From:
Catherine McKinnon
Purcell's Cove Area Residents Action Committee
Date: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:41 PM
Subject: Critique of Letter from Mr. Rogers, QC
in light of the Public Record
Dear Mayor Savage and Members of Council,
We
are writing to express grave concerns regarding the proposed addition of
Attachment I to the RP+5 Process. The public has already spoken loudly and
clearly on this issue: the developers Mr. Rogers represents, having failed to
get the land re-designated as Urban Settlement, are now trying to bring
unwanted development through the back door by changing the designation of the
Purcell's Cove Backlands from Urban Reserve to Rural Commuter. To allow
them to do so at this 11th hour would fly in the face of public consultation on
both the sewer and water extension and the RP+5 Process.
We have done a careful and thorough reading of Mr. Rogers' letter, written on
behalf of four developers that own land located in the Purcell's Cove
Backlands. We have found several inaccuracies which we
believe should be brought to your attention in advance of potential
inclusion of "Attachment I" at the next Regional Council meeting on
Feb. 26, 2014.
The following is our critique of Mr. Rogers' letter in light of the Public
Record:
1. On page 3 of his letter, Mr. Rogers states: "that this is patently
unfair and is an unwarranted taking of long-standing property rights"
The major developer, that being Clayton Developments, purchased its land in
2011 knowing full well that it was zoned Urban Reserve in 2006, the year the
Regional Plan came into effect. The other affected properties were purchased
many years before 2006, but it is noteworthy none issued a plea for a rezoning
of their lands until Mr. Rogers' letter came forth.
2. From page 4 of Mr. Rogers' letter: "Simply stated, serviced development
will not happen now or any time in the foreseeable future. Consequently, the
current Urban Reserve designation is inappropriate and harmful to the value of
our clients' landholdings. It should be replaced under the RP+5 Review."
The definition of Urban Reserve in the current Plan clearly states that these
lands are not to be developed until the life of the Plan expires in 2031.
Again, the major landowner was fully aware of the implications flowing from the
Urban Reserve Designation.
3. From page 4 of Mr. Rogers' letter: "Our clients simply wish Council to
return certain property rights that were taken in advance of the feasibility
study."
The landowners have not lost any property rights. Furthermore, "There is
no legal right in North America to compensation for land designated by
government for protection." A thorough discussion of the issue of
compensation can be found in the attached legal opinion.
4. From page 4-5 of Mr. Rogers' letter: "CDAC is no doubt aware of the intent
by some to use the Urban Reserve designation to sterile, large tracts of land
for no other purpose than a park and open space. Our clients respectfully urge
CDAC not to fall into this obvious and self-serving objective."
Is a park and open space self-serving, or does it serve the greater public
good? In any case, it is known that the citizens of HRM have a right to
determine their future. Many residents of the area strongly wish that the
Backlands' unique landscape, which is the very opposite of "sterile",
be preserved for future generations.
Many residents are very concerned about the issue of traffic at the roundabout.
A Staff Report dated September 5, 2013 dealing with the feasibility study notes
at Page 7 that traffic currently "presents unacceptable delays". And
further in the paragraph, "CBCL's analysis of the road network and study
intersections identifies existing deficiencies that would be further exacerbated
by additional development."
5. From page 2 of Mr. Rogers' letter: "This was based on a citizen-led
petition from 2006. The process, (including terms of reference for the study)
was confirmed in 2011 and a citizen-based steering committee was established to
oversee the study early in 2012."
The results of a FOIPOP (Freedom of Information Protection of
Privacy) APP. NO. AR-12-795-Sept. 14, 2012 clearly reveals that no
letters of complaint regarding sewage and water problems were found in the file
with the exception of the e-mails sent by RNSYS members to Councillor Mosher at
the request of the RNSYS management. There was only one other third-party
communication outside the RNSYS members and HRM Staff and this was from a
developer owning property in the area. In the 73 pieces of correspondence
and/or notes contained in the file, Councillor Mosher's name can be found on
every one.
To conclude, this was not a citizen-led petition as the individual leading the
petition was a member of the RNSYS and did not even live in the potentially
affected area. Individuals who signed the petition requesting the feasibility
study have provided numerous accounts of misrepresentations made on their
doorsteps about the purpose of the petition.
The steering committee appointments were conducted in camera by the Chebucto Community Council. Initially there were
three resignations, one being Norman Nahas when it was determined that he did
not own property in Area 1. Shortly afterward, Mr. Nahas was chosen to
represent Area 2 as he is Vice President of Battery Hill Developments
which is in Area 2. Mr. Nahas is one of Mr. Rogers' clients.
Tanya Morrison was also appointed as an Area 1 representative. She is also a
client of Mr. Rogers. In short, two of the four citizen appointments own
substantial landholdings. These appointments were made despite many other
qualified applicants in the area.
6. From page 2 of Mr. Rogers' letter: "What followed can best be described as
a concentrated effort by some to frustrate any plans to extend municipal water
and sewer services."
The notion that it was a concentrated effort by a few flies
in the face of the enormous participation of a huge number of residents in the
community. The final report on the feasibility study authored by CBCL which is found as Attachment 2 to a Staff Report dated
Oct. 29, 2013 sets the record straight. At page 8 it is reported that 185
people attended a charette sponsored by CBCL in order to garner public input.
Questions were answered by those present and specifically question 4 which was
as follows:
"If the community wants to think about allowing some new development to
limit costs for existing residents, how much additional development is
acceptable, where should it go, and what form should it take?"
The Report goes on to provide the following comment: "The groups
universally stated that there should be no additional development and that the
area should remain as an open space/greenbelt."
And later in the Report it states: "People expressed very strong concerns
that woods, wildlife, wetlands and lakes must be protected."
7. From page 2 of Mr. Rogers' letter: "Our understanding is that the study
was essentially terminated in the spring of 2013 with the resignation of four
members of the steering committee."
On March 21, 2013, Thursday evening, a meeting was held with the Area 1
Steering Committee representatives present and over 40 citizens attended.
There was an overwhelming plea to stop the feasibility study. It should be
noted that Mr. Nahas received a letter from citizens on the day of this meeting
demanding his resignation as they perceived him to be
in a major conflict of interest. That weekend the four
committee members, including Mr. Nahas and Ms. Morrison, resigned.
In conclusion, there can be no doubt that Mr. Rogers' rezoning request on
behalf of his clients should not form part of the RP+5 Process for many
reasons. The contents of this letter represent seven very strong reasons in
addition to the irreparable harm that will be done to the public's faith in
this important planning process. As our elected representatives, we strongly
urge you to ensure that Attachment I does not go
forward as a part of the RP+5 Process.
Respectfully yours,
Catherine McKinnon
Purcell's Cove Area Residents Action Committee