Search Results for: Pac

[…] for Kennebecasis Self-Storage In consideration of the application and support of the proposed development agreement PAC will note that the self-storage proposal does not strictly comply with the zoning by-law and requires both a variance and determination as a similar or compatible use . Municipal Plan Rothesay’s Municipal Plan contains the overview of how the community should generally be developed and while municipal planning embraces zoning, the converse does not hold true. They are not convertible terms. Zoning is not devoid of planning, but it does not include the whole of planning. Zoning is separation of the municipality into distinct areas (zones), and the regulation of buildings and structures according to their construction, and the nature and extent of their use, and the nature and extent of uses of land. Planning by means of the Municipal Plan has a much broader scope and connotation. The plan has, in its view, the physical development of Rothesay and its environs in relation to its social and economic well-being for the fulfillment of community values based on public input and background studies of present conditions and the prospects of future growth while adhering to professional planning standards and statutory requirements . In Rothesay the Municipal Plan designated three areas of the Town primarily for commercial use as follows: 1.Hampton Road from the Town Hall to the Quispamsis boundary; 2. the area along the Marr Road and northwest of the intersection of Marr Road and Campbell Drive; and 3. the area along Millennium Drive .Each of these areas has somewhat different characteristics and is dealt with individually in the Mun icipal Plan. Section 8.3 of the Municipal Plan contains a pre-amble that introduces and provides background to the GOALS and POLICY statements, the preamble reads as follows: “8.3. MILLENNIUM PARK 8.3.1 CONTEXT This area, bordered by Campbell Drive, Millennium Drive and Donlyn Drive and the residential neighbourhood to the north, is highly desirable for commercial enterprises for its excellent location with exposure to passing traffic on the Mackay Highway and convenient access to the Saint John Airport and the Provincial highway system. The location of this area, together with the accessibility to the major highway corridor in New Brunswick, is considered to be prime real estate for commercial development. In keeping with sustainable community principles commercial development can be augmented by residential and institutional uses and 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_021 3 support adequate green space for public use. It is this integrated approach which will guide the development of this area. In the previous plan, this area was designated as Business Park. The concept was that the area would attract technology related businesses, professional offices, general and government offices and small scale retail uses drawing low volumes of traffic generally associated with professional services or technical expertise. In 2005, a development proposal was considered by Council for this area which involved a large retail store. While the area has obvious attractions, it abuts an established residential neighbourhood. This application generated a lot of interest from the community and highlighted the importance of planning for a compatible development. The competing interests for the area have spurred a need to re-evaluate the goals and objectives. The intent of permitting commercial activities in this area is not to duplicate or substitute for the types of enterprises found in the other two commercial districts but to allow for a variety of services which will support the community. In keeping with this approach, it is evident that there will be opportunities for low rise professional services buildings, retail stores, hotels and restaurants. An emphasis should be placed encouraging interesting architecture and exemplary landscaping to allow for a visually appealing area which is functional. It is also feasible that these types of developments can complement and support higher density upscale residential developments. All proposals will be evaluated for their contribution to the overall storm water management plan developed by the Town. As well, a portion of the trail system presented in the Recreation Master Plan (2009) will be developed in the Millennium Park area. All developers in this area will be required to contribute to the trail and green space either monetarily or by providing the necessary land. Development proposals which meet the intent of this plan will be considered by Council. Additional aesthetic design standards may be considered by the Council to ensure developments meet the overall vision of the community. Each development proposal for this area will be subject to a Development Agreement. As part of the process for bringing the agreement into place, each applicant will be required to present their proposal in a public forum. This will allow the community to become familiar with the proposal, provide comment and ensure that the agreements address sustainable community principles and are complementary to the existing neighbourhoods.” While the preamble provides the plan, background and context the content of the plan is specifically expressed in a broad- spectrum through the GOALS and POLICY which are established more specifically in the Zoning By -law. For greater emphasis the purpose of the Plan is to give guidance to the very specific (e.g. heights, distances, square feet) nature o f zoning by-law. Staff generally look to the Municipal Plan to determine whether the spirit and general intent is being met in the proposed development . The biggest obstacle the applicant must overcome is the negative perception people have about self-storage, this is not Staff’s role. In support of their application the owners have indicated that storage customers include but are not limited to: a)Apartment residents especially as apartment unit sizes decrease; b) Single family households; c) People staging homes to sell; d) People in between homes; e) Families in flux: divorce, estate management, marriage; f) Businesses (start-up companies, medical records, files, contractors, landscapers, excess inventory, equipment, real estate signs etc.); g) Pharmaceutical representatives; h) Home occupations; i) Minor sports and recreational leagues (ex. minor hockey, soccer, etc.) The point being that self-storage is largely the type of business that supports community growth and change and is a needed facility. Staff have reviewed the Municipal Plan “Millennium Park” Goals and Policy and offer the following comments: 8.3.2 GOALS Staff Comment  7R IDFLOLWDWH GHYHORSPHQW RI D UDQJH RI XVHV WKDW ZLOO VXSSRUWWKHLQWHJUDWHGGHYHORSPHQWFRQFHSW $ VHOI  VWRUDJH IDFLOLW ZRXOG UHSUHVHQW D VXSSRUW XVH WKDW FRXOG FRQWULEXWH WR D ZLGHU UDQJH RI XVHV LQ D 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_022 4 fully developed “integrated development concept” it is on the other hand not an anchor tenant in a la r ger commercial development scheme.  To take advantage of the many positive attributes of the area while enabling development, which are sustainable and meet the needs of the community. Self – storage is a seemingly necessary business that facilitates both small business storage needs as well as downsizing needs for an aging population.  To ensure there are minimal negative effects on th e adjacent residential properties. The applicants have met with the immediately adjacent neighbours and oriented the development away from these properties to their best ability.  To coordinate development on Millennium Drive with that in Quispamsis to ens ure that land uses across the two towns are complementary aesthetically and in their functionality. The development standards and approach is consistent with other developments on Millennium Drive in Quispamsis.  To ensure that the area is developed to a h igh standard of architectural design, sustainable design and landscape design. The applicant has enlisted services of a professional designer to p repare renderings and layouts of the proposed buildings. Staff note that t he landscaping is limited to the 19m and 18m buffer s along the o f adjacent properties and the frontage along Millennium Drive. 8.3.3 POLICY Staff Comment a) Council will consider the development of standards which should address the following; a. Energy efficiency b. Water conservation c. Waste water reduction d. Storm water control e. Light pollution minimization f. Parking lot design g. Landscaping h. Architectural design of buildings and structures Policy guides staff to prepare specific zoning controls or requirements. Policy does not obligate the developer. b) Council will require that all developments for this designation be governed by Development Agreements. Further, Council will require that prior to approving such an agreement, the public has the opportunity to review the proposal. Public presentation is scheduled for July 10, 2017 as such the p rocedural requirements are being followed. c) Council will establish high standards for any development in this area to ensure that the area reflects the image of a gateway into the community. The property has a small frontage with a well – d esigned office building fronting onto Millennium Drive. d) Council will require that development is designed and constructed to a high standard with landscaped space designed by a qualified professional; The office building has traditional saltbox house desi gn which is a traditional New England style of house with a long, pitched ro of that slopes down to the back . The zoning requirement includes 10m landscaped buffers which have been increased to 19m and 18m along the neighbouring properties. e) Council will, t hrough the Zoning By – law, provide for limitations on outside storage in commercial areas, provide for green space in all areas, limit the height of all buildings and minimize light pollution. The MP Zone contains specific “ Outside Storage/Display ” controls and requirements that are being met in the current development proposal. The development agreement also includes specific clauses regarding the building lighting. f) Council will require pedestrian pathways to be included in any design proposal such that t here are adequate and appropriate connections between developments and residential properties. The MP Zone contains specific requirement that the developer must construct public sidewalk along Millennium Drive this requirement is included in the development agreement. g) Council will require that the trail system identified in the Recreation Master Plan (2009) be developed in this area. As well, Council will require that adequate green space The 2009 Recreation Master Plan does not recommend specific trail linkages in this area. The proposal includes larger buffers than required and 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_023 5 be provided in associ ation with the overall development of the lands. good screening from Millennium Drive. h) Council may consider the appearance of buildings, the setbacks, parking lot design, lighting, landscaping, control of outside storage and display, provision of appropriate buffers for abutting residential properties and provide for an adequate and appropriate pedestrian circulati on network. Staff believe that the development proposal addresses all of the policy points. i) All surface drainage shall be managed in such a way as to minimize downstream impacts. Where feasible, surface drainage shall be permitted to recharge the aquifer. The proposed site plan for the development includes a large area for storm water management, and a requirement in the development agreement to submit a storm water plan from a professional engineer. Similar or Compatible Use As previously noted the zoning of the property does not explicitly allow for self-storage, however, Section 1.4.3 of the zoning by-law allows PAC to consider the proposal as a “Similar or Compatible Use”. The zoning by-law states that PAC may permit a proposed use of the land or building 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 permitted in which the land or building is situated. When determining if a use is similar or compatible the PAC is required to consider a potential land use conflicts specifically with respect to the items as follows: Land Use Conflict Concern Staff Observations i. noise Staff do not anticipate or expect noise concerns with the operation of the self – storage facility . ii. parking The proposal includes sufficient parking. iii. provision of screening The facility is oriented such that it is predominantly screened from the adjacent residential uses and visible primarily from Millennium Drive. iv. quality and amount of landscaping and buffering The site plan includes large buffers and landscaping around the storage lockers and the main office building. v. quantity of traffic generation Staff assessment is that the trip generation rates for the self – storage facility are among the lowest rates for commercial businesses and therefore can be easily accommodated within the existi ng street network . vi. scale and form of building The storage buildings are utilitarian and lack architectural interest. The main office building is a simple saltbox design being a tradit ional New England style of building with a long, pitched roof that slopes down to the back . vii. any additional information required by the Committee to evaluate the proposal To ensure that public safety (Fire and Police) emergency vehicles have adequate access to the gated self – storage facility, Staff would require that t he Applicant coordinate with the Fire and Police regarding technology or other methods to allow adequate and timely access of emergency vehicles through the security gate of the self – storage facility . Staff are also interested in reviewing the proposed commercial signage for the proposed business and including conditions that would regulat e th e amount and aesthetics of the signage. Proximity to Residential The zoning by-law contains a specific requirement that “Only moderate density garden homes or town houses shall be developed adjacent to residentially zoned properties.” The proposal would require a 100% variance to relieve the developer of this obligation. The intention of the requirement is to reduce potential land use conflicts between commercial uses and residential properties. Staff believe tha t the self-storage proposal is a commercial use that is less intensive than many other of commercial uses permitted within the zone and therefore is potentially compatible with its residential neighbours. The primary consideration for PAC is whether or not the specific proposal is as compat iable as the requirement for residential. 