Disturbing Facts About Killam/APM’s 
Sherwood Crossing Development Project (2)

Is the use of public funds justified?

In a series of unrelated steps, a majority of City councillors voted in favour of allocating public funds between 2020 and 2021 as follows:

  • $650,000 to build a new public road to connect Towers Road with Spencer Drive (Special Meeting of Council, 6 Feb. 2020, vote 6–0). This “public” road is part of the Charlottetown Mall parking lot; the mall is now wholly owned by Killam REIT and Tim Banksʼs Pan American Properties.
  • An additional $69,000 to perform a comprehensive traffic study of undeveloped lands adjacent to the main retail area of Charlottetown (Special Meeting of Council, 19 Mar. 2020, vote 9–0)
  • $550,000 to fund the purchase of two properties (241 and 245 Mount Edward Rd), which border Killam/RioCan/APM’s proposed Sherwood Crossing property, to make way for the Spencer Drive extension (which will cross Confederation Trail). In addition, the City’s Public Works Department will act as property manager for a two-year period [involving, at the least, maintenance costs]. (Monthly Meeting of Council, 8 Feb. 2021, vote 6–3).
  • An as-yet unknown amount for the future construction of the Spencer Drive extension to Mount Edward Road, of which a portion of the land is on the Killam/RioCan property and thus might be subject to sections 45.2.1. and 45.2.3. in the Zoning & Development Bylaw.

The Development Agreement drawn up for Pan American Properties, whose president is Tim Banks, includes the following clauses:

2.4. The Developer shall enter into a Roads and Services Agreement for the portion of public road to connect this development to Spencer Drive.

2.5. The developer shall deed to the City the future public road corridor as shown on the north boundary of the Master Plan at no cost to the City prior to the issuance of any building and development permits. Notwithstanding any existing or future by-law of the City, the City acknowledges that the Developer shall not be responsible to contribute to the cost of development of any public street to be constructed on the public road corridor, other than the portion referred to in Clause 2.4. hereof, unless the Developer creates an access to such public street from the property.

2.7. If subdivision approval is sought, then a final plan(s) of subdivision must be approved by the City and each individual lot must have frontage on a public street.

It therefore appears that City Council approved well over $1 million in public money for costs in and around Sherwood Crossing, some of which, by definition, seem to have been the developer’s responsibility.

The land owner is Killam Properties Inc, based in Halifax, an out-of-province Real Estate Investment Trust [REITs own, operate, or finance income-generating real estate], which already enjoys preferential financial/tax treatment.  Tim Banks is a founding member of Killam. Moreover, by including “affordable” units, Killam benefits from the province’s Affordable Housing Development Program, which provides forgivable loans of $45,000 per unit, with the loan forgiveness period ranging from 15 to 25 years. 


November 2020

CBC PEI: As for the project having to fall in line with the master traffic plan, Banks isnʼt worried. “There will be nothing in there that will surprise us,” he said.

THE GUARDIAN: There will also be a road built that links the neighbourhoods of Sherwood and West Royalty through a public link road. The road would connect Ash Drive, at Mount Edward Road, with Spencer Drive, taking some of the traffic pressure off Towers Road. “The new road network has provisions for a sidewalk and a biking lane and provides for a future link to other lands in the immediate area,” Banks said.

While there might have been nothing in the City’s transportation master plan to surprise Mr Banks, a Killam REIT director and owner/CEO of APM Construction, there certainly is plenty to cause anxiety to residents living in surrounding neighbourhoods.

It is fully in the interest of the public and the residents living in any community to be informed about any and all changes that may affect their quality of life in one, three, or even ten years from now.


UPDATES

1. The IRAC hearing LA21001 Don Read v. City of Charlottetown, held on 31 May 2021, is still awaiting a decision. The reasons for the appeal lies in the failure to fulfill Condition 1 out of the five conditions set forth by Council to approve the development.
Condition 1 requires that the Cityʼs [final] Traffic Master Plan (TMP) confirm that the development does not conflict with the proposed site plan.

2. Appeal LA21021 – Douglas MacArthur v. City of Charlottetown was received by IRAC on 15 September 2021.

The appeal was filed in the event the Request for Reconsideration submitted to the City was rejected.

City Council will vote on the Planning Boardʼs recommendation to reject Mr MacArthurʼs Request for Reconsideration (same reasons as the IRAC appeal) at the Regular Meeting of Council on Monday, November 8, 2021.

Mr MacArthur bases his appeal on Section 24 (3) of the Planning Act Absence of Approval. He states: “The land in question is also currently the subject of an IRAC rezoning appeal, hence there was absence of approvel for the necessary zoning of the land at the time (Aug.26) the site and foundation permits were approved by City Council. In short, the permits were approved even though the land in question did not have the necessary zoning in place to accommodate the proposed development and permit activity.”

