Use this forum to leave feedback and engage in discussion. Choose a subject below and click the 'Add topic' button to make a post. You can also respond to topics others have posted. As draft policies are created, they will be posted here for feedback.
Summary of Proposed Policy Directions
Let us know what you think - if we're on the right track or missing anything. Please leave comments by replying to this topic. Design Guidelines are mentioned as a tool to preserve town character. For reference, Fredericton's can be viewed here: http://www.fredericton.ca/sites/default/files/bf_dg_v5_small.pdf
I have a house in the town Plat and an empty property that we have purchased in 2018 and plan to build on in the future. So I do have a vested interest in this proposal.
I can see from this meeting that the mayor of this council has been trying to push through this Secondary Plan with as little town involvement and awareness as possible and trying to push it through before the next counsel gets in. As Brad Henderson said it has been very unpopular in the past and has not been properly advertised currently. I think that the least that you and the town can do is to properly advertise it for what it is: Heritage Rules and regulations for ALL of the Town Plat. (not just Secondary Plan which is completely vague!). I would like to see you take an active part in that advertising. You did a great job putting together the Nov. 2018 meeting.
It makes sense to me that the downtown business district has heritage regulations. The rest of the town plat should not be involved in that. I do not think that most people in town are going to be on board with being told what to do with their own property and home, and especially if it affects resale values or their pocketbooks.
I am against the proposal to make all of the town plat a Heritage /Historic area with these rules. I would not be against certain old historic houses be on the Historic registry and following rules as they have historic significance for tourism.
I do not believe that the town should be involved in deciding what kind of siding people have or what their front door is made of.
It is not rational to enforce that people only use only wooden doors! The regulation says that only wooden doors can be used that are transparent. What does transparent mean in this context for a regular house? If it means people have to put in window around the doors on their houses then that is also is not appropriate to be regulated. Both wooden doors and windows all around it is not ideal for heat control and the environment.
Not everyone in St. Andrews is rich. They cannot all afford cedar shake and special entrances with windows all around, or fancy historic design structures.
There are better environmental alternatives to cedar shake, clapboard or brick. Many environmental alternatives would be limited in this proposal. Also less expensive options for more poor people are also limited in this proposal.
We need to allow technological advances especially in the name of Climate control to play a role here. I do not see any forward ideas in the name of Climate protection in this plan. Not even a mention of solar panels or solar roofs.
There will be better ways to build homes as technology advances. Such as improved roofing systems, architecture changes with roof gardens, raised houses for flood protection etc. We cannot stifle these changes.
I believe there is a general height limit in St. Andrews. 3 stories? I do not think that you can regulate someones property to one story just because the two neighbors houses are bungalos. Either the same rules apply to all or they do not. You cannot regulate property by property arbitrarily. I do not think this would be enforceable.
When is the next reading scheduled to be or when is the public hearing scheduled to be? We need to have time to get the word out before that happens.
I do not think it a good idea or realistic to get this through with this council. The time is too short for public discussion.
I think that a better compromise here would be to limit the extension of the heritage area from the Block house to the Kiwanis Campground and include both sides of water street all the way to the water. This proposal would still maintain the historical nature of the downtown and Water Street that is valuable to Tourism without affecting the rest of the Town Plat.
Thank you for your feedback at council and through this forum. I will be sending a new draft to council shortly and have significantly scaled back the requirements outside of the Historic Business District. The public feedback we've gotten shows that there is support for the Historic Business District to be regulated in this way but that is less clear for the rest of the Plat and if council wishes to proceed in this direction, there will be additional public consultation.
Land-use by-laws in general are not intended to lock a place in time, rather set a future direction. They can be altered through amendments or variances to allow for unique situations and technological advancements in building. That being said, there is nothing in this document that would limit the placement of solar panels. In addition, the municipal plan has strong environmental goals and if there was discrepancy between the municipal plan and secondary plan, the municipal plan would prevail.
There have been no readings of the secondary plan so far, last night was the first night council discussed it beyond a basic concept. As the document is still in early draft form, no public meeting has been scheduled but that would legally have to occur (with proper notice) before it could be passed.
Thanks again for your feedback and engagement in the Town's future.
Leave a reply