Planning Advisory Committee

Transcription

Wednesday, February 24th, 2016
1:30 PM
Council Chambers, Town Hall
359 Main Street, Wolfville, NS
Agenda
1. Approval of the Agenda
2. Approval of the Minutes of November 2nd, 2015
3. Request for Direction – DA for West End Lands
4. Heritage De-registration of Christie House (503-505 Main Street)
5. MPS Review
a.) Phase II
b.) Boarding House Discussion
c.) “What We Heard” Report
6. Future Meeting Dates
7. Correspondence re: MPS Review
a.) Letter from Doug Lutz to Director Fuller
b.) Letter from Robert Harrison to Director Fuller
8. Question Period
9. Adjournment
Town of Wolfville
200 Dykeland Street | Wolfville | NS | B4P 1A2 | t 902-542-3718 | f 902-542-5066
Wolfville.ca
Town of Wolfville
Minutes, Planning Advisory Committee
Monday, November 2, 2015
ATTENDING
Chairperson Wendy Donovan, Deputy Mayor; Mercedes Brian, Councillor; Dan Sparkman, Councillor;
Paul Cabilio; Scott Roberts; Erin Beaudin, Chief Administrative Officer; Chrystal Fuller, Director
Community Development ; Devin Lake, Planner; and Dan Stovel, Recording Secretary
LATE ARRIVAL
Mayor Jeff Cantwell
ALSO ATTENDING
Interested members of the public
ABSENT WITH REGRET
Robert Barach, Sharon Horne and Steve Mattson
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:31 pm
1.
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED AS
CIRCULATED.
Amendment to include:
 Addition of item 4b. presentation by Viking Ventures Ltd – Mike & Sue MacArthur, as part of the
Development Agreement Amendment to the West End Lands
THE AGENDA WAS APPROVED WITH THE ABOVE NOTED CHANGES
CARRIED
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
Public Participation Meeting (PPM), September 3, 2015:
The PPM Draft Minutes format and structure were discussed in advance of putting forward the approval
Motion. Options presented to the Planning Advisory Committee:
i.
ii.
Correct Minutes at the current meeting from observations presented; or
Direct staff to review recording and resubmit PPM Draft Minutes at next PAC Meeting,
December 2, 2015
The Public Participation Minutes (PPM) should be approved by the PAC because they are a formal part
of the PAC meeting process. The PPM Minutes will always likely have a higher level of detail than the
Minutes from a regular Planning Advisory Committee meeting, individual’s thoughts will not be
censored.
MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 BE REFERRED BACK TO STAFF TO LISTEN TO THE
AUDIO RECORDING AND MAKE CHANGES AS APPROPRIATE, FOR PRESENTATION AND APPROVAL AT
THE DECEMBER 2, 2015 PAC MEETING.
CARRIED
Page 1 of 6
Town of Wolfville
ACTION: Staff to review audio recording and resubmit Minutes from the September 3, 2015 Public
Participation Meeting at the next PAC Meeting, December 2015.
b.
PAC Meeting, September 30, 2015
MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 BE APPROVED AS CIRCULATED.
CARRIED
ACTION: Staff to post final approved version of September 30, 2015 PAC Meeting Minutes to the
Town of Wolfville website.
3.
EXISTING LOTS WITH NO FRONTAGE
This issue is being brought forward because of the long-standing case of Lot P.M.-1 (north of 96 Main
Street) – Mr Mowat’s property. Staff have considered feedback from the Public and the Planning
Advisory Committee; have consulted with other Town departments; and have reviewed file history in
coming to their recommendations.
Staff recommended to the Planning Advisory Committee that a positive recommendation be forwarded
to Council to proceed with facilitating access to existing properties without street frontage through
Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law Amendments.
This was a difficult issue for Planning Staff to consider however from a Planning perspective, the
following is a summary of the rationale behind the recommendation:



Accommodating access does not create significant negative planning implications and is a
reasonable solution under the circumstances
Infill development is supported throughout the Municipal Planning Strategy
Although Wickwire Lane is not considered a “street” it is already used as a driveway and can
accommodate access to Lot P.M.-1
The amendments proposed by Staff would enable access to existing properties that lack street frontage
by way of an access easement from a public authority. The amendments are general in nature (not site
specific) and involve changes to both Section 14 of the MPS, Section 4 of the Land Use By-law and the
addition of definitions. Given the unique circumstances of Lot P.M.-1, only this lot would be relevant to
the amendments at this time (see Town-wide properties with no street frontage above). It is
recommended that the amendments be general in nature to give Council the tools to deal with a future
scenario where an existing property can be accessed only by an easement from a public authority.
Page 2 of 6
Town of Wolfville
Discussion:
 There is no precedence for an easement – it would be very context specific, and it would be up
to Council to decide if they wish to enter into an easement and it would be related to the issue
and not appealable to the UARB. The easement is a contractual issue as opposed to a planning
issue
 There is a level of risk assumed by those who seek to build on private roads, realizing that fewer
services, such as fire, emergency, and snow removal, can access those private roads – public
services are provided along public roadways
 Not a fairness issue between the lane use for 90 Main Street as it does have frontage along Main
St which is uniquely different than Mr Mowat’s property which does not have street frontage
 Properties seeking to subdivide in the future would be refused if the subdivided lot does not
have street frontage
 Subdivision By-law and LUB both have the requirement to have street frontage.
 Any existing property without frontage could, if there is public land in front of it, and Council so
desires for what they see as public interest, could issue an easement
MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FORWARD THE STAFF REPORT TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES WITH NO FRONTAGE TO
COUNCIL WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION
CARRIED
FORWARD THE AMENDMENTS IN ATTACHMENT 1 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO THE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO COUNCIL WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR FIRST
READING:

AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF WOLFVILLE MPS SECTION 14.1.3 – ADDITION OF:
SUCH OCCURRENCES WHERE AN ACCESS EASEMENT TO AN EXISTING PROPERTY WITHOUT
LOT FRONTAGE ON A STREET CAN BE PROVIDED BY A PUBLIC AUTHORITY.
AND

AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF WOLFVILLE LAND USE BYLAW SECTION 4.3.1 – ADDITION OF:
A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED WHERE AN ACCESS EASEMENT TO AN EXISTING
PROPERTY WITHOUT LOT FRONTAGE ON A STREET CAN BE PROVIDED BY A PUBLIC
AUTHORITY
CARRIED
4.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT – WEST END LANDS
a.
Staff Presentation:
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 four (4) additional residential lots beyond the
30 lots permitted with only a single means of exit from the lands via a Public Street (Main Street).
Page 3 of 6
Town of Wolfville
From a planning perspective, the following have led to a negative recommendation from Staff:
i.
The existing agreement does not allow for more than 30 lots with a single access to the site.
This situation remains unchanged
ii.
The servicing to the additional lots is not ideal from a water pressure perspective
iii.
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
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.
b. Presentation by Viking Ventures Ltd, Sue and Mike MacArthur
 There are challenges to developing this property and looking forward to continuing to develop
the property
 Have worked hard with the adjoining landowner to develop a community that was in keeping
with what the Town of Wolfville wanted
 Have redesigned and reconfigured the property based on discussions with adjacent land owner
and to be mindful of the residents that live in the area – developing a street that is in keeping
with the investment of the residence who live there
 Access is needed on Skyway extension – transit across approximately 185ft of adjoining
landowners property to connect the streets
 Development has been held up for years due to street connection being held up
 Quality of construction will be in keeping with what Viking Homes has been known for
 Addition of proposed homes (4 lots) would permit continued development
 There is interest by the public in the purchase of newly built homes – there is growth interest in
new homes
 Going forward with the 4 lots now will allow Viking Homes to work out the details
 Seeking assistance from the Town in going forward with this development
Discussion:
 Town’s benefit held up in the development through the connecting property off of Skyway Drive
– would there be benefit in moving into expropriation of a bit of land to run street connection
 Encouraged to keep the two issues separate – the development of the four lots is one issue and
future development of West End Land is another issue
 A lot of time over many years has been spent in trying to bring the two developers together
 The town should be encouraged to explore ways in which to move the issue forward
Page 4 of 6
Town of Wolfville



