Hello Residents of District 7,
Our twelfth council meeting of the year was held on Thursday, 19 June.
The Regional Plan meeting agenda, reports and video recording are linked below.
Halifax Regional Council – Special Meeting – June 19, 2025
This was a public hearing for Phase Four of the Regional Plan review. Phase Five is expected to come to council in 2029.
The amendments that were made on 10 June are found in these Minutes starting on page 3: eSCRIBE Minutes
Further amendments, or motions to apply to Phase 5 planning were made at this 19 June meeting. They are found in these Draft Minutes starting on page 9: June 19, 2025 Regional Council Special Meeting Draft Minutes
I want to explain why I ended up voting No to the Regional Plan. The plan had to pass. It did pass 13 – 4. We were under a 30 June legislated deadline to pass the provincially mandated Minimum Planning Requirements (MPR). Staff worked very hard under difficult circumstances (the MPRs that conflict with our strategic plans, legal challenges surrounding constructive takings and the legislated deadline).
I decided to vote No for three reasons:
- I am uncomfortable with the MPRs that do not require ground floor commercial spaces or bedroom unit mixes (until 01 April 2027). It is hard to build complete communities with no shops, services or places for families or thrifty roommates to live.
- I am hesitant to progress towards the development of unserved areas that provide environmental benefits to society. I think that development is best completed inside service boundaries to be financially and environmentally sustainable. Some of our Future Service Communities are now Special Planning Areas (SPA), which means that the Minister of Housing can approve developments. Future Service Communities | Shape Your City Halifax
- I wanted to be a voice for the people who are also uncomfortable with 1 and 2 above. If we passed the plan unanimously, I felt it would appear to the public and the provincial government that we fine with these changes, when in reality we would prefer to plan for HRM’s future in collaboration with the province, not at their direction.
Here is part of Councillor Morse’s Facebook post on the Regional Plan for more details:
“…Although I feel the Regional Plan is strong in the sections where HRM planners had control, I voted no because there are important sections of the Regional Plan where HRM planners and HRM Council didn’t have any say.
… The Special Planning Areas are 16 sites in HRM…where large housing developments will be approved by the provincial Minister of Housing, and in the process will bypass Regional Council’s public hearings…
Examples of Special Planning Areas in or near District 10 are: Kearney Lake, Sandy Lake and Highway 102 Corridor (Susie’s Lake/Blue Mountain). If these sites are developed in the future, I’m concerned the lack of public hearings will mean these developments won’t get the scrutiny they should. All three sites border on lakes and two contain sensitive habitats. If they must be developed, they should have good oversight.
So what’s next? There won’t be any immediate change for Highway 102 Corridor (Blue Mountain) or Sandy Lake because both of these Special Planning Areas are outside the current municipal service boundary (they don’t have water, sewer, transit etc.) and will require more planning work. Completed studies and plans are at least 2-3 years away.
It’s a big decision to expand the municipal services boundary. It’s usually more environmentally and financially sustainable to densify housing inside a municipal service boundary rather than outside. Developing outside the service boundary often requires big public infrastructure investments to extend roads and pipes.
Along with the initial capital costs, there’s the ongoing operating costs of providing services such as transit, garbage collection and snow clearing in a new area. As the CAO cautioned: “Sometimes we build new communities where the cost of servicing that community is higher than any tax that community is capable of generating”. Or as the saying goes, “Sprawl costs us all”.
…The Minimum Planning Standards remove HRM’s ability to encourage more mixed types of housing in new buildings which could result in less affordable housing. HRM was intending to require a certain number of 2- and 3-bedroom units in new multiunit buildings.
With this requirement removed, builders can instead create more bachelor and one-bedroom units which are more profitable but are less suitable for sharing and therefore less affordable. The Minimum Planning (Requirements) also remove HRM’s ability to encourage ground floor commercial space in new multiunits, which will mean suburban communities like ours will have new large-scale housing with fewer stores and services close to where people live, making future communities more car centric.
The government of Nova Scotia controls HRM and Regional Council through legislation and the Halifax Charter. Because provincial powers supersede municipal powers, HRM Regional Council was essentially required to pass Phase 4 of the Regional Plan…
Now that Phase 4 has passed, HRM planners will get to work on Phase 5 of the Regional Plan, which will provide more details about future growth areas as the associated infrastructure and operating costs.”
