Friends of Rockwood Park

________________________________________________________________________

Presentation
prepared by Friends of Rockwood Park
for
Saint John Common Council
in response to
Rockwood Park / Sandy Point Road Planning Study

November 8, 2010

Speaking Notes:

My name is Joan Pearce, I am the chair of The Friends of Rockwood Park Inc. Thank you
for this opportunity to make a presentation on the Sandy Point Rd. planning study before
you deal with the recommendations from the planning department on this file.
Information in this presentation has come from various sources.

Page 1 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

Mission Statement:
The mission of FORP Inc. is to work and advocate
for the protection of the natural environment of
Rockwood Park in Saint John, New Brunswick.

FORP was established in 2005 to try to prevent

environmental damage to the park by the construction
of Emera Brunswick Pipeline and has been acting as a
watchdog ever since.

No members live on property adjacent to Rockwood Park

Speaking notes: Read the Mission statement

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

Page 2 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

Outstanding Concerns
Common Council and the public are waiting for
reports from:
1. the City Solicitor on what lands were purchased and the reasons why they
were purchased, in response to Councillor Farren’s motion of August 3,
2010;
2. the report from the City manager in response to a motion to him on the
damage to property at # 1641 Sandy Point Road caused by the extensive
work along Sandy Point Road and the associated fill.
3. the report from the city manager on the Recommendations from the
Rockwood Park Advisory Board.
and Concerns re:
4. Reasons for the area of study extended into Rockwood Park 250 to 450 m.
5. the legal status of Highland Park lands in Rockwood Park
6. Proposed development in ADI study
7. Plan SJ

Speaker Notes:

Councillor Farren’s question - Why did the City acquire these lands in the first place? - has
not been answered. WHY?

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

2. Road improvements and the water and sewage project apparently caused some problems
to #1641 Sandy Point Road. This possible damage is one reason that we are asking for
environmental assessments on every lot before development adversely impacts
Rockwood Park.

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

Page 3 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

Rockwood Park Boundaries

For decades, Saint John citizens have considered
Rockwood Park to be the area between Sandy Point Rd.,
Foster Thurston drive and the throughway, Hawthorne
Avenue and area around Lily Lake. This has been
confirmed:
•in the city's tourist literature,
•in city maps,
•in special maps of Rockwood Park,
•in a master plan for the management of Rockwood Park
commissioned by the city in 1988
•In Service New Brunswick records
•Pg. 7 of Sandy Point Road Planning Study
•Staff report Planning Commissioner Jim Baird in 2004

Speaking Notes:
Unsolicited opinion by 2 retired city indicated that all of the area that citizens
traditionally believe to be Rockwood Park property was purchased by the Land
Committee with the intent to enlarge the park. There exist written records of when, why,
and by whom lands were purchased. Apparently, those city records cannot be located. A
former city councillor has said that he served on the land committee when land was
purchased to increase the Park. It was definitely the intent of the land committee at that
time to enlarge the Park.

What is the opinion of the city’s Leisure Services Department? This department has been
quiet on this issue of Rockwood Park boundaries despite the fact that that department is
responsible for managing the park.

Page 4 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

Public Statements

• City solicitor first reported that the boundaries of Rockwood

Park were unknown. He later said that the legal Rockwood
Park consists of Trust lands previously owned by Saint John
Horticultural Association and that the rest of Rockwood Park
is city-owned park land.
• Mayor Court continues to say that the land traditionally known
as Rockwood Park is parkland owned by the city BUT it is
NOT Rockwood Park. “It’s not part of Rockwood Park. It’s
never been part of Rockwood Park.” - CBC news radio report.
• What kind of reasoning is this?
• City money was used to purchase this land. The city must
have records showing what property was bought, from whom
it was purchased and for what purpose it was purchased.

It seems pretty clear that the lands were purchased for park, and limiting what is “legally
Rockwood Park” is contrary to the intent. The city is once again betraying the trust the
citizens have in the city and its intents. What recourse do we have to hold the city to its
word?

Page 5 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

Highland Park Company in Rockwood Park

• established in 1899 to acquire land and sell parcels to

members of the company.

• became the property of the Saint John Horticultural

Association

• is shown on maps as private property

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

Horticultural Association?

• what is its current legal standing?

Read only

The Highland Park Company had been established in 1899 to acquire land and sell
parcels to members of the company. Eventually its remaining lands became the property
of the Saint John Horticultural Association, but it had not been included in schedule A of
the lands which the Saint John Horticultural Association conveyed to the city on March
6, 1967 (registry office page 325) and apparently still is the property of the Saint John
Horticultural Association and falls under the 1893 Act. Since it is shown on maps
attached to the ADI and the technical background report from staff as private property,
which is it, is it private property, or does it belong to the Saint John Horticultural
Association? What is its current legal standing? The Highland Park property is shown as
white boxes within the park.

