Do you see what I see: The next post in my series of posts on the UARB ruling that the proposed Big Pond RV park does not meet the intent of the CBRM municipal planning strategy has to do with the critical site-visit.

But first, a recap with links to the article that came before:

• CBRM Planning did not present Council with the actual policy they had to follow, but with an altered version that changed the meaning of the policy

• CBRM Planning did not apply the visual impact test required in policy 17e of their Municipal Policy Strategy in the same way as they had in another case

• CBRM Planning presented facts about campgrounds from far-flung places, but failed to check out whether these campgrounds had to follow a policy governing sound and visual impact like the proposed Big Pond campground does

• CBRM Planning did not consider the visual of noise impact of the whole development but only the RV sites and the campers, though policy 17e states that the impact of the “business development” must be evaluated.

Do You See What I See?

There are two things that I want to point out about the CBRM site visit:

Thing One: 

1. The CBRM planner’s report of February 15, 2018, was written before the CBRM planners drove out to Big Pond to look at the proposed site for the RV park and the properties near it. This is the key report in this case.

Jim MacDonald, representative for the appellants before the UARB, asked the planner about this:

Q.  Okay. So, just so I'm clear, was it [the site visit]-- I had understood it was after you prepared your February 15th report. And prior to the memo and prior to the February 23rd report.

A. I believe so, yes.

I am not a planner. But it seems that CBRM Planning would have wanted to visit the site prior to writing a report on whether this site should  be considered for a large-scale development. The planner did testify that the CBRM has pictometry imagery for most of the CBRM, but surely this should not replace actually being in a space.

Thing 2:  CBRM Planning did not visit the properties that are vulnerable to the visual and sound impact of this proposed development.

Allow me to present a scientific drawing of the path of each site visit.

You get the idea.

I do not know why CBRM planning didn’t take a better look around: It seems to me that the UARB listened to the witnesses at the hearing and then went to see what they were describing. This seems like what most of us would do if we had to figure out if property owners could be reasonably protected from a development’s impact.

Which brings me to listening.

I have a theory. I think that if CBRM planning and Council really listened, listened as if the people who live in an area, wherever it be in the CBRM, understand how muddy the bottom of a pond is or what they can see when they sit on their porch or how the slope of land rising from water means that there is nowhere to hide an RV park, that devisive planning decisions could be avoided.

I do not think that the people who live in an area know everything, just that what they know and see should be part of big decisions that will affect how they live.

The UARB pointed out that the lawyer for the CBRM and the lawyer for the developer both argued that because the witnesses had brought forward their evidence and arguments to Council and CBRM planning before the vote, that they had been heard. (I am paraphrasing; you can read the relevant section of the ruling starting on page 90, here.)

But the UARB had something to say about listening:

However, in the Board’s opinion, CBRM Council is not entitled to simply listen to all the comments during its planning process and then decide to ignore such evidence and do as it chooses without regard to clear policy direction contained in the MPS. Rather, CBRM is required to apply the policy in a manner that would reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS.

As someone who attended the public meeting on this issue, I did get the sense that the people who made their way to the podium to have their say were not being heard - though some councillors were listening.

I will next write about the public participation program for this development. (Yikes.)