Our HRM: Planning for tomorrow, today

Shared by: HC120727143420

Tags

Stats

views:: 0
posted:: 7/27/2012
language:
pages:: 13

Public Domain

Document Sample

Planning for Liveable Communities
2705 Fern Lane · Halifax · Nova Scotia · Canada · B3K 4L3
t: 902-429-0924 · f: 902-405-3716 · e: hrm@ecologyaction.ca
www.ourhrmalliance.ca

Our HRM Alliance: Our Seven Solutions
Rationale
Released November 30, 2011

With the five-year review of the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RP+5), Our HRM Alliance is
asking Council to consider the following solutions:

1. Use greenbelting to concentrate growth and preserve wilderness areas and eco-services

Why we chose this solution to meet our objectives:
o Greenbelt planning serves a number of purposes. For HRM, it could:
 Reduce servicing costs to the Municipality and Province
 Maintain agricultural lands
 Encourage ecotourism
 Preserve Nova Scotia’s traditional communities and parkland
 Encourage residents to be more physically active, thereby reducing health costs
 Decrease the call for new schools by maintaining population numbers closer to existing sites
o A greenbelt does not discourage development; it merely directs it to certain areas. Rather than a new
commercial centre being developed in an area that will require new roads be built, a greenbelt would
guide this development to areas within the already developed core of a community.
o Developers correctly point to the fact that land on the outskirts of the community is presently cheaper;
therefore a new homebuyer is more able to afford a home in the commutershed. HRM and the
Province must provide initiatives and a policy framework to ensure that land in already built-up areas
is competitively priced (see Solution Five).

How other cities implement this:
o England’s National Planning Policy Framework is still in the formation stages, but England has had
policy limiting development in the countryside for over 50 years. Greenbelts achieve five objectives
for this nation1:
 Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
 Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
 Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
 Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
 Assist in urban regeneration, encouraging the reuse of derelict and other urban land
o In Ontario, the Places to Grow Act2 and Greenbelt Act3 form the policy framework required for both
directing growth and protecting the countryside.
o A report from the City of Calgary looks at the cost of growth4 in new greenfield areas versus in the
core. Servicing costs are less in already built-up areas.

1
Department for Communities and Local Government (2011). Draft National Planning Policy Framework. Page 38.
Retrieved from <http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951811.pdf> on 15 October
2011.
2
Government of Ontario (2005). Places to Grow Act. Retrieved from <http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05p13_e.htm> on 15 October 2011.
3
Government of Ontario (2005). Greenbelt Act. Retrieved from <http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05g01_e.htm> on 15 October 2011.
o Victoria Transit Policy Institute prepared a paper on public infrastructure and service cost which is in
effect a study of land-use patterns. Density is easier to service with transit. This means that urban
cores are easier to service than a suburban form.5
o Examples of greenbelts can be found across the globe: Portland, Oregon (urban growth boundary);
Melbourne, Australia; Frankfurt, Germany; São Paulo, Brazil; San Francisco Bay Area, California;
and The Netherlands

Correspondence to existing RMPS: Congruent with Section 2.1, “Open Space Network”, in the RMPS
under Chapter 2. Corresponds to the Cultural Functional Plan, Section 2.2 (Cultural Assets): “These
assets allow people to be engaged in healthy lifestyles and enjoy a profound connection to their natural
environment and their community”.6

Council Action: The details on the exact location of the greenbelt continue to be discussed. The Our
HRM Alliance is currently developing a greenbelt map, which the community will then finalize. The Our
HRM Alliance plans to make a draft of the greenbelt publicly available early in 2012. HRM staff will
need to review and enhance the efforts of the Alliance.

4
City of Calgary (2005). Opportunities and Challenges of Growth.
5
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (17 June 2011). Understanding Smart Growth Savings: What We Know About
Public Infrastructure and Service Cost Savings, and How They Are Misrepresented by Critics.
6
Halifax Regional Municipality (21 March 2006). Cultural plan (Draft #3). Page 17.