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

Page 6 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

• City purchased Lot 1671 in 1971 to

augment Park land
• Apr. 2003 Sandy Point Road Water &
Sewer Extension and Road
Reconstruction project was approved.
• Nothing was mentioned in the Council
Meeting regarding the lot
PID00418129.
• Aug. 2003 A blueprint of a possible
future subdivision “Harrigan Lake
Court” with several single-family
dwelling lots was noted in the City’s
file for lot PID00418129.
• Despite repeated inquiries by area
residents, city officials never
mentioned their plan to clear-cut
Harrigan Lake Property and use it to
dump construction debris and install
the storm drain.

Speaking notes:

The next 5 slides all deal with the very bad situation now existing at and around 1671
Sandy Point Road. I am using this lot as an example to indicate the degree of lack of
transparency and clarity that this entire issue has had, and to indicate the damage that
could occur all along Sandy Point Road if the proposed development takes place. This is
a map that has been generated from several city maps so as to make the issues more
easily understood. Please note #1671 marked in red on this map. This lot was shown on a
March 2009 map as a part of Rockwood Park. The City purchased 17.5 acres of land
from the Estate of John O’Leary. It was in Common Council September 21, 1970
minutes that… this purchase being made in continuation of the City’s policy of acquiring
all lands bounded by the Sandy Point Road and Foster Thurston Drive for the long-range
development of Rockwood Park. This is one public record that we have found regarding
the properties in Rockwood Park but it is our opinion that each lot purchased by the city
would have had a similar motion made. Perhaps this information is recorded in the
records of the land committee which apparently are not public. It is a special irony that
this is the only lot that is documented in Common Council minutes as being a part of
Rockwood Park and this is the one that has suffered the most damage from the city.

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

Page 7 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

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

Nothing was mentioned in the Council Meeting #1671

Still in 2003, a blueprint of a possible future subdivision “Harrigan Lake Court” with
several single-family dwelling lots was noted in the City’s file for this lot #1671
PID00418129.

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

The residents found out, not from the City, but by accident, that a part of the “Harrigan
Lake Court” was to be clear-cut. No notice was given. No public consultation was held.
The area residents learned in the next few days that all the work would be within the
City’s legal rights, and they could not be stopped from clear-cutting.
M&C-2008-293 Sept 26, 2008 ) Harrigan Lake area:

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

Page 8 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

DEC-2004 City advertises zoning from Park to R-1A Single -

Family Residential Public notification by local
newspaper notice local residents were advised
by letter. Public notice stated PID numbers and
did not say Rockwood Park.
2005 Rezoning of 1313 to 1711 Sandy Point Road from
“P” (Park) to “R-1A” (One Family Residential)
Municipal Designation Amendment for the same
area from “Open Space” to “ Low Density
Residential”

2009 Jan. Darling’s Rockwood Condominiums Darling

Construction (North Star Holdings) applied to
build “Rockwood Condominiums” (2 x 6-story
apartment buildings, each with 83 units) in 1671
Sandy Point Road. Darling later withdrew their
application.

2009 Jan. Cavanagh’s 48 townhouses Cavanagh Homes

applied to build 48 townhouses in 4 hectares of
city-owned land including 1581 and 1601 Sandy
Point Road, next to Harrigan Lake property.

2009 June Moratorium on development

Leisure Services map of March 2009

shows this lot as park
8

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

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

Page 9 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

One of the park trails Storm drain flowing

has been cut-off towards Harrigan Lake

The Current Condition of 1671 Sandy Point Road

Discharge from the
storm drain is pooled
in the delicate wetland

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

Damage and impact from development can be expected to extend well into the park
where ever it occurs. The integrity of the park would suffer far more than the actual
developed area.

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

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

It must be stressed that it is illegal to disturb wetlands and to discharge contaminated

water into a Fish Management Area (Harrigan Lake). The city has said that the storm
sewer is draining into Harrigan Lake. The city did not request a permit from New
Brunswick Environment to bury a wetland. Friends of Rockwood Park have notified both
the local Dept of Environment and the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans for
the destruction of fish habitat.

Page 10 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

Proposed Development at 1671 Sandy Point Road

ADI recommends in their report : two multi-unit apartment/condo/townhouse buildings aligned perpendicular to Sandy
Point Road. The scale of the buildings begin at the road with a 4-5 storey tower apartment style building that gradually steps
down to 2-3 storey high nearest the Harrigan Lake look-off.

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

10

Speaking Notes:
In January of 2009 Darling Construction (North Star Holdings) applied to build
“Rockwood Condominiums” This is what they looked like. This plan was later
withdrawn.

The ADI study recommends…… (read above) The design in the study assumes that
there are design guidelines which will be tasteful, upscale and compatible with the natural
environment. Unfortunately Saint John does not have any design guidelines and past
practice has shown that a developer can pretty well get away with any poorly designed
development he wishes.