Report an error, or send a question or comment by e-mail to:
newcharlottetownproject @ eastlink.ca

Posted: Nov 06, 2021, 7:50 AM AT | Last Updated: Nov 08, 8:36 PM AT

PUBLIC MEETING: October 26, 2021

Sherwood Crossing and 38 Palmers Lane

On Tuesday, October, 26, two properties will be subject to a public meeting – again.

1. Sherwood Crossing: Listed on the agenda as Corner of Towers Road and Mount Edward Road (PID # 390559, 390534, 390542).
This is a request for approval of the final architectural design drawings and site plan as per the Comprehensive Development Area (CDA) Zone provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw. The applicant has refined their building elevations for the proposed townhouses and are seeking input from the public on the building design before Council grants final approval. Council has previously approved the overall concept plan for this development and the only remaining Council approval at this time relates to the final design of the townhouses.

Much has been written about the controversy over the process surrounding the rezoning of the property — leading to an IRAC appeal in January — and the actual site and foundation permits approved by City Council on August 26, more than two months after APM Construction broke ground — leading to a second IRAC appeal in September.

The Planning Department has informed the appellants that “The public meeting on Tuesday night is to deal with some exterior design changes to the townhouse phase of this development only. The developer has all of the necessary approvals to proceed with the exception of the design change to the townhouses. Therefore, the only discussion on Tuesday night will relate to the change in design of the townhouse phase of this development.”

IRAC appellant #1 informed the Planning Department that “There should be no meeting and no further decisions or resolutions made in respect of this Development until the IRAC decisions on the appeals are delivered. To proceed in any other way is not in the public interest and makes a mockery of the planning appeals process.”

While IRAC appellant #2 noted that “It is unacceptable for City Council to limit public input at this public meeting.”

2. 38 Palmers Lane: City Council has once again decided to entertain consideration of a multi-unit project on this site:
The proposal is to construct two (2) townhouse dwellings consisting of a four (4) unit building and an eight (8) unit building on the property. The four (4)-unit townhouse is proposed to front on Palmers Lane and parking for this townhouse will be located at the rear of the building. The second townhouse building would be a stacked townhouse dwelling and is proposed to be constructed behind the four (4) unit townhouse.

City Council should already clearly know residents’ position on 38 Palmers Lane. Following a close vote by City Council in September 2019 to approve the rezoning — despite the Planning Department’s recommendation to reject it, a citizen filed an appeal with IRAC on behalf of sixteen neighbours.

The Commission is concerned with the argument advanced by the City – and, to a lesser extent, by the Developer – that the “housing crisis” is, in and of itself, a sound planning principle or an overriding principle in this case. When coupled with the Cityʼs plea for deference to Council, this argument ignores, or at least minimizes, the body of planning law that has developed in this province and requires adherence to sound planning principles.

IRAC Order LA20-04

In October 2020, IRAC overturned the rezoning approval, much to the residents’ relief (Order LA20-04). The 2019 proposal had been for 18 units. The current proposal is for 12 units.


The Public Meeting package contains all the details, plans, and images for the three projects to be discussed.

To register to attend the meeting either in person or by alternate means, residents are requested to contact the Planning & Heritage Department by email at planning@charlottetown.ca or by phone at 902-629-4158. Anyone who
wants to observe the meeting without commenting can watch it at www.charlottetown.ca/video.


More on the topic:

Read the posts published in October on the Future of Charlottetown FB page.

Don’t have a FB account? Read the post in full in the Citizens Alliance newsletters: October 8, October 20, and October 24.

Posted: Oct 25, 2021, 10:31 AM AT | Last Updated: Oct 25, 2021, 6:30 PM AT

Report an error, or send a question or comment by e-mail to:
newcharlottetownproject @ eastlink.ca

Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of New Charlottetown Project as a whole.

Municipal Voting Reform: Making every vote count

Electoral reform is often brought up as a federal issue. But it is just as important at the provincial and municipal levels. Whether MPs, MLAs, mayors or councillors, many have been elected on tiny majorities as a result of the first-past-the-post electoral system or have simply returned unopposed (i.e. acclaimed).

It’s time for a proportional system for municipalities, where no one has to ‘hold their nose’ at the ballot box, and where there is healthy competition – rather than a politics of ‘winner takes all’ and uncontested fiefdoms.

‛Better ballots for a better city council’

Dave Meslin, who labels himself an independent non-partisan community organizer, has been championing a proportional voting system at the municipal level since at least 2010!

In fact, he wrote a blog post in 2009 in which he declared: “By any measure, our city elections are failing us. Voter turnout is astonishingly low, turnover of Councillors is extremely rare, and our Council is surprisingly white and male for a city that allegedly prides itself on its ‘diversity’.” That was Toronto then. It could describe Charlottetown today.

