Voices of Wolfville

A Blog to discuss Wolfville's new Municipal Planning Strategy. Please send material to be posted to vow@eastlink.ca

Saturday, May 24, 2008

SUSTAINABILITY VERSUS PLANNING?

I was struck by the similarities between the discussions at the May 6th Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting and those at the December 5th, 2006 and January 3rd, 2007 Sustainability Task Force (STF) meetings on that portion of the Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) dealing with the preservation of agricultural land at the east and west ends of Town. This was both surprising and to be expected.

Surprising because Deputy Mayor Wrye (who is the Chairperson of the both the STF and PAC) has on more than one occasion stated that the STF was to review the MPS in terms of sustainability and that the PAC would review the document from a planning perspective. So I expected that new ideas or perspectives would be added to the discussion when the PAC tackled this issue.

“To be expected” because four members of the STF are on the PAC; Karen Dempsey, who has been responsible for actually drafting the MPS from a sustainability perspective introduced the topic of Agriculture; and to my knowledge, sustainability has served as the standard used in writing the MPS.

I have previously suggested to the PAC that it set forth the planning principles or perspectives it was going to use in its review of the MPS. Alas, my suggestion has never been acted upon.

There is not a perfect overlap between sustainable and planning principles. These principles may at times conflict. Since the PAC appears unwilling or unable to articulate planning principles, I thought I might try, although I am no planner.

I’ll start with a planning idea others have raised at meetings and in written submissions. Planning is about looking ahead. Town residents may wish to come to some agreement about the “ideal” or preferred population of Wolfville. You want Wolfville to have “small town” feel, then that the “feeling” may disappear if the population doubles or increases by X amount. Once the target number is decided upon, then decisions about the number and types of housing to be built in the Town will follow. (Obviously, market forces and legal constraints will play a role as well.)

Economic issues should play a role in planning. I disagree with the view expressed at the May 6th meeting that the PAC should not be concerned with the economic consequences of its planning recommendations. The Municipal Government Act (MGA) at section 214(1)(b) and (q) explicitly permits the MPS to include policy statements concerning the economic environment of the Town.

Residents have complained about the Town’s high taxes. It is an impediment to young families moving into Town. Can planning do something about this besides encouraging the construction of affordable and desirable single family homes? The promotion of a diverse commercial base may help with the tax base. It also could lead to good paying jobs and less reliance on and/or greater cooperation and coordination with Acadia University. This could mean creating a hi-tech research park on land now used for farming in the Town. This may not be perfectly consistent with sustainability. But the Town may opt for greater economic viability in a trade off with sustainability.

In terms of planning principles, one need look no further than the MGA which allows a municipality to include in its MPS “the goals and objectives of the municipality for its future”. Section 214(1)(a). Shouldn’t Town residents be given the opportunity to voice goals and objectives which may not fall under the rubric of “sustainability”? And it should be noted these goals and objectives do not have to be directly related to land use. Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, Local Government Resource Handbook, Part V at page 2.

Here is a comment from the Report of the Community Circles, July 2006, under the heading “Governance,” at page 20. “Lack of trust between the residents and town, residents do not trust they are ‘getting the whole story’ and they feel that they are not trusted by the Town.”

Where is this issue addressed in the MPS? Information and trust are crucial to the planning process, now and in the future. There are general statements in MPS about the importance of engaging the public. See pp. 4 and 72. But no specifics are provided on how to achieve this laudable goal. I suppose it’s easier to regulate runoff from a steep slope or protect wetlands than to draft policies directed to fostering democracy.

David A. Daniels
May 15, 2008

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

MPS - PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

On May 6th the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) reviewed Part 7 (Parks, Open Space and Recreation) and Part 11 (Agriculture) of the Town’s new Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) Draft 3. About twenty-five residents attended the meeting.

The discussion on the issue of whether to preserve agricultural land on the east and west ends of Town by rezoning them from RCDD, which permits farming and residential development, to a zone which would permit agricultural use exclusively, highlighted shortcomings in the ongoing review process: information is lacking and there needs to be more reasoned discussion during the review process.