2
2. Invest in the downtown core and growth centres

Why we chose this solution to meet our objectives:
o HRM has invested in business parks such as Burnside and Bayers Lake. Direct subsidies are not
permissible as a way to encourage tenants to locate there, however, the servicing and road
infrastructure is an indirect subsidy. The downtowns of Halifax, Dartmouth and other established
communities deserve a similar level of commitment.
o The Greater Halifax Partnership calls for a $50 million investment in the downtown core of Halifax
and Dartmouth to modernize its decaying infrastructure.
o A report by The Conference Board of Canada recognizes that “hub cities are the economic drivers for
the entire country”. HRM’s downtown cores of Halifax and Dartmouth form the hub city of Atlantic
Canada7. They must be supported for the entire region to prosper.
o HRM outlines its strategy for investment in the “core” in Capital Ideas8. The Greater Halifax
Partnership is also calling for major investment downtown9.
o Though HRM calls for growth and increased density in areas designated as “growth centres”, no
funding is available for infrastructure or other improvements.

How other cities implement this:
o Main Street, Heritage Canada’s successful Community Revitalization Strategy for towns and villages,
was used across Canada to bring back vibrancy to smaller communities. Though it was used across
Canada, the last example is from Saskatchewan10. The program is now completed.
o The Province of Manitoba has prioritized investment in Winnipeg where both the province and the
city are contributing $5 million each for the improvement of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure,
arts and recreation in targeting older areas of the city.11
o The School Board in Edmonton, Alberta has made a policy to invest only in existing schools rather
than divert precious resources to new schools.12

Correspondence to existing RMPS: Section 5.4 of the RMPS discusses the economic strategy. The
goals outlined there correspond with investments in downtowns and town centres.

Council Action: Revisit the system of “growth centres” identified in the RMPS. HRM should initiate
conversations with the Province and the federal government regarding funding.

7
Conference Board of Canada (2006). Canada’s Hub Cities: A Driving Force of the National Economy.
8
Halifax Regional Municipality (11 June 2010). Capital Ideas: Leveraging Urban Investment for Regional
Prosperity.
9
Greater Halifax Partnership (2011). A Greater Halifax Economic Strategy 2011-2016. Retrieved from
<http://www.greaterhalifax.com/en/home/aboutus/Projectsinitiatives/economicstrategyrenewal/default.aspx >.
10
Heritage Canada Foundation for Saskatchewan Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport (2009). Main Street: Past and
Present.
11
City of Winnipeg (25 July 2011). Building Communities Initiative II. Retrieved from <
http://www.winnipeg.ca/ppd/planning/BldgCommunities/default.stm>.
12
Edmonton Public Schools (11 May 2011). Board prioritizes support for aging schools in mature neighbourhoods.
Retrieved from < http://news.epsb.ca/2011/05/board-prioritizes-support-for-aging-schools-in-mature-
neighbourhoods/> on 27 November 2011.

3
3. Prioritize investment in transit and active transportation

Why we chose this solution to meet our objectives:
o An efficient, reliable transportation system is a requirement for effective cities. Businesses and
residents both benefit. Vehicles have a place in the city but other options must also be available.
o A report released by the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission in 2009 put the possibility of a third
harbour crossing on the table as a requirement if HRM did not get its single-occupant private vehicle
habit under control13.
o Private automobiles are expensive to own and operate. A CAA report gives the lowest operating and
ownership price of $665/month.14
o HRM has an Active Transportation Committee that has suggested investing $20 million in active
transportation over five years to work on five “Big Moves”15:
 Employment Centre Spines ($5,000,000) – Burnside, Bayers Lake, Peninsula and Woodside.
 Connect and Extend Linear Parkway ($2,000,000)
 The Bedford Sackville Spine ($4,000,000)
 Complete Alderney Connections ($3,000,000)
 Blitz Arterial Sidewalks ($10,000,000+)
o Five Big Moves for Transit appeared as an information item on the agenda of the Thursday
November 24, 2011 meeting of the Transportation Standing Committee of Council.
o The Road Network Functional Plan was deferred on September 27, 2011. Council wanted to wait
until after the completion of the five-year review of the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy. The
scoping document for the review stresses a need to move to more sustainable transportation methods.
This may result in changes to the Road Network Functional Plan, which uses modelling and forecasts
that may be outdated, if HRM moves to more sustainable transportation options.

