Planning Advisory Committee
Monday, June 27th, 2016
6:30 PM
Council Chambers, Town Hall
359 Main Street, Wolfville, NS
Agenda
1. Approval of the Agenda
2. Approval of the Minutes of May 25th, 2016
3. MPS Amendment Application: 5 Blomidon Terrace
4. MPS Phase II:
a) Issue Identification Papers
b) Verbal Update: Consultation Plan
c) Information Report: Housing Symposium
5. Presentation: PAC – Toolkit for Success
6. Future Meeting Dates
7. Question Period
8. Adjournment
Note: Upcoming Public Meeting regarding 336 Main Street, three separate sessions,
beginning at 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00 pm – Room 308 of Acadia’s Patterson Hall at 24 University
Avenue on Tuesday, June 28th.
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
Wednesday, May 25th, 2016
ATTENDING
Chairperson Deputy Mayor Wendy Donovan, Mayor Jeff Cantwell, Councillor Mercedes Brian, Robert
Barach, Steve Mattson, Scott Roberts, Councillor David Mangle, Dr. Edgar Philips, Paul Cabilio, Director
of Community Development Chrystal Fuller, Policy Analyst Colin Simic and Recording Secretary James
Collicutt
ALSO ATTENDING
1 Member of the Public
ABSENT WITH REGRETS
CAO Erin Beaudin
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:31 PM.
1. AGENDA APPROVAL
Staff update of Plan Amendment for 336 Main Street added as item 6. C.).
MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED.
CARRIED
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes amended to include Paul Cabilio as “ATTENDING”.
MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 27th, 2016 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
CARRIED
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE: COLIN SIMIC, POLICY ANALYST
Director Fuller introduced Colin Simic, Policy Analyst, to the Committee and elaborated on his
role as part of the MPS review process.
4. INFORMATION REPORT: KINGS COUNTY DRAFT MPS
Staff spoke with the Dept. of Municipal Affairs regarding the Statements of Provincial Interest
and were informed they would not normally take a regional perspective on issues such as
extension of services or planning along boundaries; however; they are open to having a
conversation around this.
Senior management is taking the initiative by inviting all involved parties (Kentville, Berwick,
Kings County, ect.) to meet and discuss the important issues such as well field planning, to which
Kentville and Berwick have accepted. Staff will report back to Committee on the meeting
proceedings.
Page 1 of 4
Town of Wolfville
Minutes, Planning Advisory Committee
Wednesday, May 25th, 2016
Kings County has not yet provided a draft LUB, making it difficult to see how the MPS policies
will be applied in practice. Committee members will review the Kings Draft MPS and send their
comments to Staff.
The Committee noted that a parallel conversation between Wolfville’s Council and the Kings
County Councillors could be beneficial. Staff suggested that these conversations follow-up on
specific concerns noted in the letters previously sent by the Town to the County that have not
been met with a response.
ACTION: Staff to meet with other municipal units to discuss the impacts of the Kings Draft MPS
and return the proceedings to the Committee.
5. PROJECT CHARTER: RESIDENTIAL RENTAL BUSINESS BYLAW
Director Fuller began by introducing the RRBB project charter to the Committee, and referenced
the recommendation that resulted from of Phase 1 of the MPS review to create a RRBB, which
would be linked to the MPS but exist as a separate stand-alone bylaw with the goal of regulating
multi-tenant rental situations. Staff asked the Committee for comments on the project charter,
which is scheduled to be received by COTW on June 7th.
RRBB Guiding Principles and Objectives
•
•
Intended to provide affordable housing (often marketed for students or young
professionals) based on real empirical data and evidence; identify and name issues to
develop solutions.
Create a bylaw that regulates this type of housing and adopt the bylaw at the same time or
before draft MPS. Educating the public on options and impacts is essential.
Deliverables include the draft bylaw, communication material and procedures that guide the
application of bylaw. The timeline for the research and development phase of the RRBB will
span the next 3-6 months and be a major component of housing symposium. The R&D phase
will also include discussions with Council, PAC and Town and Gown as well as consultations with
landlords, seniors, Acadia and core area residences that will ultimately guide the development
of the bylaw. The approximate completion date will be in Q1 of 2017/18.
The Committee’s comments are summarized as follows:
•
•
Ensuring proper wording of the definitions used in the bylaw will be essential in
effectively mitigating the conflicts between different ‘lifestyle groups’ amidst a growing
segment of society that want to live together – young professionals, artists and perhaps
even seniors.
Most conflicts arise where different ‘lifestyle groups’ live side-by-side and by introducing
a licensing system the Town will be able to address some of the problems stemming
from those conflicts.
Page 2 of 4
Town of Wolfville
Minutes, Planning Advisory Committee
Wednesday, May 25th, 2016
•
•
•
Initiating a discussion with Acadia will be key to starting the conversation in the right
place – have an honest conversation that will convey the message that Wolfville is a safe
and welcoming place for everyone.
Should be based on realistic standards for what is acceptable in Wolfville that can be
used by landlords as a tool to encourage cooperation with tenants.
The bylaw’s movement toward approval by Council should coincide with the
development and effective explanation of how the bylaw will work – regulation without
enforcement is counter-productive.
Staff informed the Committee that they have yet to determine which rental units will be
affected by the bylaw but that the primary focus will be the multi-tenant residential units that
operate as a business. Staff are currently looking at units with 3-5 bedrooms as a starting point
for enforcement but the final decision will ultimately be left to Council.
ACTION: Staff to discuss RRBB with James Sanford of Acadia.
6. MPS REVIEW
a.) VERBAL UPDATE: PHASE II
Director Fuller informed the Committee that Council has approved Phase II of the consultation
plan and that the Open House event will be taking place on June 23rd.
b.) DISCUSSION ITEM: COMMUITY ENGAGEMENT SESSION TOPICS
As part of the consultation strategy for Phase II of the MPS review the Mayor and Deputy Mayor
will lead informal public consultations on a semi-regular basis for which the Deputy Mayor
supplied a list of possible topics. When, where and how these discussions will take place has yet
to be determined. Committee members are to complete their reviews of the draft documents
and offer their own suggestions on topics to the Mayor or Deputy Mayor.
ACTION: Committee members to suggest session topics prior to the next meeting; identify
issues, times and places for the consultations. Staff to assist in advertising and logistics as
directed by the Committee.
c.) DISCUSSION ITEM: PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 336 MAIN ST
Council initiated a process for a MPS or DA amendment for 336 Main Street required changes to
the building to address building and fire code requirements. Once repairs are completed it will
be fully compliant with fire and building codes but new policies or DA amendments will be
required. A public meeting will be held in late June and any further questions can be referred to
Director Fuller.
