The regular meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee was held in the Council Chamber, Lobby Level.

Transcription

1 PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2013 The regular meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee was held in the Council Chamber, Lobby Level. PRESENT Morgan Lanigan Anne McShane Dave Drinnan Gerry Lowe Andrew Miller Michael Whelton Jen Parker Phillip Hovey Keith Brideau Chairman Mark Reade Jody Kliffer Stacey Forfar Patrick Foran Jill Flecknell Senior Planner Planner Planner Planning Officer Recording Secretary Election of Officers Mark Reade chaired the Election of Officers which took place in the 10th Floor Boardroom of City Hall. Chairman Mark Reade called for nominations for the position of Chairman. Morgan Lanigan was nominated. Nominations were called for three times. There being no further nominations, the nominations ceased. It was MOVED and SECONDED that Morgan Lanigan be declared Chairman. AMc/DD

2 February 19, 2013 Page: 2 Mark Reade stepped down and Morgan Lanigan assumed the Chair. Vice-Chairman The Chair called for nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman. Andrew Miller was nominated. Nominations were called for three times. There being no further nominations, the nominations ceased. It was MOVED and SECONDED that Andrew Miller be declared Vice-Chairman. GL/MW Third Executive Member The Chair called for nominations for the position of Third Executive Member. Michael Whelton and Dave Drinnan were nominated. Nominations were called for three times. There being no further nominations, the nominations ceased. Dave Drinnan did not accept the nomination. It was MOVED and SECONDED that Michael Whelton be declared Third Executive Member. DD/PH It was MOVED and SECONDED that the order of the February 19, 2013 agenda be amended to move item #7 up to be heard following item #3 due to the number of people in attendance for the remaining applications. Item 1: DD/GL January 15, 2013 Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED that the minutes of the January 15, 2013 meeting be adopted as circulated. Item 2: Proposal: DD/MW City of Saint John (Leisure Services) Saint John Throughway (Rockwood Park) To erect a freestanding sign for Rockwood Park near the Saint John Throughway. Type of Application: Variance that would increase the maximum sign area allowance of 4.5 square metres to approximately 22.3 square metres.

3 February 19, 2013 Page: 3 Mark Reade advised the application from Urban Environment Services (Leisure Services) is for a variance that would increase the maximum sign area allowance of 4.5 square metres to approximately 22.3 square metres. Rockwood Park is one of the largest urban parks in North America with over 2.3 kilometres of frontage along the Saint John Throughway. Despite the very large size of this park, the Zoning By-law limits the maximum area for signage to only 4.5 square metres (per use). However, the requested size of the proposed sign is considered very appropriate given the size of the park and its emerging importance to the city and surrounding communities. Staff recommended approval of the variance. Emilie Murphy, Rockwood Park Naturalist appeared before the Committee on behalf of the applicant and indicated she was in agreement with the recommendations as contained in the staff report. No one else appeared before the Committee to speak in favour or against the application and no letters were received. Committee member, Anne McShane questioned if Discover Saint John has been given the opportunity to review the application and provide their input. Ms. Murphy explained that there has been communication between Rockwood Park and Discover Saint John via the Communications department but that no formal sign off had been completed. Ms. McShane requested that a friendly amendment be made that Discover Saint John sign off on the proposed signage to encourage consistency with branding throughout the City of Saint John. After considering the report and the presentation the Committee resolved to adopt the recommendations based on the reasons as outlined in the staff report and amend it to include the condition that the applicant consult with Discover Saint John prior to finalizing the design of the sign. It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Planning Advisory Committee grant a variance from the requirements of the Zoning By-law that would increase the maximum sign allowance of 4.5 square metres to approximately 22.3 square metres for the proposed sign as generally illustrated on the submitted plans and amended the motion to include the condition requiring the applicant to consult with Discover Saint John prior to finalizing the design of the sign to ensure consistency with branding throughout the City. Item 3: Proposal: PH/GL City of Saint John Peel Plaza To vest a street as public. Type of Application: Subdivision and Variances that would:

4 February 19, 2013 Page: 4 (a) (b) Reduce the minimum public street right-of-way width standard of 20 metres to a varying width of approximately 10 to 16.9 metres; and Reduce the minimum asphalt surface width standard of 11 metres to approximately 7 to 13 metres. Mark Reade advised the subdivision and variance application is for the vesting of a section of the public street that was constructed in conjunction with the new police station and justice facility. Staff recommended that Common Council assent to the subdivision plan that would vest the street as a public street and the Committee grant the variances associated with the reduction in the public street right-of-way width and the minimum asphalt width as well as approve the street name of Peel Plaza. Gerry Matheson, Peel Plaza Project Engineer appeared before the Committee representing the application and indicated he was in agreement with the recommendations as contained in the staff report. No one else appeared before the Committee to speak in favour or against the application and no letters were received. After considering the report and the presentation the Committee resolved to adopt the recommendations based on the reasons as outlined in the staff report. It was MOVED and SECONDED that: 1. That Common Council assent to the attached photo-reduced City of Saint John, Peel Plaza, Subdivision plan that would vest approximately 891 square metres of land as part of the Peel Plaza public street right-of-way. 2. That the Planning Advisory Committee grant the following variances from the requirements of the Subdivision By-law for Peel Plaza (proposed street) that would: (a) (b) Reduce the minimum public street right-of-way width standard of 20 metres to a varying width of approximately 10 to 16.9 metres; and Reduce the minimum asphalt surface width standard of 11 metres to approximately 7 to 13 metres. 3. That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the street name Peel Plaza. MW/AM

5 February 19, 2013 Page: 5 Item 7: Proposal: City of Saint John To Permit the Keeping of Chickens To permit the keeping of up to six chickens in select zones of the City. Type of Application: Zoning By-law Amendment Jody Kliffer advised the application is for Zoning By-law Amendment that would allow for the keeping of up to six chickens in most residential zones, subject to the bylaw provisions. Mr. Kliffer explained that an application was received by the City of Saint John in July of 2011 that proposed a Temporary Approval from Raymond Breau of 2-4 John T. McMillan Drive for the keeping of six chickens for a period of up to one year on his residential property on the City s East Side. Mr. Breau was approached by the Bylaw Enforcement division of the Building and Inspection Services department and was notified that the keeping of chickens on a residentially-zoned property was not a permitted use according to the City s Zoning By-law. Mr. Kliffer explained that Planning staff recommended that the applicant be granted a temporary approval to allow time to assess the impacts over the course of one year, and research the benefits and/or drawbacks associated with the keeping of chickens in an urban context. In August 2011 the Planning Advisory Committee granted temporary approval to Mr. Breau. Staff recommended the approval of the Zoning Bylaw be Amended that would incorporate the keeping of chickens in most residential zones, subject to the bylaw provisions. Committee member, Anne McShane questioned what the costs were associated with obtaining a Change of Use permit, which Planning Officer Patrick Foran responded that these permit fees are charged by the Building & Inspections department. Jody Kliffer explained that many other municipalities that permit the keeping of chickens do have a permitting fee. Committee member, Michael Whelton requested for public clarification that staff review why the regulations around having minimum of two and maximum of six chickens have been proposed. Jody Kliffer explained that the maximum number of six chickens is based on the findings of the original temporary use permit that was granted to Mr. Breau, however through research it was found that a minimum of two chickens be imposed to be respectful of social dynamic of the animal, who depend on one another. Raymond Breau, 2-4 John T. McMillan Drive appeared before the Committee to express his support for the proposed Bylaw amendments. Mr. Breau informed the Committee that he was the original applicant granted temporary approval by the Committee in 2011 to keep six chickens in his backyard. Mr. Breau stated that he has received support from the local community and has had no problems thus far with keeping chickens on his property. Committee member, Keith Brideau questioned what the benefits were to owning your own chickens and inquired if it was for their meat. Mr. Breau clarified that

