MPS - FINAL PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL

FINAL PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL

I am one of the handful of people who followed this process from the outset. I participated in several Community Circles; and I attented almost all of the Sustainability Task Force and Planning Advisory Committee meetings.

And I’ve written a great deal about the MPS.

And so I’ll try to keep my comments brief.

In my view the process of rewriting the MPS has been flawed largely because of town's failure to engage the public in a meaningful way.

When I’ve made this observation in the past the Community Circle meetings are always provided as a counter example.
And here I would reference the comments of Mr. Brown, who was a member of the STF, at the final STF meeting held a few weeks agon, on July 22: The Community Circles were meant to go out to the community to get information. The Task Force got no product; and the Task Force never in its deliberations acted in any way on what the Community Circles had uncovered because it was all incomplete.

For those who attended the STF and PAC meetings, it was a frustrating experience. How many times, when I or others made comments or suggestions, was the response “thank you for your comment.” And that was it.

But even a “thank you” is better than the numerous times I and others submitted written suggestions to improve the process and the MPS which were simply ignored and not even acknowleged.

There was mention in the May 2, 06 STF meeting that Karen Dempsey would develop a new public participation program for the formal plan review process. Again this new public participation program was mentioned by Mr. Brideau in his September 2006 response to the Community Circle report which indicated citizens lacked trust in the town government. As far as I know no such program was ever developed.

And I could find no new public participation program incorporated in the new MPS to help guide future planning decisions.

The final product of almost three years’ effort is seriously flawed, in part because of the failure to engage the public, witness the mess with R1 to R1A proposal.

I've pointed out numerous problems with the MPS: I’ll just mention two tonight.

There was a failure to address virtually any planning issue which did not fall under the rubric of “environmental sustainability.”

For example, is there a desirable population size for Wolfville. What are the planning implications of the decreasing enrolment at Acadia; and the increasing number of retirees moving to Town. And what if anything can be done through planning to attract young families with children, besides assuming that all that is needed are more affordable housing.

Second, there was failure to investigate and provide details and facts about the Town. How can one plan for the future not knowing about the present. The most obvious example is that there is no information about car ownership and use in the town. How can one make plans to reduce the use of the automobile without knowing how cars are used by residents to get to work and shop?

The proposed MPS improves upon the protections the MPS provides for the natural environment. But we need to ask: was this incremental improvement worth the $160,000 plus price tag and the almost three years devoted to rewriting the MPS and LUB.

Should the MPS and LUB be approved by Council? I agree with Mr. Irving. My concern is that their adoption will be viewed as an acknowledgement that the planning process in the Town was successful and complete.

Instead, what the town needs to do is address the pressing planning issues facing the town, with a real program to engage the public.

DAVID A. DANIELS

MPS - PUBLIC PRESENTATION --AUGUST 11TH

Draft Version of Public Presentation - August 11th Council Meeting


The new MPS has been written with three primary guiding principles: sprawl is bad; density is good; and protect the natural environment. “Protect the environment” in both a narrow and wide sense: so such things as steep slopes and watercourses are afforded more protection; and there are steps to protect the environment in a wider sense, global warming, by reducing reducing the use of cars.

In the abstract these principles are hard to argue against, but the question is how are they to be applied in rewriting the MPS and LUB for Wolfville.

These principles, and the resulting MPS, must be viewed in light of the MPS’s three large shortcomings: there was a lack of real public engagement; the plan did not address planning issues, other than issues of “sustainability”; and the plan seriously lacks, what I’ll call “facts on the ground”.

These shortcomings are in many ways inter-related.

I’ll deal with these in reverse order:

Facts on the ground:

The MPS talks repeatedly about decreasing the use of cars. Certainly a wortwhile goal.

But in the community profile section of the MPS there is no information about about shopping and commuting habits of town residents. Where people are employed. There is nothing about shopping in New Minas.

There is nothing about the decrease in enrolment at Acadia.

And what about the growing number of retirees in the town? It’s hard to discuss the implications of this trend for planning, when you don’t have specific information about it.

Much is said about the need to attract young families to Wolfville, but the plan provides no details about what might be needed to attract them, other than the need for affordable housing.

Repeatedly, at the PAC meeting held at the Irving Centre, the vision statement was criticized for being too general, for not reflecting the realities of Wolfville.