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_024 6 The configuration property boundaries at the end of the Wedgewood Drive cul – de-sac is such that private property would need to be acquired in order to have road access for “moderate density garden homes or town houses”. Staff are also aware that the requirement for “moderate density garden homes or town houses ” adjacent to existing single family could also have the potential for land use conflicts be increasing the density. Perceived density i s affected by landscaping, aesthetics, noise, and building type. Often, when people say an area is too dense, they base this assessment on a perception that a development is ugly, has little vegetation, and has caused parking problems for neighbours, rather than a count of the actual number of units per acre. Design can make an enormous difference to perceived density. In the case of the applicant’s proposal Staff do consider larger than 10m landscaped buffers which have been increased to 19m and 18m along the closest neighbouring properties would offer good mitigation for adjacent residential properties. Development Agreement: Staff have reviewed the revised proposal and a draft agreement is attached (see Attachment B) that includes the requirements to construct a specific proposal including as follows: A. Architectural plans for the main office; B. Landscaping plans; C. engineering drawings and a commitment to construct a sidewalk along Millennium Drive; and D. a storm water management plan. In consideration of such a facility, Council may consider additional architectural design standards to ensure the development meet the overall community vision and include these as a term of the agreement. One Lot Subdivision (Cash in Lieu of LPP) The joint submission application by Scott Brothers Ltd. includes a proposal to subdivide the parent parce l (PID 00065227) to create a new 11000 m2 lot. The proposed lot (see Attachment C) requires no variances however; the applicant is not proposing that the Town accept any land for public purposes. Staff did observe that the property appears to contain a co mmon footpath from the end of Wedgewood Drive connecting to Donlyn Drive. In lieu of land set aside under Section 5.1 1 , Council requires that a sum of money be paid to the municipality for 8% of the market value of the land in the proposed subdivision. When the subdivision plan is submitted for approval the market value of the land is calculated using the value of $13.50 per square meter stated in Schedule C of By -law 4 -10 for all proposed lots within the subdivision. If the applicant disagrees with the Town’s calculation of the land’s market value of $ 148 ,500, they have the option of retaining, at their cost, a certified, independent appraiser to determine the true market value of the lan d. The required cash- in -lieu is calculated as follows: Value of Land per square meter Total Area of Proposed Lot s Estimated Value of New Lot s ($13.50 x 11000 m 2 ) LPP Cash in Lieu 8% of Estimated Value ( $ 148,500 x 8%) $13.50 / m 2 11000 m 2 $ 148 , 500 $ 11 , 880 .00 LPP Calculation: The proposed cash in lieu of Land for Public Purposes amount of $ 11,880.00 for the proposed Lot 2017-1 (11000m 2 ) complies with Rothesay Subdivision By-law No. 4- 10. Community Engagement The most significant aspect of this proposal would be the removal of the zoning requirement to locate medium density housing abutting the residential properties at the end of Wedgewood Drive. Staff did on behalf of PAC conduct a poll of the neighbouring properties regarding the variances and conditional uses being sought by Kennebecasis Self-Storage. Staff received and have attached the responses which are largely not supportive of the development . One of the respondents wrote , “Storage facilities are not listed as a possible commercial use and for good reason-they are not visually appealing in any way, nor to they add positively to the residential character of this area. This development does not in any way reflect the image of a gateway into the community.” 1 Rothesay Subdivision By-law No. 4-10 : Section 5.1 Land For Public Purposes – Amount of Land to be Provided to the Town As a condition of approval of a subdivision plan, land in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the area of the subdivision, exclusiv e of the public streets, at such a location as assented to by Council pursuant to the Act, is to be set aside as “Land for Public P urposes” and so indicated on the plan. 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_025 7 Staff would generally agree that self-storage facilities have a legacy of being un-appealing. In this instance the storage lockers share that legacy however the lockers are predominately obscured by the two storey office building located along the narrow ~40 m lot frontage. Staff also agree with the public that this development as a stand-alo ne project does not reflect the intent of creating a gateway into Rothesay . However, it would be appropriate to consider that this development represents only a small portion of an otherwise large amount of undeveloped land and accordingly it is reasonable to consider that future development of the area may indeed realize this vision. Staff believe that the proposed use is large ly benign in that it neither supports or detracts from any future area development. Additionally, over a much long er term the development of the area might see such uses as self-storage evolving into a “higher and better use” should economic conditions change. Recommendation: It is recommended THAT the Planning Advisory Committee CONSIDER the following Motions: A. Rothesay PAC hereby GRANTS a Variance to Rothesay Zoning By-law 2-10 allowing for the proposed self-storage facility in lieu of the required moderate density garden homes or town houses adjacent to residentially zoned properties. B. Rothesay PAC hereby approves the self-storage facility as a Compatible Use on the land off Millennium Drive (PID 00065227) on the proposed Lot 2017-1 subject to Council entering into a development agreement. C. Rothesay PAC hereby recommends the Council enter into an agreement with Kennebecasis Self Storage for the development of a commercial self-storage facility on the proposed Lot 2017-1 off Millennium Drive as shown on the Tentative Plan Dwg. No. T- 0659. D. Rothesay PAC hereby recommends that Council accept the amount of $11,880.00 as cash in lieu of Land for Public Purposes for the subdivision of land off Millennium Drive (PID 00065227) to create the proposed Lot 2017-1 as shown on the Tentative Plan Dwg. No. T- 065 9. Report Prepared by: Brian L. White, MCIP, RPP Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 Attachments: Attachment A Polling Results Attachment B Proposed Development Agreement Attachment C Proposed Plan of Subdivision 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_026 From: To: Subject:FW: Website Contact message Date: 28 June 2017 8:03:43 AM —–Original Message—– From: rothesay-noreply@thepulsegroup.ca Sent: June-28-17 8:01 AM To: Rothesay Info Subject: Website Contact message Name: Street Address: 11 Wedgewood Drive Phone: Email: Comments: I am feeling pretty annoyed that my summer is going to be occu pied by yet another attempt to build on the green space along millennium Drive and use our well thought out b ylaws as they please. Do not let this happen to our beautiful town . THIS IS FOR THE PAC 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_027 From: To: Cc: Subject:Proposed Self-Storage Facility – Millenium Drive Date: 29 June 2017 12:07:08 PM Attachments: image001.png Partial PL-1 Markup B. King June 29, 2017.pdf Hi Brian, Yes, I would like the original response, below, to be forwarded for PAC review as well as the following reponse to the revised proposal. The original communication captures the immediate concerns of the adjacent property owners and should be considered part o f the developer’s proposal process on the record as such. All of these concerns remain intact throughout the review and approval process for both PAC and Rothesay Council, with the exception of the property setback buffer dimensions which have been revised to approximat ely 60 feet and have been deemed acceptable for both myself and Dan Roy (43 Wedgewood Drive) . Having not heard any further clarification or revisions to my MOU from the developer, can we assume that this interpretation has been agreed to on their behalf? With regards to the revised PL-1 Plan Layout, dated June 8th, 2017 Dan Roy and myself have some remaining concerns: 1) Stormwater Management – Existing catch basin, piping and natural drai nage locations are as shown marked up on the attached partial PL-1 in red. We have concerns that the new Stormwater Management Area may not be sufficient to adequately handl e the volume of water that will be created from this development with a large asphalt surface and related building structure runoff. Has this been considered in detail by the developer’s consultant? Also, do they anticipate from the actuarial records, that the Stormwater Retention Area will be full and stagnant with water during th e warmer months (April – October)? If so, this will rapidly become a prime breeding area for mosquitos and similar pests. We don’t currently have that problem. 2) What will the T.O.G. (Top-of-Grade) be for the finished asphalt surfac e versus the undisturbed buffer zone immediately WSW towards 48 Wedgewood Drive. I expect that once the trees, roots and topsoil are removed down to glacial till, the difference will be at least 3-4 feet from one side of the setback to the other. Where will this elevation gradient differential be made up? If the extent of curb and asphalt are firmly defined for access around the buildings, will the developer be installing some sort of short retaining wall along this line? 3) The area immediately off the end of Wedgewood Drive ENE will be left bar e to accommodate the Stormwater Management Retention Area, with a chain-link fence and buildings in plain view beyond the cul-de-sac and adjacent properties. In addition to the infill screen planting currently shown, we would request a full cedar he dge be planted in front of the fence (as shown) to further screen the development from v iew. Please forward this communication and the previous communication in thei r entirety to PAC and Rothesay Town Council for their consideration. 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_028 Thank you, Bruce King 48 Wedgewood Drive, Rothesay, NB From: Brian White Sent: Wednesday, 28 June, 2017 3:28 PM To: King, Bruce Subject: RE: Proposed Self-Storage Facility – Millenium Drive Bruce, Did you want to have this letter go forward to PAC or do you have a revi sed letter? Brian Brian L. White, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Development Services Rothesay 70 Hampton Road Rothesay, New Brunswick Phone 506 848-6609 Fax 506 848-6677 brianwhite@rothesay.ca From: King, Bruce Sent: 01 June 2017 12:50 PM To: Mark Reid Cc: Brian White; Dan Roy Bruce King Subject: Proposed Self-Storage Facility – Millenium Drive Hi Mark, As discussed last week, I am following up with a Memorandum of Understan ding (MOU) which details my interpretation of our meeting on April 18 th, 2017. Memorandum of Understanding – Introductory Meeting: – Meeting held at residence of Bruce & Dawson King at 6:30 PM to discuss t he 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_029 development proposal from Reid & Associates for a new Self-Storage Facil ity, immediately adjacent to the properties of Dan & Wendy Roy (43 Wedgewood Drive), and Bruce & Dawson King (48 Wedgewood Drive) . – Attendees: Mark Reid, Brian Reid, Dan & Wendy Roy, Bruce & Dawson King. – Materials: Original form Site Plan (SP-1) indicating general arrangment of prope rties and locations of eight (8) new buildings, as superimposed on satellite vie w of general area, by Polyline Designs, for Concept Only, dated April 12, 2017. – Referencing the above SP-1 drawing, the following details were provided to the Roys and Kings by the developer: § Property line setback on WSW (adjacent to Kings) of 10 meters (33 fee t). Property line setback on WNW (adjacent to Roys) of 30 meters (98 feet ). § Perimeter chain-link fencing 6’-8’ high to be installed on setback line. Privacy slats discussion point. § Ground surface within the fenced area all around the eight (8) new buildings to be concrete curbed with asphalt paving. § Entrance / Exit to Millenium Drive only. § All storage buildings (7) to be single storey, except office building to be two (2) storey with apartment on 2 nd floor for property manager. § Cladding for all storage buildings to be vinyl siding. Stone masonry on building ends and on office. Discussion point. § Downcast lighting on buildings only, no pole lighting. § Security access into property for clients. § Services of engineering firm have been retained for site water run-off management. Specifically to manage water runoff to Millenium Drive SSE and/or retention pond WNW. § Storm water retention pond included as part of water run-off management plan, approximate location as shown on SP-1. § Proposed walking trail rejected outright by the Roys and Kings to elimin ate possibility of loitering and/or mischief in the area. § Setback area (between property lines and fencing on WNW and WSW to be left in existing condition, with the exception of the addition of the storm water retention pond and grading. Additional buffer trees shall be planted in the setback area. After having reviewed the above information and by conducting my own fie ld inspection I have also prepared some considerations for your review: Post-Meeting Considerations: – A natural berm exists between my property line and the location of Build ing 7, the last building at the West end of the proposed development, almost exactly at the setback line. This berm runs parallel to the proposed structure and is in my estimati on, the highest point on the property. Using the dimensions shown on SP-1 and physically walking the area, I am curious as to how the setback will remain undistu rbed while allowing for the approximate 5 meter wide paved surface from the fence t o the building? Is it your intention to install a permanent retaining wall along this b erm? 