The Town of Saint Andrews has denied an encroachment agreement to Argyll Residence on Water Street.
Developer John Rocca came to the council in February to seek the agreement after an error was made using the wrong plans for the building – making it too high off the sidewalk.
“The civil work for this project was done by the engineering firm, unfortunately, using the incorrect survey plan,” Rocca said presenting to the council last month. “That problem was discovered after construction started when the walls were done.”
Rocca explained the encroachment agreement was the best solution to avoid extra costs, up to $200,000, and potential delays to the project.
The encroachment agreement outlined by staff included several requirements:
- The annual lease is $600/year with an annual CPI increase.
- The existing light pole is to be removed and given to the Town at the developer’s cost.
- The design of the rebuilt sidewalk is to be approved by the CAO.
- The installation of non-slip brick pavers to replace the current red bricks.
- A railing at both ends of the step is to be installed.
- The liability of the ramp and step rests with the proponent.
- A clause that if the building is demolished or destroyed, the owners will need to re-apply to the council for another encroachment agreement.
However, many councillors expressed concerns about the agreement and the precedent it set for other downtown businesses.
Coun. Lee Heenan said the council asked staff to put pylons out to demonstrate how significantly the encroachment agreement would impact the sidewalk.
“I was down and it is about 65 per cent,” he said. “I sat and watched and two people had to go single file by the pylons.”
The encroachment is part of the obligation of new builds to be barrier-free, meaning accessible for anyone who wishes to enter the building. Something not required of existing buildings.
Coun. Steve Neil thanked Rocca for coming to the council and explaining the error, but said up until now the council has had no input into the project and it shouldn’t start with this encroachment agreement.
The original development was denied by the council, but Rocca resubmitted with a project that, according to the Southwest New Brunswick Service Commission, met all the bylaws and wasn’t required to come before the Planning Advisory Committee.
“I personally feel it would be a bit of a mistake for us to get involved at this point,” Neill said speaking at the council meeting. “The encroachment is going to be way more than anything we have in town currently. I do feel it poses a bit more of a safety risk as well as damaging the downtown aesthetics.
“For the residents of Saint Andrews, I don’t see why, again, they should be giving up, essentially land on the sidewalk, to accommodate this mistake,” he said.
The Courier has reached out to Ellerdale Ventures Inc. in Saint John by phone and is awaiting a response.
The property is a standout on Water Street in contrast to the National Historically Designated downtown core – given to the community in 1995.
Coun. Annette Harland said while she would support any building, including existing buildings, to be accessible, she could not support the encroachment agreement.
“While I would support any business in a historic building that may need an encroachment agreement, I am not prepared to support a new (building) getting an encroachment agreement in order to make it accessible,” she said. “I think another option has to be provided by the developer.”
Deputy Mayor Akagi said she feared this would set a precedent moving forward.
“But we trusted that it would be built correctly and I hate the thought that our aesthetics downtown is going to change,” she said.
However, not all councillors were opposed.
Coun. Kurt Gumushel said he felt that setting back the project is not the right way to go.
“The building is a significant investment in our downtown, which for many years hasn’t had a lot of investment, that old garage sat there empty for years,” he said. “I think that moving forward it is not setting a precedent, there was a mistake that was made.”
He said as someone who does value active transportation, he doesn’t like the idea of losing sidewalks, but worries about delaying the project.
“I do think this would be a significant setback for the project,” he said during the meeting.
Coun. Jamie Hirtle said he agreed with all of the opinions shared by the council, but said it is difficult to see a path forward, adding that he thinks the encroachment is the best approach.
“I’d like to see this move forward,” he said.
The council voted five to two against, with Coun. Darrell Weare abstaining.
Author
