2021-02-22_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
AGENDA
Monday, February 22, 2021
6:00 pm
Meeting Conducted by Electronic Participation
Si vous avez besoin des services en francais pour une reunion de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le
bureau du greffier communal au 658-2862.
Pages
1. Call to Order
1.1. Heritage Awards for 2020 5 - 14
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1. Minutes of February 8, 2021 15 - 28
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
5. Consent Agenda
5.1.
Heat Pump Upgrades - TD Station (Recommendation in Report)
29 - 31
5.2.
Sale of City Owned Lot being PID No. 394973 near Sea Street
32 - 38
(Recommendation in Report)
5.3.
Local Historic Place (Recommendation in Report)
39 - 47
5.4.
Saint John Parking Commission: Appointment of B. Wiley, Badge No. 9979
48 - 48
Canadian Corps of Commissionaires as By -Law Enforcement Officer
(Recommendation in Report)
5.5.
Proposed Public Hearing Date — 545 Sandy Point Road and 2400 Ocean
49 - 51
Westway (Recommendation in Report)
5.6.
Adoption of 2015 National Building and Plumbing Codes and the Building Code
52 - 53
Administration Act (Recommendation: Receive for Information)
6. Members Comments
7. Proclamation
8. Delegations / Presentations
8.1. 211 Presentation
9. Public Hearings - 6:30 p.m.
10. Consideration of By-laws
10.1. Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment - 2400 Ocean Westway
10.2. Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment — 2100 Sandy Point Road (Ethos
Ridge)
10.3. Zoning By -Law Amendment - 0 Eldersley Ave with Section 59 Conditions (3rd
Reading)
10.4. Parking By -Law Amendment - Ticket Increases (3rd Reading)
10.5. Traffic By -Law Amendment - Ticket Increase (3rd Reading)
11. Submissions by Council Members
12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers
12.1. City Manager Update (Verbal)
12.2. Fundy Quay - Project Launch
12.3. Utility and General Fund — Revised 2021 Capital Programs
12.4. Architectural Services: Loyalist Plaza & Fundy Quay Harbour Passage
Extension
12.5. Engineering Services - Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission Main
Upgrades / Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades
12.6. Conditional Amendment to the Grant Agreement of the Climate Change
Vulnerability Assessment Methodology
12.7. Redesigned Website saintjohn.ca
13. Committee Reports
13.1. Finance Committee: Safe Restart Funding Program
2
54 - 74
75 - 77
78 - 227
228 - 230
231 - 233
234 - 236
237 - 266
267 - 279
280 - 282
283 - 286
287 - 292
293 - 296
297 - 301
13.2. Finance Committee: Assessment Gap Adjustment (P-Gap)
302 - 309
14.
Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
15.
General Correspondence
15.1. Jervis Bay -Ross Memorial Park (Recommendation: Receive for Information)
310 - 310
15.2. M. Wallace: Street Renaming (Recommendation: Receive for Information)
311 - 311
15.3. Rogue Coffee: Opposition to Parking Ticket Increase (Recommendation:
312 - 312
Receive for Information)
16.
Supplemental Agenda
17.
Committee of the Whole
17.1. Fundy Quay Option Agreement - Final Version of Ground Lease
313 - 313
17.2. Dividend Agreement - Fundy Quay Developments Inc.
314 - 314
17.3. Regional Economic Development Members' Agreement and Funding
315 - 315
Agreement
17.4. Settlement of Labour Matter - CUPE Local 486
316 - 316
17.5. Immutable Back -Up Storage Solution - Amazon Web Services Inc.
317 - 317
17.6. Local Governance Act - Council Vacancy Declaration
318 - 318
18.
Adjournment
3
r
�a
City of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, February 22, 2021
Committee of the Whole
1. Call to Order
Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une reunion de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le
bureau du greffier communal au 658-2862.
Each of the following items, either in whole or in part, is able to be discussed in private pursuant to the
provisions of subsection 68(1) of the Local Governance Act and Council / Committee will make a
decision(s) in that respect in Open Session:
4:00 p.m., Meeting Conducted through Electronic Participation
1.1 Approval of Minutes 68(1)
1.2 Financial Matter 68(1)(c,e)
1.3 Financial Matter 68(1)(c)
1.4 Financial Matter 68(1)(c)
1.5 Legal Matter 68(1)(c,f,g)
1.6 Financial Matter 68(1)(c)
1.7 Employment Matter 68(1)(b,f,j)
1.8 Financial Matter 68(1)(c)
1.9 Financial Matter 68(1)(c)
Ville de Saint John
Seance du conseil municipal
Lundi 22 fevrier 2021
18h
Reunion virtuelle
Comite plenier
1. Ouverture de la seance
Si vous souhaitez obtenir des services en frangais pour une seance du conseil municipal, veuillez
communiquer avec le bureau du greffier municipal, au 658-2862.
Chacun des points suivants, en totalite ou en partie, peut faire I'objet d'une discussion en prive en vertu
des dispositions prevues au paragraphe 68(1) de la Loi sur la gouvernance locale. Le conseil/comite prendra
une ou des decisions a cet egard au cours de la seance publique :
16 h, Reunion virtuelle
1.1 Approbation du proces-verbal — paragraphe 68(1)
1.2 Questions financieres — alineas 68(1)c) et e)
1.3 Questions financieres — alinea 68(1)c)
1.4 Questions financieres — alinea 68(1)c)
1.5 Questions juridiques — alineas 68(1)c), f) et g)
1.6 Questions financieres — alinea 68(1)c)
1.7 Questions d'emploi — alinea 68(1)b), f) et j)
1.8 Questions financieres — alinea 68(1)c)
1.9 Questions financieres — alinea 68(1)c)
1.10 Questions 1'emploi — alinea 68(1)j)
Seance ordinaire
1. Ouverture de la seance
1.1 Prix du patrimoine 2020
2. Approbation du proces-verbal
2.1 Proces-verbal de la reunion du 8 fevrier 2021
3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour
4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets
S. Questions soumises a I'approbation du Conseil
5.1 Modernisation des thermopompes — Station TD (recommandation contenue clans le rapport)
5.2 Vente d'un terrain (PID 394973) appartenant a la Ville, pres de Sea Street (recommandation
contenue dans le rapport)
2
5.3 Lieu historique local (recommandation contenue clans le rapport)
5.4 Saint John Parking Commission : Nomination de B. Wiley (membre n' 9979 du Corps canadien
des commissionnaires) comme agent d'application des reglements (recommandation contenue
clans le rapport)
5.5 Date proposee pour la seance publique concernant le 545 Sandy Point Road et le 2400 Ocean
Westway (recommandation contenue clans le rapport)
5.6 Adoption du Code national du batiment, du Code national de la plomberie de 2015 et de la
Loi sur ('administration du Code du batiment (recommandation : depot pour information)
6. Commentaires presentes par les membres
7. Proclamation
8. Delegations et presentations
8.1 Presentation 211
9. Seance publique
10. Etude d'arretes municipaux
10.1 Modification proposee relativement au plan municipal — 2400 Ocean Westway
10.2 Modification proposee relativement au plan municipal — 2100 Sandy Point Road (Ethos
Ridge)
10.3 Modification proposee relativement a I'arrete de zonage — 0 Eldersley Avenue avec les
conditions de I'article 59 (troisieme lecture)
10.4 Modification du reglement sur le stationnement —Augmentation du montant des
contraventions (troisieme lecture)
10.5 Modification du reglement sur la circulation — augmentation du montant des contraventions
(troisieme lecture)
11. Interventions des membres du conseil
12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux
12.1 Mise a jour du directeur municipal (de vive voix)
12.2 Quai de Fundy — Lancement du projet
12.3 Fonds general et services publics — Programmes d'investissement revises pour 2021
12.4 Services d'architecture : Prolongation du passage au port de Loyalist Plaza et au quai de
Fundy
12.5 Services d'ingenierie — Amelioration des conduites principales de transport d'eau brute de
Coleson Cove / Amelioration de ('installation de traitement des eaux usees de Lancaster
12.6 Amendement conditionnel a la convention de subvention de la methodologie devaluation
de la vulnerabilite au changement climatique
12.7 Refonte du site web saintjohn.ca
9
13. Rapports deposes par les comites
13.1 Comite des finances : Programme de financement de I'Accord sur la relance securitaire
13.2 Comite des finances : Ajustement de 1'ecart d'evaluation (ecart d'evaluation permanent)
14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du Conseil
15. Correspondance generale
15.1 Jervis Bay -Ross Memorial Park (Recommendation : depot pour information)
15.2 M. Wallace : modification du nom des rues (Recommandation : depot pour information)
15.3 Cafe Rogue : Opposition a I'augmentation du montant des contraventions de stationnement
(Recommandation : depot pour information)
16. Ordre du jour suppiementaire
17. Comite plenier
17.1 Convention d'option de Fundy Quay - Version finale du bail foncier
17.2 Convention de dividende - Fundy Quay Developments Inc.
17.3 Accord des membres du developpement economique regional et accord de financement
17.4 Reglement des questions de travail - Section locale 486 du CUPE
17.5 Solution de stockage de sauvegarde immuable - Amazon Web Services Inc.
17.6 Loi sur la gouvernance locale - Declaration de vacance du conseil
18. Levee de la seance
El
heritage Awards
' or 2020
Saint John Common Council
and
The Heritage Development Board
Heritage Development Board Members
Jamie Watson, Chair
Melissa Wakefield, 1 st Vice Chair
Adam Pottle, 2nd Vice Chair
Councillor Blake Armstrong
Shane Goguen
Rod Stea rs
Michael Cummings
Alana Lawson
Jason Haggerty
X
Heritage Awards for 2020
62 Water Street — Jennifer Irving Photography
Storefront Rehabilitation
Local Business Signage
The Art Warehouse
Juniper
Obscurity
Commitment to Craft — Paul & Rena Chase
Local Historic Place Designation — 152 Watson Street
7
62 Water Street
jennifer Irving
Studio Sh' shekar
Legacy asonry
Ava Garde Construction
M ageme t
tizan roup
torefront Rehabilitation
r�-
11
p
IG: @studio shirshekar
The Art Warehouse
FTazel Cochran
Geof Ram ay
Pamel fierce
Desi nArt Signs
`��Ocal Business Signage
E
1 A L'
IG: @theartwarehousesj
Juniper
Katelyn Price,
Chris Tomokins
w Flewwe,,l'ting Press
`��Ocal Business Signage
10
IG: @shop juniper
bscurity Shop
mela Wheaton & Mishelle Carson -Roy
Hannah Odchrane
r Barter yigns
IN-ocal Business Signage
11
IG: @obscurity shop
Paul & Rena Chase
C'o—mmitment to Craft
Recognizing chnical skills and
knowledge 'n conservation trades
12
152 Watson Street
�I Historic Place Designation
The Peters -louse, built c. 1843
Uniqu ocal interpretation of the Carpenter
yes!hes'
architectural style
Z
ories, location of first surgery with
Canada, performed in 1847 by Dr.
r Peters
omAhendation:
ES VED, that the building located at 152 Watson
;re t, PID No. 00362350, and known as the Peters
in
se, is designated as a Local Historic Place for its
itectural and historic contributions to the City of
t John.
13
Congratulations to all!
14
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
MINUTES — REGULAR MEETING
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
FEBRUARY 8, 2021 AT 6:00 PM
MEETING CONDUCTED BY ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION
Present: Mayor Don Darling
Deputy Mayor Shirley McAlary
Councillor -at -Large Gary Sullivan
Councillor Ward 1 Blake Armstrong
Councillor Ward 1 Greg Norton
Councillor Ward 2 John MacKenzie
Councillor Ward 3 Donna Reardon
Councillor Ward 3 David Hickey
Councillor Ward 4 David Merrithew
Councillor Ward 4 Ray Strowbridge
Absent: Councillor Ward 2 Sean Casey
Also Present: City Manager J. Collin
General Counsel M. Tompkins
Fire Chief & Chief Emergency Management Services K. Clifford
Chief of Staff & Chief Financial Officer K. Fudge
Commissioner, Human Resources S. Hossack
Commissioner, Public Works and Transportation Services M. Hugenholtz
Commissioner, Utilities & Infrastructure Services B. McGovern
Commissioner, Growth & Community Services J. Hamilton
Director Legislative Services / City Clerk J. Taylor
Deputy City Clerk P. Anglin
Administrative Officer R. Evans
15
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
1. Call to Order
To conform to the Government COVID-19 State of Emergency and Mandatory Order
isolation and masking requirements during Code Alert Level Orange, Council Members
and staff participated by video conference. The City Clerk conducted roll call, noting
Councillor S. Casey absent.
To ensure public access and transparency the meeting is being video recorded and posted
to the City's website after the meeting has concluded.
The Mayor declared the month of February Black History Month, highlighting the life and
achievements of Anna Minerva Henderson. Julia Wright, Host Information Morning Saint
John provided a biography of Anna Minerva. She was the daughter of a schoolteacher and
a barber, grew up to be an award -winning civil servant and literary pioneer, Black literary
critic, and Governor General's Award -winning author. George Elliott Clarke describes her
as "the first Black woman in English in Canada to dare to publish a chapbook of verse." Ms.
Henderson's book, Citadel, is a love letter to Saint John, with poems about King's Square,
the Loyalist Burial Grounds, and Market Slip. Few poems have so perfectly captured the
grit and dignity of Canada's oldest incorporated city.
Steep streets, tall spires etched against the sky,
Grey wharves that know the way of wind and tide,
Dim, drifting fog, the sea -gull's plaintive cry,
A city, old and assured, wearing the pride
Of epic memories and heritage ....
These lines, titled Saint John, N.B. become even more remarkable when you learn the
author was a Black woman born in 1887. Anna Minerva Henderson rose above the racism
she faced to carved out a position for herself as an educated, successful woman. Anna
Minerva was the only person of colour in Saint John High School's graduating class of
1905. She earned her teacher's certificate — but was barred because of her race from
teaching in either Saint John or Halifax.
She wrote the civil service examination. She passed with "the third -highest mark for the
entire Dominion of Canada in 1912." She went on to work in Ottawa for the Department
of Mines and Forests, as a senior clerk stenographer, and was promoted to principal clerk
in 1925. She also wrote a regular feature for the Ottawa Citizen called The Column. In
1945, she returned to Saint John and worked as a stenographer for local law firm
Fairweather & Stevenson.
2
16
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
While discussion of race is not explicit in Henderson's poems, there are moments when
she seems to reference her experiences as a Black woman. One poem, This Life, reads in
pa rt:
/ who have walked alone
With hate and fear, and quelled them in my hour
With steadfast level gaze, now claim my own:
Mine is the glory, ay, and mine the power!
Despite Henderson's accomplishments, "her legacy is non-existent as far as the general
public is concerned," said Saint John historian Peter Little. Her name has been all but
forgotten. Until now.
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Minutes of January 25. 2021
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that the minutes of the January 25, 2021 meeting of Common Council be
approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
3. Approval of Agenda
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Sullivan:
RESOLVED that the agenda for the February 8th, 2021 meeting of Common Council be
approved with the addition of Item 17.1 Appointments to Committees.
MOTION CARRIED.
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
The Mayor declared a conflict with item 5.6 - Sale of LPP-Rockingstone Subdivision.
5. Consent Agenda
5.1 That as recommended in the submitted report entitled Proposed Subdivision
1989-2015 Ocean Westway Common Council accept a money in -lieu of Land for Public
Purposes dedication for the proposed Dobbelsteyn Subdivision at 1989-2015 Ocean
Westway.
3
17
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
5.2 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
025: Acquisition of Easement for Municipal Services at civic 1250 Latimore Lake Road, the
resolution pertaining to the sale of 1250 Latimore Lake Road adopted at the September
28, 2020 meeting of Common Council be amended as follows:
1. Paragraph 2 of the resolution is deleted and replaced with the following:
"2. In the event the Planning Advisory Committee concurs with such, it is further
recommended that the above said property be sold to Caroline Bird for $30,000.00
plus H.S.T. (if applicable) with all costs associated with the sale of this land, except for
the fees associated with the plan of survey, to be the responsibility of the purchaser;
and that the City retain an Easement for municipal services over said property as
depicted on to the Plan of Survey titled Plan of Survey Showing Easement to be
granted for Municipal Services, located at civic #1250 Latimore Lake Road, prepared
by Hughes Surveys & Consultants Inc. and dated January 21, 2021 attached to this M
& C No. 2021-025.
5.3 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
029: Permit and Development Approvals Fees — Sustainability Item Setting of public
hearings — Heritage Conservations Areas By-law and Zoning By-law Amendments
Common Council:
1. Set the public hearing date of March 8, 2021 to consider an amendment to the
Heritage Conservation Areas By-law concerning fees; and
2. Set the public hearing date of March 8, 2021 to consider an amendment to the
Zoning By-law concerning fees.
5.4 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
026: 2021 Spring Debenture Issue — Notice of Motion, Common Council approve the
following:
His Worship the Mayor give the following Notice of Motion. "I do hereby give Notice that
I will, at a meeting of Common Council held after the expiration of thirty days from this
day, move or cause to be moved, the following resolution:
Namely,
RESOLVED that occasion having arisen in the public interest for the following Public Civic
Works and needed Civic Improvements, that is to say:
4
in
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
The City of Saint John
Proposed issue of Debentures
To Be Dated On or after March 111", 2021
REFINANCE DEBENTURES
Debenture No. BE 23- 2011 $ 10,330,000
(General Fund — $7,330,000 -5 years)
(General Fund — $3,000,000 -10 years)
Debenture No. BE 24 -2011 $ 7,000,000
(Water & Sewerage — 10 years)
TOTAL $ 17,330,000
THEREFORE RESOLVED that debentures be issued under provisions of the Acts of
Assembly 52, Victoria, Chapter 27, Section 29 and amendments thereto, to the amount
of $ 17,330,000.
5.5 That the submitted report M&C 2021-023: Municipal Street Lighting Retrofit
Project Update be received for information.
5.6 Referred to item 14.1.
5.7 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
033: Immutable Back -Up Storage Solution Common Council approve the Mutual
Nondisclosure Agreement with Amazon Web Services and that the Mayor and City Clerk
be authorized to execute the Mutual Nondisclosure Agreement with Amazon Web
Services, Inc. for AWS S3 Object Storage.
5.8 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
034: RFP for Code of Conduct Specialist Common Council, in partnership with the Cities of
New Brunswick Association, approve the Code of Conduct Specialist Request for Proposals
to secure a highly experienced and qualified firm/individual to provide code of conduct
advice / expertise to New Brunswick's Cities on an "as required" basis, with the annual
retainer fee costs being shared by participating cities.
5.9 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
032: Off -Season Arena License Common Council approve the License Agreement and
direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the License Agreement between the City of Saint
John and Rothesay Netherwood School attached to M&C 2021-032.
5.10 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
035: Site -Specific By -Law Amendment -Heritage Conservations Areas By -Law Common
5
19
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
Council set the public hearing date of March 8, 2021 to consider a site -specific
amendment to the Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law concerning a Tier Three major
addition at 22 Sydney Street.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Sullivan:
RESOLVED that the recommendation set out in each consent agenda item respectively,
with the exception of item 5.6 which has been referred to item 14.1 for discussion, be
adopted.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Members Comments
7. Proclamations
7.1 Heritage Week — February 15 to February 21, 2021
The Mayor declared February 15 to February 21, 2021 as Heritage Week in The City of
Saint John.
8. Delegations/Presentations
8.1 Saint John Police Force — 2021 Operating Budget
Chair of the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners Ed Keyes introduced the Board
Members participating on the Teams Virtual Meeting including Vice Chair Doug Jones,
Michael Costello, Katelin Dean, Tamara Kelly, Councillor Gary Sullivan, Police Chief
Stephan Drolet, Deputy Chief Tony Hayes, and Craig Lavigne, Accountant and City
employee contributing financial services to the Commission on a Shared Services
Agreement.
Referring to the submitted report entitled Saint John Police Force — 2021 Operating
Budget, Mr. Lavigne stated the 2021 Operating Budget was a historical financial reset with
over $6.0 million reduced from wages and benefits and $4.0 million in reduced operating
costs.
Chief Drolet outlined 2020 operational highlights, including the following:
• Creation of the Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee
• Launch of the Mobile Crisis Response Team
• Sexual Assault Review Process
• Implementation of a user fee for Outside Agencies using SJPF facilities
• Operational efficiency and effectiveness teams
6
20
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
The City Manager advised that staff bring forward a report to recommend to Council the
creation of a Public Safety Committee in March.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Sullivan:
RESOLVED that the Saint John Police Force - 2021 Operating Budget be received for
information.
MOTION CARRIED.
9. Public Hearings 6:30 PM
9.1 Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment — 0 Eldersley Ave (15t and 2nd Reading)
Commissioner Hamilton advised that the necessary advertising was completed with
regard to rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 20347 square metres,
located at 0 Eldersley Avenue, also identified as PID Number 00471359, from
Environmental Protection (EP) to Rural (RU) with no written objections or letters of
support received. No members registered to speak for or against the rezoning application.
The reason for the application is to correct an error in the Zoning Bylaw.
Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee
submitting a copy of Planning staff's report considered at its January 26, 2021 meeting at
which the Committee recommended the rezoning at 0 Eldersley Avenue as described
above with Section 59 Conditions.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the proposed zoning bylaw
amendment with no one presenting.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the proposed zoning
bylaw amendment with no one presenting.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of the City of
Saint John" rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 20347 square
metres, located at 0 Eldersley Avenue, also identified as PID Number 00471359, from
Environmental Protection (EP) to Rural (RU), be read a first time.
MOTION CARRIED.
Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The
City of Saint John".
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
7
21
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of the City of
Saint John" rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 20347 square
metres, located at 0 Eldersley Avenue, also identified as PID Number 00471359, from
Environmental Protection (EP) to Rural (RU), be read a second time.
MOTION CARRIED.
Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of
The City of Saint John".
10. Consideration of Bylaws
10.1 Parking Meter and Traffic By -Law Ticket Increase — Bylaw Amendments (1st and
2nd Reading)
Referring to the submitted report entitled M&C 2021-031: Parking Meter and Traffic By -
Law Ticket Increase — Bylaw Amendments, Commissioner M. Dionne gave an overview of
the City's traffic ticket rates. The rates have not increased since 2012 and an increase by
$10 to the initial infraction is recommended. The Accessibility rates are governed by
legislation and will not increase. The proposed increase aligns with rates in Fredericton,
Moncton and Halifax and is estimated to result in an additional $127,000 in annual
revenue.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Hickey:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number LG-8, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law
respecting the Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto"
repealing and replacing Subsection 8(1); Section 17; and Subsection 18(2), relating to an
increase to parking ticket violations, be read a first time.
MOTION CARRIED.
Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number LG-8, A By -Law to Amend
a By -Law respecting the Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and amendments
thereto".
Moved by Councillor Reardon, seconded by Deputy Mayor McAlary:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number LG-8, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law
respecting the Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto"
repealing and replacing Subsection 8(1); Section 17; and Subsection 18(2), relating to an
increase to parking ticket violations, be read a second time.
MOTION CARRIED.
8
22
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number LG-8, A By -Law to
Amend a By -Law respecting the Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and
amendments thereto".
Moved by Councillor Reardon, seconded by Councillor Hickey:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1, A By -Law to Amend a By -
Law respecting the Traffic on Streets in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto",
repealing and replacing Subsections 27(1) and 27(2); and Subsection 28(2), relating to an
increase to parking ticket violations, be read a first time.
MOTION CARRIED.
Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1, A By -Law to
Amend a By -Law respecting the Traffic on Streets in the City of Saint John and
amendments thereto".
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1, A By -Law to Amend a By -
Law respecting the Traffic on Streets in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto",
repealing and replacing Subsections 27(1) and 27(2); and Subsection 28(2), relating to an
increase to parking ticket violations, be read a second time.
MOTION CARRIED.
Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1, A By -Law to
Amend a By -Law respecting the Traffic on Streets in the City of Saint John and
amendments thereto".
10.2 Vehicles for Hire By -Law Amendment (3rd Reading)
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Merrithew:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law No. M-12, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law
respecting the Regulation and Licensing of Owners and Operators of Vehicles for Hire in
The City of Saint John", repealing and replacing Subsection 10(1)(i) and Subsection
12(1)(c) to amend the age limit of a taxi from seven (7) years to eight (8) years of age, be
read.
MOTION CARRIED.
The by-law entitled, "By -Law No. M-12, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law respecting the
Regulation and Licensing of Owners and Operators of Vehicles for Hire in The City of Saint
John", was read in its entirety.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
9
23
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 f6vrier, 2021
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law No. M-12, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law
respecting the Regulation and Licensing of Owners and Operators of Vehicles for Hire in
The City of Saint John", repealing and replacing Subsection 10(1)(i) and Subsection
12(1)(c) to amend the age limit of a taxi from seven (7) years to eight (8) years of age, be
read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Seal affixed thereto.
MOTION CARRIED.
Read a third time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law No. M-12, A By -Law to Amend a
By -Law respecting the Regulation and Licensing of Owners and Operators of Vehicles for
Hire in The City of Saint John".
11. Submissions by Council Members
12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers
12.1 City Manager Update (Verbal)
The City Manager did not have any new emerging issues to discuss. Mr. Collin commented
on the necessity of all Saint John Region Zone 2 residents to wear masks outdoors during
COVID-19 Alert Level Orange to inhibit the spread of the disease.
Moved by Councillor Reardon, seconded by Councillor Merrithew:
RESOLVED that the City Manager verbal update be received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
12.2 Sports Field, Arena Floor and Tennis Rates - 2021
Referring to the submitted report entitled M&C 2021-021: Sports Field, Arena Floor and
Tennis Rates-2021, Commissioner P. Ouellette introduced the proposed increase aimed
at achieving 60% of the cost recovery Recreation Subsidization Policy targets approved by
Council in 2019.
Community Services Manager A. McLellan outlined the incremental approach to the
proposed increased rates with the overarching future goal of cost recovery. The City will
be investing $1.5 million in operating costs in 2021 for the sports fields, tennis, and arena
floor facilities.
Moved by Councillor Reardon, seconded by Councillor Merrithew:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
021: Sports Field, Arena Floor, and Tennis Rates — 2021 Common Council:
10
24
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
1. Approve the 2021 sports field, arena floor, and tennis rates, as presented in Table 3
of M&C Report 2021-021; and,
2. Approve the updated Outdoor Facility Allocation Policy, as attached to M&C Report
2021-021 (Attachment 'A').
MOTION CARRIED.
12.3 Civic Commemoration: Honouring Abraham Beverlev Walker
Deputy Commissioner P. Ouellette introduced the report and its relevance to Civic
Commemoration and Black History Month.
Referring to the submitted report entitled M&C 2021-022: Civic Commemoration:
Honouring Abraham Beverley Walker, Cultural Affairs Officer K. Wilcott discussed the
City's long history of naming streets, parks, and other assets after prominent residents.
The report recommends as a best practice the process be defined, rather than having
decisions made on a case -by -case basis.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Sullivan:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
022: Civic Commemoration: Honouring Abraham Beverley Walker, Common Council:
1. Direct staff to engage stakeholders and community group for the purpose of
creating a process and timeline that would bestow recognition of Abraham
Beverley Walker's contribution to the City of Saint John.
2. Direct staff to establish a Civic Commemoration Committee by early 2022 that,
through the implementation of a consultation and communications plan, would
prepare a policy, application, and guidelines addressing public street and place
names, street name changes, and commemorations in Saint John with the intent
to promote inclusion and diversity.
MOTION CARRIED.
13. Committee Reports
14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
Having declared a conflict of interest, the Mayor withdrew for discussion of item 5.6
referred from the consent agenda and the Deputy Mayor assumed the Chair.
11
25
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
14.1 Sale of LPP-Rockingstone Subdivision
Moved by Councillor Merrithew, seconded by Councillor Sullivan:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
027: Sale of LPP-Rockingstone Subdivision, Common Council approve the following:
1. That Common Council seek the concurrence of the Planning and Advisory
Committee (PAC) to remove the "Land for Public Purpose" (LPP) designation from
properties identified as PID#s 55193023, 55193015 and 55193122;
2. In the event that PAC concurs with Common Council in (1) above, that the City
deem PID#s 55193023, 55193015 and 55193122 as surplus to its needs; and
further
3. That the City convey PID#s 55193023, 55193015 and 55193122 to Viva
Development Inc. for $2,090 plus HST if applicable, on the condition that Viva
Development Inc. pay for all costs associated with the land transaction; and
further
4. That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute any documents
necessary to effect the land transaction.
IL I:QIIQ0EWAilk]ilk] 1I19a
The Mayor re-entered the meeting and assumed the chair.
15. General Correspondence
15.1 R. Wilson: ChanRiniz Name of Foster Thurston Drive
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Sullivan:
RESOLVED that the letter from R. Wilson regarding Changing Name of Foster Thurston
Drive be referred to the City Manager for consideration by the forthcoming new Civic
Commemoration Committee.
MOTION CARRIED.
16. Supplemental Agenda
17. Committee of the Whole
17.1 Appointments to Committees
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole having met on February
8t" 2021, Common Council approve the following appointments to Committees:
12
26
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
Canada Games Foundation: to reappoint both David Roberts and Jill Hickson for 3-year
terms from February 8, 2021 to February 8, 2024 and February 26, 2021 to February 26,
2024 respectively
City of Saint John Shared Risk Pension Plan Board of Trustees: to reappoint John de
Gruyter for a 4-year term from February 8, 2021 to February 8, 2025; and to reappoint
Ian Polley as an Alternate Trustee for a 4-year term from February 8, 2021 to February 8,
2025
Heritage Development Board: to reappoint Rod Stears for a 3-year term from February
8, 2021 to February 8, 2024; and to appoint Julien Ouimet for a 3-year term from February
8, 2021 to February 8, 2024
Planning Advisory Committee: to reappoint both Alexandra Weaver Crawford and
Lourdes Clancy for 3-year terms from February 8, 2021 to January 1, 2024; and to appoint
Gerry Lowe for a 3-year term from February 8, 2021 to January 1, 2024
PRO Kids: to reappoint Maryelle Hannam for a 3-year term from February 8, 2021 to
February 8, 2024; and to appoint Fraser Wells for a 3-year term from February 8, 2021 to
February 8, 2024
Saint John Aquatic Centre Commission: to reappoint Stephane Bolduc from February 26,
2021 to February 26, 2024
Saint John Board of Police Commissioners: to appoint Councillor Greg Norton from
February 8, 2021 until the end of his term on Council
Saint John Community Arts Board: to reappoint Abigail Smith for a 3-year term from
February 26, 2021 to February 26, 2024; and to appoint Kara Au, Laura Oland, and
Mostafa Aboeneil each for 3-year terms from February 8, 2021 to February 8, 2024
Saint John Free Public Library: to reappoint Allan Davis for a 3-year term from February
26, 2021 to February 26, 2024; and to appoint Johanne McInnis for a 3-year term from
February 8, 2021 to February 8, 2024.
MOTION CARRIED.
18. Adjournment
Moved by Councillor Reardon, seconded by Councillor Sullivan:
RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on February 8, 2021 be adjourned.
10Uemus] kwoli t :1"I
13
27
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 8, 2021 / le 8 fevrier, 2021
The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
14
Q�T= �TIf -1
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-037
Report Date
February 16, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Heat Pump Upgrades - TD Station
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Samir Yammine
J. Brent McGovern
I John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the tender submitted by Select Mechanical
Incorporated, for the Heat Pump Upgrades at TD-Station in the amount of
$271,000 plus HST be accepted. Further to the base tender amount, it is
recommended that a contingency allowance be carried out for this project in
the amount of $15,000 plus HST, for a total cost of $286,000 plus HST.
Additionally, it is recommended that the Mayor and Common Clerk be
authorized to execute the necessary contract documents.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to award the Heat
Pump Upgrades at TD-Station to the lowest compliant bidder.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
M&C 2019-107. Common Council approved the City of Saint John Climate
Change Action Plan.
M&C 2018-312. It is recommended that the City enter into the Grant Agreement
with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister
of the Environment who is responsible for the Environment and Climate Change
Canada under the Low Carbon Economy Fund (LCEF) for the Municipal Buildings
Deep Energy Retrofit (MBDER) in the form and upon the terms and conditions as
attached; and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the
said Agreement.
29
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The TD Station Heat Pump Upgrade project is clearly aligned with the following
City plans, policies, Council Priorities, programs, and practices:
• City of Saint John Corporate GHG and Energy Action Plan to reduce GHG
emissions by 30% by 2025 and achieve carbon neutral by 2040.
• City of Saint John asset Management Policy objectives to apply risk -based
decision and life cycle costing principles to prioritize capital investment,
identify alternative measures, facilitate the leveraging of infrastructure
funding from external sources, and improve the reliability of customer
service.
• City of Saint Capital Investment Policy.
• City of Saint John Climate Change Action Plan.
REPORT
In January 2020, The City of Saint John in cooperation with the consultant
conducted a detailed building condition assessment and energy audit on the TD
Station. The objective of the study was to achieve the following:
• Improve the asset data inventories for the TD-Station.
• Help Council as well as staff make more informed investment decisions.
• Develop a 25-year long term capital investment profile on the TD-Station.
• Identify energy and cost savings opportunities using life cycle cost
assessment to reduce energy and maintenance costs as well as GHG
emissions to help achieve Corporate GHG emissions target.
The TD- Station Heat Pump Upgrades is considered a high priority project based
on the following criteria:
• Risk - The existing heat pump units are over 25-year-old and the
probability and consequence of failure are considered high based on the
City's Risk Rating Framework.
• Level of Service - The replacement of the existing heat pumps will
improve the indoor air quality for the staff and the public.
• Greenhouse Gas Reductions - The proposed project will reduce GHG
emissions by 38 teCO2.
• Recapitalization Benefits and Asset Renewal - The proposed project will
renew the existing heat pump system and reduce capital expenditure by
$128,400.
• Reduce Operating Costs -The project will reduce the annual operating
cost including maintenance by approximately $18,000.
The work consists of the following:
• Renewal of the 25-year-old distributed water -air heat pumps
(approximately 27 heat pumps).
30
• Renewal of the main heat pump water loop pumping system to new
integrated variable speed pumps including additional pressure
independent valves.
The proposed Heat Pump Upgrades will result in the following benefits:
• Reduce annual Energy Consumption and Demand load by 129,622 KWH
and 192 KW respectively.
• Reduce annual energy and maintenance costs by approximately $18,000.
• Reduce annual GHG emissions by 38 teCO2.
• Reduce the City Capital Investment by $128,400
• Reduce Infrastructure Deficit by $271,000
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The total cost to complete the Heat Pump Upgrades at TD-Station, if awarded to
the lowest bidder as recommended, will be $286,000 plus HST, including $15,000
contingency.
The pre -tender budget for the work was estimated at $316,900 plus HST not
including contingency.
Cost of this project is funded under the Low Carbon Economy Fund (40% or
$114,400) and NB Power's Commercial Building Retrofit Program ($14,000) with
the remaining cost being funded under the City's General Capital Program.
►��Il►jr�:Z�1uI�j/:I�:�i�:�9[���T:7��F��T►�I���r�►:I�:[�]��7�:�j
A public tender call was issued on January 21, 2021 and closed on February 9,
2021. Four (4) companies responded to the tender call by submitting bids. The
results are as follows (excluding HST):
Contractor
Bid Amount
Valley Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Ltd.
$343,000.00
Select Mechanical Incorporated
$271,000.00
PMC Energy Ltd.
$326,900.00
Black & McDonald Limited
$341,000.00
Staff of Materials Management have reviewed the tenders and have found them
to be complete and formal in every regard. Staff believes that the low tenderer
has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work and recommend
acceptance of their tender.
The above process is in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and
Materials Management support the recommendation being put forth.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
31
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-036
Report Date
February 12, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Legislative Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT. Sale of City Owned Lot being PID No. 394973 near Sea Street
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Curtis Langille
Melanie Tompkins
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
That The City of Saint John enter into the Agreement of Purchase and Sale with
Sea Street Manor Ltd. in the form as attached to M & C #2021-036 for the sale of
PID No. 394973, situated near Sea Street, and further that the Mayor and City
Clerk be authorized to execute the documents necessary to effect the conveyance
of the subject property.
ro3ArAIIjI(P/#1111WIM MA
The owner of Sea Street Manor Ltd. has approached the City to purchase the City
owned lot, identified as PID No. 394973, situated near Sea Street, in West Saint
John. The proponent desires to acquire the City lot to add it to an adjoining, larger
property, having frontage off Woodville Road with the intention to develop a 32-
unit townhouse development. The lot is a vacant parcel of land, having an area of
2,236 square metres (24,068 square feet) with access via an undeveloped, 3 metre
(10 foot) wide common laneway off Sea Street. Real Estate Services has
negotiated with the proponent to sell the lot for $15,126.00, as per the terms and
conditions included in the attached Agreement of Purchase and Sale, subject to
Council's approval.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
N/A
I m,061 1
The Municipality of the City and County of Saint John acquired the subject
property, being PID No. 394973, through a tax deed sale in the 1940s. The lot is
an open field with no direct street access. However, there is limited access via a
3-metre (10-foot) wide undeveloped common laneway off Sea Street. The lot
32
sa
consists of approximately % acre in area with no services extended to the site. The
subject property was acquired in the 1940s with no apparent purpose or use in
mind, resulting in an underutilized lot. Given the limited access to this lot off Sea
Street, the best possible opportunity for seeing it developed is via a consolidation
with another more accessible parcel.
The proponent is planning to consolidate the City lot with its own, larger lot having
access off Woodville Road. A preliminary development proposal has been
prepared showing a total of 32 townhouse units being constructed on the site. A
pre -application for this development proposal has already occurred with the next
step for the proponent to proceed with an application for rezoning, subject to
Council's consideration and approval of the attached agreement of Purchase and
Sale.
Service New Brunswick has the City lot assessed at $12,700.00. The lot is
unserviced and access to it via an unused/undeveloped common laneway is
questionable. Staff researched property assessments of other surrounding vacant
properties and compared them to the City lot in question. The adjacent property,
which is to form part of the development site and is identified as PID No. 471557,
was recently purchased for $120,000.00. This recent land sale provided a good
comparison for fair market (appraised) value. A per square metre rate was derived
from this land sale and applied to the City lot. The City's policy for the sale of City
owned land provides that when it receives an unsolicited offer, the selling price
shall not be less than 10 percent above appraised value. Adding 10 percent to the
valuation method described above results in a purchase price of $15,126.00 for
the City owned lot. Staff considers this to be a fair and reasonable purchase price
for this parcel.
Revenue generation, cost avoidance and tax base growth are critical contributors
to the City's vision to become sustainable and to achieve growth and prosperity.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The sale of the City lot will result in a $15,126.00 benefit and a minimal property
tax levy relief of $157.00 per annum. More importantly, when the intended
development of a 32-unit townhouse development is completed, this will result in
a property tax levy benefit to the City between $128,000.00 to $153,000.00
annually.
33
-3-
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
A number of City departments were solicitated for their comments in the
preparation of this report, including: Growth and Community Services (Planning),
Utilities and Infrastructure Services, and the Parks division of Public Works and
Transportation Services. Their comments were included in this report where
applicable.
ATTACHMENT
Agreement of Purchase and Sale
34
AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE
The Purchaser agrees to purchase from the Vendor and the Vendor agrees to sell to the
Purchaser the Real Property upon the following terms and conditions:
Vendor: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
P.O. Box 1971
15 Market Square
Saint John, NB, E2L 41-1
Attention: City Clerk
(hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor")
Purchaser: SEA STREET MANOR LTD.
102 Scotiaview Drive
Saint John, NB, E2M 5131
Attention: David Arseneau
(hereinafter referred to as the "Purchaser")
Real Property: One parcel of land located near Sea Street, Saint John, New Brunswick,
bearing PID No. 00394973 as shown on the attached drawing marked
Schedule "A" hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Real Property")
Purchase Price: $15,126.00, plus HST, if applicable
Deposit: $1,512.60 payable by certified cheque or bank draft upon adoption of
Common Council resolution and approval of the Purchaser's application
for rezoning of the Real Property
Balance: $13,613.40 on the Closing Date
Closing Date: On or before August 31, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Closing
Date")
1. The Purchaser may apply for rezoning of the Real Property in order to allow for its
proposed development. The Vendor hereby consents to the application by the Purchaser
for rezoning of the Real Property on the express condition that the Vendor is neither
implicitly nor explicitly obligated to approve any such application or Zoning By-law
Amendment.
2. The Purchaser shall acquire from the Vendor the freehold title to the Real Property, on an
as is — where is basis.
3. The Purchaser may examine the title to the Real Property at its own expense until April 1,
2021. If within that time any valid objection to the title to the Real Property is made in
writing by the Purchaser to the Vendor which the Vendor shall be unable or unwilling to
1
35
Agreement of Purchase and 5a e
The City of Saint John and Sea Street Manor Ltd.
remove within twenty (20) days of notification of such objection or objections and which
the Purchaser will not waive. this Agreement shall, notwithstanding any intermediate acts
or negotiations in respect of such objections, be null and void and any deposit shall be
returned by the Vendor without interest and the Vendor shall not be liable for any costs or
damages.
4. The Purchaser shall, at its sole expense, register the title to the Real Property under the
Land Titles Act, and the Vendor hereby appoints the Purchaser's solicitor its agent for that
purpose to apply for the required PID approval, certify title to the Real Property for the
purpose of migration to the Land Titles Registry and migrate the Real Property to the Land
Titles System; this clause shall not merge on completion of the purchase and the delivery
of the deed/transfer of the Real Property to the Purchaser, but shall remain in full force
and effect after and notwithstanding the completion and delivery of the deed/transfer.
5. (i) The Vendor shall, on the Closing Date. deliver to the Purchaser a registrable
deed/transfer of the Real Property.
(F) Real property taxes shall be adjusted on the Closing Date.
(iii) The Purchaser shall be responsible for the provincial land transfer tax and registration
fees payable in connection with the registration of the deed/transfer, Any HST is the
responsibility of the Purchaser.
6. The rights of the Purchaser hereunder may not be assigned to a third party.
7. In the event that the Purchaser defaults in the closing of the sale under the terms of this
Agreement, any money paid hereunto shall be forfeited to the Vendor by way of liquidated
damages.
8. Any notice under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effectively given and
made if (a) delivered personally; (b) sent by prepaid courier service; or (c) sent by prepaid
post to the applicable addressee at the address hereinbefore set out.
9. Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement in all respects.
10. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the
subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings,
negotiations and discussions, whether oral or written. There are no conditions,
warranties, representations or other agreements between the parties in connection with
the subject matter of this Agreement (whether oral or written, express or implied, statutory
or otherwise) except as specifically set out in this Agreement.
2
36
Agreement of Purchase and Sale
The City of Saint John and Sea Street Manor Ltd.
11. Any provision of this Agreement which is prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction
shall, as to that jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or
unenforceability and shall be severed from the balance of this Agreement, all without
affecting the remaining provisions of this Agreement or affecting the validity or
enforceability of such provision in any other jurisdiction.
12, This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
Province of New Brunswick.
13. This offer shall be irrevocable by the Purchaser until 4.00 p.m., local time, on February 26,
2021 and upon acceptance by the Vendor shall constitute an Agreement of Purchase and
Sale binding upon the parties hereto.
14. This offer when accepted shall be read with al changes of gender or number required by
the context shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective heirs, executors,
administrators, and assigns, and time shall in all respects be of the essence hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Vendor has caused these presents to be executed this
day of , 2021.
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Mayor
City Clerk
Common Council Resolution:
41
AND the Purchaser has caused these presents to be executed this f day of
4 2021.
SEA STREET MANOR LTD.
Per
3
37
Service New Brunswick
SCHEDULE " f {
Service Nouveau -Brunswick
OA,
Scaletchelle 1:1905 Date: 2021/02/0913:38:43
mitres
0 s0.4 S40 0 190.ti5 mttr!5
Nhile this map may not be free from error or omission, care has been taken to ensure the best possible quality. This map is a graphical representation of
3roperty boundaries which approximates the size, configuration and location of properties. It is not a survey and is not intended to be used for legal
iescription or to calculate exact dimensions or area.
Adme si cette carte nest peut-titre pas libre de toute erreur ou omission, toutes les pr6cautions ont MA prises pour en assurer la meilleure quality possible.
'ette carte est une representation graphique approximative des terrains (limites, dimensions, configuration at emplacement). Elie n'a aucun caract6re
Aciel at ne doil done pas servir a la r6daction de to description officielle d'un terrain ni au calcul de ses dimensions exactes ou de sa superficie.
IN
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-040
Report Date
February 12, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Growth and Community
Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Local Historic Place
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Emma Sampson
Jacqueline Hamilton
I John Collin
;7��r•1uIu7�►�►�7- rrr•�►�i
RESOLVED, that the building located at 152 Watson Street, PID No. 00362350, and
known as the Peters House, is designated as a Local Historic Place for its
architectural and historic contributions to the City of Saint John.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Having been reviewed through the Local Historic Place Designation Policy, the
property at 152 Watson Street is presented with owner consent for designation
as a Local Historic Place. Per Section 68 of the Heritage Conservation Act, this
designation is bestowed through resolution of Common Council, does not affect
title, and presents no obligations nor regulations on the owner of the property.
Designation of individual sites as Local Historic Places and designation of cohesive
collections of properties as Heritage Conservation Areas was reaffirmed through
the adoption of the Local Historic Place Designation Policy and through the new
definition of 'Heritage Conservation Area' as adopted in amendments to HC-1
Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
On December 9, 2019, the following resolution was passed:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager that Common Council adopt
the Local Historic Place Designation Policy.
39
sM
REPORT
The City of Saint John's Heritage Conservation Service and Heritage Development
Board are pleased to present the first property for designation as a Local Historic
Place under the City's Local Historic Place Designation Policy. This policy has a
stepped, predictable process for property owners who are interested in
designation and are enthusiastic about heritage. Following a property owner's
application and using an objective evaluation matrix, the Heritage Development
Board's Local Historic Place Subcommittee reviews a request for designation and
if the property achieves a certain score, the Heritage Development Board
recommends the property's designation to Common Council. The Local Historic
Place recognition acts as a middle step which, over time, can inform the location
of new and expanded Heritage Conservation Areas under the Saint John Heritage
Conservation Areas By -Law.
This policy was implemented by Common Council following discussion around
site -specific designation of heritage properties. In October 2019, Staff and the
Heritage Development Board recommended to Common Council that full
designation under HC-1 Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law be limited
to cohesive collections of properties. By designating groups of properties rather
than individual sites, broader results are often achieved, including greater
community buy -in, tourism, active property conservation, and increased property
values. Where Local Historic Place designation does not fall under the regulation
of the Heritage By -Law, more properties are able to be recognized as having
heritage value without owners having to comply with the requirements of the By -
Law and without putting additional strain on the limited resourcing of the Heritage
Conservation service area. In using groupings of Local Historic Place designations
as a base for broader area designation, more informed and deliberate creation of
Heritage Conservation Areas will see greater long-term success for these
individual properties and Areas as a whole.
152 Watson Street
152 Watson Street, also known as the Peters House, is a two -storey wood -framed
residence located on the Lower West Side of Saint John. Designed by prominent
New Brunswick architect John Cunningham and constructed c. 1843, the property
represents a unique local interpretation of the Carpenter Gothic style. This can be
seen in numerous surviving architectural elements such as the elaborate exterior
detailing including scroll -work bargeboards and finials ('gingerbreading'), the
three stained glass windows along the roofline, and the miniature duplicates of
M
am
the roof above the entrance and windows. On the interior, the grand mahogany
staircase features unique balusters carved with Anglican and Masonic symbols.
The property is also noted in local and oral histories as being the location of the
first surgery with anesthesia in Canada, the removal of a tumour from an arm
performed by Dr. Martin H. Peters at his home practice on January 18, 1847. Dr.
Peters, himself a prominent local, Freeman, and militia officer, was the son of
Charles Jeffery Peters, Attorney General, and member of the Executive Council for
the Province of New Brunswick.
The Heritage Development Board's Local Historic Place Subcommittee evaluated
the property, and the Heritage Development Board recommends to Common
Council the designation of this property as a Local Historic Place.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The proposed amendment aligns with Common Council's priorities of Vibrant,
Safe City.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
N/A
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
The property received unanimous recommendation by the Heritage Development
Board for Common Council to move to designate as a Local Historic Place.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Local Historic Place Designation Policy
41
SAINT 10HN
OVERVIEW
LOCAL HISTORIC PLACE
DESIGNATION POLICY
November 20, 2019
SA NT JOHN
The use of Local Historic Place designation by the City of Saint John is enabled through the Heritage
Conservation Act, SNB 2010, c. H-4.05 and provides the City the ability to recognise properties of
architectural, cultural or historical significance. Where Local Historic Place designation is not registered
on property title and is not affected by the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law, this policy
document will determine the procedure for evaluating properties for designation and for having the
designation put in place by Common Council.
nRIFCTIVFS
Primary:
To formally adopt a second tier of municipal heritage designation, recognising the
extensive heritage present in Saint John; and,
To establish an objective set of criteria for assessment as a Local Heritage Place.
Secondary:
To identify, through Local Historic Place designations, potential areas for the creation of
new Heritage Conservation Areas in the future;
To recognise and bring awareness to properties of heritage value; and,
To encourage retention of Local Historic Places.
ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
Any property within the boundaries of the City of Saint John that is not currently designated as a Local
Historic Place is eligible for consideration through this policy.
PROCFnIJRF
I. Applications
a. A property owner interested in consideration as a Local Historic Place shall submit to
Heritage Conservation staff a report outlining any architectural, cultural or historical
value the property may possess.
b. This report may be prepared by the property owner or by a third party or parties.
Page 1 of 6
42
c. There shall be no requirements as to the length, format, or content of the report as
information available for individual properties will likely vary. A property can only be
evaluated, however, based on the information provided through the report, the quality
and extent of which may impact the outcome of the evaluation.
II. Evaluation
a. On a semi-annual basis, a sub -committee of the Heritage Development Board shall
review any applications for consideration as a Local Historic Place that have been
submitted.
b. The sub -committee shall be comprised of no fewer than two and no more than four
Board members and the Heritage Officer, and shall include a member of the Board who
is a registered architect.
c. Members of the Heritage Development Board shall be appointed to the sub -committee
through nomination and a simple vote of the Board.
d. The sub -committee shall use for evaluation the scoring matrix attached to this
document as Schedule A.
III. Recommendations
a. At a regular meeting of the Heritage Development Board, the sub -committee shall
present to the Board its scores for all properties that have received evaluation.
b. These scores shall be presented in writing as prepared by Heritage Conservation staff,
and shall include whether the score passes the benchmark established as part of the
scoring matrix in Schedule A.
c. The Board shall make recommendations to Common Council for the designation of
properties as Local Historic Places for those properties that have scored above the
benchmark.
IV. Designation
a. The recommendations of the Heritage Development Board shall be submitted to
Common Council.
b. The recommended properties may, by resolution of Common Council, be considered
for designated as Local Historic Places.
c. This designation does not affect the title of the property nor does it impose any
restrictions or obligations on the owner of the property (Heritage Conservation Act,
SNB 2010, c. H-4.05, s. 68(2)).
FUTURE EVALUATION
As needed, staff and/or the Heritage Development Board may review a map of Local Historic Place
designations to determine whether a new Heritage Conservation Area or Areas might be considered for
review or further analysis.
REMOVAL OF DESIGNATION
Page 2 of 6
43
The removal of Local Historic Place designation may be made by resolution of Common Council if:
a. It is requested by the property owner; or,
b. The building or structure that has been designated no longer exists.
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
Eligibility and requirements for financial incentives, if any, for Local Historic Places through the Heritage
Grant Program are outlined in the Heritage Grant Program Policy.
Heritage Services I Growth and Community Development Services
10th Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971
Saint John, New Brunswick
E21- 4L1
Phone: (506) 658-2835
Fax: (506) 658-2837
Email: heritage@saintiohn.ca SAINT JOHN
Page 3 of 6
Schedule A
Local Historic Place Evaluation Matrix
A) Age of Building
For the date of a building, one may take the beginning of construction. For buildings erected in stages,
the earliest building campaign from which a significant amount remains may be used to establish a date.
For buildings that have been significantly altered in their massing from their original construction, the
Date of Construction
Points
Timeline
Pre-1877
25
1877-1914
20
1915-1945
15
1946-1967
10
1968-1979
5
1980-Present
2
earliest date may be used if that construction is still the dominant form. A minimum of five (5) points are
to be awarded to buildings that meet the age threshold of forty (40) years.
B) Historical Significance —Relationship to Important Occasions, Institutions, Persons, or Groups
Associations
Points
Comments
Strong Associations
16-20
Moderate Associations
11-15
Loose Associations
4-10
Scant Significance
0-3
Full points are to be awarded to applications whose associations demonstrate the importance of the
building through its connections to associated persons and events— and are supported by evidence.
