Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to your economic prosperity and growth planning committee, open meeting for Thursday, January 29, 2026, welcome to all the committee members and other folks,
joining us in chambers, and I'd like to acknowledge the folks joining us online, as well as committee members, counselors, brain, Peters, and counselor hex.
Does anyone have a conflict of interest to declare if any of the matters before us today?
Seeing none and seeing none online, we're going to get rid into the agenda. It's a busy, exciting agenda today.
Item 4.1 is our first item. We have Melissa Tang Choi, planner with the city to deliver our 2025 year and development activity numbers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the committee might have noticed, I'm not Frederick. We usually does this presentation and we're not in the last five minutes of the meeting. So happy about that.
It's a new year, so on behalf of the planning and development department, happy to share with a committee, the end of year, development numbers for 2025, with more than five minutes in the agenda.
So before starting the presentation, I wanted to acknowledge that a lot of the work happens behind the scenes, pulling all of these data together, so big shout out to Alicia Brown, Mark McKay and Felix McCarthy for that.
I'm trying to turn, and I can't. So starting with some exceptional use for 2025 for the fifth year in the row.
We have had another record year of construction value in Fredrickson at $359.4 million.
The city did not see any major governmental or institutional projects this past year, but as we'll see through the presentation,
25 was characterized by private sector investment through significant multi-racidential developments.
So we'll start our presentation today with our non-racidential construction numbers, and then we'll move on to our residential numbers.
So construction in our commercial sector remains strong at almost $45 million.
This is 25% above the 10-year average, and it's a reflection of the continued investments being made in the city as an employment center.
Moving to government and institutional construction, this unfortunately has not followed the same exceptional use that we've just seen,
compares into the landmark investments in 2024 government and institutional construction in 2025, so one of its lowest years with no major projects taking place.
This represents it only 3% of a total construction value, so that's $11.4 million from the total $359.4 million that we have in total.
Looking at our non-racidential building permanent activity and the map of where that's been located.
We continue to see significant investments in the urban core, as well as our commercial center corridors, with major developments taking place on prospect and the bishop drive areas.
We're also seeing a bit more movement in our industrial business industrial sector, which continues to develop and grow.
Now we're moving to our residential activity, so 2025 has truly been a landmark year for the residential sector with almost $297 million in residential construction value.
This is almost equivalent to the total value of residential construction for the past two years combined.
So 2025's residential activity represented over 82% of the total development value in Frederton, which is the highest residential activity in the province.
Moving to our single detached starts, so once again 25 saw the number of single new single detached buildings.
It's been above 100 homes, which has only happened three times in the past 10 years. So this tells us that there's still a market for new single detached dwellings and our development communities still responding to this need.
Whereas last year we saw decreasing the average value of single detached dwellings, 2025 saw that number increased again by about 3%.
So this roughly follows inflationary pressures. However, this also has meant that new single detached dwellings are now costing more than $364,000 to build.
And this is without taking into account other costs like land.
So this translates to a higher price in the resale market. As we saw in the housing needs assessment last year, it has resulted in smaller proportions of the population of various income levels being able to access the housing ownership market.
With respect to subdivision activity, the number of new building lots continues to surpass our 10 year average at 175 new lots created in 2025.
This tells us that there's still a strong market for development in the city and the development community still responding to this demand.
On the resale market, this is the first time that the average resale price has been above $400,000.
And this represents about a 10% increase when compared to 2024 average prices. So the messaging from the Fredrickton real estate board continues to be that the challenges are around limited supply given the very strong demand which pushes the prices up.
At a regional level, we're going to be looking into the next two slides for this. So in the single detached housing market, Fredrickton capture 35% of the regional market, which has been relatively stable for the past 10 years.
And for the overall total housing market for the region, Fredrickton capture 88% of the total housing market, which is an old time high.
This is a reflection of the amount of multi-residential starts and the specification that we have in the city and the Fredrickton continues to be a place where people choose to live in.
