Local government meeting.
Local government.
I mw'r i'r administraf fynd treball, sy'n rlydau llwydd Stgenwys, Mae'n rhperi'n accid ar y kweithio fromir,
am frijd o'r gyfer nghorio ystyfriflich dfeswyd.
Anwydw, eich yn cyboidios mewn eich yn rhaffio ds'n rhoi'r ds'n rhaffio ds'n rhaffio ds'n rhaffio.
a dweud ymael ymael fyddau ddeud ei ymaeliau, a rwneud ymaelau, a rwneud ei ymaelau.
I shall come to order.
And colleagues, we will come to order and we're going to go on to item two on the agenda special community announcements and acknowledgments and I think that there is an elephant in the room.
So I may start off by acknowledging that elephant's colleagues. You may recall that I made a very public wager with mayor Olivia Chao of Toronto during the national lacrosse league championships where the Halifax Thunderbirds were facing off against the Toronto Rock.
And that wager the losing mayor had to wear the winning mayor's team jersey during a council meetings.
Well, my friends today is the day.
Before the meeting, I want to say thank you to Councilor Johnson and I'm on.
You should have all received a Thunderbird jersey. This is a very generous gift from the Halifax Thunderbirds. It's yours to keep.
Yes indeed, that's a nice surprise in the turn of events here.
Showing their gratitude for your support through their season.
At the end of the community acknowledgments, we will we will take a photo and in front of the race platform here.
We'll gather around so that we can make good on the ill-advised wager that I've made with Mayor Chao.
And then we'll take a group photo as well with the council and I will change my t-shirt to a Thunderbird shirt and we'll gather at the break.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for taking part in the fight.
There we go.
And with that, I'll look to the board and I do see Councillor Stainer on please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well it's that time of year again. Bedford days is upon us.
And I didn't want to wait until next week's meeting because quite frankly, there's just too much going on.
And the Bedford days celebration start just days later.
Bedford days runs from June 25th all the way through to Canada today.
And I'm delighted to invite residents to visit Halifax.ca slash Bedford days for the complete schedule of events.
But one of the events that I'd like to highlight is I am hosting a bike ride, a very family friendly bike ride from Dwealth Park to our wonderful beautiful Bedford public library.
And then back again, so we'll get to experience the Bedford waterfront along short drive.
And we'll just hang out in the park and enjoy one another's company afterwards.
And so I invite all of my council colleagues or I haven't invited all of my council colleagues to join me.
And I invite the community to come out as well just to have a little bit of fun as we mark Bedford days once again.
Very good looking forward to it.
Thank you very much, Councillor.
And we'll move on to Councillor Dagelgamel, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And it's dress up day.
So today, Jay's care foundation would like to say a huge thank you on June 7th.
The Jay's care foundation announced contribution, their grants of $500,000.
A half a million dollars to go to lights in the wavily sports park.
We're 12 years waiting for these lights.
So hopefully this investment kind of moves us along a little bit.
But congratulations to the LWF Baseball Association led by President Adam Long.
And the executive director is a long time.
Councillor Noun to many Barry Del Rumpel.
So that dance of joy was made at the Wavily Legion when they made their announcement.
And just congratulations.
And thank you to the Jay's care foundation.
Thank you.
And well done. Councilor Jay, I'm an undergraduate advocacy leading to this great outcome.
I'm very happy to join you in celebrating the turn of the day.
And with that, the day of many outfits.
With that, we'll go to Councillor Kent's please.
Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I just wanted to acknowledge that sure water community,
sure water community residents association is opening a new community garden behind the arena at
Shearwater on Saturday.
And the vendor, they're opening it with a vendor market.
The community on a wide yard sale.
That's at nine o'clock in the morning.
I think.
Yeah, it's nine o'clock in the morning of my memory.
Being faithful to me.
The other thing that's happening.
The following weekend is on Saturday is the para community concert.
And lots of games and activities for young and old.
And we have lots of food there.
And wonderful people.
So I'm encouraging people to go out.
And lastly, I am going to take this opportunity to express as a Grammy that my youngest grandson,
the Francis, is already a year old on the at the end of this month.
And I don't know how that happened, but it did.
And so we have a two year old and a one year old now all together.
So I just want to say happy birthday to him, officially.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for that.
And we'll move to Councillor Hensby, please.
Thank you.
Regrettion Society behalf getting at the general meeting at the Reg.
Back at local community center.
Also the same time once day June 17th that 7 o'clock, the Musculob.
And uh, and we're an area to chamber commerce.
We have town hall meeting, very important.
Top would be the discuss, we'll be the, the future of the Eastern Children's
75 school building that's been vacated ever since built in the new school.
And the industrial part.
Definitely a part of a fall of flesh and MLA, minister Kent Smith.
Be present for that meeting discuss what's.
what's what's to what the faith that ability may be coming up on the following week on the weekend
on the Saturday the June of the 20th there were 46 the Calvin United church out there but Lawrence
Town Beach we have in the spaghetti supper and on the 21st the first day of summer also
did genus day. Chesapeake days will be occurring all day the Chesapeake Lions Center from
off East Chesapeake Road starting at 9 o'clock with breakfast going through the day to 4 o'clock with
barbecues fighting games and everything else also that afternoon 12 noon come Thompson of the
executive director of the dinnery out there in West Ship Harbor will be officially retiring
and passing the torch to Craig Puncher the new executive director that's been hired and I want to
congratulate and give my appreciation to Kim on her service to the community at the dinnery project in
in Asia Harbor. Thank you. Thank you very much Councillor Hensby seeing no other
names on the list will carry on to item four which is approval of the order of business and approved
all of additions and deletions and madam clerk all turned all the the photo correct let's let's
pause and do the quick photo I wanted to ask for the patience of the folks in the gallery and
watching at home for which is so we can take care of this this quick moment here and would invite
colleagues up to the front here and we can take care of this this item both sides yeah let's
just sort of gather up here best we can
you
and just as we resume our seats the all that excitement reminded me of one one final announcement and that is
a sale GP is back so I was going to invite everybody to make sure they get down to the waterfront
there are spaces for 50,000 people to watch on the waterfront of Halifax and Dartmouth without having to pay a penny
all up and down they're only two it's only one very small area that's paid the rest of it is wide open
and we're going to watch these amazing high tech 50 foot high-deforelling catamarans reach speeds of 100
kilometers an hour cheering on team Canada who have two or three members from right here in HRM
that call this their home so hope to see everybody down in the waterfront for sale GP now without we'll move on to
item for the approval oh my god the minutes we're going to approve the minutes of May 26
2026 could have a motion I saw a counselor steal seconded by counselor Gillis and he discussion on the minutes
seeing none all those in favor show of hands please in the minutes are approved now I'm
working been very patient now hello we'll get to to item for the approval of the order of business what do you have for us
thank you Mayor we have a few additions as follows 18.1 fly-plus request sale GP event 18.2
counselor hands be letter of support for FCM sustainable communities award item 17.6 property matter
and item 22.1 private and confidential in-camera in private information report personnel matter
there's also a request to move 1541 board of police commissioners 202526 in your report
and work plan to follow item 13 okay thank you very much I see counselor Austin has raised his hand
thank you Mr. Mayor I just like to move the information item on the playing field strategy to our next meeting
please the information report okay there good so noted thank you for that then I've seen no further
names on the list could I have a motion to approve the amended order of business please moved by
counselor Gillis seconded by counselor Sanamond all in favor show of hands please and that is approved thank you
that brings us to the consent agenda there are quite a number of things on consent today I'm just going to go
through them here for those watching at home first 1512 appointment of the municipal emergency
management coordinator pursuant to buy law E 100 1513 counselor award HRM 2026-0228 request for
proposal lease delivery and monitoring of transit tires 1514 MPSA 2025-02020 amendments to the regional
center secondary municipal planning strategy and regional center land use by law for 1528 Queen Street
Halifax PID 007 7313 1515 MPS rev 2026-01639 land use regulations for solar collector systems
1516 proposed amendments to administrative order SC 110 respecting closure of parcels within
the Cogswell district right of way Cogswell district 1521 update on options for future use of the
Halifax memorial library site and here I will note my intention to pull that from consent
and 1522 seniors recreation services plan 2026-2030 1553 regional especially events grants report
2026 1561 case HRGG 2025-022129 request to include 2319 major street Halifax in the
registry of heritage properties for the Halifax regional municipality and finally 1571-2026
lacrosse Canada minor boxed nationalist additional milster grant and with that said I'll go to the board
and I see Councillor White please thank you Mayor I was also intending to pull off the library
so 15.2 point once there you go Councillor Hench please I would like to pull off 1561
and that being the heritage request for a mainord street okay thank you and seeing no other
names on the list could I have a motion to approve the amended consent agenda I saw some hands up over here
first it was Councillor Gillis and I moved seconded by Councillor Hartling and this is a digital vote colleagues
okay so just to keep folks up to date that is Councillor Kent voting in favor without her computer
Councilors Kent and Councillors Councillor Mancini have both voted in the affirmative.
The proof consent agenda and colleagues that brings us to item 6, business arising out of the minutes, I don't believe there is any.
Item 7, call for declarations of conflicts of interest. Oh, Councillor Hennies, please.
Thank you, much Mr. Mayor. By order of the judges, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia must declare a conflict in item 12.1.
So noted, thank you very much, and Councillor Purdy, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I also have a conflict with our public hearing tonight. Is it 12.1? Yes, 12.1.
Okay, the same item as Councillor Councillor.
Okay, thank you very much for those declarations.
And the clerk has taken note. Item 8, motions of reconsideration. There are none.
Item 9, motions of recision. There are none. Item 10, consideration of deferred business. There is none.
Item 11, notice of table matters. There are none.
Item 12 is a site plan approval hearing. That is scheduled for 6 p.m. So we'll be coming back to that at that time.
And that brings us to item 13, correspondence, petitions and delegations. Madam Clerk.
We have received correspondence for items 15 to 1, 18.1, and 21.1, which has been distributed to members of council.
Okay, thank you very much for that.
And then colleagues in accordance with the amended order of business, we will jump ahead to item 15.4.1 Board of Police Commissioners,
I have 26 annual report and work plan. And so I'll look to see who's in the gallery today.
Welcome gentlemen, the floor is yours when you'd like to begin.
Good afternoon. Mayor Fillmore, fellow commissioners and members of council. It's an honor to present the 2526 annual report and the 2627 work plan for the Halifax Board of Police Commissioners.
Before Mr. Bates provides a detailed walkthrough of our upcoming initiatives for 2627. I'd like to reflect on a year of significant progress and stabilization for policing governance in our municipality.
The past year has been defined by the successful implementation of the revised police bylaw, which received Minister of approval in March of 2026.
This milestones clarified the roles and responsibilities between the board, the Commissioner of Public Safety and the municipality, reinforcing the importance of appropriate governance boundaries.
The stability alongside the leadership of Chief Dawn McLean and Chief Superintendent John Duff has the allowed the board to focus on strengthening our oversight framework.
We also welcomed Commissioner Brian Carter to the board whose 25 years of RCMP experience is proving invaluable and appointed our first ever administrative assistant Katie Hill to support our mandate.
A major highlight of the past year was the launch of the Crisis Assistance Response Team, the care team by the community safety business unit provided by funding provided by regional council.
This community-based trauma informed service provides support for individuals experiencing mental health and substance use to stress and serves as an important alternative to traditional policing responses.
The board recognizes the value of the care team in enhancing community safety outcomes enabling our officers to focus on core policing responsibilities while ensuring residents have access to well informed support when appropriate.
Our policy work has remained a top priority.
We successfully adopted several critical policies this past year, including those governing matters of strategic immediate strategic significance often referred to across the country as a critical point policy.
An armored rescue vehicle policy, the policing of encampments and as well a more recent policy adoption a new use of force policy, which has an update and that HRP has now released in support of with their own policy.
Notably, I'm pleased to report that the board has now implemented all the recommendations directed at us from the independent civilian review into the 2021 encampment evictions.
Furthermore, we launched our first community survey on policing in September of this past year, ensuring that the diverse voices of our residents directly inform our priorities and performance metrics.
Looking ahead in 2627, our focus shifts toward long-term transformation.
Our primary objective is the development of a comprehensive strategic plan for policing in Halifax.
A collaborative effort involving HRP, Halifax regional detachment and the community.
We will also continue our work on developing and piloting joint police performance metrics for both HRP and HRD reviewing the annual police budgeting process to enhance financial oversight.
Implementing new policies focused on community engagement and our continued interface with the care team.
Prioritizing employee experience and psychological safety of our police services.
And as well, supporting the provinces policing transformation work as this effort begins to take shape.
Our goal remains to ensure that policing in Halifax is delivered in a way that is transparent, accountable and deeply aligned with the values of our community.
It's now my pleasure to introduce Mr. Josh Bates, the board's policing policy strategist who will walk you through the details of our 2526 outcomes.
And the 2627 work plan. And we will both be available for your questions following the presentation. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair O'Malley and Mayor Philmore and members of Council.
I'm pleased to be back at Council sharing the significant progress made by the Board of Police Commissioners over the past year under the leadership of both Chair O'Malley and Vice Chair Kent and to give you a little preview of some of the board's activities over the coming year.
First, as a refresher, establishing a police board is a requirement under the police act for any municipality that has a municipal police service.
The police act also requires that any municipality that is pleased by the RCMP to establish a police advisory board.
Because Halifax has a unique policing model, our board plays a dual role.
It acts as a board of police commissioners for the HRP and is a police advisory board for the RCMP.
Broadly speaking, the board is responsible for providing civilian governance and oversight of our police services on behalf of regional council.
Throughout my presentation, I'll talk about what this looks like in practice.
I'll now provide a brief overview of some of the key events that have impacted the board over the past year building on the chair's introductory remarks.
Earlier this year, of course, Greg O'Malley was re-elected chair and Becky Kent Vice chair.
And as the chair mentioned, we're pleased that Commissioner Brian Carter was appointed as the board's provincial appointee last year, which brings the board to its full complement of seven members.
The past year also saw the release of the province's comprehensive Nova Scotia policing review.
The review outlines six foundational changes each of which will have a significant impact on the work of the board and will be working closely with the province as these changes are advanced.
In fact, one of the changes is to broaden the mandate of police boards to provide civilian oversight across a broad spectrum of public safety services.
And our board has already moved in this direction by inviting Rachel Bome to sit around a board table and provide important updates on the work of her business unit alongside the chief of HRP and the chief superintendent of HRD.
The last significant activity of highlight, which the chair also mentioned is the approval of her police by law by the Minister of Justice.
This bylaw was first approved by council on 2024 and creates a more coordinated approach to public safety.
It also has some implications on the work of the board, including on the budget process, which will be speaking to later.
So moving on to the board's activities, as always, a significant part of the board's attention was focused on budget related matters, including inviting public participation and considering written submissions, before recommending HRP and HRD budgets to regional council.
Other activities, other activities include approving several new policies, including one called critical point, which helps ensure the board is appropriately notified of important policing events taking place in the community.
Another new policies developed were in the areas of policing encampments, armored rescue vehicle and use of force.
Many of these policies relate to the independent civilian review into the August 18, 2021 encampment evictions, and in September the board received a final formal update related to that review.
As the Chair mentioned, we're pleased that the board has implemented each of the recommendations in this review directed at the board.
This past year, the board also adopted, in principle, a set of proposed police performance metrics.
These metrics will help measure progress towards meeting objectives outlined in the strategic plan and also will help inform the board's budget deliberations.
Another big item is the community survey on policing, which was launched in September, results from the first two quarters are currently available on the board's main website.
And regional council has shown leadership and continuing to allocate funding for this important survey, which is being used to inform policy priorities, the police performance metrics, and of course a strategic plan for policing and Halifax, which will speak to you on the next slide.
And all of this brings us to our current work plan priorities.
In March, the board held a special meeting to discuss these priorities, six buckets, if you will, emerge from this discussion and those are up on your screen now.
The first of course is to develop a strategic plan for policing and Halifax, and this process actually began last fiscal year with the appointment of a steering committee.
The real heavy lifting will take place this year with the formation of a working group, community engagement, the identification of focus areas and the actual delivery of the plan.
And speaking of community engagement, this is actually one of the areas of policy development, which is the second budget bucket, and we'll be bringing forward a policy on community engagement at our July meeting.
Other areas of policy development identified by the board for this year are body-worn cameras, which are to be rolled out by HRP by the end of this year.
And the board will also be bringing forward a body-worn camera policy at our July meeting.
And other policy areas are sexual assault case review, which would provide a framework for committees reviewing sexual assault case files.
The last policy priority identified by the board is around collaboration and just a face with the care team, which speaks to that strength and relationship and alignment with community safety that we both referenced earlier.
The next bucket is to review the annual police services budgeting process, specifically the board is interested in getting a deeper understanding of the implications of the.
Of the new by-law on the budget process and to explore ways to provide oversight of police related spending currently residing in other business units.
While also of course, respecting that all budget related matters lie with regional council.
Next we have integration, which includes actions around endorsing the four pillars in the police transformation study, providing direction on the CID managerial report and formally adopting jointly produced police performance metrics.
On employee and on employee wellness, the main item is to provide policy direction and oversight issues related raised and various surveys reports on the topic of employee wellness over the last number of years.
And lastly, on public engagement, we will continue delivering our community surveillance policing, formalizes support framework with corporate communications and begin implementing the engagement activities outlined in our new policy.
So as you can see, it's been a busy year for the police board and with the development of our strategic plan for policing and Halifax, we expect an even busier year ahead.
And I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to share this work and the chair and I would be pleased to take your questions. Thank you.
Thank you both very much for the presentation and we'll go to Councillor Cancel. Cancel please.
Yes, Mr. Mayor, I think I'll just put the motion on the floor if I could move that the Board of Police Commissioners 202526 annual report and work plan.
Be received by the regional council received this Board of Police Commission's Halifax Regional Miss Valley 202526 annual report and 202627 work plan for presentation and approval.
Second by Councillor Cancel. Thank you. I don't really have any questions. I've asked a lot over the last few years. I think what I if I could I just take a moment to thank.
Bush for the work that he's done as our policy adviser. And really, he's really helping us stay on course as a board to move ahead some significant policy work, the strategic plan and work.
Things like that, and I just want to acknowledge the support that council gave to make sure that we were able to have that position in place. It has made a huge difference, and we're seeing it now.
As well, thank you to Greg. Greg's been a great leader and continues to steer us in the right direction. Our board is strong. I feel confident in that.
As we go forward, I do want to note that the provincial policing review is actually in motion around creating a blueprint for the recommendations that are coming forward.
I expect that those that kind of blueprint will be released fully within a body year. I, as the Nova Scotia Association of Police Governance, representative for the board, part of a tiger team, and I don't want to explain what that is.
It's talking a lot of figured out. A group of us that are have the opportunity to see this early and create and give our feedback and insight into developing that particular plan.
And the province has led this is leading this through Kirk Kamotsky, a former police officer and consultant for many, many years and just as so I think we're in good hands on that in that regard.
I do also want to acknowledge that our chief.
The Halifax Regional Detachment John Duff has put in a notice that he will be retiring in his last days will be in July.
So, Don Mosher is the acting officer in charge now as soon as John is officially gone.
So for those of us who have our CMP that's a contact that you're going to want to tell, and maybe you could reach out and wish him well in his next journey.
He will be returning to I think it's Manitoba is it? Yeah, where his family is still living and he's just made the decision based on family.
He's enjoyed the time that he's had here and I think he's made a difference. He came in with the fluidity of making sure the integration space has been had that the connectivity that the board has although it's an advisory role.
I think we've had a really good dynamic and engagement with them to actually influence the work that they're doing here, which was very different from the past.
Jeff Christie had start I think had had really mended a lot of things that we had in that regard around the boards insight and opportunities to make a difference.
But now John continued and we'll now wait to see who comes along but I have great faith in them.
So for now I'll leave it there I think that I just want to say how proud I am to work with the people that are on the board and to hack here to be reminded of how much work that we've done.
I don't know how much time I have to go. To be reminded of the amount of work that we've done and the significance of them.
And when I think about the number of years that I've been on the board we have had a lot of feedback from public often at budget time around wanting change and wanting better oversight.
Thank you heard today very clearly that those things are now very well established we we are holding accountable but we're also playing a very supportive role.
Please are here please are our mandate here at Council and in the city and part of the public safety compliment and so I think that the board is very very strong and proud to be part of that thank you.
Thank you very much. I don't know if there was any response you wanted to offer there.
I just wanted to add possibly that chief superintendent John Duff who is retiring that his father was an RCMP officer who was stationed in Nova Scotia which brought him here originally.
But prior to that his father his grandfather was actually a chief police for the city of Dartmouth.
So I'll just share that.
Services in the blood there.
Councillor Mancini please.
Thank you Mr. Mayor. You know first of all I want to give Cheryl Malay.
Big thanks. Cheryl Malay works hard. He puts his every effort into into the work on the police commission.
I get emails when he's on vacation so his wife you can get the mad at him but he's very focused and we're lucky and thank you for your leadership.
There's lots of heavy lifting on this committee for sure and so I appreciate your leadership.
Lots of great work. Lots of heavy lifting you know police oversight was what we're all about.
Some may say we're just cheerleader's a police.
If you ever attend any of our meetings we challenge when challenges need it.
We ask tough questions and that's the role of the Board of Police Commission.
So I'm very happy and very proud to work with the strong team.
Acknowledgement to Josh also Josh Mates who leads our policy work, Mr. Mayor.
In a couple of areas that I'm pretty interested in and some good work right now as Josh mentioned the focus on body-worn cameras,
which is cancel that support it and that's coming out soon but we need strong policy and look at police forces across the country that have body-worn cameras,
which is most what is key as strong policy and Josh is leading that.
And also another item that I'm very focused on is the sexual assault case review which Josh is doing that work also.
Our focus is 2027 to items like colleagues I wanted to bring to your attention that we're working on constantly working on.
We're always talking about intimate part violence and gender-based violence.
Almost at every meeting we have we either have presenters or conversations about that.
There is a crisis in our community and it's important that the police continue to focus on that and they are and that's our job.
We have all the Board of Police Commission to make sure they continue to focus and they do.
Our care team updates we get from Bill Bore and his team.
It's just showing amazing work by that care team and how it's making sure that police aren't the first response when someone's in mental crisis.
The care teams that go doing that work and doing great work and we get updates on that at every meeting and finally to my colleagues here.
Many of you have community meetings and if it's related to policing I encourage you to invite the Board of Police Commission to attend.
Cheryl Malay go try to go if not somebody else will go.
Think it's really important that the Board of Police Commission here what's going on in your community and they can relay that to our meetings at the Board of Police Commission.
So if you're having a community meeting and has anything to do with policing please send out an invitation for somebody from the Board to attend.
I'm sure that Cheryl Malay will cut and if he can't go one of us will go I think it's important to board here.
So just want to say thanks to everybody I appreciate that support Mr. Mayor.
Thank you very much Councillor. Excuse me, Councillor Manzini and we'll move to Councillor Hench please.
Yeah, I do.
Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Well after all that Councillor Manzini and Councillor Ken has said there's not much more to say but I do want to thank.
Cheryl Malay for all that he does because you know you made it possible and and you made it.
How can I say you made it so that I feel like I'm I'm a part of the process and and things of that you know because I I still didn't understand you know some of the things that we're going on but I'm learning as I go and I'm going to continue to learn and I thank you guys for that.
This board is an amazing board and I say that because I feel the you know the sensitivity the love the respect from all board members and I you know it's amazing Josh you do great great work and I thank you for all that you do as well.
So pretty much what was said is is how I feel and thank you guys very much.
Thank you Mr. Mayor and thank you Greg and Josh for your presentation today I appreciate you being here.
I have a few questions I know there's work being done on performance metrics just curious how that is how that is rolling out and maybe I'll put all my questions out there.
I'm also always very interested in integration and how the integration between.
Halifax police the RCMP and also our community safety team is working.
We're hoping to see broad community benefits from integration improvements.
And with policing overall that residents can see a mark difference and of course improvements for human resources working in the area so curious about about how the integration is working.
And then my final question you mentioned public engagement I know there's a survey I've been promoting it in my newsletter but I'm curious about what other public engagement pieces you're doing I.
And not necessarily informed on that so those are my three questions thank you.
Bill asks Mr. Bates to comment on the new policing performance metrics and we're at with the adoption of those because that is a.
And completely new set of metrics that we haven't captured in the past and so I want to share a comment there Josh.
Yes, thank you counselor for the question so the board adopted in principle a set of police performance metrics in February so there's a report I'd be happy to send you.
The metrics are based on a national framework so there's actually six buckets and their metrics in various areas and what we at what the board did was they asked the two police services to go out and look at the feasibility of collecting this information.
The information will be widely available some of them they might have to integrate and I know commissioner will be speaking to that next.
But we wanted to delay the formal adoption because it's it's of course important that the performance metrics adopt progress made towards the strategic plan.