C) Significant/Unique Architectural Style OR Highly Representative of an Era
Importance
Points
Comments
Highly significant/unique
or representative
16-20
Moderately
significant/unique or
11-15
representative
Somewhat
significant/unique or
1-10
representative
Not significant/unique or
0
representative
D) Significance of Architect and/or Builder
Page 4 of 6
45
Status
Points
Comments
Preeminent
7-10
Significant
4-6
Incidentally Significant
1-3
Not Identified
0
Significance relates to the notoriety of the architect or builder in one or in multiple communities. These
may include a range of local, provincial, or national groups. A maximum of five (5) additional points may
be awarded by the review committee in recognition of exceptional associations with nationally or
internationally significant architects and builders.
E) Architectural Merit
Construction Type refers to the method by which the structure was built, including building materials and
techniques. Style refers to the form or appearance of the architecture.
Construction Type
Points
Comments
Very rare/early example
7-10
Moderately rare/early
example
4-6
Somewhat rare/early
example
1-3
Common
0
Style
Points
Comments
Very rare/early example
7-10
Moderately rare/early
example
4-6
Somewhat rare/early
example
1-3
Common
0
F) Architectural Integrity
Architectural Integrity is based on the retention of original features, structures, or styles. It is not an
evaluation of the building's condition.
Original Features
Points
Comments
Largely intact
11-15
Minorchanges
6-10
Major changes
1-5
Heavily altered
0
G) Environment/Setting
Page 5 of 6
M
Environment/Setting is graded on the relationship to the surrounding area, in terms of setting, continuity
and familiarity.
Points
Comments
8-10
The building serves as a landmark in the city and/or establishes the dominant character of the area.
4-7
The building is a familiar neighbourhood structure and/or maintains the dominant character of the
area.
1-3
The building is a familiar neighbourhood structure and/or is compatible with the dominant character
of the area.
0
The building is inconspicuous and/or is incompatible with the dominant character of the area.
Category
Maximum Possible Score
Score Awarded
A) Age
25
B) Historical Relationships
20
C) Architectural Style
20
D) Architect/Builder
10
+5
E) Architectural Merit
20
F) Architectural Integrity
15
G) Environment
10
Total
120
A minimum benchmark score of 60 points is required for eligibility as a Local Historic Place.
Page 6 of 6
47
Saint John
Parking Commission
Commission sur le
stationnement de Saint John
February 22, 2021
Jonathan Taylor
Common Clerk
City of Saint John
3`d Floor, City Hall
Saint John, NB
Dear Mr, Taylor,
SAINT JOHN TRANSIT
Re: Appointment of Bradley Wiley, Badge No. 9979 Canadian Corps of Commissionaires as
By-law Enforcement Officer under Saint John Parking By -Law
We are requesting that the following resolution be presented to Common Council for approval:
RESOLVED, that as recommended by the City Manager, the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain by-laws pursuant
To the authority of the Local Governance act, S.N.B. 2017 C.18, and amendments thereto, (the
"Local Governance Act") including the Saint John Parking By-law Number LG-8 and amendments
thereto;
AND WHEREAS Section 72 of the Local Governance Act provides that a council may be
appointed as a by-law enforcement officer for the local government and may determine their
terms of office;
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that Bradley Wiley, is hereby appointed as by-law
enforcement officer for the administration and enforcement of the Saint John Parking By-law
which received first and second reading by Common Council on January 11, 2021 and third
reading January 25, 2021, being enacted under the Local Governance Act, effective immediately,
and this authorization shall continue until he ceases to be an employee of the Saint John Parking
Commission or until rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first.
YoGwW
uly,
Y
Marc Dionne
General Manager
Saint John Parking & Transit Commission
1" Floor City Hall, P.O. Box 1971, Saint John, NB, E21L 41_1 *Tel (506) 632 7275 *Email
parking@saintjohn.ca
11 th Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971, Saint John, N.B. E2L 41-1 - Tel: (506) 632-7275 • E-mail: parking@saintjohn.ca
11 i6me stage, H6tel de Ville, C.P. 1971, Saint John, N.-B. E2L 4L1 •Tkl: (506) 632-7275 - Courriel: park! ng@saintjohn.ca
www.saintjol,ffa/parking
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-039
Report Date
February 16, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Growth and Community
Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Proposed Public Hearing Date — 545 Sandy Point Road and 2400
Ocean Westway
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Jennifer Kirchner
Jacqueline Hamilton
I John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
That Common Council schedule the public hearings for the rezoning applications
of Xiaodu Ge (545 Sandy Point Road) and the Municipal Plan and rezoning
amendments for 2400 Ocean Westway for Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 6:30 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to advise Common Council of the rezoning
applications received and to recommend an appropriate public hearing date. The
next available public hearing date is Tuesday, April 6, 2021.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
At its meeting of August 3, 2004, Common Council resolved that:
1. the Commissioner of Planning and Development receive all
applications for amendments to the Zoning By-law and Section 39
[now referred as section 59] resolutions/agreements and proceed
to prepare the required advertisements; and
2. when applications are received a report will be prepared
recommending the appropriate resolution setting the time and
place for public hearings and be referred to the Planning Advisory
Committee as required by the Community Planning Act.
-2-
REPORT
In response to the motion above, this report indicates the applications received
and recommends an appropriate public hearing date. Details of the applications
are available in the Common Clerk's office and will form part of the
documentation at the public hearings.
The following application has been received:
Name of Location Existing Proposed Zone Reason
Applicant Zone
Xiaodu Ge 545 Sandy Neighbourhood Low Rise To use the
Point Road Community
(PID Facility (CFN)
00051508)
Residential (RL) existing
building as a
residence
The public hearing date of April 61", 2021 will also include the public hearing for
the Municipal Plan and rezoning amendments for 2400 Ocean Westway.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
While the holding of public hearings for proposed rezoning and Section 59
amendments is a legislative requirement of the Community Planning Act, it is
also a key component of a clear and consistent land development processes
envisioned in the One Stop Development Shop Program. These processes
provide transparency and predictability for the development community and
City residents.
On a broader note, the development approvals process works towards fulfilling
key Council priorities including:
• ensuring Saint John has a competitive business environment for
investment,
• supporting business retention and attraction; and
• driving development in accordance with PlanSJ which creates the density
required for efficient infrastructure, services and economic growth.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The scheduling of the public hearing and referral to the Planning Advisory
Committee satisfies the legislative and service requirements as mandated by the
Community Planning Service.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
50
am
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS
IR.M
51
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-046
Report Date
February 17, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Growth and Community
Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Adoption of 2015 National Building and Plumbing Codes and the
Building Code Administration Act
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Amy Poffenroth
Jacqueline Hamilton
I John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
Your City Manager recommends that this report be received and filed.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is to update Council on the Province's recent adoption of the 2015
National Building, Plumbing and Fire Codes and the 2011 National Energy Code as
well as new enabling legislation relating to the building permitting and inspection
field.
REPORT
The City of Saint John has been a strong advocate of adoption of the 2015 National
Building Code of Canada, particularly for the development opportunities it may
facilitate with the allowance for midrise wood construction.
Staff has been advised that the Province has in fact adopted the 2015 National
Building Code, effective February 1, 2021, in addition to the 2015 National
Plumbing Code, the 2015 National Fire Code and the 2011 National Energy Code.
The Province has also passed the Building Code Administration Act and associated
regulations. This Act moves legislated authority for building -related matters out
of the Community Planning Act into its own Act and builds consistency and
minimum standards for building permits and inspections across the Province.
Staff is currently reviewing the act and regulations to determine the impact on
operations and the City's Building by-law. While the By-law will have to be
52
-2-
updated before February 1, 2022 to reflect the new Act, it is anticipated that there
will not be a significant impact on the provisions in our current building by-law.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
On September 28, 2020, Council passed the following resolution:
That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2020-
238: Letter of Support for Adoption of the 2015 National Building Code of
Canada, Common Council send a letter of support to the Province of New
Brunswick, encouraging the adoption of the 2015 National Building Code of
Canada as soon as possible.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
Adoption of Codes aligns with Council's priority of Growth and Prosperity and
Vibrant, Safe City.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Province -wide adoption of the 2015 National Building Code levels the playing field
for developers and builders working throughout Canada. It also allows midrise
wood construction projects, providing a wider range of construction options for
Saint John developers.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
53
211
Mischka Jacobs
211 NB Director of Community Engagement
211info@moncton.unitedway.ca
506 858 8600
Funded by the
Government of Canada
1+1
In partnership with
BNewi7 Nouveau
runswfc
54
4 YZ United Way
w-
MA Centraide
M.
211 is an information and referral service that connects
New Brunswickers to critical human, social, community
and government support.
It is free and confidential.
Phones are answered 24/7, 365 days a year, in 170
languages through interpretation services.
56
r;�
211
61bt U
I
nt/ /
k or �
\� Iry
./��.2����
When someone contacts 211, they are connected with a
real person who will ask questions about their situation
and suggest programs or services that can help.
This eliminates the stress of trying to wade through the
changing information people are processing each day.
59
r;�
2
61ht 1 1
. h � •-
What it's not:
211 is not a crisis management or counselling service.
Our community navigators are not trained to offer advice.
They are experts in the human, social, community and
government resources, programs and services available
to New Brunswickers. They offer information and referral.
r;�
211
61 61ht U
62
211 is a complementary service to the hard work that
many organizations and services are doing.
It helps ease the burden of research and navigation, so
they can do what they're best at: serving their people.
A significant amount of calls in other provinces are made
by resource organizations with their clients, because life's
challenges are almost always complex and multi -faceted.
63
r;�
211
61ht U
Partners:
Federal Government
GNB
United Way of Canada
United Ways of NB
Findhelp
Social Development
SJHDC
ESIC
Community organizations
r;�
2
61bt 1 1
65
Examples of services referred to:
- Financial assistance
- Food access
- Programs for seniors
- Newcomer support
- Mental health resources
- COVID-19 relief programs
- Job loss or training
- Parent support
- Women's shelters
-Affordable housing
and more.
r;�
2
Lht 1 1
a
211 is a tool we can all
It's for everyone.
use.
r;�
211
61bt U
To access the service, dial 2-1-1.
If there is any issue, people can also call the toll -free line
1-855-258-4126.
Toll -free TTY line: 1-855-405-7446
70
r;�U
211
Lat
Check and update programs and services:
https://updates.21 1 support.orq/Record/submit
71
211 is the front door to community, social and government
services.
Life can be hard, but finding help doesn't have to be.
72
r;�
2
61ht 1 1
What can we all do?
-Talk about 211. Spread the word.
-Share on social media, newsletters, emails.
- Put it on websites as a resource.
-Email signatures.
-Voicemail message and out of office replies.
-Posters and postcards.
73
r;�
2
61ht 1 1
Thank you.
74
r;�
2
61bt 1 1
February 17, 2021
His Worship Mayor Don Darling
And Councillors
SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment — 2400 Ocean Westway
A Public Presentation was made on January 11, 2021 of a proposed amendment to the
Municipal Development Plan which would re -designate on Schedule A of the Municipal
Development Plan, land having an approximate area of 0.4 hectares, located adjacent to 2400
Ocean Westway, also identified as a portion of PID No. 55095855, from Park and Natural Area
to Rural Resource Area; and to re -designate on Schedule B of the Municipal Development Plan,
land having an approximate area of 0.4 hectares, located adjacent to 2400 Ocean Westway,
also identified as a portion of PID No. 55095855, from Park and Natural Area to Rural Resource
Area to construct a new access road for an existing quarry.
The required advertising has been completed and attached you will find a copy of the public
notice, and any letters of opposition or support received.
If Council wishes, it may choose to refer the matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a
report and recommendation and authorize the necessary advertising with a Public Hearing to
be held on Tuesday, April 6, 2021 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
lr -
SAINT JOHN
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.R 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1
75
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
RE: LANDS ADJACENT TO 2400 OCEAN
WESTWAY
Public Notice is hereby given that the
Common Council of The City of Saint John
intends to consider an amendment to the
Municipal Development Plan which would:
1. Re -designate on Schedule A of the
Municipal Development Plan, land
having an approximate area of 0.4
hectares, located adjacent to 2400
Ocean Westway, also identified as a
portion of PID No. 55095855, from
Park and Natural Area to Rural
Resource Area as illustrated below;
2. Re -designate on Schedule B of the
Municipal Development Plan, land
having an approximate area of 0.4
hectares, located adjacent to 2400
Ocean Westway, also identified as a
portion of PID No. 55095855, from
Park and Natural Area to Rural
Resource Area as illustrated below;
A public presentation of the proposed
amendment will take place at a regular
meeting of Common Council, to be held in the
Council Chamber at City Hall with a remote
participation option on Monday, January 11,
2021.
PROJET DE MODIFICATION DU PLAN
MUNICIPAL
OBJET : TERRAINS ADJACENTS AU 2400,
VOIE OUEST OCEAN
Par les presentes, un avis public est donne
par lequel le conseil communal de ville de
Saint John a ('intention d'etudier la
modification du plan d'amenagement
municipal comme suit :
1. Modifier la designation, a I'annexe A du
plan, d'une parcelle de terrain d'une
superficie d'environ 0.4 hectares,
situee adjacent a 2400, voie Ouest
Ocean, et une partie de NID 55095855,
afin de la faire passer de parc or aire
naturelle a secteur de ressources
rurales, comme it est indique ci-
dessous;
2. Modifier la designation, a I'annexe B du
plan, d'une parcelle de terrain d'une
superficie d'environ 0.4 hectares,
situee adjacent a 2400, voie Ouest
Ocean, et une partie de NID 55095855,
afin de la faire passer de parc or aire
naturelle a secteur de ressources
rurales, comme it est indique ci-
dessous;
Une presentation publique du projet de
modification aura lieu lors de la reunion
ordinaire du conseil communal, qui se tiendra
dans la salle du Conseil a ('hotel de ville avec
une option de participation a distance par
conference Web le lundi 11 janvier 2021.
76
REASON FOR CHANGE:
RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION:
To construct a new access road for an existing Construire une nouvelle route d'acces a une
quarry. carrie
Written objections to the proposed amendment
may be made to the Council, in care of the
undersigned, by February 10, 2021. Enquiries
may be made at the office of the Common
Clerk or Growth and Community Development
Services, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint
John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive,
holidays excepted.
Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk
658-2862
Veuillez faire part au conseil par ecrit de vos
objections au projet de modification au plus
tard le 10 fevrier 2021 a I'attention du
soussigne. Pour toute demande de
renseignements, veuillez communiquer avec
le bureau du greffier communal ou le bureau
de service de la croissance et du
developpement communautaire a I'hotel de
ville au 15, Market Square, Saint John, N.-B.,
entre 8 h 30 et 16 h 30 du lundi au vendredi,
sauf Ies fours feries.
Jonathan Taylor, Greffiere communale
6582862
i.
i I
I!
a �
�
..
.f
_5 •'S i 5' J4
ti
77
Q�T= �TIf -1
COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-042
Report Date
February 19, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Growth and Community
Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment — 2100 Sandy Point Road
(Ethos Ridge)
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Andrew Reid
Jacqueline Hamilton
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Common Council schedule the public hearing for the Plan
Amendment and Rezoning application (2100 Sandy Point Road — PID
55233977 and a portion of 55233233) for a Common Council meeting of
Monday, March 29, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. and refer the application to the
Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation.
2. That Common Council receive and file the submissions from the 30-day
review period for the Municipal Plan Amendment and Rezoning at 2100
Sandy Point Road and forward to staff and the Planning Advisory
Committee to be considered through the application process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to summarize for Common Council the public
submissions received during the 30 date Public Presentation period for the Ethos
Ridge Municipal Plan and Rezoning application and recommend that the
application and the public submissions be referred on for consideration through
the legislative process including review by the Planning Advisory Committee and
the setting of a public hearing date for Council's consideration. Staff have
reviewed letter/petition submissions received by 62 households in the vicinity of
the project. It is staff's recommendation that the application should proceed
through the required process including a full technical analysis of the application,
required public hearings and consideration by the Planning Advisory Committee
-2-
and Common Council. All public submissions received during the 30-day Public
Presentation are recommended to be referred to staff and the Planning Advisory
Committee for review through the process.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
At its meeting of August 3, 2004, Common Council resolved that:
The Commissioner of Planning and Development receive all applications
for amendments to the Zoning By-law and Section 39 [now referred as
section 59] resolutions/ agreements and proceed to prepare the required
advertisements; and
When applications are received a report will be prepared recommending
the appropriate resolution setting the time and place for public hearings
and be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee as required by the
Community Planning Act.
REPORT
Public Presentation
A Public Presentation was made at Common Council on January 11, 2021 of a
proposed amendment to the Municipal Development Plan which would:
- Re -designate on Schedule A of the Municipal Development Plan, land
having an area of 8.57 hectares, located at 2100 Sandy Point Road, also
identified as PID No. 55233977 and a portion of PID No. 55233233, from
Rural Resource Area to Stable Area; and,
- Re -designate on Schedule B of the Municipal Development Plan, land
having an area of 8.57 hectares, located at 2100 Sandy Point Road, also
identified as PID No. 55233977 and a portion of PID No. 55233233, from
Rural Resource and Park and Natural Area to Major Community Facility
and extend the boundary of the Primary Development Area (PDA).
The Common Clerk has confirmed the required advertising has been completed
and attached you will find a copy of the public notice, and any letters of
opposition or support received.
Under the Community Planning Act, A Public Presentation is required for the
adoption of a new Municipal Plan or amendments proposed to the Plan. 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, March 29, 2021 at 6:30
pm, or not to proceed with the proposed amendment process and adopt a
resolution to deny the application. Given the reasons outlined in this report, staff
79
am
recommend proceeding with the referral to the Planning Advisory Committee to
provide for a full technical analysis, staff recommendation, and public review of
the application.
The Application
On December 4, 2020, the application was received to consider amending the
Municipal Plan and rezoning a 8.57 hectare area of land located at 2100 Sandy
Point Road. The application received was consistent with the level of information
required for a Municipal Plan submission (project description, site plan, floor
plans, traffic study, sanitary loading). The application was made to permit a
proposal consisting of a 4-storey 125-unit retirement facility for independent and
supported living that emphasizes a connection to nature and outdoor amenity.
By provincial guidelines, no Environmental Impact Assessment was required with
the submission of the application.
The 30-day Period
On January 11, 2021, following Public Presentation, Common Council initiated a
30-day period to collect public feedback on the proposed Plan Amendment.
During this meeting, the application package was made fully available to the
public.
The 30-day period ended on February 10, 2021. Staff have thoroughly reviewed
all public submissions received during the 30-day period. A summary is attached
to this report, along with all letters and petitions. 62 households responded to
the 30-day period, through either letter or petition. 56 residents noted
opposition, five neutral, and one in support. The major themes of concern relate
to increased traffic, the density and character of the development in contrast to
the neighbourhood, impact on private wells, construction impacts, stormwater
considerations, and concerns around environmental impact and displacement of
wildlife.
All advertising and public notice requirements have been met with the proposal.
The 30-day period was advertised on the City website and a reminder was sent
out via social media. Initiating the full technical review of the proposal will
permit a detailed review of the application and formal opportunity for the City to
investigate these concerns and the applicant to further respond to them as well
as providing additional opportunities for public participation through the PAC
and Council process.
Public Participation
Several letters raise concern about a lack of information or engagement prior to
the application being made. Staff can confirm that all public participation
requirements as defined in the Community Planning Act, were followed by the
:1
-4-
City. There is no legislative requirement on the developer to undertake public
engagement as part of their development efforts, however, it remains a best
practice to do so and City Staff always encourage developers to do so early on.
While staff acknowledge in the feedback received from citizens that there were
concerns about a lack of engagement, we also acknowledge steps taken by the
developer to engage the public, which generally meets the level of engagement
that other developments of this scale would undertake. These efforts include:
- Various neighbourhood engagements since December 2019 (survey, door
to door meetings, online meetings). The applicant has indicated that over
100 hours have been spent on community engagement.
- A virtual public meeting is planned for February 19, 2021 at noon to
further share information on the proposal. City staff will attend this
meeting as an observer and to advise on the application process.
Additional Public Participation
Should Common Council move ahead with the Plan Amendment, there will be
additional opportunities for public participation on the proposal and decision
making by Common Council based on the technical analysis:
- Prior to the application being received by the Planning Advisory
Committee, neighbours will receive a letter informing them of the
proposal per standard PAC protocol;
- The application will be publicly advertised 21 days prior to the public
hearing on the City website per the Community Planning Act;
- The public will have an opportunity to make additional representation to
the Planning Advisory Committee through letter or by attending the
meeting;
- The public will have an additional opportunity at the Common Council
public hearing to attend or write in (Tentatively scheduled for March 29,
2021);
- Meetings are to be held virtually with a phone-in option. In the case that
a physical meeting is possible, residents will be advised. In doing so, the
City can balance public health and public participation requirements, as
many municipalities across the country are currently doing.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
While the holding of public hearings for proposed rezoning and Section 59
amendments is a legislative requirement of the Community Planning Act, it is
also a key component of a clear and consistent land development processes
envisioned in the One Stop Development Shop Program. These processes
provide transparency and predictability for the development community and
City residents.
-5-
On a broader note, the development approvals process works towards fulfilling
key Council priorities including:
• ensuring Saint John has a competitive business environment for
investment,
• supporting business retention and attraction; and
• driving development in accordance with PlanSJ which creates the density
required for efficient infrastructure, services and economic growth.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The scheduling of the public hearing and referral to the Planning Advisory
Committee satisfies the legislative and service requirements as mandated by the
Community Planning Service.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
Not applicable
ATTACHMENTS
1— Public Presentation Notice
2 — Public Submissions Cover Page
3 — Public Submissions received during the 30-day comment period
Attachment 1— Cover Page to 30-day comment period letters
Respondents
62 Total
56 Against
5 Neutral
1 In Support
Themes Identified
During the review of submissions, the following themes were identified and weighted by mention in the
letters. In total, 62 households responded; 45 letters via letter and 17 via survey. Technical review of the
application would examine all concerns.
1. Increase in traffic
o Safety concerns/sidewalks needed
o Traffic study scope
o Inadequate existing road network—construction/circulation
o Safety of approach access
2. Does not fit with character of neighbourhood / contrary to Municipal Plan
o Cost to City
o Efficiency of servicing
o Concern about requiring residents to hook into city services
3. Effect of wells/water table because of construction
o Potential for contamination and availability of well water
o Exacerbate existing conditions
o Blasting
4. Construction Impacts and Ongoing Disturbance — Noise and Degradation of Infrastructure
o Blasting
o Increased emergency vehicles
o Light pollution
5. Stormwater effect on neighbouring properties and erosion
o Existing problems exacerbated
o Environmental concern of runoff into river
6. Displacement of wildlife and increase in deer/tick problem
o Bald Eagles
7. Building massing and buffering
'17rwt- ADS
aj
Rog —tir
aaw,n ►w o't iu,
I� k&I 4-o � c�nskru- .
�x,
)kt - 4W .� �. she - } Vt vie
des
bohda adMK oeAevAvp• ii� *A ���
ku.a �
�a
' �oi5e, ll��ivr�
d _
�a,d �s a ,na.rrav�
�nntk naxynur, e►'a&
' �b read. ►ntkw� � �i�'� .
& W�A euxt jw
how �n,e'�` berv� "Mr
S vc •S d� 5fi�s LAW k, cjbvvru�o.
• �o �d,�vv�cs.
IOA Ilk-
. Will 1�0- 7 '
n►�,a�
. 1-� wi�l�
�� "�4k
mhos i h,af, .d -�na-�►- vvtiUTAAj
-�i�nn o ux l l
is- r iz-
.
Q Lu�
r wr,�,( •
aid << WWI1a� 4fide cv�
iy�Dll� +r' r vinak� 1111 aXca. I L6
'GZ RAL.r . Ufa. CAM rot � D-vu vst�
-tb
r+
'tk
85
knielectric@2maii.com
From: Joan Lawrence <j.l.lawrence@rogers.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 7:45 PM
To: knlelectric@gmail.com
Subject: Thoughts on the Ethos Project from Joan Lawrence
Subject: Our Neighbourhood and the Ethos project
From: Joan L Lawrence
34 Beach Road
Saint John. NB
E2K 5H5
506 214 1275
Cell 506 608 9543
Email j.l.lawrence@rogers.com
My personal thoughts;
My "low density" neighbourhood will be negatively impacted...
I moved in from the Kennebecasis Valley in 2010 and built a home. I chose my neighbourhood( and chose to pay higher
city taxes) based on the fact that it was a country setting. As a nature lover, I loved the trees, pristine environment, the
low traffic and noise and the small and friendly neighbourhood.
In 2018,1 was diagnosed with an incurable illness ( a rare cancer) that I will deal with the rest of my life. Now, more than
ever, nature and a calm setting is important to me.
have now become anxious of the proposal set before us as I feel this is now threatened. A commercial building in a
residential setting does not seem right for a variety of reasons.
Traffic Impact ( Pedestrian safety)
I walk and ride my bike on Sandy Point Road daily. I recognize there are no sidewalks however with the current low
traffic it is manageable. The neighbours know to go slow down this road due to its twists and turns and blind spots. I fear
that with the many proposed units, there will be increased traffic and therefore more hazard to me(us) ,the walkers (and
the bikers). In fact, I find this when the ferry lands and there is an onslaught of fast and often reckless ( not taking into
consideration the walker or biker on the side of the road ) vehicles going by. This will be the ongoing case with many
more cars coming and going at all times of the day. It is my personal opinion that the traffic study quoted is low on the
percentage increase in traffic cited. How was this assessed? Please provide the details of this study.
Question: What guarantee do we have that sidewalks will be built? How will this impact existing landowners along the
road? We are going from lower density to higher density traffic. Is this fair to the current property owners who chose to
live in a " non commercial", low density neighbourhood. One such neighbour moved ( invested in this area) from a
subdivision to this area because of the "quiet" environment.
Note that the Quispamsis and Millidgeville Shannex properties are accessed via commercial roads and do not impact
residential neighbourhoods.
11
Environmental impact
Question: Has there been a statement of environment effects done?
The beautiful trees....
We generally know how construction goes. The intent will be to save the trees but construction costs are lower once the
landscape is raped. Many of the trees on the proposed property are very old and they deserve to be respected and
preserved. With changing climate conditions and water run off, trees and their root systems are critical especially along
our waterways. Will there be an arborist report submitted?
Displacement of wildlife
There are many deer that roam the woods. They will be impacted and perhaps there will be more motor vehicle
accidents as the deer roam onto the roads in their displacement.
Rainwater
Question: What is the storm water management plan? Rainwater runoff needs to be critically planned and managed.
How will the proposed storm water measures impact the neighbouring properties? What will happen "downstream"
(down the hill on Pelton road) ? As it is now, the ditches on Sandy Point Road are being taxed in heavy rain storms
(seemingly more prevalent with climate change) resulting in overflow situations, culverts being destroyed, roads being
compromised and erosion.
Question: Have Geotechnical reports been provided assessing erosion and land slip that would impact the property and
surrounding properties.
Question: Have studies been performed and offered ( financial compensation) to surrounding neighbours as to what
impact this commercial development and land disturbance will have on their wells?
Acoustic Impact
As this is a commercial operation coming into a quiet and pristine residential neighbourhood, what is the ongoing noise
impact of the operation of the facility. What can be anticipated? I anticipate increased traffic noise, comings and going
of ambulances, comings and goings of staff, food supply trucks, maintenance trucks, courier trucks ( and they travel
fast!) heating and cooling systems noises going on and off. Also what is the impact during the construction phase. As a
side note, what control is in place for waste management and rodent control.
During construction, what are the hours or construction and dwation of the plan? Is there anticipated blasting? What
guarantees are given to the neighbouring homes that there will be no impact to their basements ( cracked foundations)
and wells?
Our river system is unlike any other. I feel a behemoth complex on its banks does not suit the environment. Light
pollution is also of concern on both sides of the property. Question: How will this be minimized?
Target Market/Market
As a side note, my father has been in a Shannex facility for 10 years. Over the years, I have interviewed many of the
residents living in the retirement section. I would say that the majority of them would prefer not to live there and only
do so,because there are no alternatives for them such as smaller garden homes or nicer senior apartments (granted in
the greater Saint John area, senior apartments and condos are now only starting to proliferate as the baby boomers are
needing them ). Mose people would prefer to remain independent and not (in their older years) have to live in a dorm
style environment.
Question: Has research been performed in the Saint John market that a facility such as this is in demand with the
corresponding high price point? Perhaps we could have the details of this report.
Question: In one meeting it was stated that neighbours would be allowed to continue to walk on the paths of the site.
Would we be given passes to do so? Explain how this will work?
On a side note, I feel that with the recent pandemic the thoughts of people wanting to live a bit more "separated" is
more prevalent rather than apartment style facilities ( refer especially the large condo complexes of Toronto). I would
suggest a modest number of small garden homes would be more appropriate if I had to choose between two evils. In
fact, I probably already know of five prospective couples that would be interested in such a concept within a year or
two. They live in Millidgeville and would like to stay here. They would like to sell their large family homes, and purchase
a small garden home. They would not want to live in an apartment style complex.
Sent from my iPad
08Jan-2021
To Whom it May Concern,
The Ethos Ridge development will be formally introduced at the City Council meeting on Jan
11". This will mark the beginning of a 30-day consultation period with the general public. The exact
details of the project have yet to be shared with the neighbourhood, but the consensus is that Ethos
Ridge will be a 120-unit residential complex targeting the senior demographic. The proposed
development is to be built on a parcel of land off 2100 Sandy Point Road situated between Pelton
Road and Westmount Road. This area is currently zoned RU (rural) and is outside the PDA (Primary
Development Area), according to PLAN SJ. This means the developer is attempting to build a high -
density development in an area that is not designated for large scale projects.
As you may have heard, this proposal has already drawn some positive media coverage.
However, most residents in the area feel the information conveyed is one sided and frankly
inaccurate. Historically, letters of opposition and concern have proven successful in stopping
developments that do not fit the neighbourhood. We understand submitting multiple letters to local
politicians and the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) have a strong impact on their decision to
approve or deny a project. Delivering these letters as a group will show strength in numbers and
ensure the residents in the neighbourhood are heard. We would also like to graphically represent
how many people are in favour or opposed to this project which we will do following receipt of the
letters.
If you would like to voice your opinion regarding this project, we kindly ask that you provide
your letter by Jan 23. In your letter please be mindful to include your name, address, and specific
concerns about the project. Your letter does not have to be lengthy or technical, but please feel free
to share as much information as you feel necessary in order to get your point across. Please also
note that all letters must be signed by the homeowner(s) and dated for acceptance by PAC.
For convenience, the person delivering this letter will arrange to pick up your letter.
Alternatively, please feel free to scan and email it to: knielectric@gmall.com. Please just ensure you
sign and date it before sending it. We also invite you to provide your contact information (i.e. phone
number and email address) if you would like to be kept up to date regarding the status of this
project. Lastly, please feel free to share this request with your neighbours or anyone else you feel
will be impacted by this development. The more letters we receive the better.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to do this.
n
Sincerely, I C; jI -F" 4
r!WJ1,
Concerned residents of the neighbourhood .-df5+Wr Pp{ C4* kt Cje
tk retf-on U.
89
V-1-2�77 &xa,,
o-��Grn�,�
,20
all
January 23, 2021
City of Saint John, Community Development Services
15 Market Square
Saint John, N.B.
Attention: Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Proposed Rezoning and Development at 2100 Sandy Point Road
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed development and rezoning of land located
at 2100 Sandy Point Road.
As a resident of the area, i am concerned that this development will create increased traffic in a
residential area that already experiences high volumes of traffic due to its proximity to the hospital and
the ferry located on Kennebecasis Drive. By developing an additional 125 unit building, along with those
that will be working at and visiting this location, the volume of traffic will rise significantly. Infrastructure
upgrades would also be needed to withstand the increased traffic and construction that would result
from this development, including, but not limited to, sidewalk installation on Sandy Point Road, traffic
lights at the intersection of Foster Thurston and Sandy Point Road and traffic lights or a reconfiguration
of the intersection located at Kennebecasis Drive and Sandy Point Road.
While I am not against further development of this land to allow for additional residential housing, I am
opposed to a development of the size that has been proposed as part of the Ethos Ridge Project. After
speaking with other residents in the area, this appears to be a shared concern.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Contact:
1236 Kennebecasis Drive
Saint John, NB E2K 5131
phinneyjay@gmail.com
91
Jan
21,2021
To whom it may concern
Regarding the developement of Ethos Ridge at 2100 Sandy Pount Road.
Our concern is regarding the zoning that may be needed for this developement. We are
concerned that it may be changed to allow appartment buildings and residences other than
single family dwellings that we now have in our area.
We are also concerned with the increased traffic and construction that such a developement
would cause.
Glen and Donna Lamb
1213 Kennebecasis Drive
Saint Sohn
dlamb@nb.sympatico.ca
92
Stephen Biggs
1225 Kennebecasis Drive
Saint John, NB, E2K 5A7
January 22, 2021
Planning Advisory Committee
City of Saint John
Reference to Ethos Ridge Development
Dear Planning Advisory Committee Members:
I was admittedly surprised to hear that this kind of development (Ethos Ridge Development) is being considered
for this quiet, tranquil, single-family dwelling area, and would like to voice some of my concerns:
I am worried about the blasting and/or rock digging (pounding) necessary for the land preparation of such a
retirement development, which may cause rock movement in the area, resulting in expense to the present
homeowners. I can attest to this happening from recent movement/fracturing of rock on the back hill of my yard,
resulting in a gushing of water (spring) up from the area, flooding my back yard and spreading to my neighbours'.
I was obligated to spend thousands of dollars to have numerous drain pipes installed and coverage of the area with
rocks, to move water away from my back yard where it had been gradually inching closer and closer to my home.
This issue had never presented before in my 34-years as a home owner at this same location. A neighbour also
suffered movement of their foundation and bricks falling from the side of their home. I am concerned that this is
all the result of the incessant pounding (rock breaking) by machinery and sometimes blasting of rock in the area to
create subdivisions and dig foundations for homes. The rock bed in the area is obviously precarious and I am
concerned as to what might occur from further construction in the area, especially in light of the magnitude of the
proposed Ethos Ridge retirement development and associated access road.
With the number of units proposed, traffic will be an issue and with it, safety. A number of residents walk Sandy
Point Road to the beach (from the corner that meets Kennebecasis Drive) and there is no sidewalk or shoulder to
walk on. I have walked this street with my children and now granddaughter without issue as there is only the odd
vehicle on the road, sometimes none. Both pedestrian and vehicle just look out for each other when they do meet.
With more than one vehicle at any time on the road, it will not be safe to walk as there is limited shoulder and a
large ditch to avoid. During construction of such a complex, with trucks on the road, it will be impossible to walk
to the water which I feel I have a right to do, especially after paying city taxes here all these years.
In summary, I am very concerned about the proposed development, especially as it relates to construction, traffic
increase and safety of residents in the area.
Sincerely,
Stephen Biggs
93
Jan 16, 2021
To Saint John City Council,
This letter is to voice our concerns over a new 120-unit residential senior complex that is being proposed for 2100 Sandy
Point Road. As much as we would love to retire in such a place as described in the newspaper, we do not believe that
this is the right location for such a place. We are all for development in our city but these are our concerns with the
proposed location of this project;
1. Minimal traffic ... We think not! 120 units would see 120 families being visited plus all the staff that would be
required to run the bistro, pool, wellness center, keep up the grounds, and the health care personal required on
site. Great employment opportunity, but a lot more traffic for 2 already busy intersections at Kennebecasis
Drive -Westmont Drive and Foster Thurston -Sandy Point Road.
2. This is not a regular bus route, so we would suspect at least 60 resident cars as well driving to do errands every
day.
3. The traffic alone on these side roads would be greatly increased and there are no sidewalks for residents
currently to walk on Sandy Point Road. Would the city be updating the road with sidewalks and keeping them
cleared in the winter so the children in the neighborhood could make it to their bus stops safely, or the seniors
in this residence could walk to the bus stop safely.
4. The price of these senior complexes makes us think that 75r of the residents will be coming in from other
provinces, not NB. This will put a further burden on our health care system. Saint John already has many people
still waiting for a family doctor, are we going to be able to provide proper health care for all the new seniors
coming into the province?
5. There are already 3 seniors housing complexes in Milledgeville, are these full?
6. Will this new development be on city water and sewage? if so, can the system handle such a large quantity of
water and waste? Will overflow be pumped into our beautiful river system?
7. We lose our community sliding hill, and will the trails be accessible for all neighbours or just the residents of the
retirement home?
8. Speaking of the hill, to get to this new development is a steep incline and decline, can emergency vehicles get
here safely. I hear the excavator had to go around on Pelton Road to do testing.
9. We are in a rural community and purchased here for that reason. This community is unlike most communities.
Everyone knows 90% of their neighbours by name if not all of them. We all enjoy the tranquility of this area.
Thank you for taking the time to review our concerns,
Ulk*
Deborah Hughes
Y
Maria Hughes
24 Beach Road,
Saint John, NB, E2K-5H5
L-IM
� e hes
Rachel #uest
Cam er /nH ghes
41�
Jacob Hughes
01
Dear Saint John Council, January 23, 2021
am writing to express my opposition to January 11. 2021 proposed rezoning at the 2100 Sandy
Point Road between Pelton road and Westmount road for the proposed development -Ethos Ridge
120- unit residential complex on an area currently zones as RU( Rural) outside the primary
development area according to the PLAN SJ.
The developer is attempting to build a high -density development in an area not designated for
large-scale projects. That in itself will be detrimental to the site. Nearly all neighborhood
residents are entirely opposed to multi -unit development projects that will cause a heavier
density of traffic and safety problems. Due to the traffic from the Kingston peninsular ferry. the
neighborhood is already over -capacity. with some vehicles not stopping when school buses pick
upldrop school children, causing safety concerns. Traffic and safety of schoolchildren &
pedestrians are significant areas of concern. The local neighborhood traffic will
disproportionately surge in our neighborhoods. The traffic surge during morning rush hours will
also negatively influence safety for children; since students walk towards the school bus and. as
mentioned earlier, do not stop when the bus signal is on.
urge you and the Planning Advisory Committee to disapprove of the proposed rezoning. From
recent meetings and discussions kNith my neighbors. I know many who have not managed to
attend meetings or write letters and emails share my opinions.
Thank you for }'our continued service and support of our communities.
Best regards.
John Mascarenhas
1830 Sandy Point Road
Saint John N.B.
95
21 January 2021
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to oppose the potential Ethos Retirement Centre from being built at 2100 Sandy Point
Road.
I am part of a multi -generational family, all of whom have lived or currently live on Pelton Road for the
last 70 years. I myself have lived here since my teens, and I am currently a senior citizen who has no
intention of moving. I certainly have no intention of selling my house and moving into the proposed
development, as the developer would have you believe.
This has always been a rural area and I strongly believe should remain so. My reasons for this are:
1) As a rural area, we have no sidewalks and extremely poor road quality. in fact, the road has
never been paved in all my time here. We have children biking and walking to bus stops,
heading up a hill with no visibility to oncoming traffic and vice versa. The rise in traffic would
greatly increase the risk of injury to anyone walking.
2) This construction will cause land erosion, which will potentially affect the water in the wells of
every house down here. It could also create runoffs which will cause flooding in the area.
3) The endless increase in noise level during construction of such a facility, as well as the day-to-
day operations (employees coming and going at all hours, deliveries, emergency vehicles, etc.)
are all unwelcome intrusions in such a quiet, rural neighbourhood.
4) This development will cause a decrease in green space by removing trees that have been there
for centuries. This in turn will reduce air quality and destroy the natural habitat of wildlife,
causing the deer population to migrate to our properties.
5) Based on the above issues, I feel our property values will greatly diminish by such a large
development in the area.
If the need for such a community exists in our area, there are several options on Sandy Point Road which
would be closer to emergency facilities. I would suggest the location of the former Cherry Brook Zoo as
that location would be more easily accessible, and with utilities already in place.
I ask that the City Council reject the proposal for the Ethos Development Project.
Sincerely,
C "IPIN
Janet Capson
444 Pelton Road
Saint John NB
E2K-5H7
0
17 January 2021
To whom this may Concern
I am writing this letter apposing the proposed development of the Ethos Retirement project at
2100 Sandy Pt. Rd.
I have several concerns regarding the proposed development. I reside at 305 Pelton lid, which is
located at the corner of Sandy pt_ and Pelton and have been a resident of this community for
approximately 16 years. As a family we own 4 properties on Pelton rd. and feel that we have a lot to
lose if this development is approved. I am verry concerned about the impact on the property values and
how they will be negatively affected if The Ethos Project is approved. This neighborhood is transitioning,
from a mature demographic to a younger demographicr as the newer residents have small children and
are starting new families. As a community we enjoy the peace and quiet this area has to offer, and this
development will without a doubt, jeopardizes the safe community that we foster. This is a rural
residential area, and this development simply does riot fit, as per Plan SJ and the city's development
plan. The city invested millions of taxpayers' dollars to create these two programs, in my opinion if this
Ethos Retirement complex is approved, it was all for not.
Here is a list of concerns that I feel need to be addressed
1. Increase in traffic
2. Access to municipal services (Water and Sewer)
3. Emergency Access (Fire, Ambulance)
4. Sidewalks
5. Water run off
6. Environmental Impacts
7. Deer Population
8. Common access to deeded beach access
9. Increase to population density
10. Commercial traffic
I am asking that you deny the proposed Ethos Project and the rezoning application recently
submitted to city council for review. I want to be clear I am not anti -development and would like to see
something done with the property; However, it must fit the neighborhood.
Sincerely yours
ory Kinsella
305 Pelton Rd
97
17 January 2021
To whom this may Concern
I am writing this letter apposing the proposed development of the Ethos Retirement project at
2100 Sandy Pt. Rd.
I have several concerns regarding the proposed development. I reside at 305 Pelton Rd, which is
located at the corner of Sandy pt. and Pelton and have been a resident of this community for
approximately 16 years. As a family we own 4 properties on Pelton rd. and feel that we have a lot to
lose if this development is approved. I am ver concerned about the impact on the property values and
how they will be negatively affected if The Et�s Project is approved. This neighborhood is transitioning,
,rom a mature demographic to a younger demographic, as the newer residents have small children and
are starting new families. As a community we enjoy the peace and quiet this area has to offer, and this
development v4ll without a doubt, jeopardizes the safe community that we foster. This +s a rural
residential area, and this development simply does not fit, as per Plan SJ and the city's development
plan. The city invested millions of taxpayers' dohars to create these two programs, in my opinion if this
Ethos Retirement complex is approved, it was all for not.
Mere is a list of concerns that I feel need to be addressed
1. Increase in traffic
2. Access to municipal services (Water and Sewer)
3. Emergency Access (Eire, Ambulance)
. Sidewalks
5. Water run off
6. Environmental Impacts
7. Deer Population
8. Common access to deeded beach access
9. Increase to population density
10. Commercial ?raffic
I am asking that you deny the proposed Ethos Project and the rezoning application recently
submitted to city council for review. I want to be clear I am not anti development and would like to see
somethi-rg done with the prop,:(ty, Huwever, it must fit the neighborhood.
Sincerely yours
- Qom, �►..��.�.
ory Kinsella
305 Pelton Rd
.;
12 January 2021
2101 Sandy Point Road,
Saint John, NB
E2K 5H4
To: Planning Advisory Committee
From: Residents of 2101 Sandy Point Road
We have recently received a flyer booklet about Ethos Ridge development of the 120-unit
residential complex to be built on a parcel of land off 2100 Sandy Point Road.
As a neighboring residents we wish to express our objection to this plan.
This area is currently zoned RU (rural) while the developer is attempting to build a high -
density development in an area that is not designed for large scale projects. This section
of our neighborhood is dominated by single-family homes, where we enjoy a comfortable
and quiet environment to live away from busy traffic.
Building this 120-unit apartment complex would require hammering, drilling and blasting
of the rock, which would be incredibly disruptive to the heart of residential Millidgeville.
A steady convoy of dump trucks and heavy equipment during prep, resource extraction
and construction will result in potential damage to property and roads. The noise and
vibrations will be disruptive on a long-term time scale, as will road dirt, construction
dust, and blocked roads and driveways. Blasting will also cause damage to homeowners'
foundations and might impact water wells. This would change the entire feel of the
neighbourhood from a quiet, family -oriented community to a noisy, busy area.
Every person in our area we were comminucating to about this development expressed
strong opinion against this development.
As a residents of this presently quiet, peaceful suburb we strongly urge you to deny this
application, and leave the development of Ethos Ridge properties to areas suitable for
large scale constructions in which they will have direct access to major roadways, and
will not overload rural roads not designed for such high traffic.
Sincerely,
Homeowners of 2101 Sandy P/nt Road
Igor Zotov Olena Zotova
Dated January 12, 2021.
99
Rory L. Ervin and Fairiie D. Mclean
64 Beach Road
Saint John, NB E2K5H5
January 23, 2021
Mayor and Councillors of
The City of Saint John
15 Market Square
Saint John, NB E2L 1E8
Re: 2100 Sandy Point Road (Portion of PID 55233233 and PID 55233977) — Amendment to
Municipal Development Plan from Rural Resource and Park and Natural Area to "Major
Community Facility" (i.e.,125-Unit Apartment Complex)
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Councillors:
We are residents of Beach Road, a private road, which is located at the end of Sandy Point Road. We
have learned that there is a proposed development comprising a 125-unit apartment building on the
above -noted property. We would like to point out our concerns to you with regard to this proposed
development (hereinafter "Ethos Ridge Development").
• Safety to Residents
Beach Road and the lower part of Sandy Point Road (from the intersection with Kennebecasis
Drive and Westmount Drive) is a rural area within City limits. This portion of Sandy Point Road,
together with Pelton Road, Scenic View Drive and Beach Road, are very quiet roads with very
little traffic. There are no sidewalks and there are deep culverts on these roads. Ethos Ridge
Development would significantly increase traffic flow on the above -noted roads with residents'
and visitors' vehicles, staff vehicles, service vehicles and emergency vehicles. These roads are
not equipped to handle this increased traffic. We are concerned for the safety of walkers with
no sidewalks and deep ditches on the sides of the roads.
• Infrastructure
■ Sidewalks: The Ethos Ridge Development would require the building of sidewalks on
Sandy Point Road and Pelton Road to ensure the safety of City citizens. There is a blind
spot on the hill of Sandy Point which is dangerous for pedestrians, even for only one
vehicle passing. We would expect that there would be many more instances of two
vehicles passing each other on the road while pedestrians are present leaving no safe
area for pedestrians.
100
2
■ City Services:
o At present, we understand that there is inadequate water and sewage capacity
for Ethos Ridge Development.
o Storm water run-off has become a concern for us in recent years with ever more
severe storms and precipitation events. Recently, significant rainfall resulted in
a washout of the culvert and road surface damage at the bottom of Sandy Point
Road. We are concerned that additional runoff from the Sandy Point Road
access as shown in the plans will exacerbate the situation unless significant
work is done to improve the integrity of the culverts.
• Environment
■ Light Pollution: Presently there very few street lights in this portion of Millidgeville
enhancing the rural nature of the area. The concern is that there will be additional
lighting on Sandy Point Road as well as lighting to illuminate the access road from Sandy
Point Road leading to the proposed development. It is known that light pollution is
disruptive and life -threatening to birds.
■ Noise Pollution: With few homes and little traffic it is a very quiet neighbourhood.
There is no question that additional noise from such a large development including
residents' and visitors' traffic, staff vehicles, service vehicles and sirens from emergency
vehicles will have a major impact on us and the environment.
■ Destruction of Flora and Fauna: It would be impossible to develop such a large property
without destroying the existing natural environment and the wildlife that lives in it.
• Loss of Quality of Life
■ Increased Traffic:
* The additional vehicular activity supporting 125 accommodation units will likely
cause intermittent yet significant back up at the intersection of Sandy Point Rd.,
Westmount Dr. and Kennebecasis Dr. This intersection is challenging due to the
grade and visibility and poses additional risk with increased traffic, especially
during winter months.
* Beach Road is a private, dead end dirt road that requires the residents to
maintain an insurance policy that protects the City from liability during snow
removal operations. Residents are responsible for and have incurred significant
costs over the years to repair damage from seasonal flooding and other impacts
as well as vehicular wear and tear. We expect that a great increase in
sightseeing traffic on this dirt road will result from this development and be the
source of additional disturbances, wear and tear and noise pollution. There are
no areas for vehicles to turn around without trespassing on resident's
properties. Insurance impacts are not known at this time.
Rural Living: The rural nature of the area will be compromised greatly and we will
always lament the changes after the fact due to this development.
101
In sum, we vehemently oppose this proposed development for the various reasons we have outlined
above.
Sincerely,
Rory L. Ervin
4
Fairlie D. McLean
102
1/15/2021
2100 Sandy Point Road
2100 Sand Point Road
From: Lesley Bazaluk <kingbazaluk@beilaliant.net>
To: "Bazaluk, Robert <rbazaluk@bellaliant.net>
Cc: Lesley Bazaluk <kingbazaluk c@bellaIiant.net>
Priority: Normal
Date 01/15/2021 01:37 PM
City of Saint John Planning Committee
I have been made aware of a proposal to develop land situated at 2100 Sandy Point Road, Saint John N.B. to accommodate a multi
residential seniors complex for approximately 125 units and unknown numbers of staff. This land is currently zoned "rural" and as such is
not currently available for the proposed use. This proposal is much like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. 1, the undersigned,
would be seriously and detrimentally affected by this development if approved. I put forward the following reasons of my opposition to
this proposed development.
1. The nearest fire station is 9 kilometers away, making any emergency response time 8 to 10 minutes away.
2. There are no nearby amenities such as a grocery store, medical clinic, library, church, community center nor is there any public
transportation.
3. There is no infrastructure - no water - no sewer - no natural gas - no sidewalks & minimal lighting.
4. Housing units of 125 will escalate noise, congestion and conflict due to crowding. It appears that parking spaces will have to be in the
vicinity of 200 or more to accommodate
the attending staff & visitors.
5. As residents of Pelton Road we have "deeded" beach rights to Sandy Point Beach. If the proposed trails are put in to place, just how
are we to maintain our privacy.
6. If this project is approved I cannot imagine what will happen to our existing wells. There is already serious water issues here that will
only be magnified by this disruption to
the existing landscape.
alifax, Dartmouth, Moncton &Toronto. How can any of these companies claim to have
7. Many of the contracted companies are from H
a vested interest - they do not live here;
their homes will not be affected at all.
8. On a personal note, I am a native of New Brunswick who lived away for many years. I had long wanted to return but could only do so
after retirement - deliberately seeking
green space, low density, quiet and peaceful surroundings. This took several trips, a great deal of searching & a great deal of planning
to achieve. This is now under threat by
this project. IF] had wanted to live in a multi residential area I would have chosen to. This proposal is a fish out of water.
9. 1 am not opposed to development of these lands, but please keep it in harmony with the surroundings. Multi anything is not a suitable
fit to the existing homes.
Lesley King-Bazaluk.
433 Pelton Rd.,
Saint John N.S.
E2K 5H6 ✓✓✓ l L
email�J�y�'
kingbazaluk@belialiant.net
'telephone ##674-9085
https:llwebmaii.bellaliant.neVox6lox.html 103
January 11,2021
Neil and Candace Boyle
2001 Sandy Point Road
Members of Saint John City Council;
We are writing this letter to strongly oppose the proposed building of the senioes complex know as
Ethos Ridge in our neighbourhood. This building is out of character and scale with our community as
stated below:
Incongruity- the proposed 120 residential unit on Sandy Point Road, Pelton Road and Westmount
Road in a mature, high- value single family neighbourhood fundamentally out of character with the
nature and structure of the community.
Unsuitability -of Sandy Point Road, Westmount Road and Pelton Road. The increase of traffic from this
type of venture would be famfly's, at an unacceptable level of risk. The doubling or more of vehicular
traffic to this neighbourhood with blind corner and sidewalks increase's the risk of harm to the elderly
and young children of this neighbourhood.
Impact on residents during extended construction (noise, dirt, debris and disruption).
Property Values — (concerns regarding all existing home -owners will see an immediate decrease In the
value of their homes).
Trusting this matter will receive your careful consideration and It will result in the refusal for this project
to proceed.
Sincerely '►
Candace and Neil Boyle
Concerned residents of 2001 Sandy Point Road
104
To The City of Saint John
Mayor and Council
January 15,2021
We wish to advise you of our objections to the Ethos Ridge proposal to be built at 2100 Sandy Point Rd.
We have been residents of Sandy Point Rd since 2008. The above mentioned project does not fit in to
the present zoning of our community. Our neighbors will be extremely prejudice by this type of
commercial business.
These are some of our objections;
- The blasting and breaking of rock is a threat to our wells
- The construction for the next two years will be extremely loud
Increase of vehicle traffic
Decrease in our property value
- Destruction of wild life habitat
- Change in water run off pattern
Adding 125 family units will over load the already reduced fire protection
There are no benefits to our neighborhood from this project. We have no faith in the developer of Ethos
Ridge because of the lies that he has told such as that he spoke to 50 homes and 35 were in favor. Io-
date I have found no one in favor of this, not one.
We ask that you reject the applications for Ethos Ridge proposal.
Sincerer
Paul De rdins & Sherrill Desjardins
2121 Sandy Point Rd
Saint John NB
105
106
January 22, 2021
To Whom It May Concern:
My husband, Kevin Gallivan, and I, would like to express our opposition to the proposed
Ethos Ridge project.