Meslin is the creative director of Unlock Democracy Canada (modelled after the UKʼs Unlock Democracy organization), a non-profit organization that is part of Canada’s growing movement for democratic renewal. Here is what he writes about municipal reform:

Municipal democracy could use some innovation in Canada.  […] with First-Past-the-Post, thousands of Council Members across Canada are serving without a definitive mandate. It’s normal for a Mayor to “win” a race in Canada, with less than 50% of the vote – or even less than 30%.

In 2018:
Philip Brown received 42.13% of the vote.
Voter turnout in Charlottetown was 58% (relatively unchanged since 2000).

But there’s no one-size-fits-all when it comes to local democracy. From Victoria to Iqaluit to St John’s, each municipality has their own unique needs, demographics and history.  That’s why our local councils need flexibility and tools to maximize participation and diversity.  If cities have Local Choice, then they can begin to experiment with democratic reform. Change always starts local!


Meslin holds a monthly workshop Better Ballots 101 the first of every month at 8 PM Atlantic time.
Click here to register for the November 1, 2021, workshop.

Learn more:


Report a typo, or send a question or comment by e-mail to:
newcharlottetownproject [at] eastlink.ca

Municipal elections: November 7, 2022

Mark the date: The next PEI municipal elections are on Monday, November 7, 2022.

Itʼs not too early to consider the issues affecting citizens, nor is it too early to encourage and support candidates who believe they can make a difference on City Council.

In this era of climate crisis and the profound repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic on our society, it is crucial that progressive, positive, skilled and enlightened individuals — who see themselves as champions of change — seriously contemplate running for councillor in their ward.

The importance of local government

A healthy municipal democracy begins with the participation of its citizens. It is their chance to influence the future of their community.

Local government is the government closest to the people and has a direct influence on citizensʼ daily lives.

Local government serves a two-fold purpose. The first purpose is the
administrative purpose of supplying goods and services; the other purpose is to represent and involve citizens in determining specific local public needs and how these local needs can be met.

Local government plans and pays for local services such as public transit, recreation and activities, provides water, organizes police and fire services, establishes zoning regulations, and so much more. These are functions that directly affect citizens every day and in every part of their lives.

Our Mayor and City Council are failing both in their collective ability to fulfill their functions effectively and in meeting the expectations of the citizens.

As citizens of the City of Charlottetown, we must demand stronger municipal governance that will deliver better outcomes for public expenditures and improved efficiency in service delivery.

Do we want a more transparent, inclusive, responsive and responsible City Council?

Then let us raise our voices, connect with each other, and be instrumental in inspiring and encouraging progressive and civil society leaders from all walks of life to consider running for mayor or councillor.


More on this topic:

Elections PEI refers readers to Section 33 of the the Municipal Government Act (MGA): Division 3 – Qualification of Candidates.

33. Qualifications of candidates
(1) A person may be nominated as a candidate and elected to a council of a municipality only if
(a) the person is qualified in accordance with clauses 31(2)(a) and (b) to vote in the municipal election;
(b) the person has been ordinarily resident in the municipality for a period of at least six months before election day; and
(c) the person is not disqualified by reason of
(i) being a judge of the provincial court, the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal,
(i.1) being a member of a council of another municipality,
(ii) being a Member of Parliament or a member of the Legislative Assembly,
(iii) being a current employee who has not obtained a leave of absence in accordance with section 34 in order to be nominated as a candidate, or
(iv) another provision of this Act.

Residency limitation
(2) A person who meets the requirements of subsection (1) shall be nominated only in the municipality in which the person resides.

Kent Street lighting scheme

Citizens generally want their municipal government to realize better outcomes for public expenditures, given that resources in
the public sector are mostly generated through taxes (municipal, provincial, and federal).

At the same time, a municipal government must have the ability to fulfill its functions in an effective way that meets the expectations of its citizens.

An active and productive cooperation between government and citizens is one of the results of good governance.

What is governance?

Practised on a daily basis, governance is typically about
the way public servants make decisions and implement
policies.

What is good governance?

Good governance is essential for ensuring that government is allocating resources wisely and fairly, and that it is serving the public interest in an open and transparent manner — which in turn is essential for building and maintaining citizens’ confidence in the public sector.

“Good governance makes it really difficult to do the wrong thing and really easy to do the right thing.”

Andrew Corbett-Nolan, Chief Executive of Good Governance Institute, UK

Principles of Good Governance in the Public Sector

Source: Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia

Kent Street and the stewardship principle

Stewardship is the act of looking after resources on behalf
of the public and is demonstrated by maintaining or improving capacity to serve the public interest over time.

Charlottetown’s City Council fell short of the stewardship principle when it voted in favour of a proposal by Discover Charlottetown, which had been lobbying for an all-year lighting scheme on Kent Street.