And as an example of the inter-relatedness of lack of facts on the ground and failure to engage the public, the more you engage the public, more likely general ideas will be backed up by specific facts and specific examples. Similarly, although the vision statement was roundly criticized with legitimate arguments, the vision statement was never changed, or even, to my knoweldge, discussed after the Irving Centre meeting.


As to planning principles: the only planning principle which seemed to matter was sustainability.

But what about the issue raised several times by Peter Drummond, “Do the town residents have a certain ideal population size in mind for the town? If so, shouldn’t the planning document reflect that.

A member of the PAC raised the issue at the July PAC meeting. He expressed the view that in making planning decisions his hands had been tied by the MPS. Why wasn’t that issue explored and attempts to deal with it made part of the new MPS.

Moving to public enegagement or public consultation:

This should have been more than just holding public meeting where the public was invited to make comments.

The response to this comment takes the form of “what about the community circles” At least one member of the STF had this to say about the CCs: They were “going out to the community to get information. The STF got no product; and the TF never in its deliberations acting in any way on what the CC had uncovered because it was all incomplete.”

But of course, the proof is in the pudding, if real public consultation had occurred, then the brouhaha over the issue of converting R1 to R1A would not have arisen; or there would have been at least less of an outcry over the Vision Statement being abstract and nothing to do with the realities of Wolfville.

How many times did I hear from Chairman Wrye after I and others had made comments: “thank you for your comment”; and that would be the end of it; or he would turn to planning staff, and say, would you like to respond, and the response would generally take the form of defending what was in the MPS, as though there was a contest as to who was right, rather than see the publics’ comments not as criticisms but a way to write a better MPS.

Here is another example of the how comments from the public were dealt with; and I apologize if again this one concerns one of my comments. At the last PAC meeting, sort of says it all. There was a discussion of constructing three storey buildings on Main Street, I mentioned perhaps as a criteria of sunlight should be added. I was told” thank you for your comment, and not discussed. Only later, after we had moved on to other issues, at the very end of the meeting, GM suggests making sunlight criteria, and unanamously approved.


But perhaps “thank you for your comment” is better than no response at all which is what I often received in response to my writen comments and suggestions.

Let me just say, to head off the response to this: yes, there were several times when my suggestions and others’. But certainly in my case, I hardly ever received a response to my written comments. And of course, that was true of my suggestion that comments by residents be bunched together, and that there be a reasoned written response.

I believe Keith Irving will discuss in more detail the failure of the PAC or the planning staff to response to his thoughtful letter with concrete ideas on how the public could and should have been engaged in the process. But to my knowledge he received no acknowlegement to his letter, until he brought it up at PAC meeting.

In the May 2, 06 minutes to the STF meeting, there is a reference to the fact that the planning staff was working on a new public participation program. But I am not aware of any such program being being used for the review of the new MPS, and perhaps more importantly, there is nothing in the new MPS which incorporates any new process by which future planning decisions are to be made.


DELETE? And a final instance of failure of public engagement: the final irony as it were: was when I was listening to the tape of the final STF meeting, and hearing that a lesson learned was more public information and engagement was needed. As if they had to wait till the end of the process, to figure that out, when Mr. Irving had written a detailed letter, with a plan, at the time the PAC began its review, asking for more public engagement; I had written no less than three articles saying more public participation was needed.

The new MPS plan is better than the present existing one. But the questions I have is whether the final product should have taken almost two years and 10 months to produce, at a cost of of over $160,000.00. When I looked at the summary of changes between the present MPS and the proposed new one could not help asking: this took almost three years and $160,000.00 to produce.

One last comment and suggestion:
According to the Calendar on the Town’s website there are meetings of the Council scheduled for Aug 18th and 28th to discuss and debate the MPS and LUB. It does not say, but it appears that tonight’s meeting will be the final one at which public comment will be accepted on the MPS and LUB.

Why not have another public meeting after the Council discusses these important documents at which the public may have a final input on the comments by the Councilors. This would seem especially appropriate after listen to the tape of the July 22nd STF meeting at which several members spoke of the need to have more public input in the process.

What is the rush.

Thank you.

David A. Daniels

MPS - Draft 4: Running Commentary

August 4, 2008

Part 1 and Part 2:

There are repeated references in these two sections to the environmental, economic, social and cultural dimensions in planning. Yet the MPS does not contain either much detail or proposals which deal directly with the economic, social and cultural aspects of planning.

