Protecting the County of Kings Agricultural District

The looming closure of the Waterville Airport and discussion of where a new airport could be located has renewed interest in protecting agricultural land in Kings County. That debate is not new to me and I welcome it.

Prior to becoming a councillor I spent several years opposing the residential development of agricultural land in Weston, Greenwich, Port Williams and Canard. I did this alongside Tom Cosman, a farmer who principled stand on agricultural issues I fully support, and whose leadership helped several of us lead a fight that saved over 500 acres of prime agricultural land from urban sprawl.

It is within this context, that I can appreciate Cosman's caution about the slippery slope that exists when governments begin to look at the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural related purposes.

The protection of agricultural land has been included in the terms of reference for the upcoming business case study to relocate the airport. Whether this occurred or not protection is front and centre for this council. Within months of our election the new council solidly demonstrated its commitment with a February 2013 recommendation to the Province of Nova Scotia that its legislated Statement of Interest in Agricultural Land be significantly strengthened. Those who watched the two prior councils witnessed repeated votes in favour of residential development of agricultural land despite its own Municipal Planning Strategy's intent to protect. In fact the province had to step in to stop those councils' destructive decisions.

The best scenario possible is that Michelin and the airport's management will be able to come to a compromise allowing Michelin to expand and the airport to stay in Waterville. Such a compromise was never anticipated by this council but perhaps it could still occur. This would require zero additional use of agricultural land while still allowing an airport to operate within a reasonable distance from Halifax. A short distance between HRM and a Kings County airport is stated as an important factor in attracting new business to Kings County. It is mainly for this reason that relocation to Greenwood may not be advisable. The business case study will provide more and maybe contradictory evidence to that submitted by the earlier and more general report by CBCL.

If the business case is positive... if no compromise is possible with Michelin... and if a Central or Eastern Kings site is recommended... council will be tasked with a decision on a site. I expect council's position, particularly regarding the A1 zone, would shed light on just how untouchable any large contingent tract of A1 land would be. That would mean, for example, no possibility of an airpark on Saxon Street.

In the absence of other options, consultants may recommend a combination of land types outside the A1 zone that could include some productive land. If this is a compromise required to properly site an airport I would be open to considering such a site.

At the moment we are in a wait and see scenario. I hope this clarifies my comments of not being “deeply opposed” to the use of some agricultural land. If there is a business case for a new Kings County Airport my goal will be to minimize the impact on our agricultural economy and to assess how an airport's role in transportation infrastructure could serve us all, including the agricultural business sector.