MPS - DRAFT 3 COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

The following contains a detailed (and long) review of Draft 3 of the MPS. Basically, it is a record of most of the questions and comments I had as I read through the draft MPS. I have proposed changes to the wording in Parts 8 (Residential) and 18 (Implementation). There is a link to the MPS under "Links."


Part 1: Introduction

1.2:

para 1: “Sustainable Community planning is an opportunity for W. to proactively address challenges . . .”

What are the particular “challenges” which are to be addressed? Without knowing the challenges, how do you know whether the plan addresses them?

para 1: define or give particulars of an “equitable future”.

In Parts 1 and 2 there is repeated reference to participatory democracy: “participative governance”, “democratic politics”, “ongoing public consultation.” What in the new MPS furthers this important goal? (Note that this goal appears not to refer to the drafting process of the new MPS, but a goal to be achieved.)

Part 2: Vision and Declaration of Sustainability

2.1 What in the MPS facilitates or protects “cultural diversity” or “social equity”?

This question is difficult to answer in part because the terms are difficult to define. But if the Vision Statement is to be more than a recital of nice sounding aspirations, it would be helpful if these terms were given some meaning. And then it would be easier to tell if the MPS will help move us toward those goals.

(Another problem in this regard and see my comments on Part 3, below, is that without knowing more about the Town’s present situation, it is difficult to plan for where you wish to go.)

What in the MPS fosters a “creative and adaptive economy”?

Last bullet point “do not have to depend on the automobile”: should some mention be made about fuel efficient or electric cars? Not all cars are created equal.


2.2 Declaration of Sustainability

If any one thing is crucial to sustaining the town, it would be the continued healthy existence of the university. And at the core of the university are its students. Yet there is very little in the MPS about what the Town could do, in the planning context, to help the university attract and keep students. I attended most of the STF meetings, and I do not recall if any input from university students was ever sought. What policies can the town adopt in the MPS do help the university attract and retain students?

“The Town of W. recognizes that sustainable development requires a constant and equitable balance of environmental, social, cultural and economic factors in all decision making.” (See also the first sentence para. 2 of Part 1.)

I have pointed out in previous comments to the MPS that social, cultural and economic factors do not appear to play much of a role, if any, in MPS decisions. For example, the stated justification to increase “density” in already developed sections of the town does not mention social and cultural factors, and economic factors only indirectly.

There is reference to the “highest quality of life.” Another term which is very difficult to define, and would likely mean different things to different people.

“A strong vibrant local economy that enhances local wealth through economic self-reliance is one of the core elements of a sustainable community. In co-operation with surrounding communities, the citizens of [W.] must be able to provide for the basic necessities of adequate food and shelter for themselves and their families, now and in the future.”

While W. may have the ability to be more “self-reliant” than many communities because of agriculture nearby, there are limits to its self-reliance. For example, Acadia University, which is the largest employer by far in Town depends upon students from outside the area. Over 17% of its students in 2004 were from outside the country.

But more to the point is the town’s position on preservation of agricultural land. The importance of agriculture is mentioned several times in the MPS. See especially Part 11. Yet, as will be discussed later in more detail, the MPS does not advocate altering the zoning classification of lands presently used for agriculture from residential to agriculture. Why this change is not proposed is not explained.

And perhaps even more importantly, I recall nothing in the MPS which “encourages” the Council to “co-operate” with other municipalities, including Kings County, to explore ways to preserve agricultural land and agriculture.

page 4: para 2: reference is again made to “challenges” without explanation or examples.

End of 2.2, page 4: The “sustainability objectives” listed do not contain any mention of cultural, social or economic objectives, except only in the most general of terms: “human needs”.


Part 3. Community Profile

In order to plan for the future, it would be helpful to have more information about the Town’s present circumstances, and to have as much and as reliable information as possible about future trends.

Since economic, social and cultural dimensions of the town are constantly mentioned in Parts 1 and 2, it would be helpful to have as much information about these dimensions of town life.

In short, the more information available the better. Conversely, it makes it more difficult to plan for the future, if you lack information about where you are at the present.

In no particular order, below is a list of information the Town might consider obtaining, if possible.