The issue before the Planning Advisory Committee is the expansion of the authorized 30 lots to
34 lots, and not one of a larger discussion about further development of West End Land
There are two separate developers that have to come together for future comprehensive
development and not two separate developments side-by-side
The existing development agreement limits development to 30 lots with a single access to Main
Street
FORWARDS THE STAFF REPORT PROPOSING 4 ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT LOTS WITHIN THE WEST
END LANDS (PID 55268379) TO COUNCIL WITH A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
CARRIED
Discussion:
 A full day workshop is planned for the upcoming Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) with PAC
and Council.
 One of the items for the workshop is a discussion point on whether or not the Town wants to
look at adopting secondary plans particularly for the West End area and potentially for Maple
Avenue.
 What are the options around expropriation – a tool that municipal units do have. There would
need to be a recommendation to Council for staff to further investigate options around
expropriation
RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT STAFF PREPARE A REPORT EXPLORING THE COSTS, BENEFITS, RISKS,
AND OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE EXPROPRIATION OF LAND BETWEEN VIKING VENTURES WEST END
LAND AND SKYWAY DRIVE
CARRIED
3:33 pm Scott Roberts departed the PAC Meeting
5. MPS REVIEW
 The MPS is moving forward, consultations having taken place in September.
 As a result of the consultations it was determined that there was not the breadth of
participation at the table for discussion. There was fairly good representation from many of the
same interests that have been heard from in the past.
 There will be a few more consultations in November to expand the level of discussion – going
out to the Seniors community, work with the food bank and consultation techniques will vary
with each group. Also reaching out to the development community and landlords
 A day-long MPS workshop scheduled for November 23rd has been developed for PAC and
Council to talk about decision making and options for the policy changes
 Start to look at other areas where discussion may be opened up
Page 5 of 6
Town of Wolfville




Concrete discussions, not so much about specific policies, but policy areas where decisions will
be made as to whether action will be taken or not
Consultants will be joining for preliminary discussions about what the housing policies are going
to look like
Consultants away until January 23rd for focused consultations/discussions. February timeframe
will have the Draft MPS presented as part of Phase I. As part of Phase I, consultants will be
recommending an engagement strategy for Phase II
PlaceSpeak will be taken down as of December 1st – not a tool that has worked. It is not worth
staff’s time and effort to keep the tool active – the majority of those participating in PlaceSpeak
are connected with the project
6. QUESTION PERIOD
Sue MacArthur thanked the Committee for their discussions and comments. Hopeful that the
development will go forward at some time but not too far into the future. There was discussion of
expropriation back in 1999. Ready to go forward with the development and disheartened that they will
be required to stop building homes in Wolfville. By the PAC taking leadership, there is hope that this will
bring the two developers together.
7. ADJOURNMENT OF PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MEETING BE ADJOURNED AT 3:44 PM
CARRIED
Approved at the December 2, 2015 Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
As recorded by Dan Stovel, AA Corporate Services
Page 6 of 6
APPLICANT
Viking Ventures Limited and 2231266 Nova Scotia Limited
PROPOSAL
To develop approximately 48 acres of land in the south west corner of the
Town for mixed use residential development.
LOCATION
Extension of Hillcrest Avenue and Stirling Avenue.
LOT SIZE
48 acres +/-
DESIGNATION
Comprehensive Development District
ZONE
Residential Comprehensive Development District (RCDD)
SURROUNDING USES
NEIGHBOUR
NOTIFICATION
Residential/Agriculture (County)
Newspaper ads and notices mailed to surrounding property owners within
100 metres
1) PROPOSAL
This proposal is made jointly by two land owner/developers:


2231266 Nova Scotia Limited (Principal Issam Kadray – 16 Acres).
Viking Ventures Limited (Principal Michael MacArthur – 32 Acres).
The joint proposal provides for a mix of residential uses. The developers are seeking a mix the mix of
housing types and there will be a range the developers can work within, however the approximate
development mix is expected to be as follows:




35 single detached dwellings
114 semi-detached dwellings
53 Townhouse dwellings
276 multi-unit building dwellings
2) STAFF RECOMMENDATION
I.
II.
III.
Staff is recommending that a new Public Information Session occur before a new
draft is brought to PAC for consideration.
Staff is recommending that the proposed park land be accepted by the Town of
Wolfville.
Staff is recommending that there be one development agreement for the
development, unless the developers provide assurance to the Town about phasing
and other administrative issues.
IV.
V.
Staff is recommending the developers be required to provide information on how the
proposal addresses affordable housing and alternative housing forms.
Staff is recommending that Council initiate a plan amendment concurrent to the
approval of the draft development agreement that considers allowing overhead
power in limited circumstances.
3) PROCESS
This process requires review by the PAC and the holding of a Public Hearing by Council prior to a
decision by Council to approve or reject the proposal.
The Town held a public information meeting on January 28th, 2014, at the Council Chambers and the
notes from the session are attached. The applicants and staff were actively negotiating the
Development Agreement until early 2016 and then, due to business issues between the two applicants,
the application went dormant and has been basically inactive for almost a year.
Staff is bringing this report forward to seek direction from PAC before finalizing the negotiations with
the applicants.
4) BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
There are five issues on which staff is seeking direction in advance of bringing a full development
agreement before PAC.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Public Information Meeting
Open Space
Development Agreement Structure
Housing Affordability
Undergrounding of Power
5) DISCUSSION – ISSUES
1. Public Information Meeting
Staff held a public information meeting in January 24th, 2014. That is a considerable amount
of time between the PIM and presentation of a draft development agreement for
consideration. There may be new issues that staff should be aware of before finalizing the
draft; therefore, staff is recommending that a new Public Information Session occur before a
new draft is brought to PAC for consideration.
2. Parkland Dedication
The Town of Wolfville Subdivision By-Law requires the subdivider of land to transfer to the Town
a parkland dedication equal to 10% of the area of the new lots created by a subdivision. The
subdivider may provide cash-in-lieu of this land dedication or a combination of land and cash-inlieu. The parkland dedication proposed for the development is a combination of land and cashin-lieu.
The draft development agreement identifies two open spaces. One is an environmental area
along the ravine and Council has provided direction on this area previously so staff is
comfortable with its outline and structure. This environmental area plus a cash contribution will
satisfy the cash in lieu requirements of this development.
The plan also shows a “Neighbourhood Park” which is a smaller flat area that is intended to
provide a local open space for the residential neighbourhood. This category of park was
recommended in the Park and Open Space Master Plan. The recommendations of the West End
Development Plan, which was never formally adopted by Council, show significant open space
in a different place and placed different from the current plan. Staff is seeking direction if the
location and configuration of open space is acceptable. Section 7 of the MPS establishes Open
Space policies, with the following policies being most relevant.
The Open Space Master Plan describes the characteristics of a Neighbourhood Park.
Figure 1 - Preferred Option from West End Residential Plan (2011) showing location of open space
Figure 2 - Zoom in of Proposed Park Land Dedication for West End Development
Figure 3 - Proposed Site Plan for West End Development
Staff is recommending that the proposed park land be accepted by the Town of Wolfville.
3. Development Agreement Structure
The Developers are seeking separate development agreements with the Town. This causes
staff some concern for the following reasons:
a. The DA is acting as a Master Plan for the area. With two separate development
agreements, the onus is on the Town to ensure that the Developers act in concert and
that both developers are working together to achieve the requirements of the DA. It is
unclear to staff how this can easily occur.
b. The Developers, as we understand it, have an agreement but the Town is not party to it.
How does the Town ensure that phasing will occur in a way that works?
Staff is recommending that there be one development agreement for the development, unless
the developers provide assurance to the Town about phasing and other administrative issues.
4. Housing Affordability and Alternative Housing Forms
The Comprehensive Development District Designation of the MPS includes policies on
affordable housing, alternative housing forms and other aspirational directions. These policies
include:
The above provisions are difficult to weigh against the proposal (see figure 3 ) particularly those
related to affordable housing and alternative housing forms (C and D above). Staff is seeking
direction on the importance of these areas and the level of integration desired. These
aspirational elements are often overlooked in conventional subdivision development and may
require special attention moving forward in negotiating an agreement(s) with the two parties.
These areas were included in the 2011 Ekistics Study which could provide guidance if it is
desirable to include such requirements in a final agreement.
Staff is recommending the developers be required to provide information on how the proposal
addresses affordable housing and alternative housing forms.
5. Undergrounding of Power – Three Phase
The Developers have asked that the lands south of the ravine, which are slated for multi-unit
residential, not require underground power. This is because Nova Scotia power requires this
type of development to have three phase power, which is much more expensive to place
underground. Another consideration is that there is an ecologically sensitive ravine which
would need to be altered to bring across underground the power, which may have significant
impacts. As mentioned earlier in this report, the Town is proposing to take the ravine lands for
its ecological value and disturbing this area is not desirable.
At this time staff are not asking for a decision on three phase power, but rather are seeking
some preliminary feedback from PAC on this request. The requirement for underground power
is a policy contained with the RCDD policies of the MPS, and as such would require a change. If
PAC is open to this approach, then a full staff report will be prepared and draft MPS
amendments for PAC’s consideration for a Public Participation Meeting can be held.
Staff is recommending that Council initiate a plan amendment concurrent to the approval of the
draft development agreement that considers allowing overhead power in limited circumstances.
6. COMMENTS & CONCLUSIONS
This report is presented for information and to seek direction.
REPORT TO HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
503-505 Main Street – Deregistration
Date: February 24, 2016
Department: Community Development
APPLICANT
Acadia University
PROPOSAL
To deregister a municipally registered heritage property at 503-505 Main
Street (former location of Christie House)
LOCATION
503-505 Main Street (Lands of Acadia University)
LOT SIZE
DESIGNATION
ZONE
SURROUNDING USES
NEIGHBOUR
NOTIFICATION
6120 square feet or 568.6 square metres
Medium Density Residential
R-2/4
Festival Theatre, Old Burial Grounds, Clock Park, Acadia University,
Commercial
Had been previous newspaper notification on the potential to move the
building before it was demolished. Notification will take place for the Public
Hearing.
1) PROPOSAL
To deregister the municipally registered heritage property located at 503-505 Main Street (Christie
House).
2) STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff considers the application to deregister 503-505 Main Street (Christie House) as a Municipally
Registered Heritage property consistent with relevant policy and recommend that it be submitted to
Council with a positive recommendation for its review and decision.
3) PROCESS
The process to deregister a municipal registered heritage property is outlined in Section 16 of the
Heritage Property Act. After consideration of the staff report, the application will proceed directly to a
Public Hearing before a decision is made by Council.
4) BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
The property was registered as a Municipal Heritage property on December 23, 1991. The reasons for
registration/character defining elements include (see Attachment 2 for full details):



