Agenda, September 9
Dartmouth Cove:
By far the biggest item on the agenda for District 5 was the staff response to my motion on adopting a bylaw restricting infilling in Dartmouth Cove. The staff recommendation? Defer any bylaw changes until after the Dartmouth Waterfront Plan is complete in late 2026. This recommendation isn’t acceptable to me.
Waiting to bring in infill restrictions would mean that any of the nine property owners with water lots in Dartmouth Cove (7 of the 9 lots being still largely water) could infill if they receive permission from Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans. Rather than the Downtown Dartmouth Waterfront Plan guiding the vision for Dartmouth Cove, the Waterfront Plan could instead be driven by the actions of individual property owners. A vision for the Dartmouth waterfront is what should guide development, not individual one-off decisions!
Despite what staff recommend, it wouldn’t be unusual for HRM to adopt a more precautionary approach. HRM has an established track record of making bylaw changes to prevent major change until more planning can be done. The adoption of the original Regional Plan, dramatically, saw a development freeze and the recently adopted Centre Plan has more restrictive zoning in the potential heritage districts as a way to hold those areas steady until heritage planning can catch up. Adopting a precautionary approach until further planning can be completed isn’t unusual and is something that HRM has done before. This is what should apply in Dartmouth Cove. We shouldn’t wait for the Waterfront Plan to act.
Staff primarily based their recommendation to wait on a lack of clear direction from the Federal and Provincial governments. HRM requires the support of both to regulate infill in Dartmouth Cove. The Northwest Arm had enthusiastic buy-in, but the response to Dartmouth Cove has been much more tepid.
Federal Government
The Federal government has primary jurisdiction over infill. In assessing applications, they only consider potential impacts on other federal responsibilities around navigation and fish. The Feds aren’t equipped to consider broader planning and development issues, that’s the domain of municipal government. HRM, is responsible for planning, but the municipality doesn’t have jurisdiction over water lots. The only way to square this circle is for the Feds and HRM to actively work together. This is what happened in the Northwest Arm where the Feds have agreed to issue permits that are subject to HRM bylaws.
In the Northwest Arm, the Feds were very much an active supporter, convener and initiator of work, but when it comes to Dartmouth Cove, the response has been much more restrained, which tracks with a historic lack of enthusiasm to give municipalities authority in federal harbours (see Vancouver court cases). The Minister of Transport has provided letters indicating a willingness to work with HRM on Dartmouth Cove, although each letter has come with some caveats. It hasn’t been the same active participant and clear “yes” that HRM staff had on the Northwest Arm. There has been some finger-pointing on this, but from where I sit, it increasingly feels like a lot of this is both HRM and the Feds have expected the other to lead efforts in Dartmouth Cove.
Province
The Province’s cooperation is also needed for HRM to regulate infill in Dartmouth Cove. The Province’s authority comes from the fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs signs off on all planning documents in Nova Scotia. HRM can’t adopt anything without the Minister’s approval. Historically, Provincial sign-off on planning documents has been a formality. The Province did reject proposals to develop agricultural land in Kings County back in 2010 and 2011, but Provincial rejection of planning documents has been very rare. Given the Province’s increasing interference in municipal planning, however, and the recent rejection of HRM’s Regional Plan, it doesn’t feel like simply a formality anymore! The Province could very well say no to HRM regulating infill in Dartmouth Cove.
HRM Planning staff did reach out to the Province to try and ascertain whether they would support amendments in Dartmouth Cove. They did support amendments in the Northwest Arm, but it’s not something that HRM can take for granted. The Province, unfortunately, hasn’t indicated a definitive position so whether or not HRM will be allowed to proceed remains unknown.
Breaking the Jurisdictional Logjam
Given all of that jurisdictional complexity, I can understand staff’s caution. If we wait, however, infill of any number of water lots could happen before the Waterfront Plan can be completed and even then, there is no guarantee that the jurisdictional hot potato will be resolved. We could still be in this uncertain spot in 2026.
One sure-fire way for HRM to settle whether or not the other orders of government will actually support infill regulation in Dartmouth Cove is for HRM to stop asking, take the Federal government’s letters very literally, and proceed. If that’s what HRM does, and the Feds or Province actually don’t want HRM to regulate infill in Dartmouth Cove, they will have to actively stop the municipality’s efforts. The ideal outcome is a bylaw that is supported by all orders of government, but if that’s not doable, at least the accountability for the decision will become clear! Someone will have to actively say no.