The Guardian first reported on this in March, following an initial presentation by Discover Charlottetown to the Public Works & Urban Beautification Committee meeting on March 26, 2021 (sound muted until 7 minutes in). It should be noted that presenter Shallyn Murray, who works at Nine Yards Studio, which will manage the project, is a resident member of the City’s Planning Board.

The final version of the project—along with requests for financial support—was presented to the Committee on August 25, 2021.

CBC posted an article on September 17, explaining that “The marketing firm [Discover Charlottetown] is planning to install overhead cables which will run along the section of the street thatʼs between Great George and Prince streets in the cityʼs downtown.”

Here’s the kicker: “The City of Charlottetown has agreed to cover the cost of changing the decorations, which is estimated to cost between $10,000 and $40,000 per year.”

Seasonal change-out schedule for the Kent Street overhead lighting project
Source: City of Charlottetown – Monthly Council Meeting Package, Sept. 13, 2021 (p. 440)

Readers will note that the images above do not portray Kent Street.

Add to that: “The city will also pick up costs of the yearly inspection of the cable connections, which are estimated to be about $2,500.

Screen shot of Discover Charlottetown's request to City Council to consider public funding request for the Kent Street overhead lighting project
Source: City of Charlottetown – Monthly Council Meeting Package, Sept. 13, 2021 (p. 429)

City of Charlottetown Resolution to approve the Kent Street overhead lighting project

Food-for-thought questions

In terms of urban beautification, would you qualify the Kent Street overhead lighting project as effective and efficient public spending?

Do you agree with executive director of Discover Charlottetown Heidi Zinnʼs question “… what better way to market a city than create a space for people to take pictures of, that they’ll take pictures of again and again and again … ?”

If you could allocate $40,000 annually toward urban beautification, what do you believe would be worth improving or investing in, and that residents across Charlottetown could make use of all year long?

More on Governance:

Is Mayor Brown in an ongoing conflict of interest? The public needs answers. 

Author: Doug MacArthur

Following is a summary of pertinent facts to consider re Mayor Philip Brown and his possible conflict of interest re APM et al. In addition to being mayor of Charlottetown, Mayor Philip Brown works with his family business [EB Brown Transport and Crane Services Inc and Atlantic Hy-Span Ltd] as a business accountant and public relations officer and director. His family business is a member of the Construction Association of PEI with Philip Brown listed as the EB Brown contact person.

Since becoming mayor, his family business has provided crane services to Tim Banks/APM on a number of projects, including the Blackbush Tracadie project in 2020 and APM projects in the city. When questioned on this, Tim Banks recently told CBC News “..the mayor’s crane shows up on our job sites, what are we supposed to do, wait until we can get one from the Irvings? It’s just doing business on a small island.” It should be noted that there are other PEI crane services providers besides EB Brown.

Despite his private business interests, Mayor Brown has not excused himself from City Hall development/planning/permit deliberations/decisions involving Tim Banks and/or APM and related companies. In fact, Mayor Brown has presided at various such City Council meetings, most recently in the City Council decision in late August to approve a footings permit for Killam/APM’s Sherwood Crossing project after other City officials had issued a Cease Construction Order to APM. Mayor Brown also vigorously contended that the 15 Haviland Killam/APM-proposed waterfront high-rise should be granted “as of right” without an opportunity for Council or public input. The 15 Haviland project does not even remotely qualify for “as of right” (without the need for additional approvals or amendments). He also contends that he doesn’t vote as mayor unless there is a tie. But he doesn’t mention that he sits and participates on every Council committee, including Planning Board, and has voting rights on all of them.

At an August 9th, 2021, Regular Monthly meeting of City Council, a councillor asked City Solicitor David Hooley what happens if a Council member has a conflict of interest and doesn’t declare it? What are the consequences? David Hooley replied that the consequences for a member who doesn’t declare a conflict of interest are serious, based on PEI’s Municipal Government Act. Mr Hooley noted that the consequences are also serious for the organization [i.e. City Council] because the person not declaring the conflict may taint the whole organization and require that the whole project approval process go back to Council again. This opinion by Mr Hooley should be a concern relating to Sherwood Crossing, and possibly other APM developments in which Mayor Brown has participated.

The Municipal Government Act (Section 96) is very clear.
(1) A council member is in a conflict of interest if, in relation to a matter under consideration by the council, the member or a person closely connected to the member
(a) has any pecuniary interest; ….
(2) A council member is in a conflict of interest if the member makes a decision or participates in making a decision in the execution of his or her office while at the same time the member knows or ought reasonably to know that the member’s private interests or the private interests of a person closely connected to the member affected the member’s impartiality in the making of the decision….
(3) A council member who is in a conflict of interest as described in subsection (1) or (2) shall
(a) declare the member’s interest in the matter before the council;
(b) remove himself or herself from the council meeting and any other meeting when the matter is discussed;
(c) abstain from the discussion and voting on the matter; and
(d) not attempt in any way, before, during or after a meeting, to influence the discussion or voting on any question, decision, recommendation or other action to be taken involving a matter in which the member has a conflict of interest.
(4) Subject to subsection (6), a member who fails to comply with clauses (3)(a) to (c) or who contravenes clause (3)(d) is disqualified from serving on council.”

