Skip to content. Accessibility info.

Chebucto Community Council October 5, 1998 Agenda


  • Councillor Bill Stone
  • Councillor Russell Walker
  • Councillor Stephen D. Adams


  • Barry Allen, Municipal Solicitor 
  • Roger Wells, Regional Coordinator, Planning Services 
  • Gary Porter, Planner
  • Thea Langille Hanna, Planner
  • Sandra Shute, Assistant Municipal Clerk


  • Councillor Hanson


Table of Contents


The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. at 2750 Dutch Village Road with an Invocation. Councillor Stone provided an update on Councillor Hanson's health.


MOVED by Councillors Adams and Walker to approve the Minutes of meeting held on September 14, 1998 as circulated. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.


Added Items: 553 Herring Cove Road - Legal Opinion - Councillor Adams

MOVED by Councillors Adams and Walker to approve the Order of Business as amended. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.


4.1 Status Sheet Items

4.1.1 Snow Removal from Sidewalks - No report.

4.1.2 Feasibility of Community Transit and Area Rate - Sambro Harrietsfield

An Information Report dated October 1, 1998 was before Community Council outlining potential area rates for a proposed Community Transit service for the above area.

Councillor Adams requested a deferment until the December meeting of Community Council since there was no opportunity to levy an area rate until the new year, even if it was decided to do so. At that time he would ask for input from staff as to the process.

4.1.3 Dumping - Harrietsfield and Williamswood and Possibility of Gate

Councillor Adams provided an update on the possibility of installation of a gate and advised he hoped that a solution would be reached. He has contacted Department of Transportation and the area MLA in this matter.

4.1.4 Proposed Subdivision at Forward Avenue

The following information was before Community Council:

1. Information Report dated September 28, 1998 from Development Services

2. Information Report dated September 29, 1998 from Planning Services.

With regard to the September 29, 1998 report, Gary Porter, Planner having apologized for the lateness of the report, was subsequently requested to provide an overview of same.

Councillor Stone asked if Community Council decided to consider going from R-2 to R-1, did it make any difference that the subdivision application was submitted. In reply, Mr. Porter advised that as of this morning, there was no application for subdivision although staff knew there was an interest in making one. Up until such time as an ad goes in the newspaper, the Development Officer is able to issue Development Permits for two-unit dwellings. It was likely that if Community Council decided to move to rezoning, before this was done, development permit applications could be received and permits issued. The rezoning would not prohibit R-2 uses going in as they would have already received their development permits.

Councillor Stone expressed dissatisfaction with staff for submitting such a late report and asked the other members of Community Council how they wished to proceed since there had not been an opportunity to read the report.

Councillor Walker asked if Community Council went with Option No. 3, would the residents have to come up with the required costs to make an application and, if so, did the residents know that. In reply, Mr. Porter advised that the residents would have to pay and that the spokes people knew it.

Mr. Roger Wells, Regional Coordinator, Planning Services clarified that there were two separate procedures that staff was dealing with. One was an as-of-right subdivision application - although not formally received as such - and the other was what the residents were interested in - having Community Council consider a rezoning from R-2 to R-1. Community Council or the residents could initiate that process but it would have nothing to do with the as-of-right subdivision application procedure that the landowner is entitled to go through. The big concern on the part of the residents was the traffic situation and it might be possible to work with the landowner through the subdivision process to try to address that issue. A rezoning process does take some time and does not prohibit or preclude the developer from proceeding with subdivision approval. There was a meeting last week with the residents and the Mayor at which staff had been present and the Mayor indicated that perhaps this area should undergo a closer look in terms of a comprehensive plan relative to the transportation network and land use. This would take time and would involve community input.

Councillor Walker asked the status of the street closure application for Forward Avenue. In reply, Mr. Wells said it formed part of the Petition on behalf of the residents. Mr. Porter added he did not think it was being actively pursued as there was a pending application and there might be other solutions to the intersection problems.