Population trends of nearby towns such as Kentville and Windsor and other small university towns.

There was a recent information session presented by AU. Any relevant information provided at that meeting, particularly information about enrollment projections, and any information about possible housing plans on campus and off should be included.

There is reference to “cultural diversity” in the town. This term is not defined. Are there any statistics to show the diversity, and in particular, changes over time?

The Community Profile has virtually no direct information about the economy of Wolfville. Given the reference “economic self-reliance” and to sustainability, economic information should be made part of the Profile.

Mention is made here (and elsewhere) of declining school enrollment. Given the importance of this trend, more information, if available, would be useful.

“There are almost equal numbers of owner occupied dwellings and rented dwellings.” Since later there is mention of the benefits of having varied housing types near one another, it would be useful to see in general where the breakdown of owner versus rented dwellings occur.

How many elderly need cars to get to the commercial core, even if they live “within walking distance”?


Details about vehicle ownership and commuting patterns are lacking.

What % of students living off-campus have cars?

Commuter information can be broken down by: drive alone, share a ride, public transportation, walking, other, and work at home.

What sort of businesses are there in the town? Has there been a shift in time? And what does the future hold and what should the town strife for?

What is the employment outlook for the town?

How many commercial and institutional establishments are there in the town, and how many people do they employ? And if possible, do they know their future employment projections?

What social services are there available in the town? There is reference to aging of the population, what are the implications for future services?

What is the occupational breakdown of town residents?

What are the future trends, and what can be done to attract more businesses to the area.

Break down of family mean and median income in the town. This would be useful for devising “affordable housing” schemes.

Statistics about the health of the population would be useful. For example, “walking distance” is in part a function of health.

Part 4: Context and Interpretation

4.2. Para 5: Should “supporting documentation” include written comments received?

Part 5: Objectives

Background

Para 3: Reference is made to “commercial development” and later in Objectives (5.1) to “economic development”. Are there any specifics on what sort of development is envisioned?

Para 5: What does “compact” community mean? What does “self-sufficient” community mean in the context of a regional, national and international economy.

Para 5: what policies in the MPS encourage “good governance, civic responsibility and co-operative participation by all community members”?

5.1.6: what does “provide equity within and between generations” mean? And is there anything in the MPS which furthers this goal?

5.1.7: “the Natural Step” Does this policy require that the Council, in making any decision falling under the MPS, follow the TNS? Is there some document which spells out what precisely the TNS is and provides the steps which must be taken? Can the TNS be made an appendix item?

5.1.9. “urban sprawl” Generally, when I think of urban sprawl I think of a city where growing suburbs eat up the surrounding land. People live in the suburbs and commute into the city. W. is obviously not a city, and in fact several times in the MPS it is referred to as a small town.

In planning are the ways to deal with “urban sprawl” in the city context different than those in the context of a small town?

What steps in practice can be taken by the town to minimize the “sprawl” especially in light of fact that town controls only development within its borders?

5.1.14: How would this work in practice? Can you discriminate between businesses based upon the criteria of “economic self-reliance”? If a light manufacturer that put together computer components wished to open in the town, would the town be obliged not to foster it?

5.1.16: what is the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan? Should it be made an appendix to MPS?

5.1.19: “new urbanism” What are these principles and can they be placed in an appendix? Can you provide examples?

5.1.21: “recognize the importance of children . . .and of the public school . . .” The MPS refers to the “devastating” effects the closing of the school will have on W. See Part 3, para. 3. What in the MPS directly addresses this problem, other than the objective of creating affordable housing which may not appeal to all young families? Are young families moving to the area, but not to W? Do the real estate brokers have any information on this point or suggestions? What can the town do in the planning context to attract young families to settle in W?

Some issues may be beyond the MPS, such as lowering taxes.

Part 6: Conservation and Environmental Stewardship

Background:

Reference is made to the importance to biodiversity, and the protection of flora and fauna.

I could find no particular policies which explicitly require the Council to consider these elements when approving a development.

Would it be possible to list as an objective in Part 6 and include in Section 18.6.1(e) a provision that requires Council not to approve projects which adversely impact sensitive wildlife habitats and flora?

