10/17/2020
I wrote all the prospective candidates for the Ward 2 by-election last week (where this proposal is located- for those not in the area), asking for their opinions on the proposed land zone change and development at 68-70 Queen Road. I indicated that I was going to publish their replies here and heard back from 5 out of 8 of them. My question was as follows:
“What is your stance on the request to the city by the developer to rezone this land from Open Space to Commercial Mixed?”
Below are their responses, in order of receipt:
Matt Howse
In short, I am opposed to the rezoning application that seeks to change the property in question from "open space" to "commercial mixed use".
I think that the best course of action for council would be to rezone the property from "open space" to "open space reserve". This would mean that the property would be protected for future generations to enjoy. It is the last naturalized green space in the downtown area and deserves the "reserve" designation.
In my platform (available on my website and page) I talk about the need to protect our historic sight-lines and green spaces, and I mention the site at 68 Queen's Road specifically, saying that, if elected, I would oppose any development there beyond the scope of the current buildings on the site.
Greg Noseworthy
Thanks for reaching out about this issue. I've actually been quite involved in this already as a candidate for the upcoming By-Election. On September 13th I wrote a letter to council pleading with them to delay any decisions until a representative of the ward could be elected to give Ward 2 a voice on the matter. I have that letter attached to this email for your reference. It is part of official City dialogue and was read at the meeting on that day.
My position on all developments is that of balancing. This particular development had pulled the wool over people's eyes in ways, as it is quite a bit different from the cultural and historical features of the neighborhood. My platform is pushing and preserving greenspace within the City, especially in areas like Queen's Road where there are fewer greenspaces remaining. I have a similar viewpoint on the Eric Street development now that will see another key greenspace completely removed from Ward 2. We cannot sacrifice all of our greenspaces for the sake of a few homes.
In a nutshell, while I think it is important to have some development to create jobs, provide a tax base for the city, and to ensure the economic prosperity of all residents - this development must be done with preservation of the historic greenspace that it will impact. As such, I am against the development as it currently is proposed, and I would require that areas of subject property become designated community greenspaces. This way we can preserve the historic greenspace of the area for residents of the city, and still ensure economic developments.
I also have particular concerns with the dimensions of the development as they are not in line with neighbouring buildings, houses, etc. This is something that must be addressed to bring it more in line with the historic and cultural buildings, spaces, and developments nearby.
As we are in a recession it is important to ensure we preserve remaining jobs within the City. However, that cannot come at a price of our future, our remaining greenspaces, and this historic area. It would be a sad day to see this space deleted from Ward 2, and I believe something should be done to alter this development to balance the interests of those who work, live, and enjoy Ward 2.
Thanks again for reaching out about this. I hope to represent the residents of Ward 2 with this balanced development approach so that in 2050 we have a modern City, but one that is not merely a concrete jungle. It'll be a sad day when our children can't walk outside of their homes and see a tree, shrub, or bird hanging about!
Shawn Skinner
This application has generated many calls and emails to me directly, as well as much discussion in the public domain.
My position is that I believe we need to preserve and protect open spaces in the City and allow for the peaceful enjoyment of same. Not all unused and undeveloped land in the City will stay that way forever, but we must be cautious on where we allow development to occur. The intensity of developments is a consideration in these decisions, as is the character and heritage of the area.
With reference to this specific application, I have read Council minutes and notes and looked at supplementary information that has been provided to me by citizens who are interested in this application.
I will not support the rezoning of this open space as I believe it is too intensive a development for the area. The proposal for Queens Road seems fine to me but the apartment building being proposed seems too intensive a development for the area given the character of the neighbourhood.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your question and I thank you for your interest in the byelection and City affairs.
Lorne Loder
I feel the proposed project at 68-70 Queen's Road is a viable and beneficial project. I realize that this may be unpopular amongst yourself and some others in your area but I must be straightforward with you. I've walked the area several times now and have been following the proposal for its entirety.
Here are some of the reasons I feel the project should proceed...
- when walking the area I realized that given the pitch of the land, it is not ideal for recreational use.
- the project will provide a significant (and much needed) revenue in tax dollars to the city.
- the developer/architect will be leaving a band of trees between the project and Garrison Hill.
- the current St. John's Municipal Plan's mandate is to move towards urban density.
I also feel that as an 'open space' it is not utilized by many people. Again, the terrain is practically impossible to navigate given it's pitch and we are in the fortunate situation here in St. John's whereby we have multiple parks in the downtown area, Pippy Park within the greater city and of course live in a region whereby one does not have to travel very far to reach wilderness.
In conclusion, and I know you may not agree, I feel that this project is well thought out, the developer has been extremely cooperative and engaging, has literally gone back to the 'drawing board' to appease multiple concerns, and it will be executed well with much greenery remaining. And of course, the city is in dire need of the tax revenue, now more than ever.
Ophelia Ravencroft
I'm not a fan of the plans for the Queens Road greenspace. As stated in my platform, I'm in favour of infill developments that provide either essential services or affordable housing, as long as they generally don't come at the cost of losing greenspace. I've spoken with numerous concerned residents from Garrison Hill on this development, and I feel their issues are valid and worth our attention. It doesn't strike me that this is the right direction for us to be going.