In spite of the fact that Ethos representatives have publicly stated that they had a great
support for this project, I have yet to speak to anyone who supports this project in
anyway at all.
We have lived on this street for 34 years, at 2025 Sandy Point Rd., which is across the
street and very slightly south of the proposed development.
We have great concerns regarding the increased traffic flow. During what will be a very
long construction period, heavy trucks and other construction vehicles will disturb our
quiet neighborhood, damage our street, and any blasting which may need to be done has
potential to damage our houses, outbuildings, wells and septics, our privacy, and our
enjoyment of our neighborhood.
We have no sidewalks, and minimal lighting, so increase traffic flow will be dangerous
for our many walkers and their pets who are out on a daily basis.
After completion, the increased traffic associated with workers, inhabitants, and their
visitors, will also endanger and disturb their reluctant neighbors.
How much ambulance and fire traffic will be expected? This would also create an
increased disturbance in the neighbourhood which has previously enjoyed privacy and
quiet.
The corner at Sandy Point Rd and Foster Thurston, which is already treacherous, will be
subject to increased traffic flow and, amazing as it is that there has not yet been a fatality
there, I fear that the increased traffic flow due to Ethos may indeed result in such an event
Our enjoyment of the plentiful wildlife is also at risk, and our wildlife and our pets will
be at increased risk of being hit by vehicle. As a veterinarian, I object vigourously to
putting these animals at risk, and the abundance of wildlife is why I chose to live in this
neighborhood.
I will also point out that the proposed walking trails will be a risk for exposure to the
plentiful Nodes scapularis ticks that are endemic in Millidgeville. Ticks do not come to
an area solely on the deer population, although they unfortunately get called deer ticks.
They are equally plentiful on rodents and birds, and most of the Nodes scapularis species
in this area are proven to contain Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria which causes Lyme
disease.
107
We vigourously oppose this development, and vigourously resent the fact that the
developer has misrepresented the level of community support for this project.
Sincerely
Dr. Catherine Adams
Mr. Kevin Gallivan
2025 Sandy Point Rd.,
Saint John, NB
E2K5H1
W.
Rick Watters Jan 23/21
928 Kennebecasis Dr
Saintlon NB E2K SA8
To Whom it may concern.
Please be advised that i am against the development proposed by Ethos Ridge in the Sandy Pt. Rd. area.
I don't consider that a 120 unit project fits the neighbour character of the area. Also I don't think that
the existing road will handle the additional traffic that would be created by the development.
spectfully submitted,
Rick Watters
109
Jan 12, 2021
PAC Chairman,
I am writing to express my objection to the deN elopment of the "Ethos Ridge" project, on properties
located near Sandy Point on the Kennebecasis river. The property proposed to be developed is currently
designated as "Rural Resource (RU)" within Plan SJ. It is an undisturbed forested area which abuts the
Kennebecasis river and is presently provided pedestrian access from adjacent "RR" and "R2"
residential areas.
A significant concern is that the development will necessitate a major extension of the City's
infrastructure to provide access roads, power, water and sewage services to meet the requirements of
ibis high density apartjnc aL c.)mplc-x and ancillary faciiitjes. 1 his wouid jesult in considerable
environmental degradation to the existing greenfield forested area from the scarification and removal of
materials over several hectares to facilitate construction and operation of the project. Additionally,
modification to the existing environmental landscape would also be necessary to allow operational road
access and emergency egress to and from the project site to Sandy Point and Pelton Roads.
Further, within the larger area surrounding the project site the existing road infrastructure will see
considerable increase in vehicular traffic on both Sandy Point and Pelton roads. To access the project
both during construction and operation vehicles must travel through the intersections of Sandy Point
Road/Foster Thurston Drive and Sandy Point Road/Kennebecasis Drivee'Westmount Drive. Both of
these intersections have poor sight lines and carry considerable traffic to and from the hospital,
university and "Peninsular Princess" ferry landing at peak times during the morning and evenings.
This increased traffic will undoubtedly expand the risk of the potential of vehicular accidents and given
that there are no sidewalks on Sandy Point or Pelton Roads in this area, the potential for pedestrian
accident would increase as well.
Another concern with respect to road infrastructure is that of the topography of the Pelton road which
as it exists is very challenging. The road has a very sharp blind turn coupled with a steep gradient
which I do not believe would meet current design guidance for safe vehicular access/egress or
clearances for pedestrian usage.
In my opinion to address these specific trafficipedestrian issues would result in major capital works
costs for the City in order to mitigate the potential of increased risk of accidents. In addition, the
extension of the City services infrastructure will also encumber the City with the requirement to
maintain and service; water and sewer lines as well as pumping stations for the life of the development.
All of these additional costs would of course be born by the citizens of Saint John.
Therefore, in conclusion I do not agree with a development of this type of high density occupancy
project within the proposed area.
A concerned citizen of Sandy Point Road,
Fraser Forsythe
forsythe@rogers.com
110
2021/01/16
To Whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the pending Ethos Ridge development. I believe that the addition
of a multiunit housing complex will change the community and not for the better. We
live in a low -density rural area, and the sudden addition of a large residential complex
does not fit the style of the community.
Further, the Developer has made no effort to ease the disruption this facility will place
on the community. In other municipalities, city councils requires developers to provide
benefits to the local community in exchange for approval to develop an area. Although
an increased tax base will help Saint John as a whole, what is the Developer doing to
maximize the benefit for the local residents? When sneaking to a rPnrPrentat!ve from
Ethos Ridge they indicated there will likely be an additional 180 vehicles in the area as a
result of the new residents and facility staff. The Westmount Dr./ Kennebecasis Dr./
Sandy Point Rd intersection is dangerous to begin with, and I believe the increased traffic
will further exasperate the issue. This intersection is on the list of locations considered
for a traffic circle. If the Saint John City Council does approve this development, I ask that
they require the Developer to be responsible for solving the problems it is going to
create in our community as a condition of their development.
In summary, I do not believe this development will have a positive impact on the local
community and the increased traffic will result in an increase in accidents. I ask that the
Saint John City Council reject the proposal to develop the area with a high density living
facility. If not, I ask the City to make the Developer responsible for alleviating the traffic
burden the facility will create.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Best regards,
William Derks
308 Pelton Road
Saint John, NB
E2K 5H7
111
Carole and Joel McCarthy
994 Kennebecasis Drive
Saint John, NB E2K 5A9
January 14, 2021
It has recently come to our attention that a 120 condo unit building may be built
close to our home. We wish to object to this large development based on the
reasons stated in this letter.
The area in question is currently zoned rural for a reason, meaning there are no
sidewalks, wide roads or current infrastructure to accommodate a huge high rise
of this size. Currently there is already a safety concern at a very dangerous
intersection across the street from the former Cherry Brook Zoo. This will be
significantly worse with a large increase in traffic.
This project would be ideal for Saint John in the properly zoned area somewhere
designated in the PDA according to Plan SJ. Our rural area boasts no convenience
stores, retail or even gas stations within miles.
Changing the zoning would alter the quiet character of this neighborhood for
generations to come. It would decrease the value and enjoyment of the nearby
homes, some of which have very high tax rates. People have moved to this
location to escape high density, such as we did 17 years ago, from uptown Saint
John. Putting a building the size of an uptown hotel in this quiet area would be
unusual to the point of being almost comical.
Noise and traffic aside, there is a legitimate safety issue considering the lack of a
fire station in Millidgeville. The Fire Department has stated that they currently lag
in national emergency response times to this area. This is a serious matter when
you consider adding 120 condo units in a zone already lacking proper response
times.
112
We feel as though this development would cause discord with the quiet suburban
nature of the area. There are many current condo vacancies for seniors at
Chateau Champlain and elsewhere, making the business model for this large
undertaking in this part of Millidgeville questionable.
It is for the above stated reasons that we respectfully oppose this location and
wish the development well in a new proper area within the PDA (Primary
Development Area) in accordance with Plan SJ.
Sincerely,
Carole an Joel McCarthv
994 Kennebecasis Drive
113
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Jia Lawrence Yao, reside in 41 Westmount drive, Saint John,
NB. E2K 5GI. This letter is to express my concerns about this new Ethos
Ridge Development. our neighborhood is a very quiet residential area, by
putting suck a development will significantly increase traffic and will for
sure affect the quietness of this neighborhood. More traffic will also bring
unforeseeable accident and things that I don't want to talk about. We
appreciate the lovely environment that we worked hard and paid for. This
development will have negative effect on our property values that I
personal will not accept. please take my concern into your consideration
and be mindful to not approve this development. Thank you in advance
for your effort.
All the best,
Lawr nce Jia Yao
i
E
Friday, January 15, 2021
114
Subject: Ethos Ridge Development
Date: January 17, 2021
To who it may concern;
I am writing this letter to express my strong opposition to the proposed Ethos Ridge
Development. This development will be very detrimental to the area. First of all, developing
outside the PDA will be added stress on the already strained city services.
As a long time resident and property owner of Sandy Point Rd, large developments like this
do not fit in with the mostly single family homes in our rural setting neighborhood , with very
little traffic. This development will also add to our growing deer problem, taking away more of
there natural habitat.
Do we realty need to develop more land which needs water, sewage, road maintenance for
the city to service??
Let alone our property values will almost certainly decline.
I urge you to disapprove the proposed rezoning, and from recent conversations
with my neighbors, I know my opinions are shared by many.
Bob and Kim DeLong
2173 Sandy Point Road
115
January10 2021
His Worship Mayor Don Darling, Deputy Mayor Shirley McAlary, and Counsellors
Re; Development of Ethos Ridge off of Sandy Point Rd and Pelton Rd
We are concerned that the (complete) Neighbourhood in the area of this planned
development has not been informed or consulted or even been given any details (exact or
otherwise) of this project! in actual fact no details were brought to our attention, except by
concerned neighbours!
From what little details we have that are only second hand news,
We do not approve of this project in our neighbourhood in any form, or any way.
To start with the project has been mostly hidden from the people that would
ultimatly be most effected by it so it, does not sit well to start with being a hidden
agenda until the first meeting about it in council on Jan 112021 where undoubtebly
it would be unsuitable to attend due to social distancing with Covid 19.
That being said, what we do know about it, is that it is planned to be a commercial
endeavol of a 120 unit apartment complex featuring bistro bakery and bar at
minimum, placed in a residencal area of traditional individual family homes and a farmland.
Has there been any enviromental impact study done and may I have a copy sent to me?
We do not see this as a development that fits into the family values and home
residential structures of our community, or showinA anything but distractina from
our community.
Traffic must be concidered, as at this point, as at many times of the day it is difficult to
get out of our community in emergencies or during times of heavy traffic. When the Millidgeville
Ferry is in and cars are coming up Kennebecasis Drive we can barely exit from this area as
it is. Once you are heading towards town it can get even more congested heading towards
the area where the zoo was, we have seen it backed up bumper to bumper all the way from
there to Westmount Drive and down Kenebecasis Drive and with a full stop in our directon
theres no geting out of here until traffic clears. DO you see a safety issue in this?
Then bring spring floods that are getting worse each year, and often close off Kennebecasis
Drive into the mix each spring.
We have often traveled from direction of the main highway driving through Foster Thurston
and counted 450 or more cars driving through there before we get from one end to the other
or sat at the corner by the closed zoo trying to get out heading towawds city or towards
Foster Thurston Drive waiting in the morning while bumper to bumper traffic heading towards
the regional hospital doesnt let anybody get out of here. This has been brought to councils
attenition in years past and hasnt been addressed. This Traffic has been, for a time greatly
reduced since covid 19 as there are not as many people heading in the direction of the hospital.
In conclusion this has been a quiet, family neighbourhood where We have resided for
over 56 years, it is family orientated with lots of children and we prefer it to remain so.
We do not wish to have 120 extra cars and extra people noisily coming out of pubs 1 beastros
or even without that part the loud traffic noises
We respectfully ask that this neighbourhood remain a Quiet Residential Area
ResidenIA of 25 Scenic View Drive Saint John N.B. Elk
�. R. 0.- Yn Thelma McKim
Estey Mckim
116
54 Beach Road
Saint John NB E2K5H5
January 16, 2021
Re: Proposed "Ethos" development between Sandy Point Road and Pelton
Road, adjacent to Kennebecasis River
I have been a resident of Beach Road for more than 30 years, and wish to express
my concerns regarding the above proposal to construct a high density apartment
complex on land currently classified as "rural".
It appears to be a development of significant magnitude, with the potential to
house well over 200 people, and could result in a large cost to our city, which is
currently experiencing a financial crisis. Costly creation of roads, water supply,
sewerage, lighting etc. will occur, along with the potential for environmental
damage and the loss of flora and fauna.
The whole area is a quiet, residential part of the city, not even needing sidewalks
for the few people living here to walk safely for access or exercise. The increased
vehicle traffic will increase risk after construction, and the development phase
could be particularly noisy, dirty and dangerous.
Development will always be an issue, and usually comes with a price. Therefore,
it is my wish that before any begins that all residents in the surrounding area be
given a voice, with the hope that the developers will be open to considering
options with a lesser population density.
I would not be opposed to the development of a few garden homes, which would
leave rather more green space intact for all to enjoy.
Yours truly,
,4��� ol,�,ew,
Marie Oliver
117
We always envisioned that this property would be developed with single family residences in
keeping with the existing homes in our community. The construction phase of this project would
bring mayhem, epic disruption and perhaps damage to nearby homes.
We ask that you not approve this development as we understand it does not meet with the
approved Municipal Plan and raises serious concerns described by ourselves and others in the
neighborhood. If approved it would forever change the community in a negative fashion.
Thank you for consideration of this matter.
Yours sincerely,
A�
Ka—ql k-)
Brian and Kathy Lynch
118
Kevin & Brenda McDermott
33 Scenic View Dr
Saint John, NB E2K SK3 January 14 2021
kevinmcdermott@rogers.com 632-081S
To City Council
Re: PROPOSED MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT RE: 2100 SANDY POINT ROAD- Re -designate a portion of
PID No. 55233233 and PID No. 55233977 from Rural Resource and Park and Natural Area to Major
Community Facility
Our Neighborhood is very rural with narrow streets, steep ditches, numerous hills with no sidewalks
which makes life challenging now especially in the winter with traffic coming and going from our homes
on Sandy Point Rd, Pelton Rd and Scenic View Drive and with increased traffic of 437 vehicles estimated
daily we feel it is a safety hazard waiting to occurl
Children ride their bikes on the side of the street with gullies that are often filled with water from large
rainfalls and school buses transport them and stop and pull into Scenic View Dr to pick up students then
back across Sandy Point Rd onto Pelton Rd where some of the increased traffic will be coming and
going — the buss then proceeds up a steep hill with a blind knoll just where the entrance to your 2100
Sandy Point Rd will be. Students walk on the side of the rd. navigating the hill, snow banks and traffic
on Sandy Point and Pelton Rd.
We have had incidences of cars going in the ditch and a school 'bus that slid on the hill and into the steep
gully on the downward grade towards Pelton Rd.
Pelton Rd also has a significant blind knoll and its steep grade makes winter and summer navigating on
narrow streets tricky for drivers and pedestrians. With the proposed increase in traffic, the weather, the
school buses I feel this will create bottlenecks and concern for accidents and put our children at riskl
In looking at the Entry Drive Diagram which goes along Ridgeview Trail — driving in the winter may
create challenges in both ascending and descending that hill to the exit and entrance of Sandy Point Rd
which is where the hlind knoll Is.
Our neighborhood already has traffic increases in the summer every 45-50 minutes from the Ferry -
Peninsula Princess at the top of the hill by Westmount and if traffic is heading left on Foster Thurston the
traffic from the Hospital, Xerox employees etc. make it dangerous and challenging in the am and afternoon
turning left at the zoo onto Foster Thurston and the Arterial. I feel there should already be lights there
due to accidents resulting from high traffic times and not having a clear view to the left due to brush and
trees impeding a clear view to pull out. We oppose_ this development at the proposed location.
Respectfully Brenda & Kevin McDermott
119
Brian and Kathy Lynch
46 Beach Road
Saint John N.B. E2K 5M5
January 22, 2021
Mayor and Saint John Councilors
City of Saint John N.B.
PO Box 1971
Saint John N.B. E21. 41_1
Dear Mayor and Saint John Councilors:
Regarding the Proposed Ethos Ridge Proiect 2100 Sandy Point Road
The magnitude of the apartment complex proposed for 2100 Sandy Point Road was a surprise to us
and we have concerns with the development and the effect it will have on our community. We have
been Beach Road residents for 38 years and very much appreciate being able to live in an area with
a low traffic flow that allows us to safely walk the neighborhood on a daily basis. Our primary
concerns are with the increased traffic flow, increase in storm water drainage and the ability of the
city's water and sewerage infrastructure to efficiently handle the flow from this project. Also, the
needs of the retirement community that Ethos Ridge is supposedly targeting are already adequately
met by the Shannex complex and The Chateau Champlain in the Milledgeville area.
From the documents submitted regarding the proposal to Common Council for your January
10,2021 meeting we are not able to have a clear vision as to what the project will entail. The overall
theme of the project is presented as being that "Ethos Ridge is a proposed 125 Unit retirement
community located in Milledgeville...". However, later in the documents it is described as, "Not only
will this project provide housing opportunities for seniors, and residents who may not want to leave
this ,gem of a community....". Suggesting the project will provide apartments to both the senior
community and others. The point being that it will not be solely a retirement community but more
apt to be an apartment complex. If so, this complex will substantially increase the traffic flow to the
area and put demands on the infrastructure much greater than if it was a retirement complex solely
for seniors 75+. It is also interesting to note there are only 3 handicapped parking spaces out of 70
in the parking garage which seems inadequate for a retirement complex.
There is already concerns with the traffic flows and speed of traffic on the Sandy Point Road
speedway. A few days ago while walking we witnessed a distracted driver ignore a yield sign at the
Westmount Drive intersection and if it not for the on -coming driver with the right of way slamming
on his brakes at the last minute there would have been a major collision with severe injury or death.
120
January 20, 2021
Blake and Bonnie Crawford
2024 Sandy Point Road
Saint John, NB E2KSG9
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing this letter to address concerns that we have regarding the Ethos Ridge development on
2100 Sandy Point Road. 1+Ve built our home 30 years ago and have lined in this quiet neighborhood and
raised our children here.
1) There will be a huge increase in the number of vehicles on the street . The exit and entrance on
Sandy Point Road is at the top of a blind hill where children play and families walk There are no
sidewalks and very little lighting there. This increases the likelihood of accidents.
2) We are concerned that the construction of this complex will causes problems with our well as
we live below the level of the building and blasting will be necessary. We have no interest in
hooking up to city water as it will be too expensive for us to do so and we are very happy with
the well water that we currently have.
3) This complex will destroy the green space that the deer in this area (highest population of deer
in the city) and they will have to migrate onto our property for feed. As you know we have the
highest rate of tick in this area.
4) We area secondary road and do not get ploughed sometimes for a day or two. This makes a
dangerous situation for emergency vehicles to enter the complex at their intersection and also
Sandy Pt Rd intersection.
Blake and Bonnie Crawford
121
Jan 21, 2021
To whom it may concern:
We would like to express our concern for the proposed Ethos Ridge development. We do not believe
that this kind of development is appropriate for the area and we can see no reason for changing the
zoning to allow it to happen.
This is a quiet community, which is why we moved here 25 years ago, and the Sandy Point, Pelton and
Westmount roads are used extensively by the residents for walking, jogging and biking. We feel the
long-term traffic, and the heavy traffic that will be the result of the, we expect, lengthy construction
process, will be highly detrimental to this activity.
Already, in advance of any kind of approval, the developers have driven steel tracked vehicles the length
of Pelton road with resultant mess and damage to the road. This, we sense, is a harbinger for what is to
come.
We are also concerned that the project, once started, will not be adequately completed, leaving the land
and area a mess. We are well into the second decade of putting up with the eyesore caused by the
development on Fieldstone drive and we really don't want to see that kind of mess on both sides of the
road.
The land in question, in our opinion, is best suited for a park or greenspace, but if development must
occur, it would be much more appropriate for single family houses as that would be in keeping with rest
of the community.
Sincerely,
Mary Beth and Robert Ash
72 Beach Road
Robert.ash@lordsheffield.com
506 650-9891
122
January 22, 2021
To Whom It May Concern;
The following are my concerns about the Ethos Development at Sandy Point area in Millidgeville
Safety and security is paramount. The entrance to the Foster Thurston and Sandy Point roads are
extremely busy at this point in time requiring a roundabout for the heavy traffic. Many speed, rushing
to their destination of the hospital, university or ferry . The streets are dangerous for walking or
cycling as they were never designed for heavy traffic, just a country road. There are no sidewalks nor
street lights as in other city neighbourhoods. Many from the neighbourhood have relocated here
because of the quiet rural community.
With the Ethos Development project there will be delivery trucks, staff, ambulances, residents and
families entering and exiting. Huge machinery will be operating daily for months upending the
geological structure in the area. The noise is another factor.
Our wells and septic systems will be affected possibly contaminating the water.
My home is on the water and is lower than the development which concerns me. Since the
development of Fieldstone Subdivision on Foster Thurston, there has been an increase in water
drainage causing ditches to overflow and culverts to be replaced several times in one year. This is
extra costs to the city. creating drainage , culverts replaced within a year of each other because of the
force of water pressure. I have a brook running into my property which has overflowed because of the
water flowing downhill. This created heavy costs of a retainer wall and drainage as well as a
neighbours road to be built up. This will worsen with the drilling of the rock ledges and clearing of the
forest area causing unnatural flow patterns and erosion. This area on the Kennebecasis River is an
important watershed and most vulnerable. We are having more flooding as climate change progresses.
Home insurance rates have increased due to this vulnerability.
Thanking you for your time.
Margaret Hayward
2180 Sandy Point Road
633-0132
trulyhayward@hotmail.com
)%— , e16LM—.. y I—< _ L - c
123
January 12, 2021
To: City Council & Planning Advisory Commitee of Saint John, NB
This letter is regarding the plan for development "Ethos Ridge" for 120 residential units complex, to be
built at the parcel of land off 2100 Sandy Point Road and was introduce to city council on January 11th,
2021.
As property owners, just across the street from this development, we have great concerns that this
development will cause us undue hardship and undermine our quality of living.
First and foremost, we moved to the neighborhood about three years ago. The reason we bought the
property was that we enjoy its rural setting and that the house not connected to the city water and
septic services. Now, if this development goes ahead, it will counter the exact reasons for our decision
to moved here at 2045 Sandy Point Road, Saint John, Instead of choosing to live in Rothesay or
Quispamsis. We don't want the city water and sewage and we don't want to be forced to pay for it.
Second, the area is zoned rural and outside the primary development area according to plan SJ, we
would like that the previous decisions that were implemented from prior council and plan SJ, to be
honored. Basically, we don't agree to having our rural neighborhood to become a commercial one.
Third, this development will create excessive noise, lights and air pollution from the heavy traffic from
cars, trucks, ambulances, fire trucks, etc. Our narrow street is not designed to accommodate such an
increase in traffic, there is also no sidewalks and would become a security issue with all the pedestrians
walking in the neighborhood. Furthermore, due to the heavy construction, it can comprise our water
well.
Finally, we are not against this project, this project looks like it got great potential and could easily be
develop somewhere else in the city, like for example, on the property of the Cheery Brook Zoo. This
project does not fit our needs and will disturb the neighborhood in a unprecedent way. Just like
Westmount Street already said NO, we ask city council to vote against this project, we are not any
different.
Thank you for reading,
Stephane Brideau
Nancy Brideau
5NI
124
January 22, 2021
Rosanne & Michael Thorne
30 Beach Rd
Saint John, NB
To Whom It May Concern,
am writing this letter today to express our objection to the proposed development of land between
Pelton and Westmorland road that is currently zoned rural.
This parcel of land should not be developed into a 120 unit residential complex as it certainly does not fit
the surroundings, nor can the area accommodate the significant increase in traffic this development will
bring. This is a very quiet residential area that supports a large population of wildlife. Outside of the
increased traffic for the residents, is the significant impact on wildlife this development complex will
have. There currently is a large deer population that have always lived in this area. Increased traffic and
decreasing animal habitat will pose a significant safety risk for both residents and the animals that reside
here.
My husband and I have lived in this area for over 30 years and are very disheartened to see this
beautiful piece of land be turned into large heavy traffic apartment complex that will forever more be an
eyesore. This will change the natural environment and will bring negative consequences for years to
come to all the citizens that call this area home.
I understand the need to grow as a city, but we need to make sure decisions made today align with the
needs and values of the community. I trust you will make the right decision on this issue. Thank you for
your consideration to our viewpoint.
Sincerely
125
/ A 16-Jan-2021
a �/ To Whom it may concern,
I am writing to share my concerns regarding the proposed Ethos Ridge development. As
a resident of Pelton Road, I believe the neighbourhood will be adversely affected by this
project.
The area is a quiet, spacious, rural neighbourhood, with limited vehicular traffic. These
aspects make it a wonderful place to live and raise a family. A high -density development
does not match the community landscape. This is evident based on the area being zoned
RU (rural) and outside the PDA (Primary Development Area). The disruption to the
neighbourhood by the construction process will negatively impact daily life of all the
nearby residents.
As a rural area, there are no sidewalks in the vicinity, which is currently not an issue
given the low amount of traffic. Many of the residents, myself included, often go for
walks along the roads of the neighbourhood. These roads are hilly and have areas of low
visibility for oncoming traffic. Both the construction and the addition of 120 residents to
the neighbourhood will result in a significant increase in vehicle traffic. This increase will
make it no !anger possible for members of this community to safely walk in their
neighbourhood. In my opinion, this is a major issue for both current and future residents
of this neighbourhood.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Ott
126
360 Pelton Road
Saint John, NB E2K5H7
January 23, 2021
City Clerk
15 Market Square
Saint John, NB, E2L 1E8
Dear Sir
This letter is written in opposition to the proposed "Ethos Ridge" development at
2100 Sandy Point Road.
I have been a resident of this area for the past 50 years. Before purchasing my own
property at 360 Pelton Road I lived with my parents on Pelton Road. When I
purchased my property I was very aware of the services provided and the services I
would be responsible for in terms of infrastructure and maintenance. In this area I
have a well and a septic system, paying myself for the infrastructure and its
maintenance. The road infrastructure is minimal with no curbs or sidewalks and
the lowest priority for snowplowing. The city provides garbage pickup, minimal
road maintenance and basic lighting. I pay the same tax rate as other primary
homeowners in the city. I have happily lived here since 1986 content with my
choices and responsibilities.
The following list states some of my concerns for the development:
1. the impact of blasting and construction on the infrastructure of my well and
septic system
2. the impact of the change in topography due to the construction of a 4 story,
extensive complex on a parcel of land that is bounded by the Kennebecasis River
and the subsequent changes to drainage and the water table.
3. the impact of construction vehicles accessing the area constructing a roadway
into the construction site
4. the impact of increased traffic on the single entry roadway (Sandy Pt Rd and the
newly constructed roadway entering on to Sandy Pt Rad)
S. the inadequate traffic report taken during the pandemic shut down and when the
ferry was not in operation and not including the critical intersection of Sandy Pt Rd
and Foster Thurston/Sandy Pt Rd adjacent to the zoo
Concurrent with these concerns are my questions:
1. Has there been a proper environmental assessment done to determine the impact
of blasting and construction and how that seismic activity may impact on the wells
and septic systems of the area? If so what are the results/indicators of the effects?
127
2. Has there been a proper environmental and fisheries departments assessment
done on the impact of changes in the drainage and watershed to the river system
and to the quality and availability of water for all dependent on the water table for
their wells? If not, why not? This is an important component of the possible
impacts of the development and proper authorization should be required at both a
local level and at a provincial level.
3. Sandy Point Road from Westmount toward the Beach Rd is a narrow roadway
with a narrow shoulder and deep ditches. Has the city considered the impact of the
increased traffic especially with large construction vehicles on the road
infrastructure? Should the proposal go ahead will the city be responsible for
returning the road to its present condition? Will the city bar all construction
vehicles from accessing the construction site by way of Pelton Road? This past week
when excavators could not access the property from Sandy Pt Rd they drove the
excavator on its metal treads down Sandy Pt Rd and then down Pelton Rd to access
the site.
4. Have the fire, police and ambulance services been consulted regarding the single
entry into a site, along a roadway that will be at a steep grade with a hairpin turn
into a proposed 125 unit complex for people 75 years of age and older? If so, what
are their concerns?
S. There is no doubt that the traffic in our area will be greatly impacted by the
addition of 125 households, employees of the complex and service vehicles required
to maintain the complex. The traffic study included in the proposal is deficient in its
data as it did not survey at a time of normal activity such as non pandemic, ferry
running, and beginning at lam. The school buses arrive before 8 am for example.
Will there be a proper study of the traffic pattern to include the intersection at
Foster Thurston and Sandy Pt? It is the area of bottle neck at peak times.
Thank you for the opportunity to express some of my concerns with a proposal that
does not meet Plan SJ policy. There have been many homes built in this area over
the 50 years of my life here and the promise of new neighbours and a consistent
level of activity has always been welcome. My objection is to the'spot change' in
zoning, something the city council has sought to avoid in Plan SJ, and a complex that
would be completely out of synch with our rural designation. Additionally forcing
neighbours to conform to water and sewage changes inflicted upon them through
this development is totally unnecessary and extremely costly.
Sincerely
Jill Jollineau
128
Leo Maloney
29 Scenic View Dr.
Saint John, NB
E2K 5K3
Jonathan Taylor
Common Clerk,
City of Saint John
RE: Ethos Ridge Proposed Development
am writing to express my opposition to this project.The area of the city in which this
project is proposed is a uniquely quiet residential neighbourhood, composed entirely of single
family residences. It should remain as such. I, personally, would not oppose the identified area
being rezoned to single family residential. However, the proposed commercial development
project would have a dramatically negative effect on the neighbourhood in regard to increased
daily traffic and the overall tranquility and lifestyle of those of us (many retired) who live here.
am also concerned about the impact that the construction may have on the water table that we
all rely on for our well water. Simply stated, this project is a bad fit for this neighbourhood.
Signed,
4�� VAZ7—
Jan. 21, 2021
129
352 Pelton Road
Saint John
New Brunswick
E2K 5H7
January 28, 2021
Mayor Darling and Councillors
Re: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment 2100 Sandy Point Road
Concerns
• Zoning changes
There are numerous inconsistencies between the different reports within the proposal. For
instance, the number of units, the sanitary load calculations, height of the facility and traffic
numbers.
• Water and sewage
The neighbouring properties all have wells and septic systems. When my husband and I
built on Pelton Road in 1991, the well -digger said he was getting pretty worried about
the availability of water because he had dug most of the wells on the street and it was
becoming more difficult to find water.
Presently there is no water and sewage at 2100 Sandy Point Road. The proponent must provide
these services and an entrance to the site. It is proposed to join with the City services at
Westmount Drive and bring the lines along Sandy Point Road to 2100, through the field and
over the hill. I am quite worried that the construction of the water and sewer lines to this site
may change the flow of water or in some way damage the water table. There is history of that
happening in adjacent properties when a well has been dug. If my well casing gets cracked or if
the water table is drained due to this construction, is the city of Saint John prepared to dig me a
new well?
Having the proponent provide the infrastructure for the water and sewage implies that there
will be little cost to the city. BUT on Page 272 it says the city "has advised that downstream
wastewater lift stations are at or near their pumping capacity." These stations are scheduled to
be upgraded in the coming years but no specific time is given. Will this not be a considerable
cost to the city?
130
• Traffic Study
This study was conducted around the time that COVID restrictions began which limited
traffic from the east coming to work and study at UNBSJ. The Millidgeville ferry wasn't
operating, and there was no mention at all about the very dangerous intersection of
Sandy Point Road and Foster Thurston.
There was no mention that when there is high flooding in the spring in exceptional
flood years, (2 in the last 5 years), Kennebecasis Drive is closed. In any full moon, high
tide and torrential rain then Foster Thurston and Ashburn Lake Road are closed for a
couple of days. Sometimes both major access roads are flooded at the same time.
• Environment
Page 273 of the proposal states that the majority of the stormwater will go directly
into the river. Most climate change specialists are predicting higher seasonal
temperatures and precipitation with more severe rain storms and greater snowfall,
bringing increased precipitation. Floods once expected every 30 years are now
more likely to be once every five years or even every two to three years.
Paved parking spaces, the removal of vegetation and the covering of much of the acreage with
the building along with a paved street will cause an enormous amount of groundwater run-off.
This property and the neighbouring ones might also become more vulnerable to
flooding. Might that mean an ugly seawall along the river?
The environmental impact of a development of that size on the river will be great.
Even if the building is sited back from the shore, will the developer remove shoreline
vegetation and put in lawn right to the water? A 30 m. buffer is required by provincial
law, but it's very rarely followed and almost never enforced. People usually want an
unobstructed view. Building on the shore could increase erosion and destroy the
shoreline ecosystem.
I respectfully ask that an environmental assessment be undertaken which would
concentrate on all aspects of this proposal.
Sincerely,
��t�t-cam
Joan Pearce 652-1551
352 Pelton Road Saint John, NB, E2K 5117
131
420 Pelton Road
Saint John, NB E2K 5H7
January 29, 2021
Mr. Jonathan Taylor
Common Clerk
City of Saint John
15 Market Square
Saint John, NB
Subject: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment "Re 2100 Sandy Point Road"
Dear sir
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views and concerns regarding the re -
designation of the properties identified as PID numbers 55233233 and 55233977
and the proposed amendments to Schedules A and B of the Municipal Development
Plan and to extend the boundaries of the Primary Development Area (PDA) to
accommodate the proposed Ethos Ridge Development.
The Public Notice states that the reason for those changes is "To permit the
development of a retirement community". Yet the re -designation of PID no.
55233233 from Rural and Resource to stable area as clearly shown on the map has
absolutely nothing to do with the retirement project. Is there some kind of hidden
agenda here? The re -designation should not be allowed without full disclosure.
Currently the relevant portion of the PDA lies to the west of Sandy Point Road and
Westmount Drive centered on the junction they make with Kennebecasis Drive.
That junction is the closest point on the PDA boundary that you can get to the
proposed development. It is approximately a quarter of a kilometre away. There is
clearly no common boundary between the two, as the proposal would have us
believe.
Under the subtitle Future Land Use Schedule B (page 270 of the proposal) the first
paragraph states, "the proposed Ethos site is literally touching/adjacent to the edge
of the existing PDA along Sandy Point Road". This is not so!
The same paragraph goes on to say Policy LU-1 recognizes that the boundaries of
land use designation are `intended to be approximate'. This is not so!
However Policy LU-3 does state `that the boundaries of land use designations, as
shown on the Future Land Use map (Schedule B) are intended to be approximate,
exce t where they coincide with roads or other clearly defined physical features.'
132
This clearly and firmly fixes the MPA boundary passing through the Sandy Pt
Rd/Westmount Dr/Kennebecasis Dr junction. There clearly is no common
boundary!
Under the heading Major Community Facilities the first paragraph (page 271) of the
proposal states:
"By providing aging in community, Ethos proposal will contribute positively to the
neighborhood as ensured by Policy LU-90".
Policy LU-90 follows in its entirety:
Council shall: Ensure that new major community facilities that are used by residents
across the City and the Greater Saint John Region are located in areas
designated Major Community Facilities and shall generally be
Permitted only subject to a rezoning process where compliance is
demonstrated with the following requirements:
a. The proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the
neighbourhood;
b. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses;
c. The development is in a location where all necessary water and
wastewater services, protective services, and appropriate
transportation infrastructure including public transit can be provided;
d. Site design features that address such matters as safe access,
buffering and landscaping, site grading and storm water management
are incorporated;
e. A high quality exterior building design is provided that is consistent
with the Urban Design Principles in the Municipal Plan; and
f. Public transit and active transportation links are provided to and
from other key destinations.
I find the quotation just above the insertion of Policy LU-90 above rather baffling
and meaningless. The policy states what council will ensure happens
in new major community facilities where compliance is demonstrated
through meeting requirements a. through f. as listed above.
My views on requirement a. through f. and how the proposal responds to them
follow:
a. the neighbourhood disagrees
b. it isn't
c. I believe this requirement cannot adequately be met particularly
with regard to protective services and transportation infrastructure
including public transit.
d. I believe the project cannot provide safe access. The remainder lies
in the eyes of the beholder.
e. the current zoning bylaws prohibit building heights above 2 storeys
with a height limit of 11 metres. This plan clearly violates this
requirement.
2
133
f. They are not at present, who will provide them in future?
If the PDA is expanded to incorporate the Ethos Ridge project where will the new
boundaries be? The eastern boundary down Sandy Point Road should not extend
beyond PD no. 55233977 in the absence of any good explanation of why PD no.
55233233 should be included. Will they extend east down Sandy Point Road just far
enough to include the project? Will they extend north up Westmount Drive to the
Kennebecasis River then down the shoreline to meet and coincide with the
development? What would the property encompassed by the extension have in
common with a 125 unit complex to justify it?
It seems to me that the re -designation of the properties represents a classic case of
"Spot Rezoning" something that I understand PLAN SJ was designed to eliminate. I
believe that approving this project would be a precedent -setting action that will
come back to haunt city council.
Services
The developers intend to connect to the existing municipal sanitary and water
system at the intersection of Sandy Point Road and Westmount Drive, some 250
metres southward on Sandy Point Road. Would this require that all of the
residences on that stretch of road be forced to hook-up to the facilities as seems to
be the normal practice? This would force these residents to undergo very
substantial 'up front' costs, lose the long term benefits expected from their large
investments in wells and septic systems and face the on -going costs (approximately
$1200 per year) for water that they neither need nor want.
The Access Road
On page 271 of the proposal in the first paragraph it is stated that "the subtle entry
drive will rise from Sandy Point Road and then descend over the ridge which will
completely hide the project from the road..." This seems to suggest that the access
road will be something of a bucolic country lane. Surely the access road would have
to be a city street conforming in all respects to the requirement of such; like all
utility and services be underground, the street will be paved with sidewalks, curbs,
storm sewers, markings and signage. A conforming street could hardly be called
'subtle'. The paragraph cited is, I believe, disingenuous.
Will the city be responsible for snowplowing, sanding, and salting? If so, given the
nature of the development, it would probably have to be in the very high priority
category for such.
Does it have the approval of our Protective Services like fire, police protection,
ambulance service, etc.? If this proposed development had been in place when the
decision to decommission the Millidgeville Fire Station would it have had any
impact on the decision? It would not likely have changed the decision but would
surely have been considered germane. These considerations are important - it is a
single access to a complex consisting of 125 units for seniors 75 years of age and
over - the access road seems to be about 0.5 kilometres long and comprised of a 180
3
134
degree loop astride the ridge that is very steep sided on the side away from Sandy
Point Road. The grades are significant which could result in treacherous conditions
especially when negotiating the'loop' during our wintry season.
The traffic in and out will be significant - the proposal itself estimates that the
complex will have 216 people in residence, in addition to 27 staff and an expectation
of 108 visitors.
Since the complex is geared to 75+ years old folk who want to live an active lifestyle
it is hard to believe that most of them will be willing to give up their driving
privileges and their cars for a good many years to come (It is often expressed that
75 years of age is the new 65).
Exactly how much parking will be provided?
Additionally should the project proceed I believe that city council should require
that the access road be completed and in service before any construction can begin
at the building site. There should be an absolute ban on any construction traffic on
Pelton Road, which is in no shape to handle it.
The last paragraph in the proposal states that, "an Engineer Traffic Study has been
completed by Englobe Engineer to make sure no negative impacts to the local
system will be experienced". To suggest that adding some 351 people will
experience no negative impacts, most of them drivers, to this north end of Sandy
Point Road, is utterly ridiculous, in my view.
The outdated incomplete study fails to recognize that the real traffic choke point will
be where Sandy Point Road connects to Foster Thurston Drive. Very short sight line
combined with morning and afternoon rush traffic would make Traffic Lights there
absolutely required. Not doing so would be absolutely unconscionable on behalf of
the city.
Water
All of the residents in the entire neighbourhood surrounding the proposed
development are dependent on our wells for our water supply. We greatly fear that
our wells will be negatively impacted by the blasting that would be required at the
building site which sits on solid rock and during the construction of the access road
that will need to be cut through the solid rock ridge that the access road will need to
straddle and continue downhill to the building site.
Many of us have had problem with the security of water supply over the years.
I had to drill a new well some years ago because the old one kept running dry during
the summer months. The new well had to be drilled to a depth of 500 feet before
getting water and yet I have still run out of water during hot spells. I know of others
in the neighbourhood who have also had to carefully ration their water usage to
avoid running dry. One resident lost all of their water and had to drill a new one as
a result of a neighbor drilling a new well.
Should this development go ahead I believe it incumbent on the city to require the
developer to engage an independent contractor with the expertise to test all of the
wells in the area for water quality and flow volumes to provide solid base -line data
to use in any dispute resolution arising from the project.
4
135
It is my understanding that this proposal excludes consideration of using Pelton
Road as a part of the traffic flow that would be engendered by its approval. The
proponents are quoted in the newspaper saying that, "Traffic flow concerns will be
mitigated by limiting property access to a single entry point off Sandy Point Road".
The map that is part of the proposal shows only a gated entrance from Pelton Road
to the complex presumably denying access to anx motor vehicle traffic. The
inclusion of Pelton Road in the project would require a whole new conversation by
all the parties impacted.
In closing I wish to state that I would fully approve of any development proposal on
the subject properties that is appropriate to the neighbourhood. This proposal,
however, I feel will be highly detrimental to the residential character of the
neighbourhood and highly destructive to the whole sense of 'pride in community'
that forms the fabric from which all great cities are woven. All of the flowery
phrases meant to evoke idyllic'Shangri-La"- like images of the proposal cannot
change the fact that it is inappropriate to this community. Many may suggest that
our positions on this matter are elitist. Our community is composed of a broad
cross-section of residents -employed and retired, residences comprised of floor
spaces of 800 sq ft to grand homes as a review of property assessments would
attest. We have welcomed construction in the area within and outside the PDA and
an increase in our community population - young families bringing vitality and older
members bringing wisdom with their experiences. It is the scope and magnitude of
this particular proposal that we object to vigorously.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to make my views and opinions known.
Writing this piece has given me a new appreciation for the burden that is placed
upon you who are given the onerous duty of reading it and others of its ilk. Thank
you very much for your patient commitment and exercising of 'due diligence' on
behalf of us all.
Sincerely
Wayne Jollineau
cc. Gary Sullivan
John MacKenzie
Sean Casey
Shirley McAlary
i«1
136
January 29, 2021
To Mayor and Council CSJ, Common Clerk and PAC,
My name is Brian J. MacDonald, I live at 978 Kennebecasis Drive in the City of Saint John, E21K 5A9. My
home phone number is 648-9481.1 am writing in opposition to the rezoning and development of a 120-
unit multi-storey residential complex to be located at 2100 Sandy Point Road.
PlanSJ was adopted in 2012 that clearly defined Primary Development Area (PDA) where 95% of all
development (including senior living developments) was to be located using existing infrastructure.
Rural low density residential areas are to be protected from high density development
Plan SJ recognized that there could be exceptions to allow other use buildings inside rural residential
zones including; a developer was unable to find land for a proposed development. According to the
developers, they spent a year looking for a property similar to the property at 2100 Sand Point Road —
the exception is if land is not available inside the PDA for the development - not land similar to 2100
Sand Point Road. The development doesn't need 19 acres to replicate the buildings for the development
and if required, a well -designed landscape plan would provide natural and sustainable amenities for
older seniors.
Even if there were no available land to build a seniors' nursing home, land Use (LU) 90 Plan Si outlines a
number of criteria that need to be satisfied before a development like the Ethos project could go
forward. There needs to be a positive for the neighbourhood — there is a growing unanimous resistance
to the project from the neighbourhoods) affected by this project — where is the positive. Where is the
compatibility of the land use; this area is low density rural residential — single homes. Seniors nursing
homes are high density. To apply a schedule B designation of this development as a Community Facility
that is surrounded by other community facilities like the SJRH, UNBSJ and the Peninsula Princess Car
Ferry could almost be considered misleading. The SJRH and UNBSJ are several Kms away. The Peninsula
Princess Ferry landing (probably better described as a transportation link) is over a km away from the
actual physical buildings proposed for this development.. The Ethos facility will not be surrounded by
other community facilities — it will be surrounded by single family homes in a rural setting. This
development will negatively impact the adjacent property owners.
The proposed building site for the Ethos development is not adjacent to the existing PDA boundary line
and existing infrastructure. The actual buildings are probably Y4 kilometer away from the PDA boundary
having to drive past a number of homes and then turning and passing by other homes.
The City of Saint John has indicated that the lift stations servicing the existing demand inside the PDA in
this area are nearing capacity — what will be the immediate impact and what will be the future impact
on existing infrastructure as a result of an unplanned 125 units being added into a Rural area that is not
zoned for such a development? Water pressure, has been an issue in the past for this area.
What is the implication for Protective Services, specifically fire services? Nursing homes and senior care
homes like the Ethos development are classified as high risk, high density. There was no Emergency
137
Fire Response Plan as part of the proposal. Fires in these facilities require high number of fire personnel
arriving at the scene within a recommended NFPA response time, with adequate water supply.
Building design within the context of the neighbourhood was an important consideration within the
parameters LU 90 of Plan Si. Does it complement the character of the neighbourhood? Four storey
buildings, high density housing does not add to this rural residential neighbourhood. Ethos facility may
be a beautiful building but out of context with single family homes in a rural residential neighbourhood.
Plan SJ's vision was to transform Saint John beyond traditional land use planning. Importantly, it tackles
the "fundamental quality of life issues ....". Currently families living in this area can take a comfortable
walk or bicycle without over worrying about a large volume of vehicle traffic and activity that will occur
as a result of this development, it is just basically people who live in the neighbourhood — neighbours —
that is what the area was intended to provide.
The Ethos development will require a large staff (most of whom, if not all. will drive to the development)
to take care of over 200 seniors at various stages of senior life and to manage large multi storey
buildings with complex building systems and maintenance issues that will require staff 24/7 - 365 days.
There will be a need for a significant number of support services having to go to the complex on a
regular routine basis (and off hours for emergency service) including garbage removal, food deliveries,
routine service maintenance on different systems servicing the building (fire, heating, air conditioning
etc.) are some of the outside agencies that will need to visit the site. This is a workplace imposed on a
rural/residential area - a place that people go to work. Add to this work activity and vehicle traffic,
family and friends visiting the facility at different times of the day, 365 days of the year. This activity and
traffic doesn't end at the entrance to the site. There will be folks visiting seniors that will continue down
Sand Point Road to Beach Road enjoying the views and looking at some of the new homes in the area.
There is the cul de sac at the end of Pelton Road that has yet to be determined by the developer on how
it may be used.
This increased activity and vehicle traffic resulting from this development is going to take away from the
quality of life for families in this area had envisioned and enjoyed. There will be vehicle congestion,
noise pollution from the traffic and light pollution from the facility itself.
There will also be a significant spill over effect onto the flow of traffic along Kennebecasis Drive,
Westmount Drive and Sand Point Road leading to and from the connector intersection of Foster
Thurston and Sand Point Road. The developers' proposal included a traffic study. The data used to
develop the traffic flows did take into account the Pandemic affect but the use of past statistics, future
projections, LOS really wasn't very clear, was it for a certain day, week, month or a year. A traffic study
conducted by City of Saint John in 2011 confirmed what citizens living in the area at that time
complained of the dangers at that intersection. A decade later families living in this area are again
bringing attention to this dangerous intersection and asking not to add additional traffic into
intersection, especially when it is not necessary. Any increase in traffic at the intersection near the
former Cherry Brook Zoo location will make the intersection more dangerous. If you were to ask anyone
living and driving in this area what their thoughts are on navigating through the Cherry Brook
138
Intersection — dangerous. The developer's study may paint a different picture but the reality is —
dangerous. Increase traffic — more dangerous.
The intersection of Kennebecasis Drive, Westmount and Sandy Point Road is also a very difficult
intersection, commuters are using the Peninsula Car Ferry to travel back and forth to work and often
times might be in a hurry to get to work or to catch the ferry to go back home or to their cottages. This
intersection is the exact location where traffic will be turning to enter and exit from that section of Sand
Point Road leading down to or from the proposed Ethos development. Adding more traffic into that
intersection creates more stress on travelling through that intersection, especially for residents living in
the area.
The families living in this area are opposing this application; City of Saint John has already stated that the
infrastructure servicing the PDA is nearing capacity in this area — the application does not satisfy the
criteria in LU 90 Plan SJ or the designation of the development as a Community Facility in schedule B for
this area and traffic concerns will be dramatically increased. I think the application to rezone the area
should be denied.
Thank you for your consideration on this important community issue.
Brian J. MacDonald
139
January 15, 2021
To Whom I May Concern:
This letter is being submitted by myself, Lance A. Crawford and my wife Alana M.
Crawford. We have resided at 2044 Sandy Point Road (PID 00052266) since April of
1991, and our property is adjacent to the proposed roadway leading to the proposed Ethos
Ridge Development. We want it duly noted for the record, that at no time did we sanction
the proposed venture, when the gentleman from Ethos provided us with the brochure
announcing the project.
As senior citizens, some of our concerns, are as follow:
• Given that the current residents have their own wells and septic tanks, any blasting
would pose an opportunity to destroy these infrastructures.
What are the plans regarding water and sewerage to the proposed Development?
It is our understanding our current neighbours on Sandy Point Road have their own
wells and septic tanks, and do not need, nor want to be included in any plan to join
the City's systems. For example, our house would be close to 400 feet from any
water and sewage lines and to join the City's systems, could cost us in excess of
$60K.
• Given that Sandy Point Road is a tertiary road regarding plowing in the winter
months, has there been any thought to how Fire and/or Ambulance vehicles can
adequately provide protection to "seniors' in the proposed complex, at the top of
the Ridge, given that the slope on the hill is at least 30 degrees?
• We are extremely concerned regarding increased road traffic, noise pollution and
years of construction traffic on our already extremely narrow, congested streets,
that do not have sidewalks or proper lighting? It is already extremely dangerous
walking our surrounding narrow streets, and we presently have grave concerns for
the residents' safety.
• With regard to vehicle traffic, what measures would be taken with respect to the
increased congestion at the intersection of Foster Thurston Drive, which is already
a disaster waiting to happen?
• What measures are being taken regarding the safe relocation of the huge wildlife
population that currently has made this area their home?
• Has any consideration been given to the safety and health of potential workers on
the site, in regard to exposure to ticks and the risk that they carry Lyme Disease?
Do the employers of these workers accept potential increase workers'
140
compensation costs because of this potential risk to their workers? For your
information, untreated, Lyme disease can spread to other parts of your body for
several months to years after infection, causing arthritis and nervous system
problems.
It would be
Yours truly,
Lance A. Cr
2044 Sandy
Saint John, ] ,
506 633-5189 or 506 333-5201
bkdandy@nb.sympatico.ca
141
Stephen Ough
1970 Sandy Point Road
Saint John, N.B.
January 20, 2021
January 23, 2021
Planning and Development Permit Department
15 Market Square
Saint John, NB, E21, 1E8
(506) 658-4455
To Whom it May Concern:
This letter is a written confirmation of our express opposition to the development of
the Ethos Ridge Development at 2100 Sandy Point Road ("Project") without the
proper transit, road development, sideway, traffic management, water and sewage
infrastructure enhancements being incorporated as part of the larger development
and community impact plan.
For the record, we are supportive of development in our neighborhood, and for the
developers of the Project; however, we as the community at large, are asking the
City of Saint John to mandate the required upgrades to the surrounding
infrastructure to support a safe, moderated, and balanced approach to a high traffic
development in a low -density region of the City of Saint John.
It is our position, and that of our surrounding members of the community, that the
Project developers have not completed a thorough review of the considerations to
congestion and traffic impact mitigation.
We are long standing members of the community and supporters of development in
the City of Saint John as a whole. It is the entrepreneurial drive of developers,
businesses and companies that will enable Saint John to excel long term. To be
supportive of the Saint John Vision and economic development, we are requesting
that the City of Saint John take a balanced approach of all parties involved by
requiring the following Project enhancements as part of the approval requirements
to the development permit:
Traffic Congestion Mitigation:
- Traffic lights to be installed at Foster Thurston Dr and Sandy Point Rd (in
front of the zoo),
- Traffic lights to be installed at Kennebecasis Drive and Sandy Point Rd (4-
way intersection).
Pedestrian Safety and Community Impact Mitigation:
142
Without these mitigation measures, it is our strong and measured opinion, that this
development should not proceed.
Yours truly,
C.
, -, P - 011fl�
Stephen Ough
143
16/2021 Development of 2100 Sandy Point Road
Development of 2100 Sander Point Road
From: "rbazaluk@bellallant.net" <rbazaluk@bellaliant.net>
To: "rbazaluk@bellallant.net" <rbazaluk@beilallant.net>
Priority: Normal
Date 01/16/2021 03:56 PM
City of Saint John Planning Department
I am writing to voice my objection to the proposal to develop the property at 2100 Sandy Point Road. for a
Seniors Home
As you are aware the property is currently zoned rural, and the developers wish to change this to build a
125 unit Seniors home on the property. I have read the material from the developers hand out as well as
their website and I find a few irregularities between the proposal and their website.