Is there any discussion of impact of increase of impervious surfaces?

6.1.1. The Town has the authority to prohibit development in land that are subject to flooding and subsidence, have steep slopes, is low-lying, marshy, or unstable. Municipal Government Act (MGA) Section 220(5)(p). Why should the Town limit its power up front?

6.1.4 Will “adversely effect” be defined in the LUB?

6.1.5 Can you provide examples of “rehabilitation” so this section can end with, “including by ________, _______ but not limited to.”

6.1.11. Tree planting program. Does this objective conflict with policies of infilling and flag lots which might result in the cutting down of trees.

6.1.17 See section 6.1.1 above. Rather than “limit” provide that can be “prohibited” in the proper circumstances.

Part 7: Parks, Open Space and Recreation

Background:

Para 1: Does 15% include private land, or land open to the public?

Para. 2: Does “wild spaces” refer to farm land?

Para 3: Are there “pristine natural environments” in W? If not, why include this reference?

7.4.3: how much space should be provided? A “percentage”? An adequate amount? No standard is provided.

Part 8: Residential Development and Land Use.

[I have written an article published in the February 28th edition of the Grapevine in which I argue that the justification for increasing density in already developed areas of the town are incomplete and inadequate.]

Background:

Para 1: “The limited number of on-campus residential units exerts pressure on the development of residential rental units and tends to influence the number of bedrooms contemplated for new residential developments.” Does AU have any plans to increase on-campus units? What impact has the falling enrollment had on off-campus housing?

Para 4: what does “development form” refer to?

“Compact residential development within easy walking/cycling distance of shops, services and work reduces community dependence on the private automobile and facilitates a more active and healthy lifestyle.”

Will creating more compact residential areas, in fact, lead to the desired results mentioned? There is no information about working and commuting and shopping patterns in the town. If the population ages, does that decrease the need for automobiles or increase it, given the geography of the town? Will students be moving into the newly created dwellings within areas of the town already developed? And what are the transportation habits of students?

See last two paragraphs before 8.1 discussing potential adverse impact of higher density developments. Should there be a similar discussion in section on flag lots. See section 14.2.

Should there be a discussion of what the loss of young families means to the town and possible ways to attract them?

Section 8.1.

Para 2:

“Sustainable community design principles encourage . . . a mixture of housing types in all residential areas.” Assuming that such mix already occurs, does experience show that it fosters sustainability? In other words, if mixed housing types already exist, there should be some analysis of their success in sustainability terms, including from a cultural and social perspective.

Mention is made of demand for small accessory apartments. I recall Mr. Morrison saying at a meeting that in fact there were very few such apartments built in the last ten years. Past demand may not reflect future demand. Does there continue to be such a demand?

What potential impact on parking and cars in areas effected? Are you assuming that some percentage of individuals moving into the new accessory dwellings will not have cars? What percentage? And what is your assumption based upon?

8.1.3 Will permitting existing multi-unit dwellings in R-1A now make conforming what are presently non-conforming uses?

8.2 Medium Density

Para 1: “Due to the central location of these areas [medium density residential] they are very attractive to residents who do not own a private automobile and those who may wish to live within walking distance of local schools, facilities and employment opportunities.” Do the facts support this assertion? In other words, are people moving into medium density residential who don’t have a car. I assume there are university students who do not have cars. Otherwise, I know of only one person who moved (into a single family home, not multi-unit dwelling) who does not own a car.

8.3 High Density Residential

Para 3: “Higher density land use could help solve many environmental, social and aesthetic problems of sprawl . . .” In the context of W, will increase density in areas of the town already developed prevent the total build out of the town, which appears to meet the definition of sprawl?

Reference is made to the movements of “New Urbanism” and “Smart Growth.” Were these movements explained to the Sustainability Task Force and were these movements formally adopted as guiding principles for the MPS?

8.4 Comprehensive Development District

See related comment under Part 11 Background.

“Several of these parcels are still in active agricultural use and new residential development that retains areas of land with Category 2 soils for agricultural use will be favoured.”

Can you show models or actual examples where this has occurred? In cases of clustering, does agriculture use still continue?

