DECISION

2012 NSUARB 155 M04790 NOV A SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD

IN

MATTER OF THE HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY CHARTER -and-

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL by MONACO INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHIP from a decision of Harbour East Community Council, of the Halifax Regional Municipality, which refused to rezone property at 307 Prince Albert Road and 5 Glenwood Avenue in Dartmouth from C-2 and R-2 to R-4 High Density Residential, and refused to approve a development agreement for the construction of a 15-storey, 94-unit building BEFORE: COUNSEL: Wayne D. Cochrane, Q.C., Member MONACO INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHIP Peter M. Rogers, Q.C. Jane O'Neill, LL.B. HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY Karen L. Brown, LL.B. E. Roxanne Maclaurin, LL.B. INTERVENORS: JEFF WEATHERHEAD, CARL HUNTINGTON, NANCY MCINNIS LEEK Jeff Weatherhead, LL.B.

PRELIMINARY HEARING DATES:

February 9, 2012 March 26, 2012 April 12, 2012 May 2, 2012 May 4, 7 and 8, 2012 May 30, 2012 May 30, 2012 May 30, 2012 June 4, 2012 Post-Hearing (Appellant) Post-Hearing (Respondent) Post-Hearing (Intervenors) Reply Submissions (Appellant)

HEARING DATES: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR HEARING ON THE MERITS:

DECISION DATE: DECISION:

October 12, 2012 Appeal Dismissed

Document: 209348

2 Table of Contents 1.0 2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4 ISSUES ................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Issue 1: Has the Appellant shown, on the balance of probabilities, that Harbour East Community Councils decision to refuse Monacos application to rezone the subject property fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy? ................................................. 5 2.2 Issue 2: Is the Appeal Before the Board of the Re-Zoning Application Only, or of the Re-Zoning Application and the Development Agreement Application? ............................................................................................... 5 2.3 Issue 3: Has the Appellant shown on the balance of probabilities, that Harbour East Community Councils decision to refuse approval of Monacos development agreement fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy? .......................................................... 5 WITNESSES ........................................................................................................ 6 3.1 For the Appellant, Monaco ......................................................................... 6 3.1.1 Tony Maskine, M.A.Sc., P.Eng........................................................ 6 3.1.2 Mitch Dickey, Planner, HRM ........................................................... 6 3.1.3 Hanqing Wu, Ph.D., P.Eng. ............................................................. 6 3.1.4 Robert T. LeBlanc, APALA, CSLA, ASLA, MCIP, APA, LPP, LEED AP 7 3.1.5 Kenneth R. OBrien, P.Eng, M. Eng. ............................................... 7 3.1.6 John Heseltine, LPP, MCIP ............................................................. 7 3.1.7 Margot Young, CSLA, MCIP ........................................................... 7 3.2 For the Respondent, HRM, and Intervenors .............................................. 9 3.2.1 Maurice E. Lloyd, P.Eng., FCIP, LPP .............................................. 9 FACTS ................................................................................................................ 10 4.1 Site Visit ................................................................................................... 38 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................................................... 40 5.1 Preliminary Hearings................................................................................ 40 5.2 Municipal Government Act and Halifax Regional Municipality Charter .... 40 5.3 Usage of Terms: MPS, DMPS, RMPS .............................................. 41 5.4 Burden of Proof ........................................................................................ 41 5.5 Standard of Proof ..................................................................................... 41 5.6 Applicable Principles of Statutory Interpretation ...................................... 41 5.7 Boards Fact Finding Role........................................................................ 41 5.8 Municipal Councils as the Primary Authority for Planning ..................... 42 5.9 Boards Limited Authority in Planning Appeals ........................................ 43 5.10 Issue 1: Rezoning ................................................................................... 46 Has the Appellant shown, on the balance of probabilities, that Harbour East Community Councils decision to refuse Monacos application to rezone the subject property fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy? .................................................................................. 46 5.10.1 Irrelevance of Possible Future Changes to the MPS..................... 46 5.10.2 Rezoning Topics ........................................................................... 47

3.0

4.0 5.0

Document: 209348

3 5.10.3 A Hierarchy of Municipal Planning Strategies: the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS) and the Dartmouth Municipal Planning Strategy (DMPS) ............................................................ 48 5.10.4 DMPS Policy IP-1(c) ..................................................................... 54 5.10.5 Emphasis by Monaco on C-2 Zoning ............................................ 64 5.10.6 Wind, Traffic and Shadows ........................................................... 70 5.10.6.1 Wind ...................................................................... 70 5.10.6.1.1 Are Wind Effects on Lake Banook a Matter Which may Properly be Regarded under the MPS, in the Context of this Proceeding? ...... 70 5.10.6.1.2 What is the Evidence Respecting Wind on Lake Banook, in the Context of the MPS? .... 75 5.10.6.2 Traffic ...................................................................... 81 5.10.6.3 Shadows ...................................................................... 85 5.10.7 Population Densification; Opportunity Sites .................................. 87 5.10.7.1 Population Growth in The Regional Centre: Population Densification ................................................................ 88 5.10.7.2 Opportunity Sites .......................................................... 93 5.10.8 Conclusion with Respect to Councils Refusal to Rezone ........... 101 5.11 Issues 2 and 3: Development Agreement ............................................. 106 5.11.1 Issue 2: Is the Appeal Before the Board of the Re-Zoning Application Only, or of the Re-Zoning Application and the Development Agreement Application? ........................................ 106 5.11.2 Issue 3: Has the Appellant shown on the balance of probabilities, that Harbour East Community Councils decision to refuse approval of Monacos development agreement fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy? ............................ 114 5.11.2.1 Provisions in the RMPS and DMPS Dealing with Development Agreements........................................... 114 5.11.2.2 Conclusion on Development Agreement Application .. 119 5.11.2.3 DMPS Policy IP-5 (a) and (b) and the Provisions of the DLUB .................................................................... 120 5.11.2.3.1 Mr. Dickeys Bonus Calculations ................. 121 5.11.2.3.2 Can the DLUB be used to interpret the MPS? .................................................................... 123 CRITICISMS OF COUNCILS PROCESS BY DEVELOPER AND OTHERS ... 127 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................. 129

6.0 7.0

Document: 209348

4 1.0 [1] INTRODUCTION Monaco Investments Partnership wants to build a 15-storey, 92-unit

residential building, to be called The Prince Albert, on the corner of Prince Albert Road and Glenwood Avenue in Dartmouth. [2] The area in which the subject property is located includes residential and

commercial uses, all of which are low to medium rise (the maximum having five storeys, with most being one or two storeys). A large residential area, with houses of one to two storeys, directly abuts (i.e., touches) the subject property. [3] If built, Monacos tower would be less than 500 feet from the eastern shore

of Lake Banook. For many decades, the Lake has been intensively used for training and competition in racing kayaks and canoes, at the local, provincial, national and international levels. Since 2005, a 35-foot height-restriction area has encircled Lake Banook, within which, in general, no new building may be constructed which is higher than 35 feet. The subject property abuts the edge of the height-restriction area, but is outside it. [4] Monaco applied to Halifax Regional Municipality, asking for rezoning of the

subject property, and for approval of a development agreement. HRMs Harbour East Community Council rejected the application, and Monaco appealed to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. [5] Monaco asserts that HRMs refusal to approve the application to rezone

should be reversed, as failing to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy. Monaco furthers asserts that HRM refused not just the application to rezone, but also the application for a development agreement.

Document: 209348

5 [6] In this proceeding, Monaco asks that the Board order HRM to grant the

rezoning, and also order HRM to approve the development agreement. [7] In reply, HRM, supported by the Intervenors, says that Councils decision to

refuse the application to rezone did reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS, and accordingly, ought not to be reversed. [8] HRM also says that the only appeal properly before the Board is that of the

refusal to rezone, and not of the refusal to approve the development agreement. 2.0 2.1 ISSUES Issue 1: Has the Appellant shown, on the balance of probabilities, that Harbour East Community Councils decision to refuse Monacos application to rezone the subject property fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy?
For reasons discussed in this decision, the Board finds the answer to this question to be no. The Board accordingly dismisses Monacos appeal with respect to the rezoning applications.

2.2

Issue 2: Is the Appeal Before the Board of the Re-Zoning Application Only, or of the Re-Zoning Application and the Development Agreement Application?
For reasons explained in the decision, the Board has decided to assume, without finding, that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the development agreement application (Issue 3), in addition to the rezoning application (Issue 1).

2.3

Issue 3: Has the Appellant shown on the balance of probabilities, that Harbour East Community Councils decision to refuse approval of Monacos development agreement fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy?
For reasons discussed in this decision, the Board finds the answer to this question to be no. The Board accordingly dismisses Monacos appeal with respect to the development agreement.

[9]

The Board notes that its dismissal of Issue 3 is conditional upon the

Boards assumption, under Issue 2, that it has jurisdiction to determine Issue 3.

Document: 209348

6 3.0 3.1 [10] WITNESSES For the Appellant, Monaco Seven witnesses (six of whom were qualified before the Board to give

opinion evidence) testified on behalf of the Appellant. All six expert witnesses prepared reports which were filed with the Board; some of the experts filed more than one. The opinion evidence covered in the reports related to municipal planning, wind, traffic, and building-generated shadows. 3.1.1 Tony Maskine, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. [11] Mr. Maskine has had a long career in property development in the Halifax

area, and is a principal of Monaco Investments Partnership. 3.1.2 Mitch Dickey, Planner, HRM [12] Mr. Dickey was accepted as qualified to give opinion evidence in relation to Mr. Dickey is an employee of HRMs planning staff, and HRMs

planning matters.

principal planner in processing the Monaco applications. He was, however, called as a witness by Monaco in this proceeding, and gave evidence which was critical of Harbour East Community Councils decision to refuse. As the Board will discuss later, his

testimony at the Board hearing differed in at least one significant way from the opinions he had expressed previously (both in writing and orally) when advising Council. 3.1.3 Hanqing Wu, Ph.D., P.Eng. [13] Dr. Wu was qualified as a wind engineer capable of giving evidence on the

pedestrian wind conditions on and around Monacos project, and the potential for the proposed building to affect the existing wind conditions over the kayak and canoe course on Lake Banook. He is a principal of Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc.

Document: 209348

7 (RWDI), a firm of consulting engineers and scientists, in Guelph, Ontario, and has testified previously before the Board. Besides his work on a wind report for the Monaco project, he had in previous years worked on other wind documentation relevant to other proposed projects near Lake Banook; none of these were built.
3.1.4 Robert T. LeBlanc, APALA, CSLA, ASLA, MCIP, APA, LPP, LEED AP

[14]

Mr. LeBlanc was qualified as a landscape architect capable of giving

evidence on the generation and impact of shadows produced by the proposed Prince Albert Development. He is President of Ekistics Planning & Design. 3.1.5 Kenneth R. OBrien, P.Eng, M. Eng. [15] Mr. O'Brien was qualified as a traffic engineer capable of giving evidence of

the traffic impact of the Prince Albert Development. He is Senior Traffic Engineer with Genivar Consultants Limited Partnership, a consulting firm, and has worked with various other consulting firms since retiring from the Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal. He has given expert evidence previously before the Board and the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. Besides his report documentation, another report from Genivar relating to traffic was also filed in evidence. Its author was Greg OBrien; the latter Mr. OBrien was not called as a witness. 3.1.6 John Heseltine, LPP, MCIP 3.1.7 Margot Young, CSLA, MCIP [16] Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young co-authored two reports which were filed with

the Board at different times. They testified together, as a panel. In this decision, the Board will sometimes refer to them, and their evidence, jointly, as Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young.

Document: 209348

8 [17] Ms. Young was qualified as a land use planner capable of giving evidence

on the subject of the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy and the extent to which the proposed Prince Albert Development and Council's decision comply with the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy. She is a senior planner with EDM Environmental Design Management Limited, and has previously given expert evidence before the Board. [18] Mr. Heseltine was qualified as a land use planner capable of giving

evidence on the subject of the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy and the extent to which the proposed Prince Albert Development and Councils decision comply with the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy. He is a senior planner with STANTEC Consulting Limited and has given expert evidence previously at proceedings before the Board. [19] While he testified against HRMs position in this proceeding, he is part of a

group with whom HRM has contracted to study trends in population growth; his work on that contract was reflected, to a significant degree, in the reports which he and Ms. Young prepared for the Board, and in his oral testimony. [20] Among other things, Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young took the view that

Councils decision to reject the Monaco proposal was contrary to the intent of the MPS. This opinion was the opposite of that of Mr. Lloyd, who gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent, HRM, and the Intervenors.

Document: 209348

9 3.2 [21] For the Respondent, HRM, and Intervenors One witness testified on behalf of the Respondent, HRM, and also on

behalf of the Intervenors. He was qualified before the Board as an expert witness in planning: 3.2.1 Maurice E. Lloyd, P.Eng., FCIP, LPP [22] Mr. Lloyd was qualified as an expert in land use planning, capable of giving

expert opinion evidence on land use planning matters, including the intent of the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS), the Dartmouth Municipal Planning Strategy (DMPS) and Land Use By-Law (LUB) and the extent to which Council's decision with respect to the proposed Prince Albert Development reasonably carries out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy. [23] Mr. Lloyd is qualified as a professional engineer and as a planner (he is a

life member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia and the Canadian Institute of Planners). He has testified previously in planning matters. While the Board inferred that Mr. Lloyd is largely retired, he has remained active in planning professional conferences. [24] proceeding. He volunteered his services to the Intervenors, and to HRM in this He has a personal connection with the dispute at the centre of this

proceeding: he has lived for many years on Cranston Avenue, within the neighbourhood (as Mr. Lloyd, but not the Appellant Monaco, would define it) of the proposed development.

Document: 209348

10 [25] As the Board has already noted above, it was Mr. Lloyds opinion that

Councils decision to reject the Monaco proposal was one which reasonably carried out the intent of the MPS. [26] Further, it was his opinion that if Council had approved the Monaco

proposal, such a decision would have failed to reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS. [27] These opinions were contrary to those expressed in the report of Mr.

Heseltine and Ms. Young, and contrary to the opinions expressed by Mr. Dickey in his testimony at the Board.

4.0 [28]

FACTS The property which is the subject of this appeal is located on Prince Albert

Road and Glenwood Avenue and consists of two separate lots. [29] The first lot, 307 Prince Albert Road, has been used by Walkers Funeral

Home for several decades. While the funeral home building and its associated parking lot remain, the funeral home has either ceased operating, or is operating infrequently. [30] The second lot is 5 Glenwood Avenue, which has for many years contained

a two-unit residential home. It is the developers intent to demolish both buildings in order to make room for the proposed project. [31] The Prince Albert Road lot is 18,807 square feet in size, while the

Glenwood Avenue lot is 6,900 square feet in size, for a total of 25,707 square feet. [32] As part of its application to HRM, Monaco asked that 307 Prince Albert

Road be rezoned from C-2 (General Business) to R-4 (Multiple-family Residential one High Density); it asked that 5 Glenwood Avenue be rezoned from R-2 (Two-family
Document: 209348

11 Residential) to R-4. 5 Glenwood is within an R-2 (two-family residential) Zone which extends up Glenwood Avenue. Glenwood Avenue is a long street, which, except for the funeral home and Robins Donuts on either side, at its base, is composed of single family or duplex houses, having one or two storeys. Mr. Dickeys report to Council (while it supported Monacos proposal) refers to Glenwood as having a suburban-style streetscape, with substantial setbacks. [33] If built, Monacos tower would probably be set up as a condominium, but it

could also be a rental property. [34] The proposed 15-storey tower (14 storeys plus a penthouse) would rise

from what is presently the C-2 lot, at 307 Prince Albert Road. The C-2 lot and the abutting R-2 lot (5 Glenwood Avenue) would, together, contain three levels of underground parking. [35] In addition to asking that the two properties be rezoned, Monaco asked that

HRM approve a development agreement for the project. The reason is that, since 1991, no new residential building with three units or more has been permitted in Dartmouth unless Council approves a development agreement for the particular project. [36] Up until 1991, high-rise development could occur in Dartmouth as of right,

in the R-3 and R-4 Zones. The approval and construction of several tall apartment buildings in Dartmouth led to significant controversy. Included among these buildings were ones constructed in an area running from the west side of Lake Banook (i.e., on the opposite side of the lake from the subject property) down toward the Harbour. [37] In 1991, Dartmouth City Council responded to the controversy by

amending the DMPS to eliminate as of right development in the R-3 and R-4 Zones.

Document: 209348

12 Central to this decision was the addition of DMPS Policy IP-5 which in effect requires that multiple-family residential dwellings containing three or more units (hereinafter, apartment buildings) can only be constructed through the use of a development agreement. DMPS Policy IP-5 is discussed at length in this decision, particularly in the part headed Development Agreement. From 1991 onward, then, all apartment

buildings in Dartmouth have required a development agreement. [38] However, Council chose to retain the R-3 and R-3 Zoning By-Laws. Given

that, since 1991, all new apartment building development has been by way of development agreement, rather than as of right, the continued presence of the R-3 and R-4 zoning provisions in the Land-Use By-Law can fairly be described, in the Boards view, as surprising. Certainly, the significance of their continued presence was a matter of dispute (see the Development Agreement section below) amongst the experts testifying before the Board and Counsel. [39] Three of the buildings approved prior to the 1991 amendment (30

Brookdale Crescent, 26 Brookdale Crescent, and 28 Brookdale Crescent) are clustered in a wooded area near the northwest shore of Lake Banook. The tallest is 10 storeys high, and the other two are seven storeys high. [40] Two others 1 Oak Street (15 storeys) and 55 Crichton Avenue (13

storeys) are located a few hundred feet to the west of Sullivans Pond. Sullivans Pond lies between the extreme southwestern tip of Lake Banook (a few hundred feet to the north of Sullivans Pond) and Dartmouth Cove, an inlet of Halifax Harbour. The Board notes that the second planning report (May 2, 2012) of Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young refers to 1 Oak Street and 55 Crichton Avenue as being:
in the neighbourhood adjacent to Lake Banook.
Document: 209348

13 This was corrected in the course of the hearing, and the words Sullivans Pond substituted for Lake Banook. [41] At this point, a general description of the Prince Albert Road area (both the

road itself and associated side streets) will provide additional context. [42] Lake Banook is very roughly rectangular in shape, with the long axis of

the rectangle running, again very roughly, from the southwest to the northeast. Prince Albert Road runs along the eastern shore of Lake Banook. If one views the area from the perspective of Prince Albert Road, and begins at the southwestern end of the Lake, one sees on the left, on both sides of the Lake, various boat clubs. These clubs are used for recreation generally and more specifically to train competitors in racing kayaks and canoes. [43] Between the left side (or western side) of Prince Albert Road and the Lake

is a narrow band of parkland, which runs all the way along the eastern shore of Lake Banook until just a few hundred feet short of the subject property. To the eastern side of Prince Albert Road (or to the right, if one is moving north-easterly along Prince Albert) one encounters at the southwestern end of Lake Banook older houses, followed by some parkland, which gives way to a cluster of older houses. [44] Moving north past the houses, one encounters a low-rise condominium, of

three to four storeys. Known as Banook Shores, this condominium development faces Lake Banook, across Prince Albert Road and the intervening narrow band of parkland. [45] A vacant lot, where a gasoline service station formerly stood, is north of the

condominiums. The north side of the vacant lot abuts the Robins Donuts property on the corner of Glenwood Avenue and Prince Albert Road. While the Robins Donuts

Document: 209348

14 building is just across the street from the subject property, it is inside (i.e., subject to) the 35-foot height-restriction area, but the subject property is not. [46] Directly across Prince Albert Road from the subject property (and inside

the 35-foot height-restriction area) lies a small area zoned C-2, immediately behind which is a thumb-shaped area of land projecting into Lake Banook, which is occupied mostly by single-family and duplex housing, many with water frontage. There is also a significant amount of woodland. Immediately to the north of this residential area lies a municipal park with extensive shoreline on Lake Banook, known as Grahams Grove. [47] To the northeast of the subject property (or to the right if one is standing at

the front of the property facing Prince Albert Road), lies Yuille Auto Works, and two buildings (variously referred to in the evidence with the term motel, hotel, lodge, or inn; the Board will use the term motel). One is two storey and the other, four storey. The motels lie on either side of Lawrence Street, a very narrow roadway running 90 degrees from Prince Albert Road, and leading to three 42-unit apartment buildings of four storeys each. [48] Around this point, Prince Albert Road divides into two branches. The left-

hand branch, carrying the bulk of the traffic which had been on Prince Albert Road, continues to the north, passing Grahams Grove on the left (or west), and the large Superstore on the right (or east). It then leads to ramps leading onto the

Circumferential Highway, and to the Waverley Road, along the shore of Lake MicMac. [49] The right-hand branch of Prince Albert Road (which continues to be called

Prince Albert Road) continues to the northeast, and is less heavily travelled than the left-hand branch. It has on the northwest (or left side) the Superstore. On the

Document: 209348

15 northeast, or right side, just after the two-storey Express Lodge at 317 Prince Albert Road, is the NAPA store. Thereafter is the proposed entrance to the Twin Lakes project site (discussed later in this decision), and a succession of two-storey duplexes. [50] The section of Prince Albert Road which the Board has just described

(running from the beginning of Sullivans Pond to the duplexes on the east side of Prince Albert Road which face the Superstore and highway-access ramps for the Circumferential Highway) is perhaps a mile in length, or a little more. Throughout its length, the land upon which Prince Albert Road itself runs, and the land to the left of the road, is flat. While the land immediately to the right of the road is flat, it rises as one moves away from the eastern edge of Prince Albert Road. [51] The rise begins within a few hundred feet (and in some instances,

especially at the southwestern end, within just a few feet) of the edge of Prince Albert Road. The slope eventually rises quite steeply to meet the crest of a long ridge which runs, very roughly, parallel to Prince Albert Road, and extends down to the eastern shore of Sullivans Pond and Lake Banook. [52] These lands are occupied almost entirely (except for occasional uses such

as churches, schools, convenience stores, etc.) by residential buildings. Many of these are single-family, but some are duplexes, and there are also some low-rise apartment buildings. [53] These residential buildings cover the relatively flat highlands to the east of

the ridge, and where the topography (including buildings) is not too steep, spill down the slopes from the ridge top, and either front directly on Prince Albert Road (which is

Document: 209348

16 predominantly residential throughout the length the Board has just described) or abut commercial properties which themselves are on Prince Albert Road. [54] Thus, to give but one example, single-family or duplex housing on

