The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread

[DyAm00394]

Originally Posted by DyAm00394

AllNewBrunswick News is reporting that Ontario investors have recently purchased a church here in SJ, to convert it into apartments.

A couple people with access to the article have commented over on Retail Talk and Share NB Facebook group that it’s the church on the corner of Douglas Avenue and Main Street (North). Turning it into 18 residential units.

Apparently also the former The Lebanese Baker/Let’s Hummus located at 264 Main Street, (North), will become a 12-unit apartment building.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by DyAm00394

EllisDon was been awarded the Construction Management Services contract for the NB Museum’s Revitalization Project. https://www.nbm-mnb.ca/new-brunswick...own7kUjIaio4UM

Do we have any info on when we might see a design from Diamond-Schmitt?

[DyAm00394]

AllNewBrunswick has just published some new articles tonight. Don't have a subscription to view the details, but one of the headlines says "Exploring The Business Case For An Inland Port In SJ". The desktop version of the headline just says "SJ Inland Port?".

Anyone have access to the article and can provide some info?

[DyAm00394]

Originally Posted by DyAm00394

AllNewBrunswick has just published some new articles tonight. Don't have a subscription to view the details, but one of the headlines says "Exploring The Business Case For An Inland Port In SJ". The desktop version of the headline just says "SJ Inland Port?".

Anyone have access to the article and can provide some info?

Update: Someone over on Retail Talk and Share NB Facebook group has provided some details. Apparently Envision Saint John is exploring the feasibility of a multi-modal transportation and distribution hub for the city.

They issued an RFP for a consultant with expertise in global transportation and logistics to do a 4 part study.

Part of the study is to identify 2 to 3 potential sites with more than 100 acres with 200-300 more acres for down stream development.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by DyAm00394

Update: Someone over on Retail Talk and Share NB Facebook group has provided some details. Apparently Envision Saint John is exploring the feasibility of a multi-modal transportation and distribution hub for the city.

They issued an RFP for a consultant with expertise in global transportation and logistics to do a 4 part study.

Part of the study is to identify 2 to 3 potential sites with more than 100 acres with 200-300 more acres for down stream development.

Apparently the new team at Envision is going to be spending their time and money on things like this, which sounds like an improvement over the previous group.

[sailor734]

Fredericton council considering whether to remove public's ability to speak at PAC meetings.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...ment-1.7143559

I wonder is this is something that might be considered here in SJ?
While I understand the temptation it does strike me as a little high handed at first glance.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Fredericton council considering whether to remove public's ability to speak at PAC meetings.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...ment-1.7143559

I wonder is this is something that might be considered here in SJ?
While I understand the temptation it does strike me as a little high handed at first glance.

It seems somewhat redundant to allow public comments at both the PAC meeting and city council meeting on the same item.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by OliverD

It seems somewhat redundant to allow public comments at both the PAC meeting and city council meeting on the same item.

Yes, but it is two different audiences. I don't know if council is statistically more likely to approve variances if they are recommended by PAC but I suspect they might be. I could see where a project that had been approved by PAC would have a certain momentum.

I think there is a reasonable argument for people in the area having the right to object before each body involved in the process.

Isn't it PAC's job to do a deep dive into the question, hear all points of view and then recommend a course of action to council?

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Yes, but it is two different audiences. I don't know if council is statistically more likely to approve variances if they are recommended by PAC but I suspect they might be. I could see where a project that had been approved by PAC would have a certain momentum.

I think there is a reasonable argument for people in the area having the right to object before each body involved in the process.

Isn't it PAC's job to do a deep dive into the question, hear all points of view and then recommend a course of action to council?

Not really. PAC is supposed to rule on the technical merits of the project. The types of comments that are brought up at PAC are often mostly irrelevant to their decision making process. For example people often bring up lack of affordability at PAC, but that is not a factor that is supposed to sway their decision.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Not really. PAC is supposed to rule on the technical merits of the project. The types of comments that are brought up at PAC are often mostly irrelevant to their decision making process. For example people often bring up lack of affordability at PAC, but that is not a factor that is supposed to sway their decision.

Interesting. I've been through a couple of development proposals in our neighbourhood and actually helped lead the opposition to one that got stopped.

Affordability was never raised and objections centred around traffic, lack of sidewalks, unsuitability of the location/existing road, watercourse issues, radical change in the character of mature, established neighbourhood etc etc.

Agree that affordability is a political question.

[adamuptownsj]

PAC has a proposal to reestablish this cul-de-cac at the west end of Aberdeen for 11 SFHs. Opposition ranges from silly 'think of the children!' and 'traffic' stuff to well capacity, which seems more reasonable. How you can be opposed to small single family homes in your neighbourhood of small single family homes, IDK. The cul-de-sac is currently divided into 9 lots.

[cdnguys]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[sailor734]

Not sure how public it actually is. Know a couple of fellow sailors that spent the night there last fall before a race in the bay. The pilot boat crews were somewhat unwelcoming and actually tried to suggest they couldn’t tie up there.

