Special Town Council Meeting

Transcription

Special Town Council Meeting
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
11:00 a.m.
Council Chambers, Town Hall
359 Main Street
Agenda
1. Approval of the Agenda
2. Approval of the Minutes:
a. December 15, 2015 (attached)
3. Comments from the Mayor
4. Motions/Recommendations from Public Hearing, December 15,
2015:
a. RFD 082A-2015: West End Development Agreement
5. Motions/Recommendations from Committee of the Whole,
January 12, 2016:
a. RFD 002-2016: First Reading of the Heritage Property Bylaw
6. Question Period
Procedure: A thirty minute time period will be provided for
members of the public to address Council regarding questions,
concerns and/or ideas. Each person will have a maximum of two
minutes to address Council with a second two minute time
period provided if there is time remaining within the thirty
minute Public Input/Question Period timeframe.
359 Main Street | Wolfville | NS | B4P 1A1 | t 902-542-5767 | f 902-542-4789
Wolfville.ca
7. Special Town Council meeting adjourned
359 Main Street | Wolfville | NS | B4P 1A1 | t 902-542-5767 | f 902-542-4789
Wolfville.ca
REQUEST FOR DECISION #082A-2015
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
DA Amendment – 4 Additional Lots – West End Lands
Date: January 12, 2016
Department: Community Development
SUMMARY
WEST END DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT APPLICATION - VIKING
VENTURES – STONEGATE SUBDIVISION ALONG STIRLING AVE
This report is supplementary to the detailed Staff report presented to the Planning Advisory Committee
on November 2, 2015. This report focuses on providing Council with clarification on issues that were
raised at the Public Hearing held on December 15, 2015.
Given the Public Hearing has concluded a draft motion on the draft amending Development Agreement
is included here.
DRAFT MOTION:
That Council approve the application by Viking Ventures to amend the Development Agreement
registered against PID 5526837 (the west end lands), to permit 4 additional lots with a single means of
exit from the lands via a Public Street.
Request for Decision, Page 1 of 5
1) CAO COMMENTS
No further comments are required at this time. This report serves to provide clarification of the issues
raised at the Public Hearing.
2) LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
The Municipal Planning Strategy establishes the ability to enter into development agreements. See
detailed PAC Staff Report.
3) PAC & COTW MOTIONS
PAC Motion (November 2, 2015):
MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FORWARDS THE STAFF REPORT PROPOSING 4 ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT LOTS WITHIN THE WEST END
LANDS (PID 55268379) TO COUNCIL WITH A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
CARRIED
Committee of the Whole (November 10, 2015):
04-11-15 IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FORWARD THE
FOLLOWING MOTION TO COUNCIL FOR DECISION: THAT COUNCIL REJECT THE APPLICATION TO AMEND
THE WEST END DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON PID 55268379 TO ALLOW 4 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT LOTS.
DEFEATED
05-11-15 IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REFER TO A
PUBLIC HEARING THE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE WEST END DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON PID
55268379 TO ALLOW 4 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOTS.
CARRIED
4) REFERENCES AND ATTACHMENTS
•
RFD 082-2015 including detailed Staff Report and draft amending Development Agreement
5) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Public Hearing (December 15, 2015)
A Public Hearing was held on December 15, 2015 where an overview of the application and project
milestones to-date were presented and feedback welcomed from the Public. Staff comment is provided
to issues raised at the Public Hearing below in Table 1.
Table 1: Public Hearing Issues Summary and Staff Comment
Issues raised at Public Hearing
Staff Comment
Storm Water Management and Erosion Control:
These are detailed design issues that Staff is
addressing with the Developer and the impacted
• 3 residents addressed Council regarding
neighbours.
issues around the aesthetics, safety, and
functionality of the detention pond
Although the design of the detention pond was
located adjacent to 59 and 63 Stirling
approved through a previous servicing agreement,
Avenue.
Staff acknowledge that the issues raised at the
Public Hearing regarding the aesthetics, safety,
and functionality of the pond are valid. The
proposed draft amending Development
Agreement includes Clause 3.1.3 which requires a
storm water management plan and an erosion and
sedimentation plan, specifically addressing the
detention pond. These plans must be reviewed
and approved by the Municipal Engineer before
any further development (i.e. the 4 additional lots)
can proceed.
The question for Council on this issue is whether
the language of Clause 3.1.3 in the amending
Development Agreement complies with the
policies of the MPS regarding storm water. Section
8.4.5 of the MPS states that:
To require that all developments within the
Residential Comprehensive Development District
(RCDD) zone respond to sustainability principles.
The sustainability principles to be considered by
Council shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
(b) the project provides buildings and site design
that substantially reduce the impact on the
environment through:
v. reduced storm water run-off, e.g. storm
retention ponds.
The proposed language in the draft amending
Development Agreement is as follows:
3.1.3 No Development Permit(s) shall be issued
for lots 31-34, as shown on Schedule A to
this agreement, until a storm water
management plan and an erosion and
sedimentation plan prepared by a qualified
person is approved by the Development
Officer.
Adjacent Property Owner (Issam Kadray)
Comments summarized from the recording of the
December 15, 2015 Public Hearing:
• Negotiating for over 10 years with the
MacArthurs/Viking Ventures.
• Speaks for comprehensive development
in the area and against any further
piecemeal development.
• If piecemeal development is approved,
he would also be seeking approvals for
the same on his property (extending
Hillcrest Avenue).
• He cannot proceed with development on
Hillcrest Avenue until a cross-street is
built. He has concerns that the 4
additional lots will delay building this
cross street.
This clause acknowledges there is an issue with the
design and proposes it be remedied, through plans
approved by the Town, before any further
development proceeds. If Council wishes to set
specific standards for the detention pond, or storm
water and erosion control generally as it relates to
these 4 lots, Staff could look into this and bring a
recommendation back to Council.
It was requested that the comments made by Mr.
Kadray be clarified and are provided here for
Council’s consideration.
6) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.
7) REFERENCES TO COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN AND TOWN REPORTS
Full policy review provided in the detailed PAC Staff Report.
8) PROCESS
It should be noted that new information cannot be received after the close of the Public Hearing given