8.5 Bonus Density.

Do all the lots in Schedule B have to meet all the criteria, and are there other lots which meet the criteria not in Schedule B? And if not in Schedule B, why not?

What potential impact on parking and cars in bonus density projects? Are you assuming that some percentage of individuals moving into the new bonus density dwelling units will not have cars? What percentage? And what is your assumption based upon?

What, if any, are the property tax implications of this policy?

-------------

I have proposed below new language for implementation policies found in sections 8.4 and 8.5.

Implementation policies should be written so that all parties concerned in the process know what is expected of them and what to expect. Having more specifics enables the developer to know what precisely will be required of him or her; for the Town planners more precision means that they will be in a position to tell developers this is and is not what is needed in a proposed plan; for the Town Council and PAC, the MPS needs to provide guidelines (as precise and unambiguous as possible) by which to judge proposed projects; and perhaps most importantly, Town residents need to know what sort of development may or may not be approved by the Town. Finally, the more definiteness is built into the implementation policies, the less likely the involved parties will be able to question and complain about the decisions made.

I have tried to revise the sections mentioned above to make them more “user friendly.” In other words, so that all parties may have better guidance in their respective roles in future developments.

The additions I propose are IN CAPS; deletions are shown by placing them in brackets [ ]. My explanation for the proposed changes are italicized and indicated with **** and appear at the end of the proposed changes.


--------------

It shall be the policy of Council:
. . .

8.4.5 to require that all developments within the Residential Comprehensive Development District (RCDD) zone respond to sustainability principles and the level of response to these principles shall dictate the amount of residential dwelling unit density that shall be permitted. [The sustainability principles to be considered by Council shall include, but not be limited to the following:]

IN ORDER FOR AN APPLICANT TO BE GRANTED BONUS DENSITY, THE APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE* WITH COMPETENT EVIDENCE** THAT THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES EACH AND EVERY CRITERIA LISTED BELOW AS MANDATORY *** AND ANY OTHER CRITERIA WHICH THE COUNCIL DETERMINES IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPOSAL AND CONSISTENT WITH SUSTAINABILITY DESIGN PRINCIPLES.

IF THE APPLICANT CLAIMS HE OR SHE CANNOT SATISFY THE CRITERIA FOR ECONOMIC REASONS, THE APPLICANT MUST SHOW A REASONABLE RETURN IS NOT POSSIBLE BY COMPETENT FINANCIAL EVIDENCE.****

THE COUNCIL MAY CONSIDER GRANTING A HIGHER BONUS DENSITY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE APPLICANT SATISFIES THE CRITERIA LISTED BELOW AS OPTIONAL.

THE AMOUNT OF BONUS DENSITY GRANTED WILL BE DEPENDENT UPON THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA.

(a) [MANDATORY] the project provides buildings and site design that reduce the required operational energy requirements by a significant amount from conventional buildings. (e.g. district heating systems)

(b) [MANDATORY] the project provides buildings and site design that substantially reduce the impact on the environment through: [ONE ( ___) OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:]

• retention of natural systems
• retention of Category 2 soils [MANDATORY]
• use of renewable energy sources
• management of construction wastes
• reduced storm water run off
• water conservation
• waste reduction including solid waste and sewage
• use of environmentally sustainable materials
• use of certified Fair Trade products

(c) [OPTIONAL] the project provides an affordability component that would meet the need to provide housing Wolfville that is affordable and available for all sectors of society.

(d) [OPTIONAL] the project provides for alternative or shared housing and services models such as co-operative housing, co-housing, life lease, car pooling/sharing, district heating, etc.

(e) [OPTIONAL] the project provides barrier free/accessible housing units.

(f) [MANDATORY] the project demonstrates high quality architectural and environmental design that is compatible with the Landscape and that will contribute positively to the
immediate area and the Town in general.

(g) [OPTIONAL] the project provides a mixture of housing types and densities as well as a variety of housing designs

(h) [OPTIONAL] the project provides public or private amenities such as parks, walkways, pubic art, daycare, cultural venues, and public gathering spaces.

(i) [[MANDATORY] the project provides active transportation routes and amenities.

(j) [MANDATORY] the project provides access to public transport.