Finally, although Future of Charlottetown has issues with Councillor Greg Rivard being the official real estate agent for Killam/APM’s Sherwood Crossing project, Councillor Rivard, to his credit, was quoted in a CBC interview last week as saying “I’ve stepped out of the room on any conversation because I’m in conflict,” he says. “Any discussion with regards to anything related to the developer, Tim Banks, any project that he comes forward with, I’m in conflict.”

Why shouldn’t Mayor Philip Brown have followed the same course and what, if anything, are the consequences for not doing so? Also, what are the City Solicitor’s responsibilities to advise City Council re this potentially serious conflict on the Mayor’s part and to protect the public interest, and what are the responsibilities of councillors in this matter? And what of the Province’s oversight role? The public needs answers.

Author: Doug MacArthur
Published Wednesday, 8 September 2021, on Future of Charlottetown Facebook page

Recent goings-on at City Hall

June 28 Special Meeting of Council

The agenda was quite packed for a Special Meeting of Council. The focus in this post is on:
4. e)  Planning Report and Resolutions: i. Angus Drive / St. Peters Road Reconsideration

The outcome of the rezoning application Request for Reconsideration resolution was published after second reading on July 5 in The Guardian. During the meeting, City Planner Laurel Palmer Thompson mentioned the letters received for and against the rezoning reconsideration: “… something like 27 letters in support, and something like 7 letters in opposition. They were all included in the package.”
[Note: letter = email]

The Public Meeting (June 22) package contained 4 letters from businesses in favour of the reconsideration, and 1 letter from a resident against (pages 66–73). A supplementary package contained letters received from June 16 to 22 with 2 letters in support and 3 letters in opposition. This adds up to 6 letters in support and 4 in opposition, nowhere near the approximately 27 and 7 mentioned by Thompson.

Thus began a series of e-mails to the Planning Department to enquire (a) about the missing letters and (b) the absence of Special Meeting of Council meeting packages online.

The response from the City’s Records Management Clerk to (b) was: “At this time, the City does not post Special Meeting of Council packages on our website. As per the Municipal Government Act of PEI [Section 121], the City is only required to publish a notice (agenda) on the website and post a copy of the notice at a location at City Hall where it may be seen by the public; at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting.”

The response to (a) was that the missing letters were included in the Special Meeting of Council package.

A follow-up question was sent to the Planning Department: “Would it be possible to create another document with those letters and file it under 2021 Public Meeting Packages?”

Reply from the Planning Department: “Since these letters were included in the package for Council’s special meeting and are not available online at this time, I have added the document with these additional letters (received after June 22) under 2021 Public Meeting packages.” Thank you!

An analysis of the document found that it contained twenty-four letters/e-mails, which varied in length and content. While nineteen expressed support for the roundabout, only one referred to the reconsideration request and only one other mentioned the rezoning application. Fifteen of the writers live on the east side of St Peters Rd (i.e. Oakland Estates subdivision). The five who expressed their opposition, and their reasons, referred to the request for reconsideration on the rezoning application.

The City—and the Province—did an extremely poor job handling this rezoning application and the request for reconsideration, leaving no room for a fair and reasonable discussion among citizens to work together on a solution that could have united and appeased residents on both sides of St Peters Road. It is no surprise that the messy process ended on such a discordant note, leaving a number of residents bitter and in anguish … and one businessman laughing all the way to the bank.


July 5 Special Meeting of Council

Another busy agenda that included the second reading of a revised rezoning resolution for a lot on Angus Drive and a lot on St Peters Road (both from Residential to Parking – housing crisis, anyone?), the “Marshfield Annexation” (closed session, IRAC involved, postponed to Monday), and verbatim requests, a topic of interest since late April.

4 f)  Verbatim Requests of Council Meetings

CAO Peter Kelly has proposed ending the decades-long practice of verbatim account requests. What does this mean?

A verbatim account is a word-for-word transcript of a debate or a discussion — in part of in full — between two or more individuals during a Council or a committee meeting. A verbatim account request can be made, for instance, by the Planning Department (e.g. IRAC hearing) or by a councillor.

Mr Kelly stated that most municipalities do not provide verbatim minutes of meetings. That is probably true because minutes, by their very definition, are “a summarized record of the proceedings at a meeting” (Oxford).

Mayor Brown also used the term ‛verbatim minutesʼ, an oxymoron, because meeting minutes are meant to record resolutions, actions, decisions and votes.

I would argue that meeting minutes and an excerpt of a debate are not one and the same.

The twenty-minute discussion was rather revealing.

