THOSE PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. at 2750 Dutch Village Road with an Invocation.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 4, 1998
MOVED by Councillors Adams and Hanson to approve the Minutes of meeting held on May 4, 1998 as circulated. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.
3. APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
Councillor Adams: Dumping in Harrietsfield and Williamswood
MOVED by Councillors Adams and Walker to approve the Order of Business as amended. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.
4. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES
4.1.1 Snow Removal from Sidewalks
Awaiting a Staff Report from the Committee set up by Regional Council.
5. MOTIONS OF RECONSIDERATION - None
6. MOTIONS OF RESCISSION - None
7. CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRED BUSINESS - None
8.1 Case 7620 - Stage 1, Schedule "K" Development Agreement for approximately 170 acres adjacent to Hemlock Ravine Park and extending from the Bicentennial Highway to the Bedford Highway
Stephen Fiest, Planner provided an overview of the Staff Report dated May 15, 1998 with the aid of overheads.
As part of the presentation, Mr. Fiest advised that one of the reasons this property has not developed in the past was because municipal water and sewer were not available. Halifax Regional Water Commission will be developing, in the near future, a water main from Kearney Lake Road across the BiHi and coming along the BiHi which would provide water to the site. There were no sewer services in the area and the closest sewer line was at Bedford Highway and Kearney Lake Road. The developer, therefore, would provide sewer service along the Bedford Highway to connect to the municipal sewer line at that intersection. Water will be coming down through the site and connecting up to the 10" water line along Bedford Highway to Ocean Brook Park.
With regard to schools, Mr. Fiest advised that there is land set aside as reserve for a school site at the request of the School Board as the School Board felt a subdivision of this size would require an elementary school. The School Board just recently passed a motion to the effect that if schools in the area are at capacity, children in the existing neighbourhoods would not be displaced by any new development. Rather, children in a new development would be bussed to a school which has capacity for them. This is a situation unique not only to this site but to all of HRM and is the School Board's way of dealing with the situation. The school site will remain vacant until at least 75% of the project is complete at which time the School Board will make a decision as to whether or not they need the site.
As far as transportation is concerned, Mr. Feist advised the collector road to Bedford Highway would be divided providing adequate access to the development as well as future developments in the area. Traffic would increase on the Bedford Highway; however, staff looked at the figures and it was their view that the Bedford Highway and the signalized intersection at Kearney Lake Road and Bedford Highway could handle the increase in traffic. The developer, however, will be responsible to carry out a detailed traffic analysis, especially where it goes onto the Bedford Highway, to determine what will be the requirements for the intersection.
With regard to parkland and the protection of Hemlock Ravine Park, Mr. Feist said that a considerable amount of parkland has been secured to provide additional buffering for Hemlock Ravine Park and to provide space for a trail system through the subdivision and link with not only the Park but with future development. There was also provision for nine neighbourhood parks.
Mr. Fiest advised that staff has reviewed the proposal and determined it meets the requirements of Schedule K zone, the policies of the former City of Halifax and the Parkland Strategy. Beyond what was normally expected, there were also aspects such as tree retention and park system. Staff was, therefore, recommending approval of the application.
Presentation by Applicant
Mr. Barry Zwicker, Wallace Macdonald and Lively, representing the Armoyan Group and Bedford Basin Estates outlined some of the changes that had occurred since the Public Meeting in March: school site, neighbourhood parks, fire plan, parkland around the lake, trail along the lake, design controls re small lot singles, buffering and tree protection. The proposal put forward meets the requirements of Schedule K and the policies of the Planning Strategy applicable for the area.
Councillor Stone referred to the Public Meeting held in March where one of the main concerns had to do with schools. According to the Staff Report, the School Board agreed that schools were overcrowded; therefore, he asked would there be something given up front to those moving into the development, if and when it starts, that they will not be going to the neighbourhood schools and would be bussed to a school that could accommodate them. In reply, Mr. Zwicker advised there is a letter, which is in draft form at present, which will go to all agents, leasing and sales people involved with the project, indicating the policy of the School Board at the time the project starts that there is not capacity in the immediate neighbourhood and the students generated as a result of the project will be bussed outside of the neighbourhood to a school where capacity does exist.
Councillor Stone referred to the neighbourhood parks and asked if, when constructed, they would include equipment as well. In reply, Mr. Zwicker advised that each of the nine neighbourhood parks were intended to be completed with playground equipment, landscaped and in finished form. Two tennis courts that would also be built in the area of the multiple family project.