Mr. Wells referred Community Council to the Information Report from Development Services with respect to the need for two accesses or otherwise a 750' cul-de-sac.

Councillor Walker asked if the Information Report re Plan Review of Mainland South Municipal Planning Strategy for Polling Districts 17 and 18 dated September 25, 1998 would include this area. He was told yes.

MOVED by Councillors Walker and Adams to defer this matter to November 2, 1998 at which time input could be obtained from the residents as to whether or not they want to go ahead with Option 3 contained in the Staff Report dated September 29, 1998. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.




7.1 Fencing Permit Application - 19 Fairmount Road

The following information was before Community Council:

1. Staff Report dated July 2, 1998 re Fence Permit Application, 19 Fairmount Road

2. Letter dated October 1, 1998 from Valarie and Rory O'Day, 19 Fairmount Road

3. Letter dated August 24, 1998 from Jerry and Janet Bray, 17 Fairmount Road

Mr. Rory O'Day, 19 Fairmount Road, Halifax, the applicant, advised he was asking for an extension to what already exists on the property on the line between 19 and 17 Fairmount Road. Over the past year, a 35' extension of a garage was built next door which blocks off the view from his front yard and there was now a view of 5' of asphalt roof. The request was for a permit to extend an existing trellis fence down towards the front of the propertywhich would be an aesthetic response to the feeling of being very crowded since the garage was built. The trellis fence would be 9.5' high which was still not as high as the highest point of the garage. It would follow the roof line of the garage. By granting the permit, he felt it would be an appropriate response if only because Development Services was comfortable with the level of crowding and show flexibility to the sense of crowding. He had two surveys - one which was obtained many years ago and from which the picket fence was built many years ago - and according to that survey, the fence was on his property. 17 Fairmount Road got a survey last year which indicates the fence is on the line which, in effect, meant a difference of 1.75" and there had never been any dispute regarding the location of the fence until now. He was asking the same privilege as was granted the Brays when they put the extension on the garage and to go with his survey.

Councillor Walker asked if it was the intent to come right out to the street. In reply, Mr. O'Day said it was proposed to stop at the end of the garage but the picket fence would extend another small section.

On a question from Councillor Adams as to when Mr. O'Day started the process to build the fence, Mr. O'Day advised it was back in the spring.

Councillor Stone asked for clarification that it was the intent to continue the trellis fence at the same height to the end of the garage. In response, Mr. O'Day said that at the point where the land slopes down, the fence is 8' but if you extend it out - in order to keep it parallel - it was 9.5' at the tallest point to follow the roof line of the garage.

Mr. Jerry Bray, 17 Fairmount Road, Halifax advised he had strong objections to the application. He submitted a survey certificate - not a plot plan - which clearly indicates that the existing fence is on the property line and encroaches on his property. He did not have any intention of allowing a new fence to be constructed - 6.5' or 10'. If you put a fence 9.5' high, it will clearly obstruct the view from that side of the property and from his upstairs windows. It will block the street view and not allow anyone to see the lovely garage he built. The size of fence will be an eyesore. There were no other high fences on Fairmount Road and he did not think it was an appropriate precedent to set. There was concern with his new flower bed and wall built out front and he did not want any damage done to it.

Councillor Stone asked how the proposed fence, on the side of the new garage, would affect Mr. Bray's upstairs windows. Mr. Bray explained by way of the photographs he submitted and advised that when the leaves go off the trees, there would be a better view of the street.

Councillor Adams asked for clarification that what Mr. Bray was saying was that if the fence was built, it was on his property. Mr. Bray agreed.

Councillor Stone then asked for clarification from the Municipal Solicitor regarding the survey from Mr. Bray and the indication from Mr. O'Day that the two property lines are not the same. Mr. Allen, in reply, advised that Community Council was deciding on the height of the fence. There were two courses of action that can be taken when there is a dispute between the neighbours as to where the boundary line is. One is to say to them to go away and settle the boundary line and, when you do that, the fence application will be considered. The other would be to consider the fence application from the point of view of height and design but the approval is not an approval of where the boundary line is. It was still incumbent on whoever was going to erect the fence that it goes up on their own property. There was no legal reason why Community Council could not make a decision tonight but Community Council could also send it back and require the applicant to come back with a settled boundary.