Glenwood Avenue abuts the subject property indeed, the subject property, comprised as it is of two lots, one being zoned C-2 and the other being R-2, itself contains land which was (at least until its purchase by Monaco) used for low-density residential purposes. In essence, Glenwood, which is one of the roads rising up the slope to the ridge from Prince Albert, is a residential street, dominated mostly by single-family, and some duplex houses. [55] The Board will now return now to the matter of the 1991 controversy over

the type of apartment buildings appropriate in Dartmouth, and, in particular, in the Banook area. Controversy about this subject particularly with respect to height did not end in 1991, with the adoption of the requirement that all new residential buildings with three units or more would be possible only through development agreements. [56] In 2004, there was some discussion in relation to a possible

redevelopment, in the form of a condominium project proposed by United Gulf Developments Limited, of the former YMCA site at the northwest corner of Lake Banook, next to the Circumferential Highway. The proposed development was to

consist of two 12-storey towers, with ground-level townhouses, to replace the demolished two-storey YMCA building which had existed on the site. [57] RWDI (of which Dr. Wu, who testified in the present proceeding, is a

principal) was engaged to look into, and prepared a report upon, the matter of possible effects upon winds over the canoe course. There was a further wind study in November

Document: 209348

17 of 2009. By agreement between the parties, the 2004 and 2009 reports were filed by Mr. Weatherhead on behalf of the Intervenors, rather than, as might otherwise be expected, by Counsel for the Appellant. While the reports were referred to, their

contents were not, in the Boards judgment, subjected to significant exploration in the course of the proceeding. [58] The evidence before the Board with respect to the YMCA project is limited,

but the Board concludes from the evidence which is before it that the project did not go forward and achieve approval from HRM. [59] Also in 2004, the same year as the YMCA discussions, controversy arose

over the proposed construction of a seven-storey building on the eastern shore of Lake Banook, on what is referred to as the Paddlers Cove site. [60] The Paddlers Cove site is less than 100 yards west of the subject

property, but on the Lake Banook side of Prince Albert Road. It is currently occupied by a two-storey building, which has been variously used for business offices and a restaurant. At its name perhaps implies, the Paddlers Cove site has extensive shore frontage. The site is roughly rectangular, within one long side, and one short side, fronting directly on the Lake. [61] Staff of HRMs planning department recommended that Council approve a

development agreement for the seven-storey building on the Paddlers Cove site, but Council rejected the proposal. [62] Mr. Dickey, the HRM planner who was the planner of record for the

Monaco proposal, and who testified on Monacos behalf in the present proceeding, was

Document: 209348

18 initially the planner of record for the Paddlers Cove project, for the first year and a half in which it was being considered by HRM. He was then re-assigned to other work. [63] According to the evidence and submissions before the Board, the proposal

for development of Paddlers Cove also included (just as the YMCA proposal had) a wind impact report, prepared by Dr. Wus firm, RWDI. [64] As the Board has already noted, Council ultimately rejected the

recommendation of its planners, and refused the proposal. [65] The evidence before the Board on this subject is incomplete, but, in his

report to Council on the Monaco proposal, Mr. Dickey attributed Councils refusal of the Paddlers Cove proposal to compatibility concerns with nearby housing. The Paddlers Cove site is bounded on its eastern side by Lakeview Point Road, which contains lowrise single-family and duplex residential buildings. The Board infers that Councils

refusal was also related at least in part to the buildings seven-storey height, in proximity to the lake. Among other things, the Board notes that, the year after Council rejected the Paddlers Cove project, Council adopted the 35-foot height-restriction around Lake Banook, which includes the Paddlers Cove site. [66] If built, Monacos project for the subject property (only about 300 feet away,

at its nearest point, from the Paddlers Cove site) would be eight storeys higher than the seven-storey building rejected by Council in 2004 for Paddlers Cove. [67] In 2005, as the Board has just noted, HRM adopted a 35-foot height-

restriction area around Lake Banook (referred to in the planning documents as the Lake Banook Canoe Course Area).

Document: 209348

19 [68] The 35-foot height-restriction area was referred to by Mr. Dickey, at least at

one point, as extending about 500 feet from the edge of the Lake, but his evidence makes it clear that 500 feet is merely an approximation. The height-restriction area is not regular in shape, its boundary being somewhat closer to the lake in some instances, and farther away in others. [69] As Mr. Dickey himself acknowledged, the subject property itself, at its

closest point, is less than 500 feet from the Lake. Nevertheless, it is outside, but abuts the edge of, the height-restriction area. The irregular edge of the height-restriction area can be seen as in effect zigzagging around the subject property. For example, as noted, the subject property is on a corner of Prince Albert Road and Glenwood Avenue. It is outside the height-restriction area, but properties right across the street, on both Prince Albert and Glenwood, are inside the height-restriction area. Thus, the Robins Donuts property, which is also on the corner of Prince Albert and Glenwood Avenue, just as the subject property is, is inside the height-restriction area. [70] As just noted, in 2004 HRM Council rejected the seven-storey Paddlers

Cove project which HRMs planners had recommended. Two years later, in July of 2006, just the opposite occurred: Harbour East Community Council approved a 12storey apartment tower (known as Twin Lakes) which its planners said should be rejected. [71] The Twin Lakes site is significantly larger than the subject property. The

site is on Prince Albert Road, but, very roughly, 600 feet, or perhaps a little more, to the northeast of Monacos property. The Twin Lakes site is farther from Lake Banook than

Document: 209348

20 is Monacos the distance from Twin Lakes to Paddlers Cove, for example, would be (again, very roughly) about 1,000 feet. [72] The limited evidence before the Board respecting the site points to it

apparently being a form of what is often referred to as a flag lot: the entry point to the project, a lane running at 90 degrees from Prince Albert Road, runs again, according to the evidence before the Board along the side of the existing NAPA property, to the rear of which the actual apartment tower is to be built. The building site would appear to be more than 200 feet again, very roughly back from Prince Albert Road. [73] The site extends in an easterly direction behind the NAPA property,

gradually rising into a moderately steep, and heavily wooded, area which lies below the lands of the Alderney Elementary School, which are behind the edge of the ridge. [74] While Twin Lakes has a 12-storey design, and Monaco has a 15-storey

design, it appears from the evidence that the height above sea level of the top of both towers would be about the same. This is because Twin Lakes is on a rising slope, which is higher above sea level than the Monaco site. The Board infers that, while the height above sea level of the tops of both buildings would be the same, the relative height of the Monaco building above the nearby lands surrounding it would be greater than for Twin Lakes. [75] If the Twin Lakes project is eventually built, the nearest part of the building

would be, very roughly, a little over 1,200 feet from Lake Banook, as opposed to less than 500 feet for Monaco. [76] The Twin Lakes approval overlapped the adoption by HRM of the Regional

Municipal Planning Strategy, or RMPS: Halifax Regional Council approved the RMPS

Document: 209348

21 on June 27, 2006; Harbour East Community Council approved the Twin Lakes project on July 6, 2006. The RMPS did not, however, actually come into effect, until August 26, 2006, after review by the Provincial Government. [77] As Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young note in one of their two reports filed as

exhibits with the Board, some councillors, in voting in favour of Twin Lakes, made specific reference to being conscious of the new RMPS. The RMPS provisions include (as the Board notes below under Analysis and Findings) a target of increased population growth in particular areas, including Dartmouth inside the Circumferential Highway. [78] Among those voting in favour of Twin Lakes was Councillor Gloria

McCluskey, who later voted against Monacos proposal. Councillor McCluskey, when giving evidence at the Board hearing for the present proceeding compared the Monaco proposal with Twin Lakes. She said that the latters site is located:
further up Prince Albert Road, located some distance from the Road, located in under a hill; and if you were to visit that site you would see the difference.

[79]

She also said that (unlike the present appeal, in which there was significant

opposition from residents living in the area), most people in the neighbourhood of Twin Lakes had signed a petition indicating that they did not feel they would be affected by the development. The Board notes, as well, that according to Mr. Dickey, no wind assessment was required for the Twin Lakes project. [80] According to the limited evidence before the Board, Twin Lakes

Development Limited, which obtained the development agreement for the Twin Lakes site, is headed by Robert Yuille, who is also the owner of NAPA. The Twin Lakes

Document: 209348

22 project has not commenced; according to evidence before the Board, Mr. Yuille wishes to sell the property and its associated development agreement. [81] Around three years after HRMs approval of the Twin Lakes project in

2007, communications were commencing between Monaco and HRM with respect to the possible development of the subject property. [82] It appears that, at least at one point, Monaco may also have owned 9

Glenwood Avenue. 9 Glenwood Avenue is separated from 5 Glenwood by 7 Glenwood, which remains privately owned and occupied, i.e., not owned by Monaco. Accordingly, Monaco restricted its building site to just two lots, being 307 Prince Albert Road and 5 Glenwood Avenue. [83] According to Monaco, the distance from the edge of the podium (i.e., the

edge of the recessed underground parking garage concrete structure) to the boundary of 7 Glenwood Avenue (which, again, remains in private ownership) would be 7.86 feet. [84] By late September 2010, Alderney Surveys Limited had been engaged by

Monaco, and had prepared topographic plans of the site. Architectural planning sheets, prepared by Monaco itself, followed in November of 2010. [85] Monaco also engaged Ken OBrien of Genivar Consultants Limited

Partnership to prepare a traffic report, entitled traffic impact statement, which he submitted to Hugh Morrison, HRMs Development Engineer, on December 3, 2010. It foresaw no traffic problems for the subject project. [86] In March of 2011, Greg OBrien, of Genivar, wrote to Hugh Morrison, the

Development Engineer for HRM, concerning proposed driveway locations, and making

Document: 209348

23 reference to HRM By-Law S-300, which sets limits for the proximity of driveways to such things as certain kinds of street intersections. [87] On March 23, 2011, Mr. Maskine sent a letter to Mr. Dickey enclosing,

among other things, Monacos application for zoning amendment and a development agreement. [88] Mr. Maskines letter describes the project overall, making reference to the

overall high quality of the building itself. Mr. Dickey was (and remains) enthusiastic, saying that:
staffs feeling was that this is a very attractive building and it would certainly seem to be one of the best thats ever been proposed in Dartmouth.

[89]

The Board notes that somewhat surprisingly in a dispute of this type

even some opponents of the project on its present site acknowledge that they see the building itself as attractive. For example, Mr. Weatherhead (one of the Intervenors) described it as well designed. [90] The proposed building would have large balconies, high-quality finishes The

inside and out, provision for a library, meeting rooms and a huge lobby.

specifications also called for natural gas heating of the common elements, and heat pumps for both heating and cooling in individual suites. Mr. Maskine was even said to be considering having concierge service present at least during the day. [91] Mr. Maskine suggested that most of the people who would become

residents in Monacos project would be seniors, semi-retirees, and urban professionals. [92] Mr. Maskine also maintained that the proposal would involve a less

intensive use of the lands than could otherwise be permitted. This idea became one of

Document: 209348

24 Mr. Dickeys principal themes, and was used by him in his presentations to Council, as well as the subsequent evidence which he gave to the Board. [93] On May 4, 2011, HRM held a public information meeting concerning

Monacos proposal. Those in attendance included Councillors Gloria McCluskey and Bill Karsten. Four representatives of HRM Planning Staff were in attendance, including Mr. Dickey. Mr. Maskine was in attendance on behalf of Monaco Investments. Eightytwo members of the public attended as well. The meeting was in Alderney Elementary School at 2 Penhorn Drive. As the Board has previously noted, the School is located immediately behind, and above, the wooded and sloped site which Council had previously approved for the Twin Lakes project. [94] At that meeting, Mr. Dickey outlined the process involved in Monacos

application, and described what kinds of development would be possible as of right. The lengthy minutes detail expressions of opposition, and of support, on the part of the public with respect to the proposed development. Council Karsten told those present that the publics concerns and comments are absolutely taken into account by Council in making its decision. [95] In the intervening months between the information meeting in May of 2011

and Councils rejection of the proposal in January of 2012, Mr. Dickey engaged in many communications with residents, staff and Councillors of HRM, and, most especially, representatives of Monaco. [96] Not just in his evidence before the Board, but in other communications

while the Monaco project was being developed and reviewed within HRM, Mr. Dickey

Document: 209348

25 frequently noted that a hotel would not be subject to a development agreement requirement, and could be built to an unlimited height on the subject property. [97] On May 12, 2011, Mr. Maskine told Mr. Dickey that Monaco was looking at

the possibility of a hotel as a backup to its primary focus on the proposed apartment building. He also referred to a further option, being a five-storey self-storage facility, which does not appear to have been pursued in any significant way. [98] Mr. Maskine told Mr. Dickey that Monaco had initiated discussions with

hotel partners, but, when Mr. Dickey inquired about who the possible hotel brands were, it does not appear that Mr. Maskine replied. [99] Sometime in the summer of 2011, Monaco did complete an application

form for a development permit for a hotel, and, in early September, Genivar produced a concept plan (with associated landscaping, main floor, typical floor, and penthouse floor plans). The plan shows the height of the building as 16 storeys (15 storeys plus a penthouse, or one storey higher than the project which is the subject of this proceeding). Unlike the hotel application, the detailed plans produced for Monacos proposed 15-storey apartment building, were produced by Monaco itself. [100] HRM engaged in discussions with Monaco about Monacos possible

funding for public art (referred to below), and various options in relation to traffic were also reviewed (including the location of driveways on Glenwood, and the possibility of traffic lights at Prince Albert and Glenwood). [101] On June 15, 2011, two of Monacos experts (Dr. Wu and Mr. LeBlanc)

presented reports to Monaco which they subsequently amended after review by their client, after which the amended reports were filed in evidence with the Board.

Document: 209348

26 [102] On June 15, 2011, Dr. Wu submitted a report to Mr. Maskine entitled Wind

Assessment. Nothing in the report refers to it as a draft. However, on June 17th, Mr. Maskine sent Mr. Dickey a copy of Dr. Wus report, referring to it as a draft. [103] On June 22nd, Dr. Wu resubmitted his report. It is again entitled Wind

Assessment and makes no reference to the version of June 15th. It does contain an additional sentence. [104] The June 15th report had included the statement:
Based on the distance between the proposed building and the canoe course, as well as our previous wind tunnel studies for other projects in the area, it is our opinion that the potential effects on the wind conditions over the canoe course on Lake Banook are negligible.

In the June 22, 2011, version of his report, Dr. Wu had added the following sentence to the above-quoted paragraph:
As such, there are no negative consequences resulting from the building that could affect the lake and no further investigation is warranted.

[105]

The Board concluded from Dr. Wus evidence that he had added the

additional sentence after consulting with his clients. Under cross examination before the Board, Dr. Wu said he added the additional sentence to provide additional clarity to the meaning of the word negligible. The subject of wind will be discussed further under Analysis and Findings. [106] On June 15th (the same day Dr. Wu submitted to Mr. Maskine the first

version of his report) Mr. LeBlanc, of Ekistics Planning & Design, gave Mr. Maskine a document entitled Shade Study for Prince Albert Road Development. The June 15th report bears the signature of Mr. LeBlanc; as with Dr. Wus June 15th report, it makes no reference to its being a draft.

Document: 209348

27 [107] On June 17, 2011, just as he had with Dr. Wus report, Mr. Maskine sent

Mr. Dickey a copy of Mr. LeBlancs shade report, once again referring to it as a draft. [108] again. On June 20, 2011, Mr. LeBlanc submitted his shade study to Mr. Maskine As with Dr. Wus revised report, Mr. LeBlancs June 20th report makes no

reference to it being a revision of the earlier June 15th version. [109] Dr. Wu had added an extra sentence to his report after its review by Mr. Entitled Shade

Maskine and Mr. Dickey; Mr. LeBlanc added an extra section.

Potential, this added section also became the subject of cross examination of him by Counsel for HRM in the course of the Board hearing. The Board will return to this point under Analysis and Findings. [110] The positions taken by representatives of the Appellant with respect to the

most advantageous rezoning strategies for the subject property did not at times appear to be entirely consistent. As previously noted, Monaco originally applied for rezoning of the Prince Albert Road lot (the funeral home property) from C-2 to R-4. In the present proceeding before the Board, Monaco maintained that position. [111] On July 25, 2011, however, Nick Price of Genivar, writing on behalf of

Monaco, told Mr. Dickey that he wanted the zoning for the funeral home part of the site changed from C-2 to G-C (General Commercial). On October 6, 2011, Mr. Dickey recommended that Monaco stay with its original idea of requesting a rezoning to R-4, rather than seeking G-C Zoning. In their March 29, 2012, report, Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young made the observation that rezoning the C-2 property was not necessary. The Board notes these variations merely for clarification; it does not see them as relevant to the outcome of this proceeding.

Document: 209348

28 [112] During the summer, there was increasing activity by individual residents, as

well as by the Banook Area Residents Association, in opposition to the proposed development. Concerns related to a range of items, including proximity to Lake

Banook, effect of increased traffic, the proximity to the existing residences extending up Glenwood and elsewhere, etc. [113] On September 30, 2011, Ken OBrien of Genivar produced traffic

generation projections which showed his opinion of the different levels of traffic that might be expected from different kinds of uses on the subject property. [114] On the same day, HRM issued a development permit for the construction

of the 16-storey hotel. [115] A few days later, on October 5th, Mr. Dickey wrote to Mr. Maskine asking

for some more information that he could use for discussions within HRM, about Monaco having a hotel as a backup plan. He suggested that if Mr. Maskine:
were able to provide particulars, and if the project appeared feasible, that would be an important piece of information for internal discussions. Specifically, might a mid/high-rise hotel of similar scale with internal restaurant be feasible in todays market.

In response, Mr. Maskine provided some general observations about the kind of hotel which might be feasible for the subject property. His description included a reference to a two-storey podium, with a 14 to 16-storey tower on top of it. [116] When questions were asked as to the process Council would use in

dealing with Monacos application for its apartment tower, Mr. Dickey explained (on October 5, 2011, in an E-mail to a person whose name was redacted) the two separate steps which he saw as inherent in the process. The first related to the application to rezone, and the second to the development agreement:
The need for council to make 2 separate decisions is procedural and necessitated by provincial planning legislation. Although a council can consider different types of
Document: 209348

29
applications concurrently it cannot approve a development agreement until the required zone is in place and the appeal period for the rezoning has expired or any appeals have been dismissed. This standard process has been used for 15 years.

The two-step process described by Mr. Dickey will be reviewed further by the Board in its discussion of Issue 2, below. [117] A surprising proportion of communications between HRM and Mr. Maskine

related to HRM staff seeking monetary support from Monaco for public art (an alreadyexisting example being a stylized metal canoe near Lake Banook) and public parklands. In 2008, HRM staff had proposed a public art policy which, in effect, imposed a fee of 1% of total construction costs on private developments in excess of 25,000 square feet. This would be used to pay for public art that would be installed on private lands and would remain the responsibility of the owner. [118] By May of 2011, Mr. Dickey had informed Mr. Maskine of HRMs

requirement that Monaco provide a community benefit as part of the proposal. Mr. Maskine agreed to $50,000 in May, 2011, but Mr. Dickey informed staff in the culture and heritage section of HRMs bureaucracy that he thought Mr. Maskine would be willing to go higher; in another communication he expressed the hope that staff would be able to extract a greater amount than $50,000. [119] A few days later, on October 3rd, Mr. Dickey told Mr. Price of Genivar that

the minimum that HRM would expect Monaco to pay would be $100,000. It seems the payment from Monaco could go to public art, or park improvements, or both. Mr. Dickey suggested the development agreement could assign a split between the two of, for example, $60,000 for public art and $40,000 for park improvements, which might be tied in with the nearby Trans Canada Trail.

Document: 209348

30 [120] that:
Tony Maskine is willing to consider completion of our TransCanada Trail and area of Grahams Grovethis is very good newsThis will also reduce pressure on our HRM capital budget designated for trails construction.

On October 5, 2011, another HRM staff member reported to Mr. Dickey

[121]

By October 11th, Mr. Dickeys discussions with Monaco had led to its

agreeing to contribute $150,000, once 80% of the condominium units had been sold. This commitment was communicated to Mr. Dickey by Mr. Price, Genivars Senior Planner. [122] Mr. Dickey was pleased, saying that the only outstanding issue for him in

the development agreement was to:

find a way to adequately capture Tonys [Mr. Maskines] generous commitment to community amenities.

[123]

The same autumn that the Monaco proposal for Prince Albert Road was

being discussed within HRM, other applications for high-rise structures elsewhere in Dartmouth were being considered one for the Mic Mac Mall area, and another for the Sobeys Groups proposed redevelopment of the former Penhorn Shopping Mall. [124] On November 3, 2011, Mr. Dickey forwarded to Mr. Price, of Genivar, and After

Mr. Maskine, a draft development agreement for their review and comment.

noting that the vast majority of the clauses were standard ones, he referred to other topics, one of which was a park improvement contribution of $133,400. [125] On December 15, 2011, Mr. Dickey prepared a report, to be submitted to

Halifax East Community Council. After approval by Austin French, the Manager of Planning Services, it was submitted to Council by Phil Townsend, Director of Planning and Infrastructure. The report makes reference to a number of different concepts,

Document: 209348

31 including, in relation to the re-zoning application: bulk (massing); scale (height); traffic; potential for wind impact. In relation to the development agreement, the report refers to site design; architecture; height; bulk (massing); potential wind impact; shadows; density; landscaping and buffering; and traffic. [126] Mr. Dickeys report recommended that Harbour East Community Council:
approve the proposed rezoning [and] Upon the expiry of the appeal period for the rezoning, approve a development agreement for a 15-storey residential building

In his evidence to the Board, Mr. Lloyd characterized the Dickey report as aggressively supporting Monacos applications; Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young used the word strongly instead of aggressively. [127] However, Mr. Dickeys report to Council (which was used by Council during

its January 17, 2012, meeting) also said that one of the options Council had in dealing with Monacos application was that:
Council may choose to refuse the rezoning.

In the view of the Board, a reasonable inference (and perhaps the only reasonable inference) from this statement is that, if Council decided to refuse Monacos application, its decision would reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS (as is discussed at length in this decision in both Issue 1 and Issue 3, this question of consistency with the MPS is the fundamental test on appeals of the type found in the present proceeding). [128] He expressed the same idea (that Council could refuse the rezoning) in the

public information meeting of May 4, 2011, which was attended by two councillors. He expressed it a third time in making a PowerPoint presentation to Council on January 17th.

Document: 209348

32 [129] When, however, Mr. Dickey testified before the Board in the present

proceeding, he contradicted the opinion he had expressed on the three previous occasions. When asked by Counsel for Monaco whether, in his opinion, a refusal by Council of the Monaco application would have been consistent with the MPS, he replied:
In this case, no, I dont think that that can be seen to be the case.

