MPS - INCREASED DENSITY, IMPLEMENTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

On the 22nd of January, the Sustainability Task Force signed off on a draft of the Town's new Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS). The document will now be reviewed (with possible minor revisions) by the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The first public meeting on the new MPS is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 18th at the Whittle Theatre.

Copies of the new draft are on-line at the Town’s website, available at Town Hall, and four copies are in the library.

I will not detail in this article all that is new in the MPS but will limit my comments to a few general observations.

The new version of the MPS provides for greater protection of Wolfville's "natural" environment. Part 6 of the MPS deals with conservation and environmental stewardship and Map 3 shows Development Constraint Areas. Wetlands, steep slopes and watercourses in the Town are marked for protection.

Parts 8 and 14 deal with Residential Development.

The draft MPS provides for greater density in residential areas of the town which have already been developed. It does this in three basic ways: (1) It eliminates the R-1 zone and replaces it with R-1A. In other words, all single family homes will now be permitted to have on the property a single dwelling unit along with an accessory dwelling. (8.1.3.) (2) Twelve vacant lots scattered around town will be permitted to obtain a bonus density, up to 12 units per acre, notwithstanding their current zoning, if certain criteria are met. See 8.5 and Schedule B. (3) “Flag lots” will be permitted. (14.2) In other words a lot with a single house on it which meets area and road frontage requirements will now be able to construct a second house on the lot. There are about 70 lots which have a flag lot potential, many along Main Street.

The MPS provides four reasons why the Town should support increased density. See pages 19-20. (1) It is economical and reduces environmental impact since the new dwelling units will be served by existing infrastructure; (2) could provide more affordable housing; (3) “higher density favours development of user services which will reduce the use of private vehicles . . .” and (4) “higher density near the downtown business district allows more people to reduce dependence on the automobile.”

The reasons given to justify higher density in already developed residential areas are inadequate and incomplete.

The guiding principle for drafting the MPS was sustainability. Several times in the MPS four elements or aspects of sustainability are mentioned: social, cultural, economic and environmental. In making planning decisions, these four elements are explicitly to be given equal weight. And yet the MPS has little or no discussion of the potential economic, social and cultural impacts of permitting higher density.

To claim that social and cultural issues will be dealt with when a particular project is evaluated, (see for example 18.6.1(b) impact on the “character and stability of surrounding neighbourhoods” ) does not adequately address this concern. The time for reviewing these issues should be when the MPS is being reviewed and rewritten.
Also, it appears that flag lots and accessory apartments may not need to be reviewed by Development Agreement.

Even the “environmental” reasons given for higher density, in particular making more efficient use of already existing infrastructure, makes most sense when increased density will prevent the need for more infrastructure to be constructed in undeveloped areas of the Town. But that is not the case here.

Increased density is meant to decrease reliance on cars. Yet there is no town-specific information about commuting habits, or to what extent individuals within “walking distance” (however that may be defined) to the commercial centre will forego the use of cars, stop shopping in New MInas, or use public transport to get there.

The MPS does not contain any information about what the increased density might mean for traffic and parking in residential areas; or what impact the creation of flag lots might have for the environment (elimination of trees, open space, etc.).

Finally, I have concerns about the implementation policies which will allow for higher density. Here I am referring to sections 8.5.4 and 18.6. When at a meeting I questioned how a particular provision would in practice be implemented, to my recollection, Deputy Mayor Wrye, who is the chairperson of the Task Force, responded that implementation need not be discussed; that we should trust that the PAC would implement the MPS properly.

Concerning Development District (8.4) which has an implementation policy similar to that contained in the Bonus Density section, I asked what sort of review would be needed if a developer wished to have only six dwelling units when twelve would require “exceptional and wide ranging response to the sustainability criteria . . .” I received no response; apparently my question was viewed as nonsensical. The implementation policy as written provides criteria which a developer needs to address, but at least to this reader the standard by which the criteria are to be evaluated remains a mystery.

The issue here is not one of trust. Rather my concern is that the PAC and Council are provided with clear and, as best as possible, unambiguous guidance on whether particular projects are consistent with the MPS as it is finally approved. With time, members of the Town Council or PAC may not have been directly involved in the writing of the MPS and the intent of the drafters will have to be gleaned by what is written.

David A. Daniels
February 28, 2008