By stressing the “environmental” dimension of planning and not sufficiently taking into account the other dimensions of planning (economic, social and cultural) you end up with statements such as the following found in section 8.3:

“Land use policies that: encourage residential clustering; zone high density developments along established transit routes; encourage the infilling (development) of existing vacant land in built-up areas; integrate work, residence and shopping in mixed use development; and
encourage the development of walking and bicycling facilities promote energy-efficient land use and therefore more sustainable residential development over the long term.”

Yes, these may “promote” energy efficiency, but “sustainability” is more than just that. Sustainability also refers to the sustaining neighbourhoods, and social and economic networks, etc.

1.3. Reference is made to the The Natural Step as providing the framework for the MPS. Will there be at least a reference so that readers will have some idea of what the TNS entails? Or even better, include a brief summary, if possible, of the TNS and how in practice it was used.

I recall that John Brown, a member of the STF, stated on several occasions that he believed the steps required by TNS process were not being followed by the STF.

Part 2:

2.1 Vision Statement.

Reference is made to “citizen engagement through ongoing public consultation.” See also Principle 7 of the Melbourne Principle.

It is ironic that there were repeated critical and constructive comments made about the Vision Statement at one of the earlier PAC meetings (at the Irving Centre). And yet, the Vision Statement has not changed at all.

When I raised this issue at the July 28th meeting, I recall Deputy Mayor Wrye stating that the Vision Statement had previously been adopted by Council. Isn’t the Vision Statement, like the rest of the MPS, now subject to revision and adoption by the Council?

Part 3: Community Profile

I have pointed out before that the Community Profile lacks crucial information. The Profile contains no information about shopping patterns for town residents or their commuting habits.

There is no information about the decrease in enrolment at Acadia, and whether or not there was an increased vacancy rate last school year in the town.

I would refer you to Chapter 1 Background, pages 4-5, of the January 2006 Commercial Development Plan: “Data Limitations. In same way that convention wisdom of problems can be based on unfounded assumptions not supported by fact, there is a lack of data and a need to collect this and understand the date to assist in accurately defining the problem. This date needs to be quantified.”

Reference is made to the “devastating social effects” if the public school were to close and later the MPS states that “Young families require affordable housing in Wolfville in order to be encouraged to settle here . . .” Yet there is no precise information about where young families are settling or the employment situation.

There is no information about what effect, if any, the increased price of gas may have on the town.

Part 5: Objectives

Background: para 3: any information about tourism and high price of fuel?

5.1.8: should this policy be stated explicitly within the Part 18 Implementation?

5.1.9: is there actually “urban sprawl” occurring in Wolfville? Again, should this policy be made part of the principles guiding RCDD developments and/or referenced in Part 18 Implementation policies?

5.1.19: There is reference to “new urbanism.” Should there be a summary of what this means; or at least some a citation to what the Council has in mind.

5.1.22 Foster citizen participation. What is new in this new MPS which will foster citizen participation? (I hope to write more about this issue.)

Part 6: Conservation and Environmental Stewardship

6.1.1. Is “environmentally sensitive area” a defined term? I did not see it in the LUB. My concern is that what if there is an area which is environmentally sensitive or becomes environmentally sensitive and is not included on Map 3. Will it be protected? The better, more protective approach, may be to protect “environmentally sensitive areas” as defined, including, but not limited to, those areas specified on Map 3.

6.1.2. Same comment as 6.1.1, above, except for “riparian buffer.”

6.1.13. Is this part of the FCM grant requirement? If so, does it need to be treated in a different way?

6.1.17. “limit” types of land uses permitted on flood plan. Why not provide for limiting and in appropriate circumstances, prohibiting uses in a flood plain. The Council has the authority to do this.

Part 7: Parks, Open Space and Recreation.

7.4.2. It is unclear whether developers have choice whether or not to provide land or cash in lieu. Was legal opinion sought on powers of the town on this issue? If possible, preference would be to give town the option, and not developer.

Part 8: Residential Development and Land Use

Background: “The construction of detached single unit dwellings has been on the decline.” Does this statement take into account Woodman Grove and Cadry developments?

“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.”

This statement may be true in the abstract, but does it apply to Wolfville? Without information about where residents shop and work, and their ability to walk and cycle, it is hard to know what impacts “compactness” will have.

In the Background section there is no discussion of attracting families (however you wish to define “families”) with young children. Are they not moving to N.S.? Are they heading west? Do they prefer cities? Where are the employment opportunities? Are they moving to Port Williams? And if so, why?