Councillor Jankov raised the issue early on about the poor quality of the sound recording equipment and proposed deferring a vote.

Councillor Duffy lead the charge on ending the practice, asserting that anyone with five minutes of training can type up their own verbatim accounts, and that the live closed captioning (CC) option is ideal for people with a hearing problem. Key problem: CC does not identify who is speaking. Also, the text just runs on … so if two people speak at the same time, you can imagine how much sense the words make. And, every now and then, a sentence is not captured, to the detriment of a non-hearing reader.

Councillor Tweel, who has made the most requests for verbatim accounts, defended the practice.

Later, Duffy stated that itʼs not a question of a verbatim account request being handled, but who will do it. Is this contradicting Mr Kellyʼs goal to abolish to practice?

Mayor Brown can talk about this Council being open, transparent and accountable, but is it really if it excludes people living with a vision or hearing or reading disability?

In the end, the motion was to defer a vote until after better audio equipment is installed. (What about video?)

Below are a few examples of CC screen shots taken during the video recording of this meeting:

Update (9): St Peters Rd/Angus Dr

After an initial 8-1 vote in April to reject the resolution for Mel’s Convenience store/gas station owner Dan MacIsaacʼs rezoning application, several councillors did an about-face and voted to rescind that resolution at a Special Meeting of Council on Monday, 28 June 2021 (video-recording starts here), with a 6–3 vote. This means that Mr MacIsaac’s Request for Reconsideration was accepted and a new, slightly modified, resolution for the rezoning application was approved, and passed first reading the same evening.

The two most vocal speakers at this Special Council meeting were Councillors Mitchell Tweel (speaking for the residents of the Angus Drive neighbourhood) and Terry Bernard (speaking in favour of the roundabout).

Highlights

  1. Councillor Mitchell Tweel raised a Point of Order to question the validity and legality of the June 23 public meeting: If the applicant for the Request for Reconsideration was Mel’s Convenience owner Dan MacIsaac, why was the Province (Stephen Yeo) at the meeting and why was he allowed to make a presentation about the $20-million St Peters Road project?
  2. Before allowing lawyer David Hooley to respond to Tweel’s Point of Order, Mayor Brown put Planner Laurel Thompson on the spot by asking her to justify Yeoʼs presence at the public meeting.
  3. Lawyer David Hooley responded to Tweelʼs question about the legality of the public meeting without really answering it, with Mayor Brown interjecting rather aggressively several times.
  4. Councillor Terry Bernard brought up “the importance of the roundabout (as explained by the Province), and that was new information” (hence Council accepting the Request for Reconsideration). He also asked for clarification about a resident who called his integrity into question during the public meeting because of a letter he had written to inform his constituents about the roundabout without mentioning the rezoning application.
  5. Lawyer David Hooley stood again to give a legal opinion on the letter written by Bernard, and certain remarks made by Councillor Mike Duffy, both of whom were subject to disqualification from a vote on the Request for Reconsideration by being in a conflict of interest, according to information provided by Angus Drive resident Patty Good at the June 22 public meeting. Hooley’s response: “In our opionion, these two individuals are not disqualified from participating in this process… The acid test is councillors need to maintain an open mind until they get to the final decision… You are also required to not prejudge, and I did not see any evidence of prejudgement in the letter, I did not see any evidence of prejudgement in Counc. Duffyʼs remarks… In our opinion, they are not in conflict…” [= Two votes in favour of Dan MacIsaacʼs rezoning application].
  6. Councillor Greg Rivard (also the Chair of the Protective and Emergency Services Standing Committee) said he spoke with someone at the Fire Department about various scenarios concerning emergency services, and how the presence or absence of a roundabout would affect their response time. In a court of law, this would be considered hearsay. In any case, the opinion or expertise of the Fire Department was not sought for this rezoning application.
  7. Councillor Julie McCabe responded to Rivardʼs concern by saying that he made some good points but it really is a provincial issue, one that the Province should be thinking about.
  8. With talk about safety on St Peters Road, Councillor Tweel asked why no one had considered the safety of the residents living on Angus Drive (and Short Street), residents who had been, time and again, against this rezoning application.
  9. A fifteen-minute back and forth between Councillors Bernard and Tweel ensued, who were obviously in disagreement with each otherʼs points of view [Mayor Brownʼs subtle agreement heard at 1:43:02 while Bernard spoke].
  10. Councillor Bob Doiron voiced his opinion that other options surely must exist that would eliminate the need for vehicles arriving/departing Melʼs from using Angus Drive.
  11. Tweel agreed with Doiron and questioned why the City didn’t do its own due diligence to solicit a couple of engineers to ask them to …, and without getting to the end of his question, the Mayor jumped right in and said “It’s not our road [St Peters].” To which Tweel replied: “That’s right it’s not our road, itʼs two separate issues, and that’s how the residents feel.”
  12. Mayor Brown repeated again that the resolution states “… in order to facilitate road upgrades” without specifying what those upgrades are. Planner Laurel Thompson reiterated that safety is the primary reason for the new access road.

