Disturbing Facts About Killam/APM’s 
Sherwood Crossing Development

Failure to fully inform the public

On 26 August 2020, the City held a public meeting to present the Killam/APM North of Towers development, now known at Sherwood Crossing.

During that meeting, APM president Tim Banks presented a traffic impact study he had commissioned for the development. The 8 September 2020 Planning Board meeting package states (p.17/280): The City is also currently undergoing a traffic study for the whole area and that would include recommendations or proposals with regards to this future road access [Spencer Drive].

The resolution to approve the APM North of Towers rezoning application was subject to five conditions, the first of which was: That the Cityʼs Traffic Master Plan (TMP) confirm that the development does not conflict with the proposed site plan.

At 1:06:55 in the video recording of the 9 November City Council meeting, Counc. Duffy states: “I am led to believe all the last four bullets have been met and just waiting for this master plan to be presented which was presented here two weeks ago at Council.”

A traffic plan commissioned by the City involves public money, and means citizens have a right to see it. But, despite repeated requests from individuals to the Mayor and City Council that another public meeting was warranted to present the traffic study — given that the first public meeting failed to disclose all the relevant additional facts surrounding the Sherwood Crossing and future developments — the study was not made public until February 2021.

At the time of approving the rezoning resolution (first reading 9 November, second reading 14 December), the Council did not even have the final ‘draft TMP’, let alone the approved TMP and so the Council could not have satisfied itself that the requirements of Condition 1 had been met. 

On 4 January 2021, Sherwood resident Don Read filed a Request for Reconsideration with the City and, following procedure, simultaneously filed an appeal with IRAC. One of the grounds for appeal (LA21001 – Read v. City of Charlottetown) was: Failure to consult and inform public on City’s Master Traffic Plan with respect to Sherwood Crossing rezoning application (related to, and relies on, a land transfer from the development).

In fact, the TMP is still not approved. The draft TMP, with its misleading title West Royalty Commercial Area Traffic Master Plan, was only formally presented to Council on 22 February 2021, and the public received its first glimpse on 26 April during a presentation by the Public Works department.


NOTE: The IRAC hearing LA21001 – Read v. City of Charlottetown is being held today.

Published on CBC PEI, Tuesday, November 10: Proposed 300-unit Charlottetown housing development passes 1st reading
“If the development ends up not fitting the traffic master plan council will look at the project again.”

Published on The Guardian, Wednesday, November 18: Major housing development in Charlottetown passes first reading at council meeting
“The councillor [Duffy] said it was determined that the Sherwood Crossing project won’t have a negative impact on traffic flow in the area.”

It’s time to reclaim our roads

Hey City!

REGIONAL TRAVEL: Post-WWII euphemism for long & unsustainable car trips

Video : Where we’re going, we don’t need roads

Even though this eighteen-minute video was shot in New York City, Rollie Williams does a fabulous job explaining how the car industry hijacked our roads.

Be prepared for some history, a bit of satire, a bit of comedy, and a lot of information. As he says, “Now is the time to get involved!” We cannot let motor vehicles continue to be the only way to travel on Prince Edward Island.

“Mum, why can’t I walk to school?”

Public Meeting: West Royalty Transportation Master Plan

Background

The words “traffic study” and “traffic master plan” were used interchangeably last year during the North of Towers, a.k.a. Sherwood Crossing, rezoning application meetings. Despite requests by citizens for a copy of the traffic study, the City consistently refused, partly on the grounds that the two were not connected, partly because it would call a public meeting in future. In a 6–3 City Council vote on December 14, 2020, the rezoning application for the future Killam/APM development located within the traffic study area was approved.

On April 13, the City announced that the Public Works department is hosting a public consultation on Monday, April 26 at the Homburg Theatre (Confederation Centre of the Arts). The purpose is to provide prepare a final West Royalty Commercial Area Transportation Master Plan based on public input received during a one-meeting, two-hour ‛consultation processʼ.

When a slide presentation of the traffic study was released to the public in February, it bore the title SDU & Area Vacant Lands—Transportation Master Plan.

In March, when the Draft Final Report posted on the City’s website, it was renamed West Royalty Commercial Area—Transportation Master Plan.

What is a Transportation Master Plan [TMP]?