Is affordable housing a way to attract young families? If so, are young families seeking “higher density developments”?

What does “higher density residential developments” mean? Is that clustered developments? Or multi-unit apartment buildings?

Can the last two paragraphs in the Background section be explicitly incorporated into the RCDD and Implementation policies?

8.1:

Para 2, sentence 2: “ . . . mixture of housing types in all residential areas.” This claim may not make sense in a small town. As Mr. Gordon pointed out in his comments at the last public hearing, different residential types in Wolfville are in close proximity, but not necessarily in the same residential area.

8.2 Medium Density Residential

Para 1: last sentence. Are the “residents” you are referring to mainly students? If so, the MPS should state that. Also, are there statistics on car ownership?

8.3 High Density Residential

Can there be explanation or citations to “smart growth” and “new urbanism”?

8.4 Comprehensive Development District.

(I will propose changes to this section in another comment.)

How will the RCDD work, in practice. There is a max. of 12 dwelling units per acre and 5 dwelling units per acre minimum. 8.4.4.(c). To be allowed to construct 12 per acre the developer will be required to to have “an exceptional and wide ranging response to the sustainability criteria . . .” Does that mean that if a developer wants only 5 units per acre only a minimum response is required? See 8.4.5.

Have developers been consulted about this scheme?

The recent Commercial Development Plan has several references to residential development which are not discussed in any detail the MPS.

For example, page 30 makes reference to the attractiveness of the community for retirement age people. What are the implications for having diverse population?

On the same page under “Threats” there is reference to new real estate developments in nearby communities. Again, what are the implications for the town.

Under “Trends” on page 30 there is reference to “more multiunit developments will follow in Wolfville as it becomes easier [because of the twinning of 101] to commute to and from Halifax.”

Given the increase in the price of fuel, is this statement still valid? Will public transport be available? And what are the implications for residential planning?

Part 9: Commercial Development and Land Use.

Background:

”A mixture of land uses in the commercial core of the community allows people to live within walking distance of work and obtain basic services and necessities without requiring private transportation.”

Is there any information about employment downtown? Where do the people live who work in the shops?

9.1

There are several references to bicycle access and safety in this section. See, for example, 9.1.3. and 9.1.4; see also Part 13 references on cycling. Are there any concrete plans or proposals on how to deal with biking in the downtown area? And if not, why not? If not a plan, then at least a list of suggestions.

I recall this was an issue discussed several times during STF meetings.

9.2 Central Commercial

There is no discussion about shopping patterns of those who live in the Town. Certainly, there could have been some mention about the fact that New Minas is right down the road. What will happen if public transport becomes more available to townsfolk?

9.4 Industrial Commercial.

Third paragraph under background. Why has there been little or no light industrial development in the town? Is there anything which can be done in the planning context to encourage such development?

9.4.8(d): why limit environmental damage to just “significant” damage? And in the last line of the subsection, why qualify damage to “undue” damage? If you wish to protect the environment, you may wish to eliminate both these qualifiers. And in any case, find out why they were inserted in the first place.

Part 10: Institutional Development and Land Use.

There is no discussion about dropping enrolment at Acadia. Why not? What are the implications if enrolment drops further for the commercial sector of town? for residential sector?

Part 11: Agriculture.

I hope to include more detailed statements in another set of comments.

Part 13: Transportation, Public Services and Utilities.

Again, there is little or no concrete information about how residents travel in and around Wolfville. How many commute to workplaces outside Wolfville, and do they use carpools or public transport? Where to people shop and how do they get there?

There is reference to “bike friendly streets.” See also similar references in 13.2.

If the MPS does not contain specific plans to make this a reality, were there ideas that were mentioned during the almost three year planning process? I recall some discussion about having a dedicated bike lane downtown.

13.3 Police and Fire Protection

I see no discussion about possible future problems recruiting volunteers for the fire department. Will an aging population and increased housing costs lead to such a problem?

13.6

Can there be some provision/discussion about living off the grid?

Part 15: Parking, etc.
Background, last sentence in para. 1.

“Due to the current number of parking spaces in the downtown area mandatory parking requirements for new developments in the central commercial zone will be removed from the Land Use By-law.”

Can you provide further explanation and details? What was the reasoning behind this position?

Part 16: Landscaping, Etc.

16.1.3. Replace “developments” with more inclusive phrase, such as “buildings and developments”.

16.1.8: Specify that town has authority to require size and type of tree replacement.

