{"id":1864,"date":"2025-09-05T23:33:46","date_gmt":"2025-09-06T02:33:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/?p=1864"},"modified":"2025-09-05T23:33:46","modified_gmt":"2025-09-06T02:33:46","slug":"market-wharf-historical-planning-timeline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/?p=1864","title":{"rendered":"Market Wharf Historical Planning Timeline"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>2017 \u2013 Initial Engineering Assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>CBCL Engineering Report (2017)<\/strong>:\n<ul>\n<li>Identified <strong>serious structural deficiencies<\/strong> in the wharf: <em>\u201ccross-bracing failures, ballast box deterioration, wheel guard damage\u201d<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li>Urgent repairs estimated at <strong>$1.5 million<\/strong>, with a further <strong>$4 million in maintenance over 15 years<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Report flagged <em>\u201cother challenges including sea level rise and king tides\u201d<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li>Recommendation: raise wharf approach by ~0.5 m to prepare for climate change.<\/li>\n<li><strong>No infill or expansion proposed<\/strong> \u2014 focus was strictly repair and maintenance.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>2018 \u2013 Early Public Concept<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>CBCL Public Open House (2018)<\/strong>:\n<ul>\n<li>First design sketches showed a potential <strong>raised approach<\/strong> and hinted at <strong>expanding Market Square<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Residents expressed caution:\n<ul>\n<li>Concerns about altering tidal flow.<\/li>\n<li>Emphasis on preserving <em>\u201cheritage look and feel\u201d<\/em> of waterfront.<\/li>\n<li>Loss of boat launch was already raised as an issue.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>2020 \u2013 Infill Berm Proposal and Council Pause<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Aug 17, 2020 \u2013 Special Council Meeting<\/strong>:\n<ul>\n<li>CAO <strong>Chris Spear<\/strong> presented \u201cMarket Wharf Design Concepts\u201d (PW200801).<\/li>\n<li>Proposed <strong>infill berm<\/strong>: rock-armoured causeway replacing timber trestle, extending ~100 m, elevated against storms.<\/li>\n<li>CAO Spear described as a <em>\u201cforever solution\u201d that will never have to be replaced again.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<li>Acknowledged <strong>loss of boat ramp<\/strong>, offered staircase or ramp to beach.<\/li>\n<li>Benefits highlighted: storm resilience, sea-level rise protection, expanded Market Square.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Council commentary:<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Mayor Doug Naish<\/strong>: <em>\u201cAre we sure this drastic change is necessary?\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<li><strong>Councillor Guy Groulx<\/strong>: warned about <strong>tidal current changes<\/strong> and aesthetics: <em>\u201cThe harbour\u2019s character is at risk.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<li>Other councillors pressed for less drastic alternatives.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Direction<\/strong>: Council instructed staff to <strong>pause<\/strong>, explore alternatives, and confirm with funding partners whether a modified plan would still qualify.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Motion 298-08\/20<\/strong>: Council unanimously voted to apply for <strong>ICIP federal-provincial funding<\/strong>, while keeping design options open.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>2021 \u2013 Funding Approved, First Plan ($3.4M)<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>ICIP Funding Approved<\/strong>:\n<ul>\n<li>Federal &amp; provincial governments committed ~$5.5M, Town share ~$2.3M. Total ~$7.8M.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Initial 2021 Plan<\/strong>:\n<ul>\n<li>Estimated at <strong>$3.4M<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Publicly reported as <strong>rehabilitation\/partial rebuild<\/strong>, not a full infill.<\/li>\n<li>Framed as a <strong>repair project<\/strong>, not expansion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Council\u2019s Position<\/strong>: Council accepted funding but recognized cost increases were likely. Staff tasked with keeping options open.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>2022 \u2013 Scope Expands<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rising costs and \u201cclimate resiliency\u201d goals caused staff and consultants to abandon the $3.4M plan.<\/li>\n<li>Design scope shifted toward <strong>infill and expansion<\/strong>, justified by:\n<ul>\n<li>Funding requirements (rehabilitation alone <em>\u201cwould not qualify\u201d<\/em> for grants).<\/li>\n<li>Argument that infill would be a permanent solution with lower long-term costs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>First clear evidence of <strong>scope creep<\/strong>: from repair \u2192 expansion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>2023 \u2013 New Options &amp; Public Input<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Sept 6, 2023 \u2013 Special Council Meeting<\/strong>:\n<ul>\n<li><strong>CBCL Engineer Kori MacPherson<\/strong> presented <strong>five options<\/strong>:\n<ol>\n<li>Rehabilitation (timber repair) \u2013 $5.37M.<\/li>\n<li>Infill Berm (causeway) \u2013 $6.06M.<\/li>\n<li>Precast Caissons \u2013 $7.88M.<\/li>\n<li>Steel Piles &amp; Deck \u2013 $8.2M.<\/li>\n<li>Hybrid Infill + Piles \u2013 $7.82M.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Council reactions:<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Mayor Brad Henderson<\/strong>: argued <strong>rehabilitation would lose ICIP funding<\/strong>, so \u201cnot viable.