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_030 There does not appear to be sufficient lateral space to adequately addre ss the natural decline (angle of repose) down to the asphalt elevation from the fence line. I am also curious as to what the “top-of-grade”, or asphalt elevation for th e entire property will be relative to the top of this berm (assuming a single elevation with drai nage grading). – I am proposing that Building 7 be moved to the location immediately nort h west of Building 1, in line with Building 1’s long side but turned 90 degrees . See attached markup. Allowing for egress to and around Building 7 would move the retention p ond northwest but not any further than the existing drainage ditch is curren tly located. This would eliminate some of your elevation issue but also hide more of the d evelopment from my vantage point but also from the Roys and actually other neighbou rs on the street. Until you physically walk the lines and locations it is difficult to tr uly understand the close proximity of the development to Wedgewood Drive. From scaling SP-1 using the existing sizes and spacings shown, I have determined that the revise d physical distance from both the Roy’s and King’s property lines to the near est structure would be almost identical at 2.6 cm. I was unable to convert this to meters or feet because the scale shown on SP-1 appears to be incorrect when one scales the actual d imensions on the drawing. Overall Perspective: Immediately following the meeting on April 18th, I came away with the perspective that if we were going to have some development next to us inevitably, this would be about as good as we could ask for. An initial construction period followed by a flurry of activity as the units were filled, followed by very little commotion as the nature of the business ensued. People generally store their belongings in these places and rarely return, maybe once or twice a year at most. There would be no elevated lighting, no obvious harmful effluent possibi lities, and the overall hydrological plan appeared to be handled by professionals as per the tow n’s planning bylaws. The only issue that remained was the physical location of the developmen t. Looking at the drawing provided, I think I was somewhat naïve as to what these lines and shapes meant as it actually applied to my property. The SP-1 rendering (attached) was a basic airphoto or satellite perspective with property lines, setbacks and building shapes superimpos ed over-top. The minimal dimensions shown were very tiny and almost illegible. And the overall clarity of the rendering as the lines and shapes applied to existing landmarks was obsc ured by a distinct shadow effect from Southeast to Northwest. The photo must have been taken early in the day. I was unable to see exactly where tree lines actually started and stopped. I found this disconcerting so I grabbed my 50’ tape and started measuring and flag ging my own approximate setback lines as scaled off the drawing. What I found is that a ten (10) meter setback is not very far at all. This development would be closer than the average house spacing in our neighborhood. And the front West corner would be protruding out of the woods in plain sight from the street, no matter how many trees were planted. I couldn’t understand why this had to be when there was obviously plenty of available land on the other side o f the property which could be used with minimal exposure to the surrounding properties. In fact, the current natural forestation surrounding this corner of the property would almost complet ely hide the development from surrounding dwellings. 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_031 From previous experience with developer’s proposals I know that multi ple applications in this area between Wedgewood and Millenium allowed for a 25 meter setback from existing property lines. This development is offering a 10 meter setback from my property line w hen there is plenty of available space within the property Northwest from Millenium D rive in an area far less intrusive to the surrounding neighbourhood. As such, I am opposed to this development as currently shown when a mutually beneficial plan can be easily achieved. Please review the memo and considerations. I am certain we can come to agreeable terms for all parties. Thank you, Bruce Bruce King BScs, AIT Scheduler – Project Services Point Lepreau Generating Station P: C: E-Mail: This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is intend ed only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential a nd/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review, r etransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or other use of, or taking of any acti on in reliance upon this e- mail, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof , immediately. Your co- operation is appreciated. Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse uni quement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseigneme nts privilégiés ou confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur et d'éliminer l'origina l du courriel, ainsi que toute copie électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes reconnaissants de votre collaboration. 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_032 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_033 From: To: Cc: Subject:Proposed Kennebecasis Self Storage Development Millennium Drive Date: 28 June 2017 12:53:30 AM Attachments: pastedImage.png pastedImage.png Brian, PAC Committee Members, Although I do not live directly next to the area for the proposed commercial development (Kennebecasis Self Storage) for Millennium Park; I am very concerned that yet again the Rothesay PAC Committee is being asked to consider a development proposal that is NOT in alignment with either the bylaws or the guiding principal s of the Millennium Park Zone. I have included paragraph 4, section 8.3.1 which clearly states the obje ctives of the special designation for this area . Storage facilities are not listed as a possible commercial use and for g ood reason-they are not visually appealing in any way, nor to they add positively to the res idential character of this area. This development does not in any way reflect the image of a g ateway into the community. (8.3.3 (c)). It specifically states in bylaw #02-10, 4.14 the following: I not quite sure how this development could be remotely interpreted as b eing similar or even compatible with the development standard set out in the bylaw. I will make every effort to attend the PAC meeting this coming Monday in a n effort to understand why this development is even being considered. A great deal of input was given to the Town Staff and Council when the l ast municipal plan was created, hence the special designation for Millennium Drive. I would ask with all due respect that developers be strongly encouraged to put forward developments for the Millennium Park area that actually meet the zoning bylaws and guiding principles of the current municipal plan versus constantly askin g for exceptions/variances etc.. 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_034 As a resident of this area for over 17 years I personally feel our entir e neighborhood (fairvale/sunset acres) has been under constant siege since the placement of a "collector road" now known as Millennium Drive was built over 10 years ago to take pressure off of the "significant traffic congestion" which was occurring on the old Hampton road. (That was the primary reason given by Mayor Bill Artiss as to the necessity for the road). I am asking the PAC committee to not recommend approval of the proposed Kennebecasis Self Storage development to council. Thank you Sincerely, 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_035 June 28, 2017 27 Wedgewood Drive Rothesay, N.B. E2E3P8 To: Rothesay Town Planning Advisory Committee Members c/o Ms . Mary Jane Banks Town Clerk Town of Rothesay 70 Hampton Rd. Rothesay, N.B . E2E 5L5 Re: Application for Self-Storage Facility – Millennium Park Dear PAC Members: I am writing to voice my concerns regarding the proposal for the construction of a self· storage facility in Millennium Park near the comer of Donlyn Dr. and Millennium Dr. The proposed facility will be situated such that it backs onto and is adjacent to residential property on Wedgewood Drive. This is in violation of the current mixed-use zoning by-law requirements for Millennium Park which states that only moderate density garden homes or town houses may be built adjacent to the existing single-unit residential properties on Wedgewood . This protection was included in the Millennium Park zoning by-law requirements to provide a moderate density residential buffer area between existing home and any future institutional or commercial development in the Millennium Park that would front unto Millennium Drive. The idea was to preserve the peaceful quality of life along Wedgewood Drive. I am opposed to the proposal in its current configuration for the following reasons: 1. Allowing a variance to build the facility on the proposed plot of land would set a dangerous precedent for any future development. This could lead to future big box developments being built adjacent to residential properties on Wedgewood Dr. without any moderate density residential buffer (i.e., Garden Homes/Town House) in between. 2. Having commercial development directly adjacent to residential homes/properties will have a negative effect on the quiet peaceful quality of life on Wedgewood Drive. 3. Having commercial development directly adjacent to residential homes/properties also will lead to a drop in real estate values along the street, making properties less attractive for re-sale. 1 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_036 4. The proposed location at the very end of the Millennium Park parcel of land would make it difficult to provide a future access street to service any future Garden Homes or Town Houses located south of Wedgewood Drive. For the above reasons, I ask that the Planning Advisory Committee REJECT this proposal. I would suggest that the developers go back to the drawing board and draft a plan that respects all of the by-law requirements for Millennium. Any new plan must provide for a moderate density residential buffer area between Wedgewood Drive properties and the self-storage facility. This buffer area should be sufficiently large enough for future Garden Homes/Town Houses and also the access street . Thank you for your consideration in this matter . Sincerely, 2 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_037 From: To: Subject:FW: Proposed Kennebecasis Self Storage Development Millennium Drive Date: 29 June 2017 3:38:43 PM Attachments: pastedImage.png pastedImage.png Mary Jane Mary Jane E. Banks, BComm, NACLAA II Town Clerk – Rothesay Director of Administrative Services 70 Hampton Road Rothesay, NB E2E 5L5 MaryJaneBanks@rothesay.ca p (506)848-6664 f (506)848-6677P Before printing, please think about the environment Respectez l’environnement, réfléchissez avant d’imprimer Any correspondence with employees, agents, or elected officials of the town of Rothesay may be subject to disclosure under the provisions of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6. From: Sent: June-29-17 10:42 AM To: Rothesay Info Subject: Proposed Kennebecasis Self Storage Development Millennium Drive   Mr.  Brian White, PAC Committee Members,   I  am very concerned that the Rothesay PAC Committee is being asked to consider a development proposal that is NOT in alignment with either the bylaws or the guiding principals of the Millennium Park Zone. Paragraph 4, section 8.3.1  clearly states the objectives of the special designation for this area .     Storage facilities are not listed as a possible commercial use. The reason for this is that they are not visually appealing in any way, nor to they add positively to the residential character of this area. This development does not reflect the image of a gateway into the community. (8.3.3 (c)).   It  specifically states in bylaw #02-10, 4.14 the following:     I fail to see how this development could be remotely interpreted as being similar or even compatible with the development standard set out in the bylaw.   I will  make every effort to attend the PAC meeting this coming Monday in an effort to understand why this development is being considered when it clearly does not fall within zoning by-laws.   When  the last municipal plan was created ,  a great deal of input was given to the Town Staff and Council when our municipal plan was created, when  the concerned Millenium Drive  area was given its special designation..     I  respectfully ask that developers put forward developments for the Millennium Park area that actually meet the zoning bylaws and guiding principles of our Rothesay municipal plan of versus developments which require exceptions/variances etc.  As a resident of this area for over 23 years I really would love to see the Millennnium Park area be developed as envisioned by so many people who fought to retain the residential nature of our (Fairvale/Sunset Acres) neighborhood while also envisioning  small business existing in the same neighborhood but not encroaching on residential neighborhoods. I am asking the PAC committee to not recommend approval of the proposed Kennebecasis Self Storage development to council.   Thank  you   Sincerely,   27 Wedgewood Dr.                 