Lunenburg Part 2 - Section 5 - Social Vulnerability - August 30.pdf

Oakland
The Oakland Secondary Planning Strategy notes that “Although the community still has a strong
orientation toward the sea as it did in earlier times, the attraction now is chiefly aesthetic
characteristics and recreational opportunities, rather than opportunities for gaining a
livelihood.” 201 Most of the provisions in the plan relate to the preservation and enhancement of
the area’s existing character, and the exclusion of development perceived to detract from this.
For example, a key policy statement is “…to ensure community input into how growth and
development occur within the planning area by requiring development agreements for those
development that are of a nature that without stricter controls have the potential to negatively
impact on the community.” 202 The plan does not clearly identify what types of development might
fall into this agreement, although a proposal for a ‘large resort complex’ is cited as a motivator
for initiating the planning process. 203
The predominant Rural zone allows up to four dwelling units per lot, as well as small-scale
commercial uses; small-scale multi-unit residential buildings to a maximum of 12 dwelling units
will be considered by development agreement. 204 The architectural features of buildings allowed
by development agreement are required to be ‘visibly compatible’ with nearby buildings. 205 The
plan establishes minimum lot area, frontage and setback requirements to provide for fire
separation, parking, maintenance, private outdoor space, solar exposure, and separation of land
uses to minimize conflicts. 206 The plan does not discuss the need for affordable housing, or the
impacts of density limitations or requirements for lot area and setbacks, on the area’s ability to
accommodate moderately priced homes.
The plan notes that quality of life is enhanced by the availability and accessibility of recreation
and health care services, and contains a goal of monitoring demographic trends to ensure the
recreational needs of the area are being met. 207 This commentary focuses on the needs of the
area’s aging population. The plan contains no other explicit recognition of the needs of socially
vulnerable populations.
Public Transportation Feasibility Study
Many of the plans and strategies discussed above refer to the need for public transportation
service in the District; a 2009 Public Transportation Feasibility Study explored this topic. The
study included focus groups with health, education, and community service providers, who may
have contributed insight into the needs of socially vulnerable populations. 208 The principal finding
of the study was that “the status quo – no transit service – has a negative impact on the quality
of life for many individuals from varying demographics and groups.” 209
Concerns include the inability of residents without cars to access employment, academic,
commercial, medical, and other services; and the observation that many residents currently must
either walk long distances, hitch-hike, or rely on friends, family, or volunteer services to reach
201 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, 2003. p. i.
202 Ibid., 3.
203 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, 2010b. p. 4.
204 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, 2003. p. 5.
205 Ibid., 36.
206 Ibid., 30.
207 Ibid.
208 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, 2010a. p. 8.
209 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg and HRD iTRANS, 2009. p. 12.
61