Development amendments approved
442 units could still be built through a greater number of smaller buildings
Amendments to a controversial development agreement that could see 442 residential units built in Canning have been approved.
Kings County council gave second and final consideration to the amendments following a public hearing on April 2.
Council approved the original development agreement with Parsons Green Developments in July 2022. The decision was appealed to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB), but the appeal was dismissed. The development agreement was registered on the subject property in April 2023.
Parsons Green Developments president Noel Taiani later applied to the municipality to make substantive amendments to the agreement. The amendments would enable greater flexibility in allocating the residential units within a potentially greater number of multi-unit dwellings with smaller building footprints, lower building heights, or both.
At the public hearing, Taiani apologized for putting area residents through another public process relating to the development. He said he took stock of the situation after the planning appeal was defeated. He said the thought behind the amendments is to “meet the market where it is” as conditions have changed since the application was first made.
He said two years have been lost, and it’s a “more expedient built form” that they’re now putting forward.
Taiani said the first two buildings they intend to develop are on the northern portion of the site. They’ll have about 51 units each and be four storeys high. The mass is about 50 per cent of what they had proposed for each building in 2022.
“We have a higher proportion of one-bedroom units. We have reduced the size of the units to a certain extent and with that we’re bringing in what would be a more affordable price point to the market,” Taiani said.
ABOUT THE PROPOSAL
The original terms for the development agreement included the construction of six, five-storey dwellings containing up to 70 units each, built in pairs with a connecting amenity building.
The agreement also approves the construction of 22 townhouses, for a total of 442 residential units. The proposal includes walking trails and the construction of 430 metres of public road with a sidewalk in the second phase of development.
The subject properties total 22.24 acres and are in the southeast quadrant of J. Jordan Road and Summer Street. The vacant land is zoned Comprehensive Neighbourhood Development (R5) and Residential One and Two Unit (R2).
Manager of planning and development services Laura Mosher said the amendments would apply specifically to the second phase of development. Although construction will be broken into two phases, Mosher said it wouldn’t matter if what is proposed for the second phase takes place before what is proposed for the first phase.
The proposal is to reconfigure the approved residential units from four multi-unit buildings into various other built forms, or a “repackaging” into several smaller buildings.
Because there could potentially be a greater proportion of one-bedroom and studio units within the apartment buildings, the overall population of the development would be less.
“Overall, there would be no increase to the number of residential units on the subject properties,” Mosher said.
She said staff are confident given the overall density and minimal amount of infrastructure required that public infrastructure associated with the development will be efficient to maintain, repair and replace.
Mosher said there has been some flooding on the subject property. It’s her understanding the applicant has been working with the provincial Department of Environment to mitigate it.
The developer has submitted revised preliminary a stormwater management plan and calculations for the site. A more detailed plan will be required at the time of permitting.
The amendments also allow the addition of a neighbourhood commercial use through a non-substantive amendment.
FLOODING, CONSULTATION CONCERNS
At the public hearing, Everett Macpherson said he lives adjacent to the proposed development. He said the sense he gets from community members is a feeling that consultation with citizens surrounding the project “wasn’t genuine” and decisions were often made in advance.
Macpherson said he knows the developer is working to mitigate the problem of flooding from stormwater runoff. However, he’s seeing silt and “more water in my backyard than I’ve ever seen in 31 years of living there.” He said it’s because vegetation has been removed.
Macpherson said he can only trust that engineers will work to ensure the flooding is addressed as the development proceeds. However, he doesn’t have a lot of confidence and wants to see details.
Neighbouring resident Kathleen Purdy said the amendments as proposed should be more explicit in terms of the number of buildings permitted and the number of units per building.
She called for a public process to begin to establish a secondary planning strategy for Canning.
Purdy also called for changes in the municipal planning process where area residents would be notified and involved at an earlier stage. She said perhaps this would result in fewer appeals to the UARB.
Area resident Andrew Bagley showed photos of flooding on neighbouring properties from stormwater runoff. He reiterated concerns that an asphalt parking lot could worsen the situation.
“We do have some vegetation which is slowing this runoff. What happens when we have 580 parking spaces all shedding water,” Bagley said.
He called for an engineering review relating to stormwater management on the subject property to be made public.
Taiani said that although none of the amendments pertain to parking spaces, the overall number would be going down. They’ve reduced the parking density from 1.4 to 1.25 per unit. Their intention is to build the first two or three buildings without underground parking facilities.
“They add considerable expense to the building which ends up being passed on to the tenants,” Taiani said.
However, he said subsequent buildings would likely have underground parking, so numbers like 580 surface parking spaces being referred to by speakers at the hearing aren’t accurate. He said existing properties on J. Jordan Road would be up against the back yards of the town houses, not parking areas.
‘ANXIOUS’ FOR PROJECT START
Mayor Peter Muttart said if council voted down the amendments, the developer would have to abide by the terms of the original agreement. In his view, the changes “do not represent a detriment to the area.”
Muttart said he is anxious to see the developer apply for permits and get the project started. Attached to those permits would be necessity to install the stormwater management system.
This has been “a persistently tough issue for council and the community,” Deputy Mayor Emily Lutz said. “This issue coming back, it’s almost a bit like ripping a Band-aid off then trying to put it back on.”
Lutz said she empathized with the concerns of the community, and that council works within the process it has to the best of its ability.
She said the municipal community engagement strategy, which was mentioned during the public hearing, deserves a public conversation. She asked to have staff report to council within the next couple of months on the status of the strategy.