7. QUESTION PERIOD
No further questions or comments.
8. ADJOURNMENT OF PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Page 3 of 4
Town of Wolfville
Minutes, Planning Advisory Committee
Wednesday, May 25th, 2016
MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING BE ADJOURNED AT 2:45 PM.
CARRIED
Approved at the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting Day of Week, Month DD, YYYY (date of
meeting)
As recorded by James Collicutt, AA Community Development
Page 4 of 4
REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
5 Blomidon Terrace – Non-compliant Apartments
Date: June 29, 2016
Department: Community Development
APPLICANT
David Messom
PROPOSAL
To amend the Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law to enable
the existing non-compliant development at 5 Blomidon Terrace
LOCATION
5 Blomidon Terrace (PID 55351001)
LOT SIZE
DESIGNATION
ZONE
17,303 sq ft (.4 acres, 1607.5 sq. metres)
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential (R1-A)
SURROUNDING USES
Medium and High Density Residential, Low density residential, B&B, parks
and open space
NEIGHBOUR
NOTIFICATION
None to-date - notification would take place if Staff is directed to proceed.
1) PROPOSAL
To make amendments to the Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) and Land Use By-law (LUB) to enable
the non-compliant 7-unit apartment building at 5 Blomidon Terrace.
2) STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Advisory Committee hold a public participation meeting to
seek feedback from the public on specific amendments to allow for the 3 non-compliant units to be
permitted through a site specific zoning and policy changes.
3) PROCESS
If the PAC makes a recommendation that Town Council amend the MPS/LUB to permit the building
located at 5 Blomidon Terrace, the next step would be to hold a public meeting.
4) BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
1
REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
5 Blomidon Terrace – Non-compliant Apartments
Date: June 29, 2016
Department: Community Development
The property at 5 Blomidon Terrace received the appropriate development and building permits in 1995
to construct a 4-unit apartment building in accordance with the 1998 MPS/LUB Residential Medium
Zone. Subsequently, three additional units were added within the building without permits between
1995 and 2006. The property has been well maintained over the years and is considered as a high
quality rental property by tenants and neighbours.
Figure 1 - Location Map of 5 Blomidon
On October 21, 2014 this issue was brought to Council through RFD 061-2014 at which time Council
passed the following motion:
The subject property is currently designated Low Density Residential and zoned Low Density Residential
R1-A. This zone allows “exiting multi-unit dwellings” but this property does not qualify as “existing”
because it did not receive the necessary permits when the additional units were constructed prior to the
date of the current MPS/LUB (2008). The building also cannot be considered “non-conforming” for the
same reason.
During the time of the construction of the three illegal units, the subject property and adjacent
properties were zoned Medium Density, which permitted multi-unit buildings to a maximum of four
units and encompassed existing multi-unit buildings that contained up to eight units. Under the current
MPS/LUB the area is zoned Low Density Residential R1-A. The property is located in an area that
consists of low, medium and high density buildings as well as bed and breakfast establishments.
2
REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
5 Blomidon Terrace – Non-compliant Apartments
Date: June 29, 2016
Department: Community Development
On the east side of Blomidon
Terrace, where the subject
property is located, there are
long standing medium density
(apartment) buildings. These
include the building at 3
Blomidon Terrace, which has 11
units, the building at 21 King
Street which has 6 units, as well
as a bed and breakfast
immediately north at 7 Blomidon
Terrace. The majority of the
properties on the east side of
Figure 2 - Air Photo of property
Blomidon Terrace back onto an
irregular shaped very large
parcel (11 King St) where the entire rear of the property has been left in a natural state and has acted as
a buffer between these higher density uses and the low density neighbourhood beyond. The west side
of Blomidon Terrace contains high density zoned parcels which contain mutli-unit development,
including two 20-unit buildings.
Blomidon Terrace terminates as a cul-de-sac with a trail connection to the low density housing to the
south along Kinley Close. The low density properties have their own street network that does not acces
Blomidon Terrace. The low density neighbourhood sits at a different grade than the properties on
Blomidon Terrace, which prevents any negative visual impact from the high and medium density
properties on Blomidon Terrace.
The current review of the MPS/LUB has identified the
properties on the east side of Blomidon Terrace to be redesignated and re-zoned to allow higher density
development, in which case the 7-unit building would be
permitted. (see Figure 3)
Attachments 1-4 provide further context in the form of
mapping, photographs and aerial images.
5) POLICY REVIEW
In considering amendments to the MPS/LUB to bring the
subject property into compliance, some MPS policies
Figure 3 - Proposed zoning from Phase 1 of Plan Review
3
REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
5 Blomidon Terrace – Non-compliant Apartments
Date: June 29, 2016
Department: Community Development
specific to the subject area may have to be changed. Yet Town Council should review the application in
the context of the general Vision Statement, Objectives, and Residential Policies that address Town-wide
residential development to determine how or whether the proposed amendment affecting this property
would fit in with these broad statements.
The MPS has a Vision Statement and Declaration of Sustainability on page 5 that speak to the
importance of “…making decisions that lead to a healthy, equitable and sustainable future.” This is done
by balancing “…environmental, social, cultural, and economic factors in all decision making. “
The property at 5 Blomidon Terrace achieves sustainability goals by being near the downtown, being
amongst high density residential dwellings, and making efficient use of municipal infrastructure. These
factors help protect the environment by housing more people on a smaller building footprint,
encourages social and cultural interaction by providing a high density form of housing near the
downtown and pedestrian connections, and has positive economics by utilizing existing roads and
services and thereby not imposing additional service delivery burden on the Town.
Part 8 of the MPS that addressed Residential Development and Land Use, supports “higher density
residential developments” for sustainability reasons and also acknowledges the need to balance them
by assessing the impact of large buildings on “… sunlight exposures, wind patterns, view planes and
neighbourhood character.”
The subject property contains three more units than it was originally approved for. The additional three
units were added without an increase in the building footprint or any increase on its impact of sunlight
exposures, wind patterns or viewplanes. The 7-unit building fits in with the neighbourhood character of
Blomidon Terrace, being a mix of medium and high density residential development.