It is a document that guides a municipality’s transportation investment and activities, and typically uses a strategic framework that incorporates the Cityʼs vision, feedback from the community, and an analysis of transportation challenges and opportunities.

The City of Courtenay, B.C., (2016 pop. 54,157) presents an excellent example with its completed 2019 Transportation Master Plan.

Transportation … or Traffic?

The Transportation Master Plan document created by CBCL, whose mission“is to provide world-class engineering and environmental services” (no Transportation Planning in its list of ‛Solutionsʼ), states the following in the Executive Summary:

Note fourth line: ‛to forecast the growth of vehicular travel demand’

Nearly 35 pages are filled with details of the traffic analysis zones and roughly 40 pages with traffic data.

What about other modes of transportation?

Section 4.2. Active Transportation: “AT design focused on the human experience will positively influence mode choice among residents and visitors, and help to reduce the negative effects of a transportation system dominated by motorized vehicles.”

Section 4.3. Transit: “Future roadways and development site plans within the study area should be designed with transit connectivity in mind include adequate lighting and signage at stops; safe, comfortable shelters; and good active transportation connections.”

Section 4.4. entitled Sherwood Residential Area appears to have been added to soothe local residentsʼ fears about increased traffic. (Not a joke.)

The cover letter to Scott Adams, Manager of Public Works, states:

CBCL Limited (CBCL) is pleased to present the findings of this comprehensive study of vacant lands adjacent to the main commercial area of Charlottetown. We understand there is increasing pressure from several property owners, primarily north and east of the Charlottetown Mall, to obtain City approval to move forward with various development plans. The main objective of this Transportation Master Plan is to assist City staff by providing strategies for future development and street connections to the existing road network needed to support this growth.

Posted: April 19, 2021 | Last Updated: April 22, 2021

UPDATE (2): St Peters Road/Angus Dr

On April 5, I wrote a post explaining the Planning Board’s role in the planning and development process; and that the Board’s meeting agenda on April 6 would include the St Peters Road rezoning application.

Citizens may appreciate the fact that the meetings are live-streamed and archived. The major drawback is that viewers are unable to see the presentations (except when Cisco Webex is used), leaving them in the dark as to what those in the room are seeing. What is the City waiting for to upgrade its video technology?

Planning Board meeting: April 6

Despite that drawback, the Planning Board video-recording (go to minute 35:20) is well worth listening to, if only because it demonstrates once again that residents’ comments are trivialized. In a presentation and discussion that lasts 23 minutes, a scant minute (37:15–37:58) is devoted to listing the objections of “mainly area residents”. No mention is made of their suggestions, however.

So when the entire discussion is focussed on traffic, when the concluding sentence by the planner is “we feel that in the interest of the public, this is the best option” (40:55), when the objective is clearly to accommodate a retail business’s expansion (letʼs call it what it is), when public money is being used to construct a vehicle-only-friendly roundabout to enable that expansion, it is clear that both the Province and the City are less than willing to consider viable alternatives in favour of the people living in the community.

Call to action

If you want the City of Charlottetown and the Provincial Government to start thinking about the people who live here instead of the vehicles driving through, please write to your councillor, the mayor, your MLA, and Premier King (see Links for contact information).

Regular Meeting of Council: April 12

The Planning Board’s recommendation to proceed with the rezoning application will be discussed at the Regular Meeting of Council on Monday, April 12 (starts at 5 p.m.). At time of writing, the Monthly Council Meeting package has not been made public.


Meeting moments of interest
→ 39:00 : Planner describing “mitigative measures” and “safety issue”
→ 43:35 : Exchange between Councillor McCabe and Planning Board Chair Duffy
→ 50:20 : Exchange between Coun. McCabe and Planner about Mel’s further expansion in future
→ 51:18 : Manager of Planning Mr Forbes on provincial control of St Peters Road
→ 52:10 : Coun. McCabe question “How many times has this application been before Council?”
→ 53:22 : Planning Board Chair Duffy and the “Fairness Factor”
→ 55:20 : Manager of Planning Mr Forbes and the “complicated traffic-related issue”

P.S. Heavens to Betsy, if I had a dollar for every time someone in Planning or Council said: “I’m not a traffic engineer” !

