The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread

[cdnguys]

[bingun]

Originally Posted by cdnguys

Thanks for posting a picture. I didn't have an opportunity to stop when I drove by.

I thought someone had originally said they were converting it into storage, but with all those windows, I don't think that is the case.

[bingun]

Some more details on the Spruce Lake industrial land expansion.

https://shapeyourcitysaintjohn.ca/spruce...foNuw2Nf6f7Rw_aem__PKNkhKT66F-mbeRkbbc-w

Improvements to Lorneville Planning Application Based on Resident Feedback

Protecting Residents

• Significantly Increased Setbacks:
  Industrial buildings must be at least 250 metres from residential property lines, the largest setback requirement for an industrial park in New Brunswick. Elsewhere in Saint John, similar setbacks for these types of buildings would be 30 metres.
  No industrial use that could be considered volatile will be prohibited within a minimum of 500 metres from residential areas. Notably, even the Crane Mountain Landfill has only a 150-metre setback.
• Restricting Industrial Uses:
  Only non-emitting industries, i.e. those without smokestacks, will be permitted.
  The following land uses would be explicitly prohibited in the expanded Spruce Lake Industrial Zone: Asphalt plant, cement plant, concrete plant, fertilizer manufacturer and storage, lumber mill, petroleum refinery, pulp mill, paper mill, recycling facility, metal shredding and scrap or salvage yard.
• Mandatory Professional Risk Assessments:
  The expanded industrial park will be the first in New Brunswick requiring professional risk assessments, ensuring potential risks are either prevented or adequately mitigated.
• Height Restrictions:
  Buildings within 250 metres of residential property lines cannot exceed 24 metres in height. Beyond this distance, height is limited to 48 metres. These limits ensure that shadows won’t be cast onto any residential properties.
• Groundwater Monitoring Program:
  A permanent groundwater monitoring system, designed by hydrogeologists, will continuously safeguard residents' drinking water wells.
  
  Protecting the Environment

• A permanent natural treed buffer area (150-metre-wide to separate residences from the Industrial Park). You could fit King Square within this buffer zone 50 times over.
• Enhanced wetland protections. There will be no development ever in or near the salt-water marsh estuaries, also called Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) in the area.
• Protection of watercourses in the area.
• Significant preservation of natural areas (a combined 107.1 hectares designated as park and natural area)
• Impacts to wetlands and woodlands will be limited. The potential removal of any trees or filling of non-PSW wetlands will only be done if there is a clear business case to do so.

[bingun]

I also found the staff report, which, to the city's credit, is very detailed. From my perspective, the way this is written, there is serious tension between the city and the Lorneville residents. I will include a few quotes which I would describe as blunt.

Draft - Lorneville Community Liaison Committee - Staff Report

It appears that a large portion of the Lorneville community would like this industrial park expansion to be built somewhere else. It is notable that some of those alternative areas discussed, including the lands immediately to the west of King William Road, also contain significant amounts of wetlands. Due to a long-standing distrust in Government, there is also a distrust in subject matter expertise of individuals hired by Government to review the Environmental Impact Assessment or the Planning Application including professional engineers, biologists, professional planners and other scientists.

Many members of the community feel the EIA and Rezoning process has been rushed. EIA’s typically are submitted and a decision is provided within 3-6 months. The EIA for this project has been under review for over 9 months since it was submitted on June 11, 2024. A Municipal Plan amendment is normally a 4-month process from the date of application. This Plan amendment was submitted on June 24, 2024, and has been under review for over 8 months.

The Lorneville community regularly makes use of the woods and wetlands in the undeveloped areas between Lorneville Road and King William Road. These are not official trails, nor were they created with the permission of the current landowner. Residents remain concerned about the loss of access and use of this wooded space for recreation, hiking, and trail riding with ATVs.

Professional Planners were brought into explain the City’s planning context. The Lorneville community still misunderstands and misinterprets the City’s Municipal Plan and Zoning By-Law, specifically as it relates to the term ‘Heavy Industrial’. Many residents believe that Lorneville’s quality of life will be destroyed if there is any further encroachment of industrial development into Lorneville, and the Community has been actively campaigning to ‘Save Lorneville’

The goal of expanding the Saint John Industrial Park’s lands is to unlock development-ready lands to create new jobs and economic development to support regional growth. Saint John has received dozens of inquiries for development proposals that could feasibly be placed in the expanded Spruce Lake Industrial Park. These projects are not viable in Saint John with the existing minimal land inventory as discussed in Section 1. Some of these projects would constitute mega projects of greater than $1B in construction value, and if constructed could have the highest assessed properties in the Province. The total construction value of the expanded industrial park, including large format projects could be worth many billions of dollars, generate thousands of construction jobs, and hundreds, if not thousands of permanent jobs, and corresponding local economic spinoffs.