Our multi unit starts, a residential construction in 2025 was primarily driven by multi unit developments, which saw a record breaking 1,406 units being permitted.
And this represented almost 90% of the total housing starts in 2025.
As a reminder to the committee, multi unit starts to include anything from a secondary building unit, a semi detached house, a town house in the apartment buildings.
So overall Fredrickton has led the province by issue in building permits for 1564 new housing units in 2025.
This is the first time that the city has actually reached the permitting of more than 1,000 units in a year.
Development activities being driven by a number of large scale multi residential projects, particularly in the 6th to 10th story range, which has significant density.
This project, this residential projects help improve the overall supply of housing and showcase how our development community continues to respond to the city's rapid growing population.
As a note of interest to the committee, we've been talking about building permits, but we're also doing really well in housing starts, so in shovels on the ground.
So statistics can that I recently released some numbers, and we're second in the country in terms of how much the person didn't change that we had from last year.
So we're second in the country, compared to last year we've built like much more, we actually have more shovels on the ground this year.
And as you'll see shortly, this major residential developments in the city are happening in the areas that we've planned for are designated growth nodes.
So we're continue to analyze our housing starts in relation to the municipal plan and the growth strategy for 2025 we had 77% of our development within the designated growth areas.
So a couple of highlights from the map is that the distribution of residential development is similarly distributed amongst 304 new neighborhoods areas, as well as the urban core.
And the housing stars are similarly split between the south side and the north side of the city.
So I'm going to start wrapping up this presentation by summarizing 2025 in the next three slides.
And we have seen that development activity has reached an all-time high with 359.4 million dollars in construction value, and with 97% of this development being from the private sector.
In institutional construction, only made up 3% of our total construction values. So for a bit of perspective and see how other municipalities are doing.
Monksons government and institutional investments represented 42% of their construction value in 2025, so that translated to 211 million dollars whereas we only had 11.4 million.
And that part of Monksons construction included upgrades to the health care facilities.
So residential construction in Friday 10 again reached an all-time high $297 million in construction value and over 1500 units have been permitted in 2025 with almost 90% of the construction in the form of multi residential units.
And again 77% of the units were located in the designated growth areas in the urban core as well as the new neighborhoods.
So the northwest and northeast east and the southwest produced units and the uptown area had zero units created.
Looking at our population and employment in the past year, our development activity, as we all know, it's spurred by our growing population, which continues to be strong.
In 2025, the city of Friday 10 had approximately 79,000 residents, which is an increase of more than 2% compared to last year.
So this continues to be beyond the number in the growth strategy that the growth strategy had envisioned, which had only seen a thousand new residents per year.
From a regional perspective, population growth in Friday 10 represents 82% of the regional population growth.
Demonstrating that the city continues to be the hub for the region as an attractive place for people to live working play.
Employment continues to be strong within employment rate remaining below the provincial rate, 6.3%.
And an increase in the number of people in play will compare to last year.
So lastly, looking at additional housing numbers, the amount of development activity in the past few years is already having an impact in our housing numbers.
So recent data from the Canadian mortgage and housing cooperation, CMHC, has shown that Friday 10's vacancy rate has increased from 0.9% in 2024 to 2.5% in 2025.
So reminder to the committee, a healthy vacancy rate is considered to be between 3 and 5%.
And we'll wear very well in her way to this range.
Rent however, as we can see, half continued to increase, with a median rent seeing an increase of almost 6% from last year.
This can be attributed to the amount of new construction that we've had, which tends to be more expensive.
Though this does not preclude the need for still more affordable housing options.
So this leads us to the topic of affordable housing units.
There are a few disclaimers on the numbers that you are seeing on the screen.
112 units is a number of affordable units that the city has been able to track through the housing accelerator fund and through public housing projects.
And we've tracked it through the disbursement of the half funds.
So this means that there might be more affordable units that are being created with another provincial or federal funding.