How other cities implement this:
o Plan It Calgary carried out an extensive study on how transportation costs are linked to growth
patterns16. Sprawling communities cost more to service with transit.
o The City of Winnipeg171819 and the Region of Waterloo and Cambridge20 are looking into investments
in light rail transit. HRM is also investigating using commuter rail to help ease traffic problems.
o Curitiba, Brazil is an efficient transit model for cities without a lot of money.
o Light rail is an option for many places - Phoenix just voted to join the western cities of Portland,
Seattle, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas,

13
Halifax Harbour Bridges (25 March 2008). Study Points to Need for Traffic Demand Management. A Study of
Transportation Demand and Capacity in HRM From 2008-2036 (Cross-Harbour Traffic Needs Assessment).
14
Canadian Automobile Association (2011). Driving Costs, Beyond the price tag: Understanding your vehicle
expenses. Retrieved from <http://www.caa.ca/documents/CAA_Driving_Costs_Brochure_2010.pdf> on November
28, 2011.
15
Halifax Regional Municipality (13 April 2011). A Report to Council: Active Transportation Corridors.
16
City of Calgary (2009). Plan It: The Implications of Alternative Growth Patterns on Infrastructure Costs.
17
City of Winnipeg (27 July 2010). Council Minutes. Report of The Executive Policy Committee Dated July 7th,
2010. 5-Light Rail Transit/Bus Rapid Transit Analysis.
18
The Rapid Transit Task Force (2005). Made in Winnipeg: Rapid Transit Solution – Final Report.
19
City of Winnipeg (2011). Sustainable Transportation: An Our Winnipeg Direction Strategy.
20
Region of Waterloo (15 June 2011). Regional Council Approves Light Rail Transit. Retrieved from
<http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/newslist/index.aspx?corpId=58cynQlfgqiAYQyTLmpurQeQuAleQuAl&newsI
d=BWJzyazCRuxykwhsy2M9hAeQuAleQuAl> on 15 October 2011.

4
Houston, St. Louis, and Minneapolis that all have or are building light rail21. Vancouver, Edmonton,
Calgary, Toronto (streetcars) and Ottawa also have rail systems. Light rail’s speed, comfort, and
capacity have made it a success across North America.

Correspondence to existing RMPS: Section 3.4 discusses how inactivity levels in HRM can be reversed
with “planning for centres”. Planning for centres means linking these walkable centres with fast, efficient
transit. The transportation section of the plan is Chapter 4. In the introduction section, the 50:50 split
between transit and roads is mentioned.

Council Action: Transit corridors that provide frequent service between centres must be established in
order to capture a consistent market. Once a backbone of efficient service is in place, the network can
expand. Council must be willing to invest in these corridors and the network of modal choices that will
support it.

21
Light Rail Now (28 March 2005). Curitiba’s “Bus Rapid Transit” – How Applicable to Los Angeles and Other
U.S. Cities? Retrieved from <http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00013.htm> on 15 October 2011.

5
4. Adhere to residential growth targets

Why we chose this solution to meet our objectives:
o HRM already has enough lots approved to handle projected growth for a generation22 23. If these lots
are all built upon, HRM’s development pattern will continue in a manner that increases servicing
costs and threatens the natural environment. HRM must use incentives to encourage development in
already built-up areas. It is through incentives that HRM might actually meet its desired residential
growth targets.

How other cities implement this:
o In Aspen, Colorado, a growth management plan regulates the number of building approvals in each
area of the city24. Similar development strategies are used in Whistler, B.C.
o A number of sequencing tools can be used by the Municipality to direct growth. Our HRM Alliance
was advised not to make a specific recommendation for how sequencing should occur.

Correspondence to existing RMPS: In the introduction, Section 3.0, of Housing and Settlement, the
population breakdown target for HRM is outlined. This is found on Page 36 of the RMPS.

Council Action: HRM should meet residential growth targets for the urban, suburban, and rural areas in
the Municipality. It should also consider establishing incentives to help developers reach these targets and
ensure that a percentage of the units are affordable to people earning minimum wage. Council should be
cognisant of appropriate densities for individual neighbourhoods. A robust affordable housing strategy
must be developed in conjunction with other measures to help meet these targets, while ensuring that a
variety of housing options exist for residents of the Municipality.

22
Dunphy, P., Townsend, P. and O’Toole, C. (2009). Project 01341 – Cost of Servicing Study and Requests to
Inititate Secondary Planning Strategies (Community Plan Amendment Requests). Page 3.
23
Anstey, W. and Labrecque, M. (2010). Project 01341 – Cost of Servicing Study and Requests to Inititate
Secondary Planning Strategies (Community Plan Amendment Requests). Page 2.
24
City of Aspen (n.d.). Smart Growth – Urban Focus: Region 8 Colorado. Aspen Growth Management Quota
System.