I - No where in the developers literature from the Council meeting does it state that these units will be
owner occupied, in their literature the developer says that elderly people do not want the responsibility of
ownership, yet they are proposing a strata development where the proposed residents aged 75+ will be
owners. .
2 - I have read absolutely nothing stating that the developer will be undertaking an environmental study.
This complex will destroy countless habitats, such as Blue .lays, Finches, Chickadees, Robins, Cardinals
and Eagles. Not to mention the construction will push Skunks, Raccoons, Opossum, Rats, Field mice and
other critters from their habitat to the surrounding homes causing an increase in pests and damages caused
by these animals.
3 - The developer has shown on their proposal that they wish io install a " canoe launch " on the river, they
could not have picked a worse location for this, just slightly downstream from the narrows at Sandy Point
where the current is extremely swift making it hazardous for all but the very experienced canoers ( most
75+ seniors are not experienced cancers ) The current is so swift that it pushes the ferry ( which is located
a few 100 yards downstream ) approximately 20-30 yards downstream,.. a 75 r years old will not be able
to handle this current safely and with the Fire hall located at University & Miliidge Avenues closed, the
swift water rescue equipment will be more than10 minutes away
4 - The statement that the facility will only be seen by a few nearby homes is completely false, the
developers documents show the project is 50 feet tall and will be visible to the majority of properties on
the west end of Pelton Road.as existing stands of trees will be insufficient to block out its presence I
myself will be looking at a workshop, truck/park turnaround, and a garbage facility and a 50 foot tall
building 50 feet from my property
5 - Speaking from experience ( 30 years in the Vancouver Fire Rescue Services with 14 of then in charge
of dispatching Fire apparatus for 7 different Fire Departments) I am gravely concerned with the proposed
location of this facility. 9 km from the closest Fire hall, this puts the residents of this facility at a greater
risk of insufficient medical protection.
The NFPA standards for dispatching is 63-t03 seconds per call, in other words the call taker/dispatcher
takes between 63 - 103 seconds to collect the information from the caller and dispatch the apparatus. If I
give the benefit of the doubt on the low side I will say the call takes 1 minute. The Fire Hall is 7-8
minutes away so if i add the 1 minute to the 7-8 of travel time I come up with 8-9 minutes and I have not
taken into account the 45-60 seconds for the fire personal to suit up, get on the rig and leave the hall, this
now takes us to between 9-10 minutes. I also have not taken into consideration the time it takes for the call
to be generated to 911 Very few people know what to do in this situation, their loved one has collapsed and
their first response is to see what is the problem. If they are alert enough to notify and nearby staff it will.
take anotherl-2 minutes for staff assistance to arrive before any call to 911 is initiated. So to be realistic,
https;Nwebmall.ballaliant.nat/ox6/ox.html
112
144
Development of 2100 Sandy Point Road
an occupant of this facility will be looking at approximately 12 minutes before profession medical help
arrives.
When a cardiac ar x�yt occurs, it is essential to start cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) within 2
minutes. After 3 minutes, global cerebral ischemia (the lark of blood to brain) can lead to progressively
worsening brain injury.
By 9 minutes, severe and irreversible brain damage is likely. After 10 minutes the chances of survival are low.
Even if a person is resuscitated, 8 out of every 10 will be comatose and sustain some level of brain damage. Simply
put, the longer the brain is deprived of oVgen, the worse the damage will be.
This appears to be a wonderful project in the eyes of the developer but certainly not for the health and
wellness of the proposed occupants. This proposed location is completely wrong and should not be
approved for development as a Seniors Facility
Robert Bazaluk
433 Pelton Rd
Saint John NB
rbazaluk@bellaliant.net
6'74-9085
httpsliwebmall.belialiant.naL/ox6/ox.html
2 r2
145
Fr. George. Losler
2021-01-14
Dear Mayor and Saint John Councillors,
I have been reading a proposal put to you on January 11"', relating to a proposed amendment to the
Municipal Development Plan for 2100 Sandy Point Road from Rural Resource to Major Community.
Further reading has perked my interest in opposing the proposed. The rational for the Ethos Ridge
Proposal is very forthcoming in the way it's public relations and marketing people have promoted this
sight as to be the withal for seniors. Though it is a bit narcissistic in the Ethos Ridge's approach to the
city and surrounding citizens about the way water runoff and automobile traffic is to be controlled along
with safety.
On page 272 of the Ethos Ridge Proposal, it states detailed storm water management plans and a
design report indicating how storm water will be managed on site in accordance with the City's Storm
Drainage Design Criteria and all applicable drainage by-laws. The onsite storm water management will
be designed to achieve a net zero impact.
It further states on page 272 --Although the overall development is expected to increase the storm
water runoff from this site, the majority of this increase will continue to be discharged directly to the
Kennebecasis River through overland methods; ditches, swales, and site grading.. A small portion of
this site, adjacent to Sandy Point Road' will require storm water management as it will be discharging
into the existing overland municipal drainage system on Sandy Point Road. Control of this increase in
runoff will be achieved through the design and construction of various retention features including rain
gardens, bio swales, and storm water retention ponds.
I believe that the runoff now on Sandy Point Road is controlled by ditches not city drains.
It also states that in preliminary discussions with the city, they have been advised that downstream
wastewater lift stations are at or near their pumping capacity. These stations are to be upgraded in the
coming years, BUT, we will work with the municipal staff with regards to flows from our system.
I would also like to point out we have also had many problems with water mains breaking In the area
and water pressure.
There's a lot of misleading information and divertive tactics by the Ethos Ridge proposal in these
statements alone. In my experience and noted estimates of the city's engineering projects, duly the
West Side water fiasco, I have lost faith in their engineering ability to get things done right in some
cases. The Ethos proposal and the above statements leave me cynical about their ability to curb water to
achieve a net zero impact on the area in which their proposal presents.
146
The most important issue to my mind is that the area to be developed is in a part of Saint John that is
the Pelton Road and the last part of the Sandy Point Road before it meets the Kennebecasis River which
is NOT serviced by water and sewer systems, and it's a community has mostly wells and cisterns, these
systems being mostly downhill from the proposed construction site. It is very possible and most likely
that these wells could and would be contaminated during construction, let alone the problems arising
from the cisterns.
It is by the Ethos Ridge Proposal admittance that the flow of water and sewage will greatly increase
the pressure to our water and sewage limitations. To an amount of 423609.43 litres per day. Remember
the city has already stated that the pumping stations are already at capacity. Does the Saint John Council
have an estimated cost to increasing the volume of our water and sewer pumping stations capacities to
meet and exceed the requirements of such a project as the Ethos Ridge proposal.
Other interesting factors pop up concerning the Ethos proposal. It is not all that forthcoming about
the cities involvement in their construction project. For one thing they say they are going to connect
with Saint John's water and sewer systems and the start of the Kenebecasis Road and Sandy Point Road
where the service end at that point. There is substantial distance to the proposed driveway from this
point. Who will pay for this extension, the Saint John City or The Ethos Ridge company ? I believe that
the infrastructure needed for this project is beyond what the City could pay at this time as I believe that
the City of Saint John would have to extend the water and sewer to all citizens in this area, to make sure
the water and sewage were right. With a facility of this size sidewalks would have to be included for the
safety of the seniors who may want to walk beyond their facility.
If the construction were to go ahead without new water, sewage, and infrastructure I can foresee
many problems arising from the poor planning of the water control system proposed.
Other situations will arise with the traffic in this area. In the Ethos Ridge proposal they specifically
point only to the areas directly pertaining to Sandy Point Road and Kennebecasis Drive and directly
pertaining to the entrance and exits to the complex. What about where Sandy Point Road meets Foster
Thurston. This section of Saint John's city streets was another III planned project. It's a spot where, it's
accident waiting to happen. Either lights or the reshaping of the road would need to be done.
The reason I mention this is the increase of traffic that the Ethos Ridge proposal fails to mention in
this area and that the Traffic Impact Study was done during the Pandemic. This Traffic study being done
during this time of the Pandemic is not conducive to the natural flow of traffic during a regular year.
There Is no mention of when the Millidgeville ferry is In operation and the amount of traffic it creates
during the months it is in operation. I live quite near the ferry and recognize the increase in traffic every
147
3
year. It also creates a backup problem at the Sandy Point Road and Faster Thurston corner mentioned
above.
Another concern is the recent closing of the Millidgeville Fire Station due to Saint John's budget's
scrutiny and cost cutting. Within the parameters of Millidgeville we now have 4 new apartment
buildings just off of University Ave. Shannex on Millidge Ave., the Regional Hospital and various homes
and older apartments. It leaves one's mind in consternation as to what would the results be if we had a
major fire in any one of the complexes.
I thank the Mayor and City councillors for their time to listen to the citizens of this area where the
proposal to re -designate our Rural Resource and Park to a Major Community Facility is in conflict with
the citizens of the Sandy Point Road, Pelton Road, and Kennebecasis Drive area where the Ethos Ridge
Proposal would like to construct their facility.
Yours
ph. 506 642 5937 giosierBB07@beliaiiant.net
4 Lentook Ave.
Saint John N.B.
E2K 5G7
HM
To Whom it May Concern,
This letter sets out the reasons for my opposition to the proposed municipal plan amendment to allow a
senior's residential complex at 2100 Sandy Point Road. In addition to concerns about protecting
personal use and enjoyment of my property and my neighbourhood, the factors that are relevant to
your consideration of this application include construction impacts, traffic and road safety,
environmental impacts, costs and risk that the development will not succeed.
As a general principle, I do not support significant changes to Plan SJ that may be a precedent allowing
other developers to argue that they too can develop in a rural area outside the City centre. Not only will
spot zoning in a residential area result in alienation of the residents of the area, urban sprawl can
compromise the current growth being realized in uptown Saint John.
Given the current pandemic, concentrating a significant number of seniors in a high -density complex
may need to be reconsidered. Housing seniors in an isolated area remote from the amenities of Saint
John is not desirable. Uptown Saint John is undergoing a renaissance, so a seniors complex would best
be positioned in that high density area, close the amenities the City has to offer. The Uptown, with the
City Market, Imperial Theatre, Harbour Passage, churches, shops and restaurants, as well as new
exciting developments like Fundy Quay, would be a preferable location for this population, assuming
they are willing to live in a congregate setting.
A senior's complex aimed at residents 75 years of age and older could be beneficial to residents of
southern New Brunswick. I appreciate the need for more seniors housing and development in Saint John
that will lead to an increase in its tax base, given the significant financial challenges the City faces. To
continue with its recent success in increasing the number of new buildings, the City needs to continue to
make prudent development decisions, especially in following its plan. Plan SJ has put the right kind of
development in the right place. Moving the boundary of the primary development area to
accommodate this proposed development is contrary to the plan's intent; it clearly considered this a
rural area.
Use and en'o ment of property in a rural neiehbourhood
My wife and I have lived in Millidgeville for the past twelve years. We moved to 470 Pelton Road from
Deveber Terrace 16 months ago to enjoy a home in a quieter area with a larger lot. Our new home was
in an ideal location as it was in a quiet rural neighborhood just minutes from the hospital where we
work. Despite being within the city limits we can sit on the beach at night in solitude. The closest home
we can see is across the river and the only ambient sounds are the waves and occasional noise from the
ferry crossing the river or a distant train. The natural setting also allows us to watch the bald eagles and
osprey from our living room.
The entire Pelton Road neighborhood will be adversely affected by the proposed development.
Currently this neighbourhood is truly a rural neighbourhood with many small one storey homes. The
neighbourhood's character is truly reflected in the plan SJ rural designation of this area.
The proposed development would result in a 24 meter high building built on higher ground in a lot
adjacent to ours. The base of this building would be 13 meters higher than our house which would result
in the new large structure towering 37 meters above our small one storey house. Building a 24-metre-
tall structure in a rural area will constitute a significant threat to the character and desirability of all of
149
the other properties in the area, which have had to remain within the 11 meter maximum height
allowed in an area designated as rural.
An immense structure, both in square footage and height, will undoubtedly compromise our current
serene setting, as well as that of our neighbours, with noise, light and sound pollution. It will diminish
sunlight on our property and be detrimental to our greenhouse during the day and its lights will impinge
on the natural darkness of the night. More people and vehicles will mean more noise. The significant
elevation difference between the complex and our house gives rise to concern about damage from
storm water run off. Although the current plan describes this run off as going into the river, I would
suggest that much of this run-off would enter my property and damage my house, greenhouse and
landscaping.
Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed building complex near our property raises concerns about damage to our
home and surrounding landscaping. The site, like my lot, is located on bedrock so there will be blasting
required for preparation of the site. As well, the topography of the site will result in significant
alterations of the terrain on the access road from Sandy Pont Road. Past development in the area
(Fieldstone Subdivision) caused contamination of the wells on Pelton Road, where some residents had
to drill new wells. Blasting and construction noise, including that from movement of heavy equipment to
and around the site, is not in keeping with the quiet rural neighbourhood setting to which we moved.
Traffic and Road Safety
The proposed plan illustrates a gated secondary access to the development of the end of Pelton Road,
which has no sidewalks. Pelton Road is a narrow winding residential road with a steep hill on a blind
knoll, that cannot reasonably accommodate an increase in traffic. Vehicles using the access to Pelton
Road during construction or an emergency would compromise the safety of pedestrians and
homeowners driving to and from their property, especially when there is low visibility due to weather or
a narrowing of the roadway due to snow and ice.
The main access to the proposed complex is off Sandy Point Road, which although recently paved, lacks
a sidewalk. Any 125 unit complex will result in a significant increase in traffic volume. The proposal's
traffic report would suggest that there will only be a slight increase in traffic, however doubling the
volume of residents in the neighbourhood and the addition of people visiting and working at the
proposed senior citizen's residential complex will increase the traffic to a significant extent.
Sandy Point Road will have three critical intersections: one intersection at the former Cherry Brook Zoo,
the four corner intersection of Sandy Point Road, Kennebecasis Road and Westmount Drive, and the
intersection created to provide access to 2100 Sandy Point Road. All three intersections involve blind
knolls and sharp corners. Given the demographic of its residents, it is reasonable to anticipate there will
be frequent emergency response calls to the site of the proposed development. A fire truck will have to
navigate long steep winding roads to the complex. The tortuous nature of these roads with school bus
stops and no sidewalks will significantly increase risk of injury to pedestrians and those in other vehicles.
This risk will further increase during the winter as this road is notorious for being icy. I regularly drive on
Pelton and Sandy Point Roads during poor weather to attend to patients in the hospital after hours; my
first-hand experience of the road leads me to consider that the current traffic report is not an accurate
reflection of the likelihood and impact of accidents that may occur.
150
In addition to the risk to other vehicles and pedestrians along the route, these trips will add further
mileage on the fire trucks and delay response to another call while firefighters attend to a senior in a
relatively remote area. This risk of delay obviously has been compounded by the recent closure of the
Millidgeville fire station.
Environmental Impacts
The building of a large residential complex on the Kennebecasis River will not only change the character
of the neighbourhood and how residents enjoy it, but will also have significant environmental impact.
The proposed site is one of the few areas of natural land remaining on the east side of the lower
Kennebecasis River. Currently, there is significant wildlife in the area including bald eagles and osprey.
Construction of such a large complex will disrupt their habitat. Such a large structure on the bank of a
river will result in the loss of plants and trees and creates significant ongoing storm water runoff and
erosion.
Other costs
The proposed residential complex may create new costs and potential obligations for the City because it
is planned for a location outside the primary development area. As presented, the proposal for a
senior's complex would stretch the current sewage system to its maximum capacity, such that further
residential development would require new sewage infrastructure at the City's expense. likewise, there
is a potential need to expand bus routes and increase snow removal in the area. These are costs that can
be avoided by situating a senior's complex in other parts of the City that are already appropriately zoned
and serviced.
Downside risk
The developers responsible for this proposal are not experienced in the construction and operation of a
residential senior's complex. There have been many changes to proposal in recent months, including the
number of buildings, the number of floors and the number of units, which have undermined my
confidence in the financial viability of the project to succeed. In the unfortunate event that the
development were to falter, there could be no tax revenue, an abandoned site, a residence that does
not meet required standards for housing seniors, or a building in the hands of a landlord that allows it to
deteriorate, (like the Mitchell Apartments).
Conclusion
I oppose this development at its proposed location. A residence twice the height of rural residential
buildings housing 216 people will permanently interfere with use and enjoyment of my home and will
change the character of my neighbourhood. This development could cause physical damage to nearby
properties, increase traffic and create long term road safety issues and irreversible environmental
damage. Saint John should not be burdened by future costs or the risks associated with the proposal. I
would respectfully urge that the property at 2100 Sandy Point Road not be re -zoned and the Plan SJ
zoning requirements be upheld to keep the area rural.
John Mowatt 470 Pelton Road
151
To whom it may concern,
My name is Lisa Forgrave, and I reside with my partner Jason Parlee and our children at 1104
Kennebecasis Drive Saint John NB. I have lived most of my life in the Millidgeville area. I take great
pride in having the ability to reside in such a well maintained, well cared for, quiet and safe
neighbourhood. When we purchased this house in 2017, we decided that we enjoyed all the luxuries
that come with living just outside of the "heart" of Millidgeville. We enjoy that we have a lot of privacy,
that it is always very peaceful, that we know most of our neighbours and that there is very little traffic.
I am writing to express my strong opposition as a resident of the area to the 2021 proposed plan
build by Ethos Ridge Development, of the 120-125 unit Residential Complex located on a parcel of land
off 2100 Sandy Point Road, situated between Pelton Road and Westmount Rd. This area and land is
considered a rural area, OUTSIDE the Primary Development Area according to Plan Si. I understand that
this is a very beautiful location, however, it is not zoned for such a Large Scale build. While the local
community may be able to prevent the development I would imagine that not only the long time
residents who have been residing in this area for many years, but new residents are strongly opposed to
the addition of a complex of such magnitude. WE are not talking about a multi- family home, but a
building that will house many residents as well as other care providers for what they are suggesting will
be geared towards a senior demographic. I have NO idea how we are to know for sure that this building
will only house seniors now and in the future to come. I have many concerns with what might happen if
you go ahead with this plan.
Firsts of all this is a very quiet part of Millidgeville and something we want to maintain as
residents. Building this Large complex will require time, and that will mean that we residence will
endure months if not years of constant noise. There will be a lot of trucks and large pieces of equipment
being used in the process. Because this is considered a rural area, we do not have many side walks and
honestly the lighting is scares. As residents who have been living here, we know that it can be
dangerous walking the road and even to just pick up your mail. This 120 Unit Residence, will bring with
a great influx in the amount of traffic and possible safety problems. I would imagine that at some point
the city would be required to put in sidewalks and more lightening. As well as mentioned, if geared to a
more senior demographic, the roadways would have to be easily accessible to the emergency medical
teams that may required from time to time. We already struggle in this area to have it plowed regularly,
so I would hope that you would have a plan for more plowing on these streets. It is also possible that
with the surge in traffic it will make it less safe for students and children who are out walking in the
mornings to get to their buses, as well as returning home afterschooi. The lightening is so poor at times,
and I do not have to worry about the traffic flow and my children walking to get home.
As well, in the
Millidgeville is also having grave issues with the amount of wildlife and deer that have having to
relocate due to the current and ongoing development happening in and around Millidgeville. The loss of
their home, forces them to displace, pushing them out and into our environments. This has put the
Millidgeville area in a high risk zone of lime disease. I believe that this large development will further
increase the risk of developing lime disease if you are driving the wildlife out into the more populated
areas. This also increases the risk of accidents, car or person. The number of deer in this are is already
152
overpopulated. As a mother of 5 children, I do not want to see or have to worry that this may make
things worse.
There are NO other buildings of this nature in this particular neighbourhood. Nor should there
be. This is not the place to build such a large complex and I am disappointed that the council would
even consider such a build. I am also sad to report that this plan build was not brought to our attention
sooner and communicated to us residents before I had to hear about it from a neighbour and the article
in the news paper.
I am also very interested in how this build will affect Not only mine, but the surrounding
resident's property value, possibly lowering it.
I realize this is a beautiful area, but this area has always been preserved and I would like to see
that continued. I and my family urge you to recognize our small voice and our concerns, and to
disapprove the proposed plan build by Ethos Ridge Development, brought to you January 111h 2021.
1 see another beautiful piece of property right in the "Heart" of Millidgeville for sale that might
be a better location for such a large build and 125 Unit complex, that would allow for better access to
other businesses, doctors, dentist, and emergency and medical staff, places to shop and walk too safely
or even bus stops.
This is the listing link: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/22423075/661-millidRe-avenue-saint-iahn
"This 9.36 acre island has over 1000 ft of shoreline and is located near upscale homes in the
Millidgeville area of Saint John. The property features 2 sandy beaches as well as one large gravel beach.
The underground power and telephone conveniently connects through conduit in the causeway and the
building site is prepared. Deep water anchorage close to shore can easily accommodate yachts up to 150
ft with 10 drafts. Absolutely fantastic area for sail and power boating on the Kennebecasis River
connecting to the St John River, Belleisle Bay, Washademoak Lake, Grand Lake, Grand Bay, the Saint
John Harbour and the Bay of Fundy into the Atlantic! Walking distance to RKYC yacht club with the Saint
John Regional Hospital, UNBSJ University, all levels of schools & the city center within a 5 minute drive.
Rockwood Park with 2200 acres offering extensive outdoor activities is the largest park within any city in
Canada and located 5 minutes from this property. (22341593)
Thank you for your continued service and support of our communities.
Best regards,
Li For,rave and Jason Parlee
YI(A M Ct CA - - c
T
153
Jan 25, 2021
Common Council
City of Saint John, NB
Canada
To Clerk of the Common Council:
My name is Greg Collins, and I am an owner of 467 Pelton Road, Saint John NB. My wife Alisha Losier
Collins is also an owner of this residence. This property is adjacent to the lot next to Ethos Ridge
buildings are intended to be placed. Our property is the most impacted from the current design plans
submitted to the City of Saint John on Jan 11, 2021. My purpose for writing this letter is to provide
notice of my opposition for the proposed Ethos Ridge Senior development at 2100 Sandy Point Road.
My property will be directly affected in many ways illustrated in the current proposal of 120 plus units.
The integrity of the rural area in my yard, my back yard, and all my neighbours' yard, are in serious
jeopardy with an approval of Ethos Ridge proposed over development on said. The intent of the
proposed development does not take into consideration " a voluntary pre -consultation with the Sandy
Point Road community", as stated in the brochure. There is absolutely no regard in these plans for the
neighborhood concerns despite the intent from the developer to "We care about the community impact
of our project and believe that local residents should hear about it before the formal early steps of
planning". Consideration, listening and satisfying the neighbourhood concerns has failed.
My concerns were clearly outlined when speaking over the phone with Scott Walton and Ian McLeod
directly. From the proposed plans submitted to the City of Saint John, it is evident, none of the concerns
have been considered or implemented since beginning the consultation processes. This fail to address
my concerns in a fair and considerate manner and clearly outlines the intent of their overall
development moving forward. I will provide an outline of some issues of Ethos Ridge over development
to support the reasoning why City Council of Saint John must decline the amendment of moving the PDA
of Plan SJ and rezoning the land from current RU zoning.
Building Height, visibility:
The current zoning of RU does not fit the requested building size of 19.3 M. RU allows for 11 M in height.
The proposed building size is 27.39' higher than what is permitted for RU zoning. Looking out my back
yard the sun actually signs through the day from approximately 9.30 am — 8:00 pm during spring and
summer hours. A building of this nature would completely obstruct natural sunlight, cause substantial
noise and lighting pollution into a current RU neighborhood.
The proposed buffering has not been clear. Are 30 and 40' trees going to provide "only a glimpse of a 64
foot building set only 150' away? Who will be monitoring the buffering for properties? Is their going to
be a condition mandated with an community agreed type of buffering zone?
RU Zoning for proposed Senior Development:
154
The lack of conformity for Ethos Ridge over development is clear and present. The intent of developers
has not considered the current zoning in their plan. This is evident with the proposed size and overall
magnitude of project on rural land. Why build 120 plus units at 4 stories if you are and have considered
the neighbourhood? Is this a considered and environmentally friendly approach? The answer is it does
not fit. The City Council has an obligation to its citizens and more importantly taxpayers to protect
communities such as ours. Changing a zone must not change the landscape of the land in question. The
request to move the PDA and change the zone from RU to Community facility would undoubtedly
change the landscape of land.
Personally, I am pro growth and development of our City. I have built more than one multi unit building
and own several properties all within the Saint John City limits. This project does not fit the area
currently zoned for single- and two-family dwelling units and mobile homes. The scale of the project
does not fit the location and just changing a zone does support such a high -density scale development.
If this building were kept to the 11 m height scaled back to a much lower density than I may be in
support of changes. With existing plans, I can not accept a building of this size in the area of land
proposed, regardless of a zone change.
Pelton Road — Public Safety violation
The proposed development plans on approximately 80% of all traffic through 2100 Sandy Point Road.
The proposal also outlines 20% of all traffic through Pelton Road and through a proposed gated access.
Community concern on traffic in general along Sandy Point Road, Kennebecasis Drive, and to the corner
of Sandy Point Road and Foster Thurston, are impacted significantly, yet none more than Pelton Road.
Pelton road is a former cottage road, 6 M in width, resulting in a dead end. The infrastructure of this
road has not been updated to support increased traffic flow. The original design of Pelton Road was
done in 1950's and 1960's.
The safety of Pelton Road is a concern for my family of 4, including 2 children, and all the residents of
Pelton Road. The developers are suggesting only 20% of overall traffic will be used on this road. 20% of
what? 20% of 350 plus residents/workers/patrons? If we used 20% of the approximate 400 volume of
traffic per day (perhaps higher during peak summer/fall time) = a minimum of 80 vehicles traveling back
and forth on a road without any sidewalks, a blind knoll, and a severe turn with low protection barriers,
is not feasible or acceptable in any City's plan.
Furthermore, this proposed 20% usage will be unchecked or unmonitored. How will the City control the
amount vehicles used on one road versus Sandy Point road? In other words, there can be no control
over the number of vehicles being used on Pelton Road or 2100 Sandy Point Road.
Construction equipment, emergency response vehicles, will not be able to navigate Pelton Road
properly for a proposed senior complex with an average age of 75 years. The City may be held
responsible for the safety on main roads with adequate infrastructure such as side walks, protection
barriers (guard rail system on Saint John River edge), and water and drainage for the current proposed
development.
Environmental Impact Water and Sewer Infrastructure:
155
Why hasn't there been an environmental study been done or been requested to assess the impact on
the surrounding environment? The City of Saint John NB and the Province of NB has an obligation to
protect our natural environments such as the Saint John River Watershed. Meeting the buffer
requirements shall not be enough to permit a large scale project of 120 plus units at 4 plus stories.
"Discussing potential offset projects to remove unwanted flows from existing system", has been
outlined in proposal. Why has this study or report not been done in advance before submitting for
approval to council? This seems like a major reason for infrastructure expense to the City of Saint John
without knowing in advance of what costs are or needs are to support a building of this size.
Plan SJ was designed with the PDA in place to protect such oversights and additional costs to the citizens
and taxpayers of Saint John. Was this a primary reason why PDA was designed for Plan Si?
Who is going to cover the cost of managing this infrastructure expense?
How much water is going to be moved into the Saint John River System from the proposed building size?
Also, how much water will run off into adjacent properties from removal of vegetation and substrate
overall? Why is this study or report not being presented now? The developer must be held accountable
financially for "ALL" water flow increases to be diverted from proposed property "and" adjacent
properties. Residents will not accept any additional water on properties because of project, nor any
costs associated to moving potential water flows to culverts or overflow systems.
What condition will be implemented to ensure water is not running into my property and diverted into
proper draining culverts and water reusage systems?
How will the City of Saint John ensure my property does not undergo loss of well and septic services
currently in use?
Who will be responsible for the potential contamination in drinking water on my property at 467 Pelton
Road? Water tests were mandatory prior to purchase in 2015. Who will cover the costs of any
disruption?
In closing, I do not support the proposed the development of 2100 Sandy Point Road. I have outlined
some of the most important reasons above which are direct reflection of public safety, the environment,
and zoning within this community. Support for a project can be considered if conditions are placed on
the development outlined in my letter. Without these conditions, which clearly protect City of Saint
John's natural beauty and our community, my family cannot and will not support such a project. To
speak to me directly you can reach me at my personal email gregPcollinstours.ca.
Sincerest Regards,
i2
Greg Collins
467 Pelton Road
Saint John, NB
Canada
156
Questions included in letters:
Water and sewage/wells and septics
1. Does the Saint John Council have an estimated cost to increasing the volume of
our water and sewer pumping stations capacities to meet and exceed the
requirements of such a project as the Ethos Ridge proposal?
2. Who will pay for the extension of water and sewage services from the corner of
Sandy Pt Rd /Kennebecasis Dr/ Westmount Dr and the entrance to 2100 Sandy Pt
Rd?
3. Has there been a proper environmental assessment done to determine the impact
of blasting and construction and how that seismic activity may impact on the wells
and septic systems of the area? If so what are the results/indicators of the effects?
4. Do we really need to develop more land in Saint John that needs water, sewage
and road maintenance?
S. The developers intend to connect to the existing municipal sanitary and water
system at the intersection of Sandy Point Road and Westmount Drive., some 250
metres southward on Sandy Point Road. Would this require that all of the
residences on that stretch of road be forced to hook-up to the facilities as seems to
be the normal practice?
6. Have studies been performed and offered financial compensation to surrounding
neighbours as to what impact this commercial development and land disturbance
will have on their wells?
7. What are the hours of construction and the duration of the plan? Is there
anticipated blasting? What guarantees are given to the neighbouring homes that
there will be no impact to their basements (cracked foundations) and wells?
8. Will this new development be on city water and sewage? If so, can the system
handle such a large quantity of water and waste? Will overflow be pumped into our
beautiful river system?
9. If my well casing gets cracked or if the water table is drained due to the
construction, is the City of Saint John prepared to dig me a new well?
10. On page 272 it says the city'has advised that downstream wastewater lift
stations are at or near their pumping capacity'. These stations are scheduled to be
upgraded in the coming years but no specific time is given. Will not be a
considerable cost to the city?
157
11. How will the City of Saint John ensure my property does not undergo loss of
well and septic services currently in use?
12. Who will be responsible for the potential contamination in drinking water on
my property? Who will cover the costs of any disruption?
Environmental and Drainage concerns
13. Has there been a proper environmental and fisheries departments assessment
done on the impact of changes in the drainage and watershed to the river system
and to the quality and availability of water for all dependent on the water table for
their wells? If not, why not? This is an important component of the possible
impacts of the development and proper authorization should be required at both a
local level and at a provincial level.
14. Has there been an environmental assessment done and may I have a copy?
15. How will their engineering system guarantee flows and speeds to ensure no
downstream?
16. Where will the storm water retention ponds be located?
17. Has there been a statement of the environmental effects done? Will there be an
arborist report submitted?
18. What is the storm water management plan? Rainwater runoff needs to be
critically planned and managed. How will the proposed storm water measures
impact the neighbouring properties? What will happen `downstream' (down the hill
on Pelton Rd)?
19. Have geotechnical reports been provided assessing erosion and land slip that
would impact the property and surrounding properties?
20. Light pollution is also of concern on both sides of the property. How will this be
minimized?
21. This property and neighbouring ones might also become more vulnerable to
flooding. Might mean an ugly seawall along the river?
22. Even if the building is sited back from the shore, will the developer remove
shoreline vegetation and put in lawn right to the water?
158
23. Who will be monitoring the buffering for properties? Is there going to be a
condition mandated with a community agreed type of buffering zone?
24. Why hasn't there been an environmental study done or been requested to
assess the impact on the surrounding environment? Why has this study or report
not been done in advance before submitting for approval to council?
25. How much water is going to be moved into the Saint John River System from the
proposed building size? Also, how much water will run off into adjacent properties
from removal of vegetation and substrate overall? Why is this study or report not
being presented now?
26. What condition will be implemented to ensure water is not running into my
property and being diverted into proper draining culverts and water reusage
systems?
Traffic and Road Infrastructure
27. Has the city considered the impact of the increased traffic especially with large
construction vehicles on the road infrastructure? Should the proposal go ahead will
the city be responsible for returning the road to its present condition? Will the city
bar all construction vehicles from accessing the construction site by way of Pelton
Road?
28. Have the fire, police and ambulance services been consulted regarding the
single entry into a site, along a roadway that will be at a steep grade with a hairpin
turn into a proposed 125 unit complex for people 75 years of age and older? If so,
what are their concerns?
29. Will there be a proper study of the traffic pattern to include the intersection at
Foster Thurston and Sandy Pt?
30. Has there been any thought to how fire and ambulance services can adequately
provide service at given the slope to the top of the ridge is 30 degrees?
31. Will the city provide proper lighting and street infrastructure to support the
development?
32. What measures would be taken with respect to the increased congestion at the
Foster Thurston/Sandy Pt Road "T" intersection?
33. The Access Road
Will it be a city street? If so will it have to conform to all of the standards of such in
new development paved with curbs, storm sewers etc?
Will all of the city services be underground including electrical wiring (consistent
with new subdivisions across the city)?
159
Will the city be responsible for snowplowing, sanding, and salting?
34. Does it (the access road) have the approval of our Protecting Services like fire,
police protection, ambulance service, etc? If this proposed development had been in
place when the decision to decommission the Millidgeville Fire Station would it have
had any impact on the decision?
35. What guarantee do we have that sidewalks will be built?
36. How will this impact existing landowners along the road? We are going from
lower density to higher density traffic. Is this fair to the current property owners
who chose to live in a 'non commercial', low density neighbourhood?
37. Would the city be updating the road with sidewalks and keeping them cleared in
the winter so the children in the neighbourhood could make it to their bus stops
safely, or the seniors in this resident could walk to the bus stop safely?
38. To get to this new development is a steep incline and decline, can emergency
vehicles get here safely?
39. The developer was committing to not using that access (Pelton Road) but how
can that be controlled?
40. How much ambulance and fire traffic will be expected?
41. The developers are suggesting only 20% of overall traffic will be used on this
road (Pelton Road). 20% of what? 20% of 350 plus residents/workers/patrons? If
we used 20% of the approximate 400 volume of traffic per day (perhaps higher
during peak summer/fall time) = a minimum of 80 vehicles traveling back and forth
on aroad without any sidewalks, a blind knoll, and a severe turn with low protection
barriers, is not feasible or acceptable in any City's plan.
Wildlife and Health and Safety
42. Has any consideration been given to the health and safety of the workers during
construction and afterwards in this environment? (i.e. heavy deer population and
tick population)
Boundaries and Rezonine
43. If the PDA is expanded to incorporate the Ethos Ridge project where will the
new boundaries be? Will they extend east down Sandy Point Road just far enough
to include the project? Will they extend north up Westmount Drive to the
Kennebecasis River then down the shoreline to meet and coincide with the
development? What would the property encompassed by the extension have in
common with a 125 unit complex to justify it?
160
44. Surely there is plenty of land to develop that is already properly zoned, without
seeking to rezone rural land and destroy more green space? Perhaps the developer
could take over one of the undersubscribed projects already begun and revitalize it,
or develop property in the city where retirees are more likely to want to live
anyway?
45. Plan SJ was designed with the PDA in place to protect such oversights and
additional costs to the citizens and taxpayers of Saint John. Was this a primary
reason why PDA was designed for Plan SJ? Who is going to cover the cost of
managing this infrastructure expense?
Miscellaneous
46. What is the developer doing to benefit the residents he will inconvenience
during construction?
47. Exactly how much parking will be provided?
48. Will the trees (buffers) remain? Only clearcutting would allow for'stunning
water views'.
49. Questions directed to information in the brochure:
a) How will you create a destination for residents, their families, and their
community?
b) 'amenities that have yet to be realized in our region' - which are what?
c) 'we care about the community impact of our project and believe that local
residents should should hear about it before the formal consultation begins' -
when???
c)'services will respond to the evolving needs of your residents' - what ones?
Will health professionals be on site?
d) 'preserving the forest canopy' How when you want to expose'stunning
views'? Can you guarantee a buffer of trees?
50. Has research been performed in the Saint John market that a facility such as this
is in demand with the corresponding high price point?
51. In one meeting it was stated neighbours would be allowed to continue to walk
on the paths of the site. Would we be given passes to do so? Explain how this will
work?
52. There are already 3 seniors hosing complexes in Millidgeville, are these full?
53. The price of these senior complexes makes us think that 75% of the residents
will be coming in from other provinces, not N8. This will put a further burden on our
health care system. Saint John already has many people still waiting for a family
161
doctor, are we going to be able to provide proper health care for all the new seniors
coming into the province?
54. Will the trails be accessible for all neighbours or just the residents of the
retirement home?
55. The proposal suggests that the location is ideal due to its proximity to
Rockwood Park, the hospital, and the University. Yes, seniors are welcome to attend
the University, but this number remains small and why not place the development
closer to the park if proximity matters? Why would you need the park if you are
going to have your own trails?
56. Who will be responsible if the market is not there for expensive senior housing
or the building is too large for its market? Who will be responsible for the building
if the developer cannot complete the proposal and our neighbourhood is tainted by
an empty building or partially finished building?
57. What sort of research has been done to determine the suitability of this area for
a retirement complex? Have the developers spoken with older people?
58. Why build 120 plus units at 4 stories if you are and have considered the
neighbourhood? is this a considered and environmentally friendly approach?
162
31-Jan-2021
Dear City Councillor/PAC Members,
My husband and I moved to Pelton Road after several years of looking for "the right home" that
would give us peace and tranquillity. We wanted to keep our connection with the city, yet feel like
we were not in the hub of it. When we found this property, we studied it carefully for a significant
length of time to make sure it was the perfect location for our oasis. We absolutely love it for its
calm, quiet and friendly atmosphere. The sunlight to our home makes us feel energized and upbeat.
Our greenhouse allows us to grow organic healthy food that we hope will lead us to a long and
healthy life.
The proposed Ethos Ridge development located at 2100 Sandy Point Road is one that I am opposed
to. By that, I mean not development but "this particular development". This development is
inappropriate for our area. As the city has said, Plan SJ was developed as a strategy to limit urban
sprawl and add density to the core, ultimately providing a sustainable direction for Saint John. That
is why the PDA exists. The city has spent millions of dollars and a significant amount of time to
develop this plan with these objectives. To disregard this plan and change the zoning of 2100 Sandy
Point Road to Major Community Development and move the PDA is irresponsible. In the past 9 years
it has been very rare to move the PDA as a result. Plain and simple, Ethos Ridge development does
not compliment the area, contrary to what the developers are suggesting. What would?? Single
housing units or a small 1-2 story complex (under 11m in height) that would blend into the area. Not
a 125-unit multilevel complex with a height of 24m.
I have multiple areas of concern over this large complex in our neighbourhood. They are as follows:
RE -ZONING AND MOVING THE PDA
In addition to not following Plan Si as mentioned, changing the zoning and moving the PDA sets a
precedent for future proposals. It does not blend in with the neighbourhood. The developer has
stated in their proposal that the project will be "completely hidden from the road" as it will be
situated behind the ridge. This is only a true statement from Sandy Point Road. The neighbours on
Pelton Road will have this massive building invading their privacy. A building they will not be able to
ignore due to its size. Allowing this complex at this location is irresponsible to the 75+ age group
walk that distance safely. The proposal suggests that the location is ideal due to its proximity to
Rockwood Park, the hospital and the University. Yes, seniors are welcome to attend the University,
but this number remains small and why not place the development closer to the park if proximity
matters? Why would you need the park if you are going to have your own trails??? The trails at the
park would be much safer than the ones they are proposing up the steep ridge. There are properties
closer and safer to these stated necessities.
163
SAFETY
Sandy Point Road and Pelton Road have a number of safety issues. Roads are narrow, poor lighting,
no sidewalks, which increases the danger for pedestrians (including children and pets). Starting at
the connection with Foster Thurston and Sandy Point Road there are several blind knolls and
corners. Ironically, one is located at the entrance of the development, increasing the risk of car
accidents, especially with emergency vehicles (EMS) entering and exiting. Traffic will be significantly
increased with the residents, staff and visitors entering and exiting Ethos Ridge. The intersection at
Sant Point Road and Foster Thurston is extremely dangerous now. The increase in traffic from this
facility will be detrimental. A traffic controlled study was performed in 2010 and it stated that the
City of Saint john will need to coordinate improvements to this intersection with any development
plans in the general area.
There is an access to the property from the end of Pelton Road. A road that has been poorly
maintained and has a very sharp turn and downhill with poor visibility. This area is known for poor
and infrequent snow plowing. The concern again is safety (same as above) and deteriorating road
condition from increased traffic, especially from heavy equipment. Parked cars on the street will
cause congestion, as this road is narrow and no designated parking. This is likely as the access on
Pelton is close to the complex. The developer was committing to not using that access but how can
that be controlled?
Closure of the fire station in Milledgeville increases the response time, leading to poor outcomes.
The entrance to the property is steep and difficult to access especially in winter months. Thus,
making it difficult for staff, residents, visitors, and EMS. This should be assessed further.
CONTAMINATION OF WELLS
This area has a history of well contamination and issues with water supply during single housing unit
construction. Therefore, there is an increase risk with a much larger complex. Our property is next to
it therefore, putting us at high risk. This would be very disruptive, costly, and unsafe.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Storm water run-off, poor water absorption (due to the clearing of trees) and the amount of rock
that exists in this area leads to flooding and contamination of neighbouring properties and the river.
Our property is at great risk for flooding as we are adjacent to and below the complex.
Contaminating the river places aquatic species at risk and thereby worsening those already at risk.
We have not been provided with a plan to prevent erosion, flooding and contamination.
Bald eagles and Osprey nest and hunt in this neighbourhood frequently. They are put at risk from
pollutants, a decrease in their food supply and by decreasing access to suitable nesting trees. Any
pollutant that contaminates the river, contaminates their food supply. It will take a significant length
of time to construct this development. Significant amount of noise from blasting and heavy
equipment will negatively influence the nesting and reproduction of these eagles. Nesting followed
by breeding occur from February -May. With the developer's goal of starting late fail to early winter
this is of grave concern. Bald eagles remain on the endangered and species at risk list therefore
putting them at risk is irresponsible.
164
Light pollution is caused by the lighting in and around the complex. This lighting has a very disruptive
effect on flora and fauna cycles. It will also inhibit the observation of stars and planets and will
disrupt the ecosystem by altering the environment which interferes with reproduction and thus
decreasing population of species. The NB government and the Department of Natural Resources
state there needs to be limited changes to the environment around an eagle's nesting site (noise and
light pollution). The light will also be very disruptive to the houses surrounding the complex. We
moved outside the PDA as that was the atmosphere we were looking for. The peace of the darkness,
quietness, and the sounds of nature aid in the relaxation we feel after a long day's work.
Noise disruption to the neighbouring houses will be created by frequent visits from EMS vehicles,
the dog park, number of residence and staff, increased traffic, lengthy construction involving
blasting, rock hammering and heavy equipment. All of this will disrupt the peace in our
neighbourhood forever.
The size and the location of this complex will block sunlight to our home and our greenhouse. The
proposed development is placed on an area that is 11 meters above my home and the building is 24
meters high.
Privacy
Privacy will be completely lost for several homes on Pelton Road. The building towers over all these
homes and there is direct visual access to our yards and into our homes from ground level and from
the windows/balconies. We will lose the peacefulness at our waterfront significantly with 210
residents and staff. I am not interested in being a lifeguard. This is a river not a lake and the waters
can change quickly. This section of the river has a strong current, placing the elderly at risk for
drowning. The proposal has a canoe launch on site. So instead of relaxing after a long day I must be
worried about those who may drown. I DO NOT want to be put in that position, nor do I want to risk
being a victim. As we all know, the rescuer often becomes the victim. Residents with cognitive
impairments living in an assisted living environment should not be placed at risk by living near a cliff
with access to a large river.
The number of trees near the complex and the existing houses is minimal to none. Suggesting that
planting trees near our homes to hide the complex is somewhat insulting. You would need to plant
an enormous number of massive trees to block 24-meter building. With all the bedrock I doubt there
is enough soil for large trees to grow and sustain a healthy root system for survival. That maybe
possible if planting small trees but given the amount of time trees take to grow, privacy at ground
level would be non-existent. We propose a fence or a berm with lots of trees and low shrubbery to
aid with privacy. At ground level we have direct access to the property.
Potential Damage
There is concern regarding damage our water supply and to surrounding homes from blasting. This
proposed site is close to homes on Pelton Road. The area consists of large amounts of bedrock that
will transmit the energy through the rock in the form of ground and airwaves. it is well documented
houses/wells become damaged due to blasting. It is not unusual for companies to declare they are
not responsible. Who will be responsible for the damage created during construction? Those
responsible must have document for each homeowner stating that they will cover the cost of any
damage. That does not resolve the fact that this damage and needed repair is very disruptive and
165
upsetting. I suggest having a blasting seismograph be conducted to evaluate the risk of damage to
surrounding homes. As well as a detailed description of how the planned blasting will be safely
performed.
Cost for the City
There will be an increase in cost for city to maintain roads in the area due to increased traffic.
Significant cost to upgrade the intersection of Santy Point road and Foster Thurston to reduce the
safety risk. The roads will require frequent snow plowing to ensure EMS has access. As we are all
aware, EMS frequent these senior developments. The city will also be responsible for the long-term
maintenance and repairs to the water and sewage system. A system that is documented to be near
or at max capacity. As taxpayers, we paid for plan SJ, a costly endeavour. To then ignore this plan to
make exceptions for developments outside the PDA undermines the point of Plan SJ and therefore,
wasting millions of dollars. Who will be responsible if the market is not there for expensive senior
housing or the building is too large for its market? Who will be responsible for the building if the
developer cannot complete the proposal and our neighbourhood is tainted by an empty building or
partially finished building?
There are a number of issues that come to mind with this development plan. It is stated that the
target age is 75+ years and they wanted to aid in maintaining a connection with the community. This
facility has absolutely no connection with the community. It does not blend in or have anything to
offer this area. This property is not on a bus route, there are no amenities, has a long and steep
entrance, a drop off to the river and hiking trails with uneven terrain. This increases the risk of falls
and fractures. Falls increase mortality. This design would be better suited in one of the areas of the
city that would offer these seniors a holistic approach to aging. Not a place where they feel they are
unable to escape. If it is the neighbourhood and residents the developer and city care about, thls
construction should be evaluated carefully. This is NOT the ideal location for this development)
In closing, I want you to understand that there have been several inconsistencies from the developer
both verbally and in writing of the proposal. There has also been a lack of information provided to
several residents of the neighbourhood surrounding the project. We are not able to obtain
information from the city website due to the cyber-attack. The proposal has failed to have an up-to-
date traffic safety report, an environmental and fisheries assessment and blasting assessment. The
traffic report must include the traffic coming and going during the peak season of ferry operation
and include restaurant traffic, as I have heard it will be open to the public. I do not see how this
proposal could be granted without these assessments. A well as implementing sidewalks, lighting,
road and intersection improvements and frequent plowing.
Concerned Resident of 470 Pelton Road,
Brenda Rolfe
DATE:
166
To Whom it May Concern,
This letter sets out the reasons for my opposition to the proposed municipal plan amendment to allow a
senior's residential complex at 2100 Sandy Point Road. In addition to concerns about protecting
personal use and enjoyment of my property and my neighbourhood, the factors that are relevant to
your consideration of this application include construction impacts, traffic and road safety,
environmental impacts, costs and risk that the development will not succeed.
As a general principle, I do not support significant changes to Plan Si that may be a precedent allowing
other developers to argue that they too can develop in a rural area outside the City centre. Not only will
spot zoning in a residential area result in alienation of the residents of the area, urban sprawl can
compromise the current growth being realized in uptown Saint John.
Given the current pandemic, concentrating a significant number of seniors in a high -density complex
may need to be reconsidered. Housing seniors in an isolated area remote from the amenities of Saint
John is not desirable. Uptown Saint John is undergoing a renaissance, so a seniors complex would best
be positioned in that high density area, close the amenities the City has to offer. The Uptown, with the
City Market, Imperial Theatre, Harbour Passage, churches, shops and restaurants, as well as new
exciting developments like Fundy Quay, would be a preferable location for this population, assuming
they are willing to live in a congregate setting.
A senior's complex aimed at residents 75 years of age and older could be beneficial to residents of
southern New Brunswick. I appreciate the need for more seniors housing and development in Saint John
that will lead to an increase in its tax base, given the significant financial challenges the City faces. To
continue with its recent success in increasing the number of new buildings, the City needs to continue to
make prudent development decisions, especially in following its plan. Plan SJ has put the right kind of
development in the right place. Moving the boundary of the primary development area to
accommodate this proposed development is contrary to the plan's intent; it clearly considered this a
rural area.
Use and enio ment of property in a rural neighbourhood
My wife and I have lived in Millidgeville for the past twelve years. We moved to 470 Felton Road from
Deveber Terrace 16 months ago to enjoy a home in a quieter area with a larger lot. Our new home was
in an ideal location as it was in a quiet rural neighborhood just minutes from the hospital where we
work. Despite being within the city limits we can sit on the beach at night in solitude. The closest home
we can see is across the river and the only ambient sounds are the waves and occasional noise from the
ferry crossing the river or a distant train. The natural setting also allows us to watch the bald eagles and
osprey from our living room.
The entire Pelton Road neighborhood will be adversely affected by the proposed development.
Currently this neighbourhood is truly a rural neighbourhood with many small one storey homes. The
neighbourhood's character is truly reflected in the plan SJ rural designation of this area.
The proposed development would result in a 24 meter high building built on higher ground in a lot
adjacent to ours. The base of this building would be 13 meters higher than our house which would result
in the new large structure towering 37 meters above our small one storey house. Building a 24-metre-
tall structure in a rural area will constitute a significant threat to the character and desirability of all of
167
the other properties in the area, which have had to remain within the 11 meter maximum height
allowed in an area designated as rural.
An immense structure, both in square footage and height, will undoubtedly compromise our current
serene setting, as well as that of our neighbours, with noise, light and sound pollution. It will diminish
sunlight on our property and be detrimental to our greenhouse during the day and its lights will impinge
on the natural darkness of the night. More people and vehicles will mean more noise. The significant
elevation difference between the complex and our house gives rise to concern about damage from
storm water run off. Although the current plan describes this run off as going into the river, I would
suggest that much of this run-off would enter my property and damage my house, greenhouse and
landscaping.
Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed building complex near our property raises concerns about damage to our
home and surrounding landscaping. The site, like my lot, is located on bedrock so there will be blasting
required for preparation of the site. As well, the topography of the site will result in significant
alterations of the terrain on the access road from Sandy Pont Road. Past development in the area
(Fieldstone Subdivision) caused contamination of the wells on Pelton Road, where some residents had
to drill new wells. Blasting and construction noise, including that from movement of heavy equipment to
and around the site, is not in keeping with the quiet rural neighbourhood setting to which we moved.
Traffic and Road Safety
The proposed plan illustrates a gated secondary access to the development of the end of Pelton Road,
which has no sidewalks. Pelton Road is a narrow winding residential road with a steep hill on a blind
knoll, that cannot reasonably accommodate an increase in traffic. Vehicles using the access to Pelton
Road during construction or an emergency would compromise the safety of pedestrians and
homeowners driving to and from their property, especially when there is low visibility due to weather or
a narrowing of the roadway due to snow and ice.
The main access to the proposed complex is off Sandy Point Road, which although recently paved, lacks
a sidewalk. Any 125 unit complex will result in a significant increase in traffic volume. The proposal's
traffic report would suggest that there will only be a slight increase in traffic, however doubling the
volume of residents in the neighbourhood and the addition of people visiting and working at the
proposed senior citizen's residential complex will increase the traffic to a significant extent.
Sandy Point Road will have three critical intersections: one intersection at the former Cherry Brook Zoo,
the four corner intersection of Sandy Point Road, Kennebecasis Road and Westmount Drive, and the
intersection created to provide access to 2100 Sandy Point Road. All three intersections involve blind
knolls and sharp corners. Given the demographic of its residents, it is reasonable to anticipate there will
be frequent emergency response calls to the site of the proposed development. A fire truck will have to
navigate long steep winding roads to the complex. The tortuous nature of these roads with school bus
stops and no sidewalks will significantly increase risk of injury to pedestrians and those in other vehicles.
This risk will further increase during the winter as this road is notorious for being icy. I regularly drive on
Pelton and Sandy Point Roads during poor weather to attend to patients in the hospital after hours; my
first-hand experience of the road leads me to consider that the current traffic report is not an accurate
reflection of the likelihood and impact of accidents that may occur.
In addition to the risk to other vehicles and pedestrians along the route, these trips will add further
mileage on the fire trucks and delay response to another call while firefighters attend to a senior in a
relatively remote area. This risk of delay obviously has been compounded by the recent closure of the
Millidgeville fire station.
