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?