P
o
r
g
k
l
c
c
o
i
r
f
a
t
f
n
na
B
r
o
o
i
T
t
0
C
c
September 23, 2025
4
e
|
0 Traffic Impact Study
s
r|
2
.
e
t
:.
d
r
)
n
I
.t
R
@
D
t
e
t
d
n
e
w
e
rn
o
t
e
e
oi
r
S
tv
C
m
r
(
e
S
o
02508126.000
o
k
L
n
4
n
a
i
i
L
h
a
e
M
c
l
M
o
@
b
L
a
T Lakewood Heights TISEnglobe |
5
5FutureDevelopment
Traffic generation for the proposed development was estimated and assigned to the background traffic
volumes to determine the 2040total traffic volumes with full buildout of the entire development. The
methodology and assumptions applied for the development traffic are discussed in this section.
5.1TrafficGeneration
The developer provided a site plan for the proposed development. The ITE Trip Generation Manual
th
11Edition was used to estimate the trips generated in the AM and PM peak periods, along with the
daily total, for each component of the development. This data is summarized in Table 5.
Table5:TripGenerationSummary
AMPeakPMPeak
ITEDaily
1
PhaseCodeUnitsInOutTotalInOutTotalTotal
Phase13051621181028333
Phase23761926221335404
210
Phase34382330251540464
FuturePhase10919577665381021092
Total21938115153130762062075
1
t
5.2TrafficAssignment
Adding the development traffic to the existing road network is challenging as there are no clear
corridors that directly connect the development to Loch Lomond Rd. The clearest path connects the
development into Summit Dr., which then connects to Loch Lomond Rd. via McNamara Dr. We
Lakewood Heights TIS| Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000| September 23, 202522
assumed that this would be the route for vehicles travelling to/from the west on Loch Lomond Rd. For
vehicles travelling to/from the east, we assumed they would divert over to Lakeview Dr. as it is a more
natural pathway for these trips. In practice, some of these trips would be split between the
intersections of Loch Lomond Rd. with Pauline St. and Charles St. E. as well. The distribution of
vehicles that would be heading to/from the west and east, respectively, was determined based on the
existing background volumes. Figure 7 shows the traffic volumes that will be added to the network by
the development.
5.3Development Traffic Volumes
The development traffic was added to the 2040 background volumes to create the projected (2040)
traffic volumes with the development in-place, illustrated in Figure 8.
5.4Development LOS Analysis
A level of service (LOS) analysis was completed for the 2040 Development traffic conditions. The
analysis revealed that:
Loch Lomond Rd./McAllister Dr./Champlain Dr. has slightly higher delays due to the development
traffic, but the impact is not significant. Some rebalancing of the signal timings should be
undertaken to balance the delays (this rebalancing is reflected in the LOS results below).
Loch Lomond Rd./Hickey Rd. has slightly higher delays due to development during the AM peak.
During the PM peak, the intersection had less available capacity so the added development
volumes have an outsized impact on the overall delay results. This continues to reflect the need for
a more detailed study of the Loch Lomond Rd. corridor to support future demands.
Loch Lomond Road/McNamara Drive and Loch Lomond Road/Lakeview Drive both still operate
very well overall, though the added volumes result in one movement at each intersection operating
at LOS E. These are still acceptable conditions and represent an upper bound of the delay
expected as drivers would likely make more distributed use of all access points into the
neighbourhood.
McNamara Drive/Summit Drive continues to operate well under the development volumes.
The LOS results, including average delay, volume to capacity (v/c) ratios, and the 95th percentile
queue lengths for the 2040 conditions are summarized in Table 6 with detailed LOS results in
Appendix C.
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 23
R
)
m
SharedShared
(
d
e
n
u
u
e
o
u
b
--
T
Q
h
t
e
u
l
i
o
t
n
S
e
c \]
r
85
.
e
3
5
L
E
D
5.