Part 18: Implementation.

I will propose changes to language for approving development agreements in another set of comments.

18.8: Variances.

The PAC recommended that the DO not have the power to grant variances for lot frontage and lot area. Should the ability to grant variances for percentage of land to be built upon also be eliminated?

David A. Daniels

Public Engagement and Preservation of Ag Land

August 6, 2008

Public Engagement and Preserving Agricultural Land

The new MPS makes repeated references to the importance of public engagement and participation in the planning process and as an important element of sustainability.

“Guided by principles of sustainability, we will work towards achieving the following objectives: An inclusive community based on social equity and guided by citizen engagement through ongoing public consultation. . . .” Vision Statement, MPS Draft 4, p. 4

“Principle 7: Empower people and foster participation.” The Melbourne Principles Adapted for Wolfville, MPS, Draft 4, p. 72.

The Natural Step was used in the preparation of the MPS. See MPS Draft 4, 1.3 Introduction, p. 3 The following appears on The Natural Step - Canada website:

“At the heart of this planning approach is a commitment to a bottom-up participatory process that engages those affected by decisions and those who will be responsible for implementing parts of the plan.”

The issue of public trust and governance in the Town was raised in the Community Circles. “Lack of trust between residents and town, residents do not trust they are ‘getting the whole story’ and they feel that they are not trusted by the town.” Report on the Community Circles -July 2006, Governance - Issues, p. 20. In an apparent response to this issue of trust in governance, Mr. Brideau stated in part:

“Ms. Dempsey will be recommending to Council that they adopt a new formal Public Participation Program as part of the plan review process to embody current practice in policy.” Memo from Roy Brideau, September 2006. Staff Response to Community Circles Report. (Was such a recommendation ever made?)

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

The quality and quantity of public engagement which took place during the rewriting of the new MPS and LUB is subject to debate and may be commented on by others. In this comment I’d like to address the issue of public engagement in future planning decisions.

I did not see a single new significant proposal in the new MPS which would foster or increase public participation in future planning decisions. (There is a new requirement at section 18.5.2 of the MPS that a notice be posted on the property subject to a development agreement. )

Here are several proposals which I would like the Council to consider which may help increase public participation in the planning process and lessen public mistrust.

1. Establish Area Advisory Committees. See Municipal Government Act (MGA), section 201.

2. Amend town bylaws to decrease the number of Councilors on the Planning Advisory Committee.

3. Provide orientation and training to PAC members on their powers and responsibilities.

4. In appropriate circumstances, the PAC (or staff at the request of the PAC) should produce written explanations of its decisions. This would include comments for and against a proposed project and set out the reasons why it made the decision it did.

5. Seek out residents to serve on the PAC with relevant experience or knowledge such as architects, landscapers and civil engineers.

6. When important, town-wide decisions are being considered, make use of plebiscites. MGA, section 53


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

Preservation of Agricultural Land

The Town should consider rezoning lands on the east and west ends of the town which contain Category 2 soils from RCDD, which permits farming and residential development, to a zone which would permit agricultural use exclusively, or in the alternative, take steps to ensure that portion of these lands be used to create a swath of forever green belt surrounding the town.

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.

Audience members at the May 6th PAC meeting at which this issue was discussed 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.

The MPS Draft 4 at page 43 states: “Wolfville is surrounded by an agricultural green belt that provides a pastoral edge to the boundaries of the urban landscape.” Putting aside the description of development in Wolfville as an “urban landscape,” can we really be sure that the green belt will remain?

At the May 6th meeting, 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.

Of the eight PAC members present at this meeting 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 a few, but not all, of the issues raised by the public.

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, what should be done?

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.

Facts were in short supply at the meeting. 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 term bonds which might be used to finance the purchase? Numbers needed to be crunched.

After that meeting I suggested that the planning staff might 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. My suggestion, as far as I know, was never pursued.

MPS - COMMENTS ON 18.5 & 18.6 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS

The following are comments on MPS Section 18.5 and 18.6, Development Agreements (DAs).

Wolfville has made “extensive” use of DAs. Section 18.5, para. 2. This may be due in part to the fact that large portions of the Town fall within Architectural Control Areas (ACA) and development in those areas is often required to done by a DA. See, for example, Section 12.1.6.

A DA “overrides any zoning controls in effect for the property” (MPS 18.5 Para. 1). DAs are justified because they allow the Town and developer flexibility in planning. Criteria for the approval of DAs are set out in section 18.6.