6) DISCUSSION – PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
A) Land Use Patterns
The current zoning map zones the current property and surrounding properties on the east side
of Blomidon Terrace as Low Density Residential (R1-A). This R1-A area has the Single Unit
Dwelling Zone (R1) adjacent to it on the south side, which consists of three cul-de-sacs (Kinley
Close, Minas View Drive, Cape View Drive) off of Orchard Avenue. This R1 neighbourhood is self
contained and not significantly impacted by the R1-A neighbourhood because the traffic
patterns of each neighbourhood are separated. Given the slope and isolation of Blomidon
Terrace, being a short cul-de-sac, it functions as a high density residential area well buffered
from lower density uses.
The R1-A zoned area on the east side of Blomidon Terrace has direct interaction with the
properties opposite it on the west side of Blomidon Terrace that are zoned High Density
4
REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
5 Blomidon Terrace – Non-compliant Apartments
Date: June 29, 2016
Department: Community Development
Residential (R-2). As part of the current review of the MPS/LUB, the R1-A zoned properties
which front along the east side of Blomidon Terrace are likely to be re-designated and re-zoned
from Low Density Residential to either Medium or High Density Residential. If this change to
higher density is approved, the subject property of a 7-unit building will be in an appropriate
zone.
It would be unreasonable and disruptive to make the owner of 5 Blomidon Terrace remove the 3
illegal units, right before a possible zone change that would allow the 7-unit building.
B) Compliance
The subject property at 5 Blomidon Terrace has been functioning as a 7-unit building for the
past 10 years and a 6-unit building for almost 20 years. The neighbourhood has functioned with
the 7-unit building with no complaints or reported negative impacts.
Although it is not appropriate for Town Council or Planning Staff to send a message that illegal
land uses can be readily fixed via MPS/LUB amendments, there are some cases where a sitespecific MPS/LUB amendment makes good planning sense. In this case, the property is in an
area that formerly was designated and zoned for higher density and may be re-designated and
re-zoned for higher density in the upcoming plan review. The subject property is surrounded by
medium and high density uses and accesses a street that has medium and high density
development.
The remaining concern regarding the illegal units is how to determine if the three illegal units
have been constructed in a way that meets the National Building Code. The Town has inspected
the units for life safety issues but has not done inspections to ascertain if the units meet today’s
building code standards. However, the Council makes the necessary planning changes and the
property owner is able to seek the necessary permits, the Building Inspector will inspector for
compliance. This may involve removing drywall to expose framing, or any other requirement.
C)
Plan Review Schedule
Town Council could wait to address this issue as part of the ongoing MPS/LUB review. Although
the draft MPS/LUB has been prepared, there are still several more months of work before it will
be adopted by Council and approved by the Province.
The illegal status of the building at 5 Blomidon Terrance is under some urgency to address since
3 of the units cannot be legally occupied at this time. Town Council and the property owner are
5
REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
5 Blomidon Terrace – Non-compliant Apartments
Date: June 29, 2016
Department: Community Development
under some obligation to bring the 7-unit building into compliance one way or another; by
removal of three units or by amending the planning documents to allow the additional three
units. Waiting for the plan review is an unnecessary delay in addressing this matter.
7) OPTIONS
There are four Planning options that the Planning Advisory Committee and Town Council can consider
on the issue. Option 3 is recommended by Planning Staff.
Option
1. Take no action
2. Make area-wide MPS and LUB
amendments as part of ongoing Plan
Review process
3. Make Site Specific (spot zoning, PID
specific) MPS and LUB Amendments at
this time rather than wait for full plan
review
Discussion (+process?)
This would leave the property in an illegal state and
cause difficulties to the property owner regarding
financing and selling. It would also put pressure on
Town Council to have the illegal status rectified by
having the three units removed or brought into
compliance by amending the planning documents.
Staff would take enforcement action to have the
units removed.
The draft MPS/LUB documents are recommending
that this area be changed to allow higher density
development. The plan review still has several
months before completion.
This is the option recommended by Planning staff.
8) REVIEW FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The Deputy Traffic Authority/Director of Public Works provided comments on traffic issues, water and
sewer servicing and storm water. There are no anticipated negative impacts from the addition of the 3
units to the property. Since the units have existed for many years, staff also looked at any complaints
received relating to this property, and there are none on record.
9) CONCLUSION & RECOMMEDATION
The subject property at 5 Blomidon Terrace is located in the Low Density Residential Zone and contains
seven apartment units, three of which were constructed without the necessary permits. The Town has
6
REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
5 Blomidon Terrace – Non-compliant Apartments
Date: June 29, 2016
Department: Community Development
pursued legal action against the property owner and now must decide how to bring the property into
compliance.
Removal of the three illegal units would be the normal course of action and would send a strong
message that the Town upholds its Land Use By-law. However, in this case, the property has been
functioning well as a medium density building for over 20 years. And the area has been zoned for high
density in the past and will likely be re-zoned to higher density as part of the current plan review.
It is Planning Staff’s recommendation that PAC hold a public participation meeting as part of the next
PAC meeting on July 27th to get feedback from the community on specific amendments (Option 3) that
would accommodate the 3 additional units. This amendment meets the overall MPS Vision and
Declaration of Sustainability as well as the High Density Residential policies.
10)
ATTACHMENTS
1. UPLAND Planning Report
2. Plan of Subdivision
3. Excerpt of Current Zoning Map showing property and surrounding lands
7
ATTACHMENT 1 –
UPLAND Planning Report
8
Five Blomidon Terrace
Planning Report [DRAFT]
Prepared for David Messom
Project No 140803.01
Date 15.01.27
UPLAND | Urban Planning + Design Studio
2112 Bauer Street Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3K 3W3
Image: Killam Photography
Cover Image Source: psychology.acadiau.ca
TABLE OF
CONTENTS:
1.Introduction
Objective
1
2.Context
Planning Context
2
Town Context
3
Neighbourhood Context
4
Five Blomidon Terrace
5
3. Town-Wide Proposal
Plan Amendment
6
Form Based Code
6
Process
7
Benefits & Challenges
7
4. Neighbourhood Proposal
Plan Amendment
8
Process
8
Benefits & Challenges
8
5. site proposal
Relax Restrictions
9
Process
9
Benefits & Challenges
9
6.Conclusion
Recommendations
11
Conclusion
11
1. INTRODUCTION
On behalf of our client, David Messom, we have undertaken a comprehensive review of
Municipal Government Act (MGA), Town of Wolfville Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) with 2013
amendments and Town of Wolfville Land Use By-Law (LUB) with 2014 amendments. The purpose
of this review is to identify opportunities to address the problems faced by Mr. Messom at Five
Blomidon Terrace.
According to the owner this site acquired a permit to construct a four unit residential building
in 1995 accordance with the 1989 MPS Residential Medium Zone. At the time of construction
a fifth residential unit was constructed without a building permit. According to the owner interior
reconfiguration added a sixth unit without permit in 1997, and the final unit in 2005/2006 without a
building permit, resulting in a total of seven residential units.