6
5. Evaluate development charges to ensure that the Municipality is not burdened by growth

Why we chose this solution to meet our objectives:
o HRM has already begun to explore increasing revenue through Capital Cost Contributions – both
area-specific charges and region-wide charges. In a report by SGE Acres Limited for HRM, the
authors state “the introduction of infrastructure charges can be justified under the benefits principle
for financing local development: growth should pay for itself and not be a burden on existing
residents.”25
o A discussion paper on obtaining amenity contributions from new urban development projects
completed for the City of Victoria states: “While developers actually write the cheques to pay for
levies or amenity contributions, and while it is widely perceived (erroneously) that such costs are
simply added on the cost of new development, making prices higher and exacerbating an affordability
problem, the actual situation is both more complex and less harmful than it is often made out to be.”26
The paper continues, explaining: “The requirement to make an amenity contribution has no impact on
the sales price of the units. The developer has not added the cost of the amenity to the selling price (in
a competitive market, a developer is a price-taker and any attempt to arbitrarily add an extra amount
to the price, which is set in the marketplace by the interaction of supply and demand, will result in
purchasers buying elsewhere).”27
o The Alliance recognizes that charges placed on developers may come back to the homebuyer in some
form or another28, but the message this sends about the value of natural lands is important for the
entire community. Without placing charges on new greenfield development, other affordable options,
such as development on smaller lots and development within town centres and the urban core, will
likely not occur – yet these are the types of density measures that HRM should pursue.29 30
o Measures will need to be taken by municipal officials to ensure that affordable housing is available.
Waiving development charges on brownfield sites and on affordable housing developments, as well
as reducing development charges on multi-unit dwellings will help achieve this. 31 32 33

25
SGE Acres Limited (2006). Final Report: Infrastructure Charges Study. Pages ii-iii. Retrieved from
<http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/SGEInfrastructureStudy.html> on 23 November 2011.
26
Coriolis Consulting Group (February 2007). Obtaining Amenity Contributions from New Urban Development
Projects: Discussion Paper for the City of Victoria (Draft). Page 14.
27
Coriolis Consulting Group (February 2007). Obtaining Amenity Contributions from New Urban Development
Projects: Discussion Paper for the City of Victoria (Draft). Page 16.
28
Newport Partners et. al. (Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) (2008). Impact
Fees and Housing Affordability: A Guidebook for Practitioners. Retrieved from
<http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/impactfees.pdf>.
29
Malcolmson, C. (2011). The Growth Plan is Working, but the Lack of Real Affordable Housing Still Drives
Sprawl. Retrieved from <http://environmentaldefence.ca/blog/growth-plan-working-lack-real-affordable-housing-
still-drives-sprawl>.
30
Killip, R. A. (n.d.). A Family home or accessible countryside? An investigation into housing policy and its
compatibility with Green Belt Planning (Dissertation).
31
Shelter (July 2007). Delivering environmentally sustainable housing growth. Retrieved from
<http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/39469/30979.pdf>.
32
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (2011). Using Government Levies. Retrieved from <www.cmhc-
schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/afhoce/tore/afhoid/pore/usdele/index.cfm?renderforprint=1>.
33
Skaburskis, A and Tomalty, R. (2000). The Effects of Property Taxes and Development Cost Charges on Urban
Development: Perspectives of Planners, Developers and Finance Officers in Toronto and Ottawa. Canadian Journal
of Regional Science. Pages 303-325.

