Mayor and Council of the CBRM:

I take no joy in writing this. However, I feel compelled to critique the draft Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) and Land Use Bylaw (LUB) submitted for Council adoption.

The current CBRM MPS and LUB are long overdue for a thorough review, so I laud you for that and I commend you for implementing some refreshing ideas e.g. elimination of parking for residential uses throughout the downtowns, specific provisions regulating development in known and identified areas most susceptible to flooding e.g. prohibition of basements in the floodplain. 

There are some policies and implementing provisions I don’t necessarily agree with, but I am accepting of the new direction and respectful of the public consultation process which apparently led to their inclusion in these legal documents. However, I believe some policies and implementing provisions really should be re-considered.

I believe the policies and implementing provisions apparently intended to address the housing issue here are too unrestrained for the scale of the communities and residential neighbourhoods of CBRM. The majority of CBRM’s tax revenue is generated by taxes on residential properties; not commercial taxes, not grants from other levels of governments as you know only too well. Assessment values are estimated real estate values.  The residential real estate market relies on stability because property is a financial asset. Just like the stock market, if there is instability in the real estate market it will be reflected in assessment values. 

Toronto's population density is 116 times the density of the CBRM, but Toronto is not allowing 6 unit apartments on small residential lots.

This proposed MPs and LUB will permit apartment buildings up to 6 units as of right on parcels of land as small as 3,000 square feet in any fully serviced area e.g. Whitney Avenue in Sydney out to Ridgevale Estates in Westmount. I believe strongly the policies and implementing provisions allowing for this should be re-considered. The largest concentration of population in all of Canada is in the Toronto Metropolitan area. And no other place comes close.  It has 2 million more people than the 2^nd largest, i.e. Montreal.  That difference alone is twice the population of Nova Scotia. In an effort to address its housing problem, the City of Toronto is bragging that it just amended its Plan and implementing land use bylaw to allow apartment buildings with up to 4 units anywhere within the urban core encompassing just 10% of its metropolitan area. The area under the jurisdiction of Toronto’s amendment is just ¼ the geographic area of CBRM yet its population is 30 times greater than CBRM’s. That means its population density is 116 times the population density in the CBRM. In comparison, the approach taken in the new CBRM MPS seems like unnecessary overkill.

New CBRM by-laws will allow mobile homes in all residential neighbourhoods, including areas like Whitney Avenue and Ridgevale Estates.

Another major shift will be provisions to allow one-storey manufactured homes comprised of one main modular part (a.k.a. mobile homes) anywhere where residential development is permitted in the CBRM.  Once again, to use an above referenced example, it will include Whitney Avenue in Sydney with its streetscape of beautiful Edwardian age old homes out to Ridgevale Estates in Westmount.

CBRM will allow dormitories and rooming houses in all serviced residential neighbourhoods. 

The policies and implementing provisions that will permit shared dwellings (a.k.a. rooming houses owned by absentee landlords with no limit on the number of rooms to let) in all urban service residential neighbourhoods with only a promise to consider adopting a licencing bylaw seems like capitulation because of the student housing crises resulting from the student population expansion at Cape Breton University.  Remember housing is a Provincial responsibility. A municipality shouldn’t take on the sole responsibility of tackling this complex issue by implementing a narrow, one-dimensional solution. In attempting to solve one problem I believe this MPS will inadvertently create another.

Ribbon development on Sydney-Glace Bay highway to be permitted despite traffic safety report recommendations.

The policy and provisions restricting ribbon development along the Sydney – Glace Bay highway should not be abandoned. The two largest concentrations of population in Nova Scotia outside of metro Halifax are Sydney and Glace Bay.  There is not an urban community ¼ the size of Glace Bay in Nova Scotia not serviced directly by a controlled access highway.  The serious accident rates occurring along this corridor because of the high traffic volumes and contradictory interests of commuters versus residents attempting to access their property led to a traffic study jointly commissioned by CBRM and the Nova Scotia Department of Transportation.  The study recommended that traffic safety should trump development rights.  That will be abandoned with the new MPS.

Architectural and built heritage provisions to be abandoned.

I also believe the policy and provisions in effect intended to respect the uniform architectural forms in the south end neighbourhood of Sydney where most dwellings were constructed more than a century ago should not be eliminated.  Yes, the public consultation process gave people opportunity to engage but I wonder if the residents and property owners of this neighbourhood were more directly engaged about this change in policy that they would have been at all receptive to it. Actually, there is an excellent argument these provisions should also be in effect in similar neighbourhoods of other communities e.g. Queen Street in North Sydney and Brown Street in Sydney Mines.

Gap between Plan policy and Bylaws.

Finally, I must critique what appears to be in some instances a puzzling gap in the link between Plan policy and what is implemented in the Bylaw. Take for example the quote explaining the purpose of the Residential UR1 Zone.

“The UR1 zone is applied to serviced or partially serviced development in the Service Area Boundary generally taking a traditional suburban format with one and two storey dwellings on orderly streets with consistent front and side yard setbacks. The consistent suburban format is encouraged through the permitting of lower density housing forms.”

Reads like an introduction to a zone that would be in effect in a suburban subdivision like Cantley Village.  It isn’t.  Two of the only 3 areas of the CBRM I could find on the Zoning map where this zone will be in effect are Reserve Mines and a part of New Victoria.  These are two very old communities built around coal mines that were in existence before JB McLaughlin came over here from Scotland.  According to the consultant the real purpose of the zone is to restrict development because of piped servicing capacity issues.  But I couldn’t find any policy statement to support such an explanation.

I will end it here.  For those councillors who had the patience to read this thank you.  I will of course respect whatever your final decision is.  During the public consultation process I completed a survey and attended a couple of open houses, but I did not attempt to overly exert any influence directly to the consultant or staff.

Respectfully submitted by

Malcolm Gillis