The existing Spruce Lake Industrial Park generates approximately $950,000 in taxes annually for the City and provides hundreds of jobs for residents of the Saint John region. Even if nothing but that same pattern of development was continued in the new area, the City could expect to realize an additional $2.25M in new taxes annually (at 2025 dollars) at full build out of the proposed expansion area, where permitted, and economically feasible.

The existing property proposed for rezoning as well as the adjacent 199 residential homes on and adjacent to Lorneville Road currently generate approximately $700,000 in taxes for the City annually. Lorneville’s residential development pattern is primarily rural with the majority of development fronting onto Lorneville Road. This type of rural ribbon development is expensive to for municipalities to service and maintain as it requires more infrastructure for fewer residents, or those residents are spread throughout a large geographic area. As a reference, as Snow Plow plowing the length of Lorneville Road would plow the same length as the distance from the University in Millidgeville to Lancaster Crossing (Mall) on the West Side. The three primary ways for a municipality to address ribbon development is typically to:

a) prohibit them from being developed; or
b) increase taxes for existing users of that development, or;
c) increase density by adding more taxpayers in a development area - such as new residences or businesses.

In response to the three options:

• The community in Lorneville has existed for hundreds of years and will continue to exist. The municipal plan already restricts most development outside of the City’s Primary Development Area, including the residential areas of Lorneville, but residents all along ribbon road developments in Saint John, including in Lorneville still require services and infrastructure.
• It is also unreasonable to expect Lorneville residents to pay more taxes especially when the City is trying to lower taxes for all residents. Staff attending Lorneville CLC meetings heard that Lorneville residents do not feel that they are getting enough value for the taxes they are paying. Much has been said about the City’s existing infrastructure deficit including the over $545-million worth of civic infrastructure in need of “immediate attention”. As a simple illustration, the average cost to simply resurface the length of the residential roads in Lorneville would be in excess of $8.25M to do once, or almost 12 years of taxes collected from local residents that live there. This would not account for culverts, bridges, or address any other infrastructure issues in Lorneville, and this is also notwithstanding the existing annual costs of servicing this area of Lorneville with municipal services such as police, fire, waste collection, road maintenance etc.
• Therefore, the most reasonable option is to add more tax paying entities to the area to share the cost of providing services, amenities, and infrastructure renewal to the entire area.

The Lorneville Community Liaison Committee discussed Community Benefits at the 7th meeting of the CLC on February 4, 2025. Following that meeting, the Lorneville Community met separately to discuss Community Benefits. The Lorneville Community subsequently provided a list to City staff of benefits they would be interested in seeing in Lorneville, but they were very clear that they have no interest in exchanging community benefits for the development of an industrial park and only provided the list as a courtesy. City staff has not reviewed the feasibility or cost of the community benefits identified in depth, and further investigation would be required prior to formalizing any commitments.

Examples of Community Benefits requested by the Lorneville Community
• Restoration of Black Beach.
• Restoration of Public Access to Maguire’s Cove.
• A variety of improvements to the Lorneville Community Centre.
• Expansion of existing Trail Systems in and adjacent to Lorneville.
• Coastal Lands behind Lorneville Road houses along what’s known as “the Ridge” to be protected from development.
• Funding to Explore Lorneville Inc and Lorneville Trail Riders.
• Designated bike lanes on King William Road.
• Property taxes decreased and frozen for 50 years.
• Permanent secondary access via Burchill Road.

7.1. At this time, it is clear that the community has no interest in formally negotiating any type of benefit, as they have the view that to do so would be to accept the expansion of the existing Spruce Lake Industrial Park. If Council decides to rezone the lands to permit industrial uses the City would intend to bring forward a community benefits framework after consulting with the residents of Lorneville, Saint John Industrial Park, and industry stakeholders. It is expected that such a framework would balance the interests of providing true and meaningful benefits to the community without disincentivizing the type of development Saint John is interested in seeing in the area.

Several versions of zoning maps are included in the report; I believe the one below is the clearest.



There is also a discussion regarding an area that is impractical to develop.

Development would technically be permitted in the area between March Brook and Lorneville Road – see Illustration C. However, it would be prohibitively expensive to develop due to the significant typological challenges, including large slopes, watercourses, provincially significant wetland, and challenges with providing physical access. As such, it is very probable, if not almost certain, that the majority of this land will never be developed and will remain almost entirely undisturbed.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by DyAm00394

There is a new post on Retail Talk & Share NB Facebook group. Apparently, the former Sears/Zellers Select property at Lansdowne Plaza in the north end is scheduled to have an new apartment building constructed on the property. Anyone else hear about this?