312
P
30.540
\[0.61\]\[
h
t
5
9
/
/
--
R
\]
)
c
/
v
d
(
n
o
u
i
t
o
a
b
--
T 27
R
h
t
r
y
t
o
i
c
N
a
p
a
C--
L
o
t
e
m
u
l
o
V
R
\[
SharedShared
/
/
d
)
n
h
u
e
o
v
b
T
/
t
<1<1
c
FreeFree
sFlowFlow
\[0.48\]\[0.31\]
e
e
s
(
W
y
a
l
s
t
e
--
L
n
D
e
e
g
m
a
r
e
e
v
v
o
A
r
--
R
p
/
/
m
I
S
d
h
t n
O
i
u
L
o
w
t
22
T
AA
b
n
t
3.02.5
s
e
s
t
\[0.08\]\[0.09\]
l
a
m
u
E
e
s
v
e o
M
R
L
S
SharedShared
O
L
s
)
l
h
l/
n
/
AA
y
e
a
o
ra
74
v
i
l
S
SS
..
/
t
e
i e
c54
v
O
OO
e
d
D
L
LL
O
s
n
(
o
C
t
d
k
n
o
i
a
M
e M
r
e
A
P
e
m P
P
p
o
l
e
l
v
c
o
i
r
f
e
t
f
n
na
D
r
o
o
i
T
t
0
C
c
September 23, 2025
4
e
|
0 Traffic Impact Study
s
r|
2
.
e
t
:.
d
r
)
n
I
.t
R
@
D
t
e
t
d
n
e
w
e
rn
o
t
e
e
oi
r
S
tv
C
m
r
(
e
S
o
02508126.000
o
k
L
n
6
n
a
i
i
L
h
a
e
M
c
l
M
o
@
b
L
a
T Lakewood Heights TISEnglobe |
6
6AdditionalConsiderations
6.1LakewoodDriveTrafficCalmingReview
One of the concerns raised by the City is that the proposed development will result in increased traffic
Calming Policy (April 2012) requires at least one of the following conditions to be met to justify traffic
calming, of which Condition 2 is the primary concern from the City:
1)When vehicle speed is the concern, the average speed of vehicles is 2 km/h or greater above the
current or appropriate posted speed limit
2)When traffic volume is the concern, more than an average of 1,000 vehicles per day when the road
is a Local road
3)When pedestrian conflicts are the concern, there must be no sidewalk, the road has to be a Local
road, and either the average speed of vehicles is 5 km/h or greater above the current or
appropriate posted speed limit or the traffic volume is more than an average of 500 vehicles per
day
6.1.1DataReview
Our team collected a 24-hour speed study on Lakewood Dr. just south of Lensdale Cres.within the 50
km/h zoneon September 4, 2025 to establish the existing traffic conditions. On that day, there were
1,322vehicleson Lakewood Dr. which travelled at an averagespeedof45km/h. The full data are
attached in Appendix D.
Based on the existing data, traffic calming could be warranted on Lakewood Dr. based on the existing
School has on the roadway; based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual the school would be expected
to generate approximately 680 daily trips, which is just over half of the existing traffic volume.
Lakewood Heights TIS| Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000| September 23, 202528
Removing the school traffic, we would expect the majority of the remaining 642 trips to be going
to/from the north past the school.
Our traffic analysis assumed that the main access road to the proposed development was Summit Dr.;
all of the new roads for the development either filter in towards Summit Dr. or Summit Dr. is the
nearest road that connects towards Loch Lomond Rd. Some of the traffic was assumed to use
Lakeview Dr., primarily traffic that is coming from/going towards the east on Loch Lomond Rd.
Assuming the proportions of AM and PM peak period traffic we assumed would use Lakewood Dr.
extrapolate to the whole day, the proposed development would add approximately 300 vehicles per
day to Lakeview Dr. (representing 14.6% of the total traffic generated).
6.1.2Discussion
Traffic calming in response to traffic volumes is typically applied to reduce the number of vehicles
move through vehicles. In this case, all of the roads that could be used to access the new
development are classified as local roads, so there is no specific higher classification road that would
be preferred. Additionally, all of the residents who will be living in the new development would be
ffic within the neighbourhood.