What Happens Next
So I couldn’t support the staff recommendation. There is lots of risk, little upside, and no guarantee that any stronger commitments might come from the Federal and Provincial governments. What I moved instead was to defer the decision on staff’s recommendation. The need to defer is because staff didn’t have a package of amendments that would protect Dartmouth Cove in the same way that the Northwest Arm already is, ready for Council to consider. The CAO and Commissioner of Operations have promised that they can provide the needed amendments for Council’s next meeting on September 23. My hope is that on the 23rd, Council will reject staff’s recommendation and instead support the alternative of giving first reading to bylaw changes. If that happens, a public hearing would follow, likely in October.
I’m very grateful to my colleagues who indicated a willingness to explore this alternative approach and voted 15-2 to support my motion. The no votes came from Councillor Hendsbee and Mayor Fillmore. Councillor Hendsbee has argued several times that HRM doesn’t have jurisdiction in the Harbour. He has been pretty consistent on that so his vote against my motion wasn’t a surprise. Sadly, the Mayor’s vote also was not a surprise, but I find the reasoning for his vote so much harder to understand.
Mayor Fillmore’s Stance
There has been a lot of discussion around Mayor Fillmore’s position, including lots of questions from the floor to Councillor Kent and me at the community meeting on Monday night, so I’m going to share my own perspective on the Mayor’s position. When Fillmore was an MP, he was very vocal in seeking protection for the Northwest Arm. The day that Council voted on the Northwest Arm, he actually called me because he had heard that I was going to ask Council not to approve the Northwest Arm without Dartmouth Cove being included. There was a lot of pressure on me that day to go with what was in hand with the Northwest Arm and not upset the deal with the Feds by trying to add in Dartmouth Cove at the last minute. Fillmore was actively part of that pressure!
Fillmore was very much a champion of protecting the Northwest Arm, so it was really puzzling that, despite being repeatedly asked, he refused to say anything about Dartmouth Cove during the 2024 campaign. Based on the Northwest Arm, it would have been easy for him to make the case that he was the best candidate to champion Dartmouth Cove. It’s an issue that he could have owned, but he deliberately opted to avoid it, and ceded that entire space to Waye Mason. Silence sometimes speaks volumes. For a politician in a competitive campaign to actively decide to throw away a bunch of votes was very telling and a major part of why I dropped my plan to be neutral and endorsed Mason. I could very much see the moment coming where Fillmore would not support Dartmouth’s interests when it comes to the Cove and sure enough, that exact moment happened on Tuesday.
Fillmore indicated in debate that he supported the staff recommendation to have a plan developed first before considering any bylaw changes. I don’t find that a particularly compelling as the election campaign suggests he was already not supportive of concerns around infill in Dartmouth long before there was a technical reason in a staff report to grab onto! It feels to me more like attaching an already established position to a recommendation rather than reaching a position based on staff’s advice. I really don’t get it.
While Fillmore’s position isn’t surprising for anyone who was following this issue in the 2024 campaign, it is still very disappointing. He is the only politician at any level in District 5 that isn’t supportive of protecting Dartmouth Cove. Protection for the Nothwest Arm yes, but when Dartmouth seeks the same consideration, the answer from Fillmore is no longer a strongly suspected no, it’s now an actual no.
Dartmouth Cove will be back before Council on September 23
Dartmouth Common Lighting
The supplemental report I asked for in response to HRM’s recently approved Park Lighting Strategy was back before Council. The Park Lighting Strategy was many years in the making and is something I initiated in response to consistent complaints about the lack of lighting in several parks in District 5 (Sullivan’s Pond, Dartmouth Common, Harbour Trail, and somewhat less frequently, the Banook Trail by Brookdale). The Strategy came back to Council a few months ago and set a lot of policy criteria for when and how Parks will consider lighting in parks. It’s a good piece of work that will shape the direction for future capital project.
Myself and several other councillors, however, felt there was an important gap in the Strategy around implementation in existing parks. When I initiated the Lighting Strategy I was hoping one of the outcomes would be a retrofit program to start to fix some of the problems that exist now, not just good policy to do better when building new parks or undertaking major capital projects. Improving lighting in existing spaces should be its own stand-alone objective. Council agreed and approved my motion for a supplemental report on a retrofit program and that’s what was back before us on Tuesday.