Prior to 1996, this property and those adjacent on all sides were zoned Medium Density,
permitting eight residential units or less. The west side of Blomidon Terrace was zoned Residential
General which permitted more than eight residential units on a lot. This zoning established a
medium to high density setting on Blomidon Terrace which has remained until today.
Planning documents in Wolfville have continuously responded to the changing needs and
characteristics over the decades. Balancing the desires of permanent residents with the needs of a
university town and an aging population have presented unique challenges for Wolfville.
Objective
The objective of this report is to propose opportunities for Wolfville to address the complex
history of the built environment, to achieve the objectives set out in the 2008 MPS while ensuring
certainty for residents, building owners and developers into the future.
This report offers three proposals to address the current situation of Five Blomidon Terrace. The
first is an approach to develop criteria and standards which more clearly distinguish R-1A, R-2/4
and R-2/HD zones. The second proposal recognizes the unique character of Blomodon Terrace.
The final proposal addresses Five Blomidon Terrace directly.
1
2. CONTEXT
Planning Context
Prior to March of 1996, the Wolfville MPS
contained residential zoning standards
which were broad. Medium Density zones
blanketed much of the town and permitted
new construction of up to four residential
units per building, and encompassed existing
buildings that contained up to eight units. This
zone included almost all properties on the
east side of Blomidon Terrace including Five
Blomidon Terrace and abutting properties
to the east. The Residential General zones
permitted up to eight residential units per
building, but included existing buildings with
more than eight units. Approximately half
of western Wolville and limited area in the
east end was reserved for Single-Detached
homes.
The MPS that was approved by Council
in March of 1996 expanded the number of
zones to give more specificity as to where
various building densities could locate, and to
add clarity by indicating the number of units
permitted via the R-number in the zone. This
plan established the Residential Intermediate
zone in place of the Medium Density
zone, and increased the area defined as
Residential Intermediate. This plan identifies
single-detached dwelling units as the least
efficient use of serviced land.
The 1996 MPS had a significant impact
on Blomidon Terrace by incorporating the
properties on the east side of the street into a
zone that ranges from R-2 to R-4, and paving
a direction towards lower density zoning
throughout Wolfville.
2
The current MPS, approved in 2008 and
amended in 2013, declares Wolfville as “one
of the most progressive small towns in the
Country”, a declaration supported by forward
thinking vision and objectives. The following are
those vision statements most pertinent to this
report:
•
A community that fosters and supports
affordable housing, a healthy business
sector and a creative and adaptive
economy;
•
A community whose energy needs are
reduced and largely met by renewable
resources;
•
A community in which the natural
environment is respected and protected
as our most valuable asset;
•
A community where pollution is reduced
and solid waste production is minimized
and increasingly recycled;
•
A community with active transportation
network where people do not have to
depend on the automobile either for
their mobility withing the community or
their links to the larger world.
The following policies support the objectives
of the MPS:
5.1.6 to provide for equity within and
between generations.
5.1.8 to consider the long term implication
of land use planning decisions and weigh
environmental, social and economic factors
equally in such decision making.
5.1.9 to manage growth and control land
use and development in a manner that will
minimize urban sprawl and increase density
and reduce conflicts between land uses in
a manner that is compatible with the Town’s
Sustainability Declaration and Vision.
5.1.10 to control land use development in
a manner that will preserve, enhance and
protect the natural environment of the Town
and ensure open space opportunities for all
residents.
5.1.18 to provide opportunities for a variety
of housing options to satisfy the needs of all
people.
5.1.19 to consider flexible policies and
regulations which enable opportunities
for the principles of new urbanism to
be incorporated into residential and
subdivision design and development.
5.1.20 to enhance and strengthen the
downtown central commercial district of
Wolfville as the focal point of commercial
and community activity.
Despite the ambitious vision and objectives,
MPS policies and subsequent LUB depict
uncertainty and discomfort with planning for
and permitting residential neighbourhoods
that will facilitate affordable housing, preserve
open space, and create a multi-generational,
walkable community. This is evident in the
nearly exact policy language used in both
Medium and High Density Zones, and the
exact language mirrored in the LUB for these
zones (see policy 8.2.3, 8.3.3, by-law 8.1
and 9.1). This is also apparent in the further
reduction in lands zoned for medium and high
density, including further rezoning of properties
to the east of Blomidon Terrace from R-2 to
R-1A, (single unit dwellings with an accessory
dwelling unit).
Town Context
Wolfville has been a steadily growing town.
This growth can be attributed to families
that have been part of the community for
generations, and to the student population that
grows and fluctuates. This growth is apparent
in the 2007 Existing Land Use Survey map
which illustrates that, after the development
of the Wolfville West lands, the town will be
‘out of land’. This will increase the interest of
developers in building greater density buildings.
Loosely defined planning policies of the
past have resulted in a range of building sizes
scattered throughout the town. Evolving policies
have resulted in a series of residential zones
that often do not reflect the buildings located
in those zones. Residential construction in
Wolfville has consistently favoured multiple units
since the early 1980’s. These developments
have primarily focused on the housing needs
of the student population. Despite policies that
prohibit multi-unit buildings as of right, even in
High Density zones, this trend has continued.
It has placed a high burden on planning staff,
town council, and the community since the
e1996 MPS caused a spike in the number
of development agreements. It is positive to
note that these multi-unit buildings are fairly
concentrated near the Commercial Centre and
University districts.
Despite Wolfville’s growth the town is
approaching a crossroads in its development
patterns. The average population is
approximately 44 and aging, and will soon
have different housing needs. There is also a
recent resurgence of interest in young adults
living in smaller more rural communities.
Without policies designed to offer affordable,
long term housing alternatives Wolfville may
begin to experience a reversal in the growth
of its population. There is growing evidence of
the need to establish housing for academics
and for the burgeoning business, artist and
entrepreneurial communities. This demographic
may not be ready to purchase a home, but
3
demands a higher living standard than that
offered by temporary student housing.
The effect of current policies and by-laws has
been the preservation and further development
of housing that is suitable for students and for
financially affluent households. However, it has
meant the near absence of housing for young
adults, those of low to middle income, and
pensioners. These demographics are often not
able or not interested in owning a single-family
home, yet they provide an invaluable social and
economic contribution to a community.
Neighbourhood Context
Blomidon Terrace is a dynamic street that is
composed primarily of well established highdensity residential developments, including
two 20-unit buildings and one 11-unit building
located adjacent to Five Blomidon Terrace.