that this information may change the submissions of the Public who attended the Public Hearing and
provided comments or those that would have if they had the new information. Clarification of issues
raised at the Public Hearing, however, is permitted and this supplementary report attempts to provide
this clarification.
Changes, except for minor administrative changes, to the proposed amending Development Agreement
would require Council to hold a new Public Hearing to allow the public to make comment. If Council
wishes changes then specific direction regarding the change(s) should be provided to Staff who will then
review the proposed change with the applicant, amend the agreement and a new public hearing would
be required if the changes are substantive.
9) OPTIONS
1. That Council reject the application by Viking Ventures to amend the Development Agreement
registered against PID 5526837 (the west end lands), to permit 4 additional lots with a single
means of exit from the lands via a Public Street.
2. That Council direct Staff to revise the draft amending development agreement and provide
specific direction regarding the required changes (this may involve an additional Public
Hearing).
3. That Council approve the application by Viking Ventures to amend the Development
Agreement registered against PID 5526837 (the west end lands), to permit 4 additional lots
with a single means of exit from the lands via a Public Street.
10) CONCLUSIONS
This report provides Council with clarification on issues raised at the Public Hearing held on December
15, 2015 and is supplementary to the detailed Staff report and recommendation presented to the
Planning Advisory Committee November 2, 2015 and received by Committee of the Whole on November
10, 2015.
REQUEST FOR DECISION #082-2015
West End Development Agreement Amendment Application
Date: November 10, 2015
SUMMARY
WEST END DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT APPLICATION - VIKING
VENTURES – STONEGATE SUBDIVISION ALONG STIRLING AVE)
For Council to consider the PAC recommendation regarding the proposed amendment to the existing
development agreement for the West End Lands owned by Viking Ventures (PID 55268379) to allow for
4 additional residential development lots.
CARRIED
DRAFT MOTION:
That Council rejects the application to amend the West End Development Agreement on PID 55268379
to allow 4 additional residential development lots.
1) CAO COMMENTS
None required. This is a recommendation from the PAC.
The Municipal Planning Strategy establishes the ability to enter into development agreements. See
attached PAC Staff Report.
3) PAC RECOMMENDATION
CARRIED
•
PAC Staff Report dated November 2, 2015 and associated attachments (attached)
5) PURPOSE OF REPORT
For Council to consider the recommendation of the PAC.
6) DISCUSSION
The application by Viking Ventures Ltd is to amend the existing Development Agreement on the
property to allow 4 additional development lots beyond the 30 allowable under the current agreement
without a second access to Main Street. Staff held a public information meeting on August 27, 2015 and
prepared a staff report which was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) on November 2,
2015. PAC supported the negative recommendation of Staff and now the application is before Council
for initial consideration.
Issues identified by the Planning Advisory Committee during their November 2, 2015 meeting were
primarily concerning a comprehensive plan for the area. A separate discussion took place on the
comprehensive plan for the area once a motion (outlined above) was passed on the application to
amend the existing agreement to allow for 4 additional residential development lots. A second motion
related to a comprehensive plan for the area was also passed and is outlined in RFD 085-2015 for
Council’s consideration.
The attached Staff report includes detailed discussion on various aspects of the application.
None.
Full policy review provided in the attached PAC Staff Report.
9) COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS
A Public Information meeting was held for the project on August 27, 2015 with property owners within
100m of the property notified and advertisements placed in the newspaper and information placed on
the Town website. If a Public Hearing is held, this is a further opportunity to communicate the project to
the public and hear any concerns they may have. Notification of the public hearing would be mailed to
neighbouring property owners, ads would be placed in the newspaper, and information posted to the
Town’s website and social media. A sign will also be placed on the property indicating the property is
subject to a development agreement.
10) ALTERNATIVES
1. COTW forwards the application to a Public Hearing (date TBD) before a decision is made by
Council.
REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Amendment to DA Proposal – West End Lands
APPLICANT
Viking Ventures Limited
PROPOSAL
To amend the existing Development Agreement (99-10) on the property to
allow 4 (four) additional residential lots beyond what is permitted in the
existing Development Agreement.
LOCATION
South end of Stirling Avenue in the Stonegate Subdivision (PID 55268379)
LOT SIZE
DESIGNATION
ZONE
SURROUNDING USES
NEIGHBOUR
NOTIFICATION
Varied
Comprehensive Development District
RCDD
Residential, Agricultural, Town Boundary with Kings County
Newspaper ads and notices mailed to surrounding property owners within
100 metres; Email list from PIM meeting; Sign to be placed on property
1) PROPOSAL
Viking Ventures Ltd is seeking to amend the existing Development Agreement (99-10) on a portion of
the West End Lands at the Stonegate Subdivision to allow 4 additional residential lots beyond the 30 lots
permitted with only a single means of exit from the lands via a Public Street.
2) STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff considers the application to be inconsistent with policies of the Municipal Planning Strategy and
considers amending a Development Agreement from 1999, without a comprehensive plan approved by
Council for the area, premature at this time. As such, Staff recommends that the issue be submitted to
Council with a negative recommendation for its review and decision.
3) PROCESS
Given this is a substantive amendment to the existing development agreement and pursuant to Section
8.4.3 of the Municipal Planning Strategy that states that all proposals for development within the
Residential Comprehensive Development District (RCDD) will require a development agreement, this
process requires review by the Planning Advisory Committee and the holding of a Public Hearing by
Council prior to a decision by Council to approve or reject the proposal. The decision by Council may be
appealed to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board by an aggrieved person or by the applicant.
The Town held a public information meeting on August 27, 2015 in Council Chambers at Town Hall.
Comments and the notes from the session are included as Attachment 2. Property owners within 100
metres of the property were notified by mail of the application, a sign will be placed on the property
