PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Tuesday, June 29, 2021, 6:00 P.M. Meeting Conducted by Electronic Participation Pages 1. Approval of the Agenda 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Minutes 3.1. March 16, 2021 1 - 10 3.2. March 23, 2021 11 - 17 4. Declaration of Conflict of Interest 5. Applications 5.1. 36 Richmond Street - Similar & Compatible Use 18 - 44 6. New Business 7. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee will be held on July 20, 2021. 8. Adjournment
Transcript
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, June 29, 2021, 6:00 P.M.
Meeting Conducted by Electronic Participation
Pages
1. Approval of the Agenda
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of the Minutes
3.1. March 16, 2021 1 - 10
3.2. March 23, 2021 11 - 17
4. Declaration of Conflict of Interest
5. Applications
5.1. 36 Richmond Street - Similar & Compatible Use 18 - 44
6. New Business
7. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee will be held on July 20, 2021.
8. Adjournment
1
Planning Advisory Committee
Date: Time: Location:
March 16, 2021 6:00 p.m. Meeting Conducted by Electronic Participation
Members Present Alexandra Weaver Crawford Brad Mitchell Lourdes Clancy Sullivan, Gary Susan Baxter Anne McShane Peter Pappas Gerry Lowe Staff Present Jacqueline Hamilton, Commissioner of Growth & Community Services Phil Ouellette, Director of Growth, Planning, And Community Services O'Reilly Tim, Director of Public Works & Transportation Services Jennifer Kirchner, Community Planning Manager Barb Crawford, Municipal Engineer for Infrastructure Development Mark Reade, Senior Planner Andrew Reid, Planner Katelyn Davis, Research & Development Coordinator Benjamin Peterson, Research & Development Coordinator Aimee Burgess, Recording Secretary
1
2
1. Approval of the Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED to approve the agenda as presented.
CARRIED GS/BM
2. Roll Call
The Chair stated the names of the members of the Planning Advisory Committee in attendance and stated that Neil Clements was absent.
3. Declaration of Conflict of Interest
The Chair, Alex Weaver Crawford and Peter Pappas stated a conflict of interest with Item 5.2.
4. Approval of the Minutes
4.1 Minutes from February 17, 2021
It was MOVED and SECONDED to approve the minutes of the February 17, 2021, Planning Advisory Committee meeting.
CARRIED LC/AMcS
5. Applications
5.1 727 Rothesay Avenue
Katelyn Davis gave a brief overview of the application via PowerPoint presentation. The applicant is proposing to install a digital billboard sign for CHQC Radio, Coop Radiophonique la Brise de la Baie ltée, which is a French community radio station located in the Samuel de Champlain Community Center. The proposed billboard is static on one side and an electronic message board on the other. The sign requires variances to increase the maximum area of a sign face for an electronic message board and to reduce the spacing requirement between billboard signs. Given the supporting Englobe report, staff are satisfied that the requested variances impact on the streetscape and drivers will not be a safety concern and recommended support of the proposed variances.
No letters were received.
Jason Ouellette, the applicant, appeared before the Committee, and spoke in favour of staff recommendation. Mr. Ouellette explained the benefits of the location and partnering with Habitat for Humanity Restore.
2
3
The Committee spoke of traffic concerns, the sign height for sight lines for traffic, size of the size of the sign, and the number of existing signs in the area. The Committee members spoke of the appropriateness for the sign, as Rothesay Avenue is a very high traffic area.
No members of the public spoke regarding the application.
Staff responded that the submitted engineered report considered traffic safety concerns, signage in the area, and site-specific considerations for the sign.
Tim O'Reilly, the Director of Public Works and Transportation for the City of Saint John, stated that the sign height would be taken into consideration with the application of the building permit to ensure the safety on Rothesay Avenue.
It was MOVED and SECONDED:
1. That the Planning Advisory Committee grant a variance from the requirements of the Zoning By-law that would increase the maximum sign face area of an electronic message board sign from 3.5 square metres to approximately 18.58 square metres and decrease the minimum spacing between billboard signs from 300 metres to a minimum of approximately 90 metres for the proposed billboard sign.
2. That the granting of the variances be subject to the following conditions:
a. that the electronic message board sign face faces North,
b. that the sign and its foundations be a minimum of three metres from the watermain; and
c. that the contractor, prior to any site work, must hydro-excavate to expose the watermain to confirm location and depth.
