Council rejects motion to dispose of a portion of Belnan open space

The Municipality of East Hants. (MEH logo)

ELMSDALE: A motion that would have seen part of an open space parcel of land in Belnan disposed of has been rejected by councillors with the Municipality of East Hants.

At its Feb. 28 regular meeting of council, councillors heard from MEH staff about Council’s previous intent  to declare a portion of open space parcel PID 45354677 Meadow View Way, Belnan, surplus for disposal; and authorize the CAO to convey the future subdivided portion of PID 45354677 from East Hants to East Hants for a future public road, with the market value of $12,100 (+ applicable HST) to be transferred to Open Space Reserve from the Transportation Reserve.

After a short discussion, the motion as mentioned above was placed on the floor.


The land in question came up in December 2022 when MEH staff brought forward a report recommending that council declare the land on Meadow View Way in Belnan surplus for disposal.

“As part of Council’s consideration of the open space disposal, neighboring land owners were opposed to losing their green space and the open space disposal did not proceed,” said a background summary that was read during the council proceedings.

“As a result of this discussion, council noted that staff would come back with a more viable secondary road access for council consideration that would maintain the majority of the Open Space parcel as status quo.”


At the November 2023 Parks, Recreation and Culture Committee of Council, a follow up report to the 2022 discussion was reviewed.

“Council discussed the benefits to public safety during an emergency event that would be a direct result of enabling the connectivity,” the summary read.

“Other organizational benefits from connectivity include; snow removal, waste collection and open space connectivity.”

Letters were mailed out on February 6, to the 78 property owners within 300m of the property.

Councillor Norval Mitchell did make a comment on the discussion and why he would be voting for it.

“It’s a safety issue to me,” he said.

In the end, council decided to quash the motion, and voted 6-4 to reject it.