7
How other cities implement this:
City What the [CCC] is charged for [CCC] for residential Notes
Vancouver, Facilities eligible for DCL funding $26.16-$112.26 per m2 DCS is difficult to
British include: parks, childcare facilities, calculate because the
Colombia replacement housing (social/non-profit City lumps a bunch of
(Development housing), and engineering infrastructure. classes. Are not applied
Cost Levies & Collects a DCC for the sewerage and across the City, but only
Development drainage. 34 in specific areas.
Cost Charge)
New Until 2004, was a voluntary contribution. Cost is about $3000 per B.C. allows contributions
Westminister, Now includes significant other non- unit.35 to be made for daycares
British monetary amenities. Doesn’t include the and affordable housing as
Colombia cost of storm water and wastewater, well as parkland but
though the City still expects a cannot charge for
“voluntary” contribution. electrical power, fire
services, master plans,
libraries, recreation,
works yards, transit
facilities or equipment.36
Surrey, British Cash contributions are required for park Cost is from Surrey uses a cash-in-lieu
Colombia development (not park land acquisition, $586.25/unit - system that allows
which is funded by DCCs), library, $1770.82/unit depending contributions from many
police and fire services, and community on the neighbourhood. 37 projects to be pooled for
facilities. the creation of amenities
that would be too large or
too expensive for any
individual project to
provide. Uses up-
zoning.38
City of North Achieving additional public benefits. $5 per square foot of Vancouvers growth plan
Vancouver, increased residential works on increasing
British gross floor area for density on already built
Colombia townhouse, duplex, up areas. Needs further
triplex or similar investigation.
development; and $15
per square foot of
increased residential
gross floor area for
apartment
development39
Calgary, The system is partly formulaic and partly Different levels for core The City is about to

34
City of Vancouver (November 2011). Development Cost Levies (Information Bulletin). Page 1.
35
Coriolis Consulting Group (February 2007). Obtaining Amenity Contributions from New Urban Development
Projects: Discussion Paper for the City of Victoria (Draft). Page 23.
36
SGE Acres Limited (2006). Final Report: Infrastructure Charges Study. Retrieved from
<http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/SGEInfrastructureStudy.html> on 23 November 2011.
37
City of Surrey Planning & Development Department (March 2011). Neighbourhood Concept Plan (NCP) Areas
Require Amenity Contributions. Page 2.
38
Coriolis Consulting Group (February 2007). Obtaining Amenity Contributions from New Urban Development
Projects: Discussion Paper for the City of Victoria (Draft). Page 24.
39
Corporation of the District of North Vancouver (December 2010). Community Amenity Policy (Administrative
Policy Manual). Page 2.

8
Alberta negotiated. “…development charges redevelopment areas and embark on a process to
should be used to contribute to the cost new suburbs. completely revise its
of utility improvements, mobility downtown density bonus
infrastructure, transit, protective service system.
facilities, recreation facilities and
parks.”40
Edmonton, Inspection fees are to be paid to the City The current rate for Each developer is
Alberta for inspecting and approving various residential developments required to pay his
municipal improvements. is $4,082.00/hectare relative share of the
Permanent area contributions (PACs) are with a minimum value construction cost which
payments for storm and sanitary trunk of 3.0 hectares. In is established by an area
sewers, storm water management addition, a developer is assessment known as the
facilities, and other cost-sharable charged for storm water Permanent Area
drainage improvements within according to the cost of Contribution (PAC).
predefined drainage basins (land the individual project.
areas).41
Markham, Three types of development charges Development charges Increased development
Ontario within the Town are imposed under a for: rates are used to fund
number of by-laws. They are42: Apartments <2 per unit: local infrastructure and
Town-Wide Soft development charge $11015 services, which in turn,
(TWS) by-law 2009-120; Single semi-detached helps to facilitate the
Town-Wide Hard development charge dwellings per unit: attraction of new
(TWH) by-laws, 2008-124 and 2008- $2465243 business investment.44
125; and Area-Specific development 2005 figures.
charge (ASDC) by-laws 2008-126 to
2008-144 inclusive.
Mississauga, Mississauga has chosen to apply a Development charges Increased development
Ontario uniform charge (differentiated by land for: rates are used to fund
use type) to all lands within the City. Apartments <2 per unit: local infrastructure and
[This will be used for] recreation $7970 services, which in turn,
facilities, libraries, fire stations, arterial Single semi-detached helps to facilitate the
roads, parks, etc. As new development dwellings per unit: attraction of new
occurs, new facilities and infrastructure $1859946 business investment.47
will need to be added so that overall 2005 figures.
service levels in the City do not
decline.45
Laval, Quebec Has the highest industrial and Development charges Increased development

40
City of Calgary (2011). Planning, Development & Assessment Report to the SPC on Land Use, Planning and
Transportation. Page 2. Retrieved from <http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/charges-
redeveloping-background-report.pdf> on 26 November 2011.
41
City of Edmonton (2011). Permanent Area Contributions. Retrieved from
<http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/planning_development/permanent-area-contributions-p.aspx>.
42
Town of Markham (8 November 2011). Development Charges Information Package. Retrieved from
<http://www.markham.ca/wps/portal/Markham/BusinessDevelopment/PlanningBuilding/DevelopmentCharges/> on
26 November 2011.
43
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 40.
44
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 39.
45
Hemson Consulting Ltd. (Prepared for the City of Mississauga) (2009). Development Charges: Background Study
(Revised). Retrieved from <http://www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/DCBackgroundStudyRevised09.pdf> on 26
November 2011.
46
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 40.
47
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 39.