Councillor Stone referred to phasing of the development and asked how long it would take. In reply, Mr. Zwicker advised that the first phase of the project was the area down next to the Bedford Highway and would include a multiple family and townhouse site. The second phase would come up Dufferin Street because it would be necessary to bring water service from the top of the site all the way to the bottom before the first housing unit could be started. It was anticipated that the whole project, in an aggressive fashion, would probably take 15 years. In less than an aggressive market, it could be as long as 20 years. There were a total of 930 units and any time you could get more than 100 units a year was a phenomenal growth rate. It was more likely in the 60-75 unit a year range particularly as they advanced to the single family, semis and small lot housing.
Councillor Hanson asked for clarification re sewer. In reply, Mr. Zwicker said that water would come from the top but sewer would come from the bottom. Part of the proposal was that the developer would be constructing a sewer line from the Kearney Lake Road intersection, along the Bedford Highway to the entrance road, which is Nine Mile Drive. This would be constructed at the developer's expense.
Councillor Hanson asked for clarification re storm sewer. In reply, Mr. Zwicker advised that storm water systems would be totally built by the developer. With regard to retention ponds and storm water management, this would be undertaken as part of the detail analysis but was part of the developer's responsibility.
Councillor Stone asked if the sewer line, when constructed, would become public. In reply, Mr. Zwicker said that once it was completed and ready for take over, it would eventually be a public system.
Speakers in Favour
Mr. Marvin Silver, Chairman, Bedford Waters Advisory Committee, said he was not speaking for or against but had come to seek information. This project was not brought to the Committee's attention by HRM but by the Chair of the Halifax Lakes and Waterways Advisory Committee, Mr. Rick Gagne. Nevertheless, BWAC was gratified to be consulted on this matter which has peripheral impact on the Bedford community and may be precedent setting for development in the area. With regard to water related issues specific to BWAC which impact on the community of Bedford, he referred to Page 3, para 2 where it stated that there was going to be a sanitary sewer system which he understood would not go to Mill Cove but to Halifax Harbour. Ultimately, the lands to the north would be serviced by Mill Cove and he asked if Mill Cove would be able to handle this development as well as others. He referred to the fact that a trunk water main would run parallel to the BiHi and asked if it would be extended north towards Bedford and would the developments in the area between Hemlock Park and Bedford be serviced by this or would the areas be serviced from Hammonds Plains Road. He referred to the remaining vacant lands of Crestview Properties being serviced by Mill Cove and asked if this development was the most northerly development that would not be serviced by Mill Cove. He referred to page 6 re storm water management and asked if there would be treatment or settling ponds for storm water or would the surface ponds/lakes be used as settling ponds - which could be precedent setting for developments in the area. He referred to page 11 and asked about water services, including the natural water courses, ground water supply and sanitary and storm sewers. In phasing of the project, he asked what provision was being made for each phase to be compatible with other phases of the project, the existing water services and future water services.
There were no further speakers in favour of the application.
Speakers in Opposition
Mr. Rick Gagne, 49 Lodge Drive said he was not actually against the development but was against it if it is not done properly. He congratulated staff for making the changes relative to the Information Meeting but did not think all the issues were fully addressed. He referred to notification of the residents in the area who would be directly affected by the project. In a brief survey of the street, less than 20% were notified of the hearing. He asked if this was proper procedure. With regard to schooling, he was pleased to see that lands have been put aside for the School Board's consideration and the decision of the School Board with respect to the existing children in the existing schools; however, he asked how that would affect children who were not yet in school. With regard to traffic, he referred to Alan Taylor's report re the adequacy of signalling at Kearney Lake Road and Bedford Highway which indicated that when fully developed, stop control at Nine Mile Drive and Bedford Highway would not function to an acceptable level of service and traffic exiting in peak hours would not find acceptable gaps in traffic. Reference was being made not to the additional traffic on the Bedford Highway because of the project but to existing traffic. Residents in the area now were faced with the same problems on making left hand turns that people in the new development would be faced with plus the burden of yet additional traffic resulting from the development. He asked how the safety of existing residents would be addressed. He referred to environmental concerns and existing water supplies for existing residents. There were about 12 low density residential and businesses immediately below the project and properties to the south and north of the project and also on lands not yet developed. The proposed development would be on central water and would no doubt salt its streets. There was never a guarantee that storm sewers were totally leak proof and, therefore, there was a high likelihood of the introduction of salt water to the people's ground water. He saw nothing in the development proposal or the Staff Report which addresses who will be responsible for the replacement of services for which people have already paid - such as well and septic. If they are forced to replace the systems because of failure due to the proposed development, why should they be asked to service their sites twice. He referred to the original drawings made available at the Public Information Meeting which showed two storm water discharges directly into Hemlock Ravine Park and asked if this so.
