MPS - MOVING FORWARD

[THE FOLLOWING IS A COPY OF A LETTER I HAVE SENT TO PAC MEMBERS]

There will be time later to look at what went right and wrong in the process of drafting the new MPS. The point now is to move forward and make sure the MPS the Town will live with for many years to come is the best document it can be. With that in mind, please accept the following comments and questions.

I. TAKE STEPS TO FURTHER ENGAGE THE PUBLIC.

A. I know of two people who requested that the PAC allow them to make brief public presentations on residential development and were told no and not at this time. One presentation concerned hearing from a stakeholder who is in a group which to my knowledge has not been heard from before. The second concerned a proposed sustainable and innovative housing development with coloured renderings. Concrete ideas which should be happily sought and openly discussed.

Why such presentations must be submitted in writing makes little sense. These people are willing to take the time and effort to inform you and the public about their ideas. If there was an issue of duplication, then the chair could tell these people, tell us what the subject matter is, sorry there is duplication, you should speak to X about this and make one combined presentation.

Certainly time should not be a factor. Once again it was stated at the April 8th meeting that the process will take as long as it will take.

B. Those residents who own property who may be affected by lots which have the potential to become flag lots and bonus density lots should be notified of the pending proposals in some way. Post the map which shows potential flag lots on the website; display maps on the kiosks. Unlike people who live in the R1 zone, those who live on or near potential flag lots and bonus density lots are scattered around Town.

The focus of meetings should not be on whether or not people were adequately informed or why you didn’t attend meetings. At this point who cares whether the Town didn’t do enough to inform the public or residents didn’t avail themselves of the opportunity to participate, or a combination of the two. It was clear that many people did not know what the Sustainable Task Force (STF) was doing. Why take a chance that those who will be impacted don’t know what is happening when the result may be unnecessary public anger? The MPS is rewritten about once every 10 years. Especially in a document which trumpets public participation, ways should be found to ensure the public is fully informed and engaged. (I have made suggestions concerning public participation in the past.)

C. Minutes or notes of previous meetings should be made available before the next meeting takes place. This would allow those who miss a meeting to get up to speed and make the proceedings easier to follow. The policy of not providing minutes to the public until approved makes no sense. Just stamp them “unapproved” or “subject to change” or “unofficial until approved.”

Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe Karen Dempsey’s contract was largely if not wholly paid for by grants. In that case, and because of the importance of the MPS, the Town should not skimp on expending funds; the excuse of not doing something which will help ensure a better overall product because of lack of resources is not valid.


II. CLARIFY THE TASK MOVING FORWARD

Virtually the entire April 8th meeting was taken up with sustainability issues. My understanding was that the STF dealt with sustainability issues and the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) is supposed to deal with planning principles. WHAT ARE THOSE PRINCIPLES? These should be acknowledged and made known to the public.

The Town has written several MPSs before, and they were not guided by sustainability. There had to have been some planning principles used in earlier MPSs. If the PAC going forward uses sustainability as its guiding light, then the claim that it was okay to have overlapping PAC and STF membership because different principles were to guide the work of the different committees, falls on its face.


III. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Several times during the course of the April 8th meeting mention was made of PAC members’ possible conflict of interest. Townspeople should be assured that this issue is taken seriously. Members of the PAC live in particular zones; they may live near or on properties that may be directly affected by the proposed MPS.

The Nova Scotia Municipal Conflict of Interest Act places obligations on “local board” members. With stated exceptions, members who have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any matter under consideration must refrain from taking part in the discussion and voting. Section 6(1). Why not have a brief overview of this topic at a public meeting to proactively clear the air? (Is there a Town policy that all committee members be informed of their obligations under the MCIA?)

IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS

There appears to be a lack of trust -- in the Town government? in the PAC? At the April 8th meeting the condition of housing on Marsh Hawk was brought up and a person raised the issue of enforcement of bylaws along Main Street. I have questioned the judgments of the PAC regarding some of the decisions it has made. If you believe Town residents don’t trust in either the PAC or the Town’s planning decisions, then you may wish to confront this matter outright.

“Yes, we understand there is lack of trust, and this is how we propose to deal with it.” One way has been by tightening the implementation policy for development agreements. See section 18.6.1. See also sections 8.4.5. (RCDD) and 8.5.4. (Bonus Density). I have suggested revisions which I belief will make the standards more stringent. See my Comments on these sections. But, of course, stricter standards are only as good as their application and enforcement.

