“But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Oh, Alice, I feel your pain. Though it was not a fabulous cat but Mayor Clarke who revealed the madness of the zoning amendment process in CBRM. (And he was not alone.)

I plan to write a series of articles, here on GoCapeBreton, that will attempt to dissect the CBRM zoning amendment process and why it must change.

Today, I want to write about why Mayor Clarke voted for zoning amendment 1037, requested by Mr. Chris Skidmore  of Calgary as he wants to put up a giant RV park in Big Pond. 

Let's begin with Policy 17E in the CBRM Municipal Planning Strategy - it is a strange policy, boiling down all of the potential harms that a proposed development could have in a rural area to just four seemingly random criteria:

When a large-scale development is proposed for a rural community that is not zoned for said development, it is logical to assume that the CBRM Council would consider factors like whether there is an environmentally sensitive ecosystem at the proposed site, like the barachoise at the site for the Big Pond RV park proposal. Certainly, other municipalities  use their MPS to do just that, as Shelburne does in Nova Scotia and all muncipalities in places like British Columbia do, as this screenshot taken from the document,  Environmental Best Management Practices for Urban and Rural Land Development in British Columbia shows:

So why is our council arguing with CBRM residents about what kind of fumes might be generated by a site, or whether the proposed development is visually compatible with its environment, when other municipalities, in Nova Scotia and throughout Canada, consider the environment when evaluating a development proposal, let alone the creation of a new zone in a rural area?

This is an important question that must be answered. 

But let's get back to Mayor Clarke's vote.

Opponents of the Big Pond RV proposal did research, wrote letters to councillors and the mayor, spoke with councillors and the mayor, and were told that the only four criteria that mattered were those of 17E. (I will write a poem, one day, about 17E. It will be dark. ) 

Opponents also repeatedly pointed out to the mayor and council that they have an obligation to consult with Mi’kmaq leaders about the proposal as it would affect the Bras d'Or Lake and wetlands - to no avail. 

As an aside, I am grateful to Councillor Marshall who presented a motion that the Mi’kmaq leaders be consulted on this important process, which did result in a consultation process that will be triggered should Mr. Skidmore apply for a permit of any kind related to his proposal. Mayor Clarke did then consult with Chief Leroy Denny and Chief Terry Paul about how he should respond to Councillor Marshal's motion, and I respect this decision. 

And so it was that those who opposed the project studied 17E until they could study it no more. And they presented scientific evidence that the developer could not possibly mitigate the four criterias laid out in 17E and so zoning amendment 1037 shoud be rejected. 

And now for the Alice-in-Wonderland moment: Mayor Clarke, in preliminary remarks at the special meeting in consideration of zoning amendment 1037, said that he would vote for the proposal because it would go forward and trigger consultation with Mi’kmaq leaders and provincial, and possible federal, bodies of government. 

Mr. Mayor, where in 17E does it refer to using the voting process to trigger further consulation on a proposal as acceptable?

I am profoundly grateful that the Mi’kmaq leaders and communities will be consulted on this development, and it is my hope that an environmental assessment, which would automaticaly triggered  by this development were we in New Brunswick, PEI, or Newfoundland, will happen. 

But the fact remains that Mayor Clarke's vote was not based on the criteria that he and his council had repeatedly told our community that it had to be. 

And this is fundamentally unfair. 

Stay tuned for more on an MPS that has to go, and the councillors - like Councillor MacMullin who explained that she is not a scientist and therefore cannot consider the environment in her zoning decision (Huh?) - who contributed to the Alice-in-Wonderland vibe at the special meeting where zoning amendment 1037 was considered.