Our thirteenth council meeting of the year was held on Tuesday, 24 June.
The full meeting agenda, reports and video recording are linked below.
Halifax Regional Council – June 24, 2025
Here are the District 7 highlights from Tuesday’s meeting:
“Motion:
That Halifax Regional Council maintain the current enforcement mechanism for excessive vehicle noise through the Noise By-law and Motor Vehicle Act.”
This issue was frustrating for veteran councillors as we seem to be going in circles. Loud vehicles are a problem in all districts of HRM. Back in 2017, changes to legislation were requested from the province, and somewhere along the way decibel measurement devices were proposed as a solution to help police with enforcement. The motion above is a staff recommended motion from police, stating that they already have the legislative tools they need to charge offenders with through the existing noise bylaw and the MVA, and that no Vehicle Noise bylaw nor decibel measurement devices were required.
So, we are back where we started, and this is another issue that requires focused resource time to enforce for police, with limited resources to enforce everything we would like them to.
Here is the TSC motion and Information Report that came from legal in 2017. I very much appreciate our solicitor sharing that this legal advice could have been clearer back then. We can only have continuous improvement if we can learn from what worked well and what didn’t in the past.
Restriction and Control of Motor Vehicle Noise – Oct 17/17 Regional Council | Halifax.ca
13.3.1 Events East Business Plan
For information you can watch the presentation (Events East runs Scotiabank Center and the Halifax Convention Center).
15.2.1 Wanderers Block Functional Plan
This motion was deferred due to time constraints (our meeting went until 10:30 pm without this item).
15.4.1 Proposed Residential Parking Permit Surcharge for Heavy Vehicles
That Halifax Regional Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer to direct staff to prepare amendments to implement a pricing model based on vehicle weight for annual residential parking permits, as described in the discussion section of the staff report dated April 14, 2025, and return to Halifax Regional Council for approval.”
Heavy vehicles cause more wear and tear on our roads, lead to more severe injuries when involved in collisions and take up more public space than lighter vehicles. This motion is a first step in encouraging residents to drive smaller vehicles in the future, for the public good.
For now, this motion will only effect people living in places where resident street parking permits are issued (D5, 7, 8 & 9 and perhaps parts of the new D3 inside the circumferential highway per the map at the end of this bylaw):
By-Law P-1200, Respecting On-Street Parking Permits | Halifax.ca
It would be more of a challenge logistically to include commuter and visitor permits at this time, but I do think we should revisit this in the future. For now, staff will prepare the annual residential parking permit amendments and come back to council for approval.
The motion passed 12-4. I voted Yes.
16.1 Deputy Mayor Mancini
That Halifax Regional Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer to write a staff report of all AAA bike network capital projects defined in current the four-year Capital Plan for years 2026-29.
The staff report will include:
1. A list of bike lane projects proposed in the fiscal years 2026-29 with their estimated budget requirement;
2. Assesses the feasibility of alternative network solutions that could reduce future costs; and
3. Provides opportunities for additional external funding sources.”
I requested two amendments to this motion. My friendly amendment (the mover and seconder agreed to the change) to break up the costs into 4 buckets was accepted, but the cost-benefit analysis amendment was defeated 8 – 7.
“A list of bike lane projects proposed in the fiscal years 2026-2029 with their estimated budget requirement (separated into general traffic, public space, pedestrian and bike lane improvements) and holistic cost-benefit analyses;”
I appreciate Deputy Mayor Mancini’s drive to spend responsibly. This is important to me too, but we would be endlessly second guessing our budget if we took a deep dive into each line item as we are proposing to here. I am concerned due to the conversation during the debate that staff are going to return to council with indirect routing for our AAA network, a reduction in the physical barriers between the general traffic lanes and the bicycle lanes, or recommendations to implement tactical solutions rather than permanent ones. This, to me, will drive up the cost in the long run as we delay upgrading to permanent solutions. We shall see.
I do think the way we design and install our AAA network can be improved, but I think in having conversations, finding possible solutions and bringing them forward is more productive than looking backwards. We are behind on our own plans, and we are behind the progress made in other municipalities; I want to move forward without further delay.
The motion was also broken up into three votes.
Here are the results of the votes and how I voted:
Item 1 Passed 13 – 2 I voted Yes.
Item 2 Passed 11 – 4. I voted No.
Item 3 passed unanimously.