The street also contains a commercial Bed &
Breakfast as well as a single two-unit dwelling.
Blomidon Terrace is an important asset
to meeting the objectives of the current
MPS. As a cul-du-sac with a trail connecting
neighbourhoods to the east, Blomidon Terrace
provides essential connecting infrastructure
that encourages active transportation while
discouraging the use of private automobiles.
Its position in the town also provides for a
more walkable community. Located only 300
metres from the Central Commercial zone, the
higher-density population of Blomidon Terrace
lives with walkable convenience to support this
important district. Less than 800 metres away,
this street is also very conveniently located for
academics cycling or walking to the university.
The most prominent physical challenge
associated with the site is the significant slope
parallel to the street direction.
Zoning along this street has seen dramatic
change since the 1989 MPS. At that time
Residential General and Medium Density zones
4
permitted more than eight residential units on
the west side and north end of the street, and
up to eight units on the east side of the street.
This zoning established a medium to high
density setting on Blomidon Terrace which has
remained until today.
Properties which abut Blomidon Terrace
lots are generally well established low-density
residential units that are located on large lots.
The separation distances, when considered
with the steep terrain of the area, suggest little
to no visual impact from the existing medium
and high-density developments on Blomidon
Terrace.
Despite this existing character on the street,
subsequent MPS’ have continuously downzoned the east side of the street. The future
result, upon any redevelopment on the street,
could be a natural transition from medium to
high-density to the west of the street, but an
abrupt transition in residential density from lowdensity single-detached housing to high density
developments on the eastern side of Blomidon
Terrace.
In other neighbourhoods in the town zoning
patters provide a more natural transition. For
example Blue Heron Court is zoned for HighDensity which abuts Medium-Density before
transitioning to Low-Density.
Alternatively, there are neighbourhoods where
future land uses appear to take into account
existing land uses. An example of this are the
lots near the intersection of Westwood Avenue
and Main Street. These properties permit high
and medium-density residential development
immediately adjacent to Low-Density Zones.
Despite the differences in density, this
neighbourhood is attractive and buildings
respond to one another proportionately.
Five Blomidon Terrace
In 1995 this site acquired a permit to construct
a four unit residential building in accordance
with the 1989 MPS Residential Medium Zone.
At the time of construction a fifth residential
unit was constructed without a building permit.
According to the owner interior reconfiguration
added a sixth unit without permit in 1997, and
the final unit in 2005/2006 without a building
permit, resulting in a total of seven residential
units. The total floor area of the building was
not altered from its original size. The owner
indicates that the site has been inspected for
safety, and no safety concerns were identified.
Because of the high-standard for quality
Blomidon Terrace offers a quiet residential
community for numerous households. Located
less than 350 metres from Main Street,
residents of Five Blomidon Terrace are able to
support the downtown central business district
and to do so using active transportation.
As a multi-unit residential building this site
is well regarded by tenants and neighbours
as a high quality rental property. The units
themselves have offered a distinguished
affordable living alternative to other rental
properties in the community for 10 and 20
years. The building exterior presents a modest
but welcoming street-face, with tenant parking
located discretely to the rear of the building.
This building fits well among its neighbours, with
lower density than adjacent properties to the
south, and particularly to the facing lots, on the
west side of Blomidon Terrace. The property is
an established part of this quality-rental medium
density neighbourhood of Blomidon Terrace.
Properties that abut Five Blomidon Terrace to
the east and to the north have neighboured this
building for 20 years without conflict. The low
density property to the east is a large wooded
lot with a single detached home. The separation
distance between the structures of the two
properties has meant that no visual impact has
been experienced.
The history of planning policy has resulted
in a residential density that is quite high on
both sides of the street. The average number
of residential units per lot fronting on Blomidon
is 11, compared a typical street which has
from one to four residential units in Wolfville.
However, today’s zoning on Blomidon Terrace
prescribes land use of starkly different densities
opposite each other, permitting up to eight units
per property on the west side of the street,
while restricting properties to the east only 2
units. This zoning trend may have arisen out
of public concern that more rental buildings
will lead to more intrusive student housing
throughout Wolfville. Although this is a valid
concern in neighbourhoods that are today
quiet, low-density streets with concerns about
their neighbour properties, this does not fit the
context on Blomidon Terrace, where neighbours
of Five Blomidon have been accustomed to
residing next to a 7 unit residential building for a
decade.
1989 MPS
Five Blomidon
Terrace in Residential
Medium Density
zone, R-2, to a max of
8 existing and 4 new
residential units per
building
(Residential Policy 2, 9)
1996 MPS
R-2 zone is amended
to indicate 2 max
residential units
(Residential Policy 14)
Five Blomidon Terrace
is rezoned R-1A
despite Residential
Policy 15
2008 MPS
5 Blomidon Terrace
remains in R-1A zone
despite Policy 8.2
1995 Construction of
Five Blomidon
Terrace with 5
residential units
1997 Interior
addition of 1
residential unit - no
change to building
envelope
2005 Interior
addition of 1
residential unit - no
change to building
envelope
5
3. TOWN-WIDE
PROPOSAL
Plan Amendment
This report proposes amending MPS
policy 8.2.3 to reflect the reasonably
expected definition of “Medium Density”.
This policy amendment could be presented
as a combination of permitted as-of-right
residential unit density along with a “form
based code”. Similarly it proposes amending
MPS policy 8.3.3 to reflect the reasonably
expected definition of “High Density”.
This combination of permitted unit density
and form-based code would save both
municipal staff and developers much of the
cost and time that is currently being devoted
to development agreements. It will enable
clarity and consistency for developers while
also allowing residents of Wolfville to have
confidence in the outcome of such projects.
Giving clear expectations to developers
and to residents may alleviate many of
the valid concerns that residents currently
have about changes taking place in their
neighbourhood. Developments pursued
in high and medium density zones today
have virtually no guidance in what might be
permitted, and residents have no certainty
regarding what will or will not be permitted
in their neighbourhood. Uncertainty in
the development agreement process is of
concern for all parties impacted.
A process that makes clear what residential
unit densities will be permitted as of right
would allow the Town to better align policy
and by-laws with the objectives of the MPS.
Such a measure could increase the diversity
of housing options, thereby creating living
spaces that are appropriate and accessible
to young adults, entrepreneurs and artists, as
6
well as provide the aging population with quality
housing options in their community. Such a
measure would also contribute immensely to
the Statement of Provincial Interest regarding
housing.