Councillor Stone then expressed his views on the application which, in effect, was that fair was fair. If there was little or no consideration given to putting a two-storey garage at the front of the Bray house, then the same consideration should be given to the next door neighbour.

After Councillor Adams asked Mr. O'Day if he had run out of time to construct the fence this year and Mr. O'Day had agreed, Councillor Adams made the following motion:

MOVED by Councillors Adams and Walker to defer a decision for a month in order to view the property to consider the effects of the proposed fence and have a better idea whether or not it will interfere. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

Councillor Walker indicated as well that he wished to view the property.


8.1 Case 00032 - Rezoning of 22 Edgehill Road from R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) to R-2 (Two Family Dwelling) - Halifax District 17

The following items were before Community Council with regard to this application:

1. Staff Report dated September 15, 1998.

2. Letter dated September 24, 1998 from Ann Eade in support of the application.

Mr. Gary Porter, Planner provided an overview of the application and advised that staff was recommending approval of the application.

The Chair called for members of the public wishing to speak either in favour or against the application.

Mr. Stephen Bell, 22 Edgehill Road, the applicant advised that the woman who owned the house previously rezoned it in 1984 and sold it to him as an R-2 property. He did not know the difference until he put in an application to renovate and found it had been changed.

The Chair then called three times for any additional speakers. Hearing none, the following motion was placed:

MOVED by Councillors Walker and Adams that the Public Hearing close. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

MOVED by Councillors Walker and Adams to rezone 22 Edgehill Road from R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) to R-2 (Two Family Dwelling). MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

8.2 Case 00033 - Rezoning to Apply Schedule "L" to 531 Herring Cove Road

A Staff Report dated September 30, 1998 was before Community Council. Thea Langille Hanna, Planner provided an overview of the application and advised that staff was recommending rejection of the application for the following reasons:

1. A formal rezoning application has not been received. Under the normal and standard rezoning and Development Agreement process, the applicant should submit detailed plans to enable staff, the public and Community Council to properly evaluate the proposal.

2. A Public Information Meeting was held in February, 1998 to discuss applying Schedule "L" at which time there were members of the public who expressed concern with Schedule "L" because of the future intent for the area.

3. With a lot of vacant property, it was a concern because it was clear the C-2A zone was not viable. During any future Plan review, this area needs to be looked at to determine what type of land use would work.

Councillor Stone asked for clarification that although Councillor Adams made the motion at the last meeting, there was no interest on the part of the owner. In reply, Ms. Hanna Langille advised that she understood there was interest from the owner but the owner has not contacted Planning Services and made an application. The owner was provided with a copy of the Staff Report this morning.

The Chair called for members of the public wishing to speak either in favour or against the application.

Mr. Harold Ferguson advised that he signed a five-year Lease for the second floor of the building. He did not know that anything of this sort was taking place. He intended to find out more information tomorrow because he intended to employ eight people on the premises to process shark cartilage.

A lady living at 541A Herring Cove Road, speaking against the application, said she lived between 531 and 553 Herring Cove Road and 553 Herring Cove Road had been the subject of a Public Hearing at the last meeting. She was concerned with food processing facilities being on either side of her particularly with regard to traffic, waste, air quality.

Councillor Stone asked if she had any trouble with the building which has been vacant for about five years. In reply, the lady advised the building appeared to be abandoned. She qualified that the residents have not seen what the repercussions are going to be from the first food processing plant without having another one as well.

