This story reports on the Town of Lunenburg council meeting of June 13. You can see the full agenda for this meeting in the PDF at this link. A full recording of the meeting is made available by the Town on YouTube at this link.
The Town of Lunenburg held a Council meeting on June 13 with an audience of approximately 30 people in the gallery.
The top items on the agenda regarded decisions on proceeding with designs that would serve as blueprints for what prospective developers could build on Town-owned lands on Blockhouse Hill and Upper King Street.
Council also received a petition from the Friends of Blockhouse Hill citizen’s group signed by 679 Town residents, but did not discuss the group’s attached statement or the significance of the signatures, while one councillor called for the group to be “investigated” for their campaign “spilling over into our local school and our home for specialized care”.
This is a long story. You can read the entire thing or jump to the part you are most interested in reading:
- Lunenburg Heritage Society shares concerns on Blockhouse Hill development, no discussion by council
- Council spends $151,000 to pursue designs for potential development on Blockhouse Hill to MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects – Councillor Duggan says decision should be postponed to follow August election, rest of council votes against her without discussion
- Council finds consensus on not liking options proposed for prospective Upper King Street development, but continue to pursue already-paid-for designs for high-density development
- Prospective Mayoral candidate Myra says he is “very disappointed” rest of Council did not agree with Duggan’s suggestion to postpone Blockhouse RFP, says Council should have dropped ZZAP plans for King Street Expansion
- Council signs on to Ecology Action Centre statement asking provincial Minister of Environment and Climate Change to release and implement regulations for Coastal Protection Act
- Councillor Sanford calls for dedicated standing time on council agendas for public to speak to council
- Councillor Sanford acknowledges Lunenburg Fire Department
- Town approves grants for community organizations
- Town moves first reading to repeal old bylaws
- Public Works shares update with good news for Lunenburg pedestrians
- Councillor Ernst Absent, Councillor Birtles Leaves Meeting After Blockhouse Hill RFP Vote
Blockhouse Hill petition with signatures of more than a third of electorate has one councillor call for “investigation” into Friends of Blockhouse Hill, no discussion of petition
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
Beginning the correspondence segment of the meeting agenda, Council received a petition from Friends of Blockhouse Hill including the signatures of 679 Town residents who agreed with the statement:
“We, the residents of the Town of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, ask that the Town Council stop the process to sell and develop the lands on Blockhouse Hill until the Town establishes that a majority of Town of Lunenburg residents support the sale and development of the land.”
Friends of Blockhouse Hill is a citizen’s group that organised in March as a response to the town’s release of an RFP inviting developers to propose residential development designs for Lunenburg’s Blockhouse Hill.
The lands highlighted in green are outlined for possible divestiture in the RFP. Sylvia Park, highlighted in yellow in the bottom left, is a Town-owned park and not included in the RFP. (Image: Town of Lunenburg)
Petitions have no legal effect in Nova Scotia municipalities. The petition addresses this and says it “may be characterized as an informal plebiscite and have been used before to gauge public opinion across the province of Nova Scotia.”
“Not only are Blockhouse Hill and its lands an important part of the fabric of Lunenburg’s history based on what we are learning from our Mi’kmaq friends, Blockhouse Hill also plays an important role in the community today,” reads the petition.
The 2020 election for the Town of Lunenburg saw 1,939 eligible voters. With 679 signatures, the petition has gained the explicit support of approximately 35 per cent of eligible voters in town.
To put this number in further context, 64.1 per cent of eligible voters (1,243 people) participated in the 2020 municipal election.
Two current members of Council were elected in 2020 based on less support, at 672 votes (Jenni Birtles) and 555 votes (Ed Halverson). Three more councillors were voted in only marginally higher than 679 votes, with Melissa Duggan at 686 votes, Peter Mosher at 726 votes and Stephen Ernst at 759 votes.
Susan Sanford had the most votes at 838, which is 159 more people than have currently signed the Friends of Blockhouse Hill petition.
The petition also had the signatures of 359 non-residents, who the petition organisers say some of pay commercial or residential taxes in the Town.
Acting Mayor Peter Mosher said the Town had met with some representatives of the Friends of Blockhouse Hill to address their concerns. He did not describe the meeting or address the contents of the petition.