I have a number of questions about DAs which I can’t quite figure out.

Can a DA permit certain zoning controls to be overridden or varied where it may be inappropriate or unnecessary to do so? For example, if a new home is being constructed in an ACA, and the the only issue is the architectural style of the home, can the DA contain provisions which would allow the developer to vary from the otherwise applicable side and rear yard setback requirements?
I note that section 18.8 allows the development officer (DO) to grant certain kinds of variances. Are there specific standards the DO uses when deciding whether to grant the variance?

There should be language added to the MPS and LUB that all DAs which contain provisions meant to protect personal 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.

The following are my suggested revisions to Section 18.6.

PROPOSED REVISIONS [Additions are in CAPS; deletions are in brackets [ ]. My comments [ARE IN BRACKETS AND CAPS]; and explanations for * 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 [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 [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 [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

THE TOWN MAY REQUIRE STUDIES TO BE CARRIED OUT BY APPROPRIATE LICENSED PROFESSIONALS TO DETERMINE IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSES ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OR DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE TOWN ALONE SHALL DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT STUDIES. THE TOWN ALONE SHALL DECIDE WHICH PROFESSIONALS SHALL CARRY OUT THE STUDIES AND ALL COSTS INCURRED FOR THE STUDIES SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE APPLICANT.

f) THE APPLICANT SHALL DEMONSTRATE [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 [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. THE TOWN ALONE SHALL DECIDE WHICH PROFESSIONALS SHALL CARRY OUT THE STUDIES.

* “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.

David A. Daniels
June 3, 2008

MPS - SECTION 8-4 COMMENTS AND PROPOSED LANGUAGE

The following are comments and proposed revised language on section 8.4: Comprehensive Development District. I have added further comments from what I sent you several months ago, although the proposed revised language (except for the section on retention of agricultural soil) is the same.

The policies as written may not achieve the ends sought and may not provide sufficient guidance on how the policies are to be implemented.

A developer owns 12 acres. He wishes to develop housing on 10 acres, four single family homes or buildable lots per acre. He believes there is a market for such homes/lots. Will the policy as written prevent such a development? What would the developer be required to do?

Section 8.4.4 (a) requires that “the proposal makes efficient use of land in relation to infrastructure requirements.” The Developer proposes to construct sewer and water lines up a road and branch off at each lot. A typical cookie cutter, ribbon development. Is that efficient use of land in relation to infrastructure? Would this proposal require clustering? If the Town wishes to require cluster development, or some other prescribed arrangement, then it should say so.

Section 8.4.4 (b),(c) and (d) say nothing about minimum dwelling units per acre.

Section 8.4.5. states that Council is to require developments to respond to “sustainability principles” and then states that the level of response shall dictate the number of dwellings units (up to 12) per acre permitted.

If the developer wants 12 units per acre then the response must be “exceptional” and “wide ranging.” But what if the developer does not want 12 units per acre, but just wants the minimum as of right lots, whatever that number may be. Does that mean the developer does not have to respond at all to sustainability principles, or at most, a half-hearted effort?

To the extent that responding to sustainability principles raises development costs or results in homes for which there is no market or make less profit for the developer, it may turn out that the RCDD policies as written discourages development of sustainability projects. In other words, the policy as written assumes that developers will want to be able to construct more units per acre and therefore they would have an incentive to incorporate more sustainable principles into the development. Is this assumption correct?

I do not know what developers are interested in doing. I suspect developers will decide upon projects based upon market demand and profit margins.

I have proposed below revisions to section 8.4.5. I have tried to revise this section to make it more “user friendly.” In other words, so that all parties (developers, planning staff, Council and residents) may understand better what is expected of them and what they can expect in future developments.

(These proposed revisions DO NOT address the issue of minimum lot size or minimum units per acre or more generally the the potential shortcomings discussed above.)

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 DEPEND 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: I WOULD SUGGEST REPLACING “retention of Category 2 soils” WITH LANGUAGE WHICH FOLLOWS THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN THE ACTUAL PROVINCIAL STATEMENT OF INTEREST CONCERNING AGRICULTURE SUCH AS: “which do not eliminate the possibility of using the land for agricultural purposes in the future” [AND WHICH] “set[ ] out separation distances between agricultural and new non-agricultural development to reduce land-use conflicts”]
• 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.

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

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 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.

David A. Daniels
June 1, 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

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

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