Kings County reps address concerns over proposed Canning development

Citizen-organized meeting held to get answers prior to public hearing

Answers were provided, but whether concerned residents found them satisfactory is another question.

Representatives of the County of Kings attended a citizen-organized meeting at the Canning village offices and fire hall on June 29 to answer questions about a proposed multi-unit residential development.

Municipal staff answered 14 questions from concerned residents that were formally prepared for the meeting and then fielded questions and comments from many in attendance.

Parsons Green Developments has applied for a development agreement to permit the construction of six, fivestorey dwellings containing up to 70 units each and townhouses representing up to 22 additional units. The proposal includes walking trails and amenity buildings.

The subject properties total 22.24 acres and are located in the southeast quadrant of J. Jordan Road and Summer Street in Canning. The land is zoned Comprehensive Neighbourhood Development (R5) and Residential One and Two Unit (R2).

On June 7, Kings County council unanimously voted to move the matter forward to a public hearing. Following the hearing, council could give the development agreement second and final reading. If approved, there would be a 14-day appeal period.

The public hearing was originally scheduled for July 5, but has since been moved to July 26 at 6 p.m. A special meeting will follow where council will consider second and final reading.

surrounding Citizen concerns the proposal include the scale of the development and proposed heights of buildings, the associated population increase, traffic, storm drainage, and the capacity of water and sewer infrastructure to handle the population growth.

CONCERNING FIREFIGHTING CAPACITY

Citizens asked what the rationale is for permitting multiple buildings with heights of 15 feet more than the maximum 45-foo t height in the R5 zone.

Manager of Planning and Development Services Laura Mosher explained that the only two as-of-right uses in the zone include existing agricultural or forestry uses, and the 45-foot height limit relates to those uses only, not those governed by development agreements.

A question was posed about the rationale behind permitting a development that cannot be served by the Canning Fire Department, with evidence of any anticipated costs associated with service being provided by other departments. This relates to the fact that the Canning department doesn't have its own aerial ladder truck.

Canning Fire Chief Jeff Skaling said the department does have the capacity to serve the first phase of the development, which could include two five-storey buildings with up to 70 units each.

He said there is an automatic aid program for structure fires within Kings County that would result in other departments being called to the scene at the same time.

“That brings a variety of apparatus and additional personnel,” Skaling said. “That automatic aid program has been tailored to ensure that the first response is adequate.”

The chief said there are aerial ladder trucks in nearby Kentville and Wolfville that would be accessible. He said his understanding is that the buildings will have sprinklers, which are “exceptionally efficient at controlling the initial onset of fire.”

CONCERNING TRAFFIC

Scott Quinn, the county's director of Engineering and Public Works, Lands and Parks, fielded the question about the results of a new traffic study to gauge traffic on J. Jordan Road, the intersection of the 358 and 221 highways and Main Street.

He said the study was done under the direction of Nova Scotia Public Works (NSPW), as the department is responsible for provincial road infrastructure.

From the study, no issues regarding increased vehicle traffic from the proposed development were flagged. Quinn said a request for a crosswalk in the vicinity of Glooscap Elementary School was declined by NSPW.

Later, in response to a question, Quinn said the consultant took available traffic count data from NSPW and used a model prescribed by NSPW to arrive at the analysis.

Residents questioned the accuracy of traffic counts used.

Mayor Peter Muttart said the municipality is obliged to depend on what NSPW's report says when the county asks them for an opinion on traffic.

Resident David Bain said concerns such as those relating to traffic and the safety of children in the vicinity of Glooscap Elementary could have surfaced sooner if there was a better public engagement process involved.

Muttart said concerns surrounding crosswalks or the safety of provincial roads, for example, should be directed to provincial representatives because that is provincial jurisdiction.

SECONDARY PLANNING

A question was posed regarding the rationale for a lack of a secondary planning strategy for the growth centre of Canning, like a secondary plan being developed for the growth centre of New Minas.

Mosher said a secondary planning strategy could be warranted in certain communities that have unique aspects or characteristics that merit planning consideration. The secondary plan guides development and must be consistent with the municipality's overall Municipal Planning Strategy.

She said New Minas is subject to relatively high development pressure and 1,000 acres were recently added to its boundaries that are open for development.

“That merited some specific consideration for that undeveloped area. There are no roads there, there's no services there, so that all has to be planned out comprehensively,” Mosher said.

She said should Canning wish to pursue a secondary plan, part of the process would be to identify guiding principles specific to Canning. Criteria for prioritizing secondary plans include exhibiting significant rates of growth and development over the long term.

Historically, Canning has had low rates of development. There have been four planning applications over the last decade, three of which didn't move forward.

ACCESS TO RELEVANT INFORMATION

Several citizens asked why studies used to evaluate the development proposal haven't been made public.

Doug Hickman, of Habitant, said there is an apparent lack of information in the community surrounding the proposed development.

“It would appear that reports have been done that have not in fact been made available to the public,” Hickman said. “Why would we take someone else's say-so about it?”

Hickman said people are not informed and they're frustrated. He called on the municipality to share all relevant information. He said that what has happened to this point in the process has been “a failure in community engagement.”

Later in the meeting, Trish Javorek, the director of Planning and Inspection Services, committed to making a drainage plan and traffic study for

the proposed development available on the municipal website, www.countyofkings. ca, by June 30.

A previous public staff report, already available online, also contains information on the rationale used to support the proposal.

WATER, SEWER, AND DRAINAGE

Quinn also answered a question about stormwater drainage. He said a report was submitted by a third-party engineer. The subject property drains toward the south. Quinn said the developer would use a couple of retention ponds and try to direct the flow to existing watercourses.

“Based on the review, what they have proposed meets the municipal specifications,” Quinn said.

Mosher said there shouldn't be any increase in storm water flows for other area properties because of the development.

Quinn said existing public water and sewer infrastructure has the capacity to handle the first phase of the development. However, upgrades to the Canning water system are needed. This was identified prior to the proposal. It was later pointed out that upgrades to sewage infrastructure are budgeted for the current year.

GO ONLINE

To hear the complete audio recording from the June 29 meeting, which is about two hours and 10 minutes long, visit https://youtu.be/yGVVJl-CXQ4.