Located in the heart of Wolfville;
Greek revival influences;
Double house; one and a half storey wood construction;
1







Five bay façade; entrances at each side;
Verandahs (added later) on frontispiece with molded posts and railings;
Wide frieze boards below front eaves;
Gable wing on rear with enclosed porch on each side;
Two chimneys;
Returning eaves with cornice on gable and roof; and
Clapboard siding.
Acadia purchased the property in 2004 and in 2012 applications were received to both demolish and
deregister the building. The application to demolish the building was considered at this time but the
desire was to try and have the building relocated to another site. Efforts were made by the University
to have the building relocated and some interest was shown to do so; however, after three years,
nothing came to fruition. Pursuant to Part 18 of the Heritage Property Act after three years (but no
longer than four) Acadia had the right to demolish the building and carried this out during the fall of
2015 after the Town of Wolfville issued a demolition permit.
For further context the original 2012 application letter from Acadia is included as Attachment 1 while a
context map and images of the former building are included as Figures 1 and 2 below.
Figure 1 – Christie House Context Map
2
Figure 2: Former Christie House, 503-505 Main Street (photos taken September 8, 2015)
5) POLICY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
The Heritage Property Act, the Wolfville Heritage Property By-law, and the Municipal Planning Strategy
provide guidance to Council when considering this application.
Heritage Property Act
Section 16, deregistration of municipal heritage property, is provided below. Once the building was
demolished, the property’s heritage value (see above under reasons for registration) were lost and the
criteria outlined in Section 16(a) for deregistration would be met.
Deregistration of municipal heritage property
16 (1) On the application of an owner of a municipal heritage property or on its own motion, the council may
deregister a municipal heritage property where
(a) the property has been destroyed or damaged by any cause; or
3
(b) the continued registration of the property appears to the council to be inappropriate as a result of the loss of the
property's heritage value, as identified in the property's heritage file or notice of recommendation, unless the loss
of the heritage value was caused by neglect, abandonment or other action or inaction of the owner, after holding a
public hearing to consider the proposed deregistration.
(2) Such a public hearing shall be held not less than thirty days after a notice of the hearing is served on the
registered owner of the municipal heritage property and published in a newspaper circulating in the area.
(3) Where a municipal heritage property is deregistered, the council shall cause notice of the deregistration to be
sent to the registered owner of the property and a copy thereof to be deposited in the registry of deeds for the
registration district in which the property is situate. R.S., c. 199, s. 16; 2010, c. 54, s. 12.
Section 18 of the Heritage Property Act is also relevant to this issue and is provided below. The intent of
the three year period stated in Section 18(3) is to give an opportunity to have heritage resources
relocated or to find other alternatives to demolition. This section was carried out in the case of Christie
House however relocation was not successful.
Consideration by municipality of application to alter or demolish
18 (1) The municipality may take up to three years to consider an application under Section 17.
(2) In its consideration of the application, the municipality may require public notice of the application and
information meetings respecting the application to be held.
(3) Where the municipality does not approve the application, the property owner may, notwithstanding Section 17,
make the alteration or carry out the demolition at any time after three years from the date of the application but
not more than four years after the date of the application.
(4) Where the property owner has made the alteration or carried out the demolition in accordance with this
Section, the municipality may deregister the property if the municipality determines that the property has lost its
heritage value. 2010, c. 54, s. 14.
It can be argued that the once Section 18(3) has been acted upon and demolition occurs, a Public
Hearing should not be required; however, the Heritage Property Act does not provide this flexibility and
a public hearing on the matter is required given that the registration runs with the property and not just
the building. Confirmation on this requirement was received from the Provincial Coordinator of the
Heritage Property Program by Planning Staff.
Heritage Property By-law
The Heritage By-law provides authority to the Planning Advisory Committee/Heritage Advisory
Committee to make recommendations to Council under the Heritage Property Act.
4
Municipal Planning Strategy
The Municipal Planning Strategy designates this property Medium Density Residential. It does not
reference the deregistration/alteration/demolition of heritage buildings specifically however Section
12.1, Architectural Heritage, states the following:
6) REVIEW FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS
No issues identified from other Town departments.
7) OTHER REVIEWS
The Wolfville Historical Society was notified PAC is considering the deregistration and that there will be
a Public Hearing before a decision of Council. The Historical Society have been involved in this issue
since 2012 and promoted the building’s relocation.
8) SUMMARY
The Christie House (503-505 Main Street) was demolished in the fall of 2015 and the property no longer
holds the heritage value as described in the Municipal Heritage Registration. The University made efforts
to have the building relocated and carried out their right to demolish the building under Section 18(3) of
the Heritage Property Act. Although the sequence of this process and the requirement to hold a public
hearing does not necessarily seem appropriate under the circumstances, the Heritage Property Act is
clear on the requirements for deregistration. As such, Staff recommends to the Heritage Advisory
Committee that approval of deregistration be forwarded to a Public Hearing and on to Council with a
positive recommendation.
9) ATTACHMENTS
1. Acadia’s deregistration explanatory letter
2. 503-505 Main Street (Christie House) Municipal Registered Heritage Property Information
5
MEMO
TO:
Chrystal Fuller, Town of Wolfville
DATE:
February 12, 2015
FROM:
FOTENN Consultants Inc.
Lodging, Boarding and Rooming Houses in the Town of Wolfville
This memo has been prepared by FOTENN Consultants Inc. to present background information and
recommendations on possible approaches to addressing some of the identified problems around
lodging, boarding and rooming houses in the Town of Wolfville. The memo is structured as follows:
Page
1.
Background and Context
2
2.
Current Planning Documents
3
3.
Review of Ontario University/College Municipalities: Definitions
3
4.
Review of Ontario University/College Municipalities: Licensing
5
5.
Review of University/College Municipalities: Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick
5
6.
Some Notes on Precedent Case Law
6
7.
Human Rights and Rental Housing Licensing
7
8.
FOTENN’s Direction for the Current Draft Documents
8
9.
Specific Recommendations for a Future Licensing By-law
8
10.
Next Steps: Implementing a Wolfville Approach to Residential Rental
Housing
9
11.
Options for Wolfville
10
Proposed Definitions for the Revised Wolfville LUB
11
References and Resources
12
The memo concludes by presenting a set of proposed definitions for the revised Wolfville Land Use
By-law based on the research completed. This memo is not intended to be comprehensive, rather, it
presents an overview of the areas outlined above and recommendations for possible direction based
on approaches in other municipalities. A list of resources and references consulted is also included.
1
Recommendations:
A. Introduce policies regarding Residential Rental Uses (including boarding, lodging and/or
rooming houses) in the Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS).
B. Introduce definitions for Residential Rental Uses in the Land Use By-law (LUB).
C. Control the locations of Residential Rental Uses through Zoning in the Land Use By-law.
D. Introduce licensing of boarding, rooming and/or lodging houses (“Residential Rental Uses”) in
Wolfville. Reasons for introducing licensing include: minimum health and safety standards,
human rights, and protection of neighbourhood character.
E. In order to fully implement this approach and comprehensively address the current situation
in Wolfville, FOTENN recommends that the Licensing By-law come forward at the same time
or in advance of the Land Use By-law. This may have implications for the Phase II Public
Consultation Strategy and timeline. A detailed public conversation about licensing should be