No sales in the last few years showing yet on SNB. I would think the location might present some engineering challenges. Wasn't this area a bog that was used as the Portland dump in the 1800's? I know the floor in that old Sobeys has settled so much that your cart will literally roll away if you let go of it in some places.

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by sailor734

No sales in the last few years showing yet on SNB. I would think the location might present some engineering challenges. Wasn't this area a bog that was used as the Portland dump in the 1800's? I know the floor in that old Sobeys has settled so much that your cart will literally roll away if you let go of it in some places.

It was a wetland yes, and then the original Shamrock Park too. It wouldn’t be any different than building on the East Side, just drive piles to the bedrock to avoid any issues (it’s not as deep a wetland as it is over east too). The old Sobeys and other shops were probably built with a few shortcuts and less advanced engineering of the day.

[RaginRonic]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

It was a wetland yes, and then the original Shamrock Park too. It wouldn’t be any different than building on the East Side, just drive piles to the bedrock to avoid any issues (it’s not as deep a wetland as it is over east too). The old Sobeys and other shops were probably built with a few shortcuts and less advanced engineering of the day.

That existing Sobeys might be due for replacement anyway, because Monday, September 29 of this year will be that store's 70th anniversary of operations.

My idea is for a new Sobeys to be ground-floor retail for a combined retail/apartment building on the former Sears/Zellers/Best Value/Zellers Select property. Let older residents live on the lower floors, give them a special elevator direct into the store, and for those 65+, give them special grocery carriers up into their suites.

Just some ideas cooking in my head.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by RaginRonic

That existing Sobeys might be due for replacement anyway, because Monday, September 29 of this year will be that store's 70th anniversary of operations.

My idea is for a new Sobeys to be ground-floor retail for a combined retail/apartment building on the former Sears/Zellers/Best Value/Zellers Select property. Let older residents live on the lower floors, give them a special elevator direct into the store, and for those 65+, give them special grocery carriers up into their suites.

Just some ideas cooking in my head.

Agree about Sobeys. They had plans to replace it way back when the Millidgeville Superstore was being built. They wanted to build a new, larger store close to the street out on the corner of Lansdowne and Visart and tear down the old store for parking. The city wouldn't give them the variance needed to have the building on the street and parking in the back. They did a major reno/gut of the store instead. They tried to do section by section while staying open. I think it was a bit of a disaster as the Superstore opened while this was still happening. The Superstore was clean, shiny and new while Sobeys was a shambles. Superstore couldn't have asked for a better launch and took a ton of business away. This all happened about 30 years ago and Sobeys is looking pretty tired again. (for that matter , so is the Superstore)

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by RaginRonic

That existing Sobeys might be due for replacement anyway, because Monday, September 29 of this year will be that store's 70th anniversary of operations.

My idea is for a new Sobeys to be ground-floor retail for a combined retail/apartment building on the former Sears/Zellers/Best Value/Zellers Select property. Let older residents live on the lower floors, give them a special elevator direct into the store, and for those 65+, give them special grocery carriers up into their suites.

Just some ideas cooking in my head.

apartments built on top of, or at least at the same location as a grocery store has always seemed like an incredibly good idea to me.

[RaginRonic]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Agree about Sobeys. They had plans to replace it way back when the Millidgeville Superstore was being built. They wanted to build a new, larger store close to the street out on the corner of Lansdowne and Visart and tear down the old store for parking. The city wouldn't give them the variance needed to have the building on the street and parking in the back. They did a major reno/gut of the store instead. They tried to do section by section while staying open. I think it was a bit of a disaster as the Superstore opened while this was still happening. The Superstore was clean, shiny and new while Sobeys was a shambles. Superstore couldn't have asked for a better launch and took a ton of business away. This all happened about 30 years ago and Sobeys is looking pretty tired again. (for that matter , so is the Superstore)

The Somerset Superstore opened on Fri., Aug. 28, 1998, for the record.

As for the renovation history for the Lansdowne Sobeys, here's how that breaks down.

Grand Opening on Thurs., Sept. 29, 1955.
Re-opened on Wed., June 23, 1965 (1st renovation).
Grand Re-opened on Wed., July 5, 1972 (2nd renovation).
Re-opened on Thurs., Oct. 13, 1977 (3rd renovation or re-model)
Re-opened on Wed., Sept. 30, 1998 after 4th renovation completed, with Grand Re-Opening the next day on Thurs., Oct. 1, 1998.