[130]

No supplementary report was filed with the Board by him, or on his behalf,

stating that he had changed his earlier opinion, and why. In making this observation, the Board notes Mr. Dickeys peculiar status in this proceeding as an employee of HRM who was called by an opposing party to given evidence against HRMs position. [131] In noting the inconsistency between Mr. Dickeys two positions, the Board

does not wish to imply that it was not open to him to change his evidence if he thought it appropriate, just as it would be for anyone else. In discussing his new, and

contradictory, opinion, in the course of his testimony in this proceeding, however, the Board did not see Mr. Dickey as referring to any significant matters of which he had not previously been aware. [132] On January 17, 2012, Harbour East Community Council met to consider

whether to give first reading to the proposal. If that was granted, other steps would occur subsequently, including a public hearing. [133] The meeting is described both in the minutes of Council, as is common in

evidence in a planning appeal, and unusually in an actual transcript of the Council meeting. The transcript was prepared at Monacos request, for the purposes of the Board hearing. The Board notes, simply as a minor clarification, that the transcript refers to Councils meeting as having occurred on January 31, 2012; all other
Document: 209348

33 documentation in relation to the meeting, however, including Monacos notice of appeal, refers to the meeting as having occurred on January 17th. [134] Mr. Dickey presented his report to Council, illustrating it with a PowerPoint

presentation. Devoting a slide to the developments possible in a C-2 Zone, he told Council that, in such a zone an owner could, as of right, put up a building related to:
Commercial uses such as retail, service, office, food/liquor establishments, & automotiverelated uses: No height limit on buildings, Minimal setback requirements/lot coverage limits, No architectural guidelines or design controls, Permit issued for 16 storey hotel. Also allows residential uses such as group homes, townhouses, & nursing homes.

The Board notes in passing that it appears from the various submissions before the Board that Mr. Dickeys statement that there is no height limit on buildings is correct in relation to hotels. However, in relation to certain other structures, such as office

buildings, there are in fact certain height restrictions which do apply, but are not mentioned, in the PowerPoint presentation. [135] Councillor McCluskey, in commenting during the Council meeting on Mr.

Dickeys presentation, referred to DMPS Policy IP-1(c), and the question of the Monaco projects compatibility and consistency with adjacent uses. Referring to his report, she told him:
You didnt mention that anywhere, compatibility.

[136]

In replying to Councillor McCluskey, Mr. Dickey did not address the

omission of compatibility from the report, but instead referred her to the very broad range of uses and the scale, height and massing of uses which could occur if development were to proceed pursuant to the existing C-2 Zoning on the funeral home property.
Document: 209348

34 [137] Councillor McCluskey repeated her question to Mr. Dickey. She was

asking, she told him, not what might be built as of right commercially, but about the compatibility of Monacos proposed building with the surrounding area. She said that she was:
talking about this building; were talking about this one, and Im saying you didnt mention compatibility

[138]

This time, Mr. Dickeys answer acknowledged that compatibility had not

been specifically mentioned in the context of Monacos proposed building, but he asserted that it had been indirectly captured, saying that, given the other things that could happen on the subject property, Monacos project was relatively compatible. [139] Ms. McCluskey also referred to the 35-foot height-restriction area around

Lake Banook, and commented that it was her understanding that in setting the boundary of the 35-foot height-restriction area in 2005:
there wasno real study done to see if that was the right area, if that boundary was right. You know, we just drew that line and that was it.

Mr. Dickey replied, saying, among other things, that Canoe/Kayak Canada had been:
heavily involved because of development proposals on the United Gulf site on the other side of the Lake, and at the end of the day there seemed to be clear consensus that this line was appropriate.

Ms. McCluskey replied:

But there was nothing determined as to the height of the building. I mean, the one on the Paddlers Cove that was turned down was 8-storeys, and that's what brought about the 35-foot, but there was nothing here to determine whether that same 8-storey would be here, and some people felt that, or it would be 15. We didn't we never really did a study, did we, Mitch, to show that a 15-storey building would not bring any wind?

Mr. Dickey replied:

No, no, that's true, nor was there a study to, you know, prove that there would be impacts from a 50-foot building, you know, within the 35-foot height limit.

Document: 209348

35 [140] In the course of the discussion during the January 17th meeting, it was

noted more than once that the business before Council that night was not a public hearing on the Monaco proposal, which was to occur later; it was suggested that, according to Councils rules, debate was not to occur on first reading. [141] Councillor McCluskey persisted, arguing that if the vote ended in the

motion being turned down then Council must state its reason for refusal. Ultimately, she did state for the record (and prior to the vote) the reasons that she intended to vote against first reading (and thus against the further consideration of Monacos proposed development). She said:
that it is not compatible with the neighbourhood, it is surrounded by single-family homes all along the Lake, the shadow effect that it will have on properties there, the traffic that will be generated and the wind that it could create.

[142]

Among other things, she also referred to her uncertainty about the

implications of the 35-foot height limit. She said that when it was set there had been:
no talk of how high a building could be before it could affect the Lake. Nobody knows. There was no talk of that.

[143]

Councillor McCluskeys stated reasons for voting against the Monaco

project were the subject of repeated comment by Monaco in the Boards proceedings. As the Board has previously noted, Counsel for Monaco obtained a transcript of her remarks and referred to them subsequently in written submissions. [144] Councillor McCluskey spoke at an evening session held by the Board in Her remarks to the Board included the following

relation to the Monaco appeal.

statement, in which she referred to local opposition to the project, of which she was aware at the time of the January 17th vote:
I will begin by saying that I voted against the Prince Albert Development proceeding to the next step, the public hearing. My reasoning is that I was satisfied that we

Document: 209348

36
heard from the public who would be directly affected by a petition of some 300 names, emails, phone calls, and many face-to-face conversations.

Counsel for the Appellant suggested that Councillor McCluskeys actions on January 17th could be characterized as having taken a head count and then voting accordingly. [145] The Board notes, however, that Ms. McCluskey also made reference to her

compatibility concerns once again, referring to:

residents who will live with this development, which is certainly not compatible.

[146]

At the January 17th Council meeting, after Ms. McCluskey had concluded

her comments to her colleagues on Community Council, the Chair once again stated his view that Council could only debate:
whether to give notice of motion. Members may not debate the proposed rezonings or development agreement.

[147]

When the vote was finally taken, on a motion to give Monacos application

first reading, it was defeated. The defeat of the motion meant, in effect, the defeat of Monacos application. [148] The Board discusses the details of the motion itself at Analysis and

Findings below. The vote was actually a tie vote, with three councillors voting in favour of the motion (being Deputy Mayor Karsten, and Councillors Fisher and Nicol), and three councillors voting against (Councillors Barkhouse, McCluskey and Smith). Under Councils rules, a tie vote is a no vote. [149] One of the consequences of Council defeating the application at first

reading was that no public hearing, or subsequent Council meeting, occurred. Accordingly apart from Councillor McCluskeys comments, and Mr. Dickeys PowerPoint presentation there had been no detailed presentation, and discussion, of the proposed project. People other than Councillor McCluskey and Mr. Dickey

Document: 209348

37 whether they were members of Council of not did not have the opportunity to express support for, or opposition to, the project, or to learn more about the positions of others. [150] After the motion to give first reading was defeated, and the Chair opened

the floor to hear commentary from the public, there was spirited criticism from some who saw Council as having behaved unfairly. [151] Mr. Maskine asked Council to reconsider its refusal to grant first reading.

Heather Miller, who had worked with Mr. Maskine for two years on the project, expressed her distress about what she characterized as:
the lack of a democratic process

[152]

Likewise, Tom Campbell asserted that:

whether or not this is a good development or a bad development, this process here has eliminated the public from having their say at a public meetingI think Council should reconsider and allow it, the democratic process of a public meeting where anyone who wishes to speak can, for or against, and then Council can make an educated decision

[153]

Others spoke in support of Councils decision, including one person (Nancy

McInnis-Leek), who ultimately became an intervenor in the present proceeding. [154] On January 19, 2012, HRM sent a letter to Monaco refusing its application.

HRM gave no reason for the rejection in its letter, although the Halifax Charter requires that reasons be given for the refusal. HRMs letter did, however, inform Monaco (as required by the Halifax Charter) of the right to appeal within 14 days. The detailed content of HRMs letter is reviewed in the Boards discussion of Issue 2 in the Analysis and Findings part. [155] On February 2, 2012, Mr. Rogers, as Counsel for Monaco, filed a Notice of

Appeal with the Board. The following grounds were stated in the Notice:
The Harbour East Community Council's decision does not reasonably carry out the intent of the municipal planning strategy for the following reasons:

Document: 209348

38
1. It failed to give adequate or any consideration to the policies contained in the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy, and the Dartmouth Municipal Planning Strategy and to the Dartmouth Land Use By-law; 2. It is based on irrelevant considerations in that it was made for reasons other than those set out in the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy, the Dartmouth Land Use By-law and the Dartmouth Planning Strategy, particularly in light of the fact that no reasons were given; 3. Such further and other grounds as may appear.

4.1 [156] merits.

Site Visit The Board conducted a site visit after the conclusion of the hearing on the The Board indicated to counsel during the hearing that they could, if they

wished, accompany the Board during the visit but they need not feel obliged to do so. Mr. Weatherhead, Counsel for the Intervenors, wished to do so, and with the consent of other Counsel, was the only person accompanying the Board during the site visit. [157] The Boards site visit involved, variously, driving and walking, to and in,

areas in Dartmouth referred to in the evidence, including: the subject property on the corner of Prince Albert Road and Glenwood Avenue, and the housing extending from the subject property along the length of Glenwood Avenue; the Robins Donuts site on Glenwood Avenue and Prince Albert Road; the former service station site on the east site of Prince Albert Road; the Banook Shores condominium facing across Prince Albert Road to the Lake; the Twin Lakes site, the NAPA property; Prince Albert Road, running from the south at its intersection with Ochterloney Street, near Sullivans Pond, along its entire length to its northern end near the Superstore;
Document: 209348

39 the Alderney School site, which the Board reached via the streets leading from the northern end of Prince Albert Road; the two motels off Prince Albert near the Superstore; Celtic Drive, which runs up from Prince Albert Road, and is parallel to Glenwood, but one street south of it; Cranston Avenue (where Mr. Lloyd lives, which runs parallel to, and one street south of, Celtic); the Superstore site; Grahams Grove Park; the Paddlers Cove site; the small C-2 zoned properties on Prince Albert Road which are more or less across from the subject property; Ashton Lane, where the Intervenor, Mr. Weatherhead, lives; Lakeview Point Road, which is about two hundred feet from the subject property, and runs roughly parallel to the Paddlers Cove site, and contains single-family, and other low density housing, on and near the waterfront of Lake Banook; moving west and south from the west side of Lake Banook, to 55 Crichton Avenue and 1 Oak Street, the 13-storey and 15-storey buildings to the

southwest of Sullivans Pond, referred to in the Heseltine and Young report; finally, the northwest corner of Lake Banook with its existing condominium buildings, and the as yet undeveloped YMCA site.

Document: 209348

40 5.0 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 5.1 [158] Preliminary Hearings The hearing on the merits in this matter was preceded by several The matters raised in these were wide ranging: requests for

preliminary hearings.

intervenor status; a request by the Appellant Monaco to require HRM to (among other things) file its evidence first, rather than the Appellant, and to provide an explanation of its actions; an application by HRM to restrict the subject of the appeal to that of a rezoning only (rather than of a rezoning and of a development agreement); a motion by the Intervenor, Mr. Weatherhead, challenging Monacos status to engage in the original application process with HRM, and (implicitly at least) in the appeal process to the Board thereafter; a motion by Monaco to exclude certain evidence and witnesses; an application by HRM for an extended adjournment of the hearing on the merits. [159] The Board dealt with most of these through oral decisions which are

summarized in letters of direction from the Chief Clerk. The Boards reasons for each of its decisions are principally found in the recorded record. [160] In one instance, the Board issued a written decision: Monaco Investments

Partnership v. HRM, 2012 NSUARB 38. 5.2 [161] Municipal Government Act and Halifax Regional Municipality Charter Appeals of this type were formerly governed by the provisions of the In 2008, appeals in HRM

Municipal Government Act, everywhere in the Province.

ceased to be subject to the Municipal Government Act, and came under the jurisdiction of the new Halifax Regional Municipality Charter. [162] Many provisions in the Halifax Charter correspond to provisions which are

found in the Municipal Government Act. The provisions of the latter act have been
Document: 209348

41 explored, in earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal, and the Board considers the conclusions in those decisions to be applicable to the Halifax Charter. 5.3 [163] Usage of Terms: MPS, DMPS, RMPS This proceeding is subject to Regional Municipal Planning Strategy, RMPS,

and to the Dartmouth Municipal Planning Strategy, DMPS, in addition to the Halifax Charter. In some instances, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, the Board will simply refer to the MPS, which, depending upon the context, may refer to either or both of the RMPS and DMPS. 5.4 [164] Burden of Proof As the Board noted earlier in this decision, the Board dismissed an

application by the Appellant, Monaco, to reverse the order of presentation of evidence, and in effect, as the Board saw it the burden of proof. [165] In this proceeding, as in appeals generally, the Board considered that the

burden of proof rested with the Appellant. 5.5 [166] Standard of Proof The standard of proof which the Board has applied in determining facts is

that of the balance of probability. 5.6 [167] Applicable Principles of Statutory Interpretation The Board considers that the liberal and purposive approach to statutory

interpretation applies in this proceeding. See, for example: Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia v. Nova Scotia (Utility and Review Board), [1994] N.S.J. 50 (Heritage Trust 1994); MacDonald v. Halifax Investments, (1997) 162 N.S.R. (2d) 214 (SC). 5.7 Boards Fact Finding Role

Document: 209348

42 [168] In Midtown Tavern & Grill Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Utility and Review Board),

2006 NSCA 115, the Court of Appeal stated that the Board must:
embark upon a thorough factfinding mission to determine the exact nature of the proposal in the context of the applicable MPS and corresponding bylaws [para 51, per MacDonald, C.J.N.S.]

5.8 [169]

Municipal Councils as the Primary Authority for Planning The Halifax Charter specifically identifies HRM as the primary authority

for planning in the Municipality:

208 The purpose of this Part is to (b) enable the Municipality to assume the primary authority for planning within its jurisdiction, consistent with its urban or rural character, through the adoption of municipal planning strategies and land-use by-laws consistent with interests and regulations of the Province;

[170]

The concept of municipal council being the primary authority for planning is

not a new one. The Municipal Government Act likewise identifies municipal councils as the primary authority. This status of municipal councils was underscored in Midtown:
[46] I reject the opponents' assertion that the Board owed no deference to Council despite the fact that the Board conducted its own full scale hearing. In fact, I believe Council and not the Board to be the primary decision maker when it comes to this type of planning issue. Let me briefly elaborate. [47] Despite the Board's detailed hearing, it must be remembered that members of Council are elected and accountable to the citizens of HRM. As such they exercise discretion and are accordingly entitled to deference. As earlier noted, one purpose of the MGA is to provide municipalities with autonomy when it comes to planning strategies and development. This decision fell within Council's discretion, provided it reasonably reflected the intent of the MPS. As elected officials, their decisions must be respected. This court has said as much on several occasions. [per MacDonald, C.J.N.S.]

[171]

Likewise, the Planning Act (the predecessor of the Municipal Government

Act) had a similar provision, the Court of Appeal stating (in Heritage Trust 1994) that the intent of the Act was:

Document: 209348

43
to make municipalities primarily responsible for planning; that purpose could be frustrated if the municipalities are not accorded the necessary latitude in planning decisions...

5.9 [172]

Boards Limited Authority in Planning Appeals In keeping with the concept of municipal councils being the primary

authority, s. 265(1) (b) of the Halifax Charter limits the grounds for an appeal to the Board of a decision by Council in relation to proposed rezonings or development agreements. The Halifax Charter states:
265 (1) An aggrieved person or an applicant may only appeal (a) an amendment or refusal to amend a land-use by-law, on the grounds that the decision of the Council does not reasonably carry out the intent of the municipal planning strategy; (b) the approval or refusal of a development agreement or the approval of an amendment to a development agreement, on the grounds that the decision of the Council does not reasonably carry out the intent of the municipal planning strategy;

[173]

The powers of the Board are similarly limited on such an appeal:

267 (2) The Board may not allow an appeal unless it determines that the decision of the Council or the development officer, as the case may be, does not reasonably carry out the intent of the municipal planning strategy or conflicts with the provisions of the landuse by-law or the subdivision by-law. 2008, c. 39, s. 267.

[174]

Thus, the Board must not interfere with a decision by Council in relation to

a proposed rezoning, or development agreement, unless it determines that the decision does not reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS. The burden of proof is on the Appellant to establish this. [175] If an appellant can show, on the balance of probabilities that a decision by

Council does not reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS, the Board must reverse Council's decision to enter into the development agreement. If, however, the appellant fails to meet this standard of proof, it is the Board's duty to defer to Council's decision. On this point, see Heritage Trust 1994:

Document: 209348

44
[99] In reviewing a decision of the municipal council to enter into a development agreement the Board, by reason of s. 78(6) of the Planning Act, cannot interfere with the decision if it is reasonably consistent with the intent of the municipal planning strategy. A plan is the framework within which municipal councils make decisions. The Board is reviewing a particular decision; it does not interpret the relevant policies or bylaws in a vacuum. In my opinion the proper approach of the Board to the interpretation of planning policies is to ascertain if the municipal council interpreted and applied the policies in a manner that the language of the policies can reasonably bear. This court, on an appeal from a decision of the Board for alleged errors of interpretation, should apply the same test. This is implicit in the scheme of the Planning Act and the review process established for appeals from decisions of municipal councils respecting development agreements. There may be more than one meaning that a policy is reasonably capable of bearing. This is such a case. In my opinion the Planning Act dictates that a pragmatic approach, rather than a strict literal approach to interpretation, is the correct approach. The Board should not be confined to looking at the words of the Policy in isolation but should consider the scheme of the relevant legislation and policies that impact on the decision This approach to interpretation is consistent with the intent of the Planning Act to make municipalities primarily responsible for planning; that purpose could be frustrated if the municipalities are not accorded the necessary latitude in planning decisions... [100] Ascertaining the intent of a municipal planning strategy is inherently a very difficult task. Presumably that is why the Legislature limited the scope of the Board's review of enacting s. 78(6) of the Planning Act. The various policies set out in the Plan must be interpreted as part of the whole Plan. The Board, in its interpretation of various policies, must be guided, of course by the words used in the policies. The words ought to be given a liberal and purposive interpretation rather than a restrictive literal interpretation because the policies are intended to provide a framework in which development decisions are to be made. The Plan must be made to work. A narrow legalistic approach to the meaning of policies would not be consistent with the overall objective of the municipal planning strategy. The Planning Act and the policies which permit developments by agreement that do not comply with all the policies and by-laws of a municipality are recognition that municipal councils must have the scope for decisionmaking so long as the decisions are reasonably consistent with the intent of the plan. Very often ascertaining the intent of a policy can be achieved by considering the problem that policy was intended to resolve.

[176]

The Court of Appeal in Heritage Trust further held, in relation to

development by contract, i.e., development agreements:

[163] The Planning Act imposes on municipalities the primary responsibility in planning matters. The Act gives the municipal council the authority to enter into development by contract which permits developments that do not comply with all the municipal bylaws (s. 55 of the Act). In keeping with the intent that municipalities have primary responsibility in planning matters, the Legislature has permitted only a limited appeal from their decisions (s. 78 of the Act). Planning policies address a multitude of planning considerations some of which are in conflict. Most striking are those that relate to economics versus heritage preservation. Planning decisions often involve compromises and choices between competing policies. Such decisions are best left to elected representatives who have the responsibility to weigh the competing interests and factors that impact on such decision Neither the Board nor this court should embark on their review duties in a narrow legalistic manner as that would be contrary to the intent of the planning legislation.
Document: 209348

45
Policies are to be interpreted reasonably so as to give effect to their intent; there is not necessarily one correct interpretation. This is implicit in the scheme of the Planning Act and in particular in the limitation on the Boards power to interfere with a decision of a municipal council to enter into development agreements

[177]

In Archibald v. Nova Scotia, 2010 NSCA 27, the Nova Scotia Court of

Appeal stated a summary of planning law. Speaking for the Court of Appeal, Fichaud, J.A., said:
[24] I will summarize my view of the applicable principles: (1) The Board usually is the first tribunal to hear sworn testimony with crossexamination respecting the proposal. The Board should undertake a thorough factual analysis to determine the nature of the proposal in the context of the MPS and any applicable land use by-law. (2) The appellant to the Board bears the onus to prove the facts that establish, on a balance of probabilities that the Councils decision does not reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS. (3) The premise, stated in s. 190(b) of the MGA, for the formulation and application of planning policies is that the municipality be the primary steward of planning, through municipal planning strategies and land use by-laws. (4) The Boards role is to decide an appeal from the Councils decision. So the Board should not just launch its own detached planning analysis that disregards the Council's view. Rather, the Board should address the Council's conclusion and reasons and ask whether the Councils decision does or does not reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS. Later ( 30) I will elaborate on the treatment of the Councils reasons. (5) There may be more than one conclusion that reasonably carries out the intent of the MPS. If so, the consistency of the proposed development with the MPS does not automatically establish the converse proposition, that the Councils refusal is inconsistent with the MPS. (6) The Board should not interpret the MPS formalistically, but pragmatically and purposively, to make the MPS work as a whole. From this vantage, the Board should gather the MPS intent on the relevant issue, then determine whether the Councils decision reasonably carries out that intent. (7) When planning perspectives in the MPS intersect, the elected and democratically accountable Council may be expected to make a value judgment. Accordingly, barring an error of fact or principle, the Board should defer to the Council's compromises of conflicting intentions in the MPS and to the Councils choices on question begging terms such as "appropriate" development or "undue" impact. By this, I do not suggest that the Board should apply a different standard of review for such matters. The Boards statutory mandate remains to determine whether the Councils decision reasonably carries out the intent of the MPS. But the intent of the MPS may be that the Council, and nobody else, choose between conflicting policies that appear in the MPS. This deference to Councils difficult choices between conflicting policies is not a license for Council to make ad hoc decisions unguided by principle. As Justice Cromwell said, the
Document: 209348

46
purpose of the MPS is not to confer authority on Council but to provide policy guidance on how Councils authority should be exercised (Lewis v. North West Community Council of HRM, 2001 NSCA 98 (CanLII), 2001 NSCA 98, 19). So, if the MPS intent is ascertainable, there is no deep shade for Council to illuminate, and the Board is unconstrained in determining whether the Councils decision reasonably bears that intent. (8) The intent of the MPS is ascertained primarily from the wording of the written strategy. The search for intent also may be assisted by the enabling legislation that defines the municipalitys mandate in the formulation of planning strategy. For instance ss. 219(1) and (3) of the MGA direct the municipality to adopt a land use by-law "to carry out the intent of the municipal planning strategy" at "the same time" as the municipality adopts the MPS. The reflexivity between the MPS and a concurrently adopted land use by-law means the contemporaneous land use by-law may assist the Board to deduce the intent of the MPS. A land use by-law enacted after the MPS may offer little to the interpretation of the MPS.