So we have provisional metrics we're going to look at the plan and we're going to make sure that the metrics match up with the plan.
Okay, so that's why it says in principle okay.
Yeah, okay, so we will see some results of these metrics at some point directly or indirectly perhaps.
Yes, following the adoption of the strategic plan and and the the provisional metrics the metrics adopted in principle are publicly available.
Okay, okay, thank you.
We will move to the third question and then we'll go back to the transformation commission question now the commissioner more is come forward, but let's address the engagement so.
In terms of engagement we we rely as commissioner council remains any set hearing about all of the community engagement that the individual counselors do so we can go and participate.
HRD has been very good about going out into their communities and organizing yearly updates and we're also doing a broad engagement plan in association with the strategic planning process.
But as well we're creating a new engagement policy which we really haven't had in the past so maybe I could just ask Josh to comment on where we're up with that policy creation.
Thank you chair and thanks again for the question so so there is the community engagement policy that we're targeting to go forward at our July meeting and we're looking at a number of things so so one is HRD already does a lot of engagement HRP does engagement to.
So one of the things that's put forth an policy again not yet adopted but we counsel has community engagement plan to be want to make sure that when the police and when the board does engagement we follow that plan.
So there's an element one important element of that plan is producing what we heard reports which currently isn't happening so there might be great engagement happening in fact I know there is but that information is not necessarily getting back to the board so we want to make sure the board has that you know has those reports so we know what was set.
We're looking forward is around a community round table and policing again not yet adopted but making sure that we had all of the key stakeholders in the community because when you go out and invite people to come speak to the board which we do around the budget.
We hear from people who are very very in favor of what the police are doing and people who might be very very opposed most people probably live somewhere in between so we want to make sure that we hear from a broad spectrum of voices.
So the policy that we're putting forward has some ideas around how we can make sure we hear from that broad spectrum.
Okay, I particularly appreciate though what we heard reports that sounds very useful and for the future.
To what Councillor Menseini said that and he's been a very very strong advocate for this as long with our other two commissioners.
Every meeting we bring in and invite groups in the community and it's largely been around you know community based or gender based violence in a partner violence.
We're in July having an alternate sexual assault case review model presented there will start to hear feedback of how it's done in other jurisdictions across country so again every meeting we're engaging with public and we intentionally and go out proactively to invite groups in.
Maybe I'll turn it over to commissioner more the topic of transformation is always very prevalent in all of our discussions and he can speak to that topic.
Great.
Mr. Mayor members council bill more commissioner public safety.
Our integration efforts are starting to to move forward over the last year and the reporting to the board.
I would say prior to that we received very separate presentations but we've now under the direction of the board both HRP and HRD are combining their information and presenting together to provide an overall picture.
In addition, we have just completed actually I met with both the chief and senior staff of HRD yesterday.
We just finished a multi month integrated criminal investigation division manager review.
I think it's safe to say that the integrated criminal investigation division is probably the flagship of integration.
If anybody has ever visited the offices there HRP and HRD members are working side by side on some of the most serious crimes that are happening in HRM.
That model had not been looked at really deeply in the 20 years since it started so that report was presented to both leadership team yesterday and we're just working.
We're looking now through an action plan, and that will be coming back both to the board and to council. Once we have some more information, and we think that there are some concrete pieces that we can look at in there to strengthen not only the integrated criminal investigations, but use it as the building blocks for further integration, because of the experience that we've had there.
Please to say that both agencies have embraced integration, and we're looking now practically on on how we move some of those items forward.
That is in concert as well as mentioned with the provincial policing review. Those six areas at the provinces are working on interact with various parts of it.
So all those pieces are coming together, and I'm hoping they will all inform the strategic plan that's coming this year for an HRM policing strategic plan, an overarching plan that would include input from both HRP and the RCMP.
In addition, the work being done of the public safety office, so the public safety strategy will be renewed coming up this year, and through the work in Rachel's office and through my office, we're starting to see those items starting to move together in a much more comprehensive fashion as opposed to being separate plans.
Will they be all will we have just one plan this year? No, I don't think so, but I think after this cycle of strategic planning sessions down the council has done there's a strategic planning work, the board will do theirs.
The new strategic I'm sorry the next public safety plan that will set us up well for a much more comprehensive approach to public safety across the board.
Okay, thank you. I'm over time, I know.
Thank you very much and we'll move on to the deputy mayor, please.
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
Yeah, and thank you for this opportunity to talk about the work of the Board of Police Commissioners.
Thank you to the commissioners, as well as those that are councillors that sit on the Board of Police Commissioners.
You know, I know this kind of work is extra lift for you for everyone and appreciate the effort.
You know, I do think, you know, the question about being impartial there is an important one because I do think that bias can be created.
The cheerleader comment I think is an important one to discuss.
Because this is the work of this commission is critically important.
It is our civilian oversight body and it's really about ensuring public accountability, transparency and the good spending of the public spending of tax dollars on our police force.
We always need to keep that front of mind and as a council, we have so few opportunities to interact with with with HRP and our CMP from a governance perspective.
So just even having this opportunity is an important one for us.
I, I do have questions about the police performance metrics.
You know, in particular, you know, I think you mentioned that there was a bit a national framework that's being used.
But I was wondering if there were metrics specific to some of the issues and challenges unique to Halifax and you know, one of the priorities of council has been around road safety.
You know, I think we've had some better reporting back about you know incidents.
And we've had in the past and that's really that's a really positive move.
But how will items like that be included in the in the performance metrics service delivery.
Another one they can see management are these things that are going to start to be tracked because from our perspective on council.
They can often feel elusive.
We talk about it year over year over year over year, but we're not necessarily seeing the traction in the police force.
So, you know, those are metrics that I'd be interested in when it comes to budget time.
Because we're constantly asked for resources, but we're not necessarily seeing the impact those resources are having on the ground.
So that's and I had just one other comment before I'll hand the mic over to you.
I'm seeing the rate or respond which is great.
Just a change of leadership in the RCMP is unfortunate that that that we're losing another leader there.
I think we've had I don't know four five in the last ten years and I think the current chief of the RCMP there.
It's only appointed in November.
Is that correct?
Recently.
Yeah.
Over year ago.
Was it over year ago?
Okay.
So it's just over year ago, but that's not very long in terms of tenure.
And so I do worry about succession planning and how does the.
And I know the RCMP is a little different than HRP, but does the board have any.
The ability to work with the RCMP to ensure that there's clear succession planning because we have a you know the the turnover and at the top.
I'm wondering know how how able are we to continue to make progress on on key on key issues locally.
Thank you for your questions.
I guess the first one I'll start with is around the performance metrics.
Although it is a national standard that we used from other jurisdictions to we made it Halifax specific and so again it's we just approved in principle.
And it will become more informed throughout the strategic planning process as we define the defender.
The pillars and the objectives of the strategic plan that'll then be supported by how we're going to measure progress on those.
Maybe I could ask Mr. Bates to provide some additional input on that question.
Yeah, thank you.
And this is where the performance metrics and the community survey actually meet right so we we have the community survey on policing and one of the questions is around police priorities and traffic safety is one of those priorities so.
Seeing that we added a metric around traffic safety to the performance metrics.
You also mentioned they can see management that's another metric that that we have.
That's a really important one because when you think of police performance metrics a lot of the things like crime severity index well the police don't have a great deal of control over that but they can see management that is something that the police services have a greater degree of control so there's a range of metrics that are included and what was adopted.
Comment on the about vacancy management so in terms of HRP which we have control over in terms of the the number of resources.
They have had a number of vacancies that they've been actively working by building up their own capacity to train.
And so last year they had 22 I believe new graduates this year in this July I think it's the July 16th or 18th I can't remember the exact date.
They'll be graduating 38 so you know very much building up capacity to ensure that the communities are fully staffed by train public safety resources and then for the RCMP in terms of succession planning.
I know there's a very you know the type of role in the in the the leadership teams there is very strong it's a very strong leadership team and the chief superintendent those resources get identified and and.
And then they're presented to the municipality to receive input in terms of final selection maybe I could ask commissioner more to come on comment further on that.
Thank you chair Malie.
Mayor through the counselor yes so the when chief superintendent the deaf was selected I actually sat on the section committee with the commanding officer of Nova Scotia Dennis daily.
The head had previously served in the Halifax district for a long time so we knew the area.
I'm actually in the process of trying to get a sit down with the new commanding officer who had met before I know.
And just to make sure as we move forward that HM as a strong voice in this election process I think.
I think it's fair to say that each division clearly understands that the support they provide to HRM is is different than some other places because of the model that's here and so we're actively involved in those discussions right now then I'm pleased to say that we.
That we do have a superintendent Mosher in place who has been here in HRM for a long time for with both agencies so we we have some consistency and some.
Some ability to continue on and we're working right now on that process and if I could just touch on the road safety.
You said you had mentioned council would recall that in the strategic plan the council approved your circuit plan one of the deliverables was including.
HRP more deeply in the road safety piece and the other part I would say council recalls this I I owe you a bit of a report coming back on vehicle noise and we've been trying to what have been trying to do.
We vehicle noise issues into the road safety plan so we don't end with multiple plans so I've had some meetings with HRP our CNP.
I'm waiting to meet with the traffic people in the province to to work on that so that will be coming back as well.
So you counsel should be seeing in the reports on on your progress on strategic plan you should see it in the reports coming from the board of police commissioners so we're going to try to give you more information on those more lucid things.
All right, thank you.
Yeah, thank you. Thank you.
Thank you very much and on to council. Thank you again, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the presentation and the information and really good report here and you know I would also say to chair O'Malley.
It is wonderful to see the commitment that you have to the position that you hold and to see you come to middle musket orbit to see you come to carols corner see you come out to fall river.
We have not seen that before or not in my time anyway may have happened before me, but just my compliments because it does say something to the community that they are seeing and that they are valued in how the policing is reviewed in all of HRM. So thank you for that.
Thank you.
Okay, you got your turn next.
In the work plan I do have a little bit of a concern about you know the development of the strategic plan because we're talking about forming a steering committee and then also talking about a working group and you know the commission is very busy people.
And so I'm worried about a little bit about the capacity to deliver on this is an ambitious plan, you know if you read between the lines and you're trying to figure out this is a lot of work and I do know at one point it says to figure out if there's capacity.
I'm trying to remember where it was but if more resources are needed and I think that's something in Q2 that you're going to look at.
But do you feel that you have the capacity with the current configuration with just one staff and where we're.
Definitely getting the support of commissioner Moore's office.
Yeah, quite heavily actually so in terms of the steering committee.
Councilor Mensini is our delegate from the board to represent that along with the chiefs and commissioner Moore.
And then a working group will is actively working on it. Josh base is working on it.
Cathy Colette, there'll be a variety of people so I think so far, you know it'll be internally driven and staff will play a critical role in helping formulate it with this well communication.
Help me do engagement sessions with the community groups that are identified by the steering group and so I hope so.
So is there a way to identify within the work plan who is on the steering committee and who is on the working group.
Yes, we can do some follow up information on that.
Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Thank you so much for coming in today. I really appreciate your time and for the presentation.
My question is about theft and retail theft.
We hear quite a lot about that at budget time.
I noticed that I didn't I didn't see it anywhere in the work plan or the strategic plan and I also didn't see it and perhaps because the list is not exhaustive.
You know community outreach to things like the downtown Halifax business commission or you know other other business organizations inside of HRM.
I'm just wondering can you speak to whether that is you know how that is being prioritized or addressed inside of inside of this. I appreciate it very much. Thank you.
Thank you. I guess that it would be a kind of a multi threaded answer there.
One comment would be is we hear frequently engage with those groups who can then present on that.
We don't tend to get involved in you know we're prohibitive from getting involved in the operations of policing activity and where they spend resource time.
Absolutely.
And so can't really comment on that if the chief was here he would be able to do that but I know that they've conducted a number of proactive efforts in that area without without him here would be inappropriate.
I think to comment any further on that in terms of the engagement of those parties though like for example we we've been without a strategic plan for for policing for over 10 years.
And so it's now time and we're doing a much shorter window for that plan.
So as a result it'll be much more specific and those groups will it all likelihood be consulted as one of the stakeholder groups that we engage with during these strategic planning processes.
And so that'll be a way that will be bringing in their concerns into that process. Does that help?
Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
I think to that.
Thank you chair.
I guess what I would say is that we we I know that there has been ongoing discussion for the for instance the retail association of and there's been some both proactive end and reactive work being done in that space.
I think there's also some legislation that's that has recently passed around that they'll reform and the like that that may have some impact as well.
But I would really defer on the operational side to the chief on those pieces, but there is an open dialogue, and there is certainly a recognition that there is some work that needs to be done in that space.
Thank you, and we'll move to Councillor Kent, please.
Yes, thank you. I'm going to call the question very quickly here, but I do want to take the time with Bill at the presentation table to acknowledge the tremendous contribution that his team is
is really embraced with the Board of Police Commission. It is a new model. It is a model as well that the province is considering coming out of the police review.
And we know that they're modeling that after Halifax Regional Miss Paladies space around that and asking for other.
I think other municipalities to follow suit with that kind of community safety and public safety space within the municipal units.
But the contribution that is made, particularly around new response models is that one of the most exciting opportunities this board has.
There has been some significant work already. We do have a couple of, in care is one, and there was some more work being done on another space.
But this, this is, I think, is very forward-facing and is a message as well to our public. I think Councillor Steele mentioned what has happened here around within the board to that they can say to their constituents that is changed.
Well, this one, this is a very significant change. And there is a lot of synergy, a lot of interplay, a lot of integration with not just our two police forces, but with our safety folks in our community safety folks.
So that in itself has so many opportunities to bear fruit and and move in a direction that we know that the public has been asking for and it's not just here in Halifax.
It's across the country where new police models not only to create a different environment for responding to very complex scenarios and ones that don't necessarily need a police officer, but it's also helping to.
I'd revert back to where police officers can really focus on their core policing responsibilities. So I'll leave it there and there's no one else I'll call the question.
The question has been called.
And the motion carries. Thank you very much chair. Thank you very much to the public safety team. Nice to see everybody and very great for your work.
And colleagues with this will resume the agenda where we where we left off. I hurried past item 13.2 petition. So I just want to make sure that no one had a petition they wanted to table today. I don't see any great.
Then we'll resume the agenda at item 1511, which is second reading of proposed by you 120 and amendment to by law you 100 respecting user charges. Ice rental rate increases.
Would someone like to put the motion on the floor please.
Councillor Steele please.
I move that Halifax regional council adopt by law you 120.
Amending by law you 100. The user charges by law as settled in attachment A of the staff report date at May 19, 2026.
Seconded by council or pretty.
And I'm not seeing any discussion questions been called.
And the motion carries. Thank you very much colleagues. Then we're going to skip over a number of items that have been passed on consent.
And if my reading the agenda is correct that brings us to item 1521 and update on options for future use of the Halifax memorial sites.
And I note that both Councillor White and I wanted to take this off of consent and I will give the floor to Councillor White.
Okay, thank you Mayor. I'll read the motion.
That Halifax regional council discontinue the work on a plan for memorial. I have a very site that was directed in items two and three of the July 9, 2024 motion item number 15.155.
And to direct the CAO to investigate new potential opportunities for the reuse of memorial library.
And return to council with every port outlining those potential uses for its consideration.
Okay.
Yes, library. So I do have a kind of a clarifying amendment to put on for the second one, but I'll just talk a little bit about the last year or so with the library.
So yes, I heard about a year ago from local people and someone in Toronto really interested in an adaptive reuse just heritage in general.
So I've heard from from that person, I've heard from the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia heard from the downtown business commission and then the group formed the friends and memorial library that there's interest in adaptive reuse for the building.
I also have heard from other people that are more interested in what was decided before and moving forward with a park. So it's not super clear what what the general public is looking for here.
Two things in talking to staff over the year like two things we've never done are general survey to see what the public thinks and wants.
And then a call out for adaptive reuse we haven't done either of those so I think it's good that we are this motion is looking at doing adaptive reuse.
Yeah, let me see what else did I want to mention.
I think I think that's all I need to mention here and I'll let you know the the amendment I was looking for.
Okay, I'll read it out and then I'll send it to Chris that just so this same language but.
The CIO to investigate the new potential opportunities for the adaptive reuse of the memorial library through a time limited expression of interest or similar mechanism and returned to council with a report outlining those potential uses including proposed funding mechanisms for its consideration.
Yeah, so I was just looking to be a little more clear of what we're trying to do that we should put a bit of a time limit on this.
I'm especially interested in that we really do want to hear about the financials and not just ideas because I think ten years went into ideas that didn't work out so we're really looking for.
Clear proposals so I welcome to hear your thoughts.
So there are some names on the list I wonder colleagues as I did say both.
Councilor White and I wanted to take this off consent if you would allow me to be heard before we go into the barter debate.
Thank you, I see some nodding heads I appreciate that very much and which case I need to leave the chair and.
I'm going to step maybe step into council I guess I just didn't do your spot deputy mayor.
Thank you.
There we go thank you.
Yeah, councilor White and I had some heard discussion before we got underway here and we are largely aligned on on our position on on the matter of the memorial library.
What the way that I see count the the CPAD motion the staff recommendation that drives from the deputy mayor's motion in CPAD.
Is that it it abandoned the council direction previous council direction to work on a park design and focuses instead on adaptive reuse of the structure.
But without any guidance on the financial implications or what what an acceptable financial arrangement might look like.
So what what I would like to get to today with your help I hope is a path that allows us to continue the important work on redesigning park space regardless of what happens to the library building.
That's still a vibrant spot in our downtown and as we know more people are living downtown we need more park space so rather than it just let it let it be a grassy place to actually proceed with consultation and.
Design works to make it to make a beautiful new urban park there.
But my approach would also be to put some parameters around the adaptive reuse agreeing with counselor whites time limitation I think that's really important so that we're not just.
My as we were 12 years into this now so we're not mired in more more years we can we can let the time the time clock expire move forward I would agree with that but I would say we should also put some parameters around what a.
An acceptable financial arrangement looks like my first position was and I softened it my first position was.
We shouldn't proceed within adaptive reuse unless we find a partner who can carry 100% of the cost of the of the remediation of the building which is expected to be around 20 million 15 to 20 million dollars.
I understand that's a pretty hard line and so I would propose more like a maybe 75% but if we just say something like.
All or most it's a mushy question we don't have clarity and I think I believe the staff would appreciate having some specific clarity to know whether yes or no benchmark has been that so.
I would love to see this be 75% of the of the cost of remediation.
Unfortunately as amended or as the proposed amendment reads it doesn't get us there it's still silent on proceeding with the park the park design.
And it's I think it's important that we proceed with a park design as well because otherwise we're just creating a situation where we're going to have to come back to council again and the wheels will continue to turn and more years will pass.
We do have an opportunity today to give council direction on what a financial deal looks like for the reuse and direction to proceed with consultation and design on the park and we can actually move this thing forward turn this project into.
And the last point would be that on the time clock that Councillor White is introduced and perhaps if we can get to it the 75% of cost recovery that I've gotten to if we don't find a proponent to do that within the within the a lot of time that we should also be specific about.
Then what will be indicated would be to raise the public library and convert the entire site to a public park in which case the park planning is already underway and just can just proceed.
So those are that that's the difference between the amended motion and what I would propose.
So I guess what I'm asking even on speaking on the amendments is and I will vote for the amendment but I'm going to ask that we actually defeat the main motion.
And approve a motion that I've prepared that achieved those those outcomes to move the project forward into reality much much faster.
So that's my piece today.
Thank you.
Madam chair so what I'm hearing the mayor suggest is that he's he's that the amendment is acceptable but he would still be urging the members to defeat the motion.
If it is amended and he has a proposal for for an alternative motion so if you wish to speak to the amendment then certainly I think the mayor should retake the chair.
Okay so on the amendment and the floor is the deputy mayor.
Okay thank you.
So I was I'm interested in supporting the amendment as it's presented I think when we're doing a call for proposals about the building the land around the building becomes part of that and I think the opportunity to look at the site of as a whole is lost if we start proceeding on a park design.
Without really having an opportunity to look at what comes back from the community through a call for proposals they idea for call for proposals is that.
You know we get all kinds of ideas so if we go out to the public right now and say what do you want to see with the site we're going to get all kinds of ideas that are going to be feasible some will be pie in the sky and never attainable.
You know there's no constraints around that by doing a.
Call for proposal, what I was hoping for is that staff would come back with a call for proposal program that
did have some criteria, sets and parameters around the site, that could include the option of
looking at costing ownership, whether it's the building, the site is a whole, but that right now by
constraining that, I think we lose an opportunity to really explore what's possible there.
So, call for proposals, I don't know how familiar council is with this process, but it's a
common process that's used in significant sites and cities and places around the world, where as
particularly once that have high interest. And we know that there's been high amount of interest
about the future of the site. And I think it could be exciting just to proceed with the call for
proposals, put a time limit on it, staff, of course, when you have, when they put out a call for
proposals, it needs those parameters. We can discuss that, but I'd be concerned if we're giving
direction to do that at the same time as proceed with a park plan that could be focused on what
happens if the building is demolished, it doesn't really give true weight to what we're
asking for in the call for proposals. So, I'm a bit confused by that process. So, I think,
you know, the motion as amended right now is a good way to proceed.
I, yeah, and I'll, I'll just, I'll leave it, I'll leave it at that. The one piece though about
the adaptive reuse, you know, I think that that needs to be broad and I don't know what councilor
white had in mind with adaptive reuse, because there's always you could, all different kinds of ways
you can reuse the building, but I think what I hope is intended and maybe you can speak to this is that
the adaptive reuse isn't restrictive and that, that it needs to be, you know, a functional building.
I mean, it could be perhaps, you know, keeping elements of the building, you know, the main
intent being that this is a historic building. It has historic significance, somehow retaining the, the
the meaning and, and some function of the, of the, of the actual structure in the proposed design.
So, you know, I think adaptive reuse might not be exactly clear in its intent either.
So, I would ask to councilor white around her intention there. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Excuse me, councilor Austin, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I'm in support of councilor white's motion here.
I think it gets us to where we need to be on this.
I appreciate that the mayor would prefer to see the park planning process continue.
However, I don't see how, I don't see why we would continue a park plan if we're potentially pausing and accepting proposals
to, that could keep the building. Like, how do you do a park plan for a site if you're, if you don't know if half of it's going to be a building
or, you know, something else. So, I think if we're going to go down this route to pause for like six months to go out there
and see what the interest might be is reasonable.
Given the circumstances, because otherwise, you know, we could do a whole bunch of work on a park plan that then is useless
because we're keeping a building on site rather than, you know, changing that up.
So, I think councilor white gets us to where we need to go.
The kind of financial piece I agree with the mayor on, I have concerns about that.
This building has been vacant for a while.
We went pretty far down the road with Dal back in the day, but they weren't the only one.
Everybody who's looked at this runs away once they get into the particulars because it's really expensive.
It's complex and, you know, to boot it sitting on a mass grave.
So, this is not an easy site and everyone who looks at it is said, no thanks, you're on your own nature.
I personally don't think that's going to change.
I don't think that there's some magic solution here waiting in the wings.
And I myself, when we're looking at things like form, police headquarters, transit.
I mean, we just went through a budget cycle where we were saying, are we one or two million away from our debt ceiling?
Like, we don't have the money to do this as a municipal project, right?
There's all sorts of great things we can imagine in the space, but we don't have the money.
We had the money.
There's a building a block away in the same area that has got an actual community group and proposal and plans already to go.
If we were going to spend a bunch of money on a building downtown, the Kyver would be a better bet than this.
So, you know, the value I think in going back out at this point is, I don't think we can agree with staff.
I think we can have a consultation at this stage without trying one last time is a general ask to everybody.
You have some idea for this building.
I don't think our consultation if we're going to go out and try and talk to people about a park plan that may include the facade or none of the building is going to be successful.
So, I think we have to do this last step.
And if it comes back and there's some miracle out there.
If there's not, I think it then helps us move on with the actual park plan for what I suspect is actually feasible here.
So, I think Councillor White's motion is good.
Thank you.
Councillor Steele, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I too think Councillor White's amendment to the motion or motion.
Now, however we're playing this is very good.
I think it's a bit more specific and it means we'll get back a bit more of a specific recommendation.
I also really like the mayor's idea about limiting our financial exposure on this.
So, I guess I'm wondering if we could build in something about a minimum amount of funding coming.
I'm in a minimum amount or a percent that could come from elsewhere on this.
You know, thinking of our many other capital projects that we have that have already been put on a priority list.
So, I don't know.
The mayor suggested 75 percent.
I don't know if that's if we'd want to put that number in.
I appreciate Deputy Mayor Cuddles, perhaps views that maybe we don't want to limit.
Opposals, but on the other hand, recognizing our fiscal realities.
Perhaps we could bake in a number.
So, I wonder if that might be possible.
Thanks.
Thank you very much, Councillor Mancini, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
You know, I've received many emails and phone calls.