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_038 From: To: Subject:self-storage proposal on Millennium Drive Date: 28 June 2017 7:48:42 AM Dear Mr. White, I am not opposed to low level development happening on Millennium, howev er I am concerned that by not staying in alignment with the bylaw, and if approved the town will have a precedent set which means they do not have to have a public hearing for the land a djacent to that area should they wish to develop it in a similar fashion. I also would want t o support the adjacent residents to ensure that they have a natural buffer zone between their h omes and a commercial development. A resident, 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_039 From:Brian White To: Subject: RE: Process for development applications Date: 29 June 2017 1:57:00 PM I apologize if I wasn’t clear, but the Community Planning Act sets out a specific process and timelines for Rezonings and Plan Amendments that Council must follow…this process is neither a rezoning or an amendment…what is legally required is set out in the Town’s by-law and it is this process that I have described…again I may not be explaining it that well…so please call me Brian Brian L. White, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Development Services Rothesay 70 Hampton Road Rothesay, New Brunswick Phone 506 848-6609 Fax 506 848-6677 brianwhite@rothesay.ca —–Original Message—– From: Sent: 29 June 2017 11:18 AM To: Brian White Subject: Re: Process for development applications Mr. White We have had many previous proposals put forward for this property which all followed a set process. A public presentation had a specific meaning, with specific timelines for respons e. I assumed it must be set out in the community planning act. Is that not the case? This proposal in itself may not be “complex”, but certainly has complex implications for the further development of the whole parcel. Sent from my iPad > On Jun 29, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Brian White wro te: > > > > Regarding your process questions: > > The Millennium Park zoned land have a unique and specific legal requir ement under the by-law that doesn’t apply anywhere else in Rothesay in that ” All proposed developments will be subject to a public presentation. Development is subject to a Development Agreement pursuant to Section 10 1 of the Community Planning Act.” In the previous proposal the Town did offer 30 days for comments based on the complexity of the proposal but to be clear there is no statutory requirement for “30 days to write PAC and Council” this was a 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_040 discretionary option that Council choose to implement on the previous pr oposal you referenced. > > Regarding the timeline I can state that it is not accelerated nor is i t restrained, this is quite simply the regular nothing added or taken away process. The plan is stamped “CONCEPTUAL ONLY” because until the plan is approved it is simply a concept. Should the plan be approved it will become a schedule to the developmen t agreement that will be used to issue permits for the development. > > You are correct about the timeline notices for written comments, howev er, please note that you are very welcome to offer your comments in person to the PAC on Tuesday night Jul y 4th and again before Council on July 10th. > > I hope this answers your questions, but if I haven’t please just call me at 848-6609 as I would be happy to speak with you. > > Sincerely > > Brian > > > > Brian L. White, MCIP, RPP > Director of Planning and Development Services Rothesay > 70 Hampton Road > Rothesay, New Brunswick > Phone 506 848-6609 > Fax 506 848-6677 > brianwhite@rothesay.ca > > > > > > I’m writing asking for clarification on the terms public meeting and p ublic presentation. A mailout to residents re a new development proposal for Millennium Park states there will be a public meeting on July 10, but nothing about the public presentation required under the bylaws. As I recall from previous proposals, the presentation comes first, followed by 30 days to write PAC and council, then a meeting at which we can present to council before they decide on the issue. > The timeline here seems to be accelerated, and residents are being ask ed to comment based on a drawing that is stamped “CONCEPTUAL ONLY” without sufficient information as to what t hat means, or the time to properly process it. I only received my notification letter 9 business days ago, and must ha ve comments in to PAC today. > I believe you are the authority on process at town hall, and will awai t your reply. > > —–Original Message—– > From: Mary Jane Banks > Sent: 29 June 2017 09:46 AM > To: > Cc: Brian White > Subject: RE: Process for development applications > > Good morning, > > I spoke with Brian White, Director of Planning and Development Service s and he is better able to answer your question with respect to development in the Millennium Park Zone un der the Zoning By-law. > > By copy of this message to him, I’ve asked him to follow up and respon d to your request. > > Thanks and have a great day~ > > Mary Jane > 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_041 > Mary Jane E. Banks, BComm, NACLAA II > Town Clerk – Rothesay > Director of Administrative Services > 70 Hampton Road > Rothesay, NB E2E 5L5 > > MaryJaneBanks@rothesay.ca > p (506)848-6664 > f (506)848-6677 > P Before printing, please think about the environment Respectez > l’environnement, réfléchissez avant d’imprimer > > Any correspondence with employees, agents, or elected officials of the town of Rothesay may be subject to disclosure under the provisions of the Right to Information and Protecti on of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R- 10.6. > > —–Original Message—– > From: > Sent: June-29-17 7:24 AM > To: Mary Jane Banks > Subject: Process for development applications > > Good morning Mary Jane. Hope you’re getting a chance to enjoy some of this beautiful weather. > I’m writing asking for clarification on the terms public meeting and p ublic presentation. A mailout to residents re a new development proposal for Millennium Park states there will be a public meeting on July 10, but nothing about the public presentation required under the bylaws. As I recall from previous proposals, the presentation comes first, followed by 30 days to write PAC and council, then a meeting at which we can present to council before they decide on the issue. > The timeline here seems to be accelerated, and residents are being ask ed to comment based on a drawing that is stamped “CONCEPTUAL ONLY” without sufficient information as to what t hat means, or the time to properly process it. I only received my notification letter 9 business days ago, and must ha ve comments in to PAC today. > I believe you are the authority on process at town hall, and will awai t your reply. > > > 2 Wedgewood Dr. > Rothesay > > > Sent from my iPad 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_042 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Land Titles Act , S.N.B. 1981, c.L-1.1, s.24 Parcel Identifiers of Parcels Burdened by Agreement: 00065227 (PID to be retired pending lot subdivision) Owner of Land Parcel: Kennebecasis Self-Storage Ltd. 88 Hilltop Drive Hampton, NB E5N 5P2 (Hereinafter called the "Developer") Agreement with: Rothesay 70 Hampton Road Rothesay, NB E2E 5L5 (Hereinafter called the "Town") a body corporate under and by virtue of the Municipalities Act, RSNB 1973, Chapter M-22, located in the County of Kings and Province of New Brunswick WHEREAS the Developer is the registered owner of certain lands located at ## Millennium Drive (PID 00065 227) and which said lands are more particularly described in Schedule A hereto (hereinafter called the "Lands"); AND WHEREAS the Developer is now desirous of entering into an development agreement to allow for the development of a commercial self- storage facility on the Lands as described in Schedule A. AND WHEREAS Rothesay Council did , on (INSERT DATE), authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into a Development Agreement with Kennebecasis Self -Storage Ltd. to develop a commercial self -storage facility on the Lands . NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that for and in the consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein expressed and contained, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows: 1. The Developer shall develop the Lands in a manner, which, in the opinion of the Development Officer, is generally in conformance with the following Schedules attached to this Agreement: Schedule B Site Plan Schedule C Elevations and Floor Plans 2. The Developer agrees that t he maximum number of buildings situated on the Lands indicated on Schedule A shall not exceed seven (7) self-storage buildings containing "storage units" to be rented to tenants, usually on a short- term basis (often month- to-month) ; one (1) related main business office building containing office uses, mini-storage units, and a second storey staff apartment. 3. The Developer expressly agrees and understands that notwithstanding any provision of the Town’s Building By-laws or any statutory by-law or regulatory provision to the contrary, the Building Inspector shall not issue a building permit to the Developer for work directly connected with the development of the Lands, nor shall the Developer be entitled to such a permit unless and until the Developer deposits with the Town an Irrevocable Letter of Credit from a Canadian Chartered Financial Institution or other security acceptable 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_043 Development Agreement Kennebecasis Self-Storage Ltd. 2 to the Town: a) Valued at 50% of the cost of construction to execute the Stormwater Management Plan and works approved by the Development Officer and Director of Operations pursuant to this agreement; and b) containing a provision that upon the expiration of a thirty-six (36) month term it be renewed and extended (with appropriate amendments to reduce the sum to an amount sufficient to recover the remaining work) from year to year until such time as the Town has accepted “final completion” of the work mentioned in this agreement, by resolution of the Town Council. Off -Site Disturbance 4. The Developer agrees that any disturbance to existing off site infrastructure resulting from the development, including but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, street trees, landscaped areas and utilities, shall be the full responsibility of the Developer, and shall be reinstated , removed, replaced or relocated by the Developer as directed by the Development Officer, in consultation with the Director of Operations. Landscaping 5. The Developer agrees that prior to the issuance of a Development Permit to submit detailed Landscape Plan that will retain as much of the natural landscape and vegetation as can be reasonably achieved subject to inspection and approval by the Development Officer. The detailed landscape plan shall identify measures to provide a buffer and/or screening between the self-storage facility and adjacent residential properties as well as for aesthetic enhancement. Municipal Sidewalks 6. The Developer shall carry out and pay for the entire actual cost of a public sidewalk constructed to Town standards within the Town right- of-way along the entire frontage of the Land with Millennium Drive, subject to inspection and approval by the Director of Operations, including the following: a) supply and maintenance of for a period of one (1) year the topsoil, sod, landscaping and the planting of street trees located every 10 meters, or an equivalent number planted in locations approved by the Town, along the length of the public road right- of-way where such trees are as follows: i. Not smaller than six centimetres (6 cm) in diameter measured at a point being 2 meters above the root ball such trees species as approved by the Development Officer. Storm Water Management 7. The Developer agrees to have stormwater management systems designed by a professional engineer so that the peak surface runoff rates discharged from the development shall not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates as described in Schedule “D” Stormwater Management for Millennium Park Zone of Zoning By-law 2- 10. 8. The Developer agrees to carry out and pay for all costs related to the installation of a storm water management system , while ensuring compliance with applicable Town By-laws and subject to inspection and approval by the Director of Operations. 9. The Developer agrees to provide to the Town Engineer written certification of a Professional Engineer, licensed to practice in New Brunswick that the storm water system has been satisfactorily completed and constructed in accordance with the Town specifications. 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_044 Development Agreement Kennebecasis Self-Storage Ltd. 3 Water Supply 10. In addition to and notwithstanding the payments committed elsewhere in this agreement the Developer agrees to pay the Town an amount, calculated by the Director of Operations in the manner set out in By-Law 7-04 Water By- Law as amended from time to time, for Permit Connection and Water System Access Fees, which shall be paid to the Town on issuance of the building permit. 11. The Town agrees to supply potable water for the purposes and for those purposes only of an commercial self-storage facility and for minor residential purposes incidental thereto and for no other purposes whatsoever. 12. The Developer agrees that the water supply shall not be used to service any water- to-air heat pump or exchanger and that there shall be no inter- connection with domestic wells. 13. The Developer agrees to provide and grant to the Town, its successors and assigns, unencumbered easements, in the form customarily used by the Town, which the Town might deem necessary to adequately provide for the operation and maintenance of stormwater drainage works, water supply systems including the water service laterals and fire hydrants. 14. The Town does not guarantee and nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to be a guarantee of an uninterrupted supply or of a sufficient or uniform water pressure or a defined quality of water. The Town shall not be liable to the Developer or to any person, firm or corporation for any damage or injury caused by the interruption of the supply of water, the lack of uniform pressure thereof or the quality of water. Further the Developer agrees to the following: (a) The Developer agrees that a separate water meter shall be installed, at their expense, for each connection made to the Town Water System. (b) The Developer agrees that the Town Council may terminate the Developer’s connection to the Town water system in the event that the Town finds that the Developer is drawing water for an unauthorized purpose or for any other use that the Town deems in its absolute discretion. 15. It is expressly agreed and understood that all connections to the Town water mains shall be approved by the Director of Operations or such other person as is designated by the Town and shall occur at the sole expense of the Developer. 