9
commercial development charges but for: rates are used to fund
has the lowest residential charges Apartments <2 per unit: local infrastructure and
compared to Markham, Mississauga, $250 services, which in turn,
Ottawa, Toronto and Vaughan.48 Single semi-detached helps to facilitate the
dwellings per unit: attraction of new
$31049 business investment.50
2005 figures.
Ottawa, These charges finance a portion of the Development charges Increased development
Ontario capital costs associated with new for: rates are used to fund
infrastructure and municipal service Apartments <2 per unit: local infrastructure and
expansion needed to support growth. $4028 services, which in turn,
The various rates are authorized and Single semi-detached helps to facilitate the
governed by the Development Charges dwellings per unit: attraction of new
Act, 1997.51 $965352 business investment.53
2005 figures.
Toronto, Under the Development Charges Act, Development charges Increased development
Ontario 1997 Part II Section 4, development for: rates are used to fund
charges CANNOT be levied for:(1) The Apartments <2 per unit: local infrastructure and
provision of cultural or entertainment $4060 services, which in turn,
facilities, including museums, theatres Single semi-detached helps to facilitate the
and art galleries but not including public dwellings per unit: attraction of new
libraries. (2) The provision of tourism $947755 business investment.56
facilities, including convention centres. 2005 figures.
(3) The acquisition of land for parks. (4)
The provision of a hospital as defined in
the Public Hospitals Act. (5) The
provision of waste management services.
(6) The provision of headquarters for the
general administration of municipalities
and local boards. (7) Other services
prescribed in the regulations. 1997,
c. 27, s. 2 (4).54
Vaughan, See above. As a city in Ontario, the same Development charges Increased development
Ontario regulations apply. for: rates are used to fund
Apartments <2 per unit: local infrastructure and
$12535 services, which in turn,
Single semi-detached helps to facilitate the
dwellings per unit: attraction of new
$2554057 business investment.58

48
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 40.
49
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 40.
50
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 40.
51
City of Ottawa (2011). Development Charges. Retrieved from
<http://www.ottawa.ca/business/development_charges/index_en.html> on 26 November 2011.
52
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 40.
53
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 40.
54
Government of Ontario (2009). Development Charges Act, 1997. Retrieved from <http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_97d27_e.htm#BK5> on 26 November 2011.
55
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 40.
56
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 40.
57
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 40.
58
Urban Metrics Inc. (Prepared for the Town of Markham) (2007). Economic Sectors Analysis. Page 40.

10
2005 figures.
Halifax, Nova Existing region-wide charges apply for Region-wide charges are Area-specific charges
Scotia wastewater treatment plants and landfill charged for wastewater only apply to six specific
sites. Council has passed a motion in and sewer. Area specific areas.
order to apply to the Province for charges deal only with
permission to charge for certain soft hard services.
services.

Correspondence to existing RMPS: Section 5.6.1.2, Other Forms of Taxation and Charges, mentions
Capital Cost Contributions as a taxation measure which could be used to help generate revenue for the
Municipality.

Council Action: Council has already approved a motion that allows the Municipality to approach the
Province, asking permission to charge developers for certain “soft” services. The list of soft services
should be expanded. The list of areas that both hard and soft services are charged to through area-based
Capital Cost Contributions should be broadened. A list of developments that would have special
consideration, such as affordable units and brownfield sites, should also be established.

11
6. Protect water resources

Why we chose this solution to meet our objectives:
○ Water is fundamental for human life – not only for physical survival, but also for psychological
wellbeing.

How other cities implement this:
o Numerous water experts from within member organizations such as the Ecology Action Centre,
Sackville Rivers Association and St Margaret’s Bay Stewardship Association provided information
that draws from best practices in other Canadian and international cities.

