Comments on Vision and Principles

Umbrella Vision

We should have an environmentally sustainable way of life. All actions should lead to sustainability of our great life style. -- Bob Gansel, Canning

Settlement

We should be looking at a framework that fosters walking or bicycling where possible instead of auto use. Energy efficiency, water conservation and air quality should be design drivers. We should include bike/walking/exercise trails throughout the area. -- Bob Gansel, Canning

-----

Allow appropriate home business development [e.g. B&B, micro in home bakery] in S1 zones on "Standard lots" where septic requirements are met and right of ways are secured by deed. -- Lewis H. How, Sunken Lake

Agriculture

What about optimizing energy efficiency in the agricultural industries, optimizing water utilization, minimizing air contamination and minimizing chemical use while maintaining clean air,water and soil. -- Bob Gansel, Canning

-----

I feel the rules and policies may be too strick for A1 zoning in certain situations. I would like to see landowners of A1 land up to a certain size acreage who would like to divide such a parcel of land for members of a family be able to do so by having the land rezoned to R6 Country Residential. This would allow Land to be left to siblings of a family that could use the land to build a house or use it for farming or other house based businesses if they choose but also leave the A1 protective convenants in place. I do agree on the protection of agricultural land but there should be allowances within the zoning policies that help indiviuals who are no longer farming but still own the land to give them options on what they can do with the land that keeps the land within a family name. Right now they only have one option and that is to sell the land out right which may not be what is desirable for them to do. -- anonymous

Rural & Natural Areas

Incorporate bike/walking framework of trails to minimize use of motorized transportation throughout the area. All resources should be sustainably managed. -- Bob Gansel, Canning

-----

While I do agree with the breadth of the Rural and Natural Areas Principles, it is missing something. It talks about the protection of Natural Areas and sustainable development of Natural Resources. I suggest that the County should seek to ENHANCE our natural resources and our Natural Areas. This may mean some regulation of land use in sensitive areas. The rare and endangered Wild Atlantic Salmon might indeed be a viable fishery once again if only we would clean up our rivers and stop the pollution in the Cornwallis River (one of the most polluted rivers in Canada). It is April right now and if you travel the Cornwallis you will see that fields are brown having been either freshly tilled or tilled in the fall... The mud running off is going directly into the river every time it rains. Bare fields in Winter should be stopped. -- Marina Myra, Berwick

Transportation

Identify and develop a public transportation system to minimize auto dependence. -- Bob Gansel, Canning

Energy

Plan on cheap energy (petroleum) no longer being available in 2050. -- anonymous

-----

I am not for the invasive infrastructure of wind turbines into rural communities. No serious consideration is given for the local people who reside in those places. Come up with proper funding grants for homeowners to install their own energy infrastructure on their own property and I'm all for it. -- anonymous

-----

This is a good start. Providing the bylaw basis for "micro communities" , built around an energy source/ business plan/community farm etc. to exist is a good direction. Dropping the 200' road frontage rule is a must. -- David Lacey, Hall's Harbour

-----

The driving elements of cost of energy, price of fuel and political goals are outside of the control of the citizens of Kings County.

The principle of "replacing energy" sources could be focused on once savings in other areas ("reducing and re-using") are agreed and acted upon. Action could be taken now on energy reduction, re-using and efficiency (including identifying and setting targets) as these areas can be controlled by the citizens of Kings County and results could regularly shown with further new (realistic) targets set for reducing and reusing.

The "replacement" of energy, eg the use of fracking and industrial wind farms are areas that have been shown to concern local citizens and gaining agreement for this part of the Energy Principle is going to be very difficult, if not impossible as matters currently stand.
Perhaps therefore work first to gain agreement where we can, and then move on to focus on energy replacement under separate meetings?

This is such a huge subject (profits and power to name two factors), so dependant on federal and provincial funding that it deserves a well thought out approach. For example the use of solar and fracking are are not supported by provincial government currently, but with new political masters who knows what the next government energy policies will be? -- anonymous

-----

It is important to ensure that the language one uses in the Principle is as scientifically precise as possible - to prevent misunderstandings or misinterpretations later. One cannot reduce "dependency on energy" since all physical (and thus biological processes) require an energy source of some sort. It takes energy to move a rock whether that energy comes from a horse or a tractor. Surely you you really mean is that you wish to reduce/remove dependency on all fossil fuel energy, and ensure that we use the energy we have as efficiently as possible. -- anonymous

-----

It was encouraging to see such interest coming from the citizens of Kings County at the Kings 2050 Energy workshop on October 24. I was pleased to see the turnout, as I am sure you were as well. It was quite a detailed outline for the two topics (solar & wind) that were selected for forum participants to discuss that day, but unfortunately there was scant time to address these issues in a really meaningful way. Perhaps that wasn't the purpose of the forum though. I do appreciate that only so much can be covered in such a short amount of time.