16. It is expressly agreed and understood that Town staff will visually inspect the connection to the Town water mains before the connection is buried or the Developer could be asked to re-excavate at no cost to the Town. 17. The written certification of a Professional Engineer, licenced to practice in the Province of New Brunswick that the connection of service laterals and the connection to the existing town water supply has been satisfactorily completed and constructed in accordance with the Specifications for Developers is required prior to the occupation of any buildings or portions thereof. Sanitary Sewer System 18. In addition to and notwithstanding the payments committed elsewhere in this agreement the Developer agrees to pay the Town an amount, calculated by the Director of Operations in t he manner set out in By-Law 6-04 Sewage By- Law as amended from time to time, for Permit a nd Sewer Connection Fees which shall be paid to the Town on issuance of the building permit. 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_045 Development Agreement Kennebecasis Self-Storage Ltd. 4 19. The Developer shall carry out, ensuring compliance with Town By-laws and Municipal Plan and subject to inspection and approval by Town representatives, and pay for the entire actual costs of the following: a. Engineering design, supply, installation, inspection and construction of all service lateral or laterals necessary to connect to the existing sanitary sewer system inclusive of all pipes, laterals, fittings, and precast concrete units. The Developer shall connect to the existing sanitary sewer system at a point to be determined by the Director of Operations. Connection to the Town sewer system will be made by directional drilling unless otherwise approved by the Director of Operations . b. Providing and granting to the Town, its successors and assigns, unencumbered easements, in the form customarily used by the Town, which the Town might deem necessary to adequately provide for the operation and maintenance of the sanitary sewer inclusive of all pipes, laterals, fittings and precast concrete units crossing the Lands of the Developer. c. The Developer agrees to submit for approval by the Town, prior to commencing any work to connect to the sanitary sewer system, any plans required by the Town, with each such plan meeting the requirements as described in the Specifications for Developers (hereinafter referred to as the “Specifications for Developers”). 20. It is expressly agreed and understood that all connections to the Town sanitary sewer system shall be supervised by the Developer’s engineer and inspected by Town staff prior to backfilling and shall occur at the sole expense of the Developer. Lighting and General Maintenance 21. The Developer agrees to direct all exterior lighting to driveways, parking areas, building entrances and walkways and that all exterior lighting shall be arranged or directed so as to divert the light away from adjacent residential lots and buildings. 22. The Developer agrees to install decorative pole lights, the style to be approved by the Town for illumination of the driveway and roadway frontage of the lot. The pole lights shall become the responsibility of the property owner and shall be maintained in a manner to ensure continuous operation. 23. The Developer shall maintain, at its own expense, the Lands, buildings or structures shown on the site plan in a condition appropriate to the area in which it is located, such determination to be made in accordance with standards prescribed by the Town. 24. The Developer agrees that refuse containers located outside the building shall be fully screened from adjacent properties and from streets by means of opaque fencing/masonry walls with suitable landscaping in accordance with the Zoning by-law, and shall further ensure that all refuse is removed regularly. 25. The Developer shall maintain and keep in good repair all portions of the development on the Lands, including but not limited to, the interior and exterior of buildings, fencing, walkways, recreational amenities, parking areas and driveways, and the maintenance of all landscaping including the replacement of damaged or dead plant stock, trimming and litter control, garbage removal and snow removal/sanding of walkways and driveways. 26. The Developer expressly agrees and understands that notwithstanding any provision of the Town’s Building By-Laws or any statutory by-law or regulatory provision to the contrary, the Building Inspector shall not issue a building permit to the Property Owner for work directly connected with the 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_046 Development Agreement Kennebecasis Self-Storage Ltd. 5 development of the Lands, nor shall the Property Owner be entitled to such a permit unless and until the Development Officer has approved the Site Plan submitted as part of the Development Permit process illustrating the precise size, location and configuration of the proposed building. Indemnification 27. The Developer does hereby indemnify and save harmless the Town from all manner of claims or actions by third parties arising out of the work performed hereunder, and the Developer shall file with the Town prior to the commencement of any work hereunder a certificate of insurance naming the Town as co-insured evidencing a policy of comprehensive general liability coverage on “an occurrence basis” and containing a cross-liability clause which policy has a limit of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000. 00 ). The aforesaid certificate must provide that the coverage shall stay in force and not be amended, canceled or allowed to lapse within thirty (30) days prior to notice in writing being given to the Town. The aforesaid insurance coverage must remain in full force and effect during the period available to the Developer pursuant to this agreement to complete the work set out as described in this Agreement. Notice 28. Any notice or advice which is to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been satisfactorily given to the Developer if delivered personally or by prepaid mail addressed to KENNEBECASIS SELF- STORAGE LTD. , 88 Hilltop Drive, Hampton, NB, E5N 5P2 and to the TOWN if delivered personally or by prepaid mail addressed to ROTHESAY, 70 Hampton Road, Rothesay, New Brunswick, E2E 5L5. In the event of notice by prepaid mail, the notice will be deemed to have been received four (4) days following its posting. By -laws 29. The Developer agrees to be bound by and to act in accordance with the By- laws of the Town and such other laws and regulations that apply or may apply in future to the site and to activities carried out thereon. Termination 30. The Town reserves the right and the Developer agrees that the Town has the right to terminate this Agreement without compensation to the Developer if the specific proposal has not commenced on or before (INSERT DATE) being a date 5 years (60 months) from the date of Council’s decision to enter into this Agreement. Accordingly the Agreement shall have no further force or effect and henceforth the development of the Lands shall conform with the provisions of the Rothesay Zoning By-law. 31. Notwithstanding Part 40, the Parties agree that the development shall be deemed to have commenced if within a period of not less than three (3 ) months prior to (INSERT DATE) the construction of the private street and municipal service infrastructure has begun and that such construction is deemed by the Development Officer in consultation with the Town Engineer as being continued through to completion as continuously and expeditiously as deemed reasonable. 32. The Developer agrees that should the Town terminate this Agreement the Town may call the Letter of Credit described herein and apply the proceeds to the cost of completing the work or portions thereof as outlined in the agreement. If there are amounts remaining after the completion of the work in accordance with this agreement, the remainder of the proceeds shall be returned to the Institution issuing the Letter of Credit. If the proceeds of the Letter of Credit are insufficient to compensate the Town for the costs of completing the work mentioned in this agreement, the Developer shall 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_047 Development Agreement Kennebecasis Self-Storage Ltd. 6 promptly on receipt of an invoice pay to the Town the full amount owing as required to complete the work. Security & Occupancy 33. The Town and Developer agree that Final Occupancy of the proposed building(s), as required in the Building By-law, shall not occur until all conditions above have been met to the satisfaction of the Development Officer. 34. Notwithstanding, the Town agrees that the Occupancy Permit may be issued provided the Developer supplies a security deposit in the amount of 110 percent of the estimated cost to complete the required storm water management and landscaping. The security deposit shall comply with the following conditions: a. security in the form of a certified cheque or automatically renewing, irrevocable letter of credit issued by a chartered bank dispensed to and in favour of Rothesay; b. the Developer agrees that if the landscaping or storm water works are not completed within a period not exceeding six (6) months from the date of issuance of the Occupancy Permit, the Town may use the security to complete the work as set out in this Agreement; c. the Developer agrees to reimburse the Town for 100% of all costs exceeding the security necessary to complete the work as set out in this Agreement; and d. the Town agrees that the security or unused portion of the security shall be returned to the Developer upon certification that the work has been completed and acceptable to the Development Officer. 35. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Developer shall not occupy or use the Lands for any of the uses permitted by this Agreement unless an Occupancy Permit has been issued by the Town. No Occupancy Permit shall be issued by the Town unless and until the Developer has complied with all applicable provisions of this Agreement and the Zoning By -law and with the terms and conditions of all permits, licenses, and approvals required to be obtained by the Developer pursuant to this Agreement. Entire Agreement 36. This Agreement contains the whole agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes any prior agreement as regards the lands outlined in the plan hereto annexed. Severability 37. If any paragraph or part of this agreement is found to be illegal or beyond the power of the Town Council to execute, such paragraph or part or item shall be deemed to be severable and all other paragraphs or parts of this agreement shall be deemed to be separate and independent therefrom and to be agreed as such. Reasonableness 38. Both parties agree to act reasonably in connection with any matter, action, decision, comment or approval required or contemplated under this Agreement. 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_048 Development Agreement Kennebecasis Self-Storage Ltd. 7 This Agreement shall be binding upon and endure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, administrators , successors and assigns. IN WITNESS HEREOF the parties have duly executed these presents the day and year first above written. Date: , 2017 MARK A. REID ________________________ _____________________________ Witness: Director , Kennebecasis Self-Storage Ltd. Rothesay: _______________________ _ ____________________________ Witness: Mayor ________________________ ____________________________ Witness: Clerk 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_049 SCHEDULE A PID 00065227 (PID to be retired pending lot subdivision) 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_050 paLYLINE – DESIGNS RESIOErlTI/ol. f OOMMERCl/ol. BUllDltiG DESIGN ARCHITE:c!UR/ol. SUPPORT TECHNOL.01:1 IJlKTIHC ood CIW’HIC SERAC£S 137 PIC/>JllllY RO.’D -PICl’JllllY, NEW BRJtiSllCK -El£ :;J7 1E1.; 506.434.1157 Fl«: ~~433.5496 EllAI~ k~lyOpd~onodm;gn~co – I – – I I ~ – ” I I I I I I ‘…. .I/ ,_,, ~ – I – I / I ‘ I ,-51′.Gttlti I S ,,,__ ……. , “””””.;…i;..’-“—-=—-………………… ~ ……. ~ ……. ..;….~-'~"'"'""1=–..;….~~ …… –~~~~-'-=—""–~–~..:.;..~~~~~-'-'=–~~-·~~_,_1~~–"'~ I I ~ AREA OF LOT -11 010 sm GREEN/LANDSCAPED AREA – 4 013 sm (36%) HARDSURFACE/BUILDINGS AREA – 6 997 sm (74%) STORAGE BUILDINGS – 2 601 sm OFFICE BUILDING -176 sm I I I I / I I Ii’ ‘ ~ I / I I I I I I I I S E L F • STORAGE FACILITY MILLENNIUM DRIVE • Rothesay ‘ N ew B runswick I I I I I I I I I I I I I NORTH PL-1 2017July10MillenniumDriveMeetingFINAL_051 1oa·-o· -” -” -” -” -” -” ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ 1 -‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ —I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L __ J L __ J L __ J L __ J L __ J STORAGE CUBICLES (VARYING SIZES) 1Gl'·11°s11~ l:llllllqt. STORAGE CUBICLES (VARYING SIZES) 1–1 1–1 1–1 1–1 108′-11″ x 11’11’ 1–1 12118oqll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ -‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ J I I I I I I ” 0 0 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ~"' Q STORAGE BUILDING lYPE-1 FLOOR PLAN ~= 118’=1′.()’ – -” ‘ ‘ ‘ I I I I I I L __ J -” ‘ ‘ ‘ I I I I I I L __ J -” ‘ 106’-0″ ‘ ‘ I I I I I I L __ J -” ‘ STORAGE CUBICLES (VARYING SIZES) 106″-11″ It 12′-11″ 1•74oqll STORAGE CUBICLES (VARYING SIZES) 108′-11″ x NI’ ‘ ‘ I I I I I I L __ J -” ‘ -‘ ‘ I I I I I I L __ J ~-"~ "~ "~ "~ "~ "J~~ "~ "~ "~ "~ "~ “t::::::=::: – CORRIDOR 4’41″xD-6’ B4711qft r====,r====,r====,r====,r====,;~ ~r====,r====,r====,r====,r====,; ~/ L/ L/ L/ L/ L/ ~/ L/ L/ L/ L/ L/ ‘ I STORAGE CUBICLES (VARYING SIZES) STORAGE CUBICLES (VARYING SIZES) l!CNl”• 1’6” SUI’ it 7′”1′ •1uq a 41211111 STORAGE CUBICLES (VARYING SIZES) I – – l m~~~..,. I – – l I I I I I I I I I I I I ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ I ‘ I J I IMIQAllEll ., …. STORAGE CUBICLES (VARYING SIZES) I – – l Sii'~~~"" I – – l I I I I I I I I I I I I ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ I I Q STOMGE BUILDING lYPE-2 FLOOR PLAN ~: 1/8’= 1 !.()’ -J 0 I I paLYLINE – DESIGNS RESIDENTIAL f COMMERCIAL BUILDING DESIGN SITE DEVELOPMENr AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL SUPPORT lECHNOLOGY DRAFTING SERI/ICES and GRAPHIC LAYOUTS S E L F • STORAGE FACILITY PA-2 MILLENNIUM DRIVE Rothesa N B runswick 4J7 PICAOlllT ROl>ll -PIOOILLT, NEW BRUNSYllCK -E4E 5J7 TEL: 500.434, 1157 Fi’X: 506.433.5496 HAJL: ktl~Opolylinedesigno.oo y ew […]