It appears to be quite evident that the Province (in the person of Chief Engineer Stephen Yeo) designed the roundabout at Angus Drive to accommodate Dan MacIsaac’s desire for an additional access route to his business (Melʼs Convenience store).

Because, why else would the provincial chief engineer state that there is no other option but to have an exit and entrance on Angus Drive — precisely where Mr MacIsaac has his lots that heʼs been wanting to consolidate to expand his business — otherwise the roundabout cannot be constructed?


Second reading of the rezoning application resolution is scheduled to take place at another Special Meeting of Council on Monday, July 5, 2021 (agenda, which also includes the item Marshfield annexation). The second reading is a formality. Once passed, the final recourse for the Angus Drive residents would be to file an appeal with IRAC by no later than 21 days following Councilʼs approval.

Recent goings-on at City Hall

June 7: Special Meeting of Council

  1. Who bears the brunt of road resurfacing costs?

Moved by Councillor Terry MacLeod, Seconded by Councillor Mike Duffy
RESOLVED:
That, as per the conditions of the Tender for “2021 Street Resurfacing”, the submission of Island Construction Ltd. in the amount of $1,650,356.25 (plus all applicable taxes) be accepted,
And that, the Capital Budget for Street Resurfacing be increased by $555,387.50 to cover all the costs of Asphalt testing services, line painting and street resurfacing.
CARRIED 9-0

Video-recording: starts at 7:21


A 2016 blog post entitled Vehicle Weight vs Road Damage Levels states: “For the one dollar’s worth of damage that a car does to a road, a bicycle, travelling the same distance on the same road, would perpetrate $0.0005862 worth of damage.”

A 2021 blog post entitled Road Damage Fees and Profit asks: “Been on a road lately and noticed how absolutely busted it was? Have you also noticed how vehicles today are far larger than in the past? These two things go together because vehicle weight is the main factor that determines road damage.” The writer also corrects the chart used in the 2016 blog post, because even though vehicle weight is important, even more so is axle loading.


2. Plans for a year-round Victoria Park Roadway active transportation lane

Moved by Councillor Terry MacLeod, Seconded by Councillor Mike Duffy
RESOLVED:
That, as per the conditions of the Request for Proposal on “Engineering Services 2 –Victoria Park Roadway and Active Transportation Corridor”, the submission of EXP, in the amount of $41,482.00 (plus all applicable taxes) be accepted. It was noted that this proposal did not go throughthe Parks & Recreation Committee; therefore, it was moved by Councillor Bernard and seconded by Councillor Ramsay that the motion be deferred so the P&R Committee can review the matter.

DEFERRED 9-0
Video-recording: starts at 10:15


The good news: The City is exploring to have the active transportation corridor available year-round on the Victoria Park Roadway. But this is still in the planning stages, with Public Works Manager Scott Adams stating the goal will be present to three options to present to Council and the public for future planning.

The bad news: One of the options could be fitting in two car lanes, a bike lane, and maintaining the parking within the existing footprint (Scott Adams). It was rather mind-boggling to hear Counc. MacLeod say: “I think that our job is to try and present active transporation in all forms, right, whether itʼs walking, biking, or whether itʼs in the car, itʼs all shared services, right, and why shut off one any more than the other, right… ”


3. In whose pockets does the money from Affordable Housing Incentives really wind up in the end?

Mayor Brown welcomed Robert Zilke, Planning Development Officer, to the meeting and asked him to begin his presentation (27:55 worth listening to!).
Mr. Zilke noted that in September 2018, Council approved an Affordable Housing Incentive Program which outlines policy objectives and initiatives that the City would undertake to incentivize affordable housing in the community. Staff recently reviewed the current program and is recommending the following amendments:
– This Program is valid if and/or when the City’s vacancy rate as determined by CMHC’s Quarterly Market Survey1 is less than 3%.
– Property Tax incentive on all new affordable housing units is decreased from 20 years to 10 years:
90% municipal property tax in years 1-2
75% municipal property tax in years 3-4
60% municipal property tax in years 5-6
45% municipal property tax in Year 7-8
30% municipal property tax in Year 9-10
Mr. Zilke further noted that there are no changes to Zoning & Development By-law Incentives which include bonus density, parking requirement reduction and building permit fees exemptions.
There was discussion related to the 3% vacancy rate. Some Members indicated the threshold should be higher, between 3–5%.
It was stressed that the City does have an important role to play in the process for affordable housing; however, most of the financial support for affordable programs comes from the federal and provincial governments.
Mr. Zilke was thanked for his presentation and left the meeting at 6:38 PM.
Council to provide the CAO (Chief Administrative Officer Peter Kelly) with further direction in relation to the proposed 3% vacancy rate.