6 February 19, 2013 Page: 6 these breed of chickens were only used for their eggs and not for meat. He added that they will produce eggs for up to 3 years, but also provide great manure for gardening and composting as well as pest control. No one else appeared before the Committee to speak in favour or against the application. One letter in favour of the application was received. After considering the report and the presentation, the Committee resolved to adopt the recommendations based on the reasons as outlined in the staff report. It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Common Council that the following provisions be incorporated into the City s Zoning Bylaw: 1. Amending Section 810 by adding the following as subsection 14: (14) Keeping of Chickens as a Secondary Use : (1) General Provisions (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Zoning Bylaw, the keeping of chickens, as a secondary use to a residence, shall be permitted in the RF, RFM, and all R zones except for RM and MH zones, subject to the following conditions: i. The number of chickens shall be limited to a minimum of two and a maximum of six. ii. All chickens must be kept in a chicken coop that contains an attached outdoor enclosed area ( chicken run ). iii. A chicken coop shall be considered as an accessory building and subject to the requirements set out in subsection 830(1). iv. A Change of Use permit from the City s Growth and Development Services department shall be required prior to establishing a chicken coop on a property. v. Notwithstanding the setback requirements for accessory buildings in section 830(1) of the City s Zoning Bylaw, chicken coops shall be subject to a minimum side and rear yard setback of 3 metres, and shall have a minimum separation distance of 7.5 metres from any existing dwelling on an adjacent property. vi. The owner of the chickens must reside on the parcel where the chickens are to be kept. vii. The keeping of male chickens (roosters) is not permitted. viii. The owner shall keep chickens for personal use only, and not sell eggs, manure, meat, or other products derived from chickens.

7 February 19, 2013 Page: 7 (2) Chicken Coop Structure i. The chicken coop must have a minimum of 0.37 square metres of coop floor area per chicken, and at least 0.92 square metres of roofed chicken run area per chicken. ii. A chicken coop shall be enclosed on all sides and shall have a roof and door(s). Access doors must be able to be shut and locked at night. Opening windows and vents must be covered with predator- and bird-resistant wire of less than 2.5 centimetre openings. iii. The owner shall provide and maintain in each coop at least one perch that provides at least 15 cm of space per chicken, and one nest box per chicken. iv. All chicken coops must be located only in the rear yard and must fully enclose the chickens to prevent them from escaping. v. The chicken coop must have a minimum 30 metre setback from any existing wells (drilled or dug). (3) Sanitary Conditions i. The owner shall store manure within a fully enclosed structure, and store no more than 0.1 cubic metres of manure at a time. ii. All stored food for the domesticated chickens must be kept either indoors or in a weather-resistant container designed to prevent access by animals. iii. The owner shall consult with the New Brunswick Department of Health before having a chicken slaughtered or euthanized. iv. The owner shall dispose of a chicken by delivering it to an abattoir, veterinarian or other facility that has the ability to dispose of chickens lawfully. No live poultry shall at any time be kept in a cellar or any part of any dwelling or any building used for continuous daily human occupation. AMc/AM Andrew Miller declared conflict of interest for Item #6 Bell Mobility (c/o Maria Medioli) Rothesay Ave. Item 4: Proposal: Bell Mobility (c/o Maria Medioli) Rothesay Avenue To erect a 28-metre high telecommunications tower with ancillary equipment. Type of Application: Conditional use, subdivision and variances to:

8 February 19, 2013 Page: 8 1) increase the maximum permitted height of a main building or structure from 15 metres to approximately 28 metres; 2) reduce the minimum required lot depth from 30 metres to approximately 8.23 metres; 3) decrease the minimum required property line setback from 3 metres to approximately 1 metre (tower); 4) reduce the minimum required setback from 1.5 metres to approximately 1 metre (utility building). Patrick Foran advised that the conditional use, subdivision and variances application is to erect a 28-metre high telecommunications tower with ancillary equipment. Mr. Foran explained that the applicant clarified prior to the meeting that the proposed telecommunications tower would be located within an already existing fenced in compound; therefore Mr. Foran recommended the removal of proposed condition a) subsection ii) that a chain-link fence with a locked gate having a minimum height of 2 metres be constructed around the tower to prevent unauthorized access. Staff recommended that the conditional use, subdivision and variances be approved. Maria Medioli, on behalf of Bell Mobility appeared before the Committee representing the application and indicated she was in agreement with the recommendations as contained in the staff report and with the amendment to remove a) subsection ii). Committee member, Anne McShane questioned why the existing tower located at the neighbouring site could not be shared. Ms. Medioli explained that it was her understanding that the City s Real Estate Department was approached and they turned down the request to share the tower. Senior Planner, Mark Reade explained that it had been confirmed internally that the proposal to collocate was rejected. No one else appeared before the Committee to speak in favour or against the application and no letters were received. After considering the report and the presentation the Committee resolved to adopt the recommendations based on the reasons as outlined in the staff report and amend it to remove the previously proposed condition a) subsection ii) that a chain-link fence with a locked gate having a minimum height of 2 metres be constructed around the tower to prevent unauthorized access. It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Planning Advisory Committee: a) impose the following conditions on the establishment and operation of a telecommunications tower on the proposed Lot 12-1, being a portion of the

9 February 19, 2013 Page: 9 property situated at Rothesay Avenue (PIDs and ): i. that the proposed towers be self-supporting and constructed in accordance with an approved engineering plan acceptable to the Chief Building Inspector; and b) approve the creation of the proposed Lot 12-1 having access by means other than a public street, as generally illustrated on the submitted tentative subdivision application; c) permit the creation of a non-serviced lot subject to the condition that the use of the property be limited to a telecommunications tower and that a note to this effect be placed on the final subdivision plan; d) grant the following variances to: i. increase the maximum permitted height of a main building or structure from 15 metres to approximately 28 metres; ii. iii. iv. decrease the minimum required lot depth from 30 metres to approximately 8.23 metres; decrease the minimum required property line setback of the proposed tower from 3 metres to approximately 1 metre; decrease the minimum required property line setback of the proposed utility building from 1.5 metres to approximately 1.1 metres; in order to facilitate the development of the proposed telecommunications tower as generally illustrated on the attached plans. MW/PH The Planning Advisory Committee took a brief 10 minute recess at 6:38pm to provide staff the opportunity to circulate the drawings attached to item #7 Bell Mobility 248 Milford Road. Andrew Miller declared conflict of interest for Item #7 Bell Mobility (c/o Pam Kennedy) 248 Milford Road. Item 5: Proposal: Bell Mobility (c/o Pam Kennedy) 248 Milford Road To construct a 50 metre high telecommunications tower. Type of Application: Conditional use, subdivision and variances to:

10 February 19, 2013 Page: 10 1) increase the maximum permitted height of a main building or structure from 9 metres to approximately 50 metres; 2) reduce the minimum required amount of Land for Public Purposes from approximately square metres to nil; 3) eliminate the requirement for landscaping within the fenced compound; 4) increase the maximum permitted height of a fence from 2 metres to approximately 2.44 metres; and 5) allow barbed wire to be placed along the top of the fence. Patrick Foran advised that the conditional use, subdivision and variances application is to construct a 50 metre high telecommunications tower. Mr. Foran reviewed the variances in the application highlighting the main variances as the height of the proposed tower and the proposed use of the property. The report submitted to the Planning Advisory Committee provided background on the application previously heard at its August 21, 2012 meeting. Staff has identified in the original Staff Report, there are no concerns from a land use standpoint concerning the originally proposed location. Consequently, Staff is recommending the necessary approvals as outlined below, which are consistent with those of the original recommendation. Pam Kennedy, on behalf of Bell Mobility appeared before the Committee representing the application and indicated she was in agreement with the recommendations as contained in the staff report but requested that an amendment be made to increase the height of the chain linked fence proposed in 1 b) from 2 metres to 3.2 metres and remove the requirement for barbed wire. Staff approved the proposed amendment. Nancy Lacasse-Mason, President of the Milford Memorial Community Centre appeared before the Committee to express her support for the application. Ms. Lacasse-Mason explained that since the September meeting they have received the final numbers from a poll of the neighbourhood and found that to date there are 147 residents in favour and 17 are opposed to the construction of the tower. Ms. Lacasse-Mason advised PAC that the Community Centre held a public meeting on October 11, 2012 which was attended by 14 residents and spoke of concerns such as health risks and decreases in property values. Ms. Lacasse- Mason explained that the Milford Community Centre reviewed the guidelines set by Health Canada and took comfort in the fact that those guidelines were developed by professionals that have the best interest of the public in mind. Ms. Lacasse-Mason explained that they also contacted a property assessor, local realtors and a couple appraisal of companies and all responded that telecommunication towers have little to no effect on property value that it is a

11 February 19, 2013 Page: 11 subjective preference if an individual wishes to purchase near a telecommunications tower. Ms. Lacasse-Mason indicated that there were 3 residents at the October meeting that expressed their objection to the tower and there were no alternatives suitable to them other than moving the tower out of their neighborhood. There was one letter of objection received by the applicant, of which Ms. Lacasse-Mason explained that the individual did not attend the public meeting held at the Community Centre and that her letter to Bell Mobility which spoke of Community Centre Board members was completely inappropriate and misguided. Committee member, Gerry Lowe questioned how many residents there are in the Milford Community. Ms. Lacasse-Mason responded that there were approximately 410 residents. Patricia Ferguson-Bent, area resident and a member of the Board of Directors for the Milford Memorial Community Centre appeared before the Committee to express her support for the application. Ms. Ferguson-Bent explained that there is a need for this telecommunications tower in the area to improve cell, TV and internet reception and will benefit the community. Committee member, Keith Brideau expressed that he was in agreement with Ms. Ferguson-Bent that better cell service he would see as a benefit to the community and an improvement to property values. He questioned, Pam Kennedy if there was a possibility to work on the appearance of the telecommunication towers. Pam Kennedy explained that they do try to work with the community in terms of design, but creative solutions can be a challenge as factors such as environment and weather play a major role in determining which style of tower best suits the location. No one else appeared before the Committee to speak in favour or against the application and one letter in opposition was received. After considering the report and the presentation the Committee resolved to adopt the recommendations based on the reasons as outlined in the staff report and amend it to It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Planning Advisory Committee, at its February 19, 2013 meeting, considered the above matter and 1) imposed the following conditions on the establishment and operation of a telecommunications tower on the proposed Lot 12-1, being a portion of the property situated at 248 Milford Road (PIDs , , and ): a) that the proposed tower be self-supporting and constructed in accordance with an approved engineering plan acceptable to the Chief Building Inspector; and