Environmental Impacts
The building of a large residential complex on the Kennebecasis River will not only change the character
of the neighbourhood and how residents enjoy it, but will also have significant environmental impact.
The proposed site is one of the few areas of natural land remaining on the east side of the lower
Kennebecasis River. Currently, there is significant wildlife in the area including bald eagles and osprey.
Construction of such a large complex will disrupt their habitat. Such a large structure on the bank of a
river will result in the loss of plants and trees and creates significant ongoing storm water runoff and
erosion.
Other costs
The proposed residential complex may create new costs and potential obligations for the City because it
is planned for a location outside the primary development area. As presented, the proposal for a
senior's complex would stretch the current sewage system to its maximum capacity, such that further
residential development would require new sewage infrastructure at the City's expense. Likewise, there
is a potential need to expand bus routes and increase snow removal in the area. These are costs that can
be avoided by situating a senior's complex in other parts of the City that are already appropriately zoned
and serviced.
Downside risk
The developers responsible for this proposal are not experienced in the construction and operation of a
residential senior's complex. There have been many changes to proposal in recent months, including the
number of buildings, the number of floors and the number of units, which have undermined my
confidence in the financial viability of the project to succeed. In the unfortunate event that the
development were to falter, there could be no tax revenue, an abandoned site, a residence that does
not meet required standards for housing seniors, or a building in the hands of a landlord that allows it to
deteriorate, (like the Mitchell Apartments).
Conclusion
I oppose this development at its proposed location. A residence twice the height of rural residential
buildings housing 216 people will permanently interfere with use and enjoyment of my home and will
change the character of my neighbourhood. This development could cause physical damage to nearby
properties, increase traffic and create long term road safety issues and irreversible environmental
damage. Saint John should not be burdened by future costs or the risks associated with the proposal. I
would respectfully urge that the property at 2100 Sandy Point Road not be r d and th Plan SJ
zoning requirements be upheld to keep the area rural. �
John Mowatt 470 Palton Road
169
Ethos Ridge 2100 Sandy Point Road
January 22, 2021
Office of the Common Clerk
Saint John City Council
commoncierk@saintjohn.ca
(506) 658-2862
To Whom it May Concern,
We are writing with our concerns regarding the potential zoning change from Rural
Resource to Major Community Facility to allow development of the Ethos Ridge
seniors' facility.
These issues have been shared via Survey Monkey with the Ethos Ridge team but have
not been acknowledged. Most of what we understand about the project has been
learned from local news outlets. We thank you for your prompt response by phone
and email on January 22, 2021.
We purchased our property and built our home in 1999 because of its private, rural
feel, access to the river and proximity to work, all of which we still value. By
introducing a larger high -density community in our neighborhood we fear the loss of
our quiet, private rural life and the impact on our river resources.
Construction of this development will introduce heavy machinery through a pristine
forest. The road seen in the landscaping plan will come close to our property line and
runs the risk of interfering with the water table and subsequently our well water. There
has been no public indication as to the water or sewage requirements of such a major
facility.
Heavy equipment moving on Pelton Road will surely cause the already crumbling
roadway to disintegrate. This rural street is barely wide enough for two private
vehicles to pass safely let alone accommodate heavy equipment.
If the development does occur, the street is not safe for increased foot traffic as no
sidewalks exist and the road itself winding and steep with blind corners.
170
Previous re -zoning has been undertaken in the past for private separate dwellings that
ensure a solid tax base, community life and lower density impact on our river access
and resource.
We look forward to continued dialogue with the City and proposed developers.
S:;�-"Za'
ours,
Ryan Green and Andrea Canty
ata
rgsdream40@icloud.com andreapanWicloud,com
345 Pelton Road, Saint John, E2K 51-16
(506) 693-1252
Cc: knlelectric@gmail.com
171
January 23,2021
subject: Our Neighbourhood and the Ethos project
=rom: Joan L Lawrence
34 Beach Road
Daint John, NB
=2K 5H5
506 2141275
;ell 506 608 9543
=mail j.l.lawrence@rogers.com
Ay personal thoughts;
-My "low density" neighbourhood will be negatively impacted.
moved in from the Kennebecasis Valley in 2010 and built a home. I
-.hose my neighbourhood( and chose to pay higher city taxes)
)ased on the fact that it was a country setting. As a nature lover, I
oved the trees, pristine environment, the low traffic and noise and
:he small and friendly neighbourhood.
n 2018, 1 was diagnosed with an incurable illness (a rare cancer)
:hat I will deal with the rest of my life. Now, more than ever, nature
and a calm setting is important to me.
have now become anxious of the proposal set before us as I feel
172
:his is now threatened. A commercial building in a residential setting
Joes not seem right for a variety of reasons.
Traffic Impact ( Pedestrian safety)
walk and ride my bike on Sandy Point Road daily. I recognize there
are no sidewalks however with the current low traffic it is
manageable. The neighbours know to go slow down this road due to
is twists and turns and blind spots. I fear that with the many
)roposed units, there will be increased traffic and therefore more
iazard to me(us) ,the walkers (and the bikers). In fact, I find this
A/hen the ferry lands and there is an onslaught of fast and often
'eckless ( not taking into consideration the walker or biker on the
aide of the road ) vehicles going by. This will be the ongoing case
Atith many more cars coming and going at all times of the day. It is
ny personal opinion that the traffic study quoted is low on the
)ercentage increase in traffic cited. How was this assessed? Please
)rovide the details of this study.
Duestion: What guarantee do we have that sidewalks will be built?
-low will this impact existing landowners along the road? We are
3oing from lower density to higher density traffic. Is this fair to the
:urrent property owners who chose to live in a " non commercial" ,
ow density neighbourhood. One such neighbour moved ( invested
n this area) from a subdivision to this area because of the "quiet"
environment.
gote that the Quispamsis and Millidgeville Shannex properties are
accessed via commercial roads and do not impact residential
173
ieighbourhoods.
nvironmental impact
Duestion: Has there been a statement of environment effects done?
The beautiful trees....
Ne generally know how construction goes. The intent will be to save
:he trees but construction costs are lower once the landscape is
aped. Many of the trees on the proposed property are very old and
:hey deserve to be respected and preserved. With changing climate
conditions and water run off, trees and their root systems are critical
especially along our waterways. Will there be an arborist report
submitted?
Displacement of wildlife
There are many deer that roam the woods. They will be impacted
and perhaps there will be more motor vehicle accidents as the deer
-oam onto the roads in their displacement.
Rainwater
Duestion: What is the storm water management plan? Rainwater
-unoff needs to be critically planned and managed. How will the
)roposed storm water measures impact the neighbouring
)roperties? What will happen "downstream" (down the hill on Pelton
-oad) ? As it is now, the ditches on Sandy Point Road are being taxed
n heavy rain storms (seemingly more prevalent with climate change)
-esulting in overflow situations, culverts being destroyed, roads
174
)eing compromised and erosion.
question: Have Geotechnical reports been provided assessing
erosion and land slip that would impact the property and
Surrounding properties.
question: Have studies been performed and offered ( financial
;ompensation) to surrounding neighbours as to what impact this
:ommercial development and land disturbance will have on their
Neils?
Ncoustic Impact
Ns this is a commercial operation coming into a quiet and pristine
-esidential neighbourhood, what is the ongoing noise impact of the
)peration of the facility. What can be anticipated? I anticipate
ncreased traffic noise, comings and going of ambulances, comings
and goings of staff, food supply trucks, maintenance trucks, courier
:rucks ( and they travel fast!) heating and cooling systems noises
3oing on and off. Also what is the impact during the construction
)hase. As a side note, what control is in place for waste
management and rodent control.
)uring construction, what are the hours or construction and
Duration of the plan? Is there anticipated blasting? What guarantees
ire given to the neighbouring homes that there will be no impact to
heir basements ( cracked foundations) and wells?
175
Jur river system is unlike any other. I feel a behemoth complex on its
yanks does not suit the environment. Light pollution is also of
.oncern on both sides of the property. Question: How will this be
minimized?
Target Market/Market
ks a side note, my father has been in a Shannex facility for 10 years.
Dver the years, I have interviewed many of the residents living in the
'etirement section. I would say that the majority of them would
)refer not to live there and only do so,because there are no
3Iternatives for them such as smaller garden homes or nicer senior
apartments (granted in the greater Saint John area, senior
apartments and condos are now only starting to proliferate as the
oaby boomers are needing them). Mose people would prefer to
-emain independent and not (in their older years) have to live in a
Jorm style environment.
question: Has research been performed in the Saint John market
:hat a facility such as this is in demand with the corresponding high
price point? Perhaps we could have the details of this report.
question: In one meeting it was stated that neighbours would be
3Ilowed to continue to walk on the paths of the site. Would we be
]iven passes to do so? Explain how this will work?
Dn a side note, I feel that with the recent pandemic the thoughts of
176
)eople wanting to live a bit more "separated" is more prevalent
'ather than apartment style facilities ( refer especially the large
rondo complexes of Toronto). I would suggest a modest number of
Small garden homes would be more appropriate if I had to choose
)etween two evils. In fact, I probably already know of five
)rospective couples that would be interested in such a concept
Nithin a year or two. They live in Millidgeville and would like to stay
sere. They would like to sell their large family homes, and purchase a
-5mall garden home. They would not want to live in an apartment
style complex.
177
To the City of Saint John
Mayor and Council
January 21, 2021
We are writing this letter to strongly oppose the proposed building of the senior's
complex known as Ethos Ridge in our neighborhood.
My name is Charline Chase and I reside at 468 Pelton Road. We have been here for 20 years. I
am writing this letter to voice strong opposition to the proposed Ethos Development for the
following reasons.
As a resident of the area who enjoys walking, one of my main concerns is the traffic flow. There
are several sight restricted areas because of the hilly terrain and severe curves in the road. One
of those areas is exactly where the entrance of the new development is proposed to be located.
Coming up Sandy Point Rd, you cannot see the entrance until you are right on top of it. In
addition to this, in the winter, this part of Sandy Point Rd is very slippery. When coming down
the road, it is very hard to stop. Several times after a storm this hill restricts drivers going up the
hill and compromises safety and stopping going down the hill. The traffic report from Crandall
talks about a significant increase in traffic flow on Sandy Point Rd. That is certainly not good
news for pedestrians particularly since there are no sidewalks in this area. The city hopefully
will do their own traffic study and, in their records, will see reports of their own plow trucks
being off the road at the corner of Sandy Point Road and Pelton Road. This is where the kids
wait for the school bus I might add. Also, in the reports I am sure it is documented where a
plow truck was stuck going up the blind knoll on Pelton Road. This blocked traffic for a day. The
other issue with the Crandall traffic report is that it was done during COVID 19 where traffic was
minimal. Also, it did not address the exodus from the Millidgeville ferry. I hope the city will itself
complete a traffic report that will take all of this into consideration. Also, the increased traffic at
the intersection of Foster Thurston and Sandy Point Rd. will have to be addressed, as 84°Y of the
increased traffic from the development on Sandy Point Rd. will end up at this dangerous
intersection according to the Crandall traffic report. We see close calls several times a week
with traffic turning left from Sandy Point Rd to Foster Thurston.
From an environmental point of view the city needs to consider the impact of surface water
runoff and installation of service lines. The area where the road curves to the complex is
extremely rocky and to install services will require blasting. This will undoubtedly affect all wells
in the area as this is an area of the City where the homes are serviced by wells and septic
systems. When the Fieldstone development was done several residents dealt with
contaminated wells. That development is much further away than the distance between these
homes and the Ethos Development. The proposal from the developer even admits that the
surface water runoff cannot be addressed at this time but hopes the city can deal with it in the
178
future. It is hard to imagine that in this day and age anyone could imagine allowing surface
water runoff to the River. Most of us are concerned with rising water levels and flood zones and
also contaminants free flowing into the river. The steep terrain down to the complex will require
lots of salt which will end up in our wells and into the river. Undoubtedly there will be other
contaminants including gas and oil that also will end up in the river Water that does not run
into the river will end up running over ground downhill to the surrounding parcels of land which
is of concern for flooding of lots and basements. Since a large portion of the property will be
clear cut for the development, the natural water absorption of the vegetation will no longer be
able to minimize this run off.
As a taxpayer another concern is the fact that this development is occurring in an area outside
of the Primary Development Area. It is noted that the Ethos Development is just on the edge of
the PDA. I would assume that given the large amount of money, time and taxpayer input spent
on researching, preparing and implementing the Plan SJ strategy that the boundaries were set
up for good reason. As part of Plan SJ to keep these projects in their designated areas I am sure
there are proper areas for these types of development. This will set a bad precedent for future
developments as the boundary seems flexible.
Media coverage for this project has been very misleading. The indication has been that the
residents are in favour. I would encourage any member of councilor PAC to canvass the
neighborhood or make a couple phone calls to see how the residents really feel. There is very
little positive support. This brings me to another point. If the media is of the mistaken belief
and is reporting that there is widespread area support for this project, does City Hall staff and
council believe the same based on those reports. We have heard that this is an upscale senior's
home commanding monthly rents in the $5000- $6000 range. We have been told these
residents don't have cars so not a lot of parking is needed and traffic will be minimal. The same
article in the newspaper says this will be a destination for friends, family, grandchildren. They
can garden, swim, hike and boat. This certainly sounds like a lot of additional traffic. It should
be noted that this is probably the highest tick infested area in the province so hiking is not
advised. The area in front of the complex is treacherous terrain to the water. If part of the
complex is assisted living, I don't feel this would be safe. See pictures on page 4 & page 5 that
show seniors treacherous access to the water.
There are a lot of questionable areas in the application and a seeming lack of preparation and
information. At this point I feel the developer should have a firm handle on the actual number
of units and not change on a daily basis. He should also have water and geotechnical studies at
his disposal. The drawings provided with the application are vague. Perhaps the developer
could share with the City and the residents his experiences with previous developments. Surely
an experienced developer could give an idea of development costs instead of just in "the tens of
millions of dollars". I would wonder what investors or banks would say if at this stage of
development that there is no budget. I also think it would be fair for the developer to share
some information about the investors in this project. If there are local investors with a proven
track record it would be nice to know. In projects such as this where there are minimal specific
details on the hard costs, there is always the fear that something gets started and the money
runs out so the project is not completed. This would leave a huge eyesore on the landscape.
This is of particular concern if the project approval is given before these details are confirmed
and site preparation is done, or partially done. In these cases, aside from the eyesore of a
partially completed project, the water run off becomes a substantial issue due to a change in the
179
landscape and topography. I believe that it is vital that the City and PAC examine the track
record of the developer and require information with respect to his financial backing to ensure
that the project, if approved, can be completed.
One of my last concerns is regarding the layout of the complex itself. Units are small and a lot
without kitchens. In this day and age of COVID is it not a good idea to revaluate senior living to
allow more space and freedom.
In conclusion I trust the city will take all these issues into account. This project clearly does not
make sense for this area.
Sincerely,
- �Z211 �c ��/ �f6
Dr. Paul Chase
468 Pelton Rd
Saint John NB E2K 5H7
506-721-8809
chasemailletO)arnail.com
Charline Chase
468 Pelton Rd
Saint John NB E2K5H7
506-639-4594
chasemailletnamail.com
:m
`i
i�yd ��'.�` ++=, r '; I { ?_ •}k:tF {�� � of
tit i - A ' '�R+'�� :fLj
�F• -+F •k # ry1 *�4 '�I t�IY-�•T'f 3 '. fy ��tL 'd
IN
l h
lk
i { F''i,�.
F r ,F ram-. wk
i,
_KEY. .:� � �•.. 4�,.
�+ ti - } , •� ',' * t� '# —01 ice,lp
14
443 Pelton Road
Saint John, New Brunswick E2K SH6
Dear Members of the City Council,
We are writing to express our significant concerns about the proposed "Ethos Ridge"
development behind Pelton Road, off Sandy Point Road.
Our house was built circa 1960 and we have lived in it since 2000. Since we moved here,
there has been a considerable amount of building in the immediate and nearby vicinity,
with no environmental impact analyses done, to our knowledge, and certainly with no
upgrades to infrastructure. Significantly, we and our neighbours are still on septic tanks and
wells despite the increased population density in the larger area. Our infrastructure is
already strained by the rising number of single-family dwellings in the area without adding
a high -density development for which the area is not zoned. We are worried about what
such a disruptive and large-scale facility would mean for the integrity of our wells and
septic tanks.
Council needs to be aware that the neighbourhood will need significant infrastructural
improvements to offset the stresses that would be caused by the proposed development,
should it go ahead.
In terms of environmental impact: our neighbourhood may seem quite idyllic but it is
already stressed. There is already considerable erosion due to removal of trees and ground
cover, not to mention the drainage of pesticides into the river. We are worried that the
whole -scale removal of trees and ground cover from the land behind our home, which is all
uphill from us, would result in significantly more erosion. It would also mean increased
saturation of the soil, which can be disastrous for septic tanks. (Council should know that
the clearing of the woodlot has already begun, despite the development still only being at
the proposal stage.)
In our immediate vicinity a stream was blocked when the original houses were built in the
1960s and codes were presumably laxer. There is a house built on the site of that blocked
stream immediately next door to oui-s, and there have been ongoing flooding issues for its
various owners. We are justifiably worried that further environmental stressors will cause
additional flooding beside our property and onto the road, particularly in the spring. There
is only one road out and if it were blocked by flooding, we would be cut off.
We have further concerns about increased traffic in the area. While the plan is not to enter
the new development from Pelton Road, we would still be affected by more traffic on Sandy
Point Road and surrounding streets. These are already busy roads given the proximity of
the Millidgeville ferry, and a large development would only exacerbate the traffic.
Before the Council deliberates the issue any further, we would ask that there be an
impartial environmental impact assessment with adequate transparency and oversight.
183
Our preferred option, of course, is that there be no further development of the woodlot,
that the cutting down of trees that has already begun be halted, and, ideally, that there be
some replanting.
Finally, we wonder what sort of research has been done to determine the suitability of this
area for a retirement complex? Public transportation to this neighbourhood is practically
non-existent. Have the developers spoken with older people? Yes, the sunsets are
spectacular but as people approaching retirement age ourselves, we can say with
confidence that being isolated in a drive-in community is not a solution that would appeal
much to us. It would be particularly galling to loose the beautiful woodlot to another white
elephant real estate project. Surely there is plenty of land to develop that is already
properly zoned, without seeking to rezone rural land and destroy more green space?
Perhaps the developer could take over one of the undersubscribed projects already begun
and revitalize it, or develop property in the city where retirees are more likely to want to
live anyway? We know that marketing to retirees is a new boom market but frankly, we are
skeptical that an isolated and under -serviced location will prove quite the investment the
developers are seeking. Being able to say "I told you so" will be little comfort, however, once
the green space is clear cut.
We urge the Council to reject the "Ethos Ridge" proposal. If it were to pass we envision
increased environmental degradation, structural and environmental stresses leading to
possible breakdowns of our septic systems, contamination or drying up of our wells, and
increased traffic and noise. We are already seeing the loss of green space every time we
look out the back window.
We are also concerned about the value of our home. How ironic if it were to lose so much
value that we would be unable to take care of our own retirement needs. We appreciate that
some people will say that homeowners like us are selfish when we seek to keep our
neighbourhoods as they are, but when the alternative is to lose the very qualities that make
a neighbourhood a good place to live in in the first place, then nobody wins and the city and
those that come after us lose much.
Thank y•)u for your attention. We look forward to continuing this discussion.
Sincerely yours,
0
Joseph Galbo and Miriam Jones
jgalboCa unb.ca
jones@unb.ca
The Concerned Residents of the Sandy Point Road,
Pelton Road, Westmount Drive, and Kennebecasis Drive Neighbourhood
Whose Names and Signatures Appear on the Counterpart Signature Pages Below
January 22, 2021
To: The Mayor and the Common Council of the City of Saint John
Statement of Opposition to a Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Plan in relation to 2100
Sandy Point Road
As residents of the neighbourhood in which it is proposed to develop the Ethos Ridge Project, we
object to the grant of the zoning variance claimed to be necessary for the project to proceed. Our
objections are based upon information and belief and may be stated in summary form as follows:
First, the manner in which the project sponsors have proceeded appears inconsistent with
their claim to have been inspired by some admirable "ethos" at least to the extent that the sponsors'
ethos is claimed to encompass concern for the community;
Second, the project sponsors have identified certain conditions to the development that they
have chosen to impose upon themselves, but the sponsors have not met their own self-imposed
conditions, and, therefore, their application for a zoning variance is premature upon the sponsors'
own terms;
Third, the development of the project will materially adversely affect the residential
character of the neighbourhood;
Fourth, the application for the variance is replete with inconsistent and incomplete
information and cannot properly be the basis of the sought-after variance; and
Fifth, the sought-after variance is greater in scope than is necessary for the proposed
project, and the unnecessarily broad scope raises questions about whether there are undisclosed
development plans.
We will, in this letter, briefly develop each of these points of objection.
I. Objections
A. The manner in which the project sponsors have proceeded appears inconsistent with their
claim to have been inspired by an "ethos" to the extent that the sponsors' ethos
encompasses concern for the community.
To introduce the Ethos Ridge Project to the neighbourhood, the project sponsors left a copy of a
brochure at the front doors of our residences. We assume that the same brochure was left at the
front doors of other neighbourhood residents. That brochure, a copy of which is provided with
this letter, provided no material information about the project. The most basic information about
the project is not supplied. The brochure offered no information regarding the size of the project
or the number of new residents to be added to the neighbourhood. Of the nature, size, and scope
L
185
of the Ethos Ridge Project, the brochure says only: "Ethos Ridge is a proposed retirement
community set deep within the forest canopy adjacent to the Kennebecasis River."
The brochure describes itself as "a voluntary pre -consultation with the Sandy Point Road
community." A consultation without information is an oxymoron. This oxymoron is not
dispensed with by the brochure's reference to the project website (www.ethosridge.com) which
even to this day appears to offer no meaningful project information.
The provision of information about the project that is superficial at best suggests that the manner
in which the project sponsors have proceeded is inconsistent with their claim to have been inspired
by some "ethos" to the extent that the sponsors' ethos encompasses concern for the community.
The project description submitted to the Council represents to the Council as a basis for the sought-
after zoning variance that the sponsors "are committed to creating a design that fits within the
neighbourhood of Millidgeville ...." The sponsors' pursuit of that commitment is less than
obvious based upon their wholly inadequate provision of information to the residents of the
neighbourhood in question before their application for a zoning variance.
The sponsors' naming their proposed project "Ethos Ridge" pitches their intentions high. The
sponsors' actual course of dealing with the community to date suggests a material gap between
their pitch and their intentions. That gap must be eliminated if any reliance is reasonably to be
placed upon the sponsors' representations. We have been warned.
B. The proiect s onsors have es oused conditions to the development that they have not
qpparently met, and, therefore, their application for a zoning variance is premature.
The above -referred -to brochure states: "We care about the community impact of our project and
believe that local residents should hear about it before the formal consultation begins. As we
embark on the early stages of planning, we are seeking the input of our neighbours." Seeking input
before providing all information to enable the evaluation of the project and its impact is a
meaningless gesture intended to communicate a concern without providing the means to realize it.
This observation is so obvious that it begs the question: Exactly what ethos is in operation here.
It seems, therefore, inescapable that the project sponsors have expressed a self-imposed condition
to their development that they have not met, and, therefore, their application for a zoning variance
is, upon their own terms and conditions, premature.
C. The development o the proiect will material.y adverseIX a ect the residential character o
the n&hbourhood.
This neighbourhood is residential and nowhere densely populated. The development of the project
appears to contemplate the addition of 216 new residents in addition to 27 support staff and a
substantial number (108) of guests. Nowhere in the neighbourhood is there any commercial
development or obvious concentration of people. The sponsors appear to believe that the impact
of a material number of new residents is to be measured in terms of traffic, sewage, and like
matters. That belief is doubly unsound because the quality of life experienced by a community is
not reducible to some engineering calculations and because the proffered engineering calculations
do not have the hoped -for soothing effect for which they were provided, but, rather, raise a series
of unsettling questions as hereinafter explained.
First, respecting the critical matter of quality of life, the sponsors do not highlight or otherwise
emphasize the addition of the following facilities to the neighbourhood for the first time: A
restaurant with capacity for 155 persons (counted for certain purposes separately from residents
and guests), a beauty salon, and a 12-hour carwash. Are the residents of the neighbourhood
seriously to believe that the Common Council would authorize the development of a car wash on
Sandy Point Road if a car wash operator sought the necessary permits for such a facility? Should
the proposed developers of Ethos Ridge be able to achieve indirectly what seems so obviously
could not be achieved directly?
Are the residents of the neighbourhood expected to believe that the addition of about 350 people
(possibly doubling or more the number of persons present depending upon how the
"neighbourhood" is defined) and the indicated facilities will not have a material adverse effect
upon the present residential character of the neighbourhood? If so, nothing in the materials
provided by the sponsors of the project has a tendency to mitigate obvious concerns. How does
that approach square with the sponsors' assertion that they "care about the community impact of
our project"?
In addition, the project plan indicates that existing waste water lift stations to be affected by the
project are "at or near their pumping capacity." The timing of the upgrading of those lift stations
is such that it appears that the upgrading will not be completed before the project is in operation.
The project sponsors offer no assurance that the sewage facilities utilized by existing residents will
not be adversely affected by the development and offer nothing but the vaguest of assurances that
they will "review and discuss potential offset projects as needed to remove unwanted flows from
the existing system to compensate for the increased flows from this development." No binding
guarantees are offered, and the representation that they will "review and discuss" does not provide
even cold comfort.
It is notable that the sponsors contemplate "remov[ing] unwanted flows from the existing system,"
i.e., it seems that flows from the use of the system by existing residents are to be removed in order
that the flows from their project can utilize the city's waste water system. The lack of a guarantee
that existing residents will not be affected by the project coupled with the apparent potential plan
to affect existing residents directly surely indicate that the project is likely to have a material
adverse effect upon the residents of the neighbourhood.
D, The application for the variance is replete with inconsistent and incomplete in Lrmation
and cannot properly be the basis of the sought-after variance.
The sponsors of the project claim that a traffic study they secured indicates that "no negative
impacts to the existing (traffic] system will be experienced." Even the most casual review of that
traffic study undermines that conclusion.
187
• The Traffic Study Utilizes Incorrect Information. The traffic study is based upon a project
size of 115 units. The sponsors state the size of the project to be 125 units. All of the
calculations made in the traffic study that rely upon the understated project size are in error.
• The Traffic Study Ignores One Critical Intersection. The traffic study does not address the
effect of increased traffic at the intersection of Sandy Point Road and Foster Thurston
Drive. Much of the traffic exiting the project or travelling to the project will utilize that
intersection. As all residents of the neighbourhood know, that intersection has no traffic
signal and is very dangerous because it is almost completely blind for traffic on Sandy
Point Road. Plainly neither the project sponsors nor the traffic engineers are familiar with
the neighbourhood or their attention would have been rivetted upon the effect of increased
traffic at that intersection. No traffic study is needed to reach the conclusion that increased
traffic increases the likelihood of an accident. In addition to accidents, increased traffic
will necessarily cause additional delays especially for traffic on Sandy Point Road seeking
to enter Foster Thurston Drive. Delays happen already and will be increased by additional
traffic.
• The Traffic Study Utilized Outdated and Estimated Traffic Information. The traffic
engineers did not undertake to measure actual traffic in 2020 because it was likely reduced
by COVID-19. The traffic engineers utilized traffic data from 2015 and 2017 and estimated
what would have been present levels, but for COVID-19, therefrom. The traffic study does
not indicate that the estimation process took into account residential development in the
vicinity of the intersection of Sandy Point Road and Kennebecasis Drive since 2015 or
2017.
• The Traffic Study Does Not Disclose Critical Information respecting the Traffic
Information Utilized. As noted above, the traffic engineers utilized traffic data from 2015
and 2017, but they do not indicate when the traffic data they utilized were collected.
Especially because of the local ferry to the Kinston Peninsula, which does not operate year
round, local traffic volume and patterns are highly seasonal. Without understanding when
the traffic data utilized was collected, no credibility can be placed thereon.
• The Traffic Study Relies upon Statistics that May Not Be Applicable. The traffic study
utilizes statistics provided by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. Ethos Ridge projects a
large number of daily guests (108) and a large number of daily restaurant patrons (225). It
is not clear that the use of the ITE statistics for "Senior Adult Housing Attached" alone
adequately model the resultant traffic.
The study offered in support of the Ethos Ridge Project does not nearly support all of its purported
critical conclusions.
E. The sou ht-a ter variance is greater in scol2e than is necessary or the ro osed proiect.
and the unnecessarily broad scone raises questions about whether there are undisclosed
development plans.
Im
The application for rezoning covers a far greater area than the Ethos Ridge Project as described
requires. The application seeks rezoning for both Lot 20-2 and Lot 20-1. The project utilizes only
Lot 20-2. While it is true that the minimum required lot size for Lot 20-1 may need to be reduced
to accommodate the project, that lot size reduction requirement need not be accompanied by any
redesignation of Lot 20-1 from Rural Resource Area to Stable Area and from Rural Resource and
Park and Natural Area to Major Community Facility. The effort to secure a broader than necessary
redesignation raises the question whether further development is planned. No such further
development plan is disclosed. If no such plan exists, the broad redesignation is unnecessary. if
such a plan exists, it must be disclosed and justified. None of the studies which related solely to
Lot 20-2 can be or properly should be utilized to redesignate both Lots 20-1 and 20-2.
'I he applicant for rezoning should be required either (i) to reduce the area for requested
redesignation or (ii) to withdraw the present application and make full disclose of all plans and
provide proper justification for the otherwise unnecessarily broad redesignation requested.
U. Requested Relief
For the reasons stated, the proposed amendment to the Municipal Plan should be denied.
Respectfully submitted by the following; persons who support the foregoing Statement of
Opposition to a Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Plan in relation to 2100 Sandy Point
Road and whose signatures are set forth below
[Signature]: Ail
d&A,,�,§WPrinted Name]: d-,kw
j Street Address]: [1 �� [Date of Signature]:
[Phone]: s L-D L
[.Signature]:
[Street Address]: It' .._
[Phone[:
[Printed Name]: ro 3� C-J
[Date of Signature]
[Signature]: � � I'Printed Name]:
(Street Address]. ` P ' `-lIV-' �` [Date of Signature]:
[Phone]: dk'a J IVY
Additional Signatures of Supporters of
Statement of Opposition to a Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Plan in relation to 2100
Sandy Point Road
[Signature] -
[Printed Name]:jF
[Street Address]:���
[Date of Signature]:
[Phone]: Jf
[Signature]: '1 `
[Printed Name]:. 2A'---x r aA 7,44-U k
[Street Address]: �,�,�•.,. r�'
[Date of Signature]: Zb z,
[Phone]: _ 1 i caP-S:�
[Signature]: (1pi, 0
[Printed Name]: J1,11
[Street Address]: , fe)-
[Date of Signature]: !
1
[Phone] : `P
190
Additional Signatures of Supporters of
Statement of Opposition to a Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Plan in relation to 2I00
Sandy Point Road
[Signature]: X�)I
0,
[Printed Name]: (/V/1 y 41t Z�« 110�-:4 y
[Street Address]:
[Date of Signature]: t
[Phone]: (?) /27
[Signature]:
[Printed Name]:
[Street Address]:
[Date of Signature]: 341 0-09AI 2a 2 /
[Phone]:
[Signature]:
[Printed Nam . e]: 0 ,-,n r7 f e'n r c
[Street Address]:
3 5� P' PW
[Date of Signature]: ��tr1, 20, . Zo
[Phone]: 6_5� - ISr1
7
191
Additional Signatures of Supporters of
Statement of Opposition to a Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Plan in relation to 2100
Sandy Point Road
� � /L [Printed Name]: �5 p r r S f [Signature] �� .
[Street Address]: pJ �(;� [Date of Signature]: S t� i�,L- c?
[Phone]: ,Svc? '2-
[Signature]:
[Printed Name]: .%q%o •t t %>*ke
[Street Address]: Lm - o _ [Date of Signature]:. 3a �r,r.g o t
[Phone]:,
[Signature] : .�
[Printed Name] : ) , q j h.f
[Street Address]:. _ r7` E !`e �R ,�. [Date of Signature]:Ll-�
8
[Phone]: SAL ' 6 4-5
[Signature]: t' `r''`� [Printed Name]: -;'"' F 7 L ar
[Street Address]:
[Phone] : 64ej zfp .
[Date of Signature]:~
f�
192
Additional Signatures of Supporters of
Statement of Opposition to a Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Plan in relation to 2100
Sandy Point Road
r. �
[Signature]:
[Printed Name]:
[Street Address]:arr W'
[Date of Signature]:
[Phone]: S O/ r 25`g$i
[Signature]:
[Printed Name]: .-.
[Street Address]:c�{ , c
[Date of Signature]:
[Phone] :
[Signature]: K ,r.-r Lia.
[Printed Name]: jUv1
[Street Address]:. �5 Pei%n I?A^
[Date of Signature]: web l Z I _
[phone]: Sob - 1,5 zi - j.55
7
193
Additional Signatures of Supporters of
Statement of Opposition to a Proposed Amendment to the Miniripal Plan in relation to 2100
Sanely Point Road
I Signature]:�?
[Printed Name]: 1
[Street Address]: Zo�
(.Date of Signature j:
j Phone]:
I.Signature];
[Printed Name]:
[Street Address
[Date of Signature]:
.Phone I : ___(23 'r—
Signature]: X2�
[Printed Name I:.. _TA er;-I j 1
f trect Address]: � _ SA A,f .120 l,t ;
[Date oi' Signature]: ! �!Lt / / T
f Phone]: S —13 ho
y
194
Additional Signatures of Supporters of
Statement of Opposition to a Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Plan in relation to 2100
Sandy Point Road
[Signs
a�� k,LAk�-
{Printed Name6-tocooff Al —I 0
[Street Address]: `' -,So ?C- 6) 'PA
[Date of Signature]: F;C, 01 OZ
[Phone]:{0 2
uu►[i...l.�.l r .
/ l
[Printed Name] : 2 P l� f%Y �rt t OS
[Street Address]: 92 + h RQAd
[Date of Signature]: Leh � ! 2 GZ
[Phone]: 34-3 -I A (12 1
[Signature]: {
[Printed Name]: M- j .r,!17t;4
[Street Address]: Lb 2 7?,- ^j
[Date of Signature]:. �� {5. z .2
[Phone]: Z 14 YJ
7
195
Additional Signatures of Supporters of
Statement of Opposition to a Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Plan in relation to 2100
Sandy Point Road
[Signature]: Wt G~� 1 Cl,i✓�
[Printed Name]:
[Street Address]: 4�L�e,� i o11 c
[Date of Signature]: Lb
[Phone] : G
[Signature]: =4�
[Printed Name]: CZci� co(-aAs
[Street Address] : i t,1 Irn 6aw
[Date of Signature]: Feb Oct 2)
[Phone]:
WA,,
[Printed Name]:
[Street Address]:
[Date of Signature]: 0
[Phone]: 6�d -3-3
7
196
Additional Signatures of Supporters of
Statement of Opposition to a Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Plan in relation to 2100
Sandy Point Road
[Signature]:
[Printed Name]:. _,C� ►--e .i d ay u 9
[Street Address]:
[Date of Signature]:
[Phone] :
[Signature]:
[Printed Name]:
[Street Address]:
[Date of Signature]:
[Phone]:
[Signature]:
[Printed Name]:
[Street Address]:
[Date of Signature]:
[Phone]:
7
197
Proposed Development
The Ethos Ridge Project
This isapetition for the residents ofSandy point, Pe|tonRd, Scenic View Drand Beach Rd.
I would like to invite the community to meet at 305 Pelton Rd for a group discussion
Name&�� Signature ��w���� �/ " n��
m
im
6 a 1 , c'
o *p,
Rs i �-.
xi
? 'fitD�
r!��I
f f
i)l it d J3 c Ir J -ve , L 1 �+
�r
C J e
»
1 '
/
1
p �
199
C. SUTA��NPE BALL, B.A., LLB_
2174 Sandy Point Road
Saint John, New Brunswick
E2K 5H2
Tel. (506) 648-1891
Cell (506) 650-7238
suzanneball mail, corn
January 21, 2021
Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk
City Hall
15 Market Square
Saint John, N.B.
Mayor Darling and Common Councilors:
Re: Amendments to Municipal Plan 2100 Sandy Point Road - Ethos Ridge
I have reviewed the documents filed with the City and am most impressed with such a lovely
proposal — although I must say that making such a development available to only those over 75 is a
shame. People often retire in their 50's and 60's so I was sorry to see that such lovely facilities
would not be available to mixed age groups for the benefit of wider stimulation.
There is one issue raised in the document which will be imperative to address.
"A small portion of the site, adjacent to Sandy Point Road will require storm
water management as it will be discharging into the existing overland
municipal drainage system on Sandy Point Road. Control of this increase
in runoff will be achieved through the design and construction of various
retention features including rain gardens, bio swales and storm water
retention ponds.
All work related to this project carried out within the existing municipal
right of way would be carried out as per the City's General Specifications
(Latest Edition)"
Situation
The north side of the Sandy Point Road is ditched from Westmount Drive to 2100, the Marilyn
Peacock property. Past the driveway to Peacock's the ditch leaves the roadside and runs north,
behind the two houses on the corner of Sandy Point Road and the Pelton Road. It then flows into a
pond and down into the Kennebecasis River. The pond is part of the municipal drainage system and
has fallen into serious disrepair.
When my Grandfather Pelton purchased the property around 1947, the City Engineering
Department looked after the pond which ran the full distance between the upper and lower parts of
the semicircular driveway to the main house. It didn't require a lot of maintenance but when it did, it
was handled by the City.
Following the death of my grandparents in the late `50's the property containing the pond was sold
to Miller Britain and a number of the other lots had been sold off, so the vast tract of land no longer
belonged to one person. My Mother's cottage was adjacent to the pond property and in the 1970's
(by which time the house and all the outbuildings had been torn down) the pond was flowing over
N
the driveway. Mother called the City but they declined to do anything about it. She had to have the
driveway rebuilt.
Following the recent death of Jennifer Britain, the portion containing the pond was sold to and is
now owned by Mr. and Mrs. Guest.
Problem
Some twenty years ago there was a significant enlargement to a house on the upper part of the
Peiton Road and we began to notice the filling in of the pond_ Mr. and Mrs. Kidd, who at that time
lived at the end of our driveway experienced flooding from the pond. When Mr. and Mrs. Hayward
acquired the Kidd property, to prevent further flooding they proposed a raising of the driveway,
which we did and shared the cost.
My Grandfather Pelton was a lumber broker and trees were also his hobby. He had three apple
orchards on the property and one of them was situated between the pond and the Sandy Point
Road. That area is now just a swamp.
Over the last twenty years, half of the pond has been filled in with earth and full growth has taken
place. The force of the water rushing out has moved one of the concrete pipes way out from under
the driveway and we have had to arrange another major driveway repair to be done. These are
expensive propositions.
There would appear to be two options — run the ditch down the north side of the Sandy Point Road
from Peacocks to the River or open up and repair the pond. Your Engineering staff may have other
solutions and to that end, I would ask if you could arrange for a site visit before February 11, 2021.
Yours truly,
C. Suzanne Ball
cc. Jacqueline Hamilton
Commissioner of Growth and Community Development
Mark Reade, P. Eng., Senior Planner
Andy Raid, City Planner
Jordan Moran, Municipal Engineer
John Granger, Engineering Technician
One Stop
Scott Walton, Ethos Ridge
2
201
To: Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk, City of Saint John
From: Daniel Guest, owner, 2 & 4 Pelton Road
CC: Scott Walton
Subject: Ethos Ridge Development
This letter is in response and objection to the Ethos Ridge Proposal on Sandy Point Road
presented to the City of Saint John during the Common Council Meeting held on January 111n
My intention is to have this letter included in the public record.
I am always excited to see new developments in and around Saint John, especially when they
are as interesting and innovative as the Ethos Ridge project. That said I have a number of
questions and concerns that need to be addressed before the approval process for this project
progresses any further.
Storm Water Management
The storm water management section of the proposal was both contradictory and alarming.
Item 3 in the Municipal Servicing and Infrastructure section that outlines documents to be
submitted to the City as part of the subdivision approval process says:
Detailed storm water management plans and a design report indicating how storm water will be
managed on site in accordance with the City's Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and all
applicable drainage by- laws. The onsite storm water management will be designed to achieve a
net zero impact.
This is exactly the type of commitment I would expect for a project like this, and I would expect
the City to hold a developer to a net zero impact on storm water infrastructure. However, the
proponents' intentions become clear in the paragraph that follows:
Although the overall the development is expected to increase the storm water runoff from the
site, the majority of this increase will continue to be discharged directly to the Kennebecasis
River through overland methods, ditches, swales and site grading, and will not require storm
water management. A small portion of the site, adjacent to Sandy Point Road, will require storm
water management as it will be discharging into to the existing overland municipal drainage
system on Sandy Point Road. Control of this increase in runoff will be achieved through the
design and construction of various retention features including rain gardens, bio swales and
storm water retention ponds.
This is especially concerning as not only do these statements indicate the design will not
conform to a Net Zero impact but the last 130m of infrastructure that conveys storm water
from the ditch on Sandy Point Road to the Kennebecasis River is on my property. Negatively
impacting this infrastructure would result in very costly repairs or upgrading and would also be
202
detrimental to my property value. These potential impacts are great enough that pre -
development conditions have been documented.
Therefore, I am looking for the following questions to be answered:
1. Will the proponent be held to a Net Zero impact design?
2. Will the Net Zero impact design include contingency for climate change?
3. Will there be follow up inspections and monitoring to ensure the storm water
management system complies with Net Zero?
4. Will a full assessment of the existing storm water infrastructure be conducted?
Traffic Study
An existing traffic volume of 600 vehicles per day increased by 437 vehicles per day represents
73% increase in traffic, this is far from insignificant. This has a broader impact to the
neighborhood and is not consistent with an area zoned to be rural residential. While the roads
can accommodate this increased traffic, I would suggest that sidewalks be considered to keep
increased pedestrian traffic safe from the increased vehicle traffic. Can we be assured Pelton
Road will not become available for day to day entry/exit from the site?
Zoning
This is a rural area and as such is zoned appropriately. Therefore, I would like to understand the
motivation behind rezoning this area, whether it falls under an overarching development plan
for the City and whether this will follow new patterns for its growth and development? This
potential rezoning seems more opportunistic than part of a long term development plan for this
area.
I understand densification is important for improving the City's ability to efficiently provide and
maintain services but developing density should be focused where existing services have
capacity or can be upgraded without excess investment by the City. The location of this
development is not good for the existing home owners and it will be a liability for the City's
infrastructure.
I Strongly disagree with rezoning this area, I don't see the net long term benefit to the City or
the neighborhood.
Conclusion
Given the nature of this project the standard 30-day public review period is inadequate and
doesn't allow for full meaningful consultation. The consultation phase of this project is also
missing a very important component and that is First Nations consultation, especially
considering the proximity to the Kennebecasis River. First Nations Consultation has become an
203
integral part of all project planning and development across Canada and this project should be
no different.
Should the development continue to move forward I will retain the services of a Professional
Engineer to review storm water management and document any infrastructure damage or
degradation that occurs on my property post development. I have suggested to the owners of
the adjacent properties they undertake the same level of due diligence.
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Regards,
Daniel Guest
M
Ethos Ridge 2100 Sandy Point Road
January 22, 2021
Office of the Common Clerk
Saint John City Council
common clerk@saintjohn.ca
(506) 658-2862
To Whom it May Concern,
We are writing with our concerns regarding the potential zoning change from Rural
Resource to Major Community Facility to allow for the Ethos Ridge development off
Sandy Point Road.
Our issues have been shared via Survey Monkey with the Ethos Ridge team but have
not been acknowledged. Most of what we understand about the project has been
learned from local news outlets. We thank you for your prompt response by phone
and email on January 22, 2021.
We purchased our property and built our home in 1999 because of its private, rural
feel, access to the river and proximity to work, all of which we still value. By
introducing a larger high -density community in our neighborhood we fear the loss of
our quiet, private rural life and its impact on our river resources.
Construction of this development will introduce heavy machinery through a pristine
forest. The road seen in the landscaping plan will come close to our property line and
runs the risk of interfering with the water table and subsequently our well water. There
has been no public indication as to the water or sewage requirements of such a major
facility.
Heavy equipment moving on Pelton Road will surely cause the already crumbling
roadway to disintegrate. This rural street is barely wide enough for two private
vehicles to pass safely let alone accommodate heavy equipment.
If the development does occur, the street is not safe for increased foot traffic as no
sidewalks exist and the road itself winding and steep with blind corners.
205
Previous re -zoning has been undertaken in the past for private separate dwellings that
ensure a solid tax base, community life and lower density impact on our river access
and resource.
We look forward to continued dialogue with the City and proposed developers.
Sincerely yours,
Ryan Green and Andrea Canty
rgsdream40C&icloud.com and reacanty@icloud.com
345 Pelton Road, Saint John, E2K 51-16
(506) 693-1252
Cc: knlelectric@gmail.com
M
352 Pelton Road
Saint John, New Brunswick
E2K 5H7
January S, 2020
RE: Ethos Ridge: Active Senior Living in Saint John
Proposed amendments to the Municipal Development Plan for property
located at 2100 Sandy Point Road, from Rural Resource Area to Stable
Area and from Rural Resource and Park and Natural Area to Major
Community Facility and extend the boundary of the Primary
Development Area (PDA
Your Worship and Common Councillors,
I am writing this letter to ask that you postpone sending the proposed
amendments to the Planning Advisory Committee until you and the residents of
the Sandy Point area see an actual specific plan for the development of this
major community facility, which will allow the developer to build a high density
development in an area that is not designated for large scale projects. I am
requesting this because the neighbouring properties have not received the
information about the development that would normally be sent by the city to
residents within 100 m of the proposed development.
This area is outside the Primary Development Area , which goes against Plan SJ
and .Zone SJ, which outlined growth and development areas of the city where
road, water and sewage infrastructure is already in place.
The developer dropped off a glossy, 4 page brochure to residents on Pelton Road
that describes a wonderful concept for retirement living. The brochure gives
glowing details of the concept or the dream. There were no specific details on
what was proposed. No information on how the property would be accessed, how
water and sewage services would be handled, how many units or how tall the
building would be. I asked the developer for information and was told it would be
120 units in a 3 storey building and accessed from Sandy Point Road.
207
A 120 unit, Major Community Facility that is 3 or 4 storeys tall is not suited to
the neighbourhood.
Another concern that 1 have is the inability to access Plan SJ and Zone SJ with the
maps and associated municipal plan context, permitted uses, conditions of use,
and zone standards for the proposed new zones. One used to be able to access
this information on -line until the Ransomware Virus Cyber Attack so we don't
know what exactly can be developed in these new amended zones.
It is unfair, in my opinion, to ask for objections to this proposed amendment
by February 10, 2021, when very little information is given. It would be more
appropriate to postpone all this until the planning department has studied
everything and the public has all the information it needs to either agree or
disagree with the zoning.
Sincerely,
Joan Pearce
M
From: jill jollineau <0ill.moll ineau(a�yahoo.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 7:45:00 AM
To: McAlary, Shirley<shirley.mcalary(cD_saintiohn.ca>
Cc: Sullivan, Gary <gary.sullivan(d-)saintiohn.ca>; MacKenzie, John<]ohn.mackenzie(a)saintiohn.ca>;
Casey, Sean <sean.casey(aD_saintiohn.ca>; Greg Collins <greg(a_collinstours.ca>
Subject: 2100 Sandy Point Road development
Dear Ms McAlary
Thank you for your prompt response to my earlier email. Our community is very
concerned about the proposed project at 2100 Sandy Point Road and the amendments to
the Municipal Development Plan. We have not had the opportunity for public consultation
and request a postponement of the February 10, 2021 date for submitting our concerns
regarding the proposal and a postponement of the council's consideration of the project to
a later session of council.
Due to COVID and the red and orange designations for our zone we have not had the
traditional opportunity to gather and share with the community members and with the
developers. We have some elderly residents who wish to participate in the discussion
however the physical restrictions and their minimal computer skills have limited their
participation.
We thought more information would be available to us from the city and from the
developer- with the lack of information it is now upon us to do the research. For example
the traffic study is severely outdated- safety is important to us and we may do our own
traffic study- with particular emphasis on the intersection of Sandy Point and Foster
Thurston- no mention was made of this intersection in the developers
proposal. Additionally the timing chosen for the study in April 2020, in the midst of a shut
down and the ferry not operating, missed the 7 to 8 am time period when the school buses
are in the neighbourhood and the majority of people are heading to their place of work.
No geotechnical data was provided to us. We are talking with the province regarding water
runoff and with provincial and federal departments regarding the impact on the river
system and the lower lying properties.
We would offer to the developer a chance in an open forum to meet with the residents as
we don't feel that enough effort was made to contact the residents and it was very difficult
to get together. We are open to a virtual meeting and are making plans to assist those who
are unfamiliar with the technology so that they may be present.
We respect the developers time and it may be a way to avoid conflicts before they occur- if
the city would allow time for this meeting it would also show good faith in their behalf. The
proposed meeting would only slow the process down a month - a minor request to solve a
lot of concerns before they arise.
209
There are several properties within the PDA that could provide the developer with the
space and zoning to allow for the development of this project. We can provide a list of
potential properties if you are interested in considering alternatives to our area with the
services and maintenance of these services already being provided.
I am attaching a list of the questions that have come out of the letters that have been
presented to Council in opposition to the proposed project. Our hope is you will see these
as legitimate concerns and an expression of the need for the time required to obtain the
information requested.
Thank you for your consideration on our behalf.
Sincerely
Jill Jollineau
360 Pelton Road
and the Community of Sandy Point
210
Questions included in letters:
Water and sewage/wells and septics
1. Does the Saint John Council have an estimated cost to increasing the volume of our water and sewer
pumping stations capacities to meet and exceed the requirements of such a project as the Ethos Ridge
proposal?
2. Who will pay for the extension of water and sewage services from the corner of Sandy Pt Rd
/Kennebecasis Dr/ Westmount Dr and the entrance to 2100 Sandy Pt Rd?
3. Has there been a proper environmental assessment done to determine the impact of blasting and
construction and how that seismic activity may impact on the wells and septic systems of the area? If so
what are the results/indicators of the effects?
4. Do we really need to develop more land in Saint John that needs water, sewage and road
maintenance?
5. The developers intend to connect to the existing municipal sanitary and water system at the
intersection of Sandy Point Road and Westmount Drive., some 250 metres southward on Sandy Point
Road. Would this require that all of the residences on that stretch of road be forced to hook-up to the
facilities as seems to be the normal practice?
6. Have studies been performed and offered financial compensation to surrounding neighbours as to
what impact this commercial development and land disturbance will have on their wells?
7. What are the hours of construction and the duration of the plan? Is there anticipated blasting?
What guarantees are given to the neighbouring homes that there will be no impact to their basements
(cracked foundations) and wells?
8. Will this new development be on city water and sewage? If so, can the system handle such a large
quantity of water and waste? Will overflow be pumped into our beautiful river system?
211
9. If my well casing gets cracked or if the water table is drained due to the construction, is the City of
Saint John prepared to dig me a new well?
10. On page 272 it says the city 'has advised that downstream wastewater lift stations are at or near
their pumping capacity'. These stations are scheduled to be upgraded in the coming years but no
specific time is given. Will not be a considerable cost to the city?
11. How will the City of Saint John ensure my property does not undergo loss of well and septic services
currently in use?
12. Who will be responsible for the potential contamination in drinking water on my property? Who
will cover the costs of any disruption?
Environmental and Drainage concerns
13. Has there been a proper environmental and fisheries departments assessment done on the impact
of changes in the drainage and watershed to the river system and to the quality and availability of water
for all dependent on the water table for their wells? If not, why not? This is an important component of
the possible impacts of the development and proper authorization should be required at both a local
level and at a provincial level.
14. Has there been an environmental assessment done and may I have a copy?
15. How will their engineering system guarantee flows and speeds to ensure no downstream?
16. Where will the storm water retention ponds be located?
212
17. Has there been a statement of the environmental effects done? Will there be an arborist report
submitted?
18. What is the storm water management plan? Rainwater runoff needs to be critically planned and
managed. How will the proposed storm water measures impact the neighbouring properties? What will
happen 'downstream' (down the hill on Pelton Rd)?
19. Have geotechnical reports been provided assessing erosion and land slip that would impact the
property and surrounding properties?
20. Light pollution is also of concern on both sides of the property. How will this be minimized?
21. This property and neighbouring ones might also become more vulnerable to flooding. Might mean
an ugly seawall along the river?
22. Even if the building is sited back from the shore, will the developer remove shoreline vegetation and
put in lawn right to the water?
23. Who will be monitoring the buffering for properties? Is there going to be a condition mandated
with a community agreed type of buffering zone?
24. Why hasn't there been an environmental study done or been requested to assess the impact on the
surrounding environment? Why has this study or report not been done in advance before submitting
for approval to council?
25. How much water is going to be moved into the Saint John River System from the proposed building
size? Also, how much water will run off into adjacent properties from removal of vegetation and
substrate overall? Why is this study or report not being presented now?
