Coastal Protection in District 13 and HRM - The Motion to Council

After staff returned to Council with the information report (blog post here), I submitted a notice of motion. That motion arrived at Regional Council on August 25 (see here).

Motion for Council to Consider: 

THAT Halifax Regional Council direct the CAO to: 

1. Write a formal letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs requesting the immediate reconsideration of the 30-metre coastal buffer policies (Draft Regional Plan June 2025–Section 6.5.7 COASTAL PROTECTION, EN-47- EN-58) as approved by Regional Council in the June 2025 Regional Plan; 
2. Include in the correspondence the formal support from the Urban Development Institute of Nova Scotia (UDI) regarding the 30-metre coastal setback, alongside an urgent appeal for municipal regulatory tools following the abandonment of the Coastal Protection Act; 
3. Pending confirmation from the Minister that the 30-m coastal buffer policies are acceptable, prepare a staff report and return with recommendations on resubmitting the 30-metre coastal buffer as a standalone coastal amendment package. 

Reason:

In February 2024, the Provincial Government announced it would not enact the regulations under the Coastal Protection Act, instead shifting the responsibility to municipalities to determine their own regulations and by-laws to manage climate change effects and coastal resilience. However, when Halifax Regional Municipality attempted to exercise this exact responsibility by establishing a 30-metre coastal buffer in the 2025 Regional Plan, the Minister refused it. The province cannot logically download coastal protection responsibilities to municipalities while actively blocking the regulatory tools required to execute that mandate. 

Furthermore, the Minister's refusal letter, dated August 8, 2025, stated that the proposed 30metre buffers appeared "intentionally designed to impede housing". Following the provincial rejection of the regional plan, The Urban Development Institute of Nova Scotia (UDI) submitted a formal letter explicitly stating that a 30-metre coastal setback "will not negatively impact development opportunities, nor add undue expense to development". By resubmitting the coastal buffer with this written industry support attached, we can directly dismantle the argument that a coastal setback fundamentally restricts housing supply.   

Finally, it is strategically essential to separate coastal setbacks from inland watercourse buffers to force a targeted conversation about public safety. Coastal developments face unique and escalating existential threats from sea level rise, storm surges, wind, and wave run-up. By isolating the coastal buffer and prioritizing our most vulnerable coastlines, we center the discussion on climate resilience and physical safety, which is a fundamentally separate issue from the discussions on inland watercourses and housing density.

At Council, I also spoke further to the motion. What we are asking for is neither radical nor untested. The Municipality of the District of Lunenburg (MODL) and Cumberland County has established 30-metre buffers, and so has the province of New Brunswick. The 30m buffer was previously approved by council, and the intent of this motion is to advance sound policy with documented support. 

HRM has already done and paid for the technical work of flood mapping (see blog post here). The further study being done is to better understand both inland and coastal watercourse setbacks from a housing perspective, specifically. With the formal, written support from UDI representing a wide array of developers and contractors in HRM, I felt that we had all we needed to advance the coastal setbacks now. I will also note that when the province downloaded coastal protection responsibility to municipalities, it did not come with the caveat of requiring developer approval or having potential new housing supply numbers in hand. That is all this new study will deliver.

The motion passed by all of council, with the exception of the mayor. I'd like to thank my colleagues, along with UDI Nova Scotia and the the development community they represent, The St. Margaret's Bay Stewardship Association, Nature Nova Scotia, and the Ecology Action Centre for their letters of support. I would also like to thank the residents of District 13.

While the feedback from this motion has received wide support, I have noticed a few comments about coastal protection that I believe deserve an answer to.

Comment: People should be able to build where they want, and let the risk fall between the home builder and their insurance company. 

In advance of this motion, I spoke with representatives from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, and I would also like to thank them for their feedback.  In Canada, standard home insurance policies do not cover saltwater flooding or storm surge caused by hurricanes and coastal storms.  Coastal flooding from sea water is explicitly excluded under standard policies and even excluded from most standard "overland water" endorsements, which typically only cover freshwater flooding (such as rivers overflowing or heavy rainfall accumulation).  Specialized endorsements exist, but they are exceedingly rare.  Because private insurance for coastal storm surge is largely unavailable, uninsurable saltwater flood damage often falls under provincial/federal disaster relief programs.  Those relief programs are - at the end of the day - funded by the taxpayer, not an insurance company. There is a recent article here that speaks to this further.

Comment: Building placement should depend on height and slope, not just setback.

As I wrote previously in my blog post here, there are already substantial caveats to the 30m buffer:

• Exceptions and Flexibility: Lots created before 2006 may be allowed to reduce the setback to the greatest extent possible if a full 30-metre buffer is not feasible.
• Lots created between 2006 and the adoption of the new Regional Plan can adhere to the buffer shown on their approved subdivision plans.
• In cases where the 30-metre setback prevents the main use of a property, alternative approaches or a reduced buffer may be considered through a development agreement.

In short, if the 30m is a problem for development, there remains a path forward and utilize the geometry of the lot to enable building.