indicating that the site is subject to a development agreement application and notification was placed
on our website and social media feeds regarding the application.
4) BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Development Agreement (DA) 99-10 was executed between the Town of Wolfville and David T. Stirling
on September 8, 1999. The agreement regulates the development of what is now known as “Stonegate
Subdivision” on the west end of Wolfville along Stirling Avenue. Viking Ventures is now the sole
owner/developer of this particular parcel of land (PID 55268379) where originally it was a partnership
between Viking Ventures and David T. Stirling.
Council approved (July 21, 2015) a servicing agreement permitting the servicing of two additional lots
taking the Developer to the maximum number of lots permitted under the DA. Section 5.1.9 of the DA
states that: “No more than thirty (30) approved lots with a single means of exit from the lands via a
Public Street, shall exist at any time within the development.” The Developer is seeking to amend this
particular clause to allow for 4 additional lots with only a single means of exit from the lands. Figures 1
and 2 below provide context to the proposal.
Figure 1 – South end of Stirling Avenue looking south to where additional 4 lots are proposed
Proposed
Lots 31-34
Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph showing proposed Lots 31-34
5) POLICY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
The MPS provides a number of policies that Council is to consider when reviewing such an application.
Summary charts of relevant policies are provided both in this Section and as Attachment 1 for Section
18.6.1 of the MPS. A discussion of specific policies is provided in this section while key issues are
discussed in the section that follows.
The existing DA from 1999 currently regulates this development. Attachment 3 provides the DA in its
entirety with key policies provided below:
•
Section 5.1.9 states that “no more than thirty (30) approved lots with a single means of exit from
the lands via a Public Street, shall exist at any time within the development.” With the recent
servicing agreement for lots 29 and 30, the developer has reached the maximum number of lots
allowable under the terms of the current agreement, given there is only a single access point.
This is the clause that triggers the substantial amendment process and the review by PAC and
Council.
•
•
•
Section 5.1.10 states that there “must be a continuous Public Street on the lands from the
intersection of Skyway Drive and Kent Avenue to Main Street prior to the approval of more than
sixty (60) lots on the lands.” This clause is not immediately relevant to the proposed 4 lots but
the lack of an overall plan, specifically road and servicing connectivity, are critical issues holding
back the development of this area.
Section 5.1.7 states that the development may proceed in phases. The development has
progressed in 3 phases to-date with Phase 4 being the 2 lots (29 and 30) subject to the most
recent servicing agreement. The developer has yet to submit a subdivision application to
actually create these lots.
Section 5.4 outlines when an amendment to the agreement would be necessary and what is
considered not to be substantial. Non-substantive changes are outlined as only the
commencement and completion dates and minor variations to the plans (Schedule “A” of the
agreement). Beyond 30 lots with a single access is considered substantive and requires an
amendment to the existing agreement.
The 1998 Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) and Land Use By-law (LUB) that were in place for the 1999
DA approval were replaced by the current MPS and LUB that were adopted in 2008. This area was
designated “Comprehensive Development District” and zoned “Residential Comprehensive
Development District” (RCDD) in the 2008 Planning documents. The policies of the current MPS must
guide staff and Council when reviewing an application to substantially amend the existing development
agreement outside the terms established in 1999 given our legislated responsibility under the Municipal
Government Act, Section 217 (1):
Part 8 of the current MPS – Residential Development and Land Use – outlines Council’s support for
higher density residential developments that meet the Town’s desire for a more sustainable community.
It states:
1. Higher density of population reduces the unit costs and environmental impacts of providing
town services such as water, sewer, paved streets, sidewalks and snow removal.
2. More affordable housing can be achieved within higher density developments.
3. Higher density favours development of user services which will reduce the use of private
vehicles, but which require certain threshold levels of participation, such as local bus/shuttle
services and home deliveries from local businesses.
4. Higher density near the downtown business district allows more people to reduce dependence
on the automobile.
With the above in mind, and in the absence of a comprehensive plan approved by Council for this area
that outlines a mix of residential densities and other uses (i.e. neighbourhood commercial, parks), it is
difficult from a planning perspective to justify allowing the development to proceed piecemeal in a lowdensity pattern.
Section 8.4 of the MPS outlines the relevant provisions for land designated Comprehensive
Development District. Section 8.4.3 states that a development agreement is required as follows:
Section 8.4.4 outlines criteria that are to be met when considering development proposals in the RCDD
zone:
The following table outlines each criterion and provides Staff comment to each:
Section 8.4.4 Criteria
Staff Comment
a) a minimum EnerGuide rating of 80 is
N/A – superseded by Section 9.36 of the National
achieved by all new single unit and two unit
Building Code (insulation, lighting, window, water,
residential dwellings; and
etc. requirements).
b) the maximum density of residential dwellings The residential density should be looked at on a
units shall be an average of 12 dwelling units broader scale in the context of the entire west end
per acre and the minimum density shall be an development area. Given the proposal and the lack
average of 5 dwelling units per acre; and
of an overall plan, the density of the 4 proposed
properties as well as what is existing along Stirling
Avenue should be considered:
• The existing density along Stirling Avenue
is approximately 4.4 dwelling units per
acre.
• The density of the proposed additional 4
lots (at a single dwelling unit per lot) is
approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. If
Accessory dwellings, which are permitted
under the terms of the current DA, were
built in the units, the unit/acre density
could increase; however, at this time this
information is not known.
c) require all power and communication
This is a requirement in the existing DA (see
infrastructure to be located underground
Attachment 3). If the proposed 4 lots were to
(both primary and secondary); and
move forward, this provision would apply.
d) development is in accordance with policy
See Attachment 1.
18.6.1.
Section 8.4.5 requires that all proposals in the RCDD zone also respond to sustainability principles:
The following table outlines each principle and provides Staff comment to each:
Section 8.4.5 Sustainability Principle
Staff Comment
a) the project provides buildings and site design It is assumed that the building form and pattern
that reduce the required operational energy
that is present on Stirling Avenue currently would
requirements by a significant amount from
continue (i.e. traditional single unit suburban
conventional buildings. (e.g. district heating
layout). A district heating system or other
systems)
alternative measures are not proposed. More
information on the buildings and site
design/layout (i.e. a comprehensive plan) would
be required to comment further.
b) the project provides buildings and site design Much of this information is unknown at this time
that substantially reduce the impact on the
but could and should be worked into a
environment through:
comprehensive plan for the area. Many of these
requirements are written to take into account the
i) retention of natural systems, e.g.
overall development. Analyzing piecemeal
retaining natural slopes
portions is not effective as the existing pattern
ii) retention of Category 2 soils, e.g.
along Stirling Avenue is merely being continued.
community gardens
iii) use of renewable energy sources, e.g. site
orientation
iv) management of construction wastes
v) reduced storm water run off, e.g. storm
retention ponds
vi) water conservation; e.g. low flow fixtures
vii) waste reduction including solid waste
and sewage
viii) use of environmentally sustainable
materials
ix) use of certified Fair Trade products
c) the project provides an affordability
The existing agreement provides for accessory
component that would meet the need to
dwelling units within single family homes. These
provide housing in Wolfville that is affordable units can be viewed as affordable housing;
and available for all sectors of society.
however, it is not clear at this time whether those
purchasing in this area will opt to have a second
dwelling. Otherwise, it is assumed the additional 4
lots will be homes at price points similar to those
built along Stirling Avenue to-date.
d) the project provides for alternative or shared None proposed.
housing and services models such as cooperative housing, co-housing, life lease, car
pooling/sharing, district heating, etc.
e) the project provides barrier free/accessible
Unknown at this time.
housing units.
f) 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) the project provides a mixture of housing
types and densities as well as a variety of
housing designs
h) the project provides public or private
amenities such as parks, walkways, public art,
daycare, cultural venues, and public
gathering spaces.
i) the project provides active transportation
routes and amenities and maximizes
connections with existing trail/walkway
systems.
j) the project provides access to public
transportation.
k) the project provides mixed uses of a local
commercial nature including but not limited
to convenience stores, laundromats, farm
markets, etc.
l) the proposal makes efficient use of land in
relation to infrastructure requirements (e.g.
clustering of homes).
It is assumed the building form and design will be
similar to what has been built along Stirling
Avenue to-date.
The additional 4 lots are proposed as single unit
dwellings. The residential mix and density of the
overall area is not known at this time.
Not known until a comprehensive plan for the area
is finalized.
is finalized.
Bus stop along Main Street close to the entrance
to Stirling Avenue.
is finalized.
It is assumed the building form and design will be
similar to what has been built along Stirling
Avenue to-date. See density numbers above.
6) DISCUSSION – KEY ISSUES
Comprehensive Plan for the Area
In 2011 the Town and the two land owners in the west end commissioned a planning study by planning
consultants Ekistics Planning & Design. The study outlines development concepts that embody the site
planning and sustainability principles outlined in the current MPS. The study helps to bridge the gap
between the DA/plan approved in 1999 and the current policies of the MPS; however, none of the
concepts in the plan were ever adopted by Council through a secondary plan or the land owners. It is the
Town’s understanding that negotiations on a conceptual plan between the two developers is stalled and
no date is known for a resolution. Staff had been in talks with the parties as recent as the spring of 2015
but until it is clear that a comprehensive plan is in place – or at least close – allowing the development to
proceed in a piecemeal fashion is not viewed to be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive
Development District designation of the MPS. The overall development outlined in the existing
Development Agreement and the 2011 study cannot proceed without the cooperation of the two
developers or the Town taking a position on land acquisition/expropriation to deal with road and
servicing connectivity issues.
It should also be noted that the concepts (A-C and final) outlined in the 2011 Ekistics Study as well as an
updated plan the Developer has discussed with the adjacent land owner do not all show the proposed
additional 4 lots as single unit dwelling lots or have the same development pattern. Additionally, none of
these plans have been approved by Council or agreed to formally by the two land owners. This adds
further difficulty to making assumptions that the density and housing form proposed on the 4 additional
lots will turn out to be consistent, in an eventual overall plan, with the current MPS Comprehensive
Development District designation policies.
Subdivision By-law
Section 22 (2) of the subdivision by-law states:
Section 22. (2) The maximum length of a cul-de-sac shall be one hundred metres (100M) to the
entrance of the turning circle, or one hundred fifty metres (150M) to the entrance of the turning
circle where a pathway is provided that is:
(a) A minimum of six metres (6M) of continuous width;
(b) Designed and constructed to accommodate the passage of pedestrians and
emergency vehicles; and,
(c) Connected to an adjacent street.
Section 5.1.9 of the existing DA that permits only 30 lots in the development with only a single access
was drawing on this provision and the need for secondary access for emergency services. The current
length of Stirling Avenue is approximately 420 metres with an additional 86 metres proposed if the 4
additional lots were to be approved. It is the view of Staff that without a comprehensive plan where
servicing and road connectivity issues are finalized, the provisions of the subdivision by-law should not
be stretched any further.
Municipal Servicing
The servicing agreement for lots 29 and 30 covered the servicing for the 2 properties, road and sidewalk
standards, retention pond placement, and other details. Most of this is a servicing arrangement typical
to other parts of Wolfville and in accordance with the standard specifications for municipal services;
however, lots 29 and 30 and the proposed additional 4 lots will require the Developer to install
individual booster pumps to ensure adequate water pressure is maintained. This is not an ideal servicing
arrangement but is manageable. As future phases of this development proceed, a water main from the