26. What condition will be implemented to ensure water is not running into my property and being
diverted into proper draining culverts and water reusage systems?
Traffic and Road Infrastructure
213
27. Has the city considered the impact of the increased traffic especially with large construction vehicles
on the road infrastructure? Should the proposal go ahead will the city be responsible for returning the
road to its present condition? Will the city bar all construction vehicles from accessing the construction
site by way of Pelton Road?
28. Have the fire, police and ambulance services been consulted regarding the single entry into a site,
along a roadway that will be at a steep grade with a hairpin turn into a proposed 125 unit complex for
people 75 years of age and older? If so, what are their concerns?
29. Will there be a proper study of the traffic pattern to include the intersection at Foster Thurston and
Sandy Pt?
30. Has there been any thought to how fire and ambulance services can adequately provide service at
given the slope to the top of the ridge is 30 degrees?
31. Will the city provide proper lighting and street infrastructure to support the development?
32. What measures would be taken with respect to the increased congestion at the Foster
Thurston/Sandy Pt Road "T" intersection?
33. The Access Road
Will it be a city street? If so will it have to conform to all of the standards of such in new development
paved with curbs, storm sewers etc?
Will all of the city services be underground including electrical wiring (consistent with new subdivisions
across the city)?
Will the city be responsible for snowplowing, sanding, and salting?
34. Does it (the access road) have the approval of our Protecting Services like fire, police protection,
ambulance service, etc? If this proposed development had been in place when the decision to
decommission the Millidgeville Fire Station would it have had any impact on the decision?
35. What guarantee do we have that sidewalks will be built?
214
36. How will this impact existing landowners along the road? We are going from lower density to
higher density traffic. Is this fair to the current property owners who chose to live in a 'non commercial',
low density neighbourhood?
37. Would the city be updating the road with sidewalks and keeping them cleared in the winter so the
children in the neighbourhood could make it to their bus stops safely, or the seniors in this resident
could walk to the bus stop safely?
38. To get to this new development is a steep incline and decline, can emergency vehicles get here
safely?
39. The developer was committing to not using that access (Pelton Road) but how can that be
controlled?
40. How much ambulance and fire traffic will be expected?
41. The developers are suggesting only 20% of overall traffic will be used on this road (Pelton Road).
20% of what? 20% of 350 plus residents/workers/patrons? If we used 20% of the approximate 400
volume of traffic per day (perhaps higher during peak summer/fall time) = a minimum of 80 vehicles
traveling back and forth on aroad without any sidewalks, a blind knoll, and a severe turn with low
protection barriers, is not feasible or acceptable in any City's plan.
Wildlife and Health and Safety
42. Has any consideration been given to the health and safety of the workers during construction and
afterwards in this environment? (i.e. heavy deer population and tick population)
Boundaries and Rezoning
43. If the PDA is expanded to incorporate the Ethos Ridge project where will the new boundaries be?
Will they extend east down Sandy Point Road just far enough to include the project? Will they extend
north up Westmount Drive to the Kennebecasis River then down the shoreline to meet and coincide
215
with the development? What would the property encompassed by the extension have in common with
a 125 unit complex to justify it?
44. Surely there is plenty of land to develop that is already properly zoned, without seeking to rezone
rural land and destroy more green space? Perhaps the developer could take over one of the
undersubscribed projects already begun and revitalize it, or develop property in the city where retirees
are more likely to want to live anyway?
45. Plan SJ was designed with the PDA in place to protect such oversights and additional costs to the
citizens and taxpayers of Saint John. Was this a primary reason why PDA was designed for Plan SJ? Who
is going to cover the cost of managing this infrastructure expense?
Miscellaneous
46. What is the developer doing to benefit the residents he will inconvenience during construction?
47. Exactly how much parking will be provided?
48. Will the trees (buffers) remain? Only clearcutting would allow for 'stunning water views'.
49. Questions directed to information in the brochure:
a) How will you create a destination for residents, their families, and their community?
b) 'amenities that have yet to be realized in our region' — which are what?
c) 'we care about the community impact of our project and believe that local residents should
should hear about it before the formal consultation begins' — when???
c)'services will respond to the evolving needs of your residents' — what ones?
Will health professionals be on site?
d) 'preserving the forest canopy' How when you want to expose 'stunning views'? Can you
guarantee a buffer of trees?
50. Has research been performed in the Saint John market that a facility such as this is in demand with
the corresponding high price point?
216
51. In one meeting it was stated neighbours would be allowed to continue to walk on the paths of the
site. Would we be given passes to do so? Explain how this will work?
52. There are already 3 seniors hosing complexes in Millidgeville, are these full?
53. The price of these senior complexes makes us think that 75% of the residents will be coming in from
other provinces, not NB. This will put a further burden on our health care system. Saint John already has
many people still waiting for a family doctor, are we going to be able to provide proper health care for
all the new seniors coming into the province?
54. Will the trails be accessible for all neighbours or just the residents of the retirement home?
55. The proposal suggests that the location is ideal due to its proximity to Rockwood Park, the hospital,
and the University. Yes, seniors are welcome to attend the University, but this number remains small
and why not place the development closer to the park if proximity matters? Why would you need the
park if you are going to have your own trails?
56. Who will be responsible if the market is not there for expensive senior housing or the building is too
large for its market? Who will be responsible for the building if the developer cannot complete the
proposal and our neighbourhood is tainted by an empty building or partially finished building?
57. What sort of research has been done to determine the suitability of this area for a retirement
complex? Have the developers spoken with older people?
58. Why build 120 plus units at 4 stories if you are and have considered the neighbourhood? Is this a
considered and environmentally friendly approach?
217
352 Pelton Road
Saint John
New Brunswick
E2K 5H7
February 9, 2021
Mayor Darling and Councillors
Re: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment 2100 Sandy Point Road Ethos Ridge
I have re -read the proposed development plan and discovered that apparently
there is a planned car wash and a restaurant that seats 155 people.
Two questions. What are the zoning regulations for a car wash depositing effluent
overland to drain into a river? Are the two dining rooms of the planned residence
in addition to the restaurant or are they different places?
I respectfully ask that Common Council and the Planning Advisory Committee
require an Environmental Impact Assessment by the NB Department of the
Environment before allowing this development.
I respectfully ask That the Department of Fisheries be asked to give an
assessment on the stormwater run-off impacts on the sturgeon, eels, salmon and
other species of fish in the river.
My rationale follows.
Page 273 of the proposal states: "Although overall the development expected to
increase the storm water runoff from the site, the majority of this increase will
continue to be discharged directly to the Kennebecasis River through overland
methods, ditches, swoles and site grading, and will not require storm water
management." This stormwater runoff occurs in two places on the Kennebecasis
River. It will discharge into the river at the end Of Sandy Point Road, where there
already exists a serious drainage problem and it will discharge off the proposed
development site close to the end of Pelton Road into a different place on the
river.
218
Climate change specialists are predicting higher seasonal temperatures and
precipitation with more severe rain storms and greater snowfall, bringing
increased precipitation. All this extra stormwater will be going into the river
and carry whatever is on the ground with it.
Paved parking spaces, the removal of vegetation and the covering of much of the
acreage with the building along with a paved street will cause an enormous
amount of groundwater run-off. Salt and sand added to the roads and parking
lots in the winter will run off into the river when it melts.
There is a proposed carwash on the site. What are the environmental regulations
for car wash runoff? What zoning conditions does the city have for operating a
car wash?
This property and the neighbouring ones might also become more vulnerable to
flooding. Floods once expected every 30 years are now more likely to be once
every five years or even every two to three years.
Might that mean an ugly seawall along the river to protect this proposed facility
and its grounds from flooding.?
The environmental impact of a development of that size on the river will be
great. Even if the building is sited back from the shore, will the developer
remove shoreline vegetation and put in lawn right to the water? People usually
want an unobstructed view of the water. Building on the water could increase
erosion and destroy the shoreline ecosystem.
I respectfully ask that Common Council and the Planning Advisory Committee
require an Environmental Impact Assessment by the NB Department of the
Environment before allowing this development.
There will be an impact on the fish in the river from stormwater runoff during the
construction of this development and with the winter runoff into the river. 1
respectfully ask That the Department of Fisheries be asked to give an assessment
on the stormwater run-off impacts on the sturgeon, eels, salmon and other
species of fish in the river.
Sincerely,
o eA_ (_C_exl�
219
2002 Sandy Point Road
Saint John, NB
January 28, 2021.
Mayor and Councillors
RE: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment
2100 Sandy Point Road to allow for a 4storey apartment building, Major
Community Facility
The house I am living in was constructed in the early 1950's. My water
comes from a well. My sewage goes to a sewage tank and a septic field,
which is in the front of my house adjacent to the street.
The developer has stated in his Ethos Ridge proposal that "it is the intent of
the developer to connect to the existing municipal sanitary and water
systems at the intersection of Sandy Point Road and Westmount Drive."
It is my understanding that the connection will be along Sandy Point Road
to #2100 Sandy Point Road, thereby passing in front of my house. I am
concerned that the construction will damage my septic field and depending
on the extent of the drilling through rock might in some way interfere with
water flow or damage my well. In that case, is the city or the developer
responsible for the repair? I expect councillors will enforce a commitment
from the developer to cover the full cost of any damage to my property
that results from the installation of water and sewage lines along Sandy
Point Road.
When the city placed water infrastructure and sewage along Sandy Point
Road two decades ago, residents along that route, who had wells and
septic, were forced into joining the new infrastructure and if they didn't,
had to pay the water bill, whether they were using the water or not. I am
not at all interested in being obligated to this,
Sincerely, _
�( �1?GIlin/N
Y 220
420 Pelton Road
Saint John, NB E2K 5H7
January 29, 2021
Mr. Jonathan Taylor
Common Clerk
City of Saint John
15 Market Square
Saint John, NB
Subject: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment "Re 2100 Sandy Point Road"
Dear sir
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views and concerns regarding the re -
designation of the properties identified as PID numbers 55233233 and 55233977
and the proposed amendments to Schedules A and B of the Municipal Development
Plan and to extend the boundaries of the Primary Development Area (PDA) to
accommodate the proposed Ethos Ridge Development.
The Public Notice states that the reason for those changes is "To permit the
development of a retirement community". Yet the re -designation of P1D no.
55233233 from Rural and Resource to stable area as clearly shown on the map has
absolutely nothing to do with the retirement project. Is there some kind of hidden
agenda here? The re -designation should not be allowed without full disclosure.
Currently the relevant portion of the PDA lies to the west of Sandy Point Road and
Westmount Drive centered on the junction they make with Kennebecasis Drive.
That junction is the closest point on the PDA boundary that you can get to the
proposed development. It is approximately a quarter of a kilometre away. There is
clearly no common boundary between the two, as the proposal would have us
believe.
Under the subtitle Future Land Use Schedule B (page 270 of the proposal) the first
paragraph states, "the proposed Ethos site is literally touching/adjacent to the edge
of the existing PDA along Sandy Point Road". This is not so!
The same paragraph goes on to say Policy LU-1 recognizes that the boundaries of
land use designation are 'intended to be approximate'. This is not so!
However Policy LU-3 does state 'that the boundaries of land use designations, as
shown on the Future Land Use map (Schedule B) are intended to be approximate,
except, where they coincide with roads or other clearly defined physical features.'
221
This clearly and firmly fixes the MPA boundary passing through the Sandy Pt
Rd/Westmount Dr/Kennebecasis Dr junction. There clearly is no common
boundary!
Under the heading Major Community Facilities the first paragraph (page 271) of the
proposal states:
"By providing aging in community, Ethos proposal will contribute positively to the
neighborhood as ensured by Policy LU-90".
Policy LU-90 follows in its entirety:
Council shall: Ensure that new major community facilities that are used by residents
across the City and the Greater Saint John Region are located in areas
designated Major Community Facilities and shall generally be
Permitted only subject to a rezoning process where compliance is
demonstrated with the following requirements:
a. The proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the
neighbourhood;
b. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses;
c. The development is in a location where all necessary water and
wastewater services, protective services, and appropriate
transportation infrastructure including public transit can be provided;
d. Site design features that address such matters as safe access,
buffering and landscaping, site grading and storm water management
are incorporated;
e. A high quality exterior building design is provided that is consistent
with the Urban Design Principles in the Municipal Plan; and
f. Public transit and active transportation links are provided to and
from other key destinations.
I find the quotation just above the insertion of Policy LU-90 above rather baffling
and meaningless. The policy states what council will ensure happens
in new major community facilities where compliance is demonstrated
through meeting requirements a. through f, as listed above.
My views on requirement a. through f. and how the proposal responds to them
follow:
a. the neighbourhood disagrees
b. it isn't
c. I believe this requirement cannot adequately be met particularly
with regard to protective services and transportation infrastructure
including public transit.
d. I believe the project cannot provide safe access. The remainder lies
in the eyes of the beholder.
e. the current zoning bylaws prohibit building heights above 2 storeys
with a height limit of 11 metres. This plan clearly violates this
requirement.
222 2
f. They are not at present, who will provide them in future?
If the PDA is expanded to incorporate the Ethos Ridge project where will the new
boundaries be? The eastern boundary down Sandy Point Road should not extend
beyond PD no. 55233977 in the absence of any good explanation of why PD no.
55233233 should be included. Will they extend east down Sandy Point Road just far
enough to include the project? Will they extend north up Westmount Drive to the
Kennebecasis River then down the shoreline to meet and coincide with the
development? What would the property encompassed by the extension have in
common with a 125 unit complex to justify it?
It seems to me that the re -designation of the properties represents a classic case of
"Spot Rezoning" something that I understand PLAN SJ was designed to eliminate. I
believe that approving this project would be a precedent -setting action that will
come back to haunt city council.
Services
The developers intend to connect to the existing municipal sanitary and water
system at the intersection of Sandy Point Road and Westmount Drive, some 250
metres southward on Sandy Point Road. Would this require that all of the
residences on that stretch of road be forced to hook-up to the facilities as seems to
be the normal practice? This would force these residents to undergo very
substantial 'up front' costs, lose the long term benefits expected from their large
investments in wells and septic systems and face the on -going costs (approximately
$1200 per year) for water that they neither need nor want.
The Access Road
On page 271 of the proposal in the first paragraph it is stated that "the subtle entry
drive will rise from Sandy Point Road and then descend over the ridge which will
completely hide the project from the road..." This seems to suggest that the access
road will be something of a bucolic country lane. Surely the access road would have
to be a city street conforming in all respects to the requirement of such; like all
utility and services be underground, the street will be paved with sidewalks, curbs,
storm sewers, markings and signage. A conforming street could hardly be called
'subtle'. The paragraph cited is, I believe, disingenuous.
Will the city be responsible for snowplowing, sanding, and salting? If so, given the
nature of the development, it would probably have to be in the very high priority
category for such.
Does it have the approval of our Protective Services like fire, police protection,
ambulance service, etc.? If this proposed development had been in place when the
decision to decommission the Millidgeville Fire Station would it have had any
impact on the decision? It would not likely have changed the decision but would
surely have been considered germane. These considerations are important - it is a
single access to a complex consisting of 125 units for seniors 75 years of age and
over - the access road seems to be about 0.5 kilometres long and comprised of a 180
223 3
degree loop astride the ridge that is very steep sided on the side away from Sandy
Point Road. The grades are significant which could result in treacherous conditions
especially when negotiating the `loop' during our wintry season.
The traffic in and out will be significant - the proposal itself estimates that the
complex will have 216 people in residence, in addition to 27 staff and an expectation
of 108 visitors.
Since the complex is geared to 75+ years old folk who want to live an active lifestyle
it is hard to believe that most of them will be willing to give up their driving
privileges and their cars for a good many years to come (It is often expressed that
75 years of age is the new 65).
Exactly how much parking will be provided?
Additionally should the project proceed I believe that city council should require
that the access road be completed and in service before any construction can begin
at the building site. There should be an absolute ban on any construction traffic on
Pelton Road, which is in no shape to handle it.
The last paragraph in the proposal states that, "an Engineer Traffic Study has been
completed by Englobe Engineer to make sure no negative impacts to the local
system will be experienced". To suggest that adding some 351 people will
experience no negative impacts, most of them drivers, to this north end of Sandy
Point Road, is utterly ridiculous, in my view.
The outdated incomplete study fails to recognize that the real traffic choke point will
be where Sandy Point Road connects to Foster Thurston Drive. Very short sight line
combined with morning and afternoon rush traffic would make Traffic Lights there
absolutely required. Not doing so would be absolutely unconscionable on behalf of
the city.
Water
All of the residents in the entire neighbourhood surrounding the proposed
development are dependent on our wells for our water supply. We greatly fear that
our wells will be negatively impacted by the blasting that would be required at the
building site which sits on solid rock and during the construction of the access road
that will need to be cut through the solid rock ridge that the access road will need to
straddle and continue downhill to the building site.
Many of us have had problem with the security of water supply over the years.
I had to drill a new well some years ago because the old one kept running dry during
the summer months. The new well had to be drilled to a depth of 500 feet before
getting water and yet I have still run out of water during hot spells. I know of others
in the neighbourhood who have also had to carefully ration their water usage to
avoid running dry. One resident lost all of their water and had to drill a new one as
a result of a neighbor drilling a new well.
Should this development go ahead I believe it incumbent on the city to require the
developer to engage an independent contractor with the expertise to test all of the
wells in the area for water quality and flow volumes to provide solid base -line data
to use in any dispute resolution arising from the project.
224 4
It is my understanding that this proposal excludes consideration of using Pelton
Road as a part of the traffic flow that would be engendered by its approval. The
proponents are quoted in the newspaper saying that, "Traffic flow concerns will be
mitigated by limiting property access to a single entry point off Sandy Point Road".
The map that is part of the proposal shows only a gated entrance from Pelton Road
to the complex presumably denying access to @= motor vehicle traffic. The
inclusion of Pelton Road in the project would require a whole new conversation by
all the parties impacted.
In closing 1 wish to state that I would fully approve of any development proposal on
the subject properties that is appropriate to the neighbourhood. This proposal,
however, I feel will be highly detrimental to the residential character of the
neighbourhood and highly destructive to the whole sense of 'pride in community'
that forms the fabric from which all great cities are woven. All of the flowery
phrases meant to evoke idyllic 'Shangri-La"- like images of the proposal cannot
change the fact that it is inappropriate to this community. Many may suggest that
our positions on this matter are elitist. Our community is composed of a broad
cross-section of residents -employed and retired, residences comprised of floor
spaces of 800 sq ft to grand homes as a review of property assessments would
attest. We have welcomed construction in the area within and outside the PDA and
an increase in our community population - young families bringing vitality and older
members bringing wisdom with their experiences. It is the scope and magnitude of
this particular proposal that we object to vigorously.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to make my views and opinions known.
Writing this piece has given me a new appreciation for the burden that is placed
upon you who are given the onerous duty of reading it and others of its ilk. Thank
you very much for your patient commitment and exercising of'due diligence' on
behalf of us all.
Sincerely
Wayne Jpllineau
cc. Gary Sullivan
John MacKenzie
Sean Casey
Shirley McAlary
225 5
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
RE: 2100 SANDY POINT ROAD
Public Notice is hereby given that the
Common Council of The City of Saint John
intends to consider an amendment to the
Municipal Development Plan which would:
PROJET DE MODIFICATION DU PLAN
MUNICIPAL
OBJET : 2100, RUE SANDY POINT
Par les presentes, un avis public est donne
par lequel le conseil communal de ville de
Saint John a ('intention d'etudier la
modification du plan d'amenagement
municipal comme suit:
1. Re -designate on Schedule A of the
1. A I'annexe A du plan d'amenagement
Municipal Development Plan, land
municipal, modifier le zonage d'un
having an area of 8.57 hectares,
terrain d'une superficie de
located at 2100 Sandy Point Road,
8,57 hectares, situe au 2100, rue
also identified as a portion of PID No.
Sandy Point, egalement identifie
55233233 and PID No. 55233977, from
comme une partie de la NID
Rural Resource Area to Stable Area
no 55233233 et de la NID
as illustrated below;
no 55233977, qui passers de zone de
ressources rurales a zone stable,
2. Re -designate on Schedule B of the
Municipal Development Plan, land
having an area of 8.57 hectares,
located at 2100 Sandy Point Road,
also identified as a portion of PID No.
55233233 and PID No. 55233977, from
Rural Resource and Park and
Natural Area to Major Community
Facility and extend the boundary of
the Primary Development Area (PDA)
as illustrated below;
A public presentation of the proposed
amendment will take place at a regular
meeting of Common Council, to be held in the
Council Chamber at City Hall with a remote
participation option on Monday, January 11,
2021.
comme illustre ci-dessous;
2. A I'annexe B du plan d'amenagement
municipal, modifier le zonage d'un
terrain d'une superficie de
8,57 hectares, situe au 2100, rue
Sandy Point, egalement identifie
comme une partie de la NID
no 55233233 et de la NID
no 55233977, qui passera de zone de
ressources rurales et de pares et
aires naturelles a grandes
installations communautaires et
repoussera les limites de la zone
d'amenagement primaire comme
illustre ci-dessous;
Une presentation publique de la modification
proposee aura lieu lors d'une reunion ordinaire
du Conseil communal, qui aura lieu dans la
salle du Conseil a ('hotel de ville, avec option
de participation a distance, le
lundi 11 janvier 2021.
226
REASON FOR CHANGE:
RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION
To permit the development of a retirement
community.
Written objections to the proposed amendment
may be made to the Council, in care of the
undersigned, by February 10, 2021. Enquiries
may be made at the office of the Common
Clerk or Growth and Community Development
Services, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint
John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive,
holidays excepted.
Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk
658-2862
Permettre le developpement d'une
communaute de retraites.
Les objections ecrites a la modification
proposee peuvent titre presentees au Conseil,
aux soins du soussigne, d'ici le
10 fevrier 2021. Les demandes de
renseignements peuvent titre presentees au
bureau du greffier communal ou aux Services
de croissance et de developpement
communautaire, Hotel de ville, 15, Market
Square, Saint John (N.-B.), entre 8 h 30 et
16 h 30, du lundi au vendredi, inclusivement,
jours feries exclus.
Jonathan Taylor, greffier communal
658-2862
c
5519
L-
227
BY-LAW NUMBER C.P. 111-105
A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BY-LAW
OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Be it enacted by The City of Saint John in
Common Council convened, as follows:
The Zoning By-law of The City of Saint John enacted
on the fifteenth day of December, A.D. 2014, is
amended by:
Rezoning a parcel of land having an area of
approximately 20347 square metres, located at 0
Eldersley Avenue, also identified as PID No.
00471359, from Environmental Protection (EP) to
Rural (RU) pursuant to a resolution adopted by
Common Council under Section 59 of the Community
Planning Act.
ARRETE NO C.P. 111-105
ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE DE
ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Lors d'une reunion du conseil communal,
The City of Saint John a decrete ce qui suit:
L'arrete sur le zonage de The City of Saint
John, decrete le quinze (15) decembre 2014, est
modifie par:
Rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une
superficie d'environ 20347 metres carres, situee
au 0, avenue Eldersley, egalement identifie
comme NID 00471359, de Zone de protection de
Penvironnement (EP) a Zone rurale (RU)
conformement a une resolution adoptee par le
conseil municipal en vertu de Particle 59 de la Loi
sur Furbanisme.
all as shown on the plan attached hereto and - toutes les modifications sont indiquees sur
forming part of this by-law. le plan ci joint et font partie du present arrete.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has
caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to
be affixed to this by-law the X day of X, A.D. 2021
and signed by:
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait
apposer son sceau communal sur le present arrete
le X 2021, avec les signatures suivantes :
Mayor/Maire
City Clerk/Greffier communal
First Reading - February 8, 2021 Premiere lecture - le 8 fevrier 2021
Second Reading - February 8, 2021 Deuxieme lecture - le 8 fevrier 2021
Third Reading - Troisieme lecture -
228
GROWTH AND COMMUNITY PLANNING SERVICES
SERVICE DE LA CROISSANCE ET DE L'URBANISME COMMUNAUTAIRE
REZONING / REZONAGE
Amending Schedule "A" of the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John
Modifiant Annexe «A» de I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John
FROM / DE TO / A
Environmental Protection Rural
Zone de protection de EP RU Zone rurale
I'environnement
Pursuant to a Resolution under Section 59 of the Community Planning Act
Conformement a une resolution adoptee par le conseil municipal en vertu
de I'article 59 de la Loi sur I'urbanisme
Applicant: City of Saint John
Location: 0 Eldersley Ave
PID(s)/NIP(s): 00471359
Considered by P.A.C./considers par le C.C.U.: January 26 janvier, 2021
Enacted by Council / Approuve par le Conseil:
Filed in Registry Office/Enregistre le:
By -Law # / Arrete #:
Drawn By/Creee Par: B. Peterson Date Drawn/Carte Creee: February 16 fevrier, 2021
229
Section 59 Conditions — 0 Eldersley Avenue
That Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act, impose
the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 20,350 square metres,
located at 0 Eldersley Avenue, also identified as PID Number 00471359:
(a) No development be permitted within any portion of the property that falls within a regulatory buffer
surrounding a public drinking water supply.
(b) No development be permitted where permanent access cannot be achieved from Eldersley Avenue.
(c) Written permission from Saint John Water, or its successor, must be provided should any access,
temporary or otherwise, be sought or otherwise developed from Pipeline Road East.
(d) The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with detailed building elevation and
site plans, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating
the design and location of buildings and structures, garbage enclosures, outdoor storage, driveway
accesses, vehicle and bicycle parking, loading areas, landscaping, amenity spaces, signs, exterior lighting,
and other such site features; and
(e) The above elevation and site plans be attached to the permit application for the development of the
parcel of land.
230
A BY-LAW TO AMEND A BY-LAW
RESPECTING THE REGULATION OF
PARKING IN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN,
BY-LAW NUMBER LG-8, AND
AMENDMENTS THERETO
ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE
RELATIF A LA REGLEMENTATION DU
STATIONNEMENT DANS THE CITY OF
SAINT JOHN, ARRETE NUMERO LG-8, ET
MODIFICATIONS AFFERENTES
Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors d'une reunion du conseil municipal,
The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a decrete ce qui suit:
A By-law of The City of Saint John entitled
"A By-law respecting the Regulation of Parking in
The City of Saint John, By-law Number LG-8" and
amendments thereto, enacted on the 27th day of
January, A.D. 2020, is hereby amended as follows:
Par les presentes, 1'arrete de The City of
Saint John intitule « Arrete relatif a la
reglementation du stationnement dans The City of
Saint John, Arrete numero LG-8 » et modifications
afferentes, decrete le 27' jour d'janvier 2020, est
modifie comme suit:
1. Subsection 8(1) is repealed and replaced 1. Le paragraphe 8(1) est abroge et remplace
with the following: par ce qui suit :
"8(1) The fee for the use of a parking space
located on a street listed in Schedule "A" shall be
not less than two dollars ($2.00) per hour and not
more than two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25)
per hour."
8(1) Les frais de stationnement pour l'utilisation
d'un emplacement de stationnement situe sur une
rue mentionnee a 1'annexe « A » ne doivent pas
We inferieurs a deux dollars (2,00 $) Meure et pas
plus de deux dollars et vingt-cinq cents (2,25 $)
Meure. »
2. Section 17 is repealed and replaced with the 2. L'article 17 est abroge et remplace par ce
following: qui suit:
"17 A person who violates a provision of this
By-law is guilty of an offence and is liable upon
summary conviction to a penalty of not less than
ninety dollars ($90.00) and not more than one
hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125.00)."
17 Toute personne qui contrevient a une des
dispositions du present arrete est coupable d'une
infraction et est passible sur condamnation
sommaire d'une penalite minimale de quatre-
vingt-dix dollars (90 $) et d'un montant maximal
de cent vingt-cinq dollars (125 $). »
3. Subsection 18(2) is repealed and replaced 3. Le paragraphe 18(2) est abroge et remplace
with the following: par ce qui suit :
"18(2) (a) A person who violates any provision
of this By-law may pay to the City within
fifteen calendar days from the date of such
violation an administrative penalty of
thirty dollars ($30.00), and upon such
payment, the person who committed the
18(2) a) Toute personne qui contrevient a une
disposition du present arrete peut payer a
la municipalite dans un delai de quinze
jours civils a compter de la date de ladite
infraction, une penalite administrative de
trente dollars (30 $), et une fois 1'amende
231
violation is not liable to be prosecuted
therefor.
(b) A person who violates any provision
of this By-law may pay to the City an
administrative penalty of forty dollars
($40.00) if payment is made more than
fifteen calendar days after the date of the
violation but within thirty calendar days
of such violation, and upon such payment,
the person who committed the violation is
not liable to be prosecuted therefor.
(c) A person who violates any provision
of this By-law may pay to the City an
administrative penalty of sixty-five
dollars ($65.00) if payment is made more
than thirty calendar days after the date of
such violation but before conviction in the
Provincial Court of New Brunswick, and
upon such payment, the person who
committed the violation is not liable to be
prosecuted therefor."
IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John
has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said
City to be affixed to this by-law the day of
, A.D., 2021 signed by:
pay6e, la personne n'est plus susceptible
de poursuites judiciaires.
b) Toute personne qui contrevient a une
disposition du pr6sent arr6t6 peut payer a
la municipalit6 une p6nalit6
administrative de quarante dollars (40 $)
si Famende est acquitt6e plus de quinze
jours civils apr6s la date de Finfraction,
mais dans les trente jours civils de ladite
infraction, et une fois Famende pay6e, la
personne n'est plus susceptible de
poursuites judiciaires.
c) Toute personne qui contrevient a une
disposition du pr6sent arret& peut payer a
la municipalit6 une p6nalit6
administrative de soixante-cinq dollars
(65 $) si 1'amende est acquitt6e plus de
trente jours civils de la date de
l'infraction, mais avant une d6claration de
culpabilit6 a la Cour provinciale du
Nouveau -Brunswick, et une fois 1'amende
pay6e, la personne n'est plus susceptible
de poursuites judiciaires. »
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait
apposer son sceau municipal sur le pr6sent arr6t6 le
2021, avec les signatures
suivantes :
Mayor / maire
City Clerk / greffier communal
First Reading - February 8, 2021 Premiere lecture
Second Reading - February 8, 2021 Deuxi6me lecture
Third Reading - Troisi6me lecture
- le 8 f6vrier 2021
- le 8 f6vrier 2021
232
233
A BY-LAW TO AMEND A BY-LAW ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE
RESPECTING THE TRAFFIC ON STREETS RELATIF A LA CIRCULATION DANS LES
IN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, BY-LAW
NUMBER MV-10.1, AND AMENDMENTS
THERETO
Be it enacted by the Common Council of
The City of Saint John as follows:
A By-law of The City of Saint John entitled
"A By-law respecting the Traffic on Streets in The
City of Saint John, By-law Number MV-10.1" and
amendments thereto, enacted on the 7th day of
October, A.D. 2019, is hereby amended as follows:
1. Subsections 27(1) and 27(2) are repealed
and replaced with the following:
"27(1) Subject to subsection 27(2), any person who
violates a provision of this By-law is guilty of an
offence and is liable upon summary conviction to a
penalty of not less than one hundred dollars
($100.00) and not more than one hundred and
twenty-five dollars ($125.00).
27(2) Any person who violates paragraphs 5(3)(c),
5(3)(d), 5(3)(g), section 11, paragraph 16(1)(a),
subsection 19(3) or 19(4) of this By-law is guilty of
an offence and liable upon summary conviction to
a penalty of not less than one hundred and twenty-
five dollars ($125.00)."
2. Subsection 28(2) is repealed and replaced
with the following:
RUES DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN,
ARRETE NUMERO MV-10.1, ET
MODIFICATIONS AFFERENTES
Lors d'une reunion du conseil municipal,
The City of Saint John a d6cr&6 ce qui suit:
Par les pr6sentes, 1'arret6 de The City of
Saint John intitul6 « Arret6 relatif a la circulation
dans les rues de The City of Saint John, Arret6
num6ro MV-10.1 » et modifications aff6rentes,
d6cr&6 le 7e jour d'octobre 2019, est modifi6
comme suit:
1. Les paragraphes 27(1) et 27(2) sont abrog6s
et remplac6s par ce qui suit:
27(1) Sous r6serve du paragraphe 27(2), toute
personne qui contrevient a une des dispositions du
pr6sent arr6t6 est coupable d'une infraction et est
passible sur condamnation sommaire d'une
p6nalit6 minimale de cent dollars (100 $) et d'un
montant maximal de cent vingt-cinq dollars (125
27(2) Toute personne qui contrevient aux
alin6as 5(3)c), 5(3)d), 5(3)g) a Particle 11, a
1'alin6a 16(1)a), aux paragrapher 19(3) ou 19(4)
du pr6sent arr6t6 est coupable d'une infraction et
est passible sur condamnation sommaire d'une
p6nalit6 d'un montant minimal de cent vingt-cinq
dollars (125 $). »
2. Le paragraphe 28(2) est abrog& et remplac6
par ce qui suit :
"28(2) (a) A person who violates any provision « 28(2)
of this By-law, other than paragraphs
5(3)(c), 5(3)(d), 5(3)(g), section 11,
paragraph 16(1)(a), subsections 19(3) and
19(4), may pay to the City within fifteen
calendar days from the date of such
violation an administrative penalty of
forty dollars ($40.00), and upon such
a) Toute personne qui contrevient a une
disposition du pr6sent arret6, autre que
celles pr&vues aux alin6as 5(3)c), 5(3)d),
5(3)g), a Particle 11, a 1'alin6a 16(1)a), et
aux paragrapher 19(3) et 19(4), peut payer
a la municipalit6 dans un d6lai de quinze
jours civils a compter de la date de ladite
infraction, une p6nalit6 administrative de
234
payment, the person who committed the
violation is not liable to be prosecuted
therefor.
(b) A person who violates any provision
of this By-law, other than paragraphs
5(3)(c), 5(3)(d), 5(3)(g), section 11,
subsection 16(1)(a), subsections 19(3)
and 19(4), may pay to the City an
administrative penalty of fifty-five dollars
($55.00) if payment is made more than
fifteen calendar days after the date of the
violation but within thirty calendar days
of such violation, and upon such payment,
the person who committed the violation is
not liable to be prosecuted therefor.
(c) A person who violates any provision
of this By-law, other than paragraphs
5(3)(c), 5(3)(d), 5(3)(g), section 11,
subsection 16(1)(a), subsections 19(3)
and 19(4), may pay to the City an
administrative penalty of eighty dollars
($80.00) if payment is made more than
thirty calendar days after the date of such
violation but before conviction in the
Provincial Court of New Brunswick, and
upon such payment, the person who
committed the violation is not liable to be
prosecuted therefor.
(d) A person who violates
paragraphs 5(3)(c), 5(3)(d), section 11,
subsection 16(1)(a), subsection 19(3) or
19(4) may pay to the City within fifteen
calendar days from the date of such
violation an administrative penalty of
sixty dollars ($60.00), and upon such
payment, the person who committed the
violation is not liable to be prosecuted
therefor.
(e) A person who violates
paragraphs 5(3)(c), 5(3)(d), section 11,
paragraph 16(1)(a), subsection 19(3) or
quarante dollars (40 $), et une fois
1'amende payee, la personne nest plus
susceptible de poursuites judiciaires.
b) Toute personne qui contrevient a une
disposition du present arr&6, autre que
celles pr6vues aux alin6as 5(3)c), 5(3)d),
5(3)g), a Particle 11, a 1'alin6a 16(1)a) et
aux paragrapher 19(3) et 19(4), peut payer
a la municipalit6 une p6nalit6
administrative de cinquante-cinq dollars
(55 $) si 1'amende est acquitt6e plus de
quinze jours civils apr6s la date de
l'infraction, mais dans les trente jours
civils de ladite infraction, et une fois
1'amende pay6e, la personne nest plus
susceptible de poursuites judiciaires.
c) Toute personne qui contrevient a une
disposition du present arr&6, autre que
celles pr6vues aux alin6as 5(3)c), 5(3)d),
5(3)g), a Particle 11, a 1'alin6a 16(1)a) et
aux paragrapher 19(3) et 19(4), peut payer
a la municipalit6 une p6nalit6
administrative de quatre-vingts
dollars (80 $) si 1'amende est acquitt6e
plus de trente jours civils de la date de
l'infraction, mais avant une d6claration de
culpabilit6 a la Cour provinciale du
Nouveau -Brunswick, et une fois 1'amende
pay6e, la personne n'est plus susceptible
de poursuites judiciaires.
d) Toute personne qui contrevient aux
alin6as 5(3)c), 5(3)d), a Particle 11, a
1'alin6a 16(1)a) et aux paragraphes 19(3)
ou 19(4), peut payer a la municipalit6 dans
un d6lai de quinze jours civils a compter
de la date de l'infraction, une p6nalit6
administrative de soixante dollars (60 $),
et une fois 1'amende pay6e, la personne
West plus susceptible de poursuites
judiciaires.
e) Toute personne qui contrevient aux
alin6as 5(3)c), 5(3)d), a Particle 11, a
1'alin6a 16(1)a) et aux paragraphes 19(3)
235
19(4) may pay to the City administrative
penalty of ninety dollars ($90.00) if
payment is made more than fifteen
calendar days after the date of such
violation but within thirty calendar days
of such violation, and upon such payment,
the person who committed the violation is
not liable to be prosecuted therefor.
(f) A person who violates
paragraphs 5(3)(c), 5(3)(d), section 11,
paragraph 16(1)(a), subsection 19(3) or
19(4) may pay to the City an
administrative penalty of one hundred
dollars ($100.00) if payment is made
more than thirty calendar days after the
date of such violation but before
conviction in the Provincial Court of New
Brunswick, and upon such payment, the
person who committed the violation is not
liable to be prosecuted therefor.
(g) A person who violates paragraph
5(3)(g) may pay to the City an
administrative penalty of one hundred and
twenty-five dollars ($125.00), and upon
such payment, the person who committed
the violation is not liable to be prosecuted
therefor."
IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John
has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said
City to be affixed to this by-law the day of
, A.D., 2021 signed by:
ou 19(4), peut payer a la municipalit6 une
p6nalit6 administrative de quatre-vingt-
dix dollars (90 $) si Famende est acquitt6e
plus de quinze jours civils apr&s la date de
l'infraction, mais dans les trente jours
civils de ladite infraction, et une fois
1'amende pay6e, la personne n'est plus
susceptible de poursuites judiciaires.
f) Toute personne qui contrevient aux
alin6as 5(3)c), 5(3)d), a Particle 11, a
1'alin&a 16(1)a) et aux paragrapher 19(3)
ou 19(4), peut payer a la municipalit6 une
p6nalit6 administrative de cent dollars
(100 $) si 1'amende est acquitt6e plus de
trente jours civils de la date de
l'infraction, mais avant une d6claration de
culpabilit6 a la Cour provinciale du
Nouveau -Brunswick, et une fois 1'amende
pay6e, la personne n'est plus susceptible
de poursuites judiciaires.
g) Toute personne qui contrevient a
1'alin&a 5(3)g) peut payer a la
municipalit6 une p6nalit6 administrative
de cent vingt-cinq dollars, et une fois
1'amende pay6e, la personne n'est plus
susceptible de poursuites judiciaires. »
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait
apposer son sceau municipal sur le pr6sent arret& le
2021, avec les signatures
suivantes :
Mayor / maire
City Clerk / greffier communal
First Reading - February 8, 2021 Premiere lecture - le 8 f&vrier 2021
Second Reading - February 8, 2021 Deuxi&me lecture - le 8 f6vrier 2021
Third Reading - Troisi&me lecture -
236
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-049
Report Date
February 18, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Fundy Quay - Project Launch
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Jeffrey Cyr
Brent McGovern
I John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this report be received and filed.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the announcement of federal and provincial infrastructure funding for Fundy
Quay, the project to transform Saint John's waterfront has been secured. The City
is now ready to move forward with the undertaking of the infrastructure
improvements to transform the waterfront. This report is intended to provide an
overview of the status of the project and the business case for moving forward.
Additional reports have been submitted specific to the finalization of the ground
lease with the developer and the award of architectural services.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
In December of 2019, Common Council approved an option agreement for the lease and
purchase of the Fundy Quay property to Fundy Quay Developments Inc.
REPORT
The Fundy Quay property represents one of the highest profile development
opportunities on the Atlantic Canadian Coast and the single greatest opportunity
to realize the transformation of Saint John's urban waterfront. A re -imagined
Fundy Quay will serve to enhance the Saint John urban experience through a mix
of uses such as retail and commercial space and services, specialty shops and
boutiques, residential condominiums and apartments, hospitality, entertainment,
cultural uses, green spaces, cafes, and transportation systems that will truly make
the site a vibrant catalyst for future waterfront activity.
As one of Saint John's three catalytic projects, the New Regional Economic
Development Agency for Greater Saint John is providing project leadership and
237
-2-
management support for the Fundy Quay project, a transformational waterfront
development project for the City of Saint John.
Background
In spring of 2019, Develop Saint John at the time embarked upon a new strategy
to pursue the development of the Fundy Quay property. The revised strategy was
to secure a developer to undertake a phased approach to the build out of the site,
while municipal infrastructure projects would address key barriers and strategic
infrastructure needs for the area. The municipal investment would be recovered
through the enhanced value of the property, Federal and Provincial infrastructure
funding, and property tax growth from the development.
Early in the process, DevelopSJ (now the New Regional Economic Development
Agency) put out a call for expressions of interest for the development of the
property and submitted a funding application through the Investing in Canada
Infrastructure Program (ICIP). Since this time, an agreement was signed with
Fundy Quay Developments Inc. (a subsidiary of the Elias Management Group) for
the development of the property and in June of 2020, Provincial cabinet approved
the infrastructure applications and initiated the submission for Final Federal
approvals.
With the formal announcement of the Provincial and Federal infrastructure
funding on February 19th, the Fundy Quay project has been secured and is ready
for implementation.
Tri-lateral Funding Formula
Since the initial funding application, the City of Saint John has worked closely with
the Province of New Brunswick and the Government of Canada to finalize the
infrastructure funding package for the project. With all projects approved by both
Federal and Provincial governments, a funding package with a strong business
case for the City has been secured. A summary of the overall scope (including
existing funding for the seawall) is provided below.
Changes to Overall Project Scope (Funded by 3 levels of Government)
Revised Application
Soil Remediation
$4,121,000
Infill
$2,500,000
Platform to Raise the Site
$0
Harbour Passage Phase 1, Loyalist Plaza, and
Pedway
$9,995,000
Harbour Passage Extension, Phase 2
$2,675,000
Seawall Repair
$8,175,000
Total
$ 27,466,000
238
am
Overall, the approved project scope and funding secure substantial public benefits and a
strong return -on -investment for the City of Saint John and its federal and provincial
partners. For the addition of soil remediation, site regrading and public space projects
(Loyalist Plaza & Harbour Passage), an additional $4.15M in municipal funding is required,
leveraging an additional $15.14M in Federal and Provincial funding committed.
Fundy Quay Tri-Lateral Funding Breakdown
Total Cost
Total Federal
Provincial
Municipal
Soil Remediation
$4,121,000
$0
$0
$4,121,000
Infill
$2,500,000
$0
$625,000
$1,875,000
Harbour Passage Phase 1, Loyalist
Plaza, and Pedwa
$9,995,000
$7,996,000
$0
$1,999,000
Harbour Passage Extension, Phase 2
$2,675,000
$1,070,000
$1,382,750
$222,250
Seawall Repair
$8,175,000
$3,270,000
$3,240,000
$1,665,000
Offsetting Community Development
Fund Contribution to SJ Capital Budget
$0
$0
$825,000
($825,000)
Total
$27,466,000
$12,336,000
$6,072,750
$9,057,250
Leveraged Funding
The funding package outlined above represents a significant increase in the overall federal
and provincial investments currently committed to the seawall project and a significantly
improved ratio of municipal dollars invested in the Fundy Quay project relative to
provincial and federal dollars invested. Currently, the City is investing $4,905,000
(representing 60% of the total project costs of $8.175 Million) to repair and raise the
seawall (these numbers do not reflect any potential budget changes to the seawall
project). With the proposed funding package, the City would be investing an additional
$4,152,250 while leveraging an additional $15,138,750 from the provincial and federal
governments. This brings the municipal share in the public infrastructure construction
down to 33% of the total $27,466,000 project.
Funding Approvals & Risk Management
With the allocation of more project scope to the COVID-19 funding stream, there poses a
risk that the full scope of the public space construction will not be completed by the
December 31, 2021 deadline for the program. While there may be a possibility of
receiving an extension on this timeline (funding programs have made such adjustments
in the past), this cannot be guaranteed and will require a risk management strategy to
ensure that only work that can be completed is started. The COVID-19 stream does not
"claw back" funds already reimbursed, but no longer makes the funding available beyond
2021, unless an extension is provided. The risk management approach will evolve into a
risk management strategy as the work gets underway to ensure that we mitigate to the
extent possible the loss of federal cost sharing prior to the completion of a project
component.
The federal funding risk will be managed through a stage -gating and risk assessment
process for at -risk project components of the project. The critical components at risk
include the pedway connection and the southern 150 metres of the Harbour Passage
239
-4-
extension. No commitments will be made to the construction of these components unless
it is confirmed that they can be completed on time or an extension is granted from
Infrastructure Canada. Additionally, the loyalist plaza project will require
compartmentalization to allow for only components that can be completed to move
forward prior to the granting of an extension. Should the City not receive an extension
and opt not to undertake work on these components under the current funding program,
they could still proceed in future years once new funding has been secured. This risk
management approach will be developed in greater detail by the City' consultants and
has been included as a requirement in the scope of work issued in RFP's for the Fundy
Quay project.
Proiect Communications
A critical project component will be strategic communications and engagement,
particularly with key stakeholders who are potentially impacted by construction. These
communications have been pre-emptively initiated, with several meetings having been
held with the businesses with patio space on the boardwalk. Every effort will be made to
involve key stakeholders such as the boardwalk restaurants in shaping the scope of the
public space projects and to mitigate the potential impacts of construction however we
are also mindful that cruise ships have been cancelled for 2021 and therefore it is also
providing opportunityfor work in this area with less disturbance. This will be incorporated
into a community and stakeholder engagement and communications program
implemented by the City and the New Regional Economic Development Agency.
The Business Case
Asset Management & Future Cost Avoidance
The funding package represents a significant increase in the overall value for the City's
investment. Currently the City is completing $1.66 of work per every municipal dollar
spent for the seawall project. On the incremental investment of $4,152,250, the City will
complete $3.65 of work for every municipal dollar spent. This will result in the
improvement of several existing assets (that are near the end of their asset life) and future
cost avoidance associated with the construction of several new priority assets, for which
there will be public pressure to invest in future years. These include:
• The regrading of the Fundy Quaysite. With the seawall being raised roughly 1.5m
— 2m in height, views to the water would be obstructed without the regrading of
the property itself. The value of this component is $2.5M.
• The refurbishment of Loyalist Plaza. Loyalist Plaza is roughly 40 years old. The
physical infrastructure continues to degrade, and the space is not designed to
have a frontage on new development at the Fundy Quay. Interest in re -investing
in this space has emerged in several instances in recent years, including in the
Central Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan. The value of this project is $7.67M.
• The Extension of Harbour Passage. With the relocation of the Canadian Coast
Guard operations to the industrial park, there are growing public expectations to
N
19.le
extend waterfront access along the perimeter of the Fundy Quay property. The
value of this component is $4 Million.
• Improved Municipal Property Value. With the management and remediation of
contaminated soils in addition to the site regrading, the value of the municipal
property under agreement with the developer is improved significantly. The
agreement itself reflects this improved value, conditional upon completing the
work. Additionally, this suite of projects establishes the Fundy Quay as a
development ready site, removing the technical construction challenges that
have proved to be substantial barriers to site development over the past twenty
years. This further leverages the potential municipal tax revenue generated by a
high -density development on the property.
Project Revenues
A key benefit of the project for the City will be revenue generated from two sources, the
ground lease/sale of the land to the developer and the tax revenue generated from a
high -density development. These are revenues that would be unlikely to be attained
without the improvements proposed as part of this project. The agreement with the
Developer establishes a value of $6.45 Million for the improved property. This
represents roughly 1.55 times the incremental investment in infrastructure proposed,
meaning the City is positioned to recover its incremental costs through the land
agreement. While the City is positioned to recover costs through the land agreement
with the developer, the majority of municipal revenues will be generated through the
development of the property. Preliminary estimates are that the development will
generate between $2 Million and $3 Million in municipal property tax revenues annually
at full build out.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The development of the Fundy Quay is aligned with Council's priorities of Fiscal
Responsibility, Growth and Prosperity, and Vibrant Safe City and it is one of Saint
John's three catalytic projects. It is also a strategic Growth Concept identified in
the City's Central Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The Fundy Quay public space improvements are part of a broader project to
transform Saint John's urban waterfront, with an agreement for private sector
development on the Fundy Quay site, creating a strong business case for the
project. The Ground Lease with Fundy is based on a maximum value of $6.45M
and will generate initial lease payments of $250,000 annually until purchased. The
development of the site is anticipated to generate $21VI - $3M in annual property
tax revenue at full build out and securing the development has been instrumental
in the approval of an additional $15M in federal and provincial infrastructure
investments.
241
9rm
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
Fundy Quay Project Launch Presentation
242
,yam
611
�
dirt
n,n
is
Keg
-ionco"
?Ionmeni
'} yr left-
ods,_ _
Aw
. J ;-�
. U..'4
� It
ri-rwlft
.101•
=f i•���
T rTJ 1 J 1. - 1
r
'LL riff
-
7• +
r •.
L -
, 7 LL - • _-
r +
+ 11 .17
44r.w- Li
Z r ��• � 1
in wm9pw�
MIER
1 . r- + r �. 1 • -Iti• - - -1
� TPL
lp
ip
r JrI
—r rr�i r.l'� �—■ n ■ L II T
■
+ .. 1 w` e -tin
�
1 r 1 -r +
` M I r- -
1 1 t i ■
_ L
• 4r r I - i - 1 F
1 -
• , �}� p op
i
It
■ 'r'
MR
LMO
y
1 T - i • r
1 7 LL
f
L L
L . J
r
-PPM-rV L, _
. ■: IN
. _
L
L pi
it %---rl- qhb6'. �' ;IQI AD
Ir y i
SIR • • { � � �
Liu
{ — 4bM6-
i JL
film
ont inves
1 transform Saint Jo
rhrntlSgptm rFvw mtW h-MU%'1L-Iht
FYrriyQ41JY prn"-111hq=immi-w
irinithMunnr49.
Thks ffe0o is a bw twon W Same
I,ihaL It wtil trmsfu mi the eoataan�
13rkiw.Nw elf Mw M*u At ow lklwaf
lerldnt� theta Invbdpwromentalr
.r,xkirF: top_rt her Lw TaxLeFvgdQuay
h.lf}wu 1TYo-FnrrriYllLl�lltd4ll�hrlr
unlait font NsMY L hw mmmn
k pwr7i lil as onea dwdFw t 6uvaw
rttw. in NLvrh Af w6r
A Rnim-A for Prop*Wsw4h Ifeur d by
!tw;eYL%}readylhrt QMplthO
I,wnwy Civ& GLhwd ig#)Mr fhrther LLr
welcrROK A S?;4trilwltudeurlcp
nteal t1111 peso ' j'- INLx.LI Lie
,A"FIwt161rrt ThmdwakTmrm
1 Lin isda7ibr4a*"mkvkw r.L"Lls
' MI Aw k,billm'-wa,
Iu2LILAScutful.h[!*d3 WOpaeL-
d ME Llrki rMLS 6r' deNli4l*/Pd4jpr
lMtand a Almark%vwl&vMAifigw
n wnl. In L,1Jer tv rcsr.b ltrlSMOl ,he
. A)r firsr tyit.l rcrurx ffldnLtpm
1,w and raue.t,u sewrall. ACAP Sam
I.ihtl l.plfiri.5LA: J 1..4rwlh zumW (1F
n u1,_• L-nititl LW&Mment,ts hkh tAHe'l
i[VkMjl w,Ye in a\LI WL61 he t&WAll
Funlug YUprch i ngn war dambed
rktewarp Ili Petllt rCkYMM tilk
my aIerLfk,�fjpgtRry��ltld>�h4
aural-, Tlx;a¢ arWIMKathh'�
$ L: rnl I1100 frmp thv(a drral Avklgm
MmLS L Lederer MrLiGnlim add AdM,r
Lkn rvnit
ShoethruLNIG kmcrFLbrWcgwk
lion Nrw@Wvwwk01wIvxv 1ptLU M
byIheHippwtLtlmr111,1haste hvu
a dktx.n>Lt kit ft K rYLa w pxem
emglL W LFIdUZC dw dmpwildlided Ytl-
eral ii.. [nwtmwp ' I dXwpNlgn.
menc has marde watlaMelogmm in rrh
apinirrl, a iws irepQr,> We to hrgld arkmr
Lhle sLk ktM Ld ME x'a WlU fMdMtr N
wkingtheMecAtpMaoJl dhlFula
6Y OU* Ydefi t rtrajirt J.WipjM6wl.