[178] 5.10

The Board now turns to the provisions of HRMs MPS. Issue 1: Rezoning Has the Appellant shown, on the balance of probabilities, that Harbour East Community Councils decision to refuse Monacos application to rezone the subject property fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy?
For reasons discussed in this decision, the Board finds the answer to this question to be no. The Board accordingly dismisses Monacos appeal with respect to the rezoning applications.

5.10.1 Irrelevance of Possible Future Changes to the MPS [179] The Board will first note that Counsel for the Intervenors, at one stage,

pointed to possible future changes in the MPS which would limit height to eight storeys in the area, and making reference to a possible Council vote related to the topic in the fall of 2012. The Board considers that only those provisions which have actually been enacted in the MPS are of any relevance, and has given no weight whatever to any reference or suggestion that further height restrictions are, or may be, contemplated as amendments to the MPS.

Document: 209348

47 5.10.2 Rezoning Topics [180] As the Board has already recounted in the Facts section above, this

proceeding involves the proposed rezoning of two adjoining lots, and a proposed development agreement in relation to those lots. [181] In the present part of the decision, the Board will focus upon the proposed

rezoning of the two adjoining lots: Monaco wants the funeral home property to be rezoned from C-2, and the abutting house property from R-2, both to R-4. [182] The Boards discussion of the rezoning matter includes the following topics: the MPS hierarchy; DMPS Policy IP-1(c); wind; traffic; shade.

Also included, at the conclusion of the discussion of the above topics, are sections relating to the following two additional topics: population densification; opportunity sites.

In the view of the Board, many parts of the discussion relating to zoning are likewise relevant to the development agreement issue. [183] The Board will in this part review portions of the MPS, along with various

references in the evidence and factual findings, in particular reference to the rezoning applications. [184] Some of the MPS provisions to which the Board will refer apply to zoning

only, while other provisions apply to both rezoning and development agreement applications. As certain concepts (particularly what the Board will refer to loosely as
Document: 209348

48 compatibility) are common, to one degree or another, to the provisions dealing with both rezoning and development agreements, the Board will also sometimes, for clarity, make reference to provisions which relate to the development agreement only. 5.10.3 A Hierarchy of Municipal Planning Strategies: the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS) and the Dartmouth Municipal Planning Strategy (DMPS) [185] single MPS. [186] HRM was created by the Province from a number of existing municipalities, Unlike most planning appeals, the subject property is not governed by a

including the former City of Dartmouth, in which the subject property was located. The subject property is governed by two principal HRM planning documents: the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy and the Dartmouth Municipal Planning Strategy. [187] Of the two, the DMPS was the first to be adopted, in 1978, when the City of

Dartmouth was still in existence. It has been amended many times since. [188] [189] The RMPS was not adopted until 2006. Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young say that the relationship between the RMPS

and the DMPS is complex, and the Board agrees. It considers that this was, in effect, the opinion of Mr. Lloyd, and of Mr. Dickey, as well. [190] Given its scope, the RMPS is, not surprisingly, a long document 160

pages, not counting the attached maps. It has nine chapters and five appendices. Like all municipal planning strategies, it has a number of discernible themes. In the Boards opinion, two of these themes, densification and opportunity sites, were emphasized by the Appellant. Another theme, compatibility, was acknowledged by the Appellant, but emphasized by the Respondent HRM and the Intervenors.

Document: 209348

49 [191] The introduction to the RMPS describes it as:

a detailed, long-range, region-wide plan that outlines where, when and how future sustainable growth should occur in HRM.

[192] as:

The introduction to the Implementation chapter of the RMPS describes it

the primary policy document used to guide decision making for growth and development within HRM. It gives an overall vision for land-use development, and provides general strategies and approachesto achieve that vision.

[193]

The RMPS says that:

HRMs hierarchy of planning documents is changed upon the adoption of this plan.

The RMPS:
provides the overall policy framework for guiding and directing development throughout HRM.

[194]

The adoption of the RMPS meant that the DMPS (along with 17 other

Municipal planning strategies and 15 secondary plans) now became a secondary planning strategy, although its title (Dartmouth Municipal Planning Strategy) remained the same. [195] The RMPS contemplates extensive secondary planning processes

(involving steps, such as visioning, having significant public involvement) with potential consequent changes to secondary planning strategies such as the DMPS. These were to occur after the adoption of the RMPS. visioning was to occur. [196] It also includes references to criteria, such as, for example:
9.4.6 Criteria to Consider for Visioning and Planning The policies described below provide a set of community design criteria to consider during the visioning exercises and secondary planning processes. Participants will tailor the resulting vision and plan policies to the type of each community or centre and its location within HRM.

The RMPS gives direction as to how

Document: 209348

50
G-12 To facilitate community stability, adaptability, vitality, quality, character and safety, Community Visioning exercises and secondary planning strategies shall consider: (a) encouraging compatibility in design while allowing sufficient scope to adapt to changing needs and markets;

G-14 Community Visioning exercises and secondary planning strategies shall consider opportunities for the infill of two unit dwellings, small scale townhouses and low rise multiple units in appropriate locations within established neighbourhoods, including policies addressing: (c) architecture, external design and appearance reflecting the traditional character of dwellings within the immediate neighbourhood; (e) height, massing, scale and type of dwelling unit appropriate to the site and compatible with abutting and adjacent residential uses;

[197]

The various community visioning exercises and preparation of secondary

planning strategies (referred to not just in S-39 but in G-12, and a number of other provisions of the RMPS), have not as yet been engaged in, at least not to the point of completion. remarking:
Unfortunately for Dartmouth, these anticipated secondary planning processes, which would give the community opportunity to understand the identified opportunity sites, and have input into their development, has not occurred.

This was noted by all the parties, the Heseltine and Young report

The Board will return to this subject elsewhere in this decision. [198] Chapter 3 of the RMPS is entitled Settlement and Housing. Section 3.7.5

of that chapter (which appears just before the RMPS section on Opportunity Sites, discussed elsewhere in this decision), is entitled Neighbourhood Stability. It says, in part:
This plan is designed to protect established neighbourhoods from rapid unplanned change by directing most future growth to centres where development can occur without affecting existing residents. Some limited growth can, however, be accommodated within existing neighbourhoods if it is planned with attention to good design that respects the local character. Small amounts of new development in appropriate locations can complement neighbourhoods and act as a catalyst for improvement.

Document: 209348

51
There are many opportunities within established neighbourhoods where low to mediumdensity development can be accommodated without altering the local character. Through Community Visioning, future secondary planning processes may consider some new single and two unit dwellings, basement apartments, small scale townhouses and low rise multiple unit dwellings in appropriate locations. Within existing neighbourhoods, development would be required to comply with urban design guidelines. Policies and regulations will strive to ensure that infilling is sensitive, gradual and compatible with the existing physical character. Projects will be required to respect and reinforce the general physical patterns in existing neighbourhoods. [Emphasis added]

[199]

The Board will here briefly refer to a matter to which it will return more than

once in the course of this decision: the breadth of possible meaning of important terms in the MPS. In the context of the provisions the Board is currently exploring, these include appropriate locations and neighbourhoods. [200] Appropriate locations (which also appears elsewhere in the MPS, such as

in Policy G-14) is not defined in the MPS. [201] When asked by Counsel for HRM, Ms. Brown, whether the meaning here

of the term appropriate locations was something for Council to decide, Ms. Young replied:
it is a subjective term. Ill leave it there.

[202]

The Board agrees: the term is subjective.

The Court of Appeal has For example, in

repeatedly commented on such terms in past planning appeals.

Archibald, the Court remarked that (barring an error of fact or principle) the Board should defer to:
...Councils choices on question begging terms such as appropriate development or undue impact. [Archibald, para 24]

[203]

The Court has also repeatedly noted that policies in an MPS may have:
more than one meaning that they are reasonably capable of bearing. [Heritage Trust 1994]

Document: 209348

52 [204] Turning from the matter of appropriate locations to the term

neighbourhood, the Board notes that RMPS s. 3.7.5 makes repeated references to neighbourhood, in various forms. It refers to established neighbourhoods once, to existing neighbourhoods three times, and to simply neighbourhoods once. [205] Just what a neighbourhood, or established neighbourhood or existing

neighbourhood is, or might be, and whether the subject property can be said to be in one, or related to one, was repeatedly the subject of dispute in this proceeding. [206] The term is referred to at some length in the Development Agreement

part of this decision. [207] The Board notes that it concluded that the evidence before it (which was

consistent with evidence heard by the Board in other proceedings) does not point to there being a restrictive, or even just generally accepted, definition of the word neighbourhood within the planning profession. [208] Further, Counsel did not point the Board to any definition in the MPS or the

Halifax Charter which would be applicable to this proceeding. [209] Given the lack of professional or legislative definitions, the Board turns as

is, in its opinion, the usual practice - to the ordinary meaning of the word, as it is used in the context of the MPS. [210] In one of their written submissions to the Board, Counsel for Monaco

referred to an earlier Board decision, Fares Group (Re), 2008 NSUARB 14, in which the meaning of neighbourhood was discussed. For convenience, the Board will repeat here a portion of that decision:
[71] Given the lack of professional definitions of neighbourhood and the lack of any applicable definition within the MPS itself, or in the Act, the Board now turns to the ordinary meaning of the word, as it is used in the context of the MPS. In exploring the
Document: 209348

53
usual or ordinary meaning of the word, through the use of a dictionary, the Board is employing the same practice followed in earlier decisions: see, for example, Midtown (Para. 178) and Ocean Produce (Para. 31). [72] The definitions of the word neighbourhood found in The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 1981) include: 2. The quality, condition or fact of being neighbours or lying near to something; nearness. b. Situation in respect of surroundings. 3. The vicinity, or near situation of something. b. In the neighbourhood of, somewhere about. 5. A community; a certain number of people who live close together. 6. The people living near to a certain place or within a certain range [73] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (American Heritage Publishing Company Incorporated 1969) includes the following definitions of neighbourhood: 1. A district considered in regard to its inhabitants or distinctive characteristics. 2. The people who live in a particular vicinity. [74] The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd Edition, 2004), includes the following definitions of neighbourhood: 1a a district, esp. considered in reference to the character or circumstances of its inhabitants. b a small, but relatively self-contained section of a larger urban area; 3...the nearby or surrounding area, the vicinity. [75] The Board concludes that the term neighbourhood, as defined in the above dictionary entries, does not have a narrowly limited, much less a fixed, definition. The term can, in the Boards judgment, properly take on various meanings which reflect the circumstances in which it is used, and as such might be seen as covering (again, depending on the circumstances) larger, or smaller geographic areas.

[211]

For the purposes of the present proceeding, the Board adopts its

conclusion with respect to the range of possible meaning of the term neighbourhood, as expressed in paragraph 75 of Fares. [212] RMPS Policy IM-22 recognizes the possibility of conflict between it and the

secondary planning strategy, such as the DMPS:

IM-22 In the event of conflict between this Plan and a Secondary Planning Strategy, the more stringent shall prevail.

Document: 209348

54 [213] While Dartmouths Municipal Planning Strategy, the DMPS, became (with

the adoption of the RMPS in 2006) a Secondary Planning Strategy, the RMPS is clear on the continuing significance of the DMPS. The DMPS, and the other Municipal

planning strategies in existence at the time of the adoption of the RMPS, are according to the explicit language of the RMPS to continue in effect, as official municipal policy, until they are repealed, i.e., replaced by new secondary planning strategies:
until the secondary planning processes are completed HRM shall continue to regulate land use in those areas identified as centres and for those areas between centres according to the policies of the applicable existing secondary planning strategies in landuse by-laws, except where otherwise provided by this plan.

5.10.4 DMPS Policy IP-1(c) [214] Absent the completion of community visioning processes and secondary

planning processes (which, as the Board has already noted, has not occurred) it is the existing DMPS policies, along with the RMPS policies, against which Councils decision must be measured. [215] In the view of the Board, all of the witnesses recognized, to one degree or

another, DMPS Policy IP-1(c) as being of significance in re-zoning applications. The policy includes the following:
DMPS POLICY IP 1 C (c) Zoning By-law The Zoning By-law is the principal mechanism by which land use policies shall be implemented. lt shall set out zones, permitted uses and development standards which shall reflect the policies of the Municipal Development Plan as per Section 33 (3) of the Planning Act... In considering zoning amendments and contract zoning, Council shall have regard to the following: (2) that the proposal is compatible and consistent with adjacent uses and the existing development form in the area in terms of the use, bulk, and scale of the proposal;

Document: 209348

55
(3) provisions for buffering, landscaping, screening, and access control to reduce potential incompatibilities with adjacent land uses and traffic arteries (4) that the proposal is not premature or inappropriate by reason of: (vii) the presence of natural, historical features, buildings or sites (6) that controls by way of agreements or other legal devices are placed on proposed developments to ensure compliance with approved plans and coordination between adjacent or nearby land uses and public facilities. Such controls may relate to, but are not limited to, the following: (i) type of use, density, and phasing (iii) traffic generation, access to and egress from the site, and parking (v) provisions for pedestrian movement and safety (vi) management of open space, parks, walkways (7) suitability of the proposed site in terms of steepness of slope, soil conditions, rock outcroppings, location of watercourses, marshes, swamps, bogs, areas subject to flooding, proximity to major highways, ramps, railroads, or other nuisance factors.

[216]

As a first point, the Board notes that some of the language used in DMPS

Policy IP-1(c) reflects the fact that the DMPS was adopted in 1978. [217] For example, the policy refers to the Planning Act, which has since been Moreover, for HRM

repealed, and replaced by the Municipal Government Act.

(although not for other municipalities in the Province), the Municipal Government Act itself has now been replaced by the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter. [218] Further, DMPS Policy IP-1(c) refers to contract zoning. This is a term

which, for our purposes, can be considered to be synonymous with development agreements. The latter term appears in the Municipal Government Act and Halifax Charter; the former (contract zoning) is associated with the Planning Act. [219] The Board noted above that the RMPS contains references to the term

neighbourhood. In looking at DMPS Policy IP-1(c), the word neighbourhood does not appear. As will be seen under the Development Agreement part later in this decision,

Document: 209348

56 it does appear in DMPS Policy IP-5, which applies to development agreements (but not to rezonings). [220] Nevertheless, the Board does note that DMPS Policy IP-1C does use the

phrase in the area and the Board sees area as being a term which, like neighbourhood, is capable of broad interpretation. [221] In interpreting DMPS Policy IP-1 (c), in the context of the present

proceeding, the Board notes as well the frequency with which the word compatibility, or derivations of it, appear in it. The word compatible appears in clause (2), and incompatibilities in clause (3). [222] The term compatibility, and its derivatives, is likewise not defined within

the MPS. In the view of the Board, all parties, including Monaco, acknowledged that compatibility is a relative term. [223] In the context of the present proceeding, the term can be seen as having a

number of aspects. Included among these (although the Board notes by no means restricted to) are three things (traffic; shade, or shadows; and wind) in relation to which the Board received evidence from three experts retained by Monaco. There was no corresponding evidence from HRM or the Intervenors. Because of the volume of

evidence received in relation to each of these topics, and of the submissions addressing each, the Board deals with them separately below. [224] In DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(6), the words compatible or incompatible do not

appear, but the provision refers to coordination between adjacent or nearby land uses and public facilities. The Board sees the latter language as capturing some of the same meaning as compatibility.

Document: 209348

57 [225] DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(2) tells Council it must have regard to a proposal

being compatible and consistent with what are called adjacent uses and the existing development form. The meaning of such words as adjacent can be relatively wide ranging and is not generally regarded as being restricted to simply land which is abutting. Certainly, in the view of the Board, the words in the area (which appear after the words the existing development form) can reasonably be regarded as even more general. [226] DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(2) goes on to direct that Council have regard to these

matters from the perspective of the:

use, bulk, and scale of the proposal

[227]

The words bulk and scale are likewise not defined in the Halifax Charter

or the MPS, nor it seems, from the evidence, do they have any specific, narrow professional usage which might give assistance in interpretation. In the view of the Board, they can be reasonably interpreted to include at least such things as the apparent width and height of a building in relation to other developments in the area. While the specific word height is not mentioned in DMPS Policy IP-1, it does appear (as will be seen later in this decision) in DMPS Policy IP-5. [228] At DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(3), Council is also directed to have regard to,

among other things, buffering. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines buffer in part as follows:
1. a a device that protects against or reduces the effect of an impact 3 b an area, person, thing, etc., that protects from the potentially damaging impact of one person, activity, etc., on another.

The definition of buffer in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is similar.
Document: 209348

58 [229] IP-1 (c) (3) also says Council is to have regard to access controls, which

are to avoid potential incompatibility with adjacent land uses and roads. [230] At DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(6), Council is directed to have regard to controls

which have as one of their objectives coordination with adjacent or nearby land uses. Those controls may relate to such things as density, and also, once again, traffic. [231] Before further exploring the idea of compatibility in the context of the MPS,

the Board will look first at how Mr. Dickey chose to approach the subject in his report to Council. [232] While DMPS Policy IP-1(c) contains a number of references expressly or

impliedly relating to compatibility, it will be recalled that Councillor McCluskey, in the January 17th meeting at which Council rejected Monacos application, told Mr. Dickey that he had not mentioned the compatibility of Monacos project in his report. [233] The approach taken by Mr. Dickey in his report can be illustrated with the

following short excerpt from it, which contains his quotation of DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(2), on the left, and his commentary about it, in the context of Monacos application, on the right. [234]
(2)

The entry for DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(2), in its entirety, contains the following:
that the proposal is compatible and consistent with adjacent uses and the existing development form in the area in terms of the use, bulk, and scale of the proposal High density residential use of 307 Prince Albert Road is more compatible with adjacent and nearby housing than commercial development, which has limited controls under the C-2 zone. There is a wide range of development types and scales in the area. Application of the R-4 zone will provide Council with control over the bulk and scale development on the site in relation to the immediate area.

[235]

DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(2) then, talks about a proposal being compatible and

consistent with adjacent uses and the existing development form, in the area, in terms
Document: 209348

59 of the use, bulk, and scale of the proposal. In the Boards judgment, the corresponding discussion, as quoted above, could properly be expected to include an evaluation of the proposal itself in the context of items mentioned in the subsection (such as adjacent uses and existing development form). As but one example, the discussion might be expected to include references to the height of the proposed building and the height of existing structures in the area. [236] In the view of the Board, however, the above-noted excerpt ignores such

information, and refers only to the possible effects of a different project, or alternative use a commercial one going up on the site if the present proposal were not to be accepted. One of the alternative uses which Mr. Dickey mentioned in his evidence, as the Board has previously noted, is a hotel. In the midst of the application process for the development which is the subject of this appeal, Monaco applied for and obtained a development permit for the construction of a 16-storey hotel (one storey higher than Monacos proposed project). [237] [238] Mr. Dickey took a similar approach in other parts of his evidence. As a further example, DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(6) Zoning By-Law includes (as

the Board has already noted) reference to ensuring coordination between adjacent or nearby land uses and public facilities. Such controls may relate to type of use, density and phasing. [239] Once again, however, Mr. Dickeys discussion of this provision (in the

same style as his presentation of DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(2)) does not compare Monacos proposed high-density development to the existing uses. Instead, it simply says that the

Document: 209348

60 proposed high-density development is to avoid the introduction of larger-scale development which could arise under the commercial designation. [240] In the view of the Board, this aspect of Mr. Dickeys approach was

mirrored, to a degree, in the following written submission by Counsel for Monaco, who remarked that compatibility is:
a relative term which can be measured by considering existing lawful alternative uses than the one proposed.

[241]

The Board thinks compatibility is indeed a relative term.

But, while its

evaluation can involve (in the Boards opinion) the consideration of alternative uses, it must not be restricted to that, and the Board did not take the submissions of Counsel for Monaco, taken as a whole, as arguing that it should. [242] It is true that, in their March 29, 2012, report, Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young

themselves do look at, and emphasize, alternative uses. They also look, however, at such things as the existing pattern of development, etc. [243] Mr. Lloyd took exactly the opposite view to that of Monaco and its experts.

In his opinion, the question of an alternative use (such as a hotel) is irrelevant to the question of evaluating compatibility: the proper focus, he says, is upon the project proposed. [244] One justification for Mr. Lloyds position is the fact that the MPS does not

explicitly identify the question of alternative uses as a criterion to be evaluated. [245] Nevertheless, the Board, having considered the submissions and evidence

before it, does not agree with his assertion that alternative uses are necessarily irrelevant.

Document: 209348

61 [246] Instead, the Board sees alternative uses as being, in certain circumstances

(including the present proceeding), a matter which Council may reasonably take into account, under the MPS, when reaching a decision with respect to planning matters. An example of an appeal in which the Board saw alternative uses as a relevant consideration is Armour Group Limited vs. HRM et al., 2009 NSUARB 35. [247] However, within the context of DMPS Policy IP-1(c), it is the judgment of

the Board that the compatibility of the use which is actually being proposed (as opposed to some alternative use) is something which is not just sometimes relevant, but without doubt always relevant. [248] In short, the Board has concluded that Policy IP-1(c)(2)s statement that

Council must have regard:

that the proposal is compatible and consistent with adjacent uses in the existing development form

properly requires (in the Boards judgment) evaluating the actual proposed development against the development existing in the area. [249] In looking at Monacos proposal itself (rather than an alternative project,

such as a hotel), the Board considers that many aspects of the evidence may be seen as relating, in one way or another, to compatibility (and to related terms, such as buffering). [250] Turning first to height, the project is to be 15 storeys in height, or perhaps As the Board has noted previously, the term height appears

about 150 feet tall.

explicitly in DMPS Policy IP-5 (which relates only to development agreements), but not in DMPS Policy IP-1(c), which applies to rezonings as well as development agreements. Nevertheless, quite apart from the RMPS, the Board considers height to be implicitly

Document: 209348

62 incorporated in the DMPS in relation to rezonings, including in the use of the term scale. [251] Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young claim that:
The amalgamation of the R-2 Parcel with the C-2 Parcel provided the necessary buffer space to the adjacent single-family homes.

They strongly believe that the tower is not too tall for its location. [252] Once again, Mr. Lloyd emphatically disagrees. He sees the 15-storey

structure as fundamentally incompatible with the one and two-storey houses which are immediately adjacent to the subject property. Glenwood running up from Prince Albert. [253] The buffer to which Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young refer is, in essence, little These houses line both sides of

more than the single residential lot lying between the C-2 property (upon which the Monaco tower is to rise) and the first of the houses on Glenwood. [254] The Board need not find that the buffering claim made by Mr. Heseltine and

Ms. Young is not reasonably consistent with the MPS. It need only conclude that the contrary view that Monacos tower, given its short distance from the adjacent houses, is too much height, too soon is reasonably consistent with the MPS. [255] If one steps back and looks along the approximately one mile length of

Prince Albert Road (and the streets immediately off it), the tallest presently existing building is only five storeys. Among the existing buildings in the area, then, a 15-storey tower would be a sharp departure.