We've all been included in others from folks in my district.
And, you know, my response to those is that you have to understand this building is in very poor condition.
This building, if anything is going to be done to the building, it has to be gutted.
If you're going to say that building, it has to literally be gutted.
There's major structural mechanical accessibility code upgrades.
This is a very significant capital investment.
You know, my question is, I don't know, you know, usually staff are not here.
But can anyone share with us, Councillor Osso alluded to the last major interest,
and I still have the pictures of that was the design was Dow.
University has there been any expression of interest since those days.
I don't know if anybody can speak to that.
Or do your best to speak to?
Hi, Carol Kozyak Roberts, I'm a landscape architect with Parks and Recreation.
To the mayor through you to the Councillor.
Since we Parks and Recreation has been on this file since it was turned into a park plan.
I can say that we have had people that have expressed some interest to us, but we haven't been receiving any proposals or anything.
There's usually about questions and asking about what may be possible.
So we haven't received anything directly on that, but we do have kind of an understanding that there are people that are interested in,
and in more and perhaps going forward with if we did go with an expression of interest that they would put something in.
Just for a long time, thank you for that.
You know, my point is I agree with Councillor Osso.
I'm very suspicious of any private interest in this building in the site because of the history that parameters are here.
I've gotten many, many emails from residents that said visitor center, a museum, housing, the list goes on and on.
I haven't heard anything from the private sector.
And I think, you know, as Councillor Osso said, no, thanks, you're on your own.
I believe that's the reality.
I just don't believe there's any private interest.
And so I like the, I do really like to approach the mayor's bringing forward the sense of, you know,
let's continue on the path with the park plan and design, knowing that if there's a major interest,
we'll then we can stop that park plan and it's worth it.
Because if we wait, we stop the park plan, we go down that path.
There's no interest other than you miss a valley should do something with it.
And as Sam said, we have no budget to be able to do that.
I do not think you all need to be reminded, but the form at $120 million.
Please hit quarters of $180 million plus a whole bunch of other capital projects.
Where does this fit and all of that?
So, you know, I'm willing to listen to my colleagues, I'm leaning towards the mayor's approach.
I like the financial limitations put on it.
But, you know, I really think we should carry on with the park plan.
And if you want to go out and investigate other possibilities at the same time, great.
I'm not a better man, but if I was a bet, I bet that nothing's going to come back.
But any else, my two cents, thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Hartley.
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
I'm going to direct this to staff and I don't even know what staff.
My only hesitation of putting a cab, like 75% needs to come from some other third party,
is that my concern is that there might be an opportunity for HRM to find funds through other sources of funding.
I'm just wondering whether that's the case in whether we're potentially cutting ourselves off from other funding opportunities.
That is my only hesitation.
I don't know enough about the whole history to know whether it makes sense to even present that as a concern.
But my bigger concern is, is there money on the table somewhere that HRM could potentially apply for that a third party might not?
So that's kind of my one wonder about something like this, particularly.
You know, with the nature of the building, where it sits on on a graveyard that this is a historical building.
There's just many, many, many pieces to this.
So I just, that's that's my only fear of my only hesitation.
Everything else, though, I think that the rest of my colleagues have really spoken to, so thank you.
Thank you very much. Councilor Hensby, please.
Thank you much, Mr. Ray. Yes, this has been a topic of discussion even before the library closed,
what would do with the building after the new one was finally built up.
That top was 14 years ago that one decided upon.
But anyway, with that now being vacant stuff, I'd love to see the preservation of the building itself.
It's a memorial library is dedicated to our veterans and solve it that.
I kind of wanted some kind of creative partnership to be arranged for public private partnership,
where we provide the building for free, tax free zone for a period of 10 years,
and let the proposal come forward in regards to what could be done with the site.
One of those type of incentives would be possible for us to, to look at the redevelopment of the site.
We've had proposals of discussions in the past, perhaps the problem should have had it for a courthouse,
that we have a courthouse district downtown with the other courts right across the street.
We had talking in the past about trading it off for the, the law court building down here on the waterfront and stuff,
but we know the condition of that building and the garage and stuff,
so they're trying to fix them repair that.
But that's another discussion for another day.
And there was also discussion on the first stations,
possibly having it as a place of government for them to consider.
But I also think it could be a great spot for an archive building.
I mean, that's a archive site.
But the problem is that we need to have it evaluated.
Is it economically possible to convert that building into something economical?
That's a good question to ask.
I've seen all buildings get retrofitted.
I know from my own personal experience from the old nose,
of course, home in Westball.
Everybody thought I should be tearing that down.
We decided to keep that piece of heritage alive.
We rebuilt that building.
I'm going to show you a picture from the inside that it was not about a pigeon coop with
piles of pigeon crap for high.
But what deep is the hall throat thing?
We had to sanitize that place and clean it out.
We put some restructuring beams of steel in it to make sure that that 105 year old building still standing today.
And I think there's a possibility something can be done.
Well, if you look at it creatively, I think that if we have a
an economic incentive behind it, that might work.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Kent's place.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I feel like we're missing a major link here.
And I'm surprised none of my other colleagues.
I think the thing that swung me directly into, yes, we need to give an opportunity for call for proposal, because we actually, in the last seatpad meeting, had some citizens who actually approached us with some significant history. A lot, I mean, historical for those people who are movers and shakers and who have done significant projects that entailed this kind of complexity.
They came forward and they asked for an opportunity to create a proposal.
So, for me, it was an opener. We should allow them an opportunity.
And yes, we have the park plan going on. And yes, it's been 14 years.
But there is this, there is a group of people right now who want to do something with that site.
And why would we not entertain that an opportunity that would allow them to get into a process?
So, for me, that this, I think that Councillor White's amendment, it makes sense. I'm happy with that.
I don't think we should be putting on anything related to 65% or 75% or 10% or 2%.
That, which would lead, then leave the municipality kind of in a position that we've accepted some kind of financial contribution.
I, like, I don't think that we should go down that route before some kind of call for proposal is in.
And I am not a big fan of putting our staff through at work that could potentially change quickly.
And yeah, nothing might come in. Or something really spectacular could come in.
I don't understand, I just, I would ask that everyone considered that in this motion.
I'm, I'm okay with it. I was going to wait and say this for the actual motion, but right now we're all kind of dipping into both places.
So, I did, decided to do it as well. But to me, I felt a lot, I got a lot of credibility out of the folks that presented in CPED.
And I, I, and I don't, I don't necessarily, I usually feel like I need to delve into some questions and we did.
We put some tough questions on the floor when they were making their, their presentations.
We talked about the, the cemetery. We talked about the indigenous history.
We talked about the state of the building.
We talked about the park plan and consistently they came back with answers that said they want to try.
So, for me, I want to let them try.
And I don't think we should waste the, if, if our staff and our CAO are saying it's better to pause than I want to acknowledge that and pause, it's not a long time frame.
I don't expect it to, you know, to take years, it might take years for the project, but I don't think it should take years.
We've asked them at that meeting to go back and start your proposal drafting because if we go to council and ask for this, you need to, you know, be prepared for it.
So, yeah, I, I will be supporting both the, the amendment and the main motion. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
To the CIO please.
Yeah.
Thanks a good point. Maybe to just lead in a bit. There were a few good questions asked, I'll speak to them generally.
Obviously, the more specific we make the request or the amendment, that's going to drive time into the process.
So, what I'm saying here is if you want a very specific outcome, let's say you want a 50% funded.
That's going to require a lot of dialogue between us and the potential proponent in order to get that information there.
So, you, you are definitely restricting, perhaps purposely the input into the process.
So, that's, that's one thing and when you do that, that's going to elongate the process.
So, we would, depending what the final EOI looks like we'd allow more time.
You make it more broad, that allows obviously a less detailed proposal to come forward, but you can then move with more speed to sift through them.
And, and get where you want to get to, without anybody investing in tremendous, you know, an over to amount of time, which is, is,
in a growing municipality like ours, not easy for everybody to do.
So, with that, I also want to just ask my colleague John to just give a reminder of the restrictions on the property.
So, we are remembering just how much this is a bit of a long shot.
Sorry, that's John Traves, my pulse is John McPherson.
I do this all the time, there's a lot of John's on our team.
Yeah, yeah, don't try it, John.
Yeah, okay, can you give the overview of this?
Sure.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for you to counsel.
So, the nature of the memorial library is, it is a memorial library because it's based on a burial ground.
And so, in terms of any future uses for that site, there are constraints with respect to ability to bring in new services that would,
that would might be required for new building or renovations or anything else.
But beyond that, the property was the grant in 1882, which you'll see in the report, is very restrictive.
The only thing that that property is allowed to be used for is as a park, a public square, or as was revised in legislation 1949, the public library.
And so, any change in that use, as a result of a UI is going to require provincial amendment legislation and or waiver because a change in use, the property reverts to the province.
It was donated for public park and so it reverts to the province.
And I realize we have tried and it sits there, I'm sure they take it back once we took the building down.
But that is going to be a challenge in terms of any UI.
If you are considering whether to pause and call for ELIs, you just have them in mind as opposed to potentially pursuing two avenues at the same time and holding that open.
Thank you. I just want to make sure we heard you on the two avenues at the same time.
So could you just repeat that?
I understood Mary, you were proposing to defeat the recommendation and proceed with two avenues at the same time, which I think was your draft motion circulated as opposed to the amendment here, which is the down tools in favor of proceeding with an ELIs on some terms or others before going any further.
Okay, thank you for appreciate that. We'll move to Councillor Steele, please.
Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I was originally going to suggest an amendment to an amendment to an amendment, which I don't think is possible. By the way, I know, okay, thank you. Okay, I just.
Thank you. Thank you, John Traves, appreciate that. I was originally going to suggest that perhaps we baked in the 75% minimum external funding.
But based on the comments from our acting CAO, based on the fact that I can't do it and also the comments from our acting CAO that it would lock in staff when they went out to the marketplace to see what the interest is.
We will not be bringing that forward now as I think it would constrict the process too much, but that's it. Thank you.
Deputy Mayor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I think it's love to build on what Councillor Steele was saying, you know, it'd be very hard for groups to go out with a concept and to secure funding and have any guarantee.
And have any guarantee that they would be able to come up with 75% not even knowing if the project was real if it was selected.
You know, it's just an idea and so anything we got back around external funding would only be hypothetical. It wouldn't necessarily, you know, be realistic.
And the locking in point is another good point.
You know, I was, I just want to go back for those of us. I don't know how many people here at went to FCM and saw the keynote by Zeta Cobb talking about Fogo Island.
And, you know, she gave a very passionate speech about the importance of place and how we are connected to place both through the past and how we decide to build the future.
And, you know, Councillor Kent spoke about the people who were here presenting at CPET about the importance and the significance of this building and its connection to our past and remembering who we are.
You know, how if has is a historical city.
We have lost so many of our heritage buildings over recent years that, you know, sometimes I look around and wonder if we can still do it.
I wonder if we can still call ourselves that buildings that are being, you know, built. They all look the same, they could all be from the same template most of them.
And I think that we're really, you know, looking at losing our identity of place if we don't make an effort to try to preserve some of our built heritage.
And this building is one of those buildings. It has a special significance to the city to the people of the city.
And I think that it, you know, the fact that it's being stalled for so long isn't necessarily, you know, a fault of the public.
We now have an idea for a process that perhaps this isn't the first time this idea has come up.
I remember years ago when I worked at Del housing at the architecture school there was an idea for a call for proposals.
You know, those things didn't happen. I don't know why, but here we are. And here's an opportunity to take a look at at this building again. So, you know, I think when we discuss this at CPET, even though it's not in the motion.
The discussion was about the call for proposals. I do think that having more clarity on direction for staff.
You know, it's necessary. I think I asked at that meeting is the discussion enough and I didn't get a clear answer. So I think, yeah, having the clarity and having full council vote on it.
I think is a good move and I will be supporting the amended the motion and the amendment. Thank you.
Councillor White, please.
Thank you, Mayor, and thanks everybody. I think I would respond to some of the things I've heard and maybe see how we feel about this amendment and then on the main motion talk about what we want to do for the continuing with the park or not and kind of the public participation around that.
I want to try and get through this amendment. This is what I think is better for if we go this way.
Because I just think there's a lot of topics here. We can talk about and I'd like to hear more from staff on on what we should do as far as the park planning process. Also, just add on that.
The reason that there's been this kind of two-year pause is because of this interest in the building.
It's been and because there's been a change from it was under facilities for 10 years and now it's been under parks for two years. So parks kind of went and looked and kind of did their dual due diligence. What's the state of the building.
So just regarding this amendment, it's just a more clarification. Adaptive reuse. I just use that term because that's what I've been hearing from the public like the people that reached out and I kind of googled what it means.
And yes, I'd be open to using part of the building, just a process of repurposing the existing building for new functions, preserving history while promoting sustainability and urban revitalization. That's what the internet's telling me.
Yeah, I think a lot of this can wait till the main motion if we're comfortable with this wording for the amendment, if we're looking to go to an expression of interest. There is a full rich history with this space and the libraries are part of it, but there's a lot more there.
Yeah, that's what I have to take you.
That's not so fast. Deputy Mayor, if you would mind, I'd like to say a final word. Thank you.
Wonderful conversation. Thank you very much for the debate.
So we had a very important reminder from the solicitor around the legislation that governs the use of the library. This is this file has been on my desk in different ways.
For 20 years, the memorial library and including one as a waterfront development when we were asked to look at it's adaptive reuse back then that was in 2013.
And the legislation is a serious impediment. It does the choices under the legislation are a park or library.
The legislation does contemplate the entire site being a park, so an entire park is something we could decide to do today.
In fact, and we could ask the staff to start planning a park and we'd get a park in a couple of years and we could break out of this, this wheel spinning that we've been in for 10 or 12 years now.
The chances of a proponent coming that we'll be able to
Who, uh, building to a business plan, uh, the delay is associated with a change in legislation, uh, to get a change of use from a library, or I would say slim to none. Um, and if we don't provide in our direction, a financial direction, um, and uh, allow proposals to come forward that that do not have financial wherewithal, then we're simply taking on the cost ourselves and we've all sort of discussions today.
I agree, uh, agreeing that we don't have the money to do that. So this, what the motion we're about to pass is just a recipe for more years of wheelspinning, um, and that's, uh, that's nothing that I want to, I want to be supportive of. Um, so I, I can, uh, I'm not sure now after the discussion, I can even support the amendment to the motion, uh, I think it's the, we're heading in the wrong direction here.
So, um, I'm, I'm going to vote against the amendment to end the motion, and it should the motion fail. I'll be happy to propose an alternative that I think would get us a result on that on that site much faster and at lower costs.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Uh, this question is for the solicitor. John, can you help me understand, because I know that you spoke about the specific uses that are currently allowed.
Is there anything that would speak to, um, understanding that it would require an update to the legislation of what could be done to that?
Is there anything that that you know of that would, that would stop?
Um, the update of it of that land being something other than what it is today.
So if in 1947 or whatever the year was that they turned it into a library, if it can be done once, is there any, is there, is there a problem with suggesting that it might be able to happen again?
So I've been involved as well in this file for probably since I've been here 14 years and I've heard a number of different approaches generally this struggle.
I think the problems would be open to a reasonable read action, right? If there was something was there, the challenge is that, you know, the, when that building was built, the concerns that you would see in a modern day with respect to disturbance of a burial site, do not appear to have been the same.
And so I would say you would be significantly challenged, um, in respect of what would be required to, to, to do any major renovations that involve breaking the soil, um, given the, given the number of, of, um, burrows that appear to have happened there.
And so that it really depends on what the EOI, you know, revealed what you've got as to what is possible and whether the province would even entertain the change you would have to be respectful of the burial site.
More so I would suggest and when that building was first built.
Sure, but given that I think fundamentally we're all interested in the preservation of the building.
That, that might be something worth can still considering given that at the end of the day. That's where a lot of the interest comes. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Councilor Degogam, please.
Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Mayor, you know, it's interesting, been listening and, um, the definition of the use being like the park or the library.
Well, libraries today are so very different, right? And when we think about what the potential is, it's probably a very limited number of organizations or that would even entertain responding to a call for proposal.
But it's a veterans library and, you know, I think about the defense that's coming to HRM as a city and would they be very interested as a partner to see how to bring that building back to life and to have a collection.
And, you know, when we think about library and a collection where information and resources are available for people to see like military archives.
So I guess I wouldn't want to close the door to say that.
The reason someone that might be interested in how to bring this building back to life and I do see that there is a loss a lot of challenges around a building in its current state.
And when you think about the sanctity of the land and the, the, the souls that are buried there so.
But yeah, so I, I want to support the amendment because I think that it is worth checking it out to see maybe there is an organization, nothing of that's going to work with our military and see about can we bring it back.
So that's where I'm at. Thank you.
Thank you, council. Pretty, please.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and.
Right. So I, I agree with that. This has been a good conversation.
A little confusing at times, but it in essence, I think councilor waits.
Amendment.
Makes the motion more full some better, but at the same time, I don't think there's a conflict with what the mayor is asking for and I think that is more full some.
So I'm going to support the amendment.
But hope to support the mayor's motion after we get back to the main motions. Thank you.
Thank you very much for that.
Councillor Cantor, I believe you could call the question, would you like to. Okay, there we go.
This is on the, this is on the amendment.
The motion carries. Thank you very much.
And that brings us to the, to the main motion.
Conversation on the main motion and I see Councillor Cantor, please.
I think I said everything. Thank you.
Okay, Councillor Clarke, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Just want to get a sense. So when we say a time as amended now, a time limited engagement.
Any sense of how many days, weeks, months we're talking about?
Some things back to council?
Yeah, without having the final, you know, I drafted what feels right to us in the current motion that just pass.
It would be, you know, up to six months, we might shrink that down a bit.
If it was meant time or time to get back to us.
Oh, sorry, I was signed with EOI on the street, time to get back to you.
Inside of a year for sure.
But yeah, probably eight months.
Okay.
I mean, the reality colleagues is no matter what we do, it's still going to be a long time before we do anything with this place.
But I want to support the mayor and I want to support the intention of this motion and not sure where I'm going to go at the moment.
But the reality is, no, I shouldn't say no.
The likelihood of anything feasible coming back to us is down near a zero or round shape of some sort or another.
So the question I'm asking and probably you're asking, too, is, is the delay worth it.
And that's the only really consideration I have, because to the extent that a proposal comes back that isn't a library and isn't a park.
I think the likelihood is very high.
And so then it's outside of our control.
We ask the province.
We send the letters say, hey, does this make sense to you?
Would you approve such a change?
And that delay.
So if they're looking for funding from another source private or public, that public or private provider funds is likely to go, well,
we're not going to wait a year or two for the province to make a decision on this.
And then the funds might dry out.
So I don't know.
It's a tough one to think about how long this has been going on.
I've been on council and others have said since well before that.
I can remember when I was on the library board as a provincial appointee putting the case together for the new central library knowing that this building is something
got to be done with it.
But it's unlikely anything is going to be done.
Back then we were closing the building down in the summer times because it was hot.
Heat was too much.
The air conditioning couldn't cool the building.
Stuff was falling off.
We had to put scaffolding up.
So we'll see what happens.
But you know, I guess what we're saying in this motion is we're going to delay a whole bunch of time for something we know is probably going to be not feasible.
Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Thank you very much and we'll go to councilor Austin, please.
Thank you Mr. Mayor and so I'll speak to why I think the delay pause is worthwhile.
And it's not so much about you know our timing.
It's about the quality of the engagement we're going to get from the public because right now when we go to the public it's going to be how you're going to save the building.
Right.
Like we're not at a point where people are going to be wanting to talk about like a potential park here that doesn't include the building.
I like that question is still very much out there.
If we pause for six months and do well one last this is your last chance world is there anyone out there that's got a use for this building that's going to work.
If we do that, then that comes back to council.
We can look at it.
Maybe there's a miracle option here and then that changes our plans.
But if many of us are suspecting there isn't, then I think we get to engage with the public from a more honest place because right now it would be how do you know there's not anything you've never gone out and asked.
Well now we can go out and ask and then that will make the public engagement that will then come more worthwhile.
So I think that is actually the reason to pause to bring this back.
It's not about adding you know like the top why we shouldn't pause.
It's not about like well the whole thing's going to now be six months longer.
The actual process will be better and so I think that is the reason why number one you know I would say pause rather than discontinue.
Is still important rather than trying to do the two things at once because I think the one will actually make the other better if we end up as we many of us suspect we will.
So that's why I think we should stick with this motion.
If there was interest I would say friendly amendment if someone wanted discontinue two pause because I think pause is more in keeping with where we are.
But you know I don't think.
Yeah the park pause yeah the part planning on the park pause I mean for six months I think we will have a far better result with the public.
So I think that's the reason to keep number one as it is.
Thank you.
Thank you moving to councillors.
Thank you Mr. Mayor maybe staff can give me some clarity on this because I'm not really tracking why.
A pause versus continuing both tracks simultaneously.
Our substantially different from one another unless the exact same team is responsible for both tracks that we're talking about moving at the same time.
In which case you know obviously there there resources would be doubled up and therefore this whole process would take a lot longer.
If however the expression of interest going out to the public is independent of whatever park planning might be underway at the same time.
Are we just moving ourselves along on the calendar at a more reasonable pace and making sure that we're ready to take action a little bit sooner as a result of that planning having taken place in tandem with the expression of interest process.
I don't know if Brad or staff have the ability to to speak to exactly which teams would be responsible for which components here but it's that overlap I'm just not real clear on why there would need to be a pause in order to facilitate the expression of interest.
The expression of interest process if they're managed by entirely different teams.
All starts and perhaps Maggie can finish so everybody's correct I mean.
Perfect as I can tell you can tell my time is near.
So look on the expression of interest it's about focus so if you want the market so to speak to take it serious.
Your shadow boxing when you say I'm going to do two things and once and you've got to guess whether I'm really going to take it seriously. So that's one thing.
So that's on the EOI response second thing is resources while they don't perfectly overlap they definitely overlap.
So there is a focus issue here.
So if your interest is really getting the EOI done clearing that out of the way whether we're going ahead with adaptive reuse or not then the best way forward is to focus your resources get that cleared out of the way and then return to your park plan.
If that is indeed the way you're going and I do agree if that is the idea is to keep the park planning alive is to put a pause on it while we do the EOI clear that out of the way.
And bring it back. So that's my response. I don't know Maggie. Do you want to add that adder?
The council, the only thing Maggie McDonald executive director for Parks and Recreation. The only thing to add would be,
there would be, as we do have budget for a consultant, park playing consultant. So that would be an expanded,
a direct expenditure that would be made that if, if there wasn't that doubt of reuse found,
that wouldn't, that would be a sort of a lost funding for that, for that piece. Yep.
All right.
Thank you. We'll move to the council.
Party, please.
Thank you. Okay. That was a good question. And that was a good answer. So thank you. I'm, I'm,
understand the more. So I'm wondering if Councillor White would be agreeable to,
uh, friendly amendment to change the word discontinued to pause, because for, for six months,
is that it's a Councillor, it's the deputy mayor's motion at this point.
Uh, who, who said, oh, did you table the original motion? Forgive me. I think I apologize for your
question. Okay. Lot going on. Um, for, yeah. So number one, on this, what's, what's
reading on our screen right now to continue to pause, because that, that seems like what
is needed to see if there's a real expression of interest if there are, pause the park plan.
But then, but then we're not wasting too much, we're not stopping the park plan. We're going to
continue. So that's kind of from how I understand the mayor's motion, intention.
Yeah, but it's not going to stop it. So I would be happy to support this if that was changed
to pause. And, and if there was an amount of time, that's needed.
Until six time as the EOI is completed, completed. Okay.
Would you like to propose that, finally, my mother? I propose. Yeah.
Is that, right? I'm seeing a nodding head from the move of the motion.
Friendly motion, friendly, my mother has been accepted to change the word discontinued to pause,
and then add the words until such time as the EOI process has concluded.
Perfect. Great. Great. Great. Thank you. Okay. So there we go.
We will move on then to Councilor Mancey.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Very good discussion.
I need clarification from Ms. McDonald, though.
You said there's, there's some funds already in the budget for the park design.
If we start the park design, that money is gone.
Left, but if we pause it, we don't lose that money. That money is just put aside.
Is that correct? Can you just clarify that for me? I want to make sure we don't lose that money if we just simply pause.
It's our money. It's our budget.
It's through the mayor of the council. It's in the capital budget.
So we carry forward if the money wasn't spent in this year.
It's not lost for that intent because we'll pause.
If we, if we, this passes, we're pausing that design works.
We want to make sure we have the funds to be able to continue if we choose to do so.
Is that correct? Correct.
Okay. Just want to clarify that.
So if that's the case.
I think this is a good discussion.
I support the amendment and I support the, the slightly, the friendly amendment also.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. And we'll go to Councilor Dagle again, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Councilor Medzini.
You're building on your question because I do remember that it was in the capital budget.
Two pause. Have we made any agreement with a consultant at this point?