12 February 19, 2013 Page: 12 b) that a chain-link fence with a locked gate having a minimum height of 3.2 metres be constructed around the tower to prevent unauthorized access; 2) approved the creation of the proposed Lot 12-1 having access by means other than a public street, as generally illustrated on the submitted tentative subdivision application; 3) permitted the creation of a non-serviced lot subject to the condition that the use of the property be limited to a telecommunications tower and that a note to this effect be placed on the final subdivision plan. 4) granted the following variances to: a) increase the maximum permitted height of a main building or structure from 9 metres to 50 metres; b) reduce the minimum required amount of Land for Public Purposes (LPP) from approximately square metres to nil; c) eliminate the landscaping requirement within the fenced compound; d) increase the maximum permitted height of a fence from 2 metres to approximately 3.2 metres; in order to facilitate the development of the proposed telecommunications tower as generally illustrated on the attached plans. Item 6: Proposal: GL/MW Fundy Bay Sand & Gravel Inc. Lands adjacent to 460 Latimore Lake Road To rezone the property to permit the establishment of an open-pit aggregate operation to extract sand and gravel. Type of Application: Rezoning and Variance Stacey Forfar advised the Committee that the rezoning and variance application is to rezone the property to permit the establishment of an open-pit aggregate operation to extract sand and gravel. Staff recommended the approval of the Rezoning and Variance application subject to the recommended conditions. Steve Langille, Fundy Bay Holdings Ltd appeared before the Committee representing the application and indicated he was in agreement with the recommendations as contained in the staff report with the exception of the hours of operation for 460 Latimore Lake Road. He requested that the existing gravel pit operation, subject to the Section 101 Agreement, be permitted to continue to operate on Saturdays from 7:00AM to 5:00PM. Staff advised they had no

13 February 19, 2013 Page: 13 concerns with this change to the recommendation as it is consistent with the PQ Pits & Quarries zone, and is a reduction from what is normally permitted. Odette McGrath, 31 Lackie Road, appeared before the Committee and expressed concern with the impacts from the existing operation at 460 Latimore Lake Road that have not been addressed. Noise, dust, mildew on homes, lack of rehabilitation in the gravel pit and the environmental health issues from the operation were identified as key concerns. Ms. McGrath also expressed concern for the broader community from the heavy truck traffic, pot holes in the streets, risks to children in the area, and their location, as it is downwind from the operations. The Committee asked Ms. McGrath if she felt that the conditions that were being proposed would create a better environment for her and her family. Ms. McGrath reiterated her concerns with the conditions not being enforced by the City in the past and wanted to understand why this time would be different. She also advised the Committee that the conditions will not limit the truck traffic or take all of the dust away. Tim McGrath, 31 Lackie Road, appeared before the Committee and expressed concerns with the lack of sidewalks in the area to protect residents from the truck traffic. He also expressed concerns that the City has not enforced existing conditions with the operation at 460 Latimore Lake Road and that this would only increase the problems with dust, noise and traffic they have had to live with. Mr. McGrath also asked why once a pit has been exhausted, is the PQ zone not lifted to prevent the operator from re-opening in the future. He also expressed concern with the driveway through the existing pit as it is not setback and adjacent to the property line. Richard Hachey, an area resident of Latimore Lake Road, appeared before the Committee and advised that there have been rumours causing concern that if the application for 460 Latimore Lake is approved, that others will proceed with their application for PQ Pits and Quarries zone as well. Chairman, Morgan Lanigan advised Mr. Hachey that the Planning Advisory Committee could not comment on speculative applications. Michelle Duffield, an area resident of Lackie Road, appeared before the Committee and expressed concerns with the impact this pit has on the children in the Community Centre. Ms. Duffield had similar concerns such as heavy truck traffic, noise and dust which she said in her opinion result in driving residents out of this community. Sylvia Mattson, 200 Latimore Lake Road, appeared before the Committee and expressed concerns with the potentially negative effect the operations will have on the series of lakes in this area. Ms. Mattson informed the Committee about her community stewardship activities which include cleaning the road of dust and debris from the trucks, removing garbage and maintaining the area. She advised that she does everything she can to keep herself and her neighbours safe. Ms. Mattson also advised the Committee of the wildlife she has seen in this area and