Mr. Alex Walker, 12 St. Laurent Place said his main concern was the school situation. He referred to a number of letters which he had received as a result of letters he sent out after the March meeting. He referred to points in the letters such as the provincial government's responsibility re the issue of classroom space lies with Department of Education. The Minister of Education advised in his letter that it was the responsibility of the School Board to identify new facility requirements. As far as Councillor Stone's response was concerned, he indicated that existing students of the surrounding schools would not be displaced by students from the development. The development would go ahead to 75% completion before any school could be built which would mean real estate agents giving letters to people for the next 12 years indicating that their children would be bussed somewhere else to go to school. He did not know if real estate agents would give those letters out when they were trying to sell a piece of property. He felt that there had to be some method for the province, the School Board and HRM to get together and reasonably try to defuse some of these situations such as are happening in Timberlea, Eastern Passage, Kingswood and Bedford and soon to be in this area.
Ms. Gretchen Knickle, 25 Wedgewood Avenue referred to traffic and the study done re Bayview Road which indicated the possibility of Bayview Road being closed which would mean more traffic from this development onto Kearney Lake Road. Her biggest concern was the schooling and the stress on the school system, especially on Wentworth. She questioned whether the letters to be given out by real estate agents would make any difference to the agents or to the people who might get them. There seemed to be more consideration given to tree retention that to retention of adequate seating for all students. She wanted a seat retained for her daughter in Primary when she went to school in 1999. With regard to Junior High and High School students, if the schools in the area were not at capacity, they were close to it and would be above it with this development. Bussing could only go so far. The neighbourhood children could be pushed into smaller classrooms with larger classroom numbers but it depended on what the definition of "displaced" was. She appealed to Community Council to set a precedent with this development since this was the first opportunity to make a difference and get different levels of government all working together.
Ms. Pat Portman, 35 Deacon Drive advised she had already put forward a submission which she hoped had been received. She thought there was an omission in that no provision has been made if gas comes to the area. She asked what would happen, acknowledged it was long range but pointed out that the project could last for 12-15 years.
Mr. Albert Densmore, 7 Kent Avenue referred to the Park and asked if there were entrances to the park and some parking lots in the development because there was a parking area off Kent Avenue now. There was a lot of traffic on Kent Avenue and with this development there would be that many more people wanting to go up Kent Avenue.
Mr. Richard Perkins, 43 Lodge Drive said he was one of the people who had signed a letter in Kent Park Subdivision plus he had additional names he passed in. His concern was the lack of information and he felt everybody living in the vicinity should have full information and more people would be here if they knew about it. He was not notified in writing. He asked if it was in order for him to make a motion (he was told no). Therefore, he asked if Councillors had received a notice of motion faxed this morning (he was told yes). He recommended, therefore, that in view of the failure of HRM to provide notification by mail of the Public Hearing on June 1 to all residents of the area affected by the development, HRM study all points raised in the letter from Rick Gagne dated May 29, 1998 and signed by residents of Kent Park Subdivision and others with particular reference to environmental concerns. Since many residents may be on vacation in July and August, a further Public Hearing be scheduled no earlier than September 15, 1998 at which the report should be presented and discussed and made available to the public at least one month before the said Hearing. HRM should notify all residents in the area affected as per the provincial/municipal Act prior to such a Hearing. No development shall take place until it has been discussed and approved at the Hearing. This would give people time to think about the development before anyone rushes headlong into such a major development.
Ms. Mary McGrath, 33 Hamshaw Drive advised she was Co-Chair of Clayton Park Junior High PTA and past Chair of Grosvenor Wentworth PTA. The letter referred to regarding school space and the bussing of students in this development, in her opinion, was not adequate notification to any prospective purchaser. The School Board policy and the notification re bussing must be incorporated into the Development Agreement so that there is adequate notification when registering the Deed and would allow prospective purchasers legal notification. With regard to the buffer zone and the 20' tree line along some of the areas close to the buffer zone, she asked if it was part of the lot to be purchased and in addition to the buffer zone which the map shows along the most sensitive Park area. The storm sewer that enters the section also appears to be entering the most sensitive Park area. With regard to well water, she lived with blasting and there was no way this development could go ahead without substantial blasting. There would be severe impact on wells, sewers and foundations. She had asked in the past how to revisit - and was still waiting for a reply - the Municipal Planning Strategy and get rid of Schedule K. She wanted to see the MPS revisited.