[sailor734]

A contentious issue from some years ago revisited.....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...arce-1.7148582

Is this parcel even officially part of Rockwood Park or is it just one of those pieces of land contiguous to the park that the city acquired over the years?

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by sailor734

A contentious issue from some years ago revisited.....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...arce-1.7148582

Is this parcel even officially part of Rockwood Park or is it just one of those pieces of land contiguous to the park that the city acquired over the years?

Part of the park, per the PAOL description. And a contiguous part at that.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Part of the park, per the PAOL description. And a contiguous part at that.

I thought there was a question about this the last time this issue arose?

Something about only having recently come into city hands (at the time).....Maybe the city added it to the park after the last controversy about developing it?

In any event there are houses along the road between it and the golf course and past it towards the old zoo site. I see no purpose it serves as "park land". It's basically just scrub property that was cleared years ago for a cul-de-sac and then left abandoned.. AFAIK it contains no recreation features like biking or walking paths no do I believe it is ever used for anything. I mean, it's not as if anyone is proposing condo towers all around Lily Lake or beachfront cottages on the Fisher Lakes

I guess you have to think about what actually comprises Rockwood Park too. The original 500 acres from the Horticultural Society or the 890 acres in the area the city now owns?

[RR Drummer]

Originally Posted by sailor734

I thought there was a question about this the last time this issue arose?

Something about only having recently come into city hands (at the time).....Maybe the city added it to the park after the last controversy about developing it?

In any event there are houses along the road between it and the golf course and past it towards the old zoo site. I see no purpose it serves as "park land". It's basically just scrub property that was cleared years ago for a cul-de-sac and then left abandoned.. AFAIK it contains no recreation features like biking or walking paths no do I believe it is ever used for anything. I mean, it's not as if anyone is proposing condo towers all around Lily Lake or beachfront cottages on the Fisher Lakes

I guess you have to think about what actually comprises Rockwood Park too. The original 500 acres from the Horticultural Society or the 890 acres in the area the city now owns?

I completely agree.

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by sailor734

I thought there was a question about this the last time this issue arose?

Something about only having recently come into city hands (at the time).....Maybe the city added it to the park after the last controversy about developing it?

In any event there are houses along the road between it and the golf course and past it towards the old zoo site. I see no purpose it serves as "park land". It's basically just scrub property that was cleared years ago for a cul-de-sac and then left abandoned.. AFAIK it contains no recreation features like biking or walking paths no do I believe it is ever used for anything. I mean, it's not as if anyone is proposing condo towers all around Lily Lake or beachfront cottages on the Fisher Lakes

I guess you have to think about what actually comprises Rockwood Park too. The original 500 acres from the Horticultural Society or the 890 acres in the area the city now owns?

There is some trail use on the parcel, but they are all at the far end away from the road near the lake.

I believe the expectation for the property was always to leave a buffer between any development and the lake, essentially allowing a few houses or a small apartment development near Sandy Point Road but maintaining the area of this small parcel that serves as both recreational and natural conservation. I'm literally a career environmental/conservation professional and I don't see any issue with a responsible development of the roadside area that has already been infilled and has some infrastructure as long as the buffer around the lake is maintained and the slope down to the water is revegetated properly. For example if the plot was simply subdivided as below:

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

There is some trail use on the parcel, but they are all at the far end away from the road near the lake.

I believe the expectation for the property was always to leave a buffer between any development and the lake, essentially allowing a few houses or a small apartment development near Sandy Point Road but maintaining the area of this small parcel that serves as both recreational and natural conservation. I'm literally a career environmental/conservation professional and I don't see any issue with a responsible development of the roadside area that has already been infilled and has some infrastructure as long as the buffer around the lake is maintained and the slope down to the water is revegetated properly. For example if the plot was simply subdivided as below:

More likely to follow the ridge left by the clean fill: https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v...n&pan=05632276

I can't say I like this one TBH. The various PIDs comprising Rockwood Park need to be formally unified into one to prevent salami-slicing what a good amount of people consider parkland. However, the big gob of land west of Sandy Point in the main park PID should definitely be split off. Or is it an old landfill/something else preventing development? https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v...n&pan=05980514

Per today's developer symposium at the Delta, maintaining the Harrigan Lake trail and a wide buffer are required.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

More likely to follow the ridge left by the clean fill: https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v...n&pan=05632276

I can't say I like this one TBH. The various PIDs comprising Rockwood Park need to be formally unified into one to prevent salami-slicing what a good amount of people consider parkland. However, the big gob of land west of Sandy Point in the main park PID should definitely be split off. Or is it an old landfill/something else preventing development? https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v...n&pan=05980514

Per today's developer symposium at the Delta, maintaining the Harrigan Lake trail and a wide buffer are required.

Former Howe's Lake dump....hugely contaminated by all accounts.

https://www.country94.ca/2010/07/10/...r-development/

Remember, it was the city dump way back in the 1950's and 60's when anything and everything just got chucked in the garbage.