That would be in jeopardy or is that sort of been on hold anyway?
To the mayor through the councilor, we haven't gone into anything yet.
That has been paused. So the money isn't.
It's not committed or it's not committed.
Thank you. So very much. Thank you. I can support the amendment.
Thank you.
Councillor, you perhaps you want to close Councillor White.
Or would you like to proceed now? You're first on the list.
Okay. We'll go to Councillor Santa Monica, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, colleagues.
With the discussion we wound up getting where we needed to go.
I think there was in the original motion there may have been a failure to recognize.
The stark likelihood that we may not get where we want to go with this particular project.
But we recognize that there's there's potential out there.
And so we've taken added some steps to this whole process that allows us to have a little bit better clarity.
It gives staff better direction on this particular question.
And gives us a relative timeframe within which to expect either success or a cause to move on.
So I will support the motion now as amended. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor White, please.
Thank you, everybody. I think I feel good about this conversation.
And we don't want this to take too long and that we're not going to the public with a fuzzy ask of what do you want this or that.
So we'll get some clarity move this along.
Just finally before we vote, I'm just wondering if staff could just give a quick recap for council of what's been happening since it changed from
Facilities to you folks looking at this because we kind of already been paused for two years or if you could just give a recap of what's been happening since July 2024.
To the mayor through the council, so since we've received this this file, what we've done is we've been
Looking into, we've had a building assessment completed, so we've had some understanding of what the condition is as of 2025.
We've also been doing our due diligence on assessing the whole project being able to understand what all the constraints and complications are.
Talking to the archaeologists as well to understand what the constraints are, what it means to be a cemetery as well.
And sort of beginning to develop how we would do the process of a community engagement and and be able to understand, you know, what we're hearing from the public as well, having some discussions with with the public and different groups about.
There sort of that need to to talk about the building.
Okay, that's great. I feel like we have been making progress over the two years and we're going to take a little more time to do one last look at the building and then we can continue on with the park planning. Thanks for the discussion. I call for the question.
Thank you.
And the motion carries colleagues, we've come to the mid afternoon recess, how about we we still got a significant agenda ahead of us, are you good with 20 minutes, can we come back at 330.
Okay, see you.
See you at 330, yes, let's do that photograph with our jerseys. Thank you.
Thank you.
E'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i'n i
Un i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r
M'rwyddw
Rwyf wedi i'r dda'r nhw.
Mae'n rwneud treith.
E'n llaw.
Rwyf wedi.
Y���yr bod ymfrwyf wediddio,
myr â w ekmiş o'r donde feb gy bus i'r.
Mae'n rwneud treith.
E'r myr plans o'r mael ei.
eelau'r gwneud y caelau'r 12.26.
Si'n iawn i yda'yw.
Y dddwch y fru'r Pwyemwy,
a w tenu'r Mwysch yn dddwch y dddau'r yn ddwch.
La'r gwneud yn ddwch,
mae yn yddwch i dddwch?
a betweith eu ydy byddame yw section se i'n bwrll vilwn'w hyn yn fwrw gyder ynürw wirws ni'n
eler bwrth ysunadori aendau'r.
Wyffyddyni darlingliwhistlew, twennu o ddim yn o'r maenwn ywyd yn y sweep hwnern iech
o dovb henwyd yn ywdyda dywaneu migrateau?
Di趏dd ymaplan, un gwendu?
Deau nad wedi ywyd yn yddwn y dobl yn eradw".
Zwraicendedi âydł.
Mae yn mwyllwch yn ymthoscwyllwch.
consumol yna maixain gwneeth aft.
Oedmedenau'n meixag gwnefer ynawLookr rhoi dedu wham Pendyclock legal i fy y maedos
ydywed o'r busin.
L douf dr deib rhoi ifa'r dysliol i aferwydd driwn Acres Oedmedhan Oed Fargo
Gwrdwaedon.
Ddwell D 외edau bod hoor am y Metapillcus.
Dwyllaelly diolguin llawn.
Geo ddiu'neau, mae Maenham bleru munbern i � 1968.
To'u llaw注,
mae Oedmedun i gwnepar, am yma bygnau lemitio yn deeth a fy hwell Dythau
Durew nhw, 1,ül pobl wliwfydio lleène
Mrs euich that bob writhig ddil o'n batterfip interferodotithовi,ניwas eiffel o talf iedd, nidd'n ni'n
fiddys gweld chwill hewn y snapnnydd contribution oedd ddim adonnau
sy'n gwysniw, fi aded Bozard i f抓 g fobwrd i gydon oedd mwy ich�oma
aed, aed, aed i hole lleeth sylic, Feth Work Hipp.
Aedil.
oedd weichod yn wychodori ni ddim yn ydych hynny.
G yr yma'u'n yr yw eichodol gwnaudau'n yn ydwlu hynny?
Oedd y byddig y sefchio dyngu yn ydwlu'n yda'n ydwlb oedd yn eichodol
a sizeu'n eiズfchio, yffir i'n ydychodol ac gennyd y am ydychodl
i'r gennydmed ydwlau, felly ddim yda'n ydychodol
weichodol, ac mae wedi ydychodol oedd yn ydwlol
that is considered to be standard for, um,
once approval is given by a counsellor
for that funding to actually get rid and out by the finance team.
Merrill Philmore through to the counsellor.
That is a no-one issue that we did observe in the last election
and is something working with our finance department
to make sure that we can clean up
and have those completed within those timeframes.
With the way we cut checks
and the way things are provided for,
we want to make sure we're not not giving funds
that people at the same time,
so we'll provide an update prior to the 2020 election
with probably through an email
through a memo just to make sure that all the counsellors
and the council support office or the timelines
and also providing the timelines to counsellor
of when those checks need to be requested for
in order to meet the timeline
to the new administrative order.
Is that part of communications that goes to the public as well
because like the organizations that reach out to us
are probably going to be hopefully unaware
that there might be a time constraint
on them as they're approaching when an election period might occur.
Through the merit of the counsellor,
that's a very good point.
We'll take that and note that for when we get
in our preparations for the upcoming election in 2028
and we'll try to provide something
because that may be something that counsellors want
to include in their newsletters
or things that they're sending out
to the people that are requesting funds.
So we'll make sure that we build in that
as part of our election planning processes.
Okay, thanks.
I'm sure that can handle it with internal processes.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Hartoing, please.
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
I just have one quick question, Eon.
I am looking at Seg's Subsection 9-1 of Skidulae
of the Cotoconduct for elected officials of Ministry of Order.
It comments on the use of municipal property
including surplus material or equipment
for personal convenience or profit.
Doesn't say anything about municipal staff?
I'm wondering, is that reflected anywhere else?
Through the merit of the counsellor municipal staff
Siwgodip Roeddeth i'r Eublu Ioli yn economyr best f'n nynalled ni ddim ar nodio la stor jużeth Gardefl ein bob ddim.
Euddu afer sydd o'r iubreeth i'nifer ac rydygl yn ydi, afer eu, bet gardiy, ar yn llarfeu iod ед ag, afer krypsod Paperdale,
neu'n hymlu i oτι gaz ddu 잘�iman.
T paperbethfeudau, weith theregy omed ebron ollen o gwze واfer hynodydd yn y oedd âm a'r weda.
Pachi
Dynes dyf ac dduyd yn hynny llehwlwywf, doethnyg a Bohl iawn y� ar ymfenuud
o yogurt syfwaith o oeld ym Faes?
Efrijn, a dduyd cydo'n mae dd hiffdy, mae a yn maenau wna ddwlod, a blAn cyflaf conagdym prfredo chi'n
yn â ôn cael pf John Paul Wys woodlay Wilwf�yd
Dynaedd plebael ydyn ddeol yma, ddbeth, yn'n gwe mlfddw, dwael niceu yma,udaf ynaedol ei yngsdegwydd".
Dynaedol atraenel ydeol ac ynaedol â eus o bwythu o bwythu rynu, modu ydeol i ddiol
i ddiol, eus rynion ydyn nhw'n gwebw, ddiolau, ffr yn gwebw ydyl ddaol i'n gdo'n gwebw, dddol ei drwyllau
i'n gwebw eu cяgynaidau'r gwebw.
Ylennu atwerio ymael i'r atwerio fysnol ar fysnol ymael, mae'r ddwybod, ddwybod ddwybod yn dydymdyd, ydol'ŵn fynd, eu'r
yn eitheg yn fysnol ar eitheg, o mewn o ddefnyddwydd aedau yn yda, o mewn o ddefnydd.
On yddo ywyddod yn ymael ac yn gydaadw ddefnydd.
Mus can aedau gwybod ddwybod ddio ymael.
Öyleu ydaadwydwau, yddo ydaadwyd yn ymael, fydd.
Ymael ac yn ythdod iedau gwybod ddwybod ddwybod, nor yn ydaadwydwyd.
i'n tend of the motion.
Thank you, Mr Mayer.
I'm not much discussion on this.
I think the staff report speaks for itself.
I'm just asking my colleagues for support here.
Sack o'main o'r Hawkeys Association is a great association.
They've had long saying, long saying agreement
at the Sack full Sports Stadium.
And with that, I call for the question.
If there's no other question, that's been called.
The motion carries.
Thank you.
That brings us to 15, 5, 2, 4, 9, Glendale, Dr I've Sackville,
Lester Market value lease agreement.
Bedford Sackville Learning Network Society.
And we'll go back to Councillor Gilles.
I'm Sken Mr Mayer.
I move that Health Act Regional Council authorised the lease agreement
between HRM, the landlord,
and the Bedford Sackville Learning Network Society
to tenant and authorise the mayor and municipal clerk
to execute the less than market value lease agreement
for the premises located at 4, 9, Glendale, Dr I've Sackville.
Based on the information contained in the staff report,
dated May 19th, 2026.
Seconded by Councillor Gilles.
And not much discussion on this again.
Same thing.
I'm looking for my colleague's support.
Great, great initiative here.
And I support the staff recommendation.
OK.
Thank you very much.
I think I heard Councillor Sanamong call a question.
And the motion carries.
And we then call a skip over a few items
that were passed on consent,
bringing us to item 158-1 under members of Caltz.
OK.
What have I done now?
I beg your pardon. 1561, case HRTG-2025-0219, request to include two three one nine major street
health acts in registry of heritage properties, for the health acts regional municipality, and
it was council, or hence, she requested this come off, council, hensh.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I read the motion. I moved the health effects regional council,
set a date for a heritage hearing to consider the inclusion of 2319 Mainest Street
health effects, and the registry of registry of history. Registry of history.
Historic, excuse me. Oh, Lord. Oh, my God, I can't even, registry of history. Heritage.
Good. Property for health effects regional municipality, as shown on map one of the staff report
dated April 22nd, 2026 as a municipal heritage property under the Heritage Property Act.
So, move. Seconded by Councillor White, and Councillor Hensh, would you like to say anything more?
So, I just wanted to bring this one up because, you know, it's pretty, you know, important to the community.
The, their own by the days, by the day, in particular, who, you know, has then so much in this community.
And I just wanted to, you know, sort of put a light on, you know, what's been going on with
by the day in his, in his literature and everything. He does have a book out right now, our his daughter,
Melinda Day, has a book out called, buddy. And, you know, there's a lot of, a lot of amazing things, historical things in there.
The things that he has done, the things that he's, you know, it's, and the power of the book Melinda Day reflects on the life of
of her father, Dumbledore, Buddy Day, an extraordinary man who's influenced extended far beyond the box and ring
from his days as a renowned athlete to his pivotal role as a mentor advocate and activist days legacy is one of the resilience
integrity and love for his people through a poignant memories and vivid storytelling Melinda Day shows
insights into her father's complex life. His work is a sergeant arms, his battle against systemic racism,
his tiredness efforts to uplift marginalized voices. This book not only honors days remarkable achievements,
but also serves as a testament to the deep lasting impact. One individual can have on community.
It is a tribute to a true champion inside and out of the ring. So I just wanted to,
bring that to light and, you know, if you haven't got the book, go get the book, the book is good.
That's all I wanted to say, Mr. Mayor.
Excuse me, thank you very much.
I don't see any other names on the list. Questions called.
The motion carries.
And now we will go on to 1581 and Councillor Austin. Would you like the floor?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just scroll in here.
I move that in accordance with section 7 of administrative order 53 of the municipal alcohol policy,
Halifax regional council grant permission to the downtown Dartmouth Business Commission to serve alcohol in a
specifically defined section of cell wounds upon park for a concert event on September 6 and
that the serving of alcohol in this park shall be governed by the market by a market value license agreement.
Seconded by Councillor Mancini.
Thank you, colleagues. So this is just more in the line of our usual that we see this motion for the arm view over
and Councillor Clarries district. The downtown Business Commission would like to try out having some alcohol
at an upcoming concert. And so I'd like to see them have the chance to try it.
See what the community what their response is, what the community tolerance to this changes.
And if it doesn't work, we won't continue. And if it does, well, maybe it's something new.
So right now it's just an experiment.
Because it needs to try the booths. No keys are underage. Councillor Mancini.
Seeing no other, okay, questions have been called.
And the motion carries. Thank you very much for that.
This brings us to item 16.1 under motions and the floor is the deputy mayor's place.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I moved that Halifax Regional Council direct the chief administrative officer to prepare staff report
respecting meetings involving members of council and private or external interest groups, where core may be present,
including those occurring outside formally advertised meetings of council or its committees.
The report shall include a review of the requirements of the Halifax Regional Municipal Charter
and applicable administrative orders, including administrative order one with respect to core and what constitutes a meeting of council.
Be clarification of the rules governing in-camera meetings, including the conditions under which matters may be discussed privately
and the requirements for public notice and reporting.
See an assessment of risks associated with members of council meeting with private interest or advocacy groups,
where core may present outside duly constituted meetings, including potential contraventions,
of administrative order one, open meeting requirements and applicable legislation,
and analysis of potential implications under council's code of conduct arising from participating in such meetings
and an overview of existing policies and practices governing the use of city hall spaces including Halifax Hall by private and external groups
and whether such use may facilitate meetings involving council forum.
Thank you, Councillor Kent.
So, I've been asked a few times about the origin of this motion and it really stems from a request that we've had from an external group
to meet with us here in Halifax Hall downstairs and the invitation was extended to all of council.
There's been a number of questions raised.
I think amongst us around, you know, what constitutes core, what constitutes a private meeting.
Is this something I should attend or not attend, which, you know, raised some concerns for me.
This motion is really about clarity both for us as a council and for the public and it is asking staff to review and clearly outline the rules.
So, we're all operating with the same understanding.
As well as, you know, extends that to our external stakeholders and external groups around what the process is for meeting with the core of council.
It's really about good governance.
It's not about any single event or any organizing organization in particular.
It's just that ensuring we have kind of clear and consistent guidance on what constitutes a meeting of council when core matters and how we engage appropriately.
You know, we are a public body and I think as a public body, we're how to a higher standard.
We're not the private sector.
We need to be mindful of transparency, accountability and openness in our discussion and decision making.
It's about transparency and public accountability.
You know, this is also about public trust.
There's a lot of questions out there in the public around, you know, what our motivations are, how our decisions are made.
And rightly or wrongly perceptions matter.
And I think that there's a public accountability piece to this and then it's important that conversations that inform our decisions when we're in core.
We're visible to the public.
I want to be clear this is not about limiting engagement with stakeholders.
I do think that that is essential.
You know, discussions with industry groups, community groups and advocates all have an important role to play and informing us and in helping inform our decision making.
However, I think that engagement must happen in a way that again is transparent, accessible and fair to all stakeholders.
How do we decide which group we allow to host a meeting of quorum in how a facts hall or which group we don't allow who gets to make those decisions.
And what are the consequences if people decide not to attend because they have concern about code of conduct?
What dialogues are they missing out on?
We have processes in place already. We have standing committees. We have public meetings. We have opportunities for presentations in dialogue.
These structures exist so that all members of council can participate appropriately and the public can observe and understand the conversation.
This motion is about reinforcing the importance of those processes.
It's about fairness and equal access and it's about avoiding gray areas.
So, you know, again, this is not about respecting engagement.
It's just ensuring that engagement happens in the right forum, in the right way, and in full public view, particularly when we are meeting as a council in quorum of council.
And I really think that this will help strengthen good governance, public confidence and transparency.
So, you know, it's our responsibility to ensure that council businesses conducted openly, fairly in a way that the public can see, understand and trust.
Thank you very much and we'll move to council candidates.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Cuddle, for putting this on in front of us.
I will be supporting it, but I want to add sort of a context. I think that certainly I've experienced and I think some of the others I have around.
There is a gray area, particularly when we first came back in 2020, where it was said very, very specifically, you are not to ever gather in a situation where you're over quorum.
Period. And then, as time went on, we asked for some consideration of being able to gather on a social, in a social context.
At first, that was said, no, the interpreter legal interpretation was no.
Then later, we sort of pushed that boundary, and because there was a need for us after particularly after COVID and spending, I think, two years, we didn't get to know each other beyond a screen face.
Where we wanted to gather, we needed to gather to get to know each other. There was a relaxing of that scenario.
I know at the Board of Police Commissioners, we also had were very clearly stated and advised, you cannot gather without in a quorum scenario on a social setting and then, as well, in any kind of a workshop setting.
And then, but the need, the reality is, I believe, that as counselors, we have and should be able to meet and have conversations.
Our should we have conversations that lead to us taking some position that is collective? No. I don't think so at all.
But, and also, but there are times, so, for instance, on the Board of Police Commission, we had to do strategic planning.
We have to do workshops where we get together and do training. And those are all with the Board's full capacity.
And yet, there's always this question, can we do it? Should we do it?
And I think we need that clarified. What I really would like to see, because this is a big, I think this is a big report for staff to be creating.
And I don't know what department it would do that. I think I asked that from maybe it's the legal department. Maybe I don't know because this is really, I think, as well, around the admin order of how we do our business.
And also, on the certainly the legal context of interpretation and depends on who you ask. And that's, that's a shame, because that just puts that on us back, where we don't know, again, whether or not it's gray or not.
So I think it's important that there's a jurisdictional scan of other cities, what they have in place may have things may have some form of a system in place that clarifies these cities that are comparable
to ours, municipalities, and I think that has to be involved as well. And I don't know that we saw that we see that there, but I would like that considered.
The code of conduct piece is, it appears over the last couple of years that code of conduct cease to be in front of us constantly much more than it ever did in our first few years and certainly from my experience before.
But also the.
We had strengthened the code of conduct for the Board of Police Commission. I'm speaking to that,
because that's where I've experienced it the most. But also, we've had situations where we wish it were clear
here. But also, the province and the Minister of Federation of Municipalities, I think, we're in this NSFM,
came down with a new code. And then the province is or has downloaded a system for us.
And it's gotta be clarified for us. So I'm happy to see this go forward. I look forward to the
information that comes back. But I really want to hear as well on other jurisdictional scans,
because we, it's one thing to create something that is, I think this is very, I think it could be very subjective,
depending on who's writing the report. I'm not disparaging anyone who might be writing the report.
I'm just saying that if there is nothing that we can kind of compare to as far as the clarity,
and we do need it puts, it puts the question. I mean, obviously, we get to debate it at the end of
the day. So that's my thoughts. Thank you very much, Councillor Steele, please.
Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Deputy Mayor Cuddle, for putting this on the, putting this motion forward.
I, I've been the person that's been advocating for a municipal lobbyist,
right lobbyist registry. I know we actually wrote to the province and requested to be covered
under them. I think we're still waiting for the final response on that. I do believe that we need to
conduct our business in a transparent and open fashion. We do have a number of standing committees where
where groups and associations can come in and speak to council directly, but also do this in a public
forum. I, and I, I believe as well, if there are groups out there that feel we don't have the
standing committees that they would like to speak to, or we need alternative types of committees.
I'd be supportive of having that looked at. I know we are currently, I think there's currently a
review underway of the committees that we presently have, both the advisory committees as well as,
as well as the standing committees. So it would be interesting to see of anything comes back about
perhaps gaps. One thing that, a strike that struck me when I read the report for the affordable housing
strategy that will be discussed at CPED on Thursday. There was a quote in there that, that troubles me,
and that, this is one of the key reasons why I'm very supportive of Deputy Mayor Cuttle's
motion. The quote is, many respondents perceive that HRM planning practices tend to respond
primarily to the interests of the development community. So that, that quote concerns me, because I believe
that residents feel, or the people that responded, what they're, what they're feeling is that
perhaps these, perhaps decisions are made, not in the public, not in a public forum.
I, so I'm fully supportive of this, and I have concerns about some recent invitations that we've
received, because I'm concerned about what constitutes an in-camera meeting. I know we received
some very detailed and rich onboarding material as new counselors, which I believe addressed that,
but I don't think it hurts to obtain some more clarity. So thank you very much, Deputy Mayor
Cuttle, for bringing this forward. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Gillis, please.
Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the attention to the motion that is put forward today. However, I think
it's important to not limit any group at the table. I think as elected officials, I, like,
I'm willing to meet with anybody who has any kind of concern over anything, really.
I, yeah, I feel like if we move forward this, at least parts of it anyway, specifically, see,
I feel like we're limited people. I mean, if we're going to limit one group, we have to limit all of them,
and I don't feel like that's really conducive of what our cloud is. So I don't think I'm
going to be able to support this today, but I am looking forward to hear what my council colleagues
have to say about it. Thank you. Thank you. I see Councillor Stil has raised her. That's
intentional. Yeah, okay. Would you mind, I have a, if I, if I jumped in, so Deputy Mayor, maybe you
need to swap with me for a moment. Thank you.
Thank you. Thanks very much. So, colleagues, I understand why the Deputy Mayor is brought
this forward. It does, it does raise a couple of concerns for me. I'll, too, and I'll tell you what
they are. The first is, you know, we're in a time right now where our incredible staff have
hundreds of open files. They're dealing with backlog of staff reports, trying to get more houses
built, trying to move transit, trying to work on our budget to keep the prices. They're trying to do
all the things that we've asked them to do, and there are, we've asked them to do a lot.
Everything in the, in the Deputy Mayor's motion is readily available on the Internet. I could
Google it in five minutes. ChatGPT could write three important probably 45 seconds. It's all there. We know
the rules are noable about conduct in a meeting where there are eight or more councilors. The rules
are clear about booking HRM spaces. The rules are clear for, for all these, for all of these things.
So I've worry about about consuming staff resources and wasting time when all the rules are
noable and present. But more importantly, I worry that a motion like this sends a chilling message,
and a chilling message is, you know, around the fact that elected officials interaction with residents,
community groups, individual people, industry, are, are not doing that work is not a distraction
from our rule. It's not separate from our rules, elected officials. It's absolutely central to it.
It's, in fact, why we're here. We're here to carry, to listen to the voices, and carry those voices
into our decision-making and appropriate ways. When I read the motion, it sounds,
it sounds like this could and very likely will have a chilling effect on whether some of our colleagues
choose to meet with groups or individuals or not. I think already we have some emails flying about people
withdrawing from a future meeting that's coming up that's been duly and legally constituted and so forth.
So I worry about this quite a bit. Perhaps I'll leave it there. I think you understand what
I'm trying to say here. We need to be working harder, especially now, at the moment that our
city is in to be listening to voices and to bring in wisdom and knowledge and information and data
into our decision-making. And if we think for a moment about what one of the greatest challenges
this body is facing, this council body is facing right now, it's building things fast enough.
And to be creating barriers to meeting with in this, in the example that provokes this motion,
creating barriers to meet with the people who actually build things rather than removing barriers
to talk to people who build things and how they do better and build things faster I think is
is heading in a wrong direction. So I would encourage folks just to take a look at the internet
and see the rules there and to vote against a motion that actually works against what we're all here to do.
Thank you.
Thank you, and we'll thank you, Mr. Mayor. And so I'm going to support this motion. And
no, I just push back on the idea that there is clarity and that all anyone needs to do is go look at
the internet. I mean, if it is that clear, this won't be a big undertaking for staff to do.
I think the reason this report is needed is because there have been questions raised and I think it's
having something written down rather than just kind of advice like as I recall, like when I was
first elected, one of the costumes from legal was, don't meet as a group if you're going to
potentially be core. You know, that was just the general instruction. Now, maybe that's overly
risk cautious, risk adverse. I don't know. I mean, we just kind of took the advice from no,
whenever I've never seen anything written down on this. And the fact that there's all these different
interpretations on this around the room, to me, proves the case that this is worthwhile to actually
put down for clarity, right? So that we all know exactly what the rules are. So, you know, I would disagree
that this is, you know, a waste of time. I think this actually is important. And this is important,
in terms of, you know, structuring the engagement, the important engagement work that we do. I mean,
generally, I mean, one of the kind of, maybe, worst kept secrets of municipal government is that
pretty much will meet with anybody, right? Like, it's not a very arduous process to get a meeting with
a counselor. But we've always been very cautious about meeting as groups and there have been a couple
things. And, you know, the public has raised it too on occasion, right? I mean, I can think of two
media stories. The one about the, uh, I think was the construction of shows association and Uber that
have been in. And so I think some clarity would just, it would be, it would be to all our benefit to have
that out there, um, no matter where you kind of are on your own comfort level. I think it would be just
time we'll spend time to have that clarity for everybody. So, um, I think I will support this motion. I think
uh, the deputy mayor is right to have brought it forward. Thank you. Uh, thank you, councilor Ken,
please. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to also add my two cents worth around the whole
layers of this that are related to special invitations that we might get from organizations from industry
from lobbyist groups. I think we have to be very careful around what we know to be your belief to be
lobbyist groups because that I think that matches the very specific kind of position that councilor
steel put on the table and around, you know, um, the benefit that they have to be able to come to
different committees and different community councils and things like that to, uh, you know,
bend our ear. We do have to be concerned around, I don't think we have to be concerned around how this
looks to industry and to the, um, proponents that might be inviting us into certain scenarios.