high pressure side (from Skyway/Kent) should be installed eliminating the need for the individual
booster pumps. This said, when, how and where the high pressure will take place and where road and
other service connectivity will be exactly located is unknown until a comprehensive plan for the area is
in place.
MPS Review
The ongoing review of the Town’s Municipal Planning Strategy, Land Use By-law and Subdivision By-law
present the community with questions on density, housing form, development standards and other
issues that are relevant to the remaining large tracts of undeveloped land in the Town. If a resolution to
developing this area by way of a comprehensive plan cannot be completed between the developers, and
given the work that has been done to-date (i.e. 2011 West End Study), Council should consider a
secondary plan for the west end lands to avoid conflict around the development of this important
growth area. A secondary plan can establish a development framework and have all parties working
toward a shared vision for the area.
7) REVIEW FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The proposal has been reviewed by other Town Departments including Public Works and the Traffic
Authority with the recommendation herein supported by other Town Departments.
8) OTHER REVIEWS
Public Information Meeting
The Town held a public information meeting on August 27, 2015 and the notes are included as
Attachment 2. No specific concerns were raised about the 4 additional lots; however, those in
attendance wanted to discuss the larger development and how the additional lots fit into an overall
comprehensive plan.
9) COMMENTS & CONCLUSIONS
An argument can be made that, under the circumstances, it is reasonable to accommodate 4 additional
development lots in the west end however from a planning perspective; the following circumstances
have led to a negative recommendation from Staff.
1. The existing agreement does not allow for more than 30 lots with a single access to the site. This
situation remains unchanged.
2. The servicing to the additional lots is not ideal from a water pressure perspective.
3. There is no comprehensive plan for the area and talks between the two developers seem to be
stalled at this time. Without road and servicing connectivity the plan conceived of in the original
agreement (1999) will not come to fruition.
4. The development of this area, and other large undeveloped tracts of land, have significant
impacts on the community and should be planned accordingly, pursuant to current policy.
5. It is difficult to weigh the merits of a
piecemeal development approach under
the provisions of the Comprehensive
Development District of the MPS. 4
additional low density properties,
without knowing the full picture from a
comprehensive plan, are not consistent
with the intent of this area’s designation
in the MPS.
Exert from the introduction to the 2011 West End
Residential Development Study:
6. Allowing further piecemeal
development delays the developers
working together with a sense of
urgency on a comprehensive plan for
the area.
As such, Staff recommends to the Planning Advisory Committee that the application to amend the
existing development agreement be forwarded to Council with a negative recommendation.
10)
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION
That the PAC provide a positive recommendation to Council regarding the proposed additional 4 lots
and that provisions are included in the draft DA that no further lot development shall proceed until a
comprehensive plan for the area has been approved by Council.
11)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Policy Summary Table – Section 18.6.1 of the MPS
2. Public Information Meeting Notes
3. Original/Existing Development Agreement (DA 99-10)
ATTACHMENT 1 – POLICY SUMMARY TABLE
Policy 18.6.1 states the general policies for all development agreements. These policies are intended to
be general in nature and should be interpreted fairly narrowly. The following table outlines the policy
and provides Staff comment:
General Development Agreement Policies of the
Staff Comment
MPS (Section 18.6.1)
(a) to ensure that the proposal conforms to the
intent of the MPS and to all other applicable
Town By-Laws and regulations, except where
the application for a development agreement
modifies the requirements of the LUB or
Subdivision By-Law.
Without a comprehensive plan for the area, the
proposal is considered inconsistent with the intent
of the Comprehensive Development District of the
MPS.
(b) 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:
i)
the type and intensity of use
ii)
the height, mass or architectural design of
No issues
proposed buildings
No issues in terms of conflict however it is not
known how the proposed lots will fit into an
overall plan.
iii) hours of operation of the use
No issues
iv) outdoor lighting
No issues
noise, vibration, or odour
No issues
vi) vehicles and pedestrian traffic
No issues
v)
vii) alteration of land levels/or drainage
No issues
patterns
viii) deprivation of natural light
No issues
(c) 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:
i) sanitary and storm sewer systems
No issues
ii) water systems
Pumps would have to be installed to ensure
adequate water pressure.
iii) schools
No issues
iv) recreation and community facilities
No issues
v) fire and police protection
With only a single access, issues could arise if
access were ever blocked.
vi) street and walkway networks
No issues however the overall plan has yet to be
finalized.
vii)solid waste collection and disposal systems
No issues
(d) 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.
Density of population impacts the unit costs and
environmental impacts of providing town services
such as water, sewer, paved streets, sidewalks and
snow removal. Without a comprehensive plan for
the area the long-term implications of piecemeal
approvals is not known.
(e) to ensure that the proposal does not cause
environmental damage or damage to
adjacent properties through:
i) pollution of soils, water or air
No issues
ii) erosion or sedimentation
No issues
iii) interference with natural drainage systems
No issues
iv) flooding
No issues
(f) to ensure that the proposal protects and
preserves matters of public interest such as,
but not limited to:
i) historically significant buildings
No issues
ii) public access to shorelines, parks and
No issues
public and community facilities
iii) important and significant cultural features,
No issues
natural land features and vegetation
(g) to ensure that the proposed site and building
design provides the following:
i) useable active transportation networks
that contribute to existing active
transportation links throughout the
community
Not known until a comprehensive plan is finalized.
ii) functional vehicle circulation and parking
No issues.
and loading facilities designed to avoid
congestion on or near the property and to
allow vehicles to move safely within and
while entering and exiting the property
iii) facilities for the safe movement of
pedestrians and cyclists
iv) adequate landscaping features such as
trees, shrubs, hedges, fences, flower beds
and lawns to successfully integrate the No issues.