Document: 209348

63 [256] With respect to Monacos evidence on the point, the Board notes that the

March 29, 2012, report by Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young says, in reference to high-rise buildings, that, in:
the immediate neighbourhood around Lake Banook we identified a number of very tall buildings, including two of a similar height to the proposal One Oak Street and 55 Crichton Park Drive [sic].

A reader ought not to infer from their reference to these buildings being in the immediate neighbourhood around Lake Banook that they are in the immediate neighbourhood around the subject property, on Prince Albert Road. They are not. [257] For greater certainty, the Board notes that none of the high-rise buildings

emphasized in Monacos evidence are located in the Prince Albert Road area, which is on the east side of Lake Banook. [258] 55 Crichton Avenue and 1 Oak Street, the two tallest (at 15 storeys and 13

storeys), are located to the south and west of Lake Banook. More specifically, they are a few hundred feet to the west of Sullivans Pond, which itself is a few hundred feet south of the extreme southwestern tip of Lake Banook. [259] The Board notes that, in their May 2, 2012, report, Mr. Heseltine and Ms.

Young likewise claim proximity of the subject property to 1 Oak Street and 55 Crichton Avenue. They refer to them as being in the immediate area; by the Boards

estimation, they are at least three quarters of a mile away. [260] The other three are clustered in a wooded area in the northwest corner of

Lake Banook, near the still-undeveloped YMCA site. The tallest is 10 storeys high, and the other two are seven storeys high. [261] Apart from being three times as tall as any other buildings in the Prince

Albert Road area, the Monaco proposal would also be much higher than the 35-foot
Document: 209348

64 height-restriction area around Lake Banook, which the Board will discuss in more detail under the subject Wind. [262] In the present context of compatibility, the Board notes once again that

HRM planning staff had recommended approval of a seven-storey building on the nearby Paddlers Cove site, but Council had rejected it. Immediately after rejecting the Paddlers Cove recommendation, Council imposed a 35-foot height-restriction area around Lake Banook, which included the Paddlers Cove site. [263] In Monaco, the planning staff is now recommending a 15-storey building on

a property which literally abuts the 35-foot height-restriction area. When Counsel for the Intervenors asked Mr. Dickey if he agreed that a height increase from 35 feet to 150 feet was a substantial jump, Mr. Dickey replied, No. [264] The Board need not find Mr. Dickeys answer on this point to be

unreasonable, but it does find that the opposite view would be one that would reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS. 5.10.5 Emphasis by Monaco on C-2 Zoning [265] As the Board perceived it, Monaco (and its experts, Mr. Heseltine and Ms.

Young, and, in effect, Mr. Dickey) placed great importance on the fact that the tower itself would be built exclusively on the funeral home lot, which is currently zoned Commercial (C-2), and not on the R-2 lot which is also part of the property. [266] It appeared to the Board that the importance which Monaco attached to the

C-2 zoning of the lot on which the tower is proposed to be built had several aspects.

Document: 209348

65 [267] In explaining the importance which they attach to this C-2 Zone, Monaco

and its experts more than once compared the zoning in the Twin Lakes project with the zoning in the Monaco project. [268] As the Board has discussed previously, planning staff opposed approval of

the Twin Lakes project, but Council approved it anyway. [269] In Twin Lakes, the building itself would stand entirely on land lying in the The portion accommodating the

Residential Designation, which was zoned R-2.

driveways would be on lands within the commercial designation. [270] The proposed Monaco project is exactly the reverse. In Monaco, the

building would stand entirely on land zoned C-2. The above-ground parking, and a portion of the underground parking garage, would be on land currently zoned R-2. [271] A principal reason for staffs opposition to the Twin Lakes proposal was

that the high-rise residential structure would be built on lands currently zoned for only R2 (i.e., residential, but not high rise). [272] Mr. Dickey together with Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young saw this as an From the perspective of Monacos experts and its Counsel,

important distinction.

Monacos building would be a more favourable situation than would be the Twin Lakes structure, because Monacos tower would be in an area currently zoned C-2, rather than Residential. [273] The significance which Mr. Dickey, and Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young,

attribute to Monacos tower being on a C-2 lot (rather than one zoned Residential) cannot be, in the Boards view, underestimated.

Document: 209348

66 [274] As but one illustration, Mr. Dickey testified that if the proposed location of

the tower were to be moved from its present proposed position just 50 feet up Glenwood, he would have opposed it because the tower, or at least part of it, would now stand outside the C-2 lot. [275] The Board observes two difficulties with this position. The first relates to

the parking for the Monaco project (which is essential to its success) being accommodated in part on lands currently zoned R-2; the second, and the more important, relates to what the Board sees as an emphasis on zoning (and the commercial designation) as key, as opposed to what the MPS as a whole, and in particular, DMPS Policy IP-C(1), actually says. The Board will deal with these two aspects in order. [276] With respect to the first aspect, parking, the Board notes that, for the

Monaco development to work, Monaco had to incorporate 5 Glenwood (presently zoned R-2) into its provisions for parking, both below ground and above ground, on the east side of the building. In short, Mr. Dickey placed heavy emphasis on the fact that the Monaco tower alone would, itself, not stand on land that had previously been zoned residential but Monacos development could not go forward in its present configuration without the residentially-zoned lot at 5 Glenwood being incorporated into the building site. [277] To put it another way, a portion of the long-existing residential area would

not be merely adjacent to Monacos development, but would be an integral, and necessary, part of it.

Document: 209348

67 [278] The Board sees no provision in the MPS or the LUB, or indeed in planning

principles as they have been elucidated in the case law by the Court of Appeal, which suggests that, somehow or other, taking R-2 land, and rezoning it to R-4 to create an essential parking lot, would, as a matter of principle, be acceptable while placing the tower itself, or even a tiny portion of it, on the former R-2 lot, would, as a matter of principle, not be. [279] Before moving on to the second point (relating to Monacos emphasis on

zoning), the Board will first observe that it, of course, recognizes that zoning is central and critical to as of right development. If a particular piece of property is in a particular zone, particular uses may occur upon it. [280] The present proceeding, however, is not, of course, an as of right

development so, while the zoning of the subject property is, of course, relevant, it is not, in the judgment of the Board, determinative. [281] With respect to the second aspect (Monacos emphasis on zoning), DMPS

Policy IP-1(c)(2) refers, in part, to Council having regard to a project being compatible and consistent with adjacent uses, and with the existing development form in the area. It does not say in the zone. [282] More than once, however, the Board perceived the positions taken by

Monacos experts, which were naturally reflected in the submissions of Monacos counsel, as meaning that the C-2 zoning somehow isolated the lot upon which Monacos tower is to be built from such things around it as the adjacent residential development.

Document: 209348

68 [283] For example, Mr. Dickey testified that Monacos project is:
in a more favourable situation than Twin Lakes as it is not introducing a building into the residential designation, but rather in the area currently zoned C-2.

[284]

In a similar vein, Counsel for Monaco argued in one of its written

submissions to the Board that the project:

Provides an ideal opportunity to pursue [the goal of population densification] as the site on which the building is proposed is zoned C-2, is in a commercial area adjacent to a residential area, and is located on a major traffic corridor. It is outside the established neighbourhood to which it is adjacent. [Emphasis added]

[285]

Likewise, Counsel for Monaco also remarks:

The site of the Prince Albert cannot be said to be in an established neighbourhood as it is zoned C-2.

[286]

The Board will, later in this decision (in the Development Agreement part),

discuss further the evidence and submissions by Monaco with respect to the concept of neighbourhood, as well as Monacos view of the relationship between zoning and the concept of neighbourhood, as illustrated in the above passage. [287] For the purposes of the present discussion of the rezoning application,

however, the Board first notes that the above quotations refer to the term neighbourhood. As the Board noted earlier in this decision, the term neighbourhood appears in the RMPS, and also in DMPS Policy IP-5, but not in DMPS Policy IP-1(c); it is, without doubt, an important one in the MPS, but it is not defined, either on its own, or in derivative form, such as established neighbourhood. [288] In the judgment of the Board, the assertion by Counsel for Monaco that his

clients tower would be outside the established neighbourhood is, at best, but one reasonable interpretation of the facts and the MPS in the present circumstances. The Board considers to be at least equally persuasive the argument that regarding Monacos

Document: 209348

69 development as part of the established neighbourhood is a reasonable interpretation of the MPS. [289] In the view of the Board, this argument is even stronger when one

recognizes that DMPS Policy IP-1(c) refers only to the term area, rather than the term neighbourhood. In the view of the Board, the term area is even broader, or more subjective, than the term neighbourhood. [290] The Board thinks that one reasonable interpretation of the MPS is that the

extensive R-2 development on Glenwood, adjacent to the subject property and extending up the hill on both sides of the street, amount to an existing development form, which is located in the area of the subject property. Likewise, the low-rise residential housing on and near the shore of Lake Banook, on Lakeview Point Road, Hume Street and Ashton Lane (which are on the opposite side of Prince Albert Road from the subject property) could also be reasonably seen as an existing development form in the area. [291] As such, it is the Boards judgment that this is a matter to which Council

could properly have regard in evaluating Monacos proposal, including its bulk and scale. [292] In making this point, the Board is conscious of the position (referred to later

in the Development Agreement part of this decision) of Counsel for Monaco in which he rejects the argument (which he attributes to HRM and the Intervenors) that:
as long as there are single-family homes in the vicinity, [high-rise] development is precluded.

[293]

For greater certainty, the Board, in reaching its conclusion on this point,

does not mean to imply that, under the MPS, the presence of low-rise residential

Document: 209348

70 buildings in an area automatically means that a high-rise building would be incompatible. The Board is simply saying that, in the context of the MPS (particularly DMPS Policy IP-1(c)) in the present proceeding, the close proximity of the subject property to low-rise residential housing is a matter to which Council can reasonably have regard in considering a zoning application. 5.10.6 Wind, Traffic and Shadows [294] The Board will now turn to the subjects of wind, traffic, and shadows. For

each of these topics, Monaco commissioned engineering reports, and provided oral testimony from the persons who prepared those reports. These topics were discussed from a variety of perspectives, but all were discussed at least partly in the context of the concept of compatibility, including with respect to DMPS Policy IP-1(c) and DMPS Policy IP-5. 5.10.6.1 Wind [295] Wind was the subject of extensive oral and written evidence and

submissions. Given the provisions of the MPS, and the evidence before it, the Board perceives two fundamental questions with respect to the matter of wind in this proceeding: are wind effects on Lake Banook a matter which may properly be regarded under the MPS, in the context of this proceeding? what is the evidence respecting wind on Lake Banook, in the context of the MPS? 5.10.6.1.1 Are Wind Effects on Lake Banook a Matter Which may Properly be Regarded under the MPS, in the Context of this Proceeding?

Document: 209348

71 [296] The initial question to be resolved is whether a consideration of wind

effects on Lake Banook is something which can properly be considered, under the MPS, in the context of Monacos proposed building. [297] Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young acknowledged that:
Wind is the key concern with taller structures.

[298]

However, they also said:

While we do not believe there is a policy basis for the request, the applicant also had the wind study consider potential impacts on Lake Banook.

According to Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young, then, there is no policy basis for HRM having requested a wind study. The Board considers that a reasonable interpretation of this is that they were asserting that the policies of the MPS do not provide a basis for HRMs request for information about the possible wind effects on the lake. [299] As the Board has previously discussed, the subject property abuts, but is One might infer that one

outside, the Banook Lake 35-foot height-restriction area.

reason (at least in part) for their position is the fact that the subject property is outside the 35-foot height-restriction area even if only just. [300] The Board does note that Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young did comment,

elsewhere in their evidence, upon the matter of wind and the Lake. [301] The Board will not here speculate further as to the possible intended scope

of the above-quoted statement. Whatever the meaning intended by Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young, it is the Boards opinion that the MPS (in more than one provision) makes consideration of wind impacts on Lake Banook something which can reasonably be taken into consideration in the circumstances of the present proceeding.

Document: 209348

72 [302] Looking only at DMPS Policy IP-1(c), one finds the MPS directs Council to

have regard (both with respect to zoning amendments and development agreements) to the proposal being, for example:
compatible and consistent with adjacent uses and the existing development form in the area in terms of the use, bulk, and scale of the proposal

The provision also refers to the reduction of:

potential incompatibilities with adjacent land uses

[303]

On this point, the Board notes, first, that the staff report prepared by Mr.

Dickey (who in most ways allied himself with the position of Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young at the hearing) specifically states that the MPS allows Council, in making its decision, to consider wind impacts. He cites DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(3) and (4)(ix)

respectively. Mr. Dickeys report concludes that the Lake Banook paddling course is not negatively impacted. [304] The staff report makes it clear that staff were not looking at the matter of

pedestrians on sidewalks adjacent to the building only, but also the matter of wind effects on Lake Banook, noting:
although the site is outside of the area defined by Council, there is a public concern that a project of this scale and bulk may impact the paddling course.

The quoted statement, then, says there is a public concern about the effects of wind on Banook but not that the MPS justifies attention to the matter. [305] Other parts of Mr. Dickeys evidence left the Board not entirely clear as to

whether he was indeed willing to acknowledge that activities on Lake Banook could be properly regarded as an adjacent or nearby land use within the meaning of (for example) DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(2) and (6); the Board saw Mr. Dickey, under cross examination by Ms. Brown, as being reluctant to acknowledge this.
Document: 209348

73 [306] When she questioned him, for example, with respect to the words,

compatible and consistent with adjacent uses as it appears in DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(2), he initially asserted that adjacent meant directly abutting. He then said it could mean very, very nearby. [307] When she asked him if the parkland next to Lake Banook the existence

of which he had relied on in his calculation of extra, or bonus, units, thereby allowing Monacos building to be larger (a matter dealt with elsewhere, in Issue 3, in this decision) he said that he considered that the park and the trail (the latter being a relatively narrow band lying between Prince Albert Road and the shoreline of Lake Banook) were nearby. The park and trail, of course, are in the 35-foot height-restriction zone. [308] Under further cross examination, he maintained (as the Board perceived it)

that the park and trail were an adjacent use (and, accordingly, justifiably used by him to calculate additional bonus units for Monaco). On the other hand, Lake Banook the shore of which, again, forms a boundary of the park and of the narrow trail was not something to be taken into account:
I honestly cant see extending that argument to the Lake itself

[309]

The Board found this assertion to be remarkable: a principal reason for the

the 35-foot height restriction around Lake Banook is the protection, mainly related to wind, of activities on Lake Banook, including, in particular, boat races. The boundary of the restriction area runs along Prince Albert Road, and as the Board has already noted earlier in this decision, zig zags around the subject property, which abuts it. If it were not for the zig zag, the subject property would be in the restriction area. Despite this, however, it appeared to remain Mr. Dickeys position that the lake was not something
Document: 209348

74 which could properly be included in the definition of an adjacent use within the meaning of IP-1(c)(2). [310] In addition to DMPS Policy IP-1(c), there are, in the view of the Board,

other provisions in the MPS which are likewise consistent with the view that possible wind effects on Lake Banook are a factor which can reasonably be taken into account. For example, RMPS Policy IM-15 (which the Board notes relates to development agreements, but not rezonings) addresses itself, in part, to conflict with any adjacent or nearby land uses by reason of height and bulk:
RMPS IM-15 In considering development agreements or amendments to land use bylaws, in addition to all other criteria as set out in various policies of this Plan, HRM shall consider the following: (b) that controls are placed on the proposed development so as to reduce conflict with any adjacent or nearby land uses by reason of: (i) type of use; (ii) height, bulk and lot coverage of any proposed building; (iii) traffic generation, access to and egress from the site, and parking; IM-15 (b)(iv) and (v) omitted as not relevant to this matter.

[311]

DMPS Policy IP-1(c)(2) refers to simply adjacent uses, while RMPS

Policy IM-15 refers to adjacent or nearby land uses. While the Board did not perceive the point as being pursued by the parties, the Board considers it might be possible to argue that the boating activities on the waters of Lake Banook are not a land use. Given the view the Board takes of the MPS as a whole, and its view of the proper disposition of this case, the Board will not here explore whatever merits that argument might have. Instead, it simply notes once again that, for example, DMPS Policy IP1(c)(2) refers simply to adjacent uses, (not adjacent land uses).

Document: 209348

75 [312] Lastly, the Board notes once again the existence of other provisions within

the MPS which relate to the use of Lake Banook, including DMPS Policy IP-9, entitled Lake Banook Canoe Course, which relates to development agreements. [313] Taking into account the MPS and evidence before it as a whole, the Board

considers it a reasonable interpretation of the MPS that the possible wind effect of Monacos proposed tower upon Lake Banook, and the activities occurring on it, is something to which Council could give weight, as long as the weight given is reasonably consistent with the MPS taken as a whole. 5.10.6.1.2 What is the Evidence Respecting Wind on Lake Banook, in the Context of the MPS?

[314]

In the preceding paragraphs, the Board determined that the matter of wind

is one which it is proper, under the MPS, to consider in this appeal. The Board now turns to a second wind-related question: what is the evidence before the Board with respect to wind, and what significance can properly be attributed to it, in the context of the MPS? [315] Counsel for Monaco points out that the only expert evidence before the

Board with respect to wind has been supplied by Monaco through Dr. Wu. [316] In other words, the Board received no expert evidence from either HRM or

the Intervenors with respect to wind. [317] On this point, the Board notes that it did, in the course of its various

preliminary hearings on this matter, disallow certain portions of evidence which the Intervenors and HRM proposed to present, which related, at least in part, to wind. The reasons for this deletion included failure, in the Boards opinion, to meet the evidentiary rules with respect to opinion evidence.
Document: 209348

76 [318] Dr. Wus report of June 22, 2011 (but not the earlier version of June 15th,

as the Board has already recounted under Facts, above) states that:
there are no negative consequences resulting from the building that could affect the lake and no further investigation is warranted.

The Board considers that this statement, taken by itself, might be interpreted by a reasonable reader as very nearly absolute; indeed, the Board interpreted some of the submissions and other evidence on behalf of Monaco as suggesting that that is the view that the Board should take of Dr. Wus evidence. [319] The opposing point of view, however as put forward by Counsel for HRM,

both in cross examination and in subsequent written submissions is that Dr. Wus report should be seen as one which contains a number of implicit, and even explicit, limitations, and that its contents do not preclude Council from reasonably having regard to potential wind impacts. [320] this point. [321] [322] The Board will here briefly explore some of its reasons for this conclusion. First, the Board notes that Dr. Wu expressly acknowledges that:
There are no universal criteria available for evaluating the wind effects on a canoe course.

In general, the Board agrees with the submissions by HRM in relation to

[323]

Because of this lack of universal criteria, Dr. Wu has developed his own

methodology, beginning sometime around 2003. It has not yet, however, been the subject of peer review, nor has it at least according to the evidence before the Board been adopted by others. [324] At least some, if not all, of his previous estimations of wind on and around

Lake Banook (done in relation to earlier projects which did not go forward) involved
Document: 209348

77 wind-tunnel analysis. In a wind-tunnel analysis, a physical model of the area is created, artificially-created wind is blown over it, and measurements carried out. [325] In dealing with the Monaco project, Dr. Wu did not use the wind-tunnel

approach. Instead, he used a so-called desktop review, which does not use any physical model. computer. [326] The Board concluded from the evidence of Dr. Wu that he had chosen to Instead, it involves an analysis which is done entirely inside a

do a desktop review, rather than a wind-tunnel review, because he considered that it was adequate for the task, and because the desktop review would be cheaper. A typical desktop review might cost a third, or a little more, of the cost of a wind-tunnel review. [327] In carrying out his desktop review, Dr. Wu first loaded into a computer a

virtual (i.e., not physically existing) representation of the topography around the subject property. The Board notes that Dr. Wus report does not specifically identify what

building design he assumed would be constructed on the subject property. [328] He also acknowledged, on cross examination, that he did not take into

account the vegetation along the shoreline, which could have an impact on wind condition. [329] After inputting the topographical data, the second key input was wind data.

The wind data he used was not measured at Lake Banook itself. Instead, he relied (as had previously been accepted as a reasonable approach for earlier wind studies at Lake Banook) upon wind records of measurements taken at Shearwater Airport.

Document: 209348

78 [330] Lake Banook is at least three miles from Shearwater. Shearwater is on Dr. Wu acknowledged on cross

relatively flat land, and adjacent to the ocean.

examination that sea breezes could have an effect upon Shearwater, given its location adjacent to the ocean. [331] Banook lies in what amounts to a valley, with a relatively steep slope on its

easternmost side, i.e., between it and Shearwater. [332] In using the Shearwater wind data, Dr. Wu: lifted (again, virtually) the wind data for Shearwater to an altitude of

about 2,000 feet above the airport, changing the wind direction and speed to reflect the increased altitude, using certain assumptions about the behaviour of wind in doing so; moved the hypothetical winds to a position above the virtual

representation of the subject property and the topography around it, including the lake; lowered them onto the subject property and the area around it, once

again making certain assumptions about what would happen to wind speed and direction as a result of the lowering; observed in his computer the interaction between the virtual winds and

the virtual topography; developed from these observations (as seen through the wind

methodology he himself developed) his predictions as to the likely behaviour of winds in the area.

Document: 209348

79 [333] In the view of the Board, Dr. Wu is indeed convinced that the risks of

potential effects on wind conditions over the canoe course on Lake Banook are negligible. [334] But Dr. Wu also had no difficulty acknowledging that a desktop review is

not the equal of a wind tunnel review. Further, he freely acknowledged that sometimes even a wind tunnel result may not be accurate. The Board interpreted his evidence as being that nobody would assert that a wind-tunnel result could be 100% accurate. [335] The Board concluded from the evidence and submissions before it on the

point that Dr. Wus results are, on the balance of probabilities, likely to be correct but it is not at all impossible they may be wrong. [336] On this point, Counsel for HRM, in their written submissions, assert that if

the results of Dr. Wus desktop simulation are:

flawed or inaccurate the harm would be irreparable and the only recourse would be to live with the results.

In the worst case, Counsel for HRM suggests, this might include the Lake Banook course losing its world-class status, with effects not just on competitors, but on the community as a whole. [337] While this statement might provoke the assertion that this is mere

speculation on the part of Counsel for HRM, the Board does not consider it inconsistent with the evidence before it as a whole, or indeed inconsistent with the MPS provisions which relate in one way or another (expressly or otherwise) to Lake Banook. For

example, the introduction to DMPS Policies IP-9 and IP-10 states (within the specific context of the 35-foot height restriction):

Document: 209348

80
(q) Lake Banook Canoe Course Lake Banook canoe course is one of the best natural canoe courses in the world and it hosts both national and international canoe eventswind impacts resulting from large building developments which prevent the course from holding national and international regattas would have significant regional impacts.[Emphasis added]

Summary with Respect to Wind [338] As the Board has noted, the subject property abuts the Banook 35-foot

restriction area. A principal factor as is indicated by, among other things, DMPS Policy IP-9, to which the Board has just referred in the adoption of that restriction area is a concern about the possible wind impact upon the lake. Just across the street from the subject property (in either direction, i.e., whether across Prince Albert, or across Glenwood), there is a strict height limit of 35 feet. Monacos tower, at 15 storeys, would be much higher than that. [339] The Board has reviewed the provisions of the MPS, in the context of the

evidence relating to the particular project before it. The Board finds that, in its opinion, nothing in the MPS (in the Boards opinion) causes it to conclude that possible wind effects on Lake Banook become irrelevant the moment one steps outside the 35-foot height-restriction area. [340] To the contrary, the Board considers it to be a reasonable interpretation of

the MPS that Council could have regard (in making a decision about rezoning, or making a decision about a development agreement, for that matter) to such matters as the height of Monacos proposed building, in the context of possible wind effects upon the lake, even though Monacos property is outside the 35-foot restriction area.

