The Big Pond RV Park - Really, Cape Breton Partnership?

Lorna MacNeil Follow Me

Posted this 2019-02-16 11:00 AM AST (updated 2019-02-16 9:46 PM AST)

First, please read this social post written by a Mr. Craig Boudreau:

BIG POND RV PARK - update. The CBRM has until Feb 22nd to appeal the decision of the UARB. Marci and I have met with representatives from the Cape Breton Partnership and the Cape Breton Regional Chamber of Commerce and they both have agreed to provide support for this development in the form of written communication and/or presentation at council. Now is the time to share this post as widely as possible and contact your councilors. Let's muster a great show of support. We do not want to lose another small business in CB. And those of you that offered individual support, we will be reaching out to you as soon as we know the next steps.

Whoa.

I was just reading Cape Breton Partnership’s magazine Elevate yesterday - it was delivered to my workplace - and I was impressed with the meaningful exposure they provide Cape Breton businesses.

Cape Breton Partnership has investors like ACAP, Cape Breton Centre for Craft and Design, CBU, Celtic Colours, Destination Cape Breton, Eskasoni Corporate Division, Ethical Swag, the Horizon Achievement Centre and others.

Do these investors understand that Cape Breton Partnership is taking a public stand against a legal ruling that supports the limited protections rural citizens of CBRM have when it comes to how they live?

I guess we will find out.

In the meantime, I would urge Mr. Boudreau to read the UARB ruling - he states on his Facebook page that he is “too busy” - and it is long, but reading it is essential to understanding this issue. I would also expect that Cape Breton Partnership and the Cape Breton Regional Chamber of Commerce examine this ruling before agreeing to publicly opposing it.

Let us all take a step back and understand that:

Rural residents do have the right, under the Municipal Government Act and the CBRM municipal planning strategy, to reasonable protection from four things: noise, visual incompatibility, dust and fumes and traffic attached to a development such as this proposed RV park.

The UARB has ruled that this proposed development does not provide this reasonable protection to those living in the proposed RV park’s vicinity.

The UARB only grants an appeal such as this 5 % of the time.

The UARB also found that CBRM planning made significant errors in evaluating the proposed project, to the point that the board could not evaluate their testimony as they would that of an expert.

The reason that the UARB hears planning appeals is because sometimes mistakes are made, and they can help correct them. If rights are being trampled on, it is their job to step in.

Should CBRM wish to make a case that the UARB made a legal error, they can appeal, though it seems logical to allow the developer to appeal in a cash-strapped municipality.

But Cape Breton Partnership and the Cape Breton Regional Chamber of Commerce are surely overstepping their mandate when they publically lobby against a legal decision without clearly stating the legal error that they believe was made.

We must demand more from these high profile organizations.We do not vote on legal rulings in Canada. Let’s keep it that way.

Posted by Lorna MacNeil
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW

Like 12 Dislike 1

FOLLOW 16

1,895 9

The UARB legally ruled that the BIg Pond RV park goes against the CBRM municipal planning strategy. This should mean something to all Cape Bretoners.