new development into the surrounding
area
v) screening of utilitarian elements, such as
but not limited to; mechanical and
No issues.
electrical equipment, and garbage storage
bins
vi) safe access for emergency vehicles
Some concern with only a single access.
vii)adequate
separation
from,
and
consideration of, public and private utility
N/A
corridors to ensure their continued safe
and functional operation
viii) architectural features, including but not
limited to, mass, scale, roof style, trim
elements, exterior cladding materials, and
the shape, size and relationship of doors
No issues.
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
ix) useable outdoor amenity space for use of
residents in a residential development
On single family properties ample private outdoor
amenity space is provided.
x) accessible facilities for the storage and
No issues.
collection of solid waste materials
xi) appropriate consideration
conservation
for
energy
xii)appropriate consideration of and response
to site conditions , including but not limited
to; slopes, soil, and geological conditions, Not known until a comprehensive plan is finalized.
vegetation, watercourses, wet lands, and
drainage
(h) where Council determines, on the advice of a
licensed professional, that there is a No issues identified.
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
the 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
ATTACHMENT 2 – Public Information Meeting Notes
DA99-10 Amendment – West End Lands (Stonegate Subdivision)
August 27, 2015; 7:00 PM
Attendees
Devin Lake, Town Planner; Mike MacArthur, Developer; Erin Schurman-Kolb, Recording Secretary; five
members of the public.
Presentation by Devin Lake
-
This development proposal is to amend existing DA99-10 for an additional four building lots.
Existing DA states no more than 30 lots can be developed with a single means of access from a
public street.
This is considered a substantial amendment to the existing DA which is what triggers this
process.
Mr. Greene asked about the development of the larger parcel and a second access. He asked why the
development of the larger parcel is being held up and why the Town has not expropriated land to put in
water, sewer and road to allow the development to move forward?
Devin Lake responded that this PIM is for the development of 4 additional lots and the
development of the larger area is a work-in-progress. Mr. Lake cautioned audience members
not to get caught up on the larger parcel development- the current meeting is only in reference
to an additional four building lots.
Mike MacArthur stated Viking Ventures is anxious to move forward with development- parklands, trails,
etc. - and the amount of traffic coming off the street is very minimal.
There was conversation surrounding the larger parcel development.
Devin Lake asked if there are any more questions about the additional four building lots.
Pam Frail stated that because these four building lots lead into the larger development it would
be nice to see the larger development.
*A picture of the larger parcel is brought up on the screen for viewing and Mike MacArthur
speaks to the larger development.
Brian Steeves asked who is responsible for the installation of the initial infrastructure.
Mike MacArthur responded that the contractor is responsible.
Mike MacArthur stated Viking Ventures would like to get the four lots completed and have homes on
them by the summer of 2016. He stated that growth in small towns is vital and it is important to stay
moving in a positive direction. Ideally, they would like to see this development get going now and then
work with adjacent land owner over the winter months to solidify the larger parcel development.
A question was asked if the development is for single family homes.
Mike MacArthur answered that they are single family dwellings.
Tom Shaw inquired on what is happening where the dirt pile is behind the homes?
Mike MacArthur stated the pile will be moved and stockpiled onsite as development continues.
Devin Lake stated it is important to remain focused on the issue at hand- the four additional building
lots- and assured members of the audience that when the larger development takes place, there will be
many opportunities to speak about the specifics of that development then.
A question was raised if there any water pressure issues here?
Mike MacArthur responded that the arrangement for the four additional lots has been discussed
with the Town to address issues until the high pressure is connected from Skyway/Kent.
Devin Lake responded that servicing arrangements would be reviewed by the town engineer.
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.
ATTACHMENT 3 – Original/Existing Development Agreement
This Amending Development Agreement is made this ____ day of _________________, 20__.
BETWEEN:
VIKING VENTURES LTD.
(Hereinafter called the “Developer”)
OF THE FIRST PART
- and TOWN OF WOLFVILLE
A municipal body corporate,
(Hereinafter called the “Town”)
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS the Town and the Developer entered into a development agreement dated
September 8, 1999 and filed at the Registry of Deeds office in Kentville, Nova Scotia as
document number 6176, Book 1203, Page 317 on October 13,1999;
AND WHEREAS the Developer has requested that the Town enter into an amending
development agreement relating to the development of the land pursuant to the provisions of
the Municipal Government Act and the Municipal Planning Strategy for the Town of Wolfville,
as amended from time to time;
AND WHEREAS a condition of granting approval to amend the original development
agreement is that the parties enter into this amending development agreement;
AND WHEREAS the Town Council of the Town, at its meeting on _____________,
approved entering into this amending development agreement to allow four (4) additional lots
on PID 55268379 with a single means of exit from the lands via a Public Street subject to the
registered owner of the land entering into this amending development agreement;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES THAT in consideration of the covenants made
in this amending development agreement and other valuable consideration the Developer and
the Town agree to the following terms.
As approved by Council ________________
-1-
1.
Background
The Town and the Developer entered into the original development agreement on
September 8th, 1999 (approval by Council) which permitted the development of PID
55268379 subject to certain terms and conditions. This amending development
agreement responds to the request by the Developer to allow four (4) additional lots
(lots 31, 32, 33, 34) with a single means of exit from the lands via a Public Street. The
1999 agreement was administered under the requirements of the 1996 Municipal
Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law before the current (2008) Municipal Planning
Strategy and Land Use By-law came into effect.
3.
Terms
3.1
General
3.1.1
Clause 5.1.9 of the original Development Agreement, filed at the Registry of
Deeds in Kentville on October 13, 1999 as document number 6176, Book 1203,
Page 317 shall be deleted and replaced with:
5.1.9 Viking Ventures agrees that no more than thirty four (34) approved lots