CARRIED GS/PP
NAY - Alex Weaver Crawford, Lourdes Clancy, & Brad Mitchell
5.2 2100 Sandy Point Road
Alex Weaver Crawford and Peter Pappas left the meeting at 6:38pm due to a conflict of interest.
The 1st Vice Chair, Brad Mitchell, took over as the Chair of the Meeting.
Andrew Reid gave a presentation of a summary of the submitted application. The proposal is to develop a partially vacant and forested waterfront property
3
4
located between Pelton Road and Westmount Drive into a nature-based retirement community. The applicant is seeking to amend the Municipal Plan by re-designating the property to Major Community Facility and extending the Primary Development Area, and further to rezone the property from Rural (RU) to Major Community Facility (CFM). The applicant is proposing to be responsible for all costs related to the extension of municipal water and sewer services to the subject property's entrance, adjacent to 2100 Sandy Point Road. Several added public benefits are also being proposed, which include the developer providing neighbourhood access to walking trails, reasonable contributions towards traffic calming measures at Foster Thurston Drive intersection, and enhanced pedestrian safety infrastructure along Sandy Point Road. the proposal does not detract from the vision of the Municipal Plan and it is aligned with many of the overarching goals of the Plan, including emphasis on complete communities and fiscal responsibilities. Extension of services will have minimal ongoing costs and no downstream issues were identified by Saint John Water.
Scott Walton, the applicant, on behalf of Ethos Ridge Ltd. appeared before the Committee and spoke in agreement with staff recommendation. Mr. Walton provided a presentation in support of the application. Mr. Walton committed to paying the cost incurred by any of the three current residents required to pay an annual unconnected flat rate for water should they decide not to connect to the new watermain, or the cost of hooking up to services. On blasting, Mr. Walton noted that geotechnical studies and the amount of blasting anticipated did not indicate a major effect to adjacent landowners but that pre-blast surveys would be conducted, and insurance would cover any unforeseen impacts. Mr. Walton also outlined the site selection process for the development.
Jill Jollineau, of 360 Pelton Road, appeared before the Committee and spoke in disagreement with the size of the project. She gave a brief description of the neighbourhood and had concerns with traffic, parking, and the buffering to Pelton Road.
Joan Pearce, of 352 Pelton Road, appeared before the Committee and spoke with concerns regarding snow removal, safety concerns for emergency vehicles and traffic, construction concerns with damage to streets and the length of construction. She had concerns with infrastructure improvements and suggested a 2021 traffic study when the effect of Covid has lessened.
Paul Desjardins, of 2121 Sandy Point Road, appeared before the Committee and spoke of safety concerns. He was concerned with the closure of the Millidgeville
4
5
Fire Station and thought that the location of the nearest fire department is too far away from the proposed development. He stated that the development is unsafe for the future residents of the proposed development.
George Losier, of 4 Lentook Avenue, appeared before the Committee and spoke of concerns in regard to city infrastructure, including water breaks and wastewater management. He also stated that he thinks there should be an environmental assessment.
Daniel Guest, owner of 2 lots on Pelton Road, appeared before the Committee and spoke mainly infrastructure concerns. He stated concerns of stormwater management, the sewer potentially going to the river, erosion, and the protection of the wells of the neighbouring properties. He spoke and presented pictures of some of the current deteriorating culverts and city infrastructure in the area.
Colin Forsythe, 2151 Sandy Point Road, appeared before the Committee and spoke of environmental concerns regarding the proposal. He gave a summary of the current landscape and habitat of the subject site and stated concerns regarding loss of wetlands and habitats. Mr. Forsythe stated the application goes against the provincial regulation of NBELG Regulation 90-80 and NB Wetland Policy regarding no net loss of wetlands. He was also concerned of sewerage overflow to the river and the impact of many species at risk and special concern.
John Mowatt, of 470 Pelton Road, appeared before the Committee and spoke of concerns in relation to the design, parking, and the protection of privacy of neighbouring homes. He spoke of concerns with shadows created by the height of the potential building and the potential of blasting to effect water quality and foundations of the homes near the site.
Kory Kinsella, of 305 Pelton Road, appeared before the Committee and spoke of concerns regarding blasting and the neighbouring properties wells and foundations. He was also concerned with storm water management, flooding, erosion, parking, safety, buffering, sounds and light pollution, shadowing, and geotechnical reports.