The Chair called three times for any additional speakers. Hearing none, the following motion was placed:

MOVED by Councillors Adams and Walker to close the Public Hearing. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

Councillor Walker asked for clarification regarding Mr. Ferguson's statements. Ms. Langille Hanna advised that plans were submitted for internal conversion of the building; however, when the plans were reviewed, it was clear it was for food processing and wholesale. This was not a permitted use within the C-2A zone and no permits have been issued. In order to have this considered, Schedule "L" would have to be applied. As well, Federal government approvals are not granted until there is approval by the Municipality.

Councillor Adams suggested deferring a decision until such time as an application is received. He asked for guidance from the Municipal Solicitor.

Mr. Allen advised that the Hearing has been held on the matter before Community Council. A decision could be deferred but it was too late to hold a subsequent Hearing based on the merits of this particular application. He recommended turning down the application and start afresh.

MOVED by Councillors Adams and Walker to reject the rezoning of 531 Herring Cove Road to Schedule "L" to allow the consideration of commercial and/or industrial uses by Development Agreement. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.


It was agreed to move to Added Items at this time in order to obtain the advice of the Municipal Solicitor.

9.1 553 Herring Cove Road - Legal Opinion

Ms. Langille Hanna explained that at the Public Hearing held last month for the above property, a motion was made to approve the rezoning. The Appeal period expires tomorrow and after that it will be possible to make a decision on a Development Agreement. This meant that Community Council would not be able to make a decision until November 2. The question was if there were any alternatives, for instance, Regional Council might be able to consider the Development Agreement.

Mr. Allen stated Community Council could hold a Special Meeting because Community Council makes the decision, not Regional Council.

Councillor Stone asked what were the consequences if Mr. Toulany had to wait another month. In reply, Ms. Langille Hanna advised there were still Federal requirements to be met but it has been a long road for Mr. Toulany.

Mr. Wells asked if Community Council tonight could give a qualified approval for the Development Agreement pending a non-appeal situation which would be known in 24 hours. In response, Mr. Allen said the decision has to be made or not made; you could not do it conditionally. One day was no different from 30 days.

Community Council then looked into the requirements to hold a Special Meeting. The Rules of Procedure provide that the Clerk can, at the request of three members of Community Council, call a Special Meeting for the purpose and at the time mentioned in the request on at least three days notice.

Subsequently, Councillor Adams thanked Mr. Allen for the information.



11.1 Case No. 7591 - Plan Amendment for Chebucto Peninsula (Planning District 5) to Realign the Conservation Designation Boundary - Planning District 18

A Staff Report dated September 28, 1998 was before Community Council. Thea Langille Hanna, Planner provided an overview of the report. Subsequently, she explained that staff's recommendation was to clean up the conservation designation and make sure the boundary lines actually line up with property boundaries. The properties appeared to be properly zoned.

Councillor Stone asked if a Public Information Meeting had been held and Ms. Langille Hanna replied yes, and members of the public had no objections.

MOVED by Councillor Adams and Walker to recommend to Regional Council that Regional Council approve the revised Generalized Future Land Use Map for the Chebucto Peninsula, Planning District 5. MOTION PUT AND PASSED.

12. MOTIONS - None



Mr. Hiram Tiller, 4 Thackeray Close raised the following points:

  • He referred to traffic calming on Bayview Road and the subdivision being built off Bayview and asked for clarification as to how it had been approved when there was already a traffic problem.

In reply, Councillor Walker advised that traffic calming on Bayview is still in limbo with the Traffic Authority. As to the development off Bayview, it was as of right. The land was for sale zoned R-1 and was being developed R-1. A lot of the residents in the area were relieved that there was no big apartment being built. The street - called Lookoff Lane - should be finished this week.

  • He asked for an update for the area of Highway 102 and Lacewood as a study was being done.

In reply, Councillor Stone advised that Department of Transportation has agreed to deal with the Highway 102/Lacewood area with agreement from HRM to cost share in the study. He did not know if the study was completed. He requested that the Clerk obtain information as to the status for the next meeting.

15. NEXT MEETING - Monday, November 2, 1998


On a motion from Councillor Adams, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Sandra M. Shute
Assistant Municipal Clerk