Form Based Code
From the Form Based Codes Institute:
A form-based code is a land development
regulation that fosters predictable built
results and a high-quality public realm by
using physical form (rather than separation
of uses) as the organizing principle for the
code. A form-based code is a regulation,
not a mere guideline, adopted into city,
town, or county law. A form-based code
offers a powerful alternative to conventional
zoning regulation.
Process
Identifying what the reasonably expected
definitions for Medium and High-Density in
Wolfville is, and developing the form based
codes that would be appropriate for the town
will require a more extensive plan review
process.
Analysis of the zones that will be impacted
would have to be undertaken to identify the
most appropriate form and unit density suitable
for both Medium and High-Density zones across
the town. Extensive community engagement
will be required to ensure that residents are
satisfied with the built form that will emerge
from this policy.
have an impact on an individual lot. An effective
engagement process in the development of the
form based code is essential to the success of
the policy. With participation in the development
of the policy the community will develop
confidence and enthusiasm for what they can
expect future developments will contribute to
their community.
An additional benefit to the community will
be an increase in the number of affordable
housing options, thereby increasing the diversity
of residents able to move into the community,
and the ability for others to stay in Wolfville as
their housing needs change. The form based
code ensures that high quality options will be
available, suitable and desirable to the broader
community.
Benefits & Challenges
Developers will find such policies to largely
be to their benefit. On one hand they may
find that the policy will limit the density or
building form that they might have sought
through a development agreement process.
However, the clarity of such policy will provide
developers with a much faster approval process
for compliant proposals. The development
agreement avenue may still be available should
a developer wish to make an argument for an
alternate form or unit-density on a specific site.
The primary challenge for planning staff
will be in the development of the policy. The
density and form analysis and the community
engagement may be resource intensive. Once
these policies are in place, municipal staff
will find a dramatic reduction in the number
of development agreements that must be
processed each year. This will inject overall
confidence in the development process.
A challenge that may be faced by the broader
community will be at the level of individual sites.
Having clarity in the outcome of a zone across
the community will mean a decrease in number
of development agreements, and therefore
a decrease in opportunities for individuals to
7
4. NEIGHBOURHOOD PROPOSAL
Plan Amendment
This report proposes amending the Future
Land-Use map so that properties along the
east side of Blomidon Terrace are zoned
Medium-Density. This would create a more
natural transition from the High-Density
lots to the west to the Low-Density lots to
the east. With this rezoning, properties on
the east side of the street would become
recognized as non-conforming use based on
their existing multi-unit residential character.
Process
This proposal will require a plan
amendment to the specific neighbourhood.
Staff will be required to review policy changes
and conduct a public consultation.
Benefits & Challenges
This proposal would address the current
dichotomy, which associates properties
along the east side of Blomidon Terrace
more closely with the neighbourhood to the
east, rather than to context of the street on
which they are located and with which they
interact. It will provide a more natural west to
east transition from High to Medium to LowDensity buildings should future development
occur on the street.
This proposal does not address the lack of
clarity in the language of Medium and HighDensity zones. Future development would
continue to bring uncertainty to developers
and to the surrounding community, and would
continue to demand planning staff to process
8
development agreements. Nor would this
proposal solve the challenges of the four nonconforming buildings in this area.
This proposal would potentially create
continuity for existing property owners in the
neighbourhood, and preserve the walkability
for multiple households living in high-quality
affordable housing that exists today.
5. SITE PROPOSAL
Relax Restrictions
An interim measure that Wolfville may
implement prior to pursuing a broader
planning amendment process may be to
make use of the mechanism available in the
Municipal Government Act, part 242 (1) f)
which enables municipalities the flexibility
to recognize a building as having a nonconforming use which is different than a
previous non-conforming use. In the case
of Five Blomidon Terrace immediately prior
to the 1996 MPS amendment, the four units
for which the site was approved were with
the as of right criteria of the 1988 MPS R-2
zone. With the 1996 MPS amendment the
site became a non-conforming use with redesignation of the R-2 zone to a maximum
of two residential units. Today the site is a
different non-conforming use as a multi-unit
building in the R-1A zone.
Process
The relevant part of the Municipal
Government Act reads as follows:
(2) The policies adopted in accordance with
this Section shall be carried out through
the land-use by-law and may require a
development agreement.
Planning staff will be required to undergo a
review of the relevant land use by laws and
undergo an amendment process which includes
engagement of the immediate area, and public
notice. Because the residential use is not
changing, and has been in place for more than
a decade, and because that use is consistent a
retro-active development agreement may not be
appropriate.
According the the Municipal Government Act,
part 238:
“A non-conforming structure may continue
if it exists and is lawfully permitted at the
date of the first publication of the notice
of intention to adopt or amend a land-use
by-law”
However, the original building construction
consisted of five units when only four were
permitted.
Relaxation of restrictions
242 (1) A municipal planning strategy
may provide for a relaxation of the
restrictions contained in this Part
respecting nonconforming structures,
nonconforming uses of land, and
nonconforming uses in a structure and,
in particular, may provide for
(f) the change in use of a nonconforming
use of land or a nonconforming use in a
structure, to another nonconforming use.
Benefits & Challenges
A benefit of this approach is that the Town of
Wolfville has already recognized the need to
utilize this measure in select commercial use
buildings. This is reflected in Part 18.9 of the
current MPS:
Council recognizes that there are nonconforming commercial uses in the Town
that are not located in commercial zones.
The non-conforming use restrictions of
9
the Municipal Government Act essentially
eliminate any continuance of these
properties for commercial use at the
cessation of the existing operations. Given
the long history of commercial use of some
of these properties, Council will provide
opportunities for continued commercial use
of these properties in a controlled way. In
addition to allowing for the continued use or
change in use of these properties, Council
will consider the expansion, rebuilding,
or recommencement of them and similar
variations enabled by Section 242(1) of
the Municipal Government Act, including
changes to any non-conforming structures.
Council will use development agreements
to accomplish this goal.
Policy 18.9.1
To regulate non-conforming uses as
provided for in the Municipal Government
Act, with the following exceptions:
(c) where a non-conforming commercial
use of a property exists on land not
zoned commercial, Council will consider
the relaxation of the non-conforming
use restrictions of the Municipal
Government Act including changes to
any nonconforming structures through
development agreement for any of the
matters identified in section 242(1) of the
Municipal Government Act.
The indication of this policy is that these
non-conforming commercial properties are wellregarded as providing an important contribution
to the community, and for that reason should
be protected for continued operation. Five
Blomidon Terrace is similarly a well regarded
multi-unit building in the community. Councilors
agree that Mr. Messom is a good builder and
good landlord, contributing to the calm quality of
life in the area.