We've had to address that in the past, which is that we couldn't do it and I think that that's a strong
position, uh, because we don't want to be, um, criticized in, um, having had their undivided
attention and then that gets scrutinized and morphed into your, you're doing what they want you to do
and et cetera, et cetera. The difference though, I think for me and, and, and maybe I'm not,
I'm not reading it as strong as it, as I should be, but the public events, things that are already out there
to, uh, we're invited to, but others are invited to, whether it's in public, um, or a special gathering.
As long as there, it's not exclusively Councillors, I don't see any reason why we couldn't be
able to attend. We, we, we, we know that this, these, um, scenarios are often around public,
or around education pieces, um, and, but if it's, if it's exclusively for Councillors, I think that's,
that's, we shouldn't, we shouldn't entertain those, because we do, we do have the opportunity to be
publicly scrutinized and rightly so, but I don't think that this motion undermines
or sends a message other than good governance. That's what this is sending a message for, and we as
Councillors, who've put our names out there and our reputations out there and our work out there,
and we return to the ballot and some of us will return and some of us won't, but when we are putting
ourselves out there to do this role, we deserve to know we have checks and balances in place
that protect the work we do. Our, our citizens, citizens deserve to know that those checks and
balances are there for not only us, but everyone on council including the mayor. So I think that this
is can only be interpreted in the public, except for those who may be have already in a agenda that,
that's,
If you're trying to serve, I think, in general, it's good. I'm going to just leave it there. I appreciate the time. Thanks.
Thank you very much. Moving to Councilor Mancini, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, you know, some of the items this motion, I question whether it's, isn't it already out there as the mayor stated?
I mean, Mr. Traves, can you respond to in particular items A, B, and E, isn't that information readily there? Can you even respond to it at this moment?
Yes. You know, there's a lot of public information around and there are broad principles, but there's, there are gray areas.
So, it's not unreasonable for Council to ask for us to provide some clarity. However, each incident of some form of a meeting, you know,
generally speaking, is going to depend on the facts of it as to what goes on.
But, you know, as to what happens at the meeting, just because there's a quorum council doesn't make it a council meeting.
All right, so, but it is, it is, it is more nuanced than that. So, yes, I think.
So, in your opinion, sorry, could I go ahead? In your opinion, if it is motion goes forward, would that help clarify those gray areas?
Probably not, because each one will be dependent on the facts of the situation, right? It'll depend on what's going on.
But the cardinal rule is of municipal laws that corporate affairs must be transacted at the council meeting.
Do we really cost convened at the proper time in place upon doing adequate notice?
And so, what constitutes that council meeting will depend on the factors underlying it.
But there is a number of court decisions going back to the 90s.
Council was provided an opinion from from legal in 2011, which addressed this, but there's, there's more, and we can take this away and update what we've provided.
Thank you for that. I'm wondering, you know, I look at the deputy mayor in your closing if you're going to close.
You know, you can give us a hypothetical situation, which you're trying to avoid to help me understand this, right?
You know, I think it's the gray area, I think the solicitor explained that well, we need to, we need to address those gray areas, but, you know, I'm concerned that will address those gray areas.
So, I'm wondering if you just had a big picture, could you just share with us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you very much, and we'll move to Councillor Gillis, please.
Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I just want to kind of clarify my stance on this.
Maybe question or two, too. So, would this motion then constitute, say, us from meeting as a group going on a hike or going on like, you know, a bike ride?
Are we getting into the weeds now, but I can answer that.
So, there is a legal test set by case called Southern out of Ontario from 1991, and it's very simple.
The key would appear to be whether, and this is, I'm quoting from the decision, but key would appear to be whether the counselors are requested to or, in fact, attend without summons of function, at which matters, which would ordinarily form the basis of council's business or dealt with in such a way as to move them materially along the way in the overall spectrum of a council decision.
So, you receive advice or you receive a presentation from somebody and it forms the basis towards which you will be making decisions.
I would argue that is moving information forward in a way leading to a council decision.
It's properly a matter of a council decision.
So, any situation or any group of facts is going to be assessed against that standard.
What does it mean exactly?
It's down to, is this a matter which would be better off as a presentation in front of the public who has a right to participate and see the business of government transacted at a municipal level.
That's going to be a question that this group will have to decide in any given case.
So, I can certainly articulate that and put it out each of these instances.
In many cases, it comes down to, well, what is the desire of the group and does it pass the smell test with the public?
In terms of this is something that they feel that they should have been participating in.
And, you know, 12 years ago there was a large number of council meetings which were conducted in private.
And it became an issue and council has been very cautious about going in camera.
Let alone, you know, because it's private meetings, right?
In camera meeting, whether it's in this chamber or where it's somewhere else is still going to be potentially questioned.
So, legally, you don't think this is like it's still going to be gray area, even if we move forward with this.
Potentially, but as I said, there's there's nothing wrong with getting a better sense of exactly well where are the where are the parameters what should I consider when I'm making a decision whether to, you know, set up a meeting or whether I should be suggesting that.
The group that wishes to meet with us comes and gives a presentation.
We have a process for presentation at council, right? And so those those are in some ways up to the individual council as well.
Thank you.
Councillor Steele, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I just wanted to weigh in to be very clear with my comments in that I wasn't suggesting that as councilors,
we couldn't meet one-on-one with associations or business persons or any of any of the groups out there.
I certainly have and will continue to do that as a counselor.
My concern with, you know, upcoming meetings and other meetings is when we do it collectively as council that it may not be in alignment with our rules around holding in camera meetings.
And I also wish to genuinely make the point that we have a number of committees and standing committees.
And many groups come and speak to us and we change our mind.
I mean, we can think about, you know, the library discussion where we had groups come in and we moved away from the staff recommendation to take another look to follow more process in this case.
So I just like to encourage those groups that wish to meet with us collectively to come and speak at our standing committees.
Our committees are not meeting your needs or you don't feel they're meeting your needs.
Make a suggestion for an alternative approach because I'm sure the groups that wish to come and speak with us have great ideas for the future of the city.
Why not share them in a public forum.
That's the point I'd like to make.
Yes, you can share them privately with each of us, but share them in a public forum.
So everyone can get involved with the story of building our city.
So I just want to clarify some people are saying, you know, we're saying no.
And I don't think we're sending the signal.
The signal we want to send is we want to hear the story and we want the public to hear the story so we can all embrace it.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Moving to Councilor David again, please.
Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Thank you, Councillor Steele. I think that, you know, I build on what you had said.
I support this motion for the very reason that I think it protects everybody.
Any organizations that want to speak to us because it's all about us operating in as much transparency as possible.
And so for that I think the message that really go should be received by the community and hopefully I guess, you know, it's how we tell it.
But I think that the real essence of this is that we make sure that as a governing body that we do it full transparency.
And that there are mechanisms by which organizations can come and speak as standing committees.
And so the options are there.
And this just clarifies when those options are best directed.
Thank you.
Thank you. Councilor Steele.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
The daylight may not be the perfect disinfectant, but it's a pretty reasonable one.
And I think that's really all that the deputy mayor's motion here is seeking.
It's looking for a deeper dive to provide some clarity from staff's perspective on where we might shore up some of the rules and regulations around how we meet with groups.
And, you know, it does as Councilor Steele pointed out, it does afford us an opportunity to remind all of the different community groups that have a vested interest in the direction that Council is taking.
That there are avenues available to them as well that are entirely public and entirely above board.
And so it gives us an opportunity to demonstrate to the public that we are making every effort to ensure that they have visibility into all of the things that go into the decisions that we make.
Yes, we will continue to meet with interest groups one on one so that they can make their case and we have an opportunity to ask pointed questions of them about what it is that they're seeking from Council.
But the, you know, I think it's appropriate to have some boundaries set and whether they are laid out sufficiently in the legislation that we have already or whether there's some additional clarity to be gleamed from a deeper dive from our legal team and from our staff.
I think it's appropriate to take a look and if my hope is that we will wind up getting a little bit of additional clarity even though the likelihood is a lot of hypotheticals are going to remain that we will wind up having to bound ourselves by just a reasonable test or the smell test that John referred to.
I think we can do that we we still have the ability to do that regardless but I think if we can get a little bit more direction.
It can go a long way to ensuring that the public feels like they understand what the rules are as they are applied to us as well.
So I'm happy to support.
Thank you very much and just before I pass it to the deputy mayor.
The mayor colleagues may be interested to to be reminded that we have given some direction for work on a registry of lobbyists and on your behalf I've written a letter to the provincial government where we'll see where that goes so just don't want you to forget about that.
Okay with that we'll go to the deputy mayor please.
Thank you Mr. Mayor so just to close this is at the best about getting things to be a little less gray.
As deputy mayor I can tell you that several of us have different understandings about what it is to meet in quorum.
You know you want to hide the sadical case it's when you know there's a real case in which there is an industry group that is requested a meeting of council all of council got invited to that.
City Hall down in Halifax Hall so not in our public chambers and it's not that my motion is scaring counselors away counselors are being scared away because they're unsure of the rules they're unsure of how this fits with code of conduct.
So in response I've brought for this motion so that perhaps we can have more of a collective understanding about what the rules are what constitutes a meeting of council.
And again it's a meeting it's not about going for a bike ride or doing group karaoke.
It's specifically about having a meeting of council that relates to council business and and that is that is you know what this motion's about and why it's important.
It's because of the public things we're having meetings of council in private with some stakeholder groups but not others.
It's going to continue to breathe mistrust we have a responsibility to ensure there's public trust in our processes and how we operate and how we make decisions.
It's not about limiting conversations this is about a meeting of a quorum of council it's not about you and a neighboring district council are going to meet with a community group about a local you know garbage issue on your on your sports field.
It's really about having a quorum of council the discussion the decisions that get made in that environment.
You know, it's.
I'm looking for my last points here I hope I hope that that's a good enough example for you in in in in in in real life.
And and if we can get a better collective understanding here then then I think it will be less questions and whoever becomes deputy mayor next after me won't have as many quite people coming and walking on their door going.
I go to this meeting shouldn't I go to this meeting is this constitute quorum what are the rules how does this affect code of conduct.
Code of conduct wasn't in place when you know largely when we talk when we spoke about this before so there is a new element here and yep this is really just.
Getting getting the report and being transparent for ourselves for the public for the stakeholders not about not having conversations.
Thank you.
Question is called.
The motion carries this brings us to item 17.1 and I wonder if yes councilor.
That's what it's going to be.
I will just very I'll try my best and testing council and several starting with 17.1 the in camera private minutes at the camera in private minutes of May 26 26 be approved circulated so moved.
Second of my councilor white.
And the show of hands so colleagues on the.
Recordings item 171, and that is approved. And then we'll go on to Councilor Mancini 172.
Mr. Mayor, let's see how far I can get.
Oh, sorry, my apologies.
That the Halifax Regional Council won adopt the recommendation as outlined in the private and confidential report date at May 29, 2026.
And two direct to private and confidential report date at May 29, 2026.
Be maintained private and confidential, so moved.
Seconded by Councillor Steele, and we go to a digital vote now, colleagues.
Okay, we'll go to you for 174.
So we're voting on 172 now.
How are we?
The motion carries.
Thank you.
Then we will go back to Councillor Mancini.
Mr. Mayor, put 173 on the floor.
So one adopt recommendation is outlined.
The private and confidential report date at May 29, 2026.
Be maintained private and confidential, so moved.
Seconded by Councillor Steele, and so we call the question.
And the motion carries.
We're moving on now to 174 and the deputy mayor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I move that Halifax Regional Council won adopt the recommendations as outlined in the private and confidential report.
They did May 29, 2026, and to direct that the private and confidential report date at May 29, 2026.
Be maintained private and confidential.
Seconded by Councillor Cleary, and we'll go to the vote.
Do.
And the motion carries.
And I have heard a request that we go in camera for item 15.
And so I beg your pardon, item 175.
And so could I have a motion to go in camera, please.
Move by Councillor Mancini, seconded by Councillor Gillis.
Councillor Hansby, 176, are you willing to test that?
I have a full council present for that discussion in private and cameras.
Okay, I'll ask that item to be deferred next week.
Oh, very good. Okay, so we'll defer.
Well, I will say, Councillor Hansby, the next agenda is very, very full.
If we were to slip up meeting, that would that, is there a time constraint?
But we'll try and do our best.
And I'll turn to Councillor Hansby as we could go in camera now.
I'm not sure that we're there yet, so we'll just be careful there.
And ask if Councillor Hinch would allow you to go first, and that way you'd be here.
I think I think the in camera wheels are rolling already.
So we're going to, we're already down a path there, Councillor Hansby.
And I'll just wait for the clerk to let me know when we are.
That, that was, that was declined.
Yeah, okay.
Thank you.
Colleagues were back in open session, and we are at item of colleagues I will say that I think
we are in a good position to get through the rest of the agenda, including the ratifications before
the evening recess, so that we only have to deal with the appeal hearing when we come back.
So let's move with some of the faculty, if we can, and with that we are at 181, would anyone
like to put the motion on the floor, please? Councillor White.
Please, I love flying around.
Okay, I move that Halifax Regional Council Grant Permission for Flypass is
lowest 500 feet for the Canadian Armed Forces to conduct a C.P. 140 and C.A. 2048
flypass, along the Halifax side of the CLGP race stadium on June 20, 2026, between 330 and 4 p.m.
A contracted commercial charter, a company to conduct flypass for broadcast coverage operations
as part of the CLGP event on June 19, 2021, 2026 at various times as outlined in the request stated June 12, 2026.
Second, I'm going to go to the council of Mancini.
Can we go over the floor?
Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you's calling for the question.
Yeah, let's vote.
Let's, let's stay focused friends.
I'm sorry.
Councillor Gillis, and Deputy Mayor.
How much is it?
The motion carries.
And that brings us to item 18.2.
Councillor Hensby, letter of support for FCM to stay in book communities ward.
Councillor Hensby, the floor is yours.
Thank you so much Mr. Mayor.
Put the motion of floor.
The Halifax Regional Council won in a wave section 17 administrative or one respect and procedures of council.
Requiring our staff report from the chief administrative officer and two direct chief administrative officer.
CAO to prepare a letter of support from a adjourned council to endorse the application by the old school.
So, we're meeting the committee right now for the staff officials and to representatives and illegal persons and 76 families of plays for their solar power community well project in Musculovah,
Harvard to be nominated for the FCM sustainable communities of ward under the category of climate abditation.
Seconded by the good neighbor Councillor Day again.
Thank you so much Mr. Mayor.
Just to bring the council up to date, this project came about as via some eager and enthusiastic community volunteers.
We came up across multiple studies of the Oca 1st, back in 1960s, which studied in the Musculovah,
And it was felt that we tried to tap into that aquifer.
We had done some negotiations in the past.
We were providing some land by the ball field.
To the old school of the algorithm plays, we provided them the land.
We drilled the site, put the well in, put the solar panels on, and we also worked like a
charm once we got rough running.
And we found it was such a popular demand for it that we needed to boost the pump capacity.
We're putting on more solar panels.
We're also insulating the buildings so we have a longer season if required to the spring
and into the fall, because we had closed it off in the winter time, potential
mineralization and freezing, so we're hoping to extend the season because with the climate
changes we had, the drought we had last year, this well is going to be well used again
and I'm looking forward for that nomination to go forward and hopefully they'll win it.
We'll put musk and orb in the map and hopefully it'll be a precursor to a central water supply
for the development of musk and orb in harbor.
Thank you.
Fabius.
Well, very well presented, sir.
As the question, questions called.
And the motion carries and now we will move to the ratification of the in-camera items
and for 17 one I'll turn to Tony Man, Councillor Minceini please.
No.
Sorry.
17 five.
Why?
That's the answer.
That's Councillor Hitchell.
We will turn to Councillor Hitchell for 17 five please.
Okay.
I moved the Health Act Regional Council to one adopt the recommendation as outlined in the
private and confidential report dated June 8th, 2026 and to direct that the private and confidential
report dated June 8th, 2026 be maintained private and confidential so move.
Seconded by Councillor Steele.
And we will go to the question, please.
And the motion carries, very good.
That brings us to item 19 notices of motion, are there any today?
Not seeing any?
All right, on the nose, oh, may you pardon me?
Oh, there are two, premature celebration.
And I will note for the record that 17.6 has been deferred at the request of Councillor
Hansby.
And when you're ready, Deputy Mayor, the floor is yours.
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
Take note of that at a future meeting of Halifax Regional Council.
We intend to introduce the repeal and replacement of Administrative Order 2014-012 ADM by adopting Administrative Order
2026-003 ADM. Respecting grants for rule transit, the purpose of which is to include a capital
grants category for the rule transit funding program.
So noted, thank you very much. Councillor Clarrier, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Take notice that a future meeting of Halifax Regional Council
and intend to introduce Administrative Order 2026-005-ADM. Respecting costs for various
area rates and inform charges, the purpose of which is to establish an increase to the rate
for community private area rates. To enable cost recovery from municipal services related to their
implementation and ongoing administration.
So noted, thank you very much. That concludes item 19. And so now we will have our evening recess,
and we'll resume at 6 p.m. for the appeal here. Thank you very much. Enjoy your meal.
Thank you.
Local government meeting.
Good evening, everyone. I like to call this public hearing to order.
Sorry, part of me, appeal of a site plan approval, for Highway 7, Porter's Lake, PID 407 402776.
We will now do item 12.1, case 23563, appeal of site plan approval for Highway 7, Porter's Lake, PID 407 40276.
The process will be that we will start with a staff presentation and questions of clarification from members of council.
After that, we will go to the appellants, appellants can speak for a maximum of five minutes each.
After the appellants have given an opportunity to speak, I will then invite anyone who has identified that they are affected by the decision differently than the general public to come forward.
After the appellants and others have had an opportunity to be heard, the applicant respondent will then be given an opportunity to speak.
Speakers can participate in person or those who have pre-registered have the option to participate using Zoom.
Clerk, can you confirm if any correspondence has been received for this appeal hearing?
Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I can confirm for members of regional council, let no correspondence has been received.
All right, thank you.
So with that, I'm sorry. I should have introduced myself to the gallery. Before we start my name is Patty Cuddle, I'm the Deputy Mayor and I will be sharing the preceding this evening.
So with that, we're going to start with the staff presentation. Go ahead and the floor is yours.
Good evening, Deputy Mayor, members of regional council. My name is Chris Runaehan, Principal Planner Development Officer with Development Services, Land Development and Subdivision.
I'm here to present the appeal of the revised site plan approval for PID 407 402776 Highway 7 and Porter's Lake.
The proposed development is for a construction and demolition processing facility and transfer station along Highway 7 and was reviewed under the site plan approval criteria and the planning district's 8990s by law.
Here's a context map showing the location of subject property outlined in red on the left.
The property has three zones, rural enterprise, residential, residential, A zone and the proposed development location, which is the CD2 material processing facilities, which is in the center of the site boundary context map to the right, outlined in yellow.
The original appeal of the site plan approval was heard at Harbury's Marine Drive Community Council on October 30, 2023. Community Council allowed the appeal resulting in the refusal of the site plan approval.
The result was appealed at the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, under just review process. On October 17, 2024, Justice Jameson of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia determined that the community council's proceeding gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, the court ordered that the site plan approval be heard by regional council.
The appeal was heard last year on June 24, 2025, and the appeal was allowed by regional council due to concerns surrounding section 22A5 regarding existing and proposed buffering.
The revised submission was received September 29, 2025, and approved by the development officer November 21, 2025.
For background and context in 2022, and if 2002, the minutes of pool planning strategy and land use by law for planning districts eight nine were amended to provide greater details on where and how construction and demolition facilities can operate.
Policy P46G, a municipal planning strategy, says the CD2 zone, so establish an LUB and she'll permit seeing the operations as well as CD1 uses.
So, establish controls on setbacks from adjacent uses, provide buffering and screening landscape measures, and regularly access, named or storage to minimize impact on adjacent uses.
The criteria are included within the zone in form part of the site plan approval process.
I'm going to go into more detail on how the proposed development is meeting the site plan approval criteria.
The first zero criteria are as follows. The driveway access on the site should be located in a manner to minimize land use impacts on adjacent land uses.
In separation distances shall provide shall be provided from any structure on the site on the budding residential or community facility properties.
No changes have been made to these plans relative to the last submission respect to this criteria.
A circle in red the proposed driveway is located near the center of the larger property as approximately 330 metres away from the budding property to the west and 625 metres from the budding property to the east.
Respective drawings are provided to show relation from the current street line towards the proposed site, which includes a changing grade, a berm and vegetation buffering.
All offstreet loading and unloading areas stockpiles, processing areas, and parking facilities should be located on the site in sex that no aspects impact upon adjacent uses or streets.
And screening can be in the form of fencing, berms, vegetation or combination of elements.
No changes have been made with respect to this criteria.
The top line outlines the proposed stockpile location, the bottom line, or sorry, the bottom outline is the processing areas.
Limitations, respecting stockpiling, heights, and size will be reviewed under licensing of construction and demolition material recycling and disposal bylaw, which is L200.
The processing areas located in minimum of 60 metres from both the rear and front lot lines, as well from the CD2 side zone lines.
The proposed parking facilities located 30 metres from the street, screening is provided in forms of preservation of 30 metres of an existing vegetation buffer, new vegetation along the front along with a 1.8 metre high berm and the installation of an opaque fence is proposed.
A landscaping plan shall be repaired that protects and minimizes land use impacts on adjoining lands, as well within the designated side in rear yards.
Is this in vegetation should we retain unless it does not provide adequate screening measures?
This was the section that was revised as part of the Session of Council to allow the appeal.
As per the submitted landscaping plan, the goal with the maintain and improve the existing vegetation on all side of the operation, to provide berms and planting of new trees along the front of the site of the site.
The proposed shows 30 metres of natural vegetation along the sides of both the side and rear yards, which provides adequate screening as observed by staff during a September 2025 site visit.
As illustrated, the updated fence was net fence, which is now proposed to be 3.1 metres tall, instead of 1.8 metres from the original proposal, includes privacy slates and a jersey berry at the bottom for additional screening.
A respective illustration also provides from the edge of the CT2 zone boundary, which is in relation to the current vegetation, the max stock pile height under L200 and the new proposed lock rating.
Within the designated side in rear yards existing vegetation shall be retained unless it does not provide adequate screening measures.
All lighting shall be oriented away from the adjacent properties and solid and waste storage containers shall be screened.
The proposed shows 30 metres of natural vegetation along the side and rear yards, which provides adequate screening for regrowth over the site visit.
The lighting to be proposed is directed towards the operations area and the parking lot is only and not, sorry, and the parking lot only and not towards the adjacent properties.
All solid waste containers will be located with a container storage area and will be fence and screened.
The applicant is also responsible for identifying the location of any proposed signage along with how many signs and their dimensions.
The last two criteria speak to the measures including but not limited to lock rating, firms, and they shall be required to be adequately addressed by the management of storm water and surface water.
And the provisions of the establishment are established to ensure that the operation and any required site improvements are maintained to a high standard.
No changes were made to this criteria.
There will be one groundside proposed at the front of the property which will be 7.5 metres in height with a sign face of 1.8 metres by 2.4 metres.
The red outline shows the proposed location of a storm water pond detailed and provided during the review as required grade alteration permit is by law G200.
The proposed operational points staff and one included operations manager.
The operations budget also includes provisions related to dusk control waste disposal maintenance of machinery and overall site organization.
Based on the information the applicant has provided the development officer determined is met the criteria of the site plan approval process.
Notification of the site plan approval was sent to adjacent property owners within a 30 metre buffer along the revised site plan and the development officer approval.
Some of the concerns outlined from residents were noise, air and water quality, impacts of lighting on adjacent properties increased traffic, visual screening and impact of property values.
As per section 247, one of the health axiomary regiollments faulty charter, development officer shall approve an application for site plan approval unless the matter subject to the site plan approval does not meet the criteria set in the land use by law or the applicant fails to enter and undertaking to carry out the terms of the site plan.
To be approved any proposed site plan approval must not conflict with any of the site plan approval requirements of the CG zone in the land use by law.