Perhaps the Town needs to rethink its heavy reliance on development agreements or further restrict their use. Mr. Morrison has argued that the development agreements provide the Town with needed flexibility. But flexibility can cut another way -- it may give builders and developers no sure standards and too much latitude. The Town needs to do some hard (but not unreasonable) bargaining with developers, and strict standards can provide the leverage needed by the Town.

Here is an idea which can kill two birds with one stone: increase public engagement and help restore trust. The Town has the power to establish area planning advisory committees. Municipal Government Act sections 200 and 201. “Character and stability of surrounding the neighbourhoods” is one of the standards by which proposed developments are to be judged. See MPS 18.6.1(b). Who better to provide advice to the Town, to judge the impact of a project on the character of a neighbourhood, than area advisory committees made up of those who live in and around the effected neighbourhoods.

V. THE MPS ON THE GROUND

Karen Dempsey in one of her introductions at the April 8th meeting referred to “sharing burdens.” Yet I don’t recall hearing what those burdens are which need to shared. The Town needs to be fully aware, as much as one can look into the future, of the benefits and drawbacks of different policies proposed in the MPS.

To make sure that the proposed policies are “grounded’, here are some questions I suggest should be posed for each decision or policy considered by your committee:

--will the policy help the Town accomplish its goals?

--are there alternate ways to reach that goal?

--do we have as much information as possible concerning the proposed policy?

--what are the downsides of adopting the policy?

--do we understand the possible unintended consequences of the proposed policy?

--have we gotten as much input as possible from those who may be affected?


Thank you for taking the time to consider my observations and questions.

David A. Daniels
April 12, 2008

Impressions During the Last PAC Meeting - April 8th, by Lutz E. Becker

To start with some general comments, the meeting was disorganized and at least partly a farce due to the fact that without a microphone some people could not really understand and grasp what was said and some could not read (due to distance from the screen and size of letters/messages) what was presented on the big screen.

It felt very right to me that Mr. Doug Lutz set the tone of the meeting at the beginning. It helped to make it entirely different from the past one at the Al Whittle Theatre.

To spend thereafter all this time on the "Vision for Wolfville" I regarded as wasting time with the intention to avoid and or shorten the discussions on the really relevant issues of the MPS draft. Nobody in the Western hemisphere will argue about these ideal principles which look good on paper and on the screen and are probably copied from somewhere else. As I said during the meeting, these same principles will work for any community and the word "Wolfville" could be easily replaced by any other community name. What was missing was the connection and relevance to the unique situation of the Town of Wolfville and the actions to be taken to get - over time - a step or two forward towards the realization of these idealistic principles. I think it is a gimmick to propose doing it just by "increasing density".

The then discussions on sustainability seemed to be based on the hallucinations that sustainability would and could be achieved in this Town within its borders and its given limits by just following the outlined idealistic principles of sustainability. The Declaration of Sustainability (Section 2.2 of the MPS draft) states ".sustainable development requires a constant and equitable balance of environmental, social, cultural and economic factors in all decision making ... to provide the highest possible quality of life for all its residents". This again reads very well on paper but seems to stem from sweet dreams of some Committee members. And nowhere in the draft can I find any additional reference to the equity and balance of environmental, social, cultural and economic factors in all decision making.

Could it be that the authors of this MPS draft wanted to win a price in literature and/or poetry?

To me sustainability of the Town of Wolfville is directly related to its biggest employer, the Acadia University. Should the student population for whatever reason decline even further and - hypothetically - the University would have to close its doors; the Town of Wolfville would degrade to a sleepy little village with no importance at all.

There are no sections in the MPS draft showing this direct dependence and the actions to be taken to avoid any possible "disaster".

It reminded me on the dreamy vision of Mr. Greg Morrison, Director Planning, who presented during his opening speech at the Al Whittle Theatre a population growth over time up to about 14,500 inhabitants in Wolfville. Apart from the missing equity and balance factors as above, he did not explain where he envisions and/or how he dreams up the jobs for the increasing population. For him to believe that these new people will reside here and commute to Halifax or elsewhere to earn their bread and butter, he better keeps as a matter of faith or religion rather than reality.

Most of the discussions and arguments circled around the proposed abolishment of the R-1 Zones. There was a strong opposition in the audience (about 340 signatures against) and some very good ideas were presented to the Committee and its chairman, Mr, Robert Wrye. I hope and wish, the Committee had listened carefully.

