Dartmouth Cove Infilling
Council approved a major step to potentially protect the waters in Dartmouth Cove from further infilling. Council approved initiating the planning process that could result in bylaw changes that prevent infilling from happening on all remaining water lots in Dartmouth Cove. HRM’s ability to do this is very much contingent on the federal government supporting the municipality as HRM’s jursidiction in the Harbour is limited. The feds have the authority, but they don’t have the broader mandate for planning that HRM does. The two of us need to work together.
Cooperation with the federal government started off poorly as the feds wouldn’t commit to allowing HRM to have any direct control on infilling outside the Northwest Arm, and then things went from bad to worse when they unilaterally approved an infilling application in Dartmouth Cove. Faced with a lawsuit from the Centre for Ocean Ventures and Entrepreneurship (COVE), Transport Canada is attempting to rescind that approval though, creating the chance to start again and look at what restrictions on infilling make sense. It’s rare that you get a chance for a do over like this! My sense is the feds are listening in a way that they weren’t before and I’m grateful for this change of direction. Council voted 12-2 to initiate the planning process in Dartmouth Cove (Councillors Lovelace and Hendsbee voted against).
So what happens next? Like any planning process, there will be public engagement where members of the public and affected property owners have an opportunity to provide input to HRM that could shape what the potential bylaw amendments look like. Staff are expecting that public engagement will occur this fall online. Dartmouth Cove isn’t as well defined legally as the Northwest Arm’s shoreline is so HRM will need to complete a survey of the shoreline to make sure any potential bylaw amendments are clear and can be defended if challenged. If all of that goes well, first reading and a public hearing for bylaw changes could happen early in the New Year. HRM expects this should fit within what we know of federal timelines and will be communicating our planned approach to the federal government (I will also reach out to Darren Fisher’s office directly on this).
There was one strange piece to this planning initiation that I have never seen before. Council received a letter from 4197847 Nova Scotia Limited (the company with ties to Atlantic Road Construction that has proposed infilling their water lot in Dartmouth Cove). In the letter, the company threatened to immediately and indefinitely block public access to the Harbour Trail if HRM initiates a planning process. In eight years on Council, I have never received a letter like this. 4197847 Nova Scotia Limited and Atlantic Road Construction will have the chance, with everyone else, to have input into this project during the public consultation phase and ultimately will be able to state their case to Council in the New Year when potential bylaw amendments are considered at a public hearing. None of that changes the fact that HRM has a legal easement across their property, an easement that existed when they bought it, and that allows for a public walking trail. I have no idea if the threat to block the Harbour Trail is serious or not, but I have confirmed with our legal department that HRM will defend the public’s legal right to access the trail. We will not be bullied.
Missing Middle Housing and the Building Code
With Council recently approving broad zoning reform to enable small-scale multi-unit apartment buildings across HRM, the question remains, what other barriers exist that would prevent the construction of this so-called missing middle housing? As it turns out, one of the biggest barriers isn’t zoning, it’s the building code and so I had a motion for Council on that!
In Canada, the building code is prepared at the federal level, and then each Province adopts the federal code in whole or with variations to reflect their particular local context. Canada’s building code has long required that multi-unit buildings of more than two storeys have more than one way in and out. Canada made old style walk-up apartment buildings basically illegal to build long ago.
On the face of it, having more than one point of access makes sense. Who wouldn’t want a backup staircase in the event of a fire? Unfortunately, having to build two staircases makes constructing small multi-unit buildings uneconomical because the amount of space required for two sets of stairs, plus hallways, and an elevator gobbles up so much floor area. The economics of losing all that space pushes developers to build bigger buildings to make the unrentable space a much more minimal part of their project’s floor plan. The result of the building code pushing developers to build bigger is there are a lot fewer potential locations for multi-unit buildings, layouts are a lot less flexible, and projects take longer to complete. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Canada’s building code requirement for two or more access points in multi-unit buildings of two storeys or more is the strictest code requirement in the entire world. Developed nations including almost all of Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand all manage with code requirements for multiple stairways kicking in at six storeys or more.
Our strict code seemingly hasn’t led to fewer fire related deaths, which is understandable because there are a lot of variables at play when it comes to fire safety, which then begs the fundamental question of: is what we gain with the strictest requirements in the world worth the resulting decrease in housing options and supply? Check out this excellent video from Utaye Lee (formerly Planifax and a graduate from Dal Planning) who outlines this whole situation in a very convincing and accessible way and who sparked my motion at Council on this topic.
So what do we do about it? BC has recently announced that the next version of their building code will relax vary from the federal one and reduce access requirements for small-scale multi-unit buildings. Nova Scotia should look at this too. The building code is Provincial, but fire safety and planning are municipal matters. HRM doesn’t get to decide what’s allowed, but we could use the authority and expertise we have to try and spur change. That’s what Vancouver did in 2021 as part of the process of convincing their provincial government to make changes. With all the attention on housing and HRM’s recent zoning reforms, the time is right to fix this. HRM should raise the issue and my motion at Council was to start the process of doing exactly that. We can’t change the building code directly, but we can try and present the case and spark the change we need rather than sitting by passively and hoping that maybe, someday, the Province will do it on their own accord. My motion passed unanimously.