In hearing the appeal, council may make the decision development officer could have made as per section 247 for the health axiomary municipal municipality charter.
Those decisions are based upon the consideration of the criteria outlined in the presentation as required by section 22A5 for site plan approval under planning districts eight and nine's land use by law.
Regioll Council has two options first being the approval of the appeal which will result in the refusal of the site plan or denial of the appeal which result in the approval of the site plan staff recommend that regional council deny the appeal that concludes my presentation.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Chris.
Council, are there any questions of clarification for the staff?
Councilor Kent.
Thank you.
Madam Deputy Mayor.
Just have a question around when the last site visit was done in relation to the storm water and the wetlands.
So I can confirm staff did visit site last September.
It was in relation to the buffering for the existing vegetation, the water courses and the delineation of the water courses will reviewed under G200 so when they have to come in for a lot grading permit that will be a requirement of that.
The retention pond was the only thing in relation to the criteria of the site plan approval at that time.
So so I don't know if this question is for you or someone else that I'm looking at or someone else that I'm looking at.
If this site plan is approved.
But because someone's visited there and we know that wetlands can grow.
What will happen at the permitting stage if the wetlands are not in a position of that they were purported to be and relation to this particular site plan.
So in relation to the delineation of any water courses or wetlands those are done by a professional qualified professional so at the time of permitting.
They would have to come in and show where that is.
It would be on the applicant to provide that at any stage during that everything is as said it should be.
It would be a risk on the applicant to not double check that at the time being beforehand in requiring revisions at a later state.
And if it was determined, I'll say it again. If it was determined that there is a change and it does not allow for a permit.
What will happen to this site plan? What is the requirement then?
Does it get revisited by staff? Does it come back to council?
What if something significant has to shift?
Through you, Deputy Mayor to Councillor. So if there were theoretically to be some significant
shift that altered from the unapproved site plan approval, we would have to go back through the
process again to address that. And no one has been at that site since last September.
That's correct. We would be relying on the submissions of the applicant to determine
extensive of wetlands. We wouldn't honestly be in a position to determine on site without
having the right expertise exactly where the edge of a wetland is. That's a pretty detailed
and scientific analysis that we leave with the professionals.
Okay. Thank you.
All right. Thank you, Councillor. Can't count slur, digle, gamin.
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, Chris. You speak fast.
I just want to be clear that since we heard this in June, the applicant has only made one change
which would be the height of the fence. So having heard all of everything that's going on,
there's still only been one change made by the applicant.
That is, you have mostly correct. So the proposal was initially denied under that subsection that
required for buffering on the side of the line. So they've increased their fencing. Also, they've adjusted the
setting with the fence for the appendice. So for seeing through and allowing to breathe through,
as well as allotted the jersey barrier at the bottom for any heavier materials that may be impacted
along that side of the line. Right. Okay. Thanks very much.
Okay.
That was everyone on the board. So seeing no further questions of clarification,
I will now invite the appellants to speak. We have three appellants.
Janice and Randy stoddard, Derek and Gail stoddard.
Pat Bohn, who is being represented by Braden Thomas.
So I'll ask, there you are. You're assuming your Janice and Randy?
Yep. Okay. Welcome. So we ask that you please keep your comments for
speckful on top of the site plan and directed to the chair.
The clerk will announce when you have 30 seconds remaining and your time is complete.
So welcome and I will turn the floor over to you.
Go ahead.
In the staff report on the revised C&D site plan submission,
the HRM development officer stated that the increase in height
offencing approximately two feet in the additional vegetation screening along
the eastern portion of the proposed C&D site mitigates impacts on the
joining lands. The land used by law has specific requirements of which must be met.
This is simply not the case.
The plan states that's screening.
The plan states that screening will be provided by existing vegetation on all
sides and the firms with new plantings will be used along with opaque
fencing. Again, due to the wildfire in 2008, the existing vegetation is
still after 18 years, basically some small bushes and trees which will not
screen anything with any height. Also note where the is that the majority of
existing vegetation is leaf bearing that's only present for one season.
The proposed site floats upward from the road and will be in full view
despite any proposed screening. The height of the berm is not
stated that it has to be extremely high, nor is the height of the new
Kniffer's plantings mentioned. By the 228.5 states that the plan shall
indicate the size, type, and location of all landscaping elements, including
along the front of the property. Nothing in the site plan specifically
mentions those details.
The development officer stated that vegetation in the rear
setback provides adequate screening and that the existing vegetation from
the east and west sides will be retained. Again, those words existing
vegetation, it's simply not there in any area of the site.
Whose definition of adequate is to be used? Again, this is just two
vague. Who gets to make all these determinations?
It certainly shouldn't be the developer nor the landscape company who was
paid by Mr. Belfound to develop a plan that fits his needs.
A side fence height increases two feet is not going to make any
difference in terms of screening, nor is the non-specific
net improved natural buffer along the roadway. These small changes will not
magically stop the negative impact to adjoining properties. The site
map provided is over 10 years old now. It is very inaccurate and doesn't
even closely reflect the multiple wet land areas and waterways, which
would be affected. The area proposed for the C&D facility as well as the
lands on either side contains numerous wet land areas of
water, which ultimately flow into our lakes, rivers, and streams.
Their families of beavers who have built their homes. The water course is grown
in size and just the last year, and the trees are dying there.
As the water course extends throughout a near the proposed C&D area, the
potential for harm of not only the beavers, but of numerous other plants
and wildlife is imminent. Should the plan be accepted?
We don't believe that H&M has had a complete environmental assessment of the
area done by a qualified environmental engineer, and we certainly hope that
staff will not just accept the word of those paid by Mr.
Belfountain that all in the plan would be just fine. The area must be viewed to see
the impact such a facility will have. The site map provided by the
landscaping company, states that all locations are approximate and for
site plan approval purposes only. Should not up-to-date accurate
information be provided prior to considering approval for a facility?
Shouldn't the appropriateness of a site be determined by an actual
investigation rather than by just a submitted piece of paper?
Our communities deserve better than this.
The planning use by law states that provisions are established to ensure
the operation in any required site plan
improvements are maintained to a high standard. Who determines that
high standard what it is? The development officers stated that there will be
staff including an operations manager along with the budget for
dust control, waste, etc. That's all well and good, though a number of
years back to Bree was buried on site by Kean, which had to be ordered to be
removed. This certainly does not make us trust that the right thing will be done.
The HRM 2002 regulations for approving such a facility such as that has been
proposed are hopefully outdated and inadequate. Should the HRM
regulations not go hand in hand with the new Nova Scotia regulations for
such facilities? It is imperative that HRM immediately improve and update
the regulations to reflect current environmental knowledge and issues prior to
any consideration for a site approval for any C&D facility.
All criteria land use by law 228.5 have not been met as we understand they
must be given this. Given this, we ask the council not approve the
application for the C&D facility.
Just because there are other C&D sites beside residential areas does not
mean there without issue and inappropriate locations.
And we are sure there are councillors able to speak to this.
Ross Rowe, which was established in 2000, is only a transfer station C-D-1.
The proposed C&D is for a C-D-2 processing station as well, which includes
constant cutting and grinding. You have to compare apples to apples.
And one last thing I feel that our county councillor hence be should be able to
be a part of this process. Thank you.
Janice and Randy, thank you very much.
Next on the list, we have Derek.
Sorry.
I have to change my screens here with apologies.
Sorry, if you Janice and Randy, we have a couple of questions for you.
First, the councillor Kent.
Thank you, Madam WD Mayor.
So questions are in relation to me understanding what I'm looking at.
Can we put the hook there presentation up again, please?
So let's look at the first slide.
Is that it?
No.
Yeah, there we go.
So when we're looking at maps with just the site plan, this is this
the body of water that is in question relation to the storm water pond and
the back of the property.
This is the largest wetland obvious wetland on the property.
And if we were looking at the site plan, are we looking at it being on this side?
It would be the bottom to the left and forward.
So it's on the bottom of the wetland on this particular highway.
More toward the front, I guess.
Yes.
And your photographs are saying June 26, are these by a drone?
Yes.
So they're not off Google.
No, these are drone.
Yeah.
These are just taken last weekend.
There are a couple in here that are from the previous June only because
the site line, it was terrible weather as we've had lately.
And you couldn't get up high enough to get sort of some better overall runs,
although I did include some of those in the presentation.
In this wetland.
You need to.
Yes.
The wetland that you see there actually extends then on the other side of the road.
And you can see other pictures will have the wetlands there.
Okay.
All right. Well, thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
All right.
Thank you.
Councillor Mancini.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor.
Thank you both for the presentation.
Could you clarify again, you talked about the vegetation.
We had the wildfire and then what's growing back.
What's the height, the average height, and the vegetation that exists there now?
You can see from the photos that it is not very tall.
And any of the vegetation that has grown there, there are the odd trees that are a little taller
that the wildfire did manage to avoid.
But for the most parts, I mean, you can see here the left of the dead trees that have died because of the wetland expansion.
To the left of that would be where the stormpong goes actually touching the wetland now and to the left in behind of that also.
And in your opinion, since you live there, what would the height need to be to do action had appropriate screenings that wouldn't do the site?
That's the big question because it's all on an upward slope.
Well, if you had a tree and you're standing right in front of the tree, well, you're not going to see.
But if you're standing back 20 or 30 or 60 or 100 or 200 feet, it's going to be there.
There's a microphone.
The picture that we had on the screen, you can see just off to the right.
There's actually a little subdivision there.
We believe as well across the street from this proposed C&D is another development that's going in that may very wealthy subdivision.
I can't say for certain, but there's that.
There's something going on there.
So there's more to it than just meets the eye when you look at the site.
I mean, you can see from the photo that's up now.
You can see how the wetlands have expanded and the larger trees that had been initially saved from the forest fire and now dead.
Because of that expansion.
Okay, thank you both. Thank you, W Amer.
Thank you, Councillor.
Okay, so that is everybody on the board for you.
I would say later because we've already had stuff and stuff can come back.
So yeah, note your questions.
Yep. Okay, thank you, Janice and Randy.
Next on the list, we have Derek and Gale started.
There, Mr. started.
Again, I just remind you to please keep your comments respectful.
I'm topic and directed to the chair and the cooler.
No, no.
We need the clerk to start to start the clock.
I just clarify something.
Madam chair.
Yep.
So if I just before you start.
Members of council to.
To the councilors questions.
If you have additional questions with respect to the to the picture, you can ask them of the respondent when when when when they respond.
Staff has given you the background.
This is a matter of an appeal between the appellants and the respondent will have an opportunity to respond.
All right. Thank you.
Councillor Minceini question of clarification.
Yes, please.
So Mr. Traves, if we have questions of process that have come up.
Because we're hearing from the public.
Who do we ask those questions of the chair.
And if the chair needs assistance, then we'll then we will assist in terms of process.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Thank you. Okay.
Mr. Staudert.
Are you ready?
Are you ready? Okay. So you have five minutes.
The floor is yours.
Thank you.
Good evening council.
My name is Derek Staudert.
I'm here tonight as an adjacent landowner property that has been in our family for over 100 years.
Under the health effects region of municipality.
I'm going to tell the chair.
A site plan approval must be refused if it conflicts with a land use by-law. This specific site plan is non-compliant for two reasons. The ten-foot fence is placed directly on the zoning line with that the required visual screening, and an industrial stormwater selling pond is located directly inside the mandatory environmental water course setback, because this layout explicitly violates a text of your by-law, it cannot legally be approved.
Let's first address the developer proposed ten-foot chain length fence with plastic privacy slats placed directly on the line between the CD2 and the Aries zone.
The developer's site plan relies on the existence of vegetation to massive mass of structure, but reality tells us a completely different story.
As these photos taken from Highway 7 clearly show, the existing vegetation is sparse. You can see straight through it and pass into the industrial site.
Because the required vegetation is functionally non-existent, this ten-foot fence stands completely exposed as a stark looming industrial isor.
The developers attempting to use section 22A5C, which state screening can be in a form of fencing.
But for a fence to achieve this, it must be an opaque, opaque screen, meaning it must completely block visibility to protect adjacent properties.
A chain length fence with plastic slats is strictly semi-transparent. The angled wire mesh leaves a permanent 5% to 15% air open air gap, letting in the view of the CDC of C and D operations straight through.
Furthermore, in our climate, these plastic slats warp, twist, and blow out and wind storms.
Because the by-law requires an effective visual screen and because my photographs proved the existing natural buffers completely absent, this semi-transparent fence is forced to stand alone.
It's a physically impossible for this structure with permanent open air gaps to satisfy the visual screening requirements of section 22A5.
Next, let's address the storm water pond. Under section 22B4A3 of the land use by-laws, any C and D processing facility structure or operation must maintain a mandatory non-discrationary buffer zone with a minimum set back from a water course of 60 meters.
A 60-meter buffer that is incorrect on the developer's submitted plan.
An engineered storm water settling pond is the structure designed to collect silt heavy metals oil and debris runoff from sorting and heavy crushing.
It is not a natural feature. Yet as you can see from the measurements on the developer's own plan, this open air pond is jammed directly inside the 60-meter environmental protection zone.
It sits less than 5 meters from open water. This is not a minor technicality. The narrow restrictive shape of the CD2 zone means the developer has limited physical space.
They are trying to force an illegal layout into a tight corridor, hoping the water course boundary will be ignored.
Enforcing the 60-meter buffer, enforcing the 60-meter buffer of this location will push the pond well into the active operation area collapsing the developer's layout.
In your HR and briefing package, you receive today regarding the appeal you will see under the storm water section PH5, the staff report notes addressed in previous sites plans approval submission.
A staff note referencing a passive mission does not magically make this pond legally compliant. It simply means the issue was looked at during a previous paperwork cycle for a project that was never completed or fully approved under today's strict criteria.
The same section also speaks to the required grade alteration permit under G200. The alteration permit does not omit the need for the developer correctly identify
A correctly indicate is compliance with the 60-meter setback on its plan. The 60-meter water course rule exists because council recognize that C&D processing possesses an extraordinary threat to local water tables.
If this pond is permitted inside the environmental ban, industrial silt and leechate will sit directly adjacent to the water system feeding the residential wells and porters lake and lake echo.
In conclusion, to protect the integrity of your planning documents, our water shed in our community, I respectfully request the council to upload the law,
I allow the appeal and reject the site plan approval. Before I leave the photo that's up for you now, I can tell you that I visited the property last week and the the arrow pointing to the corner post was one meter from the water and the blue area is actually measured.
It's not.
Thank you.
You can finish your sentence there.
Blue area represents an actual measured area. It's not a guess. It is actually where the water was and my son took the trip around with his GPS unit from work, which is a calibrated unit. They went around he measured it.
And the blue line that overlaps with the corner of the and the line of the developers zone line is correct. So the water is actually over.
Thank you. Thank you.
I do not see any questions of clarification.
Seeing no questions of clarification. Thank you Mr. Staudard and I will now ask Pat Bonn who's being represented by Braden Thomas to please come forward.
Again, I just want to remind you to keep your comments respectful on topic of the site plan and directed to the chair.
The clerk will announce when you have 30 seconds remaining and when your time is complete.
If you could just please confirm your name and then the floor is yours for five minutes. Yes.
And that's it.
I just said to that particular presenter. Good job and it was in relation to his capacity to do it. He was sort of out of breath and probably somewhat nervous and that's what that was about it was in no way me taking a position on his.
Thank you. Thank you noted, Councillor Kent.
Okay. Mr. Thomas.
Thank you Deputy Mayor Council, Deputy be here. My name is Braden Thomas. I am acting as a proxy speaker speaking upon request of Pat Bonn who is the owner of the two properties that are displayed here in yellow located to the north of the applicant's property displayed in red.
So this is my third opportunity to speak in front of council and tonight I will continue speaking to concerns around wetlands and water courses as a qualified wetland professional myself.
Presented here on the left is what I've shown before with provincial mapped wetlands and white and in orange outline is what I'm inferring as potential wetlands on the property utilizing satellite imagery visual observations from highway seven and publicly available modeling tools.
As such it is believed that the site plan is inaccurate with respect to wetlands and water courses.
In more recent hearings we've discussed that length the role the municipality has when it comes to wetlands and water courses which are more typically jurisdiction of the province.
Well this is true due diligence by HRM is necessary to ensure these considerations have been assessed by qualified persons.
When it comes to municipal matters such as stormwater management, grading, erosion and sedimentation control and landscaping plans, wetlands and water courses are a significant consideration that need to be properly evaluated.
Stormwater in particular has a strong influence from wetland and water course presence.
I went back and I rewatch the applicant speaker from last summer's hearing and just wanted to bring up a few quotes from the speaker regarding the supposed wetland donations.
And I quote, many many site visits not a desktop exercise the environment doesn't change that much in five years.
Ground truth thing has been done.
Eight site visits were done by engineers experienced in deleting wetlands and when asked on timing of the most recent wetland field visits and I quote.
Not certain I wasn't there I know extensive site visits were completed between 2015 and 2020 believe engineers and surveyors went out in 2023 but I don't know specific dates.
Building off of those quotes we believe that HRM should be requiring the names of the qualified persons allegedly assessing wetlands and water courses along with their CVs that clearly exemplify their qualifications in the scientific process of wetland donation.
Clearification on the dates of the supposed assessments will also be valuable as data on wetlands is typically considered valid for five years as the environment is known to change in that time contrary to the applicant's beliefs.
In my professional experience I've seen on numerous occasions.
The HRM has had the authority to request wetland and water course donation results and methodologies.
HRM has also previously required on numerous projects results of the West AC functional assessment tool which is a tool that is used by biologists to quantify the value and function of a wetland.
Going into screening now we've talked at length about the lack of existing vegetation on the property from the wildfire.
The applicant has increased the height of the proposed fence by 63 centimeters and has new schematics that identify areas of established forest, including a long highway seven and outside on the sides of the CD-2 zoning.
Other speakers have just shown drone imagery that I believe puts those claims in the question.
Will vegetation has begun recovery?
It's a stretch to say that it is established anywhere within the state.
Particularly in the drone images you can actually see significant portions of the tall trees that are dying from the B-reactivity.
The applicant will also be showing you some photos here shortly of the CD-1 transfer facility on Ross Road likely in a attempt to compare screening at that location.
It should be noted that this comparison is poor.
Is that facility is a CD transfer location that does not utilize permanent stockpiles like a CD-2 wood.
The fencing utilized at this facility works in tandem with the extensive vegetation that is present that I will note is taller than the power lines.
To compare Ross Road's mature vegetation to the applicant's property is not reasonable.
Additionally, most of the screening on the proponents property is deciduous offering no screening during the majority of the year when the foliage is not out.
To summarize on wetlands HRM needs to place more consideration as it pertains to stormwater, grading, landscaping and erosion and cementation.
Evidence of assessment by qualified individual individuals should be required.
The environmental reports from 2015 that the applicant quotes does not mention any wetland donation or evidence thereof.
Screening remains a legitimate concern of the community and increasing proposed fencing by 63 centimeters does not make any meaningful impact to the applicant's ability to be able to properly screen land use impacts and impacts to adjoining lands.
And the characterization of vegetation on site has been grossly misrepresented.
Speaking on behalf of the community, we strongly urge council to reject the site plan and vote for the appeal.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Thomas.
Any questions of clarification from council.
I see no questions.
So with that, thank you very much for your presentation.
I will now invite those who have identified that they are affected by the decision differently than the general public to speak.
We have one person pre registered and that is Lisa Grammysel.
Lisa.
Are you here?
Up there you are.
Please come up to the microphone.
You must start by telling council your name, your community, and why you are affected differently than the general public.
For you to take a seat, because this is a new process for me and I think for some of us who haven't been thrown appeal before.
So I'll just say this again.
You need to start by telling us your name, your community, and why you are affected differently than the general public.
Then council, you will decide whether to permit Miss Grammysel to speak or not.
And also agrees, then Lisa, you will have five minutes to speak to the appeal.
So does everyone understand the process here?
So it's a two step process.
Okay, so with that, I'll hand the floor over to you to tell us again your name, your community, and why you are affected differently than the general public.
Thank you Deputy Mayor and council members.
While my residence falls outside the formal notification area,
I am directly affected by the proposed construction and demolition processing facility.
And respectfully request the opportunity to address the council.
My family and I live in this surrounding community and regularly use the roads, recreation areas, and local amenities that may be affected by the increased industrial traffic, noise, dust, and other operational impacts associated with this development.
As a homeowner, I am also concerned about the potential effects on the character of the area, quality of life, and property values within the broader community surrounding the site.
My interest in this matter differs from that of the general public because the proposed facility would operate in close proximity to the community in which I live, raise my family, and have made a significant personal and financial investment.
The potential impacts are not theoretical.
They would directly affect my family's daily life and enjoyment of our community.
Should regional council permit me to speak, my comments will be directed directly related to the appeal.
And we'll focus on the compatibility of proposed development within this surrounding area, potential impacts on residents, traffic, and environmental concerns.
And the long-term impact of locating this type of industrial operation near established residential communities. Thank you.
Thank you.
So now it's up to.
Council to decide if Councilor Cleary?
Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Just a quick question to you and maybe our solicitor. Are we allowed
to ask questions of clarification?
As you know, reason, you have to be satisfied as a council at the individuals should be heard.
Okay, just very quickly. Thank you for coming. Can you tell us approximately how many
feet yards meters you are away from the site?
I didn't do an exact, but it's pretty much in my backyard.
Can you guess? This is for media, for media.
Probably within two kilometers.
Within two kilometers from my house.
Yes. Thank you.
Thank you, and Councillor Kent.
Yes, thank you. I think this question is for the solicitor or perhaps staff.
The consideration here is affected differently than the general public.
So clearly, she's the general public. I just want to know what is the definition in this situation?
Is it the people that were within the formal notification space?
Or is it all of HRM?
So council recognizes those that live within the formal notification are potentially
directly impacted by the site plan, which is the subject here.
So you'd have to be satisfied that she had a close that the individual has a close enough impact
to this based on what she has advised.
I would suggest the concern always that I think what we heard is a lot related to the zoning.
And so you would have to remember that what you are dealing with here is the site plan approval,
not the zoning which was decided by the court.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Austin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could ask just a clarification question,
just like in the same vein as Councillor Clarice.
Could you say what street you live on? I've just got Google pulled up here.
If we can't narrow the distance, we could do it this way.
I'm at 48 big bear loop in Porter's lake.
Big bear loop.
That's not even Porter's lake, that's...
That was a different big bear loop.
Thank you.
Site three here.
Anything else, Councillor Austin?
This is a tough position to be dropped in this chair.
It's deciding whether someone is affected and whether they can speak.
I'm just looking here at big bear loop.
It is a distance away, but it's also backs on to the swathaland that runs out that way.
I think if she was in interior subdivision street, like sandy lane, for example, then I'd say,
no, but she does kind of back on to the wilderness area here.
Okay, and I just want to remind me what the solicitor said.
This is not about the zoning, it's about the site plan.
I don't see any further questions of clarification.
So, would you like to hear from the speaker or not?
Yes, yes.
Okay, I see hands and heads nodding.
I'll take that as a affirmative.
Oh, I didn't.
There's some opposed.
Okay, so let's, uh, a vote?
Okay.
Show hands, all those in favor.
Please raise your hands.
Yes.
One, two, three, four, five, six.
Okay, and a post.
One, two, five.
So, I believe that that fails, and that it's in favor of hearing from the speaker.
Go ahead, the floor is yours for five minutes.
Hey, deputy mayor.
Good evening, everyone again.
My name is Lisa Garamese.
I'm a homeowner, mother, dog owner, veteran, public affairs professional, in resident of this community.
I want to begin by saying that I'm not opposed to development itself, but I understand that construction and demolition materials need to be managed, processed and disposed of somewhere.
But my concern is whether this type of facility should exist within our community.
My concern is whether this is the right location for it.
As council considers this application, I urge you to think beyond the immediate economic benefits and ask a more important question.
Is this proposal compatible with the existing residential community that surrounds it?
Residents choose the area because of its character, quality of life, and sense of community.
Facilities, I'm sorry.
Families walk their neighborhoods, children's play outdoors, and many of us have invested our life savings into our homes.
Our construction and demolition processing facility introduces industrial activity that raises legitimate concerns.
Regarding dust, air quality, noise, truck traffic, environmental impacts, and long-term property value issues.
While proponents, often point to mitigation measures, the reality is that mitigation does not eliminate the impacts in our area.
It only attempts to reduce them after the fact.
Residents should not be expected to bear the burden of living beside a facility that generates dust, heavy traffic, noise, and environmental concerns, as mentioned previously, simply because controls may be put in place.
The concerns being raised tonight are not hypothetical.
Public submissions in research regarding waste and processing facilities have consistently identified concerns relating to air pollution, respiratory health impacts,
groundwater contamination, odors, traffic, noise, pests, and overall quality of life issues.
These concerns deserve serious consideration, particularly when a facility such as this is proposed in close proximity to our wetlands as well as our subdivisions.