It is anticipated that the added traffic on Lakeview Dr. from the proposed development will be relatively
minimal. To the south of the school the daily traffic volume will increase to approximately 1,600
vehicles per day and the daily traffic volume to the north of the school will increase to approximately
900 vehicles per day. Based on the available information and the context of the area, there does not
appear to be a need to apply traffic calming to mitigate traffic volume.
Additionally, based on the collected speed data it does not appear that traffic calming is required to
mitigate a speeding issue.
6.2Recommended Improvements
In order to support the 2040 background volumes regardless of the construction of the proposed
development, the intersection of Loch Lomond Rd./Hickey Rd. needs to have the cycle length
increased to 120 seconds and the available time between the phase rebalanced. The challenges at
this intersection also reflect the need for a more detailed study of the Loch Lomond Rd. corridor to
support future demands.
To further support the proposed development, we recommend that the Loch Lomond Rd./McAllister
Dr./Champlain Dr. phase timings be rebalanced to better manage the projected volumes.
Lakewood Heights TIS | Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000 | September 23, 2025 29
AppendixA
SitePlan
Lakewood Heights TIS| Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000| September 12, 202530
AppendixB
TrafficCounts
Lakewood Heights TIS| Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000| September 12, 202531
2!pg!9
3!pg!9
4!pg!9
5!pg!9
6!pg!9
7!pg!9
8!pg!9
9!pg!9
2!pg!9
3!pg!9
4!pg!9
5!pg!9
6!pg!9
7!pg!9
8!pg!9
9!pg!9
2!pg!9
3!pg!9
4!pg!9
5!pg!9
6!pg!9
7!pg!9
8!pg!9
9!pg!9
2!pg!9
3!pg!9
4!pg!9
5!pg!9
6!pg!9
7!pg!9
8!pg!9
9!pg!9
2!pg!9
3!pg!9
4!pg!9
5!pg!9
6!pg!9
7!pg!9
8!pg!9
9!pg!9
AppendixC
DetailedSynchroAnalysis
Lakewood Heights TIS| Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000| September 12, 202532
AppendixD
LakewoodDr.SpeedData
Lakewood Heights TIS| Traffic Impact Study
Englobe | 02508126.000| September 12, 202533
From:Common Clerk
To:Mattson, Yeva
Subject:FW: Lakewood Heights Development
Date:November 20, 2025 8:40:17 AM
Good Morning Yeva,
Just passing along another citizen letter.
Kelly
Kelly Tibbits
Administrative Assistant / assistant administrative
City Clerk’s Office / Bureau de greffier municipal
City of Saint John / La Ville de Saint John
Office / Bureau: (506) 658-2856
Note: My office hours are Mon – Thurs 8:15am to 5:30pm
-----Original Message-----
From: Peggy Cook <nannapeg2015@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 1:52 PM
To: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca>
Subject: Lakewood Heights Development
\[You don't often get email from nannapeg2015@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at
\]
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
\[ External Email Alert\] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a
Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.**
I am writing today to expressed my concerns about the Lakewood Heights development. That would see at least 200
new homes built in our neighbourhood.
I understand that we need solutions for the housing crisis. It would be wonderful to have these new homes for new
families. My concern is that not enough information is available about water And sewage drainage. Will there be a
new access road to this new development? Will there be accommodations made for our small school? It is not
possible that the children from 200 new families will be able to fit into our little school.
Are there plans for a green space or perhaps a playground or play area for these families?
We already have a problem with cars speeding on the roads in the subdivision. That will only be magnified buy
more cars.
Many homes in this area have had problems with sewers backing up due to the inability of our current system to
drain properly. Will this be addressed.
I look forward to your response into a community meeting. It will ease my mind to have more information.