When the point of Development Agreements was covered shortly, Mr. Wrye exclaimed in its context: "Trust me!" Most of the people in the audience laughed. To me this was a clear indication that there is a very low level of trust in this Administration in relation to Development Agreements. Some even quoted very specific incidents.

When Mr. Wrye was asked how many R-1-property owners he had consulted regarding the proposed R-1 changes, his answer was "zero". His response initiated additional laughter. He as well was unable to come up with a correct number on how many properties are in the R-1 zone of Wolfville.

One of his other statements that he has served the Town of Wolfville with decisive input for the past 25 years may look good on his resume but is only indicating to me that it is overdue time for a replacement in exchange for new ideas. In this context I like all the advantages of the American system, where key-people can serve only two terms max.

Before the motion, to keep the R-1 zone as it currently is, was brought to the table some Committee members were given the opportunity to present their opinions.

Among them, Mr. Glyn Bissix then described his personal situation stating that he lives in a big house he might not be able to hold-on to, especially after retirement in about 5 years, unless the change of the zoning from R-1 to R-1-A would take place. There seems to be a huge conflict of interest and Mr. Bissix seems to have a mental block if unable to see this conflicting situation. His personal problem has no relevance to all the residents of Wolfville and should have no impact on his Committee input and decisions as well. He would be well advised to learn about the Nova Scotia Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The question then came to my mind, how many other members on the Committee will favor personally from the planned and drafted changes of the MPS? Later on, the motion, to keep the R-1 zone as it is, was denied due to the fact that Mr. Bissix voted openly against it. What a farce! I had expected that an honorable Mr. Bissix would have stayed at least neutral.

As I understand it, the members of the Planning Advisory Committee will finally provide the Council of the Town with an amended MPS draft for the decision process. I have a major problem to see Councilmen of the Town sitting in and acting as members of the Planning Advisory Committee as well. Personally, I don't trust people, who pretend to be able to change their hats and maybe opinions depending on what meeting and/or decision-making process they are on. This is not my understanding of a fair role-play.

Furthermore, I was disappointed with the presence of our mayor and member of the Committee, Mr. Robert Stead. He was sitting there all evening, saying nothing, expressing no opinion even once. He could have taken the stage and calmed the folks down as a kind of mediator. He is paid for his main duty to try to do the best in his ability for all the residents of the Town. Instead of seeing him on TV with a proclamation of an almost unenforceable By-law, which then becomes Provincial law a little later, I would have liked to see him addressing the audience. The fact that he didn't might be that no TV cameras were present.

Doesn't he understand: It is election year!

Lutz E. Becker

MPS - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

I have written before about the importance of public engagement in the planning process. The Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) repeatedly references such engagement. Wolfville will strive toward an “inclusive community” “guided by citizen engagement” (2.1); it is the intention of Council “to foster citizen participation in the development of land use planning policy” (5.1.22); and the 7th Principle of the Melbourne Principles Adapted For Wolfville is to “empower people and foster participation.”

Public participation, democracy, if you will, is a worthwhile pursuit for at least two reasons. First, practicing democracy is a value in itself. It’s good to be in a room listening to what your neighours have to say, hearing different points of view, getting new information, and figuring out solutions to difficult issues. Second, public engagement generally leads to better solutions which are more likely to be accepted and followed.

To further public participation in the process of writing the new MPS, I asked at the March 20th Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting whether the Town could post on its website the written comments it receives. I was told after the meeting that the Town would try. [The Town now has begun to post comments. Go to the Town's web page under the MPS, click on "additional information" at the bottom and then look at the bottom of the new page. (April 8, 2008).]

In addition to increasing public participation by making residents aware of the views of their fellow citizens, let me add another reason why written submissions should be readily accessible to the public. Written comments are distributed to the PAC members. The public should know the bases of the decisions being made by PAC members. What if a written comment contains a claim which is wrong or in dispute. Allowing the public to review written comments helps assure that the PAC and Council will make decisions based upon accurate information.

Let me suggest another way to increase public engagement (which has been suggested by at least one other member of the public). The planning department should prepare an “issues report” in which it sets out the key issues, the arguments in favour of and opposed to particular policies meant to address the issues, and a reasoned explanation as to why the planning department is recommending a particular course of action.