This building is of a quality that attracts
mature tenants and provides housing for the
otherwise under-served young professional
10
demographic in the community. Its location
ideally serves many of the objectives of the
MPS and is consistent with the character of the
street. This building in it’s current state is not
new to the community, but has been established
for more than a decade. Pursuing this measure
would serve to maintain continuity of these
benefits within the community.
A valid concern is the potential of setting a
negative precedent for other developers who
may attempt to develop outside of the planning
process. The fact that Five Blomidon Terrace
is well established can give confidence to
planning staff that other buildings in Wolfville
are unlikely to meet these criteria to justify
use of this measure elsewhere in the town. It
appears unlikely that a precedent would be set
by pursuing this measure.
6. CONCLUSION
Recommendations
i)
Mid-Term
Amend MPS policy 8.2.3 to reflect the
reasonably expected definition of “Medium
Density”. This policy amendment could be
presented as a combination of permitted asof-right residential unit density along with a
“form based code”. Similarly, amend the MPS
policy 8.3.3 to reflect the reasonably expected
definition of “High Density”. This process
should also amend the Future Land-Use
Map to include properties on the east side
of Blomidon Terrace in the Medium-Density
Zone in order to create a natural transition
between high and low densities.
ii)
Conclusion
Interim Solution
The ideal solution may be a combination of
elements to address the existing condition of
Five Blomidon Terrace and to achieve the vision
and objectives set out in the Wolfville MPS.
These measures would enable a transition
between what exists today to what opportunities
are desired for the future of Wolfville. They
would bring a level of consistency and
protection to the existing character of the town.
They would also bing clarity for developers
and predictability to residents concerned
about what “high density” currently means.
These recommendations would allow the Town
of Wolfville to retain a fine example of highquality rental development that supports the
progressive objectives of the MPS.
Make use of Part 242 (1) of the Municipal
Government Act which enables the flexibility
to recognize a building as having a nonconforming use which is different than a
previous non-conforming use. In the case
of Five Blomidon Terrace the site became
a non-conforming use with the 1996 redesignation of the R-2 zone to a maximum
of two residential units. Today the site is a
different non-conforming use as a multi-unit
building in the R-1A zone.
11
ATTACHMENT 2 – PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
ATTACHMENT 3 – Excerpt of Current Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT 4 – Excerpt of GFLUM Map
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-001
Subject:
Date:
Personal Offices
2016-06-21
1) PROBLEM STATEMENT
•
Personal Offices need to be better defined and the nuances accounted for, including in the R1
zone.
2) IMPLICATIONS/RISKS OF PROBLEM
•
•
Not properly acknowledging and addressing the issue may lead to enforcement of minor home
businesses that should be permitted (i.e. piano lessons, tutoring).
A ‘slippery slope’ argument of uses and neighbourhood change may be made in the R1 zoning.
3) KEY CONSIDERATIONS
•
The current Land Use By-law (LUB) defines Personal Offices as follows:
•
The proposed draft LUB proposes to change this definition as follows:
•
The key difference is the allowance of a single client on the premises and this use is permitted in all
zones (including R1).
The best examples of what this change was attempting to account for are piano lessons and
tutoring; however, uses like a massage therapist, a legal office or other similar single client
businesses would also be enabled through this change.
•
4) OPTIONS TO ADDRESS PROBLEM
•
•
Leave the definition as-is and Staff would enforce personal offices that do not comply with the
definition (i.e. are having a client come to the home).
Amend the definition to allow a single client in personal offices and acknowledge these types of
uses (i.e. piano lessons) as important components of a healthy neighbourhood.
5) STAFF RECOMMENDATION
•
•
Staff recommend that the draft ‘Personal Office’ definition move forward so we can proactively
account for the (benign) uses that we know are already happening throughout all zones in the
Town (including R1).
An R1 specific engagement session is planned and this issue would be explained and feedback
sought. Additional provisions could be inserted to give Staff enforcement tools if a personal
office is causing land use impacts.
Issue Identification Report, Page 1 of 2
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-001
Subject:
Date:
•
Personal Offices
2016-06-21
This issue is inter-related with Home Based Businesses and Home Occupations (see Draft
documents for proposed directions). These uses are not proposed to be permitted in the R1
zone but would be enabled in other zones throughout the Town.
For Staff only:
Drafted by:
Reviewed by:
Date of PAC Review
Decision of PAC:
Amendments made by:
Date of amendments
made
Devin Lake
Chrystal Fuller
Issue Identification Report, Page 2 of 2
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-002
Subject:
Date:
Form Based Zoning and Density
2016-06-09
1) PROBLEM STATEMENT
Whether to investigate a form-based* approach to development in a portion(s) of the Town.
*Form-Based Zoning: Land development regulation that focuses on the external design features and site
planning over the actual uses (or # of units) within the building itself.
2) IMPLICATIONS/RISKS OF PROBLEM
•
•
•
•
Density
Land Use conflicts
Parking; and
Overall neighbourhood character
3) KEY CONSIDERATIONS
• It is clear the R2/4 zoning has not been effective in creating the vibrant, mixed-use
neighbourhoods the Town desires.
• Staff have met with a number of Developers in the Town (see What We Heard Report) and a
recurring theme were issues with the regulations pertaining to the R-2/4 designation/zone
limiting properties to a maximum of 4 units and 10 bedrooms or 3 units and 8 bedrooms in
combination with our 60%/40% of floor area bedroom requirements.
• Developers feel that enabling smaller (bachelor, 1 and 2-bedroom units) would better serve a
wider demographic (students, seniors, young professionals, etc) and not force them into
creating large common areas or products that only appeal to certain demographics, especially
when dealing with existing buildings.
• Staff question whether the intensity of land use (parking, etc) between a 4 unit/10 bedroom
development and a 6 or 7 unit building of smaller units (for example) are comparable or if
clearly additional units would create land use conflicts beyond what is there now.
• Through a form-based approach to the zoning in an area the external site planning (parking,
landscaping, etc), building look and feel could be of a desired outcome in keeping with existing
character but the inside of the building would not be as heavily regulated to give further
opportunities to appeal to a wider demographic, creating more infill opportunities and vibrant,
mixed-use neighbourhoods.
• The draft documents very much stay with our current R-2/4 density thresholds (3 units and 8
bedrooms and 4 units and 10 bedrooms). The maximum floor area (60%/40%) is also not
proposed to change.
• There has also been concern expressed that the R-2/4 zone provisions do not adequately
protect existing neighbourhoods and streets.