Peter Kelly, Councillor District 21- Bedford, said he had grave concerns with the process which would impact on his District. With respect to the overall development, staff had made it very clear in the Staff Report of doing an overall Master Plan. Because it was already Schedule K and a proponent comes in tomorrow to put in an application, would the current MPS be dealt with or was there an option to say no and have a review, and on what basis. There was an 800 acre site on Jack Lake in Bedford which has had extensive analysis done on a project which has not even commenced yet but here was an 800 acre site and developers were already in the process of buying up further land. He asked what was the true cost to HRM and the taxpayers and what portion of the costs would be given back to the developer. He reviewed points such as gross calculations versus net usable and when dealing with land masses of this type, there were pieces of the property environmentally sensitive and why not calculate on net usable rather than gross overall acreage because the usable amounts would have an overabundance of population. With respect to recreational elements, what would the area need in terms of recreational complexes. In terms of other capital costs, such as the bypass that would be needed after the 800 acres are complete, was the proponent prepared to work toward putting in a contribution towards paying for the bypass. With respect to upside roads and pipes, what was being asked of the developer now re paying a fee or knowing that down the road they will be needing a beyond point. The overall piping on Bedford Highway would be able to handle up to the Halifax line, according to the Staff Report. As part of the overall project, in terms of piping, was the proposed development going to be able to handle the other development to the north on a downward slope pattern or would it be necessary to go to the Bedford Highway in another form. With respect to upsize streets, the Staff Report indicates up to a certain point it will be borne by the proponent, but after that is done, what is expected of HRM. He requested that Community Council learn by Bedford's mistakes re the lack of infrastructure, schooling and the lack of foresight that development does have a cost and a responsibility. It should be stated up front what was expected in terms of possible lot levies and he asked if this could be negotiated as part of the process. He felt that the developer should know up front that when they bring development, they should pay the price over and above what is expected as of right. It was clear there would be cost implications in terms of fire, police, infrastructure for roadways, maintenance and upkeep and it should be known up front who pays the cost and on what terms. He asked when the Master Plan was expected to be done. He asked Community Council to look to the future and ensure protection of the taxpayers.
Mr. Peter Crowell, Co-President, Grosvenor Wentworth PTA expressed concern re schools and did not get a great deal of comfort from the resolution from the School Board that the concerns would be addressed re population in the area. In his dealings with the School Board, there seemed to be a lot of buck passing and the fact that the School Board could not even bring itself to indicate which schools they would protect said it all. If you look at what has happened in Hammonds Plains, it was a situation where resolution keeps slipping away. This was an issue that needed to be addressed as far as any agreement to develop the property. He agreed the developer had every right to proceed and make use of the land but, aside from the environmental concerns raised, schooling had to be an issue addressed at the outset. He said there should be a commitment on construction of new schools before any agreement is signed. He did not think this development would progress slowly enough that construction of a school would catch up.
Mr. Larry Belliveau, 6 St. Laurent Place said it seems that the traffic issue was based on density statistics for this development and did not take into consideration the lands to the north. If there was a plan to have a divided roadway, it obviously indicates greater density housing in the northern part. He asked how this would be accommodated on the Bedford Highway and did not think development should go ahead until such time as the Bedford Highway is widened or a solution in place. With regard to schools and the development planned over 12-15 years, who would pay the cost of bussing students for that length of time. The developer was expecting everybody else to pay part of the cost to bus students to other schools and take the problem somewhere else. He requested that Community Council look at these kinds of problems up front instead of waiting until after the fact.
Mr. Brian Worrall, 5 Beechwood Terrace said he did not think the project should be approved until the overall Master Plan for the area has been developed, until all the other school sites have been located and transportation difficulties are handled. It could be 9-12 years until the school would be built. He asked why there would be a divided collector road leading down to a two-lane highway even though the report indicated the Bedford Highway would be widened. There would have to be expropriation to widen it, depending on how wide. Once you reach Kearney Lake Road, what would happen as the road beyond it could hardly deal with the traffic now.
The Chair having called three times for further speakers, there were none.
