Councillors Hendsbee and Purdy judicially reprimanded for bias
Controversial Decision on Construction and Demolition Disposal Yard in Porters Lake
On October 11, the Honourable Justice Darlene Jamieson issued a decision on the case between Kiann Management Limited and the Halifax Regional Municipality. The case revolves around a proposed construction and demolition disposal yard in Porters Lake, on land that was once a forest until the devastating 2008 fire. Kiann Management applied to open a C&D disposal yard in 2015, followed by an application for a used building material retail outlet in 2017 on a piece of land identified as PID 40740276 on Highway 7 between Lake Echo and Porters Lake.
In 2019, HRM development officer Sean Audas rejected the retail outlet application, citing concerns that it resembled a C&D dump rather than a retail store. Kiann appealed this decision to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB), which ruled in favor of the retail outlet in 2020.
The UARB’s decision highlighted the zoning regulations for the area and emphasized the need for compliance with land use bylaws. Despite city staff’s reservations about the appearance of the retail outlet, the UARB determined that it was permissible under the Rural Enterprise zone regulations.
The saga continued with a 2015 application to rezone PID 40740276 for a C&D facility, which was ultimately rejected by the Harbour East Marine Drive Community Council in 2019. Kiann appealed this decision to the UARB, which found that the HRM’s planning strategies allowed for C&D facilities and criticized the city’s handling of similar rezoning cases.
The UARB’s rulings underscored the need for consistent application of zoning regulations and raised questions about the HRM’s administrative processes. The contentious nature of the case led to accusations of bias against councillors David Hendsbee and Trish Purdy, resulting in their reprimand by Justice Jamieson.
Moving forward, the fate of the proposed C&D facility in Lake Echo and Porters Lake remains uncertain. The involvement of new councillors and potential policy changes could impact the outcome of the decision. Regardless of the final verdict, the case serves as a reminder of the challenges and complexities inherent in municipal planning and decision-making processes.