https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017July10-MillDriveselfstoragewebsite.pdf

PDF document

[…] Tabled September 8, 2020 – no action at this time 5 . 2 Removal of PAC conditions and variance – 59 Dolan Road ( PID 00094938) Tabled October 3, 2022 […]

https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022Dec5-PAC-Kit.pdf

PDF document

[…] Tabled September 8, 2020 – no action at this time 5 . 2 Removal of PAC conditions and variance – 59 Dolan Road ( PID 00094938) 6. Correspondence for Information N/A 7. Date of Next Meeting PAC Meeting Date Submission Deadline Location Monday , November 7 , 2022 October 14 , 2022 Town Hall 8. Adjournment ROTHESAY PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Rothesay Town Hall Common Room Tues day, August 2 , 202 2 at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: TRACIE BRITTAIN, VICE – CHAIRPERSON JOHN BUCHANAN MATTHEW GRAHAM C OUNCILLOR TIFFANY MACKAY FRENCH COUNCILLOR DON SHEA CHRISTIANE VAILLANCOURT TOWN MANAGER JOHN JARVIE TOWN CLERK MARY JANE BANKS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT (DPDS) BRIAN WHITE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS (DO) BRETT MCLEAN RECORDING SECRETARY LIZ HAZLETT ABSENT: ANDREW MCMACKIN, CHAIRPERSON KELLY ADAMS Vice – Chairperson Brittain called the meeting to order at 5: 3 0 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOVED by Counc. Shea and seconded by Counc. Mackay French the agenda be approved with the addition of: ➢ 29 July 2022 Email from resident RE: Higginson Avenue (Item 5.3) ➢ 2 August 2022 Email from resident RE: Higginson Avenue (Item 5.3) CARRIED. 2. A DOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Regular Meeting of Ju ly 4 , 2022 MOVED by C. Vaillancourt and seconded by M. Graham the Minutes of Ju ly 4 , 2022 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED. 3. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Counc. Shea declared a conflict of interest for Item 4.1 110 – 112 Hampton Road. Counc. Shea declared a conflict of interest and left the meeting. 4. NEW BUSINESS 4.1 110 – 112 Hampton Road KEEL Property Holdings Ltd. OWNER: 619699 N.B. INC. PID: 00242 818, 0024 2826, 30188411 PROPOSAL: Conditional Use – Restaurant (Drive Through) A representative of KEEL Property Holdings Ltd., Mark Greatorex , was in attendance. DPDS White advised the request is to permit a restaurant with a drive – thr ough at 110 – 112 Ha mpton Road as a Conditional Use. 2.1 ROTHESAY Planning Advisory Committee Minutes – 2 – 2 August 2022 DPDS White summarized the report, noting: the property is on a corner lot with access to Rosedale Avenue and Hampton Road, situated between a daycare and Cochran’s Country Market; the land consists of three parcels zoned Central Commercia – to be consolidated if approval is granted; the proposal meets or exceeds all by – law requirements for parking , drive – thr ough queuing , and landscaping; noise and nuisance concerns are not expected as the restaurant is not licensed, music will not be provided on the patio, and it is located approx imately 150 feet from the nearest residential dwelling; and a stormwater management plan – prepared by a profe ssional engineer and reviewed by the Town Engineer – is required for a development permit. The Committee raised concerns regarding traffic congestion, asphalt (more parking spaces than required), and stormwater runoff (current problematic area) . Brett McLean, the Director of Operations/Town Engineer, acknowledged it is a problematic area, but the developer is required to submit a net – zero stormwater management plan, and there is an opportunity for staff and the developer to discuss details to miti gate traffic concerns. He added, the cost of any improvements required, for instance the widening of Rosedale Avenue – if necessary, would be borne by the developer. In response to an inquiry, DPDS White confirmed these conditions would be included in the development agreement. Mr. Greatorex addressed traffic flow, parking, and a suggestion to strike an agreement with a neighbouring property for parking. He mentioned most cars will access the property from Hampton Road , which has a middle lane for turning to reduce traffic interruptions. Vehicles will circle the perimeter of the property to access the drive – thr ough , and there is ample parking for restaurant operations , and staff, which lowers the risk of complaints . He added he does not think a neighbourin g property owner would be interested in sharing use of their parking lot, as it would not be a mutually beneficial arrangement. When questioned, Mr. Greatorex noted there will be 30 seats in the restaurant, give or take 5 on either side ; however , a change in the number of seats would not change the size of the building. Ralph Forte , 120 Applebee D rive , asked the Committee to consider if drive – thr ough s should be permitted in this day and age , citing greenhouse gas emissions and health concerns. M. Graham inquired about the process. DPDS White confirmed, if approved, the process for a development permit would begin , which w ould ensure landscaping and stormwater management requirements are me t. Counc. Mackay French noted, and DPDS White confirmed, the C entral C ommercial Z one is preferrable for restaurants . The intent is to determine if there are any concerns pertaining to restaurant operations – odour, noise, license concerns, hours of operati on, etc. MOVED by Counc. Mackay French and seconded by J. Buchanan the Planning Advisory Committee hereby grants Conditional Use approval of a restaurant with a drive – through at 110 – 112 Hampton Road (PIDs 00242818, 00242826, 30188411 ) . NAY vote recorde d from C. Vaillancourt. CARRIED. Mr. Greatorex left the meeting. Counc. Shea returned to the meeting. ROTHESAY Planning Advisory Committee Minutes – 3 – 2 August 2022 4.2 154 Hampton Road Khristie LeBlanc, Manager OWNER: White Bay Enterprises Ltd. PID: 00243162 PROPOSAL: Licensed Establishment The applicant Ms. LeBlanc was not in attendance. DPDS White advised the request is to allow a licensed establishment at 154 Hampton Road as a Conditional Use. He noted the intent is to offer “a glass of wine” to the clients of Cedar Rose Beauty during their appointments. He highlighted the following: the property i s zoned Central Commercial which permits licensed establishments as conditional uses; a Special Facility License for 25 persons is required for the business; and staff do not have concerns with the proposed conditional use. Counc. Shea asked if the Speci al Facility License will restrict the type of alcohol (wine service only). DPDS White noted he does not believe so, but the Committee can include this as a condition , if desired. C. Vaillancourt asked if ownership of the business change s , is approval tra nsferrable or would the new owners need to reapply. DPDS White confirmed the approval is attached to the business and the license issued by the P rovince. MOVED by J. Buchanan and seconded by Counc. Mackay French the Planning Advisory Committee hereby gra nts Conditional Use approval of a licensed establishment being a Special Facility License for 25 persons or less occupancy at 154 Hampton Road (PID 00243162). CARRIED. 5. OLD BUSINESS TABLED ITEMS Tabled February 5, 2018 – no action at this time 5. 1 Subdivision Approval – 7 Lots off Appleby Drive (PID 30175467) Tabled September 8, 2020 – no action at this time 5. 2 Removal of PAC conditions and variance – 59 Dolan Road (PID 00094938) 5.3 Higginson Avenue Stephen Maltby OWNER: M R Investments Inc. PID: 00239632 PROPOSAL: Subdivision Agreement – 14 Residential Lots Addenda: ➢ 29 July 2022 Emai l from resident RE: Higginson Avenue ➢ 2 August 2022 Email from resident RE: Higginson Avenue MOVED by M. Graham and seconded by Counc. Shea the Rothesay Planning Advisory Committee remove the application for a subdivision agreement – 14 lots off Higginson Avenue (PID 00239632) from the table. CARRIED. The applicant Mr. Maltby , and Andrew Toole of Don – More Surveys & Engineering Ltd., w ere in attendance . ROTHESAY Planning Advisory Committee Minutes – 4 – 2 August 2022 Mr. Maltby gave a presentation, highlighting: a brief overview of the company – which he owns alongside his wife (his family has been Rothesay residents since 2000), and another partner (with plans to move back to Atlantic Canada) ; a focus to provide quality living spaces (similar to the company’s Tranquility Estates project in Quispamsis); thoroug h and thoughtful development for a comprehensively planned area ( Phase 1 of the 2019 Hillside Secondary Plan , and 2020 Municipal Plan) ; potential use of the land has been scrutinized over many years by staff , Council, and the public; the “Rothesay Hills” p roposal complies with the Hillside Secondary Plan, the Municipal Plan, adheres to public feedback received during public consultations for both Plans, is supported by Town staff , and addresses a need for housing ; all proposed lots exceed the minimum lot si ze requirement of 1350 m 2 by roughly 31% , with the exception of Lot #3 which requires a variance of 5% because of the cul – de – sac; 16 lots are permitted but only 14 are proposed; and the benefits of living in Rothesay (safe community, healthy drinking water , access to nature and amenities ) . Mr. Maltby concluded by addressing concerns in correspondence received from residents . He noted: 14 additional single family homes pose no safety issues regarding traffic volume; heavy construction trucks have successfull y travelled on Dunedin Road during construction of the existing homes, and a more recent development; an option is being explored to utilize the Hillside Trail for construction vehicles during development; the development will connect to the existing munic ipal services ; water run – off poses no concerns to existing residences as indicated in the Stormwater Review by Mr. Toole; the proposal aligns with the Town’s Secondary Plan and Municipal Plan; and Phase 1 of development has already been approved in the Sec ondary Plan – and all subsequent phases will require a collector road and other infrastructure such as a sewage lift station in order to proceed. He confirmed his interest is in working with the Town and its residents to create a development of value to th e community. The Committee inquired about: insufficient frontage for lots abutting the cul – de – sac, Parcel FS – 12, use of the Hillside Trail for construction vehicles, a water stream on the property, blasting, stormwater detention methods, road condition (Dunedin Road), and timeline for completion . DPDS White advised a special formula is used to calculate the frontage on lots abutting cul – de – sacs, but all proposed frontages comply with by – law requirements. Mr. Maltby added , landscaping will be utilized to detract from the additional pavement of the cul – de – sac. When questioned, DPDS White clarified, it is a preliminary subdivision plan – the configuration of some lots may change . DPDS White also noted Parcel FS – 12 is land owned by the Town. Mr. Maltby explained there was a conversation with Town staff about use of the Hillside Trail for construction vehicles. The idea was proposed as a means to mitigate construction traffic concerns on Dunedin Road. The intent is that the trail would be closed to the public during construction hours and reopen evenings and weeke nds. Mr. Toole clarified, the water stream on the property is likely a storm sewer outfall – and not a watercourse – which will be addressed in the stormwater management plan. Mr. Maltby noted, at this time, it is unclear if blasting will be necessar y. Mr. Toole advised options are being explored for stormwater detention methods, including underground storage. ROTHESAY Planning Advisory Committee Minutes – 5 – 2 August 2022 Mr. Maltby addressed concerns regarding the condition of Dunedin Road. He reiterated that a new home was constructed recently, which requ ired construction vehicles to travel up and down Dunedin Road with no issues. He provided another example of a new build on Allison Drive suggesting there are similar concerns for this road in terms of slope, width, and lack of sidewalks. He stressed that construction is a regular occurrence and there are measures in place to en sure it is done in a safe and effective manner – adding that it is usually monitored by the Town. Counc. Mackay French contended that Allison Drive is a straight route with less traf fic than the winding route of Dunedin Road. Mr. Maltby stated he expects the timeline for completion to be 3 – 4 years. DPDS White clarified that the proposal is for a subdivision agreement, not a rezoning application. Points of interest with subdivisio n agreements are new streets, curbs, sidewalks, connections to municipal infrastructure, streetlights, trees, etc. He gave a presentation, summarizing the staff report: ➢ Proposal is for 14 lots on 6.14 acres of land with primary access from Higginson Avenue ➢ Lot 3 requires