The Nova Scotia Regulatory and Appeals Board ordered Lunenburg council to approve zoning changes sought for an approximately 50-unit housing project, finding that the town's refusal did not reasonably carry out its own planning strategy.
The July 13, 2026 ruling concerns two Brook Street properties and separates the question of rezoning from later permission to build. The board expressly said that approving the zoning application did not approve the proposed development; further permits would be required.
The town subsequently reported that it had appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Its Sept. 8 council agenda includes a notice challenging the board's interpretation of the planning policies and its treatment of council's discretion.
Use and building form were separate questions
Solterre sought to change both properties from Commercial Mixed Use to General Commercial Use, allowing residential units at ground level. It also sought to change the building-form zone on one property to Marine, removing certain setback requirements. The adjoining property already had that form designation.
The proposal before the board combined three- and six-storey sections, with approximately 50 units accessible by elevator. A development of comparable height and overall scale could already be built under existing zoning, the reasons explain, but with less ground-floor residential space and a different footprint on the Falkland Street side.
Planning staff recommended approval. Council unanimously rejected the application in November 2025, later giving a general explanation that the requested changes failed to satisfy the planning strategy's evaluation criteria.
The board emphasized that councils are not bound by staff recommendations and may choose between different reasonable planning outcomes. Its task was not to substitute its preferred project. It had to decide whether this refusal reasonably reflected the municipal planning strategy as a whole.
A central issue was Lunenburg's system of regulating lot subdivision, land use and building form separately. The town argued, among other things, that the Marine form designation should preserve the working waterfront and that the proposed residential building did not fit that purpose.
The board rejected importing requirements about marine activities into the assessment of building form. It found that the proposed use zone allowed residential development, while the form rules addressed matters such as height, placement and massing. The proposed building's form was consistent with that framework, the panel concluded.
The board also rejected the argument that no form change was needed simply because some alternative development could fit the existing zoning. It read the policy as asking whether the proposed use could be accommodated, rather than whether any smaller or differently configured project could be built.
Parking and heritage concerns did not establish a planning basis for refusal
Residents raised concerns about traffic, parking, the working waterfront and effects on the town's heritage. The board considered those concerns against the particular policies and evidence.
The municipal planning strategy deliberately did not impose minimum automobile-parking requirements. The panel therefore found no basis in those policies for rejecting this application because of automobile parking alone. It separately addressed the town's arguments connecting parking to traffic and flooding.
A transportation study forecast a relatively small increase in traffic, and the town did not provide a competing traffic report or expert evidence refuting it. The board found that the proposal was not premature or inappropriate because of excessive traffic hazards.
On heritage, the site was outside both the Old Town Lunenburg World Heritage Site and its buffer area. Town staff had screened the proposal and concluded it was unlikely to compromise heritage value. The board accepted that evidence and found no support in the hearing record for the argument that the project would threaten the designation.
Later permits remained important
The town also raised flooding, drainage, climate-change and infrastructure concerns. Parts of the properties were within a mapped flood-risk area.
The board did not say that flood-protection requirements could be ignored. It considered the applicable elevation standards and the developer's engineering evidence that detailed plans would comply with them. It found that the town's theoretical concerns did not justify rejecting this proposal at the rezoning stage on the record before it.
Similarly, the ruling did not commit the town to pay for sidewalk improvements or approve where sidewalks would be placed. The board said those matters could be addressed through subsequent permit reviews and any necessary arrangements for public property.
Town's appeal challenges those conclusions
In the notice included in the September agenda, the town alleges that the board gave excessive priority to separating use and form, failed to give appropriate deference to council, and wrongly deferred traffic, flooding and related questions to later approvals.
It also argues that the board assessed the application as though Solterre would be bound to its particular building proposal, rather than considering the range of development the rezoning could allow. Those are the town's allegations on appeal, not findings by a court.
The board directed council to approve the rezoning application. Its ruling should not be read as confirmation that the proposed apartments have been built, that a development permit has issued, or that the subsequent court challenge has been resolved.
Read the board's decision. Read the town's September council agenda and appeal materials.
