Word File FORP Nov 8-Jrp

8/8/2019 Word File FORP Nov 8-Jrp

1/22

Friends of Rockwood Park________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Speaking Notes:

My name is Joan Pearce, I am the chair of The Friends of Rockwood Park Inc. Thank you

for this opportunity to make a presentation on the Sandy Point Rd. planning study beforeyou deal with the recommendations from the planning department on this file.Information in this presentation has come from various sources.

Presentation

prepared by Friends of Rockwood Park

for

Saint John Common Council

in response to

Rockwood Park / Sandy Point Road Planning Study

November 8, 2010

1


2/22


Page 2 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Speaking notes: Read the Mission statement

A couple of residents of Sandy point Road living on private lots adjacent to the park,not living in the park have been treated with disrespect by public comments implyingthat they were fighting development along the road in order to prevent anyone elsefrom

The mission of FORP Inc. is to work and advocatefor the protection of the natural environment ofRockwood Park in Saint John, New Brunswick.

FORP was established in 2005 to try to preventenvironmental damage to the park by the constructionof Emera Brunswick Pipeline and has been acting as awatchdog ever since.

Mission Statement:

No members live on property adjacent to Rockwood Park

2


3/22


Page 3 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Speaker Notes:

Councillor Farrens question - Why did the City acquire these lands in the first place? - has

not been answered. WHY?

Additional Information:

1. There has been no report released yet. We have information that there is such a record ina city department but this information will not be released. We do wonder why that is so.

2. Road improvements and the water and sewage project apparently caused some problemsto #1641 Sandy Point Road. This possible damage is one reason that we are asking forenvironmental assessments on every lot before development adversely impactsRockwood Park.

3. The ADI study indicates development proposals will go into the park up to 150 m. TheMayor has stated publicly that development will not go beyond 150m. Why then did theplanning department show on all their maps that the study would include lands to a depthof 250-450 m. from the road?

Outstanding ConcernsCommon Council and the public are waiting forreports from:1. the City Solicitor on what lands were purchased and the reasons why they

were purchased, in response to Councillor Farrens motion of August 3,2010;

2. the report from the City manager in response to a motion to him on thedamage to property at # 1641 Sandy Point Road caused by the extensivework along Sandy Point Road and the associated fill.

3. the report from the city manager on the Recommendations from the

Rockwood Park Advisory Board.and Concerns re:

4. Reasons for the area of study extended into Rockwood Park 250 to 450 m.

5. the legal status of Highland Park lands in Rockwood Park

6. Proposed development in ADI study

7. Plan SJ

3


4/22


Page 4 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Speaking Notes:Unsolicited opinion by 2 retired city indicated that all of the area that citizenstraditionally believe to be Rockwood Park property was purchased by the Land

Committee with the intent to enlarge the park. There exist written records of when, why,and by whom lands were purchased. Apparently, those city records cannot be located. Aformer city councillor has said that he served on the land committee when land waspurchased to increase the Park. It was definitely the intent of the land committee at thattime to enlarge the Park.

What is the opinion of the citys Leisure Services Department? This department has been

quiet on this issue of Rockwood Park boundaries despite the fact that that department isresponsible for managing the park.

Rockwood Park Boundaries

For decades, Saint John citizens have consideredRockwood Park to be the area between Sandy Point Rd.,Foster Thurston drive and the throughway, HawthorneAvenue and area around Lily Lake. This has beenconfirmed:

in the city's tourist literature,

in city maps,

in special maps of Rockwood Park,

in a master plan for the management of Rockwood Parkcommissioned by the city in 1988

In Service New Brunswick records

Pg. 7 of Sandy Point Road Planning Study

Staff report Planning Commissioner Jim Baird in 2004

4


5/22


Page 5 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

It seems pretty clear that the lands were purchased for park, and limiting what is legallyRockwood Park is contrary to the intent. The city is once again betraying the trust the

citizens have in the city and its intents. What recourse do we have to hold the city to itsword?

Public Statements

City solicitor first reported that the boundaries of RockwoodPark were unknown. He later said that the legal RockwoodPark consists of Trust lands previously owned by Saint JohnHorticultural Association and that the rest of Rockwood Parkis city-owned park land.

Mayor Court continues to say that the land traditionally knownas Rockwood Park is parkland owned by the city BUT it is

NOT Rockwood Park. Its not part of Rockwood Park. Its

never been part of Rockwood Park. - CBC news radio report. What kind of reasoning is this?

City money was used to purchase this land. The city musthave records showing what property was bought, from whomit was purchased and for what purpose it was purchased.