a 5% variance in lot size ➢ New public street extension ➢ Lots fully serviced (municipal water and sewer) ➢ Proposal conforms with the 2019 Secondary Plan and the 2020 Municipal Plan ➢ The subject land is part of Phase 1 of the 2019 Secondary Plan – municipal infrastructure connections are available, and proposal aligns with density planning o Phase s 2 – 4 of the Secondary Plan cannot proceed without the extension of Wiljac Street as a collector road , and the extension of municipal servi ces ➢ No capacity concerns with existing sanitary sewer system ➢ A net – zero stormwater management plan is required ➢ Upon review by emergency responders there are no conflicts with the proposed street name “Rothesay Hills Road” ➢ Costs for extending municipal services and for new roads will be borne by the developer ➢ The subject land is suitable for the proposed use DPDS White concluded by sharing a draft clause which can be include d in the subdivision agreement regarding construction a ccess: “ The Developer and Rothesay agree that the water utility pipeline right – of – way connecting to Grove Avenue “Hillside Trail” shall be used solely for all construction machinery, heavy equipment and related commercial vehicles until such time that the subdivision is substantially complete. ” Should the Committee be amenable to inclusion of the draft clause, the proposed recommendation will be revised to recommend entering into an agreement, as amended. The Committee made the following comments: th ere is another parcel of land in Phase 1 of the Secondary Plan that could be developed at the same time (different landowner); residents claim they were informed no development would occur until the extension of Wiljac Street; and a suggestion to pave the Hillside Trail for a permanent solution to traffic concerns , or improve the condition of Dunedin Road . ROTHESAY Planning Advisory Committee Minutes – 6 – 2 August 2022 DPDS White advised the Secondary Plan, was approved by Council, and identifies the plan for each phase. DO McLean clarified , the Hillside Trail was not initially designed as a trail , but rather as a utility access road and built to construction road standards. The trail would not be paved and remain available for use to the public outside of construction hours. He spoke to the condition of Dunedin Ro ad, noting the grade cannot be changed, sidewalks were constructed in 2009 but met with public opposition, and widening the road would have implications for private driveways. Counc. Mackay French proposed a public meeting be held . She mentioned new info rmation was received regarding use of the Hillside Trail for construction vehicles. MOVED by Counc. Mackay French and seconded by C. Vaillancourt the Planning Advisory Committee recommends Council hold a public meeting for the Higginson Avenue subdivision proposal. ON THE QUESTION: There was a brief discussion regarding procedure. When questioned, DPDS White confirmed it is at the Committee’s discretion whether to discuss the proposed recommendations or table them pending the public meeting. CARRIED. Town Manager Jarvie clarified t hat it will be a decision of Council whether to hold a public meeting. He added the meeting will not be a meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). Regular PAC meetings, such as this one, are open to the public. Vice – Chairperson Brittain invited comments from the public. The following people spoke: Tom Mueller, 105 Horton Road; Bill Stratton, 50 Higginson Avenue; Catherine and Paul Emile Chiasson, 136 Horton Road; Terry Stilwell, 126 Wiljac Street; Greg Redford, 42 Horton Road; Pat McGill, 29 Hor ton Road; and Linda Lord, 16 Valpy Drive . The following comments were made: there is a watercourse on the property; there is interest in maintaining Rothesay as a suburban bedroom community and retreat for all ages; residents are supportive of developmen t as long as it is considerate of the existing community; more information is required to make an informed decision on the proposal (the schematic is inadequate) ; there is frustration with the lack of transparency and due process; road infrastructure in th e area is unsustainable especially with the introduction of additional traffic ; primary obligations should be to taxpayers rather than developers; follow through on Town interests expressed during public consultation for the Secondary Plan is lacking (ex. a cquisition of Spyglass Hill land , and deferring development until completion of the Wiljac Street extension ); approval of the Secondary Plan despi te public opposition ; support for a public meeting; a suggestion for the extension of Dunedin Road rather than a cul – de – sac; concerns of residents remain unaddressed especially with respect to road condition (Dunedin Road, Horton Road, Appleby Drive) ; Appl eby Drive could be connected to the area as a part of the other Phase 1 potential development; the extension of Wiljac Street would introduce significant traffic to the area (likely redirected from Rothesay Road); municipal infrastructure may not be able t o handle additional capacity (some residents have experienced back – ups); the importance of safety especially for young children in the area; and Rothesay staff visit the area presumably to address utility concerns. ROTHESAY Planning Advisory Committee Minutes – 7 – 2 August 2022 DO McLean addressed concerns with respe ct to extension s of Dunedin Road and Appleby Drive, the presence of Rothesay staff in the area, and capacity concerns for municipal services. He noted: an extension of Dunedin Road could occur but has not because of public opposition; a connection to Apple by Drive is not proposed in this application ; Town staff visit the area as part of regular maintenance operations to relieve water pressure from the water system (potable water) – this task does not pertain to the municipal stormwater system; and there is no evidence to suggest municipal services cannot handle additional capacity from the additional 14 lots. He offered that back – up issues on private properties may be a result of improper or cross connections , foundation cracks, or roof leaders with an inter nal connection . He reiterated that run – off will be managed through a net – zero stormwater management plan – where post – development run – off will not exceed pre – development conditions . M. Graham raised safety concerns about temporarily repurposing the Hillside Trail for a construction route. He warned there are multiple offshoots for individuals to access the trail from the Spyglass Hill area. DO McLean advised temporary closure of the trail would be publicized by the Town. He reiterated the origin of the trail which began as a utility corridor , and noted the trail would remain available to the public during evenings and weekends. M. Graham stated he finds use of a trail for construction vehicles a conflicting alternative to a road. C. Vaillancourt asked if the Hillside Trail can accommodate two – way traffic, and the rationale for deferring the Land for Public Purposes (LPP). DO McLean advised the width of the Hillside Trail is roughly 4 meters; however two – way traffic is not anticipated as it will only be utilized by one company. DPDS White explained the required amount of LPP, or cash in lieu of LPP, was calculated but deferred to ensure the land received is complementary to development of the Secondary Plan (ex. land for a walking trail to connect to the institutionally zoned property). There was a brief discussion regarding how to proceed. MOVED by Counc. Shea and seconded by T. Brittain the Rothesay Planning Advisory Committee recommend s that Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into a Development Agreement as amended with M R Investments Inc. for the development of a 14 – lot subdivision on the property identified as (PID 00239632). YEA votes recorded from: Counc. Shea and T. Brittain. NAY votes recorded from: Counc. Mackay French, J. Buchanan, M. Graham, and C. Vaillancourt. DEFEATED. The re was discussion regarding procedure. The Committee deemed a vote on the second recommendation unnecessary since the first recommendation was defeated. In response to an inquiry, DPDS White confirmed, in accordance with Town by – laws, the cost of improvements to Town infrastructure , for the purpose of dev elopment , will be borne by developers (ex. Wiljac Street extension). He added there is a formula based on acreage that will determine how the project will be cost – shared by developers. 6. CORRESPONDENCE FOR INFORMATION N/A ROTHESAY Planning Advisory Committee Minutes – 8 – 2 August 2022 7 . DATE OF NEXT MEETING(S) The next meet ing will be held on TUESDAY , September 6 , 2022 . 8 . ADJOURNMENT MOVED by Counc. Mackay French and seconded by C. Vaillancourt the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED. T he meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. CHAIRPERSON RECORDING SECRETARY 4.1 – I ‘ ~ ~. ~ Planning Advisory Committee October J’d, 2022 To: Chair and Members of Rothesay Planning Advisory Committee From: Brian L. White, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Development Services Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 Subject: Rezoning 50 Hampton Road -Apartment Building Applicant: Andrew McKay Property Glynn Johnston Owner: 308 Model Fann Road Mailing 50 Hampton Road Mailing Address: Quispamsis, NB Address: Rothesay, NB E2G IL8 E2E 5L2 Property 50 Hampton Road PID: 00255984 Location: Plan Desi2nation: High Density Residential Zone: R 1 A -Single Family Application For: Rezoning (1 apartment building -27 units) Input from Other Operations, K VFD Sources: ORIGIN: An application from Mr. Andrew McKay to develop a three story 27-unit apartment building at 50 Hampton Road. The subject property has a total area of 4,360.09 square meters ( 1.1 acres) and is zoned Single Family Residential -Large Serviced Zone . The property is also designated for future high density residential land uses. The subject land abuts the “Central Park” condominium development off Hillcrest Avenue and the parking lot of the Arthur Miller Turf Sport Fields. The property also fronts on Hampton Road a provincially designated highway (Route I 00) which is generally considered to be Rothesay’s “main street” . Figure I – Site Location (50 Hampton Road) AMENDMENT (REZONING) PROCESS: The application is to rezone the subject property to the R-4 Multi-Unit Residential Zone to permit a multi-unit apartment building by development agreement. The typical procedure for a rezoning is that Council receive from PAC a recommendation to hold a Public Hearing and that both the rezoning (by­ law amendment) and the development agreement be prepared in advance of the public hearing. PAC recommendation to Council is also influenced by public feedback received through the polling process. Staff have not yet conducted the polling of neighbours, prepared the by-law amendment or the development agreement. In general, Staff support the redevelopment of the property (50 Hampton Road) for higher density residential and note the added population to the area will support the existing churches, schools and businesses in area. Staff also note that this form of higher density is increasingly the preferred housing option for an ageing population and smaller household sizes. For these reasons Staff believe the proposed location is well suited to this form of housing. BACKGROUND The property is currently zoned single family residential (RIA) and designated for HIGH DENSITY residential uses. The designation of High Density residential means that Council can consider zoning the property to the High Density residential (R4) zone. i,·,gure 2 – Municipal Plan Designation High Density Residential – Propert) Outlined 2 • I l:I I • rr .__ i:–e .. · ~~-,et,-e-,-rl9i _ . , . ,.. ?f 6 ~ ~-+— ➔ 1 • … – … – a M. Figure 3 -Sile Plan Proposed Aparlmenl Building The Municipal Plan has designated high-density residential areas near commercial uses, and arterial and /or collector streets. The primary rationale to locate high-density residential land uses in these areas is to promote pedestrian connectivity and convenient access to services for residents. Figure 4 • Render i ng of Proposed Aparlmenl Building 3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: Staff will prepare a development agreement for PAC’s review before proceeding to Council. A development agreement is a contract between Rothesay and the property owners that specify the details and obligations of the individual parties concerning the proposed development. Implementation Policy IM-13 states that Council shall consider development agreement applications pursuant to the relevant policies of the Municipal Plan (See Policies HDR-4, R-1, and R-2) and consideration of the following: Implementation Policy IM-13 A. That the proposal is not premature or inapp roJ_>riate h]’_ reason of: I) The financial capability of Rothesay to absorb any costs relating […]