14 February 19, 2013 Page: 14 expressed concern that the pit operation would have a negative effect on this in the future. Steve Langille then addressed the Committee again and reiterated the conditions that he would be bound by should he receive the approval. He also advised the Committee that this area of the City has long been an aggregate resource area and that his pit does not have all 175 acres actively excavated. He also discussed the on-going rehabilitation of the site and what they have done to invest in the property and improve the site for the community. He also spoke of his fleet s excellent safety record. Mr. Langille then also addressed the neighbours directly and their concerns about area wildlife and he advised that he is looking forward to his pit becoming a model for operations and rehabilitation. He spoke to the concerns of the increases to heavy truck traffic and indicated that he did not intend on having more than 15 trucks. He also added that to address the concerns of dust, there will be a water truck on site that will spray water on the gravel access road and pave an additional 400 meters of the access road from 460 Latimore Lake Road which will be swept regularly. In response to questions from the Committee, staff reviewed the proposed Section 101 conditions and elaborated on what each one would mean and how it would improve the existing operation, particularly the requirements for rehabilitation specifications and timelines, and the limitation to the size of the operation going forward. The Committee then asked the applicant several questions regarding the management of the operation, the existing rehabilitation and planned rehabilitation, and what his plans for the future of the operation are. In addition to the five members of the community that spoke in opposition to the application, there were 11 letters that were submitted in opposition to the application. A petition was also submitted to staff by Odette McGrath at the Planning Advisory Committee meeting. After considering the report, letters, comments made by the applicant and the concerns expressed by area residents, the Committee recommended approval of the rezoning of the property, with a change to condition k) in the Section 101 proposed conditions. The Planning Advisory Committee also granted a variance to permit the applicant to build the required access road into the site to be rezoned within the 30 metre setback area from the property line. The location is to be identified on the site plan, required to be submitted for approval by the Development Officer prior to issuance of an excavation permit. It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Planning Advisory Committee recommend: 1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of approximately 35 hectares, located adjacent to 460 Latimore Lake Road, also identified as a portion of PID s , and , from RF Rural to PQ Pits and Quarries.

15 February 19, 2013 Page: That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the use of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 35 hectares, located adjacent to 460 Latimore Lake Road (PID ), also identified as a portion of PID s , and for a gravel pit be subject to the following conditions: a. The use of the subject site shall be limited to the excavation of aggregate material and will not include blasting. Site development shall be undertaken in accordance with the detailed site plan, completed by a professional engineer and approved by the Development Officer prior to issuance of an excavation permit. b. Extracted aggregate material from the site shall be processed using the facilities on PID and all trucks and equipment, not being utilized as part of the active excavation of the site, shall not be stored on the site. c. The disturbed area of the site is restricted to a maximum of 5 hectares (approximately 12.5 acres) at all times. All other areas of the site, with the exception of the access driveway, shall remain undisturbed (including retention of existing tree cover) or shall be fully rehabilitated (including re-vegetation of the excavated area) in accordance with the detailed site plan approved by the Development Officer prior to issuance of an excavation permit. d. All access to the site shall be from the existing driveway and internal haul road located on 460 Latimore Lake Road (PID ), in accordance with the detailed site plan. e. A water supply must be maintained on the site and be used to limit the amount of dust raised, with the method for dust management to be identified as a note on the site plan, approved by the Development Officer prior to issuance of an excavation permit. f. Any equipment used on the site must be equipped with fully functional noise-suppressing mufflers to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. g. In addition to the requirements contained in Section 680(10)(d) of the Zoning Bylaw, no part of the excavation area shall be excavated to an elevation lower than approximately 120 metres (395 feet) above sea level, in accordance with the detailed site plan approved by the Development Officer prior to issuance of an excavation permit. h. The hours of operation shall be limited to Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 6:00PM. i. A detailed stormwater drainage plan and design report must be submitted by the applicant s engineering consultant for review and approval by the Chief City Engineer, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit.