Such a report will help assure all comments (both voiced in public and written) are addressed, and seen to be addressed, and lend transparency to the decision making process.

Insufficient public engagement in the planning process has consequences. One consequence, at least in part, is the “disconnect” between the principles which undergird the new MPS, principles based on New Urbanism and the Smart Growth movements (5.1.19), and the application of those principle to the facts on the ground. Take a look at the four reasons given for the Council’s support for higher residential density: it reduces unit costs and environmental impacts; more affordable housing can be achieved; favours development of user serves which will reduce the use of private cars; and, in the business district, allows more people to reduce their dependence on cars. Part 8, pages 20-21.

Each justification sounds great on paper, in the abstract, but what is needed in the MPS is a description of how increased density may play itself out when applied to Wolfville with its particular history, geography and social and economic circumstances.

David A. Daniels
April 5, 2008

MPS: QUESTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

1. There has been a discussion and a memo concerning the potential population “build out” of the town. But to my knowledge there has never was a discussion by the Sustainability Task Force of whether full build-out is what residents want. Now that the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) has begun its review, should the town address the issue of whether planning should aim at an “ideal” or “target” population? Would the town prefer to remain “small”?

2. Chairperson Wrye on at least two occasions that I can recall stated that the Sustainability Task Force would be looking at the MPS from a sustainability perspective, and the Planning Advisory Committee would view the MPS from a “planning” point of view and that Council would review the document from an “electoral” point of view. (This statement was in part a response to concerns raised about overlapping membership.) What are the principles or perspectives that make up the “planning” point of view, and how are these similar to or different from a sustainability perspective?

3. New Urbanism and Smart Growth are used to explain and justify increasing density in already developed areas of the Town. Yet these two movements are not discussed in any detail in the MPS. Should the MPS, perhaps as an appendix, include more details about them. And more importantly, should there be some discussion of how the planning strategies advocated by New Urbanism and Smart Growth apply to the Wolfville?

4. Increasing density in already developed areas of the Town is, in part, justified by the assertion that with greater density there is a greater likelihood of developing public transport. In other words, as I understand the argument, before public transport becomes feasible, you need a certain number of people in an area who will be potential users.

5. In this regard, wouldn’t it be useful to know the commuting and shopping habits of residents? Is there any information about when there is sufficient density to favour development of user services, such as a bus shuttle?

6. Another justification for increasing density is that higher density will result in “more affordable housing.” See p. 20. In Wolfville, is there supporting evidence for this claim? And more affordable to whom? Young families? Retired people?

7. In deciding which lots are suitable for HD designation, three criteria were used: walkability, size and not able to subdivide. But what about looking at nearby housing types and density in the surrounding area, as a fourth and fifth criteria. This would make sense when two of the goals of increased density are: 1) having mixed housing types (see 8.1, p. 21); and 2) reach tipping point to justify public transport. See p. 21. “3.”

8. I live near an HD lot on Gaspereau Avenue, in an area of town which is already very dense and has a mix of housing types. When deciding upon HD lots, why wasn’t surrounding housing types and density taken into consideration?

9. How does the density of Wolfville compare to other similar towns? In doing the calculations, do you discount the area devoted to farming on the dykelands, which may be unique to Wolfville?

10. Mr. Morrison in his Grapevine article states that increased density “ha[s] the potential to enrich Wolfville’s social fabric by increasing interaction with our neighbours . . .” I grew up in a typical cookie cutter suburb low density neighbourhood and there was wonderful interaction; and I’ve lived in an apartment house, where I hardly knew my neighbours. Since there are already “dense” areas in Wolfville, are there “enriched” neighbourhoods that can be held out as examples?

11. Equal emphasis is supposed to be placed upon social, cultural and economic factors, along with environmental factors when planning from a sustainability perspective. What are the social, cultural and economic implications of increased density as they relate to Wolfville?

12. We have been assured that increased density in developed areas of the town will be carefully controlled with the use of development agreements (“DAs”). See Section 18.6. The present MPS on the implementation of DAs contains language to the effect that when determining whether to approve a project, the “mass” of a proposed building should be “considered.” But that requirement didn’t prevent Railtown or the Segado development on Willow Avenue, although size was raised as an issue. The proposed MPS tries to tighten up a similar criterion by requiring that the Council “ensure” that there be no conflict based upon “mass” of the proposed building. I wonder if that is enough of a change to assure development will be carefully controlled? Would Railtown be approved under the new MPS?