MOVED by Councillors Adams and Walker to close the Public Hearing. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.
Rebuttal by Applicant
Mr. Barry Zwicker referred to the water reservoir and advised that it was designed to service everything from the boundary at Hemlock Park through to Hammonds Plains Road. It was generally identified as the Bedford South Water Area. The study that put the water reservoir in place was as a result of development in Bedford. Because the location of water reservoirs do not support political boundaries but the high points of land to service a large area, it is located just to the north boundary of the property and the distribution system will serve everything from the boundary with Hemlock Park through to and including property on Hammonds Plains Road. It just happens that the feed line was coming from Kearney Lake Road and would cross the property in question first to allow an opportunity to distribute water. With regard to the capability of Mill Cove to handle additional development, the area in question was never considered part of the catchment area for the Mill Cove treatment plant nor was the remaining lands from the boundary through to the old former City of Halifax. There was an issue of topography. Some areas naturally drain by gravity and should be heading in the direction of the plant. That could happen as areas develop assuming there is capacity. The project in question is not dependent on that since sewer will be heading in the other direction. Sewer will be part of a larger regional system and decisions will be made in the future to handle sewage treatment for all of the remaining untreated portions of HRM.
With regard to salt on the road and direct discharge of storm water into Hemlock Ravine Park, Mr. Zwicker said there were areas now where storm water leaves the site and naturally heads to Hemlock Ravine Park. It is not intended to put additional storm water into the Park but to deal with some level of treatment with respect to detention facilities. A more detailed storm water management study will have to be carried out prior to Stage II Agreement before anything can be constructed on the site.
With regard to the comment that 75% of the project would have to be completed before the school, Mr. Zwicker said it was not the true intention. It was understood that a decision should be made to construct a school before the project is 75% complete and could theoretically be built the day after the site is approved but more realistically it would be built when it works its way up the list. It is not written in the Development Agreement that it cannot be built until 75% of the site is completed. One of the things the developer can do is deal with a letter being circulated to agents to actually agree to incorporate it into any Agreement of Purchase and Sale for any of the sites so that anybody who buys will be aware of the policy with respect to schooling until such time as there is capacity.
With regard to natural gas, Mr. Zwicker advised his client has been meeting with representatives of the company that might be distributing natural gas in the area with the intention of putting natural gas pipelines in as part of the construction. At the present time, there are no regulations or standards in the province for the distribution of natural gas. Until such time as there are standards, you cannot construct anything.
With regard to entrances to the Park, Mr. Zwicker advised there was an opportunity on the lower part of the site in Park No. 2 to have a parking lot and pathway system constructed to provide some relief. A number of opportunities have been provided for people living in the project to get to the Park so he hoped they would not drive around to Kent Avenue to access the Park.
With regard to lack of notice, Mr. Zwicker said the legal requirement is that an advertisement be placed in the newspaper. HRM actually goes beyond that by requiring the property be signed at the time of application. In addition, there were written notices sent out but he did not know the full extent. There was no legal requirement for those notices; it is a service provided by HRM in an effort to provide as many people as possible with as much information as possible. The advertisement for the Public Hearing, in his opinion, was certainly consistent with the requirements of law.
With regard to the 20' buffer zone, Mr. Zwicker said that was in addition to the buffers identified on the plan and in addition to any of the green area on it. It was intended to try to incorporate and protect as much of the vegetation behind the houses to the back of the individual's lot line as possible.
With regard to the need for an overall Master Plan, Mr. Zwicker advised he could not argue with that but the developer could not wait for it. Work has taken place on this project for over 14 months and there have been discussions to undertake a Master Plan by HRM since that time but nothing has been done. With regard to Jack Lake in Bedford, this was a federally owned piece of land outside the development boundary for the former Town of Bedford. Studies were required for consideration to get inside the boundary. To be fair, a better example for comparison would be Paper Mill Lake RCDD, Nottingham Park RCDD where both sites were inside the development boundary and none of the studies referred to by Councillor Kelly were actually required by those two projects. The planning process is very similar in terms of Schedule K and what you need to do in Bedford.
Mr. Zwicker referred to oversizing and advised that there was no oversizing required on or off site for this development that was not being paid 100% by the developer. There was an opportunity for HRM to incorporate for the long term plan for the rest of the area some infrastructure by sharing oversizing to accommodate some of the land without having to go back after the fact.