\u201d<\/li>\n<li><strong>Councillor Kurt Gumushel<\/strong>: pressed climate change justification.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Councillor (Chamcook rep)<\/strong>: warned currents and aesthetics could be compromised.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Outcome<\/strong>: Town leaned toward hybrid\/infill options despite strong concerns.<\/li>\n<li>Feedback repeatedly emphasized:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Preserve tidal flow.<\/li>\n<li>Protect aesthetics of heritage waterfront.<\/li>\n<li>Concern about rushed funding-driven decision.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><strong>2024 \u2013 Regulatory Approvals Without EIA<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>May 6, 2024<\/strong> \u2013 CBCL issued Environmental Permitting Drawings.<\/li>\n<li><strong>DELG Reviews (2021 &amp; 2024)<\/strong>:\n<ul>\n<li>Ruled project <strong>did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Justification: classified as \u201cwharf repair\/expansion under 10,000 m\u00b2\u201d.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>2025 \u2013 Intensified Opposition &amp; Tender<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>May 2025<\/strong> \u2013 Letters of opposition submitted:\n<ul>\n<li>Cindy Kohler: <em>\u201cThis project has evolved far beyond what was originally envisioned \u2014 a necessary repair. What we now face is a significant expansion with no clear long-term plan\u201d<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li>Concerns: shoreline erosion, aesthetics, property damage.<\/li>\n<li>Warning of potential legal action.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>July 21, 2025 \u2013 Council Meeting (GEMTEC Study Presentation)<\/strong>:\n<ul>\n<li>GEMTEC study claimed:\n<ul>\n<li>Infill would have <em>\u201cminimal impact on flow patterns.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>\u201cNo obvious shoreline change is expected.\u201d<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Issues raised:\n<ul>\n<li>Study not stamped by a professional engineer.<\/li>\n<li>Data conflicted with CBCL borehole findings (Gemtec: little sand; CBCL: mostly sand).<\/li>\n<li>Public distrust heightened.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Public Feedback Report (July 2025)<\/strong>:\n<ul>\n<li>72% opposed current plan.<\/li>\n<li>88% wanted a pause.<\/li>\n<li>Quotes from residents:\n<ul>\n<li><em>\u201cPreserve the peaceful shoreline character \u2014 that\u2019s what makes St. Andrews special.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>\u201cThis feels like land-grab expansion, not repair.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>\u201cCouncil is ignoring the will of the people.\u201d<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>July 31, 2025 \u2013 Minister Gilles LePage Response<\/strong>:\n<ul>\n<li>Confirmed project is funded under <strong>Climate Change Fund\/ICIP<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Reiterated no EIA required.<\/li>\n<li>Acknowledged tidal concerns, but deferred to Town\u2019s consultants.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>August 2025 \u2013 Tender Documents Released<\/strong>:\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Scope:<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Demolish timber trestle.<\/li>\n<li>Build 4,545 m\u00b2 infill revetment.<\/li>\n<li>Armour stone, steel piles, concrete deck.<\/li>\n<li>Install new utilities, asphalt surface, and electrical systems.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Materials:<\/strong> ~43,000 tonnes of rock fill (~4,300 truckloads).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Tender Closing:<\/strong> Sept 10, 2025. Completion target: May 2026.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Key Themes<\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Scope Creep<\/strong>: Repairs ($1.5M) \u2192 Rehabilitation ($3.4M) \u2192 Infill Expansion ($7.8M+).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Council Awareness<\/strong>: Repeated warnings by Naish, Groulx, and the public; overridden by funding pressures.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Public Opposition<\/strong>: Consistent majority against infill; surveys and petitions dismissed.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Regulatory Loophole<\/strong>: Project avoided EIA via bundling.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Shifting Justifications<\/strong>: Urgency \u2192 Cost savings \u2192 Climate resilience \u2192 Grant retention.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Transparency Issues<\/strong>: Residents allege misleading communications and inadequate consultation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"2017 \u2013 Initial Engineering Assessment CBCL Engineering Report (2017): Identified serious structural deficiencies in the wharf: \u201ccross-bracing failures, ballast box deterioration, wheel guard damage\u201d. Urgent repairs estimated at $1.5 million, with a further $4 million in maintenance over 15 years. Report flagged \u201cother challenges including sea level rise and king tides\u201d. Recommendation: raise wharf approach ","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1865,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":15,"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1864","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-research"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1864","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1864"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1864\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1866,"href":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1864\/revisions\/1866"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1865"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/standrewswharf.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}