Friends of Blockhouse Hill presented at a May 9 meeting of Council where the gallery was full with members of the group. You can read a detailed account of their presentation and Council’s response in this Barnacle story from May.
Beyond the petition, Friends of Blockhouse Hill has been distributing posters reading “It’s More Than A Hill: Town Council, We Need To Talk”. The posters are hard to miss on a walk through Old Town.
On May 6, The Barnacle walked the grid of Old Town Lunenburg and photographed this poster on 65 out of approximately 400 buildings.
(Photo: Jesse Ward)
Councillor Jenni Birtles did not directly address the petition, but said that “maybe further investigation” should happen for the Friends of Blockhouse Hill.
“With regards to the Friends of Blockhouse Hill and their campaign, it’s incredibly frustrating to see it spill over to our local school and our home for specialized care. These situations are provincially run or overseen and it’s not to be the proper forum […],” said Birtles.
“The fact that the Friends of Blockhouse Hill deem this acceptable is deeply troubling and maybe further investigation should be taken into this group to ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future. These are our children and our seniors, this should not be the place,” she said.
No councillors addressed Birtles’ comments.
The Barnacle reached out to Birtles via email on the morning of June 15 for clarification asking what presence she has seen the group have in schools or seniors’ homes, what kind of an investigation should happen, and why. Birtles has not responded as of June 19.
No other councillors spoke to the results of the petition.
Update, June 20, 12:30 p.m.: Paula Rennie, the organiser of Friends of Blockhouse Hill who submitted the petition, wrote in the Friends of Blockhouse Hill Facebook group on the morning of June 20: “I owe Councillor Jenni Birtles an apology: she is correct. Two minors signed the petition, and their names will be removed and the numbers changed accordingly. Jenni, I am very sorry, and thank you for bringing it to our attention.”
Lunenburg Heritage Society shares concerns on Blockhouse Hill development, no discussion by council
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
Council also received a letter from the Lunenburg Heritage Society (LHS) detailing their concerns for a proposed development on Blockhouse Hill, including possible impact to the Town’s UNESCO designation and the archaeological sensitivity and cultural resources significance of the site.
The LHS was established in 1972 and operates with a mandate to “preserve and promote Lunenburg’s unique heritage and to tell the story of its cultural, social and economic development.”
Their letter says: “As the owner of the Knaut-Rhuland House Museum the LHS is the only group telling the story of Lunenburg’s founding and why the Town is a National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site; we consider it of the utmost importance to protect these designations and cultivate the rich cultural, social and economic development in this town.”
Mosher said he met with some representatives of the LHS. He did not describe the contents of the meeting or speak to the letter itself.
No other councillors spoke to the letter.
Council spends $151,000 to pursue designs for potential development on Blockhouse Hill to MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects – Councillor Duggan says decision should be postponed to follow August election, rest of council votes against her without discussion
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
Town Council awarded an RFP contract for design schemes for a residential development on Blockhouse Hill to MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects, but the vote was not unanimous.
The meeting agenda included a staff report announcing the Town’s recommendation to choose the firm as the recipient for the RFP over six other applications because “it combines internationally renowned expertise with local knowledge and community presence and is within the Town’s allocated budget.”
The actual proposal itself was not included in the agenda package, only an outline of how their application best fit the town’s selection criteria.
MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects is an internationally-recognized firm with a studio on Montague Street in Lunenburg adjacent to their B2 Lofts rental property with six units all currently on AirBNB ranging from $248 to $360 a night.
Arthur MacDonald, Director of Community Development for the Town of Lunenburg, spoke to the staff report.
MacDonald said Julian Smith, part of the Sweetapple team, is “an accomplished heritage planner who contributed to the drafting of the 2011 UNESCO recommendations on the historic urban landscape.”
The staff report’s section on “Addressing Public Concerns” notably begins with a statement saying, “The potential development of Blockhouse Hill has received media attention,” before actually addressing any concerns brought directly to the Town by the public.
The report says Sweetapple proposed a project timeline of fifteen weeks that would include three public consultation sessions.
While public consultation sessions could influence the designs or Council’s decisions regarding the designs, the decision for the Town to accept the designs and proceed with the plan to divest the Blockhouse Hill lands to a private developer remains solely that of Council.
Councillor Sanford says Friends of Blockhouse Hill should not be considered a local group, while Town acknowledges nearly 700 residents of Town signed the group’s petition
Councillor Susan Sanford did not address the report itself except to take issue with wording staff chose to describe Friends of Blockhouse Hill.
“I just want, through the chair to staff, to note a correction with regards to the section around addressing public concerns. When we say on May the 9th, 2023, the ‘Friends of Blockhouse Hill, a local volunteer group’ – the correction should be, ‘volunteer group’. It’s not a local group,” said Sanford.
“The Friends of Blockhouse Hill, as I understand, are residents and non-residents, and they are in fact an advocacy group. And using Oxford’s definition of advocacy – ’public support for recommendation of a particular cause or policy’ – so, to me, that describes Friends of Blockhouse Hill as a group.”
Friends of Blockhouse Hill presented at a Council Meeting on May 9 and were represented by Thom Barclay, a former Town Council member who pays property taxes in Lunenburg but is only a part-time resident, who otherwise lives approximately ten minutes away in the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg.
Councillor Halverson uses hockey analogy to laud selected RFP team, says results of design submissions to Parks Canada will help community move forward
Councillor Ed Halverson, one of two prospective Mayoral candidates who have announced their intended bids for this August’s special election so far, spoke to the report.
“Talking about Brian Mackay-Lyons and Julian Smith, if you were drafting an all-star hockey team, we’ve got an all-star proposal team,” said Halverson, paralleling star-studded language used by Chief Administrative Officer Jamie Doyle in March describing the RFP as the “Oscars of development.”
“These guys, you couldn’t ask for better. I mean, Brian McKay’s work speaks for itself, I don’t think anyone can question his integrity or his dedication to the vernacular style of Lunenburg. Julian Smith, someone who has actually drafted UNESCO recommendations, you know – I’m very impressed with what I’m seeing here,” said Halverson.
“I’m excited to see someone with Julian Smith’s credentials because a lot has been made about – ‘will any potential development affect our UNESCO status. And, there’s no one in this town who can answer that properly. Because the only way that question gets answered is once a design is submitted to Parks Canada.”
“So, what I see in front of me is two people who will put their best foot forward, put their best effort forward to make sure the concerns of the community are heard, and addressed, heritage is considered, and, you know, this has been a very divisive topic and I think this is an opportunity – I know people make a deal about the amount that’s being spent on this, and it’s a significant amount, absolutely.”
“But, if spending this amount of money, finding out for sure what we’re able to do, you know, will it affect our heritage? And being able to put those answers to rest, finally, once and for all? And then we can move forward as a community. I think that’s invaluable, so I’m very excited.”
Of course, the possibility exists that any potential design submitted to Parks Canada could raise concerns about compatibility with the UNESCO designation based on the specific design itself, and not the fact that the Town is pursuing a residential development on the site at all. This could lead to a scenario where revisions to the design or other designs could be pursued and brought back to Parks Canada.
Councillor Duggan suggests delaying vote on Blockhouse Hill RFP until after summer special election, unanimously voted against without discussion
Councillor Melissa Duggan then spoke to the staff report.
“One of the big things I would like to see is, where it says ‘preserve the views of the front and back harbours where feasible’ – I would like see that we must preserve the views of the front and back harbours. To me, that’s something that we need to guarantee. I think the loss of those views would be – I can’t see that being beneficial, so that’s my one thing,” said Duggan.
“Personally, after reviewing all the work that staff have done, it’s incredibly thorough. You know, very well done. I would like to see the decision delayed until after the upcoming by-election to allow for all council seats to be filled,” she said. Council is currently operating with six out of seven seats filled until August’s special election.
“I think that this decision demands careful thought and attention. I want to provide a fair opportunity for all council members to weigh in on this, and I think delaying this decision until after summer just gives us some space to process and reflect more before moving forward,” said Duggan.
Only Acting Mayor Peter Mosher addressed Duggan.
“Based on what I can see, I don’t think we have anything to worry about the Front Harbour views being obstructed, because there’s no building on that side of the hill anyway, so that should be one easy thing to be looked after,” said Mosher.
