Says letter of the bylaw not followed

To the Editor:



All who travel around Wolfville can now behold Railtown; a building whose scale and height is out of proportion to nearby structures, which blocks views of the dykelands and the Cornwallis River, and with an elevator shaft jutting above the roofline.

I’m in favour of development in the downtown core, but development must be consistent with all applicable Town policies. As a taxpayer, I’m also in favour of a wider tax base, but not at a cost of a building that mars the feel and look of the Town.

Railtown should not have been approved in its present form. The Town leadership could have and should have attempted to scale down the project had it implemented diligently the Town’s Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS). Yet it appears from the record that no such attempt was made.

When reviewing the Railtown application, the Town had an obligation to “(a) ensure that the proposed development conforms with the intent of [the] MPS�. In particular, it was required to “(c) consider the potential of the proposal to cause conflict with adjacent land uses by way of . . . (ii) the height, mass or architectural design of the proposed buildings, . . .� and to have regard for “(e) the protection and preservation of matters of public interest, such as: . . . (iii) view planes, . . .� MPS Section 4.7 - Implementation Policy 10. On the issue of the height of Railtown, the Town Planning Report states that there are “no other three-storey buildings in the immediate area� and that “(t)he height will have an impact on the residents currently living on the dyke lands.� Jim Bezanson, an architect and Heritage Planner from St. John, states that the project should be, at most, two-storeys. (Page 4).

On the issue of view planes, the Report states inexplicably that “(t)here will not be a significant impact on views as the Rafuse building on the lot already blocks the view.� (Page 6)

This assertion makes no sense in light of Mr. Bezanson’s obvious observation that “Wolfville sits on a hillside like an amphitheatre, this development could read like a wall in front of the water.� (Page 4)

Who determined that the only “view plane� that mattered was the one from a nearby parking lot at nearly the same elevation as Railtown? Did the Town leadership either not consider or not care about how the proposed building might obstruct the view from other locales around Wolfville, such as along Gaspereau Avenue, one of the major roads in the Town?

Despite obvious issues of height, mass and view plane that the Town was required to have regard for when reviewing the project, there appears to have been no attempt to limit the size of the building to address these concerns. Indeed, Deputy Mayor Wrye stated at the Aug. 22 meeting of Council: “The proposed development is totally in keeping with the MPS and the Town’s Bylaws.�

When the issue was raised about limiting the project to two-storeys, the developer responded that it was not “economically feasible� to do so. See the minutes of the June 23 and July 19, 2005 PAC meetings.

Should the Town be concerned about the financial viability of a proposed project? The MPS does not contain a policy statement that economic feasibility is a factor to be taken into account in the review of a project.

In the future, I hope that the Town leadership will review proposed projects with greater care and intelligence, and will have due regard for all applicable provisions of the Town’s Municipal Planning Strategy.



David A. Daniels

Wolfville