9

Depth
Lynn Hussey Follow Me 2019-02-17 10:32 AM AST Reply 5 0 I'm 'annoyed' at how anyone that sides with the citizens who do Not want this in their community gets painted as being the people who are bringing around Cape Breton's decline! How many of the people in favor of it (Craig Boudreau included) WOULD want this where they live? Residents living where this monstrosity would be installed have every right to oppose it without being attacked for doing so. Power to the Residents!
Joe Ward Follow Me 2019-02-17 11:42 AM AST Reply 1 0 The CBRM made a mistake. Planners gave Councillors bad information, re: the meaning of "can" versus "shall" as outlined by Mary Campbell of the Cape Breton Spectator in her breakdown of the ruling. The UARB did not miss that detail whatsoever. If they want to force this through, then they need to amend the planning strategy, and not with a limited exception for this project (which would, IMO, be an act of corruption). They need to be prepared that every part of the CBRM would be affected equally by the changes. Then they have to re-assert that the home, landowners (collectively, taxpayers), prospective enterprises (organic farming), Eskasoni First Nation, biosphere stakeholders, and other party's concerns are less important than the development proceeding. Doncaster and Marshall will oppose. All of the rest will be confronted with the fact that the Big Pond stakeholders may have a weaker influence on their individual district reelection chances than the public who has an enthusiasm for the project, without concern as to the basis for the rejection and why it's supported by the current CBRM planning strategy/zoning. Lorna MacNeil My Post Follow Me 2019-02-17 3:17 PM AST Reply 1 0 Hi Joe, The UARB did more than point out the fundamental errors that CBRM planning made - they had the obligation to review the planning strategy in its entirety and decide whether it allowed the proposed development on the chosen site and it found that it no way does. The CBRM gets its power to have a municipal planning strategy from the Municipal Government of Nova Scotia, I am not a lawyer, but the MGA clearly states that municipalities must be “fair” and “reasonable” when administering their municipal planning stategies, and also recognizes the right of citizens to reasonable enjoyment of their land. So, the CBRM does have limits to their power in making development decisions, and this is, as we are seeing, a very necessary thing. This development issue is now in the legal sphere, and for CBRM not to respect this would be, as you say, corrupt and unsustainable.
Ed MacLellan Follow Me 2019-02-17 4:59 PM AST Reply 2 0 What will it cost to appeal this to the province's highest court? I'm guessing at least $100,000 and quite possibly more. Taxpayers shouldn't fund this. If there's an appeal the developer can pay for it himself.
Perry MacKinnon Follow Me 2019-02-19 8:28 AM AST Reply 0 0 Lets hope that this ends with a logical decision that will ignore the fear mongering ( not going to be the end of life as we know it for anyone ) and vocal minority. Lorna MacNeil My Post Follow Me 2019-02-19 9:02 AM AST Reply 0 0 Agreed, re the logical decision part. The UARB listened to days of testimony, read all relevant policies and laws and concluded that: Taking into account all of the evidence, the Board finds that, in terms of visual compatibility and noise, the zone provisions in the proposed Big Pond Campground Zone approved by Council would provide no protection whatsoever to the properties located below it on Lochmore Harbour (i.e., on the barachois), including the residential properties of 1, 2, and 3 . There are no zone provisions that would provide any protection measures, let alone reasonable ones, for these properties located in proximity to the campground. In the Board’s opinion, the zone provisions in the LUB amendment will be ineffective. [Given the topography of the entire area and the higher elevation of the campground site (relative to the properties on the barachois), the residents located on the barachois will be able to observe most, if not all, of the proposed campground and recreational uses being carried out on the subject lands. This is especially so when one considers the potentially imposing nature of up to 211 RVs parked on the hill up from the barachois. Policy 17.e states that where the zone provisions do not provide reasonable protection to residential development in proximity, the application shall be denied. Therefore, the Board concludes that Council’s decision does not reasonably comply with the intent of the MPS. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
MB Whitcomb Follow Me 2022-03-21 10:45 AM ADT Reply 1 0 I used to love to visit Key West in south Florida for natural beauty, unique local architecture, and friendly people. Quiet, stars, small businesses and a "flavor" all its own. Like Cape Breton has and is slipping away. Now every corner of Key West is crammed with RV parks...rows, and rows of people self-sufficient to the degree that they only need a grocery store or a hospital. They put pressure on infrastructure and local services...on lots too tiny to serve as much of a tax base. It is not on the list any more of any place I want to go...the noise and light pollution is bad, and people who don't have a permanent stake in a community don't care about it in the same way. The blight caused by these places of people living cheek by jowl is not what defines rural living. This disposable but non-sustainable form of housing costs more to a community than they give back. If you have not experienced it first hand, go visit...the major priority of an RV owner is to live "on the cheap". And if the cost can be passed on to you at the expense of your quality of life, who cares? Lynn Hussey Follow Me 2022-03-21 1:04 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Excellent post MB Whitcomb. All good points. I, for one, want to perserve Cape Breton's uniqueness. As it is, with people moving out to the country, there is light and noise pollution all the time. I'd hate to see a beautiful area Ruined by RV parks. Just my opinion. Joe Ward Follow Me 2022-03-21 1:24 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Planning is very important. In this particular case, zoning didn't allow it, therefore protection was already in place. But the arguments were very strong (at least upon appeal; no surprise of sloppy work by the CBRM). The one caveat with the idea of protecting exclusivity, is that it benefits those who possess it, and is restrictive of those who do not. Middle and lower-middle income families have to seek more financially feasible ways to enjoy the world. This is not an easy conflict to resolve. As such, it really is a matter of very thoughtful, strategic planning, and a case by case basis. This particular proposal could have been successful in many other areas of Cape Breton, but they seemed to have sought out only a single location. In a way, had the CBRM been very direct about the area not being the right place, they might have simply found one where they could have moved forward without all of the hurdles, which likely discouraged them from starting the process up again.