The first thing of note was that there did not appear to be any farmers in attendance or owners of land with agricultural capability. Had they been notified that the PAC meeting would be discussing their properties?

Preservation of lands with agricultural capability is a stated Provincial Interest and Wolfville residents considered the loss of agricultural areas in the Town to be “significant”. P. 15, Report of the Community Circles: An Interim Report of the Wolfville Sustainability Initiative, July 2006. At the December 5, 2006 and January 3, 2007 Sustainability Task Force meetings the suggestion was made was to rezone lands which were capable of agricultural production from RCDD to Agricultural so that residential development could not take place.

Audience members gave reasons in support of rezoning the RCDD agricultural lands to agricultural use only: an express Provincial Interest is to preserve agricultural land; loss of agricultural land adversely impacts the aesthetic and rural character of the Town, with particular emphasis on the Kenny property; allowing the residential development of these lands runs counter to sustainability: grow food locally; if new residential developments are permitted, new infrastructure would be required to be built, again counter to MPS’s sustainability principles; and there is no assurance farmlands beyond Wolfville’s boundaries will be protected.

One member of the audience pointed out that there has never been a proper discussion with residents about the desired population of the Town. This issue was especially relevant that night in view of the likelihood that the major increase in the Town’s population will come from large-scale residential development on the agricultural land now zoned RCDD on the east and west ends of town. I also suggested that if the lands in question were not rezoned to agricultural use, that at least a greenbelt be created.

Of the eight PAC members present (Elizabeth Kosters was absent) four did not say anything (that I can recall) on this important issue. Those who spoke all were in favour of continuing to allow residential development on lands with agricultural capability. The reasons/responses given were: the position of those in favour of rezoning to agricultural use is inconsistent with the position not to rezone the R1 residential to R1A; residents living near Kenny’s farm who wished to preserve it should buy the land themselves; the Town cannot afford to buy the land; and rezoning the land to agricultural use would not be fair to farmers since it would deprive them of their “pensions”.

The PAC unanimously recommended to the Town Council that the agricultural lands retain their residential zoning.

The comments by PAC members addressed few of the issues raised by the public. The “discussion” was in some respects like two ships passing in the night.

The key issue of whether the Town should aim for a desired population, and if so, what that number should be was not discussed that night, and to my knowledge, this essential question has never been addressed in the MPS drafting process.

There was a direct response to the claim of inconsistency: if there had been assurances that agricultural lands would be protected, increased density in developed areas of the Town might have been acceptable.

Why shouldn’t nearby residents purchase the Kenny farm? A fair question which needed a response. Who benefits from preserving farmland? The town as a whole? Only nearby residents? Is the Town preserving farmland analogous to the Town purchasing parkland? Perhaps not, since a park can be used by all residents?

Is it unfair to the landowners, the farmers, if their land is devalued by a rezoning? Based upon the principles of sustainability, the MPS until recently had proposed the rezoning of R1 to R1A, with the potential to lower property values.

Facts were in short supply. How did the PAC know the Town couldn’t afford to purchase agricultural land? I heard no sales prices mentioned. What is the interest rate on long terms bonds which might be used to finance the purchase. Numbers needed to be crunched. (Later, the PAC stated that it did not take into account financial factors in making its recommendations.)

Are there alternatives so that the land can be continued to be farmed, or at least the capability retained, and the farmers can “cash out” or partially “cash out”? Some sort of purchase and leaseback? Since preserving agricultural land is a Provincial Interest, is there any Provincial or Federal money available to further this interest? More facts would have helped in the discussion.

What should have been done, and perhaps still can be done in time for the Town Council’s review of the entire MPS, is to have planning staff prepare an analysis of the different positions for and against rezoning to agricultural use, informed by facts and information about how other municipalities are attempting to preserve lands with agricultural potential. This general approach might also be useful when discussing other controversial issues so that a focused and an informed public engagement may take place.

David A. Daniels
May 15, 2008