But that's not being communicated to the city or there might be some projects that are still waiting for confirmation of funding.
So that number is the minimum 112 affordable units.
It's the minimum that we know that have been created for sure in the city.
So referring back to our most recent housing needs assessment and where we're at in terms of affordable housing units.
The housing needs assessment projected that 6,000 and 10 affordable units would need to be built in order to meet the amount in 2024.
So that roughly translates to about 300 affordable units per year. The last set of numbers that I wanted to leave
the committee with is that it's also from a housing needs assessment, and we're at with the overall
projected demand. So in order to meet the projected demand in 244, there were need to be a construction
average of 1,000 units per year. This would mean to continue to build in a similar pace that we have
for the past five years, which has been outstanding, but we also need to be able to develop this
in a sustainable way, and we also need to recognize the cyclical nature of the development.
So in closing, 2025 has been another record sitting year with significant
private sector investments, and for it is in leaving the province and housing units starts.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I would have be happy to take any questions.
Thank you, Melissa. It must be so nice to sit up there with less than five minutes, and to deliver such great news,
and you did a great job. I'd like to really acknowledge the private sector for showing up and our non-profit
developers as well. If you'd note in the affordable housing units, 91, deeply affordable units are so needed,
if you reflect back on the housing needs assessment. So there's a lot of good news everywhere in here,
even the increase in the vacancy rate is really good news to bring some tenant choice back into the market.
I also think it's important to acknowledge council, but particularly staff in the planning and development
department and the engineering department. None of this happens without them taking on a huge workload
and delivering for the developers and our community, record-setting development,
strains, all our systems, and it's incredible the amount that they've shown up. So hats off to them,
and I'm open to questions from the committee. Yes, Councillor McGarrett.
Look, great report. We're growing, and I think it's the community and the developers that are
pushing those great numbers and we're doing it ourselves. I don't think we get as much health as other communities
are from the other levels of government. And what really bothers me is it is on the affordable housing.
They're pushing us, pushing us in this field, but they don't want to communicate their numbers to us.
I have a fundamental problem with that, so I think we should work on that, get those numbers.
If they want us to be partners and treat us like partners, but all in all, this is a great report.
We're going definitely in the right direction. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor McGarrett. Councillor Erksson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much,
Melissa, for the report. I guess what I can't see inside the kind of aggregated numbers is I can't
really get a feeling for how much of the capacity of the private sector development community is
being used in this effort. You know, epic lift. Are they tired? Are they tax? Are they going to keep
developing at this pace? So maybe we can have a conversation about that at some point,
because that's really curious about how we lean into more incentives to create more development
through these private sector folks, or are we at a point where we can take our hands off the wheel for that?
Through you, Mr. Chairman, I think that would be a good conversation to have around this table.
At some point in time, I think just very quickly for the purposes of today's conversation,
I'd say we're very lucky in Fredericks and that we have a vibrant private sector and not for
profit development community that was existing and was able to move from a background average
of about 300,000 starts a year before COVID to now 1500,000 starts in one year. So the fact that we were
able to kind of increase our development activity on the residential side five times relatively seamlessly
is a testament to the capacity of this community to do things. I think they certainly are their busy,
but I think they probably would tell you they like to be busy. I think that's good for them.
But I think as a community we do need to continue to invest emphasis on the further development of the
not for profit, co-op and public housing sectors. And so a lot of the areas where we need progress
on the housing side are well suited to those sectors. And I think housing accelerator fund and some
of the city's housing program are trying to develop that capacity. We need to really keep our eye on that
and try and find ways to work with our partners to continue to enhance that sector. So that would be the
one thing, I think in particular we want to put an emphasis on. Anyone else? Mayor Rogers?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for sharing these numbers. They're quite phenomenal. I mean,
when you look over double from last year, I can't imagine how busy planned the planning department
engineering department to your point in the chair. There's a lot to digest here. There's a lot that could be said.