with a single means of exit from the lands via a Public Street, shall exist at
any time within the development.
3.1.2
No additional development, beyond thirty four (34) lots, shall proceed until a
comprehensive development plan is approved by the Town and a Development
Agreement corresponding to a comprehensive plan is executed between the
Town and the Developer.
3.1.3
No Development Permit(s) shall be issued for lots 31-34, as shown on Schedule A
to this agreement, until a stormwater management plan and an erosion and
sedimentation plan prepared by a qualified person is approved by the
Development Officer.
3.1.4
This amending development agreement allows the Developer to obtain
development permits, other permits, and permissions to allow for the
development of up to 34 lots on PID 55268379 (the parent parcel) as shown on
Schedule A of this amending agreement.
3.1.5 The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and
approvals required by law for the Development, including but not limited to
development permits, building permits, and any approvals required from the
Province of Nova Scotia.
3.1.6 Except as amended by this amending development agreement, the original
development agreement between the Town and the Developer for the lands as
-2-
filed at the Registry of Deeds in Kentville on October 13, 1999 as document
number 6176, Book 1203, Page 317 shall remain in full force and effect.
3.2
Timing
3.2.1 This amending development agreement shall be deemed to be entered into on
the day following the day on which the time for appeal of Town Council’s
approval to enter it has elapsed, or the day on which any appeals have been
disposed of and the policy of the Wolfville Town Council approving this
amending development agreement has been affirmed by the Nova Scotia
Utilities and Review Board, under the provisions of the MGA, or other judiciary
body as applicable. All other time requirements imposed in this development
agreement shall be calculated from that date, the effective date.
3.2.2 The original development agreement between the Town and the Developer for
the lands as filed at the Registry of Deeds in Kentville on October 13, 1999 as
document number 6176, Book 1203, Page 317, expires on May 9, 2016 pursuant
to Section 5.2.3 of the original development agreement.
3.3
Expenses
3.3.1 The Developer shall pay all costs and expenses incurred by the Town related to
this amending development agreement including but not limited to: advertising;
notification of adjoining landowners; and any solicitor's fees and disbursements
incurred in drafting this amending development agreement.
3.4
Default
3.4.1 Any expenses the Town incurs to enforce the terms of this amending
development agreement are payable to the Town.
3.4.2 If the Developer breaches any of the terms of this amending development
agreement, the Town, at its sole option, may:
(a) Terminate this amending development agreement;
(b) Exercise its rights under paragraph 3.4.1 above; or,
-3-
(c) Take no action.
3.4.3 Any election by the Town to take no action on a breach of this amending
development agreement by the Developer shall not bar the Town from
exercising its rights under this amending development agreement on any other
breach.
4.
Warranties by the Developer
4.1
Title and Authority
4.1.1 The developer warrants as follows:
(a)
The developer has good title in fee simple to the lands or good beneficial
title subject to a normal financing encumbrance. No other entity has an
interest in the lands which would require their signature on this amending
development agreement to validly bind the lands or the developer has
obtained the approval of every other entity which has an interest in the
lands whose authorization is required for the developer to sign this
amending development agreement to validly bind the lands.
(b)
The developer has taken all steps necessary to, and it has full authority to,
enter this amending development agreement.
5.
Full Agreement
5.1
Other Agreements
5.1.1 This amending development agreement and the existing servicing agreement
filed at the Registry of Deeds in Kentville, Nova Scotia (October 13, 2015 on PID
55268379) as document number 107921745 together with the original
development agreement filed at the Registry of Deeds in Kentville, Nova Scotia
as document number 6176, Book 1203, Page 317 constitute the entire
agreement and contract entered into by the Town and the Developer. No other
agreement or representation, whether oral or written, shall be binding.
5.1.2 This amending development agreement shall not be a precedent for any other
agreement either between the Town and the Developer or between the Town
and any other party.
-4-
6.
Binding Effect
This amending development agreement shall endure to the benefit of and be binding
upon the parties to this amending development agreement, their respective successors,
administrators, and assigns.
7.
Notice
Any notice to be given under this amending development agreement shall be made in
writing and either served personally or forwarded by courier or by registered mail,
postage prepaid, if to the Town to:
Town of Wolfville
Town Hall
359 Main Street
Wolfville, Nova Scotia
B4P 1A1
Attention: Development Officer
and if to Viking Ventures Ltd:
Mike MacArthur
Viking Ventures Ltd.
4248 Highway #1
Berwick, NS
B0P 1E0
8.
Headings
The headings used in this amending development agreement are for convenience only.
If any of the headings are inconsistent with the provisions of the amending
development agreement which it introduces, the provisions of the amending
development agreement shall apply.
-5-
9.
Execution
In witness of this amending development agreement the parties have signed, sealed and
delivered it to each other on the date set out at the top of the first page.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED )
In the presence of:
)
)
) TOWN OF WOLFVILLE
)
)
) By _____________________________
)
MAYOR
________________________________ )
Witness
)
)
) By _______________________________
)
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
)
)
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED )
In the presence of:
)
)
)
________________________________ ) By _______________________________
Witness
)
VIKING VENTURES LTD.
-6-
CANADA
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA
COUNTY OF KINGS
I certify that on ________________,2015, _____________________________________ a
witness to this amending agreement came before me, made oath, and swore that the Town of
Wolfville, caused the same to be executed by its proper officers who affixed its Corporate Seal
and subscribed their hands in its name and in its behalf in his/her presence.
__________________________________________
A Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
CANADA
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA
COUNTY OF KINGS
I certify that on ________________,2015, _____________________________________
a witness to this amending agreement came before me, made oath, and swore that Viking
Ventures Ltd., caused the same to be executed by its proper officers who affixed its Corporate
Seal and subscribed their hands in its name and in its behalf in his/her presence.
__________________________________________
A Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