added to the Phase II consultation if this approach is chosen.
F. FOTENN recommends Wolfville seek a legal opinion on the overall approach to controlling
residential rental uses that considers potential human rights aspects. As this issue may be of
interest to many Nova Scotia municipalities, it may also be helpful to consult the Nova Scotia
Human Rights Commission for guidance.
1.
Background and Context
Wolfville residents have expressed concern that residential neighbourhoods in the Town are
being eroded by the gradual conversion of large, single-detached dwellings into rental
housing, often with five or more tenants. Sometimes referred to as “Student Houses”, these
dwellings may contain more bedrooms than originally intended. Properties being used in this
manner can have greater impacts on adjacent properties in terms of noise, waste and parking.
These properties also seem to require higher levels of building maintenance, and when
converted, run the risk of having their original architectural character eroded through poor
property maintenance. From a tenants’ perspective, converted older buildings may have
structural or safety issues that make them less secure than modern constructions. However,
this form of housing can also have important social benefits for students who may have no
previous ties to Wolfville. International students are a major target market for Acadia
University, and this type of housing can offer these students a community connection that
bachelor or one-bedroom apartments cannot.
The traditional definition of a “Boarding House” included an on-site manager who provided
meals to tenants. Public consultations have indicated this is not really what is going on in
Wolfville, and that this is not a model that is desirable to students seeking independence.
Rather, these large properties are rented by the room, tenants share the kitchen, bathroom(s)
and common areas, and there is no on-site management. This model is more accurately
described as a “Rooming House”. Some jurisdictions refer to these as “Lodging Houses”.
Some aspects of these residential rental housing models may be controlled through land use
planning, but there are other aspects that are more closely aligned with other legislation.
2
Boarding, rooming and lodging houses are frequently grouped together in fire and building
codes as they share many life-safety characteristics. In the Nova Scotia Fire Safety
Regulations, these are distinguished from other residential occupancies by reason of having
more than three (3) units. Section 35 of the Fire Saftey Regulations applies to boarding,
rooming and lodging houses that:

Are less than three (3) storeys in height;

Have a building area smaller than 600m ;

Provide lodging for more than three (3) persons in return for remuneration or the
provision of services or both; and

Do not have bathroom and kitchen facilities for the exclusive use of indivisual
occupants.
2
Finally, recent Ontario case law around residential rentals has garnered a lot of public
attention, however the Ontario policy and regulatory context, for both land use and business
licensing, remains different from Nova Scotia’s. To that end, this memo includes a review of
both the Ontario regulatory context for licensing, and Ontario Municipalities’ approaches to
licensing Residential Rentals in order to provide the full context for the Ontario examples
discussed.
2. Current Planning Documents
Wolfville’s current Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) and Land Use By-law (LUB) do not
contain any policies or regulations on Boarding, Rooming, or Lodging Houses. Since these are
all dwellings, they are perceived to be permitted in all residential zones. In the absence of a
definition, these have been considered to fall under the “Single Dwelling Unit” definition.
The current LUB sets out to control multi-unit dwellings through bedroom caps. A three-unit
dwelling may contain a maximum of 8 bedrooms, while a four-unit dwelling may contain a
maximum of 10 bedrooms. New multi-unit dwellings with more than four dwelling units may
contain an average of 3 bedrooms per dwelling unit. Consultation with landlords and
developers revealed that these bedrooms caps, when taken together with the dwelling unit
definition that limits the amount of floor space dedicated to sleeping areas to 40% of the
dwelling unit, can result in difficulties for developers who wish to build smaller (i.e. onebedroom) units in Wolfville.
In 2015, the Town sought a legal opinion on the interpretation of residential land uses in the
Land Use By-law in the context of student housing in residential zones. This legal opinion
recommended that Council consider limiting the number of bedrooms in a single unit dwelling
in R-1 and R-1/A zones, as well as amend the LUB to clarify what a boarding or rooming house
is, and when and where these uses are permitted.
3. Review of Ontario University/College Municipalities: Definitions
Several Ontario municipalities with large student populations were reviewed in detail,
including Waterloo, Oshawa, Kingston and Ottawa. The initial review of Ontario
University/College municipalities examined the the suite of residential definitions that
describe dwelling units and shared accommodation. The review revealed the following
definition trends in Land Use or Zoning By-laws:
3
DWELLING UNIT
 Self-contained set of rooms
 Contains sanitary and kitchen facilities
 Designed for use as a “single housekeeping establishment” or “household”
LODGING UNIT (or LODGING ROOM)
 Designed to be used for sleeping accommodations
 May contain a kitchen OR a washroom for exclusive use of the room’s occupant, but
not both.
LODGING HOUSE
 Provided to persons for remuneration OR for the provision of services, or both
 Waterloo: Five or more lodging units
 Oshawa: Three to ten lodging units
 Does NOT include: bed and breakfast, hotel, residential unit, hospital, nursing home,
home for the young or the aged, institution etc. that is licensed, approved or
supervised under any other act.
SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING ESTABLISHMENT (or HOUSEHOLD or HOUSEKEEPING UNIT)
 Waterloo: “One or more persons living together as a single nonprofit, independent
housekeeping unit, sharing all areas of the dwelling.
UNCOMMON DEFINITIONS – GENERALLY NOT USED
ROOMING HOUSE
 Generally not used
 Ottawa uses Rooming House as “Lodging House” above.
BOARDING HOUSE
 Generally not used
 Appears to be covered by the definition of Lodging House in many municipalities,
which may or may not include meals.
LODGER
 Generally not used.
The Ontario municipalities reviewed do not specify or require on-site management in their
regulatory documents. Due to inconsistencies in definitions of rooming, boarding and lodging
houses between fire code, building code, and planning documents, some municipalities have
taken the approach of grouping these together for clarity.
Evolving Regulations
In the wake of several Ontario court rulings (Good v Waterloo, Windfields), some Ontario
municipalities are shifting away from controlling boarding, lodging and rooming houses
through zoning. The definitions above contain the elements of the “factors which comprise a
‘lodging house operation’” as set out in the Windfields decision. However, it is still difficult to
define these uses in a way that does not distinguish between occupants on the basis of
relationship. Section 32(2) of the Ontario Planning Act specifically states that municipalities
cannot pass by-laws that distinguish between persons who are related and persons who are
4
unrelated, including the occupancy or use as a single housekeeping unit. The Nova Scotia
MGA gives us no such black-and-white direction.
4. Review of Ontario University/College Municipalities: Licensing
The Ontario Municipal Act 1990 allowed municipalities to pass by-laws for licensing,
regulating and governing lodging houses. Some jurisdictions began to license lodging houses
under this legislation. The 1990 Act has since been repealed. The current Ontario Municipal
Act 2001 allows municipalities to license, regulate and govern any business wholly or partly
carried on within the municipality.
Ontario municipalities are shifting toward regulating boarding, rooming and lodging houses
as businesses from a health and safety perspective through licensing by-laws. Waterloo,
Oshawa, Kingston and Ottawa all take this approach, along with other Ontario municipalities.
Some municipalities characterise these uses as “residential rental businesses”.
Licensing By-laws generally include provisions for licensing requirements, classes of licenses,
issuance, revocation or suspension of licenses, appeals, including the creation of a Licensing
Appeal Tribunal, notice, inspections, enforcement and penalties. Some examples of how these
provisions are applied include Waterloo’s licensing by-law, which establishes six classes of
residential rental license, and Oshawa’s demerit points system which was established to
encourage compliance with their licensing by-law.
Application requirements for these “Residential Rental Businesses” generally include:











An application for a municipal license;
Floor plans of the building indicating the number and size of bedrooms;
A survey of the property;
A police records check (for the owner and proposed manager of the property, if
management is proposed);
Proof of insurance (minimum $2 million per occurrence);
A maintenance plan outlining compliance with the property standards by-law;
A parking plan, outlining compliance with the Land Use By-law;
Evidence that the rental property complies with the Fire Code and/or relevant
legislation;
Evidence that the rental property complies with any Electrical Safety Acts;
Evidence that the rental property complies with the Building Code; and
A licensing fee.
5. Review of University/College Municipalities: Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
Halifax, Antigonish, and Sackville NB were reviewed for their approach to controlling rental
housing. Attempts to control boarding, rooming and lodging houses in these municipalities
are less consistent than in Ontario. Halifax uses a definition of “Rooming House”, but also still
uses “Family” as a basis for distinguishing single dwelling units. “Family” is undefined in the
Halifax Land Use By-law. Halifax recently commissioned a report titled “Rooming Houses in
5
Halifax”, which details the inconsistency across the Halifax Regional Municipality. This report
focuses mainly on rooming houses as an affordable housing option, and does not deal directly
with student rental housing.
Similar inconsistencies are seen in the current Antigonish and Sackville, NB planning
documents, neither of which define “Lodging House” or “Boarding House”. Antigonish
appears to have investigated a rental housing licensing approach in 2011, but they do not
appear to have a licensing by-law in place at the moment. It is FOTENN’s understanding that
Antigonish is currently examining their approach with an eye to future revisions. Sackville, NB
also does not appear to currently have a licensing by-law in place.
The Nova Scotia Municipal Government Act 1998 (MGA), Section 174 (a) states “a council may
make by-laws respecting “the regulation and licensing of persons owning or operating
rooming houses or boarding houses and regulating the maintenance, administration,
operation and occupancy of buildings used as rooming houses or boarding houses and the
land on which they are located”. This is in addition to the general and broad powers to make
by-laws set out in Section 172 of the MGA. These general and broad powers include: health
and safety, nuisances, businesses, safety and protection of property, property maintenance
standards, by-law enforcement, regulation by dividing things into classes, setting fees and
license time limits.
6. Some notes on precedent Case Law
Precedent cases reviewed in the preparation of this brief are all from Ontario, and the case
law has not been tested in Nova Scotia. While the Supreme Court of Canada’s rulings do
apply, FOTENN would not recommend the Town rely exclusively on precedent cases as a
basis for drafting their definitions or by-laws. It is FOTENN’s understanding that while courts
in one province may refer to decisions from courts in other provinces, they are not bound by
them. It is also FOTENN’s understanding that precedent cases have distinguishing features
that may be unique to their jurisdictions, and as such may not apply wholesale in another
jurisdiction where the provincial and municipal statutes are different. A full list of precedent
cases reviewed appears in the Resources section at the end of this memo.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has produced several reports on human
rights and rental housing, and several papers dealing with precedent cases and other
jurisdictions facing similar issues (links to these are provided in the Resources section).
OHRC’s perspective is that “although many believed that the Supreme Court of Canada's
declining leave to appeal in Death v. Neighbourhoods of Windfields Limited Partnership put
to rest any human rights concerns regarding the definition of lodging houses, this is not the
OHRC's interpretation. None of the lower court cases examined any of the human rights
issues. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal [...]
leaving these issues open, and questions remain about the intersection between human rights
and the occupancy and zoning of lodging houses.”
6
7. Human Rights and Rental Housing Licensing
There are several points where Land Use By-laws and human rights collide. Land Use By-laws
may control for compatibility of uses and adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects our human right to safe and sanitary
places to live, but also protects us from discrimination. Non-discrimination applies to all
“code-protected” groups: you cannot discriminate on the grounds of disability, sexual
orientation, age, religion, race, among others.
Housing is a fundamental human right, and while licensing can be a valuable tool for
promoting the safety and security of tenants, it must be undertaken with great care to ensure
it is not discriminatory. Some strategies may have the potential to be unintentionally
discriminatory.
Can we apply the by-law only to near-university neighbourhoods? If a by-law is meant to
serve legitimate planning or safety purposes, it should be needed by and applied to every
part of the Town. A by-law that is applied first, or only, to a certain area is more likely to be
seen as targeting the people within that particular area.
Can we set a bedroom cap? Arbitrary bedroom caps can reduce the availability of housing
over time – they can exclude large families with children, or extended families. Caps based on
medians or demographic averages may unintentionally penalize families or households that
are not “average”. Bedroom caps may be appropriate in some cases (for example, to control
parking) but there would need to be a variance procedure for houses that were originally
constructed with more bedrooms than the cap allows.
Can we set floor area requirements? The Building Code sets out requirements for floor areas
of different rooms in housing. By-laws that have floor area requirements that are more
stringent than the building code may appear to be arbitrary. For example, limiting the
percentage of a home that may be devoted to bedrooms in housing intended for rental
purposes could be seen as discriminatory.
What about setting a per-person floor area? The Building Code also sets out minimum floor
areas for bedrooms. People should be able to share a bedroom if they choose, without the
landlord or municipality regulating this. “Per occupant” references can limit housing options
for people who commonly share rooms, such as couples or families with children. Unless there
is a necessary reason why rented units should be required to meet requirements that exceed
the Building Code (when owned homes do not face the same requirement), requirements of
this nature may be seen as discriminatory.
What about minimum separation distances between Lodging, Boarding or Rooming
Houses? Minimum separation distances (MSD) were originally used to separate land uses
such as industry and housing. Over time, these have evolved, and some municipalities apply
MSDs to Lodging Houses. This means that if one Lodging House is established in one
neighbourhood, others cannot be established within a certain distance or radius. However, an
7
owned house that may have the same number of bedrooms would not be subject to the MSD.
This means that the MSD is not about regulating building form, but is regulating the
occupants of the building. While MSDs may appear to facilitate the development of inclusive,
mixed neighbourhoods, they can limit the sites available for alternative housing forms, and
restrict the number of sites that are near services. Much of the case law dealing with MSDs
relates to group homes for persons with disabilities, but an MSD approach to rental housing
may adversely affect renters by restricting their options which could be seen as
discrimination against renters or young people. Where MSDs are used, there must be a sound
planning rationale for doing so.
The OHRC handbook “Room for Everyone: Human Rights and Rental Housing” contains detailed
guidance and best practices from Ontario municipalities on these and other issues.
8. FOTENN’s direction for the current draft documents
Currently, for the submission of draft documents at the end of February 2016, FOTENN
assumes that a licensing by-law will be brought forward at the same time as the LUB. The
draft documents presented at the end of February will include the following changes which
reflect Recommendations A through C presented at the beginning of this memo.