I think the thing that strikes me most is when you see numbers like this and you see this level of
development activity, you know what it means for us as a city and for our budget, but we're also aware of the
economic impact that it's having provenientially. There's a lot of GST that's being paid on this stuff, right?
on both these services and these goods. And the province is doing very well off the development
that's happening here in Frederickton. And I would like to see that return to us in the form of some
of what we need, doctors. Maybe improvements at the hospital. Maybe, you know, schools were starting to see
some schools built. We need more schools. You know, there's a lot of provincial response that now needs
to come from the investment that's being made here that's benefiting the province and we need to see that come
back to us and also just in the building. Like I look, people often think other communities when they look at us,
they think, oh, Frederickton's got it made. It's the seed of the provincial government. And I think what we're seeing
is that doesn't always work in our favor that we're seeing a public investment in other communities
definitely outstripping investment here. So lots of lots of information, lots of data to inform,
I think, our interactions with our partners and other orders of government and demonstrating the impact
that we're making locally and then what impact that is having provenientially. So that will certainly
inform some of my discussions. Also, when we look at the regional numbers and we see the 88 percent,
I think we need to be having some discussions at the regional service commission table to make sure
that our voice at that table is reflective of this number of people that are living in the city.
And then finally, I would like to just to talk about the affordable housing stuff. I'm really glad
that you pointed out can, you know, the work that's being done at the nonprofit level to provide
some of this housing and how they've been trying to scale up and how we used our housing accelerator
funding to make that possible to sort of incentivize the kind of housing that we need.
Another way to incentivize that that might have impact, not just nonprofit, but particularly in the
private sector, is stuff that can be done through taxation. And we're going through tax reform stuff right now
and if we look to other provinces, we see how they have used their tax systems to incentivize
affordable housing development and to me now would be the opportunity to be influencing those
conversations and saying why don't we start looking at that? So it wouldn't be, can't do it on our own.
We need to be obviously working with our provincial partners but to get, look, we got a long way to go to
get to those numbers in affordable housing and our nonprofit sector, I know will step up to the best of their
ability and I know that the province through housing and be is also trying to be helpful through the
build Canada housing fund and like people they're working away but there's a missed opportunity
in the tax system. I think we could also try to get to it there. So I'll just leave it at that.
There's so much that could be said, but biggest thanks I think goes to our development community
can spoke to how they've stepped up more than doubled. The thing is there's not that many more
players in that private sector development community. It's just, it's just that community recognizing
the need in responding and we very appreciative and we need more in single-to-touch homes because
it's cost too much for folks to get into that market. So anyways that's all I'll see for now.
Okay, well thanks everybody. Thanks Melissa for your presentation and bringing such good news.
We'll move forward into item 4.2 is our secondary dwelling unit activity
2025 summary. Our cello by Delana. The floor is yours my friend. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
If only I could talk as fast as Melissa. I just can't. So as part of the four union amendments that
were adopted last April City Council directed staff to prepare a report on the overall development
activity surrounding secondary development units. As this committee is well aware,
the four units amendments were part of the city's obligation under CMHC's Housing Accelerator Fund
or half, which is further detailed in the report. But from a background perspective,
I would just like to say that the city's approach to four units was unique. We created a made in
Frederickton Approach, which emphasized and placed a lot of emphasis on preserving our residential
neighborhoods by allowing four units primarily through the conversion of existing structures
with some options for the rear yard, which would be above the garages or the unit in the backyard.
So we know that we wanted to go down the road of having the four units done in a way that would be
gentle to the community and not something that would see a lot of tear downs, not a lot of demolitions.
So that was their approach that we took. So now we'll just turn your attention to the screen.
One of the first questions that we had to answer for for council was how many, how many S to use were created.
So that number is 34. So all of 2025 last year we had 34. So of those we further broke down that number.
So we had 33, which were second units and we only had one third unit and zero, zero, four units as of right now.