Document: 209348

81 5.10.6.2 Traffic [341] As part of its application, Monaco supplied HRMs planning staff with traffic

information prepared for Monaco by Ken OBrien, of Genivar Traffic and Transportation. He asserted that:
the added trips from the proposed development are not expected to have any significant [e]ffect on intersection performance.

[342]

Mr. Dickey, as the responsible planner for HRM, was satisfied with the

traffic information supplied by Monaco. HRM Counsel, however, together with Counsel for the Intervenors, directed some criticism toward it. [343] As the Board will discuss below, it does see some of these criticisms as

meriting giving the traffic report documentation (there was more than one report) somewhat less weight than that apparently accorded it by HRM staff. [344] Of the various criticisms raised by Counsel for HRM, the one which the

Board saw as the most significant was the fact that Mr. OBriens traffic projections ignore the potential effect of the Twin Lakes project. [345] It will be recalled that Twin Lakes is to be a relatively large building, with 12

storeys and 84 units. Access to it would be via Prince Albert Road, the same road upon which Monacos tower is to be located. It can be reasonably expected that a significant part of any traffic going to, or departing from, Twin Lakes, would flow along Prince Albert Road, past the Monaco site at the intersection of Glenwood and Prince Albert. [346] Twin Lakes was, of course, a project of which Monaco, and Mr. Maskine,

were acutely aware when they were preparing Monacos rezoning and development agreement applications. Further, submissions and evidence on behalf of Monaco in the Boards proceeding referred numerous times to Twin Lakes.

Document: 209348

82 [347] Remarkably, however, the reason that Mr. OBriens projections did not

take into account the Twin Lakes project is that, according to the evidence before the Board, Monaco did not inform him of its existence. [348] A second criticism by Counsel for HRM related to his assumption that

Prince Albert Road was a major collector. His predictions with respect to the traffic impact of the Monaco project were based, in part, upon an assumed annual traffic volume growth rate of 1%; in turn, the 1% figure was based on his assumption that Prince Albert Road is a major collector street. For example, his report says:
The 2010 volumes have been used with an annual traffic volume growth rate of 1.0%, which is considered typical of many major collector streets in HRM

[349]

The term major collector was used by Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young in

describing Prince Albert Road, in both their oral and written evidence. For example, they assert in their first report at least twice that Prince Albert Road is a major collector, making this assertion in the context of interpreting the MPS. [350] After a somewhat protracted cross examination by Counsel for HRM,

however, Ms. Young acknowledged that Prince Albert Road is not designated as a major collector, in HRMs planning documents it is just a collector. [351] The Board finds that the combined result of the evidence of Mr. OBrien,

and of Ms. Young, is that a key underlying assumption (that Prince Albert Road is a major collector, and that accordingly, a traffic volume growth rate of 1%, the figure associated with such collectors, could be assumed), used by Mr. OBrien in the preparation of his traffic projections, lacks an adequate foundation. [352] As a third point, Counsel for HRM noted that Mr. OBriens firm did traffic

measurements on only one day, November 18, 2010.

Document: 209348

83 [353] The measurements were not only done on just one day, but just at two

separate periods during that day (being the presumed morning and afternoon peak travel period, for a total of about four hours). [354] day. [355] Among other things, it gives us no information about the nature of traffic Mr. OBriens report is, thus, based upon two limited periods on just one

flows on that day at times other than the assumed peaks. [356] That meant, as Counsel for HRM explored at some length on cross

examination, difficulties in making useful comparisons of some of the other data which had been placed in evidence, and upon which Mr. OBrien relied. [357] For example, Genivar produced on September 30, 2011, a table of traffic No measurements, or other data, relating to the subject

generation projections.

property appear in this table. Instead, it is based upon assumed traffic generation rates which appear in the professional literature. These trip generation rates, however, are calculated in vehicle trips per day, not peak periods. The data Mr. OBrien generated related only to trips per hour during the two assumed peak periods, i.e., it did not show estimated vehicle trips per day. [358] As a fourth and final point, the Board will touch on one criticism by HRMs

Counsel in relation to the traffic evidence, to which it has ultimately decided to give no weight at all. Counsel for HRM, in the course of cross examination, cast some doubt on the 1% figure itself, at least with respect to whether Mr. OBrien had in the past expressed a figure of 1%, or of 2%.

Document: 209348

84 [359] As the Board has already noted, Mr. OBriens report refers to a figure of

1%. Counsel for HRM points out, however, that the minutes of the public information meeting held at Alderney School on May 4, 2011, state that Mr. OBrien told those present that he expected traffic counts to increase by approximately 2% per year. [360] Minutes can, of course, be in error. However, the day after the meeting, a

member of the public (whose name was redacted) sent an email to Mr. Dickey which refers to an assumed 2% per year increase as having been mentioned at the information meeting. [361] Further, on June 14th , five weeks after the meeting, Mr. Dickey himself

sent an email in which he said:

It has been determined that Prince Albert Road has ample capacity to handle traffic volume growth over the long term which is presumed to be 2% per year

[362]

Counsel for HRM combines her stated concerns with respect to accuracy

of the purported growth rate of 1% with concerns about the Twin Lakes project (a concern which the Board does share, and which it has already discussed, above). [363] The Board considers that the evidence pointed to by Counsel for HRM with

respect to Mr. OBrien having referred to a 2% figure, rather than 1%, at the public information meeting, does provide some basis for concluding that a 2% figure may indeed have been used. [364] The Board has, however, concluded that such a use of a figure of 2% is

irrelevant to the likely accuracy, or inaccuracy, of Mr. OBriens report. The reason is that even if the Board were to accept that Mr. OBrien did refer to a 2% figure at the public information meeting the meeting in question occurred on May 4, 2011. Mr. OBrien prepared his report several months prior to that meeting, on December 3, 2010.

Document: 209348

85 His report does contain the 1% figure a figure which he confirmed verbally in the course of his evidence. Even if he did misstate the growth rate as 2%, as opposed to 1%, at the public information meeting, the 2% figure was not used by him in developing the conclusions which appear in his December 2010 report. [365] Accordingly, the Board considers that at most - the discrepancy pointed

to by Counsel for HRM suggests there is evidence that people at the public information meeting may have been misinformed about the assumed growth rate that Mr. OBrien was actually using. The Board does not, however, see this even if it were to assume it to be a fact to be in any way determinative of the outcome, and the Board accords no weight to it. 5.10.6.3 Shadows [366] As the Board has noted previously, Monaco retained Robert T. LeBlanc to

provide a shade study report to be included in Monacos application to HRM. In his report of June 20, 2011, Mr. LeBlanc summarized his conclusions as follows:
The results of the shade study demonstrate fairly minimal impacts of shade along Prince Albert Road and the adjacent properties. The most heavily impacted areas are affected during the winter solstice, when residential properties along Lakeview Point Road will be impacted for less than an hour during the earliest hour of daylight, and the intersection of Prince Albert Road and Highway 7, which will be cast in shadow for approximately 4.5 hours during the middle of the day.

[367]

Mr. Dickey accepted the LeBlanc report, and relied on it in his report to

Council of December 15th, which was discussed by Harbour East Community Council at its meeting on January 17th. He described the matter of shadows being created by the proposed building as:
another measure by which compatibility can be measured, although HRM only considers this issue relative to potential for impacts on public lands and not on private property.

Document: 209348

86 [368] While Mr. Dickey was satisfied with the LeBlanc report, Counsel for HRM,

in the course of the present proceeding, directed various criticisms at it. [369] Much, if not all, of the criticisms on this point made by Counsel for HRM in

her closing written submissions went essentially unrebutted in the lengthy reply submissions filed on behalf of Monaco although Counsel for Monaco did note, correctly, that HRM and the Intervenors had questioned the shade study without supplying expert evidence of their own. [370] specifically. [371] First, as the Board previously noted in the Facts section above, Mr. Of the points raised by Counsel for HRM, the Board will refer to only three

LeBlanc produced two versions of his report. He sent a report to Mr. Maskine dated June 15th, which Mr. Maskine sent to Mr. Dickey, identifying it as a draft. On June 20th, Mr. LeBlanc submitted a new version of his report, which makes no reference to the June 15th version, and which adds a section entitled Shade Potential. The section in question contains a comparison of potential versus actual sunshine for Halifax. It notes that, in the winter, Halifax is, on average, overcast 75% of the time. Therefore, says Mr. LeBlanc, there is only a 25% chance that there will be the sunlight necessary for a building to even be able to cast a shadow. [372] report as:
an attempt to lessen the impact of the study results.

Counsel for HRM characterizes the addition of this section of Mr. LeBlancs

The Board, on the balance of probabilities, agrees. [373] Mr. LeBlancs added section points to the fact that Halifax-Dartmouth tends

to have a relatively large amount of overcast weather. The Board interpreted the thrust
Document: 209348

87 of this part of Mr. LeBlancs evidence as being, in essence, that if one already has relatively little sunshine in comparison to many other places, as is the case for Halifax, the loss of some more wont matter very much. [374] Counsel for HRM cross examined Mr. LeBlanc on this point. In the course

of that examination, the Board saw Mr. LeBlanc as acknowledging that the reverse of his argument could also be true that if people live in an area with relatively little sunshine, they might wish to protect what little they do have from the adverse effects of shadows generated by a building. [375] Second, it is not uncommon (at least in the Boards experience) for shade

studies to include computer-generated video animations. Among other things, these enable the observation of the continuously varying impact of shadows from a proposed building, as these vary both by time of year and time of day. As Counsel for HRM pointed out, however, the shade study in the present proceeding did not involve a continuous video animation, but only still snapshots. [376] [377] It was Mr. LeBlancs opinion that this approach was adequate. The Board, however, concluded from the evidence that different and other

buildings and topography could be affected in different ways by shadows during the period outside the shapshots. [378] Third, Mr. LeBlanc, in doing his study, ignored the impact of surrounding

vegetation, which the report acknowledged can cause significant shade impacts. 5.10.7 Population Densification; Opportunity Sites [379] The Board now turns to two additional matters, population densification and

opportunity sites, concepts found principally in the RMPS.

Document: 209348

88 [380] The Board has chosen to deal with these topics here (subsequent to its

discussion of compatibility under DMPS Policy IP-1 (c)), rather than in the earlier portion of Analysis and Findings which was focused principally upon the RMPS, as a matter of convenience, and of clarity: many of the comments made by the Board in relation to IP1(c) (and, in particular, the matter of compatibility) may be dealt with more briefly at this stage in the proceeding. 5.10.7.1 Population Growth in The Regional Centre: Population Densification [381] The subject property is located within what the RMPS terms the Regional

Centre, which comprises all of the Peninsula of Halifax, and Dartmouth inside the Circumferential Highway. [382] One of the themes in the RMPS, which is referred to in the introduction to

Chapter 3, entitled Settlement and Housing, is the achievement of a balanced approach to growth across the Municipality. One aspect of this policy is to increase population growth in the Regional Centre. Referring to the Regional Centre, the RMPS (written in 2006) says:
approximately 25% of growth will be targeted to occur on the Halifax Peninsula and in downtown Dartmouth, inside the Circumferential Highway

[383]

This population growth target was referred to sometimes in the evidence

and submissions before the Board as intensification, and sometimes as densification. The latter term, the Board notes, should not be confused with density, which commonly relates to the number of units per square foot of a lot, or the number of units in a building although there can be a relationship between the two concepts. [384] For consistency, and, hopefully, greater clarity, the Board has used in this

decision the term population densification in place of intensification or densification.

Document: 209348

89 [385] Part of the rationale for population densification is the ability to serve more

people with existing infrastructure (for example, water, sewer, transit, etc.). [386] Population densification may be seen from this perspective, and perhaps

from others, as being at least implicitly a theme of the DMPS as well, even though it was originally written in 1978. For example, the DMPS provides as follows:
DMPS Policy G-4 It shall be the intention of City Council to investigate the possibilities and options for redevelopment of areas throughout the City to make better utilization of existing services.

[387]

Population densification was repeatedly, and extensively, explored in

evidence and submissions. [388] Mr. Dickey, for example, took the view that the RMPS:
strongly supports intensification

[389]

The Board concluded that Mr. Heseltine has a particular affinity for this

subject. His firm, STANTEC, along with Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists, has, pursuant to a contract they have with HRM, been looking at alternative population growth scenarios in HRM, and the associated costs and benefits of those scenarios. A principal focus of the study relates to population densification. [390] Mr. Heseltine has concluded from the data which he and his associates

have gathered that HRM has not (in the years since 2006) achieved the target stated in the RMPS of having about 25% of the growth occurring in the Regional Centre. At the time the RMPS was adopted, significantly less than 25% of population growth was occurring in the Regional Centre. [391] Even before Mr. Heseltine began his work on the consulting contract, HRM

planning staff had concluded that the population changes in HRM had fallen short of the target.
Document: 209348

90 [392] Mr. Heseltine, however, has concluded from his research that things are

even worse with respect to achieving the target than HRM staff had surmised. [393] For example, the Dartmouth portion of the Regional Centre actually lost

population between 2006 (when the RMPS was adopted) and 2011. [394] Mr. Heseltine is persuaded of the importance of increasing the proportion

of the population in HRM which lives in the Regional Centre. His intense interest in population densification may be inferred from, among other things, the significant proportion which the topic takes up in both of the experts reports filed with the Board of which he was an author. [395] Of the 26 pages in the first Heseltine and Young report (March 29, 2012)

about 10 are focused upon, or related to, this single topic. [396] The second Heseltine and Young report (prepared May 2, 2012, and stated

to be in reply to Mr. Lloyds single report) is 17 pages long, of which, in the Boards estimation, more than half is focused upon population densification, using both explanatory text and extensive tables. [397] In discussing population densification, the May 2nd report contains wide-

ranging observations, on a variety of diverse topics. For example, it explores changes in the average number of persons occupying residential units; compares and contrasts data for HRM with municipalities elsewhere; and offers opinions on such topics as why population growth has been slowing. At one point, the report expresses the opinion that:
The critical concern today is that whether citizens are over housedlarger homes consume more energy and create more pollution and greenhouse gases. They also occupy larger properties and create sprawl.

Document: 209348

91 [398] In the view of the Board, the interest of Mr. Heseltine (supported by Ms.

Young) in population densification was also reflected repeatedly in their assertions as to the importance of population densification in relation to the matter presently before the Board. [399] At times, their emphasis on population densification was combined with the

emphasis which Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young also placed upon the concept of opportunity sites (a concept the Board discusses further, later in this decision). [400] The Board perceives Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young, as, at least sometimes

impliedly, and maybe even explicitly approaching the portrayal of population densification as an overriding goal or target of the RMPS and DMPS. [401] For example, the following written submission by Counsel for Monaco

accurately reflects the Boards perception of how Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young saw the role of population densification in the MPS. He says that Councils decision to refuse Monacos application:
serves to defeat the overall goal of the RMPS and the DSPS [DMPS] to densify the Regional Centre[Emphasis added]

[402]

As a further example, in their March report, Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young,

in referring to the Monaco Property, say:

it is hard to imagine property better situated to support the density needed to create the liveable transit-oriented environment within walking distance of most daily needs as described in the Regional Plan. [Emphasis added]

Referring then to both population densification and to opportunity sites, they assert that Council had an obligation in relation to the proposed rezoning of Monacos property:
The rezoning request thus should have been viewed as an opportunity that Council was obligated to encourage. [Emphasis added]
Document: 209348

92

[403]

The assertion that Council had an obligation related to population

densification, and to Monacos proposal, is reflected again in their May report. In it, they suggest that it was essential for Council to take advantage of the opportunity which the Monaco proposal presented to achieve the clearly stated goals of population densification:
To achieve the clearly stated goals of both the RMPS and DMPS to add dwelling units and increase population in what are now the recognized core areas of HRM, it is essential to consider and take advantage of the opportunities inherent in commercial sites at the edges of residential neighbourhoods such as 307 Prince Albert Road. These properties are clearly the best opportunities to add density in areas that are otherwise depopulating. [Emphasis added]

[404]

At times, the Board was left somewhat uncertain as to just how far the

intended thrust of this aspect of the evidence of Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young was intended to go. [405] They are asserting and the Board has no reason to doubt them on the

evidence before it that HRM is not meeting its population densification target. [406] The Board notes first, however, that the reason for this failure, on the

evidence before the Board, is not clear. The phenomenon may be driven by a number of factors, at least some of which may have little to do with decisions made by Municipal Council (whether the present one or others) with respect to whether a particular proposed development may or may not proceed. [407] Is one to infer that Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young are asserting that HRMs

failure to meet its target in the RMPS means that Council had to approve this particular application by Monaco? On balance, given other aspects of the evidence of Mr.

Heseltine and Ms. Young, the Board thinks that whatever reasonable inferences might

Document: 209348

93 be drawn from their language as quoted above by the Board Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young did take a broader view of the MPS. [408] Nevertheless, if indeed they were proposing that population densification

obligated Council, or made it essential for Council, to approve Monacos proposal, the Board sees little basis for this idea in the MPS. [409] That being said, the Board considers that no reasonable reader of the MPS

could remain oblivious to population densification being one of its themes, or planning considerations. Indeed, on the evidence before the Board, Mr. Dickey pointed to

population densification in his recommendations to Council respecting the Monaco application; further, Council had, on its own initiative, contemplated population densification (just before it was officially adopted) in the discussions which led to its approval of Twin Lakes. [410] No MPS has just a single theme, however be it population densification,

or anything else. Instead, the policies found in municipal planning strategies address, as the Court of Appeal put it in Heritage Trust 1994:
a multitude of planning considerations

[411]

Having read the provisions of the RMPS and the DMPS, and taken into

account the factual circumstances of the present proceeding, the Board finds that there are certainly other themes within the MPS, including, in particular, compatibility (in its various aspects), which are also relevant in addition to population densification in determination of this appeal. 5.10.7.2 Opportunity Sites [412] The concept of opportunity sites, found in the RMPS, was the subject of

extensive dispute in the proceeding.

Document: 209348

94 [413] The Board will here explore the concept relatively briefly (at least in

proportion to the large amount of time and effort, both in written and oral evidence and submissions, which surrounded the topic in these proceedings). [414] The RMPS expressly identifies a number of opportunity sites, including

some in the Dartmouth sector of the Regional Centre (being the area inside the Circumferential Highway, which includes the subject property). Neither the subject

property, nor any properties near it, appear in the list of opportunity sites within the Regional Centre which appears at schedule DM 4, pg 157. Further, they do not appear on Map 6 of the RMPS which is entitled Opportunity Sites within Regional Centre. [415] The term opportunity site, according to the RMPS, is one which may be

applied to vacant or underused sites in HRM. Medium or high-density uses may be permitted on opportunity sites. As the Board will discuss further in this section, it does not see the references in the RMPS to opportunity sites as providing a clear definition, or criteria, as to what kinds of properties are opportunity sites, and which ones not. [416] Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young claim that the subject property is an

opportunity site or, at a minimum, the equivalent of one. Their evidence suggests that a practical consequence of this status is that the subject property is entitled to the development of medium to high density uses. [417] Mr. Lloyd, and Counsel for HRM, assert just as firmly that it is not an

opportunity site, but is instead in an established neighbourhood in which only low to medium density residential uses are possible. [418] Counsel for Monaco suggested that the Board must decide between the

two opposing points of view. While the Board has found the opinions of both sets of

Document: 209348

95 experts to be helpful in certain aspects, the Board is not inclined to adopt the opinion of either opposing group as being necessarily definitive. [419] The RMPS contemplates a special planning process for opportunity sites,

known as the opportunity sites functional plan. The RMPS contains nine chapters. Chapter 3, which is entitled, Settlement and Housing, contains nine separate sections, one of which, Section 3.8, is entitled, Functional Plans. It contains references to two different types of functional plans, one being in relation to affordable housing, and the other in relation to opportunity sites. [420] The status of functional plans is referred to in Chapter 1 of the RMPS

(entitled Introduction), in s. 1.7 entitled Municipal Planning Document Structure. It says:

1.7 MUNICIPAL PLANNING DOCUMENT STRUCTURE (4) Functional Plans The purpose of a functional plan is to guide the management of the Municipality as defined in the Municipal Government Act. They do not represent land use policy but rather HRMs intent to create detailed management guides for setting budgets for programs, services and facilities consistent with the implementation of this Plan. Functional Plans will also guide HRM in the ongoing management of strategic initiatives, partnerships and demonstration projects useful to seeing the full potential of this Plan realized over time. [Emphasis added]

[421]

On cross examination by Counsel for HRM, Ms. Brown, Ms. Young

acknowledged that functional plans are not land-use policy. [422] Section 3.8.1 of the Settlement and Housing chapter, which is entitled

Opportunity Sites Functional Plan says, in its opening sentence:

Within the Regional Centre, there are a number of vacant or underused sites

[423]

RMPS Policy S-39, which appears at the end of s. 3.8.1, says:

S-39 HRM shall prepare an Opportunity Sites Functional Plan to assist the Community Visioning exercise and the preparation of secondary planning strategies described in Policy S-38 and to facilitate the development or redevelopment of opportunity sites within the Regional Centre and other locations.

Document: 209348

96

The RMPS also refers to:

creating and maintaining a comprehensive database of opportunity sites.

[424]

The RMPS points to the identification and development of opportunity sites

through new secondary planning strategies. Very broadly, the process contemplated by the RMPS includes community visioning, with the possible subsequent adoption of new secondary planning strategies (such as the DMPS) by Council which reflect that visioning. These new secondary planning strategies may identify particular opportunity sites, and point to how they are to be developed. [425] While it seems, from the limited evidence before the Board, that some

visioning exercises may have occurred, HRM has not moved on to the creation of new secondary planning strategies, including the identification of any new opportunity sites. [426] While Mr. Dickey did not expressly address opportunity sites in his report,

he did in his oral testimony state his views with respect to opportunity sites on the subject property, when he was questioned about it by Counsel for the various parties. [427] Mr. Dickey acknowledged that the intent of the RMPS was that a functional

plan for opportunity sites was supposed to have been developed, but that this had not happened. Saying (on cross examination) that this was because of a lack of resources, he suggested that the delay has meant that HRMs planning staff now see themselves as being required to improvise their approach to opportunity sites:
were finding ourselves having to, you know, take some interpretations out of the Regional Plan because frankly we cannot afford to wait five, ten, 15 years to get some of these things done.