-7-
SCHEDULE A
-8-
Heritage Property Bylaw Approval
Department: Corporate Services
SUMMARY
The Town’s Heritage Property Bylaw Ch. 47, approved by Council on January 13, 2015, was submitted to
the Department of Municipal Affairs for approval by the Minister on June 12, 2015. The Town has been
notified that because this Bylaw replaces the previous Heritage Property Bylaw that a clause to that
affect must be stated in the Bylaw.
Staff has amended the Bylaw with the requested clause and seeks Council approval for Frist Reading.
DRAFT MOTION:
That Council approve first reading to amend the Heritage Property Bylaw Chapter 47.
1) CAO COMMENTS
The CAO supports the recommendations of staff.
The Heritage Property Act provides authority to municipalities by bylaw to establish a municipal registry
of heritage property and a heritage advisory committee, which may be the planning advisory
committee. A bylaw made pursuant to the Act is subject to approval of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs.
3) STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That Council approve first reading of the Heritage Property Bylaw on January 12, 2016 and second
reading on January 26, 2016.
•
•
Heritage Property Bylaw, Ch. 47 (attached)
Heritage Property Act, Chapter 199 of the Revised Statutes, 1989
5) PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to ask Council to approve the amendment to the Heritage Property Bylaw,
Ch. 47.
6) DISCUSSION
The Town’s Heritage Property Bylaw Ch. 47 was amended and approved by Council on January 13, 2015
and submitted to the Department of Municipal Affairs for approval by the Minister on June 12, 2015.
The Town has been notified that because this Bylaw replaces the previous Heritage Property Bylaw that
a clause to that affect must be stated in the bylaw. The following clause, clause 11, has been added:
“The Heritage Property Bylaw passed by Town Council on the 17th May 1982 and approved by the
Minister of Municipal Affairs on 23rd July 1982 is repealed.”
There have been no other changes made to the bylaw since its approval on January 13. Staff is
requesting that Council approve First Reading of the Heritage Property Bylaw, Ch. 47.
N/A
N/A
9) COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS
A notice has been placed in the Kings County Advertiser for Second Reading on January 26, 2016 as per
the requirements of the Municipal Government Act.
10) ALTERNATIVES
•
N/A
Heritage Property
Chapter 47
1.0
This Bylaw shall be known and may be cited as the “Heritage Property Bylaw”.
2.0
In this Bylaw:
“Act” means the Heritage Property Act.
“Council” means the Town Council of the Town of Wolfville
“Clerk” means the Clerk of the Town of Wolfville
“Town Registry of Heritage Property” means the municipal registry of heritage property within the
meaning of the Act, having all the powers and duties prescribed by the Act or incidental thereto
“Town Heritage Property” means municipal heritage property within the meaning of the Act
“Town” means Town of Wolfville
3.0
a) There shall be a Town Registry of heritage property for the Town wherein all prescribed
documents relating to the registration of heritage property pursuant to the provisions of the Act
or this Bylaw shall be filed
b) The Clerk of the Town shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Town Registry of
heritage property and for the safekeeping of all documents filed therein.
4.0
The Planning Advisory Committee shall assume responsibilities under the Heritage Property Act
and may advise Council respecting:
(a) the inclusion of buildings, public-building interiors, streetscapes, cultural landscapes and
areas in the municipal registry of heritage property;
(b) an application for permission to substantially alter or demolish a municipal heritage
property;
(ba) the preparation, amendment, revision or repeal of a conservation plan and
conservation by-law;
(bb) the administration of heritage conservation districts pursuant to the provisions of
this Act;
(bc) an application for a certificate that is required by this Act or the conservation plan
and conservation by-law to go to a public hearing;
(c) building or other regulations that affect the attainment of the intent and purpose of this Act;
(d) any other matters conducive to the effective carrying out of the intent and purpose of this
Act. R.S., c. 199, s. 13; 1991, c. 10, s. 3; 2010, c. 54, s. 9.
Page 1 of 3
Heritage Property
Chapter 47
5.0
The Planning Advisory Committee may recommend to Council that a building, streetscape or
area be registered as a Town Heritage Property in the Town Registry of Heritage Property
6.0
The Council shall, upon receipt of a recommendation pursuant to Paragraph 7 hereof, cause to
be done all things required of it in conformity of the Act. The Clerk shall serve and file notice of
such recommendation in accordance with the Act and in addition to the requirements of the
Act, file a copy of the Notice in the Town Registry of Heritage Property
7.0
Notice of a recommendation by the Planning Advisory Committee that a building, streetscape or
area be registered as a Town Heritage Property shall be in Form A
8.0
Council may register a building, streetscape or area as a Town Heritage Property in Form B
9.0
Notice of such registration shall be sent to each registered owner of the municipal heritage
property by the Clerk in accordance with the provisions of the Act. One (1) copy of the
registration shall be deposited in the Registry of Deeds for the County of Kings, and one (1) copy
of the registration shall be filed in the Town Registry of Heritage Property
10.0
Council may, from time to time, set out or amend the terms of reference set out in Paragraph 6
hereof, within which the Heritage Advisory Committee shall act. The Council may set out and
amend such guidelines for the designation of property as heritage property in conformity with
the Act, and the Planning Advisory Committee may make recommendations in accordance
therewith.
11.0
The Heritage Property Bylaw passed by Town Council on the 17th May 1982 and approved by
the Minister of Municipal Affairs on 23rd July 1982 is repealed.
Page 2 of 3
Heritage Property
Chapter 47
FIRST READING:
SECOND READING:
CERTIFICATE
I, Daniel Stovel, Town Clerk of the Town of Wolfville, do hereby certify that the Bylaw of which the
foregoing is a true copy was duly passed at a duly called meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Wolfville held on the (day) day of (month), 2016.
Notice of the said Bylaw passing was published in THE ADVERTISER on the (day) day of (month), 2016.
Given under the hand of the Town Clerk and the corporate seal of the Town of Wolfville this (day) day of
(month), 2016.
_____________________________
DANIEL STOVEL
Town Clerk
Page 3 of 3

Special Town Council Meeting

Transcription

Similar documents

Town Center at Sterling

Westfield University Town Center - UTC Ice Rink

Citizen Service Request Dashboard Written

Plus | Brooklyn Balı Amsterdam hina Whistler Australia

Goderich Tornado - August 21, 2011

la macarena - Programa de Transformación Productiva

Historic Newburgh Historic Newburgh

Young Ameritowne Parent Letter

FOR SALE Co Kildare

Perfecting COLLINSVILLE PARKING