Sincerely,
Peggy Cook
71 Lakewood Avenue
Sent from my iPad
Gspn;Dpnnpo!Dmfsl
Up;Nbuutpo-!Zfwb
Tvckfdu;GX;!Ofx!ipvtjoh!qspqptbm!gps!mblfxppe!ijhiut/
Ebuf;Opwfncfs!2:-!3136!:;22;48!BN
Buubdinfout;jnbhf112/qoh
jnbhf114/qoh
Kelly Tibbits
Administrative Assistant / assistant administrative
City Clerk’s Office / Bureau de greffier municipal
City of Saint John / La Ville de Saint John
Office / Bureau: (506) 658-2856
Note: My office hours are Mon – Thurs 8:15am to 5:30pm
From: Cameron Lindsay <cameronlindsay198@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 6:14 AM
To: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca>
Subject: New housing proposal for lakewood hights.
You don't often get email from cameronlindsay198@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
\[ External Email Alert\]**Please note that this message is from an
external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please
forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service
Desk.**
Hello.
As a new family that has moved to the neighborhood in the last coupleof years I believe
adding 200 homes in the back of lakewood hights is not a good idea at this time. I believe
this will create problems in the neighborhood with my main concern being traffic. We
live at the start of summit drive and I think the traffic going by will be unbearable for us.
Please think about the infrastructure before just throwing up 200 homes. Thanks for your
time
Sincerely.
A concerned member of the community.
Gspn;Dpnnpo!Dmfsl
Up;Nbuutpo-!Zfwb
Tvckfdu;GX;!Qspqptfe!Efwfmpqnfou!po!Tvnnju!Esjwf
Ebuf;Opwfncfs!35-!3136!:;15;14!BN
Buubdinfout;jnbhf112/qoh
jnbhf114/qoh
Good Morning Yeva,
Forwarding another for the 30-day period.
Kelly
Kelly Tibbits
Administrative Assistant / assistant administrative
City Clerk’s Office / Bureau de greffier municipal
City of Saint John / La Ville de Saint John
Office / Bureau: (506) 658-2856
Note: My office hours are Mon – Thurs 8:15am to 5:30pm
From: Olivia Pearson <opearson@cantylutzgrant.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2025 3:38 PM
To: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca>
Subject: Proposed Development on Summit Drive
You don't often get email from opearson@cantylutzgrant.com. Learn why this is important
\[ External Email Alert\]**Please note that this message is from an
external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please
forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service
Desk.**
Hello,
I am a resident of Summit Drive and am writing to you to express concerns regarding the
proposed development on Summit Drive.
I believe that before any major developments like this can occur, Saint John needs to
upgrade the infrastructure.
Commuting to work along Loch Lomond is already a nightmare between 7 and 8 am. It is
difficult to get out of the subdivision during these times and then traffic is also often at a
standstill along Loch Lomond. What is a 12-minute commute for me during good moving
traffic can be as long as 25 minutes on heavy traffic mornings. Coming home in the
evening is also challenging.
The traffic issue is likely to get worse once the new apartment buildings are leased out
along Loch Lomond.
Something needs to be done with this traffic situation before we can consider adding so
much more traffic to the subdivision and Loch Lomond. I have heard others' ideas about
creating another exit of the subdivision out by Golden Grove. This may reduce some of
the traffic in the subdivision and Loch Lomond.
I also have concerns with how traffic travels along summit drive. We are at 17 Summit
Drive, which is along the corner. Vehicles travel around this turn at a higher rate of speed
than they should. It makes leaving my driveway dangerous at times. It is also hard to
cross the road sometimes when taking my dog for a walk because cars suddenly appear
around the turn.
I think before we can expand summit drive, we need to extend the sidewalks the whole
way. We also should have speed cushions installed along summit drive. It might also be
helpful to have designated crosswalk areas.
Doing this before expanding summit drive is crucial to ensuring residents' safety when
the traffic along the road becomes heavier.
I have also heard that the school within the subdivision would not have room to
accommodate for the extra students/families that move to summit drive. We ought to
make a 5–10-year plan to handle this.
In my view, before the proposal can conscionably be approved, we must take several
measures to upgrade infrastructure and mitigate current issues.
Sincerely,
Olivia Pearson
Get Outlook for iOS