16 February 19, 2013 Page: That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of an agreement between the City of Saint John and Jerome Langille, owner of the property at 460 Latimore Lake Road (PID ), pursuant to Section 101 of the Community Planning Act, setting out the following additional requirements with respect to the existing gravel pit operation thereon, generally described on Schedule A of this report: a. The owner shall rehabilitate approximately 9.5 hectares (24 acres) of exhausted open pit area to begin in 2013 and be completed by the end of the growing season in The phasing plan and rehabilitation plan details for the proposed rehabilitation shall be completed by a qualified professional engineer and the final plans, as approved by the Development Officer, shall be included as an appendix to the Section 101 Agreement. b. The owner shall agree to an on-site inspection in the spring of 2013 by Building Inspection, to confirm that the approximately 6.5 hectare (16 acre) area in the front of the property, identified as rehabilitated by the applicant, has been rehabilitated to the PQ Pits and Quarries standard. If there are notable deficiencies, the owner agrees to include this area as part of the area to be rehabilitated in 2013 and shall be included in the phasing plan and rehabilitation plan details for the site. c. The owner shall restrict the future disturbed areas of the site to the remaining active excavation areas which, after lands to be rehabilitated have been removed, is approximately 10 hectares (25 acres). To permit operational flexibility, an additional 2 hectares (5 acres) will be permitted to be active excavation area, for a total of 12 hectares (30 acres). All other areas of the site, except for the access driveway, shall remain undisturbed (including retention of existing tree cover) or shall be fully rehabilitated (including re-vegetation of the excavated area) in accordance with the standards of the PQ Pits and Quarries zone. The existing disturbed area of the site shall be identified in in the site plan for this operation and attached as an appendix to the Section 101 Agreement. d. The owner shall have a qualified professional engineer complete a drainage plan that is consistent with the rehabilitation plan that achieves on-site containment of stormwater and prevents runoff onto adjacent properties. This plan is to be submitted to the Chief City Engineer for review and approval and shall be included as an appendix to the Section 101 Agreement. e. The owner shall extend the existing dust-free hard surface approximately 500 metres from where it currently ends at the entrance to the existing excavated area of the gravel pit, to the edge of the proposed area to be rehabilitated. This shall be identified on the rehabilitation plan, included as an appendix to the Section 101 Agreement.

17 February 19, 2013 Page: 17 f. The owner shall plant a mix of trees along both sides of the internal haul road from the entrance gate to the on-site shop, a distance that is approximately 160 metres. The spacing and tree size specifications are to be included as part of the rehabilitation plan as accompanying landscape details, to be approved by the Development Officer and included as an appendix to this agreement. g. The owner shall rehabilitate the required 30 metre buffer areas that have been disturbed to-date in both active excavation sites, as per the rehabilitation plan to be submitted for approval by the Development Officer and included as an appendix to this agreement. h. The owner shall relocate the on-site crusher, currently located behind the existing main building, to a location south of the proposed rehabilitation area, as identified on the rehabilitation plan to be submitted for approval by the Development Officer and included as an appendix to this agreement. i. The owner shall maintain the limited processing infrastructure, currently located in the active excavation area in the larger pit, as identified on the rehabilitation plan to be submitted for approval by the Development Officer and included as an appendix to this agreement. j. The owner shall remove the parts vehicle debris, and other storage that is not permitted by the PQ Pits and Quarries zone, located in the front of the property. This must be completed, as per the Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures Bylaw, to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector in k. The hours of operation shall be limited to Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 6:00PM and Saturday from 7:00AM to 5:00PM. l. The security requirement for Fundy Bay Holdings Ltd. will be reevaluated, to ensure it is adequate to rehabilitate this site. This calculation and evaluation will be completed by Building Inspection and any required increase or decrease in the required security will be addressed and finalized, to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector, prior to finalizing the Section 101 Agreement. m. The Section 101 Agreement shall be null and void if the proposed rezoning of the subject site does not receive third and final reading within six months of receiving first and second reading. That Common Council withhold third reading of the rezoning until the recommended Section 101 Agreement between Jerome Langille and the City of Saint John has been drafted, finalized and executed by both parties. MW/AM

18 February 19, 2013 Page: 18 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9.28 p.m. Morgan Lanigan Chairman Jill Flecknell Recording Secretary