With regard to operating costs for fire and police, this was a regional planning issue. HRM was going to grow and what HRM has to decide is what are the reasonable and economically feasible places to direct development. Those areas easier to serve from this perspective are the areas that are presently inside the serviceable area and inside the BiHi versus five miles out. If this type of development were built five miles out, then there was no question police and fire costs would go up dramatically. With respect to developing inside in a more efficient area, costs would be minimized although there would be an increase. The point was that HRM would grow in the right place.
With regard to schooling, Mr. Zwicker advised that the School Board now has a Capital Facilities Planner and is spending more time on the planning aspect than before. He had talked to the School Board with regard to the provision of the school site and a site was identified which had good potential.
With regard to the inclusion of undeveloped lands in the traffic study, Mr. Zwicker advised that the undeveloped lands would be included with consideration being given to their potential impact. There were different policies with regard to Schedule K and the Old City boundary. On the right hand side, there were lands included in the former Town of Bedford which are presently designated and zoned Residential Reserve. Nothing could happen on those lands until there is a Plan Amendment which requires that a number of studies be undertaken which includes infrastructure. On the left hand side of the line, it was Schedule K which was a completely different development process. More than one third of 800 acres has a planning designation that could not allow anything to happen on it other than five acre lots. This was a control for at least one third of the development on that side in terms of short term development. The other Schedule K lands could not develop until a part of the proposed development is complete, water and sewer is in and the roads built. This would take a few years. There was time to get a Master Plan going which he strongly encouraged.
With respect to changes made as a result of comments at the Public Information Meeting, the question of whether or not children had any rights if they ended up moving into a community other than this project, Mr. Zwicker said he understood the School Board's policy was that if there was a vacant lot which was developed in an already developed area, this policy would not apply as children would be able to go to a neighbourhood school as the lot/house already exists. The policy applies to new development.
Information from Staff
Mr. Feist, Planner added that with regard to Mill Cove, there was always an intention that there was going to be a split and for all the vacant lands in the area, at this time Engineering has determined that it would probably be a 60/40 split with 60% of the development going towards Halifax and 40% going towards Mill Cove. As far as storm water management and settling ponds were concerned, this would have to be addressed with a storm water management study which would be going to the Watershed Advisory Board and would require approval by Department of Environment. As far as each phase being compatible with the other, this was the whole purpose for having a concept plan such as the one here, before the detailed planning for each phase takes place.
With regard to notification, Mr. Feist advised that staff followed the normal procedures as far as notification for Public Hearings was concerned. A general area next to the proposed development, generally within 500' or more, receive letters. As well, it was advertised in the newspaper on two separate occasions. At the Public Information meeting, it was noted there would be a Public Hearing coming up in the near future.
With regard to storm water discharge into Hemlock Ravine Park, Mr. Feist advised that it would be covered under a storm water management study. With regard to parking lots so that people could gain access to Hemlock Ravine Park, Phase 2 would have a softball pitch and basketball court with a parking lot and it was the intention to provide that as a second access point into Hemlock Ravine Park. With regard to Schedule K, this was a zone for the lands and if a landowner comes in with a proposal that meets all the requirements of Schedule K, HRM has to take a serious look at it. It was a little different from some of the residential zones in that it requires a Development Agreement but it does permit development if there is municipal water and sewer. As far as the Master Plan was concerned, staff was working to ensure that a lot of the issues raised with regard to this development are adhered to throughout the whole area. Staff has not gotten to the stage of bringing anything to the public.
With regard to whether or not a sewer line 15" was large enough to handle the whole area, Mr. Fiest said it would be part of a more detailed study on servicing. With regard to traffic on Bedford Highway, staff was aware that the Bedford Highway would have to be upgraded in some way to accommodate all future development in the area and to consider an interchange to the BiHi to encourage traffic to go to the BiHi.
Ms. Donna Davis-Lohnes, Manager, Planning Applications provided information with respect to the comprehensive planning exercise for the area which staff was planning to undertake. Looking from the property under discussion tonight through to the development in the former Town of Bedford was a priority. She expected that Regional Council would be approving an integrated servicing study for a consulting company to look at overall infrastructure supply and demand and, in particular, this area was a priority for consideration of the provision and needs of sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and transportation. It was a logical and cost efficient area for development to take place in a regional context. Timing for completion of this integrated servicing study was six months, which fit in nicely with the ability to look at other infrastructure requirements in the area.
