CKNI-FM article about the Vineyard and Eastgate rezoning:
Quote:
MONCTON — The public will have a chance to have its say on October 17 on two subdivisions proposed off Elmwood Drive.
Both subdivisions are not being supported by city staff who have made that clear to Moncton City Council.
Eastgate Village would have 956 residential units, a private school, a daycare and a market across from Irishtown Nature Park.
Moncton city planner Josh Adams reminded council the application goes against the city’s municipal plan.
“Looking at all the different areas of the city that are developing and all the opportunities within the urban boundary, we’d have capacity for about 32,000 units with our existing zoning. So that would be a land supply of more than 25 years, potentially close to 50 years with the growth that we’re anticipating.”
Given that capacity, Adams noted how the city wouldn’t need to extend its urban boundary to add water and sewer services which the project would need.
The other subdivision, the Vineyard near Granite Drive, would be a low to medium density residential development and would also require an urban boundary extension.
Moncton senior planner Sarah Anderson told council that the landowner has put a lot of time and effort into this proposal since 1994.
“But as the city has grown, more thought has gone into planned and intentional growth patterns with an emphasis on smart growth that is more cost effective and transit supportive for the benefit of all residents of the city.”
Anderson said there’s already enough land available for development within the urban boundary and noted the high costs of building out rather than infilling and building up.
There is a 30-day period to submit written comments about the subdivisions by email at info.clerk@moncton.ca.
|
This is (will be) a very important meeting upcoming. The issue is not so much about the worthiness of these two subdivision proposals, but on who
really controls urban development in Moncton - the city planning department, or city council.
If the planning department wins, then expect rigid dogmatism in all future city development, with very little latitude for modification or changes based on existing planning documents. The hierarchy will be inflexible, bureaucratic and non negotiable.
If city council wins, this will weaken the power of the mayor and of city planning, leading to a much more laissez-faire approach to planning matters. This could be equally as bad as it could produce nonsensical decisions in planning matters and a haphazard development approach.
The proper course (of course) is the middle path. Planning rules exist for a reason, and should be respected, but, planning documents can never foresee any and all potentialities, and things happen. Rigid dogmatism is the enemy of progress. For example, the entirety of Granite Drive to the west of Costco lies outside the municipal service boundary. Does this mean that this land should lie fallow forever? At some point in time, the existing development out there will be full, and if further growth is to occur, it will require extending the boundary to the west. Should the answer be an automatic "no", even it it prevents (for example) a new factory outlet village from being built in a prime retail location???
Sanity and not dogmatism is necessary on both sides, but, alas, I think the battle lines are being drawn over development along the Elmwood Drive corridor. This could get nasty.
Prev
Linear Mode