Correspondence to existing RMPS: Chapter 7 is devoted to water, wastewater, utilities and solid waste.

Council Action: HRM Council should collaborate with appropriate stakeholder groups to:
 Adopt a coastal management policy with clear identification of jurisdiction – what level
of government and which department is responsible for what
 Plan for the impact of sea level rise by requiring developers to outline how they will
implement Climate Smart provisions.
 Implement shoreline naturalization to deal with erosion rather than relying on shoreline
hardening practices, such as developing sea walls. If a seawall is used, HRM should have
regulations to control their placement and design.
 Phase out existing building permits on low lying coastal areas, ecologically sensitive
sites, or geologically hazardous sites over a five-year period so that new buildings must
be constructed in adherence with new guidelines for septic requirements. This requires
adopting a 100-year horizon that accounts for sea level rise and erosion.
o Ensure consistency among plans and agencies, such as the day-lighting policy, which
differs for HRM and Halifax Water. The Sawmill River, in Dartmouth, and the
Freshwater Brook, in Halifax, should be of top priority for day-lighting. Council should
move to make the day-lighting of these a reality.
 Develop strict storm water management policies
 Establish maximum lot coverage of 10 per cent impervious surface59. If this is not met,
storm water should be dealt with onsite or penalties would apply.
 Implement stronger and more effective setback regulations, which should include:
o A minimum setback of 30 meters for all watercourses
o A minimum setback of 60 meters from the high-tide mark for coastal
development, in conjunction with increasing the rise requirement from 2.5 meters
above the substrate to 4 meters above the substrate to reflect best practices. In
areas of high erosion, the setback and rise requirements should be linked to the
annual rate of erosion to ensure they are adequate. HRM may determine some
commercial/industrial zones are exempt from setback and rise requirements if
they mitigate the impacts of changing coastal conditions.
 Stop the practice of clear-cutting in Protected Water Areas.
 Monitor and enforce water policies. Also make long-term hydrogeological monitoring for
both quality and quantity of groundwater a part of development requirements for
residential, commercial and institutional development.

59
Buchan, L. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. (2006) Impervious Surface Area Thresholds for
Control of Hydromodification: An Evaluation Using Data from the Santa Clara Basin. Retrieved from <http://www.scvurppp-
w2k.com/pdfs/0607/Evaluation_Impervious_Surface_Area_Thresholds_Final_Report.pdf> on November 17, 2011.

12
7. Commit to measuring successes and deficiencies of actions identified in the RMPS

Why we chose this solution to meet our objectives:
○ The residents of HRM deserve to know whether or not their elected representatives and HRM staff
are progressing towards a more sustainable, more liveable municipality. Without a timeline and action
plan, it is all too easy for the Municipality to focus on immediate issues and ignore larger structural
issues that may impact the health and wellbeing of residents.

How other cities implement this:
o Toronto has an exhaustive third party report compiled by Greening Greater Toronto and Toronto and
Region Conservation60. This third party report provides criticism and commentary on a wide array of
issues.
o Hamilton has developed a set of measurable sustainability indicators, addressing everything from
transit to culture and heritage.61 The report card it has used is accessible and visually
comprehendible.62 It is supported by adequate documentation.
o The City of Calgary uses indicators under the following categories: community, economy, education,
natural environment, resource use and wellness. This report helps the city to get a handle on its assets,
achievements and challenges.63

Correspondence to existing RMPS: Appendix A provides a list of goals and performance measures.
Section 8.3 outlines the periodic review through the five-year review process.

Council Action: Develop a scorecard to chart the Municipality’s progress. Third party, objective
measurement tools, such as those used in Toronto64, should be used on a consistent basis that adheres to a
set schedule in conjunction with internal evaluations.

60
Greening Greater Toronto; Toronto and Region Conservation (2011). The Living City Report Card: An
Assessment of the Environmental Health of the Greater Toronto Area.
61
Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth; City of Hamilton (January 2000). Hamilton-Wentworth
Sustainability Indicators.
62
City of Hamilton (1995). Sustainability Indicators 1995 Report Card.
63
City of Calgary (2004). State of Our City Report 2004.
64
Greening Greater Toronto and Toronto and Region Conservation. (2011) The Living City Report Card: An
assessment of the environmental health of the Greater Toronto Area. Retrieved from
<http://www.thelivingcity.org/lcrc4/> on October 11, 2011.