Add policies to the MPS supporting the introduction of a boarding, rooming and
lodging house by-law that will introduce licensing requirements for all residential rental
uses across Wolfville.
Add or amend LUB definitions to clarify the differences between Dwelling Units,
Lodging Units, and Lodging (or boarding, or rooming) houses. Given the research
outlined in this memo, FOTENN would recommend including definitions for Dwelling
Unit, Detached Dwelling, Household, Lodging Unit and Lodging House in the LUB.
Proposed definitions are included at the end of this memo.
Introduce parking and waste storage requirements for these uses in the LUB.
Restrict the locations of lodging, rooming and boarding houses through zoning.
9. Specific Recommendations for a Future Licensing By-law
Implementing an approach similar to the one in place in some Ontario municipalities will
require a lot of work both in drafting the Licensing Rental By-law and in the ongoing
administration. A comprehensive, Wolfville-wide approach has the advantage of treating all
residential rentals equally, and protecting tenants, landlords, and property owners.



Licensing should apply across Wolfville. If licensing only applies in certain areas, it may
be construed as discriminatory and targeting certain populations.
Licensing should apply to all rooming, boarding or lodging houses – all Residential
Rental Businesses, as they are called in some Ontario municipalities. These licences are
business licences, and as such do not distinguish between owner-occupied and non
owner-occupied properties.
The LUB definitions should be worded in such a way as to ensure that any number of
“Lodging Units” above the number permitted as a right constitute a “Lodging House”,
which therefore requires a license.
8


Licenses should be on a scale, with higher fees and requirements for larger
establishments. Some municipalities use 4 or 5 bedrooms as this threshold (Refer to
Waterloo’s approach: up to four units requires one class of license, five + requires a
different class of license).
The Licensing By-law should reference other life-safety legislation, including the
building and fire codes, other municipal by-laws controlling noise, nuisance, and
property standards, and others, as applicable.
10. Next Steps: Implementing a Wolfville Approach to Residential Rental Housing






Create a licensing by-law and associated transition and enforcement procedures.
Establish the Wolfville approach to:
- Maximum number of Lodging Rooms permitted as a right in a Dwelling Unit;
- Submission requirements for licences;
- Draft application forms;
- Draft maintenance agreements (if required);
- Classes of licences (if required);
- Bedroom caps or thresholds (for license classes, if required);
- Exceptions to licensing (purpose-built apartments? Co-operative housing?
Affordable housing?)
- Licensing fees; and
- Infractions and violations.
Ensure that revisions to draft documents (MPS, LUB, SBL) align with the future
licensing by-law.
Dedicate resources to transitional provisions during the introduction of the licensing
requirements.
Dedicate resources to ongoing enforcement of the Licensing By-law.
Public consultation and education around the introduction of this new approach,
including encouraging existing Lodging (or rooming, or boarding) houses to come
forward to be licensed.
Neither the Land Use By-law nor a Licensing By-law alone can control all of the aspects of
residential rental housing that the Town wishes to address. Some issues, such as setbacks,
building size and parking will continue to be controlled through the Land Use By-law. A
comprehensive approach will ensure that the LUB and the future Licensing By-law work
together to support the Town’s goals, and provide certainty and clarity for all residents of
Wolfville.
9
11. Options for Wolfville
Option 1:
Address recommendations A through C in the current Municpal Planning Review, and enable
a future licensing program through policy.
Option 1 has the following advantages:
 Addresses the current lack of policy;
 Addresses the current lack of definitions;
 May help control applications for new developments of this nature.
However, Option 1 may also:
 Continue to leave the Town open to legal challenges; and
 Not address existing Residential Rental properties.
Option 2:
Pursue a comprehensive update including recommendations A through F that brings a
Residential Rental Licensing by-law forward at the same time as the Land Use By-law.
Option 2 has the following advantages:
 Addresses the current lack of policy;
 Addresses the current lack of definitions;
 Provides an approach to controlling all Residential Rentals in Wolfville,
including existing properties.
However, Option 2 may also:
 Require more time and Staff resources; and
 Have additional implications for the Phase II Consultation strategy and
timeline.
FOTENN recommends that Wolfville pursue Option 2.
10
Proposed definitions for the Revised Wolfville LUB
Based on the research presented in this memo, FOTENN recommends that the following definitions
appear in the Revised Wolfville LUB. Note that these represent a change from the definitions
th
th
proposed during the workshops and consultations which took place on January 27 -28 2016 and
that they will likely be subject to further changes during the Phase II Consultation, and subject to the
direction the Town chooses with respect to licensing.
DWELLING means a building, or a portion thereof, used or intended to be used for residential
occupancy. A Dwelling shall exclude Accommodations.
DWELLING UNIT means a self-contained set of rooms designed or intended to be occupied by and
for the use of an individual or household as a residence. A Dwelling Unit contains sanitary and
kitchen facilities for the exclusive use of the residents of the Dwelling Unit. A Dwelling Unit may
include up to X Lodging Units.
FOTENN recommends that the Town determine how many Lodging Units, if any, are
permitted as a right within a single Dwelling Unit. The Town may choose to require all
Lodging Units to acquire a license, in which case no Lodging Units should be permitted as a
right in any Dwelling Unit.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT means a self-contained dwelling unit with a maximum of 2 bedrooms
that is secondary and subservient to a Detached Dwelling. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall occupy a
maximum of 25% of the overall floor area of the main Dwelling Unit. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall
not be considered a second dwelling unit on the lot for the purposes of this By-law. An Accessory
Dwelling Unit shall not contain a Lodging Unit. Accessory Dwelling Units shall be restricted to
Detached Dwellings.
FOTENN recommends that the Town consider how Accessory Dwelling Units may fit into a
future residential rental licensing strategy, and whether they shall be subject to licensing.
DETACHED DWELLING means a building used or intended to be used as a single Dwelling Unit.
HOUSEHOULD means one or more persons living together as a single nonprofit, independent
housekeeping unit, sharing all areas of the Dwelling.
LODGING
which is
a)
b)
c)
UNIT means a room that is used or designed to be used for sleeping accommodations,
used exclusively by the resident or residents of the room;
not normally accessible to persons other than the resident or residents of the room; and
shall not include a kitchen and a bathroom for the exclusive use of the resident or
residents of the room.
LODGING HOUSE means a dwelling with X or more Lodging Units which are provided to persons in
return for remuneration, or for the provision of service, or for both. Lodging Houses exclude
Accommodations, Bed and Breakfasts, Nursing Homes, and Residential Care Facilities.
FOTENN recommends the Town determine the correct threshold for Lodging Units in
Wolfville. Some municipalities use 5 or more, some use 3 to 10. Some municipalities divide
Lodging Houses into classes based on the number of Lodging Units and the presence (or
lack) of on-site management.
11
Web Resources
Room for Everyone: Human Rights and Rental Housing – Ontario Human Rights Commission
Waterloo – Residential Rental Housing Info Page
Waterloo – Residential Rental Licence By-law
Waterloo – Rental Housing Licence Application
OHRC calls for Waterloo to remove discriminatory sections of rental housing licensing bylaw – Ontario
Human Rights Commission
Oshawa – Residential Rental Housing Info Page
Oshawa – Business Licensing By-law
Oshawa – Residential Rental License Application
Comment of the Ontario Human Rights Commission on the City of Oshawa's student accommodation
strategy (Reference to Windfields Decision) – Ontario Human Rights Commission
Proposed lodging house licensing bylaw and the associated proposed zoning bylaw amendment (Town of
Ajax) – Ontario Human Rights Commission
Precedent Cases
Neighbourhoods of Windfields Limited Partnership v. Death, 2007 CanLII 31756 (ON SC)
The Neighbourhoods of Windfields Limited Partnership v. Ronald Death, et al., 2010 ONSC 1800
(CanLII)
City of Ottawa v. Bentolila, 2006 ONCJ 541 (CanLII)
Good v. Waterloo (City), 2003 CanLII 14229 (ON SC)
Good v. Waterloo (City), 2004 CanLII 23037 (ON CA)
Bell v. R., [1979] 2 SCR 212, 1979 CanLII 36 (SCC)
Smith et al. v. Township of Tiny, 1980 CanLII 1949 (ON CA)
12
Other References

