Controversial development approved
Construction could soon begin on a controversial four-storey residential and commercial building at the site of a former service station in Wolfville.
Following a two-hour public hearing on Jan. 30, Wolfville town council voted 5-2 in favour of approving amendments to a development agreement with the applicant, 292 Main Street. Deputy Mayor Wendy Elliott and Coun. Ian Palmeter voted against the motion.
The company wants to build a 60-unit residential structure with two commercial spaces on the ground floor. The two commercial enterprises would be the Harvest Restaurant and Sweet and Savory on Main, a bakery and coffee shop.
The subject property is located at 292 Main St., the former site of a Petro Canada service station, and earlier a town dump.
About a dozen concerned residents spoke at the public hearing. Concerns included whether short-term rentals, like hotel rooms, would be allowed, parking, making larger family units available at a reduced or “affordable” rate and the 54-foot height of the building.
ABOUT THE PROPOSAL
Director of planning and economic development Devin Lake said the original development agreement was approved in 2019 under the town’s previous municipal planning strategy (MPS) and land use bylaw (LUB). New planning documents were adopted in 2020. He said the proposed amendments are consistent with the new MPS.
“From my seat, this is a better building that’s really benefited from additional dialogue and feedback,” Lake said.
He said the building itself wouldn’t significantly change under the amendments. Drawings are being replaced with new renderings showing the building elevation and site plan.
Public access to a rooftop common space that was previously proposed is being removed, as is a viewing area on the second floor. Timelines for completion have been amended, with construction likely to get underway by June 1.
Bike racks will be added to the south and north faces of the building and a public art contribution is being updated. The developer is contributing $100,000 for public art over 20 years. The developer is also contributing $50,000 over five years for a plaza or gateway feature along Main Street.
The building will meet barrier free and adaptable unit requirements that had been proposed by the provincial government but not approved. The building will include four “affordable” units at 75 per cent of the market rate. These are proposed to be single-occupancy or bachelor units.
The developer will provide a detailed landscape plan when a development permit is issued, and the amendments include assurances and
“They’re going to do whatever they want, whatever makes the most money.” Michael Laceby Resident
performance clauses. Other administrative language has also been added.
Lake said he recognizes there is a lot of tension surrounding the parking issue. The developer will provide 27 internal parking stalls; two shared electric cars for use by residential tenants; 60 internal bike parking spots and a $66,000 contribution in lieu of parking.
Staff is also working with the developer to install electric car charging stations in the town’s neighbouring public parking lot.
Lake said the agreement requires energy efficiency 35 per cent beyond National Building Code requirements. Modelling is showing this will be exceeded, and the developer is financing the project through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) based on higher energy efficiency.
Required streetscaping improvements valued at $150,000 in the original agreement are now expected to cost more.
The property is owned by Kevin Gildhart, who was represented by his daughter, Kayleigh Gildhart, at the hearing. There was also a presentation made by the project architect, Tom Emodi of TEAL Architects and Planners.
Emodi said they think the collaboration with town council and staff has “improved the design substantially.”
“We are very proud of this building. We think it’s going to enhance the town,” Emodi said.
He said the original development agreement was for a five-storey building with public amenities on the fifth level. It was originally designed with a wooden frame. They gave up some possible volume to provide a public podium and view through from the eastern gateway to the main street.
They changed to lightweight steel framing to meet building code requirements and had a building permit for the podium level approved. They were going to begin construction and put piles in the ground. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit, causing supply chain problems, labour shortages, interest rate increases and inflation.
“It became clear that the construction costs of the lightweight steel frame building, non-combustible, was no longer affordable,” Emodi said.
He said their client asked them to adjust the design back to wood frame construction, reducing the height to four storeys and maximizing the rentable area without changing the building footprint. They added balconies and other features while eliminating others, including a vine wall that had been proposed earlier.
PUBLIC WEIGHS IN
Joe Rafih, who lives across the street from the subject property, said that after the fourth storey goes on, “my view is gone.” He said he doesn’t agree with developers paying cashin-lieu of providing parking spaces and called it “anti-development.”
“It advantages some and disadvantages others, especially the smaller entrepreneurs who could build smaller buildings and want to develop,” Rafih said.
Michael Laceby said he has a problem with the parking situation, noting a bad deal for cash-in-lieu made by the town in the past for another development doesn’t justify another bad deal. He said $66,000 isn’t a lot of money considering what the developer could charge for the internal parking spaces. By his calculations, this could be $190,000 a year.
Laceby said the town should take its time in addressing the parking situation with this development and others. He said he has difficulty with the 60 units being called “residences,” as he believes they would likely end up being hotel rooms.
“They’re going to do whatever they want, whatever makes the most money,” Laceby said.
David Daniels called on council to eliminate the possibility of having short-term rentals in the building, as the town needs residences and there is “no hotel room crisis.” He also asked council to take another look at what are being considered “public benefits” of the development.
Daniels said he sees no reason why there couldn’t be negotiations with the developer to get larger family units included in the four discounted or affordable units.
He also questioned the 15year limit on the discount for the units, as there could be a huge rent increase for occupants when that ends. Daniels said this issue should be addressed now.
Daniel MacGregor said he doesn’t have a car and, as a pedestrian, he thinks there’s too much traffic in Wolfville.
He said it “kind of blows my mind” that one-fifth of Wolfville’s downtown core is dedicated to parking “at a time where there is a large push to move away from reliance on private, fossil fuel automobiles.”
Caroline Whitby said she believes that some of the issues arising from the proposed development relate to the town’s MPS. She said she has concerns with the building’s size, and that some units could be used for short-term rentals. Whitby said the town needs more affordable housing, but 75 per cent of market value is not necessarily affordable.
COUNCIL DEBATE
During council discussion, Coun. Jodi MacKay said she would like to see one of the two-bedroom units, and especially one of the accessible units, included in the four proposed affordable units. Lake said that is something staff would have to take back to the developer.
At one point, Palmeter requested the meeting move in-camera for legal advice. The public meeting resumed after about 20 minutes.
Elliott said her concerns about the compatibility of the proposed building with existing structures and historical area land uses haven’t been alleviated.
“The impact of this development on the character of the whole neighbourhood, the massing that is involved, gives me pause,” Elliott said.
She said her fear is that, if approved, in 25 years’ time, every building in the downtown could look like what is currently being proposed. Elliott said she feels the town needs a heritage master plan and said so years ago. It hasn’t happened, mostly because the money isn’t there, she said, but that doesn’t remove the need.
Coun. Mike Butler said there was a lot to consider, but he would be voting in favour of the amendments. There has been a long public process involved with a lot of input and feedback and “walking by a site that has been an eyesore for a very long time.”
He said the No. 1 reason he’s voting in favour is to put a process in place to have something established on the site other than “a hole in the ground.”
Butler said the feedback he’s received is that people want a mix of old and new in the town. He acknowledged that “change is tough for people, we witness it every day” but he must take more than history into account.
Mayor Wendy Donovan said the town has a “desperate” need for housing, and affordable housing. She hopes the building is for long-term accommodations, and the developer would take it under advisement to make a twobedroom unit and accessible unit affordable.
“On the basis of housing alone, I am in support of this,” Donovan said.