“I think the full discussion is when we do have a plan in front of us, so I mean, I think the council will be full by that time. And it will take them – obviously there’s some work here to be done. I would say the real proposal, the real concept will come for us probably later this fall,” he said.
Mosher asked MacDonald when plans would come back to Council, and MacDonald said the best case scenario is late August to early September.
Mosher’s points about the discussion to come after designs are prepared did not address Duggan’s comment that the decision to reward this specific RFP should be specifically the thing that is delayed until Council is full.
Duggan did not respond to Mosher’s comments.
No other councillors commented before a vote Duggan voted against awarding the RFP to Sweetapple and all other councillors voted for awarding the RFP, resulting in a successful motion.
Council finds consensus on not liking options proposed for prospective Upper King Street development, but continue to pursue already-paid-for designs for high-density development
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
Council discussed the results of a Visioning Report submitted by ZZAP Architecture and Planning regarding a potential Upper King Street Development, and ultimately approved moving forward with the refining of designs for a potential high-density residential development.
ZZAP’s Visioning Report was the result of a successful $59,500 (after HST) bid for an RFP the town solicited in 2022 for potential development on Town-owned lands at the end of King Street between Creighton Street and the Back Harbour.
In a release issued by the Town at the time they selected ZZAP for the RFP, the Town answered the question “What is the project meant to accomplish?”, with: “This project is intended to help get the highest and best use for the Town. This includes best use of the lands in keeping with the Town’s Comprehensive Community Plan (CCP), including affordable/accessible housing, as well as highest sale value. The project will provide potential developers with a plan that considers density, zoning, solutions to engineering challenges, servicing of the properties, etc.”
The report shows ZZAP explored options for putting a housing development behind Creighton Street that would connect a new street for the development on to at least two other streets in town, but these options were deemed untenable based on engineering and safety standards.
The report recommends pursuing options for developments that would add 79 or 66 high-density units over eight to eleven buildings, mostly over four-storey buildings on a new cul-de-sac. The option option’s public road infrastructure would cost $1.8 million.
Council received a staff report on the Visioning Report and had to make a decision about which two options presented by ZZAP should be finalized in another report, or else terminate the design contract at this point.
(The designs the Town approved refining. Screenshot from Council agenda)
Noting the considerable design challenge of property development on this land, the ZZAP report also suggests they could instead draft designs for a park on the land.
Director of Community Development says not developing the land is “non-sustainable”
Acting Mayor Peter Mosher asked Arthur MacDonald, Director of Community Development, “Do you think that we will get a quality development out of that site if we keep pursuing the 4.b.3 or 4.b.4 proposals, or are we going to chase our tail a little bit here at the end of the day?”
MacDonald replied, “It is a very challenging site, no doubt about it. We would be able to provide further housing options which are a prior need. We need more affordable housing, we need more accessible housing. Therefore, I think, to sit back and do nothing may not be an option. I think we should actually go out and further develop these concepts and see what they look like in the end. I honestly believe that, and I think rather than having the land vacant and not earning a yearly assessment in tax revenue for the town is non-sustainable.”
“The location is very close to our sewer treatment plant. We have sewer and water running down Creighton Street. We have a major sewer line at the bottom of the hill,” said MacDonald.
“So to maximize those services, we need a return on our investment. So, to sit back and do nothing, I don’t think is really a practical long-term option, or a sustainable option in the long run.”
Mosher replied, “So the juice is worth the squeeze.”
Designs being pursued would have between 7 to 8 units as “affordable housing” at approximately $1,637 a month
Regarding the affordable housing aspect of any potential King Street development, the RFP that resulted in ZZAP’s Visioning Report had a requirement that “10 percent of the dwelling units shall be affordable units,” where “Affordable housing development is defined here as housing which costs no more than 30% of the median household income within the applicable census dissemination area.”
With the high-density development options at 66 or 79 units, at 10 per cent affordable units there would be either 7 or 8 units rented at approximately $1,637 a month, with 59 or 71 units rented at market rates.
Councillor Halverson says he wants more housing, does not want a cul-de-sac
Councillor Halverson shared his comments on the Visioning Report.
“I gotta be honest. I fully appreciate we need more housing here. The whole reason we’re going through all these exercises is to expand the tax base as we’ve talked about a million times,” said Halverson.
“You know, when I see a potential 79 units, or a potential 66 units, I see families moving into our community and I see seniors being able to downsize, and being able to stay in Lunenburg. And that’s obviously desirable.”
“What I don’t like are the designs. I don’t like the idea of a cul-de-sac, I feel like it flies in the face of our street grids. I know when we went into this, I think we were hoping for something that would align better with what we’ve got in Old Town right now, and maintain that integrity.”
“I recognize too, the Oxner loop doesn’t fall into that, so it would be – I guess it wouldn’t be extraordinary to diverge from the street grids,” he said.
Halverson asked MacDonald if the town proceeds with ZZAP’s plans, whether the money the town has already paid from the RFP could get more designs, or if the Town would have to pay more and how much that would be.
MacDonald confirmed that the original RFP was for ZZAP to fully develop two options for council’s consideration, so expanding on any of the design options put forward so far would not cost any extra money.
Councillor Sanford asks if Visioning Report is sufficient to get Parks Canada’s opinion on how development could affect UNESCO designation, staff says it would be premature
Councillor Susan Sanford asked if ZZAP’s Visioning Report would be sufficient to bring to Parks Canada to get their opinion on how the high-density options could work with Lunenburg’s UNESCO designation.
MacDonald said if council wishes, he could share the Visionary Report and the Phase 2 report with Parks Canada. He said the Town has a “really good communication network opening up” with Parks Canada thanks to work Grant has done.
“Their comeback might be that they can’t really comment on these types of concepts until they’re refined,” added MacDonald.
Mosher added, “Just to confirm, the money is spent on this RFP regardless, so we may as well follow it through and have the full design, would that be correct to assume?”
CAO Jamie Doyle said, “That’s probably accurate. And then of course as [MacDonald] said we’ll have something fully-baked to chat with them about. And I think, as Councillor Halverson noted as well as Sanford, I don’t think folks are really crazy about a cul-de-sac in the planning world.”
“But the reality is, if that’s the only option, that’s the only option. But I want to make sure we have that fully baked before we say, ‘this is it.’ And then we can choose whether or not we go or not, and we’ve looked at it every way from Sunday from an engineering perspective to continue that grid pattern from the street network perspective, through the passive areas, through trails and pathways and green space we could certainly reflect the grid pattern, but not in street infrastructure.”
Councillor Sanford suggests pursuing medium-density options to avoid rezoning the land, staff clarifies that revision to land use bylaw would still be required
Councillor Sanford followed up to suggest Council could choose medium-density design options presented in the visioning report, “because it could already be accommodated, if I understand correctly, in the context of the current zoning.” She also suggested pursuing a medium-density option, high-density option and the park option.
Mosher asked MacDonald to comment on this suggestion.
MacDonald said the contract the Town has with ZZAP enables two proposals to be further developed – to develop the 4.b.2, 4.b.3 and park options would require a change order and extra spending.
MacDonald also noted any option going forward would require an amendment to the Town’s Land Use Bylaw‘s Form Zones. He said currently one building is enabled per lot in the medium-density zone with four dwelling units plus one accessory unit.
“Down the road, I don’t have a crystal ball, but I think council would be considering amending the Form Zone to allow what we call group dwellings, or multiple main buildings on a lot,” said MacDonald.
Councillor Halverson followed up to confirm with MacDonald that proceeding with any of the residential development options presented by ZZAP would require the town to change the Form Zone immediately.
“I’m loath to do that, where we just went through our process,” said Halverson. The Town took on significant work earlier in this Council’s term to develop a new Land Use Bylaw in 2021, a year before the RFP for the Upper King Street development designs was produced.
Halverson moves motion to pursue high-density designs because they’re already paid for, saying “they’re gonna have to be good”
Acting Mayor Peter Mosher spoke at this point, saying, “Well, we do have a motion suggested on the floor, is anyone prepared to move that motion?”
He was addressed by silence for several seconds.
“Doesn’t appear to. There’s other options on that report, is anyone willing to move those options?” he asked
Halverson spoke: “I’ll be honest, I came in here, I was ready to go to shut this down, but I think – if we’re already paying for this, like you said, let’s get the options, let’s see what it is, then we’ll know. But my own personal standpoint, boy, they’re gonna have to be good to make this forward, because this is not really what I’m looking for.”
Halverson moved the motion forward at this point.
Mosher said, “So we have a mover. We need a seconder,” followed again by several seconds of silence.
“We won’t know for sure until we see it and it’s no monetary loss to see the concepts they’ll present to us,” said Mosher, followed by more silence.
Councillor Duggan says Council should consider the park option, Mosher said a park could be considered if Council rejects the high-density designs – council moves motion
Councillor Duggan said, “I would be willing to go through with further refining the two options, but also adding a proposed park option. I don’t think I’d be willing to not see that as one of the options to come forward.”
Mosher replied, “Well, I would think that if we got to the point where we didn’t like those two options, then we’d pursue – obviously, we wouldn’t move forward with either one, so then we would explore the park option. I mean, that’s not – I don’t think you need a concept for a park, a park’s pretty straightforward. It could be as is for the park, it could be developed into something special for a park, that’s up to whatever future councils would like to do with that area.”
“I don’t think it’s important that we see this through at least, you know, to a design stage, and then, whether it goes out to public consultation, that would be up to us.”
Councillor Halverson asked MacDonald how long it would take to get results for the design options the Town chooses to pursue, and MacDonald said it would be four to five weeks.
Councillor Sanford spoke up to say she agreed with Halverson about zoning on the land, saying, “I’m not too struck on having to go back out to revise things that we’ve spent a considerable length of time on, getting in place in context of our policies and so on, right? The land use bylaws. So I would have really liked to have seen something that fit within the current bylaw, that would have supported the bylaw there, as opposed to us having to go back out in relation to that.”
“However to Deputy Mayor Mosher’s point, we had requested the designs, and I do agree it’s important for us to have the designs fleshed out. If we don’t do anything with the designs we can revert back to exploring park options, right? But at least this will answer and support us to answer the questions around the design concepts in that particular location and our work with Parks Canada that’s coming up.”
Mosher replied saying, “From my perspective, I think the important part here is, I’ve seen so many cocktail napkin designs for different parts of the Town here and there, and this really will show us what is actually possible to do here and what is not, and then we can deem if it’s acceptable and move forward.”
The motion to pursue development designs for the 4.b.3 and 4.b.4 high-density options was moved again and passed unanimously.
Prospective Mayoral candidate Myra says he is “very disappointed” rest of Council did not agree with Duggan’s suggestion to postpone Blockhouse RFP, says Council should have dropped ZZAP plans for King Street Expansion
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
Councillor Ed Halverson is one of two prospective candidates who have so far announced their bids for Mayor in the upcoming Special Election on August 12.
The other candidate so far is Jamie Myra, currently on a temporary leave of absence from his role as President of the Lunenburg Board of Trade.
Myra attended the June 13 council meeting and spoke with The Barnacle afterward.
Asked about the Town’s vote that passed to approve the rewarding the RFP for Blockhouse Hill, Myra said, “I think that at this this time with a by-election called for Mayor and the possibility of an RFP and the possibility of an open council seat coming forward that everything should have been delayed at this time until the election on the 12th, and at that time, have a bit of public engagement, see what the public wants to see.”
“I fully support Councillor Duggan’s suggestion. I was very disappointed that the rest didn’t go along, to be honest,” he said.
On the topic of the motion that passed to pursue development designs for the King Street Extension, Myra said, “I think the ZZAP proposal should be dropped. I think they’ve actually come out and said it’s not going to be affordable if you do 1 and 2, Council definitely doesn’t like 3 and 4, so why bother going any further – why waste anyone’s time?”
Council signs on to Ecology Action Centre statement asking provincial Minister of Environment and Climate Change to release and implement regulations for Coastal Protection Act
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
Council unanimously approved signing on to a joint statement from the Ecology Action Centre and some of Nova Scotia’s municipalities calling for the immediate release and implementation of the regulations for the Coastal Protection Act, “before any more reckless development puts our communities and ecosystems further at risk.”