The second question that council had was related to S to use by type. So as you can see on the screen
so accessory apartment units we had eight garage units we had one basement apartments we had 25
and with garden apartments we didn't we didn't have any. So I just wanted to just touch upon accessory apartment units.
So accessory apartment units can are above grade and they can also include additions to to the property typically in the back as you can see
from the diagram. Another question that was part of our report was out of the 34 S to use that we're created.
32, sorry, 30 were created by conversion. And of that there was only four that were created by adding new four area.
So additions to the four print of the building we only had had four. This when you look at those numbers this is essentially the most
cost effective way, which is why we see the majority of them happening in basements and not a whole lot happening with the additions.
Another question was ownership status. So you can see on the screen.
We had overall owner occupied properties was 21 and not owner occupied properties was 13.
And just just a reminder there for the committee. So it's important to note that we only require owner
occupancy information when you're when you're at the third and fourth unit. So that is that is how those amendments were structured.
The other item that we wanted to bring forward was with respect to by law enforcement.
Council want to know if any was there any impacts from the public perspective and using our by law enforcement officers.
They reported back that they were not. So there was no information that that they could clean that was specific to the amendments that we made.
When you take a look at all of the numbers in in kind of the conclusion, we have a almost 75% of our STU's were basements of apartments and the majority of those created were through conversion of the existing four space.
So this follows the typical pattern for STU's because it remains the most cost effective option that takes advantage of the existing four space.
Just by example of those numbers we did a quick analysis and the basements apartment typically cost $35,000.
Then when you when you add above grade, above grade additions to the existing structure is typically around 58,000, but as soon as you introduce an addition to that, it's about 110,000.
So substantially more expensive. So that's why the numbers are telling us that the communities responding, but they're responding to just having it in the structure and in the basements.
The other item that we were to report on was with respect to the the words. So as you can see on the screen, there's a word breakdown.
It there really isn't any concentration. The only real concentration.
Was in ward 6 with 6, but apart from that, it was primarily all over the city with no wheels pattern that you would normally attribute.
Initially from a staff respect, we have thought that ward 11 would receive a lot more, but in this case, they were just all over the city, so that's good to see.
In the end, one of the last comments was an assessment from staff.
So staff believe that the standards in place allow for general density to be introduced, in a matter that maintains the appearance of the residential character,
with the primary form being in the basement and primarily being on our occupied.
Nonetheless, we have to keep in mind that this is just the first year, and it's a relatively small sample size, so we will be reporting on this again, because parts of those amendments said that we had to continue to report into 2027.
So the only other item I would mention is working with staff on a particular.
We now have new content on our website that people can take a look at and it helps them understand what we mean by us to use, there's definitions there, and it also aligns the process in order to do us to use.
So with that Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Marcello, that was very granular look at what was probably exceedingly gentle development primarily in basement sweets, which were kind of generally permitted before the four unit amendment.
I'd just like to speak to the one third unit because I have intimate knowledge of it.
It was a homeowner who needed to provide extended care to some family members, due to some personal issues, and it gave them a great avenue to build the second and the third unit onto an existing home, so that they could provide extended care, which is I know one of the things that was a topic of discussion around this.
So I think just to ground that a little bit more in that some of those owner occupied units may be to offset income or provide more housing supply or create more affordability, but also there's some genuine people behind these things were gave a family and opportunity to provide extended care to two other family members.
Any questions from the committee from our cello? Councillor Aerson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for this report.
I appreciate the granularity of it all.
I want to make a suggestion, however, that might be best accomplished at the end of the three reports that get produced, so this might be advice for the coming council to consider.
But one of the concerns brought to council when we were debating the four-by-right thing was going to be the reduction in property values of adjacent homes and neighborhoods based on these kind of things.
And I think if we do get into a position where we have enough data to do a kind of assessment of the impact of this addition, you know, in these areas, we might have enough data to see.
If it impacted negatively or positively homesales in the area.
Because I think that, plus the bullet points, you know, that you responded to in the administrative report are, you know, the sum total of concerns that were brought to us.