---------------

It shall be the policy of Council:

. . .

8.5.4 to consider only by development agreement, for those lots identified on Schedule B of the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Land Use By-law, proposals for multi-unit residential development up to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. IN ORDER FOR AN APPLICANT TO BE GRANTED BONUS DENSITY, THE APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE* WITH COMPETENT EVIDENCE** THAT THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES EACH AND EVERY CRITERIA LISTED BELOW AS MANDATORY PROVISIONS *** AND ANY OTHER CRITERIA WHICH THE COUNCIL DETERMINES IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPOSAL AND CONSISTENT WITH SUSTAINABILITY DESIGN PRINCIPLES.

IF THE APPLICANT CLAIMS HE OR SHE CANNOT SATISFY THE CRITERIA FOR ECONOMIC REASONS, THE APPLICANT MUST SHOW A REASONABLE RETURN IS NOT POSSIBLE BY COMPETENT FINANCIAL EVIDENCE.****

THE COUNCIL MAY CONSIDER GRANTING A HIGHER BONUS DENSITY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE APPLICANT SATISFIES THE CRITERIA LISTED BELOW AS OPTIONAL.

THE AMOUNT OF BONUS DENSITY GRANTED WILL BE DEPENDENT UPON THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA.

[The development proposal for increased density must be supported by an adequate response to sustainable design principles that may [shall] include but are not limited to:]


(a) [MANDATORY] the project provides buildings and site design that reduce the required operational energy requirements of the project by a significant amount from conventional buildings. (e.g. district heating systems).

(b) [MANDATORY] the project provides buildings and site design that substantially reduce the impact on the environment through: [MAY WISH TO HAVE LANGUAGE SUCH AS “ONE (OR ___) OF THE FOLLOWING”]
• retention of natural systems
• use of renewable energy sources
• management of construction wastes
• reduced storm water run off
• water conservation
• waste reduction including solid waste and sewage
• use of environmentally sustainable materials
• use of certified Fair Trade products

(c) [OPTIONAL] the project provides an affordability component that would meet the need to provide housing in Wolfville that is affordable and available for all sectors of society.

(d) [OPTIONAL]the project provides for alternative or shared housing and services models such as co-operative housing, co-housing, life lease, car pooling/sharing, district heating.

(e) [OPTIONAL] The project provides barrier free/accessible housing units.

(f) [MANDATORY] the project demonstrates high quality architectural and environmental design that is compatible with the landscape and that will contribute positively to the immediate area and the Town in general.

(g) [OPTIONAL]the project provides public or private amenities such as parks, walkways, public art, daycare, cultural venues, and public gathering spaces.

(h) [MANDATORY] the project provides active transportation routes and amenities.

Explanation for changes:

*It should be clear that the burden is upon the Applicant to show he or she has satisfied the various criteria.

** “Competent evidence” This language will require the Applicant to show, not just make conclusory statements, that the criteria are being met. So for example, when the matter comes before a public hearing, the Town planners can say we approve this project because it has met all the required criteria, and here is the proof.

*** I have divided the criteria listed in subsections under 8.4.5 and 8.5.4. into two groups: mandatory and optional. The “mandatory” criteria are those which are “straight forward” and appear to be attainable to some degree in all projects which wish to be consistent with sustainable design principles. The “optional” criteria are those which a developer may wish to add, but are not necessary to make the project sustainability-friendly.

To further explain the distinction I have made, consider the criterion of affordable housing. The developer will either decide to include this or not. How could the developer “address” the issue of affordable housing? The obvious answer is that it does not make financial sense. It might only make financial sense if the developer is able to get more units per acre.

If my two-tiered approach is not acceptable, or does not make sense or is unworkable, I would suggest that a provision be added which states that reasons of “economic feasibility” are not an acceptable way to address the criteria.

****You may wish to delete this language altogether. However, it allows the developer to fall back on legitimate economic reasons which he or she must substantiate.

------------

Part 9: Commercial Development and Land Use

Background:

Para. 3: what is the “traditional urban form”?

Para 3: Great deal of detail is provided on the type and number of commercial establishments in Town in 1910. Would it be useful to have the same level of details for the present? What is good and bad about the present commercial downtown. And what can be done in the planning context to further the good and prevent the bad?