[428]

The position of HRM counsel (based, in part, upon the evidence of Mr.

Lloyd) is succinctly stated in a written submission by its Counsel:

Document: 209348

97
It is submitted that sites must be identified as opportunity sites by Council through the Community Visioning Exercise and Secondary Planning strategy process before they can be considered to be opportunity sites. It is not for staff nor consultant planners to decide on their own that a particular site within the Regional Centre ought to be an opportunity site and therefore ought to attract a mix of medium to high density residential uses. While the proposed site certainly exists within the "Regional Centre" it is not an "opportunity site. Instead, it is submitted that the proposed site is in an "established neighbourhood" and therefore pursuant to Table 3.1 of the RMPS, the land use shall be "low to medium density residential uses" on this site. This is consistent with the RMPS statement at page 45 and policy S-11

[429]

As the Board has already noted, the subject property is not identified as an

opportunity site in the RMPS. Nevertheless, Monaco asserts that the subject property either: [430] is an opportunity site; or should be considered to be at least equivalent to one. With respect to the first position (that the subject property is an opportunity

site), Monaco appeared sometimes to be asserting that the property not only meets the criteria of an opportunity site, but is one within the full meaning of the RMPS. [431] As an illustration of this position, the Board refers first to written

submissions to the Board made on behalf of Monaco, which say, in part:

the Prince Albert site is an opportunity site within the meaning of the RMPS.

[432]

In similar vein, Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young, in their second planning

report, say that:

The site also meets the RMPS definition of an opportunity site.

[433]

In taking the first position (i.e., that the subject property is indeed an

opportunity site) Monaco was, in the opinion of the Board, in effect saying the process of visioning, etc. (including its various elements of public participation, as outlined in the

Document: 209348

98 RMPS) need not be done for a property to be an opportunity site within the full meaning of the term, as used in the RMPS. [434] In taking their second position, Monaco was, at a minimum, saying that the

property meets what they assert to be the criteria for an opportunity site (absent, of course the visioning, etc., process) and that it accordingly deserves to be treated as one. [435] Mr. Dickey at least at certain points in his evidence, did refer to the subject

property as an opportunity site. In explaining his point of view, however, he appeared to be suggesting that the references to opportunity sites in the RMPS were more in the nature of a useful guide for staff, and for Council, in making planning decisions. It:
allows a practical interpretation by staff. Its one criterion or site evaluation criteria that can be used in the staff report.

[436]

On cross examination by Counsel for HRM, Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young

said that RMPS s. 3.8.1 sets out, in their view, the criteria for opportunity sites. They refer to a number of characteristics, including: the subject property is an underused site; the subject property is adjacent to other vacant lands; the subject property is located on a major transportation route; it has existing municipal services with excess capacity; the street is able to support the increased traffic associated with the proposed development. Near the beginning of this part, the Board referred to its view that RMPS s.

[437]

3.8.1 does not contain anything like a precise definition of the term opportunity site. For example, RMPS s. 3.8.1 does not contain a list of criteria, such as those found in DMPS Policy IP-1(c), or RMPS Policy IM-15.
Document: 209348

99 [438] Even if it did, the Board has previously noted its view that, even in the latter

two provisions, the criteria stated often have a strongly subjective component. [439] As but one example of what the Board sees as the somewhat amorphous

concept of opportunity sites, RMPS s. 3.8.1 refers to already-identified opportunity sites and notes that some are located along major transportation corridors, and outside established low-density neighbourhoods. It also, however, notes that some opportunity sites are located in established neighbourhoods. [440] In short, opportunity sites can be outside established neighbourhoods but

they can also be inside them. Conclusion re Opportunity Sites [441] The Board considers that, even taking the minimum position advanced on

behalf of Monaco, its experts and Counsel were asserting that the subject property demonstrably meets all of the so-called criteria for opportunity sites. And they saw this as entitling the property to have medium to high density development on it. [442] The Board notes here, as an aside, that Monacos development, if built,

would indeed be high density: in fact, it would exceed, by a significant margin, the highest density allowable under the R3 and R-4 zoning by-law which controlled apartment building construction in Dartmouth until the development agreement requirement was adopted in 1991 (as is discussed in more detail in the Development Agreement part, below). [443] The Board further inferred from some of Monacos evidence and

submissions that the purported status of the subject property as an opportunity site

Document: 209348

100 meant (from their point of view) that Councils decision not to approve Monacos application failed to reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS. [444] With respect, the Board does not agree. The Boards reasons for this

include its view that Monacos so-called criteria for an opportunity site are not nearly as clear cut as Monaco suggests. In the view of the Board, while various characteristics are referred to in RMPS s. 3.8.1, these in some ways point to the possibility of opportunity sites being in a wide range of quite diverse settings. [445] Further just as with DMPS Policy IP-1(c) (discussed above) and DMPS

Policy IP-5 (discussed below) the Board considers that the meaning of some of the terms used in the MPS in relation to opportunity sites is subjective. The Board

considers that reading the MPS as a whole deciding whether something is to be an opportunity site or not will often involve the balancing of interests (something Council should, or may be required to, do, under an MPS) such as looking at the relevant circumstances of the present application the presence of abutting residential areas, the presence of Lake Banook with its active boating competitions, traffic, population densification, etc. [446] Further, the Board considers that the processes (related to visioning, etc.)

described in RMPS s. 3.8.1 (and related provisions) contemplate that members of the public are to be given the opportunity to express their opinion with respect to the identification of opportunity sites. To put it another way, the Board sees RMPS s. 3.8.1 as not simply mentioning some characteristics which opportunity sites might have, but also stating steps in which public involvement must occur to be taken in the identification of such sites.

Document: 209348

101 [447] The Board concludes the concept of opportunity sites does not create a

requirement in the context of the MPS, and the circumstances of the present proceeding that Council approve the Monaco project. More specifically, the Board considers that the fact that Council did not, expressly or impliedly, identify the subject property as an opportunity site is not something which can reasonably be seen as a failure to carry out the intent of the MPS. [448] The Board does, however, conclude that the matters referred to in RMPS

s. 3.8.1 do point, at least generally, to characteristics of opportunity sites to which Council might have regard in deciding whether it should grant a rezoning or indeed whether it should approve a development agreement. 5.10.8 Conclusion with Respect to Councils Refusal to Rezone [449] The burden of proof in this proceeding rested on Monaco to establish, on

the balance of probabilities, that Councils decision to refuse Monacos application to rezone the subject property fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy. In the judgment of the Board, Monaco failed to meet that burden. [450] The Halifax Charter, like the Municipal Government Act before it,

specifically identifies municipal council as the primary authority for planning in HRM. [451] In keeping with this authority, the Halifax Charter limits the grounds for an

appeal to the Board of a decision by Council in relation to zoning applications. In the context of the present proceeding, the Act says that the Board must not interfere with Councils decision to refuse the rezonings requested by Monaco, unless the Board determines that Councils decision does not reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS.

Document: 209348

102 [452] If Monaco can show, on the balance of probabilities, that Councils decision

does not reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS, the Board must reverse Councils decision. If, however, the Appellant fails to meet this standard of proof, it is the Boards duty to defer to Councils decision. [453] As the Board has already discussed above, it sees a variety of different

planning considerations in the MPS which relate, to one degree or another, to Monacos application to have this property rezoned. [454] This abundance of themes in an MPS is not unusual; to the contrary, all

municipal planning strategies, to one degree or another, exhibit that characteristic, as the Court of Appeal has on a number of occasions, pointed out. As the Board has noted previously, Heritage Trust 1994 states:
Planning policies address a multitude of planning considerations

The planning considerations apparent in the present proceeding include, among others, compatibility, population densification, and opportunity sites. [455] The RMPS, in its references to population densification, sets targets for

increasing the population in the most urban area of HRM, and the subject property lies in that area. Monaco points out that HRM has not achieved its target in the six years since the target was set. Monaco also points to RMPS provisions relating to so called opportunity sites, in which, among other things, medium to high-rise apartment buildings may be built. While these themes are certainly of importance, all parties likewise agreed that other provisions in the MPS are also relevant. [456] In particular, MPS provisions relating to compatibility are of importance in

this particular proceeding.

Document: 209348

103 [457] DMPS Policy IP-1(c) contains policy considerations which the Board has

explored in detail above, and which the Board sees as relating, in a variety of ways, to aspects of the idea of compatibility. [458] The MPS identifies a number of aspects which can be included in having The Board sees not just DMPS Policy IP-1(c), but other

regard to compatibility.

provisions within the MPS as well, as suggesting that compatibility can include such things as use, bulk, and scale of a proposed building, when seen in the context of, for example, existing buildings in the area of the proposed development. [459] In the present proceeding, the area around the proposed development

includes as Monaco emphasizes some commercial activity. Moreover, the subject property fronts, on one side at least, on Prince Albert Road which while not a major collector as claimed by the experts testifying on behalf of Monaco is nonetheless a street of some significance. Monaco suggests that location of a high-rise (and highdensity) building on the subject property, on such a street, will help further HRMs population densification goals. [460] However, it is also true that the site for this proposed 15-storey

development is only a few hundred feet from the shore of Lake Banook, an internationally known venue for competition in racing kayaks and canoes. More than once in the past, concerns about the height of buildings near Lake Banook have been raised, and have led to either a proposed project being defeated at Council, or simply not advanced. [461] Moreover, only a few years ago, Council imposed a 35-foot height

restriction around the perimeter of the Lake. The subject property stands outside that

Document: 209348

104 height restriction, but only just the subject property is on a corner, and the land opposite it (on both streets) is inside the height-restriction area. [462] One side of the subject property, then, abuts a 35-foot height-restriction

area; the opposite side of the subject property abuts an extensive already-existing lowrise residential neighbourhood of one to two storeys, on Glenwood Avenue. Not only does that development touch the subject property, but part of it is incorporated in the subject property, i.e., the subject property includes a lot which formerly was a residential lot. [463] Further, across Prince Albert Road from the subject property, and inside

the height-restriction area, lies additional low-rise residential development. [464] While Monaco points to high-rise buildings existing in Dartmouth, the Board

has found that none of these are in the area of Prince Albert Road in which Monaco proposes to build its tower. The highest buildings anywhere on Prince Albert Road, or on the side streets leading up from it, are five storeys in height and the vast majority are much lower than that. [465] The decisions of the Court of Appeal with respect to planning matters have

repeatedly emphasized the point that not only do municipal planning strategies contain a multitude of planning considerations, but some of these will inevitably be in conflict: Heritage Trust 1994. [466] Accordingly, the planning decisions which must be made by a municipal

council to approve a development, or to refuse it not infrequently:

involve compromises and choices between competing policies. [Heritage Trust 1994]

Document: 209348

105 [467] Where decisions involving such compromises and choices must be made,

the Court has stated that it is:

the elected and democratically accountable council [which] may be expected to make a value judgment. [Archibald, para 24]

The task of making these value judgments becomes particularly relevant when the MPS involves, as the present one does, the presence of terms which (quite properly) do not have a single, fixed, precise meaning, but instead can be seen as having a subjective, or relative, component. [468] As the Board has explored in some detail earlier in this decision, it sees the

provisions in the MPS which are of particular relevance to this proceeding as containing an abundance of such subjective terms, e.g., compatibility, neighbourhood, area, bulk, scale. [469] In the view of the Board, the Court of Appeals direction is that the Board

should, in such matters:

defer to the Councils compromises of conflicting intentions in the MPS [Archibald, para 24]

[470] making:

The Court cautions, however, that such deference to Councils task of

difficult choices between conflicting policies is not a license for Council to make ad hoc decisions unguided by principle. [Archibald, para 24]

Thus, deference is to be shown to Councils decisions, but only if those decisions can be seen as reasonably carrying out the intent of the MPS. As the Board has already previously noted, the Board sees Councils decision in this instance as being entirely consistent.
Document: 209348

106 5.11 Issues 2 and 3: Development Agreement 5.11.1 Issue 2: Is the Appeal Before the Board of the Re-Zoning Application Only, or of the Re-Zoning Application and the Development Agreement Application?
For reasons explained in the decision, the Board has decided to assume, without finding, that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the development agreement application (Issue 3), in addition to the rezoning application (Issue 1).

[471]

Monaco says that its appeal is of both the refusal of the applications to

rezone, and of the application for a development agreement. HRM says the appeal can only be of the rezonings. [472] Both for the purposes of this decision, and for the purposes of any appeal,

the Board will here summarize its view of what it sees as the relevant facts surrounding this issue. [473] Up until January 17th, HRM staff repeatedly referred, often in some detail,

to a process which would involve the completion of two separate steps. In the first step, the rezoning of the two lots would be approved by Council, and go through any subsequent appeal process. Only once this first step (Step 1) was complete would the development agreement (Step 2) be dealt with by Council. [474] As an example of such statements by HRM staff, on May 24, 2011 (almost

eight months before Councils January 17th meeting), Mr. Dickey described Monacos application this way:
The development agreement cannot be approved, however, unless Council first approves the rezoning [from C-2 to R-4] AND if there are no appeals of the rezoning. If the R-4 Zone becomes effective, then Council would make a decision on the development agreement request. [Capitalized emphasis in original]

[475]

Likewise, in his December 15th staff report to Council, Mr. Dickey describes

the same two-step process.

Document: 209348

107 [476] This was not a new process devised for the Monaco application, but one

which has, it seems, been used by HRM for 15 years. [477] The Board concludes that the approach taken by HRM staff arose from the

view that Council cannot legally approve a development agreement (Step 2) until the zoning needed for such an agreement is in place, and is no longer subject to an appeal (Step 1). [478] In keeping with this, it was staffs intention that the rezoning part of

Monacos application would first have to go through Councils process and be approved. This was Step 1. [479] During Step 1, however, full information about the development agreement

(Step 2) would also be supplied, and full discussion of it would occur. It would be discussed by Council, and by members of the public in the course of a public hearing relating to the rezonings. [480] For greater certainty, the Board finds that it was the intent of HRMs

planning staff that the public hearing at Step 1 would relate not just to the rezonings, but to the development agreement in Step 2. [481] In Step 1, however, while Council would discuss both the rezoning and

development agreement questions, it would decide only the rezoning question. [482] If Council approved the rezoning, the development agreement application

would be brought back to Council after the appeal period had lapsed (or, if an appeal had occurred, after any appeal had been dismissed). The application for the

development agreement would then be dealt with, but in a severely truncated process,

Document: 209348

108 in which review of the development agreement would involve only Council: there would not be another public hearing. [483] Further, at this final stage, HRM would not advertise the fact that Council

was about to consider the development agreement, and to decide whether to approve it (although if Council did approve it, that decision would be advertised, so as to give notice for purposes of appeal). [484] Councils decision to approve the development agreement, then, would not

occur until the end of Step 2. The Board concluded from the evidence, however, there was a strong assumption that if Step 1 approval (the rezoning) occurred, Step 2 approval (the development agreement) would automatically occur, unless a successful appeal of the rezoning intervened. [485] Among other things, the Board sees the inference that Councils approval

at Step 2 was expected to be automatic - almost a mere formality - as being consistent with a hypothetical timeline for the processing of Monacos application, which appears in an E-mail from Mr. Dickey. Mr. Dickey says that the:
rezoning has to be effective before DA [the development agreement] can be formally approved. [Emphasis added]

[486]

Up until January 17th, then, HRMs statements to Monaco and others about

the process clearly and consistently described a process which involved two separate steps. [487] On January 17th, 2012, however, when Council defeated the motion to give

first reading to Monacos application, the words of the motion referred not just to the rezoning application (Step 1), but to the development agreement application (Step 2) as well:

Document: 209348

109
MOVED by Councillor Fisher, seconded by Councillor Karsten, that Harbour East Community Council give Notice of Motion to consider both the proposed rezonings and development agreement as set out in Map 3 and Attachment A of the December 15, 2011 report, and schedule a Public Hearing.

[488]

On January 19th, the Legislative Assistant for Harbour East Community

Council wrote a letter to Monaco. In it, she states the complete Motion quoted in the previous paragraph, and then goes on to say that a decision of Council can be appealed to the Board. [489] Monaco says this was a rejection of both the rezoning and the

development agreement application; Counsel for HRM says it was just a rejection of the rezoning application. [490] Counsel made extensive submissions (written and oral) to the Board on

this subject, at more than one stage in the proceedings. [491] From Monacos perspective, Councils decision in the very language

used in the Motion on January 17th, and in the letter from the legislative assistant on January 19th - was an explicit refusal of not just the rezoning, but the development agreement. The Motion itself says it was:
to consider both the proposed rezonings and development agreement.

Thus, says Monaco (as the Board summarizes its argument): the Motion, in its literal words, included both the rezonings and development agreement; Council refused to give first reading to the Motion; therefore Council refused not just the rezonings, but the development agreement as well;

Document: 209348

110 therefore, the rezonings and the development agreement, being decisions by Council, are properly the subject of this appeal, therefore, the Board would have had jurisdiction (if it were to have agreed with Monacos arguments on the merits, with respect to both the rezonings and development agreement) to, at the conclusion of this proceeding, order both the rezonings and the approval of the development agreement. [492] In reply, Counsel for HRM says that this appeal can only relate to the

refusal of the rezonings. [493] One of her arguments relates to an assertion that a deemed refusal

occurred. In essence, HRM Counsel asserted that s. 225(6) of the Halifax Charter applies. It states:
Where the Council has not, within one hundred and twenty days after receipt of a completed application to amend a land-use by-law referred to in subsection (1), commenced this procedure required for amending the land-use by-law by publishing the required notice of public hearing, the application is deemed to have been refused.

[494]

While the Board has reflected on this argument at some length, it does not

find it helpful, and will not explore it further in this decision. [495] Counsel for the Appellant asserts, and the Board agrees, that what was

done here by HRM was not a deemed refusal, but an actual one. [496] The Board sees HRMs principal position to be, in essence, that whatever

the literal words of HRMs own motion and letter Councils refusal could only have been of the rezonings, and not of the development agreement, and therefore must have been only of the rezonings. [497] In support of this, HRM points to its staff having repeatedly said that the

zoning approval decision would be done first.

Document: 209348

111 [498] Counsel for HRM also points to, and in essence agrees with, the view of

the legislation put forward by its staff, which is that a decision on the development agreement could not legally be made until a decision to permit the rezoning had been made. [499] The Board sees a principal argument in favour of HRMs position as being

simply this: if a decision on the development agreement could not legally be made until the decision on the rezoning was complete, it follows that the decision with respect to the development agreement was no decision at all. Accordingly, it would not properly be subject to appeal, and the Board should dismiss any appeal in relation to it. [500] The decision by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in Halifax County v.

Maskine, [1992], NSJ No. 292, was referred to briefly in submissions. In the view of the Board, Maskine, and the interpretation which the Board has repeatedly placed upon it, is of relevance to the present issue. As a matter of interest, the Board notes that Maskine, decided in 1992, involves the same developer, Tony Maskine, who is the principal of Monaco. [501] For many years, the Board has interpreted Maskine as meaning, in

essence, that the Board (in appeals such as the present one) lacks any jurisdiction with respect to how Council has conducted itself. [502] More particularly, the Board has under, successively, the Planning Act,

the Municipal Government Act, and now the Halifax Charter interpreted Maskine as saying that the Board has no jurisdiction to reverse a decision by a municipal council on the ground that the council in some way misconducted itself. For example, such alleged misconduct might relate to procedural fairness, or some other alleged breach of the

Document: 209348

112 common law or legislation. Thus, in Midtown, the Board remarked that it had defined, and would continue to define, its task:
...as being solely that of determining whether or not the approval, or refusal to approve, by a council is one which can be seen as reasonably consistent with the intent of the M.P.S., or not. How council got to that decision e.g., whether by an allegedly bad procedure or a good one, or by an allegedly bad thought process, or a good one is a matter which the Board (applying its interpretation of Maskine) has repeatedly stated to be irrelevant. The Board has regarded such alleged errors, and the granting of a remedy, if any, to be a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, and lying outside the jurisdiction of the Board. [Midtown, para 129]

[503]

Under this generally-accepted interpretation of Maskine it matters not

whether Council legally had the authority to make any decision in relation to the development agreement until after it had dealt with the zoning application. The only thing that matters is whether Councils refusal to approve the development agreement fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS. [504] In referring to this interpretation as generally accepted, the Board notes,

as an aside, that Counsel for HRM themselves have repeatedly argued that this interpretation is correct. [505] Some other parties in past proceedings, however, have suggested more

than once that the Boards interpretation of Maskine may be too broad. For example, in Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia (Re), 2007 NSUARB 122 (Twin Towers), Howard Epstein, MLA, argued that the Board has over-read Maskine, and that the Board has historically taken an excessively modest approach to interpreting its power. [506] In the view of the Board, his arguments can be interpreted as meaning, in

effect, that the Board could decide it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision by a municipal council, if it concluded that that the councils decision was one for which

Document: 209348

113 legislative authority did not exist, i.e., the council itself did not have jurisdiction to make the decision. [507] The Board considers that, applying this argument to the present

circumstances, HRM could argue that the Board could find the development agreement issue to not be properly the subject of an appeal before it. The justification for such a decision (according to Mr. Epsteins argument at least) would be that Council had no authority to make a decision when it did. So if it wasnt a decision, it couldnt be appealed. [508] [509] In Twin Towers, the Board rejected that argument. In this discussion of Issue 2, the Board has attempted to canvass the facts

relevant to this issue as thoroughly as possible, and to summarize some of the applicable legal arguments. [510] In doing so, however, the Board has been conscious of the fact that its

decision on Issue 1 (with respect to Monacos appeal of Councils refusal to rezone) renders any determination by it of Issues 2 and 3 unnecessary, unless the Boards decision with respect to Issue 1 is successfully appealed. The Board wishes to

minimize the risk that a determination of Issue 2 by it for the limited purposes of this proceeding might inadvertently create an impediment to future decision making by a Board in an unrelated proceeding. [511] Accordingly, the Board will, with respect to Issue 2, simply assume, without

finding, that it has jurisdiction under the Maskine doctrine to hear the development agreement appeal in the circumstances of the present proceeding. [512] The Board now turns to Issue 3:

Document: 209348

114 5.11.2 Issue 3: Has the Appellant shown on the balance of probabilities, that Harbour East Community Councils decision to refuse approval of Monacos development agreement fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy?
For reasons discussed in this decision, the Board finds the answer to this question to be no. The Board accordingly dismisses the appeal with respect to the development agreement.