Just making sure the correct dates are posted here.

[adamuptownsj]

Wait... SJ wouldn't give them a variance to build out to the street? How times have changed. The city should politely revisit this. Reconfiguring the entrance to the Sobeys lot to the Churchill Blvd/Visart intersection and restoring Sears St would be a good step to revitalizing the north end of Lansdowne. Doing the same with Wellesley to the south would allow for closing two annoying/difficult entrances to the parking lot.

See below. Wouldn't require any business closures or relocations. I think this is a pretty reasonable revamp that would both improve traffic in the area, increase pedestrian safety, and refresh Lansdowne pretty dramatically.

https://imgur.com/a/8OM4hoT

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Wait... SJ wouldn't give them a variance to build out to the street? How times have changed. The city should politely revisit this. Reconfiguring the entrance to the Sobeys lot to the Churchill Blvd/Visart intersection and restoring Sears St would be a good step to revitalizing the north end of Lansdowne. Doing the same with Wellesley to the south would allow for closing two annoying/difficult entrances to the parking lot.

See below. Wouldn't require any business closures or relocations. I think this is a pretty reasonable revamp that would both improve traffic in the area, increase pedestrian safety, and refresh Lansdowne pretty dramatically.

https://imgur.com/a/8OM4hoT

Yep, that's what I recall. When the Superstore was announced Sobeys had a proposal to build a new, larger store but couldn't get planning approval.

[cdnguys]

[bingun]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/atlantic/new-brun...k-expansion-plans-residents-oppose-idea/

The city met with reporters regarding the industrial park expansion on election day, which the local residents have taken offence to. Probably not the best idea from the city.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by bingun

https://www.ctvnews.ca/atlantic/new-brun...k-expansion-plans-residents-oppose-idea/

The city met with reporters regarding the industrial park expansion on election day, which the local residents have taken offence to. Probably not the best idea from the city.

Why isn't it? This isn't the Shire. It's between an industrial park and Coleson Cove. Where should large-scale industry happen, Moncton?

[Mud]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Why isn't it? This isn't the Shire. It's between an industrial park and Coleson Cove. Where should large-scale industry happen, Moncton?

At this rate I welcome governments ducking these groups after a reasonable consultation has already taken place. It's become clear that a large chunk of the retired and/or well-off simply want to ride the rest of their lives out without concerning themselves too much with the future of where they live and the prosperity of their neighbours. The municipalities have nothing to gain but bad press when they engage these people.

See the pozzolan mine debacle near Dalhousie for another fun example. The "concerns" are always nearly identical there must be a pamphlet these people pass around.

[bingun]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Why isn't it? This isn't the Shire. It's between an industrial park and Coleson Cove. Where should large-scale industry happen, Moncton?

My comment was around the timing of the discussion with reporters, not the proposal itself. While it was probably an innocent mistake, it is a common belief that governments release or discuss bad news/sensitive topics when other big news is occurring, so the coverage is minimized.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Why isn't it? This isn't the Shire. It's between an industrial park and Coleson Cove. Where should large-scale industry happen, Moncton?

Isn't it a proposed industrial park, at least part of it...

In almost any other CMA, coastal real estate within the city limits like this would be earmarked for future residential development. The Saint John Region is quite large, your flippant suggestion that this isn't the shire or that if it doesn't go there, it will just go to Moncton is ridiculous. There's lots of room for industrial parks within the Saint John Region. What do you think the reaction would be if this was proposed in Quispamsis or Grand Bay?



Is the proposed heavy industrial site directly on the coast absolutely necessary? It's not as if they are expanding the port or something that requires to be directly located on the coast. This part of the proposal doesn't seem ideal.

The city should be trying to promote suburban development in Lorneville, too, not only industrial developments. It's possible to have a more balanced approach and see both residential and industrial development occur in Lorneville.

With the way the election just went for the riding of Saint John-St. Croix the city should be prioritizing and promoting residential developments all over West Saint John, including Lorneville. Otherwise, Wayne Long will just be proven right, that the re-districting will mostly disenfranchise residents of the West Side, as their MP will be beholden to the interests of rural voters.



Now that John Williamson has gotten back in, I'll be shocked, shocked, if he continues to support the "Save Lorneville" cause. Moreover, I'll be surprised if he actually shows any interests in making West Saint John a better place for his constituents that live there, but I do like surprises... I hope he does show an interest in the West Side, and not just the port... but I'm definitely holding my breath on that.

[ivegotaname]

Williamson strikes me to be a person better suited in a small community not the bright lights of west saint john and down

[cdnguys]