Who lives above the stores? If students, what happens in the summer when they are away?

9.1.3: Can more details be provided to further this goal?

What about making downtown all pedestrians and have parking on the four corners?

9.2

Provide specifics about what is good and what is bad about downtown, and then try to provide policies which foster the good and prevent or at least mitigate the bad.


“Landscaped areas around Waterfront Park and interspersed throughout the downtown encourage public interaction . . .” Most of the public interactions I see are in the PO, Tim Hortons and Just Us Cafe. Events occur at Waterfront and greenspace/parks, but not on a day to day basis, at least from what I witness.


9.4 para 3: “some provision of land for light industrial purposes is still envisioned.” Who envisions this and what in particular is envisioned?

9.4.3 How do these uses related to sustainability? Impervious surfaces and cars versus local jobs?

“building supply and equipment depots”. Are you permitted to zone for such a specific use? That is, are you limited to commercial use, but not what can be sold?

9.4.8(a): What about heavy usage of electricity?

(d): Who is a “qualified person”?

Why a “significant” risk, and not just when an environmental impact will occur or adverse environmental impact? The town should have the assessment done, and paid for by the developer, the developer should not carry it out. See 18.6.1.(h)

9.5 Special Commercial

Why are some commercial establishments granted rights beyond normal grandfathering provisions? Isn’t this contrary to general planning principles which push for the elimination of non-conforming uses?


Part 10: Institutional Development and Land Use

Background:

Para. 2: reference to W having a “small town” environment.

10.2.6 and 10.2.7: Should there be some limit or way to evaluate how high is too high?

Part 11: Agriculture:

Background

There are whole sections on the importance of maintaining agriculture; it is an explicit goal of Statement of Provincial Interest; vital to sustainability; an important part of maintaining rural character: why not consider changing designations of areas on east and west of town that remain in agricultural use or with the agricultural potential from residential to agricultural? Explain why that change should not be made?

Doesn’t allowing these lands to become residential go against the idea that want to increase density in downtown core?

Para 3: reference to “urban landscape.” What do you mean by this? Houses? All things not associated with farming?

See 8.4: What would happen if developer of RCDD decides he or she wants, not the 12 units per acre, but because of demands for large homes on large tracts of land, to build two per acre? Would there be anything under the bonus density scheme which would prevent developer from cookie cutter development, but with large lots, so the requirement to build sustainable development would not be operative.

Has there been any successful planning schemes which allow for residential use and at the same time “preserve, as much as possible, some of this agricultural capability.”?

Why not have a policy which encourages Town Council to coordinate efforts to preserve agricultural land with other municipalities?

Part 12 Architectural Heritage and Culture.

Should there be some sort of acknowledgment or policy which protects Acadian or other old remnants that may be uncovered in the course of development? Perhaps there is a Provincial provision. But if so, is the Town allowed to adopt a more stringent policy?

Part 13: Transportation, Public Services and Utilities

13.1: Transportation:

“Land development patterns that are dispersed, auto-dependent, single use and make it impossible to walk or cycle to your daily needs are defined as sprawl. There is a growing general awareness that sprawl threatens farmland and open space.”

This would seem to describe the residential development which is being permitted on the outskirts of town. Also, this would seem to support redesignation of land that is being farmed or could be farmed from residential to agricultural use.

More information on the various methods of transportation used in town, where people go and how they get there, would be useful.

How is the goal of “sustainable transportation” translated into planning? Eg: use of car pools, clean powered vehicles, ride sharing.

Should the impact a further “densification”, both positive and negative, be discussed in this section?


13.1.7: “to encourage compact development patterns that reduce auto dependence.” It would be good to know shopping and commuting habits and overall traveling patterns of those who live in town. What are car ownership patterns in the town? Can you look at portions of the Town which are densely populated, and see if in fact there is a reduction in auto usage?

13.2 Streets and Sidewalks.

Should the idea of making center of the Town pedestrian and car free be discussed here?

13.3: Police and Fire Protection

Para 1: There sometimes is a trade off between “best possible” and being the “most cost effective”.