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-001, Page 1 of 2
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-002
Subject:
Date:
Form Based Zoning and Density
2016-06-09
4) OPTIONS TO ADDRESS PROBLEM
1. Investigate a form based approach to portions of Town
2. Do not investigate Form Zoning
5) STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by Staff that a form based zoning approach be investigated to understand the
land use impacts of the 4 unit/10 bedroom and 3 unit/8 bedroom mix as it relates to other
scenarios where more units of a smaller size would be enabled.
For Staff only:
Drafted by:
Reviewed by:
Date of PAC Review
Decision of PAC:
Amendments made by:
Date of amendments
made
Colin Simic
DL/CF
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-001, Page 2 of 2
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-003
Subject:
Date:
Lounge: Hours of Seating Area
20016-06-09
1) PROBLEM STATEMENT
Local businesses are being impacted by the limitations in the Town’s Municipal Planning Strategy
(please see Appendix A for letter from local business owner). Increasing the number of seats
permitted in lounges could resolve the problem.
The Draft MPS (s. 4.9.7(e)) states that lounge seating areas are limited to a maximum of 50 indoor
seats with the opportunity for an additional 20 outdoor seats, for a grand total of 70 seats provided
on a seasonal basis (Wolfville Municipal Planning Strategy 2008, s. 9.2.8(e)).
2) IMPLICATIONS/RISKS OF PROBLEM
1. Current Implications/Risks
• Businesses operating below capacity.
• Diminished atmosphere from lounge appearing empty.
• Loss of income opportunity for businesses.
2. Future Implications/Risks
• Overcrowded establishments.
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-004, Page 1 of 3
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-003
Subject:
Date:
•
•
Lounge: Hours of Seating Area
20016-06-09
Safety of consumer.
Meeting Fire Code requirements.
3) KEY CONSIDERATIONS
•
•
•
•
•
Size of establishment
Location of establishment
Providing safe and secure accommodations
Controlling and managing the movement of people
Economic development within the Town
4) OPTIONS TO ADDRESS PROBLEM
1. Keep lounge seating area regulations
2. Investigate and possibly change lounge seating area regulations
5) STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that lounge area seating be investigated further.
For Staff only:
Drafted by:
Reviewed by:
Date of PAC Review
Decision of PAC:
Amendments made by:
Date of amendments
made
Colin Simic/Ericka Wicks
Chrystal Fuller
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-004, Page 2 of 3
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-003
Subject:
Date:
Lounge: Hours of Seating Area
20016-06-09
APPENDIX A – Letter from Troy Restaurant
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-004, Page 3 of 3
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-004
Subject:
Date:
Lounge: Hours of Operation
2016-06-09
1) PROBLEM STATEMENT
Local businesses are being impacted by the limitations in the Town’s Municipal Planning Strategy.
Extending the hours of operation of lounges could resolve the problem.
The Draft MPS (s. 4.9.7(c)) states that operational hours of a lounge are restricted to a closing hour
of 1:00am (Wolfville Municipal Planning Strategy 2008, s. 9.2.8(c)).
2) IMPLICATIONS/RISKS OF PROBLEM
1. Current Implications/Risks
• Encourages residents to consume alcohol at a faster pace as establishment closes early.
• Residents may take a ‘lounge atmosphere’ back to their dwelling, which could affect the
surrounding residents and neighborhood character and cause increased noise levels.
• Loss of income opportunity for businesses.
2. Future Implications/Risks
• Increasing noise levels in and around the business.
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-003, Page 1 of 3
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-004
Subject:
Date:
•
Lounge: Hours of Operation
2016-06-09
Increased opportunity for “barhopping” – when patrons go bar-to-bar – increasing
opportunity for conflict and noise in downtown core.
3) KEY CONSIDERATIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Size of establishment
Location of establishment
The effects on the core area and residential character
Safety of residents
Controlling and managing the movement of people
Limiting alcohol consumption
Economic development within the Town
Town and Gown discussed this issue and concern was expressed by the RCMP and the Town’s
compliance officer about extending the hours of operations.
4) OPTIONS TO ADDRESS PROBLEM
1. Keep existing closing hour of 1:00am
2. Investigate and suggest new closing hour
5) STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that lounge hours of operation be not be changed.
For Staff only:
Drafted by:
Reviewed by:
Date of PAC Review
Decision of PAC:
Amendments made by:
Date of amendments
Colin Simic
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-003, Page 2 of 3
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-004
Subject:
Date:
Lounge: Hours of Operation
2016-06-09
made
MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-003, Page 3 of 3
PHASE 2 TIMELINE
COMMUNITY OF INTEREST MEETINGS
Outline of Housing Symposium
Approach: To have small groups with specific knowledge of a problem review, debate and refine specific
issues relating to housing.
The session will be broken into 4 streams:
1. Social Integration of Seniors and Students/Young People in Wolfville – To develop specific
strategies, policies and approaches to deal with this issue:
Facilitator: Sarah Morris
2. Affordable Housing – To identify specific tools and approaches that can be implemented in an
MPS and LUB to promote and support affordable housing approaches, particularly for seniors
and students.
Facilitator: Jessica MacDonald (unconfirmed)
3. Residential Rental Business Bylaw – TO review a residential rental business bylaw designed to
regulate and enforce standards for multi-tenant residential housing and assess viability for small
town NS.
Facilitator: Consultant
4. Downtown redevelopment supporting age friendly community opportunities. – To take a
specific parcel of land (infill) and develop principles to guide the redevelopment of lands that
support age friendly community principles. The principles will be test through a design charette
format.
Facilitator: Talbot Sweetapple/Patricia Manual/Gynn Bissex (invitations pending and
unconfirmed)
Maximum size of group 6-10
Format of day:
•
•
•
8.30-8.45 – Introduction and Context – Wendy Dovan
8.45-9.15 Framing of the issue (Michael Fox)
9.30-12- Working groups
•
•
•
1-4 – Working groups
4.00-4.30 Wrap Up
6-8- Public Session – Moderated forum discussion with chairs
Planning Advisory Committee
Proposed Meeting Dates
Planning Advisory Committee
Committee of the Whole
*July 27th
No CotW in Aug.
** August 24th
September 6th
September 28th
October 4th
October 26th
November 1st
** November 23rd
December 6th
th
* Changed from July 20 .
** All-Day PAC MPS Review meetings.
No further PAC meetings until 2017.
Town of Wolfville
200 Dykeland Street | Wolfville | NS | B4P 1A2 | t 902-542-3718 | f 902-542-5066
Wolfville.ca