1hi-rjrcntarrprfadcf "b nOW
racy irk: ial Anmrmilmit 14b
rnnroi cc„ WgimOmba witedulih
Ow Fw1Llvuwv ft Uiiwthrrl, m)
klrmaed1mwbm1 m cww
yin Ek., &&lK j M Aid MUL,
UrrrMlrablrvLatLreakACMM Mlilr
C$henrLe kx KLnnp WWttllwlr pm.
im -t, aLrL*e the muse On
Thew hilkww inniu mnta wk9lAxk
w mLk h.a'Lwwmk: pramdLLThe,lelr
,I;AL Itr I Ik,t H4 W R.L,.+nrnalktO lJW!
alk'.w 4,;9,A NArLL InrnnLrd0Lwe LL#
Lrtwlll kl lw4p hlmdmb A Friali wrn
iron[. Clui t hiaa k-.t I•, f M4xYQMLNSI
rmnwinpelhyu„llrmlilsp #rs•
uW,jl1,Mkrwrfkd,Ml Tllnwtinw i
inklkwni.,ti'jnye.,Hr p7USIMFlRf,
I Ire r Inv lerk vlu,n- X hi Lhi, rid-
uLIC[ Sera ;'ar} diS on uyW Lo heck
Peuple wh<rare in nmd 6ec.KM of Lis
r,rlslt.wnk. I wry dq.l MM WOiRCVd r
pfMmK-F t,mW cIhrriar
Vk-yiAwf p
enent tom, a�IwK-A a �•..� Ialrrt JLAWr
RvObeW-wUftdPwNbleKnralLice
CGLAner1 !.-.-.M
I wane 012 d*Wl* happen for ou
wVmL in eery fiN Intt"e, i wan abI#
k,6)-u v aw rift ueelWI k4 ecd hmef4
11K7111 m -%ur ridirg bermw rk 201 i and
20I�,cuillfWrj to m}' 4 tr5er4ealIv L p�
ptraw,r I -inivarkmLhirdLmrycby
to equind upon ilia! rewid hDarturue
rodcthwfxSiirtjvhrRt bno
L L1.4tartt =1 Ari' DWMiLhyr11cy L4rMW
Wit PJIbW K1 Merin SLjlLW, I SLY kf W
to pub�btl.rlInk Lbehm-AO ecif
5e1rK"hII[WWW.OWNEM kAlur
blvlr i t a ■eJIMW tree, %%L6 3MJW
giriiiwWtu LLFikx k is p Aermiml,weh
iwcwmenn Ln the fularyQLwri' M
}aa. F' xi Sadss pKu_ Fief L ffot r, Lhe
k�,mplwrraaL�riMJkn..�rn.rr I.+rrlM,l
PhU all Ilk etleeslun Lrl the ytisdno-ap
bMwke fiq.lalY I%m si■nJohn Ndr
hziimn ri vekaMltuaiFrwett Lik. Furt
LJTuur Yk1ltYflgii LSl%! tlWWWL
NOW K%tk t•fcwWah4rStrcctLtawr
f mu &-44mnPorm. ihq wam horn
piwklrrp
T hkhk ■built Lk.ALwI_tl,dllau, Pgnw
]dW_SE joW3 and CtiarkAUewwilc
wn rftuoti are k4Vuwd 1L, be r1LYdtp
n>trl *M We 4txa htALn061 wjltl-
tKmuw that haenl Lim &Wgi*
tntmcrawrnm) n pub"M_S
dk� f..,,w�thrl.0 IaeulL;�T�wi� �
irnctiRll�typl,lnRl J�bRrrKdiplr
1".
wLW I4 Rg wth SIMCa7unrnld tO
1"r6 Lie S♦ 1"wD= DJL
Iln;adtlirrpwbMM k� LIM 1 h•
thbitW*PF" 1�pw10Iditlr�l
wiW Awd4rrl*wL
h�Yrt 3�yLNprh+ril�lrie a bpLtr
etrhla po�irLLlQeo�rnh�, Mar
bit swum ww a smt Itpu"-e, l%-M
i6tlnr w ex"M on ahm Lcr;w% Kkwi-
ddkNL
T'htFwdyQuay frM Wkt1adtmMbV
diwFimthuiir4Bjr631 hmulcmCLrr.-em
mrnLw h h an.W lu Lhe n ml genrrr
Tien
W."IL"
rkihe Marib v Of ParkaTMMl k+
Key Progress Update
• Infrastructure funding announcement
• City ground lease finalized
• Provincial property Purchase & Sale Agreement finalized
• Design & engineering contracts ready to award
Fundy Quay Tr'i=Lateral
Funding Summary
Project Scone & Buda
Changes to Overall Project Scope
(Funded by 3 levels of Government)
Soil Remediation
Infill
Harbour Passage Phase 1,
Loyalist Plaza, and Pedway
Harbour Passage Extension,
Phase 2
Seawall Repair
Total
$271466,000
New Regional Economic Develop Agency for Greater Saint John
i�1 ■ :�1Ti • - �KiTiTi �i I iTri �1Ti
Municipal Budget Contributions
(Includes existing seawall funds)
Soil Remediation
Infill
Harbour Passage Phase 1,
Loyalist Plaza, and Pedway
Harbour Passage Extension, Phase 2
Seawall Repair
Offsetting Community Development
Fund Contribution
Total $93057,250
New Regional Economic Develop Agency for Greater Saint John
What do we get for our money (municipal investment)
Seawall Budget (Before Budget Adjustments) Total Project Budget
What do we get for our money (municipal investment)
• Harbour Passage Extension
• Revitalization of Loyalist
Plaza
• Pedway Connection to
Market Square
• Development Ready Site
(soils & regrading)
Results In:
• Closing Deal with FQD
• Proceeds from Land
• Transaction & Tax Revenue
Seawall Budget (Before Budget Adjustments) Total Project Budget
What do we get for our money (municipal investment)
$491529250
Transforms the
waterfront
(Reconstructed Loyalist Plaza,
expanded Harbour Passage,
public access to the waterfront,
development -ready Fundy Quay site)
Seawall Budget (Before Budget Adjustments) Total Project Budget
What do we get for our money (leveraged funding)
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
G� 111 111
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
Provincial & Federal city
016IL IMO1:40101=*III01110
New Deal for Fundy Quay (Full Infrastructure Package)
$18,408,750
$9,057,250
New Regional Economic Develop Agency for Greater Saint John
Fundy Quay
Project Revenues
• Land sale valuation $6,500,000
• Lease payment of $250,000 per year
• $25,000 annual maintenance contribution
(Begins in Year 6)
• Annual property tax $2M - $3M at full build -out
: _J
Existing
Assets
Capital Budget Policy
New Assets
p-I
The Fundy Quay infrastructure
investments are in alignment with the
capital budget policy (s. 5.34) of the
City of Saint John and are
recommended based on their positive
financial impact for the tax payers.
The leveraged federal and provincial
investment, future infrastructure cost
avoidance and new revenue
generation provides a very strong
return -on -investment for the City.
Fundy Quay Risk
Management Approach
(Schedule & Funding)
Investing in COV10=19 Community Resilience
,,./New COVID-19 Resilience Stream
4"'. More infrastructure project categories
,/Faster a pprova is
nfrastricture 101
Canada Cmada
Fundy Quay - Public Infrastructure Project Changes
Soil Remediation
Site Regrading
Loyalist Plaza
Harbour Passage
(South 150 metres)
Pedway Connection
I"
Harbour Passage
(Remaining 350
metres)
N
Project 1: Harbour Passage
Phase1, Loyalist Plaza, & Pedway
Covid 19 Stream
Project 2: Harbour Passage
Phase2
IBA Stream:
Possible Revised
Project Areas
Project 1 — Covid Stream
($9,995,000)
A. Harbour Passage & Anchor
Public Space (Loyalist Plaza).
B. Pedway Connection
C. Harbour Passage Phase 1
appr. 350 metre section
Project 2 — Harbour
Passage Phase 2 - IBA
Culture & Rec ($2,675,000)
A. Harbour Passage Extension
Phase 2 & pedway.
appr. 350 metre section
Communications
& Engagement
Communications & Engagement
• Engagement of boardwalk restaurants underway
• Communications & engagement plan being finalized to
inform public space re -design
• Critical to minimize construction impacts on boardwalk
businesses during Covid-19
Recommendation
It is recommended that this report be received and filed.
Questions
Q�T= �TIf -1
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-051
Report Date
February 17, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: : Utility and General Fund — Revised 2021 Capital Programs
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Michael Baker
J. Brent McGovern
I John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that members of Common Council:
• Approve the revised 2021 Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Capital
Budget in the amount of $12,086,000 (gross) with contributions from
other sources of $5,840,000 yielding a net capital budget in the amount
of $6,246,000 to be funded by pay as you go (net) as set in Appendix A.
It is recommended that members of Common Council:
• Approve the revised 2021 General Fund Capital Budget in the amount of
$44,960,683 (gross) with contributions from other sources of
$29, 093,083, yielding a net Capital budget in the amount of $15,867,600
to be funded by debt issue (net) as set in Appendix B.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The approved 2020 and 2021 Utility Fund and General Fund Capital budgets
included projects that the City was seeking funding support through the Bilateral
Funding Program. The City received notification from the Province on March 2,
2020 that the City's original submission would not be receiving infrastructure
renewal funding under the Bilateral funding program. However, the City reapplied
for Bilateral Funding in the summer of 2020. The revised funding submission was
very similar to the City's original submission however the funding timelines were
adjusted to be between 2021 and 2026. Currently, the City has not received formal
approval on the requested Bilateral funding but many of the projects within the
267
capital programs are predicated on the City receiving the funding as per the
applications submitted.
The purpose of this report is to revise the 2021 Utility Fund and General Fund
Capital budgets as funding was reallocated due to the City's revised Bilateral
Funding program submission as well as funding for one of the City's catalytic
project — Fundy Quay.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
M&C 2019-203 — 2020 and 2021 General Fund Capital Budget
M&C 2019-204 — 2020 and 2021 Utility Fund Capital Budget
M&C TBD (December 7, 2020) — 2021 Utility Fund Operating Budget
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The proposed adjustments to the 2021 Utility and General Fund Capital Budgets
are aligned with Council's priorities, Debt Management Policy, Financial Principles,
Capital Budget Policy, Asset Management Plan, Central Peninsula Neighborhood
Plan, PlaySJ, MoveSJ, PlanSJ with a focus on growth and advancing Saint John's
catalytic projects.
REPORT
The 2020 and 2021 Utility Fund and General Fund Capital budgets included
projects that the City was seeking funding support through the Bilateral Funding
program. The City received notification from the Province on March 2, 2020 that
the City's original submission would not be receiving infrastructure renewal
funding under the Bilateral funding program. However, the City reapplied for
Bilateral Funding in the summer of 2020. The revised funding submission is very
similar to the City's original submission; however, the funding timelines were
adjusted to be between 2021 and 2026. At present, the City has not received
formal approval on the requested Bilateral funding.
Due to the City not receiving Bilateral funding in 2020, the announcement relating
to the securing of provincial and federal funding on the Fundy Quay and other
priority projects coming to light in 2020 and early 2021 the overall programs need
to be revised.
The 2021 budgets are focused on leveraging as much additional funding as the
City can secure to ensure as many priority projects as possible can be completed
at a lower cost to taxpayers and ratepayers. A lot of infrastructure within projects
included in the 2021 capital programs are long past their useful life and have a
high risk of failure. There are several projects that are asset renewals that are
being done to replace or extend the life of the asset but also to have a positive
impact on growth.
QDS'am2T low
F9:f:Jq[#iFA1P1#dIPI_�1P[#J/_�►C@Ifji#rflu14LJ
The revised Utility and General Fund programs are provided in Appendix A & B
attached. The revised programs are color coded to provide clarity to which
projects where previously approved in the 2021 Utility Fund and General Fund
programs and which projects are new. The projects shaded in the peach cell
colour were previously approved in the 2021 capital program approval and the
blue shaded cells are part of the new projects proposed under the revised 2021
Utility Fund and General Fund Capital Budgets. Many of the 2021 projects were
previously approved in the original 2020 Utility Fund and General Fund Capital
budgets however they did not move forward due to either the City not being
successful with its original submission for Bilateral Funding or because of the
COVID-19 restrictions.
The details below highlight some of the main changes made to the revised
programs:
Summary of Overall Changes for the 2021 Utility Fund Capital Budget
Previously Approved
2021 W&S Utility Fund Capital Program Summary
Category
Other Share ($)
Utility Share ($)
Total ($)
Industrial Water
$
1,020,000.00
$
1,700,000.00
$ 2,720,000.00
Renewal - West
Infrastructure
$
2,347,450.00
$
2,422,550.00
$ 4,770,000.00
Renewal - Sanitary
Infrastructure
$
2,054,450.00
$
1,040,550.00
$ 3,095,000.00
Renewal -Water
Total ($)
$
5,421,900.00
$
5,163,100.00
$ 10,585,000.00
Revised 2021 W&S Utility Fund Capital Program Summary
Category
Other Share ($)
Utility Share
Total ($)
Industrial Water
$
695,000.00
$
1,395,000.00
$ 2,090,000.00
Renewal - West
Industrial Water
$
_
$
50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
Renewal - East
Infrastructure
$
2,510,000.00
$
3,391,000.00
$ 5,901,000.00
Renewal - Sanitary
Infrastructure
$
2,635,000.00
$
1,410,000.00
$ 4,045,000.00
Renewal -Water
Total ($)
$
5,840,000.00
$
6,246,000.00
$ 12,086,000.00
269
QDS'am2T H�\'J
Revised 2021 Utility Fund Capital budget
• 27 new projects were added to the revised 2021 Utility Fund program (See
the blue highlighted cells in document in Appendix A.)
• 8 projects that were listed in original approved 2021 Utility Fund program
remain on the revised program however in some cases funding allocations
have changed (i.e., funded under Gas Tax rather than Utility Share) (See
the peach highlighted cells in document in Appendix A).
• In the Infrastructure Renewal — Sanitary and Water sections a total of 22
projects have funding from Other Shares which equates to 63% percent of
the projects within those sections.
• The revised Industrial Utility Share is $1,445,000. The Industrial allotment
approved in the original 2021 Utility Fund program was $1,700,000. This
change is due to good pricing received on the project.
• The revised Sanitary and Water Infrastructure Renewal Utility Share is
$4,801,000. As indicated in the December 7, 2020 approved 2021 Utility
Fund Operating Budget $4,801,000 was allocated to fund Capital from the
Operating Budget.
• The total budget envelope including the Utility and Other shares is
$12,086,000.
• From the $6,246,000 of ratepayer dollars approximately $5,840,000 of the
leveraged funding is being sought.
Summary of Overall Changes for the 2021 General Fund Capital Budget
Previously Approved
2021 General Fund Capital Program Summary
Category
Other Share ($)
City Share ($)
Total ($)
Corporate
$
835,000.00
$
1,500,000.00
$
2,335,000.00
Performance
Finance and
Administration
$
2,065,000.00
$
2,065,000.00
Services
Saint John Parking
$
-
$
123,000.00
$
123,000.00
Asset and Facility
$
5,344,333.00
$
4,959,000.00
$
10,303,333.00
Management
Parks & Recreation
$
-
$
150,000.00
$
150,000.00
Services
Urban Storm Water
$
1,109,600.00
$
750,400.00
$
1,860,000.00
Transportation
$
5,782,201.00
$
3,007,950.00
$
8,790,151.00
Total ($)
$
15,136,134.00
$
10,490,350.00
$ 25,626,484.00
270
Revised 2021 General Fund Capital Program Summary
Category
Other Share ($)
City Share ($)
Total ($)
Fundy Quay
$
12,708,750.00
$
7,407,250.00
$ 20,116,000.00
Corporate
$
835,000.00
$
1,500,000.00
$ 2,335,000.00
Performance
Finance and
Administration
$
2,065,000.00
$
-
$ 2,065,000.00
Services
Saint John Parking
$
-
$
123,000.00
$ 123,000.00
Asset and Facility
$
7,295,333.00
$
3,973,000.00
$ 11,268,333.00
Management
Parks & Recreation
$
75,000.00
$
75,000.00
$ 150,000.00
Services
Urban Storm Water
$
1,590,000.00
$
1,374,350.00
$ 2,964,350.00
Transportation
$
4,524,000.00
$
1,415,000.00
$ 5,939,000.00
Total ($)
$
29,093,083.00
$
15,867,600.00
$ 44,960,683.00
Revised 2021 General Fund Capital bud
• 23 new projects were added to the revised 2021 General Fund program
(See the blue highlighted cells in document in Appendix B).
• 27 projects that were listed in original approved 2021 General Fund
program remain on the revised program however in some cases funding
allocations have changed (i.e., funded under the Community Development
Fund rather than City Share) (See the peach highlighted cells in document
in Appendix B).
• The overall budget envelope for the previously approved 2021 General
Fund Capital Program was $25,626,484 (Other Share - $15,136,134 / City
Share - $10,490,350).
• The overall budget envelope for the revised 2021 General Fund Capital
Program was $44,960,683.00 (Other Share - $29,093,083 / City Share -
$15,867,600).
• The increase to the revised 2021 General Fund Program is primarily due to
the addition of the Fundy Quay projects, subject to the business case in
accordance with the Capital Budget Policy.
• The revised 2021 General Fund Program incorporates an additional
$1,500,000 being allocated to the Sea Wall Refurbishment project.
• The previously approved Pay as you go funding ($1,635,000) in 2021 for
the Sea Wall Refurbishment Project is reallocated to the Fundy Quay
project.
• In the General Fund Program, a total of 39 projects have funding from
Other Shares which equates to 78% percent of the General Fund projects.
• From the $15,867,600 of City financial contributions approximately
$29,093,083 of the leveraged funding is being sought.
271
QDS'am2T lam
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
The enclosed revised capital budget changes were coordinated and received input
from: Finance, Strategic Services, Utilities and Infrastructure, Growth and
Community Services, New Regional Economic Development Agency of Greater
Saint John, Public Works and Transportation and Saint John Energy.
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix —A — Revised 2021 W&S Utility Fund Capital Program
Appendix — B — Revised 2021 General Fund Capital Program
272
Project was previously approved in the 2020 and 2021 Utility Fund Capital Budget Council Report (M&C 2019-204)
New Project proposed for the revised 2021 Utility Fund Capital Budget
Industrial Water Renewal - West
Project
Description
Other Share
Utility Share
Road construction and replacement of three large culverts, including
Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission
design and construction management services. Phase 1 of 2. Design
$ 525,000.00
line
services of Phase 2 for road construction and replacement of three
large culverts.
Upgrade / reconstruction - Appropriate pump sizing, electrical
Musquash Water Pump Station
upgrades, flood proofing, etc. Including design and construction
$ 695,000.00
$ 870,000.00
management services. Phase B. Project to be partially funded under
DMAF .
Total
$ 695,000.00
$ 1,395,000.00
Industrial Water Renewal - East
Project
Description
Other Share
Utility Share
Design services to investigate connecting IP to the East Industrial
Industrial Water Renewal - East
piped system to reduce the wasting of water and general loss of
$ 50,000.00
water in the brook system.
Total
$ -
$ 50,000.00
Infrastructure Renewal - Sanitary
Project
Description
Other Share
Utility Share
Greenhead Road SLS C
Supplemental funding for the renewal of Greenhead Road SLS C.
$ 90,000.00
Develop a Solid Waste Diversion Action Plan to detail the preferred
Wastewater Treatment Plant Solid
septage receiving system to be installed at one of the City's
$ 50,000.00
$ 10,000.00
Waste Diversion Action Plan
wastewater treatment facilities. Subject to successful funding under
the Environmental Trust Fund.
Develop a strategy to mitigate the effects of coastal flooding on the
Flood Risk Mitigation Strategy for
City's infrastructure in the Lower Cove Loop area (Lower Cove SLS and
$ 45,000.00
$ 45,000.00
Lower Cove Loop
associated sewer collection system infrastructure). Subject to
successful funding under the National Disaster Mitigation Program.
Asset Management Information System (AMIS). Project scope
Various Municipal &Water Facilities
includes the purchase of the required software, obtaining necessary
$ 175,000.00
training, completing City infrastructure update, etc. Project also
funded by the General Fund (50150).
Renew approx. 55 m of 300mm concrete sanitary sewer to direct
Catherwood Street (Greystone Terrace)
flows into an existing sanitary sewer, including design and
$ 125,000.00
construction management services.
Renew 100 m of 375mm TC sanitary sewer (Condition Grade of 3 with
Germain Street (St James Street to Lower
an in service year of 1884), including design and construction
$ 110,000.00
$ 40,000.00
Cove Loop)
management services. Subject to successful funding under Bilateral
Funding.
Lower Cove Loop (Charlotte Street to
Install 150 m of 525mm concrete sanitary sewer including design and
construction management services. Subject to successful funding
$ 255,000.00
$ 95,000.00
Germain Street)
under Bilateral Funding.
Renew 180 m of 300mm T.0 sanitary sewer (Condition Grade of 4
Wentworth Street (Elliott Row to Orange
with a year in service of 1867), including design and construction
$ 175,000.00
$ 65,000.00
Street)
management services. Subject to successful funding under Bilateral
Funding.
Lakewood Heights
Mitigation measures to reduce inflow / infiltration in the sanitary
$ 250,000.00
Sanitary System
sewer system, including construction management services.
Wastewater Pumping (Prospect Street
Pumping station, land acquisition, and required piping to direct flows
to sewer on Main Street West for treatment at the Lancaster Lagoon,
$ -
$ 575,000.00
West at Walnut Street
including construction management services.
273
Broadview Avenue (Charlotte Street to
Renew 275 m of 375 T.0 sanitary sewer (Condition Grade 4),
including design and construction management services. Subject to
$ 245,000.00
$ 90,000.00
Carmarthen Street)
successful funding under Bilateral Funding.
Construct three headers, one for each cell for the blower system at
Lancaster Lagoon
the Lancaster Lagoon complete with road way construction. Including
$ 750,000.00
design and construction management services.
WWPS Woodlawn Park (1335 Red Head
Design for the replacement of wastewater pumping stations that are
Road)
at the end of their asset life to provide for reliable collection of
$ 100,000.00
wastewater.
Rodney Street (Market Place to Watson
Renewal of approx. 290 m of T.C, Brick and Concrete sanitary sewer
(Condition Grade 3), including design and construction management
$ 410,000.00
Street)
services. Project to be funded under G.T.F.
Renew 111 m of 250mm and 375mm T.0 sanitary sewer (Condition
St James Street (Prince William Street to
Grade of 3.5 with an in service year of 1876), including design and
$ 100,000.00
$ 36,000.00
Germain Street)
construction management services. Subject to successful funding
under Bilateral Funding.
Structural Lining
Structurally line and point repairs to sanitary sewers, including design
$ 225,000.00
and construction management services.
Renew approx. 330 m of 300mm and 375mm T.0 sanitary sewer
Waterloo Street (Haymarket Square to
(Condition Grade of 5 with an in service year of 1869), including
$ 310,000.00
$ 115,000.00
Castle Street
design and construction management services. Subject to successful
funding under Bilateral Funding.
Princess Street (Water Street to Germain
Install approx. 100m of 300mm sanitary sewer for separation,
including design and construction management services. Project to be
$ 205,000.00
Street)
funded under G.T.F.
Renew approx. 250m of 225mm and 300mm TC sanitary sewer
Princess Street (Wentworth Street to
(Condition Grade of 5 with an in service year of 1893), with new
Crown Street)
200mm and 300mm sanitary sewer, including design and construction
$ 265,000.00
$ 95,000.00
management services. Subject to successful funding under Bilateral
Funding.
Reconstruction lift station above flood level to provide for reliable
WWPS Beach Crescent (11 Beach
collection of wastewater, including design and construction
$ 340,000.00
$ 510,000.00
Crescent)
management services. Phase A. Project to be partially funded under
DMAF.
Totall
$ 2,510,000.00
$ 3,391,000.00
Infrastructure Renewal - Water
Project
Description
Other Share
Utility Share
Engineering Investigation Design
Funding for engineering investigations and design for various projects
$ 300,000.00
and
under the Water and Sanitary Categories.
Westmorland Road & Bayside Drive Flow
Installation of Electro-Magnetic flow meters east of PRV #104B and at
Meters /Chamber #33 Flow Limiting
PRV #10 including construction management. Supply and installation
$ 180,000.00
Valves
of flow limiting valves on the east side supply lines to Mill Road Vault,
including construction management.
Fleet Replacement
Fleet Replacement for Saint John Water. Project to be funded under
$ 485,000.00
Fleet Reserve.
Removal of cross -connections on Potable
Removal of two cross -connections on Potable Water and Raw Water
Water and Raw Water Transmission
Transmission mains, including construction management services
$ 150,000.00
mains
(Ocean Westway / Route 7 Overpass).
Germain Street (St James Street to Lower
Renew 100 m of 200mm watermain (1955), including design and
Cove Loop)
construction management services. Subject to successful funding
$ 90,000.00
$ 35,000.00
under Bilateral Funding.
Lower Cove Loop (Charlotte Street to
Install 150 m of 200mm watermain, including design and
Germain Street)
construction management services. Subject to successful funding
$ 135,000.00
$ 50,000.00
under Bilateral Funding.
Wentworth Street (Elliott Row to Orange
Renew 350 m of 300mm Cl watermain (1931), including design and
Street)
construction management services. Subject to successful funding
$ 445,000.00
$ 165,000.00
under Bilateral Funding.
274
Renew 275 m of 150 mm Cl watermain (1917), including design and
Broadview Avenue (Charlotte Street to
construction management services. Subject to successful funding
$ 225,000.00
$ 85,000.00
Carmarthen Street)
under Bilateral Funding.
Rodney Street (Market Place to Watson
Renewal of approx. 295 m of 300mm Cl watermain, including design
and construction management services. Project to be funded under
$ 345,000.00
Street)
G. T. F.
Renew 110 m of 250mm Cl watermain (1876), including design and
St James Street (Prince William to
construction management services. Subject to successful funding
$ 125,000.00
$ 45,000.00
Germain Street)
under Bilateral Funding.
Renew approx. 330 m of 300mm Cl watermain(1856), including
Waterloo Street (Haymarket Square to
design and construction management services. Subject to successful
$ 450,000.00
$ 275,000.00
Castle Street)
funding under Bilateral Funding.
Renew approx. 275m of 250mm Cl (1924) watermain, including
Princess Street (Wentworth Street to
design and construction management services. Subject to successful
$ 335,000.00
$ 125,000.00
Crown Street)
funding under Bilateral Funding.
Total
$ 2,635,000.00
$ 1,410,000.00
Revised 2021 W&S Utility Fund Capital Program Summary
Category
Other Share ()
City
Share $
Total ($)
Industrial Water Renewal - West
$
695,000.00
$
1,395,000.00
$
2,090,000.00
Industrial Water Renewal - East
$
-
$
50,000.00
$
50,000.00
Infrastructure Renewal - Sanitary
$
2,510,000.00
$
3,391,000.00
$
5,901,000.00
Infrastructure Renewal -Water
$
2,635,000.00
$
1,410,000.00
$
4,045,000.00
Total ($)
1 $
5,840,000.00
r $
6,246,000.00
1 $
12,086,000.00
Summary of Capital Costs (Utility Share)
■ Industrial Water Renewal - West
■ Industrial Water Renewal - East
Infrastructure Renewal - Sanitary
Infrastructure Renewal -Water
275
Project was previously approved in the 2020 and 2021 General Fund Capital Budget Council Report (M&C 2019-203)
New Project proposed forth e revised 2021 General Fund Capital Budget
Fundy Quay
Project
Description
Other Share
City Share
Fundy Quay
Soil Remediation - Develop and implement strategy to effectively manage
$ 2,486,000.00
existing soil contamination on the site.
Infill - Re -grading the site while incorporating the seawall refurbishment to
Fundy Quay
facilitate future development. Project to be partially funded by the Province of
$ 625,000.00
$ 1,875,000.00
New Brunswick.
Harbour Passage & Pedway - Obtaining public access to waterfront property
Fundy Quay
which will be key to improving active transportation in the uptown area. Project
$ 7,996,000.00
$ 1,999,000.00
to be partially funded by the COVID-19 Resilience Infrastructure Fund
Loyalist Plaza - Re -development of the highly utilized public space which will
Fundy Quay
allow for the integration of the plaza design with the design of the surrounding
$ 2,452,750.00
$ 222,250.00
development. Project to be partially funded under Bilateral Funding and by the
Province of New Brunswick.
Fundy
Additional Fundy Quay funding for Soil Remediation, Infill, Harbour Passage &
$ 1,635,000.00
$ 825,000.00
Quay
Pedway and Loyalist Plaza. - Pay as you go funding for the Other Share
Total
$ 12,708,750.00
$ 7,407,250.00
Corporate Performance
Information Technology
IT Infrastructure Replacement / Upgrades / ERP System
$ 835,000.00
$ 1,500,000.00
Total
$ 835,000.00
1 $ 1,500,000.00
Finance and Administration Services
Project
Description
Other Share
City Share
Fleet
Fleet Replacement
$ 2,065,000.00
Total
$ 2,065,000.00
$ -
Saint John Parking
Parking
Replacement of 17 Parking Meters
$ 113,000.00
Parking
Bus Shelter - Market Square
$ 10,000.00
Total
$ -
$ 123,000.00
Asset and Facility Management
Project
Description
Other Share
City Share
Fundy
Fundy Quay - Seawall Refurbishment - Project to be partially funded by the
$ 3,240,000.00
Quay
Province of New Brunswick.
Fundy
Fundy Quay - Seawall Refurbishment - Project to be partially funded under
$ 2,180,000.00
$ 1,530,000.00
Quay
DMAF.
Municipal Buildings
Deep Municipal Energy Retrofit. Subject to Federal Funding.
$ 553,333.00
$ 575,000.00
Market Square
District Energy Phase 1. Subject to Federal Funding.
$ 488,000.00
$ 732,000.00
Lord Beaverbrook
Main Electrical Services Upgrade
$ 100,000.00
Replacement of the existing roofs (i.e. plywood, shingles and insulation) at fire
Municipal Buildings
stations #5 & #7. Subject to successful funding under the Community
$ 125,000.00
$ 125,000.00
Development Fund.
Charles Gorman Arena /Stewart
Replacement of an existing chiller at the Charles Gorman Arena as well as
replacing two existing condensers at the Stewart Hurley Arena. Subject to
$ 70,000.00
$ 70,000.00
Hurley Arena
successful funding under the Community Development Fund.
Replacing the existing dasher boards and glass with new boards and glass that
TD Station
meet QMJHL Requirements. Subject to successful funding under the Community
$ 225,000.00
$ 225,000.00
Development Fund.
Replacement of the existing metal siding that is in poor condition as well as
Municipal Buildings
replacing the existing facility sign at the Municipal Operations building (175
$ 110,000.00
$ 200,000.00
Rothesay Avenue). Subject to successful funding under the Community
Development Fund.
Asset Management Information System (AMIS). Project scope includes the
Various Municipal & Water
purchase of the required software, obtaining necessary training, completing City
$ 87,500.00
$ 87,500.00
Facilities
infrastructure update, etc. Subject to successful funding under the Community
Development Fund.
Repairs to the existing building foundation and completing necessary water
Carleton Community Centre
proofing as Community Center has a foundation leak. Subject to successful
$ 75,000.00
$ 75,000.00
funding under the Community Development Fund.
276
Replacement of an existing air handling unit at the Municipal Operations building
Municipal Buildings
(175 RothesayAvenue) including the control system. Subject to successful
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
funding under the Community Development Fund.
St Patrick Street Pedway - Roof repair due to existing leak including the
Municipal Buildings
replacement of the existing air handling unit. Subject to successful funding
$ 7,500.00
$ 7,500.00
under the Community Development Fund.
Municipal Buildings
City Market Pedway HVAC Upgrade. Subject to successful funding under the
$ 24,000.00
$ 6,000.00
COVID-19 Resilience Infrastructure Fund
Renovation of upper City Market Lobby Entrance as well as Elevator Entrance to
City Market
City Market Tower. Subject to successful funding under the COVID-19 Resilience
$ 60,000.00
$ 15,000.00
Infrastructure Fund
TD Station
Heat Pump Replacement
$ 50,000.00
Trade and Convention Center
Replacement Equipment (Banquet Equipment, Tables & Walk-in Fridge).
$ 80,000.00
Trade and Convention Center
Replace Flooring and Staging Equipment.
$ 30,000.00
Trade and Convention Center
Security Upgrades.
$ 15,000.00
Total
$ 7,295,333.00
$ 3,973,000.00
Parks & Recreation Services
Project
Description
Other Share
City Share
Supply and installation of a new score clock at the Shamrock Park artificial turf
field as well as other improvements to the Shamrock Park Facility. Replacement
Facility Renewal Fund
of an existing wooden structure at the City's Market Place West Playground. The
$ 75,000.00
$ 75,000.00
current structure has reached the end of its useful life. Subject to successful
funding under the Community Development Fund.
Total
$ 75,000.00
$ 75,000.00
Urban Storm Water
Project
Description
Other Share
City Share
Catherwood Street (Ready Street to
Renew approx. 85 m of new 375mm storm sewer for separation, remove two
CB's on Greystone Terrace, and redirect two CB's at the top of Catherwood Street
$ 134,350.00
Greystone Terrace)
into the storm sewer, including design and construction management services.
Germain Street (St James Street to
Renew 125 m of 600mm storm sewer for separation, including design and
Lower Cove Loop)
construction management services. Subject to successful funding under Bilateral
$ 115,000.00
$ 40,000.00
Funding.
Water Street Outfall
Install approx. 70 m of new 1800mm storm sewer and outfall for separation,
$ 840,000.00
including design and construction management services.
Wentworth Street (Elliott Row to
Install approx. 190 m of 375mm storm sewer for separation , including design
and construction management services. Subject to successful funding under
$ 140,000.00
$ 50,000.00
Orange Street)
Bilateral Funding.
Broadview Avenue (Charlotte
Install approx.. 275 m of 375 mm and 450mm storm sewer for separation,
including design and construction management services. Subject to successful
$ 200,000.00
$ 75,000.00
Street to Carmarthen Street)
funding under Bilateral Funding.
Rodney Street (Market Place to
Install approx. 150m of new 600mm storm sewer and 135m of 450mm storm
sewer for separation, including design and construction management services.
$ 340,000.00
Watson Street)
Project to be funded under the G.T.F.
St James Street (Prince William
Install 113 m of 300mm storm sewer for separation, including design and
construction management services. Subject to successful funding under Bilateral
$ 70,000.00
$ 25,000.00
Street to Germain Street)
Funding.
Waterloo Street (Haymarket Square
Install approx. 400m of new 300mm and 375mm storm sewer for separation,
including design and construction management services. Subject to successful
$ 360,000.00
$ 135,000.00
to Castle Street)
funding under Bilateral Funding.
Princess Street (Water Street to
Install approx. 46 m of 300mm and 56m of 375mm storm sewer for separation,
including design and construction management services. Project to be funded
$ 160,000.00
Germain Street)
under G.T. F.
Princess Street (Wentworth Street
Install approx. 255 of new 300mm storm sewer for separation, including design
and construction management services. Subject to successful funding under
$ 205,000.00
$ 75,000.00
to Crown Street)
Bilateral Funding.
Total
$ 1,590,000.00
$ 1,374,350.00
Transportation
Project
Description
Other Share
City Share
Street reconstruction (curb, sidewalk, landscaping and paving), including design
Charlotte Street (Trinity Church to
and construction management services. Saint John Energy proposed to be
participating in the project by providing their services, estimated at $200,000, to
$ 360,000.00
Princess Street )
convert the overhead high voltage lines to underground. Asphalt pavements
$41,000 / 0.27 LK.
Engineering Investigation and
Funding for engineering investigations and design for various projects under the
$ 300,000.00
Design
Storm and Transportation Categories.
G I I
Asphalt Roadway Resurfacing and
Renewal of asphalt roadway and concrete curb and sidewalk including drainage
Curb & Sidewalk Renewal -
control and landscaping in conjunction with the annual asphalt roadway
$ 434,000.00
Neighbourhoods
maintenance and rehabilitation program. Pay as you go.
Asphalt Roadway Resurfacing and
Renewal of asphalt roadway and concrete curb and sidewalk including drainage
Curb & Sidewalk Renewal -
control and landscaping in conjunction with the annual asphalt roadway
$ 1,500,000.00
Neighbourhoods
maintenance and rehabilitation program. Project to befunded under G.T.F.
Germain Street (St lames Street to
Street reconstruction (curb, sidewalk, landscaping and paving), including design
and construction management services. Asphalt pavements $43,000 / 0.281-K.
$ 130,000.00
$ 50,000.00
Lower Cove Loop)
Subject to successful funding under Bilateral Funding.
Wentworth Street (Elliott Row to
Street reconstruction (curb, sidewalk, landscaping and paving), including design
and construction management services. Asphalt pavements $156,000 / 1.051-K.
$ 455,000.00
$ 170,000.00
Orange Street)
Subject to successful funding under Bilateral Funding.
Broadview Avenue (Charlotte
Street reconstruction (curb, sidewalk, landscaping and paving), including design
and construction management services. Asphalt pavements $97,000 / 0.671-K.
$ 360,000.00
$ 130,000.00
Street to Carmarthen Street)
Subject to successful funding under Bilateral Funding.
Rodney Street (Market Place to
Street reconstruction (curb, sidewalk, landscaping and paving), including design
and construction management services. Asphalt pavements $140,000 / 0.94LK.
$ 550,000.00
Watson Street)
Project to be funded under the G.T.F.
St James Street (Prince William
Street reconstruction (curb, sidewalk, landscaping and paving), including design
and construction management services. Asphalt pavements $42,000 / 0.281-K.
$ 160,000.00
$ 60,000.00
Street to Germain Street)
Subject to successful funding under Bilateral Funding.
Waterloo Street (Haymarket Square
Street reconstruction (curb, sidewalk, landscaping and paving), including design
and construction management services. Asphalt pavements $150,000 / 0.981-K.
$ 610,000.00
$ 225,000.00
to Castle Street)
Subject to successful funding under Bilateral Funding.
Princess Street (Wentworth Street
Street reconstruction (curb, sidewalk, landscaping and paving), including design
and construction management services. Asphalt pavements $108,000 / 0.721-K.
$ 325,000.00
$ 120,000.00
to Crown Street)
Subject to successful funding under Bilateral Funding.
Total
$ 4,524,000.00
$ 1,415,000.00
278
Revised 2021 General Fund Capital Program Summary
Category
Other Share ($)
City Share ($)
Total ($)
Fundy Quay
$ 12,708,750.00
$ 7,407,250.00
$ 20,116,000.00
Corporate Performance
$ 835,000.00
$ 1,500,000.00
$ 2,335,000.00
Finance and Administration
Services
$ 2,065,000.00
$
$ 2,065,000.00
Saint John Parking
$ -
$ 123,000.00
$ 123,000.00
Asset and Facility Management
$ 7,295,333.00
$ 3,973,000.00
$ 11,268,333.00
Parks & Recreation Services
$ 75,000.00
$ 75,000.00
$ 150,000.00
Urban Storm Water
$ 1,590,000.00
$ 1,374,350.00
$ 2,964,350.00
Transportation
$ 4,524,000.00
$ 1,415,000.00
$ 5,939,000.00
Total ($)
$ 29,093,083.00
$ 15,867,600.00
$ 44,960,683.00
Summary of Capital Costs (City Share)
L9%,
■ Fundy Quay
■ Corporate Performance
■ Finance and Administration Services
Saint John Parking
■ Asset and Facility Management
■ Parks & Recreation Services
■ Urban Storm Water
■ Transportation
279
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-045
Report Date
February 17, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Architectural Services: Loyalist Plaza & Fundy Quay Harbour Passage
Extension
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Jeffrey Cyr
Brent McGovern
I John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the proposal submitted by the Glenn Group, for
Architectural Services for the revitalization of Loyalist Plaza and Extension of
Harbour Passage along the Fundy Quay, in the amount of $1,401,925.00 plus HST
(including a contingency allowance in the amount of $150,000.00), be accepted.
Additionally, it is recommended that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized
to execute the necessary contract documents.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to award the Architectural
Services: Loyalist Plaza & Fundy Quay Harbour Passage Extension, to the Glenn
Group Landscape Architects and Planners.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
In December of 2019, Common Council approved an option to lease agreement with
Fundy Quay Developments' Inc. for the Fundy Quay property.
REPORT
The City of Saint John has received financial support from the Province of New
Brunswick and Infrastructure Canada under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure
Program for the revitalization of Loyalist Plaza & the extension of Harbour Passage
along the perimeter of the Fundy Quay property. This is part of a larger initiative
to transform Saint John's urban waterfront through strategic infrastructure
renewal, public space improvements, and private sector development. The overall
Fundy Quay infrastructure program has an average cost sharing rate for the City
-2-
of roughly 33%, however, for the public space components addressed in this
proposal, the City is responsible for 18% of eligible project costs.
To complete the public space improvements, the City released an RFP for
landscape architectural design work in January of 2021. This process was managed
by the City's material management service, who supported the procurement
process and the review of proposals. The successful proponent for this work was
the Glenn Group Landscape Architects and Planners, whose proposal was ranked
the highest by the evaluation team based on an overall rating of the evaluation
criteria as well as offering a competitive cost for the work.
The Glenn Group will work closely with City project team and key stakeholders to
perform the following scope of work:
Phase A: Background Information, Preliminary Investigation & Site
Analysis, Environmental Assessment & Climate Change Evaluations,
First Nations Consultation & Federal Funding Agreement
Requirements
➢ Phase B: Concept Design & Plans
➢ Phase C: Consultation
➢ Phase D: Detailed Design and Tender Documents
Phase E: Tender Period Services, Materials Testing, & Inspection,
Red Books and Record Drawings
v Phase F: Construction Management
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
This project aligns with the City's priorities of Growth and Prosperity, Vibrant & Safe City.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Funding for this project is provided by the Provincial and Federal Governments
through the Investing in Canada Infrastructure (ICIP) project approximately
$10.45 Million (82%) with the remainder funds provided by the 2021 City of Saint
John General Capital program. The costs for Phase A, B, C, D & E are based on a
fixed price. Costs for Phase F are based on estimated number of hours for each
phase as provided by the City Request For Proposal. It is expected that this
project will move forward in phases in 2021 and 2022.
The Fundy Quay public space improvements are part of a broader project to
transform Saint John's urban waterfront, with an agreement for private sector
development on the Fundy Quay site, creating a strong business case for the
project. The Ground Lease with Fundy is based on a maximum value of $6.45M
and will generate initial lease payments of $250,000 annually until purchased.
281
-3-
The development of the site is anticipated to generate $2M -$3M in annual
property tax revenue at full build out and securing the development has been
instrumental in the approval of an additional $15M in federal and provincial
infrastructure investments.
IIPIl�jrda�l��L��/,1 ►:7 AFl�►PI %ire1:1�:[#1J[#J;f.
Supply Chain Management facilitated the Request for Proposal (RFP) process to
solicit proposals for Architectural Services: Loyalist Plaza & Fundy Quay Harbour
Passage Extension project.
As such the RFP closed on Thursday, February 11, 2021 with three (3) proponents
responding as follows:
• Glenn Group Landscape Architects and Planners
• Exp. Architects
• Brackish Design Studio
A review committee, consisting of staff from Supply Chain Management, Facility
Management, Utilities and Infrastructure, Growth and Community Planning,
Public Works and Transportation Services, and NREDAGSJ reviewed the
submissions for completeness and compliance with the RFP requirements and
selection criteria consisting of the following:
1. Quality and Completeness
2. Consultant's Vision for the Design
3. Consultant's Experience
4. Experience of the Employees / Sub -Consultants
5. Methodology
6. Value Added
7. Schedule and Availability
8. Cost
In accordance with the City's standard procedures, the committee members
evaluated and ranked each proposal based on the proposals' technical merits.
Following this, the financial proposals were opened and evaluated and
corresponding scores were added to the technical scores.
Glenn Group Landscape Architects and Planners proposal was ranked the highest
based on an overall rating of the evaluation criteria as well as offering a
competitive cost acceptable to staff.
The above processes are in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and
Supply Chain Management support the recommendations being put forth.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
282
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-047
Report Date
February 18, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Engineering Services - Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission Main
Upgrades / Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Michael Baker
J. Brent McGovern
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
Notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for Engagement of
Professional Services, it is recommended that Common Council authorize staff
to conduct direct negotiations with CBCL Limited and Englobe to carry out
engineering services for the following projects:
• Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission Main Upgrades (CBCL Limited)
• Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades (Englobe)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to request that Common Council authorize staff
to conduct direct negotiations for engineering design services with CBCL
Limited and Englobe on the following projects:
• Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission Main Upgrades (CBCL Limited)
• Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades (Englobe)
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
N/A
283
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
This report aligns with Council's Priority for Value Service Delivery, specifically as
it relates to investing in sustainable City services and municipal infrastructure.
REPORT
1) Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission Main Upgrades
The Coleson Cove raw water transmission main is a critical piece of infrastructure
that delivers raw water directly from Spruce Lake to the Coleson Cove Generating
Station. In 2020, CBCL Limited was hired by Saint John Water (SJW) to complete a
detailed inspection of the existing transmission main alignment. CBCL Limited's
inspection included inspecting existing chambers, access to the transmission main
throughout alignment and large culvert repairs/replacement. Key
recommendations resulting from CBCL Limited's inspections where the
construction of route improvements to access the existing infrastructure as well
as replacement of three large culverts crossing over the existing transmission
main. This work was not part of the original 2021 Capital Program but due to the
asset management inspection and the reprioritization of priorities the work is
recommended to be added through the revised 2021 Utility Capital Budget as an
industrial water project that would be covered solely by the industrial customer
this pipe serves.
2) Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades
In 2020 SJW determined that the Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility's
existing three headers were leaking a substantial amount of air and further
investigation needed to be completed to determine the limits of piping requiring
replacement. Englobe has been working with SJW on several issues at the
Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility and have good in-depth knowledge of
the facility including the potential replacement of all or a portion the header
piping. This work was also not part of the original 2021 Capital Program but due
to the asset management inspection the work is recommended to be added
through the revised 2021 Utility Capital Budget.
Analysis
Due to the lack of clarity regarding the Bilateral Funding approval and the Fundy
Quay Project, City staff needed to hold off revising the 2021 Utility Fund Capital
Program therefore calls for proposals and tendering for new projects (i.e., Coleson
Cove Raw Water Transmission line and Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility)
could not proceed early in 2021.
N
Typically, the Request for Proposal method requires a period of 7 to 8 weeks for
each substantial project. Direct Engagement provides the City the opportunity to
identify consulting firms best equipped to complete the designs in a timely
manner and significantly reduces the administrative time which is inherent with a
traditional call for proposals. The direct engagement process also affords the City
staff to fine-tune the details of the engagement to achieve the best value for
money for the City.
Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission main
CBCL Limited has extensive knowledge and understanding of the Coleson Cove
Raw Water Transmission main due to their previous assessment of the
transmission main. As detailed above, CBCL Limited has completed the site
inspections already and would be able to begin with preliminary design and detail
design quickly so as to tender and construct Phase 1 in 2021 something that may
not be achievable if the City were to proceed with the more traditional call for
proposals. Staff have considered work previously completed by CBCL Limited and
is confident in their ability to successfully carry out this critical project.
Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility
As indicated above the existing underground header system at the Lancaster
Wastewater Treatment Facility is leaking hot air during operation therefore the
situation needs to be addressed quickly due to this existing safety issue. Engobe
has been working with SJW on several issues at the Lancaster Wastewater
Treatment Facility including the potential replacement of the header piping. Since
Englobe is very familiar with the facility they could begin detailed investigations,
preliminary design and detail design quickly in an attempt to tender and construct
the necessary portions of the underground header system to resolve the safety
issue in 2021. Staff have considered work previously completed by Englobe and is
confident in their ability to successfully carry out this critical project.
Provided an acceptable agreement can be reached with CBCL Limited and
Englobe, subsequent reports would be submitted to Council identifying the
negotiated fees for the engineering services required and requesting Council's
approval to engage CBCL Limited and Englobe.
The negotiations would proceed as follows:
A detailed scope of work would be developed by staff for each project and based
on the scope of work, CBCL Limited and Englobe would be required to submit their
proposed project teams, work plans, schedules and fees to complete all of the
work identified in each project. Staff would then review the submissions and
evaluate the proposed fee for each project. Staff would then seek to settle on an
acceptable fee for each project with the consultants for submission to Council.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The following table includes the projects proposed for direct engagement as well
as the total project budget.
Consulting
Company
Project
Total Budget ($)
CBCL Limited
Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission
$525,000.00
Main Upgrades
Lancaster Wastewater Treatment
Englobe
Facility Upgrades
$750,000.00
The total budgets above are costs that form part of the revised 2021 Capital Utility
Fund program with the Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission Main Upgrades
project funding coming from the Industrial water budget.
Due to the existing safety ensure at the Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility
and the risk of ensuring continuity of industrial water to the Coleson Cove
Generating Station, it is staff's recommendation to move quickly and complete the
direct engagements with CBCL Limited and Englobe to ensure the work is
completed as soon as possible.
Engineering fees to cover the costs of design generally do not exceed 10 to 18 %
of the total overall project costs, depending on the nature of the project and the
engineering services required. The costs incurred by the Consultant would be paid
in accordance with the terms of the Request for Proposal at the rates submitted
and accepted in the Consultant's proposal not to exceed the Recommended
Minimum Hourly Rates as contained in the Association of Consulting Engineering
Companies — New Brunswick fee guidelines.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
The engagement process and recommendation has been reviewed with Supply
Chain Management and General Counsel.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
N
Q�T= �TIf -1
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-038
Report Date
February 19, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Conditional Amendment to the Grant Agreement of the Climate
Change Vulnerability Assessment Methodology
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Samir Yammine
J. Brent McGovern
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
RESOLVED that Common Council approve the Conditional Amendment to the
Grant Agreement of the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
Methodology in the form attached to this report and that the Mayor and
Common Clerk be authorized to execute same.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval of the Conditional
Amendment to the Grant Agreement of the Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessment Methodology.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
It is recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2018-292:
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Methodology and Analysis Grant
Agreement, the City enter into the Grant Agreement with the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities under the Municipalities for Climate Innovation Program
(MCIP) for the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Methodology and
Analysis in the form and upon the terms and conditions as submitted; and that the
Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the said Agreement.
287
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Methodology and Analysis is clearly
aligned with the following City plans, policies, Council Priorities, programs, and
practices:
• City of Saint John Climate Change Action Plan to consider climate change
impacts and mitigation measures in all future decision to ensure that
residents, the built environment, and infrastructure are protected.
• City of Saint John asset Management Policy objectives to apply risk -based
decision and life cycle costing principles to prioritize capital investment,
identify alternative measures, facilitate the leveraging of infrastructure
funding from external sources, and improve the reliability of customer
service.
REPORT
In November 2018, The City of Saint John enter into the Grant Agreement with the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities under the Municipalities for Climate
Innovation Program (MCIP) for the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
Methodology and Analysis.
The proposed project will develop a standardized methodology to quantify
climate change -driven risks to all municipal assets, to identify and evaluate the
associated climate change vulnerabilities and to incorporate this risk -based
information into the City's asset management plan. The project will focus on a
selected group of assets from each asset category (e.g., water, wastewater,
transportation, storm water, etc.) to be used as a pilot group to identify high -risk
assets.
The project is approximately 65% finished with the expectation to be completed
by March 2021. However, due to Covid-19 and the recent cyberattack on the City
network, City staff has requested FCM for an extension to the deadline.
Additionally, many municipalities have requested the same extension.
Currently FCM is working with infrastructure Canada to extend the submission
date for our project and other projects across Canada beyond March 31, 2021.
FCM has requested many municipalities including the City of Saint John to approve
the Conditional Amendment to Grant Agreement to Section 2.05, which states
that if MCIP is extended by the Government of Canada beyond the MCIP Program
Expiration Date (March 31, 2021), then the end date of the project will be
extended until 28 February 2022 and all final reports will be due by that date.
If Infrastructure Canada does not approve the program extension, then FCM has
also included a workaround option in the amended agreement, which is to
N
increase the funding ratio to 100% until 31 March 2021, and have the municipality
contribute their 20% after the 31 March 2021 deadline, which would allow us to
extend the project completion deadline by a couple of months.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The total cost to complete the proposed project is approximately $150,000 with
$125,000 funded under the Municipalities for Climate Innovation Program (MCIP)
and the remaining fund has been approved from the City general operating
budget.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
The Conditional Amendment to the Grant Agreement has been reviewed by the
General Counsel's Office.
ATTACHMENTS
Conditional Amendment to the Grant Agreement
GRANT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
THIS AMENDMENT to a GRANT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment') is effective as of the date of last
signature below.
BETWEEN:
CITY OF SAINT JOHN
(herein called "Recipient")
-and-
FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES
(herein called "FCM")
WHEREAS:
(a) the Recipient and FCM (individually a "Party" and collectively the "Parties") entered into a Grant
Agreement executed on 26 NOVEMBER 2018, which may have been amended after its execution
date (collectively the "Agreement');
(b) The Parties wish to amend the Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1) A New Section 2.05 is added to the Agreement as follows:
"2.05 MCIP Program Extension.