“City of Waterloo Rental Housing By-law and Program” Staff Report to Council, May 9, 2011.

City of Waterloo By-law 2011-047: Being a By-law to provide for the Licensing, Regulating
and Governing of the Business of Residential Rental Units in the City of Waterloo.

Personal communication with City of Waterloo Planning and Enforcement Staff, February
2016.

“Mississauga Proposed Zoning By-law Amendments – Definitions of Lodging House and
Lodging Unit” Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee, December 1, 2008.

“Oshawa Lodging House By-law” Consolidation of By-law 94-2002, amended by By-law 1172008.

“Oshawa Business Licensing By-law” Consolidation of By-law 120-2005. Amended September
2015.

City of Kingston By-law 2006-213: A By-law to License, Regulate and Govern Certain
Businesses. September 19, 2006, Consolidated July 19, 2011.

“Residential Intensification in Kingston’s Near-University Neighbourhoods” School of Urban
and Regional Planning, Queen’s University, Kingston, 2009

“Halifax Regional Municipality By-law M-100: Respecting Standards for Residential
Occupancies”, January 2003.

Christina K. Wheeler “Rooming Houses in Halifax: Policy and Legislative Context” Dalhousie
University, December 3, 2014.

“Right At Home: Report on the consultation on Human Rights and rental housing in Ontario”
Ontario Human Rights Commission, May 28, 2008.

Memo from Mr. R. Harrison, “Wolfville Municipal Planning Strategy Review: MPS and land use
bylaws that work for everyone”. January 11, 2016.