13. Some of the new language in the proposed MPS meant to regulate DAs may be difficult to interpret and implement. A new development cannot occur if it would “alter the character and the stability of surrounding neighbourhoods . . .” It would be helpful if the Town planners could give examples of a development that would not be acceptable. How do you define “character of a neighbourhood”? And how will the Town treat a proposal that by itself may not alter the character of a neighbourhood, but the cumulative impact of several similar proposals may eventually result in an adverse impact?

14. I have proposed alternative language for DAs as well as for RCDD and Bonus Density developments. Will the Town consider my suggestions at these meetings? See my Comments previously sent to you.

15. Why didn’t Draft 3 of the MPS contain a map showing potential flag lots? What, if any, are the tax implications of the creation of flag lots and high density lots?

16. Concerning flag lots (Section 14.2 in the new MPS), the prior MPS, the one now in effect, rejected flag lots, although it recognized that flag lots made for “efficient use of land and existing Municipal Services.” But then the MPS goes on to state: “permitting this type of development would probably be seen as an intrusion by surrounding property owners.” Has something changed between the adoption of the prior MPS and now to make flag lots less intrusive?

17. The construction of homes on flag lots will almost always result in the destruction of vegetation, including cutting down of mature trees. The flag lots, after all, are generally the backyards of homes. Is there any protection or mechanism to weigh the possible benefits of allowing flag lots against destruction of the natural environment? The only policy I could find that deals with this issue is under the Part dealing with DAs. 18.6.1(f) (3rd bullet point). However, it appears that not all flag lots will require a DA.


18. There appears to be an unusually high number of rentals now available in Town? Is this so, and if so, will it be a long term trend, and what, if any, planning steps could or should be taken to address this? Here it would be helpful to have some information about short and long terms projections concerning Acadia enrolment.

19. If population growth will be as slow as Mr. Morrison projects, and assuming that low hanging fruit will developed first, that is, the RCDD developments on the outskirts of the Town, why not wait to see the extent of development there before altering zoning in the developed parts of the town?

20. There presently exists R1A zones. Have accessory apartments been used in this zone to make houses affordable?

21. One of the justifications for increasing density in already developed areas of the town is to prevent “urban sprawl”. In the context of Wolfville, and surrounding Kings County, is there any evidence to support this claim? In other words, will increasing density in the developed areas of Wolfville prevent or slow down sprawl?

22. Further on the issue of increasing density and urban sprawl, has the town considered zoning the outskirts of the town, those areas which are now used for agriculture, from residential to agriculture. If not, why not?

23. The MPS states at 8.4: “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 instances where residential development occurs and farming continues? In cases of clustering, does agriculture use still continue?

24. How can you justify increasing density in already developed areas of the town as an efficient use of existing infrastructure when the town is not taking steps to prevent the expansion of infrastructure to undeveloped areas of the town?

25. The Residential Comprehensive Development Districts (RCDD) (see 8.4) allows up to twelve units per acre. But that density will only be granted if the developer meets stated criteria. 8.4.5. In effect, it appears the town is discouraging sustainable developments, and encouraging large lots with single family homes (the very definition of sprawl). Is my reading of the RCDD incorrect? Have we asked developers for their input?

26. I understand that there are very few RCDD parcels which are not already under DA. Why not simply provide models for the types of developments the Town would like, and indicate to developers that the if they go along with the models, the approval process will be “fast-tracked” where possible?

27. As a way to increase affordable housing in Wolfville and attract young families, why not simply require future developments to contain a particular percentage of affordable townhouses or single unit dwellings?

28. MPS Section 2.2 under “Declaration of Sustainability” states: “In co-operation with surrounding communities, the citizens of Wolfville must be able to provide for the basic necessities of adequate food and shelter for themselves and their families, now and in the future.” Is there a policy in the Residential part which gives specifics about the type of co-operation which should occur, or that encourages such co-operation when it comes to “shelter”?

29. The MPS refers to the devastating effects the closing of the school will have on Wolfville, (see Part 3 para. 3), and the need to attract young families to the town. A similar issue arises in the context of recruiting volunteers for the volunteer fire department. The MPS does not have much discussion about the these issues, other than to say that the population is aging. Perhaps availability of affordable housing may help. From a planning perspective, what steps could be taken to attract young families? And what information would be useful to know about their housing needs? Has there been any input by real estate agents or developers?