Video-recording: starts at 19:55

CAO Peter Kelly reminded Council that the current incentive program offers a property tax exemption of up to 100% for a period of up to 20 years. The City has approved the 144 housing units under this program and will therefore forego $4 million in taxes over those 20 years (and permit fees of $152,000). He concluded: “… and weʼre trying to go forward, Your Worship, being more realistic and affordable for the City”.

1 Does he mean the information found on CMHCʼs Housing Market Information Portal or the Rental Market Survey Data ? Either way, the most recent data is from October 2020, that is, at least nine months old at this time.


Tonight, starting at 7 PM, is the second public meeting for the Angus Drive/St Peters Rd roadworks. Watch live stream online.

Update (7): St Peters Rd/Angus Dr — Public meeting #2, June 22

Municipal officials, elected and otherwise, have been pulling out the stops to push through this rezoning application. It seems no effort is spared to manipulate an application, at both the residentsʼ and the publicʼs cost. Just as no effort is being spared to ensure Killam/APMʼs Sherwood Crossing, and other developments, and more roads, will be built in Sherwood … on undeveloped land to boot.

Please share this post or the link to the agenda with family, friends, neighbours. If you or they cannot attend this meeting, please watch it online. Numbers count. Community counts. Our rights as citizens count.

PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA
NOTICE OF MEETING
Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. 

Victorian Room, Rodd Charlottetown Hotel, 75 Kent Street
(Also accessible via Videoconference (Webex) and live stream at www.charlottetown.ca/video)

  1. Call to Order
  2. Declaration of Conflicts
  3. Approval of Agenda
  4. Discussions:
    a) Reconsideration for Angus Drive (Lot 40) (PID #419143) & 413 St. Peters Road (PID #419135)
    Please be advised that on Monday, May 31, 2021, Council reviewed their decision of April 26, 2021 to reject the request to:
    • Amend Appendix G –Zoning Map of the Zoning & Development Bylaw for:
    -Angus Drive (Lot 40) (PID #419143) from Single Detached Residential (Large) (R-1L) Zone to Mixed Use Corridor (MUC) Zone; and 
    -413 St. Peters Road (PID #419135) from Low Density Residential (R-2) Zone to Mixed Use Corridor (MUC) Zone;
    •Amend Appendix A-Future Land Use Map of the Official Plan Map for:
    -Angus Drive (Lot 40) (PID #419143) & 413 St. Peters Road (PID #419135) from Mature Neighbourhood to Village Centre Commercial;
    •And further, to consolidate Angus Drive (Lot 40) (PID #419143), 413 St. Peters Road (PID #419135) and 419 St. Peters Road (PID #192187),

    in order to facilitate road upgrades by the Province to St. Peters Road and construct a second means of access for the convenience store to and from Angus Drive. 

    Section 3.15 of the Zoning and Development Bylaw (the “ZD Bylaw”) permits an aggrieved person to request a reconsideration by Council if it is determined that the original decision rendered by Council satisfied a prescribed threshold test. Council has determined that this application did meet the threshold test and have scheduled a public meeting to provide the applicant, the developer and affected property owners or their representatives an opportunity to present their submissions.
  5. Introduction of New Business
  6. Adjournment of Public Session

For contact tracing purposes and due to the room capacity limit of 100 seats, those wishing to participate in person must register in advance and adhere to the guidelines set by the Chief Public Health Officer, details of which are available online at www.princeedwardisland.ca/covid19. Those who are unable or uncomfortable attending in person can participate in the public meeting via videoconference (Webex). Anyone who wants to observe the meeting without commenting can watch it at http://www.charlottetown.ca/video. To register to attend the meeting either in person or by alternate means, residents are requested to contact the Planning & Heritage Department by email at planning@charlottetown.ca or call 902-629-4158 on or before 4:00 p.m. on Friday, June 18, 2021 to provide their contact details (name, phone number and/or email address). Once the maximum capacity has been reached, residents will be advised to participate in the meeting by videoconference (Webex). Business hours are between 8:00 AM –4:00 PM, Monday –Friday. Staff will contact interested participants no later 4:00 p.m. on Monday, June 21, 2021 with details on how to participate in the meeting. The City encourages written submissions to Council be received prior to the public meeting. Notwithstanding, all written submissions by letter may be delivered to the City’s Planning & Heritage Department at P.O. Box 98, 199 Queen Street, Charlottetown, PE, C1A 7K2; or, comments may be emailed to planning@charlottetown.ca on or before 12:00 noon on Wednesday, June 23, 2021. All responses received will become part of the public record. Oral submissions or comments may be made at the public meeting, but residents are requested to please keep their oral submissions to a three (3) to five (5) minute maximum.

View agenda online: https://www.charlottetown.ca/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17757573

%d bloggers like this: