R1 elimination not “toast”

The meeting of PSPAC at the school the other day seemed in some ways a waste of time because despite the deputy mayors assertion that the R1 and density proposals were “toast” and “gone”, “off the table”, they are not. They are only postponed. [It feels rather like Quebec separation, don’t it?] This is thanks to one lady on the committee who insisted that the suggestion in Wrye’s proposal about future discussion on the issue was too open ended. [The same lady who slapped the planner for not having better maps and who said further discussion would be good “so we can make them realise” – her very words]. So the density issues – rolling R1 into R1a, allowing flag lots and specified “bonus density” lots- are to be revisited within the year, hopefully not before Oct 18th, but who knows!!!

We didn’t think the meeting was very “user friendly” did you? The school location was unfortunate perhaps. There was that teacher vs student feel to the whole evening. The panel, especially the chair, was fairly brutal with speakers, even members of the committee. The mayor was told off too; he has no more influence than anyone else on the committee we were told by the deputy mayor, this in answer to a speaker who asked the mayor to show some leadership by suggesting the whole set of proposals be taken off the table.

After the density issue was off the agenda for the evening, Karen Dempsey got to do another presentation on 25 principles in the new section 6 of the MPS -conservation and environmental stewardship. She had trouble with both her lapel mike, which she said she had never worn before [really?!], and the hand held so we probably missed most of it, but we didn’t miss the part about one section not being possible because it was in conflict with the Environment Act or something and we didn’t miss the speaker who pointed out that these very vague principles were pretty meaningless unless backed up by land use by-laws. There was no list offered of bylaws these principles might spawn but we can guess a few of them; an anti-idling bylaw for one and eventually an anti-pesticide by-law for another.

We were sent off “to bed” at 9:00 pm without getting to section 7 on parks,open space and recreation.

Haven’t seen any report of this meeting in the papers have you? But breaking news is that some Greenwich farmers want to be annexed by Wolfville. Do they know what they are getting into?

Advertisements

2 responses to “R1 elimination not “toast”

  1. Who is going to benefit from the R1-to-R1A transformation? I suspect property developers like the idea. Also, those who feed of property tax might gain an advantage. Anyone else? Eternal vigilance is required — these special interest groups will never relent.

  2. Pingback: Looking back again « Ww - Wolfville watch - Ww