I also appreciate that you need to have a venue for whatever voices want to speak but found it surprising to be lead through 6 hours of discussion by facilitators only to discover that neither fracking nor tidal power development would be addressed because, as it was stated on page 19, under the heading of "Other", they "fall outside of municipal jurisdiction". Perhaps this is due to my lack of ‘homework’ for the forum. Regardless, I do believe that this needs to be addressed as a part of the Kings 2050 Energy vision.

Ironically, tidal power was mentioned at length in the opening remarks by John Colton and has been an element considered as part of the energy future of Kings County for the past century, not to mention the Tidal Power Institute that has been set up at Acadia University. And Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking", is only going to become *more* of an issue in our county; the Elsipogtog/Rexton debacle a week prior to this forum made it quite obvious that this issue 'hits the road' at a municipal level. Fortunately one brave soul stood up at the end of the Kings 2050 forum and spoke about her
reservations regarding fracking.

To NOT discuss these items in an open public forum seems an oversight in the planning process. It is like having a transportation plan but omitting trains & buses from the discussion. My following comments might seem a bit aggressive, but I am writing them quickly and not censoring them very much. I believe we both have the same objective, in the end, so please bear with me.

It is understandable that there is an element in our area that may not *want* to be involved in these issues, but you & I both know that we will be quite involved in these two energy discussions. In fact, you include tidal in the above bullets as something you want to encourage. I am curious as to who it was, or what the process was, to exclude these items in a forum on energy and also why it was decided to encourage tidal power. Who/what was it that decided this?

Regarding TIDAL POWER, I have to ask:
● Why wasn't this 'on the table' for discussion? Has anyone at Kings 2050 read any of the environmental assessments the province has tabled to date?

— If so, do you think it wise to proceed with tidal power – with encouragement or regulations – considering the lack of knowledge of its impact on our environment (as stated in the Strategic Environmental Assessment tabled in 2009)?

— If not, why not? The people of Kings County need to include ALL possibilities that will impact us. Tidal power may ... or may NOT, be a part of our solutions.

● Is it your opinion that there is no area within our county that will be impacted by this development? What about the proposal for a tidal barrage across Scots Bay? What about small tidal power devices for use along our coastal communities: Halls Harbour, Baxters Harbour, Harbourville, Kingsport, Wolfville, etc? Has this been ruled out by Kings 2050? If so, why?

● Is this element being left out of our 2050 energy discussions because it is deemed too sensitive? Do you believe that we have no say in what transpires in this area? Why? To ignore this is only going to create larger problems downstream.

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING is something that will also impact the residents of Kings County IF it takes place. The so-called Windsor Block comes right up to the border of Wolfville, so is already something that needs to be considered by the residents of Kings County.

A proposal is being made this week at the meeting of the Union of Nova Scotia municipalities to have a moratorium on fracking until it is deemed "safe" for Nova Scotians. This is a half-step, but nevertheless something we need to do in the interim. Perhaps a group with the visionary name of Kings 2050 might want to consider the ramifications of allowing a development like this to take place within our jurisdiction and what the impact will be on future residents.

● Would fracking be an improvement of our lives in Kings County? Is there enough knowledge about how it impacts the land, the aquifer, the ocean waters that we care for?

● This is a precious resource, as are all fossil fuels. To allow developers to simply "pick the low hanging fruit" of energy resources using toxic chemicals just doesn't seem right. If the provincial government were to lift the current moratorium on fracking, is there procedural processes in Kings County that would allow the quick harvesting of these gases, or is there a way to preserve this resource until there is a safe way to extract them?

In fact, perhaps Kings 2050 might consider what sort of world we are leaving for our grandchildrens' grandchildren, not just the next generation. The past 50 years have shown us that the unchecked development of our resources only creates problems that the next generation is left encumbered with. Is this the vision we want to follow, or is there a better legacy to leave for the future generations? -- Marke Slipp, Port Williams/Wolfville

Economic Development

Develop a centre of excellence in tidal energy usage. -- Bob Gansel, Canning

-----

Allow appropriate small home businesses [e.g. B&B, Micro in house bakery etc.] in S1 zone on "standard lots" where septic etc. regulations are met. -- Lewis H. How, Sunken Lake