I attended a budget meeting at which I recall the fire chief indicated that there was a growing difficulty staffing the fire department with purely volunteers. If this is so, this may be the result of the population moving into town or leaving. Are there ways that the MPS recognizes this is an issue, and sets out ways to improve the situation?


13.4: Service and Utility Uses.

Anything on fiber optics?


13.6.5.: Will there be anything in the new subdivision requirements that explicitly require centralized trash pickup.

Part 14: Subdivision of Land and Lot Access.

Flag Lots:

In the prior MPS, which is was completed about ten years ago, the following was stated for flag lot policies: after describing what a flag lot is, the MPS goes on to state:

“Permitting flag lots will encourage infill development and makes efficient use of land and existing Municipal Services. However, permitting this type of development would probably be seen as an intrusion by surrounding property owners. (My emphasis.)

“Council is not inclined to permit extensive use of flag lots at this time, but does feel it would be reasonable to permit them where there are already two separate dwellings existing on a lot. This would allow the two dwellings to be held in separate ownership from one another.”

What has changed since the last MPS? The draft MPS says nothing about “intrusion.” Nothing is mentioned about the loss of green space (lawns), trees, etc. when second house is built. See last two paragraphs in the Background in Part 8. Shouldn’t the concern for loss of lawns, gardens and trees be considered in the context of flag lots?

What, if any, are the tax implications of allowing flag lots?

Part 15: Parking, Yard Requirements and Temporary Uses.

Background,

“It is likely that the reduction in the number of motor vehicles will only occur over the long term and that in the interim parking areas will still be required to accommodate larger scale developments.” With the Woodman development moving forward and other potentially large developments occurring on the outskirts of town, and with the twinning of 101, is there a possibility that there will be an increase of traffic and parking in town, and should these be planned for. Does Kings Transit have any sense of how its services reduce traffic and parking now and in the future?

How will increased density in already developed areas of the town impact parking and traffic? And what, if anything, can be done to mitigate these impacts?

Part 17: Landscaping, etc.

Can this section include something specific about preservation of trees, whenever possible?


Part 18: Implementation

18.6 Criteria for Development Agreements [DA] and Land Use By-law Amendments

Can there be a provision added that provides that all requirements having to do with safety be completed prior to granting permission to occupy the structure? I raise this issue based upon the experience of the Segado Development on Willow Avenue. The DA required pedestrian access to the site separate from the very steep driveway. See section 5.1.12 of the DA. This requirement, as was all others, was required to be completed within 18 months of the commencement of the development. See section 5.2.3. The apartments began to be occupied well before this access, a stairway, was constructed. For reasons of safety, shouldn’t such requirements be completed prior to occupancy?

PROPOSED REVISIONS [Additions are in CAPS; deletions are in brackets [ ]. My comments [ARE IN BRACKETS AND CAPS]; and explanations for *s appear at the end of the revisions.

18.6 CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND LAND USE BY-LAW
AMENDMENTS

It shall be the policy of Council:

18.6.1 to consider the following STANDARDS AND CRITERIA in addition to all other STANDARDS AND criteria set out in the various policies of this Municipal Planning Strategy, when considering proposals for
development agreements and Land Use By-law amendments:

a) THE APPLICANT SHALL DEMONSTRATE [to ensure] that the proposal conforms to the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy and to all other applicable Town By-laws and regulations, except where the application for a development agreement modifies the requirements of the Land Use By-law or the Subdivision By-law.

b) THE APPLICANT SHALL DEMONSTRATE [to ensure] that the development does not cause conflict with adjacent land uses, disturb the quiet enjoyment of adjacent lands, or alter the character and stability of surrounding neighbourhoods through:

• the type and intensity of use
• the height, mass or architectural design of proposed buildings [IF POSSIBLE THESE SHOULD BE CLARIFIED; FOR EXAMPLE, RAILTOWN SHOULD NOT BE DUPLICATED TO THE EXTENT THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION: WHAT IS TOO HIGH OR TOO BIG FOR A NEIGHBOURHOOD OR SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. ARE THERE MODELS? EG, MORE THAN ONE STOREY IN HEIGHT.]
• hours of operation of the use
• outdoor lighting
• noise, vibration or odour
• vehicle and pedestrian traffic [WOULD THIS APPLY TO APARTMENT BUILDING IN AREA OF ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES]
• alteration of land levels and/or drainage patterns

c) THE APPLICANT SHALL DEMONSTRATE BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE [to ensure] that the capacity of local services is adequate to accommodate the proposed development and such services will include, but not be limited to the following:

• sanitary and storm sewer systems
• water systems
• schools
• recreation and community facilities
• fire and police protection
• street and walkway networks
• solid waste collection and disposal systems

d) THE APPLICANT SHALL DEMONSTRATE BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE [to ensure] that the proposal is not premature or inappropriate by reason of the financial ability of the Town to absorb capital and/or maintenance costs related to the development.

e) THE APPLICANT SHALL DEMONSTRATE BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE [to ensure] that the proposal does not cause environmental damage or damage to adjacent properties through:

• pollution of soils, water or air;
• erosion or sedimentation;
• interference with natural drainage and watercourses;
• flooding

f) THE APPLICANT SHALL DEMONSTRATE BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE [to ensure] that the proposal protects and preserves matters of public interest such as, but not limited to:

• historic buildings;
• public access to shorelines, parks and public and community facilities;
• important and significant cultural features, natural land features and vegetation.

g) THE APPLICANT SHALL DEMONSTRATE BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE [to ensure] that the proposed site and building design provides the following:

• adequate active transportation networks and contributes to active transportation links throughout the community;
• adequate vehicle circulation and parking facilities to avoid congestion on or near the property and to allow vehicles to move safely within and while entering and exiting the property;
• facilities for the safe movement of pedestrians;
• adequate landscaping features such as trees, shrubs, hedges, fences, flower beds, and lawns to successfully integrate the new development into the surrounding area;
• screening of utilitarian elements, such as but not limited to; mechanical and electrical equipment, and garbage storage bins;
• adequate access for emergency vehicles;
• adequate separation from, and consideration of, public and private utility corridors to ensure their continued safe and functional operation;
• architectural features, included but not limited to, mass, scale, roof style, trim elements, exterior cladding materials, and the shape, size and relationship of doors and windows; that are visually compatible with surrounding buildings in the case of a new building or with the
existing building in the case of an addition;
• adequate outdoor amenity space for use of residents in a residential development;
• adequate facilities for the storage and collection of solid waste materials;
• appropriate consideration for energy conservation;
• appropriate consideration of and response to site conditions, including but not limited to; slopes, soil and geological conditions, vegetation, watercourses, wet lands, and drainage.

h) where Council determines, on the advice of a qualified person*, that there is a significant** risk of environmental damage from any proposed development which does not require an assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act, environmental studies shall be carried out at the expense of developer for the purpose of determining the nature and extent of any environmental impact and no agreement shall be approved until Council is satisfied that the proposed development will not create or result in undue*** environmental damage.

* “qualified person” - this should be defined. The other way to approach this issue to is require an environmental assessment (or the possibility of one) when particular kinds of activity occur. For example, regrading of a certain amount of soil, or working on steep slopes as defined. See the Provincial Environmental Act and regulations.

** why make the criteria “significant risk”. If the idea is to protect the environment as much as possible, the trigger could be simply when the proposed development has an “environmental impact” or if want to raise the bar then have “adverse impact”. But there is no reason to require “significant” if your primary goal is protection of the environment.

*** will need to define what “undue” entails. And why specify a limit at all if “environmental damage” may result from the undertaking? An alternative would be to require mitigation at the cost of the developer.

All of these deal with the balance which must be struck between protection of the environment and allowing for development. The question is where the balance should be. If the priority is protection of the environment, then there should be a low bar for triggering an assessment and requiring mitigation.

18.9 Non-Conforming Uses

Para 3: Why does the MPS explicitly permit full reconstruction of grandfathered uses? This may be in line with the push for greater density, but isn’t it contrary to general planning principles which seek to eliminate non-conforming uses over time? If the purpose to allow for greater density, then shouldn’t this be explicitly acknowledged?

David A. Daniels
March 8, 2008