One HRM Membership
The other motion I had at Council yesterday was for a staff report into how HRM could deliver on the long talked about One HRM Membership. Currently, if you want to become a member of the Zatzman Sportsplex, the cost for a family membership is $1,105 dollars for the year. That membership is good for just the Sportsplex. If you want to access other HRM facilities like Canada Games or Cole Harbour Place, you either have to pay as you go or buy separate memberships for those facilities. This makes no sense.
HRM’s major recreation centres belong to all of us and they’re there for us all to use. Having to buy individual memberships for each facility is cost-prohibitive and I’m sure results in HRM selling fewer memberships than we would otherwise. It also complicates HRM providing affordable access programming for folks who can’t afford a standard membership. Having one-membership for all HRM facilities would make HRM’s facilities much more accessible to the public, would allow HRM to better deliver affordable access programs, and would be a revenue winner since the improved HRM offering would likely result in HRM selling many more memberships than we do now. Staff and my Council colleagues agree, so why has been talked about for years now, but never happened?
Unfortunately, implementing a One HRM membership for all Parks and Rec facilities has been challenging due to governance issues and technology. The governance issues are now largely resolved as HRM has completed updated agreements with all the community boards that run HRM’s various major facilities. Technology continues to be a challenge, but staff are working to resolve that.
My impression after asking about the One HRM Membership every year during budget deliberations is that the project has never been a real priority and has been largely been worked on off the side of someone’s desk. It has faced real barriers to implementation, but it has also lacked the dedicated resources to advance it. I feel it’s time for Council to push this as a priority and so my motion was for a staff report setting out how a One HRM Membership could be implemented and what resources would be required to get the job done. Basically I want a project plan. My hope is that a report can be ready in time for Parks and Rec presenting their budget in 2025 so that Council can choose whether or not to dedicate resources to actually starting advancing this project. This could be such a good thing for everyone, it’s past time to get rolling. My motion passed unanimously.
Other:
- Council debated and ultimately rejected two motions to rescind designated encampment sites. There was lots of noise, but absolutely nothing new in the discussion that wasn’t said already back in July’s meeting
- Reviewed three information reports on flood repairs, surplus lands, and officially naming a creek in Cole Harbour, Bisset Brook
- Approved new street names
- Directed staff to advance planning for the so-called Downtown Gateway lands (the triangle block of land formed by Rainnie, Gottingen, and Cogswell)
- Finalized the already planned transit fare increase
- Set the names for the new Council districts for the 2024 election (Dartmouth Centre remains Dartmouth Centre)
- Provided a letter of support for the SolarBank Community Solar project on the Eastern Shore’s application to Nova Scotia’s Community Solar Program
- Adjusted a number of capital accounts to provide additional funding for the Dutch Village Road project
- Also reallocated funding in ferry reserves to begin the midlife refit of the Christopher Stannix
- Discharged taxes on three properties as part of the Land Titles Clarification process in historic black communities
- Directed the CAO to review the Hubbards Community Plan to identify what elements HRM can support in our own capital spending and land-use planning
- Requested a staff report on potentially selling a former school site on George Street in Sackville to the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre as a community hub and lacrosse facility
- Approved substantial alterations to registered heritage properties at 1452 and 1456 Carlton Street
- Requested a staff report on potentially bridge the CN tracks in Halifax between Chisholm Avenue and Scot Street
Thanks as always Sam.
I like that suggestion to bridge the tracks from Chisholm Ave to Scot St. That would be a huge help to cyclists and pedestrians especially, so I hope they make that a priority in planning any bridge.
Very informative as usual, Sam. Good initiatives by you on some important matters. Thank you.
On thé Dartmouth Cove initiative, you use the word could result in bylaw changes, not will. The province could dismiss that initiative, correct? The municipality exists on the will of the province and thus controls it. As this power was observed in taking over control of HRM housing development. To end run around the province the strategy is to seek assistance from the federal government, another maybe, but as pointed out HRM does not have jurisdiction below the high water mark. There are a lot of ifs and maybes in this news update and incomplete explanations that can be misleading to the public and generate false hope. Not to say that council isn’t trying various avenues. Go for it! This effort should have started two years ago. This effort should have started with submitting opposition in writing within the Transport Canada deadline and not the day after – when it cannot be accepted. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is still silent on their decision. On a related matter, if this infilling proceeds, valuable and essential estuarine fish habitat will be lost in Dartmouth Cove. Yet $14M more is to be spent on daylighting Sawmill Creek to, in part, assist with fish passage of migratory fish species into a stressed upstream lake where fish kills are now occurring. It’s mind boggling.
Great update, especially about Dartmouth Cove. Thank you!
The public are not being properly informed re Dartmouth Cove. HRM should release the easement agreement document and let residents know the full details of the options for HRM and the owner. No doubt the boundaries of the lot are available at the Registry of Deeds as the lot was sold on April 23 2021 for $800,000. I assume the easement is also available at the Registry of Deeds.
I’m still waiting for someone with access to the environmental review of what is actually under the water of Dartmouth Cove to release that information. That area has been the septic tank of Dartmouth for many generations and a industrial dumping ground by area industries for a very long time.