The Chair called for a 10-minute recess at 8:55pm.
As questioned by the Committee, Mr. Mowatt stated that most of the questions the first speakers had, had been asked to the proponent, however, it has been difficult as some of the plans for the development have changed during the
5
6
planning process. Mr. Forsythe stated that the environmental concerns and questions are new to the proponent.
Greg Collins, of 433 Pelton Road, and Paul Chase appeared before the Committee and commented on the letter from the applicant to the Committee that was in the package. He asked about site criteria and site selection.
Robert Bazaluk appeared before the Committee and spoke of fire and life safety concerns for the seniors who will be living on the site and the length of time for the fire department to arrive to the site.
Leslie King-Bazaluk appeared before the Committee and spoke of concerns regarding light pollution, and noise with the parking & the delivery area, and the proposed workshop.
Steve Carson, of behalf of Envision Saint John, appeared before the Committee and spoke in favor of the application. He stated that the project has a quality team assembled and that the product, once completed, will make for a great addition to the City of Saint John.
Alexandra Baird Young, of Turner-Drake & Partners Ltd., appeared before the Committee and summarized a comprehensive market study and analysis for the Saint John residential real estate market that she was a part of. She gave some detailed highlights of the study that included demographic analysis that showed an increase in the aging population of the city of 55 and above and she summarized that the rental real estate market has few units available as the vacancy rates are low. Therefore, in the near future senior housing is going to become a necessity as there is going to be an increase in demand.
Margaret Young, of EDM Planning Services, appeared before the Committee and spoke in favor of the application. She summarized that Urban Planning is shifting to planning by relationships and communities. She stated this project will enhance senior lives to allow for a better quality of life and embedding senor living within a residential neighbourhood allows for more inclusivity.
As questioned by the Committee, Mr. Carson stated that Develop Saint John created an inventory of vacant land. He stated that with the size of this magnitude there were few properties that met the size and other challenges included infrastructure and typography for this project. He also stated that the vacancy rates are getting close to 2% with rental units.
6
7
The Comittee asked what the driving force for people was leaving Saint John to live elsewhere. Ms. Baird Young responded that when they conducted the market study their discussion with developers included two main reasons people were choosing to leave the City: being a better climate and the perception of lower taxes.
Percy Wilbur, 1121 Kennebecasis Drive, appeared before the Committee and spoke in favor of the project. He welcomed the project and thanked the applicant for consulting the neighbourhood.
Robert Manning, a past chair of Enterprise Saint John and a former resident of Millidgeville, appeared before the Committee, and spoke in favor of the application. He stated it is important for the city to have quality units for seniors.
As questioned by the Committee, Mr. Manning stated the Plan SJ is meant to be a guide and that the Municipal Plan can be adapted for quality projects such as quality senior living that this proposal can enhance the City.
Monica Adair, co-founder of The Acre Architects, a resident of Millidgeville, and a daughter with aging parents appeared before the Committee and spoke in favor of the application. She stated that the project is being designed to reconnect people with nature to maintain well-being and quality of life for senior living.
Sandra Cook, landscape architect of Brackish Design Studios, appeared before the Committee and spoke in favor of the proposal. She showcased the diversity of different landscapes of the subject site and stated they plan to preserve the character for the future residents of the project. She explained that the site is connected to much bigger ecosystems such as rivers and woodlands and that there are natural watercourses on the site they need to be cognizant of. She stated that the design team is committed to making sure the net impact of the project is positive and that they are not creating negative impacts to the area.
As questioned by the Committee, Monica Adair stated that the site is not provincially designated as a wetland and that shadow studies have been done. She emphasized that they want to be a great neighbour and help biodiversity with this development. Sandra Cook stated that they want to minimize the number of trees cut and want to keep the mature forests. She commented that they are planning low impact water management, and that no storm water will be going into the river or a sewer. The design team is looking at green roofs, rain gardens, and other methods of gradual infiltration of storm water run off and
7
8
keeping it on the site. She has looked at the water retention and flow on the site and they are working with and around those specific areas. She explained that the main building is being put in the less mature treed area of the site as to not disturb the coniferous forests as they are a natural visual and noise buffer. She also stated that they plan to plant more trees and to underplanted with shrubs to create a thick visual buffer. She also stated that the building has been moved away from Pelton Road further since the original renderings to create a larger buffer and also to allow the preservation of the existing landscape. She stated that the access for the underground parking was moved away from Pelton Road to mitigate vehicle noise for the neighbours.