Rooming House Management in Antigonish, personal communication c/o Chrystal Fuller,
2015.
13
Proposed Meeting Dates
Committee of the Whole
*March 30th
April 5th
April 27th
May 3rd
May 25th
June 7th
June 29th
July 5th
July 20th
September 6th
**September 28th
October 4th
* Next Planning Advisory Committee meeting date.
** No Committee meetings scheduled for August.
Town of Wolfville
200 Dykeland Street | Wolfville | NS | B4P 1A2 | t 902-542-3718 | f 902-542-5066
Wolfville.ca
On Feb 3, 2016, at 9:50 AM, Doug Lutz <[email protected]> wrote:
Please forward this on to the consultants and other members of Council and PAC.
I was, regrettably, unable to attend last week’s session on the MPS Review.
I have been provided with the working handout from the meeting and see a couple of issues that require
comment.
1.
I was pleased to see some active consideration of the inclusion of a “rooming house” definition
in the MPS/LUB, but want to emphasize that permitting rooming houses in the “core” must be
accompanied by a prohibition in any other zones and most particularly in the R-1 and R1A zones
to avoid the unpleasant consequence we have seen to date. It should be made clear that a rooming
house is a “high density” use and thereby not permitted outside the core.
2.
The suggestion that “cluster housing” could be permitted in “all zones” as stated in the
worksheet is nothing more than a veiled attempt to permit wholesale changes to the nature of the
R-1 zone in any area where land might be available for development. I understand there was
some discussion at the meeting of the absence of issues or comment brought forward to the MPS
process by R-1 owners; the reason for this is that there has been no suggestion throughout this
process that the consultants or Council was contemplating any change to the R-1 zone. I and
others have been assured on numerous occasions that there were no R-1 changes under
consideration. This is the very sort of thing I warned about in my initial post to PlaceSpeak – if
you do not tell owners what is being proposed you can expect them to remain quiet, but if you
raise this type of thing late in the process and then complain that owners are not interested or do
not care, it is entirely disingenuous.
To permit “cluster homes” in an R-1 zone is to change the fundamental nature of the R-1 zone.
Sharing of driveways and open spaces on the same lot is entirely inconsistent with the nature of
existing land uses in the R-1 zone. If you seek increased density in R-1 areas the only acceptable
way to do it, in my view, is to decrease the required frontage, thereby reducing the lot size, but in
all other respects maintaining the requirements of the R-1 zone. It is fundamentally unsound to
permit high-density occupancy in low-density zones.
If there is any serious intention to proceed with this idea you can expect an outcry from the R-1
owners, as before.
Douglas Lutz, Lawyer
150 Orchard Avenue
Wolfville, NS B4P 2J3
t. 902-542-4204
f. 902-542-4204
e. [email protected]
This email message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and may be privileged. Any unauthorized distribution or
disclosure is prohibited. Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you
have received this email in error, please notify us and delete it and any attachments from your computer system and records. Any
references to matters which are or may be subject to litigation/arbitration are without prejudice.
Wolfville Municipal Planning Strategy Review
MPS and land use bylaws that work for everyone
Certainty and clarity:
The review of the Wolfville Municipal Planning Strategy and the unambiguous judicial affirmation of
zoning bylaws limiting the location of rooming houses provide the Town with the irresistible opportunity
to resolve a long-standing problem.
Clarity and certainty are vital elements in attracting people and investment to communities. This applies
to investments contemplated by major corporations and individual families; to property developers and
first-time homeowners.
The same elements make for good laws - national, provincial, and local. Clarity and certainty – within the
bounds of reasonable expectation of change - also bring stability to a community, and offer those who
choose to live or invest here the comfort of informed decision-making. Few decisions, and no other
investments made by most families, are more important to them then where they choose to live. The
same clarity provides those charged with administration of the bylaw heightened certainty in its
enforcement.
Unfortunately, the current MPS and bylaws in Wolfville offer neither clarity nor certainty for residents
and neighbourhoods that are zoned for low density housing. Instead, Wolfville’s MPS currently creates
an illusion that some areas are, in effect, intended solely for single family dwellings.
The current review is the time for Wolfville, after eight years of experience with the MPS, to amend the
strategy and enact a supporting bylaw to bring both clarity and certainty to an area of land and property
use where they have been missing.
This opportunity has been solidified in Canadian law with the so-called Windfields decision of the
Ontario Supreme Court, upheld by that province’s Court of Appeal and by the refusal of the Supreme
Court of Canada to hear a further appeal. Municipalities themselves now have the clarity they need to
protect the rights of home owners, property values, and balance the needs of community residents.
Clearly, the town of Wolfville, which has suffered citizen angst, property value uncertainty, and
neighbour disruption and discord as single family homes in low density zones became rooming houses,
will greatly benefit by seizing this opportunity.
The Windfields decision:
Canadian planning legislation rightly prohibits zoning laws based on relationships – the “state,” or in our
case the town, does not try to define “a family.” As a result, municipalities and others have wrestled
with how to appropriately define property or land “use” without targeting “users.” That question has
been answered and the problem resolved by the Ontario courts’ rulings on Windfields.
2
The Ontario Supreme Court said, in part that while municipalities may not "people zone," it is lawful to
zone so that the use of premises is in accord with that which would typically occur in "single family
dwellings" provided the definition of “family” is broad enough to include some unrelated persons.
The decision of the Ontario Superior Court, upheld in the Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court of
Canada, through its refusal to grant leave, confirms that zoning based on how occupants relate to each
other in their use of a building is a proper use of the zoning power.
The result is clarity, in terms of how municipalities can determine what constitutes a “single
housekeeping establishment,” or, in Nova Scotian vernacular a “single family” or “single unit dwelling.”
In essence, the court found that a “single housekeeping establishment” in the context of a zoning bylaw
generally means a typical single-family arrangement or similar basic social unit, and is fundamentally
inconsistent with commercial properties being rented to groups of individuals bound together only by
their common need for economical short-term accommodation.1 (I.e., rooming houses.)
Wolfville now has the legal tool to define and govern rooming, boarding and lodging houses for the
protection, not only of neighbourhoods and home owners, but also renters or lodgers. Canadian law
now offers the municipality the flexibility it needs to protect the town’s character and ensure
development benefits all residents.
(Attached as Appendix A is the Lodging House By-Law of the City of Oshawa – found at:
http://www.oshawa.ca/Uploads/16/LodgingHouseBy-law94-2002.pdf - is an example of an effective
response within the current, tested and upheld legal framework.)
The remainder of this submission will offer, in greater detail, the case for clarity in the MPS and a by-law
related to rooming houses in the Wolfville context.
MSP and bylaw to define, limit rooming houses:
It is no secret that Wolfville, like other college towns, has suffered from the creep of commercial rental
properties, primarily in the form of rooming houses, into R-1 and R-1A zones. The MPS and bylaws in
their current form do not define rooming houses and as a result the definition of single unit dwelling can
be – and is - interpreted to include rooming houses. The bylaws also permit the transformation of a
traditional family residential property into a commercial rooming house.
There is no need to re-litigate past issues here, other than to note that this situation has created
disharmony and frustration for more than 20 years in an otherwise well-governed, desirable and diverse
community.
1
John A.R. Dawson, Paul Fruitman, Jonathan C. Lisus, McCarthy Tetrault, The Neighbourhoods of Windfields and
City of Oshawa v. Death et al., March 2010.
3
The Windfields decision provides the legal basis for rational community property use and zoning policy
across Canada, as it relates to rooming houses. Bylaws in communities like Oshawa and Barrie, upheld
by superior courts, should be viewed as among the best practices in the country and therefore worthy of
consideration in Wolfville.
Regardless of the final nature of changes to the MPS and/or bylaws, the objective must be to prohibit
rooming houses and other high density uses in low density R-1 and R-1A zones in the Town of Wolfville.
In recent years, buyers, sellers and other taxpayers have been unaware that the 2008 R-1, R-1A and
RCDD bylaws do not protect residential property owners from commercial “rooming houses” cropping
up right next door. It is natural to assume that single unit dwellings do not include rooming houses. The
municipal planning strategy and bylaws should reflect and reinforce this natural and logical assumption.
Conversely, the town has a responsibility to explicitly state that rooming houses are permitted in these
zones - a decision that would damage Wolfville irreparably.
The proliferation of rooming houses has resulted in artificially high property values in some
neighbourhoods, with the unwelcome result of driving young families out of the Wolfville housing
market. The prospect of commercial profit causes inflation in the very market in which many families
with school-aged children would choose to live. The impact is reflected in grade primary enrolment at
the town’s newly-renovated school, where just 12 primary students are registered. This lowest everrecorded enrolment comes despite $15 million in school renovations. The connection between the
current Town planning environment and school enrolment can be traced back to inflation in the housing
market, which sent young families looking elsewhere.
Over the longer term, home owners will experience the flip side of the same coin. Rooming housing in
low density residential neighbourhoods will depress housing prices. Wolfville’s $350 million in assessed
residential property value - the financial foundation of the town– is at risk unless it is protected from
further encroachment.
No one wants to discriminate against or in any way make university students feel unwelcome in
Wolfville. They are the lifeblood of our town. But, in many if not most cases, a student lifestyle,
particularly a group of students sharing a dwelling, is not conducive to quiet family life next door.
Indeed, and again in most cases, the students don’t want to be there and suffer the hassle of noise and
other complaints any more than the neighbours want to lodge the complaints. The changes proposed
here will improve relations between students and full-time residents. Rather than spending money to
deal with the symptoms of the problem by policing student behavior in residential zones, the Town can
ameliorate or even eliminate the problem.
Therefore, the Town should draft MPS amendments and a new bylaw for discussion with the citizens
of Wolfville during the current MPS review. The draft should define “rooming/boarding/lodging”
houses and establish the high-density zones in which they are permitted.
4
Reinterpreting existing bylaws in a new context, even a context based in the Ontario superior court
decisions, is not enough. It will not create the clarity and certainty the residents and investors in our
town require and deserve.
Instead of trying to revise the 2008 land use bylaw’s language, the Town should have a “new
conversation” about bringing the 2016 LUB into conformity with current law in a way that is consistent
with the character of Wolfville and her citizens.
Broad benefits:
A well-considered, equitable MPS and bylaw concerning rooming houses, consistent with current
Canadian municipal law, will benefit and protect residents of these accommodations, as well. The bylaw
should enable regular inspections of rooming houses to ensure they are safe, up to code, and meet
acceptable standards for room size and other amenities, such as parking.
The Nova Scotia Fire Safety Act requires inspection of “rooming houses” to ensure they meet
regulations. Such inspections are not conducted in Wolfville, where rooming houses are not designated
as rooming houses. As a result, some of the 2,000 Acadia students who live off campus are exposed to a
largely unregulated rental sector valued at more than $10 million annually. The proposed changes would
protect those students and other tenants, as well as reduce the Town’s liability.
The proposed changes will restore confidence in the Wolfville housing market, build renewed trust and
confidence among residents in the Town’s governance, help attract developers and investment to
Wolville and preserve historic buildings and the heritage of Wolfville.
The rooming house issue came to wider public attention when the former home of Alex and Rhoda
Colville was transformed into a rooming house. This highlighted that all properties, including culturally
important and heritage properties, are at risk. Having the wherewithal to protect historic icons like 586
Main Street signals that the Town values and wants to preserve its architectural and cultural heritage.
Conclusion:
Wolfville is a progressive town. The laws that govern development and protect the rights of citizens
should be current. The current state of Canadian law enables local planning and land use policy that
appropriately regulates rooming houses. Wolfville needs such a law.
The alternative is unacceptable. On street after street, in neighbourhood after neighbourhood the
transformation will continue as new rooming houses arrive. No area will be immune. The negative
consequences highlighted above will become the character of Wolfville.
5
But there is no reason for that to be our future. A responsible alternative is available. An amendment to
the MPS supported by a bylaw that defines rooming houses, where they can be located, and regulates
their quality will put the Town back in charge of development in residential zones.
Town and Gown relations will improve and young families will again choose to live in Wolfville, with
certainty that their neighbourhood is a good place to raise kids.
The old arguments can be put to rest and Wolfville can again focus on being the best place to live in
Nova Scotia.

Planning Advisory Committee

Transcription

Similar documents

www.wolfvillemagicwinerybus.ca

2016 Lodging 2 Up Flyer

A cross-cultural comparison of private residential

here - Ruttgers Bay Lake Lodge

blomidon – gaspereau

this Powerpoint set - 21 Stories of Transition

POOTATUCK LAND COMPANY SHEET 6

Open living room