https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022Oct3-PAC-Kit.pdf

PDF document

[…] Meeting Monday , July 5 , 2021 Webex Video conference 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC NOTICE: Rothesay PAC meetings will be held by teleconference (or videoconference) while the Province is under a […]

https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2021July5-PAC-Agenda.pdf

PDF document

[…] 00065201 & 30347942) – Rezoning 5.2 Planning Advisory Committee Agenda & Polling Procedures Policy REVISED PAC Agenda & Polling Procedures Policy TABLED ITEM S Tabled October 3, 2022 – no […]

https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/1.0-2023Sep5-PAC-agenda.pdf

PDF document

[…] , October 4 , 2021 Rothesay Town Hall Common Room 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC NOTICE: Rothesay PAC meetings will be held IN PERSON following the return to Green Phase by the […]

https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/1.0-2021Oct4-PAC-agenda.pdf

PDF document

[…] Election of Officers (2017) (Welcome New and Returning Members) 2. Approval of the Agenda 2.1. PAC 2017 Meeting Schedule 2.2. Code of Ethics 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. Regular Meeting […]

https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1.0-PAC-Agenda-January-3-2017.pdf

PDF document

[…] (PID 30175467) Tabled September 8, 2020 – no action at this time 5.2 Removal of PAC conditions and variance – 59 Dolan Road (PID 00094938) Tabled October 3, 2022 – […]

https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1.0-2023Apr3-PAC-agenda.pdf

PDF document

[…] (PID 30175467) Tabled September 8, 2020 – no action at this time 5.2 Removal of PAC conditions and variance – 59 Dolan Road (PID 00094938) Tabled October 3, 2022 – […]

https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1.0-2023Mar6-PAC-agenda.pdf

PDF document

[…] (PID 30175467) Tabled September 8, 2020 – no action at this time 5.3 Removal of PAC conditions and variance – 59 Dolan Road ( PID 00094938) Tabled February 7, 2022 […]

https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/1.0-2022Apr4-PAC-agenda.pdf

PDF document