Shunpiking Online Vo.3 No.2 LULU -- locally unwanted land use By CYNTHIA MARTIN

I'M Cynthia Martin from Meisners Point Road. At the last two public meetings, as in last Wednesday's article in the Chronicle Herald you already have, I spoke about my personal concerns. Today I am speaking from professional concerns relating to urban planning: this proposal contravenes the Municipal Planning Strategy on which you are basing approval, and contradictions in planning reports HRM has commissioned.

Urban planning

I write about property tax and urban planning issues: I'm Managing Editor of a national property tax and valuation letter, so am aware of the difficult choices cities make when you have finite revenues. I also wrote a history book on planning with a 30,000 circulation print run, and for example a cover story for the Globe and Mail on Don Mills, for which the planners will understand, its history and importance in planning.

First, that you allowed 30 days review of a 144 page report is not being responsible to your constituents -- it's ironic you are holding today's meeting on dumping day, given the changes you intend on making to the bay. The outstanding development agreements from 14 and 10 years ago are also suspect and illogical -- that residents are being held blackmail to those if we don't approve this carbuncle is shocking. How is it possible those DAs were signed with the county which was thrilled when anyone wanted to locate here -- following a meeting to which 18 residents were invited?

HRM staff base their report on the Municipal Planning Strategy, but the HRM Regional Plan is still being defined; this proposal is not consistent with the terms, values or intent of the plan, nor is consistent with HRM's March 2005, Cultural Heritage Values model, or HRM's Natural Step Sustainability Analysis, filed September 2004 (Sustainability Analysis using The Natural Step Framework for Halifax Regional Municipality September 23, 2004)

Specifically in violation to the Municipal Planning Strategy, this proposal:

MRR-4 Policy criteria:

a) grossly contrasts with existing design and scale, and it is not compatible to any degree with nearby land uses or density
f) the impact of traffic here and in MRR-7

Also, according to MRR-7

a) the site's characteristics do not make the location suitable by any means for the scale and density
b) the potential for adversely affecting nearby residential uses is substantial as you've heard over and over, nor do the staff comments address visual intrusion or littering
d) layout and the design of the facility is highly inconsistent with local use
g) staff comments were likely based on a flawed Environmental Assessment
h) you have contradictory statements on the allowance of a pump-out facility
j) the appearance of all buildings and structures do not relate to nearby uses

According to IM-9:

a) the proposal does not conform with planned by laws and regulations, nor is there relation to HRMs new regulations for infill
c) it clearly does conflict with type of use and all other relevant matters of planning concern
d) the site is not suitable, particularly any need for infill with applied setbacks
d) again, “any other relevant matter of planning concern” which would be all the concerns you've heard before and tonight.

The developer say they don't how much the townhouses will sell for -- this defies all logic considering any business plan has to include expected revenues. HRM and the developers stand to gain much revenue from this development but in short, this proposal is what is called a LULU -- a locally unwanted land use.

Discrepancies with planning reports HRM has commissioned

"... HRM wants to demonstrate leadership by assessing and continuously improving its own contribution to the health, vibrancy and sustainability of the community. To do so, it must look at its own operations and programs to assess how they affect these indicators. This requires looking upstream -- at the basic ways in which the HRM's internal processes contribute to degradation of the quality of the land, air, water, and community that is important to its citizens."

That is from HRM’s Natural Step Sustainability Analysis outlining the ways HRM contributes to violations of the four System Conditions for a Sustainable Society, "commissioned by HRM to help determine where the HRM is currently at with respect to sustainability, and then to use this information to identify areas for improvement."

"Current development practices reinforce the systematic degradation of nature by physical means, such as removing forests, draining wetlands, fragmenting wildlife habitat, and paving over natural areas to build new subdivisions and new transportation infrastructure... A development strategy is sustainable only if it does not reinforce the need for ever-increasing consumption and modification of natural areas...

In the Cultural Heritage Values model, it states "the study was based on the premise that the preservation of sites, structures, communities and landscapes of cultural and historical significance within the HRM is important."

If you adopted those as values, why are you not implementing them? Why commission these reports if you don't use them? Why is this community not of value to you?

Going back to urban planning, one of the icons of planning in Canada is Macklin Hancock, who holds hundreds of honours for his work in new communities and towns throughout the world. He designed Don Mills, Canada's first planned community, the original Clayton Park, the later expansion of the City of Halifax, numerous developments in Newfoundland, the restoration of the Fortress of Louisbourg -- and brings more than 50 years to this discussion.

Mr. Hancock comments widely on the problems of this proposal, in a letter addressed to Mayor Kelly. He wrote:

"growth is natural and inevitable, but can be done badly or done well....There are countless examples where poor decision making and design -- driven by short-term considerations -- have resulted in permanent damage, or, at the very least, many years of heartbreak and expensive remediation to restore. It is in the hope of preventing such a future that I urge decision-makers to consider carefully all aspects of the Ingramport / St. Margaret's Bay proposal, to the only aim of rejecting this proposal." (Signed, Macklin Hancock)

Another planner, in his latest book which I'm reviewing, Room for Thought, architect and planner, Avi Friedman, writes about community design and how increasing scale destroys communities: He writes:

"Communities are created by accretion (contributions to growth by gradual addition); it takes many decades for a place to mature. A mark of a good community is how well it fits in with its surroundings and how little it reshapes what was there before."

You are not making a decision just for today for your own wants -- you are making this for everyone's future. Ingramport does not want this carbuncle of a complex appearing like wound on the land. The short-term economic gain of a few do not take precedence over the stewardship you hold, and most definitely should not take precedence over the long-term pain. Surely you've heard of the line that we don't inherit the earth, we borrow it from our children. You've heard many dozens of cogent reasons why this proposal should not be approved -- and just one economic argument for it -- what more information could you possibly need to make the right decision?

Cynthia Martin
10 Meisners Pt Rd
Ingramport, NS, B3Z 3Z5