UARB denies Coldbrook development appeal

BY KIRK STARRATT

kstarratt@kentvilleadvertiser.ca

NovaNewsNow.com

The provincial Utilities and Review Board (UARB) has denied an appeal of a decision made by Kings County council last year.

The matter involved approving a development agreement with Constance Ward to construct semi-detached dwellings on Cornwallis Crescent in Coldbrook. The proposal concerned four semi-detached dwellings totaling eight residential units.

Kings County council gave final consideration to entering into the development agreement with Ward on Oct. 2, 2007 following the approval of amendments that would allow multi-unit residential development within the growth centre of Coldbrook by development agreement.

Eric Dow, Leslie Gilholme, John Kaulback, Ron Lightburn and James Mailman appealed the decision. A preliminary hearing was held Jan. 30, 2008 and a hearing on the merits was held at Kings County council chambers in Kentville Feb. 7. The UARB indicated that a decision would be forthcoming within 60 days, but it ended up taking 90 days to render the decision. The board denied the appeal.

The appeal was before UARB member Dawna Ring. In the conclusion of the 109-page decision document, Ring states that, as explained to the appellants at both the preliminary hearing and the hearing of this case on its merits, the board has very limited jurisdiction in considering an appeal of council’s decision to adopt the development agreement. That limit is to determine whether council has reasonably carried out the intent of its Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS).

She wrote that the board commends the lay appellants in the presentation of their appeal and their efforts to keep within the board’s jurisdiction.

Despite the appellants’ frustration in opposing the development of this lot, the MPS has been amended to permit it. Within policies set by the MPS, council’s decision to approve the subject development agreement has reasonably carried out the intent of the MPS for all the issues raised by the appellants in this appeal. Therefore, the board denied the appeal.

Makes it more difficult: Ward

Developer Merrill Ward said it has been seven years since he and Constance first proposed the development on Cornwallis Crescent. He said having the ability to construct the units does increase the value of the property considerably. However, economic changes would affect the venture’s profitability.

“It has put us in a situation where it’s difficult to carry on with it now because of the economy,” Ward said. “Mortgage rates are starting to climb and building supplies have gone up. It makes it more difficult.”

Ward said he once had $1.5 million in financing arranged for the project but, because of lengthy delays, that has gone by the wayside. He said they might still proceed with the project as they have a waiting list of eight people, but probably at a slower pace than first planned. However, he said he’s very glad about the UARB decision.

Ward said he is annoyed at the way he was singled out and sidetracked while other developers in the community have been able to reap the benefits of the groundwork laid through their attempts to get permission from the county for the multi-unit residential development.

‘Appeal was against the county’: Gilholme

Appellant Leslie Gilholme said the appeal made by the group of residents was an appeal against a decision made by Kings County council to allow multi-unit residential development in the growth centre of Coldbrook through development agreements.

“The appeal was against the county, not Mr. and Mrs. Ward,” he said.

Gilholme said the UARB chair raised some interesting points about the county’s MPS and Land Use Bylaw. One point was that the purpose of development agreements is to tighten the rules developers must follow.

He said multi-unit residential developments in growth centres are to face collector roads and the county planning department appears to have ignored the rules set for growth centres. He said the development agreement between the municipality and Constance Ward was the first such agreement for multi-unit residential development in the Coldbrook growth centre.

Gilholme said consideration would be given to a further appeal, although the appellants have yet to decide if one will be made.

“We have time to appeal if we wish,” he said, pointing out that perhaps taking an appeal to the next level would enable some judgment in areas where the UARB has no jurisdiction.

Gilholme said what happens in regard to this case in Coldbrook will have an effect on development agreements in other growth centres in the county and they don’t want to see a precedent set.

“We want to make sure it’s right for the growth centre,” he said.