MCIP is scheduled to end on March 31, 2021 (the "Program Expiration Date"). In the event MCIP
is extended by the Government of Canada beyond the Program Expiration Date, then, upon written
notice by FCM to the Recipient, the dates set out in the Agreement sections and schedules below
shall be amended as follows:
(a) 10.01(b): March 31, 2029
(b) Schedule A Part 2
(i) Project End Date: February 28, 2022
(c) Schedule A Part 3
(i) Last phase deliverables: February 28, 2022
(d) Schedule B Part 3
(i) Last phase deliverables: February 28, 2022
(ii) Last disbursement: March 31, 2022
(iii) Period of Funding: February 28, 2022"
2) Section 5.02 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
"Negative Covenants. Unless FCM shall otherwise agree in writing, the Recipient shall not:
(a) use the Grant for expenditures that are not Eligible Expenditures;
(b) for 5 years after the end date of this Agreement, sell, assign, transfer, lease, exchange or
otherwise dispose of, or contract to sell, assign, transfer, lease, exchange or otherwise
dispose of, any of the real or personal property, whether movable or immovable, acquired,
M
purchased, constructed, rehabilitated or improved, in whole or in part, with the Grant (the
"Assets"); if at any time within 5 years after the end date of this Agreement, the Recipient
sells, assigns, transfers, leases, exchanges or otherwise disposes of any Asset other than
to the Government of Canada, a local government, or with the Government of Canada's
consent, the Recipient may be required to pay back to FCM, at FCM's sole discretion, all
or a portion of the Grant that was disbursed by FCM to the Recipient."
3) Section 10.01 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
"10.01 Audit and Access.
(a) FCM reserves the right to undertake, at any time, at its expense, any audit of the records
and accounts of the Recipient in relation to the Project. The Recipient agrees to ensure
that prompt and timely corrective action is taken in response to any audit findings and
recommendations conducted in accordance with this Agreement. The Recipient will submit
to FCM in a timely manner, a report on follow-up actions taken to address
recommendations and results of the audit.
(b) The Recipient shall maintain proper and accurate financial accounts and records, including
but not limited to its contracts, invoices, statements, receipts, employee timesheets, and
vouchers, in respect of the Project. The Recipient covenants and agrees that it shall keep
all such books and records of the Project until March 31, 2028.
(c) Upon FCM's request with reasonable prior notice thereto, the Recipient shall provide FCM
and its designated representatives with reasonable and timely access to sites, facilities,
and any documentation relating to the Project for the purposes of audit, inspection,
monitoring, evaluation, and ensuring compliance with this Agreement, and permit FCM to
communicate directly with, including the receipt of information from, its external auditors
regarding its accounts and operations relating to the Project.
(d) The Government of Canada, the Auditor General of Canada, and their designated
representatives, to the extent permitted by law, will at all times be permitted to inspect the
terms and conditions of this Agreement and any records and accounts respecting the
Project and will have reasonable and timely access to sites, facilities and any
documentation relevant for the purpose of audit.
(e) The covenants, rights and obligations contained in this Article 10 shall survive the
termination or expiry of this Agreement."
4) The text in Schedule B Part 1 of the Agreement becomes Section 1.01 and a new Section 1.02 is
added to Schedule B Part 1 of the Agreement as follows:
1.02 FCM may, upon written notice to the Recipient, delete 1.01 above and replace it with the
following:
Subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, FCM agrees to contribute towards the
Eligible Expenditures an amount (the "Grant Amount") that is equal to the lesser of:
(a) the sum of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000);
(b) one hundred percent (100%) of Eligible Expenditures to March 31, 2021; or
(c) eighty percent (80%) of Eligible Expenditures;
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the aggregate amount of funding received or to be received from
all sources of funding, other than the Recipient, as described in Part 2 of Schedule B (all as
291
determined and calculated by FCM) is greater than the total expenditures incurred by the Recipient
in respect of the Project, then FCM may reduce the Grant Amount to such amount as it deems
appropriate, in its sole and absolute discretion."
5) Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement is unaffected and shall continue in full force
and effect in accordance with its terms. If there is a conflict between the Amendment and the
Agreement, the terms of this Amendment will prevail.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date
written below:
CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Per:
Name: Don Darling
Title: Mayor
Date:
FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES
Per: _
Name
Title:
Date:
Genevibve Thouin
Director, MCIP
1 have authority to bind the Recipient I have authority to bind FCM
292
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-043
Report Date
February 17, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Strategic Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT. Redesigned Website saintjohn.ca
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Sarah Ranson
Stephanie Rackley-Roach /
Kevin Fudge
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that Common Council receive and file this report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Saintjohn.ca has been redesigned and is launching on February 22, 2021. The
design is from a customer perspective and includes easy access to City services,
contacts, and community information. The site has been designed to position the
City for growth by expanding growth -related information.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
N/A
r:7-1101:i9
Through several stakeholder engagement sessions using workshops, surveys and
meetings, two goals for the redesigned saintjohn.ca emerged. The first is
enhanced customer service and the second is to support growth in Saint John.
After several months of determining the creative vision, organizing the site layout,
viewing a draft site layout in the form of wireframes, updating content, and
building functionality, the new saintjohn.ca is ready to launch. The site is
redesigned from an inventory style, where information is organized based on
department or organizational structure, to a purpose -driven site. A purpose -
driven site, means the design is based on the users' needs. For example, rather
than needing to know which department to call with a question, users can search
for their questions and be connected to a City staff person who can help. Designing
293
-2-
with enhanced customer service as a goal led to creating an easy -to -use customer
service wizard that helps users find the information they need.
The site has a responsive design, which means the site adjusts based on the device
being used to access it, for example, phone, laptop or tablet. Improved search
capabilities and self -serve features are also present. Another example of a new
website feature for our customers is the Community Dashboard, which provides
up to date City services information in one place.
Enhanced emergency notifications are also designed to force display over the site
during an emergency, so messages from the Emergency Measures Organization
are easy to find.
Information on bus routes, bus passes, and other transit services were the most -
accessed information on the previous website. The new website has organized
the Transit system information into one place and will add a route planner to help
riders navigate the City.
Supporting the organizational goal of growing Saint John is also a driver behind
the new website design. Promoting our community and the variety of
neighbourhoods people can live in, is showcased on the website. By leveraging
our Geographical Information Systems (GIS) we have added information to each
neighbourhood to demonstrate the amenities and services available. For
example, users can easily find a park to visit, which ward they live in, and who their
City Councillors are. The community can be involved in promoting the City by
submitting pictures of their favourite Saint John places and events via our
Instagram feed to #MySaintJohn.
There is also information for potential investors. Hours of research and design
were invested in promoting the economic sectors available in Saint John, the
convenient location of the City for shipping through the port, and acknowledging
our major employers. There will be contacts to our economic development
partners on the site to help direct potential investors to the appropriate person.
Also, easy to find from the main page, are upcoming events and a link to tourism
information.
The site was tested by several citizens representing community groups,
newcomers, professionals, students, and retirees. The feedback from our external
stakeholders confirmed that our goals of enhanced customer service and growth
were reached. Most users were able to find the information they were looking for
and appreciated the neighbourhood tour and photography on the site. One
newcomer commented that she wished she had had this site when she was moving
here. Both access to City services and information on the community were found
to be helpful. Navigation, content, and design comments were made. The team
will act on those where possible.
N
am
Although the site launches today, there are some features that are going to be
revealed as they are ready as part of Phase 2 objectives. Some examples of Phase
2 features include more content in the form of documents and additional links,
reinstatement of our web cameras, more information on our parks, playgrounds,
sports fields and arenas, integration of additional information for newcomers,
more arts and culture information, reinstatement of our City news notifications
via email and event submission by citizens. Improvements based on citizen
feedback, the review of internal stakeholders and google analytics will also be
made.
The redesigned website is a project approximately two years in the making. The
project team would like to thank several organizations and people for their help.
Blaze Studios and their partners (graphic design by Jennifer Snow, photography by
Nigel Fearon, and copywriting by Brad Dykema) have brought the vision to life.
Hemmings House generously donated the footage to create the video on the main
page. David Goss added interesting historical information to our neighbourhood
section. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) has financially
supported the project with grant money reserved for growth initiatives. Rod
Stears photography for sharing their work. The citizen testers who took the time
to test the site and offer feedback. Finally, over forty staff members who have
been involved with the website development, completing various tasks and
functions. All the work and generosity of these people are appreciated very much.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
Valued service delivery is one of the four council priorities. The new website
design improves the customer service experience for our users. It also provides
user-friendly access to Transit services.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The website budget is $120,000.00. The website design and build, general transit
feed specifications (GTFS) file development, and translation costs were
approximately $108,733.30 not including taxes.
Operational costs for messaging, hosting and security maintenance are $4,687.88
annually which are budgeted for in the Information Technology operational
budget.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
All service areas have contributed to the development of the new City website
through workshops, content development, and training.
ATTACHMENTS
295
-4-
NA
N
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-041
Report Date
February 17, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Finance and
Administrative Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT. Safe Restart Funding Program
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Craig Lavigne
Kevin Fudge
I John Collin
I;7��r•1uIu7�►�►�7-rrr•Jf►�i
It is recommended that Common Council adopt the following resolutions:
"Be it resolved: that Common Council approve the transfer of $3,668,373.08 Safe
Restart Funding to the General Fund Operating Reserve to be utilized to offset
potential future revenue losses due to Covid-19."
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Saint John received an additional $3,668,373.08 on February 9th from
the Provincial Government as part of the Federal Government's Safe Restart
Program.
This funding is in addition to the $400,000 the City received for Transit and
$3,376,725 received for increased expenses and loss revenue the City and Saint
John Water incurred due to COVID-19 in 2020.
Staff is recommending that the recent funding be transferred to the General Fund
Operating Reserve. This funding will allow the City to augment and replace
revenue losses due to Covid-19 with Safe Restart Funds.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
Finance Committee — February 18, 2021 - "Finance Committee recommends that
Common Council approve the transfer of $3,668,373.08 Safe Restart Funding to
the General Fund Operating Reserve to be utilized to offset potential future
revenue losses due to Covid-19."
297
-2-
REPORT
The City of Saint John received an additional $3,668,373.08 on February 9th from
the Provincial Government as part of the Federal Government's Safe Restart
Program.
This funding is in addition to the $400,000 the City received for Transit and
$3,376,725 received in 2020 for increased expenses and loss revenue the City and
Saint John Water incurred due to COVID-19 in 2020.
The funding received last year was transferred, through resolution of Council, to
an Operating Reserve to mitigate the future impacts of COVID-19 during
2021 and beyond and allow the City to provide the same level of
service delivered before the impacts of COVID-19.
Staff is also recommending that the recent funding be transferred to the General
Fund Operating Reserve. This funding will allow the City to stabilize provision of
services to the community by having the flexibility to offset revenue losses with
Safe Restart Funds.
The recommendations align with the financial policies adopted by Common
Council. Permitted uses of reserves according to the Reserve Policy are:
1. Major unanticipated/unforeseen events (such as pandemics);
2. Major Capital renewal;
3. Future Liabilities;
4. One time operating expenses which are greater than $100,000 and are not
part of the recurring operating budget;
5. Infrastructure deficit; and
6. Investment in growth opportunities.
The operating budget policy also states that one-time revenues should not be
used for recurring operating expenses and the recommendation in this report
aligns with this policy.
2021 Operating Budget
The City has restored all services that was interrupted by COVID-19 during 2020
based on the rules established by Public Health. Staff are recommending
that normal services continue throughout 2021, while adhering to Public Health
Guidelines and any shortfalls related to the impacts of COVID-19 will be covered
with the short-term funding from the Safe Restart Program received in 2020.
NE
-3-
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
This report is aligned with Common Council's priority of being more fiscally
responsible by ensuring decisions are in line with long term financial plan, asset
management plan and aligning with approved policies.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
This report is aligned with Common Council's approved Reserve Policy and
Operating Budget Policy.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
Input has been received from other service areas.
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix 1. — Safe Restart Funding Program
299
BNew Nouveau
runswick
C A N A D A
Safe Restart Agreement (SRA)
Phase 3
Phase 1 Phase 2 Per Capita Safe Restart
Local Government 2016 Census Public Transit 2020 Claims Allocation Agreement Total
Alma 213 $10,210.33
Aroostook 306 N/A
Atholville 3,570 $20,201.00
Balm1,674 $41,309.98
$11,562.92
$21,773.25
$16,611.50
$16,611.50
$193,800.84
$214,001.84
$90,874.68
$132,184.66
Bas-Caraquet
1,305
$16,706.17
$70,843.16
$87,549.33
Bath
476
$8,982.63
$25,840.11
$34,822.74
Bathurst
11,897
$438,354.00
$645,839.95
$1,084,193.95
Beaubassin-est
6,376
N/A
$346,127.22
$346,127.22
Belledune
1,417
N/A
$76,923.19
$76,923.19
Beresford
4,288
$42,200.00
$232,778.15
$274,978.15
Bertrand
1,166
$13,311.84
$63,297.42
$76,609.26
Blacks Harbour
894
$3,774.00
$48,531.64
$52,305.64
Blackville
958
N/A
$52,005.94
$52,005.94
Bouctouche
2,361
$81,011.00
$128,169.13
$209,180.13
Cambridge -Narrows
562
N/A
$30,508.70
$30,508.70
Campbellton
6,883
N/A
$373,650.20
$373,650.20
Campobello Island
872
$14,463.93
$47,337.35
$61,801.28
Canterbury
336
N/A
$18,240.08
$18,240.08
Cap -Pete
2,425
$35,708.24
$131,643.43
$167,351.67
Caraquet
4,248
$112,160.00
$230,606.72
$342,766.72
Centreville
557
$92,838.19
$30,237.27
$123,075.46
Charl
1,310
N/A
$71,114.59
$71,114.59
Chipman
1,104
$29,497.66
$59,931.69
$89,429.35
Cocagne
2,649
/A
$143,803.48
$143,803.48
Dalhousie
3,126
$85,778.41
$169,697.88
$255,476.29
Dieppe
25,384
N/A
$1,377,994.56
$1,377,994.56
Doaktown
792
$26,188.31
$42,994.47
$69,182.78
Dorchester
1,096
N/A
$59,497.40
$59,497.40
Drummond
737
$5,720.00
$40,008.75
$45,728.75
Edmundston
16,580
$360,000.00
$570,988.00
$900,061.05
$1,831,049.05
Eel River Crossing
1,953
$26,000.00
$106,020.46
$132,020.46
Florenceville-Bristol
1,604
$25,674.00
$87,074.66
$112,748.6
Fredericton
58,636
$670,000.00
$1,121,226.12
$3,183,110.97
$4,974,337.09
Fredericton Junction
704
$1,826.00
$38,217.31
$40,043.31
Gagetown
711
$460.71
$38,597.31
$39,058.02
Grand Bay -Westfield
4,964
N/A
$269,475.46
$269,475.46
Grand Falls / Grand -Sault
5,326
$137,476.00
$289,126.97
$426,602.97
Grand Manalmoff-
2,360
N/A
$128,114.84
$128,114.84
Grande -Anse
899
N/A
$48,803.07
$48,803.07
Hampton
4,289
$139,087.00
$232,832.44
$371,919.44
Hanwell
4,7001
$4,266.00
$255,143.97
$259,409.97
Hartland
/A
51,951.65
$51,951.65
Harvey
358
N/A
$19,434.37
$19,434.37
Haut -Madawaska
3,714
$69,243.80
$201,618.02
$270,861.82
Hillsborough
1,277
N/A
$69,323.16
$69,323.16
Kedgwick
1,964
$50,632.31
$106,617.61
$157,249.92
Lac Baker
690
$8,825.00
$37,457.31
$46,282.31
Lameque
1,285
$16,595.81
$69,757.45
$86,353.26
Le Goulet
793
$2,706.62
$43,048.761
$45,755.38
Maisonnette
495
$8,813.03
$26,871.55
$35,684.58
Me]
Phase 3
Phase 1 Phase 2 Per Capita Safe Restart
Local Government 2016 Census Public Transit 2020 Claims Allocation Agreement Total
McAdam
Meductic
1,151
$29,656.50
$62,483.13
$11,671.48
$92,139.63
$16,490.28
215
$4,818.80
Memramcook
4,778
$74,450.35
$259,378.27
$333,828.62
Millville
273
N/A
$14,820.06
$14,820.06
Minto
2,305
$12,665.68
$125,129.12
$137,794.80
Miramichi
17,537
N/A
N/A
$952,012.71
$952,012.71
Moncton
71,889
$500,000.00
$2,565,378.00
$3,902,562.67
$6,967,940.67
Nackawic
941
$7,935.00
$51,083.08
$59,018.08
Neguac
1,684
$30,705.00
$91,417.54
$122,122.54
New Maryland
4,174
N/A
$226,589.56
$226,589.56
Nigadoo
963
$10,187.00
$52,277.37
$62,464.37
Norton
1,382
N/A
$75,023.18
$75,023.18
Oromocto
9,223
$500,679.32
$659,684.46
Paquetville
720
;$159,005.14
,648.30
$39,085.88
$43,734.18
Perth -Andover
1,590
,730.17
$86,314.66
$151,044.83
Petitcodiac
1,383
$46,655.61
75,077.47
$121,733.08
Petit-Rocher
1,897
N/A
$102,980.45
$102,980.45
Plaster Rock
1,023
$11,653.00
$55,534.53
$67,187.53
Pointe-Verte
886
$2,030.90
$48,097.35
$50,128.25
Port Elgin
408
N/A
$22,148.67
$22,148.67
Quispamsis
18,245
$216,900.00
$990,447.16
$1,207,347.16
Rexton
830
1 N/A
$45,057.34
$45,057.34
Richibucto
1,266
$27,383.09
$68,726.01
$96,109.10
Riverside -Albert
350
$34,537.32
$19,000.08
$53,537.40
Riverview
19,667
N/A
$1,067,641.78
$1,067,641.78
Riviere-Verte
724
N/A
$39,303.03
$39,303.03
Rogersville
1,166
$29,600.00
$63,297.42
$92,897.42
Rothesay
11,659
$184,754.28
$632,919.89
$817,674.17
Sackville
5,331
$21,739.25
$289,398.40
$311,137.65
Saint Andrews
1,78
$55,019.00
$96,954.71
lk $151,973.71
Saint John
67,575
$400,000.00
$3,376,725.00
$3,668,373.08
$7,445,098.08
Saint -Andre
1,901
$103,197.59
$103,197.59
Saint -Antoine
1,733
$18,371.92
$94,077.55
$112,449.47
Sainte -Anne -de -Madawaska
957
N A
$51,951.65
$51,951.65
Sainte -Marie -Saint -Raphael
879
$11,383.03
$47,717.35
$59,100.38
Saint -Isidore
764
$990.07
$41,474.47
$42,464.54
Saint-Leolin
647
N/A
$35,123.01
$35,123.01
Saint -Leonard
1,300
$34,465.13
$70,571.74
$105,036.87
Saint-Louis de Kent
856
$20,300.00
$46,468.77
$66,768.77
Saint -Quentin
2,194
N/A
$119,103.37
$119,103.37
Salisbury
2,284
$25,296.76
$123,989.11
$149,285.87
Shediac
6,664
$150,500.00
$361,761.57
$512,261.57
Shippagan
2,580
$61,113.67
$140,057.75
$201,171.42
St. George
1,517
/A
$82,351.79
$82,351.79
St. Martins
276
$10,837.45
$14,982.92
$25,820.37
St. Stephen
4,415
$81,819.51
$239,672.47
$321,491.98
Stanley
412
$4,300.57
$22,365.81
$26,666.38
Susse
4,282
$49,781.00
$232,452.44
$282,233.44
Sussex Corner
1,461
N/A
$79,311.77
$79,311.77
Tide Hea
938
N/A
$50,920.22
$50,920.22
Tracadie
16,114
$139,417.00
$874,763.80
$1,014,180.80
Tracy
608
N/A $33,005.861 IW $33,005.86
N/A $120,406.24 $120,406.24
$320,860.00 $283,806.95 $604,666.9
Upper Miramichi
2,218
Woodstock
5,2281
Grand Total 516,490 $1,930,000.00 $11,162,849.59 $28,038,150.41 $41,131,000.00
N/A means that the local government did not submit a claim under this phase.
January 26, 2021
Department of Environment and Local Government 301
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-054
Report Date
February 18, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Finance and
Administrative Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT. Assessment Gap Adjustment (P-Gap)
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Kevin Fudge
Kevin Fudge
I John Collin
I;7��r•1uIu7�►�►�7- rrr•�►�i
Finance Committee recommends Common Council allocates $1,000,000 to the
Tax Rate Reduction Reserve and that the reserve be used to reduce the City of
Saint John tax rate in the year 2022 by 1.5 cents to $1.77 as part of the 2022
General Operating Budget.
I�:7��►jrPl�1►1tTIuI_1:i7
The City of Saint John is committed to Fiscal Responsibility, reinforced by the Long -
Term Financial Plan. Commitment to best practice financial policies, cost
reduction and cost control, along with aggressive debt reduction and reserve
funding has put the City in position to recommend a reduction in the property tax
rate for 2022 by 1.5 cents to $1.77 per $100 of assessed value.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
Click here to enter any previous relevant resolution.
REPORT
Assessment Gap Adjustment
The Province of New Brunswick recently announced the elimination of the
property assessment gap (P-Gap) that was established in 2013 for which 102,000
homeowners were not paying property taxes on the true market value of their
properties. The exemptions were introduced for the 2013 taxation year as away
to gradually return property values to a market -value based system after a three
302
-2-
per cent cap was put on owner -occupied residential properties due to increasing
property values for the 2011 and 2012 taxation years.
Amendments to the Assessment Act aimed at making the property tax system
fairer and providing local governments with the ability to raise additional revenue
were approved by the legislature. The amendment will eliminate nearly all
permanent assessment gap exemptions by 2025. The elimination of the P-gap,
once fully implemented, will result in about $8.3 million in additional funding to
local governments.
Given the fact that Local Governments received tax assessments in November
2020 for the year 2021, the resulting additional Assessment Gap Adjustment was
not included in the tax base. The additional assessment was however used for
homeowner assessments in 2021, which created additional property tax revenue
for the Province. As a result, the Province is redistributing the additional an
amount equal to the additional property tax revenue to local governments in July
2021 in the form of a grant.
The amount for each local government is equal to the net of the additional
property taxes generated in 2021, based on the 2021 tax rates, and the impact the
change had on the 2021 Community Funding and Equalization payment
The individual grant amount for each local government can be found in Appendix
A. The adjustment for Saint John was the largest in the Province, with tax base
adjustment of $65,490,100. The represents approximately 18% of the total
Provincial adjustments ($40.5M (262%) higher than Moncton and $26.7M (169%)
higher than Fredericton.
The tax base adjustment of $65,490,100 for Saint John generates additional
reoccurring revenue for the City of $1,082,151 based on increased property taxes
of $1,168,998 but offset by a negative adjustment to the Unconditional Grant of
($86,847).
Long Term Financial Plan
The Long -Term Financial Plan established 10-year base and stretch goals for the
City of Saint John. The primary objective of the plan was to increase the City's
flexibility, reduce the City's vulnerability and make the City financially sustainable.
This would be accomplished by adopting best practice policies and setting 10 year
financial targets to aggressively reduce debt, address infrastructure deficits,
increase City reserves, control operating costs, focus on revenue growth and to
return financial benefits to the community by way of tax rate reduction. The plan
also requires constant review and financial health monitoring, including tracking
of a financial health scorecard that includes key performance indicators.
303
-3-
The Long -Term Financial Plan established a stretch goal for a tax rate of 1.775.
Based on the City's tax base growth, its aggressive focus on cost reduction and
cost control, and the pace at which the City has built reserves and reduced debt,
it is recommended that the City prepare an operating budget that includes a 1.5
cent tax rate reduction for the year 2022.
Updated Wage Escalation Policy Rate
With the P-Gap adjustment of approximately $65.5 million in tax base assessment,
the updated tax base adjustment for 2021 moves from 0.12% to 1.05%.
Furthermore, the updated Wage Escalation Policy Rate for 2021 will be modified
from 1.27% (average of 1.83%, 1.86%, and .12%) to 1.58% (average of 1.83%,
1.86% and 1.05%).
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
N/A
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The recommendations in the report is supported by Council's strategic priority to
be fiscally responsible.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A - P-Gap Adjustment
Appendix B — 2021 Tax Bases and Equalization
304
Appendix A - Grant Resulting From the
NewAN aveau
ir�i
C A N A D A
Elimination of the P-Gap
Annexe A - Subvention resultant de
I'elimination de I'Ecart P
Local Government
-----------------------------------------
Gouvernement local
Additional2021
Property
Assessment
----------------------
Evaluation
fonciere 2021
additionnelle
Additional
Property Taxes
Revenue
------------------------
Revenu
additionnel de
taxes foncieres
Impact onCFEG
-----------------
Impact sur la
SFPC
P-Gap Grant
--------------------
Subvention
Ecart P
ALMA
AROOSTOOK
ATHOLVILLE
33,600
20,200
2,930,400
$529
$250
$0
$529
$4,195
$39,036
$3,945
$0
$39,036
BALMORAL
965,600
$13,896
($3,003)
$10,893
BAS-CARAQUET
914,600
$13,257
($1,545)
$11,712
BATH
13,800
$201
$4,024
$4,225
BATH URST
10,108,200
$179,421
$15,297
$194,718
BEAUBASSIN-EST
8,138,800
$30,218
$0
$30,218
BELLEDUNE
303,100
$3,046
$0
$3,046
BERESFORD
3,709,700
$57,845
($1,866)
$55,979
BERTRAND
437,200
$6,374
$4,416
$10,790
BLACK'S HARBOUR
71,500
$1,143
$11,665
$12,808
BLACKVILLE
40,400
$577
$8,414
$8,991
BOUCTOUCHE
1,627,400
$21,970
($14,344)
$7,626
CAMBRIDGE NARROWS
986,600
$10,530
$0
$10,530
CAMPBELLTON
2,182,900
$38,775
$44,879
$83,654
CAMPOBELLO
2,100
$3
$0
$3
CANTERBURY
75,000
$1,091
$3,144
$4,235
CAP -PELF
489,300
$6,630
$696
$7,326
CARAQUET
8,131,000
$122,103
($28,012)
$94,091
CENTREVILLE
208,500
$2,961
($367)
$2,594
CHARLO
1,404,800
$20,659
($8,172)
$12,487
CHIPMAN
451,300
$6,318
$7,563
$13,881
COCAGNE
948,400
$1,478
$0
$1,478
DALHOUSIE
1,209,500
$21,210
$43,275
$64,485
DIEPPE
15,402,700
$250,987
$0
$250,987
DOAKTOWN
40,800
$627
$8,204
$8,831
DORCHESTER
246,600
$3,920
$1,380
$5,300
DRUMMOND
518,500
$6,737
$0
$6,737
EDMUNDSTON
16,610,800
$271,587
$11,418
$283,005
EEL RIVER CROSSING
875,600
$11,442
$0
$11,442
FLORENCEVILLE BRISTOL
115,200
$1,486
$0
$1,486
FREDERICTON
38,761,100
$551,544
$0
$551,544
FREDERICTON JUNCTION
167,500
$2,243
$849
$3,092
GAGETOWN
98,100
$1,426
$0
$1,426
2021/02/10 305 1/3
Appendix A - Grant Resulting From the
NewAN aveau
ir�i
C A N A D A
Elimination of the P-Gap
Annexe A - Subvention resultant de
I'elimination de I'Ecart P
Local Government
-----------------------------------------
Gouvernement local
Additional2021
Property
Assessment
----------------------
Evaluation
fonciere 2021
additionnelle
Additional
Property Taxes
Revenue
------------------------
Revenu
additionnel de
taxes foncieres
Impact onCFEG
-----------------
Impact sur la
SFPC
P-Gap Grant
--------------------
Subvention
Ecart P
GRAND BAY-WESTFIELD
8,793,300
$120,468
($48,024)
$72,444
GRAND MANAN
41,600
$522
$13,564
$14,086
GRANDE ANSE
623,600
$9,204
$10,609
$19,813
GRAND-SAULTS/GRAND FALLS
568,400
$8,578
$19,222
$27,800
HAMPTON
6,699,200
$86,889
($55,661)
$31,228
HANWELL
3,878,400
$15,865
$0
$15,865
HARTLAND
50,400
$761
$236
$997
HARVEY
147,900
$1,941
$713
$2,654
HAUT-MADAWASKA
1,150,200
$9,646
$0
$9,646
HILLSBOROUGH
791,900
$10,659
$3,536
$14,195
KEDGWICK
203,300
$2,783
$11,267
$14,050
LAC BAKER
211,800
$2,378
$0
$2,378
LAMLQUE
2,261,300
$35,050
($12,081)
$22,969
LE GOULET
646,900
$10,258
$3,129
$13,387
MAISONNETTE
493,900
$7,453
($1,812)
$5,641
MCADAM
38,000
$602
$20,913
$21,515
MEDUCTIC
66,400
$882
$370
$1,252
MEMRAMCOOK
5,658,100
$78,715
($3,154)
$75,561
MILLVILLE
91,900
$1,335
$2,465
$3,800
MINTO
82,000
$1,087
$35,229
$36,316
MIRAMICHI
8,744,800
$152,160
$129,764
$281,924
MONCTON
24,998,200
$412,395
($257,278)
$155,117
NACKAWIC
1,031,500
$14,816
($8,044)
$6,772
NEGUAC
750,400
$10,503
$4,342
$14,845
NEW MARYLAND
5,699,200
$74,238
$0
$74,238
NIGADOO
1,246,800
$17,299
($7,833)
$9,466
NORTON
2,326,700
$27,143
($11,247)
$15,896
OROMOCTO
6,585,400
$93,190
$0
$93,190
PAQUETVILLE
615,200
$8,465
$0
$8,465
PERTH-ANDOVER
123,300
$1,517
$10,577
$12,094
PETITCODIAC
838,200
$10,808
$5,700
$16,508
PETIT-ROCHER
214,300
$3,171
$15,223
$18,394
PLASTER ROCK
231,400
$4,143
$10,669
$14,812
POINTE-VERTE
724,500
$11,520
($1,097)
$10,423
PORT ELGIN
315,200
$4,664
($1,108)1
$3,556
2021/02/10 306 2/3
Appendix A - Grant Resulting From the
NewAN aveau
ir�i
C A N A D A
Elimination of the P-Gap
Annexe A - Subvention resultant de
I'elimination de I'Ecart P
Local Government
-----------------------------------------
Gouvernement local
Additional2021
Property
Assessment
----------------------
Evaluation
fonciere 2021
additionnelle
Additional
Property Taxes
Revenue
------------------------
Revenu
additionnel de
taxes foncieres
Impact onCFEG
-----------------
Impact sur la
SFPC
P-Gap Grant
--------------------
Subvention
Ecart P
QUISPAMSIS
REXTON
RICHIBUCTO
17,930,400
$240,769
$0
$240,769
$10,758
777,900
$10,758
$0
392,100
$5,695
($752)
$4,943
RIVERSIDE-ALBERT
37,300
$542
$484
$1,026
RIVERVIEW
7,072,600
$112,638
$23,434
$136,072
RIVIERE-VERTE
303,000
$4,175
$1,615
$5,790
ROGERSVILLE
210,000
$3,202
$15,302
$18,504
ROTHESAY
17,570,500
$217,874
$0
$217,874
SACKVILLE
3,178,200
$49,580
$0
$49,580
SAINT ANDREWS
1,104,700
$13,919
$0
$13,919
SAINTJOHN
65,490,100
$1,168,998
($86,847)
$1,082,151
SAINT-ANDRE
361,600
$3,487
$0
$3,487
SAINT-ANTOINE
1,284,600
$17,126
$2,304
$19,430
SAINTE-ANNE-DE-MADAWASKA
486,800
$7,164
$3,518
$10,682
SAINTE-MARIE-SAINT-RAPHAEL
1,166,700
$17,967
($2,070)
$15,897
SAINT-ISIDORE
1,446,600
$21,609
($11,333)
$10,276
SAINT-LEOLIN
17,000
$263
$8,588
$8,851
SAINT-LEONARD
455,600
$6,844
$9,462
$16,306
SAINT-LOUIS-DE-KENT
312,300
$4,671
$2,321
$6,992
SAINT-QUENTIN
1,095,400
$15,883
$8,040
$23,923
SALISBURY
2,271,900
$23,723
($9,959)
$13,764
SHEDIAC
2,561,600
$38,312
($4,321)
$33,991
SHIPPAGAN
4,735,000
$74,003
($22,176)
$51,827
ST MARTINS
139,400
$1,738
$0
$1,738
ST. GEORGE
601,300
$8,478
$739
$9,217
ST. STEPHEN
1,154,200
$18,236
$49,977
$68,213
STANLEY
25,100
$369
$66
$435
SUSSEX
4,660,100
$60,064
($16,723)
$43,341
SUSSEX CORNER
2,824,900
$34,464
($2,574)
$31,890
TIDE HEAD
901,700
$13,573
($5,887)
$7,686
TRACADIE
18,203,000
$216,938
$0
$216,938
TRACY
189,900
$2,260
$4,159
$6,419
UPPER MIRAMICHI
921,600
$3,865
$8,202
$12,067
WOODSTOCK
631,500
$9,152
$22,372
$31,524
TOTAL
365,699,000
1 $5,380,967
1 ($10)l
$5,380,957
2021/02/10 307 3/3
Bruns ck
C A N A D A
2021 Tax Bases and Community Funding and Equalization Grant
Assiettes fiscales et Subvention de financement
et de perequation communautaires 2021
2020-2021
Core Funding
Equalization
Local Government
2020 Tax Base
2021 Tax Base
Growth
Total Grant
Component
Component
(Loss)
Croissance
Composante[Poor6quation
Assiette fiscale
Assiette fiscale
mposante
Subvention
Gouvernement local
(Perte)
financement de
2020
2021
totale
2020-2021
base
ALMA
30,008,150
30,394,800
386,650
5,015
0
5,015
AROOSTOOK
10,169,550
10,165,900
(3,650)
337
98,702
99,039
ATHOLVILLE
235,296,700
234,056,200
(1,240,500)
N/A
N/A
290,668
BALMORAL
102,229,150
104,134,800
1,905,650
8,794
94,956
103,750
BAS-CARAQUET
73,994,600
75,047,050
1,052,450
14,305
142,662
156,967
BATH
22,047,600
22,257,100
209,500
2,647
92,856
95,503
BATHURST
1,079,066,793
1,089,068,040
10,001,247
298,723
3,305,126
3,603,849
BEAUBASSIN -EST
655,293,050
669,323,800
14,030,750
59,106
0
59,106
BELLEDUNE
388,591,000
344,360,650
(44,230,350)
345,829
0
345,829
BERESFORD
288,508,350
290,789,000
2,280,650
47,594
821,042
868,636
BERTRAND
62,026,950
63,085,100
1,058,150
2,820
183,512
186,332
BLACK'S HARBOUR
58,710,000
52,726,400
(5,983,600)
25,520
282,950
308,470
BLACKVILLE
49,918,450
49,973,300
54,850
5,230
194,731
199,961
BOUCTOUCHE
222,999,000
221,974,850
(1,024,150)
56,428
19,890
76,318
CAMBRIDGE-NARROWS
96,433,550
96,961,450
527,900
747
0
747
CAMPBELLTON
601,598,450
610,097,250
8,498,800
85,677
1,760,614
1,846,291
CAMPOBELLO
98,329,000
98,232,350
(96,650)
1,974
0
1,974
CANTERBURY
13,790,150
13,779,700
(10,450)
496
89,943
90,439
CAP PELE
207,962,950
216,043,550
8,080,600
44,559
112,192
156,751
CARAQUET
393,537,650
394,820,700
1,283,050
86,467
918,875
1,005,342
CENTREVILLE
37,196,300
37,641,950
445,650
14,167
19,781
33,948
CHARLO
86,896,150
88,562,650
1,666,500
7,118
83,833
90,951
CHIPMAN
68,803,450
70,509,200
1,705,750
23,496
284,897
308,393
COCAGNE
216,512,350
220,230,650
3,718,300
N/A
N/A
8,986
DALHOUSIE
229,194,000
228,847,250
(346,750)
35,594
1,334,484
1,370,078
DIEPPE
3,272,404,203
3,296,950,850
24,546,647
1,175,639
0
1,175,639
DOAKTOWN
57,388,500
58,138,750
750,250
20,491
185,566
206,057
DORCHESTER
59,559,000
59,242,350
(316,650)
35,336
62,958
98,294
DRUMMOND
54,900,750
54,979,600
78,850
4,899
0
4,899
EDMUNDSTON
1,450,782,700
1,462,643,600
11,860,900
357,189
5,084,353
5,441,542
EEL RIVER CROSSING
84,354,600
85,401,500
1,046,900
N/A
N/A
394,022
FLORENCEVILLE-BRISTOL
223,537,300
225,990,650
2,453,350
126,763
0
126,763
FREDERICTON
7,601,756,637
7,767,217,647
165,461,010
2,026,188
0
2,026,188
FREDERICTON JUNCTION
42,145,750
44,325,950
2,180,200
1,860
54,898
56,758
GAGETOWN
62,584,800
62,863,500
278,700
2,345
0
2,345
GRAND BAY-WESTFIELD
382,520,350
388,995,100
6,474,750
13,942
587,318
601,260
GRAND FALLS
554,786,400
558,715,876
3,929,476
192,877
619,556
812,433
GRAND MANAN
207,806,800
210,116,150
2,309,350
32,025
240,175
272,200
GRANDE ANSE
37,456,950
38,098,150
641,200
5,867
404,290
410,157
HAMPTON
369,950,800
376,629,950
6,679,150
37,560
165,555
203,115
HANWELL
531,500,000
546,830,000
15,330,000
N/A
N/A
43,376
HARTLAND
85,446,400
86,390,950
944,550
31,612
15,422
47,034
HARVEY
20,910,400
21,139,900
229,500
2,366
38,031
40,397
HAUT-MADAWASKA
284,419,150
286,550,050
2,130,900
N/A
N/A
184,959
HILLSBOROUGH
86,547,250
86,852,050
304,800
4,392
243,075
247,467
KEDGWICK
120,446,000
120,673,050
227,050
21,844
250,310
272,154
LAC BAKER
64,153,200
65,610,550
1,457,350
1,016
0
1,016
LAMEQUE
98,664,100
100,265,700
1,601,600
25,979
140,412
166,391
LE GOULET
27,168,800
27,157,650
(11,150)
827
224,127
224,954
MAISONNETTE
26,775,550
27,546,950
771,400
2,609
60,198
62,807
MCADAM
50,766,100
49,779,750
(986,350)
10,249
509,658
519,907
MEDUCTIC
14,639,650
14,643,750
4,100
6,459
17,455
23,914
MEMRAMCOOK
324,948,900
332,270,150
7,321,250
20,768
1,036,732
1,057,500
MILLVILLE
9,920,400
9,806,100
(114,300)
187
80,435
80,622
MINTO
105,854,850
105,167,150
(687,700)
16,491
904,357
920,848
MIRAMICHI
1,541,422,300
1,548,308,600
6,886,300
428,874
5,795,825
6224,699
MONCTON
8,712,175,550
8,862,057,654
149,882,104
3,271,500
317,992
3:589,492
NACKAWIC
93,299,500
89,428,500
(3,871,000)
34,871
11,159
46,030
NEGUAC
129,930,000
131,422,600
1,492,600
25,148
254,966
280,114
NEW MARYLAND
353,014,900
365,674,650
12,659,750
6,604
0
6,604
308 1 / 2
Bruns ck
C A N A D A
2021 Tax Bases and Community Funding and Equalization Grant
Assiettes fiscales et Subvention de financement
et de perequation communautaires 2021
2020-2021
Core Funding
Equalization
Local Government
2020 Tax Base
2021 Tax Base
Growth
Component
Component
Total Grant
(Loss)
Assiette fiscale
Assiette fiscale
Croissance
ComposanteComposante
Subvention
Gouvernement local
2020
2021
(Perte)
financement de
perequation
totale
2020-2021
base
NIGADOO
55,394,000
56,815,100
1,421,100
6,784
96,605
103,389
NORTON
78,301,050
80,920,850
2,619,800
4,200
205,177
209,377
OROMOCTO
1,221,435,050
1,241,046,691
19,611,641
576,000
0
576,000
PAQUETVILLE
53,404,550
53,840,450
435,900
9,076
0
9,076
PERTH-ANDOVER
120,002,850
122,125,300
2,122,450
26,358
230,947
257,305
PETITCODIAC
92,473,300
93,054,500
581,200
14,850
307,586
322,436
PETIT-ROCHER
109,897,700
112,030,900
2,133,200
12,098
433,686
445,784
PLASTER ROCK
61,429,500
60,559,150
(870,350)
16,752
294,280
311,032
POINTE-VERTE
44,085,600
45,776,400
1,690,800
1,014
143,213
144,227
PORT ELGIN
25,126,600
24,787,700
(338,900)
5,771
35,395
41,166
QUISPAMSIS
1,800,765,800
1,850,878,750
50,112,950
115,092
0
115,092
REXTON
84,920,500
87,442,050
2,521,550
8,604
0
8,604
RICHIBUCTO
112,602,550
112,609,275
6,725
49,654
53,848
103,502
RIVERSIDE-ALBERT
22,566,800
22,796,000
229,200
893
19,378
20,271
RIVERVIEW
1,561,936,900
1,606,161,200
44,224,300
177,623
2,343,570
2,521,193
RIVIERE-VERTE
40,485,300
40,782,150
296,850
1,829
90,311
92,140
ROGERSVILLE
57,034,550
57,504,400
469,850
7,766
406,763
414,529
ROTHESAY
1,330,037,450
1,371,153,150
41,115,700
131,193
0
131,193
SACKVILLE
657,431,000
662,069,250
4,638,250
81,771
0
81,771
SAINT ANDREWS
328,967,400
332,488,550
3,521,150
62,406
0
62,406
SAINT JOHN
7,050,026,572
7,058,298,819
8,272,247
2,619,998
15,609,404
18,229,402
SAINT LEONARD
80,009,200
79,586,518
(422,682)
16,400
309,645
326,045
SAINT-ANDRE
188,978,350
194,530,500
5,552,150
63,387
0
63,387
SAINT-ANTOINE
113,371,600
114,257,850
886,250
12,615
302,847
315,462
SAINTE-ANNE-DE-MADAWASKA
44,604,600
44,633,500
28,900
2,786
183,164
185,950
SAINTE-MARIE-SAINT-RAPHAEL
34,006,150
34,698,950
692,800
3,250
217,387
220,637
SAINT-ISIDORE
51,280,050
50,382,350
(897,700)
6,473
34,574
41,047
SAINT-LEOLIN
20,959,800
21,163,600
203,800
146
209,469
209,615
SAINT-LOUIS-DE-KENT
61,104,700
61,091,300
(13,400)
8,478
101,664
110,142
SAINT-QUENTIN
136,251,700
137,003,200
751,500
21,133
396,892
418,025
SALISBURY
181,064,150
184,039,050
2,974,900
36,972
159,722
196,694
SHEDIAC
709,243,100
723,686,166
14,443,066
157,286
408,924
566,210
SHIPPAGAN
242,721,900
243,796,650
1,074,750
46,838
398,551
445,389
ST. GEORGE
139,243,600
141,389,744
2,146,144
41,681
82,920
124,601
ST. MARTINS
22,316,000
22,178,950
(137,050)
1,975
0
1,975
ST. STEPHEN
341,926,900
349,609,600
7,682,700
110,556
1,356,431
1,466,987
STANLEY
30,161,150
30,078,200
(82,950)
3,556
6,776
10,332
SUSSEX
420,413,200
418,199,298
(2,213,902)
151,773
463,606
615,379
SUSSEX CORNER
102,652,500
103,221,650
569,150
14,570
24,940
39,510
TIDE HEAD
61,360,950
63,006,750
1,645,800
1,239
31,963
33,202
TRACADIE
1,069,537,800
1,085,805,099
16,267,299
N/A
N/A
883,414
TRACY
25,877,750
26,173,400
295,650
972
143,232
144,204
UPPER MIRAMICHI
116,617,500
116,198,400
(419,100)
4,516
270,922
275,438
WOODSTOCK
516,065,950
517,352,312
1,286,36
1166,398
713,765
880,163
TOTAL 1 5,5051 52,756,192,739 665,047,234] =920,1521 53,233,4261 68,959,003
309 2/2
Jervis Bay Memorial Branch No. 53
New Brunswick Command, Royal Canadian Legion
1016 Bayside Drive Saint John, NB, E2J 4Y1
506-633-0092 2 jervisbay@rogers.com
13 February 2021
Mayor Don Darling
Members of Common Council
City of Saint John
VIA FMAII
Mayor Darling and Councillors:
On behalf of our members and those in our community who use our Park, thank you
for your financial support from your Land for Public Purpose Fund. Our rejuvenation of the
Jervis Bay -Ross Memorial Park on Loch Lomond Road is proceeding on schedule and
within budget.
The granite stones for our new 'Stairway to Service' monument, which your financial
support will be used for, are currently being cut. These steps will be engraved with the boot
and hand prints, and names, of Saint John and area veterans, service people and their
families. We had requests for engravings from England, British Columbia and California,
plus throughout New Brunswick.
Our goal, should Covid-19 conditions allow, is to have the monument dedication this
fall, along with the students of our nearby schools. The students will have a part to play in
the installation and update of this monument which we will make public in the next few
4hs,
Yours sincerely,
Harold E. Wright
President
310
Council & Mayor,
Hello! Upon reading the council agenda for March 8, 2021, 1 noticed there were 2 separate requests to
rename 3 streets in Saint John (1 request for Wilson & Ludlow Streets, and another for Foster Thurston
Dr).
I believe streets with issues should be renamed- but not if there is no reason to do so, such as
duplicates/triplicates, disconnected sections, or a historical problem with the name. None of the 3
above streets fit that criteria. In fact, one of the suggestions (CN Wilson Drive for Foster Thurston Dr)
would actually create a near -duplicate with Wilson Street).
Saint John has many streets with naming issues. Years ago, I sent the city a list of these (even after the
911 changes of the 90's, there are still a lot of naming issues remaining), and I even submitted name
suggestions for some of them.
In conclusion, I do believe the city should only rename streets if the renaming would do away with
potential confusion (such as doing away with some of the many Queens, Kings, Markets, Parks,
Fallsviews, Riverviews, etc), or the person the street is named after has been found do have done
something abhorrent. Perhaps streets that do have naming issues could be given the names that were
suggested, should they be deemed worthy.
Thank you for your time,
Matthew Wallace
311
Mayor and Council,
We heard the news of the proposed parking ticket increase for Saint John. As Uptown SJ business
owners we would like to express our concern should the motion pass final reading.
We, along with other uptown businesses are fighting as hard as we can to stay in business and are
running on life support just to survive this Covid-19 pandemic. Especially affected are the Monday -
Friday 8-5 businesses who have to overcome major obstacles as it is right now. These include huge
losses to the workforce uptown who would normally be daily customers, winter conditions always make
it difficult for access for both pedestrians and vehicles, as well as government restrictions associated
with Covid-19. Our daily transaction counts are down over 60% from last year and we are surely not the
only ones.
Please do not add another potential barrier to shopping uptown. Especially during the Covid-19
pandemic. We would like to see this motion tabled until the end of the Covid-19 pandemic to give us a
fighting chance of survival. We have invested everything we have in the form of time, energy, and
money into the uptown. We need allies not obstacles, customers not empty streets.
Thank you for your attention and consideration,
Mike & Vanessa Duncan
Rogue Coffee Company Inc.
36 Grannan Street
Saint John NB
506-721-2624
312
M&C No.
2021-055
Report Date
February 18, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Corporate Services
SUBJECT: Fundy Quay Option Agreement — Final Version of Ground Lease
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT FOR OPEN
SESSION OF COUNCIL
Pursuant to section 2.2(c) of the Option to Lease Agreement between the City of
Saint John and Fundy Quay Developments Inc., the Parties to the Option to Lease
Agreement have agreed on the final version of the Ground Lease the Parties will
enter into upon Fundy Quay Developments Inc.'s exercising of its option to lease.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLVED that the final version of the Ground Lease contemplated at Schedule B
the Option to Lease Agreement entered into on December 191", 2019 between the
City and Fundy Quay Developments Inc. be approved by the City in the form as
attached to M&C No. 2021-055 and presented to Committee of the Whole at its
February 22, 2021 meeting, pursuant to section 2.2 of the said Option to Lease
Agreement.
313
M&C No.
# found on Sharepoin'
Report Date
February 19, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Saint John Water
SUBJECT: Dividend Agreement
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
1. That the City enter into an Agreement with the Regional Development
Corporation for the repayment of the Regional Development Corporation's
contribution toward the construction of the seawall on the Fundy Quay site in the
form as presented to Committee of the Whole at its February 22, 2021 meeting;
and further
2. That the City enter into a Dividend Agreement with Fundy Quay Developments
Inc. for the repayment of the Regional Development Corporation's contribution
toward the construction of the seawall on the Fundy Quay site in the form as
presented to Committee of the Whole at its February 22, 2021 meeting.
314
M&C No.
2021-050
Report Date
February 17, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Growth and Community
Services
SUBJECT: Regional Economic Development Members' and Funding
Agreements
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT FOR OPEN
SESSION OF COUNCIL
The five municipalities of Saint John, Grand Bay -Westfield, Hampton, Quispamsis,
and Rothesay have voted to accept a new innovative model for regional economic
development which was established on January 1, 2021. Since Council's
endorsement of the proposed regional economic development model in July of
2020, significant work has been underway to establish the New Regional Economic
Development for Greater Saint John (REDGSJ) and wind up the operations of the
three predecessor agencies, Develop Saint John, Discover Saint John and
Economic Development Greater Saint John, that were previously funded by the
City to deliver economic development and destination marketing services. This
report recommends and formalizes the legal agreements (Members' and Funding
Agreements) which will govern the service expectations and funding
commitments of the new entity and the City of Saint John. These Agreements will
create a strong foundation and level of commitment from all member
municipalities to forge a new robust, regional model for economic development.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
Your City Manager recommends that Common Council:
1. Approve the Members' Agreement and Funding Agreements as
attached in Schedules "A" and "B" between the City of Saint John and
the New Regional Economic Development Agency for Greater Saint
John to support delivery of economic development services; and
2. Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the said agreements.
315
M&C No.
r found on Sharepoint
Report Date
February 18, 2021
Meeting Date
February 22, 2021
Service Area
Corporate Services
SUBJECT: Settlement of Labour Matter - CUPE Local 486
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT FOR OPEN
SESSION OF COUNCIL
N/A
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLVEDthat Common Council authorize the full and final settlement of a labour
matter involving a former employee of the City previously identified by Employee
No. xxxx in exchange for the lump sum payment of $80,000.00 (less the
withholding of applicable statutory deductions) and subject to the execution by
said former employee and by CUPE Local 486 of a Full and Final Release in a form
that is satisfactory to the General Counsel or her designate.
316
QDS'am2T low
M&C No.
2021-052
Report Date
November 18, 2020
Meeting Date
November 23, 2020
Service Area
Corporate Services
SUBJECT: Immutable Back -Up Storage Solution —AWS Enterprise Agreement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT FOR OPEN
SESSION OF COUNCIL
A key component of a cybersecurity program is a backup solution. The City has
always had back up data storage and this proved invaluable during the last cyber
attack. However, the ever-increasing sophistication of such attacks demands that
we pursue more modern options.
Part of the backup system demands immutable storage (i.e., storage where data
is fixed, unchangeable, and can never be deleted). The solution designed for the
City requires AWS S3 Object Storage. This is a cloud -based solution that is cost-
effective and minimizes the risks and maintenance associated with other options
for immutable storage. AWS S3 Object Storage is the only product today that
works with the City's backup solution and meets data sovereignty requirements.
The costs for cloud storage are based on usage. The implementation of a robust
records management policies and moving some applications to cloud -based
solutions will ensure that data storage is cost-effective. This means storing what
we need and applying appropriate retention schedules. The Information
Technology team will also leverage technology as it evolves to take advantage of
less expensive immutable storage solutions as they become available.
317
Council Vacancy
WHEREAS Ward 2 Councillor Sean Casey has been absent from the following four consecutive regular
meetings of the council, namely: January 11, 2021; January 28, 2021; February 8, 2021; and February 22,
2021
WHEREAS Councillor Casey did not indicate that his absences were a result of illness;
WHEREAS Common Council did not authorize Councillor Casey's absences;
WHEREAS s. 50(1)(g) of the Local Governance Act provides that a vacancy results in a council when a
member is absent from four or more consecutive regular meetings of the council, except in the case of
illness or with the authorization of the council;
WHEREAS s. 51(1) of the Local Governance Act provides that a council shall by resolution within 2 months
after a vacancy arises, declare any vacancy resulting under s. 50(1)(b) to (h);
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Saint John Common Council declares a vacancy on council in Ward 2 of
the City of Saint John effective February 23, 2021 as a result of Councillor Sean Casey having been absent
for four consecutive regular meetings without authorization of Council.
318