Additional Information:
(2 x 6-story apartment buildings, each with 83 units) at 1671 Sandy Point Road. Darling later withdrew
their application. The City was trying to extend their deal with Darling for four additional months to the
end of Dec 2009, but the matter was never discussed by the Common Council. Darling’s position on
developing 1671 Sandy Point Road is unknown at this point.

Similarly, the Cavanagh’s plan to build 48 townhouses has been put on hold but they are still quite
interested. Mr. Cavanagh has publicly stated that “I’m willing to work with the City on whatever we can to
make it work”
Surely Council realizes that this is not what Rockwood Park is about.

Page 11 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

Inevitable Negative Impact

to the Environment
If two buildings contained 80 units each, the
zoning by-law would require 200 parking
spaces. That is approximately

3 acres of paved surfaces

 Further clear-cutting would likely be
needed to make a parking lot.
 Pollutants such as salt, motor oil,
soap and windshield washer fluid
would run into Harrigan Lake through
the storm drain.
 Flooding is already reported by the
homeowner adjacent to the clear-cut
area. Melting snow and rain water
falling on the hard surfaces, not being
able to be absorbed into the ground,
could cause further problems. 11

Read this

Page 12 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

12

This is a map indicating a proposed sub-division. You will note the date September 25,
2008, long before the moratorium and the Planning Study. We wonder if the council of
the day really understood that this was a subdivision proposed for Rockwood Park.
Harrigan Lake isn’t shown nor the golf course.

Take a look at the proposed street.

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

Page 13 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

In the immediate neighbourhood with

current zoning:
The City has already committed to
264 new housing units.
190 - 220 additional units are being
considered.
In the Crescent Valley area:
There is a potential for 1,000 new
units.
So why is it necessary to seek
additional building lots in this
neighbourhood?
Why inside Rockwood Park?
ADI is recommending a major
expansion - a new
neighbourhood with significantly
higher density
This neighbourhood doesn’t have the
infrastructure to support this.
• Roads are dangerous
• No sidewalks
• Far from schools and stores
13

Speaking Notes:
Lots along Sandy Point Road next to the golf course had earlier been deemed surplus by City staff and
could be sold as serviced lots. Remember that the city has been saying that they want to recoup the expense
of the water and sewage infrastructure. Serviced lots in some Millidgeville locations are offered for sale
from $40,000.00 to $100,000.00.

In 2007, #1375 and 1385 lots deemed surplus to the city were created by the city in 2007 for sale as
residential lots. They were purchased for $35,000.00 plus a lot levy of $8,856 for the two lots. Two
serviced lots in Rockwood Park with a great view, a prime location with no fear of development that would
block the view. Similarly, Lot #1345 was purchased $20,001.00 plus a lot levy of $4,428.HST.
If the city wants to pay for the infrastructure why aren’t they charging the going rate for a serviced lot in a
prime location?

How does a member of the public know that there is Rockwood Park land for sale? I have been told that
there is a Call for Proposals by the Real Estate Department advertised in the local paper. Again apparently
our members missed these notices as well. I would like to emphasize again that the city is calling this
surplus land for sale and we are saying it is precious Rockwood Park land.

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

Look at all this potential area for development – there’s no lack of land - there’s enough land for decades of
development within a block or two of Rockwood Park. See also the next slide in the hand-out from a
newsletter from Plan SJ which shows many more parcels of land for development in east Saint John. Where
will all the people come from to fill this development??

Page 14 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

So Much Land – Why Erode Rockwood Park?

So much land – why erode Rockwood Park?

14

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

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

Page 15 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

Rockwood Park / Sandy Point Road Planning Study

August 2009 to Present

Shortcomings with the Study and the ADI

Report
• During the "public consultation"
ADI was asked to confirm the
boundaries of RP.
• There has been no
environmental impact
assessment nor a traffic study
to make an informed decision
on housing development in and
adjacent to Rockwood Park.
• It concerns with only the Study
area. It does not address the
possible detrimental effects
on the entire park’s
ecosystem.
ADI proceeded to establish a Zone
of their own choosing for Housing
Developments.
• This 75 to 150 m deep Zone frequently
encroaches heavily upon the existing
landscape.
• Clusters of 3-storey Apartment
buildings in this Zone prevent a
smooth transition into Rockwood Park
• Nobody at the "Public Consultation
asked for the proposed Trail Corridor
with access from Sandy Point road
14

Read this

Page 16 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

SHORTCOMINGS WITH THE STUDY AND THE ADI

REPORT CONTINUED
Common Council asked the Planning Department for the Study.
Apparently the Planning Department then used input by developers to establish a Study
Area.
This 250 to 450 m deep area would consume 1/3 of the Golf Course.

