planning advisory committee - wolfville · 2. approval of the minutes of may 25th, 2016 3. mps...

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 17,303 sq ft (.4 acres, 1607.5 sq. metres)

DESIGNATION Low Density Residential

ZONE 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.

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.

Figure 1 - Location Map of 5 Blomidon

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 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 re-designated 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

Figure 2 - Air Photo of property

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


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 site-specific 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


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 Discussion (+process?) 1. Take no action 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.

2. Make area-wide MPS and LUB amendments as part of ongoing Plan Review process

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.

3. Make Site Specific (spot zoning, PID specific) MPS and LUB Amendments at this time rather than wait for full plan review

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 TerracePlanning Report [DRAFT]

Project No 140803.01Prepared for David Messom

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


5. site proposal

Relax Restrictions 9

Process 9


6. Conclusion

Recommendations 11

Conclusion 11

1

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. INTRODUCTION

2

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. CONTEXT

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.

3

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

4

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 high-density 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

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 down-zoned 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 low-density 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 High-Density 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.

1989 MPSFive 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)

2008 MPS5 Blomidon Terrace

remains in R-1A zone despite Policy 8.2

1995 Construction of Five Blomidon Terrace with 5 residential units

2005 Interior addition of 1 residential unit - no change to building envelope

1996 MPSR-2 zone is amended

to indicate 2 max residential units

(Residential Policy 14)

Five Blomidon Terrace is rezoned R-1A

despite Residential Policy 15

1997 Interior addition of 1 residential unit - no change to building envelope

5

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.

6

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

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.

3. TOWN-WIDE PROPOSAL

7

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.

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

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.

8

4. NEIGHBOUR-HOOD 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.


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 Low-Density buildings should future development occur on the street.

This proposal does not address the lack of clarity in the language of Medium and High-Density zones. Future development would continue to bring uncertainty to developers and to the surrounding community, and would continue to demand planning staff to process

development agreements. Nor would this proposal solve the challenges of the four non-conforming 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.

9

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 non-conforming 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 re-designation 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:

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.

(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.


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 non-conforming commercial uses in the Town that are not located in commercial zones. The non-conforming use restrictions of

10

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 well-regarded 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

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.

11

6. CONCLUSIONRecommendations

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 as-of-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) Interim Solution

Make use of Part 242 (1) of the Municipal Government Act which enables the flexibility to recognize a building as having a non-conforming 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 re-designation 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.

Conclusion

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 high-quality rental development that supports the progressive objectives of the MPS.

ATTACHMENT 2 – PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

ATTACHMENT 3 – Excerpt of Current Zoning Map

ATTACHMENT 4 – Excerpt of GFLUM Map

MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-001 Subject: Personal Offices Date: 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: Personal Offices Date: 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: Devin Lake Reviewed by: Chrystal Fuller Date of PAC Review Decision of PAC: Amendments made by: Date of amendments made

Issue Identification Report, Page 2 of 2

MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-002 Subject: Form Based Zoning and Density Date: 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: Form Based Zoning and Density Date: 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: Colin Simic Reviewed by: DL/CF Date of PAC Review Decision of PAC: Amendments made by: Date of amendments made


MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-003 Subject: Lounge: Hours of Seating Area Date: 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-003 Subject: Lounge: Hours of Seating Area Date: 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: Colin Simic/Ericka Wicks Reviewed by: Chrystal Fuller Date of PAC Review Decision of PAC: Amendments made by: Date of amendments made


MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-003 Subject: Lounge: Hours of Seating Area Date: 20016-06-09 APPENDIX A – Letter from Troy Restaurant


MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-004 Subject: Lounge: Hours of Operation Date: 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-004 Subject: Lounge: Hours of Operation Date: 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: Colin Simic Reviewed by: Date of PAC Review Decision of PAC: Amendments made by: Date of amendments


MPS REVIEW ISSUE BRIEF-004 Subject: Lounge: Hours of Operation Date: 2016-06-09 made


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

* Changed from July 20th.

** 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

planning advisory committee - wolfville · 2. approval of the minutes of may 25th, 2016 3. mps...

Documents