[513]

Monaco, on the one side, and HRM and the Intervenors on the other,

disputed through evidence and submissions this issue with a vigor at least equal to that which they had brought to the matter of the rezoning. 5.11.2.1 Provisions in the RMPS and DMPS Dealing with Development Agreements [514] Under the Halifax Charter (as under the Municipal Government Act), the

test to be applied by the Board in relation to a Council decision in relation to a development agreement is the same as that which applies to Council decisions in relation to rezoning, i.e., whether or not it can be shown that a decision of Council fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS. [515] The evidence before the Board (including that from all four planners who

gave evidence, three for Monaco and one for HRM and the Intervenors) suggests that one of the key provisions with respect to development agreements is DMPS Policy IP-5. This, it will be recalled, is the policy which, in 1991, ended as of right apartment building developments in Dartmouth, requiring that they now be done by development agreement. [516] The introduction to DMPS Policy IP-5 refers to concerns having recently

(i.e., in 1991) been expressed about:

the exterior design, density, concentration, site treatment, massing and traffic issues

Document: 209348

115 The introduction also notes that, in using the development agreement process:
public involvement in the evaluation of the proposed development

would also be permitted. [517] Policy IP-5 requires, as is usual in such MPS provisions, detailed drawings

and other documentation of various types. It then goes on to say that, in considering the approval of a development agreement, Council:
Policy IP-5 shall consider the following criteria: (a) adequacy of the exterior design, height, bulk and scale of the new apartment development with respect to its compatibility with the existing neighbourhood; (b) adequacy of controls placed on the proposed development to reduce conflict with any adjacent or nearby land uses by reason of: (i) the height, size, bulk, density, lot coverage, lot size and lot frontage of any proposed building; (ii) traffic generation, access to and egress from the site; and (iii) parking; (c) adequacy or proximity of schools, recreation areas and other community facilities; (d) adequacy of transportation networks in, adjacent to, and leading to the development; (e) adequacy of useable amenity space and attractive landscaping such that the needs of a variety of household types are addressed and the development is aesthetically pleasing; (f) that mature trees and other natural site features are preserved where possible; (g) adequacy of buffering from abutting land uses; (h) the impacts of altering land levels as it relates to drainage, aesthetics and soil stability and slope treatment; and (i) the Land Use By-law amendment criteria as set out in Policy IP-1(c). (As amended by By-law C-692, Dec. 4, 1991)

[518]

The Board will first note that it sees DMPS Policy IP-5 (b) as containing

similarities to RMPS Policy IM-15(b), which was adopted 15 years later. [519] RMPS Policy IM-15(b) requires Council to, in part, consider:
In considering development agreements or amendments to land-use by-laws, in additional to all other criteria as set out in various policies of this plan, HRM shall consider the following: (b) that controls are placed on the proposed development so as to reduce conflict with any adjacent or nearby land uses by reason of: (i) type of use; (ii) height, bulk and lot coverage of any proposed building; (iii) traffic generation, access to and egress from the site, and parking;

Document: 209348

116 [520] Thus, both DMPS Policy IP-5(b) and RMPS Policy IM-15(b) include

reference to height, bulk, lot coverage, and traffic generation and parking. Both refer to reducing conflict with adjacent or nearby land uses. [521] Policy RMPS IM-15 is not referred to in the experts reports filed with the

Board, but Mr. Dickey acknowledged, on cross examination by Counsel for HRM, that it is relevant to the present proceeding. [522] He considered, however, that the essential matters appearing in the RMPS

IM-15, in the context of the present proceeding, are in substance dealt with in DMPS Policy IP-5. The Board agrees. [523] Moreover, the Board considers the fact that there are a number of items in

common between the RMPS and DMPS policies in question, and that they are specific, lends still more weight to those items. [524] The Board notes first the reference to the term existing neighbourhood in

IP-5(a), and to adjacent or nearby land uses in IP-5(b). These are not defined terms, and as the Board has discussed elsewhere in this decision, the meaning of the word neighbourhood has considerable scope. So, in the Boards judgment, do adjacent or nearby land uses. [525] The Board now turns to DMPS Policy IP-5(i), which specifically

incorporates DMPS Policy IP-1(c) into DMPS Policy IP-5. It will be recalled that DMPS Policy IP-1(c) is an important policy in relation to rezoning, but also applies to development agreements. It requires Council to have regard to, among other things:
(2) that the proposal is compatible and consistent with adjacent uses and the existing development form in the area in terms of the use, bulk, and scale of the proposal;

Document: 209348

117
(3) provisions for buffering, landscaping, screening, and access control to reduce potential incompatibilities with adjacent land uses and traffic arteries.

[526]

The Board sees commonalities of language, and of concepts, in the three

policies just referred to (DMPS Policy IP-5; DMPS Policy IP-1(c); and RMPS IM-15). For example, one finds the word bulk four times; the word height three times; the word scale (which, in the Boards opinion, can in planning matters, in varying degrees, incorporate height and bulk) twice; buffering twice; and compatibility or

incompatibility, twice. [527] In the view of the Board, such terms as bulk, height, scale, buffering,

and compatibility, etc., are in the context of the MPS relative or subjective terms. [528] The subjective nature of these terms is, in the view of the Board,

emphasized still more when one considers that the word adequacy begins both DMPS Policy IP-5(a) and IP-5(b). [529] On the matter of the significance of the word adequacy, the Board

considers the following excerpt from the cross examination of Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young, by Counsel for HRM, Ms. Brown, to be of relevance. She drew their attention specifically to DMPS Policy IP-5(a):
MS. BROWN: And for example we have: Adequacy of exterior design, height, bulk and scale of the new apartment development with respect to its compatibility with the existing neighbourhood. (As read) You would agree with me that the -- how one looks at the adequacy may be different from one person to another, from one planner to another? MR. HESELTINE: It has a subjective elements.[sic]

[530]

In the Boards view, Councils task in relation to DMPS Policy IP-5 can, in

fact, be seen as having multiple layers of subjective judgments.

Document: 209348

118 [531] Council is to consider the adequacy (a subjective term according to all

of the evidence before the Board) of such aspects of a proposal as bulk, height, scale, compatibility, etc., (which are themselves likewise subjective). [532] Further, Council is simply required to consider these items. In the view of

the Board, the Court of Appeals decisions make it clear that (while consideration of such aspects as bulk, height, etc., by Council is mandatory), the weight which Council chooses to give the particular criterion or criteria being considered is as long as Councils decision remains reasonably consistent with the MPS a matter for Council to determine. [533] To complicate matters further, the planning considerations found in DMPS

Policy IP-5 must not be evaluated in isolation, but again, following the repeated direction on this point given by the Court of Appeal in the context of the MPS as a whole. Thus, the concepts enumerated above must also be evaluated in the context of such planning considerations in the MPS as to take but one of a number of examples population densification (a theme of particular importance to Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young). [534] As the Board has already discussed in relation to Issue 1 (the rezoning

application), the Board perceived some of the comments made by Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young, as well as by Mr. Dickey, as asserting that the subject property could not be part of a neighbourhood because of its zoning. Indeed, the Board sees Counsel for the Appellant, in a written submission, as accurately reflecting the evidence of Mr. Heseltine and Ms. Young, and Mr. Dickey on the point. Counsel for the Appellant says:
The site of the Prince Albert cannot be said to be in an established neighbourhood as it is zoned C-2.

Document: 209348

119 [535] In the opinion of the Board, there are difficulties with this statement. To

assert that Monacos proposed tower cannot be said to be in an established neighbourhood, because it is zoned C-2, overlooks among other things, the fact that the project site is composed of two lots, one of them zoned C-2, and the other R-2. [536] Counsel for Monaco refutes what he sees as the assertions by the

Intervenors and HRM that the Monaco site is in an established neighbourhood because there are single-family homes in the area:
On their reasoning, as long as there are single-family homes in the vicinity, development is precluded.

[537]

Whether or not that is a fair summary of the overall position taken by HRM

and the Intervenors, it is the Boards view, having evaluated all of the evidence, and the MPS, that the proximity of the subject property as a whole to the abutting residential area, with many single-family homes, is a factor which, under the MPS, is one which could reasonably be taken into account by the Municipal Council in reaching its decision. Mr. Lloyd asserts that the subject property forms part of a stable

neighbourhood which:
includes more than Glenwood Drive. It includes much of Celtic Drive, Penhorn Drive, Chittick Avenue, and Harris Road; and all of Lawrence Street, Lakeview Point Road and Hume Street. This request to rezone the Dartmouth Funeral Home and adjacent property on Glenwood Drive impacts on a large neighbourhood.

5.11.2.2 Conclusion on Development Agreement Application [538] In Heritage Trust 1994, the Court of Appeal noted:
There may be more than one meaning that a policy is reasonably capable of bearing. This is such a case. Planning decisions often involve compromises and choices between competing policies. Such decisions are best left to elected representatives who have the responsibility to weigh the competing interests and factors that impact on such decision

Document: 209348

120 [539] In the judgment of the Board, the task of balancing criteria of this type, and

making a decision to approve a development agreement, or not, is one which - under the Halifax Charter, and, applying the principles previously stated by the Court of Appeal - properly rests with Council in the circumstances of this proceeding. [540] It is precisely the kind of value judgment (in the words of Fichaud, J.A., in

Archibald), in which municipal councillors are called upon to make difficult choices between conflicting policies. [541] So long as a decision by a council can be seen as reasonably carrying out

the intent of the MPS (which, as indicated, the Board considers occurred here), the Board should show deference to such a decision. [542] Applying the same reasoning that the Board has applied in relation to the

rezoning decision earlier in this decision, the Board considers that the Appellant Monaco has failed, on the balance of probabilities, to show that the decision by Council to refuse approval of the development agreement is one which does not reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS. 5.11.2.3 DMPS Policy IP-5 (a) and (b) and the Provisions of the DLUB [543] Mr. Dickeys Bonus Calculations Can the DLUB be used to interpret the MPS?

The above conclusion by the Board with respect to the development

agreement (and, for greater certainty, its earlier conclusion with respect to the rezoning), was based entirely upon the Boards evaluation of the MPS in the context of the circumstances of this proceeding.

Document: 209348

121 [544] In reaching its conclusions, the Board has given no weight whatever to the

provisions found in the DLUB, including, in particular, the DLUB provision relating to R-4 zoning. [545] However, the Board received a great deal of evidence and submissions

with respect to, in particular, the use of the DLUB by HRM staff, and, in general, the relevance (or argued lack thereof) of the DLUB to the interpretation of the MPS. [546] [547] The Board will break its discussion of this issue into two sections. The first relates to Mr. Dickeys use of the R-4 provision in calculating

additional or bonus residential units in support of his recommendation that Council approve Monacos applications. [548] The second relates to the question of whether the DLUB can be used at all

in relation to interpretation of the MPS. 5.11.2.3.1 [549] Mr. Dickeys Bonus Calculations

In part of his report, Mr. Dickey used the R-4 provisions in the DLUB to

calculate what would have been available to Monaco under the R-4 zoning by-laws which governed apartment building construction in Dartmouth up until 1991. In his report, he stated that the maximum number of units possible under the R-4 zoning rules as stated in s. 35(3) of the LUB - was 71 units. However, he suggested that Monaco should be permitted to construct a building with 92 units, giving various reasons for these 21 extra units, which he enumerates in his report. [550] As Counsel for HRM pointed out, however, Mr. Dickey was only able to get

to his figure of 71 by awarding so-called bonus units to Monaco a fact acknowledged by him in his report.

Document: 209348

122 [551] However, Counsel for HRM argues, and the Board has concluded it

agrees, that Mr. Dickeys calculations of the bonus units are not consistent with LUB s. 35(3); further, the errors which appear are all in Monacos favour. [552] First, as Counsel for HRM points out in a written brief, Mr. Dickeys report

in effect awarded a bonus of 10% to the subject property for being located across the street from parkland, to which he added a further 6% for having underground parking. [553] On the former point (proximity to parkland) the Board notes that Mr. Lloyd

took the view that the subject property is not actually across the street from parkland, within the meaning of the R-4 zoning provision. The Board has concluded it need make no finding as to the merits of that assertion in this proceeding. [554] In effect, Mr. Dickey added the two bonus calculations together (10% +

6%), thus engaging in what the Board will term accumulative bonusing. [555] Counsel for HRM and the Intervenors say, and the Board agrees, that the

language of s. 35(3)(c) does not contemplate accumulative bonusing. There are four sub-clauses within s. 35(3)(c), each of which describes a particular type of bonus category, with the bonus expressed in percentage terms. Each of these clauses is, however, joined together by the word or, not by the word and. [556] The Board interpreted Mr. Dickeys evidence on cross examination as

acknowledging that indeed the type of bonus calculation outlined in the DLUB does not permit accumulative bonusing. [557] As the Board interpreted his evidence, he claimed his accumulative

bonusing was justified on two grounds.

Document: 209348

123 [558] First, he said, it was his understanding that other development officers had,

up to 1991, allowed accumulative bonusing, despite the wording of LUB s. 35(3)(c). [559] Second, he considered that because staff now use the DLUB provisions

respecting the R-3 and R-4 Zones simplyas a reference, he could indulge in accumulative bonusing, no matter what LUB s. 35(3)(c) actually said. [560] Even if one were to accept as appropriate his having increased the R-4

calculation to 71 in a manner inconsistent with LUB s. 35(3)(c), the Board notes that a further arithmetic error appears to be occur in his calculations. He attributed a 6% bonus for underground parking. Six percent is the bonus associated with parking

arrangements where all of the parking is underground, but not all of Monacos parking would be underground. Some would be above ground, which, according to s. 35(3)(c), would merit a bonus of no more than 4%. [561] In short, Mr. Dickeys planning report overstated to Council the maximum

number of units permitted under the R4 zoning bylaw his figure of 71 is higher than the section allows. [562] To this already overstated figure, he added 21 additional units. He did not

justify the 21 through any calculations, but simply as a matter of professional judgment. 5.11.2.3.2 Can the DLUB be used to interpret the MPS?

[563]

In supporting Councils refusal to approve the rezonings or the

development agreement, Counsel for HRM relied principally on the provisions of the MPS. However, she also argues that the DLUB (with its R-4 upper limit of, at the very most even using Mr. Dickeys impugned calculations - 71 units) can be used to help interpret the MPS.
Document: 209348

124 [564] For himself, Mr. Lloyd (testifying on behalf of HRM and the Intervenors)

saw the LUB as a useful tool in determining the intent of the MPS. [565] On the other hand, Monacos experts, and Counsel for Monaco, argued it

was wrong to use the R-4 zoning provisions found in the DLUB as an aid to understanding the MPS:
MR. ROGERS: Okay. Is it appropriate to treat the Land Use Bylaw standards for R-4 as a proxy for the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy? MS. YOUNG: I cant see how or why.

[566]

It has long been held that, where the meaning of an LUB is in issue, the

MPS may be used to help determine the intent of the LUB: see, for example, J & A Investments Ltd. v. Halifax (Regional Municipality), [2000] N.S.J. 92 (S.C.). [567] In Mahone Bay Heritage and Cultural Society v. Town of Mahone Bay and

3012543 Nova Scotia Limited, [2000] N.S.J. No. 245 the Court of Appeal held that the reverse could also be true: the Court said that at least in the circumstances of

Mahone Bay - provisions in the LUB could be used to help determine the intent of the MPS, by throwing light on the intent of the strategy. [568] The Court provided additional direction on the point in Tsimiklis v. Nova

Scotia Utility and Review Board et al., 2003 NSCA 30. In that case, the Court reviewed a decision of the Board which used the LUB to interpret the MPS, thereby reversing a decision by a community council which would have allowed the development to occur. [569] The Court, however, rejected this approach in Tsimiklis. In doing so, the

Court in Tsimiklis (like the Court in Mahone Bay) referred to the MPS and LUB provisions in question having been simultaneously adopted. In Tsimiklis, the two had not been adopted together the LUB had been adopted later. The Court observed that:

Document: 209348

125
.that great caution must be exercised in using a subsequently enacted LUB or amendment to an LUB in the interpretation of a previously enacted MPS. [para 56]

[570]

In the summary of planning principles appearing in Archibald, the Court

likewise referred to simultaneous adoption:

The reflexivity between the MPS and a concurrently adopted land use by-law means the contemporaneous land use by-law may assist the Board to deduce the intent of the MPS. [para 24]

[571]

Nevertheless, even if they had been adopted together (as in Mahone Bay),

the Court in Tsimiklis said that an LUB, while it can be a tool for interpreting an MPS, ought not to:
be used to tie councils hand

[572]

Thus, according to Nova Scotias present case law, one may use the MPS

to help determine the intent of the LUB (J & A Investments). It seems though that one may sometimes be able to use the LUB to help determine the intent of the MPS (Mahone Bay) although the circumstances in which the LUB may thus be used are limited, and perhaps increasingly so (Tsimiklis). [573] In particular, there is an emphasis in the case law on the idea that if an

LUB is to be used, it should not have been adopted later, but instead contemporaneously. Counsel for HRM of course acknowledged that the DLUB R4

provisions were not adopted at the same time as DMPS Policy IP-5. [574] She emphasized, however, that the R-4 provisions were not adopted after

the DMPS (and its Policy IP-5), but before it. They were already in existence, and known to Council, when it adopted DMPS Policy IP-5. Moreover, they were not

repealed by Council when it adopted DMPS Policy IP-5. Instead, they have continued to exist, unchanged, to the present day.
Document: 209348

126 [575] In a written submission, Counsel for HRM argued that:

had Council not seen the R-3 and R-4 "as of right" requirements as an upper limit on what ought to be permitted through the development agreement, they could have and would have removed those sections of the DLUB. The R-3 and R-4 requirements with respect to apartment buildings have no standing on their own as it is impossible to do an "as of right" apartment building in Dartmouth. Therefore, it is submitted that it is instructive that Council chose to leave the R-3 and R-4 requirements in the DLUB and at the same time require all apartment buildings in those two zones to be approved by development agreement.

[576]

As such, she argued that the upper limit, in numbers of units, of what would

have been permitted under the R-4 zoning should be used in a development agreement application as if not a fixed upper limit a guide to the maximum which could be appropriate. She says the continued presence of the R-3 and R-4 Zone requirement is:
indicative of the intent of the MPS with respect to considerations for development agreements in either the R-3 or R-4 Zones.

[577]

The Board does consider that one obvious question is that if Council really

retained the R-4 (and R-3) zoning by-law after its adoption of DMPS Policy IP-5 in order to set an upper limit with respect to the number of units, why did it not simply include appropriate text with respect to such limits in the new MPS provision itself? [578] Simply keeping the LUB provisions in place may reasonably be seen as

giving, at best, a broad hint of Councils intentions. What is more, if keeping these provisions was intended to be such a hint, it is arguably one of dubious efficacy given the limitations in the case law with respect to the use of LUB provisions to interpret the MPS. [579] To put it another way, the continued presence of the LUB provisions

relating to R-4 and R-3, without at least having explanatory comment in the MPS, seems an entirely avoidable ambiguity.

Document: 209348

127 [580] That being said, the Board does see HRMs argument here as intriguing,

and creative. [581] In the end, however, apart from noting the argument in this (relatively

speaking) brief review (written in part to dispel any inference that the Board relied on the DLUB provisions in question, in any way whatever), the Board has ultimately concluded it would be inappropriate for the Board to make a finding on the point. [582] The reason is that the Board has already satisfied, using the provisions of

the MPS alone, that Councils refusal of Monacos applications reasonably carries out the intent of the MPS. [583] If, hypothetically, the Board were to have found that the DLUB could be

used as an interpretive tool to which some weight might be given in the circumstances of this proceeding, the Board considers that so using the DLUB would simply have reinforced, or been consistent with, the conclusion the Board has already reached using the MPS alone. 6.0 CRITICISMS OF COUNCILS PROCESS BY DEVELOPER AND OTHERS [584] As the Board briefly alluded to in the Facts part earlier in this decision, a

number of people attending the council meeting of January 17, 2012, at which Monacos applications were refused, were critical of the refusal having occurred at that stage. [585] If Monacos applications had been permitted to go through the usual further

stages, including a public hearing process, a considerable amount of information put together by the Developer, as well as information which might have been assembled by opponents to the development, could have been subjected to public scrutiny, and discussed by councillors.
Document: 209348

128 [586] Under the Councils rules (according to the evidence before the Board), it

appears that the decision to refuse the development at first reading meant that even the councillors themselves were not permitted to engage in debate with respect to the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal although it will be recalled that Councillor McCluskey nevertheless managed to speak briefly on the issue, and engage in some dialogue with Mr. Dickey. Certainly, neither the representatives of the

developer nor opponents to the project were able to speak at all before the application was rejected. [587] It is evident from all of the evidence before the Board that Monaco, and Mr.

Maskine personally, invested a great deal of time, energy, and expertise in putting together their proposal for development of the subject property. [588] The Board infers that Mr. Maskine and his associates were disappointed,

and even angered, by Councils rejection of the project at this initial stage of review. Expressions of that annoyance continued into the evidence and submissions at this proceeding. For example, Counsel for the Appellant, in a written submission to the Board, stated that Halifax East Community Council:
did not even provide the Appellant with the courtesy of a public hearing for the project

Eleven pages later, Counsel returned to the topic once again, saying that HRM:
defeated the proposal without reasons and without granting the developer an opportunity to proceed to a public hearing on the merits of the proposal.

[589]

While persons were clearly surprised and disappointed by Councils action

in rejecting the application at first hearing on January 17th, the Board notes that according to the evidence before it, the rejection of an application at first reading is not

Document: 209348

129 unprecedented. Three such instances, in recent memory, were referred to in the cross examination of Mr. Dickey by Counsel for HRM. [590] Whether Councils dealing with the matter in this summary fashion was fair,

or not, or even gave the appearance of being fair, or not, is not a matter over which the Board has any jurisdiction. [591] The Act, and the case law from the Court of Appeal (in particular, Maskine,

which is referred to in some detail elsewhere in this decision under Issue 2) has strictly limited the Board to deciding whether a decision by a council to say yes, or to say no, to a rezoning, or to a development agreement, can be seen as reasonably consistent with the MPS. 7.0 [592] CONCLUSION The Board finds that the Appellant, Monaco, has failed, on the balance of

probabilities, to show that Harbour East Community Councils decision to refuse Monacos application to rezone the subject property fails to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy. [593] With respect to the appeal of Councils refusal of the development

agreement, the Board made no finding with respect to whether or not it had jurisdiction (in the unusual circumstances of this matter) to hear the development agreement appeal; it merely assumed, without finding, that it did have jurisdiction. [594] Having assumed that it does have jurisdiction, the Board finds that Monaco

likewise failed (as it had, in the Boards judgment, in the rezoning appeal) to show on the balance of probabilities that Councils decision to refuse approval of Monacos

Document: 209348

130 development agreement failed to reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy. [595] The appeal is dismissed; the decision by HAM's Halifax East Community

Council to reject Monaco's project stands. [596] An Order will issue accordingly.

! /(
Wayneo. Cochrane

'

Document: 209348