With respect to the differences between the Schedule K area and the area on the other side of the line in the former Town, Ms. Davis-Lohnes said that staff wanted to approach this by not proceeding with two different sets of policies governed by two policy documents which there was right now and developing the comprehensive physical plan was only step one. What was then needed was to go through a planning process whereby a comprehensive policy is developed which is consistent with and erases the line. This would be a challenging process.
With respect to Alan Taylor's memorandum suggesting that stop controls at the intersection of Nine Mile Drive and Bedford Highway would not function at an acceptable level of service, Ms. Davis-Lohnes clarified that the Traffic Engineer was talking about a stop sign. Staff was looking at the need for a signalized intersection when the development is complete. The actual timing for the signalization and a left turning lane would be identified in the traffic analysis, a study the developer is required to do right up front before proceeding to a Stage II agreement. As well, the traffic study will look at the larger issue of future widening of the Bedford Highway as well as the potential need for an interchange at the BiHi.
Barry Allen, Municipal Solicitor advised that with regard to lot levies being negotiated up front, there was no provision now for the type of lot levies that were mentioned. Certainly anything that is available by way of cost sharing would have been explored by staff and included in the agreement. There was no ability to collect more than that from the developer at this time.
Councillor Stone said that one of his main concerns - the school question - had been addressed. The people who go into the new development will receive information that they will not be going to the neighbouring school but will probably be bussed. People who are in the existing lands will not be affected.
Councillor Hanson said he was concerned that the community was indicating they were not being properly notified. He asked if it would be possible to have a look to see why this is happening. He acknowledged there had been advertisements in the paper, notices had been sent out, Councillors send out information to their community but he wanted to know if there was something else that could be done to make sure everyone knew what was going on. There was no hidden agenda. Community Council has been one of the sources of opportunity for people to share their views, which were accepted and respected.
MOVED by Councillors Walker and Hanson to refer to staff on the following issues, with a response to be provided for the next meeting to be held on July 6, 1998:
Questions in letters received tonight which were not addressed by staff;
Salting of streets - whether or not salt will be used and, if so, where will the water go;
Parking lot for Hemlock Ravine - if there is going to be a parking lot next to sports fields, will it take away from green space or will green space be added on somewhere else;
Schooling - who pays and will there be an area rate added on to the homes to pay for the bussing of students or will it come from all of HRM;
Wells and septic - potential for problems;
Blasting - which By-law would be in place - the one which protects residents from 300 metres from the blasting site or the presently proposed 150 metres.
9. CORRESPONDENCE, PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS
A letter dated May 28, 1998 from Rory and Valarie O'Day, 19 Fairmount Road was before Community Council regarding a trellis for separation between two properties.
The Chair requested that this correspondence be referred to staff for a Staff Report. Community Council members agreed.
11.1 Councillor Adams
Councillor Adams acknowledged that there was a transit strike on at present and this proposed motion may have implications with regard to the strike. He asked, however, for consideration from Community Council to increase the rate across the entire Community Council catchment area by .2 cents - an average of $2 per household - to allow some form of transit from Village Road through Sambro and around Harrietsfield to Capt. Wm. Spry Centre, approximately eight trips per day. There was nothing in the form of transit right now. If the area rate were to be put just on the former District 5, it would be cost prohibitive for the service.
MOVED by Councillors Adams and Hanson to increase the transit area rate by .2 cents across the entire Community Council catchment area to allow for Community Transit in the former District 5 from Village Road through Sambro to Capt. Wm. Spry Community Centre in Spryfield.
Councillor Walker suggested a Staff Report should be requested first to see what the implications are with regard to transit negotiations as this might get thrown out as part of any agreement.
Councillor Adams then suggested a different wording for the motion
TO MODEL COMMUNITY TRANSIT AFTER THE ONES PRESENTLY IN EXISTENCE IN PRESTON AND BEAVER BANK.
Councillor Stone asked for clarification as to whether or not a Staff Report was being requested in advance of any decision. In reply, Councillor Adams said a Staff Report might be a moot issue if it were being modelled after the Community Transit in place right now. If, for some reason, it comes back through negotiations, he would make another motion to accommodate the request, if feasible at that time.
Councillor Stone said he had serious reservations going forward with this as an area rate as area rates have not been established at this time for this Community Council. He had trouble agreeing with an area rate for his District for someone else unless there was some kind of reciprocal arrangement, such as sidewalk snowplowing. He referred to the Minutes of the last meeting where there was reference to the former District 5 with a half kilometre of sidewalk in Herring Cove and whereas Councillor Adams had asked that the former District 5 be excluded in keeping with not paying for services they do not receive. If Community Council was going to get into area rates, there needed to be a comprehensive plan and rationale. As well, the public should be advised. He was against the motion.