“The Coastal Protection Act was passed in 2019. Extensive consultation since then has shown that Nova Scotians and municipalities support strong protective measures along our coasts,” says the letter.
“In response to more than $385 million in damage from Hurricane Fiona, you pledged in the fall of 2022 that Coastal Protection Act regulations would come into effect in the first half of this year. This delay breaks your promise to communities and represents a failure to protect Nova Scotians from sea level rise.”
Council did not discuss the letter.
Councillor Sanford calls for dedicated standing time on council agendas for public to speak to council
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
A new agenda item was added at the beginning of the meeting by Councillor Susan Sanford to discuss adding a new public engagement standing item to Council Meeting agendas.
Sanford said after conversations with Acting Mayor Mosher, she thinks there should be a standing time at Council Meetings to share their mind on matters at hand, and she has requested that Council have standing time on every agenda to make this happen.
Chief Administrative Officer Jamie Doyle said this would be quite easy to accomplish and a lot of other Nova Scotia municipalities already have this. He said staff can certainly prepare something for the next council meeting.
Councillor Sanford acknowledges Lunenburg Fire Department
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
At the Correspondence segment of the agenda, Councillor Sanford took a moment to acknowledge the Town’s fire department.
“There isn’t correspondence to this but I’m thinking it should be raised to this particular section. I think it’s important and I want us to recognize the volunteers and the work of our Lunenburg Fire Department in this last ten days. And specifically, providing assistance to Shelburne and area fires, and also here in Old Town, with the loss of the beautiful home and the protection of others,” said Sanford. The house on the corner of Hopson and Lincoln streets tragically burned down on the morning of June 3, with no one injured.
“They’ve done such an amazing job, and I just didn’t want our meeting to pass without us acknowledging, and wanting them to know we’re very thankful for the work that they do.”
Sanford’s comments were met with a long round of applause from the gallery.
Town approves grants for community organizations
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
The Town has $32,000 in the operating budget for grants to nonprofit community organizations.
Council unanimously passed a motion to accept a staff report to approve 20 grants at $19,850 for organizations including Bluenose Academy Ne’ata’q: The Food Forest, the Lunenburg Doc Fest Association and the Nova Scotia Sea School.
Town moves first reading to repeal old bylaws
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
Council unanimously agreed to approve the first reading of a Bylaw to Repeal Certain Bylaws, a bylaw that would formally take out-of-date bylaws off the books.
Out of these old bylaws that are only technically still active, the one perhaps most outrageous (and funny) to modern sensibilities is the Curfew Bylaw approved by Council in 1978.
This bylaw penalizes anyone under fifteen years old, “who habitually walks, loiters or is on the streets in the Town after nine o’clock at night who, after being notified by the Mayor or a Councillor, Policeman or Constable not to walk.”
The penalty for underage loiterers, unless attended by a parent or guardian, “shall on conviction thereof be liable to a penalty not exceeding Ten Dollars ($10.00) and on non-payment thereof to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty (20) days.”
A staff report details the reason for repealing each bylaw.
Council unanimously approved the first reading of this bylaw, bringing the children of Lunenburg one step closer to a place where they need not fear a scolding by the Mayor that could lead to imprisonment for playing outdoors past nine.
The second and final reading of the bylaw is scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 11, 2023.
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
Tyson Joyce, Director of Public Works and Town Engineer, presented a status update on his department’s ongoing work.
Joyce’s highlights were presented in the meeting agenda.
Fans of Lightship Brewery shall rejoice at plans to construct a sidewalk on Tannery Road this summer, meaning no more walking home from Trivia With Michelle around that bend on the road in the dark.
The Town has also installed flashing beacon lights at four crosswalks to improve pedestrian safety.
Councillor Ernst Absent, Councillor Birtles Leaves Meeting After Blockhouse Hill RFP Vote
Click here to return to the top of this story.
You can share a link directly to this part of this story by copying this link.
Councillor Stephen Ernst was absent from this meeting.
Councillor Jenni Birtles was present at the start but left the meeting after the vote to award the RFP for Blockhouse Hill designs.
Excellent reporting. Thank you.
[…] Town council awarded MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects a design proposal contract for a new housing development …. […]