There is also the issue of property values.
Research has been published in the Journal of Real Estate Research found that residential properties located near landfill and waste facilities,
experienced negative impacts on property values ranging from approximately 5.5 to 7.3%.
Even in older and less expensive neighborhoods, impacts are three to four percent were observed, and I have the documentation here if you want it.
For many homeowners, that represents tens of thousands of dollars in lost equity.
More importantly, it represents uncertainty.
Buyers consider more than a house when making purchasing decisions.
They consider what surrounds it.
The perception influences marketability and marketability affects our value.
This proposal effectively asks residents to assume risks while others receive the benefits.
The applicant receives the operational and economic advantages.
Residents absorb the traffic, the noise, the dust, environmental concerns, and potential impacts on our property values.
I would also ask Council to consider the long-term implications of this decision.
Once a facility of this nature has been approved and established, it becomes extremely difficult to reverse that decision.
This decision will affect not only current residents, but our future generations of homeowners who choose to build their lives in this community.
Good planning is not simply about determining whether a development can be built or should be built in the area it is.
It is about determining whether it should be built in that particular location.
Tonight I respectfully ask Council to place the interest of residents first and reject the proposal or at minimum require a more comprehensive and independent review of potential health,
environment, traffic, and property value impacts before any approval is considered.
The question before Council is not whether construction and demolition materials need to be processed.
The question is whether this community is appropriate for a place to do it and I do not believe it is.
Thank you.
All right. Thank you.
I don't see any questions of clarification.
So.
Thank you.
Okay.
There's no, there's nobody else.
I just, it doesn't say here to call.
Just back in.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay.
So.
With that, I'll see if there's anyone else present who is affected by the decision differently than the general public who would like to request to speak.
All right.
Thank you.
Come on up.
Similar to the process we just went through please state your name your community and why you are affected differently.
Madam chair.
Councilors.
So my name is Deb day and in 2015 when we started this fight against this application we established the coalition for sake and healthy communities.
And I chaired that on behalf of all the residents and to this day have supported and represented them, including those within the 30 meters and those beyond the 30 meters.
My comments today are about the fencing that I would like to bring some perspective to.
Thank you.
Question from Councillor Cleary.
And if I can ask you as well, how close do you live to the site.
I live in mind though, so I'm across the water, but the.
The residents that I have represented are include those that are in within 30 meters.
No, I appreciate that I just thought the question was about how you personally are affected differently the general public.
Not as much as they would be for sure where I live in mind though, and my my representation here is on there behalf.
Thank you.
All right, I don't see any more questions of clarification.
Councillor Kent.
Thank you.
Madam Deputy Mayor, I have a question for the solicitor.
In a situation like this.
Do we have to have confirmation of that.
Right to represent, or is this person being evaluated as a singular person?
Generally, you would want some confirmation.
You have to be satisfied.
Yeah.
You can be satisfied on the individuals say so or otherwise.
But realistically, it is the individuals who themselves are impacted that have the opportunity to speak.
This is this is an appeal between for individuals or pairs and the respondent.
It's it's not a public hearing.
So there really should be some specific impact that individuals have, but I would note I believe that council did allow.
This individual to speak at the last appeal in the circumstances and you may or may not be guided by that.
Thank you.
Okay, so what are your wishes council?
Okay, we'll take some votes here.
Question all those in favour.
Please raise your hand.
Six.
All those opposed.
Please raise your hand.
Okay, thank you.
We'll go to the next then that fails.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak at the back there please?
Oh, no.
Okay, gentlemen, in the blue plaid shirt.
Again, please tell us your name, your community, and why you are affected differently than the general public.
Good evening, councillors.
My name is Mike Thomas.
I've spoke at every hearing that we've held.
I live approximately 500 meters from this site.
I can honestly say I am not impacted differently than anybody else.
I live 500 meters from there and I'm impacted exactly the same.
My comments will be brief.
Forgive me.
I'm going through some health issues.
I'm very tired and to be honest with you, I wasn't going to speak tonight, but I will represent.
I think what this day was was going to say.
I think it's very important that that happened.
All right.
Thank you.
Question of clarification from Councillor Austin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Could even if you don't know our comfortable sharing your street address.
Could you just tell me what street you live on?
On the number 7, 360, or 9 highway 7.
Okay.
I would be probably the second host closest to it.
And you can definitely, I mean, we definitely serve in the second house.
Thank you. Thank you. I don't see any other questions of clarification. So council, what are your wishes? All those in favour? Please arrange your hand. Okay, that passes. Okay, so the floor is yours. There you go. You'll have five minutes, Sam, do again.
Okay, so sir, we're just going to take a short break.
Thank you.
There we go.
And I'm going to ask if you could please repeat your name in your community.
And then you'll be given five minutes to speak. And the court will let you know when your time is up.
And please keep your remarks respectful and direct to the chair. The floor is yours.
Yeah, I sure will. Through the deputy to mayor to the council. I would like to thank you once again for this opportunity to speak.
I didn't come normally very well prepared to be honest because I had to be honest with you. I really hadn't planned on speaking.
My family and I first got involved in this, you know, this fight 11 years ago. It's been 11 years long week in a May. We were driving back from our cottage and we saw the sign. So, you know, we've been committed, you know, to this this fight for a long, long, long time.
We put a lot of effort into it. The young fellow that spoke earlier, Mr. Thomas happens to be my son. He was 15 years old when this fight started he went into environmental sciences because of this this fight.
This fight, that's that's an impact. That's a that's a big deal, right.
As you go forward to vote, I think I'd like you guys to remember some things.
When this all started, we, of course, we went through the rezoning application. It has no bearing on this, I guess, but I think what we have to remember here is a staff report that was done by one of your senior planners, the Elangel.
Ultimately, that was, in fact, overturned at the UARB. But it wasn't overturned because of all the dangers she identified. You know, though, they still exist.
And whether it has an influence on your decision or not, I think you should probably at some point take a look at that.
Because of report we saw it tonight from the planners was.
Well, of course, it was very different. It's for a development permit.
But all those issues that HRM has identified have not gone away, right? They didn't go away because the UARB said they did.
So let's think about that. Let's think about, you know, the thousands of people in our communities.
I was thinking about this the other day. I found that this hearing was happening Friday. So, you know, I said in just thinking about these past 11, 11 years.
I've never been involved in anything like this, but I suspect, you know, as people come before you as council, public fights like this or, you know, public issues.
Normally communities are divided, right? You'll 50, 40, 30, whatever.
In this case, in all of the meetings we've been as a coalition and everything, not one person from our community has stood up and said,
Damn it, I want that ear. I need that ear. You know, we want that ear. Nobody wants that there.
Well, that being said, we have rules. I know. I was a commercial eating guy for many, many years. I worked all over Canada. I contracted for the government in 2015 years. I took care of every, every eating appliance that they had commercial ones, big ones in the hospitals.
I had a lot of responsibility there. And I had a set of rules that I had to follow. A coat. And I followed it until it didn't make sense.
Or it was dangerous or something was wrong. And it happens, believe me, in code books. You guys have a set of rules to follow.
The proponent has a set of rules to follow.
The reality is the rules. I don't believe we're going to, you know, protect the site. I believe that if you vote yes, you know, the community is going to be severely impacted.
I've also, as I said, have owned my business. If I was the company for a council for something like this and it's, you know, it's a big deal as a business man.
And after the last time that was, you know, turned down mostly because the screening, I think I probably would have come back with something a little more acceptable.
So that's 63 centimeters. Folks, you're voting on this tonight, I suppose.
And really, you're just voting on 63 centimeters.
That's, that's the only thing that's changed. That's not going to help us, guys. Really, it's, it's not.
I was telling, I got 33 seconds. Okay.
And all likely this will be the last time I speak in front of you.
As you vote, I would like you to think about our communities.
I maybe you can think about your own community. I don't where you guys live, but maybe you live in a quiet little street.
Would you want this in your, in your backyard? Come on. Now, I don't think you would.
Anyway, we've put up the good fight as a community. We will continue to put up the good fight.
And all I can do is, if you guys want to leave a legacy, don't leave a bag on. Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much.
Are there any,
Sir, there is a question, Councillor Kent.
Thank you. I'm going to break through a little bit and that it's not so much a question.
It's a, it's a, it's a thank you for being in here and being capable and brave enough to come up tonight.
I just want to express that because we need people to come into this in the session and you can be proud of you.
Thank you, Councillor Kent, I think I appreciate your sentiments, but we need to stay to the questions of clarification.
Thank you very much.
Is there anyone else present who is affected by the decision differently than the general public who would like to request to speak?
I see. Yes.
Please come on up.
Again, start by telling us your name, your community and why you're affected differently than the general public.
Is it okay for two co presenters?
Yep. Okay. That's great.
So I see we have a co presenter there with you. So both of your names, please.
I'm Amy Gunderson and this is Paul Norwich.
And I'm here to speak on behalf of nature of Jones and nature of subdivision, which is directly adjacent to this development proposed development.
I'm also here to speak on behalf of myself as well as I live within a kilometer radius from this proposed site.
Thank you, Councillor Clarit.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor. So just for clarification, so you live a kilometer away, personally.
Yeah.
What was the other thing you said?
In nature of subdivision, we on the development directly behind adjacent to this property.
You personally on that.
Paul Norwich.
Okay.
And it is a residential service.
Yes.
Okay.
It's an eight phase 200 plus building.
In 2013, it's a $200 million development going in there.
Over the next 25 years and we border right on the proposed development there.
So you're literally your properties of but hey, that's property.
Yep.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Austin.
Just the nature homes.
Is that sugarwood?
Yeah.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor, what are your wishes?
All those in favor.
Please raise your hands.
Okay.
Please proceed.
Is the community that when completed will have roughly 200 building lots for single family dwellings?
80% of the 215 hectare community is dedicated to green space, parkland and recreational space.
Design and approved by HRM.
The C&D site proposal has brought about a subdivision full of extremely worried homeowners and clients who have invested in nature edge that should the site be approved are concerned that property values will decrease.
Potentially sale opportunities will be diminished and overall quality of life will be negatively impacted by noise pollution alone.
The mere idea of a C&D facility being constructed has directly impacted home sales on several occasions during negotiations with clients.
They ultimately chose to walk away and purchase homes elsewhere because the potential facility being so close to the proximity of nature edge.
It would not be unreasonable to assume that there will be future lost opportunities for sales of homes in this surrounding area given the community social networking and controversy over this proposed facility.
Celebrity of homes in nature edge will undoubtedly be hindered or worse.
It could stop future phasing completely should this be approved.
In 2008, there was a large force fire that caused extensive damage to nature edge in surrounding land, a large portion of the softwood trees in our area were burned, leaving the land bearing from vegetation.
The forces starting to regenerate, however, the trees that are growing in place of the softwoods are deciduous trees.
While the regeneration is happening very slowly, the deciduous trees will offer no visual buffer from the proposed site from most of the year.
Another concern for us is the capability or accountability of key and management being able to fully mitigate the physical noise pollution that the C&D facility would generate as processing will be happening at this site.
They have said there would be voters, excavators, shares, dump trucks and forecliffs at the facility.
We'd be naive to believe that the noise of all this heavy equipment operating would be minimized to a level that would not affect the overall health and enjoyment of families in the neighboring homes.
Noise and dust travel far, that's indisputable.
We hear it based on home construction.
We know from first-hand experience, the engine noise, the dumping noise, these kinds of heavy equipment can generate.
It's very loud.
It would be impossible to mitigate the noise that would not affect the neighboring properties.
The noise we produce during construction is limited and temporary.
The C&D site is forever.
I just want to let that sink in.
It is forever.
It's not reasonable or fair to subject all residential communities to a lifetime of this noise annoyance.
Phase three of eight in each ridge is at an elevation of approximately 80 meters.
And the land where the facility would go is an elevation of approximately 70 meters.
With no significant hills or trees to act as a visual or noise buffer in between.
Furthermore, nature is only 600 meters away from the property to property boundary between our community and where the site would be built.
We flew a drone from the highest point in phase three to a height that would mimic someone standing in the second level of a home.
Looking out the window to the direction of the proposed site.
Without a doubt, given the lack of hills or trees as a buffer, a pile of can...
Section 3, 15 feet high would be clearly visible. We also wanted to bring up the risk of spontaneous combustion. There was an incident down in Kentville in 2016. The fire burn for several days, days which led to environment candidate issuing an air quality warning for King's County.
The closest fire station to this proposed facility is in Lake Echo approximately 3 to 4 kilometers away. This station is volunteer only. Therefore, not staff 24-7. The response times would undoubtedly be affected.
We are extremely concerned about this proposal and the potential of repercussions should it be allowed to move forward. Nature reaches quiet and serene vices would be ruined, and health of its residents would be in jeopardy. No one would want to live next door to this.
Absolutely everything is at stake for my family and nature rich to the C&D facility be approved.
A approval would without question be the demise of our subdivision, our construction business and our livelihoods.
Our company employees, local tradespeople, we utilize local suppliers for all of our bills. The financial impact would be felt by all of them.
For the sake of our collective community and for nature, just future, and as a concerned resident, please say no to this proposal. This facility has absolutely no place being constructed in a residential area.
Thank you again.
All right. Thank you, Amy.
I do not see any questions of clarification, so thank you very much.
I will ask again, is there anyone present who is affected by the decision differently than the general public who would like to request to speak?
Are there any other speakers yet? All right. Hello there. Please come to the front.
Welcome. Just a reminder to start by telling council your name, your community, and why you are affected differently.
My name is Linda Mosier. I, the last toast before you get to the proposed site.
3629, number 7 hardway.
And I do whatever happens at this site does represent where I live.
Okay. So, any questions of clarification here?
Seeing none. What are your wishes council? All those in favor? Please raise your hand.
Okay. So that passes. So please proceed. You have five minutes.
Thank you.
Water and soil contamination. C&D processing transfer sites do preserve pose severe risk to the environment.
When rain water filters through the piles of debris, it creates toxic leakage that drains into the local groundwater wetlands and nearby water courses through the fractured rocks into our wells.
It causes us every time we get our water tested to be safe. Should we get our water tested once a year? twice a year.
By the time our water detects any toxins from the proposed C&D processing transfer site, it's too late. It's already there.
We have nothing if we don't have safe drinking water. We can't sell our homes. No one would like to live in a community that doesn't have safe drinking water.
What will happen to our peaceful community even if there is a chance that our drinking water gets contaminated.
That's a very high risk for our two communities to not want to take.
You cannot guarantee that our drinking water will not be contaminated.
Even with all the precautions at the C&D site, you can still not guarantee that our drinking water won't be contaminated.
We are the ones that has every day of everything to lose. This C&D site does not belong in the middle of two communities which are very close.
It belongs in an industrial park.
Excessive truck traffic, C&D, processing transfer sites has a continuous stream of heavy dump trucks, transfer trailers, and even cars.
Ross Road in three days, a few year ago, the average number of trucks transferred trucks, trailers and cars per day that entered the C&D site was 165 to 170.
Last year one day, 178 trucks transferred trailers cars into the C&D site.
I average 70 trucks, transport trailers and cars for the proposed C&D site.
70 trucks per day open in eight hours. That's an average of 8.75 trucks per hour times two both ways 17.5 trucks per hour.
That's an average 4.4 trucks per half hour both ways 8.8 trucks in a half hour.
On an average 2.2 trucks every 15 minutes times two both ways that's 4.4 trucks every 15 minutes.
I count both ways because the trucks make two trips through our community.
This causes dangerous bottlenecks. I have seen this on Ross Road C&D site.
This jeopardizes the safety of our local residents, pedestrians, and cyclists, where we have many, many, then we have many that go through our community and most important to school buses from five schools.
Air quality and toxic dust pollution airborne toxins and dust from construction and demolition processing and transfer sites can travel anywhere from a few hundred feet to several kilometers, depending on particle size and wind conditions.
Particles remain suspended and pose severe offsite health risk. The dust is invisible to the human eye, but can cause a serious health hazard exposure to the inhaled salific dust, which is fragmented can lead to salific ulcers lung cancer and COPD.
Salific a dust highly hazardous dust released during concrete cutting and masonry.
A specific microscopic fibers can stay suspended for 24 to 48 hours or longer, traveling significant distance on the wind.
Exhaust emissions from heavy.
I just want to note that your time may time this up if you just want to finish your sentence.
Emissions from heavy machinery, ads, pollutants and fine black carbon in the immediate and surrounding areas.
Thank you very much.
Do you not see any questions of clarification?
So with that I'll say thank you very much.
Okay, I'll ask again, is there anyone else present who is affected by the decision differently than the general public who would like to request to speak?
Okay, I do not see any other speakers.
I will now invite the applicant respondent to present their case to council.
We have Jennifer saying to represent the applicant respondent key and management limited.
Jennifer please come to the microphone and you have 10 minutes to speak.
The clerk will note when you have 30 seconds remaining.
The floor is yours.
There's a spill here. Can I just get this wiped up?
Thank you deputy mayor and council.
As noted, I am here, my name is Jennifer Soling, I'm here representing the applicant.
Since our last appeal hearing, we did take another site visit with staff.
We had license landscape architect to a site visit and analyze the vegetation and we had engineers on site.
They've all confirmed that there is significant vegetation on the property.
As a comparison, I'd like to show you.
Is it on screen?
There we go.
So I wanted to compare it to Ross Road because Ross Road went through a plan amendment a rezoning and a site plan approval to expand its operation back in 2019.
So this is a zoning map from the staff report.
C&D operation is the areas shown in gray here and as you can see there are residential properties on the other side of Ross Road from the operation above and below and subdivisions very nearby.
This is a photo of the main entrance to the Ross Road C&D operation.
You can see some landscaping on the left or some trees.
I should say existing vegetation.
You can see the fence.
That is the it's about six feet high it is a see through transparent chain link fence and you can see there's some small plantings there but certainly not significant screening.
And then the fence comes closer to the road here and goes along the front here and you can see again there's just some thin row of trees here and the chain link fence and some grass.
The second entrance to Ross Road C&D operation it's further down you can see a house here on the left across the road.
You can see the how deep the landscaping or the existing vegetation is here it's not the third is deep as ours is proposed to be.
And this is the fence along the side of the secondary entrance and you can see there's no screening there whatsoever.
This photo is taken from across this is a residential driveway and you can see a house here on the left this is just a view of part of that site and this the trees and you can see the structures in behind.
And this is from that same location looking down Ross Road the entrance is down here at the right.
And again just giving you an idea of another C&D operation that had to go through a similar site plan approval process.
Now this is a photo you've seen number of these today this one this shows the zone line so the red dash line is a zone line the C&D operation would be below the line above the line is still the same property it extends quite a ways up and you'll see that there are areas of large trees and areas of regeneration.
This is looking east at the zone line again the wet land that people have been talking about is here up above the line that is not proposed to be altered in any way the zone line is quite a ways down below and the C&D operation would be below the line if you look at the cars here on the edge of the road the highway.
And you look closely you can see the trees are actually taller than cars and this is some of the original growth here that didn't burn along a frontage.
There are notes on the landscaping plan that you may or may not have been able to read in your set freeport so I'm just going to read them to you so the area consists of two types of wooded area.
Existing wooded area is the area not burned in the 2008 forest fire and includes a variety of native tree species including white birch, large and white spruce dense forest areas include trees with a height of 10 meters, 33 feet and higher in some areas.
The other area of growth is the existing regenerating woodland is the area that burned in the 2008 forest fire and includes a variety of native species as noted above.
After an initial period of reestablishment the vegetation is growing vigorously, deciduous trees have reached a height of 2 meters 6.6 feet and higher.
Now this is a landscaping plan which we our landscape architect prepared so the dark green is that the wooded area that didn't burn the regeneration area is the light green and we provided these cross sections I'm happy to go through those in more detail.
I thought I had five minutes I'm not sure if I have five or ten but it's going to take some time so I'd like to just keep going and if you want me to walk you through those I will.
And I guess I think I wanted to say is in recent years in 2023 the Department of Environment actually adopted new rules for C&D operations so there's actually a new set of rules where they are the body responsible to analyze and regulate C&D.
In C&D operations and their impacts on wetlands and water courses so we will be subjected to those in addition to the licensing by law which is quite extensive and great alteration permits and construction permits so that is all yet to come.
And I guess I would also, I think most of you know, but the tonight is not about whether a C&D site should go there. That decisions are even made through the rezoning and the board decision. Tonight is about the site plan approval criteria. We meet those criteria.
This is more than just an increase in the height of the fence.
I will, where's the time? I will walk you through some of these. So this cross section, this first one here.
The right hand side is the property boundary. So the, the site plan approval says screening from the property boundary or the adjacent property. So the right hand side.
So this is the existing trees that didn't burn. So that's a thick, thick green dark green here. Then you get into the regeneration area and slopes down to the pond and then up.
And then you get to the zone line. So this line on the left is the zone line right here. And so the operation is still even within that.
And if you look closely, there's a person standing on the right.
And the red, there's a red dashed line, which is the line of vision when a person standing on the property line, what they see. The line of vision goes up and you can see it goes, it would basically you're seeing the trees. You wouldn't see the fence, which is all the way over here on the left inside the zone line, which is the, the jersey barrier and the fence and the landscaping.
This is the second one here. This is the property line on the left. So this is the farthest property line. Again, the regeneration forest and then some of the older forest where it goes through here.
And then you get, it slopes up and then you get to the zone line and then inside that is the fence, the eight foot high fence and there's lands, landscaping in front of that as well.
So again, if a person is standing over here on the left on the property line, they will not be able to see the operation inside the zone line.
So the next one, this shows the, from the front where the street is and then all the way to the back line, I'm going to give you a close up of that. So here is a highway number seven, there's a car, there's a person, the ditch goes down.
Then you've got the growth that we saw along the highway there. Then this is the proposed landscape berm. So it's not just a taller fence. It's a berm with landscaping on top.
Then down and we have the fence here that's eight feet high that is screen. It's not a clear chain link and then the operation is beyond that.
If you're standing at the back on the, what was used to be all provincial land in the back there, this was a person's height.
Again, looking through the older growth force that didn't burn, your line of sight goes up and you get to hear this is the, again, the fence, which is not visible from that person standing there and then you get inside there and then.
But potentially this is the maximum stockpile could be, which it likely wouldn't even be that. So just in comparison houses are taller than are allowed to go taller than the stockpiles.
So.
We're asking you to please deny the appeal, thereby approve the site plan, and I am here to answer any questions.
All right, thank you very much. Jennifer, um, such over. Okay, we have some questions for you starting with counselor Kent.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Mayor. I just have a couple of questions for you related to the site visit was staff. When was that done.
That was done shortly a few, a month or two after our last hearing, which was a year ago, so it would have been in the fall of 2025.
Okay, and the force the force data around the height of the trees and the vegetation stuff when was that data collected.
That would be representing here. Also a bit around the same time. It was in preparation for our revised plan, which I believe staff said was submitted in September, September of 2025. That was two months after the last.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Thank you, next counselor Austin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I wanted to ask about the water course because I did have the chance, you know, based on.
The speakers to take a look back through old Google Earth data.
And I don't know if the beavers have damned it up, but it is definitely grown in size quite considerably from the images in 2025 compared to 2022.
I'm just wondering, you know, the water course setback piece. How does the enlarged size of that wetland affect the project and how was that calculated in your.
submission.
Thank you through you, Madam Chair.
We had surveyors and experts to water course wetland delineation engineers out there on site. We are confident with the data they provided us.
You know, when when were they there?
They've we had them out. Well, periodically and we'll have them out again. So to answer your question, we.
We will have them out again if they discover that it has changed and we will have to accommodate that we will have to be further setback or.
And follow the rules and with the new department of environment rules, they will require a full delineation, but we had them.
We had engineers out it last after the public hearing last June.
They reviewed, they did some aerial some land through thing and compared it to the maps we had. We are confident that it.
It's reasonably hasn't changed drastically. We're fairly we are confident that it's fairly still accurate our site plan.
And if we have to make changes, the property, the zone area is large enough to make those alterations and we're happy to do that. It's always a judgment call.
How much.
How since the site plan approval process doesn't require that delineation, it's better to wait and do it at the time when we're doing great alteration permits and satisfying the department environment.
Because the minute you do it, you know, you have to do it again and again, so that's a judgment column half the applicant and staff said there's some risk associated with that, but we still have to meet all their setbacks.
That doesn't change.
Okay, maybe I can ask, maybe it'll be simpler.
Like this pawn changed in size quite considerably and very noticeably, right? Like you can see it on the satellite.
Have your experts where they out before that or after?
Well, if it's constantly changing, right, theoretically. So they were there before, they were out there last year, but it's more than just looking at where the water is.
You have to look at the vegetation, there's certain vegetation associated with wetlands.
So some areas that don't look like a wetland that are dry can be a wetland.
Some areas that look wet may not be an actual wetland. There's quite scientific about that.
And so we're aware that we'll have to, if this takes another year, right?