Councillor Adams agreed with Councillor Stone's point re sidewalk area rates but pointed out that residents of every other aspect of Community Council, except the former District 5, did receive transit services. This was not having them pay for something they did not receive. What he was proposing was paying a little more for services they receive. He was asking for consideration to give a segment of District 18 a very minimal service that would slightly increase an already existing area rate over most of the Community Council catchment area.
Councillor Adams, then, agreed that if it would make Councillors feel more comfortable, a Staff Report could be requested.
MOVED by Councillors Walker and Adams to refer for a Staff Report for the next meeting, based on the motion. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.
12.1 Dumping - Harrietsfield and Williamswood
Councillor Adams advised that about two years ago this had been dealt with in the area of Club Road in Harrietsfield when there had been a great deal of dumping from Old Sambro Road back to the Satellite Tracking Station. After a number of months, the property was cleaned up. Last week, he went over the area again with a local resident to find much of the same type of debris scattered about as two years previous. Mr. Shea and Mr. Bradshaw, By-Law Enforcement Officers have notified the property owner of problems in the area; however, to date, there has been no response. The situation had been raised with Mr. Meech and he wanted it on public record to get the area cleaned up. In addition to cleanup, he was requesting a report from staff as to how to put a gate across Club Road with access for the Fire Department, RCMP and other emergency services and block off other entrances that people are using to get through and dump. He suggested moving a couple large rocks would suffice. Knowing the abilities and powers of the By-law Enforcement Officers, he expected that they have run into roadblocks, even to have the area cleaned up by HRM and bill the owners.
MOVED by Councillors Adams and Walker to refer this matter to staff for investigation and action. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.
14. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr. Hiram Tiller, 4 Thackery Close raised the following points:
Councillor Walker advised that this was a traffic authority decision and nothing has been decided as yet. He did not think the residents in the Gateway area would think much of the suggestion for a temporary solution. He did not think the issue was dead, however.
Councillor Stone advised he understood that Engineering staff would look at the comments from the public meeting and decide whether to abandon what was proposed, look at a new proposal or look at a different approach. He had requested a Staff Report through Regional Council to have a whole new look at the traffic calming policy because he felt there was a need for change in the policy itself.
Councillor Stone advised that there was not enough traffic coming off Radcliffe at this time to warrant any signalization for left turns. There were signal standards in the ground for Parkland Drive which would be a future main street going from Kearney Lake Road to Lacewood Drive.
Councillor Stone advised that Department of Transportation has let a tender to hire a consultant to evaluate the intersection of Lacewood and 102, which would cost approximately $20,000. Part of what DOT would be addressing was the ramps, both on and off the 102 at Lacewood, and what should be done in relation to traffic lights at both ramps and a pedestrian way. As well, at Regional Council there was approval for improvement to Chain Lake Drive in the Bayers Lake Business Park which includes, in Phase 2, doing something with sidewalk on one side but nothing can be done until after the intersection is dealt with by DOT.
Councillor Stone advised that without the Seal, there was no guarantee. A contract would have been accepted without following tendering specifications. Everybody had to follow the same rules in a tendering process.
With regard to the tender for hauling garbage, Councillor Stone advised that there had not been a big enough onus put on the tenderers if they defaulted. The default money was not large enough to make them continue to do the hauling. The question was to either take the next lowest bidder or re-tender and the consensus was to take the next lowest bidder which was a difference of $1 million. Everybody knew the tendering amounts so anyone else rebidding knew what was being tendered and this was not fair to other people who had already tendered. A second tendering process could also cost more.
Mr. Mike Willett, Clayton Developments raised the following points:
Ms. Mary McGrath, 33 Hamshaw Drive referred to the bus strike. As a taxpayer and one who pays substantially for services she did not receive, she advised she did not have a problem paying a little extra provided there was a fare wage for bus drivers. She supported increases particularly for Access A Bus drivers and urged Council to settle the strike.
Councillor Stone pointed out that Access A Bus drivers were not like the other bus drivers. If they got too high a wage increase, they could lose the tender. He understood that wages for bus drivers was really not the issue. He explained some of the other issues.
15. NEXT MEETING DATE - Monday, July 6, 1998
16. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion from Councillors Adams and Hanson, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Julia Horncastle
Assistant Municipal Clerk