Norm McFarlane, a formal mayor of Saint John, appeared before the Committee, and spoke in favor of the application. He stated that the project will add to the community and will attract people to Saint John.
Tom Gribbons, of 105 Carmarthen Street, appeared before the Committee, and spoke in favor of the application. He stated the project is a modern interpretation of retirement living with access to trails and views of the Saint John River.
The applicant, Scott Walton, reappeared before the Committee, and thanked the citizens for submitting their concerns, noting many of them were identified during the community engagement process. Mr. Walton provided the Committee further information on the site selection process, experience of the developer's team, the CBRE Marketing study conducted, ESA study, groundwater recharge, shadow studies, and parking.
As questioned by the Committee, Mr. Tim O'Reilly of City Staff, stated that currently the City's revenues are meeting expenses and until there is more growth, meaning more revenue to the city, there cannot be additional city services. He explained as new developments occur; more revenues allow the City to keep up with the additional expenses for the expanded area. Mr. Phil Ouellette, City Staff, stated that this developer has committed to certain city upgrades to help the neighbourhood.
After considering the staff report, presentations, and the submitted correspondence, the Committee discussed amending staff recommendation to include four (4) conditions, to include the developer covering costs for three residents affect that will either connect to the City's water services or the annual fees associated to remaining disconnected form city water, to limit construction vehicles on Pelton Road, to ensure the project is developed according to the
8
9
proposal to the Committee, and for the developer to include a statement of study pertaining to how the development may affect groundwater recharge in the area.
It was MOVED and SECONDED:
1. That Common Council redesignate, 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, form Rural Resource Area to Stable Area;
2. That Common Council redesignate, 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);
3. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 8.57 hectares, located at 2100 Sandy Point Road, also identified as PID Number 55233977 and a portion of PID Number 55233233, from Rural (RU) to Major Community Facility (CFM) zone;
4. That Common Council impose the following conditions on 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 pursuant to section 59(1)(a)(ii) of the New Brunswick Community Planning Act:
a. There shall be no vehicular access, including construction vehicles, to the development off Pelton Road. The entrance to Pelton Road is to be gated and utilized only by service vehicles required for limited inspection and maintenance of the lift station and pad mount transformer. All other vehicles are to enter the site from Sandy Point Road;
b. The Sandy Point Road access driveway shall be owned and maintained by the property owner. It shall not be owned, maintained or serviced by the City of Saint John;
c. The development, in accordance with part e), shall be completed within 5 years of the date the rezoning came into effect. If it is not completed within that time, Council may take steps to cancel the resolution and
9
10
agreement and repeal the rezoning pursuant to Section 59(5) and 59(6) of the New Brunswick Community Planning Act; and,
d. As part of their stormwater management plan, the developer incorporates a statement or study pertaining to how the development may affect groundwater recharge in the area.
e. The development and use of the parcel of land shall be in accordance with a detailed site plan, landscaping plan and elevation plans, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer. These plans shall be attached to the permit application for the development of the parcel of land and shall substantially conform to the landscape and site plans contained in this report, with particular regard to the minimum 30 metre wooded buffer between any building and the northern property line at Pelton Road and the minimum 30 metre setback and buffer from the Kennebecasis River.
CARRIED GL/LC
6. New Business
No new business was discussed.
7. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee is March 23, 2021.
8. Adjournment
It was MOVED and SECONDED to adjourn the meeting at 11:38pm.
CARRIED GS/LC
10
1
Planning Advisory Committee
Date: Time:
March 23, 2021 6:00 p.m.
Members Present Alexandra Weaver Crawford, Chair Brad Mitchell, 1st Vice Chair Anne McShane, 3rd Executive Member Gary Sullivan, Councillor Lourdes Clancy Peter Pappas Neil Clements Gerry Lowe Members Absent Susan Baxter Staff Present Jennifer Kirchner, Community Planning Manager Mark Reade, Senior Planner Mark O’Hearn, Planner Ben Peterson, Research & Development Coordinator Aimee Burgess, Recording Secretary
11
2
1. Approval of the Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED to approve the agenda as presented.
CARRIED BM/LC
2. Roll Call
Alex Weaver Crawford, the Chair, stated that Susan Baxter was absent.
3. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
There were no conflicts of interest declared.
4. Approval of the Minutes
There were no minutes to approve.
5. Applications
5.1 545 Sandy Point Road
Benjamin Peterson gave a brief explanation of the application via PowerPoint Presentation. The application seeks to rezone a parcel of land from Neighbourhood Community Facility (CFN) to Low-Rise Residential (RL) in order to facilitate the adaptive reuse of a former Place of Worship. The applicant proposes the creation of a single dwelling unit and has not indicated any further redevelopment plans for the site at this time.
No letters were received from members of the public.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to table the item for technical difficulties with the applicant.
CARRIED BM/AMcS
At 7:26pm
It was MOVED and SECONDED to lift the application from the table for discussion.
CARRIED GS/GL
Xiaodu Ge, of Moose and Panda Recreation Ltd., the applicant, appeared before the Committee and agreed with staff recommendation.
No members of the public were present to speak in favor or opposition of the application.
It was MOVED and SECONDED:
12
3
1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 7,261square metres, located at 545 Sandy Point Road, also identified as PID Number 00051508, from Neighbourhood Community Facility (CFN) to Low-Rise Residential (RL).
2. 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 7,261 square metres, located at 545 Sandy Point Road, also identified as PID Number 00051508:
a. 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
b. The above elevation and site plans be attached to the permit application for the development of the parcel of land.
CARRIED LC/AMcS
5.2 439 Prince Street
Mark O'Hearn provided a brief summary of the application via PowerPoint Presentation. The proposal involves the construction of eight townhouse buildings on the remainder of the property located at 439 Prince Street. The applicant is seeking approval for the acceptance of money in-lieu of Land for Public Purposes, the divesting of three existing Land for Public Purposes parcels, the approval of private street extensions, and the approval of a variance to allow for the continuation of part-lots. After careful consideration, staff recommends approval of the application with a condition to ensure that new part-lot purchasers are included into the existing trustee association, which will maintain the private streets and other trustee lands.
There were 3 letters received with questions and concerns about the application.
Rick Turner, of Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd., representing Viva Developments, appeared before the Committee and spoke in favor of staff
13
4
recommendation. Mr. Turner responded to some concerns from the letters received.
Ron Pearman, of 1 Bridgeview Court, appeared before the Committee with concerns about the height of the development, shadows, garbage pick-up, storm-drainage, traffic and cul-de-sacs.
Pat Burke, appeared before the Committee and stated that he no longer has any comments or questions.
Ase Kelly-Berg, a resident of the neighbourhood, appeared before the Committee and had concerns about safety and increased traffic in the area. She suggested a crosswalk at a busy intersection in the area.
As questioned by the Committee, Mr. Turner explained the reasons for the height and setback reductions and explained the distances between the proposed buildings. He also stated that the design team was working on a storm water management plan ensuring it meets the current standards of the city's by-laws for storm water. Mr. Turner stated there were no Traffic Impact Studies, but that this project has less density then the initial project approved.
As questioned by the Committee, the City's Traffic Engineer advised that there was no concerns with the additional traffic due to the project and did not require a traffic impact study. The Committee discussed the addition of a condition to address the retaining wall on site.
It was MOVED and SECONDED:
1. That Common Council accept a money in-lieu of Land for Public Purposes dedication for the proposed Fallsview Village tentative subdivision at 439 Prince Street.
2. That the Planning Advisory Committee consent to the divesting of three existing Land for Public Purposes parcels at 439 Prince Street, also identified as PID numbers 55193023, 55193015, 55193122.
3. That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the extension of the private street Bridgeview Court to Lancaster Avenue, including the release of Parcels A & B being portions of the private streets Rockingstone Drive and Bridgeview Court, as illustrated on the attached Fallsview Village tentative subdivision plan.
14
5
4. That the Planning Advisory Committee grant a variance from the requirements of the Subdivision By-law allowing the Development Officer to endorse subdivision plans that create part-lots for the eight townhouse buildings of the proposed Fallsview Village subdivision, on condition that documents, acceptable to the Development Officer, be registered to ensure property owners of the part-lots are included into the Rockingstone Garden Homes Inc. trustee association with the same rights and responsibilities as existing members.
CARRIED BM/GS
5.3 2400 Ocean Westway
Mark Reade provided a brief summary of the application via PowerPoint Presentation. The proponent is proposing to construct a new access road to the existing quarry at 2400 Ocean Westway. The new access road would run from the northern terminus of Katie Drive, an undeveloped Public Street, along an existing waterline easement to the quarry site. Development of the access road requires a Municipal Plan Amendment from the Parks and Natural Areas designation to the Rural Resource designation and a rezoning from Rural (RU) to Pit and Quarry (PQ). A variance is also required to reduce the setback from the property lines of the site for a portion of the access road. Staff are recommending approval of the application with several conditions related to the mitigation of potential impacts of the new access on the surrounding community and the design of the access road. The Staff recommendation requires confirmation that the proponent has obtained the necessary Provincial approvals and agreements related to upgrades to Katie Drive and the design an operation of the access road.
There were three (3) letters received in opposition of the application.
There was one (1) letter received in support of the application.
Rick Tuner, of Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd., appeared before the Committee and spoke in favor of staff recommendation. Mr. Turner also suggested an amendment to condition 4 (c) i) of the Staff recommendation to change the requirement that the water transmission main / roadway crossing be at an angle as close as possible to 90 degrees as opposed to the 90-degree requirement provided in the Staff recommendation. Mr. Turner noted the quarry operates in accordance with the standards established in the Pit and Quarry
15
6
Zone and has operated since the 1960’s. He introduced the proponent David Galbraith, of Galbraith Construction.
Responding to questions from the Committee Members, Mr. Galbraith noted truck traffic is a main concern with pit and quarry operations and higher truck volumes have occurred with recent projects undertaken by Galbraith Construction. The proposed access road would reduce truck traffic along this section of Ocean Westway, which in their opinion is a benefit to the neighbourhood. He noted the application does not seek an expansion of the area to be excavated, and if the project is not approved, trucks will continue to use Ocean Westway to access the quarry.
Responding to a question from the Committee related to possible measures to mitigate impacts on the two dwellings adjacent to Katie Drive, Mr. Turner noted a hedge, fence, and tree retention were all means of mitigating impact from the proposed road. Mr. Turner also noted the proposed roadway improvements at the Ocean Westway/King William Road intersection would improve sight distance at this location.
Jeff Tulk and Leanne Chase, residents of 2340 Ocean Westway, appeared before the Committee in opposition of the application. The referred to their letter previously submitted to the Committee. They had concerns of truck traffic, privacy, the loss of value to their home, the potential damage to their property, and the loss of nature around their property. They noted a fence or berm between the proposed access road and their property would not benefit them. Mr. Tulk estimated approximately 240 trucks access the site daily. Ms. Chase noted that Mr. Galbraith offered to purchase their property and that they were reviewing possible legal issues surrounding the purchase of the former Lands for Public Purposes parcel by Galbraith from the City.
Steve Cuzak, a resident of the area, appeared before the Committee with concerns of truck traffic.
Mr. Turner reappeared before the Committee and noted truck volumes are currently higher given that aggregate is being supplied to the West Side Port Modernization project and noted the former parcel of Lands for Public Purposes was directly adjacent to lands owned by Galbraith Construction.
The Committee discussed the property at 2340 Ocean Westway would be impacted by the new access road through an increased intensity of truck traffic, while the broader neighbourhood would benefit to the proposed access road. It
16
7
was noted by the Committee that the applicant and adjacent landowners could still discuss issues related to the access road prior to the Public Hearing at Common Council.
Responding to a question from the Committee, Staff noted the two lots adjacent to Katie Drive were approximately 90 metres in depth and that the Katie Drive right-of-way having a width of approximately 20 metres. This would leave a 5-metre area on either side of the proposed access road to incorporate a fence, berm, or other means of buffering.
Staff also noted that it is a requirement of Saint John Water that the proposed roadway crosses the pipeline at a 90-degree angle. Mr. Reade noted, based on a review of the drawings prepared by the applicant there is some flexibility to redesign the roadway alignment to meet this requirement. In response to comments from the Committee related to the impact on the value of the properties adjacent to Katie Drive, Staff noted that the Committee could impose conditions to mitigate impacts of the proposal such as a berm or fence.
The Committee discussed the application and thought that the proposal was good but that more discussion was needed between the applicant and the homeowners of 2340 and 2346 Ocean West Way.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to deny staff recommendation.
CARRIED GS/AMcS
NAY - Brad Mitchell - Gerry Lowe - Neil Clements
6. New Business
No new business was discussed.
7. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee is April 13, 2021.
8. Adjournment
It was MOVED and SECONDED to adjourn the meeting at 8:36pm.
CARRIED LC/BM
17
Page 1 of 7
Date: June 25, 2021
To: Planning Advisory Committee
From: Growth & Community Services
Meeting: June 29, 2021
SUBJECT
Applicant: Kit Hickey
Landowner: Rehabitat Inc.
Location: 36 Richmond Street/105 Prince Edward Street
PID: 00012450 / 55122162
Plan Designation: Medium to High Density Residential
Zoning: General Commercial (CG)
Application Type: Similar and Compatible Use
Jurisdiction: . The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory
Committee to permit a proposed use that is otherwise not
permitted under the Zoning By-law if, in its opinion, the proposed
use is sufficiently similar to or compatible with a use that is
permitted in that zone. Terms and conditions can be imposed.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is seeking to use the second and third floor of the existing building at 36 Richmond
Street/105 Prince Edward Street (to be identified as “36 Richmond Street” in remaining text of this
report) as a “supported” housing facility. The property is zoned General Commercial (CG), which
allows for supportive housing. However, the applicant’s intended use does not fulfill all the
requirements of the supportive housing definition within the Zoning Bylaw, which is why the
18
Kit Hickey 36 Richmond Street/105 Prince Edward Street June 25, 2021
Page 2 of 7
applicant has sought a similar and compatible use approval for the proposed facility. Staff
recommend approval of the application subject to a condition limiting the number of occupants to
nine.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Advisory Committee approve a supported housing facility, as a similar and
compatible use to supportive housing, at 36 Richmond Street/105 Prince Edward Street (PIDs
00012450 / 55122162), subject to the condition that the occupancy of the facility be limited to a
maximum of nine.
DECISION HISTORY
On November 20, 2018, the Planning Advisory Committee recommended to Common Council to
“rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 326 square metres, located at 105 Prince
Edward Street (this is the same building as 36 Richmond Street), also identified as PID Nos.
00012450 and 55122162, from “CM” Mixed Commercial to “CG” General Commercial.” The
recommendation included a section 59 condition that “a site plan is to be attached to the
application for the building permit for the proposed development and all site improvements
illustrated on the plan must be completed within one year of obtaining a building permit.” Common
Council adopted the third reading of the PAC recommendation on December 17th, 2018.
On December 18, 2018, the City of Saint John issued a Development Officer Variance for the
property to reduce the number of parking spaces from seven to three to accommodate existing
site conditions. Staff was of the opinion the variance was reasonable due to the availability of on-
street parking options, proximity of public transit routes as well as the number of employees
walking to 105 Prince Edward Street.
In 2021, Rehabitat Inc. purchased the building from the previous owners who had received the
planning approvals in 2018.
ANALYSIS
Proposal
The applicant is seeking to use the second and third floor of the existing building at 36 Richmond
Street as a “supported” housing facility, while maintaining the use of the first floor for the
operations of the Wheelhouse (office space). The applicant defines “supported” housing as a use
very similar to “supportive” housing, but without the 24-hour on-site support and corresponding
licencing from the Government of New Brunswick.
The property is zoned General Commercial (CG), which allows for the use of supportive housing.
However, the applicant’s intended use does not fulfill all the requirements of the supportive
housing definition within the Zoning Bylaw, which is why the applicant has sought a similar and
compatible use approval for the proposed facility.
While Rehabitat is an independent company focused on real estate acquisition, it works hand-in-
19
Kit Hickey 36 Richmond Street/105 Prince Edward Street June 25, 2021
Page 3 of 7
hand with its sister organization - Housing Alternatives. In turn, Housing Alternatives is a private,
non-profit organization that provides development and management services to housing co-
operatives and non-profit housing organizations in southwestern New Brunswick. In total, Housing
Alternatives offers over 650 units in the Greater Saint John region that support accommodation
options along the affordable housing continuum.
The applicant is seeking to transform the top two floors of 36 Richmond St. into a seven-unit home
for homeless youth (ages 16-24 years old). According to a 2018 Human Development Council
report, the child poverty rate for Ward 3, which includes the Central Peninsula, was 45%.1 Future
tenants of 36 Richmond will be required to apply through the Teen Resource Centre (TRC) and
be accepted into their case management program.
Those youth accepted to the program will be supported by 24-hour case management on-call
support from TRC, which is located directly adjacent to 36 Richmond, as well as the property
management company supporting the building (i.e. Rehabitat Inc.). In addition, youth accepted to
the Program will be supported by the Urban Youth Employment/Education Service (UYES)
program, which “is a collaborative effort between five non-profits (The Learning Exchange,
Community Loan Fund, Outflow Ministries, Human Development Council, and the Teen Resource
Centre) aimed at removing barriers for youth in the Saint John community to help them move
towards their employment and education goals.”2 The UYES does offer financial support to those
youth involved with the program. Those youth who will live at 36 Richmond will not pay more than
30% of their gross monthly income, which is considered the threshold for affordable housing.
While there are a variety of rooming houses and “supportive” housing facilities across Saint John,
the program envisioned for 36 Richmond is unique and seeks to transition youth into more stable
living conditions. The applicant’s program and accommodations does have some similarities to
First Steps, located on 120 Coburg Street, however that facility does offer on-site support.
The applicant intends to maintain the existing use on the ground floor of the building at 36
Richmond Street, which is The Wheelhouse. It should be noted that the entrance to the
Wheelhouse is located on Prince Edward Street, while the entrance for the proposed seven-unit
dwelling is separate and located on Richmond Street.
Site and Neighbourhood
The subject property (PID 00012450 / 55122162) is approximately 162 m² and contains one three-
storey structure that encompasses approximately 100% of the existing lot (PID 0012450) and a
parking lot, situated on an adjacent parcel (PID 55122162). This parking area, located directly to
the south-west of the subject property, currently provides parking s for the building on the subject
property.
The subject property contains frontage on Prince Edward Street to the south-east and Richmond
1 Human Development Council, “Ward Profiles,” (2018), available at: Ward-Profiles-2021-Update-1.pdf (sjhdc.ca) 2 Saint John Learning Exchange, “UYES!,” (2021), available at: UYES | SJ Learning Exchange
• A similar and compatible use for 36 Richmond Street/105 Prince Edward Street to accommodate a supported housing for seven homeless youth on the two upper floors of the building.
• Youth will be supported by case managers from the Teen Resource Centre.
• Ground level will remain used as an office (i.e. The Wheelhouse).
32
3
Proposal
Site Plan33
4
Proposal
AirPhoto34
5
Proposal
Street View35
6
Proposal
Street View36
7
Proposal
Interior37
8
PlanSJ
Medium to High Density Residential38
9
ZoneSJ
CG - General Commercial39
10
ZoneSJ
“supportive housing” means an establishment licensed or approved by a government agency that provides care and or
supervision on a 24-hour basis by professional staff to a maximum of nine residents under the age of nineteen, or to a maximum of nine residents of any age pursuant to the Family
Services Act, but not both.
Defining Supportive Housing40
11
(a) Supportive housing shall be limited to a maximum of nine residents;
(b) The lot containing supportive housing shall be at least 125 metres away from another lot also containing a supportive housing if both are in a Residential zone;
(c) Except for a sign permitted in Part 7, there shall not be any change to the exterior appearance of the building that would indicate supportive housing is in the building;
(d) In accordance with Part 4, there shall be at least one on-site parking space for every three residents in the supportive housing in addition to those required for any other uses of the lot; and
(e) No bed and breakfast, garden suite, home day care, home occupation, neighbourhood day care, or secondary suite is permitted in any building on the lot.
Zoning Variances
Section 9.1441
12
1. Rezoning from “CM” Mixed Commercial to “CG” General Commercial
2. Section 59 Amendmenta) A site plan is to be attached to the application for the building permit for the proposed development and all site improvements illustrated on the plan must be completed within one year of obtaining a building permit.
Prior Approvals
November 201842
13
Engagement
On June 18, letters sent to all property owners within 100 metres of the subject
property on
As of June 29, [#] emails received from the public.
43
14
Staff Recommendation
That the Planning Advisory Committee approve a supported housing facility, as a similar and compatible use to supportive
housing, at 36 Richmond Street/105 Prince Edward Street (PIDs 00012450 / 55122162), subject to the condition that the occupancy of the facility be limited to a maximum of nine.