But there is that one missing piece about, you know, has this affected my neighborhood's property values or my property values repeats and I do think we.
The community attempt to circle back and demonstrate that it does or it doesn't based on what the data tells us.
Sure, you were sure we could certainly take a look at that in the next round.
Okay, thank you, Councillor Ericsson.
May Rogers.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So it's really compelling data.
And I like the granularity of it as well.
I really, I want to congratulate staff for the approach that they took.
Our planning staff took this.
It was gentle, densification.
Very sensitive to the concerns that residents raised.
Really like the approach.
And even this is what was presented and it was explained to our residents.
But there were still who insisted on fear mongering.
And I think that this demonstrates this data demonstrates that the world didn't come to an end.
It has literally just been gentle densification.
And I think it's a lesson to all of us that when you put best practice in place and you're very thoughtful in your policy development.
You can trust the projections like these were the projections that this would be gentle.
And we need to trust data.
We need to trust information.
We need to trust informed projections when we're making a decision.
And I, so I'm glad that we now have this evidence to demonstrate that what was explained to us,
what was factored in when this was designed that has been the outcome.
So I just, this is very, it's very helpful to us.
And I hope that it's, it's helpful to all of us as decision makers to remember to trust the data,
trust the information, trust the expert voice that's informing us.
So thank you.
Thank you, Mayor Rogers and Councillor McGearty.
Look, it's, it's, this wasn't the, as explained to us, the savior of development,
every city in town and village across Canada.
It's a slow, slow burn and, and maybe it will work out.
But we only see the, the tip of this.
And we, what alarms me is, you know, there's 13 non-one occupying properties.
And if that's a trend that maybe next year, those numbers will be flipped.
That could become a problem.
If, if the owners aren't really there.
People living there, they don't have the same attachment to the property as well if you own it.
So hopefully things will work out.
Let's be positive about it.
But let's give it some time before we, we put the seal of approval on this.
You know, when the federal government came to us and threatened us, basically saying,
we get to do this to your zoning.
We're not going to get your 50, 60 million dollars.
Which I haven't seen at money yet, many, any agreements.
That's nice to see if we, we, we held up our end of the bargain.
Let's see what the federal government will do with their end of the bargain.
Right now, I haven't seen any agreements.
So look, it's, it's, it's, it's starting to flow.
It's not the miracle that everybody thought it would be.
Give it, give it time. We'll, we'll see it where it goes.
Thank you.
Mayor Rogers.
Thank you. I think just point of clarification on that.
We have received the federal housing accelerated.
I don't believe we've received all of it.
It's been coming to us in chunks, but we have received that funding.
And this was only ever intended to be gentle densification anyways.
So nobody was looking this to be the pancy of solution.
But can can you please clarify if we've received any of the federal housing funding that was committed?
Yeah, through you Mr. Chairman, I think everybody's right in this, in this situation.
So this was a condition of that we needed to satisfy to get all of our housing accelerator money.
So we met the condition and we have been getting the funding.
What we also understood, though, and I think, to Councillor McGarrett's point is that this was a precondition for consideration of future funding from the federal government,
which at the time was thought to be chiff the Canadian Housing Infrastructure Fund,
and then funds that may follow. And I think we've seen some signs of progress on some of those funding applications.
But I think we would all hope based on Melissa's presentation a few minutes ago to see many more announcements,
because the housing infrastructure piece is a big deal for this community going forward to be able to meet our growth needs.
So I think we've met, you know, we have seen some funding, but we would hope to see more based on the terms of engagement that we kind of entered into.
Thank you, Ken. Isn't it great one? We're both right.
Thanks, Marcello, for your presentation, and we will move forward with item 4.3.
It is the draft for the new Heritage Conservation Area Biola.
Ken's going to tee it up and then we're going to bring us through it.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to try and keep us on schedule, I'll be quite brief.
I just wanted to remind Council that in late 2023, you adopted Heritage Program and Services Review that put some renewed emphasis on the Heritage Program of the City of Frederickton.