Common Council asked to have the optimum future use along SPR identified.
This implies to harmoniously combine the future type of housing with the existing one.
The ADI report instead clusters 3-storey apartment buildings between one-family
houses.

ADI with the "No Net Loss of Parkland" slogan went outside the scope of its contract.
They propose an exchange of Golf Course land with the Howes Lake area land.
Developers can build on the Golf Course, and the public is stuck with the toxic
lake.

When 2 multi-storey Apartment Buildings were proposed at lot 1671 the public objected.
They were than asked to and did participate in a "public consultation' session.
ADI was told by all participants that the suburban landscape along Sandy Point Road
should so remain.
ADI disregarded this and proposed a maximum density scheme never used in a
Canadian Park

15

Read this

Page 17 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

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

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

• Example #1671 Sandy Point Road

• Peter Maguire said he supports the development along Sandy Point
Rd. Telegraph Journal March 31, 2010.
• Councillor Donnie Snook quoted. “I hope this bounces the
moratorium out of its place, so we can move forward with
development, who wouldn’t want to see development around the
Park?” Telegraph Journal August 18, 2009
• Councillor Gary Sullivan said when the Sandy Point Road Planning
Study was submitted to the planning Department that this
development plan was exactly what was asked for
• Public consultation barriers in Sandy Point Road Planning Study
and Plan SJ

16

Speaking Notes:

Most of the participants in the 2 public consultation meetings held by the ADI consultant
basically said “leave the park alone”. In our opinion most public comment was ignored.
The public has been told not to prejudge the outcome of the planning study and wait until
the planning department presents its recommendations to council. We feel that 3
councillors and the Mayor, have already made up their minds about the land along Sandy
Point Road.

Additional notes:

I have already discussed the various concerns with 1671 Sand Point Road. There were plans made
as early as 2003 to sell Rockwood Park land along Sandy Point Road between the golf course and
Cherrybrook Zoo. Park zoning allows for single family homes. Why did the city change the
zoning in 2005? The city has at least two subdivision plans for the Harrigan Lake area. Just at the
moratorium, the city was prepared to accept the apartment buildings and the 48 townhouses. Why
spend $25,000 for a planning study that comes up with the exact proposed development in the
park that the planning department wanted? Most of the participants in the 2 public consultation
meetings held by the ADI consultant basically said “leave the park alone”. In our opinion most
public comment was ignored. The public has been told not to prejudge the outcome of the

Page 18 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________
planning study and wait until the planning department presents its recommendations to council.
We feel that 3 councillors and the Mayor, have already made up their minds about the land along
Sandy Point Road.

During the ADI public consultation we were told that the Sandy Point Road Planning Study was
only to study Sandy Point Road and it was not a Rockwood Park Study. At the afternoon session,
when people got passionate about protecting the park because of the frustration about park
boundaries not being articulated, staff apparently felt threatened and called in the police for the
evening session. There were no threats, no rowdiness and this was blatant intimidation to say
nothing about dismissing any points made because the people were “rowdies”. The city has
shown time and time again that they will not listen to the public. Unfortunately it appears that
plan SJ is going the same way. When people interested in Rockwood Park arrived at the last
public meeting to discuss Plan SJ, they were told that Rockwood Park and Sandy Point Road
could not be discussed because it is currently under study. Why would any resident of the city
feel that any of their thoughts on how the city should look want to participate in a Municipal Plan
when parts of the city are left out of the discussion? It brings into question the whole integrity and
validity of the municipal plan process.

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

Page 19 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

Rockwood Park / Sandy Point Road Planning Study

FORP’s Two Main Concerns

ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN SJ
Rockwood Park needs : • The Planning Dept is stressing the
•Environmental sensitivity need to :
•A commitment to the real value of • Draw people back into the city
the park • Revitalize existing neighbourhoods
•Proper management • Minimize sprawl
•Conservation
But the ADI Plan would :
•Create a new urbanized area
•Contribute to sprawl
•Create traffic congestion and pollution
•Seriously degrade Rockwood Park 17

Read this

Page 20 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

FORP Recommendations

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

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

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

with the existing country atmosphere. The city asked for optimum,
not maximum, future use of these lands.

3. The current moratorium remain until a thorough independent

comprehensive environmental impact assessment is done.

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

18

Page 21 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010

Friends of Rockwood Park
________________________________________________________________________

19

Speaking Notes:

This is Harrigan Lake which gets polluted by storm sewer drainage after every rain
storm. The city has many jewels that bring a good quality of life to its residents. The
Irving Nature Park, the Aquatic Centre and Rockwood Park to name a few. The city is
supposed to be a steward for Rockwood Park. Chipping away at it in bits and pieces is
very short-sighted and cannot be condoned.

Page 22 of 22 Nov. 8, 2010