Well, do we go out now? Do we go out another year?
It's not a factor of a site plan approval criteria.
It's a factor through the environmental process and the permanent process.
So we'll have to do it prior to that.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Austin. Councillor Gillis.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
A few questions, Jennifer.
What's the type of materials that you're going to store there?
I know it's C&D, but could you be a little bit more specific?
How long will the materials be stored there?
And then part three to that, where do they get shipped off to after they are separated and processed?
So this is a not a site plan approval matter, but I'll try to answer your question.
It came up in the past.
It's actually regulated in your licensee and bylaw.
There's a definition of C&D materials.
That's bylaw L200.
They are inert materials, so we can, it could be things like long steel beams.
It could be, it's all inert.
It could be broken down into smaller pieces and used as bedding for plants, landscaping or pet bedding or other building materials.
A big bean could be cut into two pieces.
Those are examples.
But it's all closely regulated.
No hazardous material is allowed on site.
The hazardous materials bylaw has to be removed at the site of demolition.
Sort of you're tearing down a school.
That has to be removed there.
There's a federal law about that and dealt with and properly managed, contained and removed.
Anything that comes to this site has to be able to be reused and recycled.
Not disposed, no hazardous.
It's a very, very strict.
And where do they get sent to after that?
They get sent out of Nova Scotia, like somewhere else.
They could be.
So the way the law works is, you have said that C&D material first has to be dealt with here in H&M.
We can't even go to another county in Nova Scotia.
So it has to be, say, what is this?
You could have lockers from an old school or steel beam.
Then you decide what you're going to do with it.
If once it's processed into something else, whether it's animal bedding or whatever,
then yes, it can be taken.
It's a repurposed material and it can be taken out of H&M, out of the province.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Mancini.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor.
Jennifer, you made the comparison with Ross Road, C&D.
What type of C&D operations at Ross Road?
Ross Road is a transfer station, not a processing facility.
And can you claim the difference between transfer and your site that you're representing is a processing correct?
It's transfer and processing.
So can you explain the difference in the two?
Yeah.
So transferring is you come in with material before you send it elsewhere and processing your coming in with material to repurpose it or change it into another product to then leave the site.
So there's additional activity and processing.
There is.
Yes.
Thank you.
Just got to spend it here for a second.
We may have a broad cast issue.
Simon, we may have a broad cast issue.
Can we just check.
On moment, please.
Sorry for that.
All right, let's come back to order, please.
Sorry for that interruption.
Where where we.
So.
Councillor.
Councillor still.
Okay.
We were finished with that last question.
Okay.
Councillor still.
Thank you.
Deputy Mayor.
I have a question.
Just about the fence.
So the height of the fence increased from 1.8 meters to 2.43 or 5 feet to.
On the state feet.
Can you describe the fence?
Please.
There's been some comment about.
How.
Whether the fence will screen or not.
So can you just describe what what it will be like.
And if you have experience with using this type of fence.
Seeing at other facilities.
Thank you for the question.
Through you madam chair.
So the site plan approval criteria is that.
The building should be provided with existing vegetation first.
And then supplemented with a variety of means.
So.
The fence is proposed to be.
The chain link with the slats.
The green slats that go through it.
With also landscaping and a berm in front of it.
And it's raised in height.
So.
And there are requirements in your licensing by law.
That the that it be maintained.
So if there's any.
And then you can do it or or you know,
as stop functioning the way it should.
Then it has to be maintained and and corrected repaired.
So.
The other C and D sites in H R M.
Don't have that fancy.
It all.
So this would be an improvement over what you currently have.
Okay.
Thank you.
Councilor.
Thank you.
Jennifer.
My question was also about the fence.
You know, we heard me ask our staff about the one change that it looks like since the last time we spoke.
And.
So in my district.
I do have a C and D facility.
It's pretty well gated.
It is off of the highway.
It is in a more rural.
Context.
There is some fancy no.
I heard you say that there's no fancy.
But.
And then when I think about the comparison with Ross Road.
So Ross Road just being a transfer station.
So it's different as councilman.
See any.
You know, elicit it that it's very different activity than what happens.
So was your comparison to use Ross Road only about process.
Because even, you know, I drive by.
Ross Road a couple of times a month.
And.
You know, I know that some of that fencing is a very solid look.
It's not just chain link.
Right.
So having heard.
The appealance and all of that kind of stuff.
Still, the applicant had not decided to change anything about the chain length fence to make it a little bit more visible from the naked eye.
So I'm just wondering why you stayed with just the chain length fence and haven't looked to accommodate the community in another way in terms of the composition of the fence.
A little bit curious about that, and in some of your images, the site line that you take, is it only from, I was trying to figure out, position myself, you know, or things in West.
But it looked like it was, the site lines were only from Highway 7, were they from different, could, could you clarify that for me then, please?
Thank you, certainly. Thank you, Councillor, through you, the chair. So I'll, a couple of questions there.
I don't know if I can get my, my presentation, my first question was going to say we could put the slide back up. Okay.
Okay. So I'll start with your last question. So this plan shows cross section. So this is cross section called A to A.
So the site plan approval says screening from the adjoining lands, which is, would be the immediately adjacent. So standing on the property line here, looking towards the zone line.
So that's A to A. That's this first cross section below. So this is the right hand side property line looking towards the zone line over here.
Okay. So is that Highway 7? No, that's from the side property line. Highway 7 isn't front here.
Okay. Thank you. And so if you look at this A over to this A, this line represents the cross section. So it's standing on the property line inside the property not right on Highway 7.
Okay. So that's that one.
B cross section is from the left hand side, the western property line also in from the highway.
And we chose a site that a view of view line that just nips the corner of this older growth.
And is more through the regeneration. So here it is here. Here's the person standing looking through the regeneration forest. It slopes down. You hit that little pocket of.
What did area and then it slopes up and then here's where the fence would be over here.
Or the we're calling it a fence. As you know, it's the concrete barrier chain link with the slats. So what changed touching on your other question was.
Our previous plan was just chain link because our.
The feeling was you with all the existing vegetation. You pretty much can't see that far anyway. And the site plan approval says.
Where the existing vegetation is good enough. It should be supplemented. But because of the concerns of council last meeting and we didn't have this detailed conversation about the vegetation.
There was some thought that maybe there was no vegetation whatsoever. So we wanted to demonstrate what the vegetation actually is.
We've increased the height of the fence. We've added slats.
And supplemented some of the vegetation in the front here and gave more information. So that was the biggest issue at hand. And so that's why we've got a different.
I'm going to run at a time can ask for.
Just before I run at a time. So your site lines are with your within the property.
No, they're from right outside the property line.
You have to like get out of your car.
Be in there for those lines to make any sense.
So I guess my concern is how relevant is that to if I'm.
On number seven highway looking or if I'm the next community road of the neighborhood looking.
So I just I can't quite equate.
What you're showing us as being relevant to the concerns of the community.
So yes, it does make sense. What I'm showing you is what's relevant to the site plan approval.
This isn't.
The site plan approval does not require that every community within kilometers and kilometers should not be able to see the site at all.
If you're if there's a subdivision that's up higher and in elevation two kilometers away, that's not.
What we have to screen it from the site plan approval says you have to screen it from enjoying properties.
So we do have a view from the front line from the street from the highway.
It you're right. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Who's going to be standing there?
But we're trying to meet site plan approval and show you that there is vegetation.
And here's what you would see if you were if you were on the adjoining property.
And we did it from the rear because it's also the adjoining property.
Even though that's mostly that is.
Provisual crown land.
So no, it doesn't make sense and that's why we didn't really show it before.
But because there was so much confusion about screening last time.
We said, well, let's go to the site plan approval criteria.
Let's show the cross sections from every adjoining property line, which is what what it says.
So that you so that everyone can understand what what the vegetation is.
And we increase the fence and even though one could argue at that point.
I'm way over time.
Sorry.
Thank you.
Councillor Kent.
Thank you. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Mayor.
So I'm going to go back to and I know that you commented about the set the setbacks for the wetlands is not relevant to this, but there is.
And there is a layer of interest for me in that, you know, the capacity for me to be absolutely sure of the information that's coming forward.
I'm going to I just want to know.
From the last time this was here and from the time that it was in reach and have reached.
There was a question around concerns related to the water course.
In the photographs that we have seen.
Well, from yourself and from the appellants.
It shows a very wooded area that is dead, but at least on its way to being completely dead.
And and false zooming in on that.
It appears to me that it's very wet.
So you your your who you're representing knows that.
You know that.
Knowing that you're coming into a situation like this.
And you've made some adjustments to.
Some of the concerns of the community.
Why would that not have triggered this.
Proponent to make some adjustments to that now.
I'm a counselor.
I'm concerned we're moving a little away from the site plan approval and if I can and if I can refer you to the environmental implications section of the report.
It's very clear there are no environmental implications with the proposed development as it pertains to municipal approvals.
That's been reviewed by planning development staff as well as legal.
So what we are you know here to hear the appeal on is the site plan approval.
And in particular the concerns that was raised by this council at the last appeal which really related to the to the.
The site lines from the property line.
There was very little other concerns raised.
And so I would ask members of council all of you to keep in mind that really we are focused here on the site plan approval.
As in accordance with our by law.
Thank you I guess from my perspective it's around to being being able to rely on the data and the information that's coming forward.
So.
Has to be relevant I get it all right thank you.
I see no other.
The name's on the board.
I have a question.
May.
Well, may first you may ask the question for the chair with that would be okay.
So John I'm going to challenge you on councilor Ken's question about the trees.
Could you pull up that the cross section please again that shows the vegetation.
Right so on on the map you have that the uppermost green patch that screen.
I was showing that as tree vegetation but that is in fact the dead patch trees.
That upper green one would be the dead trees so it doesn't really act as a green buffer anymore as showing on the map.
I guess that's the that's.
Our landscape architect went out.
He's licensed use accurate data were confident that if he's if this has changed or this is inaccurate it will be discovered when we do.
The delineation at the time when we're working with department environment a lot of information the photos that we've seen.
That that's all right thank you thank you that is the that is the dead patch trees so it's not about the expansion of the water it's about which right now we're talking about screening and buffering.
And if that is being indicated as a screen or a buffer.
I don't think that could be showing on the map and on this on this schematic anymore as as a green buffer.
Yeah it shows existing within area but from all the screenshots and areas and drone shots and Google shots we've seen it's actually a dead forest it's not.
It's it's a drown force it's not a live force it's not a green buffer zone.
Well I don't think I think it's if it's being indicated as as treat.
Screening it's it's not but my other point here is that.
Sorry I have the floor there council security I'd appreciate I'm asking for question of clarification about the trees.
Yes.
Thank you madam chair deputy mayor.
You must only ask questions of clarification not debate with speaker.
Right.
The other question I have is about why specifically are you choosing the property line for your sight lines and not the adjacent parcel so.
When I'm reading the requirements here it says that the land use impacts on the adjoining lands.
Not necessarily from the property boundary but from the lands in general and so when you I'm just wondering when you go to the adjoining lands you take any other perspectives beyond the ones from the property boundaries.
So the adjoining lands we could have gone further into the joining lands further from the property line but that would have shown more a greater distance and that someone might have thought that was also misleading.
So we got as close as we could to show what the view would be from the adjoining lands.
Right so it was kind of a comprehensive look at the view from the adjoining lands.
We did not go through the entire adjoining lands and create a bunch of views from the entire adjoining means immediately Jason we went to the closest point of the adjoining lands to the property.
And that's where the perspective would be the shortest kind of perspective with the trees.
Like if you had the trees right there and you're standing right here with the adjoining land as opposed to being 50 feet back with that change the perspective if you were 50 feet back or 100 feet.
We depend on the grades and whether there's vegetation in that 50 feet on the adjoining lands but you're still looking through the entirety of our of the previous properties and we need that consider.
We did not do great elevation it's not required but we did not do great elevations of the entirety of all the adjoining lands no.
Okay thank you.
Okay seeing no further questions on the board.
I'm going to now turn the page.
Okay so.
I'm going to turn over to you solicitor.
Would you please outline the process for council and the motion which must now be put on the floor.
Okay so as the recommendation section of the report says the rules requires to put the motion on the floor that reads that the appeal be allowed.
If that passes then that would allow the appeal of the residents and reject the site plan approval as presented by the property owner and the staff recommendation is that you vote no and deny the appeal on the basis says set out in the report and as you've heard from the respondent.
And I would note that this is actually the second appeal of this site plan approval council heads considered this as as you've been told and that is.
In the submissions and staff comments in the discussion section in effect where council heard this the first time it raised no issues with the items which are marked as addressed in the previous site plan approval submission.
So if there is new concerns with what you essentially agreed to in the past we would need to understand that for the record going forward in terms of challenging that at this point.
And as you've heard the C&D facility is itself and approved use of the property by virtue of the Supreme Court's order so the number of the issues that are raised are.
Unfortunately, and, you know, very distressing for all involved, but not germane, unfortunately, the argument. The issue is largely whether you're satisfied now with the revised site plan approval, and as I've noted as well, the issues surrounding noise and the concerns on noise, air quality, water quality, or property values are not relevant to the site plan approval question.
Okay. So you will vote no, if you accept the staff's recommendation and support the development officers decision on the matter, which would allow the facility to proceed to the next stages of planning and approvals from DOE in the rest, or vote yes to allow the appeal in which case the site plan approval is denied.
Okay. That's the motion. That's the motion. Recommendation is that the staff recommend the council deny the appeal.
Okay. Okay. There we go.
Okay.
Just clarifying everything here, Councillor Kent.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Mayor, I'll put the motion on the floor.
I moved that Halifax Regional Council allow the appeal.
I'll speak to that now.
I've been involved in this right from the very beginning and as far as those at Herber East in the last six years.
I am fully aware that this decision has to be based on the current policies within the
land use. I forget what it's called the.
The by law related to the plan that we're seeing today and I would.
Point to page five landscaping plan that shall be prepared that protects the minimizes land use impacts on a joining lands and the plan shall indicate the type size and location of all landscaping.
Elements including the landscaping along the front of the property to achieve the objective plan and a second one within any design design side and rear yards existing vegetation shall be retained unless it does not provide an adequate screening measures.
I put forward that I will be voting in favor of the.
Appellants and in recognition that to me those do not these are not satisfied enough for me to proceed. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. Councilor Mancini.
Thank you. Deputy Mayor.
Deputy Mayor as the slits are sitting early on tonight.
I've got questions and so staff have already done their presentation.
So some of these questions are from some of the presenters and I crossed off the ones are not relevant to the site.
I've done that. So I'm going to direct those questions to you.
I'm definitely there and hopefully someone in the room that has the knowledge of it and I'll give those questions to you now.
There's a claim of the ceiling pond is the wrong location.
So I haven't been on the site. I know idea. I'm just looking at the map.
Now, there's the claim that it's the wrong location is who do we have to get in from staff that can tell us that's cracked.
The next question is that, you know, and I think Councilor Kent alluded to it is the role of the fence.
What's the fence supposed to do? What material can use? What's the height? How do we measure that?
Is there any confirmation of what's being proposed? What's in place is accurate?
There's claim of the buffers incorrect.
Should be 60 meters in fact claim was that it's less than five meters from the water course.
Any confirmation of that with the rest correct or not?
The site plan not being accurate was another claim with regard the wetlands and the erosion.
And Councilor Austin talked about how the wetlands have grown dramatically from what we've seen here on the screen.
Vegetation is used as a claim to a visual screen.
Yet there's an argument that the vegetation is very high and so how do we identify that?
How do we measure that confirmed? That's the case.
You know, the applicant showed us in repression, general reshorter of vegetation.
Very good maps about sight lines.
So that's great. That's what the map is. How do we know that's accurate or not?
Is there a confirmation of that other end?
So those are the questions I'm just looking to answer.
And I think they're all related to the site plan.
Let me try.
Madam chair, I think you to council.
And I could repeat those here.
No, you may need to, but let me let me start off by putting it this way.
You're sitting in a quasi-dude issue position.
It's not a question of unanswered.
It's it's it's not an issue of unanswered questions.
It's a question of whether you're satisfied on the evidence in front of you, which is the staff report.
And any evidence or proof led by the applicants or the respondent in response.
So the 60 meter water course setback is set out in a dressed in attachment.
See of the report.
And is largely a matter as you will be aware of the Department of Environment and the rest.
So it's, you know, in terms of the fencing.
Council has to be satisfied with respect to whether or not it meets the requirements based on what you've heard tonight
for, you know, the buffering has set out in a by-law.
And, and so you have the evidence of the responded applicant in this case, the property owner.
Setting out what it, what it does.
And you will have heard from, you know, and you can judge from the plan and the staff report as to whether that's satisfactory or not.
So it's not a question of unanswered questions as it is in a public hearing.
It's a question of sitting in judgment on the on the development officer's decision.
Are you satisfied that the development officer made the right decision or not?
Where are we for time here?
Not sure if I got it all.
Right, and so it's clarification.
This is very difficult because this is not my expertise.
And we deal with a lot of stuff here at Council.
That's not my expertise.
So we rely upon our qualified staff to bring forward the information.
And so personally when I look at it, I look at what is the staff telling us if there's an applicant,
but is the applicant sent and I listen to the residents if it evolves the residents.
Today's situation is very difficult.
I sat in some of your living rooms years ago when I first got elected to listen to your concerns.
It came to community council.
We voted in a certain way in community council and they got overturned.
The question is asked, would I like to see the operation next to me?
And the answer is absolutely no.
I wouldn't like it.
And I'd be arguing the point.
It's very difficult where we sit here today.
I mean, based on what you just heard from the solicitor, we have to go by the information is here.
I don't like it.
I think I can hear the pain in your voices and I can see it and you're concerned.
We've already had to call these of ours that gave their strong opinion and they're not a lot of you and me here.
I'm sure they're watching at home here today.
This whole thing in my opinion, personally, is a mess.
It smells and I don't like it.
However, I think one gentleman said we have rules and the rules have to follow.
He said, you know, I think he recorded it until it doesn't make any sense.
Well, I'm close to that, but, you know, I can't be there.
So unfortunately, my situation is as much as I don't like this that I'm going to have to vote against the appeal.
However, I'm hoping after this regardless what happens if it doesn't go in the way that you want.
I'm looking at the folks in the gallery that you, you know, the province.
The province is hopefully is the last one.
They change the rules.
They make the final decision on the environment piece.
Hopefully, they see what we all see.
And they have that jurisdiction to vote in the right direction.
So, thank you, colleagues.
Thank you.
Councillor Cleary.
Thank you.
Deputy Mayor.
Councillor Mayan.
It's kind of tricky.
It smells.
But it's actually pretty straightforward.
You may not like how we got here.
But, you know, just to sum up, the then utilities and review board in 2020,
he decided with the appellants, key and management, to permit the C&D facility.
We can't change that.
Key and then applied, and through this process,
it was overturned, got a judicial review, which was decided in 2024.
Judge Jameson overturned it and said,
It's got to come back to council.
Did?
It was not approved.
Went back.
Here it is again.
So, what's interesting is several speakers.
And I think everyone for coming out.
I understand how fraught and how emotional this process probably is.
But several people refer to this as a proposal.
It's not.
It's not about the wetlands.
It's not about the air quality.
It's not about traffic or trucks or any of those things.
It's about a site plan approval process in the limited criteria that are met
for the site plan approval process.
So, Councillor Mayan said, he's looking for advice from our qualified staff.
They gave it.
It's right here.
Our qualified staff explicitly state in this report that they
recommend going ahead with this and turning down the appeal
and allowing the site plan to be approved.
So, if you're looking for advice for qualified staff, that's the advice.
And to our solicitor's point,
we're in a quasi-judicial environment here.
We have to make a decision.
Do we agree with the appellants?
Or do we agree with the responded?
This is also subject to judicial review.
And if we make the wrong decision, and especially if we use criteria or factors
that are not relevant to the site plan approval process in this appeal before us,
guess where that's going to go?
So, I have considered the speakers who have spoken here today.
Both the song and all the residents who came forward.
And on balance, I have to vote to not allow the appeal.
The screening, the vegetation, even from the submitted photographs,
it's pretty clear there's plenty of screening around this property that meets the site plan approval process.
So, you know, it is what it is.
And all of the other factors, the palm, the buffer,
those are not within our consideration today.
So, thank you, Deputy Mayor.
Thank you, Councillor Councillor Steele.
Thank you, Chair and Deputy Mayor.
A couple things struck me in this evening's appeal hearing.
And our staff report, they said we may make any decision that the development officer could have made.
And of course, the development officer's decision was based on the site plan approval criteria.
So, like Councillor Clarie, I feel that I have to vote with the recommendation of our staff.
I based on what's been presented.
I feel that the site plan approval criteria dictate that we go with the recommendation of the development officer.
I like a number of Councillors, Councillor Mancini.
I understand the concerns of residents in the area, but whether this facility goes ahead or not is out of our hands.
We were here tonight for a specific reason.
We varied a bit from it, but we were to approve the site plan or our reject,
whether we were comfortable and whether the changes that we requested last time were made.
There were changes made.
I feel they're sufficient.
So, I will be voting no.
Thank you, Councillor Councillor Austin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and, you know, similar sentiment here.
I remember when I was fresh elected going out and sitting in a living room to hear about this proposal,
as it was winding its way through a harbor east and I never supported it, right?
I took the staff report, but that was well done.
I thought in raised good points and voted no.
Let's not reason this land.
We know how that went.
We lost that one, right?
That got overturned.
And, you know, our role tonight is not to retry that in another form, right?
Just because we don't like it, right?
Where we live in a society governed by the rule of law.
And that means that now and then when even when you don't like it,
it comes to the rules.
And so, I look at this, you know, from that site plan criteria and the piece that I heard tonight
that I found the most interesting was regarding the water course,
but now I hear from clearly from the solicitor.
I can't, I can't weigh that, right? That's Department of Environment, right? When that eventually comes, that's not something I can consider, because of everything I heard tonight, that was the piece that was like, you know, just looking at that Google image, imagery is like, this has changed. That is different. But that does not my role tonight to decide on that, right? That goes over to the province. So with that in mind, I also, I can't support the appeal. I can't do it from a place of, it does,
it's no good as a body, as a government here, to, you know, vote for things that we know will get overturned, and let that be done elsewhere, because every time we do that, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we tell on ourselves is being on serious, we have to at times make the hard decisions, even when they're not popular, even if we don't like them, because that is what,
we're bound by on the, you know, our process and under the rule law. And so I find myself, I don't want this facility. I would, if you're, if I had, if this was a public area in a zoning, I would vote as I did before, but that's not what we are doing tonight. And so I can't vote for the appeal. I'm afraid. Thank you.
Councilor Councillor Dakele-Gamman. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, Madam Chair. It's hard when you agree with everybody and both sides of a conversation.
I think that, you know, this stuff did their job well. I think that the, the, the, the people that came forward, they did their homework too, and they did bring some really good science,
and some really good evidence to say that there are issues here, and we know that we can't change the Supreme Court decision.
But what we can do is figure out how do we mitigate as much as we can that this facility that we know that we can't change, but we can mitigate as much as we can to protect the community.
And so, you know, when you say, Mr. Traves, you said, was there enough evidence presented to say that there was enough changes made?
So for me, there wasn't enough evidence. I think that there was evidence that came from the people who spoke the appeal and that said there could be something different.
That could have been done. I, I don't think that the changes to the fence are enough. I do think that that there is when we look at the site plan. I don't think that that's enough.
I think that it's unclear about in terms of the site plan, the location where the vegetation and the buffer zones are all of those things.
I really don't feel like I have enough evidence to make a decision to say, you know, don't allow the appeal. So I will vote to allow the appeal. Thank you.
Thank you.
No further comments. I'll, if I may.
So I'm in agreement with Councillor dagelagaman. I don't feel that there has been enough evidence presented to convince me that the changes to the screening are doing what they are required to do, which is to minimize the land use impacts on the adjoining lands.
I'm not convinced that, you know, the, the buffers, the additional fence height, the mapping of the witted areas are accurate. I don't, the evidence doesn't convince me of that from the, from the documents in the report.
Because evidence was also presented that showed contradictory information. So I, looking at all the evidence that was presented here tonight, I will have to approve the appeal. I am, I am not, I'm not convinced either. Thank you.
Okay, with that is our call.
Wait.
Councillor, sorry, Councillor Austin, go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify for council, because I thought I heard our solicitor say, you know, if we allow the appeal, we have to provide reasons for why, right?
Like, we have to actually say, like, what the, what specific criteria.
No, we've heard, we've heard the debate, the debate is on that.
I think it, that's a piece of vision.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay. The question has been called. We're now going to vote electronically on the matter.
Okay. So the appeal is denied.
With that, I'd like to thank staff, the appellant, the applicant, and council for a thoughtful and I feel thorough discussion this evening about this case.
And with that, I think we are ready to adjourn. So is there a motion to adjourn?
I saw councilor Kent there first.
We are adjourned. Thank you.
Thank you.