Council adopted an implementation plan that came out of that review, and I want to take a moment just to express my appreciation for the work that the preservation review board,
and our staff have done to advance the recommendations that were in the review and in the implementation plan.
And we've made some tangible progress on a number of items. So we've already made progress on things like staffing and designating municipal owned properties and the digital library.
So we've made tangible progress on a number of items.
And today is the beginnings of delivering on another item, which is making sure that we have a new Heritage Conservation Biola and then design supporting design guidelines to support our efforts going forward.
So I'll turn it over to Laura. I just wanted you to know that both the board and staff have been busy advancing the things that were you directed us to do.
The progress is being made in today's another step along that along that road to over to Laura.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you Ken for that wonderful introduction.
Good afternoon everyone. I'm going to dive right into it.
Biola number L-3 the City of Frederickton Heritage Biola from 2005 was adopted under the Municipal Heritage Preservation Act of 1978, which was repealed and replaced by the New Brunswick Heritage Conservation Act in 2010.
And it's effective with respect to all properties, buildings and structures within St. Anne's Point Heritage Preservation Area.
L-4 establishes the regulatory framework for all exterior alterations within the St. Anne's Point Preservation Area, provides authority for the issuance of certificates of appropriateness and outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Heritage Offer Officer to mention a few.
Since it's adoption, there have been changes to provincial legislation, as well as evolving breast practices in Heritage Conservation, making it desirable to prepare a new Biola.
Following the repeal of the Municipal Heritage Preservation Act, the enactment of the Heritage Conservation Act and the adoption of the Heritage Programming Services Review in 2023.
Staff are drafting a new Heritage Conservation Biola to replace L-4 to align municipal policy with the current Act and best practices.
The draft Biola will also update terminology to reflect that used in the Heritage Conservation Act and will introduce things such as provisions related to fencing, abrasive cleaning practices and fluorescent colors.
While the original intent was to advance the Heritage Conservation Biola design guidelines together, the preservation review board is requesting the Council proceed with the adoption of the Heritage Conservation Area Biola to the extended timeline associated with the review of the documents.
Once finalized the design guidelines will be advanced to Council for consideration at a later date.
Staff are now seeking Council's direction to refer the proposed changes to the city solicitor to draft a new Heritage Conservation Area Biola as further recommendations.
And to proceed with the formal adoption process as outlined in the accompanying resolution in a tax draft, a tax draft.
Thank you, and I'm open to any questions.
Thank you, Laura. Are there any questions from the committee?
Okay, seeing none, and someone willing to move your recommendation moved by Deputy Mayor Pike and seconded by Councilor McGarity on the question.
All those in favor?
Contrary minded.
Oceans carry. Thank you so much, Laura.
We didn't forget about one item four point four, a planning and heritage analysis of three seven three three seven five four one and four one one university avenue.
We have one to deliver that.
That was a request from one of our former committee members who doesn't have a name at the table anymore, but Councilor McGarity had brought forward a request for a report on that one.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to share the following information as requested on on the planning and and and heritage aspects of the subject properties.
Thank you for bringing up the map there.
The four subject properties are the Lady B group ring for 11 university.
The big building on the bottom of the screen there.
And then three seventy three seventy five university at which is the the oddly shaped parking area.
And then and then four or one university is the the property and green there surrounded by the the the parking lot and then the last at the very top there that thin band of green is three seven three university avenue, which is the water the water production facilities.
According to the municipal plan three seven three the water production facility is is part of the established neighborhood area.
Generally this designation is is is considered to evolve slowly over time.
As we can expect from the water production facility and the other properties are are designated as south core.
And in particular the these sites have been identified identified for potential redevelopment intensification.
According to the the recently adopted south core municipal plan.
The the the properties a three seventy five four one and four eleven.
I've also been I've as pretty minutes of plan have been identified for redevelopment intensification.
As per the adopted design guidelines associated with the secondary of the South Court plan, any redevelopment
there would have to be consistent with the design guidelines and the guidelines are very specific
in dealing with the adjacent neighbourhood and appropriately sensitive design and a to any new redevelopment
or infill. One other aspect I want to draw your attention to on the planning side of things is that
the South Court plan also envisions just on the edge of the map. There also envisions the re-inaction
of the grave from a cloud street to university as a potential future development. In terms of zoning,
the subject properties are our own R3, the parking area and the house there are our three. What's interesting
about them that I want to draw your attention to is that it has a split zoning. The re-apportion is
owned as park and the front portion that fronts the university avenue is own residential.
The ladybubre book is owned entirely park, which is appropriate for its current use.
As far as the heritage analysis goes, as your awareness to chair, all four properties are in the
Sania's point heritage conservation area. They were added in 1997 when the when the area was expanded.
As your aware council has established criteria for engaging the significance of properties,
based on that criteria, only four, 11, the university at St. Louis, the babybubre book rink is considered
significant. The other three properties are considered not significant. They don't need the threshold
for significance. In addition to these properties being in the heritage area, the ladybubre book for 11
university has also, as you're aware, Mr. Chair has also been listed by council on the city's local
store places register, so just to give you an indication that it is a very significant property.
And lastly, while not a requirement under the Heritage Conservation Act, council has established
not only the evaluation criteria that I mentioned, but also the principle of seeking property owner consent
for any change in the status of a designated property. Therefore, if council is to follow
at the establishment practice, it should consider the views of the affected property owners in any
potential amendment to L4. That's all I have, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Juan, for that report. Any questions from the committee? May or others?
Well, I know it's hard. Thanks, Mr. Chair. And I'm tired to ask to get inside the head of someone else,
but what was the rationale? I mean, thank you, so thank you Juan for sharing this information. I don't
think there's anything really new here for us. So I'm just wondering what we're to do with this information
now that we have it, if there was a purpose. Was there was a request for a staff report? And this
is the delivery of that staff report back. I think at the time, if I recall correctly, and Deputy Mayor
can correct me if I'm wrong, but the conversation started around the rank itself and the possible reinvestment
into that, I think, Councilor Malay and Councilor Grande had spoken to that, and the opportunity to
undertake a staff scoping of that site where some of it was not of use right now, it was parking,
but particularly around the rank, Deputy Mayor. I just want to point a clarification for a
maybe Deputy Mayor Williams, so it was the under, it wasn't with the idea to make modifications to the
rank, right? Was it? Because that, obviously, is protected. So it's more just to do what the property around
the rank to optimize the property around the rank and a good swath of that is on by the University of
New Brunswick, my correct? You are correct. I think the conversation, if I recall correctly again,
was just a little bit of a preface to really understand the significance of the LBR rank,
seeing that it's coming towards end of life and the heritage value of it to bring forward when
maybe there is a consideration of our renewal of that rank. So what would be allowed? Anything? Like,
if it's a local historic site, it's protected, right?
Yeah, I think Mr. Chairman, I'll just jump in for a second. I think there was a heat of the moment,
I think, back at that meeting where there was a sudden interest in just what the lay of the land is in
that area. I don't think there was anything specific at the time. I think this is just a report back
to indicate that there is one property with heritage significance. There are other properties nearby that
have some redevelopment potential. I don't think there's absolutely nothing current state in
terms of us looking at this area, but it's just information for you to have in your head as discussions,
you know, transpire in the future about this. It's just, I think it was something that came from a counselor
at the moment in a meeting and we're just closing the loop on that. So yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor?
No, you're good. It was about the heritage of the area in general. We remember there was a house
that was being questioned, and I think that's what led to this was okay. So let's look at the
area and make sure that we're in line. So. Yeah, perfect. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.
Seeing no further questions. I'd thank the committee for their time today and all the presenters
and I'll show you our afternoon folks. Meetings adjourned.