Subject to budget deliberations, Parks is proposing complete four pathway projects and four sports courts in existing parks over the next 2-5 years at a cost of about $3,800,000. The park pathway projects are the Dartmouth Common, Captain William Spry Centre Park, George Dixon Park and North Preston Community Centre Park. The court projects are three basketball courts (Grand Desert, Harry Hamilton Elementary, J. Smeltzer Elementary) and one tennis court (Northbrook). HRM could still undertake other lighting improvements in other parks alongside capital projects (Sullivan’s Pond will likely go this route with the upcoming retaining wall project), but these eight would be the priority for stand-alone lighting upgrades.
I’m pleased that the Dartmouth Common made it onto the list, given the long-standing asks from folks in Dartmouth to have it lit. Unfortunately, I can’t say for sure when the project will happen given HRM’s budget constraints and the 2-5 year window to complete the work. But, the Common is actually on a list now for the first time, and the list has Council backing. It will be an extra bonus to be able to finally get the broken lighting at the Northbrook Park tennis courts back up and running.
Council did have a debate about the Mainland Trail on the Halifax side as the two area Councillors were concerned that it wasn’t included and that the assessment criteria for park lighting projects should have been broader. These sorts of moments where scarce resources are being divided up are always tough ones for Council. There was healthy debate, but Council stuck to the position that the list is the list and we shouldn’t be pitting districts and projects against each other and should go with the staff recommended approach. We ended up approving the list of projects in front of us, while also approving a supplemental report on the Mainland Trail that will come back separately in future. I think this is an appropriate way to manage that conflict over scarce resources while also responding to the legitimate questions from the Mainland Trail area Councillors.
Park Stewardship Program
Council approved launching a Park Stewardship Program. The Park Stewardship Program comes from a motion that I made in 2021. The idea is to actively encourage citizen involvement in HRM’s parks. In other cities, such as Vancouver and Mississauga, citizen volunteers often contribute to their local parks in tackling invasive species, creating gardens, and doing community clean-ups. There are examples of that kind of activity in HRM too, with the Oathill Lake Society being a perfect example of citizen stewardship. HRM has also involved citizens in some areas through the municipality’s community garden and naturalization programs, but there is no overall HRM effort to actively encourage and promote citizens involvement. That is going to change with the launch of an HRM stewardship program so stay tuned for opportunities to get more involved in whatever local green space you love.
The only concern I have regarding staff’s recommendation to launch a Stewardship Program is the idea that it can be done using existing resources. I don’t think the Stewardship Program needs an army of employees to manage, but it’s also something that I have a hard time imaging reaching its full potential if it’s being done off the side of someone’s desk. The Parks Naturalization Program is a good example of what even a small increase in resources can achieve. Naturalization started as a pilot program and after a few early successes has become permanent. Alongside making the program permanent, HRM created a staff position to manage the program. Having an employee solely dedicated to naturalization is yielding noticeable results in how effective and broad that program is. I think Stewardship could follow a similar path.
So I amended the main motion to request that staff return to Council with a report on the Stewardship Program’s effectiveness before 2028/2029 budget deliberations. This will give HRM two years of results for the Stewardship Program before it comes back to Council to determine if more resources are needed. A sort of pilot phase. I expect a dedicated staff resource will be needed, but I’m also okay with HRM getting this launched and testing things out a bit before we make a larger commitment.
Other:
- Approved a development agreement for a building at Richmond Yards in Halifax
- Directed staff to develop program criteria for a potential non-profit tax relief program that would apply to non-profits that lease space (HRM’s current program only applies to non-profits that own property)
- Adopted changes to the cemetery services administrative order, mainly increasing fees which haven’t been changed in a while
- Requested more information on providing water to folks in areas of HRM where wells have gone dry due to the drought
- Council renewed my appointment to the Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities Board
- Directed staff to prepare updates to HRM’s long-term arena strategy and review how HRM allocates ice time
- Requested staff reports on proposals to install a covered dome over the tennis courts at Gorsebrook Park, and on expanding the Mooseheads’ rented space at the RBC Centre in Burnside
- Requested staff reports on development of a community based stewardship program for wilderness parks, adding an escalation clause to HRM’s Sunshine List, and on potentially increasing the deed transfer tax with a tiered formula to minimize impacts on lower value properties
- Provided a letter of support for St. Barbara’s efforts to repurpose the former Touquoy Gold Mine in Moose River into a closed-loop hydro system using the mine’s pits as basically a giant power storage (water pumped into the upper pond would be pumped up there by wind power and then when released would drive a turbine to generate electricity)
- Gave first reading to changes to the campaign finance bylaw coming out of the 2024 election