UDPATE (1): St Peters Rd/Angus Dr

Planning Board Meeting: April 6, 2021

On March 22, I wrote a post about the rezoning applications in the Angus Drive, St Peters Road, and Hanmac Drive area of East Royalty.

The City’s Planning Board meeting is the next step in the rezoning process. One of the Board’s responsibilities is “to consult with the community and interest groups in matters relating to land use, planning and heritage.” The Mayor, four Councillors, and five Resident members sit on the Board.

The monthly meeting is held the first Monday of the month (or Tuesday following a holiday), usually starts at 4:30 PM, and is streamed live on the City of Charlottetown Web site. Video-recordings are archived on the City’s YouTube channel (select VIDEO for most recent meetings).

Details of the Public Meeting: March 23, 2021

I’m worried we will be bombarded with air pollutants, noise pollutants and light pollutants.

Laura Morgan (pp 73–74)

Details of the St Peters Rd/Angus Drive portion of the Public Meeting are found on pages 14 to 22 of the April 6, 2021, Planning Board Meeting Package (16.7MB). The package also contains the rezoning application with historical information, the City planner’s analysis, copies of citizen letters, and more (pages 51 to 88). If you want to watch the video-recording of the presentation, go to minute 17:00 (ends at 1:28:40).

This isn’t about traffic flow, this is about Steven Yeo helping Dan MacIsaac get what he wanted for Mel’s 7 years ago …

Patty and Randy Good (page 71)
Where is the human scale?

“As the world looks to recover and rebuild in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, cities have the opportunity to curb the growing demand for driving by prioritizing street space and even generating revenue that can support public transport, walking, cycling, and other sustainable modes.”
— Institute for Transportation and Development Policy

March 23, 2021: Public Meeting

Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 7:00 p.m.
Courtyard, The Rodd Royalty, 14 Capital Drive
(Also accessible via Videoconference (Webex) and live stream at www.charlottetown.ca/video)

Two items are on the agenda for this Public Meeting, at which citizens have the opportunity to listen to the Planning Department’s report, and comment on or ask questions about the proposed rezoning applications. This post focusses on the first item.

Angus Drive (Lot 40) & 413 St. Peters Road


“The current application has come forward because the Province is undertaking major upgrades to St.Peters Road in the Summer of 2021. Those upgrades include construction of a roundabout at the location of Angus Drive, Hanmac Avenue and St Peters Road.

“The proposed roundabout will alleviate issues with access from Angus Drive and will keep traffic flowing as opposed to waiting to make left or right turns at this intersection. The proposed access driveway from Mel’s to Angus Drive will also create a much safer situation for customers leaving or entering the site. Currently, residents that live north of Mel’s and St.Peters Road have to go down to St.Peters Road to get to Mel’s site. Once this access goes in and the roundabout is constructed, residents to the north of Mel’s will be able to turn into Mel’s site and not have to enter on to St. Peters Road. That will create a much safer situation.”
Source: Monthly Meeting Package (March 8, 2021)

What’s wrong with this proposal?

  1. “Mayor Brown asked Mr. Yeo if the construction for the roundabout along St. Peters Road and Angus Drive will begin this year. Mr. Yeo responded that tenders were closed last Thursday and construction for the roundabout and road widening along St. Peters Road is anticipated to begin in May and be completed around August or September of 2021.” 
  2. “There are still negotiations with property owners, but the project will move ahead as planned.”
  3. “Councillor McCabe asked if changing the designation from mature neighbourhood to the village centre allow further commercial development on the property. Councillor Duffy responded that this application is only a request to proceed to public meeting.”

Why is a public meeting called when the project is going ahead anyway?

This City Council still believes—as does the Province—that cars are the best way to get around, when they are in fact virtually the only way to get around, because so little money is invested in connected public and active transportation; that more roads are needed to reduce congestion; and that pedestrians and cyclists can be accommodated through added-on, second-rate infrastructure.

City Council declared a Climate Emergency in 2019. Building more roads for more cars that produce direct emissions, including smog-forming pollutants (such as nitrogen oxides), other pollutants harmful to human health, and greenhouse gases (GHGs), primarily carbon dioxide, is the very opposite of the sustainable community design and urban planning that a municipality should be striving to achieve in 2021!