5


6/22


Page 6 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Highland Park Company in Rockwood Park

established in 1899 to acquire land and sell parcels to

members of the company.

became the property of the Saint John Horticultural

Association

is shown on maps as private property

is it private property, or does it belong to the Saint John

Horticultural Association?

what is its current legal standing?

6

Read only

The Highland Park Company had been established in 1899 to acquire land and sellparcels to members of the company. Eventually its remaining lands became the propertyof the Saint John Horticultural Association, but it had not been included in schedule A ofthe lands which the Saint John Horticultural Association conveyed to the city on March6, 1967 (registry office page 325) and apparently still is the property of the Saint JohnHorticultural Association and falls under the 1893 Act. Since it is shown on mapsattached to the ADI and the technical background report from staff as private property,which is it, is it private property, or does it belong to the Saint John HorticulturalAssociation? What is its current legal standing? The Highland Park property is shown aswhite boxes within the park.

The next slide shows Highland Park in white on the map within the park.


7/22


Page 7 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Speaking notes:

The next 5 slides all deal with the very bad situation now existing at and around 1671

Sandy Point Road. I am using this lot as an example to indicate the degree of lack oftransparency and clarity that this entire issue has had, and to indicate the damage thatcould occur all along Sandy Point Road if the proposed development takes place. This isa map that has been generated from several city maps so as to make the issues moreeasily understood. Please note #1671 marked in red on this map. This lot was shown on aMarch 2009 map as a part of Rockwood Park. The City purchased 17.5 acres of landfrom the Estate of John OLeary. It was in Common Council September 21, 1970

minutes that this purchase being made in continuation of the Citys policy of acquiringall lands bounded by the Sandy Point Road and Foster Thurston Drive for the long-range

development of Rockwood Park. This is one public record that we have found regardingthe properties in Rockwood Park but it is our opinion that each lot purchased by the city

would have had a similar motion made. Perhaps this information is recorded in therecords of the land committee which apparently are not public. It is a special irony thatthis is the only lot that is documented in Common Council minutes as being a part ofRockwood Park and this is the one that has suffered the most damage from the city.

April 2003, Sandy Point Road Water & Sewer Extension and Road Reconstructionproject was approved. This was approved to extend water and sewage from UniversityAvenue, up to the university, then over and along Sandy Point Road to join with an

City purchased Lot 1671 in 1971 toaugment Park land

Apr. 2003 Sandy Point Road Water &

Sewer Extension and Road

Reconstruction project was approved.

Nothing was mentioned in the Council

Meeting regarding the lot

PID00418129.

Aug. 2003 A blueprint of a possible

future subdivision Harrigan Lake

Court with several single-family

dwelling lots was noted in the Citys

file for lot PID00418129.

Despite repeated inquiries by area

residents, city officials never

mentioned their plan to clear-cut

Harrigan Lake Property and use it todump construction debris and install

the storm drain.

7


8/22


Page 8 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

existing line on Kennebecasis Drive. The main reason was to provide better water serviceto the Westmount Drive area (M&C 2008-293 Sept 26, 2008) but since 2003 cityofficials have said that there has to be residential development in the park to help pay forthe Sandy Point Road Water and sewage extension.

Nothing was mentioned in the Council Meeting #1671

Still in 2003, ablueprint of a possible future subdivision Harrigan Lake Court withseveral single-family dwelling lots was noted in the Citys file forthis lot #1671PID00418129.

Despite repeated inquiries by area residents, city officials never mentioned their plan toclearcut #1671, Harrigan Lake Property, and use it to dump construction debris andinstall the storm drain. Nor did any city staff explain the subdivision plans.

The residents found out, not from the City,but by accident, that a part of the HarriganLake Court was to be clear-cut. No notice was given. No public consultation was held.

The area residents learned in the next few days that all the work would be within theCitys legal rights, and they could not be stopped from clear-cutting.M&C-2008-293 Sept 26, 2008 ) Harrigan Lake area:

There is an 8 to 10 acre portion of city land between 1661 and 1687 Sandy Point Rd. thatcould sustain a 15 to 20 unit residential development. The area was rugged with somelow areas. However; most of the land between 1661 and 1687 Sandy Point Rd. wascleared, grubbed, and filled as part of the project. A storm drain was installed that can beused for the road in the proposed subdivision so reported Former City commissioner JimBaird in 2004.


9/22


Page 9 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

The public has been told repeatedly that the city has notified the pubic that it has been thecitys intention to sell lots along Sandy Point Road on city owned land adjacent to thepark since 2003. Lets see how this notification is done. In the case of a re-zoning whichhappened in Dec. 2004, a public notice was placed in the newspaper. Note the date Dec.20, 2004. A long list of PID numbers was listed. The wording said park not RockwoodPark and the map did not show Harrigan Lake just a portion of Sandy Point Road. Apublic notice is easy to miss, especially the week before Christmas and most of us missedit. A letter was sent to a few residents on the Sandy Point. They were told that thisrezoning was for single-family housing and they thought this was OK. BUT they did notexpect the wholesale destruction of a piece of Rockwood Park. The rezoning came beforecouncil and council approved it.

It would be interesting to know if each of those councillors was aware that they wereagreeing to re-zoning a portion of Rockwood Park.

City advertises zoning from Park to R-1A Single -Family Residential Public notification by localnewspaper notice local residents were advisedby letter. Public notice stated PID numbers anddid not say Rockwood Park.

Rezoning of 1313 to 1711 Sandy Point Road from

P (Park) to R-1A (One Family Residential)

Municipal Designation Amendment for the samearea from Open Space to Low DensityResidential

Darlings Rockwood Condominiums DarlingConstruction (North Star Holdings) applied tobuild Rockwood Condominiums (2 x 6-storyapartment buildings, each with 83 units) in 1671Sandy Point Road. Darling later withdrew their

application.

Cavanaghs 48 townhouses Cavanagh Homesapplied to build 48 townhouses in 4 hectares ofcity-owned land including 1581 and 1601 Sandy

Point Road, next to Harrigan Lake property.

Moratorium on development

DEC-2004

2005

2009 Jan.

2009 Jan.

2009 June

Leisure Services map of March 2009shows this lot as park

8


10/22


Page 10 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

This is what lot #1671 looks like in the spring of 2010.

Damage and impact from development can be expected to extend well into the park

where ever it occurs. The integrity of the park would suffer far more than the actualdeveloped area.

Currently the 150m wooded edge of Rockwood Park along the road serves fairly well asa buffer.

The city, which should be protecting the public interest, has acted as badly as one of ourworst developers.

It must be stressed that it is illegal to disturb wetlands and to discharge contaminatedwater into a Fish Management Area (Harrigan Lake). The city has said that the storm

sewer is draining into Harrigan Lake. The city did not request a permit from NewBrunswick Environment to bury a wetland. Friends of Rockwood Park have notified boththe local Dept of Environment and the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans forthe destruction of fish habitat.

The Current Condition of 1671 Sandy Point Road

One of the park trailshas been cut-off

Storm drain flowingtowards Harrigan Lake

Discharge from thestorm drain is pooledin the delicate wetland

9


11/22


Page 11 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Speaking Notes:In January of 2009 Darling Construction (North Star Holdings) applied to buildRockwood Condominiums This is what they looked like. This plan was laterwithdrawn.

The ADI study recommends (read above) The design in the study assumes thatthere are design guidelines which will be tasteful, upscale and compatible with the naturalenvironment. Unfortunately Saint John does not have any design guidelines and pastpractice has shown that a developer can pretty well get away with any poorly designeddevelopment he wishes.

Additional Information:(2 x 6-story apartment buildings, each with 83 units) at 1671 Sandy Point Road. Darling later withdrew

their application. The City was trying to extend their deal with Darling for four additional months to theend of Dec 2009, but the matter was never discussed by the Common Council. Darlings position on

developing 1671 Sandy Point Road is unknown at this point.

Similarly, the Cavanaghs plan to build 48 townhouses has been put on hold but they are still quiteinterested. Mr. Cavanagh haspublicly stated that Im willing to work with the City on whatever we can tomake it work

Surely Council realizes that this is not what Rockwood Park is about.

Proposed Development at 1671 Sandy Point RoadADI recommends in their report : two multi-unit apartment/condo/townhouse buildings aligned perpendicular to SandyPoint Road. The scale of the buildings begin at the road with a 4-5 storey tower apartment style building that gradually steps

down to 2-3 storey high nearest the Harrigan Lake look-off.

Should this materialize, viewers might see this from the nature trails at Harrigan Lake.

10


12/22


Page 12 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Read this

Inevitable Negative Impact

to the EnvironmentIf two buildings contained 80 units each, the

zoning by-law would require 200 parking

spaces. That is approximately

3 acres of paved surfaces

Further clear-cuttingwould likely beneeded to make a parking lot.

Pollutants such as salt, motor oil,soap and windshield washer fluid

would run into Harrigan Lake through

the storm drain. Flooding is already reported by thehomeowner adjacent to the clear-cut

area. Melting snow and rain water

falling on the hard surfaces, not being

able to be absorbed into the ground,

could cause further problems. 11


13/22


Page 13 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

This is a map indicating a proposed sub-division. You will note the date September 25,2008, long before the moratorium and the Planning Study. We wonder if the council of

the day really understood that this was a subdivision proposed for Rockwood Park.Harrigan Lake isnt shown nor the golf course.

Take a look at the proposed street.

Is there any reason we should not conclude that there seemed to be no real effort to beclear to the public?

12


14/22


Page 14 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Speaking Notes:Lots along Sandy Point Road next to the golf course had earlier been deemed surplus by City staff and

could be sold as serviced lots. Remember that the city has been saying that they want to recoup the expenseof the water and sewage infrastructure. Serviced lots in some Millidgeville locations are offered for salefrom $40,000.00 to $100,000.00.

In 2007, #1375 and 1385 lots deemed surplus to the city were created by the city in 2007 for sale asresidential lots. They were purchased for $35,000.00 plus a lot levy of $8,856 for the two lots. Twoserviced lots in Rockwood Park with a great view, a prime location with no fear of development that wouldblock the view. Similarly, Lot #1345 was purchased $20,001.00 plus a lot levy of $4,428.HST.If the city wants to pay for the infrastructure why arent they charging the going rate for a serviced lot in aprime location?

How does a member of the public know that there is Rockwood Park land for sale? I have been told thatthere is a Call for Proposals by the Real Estate Department advertised in the local paper. Again apparently

our members missed these notices as well. I would like to emphasize again that the city is calling thissurplus land for sale and we are saying it is precious Rockwood Park land.

I would like to emphasize again that the city is calling this surplus land for sale and we are saying it isprecious Rockwood Park land.

Look at all this potential area for developmenttheres no lack of land - theres enough land for decades ofdevelopment within a block or two of Rockwood Park. See also the next slide in the hand-out from anewsletter from Plan SJ which shows many more parcels of land for development in east Saint John. Wherewill all the people come from to fill this development??

In the immediate neighbourhood with

current zoning:

The City has already committed to

264 new housing units.190 - 220additional units are being

considered.

In the Crescent Valley area:

There is a potential for1,000new

units.

So why is it necessary to seek

additional building lots in this

neighbourhood?

Why inside Rockwood Park?

ADI is recommending a major

expansion - a new

neighbourhood with significantly

higher density

This neighbourhood doesnt have the

infrastructure to support this.

Roads are dangerous

No sidewalks

Far from schools and stores 13


15/22


Page 15 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

This illustration is an except from Plan SJ and was not included in the PowerPointPresentation.

It shows additional development sites in East Saint John not far from the Park.

So much land

why erode Rockwood Park?

14

So Much Land Why Erode Rockwood Park?


16/22


Page 16 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Read this


August 2009 to Present

During the "public consultation"ADI was asked to confirm theboundaries of RP.

There has been noenvironmental impactassessment nor a traffic study

to make an informed decisionon housing development in andadjacent to Rockwood Park.

It concerns with only the Studyarea. It does not address thepossible detrimental effectson the entire parksecosystem.

Shortcomings with the Study and the ADIReportADI proceeded to establish a Zone

of their own choosing for HousingDevelopments.

This 75 to 150 m deep Zone frequently

encroaches heavily upon the existing

landscape.

Clusters of 3-storey Apartmentbuildings in this Zone prevent asmooth transition into Rockwood Park

Nobody at the "Public Consultation

asked for the proposed Trail Corridor

with access from Sandy Point road

14


17/22


Page 17 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Read this

SHORTCOMINGS WITH THE STUDY AND THE ADI

REPORT CONTINUEDCommon Council asked the Planning Department for the Study.

Apparently the Planning Department then used input by developers to establish a StudyArea.This 250 to 450 m deep area would consume 1/3 of the Golf Course.

Common Council asked to have the optimum future use along SPR identified.

This implies to harmoniously combine the future type of housing with the existing one.The ADI report instead clusters 3-storey apartment buildings between one-familyhouses.

ADI with the "No Net Loss of Parkland" slogan went outside the scope of its contract.

They propose an exchange of Golf Course land with the Howes Lake area land.

Developers can build on the Golf Course, and the public is stuck with the toxiclake.

When 2 multi-storey Apartment Buildings were proposed at lot 1671 the public objected.

They were than asked to and did participate in a "public consultation' session.

ADI was told by all participants that the suburban landscape along Sandy Point Roadshould so remain.ADI disregarded this and proposed a maximum density scheme never used in aCanadian Park

15


18/22


Page 18 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Speaking Notes:

Most of the participants in the 2 public consultation meetings held by the ADI consultantbasically said leave the park alone. In our opinion most public comment was ignored.

The public has been told not to prejudge the outcome of the planning study and wait untilthe planning department presents its recommendations to council. We feel that 3councillors and the Mayor, have already made up their minds about the land along SandyPoint Road.

Additional notes:

I have already discussed the various concerns with 1671 Sand Point Road. There were plans made

as early as 2003 to sell Rockwood Park land along Sandy Point Road between the golf course andCherrybrook Zoo. Park zoning allows for single family homes. Why did the city change thezoning in 2005? The city has at least two subdivision plans for the Harrigan Lake area. Just at themoratorium, the city was prepared to accept the apartment buildings and the 48 townhouses. Whyspend $25,000 for a planning study that comes up with the exact proposed development in thepark that the planning department wanted? Most of theparticipants in the 2 public consultationmeetings held by the ADI consultant basically said leave the park alone. In our opinionmostpublic comment was ignored. The public has been told not to prejudge the outcome of the

There are indications that a decision on the fate of the Sandy

Point Road/Rockwood Park Planning Study have already been made.

Example #1671 Sandy Point Road

Peter Maguire said he supports the development along Sandy PointRd. Telegraph Journal March 31, 2010.

Councillor Donnie Snook quoted. I hope this bounces themoratorium out of its place, so we can move forward withdevelopment, who wouldnt want to see development around thePark? Telegraph Journal August 18, 2009

Councillor Gary Sullivan said when the Sandy Point Road PlanningStudy was submitted to the planning Department that thisdevelopment plan was exactly what was asked for

Public consultation barriers in Sandy Point Road Planning Studyand Plan SJ

16


19/22


Page 19 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

planning study and wait until the planning department presents its recommendations to council.We feel that 3 councillors and the Mayor, have already made up their minds about the land alongSandy Point Road.

During the ADI public consultation we were told thatthe Sandy Point Road Planning Study wasonly to study Sandy Point Road and it was not a Rockwood Park Study. At the afternoon session,

when people got passionate about protecting the park because of the frustration about parkboundaries not being articulated, staff apparently felt threatened and called in the police for theevening session. There were no threats, no rowdiness and this was blatant intimidation to saynothing about dismissing any points made because the people were rowdies . The city hasshown time and time again that theywill not listen to the public. Unfortunately it appears thatplan SJ is going the same way.When people interested in Rockwood Park arrived at the lastpublic meeting to discuss Plan SJ, they were told that Rockwood Park and Sandy Point Roadcould not be discussed because it is currently under study. Why would any resident of the cityfeel that any of their thoughts on how the city should look want to participate in a Municipal Planwhen parts of the city are left out of the discussion? It brings intoquestion the whole integrity andvalidity of the municipal plan process.

Is this how others are being listened to on other aspects of the plan?


20/22


Page 20 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Read this

Rockwood Park needs :

Environmental sensitivity

A commitment to the real value of

the park

Proper management

Conservation


FORPs Two Main Concerns

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN SJ

The Planning Dept is stressing the

need to :

Draw people back into the city

Revitalize existing neighbourhoods

Minimize sprawl

But the ADI Plan would :

Create a new urbanized area

Contribute to sprawl

Create traffic congestion and pollution

Seriously degrade Rockwood Park 17


21/22


Page 21 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

FORP Recommendations

1. Define what legally is the area of Rockwood Park, which then

should be governed by the 1893 Act for the limitations of its use.

2. The ADI Professional Opinion be rejected as being not compatible

with the existing country atmosphere. The city asked for optimum,

not maximum, future use of these lands.

3. The current moratorium remain until a thorough independent

comprehensive environmental impact assessment is done.

4. Develop and infill urbanized areas of the City, not Rockwood Park.

18


22/22


Speaking Notes:

This is Harrigan Lake which gets polluted by storm sewer drainage after every rain

storm. The city has many jewels that bring a good quality of life to its residents. TheIrving Nature Park, the Aquatic Centre and Rockwood Park to name a few. The city issupposed to be a steward for Rockwood Park. Chipping away at it in bits and pieces isvery short-sighted and cannot be condoned.

19

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ckilpat
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Word File FORP Nov 8-Jrp

Documents